Editors' Summary: Determining the impact that environmental forces have on human health is an integral part of environmental law and policy. A determination of this impact must, of course, begin with a determination of whether there has been any impact at all. Evaluating the causal relationship between environmental forces and human illness is, therefore, essential.

Introduction

One of the most popular recent trends in the environmental arena is reinvention. The groups recommending changes to our system of environmental management are notable by their breadth, their high level of credibility, and the consistency of their message.¹ Yet, despite the consistent message, it seems "the system" is resistant to change, with the entrenched interests it supports being the first to defend the status quo despite the downsides for the environment and management efficiencies.

Over the past 20 or so years, the world has developed a vast array of international environmental agreements. Approximately 900 international environmental agreements worldwide have been negotiated and set into place.¹ These include bilateral and multilateral, regional, and global agreements that cover a variety of issues and problems and vary tremendously in purpose and strength. The United States participates in or has a significant interest in more than 170.²

Editors' Summary: A generator may use its knowledge of processes and materials to determine whether a waste must be managed as hazardous waste. This is generally referred to as using "process" or "generator" knowledge to characterize a waste. A generator may determine how the waste should be treated and disposed under the RCRA land disposal restrictions by using "acceptable" knowledge. Using process knowledge to characterize a waste and acceptable knowledge to determine a waste's fate under the land disposal restrictions is less time-consuming and more cost efficient than testing.

Five summers ago in Rio de Janeiro, world leaders gathered at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and committed themselves to the pursuit of sustainable development.¹ As part of that commitment, they signed an impressive array of agreements, including the Forest Principles, the Convention on Biodiversity, the Convention on Climate Change, and Agenda 21.

Editors' Summary: This Article addresses whether citizens have standing to bring citizen suits under EPCRA for wholly past violations—an issue presented before the U.S. Supreme Court last month in Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment. The author argues that citizen plaintiffs can satisfy Article III standing requirements even if a defendant comes into compliance before the citizen suit is filed.

Over the past several years, legal scholars have been theorizing about the disproportionate number of environmental problems in urban and minority areas.¹ Many view the entire issue of environmental justice² or, depending on the writer, "environmental racism"³ as a matter of air, water, or soil contamination, or other industrial conditions amounting to environmental blight in and around communities made up of less advantaged, if not abjectly poor, people.

This Dialogue proposes to give permittees a new option in environmental permitting. The option will compress the permitting cycle while simultaneously generating better public support and better environmental protection. To some people, the option will seem radical. It should seem less so after reviewing the breadth and depth of the current initiatives in reinventing environmental permitting.

Since the final publication in late 1996 of the International Organization for Standardization's (ISO's) environmental management systems (EMSs) standard, ISO 14001, the cacophony of claims and counterclaims about the standard has grown louder. The commentary is wide-ranging, with some of the more noteworthy claims being that ISO 14001:

. is a "green passport" signifying environmental excellence;

. is a plot by industry to undercut more deserving international environmental initiatives;

. is a plot by consultants to make money off of industry;