• No results found

To set forth the state’s policies and strategy for managing solid waste

In document SolidWaste Hand book - unit 3 & 5 (Page 119-121)

James E Kundell Deanna L Ruffer

4. To set forth the state’s policies and strategy for managing solid waste

All of these are valid reasons for states to plan, but the emphasis has varied with time and from state to state. All current state solid waste management plans contain three components (facility and program inventory and assessments, provision of guidance, and formation of

state policy and strategy), but considerable variation exists in the emphasis placed on each component. For this reason, it is possible to categorize state solid waste management plans based on their emphasis.

Inventory and assessment documents tend to follow the historic model for state solid waste management plans. They attempt to quantify the status of programs and facilities in the state and identify problems that must be addressed. The plans prepared in Alabama and Rhode Island are of this type. Plans taking the form of technical assistance documents are generally designed to identify problem areas with solid waste management and to provide guidance to local officials (and others) on how to address the problems. The plans developed in Indiana and Tennessee emphasize this approach. The third type of plan, appearing more recently, takes the form of policy documents that set forth the state strategy for reducing and managing solid waste and present the strategy for doing so. The plans developed for Georgia and New York are policy and strategy documents.

Inventory and assessment has been a big part of state solid waste management planning since the 1960s. Consequently, it is not surprising that some states continued this approach. It is interesting, however, that state plans have appeared that vary from the historic model in that they are designed to meet identified state needs rather than federal directives. Plans that provide technical assistance to local governments are addressing perceived needs. Since local governments are the ones that have been faced with financing increasingly expensive solid waste facilities, attempting to site facilities that no one wants near them, and responding to the concerns of irate citizens, it is not surprising that states would use the state solid waste man- agement plan as a mechanism to provide local governments with guidance. Consequently, the use of state solid waste management plans as vehicles for providing technical assistance to local governments has increased in recent years.

The approach that differs most from the traditional model for state solid waste manage- ment plans, however, is using the plan as a policy and strategy document. The historic role of the state in solid waste management has been to provide guidance and technical assistance and to regulate disposal activities. These responsibilities were generally assigned to one agency and had little direct impact on other units of state government. With the increased complexity of integrated solid waste management, however, multiple state agency involve- ment is now the norm. Although one agency still retains regulatory authority, other agencies may be involved in planning, recycling programs, market development efforts, procurement of products made from recovered materials, education, enforcement, and so forth. With this complexity comes the need to clearly articulate the policies and goals of the state, and to set forth a strategy that assigns responsibilities to agencies and identifies the actions necessary for goal attainment.

The appearance of these new solid waste management planning efforts underscores the recognition of the complexity and interrelatedness of efforts to reduce and effectively man- age solid waste. Integrated solid waste management is multifaceted, and decisions made to address one matter will likely affect other components of the system. Thus a systems manage- ment orientation is emerging that requires a continuous loop of planning and feedback. The result is a stronger commitment to solid waste management planning by state and local officials.

Emergence of a New Model for State Solid Waste Management Planning. The North Car-

olina Recycling and Solid Waste Management Plan(State of North Carolina, 1992) exempli- fies the type of planning that emerged to address state needs. It is composed of three volumes: Vol. 1 is an assessment of local and regional infrastructure and resources; Vol. 2, a policy doc- ument that identifies state goals and the actions necessary to achieve those goals, is the state strategy for reducing and managing solid waste; and Vol. 3 provides guidance and technical assistance to local governments. Some of the elements of the strategy are derived directly from existing legislative mandates, and some were developed as a result of the research con- ducted as part of the planning process. Each section of the strategy discusses a certain aspect of solid waste management, including:

Solid waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and compostingWaste processing and disposal

Illegal disposal of solid wasteEducation and technical assistancePlanning and reporting

Resources

Since the intent of the strategy is to forge a clear path to meet state and local solid waste management needs, it clearly states goals and the actions necessary to meet those goals. A total of 29 goals were identified. For example, nine goals were presented for solid waste reduc- tion, five for waste processing and disposal, and so forth. Each goal statement focuses on a major effort required to effectively implement a principal component of the state solid waste strategy. Generally, the goals are based on policies established in legislation or that require actions by the General Assembly to implement or alter them. Goals are ordered to be consis- tent with the hierarchy of decision making in an integrated solid waste management program, not necessarily in the order of priority for implementation.

A total of 185 specific actions were identified to implement the 29 goals. Implementation actions identify the specific state agencies responsible for taking the action. Since time had elapsed between the enactment of the comprehensive state legislation and the development of the state plan, considerable effort had been exerted to implement portions of the act. Con- sequently, progress toward implementing each goal is also presented. Progress made reflects the resources available and the priorities of the implementation agencies.

Once a goal has been established, actions necessary to reach that goal identified, and attempts made to implement the identified actions, problems and issues associated with the goal or the actions may become apparent. To provide policy makers and agency personnel with insights into how these potential problems might be addressed, for each goal there is a section on future issues and guidance.

The plan recognizes that it was not possible for the state to achieve all 29 goals or imple- ment all 185 actions at one time. Consequently, it was necessary to prioritize the goals and actions so that the most important ones would be achieved first, and less important ones would be implemented when resources became available. Priorities were set both for goals and for actions, based on four criteria:

1. Protection of public health and environment

In document SolidWaste Hand book - unit 3 & 5 (Page 119-121)