References in periodicals archive ?
Compacts and states across the country may agree with Larson, but not a single facility has been developed since 1962, long before the passage of the LLRWPA. The majority of commercial waste is still being disposed of at two of the three facilities in operation 15 years ago: Richland, Wash., (which serves the Northwest and Rocky Mountain compacts), and Barnwell, S.C., (which was formerly serving the Southeast Compact, but has now opened to the rest of the country).
Thus, it is not surprising that implementation of LLRWPA has been inhibited by fervent NIMBY (not in my backyard) opposition.(44)
Although there is general agreement that compacts are most useful when applied in areas where there is no overwhelming national interest, policymakers seemed to ignore this guidance in the passage of LLRWPA. This is primarily a national and not a regional or state problem, and there is no prior history of predominant state involvement.
The compacts set up under LLRWPA do not show the regional interest that requires joint action and precludes joining alternative compacts, nor does LLRW have the nonconflictual and national appeal that characterizes other compacts.
powers.(50) Further, the LLRWPA allowed states to develop their own
incentive to meet the LLRWPA deadlines and search for new disposal
Court, New York argued that the three incentive provisions of the LLRWPA
Acronyms browser ?
Full browser ?