```

[House Report 106-775]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                            Rept. 106-775
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 1

======================================================================

 
                       LAND RECYCLING ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

                 July 20, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Bliley, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                    ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2580]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 2580) to encourage the creation, development, and 
enhancement of State response programs for contaminated sites, 
removing existing Federal barriers to the cleanup of brownfield 
sites, and cleaning up and returning contaminated sites to 
economically productive or other beneficial uses, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Amendment........................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................    35
Background and Need for Legislation..............................    36
Hearings.........................................................    47
Committee Consideration..........................................    48
Committee Votes..................................................    48
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    60
Committee on Government Reform Oversight Findings................    60
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures    60
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................    60
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................    60
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................    69
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................    69
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    69
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    69
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................    70
Administration Views.............................................    92
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    96
Additional and Dissenting Views................................160, 164

                               Amendment

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Land Recycling Act 
of 1999''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Amendments to Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

                        TITLE I--LAND RECYCLING

Sec. 101. Findings.
Sec. 102. Cleanups pursuant to State response programs.
Sec. 103. Additions to National Priorities List.
Sec. 104. Innocent landowners.
Sec. 105. Bona fide prospective purchaser liability.
Sec. 106. Innocent governmental entities.
Sec. 107. Contiguous properties.
Sec. 108. Remedy selection.
Sec. 109. Brownfields grants.

     TITLE II--EXPENDITURES FROM THE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

Sec. 201. Expenditures from the Hazardous Substance Superfund.
Sec. 202. Authorization of appropriations from general revenues.
Sec. 203. Completion of National Priorities List.

                      TITLE III--LIABILITY REFORM

Sec. 301. Liability relief for innocent parties.
Sec. 302. Clarifications of certain liability.
Sec. 303. Federal entities and facilities.
Sec. 304. Liability relief for small businesses, municipal solid waste, 
sewage sludge, municipal owners and operators, and de micromis 
contributors.
Sec. 305. Liability of response action contractors.
Sec. 306. Amendments to section 122.
Sec. 307. Clarification of liability for recycling transactions.
Sec. 308. Allocation.
Sec. 309. Standard for cleanup by dry cleaners.

                        TITLE IV--PUBLIC HEALTH

Sec. 401. Public health authorities.
Sec. 402. Indian health provisions.
Sec. 403. Hazard ranking system.
Sec. 404. Disclosure of releases of hazardous substances at Superfund 
sites.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, 
                    COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980.

  Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this Act an 
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal 
of, a section or other provision of law, the reference shall be 
considered to be made to a section or other provision of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).

                        TITLE I--LAND RECYCLING

SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

  (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
          (1) Brownfields are parcels of land that contain or contained 
        abandoned or under used commercial or industrial facilities, 
        the expansion or redevelopment of which is complicated by the 
        actual or potential presence of hazardous substances, 
        pollutants, or contaminants.
          (2) Brownfields, which may number in the hundreds of 
        thousands nationwide, threaten the environment, devalue 
        surrounding property, erode State and local tax bases, and 
        prevent job growth.
          (3) The primary environmental reason that current owners and 
        prospective developers do not redevelop brownfields is their 
        fear about the potential liability under environmental laws 
        associated with the cleanup and redevelopment of these sites.
          (4) Current Federal law poses a barrier to the cleanup and 
        redevelopment of brownfields, leading instead to the 
        development of so-called greenfields, contributing to urban 
        sprawl, creating infrastructure problems, and reducing 
        recreational and agricultural opportunities.
          (5) Cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields will reduce 
        environmental contamination, encourage job growth, enhance 
        State and local tax bases, and curb the development of 
        greenfields.
          (6) Many States have enacted cleanup programs to address the 
        brownfields problem by allowing for the consideration of future 
        land use in deciding appropriate cleanup standards and 
        providing clear releases of liability upon completion of 
        cleanups.
          (7) State response programs have been very effective in 
        promoting the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields while 
        ensuring the adequate protection of human health and the 
        environment.
  (b) Purposes and Objectives.--The purposes and objectives of this 
title are--
          (1) to increase significantly the pace of response activities 
        at contaminated sites by promoting and encouraging the 
        creation, development, and enhancement of State response 
        programs; and
          (2) to remove existing Federal barriers to the cleanup of 
        brownfield sites;
          (3) to benefit the public health, welfare, and the 
        environment by cleaning up and returning contaminated sites to 
        economically productive or other beneficial uses; and
          (4) to provide finality and certainty by insuring that the 
        President does not use certain authorities to override State 
        remediation decisions unless there are exceptional 
        circumstances.

SEC. 102. CLEANUPS PURSUANT TO STATE RESPONSE PROGRAMS.

  (a) Prohibition on Enforcement.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
section, neither the President nor any other person (other than a 
State) may use any authority of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
seq.) or section 7002(a)(1)(B) or section 7003 of the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) to commence an administrative or 
judicial action under either of those Acts with respect to any release 
or threatened release at a facility that is, or has been, the subject 
of a response action pursuant to a State program that meets the 
requirements of subsection (b).
  (b) State Requirements.--The prohibition in subsection (a) applies 
with respect to a facility that is, or has been, the subject of a 
response action pursuant to a State program for undertaking response 
actions at facilities where there is a release or threatened release of 
hazardous substances if such program has been submitted to the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency together with a 
certification by the State that--
          (1) the State has enacted such program into law,
          (2) the State has committed the financial and personnel 
        resources necessary to carry out such program,
          (3) such program will be implemented in a manner protective 
        of human health and the environment, and
          (4) such program includes meaningful opportunities for public 
        participation.
  (c) Limitation on Prohibition.--The prohibition under subsection (a) 
and the exemption under subsection (e) shall not apply with respect to 
any of the following:
          (1) Any facility listed on the National Priorities List, 
        unless the Administrator, on a facility-by-facility basis and 
        pursuant to an agreement with the State concerned, makes a 
        finding that a facility listed on the National Priorities List 
        is eligible to participate in a State cleanup program meeting 
        the requirements of subsection (b).
          (2) Any facility for which the Governor of a State has 
        requested Environmental Protection Agency assistance to perform 
        a response action.
          (3) Any facility owned or operated by a department, agency, 
        or instrumentality of the United States.
          (4) A release or threatened release to the extent that a 
        response action has been required pursuant to an administrative 
        order or judicial order or decree entered into by the United 
        States under any of the following laws before the commencement 
        of a response action pursuant to a State program described in 
        subsection (a):
                  (A) The Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
                Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 
                et seq.).
                  (B) The Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
                seq.).
                  (C) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
                U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
                  (D) The Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 
                et seq.).
                  (E) Title XIV of the Public Health Service Act 
                (commonly known as the Safe Drinking Water Act) (42 
                U.S.C. 300f et seq.).
          (5) A release or threatened release for which response 
        actions are immediately required to prevent or mitigate a 
        public health or environmental emergency and for which the 
        State is not responding in a timely manner.
  (d) Prior Actions.--Nothing in this section shall affect 
administrative or judicial action commenced prior to the date of 
enactment of this section.
  (e) Permits and Other Requirements.--(1) Effective 18 months after 
enactment of this Act, no Federal permit or permit revision shall be 
required for the on-site portion of response actions that are subject 
to the prohibition under subsection (a). Nothing in this paragraph 
diminishes the application of substantive standards required by law.
  (2) Within 12 months after enactment of this Act and after public 
notice and comment and consultation with State Governors, the 
Administrator shall promulgate regulations which streamline any 
reporting requirements connected with implementation of substantive 
requirements of Federal law and consistent with paragraph (1).
  (f) Assistance to States.--The Administrator shall provide technical, 
financial, and other assistance to States to establish and enhance 
State response programs. The Administrator shall encourage the States 
to develop risk sharing pools, indemnity pools, or insurance mechanisms 
to provide financing for response actions under their response 
programs.
  (g) Effect of Response.--Performance of a response action pursuant to 
a State program under this section shall not constitute an admission of 
liability under any Federal, State, or local law or regulation or in 
any citizens suit or other private action.

SEC. 103. ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST.

  (a) Additions to NPL.--Section 105 (42 U.S.C. 9605) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(h) Additions to NPL.--(1) The President may add a facility to the 
National Priorities List only after requesting and obtaining the 
concurrence of the Governor of the State in which the facility is 
located. If the Governor assures the President that the State is 
addressing, or will address, the site under State authority, and the 
Governor does not concur in the listing of the site, the President 
shall not list the site.
  ``(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President may add a facility 
to the National Priorities List if--
          ``(A) the release or threatened release affects public health 
        or the environment in more than one State, unless the Governors 
        of each such State fail to concur, upon request by the 
        President, in the listing of the site; or
          ``(B) the President finds that the State where the facility 
        is located is a major potentially responsible party at that 
        facility.''.
  (b) Cross Reference.--Subparagraph (B) of section 105(a)(8) is 
amended by inserting after ``shall revise the list'' the following: ``, 
subject to subsection (h),''.

SEC. 104. INNOCENT LANDOWNERS.

  (a) In General.--Section 107 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is amended by adding at 
the end the following new subsection:
  ``(o) Innocent Landowners.--
          ``(1) Conduct of environmental assessment.--A person who has 
        acquired real property shall have made all appropriate inquiry 
        within the meaning of subparagraph (B) of section 101(35) if he 
        establishes that, within 180 days prior to the time of 
        acquisition, an environmental site assessment of the real 
        property was conducted that meets the requirements of this 
        subsection.
          ``(2) Definition of environmental site assessment.--For 
        purposes of this subsection, the term `environmental site 
        assessment' means an assessment conducted in accordance with 
        the standards set forth in the American Society for Testing and 
        Materials (ASTM) Standard E1527-94, titled `Standard Practice 
        for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site 
        Assessment Process' or with alternative standards issued by 
        rule by the Administrator or promulgated or developed by others 
        and designated by rule by the Administrator. Before issuing or 
        designating alternative standards, the Administrator shall 
        first conduct a study of commercial and industrial practices 
        concerning environmental site assessments in the transfer of 
        real property in the United States. Any such standards issued 
        or designated by the Administrator shall also be deemed to 
        constitute commercially reasonable and generally accepted 
        standards and practices for purposes of this paragraph. In 
        issuing or designating any such standards, the Administrator 
        shall consider requirements governing each of the following:
                  ``(A) Interviews of owners, operators, and occupants 
                of the property to determine information regarding the 
                potential for contamination.
                  ``(B) Review of historical sources as necessary to 
                determine previous uses and occupancies of the property 
                since the property was first developed. For purposes of 
                this subparagraph, the term `historical sources' means 
                any of the following, if they are reasonably 
                ascertainable: recorded chain of title documents 
                regarding the real property, including all deeds, 
                easements, leases, restrictions, and covenants, aerial 
                photographs, fire insurance maps, property tax files, 
                USGS 7.5 minutes topographic maps, local street 
                directories, building department records, zoning/land 
                use records, and any other sources that identify past 
                uses and occupancies of the property.
                  ``(C) Determination of the existence of recorded 
                environmental cleanup liens against the real property 
                which have arisen pursuant to Federal, State, or local 
                statutes.
                  ``(D) Review of reasonably ascertainable Federal, 
                State, and local government records of sites or 
                facilities that are likely to causeor contribute to 
contamination at the real property, including, as appropriate, 
investigation reports for such sites or facilities; records of 
activities likely to cause or contribute to contamination at the real 
property, including landfill and other disposal location records, 
underground storage tank records, hazardous waste handler and generator 
records and spill reporting records; and such other reasonably 
ascertainable Federal, State, and local government environmental 
records which could reflect incidents or activities which are likely to 
cause or contribute to contamination at the real property.
                  ``(E) A visual site inspection of the real property 
                and all facilities and improvements on the real 
                property and a visual inspection of immediately 
                adjacent properties, including an investigation of any 
                hazardous substance use, storage, treatment, and 
                disposal practices on the property.
                  ``(F) Any specialized knowledge or experience on the 
                part of the defendant.
                  ``(G) The relationship of the purchase price to the 
                value of the property if uncontaminated.
                  ``(H) Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable 
                information about the property.
                  ``(I) The obviousness of the presence or likely 
                presence of contamination at the property, and the 
                ability to detect such contamination by appropriate 
                investigation.
        A record shall be considered to be `reasonably ascertainable' 
        for purposes of this paragraph if a copy or reasonable 
        facsimile of the record is publicly available by request 
        (within reasonable time and cost constraints) and the record is 
        practically reviewable.
          ``(3) Maintenance of information.--No presumption shall arise 
        under paragraph (1) unless the defendant has maintained a 
        compilation of the information reviewed and gathered in the 
        course of the environmental site assessment.''.
  (b) Cross Reference.--Section 101(35)(B) (42 U.S.C. 9601(35)(B)) is 
amended by inserting after ``all appropriate inquiry'' the following: 
``(as specified in section 107(o))''.

SEC. 105. BONA FIDE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER LIABILITY.

  (a) Liability.--Section 107 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is further amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsections:
  ``(p) Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser.--(1) Notwithstanding 
paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (a), a person who does not 
impede the performance of a response action or natural resource 
restoration at a facility shall not be liable to the extent liability 
at such facility is based solely on paragraph (1) of subsection (a) for 
a release or threat of release from the facility, and the person is a 
bona fide prospective purchaser of the facility.
  ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `bona fide 
prospective purchaser' means a person who acquires ownership of a 
facility after the date of enactment of this subsection, or a tenant of 
such a person, who can establish each of the following by a 
preponderance of the evidence:
          ``(A) All active disposal of hazardous substances at the 
        facility occurred before that person acquired the facility.
          ``(B) The person made all appropriate inquiry into the 
        previous ownership and uses of the facility and its real 
        property in accordance with generally accepted commercial and 
        customary standards and practices. Standards described in 
        subsection (o)(2) (relating to innocent landowners) shall 
        satisfy the requirements of this subparagraph. In the case of 
        property for residential or other similar use, purchased by a 
        nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a site inspection and 
        title search that reveal no basis for further investigation 
        satisfy the requirements of this subparagraph.
          ``(C) The person provided all legally required notices with 
        respect to the discovery or release of any hazardous substances 
        at the facility.
          ``(D) The person exercised appropriate care with respect to 
        hazardous substances found at the facility by taking reasonable 
        steps to stop on-going releases, prevent threatened future 
        releases of hazardous substances, and prevent or limit human or 
        natural resource exposure to hazardous substances previously 
        released into the environment.
          ``(E) The person provides full cooperation, assistance, and 
        facility access to persons authorized to conduct response 
        actions at the facility, including the cooperation and access 
        necessary for the installation, integrity, operation, and 
        maintenance of any complete or partial response action at the 
        facility.
          ``(F) The person is not affiliated with any other person 
        liable for response costs at the facility, through any direct 
        or indirect familial relationship, or any contractual, 
        corporate, or financial relationship other than that created by 
        the instruments by which title to the facility is conveyed or 
        financed.
  ``(q) Prospective Purchaser and Windfall Lien.--(1) In any case in 
which there are unrecovered response costs at a facility for which an 
owner of the facility is not liable by reason of subsection (p), and 
the conditions described in paragraph (2) are met, the United States 
shall have a lien upon such facility for such unrecovered costs. Such 
lien--
          ``(A) shall not exceed the increase in fair market value of 
        the property attributable to the response action at the time of 
        a subsequent sale or other disposition of property;
          ``(B) shall arise at the time costs are first incurred by the 
        United States with respect to a response action at the 
        facility;
          ``(C) shall be subject to the requirements for notice and 
        validity established in paragraph (3) of subsection (l); and
          ``(D) shall continue until the earlier of satisfaction of the 
        lien or recovery of all response costs incurred at the 
        facility.
  ``(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:
          ``(A) A response action for which there are unrecovered costs 
        is carried out at the facility.
          ``(B) Such response action increases the fair market value of 
        the facility above the fair market value of the facility that 
        existed within 6 months before the response action was 
        taken.''.

SEC. 106. INNOCENT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.

  Section 107 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is further amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection:
  ``(r) Innocent Governmental Entities.--There shall be no liability 
under subsection (a) for any State or local government if such 
liability is based solely on--
          ``(1) the granting of a license or permit to conduct 
        business; or
          ``(2) the State or local government's status as an owner or 
        operator of the facility or vessel, and the State or local 
        government--
                  ``(A) acquired the facility or vessel by escheat or 
                through any other involuntary transfer or through the 
                exercise of eminent domain, and
                  ``(B) establishes by a preponderance of the evidence 
                that it--
                          ``(i) acquired the facility or vessel after 
                        the disposal or placement of the hazardous 
                        substances for which liability is alleged;
                          ``(ii) did not, by any act or omission, cause 
                        or contribute to the release or threatened 
                        release of such hazardous substances; and
                          ``(iii) exercised appropriate care with 
                        respect to such hazardous substances taking 
                        into consideration the characteristics of such 
                        hazardous substances, in light of all relevant 
                        facts, circumstances, and generally accepted 
                        good commercial and customary standards and 
                        practices at the time of the defendant's acts 
                        or omissions.''.

SEC. 107. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES.

  Section 107 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is further amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection:
  ``(s) Contiguous Properties.--(1) A person (other than the United 
States or a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United 
States) who owns or operates real property that is contiguous to or 
otherwise similarly situated with respect to real property on which 
there has been a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance 
and that is or may be contaminated by such release shall not be liable 
under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) by reason of such 
ownership or operation solely by reason of such contamination if such 
person--
          ``(A) did not cause, contribute to, or consent to the release 
        or threatened release;
          ``(B) provides full cooperation, assistance, and facility 
        access to persons authorized to conduct response actions at the 
        facility, including the cooperation and access necessary for 
        the installation, integrity, operation, and maintenance of any 
        complete or partial response action at the facility; and
          ``(C) is not affiliated with any other person liable for 
        response costs at the facility, through any direct or indirect 
        familial relationship, or any contractual, corporate, or 
        financial relationship.
  ``(2) The President may issue an assurance of no enforcement action 
under this Act to any such person and may grant any such person 
protection against cost recovery and contribution actions pursuant to 
section 113(f)(2). Such person may also petition the President to 
exclude from the description of a National Priorities List site such 
contiguous real property, if such property is or may be contaminated 
solely by ground water that flows under such property and is not used 
as a source ofdrinking water. The President may grant such a petition 
pursuant to such procedures as he deems appropriate.''.

SEC. 108. REMEDY SELECTION.

  Section 121 (42 U.S.C. 9621) is amended as follows:
          (1) By inserting the following before the period at the end 
        of the first sentence in subsection (b)(1): ``to the extent 
        practicable, considering the nature and timing of reasonably 
        anticipated uses of land, water, and other resources''.
          (2) By adding after the first sentence in subsection (b)(1): 
        ``The preferences for treatment or permanent solutions in this 
        paragraph shall not apply to a treatment option or permanent 
        solution that would increase risk to the community or to 
        workers' health.''.
          (3) By striking ``maximum'' in the penultimate sentence of 
        subsection (b)(1).
          (4) By striking ``or is relevant and appropriate'' and ``or 
        relevant and appropriate'' in subsection (d)(2)(A).
          (5) By striking ``Level Goals'' in subsection (d)(2)(A) and 
        inserting ``Levels''.
          (6) By striking ``and water quality criteria established 
        under section 304 or 303 of the Clean Water Act where such 
        goals or criteria are relevant and appropriate under the 
        circumstances of the release of threatened release'' in 
        subsection (d)(2)(A) and inserting ``where such levels are 
        relevant and appropriate under the circumstances of the release 
        or threatened release, considering the timing of any reasonably 
        anticipated use of water as drinking water and reasonable 
        points of compliance''.
          (7) In subsection (d)(2)(B) by striking clause (i), striking 
        ``(ii)'', and redesignating subclauses (I) through (III) as 
        clauses (i) through (iii).
          (8) By adding the following new subsection at the end 
        thereof:
  ``(g) Risk Assessment and Characterization Principles.--Risk 
assessments and characterizations conducted for remedial actions 
subject to this section, and for other significant Federal actions 
under this Act, shall--
          ``(1) provide scientifically objective assessments, 
        estimates, and characterizations which neither minimize nor 
        exaggerate the nature and magnitude of risks to human health 
        and the environment;
          ``(2) be based on the best available scientific and technical 
        information, including data on bioavailability and site-
        specific information; and
          ``(3) be based on an analysis of the weight of the scientific 
        evidence that supports conclusions about a problem's potential 
        risk to human health and the environment.''.
          (9) By adding the following new subsections at the end 
        thereof:
  ``(h) Sensitive Subpopulations and Site-Specific Risk Assessment.--
The President shall use site-specific risk assessment that meets the 
requirements of the principles set forth in subsection (g) to--
          ``(1) determine the nature and extent of risk to human health 
        and the environment;
          ``(2) identify groups which are currently or would be highly 
        exposed or highly susceptible (A) to contamination from the 
        site based on current and reasonably anticipated uses of land, 
        water, and other resources at or around the site, or (B) to 
        risks arising from implementation of a remedial option;
          ``(3) assist in establishing remedial objectives for the 
        facility respecting releases or threatened releases, and in 
        identifying geographic areas or exposure pathways of concern; 
        and
          ``(4) evaluate alternative remedial actions for the facility 
        to determine their risk reduction benefits and assist in 
        selecting the remedial action for the facility that meets the 
        criteria of paragraph (1) of subsection (b).
  ``(i) Study of Substances and Mixtures.--(1) The President shall 
conduct a study of the cancer potency values of 12 hazardous substances 
listed under paragraph (2) of section 104(i) that are frequently found 
to pose significant risks at National Priorities List facilities. The 
study may also include a review of other health effects values. The 
President shall not include a substance in the study under this 
subsection if such substance is under scientific reevaluation pursuant 
to title XIV of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  ``(2) The President shall make a scientifically objective assessment 
of different methodologies for determining the health effects of 
chemical mixtures at relevant doses based on reasonable exposure 
scenarios at National Priorities List facilities.
  ``(3) For purposes of such study and assessments, within 30 days 
after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the President shall 
obtain public comments on such study and assessments. Not later than 15 
months after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the 
President shall publish a draft of such assessments. After receiving 
such comments on such draft assessments, and after external peer 
review, but within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
subsection, the President shall complete the study and publish the 
assessments under this subsection. The publication of the final 
assessments shall be considered final agency action.
  ``(4) The study and assessments under this subsection shall include a 
discussion, to the extent relevant, of both laboratory and 
epidemiological data of sufficient quality which finds, or fails to 
find, a significant correlation between health risks and a potential 
toxin. Where conflicts among such data appear to exist, or where animal 
data are used as a basis to assess human health risks, the study and 
assessments shall include discussion of differences in study designs, 
comparative physiology, routes of exposure, bioavailability, 
pharmacokinetics, and any other relevant and significant factor.
  ``(5) Where the study and assessment involve application of any 
significant assumption, inference, or model, the President shall--
          ``(A) state the weight of scientific evidence supporting a 
        selection relative to other plausible alternatives;
          ``(B) fully describe any model used in the risk assessment 
        and make explicit the assumptions incorporated in the model; 
        and
          ``(C) indicate the extent to which any significant model has 
        been validated by, or conflicts with, empirical data.
  ``(6) To the extent scientifically appropriate, the President shall 
include, among other estimates or health effects values, estimates of 
risks or health effects values, using the most plausible assumptions, 
given the weight of the scientific information available to the 
President. Where significant assumptions have substantially similar 
scientific support, the President shall provide a description of the 
range of estimates or values.
  ``(j) Presentation of Risk Information.--(1) The President, in 
carrying out his responsibilities under this Act, shall ensure that the 
presentation of information on risk is unbiased and informative. The 
results of any facility-specific risk evaluation shall contain an 
explanation that clearly communicates the risks at the facility, and 
shall--
          ``(A) identify and explain all significant assumptions used 
        in the evaluation, as well as alternative assumptions, the 
        policy or value judgments used in choosing the assumptions, and 
        whether empirical data conflict with or validate the 
        assumptions;
          ``(B) present, to the extent feasible--
                  ``(i) the scientifically objective distribution of 
                exposure estimates,
                  ``(ii) estimates, including estimates, of exposure 
                and risk using the most plausible assumptions given the 
                weight of current scientific information available to 
                the President,
                  ``(iii) groups identified through site specific risk 
                assessment which are currently or would be highly 
                exposed or highly susceptible (I) to contamination from 
                the site based on current and reasonably anticipated 
                uses of land, water, and other resources at or around 
                the site, or (II) to risks arising from implementation 
                of a remedial option, and
                  ``(iv) a statement of the nature and magnitude of the 
                scientific uncertainties associated with such 
                estimates;
          ``(C) include the size of the population potentially at risk 
        from releases from the facility (based on the current or 
        reasonably anticipated future uses of the land, water, or other 
        resources), the exposure scenario used for each estimate, and 
        the likelihood that such potential exposures will occur; and
          ``(D) compare risks with estimates of greater, lesser, and 
        substantially equivalent risks that are familiar to and 
        routinely encountered by the general public as well as other 
        risks, and, where appropriate and meaningful, comparison of 
        those risks with other similar risks regulated by Federal 
        agencies resulting from comparable activities and exposure 
        pathways.
Comparisons under subparagraph (D) should consider relevant 
distinctions among risks, such as the voluntary or involuntary nature 
of risks.
  ``(2) To the maximum extent practicable, documents made available to 
the general public which purport to describe the degree of risk to 
human health shall, at a minimum, provide information specified in 
paragraph (1) or a meaningful reference to such information in another 
document reasonably available to the public.''.

SEC. 109. BROWNFIELDS GRANTS.

  (a) In General.--Title I (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 127. BROWNFIELDS GRANTS.

  ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
          ``(1) Administrative cost.--The term `administrative cost' 
        does not include the cost of--
                  ``(A) site inventories;
                  ``(B) investigation and identification of the extent 
                of contamination;
                  ``(C) design and performance of a response action; or
                  ``(D) monitoring of natural resources.
          ``(2) Brownfield facility.--
                  ``(A) In general.--The term `brownfield facility' 
                means real property with respect to which expansion, 
                development, or redevelopment is complicated by the 
                presence or potential presence of a hazardous 
                substance.
                  ``(B) Excluded facilities.--The term `brownfield 
                facility' does not include--
                          ``(i) any portion of real property that is 
                        the subject of an ongoing removal or planned 
                        removal under section 104;
                          ``(ii) any portion of real property that is 
                        listed or has been proposed for listing on the 
                        National Priorities List;
                          ``(iii) any portion of real property with 
                        respect to which a cleanup is proceeding under 
                        a permit, an administrative order, or a 
                        judicial consent decree entered into by the 
                        United States or an authorized State under this 
                        Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
                        6901 et seq.), the Federal Water Pollution 
                        Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Toxic 
                        Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et 
                        seq.), or the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 
                        U.S.C. 300f et seq.);
                          ``(iv) a facility that is owned or operated 
                        by a department, agency, or instrumentality of 
                        the United States, except a facility located on 
                        lands held in trust for an Indian tribe; or
                          ``(v) a portion of a facility for which 
                        assistance for response activity has been 
                        obtained under subtitle I of the Solid Waste 
                        Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.) from the 
                        Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 
                        established under section 9508 of the Internal 
                        Revenue Code of 1986.
          ``(3) Eligible entity.--
                  ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible entity' means--
                          ``(i) a State or a political subdivision of a 
                        State, including--
                                  ``(I) a general purpose unit of local 
                                government; and
                                  ``(II) a regional council or group of 
                                general purpose units of local 
                                government;
                          ``(ii) a redevelopment agency that is 
                        chartered or otherwise sanctioned by a State or 
                        other unit of government; and
                          ``(iii) an Indian tribe.
                  ``(B) Excluded entities.--The term `eligible entity' 
                does not include any entity that is not in full 
                compliance with the requirements of an administrative 
                order, judicial consent decree, or closure plan under a 
                permit which has been issued or entered into by the 
                United States or an authorized State under this Act, 
                the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), 
                the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 
                et seq.), the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 
                2601 et seq.), or the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 
                U.S.C. 300f et seq.) with respect to the real property 
                or portion thereof which is the subject of the order, 
                judicial consent decree, or closure plan.
  ``(b) Brownfield Assessment Grant Program.--
          ``(1) Establishment of program.--The President shall 
        establish a program to provide grants to eligible entities for 
        inventory and assessment of brownfield facilities.
          ``(2) Assistance for site assessment.--On approval of an 
        application made by an eligible entity, the President may make 
        grants to the eligible entity to be used for developing an 
        inventory and conducting an assessment of 1 or more brownfield 
        facilities.
          ``(3) Applications.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Any eligible entity may submit an 
                application to the President, in such form as the 
                President may require, for a grant under this 
                subsection for 1 or more brownfield facilities.
                  ``(B) Application requirements.--An application for a 
                grant under this subsection shall include information 
                relevant to the ranking criteria established under 
                paragraph (4) for the facility or facilities for which 
                the grant is requested.
          ``(4) Ranking criteria.--The President shall establish a 
        system for ranking grant applications submitted under this 
        subsection that includes the following criteria:
                  ``(A) The demonstrated need for Federal assistance.
                  ``(B) The extent to which a grant will stimulate the 
                availability of other funds for environmental 
                remediation and subsequent redevelopment of the area in 
                which the brownfield facilities are located.
                  ``(C) The estimated extent to which a grant would 
                facilitate the identification of or facilitate a 
                reduction in health and environmental risks.
                  ``(D) The potential to stimulate economic development 
                of the area, such as the following:
                          ``(i) The relative increase in the estimated 
                        fair market value of the area as a result of 
                        any necessary response action.
                          ``(ii) The potential of a grant to create new 
                        or expand existing business and employment 
                        opportunities on completion of any necessary 
                        response action.
                          ``(iii) The estimated additional tax revenues 
                        expected to be generated by economic 
                        redevelopment in the area in which a brownfield 
                        facility is located.
                  ``(E) The financial involvement of the State and 
                local government in any response action planned for a 
                brownfield facility and the extent to which the 
                response action and the proposed redevelopment is 
                consistent with any applicable State or local community 
                economic development plan.
                  ``(F) The extent to which the site assessment and 
                subsequent development involves the active 
                participation and support of the local community.
          ``(5) Maximum grant amount per facility.--A grant made to an 
        eligible entity under this subsection shall not exceed $200,000 
        with respect to any brownfield facility covered by the grant.
  ``(c) Brownfield Remediation Grant Program.--
          ``(1) Establishment of program.--The President shall 
        establish a program to provide grants to eligible entities to 
        be used for capitalization of revolving loan funds for remedial 
        actions at brownfield facilities.
          ``(2) Assistance for site remediation.--Upon approval of an 
        application made by an eligible entity, the President may make 
        grants to the eligible entity to be used for establishing a 
        revolving loan fund. Any fund established using such grants 
        shall be used to make loans to a State, a site owner, or a site 
        developer for the purpose of carrying out remedial actions at 1 
        or more brownfield facilities.
          ``(3) Applications.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Any eligible entity may submit an 
                application to the President, in such form as the 
                President may require, for a grant under this 
                subsection.
                  ``(B) Application requirements.--An application under 
                this section shall include information relevant to the 
                ranking criteria established under paragraph (4).
          ``(4) Ranking criteria.--The President shall establish a 
        system for ranking grant applications submitted under this 
        subsection that includes the following criteria:
                  ``(A) The adequacy of the financial controls and 
                resources of the eligible entity to administer a 
                revolving loan fund in accordance with this title.
                  ``(B) The ability of the eligible entity to monitor 
                the use of funds provided to loan recipients under this 
                title.
                  ``(C) The ability of the eligible entity to ensure 
                that a remedial action funded by the grant will be 
                conducted under the authority of a State cleanup 
                program that ensures that the remedial action is 
                protective of human health and the environment.
                  ``(D) The ability of the eligible entity to ensure 
                that any cleanup funded under this Act will comply with 
                all laws that apply to the cleanup.
                  ``(E) The need of the eligible entity for financial 
                assistance to clean up brownfield sites that are the 
                subject of the application, taking into consideration 
                the financial resources available to the eligible 
                entity.
                  ``(F) The ability of the eligible entity to ensure 
                that the applicants repay the loans in a timely manner.
                  ``(G) The plans of the eligible entity for using the 
                grant to stimulate economic development or creation of 
                recreational areas on completion of the cleanup.
                  ``(H) The plans of the eligible entity for using the 
                grant to stimulate the availability of other funds for 
                environmental remediation and subsequent redevelopment 
                of the area in which the brownfield facilities are 
                located.
                  ``(I) The plans of the eligible entity for using the 
                grant to facilitate a reduction of health and 
                environmental risks.
                  ``(J) The plans of the eligible entity for using the 
                grant for remediation and subsequent development that 
                involve the active participation and support of the 
                local community.
          ``(5) Maximum grant amount.--A grant made to an eligible 
        entity under this subsection may not exceed $1,000,000.
  ``(d) General Provisions.--
          ``(1) Prohibition.--No part of a grant under this section may 
        be used for the payment of penalties, fines, or administrative 
        costs.
          ``(2) Audits.--The President shall audit an appropriate 
        number of grants made under subsections (b) and (c) to ensure 
        that funds are used for the purposes described in this section.
          ``(3) Agreements.--
                  ``(A) Terms and conditions.--Each grant made under 
                this section shall be subject to an agreement that--
                          ``(i) requires the eligible entity to comply 
                        with all applicable Federal and State laws;
                          ``(ii) requires the eligible entity to use 
                        the grant exclusively for the purposes 
                        specified in subsection (b)(2) or (c)(2);
                          ``(iii) in the case of an application by a 
                        State under subsection (c)(3), requires payment 
                        by the State of a matching share, of at least 
                        50 percent of the amount of the grant, from 
                        other sources of funding;
                          ``(iv) requires that grants under this 
                        section will not supplant State or local funds 
                        normally provided for the purposes specified in 
                        subsection (b)(2) or (c)(2); and
                          ``(v) contains such other terms and 
                        conditions as the President determines to be 
                        necessary to ensure proper administration of 
                        the grants.
                  ``(B) Limitation.--The President shall not place 
                terms or conditions on grants made under this section 
                other than the terms and conditions specified in 
                subparagraph (A).
          ``(4) Leveraging.--An eligible entity that receives a grant 
        under this section may use the funds for part of a project at a 
        brownfield facility for which funding is received from other 
        sources, including other Federal sources, but the grant shall 
        be used only for the purposes described in subsection (b)(2) or 
        (c)(2).
  ``(e) Approval.--
          ``(1) Initial grant.--Before the expiration of the fourth 
        quarter of the first fiscal year following the date of the 
        enactment of this section, the President shall make grants 
        under this section to the eligible entities and States that 
        submit applications, before the expiration of the second 
        quarter of such year, that the President determines have the 
        highest rankings under the ranking criteria established under 
        subsection (b)(4) or (c)(4).
          ``(2) Subsequent grants.--Beginning with the second fiscal 
        year following the date of enactment of this section, the 
        President shall make an annual evaluation of each application 
        received during the prior fiscal year and make grants under 
        this section to the eligible entities and States that submit 
        applications during the prior year that the President 
        determines have the highest rankings under the ranking criteria 
        established under subsection (b)(4) or (c)(4).
  ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may be necessary. 
Such funds shall remain available until expended.''.

     TITLE II--EXPENDITURES FROM THE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

SEC. 201. EXPENDITURES FROM THE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND.

  (a) Expenditures.--Section 111 (42 U.S.C. 9611) is amended by 
striking subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) and inserting the 
following:
  ``(a) Expenditures From Hazardous Substance Superfund.--
          ``(1) Subsection (b) expenditures.--The following amounts of 
        amounts appropriated to the Hazardous Substance Superfund after 
        January 1, 2000, pursuant to section 9507(b) of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986, and of amounts credited under section 
        9602(b) of such Code with respect to those appropriated 
        amounts, shall be available for the purposes specified in 
        subsection (b):
                  ``(A) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
                  ``(B) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
                  ``(C) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
                  ``(D) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
                  ``(E) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
        Such funds shall remain available until expended.
          ``(2) Subsections (c) and (d) expenditures.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated from the Hazardous Substance 
        Superfund established pursuant to section 9507(b) of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the purposes specified in 
        subsections (c) and (d) of this section not more than the 
        following amounts:
                  ``(A) $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
                  ``(B) $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
                  ``(C) $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
                  ``(D) $1,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
                  ``(E) $1,350,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
  ``(b) Payments Related to Certain Reductions, Limitations, and 
Exemptions.--
          ``(1) Funding of exempt party and fund share.--The President 
        may use amounts in the Fund made available by subsection (a)(1) 
        for funding the equitable share of liability attributable to 
        exempt parties under section 107(y) and obligations incurred by 
        the President to pay a Fund share or to reimburse parties for 
        costs incurred in excess of the parties' allocated shares under 
        section 129.
          ``(2) Limitations.--
                  ``(A) Funding.--Amounts made available by subsection 
                (a)(1) for the purposes of this subsection shall not 
                exceed the following:
                          ``(i) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
                          ``(ii) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
                          ``(iii) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
                          ``(iv) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
                          ``(v) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
                  ``(B) Eligible costs.--No funds made available under 
                paragraph (1) may be used for payment of, or 
                reimbursement for, any portion of attorneys' fees that 
                do not constitute necessary costs of response 
                consistent the national contingency plan.
                  ``(C) Additional purposes.--
                          ``(i) In general.--If, in any of fiscal years 
                        2000 through 2004, the Administrator does not 
                        have available for obligation for the purposes 
                        of subsections (c) and (d) the amount specified 
                        for the fiscal year in clause (iii), the 
                        Administrator, subject to clause (ii), may use 
                        funds provided under subsection (a)(1) for such 
                        purposes.
                          ``(ii) Limitation.--The total amount of funds 
                        provided under subsection (a)(1) that the 
                        Administrator may use for the purposes of 
                        subsections (c) and (d) may not exceed the 
                        amount specified for the fiscal year in clause 
                        (iii) less the amount which (but for this 
                        subparagraph) would be available to the 
                        Administrator in such fiscal year for such 
                        purposes.
                          ``(iii) Amounts.--The amounts specified in 
                        this clause are $1,500,000,000 for each of 
                        fiscal years 2000 through 2002, $1,400,000,000 
                        for fiscal year 2003, and $1,350,000,000 for 
                        fiscal year 2004.
  ``(c) Response, Removal, and Remediation.--The President may use 
amounts in the Fund appropriated under subsection (a)(2) for costs of 
response, removal, and remediation (and administrative costs directly 
related to such costs), including the following:
          ``(1) Government response costs.--Payment of governmental 
        response costs incurred pursuant to section 104, including 
        costs incurred pursuant to the Intervention on the High Seas 
        Act (33 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.).
          ``(2) Private response cost claims.--Payment of any claim for 
        necessary response costs incurred by any other person as a 
        result of carrying out the national contingency plan 
        established under section 105, if such costs are approved under 
        such plan, are reasonable in amount based on open and free 
        competition or fair market value for similar available goods 
        and services, and are certified by the responsible Federal 
        official.
          ``(3) Acquisition costs under section 104(j).--The costs 
        incurred by the President in acquiring real estate or interests 
        in real estate under section 104(j) (relating to acquisition of 
        property).
          ``(4) State and local government reimbursement.--
        Reimbursement to States and local governments under section 
        123; except that during any fiscal year not more than 0.1 
        percent of the total amount appropriated under subsection 
        (a)(2) may be used for such reimbursements.
          ``(5) Contracts and cooperative agreements.--Payment for the 
        implementation of any contract or cooperative agreement under 
        section 104(d).
  ``(d) Administration, Oversight, Research, and Other Costs.--The 
President may use amounts in the Fund appropriated under subsection 
(a)(2) for the following costs (and administrative costs directly 
related to such costs):
          ``(1) Investigation and enforcement.--The costs of 
        identifying, investigating, and taking enforcement action 
        against releases of hazardous substances.
          ``(2) Overhead.--
                  ``(A) In general.--The costs of providing services, 
                equipment, and other overhead related to the purposes 
                of this Act and section 311 of the Federal Water 
                Pollution Control Act and needed to supplement 
                equipment and services available through contractors 
                and other non-Federal entities.
                  ``(B) Damage assessment capability.--The costs of 
                establishing and maintaining damage assessment 
                capability for any Federal agency involved in strike 
                forces, emergency task forces, or other response teams 
                under the National Contingency Plan.
          ``(3) Employee safety programs.--The cost of maintaining 
        programs otherwise authorized by this Act to protect the health 
        and safety of employees involved in response to hazardous 
        substance releases.
          ``(4) Grants for technical assistance.--The cost of grants 
        under section 117(e) (relating to public participation grants 
        for technical assistance).
          ``(5) ATSDR activities.--Any costs incurred in accordance 
        with subsection (m) of this section (relating to ATSDR) and 
        section 104(i), including the costs of epidemiologic and 
        laboratory studies, public health assessments, and other 
        activities authorized by section 104(i).
          ``(6) Evaluation costs under petition provisions of section 
        105(d).--Costs incurred by the President in evaluating 
        facilities pursuant to petitions under section 105(d) (relating 
        to petitions for assessment of release).
          ``(7) Contract costs under section 104(a)(1).--The costs of 
        contracts or arrangements entered into under section 104(a)(1) 
        to oversee and review the conduct of remedial investigations 
        and feasibility studies undertaken by persons other than the 
        President and the costs of appropriate Federal and State 
        oversight of remedial activities at National Priorities List 
        sites resulting from consent orders or settlement agreements.
          ``(8) Research, development, and demonstration costs under 
        section 311.--The cost of carrying out section 311 (relating to 
        research, development, and demonstration).
          ``(9) Awards under section 109.--The costs of any awards 
        granted under section 109(d) (relating to providing information 
        concerning violations).
          ``(10) Comprehensive state ground water protection plans.--
        Costs of providing assistance to States to develop 
        comprehensive State ground water protection plans to the extent 
        such costs do not exceed $3,000,000 in the aggregate in a 
        fiscal year.
  ``(e) Other Limitations.--
          ``(1) Limitations on payments of claims.--Claims against or 
        presented to the Fund shall not be valid or paid in excess of 
        the total unobligated balance in the Fund at any one time. Such 
        claims become valid and are payable only when additional money 
        is collected, appropriated, or otherwise added to the Fund. 
        Should the total claims outstanding at any time exceed the 
        current balance of the Fund, the President shall pay such 
        claims, to the extent authorized under this section, in full in 
        the order in which they were finally determined.
          ``(2) Remedial actions at federally owned facilities.--No 
        money in the Fund shall be available for costs of remedial 
        action, other than costs specified in subsection (d), with 
        respect to federally owned facilities; except that money in the 
        Fund shall be available for the provision of alternative water 
        supplies (including the reimbursement of costs incurred by a 
        municipality) in any case involving ground water contamination 
        outside the boundaries of a federally owned facility in which 
        the federally owned facility is not the only potentially 
        responsible party.
          ``(3) Remedial actions at facilities not listed on npl.--No 
        money in the Fund shall be available for response actions that 
        are not removal actions under section 101(23) with respect to 
        any facility that is not listed on the National Priorities 
        List.''.
  (b) Additional Amendments.--
          (1) Section 111.--Section 111 (42 U.S.C. 9611) is further 
        amended by striking subsections (j) and (n).
          (2) Section 107.--Section 107 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is further 
        amended by striking subsection (k).
  (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 112 (42 U.S.C. 9612) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``111(a)'' and inserting 
        ``111(c)''; and
          (2) by striking subsection (f).

SEC. 202. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL REVENUES.

  (a) Authorization.--Section 111(p)(1) (42 U.S.C. 9611(p)(1)) is 
amended to read as follows:
          ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated, 
        out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to 
        the Hazardous Substance Superfund such sums as may be necessary 
        for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004.''.
  (b) Repeal of Duplicative Authorization.--Subsection (b) of section 
517 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (26 
U.S.C. 9507 note) is repealed.
  (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 9507(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``section 517(b) of the Superfund 
Revenue Act of 1986'' and inserting ``section 111(p) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9611(p))''.

SEC. 203. COMPLETION OF NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST.

  (a) Study of 10-Year Funding Needs for Implementing CERCLA.--There is 
authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 for an independent analysis of 
the projected 10-year costs to the Environmental Protection Agency of 
implementing the programs authorized by the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Such analysis shall 
include estimates of annual and cumulative costs over the next 10 years 
associated with administering such Act by the Environmental Protection 
Agency, shall identify sources of uncertainty in the estimates, and 
shall be completed by January 1, 2001.
  (b) Breakdown of Costs.--The study referred to in subsection (a) 
shall include estimates of each of the following:
          (1) Costs for completion of all non-Federal facilities 
        currently on the National Priorities List.
          (2) Costs for completion of all Federal facilities currently 
        on the National Priorities List.
          (3) Costs associated with those non-Federal sites which the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency expects to 
        be added to the National Priorities List over the next 10 
        years.
          (4) Costs associated with those Federal facilities which the 
        Administrator expects to be added to the National Priorities 
        List over the next 10 years.
          (5) Costs for operations and maintenance at facilities 
        currently on, or anticipated to be added over the next 10 years 
        to, the National Priorities List.
          (6) Costs associated with reviews of remedies under section 
        121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
        Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and any follow-up 
        activities.
          (7) Costs for removal activities.
  (c) Organizations To Conduct Study.--The cost analysis under 
subsection (a) shall be conducted by a neutral, nongovernmental 
organization with expertise in the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. In conducting the 
analysis, the nongovernmental organization shall collect relevant 
information from experts and other interested persons, including 
experts in public budgeting and accounting.

                      TITLE III--LIABILITY REFORM

SEC. 301. LIABILITY RELIEF FOR INNOCENT PARTIES.

  (a) Amendments.--Section 107(b) (42 U.S.C. 9607(b)) is amended as 
follows:
          (1) By redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as 
        subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively, and by moving 
        those subparagraphs 2 ems to the right.
          (2) By striking ``(b) There shall be'' and inserting the 
        following:
  ``(b) Defenses to Liability.--
          ``(1) In general.--There shall be''.
          (3) By adding at the end the following:
          ``(2) Liability relief for innocent parties.--
                  ``(A) Recipients of property by inheritance or 
                bequest.--There shall be no liability under subsection 
                (a) for a person whose liability is based solely on the 
                person's status as an owner or operator of a facility 
                or vessel and who can establish by a preponderance of 
                the evidence that the person meets the requirements of 
                paragraph (4) and that the person acquired the property 
                by inheritance or bequest.
                  ``(B) Recipients of property by charitable 
                donation.--Liability under subsection (a) shall be 
                limited to the lesser of the fair market value of the 
                facility or vessel and the actual proceeds of the sale 
                of the facility for a person whose liability is based 
                solely on the person's status as an owner or operator 
                of the facility or vessel and who can establish by a 
                preponderance of the evidence that the person meets the 
                requirements of paragraph (4) and that the person 
                holding title, either outright or in trust, to the 
                vessel or facility is an organization described in 
                section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
                and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code 
                and holds such title as a result of a charitable 
                donation that qualifies under section 170, 2055, or 
                2522 of such Code.
                  ``(C) Owners or operators of rights-of-way.--There 
                shall be no liability under subsection (a) for a person 
                whose liability is based solely on ownership or 
                operation of a road, street, pipeline, or other right-
                of-way, easement, or public transportation route (other 
                than railroad rights-of-way and railroad property) over 
                which hazardous substances are transported or otherwise 
                are present if such person can establish by a 
                preponderance of the evidence that the person did not, 
                by any act or omission, cause or contribute to the 
                release or threatened release.
                  ``(D) Railroad owners or operators of spur track.--
                There shall be no liability under subsection (a) for a 
                person whose liability is based solely on the status of 
                the person as a railroad owner or railroad operator of 
                a spur track, including a spur track over land subject 
                to an easement, to a facility that is owned or operated 
                by a person that is not affiliated with the railroad 
                owner or operator if the railroad owner or operator can 
                establish by a preponderance of the evidence that--
                          ``(i) the spur track provides access to a 
                        main line or branch line track that is owned or 
                        operated by the railroad owner or operator;
                          ``(ii) the spur track is 10 miles long or 
                        less; and
                          ``(iii) the railroad owner or operator did 
                        not cause or contribute to a release or 
                        threatened release of the hazardous substances 
                        for which liability is alleged under subsection 
                        (a).
                  ``(E) Construction contractors.--There shall be no 
                liability under subsection (a) for a person who is a 
                construction contractor (other than a response action 
                contractor covered by section 119) if such person can 
                establish by a preponderance of the evidence that--
                          ``(i) the person's liability is based solely 
                        on construction activities that were 
                        specifically directed by and carried out in 
                        accordance with a contract with an owner or 
                        operator of the facility;
                          ``(ii) the person did not know or have reason 
                        to know of the presence of hazardous substances 
                        at the facility concerned before beginning 
                        construction activities; and
                          ``(iii) the person exercised appropriate care 
                        with respect to the hazardous substances 
                        discovered in the course of performing the 
                        construction activity, including precautions 
                        against foreseeable acts of third parties, 
                        taking into consideration the characteristics 
                        of such hazardous substances, in light of all 
                        relevant facts, circumstances, and generally 
                        accepted good commercial and customary 
                        standards and practices at the time of the 
                        person's acts or omissions.
          ``(3) Appropriate care.--
                  ``(A) Site-specific basis.--The determination whether 
                or not a person has exercised appropriate care with 
                respect to hazardous substances within the meaning of 
                paragraph (4)(C) shall be made on a site-specific basis 
                taking into consideration the characteristics of the 
                hazardous substances, in light of all relevant facts, 
                circumstances, and generally accepted good commercial 
                and customary standards and practices at the time of 
                the defendant's acts or omissions.
                  ``(B) Safe harbor.--A person shall be deemed to have 
                exercised appropriate care within the meaning of 
                paragraph (4)(C) if--
                          ``(i) the person took reasonable steps to 
                        stop any continuing release, prevent any 
                        threatened future release, and prevent or limit 
                        human or natural resource exposure to any 
                        previously released hazardous substance, or
                          ``(ii) in any case in which the release or 
                        threatened release of hazardous substances is 
                        the subject of a response action by persons 
                        authorized to conduct the response action at 
                        the facility or vessel, the person provides 
                        access for and all reasonable cooperation with 
                        the response action.
          ``(4) Requirements.--The requirements referred to in 
        paragraph (2)(A) and (B) are that a person's liability is based 
        solely on the person's status as an owner or operator of a 
        facility or vessel and that the person can establish by a 
        preponderance of the evidence that--
                  ``(A) the person acquired the facility or vessel 
                after the disposal or placement of the hazardous 
                substances for which liability is alleged under 
                subsection (a);
                  ``(B) the person did not, by any act or omission, 
                cause or contribute to the release or threatened 
                release of such hazardous substances; and
                  ``(C) the person exercised appropriate care with 
                respect to such hazardous substances.
          ``(5) Treatment of non-liable parties.--The Administrator 
        shall seek to minimize the administrative and legal burdens on 
        parties that are not liable pursuant to this section. To the 
        extent practicable, the Administrator shall--
                  ``(A) inform such parties that they are exempted from 
                liability pursuant to this section, and offer them 
                written assurances establishing their exempt status; 
                and
                  ``(B) eliminate or minimize any need for such parties 
                to retain legal counsel in connection with 
                administrative or legal proceedings concerning the 
                facility at issue.''.
  (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 101(35) (42 U.S.C. 9601(35)) 
is amended by striking ``section 107(b)(3)'' each place it appears and 
inserting ``section 107(b)(1)(C)''.
  (2) Section 119(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 9619(b)(1)) is amended by striking 
``section 107(b)(3)'' and inserting ``section 107(b)(1)(C)''.

SEC. 302. CLARIFICATIONS OF CERTAIN LIABILITY.

  (a) Amount of Liability.--Section 107(c)(3) (42 U.S.C. 9607(c)(3)) is 
amended in the first sentence by striking ``at least equal to,'' and 
all that follows through the end of the sentence and inserting ``up to 
three times the amount of such response costs.''.
  (b) Clarification of Common Carrier Liability.--Section 107(b)(1)(C), 
as so redesignated by section 301(a) of this Act, is amended by 
striking ``from a published tariff and acceptance for'' and inserting 
``exclusively from a contract for''.
  (c) Other Clarifications.--Section 107(a) (42 U.S.C. 9607(a)) is 
amended as follows:
          (1) In paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' and inserting 
        ``or''.
          (2) In paragraph (4)(B)--
                  (A) by striking ``other'' both places it appears; and
                  (B) by inserting ``, other than the United States, a 
                State, or an Indian tribe,'' before the phrase 
                ``consistent with the national contingency plan''.
          (3) In paragraph (4), by striking ``by such person,'' and all 
        that follows through ``shall be liable for--'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof the following: ``by such person--
from which there is a release, or a threatened release, that causes the 
incurrence of response costs, of a hazardous substance, shall be liable 
for--''.
          (4) By designating the text beginning with ``The amounts 
        recoverable'' and ending with ``this subsection commences.'' as 
        paragraph (5) and aligning the margin of such text with 
        paragraph (4).

SEC. 303. FEDERAL ENTITIES AND FACILITIES.

  Section 120 (42 U.S.C. 9620) is amended as follows:
          (1) By amending the heading to read as follows:

``SEC. 120. FEDERAL ENTITIES AND FACILITIES.''.

          (2) By amending paragraph (1) of subsection (a) to read as 
        follows:
          ``(1) In general.--(A) Each department, agency, and 
        instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial 
        branches of the United States shall be subjectto, and comply 
with, this Act and all other Federal, State, interstate, and local 
requirements, both substantive and procedural (including any 
requirement for permits or reporting or any provision for injunctive 
relief and such sanctions as may be imposed by a court to enforce such 
relief), regarding response or restoration actions related to the 
release or potential release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or 
contaminants in the same manner, and to the same extent, as any 
nongovernmental entity is subject to such requirements, including 
enforcement and liability under sections 106 and 107 of this title and 
the payment of reasonable service charges.
          ``(B) The Federal, State, interstate, and local substantive 
        and procedural requirements referred to in subparagraph (A) 
        include, but are not limited to, all administrative orders and 
        all civil and administrative penalties and fines, regardless of 
        whether such penalties and fines are punitive or coercive in 
        nature or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, or continuing 
        violations. The United States hereby expressly waives any 
        immunity otherwise applicable to the United States with respect 
        to any such substantive or procedural requirement (including, 
        but not limited to, any injunctive relief, administrative 
        order, or civil or administrative penalty or fine referred to 
        in the preceding sentence or any reasonable service charge).
          ``(C) The reasonable service charges referred to in this 
        paragraph include, but are not limited to, fees or charges 
        assessed in connection with the processing and issuance of 
        permits, renewal of permits, amendments to permits, review of 
        plans, studies, and other documents, and inspection and 
        monitoring of facilities, as well as any other 
        nondiscriminatory charges that are assessed in connection with 
        a State, interstate, or local response program.
          ``(D) Neither the United States, nor any agent, employee, or 
        officer thereof, shall be immune or exempt from any process or 
        sanction of any State or Federal court with respect to the 
        enforcement of any injunctive relief.
          ``(E) No agent, employee, or officer of the United States 
        shall be personally liable for any civil penalty under any 
        Federal or State law regarding response or restoration actions 
        relating to the release or potential release of hazardous 
        substances, pollutants, or contaminants, with respect to any 
        act or omission within the scope of their official duties. An 
        agent, employee, or officer of the United States shall be 
        subject to any criminal sanction (including, but not limited 
        to, any fine or imprisonment) under any such Federal or State 
        law, but no department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
        executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States 
        shall be subject to any such sanction.
          ``(F) The waiver of sovereign immunity provided in this 
        paragraph shall not apply to the extent a State law would apply 
        any standard or requirement to such Federal department, agency, 
        or instrumentality in a manner that is more stringent than such 
        standard or requirement would be applied to any other person.
          ``(G)(i) The Administrator may issue an order under section 
        106 of this Act to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
        of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United 
        States. The Administrator shall initiate an administrative 
        enforcement action against such a department, agency, or 
        instrumentality in the same manner and under the same 
        circumstances as an action would be initiated against any other 
        person.
          ``(ii) No administrative order issued to such department, 
        agency, or instrumentality shall become final until such 
        department, agency, or instrumentality has had the opportunity 
        to confer with the Administrator.
          ``(iii) Unless a State law in effect on the date of enactment 
        of the Land Recycling Act of 1999, or a State constitution, 
        requires the funds to be used in a different manner, all funds 
        collected by a State from the Federal Government from penalties 
        and fines imposed for violation of any substantive or 
        procedural requirement referred to in subsection (a) of this 
        section shall be used by the State only for projects designed 
        to improve or protect the environment or to defray the costs of 
        environmental protection or enforcement.
          ``(H) Each such department, agency, and instrumentality shall 
        have the right to contribution protection set forth in section 
        113, when such department, agency, or instrumentality resolves 
        its liability under this Act.''.
          (3) By striking paragraph (4) of subsection (a).
          (4) By inserting ``(other than the indemnification 
        requirements of section 119)'' after ``responsibility'' in 
        subsection (a)(3).

SEC. 304. LIABILITY RELIEF FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, 
                    SEWAGE SLUDGE, MUNICIPAL OWNERS AND OPERATORS, AND 
                    DE MICROMIS CONTRIBUTORS.

  (a) Limitation on Liability for Small Businesses.--Section 107 (42 
U.S.C. 9607) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(t) Limitation on Liability for Small Businesses.--
          ``(1) In general.--With respect to actions taken before 
        September 29, 1999, no small business concern shall be liable 
        under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(4) for response costs or damages 
        at a facility or vessel on the National Priorities List.
          ``(2) Limitation.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an action 
        brought by the President against a small business concern if 
        the hazardous substances attributable to the small business 
        concern have contributed, or contribute, significantly to the 
        costs of the response action at the facility.
          ``(3) Small business concern defined.--In this subsection, 
        the term `small business concern' means a business entity that 
        on average over the previous 3 years preceding the date of 
        notification by the President that the business entity is a 
        potentially responsible party--
                  ``(A) has no more than 75 full-time employees or the 
                equivalent thereof; and
                  ``(B) has $3,000,000 or less in gross revenues.''.
  (b) Liability Relief for Municipal Solid Waste and Sewage Sludge.--
Section 107 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is further amended by adding at the end 
the following:
  ``(u) Liability Exemptions and Limitations for Municipal Solid Waste 
and Sewage Sludge.--
          ``(1) Pre-enactment activities.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph 
                (B), no person shall be liable under subsection (a)(3) 
                or (a)(4) for response costs or damages at a landfill 
                facility on the National Priorities List to the extent 
                that the person arranged or transported municipal solid 
                waste or municipal sewage sludge prior to the date of 
                enactment of this paragraph for disposal at the 
                landfill facility.
                  ``(B) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), 
                if the President determines that a person transported 
                material containing municipal solid waste or municipal 
                sewage sludge to a landfill facility that has 
                contributed, or contributes, significantly to the costs 
                of response at the facility and such person is engaged 
                in the business of transporting waste materials, such 
                person may be liable under subsection (a)(4). The 
                liability of such person shall be subject to the 
                aggregate limits on liability for municipal solid waste 
                set forth in paragraph (2). Any determination of such 
                person's equitable share of response costs shall be 
                determined on the basis of such person's equitable 
                share of the aggregate amount of response costs 
                attributable to municipal solid waste under paragraph 
                (2).
          ``(2) Post-enactment activities.--
                  ``(A) In general.--To the extent that a person or 
                group of persons is liable under subsection (a)(3) or 
                (a)(4) for arranging or transporting municipal solid 
                waste or municipal sewage sludge for disposal at a 
                landfill facility on the National Priorities List on or 
                after the date of enactment of this paragraph, and is 
                not exempt from liability under paragraph (3), the 
                total aggregate liability for all such persons or 
                groups of persons for response costs at such a landfill 
                facility shall not exceed 10 percent of such costs.
                  ``(B) Expedited settlements.--The President may offer 
                a person subject to a limitation on liability under 
                subparagraph (A) an expedited settlement based on the 
                average unit cost of remediating municipal solid waste 
                and municipal sewage sludge in landfills in lieu of the 
                aggregate 10 percent limitation on liability provided 
                by subparagraph (A).
          ``(3) Special rule.--No person shall be liable under 
        subsection (a)(3) or (a)(4) for response costs or damages at a 
        landfill facility on the National Priorities List to the extent 
        that--
                  ``(A) the materials that the person arranged or 
                transported for disposal consist of municipal solid 
                waste; and
                  ``(B) the person is--
                          ``(i) an owner, operator, or lessee of 
                        residential property from which all of the 
                        person's municipal solid waste was generated 
                        with respect to the facility;
                          ``(ii) a business entity that employs no more 
                        than 100 paid individuals and is a small 
                        business concern as defined under the Small 
                        Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) from which 
                        was generated all of the entity's municipal 
                        solid waste with respect to the facility; or
                          ``(iii) an organization described in section 
                        501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
                        and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of 
                        such Code if such organization employs no more 
                        than 100 paid individuals at the location from 
                        which was generated all of the municipal solid 
                        waste attributable to the organization with 
                        respect to the facility.
          ``(4) Mixed wastes.--Liability for wastes that do not fall 
        within the definition of municipal solid waste under paragraph 
        (5)(A) and are collected and disposed of with municipal solid 
        wastes shall be governed by section 107(a) and any applicable 
        exemptions or limitations on liability without regard to the 
        wastes covered by paragraph (5)(A).
          ``(5) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
        definitions apply:
                  ``(A) Municipal solid waste.--The term `municipal 
                solid waste' means waste materials generated by 
                households, including single and multifamily 
                residences, and hotels and motels, and waste materials 
                generated by commercial, institutional, and industrial 
                sources, to the extent that such materials--
                          ``(i) are essentially the same as waste 
                        materials normally generated by households, or
                          ``(ii) are collected and disposed of with 
                        other municipal solid waste, and contain 
                        hazardous substances that would qualify for the 
                        de micromis exemption under section 107(w).
                The term includes food and yard waste, paper, clothing, 
                appliances, consumer product packaging, disposable 
                diapers, office supplies, cosmetics, glass and metal 
                food containers, wooden pallets, cardboard, elementary 
                or secondary school science laboratory waste, and 
                household hazardous waste. The term does not include 
                combustion ash generated by resource recovery 
                facilities or municipal incinerators; solid waste from 
                the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores 
                and minerals; or waste from manufacturing or processing 
                operations (including pollution control) that is not 
                essentially the same as waste normally generated by 
                households.
                  ``(B) Municipal sewage sludge.--The term `municipal 
                sewage sludge' means solid, semisolid, or liquid 
                residue removed during the treatment of municipal waste 
                water, domestic sewage, or other waste water at or by 
                (i) a publicly owned treatment works, (ii) a federally 
                owned treatment works, or (iii) a treatment works that, 
                without regard to ownership, would be considered to be 
                a publicly owned treatment works and is principally 
                treating municipal waste water or domestic sewage.
  ``(v) Municipal Owners and Operators.--
          ``(1) In general.--A municipality that is liable for response 
        costs under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) on the basis 
        of ownership or operation of a municipal landfill that is 
        listed on the National Priorities List on or before September 
        1, 1999 (as identified by the President), shall be eligible for 
        a settlement under this subsection.
          ``(2) Settlement amount.--(A) The President shall offer a 
        settlement to a party with respect to such liability on the 
        basis of a payment or other obligation equivalent in value to 
        no more than 20 percent of the total response costs in 
        connection with the facility. The President may increase this 
        percentage to no more than 35 percent of the total response 
        costs in connection with the facility if the President 
        determines--
                  ``(i) the municipality exacerbated environmental 
                contamination or exposure with respect to the facility; 
                or
                  ``(ii) the municipality, during the period of 
                ownership or operation of the facility, received 
                operating revenues substantially in excess of the sum 
                of the waste system operating costs plus 20 percent of 
                total estimated response costs in connection with the 
                facility.
          ``(B) Such a settlement shall pertain to only the party's 
        liability under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a).
          ``(3) Performance of response actions.--Subject to the 
        limitations of paragraph (2), the President may require, as a 
        condition of a settlement with a municipality under this 
        subsection, that the municipality perform, or participate in 
        the performance of, the response actions at the site.
          ``(4) Joint ownership or operation.--A combination of 2 or 
        more municipalities that jointly owned or operated the facility 
        at the same time or during continuous operations under 
        municipal control, shall be considered a single owner/operator 
        for the purpose of calculating a settlement offer pursuant to 
        this subsection.
          ``(5) Waiver of claims.--The President may require, as a 
        condition of a settlement under this subsection, that the 
        municipality waive some or all of the claims or causes of 
        action that such municipality may have against other 
        potentially responsible parties relating to the site, including 
        claims for contribution under section 113.
          ``(6) Exceptions.--The President may decline to offer a 
        settlement under this subsection where the President 
        determines--
                  ``(A) there is only municipal solid waste or sewage 
                sludge at the facility;
                  ``(B) all other identified potentially responsible 
                parties are insolvent, defunct, or eligible for a 
                settlement under this subsection or under section 
                122(g);
                  ``(C) the municipality has failed to comply fully and 
                completely with information requests, administrative 
                subpoenas, or discovery requests issued by the United 
                States; or
                  ``(D) the municipality has impeded or is impeding, 
                through action or inaction, the performance of a 
                response action or a natural resource restoration with 
                respect to the facility.
          ``(7) Expiration of offer.--The President's obligation to 
        offer a settlement under this section shall expire if the 
        municipality to which the offer is made fails to accept such an 
        offer within a reasonable time period.''.
  (c) De Micromis Exemption.--Section 107 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is further 
amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(w) De Micromis Exemption.--
          ``(1) In general.--In the case of a facility or vessel listed 
        on the National Priorities List, no person shall be liable 
        under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(4) if no more than 110 gallons 
        or 200 pounds of materials containing hazardous substances at 
        the facility or vessel is attributable to such person, and the 
        acts on which liability is based took place before the date of 
        enactment of this subsection.
          ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in a case in 
        which the President determines that the material described in 
        paragraph (1) has contributed, or contributes, significantly to 
        the costs of response at the facility.''.
  (d) Ineligibility for Exemptions or Limitations.--Section 107 (42 
U.S.C. 9607) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(x) Ineligibility for Exemptions or Limitations.--
          ``(1) Impeding response or restoration.--The exemptions and 
        limitations set forth in subsections (t), (u), (v), and (w) and 
        sections 114(c) and 128 shall not apply to any person with 
        respect to a facility if such person impedes the performance of 
        a response action or natural resource restoration at the 
        facility.
          ``(2) Failure to respond to information request.--The 
        exemptions and limitations set forth in subsections (t), (u), 
        (v), and (w) and sections 114(c) and 128 shall not apply to any 
        person who--
                  ``(A) willfully fails to submit a complete and timely 
                response to an information request under section 
                104(e); or
                  ``(B) knowingly makes any false or misleading 
                material statement or representation in any such 
                response.
          ``(3) Failure to provide cooperation and facility access.--
        The limitation set forth in subsection (v) shall not apply to 
        any owner or operator of a facility who does not provide all 
        reasonable cooperation and facility access to persons 
        authorized to conduct response actions at the facility.''.
  (e) Exempt Party Funding; Concluded Actions; Oversight Costs.--
Section 107 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is further amended by adding at the end 
the following:
  ``(y) Exempt Party Funding.--
          ``(1) Exempt party funding.--Except as provided in paragraph 
        (2), the equitable share of liability under section 107(a) for 
        any release or threatened release of a hazardous substance from 
        a facility or vessel on the National Priorities List that is 
        extinguished through an exemption or limitation on liability 
        under subsection (t), (u), or (v) of this section, section 
        114(c), or section 128 shall be transferred to and assumed by 
        the Trust Fund.
          ``(2) Certain msw generators.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply 
        to the equitable share of liability of any person who would 
        have been liable under subsection (a)(3) or (4) but for the 
        exemption from liability under subsection (u)(3).
          ``(3) Source of funds.--Payments made by the Trust Fund or 
        work performed on behalf of the Trust Fund to meet the 
        obligations under paragraph (1) shall be funded from amounts 
        made available by section 111(a)(1).
  ``(z) Effect on Concluded Actions.--The exemptions from, and 
limitations on, liability provided under subsections (t), (u), (v), and 
(w) and sections 114(c) and 128 shall not affect any settlement or 
judgment approved by a United States District Court not later than 30 
days after the date of enactment of this subsection or any 
administrative action against a person otherwise covered by such 
exemption orlimitation that becomes effective not later than 30 days 
after such date of enactment.
  ``(aa) Limitation on Recovery of Oversight Costs.--
          ``(1) In general.--Costs of oversight of a response action 
        shall not be recoverable under this section from a person 
        referred to in paragraph (2) to the extent that such costs 
        exceed 10 percent of the costs of the response action.
          ``(2) Accounting of response costs.--Paragraph (1) shall 
        apply only to a person who provides the Administrator with an 
        accounting of the direct and indirect costs that the person 
        incurred in conducting the response action. The Administrator 
        may require an independent audit of the costs from such 
        person.''.
  (f) Conforming Amendment.--Section 113(f)(1) is amended by inserting 
``or section 107(y)'' after ``107(a)'' in the first place it appears.

SEC. 305. LIABILITY OF RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACTORS.

  (a) Extension of Negligence Standard.--Subsection (a) of section 119 
(42 U.S.C. 9619(a)) is amended as follows:
          (1) In paragraph (1) by striking ``title or under any other 
        Federal law'' and inserting ``title, under any other Federal 
        law, or under the law of any State or political subdivision of 
        a State''.
          (2) By adding at the end of paragraph (1) the following: 
        ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, this section shall 
        not apply in determining the liability of a response action 
        contractor under the law of any State or political subdivision 
        thereof if the State has enacted a law determining the 
        liability of a response action contractor.''.
          (3) By adding at the end of paragraph (2) the following: 
        ``Such conduct shall be evaluated based on the generally 
        accepted standards and practices in effect at the time and 
        place that the conduct occurred.''.
  (b) Extension of Indemnification Authority.--Section 119(c) (42 
U.S.C. 9619(c)) is amended by adding at the end of paragraph (1) the 
following: ``Any such agreement may apply to claims for negligence 
arising under Federal law or under the law of any State or political 
subdivision of a State.''.
  (c) Indemnification for Threatened Releases.--Section 119(c)(5) (42 
U.S.C. 9619(c)(5)) is amended in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``or 
threatened release'' after ``release'' each place it appears.

SEC. 306. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 122.

  (a) Final Covenants.--Section 122(f) (42 U.S.C. 9622(f)) is amended 
as follows:
          (1) By striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
          ``(1) Final covenants.--The President shall offer potentially 
        responsible parties who enter into settlement agreements that 
        are in the public interest a final covenant not to sue 
        concerning any liability to the United States under this Act, 
        including a covenant with respect to future liability, for 
        response actions or response costs addressed in the settlement, 
        if all of the following conditions are met:
                  ``(A) The settling party agrees to perform, or there 
                are other adequate assurances of the performance of, a 
                final remedial action authorized by the Administrator 
                for the release or threat of release that is the 
                subject of the settlement.
                  ``(B) The settlement agreement has been reached prior 
                to the commencement of litigation against the settling 
                party under section 106 or 107 of this Act with respect 
                to this facility.
                  ``(C) The settling party waives all contribution 
                rights against other potentially responsible parties at 
                the facility.
                  ``(D) The settling party (other than a small 
                business) pays a premium that compensates for the risks 
                of remedy failure; future liability resulting from 
                unknown conditions; and unanticipated increases in the 
                cost of any uncompleted response action, unless the 
                settling party is performing the response action. The 
                President shall have sole discretion to determine the 
                appropriate amount of any such premium, and such 
                determinations are committed to the President's 
                discretion. The President has discretion to waive or 
                reduce the premium payment for persons who demonstrate 
                an inability to pay such a premium.
                  ``(E) The remedial action does not rely on 
                institutional controls to ensure continued protection 
                of human health and the environment.
                  ``(F) The settlement is otherwise acceptable to the 
                United States.''.
          (2) In paragraph (2) by striking ``remedial'' each place it 
        appears and inserting ``response''.
          (3) By amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
          ``(3) Discretionary covenants.--For settlements under this 
        Act for which covenants under paragraph (1) are not available, 
        the President may, in his discretion, provide any person with a 
        covenant not to sue concerning any liability to the United 
        States under this Act, if the covenant not to sue is in the 
        public interest. Such covenants shall be subject to the 
        requirements of paragraph (5). The President may include any 
        conditions in such covenant not to sue, including the 
        additional condition referred to in paragraph (5). In 
        determining whether such conditions or covenants are in the 
        public interest, the President shall consider the nature and 
        scope of the commitment by the settling party under the 
        settlement, the effectiveness and reliability of the response 
        action, the nature of the risks remaining at the facility, the 
        strength of evidence, the likelihood of cost recovery, the 
        reliability of any response action or actions to restore, 
        replace, or acquire the equivalent of injured natural 
        resources, the extent to which performance standards are 
        included in the order or decree, the extent to which the 
        technology used in the response action is demonstrated to be 
        effective, and any other factors relevant to the protection of 
        human health and the environment.''.
          (4) By striking paragraph (4) and redesignating paragraphs 
        (5) and (6) as paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively.
          (5) In subparagraph (A) of paragraph (5) (as so 
        redesignated)--
                  (A) by striking ``remedial'' the first place it 
                appears and inserting ``response'';
                  (B) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting 
                ``paragraph (1) or (2)'';
                  (C) by striking ``de minimis settlements'' and 
                inserting ``de minimis and other expedited settlements 
                pursuant to subsection (g) of this section''; and
                  (D) by striking ``the President certifies under 
                paragraph (3) that remedial action has been completed 
                at the facility concerned'', and inserting ``that the 
                response action that is the subject of the settlement 
                agreement is selected''.
          (6) In subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) (as so 
        redesignated)--
                  (A) by striking ``In extraordinary circumstances, 
                the'' and inserting ``The'';
                  (B) by striking ``those referred to in paragraph (4) 
                and'';
                  (C) by striking ``if other terms,'' and inserting ``, 
                if the agreement containing the covenant not to sue 
                provides for payment of a premium to address possible 
                remedy failure or any releases that may result from 
                unknown conditions, and if other terms,''; and
                  (D) by adding at the end the following: ``The 
                President may waive or reduce the premium payment for 
                persons who demonstrate an inability to pay such a 
                premium.''.
  (b) Expedited Final Settlements.--Section 122 (42 U.S.C. 6922) is 
further amended as follows:
          (1) In subsection (g) by striking ``(g)'' and all that 
        follows through the period at the end of paragraph (1) and 
        inserting the following:
  ``(g) Expedited Final Settlement.--
          ``(1) Parties eligible for expedited settlement.--The 
        President shall, as promptly as possible, offer to reach a 
        final administrative or judicial settlement with potentially 
        responsible parties who, in the judgment of the President, meet 
        the following conditions for eligibility for an expedited 
        settlement in subparagraph (A) or (B):
                  ``(A) The potentially responsible party's individual 
                contribution to the release of hazardous substances at 
                the facility as an owner or operator, arranger for 
                disposal, or transporter for disposal is de minimis. 
                The contribution of hazardous substance to a facility 
                by a potentially responsible party is de minimis if 
                both of the following conditions are met:
                          ``(i) The contribution of materials 
                        containing hazardous substances that the 
                        potentially responsible party arranged or 
                        transported for treatment or disposal, or that 
                        were treated or disposed during the potentially 
                        responsible party's period of ownership or 
                        operation of the facility, is minimal in 
                        comparison to the total volume of materials 
                        containing hazardous substances at the 
                        facility. Such individual contribution is 
                        presumed to be minimal if it is not more than 1 
                        percent of the total volume of such materials, 
                        unless the Administrator identifies a different 
                        threshold based on site-specific factors.
                          ``(ii) Such hazardous substances do not 
                        present toxic or other hazardous effects that 
                        are significantly greater than those of other 
                        hazardous substances at the facility.
                  ``(B)(i) The potentially responsible party is a 
                natural person, a small business, or a municipality and 
                can demonstrate to the United States an inability or 
                limited ability to pay response costs. A party who 
                enters into a settlement pursuant to this subparagraph 
                shall be deemed to have resolved its liability under 
                this Act to the United States for all matters addressed 
                in the settlement.
                  ``(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the 
                following provisions apply:
                          ``(I) In the case of a small business, the 
                        President shall take into consideration the 
                        ability to pay of the business, if requested by 
                        the business. The term `ability to pay' means 
                        the President's reasonable expectation of the 
                        ability of the small business to pay its total 
                        settlement amount and still maintain its basic 
                        business operations. Such consideration shall 
                        include the business's overall financial 
                        condition and demonstrable constraints on its 
                        ability to raise revenues.
                          ``(II) Any business requesting such 
                        consideration shall promptly provide the 
                        President with all relevant information needed 
                        to determine the business's ability to pay.
                          ``(III) If the President determines that a 
                        small business is unable to pay its total 
                        settlement amount immediately, the President 
                        shall consider alternative payment methods as 
                        may be necessary or appropriate. The methods to 
                        be considered may include installment payments 
                        to be paid during a period of not to exceed 10 
                        years and the provision of in-kind services.
                  ``(iii) Any municipality which is a potentially 
                responsible party may submit for consideration by the 
                President an evaluation of the potential impact of the 
                settlement on essential services that the municipality 
                must provide, and the feasibility of making delayed 
                payments or payments over time. If a municipality 
                asserts that it has additional environmental 
                obligations besides its potential liability under this 
                Act, then the municipality may create a list of the 
                obligations, including an estimate of the costs of 
                complying with such obligations.
                  ``(iv) Any municipality which is a potentially 
                responsible party may establish an inability to pay 
                through an affirmative showing that such payment of its 
                liability under this Act would either--
                          ``(I) create a substantial demonstrable risk 
                        that the municipality would default on existing 
                        debt obligations, be forced into bankruptcy, be 
                        forced to dissolve, or be forced to make 
                        budgetary cutbacks that would substantially 
                        reduce current levels of protection of public 
                        health and safety; or
                          ``(II) necessitate a violation of legal 
                        requirements or limitations of general 
                        applicability concerning the assumption and 
                        maintenance of fiscal municipal obligations.
                  ``(v) This subparagraph does not limit or affect the 
                President's authority to evaluate any person's ability 
                to pay or to enter into settlements with any person 
                based on that person's inability to pay.''.
          (2) By striking paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (g) and 
        inserting the following:
          ``(2) Basis of determination.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Any person who enters into a 
                settlement pursuant to this subsection shall provide 
                any information requested by the President in 
                accordance with section 104(e). The determination of 
                whether a person is eligible for an expedited 
                settlement shall be made on the basis of all 
                information available to the President at the time the 
                determination is made.
                  ``(B) Decision of nonqualification; appeal.--
                          ``(i) Decision of nonqualification.--If the 
                        President determines that a party does not 
                        qualify for a settlement under this subsection, 
                        the President shall notify the party, in 
                        writing, within 90 days after the later of--
                                  ``(I) a request by the party for 
                                settlement under this subsection; or
                                  ``(II) the receipt of all information 
                                required by the President from the 
                                requesting party to make a 
                                determination under this paragraph,
                        stating the reasons for denial. If the 
                        President does not notify the party within such 
                        90-day period, the request is deemed denied.
                          ``(ii) Appeal.--
                                  ``(I) In general.--Notwithstanding 
                                any other provision of this Act, a 
                                denial of settlement under this 
                                subsection may be appealed.
                                  ``(II) Authority of environmental 
                                appeals board.--The Environmental 
                                Appeals Board of the Environmental 
                                Protection Agency is authorized to 
                                adjudicate denials of settlement under 
                                this subsection. Within 60 days of the 
                                date on which notice of denial is 
                                received, a denial of settlement may be 
                                appealed to the Board. The Board may 
                                consider whether the President has 
                                followed the provisions of this Act but 
                                shall not determine questions regarding 
                                liability.
                                  ``(III) Procedural rules.--In any 
                                appeal made pursuant to this clause, 
                                the documents submitted by the 
                                requester under clause (i)(II) are not 
                                confidential. If a requester agrees not 
                                to contest the share of liability under 
                                section 107 assigned by the President, 
                                the appeal shall include only a 
                                determination of the requester's 
                                ability to pay its allocated share.
                  ``(C) Judicial procedures.--In reviewing a proposed 
                settlement under this subsection, a United States 
                district court shall give deference to the President's 
                determination that the settlement is in the public 
                interest and meets applicable legal standards for court 
                approval. Any person who challenges a proposed 
                settlement bears the burden of proving that the 
                proposed settlement does not meet applicable legal 
                standards for court approval. If a settlement is 
                reached with a requester, the confidential information 
                supplied to the President under this subsection may be 
                submitted under seal to the court for in camera review.
          ``(3) Additional factors relevant to settlements with 
        municipalities.--In any settlement with a municipality pursuant 
        to this Act, the President may take additional equitable 
        factors into account in determining an appropriate settlement 
        amount, including the limited resources available to that 
        party, and any in-kind services that the party may provide to 
        support the response action at the facility. In considering the 
        value of in-kind services, the President shall consider the 
        fair market value of those services.''.
          (3) In subsection (g)(4) by striking ``$500,000'' and 
        inserting ``$2,000,000''.
          (4) By striking paragraph (5) of subsection (g) and inserting 
        the following:
          ``(5) Small business defined.--In this section, the term 
        `small business' refers to any business entity that employs no 
        more than 100 individuals and is a `small business concern' as 
        defined under the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et 
        seq.).''.
          (5) By adding at the end of subsection (g) the following:
          ``(7) Deadline.--If the President does not make a settlement 
        offer to a small business on or before the 180th day following 
        the date of the President's determination that such small 
        business is eligible for an expedited settlement under this 
        subsection, or on or before the 180th day following the date of 
        the enactment of this paragraph, whichever is later, such small 
        business shall have no further liability under this Act, unless 
        the failure to make a settlement offer on or before such 180th 
        day is due to circumstances beyond the control of the 
        President.
          ``(8) Premiums.--In any settlement under this Act with a 
        small business, the President may not require the small 
        business to pay any premium over and above the small business's 
        share of liability.''.
  (c) Municipality Defined.--Section 101 (42 U.S.C. 9601) is amended by 
inserting at the end the following:
          ``(39) The term `municipality' means a political subdivision 
        of a State, including a city, county, village, town, township, 
        borough, parish, school district, sanitation district, water 
        district, or other public entity performing local governmental 
        functions. The term also includes a natural person acting in 
        the capacity of an official, employee, or agent of any entity 
        referred to in the preceding sentence in the performance of 
        governmental functions.''.

SEC. 307. CLARIFICATION OF LIABILITY FOR RECYCLING TRANSACTIONS.

  (a) Recycling Transactions.--Title I (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 128. RECYCLING TRANSACTIONS.

  ``(a) Liability Clarification.--(1) As provided in subsections (b), 
(c), (d), and (e), a person who arranged for the recycling of 
recyclable material shall not be liable under paragraph (3) or (4) of 
section 107(a) with respect to such material.
  ``(2) A determination whether or not any person shall be liable under 
paragraph (3) or (4) of section 107(a) for any material that is not a 
recyclable material as that term is used in subsections (b), (c), (d), 
or (e) of this section shall be made, without regard to subsection (b), 
(c), (d), or (e) of this section.
  ``(b) Recyclable Material Defined.--For purposes of this section, the 
term `recyclable material' means scrap paper, scrap plastic, scrap 
glass, scrap textiles, scrap rubber, scrap metal, or spent lead-acid, 
spent nickel-cadmium, and other spent batteries, as well as minor 
amounts of material incident to or adhering to the scrap material as a 
result of its normal and customary use prior to becoming scrap; except 
that such term shall not include--
          ``(1) shipping containers of a capacity from 30 liters to 
        3,000 liters, whether intact or not, having any hazardous 
        substance (but not metal bits and pieces or hazardous substance 
        that form an integral part of the container) contained in or 
        adhering thereto; or
          ``(2) any item of material that contained PCBs at a 
        concentration in excess of 50 ppm or any new standard 
        promulgated pursuant to applicable Federal laws.
  ``(c) Transactions Involving Scrap Paper, Plastic, Glass, Textiles, 
or Rubber.--
          ``(1) In general.--Transactions involving recyclable 
        materials that consist of scrap paper, scrap plastic, scrap 
        glass, scrap textiles, or scrap rubber shall be deemed to be 
        arranging for recycling if the person who arranged for the 
        transaction (by selling recyclable material or otherwise 
        arranging for the recycling of recyclable material) can 
        demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all of the 
        following criteria were met at the time of the transaction:
                  ``(A) The recyclable material met a commercial 
                specification grade.
                  ``(B) A market existed for the recyclable material.
                  ``(C) A substantial portion of the recyclable 
                material was made available for use as a feedstock for 
                the manufacture of a new saleable product.
                  ``(D) The recyclable material could have been a 
                replacement or substitute for a virgin raw material, or 
                the product to be made from the recyclable material 
                could have been a replacement or substitute for a 
                product made, in whole or in part, from a virgin raw 
                material.
                  ``(E) For transactions occurring on or after the 90th 
                day following the date of the enactment of this 
                section, the person exercised reasonable care to 
                determine that the facility where the recyclable 
                material would be handled, processed, reclaimed, or 
                otherwise managed by another person (hereinafter in 
                this section referred to as a `consuming facility') was 
                in compliance with substantive (not procedural or 
                administrative) provisions of any Federal, State, or 
                local environmental law or regulation, or compliance 
                order or decree issued pursuant thereto, applicable to 
                the handling, processing, reclamation, storage, or 
                other management activities associated with the 
                recyclable material.
          ``(2) Reasonable care.--For purposes of this subsection, 
        `reasonable care' shall be determined using criteria that 
        include--
                  ``(A) the price paid in the recycling transaction;
                  ``(B) the ability of the person to detect the nature 
                of the consuming facility's operations concerning its 
                handling, processing, reclamation, or other management 
                activities associated with the recyclable material; and
                  ``(C) the result of inquiries made to the appropriate 
                Federal, State, or local environmental agency (or 
                agencies) regarding the consuming facility's past and 
                current compliance with substantive (not procedural or 
                administrative) provisions of any Federal, State, or 
                local environmental law or regulation, or compliance 
                order or decree issued pursuant thereto, applicable to 
                the handling, processing, reclamation, storage, or 
                other management activities associated with the 
                recyclable material.
          ``(3) Treatment of certain requirements as substantive 
        provisions.--For purposes of this subsection, a requirement to 
        obtain a permit applicable to the handling, processing, 
        reclamation, or other management activities associated with the 
        recyclable materials shall be deemed to be a substantive 
        provision.
  ``(d) Transactions Involving Scrap Metal.--
          ``(1) In general.--Transactions involving recyclable 
        materials that consist of scrap metal shall be deemed to be 
        arranging for recycling if the person who arranged for the 
        transaction (by selling recyclable material or otherwise 
        arranging for the recycling of recyclable material) can 
        demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time 
        of the transaction--
                  ``(A) the person met the criteria set forth in 
                subsection (c) with respect to the scrap metal;
                  ``(B) the person was in compliance with any 
                applicable regulations or standards regarding the 
                storage, transport, management, or other activities 
                associated with the recycling of scrap metal that the 
                Administrator issues under the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
                (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) after the date of the 
                enactment of this section and with regard to 
                transactions occurring after the effective date of such 
                regulations or standards; and
                  ``(C) the person did not melt the scrap metal prior 
                to the transaction.
          ``(2) Melting of scrap metal.--For purposes of paragraph 
        (1)(C), melting of scrap metal does not include the thermal 
        separation of 2 or more materials due to differences in their 
        melting points (referred to as `sweating').
          ``(3) Scrap metal defined.--In this subsection, the term 
        `scrap metal' means--
                  ``(A) bits and pieces of metal parts (such as bars, 
                turnings, rods, sheets, and wire) or metal pieces that 
                may be combined together with bolts or soldering (such 
                as radiators, scrap automobiles, and railroad box cars) 
                which when worn or superfluous can be recycled; and
                  ``(B) notwithstanding paragraph (1)(C), metal 
                byproducts of the production of copper and copper based 
                alloys that--
                          ``(i) are not the sole or primary products of 
                        a secondary production process,
                          ``(ii) are not produced separately from the 
                        primary products of a secondary production 
                        process,
                          ``(iii) are not and have not been stored in a 
                        pile or surface impoundment, and
                          ``(iv) are sold to another recycler that is 
                        not speculatively accumulating such byproducts,
        except for any scrap metal that the Administrator excludes from 
        this definition by regulation.
  ``(e) Transactions Involving Batteries.--
          ``(1) In general.--Transactions involving recyclable 
        materials that consist of spent lead-acid batteries, spent 
        nickel-cadmium batteries, or other spent batteries shall be 
        deemed to be arranging for recycling if the person who arranged 
        for the transaction (by selling recyclable material or 
        otherwise arranging for the recycling of recyclable material) 
        can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that at the 
        time of the transaction--
                  ``(A) the person met the criteria set forth in 
                subsection (c) with respect to the spent lead-acid 
                batteries, spent nickel-cadmium batteries, or other 
                spent batteries but did not recover the valuable 
                components of such batteries; and
                  ``(B)(i) with respect to transactions involving lead-
                acid batteries, the person was in compliance with 
                applicable Federal environmental regulations or 
                standards, and any amendments thereto, regarding the 
                storage, transport, management, or other activities 
                associated with the recycling of spent lead-acid 
                batteries;
                  ``(ii) with respect to transactions involving nickel-
                cadmium batteries, Federal environmental regulations or 
                standards were in effect regarding the storage, 
                transport, management, or other activities associated 
                with the recycling of spent nickel-cadmium batteries 
                and the person was in compliance with such regulations 
                or standards and any amendments thereto; or
                  ``(iii) with respect to transactions involving other 
                spent batteries, Federal environmental regulations or 
                standards were in effect regarding the storage, 
                transport, management, or other activities associated 
                with the recycling of such batteries and the person was 
                in compliance with such regulations or standards and 
                any amendments thereto.
          ``(2) Recovery of valuable battery components.--For purposes 
        of paragraph (1)(A), a person who, by contract, arranges or 
        pays for processing of batteries by an unrelated third person 
        and receives from such third person materials reclaimed from 
        such batteries shall not thereby be deemed to recover the 
        valuable components of such batteries.
  ``(f) Exclusions.--
          ``(1) In general.--The exemptions set forth in subsections 
        (c), (d), and (e) shall not apply if--
                  ``(A) the person had an objectively reasonable basis 
                to believe at the time of the recycling transaction 
                that--
                          ``(i) the recyclable material would not be 
                        recycled;
                          ``(ii) the recyclable material would be 
                        burned as fuel or for energy recovery or 
                        incineration; or
                          ``(iii) for transactions occurring on or 
                        before the 90th day following the date of the 
                        enactment of this section, the consuming 
                        facility was not in compliance with a 
                        substantive (not a procedural or 
                        administrative) provision of any Federal, 
                        State, or local environmental law orregulation, 
or compliance order or decree issued pursuant thereto, applicable to 
the handling, processing, reclamation, or other management activities 
associated with the recyclable material;
                  ``(B) the person had reason to believe that hazardous 
                substances had been added to the recyclable material 
                for purposes other than processing for recycling; or
                  ``(C) the person failed to exercise reasonable care 
                with respect to the management and handling of the 
                recyclable material (including adhering to customary 
                industry practices current at the time of the recycling 
                transaction designed to minimize, through source 
                control, contamination of the recyclable material by 
                hazardous substances).
          ``(2) Objectively reasonable basis.--For purposes of 
        paragraph (1)(A), an objectively reasonable basis for belief 
        shall be determined using criteria that include the size of the 
        person's business, customary industry practices (including 
        customary industry practices current at the time of the 
        recycling transaction designed to minimize, through source 
        control, contamination of the recyclable material by hazardous 
        substances), the price paid in the recycling transaction, and 
        the ability of the person to detect the nature of the consuming 
        facility's operations concerning its handling, processing, 
        reclamation, or other management activities associated with the 
        recyclable material.
          ``(3) Treatment of certain requirements as substantive 
        provisions.--For purposes of this subsection, a requirement to 
        obtain a permit applicable to the handling, processing, 
        reclamation, or other management activities associated with 
        recyclable material shall be deemed to be a substantive 
        provision.
  ``(g) Effect on Owner Liability.--Nothing in this section shall be 
deemed to affect the liability of a person under paragraph (1) or (2) 
of section 107(a).
  ``(h) Relationship to Liability Under Other Laws.--Nothing in this 
section shall affect--
          ``(1) liability under any other Federal, State, or local 
        statute or regulation promulgated pursuant to any such statute, 
        including any requirements promulgated by the Administrator 
        under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.); or
          ``(2) the ability of the Administrator to promulgate 
        regulations under any other statute, including the Solid Waste 
        Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).
  ``(i) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section 
shall be construed to--
          ``(1) affect any defenses or liabilities of any person to 
        whom subsection (a)(1) does not apply; or
          ``(2) create any presumption of liability against any person 
        to whom subsection (a)(1) does not apply.''.
  (b) Service Station Dealers.--Section 114(c) (42 U.S.C. 9614(c)) is 
amended as follows:
          (1) In paragraph (1)(B)--
                  (A) by striking ``authorities.'' and inserting 
                ``authorities that were in effect on the date of such 
                activity.''.
          (2) In paragraph (2)--
                  (A) by striking ``a service station dealer may 
                presume that'';
                  (B) by striking ``is not mixed with'' and inserting 
                ``is presumed to be not mixed with''; and
                  (C) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and 
                inserting the following:
                  ``(A) has been removed from the engine of a light 
                duty motor vehicle or household appliance by the owner 
                of such vehicle or appliance and is presented by such 
                owner to the dealer for collection, accumulation, and 
                delivery to an oil recycling facility; or
                  ``(B) has been removed from such an engine or 
                appliance by the dealer for collection, accumulation, 
                and delivery to an oil recycling facility.''.
          (3) By striking paragraph (4).

SEC. 308. ALLOCATION.

  Title I (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) is further amended by adding at the 
end the following new section:

``SEC. 129. ALLOCATION.

  ``(a) Purpose of Allocation.--The purpose of an allocation under this 
section is to determine an equitable allocation of the costs of a 
removal or remedial action at a facility on the National Priorities 
List that is eligible for an allocation under this section, including 
the share to be borne by the Trust Fund under subsection (i).
  ``(b) Eligible Response Action.--
          ``(1) In general.--A removal or remedial action is eligible 
        for an allocation under this section if the action is at a 
        facility on the National Priorities List and if--
                  ``(A) the performance of the removal or remedial 
                action is not the subject of an administrative order or 
                consent decree as of September 29, 1999;
                  ``(B) the President's estimate of the costs for 
                performing such removal or remedial action that have 
                not been recovered by the President as of September 29, 
                1999, exceeds $2,000,000; and
                  ``(C) there are response costs attributable to the 
                Fund share under subsection (i).
          ``(2) Excluded response actions.--
                  ``(A) Chain of title sites.--Notwithstanding 
                paragraph (1), a removal or remedial action is not 
                eligible for an allocation if--
                          ``(i) the facility is located on a contiguous 
                        area of real property under common ownership or 
                        control; and
                          ``(ii) all of the parties potentially liable 
                        for response costs are current or former owners 
                        or operators of such facility,
                unless the current owner of such facility is insolvent 
                or defunct.
                  ``(B) Current owner.--If the current owner of the 
                property on which the facility is located is not liable 
                under section 107(b)(2), the owner immediately 
                preceding such owner shall be considered to be the 
                current owner of the property for purposes of 
                subparagraph (A).
                  ``(C) Affiliated parties.--If the current owner is 
                affiliated with any other person through any direct or 
                indirect familial relationship or any contractual, 
                corporate, or financial relationship other than that 
                created by instruments by which title to the facility 
                is conveyed or financed or by a contract for the sale 
                of goods or services, and such other person is liable 
                for response costs at the facility, such other person's 
                assets may be considered assets of the current owner 
                when determining under subparagraph (A) whether the 
                current owner is insolvent or defunct.
  ``(c) Discretionary Allocation Process.--Notwithstanding subsection 
(b), the President may initiate an allocation under this section for 
any removal or remedial action at a facility listed on the National 
Priorities List and may provide a Fund share under subsection (i).
  ``(d) Allocation Process.--For each eligible removal or remedial 
action, the President shall ensure that a fair and equitable allocation 
of liability is undertaken at an appropriate time by a neutral 
allocator selected by agreement of the parties under such process or 
procedures as are agreed by the parties. An allocation under this 
section shall apply to subsequent removal or remedial actions for a 
facility unless the allocator determines that the allocation should 
address only one or more of such removal or remedial actions.
  ``(e) Early Offer of Settlement.--As soon as practicable and prior to 
the selection of an allocator, the President shall provide an estimate 
of the aggregate Fund share in accordance with subsection (i). The 
President shall offer to contribute to a settlement of liability for 
response costs on the basis of this estimate.
  ``(f) Representation of the United States and Affected States.--The 
Administrator or the Attorney General, as a representative of the Fund, 
and a representative of any State that is or may be responsible 
pursuant to section 104(c)(3) for any costs of a removal or remedial 
action that is the subject of an allocation shall be entitled to 
participate in the allocation proceeding to the same extent as any 
potentially responsible party.
  ``(g) Moratorium on Litigation.--
          ``(1) Moratorium on litigation.--No person may commence any 
        civil action or assert any claim under this Act seeking 
        recovery of any response costs, or contribution toward such 
        costs, in connection with any response action for which the 
        President has initiated an allocation under this section, until 
        150 days after issuance of the allocator's report or of a 
        report under this section.
          ``(2) Stay.--If any action or claim referred to in paragraph 
        (1) is pending on the date of enactment of this section or on 
        the date of initiation of an allocation, such action or claim 
        (including any pendant claim under State law over which a court 
        is exercising jurisdiction) shall be stayed until 150 days 
        after the issuance of the allocator's report or of a report 
        under this section, unless the court determines that a stay 
        will result in manifest injustice.
          ``(3) Tolling of limitations period.--Any applicable 
        limitations period with respect to actions subject to paragraph 
        (1) shall be tolled from the earlier of--
                  ``(A) the date of listing of the facility on the 
                National Priorities List, where such listing occurs 
                after the date of enactment of this section; or
                  ``(B) the commencement of the allocation process 
                pursuant to this section, until 180 days after the 
                President rejects or waives the President's right to 
                reject the allocator's report.
  ``(h) Effect on Principles of Liability.--The allocation process 
under this section shall not be construed to modify or affect in any 
way the principles of liability under this title as determined by the 
courts of the United States.
  ``(i) Fund Share.--For each removal or remedial action that is the 
subject of an allocation under this section, the allocator shall 
determine the share of response costs, if any, to be allocated to the 
Fund. The Fund share shall consist of the sum of following amounts:
          ``(1) The amount attributable to the aggregate share of 
        response costs that the allocator determines to be attributable 
        to parties who are not affiliated with any potentially 
        responsible party and whom the President determines are 
        insolvent or defunct.
          ``(2) The amount attributable to the difference in the 
        aggregate share of response costs that the allocator determines 
        to be attributable to parties who have resolved their liability 
        to the United States under section 122(g)(1)(B) (relating to 
        limited ability to pay settlements) for the removal or remedial 
        action and the amount actually assumed by those parties in any 
        settlement for the response action with the United States.
          ``(3) Except as provided in subsection (j), the amount 
        attributable to the aggregate share of response costs that the 
        allocator determines to be attributable to persons who are 
        entitled to an exemption from liability under subsection (t) or 
        (u) of section 107 or section 114(c) or 128 at a facility or 
        vessel on the National Priorities List.
          ``(4) The amount attributable to the difference in the 
        aggregate share of response costs that an allocator determines 
        to be attributable to persons subject to a limitation on 
        liability under section 107(u) or 107(v) and the amount 
        actually assumed by those parties in accordance with such 
        limitation.
  ``(j) Certain MSW Generators.--Notwithstanding subsection (i)(3), the 
allocator shall not attribute any response costs to any person who 
would have been liable under section 107(a)(3) or 107(a)(4) but for the 
exemption from liability under section 107(u)(3).
  ``(k) Unattributable Share.--The share attributable to the aggregate 
share of response costs incurred to respond to materials containing 
hazardous substances for which no generator, transporter, or owner or 
operator at the time of disposal or placement, can be identified shall 
be divided pro rata among the potentially responsible parties and the 
Fund share determined under subsection (i).
  ``(l) Expedited Allocation.--At the request of the potentially 
responsible parties or the United States, to assist in reaching 
settlement, the allocator may, prior to reaching a final allocation of 
response costs among all parties, first provide an estimate of the 
aggregate Fund share, in accordance with subsection (i), and an 
estimate of the aggregate share of the potentially responsible parties.
  ``(m) Settlement Before Allocation Determination.--
          ``(1) Settlement of all removal or remedial costs.--A group 
        of potentially responsible parties may submit to the allocator 
        a private allocation for any removal or remedial action that is 
        within the scope of the allocation. If such private allocation 
        meets each of the following criteria, the allocator shall 
        promptly adopt it as the allocation report:
                  ``(A) The private allocation is a binding allocation 
                of at least 80 percent of the past, present, and future 
                costs of the removal or remedial action.
                  ``(B) The private allocation does not allocate any 
                share to any person who is not a signatory to the 
                private allocation.
                  ``(C) The signatories to the private allocation waive 
                their rights to seek recovery of removal or remedial 
                costs or contribution under this Act with respect to 
                the removal or remedial action from any other party at 
                the facility.
          ``(2) Other settlements.--The President may use the authority 
        under section 122(g) to enter into settlement agreements with 
        respect to any response action that is the subject of an 
        allocation at any time.
  ``(n) Settlements Based on Allocations.--
          ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the President 
        shall accept an offer of settlement of liability for response 
        costs for a removal or remedial action that is the subject of 
        an allocation if--
                  ``(A) the offer is made within 90 days after issuance 
                of the allocator's report; and
                  ``(B) the offer is based on the share of response 
                costs specified by the allocator and such other terms 
                and conditions (other than the allocated share of 
                response costs) as are acceptable to the President.
          ``(2) Rejection of allocation report.--The requirement of 
        paragraph (1) to accept an offer of settlement shall not apply 
        if the Administrator and the Attorney General reject the 
        allocation report.
  ``(o) Reimbursement for UAO Performance.--
          ``(1) Reimbursement.--The Administrator shall enter into 
        agreements to provide mixed funding to reimburse parties who 
        satisfactorily perform, pursuant to an administrative order 
        issued under section 106, a removal or remedial action eligible 
        for an allocation under subsection (b) for the reasonable and 
        necessary costs of such removal or remedial action to the 
        extent that--
                  ``(A) the costs incurred by a performing party exceed 
                the share of response costs assigned to such party in 
                an allocation that is performed in accordance with the 
                provisions of this section;
                  ``(B) the allocation is not rejected by the United 
                States; and
                  ``(C) the performing party, in consideration for such 
                reimbursement--
                          ``(i) agrees not to contest liability for all 
                        response costs not inconsistent with the 
                        National Contingency Plan to the extent of the 
                        allocated share;
                          ``(ii) receives no covenant not to sue; and
                          ``(iii) waives contribution rights against 
                        all parties who are potentially responsible 
                        parties for the response action, as well as 
                        waives any rights to challenge any settlement 
                        the President enters into with any other 
                        potentially responsible party.
          ``(2) Offset.--Any reimbursement provided to a performing 
        party under this subsection shall be subject to equitable 
        offset or reduction by the Administrator upon a finding of a 
        failure to perform any aspect of the remedy in a proper and 
        timely manner.
          ``(3) Time of payment.--Any reimbursement to a performing 
        party under this subsection shall be paid after work is 
        completed, but no sooner than completion of the construction of 
        the remedial action and, subject to paragraph (5), without any 
        increase for interest or inflation.
          ``(4) Limit on amount of reimbursement.--The amount of 
        reimbursement under this subsection shall be further limited as 
        follows:
                  ``(A) Performing parties who waive their right to 
                challenge remedy selection at the end of the moratorium 
                following allocation shall be entitled to reimbursement 
                of actual dollars spent by each such performing party 
                in excess of the party's share and attributable by the 
                allocator to the Fund share under subsection (i).
                  ``(B) Performing parties who retain their right to 
                challenge the remedy shall be reimbursed (i) for actual 
                dollars spent by each such performing party, but not to 
                exceed 90 percent of the Fund share, or (ii) an amount 
                equal to 80 percent of the Fund share if the Fund share 
                is less than 20 percent of responsibility at the site.
          ``(5) Reimbursement of shares attributable to other 
        parties.--If reimbursement is made under this subsection to a 
        performing party for work in excess of the performing party's 
        allocated share that is not attributable to the Fund share, the 
        performing party shall be entitled to all interest (prejudgment 
        and post judgment, whether recovered from a party or earned in 
        a site account) that has accrued on money recovered by the 
        United States from other parties for such work at the time 
        construction of the remedy is completed.
          ``(6) Reimbursement claims.--The Administrator shall require 
        that all claims for reimbursement be supported by--
                  ``(A) documentation of actual costs incurred; and
                  ``(B) sufficient information to enable the 
                Administrator to determine whether such costs were 
                reasonable.
          ``(7) Independent auditing.--The Administrator may require 
        independent auditing of any claim for reimbursement.
  ``(p) Post-Settlement Litigation.--Following expiration of the 
moratorium periods under subsection (g), the United States may request 
the court to lift the stay and proceed with an action under this Act 
against any potentially responsible party that has not resolved its 
liability to the United States following an allocation, seeking to 
recover response costs that are not recovered through settlements with 
other persons. All such actions shall be governed by the principles of 
liability under this Act as determined by the courts of the United 
States.
  ``(q) Response Costs.--
          ``(1) Description.--The following costs shall be considered 
        response costs for purposes of this Act:
                  ``(A) Costs incurred by the United States and the 
                court of implementing the allocation procedure set 
                forth in this section, including reasonable fees and 
                expenses of the allocator.
                  ``(B) Costs paid from amounts made available under 
                section 111(a)(1).
          ``(2) Settled parties.--Any costs of allocation described in 
        paragraph (1)(A) and incurred after a party has settled all of 
        its liability with respect to the response action or actions 
        that are the subject of the allocation may not be recovered 
        from such party.
  ``(r) Federal, State, and Local Agencies.--All Federal, State, and 
local governmental departments, agencies, or instrumentalities that are 
identified as potentially responsible parties shall be subject to, and 
be entitled to the benefits of, the allocation process and allocation 
determination provided by this section to the same extent as any other 
party.
  ``(s) Source of Funds.--Payments made by the Trust Fund, or work 
performed on behalf of the Trust Fund, to meet obligations incurred by 
the President under this section to pay a Fund share or to reimburse 
parties for costs incurred in excess of the parties' allocated shares 
under subsections (e), (m), (n), or (o) shall be funded from amounts 
made available by section 111(a)(1).
  ``(t) Savings Provisions.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, 
nothing in this section shall limit or affect the following:
          ``(1) The President's--
                  ``(A) authority to exercise the powers conferred by 
                sections 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, or 122;
                  ``(B) authority to commence an action against a party 
                where there is a contemporaneous filing of a judicial 
                consent decree resolving that party's liability;
                  ``(C) authority to file a proof of claim or take 
                other action in a proceeding under title 11, United 
                States Code;
                  ``(D) authority to file a petition to preserve 
                testimony under Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
                Procedure; or
                  ``(E) authority to take action to prevent dissipation 
                of assets, including actions under chapter 176 of title 
                28, United States Code.
          ``(2) The ability of any person to resolve its liability at a 
        facility to any other person at any time before or during the 
        allocation process.
          ``(3) The validity, enforceability, finality, or merits of 
        any judicial or administrative order, judgment, or decree 
        issued, signed, lodged, or entered, before the date of 
        enactment of this paragraph with respect to liability under 
        this Act, or authority to modify any such order, judgment, or 
        decree with regard to the response action addressed in the 
        order, judgment or decree.
          ``(4) The validity, enforceability, finality, or merits of 
        any pre-existing contract or agreement relating to any 
        allocation of responsibility or any indemnity for, or sharing 
        of, any response costs under this Act.''.

SEC. 309. STANDARD FOR CLEANUP BY DRY CLEANERS.

  (a) General Rule.--The maximum level of remediation for a dry 
cleaning solvent in the soil, surface water, groundwater, and other 
environmental media (other than for groundwater or surface water 
actually used as a drinking water source) that any person may require 
of a dry cleaner shall be equal to the soil screening level for 
inhalation for that dry cleaning solvent determined in accordance with 
the Soil Screening Guidance Document.
  (b) Default Maximum Remediation Level.--Until a maximum remediation 
level is determined for a facility in accordance with subsection (a), 
the maximum level of remediation of that facility for a dry cleaning 
solvent in the soil, surface water, groundwater, and other 
environmental media (other than for groundwater or surface water 
actually used as a drinking water source) that any person may require 
of a dry cleaner shall be equal to the generic soil screening level for 
inhalation for that dry cleaning solvent as set forth in the Soil 
Screening Guidance Document.
  (c) Applicability to CERCLA.--The applicable requirements for dry 
cleaning solvents under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 shall be the remediation 
standards established by subsections (a) and (b).
  (d) Changes to Standards.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency may, by rule, change the standards of subsections (a) 
and (b) in accordance with the provisions of any revised Soil Screening 
Guidance Document published after the date of enactment of this Act if 
necessary to protect human health or the environment.
  (e) Nonpreemption.--Nothing in this section--
          (1) shall preempt or otherwise prevent the Federal Government 
        or a State government from remediating soil, surface water, 
        groundwater, or other environmental media to a level other than 
        the maximum remediation level determined in accordance with 
        this section if the government determines, on a site-by-site 
        basis, that a more stringent standard is necessary to protect 
        human health or the environment; or
          (2) shall alter or affect the Federal drinking water 
        standards for public consumption under title XIV of the Public 
        Health Service Act.
  (f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the following 
definitions apply:
          (1) Dry cleaner.--The term ``dry cleaner'' means a person who 
        was or is engaged in dry cleaning or in supplying goods or 
        equipment to such a person or the owner of land on or a 
        facility in which a person was or is conducting dry cleaning.
          (2) Person.--The term ``person'' includes a governmental 
        entity.
          (3) Soil screening guidance document.--The term ``Soil 
        Screening Guidance Document'' means the Soil Screening 
        Guidance: User's Guide (EPA/540/R-96/018) and the Soil 
        Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document (EPA/540/R-
        95/128) developed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

                        TITLE IV--PUBLIC HEALTH

SEC. 401. PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES.

  (a) Disease Registry and Medical Care Providers.--Section 104(i)(1) 
(42 U.S.C. 9604(i)(1)) is amended as follows:
          (1) By striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
          ``(A) in cooperation with the States, for scientific purposes 
        and public health purposes, establish and maintain a national 
        registry of persons exposed to toxic substances;''.
          (2) By striking the last sentence and inserting the 
        following:
``In cases of public health emergencies, exposed persons shall be 
eligible for referral to licensed or accredited health care 
providers.''.
  (b) Substance Profiles.--Section 104(i)(3) (42 U.S.C. 9604(i)(3)) is 
amended as follows:
          (1) By inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)''.
          (2) By redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
        clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively.
          (3) By striking ``Any toxicological profile or revision 
        thereof'' and all that follows through ``parties.'' and 
        inserting the following:
  ``(B) Any toxicological profile or revision thereof shall reflect the 
Administrator of ATSDR's assessment of all relevant toxicological 
testing which has been peer reviewed. The profiles prepared under this 
paragraph shall be for those substances highest on the list of 
priorities under paragraph (2) for which profiles have not previously 
been prepared or for substances not on the list but which have been 
found at facilities for which there has been a response action under 
this Act and which have been determined by ATSDR to be of health 
concern. Profiles required under this paragraph shall be revised and 
republished, as appropriate, based on scientific development and shall 
be provided to the States, including State health departments, tribal 
health officials, and local health departments, and made available to 
other interested parties.''.
  (c) Determining Health Effects.--Section 104(i)(5)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
9604(i)(5)(A)) is amended as follows:
          (1) By striking ``designed to determine the health effects 
        (and techniques for development of methods to determine such 
        health effects) of such substance.'' and inserting ``conducted 
        directly or by means such as cooperative agreements and grants 
        with appropriate public and nonprofit institutions. The 
        research shall be designed to determine the health effects of 
        the substance and techniques for development of methods to 
        determine such health effects.''.
          (2) By redesignating clause (iv) as clause (v).
          (3) By striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii).
          (4) By inserting after clause (iii) the following:
          ``(iv) laboratory and other studies to develop innovative 
        techniques for predicting organ-specific, site-specific, and 
        system-specific acute and chronic toxicity; and''.
  (d) Public Health at NPL Facilities.--
          (1) Preliminary public health assessments.--Section 104(i)(6) 
        (42 U.S.C. 9604(i)(6)) is amended by striking ``(6)(A)'' and 
        all that follows through the period at the end of subparagraph 
        (A) and inserting the following:
  ``(6)(A)(i) The Administrator of ATSDR shall perform a preliminary 
public health assessment or health consultation for each facility on 
the National Priorities List, including those facilities owned by any 
department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, and those 
sites that are the subject of a petition under subparagraph (B). The 
preliminary public health assessment or health consultation shall be 
commenced as soon as practicable after each facility is proposed for 
inclusion on the National Priorities List or the Administrator of ATSDR 
accepts a petition for a public health assessment. If the Administrator 
of ATSDR, in consultation with local public health officials, 
determines that the results of a preliminary public health assessment 
or health consultation indicate the need for a public health 
assessment, the Administrator of the ATSDR shall conduct the public 
health assessment of those sites posing a health hazard. The results of 
the public health assessment should be considered in selecting the 
remedial action for the facility.
  ``(ii) The Administrator of ATSDR, in cooperation with States, shall 
design public health assessments that take into account the needs and 
conditions of the affected community.
  ``(iii) The Administrator of EPA shall place highest priority on 
facilities with releases of hazardous substances which result in actual 
ongoing human exposures at levels of public health concern or adverse 
health effects as identified in a public health assessment conducted by 
the Administrator of ATSDR or are reasonably anticipated based on 
currently known facts.''.
          (2) Strategies for obtaining data; community involvement.--
        Section 104(i)(6)(D) (42 U.S.C. 9604(i)(6)(D)) is amended as 
        follows:
                  (A) By inserting ``(i)'' after ``(D)''.
                  (B) By adding at the end the following:
  ``(ii) The President and the Administrator of ATSDR shall develop 
strategies to obtain relevant on-site and off-site characterization 
data for use in the public health assessment. The President shall, to 
the maximum extent practicable, provide the Administrator of ATSDR with 
the data and information necessary to make public health assessments 
sufficiently prior to the choice of remedial actions to allow the 
Administrator of ATSDR to complete these assessments.
  ``(iii) Where appropriate, the Administrator of ATSDR shall provide 
to the President, as soon as practicable after site discovery, 
recommendations for sampling environmental media for hazardous 
substances of public health concern. To the extent feasible, the 
President shall incorporate such recommendations into the President's 
site investigation activities.
  ``(iv) In order to improve community involvement in public health 
assessments, the Administrator of ATSDR shall carry out each of the 
following duties:
          ``(I) Collect from community advisory groups, from State and 
        local public health authorities, and from other sources in 
        communities affected or potentially affected by releases of 
        hazardous substances data regarding exposure, relevant human 
        activities, and other factors.
          ``(II) Design public health assessments that take into 
        account the needs and conditions of the affected community. 
        Community-based research models, local expertise, and local 
        health resources should be used in designing the public health 
        assessment. In developing such designs, emphasis shall be 
        placed on collection of actual exposure data, and sources of 
        multiple exposure shall be considered.''.
          (3) Conforming amendments.--So much of section 104(i) (42 
        U.S.C. 9604(i)) as is not added by this Act is amended by 
        inserting ``public'' before ``health assessment'' each place it 
        appears and before ``health assessments'' each place it 
        appears.
  (e) Health Studies.--Section 104(i)(7) (42 U.S.C. 9604(i)(7)) is 
amended by striking ``(7)(A)'' and all that follows through the period 
at the end of subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
  ``(7)(A) Whenever in the judgment of the Administrator of ATSDR it is 
appropriate on the basis of the results of a public health assessment 
or on the basis of other appropriate information, the Administrator of 
ATSDR shall conduct a human health study of exposure or other health 
effects for selected groups or individuals in order to determine the 
desirability of conducting full scale epidemiologic or other health 
studies of the entire exposed population.''.
  (f) Distribution of Materials to Health Professionals and Medical 
Centers.--Section 104(i)(14) (42 U.S.C. 9604(i)(14)) is amended to read 
as follows:
  ``(14) Educational Materials.--In implementing this subsection and 
other health-related provisions of this Act the Administrator of ATSDR, 
in cooperation with the States, shall--
          ``(A) assemble, develop as necessary, and distribute to the 
        State and local health officials, tribes, medical colleges, 
        physicians, nursing institutions, nurses, and other health 
        professionals and medical centers appropriate educational 
        materials (including short courses) on the medical 
        surveillance, screening, and methods of prevention, diagnosis, 
        and treatment of injury or disease related to exposure to 
        hazardous substances (giving priority to those listed under 
        paragraph (2)) through means the Administrator of ATSDR 
        considers appropriate; and
          ``(B) assemble, develop as necessary, and distribute to the 
        general public and to at-risk populations appropriate 
        educational materials and other information on human health 
        effects of hazardous substances.''.
  (g) Grants, Contracts, and Community Assistance Activities.--Section 
104(i)(15) (42 U.S.C. 9604(i)(15)) is amended as follows:
          (1) By striking ``(15)'' and inserting the following: ``(15) 
        Grants, Contracts, and Community Assistance.--(A)''.
          (2) In the first sentence by striking ``cooperative 
        agreements with States (or political subdivisions thereof)'' 
        and inserting ``grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts 
        with States (or political subdivisions thereof), other 
        appropriate public authorities, public or private institutions, 
        colleges, universities, and professional associations''.
          (3) By adding at the end the following:
  ``(B) When a public health assessment is conducted at a facility on 
the National Priorities List, or a facility is being evaluated for 
inclusion on the National Priorities List, the Administrator of ATSDR 
may provide the assistance specified in this paragraph to public or 
private nonprofit entities, individuals, and community-based groups 
that may be affected by the release or threatened release of hazardous 
substances in the environment.
  ``(C) The Administrator of ATSDR, pursuant to the grants, cooperative 
agreements, and contracts referred to in this paragraph, is authorized 
and directed to provide, where appropriate, diagnostic services, health 
data registries, and preventative public health education to 
communities affected by the release of hazardous substances.''.
  (h) Peer Review Committee.--Section 104(i) (42 U.S.C. 9604(i)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(19) Peer Review Committee.--The Administrator of ATSDR shall 
establish an external peer review committee of qualified health 
scientists who serve for fixed periods and meet periodically to--
          ``(A) provide guidance on initiation of studies;
          ``(B) assess the quality of study reports funded by the 
        agency; and
          ``(C) provide guidance on effective and objective risk 
        characterization and communication.
The peer review committee may include additional specific experts 
representing a balanced group of stakeholders on an ad hoc basis for 
specific issues. Meetings of the committee should be open to the 
public.''.
  (i) Conforming Amendments.--Section 104(i) is further amended as 
follows:
          (1) In paragraph (16) by inserting ``Personnel.--'' after 
        ``(16)''.
          (2) In paragraph (17) by inserting ``Authorities.--'' after 
        ``(17)''.
          (3) In paragraph (18) by inserting ``Pollutants and 
        Contaminants.--'' after ``(18)''.

SEC. 402. INDIAN HEALTH PROVISIONS.

  Section 104(i) (42 U.S.C. 9604(i)) is further amended as follows:
          (1) In paragraph (1) by inserting ``the Director of the 
        Indian Health Service,'' after ``the Secretary of 
        Transportation,''.
          (2) In paragraph (5)(A) by inserting ``and the Director of 
        the Indian Health Service'' after ``EPA''.
          (3) In paragraph (6)(C) by inserting ``where low population 
        density is not used as an excluding risk factor'' after 
        ``health appears highest''.
          (4) By adding at the end of paragraph (6)(E) the following: 
        ``If the Administrator of ATSDR or the Administrator of EPA 
        does not act on the recommendations of the State, the 
        Administrator of ATSDR or EPA must respond in writing to the 
        State or tribe as to why the Administrator of ATSDR or EPA has 
        not acted on the recommendations.''.
          (5) In paragraph (6)(F)--
                  (A) by striking ``and'' after ``emissions,''; and
                  (B) by inserting ``, and any other pathways resulting 
                from subsistence activities'' after ``food chain 
                contamination''.
          (6) By striking the period at the end of paragraph (6)(G) and 
        inserting the following: ``, and may give special 
        consideration, where appropriate, to any practices of the 
        affected community that may result in increased exposure to 
        hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, such as 
        subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering.''.

SEC. 403. HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM.

  Section 105(c) (42 U.S.C. 9605(c)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
          ``(5) Risk prioritization.--In setting priorities under 
        subsection (a)(8), the President shall place highest priority 
        on facilities with releases of hazardous substances which 
        result in actual ongoing human exposures at levels of public 
        health concern or demonstrated adverse health effects as 
        identified in a public health assessment conducted by the 
        Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry or are 
        reasonably anticipated based on currently known facts.
          ``(6) Prior response action.--Any evaluation under this 
        section shall take into account all prior response actions 
        taken at a facility.''.

SEC. 404. DISCLOSURE OF RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AT SUPERFUND 
                    SITES.

  Section 117 (42 U.S.C. 9617) is amended as follows:
          (1) In the section heading by inserting ``AND DISCLOSURE'' 
        after ``PUBLIC PARTICIPATION''.
          (2) By adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(f) Disclosure of Releases of Hazardous Substances at Superfund 
Sites.--
          ``(1) Information.--The President shall make the following 
        information available to the public as provided in paragraph 
        (2) about releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and 
        contaminants from facilities that have been listed or proposed 
        for listing on the National Priorities List at the following 
        stages of a response action:
                  ``(A) Removal actions.--A best estimate of the 
                releases from the facility before the removal action is 
                taken, during the period of the removal action, and 
                that are expected after the removal action is 
                completed.
                  ``(B) Remedial investigation.--As part of the 
                requirements for the remedial investigation, a summary 
                and best estimate of the releases from the facility.
                  ``(C) Feasibility study.--As part of the feasibility 
                study, a summary and best estimate of the releases that 
                are expected both during and at the conclusion of each 
                remedial option that is considered.
                  ``(D) Record of decision.--As part of the record of 
                decision, a summary and best estimate of the releases 
                that are expected both during and at the conclusion of 
                implementation of the selected remedy.
                  ``(E) Construction completion.--After construction of 
                the remedy is complete and during operation and 
                maintenance, a best estimate of the releases from the 
                facility.
          ``(2) Availability of information.--Information provided 
        under this subsection shall be made available to the residents 
        of the communities surrounding the covered facility, to police, 
        fire, and emergency medical personnel in the surrounding 
        communities, and to the general public. To improve access to 
        such information by Federal, State, and local governments and 
        researchers, such information may be provided to the general 
        public through electronic or other means. Such information 
        shall be expressed in common units and a common format.
          ``(3) Source of information and methods of collection.--
        Nothing in this subsection shall require the collection of any 
        additional data beyond that already collected as part of the 
        response action. If data are not readily available, the 
        information provided under this subsection shall be based on 
        best estimates.''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 2580, the Land Recycling Act of 1999, 
is to promote the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields and 
to make the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly known as ``Superfund''; 42 
U.S.C. Sec. 9601 et seq.) fairer and more efficient.
    As reported, H.R. 2580 contains four titles. The first 
title is devoted to the cleanup and redevelopment of abandoned 
or underutilized industrial or commercial properties where the 
fear of actual or potential environmental contamination 
complicates redevelopment. Such sites are commonly known as 
``brownfields.'' The legislation promotes brownfields 
redevelopment in several ways: (1) by providing finality with 
respect to voluntary environmental cleanups conducted pursuant 
to State law; (2) by streamlining the permitting bureaucracy 
that can apply to State cleanups; (3) by exempting certain 
future or current innocent owners of land from liability under 
CERCLA; (4) by amending the remedy selection provisions of 
current law to expedite cleanups; and (5) by providing certain 
grants and loans.
    Title II of the bill provides a stable funding source for 
the Superfund program for five years. In addition, it provides 
for $250 million in mandatory spending during this period to 
pay for the liability relief provided in Title III of the bill.
    Title III addresses liability matters. The provisions 
primarily focus on exempting certain parties from liability, 
including small businesses, recyclers, and those who generated 
municipal solid waste. In doing so, the bill makes clear that, 
with certain exceptions, this liability is transferred to the 
Superfund Trust Fund, and not to parties that remain liable at 
Superfund sites. This is accomplished largely through the 
establishment of an allocation system, under which the 
liability of parties at Superfund sites is determined and 
settled outside of the Federal court system.
    Title IV of the bill addresses public health matters.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

                          A. Short Background

    In 1980, Congress enacted CERCLA to clean up toxic waste 
sites across the country. Under CERCLA, Congress created a $1.6 
billion trust fund (the ``Superfund'') as a source of funding 
for the Superfund program, and established a retroactive, 
strict, joint and several liability scheme to identify 
``potentially responsible parties'' (PRPs) to pay for the 
cleanups. It also provided the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) with authority to clean up sites, and provided EPA and 
third parties with authority to sue others to recover cleanup 
costs.
    In 1986, Congress enacted the Superfund Amendments and 
Reauthorization Act (SARA), amending CERCLA to establish, among 
other things, detailed rules for remedy selection cleanup 
standards for Superfund sites and providing more specific 
cleanup standards. SARA also allowed EPA to pay a portion of 
the costs of cleaning up a site out of the Trust Fund, and gave 
EPA the authority to establish non-binding allocations of 
responsibility. In 1990, Congress extended Superfund's 
authorization and taxing authorities as part of the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508 
Sec. 6301, amending CERCLA Sec. 111 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9611)). The 
authorization of appropriations was extended through September 
30, 1994, and taxes were provided through December 31, 1995. 
Notwithstanding the expiration of these authorizations, 
Congress has continued to fund the Superfund program out of the 
excess revenues that had built up in the Superfund Trust Fund. 
Through Fiscal Year 1999, Congress appropriated $20.6 billion 
for Superfund.

                B. Overbroad Superfund Liability Scheme

1. A Nightmarish web of litigation

    Superfund's liability scheme has generated enormous amounts 
of litigation and transaction costs. This scheme has been 
described as unfair because it holds parties jointly and 
severally liable for the costs of site cleanups, even where a 
party did not cause a significant portion of the contamination 
at a site. When it enacted CERCLA in 1980, the Conference 
Committee rejected the work of the House Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce directing that common 
principles of causation should govern the Superfund liability 
scheme. At that time, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce recommended:

          The Committee intends that the usual common law 
        principles of causation, including those of proximate 
        causation, should govern the determination of whether a 
        defendant ``caused or contributed'' to a release or 
        threatened release. Whether a person caused or 
        contributed to a release is a factual inquiry to be 
        determined with reference to the particular 
        circumstances of the case. Thus, for instance, the mere 
        existence of a generator's or transporter's waste in a 
        site with respect to which cleanup costs are incurred 
        would not, in and of itself, result in liability. * * * 
        The Committee intends that for liability to attach 
        under this section, the plaintiff must demonstrate a 
        causal or contributory nexus between the acts of the 
        defendant and the conditions which necessitated the 
        response action. (H. Rpt. 96-1016, 96th Cong., 2nd 
        Sess., pt. 1, at 33-34 (1980))

    However, the enacted liability scheme adopted the Senate 
approach, eliminating the requirement for proximate causation. 
In hindsight, this decision paved the way for Superfund to be 
one of the most costly and litigious Federal environmental 
statutes ever devised.
    Because Superfund's liability scheme is strict, joint and 
several, to hold someone liable for cleanup costs, all that the 
government must show is that a person falls in one of the 
categories of liable parties under Superfund (owner, operator, 
generator, or transporter) at a facility at which there has 
been a release of hazardous substances. When two or more 
persons acting independently caused a distinct or single harm 
for which there is a reasonable basis for division according to 
the contribution of each, each is subject to liability only for 
the portion of the total harm that he had himself caused.
    CERCLA provides EPA authority to either fund a cleanup 
under section 104 or compel potentially responsible parties 
(PRPs) to take cleanup action at a site. Either EPA or the PRPs 
initially involved in the cleanup can use the provisions of 
sections 107 and 113 of CERCLA to seek contribution in court 
from other PRPs. The definition of PRPs under CERCLA is 
sweeping and the liability scheme contains limited protection 
for defendants. There is no need to find a party negligent. 
There is no need to find that a party caused pollution. There 
is no need to find that a party's contribution of waste is a 
significant reason for the costs of the cleanup. There is no 
statute of limitations related to the activity that triggers 
liability. A single party can be held liable for the entire 
cost of the cleanup regardless of the amount he or she 
contributed. The liability scheme applies retroactively and, 
thus, creates liability on parties who had no knowledge that 
would have allowed them to alter their actions. Moreover, by 
the time Superfund law suits are filed, the original party that 
operated the site or generated the waste may no longer exist. 
Under these circumstances, courts are often confronted with the 
question of whether, and in what situation, inheritors or 
purchasers of assets of the original party should bear costs 
under the Superfund retroactive liability scheme.
    Ultimately, if a party is an owner or operator of a 
facility placed on the National Priorities List (NPL), that 
party is potentially liable if hazardous substances have been 
released on the property. If a party is a generator or 
transporter, that party is potentially liable if they sent any 
amount of material that meets the definition of a hazardous 
substance to a facility, and most courts have not required a 
causal link between that party's activities and the harm 
alleged. Examples of parties that have been swept into this 
liability web are small businesses and municipalities; parties 
that disposed of ordinary garbage; parties that sent material 
to recycling facilities; prospective purchasers of property; 
property owners who own land under which contaminants have 
migrated; parties that only contributed small quantities of 
waste to a site; charitable organizations; and cleanup 
contractors.
    The net result has been 19 years of controversy and waves 
of litigation. A typical situation involves EPA suing a smaller 
number of PRPs to begin cleanup activities. Those PRPs then sue 
numerous other PRPs, regardless of size or significance to the 
cleanup, for contribution of funds. Many PRPs can then sue 
insurance companies over coverage for retroactive liability. 
This scenario often occurs at both the Federal and State 
levels.

2. EPA enforcement policy and insufficient administrative reform

    In 1989, to advance its goal of increasing the number of 
cleanups conducted by private parties, EPA adopted an 
``enforcement first'' policy. Under this policy, EPA, through 
an agreement or an order, seeks to compel private parties to 
conduct cleanups. This policy has resulted in more PRP-lead 
cleanups, but has also resulted in a great deal of contentious 
third-party litigation. EPA has tried to reduce third-party 
litigation by providing separate de minimis settlements for 
parties who contributed one percent or less of the volume of 
waste to a site. According to EPA's Superfund Reforms Annual 
Report for FY 1998, EPA has completed settlements with 18,000 
de minimis parties, of which 12,000 received settlements in the 
past 6 years. However, this administrative reform has not 
addressed the concerns of many small parties with the Superfund 
program. Under this reform, EPA contacts de minimis parties 
directly, informs them of their potential liability, and offers 
them a settlement. These small parties are often confused by 
the Superfund statute and process and do not understand why 
they may be responsible for cleanup costs. At a hearing in 
August 1999 before the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous 
Materials, Mike Nobis of JK Creative Printing, testifying on 
behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business, 
described this process as an ``ongoing nightmare for small 
businesses, their families, friends, and neighbors.''

3. Testimony citing the problems with the superfund liability scheme

    Since 1994, dozens of witnesses, including EPA officials, 
governors, mayors, lawyers, and small businesses have testified 
that the liability scheme is fundamentally unfair, excessively 
litigious, and delays cleanup. In 1997, Barbara Williams, a 
restaurant owner from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, testified 
before the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials 
about a claim for over $76,000 in response costs against her 
business for disposal of ``chicken bones.'' Her case involved 
the Keystone landfill, which was placed on the NPL in 1987 and 
spawned literally hundreds of third-party lawsuits that brought 
over 700 defendants into the Superfund liability web with a 
huge portion of costs going to lawyers hired to defend the 
parties. In response to these concerns, EPA has cited 
administrative reforms, such as its use of the de minimis 
settlement policy, as a panacea for small contributors. 
However, the record of the Subcommittee on Finance and 
Hazardous Materials clearly indicates that the nightmare faced 
by small businesses continues to this day and that legislative 
reform remains sorely needed:

          For my company, it started on February 10, 1999, when 
        we received a letter in the mail from the EPA that 
        stated 6 large local corporations and the city were 
        looking to recover some of their cost for the cleanup 
        of our local landfill. * * * When I read the letter, I 
        felt sick. For me and the 148 other companies that 
        received the letter, it was unexpected and without 
        warning. At first, we had no idea of what the letter 
        was telling us. It was asking us, as small companies, 
        to ``contribute'' 3.1 million dollars. * * * As I read 
        through the list, I saw Catholic grade schools, our 
        local university, bowling allies, restaurants, small 
        Mom and Pop trash haulers, furniture stores and our 
        local McDonald's listed to pay. Most of the companies 
        named only generated waste like plain office trash or 
        food scraps. * * * EPA and the 6 major PRP's weren't 
        concerned about the waste that was sent to the landfill 
        as being hazardous. The make-up of what we sent there 
        was irrelevant. It was the volume that we sent to the 
        landfill that they cared about, even if the trash was 
        not dangerous. They knew many of us didn't send 
        hazardous waste and they knew we couldn't afford to 
        fight them. We became an easy money source for them 
        because of the real threat of litigation by the major 
        PRP's. And when you think about it, what small company 
        can take on 6 large corporations and the EPA alone and 
        win? If we didn't accept the settlement offer, the 
        major PRP's would sue us for the entire cleanup cost. 
        We were stuck. Pay up or be wiped out. The attorney for 
        the EPA admitted that it would cost us more to fight 
        them in court to prove we didn't haul hazardous waste 
        to the landfill than to just go ahead and settle. It 
        all came down to money * * * and they had more than we 
        did.

    (Mike Nobis, JK Creative Printers, September 22, 1999, 
testifying before the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous 
Materials.)

   C. Disincentives to Brownfields Redevelopment and State Response 
                                Programs

1. Uncertainty and lack of finality from CERCLA and Solid Waste 
        Disposal Act enforcement and liability schemes

    Under CERCLA, the Federal government oversees thousands of 
short-term cleanups and over a thousand long-term cleanups. In 
addition, CERCLA liability provisions can apply to hundreds of 
thousands of site cleanups that are not on the NPL list, 
including those labeled voluntary cleanups, brownfields 
cleanups, and other cleanups where State governments provide 
direct oversight as long as the cases involve actual or 
threatened releases of hazardous substances.
    Under CERCLA, a number of different parties can compel 
cleanup, spend money, or require contribution at a broad 
universe of sites. First, the Federal government is authorized 
to spend up to $2 million from the Superfund trust fund to 
conduct removals at a given site for up to 12 months. Second, 
the Federal government is authorized to spend money from the 
Superfund trust fund on long-term remedial actions at NPL 
sites. Third, the Federal government is authorized to compel 
cleanups by issuing orders at any site under the emergency 
authorities authorized by CERCLA section 106. Fourth, Federal, 
State, and tribal ``trustees'' are authorized to compel 
restoration of natural resources by proving liability and 
damages in Federal court at any site where there are hazardous 
substances and natural resource damages. Finally, the Federal 
government, States or ``potentially responsible parties'' are 
authorized to seek contribution from other responsible parties 
under CERCLA in Federal court at any site where there are 
hazardous substances.
    In addition to Federal authority under CERCLA, the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act (SWDA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6901 et seq.) provides 
a citizen with the right to seek to compel a cleanup under 
authority of section 7002(a)(1)(B), and EPA can compel a 
cleanup under section 7003 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 6972(a)(1)(B), 42 
U.S.C. Sec. 6973). These Federal causes of action are in 
addition to other causes of action that may be available under 
State statutory and common law. The net result can mean great 
legal uncertainty for the status of cleanups. For example, an 
action approved by a State agency is still subject to potential 
causes of action by Federal agencies under CERCLA and SWDA. 
Sites with approved remedial actions may also be subject to 
subsequent litigation by trustees under the natural resource 
damages provisions of section 107 (a) and (f) of CERCLA (42 
U.S.C. Sec. 9607 (a), (f)). Furthermore, PRPs can initiate 
contribution actions in any of these situations.
    According to a survey conducted by the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors in April 1999, 180 cities that were assessed have over 
19,000 brownfields sites representing more than 178,000 acres 
(Hearing on Legislation to Improve the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act before 
the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, 106th 
Cong., 1st Sess., (1999) (Statement of Mr. Paul Helmke, Mayor 
of Fort Wayne, Indiana)). Many witnesses have testified that 
sites are not being cleaned up because people are afraid that 
cleaning up these sites and redeveloping them will subject them 
to increased risk of Superfund liability. Moreover, potential 
agreements with State authorities do not provide sufficient 
certainty and finality to eliminate the potential for second 
guessing of cleanup or liability determinations, where action 
under Federal laws would override the decisions of State 
authorities. As a result, developers have been reluctant to 
invest in brownfields, where they can choose to initiate new 
projects in areas that have no industrial past. Selection of 
these ``greenfields'' has come under recent criticism as a 
driver of ``urban sprawl.''
    Prescriptive remedy selection requirements have also been a 
hindrance in brownfields and voluntary cleanups. These 
requirements operate through the CERCLA liability and 
enforcement scheme. Section 121(a) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9621(a)) on 
``Cleanup Standards'' states, in relevant part, that:

          The President shall select appropriate remedial 
        actions determined to be necessary to be carried out 
        under section 104 or secured under section 106.

    Section 120(a)(2) of CERCLA states that:

          All guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria 
        which are applicable to preliminary assessments carried 
        out under this Act for facilities at which hazardous 
        substances are located * * * applicable to remedial 
        actions at such facilities shall also be applicable to 
        facilities which are owned or operated by a department, 
        agency, or instrumentality of the United States in the 
        same manner and to the same extent as such guidelines, 
        rules, regulations and criteria are applicable to other 
        facilities. (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9620(a)(2))

    Accordingly, the section 121 remedy selection requirements 
apply not only to sites on the NPL, but also to any remedial 
actions compelled by orders under CERCLA section 106 and to 
Federal facilities cleaned up under other Federal authority. In 
addition, courts have held that contribution actions under 
section 113 are subject to restrictions posed under the 
liability provisions of section 107. Section 107(a)(4)(A) makes 
clear that parties are liable for ``all cost of removal or 
remedial action incurred by the United States Government or a 
State or an Indian Tribe not inconsistent with the national 
contingency plan'' (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a)(4)(A)).
    The remedy selection criteria can apply where the Federal 
government is financing cleanups, where PRPs are compelled to 
undertake remedial actions under CERCLA, or where private party 
cleanups or the government are seeking compensation through 
contribution suits for remedial actions.

2. Selected congressional testimony citing the problems with Federal 
        law hindering brownfields and State response programs

          We know that Superfund's liability regime too often 
        drives private sector investors from brownfields to 
        more pristine locations. We know these rules punish 
        innocent parties, fueling a development cycle that is 
        unsustainable. We know that current law must be 
        reformed to undo the bias toward new land resources 
        over recycling land that is already urbanized or 
        developed. Mitigating the effects of this nearly 
        twenty-year Superfund policy will require actions on 
        several fronts. * * * We have learned that liability 
        under Superfund is their dominant concern. Despite 
        progress in securing ``comfort letters'' at many sites, 
        lender liability reforms and growing confidence in 
        state program efforts, there is real anxiety, and we 
        would wish otherwise, among bankers and other lenders 
        on these issues. The specter of Superfund liability 
        severely limits their ability to increase the flow of 
        private capital into these projects. * * * Mayors have 
        been very consistent in urging more attention in 
        federal policies to a ``one-stop'' brownfields 
        regulatory program at the state level, where states, 
        which are vested with delegated authority, can provide 
        more coordinated and integrated programs. * * * I would 
        note that H.R. 2580 provides authority for RCRA waivers 
        to allow states to integrate this law's permit 
        requirements with cleanups of brownfields. I understand 
        that this provision does not diminish or alter RCRA 
        requirements, but is intended to give states some 
        flexibility in delivering a more responsive and 
        coordinated regulatory program in addressing 
        brownfields. This or some variant of this provision 
        would be very helpful to those of us at the local level 
        who often find ourselves confronting increased 
        complexity at specific sites as we work to return them 
        to productive use.

    (The Honorable Paul Helmke, Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, 
on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, August 4, 1999, 
testifying before the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous 
Materials.)

          Legal authority for qualified states to play the 
        primary role in liability clarification is critical to 
        the effective redevelopment of local brownfields sites. 
        A state lead will increase local flexibility and 
        provide confidence to developers, lenders, prospective 
        purchasers and other parties that brownfields sites can 
        be revitalized without the specter of Superfund 
        liability or the involvement of federal enforcement 
        personnel. Parties developing brownfields want to know 
        that the state can provide the last word on liability, 
        and that there will be only one policeman, barring 
        exceptional circumstances.

    (Donald J. Stypula, Manager, Environmental Affairs, 
National Association of Local Government Environmental 
Professionals, August 4, 1999, testifying before the 
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.)

          H.R. 2580 succinctly mandates that U.S. EPA must 
        receive a Governor's concurrence prior to listing a 
        facility on the National Priorities List. We support 
        this provision as it is clear, unambiguous and 
        satisfies our goal of clarifying the role of the 
        federal Superfund program in the future. * * * It is 
        our belief that we can no longer afford to foster the 
        illusion that State-authorized cleanups may somehow not 
        be adequate to satisfy federal requirements. The 
        potential for U.S. EPA overfile and for third party 
        lawsuits under CERCLA is beginning to cause many owners 
        of potential brownfields sites to simply ``mothball'' 
        the properties. * * * H.R. 2580 satisfies the goal of 
        clarifying which governmental entity is and should be 
        responsible for deciding when a cleanup is complete and 
        when a party is released from liability.

    (Claudia Kerbawy, testifying on behalf of the National 
Governors Association and the Association of State and 
Territorial Waste Management Officials, August 4, 1999, before 
the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.)

          I am here to tell you that, in actuality, the true 
        Brownfields market has not kept pace with expectations. 
        Why? We have been asking our clients just that. Our 
        clients' responses are fairly unanimous. They fear that 
        EPA will ``second guess'' Brownfield cleanups, and 
        require costly site rework at a later date to reach a 
        different site cleanup standard so they ``hold onto'' 
        lightly contaminated parcels instead of turning them 
        over to beneficial reuse. Moreover, there remains 
        potential down-stream liability associated with that 
        reuse which further retards the process. These concerns 
        result in owners of such properties not undertaking 
        redevelopment efforts at viable Brownfields sites. 
        While EPA has indicated a willingness to enter into, on 
        a case-by-case basis, prospective purchaser agreements 
        at Brownfields sites, the process to enter into those 
        agreements is quite time consuming and there is no 
        certainty in the end that EPA will agree to a 
        prospective purchaser agreement.
          H.R. 2580's provisions in Section 3 provide the 
        finality in Brownfields decisions that are truly needed 
        in this market, and the actual cleanups, are to 
        accelerate. * * * This provision is very important to 
        spurring increased voluntary cleanup actions at 
        Brownfields sites across the country and reducing 
        possible risks to nearby populations that are currently 
        not addressed, expressly because of the fear of federal 
        liability.
          The permit waiver for on-site response actions that 
        is contained in H.R. 2580 would remove the barriers to 
        actual on-site cleanup and significantly increase the 
        pace of Brownfields cleanups.

    (Mr. Jonathan Curtis, President, The Environmental Business 
Action Coalition, August 4, 1999, testifying before the 
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.)

3. Insufficient administrative reforms

    To address concerns of uncertainty and lack of finality, 
EPA created a policy of entering into ``prospective purchaser 
agreements'' with persons who acquire property with existing 
contamination, where the new owner did not cause or contribute 
to that contamination. These agreements provide a ``covenant 
not to sue'' from EPA to the new purchaser for existing 
contamination. However, EPA has finalized only 90 of these 
agreements, which must be approved by the Department of 
Justice. Moreover, these agreements do not protect new property 
owners from third party litigation. As a result, prospective 
purchaser agreements have not proven to be a sufficient 
solution for encouraging the redevelopment of over 500,000 
brownfields sites. Moreover, prospective purchaser agreements 
do not address the problem identified by the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors regarding the ``moth-balling'' of contaminated property. 
Many owners of abandoned or underutilized industrial facilities 
are unwilling to even investigate their property for fear of 
open-ended CERCLA liability. As a result, former industrial 
property remains idle, and possibly contaminated.
    To provide additional incentives for brownfields 
redevelopment, in 1995, EPA began providing grants to local 
governments for brownfields site assessments. These grants are 
intended for use in investigating property for potential 
contamination and facilitating its reuse. Since 1997, EPA has 
also provided grants for establishing revolving loan funds to 
fund site cleanup. While EPA clearly has the authority to 
provide funding for site investigations, EPA has relied upon 
less specific authority in providing Superfund trust fund 
dollars for cleanup ofbrownfields sites. Moreover, using funds 
from the Superfund trust fund requires a recipient of a cleanup grant 
to follow all the rules and regulations that apply to Federal cleanups 
under Superfund. These rules prohibit the party from using the funding 
for removal of asbestos, lead paint, or petroleum products. These 
constraints greatly reduce the usefulness of this funding.

          D. Unrealistic Risk Assessment and Remedy Selection

1. Problems with Superfund risk assessment practices and application of 
        certain CERCLA remedy selection provisions

    There are a number of engineering and institutional actions 
that can protect human health and the environment and are cost-
effective. The specific mix of engineering and institutional 
actions that are appropriate vary based upon site-specific 
circumstances. Congress received substantial testimony that the 
best remedial decision starts with a realistic, unbiased, and 
scientific assessment of the risk at the site, based on the 
current and reasonably anticipated uses of land, water and 
other resources.
    Moreover, national assumptions about the best mix of 
engineering and institutional actions too often make little 
sense in a site-specific context. Thus, the national preference 
for permanence and treatment in current CERCLA section 121(b) 
provides insufficient guidance that does not account for site-
specific issues, such as practicality, current and reasonably 
anticipated uses of land, water and other resources, increases 
in risk to the community, workers, or the environment from 
treatment options, reasonableness of costs, or the views of the 
community. Practicality and reasonably anticipated uses will 
vary at sites. A site that is likely to be an industrial site 
should not be treated as though it is a residential area. The 
Hanford nuclear facility should not be treated the same as a 
municipal landfill. Furthermore, incineration, construction, 
and traffic at a site may increase risks to the community, 
workers, or the environment. Specific engineering options may 
create more risks than they address. Thus, the preference for 
treatment and permanence in section 121(b) should not require 
``treatment for treatment sake''. Site-specific issues such as 
practicality; current and reasonably anticipated uses; 
substitution risks created by treatment options; and whether 
the community supports the treatment option selected at the 
site are factors that should be considered.
    Similarly, other provisions in section 121(d) have proven 
to be a bureaucratic exercise which may or may not be useful to 
meet the standards in section 121(a). The result has been a 
disconnect between the national criteria and the need for 
streamlined, site-specific risk management.

2. Selected congressional testimony supporting legislative changes to 
        Superfund risk practices and certain remedy selection 
        provisions

    The Congressional record identifying problems with Federal 
remedy selection under CERCLA is extensive and covers hearings 
dating back four Congresses. The following testimony, on behalf 
of cleanup contractors, attests that these long-standing 
concerns persist:

          I am here to tell you that, as a representative of 
        the professional community that recommends and 
        implements cleanup actions, more flexibility in the law 
        is needed. The present law is overly prescriptive and 
        contains too little opportunity to accelerate cleanups 
        or initiate rework within the Superfund ``process.'' In 
        addition, work is often performed for the sake of 
        ``producing evidence for litigation'' instead of just 
        to get on with cleanup. We are pleased that H.R. 2580, 
        Congressman Greenwood's Land Recycling Act of 1999, 
        also contains some remedy reform provisions. These 
        provisions include: Consideration of future uses of 
        land in remedy selection decisions. Addressing the 
        preference for treatment and permanent solutions. 
        Deleting the ``RA'' from ``ARARs,'' meaning that only 
        applicable requirements will apply. (Note: This is an 
        important change because it is often difficult to 
        determine what is also ``relevant and appropriate'' 
        cleanup requirements). Making risk assessments more 
        realistic and based on scientific evidence and site-
        specific information. We fully support these well-
        crafted provisions.

    (Mr. Jeremiah Jackson, Ph.D., PE, Environmental Business 
Action Coalition, in testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Finance and Hazardous Materials, September 22, 1999.)
    Work on reforming remedy selection provisions has included 
numerous stakeholders. The provisions of H.R. 2580, as reported 
out of this Committee, are a subset of prior legislative 
efforts, particularly those from last Congress. The following 
statements support concepts that were incorporated into H.R. 
2580:

          * * * ASTSWMO supports the determination of future 
        land use prior to the calculation of site specific risk 
        assessments and the selection of remedial alternatives. 
        Determining the future land use up-front is a reform 
        which has been established in most State programs and 
        is a common sense measure * * *
          * * * State Waste Managers concur with the process 
        outlined in this title for site-specific risk 
        assessments. The great diversity of the United States 
        in terms of geography, climate and population makes, in 
        our opinion, the application of uniform national 
        cleanup standards impractical. The substantial 
        variations in temperature, precipitation, soils and a 
        host of other factors from region to region and State 
        to State preclude the development of standards which 
        will ensure that the cleanup levels required for a 
        particular site are commensurate with the level of risk 
        actually posed at the site. Standards which are 
        protective for all sites will too often result in 
        overly conservative levels at many sites, prolonging 
        debate and increasing the cost of remediation with no 
        concomitant increase in protection * * *

    (Letter from Howard Reitman, President, Association of 
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, to 
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials Chairman 
Michael G. Oxley, November 17, 1997.)

          * * * The provisions provide useful direction for 
        identifying reasonably anticipated future resource uses 
        and for performing objective, science-based assessments 
        and characterizations of health and environmental risks 
        * * *

    (Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, in 
Memorandum to Commerce Committee majority staff, August 29, 
1997.)

          The first and most important strength of the draft is 
        the requirement that scientific information about risk 
        play a central role in remedial decisions as well as 
        communication with the public * * * The science-based 
        approach to risk assessment will enhance public health 
        by shifting remedial resources away from ``unrealistic 
        and insignificant'' risk toward important public health 
        problems. It is precisely this change in orientation 
        that is necessary to enhance the effectiveness and 
        credibility of the Superfund program * * * [T]he 
        provisions on ``Presentation of Risk Information'' * * 
        * are extremely useful because they will provide 
        affected communities with a better understanding of the 
        nature and magnitude of the risks associated with a 
        site * * *

    (John Graham, Director, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, 
in letter to Committee on Commerce Chairman Tom Bliley and 
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials Chairman 
Michael G. Oxley, October 1, 1997.)

3. Reforms to the cleanup program

    In recent years, in response to criticism over excessive 
remedy costs, EPA policies have allowed remedies to be tailored 
to address expected future uses. In many instances, this has 
resulted in less expensive cleanup options not involving 
treatment. Currently, about one-third of Superfund cleanups 
involve active treatment of the hazardous substances at the 
site. Both EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner and EPA Assistant 
Administrator Timothy Fields have testified that the cost of 
cleaning up a Superfund site has been reduced by approximately 
20 percent, on average, as a result of EPA's administrative 
reforms. EPA's Superfund Reforms Annual Report for FY 1998 
indicates that by updating older remedies and by providing for 
EPA Headquarters review of high cost remedies, EPA has been 
able to save over $1 billion in estimated cleanup costs. These 
cost savings are particularly significant because EPA has 
determined that, in many instances, experience with the program 
indicates that lower cost remedies may provide long term 
protection of human health and the environment, eliminating the 
need for many high cost remedies that had been selected before 
EPA's remedy reforms were put in place.

          E. Status and Future of the National Priorities List

    As of September 1999, the NPL consisted of 1223 facilities. 
In addition, 58 facilities have been proposed and are awaiting 
final listing, for a total of 1281 proposed and final 
facilities. Over the 19-year period of the Superfund program, 
189 sites have been deleted from the NPL (180 because they were 
cleaned up and 9 because they were deferred to other cleanup 
programs). At least 50 of the deleted sites required no 
remedial action. Of the sites currentlyon the NPL, 443 have 
completed construction of the remedy. In addition, 459 sites on the NPL 
have cleanup construction underway, and an additional 214 have had some 
on-site activity, in the form of a removal action.
    The number of sites that are entering the NPL pipeline has 
been trending downward in recent years and the Committee 
expects that trend to continue. In November 1998, the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) reported that, of the 3036 sites 
currently in EPA's database of sites where there has been a 
release of a hazardous substance (CERCLIS), EPA and State 
officials collectively anticipated that only 232 sites could be 
placed on the NPL in the future. EPA officials identified 106 
sites that they believed might be placed on the list, State 
officials identified another 100 sites, and both EPA and State 
officials agreed that 26 sites might be potential National 
Priority List candidates. (U.S. General Accounting Office, 
Hazardous Waste: Information on Potential Superfund Sites, Nov. 
1998, at 2-3).

                             F. Conclusion

    H.R. 2580 will help assure State finality in order to 
encourage brownfields redevelopment, and insulate cleanup 
volunteers, brownfields redevelopers, and States, where it is 
appropriate, from the risks associated with CERCLA liability. 
The bill is intended to facilitate protective and realistic 
cleanups that consider reasonably anticipated uses of land, 
water and other resources; risk to the community and workers; 
and sound science. The bill further provides grants for site 
assessment and cleanup revolving loan funds. In addition, H.R. 
2580 addresses Superfund liability through an allocation 
process, as well as by providing liability defenses and 
exemptions for innocent landowners (including brownfields 
redevelopers), small businesses, parties arranging for 
recycling, and persons who send ordinary garbage to Superfund 
sites. The Committee expects these reforms to reduce litigation 
and expedite cleanup, thereby increasing the protection of 
human health and the environment.

                                Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials held a 
hearing on the Status of the Federal Superfund Program on March 
23, 1999. The Subcommittee received testimony from: The 
Honorable Timothy Fields, Jr., Assistant Administrator, Office 
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency; Mr. Peter F. Guerrero, Director, 
Environmental Protection Issues, General Accounting Office; and 
Ms. Claudia Kerbawy, Chair, Federal Superfund Focus Group, 
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 
Officials.
    The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials held a 
second hearing August 4, 1999, on Legislation to Improve the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
Liability Act: Provisions in H.R. 1300, H.R. 1750, and H.R. 
2580. The Subcommittee received testimony from: The Honorable 
Timothy Fields, Jr., Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid 
Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency; The Honorable Paul Helmke, Mayor of Fort Wayne, 
Indiana, representing the U.S. Conference of Mayors; Mr. Donald 
J. Stypula, Manager of Environmental Affairs, Michigan 
Municipal League, representing the National Association of 
Local Government Environmental Professionals; Ms. Claudia 
Kerbawy, Chair, Federal Superfund Focus Group, Association of 
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials; Ms. 
Teresa Mills, representing the Buckeye Environmental Network; 
Mr. Jonathan G. Curtis, President, Environmental Business 
Action Coalition; Ms. Karen Florini, Senior Attorney, 
Environmental Defense Fund; and Mr. Gary Garczynski, Treasurer, 
National Association of Home Builders.
    The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials held a 
third hearing on September 22, 1999, on Legislation to Improve 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act (CERCLA): Provisions in H.R. 1300 and H.R. 2580. 
The Subcommittee received testimony from: The Honorable Timothy 
Fields, Jr., Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. 
Chris Jeffers, City Manager, Monterey Park, representing the 
National Association of Counties; Mr. Mike Nobis, JK Creative 
Printer, representing the National Federation of Independent 
Business; Mr. Gordon Johnson, Deputy Bureau Chief, Office of 
the Attorney General, State of New York, representing the 
National Association of Attorneys General; Ms. Jane Williams, 
Chair, Waste Committee; and Mr. Jeremiah D. Jackson, Ph.D., 
President-Elect, Environmental Business Action Coalition.

                        Committee Consideration

    On September 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Finance and 
Hazardous Materials met in open markup session and approved 
H.R. 2580, the Land Recycling Act of 1999, for Full Committee 
consideration, amended, by a rollcall vote of 17 yeas to 12 
nays. On October 13, 1999, the Full Committee met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 2580 reported to the House, 
amended, by a roll call vote of 30 yeas to 21 nays.

                            Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House requires 
the Committee to list the record votes on the motion to report 
legislation and amendments thereto. The following are the 
record votes on the motion to report H.R. 2580 and on 
amendments offered to the measure, including the names of those 
Members voting for and against.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR775.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR775.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR775.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR775.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR775.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR775.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR775.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR775.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR775.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR775.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR775.011

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee held legislative and 
oversight hearings and made findings that are reflected in this 
report.

           Committee on Government Reform Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, no oversight findings have been 
submitted to the Committee by the Committee on Government 
Reform.

   New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 
2580, the Land Recycling Act of 1999, would result in new 
direct spending in the amounts specified in the cost estimate 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, October 29, 1999.
Hon. Tom Bliley,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, 
        DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2580, the Land 
Recycling Act of 1999.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts for federal 
costs are Susanne S. Mehlman and Perry Beider. The contact for 
the state and local impact is Shelley Finlayson and the 
contacts for the private-sector impact are Patrice Gordon and 
Perry Beider.
            Sincerely,
                                          Dan L. Crippen, Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2580--Land Recycling Act of 1999

    Summary: H.R. 2580 would amend and reauthorize spending for 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), commonly known as the Superfund 
Act, which governs the cleanup of sites contaminated with 
hazardous substances. Because the bill would affect direct 
spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
    The Superfund program is administered by the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), which evaluates the need for cleanup 
at sites brought to its attention, identifies parties liable 
for the costs of cleanup, and oversees cleanups conducted 
either by its own contractors or by the liable parties. These 
EPA activities are currently funded by appropriations from the 
Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund and from the general 
fund of the Treasury.
    CBO estimates that the bill would authorize appropriations 
of $7.6 billion over the 2000-2004 period for the Superfund 
program, including $1.4 billion already appropriated for 2000. 
H.R. 2580 would establish a new method of determining the 
extent of liability of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) 
at Superfund sites, and a portion of this liability would 
usually be assigned to EPA.
    The bill also would provide direct spending authority of 
$1.25 billion over the 2000-2004 period for EPA to compensate 
certain private parties for completing cleanup activities for 
which they are not entirely liable and where some amount of 
liability has been assigned to EPA. Finally, enacting the bill 
would result in a decrease in the amount of money recovered by 
EPA from private parties who remain liable for cleanup expenses 
incurred by the agency. We estimate that these forgone 
recoveries would total $188 million over the 2000-2004 period. 
Overall, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2580 would increase 
direct spending by about $1.4 billion over the 2000-2004 
period.
    H.R. 2580 contains intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but CBO estimates that 
the cost of complying with these mandates would not be 
significant and would not exceed the threshold established by 
the act ($50 million in 1996, adjusted annually for inflation). 
The bill would have other effects on state, local, and tribal 
governments that do not result from mandates. Some of these 
effects might be increased costs, but most would be benefits.
    H.R. 2580 also would impose private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA by setting a temporary moratorium on certain 
lawsuits under CERCLA and precluding certain other lawsuits. 
CBO estimates that the direct costs of complying with those 
mandates would be well below the statutory threshold specified 
in UMRA ($100 million in 1996, adjusted annually for 
inflation). Overall, the bill would tend to lower the costs to 
the private sector of cleaning up certain Superfund sites under 
CERCLA.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 2580 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 
(natural resources and environment).

                           Basis of Estimate

    For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 2580 
will be enacted early in fiscal year 2000, and that all funds 
authorized by the bill will be appropriated. Estimated outlays 
are based on the historical spending patterns of the Superfund 
program.

Spending subject to appropriation

    Superfund Program.--CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 
2580 would require the appropriation of $6.2 billion over the 
2000-2004 period for the Superfund program and related grant 
programs, in addition to $1.4 billion already appropriated for 
2000. In addition to the existing appropriation for 2000, title 
II would authorize appropriations totaling $5.9 billion over 
the 2000-2004 period for EPA activities in support of the 
Superfund program and $1 million in 2000 for an independent 
analysis of the projected 10-year costs to EPA of implementing 
the Superfund program. Title I would authorize the 
appropriation of such funds as may be necessary for grants to 
be used for site characterization, assessment, and cleanup 
actions at Brownfield facilities. Brownfield facilities are 
properties where thepresence or potential presence of a 
hazardous substance complicates the expansion or redevelopment of the 
property. Based on information from EPA, we estimate that implementing 
this provision would require the appropriation of $75 million annually 
over the next five years. Some of these funds could be used by states 
and local governments to establish revolving loan funds to provide 
money for eligible work at brownfield facilities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2000      2001      2002      2003      2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Superfund spending under current law:
    Budget authority \1\......................................     1,400         0         0         0         0
    Estimated outlays.........................................     1,426     1,028       508       217        73
Proposed changes:
    Estimated authorization level.............................       176     1,575     1,575     1,475     1,425
    Estimated outlays.........................................        48       471       995     1,260     1,358
Superfund spending under H.R. 2580:
    Estimated authorization level.............................     1,576     1,575     1,575     1,475     1,425
    Estimated outlays.........................................     1,474     1,499     1,503     1,477     1,431

                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Reimbursement for Superfund liability:
    Budget authority..........................................       250       250       250       250       250
    Estimated outlays.........................................        60       400       270       260       225
Changes to Superfund recoveries:
    Estimated budget authority................................        15        45        45        45        38
    Estimated outlays.........................................        15        45        45        45        38
Total changes in direct spending:
    Estimated budget authority................................       265       295       295       295       288
    Estimated outlays.........................................        75       445       315       305       293
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2000 level is the amount appropriated for that year.

    Superfund Cleanup Costs at Federal Sites.--H.R. 2580 would 
amend the procedures used to select appropriate cleanup 
solutions (known as remedies) at each Superfund site. Title I 
would require EPA to consider future land use at a site, and 
change the goals and criteria EPA uses in determining cleanup 
levels. These changes in the remedy selection procedures could 
change the cost of future cleanup projects at federal 
facilities. However, any savings would be small over the next 
five years because the changes would not significantly affect 
spending at sites where mediation has begun.
    Section 303 would explicitly waive any federal immunity 
from administrative orders, or civil or administrative fines or 
penalties assessed under CERCLA, and would clarify that federal 
facilities are subject to reasonable service charges assessed 
in connection with a federal or state Superfund program. This 
provision may allow states to seek to impose fines and 
penalties against the federal government under CERCLA. The 
Claims, Judgments, and Reliefs Acts account may be available 
for payment of fines or penalties, but only if pursuant to a 
court settlement or certain Department of Justice settlements. 
In the alternative, payments may come from appropriated funds.

Direct spending

    Provisions of H.R. 2580 would affect direct spending 
primarily by providing $1.3 billion over the 2000-2004 period 
to reimburse certain PRPs for some future cleanup costs and for 
specified past and ongoing cleanup costs. Such funds could also 
be used for other authorized Superfund expenses, depending on 
the amounts provided to the program in future appropriations 
acts. In addition, enactment of H.R. 2580 would result in a 
decrease in the amount of money EPA is able to recover from 
PRPs who are currently liable for cleanup expenses.
    Reimbursement for Superfund Share of Liability.--Title II 
would provide $250 million annually over the 2000-2004 period 
to reimburse private parties for certain expenditures made 
during a Superfund cleanup project that the bill would make the 
responsibility of EPA. When this new program is fully 
implemented, we estimate that EPA would spend, on average, $135 
million annually to reimburse PRPs for cleanup projects that 
have not yet begun, and $100 million annually to reimburse PRPs 
for past and ongoing cleanup costs. Although CBO estimates that 
total claims for reimbursement would be slightly below the $1.3 
billion appropriated over the 2000-2004 period, if claims are 
made unevenly over time, the amount pending at one time could 
exceed the $250 million provided in that year. In this case, 
the payment of reimbursement claims could be delayed until 
funds are available.
    Title III would make several changes to current law 
concerning Superfund liabilities of private parties and the 
procedures for allocating cleanup responsibilities equitably 
among the multiple PRPs (site owners and operators, and off-
site parties that contributed hazardous substances) involved in 
a cleanup project. For new cleanup projects that meet certain 
requirements, section 308 would define how an independent 
``allocator,'' chosen by EPA and the PRPs at a site, would 
determine the share of cleanup costs that each PRP must 
contribute and what share of the liability belongs to EPA (if 
any). Under H.R. 2580, EPA's liability at a Superfund site 
would consist primarily of two components: any liability 
assigned to defunct or insolvent PRPs and any liability that is 
eliminated, limited, or reduced by the provisions of the bill. 
The legislation would eliminate, limit, or reduce the cleanup 
liability for some PRPs--notably small businesses, municipal 
governments that owned or reported landfills, and generators 
and transporters of municipal solid waste or recyclable 
materials. The difference between the cleanup cost attributed 
to a private party by the allocator and a smaller amount 
actually paid by the PRP--because of a liability exemption, 
reduction, or limitation resulting from enactment of the bill--
would become the responsibility of EPA.
    Liability for Future Costs.--Based on the characteristics 
of sites currently in the Superfund program, CBO estimates that 
approximately one-third of the costs of new cleanup projects 
would be allocated to the Superfund. Assuming that the pace of 
cleanups conducted by PRPs continues at current rates, 
reimbursements to PRPs from the Superfund for cleanup projects 
would be, on average, $135 million annually. Such spending 
would come from the annual direct spending authority included 
in title II of the bill.
    Liability for Past Costs.--Under H.R. 2580, EPA also would 
be liable for reimbursing some PRPs for certain cleanup 
projects that are ongoing or have already been completed. Under 
current law, PRPs that pay for Superfund cleanup costs can seek 
reimbursement for their expenses from other PRPs involved with 
the same site. H.R. 2580 would make PRPs that have incurred 
such costs eligible for reimbursement from EPA for the share of 
costs attributable to PRPs whose liability would be reduced or 
eliminated under the bill. EPA estimates that the total cost of 
ongoing and completed cleanups conducted by PRPs is over $13 
billion. We estimate that less than one-fifth of the $13 
billion is attributable to the relevant PRPs that would be 
affected by this bill. Most of these costs--roughly 80 percent, 
by EPA's estimate--have already been settled. CBO therefore 
estimates that the costs to the Superfund for reimbursement of 
past and ongoing cleanups would total nearly $500 million over 
the next five years, or an average of about $100 million per 
year. Such amounts also would be paid from the bill's direct 
spending authority--to the extent that funds are available.
    Superfund program.--Section 201 would allow funds provided 
in direct spending authority to be used to make up any 
shortfall between the annual amounts available to the Superfund 
program from appropriations acts and the amounts that H.R. 2580 
would authorize to be appropriated for the program. In 2000, 
$1.4 billion was appropriated for the Superfund program, but 
H.R. 2580 would authorize $1.5 billion. CBO assumes that $100 
million out of the $250 million in direct spending authority 
provided under the bill in 2000 would betransferred to the 
Superfund program to eliminate that shortfall in authorized funding. 
Estimated outlays from the transfer would likely be consistent with 
historical spending patterns of the Superfund program; therefore, CBO 
estimates that outlays in 2000 from the $100 million transfer would be 
$25 million. In addition, we estimate that about $35 million out of the 
remaining $150 million in direct spending provided in 2000 would be 
used to pay reimbursement claims in 2000. Thus, estimated outlays from 
the direct spending authority in 2000 would total $60 million. (We 
estimate that most of the remaining $190 million of 2000 funding would 
be spent over the 2001-2004 period.) Beginning with 2001, CBO estimates 
that all of the funds provided in direct spending authority would be 
spent each year by EPA either for reimbursement of PRPs or on other 
authorized expenses of the Superfund program. The actual amount of 
funds (if any) that would be spent for purposes other than 
reimbursement of private parties would depend on the amounts provided 
to the Superfund program in future appropriations acts.
    Superfund Recoveries.--EPA's enforcement program attempts 
to recover costs the agency incurs at cleanup projects that are 
the responsibility of private parties. Spending of the amounts 
recovered is subject to annual appropriation action. Under 
current law, CBO estimates such recoveries will gradually 
decline from the current level of $300 million annually, and 
will average $250 million annually over the next 10 years. 
Under H.R. 2580, however, such recoveries would decline further 
because the Superfund liability of some PRPs would be 
eliminated, limited, or reduced. We expect that enacting the 
bill would lead to an average annual decrease in offsetting 
receipts to the Treasury of $40 million over the 2000-2004 
period.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures 
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net 
changes in outlays that are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures 
are shown in the following table. For the purposes of enforcing 
pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects in the budget year 
and the succeeding four years are counted.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008    2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays..............      75     445     315     305     293      38      30      30      30      30
Changes in receipts.............                                  Not applicable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments

Intergovernmental mandates

    Federal Facilities.--Section 303 of the bill would clarify 
that federal facilities are subject to certain charges assessed 
in connection with a federal or state Superfund program. This 
clarification could increase the number of fines and penalties 
imposed and collected by states from the federal government 
under CERCLA. At the same time, however, the bill would mandate 
how states may use the funds collected from these charges from 
federal facilities. States would be required to use all of 
these funds for environmental purposes unless that state has a 
law in effect on the date of the bill's enactment or a state 
constitutional provision that requires the funds to be used in 
a different manner. CBO cannot estimate the number or amount of 
fines, penalties, and judgments that could result from 
enactment of the bill, however, we expect that the requirements 
about how to spend these collections would impose no additional 
costs on states.
    Preemption of State Liability Law.--Section 305 of the bill 
would preempt state law by limiting the liability of response 
action contractors (RACs) to cases of negligence, gross 
negligence, or intentional misconduct in all states that have 
not enacted a law specifically addressing the liability of 
RACs. (Response action contractors are defined in subsection 
119(e) of CERCLA.) CBO expects that this preemption would apply 
to a very small number of cases and that states would not be 
party to most of them. As a result, CBO estimates the cost to 
states of this preemption would be minimal.
    Dry Cleaning Solvents.--Section 309 would prohibit states 
from requiring dry cleaners to clean up solvents they have 
released into the environment (except in the case of drinking 
water sources) below certain contaminant levels, unless the 
state determines, on a site-by-site basis, that a more 
stringent standard is necessary to protect human health or the 
environment. States would incur additional costs as a result of 
this mandate if they choose to conduct site-by-site analyses of 
dry-cleaning establishments to maintain more stringent 
standards. CBO cannot precisely estimate the costs states would 
incur as a result of this mandate. Based on the low cost of 
soil sample analysis, the small likelihood of states 
undertaking site-by-site analysis, and the small number of dry-
cleaning sites on the Superfund list, we do not expect that 
such costs would be significant.

Other impacts on State, local, and tribal governments

    Enacting H.R. 2580 would have additional effects on state, 
local, and tribal governments. Some of these effects might 
increase costs, but most would provide benefits including: 
creating new grant programs; affording states greater 
participation and authority over cleanups; and relieving state 
and local governments from certain liability under current law.
    Potential Costs.--Enacting H.R. 2580 could impose costs on 
states by changing the liability of certain potentially 
responsible parties. It also could impose costs on local 
governments by increasing the costs of complying with water 
standards.
    Liability Relief for Potentially Responsible Parties.--H.R. 
2580 would eliminate, limit, or reduce the cleanup liability 
for some PRPs under federal Superfund laws. These changes in 
liability, while not preemptions of state law, could make it 
more difficult for any states that currently rely on such laws 
to recover costs and damages under their own cleanup programs 
from parties whose liability would be eliminated or limited by 
the bill. These changes also would benefit state, local, and 
tribal governments if their Superfund liability would be 
reduced or eliminated as discussed below.
    Cleanup Standards.--H.R. 2580 would make changes to the 
cleanup standards required under the federal Superfund law. 
Those changes could increase the costs to public water systems 
to comply with current water standards, however, CBO has no 
basis for reliably estimating them.
    Potential Benefits.--Implementing the bill would benefit 
state, local, and tribal governments in a number of ways, as 
discussed below.
    Liability Relief for State, Local, and Tribal 
Governments.--H.R. 2580 would eliminate, limit, or reduce the 
cleanup liability for some PRPs, including municipal 
governments that own or operate landfills, and generators and 
transporters of municipal solid waste or recyclable materials. 
The bill also would cap the liability of parties (including 
local governments) that generated or transported municipal 
solid waste or sewage sludge to a Superfund site that is a 
``co-disposal'' landfill (a landfill that also accepted other 
wastes and that became a Superfund site). Excluding those 
otherwise exempted form liability by the bill, these parties 
would have their aggregate liability limited to 10 percent of 
cleanup costs. Roughly two-thirds (160) of the approximately 
250 co-disposal landfills that are Superfund sites have at 
least one municipal owner or operator. In addition, the bill 
would create an expedited settlement process for certain 
parties, including municipalities, that have a limited ability 
to pay.
    H.R. 2580 would exempt generators and transporters 
(including municipal generators and transporters) from 
liability if they only contribute a specified amount of 
hazardous material and those materials do not significantly 
increase response costs. In addition, the bill would establish 
an affirmative defense for innocent parties including 
governmental entities that: (1) issues permits or licenses; (2) 
acquire property by involuntary transfer or eminent domain: (3) 
own and operate sewage treatment works; and (4) own and operate 
rights of way.
    New Grant Funding.--Title I would create two grant programs 
to fund assessment and cleanup of brownfield sites. The program 
for inventory and assessment would make grants of up to 
$200,000. The cleanup program would make grants of up to $1 
million to capitalize revolving loan funds that would make 
loans to states, site owners, and site developers for the 
cleanup of brownfield sites. States that receive loans would be 
required to match at least 50 percent of the federal funds 
provided. The bill also would authorize grants for technical 
assistance and for developing groundwater protection plans. Any 
costs to state, local, or tribal governments to comply with the 
grant conditions would be incurred voluntarily.
    Expanded State, Local and Tribal Roles.--H.R. 2580 would 
amend the current Superfund program to allow greater authority 
and participation by the states. Title I would prohibit EPA 
from taking action against anyone who has completed a response 
action on a non-Superfund site in compliance with the state 
laws governing such actions, except under specific 
circumstances, EPA would be required to defer listing a 
facility as a Superfund site if the state is addressing or will 
address the site under a state response program and does not 
concur with the listing.
    Title III would allow a state that may be responsible for 
response costs as part of the state's cost share to participate 
in funding allocation. The title also would specify that 
federal, state, and local agencies are subject to and eligible 
for the benefits of an allocation to the same extent as any 
other party including reimbursement when performing parties pay 
more than their allocated share. Title IV would increase state, 
local, and tribal government input in Superfund-related public 
health projects and programs as well as health disclosures to 
affected communities.

                 ESTIMATED IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR

    H.R. 2580 would impose private-sector mandates as defined 
in UMRA by setting a temporary moratorium on certain lawsuits 
under CERCLA and precluding certain other lawsuits. CBO 
estimates that the direct costs of complying with those 
mandates would be well below the statutory threshold specified 
in UMRA ($100 million in 1996, adjusted annually for 
inflation).

Private-sector mandates

    Under current law, the liability standard for a Superfund 
site, which can affect who pays to clean it up, is retroactive, 
strict, and generally joint and several. Liability is 
retroactive because it applies to contamination caused by 
activities that took place before CERCLA was enacted in 1980. 
Liability is strict because a responsible party is liable even 
if it was not negligent. Liability is joint and several in 
cases where the responsibility for contamination at a site is 
not easily divisible. In such cases, the government can hold 
one or more parties liable for the full costs of cleanup, even 
if other parties at the site are liable. The federal government 
does not typically seek to assign liability shares to 
individual PRPs, preferring instead to reach collective 
settlements and allowing settling PRPs to allocate liability 
among themselves. Current law also permits third-party 
lawsuits, in which parties held responsible by EPA (or by other 
responsible parties) may sue others who do not settle with the 
government for contribution.
    H.R. 2580 would establish a new process for allocating 
liability at sites on Superfund's National Priorities List that 
meet certain criteria. Under the new process, a neutral 
allocator would be hired to determine the liability of 
potentially responsible parties for an eligible site. The bill 
would impose a private-sector mandate by prohibiting civil 
litigation seeking to recover response costs during the period 
set aside by the bill to allow the allocator to determine 
liability under the new method. Specifically, section 308 would 
prohibit anyone from asserting a claim until 150 days after the 
release of the allocator's report. In addition, the bill would 
stay all pending actions or claims during the same period 
unless the court determines that a stay would result in 
manifest injustice. CBO expects that the costs of delaying a 
claim to recover cleanup costs would be negligible, primarily 
because post-moratorium litigation in such cases in likely to 
be rare in view of the incentives to settle for the allocated 
share under the new process.
    Currently, contractors performing cleanups are not liable 
under federal law for work they do at Superfund sites 
(including CERCLA removal sites), except in cases of 
negligence, gross negligence, or willful misconduct. Section 
305 would extend response action contractors' protection from 
liability to include the same protection under state law, 
unless a state has enacted a law determining the liability of 
such contractors. The extended protection from liability would 
not allow certain liability claims that may be filed under 
current law. According to information provided by government 
sources, lawsuits alleging liability against response 
contractors have been rare and most such actions have been 
dismissed or settled out of court for amounts that were not 
significant. Therefore, CBO expects that the costs to the 
private sector of extending the liability coverage would be 
minor.
    Generally, provisions of the bill are meant to reduce some 
of the burdens of compliance under CERCLA. H.R. 2580 would 
direct the federal government to cover the costs attributed to 
defunct or insolvent parties, the costs attributed to 
responsible parties exempted under the bill, and the balance of 
cost left over when allocation shares have been capped or 
limited according to the rules specified in the bill. 
Consequently, the remaining cleanup costs allocated to the 
private sector would probably be lower than under current law.

Other impacts on the private sector

    In some cases, private-sector entities who have incurred 
cleanup expenses may experience some delays in their efforts to 
claim reimbursement from the federal government for the share 
of costs attributed to PRPs whose liability would be reduced or 
eliminated under the bill. Although CBO estimates that total 
claims for reimbursement would be slightly below the $1.3 
billion appropriated over the five-year period, if claims are 
made unevenly over time, the amount pending at one time could 
exceed the $250 million available in that year. Any such delays 
might not represent a net burden on the parties seeking 
reimbursement, however, the PRPs that would be sued under 
current law have limited financial resources, reimbursement in 
such cases may be stretched out, reduced, or unavailable.
    Previous CBO estimate: On September 23, 1999, CBO 
transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 1300, as reported by the 
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on August 
5, 1999. Both H.R. 1300 and H.R. 2580 would amend and 
reauthorize CERCLA and would authorize appropriations and 
provides direct spending authority. However, the bills provide 
for different amounts in appropriations and direct spending 
over different periods of time. In addition, under both bills, 
Superfund recoveries would decreased by the same amount each 
year.
    Both H.R. 1300 and H.R. 2580 would impose a private-sector 
mandate by setting a temporary moratorium on certain lawsuits 
during the determination phase of the allocation process and 
expand liability protection for response action contractors. 
Unlike H.R. 2580, H.R. 1300 also would put a time limit on 
certain other lawsuits. Specifically, H.R. 1300 would limit to 
a period of six years after the completion of work at a site, 
any actions based on negligence to recover claims against 
contractors performing cleanups. For both H.R. 1300 and H.R. 
2580, CBO estimates that the aggregate direct costs of private-
sector mandates would fall below the statutory threshold 
established in UMRA.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Susanne S. Mehlman and 
Perry Beider; impact on State, local, and tribal governments: 
Shelley Finalyson; and impact on the private sector: Patrice 
Gordon and Perry Beider.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the 
Constitutional authority for this legislation is provided in 
Article I, section 8, clause 3, which grants Congress the power 
to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several 
States, and with the Indian tribes.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation

Section 1. Short title

    This section provides the short title of the legislation, 
the ``Land Recycling Act of 1999.''

Section 2. Amendments to Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
        Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

    This section amends the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 9601 et seq.) in the following manner:

                        Title I--Land Recycling

Section 101. Findings

    This section provides findings concerning brownfields, 
State voluntary cleanup programs, and Federal barriers to 
remediation efforts.

Section 102. Cleanups pursuant to State response programs

    This section provides finality and certainty for State 
response programs by ensuring that certain Federal authorities 
cannot override State remedial decisions except under 
exceptional circumstances which are specified in the bill. To 
encourage more cleanups at brownfields sites, this section 
gives those engaging in cleanups on a voluntary basis increased 
certainty about the risk that they face when they step forward 
and agree to clean up a site. Under this section, those 
engaging in cleanups on a voluntary basis have greater 
assurance that their responsibility will be limited to those 
actions required by the State cleanup officials, unless one of 
the specific exceptions is met.
    Prohibition on Enforcement.--Section 102(a) makes clear 
that, once triggered by a State response action under a 
certified State program under section 102(b), limitations apply 
to the uses of authorities under CERCLA and under section 
7002(a)(1)(B) and section 7003 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 
with specified exceptions. This section prevents second 
guessing of State remedial and liability decisions. For the 
Solid Waste Disposal Act, the limitations apply only to the 
cited authorities. Other authorities, such as those designed to 
enforce hazardous waste management requirements under the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act, are not affected. For example, the 
authority to bring a citizen suit under section 7002(a)(1)(A) 
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and the authorities granted by 
section 3008 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act continue to cover 
violations of the Solid Waste Disposal Act for the same 
universe of sites or activities that they currently cover.
    State Requirements.--Limitations on overriding State 
actions only apply after a State submits a program to the EPA 
Administrator together with certifications that: the particular 
program is enacted into law; the State has committed financial 
and personnel resources; the program will be protective of 
human health and the environment; and the program includes 
meaningful opportunities for public participation. This 
provision permits the State to tailor its program to prevent 
the uncertainty that Federal enforcement provisions would 
override State cleanup decisions. This is an option, not a 
requirement. A State may desire that certain State program 
response actions should be immune from a Federal override. The 
Committee anticipates that these programs would be described 
with sufficient clarity so that only the classes of response 
actions that the State intends receive coverage under this 
section. If a State desires no change to the status quo, that 
option is available.
    The submission and certification by the State triggers the 
limitations under this section. The language does not provide 
EPA authority to add to any additional regulatory requirements 
for States to meet the program requirements.
    Limitations on Prohibitions.--Section 102(c) provides five 
exceptions to the requirements of section 102(a). First, this 
prohibition generally applies only to facilities that are not 
on the NPL. EPA retains the discretion to delist a site where a 
State response program could better address the site. Second, 
the Governor of a State can request that the President take 
enforcement action, where appropriate. Third, the prohibition 
in section 102(a) does not apply to any facility owned or 
operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
United States. Fourth, the prohibition does not apply to the 
extent that a response action has been required pursuant to an 
administrative order or judicial order or a decree entered into 
under a number of specific laws before the commencement of a 
State action. Thus, the Federal involvement through orders or 
decrees cannot be cut short by a State action. Finally, the 
prohibition does not apply to a release or threatened release 
for which response actions are immediately required to prevent 
or mitigate a public health or environmental emergency and for 
which the State is not responding in a timely manner. The 
Committee intends that the threshold for the determination by 
the President that ``response actions are immediately required 
to prevent or mitigate a public health or environmental 
emergency'' be higher than the threshold under section 106 of 
CERCLA or sections 7002(a)(1)(B) or 7003 of the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act for a determination that there ``may be an 
imminent and substantial endangerment.''
    Prior Actions.--Subsection (d) clarifies that nothing in 
this section affects administrative or judicial action 
commenced prior to the date of enactment of this section.
    Permits and Other Requirements.--Subsection (e), in 
conjunction with a submission under subsection (b), allows 
State programs to waive the Federal requirements to obtain 
Federal permits or revisions for the on-site portion of State 
response actions. This provision is similar to the analogous 
Federal authority in section 121(e) of CERCLA. States which 
have certain Federal program authorizations often issue permits 
that satisfy certain requirements under Federal law. Under 
subsection (e), it becomes the discretion of the State whether 
it wants to maintain all of these State permit requirements or 
wants to consolidate administration and procedures through a 
process more tailored to remedial efforts. The waiver of the 
Federal requirement, thus, allows the States to tailor their 
own State permitting regime in the manner potentially more 
conducive to their remediation programs without the added 
administrative mandate of satisfying the procedural permit 
requirements of Federal law. In addition, under subsection (b), 
the State has significant flexibility to define and describe 
the program or programs that it chooses to make eligible for 
both the prohibitions on enforcement and for the permit 
waivers. The Committee expects that any such waiver involves 
the use of a State document analogous to the Record of Decision 
under CERCLA that can be used to consolidate applicable 
substantive requirements. The legislation delays application of 
this provision for EPA to promulgate regulations on how any 
necessary reporting requirements between the State and EPA 
should be addressed.
    Assistance to States.--Section 102(f) authorizes the 
Administrator to provide technical, financial, and other 
assistance to establish and enhance State response programs.
    Effect of Response.--Section 102(g) makes clear that 
performance of a response action pursuant to a State program 
under this section shall not constitute an admission of 
liability under any Federal, State, or local law or regulation 
or in any citizens suit or other private action.

Section 103. Additions to the National Priorities List

    Section 103 amends section 105 of CERCLA by adding a new 
section 105(h) which allows further additions to the National 
Priorities List (NPL) only after the President seeks the 
concurrence of the Governor of the State where the facility is 
located. If the State is addressing, or will address, the site 
and the Governor does not want the site listed on the NPL, the 
President is barred from listing it. The Committee intends that 
if the State does not begin addressing the site in a reasonably 
timely fashion the President may list the site without the 
concurrence of the Governor. The Committee expects swift action 
to stabilize any site and protect the public. Initiation of 
long term cleanup actions must be measured against the time 
required for identification, listing, and action for sites on 
the National Priorities List. The legislation contains 
exceptions for situations where two States are affected or 
where the State has a conflict of interest because it is a 
major responsible party at the site.

Section 104. Innocent landowners

    Section 104 adds a new section 107(o) to CERCLA which 
provides innocent landowners greater certainty by defining the 
criteria necessary for avoiding CERCLA liability. The new 
subsection further defines what constitutes all appropriate 
inquiry and environmental assessments as criteria for 
establishing that a party is an innocent landowner.

Section 105. Bona fide prospective purchaser liability

    Section 105 adds a new section 107(p) establishing criteria 
for bona fide prospective purchasers. A party has an 
affirmative defense to CERCLA liability if that party can 
establish that the party is a bona fide prospective purchaser 
and establish by a preponderance of the evidence that all 
active disposal of hazardous substances at the facility 
occurred before the party acquired the facility. The party must 
also show that it made all appropriate inquiry; provided all 
legally required notice; exercised appropriate care; provided 
full cooperation; and is not affiliated with another liable 
party in order to qualify.
    Section 105 adds a new section 107(q) to assure that the 
United States has a lien on any facility where there are 
unrecovered response costs for any increase in the fair market 
value of the property attributable to the response action.

Section 106. Innocent governmental entities

    Section 106 adds a new section 107(b)(2)(D) to CERCLA which 
provides that a governmental entity which is a potentially 
liable party under CERCLA based solely on the entity's status 
as an owner or operator of a facility through escheat or other 
involuntary transfer, eminent domain, or by granting a license 
or permit to conduct business, can establish a defense to that 
liability by demonstrating that the governmental entity 
acquired the facility after all disposal or placement of 
hazardous substances had taken place, did not cause or 
contribute to the contamination, and exercised appropriate care 
with respect to any hazardous substances on the property. Under 
section 101(20) of CERCLA, governments who acquire property 
involuntarily are excluded from the definition of owner or 
operator. Under section 107(b)(2)(D), the exercise of eminent 
domain authority or merely granting a license or permit, which 
are not involuntary actions, does not subject a governmental 
entity to CERCLA liability.

Section 107. Contiguous properties

    Section 107 adds a new section 107(s) to CERCLA which 
provides protection from CERCLA liability for owners of 
property where there has been migration of hazardous substances 
on to the person's property from a facility that is under 
separate ownership or operation, as long as the person did not 
cause, contribute, or consent to the release or threatened 
release; provided cooperation; and is not affiliated with 
another liable party. This amendment reflects existing law on 
contiguous property owners as set forth in Kalamazoo River 
Study Group v. Rockwell International, 3 F.Supp.2d 799 (W.D. 
Mich. 1998) (riparian property owner is not liable for 
contamination released from an upstream facility that migrated 
down the river), and Dent v. Beazer Materials and Services, 
Inc., 1995 W.L. 940693 (D.S.C. 1995) (mere ownership of 
property to which hazardous substances have migrated is not 
sufficient for the imposition of liability under CERCLA, 
apportioning 100 percent of the liability to the owner of the 
facility that was the source of the hazardous substances).
    A contiguous property owner or operator need not await 
litigation to have its innocence affirmed. This provision 
authorizes EPA to provide written assurances to these property 
owners and operators that they are not subject to enforcement 
actions by the government or to contribution actions by private 
parties. It is the Committee's intent that EPA will readily 
provide these assurances in appropriate cases, so that these 
property owners will not continue to face the specter of 
potential liability.
    In the past, EPA has included the area through which 
contamination has migrated as part of a NPL-listed Superfund 
site. This can occur even in cases where the contamination has 
only migrated through ground water which is not used as 
drinking water and presents no realistic risk of exposure to 
persons using the surface of the property. Listing such 
properties as part of NPL sites places a significant stigma and 
financial burden on these property owners by making it 
difficult for them to sell, develop, or lease their land.
    The new section 107(s) addresses the concern that these 
contiguous properties may be unfairly stigmatized by being 
included as part of NPL Superfund sites, especially when the 
surface of the land itself is not contaminated and the ground 
water beneath the property is not used as a source of drinking 
water. The section provides that the owner or operator of 
contiguous property may petition EPA to have that property 
deleted from the description of an NPL site if that property is 
only contaminated through migrating ground water and the ground 
water is not used as a source of drinking water. The Committee 
strongly encourages EPA to be forthcoming in granting these 
petitions where the petitioner makes the appropriate showing. 
No useful purpose is achieved in labeling these properties as 
part of an NPL site when the land itself is not contaminated 
and there is no realistic risk of human exposure to the 
contaminants in the ground water. Rather, the owners and 
operators of these properties should not be impeded from 
leasing, developing and otherwise using their properties by an 
unnecessary NPL listing.

Section 108. Remedy selection

    Section 108 amends section 121 of CERCLA in a number of 
ways. First, section 108 provides for meaningful consideration 
of practicality and reasonably anticipated uses of land, water 
and other resources in remedy selection decisions. Second, the 
changes ensure that the current preference for permanence and 
treatment in section 121(b) of CERCLA does not override risks 
to the community or workers. Section 108 also removes the 
requirement in section 121(d) of CERCLA to meet ``relevant and 
appropriate'' standards, but maintains legally applicable 
requirements. Section 108 also adds new subsections to section 
121 of CERCLA to provide for risk assessments, characterization 
and communication principles; a study of substances and 
mixtures; and consideration of sensitive subpopulations through 
site-specific risk assessment.
    Section 108 amends section 121(b) of CERCLA to modify the 
current preferences for treatment and permanence with the 
qualifiers ``to the extent practicable, considering the nature 
and timing of reasonably anticipated uses of land, water, and 
other resources.'' Numerous parties have requested the 
consideration of reasonably anticipated land use as a 
commonsense measure that should guide remedy selection. An 
industrial park need not be cleaned up as if it were a 
playground. There are many types of engineering and 
institutional strategies to remediate a site so as to protect 
human health and the environment consistent with the 
requirements of section 121(a). Treatment is one such 
engineering option and, indeed, there are many types of 
treatment. The Committee intends that strategies should be 
selected based on the need to protect human health and the 
environment in a site-specific manner, considering the 
practicalities at the site and reasonably anticipated uses of 
land, water and other resources.
    Section 108 also amends section 121(b) of CERCLA to ensure 
that the statutory preference for permanence and treatment is 
not implemented in a manner that causes increased risks to 
workers and the community. Remedial treatment technologies, 
even if operated within permitted limits and in accordance with 
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and 
other safety or health regulations, should not be presumed to 
be free of risk to human health or the environment. For 
example, a particular remedy may destroy significant 
ecosystems, or expose an ecosystem to previously buried 
contaminants which may also be followed by increased human 
exposures; remedial technologies and the handling of 
contaminated materials may pose a safety or health risk to 
workers at the site; materials removed from a site may also be 
transported through a community and pose risks from increased 
truck traffic and spillage in the community; contaminated 
materials may be incinerated where air emissions may pose a 
risk to the community; and finally, contaminated materials or 
residues may be disposed of in landfills or other containment 
structures which may themselves pose risks to human health or 
the environment. A site-specific analysis is necessary to 
determine whether remedialalternatives involve scenarios such 
as those above which create risks where none existed before, or 
increase risks from levels that would exist but for the implementation 
of the remedy.
    Consistent with the requirement of section 121 that 
remedies be protective of human health and the environment, 
this provision requires EPA to assess the reasonably 
anticipated health and environmental risks posed by the 
remedial alternative, with particular attention to communities 
where the remedy is to be implemented, and to assess the 
reasonably anticipated risks to the safety and health of 
workers who would be engaged in the remedy. This analysis must 
be completed prior to selecting a remedial action. Risk to the 
community or workers does not prohibit a treatment option. 
However, if, applying reasonably anticipated scenarios such as 
those noted above to a particular site, a remedial alternative 
would increase health or environmental risks to the public or 
risks to worker health or safety, the preference itself no 
longer applies in the remedial selection process, and the 
remedial action for that site is chosen based on the factors 
applicable in the absence of the statutory preference.
    Section 108 also deletes the requirement to meet ``relevant 
and appropriate'' standards under section 121(d) of CERCLA 
except for Maximum Contaminant Levels under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 300(f) et seq.). Section 108 also 
ensures that the concept of reasonable points of compliance 
preserves the flexibility that EPA uses to make practical site-
specific decisions.
    Risk Assessment and Characterization Principles.--Section 
108 also adds a new section 121(g) to CERCLA. The new 
subsection requires risk assessments and characterizations to 
be scientifically objective and unbiased. The purpose of risk 
assessment is to assess and explain the best science. It may be 
appropriate in the step of making risk management decisions to 
take a precautionary approach on issues of public health 
through the use of safety factors. Such decisions should be 
informed by the best science and scientific understanding. It 
is inappropriate to intentionally bias the risk assessment 
process by ignoring or discounting the best scientific 
understanding of the nature and magnitude of risk.
    This section does not preclude the use of assumptions in 
risk assessment. This debate has frequently confused the 
relationship of assumptions and data. Assumptions are, in part, 
based on a body of scientific information and understanding. 
Similarly, the use of data often involves assumptions about the 
appropriate use of such data in a specific context. When 
assumptions, or an approach to using data, are necessary to 
calculate a risk measure, the public needs to know which 
assumption or approach is supported by the greater weight of 
the scientific evidence. It is also important to provide 
information on uncertainty and variability.
    The section requires risk assessments to provide, among 
other estimates, risk measures based on the most scientifically 
supported assumptions, information, and approaches. The section 
does not preclude the calculation of any risk measure, 
including ``conservative'' risk estimates. Such measures are 
simply additional descriptions of the risk profile. Sole use of 
compound ``conservative'' default assumptions, however, without 
also producing risk measures based on the most scientifically 
supported assumptions is biased and misleading. Such assessment 
and characterization practices have been a significant problem 
with Superfund risk assessments which mislead risk managers and 
the public. Too frequently, better information and site-
specific information have been ignored.
    Sensitive Subpopulations and Site-specific Risk 
Assessment.--Section 108 adds a new subsection (h) to section 
121 of CERCLA concerning sensitive subpopulations and site-
specific risk assessments. In order to appropriately provide 
remedial alternatives and sound decisions, the remedial manager 
must provide or obtain a site-specific risk assessment. 
Exposure scenarios must be based on the actual or reasonably 
anticipated situation at or near the site considering 
reasonably anticipated uses of land, water, and other 
resources. Highly exposed or highly vulnerable groups may be 
identified through site-specific risk assessments. This 
paragraph does not make such groups a default assumption, as 
risk is a site-specific concept. The reasonably anticipated 
uses of industrial parks or railroads does not necessarily 
result in residential exposure scenarios or exposure scenarios 
for children unless there is evidence in the specific context. 
At the same time, the President should take into consideration 
any subsistence fishermen, cultural practices, or identified 
vulnerable groups in the site-specific risk assessment process. 
The nature of the actual, scientifically objective risks at the 
site must inform the remedy selection process. Moreover, the 
significance of the risk in relationship to risks that may be 
created by a remedial option must be considered.
    Study of Substances and Mixtures.--Section 108 adds a new 
paragraph (i) to section 121 of CERCLA to provide for a study 
of substances and mixtures. The Committee intends that this 
paragraph further the scientific understanding of: the most 
appropriate approach for assessing and estimating cancer risks 
from certain chemicals; and how to address chemical mixtures. 
This information may be useful in future efforts. No action 
shall be delayed because of the study. Nor is there an 
exemption from the requirements of new sections 121(g), 121(h), 
or 121(j) for any risk assessment during the course of the 
study.
    Presentation of Risk Information.--Section 108 also adds a 
new paragraph (j) to section 121 of CERCLA concerning 
presentation of risk information. This paragraph ensures that 
the presentation of risk information by the President is full, 
unbiased, transparent, and meaningful.

Section 109. Brownfields grants

    Section 109 adds a new section 127 to CERCLA to address 
brownfields facilities. This section addresses the major 
impediments to brownfields redevelopment by providing Federal 
assistance for site assessments and cleanups, and by addressing 
the CERCLA liability issues that have deterred redevelopment.
    New section 127(a) defines brownfields facilities, 
identifies the entities eligible to receive grants (including 
States and local governments), and provides other definitions. 
The definition of brownfields facility specifies what 
facilities are eligible for assistance under this section. The 
Committee notes that pilot projects funded under the 
Brownfields Redevelopment Initiative, established by EPA, have 
excluded many brownfields sites due to restrictions on the use 
of money from the Superfund trust fund. In particular, trust 
fund money may not be used to clean up asbestos, lead based 
paint, or petroleum. These restrictions are not applicable to 
grants provided under this section. First, new section 127 
operates independent of section 104 of CERCLA, and does not 
include any of the restrictions on response found in section 
104. Second, new section 127 is not funded by the Superfund 
trust fund, and is not limited to restrictions on the uses of 
the fund found in section 111 of CERCLA and in the Internal 
Revenue Code.
    New section 127(b) requires the President to establish a 
program to provide grants for inventory and assessment of 
brownfield facilities. This subsection includes application 
requirements and the criteria the President shall use to 
evaluate the applications. Each grant may not provide more than 
$200,000 for single brownfield facility.
    New section 127(c) requires the President to establish a 
program to provide grants for capitalization of revolving loan 
funds. After establishing a revolving loan fund, an eligible 
entity may make loans for the purpose of carrying out remedial 
actions at one or more brownfields facilities to a State, a 
site owner or a site developer, including the eligible entity 
itself, as long as that entity follows the same rules 
applicable to other loan recipients, including repayment of the 
loan in a timely manner.
    If the entity receiving a grant under this section is a 
local government, that local government may set aside 10 
percent of the grant for the purpose of developing and 
implementing a brownfields site remediation program, including 
health monitoring and enforcement of institutional controls. 
This set-aside should be considered ``seed money'' to encourage 
cities to develop their own in-house expertise and should not 
be considered a continuing source of funding for city 
employees.
    New section 127(c) includes application requirements and 
ranking criteria the President shall use to evaluate the 
applications. The Committee notes that under the ranking 
criteria, the President evaluates an eligible entity's proposed 
program for establishing a remediation revolving loan fund, and 
does not evaluate individual remediation projects. Section 
127(c) caps the maximum grant per eligible entity at 
$1,000,000.
    New section 127(d) establishes general provisions 
applicable to both the brownfields assessment grant program and 
the brownfields remediation grant program. Under this 
subsection, the President is authorized to require grant 
recipients to meet certain terms and conditions. These terms 
and conditions relate to the eligible entity's proposed program 
for establishing a revolving loan fund. The authority to 
include terms and conditions necessary to ensure proper 
administration of the grants does not give the President 
authority to condition receipt of a grant on an agreement to 
allow the President to approve which sites are selected for 
remediation and to oversee remediation activities.
    The Committee notes that the January 1999 EPA Proposed 
Guidelines for Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund are not 
applicable to grants authorized under this section. First,these 
guidelines provide an extensive role for EPA in overseeing individual 
cleanup projects. Unlike the Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund pilot 
projects, the Committee does not anticipate that the U.S. EPA, or any 
other Federal entity administering the brownfields grant program 
authorized by this section, will monitor individual projects, develop 
the scope of work, or oversee operational matters. The Committee 
intends that the President ensure that these programs meet the 
requirements of this section, including the requirement to comply with 
all applicable Federal and State laws, by auditing an appropriate 
number of grants, and not by overseeing each brownfields program that 
receives Federal funding. Second, while guidelines include many 
restrictions and requirements to ensure compliance with the National 
Contingency Plan (NCP), the NCP is not applicable to grants under this 
section.
    New section 127(e) requires the President to evaluate and 
approve grants based on specific ranking criteria. Grants under 
this section are applicable to a particular fiscal year. 
Nothing in new section 127 prevents an eligible entity from 
seeking an additional grant in a subsequent fiscal year. 
However, such a grant application would be evaluated with all 
other grant applications, based on the ranking criteria, which 
can take prior funding into account under the criteria related 
to the need for financial assistance.
    New section 127(f) authorizes such sums as may be necessary 
to carry out this section.

     Title II--Expenditures From the Hazardous Substance Superfund

Section 201. Expenditures From the Hazardous Substance Superfund

    Section 201 amends section 111 of CERCLA. It creates a new 
subsection (a) that authorizes direct spending of no more than 
$250,000,000 per year for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004 to 
cover fund share of liability attributable to specified 
exemptions and obligations in subsection (b). This subsection 
also authorizes $1,500,000,000 per year in Fiscal Years 2000 
through 2002, $1,400,000,000 in Fiscal Year 2003, and 
$1,350,000,000 in Fiscal Year 2000 for the purposes described 
in subsection (c), relating to response, removal and 
remediation, and subsection (d), relating to administration, 
oversight, research and other costs.
    Subsection (b) limits total expenditures from amounts made 
available to fund shares of liability attributable to specified 
exemptions and obligations to $250,000,000 per year in Fiscal 
Years 2000 through 2004. In addition, this subsection allows 
the President to use funds made available pursuant to 
subsection (a)(1) for the purposes allowed under subsections 
(c) and (d), if the President does not have the total amount 
authorized for such purposes in such fiscal years available for 
obligation. The President may use this authority only to the 
extent necessary to bring the amounts available for 
authorization up to the authorized levels for such fiscal 
years.
    Subsection (c) authorizes funding, subject to 
appropriation, of the following: (1) government response costs; 
(2) private response cost claims; (3) acquisition of real 
estate under section 104; (4) State and local government 
reimbursement under section 123; and (5) contracts and 
cooperative agreements under section 104(d).
    Subsection (d) authorizes funding, subject to 
appropriation, of the following: (1) investigation and 
enforcement; (2) overhead; (3) employee safety programs; (4) 
grants for technical assistance; (5) worker training and 
education; (6) ATSDR activities; (7) evaluation costs under 
section 105(d); (8) contract costs under section 104(a)(1); (9) 
research and development under section 311; (10) awards under 
section 109(d); and (11) grants to States to develop 
comprehensive State ground water protection plans.
    Subsection (e) reiterates subsections 111(e)(1) and 
111(e)(3) in current law. Claims against the Fund shall only be 
paid if there is a positive unobligated balance in the Fund. 
This section also places a limitation on the use of the Fund at 
Federal facilities, and clarifies that Trust Fund money may not 
be used for remedial action at facilities that are not on the 
NPL. This section also deletes subsections 111(j) and (n) 
related to claims against the Fund arising from the transition 
of claims from the Clean Water Act to CERCLA, and deletes 
subsection 107(k) of CERCLA, which has never been funded or 
implemented.

Section 202. Authorization of appropriations from general revenues

    Section 202(a) amends subsection 111(p) to authorize the 
appropriation of such sums as necessary for each of Fiscal 
Years 2000 through 2004 from general revenues to the Fund (plus 
any budget authority that may remain from previous years). 
Section 202 (b) repeals section 517 of the Superfund Amendments 
Reauthorization Act (SARA), which is duplicative of section 
111(p) of CERCLA.

Section 203. Completion of the National Priorities List

    Section 603 authorizes $1 million for a study of the 10-
year funding needs for the Superfund program.

                      Title III--Liability Reform

Section 301. Liability relief for innocent parties

    Section 301 amends section 107(b) of CERCLA to create 
additional defenses to liability for the following classes of 
innocent parties that are owners or operators of facilities 
listed on the NPL who did not cause or contribute to the 
pollution at a Superfund site:
    Recipients of Property by Inheritance or Bequest.--Under 
new section 107(b)(2)(A), an owner or operator of a facility or 
vessel can establish an affirmative defense to CERCLA liability 
by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he 
acquired the property by inheritance or bequest and that he met 
all the conditions in new section 107(b)(4), which requires a 
showing that he did not cause or contribute to the release or 
threatened release and exercised appropriate care with respect 
to the hazardous substances. This provision is intended to 
protect innocent owners or operators whose liability is the 
result of an inheritance or bequest.
    Recipients of Property by Charitable Donation.--Under new 
section 107(b)(2)(B), an owner or operator of a facility can 
limit his liability to the lesser of the fair market value of 
the facility or vessel and the actual proceeds of the sale of 
the facility, if the following conditions are met. The owner or 
operator must be a non-profit organization, as defined by the 
Internal Revenue Service, and the person must meet the 
requirements in new section 107(b)(4), requiring a showing that 
he did not cause or contribute to the release or threatened 
release and exercised appropriate care with respect to the 
hazardous substances. This provision is intended to protect 
innocent non-profit owners or operators whose liability is the 
result of a charitable donation.
    Owners or Operators of Rights of Way.--New section 
107(b)(2)(C) provides a defense to CERCLA liability for a 
person whose liability is based solely on his status as an 
owner or operator of a road, street, pipeline, easement, or 
other right-of-way over which hazardous substances are 
transported or are present where that person can establish by a 
preponderance of the evidence that he did not, by act or 
omission, cause or contribute to the release or threatened 
release. This provision is intended to protect innocent owners 
or operators whose liability is the result of ownership or 
operation of a right-of-way.
    Railroad Owners and Operators of Spur Track.--New section 
107(b)(2)(D) provides a defense to CERCLA liability for a 
person whose liability is based solely on his status as a 
railroad owner or railroad operator of a spur track, including 
a spur track over land subject to an easement, to a facility 
that is owned or operated by a person that is not affiliated 
with the railroad owner. In order to receive this protection, 
the railroad owner or operator must show, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, that the spur track provides access to a main 
line that is owned or operated by the railroad; that the spur 
track is no more than 10 miles long; and that the railroad did 
not cause or contribute to the release or threatened release of 
hazardous substances at the site. Railroads should not be 
liable under CERCLA when they are merely carrying out their 
common carrier responsibilities to serve shippers. This 
provision is intended to address a situation where a railroad 
has no ability to control its customers' handling of hazardous 
substances, and it is the customers' actions that result in 
releases of hazardous substances creating CERCLA liability. If 
a railroad is in a position to prevent a hazardous substance 
release, but fails to exercise due care and thereby contributes 
to such a release, the railroad would continue to be liable 
under CERCLA.
    Construction Contractors.--New section 107(b)(2)(E) 
provides a defense to CERCLA liability for construction 
contractors who can demonstrate based on a preponderance of the 
evidence that their liability is based solely on construction 
activities specifically directed by and carried out in 
accordance with a contract with the owner or operator of the 
facility; that the contractor did not know or have reason to 
know of the presence of hazardous substances at the site; and 
the person exercised appropriate care with respect to the 
hazardous substances. This provision is intended to protect 
innocent construction contractors hired by an owner or operator 
of a Superfund site to perform construction activities at the 
site.
    Appropriate Care Standard and Safe Harbor.--For the 
defenses created in this section for which a determination of 
``appropriate care'' is required, new section 107(b)(3)(A) 
requires thatthis determination be made on a site-specific 
basis, taking into consideration the characteristics of the hazardous 
substances, in light of all relevant facts, circumstances, and 
generally accepted good commercial and customary practices at the time 
of the defendant's acts or omissions. The existing ``third-party'' 
defense under CERCLA requires a person to exercise ``due care.'' The 
Committee intentionally used the term ``appropriate care'' to establish 
a different standard of care for those parties whose association with a 
facility begins only after all disposal or placement of hazardous 
substances has occurred. New section 107(b)(3)(B) creates a safe harbor 
under which a party may be deemed to have exercised ``appropriate 
care'' where that party takes reasonable steps to stop continuing 
releases, prevent future releases, and prevent or limit human or 
natural resource exposure to any previously released substance. In 
addition, this safe harbor is available if another party is already 
engaged in a response action--the subsequent party may be deemed to 
exercise appropriate care by cooperating with the responding party and 
providing reasonable access.
    New section 107(b)(4) specifies the conditions that must be 
met in order to qualify for the defenses created by in new 
sections 107(b)(2) (A) and (B). It requires that the person 
acquire the facility after the disposal or placement of 
hazardous substances occurred; that the person did not cause or 
contribute to the release or threatened release; and that the 
person exercised appropriate care, as defined in new section 
107(b)(3) with respect to the hazardous substances. As used in 
this section, the Committee intends ``disposal or placement'' 
to mean active measures taken by the owner or operator, and 
does not include mere passive migration. The determination of 
whether a party caused or contributed to the release or 
threatened release of hazardous substances at a Superfund site 
should not be construed in a manner that is inconsistent with 
its ordinary meaning. For instance, the mere fact that a party 
extracted ground water from a Superfund site does not mean the 
party caused or contributed to the contamination at the site.
    Treatment of Non-Liable Parties. This provision creates a 
new section 107(b)(5) that requires the Administrator, to the 
extent practicable, to inform parties that they are exempt from 
liability, offer such parties written assurances of their 
exemption status, and eliminate or minimize the need for such 
parties to retain legal counsel. This provision is intended to 
assist innocent parties in their interaction with the EPA.

Section 302. Clarifications of certain liability

    Amount of Liability.--Section 302(a) clarifies the amount 
of punitive damages that the President may seek to recover from 
parties who, without sufficient cause, decline to perform 
cleanups pursuant to orders under section 104 or 106 of CERCLA.
    Clarification of Common Carrier Liability.--Section 302(b) 
makes a technical amendment to section 107(b)(1)(C), as 
redesignated, with respect to the ability of railroad common 
carriers to assert the ``third-party'' defense. Section 
107(b)(1)(C), as amended by section 302, exempts railroads from 
liability for the release of hazardous substances under the 
terms of a contract with a shipper who later mishandles the 
commodity. Section 107(b)(3) of current CERCLA enables an 
otherwise liable party to defend claims on the basis that any 
release or threat was due solely to the acts of a third party. 
This third party defense is not available where a person has a 
contractual relationship with that third party. However, the 
contractual relationship limitation does not apply under 
current law to rail carriers whose sole contractual 
relationship is a transportation tariff. The amendment to 
section 107(b)(1)(C) is a technical amendment that provides 
that the rail exception encompasses railroad transportation 
contracts, not just tariffs. This amendment is necessary to 
reflect current practice in the industry. CERCLA was adopted in 
1980, the same year the Staggers Rail Act was enacted. Prior to 
the Staggers Act, railroads transported virtually all of their 
traffic pursuant to tariffs. Deregulation dramatically changed 
the railroad transportation system enabling railroads to use 
contracts individually negotiated with shippers that are 
tailored to the shippers' needs. Today, most rail shipments 
move under individual contracts that are filed with the Surface 
Transportation Board. There is no rational basis for 
distinguishing between transportation by tariff and 
transportation under contract.
    Other Clarifications.--Section 302(c) makes certain 
technical modifications to CERCLA section 107. No substantive 
change to current law is intended.

Section 303. Federal entities and facilities

    Section 303 expressly waives the Federal government's 
sovereign immunity with respect to response or restoration 
actions relating to the release of hazardous substances, 
pollutants, or contaminants. Section 303 is modeled on the 
express waivers of sovereign immunity in section 6001 of the 
Solid Waste Disposal Act and section 1447 of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. The waiver of immunity does not apply to the extent 
a State is applying standards to the Federal government that 
are more stringent than those applied to other entities.

Section 304. Liability relief for small businesses, municipal solid 
        waste, sewage sludge, municipal owners and operators, de 
        micromis contributors

    Limitation on Small Business Liability.--Section 304(a) 
amends section 107 of CERCLA to add new subsection (t) to 
exempt small business concerns from Superfund liability for 
generator and transporter activities occurring before September 
29, 1999. A small business concern is defined as a business 
with, on average over the 3 years preceding the date the small 
business concern is notified by the President that the entity 
is a potentially responsible party, not more than 75 full-time 
employees and no more than $3,000,000 in gross revenues. The 
exemption does not apply to a small business concern if its 
hazardous substances have contributed, or contribute, 
significantly to the costs of the response action. This new 
subsection recognizes that the cost of pursuing a settlement 
with these small entities can often exceed the share of 
response costs that may be attributable to them. Rather than 
spend resources pursuing such parties, it is more efficient to 
remove these parties from the liability system and have their 
share of response costs be paid by the Superfund Trust Fund.
    Liability Relief for Municipal Solid Waste and Sewage 
Sludge.--Section 304(b) amends section 107 of CERCLA to add new 
subsection (u) to establish exemptions from and limitations on 
liability with respect to municipal solid waste and sewage 
sludge disposed of at a landfill facility on the National 
Priorities List. New subsection (u) provides exemptions and 
limitations for generators and transporters of municipal solid 
waste or municipal sewage sludge at landfill facilities.
    For municipal solid waste and sewage sludge that was 
disposed of before the date of enactment, new subsection (u) 
provides most generators and transporters with an exemption 
from liability. However, subsection (u) allows the President to 
hold a person liable under section 107(a)(4) where a person is 
in the business of transporting municipal solid waste or sewage 
sludge for disposal and that person transported municipal solid 
waste or municipal sewage sludge containing hazardous 
substances that has contributed, or contributes, significantly 
to the costs of response at the facility. As provided in new 
section 107(y), liability of these parties is transferred to 
the Trust Fund. Moreover, all liability for municipal solid 
waste and sewage sludge at a facility is capped at 10 percent 
of the response costs. As a result, in any allocation under new 
section 129, or in any contribution claim against the trust 
fund under new section 107(y), the commercial hauler's 
equitable share of response costs due to transporting municipal 
solid waste or sewage sludge shall be based on its equitable 
share of up to 10 percent of the total aggregate liability.
    On or after the date of enactment, the extent that a person 
is liable as a generator or transporter for arranging or 
transporting municipal solid waste or municipal sewage sludge 
for disposal at a landfill facility on the NPL list is limited; 
only certain small municipal solid waste generators and 
transporters are exempted from liability. The Committee intends 
that the operative date of this paragraph is the date on which 
the generator arranged, or the transporter transported, 
municipal solid waste or municipal sewage sludge for disposal 
at a landfill facility, regardless of the date on which that 
disposal occurs. The aggregate liability of all other 
generators and transporters of municipal solid waste and sewage 
sludge is capped at 10 percent of response costs. The small 
municipal solid waste generators and transporters who remain 
exempt from liability are owners, operators, or lessees of 
residential property, businesses that meet the definition of a 
small business concern under the Small Business Act and have no 
more than 100 paid individuals at the relevant location, and 
non-profit organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code with no more than 100 paid individuals at 
the relevant location. The liability of these small municipal 
solid waste generators as described in this subsection is 
extinguished, but is not transferred to the trust fund. The 
President retains the authority to offer settlements to persons 
based on the average unit cost of remediating municipal solid 
waste and municipal sewage sludge in landfills subject to the 
limitations on liability created by this section.
    Mixed Wastes.--New section 107(u) applies only to the 
portion of a person's waste stream that meets the definition of 
municipal solid waste and sewage sludge. A person remains 
subject to liability under section 107(a) for any portion of 
the person's waste stream that does not meet these definitions. 
If wastes meeting the definition of municipal solid waste or 
municipal sewage sludge are collected and disposed of with 
wastes not meeting these definitions, a person's liability for 
the wastes that do not meet these definitions, and any 
equitable allocation of that liability under this Act, shall be 
based on such wastes only. For example, if a person disposedof 
100 cubic yards of material meeting the definition of municipal solid 
waste and 3 drums of materials that did not meet the definition, the 
exemptions or limitations on liability under subsection (u) would apply 
to the portion of the waste stream that consisted of municipal solid 
waste, even if the three drums were placed in the same dumpster.
    Definitions of Municipal Solid Waste and Municipal Sewage 
Sludge.--Municipal solid waste is defined in new subsection (u) 
as waste generated by households (including single and 
multifamily residences, and hotels and motels) and waste 
materials generated by commercial, institutional, and 
industrial sources, to the extent that such materials: (1) are 
essentially the same as waste materials normally generated by 
households, or (2) are collected and disposed with municipal 
solid waste and contain no more hazardous substances than would 
qualify for the de micromis exemption contained in section 
304(c) of this Act. For example, an industrial source could 
dispose of a de micromis amount of hazardous substances along 
with material that is essentially the same as waste materials 
generated by households, and all of the wastes would meet the 
definition of municipal solid waste. The definition of 
municipal solid waste specifically includes certain items such 
as food, packaging, containers, and household hazardous waste. 
This definition specifically excludes waste from manufacturing 
or processing operations, unless such waste is essentially the 
same as waste normally generated by households. The Committee 
intends that wastes from the manufacture or processing of food 
items be covered by the definition of municipal solid waste, 
regardless of volume, because the same wastes are generated by 
households. For example, drums of off-specification chewing 
gum, or off-specification tomato sauce meet the definition of 
municipal solid waste, even if they are waste materials 
generated by a food manufacturing or food processing operation.
    Municipal Owners and Operators.--This section creates new 
subsection 107(v) providing an administrative settlement policy 
for use by the President with respect to the liability of 
municipal owners and operators of NPL-listed landfills. This 
new subsection directs the President to offer municipal owners 
and operators a settlement on the basis of a payment or other 
obligation equal in value to 20 percent of the total response 
costs at the facility. However, this section allows the 
President to raise that amount up to 35 percent of the response 
costs if specified conditions are satisfied. This subsection 
also establishes several conditions for qualifying for the 
settlement offer, and it includes exceptions that would 
preclude the availability of the offer.
    De Micromis Exemption.--Section 304(c) amends section 107 
of CERCLA to add new subsection (w) to exempt generators and 
transporters from liability if they contribute no more than 110 
gallons or 200 pounds of material containing hazardous 
substances, unless the President determines that such material 
has contributed, or contributes, significantly to response 
costs.
    Ineligibility for Exemptions.--Section 304(d) amends 
section 107 to add new subsection (x) to make persons who 
impede response actions, who knowingly or willfully fail to 
respond to information requests, or who fail to provide 
cooperation and facility access, ineligible for the exemptions 
from and limitations on liability under new subsections (t), 
(u), (v), and (w) of section 107, section 114(c), and section 
128.
    Exempt Party Funding; Concluded Actions, and Oversight 
Costs.--Section 304(e) amends section 107 to add new 
subsections (y), (z), and (aa). New section 107(y) establishes 
a mechanism to provide trust fund money to pay for any 
liability exemptions or limitations. Under subsection (y), the 
equitable share of liability that is extinguished through an 
exemption or limitation on liability under new subsections (t), 
(u), and (v) of section 107, section 114(c), as amended, and 
section 128 is generally transferred to and assumed by the 
Trust Fund. There is an exception to this general rule for the 
liability of small municipal solid waste generators whose 
liability is extinguished under new section 107(u)(3). No 
liability is transferred based on that exemption. In addition, 
the liability extinguished under subsection (w) of this section 
with respect to de micromis parties is not transferred to the 
Trust Fund. This subsection makes the trust fund a potentially 
liable party, subject to a claim for contribution to response 
costs by other potentially responsible parties under section 
113 of CERCLA. The trust fund's share can be established by 
settlement, by an allocator (at facilities subject to an 
allocation under new section 131), or by a court. The trust 
fund's share may only be paid from the separate account 
established under section 111(a)(1). New section 107(z) 
specifies that exemptions and limitations on liability do not 
apply to concluded actions, including settlement or judgments 
that are approved, or administrative action that becomes 
effective, not later than 30 days after the date of enactment. 
New section 107(aa) limits recovery of EPA's oversight costs to 
10 percent of the costs of the response action at sites, where 
the parties disclose their costs to the Administrator. New 
subsection (aa) provides incentives for EPA to increase its 
efficiency. It also provides an incentive for private parties 
to share data with EPA on the costs of response actions.

Section 305. Liability of response action contractors

    Section 305 clarifies the liability of Response Action 
Contractors (RACs) under CERCLA to facilitate the prompt 
cleanup of hazardous waste sites, including sites on the NPL 
and brownfields sites. Typically, RACs do not own or operate 
the sites where the cleanups are performed; they employ highly 
trained, technically experienced staff to identify the 
existence of waste at sites and to clean up those wastes. 
Unfortunately, some courts have allowed parties who are liable 
for response costs under CERCLA to bring suit against RACs, 
drawing cleanup firms into the Superfund liability net without 
regard to fault or negligence in cleanup activities. Section 
307(a) amends section 119(a) of CERCLA by extending the 
preexisting negligence standard for RACs under Federal law to 
State law claims. This language ensures that State laws will 
not be preempted by making section 119 inapplicable in States 
where the State has enacted a law determining the liability of 
a response action contractor. Section 307(b) amends section 
119(c) to enhance EPA's discretionary authority to provide 
indemnification for claims brought against RACs. Contractual 
indemnification of RACs by EPA has generally not been provided 
in recent years unless the risks involved affect both the 
market for insurance coverage for the work and the willingness 
of firms to perform cleanup services. Section 307(c) amends 
section 119(c)(5) to clarify that the indemnities provided 
under this section apply to threatened releases, as well as 
actual releases, consistent with the scope of potential 
liability under CERCLA.

Section 306. Amendments to Section 122

    Final Covenants.--Section 306(a) amends section 122(f) of 
CERCLA to require the President to issue final covenants not to 
sue settling parties if such parties perform response actions, 
there are reasonable assurances for the performance of a 
response action, and the settling party pays a premium. This 
provision gives the President authority to provide final 
covenants not to sue in other circumstances. It also expands 
the authority of the President to omit reopener provisions in 
consent decrees if the settlement premium adequately addresses 
unknown future conditions or remedy failure.
    Expedited Final Settlements.--Section 306(b) amends section 
122(g) of CERCLA to allow expedited final settlements for 
parties whose contribution to the release of hazardous 
substances at the facility is de minimis, and for natural 
persons, small businesses, and municipalities who can 
demonstrate a limited ability to pay. This amendment also 
affords an administrative appeal and judicial review of the 
President's denial of settlement under this subsection. Under 
this subsection, the liability of a small business is 
extinguished if EPA fails to offer a de minimis settlement to 
the small business within 180 days of determining that its 
contributions are de minimis, unless the delay was beyond the 
control of the President.
    Definition of Municipality.--Section 306(c) amends section 
101 of CERCLA to add a definition of the term ``municipality'' 
to the Act.

Section 307. Clarification of liability for recycling transactions

    Section 307(a) adds a new section 128 to CERCLA to address 
certain recycling transactions. Under new section 128(a), a 
person who arranges for the recycling of a recyclable material 
by means of a transaction that is covered by this section is 
not liable as a generator or transporter under CERCLA section 
107(a). The requirements of this section establish a safe 
harbor for certain recycling transactions. If a person meets 
specified conditions, the person will not be liable as a 
generator or transporter of a hazardous substance. For all 
transactions that do not fall within the scope of the liability 
protections provided under new section 128, the Committee 
intends that determinations of liability be made under section 
107(a) on a case-by-case basis based on the individual facts 
and circumstances of each transaction, without regard to the 
requirements of new section 128.
    New section 128(b) defines recyclable material as scrap 
paper, plastic, glass, textiles, rubber, metal, and spent 
batteries. This definition excludes certain shipping containers 
and materials with PCB concentrations in excess of 50 parts per 
million (ppm).
    New section 128(c) sets forth the conditions under which 
transactions involving scrap paper, scrap plastic, scrap 
textiles, or scrap rubber will be deemed arranging for 
recycling.
    New section 128(d) sets forth the conditions under which 
transactions involving scrap metal are deemed arranging for 
recycling. Scrap metal is defined as pieces of metal parts, 
ormetal pieces that may be combined together with bolts or solders as 
well as certain metal byproducts from the production of copper and 
copper-based alloys. Scrap metal does not include materials that the 
Administrator excludes by regulation.
    New section 128(e) sets forth the conditions under which 
transactions involving batteries are deemed to be arranging for 
recycling. A person who arranges for the recycling of batteries 
(other than lead-acid batteries) is potentially covered by the 
liability protections only if the arrangement took place after 
the effective date of Federal environmental regulations 
regarding the storage, transport, management, or other 
activities associated with recycling batteries and the person 
was in compliance with such regulations. Such regulations were 
promulgated by EPA on May 11, 1995, as part of the ``Universal 
Waste Rule,'' and went into effect on the date of promulgation 
(60 Fed. Reg. 25492 (May 11, 1995)). As a result, for batteries 
other than lead-acid batteries, only transactions occurring on 
or after May 11, 1995, are potentially covered by the liability 
protections of new section 128.
    New section 128(f) provides exclusions from the liability 
protections of section 128. A person is not protected from 
liability under this section if the person had an objectively 
reasonable belief that the recyclable material would not be 
recycled, the recyclable would be burned as fuel or for energy 
recovery or incineration, or the recycling facility was not in 
compliance with law. A person also is ineligible if the person 
has reason to believe hazardous substances were added to the 
recyclable material for reasons other than processing for 
recycling, or failed to exercise reasonable care.
    New section 128(g) confirms that this section does not 
affect the liability of owners and operators. New section 
128(h) clarifies that this section does not affect any person's 
liability under any law other than CERCLA. New section 128(i) 
clarifies that this section does not affect any defenses or 
liabilities with respect to any transaction involving a 
material that is not a recyclable material, as defined in this 
section. As a result, a person who engages in recycling 
transactions not covered by new section 128 may prevail on 
other defenses to CERCLA liability. Moreover, new section 128 
does not relieve any plaintiff of the burden of proof that 
elements of liability are met in any action under this Act.
    Service Station Dealers.--Section 307(b) amends section 
114(c) of CERCLA to broaden the exemption from liability for 
service station dealers who collect used oil for recycling to 
include used oil recycling by such persons before the March 8, 
1993, effective date of the Used Oil Management Standards. The 
purpose of this amendment to section 114(c) is to protect 
service station dealers from liability for the public service 
they have provided by collecting and recycling used oil. This 
amendment also clarifies that a service station dealer is 
entitled to the same presumption that applies to oil received 
from ``do-it-yourselfers,'' namely the presumption that oil 
which the service station dealer removes from the engine of a 
light duty motor vehicle or household appliance is not mixed 
with other hazardous substances.

Section 308. Allocation

    Section 308 adds new section 129 to CERCLA to end third-
party litigation by requiring all parties to halt their 
lawsuits and participate in a neutral allocation of response 
costs. This section also increases the fairness of CERCLA 
liability by providing parties with the opportunity to settle 
their liability under CERCLA based on their fair share of 
response costs.
    Purpose.--New section 129(a) defines the purpose of 
allocation as the determination of the equitable shares of 
response costs, including the equitable share to be borne by 
the trust fund, at facilities on the National Priorities List.
    Eligible Response Action.--New section 129(b) makes removal 
or remedial actions at facilities on the National Priorities 
List eligible for an allocation if the performance of the 
action is not the subject of a decree or administrative order, 
there are unrecovered costs of over $2 million, and there are 
response costs attributable to the trust fund. This subsection 
excludes chain of title sites from the allocation process (and 
requirement of a fund share) unless the current owner is 
insolvent or defunct. This subsection allows consideration of 
affiliated parties who are in a chain of title or otherwise 
liable for response costs for the purpose of determining 
whether the current owner is insolvent or defunct.
    Discretionary Allocation Process.--New section 129(c) 
allows the President to initiate an allocation for any removal 
or remedial action at a facility on the NPL, including 
providing a Fund share.
    Allocation Process.--New section 129(d) requires the 
President to ensure that a fair and equitable allocation of 
response costs is undertaken for eligible removal or remedial 
actions at an appropriate time by a neutral allocator under a 
process agreed to by the parties.
    Early Offer of Settlement.--New section 129(e) requires the 
President to make an early offer of settlement that includes a 
Fund share.
    Representation of the United States and Affected States.--
New section 129(f) allows the Department of Justice or EPA to 
participate in the allocation as a representative of the trust 
fund, and allows any State that may be responsible for response 
costs as part of a State cost share to participate.
    Moratorium on Litigation.--New section 129(g) stays all 
cost recovery and contribution actions until 150 days after 
issuance of the allocator's report.
    Effect on Principles of Liability.--New section 129(h) 
clarifies that the allocation process does not modify 
principles of liability under the Act.
    Fund Share.--New section 129(i) requires that the allocator 
determine the share of response costs to be allocated to the 
trust fund consisting of costs attributable to insolvent and 
defunct parties, parties with whom the United States has 
settled for less than their equitable share based on ability to 
pay considerations, exempt parties, and the amount attributable 
to parties whose liability is capped, to the extent that their 
equitable share exceeds that cap.
    Certain Municipal Solid Waste Generators.--New section 
129(j) precludes attributing response costs to households, 
small businesses, and small non-profit municipal solid waste 
generators who are protected from liability under new 
subsection 107(u). Similarly, the Committee intends that this 
section preclude attributing response costs to de micromis 
parties who are protected from liability under new subsection 
107(w).
    Unattributable Share.--New section 129(k) allows the 
equitable share of response costs which cannot be attributed to 
any party to spread among all parties, but requires that costs 
attributable to unidentified generators be attributed to 
identified transporters or identified owners and operators, 
where such parties are legally responsible for such costs.
    Expedited Allocation.--New section 129(l) allows the 
allocator, at the request of the allocation parties, to provide 
an estimate of the aggregate Fund share, to assist the parties 
in reaching settlement with the United States.
    Other Settlements.--New section 129(m) ends the allocation 
process if the parties come forward with a private allocation 
that covers at least 80 percent of the response costs. This 
subsection affirms the President's authority under section 
122(g) to enter into expedited settlements at any time during 
an allocation.
    Settlements Based on Allocations.--New section 129(n) 
allows a party to settle based on an equitable share in the 
allocation report, if the Administrator of EPA and the Attorney 
General do not reject the allocation report. The Committee 
expects the parties to agree on a standard for rejection of the 
allocation as part of the process agreed to by the 
participants. Further, the Committee expects that rejection of 
an allocation will be extremely rare. Moreover, if at the time 
the allocation is complete, the President does not have 
sufficient funds to obligate the full Fund share established by 
the allocation, the Committee expects the President to proceed 
in a manner that preserves the equitable results of the 
allocation.
    Reimbursement of UAO Performance.--New section 129(o) 
provides reimbursement when performing parties expend more than 
their allocated share of response costs when complying with an 
administrative order. This provision is intended to ensure that 
the President does not use his authority to issue cleanup 
orders under section 106 of CERCLA to circumvent the 
President's obligation to provide for a fair and equitable 
allocation of response costs. Second, it is intended to ensure 
that the President does not attempt to make orphan share 
funding available only if the party waives its rights to a 
challenge.
    Post-Settlement Litigation.--New section 129(p) allows the 
United States to proceed with litigation against non-settling 
parties. This provision is intended to provide a significant 
incentive for parties who might otherwise be recalcitrant to 
agree to conduct a cleanup.
    Response Costs.--New section 129(q) states that costs of 
the allocation process and costs incurred for the Fund share 
are response costs. This ensures that EPA can seek recovery of 
these response costs in any post-settlement litigation against 
recalcitrant parties.
    Federal, State, and Local Agencies.--New section 129(r) 
clarifies that Federal, State, and local agencies are subject 
to and entitled to the benefits of an allocation to the same 
extent as any other party.
    Source of Funds.--New section 129(s) provides that payments 
by the Trust Fund or work performed on behalf of the Trust Fund 
to meet obligations under this section are funded from amounts 
made available under section 111(a)(1).
    Savings Provisions.--New section 129(t) clarifies the 
President's retained authorities.

Section 309. Standard for cleanup by dry cleaners

    Section 309 establishes a national standard for the 
remediation of dry cleaning solvents in order to address 
unrealistic cleanup requirement concerns faced by dry cleaners. 
Since there is no national standard in place, dry cleaners are 
often confronted with an initial requirement to clean the soil 
in question to drinking water standards, an unnecessarily 
difficult and expensive process which is often not practical on 
a site-specific basis. Section 309 uses the EPA's own Soil 
Screening Guidance Document to set a standard for dry cleaning 
solvents equal to the Soil Screening level for inhalation on a 
site specific basis. This reasonable site-specific standard for 
soil (a) would not interfere with requiring that drinking water 
standards be met for ground and surface water used as drinking 
water in the area and (b) could be made stricter by the EPA or 
the State agency on a site-specific basis if necessary to 
protect human health or the environment.

                        Title IV--Public Health

Section 401. Public health authorities

    Disease Registry and Medical Care Providers.--Section 
401(a) amends section 104(i)(1) of CERCLA modifying the 
requirement in current law to establish a disease registry. 
This section also makes technical amendments regarding 
referrals to health care providers.
    Substance Profiles.--Section 401(b) amends section 
104(i)(3) to require that toxicological profiles of hazardous 
substances be based on scientific developments and peer 
reviewed data. This section also requires distribution of such 
profiles.
    Determining Health Effects.--Section 401(c) revises aspects 
of health effects research under section 104(i)(5).
    Public Health at NPL Facilities.--Section 401(d) revises 
section 104(i)(6) to allow preliminary health assessments or 
health consultations before the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry (ATSDR) commits to full assessments at sites 
and requires that such assessments take into account the needs 
and conditions of the affected community and increase community 
involvement in health assessments. This provision also requires 
EPA to place the highest priority on facilities with releases 
of hazardous substances which result in actual ongoing human 
exposures at levels of public health concern, as identified by 
ATSDR.
    Health Studies.--Section 401(e) amends section 104(i)(7)(A) 
to broaden the information ATSDR may consider before deciding 
to conduct a health study.
    Distribution of Materials to Health Professionals and 
Medical Centers.--Section 401(f) amends section 104(i)(14) to 
expand the distribution of health and risk information to the 
public.
    Grants, Contracts, and Community Assistance Activities.--
Section 401(g) amends section 104(i)(15) to increase the 
ability of ATSDR to fund, work with, and serve public or 
private non-profit entities and communities affected by the 
release of hazardous substances.
    Peer Review Committee.--Section 401(h) amends section 
104(i) to add a requirement that ATSDR establish an external 
peer review committee.
    Conforming Amendments.--Section 401(i) makes technical and 
conforming amendments.

Section 402. Indian health provisions

    Section 402 amends section 104(i) of CERCLA to include 
reference to the Indian Health Service and to require 
consideration of subsistence activities in public health 
assessments.

Section 403. Hazard ranking system

    Section 403 amends section 105(c) of CERCLA to require the 
President to place the highest priority on facilities with 
actual human exposure to releases. This amendment is consistent 
with the amendment to section 104(i)(6)(a)(iii) made by section 
221(d) of the bill. This section also requires EPA to take 
prior response actions into account when determining whether or 
not to list a facility on the NPL.

Section 404. Disclosure of releases of hazardous substances at 
        Superfund sites

    Section 404 amends section 117 of CERCLA covering public 
participation to add a new subsection (b) requiring disclosure 
of information about releases of hazardous substances from 
sites on the NPL or proposed for listing on the NPL. This 
provision requires the President to make information about 
releases of hazardous substances more widely available to the 
public at various stages of a cleanup, including before and 
during the removal action, as part of the remedial 
investigation, as part of the feasibility study, as part of the 
record of decision, and after completion of construction. The 
purpose of this section is to provide the public with 
information about potential risks posed by the site. The 
Committee expects that this section will be implemented so as 
to facilitate a better understanding of the magnitude and 
nature of potential risks associated with Superfund sites, and 
directs the EPA to provide the best and most accurate 
information and estimates available in complying with this 
section. EPA should not disseminate information pursuant to 
this section for which there is a reasonable basis to conclude 
that the information presents, or is reasonably likely to 
present, a misleading picture of the risks posed by the NPL 
facility. This section does not place any additional burdens on 
any party that is performing a response action. The source of 
this information is intended to be data that are already 
collected as part of the response action. If such data are not 
readily available, the President is directed to make best 
estimates.

                          Administration Views

                           Environmental Protection Agency,
                                  Washington, DC, October 12, 1999.
Hon. Tom Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Bliley: The Administration has worked 
diligently to enact responsible Superfund reform legislation 
for the past six years. As you know, the Administration has 
implemented three rounds of administrative reforms of the 
Superfund program that have fundamentally improved program 
performance resulting in faster, fairer, and more efficient 
cleanups. The cost and duration of Superfund cleanups has been 
reduced by 20 percent, while the number of cleanups completed 
has increased from 65 to 85 per year. Cleanup construction has 
been completed at 670 Superfund sites and more than 400 
additional sites are undergoing cleanup construction. More than 
90 percent of all Superfund sites have had cleanup construction 
completed or are in the midst of cleanup construction. More 
than three times as many toxic waste sites have been cleaned up 
during this Administration that were cleaned up in all of the 
prior years combined.
    To build upon this significant progress, the Administration 
continues to support targeted legislation that encourages the 
cleanup and development of brownfields and addresses the 
liability of prospective purchasers, contiguous property 
owners, truly innocent land owners, small businesses, 
municipalities, and recyclers. The alternative Superfund bill 
offered by Representative Towns, which was supported by a large 
number of the subcommittee members during the Finance and 
Hazardous Materials Subcommittee markup, is targeted 
legislation that the Administration can support. We remain 
hopeful that responsible bipartisan reform legislation can be 
enacted. Unfortunately, to date, responsible Superfund and 
brownfield legislation has not been marked up in either the 
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee nor the House 
Commerce Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.
    Given the significant progress we have been able to achieve 
in the Superfund program over the past six years, the 
Administration cannot support legislation that would undermine 
that progress and therefore must strongly oppose H.R. 2580 as 
reported by the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous 
Materials.
    The version of H.R. 2580 that is scheduled for full 
Commerce Committee markup will reduce the current pace of 
cleanup by cutting available cleanup funds and adding 
unnecessary, time consuming layers of new risk assessment and 
remedy selection requirements. Further, the bill shifts 
significant cleanup costs from polluters to the general public. 
The bill also includes provisions that weaken cleanup standards 
that help ensure permanent cleanups, fails to protect 
uncontainmented ground water, and eliminates relevant and 
appropriate federal and state standards that help tailor 
Superfund cleanups to meet specific site conditions, 
particularly the ability to clean up ground water to state 
drinking water standards.
    We are also concerned that Congress has failed to reinstate 
the lapsed Superfund taxes, which have historically funded the 
cleanup of toxic waste sites. It is especially irresponsible to 
force the general public to pay for the hundreds of millions of 
dollars of special interest liability exemptions in the bill, 
thereby shifting the cost of toxic waste cleanup from the 
industrial sectors that contributed to the problem to the 
general public. A significant portion of the current Superfund 
budget would be needed to pay for the liability exemptions in 
the bill.
    In addition, rather than encouraging early settlements 
between the federal government and parties that contributed to 
the toxic waste problem, the bill actually rewards polluters 
that refuse to settle and encourages them to identify small 
parties and entangle them in allocation disputes in order to 
reduce what large polluters must pay to clean up the site. 
Further, the bill undermines the federal safety net that 
protects all Americans, by prohibiting EPA from ordering 
polluters to clean up high-risk toxic waste sites in states 
that lack the resources to properly address these sites.
    The Administration remains committed to working with 
Congress to enact responsible Superfund legislation as 
represented in the alternative bill offered by Representative 
Towns during the Finance and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee 
markup.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection to the transmission of this letter from the 
standpoint of the President's program.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Carol M. Browner.
                                ------                                

                        U.S. Department of Justice,
                             Office of Legislative Affairs,
                                  Washington, DC, October 13, 1999.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Congressman Dingell: The Department of Justice has 
reviewed H.R. 2580, the ``Land Recycling Act of 1999,'' as 
reported out of the Finance and Hazardous Materials 
Subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee on September 29, 
1999, and strongly oppose this legislation. (An identical 
letter is being sent to Chairman Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.)
    In general, the scope of the bill goes well beyond 
encouraging brownfields redevelopment, and is inconsistent with 
the Administration's desire to enact narrow, targeted Superfund 
legislation in this Congress. In brief, we believe H.R. 2580 
would shift cleanup costs to the American taxpayer, unduly 
restrict the ability of the federal government and citizens to 
protect public health and the environment, slow cleanups and 
drag small parties back into the process through the mandatory 
allocation scheme, roll back the level of protection of 
cleanups that do occur, provide overly broad liability relief, 
increase transaction costs.
    This letter provides a general overview of our most serious 
concerns.

          The Bill Would Shift Major New Costs to the Taxpayer

    The Administration has steadfastly supported the ``polluter 
pays'' principle as the most equitable financing mechanism for 
securing cleanup of Superfund sites. Unfortunately, H.R. 2580 
would reject that approach and would shift major new costs to 
the Fund in order to pay for the hundreds of millions of 
dollars in special interest liability exemptions in the bill. 
At the same time, Congress has not reinstated the taxes 
supporting the Superfund program that expired in 1995. As a 
result, H.R. 2580 would make the American taxpayer--not 
polluters--pay for these costs.

            Unreasonable Restrictions on Federal Authorities

    We believe the restrictions on federal authorities in 
section 102 are gravely flawed and would remove the federal 
safety net that currently protects human health and the 
environment across the nation pursuant to Superfund. For 
example, H.R. 2580 extends its broad prohibition on federal 
enforcement at sites subject to state response actions not only 
to CERCLA, but also to RCRA abatement and citizen suit 
authorities. Also, the scope of the enforcement bar is very 
broad and covers much more than just lightly-contaminated 
brownfields sites (i.e., NPL-caliber sites would be subject to 
the bar). What's more, the narrow exceptions to that bar would 
prevent a federal response in situations that may present an 
imminent and substantial endangerment to communities near 
Superfund sites. Although H.R. 2580 contains language that is 
somewhat different than that found in H.R. 1300, it continues 
to impose a more stringent standard than the statute's existing 
``imminent and substantial endangerment'' provision, a 
provision also found in nearly every other federal 
environmental statute. This new standard will make it more 
difficult for the federal government to protect human health 
and the environment, and will lead to years of litigation over 
its meaning. We also object to the fact that a state can simply 
certify that its program satisfies insufficiently defined 
criteria--thereby triggering the overly-broad federal 
enforcement bar--with no opportunity for EPA to review and 
evaluate the adequacy of that state program. We strongly oppose 
this new language that would invite a new round of litigation 
over its meaning and would create unwarranted risks to public 
health by barring federal intervention.
    In addition, we object to the language in section 102(e) 
that would eliminate the requirement for any federal permit for 
response actions that are covered by the federal enforcement 
bar. Although proponents have likened this provision to section 
121(e) of CERCLA, H.R. 2580 would provide none of the 
protections inherent in the Superfund remedy selection process 
for determining appropriate cleanup standards, including the 
opportunity for public participation in the determination of 
such standards. When combined with the bill's elimination of 
citizen suit enforcement options and EPA's inability to ensure 
adequate state public participation procedures under the state 
program self-certification approach, affected communities may 
well be left without a voice in the cleanup process.

    The New Allocation Process Will Discourage Settlements and Slow 
                                Cleanups

    In my recent letter to the Finance and Hazardous Materials 
subcommittee regarding H.R. 1300 (attached), I discussed our 
extensive concerns with the new prescriptive, mandatory 
allocation process contained in that legislation. We were quite 
disappointed, then, to see that essentially the same language 
was included in the bill reported out of the subcommittee on 
September 29, 1999.
    To briefly recap the points made in my earlier letter, we 
believe this new section is not needed, in light of the 
significant changes we have made in our enforcement strategy, 
as a result of our administrative reforms. Furthermore, if 
enacted, H.R. 2580's allocation system will generate 
litigation, not settlements, pulling lawyers back into the 
process and miring cleanup in litigation and transaction costs. 
It will also drag exempt and already-settled parties (including 
the smallest parties) through the allocation process and 
greatly increase their transaction costs. Finally, it will slow 
down or stop ongoing response actions, and could force the 
federal government to rely primarily on Fund-lead cleanups to 
avoid disruptions in the cleanup process.

               the remedy provisions roll back protection

    We are extremely concerned that Section 108 of the bill 
erodes protection of human health and the environment. For 
example, in making the three changes to current CERCLA section 
121(b)(1), the bill would dilute the current statute's 
preference for permanent treatment remedies. In addition, the 
bill would eliminate the use of ``relevant and appropriate 
requirements'' currently included in CERCLA section 122(d). 
Such changes to the existing remedy selection provisions are 
unnecessary in light of the Superfund administrative reforms. 
They also could interfere with EPA's ability to effectively 
remediate sites the first time around by allowing greater 
amounts of contamination to remain in the soil and ground water 
where it can cause a new round of cleanups in the future.
    The new ``dry cleaners'' amendment adopted at the bill's 
mark-up before the subcommittee would impose an unsafe national 
cleanup level for toxic waste at drycleaner sites. The 
provision adopts an existing EPA guideline designed to assess 
the need for cleaning up perchloroethylene and other dry 
cleaning solvents in soil and applies it as the presumptive 
standard for all environmental media, including groundwater and 
surface water. Several studies and EPA data show that ``perc'' 
is one of the most pervasive contaminants found in groundwater 
in the U.S. Accordingly, we object to the way this section will 
make EPA wait until people are actually drinking ``perc'' 
contaminated water before the agency can apply a more 
protective standard. We also object to the burdensome 
obligations placed on EPA in order to deviate from the 
statutory standard on a site-by-site basis. Significantly, the 
current national drinking water requirements are thousands of 
times lower than the ``presumptive'' level established in this 
section.

     new liability exemptions and expanded defenses are over broad

    The Administration has testified before the Finance and 
Hazardous Materials Committee several times this year 
supporting certain narrow, targeted liability relief that we 
believe is appropriate. Unfortunately, H.R. 2580 would provide 
numerous new exemptions and defenses from CERCLA liability that 
are far too broad.
    For example, the municipal solid waste (MSW) exemption is 
not consistent with EPA's recently issued MSW settlement policy 
and would provide inappropriate relief to large waste 
generators and commercial haulers. In addition, the bill 
provides an over broad exemption to small businesses, which 
could include businesses that contributed large amounts of 
highly toxic wastes. Furthermore, the bill includes a new 
administrative appeal mechanism that could keep de minimis 
settlements tied up in knots, delaying liability resolution for 
years for deserving parties while other parties argue and 
litigate over EPA's decision on eligibility.

     h.r. 2580 would result in a significant increase in litigation

    As I have already discussed in this letter and in my recent 
letter to the subcommittee on H.R. 1300, we strongly oppose 
legislation that will increase transaction costs. 
Unfortunately, H.R. 2580 will initiate another litigation 
feeding frenzy--from challenges to the allocation process to 
litigation over remedies and revisions to the National 
Contingency Plan, from litigation over affirmative defenses and 
exemptions to challenges to risk assessment procedures. The 
bill will invite a new round of expensive litigation over what 
is meant by all of its new terms and requirements. Rather than 
alleviating the concerns expressed by many Members of Congress 
over transaction costs, this bill will exacerbate the problem 
as courts will be asked to review and revise eighteen years of 
established case law.
    I hope our analysis of this bill is helpful, and would be 
pleased to discuss these and other more detailed concerns with 
you further. The Office of Management and Budget has advised 
that there is no objection to the submission of this letter 
from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
            Sincerely,
                                           Joyce E. Peters,
                                                           Counsel.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT 
                                OF 1980

    TITLE I--HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES, LIABILITY, COMPENSATION

                              definitions

    Sec. 101. For purpose of this title--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (35)(A) The term ``contractual relationship'', for 
        the purpose of section [107(b)(3)] 107(b)(1)(C) 
        includes, but is not limited to, land contracts, deeds 
        or other instruments transferring title or possession, 
        unless the real property on which the facility 
        concerned is located was acquired by the defendant 
        after the disposal or placement of the hazardous 
        substance on, in, or at the facility, and one or more 
        of the circumstances described in clause (i), (ii), or 
        (iii) is also established by the defendant by a 
        preponderance of the evidence:
                  (i) * * *
        In addition to establishing the foregoing, the 
        defendant must establish that he has satisfied the 
        requirements of section [107(b)(3)] 107(b)(1)(C) (a) 
        and (b).
          (B) To establish that the defendant had no reason to 
        know, as provided in clause (i) of subparagraph (A) of 
        this paragraph, the defendant must have undertaken, at 
        the time of acquisition, all appropriate inquiry (as 
        specified in section 107(o)) into the previous 
        ownership and uses of the property consistent with good 
        commercial or customary practice in an effort to 
        minimize liability. For purposes of the preceding 
        sentence the court shall take into account any 
        specialized knowledge or experience on the part of the 
        defendant, the relationship of the purchase price to 
        the value of the property if uncontaminated, commonly 
        known or reasonably ascertainable information about the 
        property, the obviousness of the presence or likely 
        presence of contamination at the property, and the 
        ability to detect such contamination by appropriate 
        inspection.
          (C) Nothing in this paragraph or in section 
        [107(b)(3)] 107(b)(1)(C) shall diminish the liability 
        of any previous owner or operator of such facility who 
        would otherwise be liable under this Act. 
        Notwithstanding this paragraph, if the defendant 
        obtained actual knowledge of the release or threatened 
        release of a hazardous substance at such facility when 
        the defendant owned the real property and then 
        subsequently transferred ownership of the property to 
        another person without disclosing such knowledge, such 
        defendant shall be treated as liable under section 
        107(a)(1) and no defense under section [107(b)(3)] 
        107(b)(1)(C) shall be available to such defendant.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (39) The term ``municipality'' means a political 
        subdivision of a State, including a city, county, 
        village, town, township, borough, parish, school 
        district, sanitation district, water district, or other 
        public entity performing local governmental functions. 
        The term also includes a natural person acting in the 
        capacity of an official, employee, or agent of any 
        entity referred to in the preceding sentence in the 
        performance of governmental functions.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          response authorities

    Sec. 104. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (i)(1) There is hereby established within the Public Health 
Service an agency, to be known as the Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry, which shall report directly to 
the Surgeon General of the United States. The Administrator of 
said Agency shall, with the cooperation of the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commissioner of the 
Food and Drug Administration, the Directors of the National 
Institute of Medicine, National Institute of Environmental 
Health Sciences, National Institute of Occupational Safety and 
Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the 
Administrator of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, the Administrator of the Social Security 
Administration, the Secretary of Transportation, the Director 
of the Indian Health Service, and appropriate State and local 
health officials, effectuate and implement the health related 
authorities of this Act. In addition, said Administrator 
shall--
          [(A) in cooperation with the States, establish and 
        maintain a national registry of serious diseases and 
        illnesses and a national registry of persons exposed to 
        toxic substances;]
          (A) in cooperation with the States, for scientific 
        purposes and public health purposes, establish and 
        maintain a national registry of persons exposed to 
        toxic substances;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (E) either independently or as part of other health 
        status survey, conduct periodic survey and screening 
        programs to determine relationships between exposure to 
        toxic substances and illness. [In cases of public 
        health emergencies, exposed persons shall be eligible 
        for admission to hospitals and other facilities and 
        services operated or provided by the Public Health 
        Service.]
In cases of public health emergencies, exposed persons shall be 
eligible for referral to licensed or accredited health care 
providers.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3)(A) Based on all available information, including 
information maintained under paragraph (1)(B) and data 
developed and collected on the health effects of hazardous 
substances under this paragraph, the Administrator of ATSDR 
shall prepare toxicological profiles of each of the substances 
listed pursuant to paragraph (2). The toxicological profiles 
shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines developed by 
the Administrator of ATSDR and the Administrator of EPA. Such 
profiles shall include, but not be limited to each of the 
following:
          [(A)] (i) An examination, summary, and interpretation 
        of available toxicological information and 
        epidemiologic evaluations on a hazardous substance in 
        order to ascertain the levels of significant human 
        exposure for the substance and the associated acute, 
        subacute, and chronic health effects.
          [(B)] (ii) A determination of whether adequate 
        information on the health effects of each substance is 
        available or in the process of development to determine 
        levels of exposure which present a significant risk to 
        human health of acute, subacute, and chronic health 
        effects.
          [(C)] (iii) Where appropriate, an identification of 
        toxicological testing needed to identify the types or 
        levels of exposure that may present significant risk of 
        adverse health effects in humans.
[Any toxicological profile or revision thereof shall reflect 
the Administrator of ATSDR's assessment of all relevant 
toxicological testing which has been peer reviewed. The 
profiles required to be prepared under this paragraph for those 
hazardous substances listed under subparagraph (A) of paragraph 
(2) shall be completed, at a rate of no fewer than 25 per year, 
within 4 years after the enactment of the Superfund Amendments 
and Reauthorization Act of 1986. A profile required on a 
substance listed pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) 
shall be completed within 3 years after addition to the list. 
The profiles prepared under this paragraph shall be of those 
substances highest on the list of priorities under paragraph 
(2) for which profiles have not previously been prepared. 
Profiles required under this paragraph shall be revised and 
republished as necessary, but no less often than once every 3 
years. Such profiles shall be provided to the States and made 
available to other interested parties.]
  (B) Any toxicological profile or revision thereof shall 
reflect the Administrator of ATSDR's assessment of all relevant 
toxicological testing which has been peer reviewed. The 
profiles prepared under this paragraph shall be for those 
substances highest on the list of priorities under paragraph 
(2) for which profiles have not previously been prepared or for 
substances not on the list but which have been found at 
facilities for which there has been a response action under 
this Act and which have been determined by ATSDR to be of 
health concern. Profiles required under this paragraph shall be 
revised and republished, as appropriate, based on scientific 
development and shall be provided to the States, including 
State health departments, tribal health officials, and local 
health departments, and made available to other interested 
parties.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (5)(A) For each hazardous substance listed pursuant to 
paragraph (2), the Administrator of ATSDR (in consultation with 
the Administrator of EPA and the Director of the Indian Health 
Service and other agencies and programs of the Public Health 
Service) shall assess whether adequate information on the 
health effects of such substance is available. For any such 
substance for which adequate information is not available (or 
under development), the Administrator of ATSDR, in cooperation 
with the Director of the National Toxicology Program, shall 
assure the initiation of a program of research [designed to 
determine the health effects (and techniques for development of 
methods to determine such health effects) of such substance.] 
conducted directly or by means such as cooperative agreements 
and grants with appropriate public and nonprofit institutions. 
The research shall be designed to determine the health effects 
of the substance and techniques for development of methods to 
determine such health effects. Where feasible, such program 
shall seek to develop methods to determine the health effects 
of such substance in combination with other substances with 
which it is commonly found. Before assuring the initiation of 
such program, the Administrator of ATSDR shall consider 
recommendations of the Interagency Testing Committee 
established under section 4(e) of the Toxic Substances Control 
Act on the types of research that should be done. Such program 
shall include, to the extent necessary to supplement existing 
information, but shall not be limited to--
          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (iii) laboratory and other studies to determine the 
        manner in which such substances are metabolized or to 
        otherwise develop an understanding of the biokinetics 
        of such substances; [and]
          (iv) laboratory and other studies to develop 
        innovative techniques for predicting organ-specific, 
        site-specific, and system-specific acute and chronic 
        toxicity; and
          [(iv)] (v) where there is a possibility of obtaining 
        human data, the collection of such information.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(6)(A) The Administrator of ATSDR shall perform a public 
health assessment for each facility on the National Priorities 
List established under section 105. Such public health 
assessment shall be completed not later than December 10, 1988, 
for each facility proposed for inclusion on such list prior to 
the date of the enactment of the Superfund Amendments and 
Reauthorization Act of 1986 or not later than one year after 
the date of proposal for inclusion on such list for each 
facility proposed for inclusion on such list after such date of 
enactment.]
  (6)(A)(i) The Administrator of ATSDR shall perform a 
preliminary public health assessment or health consultation for 
each facility on the National Priorities List, including those 
facilities owned by any department, agency, or instrumentality 
of the United States, and those sites that are the subject of a 
petition under subparagraph (B). The preliminary public health 
assessment or health consultation shall be commenced as soon as 
practicable after each facility isproposed for inclusion on the 
National Priorities List or the Administrator of ATSDR accepts a 
petition for a public health assessment. If the Administrator of ATSDR, 
in consultation with local public health officials, determines that the 
results of a preliminary public health assessment or health 
consultation indicate the need for a public health assessment, the 
Administrator of the ATSDR shall conduct the public health assessment 
of those sites posing a health hazard. The results of the public health 
assessment should be considered in selecting the remedial action for 
the facility.
  (ii) The Administrator of ATSDR, in cooperation with States, 
shall design public health assessments that take into account 
the needs and conditions of the affected community.
  (iii) The Administrator of EPA shall place highest priority 
on facilities with releases of hazardous substances which 
result in actual ongoing human exposures at levels of public 
health concern or adverse health effects as identified in a 
public health assessment conducted by the Administrator of 
ATSDR or are reasonably anticipated based on currently known 
facts.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (C) In determining the priority in which to conduct health 
assessments under this subsection, the Administrator of ATSDR, 
in consultation with the Administrator of EPA, shall give 
priority to those facilities at which there is documented 
evidence of the release of hazardous substances, at which the 
potential risk to human health appears highest where low 
population density is not used as an excluding risk factor, and 
for which in the judgment of the Administrator of ATSDR 
existing health assessment data are inadequate to assess the 
potential risk to human health as provided in subparagraph (F). 
In determining the priorities for conducting health assessments 
under this subsection, the Administrator of ATSDR shall 
consider the National Priorities List schedules and the needs 
of the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal 
agencies pursuant to schedules for remedial investigation and 
feasibility studies.
    (D)(i) Where a health assessment is done at a site on the 
National Priorities List, the Administrator of ATSDR shall 
complete such assessment promptly and, to the maximum extent 
practicable, before the completion of the remedial 
investigation and feasibility study at the facility concerned.
  (ii) The President and the Administrator of ATSDR shall 
develop strategies to obtain relevant on-site and off-site 
characterization data for use in the public health assessment. 
The President shall, to the maximum extent practicable, provide 
the Administrator of ATSDR with the data and information 
necessary to make public health assessments sufficiently prior 
to the choice of remedial actions to allow the Administrator of 
ATSDR to complete these assessments.
  (iii) Where appropriate, the Administrator of ATSDR shall 
provide to the President, as soon as practicable after site 
discovery, recommendations for sampling environmental media for 
hazardous substances of public health concern. To the extent 
feasible, the President shall incorporate such recommendations 
into the President's site investigation activities.
  (iv) In order to improve community involvement in public 
health assessments, the Administrator of ATSDR shall carry out 
each of the following duties:
          (I) Collect from community advisory groups, from 
        State and local public health authorities, and from 
        other sources in communities affected or potentially 
        affected by releases of hazardous substances data 
        regarding exposure, relevant human activities, and 
        other factors.
          (II) Design public health assessments that take into 
        account the needs and conditions of the affected 
        community. Community-based research models, local 
        expertise, and local health resources should be used in 
        designing the public health assessment. In developing 
        such designs, emphasis shall be placed on collection of 
        actual exposure data, and sources of multiple exposure 
        shall be considered.
    (E) Any State or political subdivision carrying out a 
health assessment for a facility shall report the results of 
the assessment to the Administrator of ATSDR and the 
Administrator of EPA and shall include recommendations with 
respect to further activities which need to be carried out 
under this section. The Administrator of ATSDR shall state such 
recommendation in any report on the results of any assessment 
carried out directly by the Administrator of ATSDR for such 
facility and shall issue periodic reports which include the 
results of all the assessments carried out under this 
subsection. If the Administrator of ATSDR or the Administrator 
of EPA does not act on the recommendations of the State, the 
Administrator of ATSDR or EPA must respond in writing to the 
State or tribe as to why the Administrator of ATSDR or EPA has 
not acted on the recommendations.
    (F) For the purposes of this subsection and section 
111(c)(4), the term ``health assessments'' shall include 
preliminary assessments of the potential risk to human health 
posed by individual sites and facilities, based on such factors 
as the nature and extent of contamination, the existence of 
potential pathways of human exposure (including ground or 
surface water contamination, air emissions, [and] food chain 
contamination, and any other pathways resulting from 
subsistence activities), the size and potential susceptibility 
of the community within the likely pathways of exposure, the 
comparison of expected human exposure levels to the short-term 
and long-term health effects associated with identified 
hazardous substances and any available recommended exposure or 
tolerance limits for such hazardous substances, and the 
comparison of existing morbidity and mortality data on diseases 
that may be associated with the observed levels of exposure. 
The Administrator of ATSDR shall use appropriate data, risk 
assessments, risk evaluations and studies available from the 
Administrator of EPA.
    (G) The purpose of health assessments under this subsection 
shall be to assist in determining whether actions under 
paragraph (11) of this subsection should be taken to reduce 
human exposure to hazardous substances from a facility and 
whether additional information on human exposure and associated 
health risks is needed and should be acquired by conducting 
epidemiological studies under paragraph (7), establishing a 
registry under paragraph (8), establishing a health 
surveillance program under paragraph (9), orthrough other 
means. In using the results of health assessments for determining 
additional actions to be taken under this section, the Administrator of 
ATSDR may consider additional information on the risks to the 
potentially affected population from all sources of such hazardous 
substances including known point or nonpoint sources other than those 
from the facility in question[.], and may give special consideration, 
where appropriate, to any practices of the affected community that may 
result in increased exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or 
contaminants, such as subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(7)(A) Whenever in the judgment of the Administrator of 
ATSDR it is appropriate on the basis of the results of a health 
assessment, the Administrator of ATSDR shall conduct a pilot 
study of health effects for selected groups of exposed 
individuals in order to determine the desirability of 
conducting full scale epidemiological or other health studies 
of the entire exposed population.]
  (7)(A) Whenever in the judgment of the Administrator of ATSDR 
it is appropriate on the basis of the results of a public 
health assessment or on the basis of other appropriate 
information, the Administrator of ATSDR shall conduct a human 
health study of exposure or other health effects for selected 
groups or individuals in order to determine the desirability of 
conducting full scale epidemiologic or other health studies of 
the entire exposed population.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(14) In the implementation of this subsection and other 
health-related authorities of this Act, the Administrator of 
ATSDR shall assemble, develop as necessary, and distribute to 
the States, and upon request to medical colleges, physicians, 
and other health professionals, appropriate educational 
materials (including short courses) on the medical 
surveillance, screening, and methods of diagnosis and treatment 
of injury or disease related to exposure to hazardous 
substances (giving priority to those listed in paragraph (2)), 
through such means as the Administrator of ATSDR deems 
appropriate.]
  (14) Educational Materials.--In implementing this subsection 
and other health-related provisions of this Act the 
Administrator of ATSDR, in cooperation with the States, shall--
          (A) assemble, develop as necessary, and distribute to 
        the State and local health officials, tribes, medical 
        colleges, physicians, nursing institutions, nurses, and 
        other health professionals and medical centers 
        appropriate educational materials (including short 
        courses) on the medical surveillance, screening, and 
        methods of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of 
        injury or disease related to exposure to hazardous 
        substances (giving priority to those listed under 
        paragraph (2)) through means the Administrator of ATSDR 
        considers appropriate; and
          (B) assemble, develop as necessary, and distribute to 
        the general public and to at-risk populations 
        appropriate educational materials and other information 
        on human health effects of hazardous substances.
    [(15)] (15) Grants, Contracts, and Community Assistance.--
(A) The activities of the Administrator of ATSDR described in 
this subsection and section 111(c)(4) shall be carried out by 
the Administrator of ATSDR, either directly or through 
[cooperative agreements with States (or political subdivisions 
thereof)] grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts with 
States (or political subdivisions thereof), other appropriate 
public authorities, public or private institutions, colleges, 
universities, and professional associations which the 
Administrator of ATSDR determines are capable of carrying out 
such activities. Such activities shall include provision of 
consultations on health information, the conduct of health 
assessments, including those required under section 3019(b) of 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, health studies, registries, and 
health surveillance.
  (B) When a public health assessment is conducted at a 
facility on the National Priorities List, or a facility is 
being evaluated for inclusion on the National Priorities List, 
the Administrator of ATSDR may provide the assistance specified 
in this paragraph to public or private nonprofit entities, 
individuals, and community-based groups that may be affected by 
the release or threatened release of hazardous substances in 
the environment.
  (C) The Administrator of ATSDR, pursuant to the grants, 
cooperative agreements, and contracts referred to in this 
paragraph, is authorized and directed to provide, where 
appropriate, diagnostic services, health data registries, and 
preventative public health education to communities affected by 
the release of hazardous substances.
  (16) Personnel.--The President shall provide adequate 
personnel for ATSDR, which shall not be fewer than 100 
employees. For purposes of determining the number of employees 
under this subsection, an employee employed by ATSDR on a part-
time career employment basis shall be counted as a fraction 
which is determined by dividing 40 hours into the average 
number of hours of such employee's regularly scheduled 
workweek.
  (17) Authorities.--In accordance with section 120 (relating 
to Federal facilities), the Administrator of ATSDR shall have 
the same authorities under this section with respect to 
facilities owned or operated by a department, agency, or 
instrumentality of the United States as the Administrator of 
ATSDR has with respect to any nongovernmental entity.
  (18) Pollutants and Contaminants.--If the Administrator of 
ATSDR determines that it is appropriate for purposes of this 
section to treat a pollutant or contaminant as a hazardous 
substance, such pollutant or contaminant shall be treated as a 
hazardous substance for such purpose.
  (19) Peer Review Committee.--The Administrator of ATSDR shall 
establish an external peer review committee of qualified health 
scientists who serve for fixed periods and meet periodically 
to--
          (A) provide guidance on initiation of studies;
          (B) assess the quality of study reports funded by the 
        agency; and
          (C) provide guidance on effective and objective risk 
        characterization and communication.
The peer review committee may include additional specific 
experts representing a balanced group of stakeholders on an ad 
hoc basisfor specific issues. Meetings of the committee should 
be open to the public.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                       national contingency plan

    Sec. 105. (a) Revision and Republication.--Within one 
hundred and eighty days after the enactment of this Act, the 
President shall, after notice and opportunity for public 
comments, revise and republish the national contingency plan 
for the removal of oil and hazardous substances, originally 
prepared and published pursuant to section 311 of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act, to reflect and effectuate the 
responsibilities and powers created by this Act, in addition to 
those matters specified in section 311(c)(2). Such revision 
shall include a section of the plan to be known as the national 
hazardous substance response plan which shall establish 
procedures and standards for responding to releases of 
hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants, which shall 
include at a minimum:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (8)(A) * * *
          (B) based upon the criteria set forth in subparagraph 
        (A) of this paragraph, the President shall list as part 
        of the plan national priorities among the known 
        releases or threatened releases throughout the United 
        States and shall revise the list, subject to subsection 
        (h), no less often than annually. Within one year after 
        the date of enactment of this Act, and annually 
        thereafter, each State shall establish and submit for 
        consideration by the President priorities for remedial 
        action among known releases and potential releases in 
        that State based upon the criteria set forth in 
        subparagraph (A) of this paragraph. In assembling or 
        revising the national list, the President shall 
        consider any priorities established by the States. To 
        the extent practicable, the highest priority facilities 
        shall be designated individually and shall be referred 
        to as the ``top priority among known response 
        targets'', and, to the extent practicable, shall 
        include among the one hundred highest priority 
        facilities one such facility from each State which 
        shall be the facility designated by the State as 
        presenting the greatest danger to public health or 
        welfare or the environment among the known facilities 
        in such State. A State shall be allowed to designate 
        its highest priority facility only once. Other priority 
        facilities or incidents may be listed singly or grouped 
        for response priority purposes;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Hazard Ranking System.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) Risk prioritization.--In setting priorities under 
        subsection (a)(8), the President shall place highest 
        priority on facilities with releases of hazardous 
        substances which result in actual ongoing human 
        exposures at levels of public health concern or 
        demonstrated adverse health effects as identified in a 
        public health assessment conducted by the Agency for 
        Toxic Substances and Disease Registry or are reasonably 
        anticipated based on currently known facts.
          (6) Prior response action.--Any evaluation under this 
        section shall take into account all prior response 
        actions taken at a facility.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h) Additions to NPL.--(1) The President may add a facility 
to the National Priorities List only after requesting and 
obtaining the concurrence of the Governor of the State in which 
the facility is located. If the Governor assures the President 
that the State is addressing, or will address, the site under 
State authority, and the Governor does not concur in the 
listing of the site, the President shall not list the site.
  (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President may add a 
facility to the National Priorities List if--
          (A) the release or threatened release affects public 
        health or the environment in more than one State, 
        unless the Governors of each such State fail to concur, 
        upon request by the President, in the listing of the 
        site; or
          (B) the President finds that the State where the 
        facility is located is a major potentially responsible 
        party at that facility.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                               liability

  Sec. 107. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of 
law, and subject only to the defenses set forth in subsection 
(b) of this section--
          (1) the owner [and] or operator of a vessel or a 
        facility,

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) any person who accepts or accepted any hazardous 
        substances for transport to disposal or treatment 
        facilities, incineration vessels or sites selected [by 
        such person, from which there is a release, or a 
        threatened release which causes the incurrence of 
        response costs, of a hazardous substance, shall be 
        liable for--] by such person--
from which there is a release, or a threatened release, that 
causes the incurrence of response costs, of a hazardous 
substance, shall be liable for--
                  (A) all costs of removal or remedial action 
                incurred by the United States Government or a 
                State or an Indian tribe not inconsistent with 
                the national contingency plan;
                  (B) any [other] necessary costs of response 
                incurred by any [other] person, other than the 
                United States, a State, or an Indian tribe, 
                consistent with the national contingency plan;
                  (C) damages for injury to, destruction of, or 
                loss of natural resources, including the 
                reasonable costs of assessing such injury, 
                destruction, or loss resulting from such a 
                release; and
                  (D) the costs of any health assessment or 
                health effects study carried out under section 
                104(i).
          (5) The amounts recoverable in an action under this 
        section shall include interest on the amounts 
        recoverable under subparagraphs (A) through (D). Such 
        interest shall accrue from the later of (i) the date 
        payment of a specified amount is demanded in writing, 
        or (ii) the date of the expenditure concerned. The rate 
        of interest on the outstanding unpaid balance of the 
        amounts recoverable under this section shall be the 
        same rate as is specified for interest on investments 
        of the Hazardous Substance Superfund established under 
        subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal Revenue Code 
        of 1954. For purposes of applying such amendments to 
        interest under this subsection, the term ``comparable 
        maturity'' shall be determined with reference to the 
        date on which interest accruing under this subsection 
        commences.
      [(b) There shall be] (b) Defenses to Liability.--
          (1) In general.--There shall be no liability under 
        subsection (a) of this section for a person otherwise 
        liable who can establish by a preponderance of the 
        evidence that the release or threat of release of a 
        hazardous substance and the damages resulting therefrom 
        were caused solely by--
                  [(1)] (A) an act of God;
                  [(2)] (B) an act of war;
                  [(3)] (C) an act or omission of a third party 
                other than an employee or agent of the 
                defendant, or than one whose act or omission 
                occurs in connection with a contractual 
                relationship, existing directly or indirectly, 
                with the defendant (except where the sole 
                contractual arrangement arises from a published 
                tariff and acceptance for carriage by a common 
                carrier by rail), if the defendant establishes 
                by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) he 
                exercised due care with respect to the 
                hazardous substance concerned, taking into 
                consideration the characteristics of such 
                hazardous substance, in light of all relevant 
                facts and circumstances, and (b) he took 
                precautions against foreseeable acts or 
                omissions of any such third party and the 
                consequences that could foreseeably result from 
                such acts or omissions; or
                  [(4)] (D) any combination of the foregoing 
                paragraphs.
          (2) Liability relief for innocent parties.--
                  (A) Recipients of property by inheritance or 
                bequest.--There shall be no liability under 
                subsection (a) for a person whose liability is 
                based solely on the person's status as an owner 
                or operator of a facility or vessel and who can 
                establish by a preponderance of the evidence 
                that the person meets the requirements of 
                paragraph (4) and that the person acquired the 
                property by inheritance or bequest.
                  (B) Recipients of property by charitable 
                donation.--Liability under subsection (a) shall 
                be limited to the lesser of the fair market 
                value of the facility or vessel and the actual 
                proceeds of the sale of the facility for a 
                person whose liability is based solely on the 
                person's status as an owner or operator of the 
                facility or vessel and who can establish by a 
                preponderance of the evidence that the person 
                meets the requirements of paragraph (4) and 
                that the person holding title, either outright 
                or in trust, to the vessel or facility is an 
                organization described in section 501(c)(3) of 
                the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt 
                from tax under section 501(a) of such Code and 
                holds such title as a result of a charitable 
                donation that qualifies under section 170, 
                2055, or 2522 of such Code.
                  (C) Owners or operators of rights-of-way.--
                There shall be no liability under subsection 
                (a) for a person whose liability is based 
                solely on ownership or operation of a road, 
                street, pipeline, or other right-of-way, 
                easement, or public transportation route (other 
                than railroad rights-of-way and railroad 
                property) over which hazardous substances are 
                transported or otherwise are present if such 
                person can establish by a preponderance of the 
                evidence that the person did not, by any act or 
                omission, cause or contribute to the release or 
                threatened release.
                  (D) Railroad owners or operators of spur 
                track.--There shall be no liability under 
                subsection (a) for a person whose liability is 
                based solely on the status of the person as a 
                railroad owner or railroad operator of a spur 
                track, including a spur track over land subject 
                to an easement, to a facility that is owned or 
                operated by a person that is not affiliated 
                with the railroad owner or operator if the 
                railroad owner or operator can establish by a 
                preponderance of the evidence that--
                          (i) the spur track provides access to 
                        a main line or branch line track that 
                        is owned or operated by the railroad 
                        owner or operator;
                          (ii) the spur track is 10 miles long 
                        or less; and
                          (iii) the railroad owner or operator 
                        did not cause or contribute to a 
                        release or threatened release of the 
                        hazardous substances for which 
                        liability is alleged under subsection 
                        (a).
                  (E) Construction contractors.--There shall be 
                no liability under subsection (a) for a person 
                who is a construction contractor (other than a 
                response action contractor covered by section 
                119) if such person can establish by a 
                preponderance of the evidence that--
                          (i) the person's liability is based 
                        solely on construction activities that 
                        were specifically directed by and 
                        carried out in accordance with a 
                        contract with an owner or operator of 
                        the facility;
                          (ii) the person did not know or have 
                        reason to know of the presence of 
                        hazardous substances at the facility 
                        concerned before beginning construction 
                        activities; and
                          (iii) the person exercised 
                        appropriate care with respect to the 
                        hazardous substances discovered in the 
                        course of performing the construction 
                        activity, including precautions against 
                        foreseeable acts of third parties, 
                        taking into consideration the 
                        characteristics of such hazardous 
                        substances, in light of all 
relevantfacts, circumstances, and generally accepted good commercial 
and customary standards and practices at the time of the person's acts 
or omissions.
          (3) Appropriate care.--
                  (A) Site-specific basis.--The determination 
                whether or not a person has exercised 
                appropriate care with respect to hazardous 
                substances within the meaning of paragraph 
                (4)(C) shall be made on a site-specific basis 
                taking into consideration the characteristics 
                of the hazardous substances, in light of all 
                relevant facts, circumstances, and generally 
                accepted good commercial and customary 
                standards and practices at the time of the 
                defendant's acts or omissions.
                  (B) Safe harbor.--A person shall be deemed to 
                have exercised appropriate care within the 
                meaning of paragraph (4)(C) if--
                          (i) the person took reasonable steps 
                        to stop any continuing release, prevent 
                        any threatened future release, and 
                        prevent or limit human or natural 
                        resource exposure to any previously 
                        released hazardous substance, or
                          (ii) in any case in which the release 
                        or threatened release of hazardous 
                        substances is the subject of a response 
                        action by persons authorized to conduct 
                        the response action at the facility or 
                        vessel, the person provides access for 
                        and all reasonable cooperation with the 
                        response action.
          (4) Requirements.--The requirements referred to in 
        paragraph (2)(A) and (B) are that a person's liability 
        is based solely on the person's status as an owner or 
        operator of a facility or vessel and that the person 
        can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that--
                  (A) the person acquired the facility or 
                vessel after the disposal or placement of the 
                hazardous substances for which liability is 
                alleged under subsection (a);
                  (B) the person did not, by any act or 
                omission, cause or contribute to the release or 
                threatened release of such hazardous 
                substances; and
                  (C) the person exercised appropriate care 
                with respect to such hazardous substances.
          (5) Treatment of non-liable parties.--The 
        Administrator shall seek to minimize the administrative 
        and legal burdens on parties that are not liable 
        pursuant to this section. To the extent practicable, 
        the Administrator shall--
                  (A) inform such parties that they are 
                exempted from liability pursuant to this 
                section, and offer them written assurances 
                establishing their exempt status; and
                  (B) eliminate or minimize any need for such 
                parties to retain legal counsel in connection 
                with administrative or legal proceedings 
                concerning the facility at issue.
    (c)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3) If any person who is liable for a release or threat of 
release of a hazardous substance fails without sufficient cause 
to properly provide removal or remedial action upon order of 
the President pursuant to section 104 or 106 of this Act, such 
person may be liable to the United States for punitive damages 
in an amount [at least equal to, and not more than three times, 
the amount of any costs incurred by the Fund as a result of 
such failure to take proper action.] up to three times the 
amount of such response costs. The President is authorized to 
commence a civil action against any such person to recover the 
punitive damages, which shall be in addition to any costs 
recovered from such person pursuant to section 112(c) of this 
Act. Any moneys received by the United States pursuant to this 
subsection shall be deposited in the Fund.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(k)(1) The liability established by this section or any 
other law for the owner or operator of a hazardous waste 
disposal facility which has received a permit under subtitle C 
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, shall be transferred to and 
assumed by the Post-closure Liability Fund established by 
section 232 of this Act when--
          [(A) such facility and the owner and operator thereof 
        has complied with the requirements of subtitle C of the 
        Solid Waste Disposal Act and regulations issued 
        thereunder, which may affect the performance of such 
        facility after closure; and
          [(B) such facility has been closed in accordance with 
        such regulations and the conditions of such permit, and 
        such facility and the surrounding area have been 
        monitored as required by such regulations and permit 
        conditions for a period not to exceed five years after 
        closure to demonstrate that there is no substantial 
        likelihood that any migration offsite or release from 
        confinement of any hazardous substance or other risk to 
        public health or welfare will occur.
    [(2) Such transfer of liability shall be effective ninety 
days after the owner or operator of such facility notifies the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (and the 
State where it has an authorized program under section 3006(b) 
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act) that the conditions imposed by 
this subsection have been satisfied. If within such ninety-day 
period the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
or such State determines that any such facility has not 
complied with all the conditions imposed by this subsection or 
that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate 
such compliance, the Administrator or such State shall so 
notify the owner and operator of such facility and the 
administrator of the Fund established by section 232 of this 
Act, and the owner and operator of such facility shall continue 
to be liable with respect to such facility under this section 
and other law until such time as the Administrator and such 
State determines that such facility has complied with all 
conditions imposed by this subsection. A determination by the 
Administrator or such State that a facility has not complied 
with all conditions imposed by this subsection or that 
insufficient information has been supplied to demonstrate 
compliance, shall be a final administrative action for purposes 
of judicial review. A request for additional information shall 
state in specific terms the data required.
    [(3) In addition to the assumption of liability of owners 
and operators under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Post-
closure Liability Fund established by section 232 of this Act 
may be used to pay costs of monitoring and care and maintenance 
of a site incurred by other persons after the period of 
monitoring required byregulations under subtitle C of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act for hazardous waste disposal facilities meeting the 
conditions of paragraph (1) of this subsection.
    [(4)(A) Not later than one year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall conduct a 
study and shall submit a report thereon to the Congress on the 
feasibility of establishing or qualifying an optional system of 
private insurance for postclosure financial responsibility for 
hazardous waste disposal facilities to which this subsection 
applies. Such study shall include a specification of adequate 
and realistic minimum standards to assure that any such 
privately placed insurance will carry out the purposes of this 
subsection in a reliable, enforceable, and practical manner. 
Such a study shall include an examination of the public and 
private incentives, programs, and actions necessary to make 
privately placed insurance a practical and effective option to 
the financing system for the Post-closure Liability Fund 
provided in title II of this Act.
    [(B) Not later than eighteen months after the date of 
enactment of this Act and after a public hearing, the President 
shall by rule determine whether or not it is feasible to 
establish or qualify an optional system of private insurance 
for postclosure financial responsibility for hazardous waste 
disposal facilities to which this subsection applies. If the 
President determines the establishment or qualification of such 
a system would be infeasible, he shall promptly publish an 
explanation of the reasons for such a determination. If the 
President determines the establishment or qualification of such 
a system would be feasible, he shall promptly publish notice of 
such determination. Not later than six months after an 
affirmative determination under the preceding sentence and 
after a public hearing, the President shall by rule promulgate 
adequate and realistic minimum standards which must be met by 
any such privately placed insurance, taking into account the 
purposes of this Act and this subsection. Such rules shall also 
specify reasonably expeditious procedures by which privately 
placed insurance plans can qualify as meeting such minimum 
standards.
    [(C) In the event any privately placed insurance plan 
qualifies under subparagraph (B), any person enrolled in, and 
complying with the terms of, such plan shall be excluded from 
the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this 
subsection and exempt from the requirements to pay any tax or 
fee to the Post-closure Liability Fund under title II of this 
Act.
    [(D) The President may issue such rules and take such other 
actions as are necessary to effectuate the purposes of this 
paragraph.
    [(5) Suspension of Liability Transfer.--Notwithstanding 
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection and 
subsection (j) of section 111 of this Act, no liability shall 
be transferred to or assumed by the Post-Closure Liability 
Trust Fund established by section 232 of this Act prior to 
completion of the study required under paragraph (6) of this 
subsection, transmission of a report of such study to both 
Houses of Congress, and authorization of such a transfer or 
assumption by Act of Congress following receipt of such study 
and report.
    [(6) Study of Options for Post-closure Program.--
          [(A) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a 
        study of options for a program for the management of 
        the liabilities associated with hazardous waste 
        treatment, storage, and disposal sites after their 
        closure which complements the policies set forth in the 
        Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 and 
        assures the protection of human health and the 
        environment.
          [(B) Program elements.--The program referred to in 
        subparagraph (A) shall be designed to assure each of 
        the following:
                  [(i) Incentives are created and maintained 
                for the safe management and disposal of 
                hazardous wastes so as to assure protection of 
                human health and the environment.
                  [(ii) Members of the public will have 
                reasonable confidence that hazardous wastes 
                will be managed and disposed of safely and that 
                resources will be available to address any 
                problems that may arise and to cover costs of 
                long-term monitoring, care, and maintenance of 
                such sites.
                  [(iii) Persons who are or seek to become 
                owners and operators of hazardous waste 
                disposal facilities will be able to manage 
                their potential future liabilities and to 
                attract the investment capital necessary to 
                build, operate, and close such facilities in a 
                manner which assures protection of human health 
                and the environment.
          [(C) Assessments.--The study under this paragraph 
        shall include assessments of treatment, storage, and 
        disposal facilities which have been or are likely to be 
        issued a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste 
        Disposal Act and the likelihood of future insolvency on 
        the part of owners and operators of such facilities. 
        Separate assessments shall be made for different 
        classes of facilities and for different classes of land 
        disposal facilities and shall include but not be 
        limited to--
                  [(i) the current and future financial 
                capabilities of facility owners and operators;
                  [(ii) the current and future costs associated 
                with facilities, including the costs of routine 
                monitoring and maintenance, compliance 
                monitoring, corrective action, natural resource 
                damages, and liability for damages to third 
                parties; and
                  [(iii) the availability of mechanisms by 
                which owners and operators of such facilities 
                can assure that current and future costs, 
                including post-closure costs, will be financed.
          [(D) Procedures.--In carrying out the 
        responsibilities of this paragraph, the Comptroller 
        General shall consult with the Administrator, the 
        Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Treasury, 
        and the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies.
          [(E) Consideration of options.--In conducting the 
        study under this paragraph, the Comptroller General 
        shall consider various mechanisms and combinations of 
        mechanisms to complement the policies set forth in the 
        Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 to serve 
        the purposes set forth in subparagraph (B) and to 
        assure that the current and future costs associated 
        with hazardous waste facilities, including post-closure 
        costs, will be adequately financed and, to the 
greatestextent possible, borne by the owners and operators of such 
facilities. Mechanisms to be considered include, but are not limited 
to--
                  [(i) revisions to closure, post-closure, and 
                financial responsibility requirements under 
                subtitles C and I of the Solid Waste Disposal 
                Act;
                  [(ii) voluntary risk pooling by owners and 
                operators;
                  [(iii) legislation to require risk pooling by 
                owners and operators;
                  [(iv) modification of the Post-Closure 
                Liability Trust Fund previously established by 
                section 232 of this Act, and the conditions for 
                transfer of liability under this subsection, 
                including limiting the transfer of some or all 
                liability under this subsection only in the 
                case of insolvency of owners and operators;
                  [(v) private insurance;
                  [(vi) insurance provided by the Federal 
                Government;
                  [(vii) coinsurance, reinsurance, or pooled-
                risk insurance, whether provided by the private 
                sector or provided or assisted by the Federal 
                Government; and
                  [(viii) creation of a new program to be 
                administered by a new or existing Federal 
                agency or by a federally chartered corporation.
          [(F) Recommendations.--The Comptroller General shall 
        consider options for funding any program under this 
        section and shall, to the extent necessary, make 
        recommendations to the appropriate committees of 
        Congress for additional authority to implement such 
        program.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (o) Innocent Landowners.--
          (1) Conduct of environmental assessment.--A person 
        who has acquired real property shall have made all 
        appropriate inquiry within the meaning of subparagraph 
        (B) of section 101(35) if he establishes that, within 
        180 days prior to the time of acquisition, an 
        environmental site assessment of the real property was 
        conducted that meets the requirements of this 
        subsection.
          (2) Definition of environmental site assessment.--For 
        purposes of this subsection, the term ``environmental 
        site assessment'' means an assessment conducted in 
        accordance with the standards set forth in the American 
        Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard 
        E1527-94, titled ``Standard Practice for Environmental 
        Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 
        Process'' or with alternative standards issued by rule 
        by the Administrator or promulgated or developed by 
        others and designated by rule by the Administrator. 
        Before issuing or designating alternative standards, 
        the Administrator shall first conduct a study of 
        commercial and industrial practices concerning 
        environmental site assessments in the transfer of real 
        property in the United States. Any such standards 
        issued or designated by the Administrator shall also be 
        deemed to constitute commercially reasonable and 
        generally accepted standards and practices for purposes 
        of this paragraph. In issuing or designating any such 
        standards, the Administrator shall consider 
        requirements governing each of the following:
                  (A) Interviews of owners, operators, and 
                occupants of the property to determine 
                information regarding the potential for 
                contamination.
                  (B) Review of historical sources as necessary 
                to determine previous uses and occupancies of 
                the property since the property was first 
                developed. For purposes of this subparagraph, 
                the term ``historical sources'' means any of 
                the following, if they are reasonably 
                ascertainable: recorded chain of title 
                documents regarding the real property, 
                including all deeds, easements, leases, 
                restrictions, and covenants, aerial 
                photographs, fire insurance maps, property tax 
                files, USGS 7.5 minutes topographic maps, local 
                street directories, building department 
                records, zoning/land use records, and any other 
                sources that identify past uses and occupancies 
                of the property.
                  (C) Determination of the existence of 
                recorded environmental cleanup liens against 
                the real property which have arisen pursuant to 
                Federal, State, or local statutes.
                  (D) Review of reasonably ascertainable 
                Federal, State, and local government records of 
                sites or facilities that are likely to cause or 
                contribute to contamination at the real 
                property, including, as appropriate, 
                investigation reports for such sites or 
                facilities; records of activities likely to 
                cause or contribute to contamination at the 
                real property, including landfill and other 
                disposal location records, underground storage 
                tank records, hazardous waste handler and 
                generator records and spill reporting records; 
                and such other reasonably ascertainable 
                Federal, State, and local government 
                environmental records which could reflect 
                incidents or activities which are likely to 
                cause or contribute to contamination at the 
                real property.
                  (E) A visual site inspection of the real 
                property and all facilities and improvements on 
                the real property and a visual inspection of 
                immediately adjacent properties, including an 
                investigation of any hazardous substance use, 
                storage, treatment, and disposal practices on 
                the property.
                  (F) Any specialized knowledge or experience 
                on the part of the defendant.
                  (G) The relationship of the purchase price to 
                the value of the property if uncontaminated.
                  (H) Commonly known or reasonably 
                ascertainable information about the property.
                  (I) The obviousness of the presence or likely 
                presence of contamination at the property, and 
                the ability to detect such contamination by 
                appropriate investigation.
        A record shall be considered to be ``reasonably 
        ascertainable'' for purposes of this paragraph if a 
        copy or reasonable facsimile of the record is publicly 
        available by request (within reasonable time and cost 
        constraints) and the record is practically reviewable.
          (3) Maintenance of information.--No presumption shall 
        arise under paragraph (1) unless the defendant has 
        maintained ya compilation of the information reviewed 
and gathered in the course of the environmental site assessment.
  (p) Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser.--(1) Notwithstanding 
paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (a), a person who does 
not impede the performance of a response action or natural 
resource restoration at a facility shall not be liable to the 
extent liability at such facility is based solely on paragraph 
(1) of subsection (a) for a release or threat of release from 
the facility, and the person is a bona fide prospective 
purchaser of the facility.
  (2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``bona fide 
prospective purchaser'' means a person who acquires ownership 
of a facility after the date of enactment of this subsection, 
or a tenant of such a person, who can establish each of the 
following by a preponderance of the evidence:
          (A) All active disposal of hazardous substances at 
        the facility occurred before that person acquired the 
        facility.
          (B) The person made all appropriate inquiry into the 
        previous ownership and uses of the facility and its 
        real property in accordance with generally accepted 
        commercial and customary standards and practices. 
        Standards described in subsection (o)(2) (relating to 
        innocent landowners) shall satisfy the requirements of 
        this subparagraph. In the case of property for 
        residential or other similar use, purchased by a 
        nongovernmental or noncommercial entity, a site 
        inspection and title search that reveal no basis for 
        further investigation satisfy the requirements of this 
        subparagraph.
          (C) The person provided all legally required notices 
        with respect to the discovery or release of any 
        hazardous substances at the facility.
          (D) The person exercised appropriate care with 
        respect to hazardous substances found at the facility 
        by taking reasonable steps to stop on-going releases, 
        prevent threatened future releases of hazardous 
        substances, and prevent or limit human or natural 
        resource exposure to hazardous substances previously 
        released into the environment.
          (E) The person provides full cooperation, assistance, 
        and facility access to persons authorized to conduct 
        response actions at the facility, including the 
        cooperation and access necessary for the installation, 
        integrity, operation, and maintenance of any complete 
        or partial response action at the facility.
          (F) The person is not affiliated with any other 
        person liable for response costs at the facility, 
        through any direct or indirect familial relationship, 
        or any contractual, corporate, or financial 
        relationship other than that created by the instruments 
        by which title to the facility is conveyed or financed.
  (q) Prospective Purchaser and Windfall Lien.--(1) In any case 
in which there are unrecovered response costs at a facility for 
which an owner of the facility is not liable by reason of 
subsection (p), and the conditions described in paragraph (2) 
are met, the United States shall have a lien upon such facility 
for such unrecovered costs. Such lien--
          (A) shall not exceed the increase in fair market 
        value of the property attributable to the response 
        action at the time of a subsequent sale or other 
        disposition of property;
          (B) shall arise at the time costs are first incurred 
        by the United States with respect to a response action 
        at the facility;
          (C) shall be subject to the requirements for notice 
        and validity established in paragraph (3) of subsection 
        (l); and
          (D) shall continue until the earlier of satisfaction 
        of the lien or recovery of all response costs incurred 
        at the facility.
  (2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are the 
following:
          (A) A response action for which there are unrecovered 
        costs is carried out at the facility.
          (B) Such response action increases the fair market 
        value of the facility above the fair market value of 
        the facility that existed within 6 months before the 
        response action was taken.
  (r) Innocent Governmental Entities.--There shall be no 
liability under subsection (a) for any State or local 
government if such liability is based solely on--
          (1) the granting of a license or permit to conduct 
        business; or
          (2) the State or local government's status as an 
        owner or operator of the facility or vessel, and the 
        State or local government--
                  (A) acquired the facility or vessel by 
                escheat or through any other involuntary 
                transfer or through the exercise of eminent 
                domain, and
                  (B) establishes by a preponderance of the 
                evidence that it--
                          (i) acquired the facility or vessel 
                        after the disposal or placement of the 
                        hazardous substances for which 
                        liability is alleged;
                          (ii) did not, by any act or omission, 
                        cause or contribute to the release or 
                        threatened release of such hazardous 
                        substances; and
                          (iii) exercised appropriate care with 
                        respect to such hazardous substances 
                        taking into consideration the 
                        characteristics of such hazardous 
                        substances, in light of all relevant 
                        facts, circumstances, and generally 
                        accepted good commercial and customary 
                        standards and practices at the time of 
                        the defendant's acts or omissions.
  (s) Contiguous Properties.--(1) A person (other than the 
United States or a department, agency, or instrumentality of 
the United States) who owns or operates real property that is 
contiguous to or otherwise similarly situated with respect to 
real property on which there has been a release or threatened 
release of a hazardous substance and that is or may be 
contaminated by such release shall not be liable under 
paragraph (1) or 2 of subsection (a) by reason of such 
ownership or operation solely by reason of such contamination 
if such person--
          (A) did not cause, contribute to, or consent to the 
        release or threatened release;
          (B) provides full cooperation, assistance, and 
        facility access to persons authorized to conduct 
        response actions at the facility, including the 
        cooperation and access necessary for the 
installation,integrity, operation, and maintenance of any complete or 
partial response action at the facility; and
          (C) is not affiliated with any other person liable 
        for response costs at the facility, through any direct 
        or indirect familial relationship, or any contractual, 
        corporate, or financial relationship.
  (2) The President may issue an assurance of no enforcement 
action under this Act to any such person and may grant any such 
person protection against cost recovery and contribution 
actions pursuant to section 113(f)(2). Such person may also 
petition the President to exclude from the description of a 
National Priorities List site such contiguous real property, if 
such property is or may be contaminated solely by ground water 
that flows under such property and is not used as a source of 
drinking water. The President may grant such a petition 
pursuant to such procedures as he deems appropriate.
  (t) Limitation on Liability for Small Businesses.--
          (1) In general.--With respect to actions taken before 
        September 29, 1999, no small business concern shall be 
        liable under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(4) for response 
        costs or damages at a facility or vessel on the 
        National Priorities List.
          (2) Limitation.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an 
        action brought by the President against a small 
        business concern if the hazardous substances 
        attributable to the small business concern have 
        contributed, or contribute, significantly to the costs 
        of the response action at the facility.
          (3) Small business concern defined.--In this 
        subsection, the term ``small business concern'' means a 
        business entity that on average over the previous 3 
        years preceding the date of notification by the 
        President that the business entity is a potentially 
        responsible party--
                  (A) has no more than 75 full-time employees 
                or the equivalent thereof; and
                  (B) has $3,000,000 or less in gross revenues.
  (u) Liability Exemptions and Limitations for Municipal Solid 
Waste and Sewage Sludge.--
          (1) Pre-enactment activities.--
                  (A) In general.--Except as provided in 
                subparagraph (B), no person shall be liable 
                under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(4) for response 
                costs or damages at a landfill facility on the 
                National Priorities List to the extent that the 
                person arranged or transported municipal solid 
                waste or municipal sewage sludge prior to the 
                date of enactment of this paragraph for 
                disposal at the landfill facility.
                  (B) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
                (A), if the President determines that a person 
                transported material containing municipal solid 
                waste or municipal sewage sludge to a landfill 
                facility that has contributed, or contributes, 
                significantly to the costs of response at the 
                facility and such person is engaged in the 
                business of transporting waste materials, such 
                person may be liable under subsection (a)(4). 
                The liability of such person shall be subject 
                to the aggregate limits on liability for 
                municipal solid waste set forth in paragraph 
                (2). Any determination of such person's 
                equitable share of response costs shall be 
                determined on the basis of such person's 
                equitable share of the aggregate amount of 
                response costs attributable to municipal solid 
                waste under paragraph (2).
          (2) Post-enactment activities.--
                  (A) In general.--To the extent that a person 
                or group of persons is liable under subsection 
                (a)(3) or (a)(4) for arranging or transporting 
                municipal solid waste or municipal sewage 
                sludge for disposal at a landfill facility on 
                the National Priorities List on or after the 
                date of enactment of this paragraph, and is not 
                exempt from liability under paragraph (3), the 
                total aggregate liability for all such persons 
                or groups of persons for response costs at such 
                a landfill facility shall not exceed 10 percent 
                of such costs.
                  (B) Expedited settlements.--The President may 
                offer a person subject to a limitation on 
                liability under subparagraph (A) an expedited 
                settlement based on the average unit cost of 
                remediating municipal solid waste and municipal 
                sewage sludge in landfills in lieu of the 
                aggregate 10 percent limitation on liability 
                provided by subparagraph (A).
          (3) Special rule.--No person shall be liable under 
        subsection (a)(3) or (a)(4) for response costs or 
        damages at a landfill facility on the National 
        Priorities List to the extent that--
                  (A) the materials that the person arranged or 
                transported for disposal consist of municipal 
                solid waste; and
                  (B) the person is--
                          (i) an owner, operator, or lessee of 
                        residential property from which all of 
                        the person's municipal solid waste was 
                        generated with respect to the facility;
                          (ii) a business entity that employs 
                        no more than 100 paid individuals and 
                        is a small business concern as defined 
                        under the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
                        631 et seq.) from which was generated 
                        all of the entity's municipal solid 
                        waste with respect to the facility; or
                          (iii) an organization described in 
                        section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
                        Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from 
                        tax under section 501(a) of such Code 
                        if such organization employs no more 
                        than 100 paid individuals at the 
                        location from which was generated all 
                        of the municipal solid waste 
                        attributable to the organization with 
                        respect to the facility.
          (4) Mixed wastes.--Liability for wastes that do not 
        fall within the definition of municipal solid waste 
        under paragraph (5)(A) and are collected and disposed 
        of with municipal solid wastes shall be governed by 
        section 107(a) and any applicable exemptions or 
        limitations on liability without regard to the wastes 
        covered by paragraph (5)(A).
          (5) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
        definitions apply:
                  (A) Municipal solid waste.--The term 
                ``municipal solid waste'' means waste materials 
                generated by households, including single and 
                multifamily residences, and hotels and motels, 
                and waste materials generated by 
commercial,institutional, and industrial sources, to the extent that 
such materials--
                          (i) are essentially the same as waste 
                        materials normally generated by 
                        households, or
                          (ii) are collected and disposed of 
                        with other municipal solid waste, and 
                        contain hazardous substances that would 
                        qualify for the de micromis exemption 
                        under section 107(w).
                The term includes food and yard waste, paper, 
                clothing, appliances, consumer product 
                packaging, disposable diapers, office supplies, 
                cosmetics, glass and metal food containers, 
                wooden pallets, cardboard, elementary or 
                secondary school science laboratory waste, and 
                household hazardous waste. The term does not 
                include combustion ash generated by resource 
                recovery facilities or municipal incinerators; 
                solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, 
                and processing of ores and minerals; or waste 
                from manufacturing or processing operations 
                (including pollution control) that is not 
                essentially the same as waste normally 
                generated by households.
                  (B) Municipal sewage sludge.--The term 
                ``municipal sewage sludge'' means solid, 
                semisolid, or liquid residue removed during the 
                treatment of municipal waste water, domestic 
                sewage, or other waste water at or by (i) a 
                publicly owned treatment works, (ii) a 
                federally owned treatment works, or (iii) a 
                treatment works that, without regard to 
                ownership, would be considered to be a publicly 
                owned treatment works and is principally 
                treating municipal waste water or domestic 
                sewage.
  (v) Municipal Owners and Operators.--
          (1) In general.--A municipality that is liable for 
        response costs under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection 
        (a) on the basis of ownership or operation of a 
        municipal landfill that is listed on the National 
        Priorities List on or before September 1, 1999 (as 
        identified by the President), shall be eligible for a 
        settlement under this subsection.
          (2) Settlement amount.--(A) The President shall offer 
        a settlement to a party with respect to such liability 
        on the basis of a payment or other obligation 
        equivalent in value to no more than 20 percent of the 
        total response costs in connection with the facility. 
        The President may increase this percentage to no more 
        than 35 percent of the total response costs in 
        connection with the facility if the President 
        determines--
                  (i) the municipality exacerbated 
                environmental contamination or exposure with 
                respect to the facility; or
                  (ii) the municipality, during the period of 
                ownership or operation of the facility, 
                received operating revenues substantially in 
                excess of the sum of the waste system operating 
                costs plus 20 percent of total estimated 
                response costs in connection with the facility.
          (B) Such a settlement shall pertain to only the 
        party's liability under paragraph (1) or (2) of 
        subsection (a).
          (3) Performance of response actions.--Subject to the 
        limitations of paragraph (2), the President may 
        require, as a condition of a settlement with a 
        municipality under this subsection, that the 
        municipality perform, or participate in the performance 
        of, the response actions at the site.
          (4) Joint ownership or operation.--A combination of 2 
        or more municipalities that jointly owned or operated 
        the facility at the same time or during continuous 
        operations under municipal control, shall be considered 
        a single owner/operator for the purpose of calculating 
        a settlement offer pursuant to this subsection.
          (5) Waiver of claims.--The President may require, as 
        a condition of a settlement under this subsection, that 
        the municipality waive some or all of the claims or 
        causes of action that such municipality may have 
        against other potentially responsible parties relating 
        to the site, including claims for contribution under 
        section 113.
          (6) Exceptions.--The President may decline to offer a 
        settlement under this subsection where the President 
        determines--
                  (A) there is only municipal solid waste or 
                sewage sludge at the facility;
                  (B) all other identified potentially 
                responsible parties are insolvent, defunct, or 
                eligible for a settlement under this subsection 
                or under section 122(g);
                  (C) the municipality has failed to comply 
                fully and completely with information requests, 
                administrative subpoenas, or discovery requests 
                issued by the United States; or
                  (D) the municipality has impeded or is 
                impeding, through action or inaction, the 
                performance of a response action or a natural 
                resource restoration with respect to the 
                facility.
          (7) Expiration of offer.--The President's obligation 
        to offer a settlement under this section shall expire 
        if the municipality to which the offer is made fails to 
        accept such an offer within a reasonable time period.
  (w) De Micromis Exemption.--
          (1) In general.--In the case of a facility or vessel 
        listed on the National Priorities List, no person shall 
        be liable under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(4) if no more 
        than 110 gallons or 200 pounds of materials containing 
        hazardous substances at the facility or vessel is 
        attributable to such person, and the acts on which 
        liability is based took place before the date of 
        enactment of this subsection.
          (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in a 
        case in which the President determines that the 
        material described in paragraph (1) has contributed, or 
        contributes, significantly to the costs of response at 
        the facility.
  (x) Ineligibility for Exemptions or Limitations.--
          (1) Impeding response or restoration.--The exemptions 
        and limitations set forth in subsections (t), (u), (v), 
        and (w) and sections 114(c) and 128 shall not apply to 
        any person with respect to a facility if such person 
        impedes the performance of a response action or natural 
        resource restoration at the facility.
          (2) Failure to respond to information request.--The 
        exemptions and limitations set forth in subsections 
        (t), (u), (v),and (w) and sections 114(c) and 128 shall 
not apply to any person who--
                  (A) willfully fails to submit a complete and 
                timely response to an information request under 
                section 104(e); or
                  (B) knowingly makes any false or misleading 
                material statement or representation in any 
                such response.
          (3) Failure to provide cooperation and facility 
        access.--The limitation set forth in subsection (v) 
        shall not apply to any owner or operator of a facility 
        who does not provide all reasonable cooperation and 
        facility access to persons authorized to conduct 
        response actions at the facility.
  (y) Exempt Party Funding.--
          (1) Exempt party funding.--Except as provided in 
        paragraph (2), the equitable share of liability under 
        section 107(a) for any release or threatened release of 
        a hazardous substance from a facility or vessel on the 
        National Priorities List that is extinguished through 
        an exemption or limitation on liability under 
        subsection (t), (u), or (v) of this section, section 
        114(c), or section 128 shall be transferred to and 
        assumed by the Trust Fund.
          (2) Certain msw generators.--Paragraph (1) shall not 
        apply to the equitable share of liability of any person 
        who would have been liable under subsection (a)(3) or 
        (4) but for the exemption from liability under 
        subsection (u)(3).
          (3) Source of funds.--Payments made by the Trust Fund 
        or work performed on behalf of the Trust Fund to meet 
        the obligations under paragraph (1) shall be funded 
        from amounts made available by section 111(a)(1).
  (z) Effect on Concluded Actions.--The exemptions from, and 
limitations on, liability provided under subsections (t), (u), 
(v), and (w) and sections 114(c) and 128 shall not affect any 
settlement or judgment approved by a United States District 
Court not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 
this subsection or any administrative action against a person 
otherwise covered by such exemption or limitation that becomes 
effective not later than 30 days after such date of enactment.
  (aa) Limitation on Recovery of Oversight Costs.--
          (1) In general.--Costs of oversight of a response 
        action shall not be recoverable under this section from 
        a person referred to in paragraph (2) to the extent 
        that such costs exceed 10 percent of the costs of the 
        response action.
          (2) Accounting of response costs.--Paragraph (1) 
        shall apply only to a person who provides the 
        Administrator with an accounting of the direct and 
        indirect costs that the person incurred in conducting 
        the response action. The Administrator may require an 
        independent audit of the costs from such person.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              uses of fund

      Sec. 111. [(a) In General.--For the purposes specified in 
this section there is authorized to be appropriated from the 
Hazardous Substance Superfund established under subchapter A of 
chapter 98 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 not more than 
$8,500,000,000 for the 5-year period beginning on the date of 
enactment of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 
of 1986, and not more than $5,100,000,000 for the period 
commencing October 1, 1991, and ending September 30, 1994, and 
such sums shall remain available until expended. The preceding 
sentence constitutes a specific authorization for the funds 
appropriated under title II of Public Law 99-160 (relating to 
payment to the Hazardous Substances Trust Fund). The President 
shall use the money in the Fund for the following purposes:
          [(1) Payment of governmental response costs incurred 
        pursuant to section 104 of this title, including costs 
        incurred pursuant to the Intervention on the High Seas 
        Act.
          [(2) Payment of any claim for necessary response 
        costs incurred by any other person as a result of 
        carrying out the national contingency plan established 
        under section 311(c) of the Clean Water Act and amended 
        by section 105 of this title: Provided, however, That 
        such costs must be approved under said plan and 
        certified by the responsible Federal official.
          [(3) Payment of any claim authorized by subsection 
        (b) of this section and finally decided pursuant to 
        section 112 of this title, including those costs set 
        out in subsection 112(c)(3) of this title.
          [(4) Payment of costs specified under subsection (c) 
        of this section.
          [(5) Grants for technical assistance.--The cost of 
        grants under section 117(e) (relating to public 
        participation grants for technical assistance).
          [(6) Lead contaminated soil.--Payment of not to 
        exceed $15,000,000 for the costs of a pilot program for 
        removal, decontamination, or other action with respect 
        to lead-contaminated soil in one to three different 
        metropolitan areas.
The President shall not pay for any administrative costs or 
expenses out of the Fund unless such costs and expenses are 
reasonably necessary for and incidental to the implementation 
of this title.
  [(b)(1) In General.--Claims asserted and compensable but 
unsatisfied under provisions of section 311 of the Clean Water 
Act, which are modified by section 304 of this Act may be 
asserted against the Fund under this title; and other claims 
resulting from a release or threat of release of a hazardous 
substance from a vessel or a facility may be asserted against 
the Fund under this title for injury to, or destruction or loss 
of, natural resources, including cost for damage assessment: 
Provided, however, That any such claim may be asserted only by 
the President, as trustee, for natural resources over which the 
United States has sovereign rights, or natural resources within 
the territory or the fishery conservation zone of the United 
States to the extent they are managed or protected by the 
United States, or by any State for natural resources within the 
boundary of that State belonging to, managed by, controlled by, 
or appertaining to the State, or by any Indian tribe or by the 
United States acting on behalf of any Indian tribe for natural 
resources belonging to, managed by, controlled by, or 
appertaining to such tribe, or held in trust for the benefit of 
such tribe, orbelonging to a member of such tribe if such 
resources are subject to a trust restriction on alienation.
    [(2) Limitation on Payment of Natural Resource Claims.--
          [(A) General requirements.--No natural resource claim 
        may be paid from the Fund unless the President 
        determines that the claimant has exhausted all 
        administrative and judicial remedies to recover the 
        amount of such claim from persons who may be liable 
        under section 107.
          [(B) Definition.--As used in this paragraph, the term 
        ``natural resource claim'' means any claim for injury 
        to, or destruction or loss of, natural resources. The 
        term does not include any claim for the costs of 
        natural resource damage assessment.
  [(c) Uses of the Fund under subsection (a) of this section 
include--
          [(1) The costs of assessing both short-term and long-
        term injury to, destruction of, or loss of any natural 
        resources resulting from a release of a hazardous 
        substance.
          [(2) The costs of Federal or State or Indian tribe 
        efforts in the restoration, rehabilitation, or 
        replacement or acquiring the equivalent of any natural 
        resources injured, destroyed, or lost as a result of a 
        release of a hazardous substance.
          [(3) Subject to such amounts as are provided in 
        appropriation Acts, the costs of a program to identify, 
        investigate, and take enforcement and abatement action 
        against releases of hazardous substances.
          [(4) Any costs incurred in accordance with subsection 
        (m) of this section (relating to ATSDR) and section 
        104(i), including the costs of epidemiologic and 
        laboratory studies, health assessments, preparation of 
        toxicologic profiles, development and maintenance of a 
        registry of persons exposed to hazardous substances to 
        allow long-term health effect studies, and diagnostic 
        services not otherwise available to determine whether 
        persons in populations exposed to hazardous substances 
        in connection with a release or a suspected release are 
        suffering from long-latency diseases.
          [(5) Subject to such amounts as are provided in 
        appropriation Acts, the costs of providing equipment 
        and similar overhead, related to the purposes of this 
        Act and section 311 of the Clean Water Act, and needed 
        to supplement equipment and services available through 
        contractors or other non-Federal entities, and of 
        establishing and maintaining damage assessment 
        capability, for any Federal agency involved in strike 
        forces, emergency task forces, or other response teams 
        under the national contingency plan.
          [(6) Subject to such amounts as are provided in 
        appropriation Acts, the costs of a program to protect 
        the health and safety of employees involved in response 
        to hazardous substance releases. Such program shall be 
        developed jointly by the Environmental Protection 
        Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health 
        Administration, and the National Institute for 
        Occupational Safety and Health and shall include, but 
        not be limited to, measures for identifying and 
        assessing hazards to which persons engaged in removal, 
        remedy, or other response to hazardous substances may 
        be exposed, methods to protect workers from such 
        hazards, and necessary regulatory and enforcement 
        measures to assure adequate protection of such 
        employees.
          [(7) Evaluation costs under petition provisions of 
        section 105(d).--Costs incurred by the President in 
        evaluating facilities pursuant to petitions under 
        section 105(d) (relating to petitions for assessment of 
        release).
          [(8) Contract costs under section 104(a)(1).--The 
        costs of contracts or arrangements entered into under 
        section 104(a)(1) to oversee and review the conduct of 
        remedial investigations and feasibility studies 
        undertaken by persons other than the President and the 
        costs of appropriate Federal and State oversight of 
        remedial activities at National Priorities List sites 
        resulting from consent orders or settlement agreements.
          [(9) Acquisition costs under section 104(j).--The 
        costs incurred by the President in acquiring real 
        estate or interests in real estate under section 104(j) 
        (relating to acquisition of property).
          [(10) Research, development, and demonstration costs 
        under section 311.--The cost of carrying out section 
        311 (relating to research, development, and 
        demonstration), except that the amounts available for 
        such purposes shall not exceed the amounts specified in 
        subsection (n) of this section.
          [(11) Local government reimbursement.--Reimbursements 
        to local governments under section 123, except that 
        during the 8-fiscal year period beginning October 1, 
        1986, not more than 0.1 percent of the total amount 
        appropriated from the Fund may be used for such 
        reimbursements.
          [(12) Worker training and education grants.--The 
        costs of grants under section 126(g) of the Superfund 
        Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 for training 
        and education of workers to the extent that such costs 
        do not exceed $10,000,000 for each of
          [(13) Awards under section 109.--The costs of any 
        awards granted under section 109(d).
          [(14) Lead poisoning study.--The cost of carrying out 
        the study under subsection (f) of section 118 of the 
        Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 
        (relating to lead poisoning in children).
    [(d)(1) No money in the Fund may be used under subsection 
(c)(1) and (2) of this section, nor for the payment of any 
claim under subsection (b) of this section, where the injury, 
destruction, or loss of natural resources and the release of a 
hazardous substance from which such damages resulted have 
occurred wholly before the enactment of this Act.
    [(2) No money in the Fund may be used for the payment of 
any claim under subsection (b) of this section where such 
expenses are associated with injury or loss resulting from 
long-term exposure to ambient concentrations of air pollutants 
from multiple or diffuse sources.
    [(e)(1) Claims against or presented to the Fund shall not 
be valid or paid in excess of the total money in the Fund at 
any one time. Such claims become valid only when additional 
money iscollected, appropriated, or otherwise added to the 
Fund. Should the total claims outstanding at any time exceed the 
current balance of the Fund, the President shall pay such claims, to 
the extent authorized under this section, in full in the order in which 
they were finally determined.
    [(2) In any fiscal year, 85 percent of the money credited 
to the Fund under title II of this Act shall be available only 
for the purposes specified in paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of 
subsection (a) of this section. No money in the Fund may be 
used for the payment of any claim under subsection (a)(3) or 
subsection (b) of this section in any fiscal year for which the 
President determines that all of the Fund is needed for 
response to threats to public health from releases or 
threatened releases of hazardous substances.
    [(3) No money in the Fund shall be available for remedial 
action, other than actions specified in subsection (c) of this 
section, with respect to federally owned facilities; except 
that money in the Fund shall be available for the provision of 
alternative water supplies (including the reimbursement of 
costs incurred by a municipality) in any case involving 
groundwater contamination outside the boundaries of a federally 
owned facility in which the federally owned facility is not the 
only potentially responsible party.
    [(4) Paragraphs (1) and (4) of subsection (a) of this 
section shall in the aggregate be subject to such amounts as 
are provided in appropriation Acts.]
  (a) Expenditures From Hazardous Substance Superfund.--
          (1) Subsection (b) expenditures.--The following 
        amounts of amounts appropriated to the Hazardous 
        Substance Superfund after January 1, 2000, pursuant to 
        section 9507(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
        and of amounts credited under section 9602(b) of such 
        Code with respect to those appropriated amounts, shall 
        be available for the purposes specified in subsection 
        (b):
                  (A) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
                  (B) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
                  (C) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
                  (D) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
                  (E) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
        Such funds shall remain available until expended.
          (2) Subsections (c) and (d) expenditures.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated from the Hazardous 
        Substance Superfund established pursuant to section 
        9507(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the 
        purposes specified in subsections (c) and (d) of this 
        section not more than the following amounts:
                  (A) $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
                  (B) $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
                  (C) $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
                  (D) $1,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
                  (E) $1,350,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
  (b) Payments Related to Certain Reductions, Limitations, and 
Exemptions.--
          (1) Funding of exempt party and fund share.--The 
        President may use amounts in the Fund made available by 
        subsection (a)(1) for funding the equitable share of 
        liability attributable to exempt parties under section 
        107(y) and obligations incurred by the President to pay 
        a Fund share or to reimburse parties for costs incurred 
        in excess of the parties' allocated shares under 
        section 129.
          (2) Limitations.--
                  (A) Funding.--Amounts made available by 
                subsection (a)(1) for the purposes of this 
                subsection shall not exceed the following:
                          (i) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 
                        2000.
                          (ii) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 
                        2001.
                          (iii) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 
                        2002.
                          (iv) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 
                        2003.
                          (v) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 
                        2004.
                  (B) Eligible costs.--No funds made available 
                under paragraph (1) may be used for payment of, 
                or reimbursement for, any portion of attorneys' 
                fees that do not constitute necessary costs of 
                response consistent the national contingency 
                plan.
                  (C) Additional purposes.--
                          (i) In general.--If, in any of fiscal 
                        years 2000 through 2004, the 
                        Administrator does not have available 
                        for obligation for the purposes of 
                        subsections (c) and (d) the amount 
                        specified for the fiscal year in clause 
                        (iii), the Administrator, subject to 
                        clause (ii), may use funds provided 
                        under subsection (a)(1) for such 
                        purposes.
                          (ii) Limitation.--The total amount of 
                        funds provided under subsection (a)(1) 
                        that the Administrator may use for the 
                        purposes of subsections (c) and (d) may 
                        not exceed the amount specified for the 
                        fiscal year in clause (iii) less the 
                        amount which (but for this 
                        subparagraph) would be available to the 
                        Administrator in such fiscal year for 
                        such purposes.
                          (iii) Amounts.--The amounts specified 
                        in this clause are $1,500,000,000 for 
                        each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002, 
                        $1,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, 
                        and $1,350,000,000 for fiscal year 
                        2004.
  (c) Response, Removal, and Remediation.--The President may 
use amounts in the Fund appropriated under subsection (a)(2) 
for costs of response, removal, and remediation (and 
administrative costs directly related to such costs), including 
the following:
          (1) Government response costs.--Payment of 
        governmental response costs incurred pursuant to 
        section 104, including costs incurred pursuant to the 
        Intervention on the High Seas Act (33 U.S.C. 1471 et 
        seq.).
          (2) Private response cost claims.--Payment of any 
        claim for necessary response costs incurred by any 
        other person as a result of carrying out the national 
        contingency plan established under section 105, if such 
        costs are approved under such plan, are reasonable in 
        amount based on open and free competition or fair 
        market value for similar available goods and services, 
        and are certified by the responsible Federal official.
          (3) Acquisition costs under section 104(j).--The 
        costs incurred by the President in acquiring real 
        estate or interests in real estate under section 104(j) 
        (relating to acquisition of property).
          (4) State and local government reimbursement.--
        Reimbursement to States and local governments under 
        section 123; except that during any fiscal year not 
        more than 0.1 percent of the total amount appropriated 
        under subsection (a)(2) may be used for such 
        reimbursements.
          (5) Contracts and cooperative agreements.--Payment 
        for the implementation of any contract or cooperative 
        agreement under section 104(d).
  (d) Administration, Oversight, Research, and Other Costs.--
The President may use amounts in the Fund appropriated under 
subsection (a)(2) for the following costs (and administrative 
costs directly related to such costs):
          (1) Investigation and enforcement.--The costs of 
        identifying, investigating, and taking enforcement 
        action against releases of hazardous substances.
          (2) Overhead.--
                  (A) In general.--The costs of providing 
                services, equipment, and other overhead related 
                to the purposes of this Act and section 311 of 
                the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and 
                needed to supplement equipment and services 
                available through contractors and other non-
                Federal entities.
                  (B) Damage assessment capability.--The costs 
                of establishing and maintaining damage 
                assessment capability for any Federal agency 
                involved in strike forces, emergency task 
                forces, or other response teams under the 
                National Contingency Plan.
          (3) Employee safety programs.--The cost of 
        maintaining programs otherwise authorized by this Act 
        to protect the health and safety of employees involved 
        in response to hazardous substance releases.
          (4) Grants for technical assistance.--The cost of 
        grants under section 117(e) (relating to public 
        participation grants for technical assistance).
          (5) ATSDR activities.--Any costs incurred in 
        accordance with subsection (m) of this section 
        (relating to ATSDR) and section 104(i), including the 
        costs of epidemiologic and laboratory studies, public 
        health assessments, and other activities authorized by 
        section 104(i).
          (6) Evaluation costs under petition provisions of 
        section 105(d).--Costs incurred by the President in 
        evaluating facilities pursuant to petitions under 
        section 105(d) (relating to petitions for assessment of 
        release).
          (7) Contract costs under section 104(a)(1).--The 
        costs of contracts or arrangements entered into under 
        section 104(a)(1) to oversee and review the conduct of 
        remedial investigations and feasibility studies 
        undertaken by persons other than the President and the 
        costs of appropriate Federal and State oversight of 
        remedial activities at National Priorities List sites 
        resulting from consent orders or settlement agreements.
          (8) Research, development, and demonstration costs 
        under section 311.--The cost of carrying out section 
        311 (relating to research, development, and 
        demonstration).
          (9) Awards under section 109.--The costs of any 
        awards granted under section 109(d) (relating to 
        providing information concerning violations).
          (10) Comprehensive state ground water protection 
        plans.--Costs of providing assistance to States to 
        develop comprehensive State ground water protection 
        plans to the extent such costs do not exceed $3,000,000 
        in the aggregate in a fiscal year.
  (e) Other Limitations.--
          (1) Limitations on payments of claims.--Claims 
        against or presented to the Fund shall not be valid or 
        paid in excess of the total unobligated balance in the 
        Fund at any one time. Such claims become valid and are 
        payable only when additional money is collected, 
        appropriated, or otherwise added to the Fund. Should 
        the total claims outstanding at any time exceed the 
        current balance of the Fund, the President shall pay 
        such claims, to the extent authorized under this 
        section, in full in the order in which they were 
        finally determined.
          (2) Remedial actions at federally owned facilities.--
        No money in the Fund shall be available for costs of 
        remedial action, other than costs specified in 
        subsection (d), with respect to federally owned 
        facilities; except that money in the Fund shall be 
        available for the provision of alternative water 
        supplies (including the reimbursement of costs incurred 
        by a municipality) in any case involving ground water 
        contamination outside the boundaries of a federally 
        owned facility in which the federally owned facility is 
        not the only potentially responsible party.
          (3) Remedial actions at facilities not listed on 
        npl.--No money in the Fund shall be available for 
        response actions that are not removal actions under 
        section 101(23) with respect to any facility that is 
        not listed on the National Priorities List.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(j) The President shall use the money in the Post-closure 
Liability Fund for any of the purposes specified in subsection 
(a) of this section with respect to a hazardous waste disposal 
facility for which liability has transferred to such fund under 
section 107(k) of this Act, and, in addition, for payment of 
any claim or appropriate request for costs of response, 
damages, or other compensation for injury or loss under section 
107 of this Act or any other State or Federal law, resulting 
from a release of a hazardous substance from such a facility.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(n) Limitations on Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Program.--
          [(1) Section 311(b).--For each of the fiscal years 
        1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994, not 
        more than $20,000,000 of the amounts available in the 
        Fund may be used for the purposes of carrying out the 
        applied research, development, and demonstration 
        program for alternative or innovative technologies and 
        training program authorized under section311(b) 
(relating to research, development, and demonstration) other than basic 
research. Such amounts shall remain available until expended.
          [(2) Section 311(a).--From the amounts available in 
        the Fund, not more than the following amounts may be 
        used for the purposes of section 311(a) (relating to 
        hazardous substance research, demonstration, and 
        training activities):
                  [(A) For the fiscal year 1987, $3,000,000.
                  [(B) For the fiscal year 1988, $10,000,000.
                  [(C) For the fiscal year 1989, $20,000,000.
                  [(D) For the fiscal year 1990, $30,000,000.
                  [(E) For each of the fiscal years 1991, 1992, 
                1993, and 1994, $35,000,000.
        No more than 10 percent of such amounts shall be used 
        for training under section 311(a) in any fiscal year.
          [(3) Section 311(d).--For each of the fiscal years 
        1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994, not 
        more than $5,000,000 of the amounts available in the 
        Fund may be used for the purposes of section 311(d) 
        (relating to university hazardous substance research 
        centers).]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (p) General Revenue Share of Superfund.--
          [(1) In general.--The following sums are authorized 
        to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury 
        not otherwise appropriated, to the Hazardous Substance 
        Superfund:
                  [(A) For fiscal year 1987, $212,500,000.
                  [(B) For fiscal year 1988, $212,500,000.
                  [(C) For fiscal year 1989, $212,500,000.
                  [(D) For fiscal year 1990, $212,500,000.
                  [(E) For fiscal year 1991, $212,500,000.
                  [(F) For fiscal year 1992, $212,500,000.
                  [(G) For fiscal year 1993, $212,500,000.
                  [(H) For fiscal year 1994, $212,500,000.
        In addition there is authorized to be appropriated to 
        the Hazardous Substance Superfund for each fiscal year 
        an amount equal to so much of the aggregate amount 
        authorized to be appropriated under this subsection 
        (and paragraph (2) of section 221(b) of the Hazardous 
        Substance Response Revenue Act of 1980) as has not been 
        appropriated before the beginning of the fiscal year 
        involved.]
          (1) In general.--There is authorized to be 
        appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not 
        otherwise appropriated, to the Hazardous Substance 
        Superfund such sums as may be necessary for each of 
        fiscal years 2000 through 2004.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            claims procedure

    Sec. 112. (a) Claims Against the Fund for Response Costs.--
No claim may be asserted against the Fund pursuant to section 
[111(a)] 111(c) unless such claim is presented in the first 
instance to the owner, operator, or guarantor of the vessel or 
facility from which a hazardous substance has been released, if 
known to the claimant, and to any other person known to the 
claimant who may be liable under section 107. In any case where 
the claim has not been satisfied within 60 days of presentation 
in accordance with this subsection, the claimant may present 
the claim to the Fund for payment. No claim against the Fund 
may be approved or certified during the pendency of an action 
by the claimant in court to recover costs which are the subject 
of the claim.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(f) Double Recovery Prohibited.--Where the President has 
paid out of the Fund for any response costs or any costs 
specified under section 111(c) (1) or (2), no other claim may 
be paid out of the Fund for the same costs.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                       relationship to other law

  Sec. 114. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Recycled Oil.--
          (1) Service station dealers, etc.--No person 
        (including the United States or any State) may recover, 
        under the authority of subsection (a)(3) or (a)(4) of 
        section 107, from a service station dealer for any 
        response costs or damages resulting from a release or 
        threatened release of recycled oil, or use the 
        authority of section 106 against a service station 
        dealer other than a person described in subsection 
        (a)(1) or (a)(2) of section 107, if such recycled oil--
                  (A) is not mixed with any other hazardous 
                substance, and
                  (B) is stored, treated, transported, or 
                otherwise managed in compliance with 
                regulations or standards promulgated pursuant 
                to section 3014 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
                and other applicable [authorities.] authorities 
                that were in effect on the date of such 
                activity.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (2) Presumption.--Solely for the purposes of this 
        subsection, [a service station dealer may presume that] 
        a small quantity of used oil [is not mixed with] is 
        presumed to be not mixed with other hazardous 
        substances if it--
                  [(A) has been removed from the engine of a 
                light duty motor vehicle or household 
                appliances by the owner of such vehicle or 
                appliances, and
                  [(B) is presented, by such owner, to the 
                dealer for collection, accumulation, and 
                delivery to an oil recycling facility.]
                  (A) has been removed from the engine of a 
                light duty motor vehicle or household appliance 
                by the owner of such vehicle or appliance and 
                is presented by such owner to the dealer for 
                collection, accumulation, and delivery to an 
                oil recycling facility; or
                  (B) has been removed from such an engine or 
                appliance by the dealer for collection, 
                accumulation, and delivery to an oil recycling 
                facility.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(4) Effective date.--The effective date of 
        paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection shall be the 
        effective date of regulations or standards promulgated 
        under section 3014 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act that 
        include, among other provisions, a requirement to 
        conduct corrective action to respond to any releases of 
        recycled oil under subtitle C or subtitle I of such 
        Act.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 117. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DISCLOSURE.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Disclosure of Releases of Hazardous Substances at 
Superfund Sites.--
          (1) Information.--The President shall make the 
        following information available to the public as 
        provided in paragraph (2) about releases of hazardous 
        substances, pollutants, and contaminants from 
        facilities that have been listed or proposed for 
        listing on the National Priorities List at the 
        following stages of a response action:
                  (A) Removal actions.--A best estimate of the 
                releases from the facility before the removal 
                action is taken, during the period of the 
                removal action, and that are expected after the 
                removal action is completed.
                  (B) Remedial investigation.--As part of the 
                requirements for the remedial investigation, a 
                summary and best estimate of the releases from 
                the facility.
                  (C) Feasibility study.--As part of the 
                feasibility study, a summary and best estimate 
                of the releases that are expected both during 
                and at the conclusion of each remedial option 
                that is considered.
                  (D) Record of decision.--As part of the 
                record of decision, a summary and best estimate 
                of the releases that are expected both during 
                and at the conclusion of implementation of the 
                selected remedy.
                  (E) Construction completion.--After 
                construction of the remedy is complete and 
                during operation and maintenance, a best 
                estimate of the releases from the facility.
          (2) Availability of information.--Information 
        provided under this subsection shall be made available 
        to the residents of the communities surrounding the 
        covered facility, to police, fire, and emergency 
        medical personnel in the surrounding communities, and 
        to the general public. To improve access to such 
        information by Federal, State, and local governments 
        and researchers, such information may be provided to 
        the general public through electronic or other means. 
        Such information shall be expressed in common units and 
        a common format.
          (3) Source of information and methods of 
        collection.--Nothing in this subsection shall require 
        the collection of any additional data beyond that 
        already collected as part of the response action. If 
        data are not readily available, the information 
        provided under this subsection shall be based on best 
        estimates.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 119. RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACTORS.

    (a) Liability of Response Action Contractors.--
          (1) Response action contractors.--A person who is a 
        response action contractor with respect to any release 
        or threatened release of a hazardous substance or 
        pollutant or contaminant from a vessel or facility 
        shall not be liable under this [title or under any 
        other Federal law] title, under any other Federal law, 
        or under the law of any State or political subdivision 
        of a State to any person for injuries, costs, damages, 
        expenses, or other liability (including but not limited 
        to claims for indemnification or contribution and 
        claims by third parties for death, personal injury, 
        illness or loss of or damage to property or economic 
        loss) which results from such release or threatened 
        release. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, this 
        section shall not apply in determining the liability of 
        a response action contractor under the law of any State 
        or political subdivision thereof if the State has 
        enacted a law determining the liability of a response 
        action contractor.
          (2) Negligence, etc.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply 
        in the case of a release that is caused by conduct of 
        the response action contractor which is negligent, 
        grossly negligent, or which constitutes intentional 
        misconduct. Such conduct shall be evaluated based on 
        the generally accepted standards and practices in 
        effect at the time and place that the conduct occurred.
    (b) Savings Provisions.--
          (1) Liability of other persons.--The defense provided 
        by section [107(b)(3)] 107(b)(1)(C) shall not be 
        available to any potentially responsible party with 
        respect to any costs or damages caused by any act or 
        omission of a response action contractor. Except as 
        provided in subsection (a)(4) and the preceding 
        sentence, nothing in this section shall affect the 
        liability under this Act or under any other Federal or 
        State law of any person, other than a response action 
        contractor.
    (c) Indemnification.--
          (1) In general.--The President may agree to hold 
        harmless and indemnify any response action contractor 
        meeting the requirements of this subsection against any 
        liability (including the expenses of litigation or 
        settlement) for negligence arising out of the 
        contractor's performance in carrying out response 
        action activities under this title, unless such 
        liability was caused by conduct of the contractor which 
        was grossly negligent or which constituted intentional 
        misconduct. Any such agreement may apply to claims for 
        negligence arising under Federal law or under the law 
        of any State or political subdivision of a State.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) Limitations.--
                  (A) Liability covered.--Indemnification under 
                this subsection shall apply only to response 
                action contractorliability which results from a 
release or threatened release of any hazardous substance or pollutant 
or contaminant if such release or threatened release arises out of 
response action activities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[SEC. 120. FEDERAL FACILITIES.]

SEC. 120. FEDERAL ENTITIES AND FACILITIES.

    (a) Application of Act to Federal Government.--
          [(1) In general.--Each department, agency, and 
        instrumentality of the United States (including the 
        executive, legislative, and judicial branches of 
        government) shall be subject to, and comply with, this 
        Act in the same manner and to the same extent, both 
        procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental 
        entity, including liability under section 107 of this 
        Act. Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
        affect the liability of any person or entity under 
        sections 106 and 107.]
          (1) In general.--(A) Each department, agency, and 
        instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and 
        judicial branches of the United States shall be subject 
        to, and comply with, this Act and all other Federal, 
        State, interstate, and local requirements, both 
        substantive and procedural (including any requirement 
        for permits or reporting or any provision for 
        injunctive relief and such sanctions as may be imposed 
        by a court to enforce such relief), regarding response 
        or restoration actions related to the release or 
        potential release of hazardous substances, pollutants, 
        or contaminants in the same manner, and to the same 
        extent, as any nongovernmental entity is subject to 
        such requirements, including enforcement and liability 
        under sections 106 and 107 of this title and the 
        payment of reasonable service charges.
          (B) The Federal, State, interstate, and local 
        substantive and procedural requirements referred to in 
        subparagraph (A) include, but are not limited to, all 
        administrative orders and all civil and administrative 
        penalties and fines, regardless of whether such 
        penalties and fines are punitive or coercive in nature 
        or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, or 
        continuing violations. The United States hereby 
        expressly waives any immunity otherwise applicable to 
        the United States with respect to any such substantive 
        or procedural requirement (including, but not limited 
        to, any injunctive relief, administrative order, or 
        civil or administrative penalty or fine referred to in 
        the preceding sentence or any reasonable service 
        charge).
          (C) The reasonable service charges referred to in 
        this paragraph include, but are not limited to, fees or 
        charges assessed in connection with the processing and 
        issuance of permits, renewal of permits, amendments to 
        permits, review of plans, studies, and other documents, 
        and inspection and monitoring of facilities, as well as 
        any other nondiscriminatory charges that are assessed 
        in connection with a State, interstate, or local 
        response program.
          (D) Neither the United States, nor any agent, 
        employee, or officer thereof, shall be immune or exempt 
        from any process or sanction of any State or Federal 
        court with respect to the enforcement of any injunctive 
        relief.
          (E) No agent, employee, or officer of the United 
        States shall be personally liable for any civil penalty 
        under any Federal or State law regarding response or 
        restoration actions relating to the release or 
        potential release of hazardous substances, pollutants, 
        or contaminants, with respect to any act or omission 
        within the scope of their official duties. An agent, 
        employee, or officer of the United States shall be 
        subject to any criminal sanction (including, but not 
        limited to, any fine or imprisonment) under any such 
        Federal or State law, but no department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or 
        judicial branch of the United States shall be subject 
        to any such sanction.
          (F) The waiver of sovereign immunity provided in this 
        paragraph shall not apply to the extent a State law 
        would apply any standard or requirement to such Federal 
        department, agency, or instrumentality in a manner that 
        is more stringent than such standard or requirement 
        would be applied to any other person.
          (G)(i) The Administrator may issue an order under 
        section 106 of this Act to any department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or 
        judicial branch of the United States. The Administrator 
        shall initiate an administrative enforcement action 
        against such a department, agency, or instrumentality 
        in the same manner and under the same circumstances as 
        an action would be initiated against any other person.
          (ii) No administrative order issued to such 
        department, agency, or instrumentality shall become 
        final until such department, agency, or instrumentality 
        has had the opportunity to confer with the 
        Administrator.
          (iii) Unless a State law in effect on the date of 
        enactment of the KLand Recycling Act of 1999, or a 
        State constitution, requires the funds to be used in a 
        different manner, all funds collected by a State from 
        the Federal Government from penalties and fines imposed 
        for violation of any substantive or procedural 
        requirement referred to in subsection (a) of this 
        section shall be used by the State only for projects 
        designed to improve or protect the environment or to 
        defray the costs of environmental protection or 
        enforcement.
          (H) Each such department, agency, and instrumentality 
        shall have the right to contribution protection set 
        forth in section 113, when such department, agency, or 
        instrumentality resolves its liability under this Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Exceptions.--This subsection shall not apply to 
        the extent otherwise provided in this section with 
        respect to applicable time periods. This subsection 
        shall also not apply to any requirements relating to 
        bonding, insurance, or financial responsibility (other 
        than the indemnification requirements of section 119). 
        Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a 
        State to comply with section 104(c)(3) in the case of a 
        facility which is owned or operated by any department, 
        agency, or instrumentality of the United States.
          [(4) State laws.--State laws concerning removal and 
        remedial action, including State laws regarding 
        enforcement, shall apply to removal and remedial action 
        at facilities owned or operated by a department, 
        agency, or instrumentality of the United States or 
        facilities that are the subject of a deferral under 
        subsection (h)(3)(C) when such facilities are not 
        included on the National Priorities List. The preceding 
        sentence shall not apply to the extent a State law 
        would apply any standard or requirement to such 
        facilities which is more stringent than the standards 
        and requirements applicable to facilities which are not 
        owned or operated by any such department, agency, or 
        instrumentality.]

SEC. 121. CLEANUP STANDARDS.

    (a) * * *
    (b) General Rules.--(1) Remedial actions in which treatment 
which permanently and significantly reduces the volume, 
toxicity or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants, 
and contaminants is a principal element, are to be preferred 
over remedial actions not involving such treatment to the 
extent practicable, considering the nature and timing of 
reasonably anticipated uses of land, water, and other 
resources. The preferences for treatment or permanent solutions 
in this paragraph shall not apply to a treatment option or 
permanent solution that would increase risk to the community or 
to workers' health. The offsite transport and disposal of 
hazardous substances or contaminated materials without such 
treatment should be the least favored alternative remedial 
action where practicable treatment technologies are available. 
The President shall conduct an assessment of permanent 
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource 
recovery technologies that, in whole or in part, will result in 
a permanent and significant decrease in the toxicity, mobility, 
or volume of the hazardous substance, pollutant, or 
contaminant. In making such assessment, the President shall 
specifically address the long-term effectiveness of various 
alternatives. In assessing alternative remedial actions, the 
President shall, at a minimum, take into account:
          (A) * * *
The President shall select a remedial action that is protective 
of human health and the environment, that is cost effective, 
and that utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment 
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the [maximum] 
extent practicable. If the President selects a remedial action 
not appropriate for a preference under this subsection, the 
President shall publish an explanation as to why a remedial 
action involving such reductions was not selected.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Degree of Cleanup.--(1) * * *
  (2)(A) With respect to any hazardous substance, pollutant or 
contaminant that will remain onsite, if--
          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

is legally applicable to the hazardous substance or pollutant 
or contaminant concerned or [is relevant and appropriate] under 
the circumstances of the release or threatened release of such 
hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant, the remedial 
action selected under section 104 or secured under section 106 
shall require, at the completion of the remedial action, a 
level or standard of control for such hazardous substance or 
pollutant or contaminant which at least attains such legally 
applicable [or relevant and appropriate] standard, requirement, 
criteria, or limitation. Such remedial action shall require a 
level or standard of control which at least attains Maximum 
Contaminant [Level Goals] Levels established under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act [and water quality criteria established 
under section 304 or 303 of the Clean Water Act, where such 
goals or criteria are relevant and appropriate under the 
circumstances of the release or threatened release] where such 
levels are relevant and appropriate under the circumstances of 
the release or threatened release, considering the timing of 
any reasonably anticipated use of water as drinking water and 
reasonable points of compliance.
  (B)[(i) In determining whether or not any water quality 
criteria under the Clean Water Act is relevant and appropriate 
under the circumstances of the release or threatened release, 
the President shall consider the designated or potential use of 
the surface or groundwater, the environmental media affected, 
the purposes for which such criteria were developed, and the 
latest information available.]
  [(ii)] For the purposes of this section, a process for 
establishing alternate concentration limits to those otherwise 
applicable for hazardous constituents in groundwater under 
subparagraph (A) may not be used to establish applicable 
standards under this paragraph if the process assumes a point 
of human exposure beyond the boundary of the facility, as 
defined at the conclusion of the remedial investigation and 
feasibility study, except where--
          [(I)] (i) there are known and projected points of 
        entry of such groundwater into surface water; and
          [(II)] (ii) on the basis of measurements or 
        projections, there is or will be no statistically 
        significant increase of such constituents from such 
        groundwater in such surface water at the point of entry 
        or at any point where there is reason to believe 
        accumulation of constituents may occur downstream; and
          [(III)] (iii) the remedial action includes 
        enforceable measures that will preclude human exposure 
        to the contaminated groundwater at any point between 
        the facility boundary and all known and projected 
        points of entry of such groundwater into surface water
then the assumed point of human exposure may be at such known 
and projected points of entry.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Risk Assessment and Characterization Principles.--Risk 
assessments and characterizations conducted for remedial 
actions subject to this section, and for other significant 
Federal actions under this Act, shall--
          (1) provide scientifically objective assessments, 
        estimates, and characterizations which neither minimize 
        nor exaggerate the nature and magnitude of risks to 
        human health and the environment;
          (2) be based on the best available scientific and 
        technical information, including data on 
        bioavailability and site-specific information; and
          (3) be based on an analysis of the weight of the 
        scientific evidence that supports conclusions about a 
        problem's potential risk to human health and the 
        environment.
  (h) Sensitive Subpopulations and Site-Specific Risk 
Assessment.--The President shall use site-specific risk 
assessment that meets the requirements of the principles set 
forth in subsection (g) to--
          (1) determine the nature and extent of risk to human 
        health and the environment;
          (2) identify groups which are currently or would be 
        highly exposed or highly susceptible (A) to 
        contamination from the site based on current and 
        reasonably anticipated uses of land, water, and other 
        resources at or around the site, or (B) to risks 
        arising from implementation of a remedial option;
          (3) assist in establishing remedial objectives for 
        the facility respecting releases or threatened 
        releases, and in identifying geographic areas or 
        exposure pathways of concern; and
          (4) evaluate alternative remedial actions for the 
        facility to determine their risk reduction benefits and 
        assist in selecting the remedial action for the 
        facility that meets the criteria of paragraph (1) of 
        subsection (b).
  (i) Study of Substances and Mixtures.--(1) The President 
shall conduct a study of the cancer potency values of 12 
hazardous substances listed under paragraph (2) of section 
104(i) that are frequently found to pose significant risks at 
National Priorities List facilities. The study may also include 
a review of other health effects values. The President shall 
not include a substance in the study under this subsection if 
such substance is under scientific reevaluation pursuant to 
title XIV of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  (2) The President shall make a scientifically objective 
assessment of different methodologies for determining the 
health effects of chemical mixtures at relevant doses based on 
reasonable exposure scenarios at National Priorities List 
facilities.
  (3) For purposes of such study and assessments, within 30 
days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the 
President shall obtain public comments on such study and 
assessments. Not later than 15 months after the date of the 
enactment of this subsection, the President shall publish a 
draft of such assessments. After receiving such comments on 
such draft assessments, and after external peer review, but 
within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
subsection, the President shall complete the study and publish 
the assessments under this subsection. The publication of the 
final assessments shall be considered final agency action.
  (4) The study and assessments under this subsection shall 
include a discussion, to the extent relevant, of both 
laboratory and epidemiological data of sufficient quality which 
finds, or fails to find, a significant correlation between 
health risks and a potential toxin. Where conflicts among such 
data appear to exist, or where animal data are used as a basis 
to assess human health risks, the study and assessments shall 
include discussion of differences in study designs, comparative 
physiology, routes of exposure, bioavailability, 
pharmacokinetics, and any other relevant and significant 
factor.
  (5) Where the study and assessment involve application of any 
significant assumption, inference, or model, the President 
shall--
          (A) state the weight of scientific evidence 
        supporting a selection relative to other plausible 
        alternatives;
          (B) fully describe any model used in the risk 
        assessment and make explicit the assumptions 
        incorporated in the model; and
          (C) indicate the extent to which any significant 
        model has been validated by, or conflicts with, 
        empirical data.
  (6) To the extent scientifically appropriate, the President 
shall include, among other estimates or health effects values, 
estimates of risks or health effects values, using the most 
plausible assumptions, given the weight of the scientific 
information available to the President. Where significant 
assumptions have substantially similar scientific support, the 
President shall provide a description of the range of estimates 
or values.
  (j) Presentation of Risk Information.--(1) The President, in 
carrying out his responsibilities under this Act, shall ensure 
that the presentation of information on risk is unbiased and 
informative. The results of any facility-specific risk 
evaluation shall contain an explanation that clearly 
communicates the risks at the facility, and shall--
          (A) identify and explain all significant assumptions 
        used in the evaluation, as well as alternative 
        assumptions, the policy or value judgments used in 
        choosing the assumptions, and whether empirical data 
        conflict with or validate the assumptions;
          (B) present, to the extent feasible--
                  (i) the scientifically objective distribution 
                of exposure estimates,
                  (ii) estimates, including estimates, of 
                exposure and risk using the most plausible 
                assumptions given the weight of current 
                scientific information available to the 
                President,
                  (iii) groups identified through site specific 
                risk assessment which are currently or would be 
                highly exposed or highly susceptible (I) to 
                contamination from the site based on current 
                and reasonably anticipated uses of land, water, 
                and other resources at or around the site, or 
                (II) to risks arising from implementation of a 
                remedial option, and
                  (iv) a statement of the nature and magnitude 
                of the scientific uncertainties associated with 
                such estimates;
          (C) include the size of the population potentially at 
        risk from releases from the facility (based on the 
        current or reasonably anticipated future uses of the 
        land, water, or other resources), the exposure scenario 
        used for each estimate, and the likelihood that such 
        potential exposures will occur; and
          (D) compare risks with estimates of greater, lesser, 
        and substantially equivalent risks that are familiar to 
        and routinely encountered by the general public as well 
        as other risks, and, where appropriate and meaningful, 
        comparison of those risks with other similar risks 
        regulated by Federal agencies resulting from comparable 
        activities and exposure pathways.
Comparisons under subparagraph (D) should consider relevant 
distinctions among risks, such as the voluntary or involuntary 
nature of risks.
  (2) To the maximum extent practicable, documents made 
available to the general public which purport to describe the 
degree of risk to human health shall, at a minimum, provide 
information specified in paragraph (1) or a meaningful 
reference to such information in another document reasonably 
available to the public.

SEC. 122. SETTLEMENTS.

      (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Covenant Not To Sue.--
          [(1) Discretionary covenants.--The President may, in 
        his discretion, provide any person with a covenant not 
        to sue concerning any liability to the United States 
        under this Act, including future liability, resulting 
        from a release or threatened release of a hazardous 
        substance addressed by a remedial action, whether that 
        action is onsite or offsite, if each of the following 
        conditions is met:
                  [(A) The covenant not to sue is in the public 
                interest.
                  [(B) The covenant not to sue would expedite 
                response action consistent with the National 
                Contingency Plan under section 105 of this Act.
                  [(D) The response action has been approved by 
                the President.
                  [(C) The person is in full compliance with a 
                consent decree under section 106 (including a 
                consent decree entered into in accordance with 
                this section) for response to the release or 
                threatened release concerned.]
          (1) Final covenants.--The President shall offer 
        potentially responsible parties who enter into 
        settlement agreements that are in the public interest a 
        final covenant not to sue concerning any liability to 
        the United States under this Act, including a covenant 
        with respect to future liability, for response actions 
        or response costs addressed in the settlement, if all 
        of the following conditions are met:
                  (A) The settling party agrees to perform, or 
                there are other adequate assurances of the 
                performance of, a final remedial action 
                authorized by the Administrator for the release 
                or threat of release that is the subject of the 
                settlement.
                  (B) The settlement agreement has been reached 
                prior to the commencement of litigation against 
                the settling party under section 106 or 107 of 
                this Act with respect to this facility.
                  (C) The settling party waives all 
                contribution rights against other potentially 
                responsible parties at the facility.
                  (D) The settling party (other than a small 
                business) pays a premium that compensates for 
                the risks of remedy failure; future liability 
                resulting from unknown conditions; and 
                unanticipated increases in the cost of any 
                uncompleted response action, unless the 
                settling party is performing the response 
                action. The President shall have sole 
                discretion to determine the appropriate amount 
                of any such premium, and such determinations 
                are committed to the President's discretion. 
                The President has discretion to waive or reduce 
                the premium payment for persons who demonstrate 
                an inability to pay such a premium.
                  (E) The remedial action does not rely on 
                institutional controls to ensure continued 
                protection of human health and the environment.
                  (F) The settlement is otherwise acceptable to 
                the United States.
          (2) Special covenants not to sue.--In the case of any 
        person to whom the President is authorized under 
        paragraph (1) of this subsection to provide a covenant 
        not to sue, for the portion of [remedial] response 
        action--
                  (A) which involves the transport and secure 
                disposition offsite of hazardous substances in 
                a facility meeting the requirements of sections 
                3004 (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (m), (o), (p), 
                (u), and (v) and 3005(c) of the Solid Waste 
                Disposal Act, where the President has rejected 
                a proposed [remedial] response action that is 
                consistent with the National Contingency Plan 
                that does not include such offsite disposition 
                and has thereafter required offsite 
                disposition; or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(3) Requirement that remedial action be completed.--
        A covenant not to sue concerning future liability to 
        the United States shall not take effect until the 
        President certifies that remedial action has been 
        completed in accordance with the requirements of this 
        Act at the facility that is the subject of such 
        covenant.
          [(4) Factors.--In assessing the appropriateness of a 
        covenant not to sue under paragraph (1) and any 
        condition to be included in a covenant not to sue under 
        paragraph (1) or (2), the President shall consider 
        whether the covenant or condition is in the public 
        interest on the basis of such factors as the following:
                  [(A) The effectiveness and reliability of the 
                remedy, in light of the other alternative 
                remedies considered for the facility concerned.
                  [(B) The nature of the risks remaining at the 
                facility.
                  [(C) The extent to which performance 
                standards are included in the order or decree.
                  [(D) The extent to which the response action 
                provides a complete remedy for the facility, 
                including a reduction in the hazardous nature 
                of the substances at the facility.
                  [(E) The extent to which the technology used 
                in the response action is demonstrated to be 
                effective.
                  [(F) Whether the Fund or other sources of 
                funding would be available for any additional 
                remedial actions that might eventually be 
                necessary at the facility.
                  [(G) Whether the remedial action will be 
                carried out, in whole or in significant part, 
                by the responsible parties themselves.]
          (3) Discretionary covenants.--For settlements under 
        this Act for which covenants under paragraph (1) are 
        not available,the President may, in his discretion, 
provide any person with a covenant not to sue concerning any liability 
to the United States under this Act, if the covenant not to sue is in 
the public interest. Such covenants shall be subject to the 
requirements of paragraph (5). The President may include any conditions 
in such covenant not to sue, including the additional condition 
referred to in paragraph (5). In determining whether such conditions or 
covenants are in the public interest, the President shall consider the 
nature and scope of the commitment by the settling party under the 
settlement, the effectiveness and reliability of the response action, 
the nature of the risks remaining at the facility, the strength of 
evidence, the likelihood of cost recovery, the reliability of any 
response action or actions to restore, replace, or acquire the 
equivalent of injured natural resources, the extent to which 
performance standards are included in the order or decree, the extent 
to which the technology used in the response action is demonstrated to 
be effective, and any other factors relevant to the protection of human 
health and the environment.
          [(5)] (4) Satisfactory performance.--Any covenant not 
        to sue under this subsection shall be subject to the 
        satisfactory performance by such party of its 
        obligations under the agreement concerned.
          [(6)] (5) Additional condition for future 
        liability.--(A) Except for the portion of the 
        [remedial] response action which is subject to a 
        covenant not to sue under paragraph [(2)] (1) or (2) or 
        under subsection (g) (relating to [de minimis 
        settlements] de minimis and other expedited settlements 
        pursuant to subsection (g) of this section), a covenant 
        not to sue a person concerning future liability to the 
        United States shall include an exception to the 
        covenant that allows the President to sue such person 
        concerning future liability resulting from the release 
        or threatened release that is the subject of the 
        covenant where such liability arises out of conditions 
        which are unknown at the time [the President certifies 
        under paragraph (3) that remedial action has been 
        completed at the facility concerned] that the response 
        action that is the subject of the settlement agreement 
        is selected.
          (B) [In extraordinary circumstances, the] The 
        President may determine, after assessment of relevant 
        factors such as [those referred to in paragraph (4) 
        and] volume, toxicity, mobility, strength of evidence, 
        ability to pay, litigative risks, public interest 
        considerations, precedential value, and inequities and 
        aggravating factors, not to include the exception 
        referred to in subparagraph (A) [if other terms,], if 
        the agreement containing the covenant not to sue 
        provides for payment of a premium to address possible 
        remedy failure or any releases that may result from 
        unknown conditions, and if other terms, conditions, or 
        requirements of the agreement containing the covenant 
        not to sue are sufficient to provide all reasonable 
        assurances that public health and the environment will 
        be protected from any future releases at or from the 
        facility.
          (C) The President is authorized to include any 
        provisions allowing future enforcement action under 
        section 106 or 107 that in the discretion of the 
        President are necessary and appropriate to assure 
        protection of public health, welfare, and the 
        environment. The President may waive or reduce the 
        premium payment for persons who demonstrate an 
        inability to pay such a premium.
  [(g) De Minimis Settlements.--
          [(1) Expedited final settlement.--Whenever 
        practicable and in the public interest, as determined 
        by the President, the President shall as promptly as 
        possible reach a final settlement with a potentially 
        responsible party in an administrative or civil action 
        under section 106 or 107 if such settlement involves 
        only a minor portion of the response costs at the 
        facility concerned and, in the judgment of the 
        President, the conditions in either of the following 
        subparagraph (A) or (B) are met:
                  [(A) Both of the following are minimal in 
                comparison to other hazardous substances at the 
                facility:
                          [(i) The amount of the hazardous 
                        substances contributed by that party to 
                        the facility.
                          [(ii) The toxic or other hazardous 
                        effects of the substances contributed 
                        by that party to the facility.
                  [(B) The potentially responsible party--
                          [(i) is the owner of the real 
                        property on or in which the facility is 
                        located;
                          [(ii) did not conduct or permit the 
                        generation, transportation, storage, 
                        treatment, or disposal of any hazardous 
                        substance at the facility; and
                          [(iii) did not contribute to the 
                        release or threat of release of a 
                        hazardous substance at the facility 
                        through any action or omission.
                This subparagraph (B) does not apply if the 
                potentially responsible party purchased the 
                real property with actual or constructive 
                knowledge that the property was used for the 
                generation, transportation, storage, treatment, 
                or disposal of any hazardous substance.
          [(2) Covenant not to sue.--The President may provide 
        a covenant not to sue with respect to the facility 
        concerned to any party who has entered into a 
        settlement under this subsection unless such a covenant 
        would be inconsistent with the public interest as 
        determined under subsection (f).
          [(3) Expedited agreement.--The President shall reach 
        any such settlement or grant any such covenant not to 
        sue as soon as possible after the President has 
        available the information necessary to reach such a 
        settlement or grant such a covenant.]
  (g) Expedited Final Settlement.--
          (1) Parties eligible for expedited settlement.--The 
        President shall, as promptly as possible, offer to 
        reach a final administrative or judicial settlement 
        with potentially responsible parties who, in the 
        judgment of the President, meet the following 
        conditions for eligibility for an expedited settlement 
        in subparagraph (A) or (B):
                  (A) The potentially responsible party's 
                individual contribution to the release of 
                hazardous substances at the facility as an 
                owner or operator, arranger for disposal, or 
                transporterfor disposal is de minimis. The 
contribution of hazardous substance to a facility by a potentially 
responsible party is de minimis if both of the following conditions are 
met:
                          (i) The contribution of materials 
                        containing hazardous substances that 
                        the potentially responsible party 
                        arranged or transported for treatment 
                        or disposal, or that were treated or 
                        disposed during the potentially 
                        responsible party's period of ownership 
                        or operation of the facility, is 
                        minimal in comparison to the total 
                        volume of materials containing 
                        hazardous substances at the facility. 
                        Such individual contribution is 
                        presumed to be minimal if it is not 
                        more than 1 percent of the total volume 
                        of such materials, unless the 
                        Administrator identifies a different 
                        threshold based on site-specific 
                        factors.
                          (ii) Such hazardous substances do not 
                        present toxic or other hazardous 
                        effects that are significantly greater 
                        than those of other hazardous 
                        substances at the facility.
                  (B)(i) The potentially responsible party is a 
                natural person, a small business, or a 
                municipality and can demonstrate to the United 
                States an inability or limited ability to pay 
                response costs. A party who enters into a 
                settlement pursuant to this subparagraph shall 
                be deemed to have resolved its liability under 
                this Act to the United States for all matters 
                addressed in the settlement.
                  (ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the 
                following provisions apply:
                          (I) In the case of a small business, 
                        the President shall take into 
                        consideration the ability to pay of the 
                        business, if requested by the business. 
                        The term ``ability to pay'' means the 
                        President's reasonable expectation of 
                        the ability of the small business to 
                        pay its total settlement amount and 
                        still maintain its basic business 
                        operations. Such consideration shall 
                        include the business's overall 
                        financial condition and demonstrable 
                        constraints on its ability to raise 
                        revenues.
                          (II) Any business requesting such 
                        consideration shall promptly provide 
                        the President with all relevant 
                        information needed to determine the 
                        business's ability to pay.
                          (III) If the President determines 
                        that a small business is unable to pay 
                        its total settlement amount 
                        immediately, the President shall 
                        consider alternative payment methods as 
                        may be necessary or appropriate. The 
                        methods to be considered may include 
                        installment payments to be paid during 
                        a period of not to exceed 10 years and 
                        the provision of in-kind services.
                  (iii) Any municipality which is a potentially 
                responsible party may submit for consideration 
                by the President an evaluation of the potential 
                impact of the settlement on essential services 
                that the municipality must provide, and the 
                feasibility of making delayed payments or 
                payments over time. If a municipality asserts 
                that it has additional environmental 
                obligations besides its potential liability 
                under this Act, then the municipality may 
                create a list of the obligations, including an 
                estimate of the costs of complying with such 
                obligations.
                  (iv) Any municipality which is a potentially 
                responsible party may establish an inability to 
                pay through an affirmative showing that such 
                payment of its liability under this Act would 
                either--
                          (I) create a substantial demonstrable 
                        risk that the municipality would 
                        default on existing debt obligations, 
                        be forced into bankruptcy, be forced to 
                        dissolve, or be forced to make 
                        budgetary cutbacks that would 
                        substantially reduce current levels of 
                        protection of public health and safety; 
                        or
                          (II) necessitate a violation of legal 
                        requirements or limitations of general 
                        applicability concerning the assumption 
                        and maintenance of fiscal municipal 
                        obligations.
                  (v) This subparagraph does not limit or 
                affect the President's authority to evaluate 
                any person's ability to pay or to enter into 
                settlements with any person based on that 
                person's inability to pay.
          (2) Basis of determination.--
                  (A) In general.--Any person who enters into a 
                settlement pursuant to this subsection shall 
                provide any information requested by the 
                President in accordance with section 104(e). 
                The determination of whether a person is 
                eligible for an expedited settlement shall be 
                made on the basis of all information available 
                to the President at the time the determination 
                is made.
                  (B) Decision of nonqualification; appeal.--
                          (i) Decision of nonqualification.--If 
                        the President determines that a party 
                        does not qualify for a settlement under 
                        this subsection, the President shall 
                        notify the party, in writing, within 90 
                        days after the later of--
                                  (I) a request by the party 
                                for settlement under this 
                                subsection; or
                                  (II) the receipt of all 
                                information required by the 
                                President from the requesting 
                                party to make a determination 
                                under this paragraph,
                        stating the reasons for denial. If the 
                        President does not notify the party 
                        within such 90-day period, the request 
                        is deemed denied.
                          (ii) Appeal.--
                                  (I) In general.--
                                Notwithstanding any other 
                                provision of this Act, a denial 
                                of settlement under this 
                                subsection may be appealed.
                                  (II) Authority of 
                                environmental appeals board.--
                                The Environmental Appeals Board 
                                of the Environmental Protection 
                                Agency is authorized to 
                                adjudicate denials of 
                                settlement under this 
                                subsection. Within 60 days of 
                                the date on which noticeof 
denial is received, a denial of settlement may be appealed to the 
Board. The Board may consider whether the President has followed the 
provisions of this Act but shall not determine questions regarding 
liability.
                                  (III) Procedural rules.--In 
                                any appeal made pursuant to 
                                this clause, the documents 
                                submitted by the requester 
                                under clause (i)(II) are not 
                                confidential. If a requester 
                                agrees not to contest the share 
                                of liability under section 107 
                                assigned by the President, the 
                                appeal shall include only a 
                                determination of the 
                                requester's ability to pay its 
                                allocated share.
                  (C) Judicial procedures.--In reviewing a 
                proposed settlement under this subsection, a 
                United States district court shall give 
                deference to the President's determination that 
                the settlement is in the public interest and 
                meets applicable legal standards for court 
                approval. Any person who challenges a proposed 
                settlement bears the burden of proving that the 
                proposed settlement does not meet applicable 
                legal standards for court approval. If a 
                settlement is reached with a requester, the 
                confidential information supplied to the 
                President under this subsection may be 
                submitted under seal to the court for in camera 
                review.
          (3) Additional factors relevant to settlements with 
        municipalities.--In any settlement with a municipality 
        pursuant to this Act, the President may take additional 
        equitable factors into account in determining an 
        appropriate settlement amount, including the limited 
        resources available to that party, and any in-kind 
        services that the party may provide to support the 
        response action at the facility. In considering the 
        value of in-kind services, the President shall consider 
        the fair market value of those services.
          (4) Consent decree or administrative order.--A 
        settlement under this subsection shall be entered as a 
        consent decree or embodied in an administrative order 
        setting forth the terms of the settlement. In the case 
        of any facility where the total response costs exceed 
        [$500,000] $2,000,000 (excluding interest), if the 
        settlement is embodied as an administrative order, the 
        order may be issued only with the prior written 
        approval of the Attorney General. If the Attorney 
        General or his designee has not approved or disapproved 
        the order within 30 days of this referral, the order 
        shall be deemed to be approved unless the Attorney 
        General and the Administrator have agreed to extend the 
        time. The district court for the district in which the 
        release or threatened release occurs may enforce any 
        such administrative order.
          [(5) Effect of agreement.--A party who has resolved 
        its liability to the United States under this 
        subsection shall not be liable for claims for 
        contribution regarding matters addressed in the 
        settlement. Such settlement does not discharge any of 
        the other potentially responsible parties unless its 
        terms so provide, but it reduces the potential 
        liability of the others by the amount of the 
        settlement.]
          (5) Small business defined.--In this section, the 
        term ``small business'' refers to any business entity 
        that employs no more than 100 individuals and is a 
        ``small business concern'' as defined under the Small 
        Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (7) Deadline.--If the President does not make a 
        settlement offer to a small business on or before the 
        180th day following the date of the President's 
        determination that such small business is eligible for 
        an expedited settlement under this subsection, or on or 
        before the 180th day following the date of the 
        enactment of this paragraph, whichever is later, such 
        small business shall have no further liability under 
        this Act, unless the failure to make a settlement offer 
        on or before such 180th day is due to circumstances 
        beyond the control of the President.
          (8) Premiums.--In any settlement under this Act with 
        a small business, the President may not require the 
        small business to pay any premium over and above the 
        small business's share of liability.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 127. BROWNFIELDS GRANTS.

  (a) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions 
apply:
          (1) Administrative cost.--The term ``administrative 
        cost'' does not include the cost of--
                  (A) site inventories;
                  (B) investigation and identification of the 
                extent of contamination;
                  (C) design and performance of a response 
                action; or
                  (D) monitoring of natural resources.
          (2) Brownfield facility.--
                  (A) In general.--The term ``brownfield 
                facility'' means real property with respect to 
                which expansion, development, or redevelopment 
                is complicated by the presence or potential 
                presence of a hazardous substance.
                  (B) Excluded facilities.--The term 
                ``brownfield facility'' does not include--
                          (i) any portion of real property that 
                        is the subject of an ongoing removal or 
                        planned removal under section 104;
                          (ii) any portion of real property 
                        that is listed or has been proposed for 
                        listing on the National Priorities 
                        List;
                          (iii) any portion of real property 
                        with respect to which a cleanup is 
                        proceeding under a permit, an 
                        administrative order, or a judicial 
                        consent decree entered into by the 
                        United States or an authorized State 
                        under this Act, the Solid Waste 
                        Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), 
                        the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
                        (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Toxic 
                        Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 
                        et seq.), or the Safe Drinking Water 
                        Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.);
                          (iv) a facility that is owned or 
                        operated by a department, agency, or 
                        instrumentality of the UnitedStates, 
except a facility located on lands held in trust for an Indian tribe; 
or
                          (v) a portion of a facility for which 
                        assistance for response activity has 
                        been obtained under subtitle I of the 
                        Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
                        6991 et seq.) from the Leaking 
                        Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 
                        established under section 9508 of the 
                        Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
          (3) Eligible entity.--
                  (A) In general.--The term ``eligible entity'' 
                means--
                          (i) a State or a political 
                        subdivision of a State, including--
                                  (I) a general purpose unit of 
                                local government; and
                                  (II) a regional council or 
                                group of general purpose units 
                                of local government;
                          (ii) a redevelopment agency that is 
                        chartered or otherwise sanctioned by a 
                        State or other unit of government; and
                          (iii) an Indian tribe.
                  (B) Excluded entities.--The term ``eligible 
                entity'' does not include any entity that is 
                not in full compliance with the requirements of 
                an administrative order, judicial consent 
                decree, or closure plan under a permit which 
                has been issued or entered into by the United 
                States or an authorized State under this Act, 
                the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
                seq.), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
                (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Toxic Substances 
                Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), or the 
                Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et 
                seq.) with respect to the real property or 
                portion thereof which is the subject of the 
                order, judicial consent decree, or closure 
                plan.
  (b) Brownfield Assessment Grant Program.--
          (1) Establishment of program.--The President shall 
        establish a program to provide grants to eligible 
        entities for inventory and assessment of brownfield 
        facilities.
          (2) Assistance for site assessment.--On approval of 
        an application made by an eligible entity, the 
        President may make grants to the eligible entity to be 
        used for developing an inventory and conducting an 
        assessment of 1 or more brownfield facilities.
          (3) Applications.--
                  (A) In general.--Any eligible entity may 
                submit an application to the President, in such 
                form as the President may require, for a grant 
                under this subsection for 1 or more brownfield 
                facilities.
                  (B) Application requirements.--An application 
                for a grant under this subsection shall include 
                information relevant to the ranking criteria 
                established under paragraph (4) for the 
                facility or facilities for which the grant is 
                requested.
          (4) Ranking criteria.--The President shall establish 
        a system for ranking grant applicationssubmitted under 
this subsection that includes the following criteria:
                  (A) The demonstrated need for Federal 
                assistance.
                  (B) The extent to which a grant will 
                stimulate the availability of other funds for 
                environmental remediation and subsequent 
                redevelopment of the area in which the 
                brownfield facilities are located.
                  (C) The estimated extent to which a grant 
                would facilitate the identification of or 
                facilitate a reduction in health and 
                environmental risks.
                  (D) The potential to stimulate economic 
                development of the area, such as the following:
                          (i) The relative increase in the 
                        estimated fair market value of the area 
                        as a result of any necessary response 
                        action.
                          (ii) The potential of a grant to 
                        create new or expand existing business 
                        and employment opportunities on 
                        completion of any necessary response 
                        action.
                          (iii) The estimated additional tax 
                        revenues expected to be generated by 
                        economic redevelopment in the area in 
                        which a brownfield facility is located.
                  (E) The financial involvement of the State 
                and local government in any response action 
                planned for a brownfield facility and the 
                extent to which the response action and the 
                proposed redevelopment is consistent with any 
                applicable State or local community economic 
                development plan.
                  (F) The extent to which the site assessment 
                and subsequent development involves the active 
                participation and support of the local 
                community.
          (5) Maximum grant amount per facility.--A grant made 
        to an eligible entity under this subsection shall not 
        exceed $200,000 with respect to any brownfield facility 
        covered by the grant.
  (c) Brownfield Remediation Grant Program.--
          (1) Establishment of program.--The President shall 
        establish a program to provide grants to eligible 
        entities to be used for capitalization of revolving 
        loan funds for remedial actions at brownfield 
        facilities.
          (2) Assistance for site remediation.--Upon approval 
        of an application made by an eligible entity, the 
        President may make grants to the eligible entity to be 
        used for establishing a revolving loan fund. Any fund 
        established using such grants shall be used to make 
        loans to a State, a site owner, or a site developer for 
        the purpose of carrying out remedial actions at 1 or 
        more brownfield facilities.
          (3) Applications.--
                  (A) In general.--Any eligible entity may 
                submit an application to the President, in such 
                form as the President may require, for a grant 
                under this subsection.
                  (B) Application requirements.--An application 
                under this section shall include information 
                relevant to the ranking criteria established 
                under paragraph (4).
          (4) Ranking criteria.--The President shall establish 
        a system for ranking grant applications submitted under 
        this subsection that includes the following criteria:
                  (A) The adequacy of the financial controls 
                and resources of the eligible entity to 
                administer a revolving loan fund in accordance 
                with this title.
                  (B) The ability of the eligible entity to 
                monitor the use of funds provided to loan 
                recipients under this title.
                  (C) The ability of the eligible entity to 
                ensure that a remedial action funded by the 
                grant will be conducted under the authority of 
                a State cleanup program that ensures that the 
                remedial action is protective of human health 
                and the environment.
                  (D) The ability of the eligible entity to 
                ensure that any cleanup funded under this Act 
                will comply with all laws that apply to the 
                cleanup.
                  (E) The need of the eligible entity for 
                financial assistance to clean up brownfield 
                sites that are the subject of the application, 
                taking into consideration the financial 
                resources available to the eligible entity.
                  (F) The ability of the eligible entity to 
                ensure that the applicants repay the loans in a 
                timely manner.
                  (G) The plans of the eligible entity for 
                using the grant to stimulate economic 
                development or creation of recreational areas 
                on completion of the cleanup.
                  (H) The plans of the eligible entity for 
                using the grant to stimulate the availability 
                of other funds for environmental remediation 
                and subsequent redevelopment of the area in 
                which the brownfield facilities are located.
                  (I) The plans of the eligible entity for 
                using the grant to facilitate a reduction of 
                health and environmental risks.
                  (J) The plans of the eligible entity for 
                using the grant for remediation and subsequent 
                development that involve the active 
                participation and support of the local 
                community.
          (5) Maximum grant amount.--A grant made to an 
        eligible entity under this subsection may not exceed 
        $1,000,000.
  (d) General Provisions.--
          (1) Prohibition.--No part of a grant under this 
        section may be used for the payment of penalties, 
        fines, or administrative costs.
          (2) Audits.--The President shall audit an appropriate 
        number of grants made under subsections (b) and (c) to 
        ensure that funds are used for the purposes described 
        in this section.
          (3) Agreements.--
                  (A) Terms and conditions.--Each grant made 
                under this section shall be subject to an 
                agreement that--
                          (i) requires the eligible entity to 
                        comply with all applicable Federal and 
                        State laws;
                          (ii) requires the eligible entity to 
                        use the grant exclusively for the 
                        purposes specified in subsection (b)(2) 
                        or (c)(2);
                          (iii) in the case of an application 
                        by a State under subsection (c)(3), 
                        requires payment by the State of a 
                        matching share, of at least 50 percent 
                        of the amount of the grant, from other 
                        sources of funding;
                          (iv) requires that grants under this 
                        section will not supplant State or 
                        local funds normally provided for the 
                        purposes specified in subsection (b)(2) 
                        or (c)(2); and
                          (v) contains such other terms and 
                        conditions as the President determines 
                        to be necessary to ensure proper 
                        administration of the grants.
                  (B) Limitation.--The President shall not 
                place terms or conditions on grants made under 
                this section other than the terms and 
                conditions specified in subparagraph (A).
          (4) Leveraging.--An eligible entity that receives a 
        grant under this section may use the funds for part of 
        a project at a brownfield facility for which funding is 
        received from other sources, including other Federal 
        sources, but the grant shall be used only for the 
        purposes described in subsection (b)(2) or (c)(2).
  (e) Approval.--
          (1) Initial grant.--Before the expiration of the 
        fourth quarter of the first fiscal year following the 
        date of the enactment of this section, the President 
        shall make grants under this section to eligible 
        entities and States that submit applications, before 
        the expiration of the second quarter of such year, that 
        the President determines have the highest rankings 
        under the ranking criteria established under subsection 
        (b)(4) or (c)(4).
          (2) Subsequent grants.--Beginning with the second 
        fiscal year following the date of enactment of this 
        section, the President shall make an annual evaluation 
        of each application received during the prior fiscal 
        year and make grants under this section to the eligible 
        entities and States that submit applications during the 
        prior year that the President determines have the 
        highest rankings under the ranking criteria established 
        under subsection (b)(4) or (c)(4).
  (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may be 
necessary. Such funds shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 128. RECYCLING TRANSACTIONS.

  (a) Liability Clarification.--(1) As provided in subsections 
(b), (c), (d), and (e), a person who arranged for the recycling 
of recyclable material shall not be liable under paragraph (3) 
or (4) of section 107(a) with respect to such material.
  (2) A determination whether or not any person shall be liable 
under paragraph (3) or (4) of section 107(a) for any material 
that is not a recyclable material as that term is used in 
subsections (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section shall be 
made, without regard to subsection (b), (c), (d), or (e) of 
this section.
  (b) Recyclable Material Defined.--For purposes of this 
section, the term ``recyclable material'' means scrap paper, 
scrap plastic, scrap glass, scrap textiles, scrap rubber, scrap 
metal, or spent lead-acid, spent nickel-cadmium, and other 
spent batteries, as well as minor amounts of material incident 
to or adhering to the scrap material as a result of its normal 
and customary use prior to becoming scrap; except that such 
term shall not include--
          (1) shipping containers of a capacity from 30 liters 
        to 3,000 liters, whether intact or not, having any 
        hazardous substance (but not metal bits and pieces or 
        hazardous substance that forman integral part of the 
container) contained in or adhering thereto; or
          (2) any item of material that contained PCBs at a 
        concentration in excess of 50 ppm or any new standard 
        promulgated pursuant to applicable Federal laws.
  (c) Transactions Involving Scrap Paper, Plastic, Glass, 
Textiles, or Rubber.--
          (1) In general.--Transactions involving recyclable 
        materials that consist of scrap paper, scrap plastic, 
        scrap glass, scrap textiles, or scrap rubber shall be 
        deemed to be arranging for recycling if the person who 
        arranged for the transaction (by selling recyclable 
        material or otherwise arranging for the recycling of 
        recyclable material) can demonstrate by a preponderance 
        of the evidence that all of the following criteria were 
        met at the time of the transaction:
                  (A) The recyclable material met a commercial 
                specification grade.
                  (B) A market existed for the recyclable 
                material.
                  (C) A substantial portion of the recyclable 
                material was made available for use as a 
                feedstock for the manufacture of a new saleable 
                product.
                  (D) The recyclable material could have been a 
                replacement or substitute for a virgin raw 
                material, or the product to be made from the 
                recyclable material could have been a 
                replacement or substitute for a product made, 
                in whole or in part, from a virgin raw 
                material.
                  (E) For transactions occurring on or after 
                the 90th day following the date of the 
                enactment of this section, the person exercised 
                reasonable care to determine that the facility 
                where the recyclable material would be handled, 
                processed, reclaimed, or otherwise managed by 
                another person (hereinafter in this section 
                referred to as a ``consuming facility'') was in 
                compliance with substantive (not procedural or 
                administrative) provisions of any Federal, 
                State, or local environmental law or 
                regulation, or compliance order or decree 
                issued pursuant thereto, applicable to the 
                handling, processing, reclamation, storage, or 
                other management activities associated with the 
                recyclable material.
          (2) Reasonable care.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, ``reasonable care'' shall be determined 
        using criteria that include--
                  (A) the price paid in the recycling 
                transaction;
                  (B) the ability of the person to detect the 
                nature of the consuming facility's operations 
                concerning its handling, processing, 
                reclamation, or other management activities 
                associated with the recyclable material; and
                  (C) the result of inquiries made to the 
                appropriate Federal, State, or local 
                environmental agency (or agencies) regarding 
                the consuming facility's past and current 
                compliance with substantive (not procedural or 
                administrative) provisions of any Federal, 
                State, or local environmental law or 
                regulation, or compliance order or decree 
                issued pursuant thereto, applicable to the 
                handling, processing, reclamation, storage, or 
                other management activities associated with the 
                recyclable material.
          (3) Treatment of certain requirements as substantive 
        provisions.--For purposes of this subsection, a 
        requirement to obtain a permit applicable to the 
        handling, processing, reclamation, or other management 
        activities associated with the recyclable materials 
        shall be deemed to be a substantive provision.
  (d) Transactions Involving Scrap Metal.--
          (1) In general.--Transactions involving recyclable 
        materials that consist of scrap metal shall be deemed 
        to be arranging for recycling if the person who 
        arranged for the transaction (by selling recyclable 
        material or otherwise arranging for the recycling of 
        recyclable material) can demonstrate by a preponderance 
        of the evidence that at the time of the transaction--
                  (A) the person met the criteria set forth in 
                subsection (c) with respect to the scrap metal;
                  (B) the person was in compliance with any 
                applicable regulations or standards regarding 
                the storage, transport, management, or other 
                activities associated with the recycling of 
                scrap metal that the Administrator issues under 
                the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
                seq.) after the date of the enactment of this 
                section and with regard to transactions 
                occurring after the effective date of such 
                regulations or standards; and
                  (C) the person did not melt the scrap metal 
                prior to the transaction.
          (2) Melting of scrap metal.--For purposes of 
        paragraph (1)(C), melting of scrap metal does not 
        include the thermal separation of 2 or more materials 
        due to differences in their melting points (referred to 
        as ``sweating'').
          (3) Scrap metal defined.--In this subsection, the 
        term ``scrap metal'' means--
                  (A) bits and pieces of metal parts (such as 
                bars, turnings, rods, sheets, and wire) or 
                metal pieces that may be combined together with 
                bolts or soldering (such as radiators, scrap 
                automobiles, and railroad box cars) which when 
                worn or superfluous can be recycled; and
                  (B) notwithstanding paragraph (1)(C), metal 
                byproducts of the production of copper and 
                copper based alloys that--
                          (i) are not the sole or primary 
                        products of a secondary production 
                        process,
                          (ii) are not produced separately from 
                        the primary products of a secondary 
                        production process,
                          (iii) are not and have not been 
                        stored in a pile or surface 
                        impoundment, and
                          (iv) are sold to another recycler 
                        that is not speculatively accumulating 
                        such byproducts,
        except for any scrap metal that the Administrator 
        excludes from this definition by regulation.
  (e) Transactions Involving Batteries.--
          (1) In general.--Transactions involving recyclable 
        materials that consist of spent lead-acid batteries, 
        spent nickel-cadmiumbatteries, or other spent batteries 
shall be deemed to be arranging for recycling if the person who 
arranged for the transaction (by selling recyclable material or 
otherwise arranging for the recycling of recyclable material) can 
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the 
transaction--
                  (A) the person met the criteria set forth in 
                subsection (c) with respect to the spent lead-
                acid batteries, spent nickel-cadmium batteries, 
                or other spent batteries but did not recover 
                the valuable components of such batteries; and
                  (B)(i) with respect to transactions involving 
                lead-acid batteries, the person was in 
                compliance with applicable Federal 
                environmental regulations or standards, and any 
                amendments thereto, regarding the storage, 
                transport, management, or other activities 
                associated with the recycling of spent lead-
                acid batteries;
                  (ii) with respect to transactions involving 
                nickel-cadmium batteries, Federal environmental 
                regulations or standards were in effect 
                regarding the storage, transport, management, 
                or other activities associated with the 
                recycling of spent nickel-cadmium batteries and 
                the person was in compliance with such 
                regulations or standards and any amendments 
                thereto; or
                  (iii) with respect to transactions involving 
                other spent batteries, Federal environmental 
                regulations or standards were in effect 
                regarding the storage, transport, management, 
                or other activities associated with the 
                recycling of such batteries and the person was 
                in compliance with such regulations or 
                standards and any amendments thereto.
          (2) Recovery of valuable battery components.--For 
        purposes of paragraph (1)(A), a person who, by 
        contract, arranges or pays for processing of batteries 
        by an unrelated third person and receives from such 
        third person materials reclaimed from such batteries 
        shall not thereby be deemed to recover the valuable 
        components of such batteries.
  (f) Exclusions.--
          (1) In general.--The exemptions set forth in 
        subsections (c), (d), and (e) shall not apply if--
                  (A) the person had an objectively reasonable 
                basis to believe at the time of the recycling 
                transaction that--
                          (i) the recyclable material would not 
                        be recycled;
                          (ii) the recyclable material would be 
                        burned as fuel or for energy recovery 
                        or incineration; or
                          (iii) for transactions occurring on 
                        or before the 90th day following the 
                        date of the enactment of this section, 
                        the consuming facility was not in 
                        compliance with a substantive (not a 
                        procedural or administrative) provision 
                        of any Federal, State, or local 
                        environmental law or regulation, or 
                        compliance order or decree issued 
                        pursuant thereto, applicable to the 
                        handling, processing, reclamation, or 
                        other management activities associated 
                        with the recyclable material;
                  (B) the person had reason to believe that 
                hazardous substances had been added to the 
                recyclable material for purposes other than 
                processing for recycling; or
                  (C) the person failed to exercise reasonable 
                care with respect to the management and 
                handling of the recyclable material (including 
                adhering to customary industry practices 
                current at the time of the recycling 
                transaction designed to minimize, through 
                source control, contamination of the recyclable 
                material by hazardous substances).
          (2) Objectively reasonable basis.--For purposes of 
        paragraph (1)(A), an objectively reasonable basis for 
        belief shall be determined using criteria that include 
        the size of the person's business, customary industry 
        practices (including customary industry practices 
        current at the time of the recycling transaction 
        designed to minimize, through source control, 
        contamination of the recyclable material by hazardous 
        substances), the price paid in the recycling 
        transaction, and the ability of the person to detect 
        the nature of the consuming facility's operations 
        concerning its handling, processing, reclamation, or 
        other management activities associated with the 
        recyclable material.
          (3) Treatment of certain requirements as substantive 
        provisions.--For purposes of this subsection, a 
        requirement to obtain a permit applicable to the 
        handling, processing, reclamation, or other management 
        activities associated with recyclable material shall be 
        deemed to be a substantive provision.
  (g) Effect on Owner Liability.--Nothing in this section shall 
be deemed to affect the liability of a person under paragraph 
(1) or (2) of section 107(a).
  (h) Relationship to Liability Under Other Laws.--Nothing in 
this section shall affect--
          (1) liability under any other Federal, State, or 
        local statute or regulation promulgated pursuant to any 
        such statute, including any requirements promulgated by 
        the Administrator under the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
        (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.); or
          (2) the ability of the Administrator to promulgate 
        regulations under any other statute, including the 
        Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).
  (i) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
section shall be construed to--
          (1) affect any defenses or liabilities of any person 
        to whom subsection (a)(1) does not apply; or
          (2) create any presumption of liability against any 
        person to whom subsection (a)(1) does not apply.

SEC. 129. ALLOCATION.

  (a) Purpose of Allocation.--The purpose of an allocation 
under this section is to determine an equitable allocation of 
the costs of a removal or remedial action at a facility on the 
National Priorities List that is eligible for an allocation 
under this section, including the share to be borne by the 
Trust Fund under subsection (i).
  (b) Eligible Response Action.--
          (1) In general.--A removal or remedial action is 
        eligible for an allocation under this section if the 
        action is at a facility on the National Priorities List 
        and if--
                  (A) the performance of the removal or 
                remedial action is not the subject of an 
                administrative order or consent decree as of 
                September 29, 1999;
                  (B) the President's estimate of the costs for 
                performing such removal or remedial action that 
                have not been recovered by the President as of 
                September 29, 1999, exceeds $2,000,000; and
                  (C) there are response costs attributable to 
                the Fund share under subsection (i).
          (2) Excluded response actions.--
                  (A) Chain of title sites.--Notwithstanding 
                paragraph (1), a removal or remedial action is 
                not eligible for an allocation if--
                          (i) the facility is located on a 
                        contiguous area of real property under 
                        common ownership or control; and
                          (ii) all of the parties potentially 
                        liable for response costs are current 
                        or former owners or operators of such 
                        facility,
                unless the current owner of such facility is 
                insolvent or defunct.
                  (B) Current owner.--If the current owner of 
                the property on which the facility is located 
                is not liable under section 107(b)(2), the 
                owner immediately preceding such owner shall be 
                considered to be the current owner of the 
                property for purposes of subparagraph (A).
                  (C) Affiliated parties.--If the current owner 
                is affiliated with any other person through any 
                direct or indirect familial relationship or any 
                contractual, corporate, or financial 
                relationship other than that created by 
                instruments by which title to the facility is 
                conveyed or financed or by a contract for the 
                sale of goods or services, and such other 
                person is liable for response costs at the 
                facility, such other person's assets may be 
                considered assets of the current owner when 
                determining under subparagraph (A) whether the 
                current owner is insolvent or defunct.
  (c) Discretionary Allocation Process.--Notwithstanding 
subsection (b), the President may initiate an allocation under 
this section for any removal or remedial action at a facility 
listed on the National Priorities List and may provide a Fund 
share under subsection (i).
  (d) Allocation Process.--For each eligible removal or 
remedial action, the President shall ensure that a fair and 
equitable allocation of liability is undertaken at an 
appropriate time by a neutral allocator selected by agreement 
of the parties under such process or procedures as are agreed 
by the parties. An allocation under this section shall apply to 
subsequent removal or remedial actions for a facility unless 
the allocator determines that the allocation should address 
only one or more of such removal or remedial actions.
  (e) Early Offer of Settlement.--As soon as practicable and 
prior to the selection of an allocator, the President shall 
provide an estimate of the aggregate Fund share in accordance 
with subsection (i). The President shall offer to contribute to 
a settlement of liability for response costs on the basis of 
this estimate.
  (f) Representation of the United States and Affected 
States.--The Administrator or the Attorney General, as a 
representative of the Fund, and a representative of any State 
that is or may be responsible pursuant to section 104(c)(3) for 
any costs of a removal or remedial action that is the subject 
of an allocation shall be entitled to participate in the 
allocation proceeding to the same extent as any potentially 
responsible party.
  (g) Moratorium on Litigation.--
          (1) Moratorium on litigation.--No person may commence 
        any civil action or assert any claim under this Act 
        seeking recovery of any response costs, or contribution 
        toward such costs, in connection with any response 
        action for which the President has initiated an 
        allocation under this section, until 150 days after 
        issuance of the allocator's report or of a report under 
        this section.
          (2) Stay.--If any action or claim referred to in 
        paragraph (1) is pending on the date of enactment of 
        this section or on the date of initiation of an 
        allocation, such action or claim (including any pendant 
        claim under State law over which a court is exercising 
        jurisdiction) shall be stayed until 150 days after the 
        issuance of the allocator's report or of a report under 
        this section, unless the court determines that a stay 
        will result in manifest injustice.
          (3) Tolling of limitations period.--Any applicable 
        limitations period with respect to actions subject to 
        paragraph (1) shall be tolled from the earlier of--
                  (A) the date of listing of the facility on 
                the National Priorities List, where such 
                listing occurs after the date of enactment of 
                this section; or
                  (B) the commencement of the allocation 
                process pursuant to this section, until 180 
                days after the President rejects or waives the 
                President's right to reject the allocator's 
                report.
  (h) Effect on Principles of Liability.--The allocation 
process under this section shall not be construed to modify or 
affect in any way the principles of liability under this title 
as determined by the courts of the United States.
  (i) Fund Share.--For each removal or remedial action that is 
the subject of an allocation under this section, the allocator 
shall determine the share of response costs, if any, to be 
allocated to the Fund. The Fund share shall consist of the sum 
of following amounts:
          (1) The amount attributable to the aggregate share of 
        response costs that the allocator determines to be 
        attributable to parties who are not affiliated with any 
        potentially responsible party and whom the President 
        determines are insolvent or defunct.
          (2) The amount attributable to the difference in the 
        aggregate share of response costs that the allocator 
        determines to be attributable to parties who have 
        resolved their liability to the United States under 
        section 122(g)(1)(B) (relating to limited ability to 
        pay settlements) for the removal or remedial action and 
        the amount actually assumed by those parties in any 
        settlement for the response action with the United 
        States.
          (3) Except as provided in subsection (j), the amount 
        attributable to the aggregate share of response costs 
        that the allocator determines to be attributable to 
        persons who are entitled to an exemption from liability 
        under subsection (t) or (u) of section 107 or section 
        114(c) or 128 at a facility or vessel on the National 
        Priorities List.
          (4) The amount attributable to the difference in the 
        aggregate share of response costs that an allocator 
        determines to be attributable to persons subject to a 
        limitation on liability under section 107(u) or 107(v) 
        and the amount actually assumed by those parties in 
        accordance with such limitation.
  (j) Certain MSW Generators.--Notwithstanding subsection 
(i)(3), the allocator shall not attribute any response costs to 
any person who would have been liable under section 107(a)(3) 
or 107(a)(4) but for the exemption from liability under section 
107(u)(3).
  (k) Unattributable Share.--The share attributable to the 
aggregate share of response costs incurred to respond to 
materials containing hazardous substances for which no 
generator, transporter, or owner or operator at the time of 
disposal or placement, can be identified shall be divided pro 
rata among the potentially responsible parties and the Fund 
share determined under subsection (i).
  (l) Expedited Allocation.--At the request of the potentially 
responsible parties or the United States, to assist in reaching 
settlement, the allocator may, prior to reaching a final 
allocation of response costs among all parties, first provide 
an estimate of the aggregate Fund share, in accordance with 
subsection (i), and an estimate of the aggregate share of the 
potentially responsible parties.
  (m) Settlement Before Allocation Determination.--
          (1) Settlement of all removal or remedial costs.--A 
        group of potentially responsible parties may submit to 
        the allocator a private allocation for any removal or 
        remedial action that is within the scope of the 
        allocation. If such private allocation meets each of 
        the following criteria, the allocator shall promptly 
        adopt it as the allocation report:
                  (A) The private allocation is a binding 
                allocation of at least 80 percent of the past, 
                present, and future costs of the removal or 
                remedial action.
                  (B) The private allocation does not allocate 
                any share to any person who is not a signatory 
                to the private allocation.
                  (C) The signatories to the private allocation 
                waive their rights to seek recovery of removal 
                or remedial costs or contribution under this 
                Act with respect to the removal or remedial 
                action from any other party at the facility.
          (2) Other settlements.--The President may use the 
        authority under section 122(g) to enter into settlement 
        agreements with respect to any response action that is 
        the subject of an allocation at any time.
  (n) Settlements Based on Allocations.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
        President shall accept an offer of settlement of 
        liability for response costs for a removal or remedial 
        action that is the subject of an allocation if--
                  (A) the offer is made within 90 days after 
                issuance of the allocator's report; and
                  (B) the offer is based on the share of 
                response costs specified by the allocator and 
                such other terms and conditions (other than the 
                allocated share of response costs) as are 
                acceptable to the President.
          (2) Rejection of allocation report.--The requirement 
        of paragraph (1) to accept an offer of settlement shall 
        not apply if the Administrator and the Attorney General 
        reject the allocation report.
  (o) Reimbursement for UAO Performance.--
          (1) Reimbursement.--The Administrator shall enter 
        into agreements to provide mixed funding to reimburse 
        parties who satisfactorily perform, pursuant to an 
        administrative order issued under section 106, a 
        removal or remedial action eligible for an allocation 
        under subsection (b) for the reasonable and necessary 
        costs of such removal or remedial action to the extent 
        that--
                  (A) the costs incurred by a performing party 
                exceed the share of response costs assigned to 
                such party in an allocation that is performed 
                in accordance with the provisions of this 
                section;
                  (B) the allocation is not rejected by the 
                United States; and
                  (C) the performing party, in consideration 
                for such reimbursement--
                          (i) agrees not to contest liability 
                        for all response costs not inconsistent 
                        with the National Contingency Plan to 
                        the extent of the allocated share;
                          (ii) receives no covenant not to sue; 
                        and
                          (iii) waives contribution rights 
                        against all parties who are potentially 
                        responsible parties for the response 
                        action, as well as waives any rights to 
                        challenge any settlement the President 
                        enters into with any other potentially 
                        responsible party.
          (2) Offset.--Any reimbursement provided to a 
        performing party under this subsection shall be subject 
        to equitable offset or reduction by the Administrator 
        upon a finding of a failure to perform any aspect of 
        the remedy in a proper and timely manner.
          (3) Time of payment.--Any reimbursement to a 
        performing party under this subsection shall be paid 
        after work is completed, but no sooner than completion 
        of the construction of the remedial action and, subject 
        to paragraph (5), without any increase for interest or 
        inflation.
          (4) Limit on amount of reimbursement.--The amount of 
        reimbursement under this subsection shall be further 
        limited as follows:
                  (A) Performing parties who waive their right 
                to challenge remedy selection at the end of the 
                moratorium following allocation shall be 
                entitled to reimbursement of actual dollars 
                spent by each such performing party in excess 
                of the party's share and attributable by the 
                allocator to the Fund share under subsection 
                (i).
                  (B) Performing parties who retain their right 
                to challenge the remedy shall be reimbursed (i) 
                for actual dollars spent by each such 
                performing party, but not to exceed 90 percent 
                of the Fund share, or (ii) an amount equal to 
                80 percent of the Fund share if the Fund share 
                is less than 20 percent of responsibility at 
                the site.
          (5) Reimbursement of shares attributable to other 
        parties.--If reimbursement is made under this 
        subsection to a performing party for work in excess of 
        the performing party's allocated share that is not 
        attributable to the Fund share, the performing party 
        shall be entitled to all interest (prejudgment and post 
        judgment, whether recovered from a party or earned in a 
        site account) that has accrued on money recovered by 
        the United States from other parties for such work at 
        the time construction of the remedy is completed.
          (6) Reimbursement claims.--The Administrator shall 
        require that all claims for reimbursement be supported 
        by--
                  (A) documentation of actual costs incurred; 
                and
                  (B) sufficient information to enable the 
                Administrator to determine whether such costs 
                were reasonable.
          (7) Independent auditing.--The Administrator may 
        require independent auditing of any claim for 
        reimbursement.
  (p) Post-Settlement Litigation.--Following expiration of the 
moratorium periods under subsection (g), the United States may 
request the court to lift the stay and proceed with an action 
under this Act against any potentially responsible party that 
has not resolved its liability to the United States following 
an allocation, seeking to recover response costs that are not 
recovered through settlements with other persons. All such 
actions shall be governed by the principles of liability under 
this Act as determined by the courts of the United States.
  (q) Response Costs.--
          (1) Description.--The following costs shall be 
        considered response costs for purposes of this Act:
                  (A) Costs incurred by the United States and 
                the court of implementing the allocation 
                procedure set forth in this section, including 
                reasonable fees and expenses of the allocator.
                  (B) Costs paid from amounts made available 
                under section 111(a)(1).
          (2) Settled parties.--Any costs of allocation 
        described in paragraph (1)(A) and incurred after a 
        party has settled all of its liability with respect to 
        the response action or actions that are the subject of 
        the allocation may not be recovered from such party.
  (r) Federal, State, and Local Agencies.--All Federal, State, 
and local governmental departments, agencies, or 
instrumentalities that are identified as potentially 
responsible parties shall be subject to, and be entitled to the 
benefits of, the allocation process and allocation 
determination provided by this section to the same extent as 
any other party.
  (s) Source of Funds.--Payments made by the Trust Fund, or 
work performed on behalf of the Trust Fund, to meet obligations 
incurred by the President under this section to pay a Fund 
share or to reimburse parties for costs incurred in excess of 
the parties' allocated shares under subsections (e), (m), (n), 
or (o) shall be funded from amounts made available by section 
111(a)(1).
  (t) Savings Provisions.--Except as otherwise expressly 
provided, nothing in this section shall limit or affect the 
following:
          (1) The President's--
                  (A) authority to exercise the powers 
                conferred by sections 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 
                or 122;
                  (B) authority to commence an action against a 
                party where there is a contemporaneous filing 
                of a judicial consent decree resolving that 
                party's liability;
                  (C) authority to file a proof of claim or 
                take other action in a proceeding under title 
                11, United States Code;
                  (D) authority to file a petition to preserve 
                testimony under Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of 
                Civil Procedure; or
                  (E) authority to take action to prevent 
                dissipation of assets, including actions under 
                chapter 176 of title 28, United States Code.
          (2) The ability of any person to resolve its 
        liability at a facility to any other person at any time 
        before or during the allocation process.
          (3) The validity, enforceability, finality, or merits 
        of any judicial or administrative order, judgment, or 
        decree issued, signed, lodged, or entered, before the 
        date of enactment of this paragraph with respect to 
        liability under this Act, or authority to modify any 
        such order, judgment, or decree with regard to the 
        response action addressed in the order, judgment or 
        decree.
          (4) The validity, enforceability, finality, or merits 
        of any pre-existing contract or agreement relating to 
        any allocation of responsibility or any indemnity for, 
        or sharing of, any response costs under this Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

SECTION 517 OF THE SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1986

SEC. 517. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND.

  (a) * * *
    [(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not 
otherwise appropriated, to the Hazardous Substance Superfund 
for fiscal year--
          [(1) 1987, $250,000,000,
          [(2) 1988, $250,000,000,
          [(3) 1989, $250,000,000,
          [(4) 1990, $250,000,000,
          [(5) 1991, $250,000,000,
          [(6) 1992, $250,000,000,
          [(7) 1993, $250,000,000
          [(8) 1994, $250,000,000, and
          [(9) 1995, $250,000,000.[,]
plus for each fiscal year an amount equal to so much of the 
aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated under this 
subsection (and paragraph (2) of section 221(b) of the 
Hazardous Substance Response Act of 1980, as in effect before 
its repeal) as has not been appropriated before the beginning 
of the fiscal year involved.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

           SECTION 9507 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986

SEC. 9507. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND.

  (a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the 
Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 
``Hazardous Substance Superfund'' (hereinafter in this section 
referred to as the ``Superfund''), consisting of such amounts 
as may be--
          (1) appropriated to the Superfund as provided in this 
        section,
          (2) appropriated to the Superfund pursuant to 
        [section 517(b) of the Superfund Revenue Act of 1986] 
        section 111(p) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
        Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 
        U.S.C. 9611(p)), or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

              The Administration Advocacy Papers Misinform

    I believe it is necessary to provide additional views to 
the Committee report in order to identify what I believe to be 
dubious claims by the Clinton Administration as part of their 
effort to oppose passage of H.R. 2580. These views focus on two 
examples of biased and inaccurate information. These EPA 
documents were designed and used by Administration officials in 
visits with Members of Congress prior to the Committee's markup 
of H.R. 2580, as amended (the Oxley substitute). The EPA 
documents are styled, ``Key Problems with the Oxley Amendment 
to H.R. 2580'' and ``Top Reasons for Administrator Support of 
the Towns Amendment, The Community Revitalization and 
Brownfields Cleanup Act of 1999''

   a. the administration ignores the similarities between the oxley 
                  substitute and the towns substitute

    In the two EPA documents, the Administration repeatedly 
ignores the strong similarities between the Oxley substitute to 
H.R. 2580 and the Towns substitute (H.R. 1750). First, the 
Administration claims that provisions in the Towns substitute 
are beneficial components of reform, but fails to mention that 
H.R. 2580 has substantially similar provisions. This results in 
an Administration document that selectively understates 
similarities between the two bills. For example, in the first 
bullet under the heading styled ``[H.R. 1750] Promotes 
Brownfields Redevelopment through Targeted Liability Relief,'' 
the Administration states that the Towns' substitute ``provides 
liability relief to prospective purchasers, and contiguous 
landowners whose property is contaminated from releases on 
adjoining property.'' The Administration fails to mention that 
H.R. 2580 also provides similar innocent party relief for 
prospective purchasers and contiguous property owners. 
Similarly, under the header ``[H.R. 1750] Preserves the 
Principle that Polluters Should Pay for Cleanup While Providing 
Relief for Small Parties,'' the Administration provides three 
bullets that point out that the Towns' substitute exempts de 
micromis parties, small businesses, homeowners, and non-profit 
organizations that generated or transported trash, and provides 
liability relief to eligible post-consumer recyclable 
materials. Yet again, the Administration fails to mention that 
H.R. 2580 also provides identical or similar provisions.
    In addition, the Administration praises the Towns 
substitute for codifying the municipal settlement policy, while 
criticizing the Oxley substitute which also provides needed 
relief to these parties. It is inappropriate for the 
Administration to claim that H.R. 2580's municipal solid waste 
provisions constitute ``special interest exemptions'' under 
such circumstances. Similarly, under the heading styled ``Key 
Problems with Oxley Amendments to H.R. 2580,'' the 
Administration claims that ``[H.R. 2580] Fails to reinstate the 
Superfund tax, giving polluters a tax holiday of about $4 
million/day.'' This statement is wrong at several levels. 
First, the corporate environmental income taxes and the 
petrochemical feedstock taxes which expired in 1995 are not 
taxes based on pollution. Is the Administration's definition of 
``polluter'' any corporations which have income? Second, H.R. 
2580 does not address taxes, rather it is merely silent on this 
matter. Third, the Administration fails to point out that the 
Towns substitute does not provide for reinstatement of the 
Superfund taxes.
    Similarly, the Administration alleges that ``[H.R. 2580] 
fails to protect clean groundwater by allowing contamination to 
migrate if the groundwater is not currently used.'' However, 
the Administration fails to point out that using this measure, 
the current Superfund program and statute also fails. Under 
current law, standards apply where applicable, relevant and 
appropriate under the circumstances of the release or 
threatened release. Nothing in the statute defines what these 
circumstances are. Moreover, nothing prohibits migration of 
contamination in appropriate circumstances. Indeed, natural 
attenuation is a method which allows contamination to migrate 
for certain purposes and this method has been chosen by EPA in 
numerous circumstances. Nothing in current law prevents this 
practice and H.R. 2580 does no more or less than current law on 
this point.

 b. the administration's desire to oppose current bipartisan superfund 
   reform efforts has resulted in inconsistencies in its position on 
                            superfund reform

    The Administration's attack on H.R. 2580, alleging that it 
will ``weaken public health protections,'' flies in the face of 
its prior positions and legislative proposals for Superfund 
reform. Indeed, Administrator Browner stated to Congress in 
1995 that ``The Administration supports the elimination of 
relevant and appropriate requirements because they have proven 
to be a source of delay and unnecessary expense in selecting 
remedies.'' In 1997, EPA again stated ``[T]he Administration 
does support some flexibility regarding requirements that have 
been traditionally referred to as `relevant and appropriate.' 
As a result, the Administration supports removing the statutory 
requirement to comply with these requirements.'' In addition, 
removal of these requirements has been part of Minority 
proposals, including H.R. 3595 as introduced in 1998 during the 
105th Congress. Apparently, in the Administration's view, these 
statutory provisions have needed to be changed for the several 
years but, inexplicably, not as part of bipartisan Superfund 
reform in the 106th Congress.

  c. the administration continues to provide misinformation about the 
      anticipated procedural and substantive impacts of h.r. 2580

    Finally, the Administration presents an incomplete view of 
the procedural and substantive effects of H.R. 2580, because it 
avoids properly framing the scope of particular provisions. For 
example, H.R. 2580 prevents EPA from overriding State cleanup 
decisions by limiting EPA's authority where there has been a 
State cleanup. However, this is subject to reopener provisions, 
including a reopener that allows EPA to exercise its authority 
where there is an emergency to public health and the 
environment and the State is not addressing the problem. 
Despite these reopeners, the Administration claims that ``[H.R. 
2580] restricts EPA from ordering polluters to clean up high 
risk toxic waste sites * * *'' Meanwhile, when describing H.R. 
1750, the Administration argues that the analogous point is a 
valuable component of H.R. 1750, ``[H.R. 1750] limits federal 
actions where cleanups are performed in compliance with good 
state response programs.'' Although there are differences in 
how the two bills approach the finality issue, rather than 
briefly describing the differences, the Administration has 
resorted to rhetoric.
    The Administration's mischaracterization of H.R. 2580 is 
prevalent. For example, the Administration claims that ``[H.R. 
2580] diverts authorized cleanup dollars to pay for special 
interest liability exemptions and mandatory allocations which 
will mean fewer cleanups.'' In fact, the authorizations for 
cleanup funds in H.R. 2580 clearly state that the direct 
spending authorization for liability relief can be diverted to 
other program purposes, in specific circumstances. Furthermore, 
the direct spending allocations are distinct from the 
discretionary program authorizations. In fact, it is not 
credible to assert that H.R. 2580 will divert money away from 
cleanups. Because of its brownfields and liability reforms, 
less money will go towards litigation costs and more money will 
be available to be used for cleanups.
    These documents represent but two examples of inaccurate 
and biased characterizations of H.R. 2580, which should be 
rejected.

                                                  Michael G. Oxley.

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    On May 11, 1999, I introduced H.R. 1750, the ``Community 
Revitalization and Brownfield Cleanup Act of 1999'' to promote 
the assessment, remediation, and redevelopment of brownfield 
sites. I am pleased that this legislation has attracted the 
support of President Clinton, the National Realty Committee, 
mayors of major cities, and 170 Members of Congress.
    In late July, my colleague on the Committee, Mr. Greenwood, 
introduced H.R. 2580 which covered the same scope of brownfield 
issues and certain additional issues involving remedy 
selection.
    Almost immediately after the Subcommittee on Finance and 
Hazardous Materials' August 4, 1999 hearing on these brownfield 
bills, we engaged in bipartisan discussions in an attempt to 
resolve the differences in our two bills. I felt that a 
bipartisan product could be developed around a brownfields bill 
and certain broadly supported liability relief for small 
business, municipalities, and legitimate scrap recyclers, but 
without engaging in the debates that surround reauthorization 
of the Superfund taxes.
    Unfortunately, the attempt to develop this bipartisan 
product was unsuccessful. There is however, potential in the 
future for developing a narrowly focused bipartisan product. At 
the Committee markup I offered a substitute which embodies the 
principals of my bill and other targeted reforms. I was pleased 
that all of my Democratic colleagues voted for this proposal.

                                                    Edolphus Towns.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    The Superfund program is no longer the program of the early 
1980s, when in its infancy it was plagued by malfeasance and 
intentional efforts on the part of a hostile Administration to 
hamper the progress of cleanup. As a result of this ``go slow'' 
approach, the goal of which was to terminate the program after 
its initial five-year authorization, remedial construction had 
been completed at only eight sites by the end of 1985. After 
the comprehensive reauthorization of the statute in 1986, it 
took until 1990 for the final regulations implementing the 
program to take effect.
    Now, after three rounds of Administrative reforms 
implemented by the Clinton Administration, the program has seen 
its greatest success to date. Any legislative proposals for 
change must reflect the realities of the Superfund program 
today, taking into account these key administrative reforms and 
the progress in site cleanups that has been achieved. Our goal 
is to expeditiously complete cleanups at Superfund National 
Priority List (NPL) sites. In that context we support 
provisions to promote redevelopment of brownfields including 
liability protections for innocent landowners, new purchasers 
and developers, and contiguous property owners, as well as 
brownfields grants to local governments. We also support 
consensus-based targeted reforms for municipalities, small 
business, and legitimate recyclers.
    For more than five years, we have sought to exempt from 
liability small businesses and residential homeowners who 
merely sent trash to a local landfill. There is no reason to 
continue to hold a restaurant or other small business that only 
sent ``chicken bones'' or trash to the local landfill hostage 
to a broader and controversial agenda pushed by special 
interests which have yet to meet their cleanup 
responsibilities.
    At several times during the Superfund debate, the Minority 
has been accused of pursuing the perfect while sacrificing the 
good. Unfortunately, H.R. 2580 is neither the perfect, nor the 
good. The bill undermines the ``polluter pays'' principle and 
shifts hundreds of millions of dollars of polluter liability to 
state and federal taxpayers. It undermines the basic 
protections to human health and the environment that we have 
long believed should be ensured the citizens and communities 
affected by Superfund sites. Further, the bill undermines one 
of the most effective aspects of the law to date--prevention of 
future Superfund sites and brownfield sites.
    We have not attempted in these views to identify every 
provision in H.R. 2580 about which we have concerns. During the 
hastily scheduled markups at Subcommittee and the full 
Committee, within a three-week period H.R. 2580 grew from 32 
pages to 136 pages. The Administration was not involved in the 
formulation of the bill. By embarking on this partisan approach 
we fear the Majority has missed a real opportunity to 
strengthen brownfields revitalization, codify successful EPA 
reforms, and make targeted changes, all on a bipartisan basis.

                   progress of the superfund program

    Cleanup construction has been completed at more than three 
times as many toxic waste sites under the Administration of 
President Clinton than were completed in all the prior years 
combined. According to the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA): Cleanup construction has been completed at 670 Superfund 
sites and more than 400 additional sites are undergoing cleanup 
construction; more than 90 percent of all Superfund sites have 
had cleanup construction completed or are in the midst of 
cleanup construction; and the number of cleanups completed has 
increased from 65 to 85 per year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR775.012

This significant progress has been recognized by states, 
industry, and the General Accounting Office (GAO). In its July 
1999 report (GAO/RCED-99-245) on the status of the Superfund 
program, the GAO released the following findings:
          At half the sites, cleanups had been completed or all 
        remedies were in place to achieve cleanup.
          At sites where cleanups were not complete, a 
        significant amount of work already had been 
        accomplished, and the remainder of the work was 
        scheduled to be completed in the near future.
          At sites where cleanups were not complete, two-thirds 
        of the required work was underway or done.
    Business groups also have noted the significant progress 
that has been achieved in cleaning up Superfund sites:

          The Federal hazardous site cleanup program 
        established by the Comprehensive Environmental 
        Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 
        (Superfund) is expected to achieve its goal of 
        restoring the highest priority cleanup sites to 
        environmental health within the next three to five 
        years. (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, June 21, 1999.)
          Additionally, nearly 90 percent of all non-federal 
        sites on the NPL are undergoing cleanup activities, and 
        60 percent of them will be finished by the end of this 
        Congress. (National Association of Manufacturers, 
        October 12, 1999.)

    The Subcommittee also received testimony from state 
officials that the Superfund program has hit its stride and is 
doing a good job in remediating the NPL sites.

          With 90% of all NPL sites having signed records of 
        decision, we felt a discussion on remedy selection 
        changes would not be appropriate. EPA has done a good 
        job in diligently working to remediate the 1,300 or so 
        sites listed on the NPL. (Testimony of Claudia Kerbawy 
        on behalf of the Association of State and Territorial 
        Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) before the 
        Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, March 
        23, 1999.)

    We believe that at this point, any changes to the program 
that would undermine the rapid progress that has been achieved 
in completing cleanups is counterproductive and unwise.

                       the democratic alternative

    During the Committee markup, Mr. Towns of New York offered 
a Democratic alternative that promotes the development of 
brownfield sites and addresses the liability concerns of 
municipal governments, small business, and legitimate 
recyclers. The Democratic alternative also directs that a study 
of the future revenue needs of the Superfund program be 
completed by May 1, 2000.
    The brownfields provisions in the Democratic alternative 
are taken from H.R. 1750, which is supported by the National 
Realty Committee, National Association of Counties and other 
local government organizations, Mayor Archer of Detroit, Mayor 
Rendell of Philadelphia, Mayor Webb of Denver, Mayor Harmon of 
St. Louis, Mayor Murphy of Pittsburgh, Mayor James of Newark, 
Mayor Bollwage of Elizabeth, New Jersey, and 170 Members of 
Congress. President Clinton also has expressed his strong 
support for the brownfield provisions in the Democratic 
alternative.
    Brownfield sites are parcels of land that contain abandoned 
or under-used commercial or industrial facilities, which may 
include associated rivers, streams or lakes, and mine-scarred 
land.
    The Democratic alternative contains the following 
provisions which will promote the development of brownfield 
properties:
    Grants To Local Governments and Redevelopment 
Authorities.--To facilitate environmental cleanup, the 
Democratic alternative authorizes grants of up to $500,000 
annually to a local government to assess contamination at a 
site. Also, depending on the particular site circumstances, the 
Democratic alternative authorizes grants of $500,000 to 
$1,000,000 to allow local governments and redevelopment 
authorities to capitalize revolving loan funds for actual 
cleanup of brownfield properties.
    The Democratic alternative builds on the successful 
brownfields grant program administered by the EPA, but 
authorizes higher grant amounts than awarded under current 
practice and reduces the administrative burden on local 
governments from the grant application process.
    Liability Protection For Prospective Purchasers.--The 
Democratic alternative provides that a new purchaser or 
developer of contaminated property will not be liable under 
Superfund if he performs a due diligence inspection of the 
property, provides access to persons performing the cleanup, 
and is not affiliated with the person who is responsible for 
creating the contamination. The purchaser does not have to 
perform the cleanup himself.
    Innocent Landowner Protection.--The Democratic alternative 
establishes criteria to provide certainty to persons who are 
innocent landowners. The Democratic alternative adopts the 
environmental assessment standards established by the American 
Society for Testing and Materials which are widely supported 
and used by the real estate industry and regulators today.
    Contiguous Property Owner Protection.--The Democratic 
alternative creates a defense to liability for a landowner, (1) 
where the contamination came from adjoining property and (2) 
the landowner did not cause or contribute to the contamination 
on the adjoining property, and (3) the landowner takes 
appropriate care with regard to the contamination.
    Certainty Provisions.--In addition to the liability relief 
provided above, in a state that has a qualified voluntary 
cleanup program, the Democratic alternative limits the federal 
government's ability to sue any person associated with 
contaminated property cleanup under the state program. The only 
exceptions are: (1) where the site may pose an imminent and 
substantial endangerment to health or the environment, (2) the 
state requests that the federal government take action, (3) 
conditions were unknown at the time of the cleanup and those 
conditions indicate that the cleanup is not protective of human 
health or the environment, or (4) cleanup of the site is no 
longer protective because of a change in use of the site.
    The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials 
received testimony at its August 4, 1999, hearing from local 
officials and community representatives indicating that states 
vary widely in the technical expertise, resources, staffing, 
statutory authority, and commitment necessary to ensure that 
brownfields cleanups are adequately protective of public health 
and the environment. The local government officials and 
community representatives both urged the Subcommittee to adopt 
an approval process for states to demonstrate that their 
programs meet certain criteria before limiting federal 
enforcement authority.
    The amendment authorizes $15 million each year for five 
years to assist the states in developing voluntary cleanup 
programs and ``grandfathers'' existing agreements between the 
states and the EPA with respect to voluntary cleanup programs.
    Municipal Liability.--Nine local government organizations 
led by the League of Cities, National Association of Counties, 
and the National Association of Towns and Townships testified 
to the needs of local governments for municipal Superfund 
liability relief at the Committee's hearing on September 22, 
1999. These local government organizations requested that the 
Subcommittee legislatively ratify the municipal settlement 
policy adopted by the EPA in February 1998. Local governments 
testified that the municipal settlement policy provides a 
``reasonable and fair rate'' based on landfill closure costs.
    Liability Relief For Small Business.--The Democratic 
alternative provides liability relief for small business by: 
(1) exempting from Superfund liability small businesses or 
homeowners who only sent municipal solid waste to the local 
landfill, (2) establishing in law an ``ability to pay'' policy, 
and (3) exempting any party who sent a very small (de micromis) 
quantity of hazardous substances to a site unless that waste 
contributes or could contribute significantly to the costs of 
cleanup.
    For more than five years we have consistently supported an 
exemption for small businesses like restaurants or print shops 
which merely sent trash to local landfills. In the 105th 
Congress, Representatives Stupak and Goodling cosponsored 
legislation, H.R. 2485, to exempt small businesses who sent 
trash to the local landfill from Superfund liability and from 
the fear of being sued by major polluters at the site. 
Unfortunately, the leadership of the Committee was unwilling to 
consider this bipartisan consensus legislation. The Democratic 
alternative provides immediate relief for small business owners 
like Barbara Williams in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania who disposed 
of nothing more toxic than household trash and does so without 
placing the burden of proof on a small business to qualify for 
the exemption.
    Liability Clarification For Recycling Transactions.--The 
Democratic alternative is intended to promote the recycling of 
used materials because such recycling promotes waste 
minimization and the conservation of natural resources. At the 
same time, the Democratic alternative is intended to retain 
sufficient conditions to ensure protection of human health and 
the environment. It also is intended to remove disincentives to 
recycling because of potential CERCLA liability and thereby 
level the playing field for the use of virgin materials versus 
scrap materials. The Democratic alternative is designed to 
promote environmentally responsible recycling by encouraging 
persons to demonstrate the recycling transaction is not a sham 
for the treatment or disposal of hazardous substances. It also 
is intended to encourage parties to take affirmative actions to 
determine that the facilities to which they send recyclable 
materials are in compliance with environmental laws.
    The Democratic alternative closely tracks the widely 
supported historical compromise language that has most recently 
been introduced by the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders on 
August 4, 1999, as S. 1528.
    To address the important issue of future revenue needs of 
the federal Superfund program the Democratic alternative 
directs the Administrator of the EPA to arrange for an 
independent analysis of the projected 10-year costs to complete 
cleanups of the facilities on the NPL and cleanup costs for 
sites likely to be added to the federal Superfund program.

                               H.R. 2580

    The bill reported by the Committee is deeply flawed and 
will undermine important statutory protections. Rather than 
crafting targeted changes which have a broad consensus to 
improve the program, as the Democratic alternative does, H.R. 
2580 rolls back important environmental standards to protect 
ground water and achieve permanent cleanups, undermines the 
``polluter pays'' principle, delays rather than maintains the 
current pace of cleanups, increases transaction costs, and 
deprives communities and local governments of a federal safety 
net where an imminent and substantial endangerment to human 
health or the environment may be presented.

           Rollback of Environmental Protections in H.R. 2580

    The Superfund program was established in 1980 in response 
to public concern over the potential harm to human health of 
substances released from chemical spills and hazardous waste 
sites such as Love Canal, New York and Valley of the Drums, 
Kentucky. The Agency For Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
recently reported that 1.3 million children under the age of 
six live within one mile of a Superfund site. Contaminated 
ground water is a problem at more than 85 percent of Superfund 
sites. At more than 90% of NPL sites, one or more operable 
ground water wells is located within one mile of a site, and at 
82% of NPL sites ground water is withdrawn for drinking 
purposes within three miles of the site. Existing drinking 
water wells were either contaminated or threatened by continued 
plume migration at 499 sites.
    H.R. 2580 Will Lead to Inadequate Cleanup of Contaminated 
Ground Water and Allow Clean Ground Water To Become 
Contaminated.--Nearly 120 million Americans, about half the 
population, rely on ground water as a primary source of 
drinking water. About 100 million of these consumers are served 
by community water systems using ground water for all or most 
of their water supply. In rural areas, reliance on ground water 
for drinking water can be as high as 95% of the population. 
Between 1970 and 1990, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, 
Kentucky, and Missouri all doubled their use of ground water 
for public water supply.
    We are concerned that a number of provisions of H.R. 2580, 
both individually and collectively, will result in inadequate 
cleanup of contaminated ground water and contamination of clean 
ground water, including ground water that may be used for 
drinking water.
    First, H.R. 2580 eliminates a provision of current law 
(CERCLA Section 121((d)(2)(A)) that requires cleanups of 
hazardous substances to meet any state or federal environmental 
standard that is ``relevant and appropriate under the 
circumstances of the release or threatened release of such 
hazardous substance.''
    Both state and federal officials have informed the 
Committee that ``relevant and appropriate'' requirements are an 
important threshold criterion in remedy selection, particularly 
with regard to state drinking water standards, solid and 
hazardous waste laws, and mining reclamation standards. They 
have urged that these standards be retained.
    Where a state has a more stringent maximum contaminant 
level (MCL) for ground water than the federal MCL, such as 
benzene in California, or there is a state MCL for a 
contaminant but no federal MCL for the same contaminant, those 
state standards have been used as ``relevant and appropriate'' 
to insure the protectiveness of the cleanup.
    The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, 
representing the Nation's largest drinking water providers, and 
the American Water Works Association, representing drinking 
water supply professionals throughout the country, have urged 
the Committee to retain the ``relevant and appropriate'' 
requirements of current law. In their words, relevant and 
appropriate requirements are ``a key tool in protecting human 
health and ensuring that consumers are not forced to pay for 
treatment of water contaminated by hazardous waste.'' (See 
October 8, 1999 letter from the Association of Metropolitan 
Water Agencies and American Water Works Association to the 
Honorable John D. Dingell.)
    Many other situations have come to our attention where 
``relevant and appropriate'' requirements have been very useful 
in avoiding disputes over whether a state standard is legally 
applicable and in providing standards which ensure 
protectiveness at sites. For example, standards established 
under the Uranium Mill Tailings Control Act for cleanup of 
radium and thorium in soil at designated processing or 
depository sites have been utilized as ``relevant and 
appropriate'' standards at Superfund sites with similar types 
of radiation conditions. Landfill design standards established 
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 
particularly for landfill capping, closure, and leachate 
collection, have also frequently been used as ``relevant and 
appropriate.''
    Second, during the Committee consideration of H.R. 2580, 
Representative Stupak unsuccessfully offered an amendment to 
correct a serious deficiency in Section 309 which establishes 
new remediation levels for dry cleaning solvents. The adoption 
of Section 309 during Subcommittee markup--without any 
legislative hearing on the merits--results in a much less 
protective cleanup standard for three contaminants used as dry 
cleaning solvents: tetrachloroethylene (also known as 
perchclorethylene (PCE), carbon tetrachloride, and 
trichchloroethylene (TCE). These contaminants also are used as 
solvents for many other industrial operations. These three 
chemicals are among the most prevalent found at Superfund 
sites. According to the EPA, TCE has been found as a 
contaminant in at least 852 sites and in the ground water at 
336 sites. PCE has been found in the ground water of at least 
170 NPL sites and overall at 771 NPL sites. Carbon 
Tetrachloride has been found in the ground water in at least 68 
sites, and found as a contaminant in at least 326 sites. Each 
of the contaminants is classified as a possible or probable 
human carcinogen.
    According to the EPA and state officials, the remediation 
levels established in Section 309 do not protect ground waters 
that are potential sources of drinking water because the bill 
prohibits the use of cleanup levels other than the soil 
concentrations developed in the EPA's 1996 Soil Screening 
Guidance for estimating risks from the inhalation of 
contaminants. According to the EPA, the inappropriate use of 
the soil screening levels is not protective of human health or 
the environment when used as a remediation level for ground 
water. For example, the inhalation soil screening value for 
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) of 11 milligrams per kilogram, if 
used as a cleanup standard for ground water, would equate to 11 
milligrams per liter, which is more than twothousand times less 
stringent than the MCL established by the Safe Drinking Water Act of 
.005 milligrams per liter. With respect to potential drinking water 
sources, the standard established by H.R. 2580 for Trichloroethylene 
(TCE) is 1,000 times less protective than current law and for Carbon 
Tetrachloride, 60 times less protective than current law.
    Officials who manage state cleanup programs have strongly 
objected to the separate cleanup criteria for dry cleaning 
solvents in correspondence submitted to the Committee.

          There is no valid technical reason for treating 
        carcinogenic compounds released from dry cleaners any 
        differently than the release of the same compounds from 
        other sources or than the release of other carcinogenic 
        compounds. It is a generally held view among our 
        members that the basis for these separate criteria is 
        not good science. We think this provision would disrupt 
        cleanup of numerous releases being addressed across the 
        country under state and federal authorities using sound 
        science. The change in cleanup criteria proposed in the 
        current version of H.R. 2580 has not been subject to 
        the appropriate toxicological and scientific review 
        that should be accorded matters of public health, and 
        we believe would effectively preempt state cleanup 
        criteria for this significant class of contaminants. We 
        strongly oppose these disturbing provisions restricting 
        cleanup standards for dry cleaning solvents, and urge 
        you to eliminate it from the final House version of 
        this bill. (October 27, 1999, letter from Michael 
        Kelly, President, Association of State and Territorial 
        Solid Waste Management officials.)

    We cannot support the dramatic weakening of cleanup 
standards with respect to three of the most serious and 
prevalent contaminants at Superfund sites, particularly where 
there have been no hearings or presentation of facts to justify 
such a change in law. Nor can we support eliminating the use of 
state and federal environmental requirements which are both 
``relevant and appropriate'' to the circumstances of the 
contamination at a site.
    At the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials 
hearing on September 22, 1999, the Assistant Administrator in 
charge of EPA's Superfund program identified several other 
provisions in H.R. 2580 that could result in inadequate 
protection of ground water. According to the EPA, H.R. 2580 
replaces the current Superfund program goal to restore 
contaminated ground water to beneficial uses, wherever 
practicable, with a much lower standard. H.R. 2580 protects 
ground water only for its ``reasonably anticipated use'' rather 
than its ``current or potential beneficial use.'' According to 
EPA, changing the existing regulatory standard in this manner 
may create a perception of a bias against protecting 
uncontaminated ground water. The Association of Metropolitan 
Water Agencies and the American Water Works Association 
expressed similar concerns and urged the Committee ``to remain 
consistent with EPA's policy and retain the emphasis on 
beneficial use.'' (See October 8, 1999 letter from the 
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and the American 
Water Works Association to the Honorable John D. Dingell.) In 
testimony at the September 22, 1999 Subcommittee hearing, state 
officials also expressed their preference for EPA's current 
requirement that contaminated ground water be restored to 
beneficial uses whenever practicable, and that uncontaminated 
ground water be protected. The Subcommittee was informed that 
this is a particularly critical issue for arid western states 
where ground water resources are scarce. Further, EPA officials 
testified that by including the term ``reasonable point of 
compliance,'' H.R. 2580 invites disputes over whether drinking 
water standards should be met in the ground water or at the 
tap, potentially delaying cleanup and leaving valuable ground 
water resources unprotected.
    Third, in their letter of October 8, 1999, the Association 
of Metropolitan Water Agencies and American Water Works 
Association urged ``the Committee to include language 
directing, at a minimum, that uncontaminated ground water be 
protected.'' At the Committee markup, Representative Pallone 
offered an amendment to achieve this objective in remedies 
selected under the Superfund program as follows:

          A remedial action shall protect uncontaminated ground 
        water and surface water unless it is technically 
        infeasible, or unless limited migration of 
        contamination is necessary to facilitate restoration of 
        ground water to beneficial use.

    Failure to prevent migration can create conditions that are 
orders of magnitude more costly to address than preventing 
migration in the first place. For example, at the Newmark 
Groundwater Contamination site in Southern California an 8-
square-mile plume is threatening hundreds of municipal drinking 
water wells serving over half-a-million people. EPA is spending 
$20 million to stop the spread of contamination at this site. 
By stopping the spread of this contamination, nearly 100 wells 
will be protected, saving over $200 million in total potential 
wellhead treatment costs.
    The amendment does not direct that uncontaminated ground 
water be kept clean where to do so is impossible, or where 
limited migration is necessary to facilitate the restoration of 
ground water. However, keeping uncontaminated ground water 
clean should be a vital objective when selecting remedial 
actions. The importance of preventing the spread of 
contaminants was recognized by the National Research Counsel in 
its report ``Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup'':

          Ground water contamination problems may become 
        increasingly complex with the passage of time because 
        of the potential for contaminants to migrate and 
        accumulate in less accessible zones. Measures to remove 
        contaminants from zones where the release occurred and 
        to contain contaminants that cannot be removed should 
        be taken as soon as possible after the contamination 
        occurs. (National Research Council Report entitled 
        ``Alternatives For Ground Water Cleanup'', July 1994.)

We cannot support a bill such as H.R. 2580 that weakens current 
protectiveness standards for cleanups and fails to protect 
uncontaminated ground water.
    Weakening the Preferences for Permanent Remedies and 
Treatment for the Most Toxic Wastes.--Current law in Section 
121(b) contains a preference for remedial actions to use 
treatment techniques which permanently and significantly reduce 
the volume, toxicity or mobility of hazardous substances. Under 
this standard, the EPA employs the preference for treatment for 
the most toxic or mobile hazardoussubstances at a site. In 
addition, Section 121(b) of current law provides that Superfund 
remedial actions utilize permanent solutions to the maximum extent 
practicable.
    These preferences have been in the Superfund statute since 
1986. Over 2,000 remedial actions have been selected using 
these criteria. They have been very important in addressing 
ground water contamination and in selecting remedies so that 
Superfund sites are returned to beneficial use for the economic 
benefit of the community. According to the EPA, major reuse--
either economic or recreational--is occurring at more than 160 
Superfund sites that either have undergone completion of 
construction or have remedial construction activities underway. 
These include industrial parks, commercial facilities (like K-
Marts and Home Depots), little league ball parks, community 
recreational centers, residential housing, and wildlife 
sanctuaries.
    Section 108 of H.R. 2580 strikes the word ``maximum'' from 
the preference for permanent remedies. This change effectively 
eliminates the importance of selecting permanent remedies and 
permanent protection for communities. Similarly, H.R. 2580 
contains language that modifies and weakens the preference for 
treatment by adding qualifying phrases like ``to the extent 
practicable'' and other conditions. These changes will provide 
new litigation opportunities for those who wish to challenge 
remedies where the preference for treatment has been 
considered.
    Opposition to these changes has come from federal and state 
officials, citizens who reside near Superfund sites, and the 
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and the American 
Water Works Association:

          These changes weaken the preference for treatment and 
        permanence by focusing on current uses rather than 
        possible future uses of a site. The amendments also 
        protect only the reasonably anticipated uses of 
        groundwater and make no provision for protecting unused 
        groundwater that has not yet been contaminated. 
        California's State Superfund Program would be 
        constrained by these changes, limiting California's 
        ability to protect its resources for future, yet 
        unplanned uses. (October 12, 1999, letter from Winston 
        H. Hickox, Agency Secretary, California EPA)
          And we further object to the bill's devaluation of 
        permanent remediation solutions by striking the word 
        ``maximum'' from CERCLA Section 121(b)(1), in which the 
        President is directed to select remedial actions that 
        utilize permanent ``solutions to the maximum extent 
        practicable.'' (Emphasis added.) The association 
        believes it is extremely important that there be a 
        continuation of the current policy's general preference 
        for treatment and permanence. (October 8, 1999, letter 
        from the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and 
        the American Water Works Association)
          Congress should maintain the federal commitment to 
        permanency in treatment. Permanent solutions to 
        improperly dispose of hazardous waste should be 
        accorded preference over attempts to control access or 
        exposure to such waste. Long term economic 
        redevelopment efforts will be hurt by a policy that 
        defers actual site cleanups.'' (National Conference of 
        State Legislators, CERCLA Section, Hazardous Waste 
        Management Policy, March 1998)

The preferences for treatment and permanence in current law are 
also strongly supported by the EPA, the American Public Health 
Association, the Environmental Defense Fund and other national 
environmental organizations, and citizens and community groups 
who have testified at Committee hearings.
    Inadequate Protection of Children, Pregnant Women and 
Adversely Affected Subpopulations.--Over 2,000 cleanup 
decisions have become final using the statutory criteria from 
the 1986 comprehensive reauthorization of the Superfund statute 
and the implementing regulations. In 1989, the EPA issued two 
volumes of ``Risk Assessment Guidance For Superfund'' followed 
by three volumes of peer reviewed guidelines detailing various 
factors used in assessing exposure as well as a volume setting 
forth the process for designing and conducting ecological risk 
assessments. This extensive body of guidelines considers the 
toxic exposure for not only the average adult male, but also 
for more at-risk groups, such as children and pregnant women.
    H.R. 2580 would unnecessarily raise doubts about the 
current risk assessment practices by establishing a new set of 
risk assessment criteria in Section 108. These new criteria in 
our view are unnecessary and fail to adequately insure that 
health risk assessments consider the effect of hazardous 
substances on children, pregnant women, the elderly, and other 
individuals with a history of serious illness that are 
identifiable as being at greater risk of adverse health effects 
due to exposure to hazardous substances than the general 
population. H.R. 2580 merely provides that a risk assessment 
identify groups which would be highly exposed or highly 
susceptible to contamination from the site. Mere identification 
of groups fails to explicitly address and insure that the 
effects of hazardous substances on children, pregnant women, or 
the elderly are actually considered in a health risk 
assessment.
    Representative Capps offered an amendment to ensure that 
the health risk assessments conducted at Superfund sites remain 
protective. The amendment was taken from the new, recently 
enacted California Superfund law and provides that a health 
risk assessment shall consider the effect of hazardous 
substances on children, pregnant woman, the elderly, and other 
subpopulations at greater risk. Unfortunately, the Majority 
rejected the amendment on a party-line vote. We remain 
concerned that the new risk assessment principles and 
provisions of Section 108 will spawn new litigation and legal 
challenges but will not adequately address the special needs of 
children, pregnant women, and the elderly.
    Representative Waxman offered an amendment which would 
facilitate risk assessments by generating information on toxic 
chemicals in communities. The amendment was based on H.R. 1657, 
bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Waxman and 
Saxton, currently cosponsored by over 130 Members. The 
amendment requires disclosure of toxic chemcial use and is 
based on state laws inNew Jersey and Massachusetts. Superfund 
sites and facilities reporting to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 
for a given toxic chemical also report (1) the number of facility 
employees exposed to the toxic chemical, and (2) the amount of the 
toxic chemical that the facility ships in and out, stores on-site, 
produces, consumes, and recycles. The amendment provided that 
facilities may withhold from public disclosure toxic chemical use 
information that constitutes a legitimate trade secret. The Majority 
rejected the amendment along a largely party-line vote.

          H.R. 2580 Undermines the ``Polluter Pay'' Principle

    H.R. 2580 shifts polluter liability to state and federal 
taxpayers. H.R. 2580 in Section 202 authorizes all of the 
funding for the Superfund program to come from general 
revenues. This is a departure from the current statute and all 
previous reauthorization proposals which capped the amount from 
general revenues at $250 million per year. Further, the bill 
contains no tax title to raise revenue for Superfund cleanups. 
Historically, these revenues have been raised for the Superfund 
Trust Fund from excise taxes on petroleum and chemicals in 
addition to a corporate environmental tax. These taxes expired 
on December 31, 1995, and have not been renewed.
    H.R. 2580 does, however, contain numerous overly broad 
liability exemptions and other provisions that shift hundreds 
of millions of dollars of polluter liabilities directly to the 
Trust Fund. One such provision in Section 304(b) exempts large 
commercial waste haulers and other parties from liability for 
sending municipal solid waste or municipal sewage sludge to a 
landfill on the NPL. Other provisions contain a mandatory 
allocation system (Section 308) and a transfer of private 
rights of contribution (Section 304(e)) which shift millions of 
dollars of polluter liability costs to the Trust Fund. The 
Committee has not produced any cost estimate of the liability 
exemptions or limitations on the cost-shifts from the mandatory 
allocation system. However, the costs of major exemptions and 
contribution claim payments in H.R. 2580 have been 
preliminarily estimated by the EPA to range from $372-450 
million per year.
    H.R. 2580 provides direct spending of $250 million per year 
for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 to pay for these cost-
shifts. However, the Office of Management and Budget informed 
the Committee that H.R. 2580 would impose costs on the 
Superfund Trust Fund in excess of the level of direct spending 
included in the bill by a ``significant margin.'' The Office of 
Management and Budget also observed that the bill failed to 
offset the increased direct spending and that if enacted the 
bill's net costs could contribute to a sequester of mandatory 
programs. (See October 12, 1999 letter from Jacob J. Lew, 
Office of Management and Budget, to the Honorable John D. 
Dingell.)
    Both state and federal officials have criticized the overly 
broad liability exemptions and the shift of these polluter 
liabilities to the public at large. On October 13, 1999, the 
Department of Justice informed the Committee that H.R. 2580 
rejects the ``polluter pay'' principle and would shift major 
new costs to the Fund in order to pay for the hundreds of 
millions of dollars in special interest liability exemptions in 
the bill. (See October 13, 1999 letter from Ms. Joyce E. 
Peters, Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs, to 
the Honorable John D. Dingell.)
    H.R. 2580 also imposes an arbitrary 10% cap on the recovery 
of oversight costs by the states or the federal government. 
Representative Engel offered an amendment to remove the 
arbitrary 10% limitation during markup by the Subcommittee on 
Finance and Hazardous Materials. The amendment was rejected on 
a party-line vote.
    While the Democratic alternative provides liability 
clarifications and relief for new purchasers, innocent 
landowners, contiguous property owners, small businesses, 
municipal governments and legitimate recyclers, it does so 
without shifting costs to taxpayers and without creating 
controversial and overly broad liability exemptions. We also 
fear that H.R. 2580 creates the real possibility that these 
excessive liability exemptions or limitations and the resulting 
claims will diminish the cleanup funding necessary to maintain 
the current pace of cleanups.
    We strongly agree with the position of the National 
Conference of State Legislators that any changes to the law 
should maintain the ``polluter pays'' principle and should not 
result in increased allocation of public funds for site 
cleanups. (See September 28, 1999 letter from Beverly Gard, 
Chair, NCSL Environment Committee to the Honorable John D. 
Dingell.) Unquestionably, H.R. 2580 undermines the ``polluter 
pays'' principle.

slowing cleanups, increased litigation, and increased transaction costs

    Numerous witnesses testified at the Subcommittee hearings 
that provisions in H.R. 2580 would likely hinder cleanup 
progress and increase transaction costs, including costs to 
small parties. Assistant Attorney General of the State of New 
York, Gordon J. Johnson, on behalf of the National Association 
of Attorneys General, testified that the mandatory process for 
allocating liability among responsible parties created by the 
bill ``will likely delay cleanups and substantially increase 
costs.'' He also raised the concerns that ``the bill may well 
require that liability disputes be resolved first, while 
cleanups wait until later.''
    In responding to a question from Representative Engel at 
the Subcommittee hearing, Mr. Johnson further explained the 
reason for his concerns:

          Mandatory allocation we think under this statute will 
        become a trial. It will not result necessarily in 
        settlements. When allocations are made mandatory, 
        parties are more likely to await its results rather 
        than make an effort to truly settle the case and end 
        it. Why not wait and see what happens as a result of 
        the allocation before coming forward with a settlement 
        proposal?
          Mandatory allocation we think will just inevitably 
        lead to trial-like allocations rather than a reduction 
        in transaction costs in settlements. And this is 
        particularly pertinent here because PRP's ordered to 
        clean up a site will get reimbursed by the fund, and 
        thus removing [SIC] any incentive that they currently 
        have to settle.
          Under current law, EPA can provide mixed funding for 
        PRP's who agree to settle their liability. However, if 
        they know that they don't have to make a settlement in 
        order to be reimbursed for any excess costs, PRP's are 
        not going to be settling. That means that the fund is 
        going to have to pay for cleanups. There is going to be 
        a lot more orders. Cleanups will be delayed. And the 
        whole process of resolving cases by settlement and 
        getting cleanups to move forward quickly will be 
        delayed.

    Federal agencies charged with administering the program 
have expressed similar concerns about the structure of the 
mandatory one-size fits all allocation process established by 
Section 308 of H.R. 2580. Under current law, the United States 
resolves most of its CERCLA claims through settlement, not 
litigation. Approximately 70% of all cleanups are performed by 
potentially responsible parties through such settlements.
    At the Subcommittee hearing, EPA officials testified that 
the bill would severely reduce or eliminate the incentives in 
current law for parties to reach agreement at the negotiating 
table, and to move quickly to cleanup absent adversarial, 
unilateral orders. Of particular concern was the testimony that 
the requirement to allocate shares for the response action will 
result in dragging exempt or settled parties back through the 
allocation process, even if they had previously settled. Over 
18,000 de minimus parties have settled their liability to date.
    Under H.R. 2580, the Fund is responsible for the share of 
exempt parties, as well as insolvent or defunct parties. We are 
concerned that the structure of Section 308 places a premium on 
these parties and encourages other responsible parties subject 
to the allocation to perform a ``witch hunt'' to identify such 
parties in order to reduce their share. This result is not 
speculative; it actually occurred at allocations that the EPA 
has pilot tested over the past five years. For example, at the 
South 8th Street landfill in Arkansas, the parties responsible 
for the pollution named an additional 2,500 parties, most based 
on the appearance of a person's name in the phone book for the 
years the facility was in operation. The EPA later found there 
was no basis in law or fact for naming these parties as 
potentially liable. An allocation system structured to create 
incentives to drag parties who were never liable or who have 
settled their liability back into a mandatory trial-like 
allocation system is sure to increase, rather than decrease, 
transaction costs.
    Over the past four years, the Administration has made 
significant improvements in adopting a more equitable 
enforcement approach through its administrative reforms. In 
1996, the EPA adopted a policy to provide orphan share 
compensation at each eligible site where there are insolvent or 
defunct parties. Compensation through settlement has been 
provided at 96 sites in the amount of approximately $176 
million in recognition of the shares attributable to insolvent 
and defunct parties. This compensation took the form of 
compromises of past costs and future oversight costs which 
preserved the Trust Fund in order to maintain the current rate 
of cleanups. According to the EPA, in the overwhelming majority 
of cases, settlement occurred, issues were resolved up front, 
and parties agreed to not drag the cleanup decision through 
years of litigation. We endorse this very successful 
administrative reform which avoids delaying cleanups or 
increasing transaction costs while providing equitable relief 
where appropriate.
    Other provisions in H.R. 2580 were also identified at the 
Subcommittee hearing as the source of time-consuming and costly 
litigation when the meaning and relevance of new terms are 
fought over in the courts. One example cited was the new 
terminology regarding ground water and risk assessments. 
According to the EPA, new risk provisions in Section 108 will 
require consideration of information, regardless of 
reliability, quality, or whether the information is 
representative of site conditions. Defining when assessments 
are ``scientifically objective'' or if the scientific and 
technical information is the ``best available'' will likely 
lead to extensive debates and unnecessary litigation. As to the 
entirety of Section 108, the vague and ambiguous risk concepts 
willlead to greater delay as parties wrangle over 
interpretation of these new principles and standards meant to effect 
every cleanup.

  the broad prohibition on enforcement and citizen rights undermines 
                   cleanup protection for communities

    H.R. 2580 repeals citizen rights and re-writes well-settled 
case law, under the guise of brownfields redevelopment. That is 
not the action our communities have asked us to take. Although 
intended to facilitate the cleanup and redevelopment of 
brownfields, which far outnumber National Priorities List 
sites, the implementation of Title I of H.R. 2580 is likely to 
result in more sites left temporarily stabilized, or only 
partially remediated. Cities, as well as those who value non-
urban greenfields, will suffer the consequence of properties 
not cleaned to reuseable standards. The result: the 
perpetuation of brownfields. And for the very citizens who have 
been plagued by these properties, H.R. 2580 severely limits 
their rights to seek assistance from the federal government, or 
to take citizen action at a contaminated site that may continue 
to present a danger to their community.
    We have heard testimony that potential Superfund liability 
chills redevelopment of brownfields. We also have seen in the 
Conference of Mayors 1998 report that the number one impediment 
to redevelopment is the need for cleanup funds. Among other 
concerns is the need for environmental assessments, market 
conditions, neighborhood conditions and community concerns 
(``Recycling America's Land,'' January 1998). What we can 
conclude is that there is no such thing as a ``typical'' 
brownfield site nor is there one problem common to all sites. 
They vary widely in origin, size, extent of contamination, 
marketability and location. In large part, they have not been 
inventoried, assessed or catalogued. Given this circumstance, 
it is difficult to create one template designed to provide 
redevelopment incentives for such a wide variety of sites that 
pose a wide variety of challenges for developers. Our task is 
to strike a balance between the desire to provide redevelopment 
incentives that will work for such a variety of sites, while at 
the same time maintaining the assurance to affected citizens 
that these sites will no longer threaten the health of the 
community. We do not believe H.R. 2580 strikes that balance.
    We support Superfund liability clarifications for innocent 
landowners, contiguous property owners and bona fide 
prospective purchasers, although we would prefer slightly 
different language than that contained in sections 105, 106 and 
107 of H.R. 2580. With these liability clarifications, we 
believe the concerns about ``certainty'' with regard to 
Superfund liability have been addressed for the parties who may 
be reluctant to acquire someone else's mess. The developer of a 
site who performs due diligence and discovers contamination, 
but did not create the contamination, and who is willing to 
provide access to a person who may remediate the site, will 
know that he does not face Superfund liability. The landowner 
who did not know of contamination when he acquired his 
property, but had performed due diligence at the time of his 
purchase, will know that he does not face Superfund liability. 
The landowner whose property is contaminated by migration of 
pollution from contiguous property will know that he does not 
face Superfund liability. These parties can own and acquire 
property without fear of liability for the contamination that 
defines a brownfields site.
    The remainder of the debate over ``certainty'' applies only 
to the parties who do not qualify for these exemptions: the 
parties who did not act responsibly to perform due diligence; 
the parties who will not provide access for cleanup; the 
parties who knew of the contamination at the time they acquired 
the property and have not yet acted to clean it up, or the 
parties who were responsible for the contamination in the first 
place. These are the very parties who should be responsible for 
addressing the mess they create, yet, in H.R. 2580 these 
parties are rewarded with a broad assurance that neither the 
federal government nor any other person will take any 
administrative or judicial action against them so long as a 
state cleanup has been initiated, but not necessarily 
completed, on their property.
    We fear that this bill's prohibition on the President's 
(including EPA and resource trustee's) and any other person's 
ability to act in virtually any circumstance is so restrictive 
as to provide incentives for incomplete or shoddy cleanup. 
State officials have said that the federal liability system 
contained in current law is integral to their ability to obtain 
cleanup from responsible parties at state hazardous waste 
sites. (See ``Hazardous Waste Sites: State Cleanup Practices,'' 
GAO/RCED-99-39, December 1998.) Even when the state does not 
threaten to notify the President (usually the EPA) of a 
problematic site, the fact that the state could do so often 
brings the parties together to work out a cleanup plan with the 
state. This cooperative effort between the states and the 
responsible parties, fostered in part by the very existence of 
federal law, is one of the most productive aspects of current 
law. Unfortunately, H.R. 2580 undermines that mechanism.
    First, in H.R. 2580, the President, and any other person, 
is broadly prohibited from acting under CERCLA or RCRA with 
respect to a release or threatened release at a facility that 
is, or has been, the subject of a response action pursuant to a 
state program. The prohibition could be read to attach to an 
entire facility that is or has been the subject of state 
action, even if a large part of that facility was not touched 
by the state response action. Clearly, the language expressly 
prohibits action even where a response action has begun but has 
never been completed. We fear that this provision provides 
incentives for half-finished cleanups.
    Second, by extending the scope of the prohibition to 
actions under section 7002(a)(1)(B) or section 7003 of RCRA, 
H.R. 2580 eliminates the EPA's authority to act with regard to 
petroleum substances as well as solid and hazardous wastes. We 
strongly oppose this loophole. For example, EPA not only has 
used this authority to address petroleum that has leaked out of 
tanks and infiltrated sewers, streams and groundwater, but also 
to respond to tire fires. Tires do not qualify as hazardous 
wastes, but when burned they release dangerous pollutants.
    In addition, the prohibition against actions under section 
7002(a)(1)(B), pertaining to citizen suits, is an unwarranted 
abrogation of a core intent of the RCRA statute. We wish to 
emphasize that the intent of section 7002(a)(1)(B) is not to 
confer authority to EPA, but instead to confer to a citizen the 
statutory right to take action against a person, including the 
United States or another government instrumentality or agency, 
who has contributed to the past or present mishandling of solid 
or hazardous waste which may present an imminent and 
substantial endangerment to health or the environment. We have 
heard no testimony that the repeal of these citizen rights is 
necessary for brownfields redevelopment. To the contrary, we 
are seeking to assist the citizens plagued with abandoned and 
contaminated properties that pose not only a threat to their 
economic well-being, but also to their health.
    Under current law, a citizen seeking to bring an action 
under section 7002(a)(1)(B) must notify the state. No action 
may be commenced if the state has commenced and is diligently 
prosecuting an action under RCRA, or is performing an action 
under section 104 of CERCLA or is pursuing a remedial action 
under CERCLA (see RCRA section 7002(b)(2)(A)-(C)). Thus, in 
current law there exists a mechanism for a state to preempt a 
citizen action, if the state so chooses, by taking action at 
the site. The case has not been made that this provision of 
current law chills a state's ability to assume the lead 
decision making role at any brownfields site.
    Third, the prohibition extends to private contribution 
actions, revealing the misleading nature of the title 
``Prohibition on Enforcement.'' A private party may have 
voluntarily commenced a cleanup with the expectation that the 
cleanup would be financed, in part or in the entirety, by a 
successful contribution action to be brought against parties 
responsible for the contamination. Once H.R. 2580 is in effect, 
the contribution action will be extinguished. This provision 
may actually discourage parties from commencing cleanup due to 
financial inability--a result that is inconsistent with our 
goal to encourage the remediation and redevelopment of 
brownfields. As well, a number of parties who have commenced 
cleanup with the expectation of contribution prior to the 
enactment of this legislation may abandon their effort prior to 
completion of the cleanup. But because a cleanup was commenced, 
H.R. 2580 forecloses EPA from ensuring that it is completed.
    Narrow Exceptions to the Broad Prohibition Put Communities 
at Risk.--While we agree that the states should have primary 
responsibility for overseeing cleanup at brownfields sites, not 
all states are the same, nor is one state program necessarily 
funded at the same level from one administration to the next. 
Many states have successful, responsible voluntary cleanup 
programs or other waste treatment programs. But some states 
have yet to enact or fund such programs. The GAO has reported 
that state voluntary programs have varying characteristics. 
About half the programs they surveyed in 1997 made no provision 
for either monitoring nonpermanent cleanups or for overseeing 
their accomplishment. Yet, all the programs gave some assurance 
of relief from future state liability. (See ``State Voluntary 
Programs Provide Incentives to Encourage Cleanups,'' GAO/RCED-
97-66, April 1997.)
    We find that the variety in state programs is similar to 
the variety in brownfield sites themselves. Nevertheless, we do 
not seek to impose a uniform brownfields program upon the 
states. Likewise, we do not seek to impose federal cleanup 
requirements on the states. But for the same reason, a uniform 
and severe prohibition on federal action is ill-advised. This 
Committee has received testimony from citizens who have 
numerous examples of states not responding to their requests 
for assistance at these sites, most recently from Teresa B. 
Mills from the Buckeye Environmental Network in Ohio. She 
states, ``I believe that Ohio's sorry experience with the 
[Voluntary Action Program] proves that minimum federal 
standards for public participation, openness of information, 
protective clean up standards, reliability of remedy and 
adequacy of state and federal oversight must be guaranteed to 
all Americans'' (Testimony of Teresa B. Mills Before the House 
Finance and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, August 4, 1999). 
A federal safety net is essential to maintain the assurance to 
our communities that there is some recourse should the state 
lack the resources or the political desire to answer their 
concerns. These citizens should not be told that their only 
opportunity to obtain assistance for a danger to their 
community will come with the next election cycle.
    The few exceptions to the prohibition contained in H.R. 
2580 are not tailored to the breadth of the prohibition, 
particularly as the prohibition forecloses not just the EPA's 
ability to act, but also a private party's ability to act. The 
result is likely to be, at a minimum, protracted litigation as 
the courts are forced to sort whether a citizen seeking action 
under section 7002 of RCRA or a private party seeking 
contribution under CERCLA, is allowed to bring the action. 
Likewise, a citizen seeking EPA's assistance at a site can only 
obtain that assistance if the requirements of one of these 
exceptions is met.
    For instance, a party seeking action will first have to 
ascertain whether the site fits into any of the exceptions 
contained in Sections 102(c)(1), (3), or (4) which pertain to 
the nature of the site. As the universe of these excepted sites 
is narrow, it is likely that his site will not fit into any of 
those exceptions. There are only two possibilities left: that 
the Governor of a state (presumably the state in which the 
facility is located, but this is not clear) seeks assistance 
from the Environmental Protection Agency to perform a response 
action at the facility (see Section 102(c)((2)), or that the 
release or threatened release at the site requires response 
actions immediately to prevent or mitigate a public health or 
environmental emergency and the state is not responding in a 
timely manner (see Section 102(c)(5)). Both of these remaining 
exceptions require the state to take action before the citizen 
may exercise his rights. As well, a party who has performed a 
cleanup with the expectation of contribution will then find, 
after-the-fact, that he is penalized for his good deed. If he 
has performed a responsible cleanup, his site will not present 
an emergency, nor will it merit the EPA assistance that the 
Governor must request. Thus, his right to contribution will be 
extinguished.
    The exception contained in section 102(c)(5) re-writes the 
current standard that governs EPA's ability to act at sites not 
listed on the National Priorities List. Currently, in sections 
104 and 106 of CERCLA, and section 7003 of RCRA, EPA may act if 
a release or threatened release may present an imminent and 
substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the 
environment. This is a well-recognized standard contained in 
numerous other federal environmental laws such as the Clean Air 
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, as well 
as state environmental laws. The states of Arizona, California, 
Louisiana, Arkansas, New Mexico, Texas, and Michigan, for 
instance, utilize this standard in their environmental laws. 
H.R. 2580 prohibits action under CERCLA sections 104 and 106, 
and also section 7003 of RCRA. The narrow exception to the 
prohibition contained in section 102(c)(5) does not recognize 
this well-settled principle of current law, but instead re-
writes the standard to include new and untested terms such as 
``prevent or mitigate'' and ``environmental emergency.'' The 
authority also is conditioned upon another, new test: whether 
the state is responding in a timely manner. H.R. 2580 leaves to 
interpretation by the courts the criteria for state response, 
as well as what may be considered ``timely.''
    There are no examples of EPA abusing these settled 
principles of current law at brownfields sites. Not once has 
EPA over-filed on a voluntary cleanup. Therefore, to the extent 
that the drafters of H.R. 2580 are concerned that sections 104, 
106 or 7003 have been interpreted by the courts in an expansive 
manner, there is no example of such a case pertaining to a 
brownfield site. In fact, the imminent and substantial 
endangerment threshold is viewed by some who have testified 
before the Committee as far too high a threshold for EPA action 
at a brownfield site because a brownfield site may not meet 
that threshold even without cleanup.
    The few types of sites exempted from the prohibition 
exacerbates the concern that this one-size-fits-all prohibition 
is far too expansive for such a broad array of sites. The 
prohibition will not apply to sites actually listed on the 
National Priorities List. However, there are numerous sites 
proposed for listing that may be as dangerous or even more 
dangerous than those that have completed the scoring and 
listing process. H.R. 2580 would prohibit EPA's listing of 
those sites, even though the sites may be only a few weeks 
short of final action for listing. A responsible party at the 
site may then initiate a voluntary cleanup in order to trigger 
the prohibition, but then abandon the cleanup once the 
prohibition is triggered. Officials of about half of the states 
surveyed by GAO in 1998 told GAO that their state's financial 
capacity to clean up sites potentially eligible for the 
National Priorities List, if necessary, is poor or very poor. 
In addition, about 20% of these officials said that their 
state's enforcement capacity (including resources and legal 
authority) to compel responsible parties to clean up these 
potentially eligible sites is fair to very poor. (See 
``Unaddressed Risks At Many Potential Superfund Sites,'' GAO/
RCED-99-8, November 1998.) With this information, we see no 
justification for foreclosing federal action at sites that are 
likely to be very hazardous, and likely to be inadequately 
addressed by state governments.
    The exemption contained in section 102(c)(4) that pertains 
to ``a release or threatened release to the extent that a 
response action has been required pursuant to an administrative 
order or judicial order or decree entered into by the United 
States'' is also too narrowly crafted, especially with regard 
to facilities such as RCRA facilities with permits that require 
corrective action, or RCRA generator sites. Persons obligated 
under the longstanding requirements of current law (as well as 
their own permits) have incentives, under this provision, to 
initiate a limited action under a voluntary cleanup program and 
foreclose federal enforcement for their failure to adhere to 
RCRA requirements. The result is unfairness to facilities that 
have complied with law, as well as fewer actual cleanups.
    H.R. 2580 Lacks Adequate Criteria To Ensure That State 
Programs are Functional and Consistently Funded.--Section 
102(b) of H.R. 2580 is entitled ``State Requirements,'' but no 
actual requirements are imposed upon the state programs. The 
section provides that the state must self-certify that its 
program meets four general criteria, with no apparent review 
mechanism for EPA or any other Agency to determine whether the 
certification is valid. Moreover, if circumstances change with 
regard to any of the criteria, there is no requirement that the 
state re-certify or correct any failure to meet the criteria. 
Yet, so long as this one-time certification is in place, the 
broad prohibitions of section 102(c) apply.
    The National Association of Local Government Environmental 
Professionals (NALGEP), in its testimony before the Committee, 
stated that liability authority over brownfields sites should 
be granted only to state cleanup programs that can ensure 
protection of public health and the environment. The 
organization suggested criteria that should be demonstrated by 
states desiring to play the lead role in brownfields liability 
clarification. Further, the organization advocated EPA review 
and approval of qualified states for lead brownfields 
authority. These criteria include: mechanisms to ensure 
adequate site assessments early in the process; technical 
expertise, staff and enforcement authority; risk-based cleanup 
standards that can be tied to reasonably anticipated land use, 
established through an adequate public approval process; 
institutional controls that are enforceable over time; 
community information and involvement processes; commitment to 
build the capacity of local government health and environmental 
agencies; and adequate mechanisms to address unanticipated 
cleanups or orphaned sites. (See Testimony of the National 
Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals 
Before the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Waste, August 
4, 1999.)
    The Governors Concurrence Provision Is Inflexible and 
Overbroad.--Section 103 of H.R. 2580 requires a Governor's 
concurrence for adding any facility to the National Priorities 
List. It is the policy of the EPA to routinely seek concurrence 
from a Governor before a site is listed on the National 
Priorities List. Since this policy was formalized in November 
1995, Governors have opposed the listing of 31 sites and 
supported the listing of 123 as of February 1999. In the past 
four years since the EPA has instituted its administrative 
policy to obtain the concurrence of a Governor prior to listing 
a site, no site has been listed over the objection of a 
Governor.
    The current policy retains the flexibility for the EPA to 
consider listing over a Governor's objection at sites where the 
state could be a major responsible party, where the Agency for 
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry public health advisory 
listing criteria (40 CFR 300.425(c)(3)) are met or where sites 
with community-identified conditions warrant listing.
    During the Committee consideration of H.R. 2580, 
Representative Barrett of Wisconsin offered an amendment to 
allow the President to list a site over a Governor's objection 
where a request for such listing is made by local government 
authorities in a jurisdiction where the public health or 
environment is affected by a release of hazardous substances. 
If there was a dispute between the local government and the 
Governor over the need to list a site on the NPL, the amendment 
would allow the President to resolve the dispute. The 
amendment, however, would not affect the current CERCLA 
requirement that a site still must qualify, or score under the 
hazard ranking system, for listing on the National Priorities 
List. The amendment was rejected on a party-line vote.

   The Democratic Alternative to H.R. 2580 Would Promote Brownfields 
   Redevelopment and Ensure A Federal Safety Net For Our Communities

    In the Democratic alternative to H.R. 2580, we struck a 
balance between providing greater assurance that the EPA would 
not be able to second-guess a state-approved cleanup at will, 
and maintaining a federal safety net to ensure that the 
incentives to responsible cleanup remain. We set forth seven 
general criteria for state programs that can be met by states 
through law, regulation or administrative action, including 
``providing for voluntary response actions that ensure adequate 
site assessment and protect human health and environment.'' 
This criteria does not impose any specific cleanup standards 
upon the states, but rather allows the states to maintain their 
state standards. As suggested by NALGEP, we required the EPA to 
review the programs and to approve their adherence to these 
criteria on an expedited schedule. In order to assure the 
maintenance of responsible programs, we require the state to 
report annually whether its program continues to be consistent 
with the criteria.
    Under the Democratic alternative, a cleanup that takes 
place under an approved program receives the benefit of 
assurance that the EPA will not list a site on the National 
Priorities List while substantial and continuous response 
activities are being conducted under a qualified state program, 
or after those activities are certified complete by the state. 
In addition, the EPA will not cost recover against any party 
associated with the site so long as substantial and continuous 
voluntary response activities are taking place under a 
qualified state program, or after those activities are 
certified complete by the state. Unlike H.R. 2580, by requiring 
substantial and continuous response activities, or completion, 
the Democratic alternative will not undermine incentives for 
the completion of cleanup.
    As suggested by community witnesses such as Ms. Mills, the 
Clinton Administration, NALGEP and others, we maintain a 
federal safety net through narrow exceptions to the prohibition 
against EPA cost recovery. In one of the re-openers, we 
preserve a well-settled legal standard by allowing the 
Administrator to act if she determines that a release or 
threatened release may present an imminent and substantial 
endangerment to the public health or welfare or the 
environment. We recognize other conditions at a site that may 
not reach this threshold but may nevertheless require action on 
the part of the Administrator, such as conditions that were 
unknown at the site that render the cleanup unprotective, or a 
change in the use of the site which renders the cleanup 
unprotective.
    Unlike H.R. 2580, the scope of sites affected by the 
enforcement prohibition does not include a facility proposed 
for listing on the National Priorities List, nor any facility 
that is subject to corrective action, or to which a corrective 
action permit or order has been issued or modified to require 
the implementation of corrective measures. Thus, the Democratic 
alternative does not foreclose federal action at the most 
hazardous sites in the nation, some of which have been proposed 
for listing on the National Priorities List but have not yet 
been through the final paperwork for listing, or which are 
subject to longstanding requirements of RCRA for performance of 
corrective action. Although federal action is not foreclosed at 
these sites, the Democratic alternative does not prohibit state 
cleanup at these sites, nor cooperative efforts between the 
states and the EPA.
    The Democratic alternative also grandfathers existing 
agreements between the states and the United States, as well as 
those between the EPA and private parties, and encourages those 
state-by-state or site-by-site agreements in the future. As 
brownfields, and brownfields programs vary so widely, the EPA 
and states already have recognized the value of entering into 
discussions on a specific site, or to examine the state's 
entire program. The outcome of these discussions is an 
agreement between the state and EPA in which the state agrees 
to maintain its program and EPA agrees to limit its involvement 
in state cleanups. A number of states including Texas, 
Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri, Minnesota, Illinois, Colorado, 
Rhode Island, Indiana, Oklahoma, Maryland, and Delaware have 
entered into Memoranda of Agreement with EPA. These agreements 
contain varying assurances depending on the state program or 
the experience the state may have had with its program. The 
Democratic alternative recognizes that the cooperative effort 
between the states and EPA is an effective means by which the 
developers and sellers of brownfield properties can obtain the 
``certainty'' they may need to pursue a more extensive cleanup 
or otherwise risky endeavor.

                                   John D. Dingell.
                                   Edolphus Towns.
                                   Ted Strickland.
                                   Sherrod Brown.
                                   Peter Deutsch.
                                   Anna Eshoo.
                                   Tom Sawyer.
                                   Bobby L. Rush.
                                   Gene Green.
                                   Bart Stupak.
                                   Ron Klink.
                                   Frank Pallone, Jr.
                                   Karen McCarthy.
                                   Tom Barrett.
                                   Bill Luther.
                                   Diana DeGette.
                                   Lois Capps.
                                   Ed Markey.
                                   Elliot L. Engel.
                                   Henry A. Waxman.
                                   Albert Wynn.
                                   Rick Boucher.

                                

```