STATE OF INDIANA ) BEFORE THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT
) SS:
COUNTY OF MARION ) OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT )
OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, )
)
Complainant, )
) Cause No. H-13784
v. )
MEI--IN )
(f/k/a )
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OF )
AMERICA--IN, Inc.) )
)
Respondent. )
)
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.
1. Complainant is the Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant") of
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, a department of the State
of Indiana created by IC 13-13-1-1.
2. Respondent is MEI-IN (f/k/a Environmental Services of America--IN, Inc.) (Respondent), which operates a place of business, located at 604 South Scott
Street, South Bend, St. Joseph County, Indiana. The U.S. EPA I.D. No. of the
facility is IND 980590947.
3. Pursuant to IC 13-30-3-3, IDEM issued a Notice of Violation via Certified Mail
to:
Joseph Wisneski, President CT Corporation, Registered Agent for
Millennium Environmental, Inc. Millennium Environmental, Inc.
732 Smithtown Bypass One N. Capitol Ave.
Suite 200 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Smithtown, New York 11787
4. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") has
jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action.
5. Respondent operates under a RCRA Part B Permit (hereinafter referred to as
"Permit") for treatment and storage of hazardous waste, issued to the facility on
January 22, 1993. Respondent submitted a RCRA Part B Permit Renewal
Application in August of 1997. IDEM issued a Notice of Draft Permit Renewal
Denial on December 3, 1999. Nothing in this Agreed Order should be construed
to relieve Respondent of any of the Permit requirements found in 40 CFR Parts
264 and 270.
6. Respondent blends organic materials for marketing as supplemental fuel and
operates a storage/transfer station for materials not amenable for supplemental
fuel.
7. Respondent, as the permittee, has a duty to comply with all applicable conditions
of the Permit, except to the extent and for the duration such noncompliance is
authorized by an emergency permit or addressed by the terms of this Agreed
Order. Any Permit noncompliance, other than noncompliance authorized by an
emergency permit or addressed by the terms of this Agreed Order, constitutes a
violation of IC 13-30 and is grounds for enforcement action, for permit
termination, revocation and reissuance, modification, or denial of a permit
renewal application, or other appropriate action.
8. Respondent, as the permittee, has a duty to take all reasonable steps to minimize
releases to the environment and correct any adverse impact on the environment
resulting from noncompliance with the Permit.
9. Effective February 24, 1992, 329 IAC 3.1 replaced 329 IAC 3 as the article establishing a hazardous waste management program in the State of Indiana. This article incorporates many of the federal standards for the management of
hazardous waste, which have been published in 40 CFR Part 260 through 40 CFR
Part 273.
10. IDEM issued a Notice of Violation, Cause No. H-13712, to Environmental
Services of Indiana--IN, Inc. on December 22, 1998. The parties entered an
Agreed Order, adopted on June 8, 1999, which resolved every issue with respect
to the Notice of Violation in Cause H-13712 with the exception of the amount of
the civil penalty.
11. IDEM contends that the following violations were in existence or observed by the
Office of Land Quality at the time of inspections and/or record reviews conducted
on March 23 & 24 and/or May 11 & 18, 1999.
a. Pursuant to 40 CFR 262.11 and/or Permit Attachment II, IV.A.
and 40 CFR 264.13, a person who generates a solid waste, as
defined in 40 CFR 261.2, must determine if that waste is a
hazardous waste and/or the permittee must verify that in-coming
waste conforms to what is listed on the manifest. Based on
information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to make a
proper waste determination and/or failed to verify that in-coming
waste conformed to what was listed on the manifest for unknown
material placed in a 3 yd3 hopper located outside adjacent to the
tank farm and for six (6) 55-gallon containers of unknown material
located inside the Tipper Room. Respondent failed to provide
information as to whether the unknown wastes were generated at
the facility or received from off-site.
b. Pursuant to Permit Attachment II, the permittee shall follow the
chart found in section III.A. of the attachment to determine the
maximum number of drums and maximum volume of waste
allowed at each permitted storage area. The maximum volume of
stored waste at the facility shall be 65,450 gallons. Based on
information gathered by IDEM, Respondent exceeded the
permitted storage capacity at the facility in the following instances:
During the March 23 & 24 inspection:
1) According to the operating log, Row Q and Row Q' (which
are located in Area A as defined in the permit) contained
ninety-six (96) containers. The permit stipulates that only
twenty-eight (28) containers may be stored in Area A.
Therefore, Respondent exceeded the capacity of the area by
sixty-eight (68) containers;
2) According to the operating log, Rows K, K', and L (which
are located in Area B as defined in the permit) contained
two hundred and forty nine (249) containers. The permit
stipulates that only one hundred sixty eight (168)
containers may be stored in Area B. Therefore,
Respondent exceeded the capacity of the area by eighty one
(81) containers;
3) According to the operating log, Rows N, O, and O' (which
are located in Area E as defined in the permit, contained
one hundred and forty four (144) containers. The permit
stipulates that only one hundred twenty (120) containers
may be stored in Area E. Therefore, Respondent exceeded
the capacity of the area by twenty four (24) containers;
4) According to the operating log, Row P (which is located in
Area F as defined in the permit) contained eighty nine (89)
containers. The permit stipulates that only sixty-eight (68)
containers may be stored in Area F. Therefore, Respondent
exceeded the capacity of the area by twenty (20)
containers; and
5) Overall, Respondent is permitted to store 65,560 gallons
(based on 55-gallon containers). According to the
calculations above, Respondent exceeded storage capacity
by one hundred ninety three (193) containers, or 10,615
gallons.
During the May 11 & 18 inspection:
1) According to a manual count of containers, Row N
contained seventy-five (75) 55-gallon containers and one
(1) 15-gallon container. Row O contained fifty-one (51)
55-gallon containers, one (1) 30-gallon container, and three
(3) 15-gallon containers. The two rows contained a total of
7,020 gallons. Rows N and O are located in Area E. The
permit stipulates that only one hundred twenty (120)
containers, or 6,600 gallons, may be stored in Area E.
Therefore, Respondent exceeded the capacity of Area E by
six (6) 55-gallon containers (not including the smaller
containers), or 420 gallons;
2) According to a manual count of containers, Row M
contained twenty-four (24) 55-gallon containers, one (1)
35-gallon container, five (5) 30-gallon containers, and four
(4) 15-gallon containers. The row contained a total of
1565 gallons. Row M is located in Area D. The permit
stipulates that only twenty-six (26) containers, or 1,430
gallons, may be stored in Area D. Therefore, Respondent
exceeded the capacity of Area D by 135 gallons;
3) According to a manual count of containers, Row P
contained seventy-six (76) 55-gallon containers. A row
located adjacent to Row P contained forty-six (46) 55-
gallon containers. The two rows contained a total of 6,710
gallons. The two rows are located in Area F. The permit
stipulates that only sixty-eight (68) 55-gallon drums, or
3.740 gallons, may be stored in Area F. Therefore,
Respondent exceeded the capacity of Area F by fifty-four
(54) 55-gallon containers, or 2,970 gallons; and
4) According to a manual count of containers, Area C
contained five hundred seventy five (575) 55-gallons
containers, thirty-eight (38) 30-gallon containers, six (6)
15-gallon containers, five (5) 10-gallon containers, seven
(7) 5-gallon containers, six (6) 204-gallon containers, one
(1) 293-gallon tote, one (1) 306-gallon container, and two
(2) 408-gallon containers. The area contained a total of
35,783 gallons. The permit stipulates that only six hundred
forty drums, or 35,200 gallons, may be stored in Area C.
Therefore, Respondent exceeded the capacity of Area C by
583 gallons.
c. Pursuant to Permit Condition I.G.5 and 40 CFR 264.73(b)(2), the
permittee shall maintain at the facility an operating record as
required by 40 CFR 264.73. The operating record shall include
the location of each hazardous waste within the facility and the
quantity at each location. Based on information gathered by
IDEM, Respondent failed to properly maintain the operating
record in the following instances:
During the March 23 & 24 inspection:
1) Thirteen (13) 55-gallon containers were placed in front of Row J. Ten (10) of these containers were accounted for in the March 23, 1999 operating log as being in Row J',
which does not exist. The other three (3) containers
(#980814-028, #980902-003, and #981210-061) were
listed as being in Row I;
2) Twenty-nine (29) containers were listed as being in Row
O', but were not observed to be in the area during the
inspection;
3) Two (2) containers (#990224-132 and #990303-043) were
listed in the log as being in Row Q', but were not observed
to be in the area during the inspection; and
4) Six (6) unmarked, open 55-gallon containers of unknown
waste were observed inside the Tipper Room, but were not
listed in the operating log.
During the May 11 & 18 inspection:
1) Forty-six (46) containers in a row adjacent to Row P in the
containers storage area and one hundred sixty eight drums
in the sampling area in Rows R and S were not listed on the
operating log.
d. Pursuant to 40 CFR 268.50(c), an owner/operator of a treatment,
storage, or disposal facility may only store hazardous wastes
beyond one (1) year if he bears the burden of proving that such
storage is solely for the purpose of accumulation of such quantities
of hazardous waste as are necessary to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment, or disposal. Based on information gathered by IDEM,
Respondent stored the following wastes for more than one (1) year
without meeting the burden of proof required to demonstrate that
such storage was necessary to facilitate proper recovery, treatment,
or storage:
During the March 23 & 24 inspection:
1) One (1) cubic yard (1yd3 ) box of spent lead-acid batteries
located in Row Q, dated 03/05/98;
2) One (1) box of spent fluorescent bulbs placed on top of the
box of batteries located in Row Q, dated 03/18/98;
3) One (1) 55-gallon container of lab-packed material
generated by Respondent and located in Row Q, dated
03/19/98; and
4) One (1) 5-gallon container of lithium batteries located in
Row L, dated 03/18/98.
During the May 11 & 18 inspection and review of the operating
logs:
1) One (1) 5-gallon container (980506-069), dated 05/06/98;
2) One (1) 5-gallon container (980401-053) located in Row J,
dated 04/01/98;
3) One (1) 15-gallon container (980421-084) located in Row
J, dated 04/21/98;
4) One (1) 15-gallon container (9899401-020) located in Row
J, dated 04/01/98;
5) One (1) 15-gallon container (980407-014) located in Row
J, dated 04/07/98;
6) One (1) 55-gallon container (980506-012) located in Row
J, dated 05/06/98;
7) Two (2) 55-gallon containers (989330-051 and 980330-
053) located in Row L, dated 03/30/98;
8) One (1) 30-gallon container (980414-061) located in Row
L, dated 04/14/98.
9) One (1) container (980318-010) located in Row L, dated
03/18/98;
10) One (1) container (980330-044) located in Row L, dated
03/30/98;
11) One (1) container (980330-045) located in Row L, dated
03/30/98;
12) One (1) container (980401-095) located in Row Q, dated
04/01/98;
13) One (1) container (980406-083) located in Row L, dated
04/06/98;
14) One (1) container (980406-084) located in Row L, dated
04/06/98;
15) One (1) container (980406-085) located in Row L, dated
04/06/98;
16) Two (2) containers (980406-098) located in Row L, dated
04/06/98;
17) Two (2) containers (980406-099) located in Row L, dated
04/06/98;
18) One (1) container (980406-105) located in Row L, dated
04/06/98;
19) One (1) container (980406-106) located in Row L, dated
04/06/98;
20) One (1) container (980407-068) located in Row C, dated
04/07/98;
21) One (1) container (980427-088) located in Row J, dated
04/27/98;
22) One (1) container (980427-089) located in Row L, dated
04/27/98;
23) One (1) container (980506-010) located in Row Q, dated
05/06/98;
24) One (1) container (980506-011) located in Row J, dated
05/06/98;
25) One (1) container (980506-062) located in Row J, dated
05/06/98;
26) One (1) container (E9805-007) located in Row J, dated
05/11/98;
27) One (1) container (980513-001) located in Row H, dated
05/13/98;
28) One (1) container (980513-002) located in Row G, dated
05/13/98; and
29) One (1) container (980515-041) located in Row J, dated
05/15/98.
e. Pursuant to Permit Condition II.H.4 and 40 CFR 264.35 and/or 40
CFR 262.34 (a)(4) referencing 40 CFR 265.35, the permittee shall
maintain adequate aisle space as required by 40 CFR 264.35.
Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to
maintain adequate aisle space at the following areas:
During the March 23 & 24 inspection:
1) The area between Row A and Row B contained a row of
containers referred to as Row A' in the operating log. As a
result, there was inadequate aisle space between Row A
and Row B;
2) The area between Row J and the south wall contained a
row of containers referred to as Row J' in the operating
log. As a result, there was inadequate aisle space between
Row J and the south wall;
3) The area in front of Row Q contained a row of containers
referred to as Row Q' in the operating log. As a result,
there was inadequate aisle space between Row Q and parts
of Area C; and
4) The area inside the Tipper Room where six (6) unmarked,
open drums were stored. This violation was corrected at
the time of the inspection.
During the May 11 & 18 inspection:
1) The area between Row A and Row B contained an
additional row of approximately fifty-four (54) containers.
As a result, there was inadequate aisle space between Row
A and Row B;
2) The area in front of Row Q contained two additional rows
of containers (forty-five (45) to forty-six (46) containers in
each row). As a result, there was inadequate aisle space
between Row Q and parts of Area C;
3) The area adjacent to Row P contained an additional row of
forty-six (46) containers. As a result, there was inadequate
aisle space around Row P; and
4) The area adjacent to Row K contained an additional row of
approximately sixty-one (61) containers. As a result, there
was inadequate aisle space between Row K and parts of
Area C.
f. Pursuant to Permit Conditions III.C & E and 40 CFR 264.171 &
173, and/or 40 CFR 262.34 (a)(1) referencing 40 CFR 265.173(a),
if a container holding hazardous waste is not in good condition or
if it begins to leak, the owner/operator shall transfer the hazardous
waste from such container to a container that is in good condition
or otherwise manage the waste in a way that complies with the
requirements. A container holding hazardous waste must always
be closed during storage, except when it is necessary to add or
remove waste, and must not be opened, handled, or stored in a
manner which may rupture the container or cause it to leak. Based
on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to manage
containers in a manner to prevent leakage from the containers.
Several containers in the Tipper Room and surrounding areas were
stored open. Additionally, one (1) container of waste (#990224-
079), located in Row P of the storage area, was leaking out of the
drum onto the floor. The leaking drum violation was corrected at
the time of the inspection and the spillage was cleaned up and
properly contained.
g. Pursuant to 40 CFR 265.1085(g)(2), whenever a hazardous waste
is in the tank, the fixed roof shall be installed with each closure
device secured in the closed position. Based on information
gathered by IDEM, hatches on the tops of tanks B-1 and B-2 were
not secure. The hatches were not bolted down and there were
visible cracks and gaps. This violation and the requirements to
return to compliance are being addressed in Cause No. H-13712,
adopted on June 9, 1999.
h. Pursuant to 40 CFR 265.1085(d), owners and operators controlling air pollutant emissions from a tank using Tank 2 controls shall use
one of the following tanks:
(i) A fixed-roof tank equipped with an internal floating roof in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 265.1085(e);
(ii) A tank equipped with an external floating roof in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 265.1085(f);
(iii) A tank vented through a closed-vent system to a control
devise in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR
265.1085(g);
(iv) A pressure tank designed and operated in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR 265.1085(h);
(v) A tank located inside an enclosure that is vented through a
closed-vent system to an enclosed combustion control
devise in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR
265.1085(i).
Based on information gathered by IDEM, Blend Tanks BT-1 and
BT-2 and the Tipper tank, all subject to Level 2 controls, are not
operated in accordance with 40 CFR 265.1085(d). As non-
pressurized fixed roof tanks subject to Level 2 controls, Tanks BT-
1 and BT-2 must either be vented through a closed vent system to
a control devise in accordance with 40 CFR 265.1085(g) or located
in an enclosure vented through a closed-vent system to an enclosed
combustion control device. The tanks were not vented through a
closed vent system to any control devise nor located in an
enclosure vented through a closed-vent system to an enclosed
combustion control devise. As an open tank without a fixed roof,
subject to Level 2 controls, the Tipper tank must be located inside
an enclosure that is vented through a closed-vent system to an
enclosed combustion control devise as specified in 40 CFR
265.1085(i). The Tipper tank enclosure is not vented to an
enclosed combustion control devise. The enclosure is vented
through a caustic scrubber operating under a FESOP permit issued
under 40 CFR, Part 70. However, the tank system is subject to
Subpart CC regulations unless the unit is equipped with and
operating under air emission controls in 40 CFR, Parts 60, 61, and
63. This violation and the requirements to return to compliance
are being addressed in Cause No. H-13712, adopted on June 9,
1999.
i. Pursuant to 40 CFR 265.1088(c)(5)(i) referencing 40 CFR 265.1034(c)(1-4) and 40 CFR 265.1035(b)(4)(iii), an owner or operator shall demonstrate using either a performance test as
specified in 40 CFR 265.1088(c)(5)(iii) or a design analysis as
specified in 40 CFR 265.1088(c)(5)(iv) the performance of each
control device. Based on information gathered by IDEM,
Respondent failed to conduct a performance test or design analysis
to demonstrate that the carbon absorption system for Tanks # 1-10
achieves the specified performance requirements. The carbon has
not been changed for four (4) years. This violation and the
requirements to return to compliance are being addressed in Cause
No. H-13712, adopted on June 9, 1999.
j. Pursuant to 40 CFR 265.1050, owners or operators of facilities that
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste must comply with the
air emission standards of 40 CFR 264/265, Subpart BB, for
equipment leaks. Based on information gathered by IDEM,
Respondent failed to comply with the 40 CFR 264/265, Subpart
BB standards for equipment associated with the Tipper tank.
Specifically, Respondent failed to properly mark, monitor, and
inspect the associated pumps, valves, and other regulated ancillary
equipment associated with the tank. Respondent failed to
document and perform necessary repairs, as evidenced by a
leaking seal on the Tipper tank pump. Additionally, Respondent
failed to maintain proper documentation, inspection, and repair
activities associated with the regulated equipment.
k. Pursuant to Permit Attachment IV referencing Table I, and 40 CFR 264.195 and 40 CFR 264.15, the permittee shall conduct regularly scheduled inspections of the active facility for equipment malfunctions, structural deterioration, or operator error. The inspections will follow the written checklists in Table 1. These inspections will check for any discharges, malfunctions, deterioration, and operator errors which could lead to releases of hazardous waste constituents to the environment. Items that are identified to require remedial action or repair will be noted on the checklist. The owner or operator of a tank system must inspect at least once each operating day the aboveground portions of the tank systems to detect corrosion or releases of waste. The owner or operator must document the inspections in the operating log of the facility and must remedy any deterioration or malfunction of equipment or structures which the inspection reveals on a schedule which ensures that the problem does not lead to an environmental or human health hazard. Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to conduct daily inspections and/or document releases/leaks discovered through inspections. Containers of waste
blocked entry into the Tipper Room and secondary containment
for the Tipper Room, thereby preventing the required inspections.
Additionally, Respondent failed to maintain documentation of
inspections conducted in the secondary containment for the Tipper
Room and failed to accurately fill out the inspection logs, in that
actions which were taken to correct problems found during
inspections were not recorded.
l. Pursuant to Permit Attachment II, III.C. and/or 40 CFR 262.34
(a)(2&3), all containers shall have appropriate DOT transportation
labels, a hazardous waste label identifying the waste type and
generator, and the date the container was received into storage by
the permittee. A generator may accumulate hazardous waste on-
site for ninety (90) days or less without a permit or without having
interim status provided that each container is clearly marked with
the start of accumulation date and each container and tank is
labeled clearly with the words, "Hazardous Waste." Based on
information gathered by IDEM, Respondent failed to label and
provide the start of accumulation date or the date the containers
were placed in storage for six (6) containers of unknown material
in the Tipper Room.
m. Pursuant to Permit Conditions II.A and I.D.6 and 40 CFR 264.31,
the permittee shall maintain and operate the facility to minimize
the possibility of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned sudden or
non-sudden release of hazardous waste constituents to air, soil,
groundwater or surface water which could threaten human health
or the environment. The permittee shall at all times properly
operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and
control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by
the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of the
Permit. Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent
failed to maintain and operate the facility to minimize the release
of hazardous waste. Hazardous waste was allowed to collect in an
area underneath the out-bound conveyor belt for the Tipper Room.
Additionally, hazardous waste was leaking out of a drum onto the
floor (container #990224-079, located in Row P). Respondent
over-packed the container and cleaned up the leakage at the time
of the inspection.
n. Pursuant to 40 CFR 268.7, all hazardous waste codes listed on
manifests must be included on land disposal restriction
notifications. Based on information gathered by IDEM, the land
disposal restriction notifications for the following manifests did
not include the hazardous waste codes:
1) The land disposal restriction notification for manifest #
INA 1262537 did not include the waste code F005;
2) The land disposal restriction notification for manifest #
INA 1300189 did not include the waste code F003;
3) The land disposal restriction notification for manifest #
INA 1273783 did not include the waste code D002; and
4) The land disposal restriction notification for manifest #
INA 1298071 did not include the waste codes F003 and
F005.
12. IDEM contends that the following violations were in existence at the time of a
financial record review conducted by the Office of Land Quality on October 25,
1999.
a. Pursuant to 329 IAC 3.1-15-8(a)(1), an owner or operator of a
hazardous waste treatment, storage, recovery, or disposal facility
must provide a properly worded certificate of hazardous waste
insurance to IDEM. Based on information gathered by IDEM,
Respondent failed to provide IDEM with a properly worded
certificate of hazardous waste insurance as required by 329 IAC
3.1-15-8(a)(1).
b. Pursuant to 329 IAC 3.1-15-3(b), during the active life of the
facility, the owner or operator must adjust the closure cost estimate
for inflation according to the time frames set forth in 329 IAC 3.1-
15-3(b). Based on information gathered by IDEM, Respondent
failed to adjust the financial guarantee bond #72215 from Frontier
Insurance Company and the standby trust agreement with Valley
American Bank on an annual basis.
13. In recognition of the settlement reached, Respondent waives any right to
administrative and judicial review of this Agreed 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 twenty (20) days of the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall
provide IDEM with proper hazardous waste determinations and/or verify that the
wastes conform to what was listed on the manifest for the wastes placed in a 3 yd3
hopper located outside adjacent to the tank farm and for the six (6) 55-gallon
containers of unknown waste which were located inside the Tipper Room at the
time of the inspection.
3. Within twenty (20) days of the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall
submit a copy of the operating log for the previous five (5) days of operation,
demonstrating that the permitted storage capacity has not been exceeded. At no
time shall Respondent exceed the permitted storage capacity.
4. Upon the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall ensure that the operating
log accurately reflects the location and quantity of all waste on-site. Respondent
shall ensure that hazardous waste is stored only in areas permitted for storage.
5. Within twenty (20) days of the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall
submit documentation to IDEM demonstrating that all hazardous waste that has
been stored at the facility for greater than one (1) year has been properly
transported off-site to a permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facility. In the
future, Respondent shall not store hazardous waste at the facility for greater than
one (1) year without meeting the burden of proof required to show that such
storage is necessary to facilitate proper disposal.
6. Upon the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall ensure that all areas of
facility operations are maintained with proper aisle space to ensure the
unobstructed movement of personnel, fire protection equipment, spill control
equipment, and decontamination equipment
7. Upon the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall ensure that all containers
holding hazardous waste are provided with start of accumulation dates and
"Hazardous Waste" labels.
8. Upon the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall ensure that all containers
holding hazardous waste are kept closed, except when it is necessary to add or
remove waste, and are managed to prevent leaks.
9. Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall bring
all applicable equipment into compliance with the 40 CFR 265, Subpart BB
requirements, or take the equipment out of service.
10. Upon the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall ensure that required
inspections are conducted and that records of inspection findings, including leaks
and necessary remedial actions, are maintained. Respondent shall ensure that
deterioration and malfunctions are remedied on a schedule that ensures that the
problem does not lead to an environmental or human health hazard.
11. Upon the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall ensure that the facility is
maintained and operated to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or an
unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous waste or contaminants to
air, soil, groundwater, or surface water which could threaten human health or the
environment. Respondent shall at all times properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by
Respondent to achieve compliance with the conditions of the Permit.
12. Within twenty (20) days of the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall
submit to IDEM a corrected copy of the land disposal restriction notifications,
including the proper waste code as found on the manifests, for manifests #s INA
1262537, INA 1300189, INA 1273783, and INA 1298071. Respondent shall
ensure that the waste code(s) are included on all future land disposal restriction
notifications.
13. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall
provide IDEM with a properly worded certificate of hazardous waste insurance,
per 329 IAC 3.1-15-8(a)(1). Respondent shall update the documents to include
the name of the current owner, MEI-IN.
14. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall
provide IDEM with documentation demonstrating that the financial guarantee
bond #77215 from Frontier Insurance Company and the standby trust agreement
with Valley American Bank have been annually adjusted for inflation, per 329
IAC 3.1-15-3(b). Respondent shall update the documents to include the name of
the current owner, MEI-IN.
15. All submittals required by this Agreed Order, unless notified otherwise in writing,
shall be sent to:
Brenda J. Lepter
Office of Enforcement
Hazardous Waste Section
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015
16. Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of $62,000. Said penalty amount shall be
due and payable to the Environmental Management Special Fund in four (4)
quarterly installments of $15,500 each. The first payment is due on July 10,
2000; the second payment is due on October 10, 2000; the third payment is due
on January 10, 2001; and the final payment is due on April 10, 2001.
17. In the event that any terms and conditions of this Agreed Order are violated, the
Complainant may assess and the Respondent shall pay a stipulated penalty of
$1000/day for each violation.
18. 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 any stipulated penalties
shall not preclude the Complainant from seeking any additional relief against the
Respondent for violation of the Agreed Order. In lieu of assessment of the
stipulated penalty 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.
19. Civil and stipulated penalties are payable by check to the Environmental
Management Special Fund. Checks shall include the cause number of this action
and shall be mailed to:
Cashier
IDEM
100 North Senate Avenue
P.O. Box 7060
Indianapolis, Indiana 46207-7060
20. In the event that the cash civil penalty required by paragraph 16 is not paid within
the terms established in 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
officers, directors, principals, agents, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. The
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 this 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 by contract require that all contractors, firms, and other persons
acting for it comply with the terms of this Agreed Order.
24. This Agreed Order shall remain in effect until IDEM issues a Resolution of Cause
letter to Respondent.
TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: RESPONDENT:
Department of Environmental Management
By: ________________________ By: ________________________
Nancy L. Johnston, Chief
Hazardous Waste Section Title: ________________________
Office of Enforcement
Date: ________________________ Date: ________________________
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT: RESPONDENT:
Department of Environmental Management
By: ________________________ By: ________________________
Office of Legal Counsel
Title: ________________________
Date: ________________________ Date: ________________________
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
THIS _______ DAY OF ________________ 2000.
For the Commissioner:
Signed on 4/11/2000
________________________
Felicia A. Robinson
Assistant Commissioner
Office of Enforcement
Converted by Andrew Scriven