N&O Index Card Listings
Displaying 1-10 of 14 results.
Hazardous Waste Sites
- Chatham reports challenge effort to pick waste site - Ja 30 92, 3B
- Judge finds some waste site records to be public - Fe 27 92, 4B
- Auditor urges ethics, fairness in site search - Ap 8 92, 2B
- Wake site called better for dump; Experts say Chatham land unsuitable - Ap 8 92, 1B
- Scientists go with the flow in identifying site for waste - Ap 9 92, 1B
- Panel studies shipping rules for N.C. dump - Ap 10 92, 5B
- South awaits waste decision; S.C. holds key to regional pact - My 24 92, 1C
- S.C. to keep landfill; Low-level waste site to remain for 4 years - My 30 92, 1B
- State waste control limited by court - Jn 2 92, 1
- S.C. law may affect N.C. waste site - Jn 6 92, 4B
- Waste panel's funding cut; Move would make it harder to place hazardous landfill in state - Jn 6 92, 4B
- Waste pact in danger; Supreme Court lifts burden from states - Jn 20 92, 1
- Court ruling spurs lawmakers to revisit waste-compact issue - Jn 24 92, 4B
- Tar Heel editors speak: Squelching scientist wannabes - Au 9 92, 25A
- Effort to find disposal spot for radioactive waste falters - Au 23 92, 1C
- Waste site study faulted; State scientists want more data - Oc 16 92, 1B
- New meetings set on waste facility - Oc 17 92, 5B
- State mulls pared dump; Nuclear waste estimates lower - No 8 92, 1C
- Some see racism in waste decisions; UNC-CH meeting to address issue - No 12 92, 1
- Heroes in fight against incinerator: Award honors friends' alliance - No 22 92, 1C
- Activists, officials lead battle against dump - De 3 2, 5B
- Proposed rule changes - (Chart) - De 4 92, 6A
- Lobby pays for dump support; Waste site backers getting industry aid - De 9 92, 1
- N.C. facing waste dilemma; State may end up a national site - De 19 92, 1
- Low-level dumps a waste, UNC-CH trio says - De 30 92, 1B
Hazardous Waste Sites
- Meeting set for comments on landfill - Ja 1 86 18C
- Treatment plant could meet state's needs, plan says - Ja 3 86 1D
- Panel voices concern on radioactive dump site search - Ja 4 86 2C
- Cobey opposes studying rock body for waste site (Rolesville pluton) - Ja 7 86 4C
- Groups voice concerns about proposed landfill - Ja 10 86 3D
- N.C. sites not suitable for waste, Martin says - Ja 16 86 12B
- Possibility of nuclear waste facility creates fear, anger among residents - Ja 17 86 10A
- Two N.C. sites to be considered for nuclear waste storage facility - Ja 17 86 1
- Data for waste-site selection questioned - Ja 18 86 1C
- Harris site may be used to store fuel from 2 plants - Ja 18 86 1C
- Official criticizes plan for low-level waste landfill - Ja 18 86 22C
- Editorial: Concern yes, panic no - Ja 22 86 10A
- Waste-site plans assailed at Bladen hearing - Ja 22 86 1C
- Digging begins at chemical-warfare dump in N.C. (Buncombe Co.) - Ja 26 86 34A
- Questions, answers on waste site; Huge underground complex would hold radioactive byproducts - Ja 26 86 29A
- State provides plan for operating facility for low-level waste - Ja 28 86 18C
- Western N.C. urged to gear up for long fight against waste dump - Ja 30 86 22C
- Hendon bill would take N.C. off list of waste sites - Fe 1 86 4C
- Issue of nuclear waste site near Raleigh won't go away on its own, official says - Fe 1 86 1
- Madison official trying to fight waste site - Fe 1 86 9B
- Referendum urged on waste-burial site - Fe 6 86 2C
- Referendum on radioactive burial site likely to be placed before voters May 6 - Fe 8 86 3C
- Waste-site selection worrying mountain residents - Fe 9 86 37A
- Editorial: Time to bury referendum - Fe 11 86 12A
- Professor urges giving towns voice about waste sites - Fe 12 86 16C
- SCLC leader decries plans for waste sites - Fe 13 86 5C
- State hires man to lead fight against waste sites - Fe 13 86 5C
- Official says briefings on waste site poorly publicized - Fe 17 86 4C
- Federal officials seek to calm fears about waste site selection process - Fe 18 86 1C
- Legislature OKs referendum on nuclear waste site - Fe 19 86 8A
- Panel won't try to find site for hazardous-waste landfill - Fe 20 86 2C
- Scotland picked for GSX plant because it is poor, critic says - Fe 20 86 20A
- Some say advisory vote on waste site could set bad precedent on other issues - Fe 20 86 1C
- Lawmakers didn't intend for panel to seek site for landfill, Nesbitt says - Fe 22 86 4C
- Editorial: Referendum (on nuclear waste site) sets bad precedent - Fe 24 86 10A
- Speakers oppose waste repository - Fe 28 86 20D
- Draft report calls North Carolina most suitable for low-level waste site - Mr 1 86 1
- Rock 'fold' may aid argument against N.C. waste site - Mr 4 86 1C
- Opponents of waste dump gather - Mr 12 86 1C
Hazardous Waste Sites
- N.C. congressmen seek to block search for dump site - Mr 5 87 26A
- Suspension sought for waste-facility permits - Mr 5 87 9A
- Panel approves bills slowing selection of nuclear waste sites - Mr 6 87 5A
- Ramsey backs pullout from waste compact - Mr 21 87 1C
- Editorial: Lesser evil on low-level waste - Mr 25 87 16A
- Waste commission cuts potential sites list to 49 - Mr 28 87 14A
- Draft permit approved for waste plant, paper says (GSX Services) - Ap 1 87 4C
- House backs measure to set waste-site criteria - Ap 1 87 7A
- Wake site likely to be removed from possibilities for waste plant - Ap 1 87 1C
- House considers limiting locations for waste sites - Ap 2 87 19A
- Toxic-waste plant tentatively OK'd - Ap 3 87 4D
- Waste storage debated - Ap 5 87 39A
- House backs extension of waste-site deadline - Ap 7 87 14A
- House panel debates plan limiting sites for radioactive waste - Ap 9 87 27A
- Wake needs label to be dropped from list of sites - Ap 10 87 8C
- Bill sent to panel would require waste site in county with N-plant - Ap 16 87 8A
- Hearing set in Robeson on toxic waste facility - Ap 28 87 2C
- Bill would give dividend to waste-site counties - My 1 87 14A
- Officials say agencies currently unprepared for GSX plant mishap - My 9 87 5B
- Who gets radioactive waste? - My 10 87 1D
- Way station for nuclear waste debated; Critics say site in Tenn. might endanger N.C. - My 11 87 1
- GSX outcry mirrors Warren struggle over PCBs; Landfill was built despite protests - My 24 87 31A
- Editorial: Hazardous waste illusions - My 27 87 14A
- Waste discharge measure assailed as anti-GSX bill - My 28 87 4C
- Panel delays action on waste treatment bill - Jn 4 87 25A
- Need for 2 waste plants questioned - Jn 8 87 1C
- Panel OKs bill on discharge of treated wastes - Jn 11 87 15A
- Discharge bill advances - Jn 14 87 36A
- House panel to reveal radioactive waste bill - Jn 16 87 20C
- House delays debate on waste-dilution bill - Jn 18 87 20A
- Discussions continue on waste-site bill - Jn 19 87 15A
- House passes bill to limit waste treatment plant's discharge - Jn 19 87 1
- 350 attend meeting on hazardous waste - Jn 20 87 2C
- Vote trips waste treatment plant proposed for Scotland County - Jn 21 87 31A
- Panel approves bill to remove N.C. from Southeastern waste compact - Jn 24 87 1C
- Officials seek new waste bill; Wake wants bill not to target county - Jn 25 87 1C
- Martin opposes bill to limit N-waste sites - Jn 26 87 16A
- House stalls vote on controversial low-level waste bill - Jn 27 87 1C
- Editorial: A dump on public interest - Jn 28 87 6D
- Waste options debated - Jn 28 87 29A
- N.C. joins 6-state drive to block suit that seeks renewal of waste-site search - Jy 1 87 20C
- Panel rejects Wake bid on waste-site bill - Jy 2 87 25A
Hazardous Waste Sites
- Editorial: Water perils pinpointed - No 9 83 4A
- Report cites waste dumps threatening N. C. groundwater - No 6 83 35A
- Industry groups encourage more waste facilities - No 18 83 4D
- N. C. begins study on abandoned waste sites - De 11 83 42A
Hazardous Waste Sites
- Legislation expected on radioactive waste - Ja 6 83 12C
- Nuclear waste - Jn 24 83 WA-1
- Lobbyists pressing nuclear waste compact - Jn 29 83 5C
Hazardous Waste Sites
- Meetings begin in Raleigh on N.C. waste plan - Ja 5 84 2C
- State urged to develop waste sites - Ja 29 84 20A
- State gains hazardous waste authority - Fe 12 84 17A
- 36 counties studied for atomic wastes - Fe 26 84 33A
- Boston firm announces plan to build toxic waste facility near
- Laurinburg - Ap 7 84 18C
- Plan for toxic waste panel endorsed - My 2 84 14C
- Citizens group prepares to fight Scotland County treatment plant - Jn 11 84 1C
- Hazardous waste (bill) - Jn 15 84 21A
- Company eyes N.C. sites for burning low-level radioactive waste - Jn 19 84 1
- Officials hail plan to build incinerator - Jn 20 84 6C
- House endorses bill to seek waste plant - Jn 23 84 3C
- Hazardous waste bill enacted as House approves - Jn 26 84 4C
- Hazardous dumps (dealing with abandoned sites, bill) - Jn 28 84 17A
- County atomic waste unit wanted (Cumberland Co.) - 2D
- Rules may exempt N.C. as waste site - Se 9 84 29A
- Durham waste site to close by '87 under state proposal - No 10 84 2C
- Proposed Bladen waste facility would be safe, impact study says - No 17 84 4C
- N. C. listed as possible nuclear dump site - De 12 84 12A
- More N. C. sites labeled proper for nuclear waste - De 13 84 5C
Hazardous Waste Sites
- Officials say House-passed bill bans most hazardous waste sites - Ap 2 83 1
- 12 sites in N. C. considered for disposal of nuclear waste - Jn 30 83 3C
- Potential waste site prone to quakes, scientists say - Jy 1 83 16D
- Quake danger may void waste sites - Jy 22 83 2D
- Toxic waste control pioneer (Strickland) pleased with N. C. results - Au 7 83 34A
- N. C. nuclear waste dump opposed - Au 9 83 12C
- EPA official urges ban on hazardous waste sites - Se 29 83 15A
- Hunt criticizes U. S. guidelines for deciding nuclear dump site - Oc 5 83 5C
- Study panel to start anew on waste rules - Oc 23 83 40A
Hazardous Waste Sites
- Toxic waste dumps are listed by EPA - Fe 16 82 1C
- Lobbyist says relaxed waste rules possible - Mr 5 82 4D
- EPA announces little changed waste site rules - Jy 17 82 WA-1
- Editorial: More reason, less waste - Se 22 82 4A
- Protests may prevent other toxic dumps - Se 29 82 1C
- Guidelines OK'd to pre-empt ordinances for new dump sites - Oc 28 82 26A
- Ill. Firm refused permit for Greensboro waste site - De 22 82 5C
Hazardous Waste Sites
- Waste site examined in open house - Ja 26 90 6B
- Duke gets permit to drill test wells - Fe 8 90 7B
- Utilities with nuclear plants anticipate eased waste rules - Jn 27 90 6B
- Restoring low-level fund urged; Official sees delay in finding waste site - Jy 3 90 1B
- Committee backs bill altering fee collection - Jy 14 90 3B
- Other regions not apt to help on waste woes - Jy 23 90 1B
- Firms may face higher fees for disposing of wastes - Se 18 90 5B
Hazardous Waste Sites
- Hazardous waste recycling plant (Recontek) gets a warm welcome in Enfield - Ap 1 91 5B
- Official's (Faison's) death alters incinerator issue - Ap 3 91 1B
- Local solution favored in incinerator dispute - Ap 5 91 6B
- Role of waste site group gains support - Ap 19 91 2B
- Committee OKs putting pressure on waste pact - My 2 91 3B
- Woodland officials vote to seek incinerator - My 4 91 1B
- S.C. lawmaker opens new front in war over hazardous waste - My 5 91 1C
- Little town (Woodland) seeking big role as waste site - My 7 91 1B
- Waste incinerator attracts 3 other counties - My 14 91 4B
- Race issue taints incinerator debate - My 18 91 1B
- Tar Heel editors speak: Self-interest may save waste pact - My 19 91 7J
- Pender County to hold hearings on incinerator - My 21 91 4B
- Incinerator battle tearing (Northampton) county in two - My 27 91 1B
- State bans on wastes rejected; Ruling spurs debate over incinerator - Jn 11 91 1
- Legality of Pender incinerator vote in question; Court also bars Woodland action - Jn 11 91 4B
- Incinerator provision (Woodland) fails on Senate floor - Jn 12 91 3B
- Tracts picked for list of hazardous materials - Jn 12 91 4B
- Pender board now free to discuss incinerator - Jn 15 91 4B
- Alamance fights incinerator threat - Jn 19 91 4B
- Judge limits report's release to attorneys (assessment of Chem-Nuclear Systems) - Jn 22 91 4B
- Press groups seek waste site reports - Jn 29 91 5B
- Chatham consultant faults plan to study waste site - Jy 3 91 7B
- State allegedly tried to hurry Pender waste vote - Jy 3 91 7B
- Town's (Woodland's) waste site bid gets boost from judge - Jy 4 91 4B
- Editorial: Public dollars, public reports - Jy 5 91 8A
- Secret report shows politics in waste site; PR firm rated counties on opposition - Jy 7 91 1C
- Tar Heel editors speak: Nuclear waste site secrecy - Jy 7 91 7J
- Editorial: Waste sites and hindsight - Jy 10 91 10A
- Northampton officials hop to bar incinerator - Jy 10 91 3B
- State got waste site strategy; Report in 1988 urged public relations effort - Jy 11 91 1B
- Martin says waste-site (political assessment) reports a 'mistake' - Jy 12 91 6B
- Panel moves to repeal provision on waste site - Jy 16 91 4B
- Poll disputes notion that folks in Pender support incinerator - Jy 23 91 5B
- Waste site plan advances; Woodland to annex land for incinerator - Jy 24 91 5B
- Under the Dome: Waste dump facts vital, lobbyist says - Jy 29 91 1B
- Legislators question waste-site selection - Au 5 91 1B
- Former Helms aide (Moore) helping incinerator bid - Au 7 91 1B
- Pender voters get to say yes or no on incinerator - Au 8 91 4B
- Nuclear waste and the bug letter - Au 11 91 7J
- ThermalKEM says sites not suitable for landfill (Pender and Northampton counties) - Au 15 91 5B
- Woodland now alone in seeking incinerator; Pender leaders reverse county quest for facility - Au 18 91 1C
- Hazardous-waste battle limited; Supreme Court restricts lower courts from blocking site studies - Au 20 91 5B
- Search for waste site narrows - Au 22 91 5B
- Judge hints he'll reject claims against waste-site search - Se 5 91 8B
- Judge not buying argument on cost of waste dump delays - Se 19 91 2B
- Judge won't block tests; Work continues at low-level site - Se 21 91 1B
- Waste finalist choice (Wake-Chatham) faulted; Foes say papers show political taint - Se 25 91 1B
- Incinerator issue splits Woodland along ragged lines - Se 29 91 1
- Waste hearing set for eve of election - Oc 1 91 2B
- 235
