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-13557
v. )
)
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT OF. )
)
INDIANA, L.L.C. )
)
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. Pursuant to IC 13-30-3-3, entry into the terms of this Agreed Order
does not constitute an admission of any violation contained herein,
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 Chemical Waste Management of Indiana, L.L.C. (Respondent), who operates a place of business, located at 4636 Adams Center Road, Fort
Wayne, Indiana.
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, IDEM issued a Notice of Violation via Certified Mail
to:
Ms. Becky S. Eatmon C T Corporation, Resident Agent for
General Manager Chemical Waste Management of
Chemical Waste Management of Indiana, L.L.C.
Indiana, L.L.C. One North Capital Avenue
4636 Adams Center Road Indianapolis, Indiana 46294
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46806
5. Respondent notified the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal activities on August 18, 1980. The facility
was assigned the U.S. EPA I.D. No. IND 078911146.
6. Respondent submitted its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Part
A application on November 19, 1980, specifying disposal of hazardous waste in a
landfill.
7. Respondent was issued a RCRA Part B Permit (hereinafter referred to as
"Permit") for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste on September
30, 1988. The Permit was modified on June 17, 1992.
8. Respondent submitted documentation, dated February 6 and February 20, 1998,
to the IDEM indicating that final closure of the facility will commence on or
about April 13, 1998 and will be completed by late fall of 1998 or spring of 1999.
The permit originally issued on September 30, 1988 is valid through closure. The
Operating Permit will then remain valid only for applicable post-closure care
until the Post-Closure Permit is issued, at which time the Operating Permit will
be terminated.
9. Respondent, as the permittee, has a duty to comply with all 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 July 1, 1990 federal standards for the management of
hazardous waste, which have been published in 40 CFR 260 through 40 CFR 270.
Effective August 17, 1996, 329 IAC 3.1 was amended to incorporate July 1, 1995
federal standards for the management of hazardous waste, which have been
published in 40 CFR 260 through 40 CFR 273.
12. Inspections of the facility were conducted on June 19 and 20, 1997, and on March
24 and 25, 1997, by the Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
(hereinafter referred to as the "OSHWM") of the IDEM. Record reviews of
Notices of Non-Compliance, Leachate Quarterly Reports, and IDEM enforcement
actions (and their responses by Respondent) since July 1994 were conducted by
the OSHWM prior to the inspection dates and on September 8, 1997.
13. The IDEM contends that the following violations were in existence or observed
by the OSHWM at the time of the June 19 and 20, 1997 inspection. A record
review was conducted prior to the inspection.
a. Pursuant to Permit Conditions II.A and I.D.6, 40 CFR 264.31, and
40 CFR 270.30(e), 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 the
IDEM, the following items were not properly operated and/or
maintained:
The pad in the roll-off container storage area north
of the Stabilization Building was damaged in two
areas and was in need of repair. Damage
penetrated the low-permeability top layer of
asphalt. One of these areas was repaired prior to
completion of the IDEM inspection. This is a
repeat violation (VL-12453, dated 7/25/95).
A vent was left open in the middle baghouse unit
west of the Stabilization Building. This operator
error resulted in the release of hazardous waste as
referenced in Finding 13b below.
The leachate collection system has had many
exceedences of primary sump levels over the one
foot (30 cm) level as referenced in Finding 15a
below. The following riser pumps were not in
service at the time of the inspection: II AC
Secondary, II BE Secondary, II BET Primary and
Secondary, III A Secondary, and III C Secondary.
Remedial Work Order (RWO) #7380, dated
12/5/96, indicated a high level reading at the II AC
Secondary sump, which had not been addressed at
the time of the inspection per Respondent's records.
Other probe problems were identified in RWO
#7512, dated 1/29/97, and had not been addressed
as of the inspection date.
The stabilization tanks have had a significant
number of repairs over the past year.
Since the date of the last Permit Compliance
Evaluation on June 19-20, 1996, two (2) loads of
hazardous waste which did not meet land disposal
restrictions (LDR) standards were landfilled.
According to Respondent, the waste was
subsequently exhumed and retreated to meet the
standards.
Contaminated equipment was being stored on the
asphalt pad west of the Stabilization Building. This
area is for roll-off container storage only.
Contaminated scrapings were visible on the pad.
This is a repeat violation (VL-12453, dated
7/25/95).
b. Pursuant to Permit Condition I.D.14, the permittee shall report to
the Commissioner any noncompliance with the Permit which may
endanger health or the environment. Any such information shall
be reported orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee
becomes aware of the circumstances. This report shall include the
following:
i. Information concerning the release of any hazardous waste
which may endanger public drinking water supplies.
ii. Information concerning the release or discharge of any
hazardous waste, or of a fire or explosion at the facility,
which could threaten the environment or human health
outside the facility. The description of the occurrence and
its cause shall include:
A. Name, address, and telephone number of the owner
or operator;
B. Name, address, and telephone number of the
facility;
C. Date, time, and type of incident;
D. Name and quantity of material(s) involved;
E. The extent of injuries, if any;
F. An assessment of actual or potential hazards to the
environment and human health outside the facility,
where this is applicable; and
G. Estimated quantity and disposition of recovered
material that resulted from the incident.
A written submission shall also be provided within five (5) days of
the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The
written submission shall contain a description of the
noncompliance and its cause; the period of noncompliance
(including exact dates and times); whether the noncompliance has
been corrected; and if not, the anticipated time it is expected to
continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and
prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. Based on information
gathered by the IDEM, the oral report to IDEM's Emergency
Response Section regarding the baghouse dust spill did not
accurately identify the quantity of hazardous waste spilled. The
quantity was considerably more than the reported ten (10) pounds.
In addition, both the written report (dated June 25, 1997) and the
oral report indicated that there was no release to the atmosphere.
The release was outside the building and, therefore, is a release to
the atmosphere. The estimated quantity and disposition of
recovered material that resulted from the incident was not
accurate. Additionally, the written spill report was not submitted
to IDEM within five (5) days of the spill discovery date.
Respondent has since submitted the report.
c. Pursuant to Permit Conditions II.E and VII.C referencing Attachment VI, and 40 CFR 264.15(d), the permittee shall follow the inspection schedule, Attachment VI. The permittee shall remedy any deterioration or malfunction discovered by an
inspection as required by 329 IAC 3-41-6(c). Records of
inspections shall be kept as required by 329 IAC 3-41-6(d).
Additionally, the permittee shall inspect the stabilization facility
daily in accordance with the facility's Inspection Plan contained in
Attachment VI and comply with 329 IAC 3-49-6. Based on
information gathered by the IDEM, the inspection schedule was
not followed. The roll-off container storage area was not
inspected as designated and required in the Permit. The daily
inspection on the day of IDEM's inspection did not accurately
evaluate the stabilization storage area where two (2) open roll-offs
were observed, the baghouse dust spill occurred, and where the
secondary containment pad was found damaged. The facility
inspection report indicated that the inspection was conducted one
(1) hour prior to the IDEM inspection. Additionally, the facility
inspection reports often do not include 'notations of the
observations made.' They refer to previous inspection reports and
fail to reference RWO#s. As such, it cannot be determined what
the unacceptable item is or how long the problem has existed.
Consequently, remedial actions are not conducted in a timely
manner. Examples include exposed waste not being covered at the
end of each day, Riser II A-C secondary pump has been out of
service since 12/96, and roll-off storage secondary containment
areas are in need of repairs. Inspection reports also did not
indicate that five (5) riser pumps were currently out of service.
Additionally, the tank wall thickness test, which should be
conducted annually, was not completed in 1996.
Pursuant to Permit Condition II.J.1 and 40 CFR 264.51(b), the
permittee shall immediately comply with the provisions of the
Contingency Plan, Attachment V, and follow the emergency
procedures described by 329 IAC 3-43-7 whenever there is a fire,
explosion, or release of hazardous waste or constituents which
threatens or could threaten human health or the environment.
Based on information gathered by the IDEM, the provisions of the
Contingency Plan, Permit Attachment V, were not carried out at
the time of the spill from the baghouse dust collector. The
following conditions spelled out in the Contingency Plan were not
implemented:
i. Section 7.0, Incident Reporting, requires that in the event
of a spill the Emergency Coordinator (EC) must
'immediately' notify the National Response Center and the
IDEM at the emergency number. The spill was discovered
at approximately 2:00 pm on 6/19/97, but was not reported
until the following morning.
Section 2.0, Implementation of Response Procedures, and
Section 2.1.2, Incident Assessment, indicates the EC will
use criteria summarized in Table 2-3 to determine whether
implementation of the Contingency Plan is warranted. This
table includes a "spill outside of a secondary containment
unit that could result in...on-site soil...contamination."
Facility representatives stated that the Contingency Plan
was not implemented.
iii. Section 8.3, Treatment and Disposal of Released Materials
and Cleanup of Residues, requires spills and cleanup
residues and contaminated soil to be analyzed and removed
for treatment and disposal. No analyses were conducted.
e. Pursuant to Permit Condition IV.B.7 and 40 CFR 264.301(a)(2),
the permittee shall remove liquid from the primary leachate
collection system at the frequency such that the liquid will not
exceed one foot (30 cm) in depth over the rim of the sump of the
primary liner after waste is in place. Based on information
gathered by the IDEM, many exceedences (136) were reported in
the Second Quarter Leachate Report for 1997.
f. Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 268, the land disposal of hazardous waste
that does not meet LDR standards is prohibited. Based on
information gathered by the IDEM, since the date of the last
complete permit compliance evaluation on July 17, 1996, two (2)
loads of hazardous waste were landfilled prior to adequate
treatment to meet LDR standards. According to the Respondent,
the wastes were subsequently exhumed, placed in roll-off storage,
and retreated to meet standards. The reports indicating land
disposal prior to meeting LDR standards were dated April 30 and
June 10, 1997.
g. Pursuant to 40 CFR 264.194(a) and 40 CFR 264.31, hazardous wastes or treatment reagents must not be placed in a tank system if they could cause the tank, its ancillary equipment, or the containment system to rupture, leak, corrode, or otherwise fail. Facilities must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents to air, soil, or surface water which could threaten human health or the environment. Based on information gathered by the IDEM, the inside stabilization tanks are repeatedly
ruptured.
h. Pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)(i) referencing 40 CFR
265.173(a) and/or 40 CFR 264.173(a), a container holding
hazardous waste must always be closed during storage, except
when it is necessary to add or remove waste. Based on
information gathered by the IDEM, two (2) roll-off boxes in the
stabilization area were not covered. Box #219499 contained an
open micro box of hazardous waste from Union Carbide, and an
open roll-off box under the north dust collector contained
hazardous dust generated on-site.
i. Pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(a), a generator may accumulate
hazardous waste on-site for 90 days or less without a permit or
without having interim status. Based on information gathered by
the IDEM, the spider hopper containing generated hazardous waste
was stored for more than 90 days. The start of accumulation date
on the roll-off was March 3, 1997.
j. Pursuant to 40 CFR 264.310(a)(3), at final closure of the landfill
or upon closure of any cell, the owner or operator must cover the
landfill or cell with a final cover designed and constructed to
promote drainage and minimize erosion or abrasion of the cover.
Based on information gathered by the IDEM, minor erosion and
bare spots existed on the Phase II/III closure site.
k. Pursuant to 40 CFR 264.73, an owner or operator must keep a
written operating record at his facility that includes the applicable
information found in 40 CFR 264.73(b). Based on information
gathered by the IDEM, an overpack drum containing a one-gallon
bucket from TWI was stored in Bay C-1 in the Container Handling
Building. The waste was not listed in the operating record.
l. Pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)(ii) referencing 40 CFR 265.193,
a secondary containment vault system must be provided with an
impermeable interior coating or lining that is compatible with the
stored waste and that will prevent migration of waste into the
concrete. Based on information gathered by the IDEM,
groundwater infiltration is penetrating the secondary containment
structure at both the north and west lift stations. This is a repeat
violation (VL dated 8/8/97).
m. Pursuant to Permit Condition VII.A.5, the roll-off boxes
containing waste shall be covered by tarps free of holes and
installed in such a manner as to prevent ponding of liquid on top of
the tarps. Based on information gathered by the IDEM, ponded
water was observed on one (1) tarped roll-off in the northwest
corner of the roll-off storage area. This is a repeat violation (VL
dated 8/8/97).
n. Pursuant to IC 13-30-2-1(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 in any form that causes or would cause pollution that
would violate rules (40 CFR 264.31), standards, or discharge or
emission requirements adopted by the appropriate board (Solid
Waste Management Board) under the environmental management
laws. Based on information gathered by the IDEM, Respondent
allowed the release of a hazardous waste into the environment
when a vent was left open on the middle baghouse unit west of the
Stabilization Building.
14. The IDEM contends that the following violations were in existence or observed
by the OSHWM at the time of the March 24 and 25, 1997 inspection by the
IDEM. A record review was conducted prior to the date of the inspection.
a. Pursuant to Permit Condition IV.B.12, a daily cover equivalent to
at least six (6) inches of compacted soil shall be applied over all
hazardous waste areas of the landfill at the end of each day. If
alternatives to soil are used, they should be compatible with
landfilled wastes and able to withstand adverse weather conditions.
Any alternatives to soil cover shall be submitted to the IDEM for
consideration and approval. Based on information gathered by the
IDEM, both visual inspection of cell A of Phase IV, as well as
Respondent's inspection reports, indicated that a daily cover was
not applied over all hazardous waste areas of the landfill at the end
of each operating day.
b. Pursuant to Permit Condition IV.B.7 and 40 CFR 264.301(a)(2), the permittee shall remove liquid from the primary leachate collection system at a frequency such that the liquid will not exceed one foot (30 cm) in depth over the rim of the sump of the primary liner after waste is in place. Based on information gathered by the IDEM, reported sump levels in two (2) primary risers were more than double the high level alarm settings.
Reportedly, the high level alarm is set just below the 30 cm
exceedence level.
15. Based on a record review by the OSHWM of Notices of Noncompliance,
Leachate Quarterly Reports, and IDEM enforcement actions (and their responses)
since July of 1994, the IDEM contends that Respondent repeatedly violated the
following requirements.
a. Pursuant to Permit Condition IV.B.7 and 40 CFR 264.301(a)(2),
the permittee shall remove liquid from the primary leachate
collection system at a frequency such that the liquid will not
exceed one foot (30 cm) in depth over the rim of the sump of the
primary liner after waste is in place. Based on information
gathered by the IDEM, Respondent, in addition to the violations
cited in Findings 13e. and 14b. above, has violated the
requirements in the following manner:
i. First Quarter 1997 Leachate Quarterly Reports
indicate that the primary leachate level exceeded the
one foot (30 cm) level eighty-four (84) times-- forty
(40) lasted for a day or more, twelve (12) lasted for
more than one (1) week, and two (2) lasted for
nearly three (3) months straight;
b. Pursuant to 40 CFR 264.194(a) and 40 CFR 264.31, hazardous
wastes or treatment reagents must not be placed in a tank system if
they could cause the tank, its ancillary equipment, or the
containment system to rupture, leak, corrode, or otherwise fail.
Facilities must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated
to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned
sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous waste or hazardous
waste constituents to air, soil, or surface water which could
threaten human health or the environment. Based on information
gathered by the IDEM, there has been repeated damage and
excessive repairs at the stabilization tanks. In addition to the
violation cited above in Finding 13g. for the June 19 and 20, 1997
inspection, the violation has also occurred in the following
instances:
i. Reports submitted by Respondent involving major
repairs to the tanks over the previous 2 ½ years
include:
_ South Tank: 12 ( in 1996)
_ Middle Tank: 4 (all within 6-month
timeframe)
_ North Tank: 1 (tank has been out of
service for an extended time)
c. Pursuant to Permit Condition IV.B.12, a daily cover equivalent to
at least six (6) inches of compacted soil (or equivalent) shall be
applied over all hazardous waste areas of the landfill at the end of
each day. Based on information gathered by the IDEM,
Respondent failed to provide a cover over all hazardous waste
areas of the landfill at the end of each operating day. In addition
to the violation cited above in Finding 14a. for the March 24 and
25, 1997 inspection, the violation has also occurred in the
following instances.
i. Violation Letter (VL-13086), dated 3/20/97,
indicated that exposed waste was reportedly
observed in the landfill per the daily inspection logs
which referenced exposure to previous inspections,
indicating that the waste had been exposed for an
extended time. Specifically, exposed waste was
noted in the 12/19/96 daily inspection report
referencing "previous RWO" #7370 and/or #7394.
Exposed waste was also noted in the 9/21/96
facility inspection report, resulting in RWO #7179.
The exposed waste was still identified in the
9/24/96 facility inspection, suggesting that it had
not yet been covered. IDEM indicated in the
Violation Letter that "it is imperative that exposed
waste located anywhere in the landfill be covered at
the end of each day."
d. Pursuant to 40 CFR, Part 268, the land disposal of hazardous
wastes that do not meet LDR standards is prohibited. Based on
information gathered by the IDEM, Respondent reported five (5)
instances (in addition to the two (2) instances as indicated in
Finding 13f. above for the June 29 and 30 inspection) over the past
1½ years where hazardous waste that had not met LDR standards
was land disposed. According to Respondent, the wastes were
subsequently exhumed. The reports indicating land disposal of
waste not meeting LDR standards were dated January 4, February
19, and July 17, 1996 (3 reports).
16. The last load of hazardous waste was accepted for disposal at the facility
from off-site on July 28, 1998. Respondent commenced formal closure of
the facility on August 27, 1998. As the facility goes through final closure
all applicable portions of the Permit, originally issued on September 30,
1988, are valid through closure. The Operating Permit will then remain
valid for applicable post-closure care until the Post-Closure Permit is
issued, at which time the Operating Permit will be terminated.
17. 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. Upon the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall ensure that all applicable
conditions of its Permit and any applicable generator requirements are followed.
3. Upon the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall implement measures to
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
constituents 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.
4. Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall
perform the following sampling and analysis at the area where the baghouse dust
release occurred:
a. In the open soil area next to the baghouse pad, one (1) soil boring shall be
performed in the center of each end;
b. Soil shall be sampled in two (2) consecutive one-foot vertical intervals
starting at the bottom of the excavation. One (1) field duplicate shall be
taken;
c. The soils shall be analyzed for total RCRA metals (arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) by EPA approved methods. SW-846 methods are
recommended.
d. The cleanup levels in soils for organic parameters are the analytical
method's practical quantitation limits (PQLs). as defined in SW-846. The
inorganic cleanup levels for soils are based on a minimum of four (4)
background soil borings in an area unaffected by the units and the facility
and shall be the mean plus three (3) standard deviations for each analyte.
Background soil sampling shall be performed at the same soil depth levels
as investigative samples. Inorganic cleanup levels shall be determined for
each background soil depth interval. Alternatively risk-based cleanup
levels approved by OSHWM may be used.
e. Analytical results submitted to the IDEM for review shall include, at a
minimum, signed chain-of-custody sheets, sampling dates, analysis dates,
analytical methods used, practical quantitation limits (PQLs), and quality
control (QC) results. The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
results shall include, at a minimum, tuning results (GC-MS), initial and
continuing calibration results, blank results, matrix duplicate results,
matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate results, and surrogate recoveries. The
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) used for this project shall also be
submitted.
f. If soils are determined above the "clean" soil levels, then the horizontal
and vertical extent of contamination shall be determined. The vertical
extent of contamination is determined when two (2) consecutive vertical
soil samples meet the cleanup levels. The horizontal extent of
contamination is determined when soil borings in all directions from the
unit meet the cleanup levels at all depths. The soils above the cleanup
levels shall be remediated. A report shall be submitted to the IDEM that
includes all analytical results, remediation results, remediation activities,
and a map indicating all soil boring locations.
5. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall
submit to the IDEM 'as built' drawings of the new automated leachate collection
system, with identification of operating "high level alarm" settings for each
primary sump, which illustrates that the system will prevent future exceedences
of the one foot (30 cm) leachate limit and ensure compliance with Permit
Condition IV.B.7 and 40 CFR 264.301(a)(2).
6. Upon the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall ensure that the reports
submitted to the IDEM whenever there is any release or discharge resulting in
non-compliance with the Permit at the facility which may endanger health or the
environment accurately covers all criteria required in Permit Condition I.D.14,
including quantity and disposition of recovered materials.
7. Upon the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall implement the provisions
of the Contingency Plan, Permit Attachment V, whenever there is a fire,
explosion, or release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents at the
facility which threaten or could threaten human health or the environment.
8. Upon the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall ensure that, at final
closure of the landfill or upon closure of any cell, the landfill or cell is covered in
a manner to minimize erosion or abrasion of the cover, pursuant to 40 CFR
264.310(a)(3).
9. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall
submit a plan to the IDEM for approval detailing how adequate secondary
containment will be provided at the north and west lift stations, pursuant to 40
CFR 265.193.
10. All submittals required by this Agreed Order, unless notified otherwise in writing,
shall be sent to:
Section Chief
Office of Enforcement
Hazardous Waste Section
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015
11. Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of $91,250. Respondent shall pay a cash penalty of $18,250, with said penalty amount due and payable to the Environmental Management Special Fund within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Agreed Order. In lieu of payment of the remaining Civil Penalty, the Respondent shall perform and complete the Supplemental Environmental Project ("SEP"), as described in Exhibit A. Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreed Order. The total funds expended on the SEP shall be a minimum of $146,000. The estimated time period for completion of the SEP is one (1) year from the effective date of the Agreed Order. It is Respondent's obligation to inform IDEM upon completion of the SEP and to provide documentation of such. If the SEP is not completed in accordance with this agreement and within the specified time period, subject to any extension for
cause due to force majeure, the Respondent agrees to pay the remaining amount
of the Civil Penalty, plus interest at the rate established by IC 24-4.6-1-101, to the
Environmental Management Special Fund. Payment of the remaining Civil
Penalty shall be submitted within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a notice to pay
from IDEM. Interest on the remaining Civil Penalty shall be paid from the
effective date of the Agreed Order.
12. 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
Failure to comply with the $1000 per day for each
time frames of Order #s violation.
4, 5, and 9 of the Agreed Order.
13. 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.
14. 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 46206-7060
15. In the event that the cash civil penalty required by paragraph 11 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 is paid in full.
16. 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.
17. 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.
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.
Respondent shall by contract require that all contractors, firms, and other persons
acting for it comply with the terms of this Agreed Order.
19. 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: ________________________
LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:
Department of Environmental Management
By: ________________________ By: ________________________
Scott Storms
Office of Legal Counsel
Date: ________________________ Date: ________________________
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
THIS _______ DAY OF ________________ 1998.
For the Commissioner:
Signed on 12/17/98
________________________
Felicia Robinson George
Assistant Commissioner
Office of Enforcement
Converted by Andrew Scriven