Michael R. Greenberg - Hazardous Waste Sites: The Credibility Gap

Originally published in 1984 by Rutgers

Published 2012 by Transaction Publishers

Published 2017 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Copyright 2012 by Taylor & Francis.

Notice:

Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2012018554

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Greenberg, Michael R.

Hazardous waste sites : the credibility gap / Michael R. Greenberg and

Richard F. Anderson.

p. cm.

Originally published: 1984.

Includes index.

ISBN 978-0-88285-102-0

1. Hazardous waste sites--United States. 2. Hazardous waste management

industry-Government policy--United States. 3. Hazardous wastes--Government

policy--United States. I. Anderson, Richard F. II. Title.

TD811.5.G74 2012

363.72'8--dc23

2012018554

ISBN 13: 978-0-88285-102-0 (pbk)

Mutual distrust is probably a charitable way of characterizing the relationship between those who are the sources of hazardous wastes and those who oversee their activities. Furthermore, it appears that a large segment of the public trusts neither party to protect them. A lack of credibility is a formidable, if not the biggest, obstacle to properly managing hazardous waste in the United States. Nowhere is the credibility gap wider than where there are hazardous waste management facilities or where sites have been proposed.

Exaggeration is one cause of the credibility gap. Some abandoned sites are revolting; they severely impact their neighborhoods. Others are less troublesome than a variety of existing environmental hazards found in many neighborhoods. Every time a reporter, writer, or commentator over-zealously portrays a newly discovered abandoned waste lagoon as the worst since the one which bred the creature from the black lagoon, we should collectively wince. While the threats from abandoned waste sites are sometimes substantial, they are, almost as a rule, exaggerated well out of proportion. These exaggerations have bred some creatures of their own most notably frightened and very angry people who systematically brand public and private employees as incompetent and uncaring at best, or insidious and untrustworthy at worst. The psychology of fear is further fueled by a deep-seated American phobia that the unsightly appearance of the worst sites is directly related to cancer, birth defects, miscarriages, and a host of other illnesses. Such relationships may exist at certain abandonded waste sites. But they may not apply to the vast majority of abandoned waste sites. What has become obvious is that the indiscriminate public objections to existing and new hazardous waste sites and to the development and testing of new technologies at these sites have acted to retard the implementation of some of the most promising mitigative measures. The psychology of fear and confusion has been crystallized into a single-minded public response: people do not want hazardous waste sites near them.

Some of the credibility gap is due to ignorance. We are all victims of the great complexity of the hazardous waste issue. We really do not know the public health or ecological effects of existing and proposed sites. We are uncertain about who should be responsible and how many resources should be allocated to dealing with hazardous waste problems and planning solutions. In fact, we do not even have a consensual definition of hazardous waste. The public need not have advanced degrees in engineering and environmental science to recognize a high level of uncertainty. More than any other public health and environmental problem to date, the management of hazardous waste sites is research dependent.

Much of the credibility gap has roots in the way American business, the government, and the American people ignored the consequences of generating and disposing of hazardous substances. Industry opted for the cheapest, short-run solutions. Government opted to ignore the problem and because of strong air and water protection laws exacerbated the solid waste problem. The public followed the out-of-sight, out-of-mind principle. In light of media hype, the lack of information, and the past record of hazardous waste management, it is not hypocritical for people to support new initiatives in hazardous waste management at new sites while at the same time to fight to keep the new initiatives from being implemented in their neighborhoods.

Given the plethora of questions and dearth of answers about hazardous waste management in the United States, it is difficult to deal with all types of hazardous waste sites in one book. However, it is unrealistic to view new management initiatives, technologies, and the search for sites as untouched by the stigma of their primitive ancestors. The public lumps existing and proposed management methods into the same, if you will, garbage heap. The purpose of this book is to try to trace the origin of the credibility gap in hazardous waste management in the United States objectively and to suggest ways of closing the gap. Six questions provide the framework for the book: