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. 2002-12535-W

 

)

Richard Ness Excavating and

)

Trucking, 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.

 

I.  FINDINGS OF FACT

 

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

 

2.                  The Respondent is Richard Ness Excavating and Trucking, Inc. (Respondent), which owns and operates the Richard Ness Excavating and Storage Buildings, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Hitzfield and West Park Drive, in Huntington, Huntington County, Indiana (Site).

The Respondent’s sanitary sewer extension consists of 683.9 linear feet of 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer that is connected and in use at the Site.  The sewer currently  serves one existing commercial lot and it is designed to served three future commercial lots with an average flow of 700 gallons per day (gpd) (2,800 gpd, peak) to the City of Huntington’s sanitary sewer collection system and its publicly owned treatment works (POTW).

 

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, on September 23, 2004, IDEM issued a Notice of Violation via Certified Mail to:

 

Mr. Paul Richard Ness, President
Richard Ness Excavating and Trucking, Inc.
P.O. Box 455
Huntington, IN  46750

Mr. Richard Ness, Registered Agent
Richard Ness Excavating and Trucking, Inc.
# 3 St. Emily Dr.
Huntington, IN  46750

 

5.                  Record reviews were conducted by a representative of IDEM’s Office of Water Quality (OWQ) and the City of Huntington, Indiana (the City).  The following violations were in existence or observed at the time of these record reviews.

 

6.                  Pursuant to 327 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 3-2-1, no person shall cause or allow the construction, installation, or modification of any water pollution treatment/control facility or sanitary sewer, without a valid construction permit issued by the commissioner.

Pursuant to 327 IAC
3-2-2(d), construction shall not commence until all necessary state approvals and permits are obtained.

Based on record reviews conducted by IDEM representatives, including but not limited to construction permit application “As-built” plans and specifications (As-builts) submitted on January 14, 2002, the Respondent commenced and completed construction, installation, and/or modification of approximately 600 linear feet of sanitary sewer line on or before January 14, 2002 in violation of 327 IAC 3-2-1 and 327 IAC 3-2-2(d).

 

7.                  Pursuant to 327 IAC 3-6, the technical standards established in this rule are applicable to the design and construction of all new or modified sanitary collection systems subject to this article that are constructed in the state of Indiana and to the applications, plans, and specifications of the new or modified collection system.

Based on record reviews conducted by IDEM representatives, including but not limited to reviews of the administrative and technical requirements in the As-builts, the Respondent failed to design and/or construct all of the new and/or modified sanitary sewer line according to the technical standards, in violation of 327 IAC 3-6.

 

8.                  On January 9, 2002, the Respondent’s engineering firm submitted a letter with “As-built” plans and specification (As-builts) of the sanitary sewer to IDEM regarding the Respondent’s construction, installation, and/or modification of sanitary sewer service lines at the Site.

No City inspection or oversight occurred at the Site during the construction, installation, and/or modification of the Respondent’s sanitary sewer extension; however, a representative of the City identified the presence of the Respondent’s constructed water main and sanitary sewer facilities in existence without appropriate permits during a city plan review conducted during the fall and winter of 2001.

 

9.                  On January 14, 2002, IDEM’s OWQ, Facility Construction Permit Section received a construction permit application with As-builts (permit application or Project No. M-14163) which listed the Respondent as the applicant.

 

10.             On February 7, 2002, IDEM issued a deficiency letter to the Respondent for administrative and technical details that were identified in the As-built construction permit application for the Respondent’s Site.

 

11.             During a telephone call conducted by an IDEM representative on October 29, 2002, IDEM received confirmation that the construction, installation, and/or modification of approximately 600 linear feet of sanitary sewer (8-inch or 10-inch) was constructed and/or installed at the Site during the spring of 2001.

 

12.             On November 23, 2004, the Respondent submitted a revised construction permit application with As-built plans and specifications for approximately 683.9 L.F. of 8-inch diameter sanitary sewers from manhole 3 and manhole 6 to serve one existing and three future commercial lots with an average flow of 700 gpd (2,800 gpd, peak) at the Richard Ness Excavating and Storage Buildings (Project No. M-14163X).  The Respondent submitted additional information to complete the As-built submittal on January 7, 2005, and February 2, 2005.

 

13.             On February 10, 2005, IDEM sent notification to the Respondent that IDEM cannot issue a Construction Permit for the 683.9 L.F. of 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer because construction of the sewers started prior to issuance of the permit.  However, IDEM indicated that it had reviewed the As-built plans and specifications and IDEM had no objection to the use of these sewers.

 

14.             In recognition of the settlement reached, the 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 the Respondent.  This Agreed Order shall have no force or effect until the Effective Date.

2.                  Respondent shall comply with 327 IAC 3-2.

3.                  Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500).  Said penalty amount shall be due and payable to the Environmental Management Special Fund within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order.

4.                  The civil penalty is 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
Indianapolis, IN 46207-7060


5.                  In the event that the civil penalty required by Order paragraph 3 is not paid within 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.

6.                  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.

7.                  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.

8.                  The Respondent shall provide a copy of this Agreed Order, if in force, to any subsequent owners or successors before ownership rights are transferred.

9.                  This Agreed Order shall remain in effect until the Respondent has complied with the terms and conditions of Paragraphs 3 through 5 of this Agreed Order and IDEM issues a “close out” letter to the Respondent.

 

TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION:

 

RESPONDENT:

Department of Environmental Management

 

Richard Ness Excavating and Trucking, Inc.

 

 

 

By:

 

 

By:

 

 

Mark W. Stanifer

 

Printed:

 

 

Section Chief, Water Section

 

Title:

 

 

Office of Enforcement

 

 

 

Date:

 

 

Date:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:

Department of Environmental Management

 

 

 

 

 

By:

 

 

By:

 

 

Joseph H. Merrick

 

 

 

 

Office of Legal Counsel

 

 

 

Date:

 

 

Date:

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT THIS

 

DAY OF

 

, 200

 

.

 

 

For The Commissioner:

 

 

 

Signed on March 2, 2005

 

Matthew T. Klein

 

Assistant Commissioner

 

of Compliance and Enforcement