11 A.3d 30
Pa. Commw. Ct.2010Background
- Stambaughs operate a 650-acre dairy farm and constructed an in-ground earthen trench silo for corn silage in September 2005.
- Trench was unlined, tarp-covered with tires, and located 90–100 feet from two wells on adjacent land.
- Neighbors complained of malodorous water in October 2005; DEP linked silage leachate to groundwater contamination.
- DEP ordered removal of silage within 15 days and required replacement water, water treatment, and plans for storage, nutrient management, and erosion/sedimentation; order issued November 4, 2005; no appeal.
- In 2006, DEP issued notices of violation for inadequate compliance; Stambaughs did not respond; DEP filed a civil penalty action seeking $33,772.
- Board reduced DEP’s proposed penalties to $18,197; court later vacates and remands for recalculation due to issues with willfulness findings and penalty methodology.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was willfulness proven for pollution under Section 401? | Stambaughs did not knowingly cause pollution; no conscious choice to violate. | Board as factfinder may rely on evidence of recklessness and general knowledge of risks. | No, willfulness not demonstrated by substantial evidence; remand to recalculate penalties. |
| Did the Board properly conclude recklessness/willfulness for Section 402 penalties? | Delay and failure to move silage were weather-related; no willful delay. | Board may rely on evidence of willful delay and inaction. | Willfulness not adequately supported; remand for reconsideration of Section 402 penalties. |
| Was penalty calculation proper for plan-delays under 25 Pa. Code §§ 91.33–91.34 and DEP orders? | Delays due to fire and economy should be weighed; explainability and due process require consideration of defenses. | Penalties based on late submissions; Board need not detail every justification. | Board failed to justify plan-delay penalties; remand to reevaluate penalties with explanations. |
| Did the Board err by not considering the house fire and economic conditions in calculating penalties? | Extraordinary events and economic hardship justified delays; should reduce penalties. | General penalties apply; defenses not given weight. | Board did not address these defenses; remand to evaluate these factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Shiffler, 583 Pa. 478, 879 A.2d 185 (2005) (definition of willfulness and reasonable interpretive approach to statutory terms)
- Bethenergy Mines, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 563 Pa. 170, 758 A.2d 1168 (2000) (agency penalty authority and burdens of proof on penalty assessment)
- Leeward Construction, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 821 A.2d 145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (standard of review for penalties; deference to Board when reasonably related to violations)