Trustees face possible liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) because, as holders of legal title to property, they may be "owners" or "operators" of CERCLA facilities. Although CERCLA does not expressly address trustee liability and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, except for a brief mention in the preamble to its lender liability rule, has not formally addressed the subject, common-law trust principles support finding trustees liable for CERCLA damages in certain situations.

Editors' Summary: The extent to which the existing version of CERCLA removes the federal government's sovereign immunity has long been a matter of contention between states and several federal agencies. This Dialogue discusses the statutory framework, and describes the manner in which DOD and DOE have contended that the existing CERCLA "waiver" does not remove the government's immunity shield.

Editors' Summary: Institutional controls are a mechanism for providing a certain degree of safety in the absence of technology that could clean contaminated sites thoroughly. Institutional controls come in a variety of forms, each of which can be designed to meet specific site needs. Flexible but long-lasting mechanisms such as institutional controls can be used to ensure that land uses continue to be compatible with the level of cleanup at a site.

Even if it is wrong, the U.S.

Editors' Summary: The Clinton Administration's proposed Superfund amendments—the Superfund Reform Act of 1994 (SRA)—were introduced in both the House and Senate in early February. Steven M. Jawetz of Beveridge & Diamond, reviews several key provisions of the bill's first five titles, including proposals to increase delegation to states, narrow defenses to EPA administrative orders and cost recovery actions, institute a nonbinding allocation process, and modify the remedy selection process. Mr.

The demise of efforts by a broadly based coalition of stakeholders to reauthorize Superfund in the 103rd Congress leaves the legislative field open for reconsidering all the key assumptions underlying the "consensus" bill that dominated last year's debate. Unless the coalition remains unified, and the Administration supports it aggressively, the substance will begin to unravel, the process will become chaotic, and Congress could easily miss the December 1995 deadline to reauthorize the statute.

Editors' Summary: Property owners often respond to solid and hazardous waste contamination of their properties by cleaning up the contamination and then seeking reimbursement of cleanup costs from responsible parties under federal and state hazardous waste laws. RCRA is one such law; however, RCRA §7002 does not explicitly provide for recovery of damages. A court faced with a RCRA §7002 citizen suit to recover cleanup costs must imply a private cause of action for damages. This Article addresses the availability of a private cause of action for damages under RCRA §7002.

Congress enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976, to regulate management of solid and hazardous waste. RCRA Subtitle C regulates hazardous waste management and Subtitle D governs nonhazardous, solid waste. In 1984, Congress passed the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), significantly amending and expanding RCRA Subtitle C. HSWA added to RCRA the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) Program, or land ban, which bars land disposal of hazardous wastes that fail to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)-promulgated treatment standards.