271

STAT T or TII AnAxrc Ri nmzw Co.

Atlantic Richfield Company support enactment of legislation to remedy the prs-
in~ soilpolm a d -by m'cv qr "'orphaned' hazardous waste disposal sites.
Given several key changes, we would not oppose HR. 7020 as adPted by the
Commerce Committee oftthe House of Representatives on May 14, 1980. We have
the following specific comments on this bilE
Atlantic Richfield Company continues to believe in principle that the problems
created by inactive waste sites are largely societal and should be remedied by
legislation which does not retroactively penalize non-neglifnnt conduct. As written,
H.R. 7020 places principal responsibility for the clean up of inactive sites upon the
parties responsible for their creation. In some instances, constitutonally trouble-
some retroactive liability would be imposed upon waste generators, transporters and
disposal site operators who had acted reasonably and non-negligently when wastes
were dispo .. Although we recognize that the inactive site prob em demands quick,
effective action under clear principles of liability and that remedial stepl can best
be taken by those involved in the creation of the site, there may bes%efc
-instances i which the imposition of liability for past acts may be unacepable
Liability for clean up of Inactive sites must be properly apportioned according to
the degree of responsibility In creating the pioblem. The liability provisions of H.R.
7020 largely do this; we are troubled, however, by the apparently contradictory
making any party who had caused or contributed to a problem responsible
for clea up and containment. Since the remainder of the liability sections make
clear the definition of responsible party and that each, responsible party bears only
his proportional share of the costs, the disjunctive "or contributed"' should be
deleted.
Where responsible parties cannot be Identified or are not financially able to
respond ih damages, a federal fund should be used to cover clean up cost&
It is most important to avoid including third party liability provisions in this
I tion; the existing state tort law system is adequate or can be adapted to
ad this problem. The creation of a new body of federal toxic tort law with
uncertain exposure to third parties would threaten the fundamental purpose of the
legislation-speedy elimination of serious public health isks-and greatly slow
implementation of the statute.,
Priorities for Inactive waste site clean up must focus upon public health and
environmental risL Adequate knowledge of hazards presented from inactive site-
V does not presently exist, nor is containment and clean up technology yet sufficiently
mature to define and attack the problem without specific weihing of the cost
effectiveness of proposed actions. The principles adopted in the site inventory,
pioritization, and clean up technology selection and development provisions in HR.
7020 are reasonably drafted and should be retained.
Monitoring requirements must be reasonable; in particular, abandoned oil well
drill sites should be excluded.
We recongize that federal emergency response authority to address immediate
public health and environmental risks is necessary. H.R. 7020 provides for such
response while providing for the primacy of private and state clean up efforts,
We beieve,.however, that the 10 percent mandatory state contributions to cleon
up costs should be stricken from the bill' The state contributions will not make a
significant difference in federal fund costs and will serVe primarily to complicate
the administration of an alreadygntntious area. State should be provided federal
funds to accomplish clean up acti6ns in accord with federal standards; if states fail
to abide by federal, standards, the program should be'f6derally adftinistered. Espe-
cially at the outset, there are strong reasons for requiring national uniformity in
' this program, which must effectively address interstate waste disposal practices and
issues.
With' respect to the funding provisions, we believe that the imposition of fees
basedupon crude oil, petrochemical, feedstocks and inorganic substances is funds-
mentally wrong in principle. Indust. fees should be placed up0zk the e !on or6
disposal of hazardous wastes with mandatory exclusions for recycling and reusW
materials, thereby offering incentives to eliminate such wastes. Further the fee
system should be designed to penalize proven negligent or illegal conAuct. We
recognize, however that such a system .cannot be designed and implemented imme-
ditely. Thus, we would not oppose' a fee system eventually as written in H.. 7020
fora period of two years from' date of adoption. Within" two 7e A would be
ILI ."other
:required to implement,
afft/ed rtU. a by regulation,
ffeesystem andafterthe
based'upon oonsultktion
cr~ation',"fwith industry
hazardous and
wages
which would weight fees according to the degree of health and environmental
hazard. If EPA failed to promulgate awaste fee system inatimely fashion, industry.
contributions would cease, -

M • .- IAA