page 373 |
Previous | 1 of 6 | Next |
|
|
Loading content ...
37 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: THE CATALYTIC FACTOR IN WASTE MANAGEMENT Eleanor W. Winsor, President Winsor Associates Ardmore, Pennsylvania 19003 INTRODUCTION The technologies needed to handle hazardous and industrial wastes are available. As early as 1980 the New England Regional Commission contracted with Clark-McGlennon Associates to prepare documentation of acceptable types of hazardous waste facilities. The study pointed out that "properly designed waste treatment and disposal facilities permitted under RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) are a necessary part of the solution to New England's hazardous waste problem".1 Necessary though they may be, as of the Spring of 1987 new facilities have not been built in New England, nor in many other states which profess a need for more treatment and disposal facilities. General agreement regarding the need for hazardous waste facilities mounts. Groups as diverse as the State of California,2 the Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste,3 and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers4 have stated that there are technologies available which can treat and dispose of wastes far more safely than could past and current technologies. Locations where these technologies can be implemented are needed. To help identify needs many states have quantified the amount of waste currently being generated and have projected anticipated future demand for treatment and disposal facilities. Pennsylvania's Hazardous Waste Facilities Plan, which was approved in July 1986, identified the Commonwealth's needs based upon a planning scenario requiring new commercial facilities to use best-proven or maximum treatment. It identified the capacity (in metric tons/year) needed for incineration, wet oxidation, advanced thermal destruction, and full service aqueous treatment, but stipulated that only two disposal facilities were needed in the Commonwealth.5 The Plan's adoption has not resulted in a plethora of applications for new facilities. Despite the official sanction of the state planning process, commercial facility operators see too many regulatory and political hurdles to overcome before they can have a facility permitted and operating. The regulatory and political hurdles, however, are in reality among the least critical aspects of siting. The paramount concern nationwide is the public opposition to facilities —any facilities —in their backyard. Through the development of community involvement processes which incorporate the public into the siting and operation of waste management facilities, industries can successfully overcome public opposition. The process, however, is a lengthy one and must be based upon a genuine commitment to work with the community. This is easier to suggest than to accomplish. By the time that many corporate planners turn to public participation, the opposition is at full bay around their ears. At that point, distrust is so high on both sides that little, if anything, can be done to overcome public opposition. Meeting the public's concerns involves a major change in operating style. A HYPOTHETICAL CORPORATION Let us look at a hypothetical corporation in the waste management field. The Clean It Up Company was formed in 1979 to construct and operate a comprehensive waste treatment plant. The facility was to include a drum and container storage area, storage tanks for bulk liquids and sludges, a rotary kiln incinerator, a small incinerator for PCBs, a waste oil recovery plant and physical and chemical treatment facilities for inorganics. The facility also was to have its own landfill which was located off site but within twenty five miles of the facility. The principals in the firm had been engaged in the hazardous waste business for many years, had earned a good reputation and therefore had little trouble raising sufficient capital to finance the operations. Working with a large national engineering firm, Clean It Up selected an appropriate site for its facility in an industrial area of a major metropolitan city. National surveys indicated that most of its 373
Object Description
Purdue Identification Number | ETRIWC198737 |
Title | Community involvement, the catalytic factor in waste management |
Author | Winsor, Eleanor W. |
Date of Original | 1987 |
Conference Title | Proceedings of the 42nd Industrial Waste Conference |
Conference Front Matter (copy and paste) | http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/engext,38818 |
Extent of Original | p. 373-378 |
Collection Title | Engineering Technical Reports Collection, Purdue University |
Repository | Purdue University Libraries |
Rights Statement | Digital object copyright Purdue University. All rights reserved. |
Language | eng |
Type (DCMI) | text |
Format | JP2 |
Date Digitized | 2009-08-03 |
Capture Device | Fujitsu fi-5650C |
Capture Details | ScandAll 21 |
Resolution | 300 ppi |
Color Depth | 8 bit |
Description
Title | page 373 |
Collection Title | Engineering Technical Reports Collection, Purdue University |
Repository | Purdue University Libraries |
Rights Statement | Digital copyright Purdue University. All rights reserved. |
Language | eng |
Type (DCMI) | text |
Format | JP2 |
Capture Device | Fujitsu fi-5650C |
Capture Details | ScandAll 21 |
Transcript | 37 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: THE CATALYTIC FACTOR IN WASTE MANAGEMENT Eleanor W. Winsor, President Winsor Associates Ardmore, Pennsylvania 19003 INTRODUCTION The technologies needed to handle hazardous and industrial wastes are available. As early as 1980 the New England Regional Commission contracted with Clark-McGlennon Associates to prepare documentation of acceptable types of hazardous waste facilities. The study pointed out that "properly designed waste treatment and disposal facilities permitted under RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) are a necessary part of the solution to New England's hazardous waste problem".1 Necessary though they may be, as of the Spring of 1987 new facilities have not been built in New England, nor in many other states which profess a need for more treatment and disposal facilities. General agreement regarding the need for hazardous waste facilities mounts. Groups as diverse as the State of California,2 the Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste,3 and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers4 have stated that there are technologies available which can treat and dispose of wastes far more safely than could past and current technologies. Locations where these technologies can be implemented are needed. To help identify needs many states have quantified the amount of waste currently being generated and have projected anticipated future demand for treatment and disposal facilities. Pennsylvania's Hazardous Waste Facilities Plan, which was approved in July 1986, identified the Commonwealth's needs based upon a planning scenario requiring new commercial facilities to use best-proven or maximum treatment. It identified the capacity (in metric tons/year) needed for incineration, wet oxidation, advanced thermal destruction, and full service aqueous treatment, but stipulated that only two disposal facilities were needed in the Commonwealth.5 The Plan's adoption has not resulted in a plethora of applications for new facilities. Despite the official sanction of the state planning process, commercial facility operators see too many regulatory and political hurdles to overcome before they can have a facility permitted and operating. The regulatory and political hurdles, however, are in reality among the least critical aspects of siting. The paramount concern nationwide is the public opposition to facilities —any facilities —in their backyard. Through the development of community involvement processes which incorporate the public into the siting and operation of waste management facilities, industries can successfully overcome public opposition. The process, however, is a lengthy one and must be based upon a genuine commitment to work with the community. This is easier to suggest than to accomplish. By the time that many corporate planners turn to public participation, the opposition is at full bay around their ears. At that point, distrust is so high on both sides that little, if anything, can be done to overcome public opposition. Meeting the public's concerns involves a major change in operating style. A HYPOTHETICAL CORPORATION Let us look at a hypothetical corporation in the waste management field. The Clean It Up Company was formed in 1979 to construct and operate a comprehensive waste treatment plant. The facility was to include a drum and container storage area, storage tanks for bulk liquids and sludges, a rotary kiln incinerator, a small incinerator for PCBs, a waste oil recovery plant and physical and chemical treatment facilities for inorganics. The facility also was to have its own landfill which was located off site but within twenty five miles of the facility. The principals in the firm had been engaged in the hazardous waste business for many years, had earned a good reputation and therefore had little trouble raising sufficient capital to finance the operations. Working with a large national engineering firm, Clean It Up selected an appropriate site for its facility in an industrial area of a major metropolitan city. National surveys indicated that most of its 373 |
Resolution | 300 ppi |
Color Depth | 8 bit |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for page 373