Lesniak v. United States

Nos. 81-977, -1914 (D.N.J. February 22, 1982)

The court approves a settlement in which the federal government agrees that § 114(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) does not preclude the State of New Jersey from using its Spill Compensation Fund to finance hazardous waste cleanup and compensate damage claims pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act or CERCLA.

[The pleadings in this case are summarized at ELR PEND. LIT. 65695 — Ed.]

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Raymond J. Lesniak
Timins & Lesniak
117 Westfield Ave., Elizabeth NJ 07208
(201) 354-0703

Counsel for Defendants
Mary C. Jacobson, Deputy Attorney General
36 W. State St., Trenton NJ 08625
(609) 292-7000

Donald W. Stever Jr.
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 633-5290

[12 ELR 20401]

Meanor, J.:

Stipulation of Settlement

The undersigned parties to the above captioned actions stipulate and agree that the actions be dismissed with prejudice.

The United States agrees that the State of New Jersey is not precluded by Section 114(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"; P.L. 96-510, effective December 11, 1980), from spending monies from the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund collected pursuant to NJSA 58:10-23.11 et seq. for the following purposes:

(1) to finance the removal of a petroleum discharge;

(2) to finance the administrative costs of the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund;

(3) to finance the purchasing or prepositioning of hazardous substance response equipment and to finance other preparations for responding to releases which affect the State of New Jersey;

(4) to finance the State share, if any, of the cost of response activities conducted pursuant to CERCLA to respond to a release of a hazardous substance;

(5) to compensate claims for the cost of restoration and replacement of any natural resources damaged or destroyed by a release of a hazardous substance;

(6) to advance funds to remove or remedy releases of hazardous substances eligible to be financed by the CERCLA Hazardous Substance Response Fund (hereinafter "Response Fund") if a written commitment for financing by the Response Fund has been issued by an authorized representative of the United States Environmental Protection Agency; and

(7) to compensate damage claims and to remove or remedy releases of hazardous substances eligible to be financed by the Response Fund but for which no federal reimbursement from the Response Fund is provided.

In light of the foregoing agreement, all parties agree that there is no substantial controversy between them and stipulate to a dismissal of the above captioned actions with prejudice.

Order

These consolidated cases having come before the Court on the parties Stipulation of Dismissal for lack of a case or controversy between them, it is hereby ordered that the complaints are DISMISSED with prejudice, and no costs.