Issues to consider when a neighborhood may be exposed to Hazardous Emissions - Case Study Example

"(Sacramento, California Board of Waste Management, 1982) This means that California must either find new land to bury garbage, or develop other means of disposal of waste that does not consume the state, land of the participant. Of paramount importance is the effect of such a facility will have on property values ??near the site. Business office space and residential land that are at least in vision, hearing, smell, or the distance of the project will likely face a decline in property values.

On the other hand, energy from waste facilities in themselves relatively offer few jobs. Theoretically, an installation of waste to energy has a differential impact on the economic community: residents living near the plant to incur decline in property values ??that outweigh the benefits, while the community on a whole can reap greater economic benefits and suffer little. Health Risks There will always be potential risks to health posed by waste facilities. The problem of leaching eaten leak persists.

Ash residue from waste to energy facilities may warrant concern. Waste to energy facilities are also a potential risk to health in terms of air pollution. Emissions from a plant can include varying amounts of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrocarbons and particulate matter and other substances for which standards of health have not yet been established. Aesthetic factors The aesthetic impact of such a facility is regularly greater concern for those living near the proposed site or real.

Aesthetic factors include installation, appearance of the participant, odor, litter, noise and congestion that accompanies the transport of waste. Although aesthetic factors are the most easily controllable problems faced by technical projects related to waste, they are also the problems that come first in mind, forming the public, AOS immediate impression of the facility. Social perceptions The feeling of being dumped on, seems to be the greatest source of opposition to the proposed conversion of waste into energy.

This feeling manifests itself in two separate complaints: the social stigma of living near a waste facility, and the resentment of the host community to serve as a dumping ground for garbage from other communities. Besides the embarrassment of what others will think, residents may detect a nearby site as a recognition of lower social status. Conclusions Although the waste to energy facilities have little in common with hazardous waste sites, the public often does not perceive it that way, as evident in the above literature.

Public opposition has become the biggest obstacle to the success of projects sitting Waste-to-Energy in California. Many reasons for this public concern is rooted in past experience with poorly managed waste facilities, landfills, particularly hazardous waste as people in the literature have been experiencing these issues from the past 20 years. Other complaints from the public are not so easily resolved. The most problematic of those complaints is oriented around the inconveniences and annoyances management facility provides homes nearby.

There are methods to reduce the costs imposed on local residences. Unloading 50 trucks a day adds a good amount of waste on the site. Most important, of course, is to select at least one site that offends