Editors' Summary: In 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) made major changes in the law governing pesticide residues in food, including elimination of the zero-risk standard for carcinogenic food additives. The FQPA instead imposed a new safety standard—a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide—for establishment of "tolerances" setting maximum allowable amounts of pesticide residue.

Editors' Summary: The debate about the most appropriate procedures and methodologies to conduct natural resource damage assessments (NRDAs) has continued throughout the last decade among agencies and stakeholders. In August 1995, NOAA proposed the most recent set of regulations to govern NRDAs under the Oil Pollution Act. This Article reviews the history of natural resource damages regulations and the 1995 NOAA proposed rule.

Editors' Summary: In this second installment of a three-part Article, the authors continue a detailed examination of the TSCA statute and regulatory program. They begin the installment with a review of TSCA § 5(e) orders and consent orders and significant new use rules. They next discuss imposition of requirements to conduct health and environmental effects testing on chemical manufacturers and processors, summarizing TSCA § 4's statutory authority and EPA's regulatory program.

Editors' Summary: In this final installment of a three-part Article, the authors complete their detailed examination of the TSCA statute and regulatory program. The authors begin the installment by discussing TSCA §§ 6 and 7's regulation of existing chemicals, including asbestos, PCPs, and imminently hazardous materials. The authors stress the important potential ramifications of the 5th Circuit's Corrosion Proof Fittings decision.

Editors' Summary: In 1989, a National Research Council study concluded that contaminated sediments are "widespread in U.S. coastal waters" and have "potentially far-reaching consequences to both public health and the environment." A 1996 interim EPA report reached a similar conclusion. This concern over contaminated sediments is not new. It has manifested itself in a dizzying array of statutory and regulatory restrictions on the disposal of these sediments.

Editors' Summary: Regulation of point source discharges under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) has resulted in significant improvements in water quality. Further progress, however, will require attention to stormwater and nonpoint source discharges. This Article describes current legal schemes that regulate point source stormwater discharges and encourage control of nonpoint source releases. The author first discusses phases I and II of EPA's program to regulate stormwater under the FWPCA.

In a classic legislative "quick fix," the 95th Congress on the next to last day of its second session rushed through to passage an amendment to §311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)¹ that breathes new life into the federal program for the regulation of hazardous substances spills into the nation's waters. The program had been plunged into a state of suspended animation by a recent federal district court decision in Manufacturing Chemists Association v.

Whether federal agencies have implicit power to fund the participation of particular groups or parties in their administrative proceedings in the absence of explicit statutory authorization remains one of the most controversial issues in administrative law.¹ The Second Circuit's en banc ruling last year in Greene County Planning Board v.

In a dramatic announcement on December 1, 1978,¹ President Carter made good on his pledge that protection of the environmental values of the vast "national interest" lands² in Alaska is the most important environmental goal of his administration.

Given that legislative and administrative controls on environmental pollution involve considerable economic sacrifices, a crucial underlying question is whether the prices paid for environmental protection by taxpayers, consumers, and industry are justified. Lawmakers have traditionally eschewed this difficult question, dismissing it as unanswerable. Within the last year or so, however, environmental, health, and safety regulations have been widely blamed for contributing to a uniquely pernicious and malignant economic malady: Inflation.