Riker Danzig Environmental Update October 2017

Title:
Riker Danzig Environmental Update October 2017
Attorneys:
Practice:

New Jersey to Establish Food Waste Reduction Plan

New Jersey formally joined the national conversation regarding food waste earlier this summer, but the specifics of how food waste will be regulated in New Jersey are not yet clear. In 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced an initiative to cut domestic food waste in half by 2030 and many states across the country have their own initiatives to reduce food waste. On July 21, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed legislation adopting the EPA’s goal of cutting the amount of food waste in New Jersey in half by 2030. In passing the law, the Legislature detailed the societal and environmental burdens of excessive food waste in New Jersey and identified the reduction of food waste as a “moral imperative.” The legislation, however, does not explain how the State should accomplish this goal.

Instead, the legislation requires the New Jersey Departments of Environmental Protection and Agriculture (the “Agencies”) to develop and commence implementation of a plan to accomplish this goal within one year. In developing this plan, the Agencies are required to hold three public meetings and are encouraged to consult with appropriate stakeholders. Interestingly, the legislation does not explicitly delegate authority to the Agencies to enact rules regarding food waste reduction, but it does require the Agencies to develop recommendations for further administrative or legislative action necessary to achieve the goal. Consequently, it will be interesting to observe how the Agencies interpret the scope of their authorities to “implement” the plan within one year.

The State of New Jersey also recently overhauled its electronic waste program. This overhaul was designed to put the onus on electronic manufacturers to bear the cost and obligation of recycling electronic waste. It seems likely that New Jersey also will place the primary burden of food waste reduction on the commercial sector. In fact, separate legislation already has been proposed to require large food waste generators to recycle their waste. Under this other legislation, a large food waste generator currently includes any commercial food wholesaler, supermarket, resort, conference center, banquet hall, restaurant, educational or religious institution, military installation, prison, hospital, medical facility, or casino. If the Agencies consider such a recycling mandate, they should also consider the practical consequences, including the need for enhanced recycling and collection infrastructure and appropriate guidance regarding best practices.

There are many possible approaches that the New Jersey Departments of Environmental Protection and Agriculture may suggest to reduce food waste. The ongoing national dialogue regarding food waste reduction may serve as a guide for New Jersey in other ways as well. For instance, many states, including New Jersey, have already initiated other programs to reduce food waste. These programs include proliferation of residential food waste collection programs, composting facilities, food labelling programs, and non-profit education programs. It is important that interested stakeholders participate and comment in the public meetings that will be held over the next year to shape the future of food waste reduction programs in New Jersey.

NJDEP Offers Guidance on Remedial Action Report Submittal Deadlines

Recently, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) issued guidance regarding the regulatory and mandatory time frames for the submission of a remedial action report pursuant to the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation and the Administrative Requirements of the Remediation of Contaminated Sites.  The guidance is meant to assist persons responsible for conducting the remediation (“PRCR”) in determining when remedial action reports are due, when to request an extension of the regulatory and mandatory deadlines for submission of such reports and in what situations the NJDEP will consider such an extension.

The remedial action report documents either: 1) the achievement of all applicable standards and the subsequent issuance of an unrestricted Response Action Outcome or 2) in the case of contamination remaining at a site, that the remedial action is operating as designed under engineering and/or institutional controls resulting in the submission of a remedial action permit (“RAP”) application.  For cases involving only soil contamination, the regulatory timeframe for the submittal of the remedial action report is within three years of the due date of the remedial investigation report (the “RIR Due Date”), and the mandatory timeframe is within five years of the RIR Due Date.  For cases involving the remediation of all other contamination, the regulatory time frame is within five years of the RIR Due Date, and the mandatory time frame is within seven years of the RIR Due Date. 

It is important to note that the PRCR also must complete the remedial action within the same timeframes as the submittal of the remedial action report.  In order to complete a remedial action, a PRCR must: 1) implement all remedial actions required to address the contamination at the site; 2) submit a remedial action report; and 3) submit a final remediation document to the NJDEP. 

A PRCR may request an extension of both the regulatory and mandatory deadlines for the submission of the remedial action report and completion of the remedial action, and, in fact, a request for a regulatory time frame extension is automatically approved unless the NJDEP specifically advises the PRCR that the request is denied.  Requests for a mandatory time frame extension, however, are reviewed by the NJDEP and either approved or denied in writing. 

In cases where a remedial action involves an institutional or engineering control, a RAP is needed to complete the remedial action.  According to NJDEP’s guidance, PRCRs that fail to submit administratively and technically complete RAP applications to the NJDEP prior to the remedial action report submission due date will not receive an extension.   A PRCR also must be cognizant of the fact that the NJDEP is currently taking 150 – 200 days to review applications and issue a RAP.  Therefore, when considering the deadline for submission of the remedial action report and completion of the remedial action, a PRCR must consider the time it is currently taking NJDEP to review and issue RAPs.

Furthermore,  NJDEP will not grant an extension in cases where the PRCR failed to select and implement a remedial action that meets the remedial objectives of the report.  Nor will the NJDEP grant an extension when a PRCR waits until after the due date for the submission of the remedial action report to determine that the selected remedial action is not working.   In cases where the remedial action is not working, the PRCR is required to submit a revised remedial action work plan and demonstrate that the PRCR has taken aggressive action to modify the remedial action within the applicable timeframes. 

If the PRCR cannot submit a remedial action report within the regulatory and mandatory timeframes, including any approved extension, the site will be subject to the NJDEP’s direct oversight requirements and may be subject to penalties of up to $20,000/day. Moreover, the Licensed Site Remediation Professional (“LSRP”) for the site is required to advise the PRCR in writing when it will miss a regulatory time frame and must advise both the PRCR and the NJDEP when a mandatory time frame will be missed. 

The NJDEP believes that five to seven years from the RIR Due Date is sufficient to complete the remedial action and submit the remedial action report.  Therefore, PRCRs, and their LSRPs, must determine the applicable due date to ensure that they conduct all work necessary to meet the deadline, including obtaining a RAP, if required, or request a timely extension.  If they fail to do so, PRCRs face direct oversight by the NJDEP and possible penalties. 

CERCLA Arranger Liability Requires Knowledge Waste Is Hazardous, New York District Court Says

In Town of Islip v. Datre, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2017 WL 1157188 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2017), the Eastern District of New York held that a defendant alleged to have “arranged for disposal or treatment … of a hazardous substance” must have had actual or constructive knowledge that the substance was hazardous in order to be liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3). While the Supreme Court’s seminal case on arranger liability, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway v. U.S., carved out an exception to liability based on the defendant’s intent in entering the transaction (i.e., to sell a useful product vs. to dispose of a waste), Datre expands the exception to CERCLA liability based on the defendant’s knowledge of the nature of the waste. Datre holds that there can be no intent to dispose under Burlington Northern unless the alleged arranger knew, or should have known, that the substance was hazardous. Critics of this decision have noted that Datre’s inquiry into the defendant’s knowledge sits uneasily with CERCLA’s strict liability structure and could be vulnerable if appealed. Nevertheless, Datre and a few similar cases may offer relief to defendants who can plausibly claim that they did not know that the waste was hazardous.

Datre arose from a project to improve a park in the Long Island town of Islip. The Town of Islip alleged that during site development, various unauthorized actors disposed of construction and demolition debris containing hazardous substances in the park, which Islip then had to remove at a cost of $4 million. The arranger defendants are the waste brokers who procured the debris for the trucking firms that dumped it in the park.

The arranger defendants argued that they lacked Burlington Northern’s requisite intent, contending that they could not be held liable because Islip did not allege that they (1) knew that the material would be deposited in the park, or (2) knew that the material was hazardous. Islip countered that the arranger defendants intended that the material be disposed as waste, rather than sold as a useful product, and that this intent to dispose was sufficient for arranger liability.

The Court disagreed with the arranger defendants’ first argument, holding that whether the arranger defendants knew that the waste would be disposed in Islip’s park is irrelevant. The Court, however, agreed with the arranger defendants’ second argument and dismissed the complaint because Islip failed to allege that the arranger defendants knew, or should have known, that the construction and demolition debris contained hazardous substances.

The Court found support for its conclusion from a Wisconsin case, Appleton Papers Inc. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., 2012 WL 270490 (E.D. Wis. July 3, 2012), aff’d sub nom., NCR Corp. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., 768 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2014). The Wisconsin District Court wrote that “it seems doubtful that a defendant can ever be found to be an arranger if he did not know the substance in question is hazardous.” Notably, Appleton Papers’ discussion of knowledge was not essential to that court’s decision and, therefore, can be considered non-binding dicta. Nonetheless, the Court in Datre was persuaded and found that knowledge that a substance was hazardous is a required element of the intent to dispose under Burlington Northern.

As noted above, initial commentary has been critical of Datre. Courts long have interpreted CERCLA to impose strict liability; that is, a party that disposed of a hazardous substance must pay to clean it up regardless of fault. Datre, however, seems to engraft principles of fault onto the determination of arranger liability, particularly with its invitation to inquire whether a defendant should have known that a substance was hazardous. Datre also focuses on culpability. The Court notes that a defendant that did not know it was disposing of a hazardous substance is less culpable than a defendant selling a useful but hazardous product with knowledge that it would be spilled. Burlington Northern holds that the defendant in the latter scenario would not be liable, so the Court reasoned that the less culpable defendant that did not even know it was dealing with a hazardous substance should not be liable either. Typically, courts address these questions of fault and relative culpability when allocating CERCLA cleanup costs among multiple liable parties, not, as in Datre, when deciding whether a party is liable at all. In the typical case, a party that did not know the substance was hazardous might be required to pay less than another party that knew of the hazards, but the ignorant party still would have to pay something.

Although Datre contradicts the usual interpretations of CERCLA, a few other courts have been similarly lenient toward alleged arrangers that disposed of substances that an ordinary person might not expect to be hazardous. In Appleton Papers, the Wisconsin case relied on in Datre, Appleton Papers sold its unwanted PCB-containing paper scraps to other nearby paper mills before 1970. These recycling mills turned the scraps into marketable paper and in the process discharged PCB-laden effluent into the Fox River, which was subject to a multi-million dollar environmental cleanup of PCBs decades later. Although the Appleton Papers Court did not require that the defendant must have known of the exact hazard that eventually arises for liability to attach, selling apparently innocuous bales of paper containing PCBs before PCBs were known to be dangerous is quite different from the typical CERCLA case involving drums of flammable waste chemicals that self-evidently are hazardous. Appleton Papers Inc., 2012 WL 270490, at *11. In a New Jersey case, a developer that spread soils contaminated by pesticides from the land’s prior use as an orchard throughout its new residential development did not intend to dispose of a hazardous substance because the developer “was unaware of the contamination of the soils at the time it developed the Residential Lots.” Bonnieview Homeowners Ass’n v. Woodmont Builders, LLC, 655 F. Supp. 2d 473, 493 (D.N.J. 2009).

Although drawing a distinction between typical CERCLA waste—drums of discarded chemicals—and other unexpectedly hazardous waste generally is helpful to defendants, a narrow interpretation of Datre could provide cold comfort. For example, arguably both the arranger defendants in Datre and the developer in Bonnieview should have known that the substances disposed of could be hazardous, as urban construction and demolition debris often is contaminated and certain pesticides historically applied at farms and orchards now are regulated as hazardous substances. Nonetheless, Datre and other cases discussed herein indicate that some courts are inclined to relieve “unknowing” arrangers from liability, at least in cases where the hazardousness of the waste is not readily apparent.

NJDEP Offers Relief From Strict Compliance With Direct Oversight Requirements for Those Willing to Enter Into Administrative Consent Orders

The Site Remediation Reform Act (“SRRA”) authorizes Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (“LSRPs”) to oversee the remediation of contaminated sites, including selecting and implementing appropriate remedial actions based upon their own professional judgment.  However, if the party responsible for conducting remediation fails to complete the cleanup within mandatory timeframes, and in other limited circumstances, the SRRA authorizes the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (the “NJDEP” or “Department”) to undertake “Direct Oversight” of the work.   Although the Direct Oversight program imposes onerous requirements on remediating parties, it is our understanding that the Department may exercise discretion to provide relief for parties that come forward and demonstrate a willingness to come into compliance and move forward with remediation. 

Representatives of the Department have said since the beginning of the LSRP Program that “being in Direct Oversight is not a place you want to be.”  Those remediating parties that find themselves in Direct Oversight are subject to additional regulatory requirements, financial obligations and potentially significant penalties.  Furthermore, parties in Direct Oversight lose the ability to choose their own remedies as the NJDEP has the ultimate right to select the remedial action for the site, which could result in a more costly and involved remediation.  During Riker Danzig’s annual Site Remediation Seminar earlier this year, Assistant Commissioner Mark Pedersen encouraged those parties that find themselves subject to Direct Oversight to proactively contact the Department to initiate discussions regarding how the subject site will be managed.  He noted that remediating parties may “earn” adjustments to the Direct Oversight requirements through demonstrating the willingness and ability to comply with the Department’s requirements.  Assistant Commissioner Pedersen also noted the Department’s willingness to enter into “pre-purchase Administrative Consent Orders (“ACOs”)” with potential purchasers of contaminated sites subject to Direct Oversight to reduce the requirements for these parties that agree to remediate the site.  This poses a win-win situation in that the potential purchaser receives leniency from the rather draconian Direct Oversight rules and the NJDEP obtains compliance and comfort that the contaminated site will be remediated appropriately.

More recently, we have learned that the Department may enter into ACOs with qualifying responsible parties, wherein the responsible party will agree to remediate under relaxed Direct Oversight requirements.  Prior to entering into the ACO, the responsible party must prepare and submit to the Department a public participation plan, establish a remediation funding source (“RFS”) in the form of a Remediation Trust Fund and agree to pay a penalty.  If the responsible party meets particular timeframes set forth in the ACO, the Department then adjusts the Direct Oversight requirements.  These adjustments may include 1) the ability to use any form of RFS except for a self-guarantee, 2) no requirement to perform a remedial action feasibility study, and 3) the ability for an LSRP, as opposed to NJDEP, to select the remedy for the site.  These adjustments could significantly reduce the costs associated with Direct Oversight and put the decision-making back into the hands of the responsible party through its LSRP.  As such, responsible parties subject to Direct Oversight should consider a proactive approach to compliance and seeking a favorable ACO with the Department.

Putting Substance Over Legal Form, Court Finds Property Owner Eligible for Innocent Party Grant

In September, the Appellate Division determined that the current corporate owner of property qualified for an innocent party grant, which provides remediation funding to pre-1983 purchasers of contaminated property who did not cause the contamination, even though that entity did not obtain title to the property until 2006.  Cedar Knolls 2006, LLC v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Docket  No. A-1405-15T3 (Sept. 20, 2017).

Longtime owners of contaminated property in New Jersey who did not cause the pollution may be eligible for an “innocent party” grant under the Brownfields and Contaminated Site Remediation Act (the “Brownfield Act”).  In addition to being an innocent party, in order to qualify for the grant, the owner must have purchased the property prior to December 31, 1983, and must continue to own the property until such time as the grant is approved.  The NJDEP had denied the grant application of Cedar Knolls 2006, LLC (“Cedar Knolls”), which became the title owner of property in Hanover, New Jersey in 2006 as a result of a series of intra-family trust transfers.  The original owner of the property, John Higginson, had purchased the contaminated parcel in 1977 and then bequeathed it to his wife, who in turn through various trust vehicles transferred her interest in the property to her son, William, who ultimately in 2006 transferred his interests to a limited liability company, Cedar Knolls, which was solely owned by William.      

NJDEP denied Cedar Knolls’ grant application on the basis that the entity was not a person who acquired the property prior to December 31, 1983.  Cedar Knolls sought reconsideration arguing that the intra-family transfers were not a “change in ownership” under New Jersey environmental laws, specifically the Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”). Based upon ISRA’s definition of “change in ownership” that specifically excludes intra-family transfers, Cedar Knolls argued there had been no change in ownership of the property since John’s 1977 acquisition.  

Agreeing with Cedar Knolls, the Appellate Division found that the Brownfields Act and ISRA are “part of a unified legislative strategy to address the remediation of contaminated sites.”  Accordingly, the Court found that it was appropriate to look to the definitions in ISRA to determine what constitutes a “change in ownership” for purposes of the innocent party grant.  In addition, the Court said it was required to liberally construe remedial statutes like the Brownfield Act and ISRA to effectuate the Legislature’s important social goals, which include helping innocent owners defray the cost of remediating contamination.   Thus, the Court found that the Legislature was “more concerned with the substance of ownership and continuity than the technicalities of legal form” and found that because ownership transferred through family members, Cedar Knolls qualifies for the innocent party grant.  Interestingly, the Court did not make a distinction between Cedar Knolls, a limited liability business entity, and a family member, which would be a natural person.          

Based upon this decision, an applicant for an innocent party grant does not have to be the same person, or entity, that purchased the property, when the transfer that vests title in the current owner is not considered a “change in ownership” under ISRA.  Here, the transfers were among family members.  ISRA, however, also excludes other transfers, for example, certain corporate mergers and inter-corporate transfers, from the definition of “change in ownership.”  As a result of this ruling, entities that become the owner of contaminated property as a result of these types of transfers also may be eligible for innocent party grants notwithstanding that their ownership begins after 1983.   

Environmental Group Ranked in Band One in Chambers USA 2017 Rankings

Riker Danzig’s Environmental Practice has again been honored with a Band 1 ranking in the Chambers USA Guide this year. Our group has been consistently ranked in the top tiers of Chambers USA since the publication’s inception and in “Band 1” since 2010. Many of our environmental attorneys are also recognized individually in the Guide. Chambers continues to be one of the most well-respected attorney ranking guides, due to its in-depth research and the unbiased and independent nature of its reporting.

Following are highlights from the editorial commentary, as published in Chambers USA.

Riker Danzig’s Environmental Practice (Band 1):

“Superb environmental group.” “Offers expertise across multiple industries, including banking, real estate, gaming and energy.”

“They’re all great lawyers and great writers, and they have a deep bench!”

Chambers‘ sources note our “collaborative approach,” “depth of resources,” and “cross-border capabilities.”

Dennis Krumholz (Band 1) “Well-respected” and has an outstanding reputation in the market. He is valued by clients for his “highly knowledgeable and professional” approach to matters. He leads the firm’s environmental practice and is an excellent choice of counsel for cost recovery disputes. He also excels in regulatory compliance matters, including ISRA issues.

Samuel Moulthrop (Band 2) A highly regarded and experienced trial lawyer noted for his substantial expertise in complex environmental disputes and government enforcement actions, including significant CERCLA and site remediation cases.

Steve Senior (Band 2) A leading name in his field and draws praise from clients for “his understanding of complex legal issues and ability to communicate those issues in layman’s terms.” He is well versed in handling regulatory and transactional matters, including brownfield redevelopment, site remediation and ISRA issues.

Jeff Wagenbach (Band 3) A sophisticated environmental practitioner who has a wealth of experience in CERCLA and Spill Act cost recovery cases and CAA claims. One appreciative client notes his “timeliness, judgment, experience, and practical advice and counsel.”

Marilynn Greenberg (Band 3) Has a broad-ranging practice, with an emphasis on transactional and permitting matters, and has notable expertise in brownfield redevelopment issues. A satisfied client enthuses: “She is one of the best lawyers I’ve worked with - she’s a great writer and a tireless advocate.”

Alexa Richman-La Londe (Band 3) “Great” lawyer noted for her litigation strengths and maintains a fine track record in Spill Act cost recovery and CERCLA disputes. Sources reserve particular praise for her responsiveness and ability to deal with difficult complications that arise during complex cases.

Jaan Haus (Associates to watch) “Excellent environmental lawyer” particularly recognized for his adept counsel on site remediation matters, and is a noted authority on the Site Remediation Reform Act. He is also highlighted for his representation of clients in Spill Act and CERCLA disputes.

Many of Riker Danzig’s other practice areas and attorneys have also been ranked in the prestigious guide. Full rankings, commentary, and methodology are available at Chambers.

See www.riker.com/awards-and-honors-methodology. Above quotes from Chambers USA 2017. No aspect of this communication has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.


 Regulatory Update

New Jersey Department of Protection

New Jersey’s Site Remediation Program Is Making Real Progress

Recently, the 10,000th Response Action Outcome (“RAO”) was issued under the New Jersey Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (“LSRP”) Program. As a result, NJDEP Commissioner Bob Martin lauded the LSRP Program for this significant milestone and for its “real progress in addressing contamination” in the state.

Prior to the enactment of the LSRP Program, site remediation in New Jersey faced significant delays because of administrative backlog. In 2009, the site remediation process in New Jersey was overhauled by the Site Remediation Reform Act (“SRRA”) with the goal of increasing the pace of remediation in order to decrease the threat of contamination to the public and to quickly restore underutilized properties to productive use. The LSRP program set mandatory timeframes for completing certain investigatory and remedial tasks and placed a priority on addressing immediate environmental concerns and imposed stricter requirements for remediating sensitive sites like schools, child-care facilities and residential housing.

Mark Pedersen, NJDEP’s Assistant Commissioner, commented that the LSRP Program has enabled the Department to devote resources to cases with potentially greater impact. In fact, of the 14,075 current cases, 9,045 are assigned to an LSRP.

For more information please visit www.nj.gov/dep/srp.

United States Environmental Protection Agency

USEPA Establishes Guidance for Delegating Coal Combustion Residual Permit Programs to the States

On August 10, 2017, the EPA issued guidelines for states on how to establish permit programs for the management and disposal of coal combustion residuals (“CCR”). While states are not required to identically mirror the federal program, state programs do have to be “at least as protective” as the federal CCR requirements. According to the EPA, the purpose of the guidance is to make the approval process clear and to assist the states with obtaining authority over CCR regulation.

The flexibility granted to the states includes the ability for the states to determine 1) the timing of remedial actions, 2)whetherremedial action of a spill is necessary and, 3) whether to suspend groundwater monitoring requirements once certain conditions are met. If the EPA approves the state’s program, the state will be granted authority to enforce the CCR rules through its permitting program.

New Jersey Legislative Update

Recently Enacted Environmental Laws

P.L.2017, c.112 (S2914)  Precludes NJDEP from imposing certain certification requirements on installers of individual subsurface sewage disposal systems.  

P.L.2017, c.136 (S3027)  Establishes state food waste reduction goal of 50 percent by 2030.    

P.L.2017, c.142 (S3240)  Authorizes New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust to expend certain sums to make loans for environmental infrastructure projects for FY2018.  

P.L.2017, c.143 (S3241)  Appropriates funds for NJDEP for environmental infrastructure projects for FY2018.  

P.L.2017, c.144 (S3242)  Clarifies procedures for approval of environmental and transportation infrastructure projects.  

P.L.2017, c.199 (S2884)  Declares that deed restrictions or agreements that prevent raising or constructing of a structure to certain flood elevation standards are unenforceable. 

Recently Introduced Environmental Bills

A693 / A540:  Requires State compensation of property owners for certain property devalued due to certain environmental laws; and requires State agencies to evaluate proposed administrative rules for potential to constitute taking of real property.  Status: Pending in Assembly State Government Committee.  

A960 / S1030:  Imposes criminal penalties for discharge of untreated sewage from containment devices installed on watercraft.  Status: Pending in Senate Environment and Energy Committee.  

A1352:  Concerns regulation of solid waste, hazardous waste, and recycling industries - implementing recommendations concerning the circumvention of oversight in the solid waste and recycling industries.  Status: Reported from Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee with Amendments, second reading in Senate.    

A1353 / S575:  Concerns combined sewer overflows; establishes Combined Sewer Overflow Solutions Fund; exempts improvements thereto from 2% property tax cap; and appropriates $5 million.  Status: Pending in Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee.  

A1356:  Requires owner or operator of industrial establishment applying for de minimus exemption from “Industrial Site Recovery Act” to certify as to no actual knowledge of contamination exceeding remediation standards.  Status: Introduced; pending in Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee.  

A2076:  Establishes de minimis levels for regulation of air contaminants and hazardous air pollutants, and directs NJDEP to establish de minimis levels for regulation of hazardous substances.  Status: Introduced; pending in Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee.  

A4880 / S3351:  Amends law to limit NJDEP’s direct oversight of remediation of portion of contaminated site under certain circumstances.  Status: Introduced; pending in Senate Environment and Energy Committee.  

S1237 / A1954:  Makes changes to funding provisions for financial assistance grants from Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund.  Status: Passed by the Assembly; pending in Senate Environment and Energy.  

S1368 / A3039:  Requires NJDEP to obtain legislative approval and authorization before increasing a fee or imposing a new fee, but retains NJDEP authority to use ordinary administrative procedure when decreasing a fee.  Status: Introduced; pending in Assembly Regulatory Oversight and Reform and Federal Relations Committee.  

S2306 / A1352:  Concerns regulation of solid waste, hazardous waste, and soil and debris recycling industries.  Status: Introduced; pending in Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee.  

S3351 / A4880:  Amends law to limit NJDEP’s direct oversight of remediation of portion of contaminated site under certain circumstances.  Status: Passed by the Assembly; pending in Senate Environment and Energy Committee.

Updated Status of Previously Reported Environmental Bills  

A2463 / S806:  Requires owner or operator of certain trains to have discharge response, cleanup, and contingency plans to transport certain hazardous materials by rail; requires NJDOT to request bridge inspection reports from USDOT.  Status: Passed both Houses; S806 Substituted for A2463.  Conditional veto;  received in Senate.  

A4306:  Requires NJDEP to adopt statewide plan to reduce lead exposure from contaminated soils and drinking water.  Status: Pending in Assembly Appropriations Committee; pending in Senate Environment and Energy Committee.  

AR175 / SR80:  Opposes construction of hazardous waste incinerator in Falls Township, Pennsylvania due to the high probability of pollution from both permitted and accidental discharges that would affect air quality in the region and the water quality of the Delaware River, the Delaware Bay, the Chesapeake Bay, and other bodies of water.  Status: Out of Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee with Amendments, second reading in Assembly; pending in Senate Environment and Energy Committee.  Passed by the Assembly;  filed with the Secretary of State.  

AR219 / SR107: Urges relevant federal and State authorities to investigate actions taken by Argentinian state oil company to discharge Superfund obligations through bankruptcy proceedings.  Status: Pending in Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee; pending in Senate Environment and Energy Committee.  Filed with Secretary of State.  

S2712:  Prohibits dumping dredge spoils on and around certain islands without municipal approval.  Status: Pending in Senate Environment and Energy Committee.  Pending in Environment and Solid Waste Committee;  pending in Senate Environment and Energy Committee.