Vacates a $19,685 civil administrative penalty and related enforcement order issued by the Department of Environmental Protection to a husband and wife for willful violations of the Title 5 regulations in constructing a new personal dwelling and on-site sewage disposal system.
The Department of Environmental Protection issued a single $47,150.00 penalty to Ranger, Inc. and its president, Ronald P. Anger for violating 310 CMR 7.15, the asbestos regulations, while demolishing a building. Concludes that the definition of "owner/operator" in the Air Quality Regulations (310 CMR 7.00) does not negate the privilege against personal liability enjoyed by corporate officers for actions taken on behalf of their corporations. Finds that Anger is entitled to the privilege and vacates the penalty issued to him as an individual. Finds that Ranger, Inc. was required to notify DEP before beginning demolition and did not do so and therefore sustains the portion of the penalty based on failure to notify. Reduces the penalty amount from $19,575.00 to $16,312.50. Finds that DEP failed to prove that Ranger, Inc.'s demolition activities released asbestos into the ambient air and therefore vacates the $19,575.00 portion of the penalty based on causing a condition of air pollution. See 310 CMR 7.15(1)a. Finds that Ranger, Inc. did not remove asbestos-containing materials from the building and vacates the $5,000.00 portion of the penalty based on violations of the procedures for removing asbestos from a facility.
The Board of Registration of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Professionals did not show sufficient grounds for disciplinary action against a licensed site professional (LSP) (1) for downgradient property status opinions he filed regarding a release of chlorinated solvents at a site in Brighton, and releases of gasoline and gasoline-related volatile organic compounds at sites in Natick and Newton, because, contrary to the Board's charges, the LSP determined the direction of groundwater flow, discussed or explained known, available information suggesting that the site was a source of hazardous waste release, and provided sufficient support for his opinion that the site was not the source of contamination found there, or (2) for response action outcome opinions he filed regarding hazardous waste disposal sites in Holliston, Hanson, Hudson and Dorchester, because, contrary to the Board's charges, he properly classified groundwater and determined groundwater flow direction, defined the nature and extent of hazardous waste releases, did not underestimate risks to drinking water supplies, and collected sufficient data to adequately characterize the risk that the releases in question posed.
Enforcement order appeal dismissed after the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal and agreed that the petitioner had complied with the enforcement order.