N&O Index Card Listings

Displaying 11-14 of 14 results.
Hazardous Substances - Disposal
  • Tar Heel editors speak: Barnwell's perspective on waste site - Jn 5 88 7D
  • Edgecombe waste site decision may set precedent, legislator says - Jn 6 88 6D
  • Editorial: Waste site miseries mount - Jn 9 88 18A
  • Legislators consider waste-site incentives - Jn 9 88 9A
  • Bill would protect communities from unwanted waste facilities - Jn 10 88 14A
  • Lee County wants no part of waste plant - Jn 13 88 1
  • Company (Golden Poultry) will cancel plant, seek damages if waste facility built - Jn 15 88 11A
  • House tentatively OKs moratorium on waste-site hunt - Jn 17 88 4C
  • Hundreds in Sanford rally against waste site - Jn 17 88 4C
  • Editorial: Wise retreat on wastes - Jn 18 88 12A
  • House votes to stall search for waste site - Jn 18 88 11A
  • Toxic-cleanup money to go to Randolph site - Jn 21 88 2C
  • Authority picks consulting firms to help locate suitable waste site - Jn 22 88 18C
  • Panel backs halting site search; waste bill heads for Senate floor - Jn 23 88 22A
  • Senate backs delay of search for waste site - Jn 24 88 1C
  • Panel halts consideration of Lee for waste treatment facility - Jn 25 88 1C
  • Tar Heel Editors Speak: State has no good alternative to radioactive waste compact - Jy 3 88 7D
  • N.C. is running out of places to put its trash - Jy 14 88 15A
  • Tar Heel editors speak: Speed up study of toxic waste sites - Jy 17 88 7D
  • Jones County meets privately on waste plant - Au 18 88 3C
  • Increase in toxic waste spurs plea for funds - Au 25 88 16C
  • Waste site search said to be flawed - Au 30 88 18C
  • Jones meeting planned on hazardous waste site - Au 31 88 4C
  • Jones County not ready to reject hazardous waste treatment plant - Se 1 88 22A
  • Caldwell County suit against state alleges incinerator hurt vegetation - Se 2 88 22C
  • Two companies submit waste facility proposals - Se 2 88 6B
  • Firms submit plans for building facility for low-level waste - Se 7 88 16C
  • Tar Heel editors speak: Politics over science in waste-site choice - Se 11 88 7D
  • Hazardous waste up 38% in '87; No Triangle counties among top-10 producers - Se 17 88 8D
  • Waste wrangle resurfaces; GOP house candidates focus on 'effectiveness' - Se 22 88 1T
  • Environmentalists say state exaggerated need for waste plant - Se 23 88 4C
  • Jones County drops waste-facility bid - Oc 4 88 3C
  • Companies present plans for waste disposal site - Oc 7 88 WA-1
  • S.C. restricts waste; N.C. may need plant - Oc 14 88 15A
  • N.C. low-level nuclear dump on schedule - Oc 26 88 6D
  • N.C. waste site cleanup could cost millions - Oc 28 88 1
  • Rutherford considering hosting waste plant - Oc 28 88 5D
  • Counties producing most waste reluctant to host treatment plant - No 14 88 2C
  • Panel finds 38% of state fit for low-level waste site (Map) - De 1 88 1C
Hazardous Substances - Disposal
  • Legislature to consider hazardous-waste agreement - De 5 89 3B
  • Plan for hazardous-waste complex faces many hurdles - De 5 89 1
  • Waste firms don't show spotless records - De 5 89 12A
  • Panel warns that if N.C. goes solo, bigger hazardous waste site needed - De 6 89 3B
  • Potential waste site (Wake-Chatham counties) focus of dispute - De 6 89 2B
  • Editorial: High-tech cleanup time - De 7 89 24A
  • Environmentalists stage rally to protest state's waste plans - De 7 89 3B
  • Judge allows EPA look at N.C. waste program - De 7 89 4B
  • Regional waste bid advances; Panel's vote preclude to legislative session - De 7 89 1B
  • Hazardous-waste plan approved; Legislature ratifies regional pact negotiated by governor,
  • adjourns - De 8 89 1
  • Martin trades shots with two legislators on hazardous wastes - De 8 89 3B
  • Roll call on hazardous-waste bill - De 8 89 8A
  • Alabama landfill ready to take N.C. hazardous waste again - De 9 89 3B
  • EPA wants risk assessed at waste site - De 9 89 7B
  • Editorial: Eagle eyes on waste - De 11 89 14A
  • EPA casts doubt on argument for state hazardous waste plan - De 11 89 1B
  • Union gives panel the poop on waste - De 14 89 4B
  • Work at Richmond waste site set to begin - De 16 89 5B
  • Birds may influence waste site selection - De 22 89 4B
  • Contractors told of requirements; Waste commission calls for disclosure of previous
  • environmental violations - De 22 89 5B
  • Under the Dome: Waste pact dissent fuels heated talks - De 24 89 1C
  • EPA delays cleanup of toxic pesticide waste - De 28 89 4B
Hazardous Substances - Disposal
  • Martin plans special session on waste issue - Se 6 89 1C
  • Editorial: Playing ball with poisons - Se 7 89 12A
  • NRC officials investigate spill at Duke Power plant - Se 9 89 3C
  • Caldwell board to try to close waste plant - Se 19 89 3C
  • Hazardous-waste plan endorsed; Southern governors discuss push in face of cutoff of federal
  • funds - Se 19 89 3C
  • Martin may cut trip short; Regional waste pact could interrupt plans - Se 22 89 3C
  • Hazardous waste pact jeopardized by Alabama move - Se 30 89 3C
  • Martin fails to sway Ala. governor on waste - Oc 1 89 25A
  • Hazardous-waste talks back 'on track'; Governor to depart on Asian trade trip - Oc 4 89 4C
  • State hears clock ticking on hazardous waste - Oc 6 89 3C
  • Bill could halt EPA's effort against state - Oc 7 89 13A
  • State works to stop probe into handling of hazardous waste - Oc 11 89 7C
  • EPA will get partial plan on N.C. waste - Oc 12 89 17A
  • State faces hazardous-waste deadline - Oc 17 89 1
  • N.C. advances plans to build waste facility - Oc 18 89 1C
  • EPA continues study of N.C. waste policy - Oc 19 89 3C
  • Local politics, Alabama election leave N.C. in limbo on wastes - Oc 19 89 1
  • State's search for waste treatment (Chronology) - Oc 19 89 6A
  • Martin to keep pushing state's waste-pact bid - Oc 20 89 1C
  • Editorial: Toxic waste bluff called - Oc 22 89 6D
  • State rebuts claims on toxic discharges - Oc 25 89 18C
  • Panel again delays naming possible low-level waste sites - Oc 26 89 19A
  • Martin seeks state landfill for toxic waste - Oc 27 89 1C
  • Waste site contenders' reactions mixed (Randolph, Chatham, Moore counties) - No 7 89 16C
  • 4 possible waste sites selected; Tract near Harris plant is on the list (Map) No 9 89 1
  • Counties' opposition to waste site varies No 9 89 14A
  • Radioactive wastes will leave traces long after plant closes No 9 89 14A
  • Martin still seeking regional waste pact No 10 89 7B
  • Pittsboro absorbs waste news No 10 89 1C
  • Under the Dome: Waste site search turns to ad effort No 10 89 1
  • N.C. radioactive-waste sites draw ire of S.C. lawmaker No 11 89 10B
  • Editorial: It has to go somewhere No 12 89 6D
  • Leaks found at Duke Forest waste site No 15 89 1C
  • Legal snag delays cleanup of NCSU nuclear dump site No 17 89 20C
  • Legislators protest areas for waste sites (Wake; Chatham, Rowan, Richmond, Union counties) - No 17 89 4C
  • Glaxo plans incinerator for complex No 18 89 2C
  • Battle looms over waste site; Four areas turn up noses at idea of low-level, radioactive dump - No 19 89 1
  • Design for N.C. low-level radioactive-waste facility (Plans) No 19 89 1
  • Tar Heel editors speak: Waste sites: what a coincidence No 19 89 7D
  • Drilling quietly begins at proposed waste site No 23 89 3C
  • N.C. added to regional waste pact No 23 89 1
  • Dumping fears plague radioactive-waste effort No 24 89 3C
  • Legislators seem warm to waste pact No 24 89 1C
  • Jordan Lake water fight called unlikely this year No 25 89 1C
  • Tar Heel editors speak: Nuclear waste site no disaster No 26 89 7D
  • Wake gets expert (Stam) to review waste site selection No 26 89 37A
  • Editorial: Growing up about waste No 27 89 8A
  • Stam denies representing counties in waste dispute No 27 89 2C
  • Martin begins pressing case for waste pact No 28 89 1C
  • Soil tests begin at proposed waste site (Union County) No 29 89 2C
  • Consequences of waste-pact rejection outlined No 30 89 5C
  • Hazardous-waste pact faces light opposition so far - De 1 89 3B
Hazardous Substances - Disposal
  • Martin awaits word on bid for reprieve from S.C. waste ban - Mr 22 89 16C
  • Most utility land likely out for dump - Mr 22 89 2C
  • S.C. grants 10-day break on N.C. waste - Mr 23 89 1C
  • Host county not liable for injuries, damages at hazardous waste site - Mr 25 89 3C
  • Legislative roundup: Hazardous waste - Mr 26 89 22A
  • Household hazardous waste to be taken Saturday - Mr 31 89 1C
  • Residents turn out to turn in waste - Ap 2 89 27A
  • S.C. renewing N.C. waste ban - Ap 4 89 18C
  • S.C. ban won't rush N.C. bill, chairman says - Ap 5 89 10A
  • South Carolina restarts N.C. waste ban - Ap 9 89 21A
  • Legislators urge caution on wastes bill - Ap 12 89 18C
  • Bill would force choice by waste commission - Ap 14 89 11A
  • Hackney finds support for dealing with waste - Ap 19 89 8A
  • N.C. control of wastes might be ended - Ap 20 89 4C
  • Martin still against hazardous waste law - Ap 21 89 5C
  • House seeks role in hazardous-waste search - My 3 89 11A
  • Under the Dome: Officials say areas would OK waste site - My 4 89 1
  • Legislative roundup: Hazardous waste - My 7 89 30A
  • Liability for waste site fuels bidding battle - My 11 89 27A
  • Committee backs bill on waste disposal - My 17 89 18C
  • EPA tells plan to burn tainted dirt in Moore - My 18 89 2C
  • Hazardous waste bill tentatively approved by House - My 19 89 12A
  • Hazardous-waste bill wins final House nod - My 23 89 3C
  • State targets dumps needing fast action - My 25 89 17A
  • 6 hazardous-waste sites slated for cleanup - My 26 89 1C
  • Outdoor issues in forefront; House OKs waste bill; tank cleanup endorsed - My 28 89 40A
  • Proposal to get S.C. to lift ban on waste passes - My 31 89 1C
  • EPA waste treatment hearing today - Jn 1 89 14C
  • State wants EPA's hearing on hazardous-waste law halted - Jn 2 89 1C
  • Judge rules EPA can continue hearings on hazardous waste - Jn 3 89 10D
  • Institutions in state burn waste - Jn 26 89 3C
  • Hazardous waste piles up as S.C. keeps gates closed - Jn 28 89 3C
  • Chem-Nuclear chosen to run N.C. waste site - Jn 30 89 1C
  • Hazardous waste plant (Seaboard Chemical) denied permit - Jn 30 89 2C
  • Chem-Nuclear seeks change in bill's felony restriction - Jy 2 89 26A
  • Amendment sparks new waste debate; Change could disrupt radioactive-waste plan - Jy 6 89 11A
  • House OKs measure on waste; Amendments reverse stands on 2 policies - Jy 7 89 17A
  • S.C. lifts hazardous waste ban; But state vows to monitor progress on N.C. dump site - Jy 8 89 1C
  • N.C., other states seek accord on regional waste facilities - Jy 20 89 24A
  • 8 states OK drafting hazardous waste plan - Jy 22 89 2C
  • Chem-Nuclear accepts 100-year liability for nuclear disposal site - Jy 22 89 4C
  • Inquiry questions why EPA reopened N.C. waste-law case - Jy 26 89 17A
  • Report scrutinizes N.C. hazardous waste program - Jy 29 89 4C
  • State, Chem-Nuclear sign disposal contract - Jy 29 89 4C
  • Tar Heel editors speak: But what about all those microbes? - Au 6 89 7D
  • Timetable set for removal of chemicals (in Chatham dog food plant) - Au 10 89 2C
  • Raleigh plans to gather up special wastes - Au 17 89 1T
  • Activist (Hoyle) leads fight against burying radioactive waste in N.C. - Au 20 89 8D
  • The neighbor nobody wants; Decision near on potential low-level waste sites - Au 20 89 1D
  • Regional hazardous waste pact pushed - Au 22 89 2C
  • Fee for low-level wastes stored in S.C. to aid N.C. - Au 24 89 18A
  • Panel to recommend state build regional toxic-waste incinerator - Au 25 89 1C
  • Groups assail plans for waste incinerator - Au 26 89 5D
  • 5 states poised to sign pact on toxic waste - Se 1 89 3C
  • Assembly may meet to discuss waste issue - Se 2 89 1