• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.53-74
• /
• 1991

Interest on ocean environment has increased with the development of industrialized activities. Public marine resorces are defined broadly to include fish stocks, beaches, marine waters, recreational fishing, biota, waterfowls, shorebirds, seabirds and marine mammals But, it is not easy to analyze compensation for injury to publicly owned marine resources because the claimants do not exist clearly and the economic methodology of damage on public goods is not developed fully. This paper introduces basic idea of welfare economic theory and environmental legislation to the research question : How the economics and law can be applied to the case of damage on publicly owned marine resource. The paper discusses the concepts of willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA). It is accepted generally that WTA is correct concept of welfare change in the case of damaged public goods. Four methods (compensating variation, equivalent variation, compensating surplus, equivalent surplus of measuring welfare changes are compared. Compensating variation(CV) is the best measure of welfare changes are compared. Compensating variation(CV) is the best measure of welfare changes caused by environmental damage. Vartia (1983) showed CV could be measured from the ordinary demand function using the differential equations. This paper also provides an overview of the emerging U.S. and Korea legal system for compensation for natural resource damages, with particular emphasis on U.S. legal system under Comprehensive Environmen-tal Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). These regulations are to include two different types of standardized procedures for assessing natural resources injury : Type A or simplified assessment techniques for small releases ; and Type B protocols that would include detailed and extensive assessment methodologies for major releases. Type A procedures are specified by Natural Resources Damage Assessment Model for Coastal and Marine Environment (NRDAM/CME) of the U.S. CERCLA provides a legal 'legitimization for the use of economic-based nonmarket valuation in the courts and have introduced appropriate and accurate nonmarket valuation methods based on willingness to-pay for damage assessment. By briefly reviewing economic theory and environmental legislation, we hope to help provide a better understanding of the compensation process and the economics of publicly owned marine resources in the U.S. and to integrate the economics and law of natural resources valuation into a single comprehensive package in Korea.

• Journal of Soil and Groundwater Environment
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.14-21
• /
• 2009

This study discusses the definition, determination and use of Imminent & Substantial Endangerment (ISE) included in the United States environmental laws. ISE is a contamination situation and statutory authority that state and federal governments issue an administrative order to responsible parties for clean-up. ISE is appeared in all kinds of official government documents such as administrative oders on consent, judicial consent degrees, and unilateral administrative order. In order to invoke ISE authority, the governments should have evidence of each of the following elements; 1) a possible ISE 2) because of actual or threatened release 3) of a hazardous substance 4) from a facility. The determination of ISE relies on detail scientific evidence and documentation in order to demonstrate the existence of conditions that may present an ISE. However, any official protocol or procedure has not been found for determining an ISE, although an ISE order documentation format is suggested by U.S. EPA.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Soil and Groundwater Environment Conference
• /
• 2002.09a
• /
• pp.44-52
• /
• 2002

Low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) has become one of the cornerstone technologies used for the treatment of contaminated soils and sediments in the United States. LTTD technology was first used in the mid-1980s for soil treatment on sites managed under the Comprehensive Environmental Respones, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or Superfund. Implementation was facilitated by CERCLA regulations that require only that spplicable regulations shall be met thus avoiding the need for protracted and expensive permit applications for thermal treatment equipment. The initial equipment designs used typically came from technology transfer sources. Asphalt manufacturing plants were converted to direct-fired LTTD systems, and conventional calciners were adapted for use as indirect-fired LTTD systems. Other innovative designs included hot sand recycle technology (initially developed for synfuels production from tar sand and oil shale), recycle sweep gas, travelling belts and batch-charged vacuum chambers, among others. These systems were used to treat soil contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxin with varying degrees of success. Ultimately, performance and cost considerations established the suite of systems that are used for LTTD soil treatment applications today. This paper briefly reviews the develpoment of LTTD systems and summarizes the design, performance and cost characteristics of the equipment in use today. Designs reviewed include continuous feed direct-fired and indirect-fired equipment, batch feed systems and in-situ equipment. Performance is compared in terms of before-and-after contaminant levels in the soil and permissible emissions levels in the stack gas vented to the atmosphere. The review of air emissions standards includes a review of regulations in the U.S. and the European Union (EU). Key cost centers for the mobilization and operation of LTTD equipment are identified and compared for the different types of LTTD systems in use today. A work chart is provided for the selection of the optmum LTTD system for site-specific applications. LTTD technology continues to be a cornerstone technology for soil treatment in the U.S. and elsewhere. Examples of leading-edge LTTD technologies developed in the U.S. that are now being delivered locally in global projects are described.