STATE OF OREGON
BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER PANEL
FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF: )
) PROPOSED ORDER
)
Janis V. Johnson-Tonneson and ) Hearing Officer Panel Case No. G60612
) Agency Case No. WQ/D-NWR-01-132
Richard H. Tonneson, dba ) MULTNOMAH COUNTY
) (DEQ)
Rocky Pointe Marina, )
)
Respondents. )
HISTORY OF THE CASE
The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a Notice of Assessment of Civil
Penalty pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), ORS 468.126 through 468.140, ORS
Chapter 183, and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), OAR Chapter 340, Divisions 11 and 12,
to respondents Janis V. Johnson-Tonneson and Richard Tonneson, doing business as Rocky
Pointe Marina, on May 21, 2001. The notice alleges that in May, June, July, September,
October, and November 2000, respondents violated their water pollution control facility permit
by exceeding the maximum monthly average secondary treatment limitation for total suspended
solids (violation 1), and that they violated the monitoring report requirements by failing to
submit the February 2001 monthly monitoring report by the 15th day of the following month (i.e.,
by March 15, 2001)--(violation 2). The notice assesses civil penalties in the amount of $13,200
for violation 1 and $500 for violation 2.
A process server served the Notice of Assessment of Civil Penalty on respondents on
June 16, 2001. On July 11, 2001 respondents wrote a letter to DEQ asking to discuss the
violations. On July 17, 2001 an environmental law specialist wrote a letter to respondents
informing them that their July 11, 2001 letter, if they intended the letter to be a request for
hearing, was filed beyond the 20-day time limit for filing a timely request for hearing from the
date they were served with the notice on June 16. The environmental law specialist gave
respondents until July 31, 2001 to file a request for hearing, if they wished to appeal the notice.
In a letter dated July 27, 2001, respondents requested a hearing. DEQ received that letter on
August 1, 2001. On August 13, 2001 the environmental law specialist wrote a letter to
respondents informing them they DEQ had accepted their late request for hearing.1
1
OAR 340-011-0107(3) provides:
(3) A late request may be accepted by the Department if the Department determines that the cause for the
late request was beyond the reasonable control of the person.
Proposed Order (DEQ)
Tonneson
Page 1 of 11 G60612Tonn
A hearing was held in Portland, Oregon on January 29, 2002 before Ken L. Betterton,
administrative law judge. Larry M. Schurr, environmental law specialist, represented DEQ.
Richard Tonneson appeared pro se. Lyle Christensen testified as a witness for DEQ. Richard
Tonneson testified for respondents.
The record closed at the conclusion of the hearing on January 29, 2002.
EVIDENTIARY RULING
Administrative Law Judge Exhibits A through E, DEQ Exhibits 1 through 7, and
respondents Exhibits 101 through 109 were admitted into the record without objection.
ISSUES
(1) Did respondents violate paragraph (3)(b) of the Schedule A of their Water Pollution
Control Facility Permit by exceeding the maximum monthly average secondary treatment
limitation for total suspended solids (TSS) of 30 mg/L, in violation of ORS 468.140(1)(a) and
OAR 340-012-0055(2)(g), and if so, what penalty should be imposed under OAR Chapter 340,
Divisions 11 and 12?
(2) Did respondents violate the monitoring report requirements in paragraph (2)(a) of
Schedule B of their Water Pollution Control Facility Permit by failing to submit the February
2001 monthly discharge monitoring report to DEQ by the 15th day of the following month (i.e.,
March 15, 2001), in violation of ORS 468.140(1)(a) and OAR 340-012-0055(3)(a), and if so,
what penalty should be imposed under OAR Chapter 340, Divisions 11 and 12?
FINDINGS OF FACT
(1) DEQ issued a Water Pollution Control Facility Permit to respondents on December
19, 1997, to allow them to operate a domestic sewage treatment and disposal system at a marina
in Portland, Oregon. (Ex. 1.) More specifically, DEQ authorizes respondents to operate a
sewage treatment and disposal system consisting of a secondary treatment and disposal by means
of evaporation and/or seepage. (Id. at 2.)
(2) Paragraph (3)(b) of Schedule A of the permit requires that the permittees (i.e.,
respondents), not exceed the maximum monthly average concentration for biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS) of 30 mg/L each, prior to discharge to the
seepage lagoon. (Id. at 2-3.) Permittees must submit monthly discharge monitoring reports to
DEQ. (Id. at 3.) Permittees must average the measurements by an arithmetic mean method for
biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids. (Id. at 8.) Permittees are free to test for
one day a month and use that result as their monthly average, or they can test as many times a
months as they wish, so long as they average those results by the arithmetic mean method. A
permittee generally must pay a laboratory for each test, so that more frequent testing is more
expensive to the permittee.
(3) Respondents submitted a monthly discharge monitoring report for February 2001 to
DEQ on March 23, 2001. (Ex. 2 at 4.) The report shows monthly averages of 4 mg/L for
biochemical oxygen demand and 16 mg/L for total suspended solids, for a sample taken on
Proposed Order (DEQ)
Tonneson
Page 2 of 11 G60612Tonn
February 1, 2001. (Id.) The analysis report from the laboratory that respondent used to test their
samples shows that the sample was taken on February 22, 2001, with average results of 79 mg/L
for biochemical oxygen demand and 100 mg/L for total suspended solids. (Id. at 4 (backside)).
Respondents did not record the test results for February 22, 2001, the date the sample actually
was taken. Shortly after March 23, 2001, a specialist with DEQ telephoned respondent Richard
Tonneson and asked him why he submitted no bench sheet with his monthly discharge
monitoring report for February 2001, why respondents recorded the sample on the report as
taken on February 1, 2001, and not on February 22, 2001, the date on which the sample was
actually taken. In April 2001 respondents submitted another copy of the monthly discharge
monitoring report for February 2001. That other copy appears exactly the same as the report
respondents submitted on March 23, 2001 for February 2001. (Id. at 1-2.) The monthly
discharge monitoring report for January 2001 that respondents submitted showed monthly
averages of 4 mg/L for biochemical oxygen demand and 16 mg/L for total suspended solids. (Id.
at 3.)
(4) Respondents submitted a monthly discharge monitoring report to DEQ for May 2000
showing a monthly average of 50 mg/L for total suspended solids. (Id. at 10.) Respondents
submitted a monthly discharge monitoring report for June 2000 showing a monthly average of
230 mg/L for total suspended solids. (Id. at 8-9.) Respondent submitted a monthly discharge
monitoring report for July 2000 showing a monthly average of 100 mg/L for total suspended
solids. (Id. at 7.) Respondents submitted a monthly discharge monitoring report for September
2000 showing a monthly average of 35 mg/L for total suspended solids. (Id. at 6.) Respondents
submitted a monthly discharge monitoring report for October 2000 showing a monthly average
of 120 mg/L for total suspended solids. (Id. at 5.) Respondents submitted a monthly discharge
monitoring report for November 2000 showing a monthly average of 62 mg/L for total
suspended solids. (Ex. 3.) The monthly discharge monitoring report respondents submitted for
August 2000 showed a monthly average of less than 30 mg/L for total suspended solids, thus
complying with the maximum concentration allowed. Respondent Richard Tonneson signed
each of the monthly discharge monitoring reports submitted to DEQ.
(5) Respondents had trouble in 2000 and 2001 with their sewage treatment system
operating properly. A DEQ specialist recommended to respondents in 2000 that they get an
outside consultant or talk to the company that manufactured the system, to help them find out
why their treatment system operated improperly as often as it did. Respondents had someone
from an association of water utilities inspect their treatment plant on one occasion to make
recommendations, but respondents did not get a report from the utility or notify DEQ about the
inspection or any recommendations the utility made. Respondents themselves tried to clean
various parts of the system in an effort to correct various problems within the system, without
much success until later in 2001, when they finally discovered what may have been giving them
high total suspended solids readings, and made some changes to their treatment system.
(6) In March 1996 respondents and DEQ entered into a Mutual Agreement Order in DEQ
Case No. WQMW-NWR-95-267. The parties agreed in that order that respondents would pay a
civil penalty to settle a Notice of Civil Penalty that DEQ had issued to respondents in December
1995. The Notice of Civil Penalty alleged that respondents had violated DEQ statutes and
administrative rules by failing to have a certified operator supervise the operation of their
treatment plant, and by exceeding the monthly waste discharge permit limitations. (Ex. 6.)
Respondents made corrections to their system that led to those violations.
Proposed Order (DEQ)
Tonneson
Page 3 of 11 G60612Tonn
(7) On January 10, 2001 an administrative law judge issued a proposed order that found
respondents had committed one Class One violation stemming from the March 1996 Mutual
Agreement Order in DEQ Case No. WQMW-NWR-95-267, and 19 Class Three violations
stemming from a Notice of Assessment of Civil Penalty issued to respondents on November 3,
1999 in DEQ Case No. WQ/D-NWR-99-147, which alleged that respondents had violated their
permit by failing to submit monthly discharge monitoring reports to DEQ on time. (Ex. 4 and 5.)
Respondents made corrections to their system that led to those violations.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(1) Respondents violated their Water Pollution Control Facility Permit under ORS
468.140(1)(a) and OAR 340-012-0055(2)(g) by exceeding the maximum monthly average for
secondary treatment limitation for total suspended solids on their monthly discharge monitoring
reports for May, June, July, September, October and November 2000. A civil penalty in the
amount of $12,000 should be imposed against respondents.
(2) Respondents violated their Water Pollution Control Facility Permit under ORS
468.140(1)(a) and OAR 340-012-0055(3)(g) by failing to submit the February 2001 monthly
discharge monitoring report to DEQ by March 15, 2001. A civil penalty in the amount of $450
should be imposed against respondents.
OPINION
ORS 183.450(2) provides, in part, “The burden of presenting evidence to support a
position in a contested case rests on the proponent of the fact or position.” As set forth above,
DEQ allege that respondents violated ORS 468.140(1)(a) and OAR 340-012-0055(2)(g) and 340-
012-0055(3)(a) by violating conditions in their Water Pollution Control Facility Permit by
exceeding the maximum monthly average secondary treatment limitation for total suspended
solids, and by failing to submit a monthly discharge monitoring report on time. The burden is on
DEQ, as the state agency making the allegations, to prove the alleged violations. Garton v. Real
Estate Commissioner, 127 Or App 340, 342 (1994).
ORS 468.140(1)(a) provides that a person who holds a permit issued by DEQ must
comply with the terms and conditions of that permit, or be subject to penalties provided by law.2
In December 1997 DEQ issued a Water Pollution Control Facility Permit to respondents
for respondents to operate a domestic sewage treatment plant for their marina. The permit allows
respondents to operate a sewage treatment and disposal system consisting of a secondary
treatment and disposal by means of evaporation and/or seepage in accordance with the following
conditions:
2
ORS 468.140 provides:
(1) In addition to any other penalty provided by law, any person who violates any of the following shall
incur a civil penalty for each day of violation in the amount prescribed by the schedule adopted under ORS
468.130:
(a) The terms or conditions of any permit required or authorized by law and issued by the
Department of Environmental Quality * * *.
* * * * *.
Proposed Order (DEQ)
Tonneson
Page 4 of 11 G60612Tonn
*****
3. Prior to seepage lagoon disposal of the wastewater, it shall receive secondary
treatment and disinfection to met the following limitations:
*****
b. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS) are limited to a
monthly average concentration of 30 mg/l. (Schedule A, Waste Disposal Limitations--
Ex. 1 at 2.)
Schedule B of respondents’ permit require biochemical oxygen demand and total
suspended solids monitoring and reporting on a monthly basis. (Id. 1 at 3.) The permit requires
respondents to calculate the averages by the arithmetic mean method.3
Respondents reported monthly averages for total suspended solids for six months, May,
June, July, September, October, and November 2000, that exceeded the 30 mg/L maximum
concentration allowed. Except for September, respondents’ reported results significantly
exceeded the 30 mg/L limit. Respondents presented evidence at the hearing that they had
experienced a variety of problems with their sewage treatment system over time. The permit
contemplates that problems may arise for a party with reporting and compliance. The permit
provides notification procedures for permittees to follow in the event of an inability to comply
with conditions of the permit.4 Respondents did meet the 30 mg/L limit for August 2000--so it
was possible for them to meet the reporting requirement. The parties presented no evidence that
during the six months that respondents’ reported averages exceeded the limit, respondents alerted
3
Schedule F—General Conditions, Section C, Monitoring and Records, provides, in part:
*****
2. Averaging of Measurements
Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic means,
except for bacteria which shall be averaged as specified in the permit.
4
Schedule F—General Conditions, Section B, Operation and Maintenance of Pollution Controls, provides, in part:
*****
3. Noncompliance and Notification Procedures
In the event the permittee is unable to comply with all the conditions of this permit because of surface
sewage, a breakdown of equipment or facilities, an accident caused by human error or negligence, or any
other cause such as an act of nature, the permittee shall:
a. Immediately take action to stop, contain, and clean up the unauthorized discharges and correct
the problem.
b. Immediately notify the Department’s Regional office, so that an investigation can be made to
evaluate the impact and the corrective actions taken and determine additional action that must be
taken.
c. Within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances, the permittee shall
submit to the Department a detailed written report describing the breakdown, the actual quantity
and quality of resulting waste discharges, corrective action taken, steps taken to prevent a
recurrence, and any other pertinent information.
Compliance with these requirements does not relieve the permittee from responsibility to maintain
continuous compliance with the conditions of this permit or the resulting liability for failure to comply.
* * * * *.
Proposed Order (DEQ)
Tonneson
Page 5 of 11 G60612Tonn
DEQ to the problem, as they were required to do under their permit, or that they took immediate
action to correct the problem.
DEQ proved that respondents violated Paragraph (3)(b) of Schedule A of their Water
Pollution Control Facility Permit by exceeding the maximum monthly average secondary
treatment limitation for total suspended solids of 30 mg/L in their monthly reports to DEQ for
May, June, July, September, October, and November 2000.
Under the conditions of their permit, respondents needed to file their monthly discharge
monitoring report for each month by the 15th day of the following month.5 Respondents filed
their monthly discharge monitoring report for February 2001 on March 23, 2001, beyond the
March 15, 2001 deadline. Moreover, the February report contained inaccuracies. Respondents
recorded incorrect results for biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids, and did so
for a date on which they did not take their sample. (Ex. at 4.) DEQ asked respondents in late
March 2001 to submit a corrected report for February 2001. In April 2001, respondents
submitted another copy of the same incorrect report they submitted on March 23, 2001.
DEQ proved that respondents violated conditions of their permit by failing to file their
monthly discharge monitoring report for February 2001 by March 15, 2001, as required.
Civil Penalty
DEQ requests a civil penalty in its Notice of Assessment of Civil Penalty in the amount
of $13,200 for violation 1, and a penalty of $500 for violation 2. (Ex. B.)
Penalties in this case can be imposed without advance notice under ORS 468.126(2)6
because respondents received a formal enforcement action in DEQ Case No. WD/D-NWR-99-
147, in November 1999, within 36 months of the violations cited in this case in the Notice of
Assessment of Civil Penalty dated May 21, 2001.
Violation 1 (Violation of permit by exceeding the maximum monthly average limitation)
DEQ calculated the penalty in the Notice of Assessment of Civil Penalty of $13,200 for
violation 1 according to the factors set forth in Exhibit 1 to the Notice of Assessment of Civil
Penalty. (Id.)
5
Schedule B, Minimum Monitoring and Reporting Requirements, provides, in part:
*****
2. Reporting Procedures:
a. Monitoring results shall be reported on approved forms. The reporting period is the calendar
month. Reports must be submitted to the Department by the 15 th day of the following month.
* * * * *.
6
ORS 468.126(2) provides, in part:
(2) No advance notice shall be required under subsection (1) of this section if:
*****
(c) The permittee has received prior advance warning of any violation of the permit within the 36
months immediately preceding the violation;
* * * * *.
Proposed Order (DEQ)
Tonneson
Page 6 of 11 G60612Tonn
Each month of violation is a Class II violation under the conditions of the permit and
under OAR 340-012-0055(2)(g).7
Absent a selected magnitude and other finding, the magnitude of the violation is
moderate pursuant to OAR 340-012-0045(1)(a)(B).8
The formula for determining the amount of penalty of each violation is:
BP = [(0.1 x BP) x (P + H + O + R + C] + EB
“BP” is the base penalty which is $1,000 for a Class II moderate magnitude violation in
the matrix listed in OAR 340-012-0042(1)(b)(B)(ii).9
“P” is respondents’ prior significant action(s) and receives a value of +8 according to
OAR 340-012-0045(1)(c)(A)(ix)10 and OAR 340-012-0030(1)11 and (14).12 Respondents had
7
OAR 340-012-0055 provides, in part:
Violations pertaining to water quality shall be classified as follows:
*****
(2) Class Two:
*****
(g) Any violation related to water quality which is not otherwise classified in these rules.
* * * * *.
8
OAR 340-012-0045 provides, in part:
(1) When determining the amount of civil penalty to be assessed for any violation, * * *, the director shall
apply the following procedures:
(a) Determine the * * * magnitude for each violation:
*****
(B) * * * In the absence of a selected magnitude, the magnitude shall be moderate * * *:
9
OAR 340-012-0042 provides, in part:
* * * [t]he amount of any civil penalty shall be determined through the use of the following matrices in
conjunction with the formula contained in OAR 340-012-0045:
*****
(B) Class II:
*****
(ii) Moderate--$1,000;
* * * * *.
10
OAR 340-012-0045 provides for determining the amount of civil penalty. Subsection (1)(c)(A) states:
(A) “P” is whether the Respondent has any prior significant actions relating to statutes, rules, orders and
permits pertaining to environmental quality or pollution control. A violation is deemed to have become a
Prior Significant Action on the date of the issuance of the first Formal Enforcement Action in which it is
cited. * * *. The values for “P” and the findings which support each are as follows:
*****
(ix) 8 if the prior significant actions are seven Class Ones or equivalents;
* * * * *.
11
OAR 340-012-0030 provides, in part:
Unless otherwise required by context, as used in this Division:
(1) “Class One Equivalent” or “Equivalent,” which is used only for the purposes of determining
the value of the “P” factor in the civil penalty formula, means two Class Two violations, one Class
Two and two Class Three violations, or three Class Three violations.
Proposed Order (DEQ)
Tonneson
Page 7 of 11 G60612Tonn
one Class One prior violation resulting from the 1996 Mutual Agreement Order, and 19 Class
Three violations resulting from the enforcement action DEQ brought against respondents in
November 1999. Those 19 Class Three violations equate to 6 prior Class Ones using the formula
in OAR 340-012-0030(1)--i.e., 19 divided by 3 = 6.3. One + 6 = 7 Class Ones or equivalents,
which gives a “P” factor score of 8 under OAR 340-012-0045(1)(c)(A)(ix), rather than the +10
that DEQ proffers in its Notice of Assessment of Civil Penalty.
“H” is the past history of respondents in taking all feasible steps or procedures necessary
to correct any prior significant action(s) and receives a value of -2 according to OAR 340-012-
0045(1)(c)(B)(i) because respondents took all feasible steps to correct the majority of the prior
significant actions.
“O” is whether or not the violation was a single occurrence or was repeated or continuous
during the period of the violation and receives a value of 0 according to OAR 340-012-
0045(1)(c)(C)(i) because each month of violation is treated as a single incident.
“R” is whether the violation resulted from an unavoidable accident, or a negligent,
intentional or flagrant act by the respondents, and receives a value of +2 according to OAR 340-
012-0045(1)(c)(D)(ii) because respondents acted negligently by failing to take reasonable care to
avoid a foreseeable risk of committing a violation. Respondents were previously cited for
similar violations and failed in this case to take recommended action to investigate the causes of
the violations.
“C” is respondent’s cooperativeness in correcting the violation and receives a value of +2
according to OAR 340-012-0045(1)(c)(E)(ii) because respondent failed to take recommended
action to investigate the causes of the violations.
“EB” is the approximate dollar sum of the economic benefit that the respondent gained
through noncompliance according to OAR 340-012-0045(1)(c)(F) and receives a value of 0
because of insufficient evidence upon which to make a determination.
Penalty Calculation for Violation 1:
Penalty = BP + [(0.1 x BP) x (P + H + O + R + C)] + EB
= $1,000 + [(0.1 x $1,000) x (8 - 2 + 0 + 2 + 2)] + $0
= $1,000 + ($100 x 10) + $0
= $1,000 + $1,000 + $0
= $2,000 for each of six months for violation 1.
= $12,000 penalty for violation 1 (6 months x $2,000/mo).
Violation 2 (Failure to submit a discharge monitoring report on time)
* * * * *.
12
OAR 340-012-0045(14) provides:
(14) “Prior Significant Action” means any violation established either with or without admission of a
violation by payment of a civil penalty, or by a final order of the Commission or the Department, or by
judgment of a court.
Proposed Order (DEQ)
Tonneson
Page 8 of 11 G60612Tonn
Failure to submit a discharge monitoring report on time is a Class III violation pursuant
to OAR 340-012-0055(3)(a).13
Absent a selected magnitude and other finding, the magnitude of the violation is
moderate pursuant to OAR 340-012-0045(1)(a)(B).
“BP” is the base penalty which is $250 for a Class III moderate magnitude violation in
the matrix listed in OAR 340-012-0042(1)(b)(B).
“P” is respondents’ prior significant action(s) and receives a value of 8 according to OAR
340-012-0045(1)(c)(A)(ix) and OAR 340-012-0030(1) and (14). Respondents had one Class
One prior violation resulting from the 1996 Mutual Agreement Order, and 19 Class Three
violations resulting from the enforcement action DEQ brought against respondents in November
1999. Those 19 Class Three violations equate to 6 prior Class Ones using the formula in OAR
340-012-0030(1)--i.e., 19 divided by 3 = 6.3. One + 6 = 7 Class Ones or equivalents, which
gives a “P” factor score of 8 under OAR 340-012-0045(1)(c)(A)(ix), rather than the +10 that
DEQ proffers in its Notice of Assessment of Civil Penalty.
“H” is the past history of respondents in taking all feasible steps or procedures necessary
to correct any prior significant action(s) and receives a value of -2 according to OAR 340-012-
0045(1)(c)(B)(i) because respondents took all feasible steps to correct the majority of the prior
significant actions.
“O” is whether or not the violation was a single occurrence or was repeated or continuous
during the period of the violation and receives a value of 0 according to OAR 340-012-
0045(1)(c)(C)(i) because each month of violation is treated as a single incident.
“R” is whether the violation resulted from an unavoidable accident, or a negligent,
intentional or flagrant act by the respondents, and receives a value of +2 according to OAR 340-
012-0045(1)(c)(D)(ii) because respondents acted negligently by failing to take reasonable care to
avoid a foreseeable risk of committing a violation. Respondents were previously cited for
similar violations and failed to take recommended action in this case to investigate the causes of
the violations.
“C” is respondent’s cooperativeness in correcting the violation and receives a value of 0
according to OAR 340-012-0045(1)(c)(E)(ii) because there is insufficient information on which
to base a finding.
“EB” is the approximate dollar sum of the economic benefit that the respondent gained
through noncompliance according to OAR 340-012-0045(1)(c)(F) and receives a value of 0
because of insufficient evidence upon which to make a determination.
13
OAR 340-012-0055 provides:
Violations pertaining to water quality shall be classified as follows:
*****
(3) Class three:
(a) Failure to submit a discharge monitoring report on time.
* * * * *.
Proposed Order (DEQ)
Tonneson
Page 9 of 11 G60612Tonn
Penalty Calculation for Violation 2:
Penalty = BP + [(0.1 x BP) x (P + H + O + R + C)] + EB
= $250 + [(0.1 x $250) x (8 -2 + 0 + 2 +0)] + $0
= $250 + ($25 x 8) + $0
= $250 + $200 + $0
= $450
PROPOSED ORDER
I propose that the Commission enter an order as follows:
(1) Find that respondents Janis V. Johnson-Tonneson and Richard H. Tonneson, dba
Rocky Pointe Marina, violated ORS 468.140(1)(a) and OAR 340-012-0055(2)(g) and
340-012-0055(3)(a); and
(2) Impose a civil penalty against respondents in the amount of $12,000 for violation 1
and $450 for violation 2, for a total penalty of $12,450.
Dated this _____ day of February, 2002. _____________________________
Ken L. Betterton
Administrative Law Judge
Hearing Officer Panel
Appeal Procedures
If you are not satisfied with this decision, you have the right to have the decision reviewed by
the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission. To have the decision reviewed, you must file a
"Petition for Review" within 30 days of the date this order is served on you as provided in Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) 340-011-0132(1) and (2). The Petition for Review must be filed with:
Stephanie Hallock, Director
Department of Environmental Quality
811 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204.
Within 30 days of filing the Petition for Review, you must also file exceptions and a brief as
in provided in OAR 340-011-0132(3). If the petition, exceptions and brief are filed in a timely
manner, the Commission will set the matter for oral argument and notify you of the time and place of
the Commission's meeting. The requirements for filing a petition, exceptions and briefs are set out in
OAR 340-011-0132.
Proposed Order (DEQ)
Tonneson
Page 10 of 11 G60612Tonn
Unless you timely and appropriately file a Petition for Review as set forth above, this
Proposed Order becomes the Final Order of the Environmental Quality Commission 30 days from
the date of service on you of this Proposed Order. If you wish to appeal the Final Order, you have 60
days from the date the Proposed Order becomes the Final Order to file a petition for review with the
Oregon Court of Appeals. See ORS 183.400 et. seq.
STATE OF OREGON - HEARING OFFICER PANEL - EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT
Proposed Order (DEQ)
Tonneson
Page 11 of 11 G60612Tonn