In the U.S., by contrast, while relying heavily on administrative authorities ourselves, the use of the judicial branch by the executive to enforce environmental laws is at the heart of our enforcement system and philosophy. As we enter our third decade of enforcement, the lesson in the U.S. is clearer than ever: bringing civil and criminal prosecutions against environmental offenders -- and the threat of prosecution for those tempted to violate the law -- is the surest way to make the regulated community adhere to environmental standards and employ responsible environmental practices.

2 OVERVIEW OF U.S. ENFORCEMENT

2.1 Powers of the Federal Government

Enforcement by the federal government of environmental laws and standards may take several forms: (1) administrative (handled within the executive branch agency); (2) civil; and (3) criminal. The latter two are pursued in federal courts by the Department of Justice on behalf of federal agencies, primarily EPA.

2.1.1 Resource Specific Statutes

Federal enforcement is governed by federal law, and in the U.S. system, unlike that of many countries, federal environmental law is usually broken down according to the media or resources affected. Unlike many nations, we do not have a single overarching environmental law. For example, we have enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to regulate transport, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act regulate discharges into those media.

Our Superfund law, which forces cleanup of abandoned hazardous waste sites, and holds private parties liable for cleanup costs and damages to natural resources, takes enforcement a step beyond other laws. Building on principles of common law tort, Superfund provides for strict joint and several liabilities. Superfund also provides for recovery of triple damages if responsible parties refuse to clean up after being ordered to. Thus, Superfund's enforcement clout is a powerful deterrent to polluters.

2.2 Powers of the States

Federal enforcement authorities often work side-by-side with State authorities. Many federal environmental laws (e.g., Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act) encourage States to develop their own regulatory and enforcement programs to parallel federal law. If States do so, and their programs are approved by EPA because they are consistent with national pollution standards and policies, States may be given "delegated" authority to issue permits and take enforcement actions. Moreover, States are free to enact environmental laws more stringent than federal laws.

2.2.1 Scope of State Enforcement

In practice, States with "delegated" authority issue the vast majority of all permits and bring the largest number of enforcement actions against violators.

Depending on the state legislation, state enforcers may be able to impose administrative penalty orders for violations, and bring judicial actions for civil, and sometimes criminal, penalties in state courts. In recent years, State authorities have been particularly active in enforcing their laws against illegal dischargers of toxic substances.

2.3 Role of Private Citizens in Enforcement

An additional piece in the U.S. enforcement picture is the role of private citizens, including groups or organizations. In some circumstances, and consistent with U.S. constitutional "standing" principles, many federal environmental laws give private citizens the right to go to court and seek to enforce those laws against violators. Depending on the law, citizens are entitled to seek injunctive relief or civil penalties, payable to the U.S. Treasury.

2.3.1 Relationship of Citizen to Federal Enforcement

When a citizen sues a private violator, and the case concludes through a settlement (not a formal judicial determination), the terms of the settlement are not binding on the federal government. We are still free to bring our own enforcement action on the same violation if we believe the settlement in the citizen's case to be inadequate.

2.3.2 Review of Citizen Enforcement by Federal Government

Under most environmental laws, which permit suits by citizens, the federal government must receive notice of the suit 60 days before the citizen can file it in court. This allows federal authorities the opportunity, if they choose, to bring the case instead of the citizen. Moreover, if the citizen does proceed with the case because federal authorities have not filed their own action, federal authorities may "intervene" in (i.e., join) the citizen suit.

Lastly, if federal authorities do not bring the case, and do not intervene in it, they are still entitled to review any proposed final settlement of the case. If they believe that the proposed settlement is not adequate, they will try to persuade the parties to change the terms of the settlement. If this fails, federal authorities may try to persuade the court not to accept the proposed settlement.

At each step along the way, our citizen suit laws are designed with a firm purpose in mind: to allow the federal government to ensure that all environmental enforcement -- even when a private citizen, not government, is the enforcer -- be conducted in as uniform and consistent a manner as possible.

3 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT PRINCIPLES AND CAPABILITIES

3.1 Administrative, Civil or Criminal

To most Americans, environmental violations are not all equal. Measured according to such standards as harm to the environment or to human health, some are relatively minor. This public perception of a sliding scale of environmental violations -- least to most severe -- has prompted our Congress, typically with the support of the executive branch, to design laws with levels of punishment corresponding to the magnitude of the violation.

Beyond linking the severity of the punishment to the severity of the violation, practical reasons also underlie the sliding scale approach in U.S. law. If administrative sanctions were not available to tackle the vast majority of violations, and our federal courts and federal enforcers were pressed to handle all violations, large or small, the burden on the courts and the government would be immense, and beyond our present capabilities.

Generally, on the bottom end of the scale, the least serious offenses are subject to administrative sanctions only. In the middle are civil judicial sanctions. On the top end, offenses carrying the greatest risks to society and which society deems the most worthy of harsh punishment, such as dangerous illegal acts undertaken knowingly and willfully, are prosecuted as crimes. For individuals, criminal prosecution means one of the stiffest penalties in the U.S. legal system -- the specter of imprisonment. In practice, the vast majority of enforcement actions are administrative. Criminal prosecutions represent the fewest.

3.1.1 Who may be prosecuted?

Not only individuals and companies including owners and operators of facilities may be charged with violations of environmental law. Municipalities and other political subdivisions are also subject to enforcement actions.

3.2 Range of Enforcement Actions

Administrative, civil and criminal actions usually carry the following range of sanctions:

· Administrative: orders to comply with law by a specific date which are enforceable in court, and usually the possibility of monetary penalties (law usually sets cap on maximum penalty) (1);

· Civil: monetary penalties (with no maximum level set by law and up to $25,000 per day for each violation), injunctive relief (e.g., orders to comply with environmental law, cease operations), and litigation costs;

· Criminal: monetary penalties (no maximum level set by law and up to $25,000 per day of violation) and, for individuals, imprisonment.

3.2.1 How Civil Penalties are calculated

The amount of civil monetary penalties a court may impose is usually designed by law (e.g., Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(d)) to reflect several factors:

· Seriousness of the violations;

· Economic benefit resulting from the violation;

· Prior history of such violations;

· Good-faith efforts of defendant to comply with law;

· Economic impact of penalty on the defendant;

· "Such other matters as justice may require".

Executive branch policy statements may also be employed to help determine the penalty amount.

3.2.2 Other Forms of Civil Relief

Beyond monetary penalties, a remedy sometimes available administratively, or under the court's power to issue injunctions, is a so-called "environmental project." Environmental projects are becoming increasingly used to redress environmental violations, and can be ordered in cases brought by the government and in cases brought by private citizens. Generally, there are five categories of projects: pollution prevention and reduction, environmental audits and restoration, and enforcement related public awareness projects. (2) And (3).

An environmental project is an undertaking by the violator to either restore the resource it injured or destroyed, or to preserve the resource from such effects in the future. In any event, a critical requirement is that there be a "nexus," or connection, between the violation and the project. This generally means, at a minimum, two things: the medium polluted must be the medium restored or preserved by the environmental project; and the project must benefit resources affected by the pollution. The following hypothetical case helps illustrate the point:

Suppose a company admits to discharging illegal amounts of pollution into the headwaters of a river, violating the Clean Water Act. While settlement of that case should entail a substantial monetary penalty to the U.S. Treasury, U.S. law and practice also might permit the company to agree to fund an "environmental project" which replaces fish stocks killed by the discharges. Or, the company might be permitted to buy and preserve wetlands adjoining the river, which are downstream of the discharges and were undoubtedly polluted by the discharges. Both environmental projects appear to have a "nexus" to the illegal discharges.

3.2.3 How Criminal Penalties are calculated

The amount of criminal monetary penalties a court may impose is usually designed by law (e.g., Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(c)) to reflect several factors:

· Whether the violation was "negligent" or "knowing" (defendant subject to $25,000 penalty per day for "negligent" violations, and $50,000 penalty per day for "knowing" violations);

· Whether the violation "knowingly" placed another person "in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury" (defendant subject to $250,000 penalty per day);

· Guidelines of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

3.2.4 Other Forms of Criminal Relief

Our criminal laws contain a rough equivalent to civil "environmental projects." Under the principle of "restitution," courts may, as a condition of probation, require that criminals restore the fruits of their crimes. This means that, besides being subject to a monetary penalty and possible imprisonment, the criminal must, as a condition of probation, make restitution for the offense.

3.3 Whether to Prosecute Violator Civilly or Criminally

Civil charges are far more common than criminal charges. For the government to bring criminal charges, compelling circumstances must be present. Among the factors we consider when contemplating bringing criminal charges are the:

· Nature and extent of the harm, or threat of harm, to human health or the environment. The more serious the harm, the more likely criminal prosecution will be justified;

· Violator's history of compliance with the law. A long history of violations may suggest the need for criminal prosecution;

· Violator's degree of cooperation with regulators and law enforcement officials, including full and prompt disclosure of violations and steps taking corrective action;

· Impact of the conduct on our regulatory program. Have records been destroyed or falsified? Since the integrity of our regulatory scheme is heavily dependent on accurate and timely reporting, we take very seriously any reporting violations that undermine our regulatory scheme;

· Deterrent value of prosecution. How likely is it that others in the regulated community will be motivated by learning of this prosecution to stay within the law? Given limited government resources to police environmental crime, deterrence is always a major consideration.

3.4 Prosecutions of Corporate Officials

Many U.S. environmental laws allow for prosecution of "responsible corporate officers." This means that if a high-level company official knew about dangerous conditions, or deliberately closed his or her eyes to such knowledge, and consciously decided to do nothing in his or her power to remove or avoid the dangerous conditions, the official may be subject to criminal prosecution.

3.5 Natural Resource Damage Claims

When it is air, land, water or wildlife that is injured, and that resource or resources belong not to a particular person, but to the public as a whole, traditional civil enforcement methods may fall short. For one thing, exactly who can bring a civil lawsuit for such broad and diffuse damage? For another, how can a price tag be put on, say, and the myriad ramifications of a large oil spill? U.S. law has designed a way to deal with large-scale environmental damage, while still preserving the twin objectives of all our enforcement -- compensation and deterrence. This is done through natural resource damage claims. Under several of our environmental statutes, natural resource damage claims work as follows:

· The government (national, state or Indian tribe) is made a trustee on behalf of the public. The government then brings an action, for example, against the owner of the ship, which spilled large amounts of oil into a bay. When the government recovers funds as a result of the natural resource damage claim, it spends the funds to restore or rehabilitate the injured land, water and wildlife resources.

· As appealing as natural resource damage claims are to address episodes of massive pollution, they do present federal enforcers with considerable challenges. Measuring and assessing environmental damage can be enormously complex. Giving a dollar value to a single dead bird after an oil spill is difficult, much less multiplying this task by hundreds or thousands of times for all affected fish and wildlife species. Add to this task the difficulty of assigning values to water or land, and some idea is had of the challenges facing the government trustee seeking natural resource damages.

3.6 Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings

Many U.S. laws authorize both civil and criminal enforcement for the same illegal conduct. This poses potential problems for federal enforcers. If two prosecutions, civil and criminal, go forward simultaneously, investigators and attorneys may begin overlapping one another and undermining the other case. Therefore, enforcement officials must be careful to avoid duplicative enforcement. Several years ago, EPA and the Department of Justice fashioned policies to deal with such circumstances.

Generally, when both civil and criminal prosecutions are possible for a single pollution incident, a criminal proceeding should be brought and resolved before a civil action. In part, giving priority to the criminal case reflects the fact that criminal penalties are more severe than civil penalties, and violators should face these severe penalties as quickly as possible. However, if danger to public health or the environment is imminent, needing speedy corrective action, a civil proceeding to bring "injunctive" relief may precede the criminal action.

4 STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES OF U.S. JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

4.1 Role of Department of Justice

By federal law, the Department of Justice is the litigating arm of the executive branch of government. Department attorneys thus represent federal agencies in court. Most judicial enforcement of our environmental laws, civil and criminal, is handled by the some 300 attorneys in the Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Department's ninety-four U.S. Attorney's Offices throughout the nation also enforce environmental laws for violations (particularly criminal ones) within the jurisdiction of the individual Office. When the case is handled by an U.S. Attorney's Office, that Office coordinates its litigation decisions with Environment Division officials in Washington. In this way, we ensure as uniform and consistent an application of environmental laws as possible.

4.2 Relationship of Department of Justice with other Agencies

The critical task of conducting the initial investigation and fact-finding necessary to bring the case is handled by the Department's "client" agencies. These agencies possess the technical expertise to gather evidence and undertake often-sophisticated analyses necessary to assess whether environmental violations have occurred. The primary client agency of the Department of Justice on environmental matters is EPA. (4)

Because of the close working relationship between EPA and the Department of Justice, we hold monthly high-level meetings which track the progress of cases, confer on resources and case loads and discuss other policy matters.

When EPA has completed an investigation, and documented environmental violations it believes are serious enough to warrant prosecution in court, (not merely through EPA's own administrative powers), it sends a "referral package," containing all necessary factual information, evidence, proposed case strategy and settlement terms, and its recommendation for prosecuting the case, to the Environment Division of the Department of Justice or the U.S. Attorney's Office. In FY 1991, EPA referred 393 civil judicial cases and 81 criminal cases to the Department of Justice. (During that same period, EPA took 3,925 administrative enforcement actions). (5)

4.3 Considerations for Bringing Judicial Enforcement Actions

Department of Justice attorneys review the referral package from EPA. Attorneys examine the referral package with two main considerations in mind: (1) whether the facts provided constitute a violation of law; (2) whether, even if the facts provided might technically constitute a violation of law, Department policies or other considerations militate against bringing the case, or against bringing it on the grounds recommended by EPA. A hypothetical example illustrates the point:

· The Clean Water Act generally requires that anyone wishing to fill wetlands, such as a swamp, obtain a federal permit before doing so. EPA investigators have learned that a real estate development company has filled in four acres of year-round swamp -- a wetland -- on its property. EPA has also uncovered many additional facts. The company president knew that a permit was required. He had in fact approached federal officials, but was angry to learn that the permit process would take many months. The president wanted to fill immediately in order to turn the quickest profit. The company also knew, EPA found that its swamp had particularly valuable ecological values. Company officials had been told by their employees that it was the only remaining swamp in many square miles. Numerous species of migratory birds used the swamp to nest and feed and the swamp was also vital to help purify the drinking water of nearby residents. Knowing all this, EPA found the company nevertheless proceeded to fill the swamp to build a parking garage.

· The referral package describing such facts to the Department of Justice would appear to present a good case for prosecution. The case could be civil or, given the apparent open and willful disregard for the law, perhaps even criminal. The land was protected wetland under the Clean Water Act, a permit had not been sought, the land had unusually valuable ecological characteristics and the company openly flouted the law. If Department attorneys were satisfied that such facts would be persuasive to a jury and judge in the judicial district where the swamp was located, and that witnesses, documentary and technical evidence could present a convincing case, the Department might well take the case to court.

· On the other hand, consider one or more somewhat different facts. The swamp was not under water more than a few months each year. The judicial district in which the swamp is located has in the past been a hostile forum to such government actions. In three such earlier cases, either judges or juries found the charged landowner not liable. Mindful of such circumstances, and given the already high demands on Department resources, the Department might decide that its enforcement priorities should be directed to other environmental violations. Thus, while the referral package might possibly establish a violation of the Clean Water Act, other strong considerations might convince the Department to decline to bring this case in court.

4.4. General Enforcement Policies

4.4.1 Publicity

When one facility learns that another facility in the same industry or in the same general area has been prosecuted, the first facility will, in all likelihood, take steps to avoid committing violations of its own. This principle is at the core of an important objective of all enforcement -- deter future violations by making the enforcement a widely known fact. It does little good to prosecute an industry here and an industry there without alerting all industry to the fact that prosecution possibly awaits any whom break the law. Government does not have unlimited resources. It gets the most "mileage" from those prosecutions it is able to bring by showing all in the regulated community examples of violators who have been forced to pay substantial monetary penalties or even go to prison. Thus, the federal government often accompanies the filing of administrative, civil and criminal actions by simultaneous, detailed press releases telling the public and the media.

4.4.2 "Multimedia" and Special Enforcement Initiatives

As all know too well, when a waterbody, forest or city is assailed by pollution, that pollution usually comes from more than a single source. Pesticide runoff from farms, and acid rain caused by nearby industry, may both contribute to degradation of a bay. Urban areas are often burdened with combined industrial, automotive and other discharges into air, water and land.

Increasingly, we are using multi-media considerations in priority setting and taking enforcement actions. We are also using special enforcement initiatives to package cases for maximum impact. (6)

For example, recognizing the occasional shortcomings in targeting a particular pollutant in a particular medium, when an entire region suffers from multiple pollution sources, the U.S. has begun to confront environmental damage on a region-wide scale. It does this through "multimedia" enforcement initiatives. As the name suggests, these initiatives may consist of administrative, civil and criminal actions -- usually filed on the same day for maximum publicity value -- and invoke a combination of our air, water, pesticide and hazardous waste laws. Most of our multimedia initiatives are directed at the many pollution sources of bays and coastal areas.

4.5 Practical Considerations for the Federal Litigation Team

Bringing an enforcement action in court, be it civil or criminal court triggers a host of issues and decisions every step of the way. Although there are many unique aspects of the U.S. legal system, many considerations facing a Department of Justice attorney might face enforcement official in many other countries.

4.5.1 Initial Analysis: the Facts

· What is the proof of the violation?

· Is the available proof admissible in court?

· Is the available, admissible proof likely to persuade a judge or jury?

· Is there any evidence suggesting a different interpretation of the facts than the government believes, or that a different strategy might be preferable?

· What are the gaps, i.e., the weaknesses, in the case, and what information is needed to fill the gaps?

4.5.2 Initial Analysis: the Legal Theory

· What is the most convincing legal theory available to cover the facts, as they are currently known?

· What facts are necessary to prove the most convincing legal theory?

4.5.3 Setting Priorities

· What is the most immediate and pressing issue to be addressed?

4.5.4 Tactical Issues

· Can or should private investigators be hired to find witnesses or documents or otherwise assist federal officials?

· Are witnesses possibly available not just from the "client" agency, but from other government agencies as well?

· If private investigators are hired, are they fully informed of the relevant law, the issues, and the elements of liability?

· If the defendant is a company, what is its financial status, i.e., is it the parent or a subsidiary, solvent or bankrupt?

· Have all documents and information in the possession of the other side, which the government is entitled to receive, been obtained and reviewed?

4.5.5 Interviewing Witnesses

· Who is the witness -- someone potentially friendly to the government, hostile, or neutral?

· Does the witness appear to be credible, not just because of substantive knowledge, but because this knowledge is presented and articulated in a way likely to convince a judge or jury?

· Has the witness made any previous oral or written

· Statements on the case?

4.5.6 Assessing the Case

· After a substantial investigation has been completed, does the case still hold up, or should prosecution be declined because the case now looks weaker than it originally did?

· Should certain new charges be added or old charges dropped?

· Have negotiations been attempted as a way to settle the case without going through the time, trouble and risk of having the case decided by a judge?

4.5.7 Having the Court Decide the Case

· If negotiations to settle the entire case fail can time and effort for all concerned still is saved by settling or eliminating some of the issues to be resolved?

4.5.8 Structuring a Settlement

· If it will take a long time to meet the terms of the agreement, what interim milestones may be established to track performance, and what penalty schedule might be employed in the agreement to set consequences for failure to meet the milestones?

4.5.9 After the Case Concludes

· Assuming the charged violator has been found liable, what penalties should the government recommend? Have all relevant factors required by law and government policy been considered in recommending the penalty?

· If the government loses the case, is there a right to appeal the result to a higher court? If so, should an appeal be taken?

5 EASING THE ENFORCEMENT LOAD ON FEDERAL AUTHORITIES

While enforcement will always be the cornerstone of ensuring compliance with environmental laws and standards, we should not expect that administrative or judicial actions alone are the exclusive means of ensuring environmental compliance. Even if they were, enormous executive and judicial resources necessary to police compliance with environmental laws, particularly in times of budgetary pressures, would take a high toll.

Fortunately, the U.S. has successfully employed certain policy tools to encourage industry to reduce pollution outright, with the additional advantage of saving industry substantial costs along the way. The consequence of less illegal pollution is, of course, less need for federal government enforcement. Moreover, when enforcement is necessary, we are promoting ways to simplify and streamline the judicial process.

5.1 Incentives to Industry to Comply with Regulations

Market-based, economic incentive approaches to environmental compliance are becoming progressively more intertwined with U.S. technology-based command and control regulations. The essential idea is quite simple: give industry the encouragement and flexibility to harness its free-market, creative energies, and it can achieve cost-effective, overall levels of pollution control that equal or exceed command and control results.

To date, air pollution has been the main arena for use of market-based incentives. Under the amended Clean Air Act, EPA has created a market to trade units of allowable emissions. A business can shift emission units among different sources within its plant, so long as the plant does not exceed its overall emission limitations. A new emission source is allowed to open in an area otherwise barring new emissions if the new source obtains more than offsetting decreases in emissions from other sources in the area. This scheme not only can save industry tens of millions of dollars; it causes no increase in aggregate emission levels. Just such a program of tradable emission credits has been quite successfully used to phase out lead in gasoline.

An emission trading is also the heart of the amended Clean Air Act method for controlling emissions of sulfur dioxide, a key precursor of acid precipitation. The Act requires an overall reduction in the amount of sulfur dioxide emitted by U.S. power plants. It then allocates a limited level of emissions to power plants. Utilities that can cost-effectively reduce their emissions below their allocated level can sell the resulting credits to power plants that find it more expensive to reduce emissions to allowable levels. It is estimated that this program will reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 40 percent over ten years. Anticipated savings are estimated at about $800 million per year over the amount that would be spent on traditional regulatory controls.

A market-based incentive of a somewhat different cast than trading is information disclosure. Here, the incentive to comply is not a government-set pollution level. Rather, the incentive is consumer pressure. If, for example, the public knows that a nearby company has transported or released certain toxic substances from its facility, company sales might well suffer as a result of public alarm. This is precisely the thrust of the 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. 42 U.S.C. 11001. Under that statute, companies are required to divulge the nature and extent of toxic chemical transfers and releases.

5.2 Environmental Audits

Department of Justice policy offers an industry a way to reduce the chances that it will be criminally prosecuted for environmental violations. (7) If an industry will audit and police its own environmental activities, then voluntarily disclose to the government any environmental violations it discovers, the Department will take this cooperative attitude into account when deciding whether to bring a criminal prosecution in a particular matter. More specifically, we ask whether the industry has:

· Made a voluntary, timely and complete disclosure of the matter under investigation;

· Cooperated with the government fully and promptly;

· Taken measures to bring its harmful activities into compliance with the law, and adopted procedures to identify and prevent future noncompliance.

5.3 Simplifying Judicial Enforcement

It is an axiom in the U.S. legal system that it is better to settle a legal dispute than to try the case in court. Taking a case all the way to civil or criminal court is invariably more expensive, time consuming and unpredictable for all concerned than when the parties to the dispute settle the case between themselves. In practice, fortunately, the vast majority of cases settle without the need for a judge or jury decides them.

The U.S. judicial system, and the rules, under which it operates, gives strong encouragement to settlement of cases. Our federal judges are burdened with many cases, and usually try to do all they can to ensure that parties explore every possible avenue of settlement before proceeding into the courtroom. In practice, settlements between federal authorities and private parties are reached as they are in most other nations -- by means of negotiation. The parties sit at the table and work through their differences toward a mutually agreeable solution.

One new method of relieving the enforcement burden on parties and courts alike is alternative dispute resolution (ADR). A recent law (Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990) encourages disputing parties to employ such techniques as mediation and arbitration. ADR has one great virtue -- it avoids the kind of protracted, expensive litigation that has come to burden the American legal system the past several decades. By easing the time and costs of enforcement, ADR, as any successful negotiation, frees up federal resources to take on wider enforcement responsibilities.

5.4 Curbing Litigation

Litigation in the United States has swollen to such a point that it now exacts exceedingly high costs on our society. Each year, approximately $80 billion is spent by individuals, businesses and governments on direct litigation costs and insurance premiums. Acutely aware of this burden, President Bush recently ordered all federal attorneys to conduct their litigation in ways designed to reduce the time and expense for all litigants. (8) The President ordered attorneys to avail themselves of methods designed to settle cases, to take steps to streamline the often enormously taxing "discovery" process, and to keep "expert" theories out of our courtrooms that are not widely accepted. By employing these and other measures, the President hopes to set an example private attorneys will follow in conducting their own litigation.

REFERENCES

1. Reich, E. and Shea, Q., in: A Survey of U.S. Environmental Enforcement Authorities, Tools and Remedies, Proceedings of International Enforcement Workshop, Utrecht, the Netherlands, May 8-10, 1990.

2. Policy on the Use of Supplemental Enforcement Projects in EPA Settlements, February 12, 1991.

3. Interim Policy on the Inclusion of Pollution Prevention Conditions in Enforcement Settlements, February 25, 1991.

4. Regional Enforcement Management: Enhanced Regional Case Screening, December 3, 1990.

5. EPA FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report.

6. Enforcement Four Year Strategic Plan, EPA Document 21E-2001,February 1991.

7. Factors in Decisions on Criminal Prosecutions for Environmental Violations in the Context of Significant Voluntary Compliance or Disclosure Efforts by the Violator (Department of Justice), July 1, 1991.

8. Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform, October 23, 1991.

1 INTRODUCTION

4 STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES OF U.S. JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM