Opinion ID: 2028080
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hawkeye's Liability.

Text: The administrative law judge found that Hawkeye had actively polluted the area in two respects: by permitting fuel oil to escape during its removal of the underground storage tank on the property and by maintaining above-ground storage tanks on the property that leaked. Hawkeye contends that the agency withdrew the allegations concerning the underground storage tank from consideration on the record at the hearing. It also contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the findings with respect to the above-ground storage tanks. We find merit in both of these contentions. The record reflects that, with respect to the claim involving the underground storage tanks, the agency attorney removed those issues from consideration on the record at the contested case hearing: MR. HARRIS [attorney for Hawkeye]: Could I just interject here? Is the DNR saying that tank leaked? I don't think there is anything in the complaintI can understand how you would be concerned about what the samples would show at any given time, but concerning the DNR's position MR. LANDA [attorney for DNR]: We have no evidence to indicate that the tank leaked. MR. HARRIS: Okay. MR. LANDA: That's the reason for the soil sampling, one of the reasons for soil sampling. MR. HARRIS: I just noted it wasn't in your Petition, and I was just wondering whether that's something that's in issue. If I understand, you're saying it isn't. MR. LANDA: As far as the available information with regard to the condition of the site, the soil samples would have been helpful to determine whether or not there was contamination in and around the gas the diesel fuel tank, and the purpose of the questioning was to find out whether or not there were samples and whether or not they were analyzed. Our information indicates that that was a possibility, and now Mr. Reeve is testifying that they were destroyed, so that information isn't available. MR. HARRIS: But my original question was, the tankyour concern isn't that there was a leak in the tank there? MR. LANDA: We don't have any information to indicate that the tank was leaking. MR. HARRIS: Because we still have the tank. That's what I'm saying. The evidence is available. The claim hasn't been made. We could have had the tank checked. I just want the record to be clear. You're not maintaining that the tank leaked? MR. LANDA: We haven't alleged that the tank leaked. We're also not giving up on the issue of whether or not an appropriate investigation had been conducted to determine whether or not upon closure of the tank that it hadn't leaked. We can draw no conclusion from this colloquy other than to find that the attorney for the agency withdrew any claim that Hawkeye had polluted the soil or groundwater as a result of circumstances relating to the underground storage tank. A litigant may stipulate that an issue is out of a case as well as stipulating to facts relating to certain issues. Graen's Mens Wear, Inc. v. Stille-Pierce Agency, 329 N.W.2d 295, 300 (Iowa 1983). We conclude that this is what the agency's attorney did with respect to the claim involving the underground storage tank. Although the agency attorney clearly retained the right to assert a violation by Hawkeye in connection with the closing procedure employed in removal of the tank, that violation was not shown to have caused a prohibited discharge under section 455B.186. Consequently, although some sanction might have been imposed for the improper closing procedure, that violation does not support a sanction for site evaluation or cleanup costs. With respect to the agency's finding that Hawkeye actively polluted the soil and groundwater as a result of spillage from three above-ground storage tanks on the premises, we are unable to find substantial evidence in the record to support that conclusion. The only evidence on this point was testimony of a representative of CNW who viewed the premises early in the period of Blue Chip's ownership and saw the above-ground storage tanks in place there. He noticed that the soil beneath the tanks was stained and that diesel fuel appeared to have been spilled there. He took photographs showing the stained area beneath these tanks, and those photographs were made a part of the record at the contested case hearing. There is no evidence that the above-ground tanks leaked. Consequently, it must be assumed that the diesel fuel beneath the tanks was the result of spills that occurred when fuel was being withdrawn therefrom. Without any evidence quantifying the extent of the fuel beneath these tanks, it cannot be assumed that the amounts of spillage posed a threat to the groundwater. We conclude that the agency's finding with respect to the above-ground tanks is not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Iowa Code § 17A.19 (1989). As a result of our rejection of the agency's findings of prohibited discharges by Hawkeye under section 455B.186, the only remaining basis upon which liability is sought to be imposed is the agency's claim that an unlawful discharge occurred by reason of the fact that Hawkeye owned property from which diesel fuel was seeping into the groundwater. That is the same claim that the agency is making against Blue Chip and will be discussed in the next division of this opinion.