113-—77oi‘? or m.m— % LIBRARY r""L W’. /8/25 . NO LONGEI< — PROPERTY Wa!Lhin,q:n.y [._1fi3y,.;§rST;.h‘, VVfi£§%M%M3?EE&§ .. E q PN-v,"..\.) I.-I'D’ >1 1,‘: X1'..;.‘:;~3 a . '- ‘J. 4. 2»-'3 -~'a- .> ' "“' \‘‘.~ A \.' !.::::.:4 4 ‘ NOV 17 1989 Issue Brief 3 . 4 E-w:‘.:...».a; .__—*‘:.,."<\ .1. ' - "3 . . '.‘:._7* ‘it!!! _4‘r» 1 7- x; ‘A ‘ G 3 l 3 .3": ’.‘ 5? ‘ “’\\»u“’ ~‘:;-v' .; 1°..~_.7 n ‘,3 " pf "~';_,,. . 5”‘ CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH E SERVICE |11‘i’I‘IIuIuIu T“E7@‘lIU~'EEi¥fl 0 ‘Elm CONGRESS ”||“|“WH|s£ SU PERFUND ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB77019 AUTHOR: _ Blodgett, John E. Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES S YSTEH DATE OBIGINATED Qgflgg DATE UPDATED _1__2___/11; FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION CALL 287-5700 1216 cns- 1 IB77019 UPDATE-12/11/80 ;§sU3_gnFINITIog Hazardous pollution incidents may imposeesudden, massive costs on innocent parties- These costs may be for cleanup, health damages, lost property values, or damaged resources. Since pollution incidents are man-caused, nthe presumptive avenue of redress has been through litigation against liable parties; but litigation is expensive and time consuming, and plaintiffs must meet difficult requirements for proving causation and liability. Litigation is particularly unsuitable for assisting victims in the short term, when emergency aid may be necessary. so far, emergency relief has been mainly ad hoc, usually through Federal or State governments. But the procedures for providing relief in hazardous pollution incidents are not well established, and no assured funding mechanism exists. It has been suggested that the absence of formal, financed relief programs may contribute to indecisiveness by the Federal and State governments in dealing with incidents, because of the uncertainty of who would hear the costs. As the result of these difficulties, and spurred by a number of well-publicized pollution disasters such as the one at Love Canal, Congress has considered numerous bills, termed "Superfund" bills, to provide relief and to define liability. In the closing days of the 96th Congress, a compromise bill was enacted (P.L. 96-510), which establishes a $1.6 billion fund to clean up abandoned waste sites and spills or releases of toxic*materials that pollute navigable waters, groundwater, or the land. However, oil spills are not included. While liability rests with disposers, strict joint and several liability language was dropped, as were provisions easing the burden of proof -for victims. Third-party damages also were excluded. Remaining at issue, then, is what Federal legislation may be necessary to deal with the remaining problems of oil spills, new standards of liability, and third—party damages. QAQE§§QQ!2-A§Q-BQ§l§Z-A!ALZ§l§ While pollution often results in a gradual, hard—to-measure deterioration of environmental amenities, health, and resources, occasionally the effects of pollution strike overwhelmingly. In recent years, several episodes of environmental contamination by toxic substances have occurred in which health is threatened, products condemned, and resources destroyed or declared off—limits. The most notorious of these episodes include: * mercury pollution of Lake St. Clair, nichigan; Lake Erie; and Alabama rivers. Numerous fishing restrictions imposed. Alabama request for Federal Disaster Assistance denied. A number of tort claims settled out of court. * Kepone pollution of the James River, Virginia, and occupational health damages. Fishing restricted. Health costs, fishing losses, and investigating expenses estimated at up to $35 million; cleanupv costs estimated at $1-7 billion. Federal technical assistance of $3.5. million provided. « i x CRS-— 2 IB77019 UPDATE-12/11,/80 * Carbon tetrachloride spill in the Ohio River; temporary restrictions placed on drinking water drawn from river. Costs put at $260,000. Federal technical assistance provided. Cincinnati, Ohio, and Evansville, Indiana, recovered some costs from spiller following tort claims. * HEXA°OCTA dumped in Louisville, Kentucky, sewers: contamination of sewage treatment plant and of Ohio River. Louisville cleanup costs: $1.5 million plus; downstream cities, $32,000 for drinking water restrictions. Federal technical assistance; cleanup funds once promised, but costs reduced and none granted. * Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination of the Great Lakes, the Hudson River, and rivers and lakes in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, Connecticut, and elsewhere. Fishing restrictions. Loss in Hudsont in millions of dollars; discharger, G.E., contributing $fl million to cleanup, which will cost $25 million. Federal assistance denied. Suits filed because of contamination of Coosa River-Lake Weiss (Georgia-Alabama) total $1+ billion. ~ * Mirex contamination of Lake Ontario, resulting in fishing restrictions (now lifted) and multi-million dollar losses. * Polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) contamination of cattle feed in Michigan, resulting in losses of $75 million in cattle and other livestock. some 770 property claims for damages have been settled for approximately $42.6 million; 69 property suits remain, plus a number of personal injury claims. * Love Canal, Niagara Falls, N.Y., landfill leaking various toxic chemicals, contaminating nearby homes; 291 families temporarily relocated; costs of lost property value and relocation, $12 milliu plus; cleanup, $10 million plus. Federal Disaster Assistance provided, $3-H million; State aid, $22 million. Lawsuits totalling more than $2.7 billion have been filed. Health damages are reported to have occurred. Additional persons moved in Bay 1980. To these episodes must be added uncounted local ones of varying seriousness; these sometimes contaminate fish or shellfish, pollute streams, cause wells to be condemned, etc. Frequently, the costs fall heavily on innocent parties. For example, kepone—induced illness incapacitated several workers; PBB contamination wiped out numerous dairy herds; contamination by mercury, kepone, and PCBS has idled sports and commercial fishing in numerous waters. The impacts’ reach beyond individuals. Louisville had to clean its sewers and sewage treatment plant after the HEXA-OCTA dumpings. After both the HEXA-OCTA and carbon ts incidents, downstream State and local governments had to bear extraordinary expenses in testing and treating their drinking water. Also, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) frequently has been faced with unexpected bills for monitoring, emergency cleanup, and enforcement because of contamination episodes. Finally, business may be affected, as, when the HEXA-OCTA spill led to rationing of drinking water in Mt. Vernon, Indiana, cns- 3 1377019 UPDATE-12/11/80 resulting in the temporary closure of local industrial firms. Such incidents lead to two categories of possible compensation demands: (1) compensation for cleanup or mitigation expenses, especially for inrplace toxic materials that may pose hazards for an extended time; and (2) compensation for damages or losses, which may include diagnosis and treatment for health effects, lost resources, diminished property values, and lost wages or income. Federal programs have provided some assistance for the first category - cleanup - but little if any for the second - compensation for damages. The Federal government has several times provided emergency aid to cope with the immediate threat, but this assistance typically has been ad hoc, without well—developed authorities (e.g., the HEXA-OCTA spill). Only in the case of oil spills are formal response procedures quite well developed, primarily under authority of section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This provision also authorizes Federal response to spills of designated hazardous substances; and after long delays, 299 chemicals have been designated. Also, for the first time, Federal disaster assistance procedures were followed in a pollution incident in 1978 in the Love Canal episode at Niagara Falls, N.Y. Additional disaster assistance was provided in 1980. But no regular procedures for obtaining relief for damages from pollution episodes exist. For most persons suffering losses, the primary avenue of redress is hrough claims against the polluter. But this process is often fraught with problems. The actual losses must be determined, the pollute: identified, and the relationship between the pollutant and the damages proved. Delays during litigation may lead victims to accept settlements that are less than appropriate. Moreover, total damages may exceed the polluter's ability to PaY- Because of these problems, attention has turned to alternative Federal policies for compensating victims promptly, pending identification of liable parties and collection of damages; or to compensate victims if no liable party can be identified. ‘ In earlier years these proposals tended to be focused on relatively limited problems; more recent proposals have stressed comprehensive programs for compensation and liability. Key variables in such proposals include: * What kinds of incidents should be included? Major possible categories are (1) oil spills; (2) hazardous substances spills; and (3) abandoned hazardous waste sites. other possible incidents would involve (4) active waste disposal sites operating under permit; (5) effluent discharges operating under permit; (6) air pollution episodes; and (7) contamination of food or feeds. * Who should be compensated? Alternatives include reimbursements to State ad local governments for extraordinary expenses and compensation of individuals directly affected. F * what damages should be compensable? Various possibilities include (1) emergency assistance/mitigation/cleanup; (2) natural resource damages — rehabilitation; (3) property damage; (H) loss of use of property; (5) loss of cRs- as 1277019 UPDATE-12/11/980 use of natural resources; (6) loss of income; (7) loss of tax revenues; (8) loss of licensing fees; and (9) personal injury. ‘ 7 * who should bear the costs of compensation? Various fees are proposed, on some combination of (1) oil, (2) petrochemical feedstocks, (3) inorganic chemicals, (4) waste generators, and (5) waste disposers. Assessments against States have also been proposed. Federal appropriations are another possible source of funds. A crucial question is whether a fund to deal with hazards arising from past practices of waste disposal should be supported by levies on industry today. * What should be the liability of polluters? Issues include what limits, if any, should be set on liability and what.defenses to liability might be y_ permitted. Congressional ggtiyity Legislation for dealing with the problems of pollution incidents came to be known as "superfund" legislation, because most of the proposals included a fund for financing cleanup and, in many cases, for compensating victims. Hearings on various superfund proposals were held in the Senate by the Committees on Environment and Public works, on Commerce, and on Finance; and in the House by the Committees on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Interstat and Foreign Commerce, and Public Works and Transportation. Each committee reported legislation, but the final enactment represented a compromise that emerged from the Senate in the last days of the 96th Congress. It covers abandoned waste sites (see IB79088 -- "Hazardous Wastes") and hazardous substances spills (see IB77071 - "Toxic Contaminants in Water’), but does (not cover oil spills (see IB78080 -— "Oil Spill Liability and Compensation"). The first session of the 96th Congress saw several approaches to the problems of pollution cleanup and liability, including compensation through administrative processes (for example, H.R. 507a) and through revisions in tort law by providing a Federal cause of action (for example, H.R. 10#9/H.R. 3797/H.R. 5290). But the touchstone for much of the debate during this early- (period of evolution was the Administration's proposal (H.R. 4566/H.R. H571/S. 13fl1), which would have filled in the gaps in current law by establishing a comprehensive $1.6 billion "Superfund" to cover oil spills, hazardous substance spills, and abandoned landfills. The bill would have given EPA comprehensive authority to respond whenever damages or potential damages from environmental contamination were identified. This authority would have been focused on containing the hazard; the problems of compensating personal injuries would have remained largely untreated. Criticisms of the Administration bill came from several directions: that the fee system, based largely on levies ont chemicals, unfairly penalized companies for past problems; that the combining of oil, hazardous substances, and abandoned landfills was inappropriate: and that it failed to address the problems of third—party injuries. . In the House, because of split jurisdictions among committees, a tendency ’has emerged for the issue to be split into separate parts -- oil spills, hazardous substances spills, and abandoned landfills. on oil, the key bill was H.R. 85. It was reported by the House? Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee in may 1979 (H.Rept. 96-172, part 1). As CRS- 5 1377019 UPDATE?12/11/80 reported, it dealt solely with oil spills. It was subsequently referred to the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, however, which in May 1980 ordered the bill reported with amendments that added hazardous substances to its coverage. In this form, H.R. 85 set up two funds, one of $200 million to deal with oil spills and a second of $100 million to deal with hazardous substances spills. The latter fund was supported by a complex system of fees on chemical feedstocks and on those chemicals most often spilled. In essence, H.R. 85 expanded and provided assured financing for the provisions of section 311 of the Clean Water Act. H.R. 85 was subsequently referred to the Ways and Means Committee, which reported the bill on June 20, 1980 (H.Bept. 96-172, part III), revised the funding mechanism, and raised the value of the funds to $375 million each. The Housew passed H.R. 85 on Sept. 19, 1980. In addition, the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation reported H.R. 5338 (H.Rept. 96-956), amending section 311 of the PIPCA; it established an $80 million fund to compensate damages from the Campeche oil‘ spill. The report noted that this bill would be unnecessary if H.R. 85 were enacted. The House passed H.R. 5338 on June 16, 1980, under suspension of the rules. The Senate did not take any action of either H.R. 85 or H.R. 5338. Meanwhile, legislation on abandoned landfills moved through the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. The last in a long line of ills, H.R. 7020 was reported May 16, 1980 (H.Rept. 96-1016). The bill (as reported by the full Committee) authorized a four-year fund of $600 million, with half the fund coming from Federal appropriations and half from industry—generated fees. The fund would be available for emergency actions, containment, cleanup, restoration of natural resources, and other actions taken by the Administration. Under the bill, inactive hazardous waste sites would be inventoried and monitored. Whenever a release occurred or was threatened, the administrator could take appropriate actions. Persons causing or contributing to releases of hazardous wastes would be subject to strict joint and several liability, except that liability would be apportioned if the liable party were able to establish that he was only partially responsible for damages and costs. H.R. 7020 excluded compensation for third-party damages. H.R. 7020 was subsequently referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means, because of its revenue-generating requirements to support the funds. The Ways and Means Committee reported H.R. 7020 on June 20, 1980 (H;Rept. 96-1016, part II) after revising the fee structure and doubling the fund size to $1.2 billion, of which one-quarter will be Federal appropriations, the rest deriving from levies on industry. The House passed H.R. 7020 on Sept. 23, 1980. In the Senate, the Environment and Public Works Committee was considering a comprehensive approach that stressed new and stricter liability requirements -— with the view that ultimately these requirements would lead potential dischargers to exercise greater care in preventing pollution. As eported (S.Hept. 96-848) the legislation, 3. 1480, established a $4.1 billion fund, financed over 6 years by fees on industry (87.5%) and appropriations (12.5%). The allocation of fees among chemicals reflected the degree to which they resulted in the generation of hazardous wastes. Virtually any discharge or release of a.toxic material or hazardous waste was covered, except that oil was excluded. 44' h CBS“ 6 IB77019 UPDATE-12/11/8° Two-thirds of the fund was available to cover governmental costs of emergency action and long-term remedy; one-third was available for third-part damages resulting from contamination incidents. Short—term responses included such steps as evacuation and emergency containment. Long-term responses included relocation of residents and permanent chemical containment, removal, or treatment. The fund also covered medical costs; property losses; lost wages; loss of natural resources; and costs of expert witness fees, health studies, and diagnostic examinations. S. 1u80 also contained numerous extensions of liability law. Parties held responsible for an incident involving the release of hazardous chemicals were held liable on a "no fault" basis under. Federal law for all government response costs and for specified third-party damages. Victims were provided access to Federal courts to seek compensation for damages. p The liability provisions pertained equally to natural resource losses as well as to personal injury. 5. 1480 imposed strict, joint, and several liability on owners and operators of vessels and facilities releasing hazardous substances. The size of the S. 1080 fund and its innovative liability provisions generated considerable opposition. The bill was held from the floor pending resolution of questions raised by the Finance and Commerce Committees. In November, with the 96th Congress winding don, the Senate ,abandoned the S. 1480 approach and passed a substitute, similar to H.R. 7020, establishing a cleanup fund but abandoning victim compensation and nearly all of the inew liability provisions. The compromise bill, passed by the Senate on Nov. 2a, 1980, as an amendment to H.R. 7020, established a $1.6 billion fund, financed over 5 years by fees on industrial chemicals and feedstocks (87.5%) and appropriations (12.5%). The bill covers any spills or releases oft chemicals or hazardous wastes into the environment, except that oil is not covered. EPA is to designate 100 top priority sites for cleanup, with at least one site in each State. The Act gives the President broad authority to use the fund for cleanup and for unspecified ong—term remedial actions. No funds are available for compensating victims of pollution. But it does provide for epidemiological studies, chromosomal screening, and a registry of persons exposed to hazardous substances to allow for health studies and diagnostic services. These programs would be carried out by a new "Agency for Tox Substances and Disease Registry" located in the Public Health Service. On liability, the compromise makes those responsible for hazardous wastes pollution and spills liable for the entire cleanup costs, with a limit of $50 million on each incident of damage to natural resources owned by the Federal government. The government would not have to prove a company had acted negligently in order to sue that company and to collect cleanup costs. The only property damages covered by the bill are for government-owned property. Persons injured by chemical wastes would have only existing law through which to seek redress. Language creating a "Federal cause of action" so victims could sue in Federal courts to recover damages was deleted. In addition, the Act sets up a $200 million "Post-Closure Liability Fund" to deal with costs that might arise from dumps permitted and closed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Also, it creates an EPA Assistant Administrator for Solid Wastes. -v F c3s- 7 11377019 UPDATE-12/11/80 Finally, the bill provides for a “legislative veto" of government regulations issued under the legislation. The House passed H.R. 7020, as amended by the Senate compromise, on Dec. 3, 1980. It was signed into law on Dec. 11, 1980 (P.L. 96-510). The limitations of P.L. 96-510 suggest that "superfund" is not yet finally resolved. Senator Stafford, who will chairm the Environment and Public Works Committee in the 97th Congress, has said: “...an oil spill superfund...[will be]...an early priority of the Committee...." Issues of liability and of victim compensation will doubtless also be considered. L§§£§LA2£Q£. P.L. 96-510 (H.R. 7020) 2 1 Establishes a $1.6 billion superfund, financed over 5 years by fees on industrial chemicalsv and feedstocks (87.5%) and Federal appropriations (12.5%). Authorizes the President to use the fund for cleanup and for long-term remedial actions in response to spills or releases of chemicals of hazardous wastes into the environment (except that oil spills are not covered). Provides for funding of epidemiological studies, chromosomal screening, and a registry of persons exposed to hazardous substances. Establishes an "Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry“ in the Public Health Service. Establishes liability on those responsible for hazardous wastes pollution and spills for entire costs of cleanup, with a limit of $50 million on each incident of damage to natural resources ownedi by the Federal government. Provides that the government does not have to prove ‘a discharger's negligence to sue to recover cleanup costs. Sets up a $200 million “Post Closure Liability Fund" to deal with costs that might arise from dumps permitted and closed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Provides for a "legislative veto" of government regulations issued under the Act. Requires EPA to designate 100 top priority sites for cleanup, with at least one site in each State. Creates an EPA Assistant Administrator for Solid Wastes. Introduced Apr. 2, 1980; referred to Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Reported May 16, 1980 (H.Rept. 96-1016). Subsequently referred to House Committee on Ways and Means. Reported, with amendments, June 20, 1980 (H.Rept. 96-1016, Part II). Passed House Sept. 23, 1980. Passed Senate Nov. 2H, in lieu of S. H.R. 85 (Biaggi et al.) A ~ Provides a comprehensive system of liability and compensation for oilspill damage and removal costs, and has other purposes. Introduced Jan. 15, 1977; referred jointly to Committees on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and on Public works and Transportation. Reported by Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on May 15, 1979 (H.Rept. 96-172, Part 1). Reported, with amendments, by the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, May 8, 1980 (H.Rept. 96-172, part II). Re-referred to House Committee on Ways and aans. yReported June 20, 1980 (H.Rept. 696-172, part III).. Passed House inept. 19, 1980. H.R. 5338 (Roberts et al.) Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to entitle 0.5. claimants to recover specified damages caused by the the oil spill in the Bay of Campeche, Mexico. Introduced Sept. 19, 1979. Passed House June 16, 1980. C35. 8 1 11377019 UPDATE-12/11/8" Referred to Senate Committee on Environnment and Public Works Sept. 17, 1980. A 1480, amended. Passed House Dec. 3, 1980. Signed into law on Dec. 11, 1980. S. 1u80 (Culver et al.) v Provides for liability, compensation, cleanup, an emergency response for hazardous substances released into the environment and the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites. Introduced July 11, 1979: referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported (S. Rept. %-848) July 11, 1980. Passed Senate, Nov. 2a, amended; H.R. 7020 then passed in lieu. * 1 ' w.1‘_1E_3.RI.1!§.§. 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Education and Labor. Subcommittee on Labor Standards. Occupational diseases and their compensation. Part 2: Chemicals and other toxic agents. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. June 6 and 7, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance. Toxic Substances Control Act Amendments. Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session; on H.R. 9616 and S. 1531. Mar. 7; Apr. 26; July 25, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. "Serial no. 95-150" U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Review of hazardous waste disposal problems. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. Mar. 21-22, Apr. 5 and 10, May 16 and 23, and June Q, 5, and 19, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 1 "Serial no. 96-H8, Part 1; and no. 96-H9, Part 2" U.S. Pcongress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce. Superfund. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st sessicn, on H.R. 4571, H.R. H566, and H.R. 5290. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 693 p. Hearings held June 19 - Oct. 11, 1979. "Serial 96-11h" LRS80-4079 0.3. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcomittee on Transportation and Commerce. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act —- oversight. Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session. Har. 7-9, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 276 p. 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant marine and Fisheries. Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation. Oil and hazardous substances liability. Hearings, 96th Congress. 1st session. mar. 13, 14, 1979, and July 31, Sept. 13, 1979. Washington,. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 9 "Serial no. 96-16" 1377019 UPDATE-12/11/80 CRS- 9 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Subcommittee on Water Resources. Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session, on H.R. 85. Sept. 26, 1979. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 459 p. "Serial no. 96-26“ 0.5. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution. Joint hearings, Mar. 28-29, 1979. 381 p. Works. Hazardous and toxic waste disposal. 96th Congress, 1st session. Part 1. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. "Serial no. 96-H9" “---- Hazardous and toxic waste disposal. Joint hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session- Part 2. may 18, 1979 and June 29, 1979. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. . "Serial no. 96-H9“ ----- Hazardous and toxic waste disposal. Joint hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. Part 3. June 22, 1979. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. "Serial no. 96-H9" ----- s. 1325, S. 13u1, and S. 1480, bills to provide for safe treatment of hazardous substances. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. Part 4. June 20-21 and July 19-20, 1979. "Serial No. 96-H9" ----- To Establish a Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Law. Hearings, on S. 2900, 95th Congress, 2d session. Apr. 17, 18, and Hay 24, 1978. Washington, 0.3. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. §-Q§l§-AE2-QQ!GR§§§lQ!AL-2Q§Q!§!2§ 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Hazardous Waste Containment Act of 1980. May 16, 1980. Washington, 0.3. Govt. Print. Off., 1980- (96th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 96-1016, part 1) 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Hazardous waste disposal. September 1979. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. At head of title: 96th Congress, 1st session. Committee print. 96-IFC-31 Waste disposal site survey. October 1979. Washington, 0.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. At head of title: 96th Congress, 1st session. Committee print. 96-IFC-33 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Herchant Marine and Fisheries. Washington, 1st session. Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act. 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. (96th Congress, CBS-10 IB77019 UPDATE-12/11/80 House. Report no. 96-172, part 1) U.S. Congress. House., Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Canpeche Bay oilspill claims; report to accompany H.R. 5338. (96th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 96-956) ----= Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act. Hay 16, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. (96th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 96-172, part 2). Compensation by victims of water pollution. Prepared by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. At head of title: 96th Congress, 1st session. Committee print. U.s. Congress. House. Committee on Ways and means. Description of revenue aspects of proposals (H.R. 85 and H.R. 7020) relating to oil pollution liability and hazardous waste containment...Hay 31, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 11p. At head of title: Joint committee print. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Environmental Emergency Response Act. Report to accompany S. 1480. July 11, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. ‘Print. Off., 1980. (96th Congess, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 96-848) ----- Health effects of toxic pollution: a report from the surgeon general. Prepared by the Surgeon General, Department of Health and Human Services; and the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. August 1980. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. At head of title: 96th Congress, 2d session. Committee print. "Serial no. 96-15“ ----- Resource losses from surface water, groundwater, and atmosphere contamination: a catalog. Prepared by the Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. At head of title: 96th Congress, 2d session. Committee print. Six case studies of compensation for toxic substances pollution... Prepared under the supervision of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress., June 1980. Washington, 0.3. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. At head of title: 96th Congress, 2d session. Committee print. "Serial no. 96-13" 12/11/30 06/16/80 05/15/80 06/22/79 10/05/78 08/07/78 70/31/77 09/00/76 03/10/75 02/25/76 12/18/75 07/00/75 on/oo/7n CBS-11 IB77019 UPDATE-12/11/80 QHRONOLOGY or Evnugg President Carter signed H.R. 7020 into law (P.L. 96-510). House passed H.R. 5338, authorizing $80 million to compensate damages from the Campeche oil spill. House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce reported H.R. 7126, FY81 authorization for TSCA, and including a $2 million study of compensation issues. House defeated amendment to EPA appropriations bill adding $10 million to fund section 504, FWPCA emergency response. Senate passed H.R. 6803 in lieu of S. 2083, with a provision providing for liability and compensation of hazardous substances‘ spills in violation of Section 311 of the PWPCA. Administration approved a request from New York state for declaration of a federal disaster in the Love Canal incident at Niagara Falls, N.Y., where toxic wastes were leaking from an old landfill; this action made Federal assistance available. Senate passed 5. 1531, which includes a provision for Federal grants to States to compensate victims of chemical disasters that result in the contamination and condemnation of foods or feeds. Several rivers and lakes in Georgia and South Carolina closed to commercial fishing because of PCB contamination. General Electric Co. agreed to pay su million in settlement of a lawsuit brought by the State of New York because of PCB contamination of the Hudson River. The funds will be applied toward cleaning up the river and toward testing; none will he used to compensate victims. Senate passed 5. 2578, authorizing loans for agricultural producers suffering losses due to chemical contamination. Hudson River closed to most commercial fishing because of PCB contamination. James River closed to fishing. Kepone pollution at Hopewell, Virginia discovered. Several workers ill. James River contaminated. PBB contamination identified as cause of livestock illness in uichigan; subsequently, 30,000 cattle, CBS-12 IB77019 UPDATE-12/11/8“ thousands of other farm animals, and 1.5 million chickens quarantined and destroyed. Several thousand farm families exposed . Koch, Kathy. Cleaning up chemical dumps posing dilemma for Congress. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, v. 38, no. 11, Mar. 22, 1980: 795-804. Pfennigstorf, W. Environment, damages, and compensation. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, v. 1979, spring 1979: 347-nus. ‘ Soble, S.H. A proposal for the administrative compensation of victims of toxic substance pollution: »a model act. Harvard journal on legislation, v. 14, no. H, June 1977: 683-82H. Superfund top environmental priority for Congress, Alaska lands for Carter. Environment Reporter, Dec. 28, 1979: 17uu-17u3. 0.5. Department of Justice. Land and Natural Resources Division. The superfund concept: report of the interagency task force on compensation and liability for 7 releases of hazardous substances. June 1979. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Preliminary assessment of cleanup costs for national hazardous waste problems. 1979. LIBRARY OF V%&SFfiNGfiTfiV unmwmmmvv snrwummwwom E