HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-5309IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OR
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
20 01` ? . i
+4n'1 9.38
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) - _
PROTECTION, )
Claimant 1
vs.
GEORGE STAMBAUGH AND
SHIRLEY STAMBAUGH
3419 RITNER HIGHWAY
NEWVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17026
Owners
Date Entered:
Docket No.:
1
CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT
To the Prothonotary:
Pursuant to Section 605 of the Clean Streams Law, Act of June 22, 1937, P.L.
1987, as amended, 35 P.S. Section 691.605 ("Clean Streams Law"), this is a Certified
Copy of Judgment for civil penalties to be entered of record by you and indexed as
Judgments are indexed.
Date of Final Amount of Amount Paid
Judgment Assessment if any) Total Due:
September 17, 2009 $18,197.00 $ 0.00 $18,197.00
(EHB Order)
Filing Fees $0
Total $18,197.00
The undersigned certifies that the above civil penalties are due and payable by the
above defendant under the provisions of the Clean Streams Law, pursuant to Section 605
of said law, 35 P.S. Section 691.605. The above civil penalties shall constitute a
Judgment in favor of the Commonwealth upon the real property, such person, from the
date entered and docketed of record.
q /(0 S? 3 3 ?
Date Scott R. Williamson
Environmental Group Manager
DEP Watershed Management Program
ORIGINAL TO BE RETAINED BY PROTHONOTARY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS bp" .
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL ?A,.,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
Claimant
- 530 3w-l ?- ?
VS.
GEORGE STAMBAUGH AND
SHIRLEY STAMBAUGH
3419 RITNER HIGHWAY
NEWVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17026
Owners
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
To the Prothonotary:
Kindly enter my appearance as counsel for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Environmental Protection, in the above matter. I am authorized to accept service
on behalf of the Department in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Susana Cortina de Cdrdenas
Assistant Counsel
Supreme Court I.D. No. 207465
Southcentral Regional Office
909 Elmerton Avenue, P Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17110-8200
(717) 787-8790
Date: August 9, 2010
C?
w
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING BOARD
r?
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
O EHB Docket No. 2008-146-CP-C
V.
GEORGE AND SHIRLEY STAMBAUGH
O ORDER
AND NOW, this 17`h day of September, 2009, it is hereby ORDERED that civil penalties
are assessed against George and Shirley Stambaugh in the total amount of $18,197.
O
ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING BOARD
•
0
O
O
THOMAS W. RENWAND
Acting Chairman and Judge
GEORGE J. MJMLIUR
Judge
. v?
MI LLE A. COLEMM
Judge
0 13
BERNAAD A.LABU ,
Judge
-, DATED: September 17, 2009
V DEP Bureau of Litigation
Attention: Brenda K. Morris, Library
O For the Commonwealth, DEP:
Susana Cortina de Cardenas, Esquire
Office of Chief Counsel
Southcentral Regional Counsel '
For Defendants: .
O Mark F. Bayley, Esquire
BAYLEY & MANGAN
17 West South Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Gregory H. Knight, Esquire
O 11 Roadway Drive, Suite B
Carlisle, PA 17015
O
O
O
O
0 14
G)P46.*-*.J0 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Office of Chief Counsel
Third Floor
909 Elmerton Avenue
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-8200
MJ
August 9, 2010
Southcentral Regional Office
Telephone: 717-787-8790
Telecopier: 717-772-2400
David D. Buell, Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Sq.
Carlisle, PA 17013-3387
Re: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection v. George
Stambaugh and Shirley Stambaugh.
Dear Mr. Buell:
Please be advised that I represent the Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, Department of
Environmental Protection ("PADEP") in this matter. This judgment is being filed under Section
605 of the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, 35 P.S. Section 691.605. Section 605(a) authorizes
the assessment of a civil penalty for violations of the law. If the person liable to pay does not do
so after demand, the civil penalty becomes a judgment upon the person along with interests and
costs. This section also provides that:
"The department may, at any time, transmit to the
prothonotaries of the respective counties certified
copies of all such judgments, and it shall be the duty
of each prothonotary to enter and docket them of
record in his office, and to index the same as judgments
are indexed without requiring the payment of costs as
a condition precedent to the entry thereof."
In this case, the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board ("BHB") has issued an
Order in favor of PADEP, assessing civil penalties against the Stambaugh's for violations of the
Clean Streams Law. George and Shirley Stambaugh have refused to pay the $18,197 civil
penalty assessed against them despite the fact that payment has been demanded. PADEP now
seeks to enter this final judgment and a lien on the real property owned by George and Shirley
Stambaugh, located at 3419 Ritner Highway, Newville, Pennsylvania 17026, in order to facilitate
collection.
Enclosed please find the following:
1) An original and two (2) copies of a Praecipe for Entry of Appearance;
An Equal Opportunity Employer www dep.state.pa.us Printed on Recycled Paper
Q;F
August 9, 2010
David D. Buell, Prothonotary
Page 2
2) Three (3) originals of a Certified Copy of Judgment for $18,197;
3) Copy of the. Order issued in Docket No. 2008-146-CP-C by the EHB assessing civil
penalties against the Stambaugh's; and
4) An original copy of a Notice of Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 236 for Defendants
George Stambaugh and Shirley Stambaugh, to be signed by Prothonotary and then copied
(two copies).
Kindly file the original and return the date-stamped copy of the Rule 236 Notice,
showing the docket number, to me in enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. Please serve
one original Certified Copy of Judgment and a copy of Rule 236 Notice on the Defendant. A
stamped envelope to the Defendant is enclosed for the purpose of the Prothonotary serving a
Certified Copy of Judgment and Rule 236 Notice.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. If there are any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sinc ly,
Susanna Cortina de Cardenas
Assistant Counsel
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION,
Date Entered:
Plaintiff
Docket No. 10-5309
v.
GEORGE AND SHIRLEY STAMBAUGH,
Defendants
CERTIFIED COPY OF AMENDED JUDGMENT
To the Prothonotary:
-tea
rn
W
coo
< v'
CD
=.c
N
r7i _72
.7„c,
c
On April 18, 2012, the Environmental Hearing Board ("Board") issued an Order pursuant
to an Adjudication Following Remand of a civil penalty judgment, which lowered the civil
penalty against George and Shirley Stambaugh ("Stambaughs") from $18,197 to $13,884.
Pursuant to Section 605 of the Clean Streams Law, Act of June 22, 1937, P.L. 1987, as amended,
35 P.S. Section 691.605 ("Clean Streams Law"), this is a Certified Copy of an Amended
Judgment for civil penalties to be entered of record by you and indexed as Judgments are
indexed.
Date of Final
Assessment
4/18/2012
Amount of assessment
$13,884.00
Amount Paid
(if any)
-0-
Total Due
$13,884.00
Total $13,884.00
The undersigned certifies that the above civil penalties are due and payable by the above
defendant under the provisions of the Clean Streams Law, pursuant to Section 605 of said law,
35 P.S. Section 691.605. A copy of said judgment is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The
above civil penalties shall constitute a Judgment in favor of the C c m , ealth upon the
property, or such person from the date entered and docketed f rec
September 25, 2014
r
Scott Wi liamson
Program Manager
Waterways and Wetlands Program
Southcentral Regional Office
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING BOARD
CERTIFICATION
I, Vincent F. Gustitus, Jr., Secretary to the Environmental Hearing Board, by virtue of
the powers and duties vested in that office, do hereby certify in accordance with § 6103 of
the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S.A § 6103, that I am the legal custodian of records for the
Environmental Hearing Board and further certify that upon checking the docket entries and
records of the Environmental Hearing Board, there exists no record of any appeal filed by
George and Shirley Stambaugh in response to the Adjudication Following Remand and
Order issued by the Board on April 18, 2012 under EHB Docket No. 2008 -146 -CP -C.
1
DATED:
September 15, 2014
In testimony whereof I have set my hand and
caused the seal of the Environmental Hearing
Board to be affixed hereto.
U
Vincent F. Gustitus, Jr.
Secretary to the Board
L — /
r
2nd Floor - Rachel Carson State Office Building 1 400 Market Street, P.O. Box 8457 1 Harrisburg, PA 17105-84571 717.787.3483 1 Fax 717.783.4738 1
http://ehb.courtapps.com
40
04/18/2012 4
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
EHB Docket No. 2008 -146 -CP -C
v.
Issued: April 18, 2012
GEORGE AND SHIRLEY STAMBAUGH
ADJUDICATION FOLLOWING REMAND
By Michelle A. Coleman, Judge
Synopsis:
The Commonwealth Court has remanded this matter with specific instructions that the
Board address the mitigating factors offered by the Appellants on appeal and to reconsider the
assessed civil penalties of $18,197 in light of the reasons proffered. In the Board's original
Adjudication it found the Stambaughs reckless in constructing a silo trench on their property
without a liner rendering two neighbors' drinking wells unpotable and in need of a replacement
water supply. After further review we find the record supports that the Stambaughs were
negligent and will reduce the penalty based on their culpability. However, the Board still
maintains that the Stambaughs were reckless in failing to remove the silage and repair the trench
as ordered by the Department while knowing that their actions were the source of pollution to
their neighbors' wells. Lastly, the Board finds that the Stambaughs were late in filing both their
nutrient management plan and erosion and sedimentation plan as ordered by the Department.
Revised penalties reflect the reduced culpability and sluggish response to the Department's order.
In total, the civil penalty assessed is $13,884.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Stambaughs did not put a liner or concrete floor in the silage trench they
constructed on their property 90 feet from neighbors' drinking water wells. (N.T. 30, 106, 134-
35)
2. Mr. Stambaugh testified that a contractor dug the trench on the Stambaughs'
property. (N.T. 137-38)
3. No evidence was offered by the Stambaughs regarding a contractor that they hired
to dig the trench.
4. Mr. Stambaugh testified that he told the Department he would remove the trench
within two weeks but delayed the removal because there was bad weather and the trench was
located in a field with a natural waterway with no good driveway to access the trench. (N.T.108-
09)
5. Mr. Stambaugh testified that they had a house fire three months prior to February
2006 which created difficulty in finding someone to prepare a nutrient management plan as
ordered by the Department. (N.T. 110)
6. The Department's suggested civil penalty for the failure to submit a plan and
schedule for the temporary and permanent storage of silage, a nutrient management plan and an
erosion and sedimentation plan was calculated from November 19, 2005 (plan and schedule for
storage of the silage) and December 4, 2005 (nutrient management plan and erosion and
sedimentation plan) until the filing of the complaint on April 24, 2008. (N.T. 36-38)
7. Mr. Stambaugh had submitted plans in the past, specifically for the year 2001, and
testified that the plans were to be updated every three years and it was time again to update his
2
plan from 2001. (N.T. 114)
8. The Stambaughs did not submit any plans until July 23, 2007. (N.T. 166-67)
9. Mr. Stambaugh, himself, testified that he did not sign the July 23, 2007
submission knowing it was wrong yet submitted it anyway. (N.T. 166-71)
10. A plan was not submitted and approved until January of 2009. (N.T. 12, 37, 123,
132)
11. The Board issued an Order dated March 20, 2012 providing an opportunity for the
parties to file additional briefs in light of the Commonwealth Court's remand. The parties chose
not to provide any additional briefing to the Board.
BACKGROUND
Before the Board is a remand from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania of an
Adjudication in which the Board assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $18,197 for violations
of the Clean Streams Law against George and Shirley Stambaugh ("Stambaughs"). The
violations resulted from the Stambaughs digging an unlined trench on their property and filling it
with corn silage. Silage leachate seeped into the ground water and contaminated neighboring
wells. Ground water contamination is a violation of the Clean Streams Law, Sections 316, 401
and 611. 35 P.S. §§ 691.316, 691.401, 691.611. The Department of Environmental Protection
(the "Department") met with Mr. Stambaugh on October 19, 2005 regarding the pollution from
the trench on his property. Mr. Stambaugh informed the Department that he would have the
trench removed within two weeks. After the two weeks had passed, the Department issued an
Order on November 4, 2005. When there was still no compliance with the order, the Department
issued 2 notices of violation on February 1, 2006 and February 27, 2006. When the Stambaughs
further failed to comply with the Department's order and notices of violation it calculated a civil
3
penalty in the amount of $33,772. The Department filed a complaint for civil penalties with the
Board on April 24, 2008. After a hearing on the merits the amount was reduced to $18,197. See
DEP v. George and Shirley Stambaugh, 2009 EHB 481. The Stambaughs appealed the Board's
Adjudication to the Commonwealth Court. See George and Shirley Stambaugh v. DEP, 11 A.3d
30 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). The Commonwealth Court found that the Board had not shown that the
Stambaughs were reckless in constructing the trench and failure to remove the trench as ordered
by the Department. Also, the Court held that the Board had not given the Stambaughs credit for a
fire in which records were lost when their home was destroyed or for hiring a contractor and
seeking help from professionals to create a plan for his farm. We will address the
Commonwealth Court's concerns below.
DISCUSSION
On appeal to the Commonwealth Court the Stambaughs argued that the Department did
not meet its burden of proving that they had recklessly caused pollution and contaminated their
neighbors' wells because they constructed the earthen trench. The Commonwealth Court agreed
and remanded the matter back to the Board, stating that the record lacks evidence to support a
finding of recklessness. At the hearing in this matter, the Department used a penalty matrix' to
propose a penalty for the Stambaughs' violations. In the penalty matrix there are five factors to
consider, one being the degree of culpability (or willfulness) of the violator. The degrees of
willfulness listed in the matrix are deliberate, reckless, negligent or accidental. The Department
suggested the Stambaughs' conduct that resulted in the pollution was reckless and we agreed
We, of course are not bound by the Department's civil penalty matrix, as the Board stated in Thebes,
"...our task is not to review the Department's civil penalty matrix. The matrix is a guidance document
which may be a useful tool to Department personnel, but it is not binding on the Department or the Board.
DEP v. Kennedy, 2007 EHB 15, 25; DEP v. Hostetler, 2006 EHB 359." DEP v. Thebes, 2010 EHB 370,
398. We found the Department's use of the penalty matrix in this case helpful in understanding the
Department's suggested calculations.
4
assessing a penalty accordingly. The Board now reassesses that penalty.
The Commonwealth Court defined reckless as "the creation of a substantial and
unjustifiable risk of harm to others and ... conscious disregard for or indifference to that risk . .
.." Stambaugh, 11 A.3d at 37, citing BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1787 (9th ed. 2009). Mr.
Stambaugh stated that he had lived on the site for over 50 years. (N.T. 102) The trench was dug
in an area that has, as Mr. Stambaugh testified, a "natural through way for the water". (N.T. 108)
Mr. Stambaugh testified that he would put a concrete floor down if he intended the trench to be
more than just a temporary trench. (N.T. 106) And, he constructed the trench within 90 feet of
his neighbors' wells rendering them unpotable for a period of six months. (N.T. 30) Mr.
Stambaugh testified that he did not know that digging a trench and dumping corn silage in the
ground would cause pollution.
The Commonwealth Court stated that "the record lacks evidence to support a finding that
the Stambaughs knew their actions would cause a risk of pollution and did so in wanton
disregard of that risk." Stambaugh, 11 A.3d at 38. Upon review we find that there is an
insufficient foundation on which to claim that Mr. Stambaugh had knowledge of and a
"conscious disregard' that the combination of his actions and other factors would lead to the
pollution of his neighbors' wells. Also we find that this lack of knowledge would inhibit his
ability to notify the Department and/or downstream users under 25 Pa. Code § 91.33(a).
However, there is certainly adequate support for finding him negligent when his actions caused
the pollution that rendered two wells unpotable. Negligence is the "failure to exercise the
standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any
conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk
of harm ...." BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 1061(8' ed. 2004). Certainly, Mr. Stambaugh has
5
m 04/18/2012
1
\
many years of farming experience and his carelessness in digging a trench in a natural waterway
without a liner fell well below the standard of care a reasonable person would have exercised.
Therefore, we find him negligent and reduce the penalty for violations of Section 401 of the
Clean Streams Law from $5,750 to $2,875. For violations of 25 Pa. Code § 91.33(a) we reduce
the penalty from $1,150 to $0.
The Commonwealth Court also asked the Board to explain why it found the Stambaughs
were reckless in delaying the removal of the silage. Stambaugh, 11 A.3d 37-38. We found the
Stambaughs inaction to be within the definition of reckless (see above) because the delay in
cleanup of the pollution took at least 48 days. In addition the implementation of preventive
measures took at least 800 days. The Department reported the pollution to the Stambaughs on
October 19, 2005. Mr. Stambaugh told the Department that he would have the trench cleaned up
and removed within two weeks. When Stambaugh failed to clear the site within the time he
stated, the Department issued an Order on November 4, 2005 giving them an additional 30 days.
The Stambaughs still did not comply.
Mr. Stambaugh did not provide any defense for not moving and cleaning up the trench
other than bad weather and that the location of the trench made it hard to access. Mr. Stambaugh
was informed of the pollution in October of 2005. Clearly, at that point he was aware that
constructing the trench had caused substantial groundwater pollution and ruined their neighbors'
wells, but he disregarded any additional risk by not removing the trench until well beyond the
time he said he would remove it and beyond the time ordered by the Department.
The neighbors were not able to use their wells for at least six months. Mr. Stambaugh told the
Department that he would have it cleaned up in a certain amount of time knowing where the
trench was located and the weather at that time. Inclement weather hardly justifies Mr.
6
Stambaugh's lengthy delay. If the weather within the two weeks created a situation that kept the
Stambaughs from complying with the clean-up then they should have contacted the Department
asking for an extension of time. Instead, they knew of the damage they were causing and yet
chose to ignore their obligation. These defenses of failing to remove the trench on their property
knowing all the while it was polluting their neighbors' wells does not mitigate their culpability. It
took too long to clear the trench and we continue to believe that the Stambaughs' violation of
Section 402 was reckless. The penalty of $3,500 we assessed remains.
The Commonwealth Court asked the Board why it did not address the Stambaughs'
reasons for the late plan filings, "i.e. the fire and the poor economy." Stambaugh, 11 A.3d at 36.
We did not find Mr. Stambaugh's testimony credible. On direct examination, Mr. Stambaugh
was asked by his attorney:
Question: After February of 2006, what steps did you take to
obtain a nutrient management plan?
Mr. Stambaugh: A gentleman, Mr. Deeney, had did the one for me
before.
Question: Who is Mr. Deeney?
Mr. Stambaugh: Yeah, Jim, James Denney, yes. The phone number
that I obtained — it took me awhile to find out because three
months before this our house burnt and everything we had in it so
we lost all records ... .
N.T. 110. According to Mr. Stambaugh's testimony, the Stambaughs had a house fire that would
have occurred three months prior to February 2006. That would put the timing of the fire
between the time of the Department's visit to the Stambaughs' home on October 19, 2005 to
inform them of the pollution and the time the Department ordered the plans to be submitted.
During his testimony he speaks of weather which rendered him incapable of removing the silage
in two weeks (November 2). On November 4th the Department gave him an extension until
7
04/18/2012
December 4th. Although there were no specific dates mentioned, the fire, according to the
testimony, could not have occurred later than November 30th. If the Stambaughs found
themselves in a situation like this, the Board does not understand why the Stambaughs did not
contact the Department to inform them of their situation and the need for an extension. The
Department was in contact with them. Instead, the Stambaughs chose to ignore the order.
Additionally, Mr. Stambaugh testified that he had submitted nutrient management plans in the
past in 2001 (N.T. 110) and that they were required to submit such a plan every three years. A
new plan was due. He testified on direct examination:
Mr. Stambaugh: Well, it was time anyhow to rewrite the
management because they recommend it every three years. Okay?
So that's when on —
Question: To rewrite what?
Mr. Stambaugh: They recommend every three years you update.
Question: Update what?
Mr. Stambaugh: Your nutrient management plan.
N.T. 114. Mr. Stambaugh had submitted plans in the past and testified that the plans were to be
updated every three years and it was time again to update his 2001 plan. The Stambaughs were
aware that they were obligated to update their existing nutrient management plan. These plans
are required under 25 Pa. Code § 91.34 to plan for measures to be taken to prevent incidents such
as the well pollution described here. After the pollution leached from their trench, the
Department ordered them to provide plans by December 4, 2005. However, the Stambaughs did
not submit anything until July of 2007. This is well beyond the date ordered and well beyond the
three year required resubmittal of a plan to the Department. We do not find Mr. Stambaugh's
testimony credible for his excuse to have been so late in submitting required plans to the
8
Department. However, the Board's original penalty of $5,175 under Section 91.34 was based on
90% of the initial discharge calculation under Section 401. (N.T. 34-35) Now, that we have
reduced the penalty under Section 401, we will reduce the penalty under Section 91.34 to $2,587
to reflect 90% of Section 401 penalty ($2,875).
The Commonwealth Court then turned to the late plan filings.2 Specifically, the Court
asked why the Board did not stop the daily penalty on July 23, 2007 when the nutrient
management plan was first submitted. We found that Mr. Stambaugh knowingly submitted the
nutrient management plan knowing that it was erroneous even though he was aware that the
Department was attempting to rectify the pollution problems caused by his actions. His answers
to questions on this matter were evasive and incoherent (See N.T. 166-71). Mr. Stambaugh
testified that he submitted the plan knowing it was not going to be approved.
The Board assessed the civil penalty for the late submission of the plans, a violation of 25
Pa. Code § 91.34(b), from the date the plans were due on November 19, 2005 and December 4,
2005, respectively (See footnote 2), until the filing of the Department's complaint (April 24,
2008). The order required the "submission" of the plans, not necessarily the "approval" of the
2 In our Adjudication we explained the calculation for each late plan filing:
The Order required the Stambaughs to submit a plan and schedule for the
temporary and permanent storage of silage ...due by November 19,
2005. The Department assessed the civil penalty on April 22, 2008, 884
days after the plan and schedule submission were due to the Department.
For that violation the Department assessed a penalty of $884... [T]he
Stambaughs were also to submit a nutrient management plan on
December 4, 2005, however, they never did. The Department assessed
the penalty on April 22, 2008 at which time the plan was 869 days late.
The Department's assessment is $869.... [T]he Stambaughs were to
submit an agricultural erosion and sedimentation plan for all plowing and
tilling. This plan was due on December 4, 2005. The Department
assessed the penalty of $869 on April 22, 2008 which was 869 days after
the deadline.
DEP v. Stambaugh, 2009 EHB 481, 490-91.
9
plans. The reason we assessed the penalty in that manner was because Mr. Stambaugh, himself,
testified that he did not sign the July 23, 2007 submission and knew it would be rejected, yet
submitted it anyway. The Department did not get another submittal until after the complaint was
filed. The next submittal of the plan was eight months after the complaint was filed with the
Board. The plan was approved January 30, 2009. (N.T. 163-64) Since Mr. Stambaugh delayed in
his submissions for reasons dubious at best, and he knowingly submitted erroneous information
on his first submittal, we find the amount of $1 a day for the full period to be appropriate.
In conclusion, the Stambaughs are responsible for violations of the Clean Streams Law
Sections 316, 401, 402 and 611 and are charged with penalties in the amount of $13,884.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Stambaughs were negligent in constructing the earthen silage trench on their
property resulting in the discharge of silage leachate into two nearby drinking water wells in
violation of the Clean Streams Law, 35 P.S. § 691.401, 691.611.
2. The Stambaughs were reckless in not removing the silage trench on their property
in violation of the Department's November 4, 2005 order in violation of the Clean Streams Law,
35 P.S. § 691.402, 691.611.
3. The Stambaughs have not presented any credible mitigating factors for failing to
submit a plan and schedule for the temporary and permanent storage of silage, a nutrient management
plan and an erosion and sedimentation plan in accordance with the Department's order.
4. The Board reduces the civil penalty and assesses the total amount of the civil
penalty at $13,884 for the Stambaughs' violations of the Clean Streams Laws.
10
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING BOARD
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
EHB Docket No. 2008 -146 -CP -C
v.
GEORGE AND SHIRLEY STAMBAUGH
ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2012, it is hereby ORDERED that civil penalties are
assessed against George and Shirley Stambaugh in the total amount of $13,884.
DATED: April 18, 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING BOARD
THOMAS W. RENWAND
Chief Judge and Chairman
MICHELLE A. COLEMAN
Judge
BERNARD A. LABUSKES, JR.
Judge
RICHARD P. MATHER, SR.
Judge
11
c: DEP Bureau of Litigation
Glenda Davidson, Library
For the Commonwealth of PA, DEP:
Susana Cortina de Cardenas, Esquire
Office of Chief Counsel - Southcentral Region
For Defendants:
Mark F. Bayley, Esquire
BAYLEY & MANGAN
17 West South Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Gregory H. Knight, Esquire
2 Northfield Way
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
12
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION,
Plaintiff
v.
GEORGE AND SHIRLEY STAMBAUGH,
Defendants
Date Entered:
Docket No. 10-5309
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDMGENT PURSUANT TO RULE 236
To: George and Shirley Stambaugh
3419 Ritner Highway
Newville, Pennsylvania 17026
You are hereby notified pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 236 that a judgment has been entered
against you in the above -captioned matter on theOhay of the months
Min
the year i� at Docket No. 0 -no 9 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania. The judgment is in the amount of $13,884.00.
Date: 9/42.0 y
David D. Buell, Prothonotary
Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania