Post on 27-Mar-2018
transcript
--- 23 c3f /a/
WASTE MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS IN RURAL AREAS:
LIMITS TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN DECISIONMAKING
Presented by:
Janice Morrissey University of Tennessee Department of Sociology
Knoxville. Tennessee
First National Symposium on Rural Waste Management Issues
Sponsored by:
Tennessee Valley Authority Center for Rural Waste Management Studies and
National Recycling Coalition, Inc.
April 27-28, 1992
WASTE MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS IN RURAL, AREAS:
LIMITS TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN DECISIONMAKING
Introduction
Citizens are becoming increasingly active in protesting decisions about the
management and disposal of municipal solid waste in their communities. They often feel
they are shut out of critical decisions that affect their lives. A frequently heard criticism is
that solid waste regulatory agencies are not responsive to the needs and concerns of a broad
cross-section of people affected by decisions, but instead are preoccupied with what
administrators and technical experts consider important. There is increasing consensus that
government administrative policies and procedures stress technical solutions to social, value-
based problems (Lynn, 1986; Clarke, 1988; Brooks, 1984; Bradbury 1989; Freudenburg,
1988). Agency officials tend to take the position that decisions involving the effects of
technology are best left to experts, even though, according to some social scientists,
laypersons’ knowledge and experience can accommodate uncertainty, correct errors, and
identify the appropriate questions (Freudenburg, 1988; Brown, 1987; Holland, Bailey, and
Faupel, 1990; Fiorino, 1989).
I
- . -
Classical democratic theory holds that the basic aim of democracy is to ensure that
decisions are made by those affected by them (Pateman, 1970). While committed to the
participatory ideals of classical democracy, some political theorists have challenged its
pluralistic assumptions, arguing that citizens’ access to the process is not always open or
equal, nor are their grievances always acted upon (Lukes, 1974). In reality, access to the
process is subject to social, economic, and political influences. For example, rural
communities, particularly those of the Appalachian region, often have histories of long-
standing dependency on a single industry, which, in turn, exerts a high degree of control over
local economic and political concerns (Gaventa, 1980). Also, the need for immediate jobs
1
and economic benefits that may be promised by landfill developers may be just as important
an issue to many in a poor, rural area as the possibility of pollution over the long term.
Thus, the constraints to rural citizens' participation in decisions about solid waste may be
particularly pronounced.
Although the broad concept of public participation includes both opportunities and
abilities to participate, this paper examines the limitations to opportunities for participation
posed by the institutional and/or regulatory framework. In general, the body of empirical
research on public participation is pragmatically, rather than theoretically, oriented (Wengert,
1976). The definition of public participation depends upon the ideology, motivations, and
goals of the person or institution applying the concept (Peelle, 1991). Therefore, rather than
rely upon a set standard for determining what constitutes a barrier to public participation,
this paper adopts the broad view that the decisionmaking process must allow people who are
being asked to bear the consequences of a decision to contribute to the result. This view
follows Arnstein's assertion that public participation requires a redistribution of power to
give citizens "the real power needed to affect the outcome of the process" (Arnstein, 1969).
This paper reports the findings of a case study of a rural Appalachian community
involved in controversy over the siting and permitting of a solid waste landfill. The data,
which includes interviews with residents and a review of public documents, were collected
between October 1990 and February 1991. The following discussion describes the case,
analyzes the limitations to participation, and presents several suggestions for the role of the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Center for Rural Waste Management Studies in
addressing these limitations.
Description of the Case
The community of Shoat Lick Hollow in Anderson County, Tennessee, near the town
of Oliver Springs, is the proposed site for a 250-acre regional solid waste landfill being
developed by Remote Landfill Services, Inc. to accept 1000 tons of solid waste per day. The
2
site is a reclaimed strip-mine owned by Coal Creek Mining and Manufacturing Company, a
100-year old corporation that owns approximately one-third of the land in Anderson County.
Remote’s chief operating officer is also a Coal Creek official. Remote has contracted to sell
the site to Chambers Development Company, Inc., a major landfill developer headquartered
in Pittsburgh, once the permit is finalized. An overriding concern of residents is their belief
that Chambers Development intends to import garbage from other states. This concern is
heightened by information suggesting that Chambers has a checkered environmental
compliance record at other sites that it operates.
Approximately 50 residents have been actively involved in the organized opposition
against the landfill. A broader base of opposition in the county is indicated by repeated
unanimous votes of the County Commission, comprised of elected representatives from each
.district. After organizing in the spring of 1990, the residents obtained organizational .
assistance from Save Our Cumberland Mountains (SOCM), a 20-year-old citizens’ group with
approximately 1,500 members in primarily rural areas of upper east Tennessee.
The Tennessee Division of Solid Waste Management (DSWM) began conducting
geological investigations of the site in November, 1988. More than a year later, in February
1990, DSWM issued public notification of Remote’s permit application after granting
preliminary approval of the application, although some residents had heard informally of the
landfill plans in May 1989, when Remote presented its proposal to local officials. Remote
did not seek approval by the Anderson County Commission, the County’s governing body,
until after opposition had organized against the landfill proposal. The County Commission
supported the residents in their opposition and enacted a resolution opposing the site. The
steps taken by Remote to obtain required local approval became the focus of litigation
between the County and Remote over the next two years. In August 1990, DSWM granted
Remote a permit to construct and operate the landfill. However, legal actions have thus far
3
prevented Remote from commencing site development. Currently, Anderson County is
appealing to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Limitations to Public Participation
An analysis of data from the Shoat Lick Hollow case reveals at least six factors that
limit opportunities to public participation. These include: (1) fragmentation of authority, (2)
rigid conformity to procedure, (3) industry influence, (4) "decide-announce-defend mode of
decisionmaking, (5) burden of proof, and (6) access to information.
Fragmented Authority
The rigidity of the regulatory framework contributes to fragmentation of authority,
which tends to narrow the scope of issues that may enter into the decisionmaking process.
Jurisdictional authority and regulatory responsibilities for critical decisions are unclear. The
residents of Shoat Lick Hollow were frustrated by the fact that the Tennessee DSWM :
exercises virtually complete jurisdiction over solid waste permitting. Seeking resolution of
specific concerns, citizens approached numerous other State and Federal agencies
responsible for regulating, for example, State scenic trails, transportation, airport safety, and
air quality. They found in each case that these agencies had no legal jurisdiction in the
matter of landfill permits. Yet, because these issues are not addressed in the existing solid
waste regulations, DSWM considered them outside the scope of the permitting process. For
example, an early concern of residents was the potential for bird strikes by airplanes
departing and approaching an airport located approximately 5,000 feet from the landfill site.
An official of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) District Office in Memphis wrote
in a letter to the Administrator of the Tennessee Office of Aeronautics: "We strongly
oppose the Shoat Lick Hollow Landfill site and request that no permit be issued for its
development." Because neither the FAA nor the Office of Aeronautics has no jurisdiction
over solid waste matters, however, the recommendation had no influence on the permitting
decision.
4
Several additional comments documented in the State's Response to Comments
dismissed citizens' concerns as exceeding the scope of the permitting process. Some of these
also appeared to devalue citizens' input, such as the following response to citizens' concerns
about negative economic impacts on the local area: 'These comments have all been made
by citizens and not by the City of Oliver Springs which would be expected to be in a better
position to evaluate the general economic impact and potential impact on the tourist
indust ry.... In any case all of these issues are beyond the scope of the authority of the
Division of Solid Waste Management and cannot be considered in the registration process."
Rigid Conformity to Procedure
An important limitation to public participation is that officials rigidly interpret the
applicable laws and regulations, adhering strictly to the "letter" rather than the "spirit" of the
law. It is clear that if there is no provision in the regulations and policy procedures for a -
particular action, then no allowances will be made. For example, requirements for public-
notification, public comments, and State response to public comments are specified in
regulations and are rigidly interpreted and applied. State Solid Waste regulations require
public notification within 30 days after a permit application is complete. However, as
illustrated in the Shoat Lick Hollow case, the process of completing an application may take
as long as a year or more. A public hearing is required within 45 days of the public notice
only if the Commissioner deems public concern as "significant." Therefore, if minimum
requirements are followed, the permitting process may be underway for well over a year
before the public is given an opportunity to comment. At that point, both the applicant and
the agency are likely to have a considerable investment in the permitting process, making it
difficult to reverse.
DSWM officials also made no allowance in the regulations for addressing citizens'
comments. Citizens judged the State's Response to Comments as generally unacceptable,
whereupon they submitted their own written response to the State's Response to Comments. I i
5
However, DSWMs director pointed out, as reported in local newspapers of June 9, 1990,
that State regulations and policy "do not provide for public response to the State's response
summary."
Decide-Announce-Defend Mode of Decisionmaking
Because DSWM had already granted preliminary approval of Remote's permit at the
time of public notification, residents of Shoat Lick Hollow learned that participation in a
public hearing is frequently a reaction to, rather than participation in, a decision. Citizens
were not allowed a role in defining the need for a solid waste facility and selecting
alternatives for addressing such need but, instead, were forced into a mode of reacting to
positions already formed. Such a process, common in waste management decisionmaking,
has been referred to as the "decide-announce-defend approach (Environmental Protection
Agency, 1990). Because they believed the decision had been made, citizens viewed the -
participation opportunities and officials' responses as token gestures.
Industry Influence
The case highlights the imbalance between industry and citizens in their abilities to
influence the decisionmaking process. Given government's dual role of promoting economic
growth and protecting social welfare, higher priority may be afforded the goal of economic
growth over social welfare because of industry's greater financial and political resources
(Schnaiberg, 1981). The imbalance of power is compounded in rural communities, which
have particularly acute needs to recruit and retain industries, even those that pollute. Shoat
Lick Hollow residents believed the decisionmaking process was weighted toward the industry.
For example, following a meeting of residents and State officials in Nashville, DSWM agreed
to conduct tests to analyze the acid-forming potential of mine spoils at the proposed site.
The test results were documented in internal DSWM correspondence of August 9, 1990, in
which an expert in the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) confirmed that "[tlhere is a potential
for use or disturbance of the spoil material to contribute to more acidic than normal
6
..
conditions in the leachate" and recommended that DSWM conduct new tests using OSM-
recommended procedures. DSWM's response to the recommendation, as documented in the
memorandum, was, "We may not think it is reasonable, however, to ask [Remote] to spend
any more money in testing." One resident responded in a letter to the Commissioner,
"DSWM appears to be in the business of permitting landfills, regardless of the
preponderance of negative evidence ...." Residents became convinced that Remote's own data
were given preference over other data that should have influenced the permitting decision.
They pointed out that DSWMs Response to Comments omitted references to relevant
studies and repeatedly deferred to Remote Landfill Services' knowledge about the project
and its impacts.
Burden of Proof
The formalized mechanisms for involvement, combined with rigid conformity to -
procedures and regulations, perpetuate a system in which the burden of proof is placed on
citizens-that is, the industry or the technology should be considered innocent until proved
guilty. Several of DSWMs responses to citizens' concerns &out the site's suitability
indicated that none of the data citizens brought forth would be considered as a potential
basis to deny the permit. In spite of extensive technical research conducted by the citizens,
the director of DSWMs regional field office in Knoxville noted, as reported in area
newspapers, that "citizens' comments will not weigh heavily in the commissioner's decision,
however, if they do not raise serious questions about potential health risks or other
detriments." Residents believed that their own data did suggest such potential, but that their
findings were discounted on the basis of "state of the art" engineering technology planned for
the Remote landfill development.
Access to Information and Expertise
Citizens of Shoat Lick Hollow experienced considerable difficulty obtaining the
information they needed to understand and respond to the permit application. This problem I
7
included accessing available documentation, receiving notification of actions, and acquiring
necessary technical knowledge about the problem. Citizens expressed frustration with what
they believed was insufficient public notification of upcoming events. For example, they
believed they were not properly notified of the February 26, 1990 public hearing and did not
have time to become sufficiently knowledgeable about the proposal to prepare their
statements. One resident stated, "The notice was an official notice, which means that it was
posted at the courthouse and it's in the back page of the paper." Another noted, "Most
people don't even read the legal section anyway." Following the hearing, citizens had only 11
days left to submit written comments. Although the comment period was extended twice,
citizens believed this allowed inadequate time to conduct the necessary research to prepare
their case.
The residents experienced considerable difficulty accessing documentation about the
proposal. Two locations for viewing data were designated by DSWM. While these locations
were readily accessible, citizens reported that the files were not complete or up-to-date at
either location. Obtaining copies of needed files also was difficult, because the State levies a
copying fee of 50 cents per page (after the first ten pages), a cost that is prohibitive for many
rural residents. The hours of availability at the two locations posed another problem; the
facilities closed by 5:OO pm., a problem for many working citizens.
Because agency responses rely upon a narrow interpretation of regulations and
scientific data, citizens' need for technical information and data verification becomes
critically important. At Shoat Lick Hollow, some residents had strong technical backgrounds
and were particularly resourceful in dealing with the scientific and regulatory complexities.
Nevertheless, the residents expressed a need for an objective, balanced source of data that
would have credibility in the decisionmaking process.
8
Conclusions and Recommendations
The preceding analysis of the Shoat Lick Hollow case has identified institutional
factors that place limitations on rural citizens’ ability to influence the outcome of solid waste
decisions. As environmental laws governing waste disposal become increasingly routinized
and formalized, they tend to make entry into the process more formidable and restrictive for
the average citizen, while increasing the advantages of industry.
In order to achieve balance and objectivity in the decisionmaking process concerning
waste management in rural areas, policy-making institutions must discard conventional
assumptions and methods and devise new approaches to problem-solving. A restructuring of
the process has the potential to increase legitimacy in the formulation of waste management
policy. This section presents recommendations for an approach aimed at achieving these
,goals that may be adopted by the TVA Center for Rural Waste Management Studies. -
There exists a unique opportunity for the Center to promote a fundamental change in
the traditional approach to solid waste management decisions that could help to establish
legitimacy in the process over the long term. An external support role provided by TVA can
help to achieve balance and objectivity in the decisionmaking process. The TVA Center can
set a new standard for regulatory institutions by discarding conventional assumptions and
methods and devising new approaches to problem-solving. Rather than fragmenting the
definition of the problem in terms of regulatory provisions and jurisdictions, the Center can
provide a broader, more holistic definition of the problem that incorporates the larger
context of rural people’s concerns.
There is increasing evidence of grassroots efforts to participate in decisionmaking, and
these efforts are making in-roads in establishing representation in government institutions.
Yet, examples of effective citizen representation are still rather isolated, and there is no
solid, long-term backing for these efforts. The TVA Center can provide such support
through an external, independent role. Because the TVA has sufficient institutional I
9
recognition and stature to establish credibility in such a role, it could afford to take the risk
of setting precedents that regulatory agencies may be reluctant to take. Thus, the TVA
Center is in a position to promote a new system of decisionmaking which focuses on the
spirit of the law and ensures broad representation of citizens’ interests in decisionmaking.
One example of such a role is to provide assistance to citizens in their efforts to influence
long-term solid waste plans in their local areas. Several States have recently enacted solid
waste legislation that requires counties, or groups of counties (e.g. regions), to plan for
management and disposal of their solid wastes for a ten-year period. For example,
Tennessee’s Solid Waste Management Act of 1991 contains provisions that allow counties to
regulate the flow of waste from outside the region in order to effectuate their 10-year plans,
subject to certain conditions and State approval. Because a primary concern of citizens is to
acquire local authority to control the importation of wastes from other states, grassroots -
efforts are underway to influence the regional planning process. In 1994, the regional plans
will replace the State’s existing siting and permitting process, similar to the one described in
the foregoing case study. Therefore, the plans have the potential to overcome the current
“decide-announce-defend mode of decisionmaking by allowing citizens an early role in
defining the problem, assessing needs, and identifying alternatives. However, to ensure
effectiveness, citizens’ efforts need a broader base of technical support, as well as more
credibility among local and State government institutions. By providing technical expertise
and resources, the TVA Center can establish a credible source of technical expertise to
address waste management problems from a broad perspective, being sensitive to rural
communities’ long-term goals for economic and community development.
In addition to promoting a new concept of waste management problems in rural areas,
the TVA Center can help to facilitate and supplement existing participation opportunities.
In Tennessee, this may be particularly important during the interim period prior to
implementation of the regional solid waste plans. Playing a facilitative, third-party role in
10
meetings, hearings, and workshops has the potential to promote dialogue between citizens
and officials. If and when citizens desire to initiate more formal negotiation with other
parties, the Center could supply trained mediators for this process. Such a role can reduce
constraints against rural citizens’ access to decisionmaking and possibly help to break down
barriers which add to the cycle of citizen distrust and agency defensiveness in waste
management decisions.
The TVA Center can supplement the formal participation mechanisms required by
regulations. Because agencies tend to confine mechanisms to minimum requirements,
earlier, more frequent, and less formal opportunities should be provided. TVA personnel
and citizens could jointly decide on the agenda, format, and participants of the meetings, and
the Center could secure the facilities and equipment needed for the meetings. The Center
also could ensure that meetings are recorded for future reference, by supplying, for example,,
court reporters or electronic recording equipment. This also might be useful in informal -
meetings between citizens and officials to ensure appropriate follow-through on commitments
and questions.
By monitoring the applications for new disposal sites, the Center could ensure early
notification of nearby residents, and provide timely research on regulatory and technical
issues to allow citizens as much time as possible to educate themselves and prepare questions
and comments. To the extent that information is needed to assess the compliance
background of particular industries or operations, Center staff could assist in gathering these
data. Citizens should have easy access to information, free of charge, and as quickly as
possible. Center staff may establish early opportunities, as needed, for citizens to meet
informally with either regulators or the applicant in a neutral setting. At later stages in the
process, the Center can serve an important function by supplying needed answers to citizens’
technical questions, including laboratory analyses where disputes concerning technical data
I
11
exist. This service could provide an objective, credible source of information to verify
findings and clarify technical uncertainties.
Because regulations currently are the very foundation of current decisionmaking
approaches, the TVA Center could serve a critical function by helping citizens to access and
interpret applicable regulations and understand their practical implications. The Center
could facilitate citizen’s participation by analyzing specific provisions, identifying the roles
and responsibilities of various government agencies, and apprising citizens of other applicable
Federal, State, or local laws.
In addition to technical and regulatory assistance, the Center might consider
supplementing citizens’ resources by helping to offset certain expenses. For example, a
participant funding program could be established to help citizens with travel expenses,
document retrieval costs, copies, faxes, long-distance phone charges, computer services, office
space, equipment rental, media costs, and so forth. Although these are typically modest
expenditures, they can pose considerable barriers to rural citizens’ ability to participate.
In sum, the TVA Center’s most useful function may be to provide an alternative to
the narrow policy approaches of existing institutions established to address waste
management problems. A government-affiliated institute which recognizes the validity of
grassroots participation and takes citizens’ concerns seriously can bring legitimacy to efforts
to resolve policy problems and set a standard for more constructive approaches to policy in
waste management.
12
REFERENCES
Amstein, Sherry 1969 “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the American Institute of
Planners 35:21-24.
Bradbury, Judith 1989 The Use of Social Science Knowledge in Implementing the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act, Ph.D. Dissertation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public and International Affairs.
Brooks, Harvey 1984 The Resolution of Technically Intensive Public Policy Disputes,” Science,
Technology and Human Values 9:39-50.
Brown, Phil 1987 ”Popular Epidemiology: Community Response to Toxic Waste-Induced Disease
in Woburn, Massachusetts,” Science, Technology & Human Values 15226-243, .
Clarke, Lee 1988 Explaining Choices Among Technological Risks, Social Problems, 35:22-35. -
Environmental Protection Agency 1990 Sites for Our Solid Waste: A Guidebook for Effective Public Involvement.
EPA/S30-SW-90-019. Office of Solid Waste, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, DC.
Fiorino, Daniel J. 1989 Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk A Survey of Institutional
Mechanisms,” Science, Technology & Human Values, 15226-243.
Freudenburg, William R. 1988 ”Perceived Risk, Real Risk: Social Science and the Art of Probabilistic Risk
Assessment,” Science 24244-49.
Gaventa, John 1982 Power and Powerlessness, Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Holland, Susan F., Conner Bailey, and Charles E. Faupel 1990 Hazardous Wastes and the Legitimacy Crisis of Advanced Capitalism. Paper
presented at the 1990 meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, Norfolk, Virginia, 8-11 August.
I
13
Lukes, Steven 1974 Power: A Radical View. London: MacMillan Education Ltd.
Lynn, Frances M. 1986 'The Interplay of Science and Values in Assessing and Regulating
Environmental Risks," Science, Technology & Human Values 11:40-SO.
Pateman, Carole 1970 Participation and Democratic Theory. London/New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Peelle, Elizabeth 1991 Some Notes on Participation. Presentation to Department of Energy
Conference "Fulfilling the Commitment: Implementing the Letter and Spirit of NEPA," McLean, Virginia, November 20, 21, 1991. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Wengert, Norman 1976 "Citizen Participation: Practice in Search of a Theory," Natural Resources
Journal 1623-40. .
14