Formalization of organizational arrangements and responsibilities

The forcing mechanism for effectively reducing and managing municipal solid waste is the need to protect public health and the environment. Therefore, in setting priorities, those goals and actions designed to protect public health and the environment were given greater prefer- ence. Most of the major requirements to ensure that disposal facilities are environmentally benign, however, had already been adopted through rules for the design, construction, opera- tion, closure, and postclosure care of disposal facilities. As a result, the environmental protec- tion goals and actions included in the plan, although important, were in some cases of lower priority than other goals and actions.

Waste reduction is one way of reducing environmental problems from disposal. If the waste is never generated, it cannot pose an environmental threat when disposed. Second pri- ority was given to those goals and actions designed to reduce the amount of waste being dis- posed through source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting.

Third priority was given to those goals and actions that support an integrated approach to solid waste management. It is through an integrated approach that local governments will be

better able to avoid actions that have unforeseen consequences and to balance priorities of goals and actions.

Fourth priority was given to those goals and actions designed to formalize organizational arrangements and responsibilities. The early solid waste management legislation generally as- signed all related responsibilities to one agency.As solid waste reduction and management have become more complex and integrated, this is no longer possible. Many agencies have roles to play in the solid waste arena relating to in-house recycling and waste reduction, public educa- tion, market development, curriculum development, and so forth. It is important that agency roles and responsibilities be formalized through the use of memoranda of agreements (MOAs) and other mechanisms so that each agency understands its specific functions and its working relationship with other agencies, local governments, associations, industry, and the public.

The drafters of the plan also found that it was necessary to separate goals and actions in order to prioritize them. The goals are more general policy statements that may differ from the specific actions when viewed in light of the criteria for prioritizing. For example, it may be that the greatest return on investment can be achieved by taking a specific action, but it may not relate to the highest-priority goal. Thus, both goals and actions were separately priori- tized. In prioritizing implementation actions, it was found that they were often intercon- nected. Sometimes it is difficult to proceed on one action without another one being done (e.g., even though formalizing organizational arrangements is the fourth priority, MOAs may be needed before an agency is assured of its role and/or ability to take other actions).

From this discussion of the North Carolina solid waste management plan it is apparent that the form and substance of such planning is quite different from what was proposed in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Such planning efforts were undertaken without federal directives or financial assistance. It is this type of experimentation that leads to planning being relevant and of value to the states.

Revising and Updating State Solid Waste Management Plans. A major indirect impact of

the 1984 RCRA amendments was forcing states and local governments to more comprehen- sively plan how they would reduce and manage solid waste.The first round of plans developed by states tended to be comprehensive in nature. This was important because of the complex- ity and interrelatedness of management options. As states moved to implement their plans, the need for planning continued, but the form of the planning changed to be more strategic and targeted toward specific concerns.

In a telephone survey conducted of the 48 contiguous states during 2000, 39 states responded that they had a state solid waste management plan in place, and 26 states responded that they had updated their plans within the past 5 years (Adams and Kundell, 2000). As might be expected, those states with more severe solid waste management chal- lenges were the ones more likely to be involved in solid waste management planning. In par- ticular, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and other northeastern states, faced with limited disposal capacity within their borders and the loss of flow control as a means to direct waste to specific facilities, were focusing their planning efforts on waste reduction or diversion and capacity expansion, including long-haul options.

States in other regions of the country are also involved in solid waste planning. It is more difficult to categorize planning efforts in the other regions of the country due to variation among states within each region. Southern and some western states, however, seem to place greater emphasis on compiling and overseeing local and regional plans because local govern- ments historically have been more involved in direct service provision in these regions, a char- acteristic that is changing as more local governments privatize their solid waste services. In addition, the more sparsely populated plains states placed less emphasis, in general, on the need to develop solid waste management plans.

Almost all states provide oversight and, at least some, technical and financial assistance for the development of local and regional plans. A 1998 survey of state solid waste management concerns and efforts showed that states were placing less emphasis on local and regional plan- ning than they did in the late 1980s to the early 1990s (Kundell et al., 1998).

One lesson learned by those involved in solid waste management is that the public should be involved in the process. The desire is to structure the process so that the involvement can be positive and constructive rather than negative. Mechanisms for incorporating public involvement in the planning process are well established in the current round of planning efforts. Kansas and North Carolina are using public meetings and discussion groups to help formulate their plans. Ohio and Oregon have advisory committees or councils to assess progress and to help develop plans.

The biggest change in state solid waste management planning, however, relates to the nature of the planning. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, states developed comprehensive solid waste management plans. Revisions and updates to these plans, however, are more strategic in nature, identifying key areas of emphasis and focusing on them. Georgia, for example, updated its state plan in 1997 (State of Georgia, 1997). The revisions focused on three major areas. First, the plan compiled and presented data on what had been achieved since the passage of the comprehensive law. Second, the plan identified strategic areas where greater emphasis was needed (i.e., how the role of local governments was changing in solid waste management, how to achieve greater reduction from the commercial and industrial sec- tors, and how to better measure progress toward reducing the waste stream). Third, the plan set out a five-year work program for the multiple agencies involved in solid waste reduction and management efforts (i.e., Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Georgia Depart- ment of Community Affairs, and the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority). By devel- oping this work program, Georgia emphasized the need for interagency coordination and cooperation to meet its goals.

Current planning efforts are also focusing on needed policy changes to better address solid waste management concerns. Both Minnesota and Wisconsin, for example, produce policy reports and recommendations for consideration by their state legislatures.

As this review of current state solid waste management activities suggests, the process and nature of the state planning is changing to meet the new and emerging needs of each state. Of the four reasons previously mentioned for states to undertake solid waste management plan- ning (to meet federal solid waste management planning requirements; to inventory and assess the solid waste management facilities and procedures in the state to determine capacity needs; to provide guidance to local governments and the private sector on solid waste man- agement matters; and to set forth the state’s policies and strategy for managing solid waste), compiling and presenting data to track progress in meeting goals (i.e., benchmarking) and set- ting forth the state’s policies and strategies seem to be the major focus of current state solid waste management planning efforts.

4.2

LOCAL AND REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING

At the local and regional level, integrated solid waste management planning involves a wide variety of programs, facilities, strategies, procedures, and practices (elements) which together, in varying combinations, constitute a complete system of management. Beginning with the federal Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, it was envisioned that very detailed and compre- hensive plans would be prepared, with many of the federal planning requirements placed on states finding their way into the guidelines for the preparation of local plans. Yet, until the late 1980s and early 1990s few local and regional plans actually met these expectations. It is inter- esting to note that current planning efforts are now attempting to do what was called for in the 1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act (i.e., defining methods for reducing the amount of waste being discarded and effectively disposing of the remainder).

In the early 1970s, as efforts were instituted to move from open dumps to sanitary landfills, emphasis was placed on increasing recycling and waste reduction. It was determined, how- ever, that landfilling was still the least expensive alternative, and recycling efforts declined. With the adoption of more stringent federal standards for landfills, interest again focused on

waste reduction and recycling. The major difference now is that there is a greater under- standing of what it will take to reduce the waste stream. Central to this effort was sound solid waste management planning. The planning efforts that have occurred over the past decade have provided a greater understanding of the value of such planning.

Today, solid waste management planning efforts are being influenced by state requirements and the need for many solid waste management systems to become more cost-effective and competitive—in other words, to operate in a businesslike fashion, not simply as a government or public service. In many instances, this change in management focus is having a significant effect on how and what type of planning is being done. It is also further enhancing the under- standing of the value of such planning and changing the emphasis of planning activities from the more traditional assessment of needs to the strategic analysis of needs and opportunities.

Historic Perspective: Local and Regional Planning

In the 1960s and early 1970s, local solid waste management planning was primarily a commu- nity exercise in learning to understand and view solid waste collection and disposal practices and facilities as a total system. However, all too often local government leaders gave little pri- ority to these planning efforts, and actual decision making was seldom incorporated into or preceded by the planning process. Thus, these planning efforts were little more than academic exercises or project plans used to define and justify the development of a specific program or facility.

In the 1980s, due to the increasing complexity and interrelatedness of integrated solid waste management, local and regional planning took on renewed importance in the manage- ment of solid waste. No longer was one type of program or facility adequate, or acceptable to all parties, to manage the entire waste stream. While one part of the waste stream was suitable for recycling, another was more suited to composting or energy recovery, and still others needed to be landfilled.

As a result, planning for the management of solid waste had to take into consideration the commonalities, differences, and interrelationships between the various programs, facilities, and procedures to be used. For example, specialized handling, processing, or segregation of materials may be required with some management approaches. Other aspects of the manage- ment system may require the establishment of ordinances and fee structures or the develop- ment of educational programs. Thus, planning for the management of solid waste no longer involves a simple comparison of technical options and costs, but includes consideration of how multiple waste streams can be handled, the interrelationship between management prac- tices, as well as consideration of business risks and requirements, public policy, and social impacts of decisions. Furthermore, since an integrated solid waste management system con- tains multiple facilities, processes, programs, and procedures, it is unlikely that all aspects of the management system can be developed at one time. More likely, the system would be developed over several years. As a result, provisions needed to be made within the plan and the planning process for periodic reviews, updates, and—as necessary—modification.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, it became increasingly common for states to require local governments to plan for solid waste management. In many instances, state planning require- ments focused on defining how local governments should accomplish specific state objectives such as regionalization, the provision of adequate disposal capacity, or waste reduction and recycling. Typically, the state also dictated the format and content of the plan.

In Ohio, local governments were required to form solid waste districts consisting of a pop- ulation of at least 120,000 people. Each solid waste management district had to develop and adopt a solid waste management plan that described its existing facilities and its ability to accommodate the area’s solid waste (Mishkin, 1989). In comparison, Pennsylvania’s Munici- pal Waste Planning, Recycling and Waste Reduction Act required each county to develop a plan for municipal waste generated within its boundaries, with emphasis on integrating recy- cling into existing disposal activities. The approach taken by the state of Georgia was to

develop very specific planning standards and procedures to be used by local governments in demonstrating how they intended to meet the two overall objectives of ensuring 10-year dis- posal capacity and reducing by 25 percent the amount of waste (on a per capita basis) requir- ing disposal.

The federal government provided implicit guidance on the objectives and priorities to be used in solid waste management planning (Lewis, 1992) when it released its report,The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action(U.S. EPA, 1989). In this document, EPA stated that the elements of integrated solid waste management should be prioritized as follows: