United States Solid Waste and EPA/530-R-93-010
Environmental Protection Emergency response NTIS: PB93-193225
Agency (OS-305)
Hazardous Waste
Management Planning
Needs and Practices
A Review of Several State
Agency Approaches
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING NEEDS AND PRACTICES;
A REVIEW OF SEVERAL STATE AGENCY APPROACHES
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environment^ Fraction Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-1?')
77 West Jackson Boulevard i9«, n
Chicago, IL 60604-3590 ' Floor
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING NEEDS 10
SECTION III: DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING PRACTICES/APPROACHES 20
SECTION IV: DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON OF PLANNING MODELS 27
SECTION V: CONCLUSION 38
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR OTHER PLANNING STATES 39
-------
List of Tables
Summary Table
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Summary Comparison of Comprehensive, State Capacity, and
Capacity Assurance Hazardous Waste Management Planning . . . ES-5
Summary of Participating State Characteristics 3
Summary of State Hazardous Waste Management Planning Needs . . 12
Summary of Formal State Hazardous Waste Management
Planning Activities 24
Hazardous Waste Management Plan Objectives and Related Plan
Activities 28
Summary Comparison of Comprehensive, State Capacity, and
Capacity Assurance Hazardous Waste Management Planning 31
List of Figures
The Planning Process 5
Scoping/Researching 6
Evaluating, Implementing 7
Shaping the Planning Process Approach , 9
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The purpose of this project has been to 1) identify existing and emerging state hazardous
waste management planning needs, 2) describe planning practices designed to address these needs,
and 3) relate state observations on the relationship of their planning needs and activities to the
Federal Capacity Assurance Planning (CAP)1 process. The project was not designed to evaluate
the performance of the CAP process or current state hazardous waste management practices. Also,
the project did not evaluate or recommend whether or how states should undertake hazardous waste
management planning.
To identify and describe planning needs and practices, the project targeted two groups of
states (nine publishing formal hazardous waste management plans and nine engaged in other forms
of planning). States that prepare a formal hazardous waste management plan (hereafter referred
to as "formal planning states") and make it publicly available are: Connecticut; Michigan;
Minnesota; New Jersey; New York; North Carolina; Pennsylvania; Vermont; and Washington.
Other states that do not publish a formal hazardous waste management planning document even
though they may engage in planning activities are: Alabama; Delaware; Illinois; Massachusetts;
Missouri; Oregon; Texas; Utah; and Virginia2. In selecting participants for the project, the
primary goal was to obtain a range of perspectives associated with different environmental,
economic, institutional, and public policy considerations.
State Planning Needs
States identified a wide range of hazardous waste management planning needs. The needs
fall roughly into six categories:
1. Managing Waste According to the "Hierarchy": this category contains needs related to
increasing waste minimization and, in general, shifting waste management to more
preferred management methods in conformance with state/Federal waste management
"hierarchy" policies. Waste management hierarchy refers to Federal and various state
legislative mandates and policies that indicate a preference for certain types of management
options over others. Although there is some variation among hierarchies, the basic
1 The Federal Capacity Assurance Planning (CAP) process addresses states' management of hazardous waste.
In 1986, Congress mandated this process as part of its reauthorization of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Under CERCLA Section 104(c)(9) each state is required to provide
"adequate assurance" that treatment and disposal capacity will be available for hazardous wastes generated within the
state over a twenty year period.
2 Certain of the other planning states are currently engaged in or have completed formal planning documents since
their initial classification as other planning states. For example, Texas is currently engaged in preparing a formal hazardous
waste management planning document and Illinois recently completed its "Four Year Strategy for Environmental Progress"
planning document.
ES-1
-------
structure is: source reduction; recycling; treatment, which includes incineration and
stabilization; and landfill.
2. Assessing Access to Hazardous Waste Management Capacity: needs in this category focus
on state efforts to understand the demand for hazardous waste treatment and disposal
services created by in-state generators and the availability of such services in and out of
state.
3. Conducting Public Education: needs in this category reflect state interest in better
informing the general public about hazardous waste risks and the means to address such
risks and informing the regulated community of opportunities for improved management.
4. Improving Hazardous Waste Program Implementation: this category contains a wide range
of needs including better targeting of program efforts and increased staff training.
5. Promoting Compliance with Hazardous Waste Regulations: needs in this category focus
on increasing the rate of compliance with hazardous waste regulations on the part of the
regulated community.
6. Balancing Environmental and Economic Considerations: this category reflects state interest
in incorporating specific economic considerations into regulatory and technical assistance
activities.
In general, states placed primary emphasis on the first three needs categories— Management
According to the Hierarchy, Assessing Access to Hazardous Waste Management Capacity, and
Conducting Public Education—both in terms of the number of states identifying these needs and
statements about priorities. States identifying needs associated with the management hierarchy
consistently named this category as their top priority. States also placed significant emphasis on
public education; in part, this results from the link between public education and achieving
objectives related to the other needs categories.
State Planning Practices
The review of state planning practices relied on review of documents from the nine states
that do formal planning and discussions with representatives of those states. (Interviews with the
nine "other" planning states focused on their planning needs and their ideas for "ideal" hazardous
waste management planning practices—information on actual planning practices was derived only
from those states that prepared formal planning documents.) In all cases for the formal planning
states, state legislative mandates required the planning process and dictated, at least, the initial
planning objectives. State environmental agencies were responsible for implementing the planning
process in New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington. A special
commission or quasi-public corporation established by the initial planning legislation was
responsible for the planning process in Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Jersey. All
planning processes required at least two years to complete.
ES-2
-------
State planning objectives exhibit both similarities and differences. In particular, a central
objective of all states' hazardous waste-related planning efforts is assessing management capacity
needs and the availability of this needed capacity. A second universal objective is promoting waste
minimization, with the states of Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and
Washington also explicitly addressing the implementation of a state legislatively mandated waste
management hierarchy.3 From this point, state planning objectives tend to diverge, largely driven
by statutory mandates (which in certain cases limit an agency's planning purview) and by specific
state circumstances.
In all, 28 separate planning activities were identified, half of which were unique to a single
state or nearly unique (i.e., associated with two or three states). Examples of planning activities
include: examining total waste generation by type and volume for all wastes placing demand on
RCRA subtitle C permitted management capacity;4 identifying, locating, and assessing the life
expectancy of hazardous waste treatment facilities; and investigating the highest priority,
technically feasible management options for hazardous waste streams.
Nine of the 28 activities show a high degree of overlap with six or more states undertaking
them. These activities cover the basic process of assessing management capacity for all wastes
placing demand on permitted hazardous waste management capacity. The process also includes
incorporating into demand estimates the shifts in management according to state hazardous waste
management hierarchies.
Most of the state plans contain specific recommendations for implementation activities,
which many of the states have carried out. The recommendations cover a wide range of activities
that, as would be expected, vary with the type and number of original plan objectives. In general,
the implementation activities fall into three categories: follow-up studies; legislative changes; and
administrative changes.
Planning Processes and the Capacity Assurance Planning Process (CAP)
The table "Summary Comparison of Comprehensive, State Capacity, and Capacity
Assurance Hazardous Waste Management Planning" [pp. ES-5 to ES-7] summarizes the six
objectives and related planning activities that emerge from the review of planning needs and
practices. The six planning objectives are general statements derived directly from the six state
needs categories discussed previously. The planning activities primarily derive from the activities
states have undertaken in conducting their planning.
Massachusetts, addressed in this report as an "other planning" state, is implementing a waste management hierarchy
mandated by their Toxic Use Reduction Act of 1989.
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) establishes criteria for identifying hazardous
wastes and contains standards and enforcement provisions addressing all aspects of handling, storing, transporting, treating,
and disposing of such wastes.
ES-3
-------
The table compares, on the basis of 24 planning activities, three hazardous waste
management-related planning processes: comprehensive hazardous waste management planning;
state hazardous waste management capacity planning; and the 1989 Federal CAP. The
comprehensive hazardous waste management planning process incorporates all of the identified
planning activities. No state, in practice, engaged in all of these activities—the comprehensive
approach was created to act as an example of the full range of activities that emerge from
combining the various state practices observed during this review. The state hazardous waste
capacity planning process is structured around 12 "backbone" hazardous waste management
planning activities (these activities are identified in the table by italicized print) which are a subset
of the comprehensive hazardous waste management planning activities. This approach, in general,
represents the typical practices in which formal planning states engaged.
The final column of the table addresses the 1989 Federal CAP process. The review is based
on the activities EPA identified in its 1988 CAP guidance document and the typical activities
undertaken by states during 1989 to meet this requirement. On the basis of the comparison
portrayed in the table, the 1989 CAP process shares some similarities with the comprehensive and
state capacity planning processes; CAP activities fully overlap with four of the "backbone"
planning activities and partially overlap with two others. These activities are a fundamental aspect
of all three planning processes. The activities provide the basic hazardous waste generation and
management data required to understand a state's hazardous waste management system, analyze
the state's relationship to interstate hazardous waste management markets, and examine potential
future capacity shortfalls. These activities address an important and fundamental range of the
hazardous waste management planning needs that states identified during the course of this project.
At the same time, fundamental differences also exist which limited the ability of the 1989
CAP process to address fully the state hazardous waste management planning needs addressed by
the other two planning processes. Congress' original premise for mandating capacity assurance
was the concern that states, due to political pressures and public opposition, have had difficulty
permitting and constructing needed hazardous waste management capacity. This raised the specter
that, over time, the capacity necessary to manage the hazardous waste generated in the United
States safely would not be available. Congress believed that such a "capacity crisis" could lead to
excessive hazardous waste management costs, improper or illegal hazardous waste management
activities, and the potential creation of additional Superfund hazardous waste sites.
The 1989 CAP process did not include any activities associated with "management
according to the hierarchy," "improve hazardous waste program implementation," or "promote
compliance with hazardous waste regulations." Moreover, most of the states that conduct
hazardous waste management planning processes independent of the CAP identified four primary
factors that currently limit their ability to incorporate the CAP process into their planning efforts:
the potential loss of Superfund monies associated with Capacity Assurance Planning; the range of
needs addressed by CAP; the structure of the plans imposed by the 1989 CAP guidance; and the
means of assuring capacity prescribed under CAP.
ES-4
-------
Summary Comparison of Comprehensive, State Capacity,
and Capacity Assurance Hazardous Waste Management Planning
PLAN ACTIVITIES
COMPREHENSIVE
STATE
CAPACITY
CAPACITY
ASSURANCE
1. MANAGEMENT ACCORDING TO THE HIERARCHY
A, Investigate the highest priority, technically feasible
management options for hazardous waste streams to
examine the potential for shifting to a more preferred
management method.
B. Examine the economic and regulatory barriers to achieving
the high priority management methods.
C. Identify state procedures to encourage waste management
according to the waste management hierarchy.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Potentially (1)
Yes
No
No
No (2)
2. ASSURE ACCESS TO HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT CAPACITY
A. Examine total waste generation by type and volume for all
wastes placing demand on permitted hazardous waste
management capacity.
B. Examine wastes of particular concern to the state (e.g.,
waste oils, household hazardous wastes, exempt
wastewaters),
C. Examine number, type, size, and geographic distribution
of in-state hazardous waste generators and managers,
D. Determine disposition of waste (management methodst
location of managing facilities, and type of managing
facilities),
E, Identify, locate, and assess life expectancy of hazardous
waste treatment, storage, disposal, and recycling facilities
in the state.
F. Project probable future hazardous waste generation and
management, incorporating expectations for economic
change, waste minimization, regulatory change, and
remediation wastes.
G. Project preferred future hazardous waste generation and
management in accordance with the waste management
hierarchy.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Potentially
Potentially
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partially (3)
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
(1) All "potentially" designations indicate that, in certain instances, states undertaking capacity planning did incorporate
these activities into their efforts.
(2) As currently proposed, the 1993 CAP process will partially address this activity for capacity shortfalls.
(3) This designation reflects the fact that CAP examined only a subset of wastes placing demand on permitted hazardous
waste management capacity.
ES-5
-------
Summary Comparison of Comprehensive, State Capacity,
and Capacity Assurance Hazardous Waste Management Planning
PLAN ACTIVITIES
COMPREHENSIVE
STATE
CAPACITY
CAPACITY
ASSURANCE
H. Determine the shortfall between in-state hazardous waste
management capacity demand and supply on the basis of
preferred future projections.
Conduct economic viability analysis of identified state
hazardous waste management capacity shortfalls.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Potentially
Partially (4)
No
3. CONDUCT PUBLIC EDUCATION
Conduct surveys of generators and the general public to
reveal their current level of understanding on management
methods, hazardous waste generation and management
risks, and specific concerns with hazardous waste
generation and management to target educational efforts.
B. Investigate opportunities to educate generators on waste
minimization.
C. Produce plan report (or regular update) for distribution to
the general public.
Yes
Potentially
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No (5)
Yes
4. IMPROVE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
A. Examine current efficiency and effectiveness of hazardous
waste management programs overall to improve program
implementation,
B. Examine siting and permitting procedures.
C. Review hazardous waste activity reporting in light of state
data needs and in-state business activity.
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
(4) This designation reflects the fact that CAP did incorporate reductions in demand due to waste minimization but did not
include the notion of a preferred future nor analysis on how to achieve improved management.
(5) As currently proposed, the 1993 CAP process will partially address this activity for capacity shortfalls.
ES-6
-------
Summary Comparison of Comprehensive, State Capacity,
and Capacity Assurance Hazardous Waste Management Planning
PLAN ACTIVITIES
5, PROMOTE COMPLIANCE WITH HAZARDOUS
WASTE REGULATIONS
A. Examine current structure of compliance efforts.
B. Survey generators to determine level of understanding of
hazardous waste generation and management regulations.
C. Examine process for examining and responding to new
federal requirements.
6. BALANCE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC
CONSIDERATIONS
A. Examine the regulatory framework and policies that affect
key waste streams to identify mixed incentives and potential
redundancy.
B. Examine opportunities for increased waste minimization.
C. Examine opportunities for providing technical assistance to
generators for understanding and complying with new
regulations.
COMPREHENSIVE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
STATE
CAPACITY
No
No
No
No
Potentially
Potentially
CAPACITY
ASSURANCE
No
No
No
No
Partially (6)
No
(6) This designation reflects the fact that CAP did incorporate reductions in demand due to waste minimization but did not
include the notion of a preferred future nor analysis on how to achieve improved management, As currently proposed,
the 1993 CAP process will partially address this activity for capacity shortfalls.
ES-7
-------
When states prepared their 1989 CAPs they focused on maintaining access to Superfund
remedial action funds. Under comprehensive and state capacity planning, states appear
considerably more inclined than during CAP preparation to examine a broader range of wastes
which potentially place demand on permitted hazardous waste management capacity and to address
(and publicly display) difficult issues. As a result, states that independently undertake capacity
planning efforts may not be inclined to use these plans as substitutes for CAPs, since the
conclusions drawn in their own plans may make it more difficult to assure capacity within the
framework of Section 104(c)(9).
As the summary table indicates, the 1989 CAP involved undertaking only a subset of the
activities associated with comprehensive and state capacity planning. As a result, the 1989 CAP
addressed a more limited set of needs than the other two planning processes. Probably the most
important single difference between the 1989 CAP and the two models is the "management
according to the hierarchy" need. The comprehensive and state capacity planning processes are
linked to a goal of integrating the management hierarchy into the planning process. This goal leads
to investigating the technical, economic, and regulatory feasibility of promoting management
according to the hierarchy during state plan preparation. The 1989 CAP process does not contain
this notion of improved management and, as a result, states did not include improved management
feasibility analyses as a part of their 1989 CAP efforts.
EPA guidance for the preparation of the 1989 CAPs prescribed which waste streams states
should address and how states needed to present their data in CAP documents. States understand
EPA's need for consistency to facilitate evaluating plans and preparing a national profile of
capacity assurance. At the same time, states, in undertaking either comprehensive or capacity
planning of their own, typically address a different universe of waste streams and aggregate data
in line with specific plan objectives or recommendations. This represents a fundamental conflict
between the data needs of a nationally-oriented agency and the needs of states facing unique
circumstances.
Finally, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) section 104(c)(9) requires states to assure capacity for all hazardous wastes generated
within their borders. In the event that states identify capacity shortfalls, the statute prescribes two
means by which states can address them: site new in-state facilities or enter into an
interstate/regional agreement for out-of-state management. EPA, in its guidance to states,
encouraged states to reduce expected capacity demand by incorporating waste minimization
estimates into their calculations. The law does not provide for states to examine the feasibility
and/or desirability of undertaking these actions. As a result, comprehensive and state capacity
planning practices differ significantly; they consider the technical, economic, and legal feasibility,
as well as the overall desirability, of options to address capacity shortfalls. These feasibility
analyses show up in a number of planning efforts and tend to result in states rejecting the notion
that complete self sufficiency is desirable.
On the basis of the information collected and reviewed during this project, the 1989 CAP
process appears to address a fundamental set of state hazardous waste management planning needs.
ES-8
-------
For those states which have not initiated or do not plan to develop their own independent hazardous
waste management planning processes, the CAP process can provide useful information and
insights. Nevertheless, for those states conducting hazardous waste-related planning, the CAP
process does not provide fully adequate plans and/or it directly conflicts with state planning
approaches. The CAP also is hampered in its ability to substitute for state comprehensive
hazardous waste management planning or state capacity planning efforts by certain aspects of the
statutory language and the tension between EPA's need for consistent data across all states and
states' need to address individual circumstances.
ES-9
-------
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
Report Structure
This report contains five sections; Introduction, Description of Planning Needs, Description
of Planning Practices and Approaches, Description and Comparison of Planning Models, and
Conclusion. This section, the Introduction, provides an overview of the project purpose and
approach. Additionally, this section provides a brief discussion of the planning concept which
guided research efforts and has acted as the framework for organizing the presentation of results.
Section II lists and describes the planning needs that were identified through contact with the state
agencies participating in the project. Section III provides a description of state agency hazardous
waste management planning approaches and activities that derive from a review of publicly
available planning documents and interviews with the preparers of these documents. In Section
IV, the needs listed in Section II and the planning activities identified in Section III are combined
to identify a set of objectives and related planning activities for two state hazardous waste
management planning processes. Also within Section IV, the Federal Capacity Assurance Planning
(CAP) requirement is introduced and its related activities are compared to those of the two model
planning processes. Finally, Section V provides a conclusion of the report.
Project Purpose
The purpose of this project has been to identify existing and emerging state hazardous waste
management planning needs and describe the planning practices states have designed to address
these needs; in addition, EPA obtained state observations on the relationship of their planning
needs and activities to the Federal CAP process. The project was designed neither to evaluate the
performance of the CAP process nor to evaluate and recommend whether or how states should
undertake hazardous waste management planning.
Project Approach
The project has targeted two groups of states to identify and describe planning needs and
practices. In selecting participants for the project, the primary goal was to obtain a range of
perspectives associated with different environmental, economic, institutional, and public policy
considerations.
The two groups of states are distinguished by the nature of their planning activities: "formal
planning" states and "other planning" states. Formal planning states are those that prepare a formal
hazardous waste management plan (hereafter referred to as formal planning states) and make it
publicly available. The other planning states are those that do not publish a formal hazardous
-------
waste management planning document, even though they may engage in planning activities,5 (A
complete list of states and their associated characteristics is provided in Table 1 [p. 3].)
EPA selected the 18 states to participate in the project based on four criteria:
1. participation in different CAP regional agreements for sharing management capacity;
2. location in different geographical areas;
3. characterization of total in-state waste generation volume as large, medium, or small6; and
4. characterization as net importing or exporting state relative to the interstate shipment of
hazardous waste.
Table 1 lists the 18 states and provides their associated characteristics. As depicted in Table
1, the selected states are characterized as follows:
1, Each participates in one of the regional agreement blocks of states, including the Northeast
States, EPA Region 4, EPA Region 5, EPA Region 6, Western Governors' Association
States, and two independent states;
2, Five are large, eight are medium, and five are small generating states; and
3. Twelve are net exporting states and six are net importing states.
EPA obtained hazardous waste management planning need and practice information from
formal planning states through a combination of document review and telephone interviews with
state agency staff. Document review focused on understanding each state's planning process,
planning purposes and goals, planning focus, and planning research activities. EPA obtained the
hazardous waste management planning need information from other planning states through a
telephone interview with each state agency, (The other planning states responded to the questions
in Appendix A.)
Certain of the other planning states, for example Texas, are currently preparing formal hazardous waste
management planning documents,
6 For purposes of this study, the designation of large, medium, or small reflects total waste generated in state (1987),
excluding exempt wastewaters, as follows: large > 1,000,001 tons; medium 100,001 -1,000,000 tons; smalK 100,000 tons.
These designations are based on information contained in a February 1991 report by the National Solid Waste Management
Association entitled, InterchanEe of Hazardous Waste Management Services Among States.
-------
Table 1: Summary of Participating State Characteristics
Characteristics
1 . Participation in different capacity agreements:
- Northeast States
- EPA Region 4
- EPA Region 5
- EPA Region 6
- Western States (WGA)
- Self-certified
2. Waste Generation Reported 1987
- large (L) > 1,000,001 tons
- medium (M) 100,001 - 1,000,000 tons
- small (S) <100,000 tons
- waste generation ranking *
3. Status as Net Importer or Net Exporter **
- Net Importer (I)
- Net Exporter (E)
Formal Planning States
CT Ml MN NJ NY NC PA VT WA
X X XX
X
X X
X
X
L L
M M MM
S S S
25 7 33 15 5 32 14 43 23
I I
E E E E E E E
Non-Formal Planning States
AL DE IL MA MO OR TX UT VA
XX X
X
X
X
X X
X
L L L
M M MM
S S
24 36 9 16 13 34 1 22 30
II II
E E E E E
Tigiiresreflect ranking of all states according; to amount of RCRA hazardous waste generated in 1987 less exempt wastes. (National Solid Waste Management
Association, "Interchange of Hazardous Waste Management Services Among States," Table 1, page 5, February 1991.)
** Note that net importer/exporter status can change on an annual basis, although the net importing status of Alabama, Illinois, Oregon, and Utah is unlikely to
change as large commercial management facilities are located in these states.
-------
Planning Concepts
Throughout the project, the working definition of planning has been:
a structured, objective process of preparing a set of decisions for action in the future
to influence events in the direction of some preferred outcome(s) and/or avoid
otherwise unforeseen undesirable outcome(s).
For the planning framework discussed in this report, EPA used the "rational comprehensive"
planning model. This model best captures the common notion of planning and closely mirrors the
practices observed in reviewing state hazardous waste management planning efforts. Although
variously characterized in academic planning literature, the framework can be viewed as having
four interactive process steps: scoping; researching; evaluating; and implementing (See Figure 1
[p. 5]).
Scoping involves setting a plan vision, identifying an initial set of needs, and deriving plan
objectives (see Figure 2, [p. 6]). In addition, scoping involves setting planning process objectives
(e.g., develop public support for plan recommendations) and developing the planning process
approach. Scoping for hazardous waste management planning-related processes often takes place—
at least initially—in the state legislature, which creates a plan vision and objectives. The
implementing agency, depending on the strictness of the statutory language, might refine the vision
and objectives based on information collected during planning activities.
Researching entails basic information-gathering activities (see Figure 2). The activities
involve characterizing the current, probable, and preferred future situations. Most agencies
conducting planning use the information collected during this step to refine their statements of
needs, objectives, and plan vision.
Evaluating represents the core analytical activities of the planning process in which the
implementing agency evaluates options and specifies actions (see Figure 3, [p. 7]). Specific
activities include: developing evaluation criteria; identifying options for achieving plan objectives;
comparing options on the basis of technical, economic, legal, financial, and public policy feasibility
criteria; selecting preferred options; and formulating recommendations. It is at the end of this
process step that agencies typically produce a planning report designed to describe the planning
process, its findings, and recommendations for future actions.
Implementing involves undertaking the recommended actions and monitoring the results
(see Figure 3). Implementation includes setting benchmarks against which agencies can evaluate
progress; allocating resources to support actions; assigning roles and responsibilities; implementing
the recommendations; and monitoring both the benchmarks to assess progress and general
developments to ensure the plan's original premise remains valid. Monitoring activities support
either a periodic or on-going reassessment of the plan's vision, needs, and objectives.
-------
FIGURE 1
The Planning Process
Plan
Development
Plan
Actions
Scoping
Researching
Evaluating
Implementing
Final
Plan
Report
-------
FIGURE 2
Scoping/Researching
Scoping: General Direction Setting
Plan Vision
Plan Needs
Plan Objectives
Planning Process Objectives
Planning Process Approach
Researching: Collecting Information
on Current and Future Conditions
Characterize Current Conditions
Characterize Probable Future Conditions
Characterize Preferred Futures
Refine Vision, Needs, Objectives, and Approach
-------
FIGURE 3
Evaluating/Implementing
Evaluating: Evaluate Options and Specify Actions
Develop Evaluation Criteria
Identify Options for Achieving Objectives
Compare/Contrast Options
Select Preferred Options
Make Recommendations
Implementing: Undertake Actions and Monitor Results
Set Benchmarks
Allocate Resources
Assign Roles/Responsibilities
Implement Recommendations
Monitor Benchmarks
Monitor General HWM Developments
Adjust Vision, Needs, Plan Objectives
-------
The specific planning process approach an agency might take is distinguished by differences
in the plan focus, level and mode of participation, and strategic orientation (see Figure 4, [p. 9]).
The focus of a plan's activities can range from highly targeted (e.g., reduce waste generation) to
comprehensive (e.g., improve hazardous waste management) or even very global (e.g., overall
environmental planning). Participation in the planning process can range between a process
involving only agency personnel (internal orientation) to one with widespread and continuous
public involvement (external orientation). The strategic orientation of the plan can range between
strictly describing the current and expected situation (and awaiting public/private responses to the
information) to prescribing very specific actions for meeting plan objectives.
The characteristics of the planning process approach are variously influenced by plan
objectives, planning process objectives, resource constraints, and statutory considerations. Plan
objectives influence, in particular, the focus of the planning activities. If, for example, plan
objectives address a specific need or set of needs (e.g., more capacity), then the focus of research,
evaluation, and implementation activities is also likely to be very targeted.
Planning process obj ectiyes particularly influence approaches to participation and strategic
orientation. Planning process objectives frequently reflect particular state characteristics such as
the level of stakeholder interest and concern about hazardous waste issues and the role that
executive and legislative branches play in planning efforts, including authorizing planning
activities, codifying planning outcomes, and/or providing authority to implement planning
recommendations. Planning process objectives include using the planning process to build
constituencies to support plan recommendations, increase public awareness, and serve as a
reference for future policy initiatives.
Resource and statutory considerations can constrain approaches to focus, participation,
and/or strategic orientation. Regardless of the comprehensiveness of plan objectives, the plan
scope may be limited by resource constraints. As well, statutory mandates can specify plan
objectives, the level and type of participation in the planning process, the planning report content,
and the actions for implementing the plan.
-------
Resource
Considerations
FIGURE 4
Shaping the Planning Process Approach
Plan
Objectives
Planning Process
Objectives
Distinguishing Characteristics
of the Planning Process
Range of Focus
Targeted Comprehensive
Range of Participation
Internal External
Statutory
Considerations
Range of Strategy
Describing Prescribing
-------
SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING NEEDS
States identified a wide range of hazardous waste management planning needs. The
identified needs, however, represent the perspectives of no more than a single agency (primarily
within a single agency department) within each state. As a result, a more broad-based review of
needs within each state might show considerably more, and more diverse, individual needs. For
example, the State of New Jersey focused its needs primarily on assessing access to capacity
because of the statutory mandate under which the entity interviewed, the Hazardous Waste
Facilities Siting Commission, operates. For this reason, individual state responses should not be
viewed as necessarily indicative of the state's overall set of hazardous waste management planning
needs.
The needs identified during this review have been grouped into six categories:
1- Managing Waste According to the "Hierarchy": this category contains needs related to
increasing waste minimization and, in general, shifting waste management to more
preferred management methods (i.e., in conformance with state/Federal waste management
"hierarchy" policies). Waste management hierarchy refers to Federal and various state
legislative mandates and policies that indicate a preference for certain types of management
options over others. Although there is some variation among hierarchies, the basic
structure is: source reduction; recycling; treatment, which includes incineration and
stabilization; and landfill.
2. Assessing Access to Hazardous Waste Management Capacity: needs in this category focus
on state efforts to understand the demand for hazardous waste treatment and disposal
services created by in-state generators and the availability of such services in and out of
state.
3. Conducting Public Education: needs in this category reflect state interest in better
informing the general public about hazardous waste risks and the means to address such
risks and informing the regulated community of opportunities for improved management.
4. Improving Hazardous Waste Program Implementation: this category contains a wide range
of needs including better targeting of program efforts and increased staff training.
5. Promoting Compliance with Hazardous Waste Regulations: needs in this category focus
on increasing the regulated community's rate of compliance with hazardous waste
regulations.
6. Balancing Environmental and Economic Considerations: this category reflects state interest
in incorporating specific state economic considerations into regulatory and technical
assistance activities.
10
-------
Table 2 [pp. 12-17] presents the needs summarized into the six categories mentioned above
and indicates which states identified the need. The last column of Table 2 indicates the number
of states that identified the need. In general, states placed primary emphasis on the first three
categories—Management According to the Hierarchy, Assess Access to Hazardous Waste
Management Capacity, and Conduct Public Education—both in terms of statements about priorities
and the number of states identifying these needs. States identifying needs associated with the
management hierarchy consistently identified this category as their top priority. States also placed
significant emphasis on public education; in part, this results from the link between public
education and achieving the objectives related to the other needs categories.
States' responses also indicate that they tend to have a fairly similar "core" set of hazardous
waste management planning needs, with most states then having a variety of unique needs driven
by individual state circumstances. In all, there are roughly 16 needs that show a high degree of
overlap (i.e., nine—50 percent—or more states identified the need) among states. These needs are
identified by italicized print in Table 2. These indicate a strong state focus on assessing access to
hazardous waste management capacity by understanding state capacity needs and addressing those
needs through promoting management according to the hierarchy, increasing on-site management,
and siting new and expanded facilities while acknowledging the limits placed on state efforts by
the inability to control interstate waste flows.
With the exception of the basic distinction between formal planning and other planning
states, no particular pattern emerged associating specific needs with state characteristics such as
membership in a regional agreement for Federal CAP purposes, quantity of generation, or net
importer or exporter of waste. Formal planning states identified more needs and their responses
tended to group around specific needs. Other planning state responses, on the other hand, showed
considerably more variation. This may result from the ability of formal planning states to provide
focused responses after having systematically considered their needs rather than from any
fundamental differences in the planning needs of the two state categories. The two states that have
the highest ratio of imports to exports (Alabama and Utah), as well as Texas, did stress the need
for obtaining the ability to control waste imports. Most other states focused on achieving increased
self-sufficiency to reduce dependence on out-of-state facilities and improve relationships with
importing states.
Managing Waste According to the Hierarchy, as mentioned earlier, is the single most
important category that states identified. In all, states identified nine specific needs ranging from
general statements about the need to promote waste management activities in accordance with the
waste management hierarchy (#1) to more specific statements such as the need to develop a means
to measure waste minimization progress (#5). All states also expressed a strong interest in
developing a strategy that helped generators move waste into "higher" technologies so as to reduce
risks and costs by minimizing the amount and types of wastes generated (#7). With regard to the
waste management hierarchy overall, states' emphasis is strongly on the top end of the hierarchy
(i.e., source reduction), although a number of the planning states, as discussed in Section III, have
undertaken detailed analyses of opportunities for improved waste management along the entire
hierarchy.
11
-------
Table 2: Summary of State Hazardous Waste Management Planning Needs
NEEDS
Management According to the Hierarchy
1 . Promote waste management activities in accordance with a state
legislatively mandated waste management hierarchy.
2. Build waste minimization and other forms of improved management
into planning analytical activities.
3. Foster waste reduction concepts within regulatory agencies.
4. Establish/meet waste reduction goals.
5. Develop a means to measure waste minimization progress.
6. Conduct research to identify recycling, recovery, treatment, and
disposal options that are technically and economically feasible for
wastes that cannot be reduced.
7. Develop (technical) assistance strategies that help generators move
wastes into "higher* technologies.
8. Develop market-based incentives to encourage the public and/or
regulated community to reduce and avoid waste generation.
9. Foster multi-media (pollution prevention) concepts within regulatory
agencies and the regulated community.
Formal Plan
CT MI MN NJ NY NC PA VT WA
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
XX XX
XXX X XX
X XXX
XXX X X X
xxxxxxxxx
XX X
X
Other Plan
AL DE IL MA MO OR TX UT VA
X X
XX X
X XX
X X
X XX
xxxx x xxxx
X XX
TOTAL
STATES
11
12
7
8
7
6
18
3
4
12
-------
Table 2: Summary of State Hazardous Waste Management Planning Needs
NEEDS
Formal Plan
CT MI MN NJ NY NC PA VT WA
Other Plan
AL DE IL MA MO OR TX UT VA
TOTAL
STATES
Assess Access to Hazardous Waste Management Capacity
1. Develop an understanding of waste generation and management
trends.
2. Address conditionally exempt generator and household hazardous
wastes as counties/municipalities attempt to divert such wastes
from landfills.
3. Assess how capacity needs will evolve in response to new
regulations.
4. Assess how capacity needs will evolve in response to changes in
regulatory emphasis (e.g., either less or more aggressive
regulatory activities).
5. Assess how capacity needs will evolve in response to incentives for
improved waste management.
6. Calculate the minimum number of facilities necessary to meet
in-state demand for hazardous waste management capacity.
7. Assess the role of waste minimization as a primary means of
conserving or avoiding the need for capacity.
8. Conduct technical and/or economic feasibility assessments of
needed capacity.
9. Reconcile the need for facilities with public reluctance to accept
facilities.
xxxxxxxxx
X
X
X X
xxxxxxxxx
X
X
X X
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
X XX
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X
XXX
13
-------
Table 2: Summary of State Hazardous Waste Management Planning Needs
NEEDS
10. Develop means to control waste imports.
1 1 . Encourage on-site/local management, especially of remediation
wastes.
12. Improve in-state siting and permitting processes.
13. Identify appropriate sites for facilities.
14. Understand the national capacity picture (indicating availability of
out-of-state capacity).
15. Identify strategies (e.g., permitting) for moving non-hazardous
waste (e.g., Industrial Solid Waste) out of RCRA Subtitle C
permitted capacity.
16. Investigate intra-state equity considerations.
17. Address trans-national waste movements.
18. Participate in regional self-sufficiency planning efforts.
19. Comply with CERCLA Section 104(c)(9).
20. Accommodate free movement of waste under interstate commerce
clause provisions.
21. Address the issues of management capacity and distributional equity
among states.
Formal Plan
CT MI MN NJ NY NC PA VT WA
XXX XX
X XXXXXXX
X X
X
XXX XX
X XXX
X XX XXX
X XX
Other Plan
AL DE IL MA MO OR TX UT VA
X XX
XXX X
X XX
X
X X
XX X
X
X X
X
XX X
X XX
TOTAL
STATES
3
9
11
3
2
3
1
1
7
5
9
6
14
-------
Table 2: Summary of State Hazardous Waste Management Planning Needs
NEEDS
Conduct Public Education
1 , Promote management according to the waste management
hierarchy, with a focus on waste minimization.
2. Promote reduced waste management costs.
3. Compile and disseminate in formation to the general public on
hazardous waste generation and management.
4. Build public participation into hazardous waste planning and facility
siting.
5, Promote partnerships among industry, interest groups, and the
general public.
6. Prepare and disseminate information on the trade offs associated
with personal choices.
7, Develop educational materials for use in academic instruction.
Improve Hazardous Waste Program Implementation
1 . Provide staff training to maintain current program services and
develop expertise to address changing hazardous waste management
regulatory and technical assistance needs.
2. Improve agency flexibility in response to rapidly changing legal,
regulatory, environmental, and economic conditions.
Formal Plan
CT MI MN NJ NY NC PA VT WA
xxxxxxxxx
X
xxxxxxxxx
XX X X X X
X
X
X
X X
XXX X
Other Plan
AL DE IL MA MO OR TX UT VA
xxxx xxxxx
X XX X
XX X XXXX
xxxx x
X XX
X X
xxxxx
xxxxx
TOTAL
STATES
18
5
16
11
4
3
1
7
9
15
-------
Table 2: Summary of State Hazardous Waste Management Planning Needs
NEEDS
3. Develop effective mechanisms for targeting management programs.
4. Obtain current, accurate, consistent, and streamlined data.
5. Develop an agency capability to monitor program results and justify
regulatory efforts in quantifiable terms.
6. Identify new funding sources and maintain current funding for
hazardous waste programs.
7. Assess the implications of agency budgets increasingly supported
by program fees.
8. Reduce permit processing times.
9. Improve working relationships with EPA.
10. Assure quality in laboratory analysis.
11. Improve the authorization process.
12. Implement RCRA Corrective Action program.
13. Identify opportunities for and build cooperative links with in-state
military facilities to improve compliance, waste management
practices, and cleanups.
14. Promote regulatory consistency among all generators and throughout
the state.
Formal Plan
CT MI MN NJ NY NC PA VT WA
X XX
X XXX
X XXX
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
Other Plan
AL DE IL MA MO OR TX UT VA
XX X X
XX X XX
X XX
XXX XX
XX X
X X
X
X
XX X
X
XX X
X
TOTAL
STATES
7
9
7
6
4
3
3
3
4
2
4
1
16
-------
Table 2: Summary of State Hazardous Waste Management Planning Needs
NEEDS
Promote Compliance with Hazardous Waste Regulations
1 . Help the regulated community (especially small and conditionally
exempt generators) respond to changing regulations and an
expanding hazardous waste universe.
2. Plan for compliance with federal requirements, including the federal
capacity assurance requirement.
3. Enforce federal and state hazardous waste regulations effectively.
4. Obtain funding for clean up of abandoned hazardous waste sites.
Balance Environmental and Economic Considerations
1 . Help generators address escalating hazardous waste management
costs (e.g., through waste reduction).
2. Improve generators' (especially small businesses') understanding
of an increasingly complex regulatory framework.
3. Assure generators' access to reasonably priced hazardous
management capacity.
4. Create and maintain a positive state environmental image, while
helping industry maintain a competitive edge.
5. Examine regulatory strategies to avoid conflicting regulatory
requirements.
6. Incorporate incentive-based and voluntary programs into the current
command and control regulatory scheme.
Formal Plan
CT MI MN NJ NY NC PA VT WA
XX XXX
X X
X X
X
X XX
X
X
Other Plan
AL DE IL MA MO OR TX UT VA
X X X X X
X X
X X
XXX X
X X
X XXX
X X
X X
X
TOTAL
STATES
10
4
4
4
3
7
1
3
2
1
17
-------
States, pretty much across the board, placed considerable emphasis on Assess Access to
Hazardous Waste Management Capacity. This emphasis is not strictly the result of the 1989 CAP
requirement; many of the formal planning states had identified and were addressing this category
of needs before 1989. In total, the states identified 21 specific needs. The first five are associated
with the states' interest in assessing their current and future capacity situations. Needs 6 through
17 are associated with the states' interest in managing waste without undue reliance on out-of-state
facilities. Finally, needs 18 through 21 relate to the states' interest in assuring access to any needed
out-of-state capacity.
Seven of the 16 "core" needs appear under this category. They are:
Need1: develop an understanding of waste generation and management trends.
Need 3: assess how capacity needs will evolve in response to new regulations.
Need 6: calculate the minimum number of facilities necessary to meet in-state demand for
hazardous waste management capacity.
Need 7: assess the role of waste minimization as a primary means of conserving or avoiding
the need for capacity.
Need11: encourage on-site/local management, especially of remediation wastes.
Need 12: improve in-state siting and permitting processes.
Needj20: accommodate free movement of waste under interstate commerce clause provisions.
Five of these needs (numbers 1, 3,6,7, and 12) receive substantial emphasis by the formal
planning states. These five common needs reflect, in particular, the formal planning states' interest
in assuring access to hazardous waste management capacity by understanding their hazardous waste
management system, expanding waste minimization as a means to preserve capacity and reduce
exports, and increasing the siting of new and expanded facilities as need is demonstrated.
Three additional needs under this category merit attention: addressing conditionally exempt
and household hazardous waste (#2); conducting technical and/or economic feasibility assessments
of needed capacity (#8); and participating in regional self-sufficiency planning efforts (#18). Eight
states identified the need to address conditionally exempt and household hazardous waste as a
growing concern related to recent municipality efforts to divert these wastes from landfills. Formal
planning states were primarily responsible for identifying needs 8 and 18, which they typically
linked to their inability to control interstate waste flows. The states indicated that the lack of
control meant that: (1) any facilities constructed in a state must be economically competitive
(generating an interest in economic viability analyses) and; (2) that some wastes, even under the
best of circumstances, are likely to require out-of-state management (generating an interest in
regional, self-sufficiency planning).
18
-------
Conduct Public Education is a unique category since it involves methods for addressing
needs identified in other categories and therefore tends to overlap considerably with those other
needs. The net result of this overlap is that public education emerges as an area of strong interest
on the part of the states, showing a fairly balanced level of responses between formal and the other
planning states. The states identified eight specific needs. The first two focus on the regulated
community and support addressing needs listed under the Management According to the Hierarchy,
and Balance Environmental and Economic Considerations. The remaining needs focus on
increasing the general public's understanding of the hazardous waste management system and its
associated risks. These education needs, in particular, support state efforts to obtain informed and
rational decisions regarding siting and other hazardous waste management activities.
The remaining three categories comprise the remainder of the state needs which are
typically driven by unique state circumstances and/or the specific mission of the state agency.
Improve Hazardous Waste Management Program Implementation is a category
encompassing 14 separate needs. States placed considerable emphasis on the need to improve
agency flexibility in response to changing conditions (#2) and on the need for current, accurate,
consistent, and streamlined data (#4). These are "core" needs. The states also emphasized the need
to provide staff training (#1), to develop effective mechanisms for targeting management programs
(#3 - e.g., use of Biennial Report or state-equivalent data to spot waste minimization potential), and
to develop an agency capability to monitor program results and justify regulatory efforts in
quantifiable terms (#5 - e.g., use of indicators to track the impact of environmental protection
programs over time).
Promote Compliance with Hazardous Waste Management Regulations is comprised of four
specific needs with states placing particular emphasis on the need to help small and conditionally
exempt generators respond to changing regulations and an expanding hazardous waste universe
(this is a "core" need). Certain states placed a strong emphasis on needs related to Balance
Environmental Protection With Economic Considerations. For some, helping industry maintain
a competitive edge is an explicit hazardous waste management goal. States often translate this need
into a focus on promoting waste minimization practices as a least-cost means to reduce
environmental risks. Some states indicated that their agency's mission did not explicitly include
economic development concerns and that balancing is not therefore a particular agency need.
19
-------
SECTION III: DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING PRACTICES/APPROACHES
State Planning Practices and Approaches
For the initial portions of this section it may be useful to refer to Figure 4 which provides
a schematic drawing of the factors and characteristics which shape a state's planning process
approach. Figure 4 appears in Section I of the report on page 9.
All of the state hazardous waste-related planning practices reviewed follow the basic
rational comprehensive planning model (i.e., the planning process includes some form of scoping,
researching, evaluating, and implementing activities). In all cases, state legislative mandates
initiated the planning process and dictated, at least, the initial planning objectives.7 State
environmental agencies were responsible for implementing the planning process in New York,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington; a special commission or quasi-public
corporation established by the initial planning legislation was responsible for the planning process
in Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Jersey. All planning processes required at least two
years to complete.
State planning objectives exhibit both similarities and differences. In particular, a central
objective of all states' hazardous waste-related planning efforts is assessing management capacity
need and access to the needed capacity. Also, all states built waste minimization considerations
into their capacity need estimates. A second universal objective is promoting waste minimization;
the states of Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington
explicitly address the implementation of a state legislatively mandated waste management
hierarchy.8
From the two universal objectives, state planning objectives tend to diverge, largely driven
by statutory mandates (which in certain cases limit an agency's planning purview) and by specific
state circumstances. Examples of less universal planning objectives include explicit objectives to
improve:
» Public education—included by Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and
Washington
• Siting procedures—included by New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington and
• The hazardous waste management regulatory system—included by Washington.
7 Planning legislation was enacted in the following years: CT - 1983; MI - 1979; MN - 1980; NJ - 1984; NY -
1987; NC - 1989; PA - 1980; VT - 1989; and WA - 1985.
8 Massachusetts, addressed in this report as an "other planning" state, is implementing a waste management
hierarchy mandated by their Toxic Use Reduction Act of 1989.
20
-------
Each State's approach (e.g., the focus of planning efforts, level and mode of stakeholder
participation, and strategic orientation) to hazardous waste-related planning varies substantially.
The focus of planning efforts (e.g., plan objectives, research activities, and recommendations)
varies along a continuum between those directed at a specific need or limited set of needs to
encompassing all or most of the identified needs in a comprehensive fashion. For example,
Connecticut and New Jersey focused on capacity planning efforts whereas Washington addressed
assuring access to management capacity, promoting its waste management hierarchy, improving
the state's hazardous waste management regulatory system, improving siting, collecting better data,
and improving education.
The primary factors influencing the focus of the state planning are state legislative mandates
followed by the implementing agency's perception of planning needs. For example, New Jersey's
planning legislation limits the plan focus to capacity considerations while Vermont's hazardous
waste management planning statute specifies development of "a comprehensive state-wide strategy
for the management of waste." In certain instances (e.g., Washington) the legislation specified
limited planning objectives but provided sufficient discretion for the implementing agency to
address a broader set of objectives.
Stakeholder participation occurs at some point in the planning process of all states
interviewed for this project. The actual level and nature of stakeholder involvement, however,
tends to vary widely from state to state. For example, some states assessed needs and conducted
research primarily as an internal agency activity and involved stakeholders in a review of findings
and recommendations via formal public hearings near the end of the planning process (e.g.,
Vermont's planning process). Other states opted for early, widespread stakeholder involvement
through special citizen task forces—bringing together business, labor, scientific, public interest, and
local and state government perspectives—and general public meetings (e.g., Washington's,
Michigan's, and Connecticut's planning processes).
States also varied with regard to the strategy used to affect change related to their planning
goals. Certain states (e.g., New York) strictly used their plan to describe the current and expected
future situations and to allow the interested public (e.g., commercial TSDs) to make decisions on
the basis of this information. Other states (e.g., Connecticut and Washington) used their plans to
prescribe a specific set of public sector actions designed to encourage, for example, increased waste
minimization.
Table 3 [pp. 24-26] provides a compilation of the state researching and evaluating plan
activities derived from the review of state planning documents and discussions with representatives
of each state (note that Table 3 is based on discussions with formal planning states only). In all,
28 separate planning activities were identified, half of which were unique to a single state or nearly
unique (i.e., associated with two or three states). These "unique" activities result either from a state
choosing to move outside the typical scope of hazardous waste-related planning activities (e.g.,
Connecticut and Minnesota examined the outlook for continued availability of out-of-state
facilities) or because the state legislation specifically required the activity (e.g., legislation required
New York to identify areas of the state which generate compatible hazardous waste streams and
21
-------
which have similar interests in providing regional hazardous waste management capacity). In all,
six of the nine states-Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Washington-
undertook relatively unique planning activities.
The remaining activities fall into two tiers. Nine comprise the first tier (these activities are
presented in italicized print). These show a high degree of overlap, with six or more states
undertaking them:
Activity 4: Examining total waste generation by type and volume for all wastes placing demand
on RCRA subtitle C permitted capacity.
Activity 8: Determining the disposition of waste.
Activity 9: Identifying, locating, and assessing the life expectancy of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, disposal, and recycling facilities in the state.
Activity 11: Projecting probable future hazardous waste generation, incorporating expectations
for economic change, waste minimization, regulatory change, and remediation
waste volumes.
Activity 12: Projecting preferred future hazardous waste generation in accordance with the state
hazardous waste management hierarchy, or state equivalent.
Activity 14: Investigating the highest priority, technically feasible management options for
hazardous waste streams to examine potential for movement up the waste
management hierarchy.
Activity17: Determining the shortfall between in-state hazardous waste management capacity
demand and supply,
Activity 27: Examining siting and permitting procedures.
Activity 28: Producing a plan report for distribution to the public.
These activities cover the basic process of assessing management capacity for all wastes placing
demand on permitted hazardous waste management capacity, while incorporating shifts in
management according to state hazardous waste management hierarchies into demand estimates.
The nine comprise the fundamental aspects (or "core" activities) of state-driven capacity planning.
The other five activities (numbers 5, 6, 15, 16, and 18) comprise the second tier. These
activities show a moderate degree of overlap, with between four and five states undertaking them.
They typically are closely related to capacity assessment and assurance activities but reflect a move
to more comprehensive hazardous waste management planning by a state and/or the availability
of resources to undertake special studies. Activities 15 and 18 are of special interest in that they
22
-------
involve economic viability analyses of meeting management capacity demand with in-state
facilities. They reflect the states' concern that any waste management services offered within the
state must be price, quality, and service competitive. This concern derives from the states' limited
ability to control or direct waste flows. Minnesota is the only state of those formal planning states
interviewed for this project that has actively considered public sector subsidies to support a facility
that otherwise would not be price competitive on the basis of waste volumes available in the state.
Most of the state plans contain specific recommendations for implementation activities and,
on the basis of discussions with the states, many states have implemented these activities. The
recommendations cover a wide range of activities and, as would be expected, vary with the type
and number of original plan objectives. In general, the implementation activities fall into three
categories: follow-up studies; legislative changes; and administrative changes. Follow-up studies
include reviews of hazardous waste generation tax incentives and cost-benefit analyses of potential
facility siting efforts. Legislative changes include requiring hazardous waste minimization facility
planning and setting state-wide hazardous waste minimization goals. Administrative changes
primarily involve increasing and/or redirecting technical assistance programs and improving data
collection and management efforts.
23
-------
Table 3: Summary of Formal State Hazardous Waste Management Planning Activities
RESEARCHING AND EVALUATING ACTIVITIES
1 . Reviewed and described hazardous waste regulatory system.
2. Conducted surveys of hazardous waste generators and the general public to
identify hazardous waste issues and concerns.
3. Examined total waste generation by type and volume for the primary wastes
(e.g., LQG) placing demand on RCRA subtitle C permitted management
capacity.
4. Examined total waste generation by type and volume for an wastes
(large/small quantity generators and state-specific regulated wastes) placing
demand on RCRA subtitle C permitted management capacity.
5, Examined wastes of particular concern to the state (e.g., waste oils,
household hazardous waste, exempt waste waters).
6. Examined number, type, size, and geographic distribution of in-state
hazardous waste generators and managers.
7. Examined waste generation volumes relative to generation processes.
8. Determined disposition of waste (management methods, location of managing
facilities, and type of managing facilities).
9. Identified, located, and assessed life expectancy of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, disposal, and recycling facilities in the state.
10. Examined outlook for continued availability of out-of-state facilities.
1 1 . Projected probable future hazardous waste generation, incorporating
expectations for economic change, waste minimization, regulatory change,
and remediation waste volumes.
Formal Plan States
CT MI MN NJ NY NC PA VT WA
X
X
X
xxxx xxxx
XXX XX
XX XXX
X XX
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
X X
xxxxxxxxx
TOTAL
STATES
1
1
1
8
5
5
3
9
9
2
9
24
-------
Table 3: Summary of Formal State Hazardous Waste Management Planning Activities
RESEARCHING AND EVALUATING ACTIVITIES
12. Projected preferred future hazardous waste generation in accordance with the
state hazardous waste management hierarchy, or state equivalent.
13. Performed trend analysis of historical hazardous waste generation and
management data.
14. Investigated the highest priority, technically feasible management options for
hazardous waste streams to examine potential for movement up the waste
management hierarchy (e.g., options to reduce and recycle wastes).
15. Examined the economic and regulatory barriers to achieving the high priority
management methods.
16. Identified state procedures to encourage waste management according to
state's waste management hierarchy.
17. Determined the shortfall between in-state hazardous waste management
capacity demand and supply.
18. Conducted economic viability analysis of identified state hazardous waste
management capacity shortfalls.
19. Conducted regional analysis of existing and needed hazardous waste
management facilities and recommended steps to coordinate hazardous waste
facility planning on a regional basis.
20. Analyzed the ability of existing facilities to meet current and proposed state
and federal environmental, health, and safety standards, and facility
compliance records in meeting these standards.
21, Examined cost and environmental impact of current disposal practices.
22. Examined transportation costs, routes, and/or risks.
Formal
CT MI MN NJ
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X
X X X X
X XX
X X
X
X
X X
Plan States
NY NC PA VT WA
X X
X X
X X
X
XXX
X X X X X
X
X
X
X
TOTAL
STATES
6
2
6
5
5
9
4
3
1
2
3
25
-------
Table 3: Summary of Formal State Hazardous Waste Management Planning Activities
RESEARCHING AND EVALUATING ACTIVITIES
23. Identified areas of the state generating compatible hazardous waste streams
and which have similar interests in providing regional hazardous waste
management capacity.
24. Determine location by area of the state of facilities needed to satisfy
statewide hazardous waste management capacity shortfalls.
25. Examined program efficiency and structure.
26. Conducted cost/benefit analysis of siting a disposal facility.
27 . Examined siting and permitting procedures.
28. Produced plan report for distribution to general public.
CT MI MN
X
X
XXX
XXX
Formal Plan States
NJ NY NC PA VT WA
X
X
X XX X
X X X X X X
TOTAL
STATES
1
1
1
1
7
9
26
-------
SECTION IV; DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON OF PLANNING MODELS
Section II of this document provided a description of the hazardous waste management
planning needs of 18 states. Section III provided a compilation of the activities undertaken by nine
states which have independently undertaken hazardous waste management planning. Table 4 [pp.
28-30] provides a list of six potential hazardous waste management planning objectives and 24
related planning activities that could form the basis for state hazardous waste management-related
planning. The six planning objectives are general statements which derive directly from the six
needs categories presented in Table 2. The planning activities primarily derive from those listed
in Table 3. However, activities identified with objectives 5 and 6, while able to support these
objectives, were not undertaken by most formal planning states, nor did they explicitly identify
them as part of their formal planning process.
Within Table 4 there are 12 activities highlighted by italicized print lettering. These
activities emerge as the "backbone" of any state hazardous waste management-related planning
process, assuming that resources or state legislative mandates do not limit the process. These
activities emerge from the "core" needs identified in Table 2 and the "core" planning activities
identified in Table 3. The remaining activities lend support to the six planning objectives but tend
to address more state-specific concerns and/or reflect a move from focusing on hazardous waste
management capacity planning to a more comprehensive form of hazardous waste management
planning (e.g., addressing such objectives as improving public sector program efficiency).
Table 5 [pp. 31-33] compares three hazardous waste management-related planning
processes on the basis of the planning activities listed in Table 4. Comprehensive hazardous waste
management planning (addressed in the second column of Table 5) is a planning process designed
to incorporate all of the planning activities identified in Table 4. As a result, a "yes" appears in
this column next to each planning activity. Obviously, the comprehensive model represents a
highly resource intensive planning process and addresses a variety of needs on which most states
do not place a high priority. Washington state's planning process was the only one that came close
to incorporating all of these activities.
State hazardous waste management capacity planning (addressed in the third column of
Table 5) is structured around the 12 "backbone" hazardous waste management planning activities
and is a subset of comprehensive hazardous waste management planning. (The "backbone"
activities are in italicized print in Table 5 and have a "Yes" associated with state capacity
planning.) The state hazardous waste management capacity planning process focuses on assessing
the availability of sound and viable hazardous waste management options for all waste streams
generated in-state and placing demand on permitted hazardous waste management capacity. Sound
options are those that accord with the hazardous waste management hierarchy, and viable is defined
as within the bounds of state authority, economically feasible, and technically acceptable.
27
-------
Table 4: Hazardous Waste Management Plan Objectives and Related Plan Activities
PLAN OBJECTIVES
PLAN ACTIVITIES
Identify opportunities to and options for moving wastes up the
hazardous waste management hierarchy, with a particular emphasis
on source reduction.
A. Investigate the highest priority, technically feasible management
options for hazardous waste streams to examine the potential for
movement up the waste management hierarchy.
B. Examine the economic and regulatory barriers to achieving the high
priority management methods.
C. Identify state procedures to encourage waste management according to
the waste management hierarchy.
Establish accurate current and future in-state demand for permitted
hazardous waste management capacity (including all wastes that place
demand on this capacity), identify options for obtaining in-state
needed and viable hazardous waste management capacity, and assure
continued access to needed out-of-state commercial hazardous
waste management capacity.
A. Examine total waste generation by type and volume for all wastes
placing demand on permitted hazardous waste management capacity.
B. Examine wastes of particular concern to the state (e.g., waste oils,
household hazardous wastes, exempt wastewaters).
C. Examine number, type, size, and geographic distribution of in-state
hazardous waste generators and managers.
D. Determine disposition of waste (management methods, location of
managing facilities, and type of managing facilities).
E. Identify, locate, and assess life expectancy of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, disposal, and recycling facilities in the state.
F. Project probable future hazardous waste generation and management,
incorporating expectations for economic change, waste minimization,
regulatory change, and remediation wastes.
u. Project preferred future hazardous waste generation and management
in accordance with the waste management hierarchy.
28
-------
Table 4: Hazardous Waste Management Plan Objectives and Related Plan Activities
PLAN OBJECTIVES
PLAN ACTIVITIES
2. (continued)
H. Determine the shortfall between in-state hazardous waste
management capacity demand and supply on the basis of preferred
future projections.
I. Conduct economic viability analysis of identified state hazardous waste
management capacity shortfalls.
3. Foster public understanding and awareness of hazardous waste risks
and management options by providing educational opportunities to
participants in (and parties interested in) the hazardous waste
management system.
A. Conduct surveys of generators and the general public to reveal their
current level of understanding on management methods, hazardous
waste generation and management risks, and specific concerns with
hazardous waste generation and management to target educational
efforts.
B. Identify state procedures to encourage waste management according to
state's waste management hierarchy.
C. Produce plan report (or regular update) for distribution to the general
public.
4. Address difficulties in implementing hazardous waste management
programs by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of siting and
permitting activities, maintaining and improving staff training, and
identifying and collecting the right type of data.
A. Examine current efficiency and effectiveness of hazardous waste
management programs overall to improve program implementation.
B. Examine siting and permitting procedures.
C. Review hazardous waste activity reporting in light of state data needs
and in-state business activity.
29
-------
Table 4; Hazardous Waste Management Plan Objectives and Related Plan Activities
PLAN OBJECTIVES
PLAN ACTIVITIES
5. Increase and maintain compliance by improving education to generators
(especially small quantity generators), better targeting enforcement
resources, and providing more effective and timely response to new
federal requirements.
A. Examine current structure of compliance efforts.
B. Survey generators to determine level of understanding of hazardous
waste generation and management regulations.
C. Examine process for analyzing and responding to new federal
requirements.
6. Promote hazardous waste regulatory and management systems that
better balance environmental and economic needs by streamlining
regulations where possible, encouraging waste minimization, and
assisting generators to understand new regulations.
A. Examine the regulatory framework and policies that affect key waste
streams to identify mixed incentives and potential redundancy.
B. Examine opportunities for increased waste minimization.
C. Examine opportunities for providing technical assistance to generators
for understanding and complying with new regulations.
30
-------
Table 5: Summary Comparison of Comprehensive, State Capacity,
and Capacity Assurance Hazardous Waste Management Planning
PLAN ACTIVITIES
COMPREHENSIVE
STATE
CAPACITY
CAPACITY
ASSURANCE
1. MANAGEMENT ACCORDING TO THE HIERARCHY
A. Investigate the highest priority, technically feasible
management options for hazardous waste streams to
examine the potential for shifting to a more preferred
management method.
B, Examine the economic and regulatory barriers to achieving
the high priority management methods.
C. Identify state procedures to encourage waste management
according to the waste management hierarchy.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Potentially (1)
Yes
No
No
2. ASSURE ACCESS TO HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT CAPACITY
A. Examine total waste generation by type and volume for all
wastes placing demand on permitted hazardous waste
management capacity.
B. Examine wastes of particular concern to the state (e.g.,
waste oils, household hazardous wastes, exempt
waste waters).
C. Examine number, type, size, and geographic distribution of
in-state hazardous waste generators and managers.
D. Determine disposition of waste (management methods,
location of managing facilities, and type of managing
facilities).
E. Identify, locate, and assess life expectancy of hazardous
waste treatment, storage, disposal, and recycling facilities
in the state.
F. Project probable future hazardous waste generation and
management, incorporating expectations for economic
change, waste minimization, regulatory change, and
remediation wastes.
G. Project preferred future hazardous waste generation and
management in accordance with the waste management
hierarchy.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Potentially
Potentially
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partially (3)
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
(1) All "Potentially" designations indicate that, in certain instances, states undertaking capacity planning did incorporate
these activities into their efforts.
(2) As currently proposed, the 1993 CAP process will partially address this activity for capacity shortfalls.
(3) This designation reflects the fact that CAP examined only a subset of wastes placing demand on permitted hazardous
waste management capacity.
31
-------
Table 5: Summary Comparison of Comprehensive, State Capacity,
and Capacity Assurance Hazardous Waste Management Planning
PLAN ACTIVITIES
COMPREHENSIVE
STATE
CAPACITY
CAPACITY
ASSURANCE
Determine the shortfall between in-state hazardous waste
management capacity demand and supply on the basis of
preferred future projections.
Conduct economic viability analysis of identified state
hazardous waste management capacity shortfalls.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Potentially
Partially (4)
No
3. CONDUCT PUBLIC EDUCATION
Conduct surveys of generators and the general public to
reveal their current level of understanding on management
methods, hazardous waste generation and management
risks, and specific concerns with hazardous waste
generation and management to target educational efforts.
B. Investigate opportunities to educate generators on waste
minimization.
C. Produce plan report (or regular update) for distribution to
the general public.
Yes
Potentially
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No (5)
Yes
4. IMPROVE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
A. Examine current efficiency and effectiveness of hazardous
waste management programs overall to improve program
implementation.
B. Examine siting and permitting procedures.
C. Review hazardous waste activity reporting in light of state
data needs and in-state business activity.
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
(4) This designation reflects the fact that CAP did incorporate reductions in demand due to waste minimization but did not
include the notion of a preferred future nor analysis on how to achieve improved management.
(5) As currently proposed, the 1993 CAP process will partially address this activity for capacity shortfalls.
32
-------
Table 5: Summary Comparison of Comprehensive, State Capacity,
and Capacity Assurance Hazardous Waste Management Planning
PLAN ACTIVITIES
5. PROMOTE COMPLIANCE WITH HAZARDOUS
WASTE REGULATIONS
A. Examine current structure of compliance efforts.
B. Survey generators to determine level of understanding of
hazardous waste generation and management regulations.
C. Examine process for examining and responding to new
federal requirements.
6. BALANCE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC
CONSIDERATIONS
A. Examine the regulatory framework and policies that affect
key waste streams to identify mixed incentives and
potential redundancy.
B. Examine opportunities for increased waste minimization.
C. Examine opportunities for providing technical assistance to
generators for understanding and complying with new
regulations.
COMPREHENSIVE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
STATE
CAPACITY
No
No
No
No
Potentially
Potentially
CAPACITY
ASSURANCE
No
No
No
No
Partially (6)
No
(6) This designation reflects the fact that CAP did incorporate reductions in demand due to waste minimization but did not
include the notion of a preferred future nor analysis on how to achieve improved management. As currently proposed,
the 1993 CAP process will partially address this activity for capacity shortfalls.
33
-------
The state capacity planning process addresses, in whole or in part, the first four general
planning objectives: management according to the hierarchy; assessing access to hazardous waste
management capacity; promoting public education; and improving hazardous waste program
implementation. The "Potentially" designation which appears in association with certain activities
indicates that, in certain circumstances, states may be interested in undertaking such activities,
although the activities are not necessary components of this planning process. Finally, the program
implementation aspects of state capacity planning, as indicated in Table 5, strictly focus on
improving siting and permitting processes and improving hazardous waste data collection and
management activities.
The final column of Table 5 addresses the Congressionally mandated CAP process.
Congress mandated this process as part of its reauthorization of CERCLA in 1986. In the
reauthorization, Congress requires each state to provide "adequate assurance" that treatment and
disposal capacity will be available for the hazardous wastes generated within the state during the
twenty year period following the date of the assurance. Congress also stipulated that, after October
17, 1989, EPA could not provide Superfund remedial action funds to a state unless the state had
provided such an assurance.
Congress' original premise for mandating capacity assurance was the concern that states,
due to political pressures and public opposition, have had difficulty permitting and constructing
needed hazardous waste management capacity. This raised the specter that, over time, the capacity
necessary to manage the hazardous waste generated in the United States safely would not be
available. Congress believed that such a "capacity crisis" could lead to excessive hazardous waste
management costs, improper or illegal hazardous waste management activities, and the potential
creation of additional Superfund hazardous waste sites.
To aid states in assuring capacity, EPA published "Assurance of Hazardous Waste Capacity:
Guidance to State Officials" in December 1988. This document recommended the activities EPA
believed states should undertake to meet the "adequate assurance" provisions of CERCLA
104(c)(9). The centerpiece of this Guidance was EPA's recommendation that states prepare twenty
year CAPs as a means for assuring adequate capacity.
In preparing their CAPs during 1989, states aggregated current and projected generation and
management data. When a state identified any hazardous waste management capacity "shortfalls"
(insufficient capacity), EPA specified three ways in which the state could assure capacity for the
hazardous wastes generated within its borders. The state could: take steps to reduce or eliminate
the quantities of waste generated (e.g., waste minimization); plan for permitting of needed
hazardous waste management capacity; and/or enter into interstate or regional agreements to assure
access to out-of-state hazardous waste management capacity.
The review of CAP activities provided in Table 5 is based on the activities EPA identified
in its 1989 guidance document and the typical activities undertaken by states in meeting this
requirement during 1989. The information in Table 5 indicates that 1989 CAP activities fully
overlap with four "backbone" planning activities to:
34
-------
• Determine the disposition of waste
Identify, locate, and assess life expectancy of hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal,
and recycling facilities
• Project probable future hazardous waste generation and management and
• Produce a plan report for distribution to the general public.
Additionally, 1989 CAP activities partially overlap with two of the "backbone" planning
activities and one additional activity. CAP "Partially" overlaps with activity 2.A. because it
focused on large quantity generator wastes only; most state capacity planning efforts addressed all
wastes placing demand on permitted hazardous waste management capacity. CAP also partially
overlaps with activity 2.H. because it calculated shortfalls based on projections of the probable
future rather than the preferred future. CAP partially overlaps with activity 6.B. because it
encouraged, but did not require, states to examine opportunities for increased waste minimization
for those waste streams creating hazardous waste management demand in excess of available state
capacity. As Table 5 indicates, the 1989 CAP did not include any activities relating to the
objectives of "Management according to the hierarchy," "Improve hazardous waste program
implementation," and "Promote compliance with hazardous waste regulations."
The 1989 CAP, on the basis of the comparison portrayed in Table 5, shares some
similarities with the comprehensive and state capacity planning processes. At the same time,
fundamental differences also exist which limited the ability of the 1989 capacity assurance process
to address fully the state hazardous waste management planning needs addressed by the other two
processes.
The primary similarities between the 1989 CAP process and the comprehensive and state
capacity planning models are the research and evaluation activities undertaken in preparing the
baseyear and probable future needs assessments. These research activities are a fundamental aspect
of all three planning processes, providing the basic hazardous waste generation and management
data required to understand a state's hazardous waste management system, the state's relationship
to interstate hazardous waste management markets, and potential future capacity shortfalls. These
activities address an important and fundamental range of the hazardous waste management planning
needs states have identified during the course of this project.
All of the formal planning states acknowledged this overlap between their planning efforts
and capacity assurance, and two states, New York and Minnesota, indicated that there was
sufficient overlap for them to use their capacity assurance plans as the basis for future state
capacity planning efforts. The seven remaining formal planning states, however, indicated that
they do not plan to use the CAP as part of their own planning efforts. The seven states identified
four primary factors that currently limit their ability to incorporate the 1989 CAP process into their
planning efforts: the potential loss of Superfund monies associated with CAP; the range of needs
35
-------
addressed by CAP; the CAP structure imposed by EPA's 1989 guidance; and the means of
assurance prescribed in CERCLA section 104(c)(9).
First, the requirement that states prepare a CAP to qualify for continued receipt of
Superfund remedial action monies creates a difference between the overall objectives of the CAP
process and the overall objectives of comprehensive and state capacity planning. When states
prepare CAPs, they focus on maintaining access to Superfund remedial action funds. Certain states
indicated that this objective tends to orient the entire planning process to present the most
optimistic picture possible of hazardous waste management capacity supply and demand. Under
comprehensive and state capacity planning, states appear considerably more inclined to examine
a broader range of wastes which potentially place demand on permitted hazardous waste
management capacity and to address (and publicly display) difficult issues. States that
independently undertake capacity planning efforts also may not be inclined to use these plans as
substitutes for CAPs, since the conclusions drawn in their own plans may make it more difficult
to assure capacity within the framework of Section 104(c)(9).
Second, as Table 5 indicates, the 1989 CAP involved undertaking only a subset of the
activities associated with comprehensive and state capacity planning. As a result, the 1989 CAP
addressed a more limited set of needs than the other two planning processes. Probably the most
important single difference between the 1989 CAP and the two models is the "promoting waste
handling according to the waste management hierarchy" need. The comprehensive and state
capacity planning processes are linked to a goal of promoting waste handling according to the
waste management hierarchy. This goal underlies the "improved management" aspect of the
overall objectives associated with comprehensive and state capacity planning practices, and leads,
during the researching and evaluating stages of planning, to investigating the technical, economic,
and regulatory feasibility of promoting preferred management methods. The 1989 CAP process,
on the basis of CERCLA section 104(c)(9), did not contain this notion of improved management
and, as a result, states did not include improved management feasibility analyses as a part of their
CAP efforts.
Third, EPA guidance for the preparation of the 1989 CAPs prescribed which waste streams
states should address and how states needed to present their data in CAP documents. States
understand EPA's need for consistency to facilitate evaluating plans and preparing a national
profile of capacity assurance. At the same time, states, in undertaking either comprehensive or
capacity planning of their own, typically address a different universe of waste streams and
aggregate data in line with specific plan objectives or recommendations. This represents a
fundamental conflict between the data needs of a nationally-oriented agency and the needs of states
facing unique circumstances.
Fourth, CERCLA section 104(c)(9) requires states to assure capacity for all hazardous
wastes generated within their borders. In the event that states identify capacity shortfalls, the
statute proscribes two means by which states can address them: site new in-state facilities or enter
into an interstate/regional agreement for out-of-state management. EPA, in its guidance to states,
encouraged states to reduce expected capacity demand by incorporating waste minimization
36
-------
estimates into their calculations. However, CERCLA does not provide for states to examine the
feasibility and/or desirability of undertaking these actions. Comprehensive and state capacity
planning practices differ significantly in that states actively consider the technical, economic, and
legal feasibility, as well as the overall desirability, of various options to address capacity shortfalls.
States are particularly interested in evaluating the relationship of capacity shortfall volumes and
the economic threshold volumes for waste management technologies. These analyses show up in
a number of planning efforts. States noted that, given their limited ability to direct waste flows,
any waste management services offered in the state must be price, quality, and service competitive.
These types of feasibility analyses tend to result in states rejecting the notion that complete self
sufficiency is desirable.
The four factors also point to important differences between the 1989 CAP process and
either comprehensive hazardous waste management or state capacity planning processes. These
factors pose a particularly difficult problem since, for the most part, they derive from the statutory
language of Section 104(c)(9) or from EPA's need to obtain consistent data from all states to
support preparing a national capacity profile.
EPA is currently developing written guidance for 1993 CAP preparation. In this guidance,
EPA emphasizes that it does not intend for the CAP process to override or interfere with state
requirements or efforts to plan for hazardous waste management or to provide for the management
of wastes. Moreover, EPA encourages states to continually examine opportunities for improving
the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of existing management technologies, as well as adopting
new technologies.
37
-------
SECTION V: CONCLUSION
The states participating in this project identified a wide range of hazardous waste
management needs. In general, states placed primary emphasis on needs relating to improving
waste management (defined as promoting waste handling according to the waste management
hierarchy), assessing access to hazardous waste management capacity, and conducting public
education. The states' responses indicate that states tend to have a fairly similar "core" set of
hazardous waste management planning needs, with most states then having a variety of unique
needs driven by individual state circumstances. The core needs indicate a strong state focus on
assessing access to hazardous waste management capacity while acknowledging the limits placed
on state efforts by their inability to strictly control interstate waste flows.
A comparison of the state capacity and comprehensive planning models with the CAP
process reveals both similarities and differences between the activities. The CAP process appears,
on the basis of the information collected and reviewed during this project, to address a fundamental
set of state hazardous waste management planning needs. This indicates that, for those states
which have not or do not plan to initiate their own independent hazardous waste management
planning processes, the capacity assurance process can provide useful information and insights.
The process, however, remains hampered in its ability to act as or substitute for state
comprehensive hazardous waste management or capacity planning efforts by certain aspects of the
statutory language and by the tension between EPA's need for consistent data across all states and
states' need to address individual circumstances. These limits point to the unique nature of the
capacity assurance requirement and indicate that CAP is likely, at least in the near term, to play
a limited role in independent state hazardous waste management planning efforts.
38
-------
APPENDIX A; INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR OTHER PLANNING STATES
Section I: Identify future issues, needs, and priorities associated with state hazardous
waste management planning
*
1 . What do you expect will be the most important hazardous waste issues/concerns that state
environmental agencies will face 5 to 1 0 years from now?
a. Would you say there is widespread agreement both on the need to address and the
relative importance of these issues?
b. If not, what differences of opinion would you expect to hear?
2. How would you rank these issues in terms of their relative importance (e.g., which issue
would you address first, second, etc.)?
Section II*. Gain an understanding of the current state hazardous waste management
planning issues, needs, and approaches
1 . Currently, what are the most important hazardous waste issues/problems with which your
state is concerned?
2. How does the state rank these issues/problems?
3 . Do you think the states' current hazardous waste management priorities are appropriate and,
if not, which issues would you drop (de-emphasize) and which issues (either new or
existing) would you make a priority?
**********
Section III: Obtain different perspectives on useful hazardous waste management planning
models
1 . Ideally, what functions should planning serve, what should it allow you to do?
2. Given the planning functions that we have discussed, how would you structure your
approach to planning (e.g., what planning components would you include)?
3 . What purposes do you think hazardous waste management planning should serve?
39
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR OTHER PLANNING STATES
4. What capabilities do you think the state would need to engage in the type of hazardous
waste management planning that you have described?
Section IV: Gain an understanding of CAP's ability to meet potential state hazardous
waste management planning needs
1. How do you see the CAP requirement fitting in with the state's efforts to address current
and future priority hazardous waste management issues?
40
------- |