Appeals from the Order of the Environmental Hearing Board in cases of Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, consolidated cases filed to EHB Docket Nos. 76-117-H, 80-105-H, 8-116-H, 80-138-H, 80-172-H and 80-208-H.
Gerald C. Grimaud, for petitioners.
Louis A. Naugle, Assistant Counsel, for respondent.
Robert J. Shostak, with him Pamela S. Goodwin, Shostak & Rosen, P.C., for intervenor.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Mencer, Rogers, Williams, Jr. and Craig. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr. Judge Palladino did not participate in the decision in this case.
The Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners, on behalf of that County (County), in this petition for review appeals an Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) dismissal of several County appeals from Department of Environmental Resources (DER) orders.*fn1 Lyncott Corporation (Lyncott) intervenes. We affirm.
Lyncott operates a sanitary landfill operation, located in the County, under water quality and solid waste management permits issued by DER. DER from time to time amends these outstanding permits by granting supplemental waste and stream approvals. Although the County initially was allowed to challenge each amendment, EHB dismissed all appeals, for lack of standing, subsequent to our decision in Strasburg Associates v. Newlin Township, 52 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 514, 415 A.2d 1014 (1980).*fn2
The standing issue was argued recently before this Court by the same parties, see Susquehanna County v. Department of Environmental Resources, 58 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 381, 427 A.2d 1266 (1981), and we hold this to be controlling. See also Franklin Township v. Department of Environmental Resources, 62 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 205, 435 A.2d 675 (1981). In Susquehanna County, we denied standing, reasoning that the County stood in no different position than did Newlin Township in Strasburg, i.e., that the County had failed to demonstrate that DER's action either adversely affected its purpose in carrying out its local governmental functions or acted to affect the rights of the individual property owners against the DER in which the County would act as trustee. Susquehanna County at 386, 427 A.2d at 1268. The County in this case proffers a novel standing argument, based on the Pennsylvania Real Estate Tax Sale Law,*fn3 that it has a substantial,
immediate and direct pecuniary interest in the regulation of solid waste landfills within its boundaries. This thesis, however, is too speculative,*fn4 and the County cannot rely on this to fulfill the standing requirements delineated in William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168, 346 A.2d 269 (1975).
Since the County has failed to demonstrate that it is an aggrieved party with a substantial, immediate and direct interest in the matter at ...