25.6 Superfund
The Issue
The issue of the case was to determine the people that should have been held accountable for the cost of $200,000 that was incurred while cleaning the contaminated soil at the fertilizer plant (Cross & Miller, 2011) .
Relevant Facts
Ashley II of the Charleston Corporation bought 27.62 acres of land in Charleston town in South Carolina (Cross & Miller, 2011) . Additionally, the asset was purchased from Holcombe and Fair and it was part of a workable mixed-use project (Cross & Miller, 2011) . When purchasing the property, Ashley had the intention of remediating the contaminated soils at the property. Furthermore, the contamination had occurred as a result of the dumping of phosphate-fertilizer production waste products for decades, even before Holcombe and Fair had bought and owned the asset.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Also, Ashley purchased a cost-recovery action policy under the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Cross & Miller, 2011) . Additionally, this was against PCS Nitrogen, Incorporation (PCS), who were the defendant in the case (Cross & Miller, 2011) . During the case, Ashley claimed that she was entitled to a liability exemption in the cleaning cost under the CERCLA’s provisions. Nevertheless, the court ruled that Ashley did not qualify for an exemption. Additionally, that is because Ashely had failed to take precautions and appropriate steps before purchasing the contaminated asset, which would have placed her under the exemption qualifying criteria.
Government’s Response and Conclusion
In my opinion, the government through the use of the CERCLA law as an effective legislation responded well to the featured case. Additionally, the decision was adequate because Ashley should have sought legal counsel before officially purchasing the asset that she knew explicitly was contaminated. Moreover, in this case, Ashley planned to rehabilitate the land after purchase. As such, based on CERCLA’s provisions, she would have known that she would also be held accountable for the land pollutions made by her preceding asset owners, based on the reason that she was now the current owner of the polluted land.
Were there any CERCLA defenses available to any of the parties mentioned in Mandatory Assignment 25-6?
None of the defenses under the CERCLA provisions would be available for the parties mentioned in the Superfund case. Additionally, this is because none of the parties can file an innocent landowner defense, which could portray that they had no contractual as well as employment relationships with the individuals who released the hazardous substances on the site. Furthermore, none of the parties can prove that they had no reason to know that there were hazardous substances that had been disposed of on the land. Additionally, that is at the time they purchased or acquired the property from the previous owners.
For instance, Ashley II, the last owner of the contaminated land, bought the 27.62 acres of land from Holcombe and Fair Corporation (Cross & Miller, 2011). Also, the deal was part of a workable mixed-use project, which indicates that Ashley had a contractual agreement with Holcombe and Fair Corporation when buying the land. Moreover, when buying the land, Ashley had portrayed that she had the intention of remediating the contaminated soil, which had arsenic and leads impurities that had accumulated because of the dumping of phosphate-fertilizer production waste. As such, it is evident that Ashley was fully aware of the contamination before purchasing the land.
Subsequently, she could not file for an innocent landowner defense. Additionally, sufficient research investigating the contamination of the land was not carried out by all the parties mentioned in the Superfund case. Moreover, although Ashley II did know about the contamination, she failed to take essential precautions and appropriate steps of protecting herself from CERCLA fines before she purchased the land. Also, the Planters Fertilizer & Phosphate Company, James Holcombe, and J. Henry Fair, as well as the Columbia Nitrogen Corporation (CNC), did not also perform proper investigations on whether the land was contaminated. That is before buying the land from their previous owners.
25.1 Clean Air Act
The Issue
The existing scientific knowledge indicates that today, there does not exist any safe level of exposure in the environment to all the agents that cause cancer. As such, there is a need for substantial pollutant agents that can cause cancer to be controlled from being exposed into the environment.
Relevant Facts
Research has portrayed that even one molecule of the agents that the capability of causing cancer can lead to the development of the disease.
Government’s Response and Conclusion
In my opinion, the government through its legislation as well as regulations has not responded adequately to the problem of controlling cancer-causing agents from being exposed to the environment. Additionally, the response was adequate because there is still a very high level of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. For instance, in 2016, the total level of emissions in the United States was projected to be approximately 6,511 metric tons. As such, it is evident that there is still much to be done with respect to improving the enforcement of laws that prohibit individuals and industries to recklessly pollute the environment through harmful emissions.
Should selective environmental regulations be reduced to reduce the high cost of compliance with the intention of enabling companies to exercise greater voluntary corporate social responsibility in the area of protecting the environment?
It is valid to state that selective environmental regulation should be reduced to minimize the high cost of compliance incurred by corporations on matters of environmental protection. Additionally, this will be imperative in enabling corporations to exercise an increased level of voluntary corporate social responsibility with respect to environmental protection. The Clean Air Act necessitates new and existing sources of emissions to be modified and improved (Davidson & Norbeck, 2012) . It also requires the corporations to use pollution effective emissions control equipment, which represents Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) that can aid in reducing emissions (Schnelle & Brown, 2016) . Subsequently, corporations that have complied with the act should be remitted fewer costs on their environmental regulation policies compared to companies that are not fully compliant with the Act through the adoption of selective environmental regulations.
It is also evident that selective environmental regulations are capable of inducing the innovation of clean technologies. However, the resultant benefits are not abundant enough to offset the costs of regulations that are incurred by the regulated entities (Dechezleprêtre & Sato, 2017) . Additionally, as strategies to address corporate competitiveness impacts are progressively incorporated into the structuring of environmental regulations, there is a need for future research in the assessment of the validity and effectiveness of such selective regulation measures (Dechezleprêtre & Sato, 2017) . Additionally, this will be essential in ensuring that the selective regulation measures imposed by the government to corporations are attuned to the environmental objectives of different corporate policies.
References
Cross, F. B., & Miller, R. L. (2011). The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases: Ethical, Regulatory, Global, and Corporate Issues. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Davidson, J., & Norbeck, J. M. (2012). An Interactive History of the Clean Air Act: Scientific and Policy Perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Dechezleprêtre, A., & Sato, M. (2017). The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Competitiveness. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11 (2), 183–206. doi:10.1093/reep/rex013
Schnelle, K. B., & Brown, C. A. (2016). Air Pollution Control Technology Handbook. CRC Press: Boca Raton.
