Case Title: State v. Ben-Mont Corp.

Citation: 163 Vt 53, 652 A.2d 1004

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-11-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_BEN-MONT_CORP.91-487; 163 Vt 53; 652 A.2d 1004

[Filed 18-Nov-1994]


NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press. 


                           No. 91-487


State of Vermont                          Supreme Court

                                          On Appeal from
     v.                                    District Court of Vermont
                                           Unit No. 1, Bennington  Circuit

Ben-Mont Corporation                      September Term, 1994


Arthur J. O'Dea, J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Ron Shems and Susan R. Harritt,
 Assistant Attorneys General, and Debbie Kerzner, Law Clerk (On the Brief),
 Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee 

Raymond G. Bolton, Bennington, and Michael J. O'Neill and Paul J. Leikhim,
 Boston, Massachusetts, for defendant-appellant 


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant appeals from a superior court judgment denying
its pretrial motion to dismiss the information for failure to charge a crime
under Vermont's Waste Management Act, 10 V.S.A.  6601-6632.  Defendant
also appeals the criminal fines as excessive.  We affirm. 

     Defendant, a Massachusetts corporation, operated a manufacturing
facility in Bennington, Vermont which made Christmas wrapping paper. 
Officials from the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) inspected defendant's
facility eight times between February 1986 and November 1988.  During the
inspections, ANR collected and tested samples of ink wash and alkaline
stripping solution used to clean defendant's printing equipment.  ANR
determined the water-based ink wash to be a hazardous waste because of its
ignitability.  ANR identified the by-product of the alkaline solution as a
highly corrosive sludge, also a hazardous waste by definition.  Because
defendant did not obtain the required certification, ANR concluded that
defendant had improperly generated and stored hazardous waste. 

 

     ANR issued four separate Notices of Violation to defendant for violating
Vermont's Waste Management Act and several rules promulgated by ANR pursuant
to the Act.  In November 1988, due to defendant's failure to comply
voluntarily, ANR referred the matter to the Attorney General's office.  That
office conducted an inspection and confirmed that hazardous wastes were
improperly stored on defendant's premises. 

     In June 1990, the Attorney General charged defendant with twenty-four
misdemeanor counts of improperly managing its hazardous wastes in violation
of 10 V.S.A.  6606(a) and other specified regulations under Vermont's
Hazardous Waste Management Rules (VHWMR). Defendant moved for dismissal on
seventeen of the counts on grounds that the information failed to charge an
offense.  Defendant argued that 10 V.S.A.  6612(a), which provides criminal
penalties for "violations of rules promulgated herein," applied only to rules
contained within the Waste Management Act; therefore, the rules promulgated
by ANR were unenforceable under  6612(a).  The court denied defendant's
motion. 

     The parties entered into a plea agreement in which defendant pled guilty
to four counts and reserved the right to appeal the court's denial of its
pretrial motion, if the fines exceeded $40,000.  The State agreed to
recommend fines of not less than $5,000 and not more than $20,000 for each
count and to dismiss all remaining charges with prejudice.  Defendant entered
a guilty plea pursuant to the agreement.  At sentencing, the trial court
imposed fines totalling $65,000 for the four counts.  This appeal followed. 

     Defendant raises three issues on appeal.  First, it claims the trial
court erred when it denied defendant's motion to dismiss the information for
failure to charge a crime.  In support of its position, defendant challenges
as erroneous the trial court's construction of  6612(a). Second, defendant
contends that  6612 is unconstitutional.  Third, defendant claims the fines
were excessive because  6612(b) limits civil fines to $10,000 for each
violation. 

     Defendant's first claim is that the trial court erred when it concluded
that 10 V.S.A.  6612(a) authorized criminal prosecutions for violations of
ANR regulations promulgated 

 

pursuant to Vermont's Waste Management Act. Section 6612 provides in relevant
part: 


     (a) Any person who violates any provision of this chapter, the
     rules promulgated herein or the terms or conditions of any order
     of certification granted by the secretary, shall be subject to a
     criminal penalty not to exceed $25,000.00 or imprisonment for not
     more than six months, or both.

     (b) Any person who violates any provision of this chapter relating
     to solid or hazardous waste management, the regulations
     promulgated thereunder, or the terms or conditions of any order
     relating to solid or hazardous waste management or . . . facility
     certification, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
     $10,000.00.

     . . .

     (d) Any person who commits any of the following in violation of
     any provision of this chapter, the rules adopted under this chapter,
     or the terms and conditions of any order or certification under this
     title shall be subject to a criminal penalty not to exceed
     $250,000.00, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or
     both ...

10 V.S.A.  6612 (emphasis added).

     Defendant urges us to apply literal meaning to the word "herein," and
hold that in  6612(a), the phrase "rules promulgated herein" refers only to
rules actually located within chapter 159.  To buttress this argument,
defendant contends the three different references to rules within  6612 are
intended to have distinct meanings.  Defendant also suggests that the use of
different words when referring to rules makes it clear that the Legislature
reserved for itself the sole authority to define crimes.  Therefore,
defendant concludes that the State cannot prosecute ANR violations. 

     In contrast, the State argues that it is obvious from the statute as a
whole that the phrase "rules promulgated herein" refers to rules adopted
under chapter 159.  Such a construction, argues the State, would promote the
Legislature's intent to criminalize violations of all regulations and to
ensure that Vermont's Waste Management Act is compatible with the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its attendant regulations.  We agree
with 

 

the State. 

     In cases of statutory construction, our task is to discern the
Legislature's intent and give effect to that intent.  Spears v. Town of
Enosburg, 153 Vt. 259, 261, 571 A.2d 604, 605 (1989).  In determining the
legislative intent, we may review the entire statutory scheme.  Id. at 262,
571 A.2d  at 605-06 ("Statutory construction compels the court to look beyond
the language of a particular section standing alone, to the whole statute,
the subject matter, its effects and consequences and the reason and the
spirit of the law").  Our interpretation must further fair, rational results,
id. at 261, 571 A.2d  at 605, and if possible, give meaning and effect to all
the  statutory language, State v. Baldwin, 140 Vt. 501, 512,