Moore & Van Allen Law Firm, Attorneys

Administrative Litigation & Government Enforcement Actions

{ Banner Image }

Moore & Van Allen’s environmental team has experience representing various clients in federal, state and local administrative litigation.  This work includes defending penalty actions, appeals of permit conditions, petitions for rule changes, local zoning matters, requests for reimbursement from government trust funds and various other types of administrative actions.  Our clients in these matters include manufacturing facilities, municipalities, petroleum companies, independent power producers, developers, financial institutions, construction operations, waste management businesses, environmental consultants, and virtually every type of business subject to environmental regulations.  

Some of our attorneys have experience working for the EPA, Department of Justice or state environmental agencies and are able to provide particular insight on the administrative process.  We have represented companies in administrative actions relating to every major federal environmental law including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and their state and local counterparts.  In addition, Moore & Van Attorneys represent clients in administrative matters relating to distinctive state and local laws such as the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), state groundwater regulations, state watershed laws, and licensing matters for environmental professionals.

Examples of administrative matters handled by Moore & Van Allen’s attorneys include:

  • Defending chemical manufacturing operation against multi-million dollar fine for alleged violations of RCRA and the Clean Water Act;
  • Contested case hearing regarding CAMA permit for steel manufacturing facility;
  • Defending high-tech manufacturing operation against penalty action for alleged violations of Clean Water Act;
  • Defending chemical manufacturer in penalty action for alleged violations of pretreatment permit; 
  • Appealing conditions in NPDES permits on behalf of industrial facilities;
  • Defending chemical importer against multi-million dollar penalty for alleged violation of TSCA regulations;
  • Representing environmental engineers and geologists in matters before state licensing boards;
  • Representing paper mill in administrative action and related litigation contesting water quality standards established under the Clean Water Act;
  • Representing parties before local zoning boards in connection with the siting of commercial and industrial facilities;
  • Assisting specialty chemical manufacturer in the registration of new chemicals;
  • Defending polymer manufacturing facility in criminal investigation by FBI and EPA;
  • Defending equipment manufacturer in criminal investigation by EPA and FBI;
  • Representing steel manufacturer in multi-million dollar enforcement actions for alleged violations state disposal regulations;
  • Contesting proposed groundwater rules on behalf of industry coalition;
  • Filing a third-party appeal of NPDES permit; and 
  • Representing parties in CERCLA cleanup actions.


View All »


  • February 2018, Association of Corporate Counsel South Carolina Chapter Newsletter

    All commercial real estate transactions involve some level of environmental risk, regardless of whether the property being transferred was formerly used for industrial, commercial, agricultural, or residential purposes. Accordingly, it is important for a buyer to consider conducting some level of environmental due diligence prior to purchasing real property. Environmental due diligence will allow the buyer to identify and quantify the environmental issues associated with the property.