Hazardous Waste Regulations

There are two reasons why there are area waste hazardous regulations. The first is that states are given a considerable amount of discretionary authority. The second is that it is a substance that all states must face. As these state actions on area waste hazardous regulation become increasingly important, the numbers of hazardous wastes sites the states have to clean up continues to grow. Most states have an Environmental Protection Innovation (EPI) that gives the state the propensity to protect the environment, and analyze the variations across the states in finding ways to protect the environment. This theoretical framework gives two strands research: literature on state innovations and literature on state environmental regulation. EPI are state-sponsored non-federally mandated programs or policies that protect the environment. The EPI in any hazardous waste regulation does not have a wide range of power and resources that state legislatures have. And they do not possess the power to authorize appropriations. Just like federal laws, state laws leave the option for bureaucratic discretion in implementation in the areas they do not cover. There are several states that have too much discretion, which leads to a greater control on power. For example, in California, the State Water Resources Control Board, the local water agency boards, as well as the water masterboards, have the greatest authority in the state to set policy that protects groundwater. In other states, the state legislature, instead of administrative agencies, play a major role in setting policy for protecting groundwater. Some state agencies have come up with a variety of ways to manage hazardous waste. For example, Minnesota has their Waste Tire Management Program, New York has their Hazardous Waste Reduction Planning Program, and New Jersey has their Case Management Policy. There are also variations in states’ adoptions of EPIs. California, New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota are leaders in hazardous waste EPIs they have adopted. Some states have not yet adopted EPIs in the area of hazardous waste. Some states have adopted policies to reduced hazardous waste while others have just simplified the industry so they are in compliance with existing laws and regulations. The common element is a cooperation with the industry groups, local governments, and private citizens. This is achieved by a provision of technical assistance, teamwork among the state agencies, municipalities, and local businesses. A second common element is pollution prevention. These state-adopted innovations seek to reduce pollution at their source. Hazardous Waste Innovations take some form of waste-reduction programs. The determinants of State Adoptions of EPIs are models developed from the concepts of two research traditions. The first is a regulatory enforcement and the second is innovative research. There are four explanations that lead states to adopt EPIs: the severity of the problem, institutional factors (the commitment of capacity of the states), the strength of relevant interest groups, and the contextual factors (state political climate). In the problem of severity or need, the first indicator is the independent variable that gives the total number of hazardous wastes sites by state. The states that have a large number of hazardous waste sites are Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Michigan, whereas the following states have a low number of hazardous waste sites, Idaho, South Dakota, North Dakota, Maine, and New Hampshire. The chemicals from hazardous waste can have cross-examination effects that seep into groundwater sources. This can cause the problem that is created at point and non-point sources, a second indicator where groundwater contamination is used to assess the severity of problem or need a state faces. The institutional factors for the commitment and capacity faced by each state are an indication each state adopts is mainly based on financial. The indicator each state faces in measuring commitment is the percentage of state expenditures on environmental and protection resources. The ability and capacity of institutional factors are administerial and managerial professional with the bureaucracies, organizational mission and culture, and the belief of administrators that have surpassed important impacts on performance. It is also difficult to measure professionalism on a state in a number of years. One way to measure is by proxy measure, or the number of full-time staff that is employed by the state environmental agency involved in state hazardous waste programs. Interest groups determine the innovation of the states’ adoption and regulation. They help avoid obstacles to pro-environmental legislation and policy. One such issue is the manufacturing and mining industries that oppose policy regulations because they might curtail or impose financial burdens on their activities. The growth of interest groups has led to an increase in opposition that has influenced powerful industry groups. The states’ political climate has also led to liberalism as a powerful relation to pro-environmental regulation on the state level. These environmental concerns are viewed as a penchant that helps regulate the private industry. Several advantages of methodology help to examine each states’ adoption for innovations on hazardous waste reduction. One is the event-history analysis is not a feasible technique which is not easily employed. Each of these reasons lie with the variations adopted by each state. There is also no common agency-adopted innovation that identifies a program’s goal despite the similarities on the kinds of programs adopted. References Sapat, A. (2004). Devolution and innovation: The adoption of state environmental policy innovations by administrative agencies. Public Administration Review, 64(2), 141-151. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/197177072?accountid=158416