Commissioner, Indiana Department of Environmental Management v.
Baldev “Dave” Singh, d/b/a
2100 Virginia Street / IDEM Case No. 2007-17439-S
2011 OEA 44, (09-S-E-4276)
[2011 OEA 44, page 44 begins]
OFFICIAL SHORT CITATION NAME: When referring to 2011 OEA 44 cite this case as
&=
nbsp; Baldev Singh, 2011 OEA 44.
TOPICS:
underground storage tank (UST)
Penalty Policy for UST
leaking underground storage tank
Penalty Policy for LUST
gas station facilities
owner
operator
tenants
monthly leak detection
monthly release detection
automatic product line leak detection
annual product line testing
annual line leak detection testing
Agreed Order
Commissioner’s Order
summary judgment
civil penalty
requirements
Civil Penalty Policy
base civil penalty
potential for harm
extent of deviation
matrix
days of noncompliance
aggravating/mitigating factors
economic benefit
inability to pay
delayed cost
capital cost
permit
I.C. § 13-23-1-2
I.C. § 13-23-14-2, -3
329 IAC 9-7-2(1), (2)
329 IAC 9-3-1(c)(3), (d)
McClure Oil, 2009 OEA 126
Landers, 2009 OEA 109
Scherb, 2006 OEA 16
Great Barrier Insulation, 2005 OEA 57
PRESIDING JUDGE:
Mary L. Davidsen
PARTY REPRESENTATIVES:
IDEM: = ; April D. Lashbrook, Esq.
Respondent: =
;
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Taft Stettinius & Hollister =
ORDER ISSUED:
April 11, 2011
INDEX CATEGORY:
Land
FURTHER CASE ACTIVITY:
[none]
[2011 OEA 44, page 45 begins]
STATE OF INDIANA
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; ) &=
nbsp; ENVIRONMENTAL
ADJUDICATION
IN THE MATTER OF: =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
)
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
)
COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; )
Complainant, &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; )
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; )
v.=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; )
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; )
BALDEV
‘DAVE’ SINGH, d/b/a MARATHON GAS STATION )
at
at
Respondent &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; )
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and FINAL ORDER
=
; This
matter came before the Office of Environmental Adjudication (“OEAR=
21;
or “Court”) on summary judgment as to whether
=
; This
matter is now before the Court pursuant to a February 4, 2010 Final Hearing=
, as
to the penalties to be assessed against Respondent, Baldev “Dave̶=
1;
Singh, d/b/a Marathon Gas Station, at 3118 West 15th Avenue and =
at
2100 Virginia Street, Gary, Lake County, Indiana, for lack of documentation=
of
the gas stations’ monthly leak detection on underground storage tanks,
annual product line tightness testing, and annual automatic line leak detec=
tion
testing. Despite effort, Resp=
ondent
was not able to locate documentation to refute the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management’s (“IDEM”) substantive allegatio=
ns
of violations at the two gasoline stations and elected not to contest the
allegations. The Chief
Environmental Law Judge (“ELJ”) having considered the petitions,
testimony, evidence, and pleadings of the parties, now finds that judgment =
may
be made upon the record. The =
Chief
ELJ, by substantial evidence, and being duly advised, now makes the followi=
ng
findings of fact and conclusions of law and enters the following Final
Order:
[2011 OEA 44, page 46 begins]
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Since 1998, Petitioner Baldev
“Dave” Singh (“Singh”) has worked in gas station
facilities operations, and presently owns and/or operates several
2. Respondent Singh testified that the sta=
tions
are operated by tenants, per terms of leases set to expire in two to three
years after February 4, 2010. Tr. p. 28.
3. Based on October 2, 2006 and October 3,=
2007
station inspections by IDEM UST inspector Robert Strimbu, IDEM issued Notic=
es
of Violation (“NOV”) to Respondent Singh on February 8, 2008 (1=
5th
Avenue Station) and on February 15, 2008 (Virginia St. Station), citing
Respondent Singh’s failure to complete mo=
nthly
leak detection, install automatic product line leak detection, complete ann=
ual
product line tightness testing, and complete annual automatic line leak
detection testing at both facilities. IDEM
Exs. B, C, D, O. The
parties did not enter into proposed Agreed Orders to resolve these issues w=
ith
IDEM.
4. IDEM issued a Commissioner’s Orde=
rs for
each station on May 21, 2009. IDEM Exs. G, N.
5. This cause is the subject of Respondent
Singh’s timely June 11, 2009 Petition for Administrative Review of the
Commissioner’s Orders. =
The
matter proceeded to summary judgment.
This Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Orde=
r on
February 2, 2010 (incorporated herein). In summary, the Court held that for=
the
15th Avenue Station, Respondent Singh is liable for the following
violations of 329 IAC 9-7-2(1) and (2):&nb=
sp;
failure to complete monthly leak detection at any time, failure to
install automatic product line leak detection on the regular unleaded tank,
failure to complete annual product line tightness testing in 2006, and fail=
ure
to complete annual automatic line leak detection testing in 2006. Inspection reports indicated that
Respondent Singh did not maintain any tank
[2011 OEA 44, page 47 begins]
documentation at the Station, nor did he provide it to
IDEM upon request, as required by 329 IAC 9-3-1(c)(3) and (d). IDEM
Exs. B, C, and O, Inspection Reports and Affidavit of Robert Strimbu.
6. The
Court held that as for the Virginia St. Station, Respondent Singh was liable
for the following violations of 329 IAC 9-7-2(1) and (2): failure to complete monthly leak
detection at any time, failure to complete annual product line tightness te=
sting
in 2006 and 2007, and failure to complete annual automatic line leak detect=
ion
testing in 2006 and 2007.
Inspection reports indicated that Respondent Singh did not maintain =
any
tank documentation at the Station, nor did he provide it to IDEM upon reque=
st,
as required by 329 IAC 9-3-1(c)(3) and (d). IDEM
Exs. I, J, and O, Inspection Reports and Affidavit of Robert Strimbu.
7. IDEM’s
Commissioner’s Orders issued to Respondent Singh on May 21, 2009 requ=
ired
that he comply with applicable law by beginning to using a form of release
detection at each Station that complies with all of the requirements of 329=
IAC
9-7-2(1) and by submitting copies of all monitoring results to IDEM. With regard to the
8. Testimony
presented by both parties provided substantial evidence that Respondent Sin=
gh
performed some of the required annual tightness testing for 2008, and that
annual tightness testing showed acceptable results. Respondent Singh further
testified that he relied upon the consulting firm he engaged to perform ann=
ual
tests. Respondent Singh state=
d an
intent to install Automatic Tank Gauging (“ATG”) systems at both
stations within 60 days of a final order from this Court.
9. The
Court’s February 2, 2010 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Ord=
er
on summary judgment are incorporated herein. In sum, the Order provided that
Respondent Singh must comply with 329 IAC 9-7-2 in all respects at both
Stations.
[2011 OEA 44, page 48 begins]
10. As the Court concluded, Respondent Singh
violated
11. Final
hearing was conducted on February 4, 2010, on the sole issue of the amount =
of
civil penalty to be assessed at the two facilities. As par=
t of its
Motion for Summary Judgment, IDEM offered an Affidavit of Kris Mangold, Site
Case Manager, which described the method IDEM used to calculate the civil p=
enalty
pursuant to the Penalty Policy for Underground Storage Tank / Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Requirements. IDEM
Exs. P, R[3]. Case =
Manager
Mangold’s civil penalty calculation merged the two violations for eac=
h of
the two sites into a single penalty calculation: failure to provide release detecti=
on on
all tanks and failure to provide product line tightness testing.
12. IDEM’s
Mangold based the penalty on a moderate potential for harm and a major exte=
nt
of deviation from the applicable regulatory rules. The rationale for determining that=
the
violations constitute a moderate potential for harm was that failure to
complete annual testing could result in failing to detect equipment problems
that could lead to a release of fuel product, which, if released, would cau=
se
harm to the environment. IDEM Ex. P, see line IA.
The rationale for determining that the violations constitute a m=
ajor
extent of deviation from the rule was that no documentation was available at
either Station or upon issuance of the NOV. IDEM
Ex. P, see line IB. IDEM
applied the Civil Penalty matrix midpoint for moderate potential for harm a=
nd
major deviation to calculate a matrix penalty for each station of Four Thou=
sand
Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500). IDEM Ex. P, see line IC.
13. IDEM
determined that 2 violation days were appropriate to determine that a
multiplier of 2 applied in calculating the civil penalty. IDEM
Ex. P, line ID. The 2 day=
s of
violations were documented during two inspections, dated October 2, 2006 and
October 3, 2007. Although
substantial evidence was provided that tank tightness testing was performed=
as
required in 2008, no such evidence was provided for 2006 and 2007.
Documentation of the violations during two inspections over a year apart
provides substantial evidence that the two Stations continued in noncomplia=
nce
for more than 365 days. Per
the Penalty Policy for Underground Storage Tank / Leaking Underground Stora=
ge
Tank Requirements, Sec. II, IDEM Ex=
s. P,
R, observance of the two violations more than 365 days apart provides
substantial evidence that two violation days should serve as a multiplier of
the base civil penalty calculation.
[2011 OEA 44, page 49 begins]
14. IDEM’s
civil penalty calculation was based on attributing two tanks for each stati=
on,
although inspection reports for the Virginia St. Station show three tanks.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> IDEM
Exs. I, J, see Ex. P, line IE=
.
15. Based
on calculations conducted per the Penalty Policy for Underground Storage Ta=
nk /
Leaking Storage Tank Requirements, IDEM’s Mangold calculated a base c=
ivil
penalty of Eighteen Thousand Dollars ($18,000) for each of the two
Stations. IDEM Ex. P, see line IF.
<=
span
style=3D'mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>16. In its March 8, 2010 Post Hearing Brief and Proposed
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, IDEM sought assessment of
economic benefit of $1616.30 per station.&=
nbsp;
At Final Hearing, Respondent Singh presented substantial evidence th=
at
automatic tank gauging would cost $7,000 to $8,000 for each station. Tr.,
p. 58. IDEM elected to ba=
se its
requested relief on the cost of monthly leak detection, and did not consider
savings Respondent Singh realized by not completing required annual line and
tank tightness testing. Per t=
he
Civil Penalty Policy, delayed costs may be equated to capital costs; the
economic benefit for delayed costs includes the amount of interest on the
unspent funds which could reasonably have been earned by the violator during
noncompliance. IDEM calculate=
d an
economic benefit of $1616.30 for each station based on:
A. &=
nbsp;
principal: $7,50=
0,
based on an average delayed cost of $7,500 ($7,000 + $8,000 =3D $15,000, di=
vided
by the two range values);
B. &=
nbsp;
time: calculatio=
ns
starting with discovery of the violations during the October, 2006 inspecti=
ons;
C. &=
nbsp;
interest rate: 5=
% rate
of return, based on risk-free interest rate stated for 30-year Treasury Bill
interest rates available in October, 2006, as stated on the U.S.
Treasury’s website.
a. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
Respondent
Singh’s actions before the violations: Respondent Singh controlled each
station’s monthly leak detection and annual line and tank tightness
testing, and showed his lessees “everything” concerning their
station operation activities. Tr., p. 47. From his work with UST facilities =
since
1998, Respondent Singh had notice of applicable regulations.
<=
span
style=3D'color:black'>
[2011 OEA 44, page 50 begins]
<=
span
style=3D'color:black'>
18.
At Final Hearing,
Respondent Singh testified that, despite efforts, he was not able to locate
records in support of his Petition for Administrative Review. In his Post-Hearing Brief on Civil
Penalty and Statement as to Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of La=
w,
Respondent Singh stated that he elected not to contest IDEM’s finding=
s of
violation, based on his inability to locate relevant records. By substantial evidence, Respondent
Singh is not contesting IDEM’s findings of violation.
<=
span
style=3D'color:black'>
19.
In seeking to lower or eliminate assessment =
of a
civil penalty, Respondent Singh provided substantial evidence that the two
stations do not perform well financially.&=
nbsp;
They sell 10,000 – 15,000 gallons of gas per month. Tr.
p. 26. County property taxe=
s have
increased from approximately $5,000 per station to $25,000 per station, in
excess of their rental income.
<=
span
style=3D'color:black'>
20.
Respondent Singh did not provide IDEM or the
Court further evidence of his inability to pay the civil penalties, such as=
tax
returns or corporate financial statements.
<= o:p>
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.&n=
bsp;
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(“IDEM”) is authorized to implement and enforce specified
2.&n= bsp; This is a Final Order issued pursuant to I.C. § 4-21.4-3-27. Findings of Fact= that may be construed as Conclusions of Law and Conclusions of Law that may be construed as Findings of Fact are so deemed.
[2011 OEA 44, page 51 begins]
3.&n=
bsp;
This Court must apply a de novo standard of
review to this proceeding when determining the facts at issue.
4.&n=
bsp;
OEA is required to base its factual findings on
substantial evidence. Huffman v. Office of Envtl. Adjud., 811 N.E.2d
806, 809 (Ind. 2004)(appeal of OEA review of NPDES permit); see also
I.C. § 4-21.5-3-27(d).
“Standard of proof generally has been described as a continuum
with levels ranging from a "preponderance of the evidence test" t=
o a
"beyond a reasonable doubt" test. The "clear and convincing
evidence" test is the intermediate standard, although many varying
descriptions may be associated with the definition of this intermediate
test.” Matter of
5.&n= bsp; As ordered on summary judgment, IDEM met its the bu= rden of showing, by substantial evidence, that Singh is liable for civil penalti= es at the 15th Ave. Station for failure to complete monthly leak detection at any time, failure to install automatic product line leak detec= tion on the regular unleaded tank, failure to complete annual product line tight= ness testing in 2006, and failure to complete annual automatic line leak detecti= on testing in 2006, and at the Virginia Street Station for failure to complete monthly leak detection at any time, failure to complete annual product line tightness testing in 2006 and 2007, and failure to complete annual automatic line leak detection testing in 2006 and 2007, all in violation of 329 IAC 9-7-2(1) and 329 IAC 9-7-2(2).
6.&n=
bsp;
Respondent Singh is subject to civil penalties for
violating
[2011 OEA 44, page 52 begins]
enforce the quality of the
environment so that, to the extent possible, future generations will be ens=
ured
clean air, clean water, and a healthful environment.” IDEM
v. Medical Disposal Services, Inc., 729 N.E.2d 577, 582 (
7.&n=
bsp;
IDEM’s Civil Penalty Policy Non-rule Policy
Document (Doc. 99-0002-NPD)[4]
and the UST/LUST Civil Penalty Policy (Doc. 99-0001-NPD), Exs. G, N, P, are
reasonable means of determining the civil penalty because they allows for
predictable, consistent and fair calculation of penalties. Commissioner, Ind. Dep’t of
Envt’l Mgmt. v. Carson Stripping, Inc. and Carson Laser, Inc., 2004 OEA 14, 26, citing Ind. Dep’t of Envt’l Mgmt. v. Schnippel
Construction, Inc., 778 N.E.2d 407, 416 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. den. (affirming an administ=
rative
law judge’s penalty calculation because the calculation was based on
IDEM’s written penalty policy).
The two policies are applied together in violation cases involving U=
ST/LUST
matters. Commissioner, Ind. Dep’t of Envt’l Mgmt. v. McClure Oil
Corp., 2009 OEA 126, 129.
8.&n= bsp; The record in this cause contains substantial evide= nce for the Court to apply the Civil Penalty Policies to determine the appropri= ate penalty in this matter. Accor= ding to the policies, a civil penalty is calculated by “(1) determining a = base civil penalty dependent on the severity and duration of the violation, (2) adjusting the penalty for special factors and circumstances, and (3) considering the economic benefit of noncompliance.” The base civil pe= nalty is calculated taking into account two factors: (1) the potential for harm a= nd (2) the extent of deviation. =
[2011 OEA 44, page 53 begins]
9.&n=
bsp;
The policies state that the potential for harm may =
be
determined by considering “the likelihood and degree of exposure of p=
erson
or the environment to pollution” or “the degree of adverse effe=
ct
of noncompliance on statutory or regulatory purposes or procedures for
implementing the program.”
There are several factors that may be considered in determining the
likelihood of exposure. These=
are
the toxicity and amount of the pollutant, the sensitivity of the human
population or environment exposed to the pollutant, the amount of time expo=
sure
occurs, and the size of the violator.
OEA allocation of potential for harm, for extent of deviation, and f=
or
the matrix range point, is fact-sensitive.=
For example, in McClure Oil<=
/i>, 2009 OEA 126, a petroleum release=
from
an UST was deemed a minor potential for harm, based on lack of evidence that
the release had migrated off-site.
In Landers, 2009 OEA 109,
violations based on a large quantity of construction waste were deemed to
constitute a moderate extent of deviation, and the penalty was selected from
middle of the matrix range. I=
n Scherb, 2006 OEA 16, viola=
tions
based on a manure spill from a confined feeding operation into a stream
resulted in moderate/moderate, and the lowest matrix amount was selected.
10.&=
nbsp; For
the violations of 329 IAC 9-7-2(1=
) and
(2) at the four tanks at each of the two stations, the potential for
harm is moderate. Much of the
system subject to monitoring is not within view, as it is either undergroun=
d or
is covered. Without required
periodic monitoring, reporting and annual testing, the only releases which
would reasonably be detected would be from emergency or catastrophic
causes. Equipment problems or=
more
routine equipment failures would not be detected, allowing for releases of =
fuel
products which would cause harm to the environment. Although it remains unknown whethe=
r the
USTs have leaked, the 2007 and 2008 annual testing results showed the syste=
ms
were sound. No evidence was
presented that product migrated offsite, into drinking water or into the
environment. But, the potenti=
al for
harm in the event of a release is significant, as these stations are in hig=
hly
populated urban areas, in the
11.&= nbsp; The extent of deviation for the violations of 329 IAC 9-7-2 (1) and (2) is major. Required monitoring wa= s not done manually by the tenants because they were fearful of going outside to conduct the manual tests in an area where a station worker had been shot and killed. Required monitoring w= as not done manually by any other entity. Required monitoring was not done through an automatic system, because the revenue generated by the stations in this case was not sufficient to pay for automatic systems, and Respondent Singh made the economic decision not = to cover the cost from other funding sources, such as from profit from
[2011 OEA 44, page 54 begins]
other stations he operated or from funds he used to acquire a new
station. One of the two tanks=
at
the
12.&=
nbsp; According
to the Civil Penalty Policy, a value for each tank is selected from a selec=
ted
cell “is left to the judgment of enforcement staff and is based on the
individual circumstances of each case.” On de
novo review of a case before the OEA, such judgment is to be exercised =
by
the presiding environmental law judge (“ELJ”), to determine the
base penalty. In this case, t=
he
circumstances show that Respondent Singh’s prior experience in the fi=
eld
of gas station/UST facility operations should have apprised him of the requ=
ired
testing and documentation deficiencies for his two
[2011 OEA 44, page 55 begins]
13.&=
nbsp; The
next step in civil penalty calculation is a determination of the days of
noncompliance. IDEM investiga=
tions
provide substantial evidence that monthly release detection required in 329=
IAC
9-7-2(1) was observed on October 2, 2006 and October 3, 2007, a period
extending beyond 365 days. Al=
though
monthly release detection might occur on one day per month, resulting in
noncompliance for 12 days in a year, a review of the applicable regulations
infers the intent to construe the monthly detection obligation as extending
throughout the month and not limited to a particular day. Therefore, by substantial
evidence, noncompliance for all four tanks extended beyond 365 days for mon=
thly
release detection. Noncomplia=
nce
for annual testing required in 329 IAC 9-7-2(A)(i), (ii) occurred for one y=
ear
for the
14.&= nbsp; IDEM’s civil penalty calculation was based on attributing two tanks for each stati= on, although inspection reports for the Virginia St. Station show three tanks.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Substantial evidence did not suppo= rt a finding that the violations did or did not apply to the Virginia St. Station’s third tank. W= ithout substantial evidence that the third Virginia St. Station was in violation, = the Court may not extend civil penalties to Respondent Singh for the Virginia S= t. Station’s third tank. By substantial evidence, the four tanks (two tanks at each station) are subjec= t to the base civil penalty of $10,000, for a base civil penalty for each tank of $10,000.
15.&= nbsp; The base civil penalty value may be adjusted by aggravating or mitigating factors. The mitigating facto= r of “Quick Settlement” did not occur, as Respondent did not execute= a settlement in this case. Alth= ough the parties urge the ELJ to find aggravating or mitigating factors to consi= der, substantial evidence does not support the factors presented to the ELJ. Respondent Singh’s testimony concerning the cost of ATG systems is presented in a context of some confus= ion about various expenses, and does not provide substantial evidence of the ac= tual costs he is required to incur, which would then be extrapolated into intere= st which he may have earned on funds not spent on the ATG systems. Nor is an ATG system the sole means required by law, although Respondent Singh has failed to implement ma= nual monitoring. The types of evid= ence of economic benefit, or of inability to pay, contemplated in the civil pena= lty policies would provide a better analytical base than the assertions offered= by the parties. Neither party presented substantial evidence of economic benefit, inability to pay or aggravating or mitigating factors. For lack of substantial evidence, the Court finds no further adjustm= ent to the base civil penalty.
[2011 OEA 44, page 56 begins]
16.&= nbsp; Respondent Baldev “Dave” Singh, d/b/a Marathon Gas Stations at 3118 West 1= 5th Avenue and at 2100 Virginia Street, Gary, Lake County, Indiana is assessed a total civil penalty of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) for the violations = of 329 IAC 9-7-2(1) and 329 IAC 9-7-2(2), as adopted per I.C. § 13-23-1-2, and the May 21, 2009 Commissioner’s Order is sustained in all other respects.
17.&= nbsp; Concerning the May 21, 2009 Commissioner’s Orders’ requirements for Respon= dent Singh to perform tank and line testing on the UST systems at both Stations, this testing is to be coordinated with IDEM personnel present, and copies of the testing results are to be submitted to IDEM within fifteen days of completion.
18.&= nbsp; Within thirty days of this Order, Respondent Singh is to begin using a form of mon= thly release detection that complies with all of the requirements of 329 IAC 9-7-2(1). Respondent Singh sh= all submit documentation of all monthly release detection monitoring results to IDEM for twelve months after the date of this Order.
FINAL ORDER
&=
nbsp; For
all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECR=
EED
that the Respondent, Baldev “Dave” Singh, d/b/a Marathon Gas
Stations at 3118 West 15th Avenue and at 2100 Virginia Street, G=
ary,
Lake County, Indiana, violated 329 IAC 9-7-2(1) and 329 IAC 9-7-2(2). Respondent, Baldev “DaveR=
21;
Singh is subject to civil penalties of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) for
violating
=
; You
are further notified that pursuant to provisions of I.C. § 4-21.5-7-5, the Office of Environmental
Adjudication serves as the ultimate authority in administrative review of
decisions of the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management. A party is eligib=
le to
seek Judicial Review of this Final Order as stated in applicable provisions=
of
I.C. § 4-21.5, et seq. Pursuant to I.C. § 4-21.5-5-5=
, a
Petition for Judicial Review of this Final Order is timely only if it is fi=
led
with a civil court of competent jurisdiction within thirty (30) days after =
the
date this notice is served.
[2011 OEA 44, page 57 begins]
&=
nbsp; IT
IS SO ORDERED in
&=
nbsp; Hon.
Mary L. Davidsen
&=
nbsp; Chief
Environmental Law Judge
[2011 OEA 44: end of decision]
2011
OEA 44 in .doc format
2011
OEA 44 in .pdf format
&nbs= p; &= nbsp;
[2] Unless otherwise specified, exhibit citations in this order refer to exhibi= ts attached to IDEM’s Motion for Summary Judgment, admitted into evidence without objection at Final Hearing. Transcript citations refer to the Final Hearing transcript.
[3] Non-rule policy document, ID No. Enforcement 99-0001-NPD, originally adopted April 5, 1999, in accordance with I.C. § 13-14-1-11.5.
[4] IDEM’s Civil Penalty Policy, ID No. Enforcement 99-0002-NPD, and its UST/LUST Civil Penalty Policy ID No. Enforcement 99-0001-NPD, IDEM Ex. R, were both originally a= dopted on April 5, 1999 in accordance with I.C.&n= bsp; § 13-14-1-11.5. A= s both apply to the violations in this cause, they will be referred to collectivel= y as the “civil penalty policies.”&= nbsp;
Commissioner, Indiana Department of Environmental Management v.
Baldev “Dave” Singh, d/b/a
2011 OEA 44, (09-S-E-4276)