Focus is on the use of a hybrid form of dispute resolution that is part arbitration, part minitrial. It is argued that this approach reduces a multiparty conflict to one between EPA and the hazardous waste generators, a type of conflict particularly amenable to traditional judicial resolution. It is suggested that a proper application of alternative dispute resolution techniques must take place among the generators themselves. The present system of prelitigation negotiations between EPA and DOJ and selectively chosen generators to arrive at consent decrees binding only on a few parties is only partially successful. It could be improved by the institution of a permanent committee or association formed by the chemical and manufacturing trade associations. Such a group could structure and facilitate negotiations within the generator group in order to guarantee that all potentially responsible parties at a hazardous-waste site take full part in negotiations. Thus, the apportionment of costs within the group would become the focus of attention and the parties could establish among themselves the extent of their individual liability. This strategy also would allow EPA to be certain of the complete recovery of cleanup costs and would do away with the uncertainty which results from EPA's current strategy. Footnotes and references are included.