Appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. McAdoo Associates, E. L. Payer, Secretary-Treasurer, Nos. 291 and 292 of 1979; and in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Joseph Wargo, Nos. 293 and 294 of 1979.
Ronald R. Pellish, for appellants.
Randall J. Brubaker, Special Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 329]
The appellants, as defendants, were convicted before a district justice, and, pursuant to a hearing on
[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 330]
appeal, also before Judge Toole of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, of violating Section 9(1) of the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act;*fn1 they have appealed the convictions and fines imposed.
As of 1978, the time period involved here, Section 9(1) made it unlawful for any person to "[d]ump or deposit . . . any solid wastes onto the surface of the ground . . . without having obtained a permit. . . ." The Act, in Section 3(3), defined solid waste to include "liquid waste materials resulting from industrial . . . activities."*fn2 Section 7(a) of the Act*fn3 made it unlawful for any person to use their own land or "the land of any other person . . . as a . . . disposal area of a solid waste management system . . . without a permit." Finally, Section 3(4) defined a solid waste management system as the "entire process of storage, collection, transportation, processing and disposal of solid wastes by any person engaging in such process as a business. . . ."
According to the record, the evidence before Judge Toole established that defendant McAdoo Associates operated a facility engaged in the business of accepting and processing industrial waste from a number of customers. Defendant Payer was an officer of McAdoo Associates, and defendant Wargo was one of the employees.
In July 1978, according to testimony, defendant Wargo sought permission from employees of the Jeddo-Highland Coal Company to dump a liquid substance onto that company's roads. Although the company
[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 331]
denied permission, defendant Wargo nevertheless discharged liquid onto their roadway on that date and again two days later. On the next night employees of the company intercepted Wargo when he returned with the ...