Title: Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources v. Upper Valley Regional Landfill, Corp.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Secretary, ANR v. Upper Valley Regional Landfill Corp.  (96-369); 
167 Vt. 228; 705 A.2d 1001

[Filed 7-Nov-1997]

       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. 96-369

Secretary, Agency of Natural                 Supreme Court
Resources
                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Agency of Natural Resources

Upper Valley Regional Landfill               March Term, 1997
Corporation, Barker Sargent
Corporation, Inc., Frank L. Barker,
Jr., and Robert MacNeil

TRASH2O, Intervenor

Barbara G. Ripley, Secretary

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, J. Wallace Malley, Jr., Acting
  Attorney General, John W. Kessler, Assistant Attorney General, and Victoria
  R. Parra, Law Clerk (On the Brief), Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

       Robert E. Manchester, Manchester Law Offices, P.C., Burlington, for
  defendants-appellants

       Joe Bivins, Post Mills, for intervenor-appellee and cross-appellant,
  TRASH2O

PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and Allen, C.J.
          (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       GIBSON, J.   Defendants Upper Valley Regional Landfill Corporation,
  Barker Sargent Corporation, Inc., Frank L. Barker and Robert MacNeil appeal
  from an order issued by the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources
  (ANR) that directed corporate defendants to perform closure and
  post-closure operations at its landfill in Post Mills, Vermont.  Defendants
  contend that (1) the hearing officer erred by denying defendants' motion
  for his disqualification based on a conflict of interest, and (2) the
  Secretary does not have subject-matter jurisdiction because the Attorney
  General had previously instituted enforcement proceedings in superior
  court.  Intervenor TRASH2O (Thetford Residents Advocating Safe H2O), a
  citizen environmental group, cross-appeals, arguing that the Secretary
  erred by (1) ruling that contingent sanctions are

 

  not available under 10 V.S.A. § 6610a(c)(1), (2) failing to rule on all the
  parties' proposed findings as required by 3 V.S.A. § 812(a), (3) providing
  less protection than previous land use permits in violation of 1993, No.
  208 (Adj. Sess.), § 8, and (4) improperly dismissing individual defendants
  Frank L. Barker and Robert MacNeil.  We affirm (1) the order denying the
  motion for disqualification of the hearing officer, (2) the holding that
  ANR has concurrent jurisdiction to pursue enforcement proceedings, (3) the
  ruling that contingent sanctions are not available under 10 V.S.A. §
  6610(c)(1), and (4) the dismissal of Robert MacNeil.  Because the Secretary
  failed to consider and rule on the findings proposed by the State and
  intervenor, and because such findings could have an impact on the remaining
  issues, we vacate the remaining portions of the Secretary's order and
  remand the matter for rulings on those findings and entry of a new order.

       In 1971, Barker Sargent Corporation was granted an Act 250 permit that
  authorized construction and operation of a landfill in Post Mills, Vermont. 
  The landfill began operation in 1974.  The Act 250 permit expired in
  January 1986, but the landfill continued operating without a permit until
  1989 when the district commission denied its application for a new permit.
  The Attorney General then obtained a consent order requiring the landfill
  to cease operations, and the landfill has not operated since September
  1989.  Subsequently, the landfill applied for but was denied an Act 250
  permit in 1991; it has filed no new application since that time.

       Legislation enacted in 1977 required landfills to obtain
  disposal-facility certification from the Agency of Environmental
  Conservation (AEC), the predecessor to ANR.  See 1977, No. 106 § 1
  (codified at 10 V.S.A. § 6605).  In 1981, the landfill obtained
  certification, requiring it to provide an alternative water supply for
  neighbors whose water supply had been contaminated by the landfill and to
  have the new system completed by 1984.  The new water supply was not
  operational until 1988, however, and two households that requested
  connection to the system have not yet been connected.  The AEC
  certification expired in 1986.

       In 1987, new legislation required AEC to conduct a comprehensive
  assessment of all

 

  existing landfills prior to issuing any new disposal-facility
  certifications.  See 1987, No. 78 § 9.  The landfill obtained a
  Transitional Operational Authorization (TOA) in 1987, allowing it to
  continue operation under the terms of the previous certification. 
  Following several amendments to the TOA during 1988 and 1989, the landfill
  ceased accepting waste in September 1989 under the terms of the consent
  order issued by Washington Superior Court.

       In 1990, the landfill obtained an AEC Interim Certification
  authorizing it to operate until no later than July 1, 1992, in order to
  generate funds for closure and post-closure expenditures. The Interim
  Certification required the landfill to monitor the existing alternative
  water supply and to develop a new water supply meeting Public Community
  Water Supply standards, to replace the existing alternative water supply. 
  The landfill never reopened, however, because its Act 250 application was
  denied in November 1991.  The Interim Certification expired in 1992, and
  the landfill never developed the new water supply.

       In 1992, the landfill received an advisory opinion from the
  Environmental Board, which concluded that an Act 250 permit was required to
  install the replacement water supply and to cap and close the landfill. 
  Nevertheless, the landfill filed no permit application following receipt of
  this opinion.

       In 1993, the case was referred to the Attorney General, who brought a
  complaint in Washington Superior Court alleging violations of several
  environmental laws.  The complaint requested the court to order the
  landfill to submit a closure plan to ANR, to submit an Act 250 application
  to the district commission, and to implement the approved closure plan on
  schedule. It also requested civil fines.  The landfill filed a counterclaim
  against the State and a third-party action against thirteen entities
  including ANR for contribution for the cost of closure and post-closure
  operations.

       In 1994, the Legislature amended Act 250 to provide: "No permit or
  permit amendment is required for closure operations at an unlined landfill
  which began disposal operations prior to July 1, 1992 and which has been
  ordered closed under section 6610a . . . ."  1993, No. 208

 

  (Adj. Sess.), § 4 (codified at 10 V.S.A. § 6081(h)).  Simultaneously, the
  Legislature amended 10 V.S.A. § 6610a to allow the Secretary of ANR to take
  action against a disposal facility that "has failed to perform closure and
  post-closure operations as deemed necessary by the secretary to preserve
  and protect the air, groundwater, surface water, public health and the
  environment." 1993, No. 208 (Adj. Sess.), § 4 (codified at 10 V.S.A. §
  6610a(c)).

       In July 1995, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
  initiated the action that is the subject of this appeal.  It issued a
  proposed order under § 6610a(c), alleging violations of various
  environmental laws and requiring closure, post-closure monitoring, and
  development of an alternative water supply.  Defendants moved for a stay of
  the administrative proceedings on the ground that the superior court had
  exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over the enforcement action.  The
  stay was denied by the hearing officer in the administrative tribunal, and
  defendants' request for disqualification of the hearing officer was also
  denied.  In July 1996, the Secretary issued her final order, from which
  defendants have taken this appeal.

                                     I.

       In their brief, defendants argue that the hearing officer erred by
  denying their motion for his disqualification.  They maintain that the
  hearing officer, as an employee of ANR, had an impermissible conflict of
  interest because the outcome of the administrative proceeding could affect
  ANR's liability in the related superior court case.  At oral argument,
  defendants acknowledged that the Secretary, also employed by ANR, has the
  same interest in the outcome of the administrative proceeding as the
  hearing officer.  Defendants then argued that the Secretary should also be
  disqualified, and indeed, that ANR should not be permitted to pursue
  administrative enforcement while the complaint against ANR was pending in
  superior court.

       Defendants claim that the alleged conflict of interest arising from
  ANR's role in the two proceedings violates their due process rights under
  the United States and Vermont Constitutions as well as their rights under
  12 V.S.A. § 61(a) and the Vermont Code of Judicial Conduct, Administrative
  Order No. 10.  To the extent that defendants rely on Chapter II, § 28 of
  the

 

  Vermont Constitution (justice shall be impartially administered) and the
  Code of Judicial Conduct, A.O. 10, we have previously held that neither one
  applies to proceedings conducted by the executive branch.  In re Crushed
  Rock, Inc., 150 Vt. 613, 623,