I must begin with a disclaimer—one which I hope will not forfeit my place in the program. Although this section of the program is entitled "Industry Perspectives," the perspective I offer is my own. While I have followed the subject so as to advise the oil and chemical industries, the views and opinions I have evolved in the process would be no different had I been studying the subject in my former role as General Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency. So, I am afraid I will not be able to sidestep personal responsibility for what I have to say.

Editors' Summary: Bill Silkwood appealed the verdict of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 11, 1984, Justice White, writing for the Court, reversed and remanded. (14 ELR 20077). The Court ruled that (1) it had jurisdiction to review on writ of certiorari the issue of whether federal authority over safety in nuclear industry preempts tort remedies under state law, and (2) the federal district court's award of punitive damages under state law was not preempted by the federal law governing safety at nuclear facilities.

Among the often overlooked effects of the national tragedy of asbestos-related diseases and litigation is the impact on current officers and directors of mining and manufacturing companies. Faced with the legacy of policies and practices over which they had no control and whose consequences were unknown and unforeseeable even by their predecessors, these officers and directors confront a maze of difficult and sometimes drastic corporate options as well as significant personal financial risk.

I would like to make a few observations about the momentum in Congress toward a victim compensation law and about some of its possible features. There is a consensus in the Congress for a victim compensation bill; indeed, one will be enacted in this Congress. If not, we will have squandered an enormous opportunity.

I am convinced that during the 98th Congress a toxic victims' compensation act will pass the House of Representatives. There are currently two bills in the House, one introduced by Congressman LaFalce, whose district includes Love Canal, and a second introduced by Congressmen Markey and Florio. The approaches of the separate bills are radically different. We will be holding hearings on both bills in June.¹

Congressional proposals addressing hazardous waste exposure injuries have proliferated. These proposals are promoting wide discussion at conferences and studies by numerous trade associations, while having stimulated the creation of a Reagan Administration major interagency task force. The hazardous waste proposals are only part of the broader congressional debate concerning toxic exposure compensation, which includes the issues of asbestos, Agent Orange, and radiation injuries.

An industrialized society is a dangerous one. It is, in fact, a toxic society. This has always been true, and was true before we developed certain chemicals and learned of the dangers they produced. Yet, many of the activities involved are exceedingly important socially. Some toxic substances are the byproducts of processes that society at large desires, or may even require.

By the literal terms of §107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),¹ the states may be held strictly liable for costs incurred by private parties in responding to hazardous pollution incidents traceable to state-owned facilities. In United States v. Union Gas Co.,² however, a federal district court recently held that private-party liability suits against the states are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Editors' Summary: In 1981, in an effort to gain leverage over federal plans to sell outer continental shelf oil and gas leases, California and several environmental groups sued the Interior Department. They argued that under §307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), Interior must certify that such lease sales are consistent with approved state coastal management plans. The case progressed to the Supreme Court, where last January, in Secretary of the Interior v. California, the Court ruled against the plaintiffs.