Congressional committees, the media, environmental groups and state officials are investigating and criticizing virtually all aspects of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) hazardous waste cleanup program under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund). Citations for contempt of Congress, constitutional confrontations between the executive and legislative branches, and firing of the top EPA hazardous waste regulator add an element of high drama. Many of the charges in this controversy are leveled at EPA's efforts to detoxify hazardous waste sites. One repeated accusation is that EPA's propensity to negotiate settlements with the generators of the hazardous wastes found at the sites, rather than first filing suit, establishes that EPA is reluctant to enforce against the generators, who often are bastions of corporate America.

This charge evinces a basic misunderstanding of the litigation process generally and of large, multi-party hazardous waste cases in particular. EPA's true posture toward hazardous waste enforcement cannot be gauged by such a simple and misdirected inquiry. Concern over the "negotiate first" approach obscures questions more pertinent to the health of EPA's enforcement program and the viability of its multi-party hazardous waste case strategy.