Editors' Summary: On September 20, 1983, in National Association of Metal Finishers v. Environmental Protection Agency, 13 ELR 21042, the Third Circuit upheld the basic program established by EPA to control the discharge of wastewater from 60,000 industrial facilities to municipal sewage treatment systems under the FWPCA.

Editors' Summary: This is the second of two articles in this issue concerning the Third Circuit's recent decision on EPA's pretreatment regulations. The first article, 14 ELR 10039, discusses all but one of the issues reached by the court in National Association of Metal Finishers v. Environmental Protection Agency, 13 ELR 21042, a decision that resolved finally most questions about the pretreatment program.

Editors' Summary: In order to register a pesticide under FIFRA, the registrant must submit data on the pesticide's safety and efficacy to EPA. FIFRA's provisions on EPA's use and disclosure of such data have proved controversial. In particular, the provision allowing EPA to use one manufacturer's data to support the application of another has repeatedly been challenged as an unconstitutional taking of property. In Monsanto Co. v. Acting Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, the issue has reached the Supreme Court. Messrs.

Editors' Summary: In the second of a three-part series, Mr. Miller analyzes the mechanics of bringing a citizen suit and the remedies available to the successful plaintiff under 11 federal environmental statutes. He examines the conditions precedent to citizen suits, the rights of government and citizen enforcers to intervene in each other's suits, security requirements that courts may impose on citizen suit plaintiffs, and the extent to which the citizen enforcer can obtain the same remedies available to the government.

The Environmental Law Reporter's recent comment¹ on the Avoyelles wetlands protection cases² was of particular interest to me, since I have spent to much time working on them and am still pressing for a meaningful implementation of the Fifth Circuit decision.

The age of toxic torts appears to be upon us. According to Richard K. Willard, Chief of the Justice Department's Civil Division, toxic tort claims against the federal government alone over the next 10 years excluding asbestos claims will top $200 billion—larger than the current federal budget deficit! (See Legal Times, Feb. 27, 1984, at 2, col. 1.) Even if Mr. Willard was generous in his estimates, it is clear that private industry and the government will soon have to defend more and larger claims for compensation for injuries from toxic substances.

I would like to welcome everyone to the Twelfth Annual Airlie House Conference on the Environment. Our topic this year—"Recovery for Exposure to Hazardous Substances"—is one of particular timeliness or, as many would indeed say, urgency. It is a topic that cuts across many traditional lines and affects many constituentcies. It is at the same time extremely important to the judiciary, both federal and state, because judges will be called upon to resolve complex legal issues and guide juries in making factual determinations in areas of extraordinary ambiguity and uncertainty.

Thank you for this opportunity to join you. I suspect that you asked me here primarily for two reasons: first, I am the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which does have jurisdiction over legislation dealing with victim compensation for environmental pollution. Second, I have been an advocate of victim compensation for five years. For the first time, there seems to be a chance that legislation in this field will be enacted.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),¹ the Superfund legislation, makes no provision for the recovery of damages for personal injuries and property damage resulting from exposure to hazardous wastes, although there was frequent reference to such individual injuries in the course of its legislative history.

I would like to address four points: the genesis of the Environmental Law Institute Study, what the ELI Study says, the important differences between the ELI Study and the §301(e) Report, and some of the policy considerations behind our approach to the problem of compensation of victims of exposure to toxic substances.