Editors' Summary: Regulatory reform must be carried out through the same reasoned decisionmaking processes which the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires for the promulgation of new rules. This, Mr. Stohbehn argues, is the Third Circuit's message to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 12 ELR 20833.

Editors' Summary: As the 97th Congress came to a close, the Reagan Administration, natural resource development interests, the Congress, and conservationists had come to a stalemate in a high stakes battle over mineral development on the nation's public lands. Mr. Tundermann examines the reasons for the stalemate and discusses several congressional and administrative actions of the past year that have contributed to it. He explains that as much as 50 percent of the federal lands are currently withdrawn from mineral development.

Samuel Bleicher's recent article on ocean dumping, "The Battle Over Ocean Dumping," 12 ELR 15032, while providing an excellent analysis of many of the key issues in the debate over ocean disposal of contaminated wastes, fails to address a critical point: the national and international precedent that could well be established by a U.S. policy reversal on ocean dumping.

Editors' Summary: The long-range transport of sulfur dioxide emissions, their transformation into sulfates in the atmosphere, and their eventual return to earth through the phenomena popularly lumped together under the name "acid rain" is a serious environmental problem that many argue has been given inadequate attention in the Clean Air Act. In three decisions issued on December 1, 1982, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed carefully the Clean Air Act's response to the interstate transport of SO₂ and its transformation into sulfates.

Issues:

1. Is compliance with federal and state environmental statutes and regulations a defense to a federal or state common law negligence or nuisance action?

2. Does the existence of a federal regulatory statute governing a particular activity bar a federal or state common law claim with respect to that activity?

Congressional committees, the media, environmental groups and state officials are investigating and criticizing virtually all aspects of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) hazardous waste cleanup program under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund). Citations for contempt of Congress, constitutional confrontations between the executive and legislative branches, and firing of the top EPA hazardous waste regulator add an element of high drama.

Editors' Summary: Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980 to resolve the uncertainty over the fate of federal holdings in Alaska and speed transfer of lands owed to the state and natives. The Act puts millions of acres under protective management and prescribes the rights of inholders and natives. The Ninth Circuit, in the first appellate decision applying the Act to lands in Alaska, ruled that the Act requires the Forest Service to prepare an EIS before granting a special use permit to U.S.

Editors' Summary: Early this year, the Fifth Circuit, in Sierra Club v. Sigler, became the first court of appeals to interpret CEQ's "worst case" regulation for EISs. The rule requires agencies to perform a worst case analysis where significant scientific uncertainty or gaps in information exist concerning the environmental effects of a project. Because the rule is unique and only recently promulgated, it is unclear what types of projects are included within the rule or how broad the analysis must be.

Editors' Summary: On December 30, 1982 a federal district judge handed EPA's hazardous waste program an unexpected setback. He dismissed an EPA complaint seeking to use RCRA §7003 to force the operator of a closed landfill and the owner of the land on which it is located to abate chemical pollution leaking from the dump into the groundwater. The decision in United States v. Waste Industries was the first to reject the Agency's application of §7003 to an inactive waste disposal site.

In the midst of the chaos prevailing at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one major environmental accomplishment received too little notice. On March 3, 1983, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the American Iron and Steel Institute, and EPA filed a settlement agreement¹ with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit resolving all legal challenges to water pollution effluent guidelines for the steel industry.