MGMT520 Week 3 – Discussion 2 – Environmental Liability and Due Process

Question: #9359

MGMT520 Legal, Political and Ethical Dimensions of Business Week 3 – Discussion 2 – Environmental Liability and Due Process In 1979, Paul and John Reardon purchased 16 acres of land located next to a manufacturing plant in Massachusetts. In 1983, a state environmental agency, responding to a citizen’s report, tested soil samples from both properties and discovered extremely high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) on the plant site and on the Reardons’ property where it bordered the site. Shortly thereafter, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cleaned up the contaminated areas. In 1985, the EPA notified the Reardons that they might be liable for clean-up costs. An EPA investigation of the property in 1987 revealed that some soil was still contaminated. This time, the Reardons cleaned up the property themselves. In March 1989, the EPA placed a lien for an unspecified amount on all of the Reardons’ property to secure payment for any clean-up costs for which the Reardons might be liable. The EPA told the Reardons that they could settle the claims against them for $336,709 but noted that this amount did not limit the Reardon’s potential liability. The Reardons filed a motion for an injunction, arguing that filing a lien against their property without any prior notice or hearing violated their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, which states that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Superfund (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, of 1980, as amended in 1986) gives the government several powerful tools to use when attempting to collect clean-up costs from responsible parties. Among those tools is the authority to place a lien on a responsible party’s property without providing for a reasonable hearing before placing the lien. Is the power to place a lien on a piece of property without prior opportunity to be heard in a court of law or administrative hearing constitutional? Why or why not? Whether placing a lien on a piece of property without prior opportunity to be heard in a Court of Law or Administrative Hearing is constitutional. The purpose of Congress in passing CERCLA first and foremost was to ensure the clean-up of substances that endanger the public. Would this purpose be eviscerated if the EPA is forced to litigate each detail of its removal and remedial plans before implementing them? Second, if the EPA loses its leverage and is not able to look to landowners for cleanup costs, who is left? I think it is you and I, the taxpayers. Where should ultimate responsibility lie–Landowners who perhaps did not perform due diligence in purchasing land or taxpayers who have nothing to do with the hazardous waste?

Solution: #9396

MGMT520 Week 3 – Discussion 2 – Environmental Liability and Due Process

A+ Please look at the attach...