In a decision last week that has raised both concern and speculation, a New Jersey appellate court ruled that owners of properties containing small amounts of
pollution do not have to prove the properties are clean before selling
them.  

The New Jersey Sierra Club responded with an immediate declaration that the court had  “ruled in favor of polluters over the public health.”

 “With over 20,000 contaminated sites in the state, virtually all residents will be impacted by this Court decision,” warned Sierra Club Director Jeff Tittel. 

For thorough coverage of environmental news, issues, legislation and regulation in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, try a free subscription to EnviroPolitics, our daily newsletter that also tracks environment/energy bills–from introduction to enactment
***********************************************************************************************************

Sounds pretty drastic, doesn’t it? 

Yes, except for the fact that the appellate panel took pains to note that their decision would not have a wide environmental impact. The court wrote that the decision answered a “narrow question” over whether the DEP was authorized to adopt such a regulatory requirement under applicable state environmental cleanup laws, primarily ISRA, the Industrial Site Recovery Act of 1993.

In its July 6 decision, the court also suggested a way to fix the problem, noting that the state Legislature could act to “explicitly and
unambiguously” require such cleanup assurances (by amending the law) or lawmakers could give the DEP the power to adopt and enforce those types of regulations.

The court also stayed its decision for 30 days, giving the state time to decide whether to appeal.  

In a bulletin to clients of the firm, Cole Schotz environmental attorney Gerard M. Giordano writes:

“There has been much press recently indicating that this is a big “win”
for business.  However, the reality is that this is a very limited
decision with very limited applicability.  

 “The ISRA statute specifically allows an exemption to its requirements if
an applicant can show that it handled less than certain specific
quantities of hazardous substances.  NJDEP added one more requirement
while updating the regulations promulgated under the statute; that the
applicant must also certify to the best of their knowledge that the
property is not contaminated. Simply put, the court found that NJDEP’s
additional requirement was not authorized by the ISRA statute, and that
NJDEP went beyond the bounds of its authority when it adopted that
regulation.

“This decision does not change the fact that if there is contamination at
the property, the owner or operator may still be required to
investigate and cleanup the contamination under other environmental
statutes.”

You can read Mr. Giordano’s full comments here.