Editors'Summary: The passage of CERCLA in 1980 has supported a growing number of environmental professionals. The Act's vague language, expensive cleanup requirements, and strict liability scheme require an army of environmental lawyers, engineers, and scientists. In the next few years, the RCRA corrective action program may begin to rival the CERCLA program. The corrective action program covers many facilities and often requires expensive studies and cleanup.

Editors' Summary: NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare EISs for major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. EISs must discuss all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. The discussion of alternatives is the heart of an EIS. In Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, the D.C. Circuit appears to have narrowed the scope of alternatives that a federal agency must consider when it issues a permit or other federal approval.

Editors' Summary: In May 1984, EPA's Office of Solid Waste issued the first Civil Penalty Policy under RCRA. Since then, EPA has been criticized for assessing penalties that are not large enough to offset the economic benefits of noncompliance. On the heels of this criticism, EPA issued its revised RCRA Civil Penalty Policy in October 1990.

Editors' Summary: With its long history of industrialization and high population density, Europe faces serious environmental problems. Initiatives developed by the European Community (EC) are serving as catalysts and frameworks for addressing these problems. One initiative that the EC is currently considering is the proposed Directive on Civil Liability for Damage From Waste. This proposed directive would create a far-reaching toxic tort and cleanup liability regime.

How to improve the federal/state "partnership" in the environmental area is a difficult subject. Despite my best attempts to devise simple solutions with resolving power, the situation is not amenable to easy fixes.

LEE DEHIHNS: Rather than discuss the Clean Air Act amendments from the view of their relationship to the states, let me review some of the history of our federal air act legislation to illustrate how it frames our present situation. You will see in the history the underpinning of some of the proposed amendments. You also will see that the proposed amendments still won't solve the federal/state dilemmas.

The first federal clean air legislation was passed in 1955.

JAMES R. ELDER: I am going to discuss what I want to describe as EPA's tightrope walk between the need for national consistency and state flexibility in implementation. I will discuss the obligations and roles of both EPA and the states.

The states need to be at the front line to take the lead on implementation, but what is the extent of this lead? What is the meaning of delegation? And what degree of responsibility is EPA left to retain?

NANCY FIRESTONE: I would like to discuss a recent EPA study. When Don Clay, the new Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste And Emergency Response, took office in November and Chris Holmes was designated his Principal Deputy, they already had before them the Superfund 90-day study. This became a blueprint for carrying out the Superfund program.

Editors' Summary: On November 15, 1990, President Bush signed into law the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the first comprehensive changes to the Act in 13 years. During the intervening months since its enactment, EPA has geared up, streamlined, and commenced its rulemaking processes to accommodate the regulatory burden the new law places on the Agency. As amended by the 1990 amendments, the Clean Air Act instructs EPA to promulgate 27 rules during each of the first two years.

Editors' Summary: In this second of a three-part series on the Clean Air Act and the 1990 amendments, the authors analyze the background of several key Clean Air Act sections, including the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program, new and modified source review, the national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) program, acid deposition control provisions, and mobile source controls. The authors explore the evolution of the PSD program from its origins in Sierra Club v.