Government Superfund program and environmental remediation

Government Superfund

In America, there is a balance between addressing the needs of business and protecting the environment. As a host of events would often shape how this equilibrium would take place. Part of the reason for this is various government agencies are reactive to tragedies that have taken place. A good example of this can be seen by looking no further than the Love Canal Incident of the 1970's. Where, it was revealed that various corporations in the area were storing toxic waste beneath the community for decades. This would prompt national concerns over the release of hazardous waste into the environment. At which point, Congress would pass the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. ("Title 42 Public Health and Welfare," 2008) This was instituted to: improve the monitoring and cleanup of the nation's worst hazardous waste sites. At the heart of the legislation, was the establishment the Superfund. This allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify those who are responsible for environmental disasters and force them to clean up the mess. ("What is the Super Fund," 2010) as a result, the EPA would be given greater oversight of business. To fully understand the overall scope of this authority requires examining two different programs and if they promote or discourage business investment. Together, these different elements will provide the greatest insights, as to the impact of various EPA initiatives on business.

Two different programs that were introduced by the EPA to address various toxic waste issues include: the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 along with Superfund Redevelopment. The Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 came in response to the 1984 tragedy in Bhopal, India. This is where: thousands of people died and hundreds of thousands were affected, by exposure to deadly methyl isocyanate gas that leaked from the Union Carbide plant. The new regulations would increase the size of the Superfund to $8.4 billion. At the same time, it would establish a Hazardous Ranking System and a National Priorities List. ("SARA Overview," 2010) This is important, because it would encourage businesses to invest in the Superfund, to help prevent future environmental disasters over the long run. However, in the short and medium term, it would have an adverse effect upon business as they would have to meet new regulatory standards, resulting in increased costs.

The Super Redevelopment program is a nationally coordinated effort that ensures every Superfund site: is cleaned up, and is returned to the community. This is important, because it has helped a number of different areas to reclaim and re-use thousands of hectares of contaminated land. The reason why is because the Superfund reforms, have held businesses as well as individuals responsible for the contamination of various locations and it allows the EPA's to engage in different partnerships (i.e. with land owners, developers, federal agencies, local governments, and other stakeholders).

A part of this program is the Return to Use (RTU) Initiative that was created in 2004, under the Superfund Redevelopment Initiative (SRI). This removes the barriers for site re-use to include: liability concerns, a lack of understanding about land's re-utilization and it helps to remove the stigma of being a Superfund site. As a part of this initiative, the EPA works with local communities to: establish the optimal use of the cleaned up sites, it provides relevant information to the potential buyers / developers and dispenses advice on technical needs for re-utilization of the site. ("SARA Overview," 2010)

In this particular case, the RTU is effective at helping communities be able to reclaim land that had once been considered to be contaminated. For business, this will have long-term benefits as the reclaimed land could help to support other commercial activities. At the same time, time it will help to increase property values, by taking land that was thought to be destroyed and making it re-useable once again. This will have ripple effects for a host of different businesses, as their net worth will increase from a rise in the price of land.

However, over the short and medium term, this will have an adverse impact upon businesses. The reason why, is because to prepare a site for such purposes will often cost more. As the company must pay to help clean up the location and they have to deal with all legal issues surrounding the clean up (i.e. lawsuits). This is problematic, for many corporations as they have to spend their resources on: cleaning up a site that could have significant amounts of damage and may require years to make the land useable once again.