Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Michigan District Court Confirms that Defendants Still on the Hook for Future Cleanup Costs of Kalamazoo River Superfund Site
- Supreme Court Holds that Building Permit Fees Imposed by Legislation Are Subject to Scrutiny under Constitution’s Takings Clause
- Federal District Court Rejects Motion to Enjoin Biden Administration’s Section 401 Clean Water Act Rule
- Federal District Court Holds that CERCLA Procedure for Natural Resource Damage Assessments Not Required as a Matter of Law
- Local Law Prohibiting Natural Gas Piping is Preempted, Ninth Circuit Holds
Topics
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Storage Tank
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Standing
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- CLE
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Last month I blogged about Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (10-1062), the case involving pre-enforcement judicial review of compliance orders under the Clean Water Act that will be argued before the United States Supreme Court this term.
Yesterday, in In the Matter of Crompton Colors, Inc., (A-0778-09T), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, took up a similar cause. In a “not for publication” decision, the Court held that the owner of a property for which a No Further Action (NFA) letter was issued was entitled to a hearing when the NJDEP rescinded the NFA letter and directed it to perform certain environmental studies.
The underlying facts weave a complicated tale involving a tank removal, a subdivision of property, a remediation, clearance under the NJ Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA), and a day care center. Before 1990, 60 West Street, Bloomfield, NJ had two buildings on it, a warehouse and an office building which housed a day care center. In 1990, a heating oil tank was removed from the warehouse site, at which time certain contamination was identified and remediation ordered by NJDEP. After the removal of the tank but before the remediation was completed, the property was subdivided such that the location of the tank removal had a new address of 50 West Street and the day care center retained the address of 60 West Street. However, when the remediation was completed in 1996, the paperwork, including the NFA letter, identified the property as 60 West Street.
In 2001, Crompton Colors, which had been leasing 50 West Street since 1991, ceased business and sought environmental clearance under ISRA. In submitting the application, Crompton did not notify the NJDEP that the site had previously been the subject of a petroleum contamination and clean up nor, presumably, that the site had received an NFA, something it should have done. In fact, it would have been to Crompton’s benefit to do so as it may have streamlined the process of receiving clearance. Nevertheless, in 2002, a second NFA was issued for the property. So, by 2002, everyone was happy and could go about their business, or so it would seem.
In 2004, following the now notorious discovery of mercury contamination at a day care center that had previously been a thermometer factory in South Jersey, NJDEP undertook to review all “closed cases” near day care centers around the state to ensure that no other children were similarly exposed. By 2007, NJDEP got around to West Street and realized that the Crompton facility had, in fact, been the site of the tank removal and remediation action. Thus, it directed Crompton and the facility owner, a subsidiary of Hartz Mountain Industries, to a submit Remedial Investigation Workplan, including a schedule for investigating, within 14 days, potential vapor intrusion at the day care.
Needless to say, Hartz and Crompton objected and sought an administrative hearing to challenge the action. NJDEP denied the hearing request, contending that the rescission wasn’t a new action or violation notice, but rather “mere requests for submission of documentation and performance of studies” that would have been required by Crompton’s original application for the 2002 NFA had NJDEP known about the 1996 NFA. But the Appellate Division disagreed. Relying on a provision in ISRA that requires an opportunity for a hearing whenever NJDEP contends that there is an alleged violation of the act, the Appellate Court held that revocation of the NFA and the directive to perform studies was, in effect, a finding of a violation such that enforcement action could be taken if the directive was not complied with.
This is the second Appellate Division decision in the last several years to interpret a statutory right to challenge an order issued by NJDEP to encompass a right to a hearing on agency action that falls short of an order in the traditional sense but on its face requires action without an express threat of enforcement. While this affords an opportunity to those who feel they are being treated unfairly by the agency without having to wait for the agency to take a formal enforcement action, it also poses a potential pitfal for those who fail to timely challenge an informal agency action and may risk waiving their rights. Time will tell as to who the biggest beneficiary will be of these decisions.
(Thanks to Bruce Katcher for catching this case and honing my knowledge of NJ environmental laws).