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. 2002-13555-W
						)
CITY OF ALEXANDRIA,						)
						)
	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 the City of Alexandria (Respondent), which owns and operates a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) comprised of a sewer collection system and a 1.2 MGD, Class III oxidation ditch wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The sewer collection system is made up of 25% combined and 75% separate sanitary sewers. The WWTP is located at 1706 W. County Road 1100 North, in Alexandria, Madison County, Indiana (Site).

The Respondent is authorized by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. IN0020044 (the Permit) to discharge treated municipal and/or domestic wastewater from its municipal WWTP via Outfall 001 into waters of the State named Pipe Creek, in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth therein. The permit also includes combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfall points 005 and 006.

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 October 7, 2004, IDEM issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) via Certified Mail to the City of Alexandria.

5. Inspections and record reviews were conducted at the site on the dates specified below by a representative of IDEM’s Office of Water Quality (OWQ). The violations described in the following paragraphs were in existence or observed at the time of these inspections and record reviews, and were cited in the NOV.

6. Pursuant to IC 13-30-2-1, 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 rules, standards, or discharge or emission requirements adopted by the appropriate board pursuant to this title.

Pursuant to 327 IAC 5-2-8(1), Part II.A.1 of the permit states that the City of Alexandria shall comply with all conditions of the Permit.

Pursuant to 327 IAC 5-2-8(8) and Part II.B.1.a. of the Permit, all waste collection, control, treatment, and disposal facilities shall at all times be operated as efficiently as possible and in a manner which will minimize upsets and discharges of excessive pollutants.

Respondent failed to efficiently operate its waste collection, control, treatment and disposal facilities in a number of ways, as observed by an inspection and record review by IDEM staff on July 2, 2003. At the time of this inspection the following were observed:

a. The raw flow meter on the southern most raw flow channel was missing the transducer device.

b. The northern lagoon appeared full of sludge and in need of cleaning.

c. The six sludge drying beds were overgrown with weeds and three were being used for equipment storage, indicating sludge had not been dried for a long period of time.

d. The operator was carrying a high solids inventory in the treatment facility by keeping the mixed liquor solids concentration at an elevated level.

e. The grit removal system was non-functional and appeared to have been out of service for a long period of time.

f. An excessive amount of oil was located on the ground next to the west oxidation ditch indicating leakage from the rotor unit gear box.

g. The shaft bearing on the east oxidation ditch rotor was squealing and in need of repair.

h. Clarifiers had a heavy build-up of algae and sludge on the weirs and were in need of cleaning.

i. The scum removal system in the clarifiers did not appear to be working adequately, as a heavy layer of scum had built up on outer ring of clarifiers.

j. Flow records indicate that facility is operating at hydraulic flow capacity. Review of records indicated that the facility experiences high flows during wet weather indicating a significant amount of inflow and infiltration.

k. One return sludge pump was out of service.

l. The yard hydrant was leaking badly.

All of these observations indicate a failure by Respondent to properly operate and maintain the WWTP. Respondent’s failure to properly operate and maintain the WWTP is a violation of IC 13-30-2-1, 327 IAC 5-2-8(8), 327 5-2-8(1), Part II.B.1(a), and Part II.A.1 of the Permit.

7. Pursuant to 327 IAC 5-2-8(9), and 5-2-13, Parts I.A.1. and I.B.1. of the Permit require that the permittee take samples and measurements to meet the effluent limitations and monitoring requirements at a location representative of the discharge. Part I.A.1 of the Permit goes on to establish effluent limitations and requires that the discharge be monitored by the permittee as specified in Table 1 and Table 2. Part I.A.1, Tables 1 and 2 of the Permit require that CBOD₅, TSS, ammonia-nitrogen, pH, dissolved oxygen, total residual chlorine, and E. coli be measured five times per week.

A review of facility records indicated that Respondent had not conducted monitoring as frequently as required. Since September 2001 the facility has failed to meet weekly sampling frequency requirements for E. coli, pH, DO, CBOD, TSS, and ammonia nitrogen 23 times. These weeks include, but may not be limited to, weeks from the following months: September through December 2001, January, February, March, July, September, October, November, and December 2002, January, April, May, June and September 2003. Therefore, Respondent is in violation of IC 13-30-2-1, 327 5-2-8, 327 IAC 5-2-13, and Parts I.A.1, I.B.1, and II.A.1 of the Permit.

8. 327 IAC 5-2-13(d) states, in part, that test procedures identified in 40 CFR shall be utilized for pollutants or parameters listed in that part [Part 136], unless an alternative test procedure has been approved.

Pursuant to Part I.B.5 of the Permit, the analytical and sampling methods used shall conform to the current version of 40 CFR, Part 136. The approved methods may include Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, A.S.T.M. Standards, and Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.

At the time of the July 2, 2003, inspection, IDEM staff noted that staff of the Alexandria WWTP represented that they were utilizing Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater as the chosen method for analysis of wastewater. However, IDEM staff observed that the facility was not weighing back suspended solids as required by Method 2540 D., using 5 point Ammonia-nitrogen calibration as required by Method 4500-NH3 F., or seeding BOD₅ samples as required by Method 5210, in violation of IC 13-30-2-1, 327 IAC 5-2-13, Part I.B.5 of the Permit, 327 IAC 5-2-8 (1), and Part II.A.1 of the Permit for failing to meet the above noted requirements.

9. Pursuant to Section 405 A of the Clean Water Act, Part II.A.2 of the Permit states, in part, that solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed from or resulting from treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering waters of the State and to be in compliance with all Indiana statutes and regulations relative to liquid and/or solid waste disposal.

Part II.A.2.a. goes on to state that collected screenings, slurries, sludges and other such pollutants shall be disposed of in accordance with methods established in 329 IAC 10 and 327 IAC 6.1, or another method approved by the Commissioner.

At the time of the above noted inspection, IDEM staff observed that the sludge digester had overflowed and a considerable amount of sludge was present on the ground around the digester, in violation of IC 13-30-2-1, Part II.A.2 of the Permit, 327 IAC 5-2-8 (1), and Part II.A.1 of the Permit.

10. Part II.B.1.b of the Permit requires Respondent to provide an adequate operating staff which is duly qualified to carry out the operation, maintenance and testing functions required to ensure compliance with the conditions of the Permit.

Respondent’s Operation and Maintenance Manual (Chapter 5: Personnel) states that five people are required for normal operation of the WWTP. At the time of the inspection only one individual was working. According to facility personnel, the Alexandria WWTP only staffs four people. These staffing issues were also noted in July 29, 1998, April 4, 2000, and June 13, 2001 inspections. Therefore, Respondent is in violation of IC 13-30-2-1, Part II.B.1 of the Permit, 327 IAC 5-2-8 (1), and Part II.A.1 of the Permit for failing to provide an adequate operating staff.

11. Respondent submitted a letter to IDEM dated October 22, 2004, in response to the violations cited in the NOV.

12. On December 13, 2004, IDEM and Respondent met to discuss the facts surrounding the NOV, and settlement of the case. Respondent provided the missing mercury progress reports at that time. The NOV had cited Respondent for failure to collect samples for mercury during certain months. At the settlement conference, Respondent was able to explain why mercury samples were not required during those months, and that issue has been removed from the findings of fact. Other issues reported on by the Respondent at the settlement conference included:

·	a letter from Merrill Brothers was produced, documenting that 1.4 million gallons of sludge had been removed from the polishing ponds subsequent to issuance of the NOV
·	the plant was designed for two digesters, but only one was built
·	the flow meter that was identified as being non-functional serves only the emergency bypass channel
·	the grit pump was replaced in August 2004
·	the sprockets and chain were replaced in September 2004
·	the City is planning flow testing for the next two years
·	a major sewer separation project will be done as part of a street project in 2005
·	there are nine lift stations and one remaining CSO point in the collection system
·	they have not sought nor received approval for the nonstandard TSS procedure that they use, but it is probably approvable, and
·	the sludge spill that was cited in the NOV was the result of a sticking valve that had not been completely closed.

13. 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. The Respondent shall comply with IC 13-30-2-1, 327 IAC 5-2-8(1), 327 IAC 5-2-8(8), 327 IAC 5-2-8(9), 327 IAC 5-2-8(10)(A), 327 IAC 5-2-13, and the Permit.

3. Beginning on the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, and continuing until implementation of the Compliance Plan required pursuant to Order Paragraph 4 is complete, the Respondent shall, at all times, operate its existing sanitary collection system and WWTP as efficiently and effectively as possible.

4. Within 60 days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, the Respondent shall develop and submit to IDEM for its approval a compliance plan (CP) that includes, but is not limited to, the following:

a. A description of the actions that the Respondent will take and management systems that the Respondent will develop and implement to achieve and maintain continuous compliance with the effluent limitations contained in the Permit. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to routine operation and maintenance of all treatment facilities, proper laboratory procedures, adequate staffing, and proper management, removal, storage, and disposal of sludge. Further detail describing requirements that need to be included in this part of the CP regarding operation, maintenance, management and staffing are included in Attachment A, which is hereby incorporated into this Agreed Order and deemed an enforceable part thereof.

b. A schedule for initiation and completion of all actions described above, including specific milestone dates.

5. The CP required by Paragraph 4 is subject to IDEM approval. In the event that IDEM determines the CP is deficient or otherwise unapprovable, the Respondent shall, upon written notice by IDEM, revise and resubmit the CP, in accordance with IDEM’s written notice. If, after three submissions of the CP by the Respondent, IDEM finds the plan to be deficient or otherwise unapprovable, IDEM may require the Respondent to revise and resubmit the CP, or alternatively, may modify and approve the CP, in which case the Respondent shall implement the CP as modified and approved by IDEM.

6. Upon approval by IDEM, the CP shall be incorporated into the Agreed Order and shall be deemed an enforceable part thereof. The Respondent, upon receipt of written approval from IDEM, shall immediately implement the approved CP and adhere to the schedule contained therein.

7. The Respondent shall notify IDEM, in writing, within 10 days of completion of each action or milestone contained in the approved CP. The notification shall include a description of the action completed and the date it was completed.

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

Mark Stanifer, Section Chief

Office of Enforcement, Mail Code 60-02

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

100 North Senate Avenue

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2251

9. The Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($16,500). A portion of said penalty amount, totaling Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($3,300) shall be due and payable to the Environmental Management Special Fund within 30 days of the Effective Date. In lieu of payment of the remaining portion of the Civil Penalty, totaling Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($13,200), the Respondent shall perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP), as described below.

10. The Respondent has elected to perform a SEP, but the nature and specific details of the SEP has not yet been agreed upon, but will be done so upon adoption of this Agreed Order. An offset ratio of 2:1 will be applied to this SEP, i.e. the Respondent must expend two dollars in order to offset one dollar of the civil penalty. Therefore, the Respondent must expend a minimum of Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($26,400) in order to offset the remaining $13,200 of the civil penalty.

The Respondent shall complete the SEP within 12 months of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order. The Respondent shall obtain any necessary permits from IDEM. Within 30 days of completion of the SEP, Respondent shall submit to IDEM an itemized list, along with supporting documentation, of costs incurred in performing the SEP. In the event that the SEP cost is greater than $26,400, the Respondent assumes responsibility for all additional costs without further offset of the civil penalty. In the event that the SEP cost is less than $26,400, the Respondent shall pay the balance of the civil penalty that is not offset by the SEP, calculated utilizing the 2:1 offset ratio described above, plus interest at the rate established by IC 24-4.6-1-101. Interest on the balance of the civil penalty shall be paid from the Effective Date. Payment shall be made to the Environmental Management Special Fund, within 15 days of receipt of notice from IDEM that payment is due.

11. In the event that the Respondent fails to complete the SEP within 12 months of the Effective Date, or if IDEM and Respondent are unable to agree upon the terms and conditions of a SEP, the Respondent shall pay the entire balance of the civil penalty, totaling $13,200, plus interest at the rate established by IC 24-4.6-1-101. Interest on the balance of the civil penalty shall be paid from the Effective Date. Payment shall be made to the Environmental Management Special Fund, within 15 days of receipt of notice from IDEM that payment is due.

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

Order Paragraph Number	Violation	Penalty Amount
4	Failure to submit the CP, as required.	$250 per each week or part thereof late
5	Failure to revise and resubmit the CP, as required.	$250 per each week or part thereof late
6	Failure to implement the approved CP, or to meet any milestone date set forth in the CP.	$500 per each week or part thereof late
7	Failure to notify IDEM, in writing, within 10 days of completion of each milestone contained in the approved CP.	$250 per each week or part thereof late

13. Stipulated penalties shall be due and payable within 30 days after the 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 the Respondent's violation of this Agreed Order, or Indiana law, including but not limited to civil penalties pursuant to IC 13-30-4.

14. Civil and stipulated penalties are payable by check to the Environmental Management Special Fund. Checks shall include the Case Number (2003-13555-W) of this action and shall be mailed to:

Cashier

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

100 N. Senate Avenue

Mail Code 50-10C

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2251

15. In the event that the civil penalty required by Order Paragraph 9, is not paid within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, the 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

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

19. This Agreed Order shall remain in effect until the Respondent complies with the terms of Order Paragraphs 3 through 15 and until IDEM issues a Close-Out letter to the Respondent.

The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.

TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION:			RESPONDENT:
Department of Environmental Management			City of Alexandria
By:	___________________		By:	_____________
	Mark W. Stanifer, Chief
	Water Section		Printed:	_____________________
	Office of Enforcement			Honorable Steven Skaggs, Mayor
				City of Alexandria
			Title:	_____________
Date:	___________________		Date:	_____________
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT:			COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:
Department of Environmental Management
By:	______________________		By:
	Jay Rodia, Attorney
	Enforcement Section
	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 August 31, 2005
			Matthew T. Klein
			Assistant Commissioner
			of Compliance and Enforcement

Attachment A

The portion of the Compliance Plan required pursuant to Order Paragraph 4. a. shall provide for the following:

1. Development and implementation of a Maintenance Program that includes, but is not necessarily limited to:

i. routine/ongoing preventive maintenance of facilities and equipment, using a predictive approach to continually review and update maintenance procedures;

ii. identification of critical parts needed for system operation and maintenance;

iii. establishment and maintenance of an adequate inventory of replacement parts; and

iv. routine/ongoing efforts to identify sources of infiltration and inflow and to systematically eliminate those sources.

2. Development and implementation of a Training and Review Program that includes, but is not necessarily limited to:

i. Appropriate regular and refresher training on a routine basis for employees and other affected persons, on procedures for implementation of the provisions of the CP required pursuant to Order Paragraph 4. a.; and

ii. Annual reviews by representatives of all levels of management and staff to assess the overall effectiveness of the CP, and recommend adjustments.

3. Development and implementation of a Monitoring and Modification Program that includes, but is not necessarily limited to:

i. Ongoing monitoring of the implementation and effectiveness of the portion of the CP required pursuant to Order Paragraph 4. a.; and

ii. Modification and update as necessary to ensure that the purpose of the CP required pursuant to Order Paragraph 4. is achieved.