PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.3624 / 103rd Congress

Superfund Liability Reform Act

See H.R.3800.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 22, 1993

Superfund Liability Reform Act - Amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to provide that with respect to any National Priority List (NPL) site, each liable party who accepts or sucessfully appeals the results of the allocation of responsibility process (established by this Act) shall be liable only for its assigned share of the costs for: (1) removal or remedial action incurred by the United States, a State, or an Indian tribe; (2) response incurred by any other person; and (3) any health assessment or health effects study. (Sec. 3) Requires the orphan share of a NPL site to be paid out of the Hazardous Substance Superfund or by a liable party who unsuccessfully appeals a final binding allocation of responsibility decision. (Sec. 4) Makes potentially responsible parties (PRPs) and liable parties who fail to perform response actions at an NPL site subject to civil action and liable for all action costs. Requires PRPs who perform and pay for a response action at such a site to be reimbursed by Superfund. Authorizes liable parties who perform and pay for such actions to recover costs as a creditor party in accordance with this Act. (Sec. 5) Provides that certain recycling transactions in which a material is being used or sold to make a new product and that meet other specification grade conditions shall not be considered as actions subject to liability for response actions. Excludes transactions that lead to the burning of material or the use of material in a manner that constitutes a disposal as determined by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. (Sec. 6) Directs the Administrator to appoint panels of administrative law judges to perform expedited administrative proceedings, to be known as "binding allocations of responsibility (BARs)," for purposes of determining the liability of PRPs at NPL sites. Provides that BARs shall not address or affect liability concerning damages to natural resources. Provides for the initiation of a BAR by the filing of a petition with the EPA Office of Administrative Law Judges by the Administrator or a State where the site is located. Authorizes de micromis parties (PRPs that contributed only a miniscule amount of hazardous substances to the site) to resolve liability by paying $1,000 to the Superfund. Requires final BARs to be issued within 18 months of the publication of a notice of petition (or 24 months for cases of exceptional complexity). Bases the assigned share of liability on specified allocation factors. Requires the Administrator to make firm offers of settlement to all de minimis parties (parties that contributed only one percent or less of the total quantity of hazardous substances present at the site). Makes a BAR decision binding as to all past, present, and future liability for response costs and for contributions in civil proceedings. Permits judicial review of final BAR decisions. Sets forth procedures for recovery by creditor parties. Provides for stays of certain pending enforcement actions and private party litigation until a BAR is issued. Authorizes any group of PRPs to submit a private allocation for the NPL site, to be known as a "voluntary binding allocation of responsibility," to the allocation panel. Provides that a BAR shall constitute a permanent determination of the assigned share of a liable party and of the orphan share and, except for specified additions to the orphan share and judicially mandated changes, shall not be subject to any change for at least five years after the date of final decision. Permits a new BAR only if the request demonstrates that due to new information not reasonably available during the first BAR, a 35 percent or greater increase in total waste-in volume has been discovered.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Boucher, Rick [D-VA-9] · D–VA

Committees

  • Energy and Commerce Committee
  • Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
8 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. See H.R.3800.

  2. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E857)

  3. Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials.

  4. Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

  5. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E3118-3120)

  6. Referred to the House Committee on Public Works + Transportation.

  7. Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

  8. Introduced in House

  9. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.3624 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.3624 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.3624 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.3624 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources