Hazardous Wastes, Politics, and Public Policy: a Comparative State Analysis

Abstract

growth, industrial expansion, and technological change upon environment. One of major public policy issues to emerge recently is concern over public health and safety associated with (chemical) wastes. Dramatic incidents, such as kepone dumping James River, Valley of Drums incident Kentucky, and damage apparently caused by Love Canal chemical disposal sites, have served as catalysts mobilizing public interest responsible management of wastes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that in 1980, at least 57 million metric tons of nation's total wasteload can be classified as hazardous (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1980). Indeed, waste problem is often described as single most threatening issue facing country or the environmental problem of century (Epstein, Brown, and Pope 1982: 37). As a result of this concern waste issue has become focus of much scholarly research and congressional activity (Goldfarb 1979; Getz and Walter 1980; Worthley and Torkelson 1981; Jorling 1981; Eckhardt 1981; Levine 1982). Moreover, responsible management of waste has generated substantial interest among state governmental leaders and agencies, whose responsibilities include its regulation. Specifically, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (or RCRA, as it is commonly called), charges EPA with approving state waste control programs. In event that a state fails to comply with standards set by RCRA, EPA itself is authorized to develop and implement a program that state (Steeler 1980). Although states have strong incentives to comply with RCRA, their policy responses reflect varying commitments to responsible management of waste. Consequently, it is important to explore some potential explanations of state policy this area. The purpose of this comparative state study is to examine states' policy responses to waste problem and to evaluate utility of several indicators (both new and conventional) hypothesized to