The Experts below are selected from a list of 35112 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
J. D. Wulfhorst - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Support for Waste Facility Siting: Differences between Community Leaders and Residents
Rural Sociology, 2010Co-Authors: Sherrill Spies, Steve H. Murdock, Steve White, Richard S. Krannich, J. D. Wulfhorst, Krissa Wrigley, F. Larry Leistritz, Randy Sell, Joann M. ThompsonAbstract:Decisions regarding hazardous Waste Facility siting are now open to extensive public debate. Efforts on the part of public officials and private companies to site Waste management facilities have been thwarted by public opposition. Using survey data from leaders and residents in communities which are hosting or siting facilities, this study examines their sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge, levels of trust, perceptions of risk, perceptions of economic impacts, perceptions of equity issues and the differential effects of these factors on acceptance of local Waste Facility siting. Leaders in these communities were more supportive of local Waste Facility siting than were other community residents. The major determinant of leaders' acceptance of Waste siting was their perceptions of the economic benefits of a Facility to the community. Although this was also important to residents, perceptions of health, safety, and environmental contamination risks had larger effects on their acceptance of such facilities.
-
Effects on Collective Morale from Technological Risk
Society & Natural Resources, 1999Co-Authors: J. D. WulfhorstAbstract:Risks associated with technologies such as those used in hazardous Waste manage ment have the potential to impact a broad array ofcommunity social structures and associated dimensions of social well-being that derive from local conditions and events. This analysis examines survey data collected in a community area closest to several operating hazardous Waste management facilities to assess the relationships between various aspects of technological risk and a measure of collective morale in the local community. Results indicate that collective morale is substantially influenced by perceived community stigmatization associated with Waste Facility siting and operation. Other dimensions of technological risk identified as exerting an influence on collective morale include levels of confidence in Waste Facility technologies, levels of concern about the potential for environmental contamination, and levels of trust in organizational authorities. Overall, the results suggest that social responses to technologica...
-
Waste Facility experience and perceptions of Waste‐related health and safety risks
Society & Natural Resources, 1998Co-Authors: Sherrill Spies, Steve H. Murdock, Steve White, Richard S. Krannich, J. D. Wulfhorst, Krissa Wrigley, F. Larry Leistritz, Randy Sell, Joann M. ThompsonAbstract:Based on ecological theory, we hypothesize that positive experience with Waste Facility siting and storage will reduce the perceived health and safety risks associated with Waste sites. Evidence is presented from data collected in 15 communities in the states of Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Colorado. Seven of these communities are hosting or were potential sites for hazardous Waste facilities, four were the sites of other types of rural industrial developments and four were communities that had experienced only baseline socioeconomic activity. Surveys of residents in each of these communities on a variety of issues including concerns related to the health and safety of Waste storage are examined and compared. The results indicate that residents in communities with positive experience with Waste facilities perceive lower Waste‐related health and safety risks than residents in other types of communities when controls are included for other sociodemographic and perceptual factors.
-
Waste Facility Siting in Rural Communities in the United States: An Assessment of Impacts and Their Effects on Residents' Levels Of Support/Opposition
Community Development Society. Journal, 1998Co-Authors: Steve H. Murdock, Sherrill Spies, Steve White, Richard S. Krannich, J. D. Wulfhorst, Krissa Wrigley, F. Larry Leistritz, Kofi B. Effah, Randy SellAbstract:Local community opposition is the major reason for failures to site Waste facilities in rural communities. Residents perceive such facilities as posing unacceptable risks while offering few benefits. Although of clear importance, analyses of such support/opposition have been conceptually and empirically inadequate. We propose an expanded ecological framework which includes both structural and perceptual dimensions of environmental, social demographic, technological-risk, and organizational-exchange variables, and use survey data from 15 communities in 5 western states to examine the effects of ecological variables on residents' levels of acceptance of Waste Facility siting. Waste facilities are seen as having few unique positive or negative impacts; perceptions of technology-based risks, economic benefits, and the nature of the interactive exchanges occurring during the siting of Waste facilities are most determinative of levels of support/opposition.
Carla May Dhillon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Using citizen science in environmental justice: participation and decision-making in a Southern California Waste Facility siting conflict
Local Environment, 2017Co-Authors: Carla May DhillonAbstract:ABSTRACTUses of science by environmental justice (EJ) activists reflect struggles to challenge professional scientific expertise, achieve fair outcomes, and effectively participate in decision-making processes. This qualitative research analyses the relationship between citizen science and EJ in a new Waste Facility siting conflict in urban Los Angeles, namely connections between citizen science and four dimensions of EJ: fair distribution, respect and recognition, participation in decision-making, and community capabilities. Citizen science is one tactic in EJ, yet little research investigates its role in a new Facility siting conflict, particularly in relation to multi-faceted EJ goals. The research reveals opportunities for individual empowerment and community capacity building using citizen science, and a small measure of improved respect and recognition for participants who brought their own knowledge, research, and voices to the table. At the same time, the work identifies limitations on citizen sci...
Robert F. Kehrman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Renewal Application Update — 10206
2010Co-Authors: William A. Most, Robert F. KehrmanAbstract:Hazardous Waste permits issued by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) have a maximum term of 10-years from the permit effective date. The permit condition in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (Permit) governing renewal applications, directs the Permittees to submit a permit application 180-days prior to expiration of the Permit unless an alternate date is established by the NMED.
-
WIPP's Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Renewal Application ─ 9101
2009Co-Authors: William A. Most, Robert F. KehrmanAbstract:Hazardous Waste permits issued by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) have a maximum term of 10-years from the permit’s effective date. The permit condition in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s (WIPP) Hazardous Waste Facility Permit [1] (HWFP) governing renewal applications, directs the Permittees to submit a permit application 180 days prior to expiration of the Permit.
-
The Effect of Congress' Mandate to Create Greater Efficiencies in the Characterization of Transuranic Waste through the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Hazardous Waste Facility Permit
2008Co-Authors: Gloria J. Johnson, Robert F. KehrmanAbstract:Effective December 1, 2003, the U.S. Congress directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to file a permit modification request with the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) to amend the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (hereinafter 'the Permit') at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). This legislation, Section 311 of the 2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, was designed to increase efficiencies in Transuranic (TRU) Waste characterization processes by focusing on only those activities necessary to characterize Waste streams, while continuing to protect human health and the environment. Congressionally prescribed changes would impact DOE generator site Waste characterization programs and Waste disposal operations at WIPP. With this legislative impetus, in early 2004 the DOE and Washington TRU Solutions (WTS), co-permittee under the Permit, submitted a permit modification request to the NMED pursuant to Section 311. After a lengthy process, including extensive public and other stakeholder input, the NMED granted the Permittees' request in October 2006, as part of a modification authorizing disposal of Remote-Handled (RH) TRU Waste at WIPP. In conclusion: Implementation of the Permit under the revised Section 311 provisions is still in its early stages. Data are limited, as noted above. In view of these limited data and fluctuationsmore » in Waste feed due to varying factors, at the current time it is difficult to determine with accuracy the impacts of Section 311 on the costs of characterizing TRU Waste. It is safe to say, however, that the there have been many positive impacts flowing from Section 311. The generator sites now have more flexibility in characterizing Waste. Also, RH TRU Waste is now being disposed at WIPP - which was not possible before the 2006 Permit modification. As previously noted, the RH modification was approved at the same time as the Section 311 modification. Had the Section 311 changes not been implemented, RH TRU Waste may not have been successfully permitted for disposal at WIPP. Changes made pursuant to Section 311 helped to facilitate approval of the proposed RH TRU modifications. For example, the three scenarios for use in AK Sufficiency Determination Requests, described herein, are essential to securing approval of some RH TRU Waste streams for eventual disposal at WIPP. Thus, even if characterization rates do not increase significantly, options for disposal of RH TRU Waste, which may not have been possible without Section 311, are now available and the TRU Waste disposal mission is being accomplished as mandated by Congress in the LWA. Also, with the Section 311 modification, the Permittees commenced room-based VOC monitoring in the WIPP repository, which is also a positive impact of Section 311. Permit changes pursuant to Section 311 were a good beginning, but much more is need to encourage more efficient methodologies in Waste characterization activities for TRU mixed Waste destined for WIPP. Although the Permittees now have more flexibility in characterizing Waste for disposal at WIPP, the processes are still lengthy, cumbersome, and paper-intensive. As the generator sites continue to characterize Waste under Section 311, more data will likely be compiled and evaluated to assess the longer term cost and technical impacts of Section 311. Also, further refinements in TRU Waste characterization requirements through Permit modifications are likely in future years to eliminate, improve, and clarify remaining unnecessary and redundant Permit provisions. Continuous improvements to the TRU Waste characterization program are bound to occur, resulting in even greater efficiencies in the characterization and ultimate disposal of TRU Waste. (authors)« less
-
WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit 2008Update ― 8011
2008Co-Authors: Robert F. Kehrman, William A. MostAbstract:Important new changes to the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (HWFP) were implemented during 2007. The challenge was to implement these changes without impacting shipping schedules. Many of the changes required advanced preparation and coordination in order to transition to the new Waste analysis paradigm, both at the generator sites and at the WIPP without interrupting the flow of Waste to the disposal Facility. Not only did aspects of Waste characterization change, but also a new Permittees’ confirmation program was created. Implementing the latter change required that new equipment and facilities be obtained, personnel hired, trained and qualified, and operating procedures written and approved without interruption to the contact-handled (CH) transuranic (TRU) Waste shipping schedule. This was all accomplished successfully with no delayed or cancelled shipments. Looking forward to 2008 and beyond, proposed changes that will deal with Waste in the DOE TRU Waste complex is larger than the TRUPACT-IIs can handle. Size reduction of the Waste would lead to unnecessary exposure risk and ultimately create more Waste. The WIPP is working to have the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) certify the TRUPACT-III. The TRUPACT-III will be able to accommodate larger sized TRU mixed Waste. Along with this new NRC-certified shipping cask, a new disposal container, the Standard Large Box, must be proposed in a permit modification. Containers for disposal of TRU mixed Waste at the WIPP must meet the DOT 7A standards and be filtered. Additionally, as the TRUPACT-III/Standard Large Box loads and unloads from the end of the shipping cask, the proposed modification will add horizontal Waste handling techniques to WIPP’s vertical CH TRU Waste handling operations. Another major focus will be the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit reapplication. The WIPP received its HWFP in October of 1999 for a term of ten years. The regulations and the HWFP require that a new permit application be submitted 180-days before the expiration date of the HWFP. At that time, the WIPP will request only one significant change, the permitting of Panel 8 to receive TRU mixed Waste.
-
The WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Improvements--2007 Update
2007Co-Authors: Robert F. Kehrman, W. MostAbstract:The most significant changes to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to date were completed during the past year with the implementation of significant revisions to the Waste Analysis Plan and the authorization to dispose of remote-handled transuranic Waste. The modified Permit removes the requirement for reporting headspace gas sampling and analysis results for every container of transuranic mixed Waste and provides for the use of radiography and visual examination to confirm a statistically representative subpopulation of the Waste stream in each Waste shipment as well as other changes that streamline the analytical data management process. Implementation began on November 17, 2006. (authors)
Lianne Lefsrud - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Making or breaking Waste Facility siting successes with a siting framework
Environmental Management, 1996Co-Authors: Chris Zeiss, Lianne LefsrudAbstract:Waste Facility siting successes depend on many linked factors of Facility design and impacts, site characteristics, and community beliefs and values. A Facility siting framework is constructed to combine important elements and cause-effect linkages that affect the siting outcome. The framework consists of three main components: (1) core elements of Facility design, effects, and community beliefs, attitude and response; (2) contributing factors of site and community characteristics, community beliefs and values that affect the interpretation of the Facility and its effects; and (3) siting management interventions to manage the process and Facility impacts. The framework is applied in an unsuccessful and a successful siting case to determine the key elements that contribute to siting outcome: (1) thorough need justification for the Facility from the proponent’s and the community’s perspective; (2) careful Facility design and prediction of the impacts and to select impact management compensation measures; (3) screening and selection of communities where the beliefs and values are compatible with the type of Facility and its effects, (4) cooperatively selected impact reduction (i.e., prevention, control, and mitigation) measures followed by compensation and incentives; and (5) intensive process management to balance the community characteristics and values with the proponent’s efforts to plan, design, assess and manage impacts, and ultimately, gain approval of the Facility. The siting framework provides a comprehensive and robust structure of key factors that contribute to siting outcome and, therefore, provides the tool to identify, evaluate, and design siting interventions to enhance the chances of successful siting outcome.
-
Analytical Framework for Waste-Facility Siting
Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 1995Co-Authors: Chris Zeiss, Lianne LefsrudAbstract:Waste-Facility siting processes are complex because they involve four sets of causal elements and relationships: (1) Facility need, design, and operation cause Facility effects by interacting with site, environmental, and community characteristics; (2) Facility effects and stakeholders’ background beliefs and values determine stakeholders’ beliefs, attitudes, and actions; (3) proponents siting interventions can tangibly change the Facility effects and the siting process; and (4) stakeholders’ actions interact and result in an outcome. This study structures the main elements and connections into a framework to explain stakeholder attitudes and siting outcome. Propositions about the four sets of causal factors were developed to test the framework as a theoretical construct. The propositions are investigated by content analyses of siting documents, stakeholder interviews, and siting chronologies for a municipal landfill and a hazardous-Waste treatment Facility. The case-study analysis uses pattern matching, explanation building, and time-sequence analysis to test the framework. The framework contains over 85% of the pertinent elements and connections. The revised framework provides a tool to compare siting cases with a complete, consistent set of variables; screen facilities in prospective host communities; and design siting interventions to negotiate siting agreements.
Joann M. Thompson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Support for Waste Facility Siting: Differences between Community Leaders and Residents
Rural Sociology, 2010Co-Authors: Sherrill Spies, Steve H. Murdock, Steve White, Richard S. Krannich, J. D. Wulfhorst, Krissa Wrigley, F. Larry Leistritz, Randy Sell, Joann M. ThompsonAbstract:Decisions regarding hazardous Waste Facility siting are now open to extensive public debate. Efforts on the part of public officials and private companies to site Waste management facilities have been thwarted by public opposition. Using survey data from leaders and residents in communities which are hosting or siting facilities, this study examines their sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge, levels of trust, perceptions of risk, perceptions of economic impacts, perceptions of equity issues and the differential effects of these factors on acceptance of local Waste Facility siting. Leaders in these communities were more supportive of local Waste Facility siting than were other community residents. The major determinant of leaders' acceptance of Waste siting was their perceptions of the economic benefits of a Facility to the community. Although this was also important to residents, perceptions of health, safety, and environmental contamination risks had larger effects on their acceptance of such facilities.
-
Waste Facility experience and perceptions of Waste‐related health and safety risks
Society & Natural Resources, 1998Co-Authors: Sherrill Spies, Steve H. Murdock, Steve White, Richard S. Krannich, J. D. Wulfhorst, Krissa Wrigley, F. Larry Leistritz, Randy Sell, Joann M. ThompsonAbstract:Based on ecological theory, we hypothesize that positive experience with Waste Facility siting and storage will reduce the perceived health and safety risks associated with Waste sites. Evidence is presented from data collected in 15 communities in the states of Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Colorado. Seven of these communities are hosting or were potential sites for hazardous Waste facilities, four were the sites of other types of rural industrial developments and four were communities that had experienced only baseline socioeconomic activity. Surveys of residents in each of these communities on a variety of issues including concerns related to the health and safety of Waste storage are examined and compared. The results indicate that residents in communities with positive experience with Waste facilities perceive lower Waste‐related health and safety risks than residents in other types of communities when controls are included for other sociodemographic and perceptual factors.