The report of the §301(e) Superfund study groupwas completed in June 1982, and was published in August of that year. As reporter for the study group, I have been involved in many discussions, roundtables and debates during the past 15 months. I have concluded that my first task, invariably, is to rescue the report from the rewrite it has experienced at the hands of its critics.

The report, Injuries and Damages From Hazardous Wastes—Analysis and Improvement of Legal Remedies,¹ was not the work of a small group of anti-industry lawyers. The study group was established under federal law, which directed that the American Bar Association, the American Law Institute, the Association of American Trial Lawyers, and the National Association of State Attorneys General should each have its president select three members from the organization to conduct the study. An examination of the list of members of the study group and their appointing organizations,² shows that the study group was diverse, with several plaintiffs' lawyers, several defendants' lawyers, several government lawyers, and some academicians making up the roster. In fact, one truly amazing outcome of the study was that a group as diverse as this achieved agreement on the report and on virtually all if its major recommendations. There were some few additional views, but they did not undercut the essential findings and recommendations. I shall comment on this at the appropriate time, but suffice it to say that it is a disservice to pretend that the report is a minority report unsupported by the study group as a whole. A simple reading and consideration of the additional views clearly substantiates this point.³