N&O Index Card Listings

Displaying 11-14 of 14 results.
Hazardous Waste Sites
  • Decision delayed on waste site rules - Ja 26 85 16C
  • Waste treatment site rules OK'd by panel - Fe 1 85 3D
  • EPA takes charge of chemicals removed from storage facility - Fe 2 85 18C
  • Lawmakers impatient on delayed plan for wastes, told shipments far in future - Fe 28 85 6B
  • General Assembly Round-up: Waste (state slow in establishing sites) - Mr 21 85 18A
  • Some nuclear waste sites not suitable, report says - Mr 23 85 4C
  • General Assembly Round-up: Radioactive waste (should be in counties with nuclear power plants) - Ap 11 85 7A
  • General Assembly Round-up: Hazardous waste dumps - My 16 85 14A
  • Residents scoff at hazardous-waste plant plans (Scotland County) - My 16 85 4C
  • General Assembly Round-up: Nuclear waste - My 18 85 5B
  • Waste plant to be built in Greensboro - Jy 19 85 4D
  • Laurinburg group opposes firm's plans for hazardous waste treatment plant - Jy 28 85 18A
  • N.C. among states considered for radioactive dump site - Oc 6 85 33A
  • Possible radioactive waste sites (Map) - Oc 6 85 33A
  • Council of State urges caution on OK of waste treatment units - No 7 85 20A
  • Radioactive waste dump site selection stirs controversy in North Carolina - De 1 85 1
  • N.C. to need more waste treatment sites, expert says - De 6 85 7B
  • Wake-Franklin area candidate for burial of nuclear waste - De 6 85 1D
  • Officials promise to fight nuclear waste dump site - De 7 85 4C
  • Groups consider urging Martin to monitor selection of waste site - De 18 85 2C
  • Under the dome: Martin opposes dump site despite prior vote - De 25 85 1
  • Suits may affect selection of nuclear dump site - De 29 85 25A
Hazardous Waste Sites
  • 30% of state is found unsuitable for waste site - Ja 5 90 4B
  • Areas not suitable for a hazardous-waste site (Map) - Ja 5 90 4B
  • Thornburg orders investigation into possible site-search leaks - Ja 10 90 3B
  • Union citizens oppose local site for waste - Ja 11 90 4B
  • Hazardous waste venture may go to private firm - Ja 16 90 4B
  • Population density won't limit waste site search - Ja 17 90 5B
  • Tar Heel editors speak: Not clean enough for dirty job - Ja 21 90 7J
  • Richmond County land owner sparks waste-site worries (Map) - Ja 22 90 1
  • Waste site locations narrowed; Only 3-5% of state fit for regional plant - Ja 24 90 1
  • Tiny fish could save Richmond from hazardous waste project - Ja 25 90 4B
  • Legislators urge Wake site for facility - Ja 30 90 3B
  • Richmond seeks to delay private waste plant - Fe 3 90 6B
  • Under the Dome: SBI finds no leak in waste-site search - Fe 10 90 1B
  • Waste panel drowning in documents; 6 firms meet deadline for environmental data - Fe 14 90 6B
  • Map helps narrow waste sites; state eliminates 55 percent of N.C. land in search for depository (Map) - Fe 16 90 3B
  • Wake likely choice for waste site - Fe 21 90 1
  • Editorial: Radioactive resting place - Fe 22 90 16A
  • Wake/Chatham site (Maps) - Fe 22 90 14A
  • Waste site wins support; Wake County one of two finalists for nuclear waste facility - Fe 22 90 1
  • Waste site called corporate attraction - Fe 23 90 1B
  • Waste site losing commissioner support - Fe 27 90 1B
  • Candidates say Wake board too slow in opposing waste site - Mr 2 90 2B
  • Firm drops out of contention for waste plant - Mr 4 90 2C
  • Chatham seeks fair cut of waste-site benefits - Mr 5 90 1B
  • Wake board votes to oppose waste site - Mr 6 90 1B
  • Editorial: Wake ducks on waste...but wouldn't mind money - Mr 7 90 12A
  • Radioactive-waste panel postpones vote on sites - Mr 7 90 3B
  • Concerns over search process slow waste site selection - Mr 15 90 1B
  • Waste site list trimmed by 2; Wake-Chatham tract still being considered - Mr 20 90 3B
  • Firm must submit plan before testing site - Mr 29 90 4B
  • State waste report is similar to company's press releases - Mr 29 90 3B
  • Tar Heel editors speak: More 'living room' for waste - Ap 1 90 7J
  • Three firms to compete for hazardous waste site - Ap 4 90 4B
  • Who will operate N.C.'s Incinerator? (Chart) - Ap 4 90 4B
  • Group questions the records of bidders for waste project - Ap 6 90 6B
  • Stricter regulation of waste sites urged - Ap 9 90 3B
  • Piedmont suitable for waste site; Panel says Durham, Wake still options - Ap 11 90 1B
  • Potential hazardous waste incinerator sites in N.C. (Map) - Ap 11 90 1B
  • Under the Dome: Primary may delay waste site decision - Ap 25 90 1B
  • Potential hazardous-waste sites in N.C. (Maps) - Ap 27 90 2B
  • Wake site on list of 18 for incinerator - Ap 27 90 1B
  • Letter angers Chatham; Wake-Chatham site believed ahead, Martin writes - Ap 28 90 1
  • Wake/Chatham, Richmond sites chosen low-level waste finalists - My 1 90 3B
  • Granville site is one of two on incinerator list (also Iredell-Rowan County line site) - My 2 90 1
  • Judge (Cornelius) temporarily blocks incinerator plan (on Rowan-Iredell border) - My 11 90 4B
  • Court orders delay; Could affect states hazardous waste pact - My 18 90 1B
  • Judge extends restriction on N.C. waste-site panel - My 22 90 3B
  • Harris site is unsuitable, geologist says - My 23 90 5B
  • Waste panel chairman, director told to testify (about Iredell-Rowan site) - My 23 90 4B
  • Panel makes fresh stab at waste-site plans - My 25 90 5B
  • Landowners get letters about waste plant - My 26 90 4B
  • Tar Heel editors speak: Waste assumptions unfounded - My 27 90 7J
  • Many challenges, changes mark search for waste site - Jn 3 90 11A
  • Extensive testing to begin soon at 2 proposed N.C. waste sites (Richmond and Wake-Chatham sites) - Jn 4 90 3B
  • Rowan mulls huge tax to combat waste plant - Jn 6 90 4B
  • Sponsor withdraws bill on waste site selection - Jn 8 90 3B
  • Granville tries to halt site testing - Jn 12 90 5B
  • Hamlet hopes honor will block waste site - Jn 13 90 4B
  • Judge (Hobgood) drops order on Granville site - Jn 15 90 7B
  • Waste site faces delay, agency's director says - Jn 15 90 3B
  • Judge stops evaluation of waste incinerator site (Granville Co.) - Jn 20 90 2B
  • Waste-site studies to evaluate unknowns - Jn 21 90 4B
  • Court lifts incinerator injunction (Granville Co.) - Jn 23 90 4B
  • Governor may skip site tests; Martin seeks to avoid waste facility protests - Jn 29 90 1
  • State funds, staff for hazardous waste site are questioned - Jn 29 90 1B
  • Siting of hazardous waste facility is better negotiated than forced - Jn 30 90 15A
  • Restoring low-level fund urged; Official sees delay in finding waste site - Jy 3 90 1B
  • Editorial: High-level waste of time - Jy 6 90 12A
  • Judge to hear debate on testing of Granville land for incinerator - Jy 6 90 5B
  • State loses its attempt to subpoena (Rowan-Iredell) landowners - Jy 6 90 4B
  • Incinerator test ban is continued; Official warns state could miss deadline - Jy 7 90 1B
  • Judge lifts Iredell test restraining order - Jy 7 90 5B
  • Court bars state from Iredell property - Jy 11 90 5B
  • Senate panel OKs bill for waste inspectors - Jy 11 90 3B
  • Incinerator land tests debated; Blocked site access limits state options - Jy 12 90 1B
  • Granville's study report says waste site unfit - Jy 13 90 4B
  • Martin admits he wouldn't want to live near hazardous waste site - Jy 13 90 3B
  • Radioactive waste site to be delayed - Jy 14 90 1
  • Bill would limit size of planned waste site - Jy 18 90 3B
  • Bill on waste-plant size is approved in Senate - Jy 19 90 3B
  • State delayed again in testing proposed incinerator site - Jy 19 90 4B
  • Waste firm seeks early start - Jy 21 90 3B
  • Waste site rule change suggested: Panel could skip tests if Martin OKs proposal - Jy 24 90 1
  • Incinerator near Lenoir called threat; Workers, residents to be tested (CALDWELL SYSTEMS INC.) - Jy 26 90 1
  • Editorial: State incinerates trust - Jy 27 90 16A
  • Low-level waste delay concerns state agency - Jy 27 90 3B
  • Martin assures safety of incinerator - Jy 27 90 14A
  • Type of incinerator recommended for North Carolina - Jy 27 90 14A
  • Search for waste incinerator site must move ahead, Martin says - Jy 28 90 1
  • Court lifts orders blocking testing sites for incinerator - Jy 29 90 4C
  • Panel to consider variety of routes in picking waste site - Jy 30 90 3B
  • Incinerator operator (Foushee) kept cooperative image - Au 1 90 1B
  • Wetlands at potential Granville waste site (Map) - Au 8 90 2B
  • Injunctions likely to slow site selection; Judge prevents adoption of new incinerator rules - Au 9 90 1B
  • County officials favor incinerator on state land - Au 11 90 4B
  • Gardner remains split with Martin on incinerator - Au 21 90 3B
  • Taxpayers pay $7,000 for ads on hazardous-waste questions - Au 21 90 4B
  • Editorial: Martin's waste mandate - Au 23 90 16A
  • Waste generators may pay more; Extra fees from companies would help finance N.C. disposal facility - Au 25 90 3B
  • Officials, foes dispute waste site status - Au 30 90 1B
  • Editorial: Burning waste, cold shoulders - Se 2 90 6J
  • States' planned waste capacity called excessive - Se 6 90 1B
  • Royall says Granville unfit for incinerator - Se 13 90 3B
  • Hazardous-waste site incentives tempt officials in Tyrrell (Map) - Se 14 90 1
  • State had dropped Tyrrell as potential site - Se 14 90 11A
  • Tyrrell officials send Martin their wish-list - Se 19 90 2B
  • Martin accepts Tyrrell incinerator wish list - Se 20 90 4B
  • Tyrrell County officials drop bid to host hazardous waste site - Se 25 90 1
  • N.C. leaders have picked 2 waste sites (Richmond and Wake-Chatham counties) - Se 30 90 8A
  • State land preferred for waste; Panel drops private sites from its list - Oc 3 90 1
  • Butner site may not be suited for hazardous-waste landfill - Oc 4 90 3B
  • Rare flower could stall waste site - Oc 5 90 1B
  • Test drills set at Umstead site - Oc 10 90 4B
  • Judge orders halt to waste site tests - Oc 12 90 3B
  • Court lifts waste-site ruling - Oc 13 90 4B
  • Legislator wants state to rethink waste plan; Granville representative asks Martin to reconvene General Assembly - Oc 15 90 3B
  • Court refuses to let state drill at Granville site - Oc 16 90 5B
  • Meeting will examine pros, cons of incinerator - Oc 17 2B
  • Waste site tests to be completed; Judge lifts order that halted drilling at farm - Oc 17 1B
  • Judge OKs drilling by waste engineers at Camp Butner site - Oc 18 90 4B
  • State geologists' report cites flaws in low-level radioactive waste site - Oc 18 90 4B
  • Flower may stymie incinerator - Oc 19 90 4B
  • Incinerator is called no threat to patients; No evacuations seen at Butner facilities - Oc 19 90 4B
  • Soil tests OK Johnston farm for site, firm says - Oc 20 90 5B
  • Flaws cited in state-owned incinerator sites - No 8 90 6B
  • Hazards waste panel focuses on Granville - No 9 90 5B
  • Panel imposes fees on firms to help fund low-level facility - No 16 90 4B
  • Speakers favor effective rules on incinerators - No 21 90 4B
  • Council of State leaning against Granville waste site - No 27 90 1
  • Experts discuss safety of waste incineration - No 29 90 4B
  • Judge OKs site selection; Hazardous waste body meets today - De 4 90 1B
  • Panel picks Butner waste site; State proposal does not include planned landfill - De 5 90 1
  • N.C. will miss incinerator date; S.C. says ban on waste is likely - De 6 90 1B
  • Incinerator wouldn't take foreign wastes - De 11 90 5B
  • S.C., Ala. governors warn state on wastes - De 11 90 1
  • Editorial: Waste: Reality knocks - De 12 90 16A
  • Valentine asks council to deny transfer of Butner waste site - De 12 90 4B
  • Legislative panel sidesteps waste issue - De 13 90 1B
  • Council vetoes waste site; Action blocks hazardous-waste facility in Granville - De 14 90 1
  • Angry Martin blasts council for waste vote - De 15 90 1
  • Editorial: Council flunks test - De 16 90 6J
  • S.C. sets waste ban for N.C.; Incinerator site rejection cited in move - De 18 90 1
  • Waste-panel leader (Turner) criticizes Thornburg; Attorney general's motives challenged - De 19 90 1
  • Northampton County studying whether to take waste complex - De 21 90 1
  • Judge blocks S.C. ban on waste - De 22 90 4B
  • Northampton taken by surprise; County's residents startled, confused by prospect of incinerator - De 22 90 1B
  • Waste site offer has conditions; County wants firm to seek permit first - De 22 90 1B
  • Waste-site authority proposed for council - De 22 90 4B
  • Tar Heel editors speak: For Butner, enough's enough - De 23 90 7J
  • Northampton residents to discuss waste complex - De 25 90 4B
  • Radioactive waste site hunt trudges along - De 31 90 1B
Hazardous Waste Sites
  • Tar Heel editors speak: Volunteer needed for waste site - Ja 6 91 7J
  • County agonizes over incinerator; Some Northampton leaders calling for open minds on the issue - Ja 7 91 4B
  • S.C. seeks 'superfund' penalty for N.C. - Ja 8 91 5B
  • Panel urges changes in waste-site criteria - Ja 9 91 3B
  • More waste sites in Northampton being considered - Ja 11 91 2B
  • Key legislator (DeVane) suggests smaller incinerator - Ja 12 91 3B
  • Projections prompt debate about need for incinerator - Ja 14 91 1B
  • Northampton to unveil waste proposal in Feb. - Ja 26 91 4B
  • Legislators again face incinerator issue - Ja 28 91 1B
  • Counties could be paid for waste repository - Ja 31 91 4B
  • Tar Heel editors speak: Hazards of hasty legislation - Fe 3 91 7J
  • Incinerator called vital to economy; N.C. official says state needs protection - Fe 5 91 3B
  • Northampton invites bid for waste incinerator - Fe 5 91 1
  • Northampton board refuses to overturn incinerator vote - Fe 12 91 4B
  • Editorial: Legislature's turn on waste - Fe 14 91 14A
  • Senate bill calls for waste referendum (in Northampton County) - Fe 14 91 3B
  • S.C. targets N.C.'s wallet in waste-site fight - Fe 17 91 1C
  • Wake rejects low-level N-waste disposal plan - Mr 5 91 5B
  • Northampton referendum measure progresses - Mr 7 91 5B
  • EPA says it may withhold funds to clean waste sites - Mr 12 91 5B
  • Legislative panel takes no action on waste issue - Mr 13 91 4B
  • Senator proposing special Northampton election - Mr 16 91 3B
  • Radioactive waste site to be studied - Mr 19 91 4B
  • Group begins to test soil near waste burners - Mr 30 91 4B
  • 234
Hazardous Waste Sites
  • States need to stash waste until N.C. site opens - Oc 6 91 1C
  • Vandals 'spike' road at waste site (on Wake-Chatham line) - Oc 8 91 4B
  • Incinerator ensures flood of votes in Woodland - Oc 14 91 5B
  • Waste furor called detrimental; Legislator says N.C. under fire for delay on radioactive disposal - Oc 30 91 5B
  • Landfill site choice gets clearer; Study calls Hamlet tract unsuitable for wastes - Oc 31 91 1B
  • Incinerator factions rally on eve of elections - No 5 91 4B
  • Voters oust pro-incinerator officials; Woodland to 'uninvite' ThermalKEM No 6 91 1
  • Courts hold key to incinerator issue No 7 91 2B
  • State seeks to lift bar to testing near Hamlet - De 4 91 5B
  • Waste-site timetable called unacceptable; Legislators say N.C. won't pay penalties - De 12 91 9B
  • Judge OKs Hamlet site for nuclear waste tests - De 20 91 5B