Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. WHEELING-PITTSBURGH STEEL CORPORATION (12/10/75)

decided: December 10, 1975.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, PETITIONER
v.
WHEELING-PITTSBURGH STEEL CORPORATION, RESPONDENT



Original jurisdiction in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation.

COUNSEL

Thomas M. Burke, Special Assistant Attorney General, for petitioner.

Paul A. Manion, with him Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, and, of counsel, George Raynovich, Jr., for respondent.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by President Judge Bowman.

Author: Bowman

[ 22 Pa. Commw. Page 282]

This matter is before us on a petition for enforcement of an administrative order brought by Department of Environmental Resources (DER).

In June 1972, respondent, Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, applied for a variance from minimum standards relating to particulate matter emissions into the atmosphere as established by DER regulations, 25 Pa. Code §§ 123.13, 123.41. The variance sought an extension until April 30, 1973, of the time for compliance with the standards set in the aforementioned regulations as applied to respondent's sintering plant in Monessen, Westmoreland County.

As a result of the variance request, DER issued an order on September 25, 1972, granting respondent a variance from the required standards until April 30, 1973. Respondent did not appeal this order.

On April 15, 1975, DER initiated enforcement proceedings in this Court pursuant to the Air Pollution Control Act, Act of January 8, 1960, P.L. (1959) 2119, as amended, 35 P.S. § 4010, alleging that respondent had not complied with the order.

Respondent filed an answer containing new matter to the DER petition, which new matter raises several legal issues requiring resolution prior to evidentiary hearings on the merits of the petition. Those issues as framed by our Order of July 1, 1975, follow:

(a) May defendant (respondent herein) in this proceedings attack DER Regulations 123.13 and 123.41 as invalid and unenforceable;

(b) May defendant in this proceedings attack the DER order of September 25, 1972, as ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.