STATE OF INDIANA ) BEFORE THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT

) SS: OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

COUNTY OF MARION )

COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT )

OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, )

)

Complainant, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NOS. H-13623

) & SW-365

GARTLAND FOUNDRY COMPANY )

)

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, entry into the terms of this Agreed Order does not constitute an admission of any finding of fact, conclusion of law or violation set forth: herein; in the Notice of Violation under this same cause dated July 13, 1998; in Agreed Order Cause Nos. H-13624/1998-8288-H and SW-361/1998-5019-S between Complainant and Sugar Creek Scrap, Inc. and Shirlee C. Levin; or in this Notice of Violation in that cause dated April 13, 1998. Respondent's entry into this Agreed Order shall not constitute a waiver of any defense or claim, legal or equitable, which Respondent may have in any other administrative or judicial proceeding.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainant is the Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as "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 Gartland Foundry Company (hereinafter referred to as ARespondent@), which operates a company doing business at 330 Grant Street, in Terre Haute, Indiana.

3. Respondent submitted its initial Notification of Regulated Waste Activity (EPA Form 8700-12) on June 6, 1989, as a generator of hazardous waste. On February 9, 1990, Respondent notified IDEM that it was no longer generating hazardous waste. Respondent=s EPA I.D. No. is IND 006 033 302.

4. In August 1996, Keramida Environmental, Inc. (AKeramida@) performed a waste stream analysis for Respondent. The analysis identified the following hazardous waste streams, all of which were generated beginning in August of 1995.

a. Induction furnace baghouse dust.

b. Fabric filters from the induction furnace baghouse.

c. Used induction furnace baghouse bags.

Respondent did not use manifests for the above waste streams until October 1997.

5. Keramida=s waste stream analysis also identified the following special waste streams:

a. Paint waste (e.g. overspray scrapings, paint filters, and paint hooks).

b. Scrubber sludge from cupola melting furnace.

c. Induction furnace slag.

d. Spintrack baghouse dust, fabric filters/cartridges, and collection bags.

e. Shakeout baghouse dust, fabric filters/cartridges, and collection bags.

f. South baghouse dust, fabric filters, cartridges, and collection bags.

g. Scrap dust from storage bin.

h. Cupola slag.

i. Cupola bottom drop.

j. Grinding swarf.

k. Floor sweepings.

l. Refractory brick from cupola.

m. Induction furnace lining refractory brick.

n. Core butts and molding sands.

6. Respondent conducted hazardous waste determinations on the induction furnace baghouse dust in October of 1996, and in July, August, and September of 1997. The results of the determinations showed the baghouse dust to be characteristically hazardous for cadmium (D006) and lead (D008). Respondent has conducted other hazardous waste determinations that showed the baghouse dust not to be hazardous for any constituent. Complainant and Respondent are parties to a separate action, Administrative Cause Number 98-S-J-2084 before the Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication, in which the regulatory status of the induction furnace baghouse dust is at issue. That cause has not been resolved.

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

8. Pursuant to IC 13-30-3-3, IDEM issued a Notice of Violation via Certified Mail to:

Mr. William G. Grimes, President Mr. David Grimes, Resident Agent

Gartland Foundry Company Gartland Foundry Company

330 Grant Street 330 Grant Street

Terre Haute, Indiana 47802-9009 Terre Haute, Indiana 47802-9009

9. Based upon the waste stream analysis performed by Keramida and an October 14, 1997 investigation conducted by the Office of Land Quality (OLQ) of IDEM, IDEM contends that the following violations were in existence or observed at the time of the inspection.

a. Pursuant to 329 IAC 10-8-1, no person may process, dispose, cause, or allow to be processed or disposed, special waste except as provided in this rule, 329 IAC 10-5, 329 IAC 10-7, and 329 IAC 10-9. Based upon information gathered by IDEM, Respondent allowed special waste to be improperly processed and disposed at Sugar Creek Scrap, located at 1400 Prairieton Road, Terre Haute, Indiana. Sugar Creek Scrap is not authorized to accept special waste.

b. Pursuant to 329 IAC 10-8-9(3), the generator shall ensure that the disposal facility may accept special waste for disposal as determined under section 2 of this rule unless approval for disposal at a specific landfill has been obtained under section 6(d) of this rule. Based upon information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to ensure that the special waste was taken to a facility approved to accept special waste.

c. Pursuant to 329 IAC 10-7-1, a generator that produces special waste, as defined by 329 IAC 10-2-179, shall characterize the special waste for purpose of disposal and reuse. Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to characterize all of its special waste for purpose of disposal.

d. Pursuant to 329 IAC 10-4-2, no person shall cause or allow the storage, containment, processing, or disposal of solid waste in a manner which creates a threat to human health or the environment, including the creating of a fire hazard, vector attraction, air or water pollution, or other contamination. Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent allowed special waste to be disposed at Sugar Creek Scrap.

e. Pursuant to IC 13-30-2-1(4), a person may not deposit or cause or allow the deposit of any contaminants or solid waste upon the land, except through the use of sanitary landfills, incineration, composting, garbage, or another method acceptable to the Solid Waste Management Board. Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent allowed special waste to be deposited at Sugar Creek.

f. Pursuant to IC 13-30-2-1(5), a person may not dump or cause or allow the open dumping of garbage or of any other solid waste in violation of rules adopted by the solid waste management board. Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent allowed special waste to be open dumped

at Sugar Creek Scrap.

10. Based on Keramida=s waste stream analysis and a November 14, 1997 investigation of Gartland by OLQ, IDEM contends that the following violations were in existence or observed at the time of the inspection:

a. Pursuant to 329 IAC 3.1-1-10, every hazardous waste generator shall notify the Commissioner of such activities on forms provided by the Commissioner unless such activity is exempt from the notification requirements for hazardous waste generated by small quantity generators under 329 IAC 3.1-6. Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to notify IDEM that it was a generator of induction furnace baghouse dust, which is hazardous waste containing cadmium (D006) and lead (D008).

b. Pursuant to 40 CFR 262.11, a person who generates a solid waste, as defined in 40 CFR 261.2, must determine if that waste is a hazardous waste. Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to make a proper hazardous waste determination for its induction furnace baghouse dust.

c. Pursuant to 40 CFR 262.12(c), a generator must not offer hazardous waste to transporters or to treatment, storage, or disposal facilities that have not received an EPA identification number. Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent offered induction furnace baghouse dust to a transporter, and treatment, storage, or disposal facility which did not have an EPA identification number. Specifically, the induction furnace baghouse dust was given to Dumes Recycling, who transported the hazardous waste from Respondent=s facility to Sugar Creek Scrap, Inc. (ASugar Creek@), an unpermitted landfill.

d. Pursuant to IC 13-30-2-1(12), 329 IAC 3.1-7-3, and 329 IAC 3.1-7-4(c), no person may cause or allow the transportation of hazardous waste without a manifest whenever a manifest is required by law. Specifically, a generator who transports, or offers for transport, hazardous waste for off-site treatment, storage, disposal, or recovery must complete the Indiana hazardous waste manifest form adopted by the Solid Waste Management Board on EPA Form 8700-22. Based on information gathered by IDEM, allowed the induction furnace baghouse dust to be transported without a manifest.

e. Pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(d)(4) referencing 40 CFR 262.34(a)(3), a generator must mark hazardous waste containers with the words AHazardous Waste.@ Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to mark containers of induction furnace baghouse dust with the words AHazardous Waste.@

f. Pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(d)(2) referencing 40 CFR 265.174, owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities must conduct weekly inspections of container storage areas and containment areas. Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to conduct weekly container inspections for its induction furnace baghouse dust container storage area.

g. Pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(d)(5)(iii), a generator must ensure that all employees are thoroughly familiar with proper waste handling and emergency procedures. Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to ensure that all employees were thoroughly familiar with proper waste handling and emergency procedures.

h. Pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(d)(4) referencing 40 CFR 265.32, all facilities must be equipped with an internal communications or alarm system; a device such as a telephone or hand-held two-way radio; and fire control, spill control, and decontamination equipment. Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to equip the facility with all of the required equipment.

i. Pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(d)(4) referencing 40 CFR 265.33, all facility communications and alarm systems, fire protection, spill control, and decontamination equipment must be tested and maintained to assure its proper operation in time of emergency. Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to test and maintain its communications or alarm systems, fire protection, spill control, and decontamination equipment.

j Pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(d)(4) referencing 40 CFR 265.37, a generator must attempt to make arrangements with local emergency authorities to familiarize them with the facility. Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to make these arrangements.

h. Pursuant to 329 IAC 13-4-3(d)(1), containers used to store used oil at generator facilities must be labeled or marked clearly with the words AUsed Oil.@ Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to label containers of used oil with the words AUsed Oil.@

11. On December 20, 1996, Respondent was issued Special Waste Certification No. 60775 for the scrubber sludge from the cupola melting furnace.

12. On April 21, 1997, Respondent was issued Special Waste Certification No. 70104 for its paint filters.

13. On October 23, 1997, Respondent was issued Special Waste Certification No. 70475 for the following special waste streams:

a. Spintrack baghouse dust, fabric filters/cartridges, and collection bags.

b. Shakeout baghouse dust, fabric filters/cartridges, and collection bags.

c. South baghouse dust, fabric filters, cartridges, and collection bags.

d. Scrap dust from storage bin.

e. Cupola slag.

f. Cupola bottom drop

g. Grinding swarf.

h. Floor sweepings.

i. Refractory from cupola.

j. Paint waste (e.g. overspray scrapings, paint filters, and paint hooks).

14. On November 7, 1997, Respondent was issued Amended Special Waste Certification No. 70475, which included these waste streams:

a. Paint wastes (i.e.overspray scrapings; paint filters; and paint hooks).

b. Pouring ladle lining refractory brick.

c. Induction furnace lining refractory brick.

15. On November 18, 1997, Respondent was issued Special Waste Certification No. 70517 for its induction furnace slag.

16. 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 her delegate, and has been received by the Respondent. This Agreed Order shall have no force or effect until the Effective Date.

2. After the Effective Date of the Order, Complainant intends to inspect Respondent's facility for compliance with the state and federal solid and hazardous waste requirements described in Findings of Fact Paragraphs 9 and 10. Complainant may seek stipulated penalties or other remedies or sanctions available pursuant to Order Paragraph 5 if any of the provisions cited in Findings of Fact Paragraphs 9 or 10 are found to be violated.

3. All submissions required by this Agreed Order, unless notified otherwise in

writing, shall be sent to:

Ms. Aubrey N. Sherif

Enforcement Case Manager

Office of Enforcement

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

100 N. Senate Avenue

P. O. Box 6015

Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015

4. Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of $243,890. Of this amount, Gartland voluntarily agrees to pay $142,453 to Sugar Creek Scrap, to be allocated for clean up of the Sugar Creek site, upon Sugar Creek's execution of a written Release, in which Sugar Creek releases Gartland from all claims it may have against Gartland arising out of the facts or violations alleged: herein; in the Notice of Violation under this same cause dated July 13, 1998; in Agreed Order Cause Nos.H-13624/1998-8288-H and SW-361/1998-5019-S between Complainant and Sugar Creek Scrap, Inc. and Shirlee C. Levin; or in the Notice of Violation in that cause dated April 13, 1998. If Sugar Creek does not sign a Release by April 30, 2002, then Respondent shall pay $142,453 to the Environmental Management Special Fund. The remaining penalty amount $101,437 shall be due and payable to the Environmental Management Special Fund. Payment is to be made in four equal payments of $25,359.25 each on or before October 30, 2000, April 30, 2001, October 30, 2001 and April 30, 2002.

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

Violation Penalty

Failure to comply with Order # 2 $1,000/day

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 the Respondent for violation of the Agreed Order. In lieu of any of the stipulated penalties 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.

6. Civil and stipulated penalties are payable by check to the Environmental Management Special Fund. Checks shall include the Cause Number of this action and shall be mailed to:

Cashier

IDEM

100 N. Senate Avenue

P. O. Box 7060

Indianapolis, IN 46207-7060

7. In the event that the civil penalty required by paragraph 4 is not paid within thirty (30) days of the due date, 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.

8. This Agreed Order shall apply to and be binding upon the Respondent, its successors, and assigns. The 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 the Respondent shall in any way alter its status or responsibilities under this Agreed Order.

9. In the event that any terms of the 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.

10. The 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 direct all contractors, firms and other persons performing work under this Agreed Order comply with the terms of this Agreed Order.

11. This Agreed Order shall remain in effect until IDEM issues a Resolution of Cause letter to Respondent. IDEM will issue a Resolution of Cause letter upon payment of the civil penalty and verification of compliance with the Agreed Order by a field inspection, which will be conducted by April 2002.

 

 

TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION: RESPONDENT:

Department of Environmental Management

By: _________________________ By: _________________________

Nancy L. Johnston

Chief Printed: ______________________

Hazardous Waste

Office of Enforcement

Date: ________________________

 

By: _________________________

Paul Higginbotham

Chief

Solid Waste

Office of Enforcement

 

 

COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT: COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:

Department of Environmental Management

By: _________________________ By: ________________________

Office of Legal Counsel

Department of Environmental Management

Date: _______________________ Date: ______________________

 

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT THIS _____ DAY OF ____________________, 2000.

For the Commissioner:

Signed 9/28/00

___________________________

Felicia A. Robinson

Assistant Commissioner

Office of Enforcement