Decades of U.S. nuclear weapons production have exacted a heavy environmental toll. The Department of Energy estimates that cleaning up waste and contamination resulting from production activities will cost over $150 billion. Yet even once that money is spent, these sites will need long-term attention to assure protection of human health and the environment. In the authors' words, stewardship refers to 'institutions, information, and strategies needed to ensure protection of people and the environment, both in the short and the long term.' Probst and McGovern make a compelling case for establishing a formal program of long-term stewardship for contaminated sites. Their report details the requirements of a successful stewardship program and discusses the daunting technical and political challenges facing such efforts, including the designation of an institutional home for key stewardship functions. The legacy of environmental damage is considerable; hazardous waste disposal, radioactive waste, and contaminated facilities are among the problems that will remain after DOE cleanup efforts are complete. Stewardship planning, according to Probst and McGovern, must start now.

While more than 2,700 emergency removals of hazardous materials have taken place under Superfund, implementing the long-term cleanup program has been the object of considerable controversy. One of the most contentious issues is whether the liability standards in the law should be revised. The authors analyze the pros and cons associated with the current liability approach, as well as with a variety of alternative strategies.

In most countries, the development of environmental programs follows a similar pattern. Early efforts concentrate on direct threats to public health, such as contaminated drinking water and air pollution. Only after these problems are addressed does the need to improve day-to-day management of hazardous wastes reach the top of the environmental agenda. In this new report, RFF's Katherine Probst and Thomas Beierle compare the development of hazardous waste management programs in eight countries---the United States, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Thailand---and discuss steps taken to foster proper hazardous waste management. The authors focus on two questions: What were the major steps in the evolution of a successful hazardous waste program? What role, if any, did the public sector play in financing modern treatment and disposal facilities? Based on interviews and secondary sources, this report includes country-specific profiles that detail the steps in the evolution of each country's hazardous waste management program and describe the role of the public sector in facility financing.

In most countries, the development of environmental programs follows a similar pattern. Early efforts concentrate on direct threats to public health, such as contaminated drinking water and air pollution. Only after these problems are addressed does the need to improve day-to-day management of hazardous wastes reach the top of the environmental agenda.

In this new report, RFF's Katherine Probst and Thomas Beierle compare the development of hazardous waste management programs in eight countries -- the United States, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Thailand -- and discuss steps taken to foster proper hazardous waste management. The authors focus on two questions: What were the major steps in the evolution of a successful hazardous waste program? What role, if any, did the public sector play in financing modern treatment and disposal facilities?

Fundamentally, an effective hazardous waste management program must change the behavior of organizations (both public and private) that generate and manage hazardous wastes. To achieve this, there must be an effective regulatory program and facilities for adequate treatment, storage, and disposal. The authors argue that it is essential to develop a "culture of compliance,"where proper waste management in modern facilities is the norm. They conclude that a successful hazardous waste management program takes 10-15 years to develop, even in countries with strong regulatory and enforcement regimes. The authors also conclude that public sector financing and subsidies are important policy tools for bringing facilities on-line and for creating incentives for waste generators to manage their wastes responsibly.

Thestudy is based on interviews and secondary sources. The report includes country-specific profiles that detail the key steps in the evolution of each country's hazardous waste management program. The profiles also describe the role of the public sector in facility financing.

Decades of U.S. nuclear weapons production have exacted a heavy environmental toll. The Department of Energy estimates that cleaning up waste and contamination resulting from production activity will cost over $150 billion. Yet even once that money is spent, these sites will need long-term attention to assure protection of human health and the environment.

In the authors' words, stewardship refers to "institutions, information, and strategies needed to ensure protection of people and the environment, both in the short and the long term," after the DOE finishes its "cleanup" of the weapons complex. Probst and McGovern make a compelling case for establishing a formal program of long-term stewardship for contaminated sites. The legacy of environmental damage is considerable: hazardous waste disposal, radioactive waste, and contaminated facilities are among the problems that will remain after DOE cleanup efforts are complete. Stewardship planning, they say, must start now.

This report details the requirements of a successful stewardship program and discusses the daunting technical and political challenges facing such efforts. It articulates important issues to be tackled, such as the institutional home for key stewardship functions. The authors conclude with suggested next steps.

While more than 2,700 emergency removals of hazardous materials have taken place under Superfund, implementing the long-term cleanup program has been the object of considerable controversy. One of the most contentious issues is whether the liability standards in the law should be revised. The authors analyze the pros and cons associated with the current liability approach, as well as with a variety of alternative strategies.