Editors' Summary: One of the most hotly debated issues in environmental law in the last several years has been the nature of the liability of hazardous waste generators under the imminent hazard provisions of RCRA and CERCLA. The federal government has maintained that those who produced the wastes now leaking out of old, unsafe chemical dumps are subject to strict and joint and several liability for abatement action under RCRA §7003 and CERCLA §106. Industry has argued that placing such a heavy burden on non-negligent companies that had no control over the disposal methods of the dump operators violates Congress' intent, as well as basic principles of the common law and the U.S. Constitution. New the argument is moving from conference halls to the courts. In one pending imminent hazard case against a group of waste generators, United States v. Conservation Chemical Co., the contending positions have been spelled out in detail in memoranda on defendants' motion to dismiss. The author reviews the positions of the two sides in Conservation Chemical. He concludes that while the government has made a strong case in support of its claim of strict and joint and several liability as a general matter, the possibility of apportioning the damage on the basis of the individual generators' shares of the wastes stands in the way of imposing joint and several liability on these defendants.