Waste Facility Siting

Those trying to license and build hazardous waste facilities often fear what they call “not in my backyard” or NIMBY responses in communities that are targeted for such developments, although land use planner Frank Popper has argued that such reactions are inescapable when dealing with “locally undesirable land uses,” or LULUs.

The mere identification of potential sites for hazardous facilities can ignite battles between residents concerned about associated threats and those who focus on opportunities. A focus on opportunities most often emerges in regions characterized by economic decline and limited alternatives and among community leaders who give priority to economic development. In most cases, however, waste disposal facilities are broadly perceived by community residents as posing threats to health, safety, and the environment, especially when radioactive materials are involved.

[Page 1473]In addition, residents often express concern about stigmatization, which can reduce the value of local products, keep away tourists or alternative development activities, and create other economic costs if people living elsewhere perceive the community and its products as “dangerous” or contaminated. When the local population appears less concerned about the risks associated with hazardous facilities and materials than the broader society, this stigmatization can be increased. Stigmatization may also emerge if a community develops a reputation as a place characterized by bitter divisions and high levels of internal conflict concerning land use—and thus an unpleasant and undesirable place to live and work.

Yet studies also make it clear that negative reactions are not just about risks. They are also about inequities, and about the credibility or trustworthiness of the relevant officials. Common approaches to decision making, particularly in the United States, tend to exacerbate negative reactions. While perfect equity may be impossible, past siting regulations and decisions have resulted in a disproportionate concentration of hazardous and radioactive waste disposal facilities in communities that are relatively poor, rural, or have greater concentrations of ethnic and racial minorities. In addition to influencing local responses to siting proposals, such siting patterns raise concerns about environmental justice and environmental racism.

Similarly, while perfect performance may not be available from real-world agencies and organizations, unfortunate patterns of failure have led to declining public confidence in the technologies and in the agencies and organizations responsible for hazardous and radioactive waste management. In the United States, a legacy of deceit, failure, and public exposure to radiation releases from federal nuclear weapons facilities has been opened to increased public scrutiny, exacerbating the erosion of trust.

As a result of all these factors and more, few if any situations can inspire the kinds of intense reactions that occur in communities where hazardous and radioactive waste disposal facilities are proposed. The impacts of such projects on social relations and community well-being are substantial and long-lasting, even when efforts to site such facilities end up being unsuccessful.