Reheis v. DREXEL CHEMICAL CO., A99A0647.
Decision Date | 17 March 1999 |
Docket Number | No. A99A0647.,A99A0647. |
Citation | 237 Ga. App. 87,514 S.E.2d 867 |
Parties | REHEIS v. DREXEL CHEMICAL COMPANY. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Robert S. Bomar, Deputy Attorney General, Isaac Byrd, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Diane L. DeShazo, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Roberts, Rainwater & Ingram, David N. Rainwater, Cordele, for appellee.
Harold F. Reheis, Director of the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources ("EPD"), filed this discretionary appeal from an order of the superior court. In its order, the superior court affirmed an administrative order finding that Drexel Chemical Company violated the Georgia Air Quality Act (the Act), OCGA § 12-9-1 et seq., but struck the $42,000 civil penalty imposed under OCGA § 12-9-23. Because we find the administrative law judge's decision to impose the penalty is supported by the evidence, we reverse the superior court's judgment as to that issue.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, review of an ALJ's decision by a superior court is done without a jury and is confined to the evidence and testimony received by the ALJ. OCGA § 50-13-19(g). OCGA § 50-13-19(h). The superior court's review of evidentiary issues is limited to determining whether factual findings are supported by "any evidence." Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586, 242 S.E.2d 101 (1978).
Reheis v. AZS Corp., 232 Ga.App. 852-853, 503 S.E.2d 36 (1998).
When rendering a decision under OCGA § 12-9-23(b), the ALJ must consider all those factors which are relevant to the decision to impose a civil penalty, including but not limited to those listed in OCGA § 12-9-23(c)(1) through (6). OCGA § 12-9-23(c).
In this case, the superior court struck the civil penalty, finding there was no evidence in the record that Drexel had ever been adjudicated in violation of the Act in the past and, therefore, that there was no factual basis for imposing a civil penalty. Further, the superior court concluded there was no evidence showing a "rational analytical approach" in the ALJ's calculation of the $42,000 penalty. Consequently, the superior court concluded that the ALJ's assessment of a $42,000 penalty was "arbitrary and capricious." We disagree.
The ALJ found that Drexel Chemical Company operated a pesticide facility in Cordele, Georgia. There, Drexel stored and formulated pesticides, including malathion, diazanon, dimethoate, parathion, methachlor, vernam, and a variety of other highly toxic chemicals that, if handled improperly, posed a significant threat to human health and the environment. Inhalation of dimethoate and vernam, for example, can cause nervous and muscular dysfunction, paralysis, respiratory failure, and death. Because chemicals like these pose such risks, facilities that are capable of causing or contributing to their airborne emission must obtain an air quality permit and operate in compliance with it. OCGA § 12-9-7. In September 1990, the EPD issued Drexel an air quality permit with conditions for the construction and operation of a pesticide-mixing facility. From 1991 through 1995, the EPD inspected Drexel's facility five times. Following each inspection, the EPD both orally and in writing warned Drexel that it was not complying with the conditions of its permit. During three of these visits, EPD inspectors observed "fugitive emissions"— chemicals escaping into the air. During two of these visits, inspectors discovered that a carbon filter bed used for mixing liquid chemicals was not being monitored properly. On January 5, 1995, EPD inspectors discovered that Drexel had built and begun operating a new dry blending unit without first obtaining an air quality permit for it. Further, Drexel handled dimethoate improperly, allowing 26 drums of the substance to be stored without lids, exposing the air to toxic fugitive emissions. Drexel also transferred vernam into a storage tank without using proper emission controls. And, Drexel's carbon bed was still not being properly monitored and maintained. Based upon these violations of the Air Quality Act and Drexel's permit, the EPD issued Drexel a Notice of Violation on January 27, 1995. The EPD prepared a consent order which provided for an initial monetary settlement of $21,000. Drexel refused to sign it.
On August 1, 1995, the EPD inspected Drexel's facility again. Upon arriving in Drexel's parking lot, the inspectors smelled a chemical odor. Once inside the facility, they observed several chemical-handling practices which permitted fugitive...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Buckmon v. Futch
-
City of Rincon v. Couch
...is conducted without a jury and is confined to the evidence received by the ALJ. OCGA 167; 50-13-19(g); Reheis v. Drexel Chem. Co., 237 Ga.App. 87, 88(1), 514 S.E.2d 867 (1999); Quarterman v. Edwards, 169 Ga.App. 300, 301(1), 312 S.E.2d 643 (1983). Given the absence of supporting evidenc......
- GA. MOUNTAINS COMMUNITY SERVICE v. Carter, A99A0555.
-
Administrative Law - Mark H. Cohen and David C. Will
...445 S.E.2d 837, 839 (1994) (citing Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586, 242 S.E.2d 101, 102 (1978)). 106. See Reheis v. Drexel Chem. Co., 237 Ga. App. 87, 88, 514 S.E.2d 867, 868 (1999); Reheis v. AZS Corp., 232 Ga. App. 852, 853, 503 S.E.2d 36, 37 (1998); Safety Fire Comm'r v. U.S.A. Gas, Inc.,......