Environmental & Energy Law Monitor : Environmental & Energy Lawyer & Attorney : Cole Schotz Meisel Forman & Leonard Law Firm : NJ, Mid-Atlantic Brownfield & Climate Change Law

When hiring an environmental consultant, it is important to carefully review the terms and conditions governing the agreement between you and your consultant.  One of the key components of the professional services agreement is the section dealing with the consultant’s potential liability for its own negligence.  Consulting firms will often look to limit their liability to the contract price or some other nominal amount.  Richard Ericsson and David Steinberger of the Cole Schotz Environmental Law Department discuss this issue and a recent New Jersey court decision in an article titled, "Be Aware of Your Consultant’s Liability Limit."

In its decision, the Appellate Division upheld a consultant’s contract which limited the consultant’s liability to $25,000.  In that case, the consultant, retained by a real estate buyer for pre-acquisition due diligence, had grossly underestimated the cost to clean up the property.  The consultant’s initial cleanup cost estimate was between $13,000 to $17,000, while the final cleanup cost estimate was over $3 Million.  Nevertheless, the court upheld the consultant’s contractual liability limit of $25,000.  This case reinforces the need to carefully review professional services agreements to make sure you are adequately protected.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the Matter of Crompton Colors, Inc., No. A 0778 09T1 (App. Div. 10/27/11), the NJ Appellate Division ruled that a property owner is entitled to have an administrative hearing regarding the rescission of a no further action letter (“NFA Letter”) by the DEP.  In this case, a subsidiary of Hartz Mountain Industries, a former landlord of an industrial tenant named Crompton Colors, Inc., appealed DEP’s rescission of an NFA Letter issued in 2002 and the denial of its request for a hearing to contest the decision. 

Hartz purchased the property located in Bloomfield, NJ in 1965 and leased to Peerless Bindery.  The property consisted of a warehouse and an office building.  In 1990, the buildings were demolished and a 10,000 gallon heating oil underground storage tank was removed.  According to the Report submitted by Hartz to DEP, petroleum product was encountered in the soil and floating on the groundwater.  The impacted soil was subsequently excavated and the floating oil was removed.  Although groundwater monitoring wells initially did not detect any contamination, a second round of sampling revealed slight exceedences for petroleum constituents.  At that point, additional soil was removed from this area and residual petroleum in fill material was left in place and covered with the newly constructed warehouse concrete slab.

The property was subdivided into two lots in 1991.  One lot was occupied by the new warehouse that was leased by a predecessor of Crompton Colors and the second lot was leased to a daycare center.  A Remedial Action Work Plan was submitted to DEP in January of 1996, which was found by DEP to be unacceptable.  Hartz then submitted a Remedial Investigation Report that discussed the results of the supplemental soil and groundwater sampling, which showed elevated levels of semi volatile organic compounds that are typical of urban fill material.  As the contamination was detected in an area that is located up-gradient from the former tank, the report concluded that the contaminants were unrelated to the tank.  The DEP issued an NFA Letter with respect to the former tank but required further investigation to confirm that the source of the contamination was from an off site source.  Hartz did not implement the requested additional investigation.  The environmental documents referenced the street address as 60 West Street, which represented the original address of the undivided property.  However, after the property had been subdivided, the warehouse facility was known as 50 West Street.

In 2001, the Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”) was triggered when Crompton Colors ceased operations at the warehouse.  Crompton Colors filed the appropriate paperwork using the 50 West Street address relying on the prior tank NFA letter.  However, DEP responded that the site known as 50 West Street was not eligible for an expedited review because it had not been previously issued an NFA Letter.  Crompton Colors then prepared and submitted a Preliminary Assessment, along with revised paperwork with the correct lot number requesting DEP issue an NFA.  Crompton Colors did not disclose, however, the presence of soil and groundwater contamination that had been identified in the 1996 NFA Letter.  In 2002, DEP issued the NFA Letter for the Crompton Colors’ ISRA case.

In 2004, DEP was under pressure to re-evaluate closed cases in response to a situation where a daycare facility began operating at a former thermometer manufacturing facility where significant mercury contamination was discovered.  As a result of this incident, DEP mapped all known childcare centers and schools within a 500 foot radius of contaminated sites and re-examined all open and closed DEP cases within the radius to determine whether any of these properties could adversely impact the childcare facilities.  As a result of the childcare center being located at the Bloomfield property, DEP reviewed the 2002 NFA determination and concluded that the contamination not addressed by Hartz in 1996 was located at 50 West Street.  Therefore, DEP rescinded the NFA Letter issued in 2002 and directed Hartz and Crompton’s successor, Chemtura, to investigate potential vapor intrusion concerns at the childcare center.

Hartz argued that DEP did not have the basis to reopen the case or the authority to require a vapor intrusion study and requested an administrative hearing.  DEP rejected the claims that the contamination was from an off site source as they concluded that the nearest potential off site source was more than a ½ mile away in a down-gradient location.  The DEP also denied the request for a hearing, stating that DEP was merely requesting Hartz to submit documentation and perform studies Hartz should have done as part of its original application in 2002. 

The Appellate Division stated that the revocation of the NFA was a rescission of the permission DEP provided Hartz in 2002 to convey the property free and clear of any remedial obligations under ISRA.  The Court found that the directives to perform environmental studies fell in the purview of N.J.S.A. 13:1K 13.1b, which expressly provides that DEP is required to give a recipient of an order requiring abatement of a violation notice of its rights to a hearing.  Although Hartz will now be afforded the opportunity to participate in an administrative hearing, it must present evidence that challenges DEP’s conclusion that the contamination that triggered the “reopener” is not from an off site source.  As the DEP is typically given significant discretion over technical determinations, Hartz will be hard pressed to show DEP acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and have DEP’s decision over turned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Being able to dispose of wastewater is a key element in any development, redevelopment or expansion project.  However, a process is underway in New Jersey that may remove properties from existing sewer service areas. 

The New Jersey Water Quality Planning Act requires, among other things, that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection establish a planning process for wastewater management.  NJDEP adopted the Water Quality Management Planning Rules, which were amended in 2008. 

Counties are generally responsible for developing a Wastewater Management Plan  which governs, in part, the distribution of sewer service within the County.  Several counties (Bergen, Passaic, Union and Warren), however, have “opted out” and will not be issuing Wastewater Management Plans.  In those cases, a regional utility authority or municipality establishes the plan for NJDEP approval. 

Generally, the Wastewater Management Plan compares the available treatment capacity of existing wastewater treatment plants with expected demand from future development.  If that analysis shows that there could be a shortage of wastewater treatment capacity based upon possible future development, then properties will need to be excluded from the applicable sewer service area to limit the future wastewater demand.  Additionally, the NJDEP rules do not allow sewer service in areas identified by the NJDEP as “environmentally sensitive areas”.  Environmentally sensitive areas include, for instance, certain wetlands and threatened and endangered species habitat.  If the NJDEP believes that your property includes environmentally sensitive areas, then it would be excluded from the future sewer service area.

The process of redrawing sewer service area maps is currently underway statewide, and many properties may be removed from sewer service areas.  In redrawing these maps, the NJDEP may be using out-dated and unreliable data.  For instance, the NJDEP computer mapping may show a wetland on your property, while on the ground there are no wetlands.  Nevertheless, once the sewer service area maps are finalized, there will be a presumption that the NJDEP maps of environmentally sensitive areas are valid.  It will therefore be very difficult to challenge the final sewer service area maps.  A much better course of action is to challenge the draft sewer service area maps.

Finally, if you are excluded from a sewer service area, don’t count on using a septic system to handle your wastewater – the NJDEP has tightened the standards applicable to septic systems too.

It is therefore critical to determine – right now – whether your property is being slated for removal from the sewer service area.  Again, this should be done before the new maps go into effect, because it will be easier to correct the draft map than revise a final map.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Cole Schotz is pleased to welcome Richard J. Ericsson as the Chair of the Environmental Law Department.

Mr. Ericsson regularly counsels clients on the impact of environmental laws on corporate and property transactions and financing, the clean up and redevelopment of contaminated properties, responding to governmental enforcement actions, and air, water and waste regulatory compliance.

Mr. Ericsson can be reached at 201-525-6346 or rericsson@coleschotz.com.

Please click here to view the full press release.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The final installment of this three part series describes what employers should expect after an OSHA inspection as well as the employers’ rights.

1.  What happens after OSHA completes its inspection?

Unless your establishment is in full compliance with OSHA’s standards, you will receive a “Citation and Notification of Penalty” from OSHA.  Generally, OSHA has up to six months after it initiates the inspection to issue a Citation.  A Citation includes: the type of violation (classification); the standard, regulation or section of the Occupational Safety and Health Act that was violated; a description of the violation; the abatement date; and the penalty. 

A. The alleged violation could fall into one of the following categories:

Willful - A willful violation is a violation in which the employer knew that a hazardous condition, which violated a standard, regulation or a section of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, existed but made no reasonable effort to eliminate it.  If the willful violation results in a death, OSHA can seek criminal sanctions against an employer.

Serious - A serious violation exists:

if there is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a condition which exists, or from one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes which have been adopted or are in use, in such place of employment unless the employer did not, and could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence, know of the presence of the violation.

Repeat - OSHA may cite an employer for a repeated violation if:

(A) the employer has been cited previously for a substantially similarviolation;

(B) the previous citation containing the substantially similar violation has become final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission; and

(C) the current violation occurred within 5 years from the date that the earlier citation became final order or from the final abatement date, whichever is later.

Other-Than-Serious - An other than serious violation exists where an accident or illness that could occur from a violation “would probably not cause death or serious physical harm but would have a direct and immediate relationship on the safety and health of employees.”

De Minimis – A de minimis violation is a “violation of a standard that has no direct or immediate relationship to safety and health.”

In addition, an employer can also be cited for failure to correct a previously cited condition.  The Occupational Safety and Health Act allows OSHA to assess penalties for each day a violation continues past the final abatement date.

B. Section of OSHA Standard Violated and Description of the Violation

The citation must also describe the violation and section of OSHA’s standard that was violated.

C. Abatement Date

The abatement date is the date by which the violation must be corrected.  The abatement period is “the shortest interval within which the employer can reasonably be expected to correct the violation.”  Abatement dates are usually discussed at the closing conference.  In determining the abatement date the inspector generally considers the following factors:

(a) The seriousness of the alleged violation;

(b) the equipment, material and/or personnel needed to correct the alleged violation and their availability;

(c) the time period to obtain the necessary material for correcting the violation;

(d) the time period to construct or install the abatement equipment; and

(e) the time period to train personnel.

If an employer is unable to meet an abatement date because of some uncontrollable circumstance, the employer can petition the OSHA Area Director to modify the abatement date contained in the Citation.

D. Penalty

The Citation also sets forth the penalty assessed by OSHA.  OSHA is authorized to assess the following civil penalties: $70,000 for each willful or repeated violation; $7,000 for each serious or other than serious violation; $7,000 for each violation of the posting requirement; and $7,000 per day beyond a stated abatement date for failure to correct a violation.

Penalties are calculated once a violation is classified.  In calculating penalties OSHA takes into account the following factors:  the seriousness of the violation; the number of employees employed by the employer; the employer’s good faith as demonstrated by the employer’s efforts to comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Act and OSHA’s standards and regulations; and the employer’s past history of compliance.  OSHA can, at its discretion, reduce the maximum penalty that it will impose after considering these factors.

2. If OSHA issues citations to my company, what should I do?

Once you receive a Citation, you must post the Citation at or near the place where each violation occurred so that it will be conspicuous to employees.  The purpose of this is to make employees aware of the hazards to which they may be exposed.  The Citation must remain posted for three (3) working days or until the violation is corrected, whichever is longer.  You are required to comply with these posting requirements even if you subsequently decide to contest the Citation.

You have two choices once you receive a Citation.  The first option is you can comply with the Citation.  That is, you can correct the alleged violations by the date specified in the Citation and pay any penalty that may have been assessed.  If you do not contest the Citation, the Citation will become a final order in fifteen (15) working days after receiving the Citation.  Once the Citation is a final order, it will be binding and not subject to review by any court or agency.

The second option available to you is to contest the Citation.  You have fifteen (15) working days from the date of receipt of the Citation to contest the Citation.

However, before you decide which course to take, you should take advantage of an OSHA process known as the Informal Conference.  You must request and schedule the Informal Conference with the OSHA Area Office that issued the Citation within the fifteen (15) working day contest period.

If you cannot reach a settlement agreement with OSHA at the informal conference, you may wish to contest the Citation.  Generally, a notice of intent to contest all or any portion of the Citation must be submitted in writing to the OSHA Area Office that issued the Citation within fifteen (15) working days after the receipt of the Citation.

3. Should I challenge the OSHA citations?

There is no universal formula to assess whether you should challenge the OSHA Citation.  The decision must be made in good faith and based on the facts, which include consideration of alleged violation, its impact on employee health and safety, the classification of the violation, the method of abatement and the cost involved in abating the alleged violation.

4. If I do challenge an OSHA citation, what should I expect?

Once you file a notice of contest, jurisdiction over the matter vests with the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the “Commission”).  The Commission, sometimes called “OSHRC,” is an independent agency not connected in any way with OSHA.  Its primary purpose is to decide contested cases arising from Citations issued by OSHA.  It does not perform investigations or promulgate standards.

Once the Notice of Contest is filed with the OSHA Area Office that issued the Citation, the OSHA Area Director will forward a copy of the Notice of Contest to the Commission.  The Commission will appoint an Administrative Law Judge who will preside over the hearing and render a decision, which can be appealed by the employer or OSHA.

5. How can I clear my company’s record from any citations issued by OSHA?

There is no method to clear your company’s record of past Citations issued by OSHA.  However, the longer your company operates without OSHA Citations the better.  OSHA can use past Citations as a basis to issue Citations that have a more severe classification with increased penalties.  For instance, if OSHA re inspects your company in the future, it can issue repeated violations for conditions that were violated during the original inspection.

6. Can OSHA re-inspect my facility?  If so, is there any action that I can take to prevent OSHA from inspecting my facility in the future?

Yes, OSHA can re-inspect your facility.  You cannot prevent OSHA from re inspecting your facility in the future, but you can minimize the chances of that occurring by being proactive.  By establishing safety and health programs that incorporate coordination and communication of safety and health issues among personnel; means for planning and implementing needed training and job orientation for employees; and means for identifying and controlling workplace hazardous and monitoring the effectiveness of such program, you can minimize workplace hazards and thus, reduce the chances of OSHA re-inspecting your facility.  In certain situations you may want to utilize the services of a safety and health consultant to assess your workplace and make recommendations to better comply with OSHA’s standards.  Your lawyer can assist you with deciding whether to retain a consultant to evaluate your workplace.

7. If OSHA re-inspects my facility, should I expect the same result as the initial inspection?

The answer to this question is dependent on your company’s response to the initial inspection and your company’s commitment to health and safety.  Only by being proactive and implementing programs that protect employees can you reduce the possibility of future OSHA enforcement actions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This article, the second of a three part series, focuses on OSHA’s procedures during an inspection and outlines what employers should and should not do during an inspection.

1. What should I do or not do during an inspection?

There are certain actions that you should take to protect your interest during an OSHA inspection.  These actions include:

(a)     Check the inspector’s identification to ensure he/she is who he/she says he/she is.

(b)     Ascertain from the inspector the reason for the inspection.  If the inspection is the result of a complaint, you should request a copy of the complaint.

(c)     Have someone from management escort the inspector through the entire inspection process i.e., from opening to closing conference.

(d)     Document the inspector’s activities i.e, areas inspected, interviews, measurements taken, etc..

(e)     If the inspector performs any monitoring i.e., noise or air monitoring, you should consider performing similar monitoring at the same time.  The purpose of the “side by side” monitoring will allow you to document and confirm the results obtained by OSHA.

(f)      Request the results of all monitoring performed by the inspector.

(g)     At the closing conference, if the inspector indicates that violations have been found, determine why certain conditions constitute a violation.  In addition, you should request from the inspector recommended methods to correct any alleged violations.

(h)     Consult your attorney at the time an OSHA inspection is initiated and if at any time you are unsure how to respond to a certain requests made by the inspector.

The following is a list of “don’ts”:

(a)     You should not forcibly interfere with the conduct of an inspection.

(b)     You should not discriminate against or punish any employee who cooperates with OSHA or who may exercise his or her rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

(c)     You should not provide the compliance officer with false or misleading information.  Providing false information to OSHA is punishable as a crime under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

(d)     You should not argue with or antagonize an inspector during an inspection.

2. How long will OSHA be at my facility?

OSHA will remain at your facility until it completes its investigation.  The inspection could last a couple of hours or up to several months.  The length of time is determined by the scope of the inspection i.e., whether it is confined to one area or the entire facility.  It is also dependent on the type of inspection.  That is, whether the inspector will be required to make subsequent visits to the facility to perform monitoring to establish employee exposure to workplace contaminants or noise.

3. Do I have to let my employees talk to the OSHA inspector?

OSHA inspectors are authorized to use various investigatory techniques, such as observing employees’ activities in the workplace, conducting employee interviews, and taking photographs and measurements in the workplace (i.e., air and noise monitoring).

The Occupational Safety and Health Act authorizes OSHA to interview employees privately to obtain whatever information is necessary or useful for the inspector to perform his or her inspection effectively.  The interviews, however, must be conducted in a reasonable manner and within a reasonable time limit.  If they appear to be unreasonable, you should consult your attorney.  On occasions, interviews may be conducted at locations other than the workplace (e.g., employee’s house or OSHA Area office).  OSHA’s regulations afford any employee the right to bring any alleged violation to the attention of the inspector.

OSHA inspectors are also authorized to take photographs or videos whenever such are deemed necessary.  Generally, an employer cannot prohibit an inspector from taking photographs or videos because a certain process or equipment is a trade secret.  To protect a trade secret, you should inform the inspector of the process or equipment that is proprietary.  Once informed of trade secret status, the inspector is obligated to treat the information obtained from the inspection in a manner assuring confidentiality.

In order for OSHA to document employee exposure to chemical or physical hazards, it is often necessary for the inspector to perform monitoring.  Typically, during the walkthrough phase of the inspection the inspector will identify certain areas where monitoring must be performed.  The inspector may then return on another day to perform the monitoring, which may last for the full term of the work shift.

Monitoring employees for chemical and/or physical hazards usually consists of placing monitoring devices such as air samplers or noise dosimeters on the employees.  The employer may not object to such investigatory procedures.  Once the monitoring devices are placed on the employees, the inspector will observe the employees throughout the day and document their work practices, use of personal protective equipment and other relevant information.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A significant number of businesses are likely to find themselves face-to-face with an inspector from OSHA, and many will be caught off guard.  We recommend that businesses take a two-pronged approach to OSHA compliance.

First, make every effort to comply with OSHA’s safety and health rules to protect your employees.  Second, be prepared in the event OSHA initiates an inspection at your establishment.  If you have a plan in place that provides guidance to your managers, describe the procedures employed by OSHA and what to expect during an inspection, you can minimize disruption of your business and possibly adverse consequences.

This is a three-part series to assist employers and familiarize them with OSHA and its procedures.  Part One will focus on OSHA’s function, who is subject to OSHA’s requirements and what OSHA looks for during an inspection.

Part Two describes an actual step-by-step inspection and outlines suggested procedures for employers to follow.  The third and final part describes what an employer should expect following an inspection and the employers’ rights and obligations.

1. What is OSHA and what does it do?

OSHA or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, is an agency within the United States Department of Labor.  OSHA’s primary function to protect employees by inspecting workplaces to ensure that employers comply with the safety and health standards promulgated by OSHA. 

2. Who is subject to OSHA’s requirements?

Most private sector employers and their employees are subject to OSHA’s requirements.  Employees employed by state and local governments are not covered by OSHA.  Likewise, certain private sector workers are exempt from OSHA’s requirements.  Specifically excluded are self employed individuals, farm workers where only immediate members of the farm employer’s family are employed and workers at facilities where safety and health is regulated by other federal agencies under separate federal statutes.

3. If OSHA shows up at my facility, do I have to allow the inspector in my facility?

In most cases, OSHA must either obtain your consent or a valid warrant authorizing an inspection before entering your facility to perform an inspection.  The inspector who arrives at your workplace, may not inform you of your rights.

If denied entry to perform an inspection without a warrant, OSHA has the authority to obtain a warrant by ex parte application to the United States District Court (i.e., OSHA will ask the court to issue a warrant to allow the inspection).  If OSHA seeks a warrant, you will not receive advance notice that OSHA is seeking a warrant or receive copies of any materials supplied to the court by OSHA in applying for the warrant. 

The decision regarding whether to allow OSHA to inspect your facility is not always clear cut.  We recommend that you discuss your options with your lawyer and have a plan in place should an OSHA inspector show up.  That plan should be made as a matter of company policy developed prior to the actual inspection.  Your managers and key employees should be familiar with the plan and who to contact should they have questions.

4. What does OSHA look for?

There are three phases to an OSHA inspection, the opening conference, the walkthrough and the closing conference.

At the opening conference, the inspector will seek general information concerning your business (e.g., name, address, etc.) as well as your safety and health program.  For instance, the inspector may inquire into the following:

• The details of your company’s safety and health program;
• How information on your company’s safety and health program is communicated to employees;
• How your company enforces violations of its safety and health rules;
• The type of safety and health training programs that your company has established and how they are implemented;
• How your company performs an accident investigation and whether your company implements preventative measures as a result of the investigation; and
• Whether the OSHA Notice is posted on site in your facility.

In addition, the inspector will request access to the records that you are required to maintain under the OSHA’s standards (e.g., injury and illness records and Hazard Communication Records, etc.).

The next phase of the OSHA inspections is the walkthrough.  The main purpose of the walk-through is to allow the inspector to identify potential safety and/or health hazards in the workplace.  You and the employee representative will be given the opportunity to accompany the inspector.

During this phase of the inspection the inspector will assess your safety and health program, collect information on your business and document any hazards found in the workplace.

The final phase of the OSHA inspection is the closing conference.  The inspector is required to have a closing conference with you and the employee representative.  At the closing conference the inspector is required to describe any and all alleged violations that were observed during the inspection and identify the applicable sections of the OSHA standards or Occupational Safety and Health Act that were allegedly violated.  The violations that are found by the inspector will be outlined in a Citation.  Citations are not issued at the closing conference, but are issued at a later date under the signature of the Area Director.  In addition, the inspector is required to advise you and the employee representative of your rights following an OSHA inspection.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This article is a follow-up to our prior post of July 31, 2009 dealing with this issue.  As you may know, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) enacted a notification and public outreach rule, N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.4 et seq., in September of 2008.  The regulation requires responsible parties who are conducting an environmental investigation or remediation at contaminated sites to provide various public notifications and outreach activities.  In general, the notification letters contain the name of the responsible party, address, tax block and lot, NJDEP ID number, brief description of the type of contaminant and actions being taken, contact information and a statement indicating the municipality may request that the person conducting the remediation provide copies of all environmental reports.  The regulation provided that most of these notifications had to be completed prior to September 2, 2009. 

As the cases have progressed and the new Licensed Site Remediation Professional Program has been implemented, responsible parties may have been distracted from the details of this public notification rule.  Specifically, the public notification and outreach requirements are continual.  If a responsible party chose to comply with its public notification requirements by sending letters to owners and operators of property within 200 feet of the site boundary instead of posting a sign, updated notification letters detailing the current condition and progress of their remediation must be sent every 2 years until all the required remediation is completed and the final remediation document is filed or issued (No Further Action Letter or Response Action Outcome).  Therefore, if you sent out public notification letters prior to the former September 2, 2009 deadline and your cleanup is not yet complete, you must issue updated public notification letters prior to September 2, 2011.  Two years ago, we were skeptical as to the reaction the public would have to these notification letters, but for the most part, the reaction has not been significant or problematic.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the case of Litgo v. Martin, 2011 WL 65933 (D.N.J. Jan. 7, 2011) the federal District Court of New Jersey held that a shareholder of a single-purpose entity that owns a contaminated facility is liable as a current operator under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601 et al. (“CERCLA”).  In 1983, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) was ordered to clean up a property located in Newark, New Jersey.  NJDEP removed drums of hazardous waste from the Newark site and stored them at a warehouse located at 40 Haynes Road, Somerville, New Jersey (the “Site”).  The warehouse at the Site was determined to be contaminated with hazardous substances.

While the remediation at this Site was being conducted by NJDEP, plaintiff Sheldon Goldstein entered into negotiations with the current owner of the Site.  On August 6, 1985, the current owner of this Site entered into an agreement to sell the Site to plaintiff Goldstein.  Subsequently a dispute broke out over the sale of the Site and the Court ultimately ordered the plaintiff Goldstein to take title to the Site.  On February 14, 1990, plaintiff Goldstein took title to the Site and pursuant to the contract of sale assumed the obligations to clean up the Site.  On April 14, 1990, plaintiff Goldstein transferred the Site to plaintiff Litgo New Jersey, Inc.

In 2006, plaintiffs filed suit against NJDEP alleging that the State failed to properly remediate the Site.  Plaintiffs’ suit was under various claims including CERCLA.  The NJDEP filed a counterclaim.  At trial, the District Court found that plaintiff Goldstein, as a shareholder in Litgo, the current owner of the Site, was liable under CERCLA as a current operator.  On a motion for reconsideration, the Court upheld the trial Court’s determination regarding plaintiff Goldstein’s liability as an operator.

The plaintiffs argued that Goldstein’s involvement with the cleanup of this Site was insufficient to impose liability on Goldstein as a current operator under CERCLA.  The Court addressing this issue explained that under CERCLA, past owners and operators are liable only to the extent that a discharge of hazardous substances occurred at the Site during their ownership or operations.  However, current owners and operators are liable under CERCLA regardless of whether hazardous substances were discharged at the Site during their ownership or at the time they operated at a site.  The Court observed that the parties do not dispute that Litgo, as a current owner of the Site, is liable under CERCLA.  The Court, however, dismissed the plaintiffs’ argument that Goldstein could not be held liable as a current operator.  The Court, distinguishing the cases relied upon by the Plaintiffs, concluded that because of his involvement with this Site, the plaintiff Goldstein could be liable as a current operator.  The Court specifically noted the following:

Plaintiffs have been involved with the property for two decades and were responsible for environmental compliance decisions and decisions not to proceed with the remediation. … We believed the decision to delay remediation may have increased the threat to the environment and public health. ... Given these considerations, the Court is not persuaded that it should reconsider its decision as to Goldstein’s liability.

The instructive value of this case is that sole shareholders of single entity companies can be held liable under CERCLA to cleanup contamination for which its company is responsible.  Factors that will be used in determining whether a shareholder should be held liable is the actual control the shareholder has over the day to day operations of the company causing the contamination.  By being proactive and ensuring compliance with environmental laws can a sole shareholder minimize exposure to liability for environmental contamination.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link