Environmental liability is seen as an important future issue for recyclers and waste management businesses in Europe. Metals recyclers, for example, are already following the plans for legislation closely because of the impact it could have on the values of current sites and for any possible cleaning up costs. Similarly, the waste management sector may also face new duties.
The latest study from the Commission notes that the proposed European liability regime would cover environmental damages that encompass both site contamination and damages to biodiversity. But it cautions that should the proposed European liability regime inadequately define such damages, like Superfund in American it may experience high administrative costs, if cases are not dismissed outright due to
confusion over the definition of damages.
Looking closely at the experience of the American Superfund legislation, report author Janet Stone McGuigan of New Jersey in the United States, assesses the US industry costs associated with Superfund. This was established 20 years ago
Ms McGuigan says that the general picture that emerges is that the cost of the Superfund program is affordable for the American economy in the aggregate. “At their peak, all Superfund expenditures by all private and governmental parties represented less than 5% of the cost of complying with all federal environmental regulations in the US, and should not be unduly burdensome to most industries.”
The report discusses the most significant differences between Superfund and the proposed European environmental liability regime, one of the more important being that the former is retroactive and the latter is not. The differences are likely to translate into different cost impacts, some pushing costs up, others keeping costs down.
For a full copy of the report and a summary see: EU report.
Subscribe for free