Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 324 / Act 451 of 1994
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.20119 (2026)

Action to abate danger or threat; administrative order; noncompliance; liability; petition for reimbursement; action in court of claims; evidence.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT


Act 451 of 1994


324.20119 Action to abate danger or threat; administrative order; noncompliance; liability; petition for reimbursement; action in court of claims; evidence.

Sec. 20119.

    (1) In accordance with this section, if the department determines that there may be an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the environment, because of a release or threatened release, the department may require persons who are liable under section 20126 to take necessary action to abate the danger or threat.

    (2) The department may issue an administrative order to a person identified by the department as a person who is liable under section 20126 requiring that person to perform response activity relating to a facility for which that person is liable or to take any other action required by this part. An order issued under this section shall state with reasonable specificity the basis for issuance of the order and specify a reasonable time for compliance.

    (3) Within 30 days after issuance of an administrative order under this section, a person to which the order was issued shall indicate in writing whether the person intends to comply with the order.

    (4) A person who, without sufficient cause, violates or fails to properly comply with an administrative order issued under this section is liable for either or both of the following:

    (a) A civil fine of not more than $25,000.00 for each day in which the violation occurs or the failure to comply continues. A fine imposed under this subsection shall be based upon the seriousness of the violation and any good faith efforts by the violator to comply with the administrative order.

    (b) Exemplary damages in an amount at least equal to the amount of any costs of response activity incurred by the state as a result of a failure to comply with an administrative order but not more than 3 times the amount of these costs.

    (5) A person, to which an administrative order was issued under this section and that complied with the terms of the order, who believes that the order was arbitrary and capricious or unlawful may petition the department, within 60 days after completion of the required action, for reimbursement from the fund for the reasonable costs of the action plus interest at the rate described in section 20126a(3) and other necessary costs incurred in seeking reimbursement under this subsection. If the department refuses to grant all or part of the petition, the petitioner may, within 30 days of receipt of the refusal, file an action against the department in the court of claims seeking this relief. A failure by the department either to grant or deny all or any part of a petition within 120 days of receipt constitutes a denial of that part of the petition, which denial is reviewable as final agency action in the court of claims. To obtain reimbursement, the petitioner shall establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner is not liable under section 20126 or that the action ordered was arbitrary and capricious or unlawful, and in either instance that costs for which the petitioner seeks reimbursement are reasonable in light of the action required by and undertaken pursuant to the relevant order.

History: 1994, Act 451, Eff. Mar. 30, 1995 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 71, Imd. Eff. June 5, 1995

PopularName Notes:

Act 451

PopularName Notes:

Environmental Remediation

PopularName Notes:

Environmental Response Act

PopularName Notes:

NREPA
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2003–2007 · leading case: Pactiv Corp. v. Chester, 419 F. Supp. 2d 956 (E.D. Mich. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pactiv Corp. v. Chester, 419 F. Supp. 2d 956 (E.D. Mich. 2006). · cites it 14× “20137(1)(e); and § 324.20119. In addition, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of §§ 20119; 20114(h), and 20137(1)(e).”
Cairns v. City of East Lansing, 738 N.W.2d 246 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “MCL 324.20119(1) and (2). Moreover, MCL 324.”
Howell Twp. v. Rooto Corp., 670 N.W.2d 713 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “20118; MCL 324.20119; MCL 324.20126; MCL 324.20126a; MCL 324.”
Cairns v. City of East Lansing, 738 N.W.2d 246 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “MCL 324.20119(1) and (2). Moreover, MCL 324.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.20119(1) — 3 cases
Cairns v. City of East Lansing, 738 N.W.2d 246 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “MCL 324.20119(1) and (2). Moreover, MCL 324.”
Pactiv Corp. v. Chester, 419 F. Supp. 2d 956 (E.D. Mich. 2006). “20137(1)(e); and § 324.20119. In addition, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of §§ 20119; 20114(h), and 20137(1)(e).”
Cairns v. City of East Lansing, 738 N.W.2d 246 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “MCL 324.20119(1) and (2). Moreover, MCL 324.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.20119(2) — 1 case
Pactiv Corp. v. Chester, 419 F. Supp. 2d 956 (E.D. Mich. 2006). “20137(1)(e); and § 324.20119. In addition, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of §§ 20119; 20114(h), and 20137(1)(e).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.20119(3) — 1 case
Pactiv Corp. v. Chester, 419 F. Supp. 2d 956 (E.D. Mich. 2006). “20137(1)(e); and § 324.20119. In addition, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of §§ 20119; 20114(h), and 20137(1)(e).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.20119(4) — 1 case
Pactiv Corp. v. Chester, 419 F. Supp. 2d 956 (E.D. Mich. 2006). “20137(1)(e); and § 324.20119. In addition, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of §§ 20119; 20114(h), and 20137(1)(e).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.20119(5) — 1 case
Pactiv Corp. v. Chester, 419 F. Supp. 2d 956 (E.D. Mich. 2006). “20137(1)(e); and § 324.20119. In addition, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of §§ 20119; 20114(h), and 20137(1)(e).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.