Waste Management Components of Successful Voluntary Actions Programs November 1992 | Report # 23 | Call 970-513-5835 to order reports The Keystone Center has been serving as a neutral convenor and facilitator addressing a wide range of environmental, health, natural resource, and science and technology policy issues, which has provided The Center an opportunity to become familiar with a number of complex and controversial substantive areas, to build trusting working relationships with a diverse cross section of interest groups and individuals, and to observe environmental policy and decision-making process from a wide range of perspectives.

In response to the marked increase in the use of what have been termed "voluntary approaches" to environmental management and regulation, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 33/50 Program, and the Chemical Manufactures Association Responsible Care Program, the policy group sought to address the following goals: (1) review the distinctions between voluntary environmental programs, incentive-based command and control regulations, and traditional command and control approaches; (2) review and discuss whether voluntary approaches are considered desirable by the group; (3) discuss parties' concerns regarding some of the current voluntary and incentive based programs in existence from each interest group's perspective; and (4) identify the elements of a successful voluntary program from each interests group's perspective.

back to top

In response to a request by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, The Keystone Center convened a two day workshop to discuss issues regarding the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Reauthorization. Specifically, the meeting focused on accomplishing three objectives: (1) determining what RCRA-related topics are considered highest priority by the various interest groups; (2) identifying the diversity of views on these issues; and (3) suggesting the most appropriate vehicle for achieving policy changes (i.e. regulatory or legislative changes).

In January 1990, The Keystone Center, with generous support of the Pew Charitable Trusts, convened a three-day meeting to explore how the national environmental decision making process is currently functioning and how it can be improved. In the words of The Center’s President Emeritus Robert W. Craig, the purpose of the forum was to tackle “the widely held perception that our public institutions and decision making processes may not be adequate to meet the challenges posed by complex environmental concerns.” The chance to ponder this question excited many people. Over 160 people attended the Forum representing a wide range of organizations such as federal and state regulatory agencies, environmental and citizen groups, industry, Congress, the White House, and the foundation community.

back to top

The Keystone Siting process was developed by a diverse group of people from Texas, all of whom shared a common concern about the siting of solid and hazardous waste management facilities. They worked together for over a year and, through a consensus decision-making process, agreed that there could be some creative improvements made in the existing procedures for siting waste management facilities in Texas. The result of their work is the Keystone Siting Process.

The process itself is really quite simple. It calls for the appointment of a citizen review committee consisting of people from a range of backgrounds and interests. Their task is to work with an applicant to discuss matters of local concern and resolve as many issues as possible prior to the submission of a permit application. The committee prepares a report which documents both the resolved and unresolved concerns. This report is submitted to the permitting agency when the permit application is filed.

The primary objectives of the Keystone Siting Process are as follow: (1) to allow early and meaningful citizen input; (2) to provide a setting for informal exchange of information and ideas; (3) to address non-technical as well as technical issues; (4) to provide an avenue for the exchange of reliable information with the community and well-defined citizen concerns with the applicant; and (5) to allow identification of key citizen concerns and, hopefully, provide an opportunity for creating ways of dealing with them.

The Keystone Center Toxic exposure Compensation project was a consensus building, policy dialogue among a diverse group of people representing academia, industry, citizen and environmental groups, organized labor, legal and medical professionals, and state and national government.

All persons interested in the general problem of hazardous waste management or the narrower problem of exposure redress will find this report and its conclusions of great interest. It collects information about the possible magnitude of the problem not previously consolidated; it represents one of the first comprehensive efforts to explore the pathways of exposure and the causation issue; and carefully delineates areas where consensus was reached and not reached by this highly diverse group relative to modification of existing compensation systems and the development of new systems.

back to top

At the request of the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority (GCA), The Keystone Center conducted two workshops designed to develop concepts for a siting process for hazardous waste facilities tailored to the Galveston Bay area. These workshops used the substantive knowledge and insight accumulated by The Keystone Center in previous meetings which dealt with the issues on a more national perspective, and they used the specific experience of many who had been involved in the issues in the Galveston Bay area.
The two workshops involved participants from industry, government, environmental groups, labor and civic organizations. The goal was to formulate a siting process for new hazardous waste facilities that will be workable in the Galveston Bay area. These meetings provided the participants with an unusual opportunity to explore ways of dealing effectively with those issues in a constructive and innovative manner.

back to top