|
STATE
OF |
) |
|
BEFORE
THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT |
|||
|
|
) |
SS: |
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT |
|||
|
|
) |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
COMMISSIONER
OF THE DEPARTMENT |
) |
|||||
|
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, |
) |
|||||
|
|
|
) |
||||
|
|
Complainant, |
) |
||||
|
|
|
) |
||||
|
|
v. |
) |
Case
No. 2004-13990-W |
|||
|
|
) |
|||||
|
ISPAT
INLAND, 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.
Complainant is the Commissioner (“Complainant”) of
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, a department of the State
of
2.
Respondent is Ispat
Inland, Inc. ("Respondent"), owner and operator of a steel
manufacturing facility located at 3210 Watling Street
in East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana (the “Site”). The Respondent is authorized by National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit No.
IN 0000094 (the Permit) to discharge to waters of the State, subject to
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions contained
therein.
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
|
Peter
D. Southwick, President |
Ispat Inland Inc. |
5.
Pursuant to IC 13-30-2-1, a person may not 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 in any form that
causes or would cause pollution that violates or would violate rules,
standards, or discharge or emission requirements adopted by the appropriate
board under the environmental management laws.
6.
Pursuant to 327 IAC
7.
Pursuant to 327 IAC
8.
Pursuant to Part I.A of the Permit,
the Respondent is required to comply with the effluent limitations contained in
the Permit that are applicable to the discharges from the outfalls identified
therein.
9.
IDEM records, including discharge monitoring reports
and/or letters submitted by the Respondent, for the period from August 1, 2001
through February 15, 2005, indicate
that the Respondent failed to comply with numeric effluent limitations
contained in the Permit, in violation of IC 13-30-2-1, 327 IAC 5-2-2, 327 IAC
5-2-8(1), Part II.A.1 of the Permit, and Part I.A of the Permit, as follows:
A.
The daily maximum limitation for
Total Residual Chlorine applicable to the discharge from internal Outfall 518
was violated on
B.
The daily maximum limitation for
Lead applicable to the discharge from internal Outfall 602 was violated on
C.
The daily maximum mass limitation
for Zinc applicable to the discharge from internal Outfall 618 was violated on
D.
The monthly average mass limitation
for Zinc applicable to the discharge from internal Outfall 618 was violated
during July of 2003.
E.
The daily maximum mass limitation
for Total Suspended Solids applicable to the discharge from internal Outfall
618 was violated on
F.
The daily maximum mass limitation
for Zinc applicable to the discharge from Outfall 014 was violated on
G.
The monthly average mass limitation
for Zinc applicable to the discharge from Outfall 014 was violated during
October of 2004.
H.
The daily maximum concentration
limitation for Oil & Grease applicable to the discharge from Outfall 014
was violated on
I.
The minimum limitation for pH
applicable to the discharge from Outfall 014 was violated on
J.
The maximum limitation for pH
applicable to the discharge from Outfall 018 was violated on September 24, 25,
26, and 28, 2002; October 4, 11, 12, 13, 15, 21, and 22, 2002; December 20, and
29, 2002; July 20, 21, 29, and 31, 2003; and September 23, 2003.
K.
The daily maximum limitation for
Total Residual Chlorine applicable to the discharge from Outfall 018 was
violated on
10.
Part I.A.7 of the Permit sets forth
the effluent limitations for pH applicable to the discharge from Outfall
018. Specifically, pursuant to Part
I.A.7 of the Permit, the pH of the discharge from Outfall 018 must not be less
than 6.0 s.u. nor greater
than 9.0 s.u.
11.
Pursuant to Part I.A.7 of the
Permit, the Respondent is required to continuously monitor the pH of the discharge
from Outfall 018, and to report, utilizing the results of the continuous
monitoring, the minimum and maximum pH values each day.
12.
The Respondent interprets the
current Permit pH limits applicable to Outfall 018 to be based exclusively on
40 CRF 420 (i.e., exclusively technology-based). IDEM finds no support for this interpretation
in its records, and believes that the current Permit pH limits applicable to
Outfall 018 are water quality based.
13.
Pursuant to Part I.B.2 of the
Permit, the Respondent is required to report the results of its monitoring,
utilizing a specified DMR form. The
specified DMR form requires effluent limitation exceedances
to be identified.
14.
Pursuant to Part II.C.2 of the
Permit, the Respondent is required to report monitoring results at the
intervals and in the form specified in Part I.B.2 of the Permit.
15.
Pursuant to Part II.C.3 of the
Permit, the Respondent is required to verbally report the violation of a
maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed in the
Permit, within 24 hours from the time the Respondent becomes aware of the
violation. Additionally, pursuant to
Part II.C.3 of the Permit, the Respondent is required to provide a written
submission, within 5 days of becoming aware of the violation. The written submission must contain a
description of the noncompliance and its cause; the period of noncompliance,
including exact dates and times, and, if the noncompliance has not been
corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or
planned to reduce and eliminate the noncompliance and prevent its recurrence.
16.
IDEM records for 2002 and 2003
indicate that the Respondent reported, on the DMRs
submitted to IDEM, maximum pH values for the discharge from Outfall 018 greater
than 9.0 s.u., but failed to identify these values as
exceedances, for the following dates, in violation of
327 IAC 5-2-8(1), Part II.A.1 of the Permit, Part I.A.7 of the Permit, Part
I.B.2 of the Permit, and Part II.C.2 of the Permit:
September
24 and 28, 2002; October 4, 11, 12, 15, 21, and 22, 2002; December 20, and 29,
2002: July 20, 21, 29, and 31, 2003; and
Additionally, the Respondent failed to provide verbal
notification within 24 hours, or written notification within 5 days, of becoming
aware that the maximum limitation for pH of 9.0 s.u.
applicable to the discharge from Outfall 018 was exceeded for the following
dates, in violation of 327 IAC 5-2-8(1), Part II.A.1 of the Permit, Part I.A.7,
and Part II.C.3 of the Permit:
September
24 and 28; October 4, 11, 12, 15, 21, and 22, 2002; December 20 and 29, 2002,
July 20, 21, 29, and 31, 2003; and
17.
Pursuant to Part II.B.2.c of the
Permit, bypass is prohibited, and is grounds for an enforcement action, unless
the following conditions are met:
A.
Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage;
B.
There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass,
such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes,
or maintenance during normal periods of equipment down time; and
C.
The permittee submitted notice of the bypass, as
required. For an unanticipated bypass,
notice must be provided verbally within 24 hours and, in writing within five
days, of becoming aware of the bypass.
If the permittee knows or should have known in advance of the need for a
bypass (anticipated bypass), prior notice must be submitted to IDEM, for
approval, at least ten days before the date of the bypass, if possible.
18.
IDEM records indicate that for the period from
September 1, 2001 through February 15, 2005, the Respondent reported the
occurrence of bypasses on February 16, 2002; September 3 and 20, 2002; October
6, 7, and 10, 2002; November 6, 2002; December 13, 2002; January 21 and 23,
2003; February 17 and 18, 2003; April 18 and 19, 2003; July 1, 2, 5, 7, 22, and
23, 2003; January 8 and 25, 2004; February 2 and 14, 2004; March 8, 2004; June
3 and 9, 2004; July 21, 2004; December 21, 2004; January 19 and 25, 2005; and
February 5, 2005, without the conditions set forth in 327 IAC 5-2-8(11) and
Part II.B.2.c of the Permit being satisfied, in violation of 327 IAC 5-2-8(1),
Part II.A.1 of the Permit, 327 IAC 5-2-8(11), and Part II.B.2.c of the
Permit. The bypass notifications
submitted by the Respondent attributed the above mentioned bypasses to power
failures, pump failures, or other equipment failures.
19.
IDEM records indicate that one or more of the
bypasses referenced in Paragraph 18 above, including the bypass occurring on
February 17, 2003, resulted in a discharge of pollutants to waters of the state
that was not in conformity with the Permit, in violation of 327 IAC 5-2-2 and
IC 13-30-2-1.
20.
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 Indiana; or 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 IC 13-18-4-1 and IC
13-18-4-3.
21.
Pursuant to 327 IAC 2-1.5-8(b)(1) all waters within
the Great Lakes system, 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 are in
amounts sufficient to be unsightly or deleterious or that produce color,
visible oil sheen, odor, or other conditions in such degree as to create a
nuisance.
22.
Part I.L of the Permit sets forth narrative effluent
limitations applicable to the Respondent’s discharge from outfalls specified in
the Permit, including Outfalls 001, 014, and 018. Such narrative effluent limitations include
the following:
A.
The discharge shall not contain oil or other
substances in amounts sufficient to create a visible film or sheen on the
receiving waters.
B.
The discharge shall be free of substances that are in
amounts sufficient to be unsightly or deleterious or which produce color, odor,
or other conditions in such a degree as to create a nuisance.
23.
IDEM records indicate that for the period from September
2001 through April 2003, the Respondent discharged, to waters of the state
within the Great Lakes system, from outfalls specified in the Permit,
substances, materials, floating debris, oil, and/or scum in amounts sufficient
to be unsightly or deleterious and/or that produced color and/or visible oil
sheen, in violation of IC 13-30-2-1, IC 13-18-4-5, 327 IAC 2-1.5-8(b)(1)(C),
and Part I.L of the Permit, as follows:
A.
The Respondent reported an orange discoloration in
its discharge to the
B.
The Respondent reported an orange discoloration in
its discharge to
C.
The Respondent reported an orange discoloration in
its discharge to the
D.
The Respondent reported two instances of a black
discharge from Outfall 018 to the
E.
The Respondent reported a black discharge from
Outfall 018 to the
F.
The Respondent reported the presence of oil in the
discharge forebay at Outfall 018 on
G.
The Respondent reported the presence of trace amounts
of oil sheen in the discharge weir box at Outfall 001, which discharges to the
H.
The Respondent reported a black discoloration in its
discharge to the
I.
The Respondent reported an orange discoloration in
its discharge to the
24.
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 her 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
3.
The Respondent shall properly report violations of
the effluent limitations for pH.
Specifically, the Respondent shall:
a.
identify minimum pH values that are below 6.0 s.u. and maximum pH values that are above 9.0 s.u. as “exeedances” on the DMRs that are submitted to IDEM; and
b.
in the event of obtaining a
pH value that is below 6.0 s.u. or above 9.0 s.u., comply with the requirements of Part II.C.3 of the
Permit.
4.
Except as specified in Order Paragraph 5, the Respondent
shall, within 60 days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, develop and
submit to IDEM, for approval, a compliance plan (CP) that identifies the
corrective actions that the Respondent will take to:
a.
achieve and maintain compliance with the numeric
effluent limitations contained in the Permit, including those for pH, Lead, and
Total Residual Chlorine;
b.
achieve and maintain compliance with the narrative
effluent limitations contained in the Permit, including those contained in Part
I.L of the Permit; and
c.
eliminate prohibited bypasses.
The CP shall include a schedule, including specific milestone dates, for
initiating and completing the corrective actions contained therein.
5.
In the event that the Respondent has completed the corrective
actions necessary to satisfy the requirements of Order Paragraph 4 a, b, and/or
c, the Respondent shall, in lieu of submitting a CP that identifies the
corrective actions necessary to satisfy the requirements of Order Paragraph 4
a, b, and/or c, submit to IDEM, within 30 days of the Effective Date, written
notification that includes:
a.
certification that
corrective actions necessary to satisfy the requirements of Order
Paragraph 4 a, b, and/or c have been completed;
b.
a description of the corrective actions that were
taken; and
c.
the date that each corrective
action was initiated and completed.
6.
On and after the date for completion of
implementation of the portion of the CP required pursuant to Order Paragraph 4
a (as specified in the approved CP), or alternatively, on and after the
submittal of notification pursuant to Order Paragraph 5 that corrective actions
necessary to satisfy the requirements of Order Paragraph 4 a have been
completed, the Respondent shall be subject to stipulated penalties, as
described in Order Paragraph 16, for violation of any numeric effluent
limitation contained in the Permit.
7.
On and after the date for completion of
implementation of the portion of the CP required pursuant to Order Paragraph 4
b (as specified in the approved CP), or alternatively, on and after the
submittal of notification pursuant to Order Paragraph 5 that corrective actions
necessary to satisfy the requirements of Order Paragraph 4 b have been
completed, the Respondent shall be subject to stipulated penalties, as
described in Order Paragraph 16, for violation of any narrative effluent
limitation contained in the Permit.
8.
On and after the date for completion of
implementation of the portion of the CP required pursuant to Order Paragraph 4
c, or alternatively, on and after the submittal of notification pursuant to
Order Paragraph 5 that corrective actions necessary to satisfy the requirements
of Order Paragraph 4 c have been completed, the Respondent shall be subject to
stipulated penalties, as described in Order Paragraph 16, for any prohibited
bypass.
9.
The Respondent shall, within 9 months of completing
implementation of the portion of the CP required pursuant to Order Paragraph 4
a or alternatively, within 6 months of submitting notification pursuant to Order
Paragraph 5 that corrective actions necessary to satisfy the requirements of
Order Paragraph 4 a have been completed (Numeric Effluent Limitation
Performance Period), demonstrate, for a period of 6 consecutive months (Numeric
Effluent Limitation Compliance Demonstration), compliance with the numeric
effluent limitations contained in the Permit.
In the event that the Respondent fails to make the Numeric Effluent Limitation
Compliance Demonstration, the Respondent shall, within sixty days of becoming
aware that the Numeric Effluent Limitation Compliance Demonstration cannot be
achieved, develop and submit to IDEM, for approval, a plan (“Numeric Effluent
Limitation Action Plan”) that identifies the additional actions that the
Respondent will take to achieve and maintain compliance with the numeric
effluent limitations contained in the Permit.
The Numeric Effluent Limitation Action Plan shall include a schedule,
including specific milestone dates for initiating and completing the actions
contained therein.
Failure by the Respondent to achieve compliance with the numeric effluent
limitations contained in the Permit upon completing implementation of the
Numeric Effluent Limitation Action Plan shall not necessitate the submittal of
an additional Numeric Effluent Limitation Action Plan under this Agreed Order,
but shall subject the Respondent to additional enforcement action.
10.
The Respondent shall, within 9 months of completing
implementation of the portion of the CP required pursuant to Order Paragraph 4
b or alternatively, within 6 months of submitting notification pursuant to
Order Paragraph 5 that corrective actions necessary to satisfy the requirements
of Order Paragraph 4 b have been completed (Narrative Effluent Limitation
Performance Period), demonstrate, for a period of 6 consecutive months
(Narrative Effluent Limitation Compliance Demonstration), compliance with the
narrative effluent limitations contained in the Permit.
In the event that the Respondent fails to make the Narrative Effluent
Limitation Compliance Demonstration, the Respondent shall, within sixty days of
becoming aware that the Narrative Effluent Limitation Compliance Demonstration
cannot be achieved, develop and submit to IDEM, for approval, a plan
(“Narrative Effluent Limitation Action Plan”) that identifies the additional
actions that the Respondent will take to achieve and maintain compliance with
the narrative effluent limitations contained in the Permit. The Narrative Effluent Limitation Action Plan
shall include a schedule, including specific milestone dates for initiating and
completing the actions contained therein.
Failure by the Respondent to achieve compliance with the narrative effluent
limitations contained in the Permit upon completing implementation of the
Narrative Effluent Limitation Action Plan shall not necessitate the submittal
of an additional Narrative Effluent Limitation Action Plan under this Agreed
Order, but shall subject the Respondent to additional enforcement action.
11.
Except as specified below, the Respondent shall,
within 9 months of completing implementation of the portion of the CP required
pursuant to Order Paragraph 4 c or alternatively, within 6 months of submitting
notification pursuant to Order Paragraph 5 that corrective actions necessary to
satisfy the requirements of Order Paragraph 4 c have been completed (Bypass
Elimination Performance Period), demonstrate, for a period of 6 consecutive
months (Bypass Elimination Compliance Demonstration), that prohibited bypasses
do not occur. Bypasses from the
In the event that the Respondent fails to make the Bypass Elimination
Compliance Demonstration, the Respondent shall, within sixty days of becoming
aware that the Bypass Elimination Compliance Demonstration cannot be achieved,
develop and submit to IDEM, for approval, a plan (“Bypass Elimination Action
Plan”) that identifies the additional actions that the Respondent will take to
eliminate prohibited bypasses. The
Bypass Elimination Action Plan shall include a schedule, including specific
milestone dates for initiating and completing the actions contained therein.
Failure by the Respondent to achieve compliance with the bypass prohibition
contained in the Permit upon completing implementation of the Bypass
Elimination Action Plan shall not necessitate the submittal of an additional
Bypass Elimination Action Plan under this Agreed Order, but shall subject the
Respondent to additional enforcement action.
12.
The plans required by Order Paragraphs 4, 9, 10, and
11 are subject to IDEM approval. If IDEM
deems any plan inadequate, a revised plan shall be submitted within fifteen
days of receipt of notice from IDEM of the inadequacies thereof. If, after submission of the first revised
plan, IDEM still finds the plan to be inadequate, then IDEM will request
further modification of the plan as necessary to meet IDEM’s requirements, and
require re-submittal of the plan by a specific date. If the subsequently submitted second revised
plan does not meet IDEM’s approval, IDEM will suggest specific modifications to
be made to the plan and require re-submittal by a specific date. If, by the specified date, the Respondent
does not submit a third revised plan that incorporates the IDEM-suggested
modifications or submit an alternative adequate plan (as determined by IDEM),
the IDEM-suggested modifications will be deemed incorporated into the plan.
13.
Any plan approved pursuant to this Agreed Order shall
be incorporated into this Agreed Order and shall be deemed an enforceable part
thereof. The Respondent, upon receipt of
written approval from IDEM, shall immediately implement the approved plan and
adhere to the milestone dates therein.
14.
The Respondent shall notify IDEM, in writing, within
10 days of completion of each action contained in any approved plan. The
notification shall include a description of the action completed and the date
it was completed.
15.
All submittals required by this Agreed Order, unless
notified otherwise in writing, shall be sent in duplicate, with a separate copy
of each submittal being directed to the following individuals:
Terry Ressler, Case Manager, Water Enforcement
Section
Office of Enforcement, IGCN, Rm. 1315
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
100 N. Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Michael Kuss, Senior Environmental Engineer
Northwest Regional Office
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
8315 Virginia St.
Suite 1
Merrillville, IN 46410
16.
The Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of Twenty
Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($25,500).
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.
17.
In the event the following 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:
|
Order Paragraph Number |
Violation
|
Penalty Amount |
|
3 |
Failure
to properly report violations of the effluent limitations for pH. |
$500
per occurrence |
|
4 |
Failure
to timely submit CP, as required |
$500
per each week or part thereof late |
|
5 |
Failure
to timely submit written notification, if applicable |
$500
per each week or part thereof late |
|
6 |
Violation
of any numeric effluent limitation contained in the Permit on or after the
date for completion of the portion of the CP required pursuant to Order
Paragraph 4 a (as specified in the approved CP), or alternatively, on or
after the submittal of notification pursuant to Order Paragraph 5 that
corrective actions necessary to satisfy the requirements of Order Paragraph 4
a have been completed. |
$2,000
per violation |
|
7 |
Violation
of any narrative effluent limitation contained in the Permit on or after the
date for completion of the portion of the CP required pursuant to Order
Paragraph 4 b (as specified in the approved CP), or alternatively, on or
after the submittal of notification pursuant to Order Paragraph 5 that
corrective actions necessary to satisfy the requirements of Order Paragraph 4
b have been completed. |
$2,000
per violation |
|
8 |
(a)
Except as specified in item (b) below,
prohibited bypass on or after the date for completion of the portion of
the CP required pursuant to Order Paragraph 4 c (as specified in the approved
CP), or alternatively, on or after the submittal of notification pursuant to
Order Paragraph 5 that corrective actions necessary to satisfy the
requirements of Order Paragraph 4 c have been completed. |
$2,000
per violation |
|
8 |
(b)
bypass from the Billet Caster Cooling Tower (a.k.a
the No. 1 Electric Arc Furnace Billet Caster) or the 12” Bar Mill Cooling
Tower, which does not result in violation(s) of any effluent limitations
contained in the Permit and is properly reported to IDEM, on or after the
date for completion of the portion of the CP required pursuant to Order
Paragraph 4 c (as specified in the approved CP), or alternatively, on or
after the submittal of notification pursuant to Order Paragraph 5 that
corrective actions necessary to satisfy the requirements of Order Paragraph 4
c have been completed. |
$200
per violation |
|
9 |
Failure
to timely submit the Numeric Effluent Limitation Action Plan, as required. |
$500
per each week or part thereof late |
|
10 |
Failure
to timely submit the Narrative Effluent Limitation Action Plan, as required. |
$500
per each week or part thereof late |
|
11 |
Failure
to timely submit the Bypass Elimination Action Plan, as required. |
$500
per each week or part thereof late |
|
12 |
Failure
to submit or resubmit a revised plan, as required, within the required time period. |
$500
per each week or part thereof late |
|
13 |
Failure
to meet any milestone date set forth in any approved plan. |
$2,000
per each week or part thereof late |
|
14 |
Failure
to timely submit notification of completion of an action contained in any
approved plan. |
$250
per each week or part thereof late |
18.
Stipulated penalties shall be due and payable within 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, Indiana law, or Respondent’s NPDES Permit, including, but
not limited to, civil penalties pursuant to IC 13-30-4.
19.
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
20.
In the event that the civil penalty required by Order
paragraph 16 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.
21.
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.
22.
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.
23.
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.
24.
This Agreed Order is not and shall not be interpreted
to be a Permit, nor shall it in any way relieve Respondent of its obligation to
comply with the applicable requirements of federal or state law or regulation.
25.
The Complainant does not, by its approval of this
Agreed Order, warrant or aver in any manner that the Respondent's compliance
with any aspect of this Agreed Order will result in compliance with any
applicable requirements of federal or state law or regulation.
26.
This Agreed Order shall remain in effect until the
Respondent has complied with all terms and conditions of Paragraphs 3 through
20 of this Order and IDEM issues a letter to the Respondent formally closing
this Agreed Order.
|
TECHNICAL
RECOMMENDATION: |
|
RESPONDENT: |
|||||||
|
Department
of Environmental Management |
|
Ispat Inland, Inc. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
By: |
|
|
By: |
|
|||||
|
|
Mark
W. Stanifer |
|
Printed: |
|
|||||
|
|
Chief,
Water Enforcement Section |
|
Title: |
|
|||||
|
|
Office
of Enforcement |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Date: |
|
|
Date: |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
COUNSEL
FOR COMPLAINANT: |
|
COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT: |
|||||||
|
Department
of Environmental Management |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
By: |
|
|
By: |
|
|||||
|
|
Hala K. Silvey |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
Office
of Legal Counsel |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
Department
of Environmental Management |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Date: |
|
|
Date: |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
APPROVED
AND ADOPTED BY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL |
|||||||||
|
MANAGEMENT THIS |
|
DAY OF |
|
, 200 |
|
. |
|||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
For
The Commissioner: |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Signed
on |
||||||||
|
|
Matthew
T. Klein |
||||||||
|
|
Assistant
Commissioner |
||||||||