Appeal from the Order of the Environmental Hearing Board in the case of William Fiore, t/d/b/a Municipal and Industrial Disposal Company v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, Docket No. 83-160-G.
Robert P. Ging, Jr., with him, Lee R. Golden, for petitioner.
Dennis W. Strain, Assistant Counsel, with him, Louis A. Naugle, for respondent.
Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Kalish.
[ 96 Pa. Commw. Page 478]
Petitioner, William Fiore, t/d/b/a Municipal and Industrial Disposal Company, petitions this court for review of an adjudication of the Environmental Hearing Board (Board), which granted the Department of Environmental Resources' (DER) motion for summary judgment, denied petitioner's motion for summary judgment and dismissed petitioner's appeal from DER's suspension of petitioner's permit for disposal of industrial waste.
[ 96 Pa. Commw. Page 479]
The pertinent facts are as follows: On August 4, 1983, DER suspended petitioner's hazardous waste permit for alleged violations of various provisions of the Solid Waste Management Act, Act of July 7, 1980, P.L. 380, as amended, 35 Pa. §§ 6018.101-6018.617, and the Clean Streams Law, Act of June 22, 1937, P.L. 1987, as Page 479} amended, 35 P.S. §§ 691.1-691.603. While the permit suspension was on appeal to the Board, DER brought an action in this court to enforce a Consent Order and Agreement (consent order) which petitioner and DER had entered into on January 25, 1983. In a memorandum opinion and order dated October 28, 1983, No. 2083 C.D. 1983, Judge Francis A. Barry found petitioner guilty of civil contempt for violating Paragraphs 4, 5, 7 and 9 of the January 25, 1983 consent order.*fn1 Specifically, Judge Barry found that petitioner had violated
[ 96 Pa. Commw. Page 480]
Paragraph 4 of the consent order which required petitioner to remove certain waste in the Phase I Pit or remove the waste material to a storage or disposal location, and that petitioner had violated Paragraph 5 of the consent order which required petitioner to file within fifteen days of the signing of the consent order a revised closure plan to reflect the removal of the waste material. Although a revised closure plan was submitted to DER by petitioner on February 1, 1983, the plan was rejected since it violated express provisions of Paragraph 7.*fn2
Lastly, Judge Barry found that petitioner had violated Paragraph 9 of the consent order, which required that, beginning in February, 1983 and by the fifth day of each month until he received a permit from DER, petitioner was required to pay a civil penalty of $500 a
[ 96 Pa. Commw. Page 481]
month to DER's Clean Water Fund. Petitioner was also ordered to pay a civil penalty of $2,000 per month for past violations of the Consent Order ...