It has become manifest that the manner in which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposes, implements, and enforces environmental requirements is in serious need of reform. This was recently and eloquently expressed by former EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus in his speech at the Environmental Law Institute's 1995 Annual Dinner. Expressions of the need for change have come from many points on the political spectrum, including the White House and the Congress. Unfortunately, practical measures to accomplish reform must overcome formidable obstacles.

The history of hazardous waste management divides into two eras: the cradle-to-grave era (beginning in 1980)¹ and the land disposal restrictions (LDR) era (beginning in 1986).² Since the decision in Shell Oil Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,³ however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has struggled to establish the foundation for what may be a new era.

Joint implementation provides U.S. companies an opportunity to contribute to an officially sanctioned effort to reduce greenhouse-gas¹ emissions, the anthropogenic cause of global warming. Joint implementation typically takes place in developing countries, with the financial and technical assistance of sponsors in the developed world.

Editors' Summary: Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contains an innovative performance-standard approach to pollution abatement. The Acid Rain Program that Title IV established imposes a national cap on utilities' sulphur dioxide (SO₂) emissions, the principal cause of acid rain, and grants allowances to utilities to emit specific amounts of SO₂.

About a decade ago, disposal facilities began infiltrating the market for transportation of hazardous waste, to guarantee that they would be shipped an adequate supply of waste. To regain the transportation business, transportation companies increased the scope of the services they provided, to include recommending and selecting treatment and disposal facilities. This intense competition for the transportation and disposal markets created a new intermediary called a hazardous-waste "broker."

Over the last year or so, Congress has considered several proposals to reform the regulatory system.¹ This short Comment suggests an alternative approach to reform, based on the theory that the regulatory system should work in the following manner: (1) Congress should set clear goals; (2) agencies should implement those goals; and (3) courts should provide quality control, ensuring that regulations embody well-thought out policy decisions that are driven by Congress' goals.² The system does not work this way now, and probably will not unti

Editors' Summary: This Article presents an argument that EPA's use of reference concentrations (RfCs) in risk assessments, if upheld by the courts, will dramatically change the nature of health-based regulation. In a background section, the Article summarizes RfC methodology and its origins.

It may seem curious to some that the survival of a relatively small number of three-inch fish among all the countless millions of species extant would require the permanent halting of a virtually completed dam for which Congress has expended more than $ 100 million…. We conclude, however, that the explicit provisions of the Endangered Species Act require precisely that result.

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 172-73, 8 ELR 20513, 20517 (1978) (TVA v. Hill).

In the July 1996 issue of News and Analysis, Richard Blaustein discussed the concept of joint implementation, a potentially important provision of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC).¹ In his Dialogue, the author summarized the history of joint implementation, the current debate over its future role as a mechanism for international climate-change mitigation, and some of its potential implications for private-sector companies here in the United States.

Editors' Summary: This Article examines the judicial review provisions of EPA's proposed New Source Review (NSR) Reform Package issued under the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule would require the terms and conditions of state-issued NSR construction permits under Title I of the Act to be reviewable in state court, and would further allow states to designate the state forum as the exclusive means for judicial review of permit terms and conditions.