Hazardous wastes and differing perceptions of risk in Sumter county, Alabama

Public perceptions of a radioactively contaminated site: concerns, remediation preferences, and desired involvement.

“…This is consistent with other studies that have examined public concerns surrounding the remediation of contaminated sites (3,14,21). The high rating given to public involvement, moreover, appears consistent with the findings of recent studies that contend that the public perceives many of the gravest threats to health and environmental well-being as attributable to a lack of political accountability, a need for direct citizen activism, and a high degree of distrust toward authorities perceived to be responsible for environmental hazards (14,22 bViewed as minimal concern as determined by percentage of respondents choosing 1 or 2 on a 1-5 rating scale.…”

“…As shown in Table 3, we also provided them with the DOE estimate of each remediation strategy's cost. These estimates were provided to gauge if cost of remediation would be a factor in public preference (2,3). Information on potential dose reduction was not provided simply because, under CERCLA, any remedy considered for potential use in cleaning up a FUSRAP site must meet the current radiation standards noted earlier.…”

“…Considerable research has been done on public perceptions of the risks associated with hazardous and radionuclide-contaminated sites (1)(2)(3). However, few studies have related these risk perceptions to public views toward remediation strategies.…”

Courting LULUs: Characteristics of Suitor and Objector Communities*

“…residents (Bailey and Faupel 1993) . The waste treatment and storage facility designated by the Environmental Protection Agency for Sumter, Alabama brought $20 million in users' fees over 12 years of operation (Bailey, Faupel, and Holland 1992).…”

Public Perceptions of a Radioactively Contaminated Site: Concerns, Remediation Preferences, and Desired Involvement

“…Significant correlations among respondent site concerns, remediation strategy preferences, participation in site-related activities, and demographic characteristics Confiden levela Significant correlations Those with less formal education tended to favor consolidation and capping as a remediation strategy 99.9% Those who were less familiar with the FUSRAP site tended to be more concerned with public involvement 99.9% Those who were more concerned with image of the local community tended to favor treatment as a remediation strategy 99.8% Those who had participated in FUSRAP-related activities were more familiar with the St. Louis site prior to the survey 99.8% Female respondents tended to be more concerned with surface water and groundwater contamination than were male respondents 99.4% Those who had participated in FUSRAP-related activities tended to favor treatment as a remediation strategy 98.9% Those who reside closer to the airport properties (1-2 miles) tended to favor treatment as a remediation strategy more than those who lived farther from the airport properties (2-6 miles and >6 miles) 98.7% Female respondents tended to be more concerned with health risks than were male respondents 98.5% Those who were more concerned with future restrictions on land use tended to favor excavation and off-site disposal as a remediation strategy 98.4% Those who had participated in FUSRAP-related activities were less concerned with remediation costs 98.0% Those who were more concerned with community image tended to favor excavation and off-site disposal as a remediation stragegy 97.5% Those who were more concerned with remediation costs tended to favor institutional controls as a remediation strategy 97.1% Those who were more concerned about future restrictions on land use tended to oppose institutional controls as a remediation strategy 96.9% Those who were more concerned about future restrictions on land use tended to oppose consolidation and capping as a remediation strategy 96.4% Those who were more concerned with remediation costs tended to oppose treatment as a remediation strategy 96.3% Those who were more concerned about the transport of contaminated soils from the site tended to favor institutional controls as 96.0% a remediation strategy Those who were more concerned with the site's health risk to community members tended to favor excavation and off-site disposal 95.9% as a remediation strategy Those who were more concerned with remediation costs tended to disfavor excavation and off-site disposal as a remediation strategy 95.7% Those who reside closer to the airport properties (1-2 miles) tended to be more concerned with local property values than those 94.4% who lived farther from the properties (2-6 miles and >6 miles) Those who were more concerned with surface water and groundwater contamination tended to favor excavation and off-site disposal 94.2% as a remediation strategy Health risks and risks to the environment. Health risks appear to hold a primacy among the public and constitute a special test of fairness to many community stakeholders (3,25). For many who live near the FUSRAP site, radioactive contamination is perceived as posing a direct threat to their own and their childrens' well-being (26,27).…”