|
|
 |
| Counsel's Corner |
|
|
Scenic Hudson Responds to GE Attack on Superfund
By Warren Reiss
At the same time that the General Electric Co. is desperately trying to avoid its responsibility for a Hudson River PCB cleanup, the corporation also has launched an assault on the federal Superfund program, a law designed to remediate our nation's toxic waste sites.
GE - coincidentally the corporation responsible for the most Superfund sites in the nation - retained Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University Law School professor, to mount its baseless challenge. Mr. Tribe filed a suit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), commonly referred to as the Superfund law. The suit was brought last fall, shortly before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its proposed plan and feasibility study for a Hudson River PCB cleanup.
GE claims that the provisions of CERCLA that authorize the EPA to order private parties to clean up hazardous waste sites for which they are responsible, and that permit penalties for unjustified failures to comply with such orders, are unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In response to this unprecedented attack on one of the most important federal environmental statutes, Scenic Hudson, Inc., joined with the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, New York Rivers United, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Riverkeeper to file an "Amicus Curiae" (friend of the court) brief in opposition to GE's suit. The brief's primary author was Lisa Heinzerling of the Georgetown University Law Center, who is representing the groups "pro bono."
The brief argues that the provisions GE seeks to eliminate have been used by the EPA for more than 20 years to successfully remediate hundreds of Superfund sites that posed significant threats to public health and the environment. The brief also highlights the fact that the very provisions GE now challenges have been upheld numerous times by prior federal court rulings.
In short, GE's suit is simply another cynical and misguided attempt to shun its responsibility as a polluter, both in the Hudson Valley and across the nation, and to avoid paying the costs of its environmental profiteering.
It will not stand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
