Court Opinion

ID: 9709410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:46:56.388458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:48.566715
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING AND CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge LEAVITT.
I respectfully dissent to that part of the majority opinion affirming the Department’s decision to place Eureka on the Compliance Docket. The seriousness of the Department’s action must not be underestimated. So long as Eureka remained on the Compliance Docket, the Department would not issue any operating permits or plan approvals to any of Eureka’s three quarries, regardless of the compliance record of a particular quarry. The Department took this drastic action because it “determined that Eureka lacks the intention and ability to comply with the Department’s air quality regulations.” Reproduced Record at 636a (R.R. —). In my view, however, the record supports the contrary conclusion. At the time Eureka was placed on the Compliance Docket, it did not lack the intention or ability to comply with the pertinent regulations but, rather, manifested the contrary.
The record establishes that Francine Carlini, the Department’s Regional Program Director for Air Quality, decided to place Eureka on the Compliance Docket after she learned of fugitive dust resulting from earthmoving activities at Eureka’s Rush Valley facility in June and August of 2005. EHB Adjudication, August 6, 2007, at 23, Finding of Fact No. 107 (F.F.-1.1 When asked whether “the decision [was] made in September to start that process,” Ms. Carlini replied, “I would say that’s accurate, in the fall of '05.” Notes of Testimony (N.T. —), March 22, 2007, at 530; R.R. 187a. At the time Carlini made her decision, however, Rush Valley was in compliance with the pertinent regulations. *352The Department’s inspector, Robert Guz-ek, specifically noted in his inspection report, “[a]s of September 9, 2005, the facility appears to be in compliance with Air Quality Laws and Regulations.” R.R. 552a. Additionally, the Board found as follows:
40. Eureka also submitted an abatement plan for Rush Valley by letter dated September 6, 2005, stating that it would install more misting sprays and use a water truck to control emissions from the excavation activities. Eureka, in fact, completed this work by Mr. Guz-ek’s next inspection in September. (Ex. C-51; Guzek, N.T. 154-55)
41. By operating water trucks in the area of excavation activities and installing and operating water sprays at the primary crusher transfer points, Eureka could sufficiently control fugitive emissions from those sources, as evidenced by the Department’s inspection of the Rush Valley Eureka facility on September 9, 2005. (Ex. C-49; Guzek, N.T. 155-156)
42. On September 9, 2005, Robert Guz-ek inspected the Rush Valley facility. He found that the violations which had been cited in his earlier inspections had been rectified and that the facility was in compliance with air quality laws and regulations. (Guzek, N.T. 155; 254-55; Ex. C^9)
EHB Adjudication, August 6, 2007, at 11, F.F. 40-42. The results of the September 9, 2005, inspection, which was the last inspection of Rush Valley before Eureka was placed on the Compliance Docket, demonstrate Eureka’s intention and ability to comply with the Air Quality Regulations at that facility.
Eureka’s Warrington quarry had a record of five straight annual full compliance inspections without a single violation. N.T., March 22, 2007, at 534; R.R. 188a. Admittedly, in late November 2005, there was an inspection of the Warrington facility that resulted in a notice of violation being issued; however, as Ms. Carlini’s testimony indicates, the decision had been made to place Eureka on the Compliance Docket before the November inspection. In any event, five consecutive years of full compliance followed by one violation does not demonstrate a lack of intention and ability to comply with the Department’s Air Quality Regulations.
Eureka’s Chalfont quarry had a series of violations; however, Eureka’s response to those violations indicated both an intention and an ability to comply with the regulations just as it had at Rush Valley. The first inspection of the Chalfont quarry at issue in the underlying proceedings occurred on September 20, 2004. Guzek issued a notice of violation for fugitive dust emanating from the transfer point between the conveyor and the final screenhouse, which Guzek concluded stemmed from a lack of water suppression. R.R. 426a-427a. James Furey, Eureka’s Environmental Safety Director, testified that Eureka immediately installed a water spray on the belt scraper near the entrance to the building, N.T., March 22, 2007, at 609; R.R. 206a, although not in the precise location directed by the Department. N.T., March 20, 2007, at 60; R.R. 68a. Furey explained the reason for installing the water spray in the chosen location, N.T., March 22, 2007, at 609-610; R.R. 206a-207a, and his explanation was not challenged by the Department.
On each subsequent inspection, if fugitive dust was noted, Eureka took steps to address the situation. On June 23, 2005, Guzek inspected the Chalfont quarry and *353observed “major dust emanating from the primary crusher hopper when aggregate was being dumped into the hopper.” R.R. 456a. Guzek recommended atomizing spray nozzles be added to the hopper, which Eureka installed. N.T., March 22, 2007, at 618; R.R. 209a. Thereafter, at the September 9, 2005, inspection the inspector opined that the atomizing nozzles were not adequate, R.R. 469a, and Guzek recommended “fog-it” nozzles for the area. N.T., March 22, 2007, at 618-619; R.R. 209a. Eureka replaced the atomizing nozzles with fog-it nozzles, which were in addition to the existing deluge nozzles. Id. When a subsequent inspection revealed that the fog-it nozzles were not solving the problem, Eureka replaced them with higher-flow fire sprinkler nozzles in order to suppress the dust. N.T., March 20, 2007, at 282; R.R. 111a. In short, during the summer and early fall of 2005, Eureka changed the nozzles on the primary crusher at Chalfont three separate times on the basis of discussions with the Department’s inspectors. This demonstrates an intention and ability to comply with the Department’s regulations.
Based on the foregoing, the evidence simply does not establish that the Department was justified in placing Eureka on the Compliance Docket for a lack of intention and ability to comply with the Department’s Air Quality Regulations. At the time the decision was made to place Eureka on the Compliance Docket, the status of the record was that Rush Valley had come into full compliance; Warrington had five years of full compliance without any violations; and Chalfont was working to come into compliance by, inter alia, trying the various types of water suppression nozzles that the Department suggested to control dust at the primary crusher. Because Eureka came into compliance at two of its facilities and was actively working with the Department to come into compliance at the third, I believe the Department abused its discretion, or misapplied the statute, by placing Eureka on the Compliance Docket.2 I agree with the majority’s disposition of Eureka’s remaining issues.

. Eureka believed, incorrectly, that earthmov-ing did not require a permit because the applicable regulation, 25 Pa.Code § 123.1(a), exempts "clearing of land” from its directive. Eureka may have misconstrued the regulation, but its position is colorable. Further, the meaning of "clearing of land” had never been construed by a court.

. I disagree with Eureka’s argument that abating the civil penalties assessed by the Department is an appropriate “sanction” for the Department's abuse of discretion. Unfortunately there is no remedy for the economic losses Eureka claims it suffered while on the Compliance Docket. Eureka is entitled, however, to be retroactively removed from the Compliance Docket since the Department will consider its past compliance history in assessing any future violations.