NOTE: This paper is not necessarily a "model" but it gives you an impression of the sort of effort that is expected. It dates from 1998.

Introduction

The policy process is often fuzzy and full of prejudice, personal perceptions, and bias. Environmental policy especially contains these qualities because human and environmental health are at stake and emotions often run high. In this paper, I will look at the policy process involved in locating a hazardous waste incinerator in a Mississippi County. In this case, the prejudices and personal perceptions were very evident. I will first give a brief descriptive background of the situation. Then I will take an analytical look at the way the process operated. I will present the issues and actors involved followed by the priorities that were identified and the instruments (laws and regulations) that governed this problem. Finally, I will conclude with some lessons and outcomes from this situation.

Background

In 1975, Martin and Opal Conrad of Camby, Indiana gave 6,000 acres of land in Noxubee County, Mississippi to the Indiana University Foundation (IUF). IUF was to lease the land until the Conrads died. Afterwards, IUF would become the owners. Mr. Conrad died in 1983.

In 1988, Opal Conrad agreed that the land could be sold by IUF before her death. One prospective buyer planned to build a hazardous waste facility and Mrs. Conrad agreed to this use of the property. Mrs. Conrad died in 1990.

While this was all happening the Mississippi legislature passed a law requiring the state to select a site for a hazardous waste disposal facility by 1992. The state needed to comply with federal regulations and needed an alternative site because industries could no longer afford out-of-state disposal sites. In October of 1990 Federated Technologies, Inc. (FTI) bought a one-year option on the 6,000 acres for $100,000. Hughes Environmental Systems (HES) became partners with FTI and together they planned to build a hazardous waste disposal and research facility.

In 1991, HES/FTI renewed the one-year option for $100,000 and named the facility the Center for Environmental Optimization. In 1992, Mississippi State University contracted with HES/FTI to supervise the research facility. Research would be done on ways to handle, minimize, and dispose of hazardous waste. Also in 1992, the option was renewed for six months for $50,000. At the same time, U.S. Pollution Control, Inc. (USPCI) chose a site for a similar purpose in southern Noxubee County. Both HES/FTI and USPCI began the testing and permitting process. Both knew that it was very unlikely that two permits would be granted within one county.

In 1992 IU student groups protested the land sale and voiced their concerns to IUF. The students believed the siting of the facility was environmental racism. Noxubee County had a population of about 12,600 and was about 70 percent black. The unemployment rate was about 14 percent, one of the highest in the state.

Issues

There are several issues brought up in this situation. They include social, environmental, political, and economic issues. One social issue is the accusation of racism, in particular environmental racism. Environmental racism is a form of discrimination in environmental policy making. Examples are found where a landfill, nuclear power plant, or other perceived or real, hazardous or dangerous facility is located in an area inhabited predominantly by minorities. The belief is that the minorities do not have the education, political influence, or resources to prevent the facility from being located in their neighborhoods, whereas white neighborhoods would. This is the belief held by the IU students in this case.

Another social issue involved here is public relations. Public relations play a very important role in the policy process. It is important to include the public in the policy process and to address their concerns and answer their questions. People will be more willing to accept change if they have been a part of the decision making process or if they feel as though they have been. HES/FTI did a very good job of this. They listened to concerns at public meetings and took a visible role in the community. They sponsored community picnics, distributed Halloween bags with job applications in them, offered money to community groups, donated computers to schools, and donated money for school trips. Their presence in the community was known and they communicated with the people. They strategically named the facility "Center for Environmental Optimization" because it elicits a feeling of doing good and providing benefits.

The IU students on the other hand did not succeed in the public relations "game." They substituted their own opinions and views for what the true public sentiment was. At public hearings in Noxubee County, the black members of the population stated that they were in favor of the facility and that it could not be environmental racism for that reason. The blacks wanted the jobs and other economic benefits the facility would bring. On the contrary, the IU students claimed, upon visiting the county, they interviewed 100 residents, all of whom were opposed to the project. In newspaper articles the students referred to black residents who favored the project as "puppet, buck-dancing, handkerchief-headed, backsliding, flapjack-flipping Negroes" who have "lost sight of the people." This was a poor strategy for the students to take. They are not helping the black community by insulting them and they are only alienating themselves. If the students wanted to oppose and eventually prevent the project they should have focused on the public health concerns and the environmental impacts. They should have given reasons why or how the incinerator is dangerous and what pollution it may emit. The students did not REALLY communicate with the public. They did not try to learn about the public's concerns but instead assumed the public shared their views of environmental racism.

This leads to the second issue, the environment. With the functioning of a hazardous waste disposal facility comes the possibility of air pollution, water pollution, toxic releases, and other forms of environmental damage. What needed to be addressed in this situation were the probabilities of these damages, the possible extent of damage, and the possible impacts on human health. These areas were not adequately addressed by, or communicated to, policy makers or the public. There just seemed to be a "gut feeling" by some that the facility would be safe and by others that is would be dangerous, but no one ever gave reasons for their positions. That is no way to make policy or to gain public trust and confidence.

A third issue was the political issue. The project had to be voted on by county supervisors and town aldermen. The IU Foundation stated that "the best place to determine the use of Mississippi lands was in the state of Mississippi." It would eventually be up to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality to approve or reject the facility in the permitting process. There should have been greater lobbying of the DEQ by all parties concerned. However, as a HES/FTI representative said, there was no inquiry into why they chose the particular site they did. The selected site has a protective layer of chalk beneath it. It also had a good highway and railroad system to minimize transportation requirements.

The final issue was economic. Of main concern to most supporters of the project was economic development in Noxubee County. These residents saw the project as a provider of more and better paying jobs and a way to get their children to return home to work after college. They also saw it as a way to attract other industries to do the same. Some believed that the "white-owned" businesses opposed the facility because they feared losing workers, workers that would be attracted to the higher pay. It was the belief of some that an organization called Protect the Environment of Noxubee was a group of white business owners who opposed the project in order to keep blacks socially and economically oppressed.

Actors

There are many actors involved in this situation and most of them are in favor of the facility. I will list the actors and the positions they held and then briefly discuss their reasons.

IU Foundation is in favor of the project. IUF wanted the $3.5 million they were offered for the land. This offer by HES/FTI was the largest offer IUF received. IUF also had the permission of Mrs. Conrad to sell the land and her approval to build a hazardous waste facility on it. IUF's position made the IU students very upset. Others also believed that an educational institution should not be a part of "the abuse of a community."

HES/FTI was obviously in favor of the project and for intuitive reasons. It was their project, their business, and their income at stake. They also stated that they wanted to improve the economic situation in Noxubee County.

IU students, specifically the Student Environmental Action Coalition and the Noxubee County Committee, were opposed to the project. They believed the location of the facility in a predominately black county was environmental racism. Also, the students felt that HES/FTI was using the fact that the black population had little political clout, was poor, was mostly illiterate, and had few forms of media available to them, to move a dangerous, unhealthy facility into their backyards.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was in favor of the project. It wanted the economic development that the facility would bring to the county and the progress it would provide for black people. It believed HES/FTI had taken the black residents' concerns into consideration and that they had done a good job of including the public in the policy process. The NAACP came out strongly against the IU students' actions. One hundred members signed a resolution denouncing the students' protests and stating that their actions were unwarranted and not in the interest of helping black people.

The group called Protect the Environment of Noxubee was opposed to the facility because of the environmental degradation it would bring. As already mentioned, some believed that the group, known as PEON, really opposed the facility because of the economic progress it would bring to blacks.

Noxubee County residents were in favor of the project for the same reasons as the NAACP. In addition, they were for it because it would allow their children to stay and work at home. Retired residents were not for it though. They did not want the health impacts and the environmental degradation that they believed would accompany the project. For them, the benefits of economic improvements were not as important.

Noxubee County officials were in favor of the project because of the economic development it would bring to the county. A major reason why they wanted it though was that the state law required that Mississippi have such a facility and if Noxubee County did not get it another county would.

Mississippi State University was in favor of the project as well because it would be in charge of the research center at the facility.

USPCI did not want the HES/FTI facility to be permitted because it was trying to get a permit for its own facility.

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality was a neutral party through the process. It was up to the DEQ to investigate the environmental "soundness" of the chosen site and of the facility itself. DEQ's job was to put the biases aside and base its decision on scientific evidence and an economic analysis. It must always keep in mind that the facility had to go somewhere.

Instruments

In addition to the actors and their opinions and perceptions, there were several legal instruments governing the policy process in this situation. First was the Mississippi State law requiring the siting of a hazardous waste disposal facility by 1992. The facility HAD to go somewhere. Second, there were the federal regulations for hazardous waste disposal facilities, which are the strictest in the world. Most people believed the facility would be safe because such strict standards would have to be met. Some other environmental statutes and regulations would be important too. Those that opposed the project should have investigated compliance with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act. Other instruments in effect here were property rights and the permitting process. The property rights were obtained by IUF from Mr. and Mrs. Conrad. IUF got permission to sell the property before it had sole ownership. As for the permitting process, the DEQ must follow the state regulations. There are requirements for public hearings all throughout the process. It was at these hearings where the views of the public were best taken into account. The hearings were another avenue for HES/FTI to meet with the people and gain their trust.

Priorities

I do not think that there was just one priority in this case. Each actor had its own priority. IU Foundation's priority was to sell the land and at the same time to convince the students that they thoroughly investigated their concerns. IUF agreed to review a 130-page document prepared by the Noxubee County Committee. In the end, IUF stood by the fact that the final decision would rest with DEQ.

HES/FTI's priority was to win over the public. Despite not showing up to a meeting at IU, they showed great interest in the public sentiment and attempted to gain the people's trust. They knew that their public relations would be the most important step to getting their facility.

The student groups' priority was to stop IUF from selling the property to HES/FTI. They believed that that was the route most accessible to them since they would not be present in Mississippi.

USPCI's priority was to complete its testing and permitting process before HES/FTI did.

The Noxubee County officials and residents' priority was to get the public opinions heard and their questions answered. Other than that there really did not seem to be a very deep interest. There were no deep environmental or safety concerns expressed.

Mississippi DEQ's priority was to conduct a thorough investigation of the environmental and health impacts, to develop permit requirements, and to NOT be swayed by the actors' biases and prejudices.

Lessons, Outcomes, and Alternatives

The main lesson everyone can learn from this case is that public relations is very important in the policy process. Organizations should work for the public and with the public. HES/FTI did a very good job with this. The students on the other hand did not. They tried to work "instead" of the public. I say "instead" because they were not against the public but definitely did not work with them. They used their opinions as those of the residents and made accusations that the residents did not agree with.

I spoke with Barbara Coffman of the IU Foundation to determine the outcome of this case. She told me that IUF sold the land in May of 1993 to Thomas Merrill, who bought it for grazing cattle. As far as they know, neither HES/FTI nor any other group has built a waste disposal facility in the area.

It appears that somewhere along the line sentiment changed. I tried to but did not get a hold of the Mississippi DEQ to find out if it rejected the permit for HES/FTI. By the analysis I have done, it would seem like the facility would have been built. The local population wanted it, local officials wanted it, and there was no strong local opposition. It seems very unlikely that the students of IU could have had that much of an impact on a state as far away from Indiana as Mississippi. On the other hand, perhaps the students did get to the IU Foundation. I have not seen any evidence of that though. It could be possible that IUF succumbed to the pressure of the people that may be donating such land in the future.

Finally, there are many alternative actions that could have taken place throughout this process. Throughout this paper I have discussed some things that the students in particular could have done differently, such as environmental analyses and better communication with the public of Noxubee County. I do believe that HES/FTI acted in the best way they could, but the outcome of this case shows that anything is possible. The final decision probably came down to DEQ, who hopefully conducted an adequate scientific inquiry and decided that the benefits did not outweigh the costs.

References

Brooks, R. October 12, 1992. Resolution of the Noxubee County Local Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Ewing, J.L. September 22, 1992. Journalist Scolds IU for Sale. Indiana Daily Student.

Ewing, J.L. 199_. IUF Met By Protest. Indiana Daily Student.

Huber, T. October 26, 1992. IUF Board Members to Stand by Land Sale. Indiana Daily Student.

Huber, T. November 11, 1992. FTI Begins 'Propaganda.' Indiana Daily Student.

Klassen, T. July 26, 1992. Many in Noxubee Support Land Sale. The Herald Times.

Klassen, T. October 22, 1992. Noxubee NAACP Rejects IU Group's Findings. The Herald Times.

Pletcher, P. August 3, 1993. Visit to Noxubee Reveals the Truth. Indiana Daily Student.

August 6, 1992. I.U. Student Group Says Racism Reason for Waste-Site Choice. South Bend Tribune.