Introduction:

         In the rising age of technological advancement, corporate responsibility concerning environmental factors becomes increasingly important, especially considering the rapid rates these innovations are often being generated. Several laws have been placed in effort to combat the rising environmental concerns, some of which include the Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted in 1972, which manages the processes of controlling external waste entering bodies of water. The act also established what is known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), ensuring the controlled release of harmful waste satisfying specific states’ water quality requirements as an attempt to regulate the influx of water pollution. Alongside this, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enforced during 1976, oversees and provides guidelines towards the responsible disposition of waste within industries and communities as the U.S. began to experience increasing levels of pollution and discharge generated by exponential population growth. This act promotes conservation efforts such as reducing the quantities of waste flooding the natural environment and recycling resources (that are permitted) into new material. In this paper, we will analyze and discuss the consequences regarding corporate environmental defiance through specific cases and pinpoint customary trends in modern-day regulative policies.

​

Case Studies:

         From a local scale to widespread corruption, the occurrences of the Colonial Pipeline oil spill and the current case revolving around perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) demonstrates both company policy violation along with environmental and legal barriers presented before them in a society of high liability towards environmental laws. Beginning with the Colonial Pipeline oil spill, on August 14, 2020, a major gas leak was discovered within the Oehler Nature Preserve located in Huntersville, North Carolina. Colonial Pipeline shut down the pipeline shortly as soon as the leak was detected in adherence with safety protocols. Colonial Pipeline reported the cause of the spill was a result of “equipment failure” and that approximately 354,060 gallons of gasoline leaked (NC Dept. of Environmental Quality). Colonial Pipeline supplies petroleum products across the eastern U.S. and is a important foundation of infrastructure, fueling the majority of the eastern region’s petroleum supply. The environmental damage included the petroleum seeping into nearby soil and spreading into surrounding natural water sources. Likewise, concerns were posed about potential contamination of groundwater, which eventually led the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) to issue multiple violation notices concerning the violation of the Clean Water Act. The notices were issued as listed:

September 25, 2020: DEQ issues their first Notice of Violation on any effects regarding the groundwater quality.

December 9, 2020: DEQ issues a second notice pressing for further information on the exact cause of the gasoline spill to open an investigation.

February 24, 2021: DEQ issues a Notice of Continuing Violation towards Colonial Pipeline to extract more information to order a Comprehensive Site Assessment on the corporation.

(Data provided by DEQ.NC.GOV)

​

         It is also notable to include that this is not Colonial Pipeline’s first oil spill, having a large history of similar incidents, including the 1996 South Carolina spill killing off an estimated 35,000 fish and various other wildlife, along with spills ranging from Georgia, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama. (EPA.gov) The legal consequences issued by the NCDEQ include a lawsuit filed against Colonial Pipeline, which then led to a consent order essentially holding Colonial Pipeline accountable for North Carolina’s by far largest spill, followed by legal proceedings. The requirements along with this order included engaging in reformative actions and paying nearly $5 million in total fines. Although modern technological innovation was present within this corporation, and regulations were in place, incidents were still prone to occur, damaging both water resources and corporate responsibility. While the Colonial Oil Spill embodies a more localized incident, the current PFAS cases represent environmental and corporate consequences throughout the whole nation. PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are popularized manmade lasting chemicals found in various industries since the mid-20th century. PFAS are present in many common materials and places such as drinking water (ex. water fountains), manufacturing facilities, food products and packaging (ex. fish and livestock), household products and dust, and personal care (ex. specific types of shampoo and cosmetics). PFAS also carries multiple health risks, including interference with child development, increased chances of cancer, and reproductive risks such as a decreased fertility rate. American multinational company DuPont is currently under mass scrutiny over environmental and health risks regarding their usage of PFAS. What is quite intriguing about this case especially is how, from 1961 to 1994, Dupont had successfully collected evidence of PFAS toxins present from various business studies yet never published or reported their findings to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA.gov), which by law is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (NIH.gov). As for the legal concerns and lawsuits, numerous attorneys, such as General Josh Stein, sued DuPont for water contamination violating the CWA in North Carolina in February 2024. (NCDOJ.gov). In 2023, governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, along with Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, finalized a $110 million settlement with Dupont concerning environmental restoration specifically along the Ohio River, in violation of the RCRA act concerning improper PFAS disposal. These cases are only a few of the many lawsuits filed against DuPont, and the company has suffered tremendous financial loss and is currently battling various legal issues, including an agreement to pay over $1.185 billion as an attempt to settle the ongoing liability allegations in relation to public water systems. The ongoing legal battle addressing DuPont’s use of PFAS has created destruction both environmentally and financially across the nation and internationally as opposed to the more localized damage of the Colonial Pipeline Spill. 

​

Regulatory Trends:

         While the cases discussed previously provide specific and contextualized analysis of the legal repercussions that environmental non-compliance companies face, it is equally crucial to observe from a wider perspective the trends these cases have played an influence in. The first trend observed is an increase in penalties for corporations that choose not to comply with environmental regulations. Taking the Colonial Pipeline Act into consideration, while the incident was relatively contained compared to the PFAS issue, considerable penalties issued by the NCDEQ were still enacted against the corporation, emphasizing the growing repercussions and firmness on compliance. Considering the severity of the financial loss Colonial faced, other pipeline operations may more than likely increase their monitoring to ensure legal standards are met to prevent the occurrence of similar incidents. Additionally, looking into the future, as the EPA’s annual inflation markups in their environmental penalty fines increased (the CWA penalty per day increased from $66,712 to $68,445), the financial consequences for these behaviors will steadily increase, possibly pressuring corporations to further adhere to the laws presented before them. Subsequently, as mentioned in the case studies, the PFAS investigation actively demonstrates the trend of expanding corporate accountability. Corporations, including DuPont, are facing vast financial liabilities encircling chemical PFAS contamination in everyday use items even though the chemicals had been used over two decades ago. This is supported by the various number of lawsuits opened among the many attorney generals ranging across several states and from public water systems all looking for reimbursements and settlements to recover damages and cover repair costs. The EPA has now issued risk assessments for corporations to identify and reduce chemical hazards by conducting the test on their past and present chemical usage. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

​

Conclusion:

         This analysis has communicated the acceleration of legal consequences presented before corporations that violate environmental policy, as demonstrated through the Colonial Pipeline Oil Spill and ongoing PFAS case. Along with the modern-day regulatory trends of increased penalties and widened business responsibility, these cases ground an argument for a more responsible and proactive approach from corporations and for a stricter adherence to environmental regulations. Furthermore, the increasing exposure of corporate liability now forces companies to reassess and reevaluate their use of certain chemicals as an attempt to prevent the creation and release of harmful toxins in the industry. In essence, the legal aspect of environmental safety revolves around the framework of placing a higher emphasis on environmental safekeeping rather than purely temporary profit. As the corporate world progressively becomes more aware of the negative effects irresponsible industrial pursuit on the environment, it will also become increasingly important for them to grasp the idea that environmental compliance is not simply an obstacle-bearing law but a fundamental skill of sustainable business practice.​