Because of Superfund—technically, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act—the EPA may have excessive permission to enforce rules upon companies forced to clean up...

Because of Superfund—technically, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act—the EPA may have excessive permission to enforce rules upon companies forced to clean up possibly contaminated areas. Specifically, the EPA settles with a company on how and when the company will clean up a specific area. If the company resists the cleanup requirements or the cleanup in general for any reason, the EPA can then impose costs and fines on the company that will amount to triple what the company would otherwise have paid for the cleanup settlement. Ultimately, this rule keeps companies from evading cleanups in general and spending years fighting the EPA’s orders. However, this rule also forces companies to settle with the EPA regardless of their arguments and reasons for not doing the mandated cleanup, or the companies will face exorbitant costs. Therefore, General Electric brought the EPA to court, asking that this rule be eliminated because it is unfair to companies. How did the court decide? Do you agree with the EPA that the companies ought to clean up contaminated areas as soon as possible and fight about costs later? General Electric Co. v. Jackson, Administrator, US EPA and the EPA. 595 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2009).