브라운필드법의 문제점과 그 시사점

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

Sung Bae Kim


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.