STATE OF INDIANA ) BEFORE THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT
) SS: OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COUNTY OF MARION )
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT )
OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, )
)
Complainant, )
) CAUSE NO. B-1935
v. )
)
KOKOMO REGENCY MOBILE HOME PARK, )
(a/k/a Country Park Estates Mobile Home Park) )
CHURCHILL GROUP, LTD., OWNER )
)
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 Kokomo Regency Mobile Home Park (a/k/a Country Park Estates
Mobile Home Park), Churchill Group, Ltd, Owner, located approximately 3
miles southeast of Kokomo, near the intersection of C.R. 200 South and C.R.
400 East of Kokomo, Howard County, Indiana. In accordance with the terms
and conditions of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit No. IN 0031844 ("the Permit"), Respondent is authorized to discharge to
waters of the state named Kokomo Creek to Wildcat Creek to the Wabash River.
Mr. Michael Mannion is the Certified Operator at the facility.
3. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") has
jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action.
4. Pursuant to IC 13-7-11-2(b) (currently IC 13-30-3-3), a Notice of Violation
was duly served via Certified Mail on May 15, 1996 to:
Anne Marie Wiseman Mr. Michael Mannion
Director of Operations Certified Operator
Churchill Group, Ltd., Owner Kokomo Regency Mobile Home Park
Kokomo Regency Mobile Home Park 4508 E. 200 S.
40 North 4th Street Kokomo, Indiana 46901
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
5. Rule 327 IAC 5-2-8(1)(a) requires that a permittee shall comply with all terms
and conditions of its NPDES permit. Any permit non-compliance constitutes a
violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Environmental Management
Act (EMA) and is grounds for enforcement action, for permit termination,
revocation and reissuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal
application.
6. Part II.A.1. of the Permit states, in part, "All discharges authorized herein shall
be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. Except as provided
in paragraph I of Part II on bypassing, the discharge of any pollutant more
frequently than, or at a level in excess of that identified and authorized by this
permit constitutes a violation this permit, Rule 330 IAC 3 [revised and now
referred to as 327 IAC 5], the Act [the Clean Water Act], and the
Environmental Management Act. Such a violation may result in revocation or
modification of this permit, denial of future applications for permit renewal, or
the imposition of civil and/or criminal penalties as provided for in IC 13-7-13
[currently IC 13-30] ."
7. Part I.B.1. of the Permit authorizes the Respondent to discharge from outfall
001 in accordance with the discharge limitations and monitoring requirements
for Flow, BOD5, Suspended Solids, Fecal Coliform, Residual Chlorine, and pH.
8. The discharge limitations contained in Part I.B.1 of the Permit for BOD5 are 15
mg/l for Weekly Average concentration, 10 mg/l for Monthly Average
concentration, and 7.7 lbs/day for Monthly Average mass loading.
9. For the period of August 1992 through October 1995, the Respondent reported
the following values for BOD5, all in exceedence of the discharge limitations
contained in Part I.B.1. of the Permit for BOD5, and in violation of Part II.A.1.
of the Permit and 327 IAC 5-2-8(1)(a):
Month of Monthly Ave. Maximum Weekly Ave. Monthly Ave.
Violation concentration concentration mass loading
August, 1992 62 mg/l 73.8 mg/l 12.9 lbs/day
September, 1992 50.3 70 15.1
October, 1992 14.75 17 --
November, 1992 16.35 27.2 10.31
December, 1992 35 44 22
January, 1993 42 58.8 30
February, 1993 55 72.5 33
March, 1993 30 42.5 18
April, 1993 18.2 40.8 15
May, 1993 55 76 30
June, 1993 20 20 10
July, 1993 20.0 27.0 17.6
March, 1994 27.8 38.0 16.0
April, 1994 25.2 50.0 16.0
May, 1994 31.9 35.5 12.8
June, 1994 24.9 29.0 --
July, 1994 23.9 27.5 --
August, 1994 12.1 17.0 --
September, 1994 25.8 33.0 8.1
October, 1994 19.2 28.0 7.8
November, 1994 13.8 26.0 --
February, 1995 20.8 25.0 10.4
March, 1995 16.6 19.0 13.9
April, 1995 12.4 15.5 8.1
May, 1995 28.4 69.0 13.5
June, 1995 16.1 26.5 10.8
July, 1995 13.6 19.5 9.1
August, 1995 11.9 17.0 7.9
September, 1995 24.8 30.0 16.5
October, 1995 19 29 12.7
Note: "--" indicates the reported value was within the permit limit
10. The discharge limitations contained in Part I.B.1 of the Permit for Suspended
Solids are 15 mg/l for Weekly Average concentration, 10 mg/l for Monthly
Average concentration, and 7.7 lbs/day for Monthly Average mass loading.
11. For the period of August 1992 through October 1995, the Respondent reported the following values for Suspended Solids, all in exceedence of the discharge
limitations contained in Part I.B.1. of the Permit, and in violation of Part
II.A.1. of the Permit and 327 IAC 5-2-8(1)(a):
Month of Monthly Ave. Max Weekly Ave. Monthly Ave.
Violation concentration concentration mass loading
September, 1992 22 mg/l 34 mg/l 14 lbs/day
January, 1993 25 46 18
February, 1993 27 32 16
March, 1993 54 144 32.8
April, 1993 12.6 29 10.7
May, 1993 27 36 14
June, 1993 20 20 10
March, 1994 17.8 26.0 10.7
April, 1994 22.8 72.0 11.8
May, 1994 20.8 45.0 7.4
June, 1994 12.5 25.5 4.0
February, 1995 20.8 30.5 9.9
March, 1995 21.1 36.0 18.2
May, 1995 42.8 130 18.4
October, 1995 27.8 76.0 18.5
12. Part I.B.2. of the Permit allows the Respondent to sample and report chlorine
content from a sample taken from the discharge from the chlorine contact tank
during a period of high flow as an acceptable alternative to the weekly bacteria
count. The discharge limitations contained in Part I.B.1 of the Permit for
Residual Chlorine require the Respondent to maintain a Residual Chlorine
content of at least 0.5 mg/l, but not more than 1.0 mg/l, of an effluent sample
taken from the discharge from the chlorine contact tank during a period of high
flow and requires twice weekly samples.
13. For the period of August 1992 through October 1995, the Respondent reported
the following values for Residual Chlorine, all in violation of the discharge
limitations contained in Part I.B.1. of the Permit for Residual Chlorine, and in
violation of Part II.A.1. of the Permit and 327 IAC 5-2-8(1)(a):
Month of Minimum Reported Maximum Reported
Violation concentration concentration
August, 1992 0.0 mg/l --
September, 1992 0.0 --
October, 1992 0.1 2.0 mg/l
April, 1993 0.0 --
May, 1993 0.0 1.9
July, 1993 -- 1.2
August, 1993 0.2 --
April, 1994 0.0 --
May, 1994 0.0 --
June, 1994 0.0 1.2
July, 1994 0.15 1.5
August, 1994 0.0 2.0
September, 1994 0.3 1.5
October, 1994 0.2 1.1
April, 1995 0.0 1.1
May, 1995 0.2 --
June, 1995 0.0 1.6
July, 1995 -- 2.0
August, 1995 0.0 1.4
September, 1995 0.0 1.2
October, 1995 0.0 --
Note: "--" indicates the reported value was within the permit limit
14. On July 20, 1992, IDEM sent the Respondent a Warning of Noncompliance to
the Respondent. The Warning of Noncompliance notified the Respondent that
IDEM had reviewed the status of NPDES Permit No. IN 0031844 and the
review indicated that the permit had been violated by exceeding NPDES permit
effluent limits, having poor to no settling in the secondary clarifiers, having an
improper flow meter and recorder installation, and allowing a wet well
overflow.
15. An inspection of the Respondent's wastewater treatment facility conducted by
IDEM staff on September 18, 1992, indicated, among other things, that the
plant is subject to washouts whenever it rains.
16. An inspection of the Respondent's wastewater treatment facility conducted by
IDEM staff on November 17, 1993, indicated, among other things, that a
washout of the package wastewater treatment plant caused by a recent rain had
occurred and that efforts made to remove clear water inflow had been
unsuccessful.
17. A compliance sampling inspection conducted on Respondent's wastewater treatment facility conducted by staff on December 2-3, 1993, indicated that the Park's wastewater treatment facility was meeting effluent limitations for all
permit parameters.
18. An inspection of the Respondent's wastewater treatment facility conducted by
IDEM staff on January 30, 1996, noted that the sewer type and maintenance was
unsatisfactory and the inflow and infiltration (I&I) problems had not been
addressed and that high flow was directly or indirectly responsible for most of
the violations at the facility. It was also noted that the wastewater treatment
facility screens were unsatisfactory in that they were clogged, being bypassed,
and the screenings were on the ground. Additionally, it was noted that both
cells of the treatment lagoon were being "short circuited" and that failure to use
the lagoon capacity, along with high flow, negate any benefit from tertiary
treatment.
19. Part I.A. of the Permit states, in substance, that the Respondent's treatment
facility has design capacity of .0914 million gallons per day. On the Discharge
Monitoring Report and Monthly Report of Operations for the Respondent's
facility submitted for April of 1994, it was noted by the certified operator of the
facility that, among other things, the facility had plant washout during heavy
rains. Flows reported for April 12 and 13, 1994, were .2589 and .2009 million
gallons per day respectively. Maximum 7 day average flows reported for
January, February, April, and May of 1995, were .104 million gallons, .0969
million gallons, .0956 million gallons, and .1001 million gallons, respectively,
all in excess of the design capacity of the treatment facility.
20. Part I.C.1. of the Permit states, "At all times, the facilities shall be operated as
efficiently as possible and in a manner which will minimize upsets and discharge
of excessive pollutants."
21. The Respondent has violated Part I.C.1 of the Permit by continuing to allow
excessive inflow to cause plant upsets and discharge of excessive pollutants, as
evidenced by inspections conducted by IDEM staff on September 18, 1992,
November 17, 1993, and on January 30, 1996, and by the flow records and
effluent limitation violations reported on Discharge Monitoring Reports for the
facility.
22. On monthly reports submitted by the Respondent for the period of June through November of 1995, the Respondent submitted flow based on an estimated yearly average for 30 day average flow and 7 day average flow. The flows were not the actual flow and were not representative of the actual flows. On the Discharge Monitoring Report submitted for June of 1995, the certified operator noted that the flow results are submitted as yearly average due to the flow meter being in the factory for repairs. The inspection conducted by IDEM of the
Respondent's facility on January 30, 1996, noted that the flow meter and
recorder was unsatisfactory in that it was out. Part I.B.8. of the Permit states
that means shall be provided for accurate measurement and recording of the
wastewater flow. The Respondent has allegedly violated Part I.B.8. of the
Permit by failing to provide for measurement and recording of the wastewater
flow. In response to the January 30, 1996, inspection, Michael Mannion, the
Kokomo Regency Mobile Home Park's (the Park) certified wastewater treatment
plant operator at that time, explained that the flow meter and recorder had been
sent to its manufacturer for evaluation and repairs and that as soon as such
evaluation and repairs had been completed the flow meter and recorder would be
re-installed. During the interim period in which the flow meter and recorder
were under evaluation and repair by its manufacturer, Mr. Mannion
implemented his best alternative measures to monitor and record the effluent
limit discharge from the Park's wastewater treatment plant. The flow meter and
recorder was re-installed on the Park's wastewater treatment plant on or about
August 15, 1996.
23. An inspection of the Respondent's wastewater treatment facility conducted by
IDEM staff on June 2, 1997, alleges, among other things, that the discharge
monitoring records and reports were not available for inspection on site. In
response to this inspection, Mr. Mannion, the Park's certified wastewater
treatment plant operator at that time, explained that he had inadvertently left
such records at his home or another location. Upon notification of the
deficiencies cited in the June 2, 1997, inspection, Respondent replaced Mr.
Mannion with James Dougherty, another certified wastewater treatment plant
operator.
24. In agreeing to the issuance of and entering into this Agreed Order, Respondent
neither admits nor denies the liability with respect to the alleged violations.
25. 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 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 will comply with the following two-phased Compliance Plan
("CP"):
Phase I - Wastewater Treatment Plant Study and Inflow and Infiltration
("I/I") Removal Program
a. Study of Wastewater Treatment Plant. Respondent shall perform a
comprehensive evaluation of the Park's wastewater treatment plant,
including collection system, which shall include the following:
i. Records Review. Respondent will review all relevant data related
to the operation of the Park's wastewater treatment plant,
including, but not limited to, a review of Permit No. IN 0031844,
a review of the Park's daily records for wastewater usage and
wastewater plant flow, daily and monthly discharge monitoring
reports, and rainfall records for the City of Kokomo.
ii. Process Evaluation. Respondent will perform a comprehensive
evaluation of the Park's wastewater treatment plant to determine
what if any repairs or improvements are needed to allow the
Park's wastewater treatment plant to maintain compliance with its
Permit's effluent limitations.
iii. Flow Monitoring. Respondent will monitor plant flows during
both dry and wet weather periods.
iv. Recommendations. Based upon the Respondent's review of the
Park's data and records and the Respondent's evaluation of the
Park's wastewater treatment plant, the Respondent will make
specific recommendations to improve the Park's compliance with
its Permit's effluent limitations.
Respondent will complete its study and evaluation of the Park's
wastewater treatment plant within eighty (80) days of the Effective Date
of this Agreed Order.
b. I/I Removal Program. Respondent shall perform a comprehensive
analysis of the Park's collection system. The purpose of the collection
system analysis is to identify sources of potential inflow and infiltration
into the Park's collection system. Respondent's collection system
analysis may include the following: videotaping, smoke testing, and flow
monitoring of the Park's collection system.
i. Videotaping. Respondent may videotape those portions of the
Park's collection system where Respondent believes the collection
system is experiencing excessive I/I.
ii. Smoke Testing. Respondent will smoke test the Park's collection
system in those areas where Respondent believes the collection
system is experiencing excessive I/I.
Respondent will complete its study and evaluation of the Park's
collection system within fifty (50) days of Respondent's completion of its
study and evaluation of the Park's wastewater treatment plant.
Phase II - Collection System Repairs
a. Repair Report. Upon completion of its study of the Park's wastewater
treatment plant and collection system, Respondent will prepare a written
report outlining Respondent's findings and recommendations which will
propose, if necessary, specific repairs and improvements to be made to
the Park's collection system (hereinafter referred to as "Phase I written
report"). Respondent will submit to IDEM this written report within
thirty (30) days of Respondent's completion of I/I Removal Program
described in paragraph 2(b) above.
b. Design and Permits. If Respondent is required to submit plans and
specifications to IDEM or any other federal, state or local government
agency for a construction permit for the work identified in Respondent's
Phase I written report, Respondent will submit complete plans to IDEM
and/or such other governmental agency within ninety-five (95) days after
submittal of Respondent's Phase I written report.
c. Construction. If a construction permit is required for collection system
improvement, Respondent will begin construction promptly after
approval of the construction permit and will complete all construction
work on the Park's collection within eighty-seven (87) days of the start
of construction.
d. Flow Monitoring and Report. Upon completion of collection system
construction work, Respondent will monitor flow to demonstrate a
reduction of influent flow to a level at or below the design capacity of
the treatment plant and to determine compliance with effluent limitations.
Monitoring is to be conducted for a period not to exceed three months in
order to determine whether or not the collection system repairs or
improvements were sufficient to reduce the influent flow to a level at or
below the design capacity of the Park's treatment facility and to bring the
facility into compliance with the Park's Permit. Respondent will submit
a report on the results of the flow monitoring within eight-two (82) days
following completion of the flow monitoring described above.
e. IDEM Review. If IDEM determines that the Respondent's flow
monitoring report demonstrates that sufficient sources of I/I have been
eliminated and that the Park's wastewater treatment plant is in
compliance with its permitted limits, then Respondent will be deemed to
have completed Phases I and II of the compliance plan.
Respondent, upon adoption of this Agreed Order, shall immediately implement
the CP, including dates for completion of the schedule. The CP is incorporated
into the Agreed Order and is deemed an enforceable part thereof.
3. Upon completion of Phases I and II of the CP, Respondent shall enter a
performance period where Respondent shall maintain compliance with the
Monthly Average effluent limitations of its NPDES permit. The performance
period shall end after IDEM serves notice that six (6) consecutive months of
compliance with the Monthly Average effluent limitations have been achieved.
If Respondent has not achieved six (6) consecutive months of compliance with
Monthly Average effluent limitations within twelve (12) months after the
completion of Phases I and II of the CP, Respondent shall submit a Phase III CP
which will contain additional measures to maintain compliance at the Park's
wastewater treatment plant. These additional measures may include wastewater
treatment plant improvements or other measures which Respondent may take to
increase the capacity of the Park's wastewater treatment plant.
4. If IDEM determines that Respondent is required to submit a Phase III CP, Respondent will submit a Phase III CP within sixty (60) days of IDEM's written request for a Phase III CP. IDEM may approve or disapprove of the actions proposed in Respondent's Phase III CP. IDEM may approve or disapprove of the actions proposed in Respondent's Phase III CP. In the event IDEM should disapprove of Respondent's Phase III CP or any portion thereof, IDEM and
Respondent shall negotiate to reach an agreement as to any additional work to be
performed on the Park's wastewater treatment plant or collection system. Any
Phase III CP submitted by Respondent shall provide Respondent with one year
to complete all actions described in Phase III of the CP. Upon receipt of
IDEM's approval of any proposed Phase III CP, Respondent shall proceed
immediately to implement such Phase III CP.
5. All submittals required by this Agreed Order, unless notified otherwise in
writing, shall be sent to :
Water Enforcement Section Chief
Office of Enforcement, IGCN, Rm. 1315
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015
6. Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($2,500). Said penalty amount shall be due and payable to the Environmental
Management Special Fund within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this
Agreed Order.
7. In the event the following terms and conditions are violated, the Complainant
may assess and the Respondent shall pay a stipulated penalty in the following
amounts:
Violation Penalty
Paragraph 2 $200 per week for failure to comply with
any milestone contained in the approved
compliance plan.
8. Stipulated penalties shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days after
Respondent receives written notice that the Complainant has determined a
stipulated penalty is due. Assessment and payment of stipulated penalties shall
not preclude the Complainant from seeking any additional relief against the
Respondent for violation of the Agreed Order. In lieu of 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.
9. 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
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
100 N. Senate Avenue
P.O. Box 7060
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-7060.
10. In the event that the civil penalty required by paragraph 6 is not paid within
thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, Respondent shall
pay interest on the unpaid balance at the rate established by IC 24-4.6-1-101.
The interest shall continue to accrue until the civil penalty or stipulated penalty
is paid in full.
11. This Agreed Order shall apply to and be binding upon the Respondent, its
officers, directors, principals, agents, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns.
The Respondent's signatories to this Agreed Order certify that they are fully
authorized to execute 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 acting for
it comply with the terms of this Agreed Order.
14. "Force Majeure," for purposes of this Agreed Order, is defined as any event
arising from causes beyond the control of the Respondent that delays or prevents
the performance of any obligation under this Agreed Order despite Respondent's
best efforts to fulfill the obligation. The requirement that the Respondent
exercise "best efforts to fulfill the obligation" includes using best efforts to
anticipate any potential Force Majeure event (1) as it is occurring and (2)
following the potential Force Majeure event, such that the delay is minimized to
the greatest extent possible. "Force Majeure" does not include financial
inability to complete the work required by this Agreed Order or increases in
cost to perform the work.
The Respondent shall notify IDEM by calling within seven (7) calendar days
and by writing no later that ten (10) business days after any event which the
Respondent contends is a Force Majeure. Such notification shall describe the
anticipated length of the delay, the cause or causes of the delay, the measures
taken or to be taken by the Respondent to minimize the delay, and the time table
by which these measures will be implemented. The Respondent shall include
with any notice all available documentation supporting their claim that the delay
was attributable to Force Majeure. Failure to comply with the above
requirement shall preclude Respondent from asserting any claim of Force
Majeure for that event. The Respondent shall have the burden of demonstrating
that the event is a Force Majeure. The decision of whether an event is a Force
Majeure shall be made by IDEM. Said decision shall be communicated to the
Respondent.
If a delay is attributable to a Force Majeure, IDEM shall extend, in writing, the
time period for performance under this Agreed Order by the amount of time that
is attributable to the event constituting the Force Majeure.
15. This Agreed Order, and compliance with its terms, shall resolve all issues which
have been raised and could have been raised in the Notice of Violation issued by
the Complainant to Respondent on May 15, 1996. In addition, this Agreed
Order, and compliance with its terms, shall resolve all issues raised in IDEM's
inspections of the Park subsequent to Complainant's issuance of the NOV, but
before the Effective Date of this Agreed Order including, but not limited to,
Complainant's June 2, 1997 NPDES Facility Inspection Report.
16. This Agreed Order shall remain in effect until Respondent has complied with all
terms and conditions of this Agreed Order.
17. The terms of this Agreed Order may be modified by written consent of both
parties hereto.
TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION: RESPONDENT:
Department of Environmental Management
By: By:
Mark W. Stanifer, Chief Anne Marie Wiseman
Water Enforcement Section Director of Operations
Office of Enforcement Churchill Group, Ltd.
40 North 4th Street
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
Date: Date:
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT: COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:
Department of Environmental Management
By: By:
Nancy Holloran David Temple
Office of Legal Counsel Stewart & Irwin, P.C.
Department of Environmental 251 E. Ohio Street
Management Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Date: Date:
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
THIS DAY OF , 199__.
For the Commissioner:
Signed 5/7/98
David J. Hensel
Director
Office of Enforcement
Converted by Andrew Scriven