Hudson River[/caption]Mike Gordon---On the heels of the widespread cultural and social movements of the 1960s, a renewed sense of urgency about pollution within the United States provided political motivation for the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the Nixon Administration in 1970. The EPA was given broad authority and regulatory power to uphold environmental and public safety. A primary function of the agency was to establish strict guidelines and enforcement protocols for industry. These were supported by several significant pieces of environmental legislation passed throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Both the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts established early standards for quality and purity, while the efforts such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know-Act compelled responsible parties to disclose the release of toxic chemicals to the public and provide for the clean-up of contaminated areas. This regulatory movement has both increased the level of public safety and has often placed the federal government and industry on opposing sides.
The Hudson River and Northeastern Massachusetts
Each year thousands of violations are recorded by the EPA with fines levied on the companies responsible. In 2012 the total amount paid in civil and criminal fees by private industry was $244 million. Typically the fines result from minor infractions, such as filing faulty erosion-control plans. However there have been several well-publicized cases of companies whose actions compromised public safety and threatened the future viability of entire ecosystems.
Woburn Case
The small, industrial town of Woburn, Massachusetts, experienced an extremely high prevalence of childhood leukemia in the early 1980s. After concern was raised by community members and a subsequent lawsuit filed against three companies: W.R. Grace, Beatrice Foods and Unifirst, all of which were believed to be guilty of illegally dumping the toxic chemical trichloroethylene near town wells that provided the community drinking water. While both Unifirst and W.R. Grace settled with the families for $1 and $8 million, the case against Beatrice Foods was dismissed. A subsequent investigation by the EPA showed conclusive evidence that all three companies had contaminated the city wells and were compelled to pay for the largest clean-up project in the northeastern United States at a cost of $64 million.
Hudson River
General Electric dumped in excess of 1.3 million pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls into the Hudson River between 1947 and 1977. PCBs are a dangerous chemical known to be a cancer-causing agent and were banned by the government in 1977. The EPA estimates that as much as 197 miles of the river has been contaminated and long stretches of the upper river are closed to fishing. In addition to causing the loss of a valuable industry, the chemicals have devastated much of the indigenous wildlife. A 2002 agreement between the EPA and GE provided a potential solution in the form of an expansive clean-up project to remove PCBs from the river sediment.
Corruption
As a government agency, the EPA has received significant criticism over the years for not holding companies fully accountable for their violations. A specific example functions as an addendum to the Hudson River agreement with GE. In 2005 the EPA reduced the responsibility of GE for clean-up to cover just the first phase of the project. Essentially this removed the burden of funding from the company to the tax payer after only 10% of the toxic sediment was removed.
Clearly the financial cost of breaking environmental law and contaminating our natural resources is high, whether the EPA compels the companies responsible to pay or the burden falls on taxpayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was contributed by earth-conscious business school graduate Mike Gordon.
