|Title||Environment and Sustainability Negotiation Role-Play: Jefferson Hazardous Waste Negotiation|
|Year of Publication||1987|
|Authors||Arroyo, V, Susskind, L|
|Keywords||ADR, agreement, agreements, bargaining, bargaining table, BATNA, Carson Extension, coalition, consensus, consensus building, dispute, environmental dispute resolution, integrative bargaining, interests, joint fact finding, mediating, negotiate, negotiating, negotiating power, negotiation, negotiator, PON, relationship, Siting an Asphalt Plant in the City of Madrona|
Eight-party, five-issue negotiation among community, environmental, business, and government interests over the formulation of a statewide hazardous waste siting policy
|Full Text|| |
In the state of Jefferson, an emergency situation has developed due to tremendous increases in the quantity of hazardous industrial waste produced each year. As of January 1 next year, the one in-state landfill must be closed. There are already signs that the water supplies in adjacent areas have been contaminated. The Commissioner of Environmental Quality has pressed the Governor to decide on a policy for hazardous waste disposal.
The Governor has appointed an eight-member “blue ribbon” committee to provide advice on the policy. In the Committee’s first meeting, factions polarized and no agreements were reached. The Committee has agreed to convene one more time in an attempt to reconcile its differences and to make a recommendation to the Governor. The five key issues under discussion are: the relative emphases on health/safety/environment v. economic development/financial interests; the administration of environmental standards; the acceptable levels of risk to human’s health and safety; the restrictions on waste production; and compensation to adversely affected neighborhoods and the right of citizen review. If the parties cannot agree, the Governor will draft guidelines, with no special “input” from the major parties involved in this controversy.