STATE OF INDIANA            )                       BEFORE THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT

)           SS:       OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

COUNTY OF MARION        )

 

COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT            )

OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT,              )

)

Complainant,                                        )

)

v.                                             )           Case No. 2001-10497-S

)

CLOVERDALE AGRI CENTER, INC.,                     )

)                      

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 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 Cloverdale Agri Center, Inc. (“Respondent”), which owns and operates the bulk fertilizer facility located at 87 Anna St., in Cloverdale, Putnam County, Indiana (ASite@).

 

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

 

            4.         Pursuant to IC 13-30-3-3, on August 10, 2001, IDEM issued a Notice of Violation via Certified Mail to:

 

                        Norvin Gattula, President

                        Cloverdale Agri Center, Inc.

                        87 Anna St.

                        Cloverdale, IN 46120

                                   

            5.         An inspection, on May 7, 2001, was conducted at the Site by a representative of IDEM's Office of Land Quality (OLQ).  The following violations were in existence or observed at the time of this inspection:

 

A.                 Pursuant to 327 IAC 2-6.1-7, any person who operates, controls or maintains any mode of transportation or facility from which a spill occurs shall, upon discovery of a reportable spill to the soil or surface waters of the state contain the spill, if possible, to prevent additional spilled material from entering the waters of the state; undertake or cause others to undertake activities needed to accomplish a spill response; and as soon as possible, but within two (2) hours of discovery, communicate a spill report to the Department of Environmental Management, Office of Environmental Response. 

 

A reportable spill of fertilizer from the Site into Rabbit Run Creek, waters of the state, occurred on or about May 7, 2001, and was not properly reported by the Respondent, in violation of 327 IAC 2-6.1-7.

 

B.                 Pursuant to 327 IAC 2-1-6(a)(1), all waters at all times and at all places, including the mixing zone, shall meet the minimum conditions of being free from substances, materials, floating debris, oil, or scum attributable to municipal, industrial, agricultural, and other land use practices, or other discharges that will settle to form putrescent or otherwise objectionable deposits, that are in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or deleterious, that produce color, visible oil sheen, odor, or other conditions in such degree as to create a nuisance, which are in amounts sufficient to be acutely toxic to, or to otherwise severely injure or kill aquatic life, other animals, plants, or humans, and which are in concentrations or combinations that will cause or contribute to the growth of aquatic plants or algae to such a degree as to create a nuisance. 

The Respondent caused and/or allowed the discharge of fertilizer from the Site into Rabbit Run Creek, waters of the state, in an amount sufficient to be unsightly or deleterious, in violation of 327 IAC 2-1-6(a)(1).

 

C.                 Pursuant to 327 IAC 5-2-2, any discharge of pollutants into waters of the state as a point source discharge is prohibited, unless in conformity with a NPDES Permit obtained prior to the discharge.

 

The Respondent caused or allowed the discharge of pollutants, fertilizers, from the Site into Rabbit Run Creek, waters of the state, without a valid NPDES permit, in violation of 327 IAC 5-2-2.

 

D.                 Pursuant to IC 13-30-2-1(1), no person may discharge, emit, cause, allow, or threaten to discharge, emit, cause, or allow any contaminant or waste, including any noxious odor, either alone or in combination with contaminants from other sources, into the environment or into any publicly owned treatment works in any form which causes or would cause pollution which violates or which would violate rules, standards, or discharge or emission requirements adopted by the appropriate board under the environmental management laws. 

 

The Respondent caused and/or allowed the discharge of fertilizer, a contaminant, into the environment, in direct violation of 327 IAC 2-6.1-7, 327 IAC 2-1-6(a)(1) and 327 IAC 5-2-2, rules adopted by the Water Pollution Control Board, and thus violated IC 13-30-2-1(1).

 

E.                  Pursuant to IC 13-18-4-5, it is unlawful for any person to throw, run, drain, or otherwise dispose into any of the streams or waters of this state, or to cause, permit, or suffer to be thrown, run, drained, allowed to seep, or otherwise disposed into any waters, any organic or inorganic matter that causes or contributes to a polluted condition of any waters, as determined by a rule of the board adopted under Sections 1 and 3 of this chapter. 

 

The Respondent caused and/or allowed the discharge of fertilizer, inorganic matter, from the Site into Rabbit Run Creek, waters of the state, in direct violation of 327 IAC 2-6.1-7, 327 IAC 2-1-6(a)(1) and 327 IAC 5-2-2, rules adopted by the Water Pollution Control Board, and thus violated IC 13-18-4-5.

 

F.                  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. 

 

Respondent caused or allowed the open dumping of solid waste at the Site, in violation of 329 IAC 10-4-2.

 

G.                 Pursuant to 329 IAC 10-4-3, open dumping and open dumps, as those terms are defined in IC 13-11-2-146 and IC 13-11-2-147 are prohibited. 

 

Respondent caused or allowed the open dumping of solid waste at the Site, in violation of 329 IAC 10-4-3.

 

H.                 Rule 326 IAC 4-1-2, which prohibits the open burning of any material unless exempted by Rule 326 IAC 4-1-3 or a variance is obtained in accordance with Rule 326 IAC 4-1-4. 

 

Respondent burned empty, plastic herbicide containers at the Site, in violation of 326 IAC 4-1-2.

 

            6.         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.         Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, Respondent shall submit an Emergency Spill Response Plan.  Attachment A of this Agreed Order outlines the elements that need to be included in an Emergency Spill Response Plan.

 

3.         Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, Respondent            

shall complete the investigative phase of the Spill Response Work Plan described in Section 2 of Attachment C.

 

4.                  Within forty five days (45) days of receipt of the lab analysis for the samples collected during the investigation phase of the Spill Response Work Plan, the Respondent shall submit a report detailing the findings of the investigation.

 

5.         If IDEM determines, upon review of the investigation report, that corrective action is necessary.  The Respondent shall, within forty-five (45) days of IDEM's notice, submit a remedial action plan (RAP).

 

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

 

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

 

                                    Craig Henry,  Enforcement Case Manager

Office of Enforcement

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

100 N. Senate Avenue

P. O. Box 6015

Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015

           

8.         Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of Nineteen Thousand Six Hundred ($19,600.00) Dollars.  Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, Respondent shall pay a portion of this penalty in the amount of Three Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty ($3,920.00) Dollars.  Said penalty amount shall be due and payable to the Environmental Management Special Fund. In lieu of payment of the remaining civil penalty, Respondent shall perform and complete three Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) (see Attachment B). The Respondent estimates that the total cost of  these SEPs will be Forty Two Thousand Two Hundred ($42,200.00) Dollars.  Within thirty (30) days of completing each SEP, Respondent shall submit written notice and documentation to IDEM that substantiates all actions taken and costs incurred with respect to each SEP.  In the event that the total combined cost of  the SEPs is less than Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred Sixty ($31,360.00) Dollars, Respondent shall pay fifty percent (50%) of the difference between the proposed minimum cost of the SEPs and the actual cost of the SEPs.

 

The Respondent's SEP projects are as follows:  SEP I-construction of a grass filter strip, SEP II-construction of a roof over the fertilizer containment area and SEP III-construction of a pole building over the chemical/fertilizer load pad.  Respondent shall complete construction of the SEPs by no later than one year from the Effective Date of this Agreed Order.   Implementation of these SEPs will reduce the amount of contaminated stormwater generated at the site and the amount of sediment leaving the site.

 

In the event that the Respondent does not complete the SEPs within one year of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, the full amount of the civil penalty as stated above, plus interest established by IC 24-4.6-101 on the remaining amount, less the portion of the civil penalty Respondent has already paid, will be due within fifteen (15) days from 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.  

 

            9.         Under authority of IC 14-22-10-6, Respondent shall reimburse the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) for the value of the damages as a result of the death of animals from violations or pollution as set forth in the aforementioned Findings of Fact.  IDNR has determined this figure to be Three Hundred Five Dollars and Ninety Seven Cents ($305.97).  Payment shall be made to the "Indiana Department of Natural Resources-Contaminant Fund" within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, and sent to IDNR - Division of  Fish and Wildlife, Room W-273, IGCS, 402 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204.  The Respondent shall provide Complainant with documentation of the reimbursement immediately upon payment.

 

10.       In the event the terms and conditions of the following paragraphs 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 Paragraph No.  2             $500.00 per week

                        Failure to comply with Order Paragraph No.  3             $1,000.00 per week

                        Failure to comply with Order Paragraph No.  4             $500.00 per week

                        Failure to comply with Order Paragraph No.  5             $500.00 per week

                        Failure to comply with Order Paragraph No.  6             $1,000.00 per week                

 

11.       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.

 

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

 

Cashier

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

100 N. Senate Avenue

P. O. Box 7060

Indianapolis, IN 46207-7060

 

            13.       In the event that the civil penalty required by Order paragraph 8, 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 24-4.6-101. The interest shall continue to accrue until the civil penalty is paid in full

 

14.       Notwithstanding any time frame set forth in this Agreed Order, the parties agree that the Force Majeure provision contained in this paragraph applied to this Agreed Order. “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.

 

15.       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.

 

16.       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.

 

17.       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 ensure that all contractors, firms and other persons performing work under this Agreed Order comply with the terms of this Agreed Order.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION:                       RESPONDENT:

Department of Environmental Management                    Cloverdale Agri Center, Inc.    

 

                                               

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                    Bose McKinney & Evans LLP

 

 

By: _________________________                            By: ________________________

      Office of Legal Counsel                                                 Kathleen G. Lucas

 

Date: _______________________                             Date: ______________________

 

 

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT THIS _____ DAY OF ____________________, 2004.

 

 

 

For the Commissioner:

 

 

Adopted June 2, 2004

Felicia A. Robinson

Deputy Commissioner

for Legal Affairs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT A

 

A Spill Response Plan (SRP) will include, but not be limited to, the following:

 

            (1)        The names and telephone numbers of internal personnel who are identified as

responsible for implementing the spill response plan.  Also include back up personnel names and telephone numbers.

 

            (2)        Identification of the types of materials used at the facility that may be spilled and

            the appropriate response to spills of those materials.

 

            (3)        Identification of areas where potential spills can occur and the accompanying

drainage points to waters of the state (i.e. manholes, storm water drains, field tiles, etc.).

 

            (4)        Identification of any property owners in the area and downstream water users who

may be impacted by the spill.

 

            (5)        Identification and location of equipment and clean-up materials to use in the event of a spill.  Include the names and phone numbers of independent contractors who may assist with a spill response.

 

(6)        Procedures to be followed in the event of a spill, including:

                        (A)  Actions to contain or manage any spill to prevent it from entering waters of the state.

                        (B)   Identification of the proper authorities to be contacted (see Number 7A below).

(C) Mitigation of any adverse effects of the spill.

 

            (7)        Procedures for reporting the spill to:

                        (A)  Any applicable local emergency or health authorities including the Fire Department, Emergency Planning Commission, Health Department, and

                        (B)   IDEM, in accordance with 327 IAC 2-6.1, at (888)233-7745 or (317)233-7745.

                        (C)  The National Response Center at (800)424-8802.

 

            (8)        Procedures for educating facility employees and other persons regarding the SRP, including:

                        (A)  Documentation that all employees are familiar with the SRP.

                        (B)   Display of the SRP in a common area, available for reference and implementation by all employees.

                        (C)  Provide copies of the SRP to local emergency and health agencies.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT B

 

Description of SEPs

 

 

I.  Buffer Filter Strip Project

A.           Project Description

 

A grass buffer filter strip is proposed to be constructed along Rabbit Run Creek to reduce sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and other potential contaminants from runoff entering Rabbit Run Creek and to improve water quality.  Grass filter strips will provide a buffer between Cloverdale Agri Center, Inc. (Cloverdale Ag) facilities and Rabbit run creek.  The Proposed grass filter strip will run along the western boundary of Cloverdale Ag's site, a distance estimated to be approximately 200 feet, subject to actual surveyed length.  The width of the proposed grass filter strip will be a minimum of 100 feet.  If terracing elevation and slopes can be maintained, the goal would be to have the width of the strip exceed 150 feet.  The filter strips will slow the velocity of surface water, allowing the settling out of suspended soil particles, infiltration of runoff and uptake of nutrients by plants.  Prior to seeding, the proposed filter strip area would need to be leveled and terraced to meet Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) requirements for flow and slope characteristics.

 

B.           SEP Category

 

The proposed filter strip project is categorized as a pollution control project.

 

C.           Environmental Benefits of SEP

 

According to the NRCS Conservation Practice Standard 393, 1999 Ed., filter strips intercept potential contaminants from runoff before they enter a water body.  Filter strips reduce sediment, organics, nutrients, pesticides and other potential contaminants from runoff and help to maintain water quality.  Filter strips also provide additional benefits for wildlife habitat and stream water quality.  Filter strips will be established and maintained in accordance with the practice standards of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Field Office Technical Guide.

 

D.           Estimated costs

 

Estimated costs contained below are projected based on estimates of necessary earth moving requirements to level and terrace the buffer strip area for the standards within the USDA Field Office Technical Guide.  Large rock or rip rap will be installed at the edge of the buffer strip adjacent to Rabbit Run Creek to further aid in stream bank stabilization and to serve as a further process of absorption and retention of sediment not contained within the buffer strip area.

 

               Earth moving equipment, 40 hrs @ $115/hour                                       $4,600.00

               100 tons of large stone or rip rap @ $13/ton                                         $1,395.00

               Seeding, 1.5 ac @ $50/ac                                                                    $     86.25

               Grass seed                                                                                           $   115.00

               Fertilizer                                                                                               $      97.75

               Mulch                                                                                                   $    115.00

               Total Cost                                                                                            $6,406.00

 

E.            Grass Types

 

Permanent vegetation with a demonstrated ability to withstand use in a buffer strip area, utilize nutrients absorbed in a buffer strip area, considered hardy perennial plants and well suited for use in a buffer strip area will be utilized.  NRCS guidelines will be consulted before a decision on vegetation is final.

 

F.            Site Preparation

 

After the grass buffer strip site has been prepared and graded to elevation and slope requirements as per NRCS Field Office Technical Guides, the entire seed bed area shall be prepared in customary practice to be reasonably smooth with required fertilizer and lime uniformly applied prior to grass seeding.  Fertilizer shall be applied uniformly over the area at the rates of 120 pounds nitrogen, phosphorus at 120 pounds, potash at 120 pounds, on a per acre basis.  This specification can be met by applying a 12-12-12 analysis fertilizer application.  The seed shall be drilled, broadcast or hydraulically seeded by equivalent means that will assure uniform distribution of the seed.  Appropriate mulch will be utilized to ensure moisture retention and for maximum germination of seed on the site.

 

G.           Timeline for Buffer Filter strip Project

 

Weather permitting, the proposed filter strip project shall be completed within one year of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order.  Early spring or early fall provide weather conditions conducive to establishment of grasses in filter strip projects of this nature.  Availability of equipment contractors is another factor in the timeline.  Current time frames indicate spring 2004 is the likely time for installing the filter strip practice.  Full effectiveness of the practice will take approximately one (1) year to achieve, as the grasses mature.

 

II.                 Roof Over Fertilizer containment Area

    

A.              Project Description

 

The project consists of constructing a roof over the concrete containment dike surrounding the fertilizer storage tanks.  This roof will be constructed utilizing standard pole barn construction techniques and materials and will be an open sided structure designed to protect and divert rain water out of the concrete containment dike.  The roof will have sufficient overhang and gutters to divert roof runoff away from fertilizer loading and mixing areas to the south end of the storage area.  This water will be released as uncontaminated water and diverted to a roadside ditch away from all fertilizer storage, loading and containment areas.  The roof and overhang will protect the concrete containment dike from normal rain events.  Any rain which may enter the concrete dike containment area as a result of wind blown rain events will be minimal and would be anticipated to be lost to evaporation in a normal growing season.  The roof will be constructed to local building codes and will be constructed in a manner suitable for anticipated wind and snow load requirements.

 

B.              SEP Category

 

The proposed roof project is categorized as a pollution prevention project.

 

C.              Environmental Benefits of SEP

 

The roof and gutter over the concrete containment dike will nearly eliminate all storm water from entering the diked area with the accompanying potential for contamination of said storm water.  This will eliminate the need to dispose of accumulated storm water.  The roof will capture and divert considerable storm water in this area and will result in a significant reduction in potentially contaminated storm water runoff from the Cloverdale Agri Center, Inc. site.  This water will be diverted as clean, uncontaminated water.

 

D.              Estimated Cost

 

The estimated cost for the proposed roof project is as follows:

             

Engineering, labor and construction materials for the roof project                         $18,572.50

Total cost                                                                                                           $18,572.50

 

E.               Time Line for SEP

 

Conditional upon acceptance of this SEP project by IDEM and contractor's availability.  With the extensive improvements Cloverdale Agri Center, Inc. is proposing, this project is planned for fall 2004.  Cloverdale Agri Center, Inc. shall complete this project within one (1) year of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order.

 

III.               Pole Building-Constructed over Chemical/Fertilizer Load Pad                           

 

A.           Project Description

 

The project consists of a 42' X 18' pole building constructed over the chemical loading pad.  The building will completely enclose the chemical load pad area and provide a weather tight location for chemical/fertilizer loading into land application equipment.  The building will have painted metal sides with overhead doors on the south and north ends to allow access to the loading facility.  The building will eliminate storm water over the loading pad and its storm water collection system, eliminating storm water issues with this facility.  The building will be constructed to local building codes and in a manner suitable for anticipated wind and snow load requirements.

 

B.           SEP Category

 

The proposed pole building project is categorized as a pollution prevention project.

 

C.           Environmental Benefits of SEP

 

The pole building will eliminate storm water issues associated with the chemical/fertilizer loading pad.  This will eliminate disposal issues of storm water from the drain and the collection/storage sump of the pad.  The roof and gutters will capture and divert considerable clean storm water away from the loading pad area.

 

D.  Estimated Cost

 

      The estimated cost for the proposed pole building project is as follows:

     

      Engineering, labor and construction materials for pole building project                   $17,307.50

 

E.      Time line for SEP

 

Conditional upon acceptance of this SEP project by IDEM and contractor availability.  The pole building project over the chemical/fertilizer pad shall be completed within one year of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order.  Cloverdale Ag's intention is to complete this project as soon as possible, but recognizes that crop season activities will have an impact upon the completion of this project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment C

 

Cloverdale Agri-Center, Inc.

Work Plan

 

 

Section 1

 

1.1              Deleted

1.2              Deleted

1.3       Project Objectives:

 

*          To investigate the nature and extent of potential agricultural chemicals in site soil and groundwater associated with the release.

 

            *          To develop technically sound, site-specific cleanup criteria for

identified constituents of concern, if any, discovered during the site

investigation.

 

            *          To implement, if necessary, a remedial action to address constituents

of concern that exceed the clean-up criteria established for the site.

 

1.4.      Approach/Rationale

 

The approach outlined in this work plan is based upon established regulatory programs in the Midwest that deal with agricultural chemical contamination.  In particular, the guidance associated with the Agricultural Chemical Cleanup Program (ACCP) under the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and Consumer Protection (DATCP), which is used in conjunction with the regulations for investigation and remediation of environmental contamination administered by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 700 et seq.), was used extensively in formulating the technical concepts of the proposed work.  Information related to this program is included in Exhibit 1.

 

1.4.1    Site Soil Investigation

 

            The soil investigation would involve advancing a number of shallow soil

            borings in potential source areas identified by the IDEM including the

            vicinity of the liquid fertilizer storage secondary containment area, where

            contaminated storm water was discharged, the suspected surficial

            run-off flow path of this discharge to Rabbit Run Creek, an area

            where empty agricultural chemical containers were burned, and areas where

            agricultural feed and feed supplements were believed to be present (see

            Figure 1).  Based on the size of this area, approximately 9 soil borings are

            projected to be required (see Figure 1).  Site-specific geologic information

            indicates the native soil is predominantly low-permeability silty clay till,

            which would tend to limit the vertical migration of potential contaminants.

            Therefore, five of the borings at which soil sampling and analysis is planned

            (SB-3, SB-4, SB-5, SB-6 and SB-8) are projected to extend to a depth of

            approximately 6 to 8 feet.  Experience on 15 to 20 similar agricultural

            chemical sites has shown that, at most sites with clay soil, fertilizers and

            pesticides are attenuated in the upper 6 to 8 feet.

 

The remaining four borings (SB-1, SB-2, SB-7, and SB-9) will extend to the water table, which is estimated to occur at a depth of 15 to 20 feet below ground surface.  Groundwater samples will be collected from each of these borings.  The locations of these borings were selected based on their proximity to sources of potential contaminants.

 

Soil samples will be collected from all borings at 2-foot intervals, to allow for adequate definition of potential contaminant profiles that can be used in making decisions regarding cleanup options.  The soil samples will be analyzed in the field for nitrate and ammonia using a portable field testing kit.  This approach will provide "real time" results that can be used to determine if additional soil borings are needed or if borings need to be extended deeper in some areas.  The five shallower borings will be extended beyond a depth of 8 feet if the total nitrogen concentration (ammonia plus nitrate) is above the lower end (200 ppm) of the typical cleanup range for clay soil (200 to 400 ppm total nitrogen).  This accelerated site characterization method is commonly used at many sites and reduces the overall site investigation costs and schedule by reducing the number of phases of investigation that typically occur if only laboratory analyses are conducted.

 

The soil samples will be analyzed for nitrate and ammonia in the laboratory using approved methods as described in Section 2, which will provide sufficient analytical data quality to support site decision-making.  In addition, approximately two soil samples per boring will be analyzed in the laboratory for a group of pesticides that represents those predominantly used during the Respondent's ownership of the property.  The field analysis results for nitrates and ammonia will be utilized to identify the soil intervals exhibiting the highest concentrations of nitrogen species, and these soil intervals will be selected for laboratory analysis of pesticides.  In addition, the shallowest solid sample at each location will also be analyzed for these pesticides.  Although there is no indication of pesticide releases from the facility, pesticides were handled at the facility and the action levels for some of these chemicals are relatively low.  In addition, certain remediation options, such as land application or landfill disposal, will require a profile of reasonably suspected chemicals.  The analytical pesticide list (Table 1) includes the primary chemicals handled at the facility during ownership by the Respondent. Although other chemicals may have been handled at the facility, their quantities are relatively small, and did not involve repackaging or mixing.  The proposed list of chemicals can be detected in one analysis.  It is unlikely that significant concentrations of other classes of pesticides would be present if these are not, and experience on numerous other sites has shown the these are nearly always the controlling constituents for remediation ("cleanup drivers").

 

A number of soil samples may be collected but not analyzed immediately; instead, they will be stored for potential future analysis, the need for which will be determined based on the results of other sample analyses.  These stored samples will be kept sealed and frozen at the laboratory.  This process has been shown to be technically valid for these constituents and provides another method of improving project efficiency while maintaining maximum flexibility.

 

Groundwater samples will be collected at four locations associated with potential source areas, including the cattle feed mineral supplement release area (SB9), a former container burn area (SB-7), the cotton seed hull release area (SB-1), and the boring closest to the liquid fertilizer load pad (AB-2).  The samples will be collected using the small-diameter sampling screen associated with the Geoprobe® unit.  The groundwater samples will undergo laboratory analysis for nitrogen species and pesticides, the same as for the soil analytical program.

 

An on-site geologist will visually inspect the soil samples and classify them in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.  Geological logs of each borehole will also be prepared in the field.  The geologist will also note any unusual colors or odors associated with the samples that may be indicative of contaminants as well as any other observations that appear relevant based upon professional experience.

 

The information obtained in the field and the results of the laboratory analyses will be reviewed and evaluated, and a report will be prepared that summarizes the work performed, the findings and conclusions developed from the data, and general recommendations for further action.  The report will include tabulated results as well as graphical depictions of the extent of contaminants in soil, if applicable.

 

1.4.2    Preliminary Remedial Action Approach

 

Assuming that detectable levels of chemical constituents are found in site soil, the next step would be to establish appropriate site-specific cleanup levels for those constituents.  The guidance used in the ACCP administered by the Wisconsin DATCP may provide a useful starting point for developing cleanup levels for fertilizers.  In general, the levels for nitrate and ammonia are within a target range of 100 to 400 ppm total nitrogen (as N), with the lower end of the range 100 to 200 ppm typically applied to sandy soil in an area of known shallow groundwater use and the higher end of the range (200 to 400 ppm) applied to clayey soil in areas where shallow groundwater is not used.

 

For pesticides, cleanup levels will be calculated using the procedures

presented in IDEM's RISC technical guide.

 

Once cleanup levels have been established, the need for remediation can be assessed and, if appropriate, remedial options can be reviewed, evaluated, developed, and implemented. The presumptive remedy for agricultural chemical-contaminated soil in Wisconsin DATCP's ACCP is the excavation of contaminated soil in accessible areas followed by the land application of this on crop lands.  The impacted soil is thin-spread at application rates that are consistent with label application rates (for pesticides) or DATCP fertilizer application guidelines ( for ammonia and nitrogen).  The Wisconsin program recognizes that there is a beneficial aspect to the soil of using the chemicals in the way they were intended, being careful to use appropriate agronomic rates, rather than taking up landfill space with soil that has been exposed to them.

 

For areas that are not accessible for excavation (e.g.,areas adjacent to structures or soil below practicable excavation depths), capping with a low-permeability material (typically asphalt or concrete) to prevent direct contact and to limit infiltration is the remedy of choice.

 

Section 2

Proposed Investigation

 

This section describes the proposed procedures for implementing the site investigation.  These procedures are intended to comply, where applicable, with the procedures outlined in the IDEM's nonrule policy document entitled "Drilling Procedures and Monitoring Well Construction Guidelines" (Identification Number W-0053), dated November 2002.

 

2.1       Soil Sample locations and Depths

 

Approximately 9 soil borings will be advanced in the potential source areas identified by the IDEM at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1.  Five of the borings (SB-3, SB-4, SB-5, SB-6 and SB-8) will be advanced to an initial anticipated depth of approximately 6 to 8 feet.  The remaining four soil borings will extend to a depth of approximately 15 to 20 feet to allow for the collection of groundwater samples.  Soil samples will be collected continuously, using direct-push technology (e.g., Geoprobe®).  Sub-samples at approximately 2-foot intervals will be selected for field-screening and potential laboratory chemical analysis.  The shallower borings will be extended beyond a depth of 8 feet if the total nitrogen concentration (ammonia-nitrogen plus nitrate nitrogen) is above 200 ppm, as identified in the field-screening analysis (see Subsection 2.3 below). The soil borings will extend to a maximum depth of 20 feet, refusal, or the groundwater table, whichever occurs first.  The number of borings, depths, and locations may be adjusted in the field, as a result of the ongoing field analysis for nitrogen species, as described in Subsection 2.3.  The objective is to delineate, to the extent practicable, the extent of agricultural chemical impacts in soil during one mobilization to the field.

 

2.2      Sample collection, Handling, and Preservation Methods

 

In general, soil sampling will be conducted in the following manner:

 

·        Soil borings will be advanced using direct-push technology (Geoprobe®).

 

·        Soil will be sampled at the appropriate depths from each borehole using the standard 1-inch-diameter Geoprobe® sampler, or the optional 2-inch-diameter Macro-core™ sampler.  Acetate liners will be used inside the samplers.

 

·        Soil selected for laboratory analysis will be collected using spatulas and will be placed immediately into sample containers provided by the laboratory.  The samples will be labeled and placed into a cooler with ice.   The accumulated samples will be shipped under chain-of-custody to the laboratory at the completion of the project.

 

2.3       Soil Screening Analysis

 

A portion of each soil sample collected for chemical analysis will be screened for nitrogen species in the field, using a field-screening kit manufactured by Hach, Inc.  The samples will undergo analysis for nitrate+nitrite-nitrogen and ammonia/nitrogen using Hach methods 8152 and 8154.  More detailed descriptions of these field analytical procedures are presented in Attachment 2 of Exhibit 1.  Adjustments of results to dry-weight basis will be done using a moisture content assumption of 20 per cent for clay soil and 5 per cent for the unsaturated sand and gravel.

 

2.4       Soil Sample Laboratory Analysis

 

Each soil sample collected for chemical analysis will also be analyzed in the laboratory for nitrate-nitrogen and ammonia-nitrogen using EPA Methods 353.2 and 350.1, respectively.  The nitrogen species will be extracted from the soil matrix using a molar potassium chloride solution.

 

Approximately two soil samples per boring will also undergo laboratory analysis for the pesticides included in Table 1.  The field analysis results for nitrates and ammonia will be utilized to identify the soil intervals exhibiting the highest concentrations of nitrogen species, and these soil intervals will be selected for laboratory analysis of pesticides.  In addition, the shallowest soil sample at each location will also undergo pesticide analysis.  The analytical parameters included in Table 1 represent the predominant pesticides handled at the facility during the Respondent's ownership of the property.  These samples will be analyzed using Method 8141A.

 

2.5       Groundwater sampling and Analysis

 

Groundwater samples will be collected at four locations.  The borings for collecting groundwater samples will be advanced at least 1 foot, exposing a small-diameter sampling screen.  The groundwater sample will be collected through HDPE tubing lowered down the drill string and into the screen.  The groundwater samples will be extracted with a peristaltic pump and transferred directly into appropriate sample containers.

Each groundwater sample collected will be analyzed in the laboratory for nitrate-nitrogen and Ammonia/Nitrogen using EPA Method 353.2 and 350.1, respectively.  In addition, each sample will also be analyzed for the list of pesticides included in Table 1using Method 8270.

 

2.6       Retention Basin Sampling and Analysis

 

One water sample will be collected from each of the two on-site storm water runoff retention basins.  The samples will be collected using a clean dedicated plastic container from a location at the side of each basin.  The water samples will be transferred directly into appropriate sample containers provided by the laboratory.  Each groundwater sample collected will be analyzed in the laboratory for nitrate-nitrogen and ammonia-nitrogen using EPA Method 353.2 and 350.1, respectively.  In addition, each sample will also be analyzed for the list of pesticides included in Table 1 using Method 8270.

 

2.7       Quality Control Sampling and Analysis

 

Field quality control samples will be collected to assess the quality of the analytical data and to evaluate sampling and analytical reproducibility (precision).  Field quality control samples will consist of duplicate samples, field (equipment) blanks, and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD).  Field duplicates, prepared by splitting a single sample between two separate containers, will be collected at a rate of one per 20 environmental samples.  Field (equipment) blanks, prepared by rinsing non-dedicated sampling equipment with deionized water and collecting the rinsate, will be collected at the rate of one sample per 20 environmental samples.  Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples, prepared by collecting extra soil volumes/containers at a specified location, will also be collected at the rate of one sample per 20 environmental samples.

 

All quality control samples will undergo the same laboratory analyses as the environmental samples.

 

2.8        Geologic Logging

 

Soil samples will be examined in the field, and geologic boring logs will also be prepared in the field, by an RMT geologist.  Soil samples will be classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).  Final logs of each borehole will be prepared on standard forms.

 

2.9       Equipment Decontamination

 

In general, soil sampling equipment will be cleaned between soil samples, as follows:

 

·        Loose soil material will be rinsed from equipment with clean tap water.

·        The equipment will be washed in a laboratory-grade detergent solution with a stiff

bristle brush.

·        The equipment will then be rinsed with tap water.

 

The downhole drilling equipment will be cleaned at each drilling site between borehole sampling locations using a hot water detergent wash followed by a clean tap water rinse.  Rinse water will be contained and used as makeup process water or handled similar to impacted water in the secondary containment for the fertilizer Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs).

 

2.10     Borehole Abandonment

 

Geoprobe® boreholes will be abandoned using bentonite granules.   The bentonite will be hydrated at intervals of approximately 2 feet using potable water.  Borehole abandonment forms will be completed for each borehole on the appropriate standard form.

 

2.11     Data Analysis and Report preparation

 

The soil and groundwater analytical data collected during the investigation will be tabulated, reviewed, and evaluated.  The analytical results will be accompanied by Level 4 quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) documentation, which will be included as an appendix to the report.  A map will be prepared showing the depth of the total nitrogen concentrations and the total pesticide concentrations.

 

A report will be prepared that summarizes the work performed and presents the results, findings, and conclusions of the soil investigation, and includes general recommendations for further action.

 

Section 3

Preliminary Remedial Action Approach

 

3.1       Development of Site Cleanup Levels

 

If detectable levels of constituents of concern are found in site soil, site-specific soil cleanup levels will be developed and proposed to the IDEM.  For ammonia and nitrates, these levels are expected to be comparable to those used in other Midwestern states for agricultural chemical cleanups, and in particular, those developed by the Wisconsin DATCP in their ACCP.  The development of these cleanup levels will take into account site-specific factors, such as soil type, depth to groundwater, and proximity to groundwater and surface water receptors.

 

In general, the levels that will be proposed for nitrate and ammonia cleanup will be within a target range of 100 to 400 ppm total nitrogen (as N), with the lower end of the range applied to sandy soil in an area of known shallow groundwater use and the higher end of the range applied to clayey soil in areas where shallow groundwater is not used.  If pesticides are detected, cleanup levels will be calculated using the procedures presented in the IDEM's RISC technical guide.

 

3.2       Preparation of Remedial Action Plan

 

Practicable remedial alternatives for the cleanup of impacted soil will be reviewed and evaluated.  Excavation of accessible shallow soil followed by the thin-spreading of this soil on crop land at label application rates is expected to be a likely remedy.  The capping of impacted soil with asphalt or concrete is also an option for areas not amenable to excavation (e.g., soil too deep for practicable excavation or areas near structures).  Capping may also be a viable site-wide approach if most of the area of concern is inaccessible and soil excavation would only remove a small percentage of the total contaminant mass.

 

A remedial action plan (RAP) will be prepared that details cleanup objectives and the remedial action to be implemented to achieve those objectives.   The RAP will specify, if appropriate, the frequency, locations, and analytical parameters associated with the confirmatory sampling program to document achievement of cleanup objectives.  The RAP will also specify lands identified for thin-spreading and calculations supporting the proposed application rates, if that remedial option is selected.  The RAP will be submitted to the IDEM for review and approval, prior to implementation.

 

3.3       Remedial Action Plan Implementation and documentation Report

 

The remedial action will be implemented upon approval of the IDEM.  If excavation and land application are involved, the remedial action will be scheduled for the early spring or late fall to allow for the thin-spreading on crop lands after harvest, but before spring planting.  Any capping will most likely need to be completed during non-winter months.

 

A documentation report summarizing the remedial work completed at the site and any required testing or documentation in support of that action will be prepared and submitted to the IDEM upon completion of the remedial action.