The World Health Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations with primary responsibility for international health matters and public health. Through this Organization, which was created in 1948, the health professions of over 180 countries exchange their knowledge and experience with the aim of making possible the attainment by all citizens of the world by the year 2000 of a level of health that will permit them to lead a socially and economically productive life.
The WHO Regional Office for Europe is one of six regional offices throughout the world, each with its own programme geared to the particular health problems of the countries it serves. The European Region - embracing 850 million people living in an area stretching from Greenland in the north and the Mediterranean in the south to the Pacific shores of Russia - is unique in that a large proportion of its countries are industrialized, with advanced medical services. The European programme therefore differs from those of other regions in concentrating on the problems associated with industrial society. In its strategy for attaining the goal of "health for all by the year 2000" the Regional Office is arranging its activities in three main areas: promotion of lifestyles conducive to health, reduction of preventable conditions, and provi sion of care that is adequate, accessible and acceptable to all.
The Region is also characterized by the large number of languages spoken by its peoples and the resulting difficulties in disseminating information to all who may need it. The Regional Office publishes in four languages - English, French, German and Russian - and applications for rights of translation into other languages are most welcome.
Site selection for new hazardous waste
management facilities
WHO Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Sloan, William M. Site selection for new hazardous waste management facilities / Willam M. Sloan
(WHO regional publications. European series ; No. 46)
I .Hazardous waste 2.Environmental policy I.Title II.Series
ISBN 92 890 1309 5 ISSN 0378-2255 (NLM Classification: WA 788)
Cover photo: Kommunekemi, Nyborg, Denmark, by Ulrik Borgermann, PF/DJ.
Kommunekemi is a waste management facility set up by Denmark's local authori ties. For over 20 years, Kommunekemi has made it pay to protect the environment, by handling and disposing of Denmark's oil and chemical wastes safely. After treatment, which transforms the wastes into materials that are neutral to the environment. only 20% have to be deposited. While Kommunekemi is IOO% self sufficient in energy, the local town of Nyborg benefits too: 65% of its district heating and 15% of its electricity is supplied by the facility.
World Health Organization • Regional Office for Europe \ I
Copenhagen
WHO Regional Publications, European Series, No. 46
Site selection for new hazardous waste
management facilities
William M. Sloan
ICP/CEH 033 Text editing by M.S. Burgher
ISBN 92 890 1309 5 ISSN 0378- 2255
The Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization welcomes requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full . Applications and enquiries should be addressed to the Publications unit, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Scherfigsvej 8, DK-2100 Copenhagen 0, Denmark, which will be glad to provide the latest information on any changes made to the text, plans for new editions, and reprints and translations already available.
© World Health Organization 1993
Publications of the World Health Organization enjoy copyright protection in accordance with the provisions of Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. All rights reserved.
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The names of countries or areas used in this publication are those that obtained at the time the original language edition of the book was prepared.
The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers' products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are dis tinguished by initial capital letters.
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and the Working Group and do not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the World Health Organization.
PRINTED IN FINLAND
CONTENTS
Page
Preface ............................................................................................ vii
Special acknowledgements............................................................ 1x
Author's note .................................................................................. x111
Executive summary ....................................................................... 1
1. Purpose and general approach .. .. ...... ...... ..................... ...... .. .... 7
Purpose and applications...................................................... 7
Principles and components of planning and siting ............. 9
Social dimensions................................................................. 11
Sources and terminology ...................................................... 12
2. The need for hazardous waste facilities and preferred management measures .. . .. .. .... .. ....... ...................... 15
The need for facilities........................................................... 15
Preferred measures for waste management ......................... 17
Waste arisings: sources and estimates................................. 18
3. Overview of siting processes .................................................. 23
Siting processes .................................................................... 23
Responsibilities for facility development............................ 29
Criteria used in site selection ............................................... 31
Presenting, describing and evaluating a project.................. 35
V
4. Health and environmental risk assessment......................... ... . 39
Approaches to assessment... ................................................. 40
Risk analysis and analytical techniques .............................. 41
5. Social and economic assessment.. ........................................... 51
Inclusion of social and economic factors ............................ 52
Negotiation............................ ................................................ 53
Developer and community: participatory design and management............................... 57
Bibliography.................... ............................................................... 59
Annex I. Basel Convention........................................................... 63
Annex 2. Site screening process.................................................... 73
Annex 3. Site differentiation factors............................................. 85
Annex 4. Checklist for facility development.. .............................. 105
Annex 5. Social and economic factors in the community ........... 113
vi
Preface
In 1983, at the end of a long series of activities related to municipal and hazardous wastes, the WHO Regional Office for Europe joined forces with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to publish a volume on the management of hazardous waste.a That book became a landmark for establishing policy guidelines and a proper code of practice. A follow-up consultation took place in Copenhagen in October 1983 to consider new activities in this field that the Regional Office could usefully embark on. Hazardous waste programmes had already been undertaken by other organizations, on the handling of mismanaged existing or rediscovered and unearthed hazardous waste sites. Taking these into account, as well as the needs and potential demands of European Member States, the consultation recommended the prepara tion of an authoritative text on the selection of new sites where hazard ous waste could be collected, treated, stored and disposed of in a proper and safe manner. Past and present ignorance and/or mismanagement give the subject high priority. There is a definite need to identify new procedures and sites for handling hazardous waste.
Consequently, Mr William M. Sloan, who was at that time the Executive Director of the Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Board for the State of Maryland, in the United States, was asked to assist the Regional Office in this task. Mr Sloan agreed immediately and with great delight.
a Suess, M.J . & Huismans, J.W .. ed. Management of hazardous waste. Policy guidelines and code of practice. Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 1983 (WHO Regional Publications, European Series, No. 14).
vii
His first full draft was distributed to reviewers in various European countries, Canada, India, Israel and the United States, as well as to the Commission of the European Communities, the Organisation for Eco nomic Co-operation and Development and UNEP. Some 30 reviewers (see pp. ix-xii) responded with constructive comments that Mr Sloan incorporated into his second draft. This was submitted for review and discussion to a WHO Working Group that met at the Netherlands National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Hygiene (RIVM) in Bilthoven, 23-25 January 1990 (seep. xii).
To make the heavy and technically complex material more readable and easier for use, the editor, Ms Mary Stewart Burgher, has invested much effort and deserves very special recognition, appreciation and thanks for her excellent work and contribution to the final text, form and format. Thanks are also due to all the reviewers and Working Group participants for devoting some of their precious time to support this project. The efforts of the RIVM Institute staff and, in particular, Fred Langenweg in convening the Working Group on their premises should be commended.
Last but not least, William Sloan deserves very special recognition, appreciation and thanks for carrying through a rather difficult and complex assignment. The results speak for themselves.
viii
Dr Michael J. Suess Regional Adviser for Environmental Health Hazards
Special acknowledgements
The WHO Regional Office for Europe is grateful to the specialists0
listed below who collaborated in the preparation of this book. Their comments were taken into consideration during the revision and final ization of the manuscript.
Dr Ferenc Antoni Professor of Biochemistry, Semmelweis University Medical School, Budapest, Hungary
Dr Audrey Armour Armour Environmental Consultants, and Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, North York, ON, Canada
Mr Fritz Balkau Senior Programme Officer, Industry and Environment Office, United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, France
Dr Vladimir Bencko Head, Department of Hygiene, Institute of Tropical Health, Post graduate School of Medicine and Pharmacy, Prague, Czechoslo vakia
Mr Howard K. Hatayama Regional Administrator, Region 2, Toxic Substances Control Pro gram, Department of Health Services, Health and Welfare Agency, State of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
0 Toe affiliation given for each specialist is that which obtained during the period of his or her collaboration.
ix
Dr Amanda Horvath Head, Department of Soil Hygiene, National Institute of Health, Budapest, Hungary
Mr Jens B. Jakobsen Head, Solid Waste Section, COWiconsult Consulting Engineers, Lyngby, Denmark
Dr Edward Kempa Professor, Institute of Sanitary Engineering, Zielona G6ra, Poland
Dr Alfonse Lafontaine Professor, University of Louvain, and private consultant, Brussels, Belgium
Mr Fred Langenweg Head, Laboratory for Waste Materials and Emissions, National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Hygiene (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands
Mr Pierre Lieben Principal Administrator, Pollution Control Division, Environment Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel opment, Paris, France
Ms Sylvia K. Lowrance Director, Office of Solid Waste, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA
Mr Colin J. Macfarlane Consultant, Unit of Environmental Health Hazards, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark
Mr Pim Meyer Chemical Engineer, Laboratory for Waste Materials and Emis sions, National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Hygiene (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands
Mr Phillip K. Patrick Private consultant, Headly Down, Hants, United Kingdom
Dr Maurice Ruel Secretary-General, Secretariat of the Siting Task Force on Low level Radioactive Waste Management; Energy, Mines and Re sources, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Dr Marko Sarit
X
Professor and Director, Institute for Medical Research and Occu pational Health, Zagreb, Yugoslavia
Mr Werner Schenkel First Director and Professor, Federal Environmental Agency, Berlin (West)
Dr James E. Smith Jr. Senior Environmental Engineer, Center for Environmental Re search Information, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, USA
Dr Alexander Spassov Head, Laboratory for Soil Hygiene, Institute of Hygiene and Occupational Health, Medical Academy, Sofia, Bulgaria
Mr P.V.R. Subrahmanyam Deputy Director, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur, India
Dr Jacob Tadmor Professor, Soreq Nuclear Research Center, Israel Atomic Energy Commission, Yavne, Israel
Mr F. van Veen Director, Environment and Technology, TAUW Infra Consult, Deventer, Netherlands
Mr M. Veltman-Geense Directorate-General XI for Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium
Mr Jaap J. Vos Mechanical Engineer, Laboratory for Waste Materials and Emis sions, National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Hygiene (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands
Mr Kenneth Wind-Andersen National Board of Health, Copenhagen, Denmark
Dr Christopher P. Young Principal, Landfill, Solid Waste and Sewage Sludge Disposal, Water Research Centre, Medmenham, Marlow, Bucks, United Kingdom
Dr Janos Zakonyi Deputy Head, Department for International Relations, Ministry for Environment and Water Management, Budapest, Hungary
Dr Giovanni A. Zapponi Environmental Impact Assessment Section, Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Rome, Italy
xi
Dr Nandor Zoltai Senior Officer, Ministry for Environment and Water Manage ment, Budapest, Hungary
WHO Working Group on Site Selection for New Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities
Bilthoven, 23-25 January 1990
F. Balkau H.K. Hatayama J.B. Jakobsen F. Langenweg (Chairman) P. Lieben C.J. Macfarlane (Secretary)
xii
P. Meyer M. Ruel W.M. Sloan (Rapporteur) J.J. Vos C.P. Young N. Zoltai
Author's note
I am grateful for the many comments on this guide, particularly those of the WHO Working Group on Site Selection for New Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities (see p. xii). The Working Group validated and augmented, from a European perspective, the conclu sions and recommendations proposed in the second draft. The conclu sions and recommendations flow from observations with which the Working Group and other experts concurred, but which are not support able in the scientific tradition of hypothesis, experiment and replication. Only documents reasonably available to a European researcher are listed in the bibliography. It touches many fields and is not comprehen sive for any one.
The guide deals extensively with the role of social acceptability in siting processes. European facilities have been less controversial and the outcome of development more predictable than in the United States. There is a trend, however, towards greater challenges to new facilities. In the future, the European experience with the public and the commu nity may be more like that of North America than the orderly processes of the past. The technical considerations are alike, however, for both Europe and North America.
While this guide has its roots in industrial societies, many of its points will also apply to developing countries. The facility development checklist in Annex 4 contains points that are applicable, with minor differences, to any facility. Where technical resources are in short supply, a problem with execution is likely. In a technically unsophisti cated country, therefore, emphasis should be placed on the existence of basic units and the quality of their operation, with more advanced technology phased in as the economy and human resources permit.
xiii
Waste reduction and recycling are associated with economic efficiency and the conservation of materials and should be an integral part of industrial operation in both types of economy. Neither in de veloping nor developed economies should uneconomical waste reduc tion practices be forced on industry or the process of production be regulated.
Despite the different social and economic context of developing countries, the siting processes described in the guide contain building blocks adaptable to most situations. Most of the determinants of support and opposition, moreover, hinge on fairly universal human values. The guide calls for social values to be identified where the local community is inarticulate or weak. This is vital, whether the siting process is taking place in the developing or the developed world.
William M. Sloan
xiv
Executive summary
This guide is perhaps the first to touch on all elements of facility siting, and to give equal weight to the social impact and the engineering and scientific considerations, thus showing the interrelationships of these factors. The guide outlines essential planning considerations and model siting processes for hazardous waste facilities of all types, for the use of governments, industry, environmental and public interest groups and the general public, including critics of and parties to negotiation on site selection. It applies to the WHO European Region as a whole, and hence to a variety of physical environments, cultures, governments and economic situations. The principal recommendation is for each country to create a process (if it does not already have one) to plan and develop the necessary facilities. The other recommendations, which support the central charge, are options, guides and aids. No guide of this type can prescribe an approach applicable to all the countries of the Region.
Waste Management and Facility Needs
Environmental and economic reasons require a four-level hierarchy of measures for waste management: reduction at the source (also called pollution prevention), recycling, treatment by thermal, chemical, bio logical or physical technology, and secure containment of treatment residues or unreactive wastes. The use of the hierarchy is a task second in priority only to the abatement of uncontrolled discharges, and may in fact be the most economical means of abating many discharges. Reducing and recycling waste at the source tend to improve industrial productivity and to reduce emissions instead of shifting them between air, land and
water. Securing state-of-the-art treatment or containment technology is third in priority.
Facilities of adequate capacity, number and operational quality must be available in areas of significant arisings. The failure to provide facilities leads to uncontrolled disposal, and substantial later damage and clean-up costs. All countries are responsible for promoting the development of facilities, although they will not achieve this goal in the same way or at the same time. Highly industrialized countries should have state-of-the-art systems to manage hazardous waste. Even modest facilities, however, are greatly preferable to none at all. In general, this guide focuses on new, independent facilities. Circumstances, however, may require gradual development or the adaptation of existing facili ties. In any case, an ideal location is seldom available.
Successful siting requires that the public thoroughly understand and accept both the need for a proposed facility and how it will operate. The question of need involves complex technical, economic and policy judgements involving available capacity, spare capacity, technological development, geographical location and transport, competition and eco nomic circumstances. Calculations of supply and demand are useful in determining the capacity needed, but limited by shortcomings in data and the ability to predict trends in technology and the economy. There is no universally useful set of data on waste arisings. Lengthy data acquisition or the failure to implement a programme to reduce and recycle waste at the source should not stall the development of a facility.
Adequate regulation is fundamental to hazardous waste manage ment and hence to facility development. The discussion of regulatory matters, however, is beyond the scope of this guide.
Siting Processes
A voluntary siting process, including vigorous information programmes for the public and politicians, is recommended. Facility siting through this process involves: searching for suitable locations, ensuring public support and acceptance of the need and the location, and licensing the facility by government. It is not a process of meeting minimum stan dlfds. The public's acceptance of the siting process as valid and fair is vital. The host community is to be viewed as a resource rather than an adversary.
The voluntary process is based on three points. The first is equity; people should have a voice in matters that affect them. The second is
2
economic efficiency; community participation is likely to lead to remedies, including compensation, for potential losses that are often overlooked, while attending to the needs of industry. The third point is success. While a voluntary process may result in the defeat of some proposals and the modification of others, effective public participation and support are compromised if overriding government authority is too readily available or if decisions are seen as determined in advance.
Participatory measures should be used to define important condi tions that may not be covered by government regulation. Blaming the people of a prospective host community for protecting the welfare of their families, homes and surroundings is not only unfair, but unrealistic and impractical in development strategy. Of course, technical adequacy is essential. By itself, however, it guarantees neither acceptance nor equity. The community must believe with reason that a proposed facility will be managed safely and will not have an adverse effect that cannot be remedied without loss to the environment and the community. Com pensation or incentives, however, do not comprise a basis for local support. When the host community is inarticulate about its planning and goals, close attention needs to be paid to social and economic impact, as well as to health and the environment.
Site selection by the technical model anticipates that the most suitable location will be selected from among a group of candidate sites. These are screened for suitability, but may have different and not necessarily comparable characteristics and degrees of suitability. The technical model is usually associated with siting decisions made at the regional or national level, in contrast to the voluntary approach, in which decisions are made at the local level.
Informed public comment and consent are the main principles of this guide; hence a vigorous programme to inform interested parties and the mass media about a proposed facility is essential. Interested mem bers of the public often obtain information on their own, and should be encouraged and assisted to do so. An information programme, however, provides a basis for a common understanding of the issues and a means to build communication and trust. The release of adverse as well as favourable information furthers this. Information that may be embarrass ing later should be released early. Technical issues can be explained in terms comprehensible to the mass media, decision-makers and the public. Attention and resources must be devoted to this task. No information programme will reach as many people as the mass media. The media, however, seldom provide sustained or in-depth education. The timing,
3
volume, quality, balance and objectivity of information made available to the mass media are extremely important.
The announcement and explanation of a proposed facility and the factors involved in choosing a site must be clear and coherent. This guide suggests formats for three kinds of report for this task. In particu lar, a summary of the project should be made to help people to under stand the documents presented and to find additional information. In general, information should first be presented in tentative terms.
Selection Criteria and Risk Assessment
Screening and exclusionary criteria may be used to guide search pro cesses for sites. Such criteria have typically focused on health and environmental factors, although social factors could also be used. Not all of the factors used in site searches are fixed criteria. In the common instance in which an existing facility is to be adapted, the characteristics of the site provide useful guides to planning the modifications required by the community. Social impact criteria are important in assessing effects on a community and may be used in screening. Approval criteria are normally limited to health and environmental subjects, and are used by regulatory authorities for licensing. This guide gives many examples of factors in siting.
Too stringent exclusionary criteria can needlessly block out large areas. Combinations of screening criteria that are reasonable on an individual basis can guide development into certain areas and exclude others that are equally satisfactory. Fixed criteria and numerical scoring can indicate locations with unforeseen flaws on one hand and cause the rejection of deserving projects on the other.
Waste treatment facilities characteristically emit products of de composition. Some emitted materials, such as water vapour, nitrogen and carbon dioxide, are inherently non-hazardous. Pollution control equipment removes others. Materials that may be hazardous at some concentrations must be limited to levels that will not degrade the environment or endanger health.
The application of environmental standards requires that pollutant concentrations be at a safe level before reaching a potential receptor. This requires estimates of concentrations at some point on the environ mental pathway. Various techniques are available. Depending on the circumstances, estimates may be made by a relatively simple standardized calculation or a more complex, site-specific, environmental pathway
4
analysis, using a predictive model. Both modelling and data acquisition may be expensive. A full analysis is nonnally required for a major facility. Sophisticated analysis does not compensate for questionable data or a site that cannot be satisfactorily monitored. This guide outlines model types and data requirements.
The facility design must minimize the possibility of spills or acci dents in the plant or in transport. Evaluation techniques must take account of modes and timing of accidental releases radically different from nonnal emissions. Emergency response at the facility and the protection of and response by the community must also be planned and provided for.
Estimates of risk should not be based on the worst case, although a worst-case analysis may be useful infonnation in a particular instance. Compounding conservative assumptions leads to difficult and expen sive design specifications and an exaggerated picture of the dangers. Discouraging facility development leads to uncontrolled disposal. This guide enumerates many risks, requirements and contingencies, but enu meration is not evidence that negative possibilities will materialize.
Facility development has complex planning, engineering, adminis trative, regulatory and other factors. The guide gives a detailed check list of points to be considered in facility planning and design. It will assist in procuring, checking and understanding technical work.
The initiative for finding and developing a site may rest with any of a number of parties: a government agency, a publicly controlled corpo ration or a private business. The allocation of responsibility influences approaches to site selection. Regulatory authorities should not be in volved in the design or operation of the facility.
5
1
Purpose and general approach
Purpose and Applications
This guide gives a framework for the development of processes for the selection of sites for hazardous waste facilities. In particular, it does two things. The first is to outline essential considerations in facility siting, including: the reduction and recycling of waste, the selection of waste management measures, the identification of measures to protect health, environmental quality, social values and economic wellbeing, and a thorough description of a proposed facility . To a lesser extent, the guide describes the interrelationships of these factors and techniques for evalu ating them.
Second, the guide describes model processes to promote under standing of a facility proposal in the public and politicians, with empha sis on the quality of life as understood by the people affected. These processes give such people a voice in the decisions made or ensure the presentation of their views if they are unable to speak for themselves. These factors determine whether the public supports the establishment of a facility and accepts it in the long term.
The guide was prepared for use by the countries of the WHO European Region. It therefore applies to a diversity of environments, cultures, governments and economic situations. It is intended to provide information and guidance to the following groups:
- middle management in governments at various levels in countries - waste management specialists - community and economic planners - environmental regulatory agencies
7
- environmental interest groups
- the waste management industry
- industries in which waste arises
- interested members of the general public.
The guide lays out policy and technical options that may be chosen, adapted or used to refine existing processes. While the usefulness of the options varies between countries, some features apply to almost every European Member State. Equal emphasis is given to achieving broad social understanding and support and to engineering measures.
The failure to provide facilities of adequate capacity, number or operational quality leads to uncontrolled disposal and hazard at loca tions whose only criterion for selection is convenience or secrecy. The most likely result is substantial later costs in environmental damage and clean-up. Facilities with even modest standards of confinement are greatly preferable to no facilities at all. All countries should establish overall hazardous waste management systems with long-term plans and strategies to develop adequate facilities. Highly industrialized countries should provide the best available management and technological systems.
Everyone is entitled to adequate living standards, health and envi ronmental quality. Clean air, land and water, towns and cities free of dangerous or unsightly industrial works, sound health and an adequate standard of living are acknowledged goals. Not all countries will achieve these goals in the same way or at the same time.
A hazardous waste facility, like any industrial plant, has positive and negative effects on the area around it. The economic benefit of a facility may be felt locally in wages and taxes or other kinds of support. Such benefits may also be felt on a national or regional scale. The environmental benefits can be similarly widely spread. This guide focuses more on the protection of the environment and the community, local and otherwise, than on the distribution of benefits. It therefore enumerates many risks, requirements, contingencies and the like. The enumeration of types of possible harm, however, is not evidence that they will materialize. Parties to negotiation or the critics of a proposed project may and should use the guide to help ensure that the key issues are addressed.
Sites for hazardous waste facilities should be selected through a process that secures the agreement of all the parties concerned. Such a voluntary siting process is fairer and economically sounder than an authoritative process. While sharing the choice of a site with the people
8
affected may result in the defeat of some proposals and the modification of others, it is also more likely to be successful than an authoritative process. The host community should be a resource rather than an adversary.
Types of facilities and priority tasks This guide is applicable to the planning and siting of facilities of all types. Nevertheless, it focuses mainly on new, independent hazardous waste facilities located away from the premises of the plants in which the waste arose. In general, this is the case with the broadest range of variables. Circumstances, however, do not always permit the construc tion of a new installation at one of several possible sites. Sites may be tightly restricted, or it may be necessary to adapt existing facilities or to upgrade them step by step. In the second case, the initial phases do not employ the highest level of technology. In any case, an ideal location is seldom available, and choosing an optimal site according to fixed criteria is rarely possible.
The guide also applies to facilities for hazardous waste that accept industrial waste not classified as hazardous; some of this may neverthe less merit comparable care. The guide can also be useful in the planning and design of facilities to be located on the premises of industrial plants.
Facilities and related regulatory measures should be developed to accomplish four important tasks. First, hazardous waste should be removed from discharges to the environment as quickly and completely as possible under the prevailing regulatory system. Second, the waste removed should be contained, neutralized, detoxified, destroyed or segregated. Third, educational, economic and regulatory means should be used to promote good housekeeping and clean technology in indus try to reduce and recycle waste. These measures also increase industrial productivity and are typically the most efficient means of achieving the first two tasks. Fourth, expertise and equipment should be improved so that hazardous waste management reaches higher standards.
Principles and Components of Planning and Siting
Site selection should take account of three major considerations: protec tion, equity and economics. As to the first, the risk posed by a facility should not exceed socially accepted standards for involuntary risks. Considering the risk of uncontrolled disposal, the facility should actually enhance public health and safety.
9
The people affected should be equitably treated. The site should be rationally if not voluntarily selected, and those affected should have a voice in the process. The community should not, on the whole, suffer economic or cultural loss. Groups or individuals that sustain such losses should receive adequate compensation. If circumstances dictate that communities or countries receive waste from others, the recipients should be compensated so as to be as well or better off afterwards.
The economy is basic to present standards of wellbeing, which specifically include health maintenance and environmental protection. Managers of a facility must allow for the additional costs of protecting health, the environment and the social fabric.
In addition, the planning and siting of facilities for hazardous waste management have seven components.
1. The function of a proposed facility should be evaluated and broad social and political support for it should be secured, including an understanding of the environmental and economic need for the facility. The question of need also touches that of measures to minimize arisings of hazardous and industrial waste and to apply appropriate technology to the arisings. Taking such measures influences the economics of facility operation and of the overall industrial economy (see Chapter 2).
2. The site selection proper should encompass: determining the function of a facility, searching for a site and securing approval for the facility. The process must systematically identify the characteristics of the proposed facility and the people and environments to be affected by it, and allow for the consideration of the issues through any of a variety of channels and techniques. The siting process must seek to build a favourable social consensus through the merits of the proposal and through the understanding of the public and politicians (see Chap ter 3).
3. The effects of a proposed facility on public health and the natural environment should be identified and evaluated. Local conditions, in practice, govern work on this task (see Chapter 4).
4. Effects on the social values and the economy of the community should be identified and evaluated. This may include analysis and should include the participation of the community in the siting process. The circumstances and social context will determine the type and extent of local participation (see Chapter 5).
5. An information programme should be carried out to support consultation on general policy matters, on the development of the siting
process and on the siting of facilities as they are proposed. The informa tion programme must include establishing good relations with the mass media.
6. The characteristics, engineering and safeguards of every facility should be described.
7. Facilities and waste transport should be regulated and controlled. This is only one element of adequate waste management, although it is the one that comes immediately to mind. Regulation is beyond the scope of this guide, except as it interacts with other components of planning and siting.
Adequate regulation is fundamental . Health and environmental stan dards and the integrity and competence of the regulatory authority are basic to successful siting and the long-term management of hazardous waste. These cannot be compromised, no matter what siting process is employed. It is vital to develop regulatory instruments that can be adequately enforced to ensure the comprehensive collection of hazard ous waste and adequate control of the operation of a facility and the transport of waste. Regulations should not raise barriers to the reduction and recycling of waste at the source or to the hierarchy of preferred measures presented in Chapter 2.
A host community may be expected to want to oversee a facility in the long-term - in effect, a quasi-regulatory function. Facility planners must be prepared to aid agreement on this point between facility devel opers, regulatory authorities and others with an interest in proper regulation.
Social Dimensions
The quality of the environment, particularly as perceived by the people most directly affected, often exceeds the minimum quality prescribed by government regulations. Many local environments and most com munities have attributes that lie outside the normal domain of govern ment control. This guide recommends participatory measures for site selection to define conditions that may not be covered by government regulations but are nevertheless important to the people of the commu nity. A new hazardous waste facility should add to the overall quality of the environment and of life. Individuals or groups should receive fair compensation for losses caused by a facility.
Hazardous waste facilities have come to be regarded as perhaps the most unwanted of installations. Often, however, the problem is
11
portrayed as the "intransigence" of the prospective (and sometimes unidentified or even hypothetical) host community. Facility developers who blame people for protecting the welfare of their families, homes and surroundings are not only unfair but unrealistic and impractical.
The conflict that often accompanies siting proposals is not totally undesirable. Conflict is a potentially positive and creative force that challenges simplistic views, conventional wisdom and accepted prac tices. Opposition adds a dynamic tension to the problem-solving pro cess, a tension that prevents the foreclosure of sound solutions to complex problems. Public concern may mean the defeat of some pro posals and the modification of others, but the challenge is to use it positively rather than to let it become a destructive force and an excuse for business and government to tolerate the risk of inadequate facilities.
That is why the social values of the community and the siting process should be as important in site selection as health and environ mental factors. These social and procedural considerations will encour age the use of safe and appropriate technology in waste management. Fortunately, reliance on technical data to make the case for a proposal is deeply ingrained in the engineers and scientists who design facilities and their safety measures. Technical adequacy is essential. By itself, however, it guarantees neither acceptance nor equity.
Sources and Terminology
This guide follows earlier work by the WHO Regional Office for Europe on the management of hazardous waste. In particular, a 1983 publicationa makes important statements on policy. Another important influence is the Final Act of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (22 March 1989).h The Convention urges that waste be disposed of as close to the point of generation as possible. This implies the need to obtain support for facilities located within the boundaries of the country or area of the arisings.
In particular, the definitions of the disposal and management of hazardous waste that are used here were taken directly from the Final
0 Suess, M.S. & Huismans, J.W., ed. Management of hazardous waste. Policy guidelines and code of practice. Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 1983 (WHO Regional Publications, European Series, No. 14).
bBasel Convention on the Control of Transhoundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. Paris, United Nations Environment Programme, 1989.
12
Act. Annex 1 reproduces three parts of the Final Act: the general obligations of the parties to the Convention, the types of waste that require control and the various types of disposal operations.
Terminology Treatment is a chemical, physical or biological process that reduces the hazard, toxicity, mass or volume of a waste and makes it more amenable to recycling, further processing or final disposal. Treatment may be accomplished, for example, through sedimentation, filtration, chemical or biological decomposition, detoxification or neutralization, precipita tion, the action of soil microorganisms, photochemical reactions or other mechanisms. Treatment for recycling may concentrate or purify waste chemicals to make them more reactive for subsequent use. Hence they may temporarily become more hazardous, although the ultimate aim is to reduce hazard and conserve materials.
Disposal entails the use of any of a number of physical, chemical or biological processes, including treatment, treatment for recycling, de posit on or in land, and secure containment in general. As mentioned, Annex 1 contains a list of disposal operations; properly employed under the appropriate conditions, these recover, transform or isolate waste so that it does not affect health or the environment.
Secure containment means the isolation of waste from the environ ment under conditions in which the waste has a very small chance of escaping. Certain types of secure containment, notably landfill, are employed with no definite expectation of recovery and are considered indefinite containment.
Waste management means the collection, transport and disposal of hazardous wastes and other wastes, including the after-care of disposal sites.
13
2
The need for hazardous waste facilities and
pref erred management measures
Broad agreement on the need for and functions of facilities is essential to site selection. This chapter outlines points to be considered in estab lishing the need for treatment and disposal facilities. Two points closely related to the basic question of need are also discussed. First, measures to encourage waste reduction, recycling and other preferred disposal technology are an integral part of overall waste management, and should preferably be implemented before a facility is proposed. In addition, the reduction and recycling of industrial wastes at their source improve economic efficiency and industrial productivity. The second topic dis cussed is the data to be used in planning and siting; these are not identical to those used by a regulatory authority.
The Need for Facilities
Facilities capable of acceptable performance in disposing of wastes must be available in an area of significant arisings. Governments have the responsibility to enable and to promote the development of such facilities. Regulatory and information programmes should support this objective.
A significant part of government promotion of adequate facilities is understanding and recognizing the need for them and what they should do. The question of need involves the consideration of complex techni cal, economic and policy issues.
For example, competition or other stimulus is needed to keep the prices of services reasonable and operation at top level. Regulation alone does not ordinarily accomplish this. Second, the system of facilities needs spare capacity to permit regulatory or emergency closure of a
15
facility without creating a deficiency. Third, technological development and new alternatives should be promoted. Fourth, the issue of geographic location and transporting hazardous waste arisings from their source to the facility should influence site selection. Fifth, the economic resources available for treatment and disposal units should be determined according to the demand for services and the location of the arisings. The issue of centralized versus dispersed units should also be settled. Sixth, the physical capability of the economically feasible facilities to accept the projected waste arisings of the area should be determined. This is the conventional "adequate capacity" calculation of supply and demand. Numerous factors can affect estimates of the arisings of hazardous and industrial waste, including:
(a) imports and exports; (b) recurring generation (producing, for example, industrial process waste from continuous operations); (c) non-recurring generation from the clean-up of spills or contami nated sites, or plant modification or maintenance (tank clean-out, for example); (d) fluctuations in the type and quantity of waste arisings and in generator identity; (e) the effect of the economy and production trends; (J) the effect of the management and success of individual plants; (g) the effect of reduction and recycling at the source; (h) changes in management practice by individual generators, shifts from on-premises to off-premises disposal, pretreatment and de watering on the premises; (i) limits on the ability to estimate such as data reliability, illegal disposal and double-counting hidden in records; and
(J) the need to treat and dispose of wastes not officially defined as hazardous ("non-hazardous industrial waste" can make up a signifi cant fraction of the demands on a facility).
As to the fourth of these factors, many plants vary widely in waste generation from year to year, or do not generate waste every year. The community of generators is therefore larger than the statistics for one year would indicate.
Further, two factors limit the significance of a calculation of supply and demand: shortcomings in the data and a limited ability to predict economic trends or the effect of pricing, regulatory pressure, waste
16
reduction and technological development. When the government does not control facility initiatives, a policy based on government estimates of supply and demand may be difficult to implement. In addition, the economics of an individual facility should take account of market shares and competition if necessary.
While a calculation of supply and demand is important and useful, the other considerations listed above are more significant in aggregate. Lengthy data acquisition programmes should not hinder the construc tion of urgently needed new facilities.
Preferred Measures for Waste Management
The four levels below categorize waste management measures in order of preference. The use of this hierarchy, through the suggested measures or other means, is a necessary part of a waste management strategy. The hierarchy has been subdivided and presented in several different ways. The measures may be implemented through regulation, economic policy, technical assistance, economic market forces or other means. Materials that cannot be safely disposed of through the hierarchy should be identified. Special procedures should be specified for their disposal.
Level I comprises waste reduction at the point of the arising. A variety of measures can be used; these may include good housekeeping in the plant, redesigning the product to use non-hazardous materials, using clean technology in plant design and replacement, and redesign ing the manufacturing process to minimize waste.
Level 2 comprises the reuse of by-product material or energy through recycling inside or outside the plant. Low-value by-products may be marketed through information and technical services such as those provided by "waste exchanges", through brokers of surplus materials or through direct contacts by plant personnel. By-product reuse avoids the cost of disposal and frequently provides revenue to the generator. The generator must use caution, however, in surrendering possession of hazardous waste.
The management of an operation in which waste arises should consider at-source reduction and recycling before using a disposal facility. It is reasonable to expect a plant to document a programme to reduce or recycle a hazardous waste arising, using available waste reduction handbooks and checklists, as a precondition to using an off-premises facility. (This is not a recommendation for the regulation of production processes.)
17
Level 3 comprises waste treatment to reduce hazard, volume or both, or to make waste more amenable to recycling. In general, this is preferable to disposal in or on land, or to other means for the long-term deposition of hazardous materials.
Level 4 comprises the secure containment of stable waste and treated and stabilized residues. Waste sent to landfill or other secure containment should have been neutralized or decomposed to a stable, unreactive condition. If the waste cannot be stabilized, or if it contains soluble or otherwise mobile pollutants, it should be solidified in an immobilizing matrix.
Waste reduction Waste reduction includes both reduction at the source of the arising and recycling once the waste has arisen, and is closely associated with economic efficiency. At-source reduction usually reduces the cost of production by conserving material or energy. Recycling often provides revenue from the sale of by-products, and both at-source reduction and recycling avoid the cost of waste disposal. These economies can and should drive waste reduction. Because waste reduction affects the need for facilities , it is an integral part of facilities planning.
Further, at-source reduction and recycling are associated with the reduction of emissions to air, land and water. In contrast, regulations intended to protect one part of the environment too often result in increased discharge to another.
A programme of waste reduction should preferably be imple mented before a facility is proposed. The lack of such a programme, however, should not lead to the rejection of a proposal. Moreover, an emphasis on at-source reduction and recycling does not eliminate the need for treatment or disposal facilities for nations with arisings of hazardous and industrial waste. Waste reduction, even more than the development of disposal technology, must be a continuing goal.
The choice of when and how to reduce waste involves many variables (such as product quality, production economics, and the risk, liability and cost of treatment), and lies primarily with the generator. Waste reduction is not merely an adjunct to hazardous waste regula tion. It can guide the use of materials of manufacture in the interests of both environmental quality and resource conservation.
Waste Arisings: Sources and Estimates
Estimates of waste arisings help the government, the public and interest groups to gain a clear understanding of the issue of hazardous waste
18
management, and demonstrate the usefulness of a facility. Despite the utility of data on types and quantities of hazardous and other industrial waste arisings, industrialized countries have gone for years without coherent information. Unfortunately, there is no perfect system for acquiring data on waste. Further, no data are equally useful to everyone; the data needs of regulatory agencies, for example, differ from those of facility planners.
The acquisition of data for planning purposes should meet a number of demands, which should be kept in mind in designing or revising data systems. First, waste should be described in terms that link the waste categories to treatment and disposal technology. Such a description should include chemical and physical characteristics not necessarily related to the source process or the hazard. The hazard posed indicates the type and degree of care that the waste must be given, and hence is an important element in facility design and in actual operation. Normally, however, it does not indicate the applicable disposal technology and thus is of less consequence in planning studies. Hazard as an element of information appears in the facility development checklist in Chapter 3 and Annex 4.
Second, the data should cover all types of waste requiring recycling, treatment or disposal. Narrow definitions of hazard and hazardous waste work against this demand by imposing stringent reporting re quirements on some types of waste, but not on others handled by the same facilities.
Third, waste should be allocated to mutually exclusive categories, to avoid double counting. Fourth, the technical basis of the estimates should be defined and reported. Water content, for instance, has a major effect on both quantity and treatability. Fifth, the data systems should include checks on the quality and consistency of the data gathered. Sixth, the system should be convertible into a simple physical-chemical categorization to facilitate the comparison of estimates made by differ ent offices or countries.
A number of systems have been used in various areas. A simple set of nine categories of waste has been used to consolidate estimates from different geographical regions that used different classifications:
- inorganic aqueous liquids
- inorganic aqueous liquids with organic components
- concentrated organic liquids
- organic solids
19
1esods1p J84lO
uo1pafu1 11aM d a
a a
ll!JPUE?l
Q )
lU 8W
lE ?
8Jl pue7
- en « j
uonezm qeis
3: «
j "' Q)
lU 8W
lE ?
8Jl a6pn1s ·;;::
·;;:: -
0 en
O >
:::, Q
) "C
-
C
~
lU 8W
lE ?
8Jl J 8
4 lO
iuaw ieaJl 01ue6Jo snoanbv
.... -
0 C
:
- Q
)
en E
lU
8W lE?8Jl 01ue6JO
U! snoanbv Q
) Q
) ·;;::
O >
0 <1'
C )
C :
Q )
<1'
- ~
« j
AJaAooaJ A 6Jau3
sp11os;sa6pn1s - uo1ieJau1ou1
(.)
- sp1nb11 -
U0!lE?J8U!0UI C
Q
)
E
A J8A
008J J 8
4 lO
Q
) C
) «
j A
J8A 008J S
lU 8
A I0
S
C
« j
E
AJaAooaJ s1eia1111
"C
C
« j
- 0 en Q
) C
. .i!' Q
) "' :'Q
C .
E
« j
(J')
..... C )
u:::
"' :::::,
"C
g "'
·5 -
-~ C
: .!2"
Q )
C :
"' >
0
<1' "'
- ~
O >
C :
·2 ....
:'Q
Q )
<1' 0
:::::, ·o
>
0 "C
O
> "C
.!2"
"' Q
) ....
Q )
"C
"' ro
0 ro
0
"' Q
) j
i ·2
~
- C
: C
: <1'
ro Q
) - Q
) <1'
> ,
C :
O >
~ O
> O
> .E
C :
0 0
.... -
0 Q
) «
i Q
) «i
Q )
<1' O
> O
> ....
i -
0 .c:
0 .c:
Q )
C :
C :
C :
.c: 0
«i 0
« i
0 - ;:
(.) I
z I
z 0
20
N ....
Mixed organic/inorganic liquids
Inorganic liquids with organics
Inorganic liquids with metals
Other inorganic liquids
Halogenated organic sludges/solids
Nonhalogenated organic sludges/solids
Other organic sludges/solids
Mixed organic/inorganic sludges/solids
Inorganic sludges/solids with metals
Other inorganic sludges/solids
Other wastes
Total
Source: Siting new treatment and disposal facilities. Washington, DC, Center for Policy Research, National Governors' Association, 1989.
- inorganic solids - organic sludges
- inorganic sludges
- organic gases
- inorganic gases.
This categorization meets the demands given above in a very general way. It can be subdivided for greater precision, and hazard descriptors can be attached to the basic chemical-physical framework. For manage ment purposes, most wastes fall into the organic or inorganic categories; as shown, a mixed category is not necessary except for aqueous waste.
Fig. I shows a more complex categorization, which allows the attachment of management categories to the waste descriptions. Classi fications of this type have been widely used in the United States, and are now used in national planning to ensure capacity for waste manage ment. Similar links with management categories have been made for the list above. There are also a number of more complex systems.
The criteria for the acquisition of planning data also provide a guide to the analysis and presentation of data from any source. Double count ing in transport records is likely for instance, if a shipment of waste is received at a facility and reshipped as part of a consolidated load.
The public and the mass media should receive estimates of waste arisings. It is equally important to take pains to explain the technical basis of the estimates. As mentioned, however, several factors are more important than tonnage in determining the need for and characteristics of a facility for waste management.
22
- - ·- ------1
3
Overview of siting processes
This chapter introduces procedural and technical considerations in siting. It describes: two siting processes to serve as models, the distri bution of responsibilities in facility development, the use of screening and exclusionary criteria, and reports and procedures for site evaluation. Chapter 4 discusses health and environmental considerations, and Chapter 5, social and economic considerations.
Facility siting involves: the search for suitable locations, securing support for and acceptance of the need for the facility and the location selected, and the licensing of the facility by government. Siting is not a matter of meeting minimum standards. Final approval by health and environmental authorities must rest on the meeting of valid and demon strated technical criteria and on demonstrated capability. From an over all perspective, however, broad social support is desirable or even vital. The acceptability or desirability of a facility in the prospective host area rests on factors that are important to the population but difficult to codify.
Prominent among these factors is the creation of both a climate of openness or trust and acceptance of the validity and fairness of the siting process. In addition, it is important to show the benefits of the facility at the local level and that any adverse effect will be remedied in a way that prevents loss to the environment and the community. The community must believe with reason that the facility will be managed safely over the long term.
Siting Processes
Two general frameworks for site selection - a voluntary model and a technical model - are presented here. Although they are described as
23
separate processes for the purposes of illustration, they share certain elements. In fact, elements of each can be combined to create a siting process designed to fit a particular political and institutional context.
The voluntary process anticipates that one or more communities will want or accept a new facility. Further, gaining acceptance at the local level will probably precede, but not replace, the consideration of technical issues of health and safety. In contrast, the technical model anticipates a screening procedure and partial optimization from mul tiple locations. It is normally associated with a decision at the national or regional level.
The processes of dialogue and negotiation, the concepts of fairness and compensation for losses incurred in the public interest, and a high sensitivity to social and economic conditions in the host community are important in both models. Broad public and political support for a facility should be obtained, using the criteria listed in Chapter 2, before the search begins for a specific site. This acceptance of the need for and the technology to be used in the facility is the starting point for the facility description outlined below, which is to present the project to the public.
The voluntary model The voluntary model typically begins with an explanation of the objec tives of the project to local decision-makers and a search for a volunteer host community. The choice of a location for a facility is subject to the constraints of the health and environmental authorities. Consultation begins early, with communities both providing information and ex pressing their preferences. Exclusionary criteria may be used in the voluntary process to map the initial constraints and to discard the volunteer locations that do not meet them.
The following steps illustrate the voluntary model. Its application involves modification and addition to fit particular situations. It is assumed that broad agreement has been reached on the need for the facility and how it will function, so that appropriate technology can be selected and the proposed facility described. From there the voluntary model proceeds as follows.
1. The public and local government are informed of the objectives and proposed approach.
2. Invitations for detailed discussion of the project are solicited from regional planning commissions, local government and interest groups.
24
3. The local government requests an overview study of potential sites and mapping of the results.
4. The resulting information is presented to the local government. 5. Discussion continues; candidate sites are identified and discussed.
Citizens' committees are formed.
6. The initial exploration of specific sites is conducted and the results are presented to the local government.
7. More detailed or additional exploration of the preferred sites is conducted.
8. One site is selected. 9. The process of securing final approval begins.
The order of these steps may vary. For instance, general attribute mapping may precede the approach to communities. At each step, the decision on whether to continue the process rests with the local govern ment. All judgements on health and environmental protection are sub ject to approval by the authorities concerned.
A criticism of the voluntary model, stemming from the highly complex environmental concerns in industrialized countries, is that the process can be used to take advantage of poor, unsophisticated or minority communities. To prevent this, the authority that gives final approval must be competent and strong. When the host community is inarticulate about its planning and goals, close attention needs to be paid to social and economic impact, as well as to effects on health and the environment.
The termination of the voluntary process deserves careful attention. This involves informing a number of volunteer communities, some of which may have been actively competing, that they were not chosen. The selection can lead to hard feelings and even political repercussions. It is important to end the process fairly and forthrightly. Good planning, good faith and straightforward communication are essential.
A voluntary siting process - including the sharing of decision making with communities and the people directly affected - should be the first choice for site selection. This recommendation is based on three points: equity, economic efficiency and the likelihood of success fully completing the process. As to the first point, people should have a voice in matters that affect them. Second, a participatory process is likely to lead to remedies, including compensation, for potential losses that are often overlooked, while ensuring that the needs of industry are met. Third, voluntary processes have been more successful than
25
processes that override local objections. Experience has shown that facilities can be sited by capable developers who are genuinely sensitive to the community's needs. Blaming the people affected for opposing a facility is self-defeating and merely perpetuates their resistance.
Processes with a more authoritarian approach may be appropriate under certain circumstances. Effective public participation and support may be compromised, however, if overriding government authority is too readily available or if decisions are seen as determined in advance. A process that builds community support, through adequate understanding and a share of the decision-making power and augmented by compensa tory measures (including economic measures) is much preferred.
The technical model Site selection by the technical model anticipates that a location will be selected from among a group of candidate sites. These should already have been screened for suitability but may have different, and not necessarily comparable, characteristics and degrees of suitability. A site search in the technical model normally uses screening and exclusionary criteria and successive investigations of sites in increasing detail. These result in the elimination of some locations and increasingly detailed differentiation of those remaining. The final acceptability of a site hinges on a full evaluation.
The following steps illustrate the technical model. Its application involves modification and addition to fit particular situations. It is assumed that broad agreement has been reached on the need for the facility and on how it will function, so that appropriate technology can be selected and the proposed facility described. From there the technical model proceeds as follows.
I. The public is involved in the siting process at a broad level.
2. Screening and exclusionary criteria, and perhaps standards for final approval, are formulated.
3. Candidate areas are chosen, and unsuitable areas eliminated by large-area mapping, with maps of a scale of about 1: 250 000.
4. Areas with promising features are highlighted, using maps with a scale of about 1: 25 000.
5. The people of potential host areas are involved in the siting process.
6. The criteria formulated earlier are used to evaluate the potential host areas.
26
7. Candidate sites are chosen and their characteristics described on maps with a scale of about 1: 25 000.
8. Preferred sites are chosen. 9. Each site is studied.
l 0. One site is selected. 11. The process of securing final approval begins.
The differentiation of locations in the technical model has typically depended more on technical health and environmental considerations than on social, political or economic factors. Social factors can, how ever, be used to discriminate between candidate sites. In fact, informa tion on the social and economic makeup of the host community has been used in the technical model to design measures to mitigate or compensate for negative effects.
Finally, the technical siting process should be ended in a way that leaves as little doubt as possible about the status of unused candidate sites. People living near such sites may believe that a future search would affect them. Putting this apprehension to rest is difficult, because a future search by the same criteria would logically result in the choice of the same sites. The voluntary process poses this problem to a much lesser extent.
Mitigation, compensation and incentives Both the voluntary and the technical model may use measures to miti gate or compensate for negative effects or offer incentives to overcome them. These important concepts may be defined as follows.
Mitigation softens or ameliorates a negative effect. For example, a buffer is a barrier that shelters the surroundings of a facility from actual or potential effects. The mapping process is key to the selection or designation of buffers. A buffer is not merely a zone around a facility; the potential effect and what is to be protected determine the choice of measures. A buffer for noise, for instance, might be either distance or mass. For visual effect, the buffer might be a line of trees. Motor transport will affect the road network around the facility. A buffer measure here might be to improve substandard intersections at locations far removed from the facility itself. Buffering may also be economic and may be achieved, for instance, by siting facilities in areas with compatible industrial or commercial establishments or in areas of guaran teed home property values.
Compensation offers one benefit to offset the loss of another, but cannot always be separated from mitigation. Mitigating the effect of
27
lorry traffic by road improvements, for instance, may also accomplish local development goals.
Incentives are benefits over the apparent losses to groups or indi viduals, perhaps to parties who do not incur losses at all. Incentives are frequently seen as immoral. If distributed equitably, however, they may account for intangible factors that cannot otherwise be assessed. Fur ther, incentives may improve economic efficiency by assisting projects with definite public benefits.
Public information Informed public comment and consent should be a cornerstone of site selection. A vigorous programme to inform interested parties and the mass media is an essential part of a siting process. While interested members of the public will obtain information on their own, an infor mation programme provides a basis for common understanding of issues and a means of building communication and trust. Understand ing and support are desirable in three interrelated areas:
- the function of a facility and the impact of waste reduction and recycling on the need for a facility;
- the process of deciding on a location for a facility; and
- the characteristics of the regulatory system.
Audiences differ in different phases of siting. For example, parties that watch environmental matters over an extended period are likely to study an evaluation of regional needs for waste management. In con trast, a facility proposal draws the attention of people who would not otherwise be involved. The two audiences have different backgrounds. In general, information programmes must be aimed at particular groups, since they require the audience to spend some time on receiving the message. An analysis of the interest of various parties at different phases or in different situations helps a programme to reach a wide target audience.
No information programme can reach as many people as the mass media. The media, however, seldom engage in sustained or in depth education. The quality, balance and objectivity of information made available to the mass media is thus extremely important. Credibility must be gained and kept, even at the cost of releasing ad verse information.
It is possible, although sometimes difficult, to explain technical issues in terms comprehensible to the mass media, decision-makers and
28
the public. Attention and resources must be devoted to this task. Tech nical points can have a major impact on public understanding. A change in the reporting basis for the water content of waste, for instance, resulted in a report of a fourfold increase in the tonnage of arisings in a large region, when in fact there had been little real change. The report misled the public and policy-makers because the change in the basis of the estimates was not explained.
Responsibilities for Facility Development
Plans for facility development must identify the people responsible for a wide variety of possible assignments. Table 1 lists many of the tasks of facility development. They are necessary in most efforts to plan and develop a facility. Some are alternatives (for instance, one would not conduct both a voluntary and a technical siting process) and many could be assigned in different combinations. In any effort to plan and develop a facility, it is necessary to define the tasks in this way or another, and to assign time, resources and responsiblity for their execution.
The initiative for finding and developing a site may rest with any of a number of parties: a government agency, a publicly controlled cor poration or a private business. The allocation of responsibility influ ences the approach to site selection. Regulatory authorities should not be involved in the design or operation of a facility. A consciousness of social factors is equally important for government officials responsible for planning and siting facilities, the developing organizations - whether government or private - and the approving authorities. Organizations capable of developing and of regulating facilities are normally technical in nature. Special attention needs to be paid to social and economic issues. In all cases, it is important to understand the capabilities of the organizations to which responsibility is assigned.
It may not always be possible to assign responsibility. In some countries, private companies or corporations partly or entirely under government control take part in facility development. Organizations of this type have an independent responsibility to their shareholders or to the public. The views and evaluations of an independent company may differ from those of planners in a public agency. In such a situation, the assumptions about responsibilities should be clearly stated. Dialogue between public agency planners and independent developers is essen tial. In addition, the effects of the regulations governing facility develop ment and operation must be considered.
29
Table 1. Planning, developing and regulating a facility: responsible bodies and tasks
Responsible body
Regulatory authority
Government (preferably not the regulatory authority)
A government agency, a government corporation or a private company
30
Task
1 . Issuing permits for facility construction and operation
2. Regulating and inspecting facilities and initiating enforcement actions
3. Receiving and recording data from transport documents and reports from facilities
4. Conducting an evaluation and report ing the resulting waste management objectives and needs for facilities
5. Preparing a plan to allow, encourage or implement facility development
6. Conducting a technical siting process, and making decisions on site location at the national or regional level
7. Coordinating and promoting facility de velopment through market estimates, assistance with regulatory procedures, public information and other measures
8. Conducting a voluntary siting process
9. Searching for acceptable sites
1 O. Making specialized technical studies of potential sites
11. Acquiring land for facility development
12. Financing a facility or other service .
13. Underwriting liability of facility opera tion
14. Underwriting the financial risk of facil- ity development
15. Designing a facility
16. Building a facility
17. Operating a facility
18. Transporting waste
Criteria Used in Site Selection
Screening criteria and exclusionary criteria guide the search for a site. Environmental and health authorities use approval criteria, which are usually contained in their regulations in the licensing of a facility. Criteria that are more stringent than those for final regulatory approval or not used in final approval may nevertheless be needed to assist in choosing the best site.
The factors given here can be used as criteria, but the selection also requires the consideration of the geography of the area concerned. As presented, however, the factors are a guide to evaluation and to miti gatory action in a variety of situations. They are also useful as a checklist for negotiation. For any particular location, modifications to the lists may be required. Further, computer-based geographic informa tion systems of various capabilities can replace conventional mapping in many instances.
Screening criteria Screening criteria assist in judging the overall suitability of a location and in differentiating candidate sites, but are not necessarily decisive in the choice of location. Values may be expressed as commentary or as a simple rating given in plus or minus marks, for example. The same factors may later be used to judge the ultimate suitability of the final choice.
Screening criteria are not necessarily consistent. For instance, en suring a minimum haul distance from the site of the arising to the disposal facility normally precludes locating the facility in an area of low population. The choice between a site in an industrial area that may have been injured by a lack of facilities and an entirely new location has a strong subjective element.
The following paragraphs describe a four-step screening process. Additional details, including sample definitions of the screening fac tors, are given in Annex 2. A search using these factors resulted in the construction of a secure landfill in Baltimore, MD, United States. The list of factors used in the first step could be expanded.
Step 1 is to eliminate generally unsatisfactory areas. These would include:
- coastal areas subject to floods - coastal wetlands - areas with limestone deposits
31
- areas with subsurface mining - areas critical for aquifer recharge - lands designated for preservation - areas of high well yield - areas including an aquifer that is the sole source of water for
human consumption - areas of reservoir watersheds.
Step 2 is to highlight promising areas, such as:
- industrial areas - the sites of existing waste management facilities - compatible public lands - abandoned properties - lands with major highway access - lands near waste generators.
These factors are related primarily to community development.
Step 3 is to assess promising sites in detail. The use of the kinds of areas listed below normally poses risks to health and the environment:
- riverine areas subject to floods - freshwater wetlands - areas with flood hazards related to a dam - coastal waters for shellfish and fishing - areas with freshwater fishing - areas upstream of water-supply intakes - areas with subsurface mining.
The characteristics of the soil and groundwater of each site should also be assessed, as should factors affecting the community. As to the latter, the following should be considered:
- areas of special significance - the visual corridors of scenic rivers - existing developed areas
- areas for which nonindustrial development is planned
- agricultural districts.
Step 4 is to evaluate and rank sites. This involves the consideration of factors affecting health and the environment, such as:
- population density
32
- the response time of rescue squads and emergency services - whether the sites include critical habitats or areas of potential
mineral development - groundwater and soil characteristics - slope.
Factors in the community that require assessment include:
- access to sewers - transport restrictions - structures along transport corridors - whether the area contains historic sites -whether the land is used in ways incompatible with hazardous
waste management - visual impact - the feasibility of acquisition.
Factors in site differentiation that have an extensive social impact component, including sample definitions of screening factors, are shown in Annex 3. This list is recommended for study in the design of any screening process. A search that used these factors resulted in the designation of a site for a comprehensive facility in Ontario, Canada.
Exclusionary criteria Exclusionary criteria define areas within which a facility will not be considered. They promote efficiency in the selection process by ruling out inherently unsuitable areas. Since exclusionary criteria preclude development for very general reasons, they must be thoughtfully chosen. The exclusionary factors in Table 2 are recommended for con sideration in all cases.
Neither screening nor exclusionary criteria can replace a thorough site investigation. On the one hand, getting through the preliminary stage does not preclude subsequent exclusion. On the other hand, suitable sites may sometimes be found in previously excluded areas, since exclusionary criteria may not apply to every parcel of the land.
Exceptions Too stringent criteria can needlessly exclude large areas. Combinations of screening criteria that are reasonable on an individual basis can guide development into certain areas and exclude others that are equally satisfactory, and indicate illogical choices of location or technology.
33
Table 2. Exclusionary factors in site selection
1 . Unstable or weak soils, such as organic soil, soft clay or clay-sand mixtures, clays that lose strength with compaction, clays with a shrink-swell character, sands subject to subsidence and hydraulic influence, and soils that lose strength with wetting or shock
2. Subsidence owing to solution-prone subsurfaces, subsurface mines (for coal , salt and sulfur) and water, oil or gas withdrawal
3. Saturated soils, as found in coastal or riverine wetlands
4 . Groundwater recharge, as in areas with outcrops of aquifers of significant or potential use, considering water availability and re gional geology (where an impermeable or retarding layer shields the aquifer from the land surface, a specific site analysis should be conducted)
5. Flooding, as in flood plains or hydraulic encroachment, coastal or riverine areas with a history of flooding every 100 years or less, and areas susceptible to stream-channel or storm encroachment ( even if not historically subject to flooding)
6. Surface water, which preclude sites above an existing reservoir or a location designated as a future reservoir, or above an intake for water used for human or animal consumption or agriculture and within a distance that does not permit response to a spill based on high-flow (most rapid) time of travel
7. Atmospheric conditions, such as inversions or other conditions that would prevent the safe dispersal of an accidental release
8. Major natural hazards, such as volcanic action, seismic disturb ance (of at least VII on the modified Mercalli scale) and landslides
9 . Natural resources, such as the habitats of endangered species, existing or designated parks, forests and natural or wilderness areas8
10. Agricultural or forest land of economic or cultural importance
11. Historic locations or structures, locations of archaeological signifi cance and locations or land revered in various traditions8
12. Sensitive installations, such as those storing flammable or explosive materials, and airports
13. Stationary populations, such as those of hospitals and correctional institutions
14. Inequity, resulting from an imbalance of unwanted facilities of un related function or from damage to a distinctive and irreplaceable culture or to people's unique ties to a place
a The intention is to prevent not only damage or contamination but also visual, aural or functional encroachment.
34
Rigid criteria and numerical scoring can encourage the selection of locations with unforeseen flaws on the one hand, and the denial of deserving projects for minor reasons on the other.
Exceptions to criteria may therefore be justified in certain cases. Making exceptions to or reconsidering the criteria is suggested in three cases. The first is when the results of the search totally preclude the development of a facility for which there is no practical alternative. In general, the absence of a facility poses a greater risk than the modifica tion of criteria. Second, the application of the criteria can lead to an unexpected or illogical result because some of the consequences were unforeseen. Needed facilities may be ruled out for inconsequential reasons, or development may be indicated in unsuitable areas. Third, an exception is appropriate when it is based on the function of the facility, as well as the engineering possibilities. For instance, a hazardous waste transfer facility that is intended to serve shipping will be exposed to marine hazards to some extent. In such a case, safeguards can be designed into the facility.
Additional considerations Regulations may not cover all significant aspects of facility develop ment. Other standards of or guides to practice, sometimes including independent professional standards of practice, may apply. In addition, norms related to the location or community may provide useful guid ance. Locally acceptable noise levels may be higher or lower than professional practice would indicate, for example, and an aesthetic goal is almost by definition governed by the locale. Still other starting points for gauging site acceptability may be the plans made by local or provin cial governments or community groups. These are significant, even if they lack force of law. Other nonregulatory considerations could include:
- the development practice of local government - the planning goals of local or provincial government - goals set by the community - norms derived by specialists from local conditions - government regulations or guidelines on related subjects.
Presenting, Describing and Evaluating a Project
The presentation, description and evaluation of a project to develop a hazardous waste facility should contain certain components. Three types of report are described below: a summary, a project description and a site
35
evaluation. These reports are not merely descriptive. They begin a systematic disclosure and evaluation of the positive and negative effects of a proposed facility on the community and the environment. Particularly when the public or the potential host community is in volved, the reports may be significantly revised to contain more detail as the project matures. As noted in Chapter 1, this guide focuses on the protection of the community and the environment. Enumerating poten tial risks and facility safety measures, however, does not mean that negative possibilities will materialize.
The summary report The summary report is the key to the presentation of the project to the public and to nontechnical decision-makers. Unlike the project descrip tion and site evaluation, which may rely in part on other reports, the summary report should draw on and provide references to other sources to give the reader an overview of the proposal, an index of the issues and access to detailed information. The report should provide a concise description of the applicant, the facility, the location and the expected effects. It should touch on each major effect or aggregate of effects on health, the environment, and the local economy or social structure, and thus on each major issue related to the suitability of the combination of site and facility. The discussion of each significant point should include a reference to further discussion in the project description, the site evaluation or a supporting report. The summary report should be clearly and legibly written and illustrated. Technical terms should be kept to a minimum and those used should be explained in nontechnical language.
Project description The second type of report, a project description, gives a detailed view of the facility and associated operations, the potential effects and where they would be felt, and agreements with and measures to protect or compensate the host community. First, the proposed facility and associ ated operations, such as detached units and transport approaches to the facility, must be described as detailed in the facility development check list in Annex 4. The checklist was designed to describe a facility of any type. The information required varies with the type of technology that is to be used. Much of the facility description is typically found in engin eering and scientific reports that are not organized along the lines of the checklist. A directory indicating where the information needed for items on the checklist can be found in these reports should be included in the project description and the summary report.
36
Second, the potential effects of the project, positive and negative, must be described so that they can be linked with the factors (described in Chapters 4 and 5) that will appear in the site evaluation report. Effects can be felt in different areas and ways; they also vary in dura tion. A spill into a river, for example, could affect a reservoir far downstream after passing intermediate locations quickly, without last ing effect. A release to air might have a severe local impact and then disperse. The consequences of a motor transport accident would differ from those of either of the other examples. On the positive side, the economic benefit of a facility might be felt locally in wages and taxes, and the benefits of needed services (such as those of an incinerator) might cover hundreds of kilometres.
Third, the report should describe the measures included in the project plans to protect the host community and to mitigate and com pensate for any negative effects of the facility. The report should also cover agreements made with the community on such topics as the operating conditions of the facility, the participation of the community in management or other post-construction operational arrangements.
Site evaluation The third type of report describes and evaluates the effect of the pro posed facility on the host community, using the factors found above and in Chapters 4 and 5. The site evaluation should be based on the devel opment and conditions expected in the project and the community. The report should include maps showing the attributes of the site, the effects of the facility and any accompanying analyses and calculations. As with the project description, much of the site evaluation can be found in reports that are not organized along the lines of the checklists of evaluation factors. A directory indicating where the necessary informa tion can be found should be included in the site evaluation and the summary report.
The first part of the site evaluation should describe existing condi tions. The second part should describe the conditions to be expected in 5 and IO years if the proposed project is rejected. These expectations - called baseline future conditions - should be based on public plans and projections, zoning, and public works plans, investments, property acquisitions or comparable actions authorized or required by law. This step is intended to ensure the consideration of local preferences, plans and social values and the reasonable use of land and natural resources.
37
This part of the report is not the place for speculation on future conditions. Rather, it should give estimates of change based on identifi able public policy. In many or perhaps most cases, the baseline future conditions are the same as the existing conditions. The estimates are the basis for much of the evaluation, however, and should be established with care. Anticipated community improvements should not be frus trated; the description should lay the basis for identifying opportunities to work the project into the local economy, to provide needed services and to forestall negative trends.
The third part of the report should describe the conditions antici pated if the project is accepted. These are expressed as the influences of the facility and its operation, as proposed, on the baseline future condi tions. Planned measures to buffer, mitigate or compensate for negative effects should be fully described.
In the last part of the report, the anticipated effects of the facility as characterized in the project description should be linked with the loca tion factors on a map that shows where and how the effects will be felt. This section must explain why the conditions predicted with the project will be acceptable.
38
4
Health and environmental risk assessment
This chapter outlines the pathways through which emissions from a facility, vehicle or accident can affect health or the environment, and discusses and recommends techniques to evaluate potential effects and parameters to use in the assessment.
This guide deals specifically with emissions to the environment that are characteristic of the technology used at the facility, which are called normal emissions. When normal emissions cannot be prevented altogether, they are to be held to safe levels indicated by emission standards or by limits on emission concentrations derived from stan dards for the ambient environment. Nevertheless, accidents in the plant or in transport may also cause releases to the environment. In general, the evaluation techniques discussed below apply to one-time releases if the radically different mode and timing of the accidental release is taken into account. Accidental releases are by definition uncontrolled and their effects must be predicted on a contingent basis. The characteristics of accidental releases are covered in the facility development checklist in Annex 4.
Emission standards are imposed at the exit from the facility, and do not depend on calculations of the exposure of potential receptors. They are normally concentrations that are regarded as safe at the levels in the discharge itself or with minimal standard dispersion. The application of environmental standards requires that pollutant concentrations be estimated at some point along the pathway of exposure. Estimates of effects on people and the natural environment require a knowledge of the receptors' responses to the chemicals in question.
39
Approaches to Assessment
In general, the potential effect of a proposed facility can be analysed in two ways. The first is to perform a relatively simple standardized calculation based on local data to determine whether the requisite conditions are fulfilled. This approach is particularly applicable to smaller facilities (seep. 46 for an example). The second approach is to conduct a site-specific environmental pathway analysis (or risk assess ment) using a predictive model. Both the data acquisition and the analysis can be expensive. Such an analysis is normally called for with a landfill or other facility at which waste will be stored in contact with land or for an indefinite period and should be considered for any major facility. Since different types of facilities differ in their effects, the choice of approach depends on the type of facility proposed, the charac teristics of the area and the data available.
A sophisticated analysis cannot make up for scanty or questionable data, or for a site that cannot be satisfactorily described or monitored. In general, a facility should not be located on a site whose characteristics cannot be well and clearly described. Exceptions may be justified when the absence of a facility would pose a major risk.
The detail and accuracy of the site description is a matter of judge ment. No site can be described in complete detail for every condition, or with total confidence. Paradoxically, the task of description may be most difficult under the best conditions. Where no accidental release has occurred, for example, there will be no actual plume with which to verify a prediction. Where soil is so impervious that groundwater move ment is practically zero, monitoring may be meaningless.
Estimates of risk should not be based on the worst case, although a worst-case analysis may provide useful information in some instances. The compounding of conservative assumptions leads to difficult and expensive design specifications and to an exaggerated picture of the dangers. It is possible to build and operate facilities whose risks are within socially acceptable limits. An analysis that unjustifiably discour ages the development of a facility merely increases the risk of uncon trolled disposal.
Pathways of exposure Exposure to environmental pollutants involves a series of steps begin ning with the release of a pollutant into what is called environmental medium or exposure medium. Exposure media for humans include air,
40
food and surface water or groundwater used for drinking, swimming, irrigation or stock.
Contact with the receptor (an organism or object) is described as external exposure. Entry into an organism and interaction with tissue results in internal exposure. Some pathways for internal exposure for humans, for example, are the ingestion of food, water and chemical products (including accidental ingestion), the inhalation of gases or particulates, and dermal absorption of liquids or vapours. Pathways for other organisms include inhalation and absorption by gills and skin, the ingestion of forage