Editor's Introduction: On August 8, 1984, the House passed H.R. 5640, the Superfund Expansion and Protection Act of 1984. If agreed to by the Senate, the bill will greatly expand the hazardous waste cleanup program begun under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

As originally drafted, Title II of the bill created a federal cause of action for personal injuries stemming from hazardous waste disposal. The cause resembled the government's cause of action for recovery of response costs under CERCLA §107. All generators, transporters, and operators of offending sites would have been jointly and severally liable for personal injuries caused by releases, without proof of fault, and subject only to limited defenses. Plaintiffs could have brought suit in federal district court and could have claimed a broad range of damages, including attorneys fees. The action would have had a three-year statute of limitations running from the discovery of the cause of the injury, but the bill also would have revived any claims up to 10 years old that had died under more restrictive state laws.

During the floor debate on H.R. 5640, the House voted 208-200 to delete Title II. The issue has not died, however. The Senate is considering similar provisions in its CERCLA amendments, S. 2892, and there is widespread environmentalist support for some sort of victim compensation scheme.

This month's Dialogue presents two contrasting views on creating a federal cause of action for victims of hazardous waste, both written before the House had deleted Title II. Janet Hathaway, Staff Attorney for Public Citizen's Congress Watch, writes in support of Title II's scheme. Leslie Cheek, Vice President-Federal Affairs for Crum and Forster Insurance Companies, argues against it.