1. Beyond Nimby Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States Barry G. Rabe

2. What is Hazardous Waste? Hazardous waste is “a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.” ~Resource and Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)

3. NIMBY: Not-In-My- Backyard  What does NIMBY mean?  The NIMBY response is not exclusive to hazardous waste management.  NIMBY is a collective goods problem.

4. Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em.  The Hazardous Waste Crisis  The Nimby Phenomenon  What siting approaches have not worked and why.  -Regulatory Approach  -Market Approach  What siting approach has worked and why.  -Voluntary Approach  Contemporary waste management

5. The Hazardous Waste Crisis  NIMBY Resistance  Decreasing Number of Facilities  Long Distance Transportation  On-Site Waste Disposal

6. Transportation  Spills  Public Health  Clean-up  Fossil Fuel Use  Mississauga,Ontario

7. On-Site Disposal  Lack of State and Federal Regulations  Larger Risk to Public  Greater Danger to the Environment

8. The NIMBY Phenomenon  People are afraid of contamination  Reduced property values  Cities don’t want to deal with importing waste from other states/provinces  they are ugly and unaesthetic

9. Contamination Worries People are worried about:  Air pollution  Ground water contamination  Soil contamination

10. Property Values Down the Drain The property values of homes around the site may drop due to concerns of:  Fear of contamination in the air, water, and soil  Fear of transportation vehicles spilling in the vicinity of the plant

11. Importation of hazardous waste Many people worry about the transportation of hazardous waste on their highway systems in regard to spills and accidents

12. Unaesthetic Qualities Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities are not pretty.  They sprawl over many acres of land  They are tall and block aerial views  They detract from the natural qualities of the land

13. Hazardous Waste Siting Approaches  Market Approach  Regulatory Approach  Voluntary Approach

14. Market Approach Why do state and provincial governments use the market approach?  Confines government role in waste management oversight  Traditional approach of private waste management  Allows private waste management to use large compensations to assuage the community

15. Market Approach the limits of compensation  Assumption: Compensation will convince communities to accept a hazardous waste site.  Reality: Compensation is not enough to convince communities to accept a hazardous waste site.  Massachusetts, U.S

16. Regulatory Approach Why do state and provincial governments use the regulatory approach?  State and provincial agencies know about their waste management needs.  “Strong arm” approach thought to reduce public Nimby response.

17. Regulatory Approach the limits of preemption  Less democratic than Market and Voluntary approaches  “Strong arm” of politics prevents public participation  Florida, US

18. Voluntary Approach key aspects to a successful approach  Institutional Reform  Begin a Dialogue  Reduce Waste  Volunteerism  Burden Sharing

19. Institutional Reform Institutional Reform  Credibility  Promote Volunteerism  Comprehensive Long-term facility management plan  Alberta and Manitoba  Crown Corporation  Liaison Committees

20. Begin a Dialogue  Begin the dialogue with site candidates right away  Inform and educate the people before beginning  Let the people be (not feel) involved  Give the people various outlets to give their opinions  This concept has worked for sites in Alberta and Minnesota

21. Dialogue at the beginning  Right from the start, get the people involved  While seeking sites, let the people know what is going on  Get opinions from the people of the towns on where they might like to see a facility

22. Inform and Educate  Teach people what hazardous waste is  Explain that the facilities are much safer than they sound  Show the people what good things can come from the facility “coming to town”

23. Involving the People  Right away get the people involved  Let them decide the general vicinity of where the plant should go (for example)  Let the people know their opinions are important as well  Don’t go into town and say, “This is where we are putting the facility and it doesn’t matter what you say.”  Don’t promise the people something and then not follow through

24. Unique opportunities to speak out Give the people various opportunities to voice their opinions  Give them large town meetings where everyone can be heard  But also give them smaller, more intimate avenues as well (be it many smaller meetings or individual meetings if need be)  One town went so far as to call all the residents in the town so that they could voice their own opinions  Paper ballots and surveys are also helpful

25. Victorious sitings This principle of letting the people be involved from the get-go has been victorious in several different states/provinces including:  Alberta at the Swan Hills facility  And in Minnesota (to an extent)

26. Hazardous Waste Reduction – The Message  The 4 R’s of Hazardous Waste  Reduction  Reuse  Recycle  Recovery  Prior Commitment  “emphasis on optimum source reduction prior to any planning for facility location is significant.” -policy analyst Michael Heiman  Integration  Technologies and Innovations

27. Hazardous Waste Reduction Success: Manitoba  Generator Service Program  On-Site Program  Waste Audits  MWE (Manitoba Waste Exchange)  Educational and Informational Materials

28. Hazardous Waste Reduction Success: Minnesota  MnTAP (Minnesota Technical Assistance Program)  Minnesota Toxic Pollution Prevention Act  Cross Media Transfers  Chemical Releases  Toxic Pollution Prevention Plans  Fees on Toxic Substances  Comprehensive Medium Inspections  Broader definition of Hazardous Wastes  Results?  35% drop in state generated waste between 1988 and 1992

29. Volunteerism  Public holds ultimate decision-making power.  Take time to fully explore waste problem.  Integrated with other successful factors.  Alberta, Canada

30. Burden Sharing  Unfair distribution  Geographic Regions  Socio-economic Regions  Connection to Volunteerism  Policy on out-of-state waste  Compacts  “Shining” Examples  Alberta  Manitoba

31. Alberta and Manitoba  Import Control  State/Province  National  Option to Reconsider  Regional Storage Facilities  Special Case: North Carolina  Limited Capabilities

32. Contemporary Waste Management  Swan Hills in Alberta  Ontario  Minnesota  North America

33. Swan Hills  Since beginning operation in the mid 80s, the facility has expanded to include the following: an incinerator physical/chemical treatment plant, a stabilization plant, a secure landfill, a deep injection well, a waste receiving/storage area, two Von Roll rocking kilns, and a rotary kiln incinerator  It has also starting taking in waste from outside sources

34. Ontario  While Ontario failed in the past to get a hazardous waste treatment facility, it is now working very closely with the Canadian government to get a facility that will be considerably larger than Alberta’s Swan Hill facility

35. Minnesota  As you have learned, Minnesota did not get a facility in the 1980s, because they chose to focus on the preventing waste aspect; however they are now working with the EPA in hopes of getting their own facility

36. North American Facilities  There are now 367 hazardous waste recycling/treatment/disposal facilities in North America  Since this data has been kept, that number has been steadily dropping (over the past 20 years)

37. Then tell 'em what you told 'em  The Hazardous Waste Crisis  The Nimby Phenomenon  What siting approaches have not worked and why.  -Regulatory Approach  -Market Approach  What siting approach has worked and why.  -Voluntary Approach  Contemporary waste management

38. Then tell 'em what you told 'em  5 key factors to the Voluntary Approach  Institutional Reform  Begin a Dialogue  Reduce Waste  Volunteerism  Burden Sharing

39. Other interesting points  Federalism  Integration approach  Positive political science