본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

브라운필드법의 문제점과 그 시사점

The Problem of Brownfields Amendment and Suggestion to Korea Soil Environment Conservation Act

김성배
한국환경법학회 (Korean Environmental Law Association)|2009.04|환경법연구 (Environmental Law Review)|제31권 제1호|pp. 115-142

0

조회

0

다운로드

13

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

토양오염환경정의브라운필드strict liability엄격책임environmental justiceCERCLAbrownfields
주제분류법학

초록

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 (63)

  1. Dep’t of Justice, The Superfund Concept: Report of the Interagency Task Force on Compensation and Liability for Releases of Hazardous Substances, "James W. Mooman", ~ (1979)
  2. Kelly J. Shira, "Returning Common Sense to Cleanup?, 34 Ariz. St. L. J. 991", ~ (2002)
  3. Helen S Shapo, "Writing and Analysis in the Law" (2003), Foundation Press
  4. "모범불법행위법 제2판 (Restatement 2nd Torts)", ~
  5. W. Keeton, "Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts (5th ed.)", ~ (1984)
  6. Gerald W. Boston, "Law of Environmental and Toxic Torts" (1994), West Publishing Co
  7. Flannary P. Collins, "The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act: A Critique, 13 Duke Envtl. & Pol’y F. 303", ~ (2003)
  8. Gregg Kettles, "Bad Policy: CERCLA’s Amended Liability for New Purchasers, 21 UCLA J. Envtl.&Pol’y 1", ~ (2003)
  9. Richard G. Opper, "The Brownfield Manifesto, 37 Urb. Law. 163", ~ (2005)
  10. Katherine N. Probst, "Superfund’s Future: What Will It Cost?", 14~16 (2001)
  11. Linda Greer, "Bad Science, Envtl. F.1", ~ (2002)
  12. seming Yang, "Melding Civil Rights and Environmentalism: Finding Environmental Justice’s Place in Environmental Regulation", Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., 26, pp.1~ (2002)
  13. Ronald G. Aronovsky, "Federalism and CERCLA: Re-Thinking the Role of Federal Law in Private Cleanup Cost Disputes", ECOLOGY L. Q., 33, pp.1~ (2006)
  14. Clifford Rechtschaffen, "Environmental Justice" (2002), Academic Press
  15. 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", Roger Williams U. L. Rev., 12, pp.229~ (2006)
  16. Findley Farber, "Environmental law" (2004), West publishing co
  17. Cities Serv. Co. V. State, "312 So. 2d 799, 800 (Fla. dist. Ct. App. 1975)", ~ (1975)
  18. "Page v. Niagara Chem. Div. of Food mach. & Chem. Corp., 68 So. 2d 382, 384 (Fla. 1953)", ~ (1953)
  19. Boomer v. Atl. Cement Co., "257 N.E.2d 870, 871 (N.Y. 1970)", ~ (1970)
  20. Martine v. Reynolds Metal Co., "342 P.2d 790", 791~794 (1959)
  21. Berger v. Minneapolis Gaslight Co, "62 N.W. 336 (Minn. 1895)", ~ (1895)
  22. Brennan Construction Co. v. Cumberland, "29 App. D.C. 554 (D.C. Cir. 1907)", ~ (1907)
  23. Berry v. Shell Petroleum Co., "33 P.2d 953 (Kan. 1934)", ~ (1934)
  24. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Ventron Corp, "468 A.2d 150, (N.J. 1983)", ~ (1983)
  25. Prospect Industries Corp. v. Singer Co, "569 A.2d 908 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1989)", ~ (1989)
  26. Fletcher v. Tenneco, Inc, "No. Civ. A. 91-118, 1993 WL 86561 (E.D. Ky., Feb. 22, 1993)", ~ (1993)
  27. Updike v. Browning-Ferris, Inc, "808 F. Supp. 538 (W.D. La. 1992)", ~ (1992)
  28. Fortier v. Flambeau Plastics Co, "476 N.W.2d 593 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991)", ~ (1991)
  29. Ravan v. Greenville County, "434 S.E.2d 296 (S.C. Ct. App. 1993)", ~ (1993)
  30. 김현준, "土壤淨化責任 ―토양환경보전법 제10조의3에 대한 비판적 검토―", 공법연구, 34(2), pp.187~211 (2005), 한국공법학회
  31. 송동수, "토양오염과 공법상 정화책임", 토지공법연구, 14 (2001)
  32. 채영근, "토양환경보전법의 실효성 확보를 위한 과제와 토양환경평가", 공법학연구, 9(1), pp.366~394 (2008), 한국비교공법학회
  33. "42 U.S.C §§ 9601-75", ~
  34. "42 U.S.C. §9601(39)", ~
  35. "26 U.S.C. §9507", ~
  36. "42 U.S.C. §9601(11)", ~
  37. "42 U.S.C. §9607(a)", ~
  38. "42 U.S.C. §9606(a)", ~
  39. "42 U.S.C. §9607(c)(3)", ~
  40. "42 U.S.C. §9605(a)", ~
  41. "42 U.S.C. §§9602-9603; 40 C.F.R. §302", ~ (2003)
  42. "42 U.S.C. §9607(a)(4)", ~
  43. "42 U.S.C. § 9602 (b)", ~
  44. "42 U.S.C. § 9607(o)(1)(A)", ~
  45. "42 U.S.C. § 9607(o)(1)(B)", ~
  46. "42 U.S.C. § 9607(o)(2)", ~
  47. "42 U.S.C. § 9307(o)(3)", ~
  48. "42 U.S.C. § 9607(p)", ~
  49. "42 U.S.C. § 9607(p)(4)(A)(ii)", ~
  50. "42 U.S.C. § 9607(p)(4)", ~
  51. "42 U.S.C. § 9607(p)(4)(C)", ~
  52. "42 U.S.C. § 9607(p)(1)(B)", ~
  53. "42 U.S.C. § 9622(g)", ~
  54. "42 U.S.C.§ 9607(q)(1)(A)", ~
  55. "42 U.S.C. § 9601(40)", ~
  56. "42 U.S.C. § 9601(40)(B)", ~
  57. "42 U.S.C. § 9601(35)(A)", ~
  58. "42 U.S.C. § 9601(35)(B)", ~
  59. "42 U.S.C. § 9628(a)(3)", ~
  60. "42 U.S.C. § 9628(a)(2)", ~
  61. "42 U.S.C. § 9628(b)", ~
  62. "42 U.S.C. § 9601(41)", ~
  63. "42 U.S.C. § 9607", ~

관련 논문AI추천

토양오염에 대한 법적정책적 대응의 현황과 과제최봉석한국환경법학회 · 환경법연구2007 · 제29권 제1호미국의 브라운필드 문제와 그에 대한 법적 대응 : 브라운필드법을 중심으로박종원한국환경법학회 · 환경법연구2007 · 제29권 제3호토양환경보전법의 토양오염 관련 주요 용어의 정의 및 재정립에 관한 고찰박용하, 양재의한국환경연구원 · 환경정책연구2005 · 제4권 제1호지역개발특별법제를 중심으로 살펴본 토지관련 제도의 현황과 전망김병기중앙법학회 · 중앙법학2007 · 제9권 제3호공장이전적지의 토양오염을 고려한 토지이용에 관한 연구이명훈, 정재경국토연구원 · 국토연구2002 · 제33권 한국에서의 오염매체별 환경관리의 법적 문제점한상운한국환경법학회 · 환경법연구2007 · 제29권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)

녹색성장기본법의 실현을 위한 법적과제 - 理論的 觀點에서 -전재경pp. 3-14녹색성장기본법에 대한 환경법적 검토문상덕pp. 15-38녹색성장기본법의 친환경적 실현을 위한 법적 수단 - 기후변화 대응 시장적 메커니즘을 중심으로이재협pp. 39-62環境紛爭調整法에 따른 분쟁해결과 ADR의 일반이론(Ⅱ)김시철pp. 63-110石綿被害救濟에 관한 立法論김춘환pp. 143-167
원문 보기