Editors' Summary: Although NEPA requires the preparation of an EIS for every major federal action significantly affecting the environment, federal agencies often decide in particular cases that compliance with NEPA is satisfied by preparation of EAs. The decision not to prepare an EIS is usually based on a finding of no significant impact. When an agency's threshold NEPA decision is challenged in court, what is the appropriate standard of review?

When bankruptcy lawyers appear before lay people or other lawyers, we're sometimes looked at the same way as pathologists. We talk about how death is natural and beautiful, but everyone else is somewhat disgusted at how we spend our time. The image of bankruptcy lawyers as pathologists in the minds of most, however, helps to counterbalance the tendency among some bankruptcy judges and lawyers to view themselves not as pathologists but rather as miracle workers, people who can make flowers grow in the desert and bring the dead back to life.

In the sixteen years that have passed since the first Airlie House Conference, concern about preventing hazardous toxic exposures and cleaning up toxic waste sites has steadily increased. In turn, more and more federal and state legislation and regulations have appeared to redress these problems. The costs attendant to both preventive and cleanup costs, however, have become perhaps the most significant financial problem that many companies must face, often posing a threat to their continued viability.

There are about 600 environmental cases pending at the U.S. Justice Department, of which 58 involve bankruptcy issues. Thus, nearly 10 percent of our case docket forces us to confront the interaction of bankruptcy and environmental law.

In response, we have had to hire bankruptcy experts. We now have a senior attorney who is responsible for ensuring that we take consistent positions in all of those cases.

At the EPA, we begin with the assumption that people who never expected to be will find themselves involved in toxic-waste cases. Generally, we will seek out everyone associated with the contaminated property and send them a notice letter of potential liability. Thereafter, many questions will be raised about the fact of—and the extent of—liability, and those who are contacted will be invited to join in the relevant decisions. At a minimum, these people will experience the irritation of considering whether they are liable and perhaps seeking out advice.

I recently came across a little publication entitled, "Sue the Lender." It was the script for a video training program prepared for lending officers. As I glanced through it, I noticed that it said nothing about environmental liability.

The ENVIRON Corporation is a multi-disciplinary scientific and regulatory affairs consulting firm providing a broad range of services to clients concerned with the problems of human exposure to potentially hazardous substances in the environment. We offer expert counsel and technical assistance in toxicology, chemical risk assessment and risk management.

I would like to draw upon our three years of experience with ECRA in New Jersey to discuss the technical problems that have arisen and to propose remedies for the legislature.

It is appropriate that local government comes at the tail end of today's program. When we advise our clients about the long list of hazardous waste regulation, the final topic is local programs. This order of things, however, is changing. Local governments are now in the hazardous waste regulation business. If a company ignores this development when operating in more than one jurisdiction, it does so at its own peril.

I share with you an idea that was most eloquently stated by the late Leon Green of the University of Texas Law School. Professor Green observed that law and lawyers merit no particular reverence except to the extent they enable people to carry on their various activities conveniently and safely. I will consider this idea in light of some issues raised during our Airlie deliberations.