| HOME | ABOUT US | STAFF | SUPPORT US | EMPLOYMENT | AWARDS DINNER | SITE MAP | CONTACT US |
 |
|
.gif){kind=small}   |
    |
 |
Scope of Work: Advisory Boards Keystone Dialogues Joint Fact Finding Leadership Summit Published Works/Staff Keystone Reports |
This project resulted in the establishment of a citizens advisory board that can continue to build on the relationships cultivated through the first dialogue process, and bring more affected stakeholders into the process.
The agreement details a ten-year "road map" for completing environmental restoration with total cleanup costs estimated at $10 billion. This innovative agreement has been heralded as a model for the cleanup of other federal facilities as it has provided a regulatory framework for site closure activities, improved communications and relationships between the parties, and provided a means for all parties to work towards the same goal. As a result, cleanup activities are on schedule to be completed in ten years.
This report is the third consensus report issued by The Keystone National Hazardous Waste Management Strategies Project. This national policy dialogue was initiated in 1986 to address, through a facilitated consensus-building process, the development of policy recommendations on a series of issues implicit in the formulation and implementation of national hazardous waste policy. Examination of the relationship between the states and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulatory program has revealed a variety of stresses that impact the nation’s hazardous waste program.
Keystone National Hazardous Waste Management Strategies Project Recycling Report In the summer of 1986, The Keystone Center initiated a national policy dialogue addressing the need for an overall national strategy for the reduction and management of hazardous waste. This project was developed with the advice of a steering group drawn from a diverse set of interests including environmental and citizen groups, industry, and the federal and state government. This report is a summary of the initial discussions of the group concerning recycling. Conclusions regarding source reduction are contained in a different report available from The Keystone Center. The recycling group’s possible strategies are in contrast to recommendations contained in the source reduction report. The difference in the products from these two groups reflects the complexity of recycling, the expertise in the recycling group and the limited time available. This report was developed through a consensus decisionmaking process which was characterized by a frank and open exchange of ideas by a diverse group of over 40 participants.
Keystone National Hazardous Waste Management Strategies Source Reduction Report This report is a summary of the initial conclusions and recommendations of the group concerning source reduction. This report was developed through a consensus decisionmaking process which was characterized by a frank and open exchange of ideas by a diverse group of over 40 participants. The participants concluded that there is a conceptual hierarchy for dealing with hazardous waste which should serve as a starting point for the project. The hierarchy establishes the order of preference amongst various environmental options for dealing with hazardous waste. The hierarchy includes in order of preference: waste or source reduction, and thereafter waste management, the elements of which in order of preference are recycling, treatment, and finally land disposal. In initiating the National Waste Management Strategies Project, the dialogue group began with discussions addressing source reduction and recycling because they are commonly seen as the first and second preferences of a waste management hierarchy. Their selection as initial topics should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the group feels that those alternatives will , in and of themselves, “solve” the waste management problem. Rather, their selection recognizes the need to emphasize the role these approaches can play in an overall environmental protection system for hazardous waste. The Keystone Financial Responsibility Project The Keystone Financial Responsibility Project took place in 1987 and 1988 as a policy dialogue involving participants from diverse groups concerned with how various approaches for providing responsibility to meet Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements can be improved. It was explicitly agreed, at the outset of the project, that the discussions would not address the scope and nature of the basic liability system, but rather would focus on the strategies being employed to meet the financial responsibility requirements which exist in law and regulations. The discussions which took place focused on RCRA Subtitle C, not Subtitle D or Subtitle I; it is important for the reader to understand that the Dialogue group does not intend this report to apply to the Subtitle D or Subtitle I programs. Participants in the discussions included people from waste management and waste generating companies, The Environmental Protection Agency, insurance industry, Congressional staff, and the banking community. The Dialogue group recognized, from the onset of the discussions, that there are an increasing number of financial responsibility requirements being placed on owners and operators of facilities handling hazardous substances. These requirements are mandated by a number of parts of RCRA and include coverage for hazardous waste closure, post-closure, corrective action, and third party liability for hazardous waste and underground storage tanks.
Keystone Siting Process Handbook: A New Approach to Siting Hazardous and Nonhazardous Waste Management Facilities This handbook was written by participants in two workshops conducted by The Keystone Center, Colorado, under the sponsorship of the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority in August and October of 1982. The more than 30 attendees came from a diversity of backgrounds, including industry, government, environmental groups, labor, and civic organizations. The handbook is designed to assist both permit applicants and the public in identifying items of mutual concern in the siting of environmentally sound waste facilities. It describes how to set up a review committee. It also raises many of the issues of public concern about which the applicant can anticipate questions and should prepare answers. The public who is interested but has not participated in siting discussions receives guidance on issues that may be of local concern. The handbook helps the applicant identify people who will be interested in or affected by the proposed facility. Its contents are by no means exhaustive, but they help establish common grounds on which applicant and public can communicate more effectively. How Clean is Clean: A Consensus-Building Project on Waste Site Clean-Up Policy This report is the result of an eighteen month long consensus building effort, conducted in 1984-85, which involved people from environmental and citizen groups, corporations, federal and state government, the legal profession, trade associations and the public interest sector. The goal of the project was to develop a new approach to determine the appropriate extent of clean-up of hazardous waste sites, commonly referred to as the “ How Clean is Clean” issue. This diverse group felt that their discussions and recommendations could assist in developing those policies and practices further. Through a series of four plenary sessions and many smaller working group discussions, the group succeeded in formulating an approach or process that they think should guide the clean-up of hazardous waste sites. While the discussion focused on addressing inactive or abandoned sites that are on the National Priority List under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the group believes that these recommendations could, in large part, be generalized to the clean-up of other hazardous waste sites. |
Headquarters |
Denver Office |
Washington, DC Office |