브라운필드법의 문제점과 그 시사점 = The Problem of Brownfields Amendment and Suggestion to Korea Soil Environment Conservation Act

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

As enacted in 1980 and as amended in 1986, CERCLA, also known as Superfund, creates a federal framework for addressing the problems associated with the existence of hazardous substances in the environment. The statute contains provisions addressing both the investigation and cleanup of property contaminated with hazardous substances and the recovery of costs associated with such cleanups from responsible persons. Some scholars say that the brownfields problems has happened in large part because, under prior law, the extent of environmental remediation liability under CERCLA was potentially huge and sometimes unknowable. Even though these sites often have access to infrastructure and available labor, developers prefer to develop greenfields instead of brownfields. The role of CERCLA liability and other environmental regulation in creating brownfields in the first place is uncertain and probably minimal. The movement away from the city centers in the first place began long before CERCLA liability. Therefore, the Brownfields Amendment, by simply modifying environmental liability itself, cannot bring commerce, industry, or people back. Moreover, redevelopment is only likely to occur where other conditions, such as a convenient location, are favorable. The Amendment aims to encourage the purchase and development of brownfields. While this may be a praiseworthy goal, the means chosen may cause negative impacts on legal enforcement and economy. By freeing purchasers of property subject to CERCLA from liability, the Amendment creates a number of potential problems. First, it removes an important deterrence to the creation of properties subject to CERCLA, commonly known as CERCLA Sites or Superfund Sites. Therefore, the Amendment will beget more releases of hazardous materials. Second, it gives property owners a random benefit. This is not only undesirable but also it leads in the end to increases in the cost of government regulation. Third, it will make the overall costs of performing clean-ups under CERCLA higher. Fourth, brownfields Act raises not only economic concerns but also environmental justice issues that are considered separate or even opposed to the conventional environmental movement and economic considerations. Environmental justice, in theory and principle, seeks to addresses the lack of equal environmental protection experienced by minority, low-income communities, or certain local communities. Attempts to craft justiciable claims for communities that incur a disproportionate share of the burden of lawfully regulated pollution have not proven successful as legal remedies, although the effort has led to a substantial body of legal scholarship. Given the perceived inability of the legal process to protect minority, low-income communities, or certain local communities from the disproportionate impacts of environmental pollution, the question remains as to whether or not the public and private sectors adequately address the central concerns or principles of environmental justice as a matter of social responsibility and sustainable development. Last, because real situations of Korea environmental litigation has no serious problem which was found in U.S.A before the Brownfields Amendment, it is not right time for Korea to adopt Brownfields policy yet.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 채영근, "토양환경보전법의 실효성 확보를 위한 과제와 토양환경평가" 한국비교공법학회 9 (9): 366-394, 2008

2 송동수, "토양오염과 공법상 정화책임" 14 : 2001

3 "모범불법행위법 제2판 (Restatement 2nd Torts)"

4 김현준, "土壤淨化責任 ―토양환경보전법 제10조의3에 대한 비판적 검토―" 한국공법학회 34 (34): 187-211, 2005

5 Helen S Shapo, "Writing and Analysis in the Law" Foundation Press 2003

6 Flannary P. Collins, "The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act: A Critique, 13 Duke Envtl. & Pol’y F. 303"

7 Richard G. Opper, "The Brownfield Manifesto, 37 Urb. Law. 163"

8 Katherine N. Probst, "Superfund’s Future: What Will It Cost?"

9 Kelly J. Shira, "Returning Common Sense to Cleanup?, 34 Ariz. St. L. J. 991"

10 W. Keeton, "Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts (5th ed.)"

11 "Page v. Niagara Chem. Div. of Food mach. & Chem. Corp., 68 So. 2d 382, 384 (Fla. 1953)"

12 Fletcher v. Tenneco, Inc, "No. Civ. A. 91-118, 1993 WL 86561 (E.D. Ky., Feb. 22, 1993)"

13 seming Yang, "Melding Civil Rights and Environmentalism: Finding Environmental Justice’s Place in Environmental Regulation" 26 : 1-, 2002

14 Gerald W. Boston, "Law of Environmental and Toxic Torts" West Publishing Co 1994

15 Ronald G. Aronovsky, "Federalism and CERCLA: Re-Thinking the Role of Federal Law in Private Cleanup Cost Disputes" 33 : 1-, 2006

16 Findley Farber, "Environmental law" West publishing co 2004

17 Clifford Rechtschaffen, "Environmental Justice" Academic Press 2002

18 James W. Mooman, "Dep’t of Justice, The Superfund Concept: Report of the Interagency Task Force on Compensation and Liability for Releases of Hazardous Substances" 1979

19 Linda Greer, "Bad Science, Envtl. F.1"

20 Gregg Kettles, "Bad Policy: CERCLA’s Amended Liability for New Purchasers, 21 UCLA J. Envtl.&Pol’y 1"

21 Colin M. McNiece, "A Public Use for the Dirty Side of Economic Development: Finding Common Ground Between Kelo and Hathcock for Collateral Takings in Brownfield Redevelopment" 12 : 229-, 2006

22 Updike v. Browning-Ferris, Inc, "808 F. Supp. 538 (W.D. La. 1992)"

23 Berger v. Minneapolis Gaslight Co, "62 N.W. 336 (Minn. 1895)"

24 Prospect Industries Corp. v. Singer Co, "569 A.2d 908 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1989)"

25 Fortier v. Flambeau Plastics Co, "476 N.W.2d 593 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991)"

26 Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Ventron Corp, "468 A.2d 150, (N.J. 1983)"

27 Ravan v. Greenville County, "434 S.E.2d 296 (S.C. Ct. App. 1993)"

28 "42 U.S.C.§ 9607(q)(1)(A)"

29 "42 U.S.C. §§9602-9603; 40 C.F.R. §302"

30 "42 U.S.C. §9607(c)(3)"

31 "42 U.S.C. §9607(a)(4)"

32 "42 U.S.C. §9607(a)"

33 "42 U.S.C. §9606(a)"

34 "42 U.S.C. §9605(a)"

35 "42 U.S.C. §9601(39)"

36 "42 U.S.C. §9601(11)"

37 "42 U.S.C. § 9628(b)"

38 "42 U.S.C. § 9628(a)(3)"

39 "42 U.S.C. § 9628(a)(2)"

40 "42 U.S.C. § 9622(g)"

41 "42 U.S.C. § 9607(p)(4)(C)"

42 "42 U.S.C. § 9607(p)(4)(A)(ii)"

43 "42 U.S.C. § 9607(p)(4)"

44 "42 U.S.C. § 9607(p)(1)(B)"

45 "42 U.S.C. § 9607(p)"

46 "42 U.S.C. § 9607(o)(2)"

47 "42 U.S.C. § 9607(o)(1)(B)"

48 "42 U.S.C. § 9607(o)(1)(A)"

49 "42 U.S.C. § 9607"

50 "42 U.S.C. § 9602 (b)"

51 "42 U.S.C. § 9601(41)"

52 "42 U.S.C. § 9601(40)(B)"

53 "42 U.S.C. § 9601(40)"

54 "42 U.S.C. § 9601(35)(B)"

55 "42 U.S.C. § 9601(35)(A)"

56 "42 U.S.C. § 9307(o)(3)"

57 "42 U.S.C §§ 9601-75"

58 Martine v. Reynolds Metal Co., "342 P.2d 790"

59 Berry v. Shell Petroleum Co., "33 P.2d 953 (Kan. 1934)"

60 Cities Serv. Co. V. State, "312 So. 2d 799, 800 (Fla. dist. Ct. App. 1975)"

61 Brennan Construction Co. v. Cumberland, "29 App. D.C. 554 (D.C. Cir. 1907)"

62 "26 U.S.C. §9507"

63 Boomer v. Atl. Cement Co., "257 N.E.2d 870, 871 (N.Y. 1970)"