Hazardous Waste Policy Research Articles

State Autonomy & Democratic Accountability: The Politics of Hazardous Waste Policy

This article explores the nature and extent of state autonomy and democratic accountability through a case study of Minnesota's attempt, from the late 1970s to 1990, to site a hazardous waste disposal facility. The study focuses in particular on the development of elite policy networks and efforts by citizens to control them. Drawing upon the distinction between state autonomy and capacity, the author argues that citizens have the ability to curb the state's capacity, i.e., the state's ability to implement its plans, but have limited opportunities and resources to influence the shape and direction of policy.

Attitudes toward managing hazardous waste: What should be cleaned up and who should pay for it?

Hazardous waste policy in the United States uses a liability-based approach, including strict, retroactive, and joint and several liability. To assess attitudes toward these basic principles of liability, and toward priorities for clean-up of wastes, a questionnaire was mailed to legislators, judges, executives of oil and chemical companies, environmentalists, and economists. The questionnaire consisted of abstract, simplified cases, which contrasted basic principles rather than dealing with real-world scenarios. Subjects were asked how they would allocate clean-up costs between companies and government as a function of such factors as adherence to standards, adoption of best available technology (BAT), and influence of penalties on future behavior. Most subjects felt that, if the company followed government standards or used the best available technology (BAT), it should pay for only a portion of the clean-up cost, with the government paying the rest. In general, responses did not support the principles underlying current law - strict, retroactive, and joint-and-several liability. Most subjects were more interested in polluters paying for damages than in deterrence or future benefit - even to the extent that they would have harmless' waste sites cleaned up. A bias was found toward complete clean-up of some sites, or zero risk.' Different groupsmore » of subjects gave similar answers, although more committed environmentalists were more willing to make companies pay and to clean up waste regardless of the cost. 21 refs., 3 tabs.« less

Attitudes Toward Managing Hazardous Waste: What Should Be Cleaned Up and Who Should Pay for It?

Hazardous waste policy in the United States uses a liability‐based approach, including strict, retroactive, and joint and several liability. To assess attitudes toward these basic principles of liability, and toward priorities for clean‐up of wastes, a questionnaire was mailed to legislators, judges, executives of oil and chemical companies, environmentalists, and economists. The questionnaire consisted of abstract, simplified cases, which contrasted basic principles rather than dealing with real‐world scenarios. Subjects were asked how they would allocate clean‐up costs between companies and government as a function of such factors as adherence to standards, adoption of best available technology (BAT), and influence of penalties on future behavior. Most subjects felt that, if the company followed government standards or used the best available technology (BAT), it should pay for only a portion of the clean‐up cost, with the government paying the rest. In general, responses did not support the principles underlying current law–strict, retroactive, and joint‐and‐several liability. Most subjects were more interested in polluters paying for damages than in deterrence or future benefit–even to the extent that they would have “harmless” waste sites cleaned up. A bias was found toward complete clean‐up of some sites, or “zero risk.” Different groups of subjects gave similar answers, although more committed environmentalists were more willing to make companies pay and to clean up waste regardless of the cost.

The Development of Hazardous Waste Management as a State Policy Concern

Hazardous waste management has become a primary concern of state governments. Thk concern is relatively recent, with state governments assuming a leading role in hazardous waste policy development and implementation only in the past decade. This article outlines the scope of the hazardous waste problem to which stdegouernments must respond. The scope of the problem is then linked to changing public perceptions and intergooernmental relntionslzips to explain the expanding state government policy role in hazardous waste management.

Dimensions of Hazardous Waste Politics and Policy

Dimensions of Hazardous Waste Politics and Policy

BOOK REVIEWS

Book reviewed in this articles: Timothy Conlan. 1988. New Federalism: Intergovernmental Reform from Nixon to Reagan. Phoebe H. Cottingham and David T. Ellwood (eds.) 1989. Welfare Policy for the 1990s. Robert E. Goodin and Julian LeGrand. 1987. Not Only the Poor The Middle Classes and the Welfare State B. Guy Peters. 1988. Comparing Public Bureaucracies: Problems of Theory and Method Alice Sardell. 1988. The U.S. Experiment in Social Medicine: The Community Health Center Program, 1965‐1986 Robert Jacobson. 1989. An “Open” Approach to Information Policy Making: A Case Study of the Moore Universal Telephone Service Act Mimi Abramovitz. 1989. Regulating the Lives of Women Daniel A. Mazmanian, et al. 1988. Breaking Political Gridlock: California's Experiment in Public‐Private Cooperation for Hazardous Waste Policy

Dimensions of Hazardous Waste Politics and Policy. Edited by Charles E. Davis and James P. Lester. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1988. 256p. $49.95.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Dimensions of hazardous waste politics and policy

Dimensions of hazardous waste politics and policy

Hazardous waste minimization: Part IX. Waste minimization in the automotive repair industry.

Waste minimization in the automotive repair industry is characterized by the large numbers of small quantity generators (SQG) producing solvent, alkaline and detergent hazardous wastes. On-site management of multiple processes which vary depending on the size of shop make the administration of hazardous waste policies particularly complex. This paper presents the quantities and types of hazardous materials typically produced. Guidelines are presented to allow generators to organize a waste minimization program.

The Valuation of Environmental Risks and Hazardous Waste Policy

ing Superfund sites usually range from $5 to $10 million per site. Cost estimates such as these are fairly common. Information on the benefits expected from such policies, however, is more elusive. Raucher (1986) first drew attention to these issues by suggesting that in some cases ex ante actions to prevent groundwater contamination would not have been preferred to ex post corrective actions. He also argued that there would be instances when remedial action after

The Impact of Hazardous Waste Policy on Small Business

ABSTRACT Small business has difficulty complying with the hazardous waste regulations as they are presently structured. There is much confusion over (1) what constitutes hazardous waste, (2) how it...

Public Involvement in Hazardous Waste Siting Decisions

Previous articleNext article No AccessResearch NotePublic Involvement in Hazardous Waste Siting DecisionsCharles DavisCharles Davis Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Polity Volume 19, Number 2Winter 1986 The Journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/3234916 Views: 4Total views on this site Copyright 1986 Northeastern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE POLICY FORMULATION EFFORTS AMONG WEST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Policy Studies JournalVolume 14, Issue 1 p. 149-159 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE POLICY FORMULATION EFFORTS AMONG WEST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES William R. Mangun, William R. MangunSearch for more papers by this author William R. Mangun, William R. MangunSearch for more papers by this author First published: September 1985 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1985.tb00213.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume14, Issue1September 1985Pages 149-159 RelatedInformation

Perceptions of Hazardous Waste Policy Issues among Public and Private Sector Administrators

Perceptions of Hazardous Waste Policy Issues among Public and Private Sector Administrators

Perceptions of Hazardous Waste Policy Issues Among Public and Private Sector Administrators

1. Clear and consistent policy objectives. 2. A sound theory incorporated within the legislation which identifies the principal factors affecting both policy objectives and the type of behavior expected of target group members. 3. Coherent structuring of the implementation process by the enabling legislation. 4. Commitment and skill of implementing officials. 5. Support from organized constituency groups and key sovereigns. 6. Changing socioeconomic conditions and political support for the initiative over time.

Hazardous Waste and Policy Implementation: The Subnational Role

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) allows state governments policy development opportunities and operational responsibility for their hazardous waste program. States must establish programs that meet minimum federal requirements or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will itself develop and implement a program in that state. During 1980-1985, a number of states have been granted either "interim" or "full" authorization by the EPA for their hazardous waste programs. However, substantial variation still exists in terms of states' commitment to the responsible management of hazardous wastes. This article describes state policy responses toward program responsibility for hazardous waste management and then analyzes the factors that have delayed implementation of RCRA. In doing so, it also suggests prospects for (and problems of) empirically testing hypotheses concerned with hazardous waste policy implementation within the subnational context.

Waste Generation Reduction: A First Step Toward Developing a Regulatory Policy to Encourage Hazardous Substance Management through Production Process Change

From an engineering perspective, the issue of hazardous chemical wastes is no different than the air, water, and workplace pollution issues with which the nation has long grappled. Quite simply, hazardous residues are a production process problem; the nature and amount of the residues produced are determined by the nature of the production processes employed. The long-term goal of a reasoned hazardous waste management policy must be to effect changes in industrial processes so as to reduce significantly the amount of hazardous residues generated by those processes. This goal will not be reached unless industry itself is motivated to explore the necessary technological innovation and adaptation. The challenge, then, is to create a regulatory climate which provides such motivation. We believe that the development of effective regulatory policies at the state level to encourage production process change will require a commitment to overall hazardous substance management, rather than to the management of hazardous residues deposited into any particular environmental medium. If state hazardous waste policies are to serve as a focal point for hazardous substance management, they must incorporate: (1) a specific programmatic emphasis on waste generation reduction as the preferred means of hazardous waste management; (2) vigorous enforcement of current treatment and disposal laws; (3) a shift in emphasis from the nature of the various waste streams that are produced to the nature of the various industrial "productive segments" that generate hazardous waste; (4) refinement and expansion of programs for the sharing of technological information; and (5) a graduated increase in regulatory stringency over time.

Explaining State Response to the Hazardous Waste Problem

ABSTRACT Federal hazardous waste laws are structured to give state governments operational responsibility and policy development opportunity. State response to this has been mixed. Some states have vigorously enacted regulations, forced industry to comply, and allocated money for cleanups. Others have adopted a far more passive style. This research attempts to explain the causes underlying these varying reactions to the hazardous waste issue. A traditional conception of federalism -- the need-response model provides the orienting focus. Within it, two competing explanations regarding the impact of need are tested. One explanation is that need accelerates state-level hazardous waste policy activity. That is, states with severe problems respond by enacting policy and making expenditures. The second explanation considers need a depressor of state action. In other words, states with severe problems have the least adequate regulatory effort. This research attempts to reconcile the conflicting explanations. In ...

Hazardous waste politics and policy.

Hazardous waste politics and policy.