Appeal from the Order of the Environmental Hearing Board in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Daniel E. Blevins and Mrs. Nancy Lee Ellis v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources and New Garden Township, Docket No. 82-154-M.
John C. Snyder, Lentz, Cantor, Kilgore & Massey, Ltd., for petitioners.
Kenneth A. Gelburd, Assistant Counsel, for respondent, Department of Environmental Resources.
Roger E. Legg, for intervenor, Southeastern Chester County Refuse Authority.
Judges Doyle and Barry, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.
[ 91 Pa. Commw. Page 208]
This is an appeal by Petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Daniel E. Blevins and Nancy Lee Ellis, from a July 9, 1984 decision of the Environmental Hearing Board (Board) which dismissed as moot Petitioners' appeal from the reissuance of a solid waste management permit (Permit No. 101069) to New Garden Township by the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) on May 7, 1982. The DER and New Garden Township are named as Respondents before this Court.
Permit No. 101069 was issued originally to the AAK Corporation in 1977, pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act of 1968,*fn1 for the operation of a municipal waste landfill in London Grove Township, Chester County.*fn2 In January of 1981, New Garden Township applied to the DER for reissuance of Permit No. 101069 pursuant to the terms of 25 Pa. Code § 75.22(f).*fn3 The application was granted in May of 1982. On June 11, 1982, Petitioners
[ 91 Pa. Commw. Page 209]
appealed this action by the DER to the Board. On January 11, 1984, prior to any determination of the substantive merits of Petitioners' appeal, and apparently, prior to any actual operation of the landfill by New Garden Township,*fn4 the Township wrote a letter to the DER indicating its intention to relinquish all interest in Permit No. 101069 and further consenting to the reissuance of the permit to the Intervenor herein, Southeast Chester County Refuse Authority (SECCRA).
On January 31, 1984, SECCRA applied to the DER for reissuance of the permit. On July 9, 1984, the Board dismissed Petitioners' appeal as moot on the basis of New Garden Township's relinquishment and abandonment of the permit.
Petitioners first argue that Permit No. 101069 was extinguished upon its relinquishment and abandonment, by New Garden Township, and that due to such extinguishment, any attempt by the DER to reissue this non-existent permit must necessarily fail. They therefore agree with the Board that their appeal is moot, but request an additional ...