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.

SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (04/09/81)

decided: April 9, 1981.

SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY, BY THE SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, RESPONDENT. LYNCOTT CORPORATION, INTERVENOR



Appeal from the Order of the Environmental Hearing Board in case of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, by Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources and Lyncott Corporation, Arthur H. Scott and Sybil R. Scott, EHB Docket No. 79-059-B.

COUNSEL

Gerald C. Grimaud, for petitioner.

Louis A. Naugle, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Pamela A. Goodwin, with her Robert J. Shostak, Allan E. McLeod and Michael Handler, for intervenor.

Judges Mencer, Rogers and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer. This decision was reached prior to the resignation of Judge Wilkinson, Jr.

Author: Mencer

[ 58 Pa. Commw. Page 382]

The Susquehanna County Commissioners, on behalf of Susquehanna County (County), have filed a petition for review of the Environmental Hearing Board's (EHB) dismissal of the County's appeal of a Department of Environmental Resources (DER)

[ 58 Pa. Commw. Page 383]

    order*fn1 directed to Lyncott Corporation (Lyncott).*fn2 The County's appeal was not based on the contents of the DER order but on the grounds that the order failed to include provisions requiring (1) the revocation of the solid waste and industrial waste permits issued to Lyncott and (2) site reclamation.

The EHB dismissed the County's appeal for lack of standing and, in doing so, stated:

It is apparent from the County's Notice of Appeal that its objection to the DER order is the method used by the DER to bring Lyncott into compliance with the Solid Waste Management Act. It prefers that the DER revoke the permits rather than order the imposition of a compliance schedule. Its preference however does not confer standing to appeal. The method chosen by the DER to enforce its Solid Waste Management Act is discretionary with the DER and does not, as a matter of law, adversely affect the rights or interests of the County.

We are of the view that the ruling of the EHB under challenge here was correct and that the County was without standing ...


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.