STATE OF INDIANA		)	SS:	BEFORE THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
		)
COUNTY OF MARION		)		ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT					)
OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT,					)
					)
Complainant,					)
					)
	v.				)	CASE NO. 1999-8719-S and
					)	2002-12594-S
					)
PERRY MULLIS d/b/a MULLIS PETROLEUM,					)
					)
Respondent.					)

AGREED ORDER

The Complainant and the Respondent desire to settle and compromise this action without hearing or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and consent to the entry of the following Findings of Fact and Order. Pursuant to IC 13-30-3-3, Respondent denies any liability for Complainant’s violations alleged herein and entry into the terms of this Agreed Order does not constitute an admission of any violation contained herein. Respondent’s entry into this Agreed Order shall not constitute a waiver of any defense, legal or equitable, which Respondent may have in any future administrative or judicial proceeding, except a proceeding to enforce this order.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainant is the Commissioner (“Complainant”) of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, a department of the State of Indiana created by IC 13-13-1-1.

2. Respondent is Perry Mullis d/b/a Mullis Petroleum (“Respondent”), whom Complainant alleges operated an underground storage tank (“UST”) system, Facility ID number 22715 located at Rt. 3, Dover Hill, Indiana, Martin County (“Site A”) during the events recited in Findings of Fact Paragraph No. 7. Respondent denies that he owned Site A at the time of the events alleged in Findings of Fact Paragraph No. 7 and denies that he has any liability as an “owner” or “operator” in connection with the tanks pulled in June 1998. At the time of the events alleged in Findings of Fact Paragraph No. 7, Respondent contends Fred and Lovell Johnson owned Site A and Site A had been operated by Cheryl Mills. Respondent has since (in 2002) acquired Site A. Respondent owns and/or operates UST systems at Facility ID number 8384 located at 1320 West Main Street, Mitchell, Lawrence County, Indiana, (“Site B”). Respondent also owns and/or operates all of the underground storage tank systems at the sites listed in Appendix A.

3. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”) has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action.

4. Pursuant to IC 13-30-3-3, IDEM issued a Notice of Violation in Case No. 1999-8719-S on May 28, 1999 and in Case No. 2002-12594-S on March 24, 2003 via Certified Mail to:

Perry Mullis	Perry Mullis
d/b/a Mulis Petroleum	d/b/a Mullis Petroleum
P.O. Box 517	1001 “J” Street
Bedford, Indiana 47421	Bedford, Indiana 47421

5. Designated representatives of IDEM conducted an inspection of Site A on December 6, 1997. Designated representatives of IDEM conducted an inspection of Site B on October 31, 2002.

6. All references in the Findings of Fact to 329 IAC 9 and its various parts and subparts are to the versions in effect at the time that IDEM discovered the violations listed in the aforementioned Notices of Violation. All references in the Order to 329 IAC 9 and its various parts and subparts are to the version in effect as of September 29, 2004.

7. Based on information gathered by IDEM during the above noted inspections, Complainant alleged that Respondent was in violation of the following environmental rules with respect to Site A:

Site A: Case No. 1999-8719-S

A. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-2-2(g), all owners and operators of UST systems who temporarily close a tank system under 40 CFR 280.70, or permanently close or perform a change-in-service on a tank system under 329 IAC 9-6-1 shall, within thirty (30) days of completing such action, submit notice of this action to the agency as required by 329 IAC 9-2-2(a). Complainant alleged that during a record review it was discovered that Respondent had failed to notify IDEM about permanently closing the UST systems at the Site.

B. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-3-1(b)(2), owners and operators must submit the following information to the agency: reports of all releases including suspected releases (329 IAC 9-4-1), spills and overfills (329 IAC 9-4-4), and confirmed releases (329 IAC 9-5-2). Complainant alleged that during IDEM’s investigation it was observed that contaminated soil was present at the Site and was not reported.

C. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-3-1(b)(3), owners and operators must submit the following information to the agency: corrective actions planned or taken including initial abatement measures (329 IAC 9-5-3), initial site characterization (329 IAC 9-5-4), free product removal (329 IAC 9-5-5), investigation of soil and ground water cleanup (329 IAC 9-5-6), and corrective action plan (329 IAC 9-5-7). Complainant alleged that during IDEM’s record review and investigation it was discovered that Respondent failed to submit the required information.

D. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-3-1(b)(5), owners and operators must submit the following information to the agency: a notification before permanent closure or change-in-service (329 IAC 9-6-1). Complainant alleged that during IDEM’s record review it was discovered that Respondent had failed to notify IDEM about permanent closure of the UST systems at the Site.

E. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-3-1(b)(6), owners and operators must submit the following information to the agency: a notification upon completion of temporary closure (40 CFR 280.70), permanent closure or change-in-service (329 IAC 9-6-1 and 329 IAC 9-6-2). Complainant alleged that during IDEM’s record review it was discovered that Respondent had failed to notify IDEM upon the completion of permanent closure of the UST systems at the Site.

F. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-3-1(b)(8), owners and operators must submit the following information to the agency: results of the site investigation conducted at permanent closure or change-in-service (329 IAC 9-6-4). Complainant alleged that during IDEM’s record review it was discovered that Respondent had failed to submit the results of a site investigation. Respondent denied this allegation and further responded that he previously submitted to Complainant the results of a site investigation. Complainant alleges that the information was insufficient.

G. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-4-1(1), owners and operators of UST systems must report to the agency within twenty-four (24) hours and follow the procedures in 329 IAC 9-5-3 and, if applicable, 327 IAC 2-6-2 for the following condition: the discovery by owners and operators or others of released regulated substances at the underground storage tank site or in the surrounding area (such as the presence of free product or vapors in soils, basements, sewer and utility lines and nearby surface water). Complainant alleged that during IDEM's record review and investigation it was discovered that Respondent had failed to report the release within 24 hours.

H. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-4-3(2), unless corrective action is initiated in accordance with 329 IAC 9-5, owners and operators must immediately investigate and confirm all suspected releases of regulated substances requiring reporting under section 1 of this rule or 327 IAC 2-6-2 within seven (7) days using the following steps or another procedure approved by the agency: owners and operators must measure for the presence of a release where contamination is most likely to be present at the underground storage tank site. In selecting sample types, sample locations, and measurement methods, owners and operators must consider the nature of the stored substance, the type of initial alarm or cause for suspicion, the type of backfill, the depth to ground water, and other factors appropriate for identifying the presence and source of the release. If the test results for the excavation zone or the underground storage tank site indicate that a release has occurred, owners and operators must begin corrective action in accordance with 329 IAC 9-5. If the test results for the excavation zone or the underground storage tank site do not indicate that a release has occurred, further investigation is not required. Complainant alleged that during IDEM's record review it was discovered that Respondent failed to investigate a release at the Site. Respondent denied this allegation and further responded that he was unaware that any release had occurred.

I. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-5-1, owners and operators of petroleum or hazardous substance UST systems must, in response to a confirmed release from the UST system, comply with the requirements of 329 IAC 9-5 except for UST systems excluded under 329 IAC 9-1-1 (b) and UST systems subject to corrective action requirements under Section 3004(u) (42 U.S.C. 6924(u)) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq., in effect on November 1, 1988. Complainant alleged that Respondent did not fully comply with the requirements of 329 IAC 9-5 when a release was confirmed at the Site.

J. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-5-2, upon confirmation of a release in accordance with 329 IAC 9-4-3 or after a release from the UST system is identified in any other manner, owners and operators must perform the following initial response actions within twenty-four (24) hours of a release or within a reasonable time period specified by the agency: (l) report the release to the agency; (2) take immediate action to prevent any further release of the regulated substance into the environment; and (3) identify and mitigate fire, explosion, and vapor hazards. Complainant alleged that IDEM has no record that Respondent: reported the release to IDEM; took immediate action to prevent any further releases; or identified any hazards.

K. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-5-3(a)(1), unless directed to do otherwise by the commissioner, owners and operators must perform the following abatement measure: remove as much of the regulated substance from the UST system as is necessary to prevent further release to the environment. Complainant alleged that Respondent allowed the contents of the UST systems to be released into the UST excavation during the permanent closure activities at the Site.

L. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-5-3(a)(2), unless directed to do otherwise by the commissioner, owners and operators must perform the following abatement measure: visually inspect any above ground releases or exposed below ground releases and prevent further migration of the released substance into surrounding soils and ground water. Complainant alleged that Respondent did not prevent the further migration of the released substance at the Site.

M. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-5-3(a)(3), unless directed to do otherwise by the commissioner, owners and operators must perform the following abatement measure: continue to monitor and mitigate any additional fire and safety hazards posed by vapors or free product that have migrated from the underground storage tank excavation zone and entered into subsurface structures (such as sewers or basements). Complainant alleged that during IDEM's investigation and record review it was noted that Respondent had failed to monitor and mitigate any fire and safety hazards.

N. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-5-3(a)(4), unless directed to do otherwise by the commissioner, owners and operators must perform the following abatement measure: remedy hazards posed by contaminated soils that are excavated or exposed as a result of release confirmation, site investigation, abatement, or corrective action activities. If these remedies include treatment or disposal of soils, the owner and operator must comply with applicable state and local requirements. Complainant alleged that during IDEM's investigation, it was noted that Respondent failed to correct hazards posed by contaminated soils.

O. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-5-3(a)(5), unless directed to do otherwise by the commissioner, owners and operators must perform the following abatement measure: measure for the presence of a release where contamination is most likely to be present at the underground storage tank site, unless the presence and source of the release have been confirmed in accordance with the site check required by 329 IAC 9-4-3(2) or the closure site assessment of 329 IAC 9-6-2(a). In selecting sample types, sample locations, and measurement methods, the owner and operator must consider the nature of the stored substance, the type of backfill, depth to ground water, and other factors as appropriate for identifying the presence and source of the release. Complainant alleged that Respondent failed to properly measure for the presence of the release.

P. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-5-3(a)(6), unless directed to do otherwise by the commissioner, owners and operators must perform the following abatement measure: investigate to determine the possible presence of free product, and begin free product removal as soon as practicable and in accordance with 329 IAC 9-5-5. Complainant alleged that during IDEM's investigation it was noted that Respondent failed to investigate the possible presence of free product.

Q. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-5-3(b), within twenty (20) days after release confirmation, owners and operators must submit a report to the agency summarizing the initial abatement steps taken under 329 IAC 9-5-3(a) and any resulting information or data. Complainant alleged that Respondent did not submit the required information to IDEM within the time frame allowed.

R. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-5-4(a), unless directed to do otherwise by the commissioner, owners and operators must assemble information about the site and the nature of the release, including information gained while confirming the release or completing the initial abatement measures in 329 IAC 9-5-2 and 329 IAC 9-5-3. This information must include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following: (1) Data on the nature and estimated quantity of release; (2) data from available sources and/or site investigations concerning the following factors: (A) surrounding populations, (B) water quality, (C) use and approximate locations of wells potentially affected by the release, (D) subsurface soil conditions, (E) locations of subsurface sewers, (F) climatological conditions, and (G) land use; (3) results of the site check required under 329 IAC 9-5-3(a)(5); (4) results of the free product investigations required under 329 IAC 9-5-3(a)(6), to be used by owners and operators to determine whether free product must be recovered under 329 IAC 9-5-5; (5) known or expected extent of contamination. Complainant alleged that during IDEM's record review it was noted that Respondent had failed to collect the required data.

S. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-5-4(b), within forty-five (45) days of release confirmation, owners and operators must submit the information collected in compliance with 329 IAC 9-5-4(a) to the agency in a manner that demonstrates its applicability and technical adequacy or in a format and according to a schedule required by the agency. Complainant alleged that during IDEM's record review it was noted that Respondent had failed to submit the data required by 329 IAC 9-5-4 (a).

T. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-6-1(a), at least thirty (30) days before beginning either permanent closure or a change-in-service, owners and operators must notify the agency of their intent to permanently close or make the change-in-service, unless such action is in response to corrective action. The required assessment of the excavation zone under 329 IAC 9-6-2 must be performed after notifying the agency but before completion of the permanent closure or change-in-service. Complainant alleged that during IDEM's investigation and record review it was noted that Respondent had failed to notify IDEM thirty (30) days prior to beginning permanent closure of the UST systems at the Site.

U. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-6-2(a), before permanent closure or a change-in-service is completed, owners and operators must measure for the presence of a release where contamination is most likely to be present at the underground storage tank site. At a minimum, soil samples must be taken at all permanent closure and change-in-service sites. Only sampling and analytical methods approved by the agency may be used. In selecting additional sample types, sample locations, and measurement methods, owners and operators must consider the following: (1) The method of closure. (2) The nature of the stored substance. (3) The type of backfill. (4) The depth to ground water. (5) Other factors appropriate for identifying the presence of a release. The requirements of this section are satisfied if one (1) of the external release detection methods allowed in 40 CFR 280.43(e) and 40 CFR 280.43(f) is operating in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 280.43 at the time of closure and indicates no release has occurred. Complainant alleged that Respondent did not properly measure for the presence of a release at the Site.

V. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-6-2(b), if contaminated soils, contaminated ground water, or free product as a liquid or vapor is discovered under 329 IAC 9-6-2(a), or by any other manner, owners and operators must begin corrective action in accordance with 329 IAC 9-5. Complainant alleged that during IDEM's investigation it was noted that contaminated soil was discovered at the Site and that Respondent failed to begin corrective action measures.

W. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-6-4, owners and operators must maintain records in accordance with 329 IAC 9-3-1 that are capable of demonstrating compliance with closure requirements under 329 IAC 9-6. The results of the excavation zone assessment required in 329 IAC 9-6-2 must be submitted to the agency within thirty (30) days after completion of permanent closure or change- in-service of the UST system. Results of the excavation zone assessment must be maintained for at least three (3) years after completion of permanent closure or change-in-service in one (1) of the following ways: (1) by the owners and operators who took the UST system out of service; (2) by the current owners and operators of the UST system site; or (3) by mailing these records to the agency if the records cannot be maintained at the closed facility. Complainant alleged that during IDEM's record review it was noted that the Respondent has not demonstrated compliance with IDEM's permanent closure requirements.

8. Based on information gathered by IDEM during the above noted inspections, Complainant alleged that Respondent was in violation of the following environmental rules with respect to Site B:

Site B: Case No. 2002-12594-S

A. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-2-2(a), any owner who brings a UST system into use shall, within thirty (30) days of bringing such tank into use, submit notice to the agency to register the tank using a form provided by the agency for this notification. Complainant alleged that Respondent has failed to properly register the UST systems at the Site with IDEM.

B. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-2.1-1(a), all existing UST systems shall comply with one (1) of the following requirements no later than December 22, 1998: (1) new UST performance standards under 329 IAC 9-2-1, (2) upgrading requirements under 329 IAC 9-2.1-1(b) through (d), (3) closure requirements under 329 IAC 9-6, including applicable requirements for corrective action under 329 IAC 9-5. Complainant alleged that the UST systems at the Site have not been properly upgraded regarding corrosion protection, do not meet the new UST performance standards, and are not properly closed.

C. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-3-1, the owner and operator of a UST system shall cooperate fully with inspections, monitoring, and testing conducted by the agency, as well as requests for document submission, testing, and monitoring by the owner or operator. Complainant alleged that Respondent failed to respond to a formal request for documentation of UST systems at the Site.

D. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-6-5(c), when a UST system has been temporarily closed for twelve (12) months, the owner or operator shall permanently close the UST system if it does not meet the performance standards in 329 IAC 9-2-1 or the upgrading requirement in 329 IAC 9-2.1, except that spill and overfill equipment requirements do not have to be met. Complainant alleged that the UST systems at the Site have been in temporary closure for more than twelve (12) months and have not been permanently closed.

9. IDEM's Emergency Response Section responded to a release (Incident Number 199712031) at Site A on December 6, 1997.

10. IDEM's Emergency Response Section referred Incident Number 199712031 to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (“LUST”) Section on July 2, 1998.

11. Respondent removed the UST systems at Site A without IDEM approval on October 2, 1998 and submitted a closure report on June 24, 1999.

12. Respondent removed the waste oil UST system at Site B on April 16, 2003 and submitted a closure report on June 12, 2003.

13. Respondent reported a release at Site B to the LUST Section on May 22, 2003 and was issued Incident Number 200305511.

14. Respondent has had the opportunity to consult with and has consulted with counsel regarding this Agreed Order.

15. In recognition of the settlement reached, Respondent waives any right to administrative and judicial review of this Agreed Order.

II. ORDER

1. This Agreed Order shall be effective (“Effective Date”) when it is approved by the Complainant or his delegate, and has been received by Respondent. This Agreed Order shall have no force or effect until the Effective Date.

2. This Agreed Order addresses the violations expressly described in Findings of Fact Nos. 7 and 8 for the Notices of Violation in Case Nos. 1999-8719-S and 2002-12594-S.

3. Respondent shall, within forty-five (45) days of the Effective Date of this Order, submit a Confirmation Sampling Work Plan (“CSWP”) for Site A to IDEM detailing how Respondent will complete confirmatory sampling. The CSWP shall be subject to review, modification and approval by IDEM. The CSWP must be approved by IDEM prior to implementation. The Respondent hereby agrees to implement the approved in writing CSWP. The Respondent shall complete all requirements in the approved CSWP. The approved CSWP, including the work schedule in the CSWP, shall be incorporated into this Agreed Order and shall be deemed an enforceable part thereof. Respondent shall submit and implement additional CSWPs and/or Corrective Action Plans (“CAPs”) for Site A, pursuant to 329 IAC 9-5-7, at IDEM’s request if IDEM determines that further site characterization and/or corrective action is needed.

4. Respondent shall submit an Initial Site Characterization (“ISC”) for Site B within forty-five (45) days of the Effective Date of this Order. The Respondent shall develop the ISC in accordance with the Underground Storage Tank Branch Guidance Manual dated July 1993 with the October 1994 update and as requested by the assigned LUST Section Project Manager.

5. Respondent shall inspect the interior of the remaining UST systems at Site B in accordance with 329 IAC 9-2.1-1(b)(2)(B) within forty-five (45) days of the Effective Date of this Order. The inspection shall include an internal assessment of the UST systems done in accordance with the National Leak Prevention Association Standard 631 (NLPA 631), “Spill Prevention, Minimum 10 Year Life Extension of Existing Steel Underground Tanks by Lining Without the Addition of Cathodic Protection.”

Respondent shall submit to IDEM within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of this Order, all supporting documentation, inspection reports, assessments, certifications, and affidavits pertaining to the internal inspection as outlined in NLPA 631, Chapter B.

If either the internal liners or metal structures do not meet the standards identified under 329 IAC 9-2.1-1(b) and NLPA 631, the Respondent shall permanently close the UST system as follows:

1. Close the UST system within sixty (60) days of internal inspection in accordance with the requirements of 329 IAC 9-6-1 through 329 IAC 9-6-4, including the applicable requirements for corrective action under 329 IAC 9-5-1 through 9-5-8; and,

2. Submit to IDEM a UST Closure Report (“USTCR”) in accordance with 329 IAC 9-6-2.5 within thirty (30) days of closing the UST system.

6. The Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Five Dollars ($19,325.00). Within thirty days of the Effective Date of the Agreed Order, the Respondent shall pay a portion of this penalty in the amount of Three Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Five Dollars ($3,865.00). Said penalty amount shall be due and payable to the Underground Petroleum Storage Tank Trust Fund. In lieu of payment of the remaining civil penalty, the Respondent shall perform and complete a Supplemental Environmental Project (“SEP”).

As a SEP, the Respondent shall enter into a written contract with an environmental consultant approved by IDEM to complete a separate Facility Assessment and Action Plan (“FAAP”) for each of the sites listed in Appendix A to be submitted to IDEM in the format outlined in Appendix B. Respondent shall submit a copy of said executed contract to IDEM within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Order.

The Respondent shall submit the first FAAP within seventy-five (75) days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order. The Respondent shall have all FAAPs for those sites listed in Appendix A submitted to IDEM for review by no later than February 1, 2007. It is anticipated that this SEP may result in the identification of and the need for corrective measures related to environmental compliance issues at thirty (30) UST sites located in ten (10) counties.

IDEM shall review each FAAP in good faith and reasonably approve the FAAPs. In the event IDEM determines that any FAAP submitted by Respondent is deficient or otherwise unacceptable, Respondent shall revise and resubmit the FAAP to IDEM in accordance with IDEM's notice. After three (3) submissions of such revised FAAP by Respondent, IDEM may modify and approve any such FAAP and Respondent shall implement the FAAP as modified by IDEM. The approved FAAP shall be incorporated into this Agreed Order and shall be deemed an enforceable part thereof.

The SEP shall be considered complete when all FAAPs are submitted and approved by IDEM. Within ninety (90) days of completing the FAAPs, the Respondent shall submit written notice and documentation to IDEM which substantiates all actions taken and costs incurred with respect to the SEP. In the event that the cost of the SEP is less than $54,110.00, the Respondent shall pay to IDEM twenty eight percent (28%) of the difference between $54,110.00 and the actual cost of the SEP.

7. In the event that the Respondent does not complete all the FAAPs by February 1, 2007, the full amount of the civil penalty as stated in Order Paragraph No. 6 above, plus interest established by IC 24-4.6-1-101 on the remaining amount, less the portion of the civil penalty the Respondent has already paid, will be due within thirty (30) days from the Respondent’s receipt of IDEM’s notice to pay. Interest, at the rate established by IC 24-4.6-1-101, shall be calculated on the amount due from the date which is thirty (30) days after the Effective Date of this Agreed Order until the full civil penalty is paid.

8. Respondent shall complete all of the actions in the approved FAAPs. The approved FAAPs, including a remediation, closure, and maintenance activity schedule in the FAAPs, shall be incorporated into this Agreed Order and shall be deemed an enforceable part thereof.

9. If an USTCR was required for the permanent closure of any UST system at any site listed in Appendix A, and was not created and/or submitted to IDEM, in accordance with 329 IAC 9-6-1 and 2.5, Respondent shall request permission, pursuant to 329 IAC 9-6-2.5(a), within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Order and commence closure activities immediately after gaining approval from IDEM's UST Section. Respondent shall submit an USTCR per Order Paragraph No. 5(B). Respondent hereby agrees to notify the Solid Waste-UST Enforcement Section per Order Paragraph No. 14 prior to the closure assessment.

10. If any UST system at any site listed in Appendix A is found to be in violation of the corrosion protection requirements of 329 IAC 9-2-1 or 329 IAC 9-2.1-1(b), Respondent shall immediately place the UST system into temporary closure, seek IDEM approval for permanent closure, and commence closure activities immediately after gaining approval from IDEM's UST Section. Respondent shall submit an USTCR in accordance with 329 IAC 9-6-2.5 within thirty (30) days of closing the UST system. Respondent shall notify the Solid Waste-UST Enforcement Section per Order Paragraph No. 14 prior to the closure assessment.

11. If the underground piping associated with any UST system at any site listed in Appendix A does not meet the corrosion protection requirements of 329 IAC 9-2-1 or 329 IAC 9-2.1-1(b), Respondent shall immediately cease dispensing petroleum from the UST system, place it in temporary closure, seek IDEM approval for permanent closure, and commence closure activities immediately after gaining approval from IDEM's UST Section. Respondent shall submit an USTCR in accordance with 329 IAC 9-6-2.5 within thirty (30) days of closing the UST system. Respondent shall notify the Solid Waste-UST Enforcement Section per Order Paragraph No. 14 prior to the closure assessment.

12. If spill and/or overfill prevention equipment is not installed on any UST system at any site listed in Appendix A, as required by 329 IAC 9, Respondent shall immediately cease accepting deliveries into the UST system until new spill and/or overfill prevention equipment is installed.

13. If any UST system at any site listed in Appendix A is found to not have proper release detection pursuant to 329 IAC 9-7, Respondent shall immediately cease dispensing petroleum from the UST system and place the UST system into temporary closure until such time as a new form of release detection is put into use and the employees at the Site are properly trained in its use.

14. Notwithstanding IC 13-14-2-2, Respondent shall permit an agent of IDEM to view and inspect the activities performed pursuant to the approved FAAPs, ISCs, CSWPs, and USTCRs, which include, but are not limited to, all excavation, and soil and groundwater sampling events. In order to facilitate such an inspection, Respondent shall notify IDEM at least seven (7) days prior to any scheduled activities or within twenty four (24) hours of unscheduled activities performed in connection with this Agreed Order.

15. All submittals required by this Agreed Order, unless notified otherwise in writing, shall be sent to:

Thomas F. Newcomb, Enforcement Case Manager

Office of Enforcement, Mail Code 60-02

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

100 North Senate Avenue

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2251

16. In the event the following terms and conditions are violated, the Complainant may assess and Respondent shall pay a stipulated penalty in the following amounts:

Violation	Penalty
Order Paragraph No. 3	$500 per week that CSWP is late
Order Paragraph No. 4	$500 per week that ISC is late
Order Paragraph No. 5	$500 per week that inspection is late
Order Paragraph No. 5	$250 per week that inspection report is late
Order Paragraph No. 5 (A)	$500 per week for late closure
Order Paragraph No. 5 (B)	$500 per week that USTCR is late
Order Paragraph No. 6	$250 per week that SEP cost report is late
Order Paragraph No. 8	$500 per site where Respondent fails to perform a scheduled event
Order Paragraph No. 9	$500 per week for late closure
Order Paragraph No. 10	$500 per week that USTCR is late
Order Paragraph No. 10	$500 per week for late closure
Order Paragraph No. 11	$500 per week that USTCR is late
Order Paragraph No. 11	$500 per week that USTCR is late
Order Paragraph No. 12	$250 per delivery
Order Paragraph No. 13	$2,500 per week that site operates without proper release detection
Order Paragraph No. 14	$500 per incident where IDEM is not notified before activities

17. Stipulated penalties shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days after Respondent receives written notice that the Complainant has determined a stipulated penalty is due. Assessment and payment of stipulated penalties shall not preclude the Complainant from seeking any additional relief against Respondent for violation of the Agreed Order. In lieu of assessment of any of the stipulated penalty given above, the Complainant may seek any other remedies or sanctions available by virtue of Respondent’s violation of this Agreed Order, or Indiana Law, including but not limited to civil penalties pursuant to IC 13-30-4.

18. In accordance with IC 13-23-6-2, civil and stipulated penalties are payable by check to the Underground Petroleum Storage Tank Trust Fund. Checks shall include the Case Number of this action and shall be mailed to:

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Cashiers Office – Mail Code 50-10C

100 N. Senate Avenue

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2251

19. In the event that the civil penalty required by Order Paragraph No. 6 is not paid within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, Respondent shall pay interest on the unpaid balance at the rate established by IC 24-4.6-1-101. The interest shall continue to accrue until the civil penalty is paid in full.

20. This Agreed Order shall apply to and be binding upon Respondent, his officers, directors, principals, agents, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Respondent's signatories to this Agreed Order certify that they are fully authorized to execute this document and legally bind the parties they represent. No change in ownership, corporate, or partnership status of Respondent shall in any way alter its status or responsibilities under this Agreed Order.

21. In the event that any terms of this Agreed Order are found to be invalid, the remaining terms shall remain in full force and effect and shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreed Order did not contain the invalid terms.

22. Respondent shall provide a copy of this Agreed Order, if in force, to any subsequent owners or successors before ownership rights are transferred. Respondent shall ensure that all contractors, firms and other persons performing work under this Agreed Order comply with the terms of this Agreed Order.

23. “Force Majeure”, for purposes of this Agreed Order, is defined as any event arising from causes totally beyond the control and without fault of the Respondent that delays or prevents the performance of any obligation under this Agreed Order despite Respondent’s best efforts to fulfill the obligation. The requirement that the Respondent exercise “best efforts to fulfill the obligation” includes using best efforts to anticipate any potential force majeure event and best efforts to address the effects of any potential force majeure event (1) as it is occurring and (2) following the potential force majeure event, such that the delay is minimized to the greatest extent possible. “Force Majeure” does not include changed business or economic conditions, financial inability to complete the work required by this Agreed Order, or increases in costs to perform the work.

The Respondent shall notify IDEM by calling the case manager within three (3) calendar days and by writing no later than seven (7) calendar days after it has knowledge of any event which the Respondent contends is a force majeure. Such notification shall describe the anticipated length of the delay, the cause or causes of the delay, the measures taken or to be taken by the Respondent to minimize the delay, and the timetable by which these measures will be implemented. The Respondent shall include with any notice all available documentation supporting its claim that the delay was attributable to a force majeure. Failure to comply with the above requirements shall preclude Respondent from asserting any claim of force majeure for that event. The Respondent shall have the burden of demonstrating that the event is a force majeure. The decision of whether an event is a force majeure shall be made by IDEM.

If a delay is attributable to a force majeure, IDEM shall extend, in writing, the time period for performance under this Agreed Order, by the amount of time that is directly attributable to the event constituting the force majeure.

24. This Agreed Order shall remain in effect until the Respondent has complied with all terms and conditions of this Agreed Order.

TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION:			RESPONDENT:
Department of Environmental Management			Perry Mullis d/b/a Mullis Petroleum
By: _________________________			By: _________________________
	Paul Higginbotham, Chief
	Solid Waste/UST Section		Printed: ______________________
Office of Enforcement
			Title: ________________________
Date: __________________			Date: _______________________
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT:			COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:
Department of Environmental Management
By: ______________			By: ________________________
	Office of Legal Counsel
Date: _______________________			Date: ______________________
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT THIS		DAY OF		, 200	.
			For The Commissioner:
			Signed 12/5/2005___________
			Matthew T. Klein
			Assistant Commissioner
			of Compliance and Enforcement

Agreed Order Designation	Facility ID	Name	Street Address	City	County
Site A	22715	Vacant Site	SR 450	Dover Hill	Martin
Site B	8384	4 Points 76 Service	1320 W Main St	Mitchell	Lawrence
Site D	3611	Stanford 66 #75	9067 W SR 45	Stanford	Monroe
Site E	9106	Harmony Citgo	7500 W SR 45	Bloomington	Monroe
Site F	10846	Westside Citgo	7398 W SR 46	Ellettsville	Monroe
Site G	11732	Morgantown Service	SR 252	Morgantown	Morgan
Site H	11931	Bedford Tire Alignment	15th & "L"	Bedford	Lawrence
Site I	11932	C'burg Supply	SR 60	Campbellsburg	Washington
Site J	11934	Bills 76	SR 450	Williams	Lawrence
Site L	11938	Jerry's Service	SR 58	Springville	Lawrence
Site M	11939	Goodmans Service	5th & Lincoln	Bedford	Lawrence
Site N	11941	D & D Country Store	163 Railroad	Huron	Lawrence
Site O	11943	Mikels Service	702 "J" St	Bedford	Lawrence
Site P	11946	Smith Grocery	Bartlettsville Rd	Bartlettsville	Lawrence
Site Q	11947	Convenience Plus	102 College Ave	Paoli	Orange
Site R	11948	Eastside Service	Grissom Ave	Mitchell	Lawrence
Site S	11949	Wrays Grocery	US HWY 50 9563 W	Medora	Jackson
Site T	11950	Mullis Petroleum	1018 "J"	Bedford	Lawrence
Site W	11953	Standish Farm Supply	10th & "I" St	Bedford	Lawrence
Site X	11954	Sumutt And Evans	2722 W 8th	Bedford	Lawrence
Site Z	15823	Smoot's Service Station	RR 13	Bedford	Lawrence
Site AA	17286	Taylorsville Citgo	11700 N US HWY 31	Edinburgh	Bartholomew
Site BB	18126	Ashley's 76	310 Hoosier Ave	Oolitic	Lawrence
Site CC	19097	Stanford	SR 45	Stanford	Monroe
Site EE	22074	D & D Medora	166 S Perry St	Medora	Jackson
Site FF	24319	37 One Stop	Jct New 37 Old 37	Springville	Lawrence
Site GG	12113	Rael's Service Station	948 West Main	Paoli	Orange
Site HH	12109	Rael Oil	US HWY 150	Fredericksburg	Washington
Site II	18127	Milltown Mini-Mart	Crawford Co-Maint St	Milltown	Crawford
Site JJ	18161	English Mini Mart	300 Main St	English	Crawford

APPENDIX A

Format for Facility Assessment and Action Plans as a Supplemental Environmental Project

Appendix B

I. General UST Facility Information: Section I shall include, but is not limited to, detailing the Site's UST Facility Identification Number, UST Owner Identification Number, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Number(s), Emergency Response Incident Number(s), UST Facility Name, UST Facility Address, ownership history narrative encompassing the last 15 years and a description of any existing UST systems at the Site.

II. Emergency Response Incidents: Section II shall include, but is not limited to, a detailed discussion of any reported and reportable spills which occurred at the site, how much was spilled and the response initiated. If the spill and contamination and/or damage caused by it have not been corrected, Respondent shall detail what will be done and under what timeframe. This section shall include a complete and detailed discussion on any failures of Respondent to comply with requirements to report, respond to the spill or remediate the contamination.

III. Underground Storage Tank Closures: Section III shall include a detailed narrative of all UST closures performed at the Site. The information shall include, but is not limited to if, how and when a Request for Closure was made, when the UST system(s) were closed, how the UST system(s) were closed, who the certified individual (with certification number) was that closed the UST system(s), if a UST System Site Closure Report was submitted to IDEM, and if that Site Closure Report was deemed to be complete. If Respondent received a Site Closure Report Review Checklist with marked inadequacies, detail how/if Respondent responded to the deficiencies. If the Site Closure is not considered complete, Respondent shall detail what will be done to complete the Site Closure and under what timeframe. This section shall include a complete and detailed discussion of any failures of Respondent to comply with requirements to properly close, assess and report on a UST System Site Closure and additional information requests made connected to those closures.

IV. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incidents: Section IV shall include, but is not limited to, a detailed discussion of what caused the release, how and when it was identified, what environmental assessment work has been done to date, and what still needs to be done. Pursuant to 329 IAC 9-1-38.3 "release" has the meaning set forth in IC 13-11-2-184(a). This section will also detail the assigned priority of the site (low, medium or high) and if soil and/or groundwater has been contaminated and if contamination has traveled off-site. If the incident and any contamination and/or damage caused by it have not been corrected and received a No Further Action letter from IDEM, Respondent shall detail what will be done and under what timeframe. This section shall include a complete and detailed discussion on any failures of Respondent to comply with requirements to report, assess, delineate or remediate any release from a UST system or its related ancillary equipment.

V. New or Existing Underground Storage Tank Systems: Section V shall include, but is not limited to, a detailed discussion of each subsection below:

1. UST Systems: This subsection shall include a detailed discussion with supporting documentation, as outlined below, of the construction of each separate UST system at the site and how each UST system currently meets or was upgraded to meet the corrosion protection requirements of 329 IAC 9.

A. Fiberglass USTs - Submit documentation for any tanks that are claimed to be fiberglass. This information shall include, but is not limited to, sale invoices which include the address at which the tanks were installed, contracts with the installation contractor that include a materials list clearly indicating the tanks installed were fiberglass.

B. Fiberglass Lined USTs - Submit documentation for any tanks that are claimed to be fitted with an internal liner of any type (fiberglass, epoxy resin, etc.). This information shall include, but is not limited to, required suitability studies indicating the lined tanks were fit to be lined, contracts with the installation contractor that include a materials list clearly indicating the date the tanks were lined and internal inspection reports for any of the required ten, one or five year internal inspections.

C. Galvanic Cathodically Protected USTs - Submit documentation for any tanks that are claimed to be cathodically protected by galvanic/sacrificial anode systems. This information shall include, but is not limited to, sale invoices which include the address at which the tanks were installed, contracts with the installation contractor that include a materials list clearly indicating the tanks installed had factory-installed galvanic cathodic protection (i.e. Sti-P3 Tanks), required suitability studies performed by a corrosion expert for any tanks that had galvanic/sacrificial cathodic protection systems added after installation, and results of the last two required three year tests of the anodes performed by a corrosion expert.

D. Impressed Current Cathodically Protected USTs - Submit documentation for any tanks that are claimed to be cathodically protected by impressed current anode systems. This information shall include, but is not limited to, sale invoices which include the address at which the impressed current system was installed, contracts with the installation contractor that include a materials list clearly indicating a list of materials, required suitability studies and installation plans performed or created by a corrosion expert prior to the system being installed, and results of the last two required three year tests of the impressed current system and its anodes performed by a corrosion expert.

2. UST System Piping: This subsection shall include a detailed discussion with supporting documentation, as outlined below, of the construction of the product piping for each separate UST system at the site and how the product piping meets or was upgraded to meet the corrosion protection requirements of 329 IAC 9.

A. Fiberglass piping - Submit documentation for any UST piping that is claimed to be fiberglass. This information shall include, but is not limited to, sale invoices which include the address at which the piping was installed, contracts with the installation contractor that include a materials list clearly indicating the piping installed was fiberglass, information indicating whether the UST piping was single or double-walled piping and whether it is rigid or flexible piping.

B. Cathodically Protected Metal piping - Submit documentation for any UST piping that is claimed to be cathodically protected metal. This information shall include, but is not limited to, sale invoices which include the address at which the piping was installed, contracts with the installation contractor that include a materials list clearly indicating the piping installed was cathodically protected metal, suitability studies and design plans created by a corrosion expert and results of the last two required three year tests of the anodes performed by a corrosion expert.

3. Spill Prevention Equipment (Catchment Basins / Spill Buckets): This subsection shall include, but is not limited to, a detailed discussion with supporting documentation of the spill prevention equipment installed at the Site. Sales invoices which include the address at which the catchment basins were installed, contracts with the installation contractor that include a materials list clearly indicating type and number of catchment basins installed at the site will suffice. Photographs clearly indicating the number and type of catchment basins at a particular site will only be acceptable if they clearly show which facility they are located at and the UST Facility ID number is clearly printed on the back of the photograph.

4. Overfill Prevention Equipment (ball float vent valves, automatic shut-off devices, audible alarms): This subsection shall include, but is not limited to, a detailed discussion with supporting documentation of the overfill prevention equipment installed at the Site. Sales invoices which include the address at which the overfill prevention equipment was installed, contracts with the installation contractor that include a materials list clearly indicating type and number of devices installed at the site will suffice. Photographs clearly indicating the number and type of overfill prevention devices at a particular site will only be acceptable if they clearly show which facility they are located at and the UST Facility ID number is clearly printed on the back of the photograph. The devices must be clearly identifiable in the photographs and may require that they be removed from the ground and photographed. If the facility utilizes an audible alarm, that alarm must be clearly audible to the fuel delivery personnel at all times while they are outside near their transport vehicle. A signed statement detailing the design specifications of any audible alarm is required.

5. Release Detection: This subsection shall include, but is not limited to, a detailed discussion with supporting documentation, as outlined below, of release detection in use at the Site.

A. UST Systems: Submit copies of the last six (6) months of the particular form of release detection is claimed on the UST Notification Form. This is to include, but is not limited to, hand-written daily records, computer generated reconciliation forms, vendor created test results or automatic tank gauging printouts. The form of release detection in use must comply with all legal requirements in regard to the age and size of the tank(s) and the date the cathodic protection requirement was met.

B. UST System Piping: Submit copies of the last 2 years of the particular form of release detection is claimed on the UST Notification Form. This is to include, but is not limited to, line tightness testing results for pressurized and American suction systems and annual testing of any automatic line leak detector device required on pressurized systems. If European suction is claimed to be in use at any site, documentation must be provided indicating when the check valve was installed.

VI. UST Notification Form: Section VI shall solely consist of a properly completed Notification for Underground Storage Tanks form (State Form 45223 (R2/7-03)) with an original ink signature of each UST system owner. Photocopies are not acceptable.

VII. Violation Summary: Section VII shall include a detailed summary of all violations of all laws and regulations under the jurisdiction of IDEM found during the audit. This will include, but is not limited to, violations of 329 IAC 9.