Search New Jersey Administrative Reports Series 1


Full-Text Synopsis Case Title Agency

 Results for Query: environmental protection   1 to 10 of 49 results.
Run time: 0.014 seconds | Search time: 0.000 seconds    

1 2 3 4 5 Next 10

1 N.J.A.R. 454-- rank: 1000
Case Title: Powell, A.C., Health Care Center v. Environmental Protection, Department of
1980
Regulating Agency: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Formats: DjVu | PDF
KWIC Output: ... Page A.C. POWELL HEALTH CARE CENTER, Petitioner, V. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Respondent. Decided June 18, 1980 Initial Decision SYNOPSIS Petitioner, A ... construct a 120- bed nursing facility within an area designated for protection by the Coastal Area Facility Review Act, N.J.S ... act, any such construction must be approved by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). After a review of the project, the acting ...
Case Synopsis: Petitioner, A.C. Powell Health Care Center, sought to construct a 120- bed nursing facility within an area designated for protection by the Coastal Area Facility Review Act, N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq. By the terms of the act, any such construction must be approved by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). After a review of the project, the acting director of the Division of Coastal Resources indicated that a construction permit would be granted only if certain pre-conditions were met. The petitioner requested a hearing on the validity of one of those pre-conditions: the requirement of public notice to potential occupants as to "air quality and noise conditions in the area." This proposed condition was sought because the nursing facility was to be located opposite a glass manufacturing plant which has been the subject of a series of complaints as to air and noise pollution. After a review of the CAFRA statute, the administrative law judge concluded that DEP does not have the statutory power to impose such a condition on a facility which does not t)therwise adversely impact on the existing environment. The judge observed that the act was not designed to achieve the goal of protecting the future residents of the nursing facility. The judge reasoned that while the act may permit a total ban on placing such a facility within the protected site, it was not intended that the permit process be used as a means of reviewing the impact of the existing environment on the proposed project. Such a "reverse impact" analysis was found not to be permitted by the act nor the cases which have dealt with similar actions under the National Environmental Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 4331-4334 (1970). Although concluding that DEP had no statutory power to require the proposed condition, the judge felt it was appropriate to consider whether, assuming the power existed, the record would support the imposition of such a condition. The judge concluded that the preponderance of the State of New Jersey 455 evidence failed to demonstrate that there was an actual problem with the proposed facility, or that if there were, the notice requirement would rationally serve to protect the residents of the nursing facility. The judge observed that if the agency had based its belief in the need for such conditions on some unexpressed agency expertise, that expertise should have been noted for the record. Accordingly, the administrative law judge ordered the issuance of the CAFRA permit without the challenged notice provision. Michael L. Rodburg, Esq. for Petitioner (Lowenstein, Sandler, Brochin, Kohl, Fisher & Boylan, Attorneys) John M. Van Dalen, Deputy Attorney General for Respondent (John J. Degnan, Attorney General of New Jersey, Attorney)
4 N.J.A.R. 420-- rank: 985
Case Title: Environmental Protection, Department of; Andover Mobile Home Park v
1981
Regulating Agency: DIVISION OF COASTAL AREAS RESOURCES
Formats: DjVu | PDF
KWIC Output: ... I.R. 420 ANDOVER MOBILE HOME PARK, Petitioner, v DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Respondent. Decided May 21, 1981 Initial Decision SYNOPSIS In March ... of 1979, the petitioner submitted an application to the Department of Environmental Protection for approval of construction of a mobile home park. The ... and provided a balance against the Division's concern with the environmental sensitivity of the area gen- erally. However, the Division ...
Case Synopsis: In March of 1979, the petitioner submitted an application to the Department of Environmental Protection for approval of construction of a mobile home park. The agency denied the application based on anticipated nitrate production in excess of the existing standards. The administrative law judge assigned to the case found that peti- tioner undertook a testing program in October of 1980 to challenge the agency's unpublished standard. The judge found that the testing had taken place without the agency's knowledge and that it failed to meet acceptable scientific standards. Accordingly, the judge affirmed the denial of the applicaiton. John M. Toscano, Esq., for petitioner (Valore, McAllister, Aron & Westmoreland, attorneys) John M. Van Dalen, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (James R. Zazzali, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
13 N.J.A.R. 791-- rank: 961
Case Title: Mobil Chemical Co. v. Environmental Protection, Department of
1988
Regulating Agency: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Formats: DjVu | PDF
KWIC Output: ... CHEMICAL COMPANY, CHEMICAL PRODUCTS DIVISION, EDISION PLANT, Petitioner, V. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Respondent. Initial Decision: February 24, 1988 Final Agency Decision: May ... 1988 Approved for Publication: June 12, 1990 SYNOPSIS The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) assessed penalties against petitioner following the accidental release into ... adopted in part and modified in part by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection. The Commissioner reinstated the $7,500 penalty for ...
Case Synopsis: The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) assessed penalties against petitioner following the accidental release into the air of a chemical from petitioner's Edison facility. Petitioner requested a hearing and the matter was transmitted to the Office of Adminis- trative Law. The penalties were based on three violations associated with the incident: (l) failing to promptly notify DEP of the release of the chemical; (2) causing air pollution; and (3) using a piece of equipment that was not operating properly, in violation of petitioner's operating permit. DEP proposed a $10,000 penalty for the notification violation, a $7,500 penalty for the emission violation and $400 for the permit violation. Petitioner did not dispute the facts, but argued that the notification provision was constitutionally invalid, that the penalty schedule should have been promulgated as a rule, that the air pollution regulation was unconstitutionally vague and that the incident did not violate the plant's operating permit. The administrative law judge assigned to the case found that petitioner did violate the notification provision by not contacting DEP until more than an hour after the accident. The judge ruled that the provision was not constitutionally invalid. Regarding penalty, the judge agreed that a DEP penalty schedule should be promulgated as a rule in order to be enforceable, but concluded that the proposed $10,000 penalty was nonetheless authorized by statute. The judge found that petitioner violated the air pollution emission provision and that the provision was not vague. However, the judge reduced the penalty to $2,500 because he said DEP should have considered the minimal effect the emission had on public health and welfare. Finally, the judge dismissed the permit violation because the use of the in- operable pump was operator error; petitioner complied with the operating permit by tagging the pump as not functioning properly. Upon review, this initial decision was adopted in part and modified in part by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection. The Commissioner reinstated the $7,500 penalty for the emission violation, noting that the absence of actual injury to the public is not a reason to assess lesser penalties. Deterrence of future violations is an important factor in setting penalties. The Commissioner also re- instated the penalty for violating the operating permit, holding that the regulation is a strict liability provision. The fact that the violation was caused by operator error does not eliminate petitioner's liability. If inoperative equipment was used, petitioner is liable, regardless of intent or willfulness. All other findings and conclusions of the initial decision were affirmed. William H. Hyatt, Jr., Esq., and William J. Friedman, Esq., for petitioner (Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, attorneys) John K. Kelly, Deputy Attorney General, and Michael S. Cato, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (W. Cary Edwards, At- torney General of New Jersey, attorney)
13 N.J.A.R. 416-- rank: 921
Case Title: Environmental Protection, Department of v. Engineered Precision Casting Company, Inc.
1989
Regulating Agency: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Formats: DjVu | PDF
KWIC Output: ... as 13 N.J.,4.R. 416 NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Petitioner, V. ENGINEERED PRECISION CASTING COMPANY, INC., Respondent. Initial Decisiom ... 1989 Approved for Publication: June 12, 1990 SYNOPSIS The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued ad- ministrative orders assessing penalties against Engineered Precision ... of penal- ties proposed by DEP. Upon review, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection affirmed this initial decision. The Commissioner noted that ...
Case Synopsis: The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued ad- ministrative orders assessing penalties against Engineered Precision Casting (EPC) for violation of the Air Pollution Control Act, N.J.S.A. 26:2c-1 et seq. and regulations at N.J.,4.C. 7:27-5.1 et seq. EPC re- quested a hearing and the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law. The administrative law judge assigned to the case found that on several occasions an acrid odor was emitted by machinery used by EPC. This odor constituted air pollution pursuant to the statute and regulations because it interfered with the enjoyment of fresh air in the residential neighborhood adjacent to EPC. The judge held that the definition of air pollution in the statute and regulations was sufficient even though it did not provide a quantified standard. Ac- cordingly, the judge concluded that EPC violated the Air Pollution Control Act and was liable for civil penalties. In addition, the judge found that DEP was justified in assessing enhanced penalties for offenses beyond the first offense because EPC had been aware of the odor problem for some time and had been warned that it was subject to enhanced penalties. The judge imposed the total amount of penal- ties proposed by DEP. Upon review, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection affirmed this initial decision. The Commissioner noted that a substance causing odor is air pollution within the meaning of the statute. With respect to penalty, the Commissioner agreed that substantial penalties were necessary to deter violations. Enhanced penalties were reasonable in this case because EPC was unacceptably reluctant to quickly end its violations. State of New Jersey 417 Carol A. B!si, Deputy Attorney General, for petitioner (Peter N. Perretti, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney) Terence G. Van Dzura, Esq., for respondent (Edward J. Dolan, attorney)
-- rank: 915
Case Title:
Regulating Agency: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Formats: DjVu | PDF
KWIC Output: View DjVu Page 1 of 12 Go To: next > DEPARTMENT OF  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,  Petitioner,  V.  KEARNEY INDUSTRIES,  Respondent.  Decided May 28, 1981  Initial Decision  SYNOPSIS  The Department of Environmental Protection sought to impose  sanctions against Kearney Industries, Inc. for an ... Michael V. Keawin, Esq. for Respondent  MASIN, ALJ:  The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), through the  Division of Water Resources, seeks ...
Case Synopsis:
3 N.J.A.R. 339-- rank: 915
Case Title: Kearney Industries; Environmental Protection, Department of v
1981
Regulating Agency: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Formats: DjVu | PDF
KWIC Output: ... New Jersey Digital Legal Library > NJAR Home > Search Page DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Petitioner, V. KEARNEY INDUSTRIES, Respondent. Decided May 28, 1981 Initial Decision SYNOPSIS The Department of Environmental Protection sought to impose sanctions against Kearney Industries, Inc. for an ... Michael V. Keawin, Esq. for Respondent MASIN, ALJ: The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), through the Division of Water Resources, seeks ...
Case Synopsis: The Department of Environmental Protection sought to impose sanctions against Kearney Industries, Inc. for an alleged violation of the Water Pollution Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq., in that Kearney discharged waste water from a production building floor drain into a septic tank without having obtained the required permit. Kearney did not contest the determination that it discharged waste water containing phenol, a "hazardous pollutant" as defined by N.J.A.C. 7:14-8.3, without a permit. The company did contend, however, that the Department was without authority to compel the installation of monitoring wells and that the proposed penalty assess- ment of $3,125 was unjustified. The administrative law judge observed that the Water Pollution Control Act provides for the regulation of discharges of pollutants, via a permit system, and also authorizes the Department Commis- sioner to eliminate violations of the act, or of regulations promul- gated thereunder. Specifically, the judge noted that the Commissioner had the power under N.J.S.A. 58:10A-6 to require an individual obtaining a discharge permit to install monitoring equipment and submit monitoring reports to the Commissioner. Given the Commis- sioner's authority to require monitoring in instances where permits are sought and granted, the administrative law judge concluded that it would be anomalous to deny the Commissioner the same power in instances where no permit is sought but an unpermitted discharge is discovered. The judge rejected Kearney's argument that despite the discharge of a pollutant, no useful purpose would be served by the installation of monitoring wells. Noting that where, as here, a company has discharged pollutants in such a way as to threaten the quality of the State's water, the judge concluded that it was not unreasonable for the Department to seek to compel the company responsible to deter- mine whether the waters at the discharge site are polluted. As to the proposed penalty, the administrative law judge noted that no evidence as to the reasonableness of the penalty had been pre- sented to him. After reviewing the record and relying on N.J.A.C. 7:14-8.10(a)6, the judge concluded that a penalty of $1,725 was proper. Paul H. Schneider, Deputy Attorney General for Petitioner (James R. Zazzali, Attorney General of New Jersey, Attorney) Michael V. Keawin, Esq. for Respondent
4 N.J.A.R. 101-- rank: 903
Case Title: Stone Harbor, Borough of v. Environmental Protection, Department of, 'et al
1980
Regulating Agency: DIVISION OF COASTAL AREAS RESOURCES
Formats: DjVu | PDF
KWIC Output: ... OF STONE HARBOR, Petitioner, V. DIVISION OF COASTAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; C.A.P.E.; and AMERICAN LITTORAL SOCIETY, Respondents. Decided ... Director of the Division of Coastal Resources in the Department of Environmental Protection imposed certain conditions on a permit for which the Borough ... agency head, i.e. the Com- missioner of the Department of Environmental Protection. That de- cision must come after the initial ...
Case Synopsis: The respondent in this matter moved to bar counsel for petitioner because of an alleged conflict of interest. At issue was the application of N.J.S.A. 52:13D-16 which places restriction on the practice of law by members of the State Legislature. The administrative law judge noted that N.J.S.A. 52:13-D-16(b) prohibits members of the Legislature and their partners and employees from representing, appearing for, negotiating on behalf of, or agreeing to represent any person other than the State in connection with any cause, proceeding, application, or other matters pending before a State agency. While N.J.S.A. 52:13D-16(c) provides an exception to that prohibition when the legislator is representing a municipality, that exception does not apply when the State is an adverse party. While observing that there are certain types of hearings before administrative agencies where the State is not an adverse party the administrative law judge concluded that in this matter, the State is clearly a party adverse to the Borough of Stone Harbor. Accordingly, the administrative law judge held that petitioner's counsel was barred from appearing in the matter. William M. Balliette, Jr., Esq:, for petitioner (Cafiero and Ba-liette, attorneys) John Van Dalen, Esq., Deputy Attorney General for respondent, Division of Coastal Resources (John Degnan, Esq., Attorney General, attorney) Gall G. Abrams, Esq., for C.A.P.E. and the American Littoral Society
12 N.J.A.R. 289-- rank: 888
Case Title: Vi-Concrete Co. v. Environmental Protection, Dept. of
1986
Regulating Agency: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Formats: DjVu | PDF
KWIC Output: ... R. 289 VI-CONCRETE COMPANY, Petitioner V. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Respondent. Initial Decision: June 25, 1986 Final Agency Decision: July ... in part by the Commissioner of the Department of En- vironmental Protection. The Commissioner agreed that the Depart- ment had authority to ... a closed landfill, but only if the Department of En- vironmental Protection had substantial evidence that the landfill was actually discharging pollutants ... the 1960s and whether there is reason to suspect an existing environmental problem at the site, are disputed at this. stage ...
Case Synopsis: Respondent issued a Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit to petitioner for property which petitioner had purchased. Petitioner had not requested the permit, which requires the installation of wells to test for potential pollution hazards. Petitioner requested a hearing and the matter was transmitted to the Office of Adminis- trative Law. The parties filed cross motions for summary decision. The admin- istrative law judge assigned to the case concluded that disputed facts were crucial to a fair determination and denied both motions. The judge found that respondent had the authority to issue a permit unilaterally without an application. However, absent a regulation requiring monitoring of closed landfills, respondent was required to prove that monitoring of this particular landfill was necessary. The landfill on petitioner's property was closed. Upon interlocutory review, this decision was affirmed in part and rejected in part by the Commissioner of the Department of En- vironmental Protection. The Commissioner agreed that the Depart- ment had authority to issue permits without applications. However, the Commissioner found that the Department could issue permits regardless of whether there was evidence of discharge. In the absence of a specific exemption, all landfills--open or closed--were subject to the Water Pollution Control Act. Accordingly, the Commissioner granted respondent's motion for summary decision. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that a discharge permit could be issued to the owner of a closed landfill, but only if the Department of En- vironmental Protection had substantial evidence that the landfill was actually discharging pollutants. David C. Patterson, Esq., for petitioner (Maressa, Goldstein, Birsner, Patterson and Drinkwater, attorneys) Colleen Ma!!oy, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
4 N.J.A.R. 117-- rank: 874
Case Title: Lentine Aggregates v. Environmental Protection, Department of
1981
Regulating Agency: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Formats: DjVu | PDF
KWIC Output: ... Library > NJAR Home > Search Page Lentine Aggregates v. Dep't. of Environmental Protection Cite as 4 N.J.A.R. 117 LENTINE AGGREGATES, Petitioner, V. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Respondent. Decided January 26, 1981 Initial Decision SYNPOSIS Petitioner contested ... for transport and sale. On July 5, 1976 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region II pursuant to the Federal ...
Case Synopsis: Petitioner contested the assessment of $6,900 in administrative pen- alties based on its failure to meet the requirements of the Water Pollution Control Act, N.J.S.A 58:10A-1 et seq. The administrative law judge found that the water testing done at the petitioner's rock quarry indicated that oil, grease and total suspended solids present in the water exceeded permitted levels. The judge noted that while the origin of the oil and grease was not identified by the charging agency it would be difficult to locate prob- able sources other than petitioner since its operations dominate an otherwise rustic landscape. In addition, the judge rejected petitioner's argument that the agency's testing program was inadequate. He found that the consistent body of testimony concerning visual observations, verified by laboratory analysis, established a sufficient base upon which to conclude that the discharge traceable to petitioner e[ceeded permitted levels. Accordingly, the administrative law judge c.oncluded that the fine assessed was appropriate. Stephen Gold, Esq. for petitioner (Gold & Gold, attorneys) Paul H. Schneider, Deputy Attorney General for Respondent (John J. Degnan, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
1 N.J.A.R. 273-- rank: 862
Case Title: Pinelands Commission; Brenner, Harry v
1979
Regulating Agency: PINELANDS COMMISSION
Formats: DjVu | PDF
KWIC Output: ... land located in a portion of the Pinelands designated as the Protection Area after a denial of that application by the Pinelands ... is located in a portion of the Pinelands designated as the Protection Area in the Governor's Executive Order No. 71, subsequently superseded by the Pinelands Protection Act. The property is also within the area designated as ... 1979, the petitioner appealed to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection seeking review of the Review Board's determination. The ...
Case Synopsis: Petitioner requested de novo consideration of his application to construct a single family residence on land located in a portion of the Pinelands designated as the Protection Area after a denial of that application by the Pinelands Review Board. The administrative law judge noted that approval of construction may be granted if there is a finding of extraordinary hardship to the petitioner and no substantial impairment to the natural resources of the Pinelands. Although the petitioner was found to be in poor health due to a heart condition and in need of a change of life style and environment, the evidence presented did not demonstrate that he could live only in the Pinelands. In addition, the petitioner failed to present any proofs as to the issue of substantial impairment, even though the burden of persuasion was upon him. A potential for substantial impairment was demonstrated by the agency. Finding that no extraordinary hardship existed and that the possibility of substantial impairment to the environment was present, the application was denied. Harry Brenner, Pro se Mary Jacobson, Deputy Attorney General for Respondent (John J. Degnan, Attorney General of New Jersey, Attorney)


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next 10