[0:07] Good morning. Call meeting to order.

[0:10] Summer, please roll call.

[0:12] >> Moral Kata

[0:13] » Moral Kata

[0:13] >> here.

[0:13] » here.

[0:13] >> Scott Garnan

[0:14] » Scott Garnan

[0:14] >> here.

[0:14] » here.

[0:14] >> Uh Deb Henkins, I do not see her yet.

[0:16] » Uh Deb Henkins, I do not see her yet.

[0:16] Russell Wilson

[0:17] >> here.

[0:18] » here.

[0:18] >> Thomas Ryan

[0:19] » Thomas Ryan

[0:19] >> here. Okay, you have a quorum. All

[0:21] » here. Okay, you have a quorum. All

[0:21] right, since we got roll call done, item

[0:24] two, minutes, consider approval of

[0:27] minutes of environmental envir

[0:29] enforcement board special meeting of

[0:31] June 22nd,

[0:33] 2026 and reconvene meeting of June 23

[0:38] and 24, 2026.

[0:43] » Motion to approve

[0:44] >> 29.

[0:45] » 29.

[0:45] >> Yeah.

[0:46] » Yeah.

[0:46] >> Yeah.

[0:46] » Yeah.

[0:46] >> No second.

[0:49] » No second.

[0:49] >> Who motion? A motion to approve.

[0:50] » Who motion? A motion to approve.

[0:50] >> Thank you.

[0:51] » Thank you.

[0:51] >> Any discussions?

[0:54] » Any discussions?

[0:54] >> Okay. Um I got a question on uh I think

[0:57] » Okay. Um I got a question on uh I think

[0:57] if you go to 29

[1:02] » um minutes of 29. Can you open please?

[1:13] » 21.

[1:14] >> The minutes from the 29th.

[1:15] » The minutes from the 29th.

[1:15] >> 29th.

[1:20] Uh it might be a typo. I just wanted to

[1:22] clarify it.

[1:25] >> What page?

[1:26] » What page?

[1:26] >> Uh the end

[1:29] » Uh the end

[1:29] number 12

[1:31] uh it says consider motion to enter

[1:34] recess until June 23, 2026.

[1:39] Is that a typo?

[1:40] >> Um no because that was from the original

[1:43] » Um no because that was from the original

[1:43] agenda. So we were through the special

[1:45] meeting and the two reconvene meetings.

[1:47] We were following along the original

[1:49] agenda. So that was an item from as it's

[1:53] as it was stated in the original agenda.

[1:55] So

[1:56] >> Okay.

[1:56] » Okay.

[1:56] >> I don't know. Mandy, do you think

[1:58] » I don't know. Mandy, do you think

[1:58] there's a different way that should have

[1:59] been

[2:03] I think it's appropriate. We went past

[2:06] the original two days that we had

[2:08] originally scheduled it, which is why we

[2:09] had the reconvene meeting on the 29th.

[2:11] Um and the the number 12 is just

[2:14] adjourning the the end of the meeting

[2:16] instead of reconvening into another day.

[2:19] >> Okay.

[2:21] » Okay.

[2:21] >> All right. It's all good. Okay. Cast

[2:24] » All right. It's all good. Okay. Cast

[2:24] your ballot.

[2:29] Yeah. Passes 40.

[2:34] Item three, executive session. Consider

[2:36] convening into executive session upon

[2:38] recommendation of the board's attorney

[2:41] pursuant to 25 Oklahoma statute 307B4

[2:46] and city of Enid code 8-3H-1C

[2:52] to conduct confidential communication

[2:54] between the board and its attorney

[2:57] concerning a pending action where the

[2:59] board

[3:04] with the advice of its attorney

[3:06] determines that disclosure would

[3:09] seriously impair its ability to process

[3:12] the processing proceedings in the public

[3:15] interest. specifically for the purpose

[3:17] of receiving legal advice and

[3:20] deliberating at the conclusion of the

[3:22] trial. Dooo

[3:25] hearing held in appeal of notice of

[3:28] violation order number no 001 and

[3:31] related administrative order issued to

[3:33] midcontent packaging inc and reconvene

[3:37] into special session to announce its

[3:41] decision in the form of written

[3:43] findings.

[3:45] Do I have a motion?

[3:48] >> I will make a motion for to go into

[3:51] » I will make a motion for to go into

[3:51] executive session.

[3:52] >> Second.

[3:53] » Second.

[3:53] >> All right. Catch your ballot.

[3:59] » Passes 5-0.

[4:02] >> We're going to be downstairs in the

[4:03] » We're going to be downstairs in the

[4:04] lower level conference room for

[4:05] executive session today. Guys,

[4:08] >> do I have a motion to reconvene into the

[4:11] » do I have a motion to reconvene into the

[4:11] regular session?

[4:12] >> I'll motion to reconvene.

[4:13] » I'll motion to reconvene.

[4:14] >> I'll second it. All right. Cast your

[4:16] » I'll second it. All right. Cast your

[4:16] ballot.

[4:19] All right. So,

[4:22] do we need to continue?

[4:23] >> We need a motion to continue.

[4:25] » We need a motion to continue.

[4:25] >> Motion to continue.

[4:26] » Motion to continue.

[4:26] >> It will need to have date, time, place.

[4:31] » It will need to have date, time, place.

[4:31] >> Okay. So,

[4:32] » Okay. So,

[4:32] >> so I will motion to reconvene

[4:35] » so I will motion to reconvene

[4:35] uh tomorrow, August 10th, at 10th.

[4:38] >> August 11th. I apologize. tomorrow,

[4:40] » August 11th. I apologize. tomorrow,

[4:40] August 11th, at 10:00 a.m. here,

[4:45] the council chambers.

[4:48] >> Yep. Okay,

[4:49] » Yep. Okay,

[4:49] >> I'll second.

[4:50] » I'll second.

[4:50] >> All right, cast your ballot. Have any

[4:52] » All right, cast your ballot. Have any

[4:52] discussion? All right.

[4:56] All right. Passes

[4:58] 50. So, we'll reconvening tomorrow at

[5:01] 10:00.

[5:02] >> Yes.

[5:04] » Yes.

[5:04] >> 2:00.

[5:05] » 2:00.

[5:05] >> Okay.

[5:07] » Okay.

[5:07] All right. Um item five, public

[5:10] comments.

[5:11] >> Uh public comments is held till the end

[5:13] » Uh public comments is held till the end

[5:13] of the

[5:14] >> Oh, okay.

[5:14] » Oh, okay.

[5:14] >> We haven't finished the executive

[5:16] » We haven't finished the executive

[5:16] session.

[5:16] >> Executive session. We'll we'll pick up

[5:19] » Executive session. We'll we'll pick up

[5:19] public comment tomorrow after we've

[5:21] finished the executive session.

[5:23] >> Perfect. Okay,

[5:25] » Perfect. Okay,

[5:25] then

[5:27] I guess.

[5:28] >> Y.

[5:28] » Y.

[5:28] >> All right. Motion. Do I have a motion to

[5:30] » All right. Motion. Do I have a motion to

[5:30] adjourn?

[5:31] >> Um are we adjourning?

[5:33] » Um are we adjourning?

[5:33] >> We're we're continuing the motion.

[5:35] » We're we're continuing the motion.

[5:35] >> We have already we've already had our

[5:36] » We have already we've already had our

[5:36] motion to continue the meeting. We're

[5:37] We're good to go.

[5:38] >> Yeah.

[5:38] » Yeah.

[5:38] >> Cool.

[5:39] » Cool.

[5:39] >> Yep.

[5:41] » Yep.

[5:41] >> Quit dragging it out.

[5:47] » All right. Um, do I have a motion to

[5:50] reconvene?

[5:51] >> Uh, we'll make a motion to reconvene.

[5:53] » Uh, we'll make a motion to reconvene.

[5:53] >> All right.

[5:55] » All right.

[5:55] >> I'll second.

[5:56] » I'll second.

[5:56] >> Catch your ballot.

[6:03] » All right. It passes 40. Do we need roll

[6:06] call? Okay. Just making sure.

[6:10] >> No, I don't think so.

[6:11] » No, I don't think so.

[6:11] >> We don't. You're just going to No, we're

[6:13] » We don't. You're just going to No, we're

[6:13] just She's just going to note that um

[6:15] Tom is not at the reconvene meeting.

[6:18] >> Okay.

[6:20] » Okay.

[6:20] >> All right. Um do I have a motion to

[6:23] » All right. Um do I have a motion to

[6:23] reconvene into

[6:25] >> um

[6:26] » um

[6:26] >> I will make a motion to reconvene into

[6:28] » I will make a motion to reconvene into

[6:28] executive session.

[6:29] >> I second it.

[6:31] » I second it.

[6:31] >> All right. Cast your ballot.

[6:33] » All right. Cast your ballot.

[6:33] Passes 40. So,

[6:43] » do I have a motion to reconvene?

[6:46] >> Make a motion to reconvene.

[6:47] » Make a motion to reconvene.

[6:47] >> I second it.

[6:49] » I second it.

[6:49] >> Cash your ballot. Oh, sorry.

[6:59] » That was mine.

[7:01] >> That one.

[7:03] » That one.

[7:03] >> Cash your ballot. passes 40.

[7:09] » All right.

[7:10] >> He's going to read the order and then

[7:11] » He's going to read the order and then

[7:11] we'll look for a motion on the order.

[7:14] >> Okay.

[7:16] » Okay.

[7:16] >> Whenever we get the final order.

[7:50] He gave you control.

[7:52] >> Yep. Now he needs to open the document.

[8:08] Can you get the order pulled up?

[8:22] All right.

[8:26] Okay.

[8:30] Findings of fact conclusions of law and

[8:32] order of the city of Enid environmental

[8:35] informance board.

[8:41] The above slated matter came on the

[8:43] hearing before the city of India

[8:46] environmental

[8:48] environment board here in after called

[8:50] board

[8:52] for midcontinent packing here in after

[8:54] called midcontent

[8:57] appeal of the city of Enit here in call

[9:00] herein after city of city notice of

[9:03] violation no 001 issued July 22nd

[9:09] 2025 5. Its administrative order issued

[9:13] November 21, 2025

[9:16] and its amendment administrative order

[9:19] issued March 16, 2026

[9:23] pursuant to city of uh init ordinances

[9:28] 8-

[9:29] 3H-1

[9:32] C. This appeal to board was conducted as

[9:37] a trial dooo

[9:41] Pursuant to ENIT code of ordinance

[9:44] 8-3H-1,

[9:46] the board consists of the city's code

[9:49] official, the city's director of

[9:52] engineering services, two

[9:54] representatives

[9:55] from among

[9:58] holding permits from the city as

[10:00] significant industrial users, SIU

[10:04] and a resident member resident member

[10:09] The board is chaired by director of

[10:11] engineering Muralik Kata. The city code

[10:14] official is Scott Garnet. The two SIU

[10:17] representatives are Debbie Henkins,

[10:20] corporate environmental health and

[10:23] safety manager at Parish Enterprises and

[10:26] Russell Wilson, director of facility

[10:29] services at Integras Health, the city

[10:31] resident

[10:33] member Thomas Ry.

[10:37] The board is subjected to Oklahoma Open

[10:39] Meetings Act.

[10:41] The board convened for 3-day

[10:45] evident evidentary hearing on June 22nd,

[10:48] 2026, June 23rd, 2026, and June 29,

[10:53] 2026. A public meeting notice was posted

[10:57] for June 22nd and June 23rd meetings. A

[11:00] separate a separate public meeting

[11:03] notice was posted for the continuation

[11:06] of the hearing on June 29th, 2026. A

[11:10] quorum of board was presented throughout

[11:12] all the portions of the hearing. The

[11:15] city appeared by and through its council

[11:18] of record Kaye Maddie Davis and Tom

[11:22] Ferguson. the the respondent the

[11:25] midcontinents appeared by and through

[11:27] its council of Ricard Mark Walker and

[11:30] Hank

[11:32] Heron

[11:35] prior to the evidentary hearing the

[11:38] board considered Midcontinent's motion

[11:40] to continue the city's response the

[11:44] midcontinent's reply the motion to

[11:47] continue was denied and the matter

[11:49] proceeded to hearing Present

[11:54] in its code of ordinance 8-3H-1C

[11:58] provides that written findings will be

[12:01] made at the conclusion of each hearing

[12:03] and deliberations

[12:06] will occur in executive session.

[12:08] Thereafter the board convene in properly

[12:11] noticed meeting on August 10, 2026 and

[12:15] deliberated in executive session. The

[12:18] August 20 August 10, 2026 meeting of

[12:21] board was continued to August 11, 2026

[12:25] to allow for additional deliberation in

[12:28] executive session. During his executive

[12:30] session at the August 10 and August 11th

[12:33] meeting, the board examined and pleading

[12:37] and considered all the evidence and

[12:40] arguments presented by council during

[12:43] the evidentary hearing. Upon leaving

[12:46] executive session, the board convened

[12:49] the open public meeting and cast words

[12:51] regarding the adoption adoption of

[12:54] findings of the fact, conclusion of law

[12:57] and fi final order as reflection herein.

[13:01] Findings of fact. The city owns and

[13:03] operates a public-owned treatment works

[13:05] POW,

[13:07] also referred to the referred to as the

[13:11] water reclamation facility, WRF, which

[13:14] treats waste water from residents,

[13:16] business, and industrial industries

[13:18] before

[13:20] discharging treated effluent to skeleton

[13:22] creek. Wish water entering to PW

[13:26] contains contaminants that must be

[13:29] removed through discharge including

[13:31] ammonia, phosphorus, suspended solids,

[13:33] organic material

[13:35] and other pollutants.

[13:38] Influent samples were influent samples

[13:40] are evidence of what entered into the

[13:43] plant. Influent water is what the

[13:46] biomass would be exposed to subject to

[13:49] flow rate, basin volume and hydraulic

[13:52] retention time. The init water

[13:54] reclamation facility WRF includes both

[13:57] physical treatment process and

[13:58] biological treatment process. The

[14:01] biological treatment process relies on

[14:02] biomass that includes bacteria and high

[14:05] life forms. But bacteria are primarily

[14:10] primarily responsible for facilitating

[14:12] the treatment process to remove

[14:14] pollutants from waste water before

[14:16] discharge.

[14:17] The init WRF can be discharged as the

[14:21] act can be described as activated sludge

[14:24] treatment system because it uses active

[14:27] biomass and living organisms to treat

[14:30] waste water.

[14:34] The primary treatment includes physical

[14:36] process such as screening, grit removal

[14:38] and

[14:40] gravity settling

[14:42] while secondary treatment includes

[14:44] biological treatment process. The

[14:45] activator sludge treatment relies on

[14:48] biological conven

[14:51] conversion of soluble organic material

[14:53] into biomass by micro

[14:56] microbial population and that

[15:00] nitrification requires functioning

[15:02] ammonia oxidizing and nitrate nitrite

[15:05] oxidizing bacteria under aerobic

[15:08] conditions.

[15:11] Nitrification is a biologically

[15:13] facilitated process in which ammonia is

[15:16] converted into nitrate and then nitrate.

[15:20] Ammonia oxidizing bacteria con convert

[15:22] ammonia into nitrate and nitrite

[15:26] oxidizing bacteria convert into nitrate.

[15:29] Nitrifying bacteria are sensitive

[15:31] organisms and grow more slowly than

[15:35] hetrorotrophic bacteria. They are more s

[15:38] sensitive than many other or

[15:40] microorganisms present within the

[15:42] activated sludge process. Once damaged

[15:45] or inhibited, they require significant

[15:48] time and effort to restore. Inhibitation

[15:51] process. Inhibition process sorry

[15:54] inhibition reduces treatment rate while

[15:57] toxicity more directly relates to no

[16:01] treatment. Loss of inhibitation of

[16:04] nitrifying bacteria results in increased

[16:06] effluent ammonia. Ammonia is present in

[16:09] in its WRF influent and is a necessary

[16:13] nutrient for

[16:15] biological growth. Ammonia can be a

[16:18] pollutant of concern if discharged into

[16:22] the receiving stream.

[16:24] Ammonia

[16:26] discharged to a receiving stream can

[16:29] contribute to a

[16:32] algae problem. Algae blooms, oxidation,

[16:35] oxygen depletion and fish kills in the

[16:38] am in that ammonia itself can be a toxic

[16:41] to fish and other aquatic species.

[16:44] Organic material material rem is removal

[16:48] is important because oxygen demanding

[16:51] substance discharge to a receiving

[16:53] stream can deplete dissolved oxygen and

[16:56] cause fish kill. Phosphorus removal at

[16:59] the init water reclamation facility also

[17:02] depends on biological activity including

[17:05] phosphate accumulating organisms.

[17:11] Disruption to the activated sludge

[17:14] process may adversely affect phosphorus

[17:17] removal, flock formation, solid

[17:19] settling, sludge quality and overall

[17:22] efficiency effectiveness of the

[17:24] treatment process.

[17:30] Quadinary ammonium compounds here in

[17:32] call quack are used as disinfectant

[17:35] surface in industrial cleaning products.

[17:38] Quark compounds

[17:40] disrupt bacterial cell membrane which is

[17:43] the disinfecting mechanism. Quarks have

[17:46] similar impacts on treatment plants

[17:49] including inhibitation and toxicity to

[17:52] biomass. Quarks inhibit nitrification

[17:55] and can be toxic to activated sludge.

[17:58] Quarks can be

[18:01] inhibitory to toxic to aquatic life.

[18:05] inhibitory are toxic to aquatic life.

[18:08] Dr. Stover here in after call

[18:12] stove and Dr. Ed here in our after edged

[18:16] that quacks may be capable of infer

[18:20] interfering with the biological

[18:23] treatment process at a wastewater

[18:26] treatment plant under appropriate

[18:28] conditions.

[18:32] Both experts also agreed that quarks may

[18:35] inhibit or adversely affect the

[18:37] microorganisms responsible for

[18:39] biological wastewater treatment plant.

[18:41] Sto identified a published literature

[18:44] reporting inhibitation of nitrification

[18:47] at concentrations ranging from

[18:49] approximately 0.1 to 1 mgs per liter to

[18:53] 3 to 5 mgs per liter and that no one has

[18:57] determined any set number. Midc condens

[19:01] exhibit 47 states that quacks kill

[19:04] bacteria by disrupting cell membrane.

[19:06] Recognizing operator concern over

[19:09] wastewater treatment plant upsets and

[19:12] shows toxicity depends depends on MLSS

[19:18] sludge health and operating conditions.

[19:21] It also inhibitation at concentration

[19:24] well above 50 grams per liter when mixed

[19:27] liquor surrendered solids MLSS is lower

[19:30] around 10 to 20 parts per million of

[19:34] nitrification.

[19:37] The studies relied upon by Eddie did not

[19:40] involve in its activated sludge

[19:42] nitrification process but instead

[19:45] address different different biological

[19:47] process including ditrification and

[19:50] aerobic treatment system and other

[19:52] wastewater environments. The city is

[19:55] regulated by ODQ and Oklahoma Department

[19:58] of Environmental Quality, which in turn

[20:01] operates the operates with delegated

[20:06] authority to regulate under the federal

[20:09] clean water act of 1972 to implement the

[20:14] National Pollution Discharge Elimination

[20:16] System called NPDES.

[20:18] The NPDS permit program address water

[20:21] pollution by regulating

[20:24] point source that discharge pollutants

[20:26] to

[20:28] waters of United States.

[20:30] It it was created in 1972 by clean water

[20:34] act. Under the NPDS permit program

[20:37] states governments are authorized by the

[20:39] United States Environmental Protection

[20:41] Agency EPA to perform many permitting

[20:46] administrative and enforcement aspects

[20:48] of the program. OBDS permit number

[20:51] OK00021628

[20:54] authorizes the city to discharge treated

[20:57] waste water to Skeleton Creek subject to

[21:00] specific number numerical affluent

[21:02] limitations and monitoring requirements

[21:04] including ammonia limits of 4.0 mgs per

[21:09] liter monthly average and 6.0 zero mgs

[21:14] per liter liter weekly average and

[21:17] requirements that the permit complies

[21:20] with all permit conditions conduct

[21:23] routine sampling and submit electronic

[21:26] discharging discharge monitoring

[21:28] reports.

[21:30] The city's permit further prohibits the

[21:32] discharge of pollution pollutants in a

[21:34] manner that interfere with the treatment

[21:36] process or causes deliterate

[21:44] deliturous effects to receiving waters

[21:48] thereby defining the regulatory

[21:50] standards against which the document

[21:53] affluent concentration and discharge

[21:55] continues to violation.

[21:59] The city's OBDS permit gowns operate of

[22:02] WRF and authorizes discharge into

[22:05] Skeleton Creek and imposes mandatory

[22:08] discharge and monitoring obligations on

[22:10] the city. Failure to comply

[22:15] with the OPDS permit may results in ODQ

[22:19] investigation, notices of violation,

[22:23] imposition of corrective requirements,

[22:26] additional monitoring and penalties.

[22:30] I forgot to start reading numbers.

[22:33] That's okay. Number 31. As the holder of

[22:37] the OPDS permit, the city is legally

[22:40] responsible for the quality of treated

[22:42] affluent discharged from the water

[22:45] reclamation facility.

[22:47] Regardless of whether pollutants cause

[22:49] or contributing to a per permit

[22:51] violation

[22:53] originate from residential, commercial

[22:55] or industrial user users of the

[22:58] collection system. Number 32.

[23:01] The city is responsible for compliance

[23:04] with its OPDS permit and is required to

[23:07] operate and maintain as industrial

[23:10] pre-treatment program designed to

[23:12] prevent pollution pollutants discharged

[23:15] by industries industrial users from

[23:18] interfering with treatment pro

[23:21] operations passing through PW untreated

[23:26] damaging treat damaging treatment

[23:28] process are require or equipments

[23:30] creating hazard service are causing

[23:33] violations of the city's OPDS permit

[23:36] number 33. Pursuant to ENIT code of

[23:39] ordinance 8-3A-2,

[23:43] SIUS may include an industrial user

[23:47] discharging more than 25,000

[23:50] gallons per day. A categorical

[23:53] industrial user or a user with the

[23:56] capability of discharging toxic

[23:58] pollutants.

[24:00] Number 34. The city regulates SIUS

[24:04] through industrial wastewater permits.

[24:06] This the sewer use ordinance

[24:09] inspections, monitoring, sampling,

[24:11] reporting requirements, and other

[24:13] pre-treatment measures intended to

[24:16] protect the POW. Number 35. SUS are

[24:20] required to comply with their industrial

[24:23] user discharge permits. Notify the city

[24:25] of M. Notify the city of material

[24:29] operation changes affecting the

[24:31] wastewater discharge. Report a slug or

[24:34] other significant discharge events.

[24:36] Comply with applicable pre-treatment

[24:39] requirements and cooperate with the

[24:41] city's pre-treatment program. Number 36.

[24:44] Mid-Continent is a SIU of the city sewer

[24:48] system who operated under a city issued

[24:52] industrial wastewater permit during the

[24:55] relevant time period. Number 37.

[24:58] Midcondent's business involves mixing

[25:00] and packing chemicals,

[25:03] packaging chemicals, cleaning products

[25:06] including sanitizers,

[25:09] soaps, toilet products and other

[25:11] cleaning or surface active surface

[25:14] active products that include quax and

[25:17] other toxic compounds.

[25:20] Number 38. Midc condens permit during

[25:22] the relevant time period was in effect

[25:25] from June 3, 2023rd, 2020 through June

[25:29] 2, 2025. Midcontinent permit requires

[25:33] samples to be taken. A proper sampling

[25:36] point requires a location that is safe,

[25:39] accessible, representative of the users

[25:42] discharge and isolated from mixing with

[25:45] other users affluent. Number 41. The

[25:49] city expressed concerns about

[25:52] midcontinent sampling point and methods.

[25:54] The sampling point was a floor drain

[25:58] located inside the facility. The

[26:00] sampling point method involves vacuuming

[26:02] the floor drain. The location and method

[26:05] did not provide a good representative

[26:08] sample of midcontinents discharge.

[26:11] Number 42. City of Enid environment

[26:14] environmental special specialist

[26:19] um Stephanie Sanders here in call herein

[26:23] after Sanders issued a directive

[26:26] requiring midcontinent to identify and

[26:29] implement a safer and remove sorry safer

[26:33] and more representative sampling

[26:35] location. Number 43

[26:38] Sanders the city midcarnate and envir

[26:41] engineering and consulting here in after

[26:44] envir work together to evaluate

[26:47] discharge pathways and identify a

[26:49] suitable sampling location.

[26:54] Number 44. Documented die testing

[26:57] established that waste water discharge

[26:59] from Midcontent's internal flow drains

[27:02] is hydraulic hy hydraulically connected

[27:06] to the city's sewer sanitary sewer

[27:08] system and specifically traveled travels

[27:12] from the facility through laterals

[27:14] lateral lines to manhole MH 1P020

[27:20] where dye introduced into production

[27:23] area floor drain was directly

[27:27] observed at the manhole thereby

[27:29] establishing the establishing the

[27:31] existence of a continuous and traceable

[27:34] discharge pathway from the facility.

[27:38] Number 45. MH

[27:42] 1P020 is uh located on the east side of

[27:47] 54th Street receives the combined

[27:50] industrial and domestic wastewater

[27:52] discharge from midcontinent before the

[27:54] wastewater

[27:57] comingle comingles with

[28:00] other source

[28:02] in the border collection system. Number

[28:04] 46. MH1P020

[28:08] was established as MidContinent's new

[28:10] sampling location by agreeing by

[28:13] agreement of all parties. Number 47.

[28:17] Midcondent's permit authorized it to

[28:20] discharge industrial waste water in

[28:22] accordance with the stated terms and

[28:24] conditions which provided a part.

[28:28] C. The permit shall not discharge waste

[28:31] water containing any of the following

[28:34] substance from discharge point

[28:38] part 1 C2. Any liquid solids or gases

[28:43] which by reason of their nature are

[28:47] quantity or may be sufficient either

[28:50] alone or by interaction with other

[28:54] substances to be in injurious to any

[28:59] other way of the PW or to the operations

[29:04] of the PW.

[29:06] Part one C5. Any waste water containing

[29:13] toxic pollutants in sufficient quantity

[29:16] either single singly or by interaction

[29:19] with other pollutants to endure or

[29:22] interfere with any wastewater treatment

[29:25] process. Continue a hazard to human or

[29:30] animals. create a toxic effect in the

[29:33] receiving wastewater of the PTW or to

[29:36] exceed the limitations set forth in a

[29:39] categorical pre-treatment standards. A

[29:41] toxic pollutant shall include but not be

[29:44] limited to any pollutant identified

[29:47] pursuant to section 307

[29:50] capital A small A of the

[29:54] federal wastewater waste federal water

[29:57] pollution control act clean water act

[30:01] part one C8 any substance which will

[30:05] cause the PW to violate its NPDS permit

[30:08] and our state disposal of disposal

[30:11] system permit are the receiving water

[30:14] quality standards. Part one C1 any

[30:18] pollutants including oxygen demanding

[30:20] pollutants BOD5 etc. released at a flow

[30:24] rate and our pollutant concentration

[30:27] which a user known knows as

[30:32] knows or has reason to know will cause

[30:35] interference to the city of Enid

[30:38] wastewater treatment facility. In no

[30:40] case shall a slug load have a flow rate

[30:45] or a concentrate or contain

[30:47] concentration of quant qualities of

[30:49] pollutants that exceed for any time

[30:52] period longer than 15 minutes

[30:56] more than 5 minutes. The average 24-hour

[31:01] concentration quantities are flow during

[31:04] normal operation.

[31:07] Part one, C13. Any waste water which

[31:10] causes a hazard to human life or creates

[31:13] a public nuisance.

[31:16] Number 48. Midcondence permit prohibits

[31:19] the discharge of substance

[31:22] substances that could cause interference

[31:25] pass through hazardous condition or

[31:27] exceeded applicable standards. The

[31:30] permit further requires monthly

[31:32] monitoring and reporting of pollutant

[31:35] concentration from a designated

[31:36] discharge point, mandates the use of

[31:40] approved sampling and analytical methods

[31:43] and obligates the permit to report

[31:45] violations, accidental discharges

[31:49] and changes in operation.

[31:52] Number 49 with contents permit did not

[31:55] contains a numeric Q quack

[31:58] affluent limitation. However, it did not

[32:01] contain prohibitions against discharging

[32:04] substances that may

[32:06] injure the PW toxic pollutants that may

[32:10] interfere with the treatment or create a

[32:13] toxic effects in receiving

[32:16] waters. Substances causing the PW to

[32:19] violate its permit.

[32:22] Pollutants that interfere with the

[32:24] treatment facility and waste water that

[32:26] creates a hazard or public's nuisance.

[32:29] Number 50. Any non-compliance

[32:32] with any city issued permit conditions

[32:35] consists a violation of the city of init

[32:38] use ordinance 51.

[32:41] On or around May 19th 20th 2025 Sto

[32:46] reported that operations at the init

[32:50] water reclamation facility began

[32:51] experiencing abnormal plant condition

[32:54] including elevated affluent ammonia

[32:57] foaming and a sanitation cleaning or

[33:00] chemical type of order. The data

[33:02] indicated an initial inhibitation of

[33:05] following followed by a failure of nutri

[33:08] nitrification.

[33:10] Number 52. On or around May 19th, 2025,

[33:13] Sveners learned of the plant upset while

[33:18] conducting routine sampling across the

[33:20] sewer system for semianual regulatory

[33:24] process. Number 53.

[33:26] Servantis sampling

[33:30] sampling locations included

[33:32] midcontinents designated sampling point

[33:34] sampling location MH1P020

[33:39] number 54. Servantis smelled a strong

[33:43] cleanerike odor and observed a thick

[33:46] layer of foam at MH1P020

[33:50] when the manual cover was removed.

[33:53] Number 55. The conditions at MH1P020

[33:57] were abnormal compared to typical

[33:59] manhole observations. Number 56. Servant

[34:03] observed similar conditions at 54 street

[34:06] lift station which is where midcontent

[34:09] affluent flows into flows to number 57.

[34:14] Servant did not observe similar

[34:16] conditions throughout the remainder of

[34:19] the collection system. Specifically,

[34:21] Servantis observed a observed and

[34:24] compared multiple manholes across the

[34:26] system and testified that abnormal foam

[34:30] and order were not uniformly present

[34:33] throughout the system. Number 58.

[34:36] Influence sampling collected at the

[34:38] water reclamation facility during and

[34:40] immediately following the

[34:43] May 2025 upset identified multiple

[34:47] quacks

[34:49] including numerous benzol

[34:53] benzylcomine

[34:55] conium compounds. dito,

[34:59] dimethyl

[35:01] ammonium compounds, diocto dimethyl

[35:05] ammonium compounds and other cationic

[35:09] surfent surfactants.

[35:11] It did not report any detectable octal

[35:16] dyo dimethyl ammonium chloride.

[35:25] Number 59. On May 2025, Cervantes

[35:29] collected a grab sample

[35:31] on midcontinent's representative

[35:33] sampling point. The sample identified

[35:37] numerous quax spec species at

[35:40] exceptionally high qu concentrations

[35:42] including multiple

[35:47] benzolo ben benzalocomium

[35:51] compound dlo

[35:55] dlo dimethyl ammonium ddc ddac d octo

[36:02] dimethylam ammonium

[36:05] and octal dychlo

[36:09] dimethyl ammonium chloride and related

[36:13] quadinary ammonium compounds number 60.

[36:18] Several of these compounds were

[36:19] represent at concentration thousands are

[36:24] for for certain compounds hundreds of

[36:27] thousands times high greater than the

[36:31] laboratory reporting limits. Octal DECo

[36:37] dimethyl ammonium chloride alone was

[36:39] reported at approximately

[36:42] 146,318

[36:44] mgs per liter. While DLO

[36:49] dlothyl

[36:51] ammonium was reported at approximately

[36:54] 1,810 mgs per liter, demonstrating an

[36:57] extremely concentrated quack waste

[37:00] stream rather than trace environmental

[37:03] contaminations.

[37:04] The influence sample sampling confirmed

[37:08] that quack containing waste water had

[37:10] reached the city's biological treatment

[37:13] process during the period of the period

[37:16] of the upset. Number 62, Ed

[37:20] testified that a substantial portion of

[37:23] the quack concentrations identified in

[37:25] the May 20 midcarnance grab sample

[37:28] consisted of octal d octal dchlorlo

[37:34] dimethyl

[37:35] ammonium chloride which was not detected

[37:39] in the

[37:41] effluency May 20th influent

[37:46] composite sample.

[37:50] Number 63. The plant influent samples

[37:53] analyzed by effluency were were

[37:56] composite samples representing

[37:59] waste water entering the water

[38:01] reclamation facility over time after

[38:03] transport transport through the city's

[38:06] collection system. Whereas the May 20

[38:09] samples were May sample collected from

[38:13] the midconent representative sampling

[38:15] location was a grab sample reflecting

[38:17] the waste water present at a single

[38:19] point in the time in time before

[38:23] co-mingling with other waste water.

[38:26] Number 64. Although the May 20

[38:30] midcontent grab sample and May 20

[38:32] influent composite sample from effluency

[38:36] have different relative concentration of

[38:40] individuals quack species. They do not

[38:43] demonstrate different sources. Rather

[38:46] those difference are consistent with the

[38:49] dilution mixing different differing

[38:52] sample sampling methods methodologies

[38:55] travel time throughout the collection

[38:56] system. Absorption of cationic

[38:59] surfectants to solids and biomass

[39:04] degradation and changes in relative

[39:06] concentrations among compounds.

[39:10] store agreed that sorry number 65 store

[39:14] agreed that grab samples and composite

[39:16] sample results should not be compared in

[39:20] an appleto apple fashion without

[39:22] caution. He defined a grab sample as a

[39:25] sample

[39:27] dipped from a basin stream or manhole

[39:31] that represents that what is uh passing

[39:34] through at the moment of the collection.

[39:36] Dr. Stover defined a composite sample as

[39:40] individual sample collected over time

[39:43] and

[39:44] compiled to represent what occurred over

[39:47] 24 hours.

[39:50] Number 66 source um source calculations

[39:54] demonstrated that WRF received

[39:58] approximately

[39:59] 700 lb of quax

[40:02] on May 20. approximately 300 lb of

[40:06] pounds on May 21st and approximately 700

[40:10] lb on May 22nd. These calculations

[40:14] reflected the total quantity of quark

[40:16] concentration of the con quacks entering

[40:19] the PW during those periods and not

[40:22] merely their concentrations in

[40:25] individual sample. Number 67.

[40:28] Quax loading of the magnitude

[40:32] could not be reasonable

[40:35] be attributed to ordinary residential,

[40:37] commercial or incidental consume

[40:40] consumer use within the collection

[40:42] system. The quantities of quacks

[40:44] entering the WRF during the upset were

[40:47] consistent with discharge from a

[40:49] significant industrial

[40:52] source handling quack containing

[40:54] products. Number 68. Quack compounds are

[40:59] capable of causing the observed

[41:02] treatment

[41:04] upset and are consistent with the

[41:06] observed form chemical order and

[41:09] biological impacts of at the plant.

[41:12] Number 69.

[41:14] On or around May 21, 2025, a fish kill

[41:19] was reported. As a result of the

[41:21] reported fish kill, ODQ and the city

[41:24] conducted an investigation. The fish

[41:26] kill was concurrent with the PW upset.

[41:30] The investigation

[41:32] concluded that the fishkill was

[41:35] associated with the discharge of high

[41:37] ammonia levels from PDW to Skeleton

[41:40] Creek. As a result of the investigation,

[41:43] ODQ issued a notice of violation to the

[41:45] city of city after the event.

[41:52] Number 71. The notice of violation state

[41:54] stated that the city's wastewater

[41:56] treatment facility discharged partially

[41:59] treated waste water into the Skeleton

[42:00] Creek in violation of its OPDS permit

[42:04] resulting in a fish kill and widespread

[42:06] environmental impacts and further

[42:09] established that the treatment plant

[42:12] upset was associated with the

[42:14] introduction of ammonia surfectants and

[42:17] disinfection

[42:19] disinfectant type chemical that rendered

[42:22] biological treatment process inactive

[42:25] with the documented effluent parameters

[42:28] exceedence

[42:31] including elevated ammonia, CBOD and

[42:33] total suspended solids thereby providing

[42:37] independent regulatory evidence that

[42:39] pollutant discharge into the treatment

[42:42] system cause exceedence of permit limits

[42:46] and environmental harm consistent with

[42:48] interference with interference

[42:50] attributable.

[42:52] to upstream industrial contributions.

[42:56] Number 72, Oklahoma Department of

[42:59] Wildlife Conservation issued a fine or

[43:02] penalty related to the fish kill upset

[43:06] of the May 2025 event. Number 73. The

[43:10] record supports that the fish kill

[43:12] occurred in a temp temporal proximity to

[43:16] the wastewater treatment water

[43:17] reclamation facility. biological upset

[43:20] and elevated

[43:23] affluent ammonia.

[43:28] Number 74. Following the May 19, 2025

[43:31] upset and the notification of a fish

[43:33] kill, Servantis and the city

[43:36] investigated significant industrial

[43:38] users with known discharge who operated

[43:42] under the city issued industrial

[43:44] wastewater permit during the relevant

[43:46] time period. Number 75. Servant's

[43:49] investigation included sampling at

[43:52] multiple location, field observations to

[43:54] determine presence of any foam and

[43:57] strong chemical orders at manhole 1 P020

[44:01] and other manhole locations. Sample

[44:04] collect samples collected were analyzed

[44:07] by the city's in-house lab. 76.

[44:10] Servantis conducted a subsequent

[44:12] sampling events at manhole 1 020

[44:17] and the 54th Street lift station. The

[44:19] samples continue to include elevated

[44:22] quack concentrations.

[44:27] Number 77. After the May 19, 2025 event

[44:31] event at the water in its WRF servant

[44:34] conducted contacted midcontinence

[44:36] operations manager Peter Harrison here

[44:39] in order herein after Harrison to let

[44:43] him know the PW

[44:46] was experiencing an upset. Midcarnate

[44:49] responded to Cervantes on at least two

[44:52] occasions to inform her additional

[44:54] cleaning took place on the 19th in

[44:58] preparation of an audit.

[45:01] Number 78. On May 23rd, 2025, Cervantes

[45:04] notified Midcontent Midcontinent that

[45:07] the PW had experienced a biological

[45:09] upset beginning on May 19, 2025.

[45:13] identified midcontinent as a potential

[45:15] contributor based on its location and

[45:18] discharge characteristics. Number 79.

[45:21] The city's investigation focused on

[45:25] midcarnate after sampling results were

[45:27] sampling results and field observations

[45:30] indicated abnormal foam order and quack

[45:34] related compounds associated with

[45:36] midcontinent discharge. Number 80. As

[45:39] part of the part of her investigation,

[45:42] Servant has required Midcon to provide a

[45:45] written response detailing all cleaning

[45:48] chemicals used asso used associated

[45:51] safety data sheets here in here in after

[45:54] SDS and disposable

[45:57] disposal practices

[46:00] especially specifically including

[46:02] whether

[46:03] wash water or cleaning solutions were

[46:07] discharged into the floor drain. and

[46:09] connected to this sanitary sewer.

[46:15] Number 81. Midcondents produced 1,200

[46:19] SDS containing 9,000

[46:23] 9,000 pages of data.

[46:26] Number 82. The SDS shows that chemicals

[46:29] used by midcontinent or toxic pollutants

[46:32] should not be disposed of in public

[46:36] sewers and are specifically inhibitory

[46:40] to aquatic life. Number 83. In July,

[46:45] midcarnate advised that beginning May

[46:48] 2022 2025, it voluntarily began

[46:52] containerizing

[46:54] cleaning waste water generated around

[46:57] the quax production area

[47:00] for offsite disposal. Prior to this

[47:03] date, all quack containing waste water

[47:05] was discharged into the sanitary sewer.

[47:11] Number 84. At the time of May 2025

[47:14] event, ENIT WRF flow rate was

[47:18] approximately 7 million gallons per day

[47:21] with the May 19 to 20 flow rate

[47:25] described as approximately 7.3 million

[47:28] gallons per million gall mill million

[47:30] gallons per day.

[47:35] Number 85. Operational monitoring data

[47:38] for the ENID WRF for May 10, 2025 to

[47:43] June 9th, 2025 showed a marked increase

[47:47] in affluent ammonia concentrations

[47:50] beginning approximately May 20, 2025

[47:53] with values raising from near zero to

[47:57] levels exceeding 30 to 50 mgs per liter

[48:01] and concurrent increases in effluent

[48:04] suspended solids.

[48:06] and total phosphorus providing a

[48:10] contemporious sampling data

[48:13] demonstrating a significant

[48:15] deterioration in the treatment per

[48:17] performance and elevated pollutant

[48:19] concentrations in discharged effluent

[48:23] during the upset period.

[48:25] There is a gap of missing data during

[48:28] the days when when the ODQ directed that

[48:32] the POW be shut down because of the

[48:34] upset.

[48:37] Number 86. Before May 19, affluent

[48:40] ammonia values at the WRF were at or

[48:43] near non detective non-detect levels of

[48:46] approximately 0.124 mgs per liter which

[48:50] represented complete nitrification.

[48:53] Number 87. The ammonia patterns

[48:55] reflected sir inhibitation followed by

[48:59] complete failure of nitrification.

[49:02] The observed ammonia

[49:05] increase was consistent with loss of

[49:07] nitrification and would not be expected

[49:10] if nitrification were functioning

[49:12] properly. Number 88. The operational

[49:16] monitoring data led STOR to conclude

[49:18] that the plant began receiving some some

[49:21] form of toxic toxicant on May 19, 2025.

[49:26] Number 89. Store was asked about the

[49:31] effect various other substances could

[49:33] have on the WRF. He testified that the

[49:37] arsenic alone would not foam or smell

[49:40] like a cleaner and sinate would not

[49:44] smell like a cleaner. Stow point it

[49:47] would not would not have been reasonable

[49:50] to test every everywhere else in the

[49:54] cities for arsenic and heavy metal

[49:57] arsenic heavy metals and cyanide in

[50:00] response to the observed foaming and

[50:02] midcontinent manhole evidence.

[50:06] Number 90. The loss of nitrifying

[50:08] bacteria requires the city and its

[50:10] contract operator to actively restore

[50:14] the biological treatment process before

[50:16] the WRF could return to normal

[50:18] operations. Because nitrifying bacteria

[50:21] are slow growing by organisms, recovery

[50:24] requires substantial time, monitoring

[50:27] and operational adjustments, including

[50:29] investigations of the upset sampling

[50:32] laboratory review, biomass monitoring

[50:35] and process control changes.

[50:39] Number 91. As part of the emergency

[50:41] response, city and the store group

[50:43] implemented the extraordinary operation

[50:46] measures to restore the biological

[50:48] treatment process and reduce the effects

[50:50] of quax on the WRF. Those measures

[50:54] included purchasing and applying

[50:57] neutraquart,

[50:59] a product intended to mitigate or

[51:01] neutralize the effects of quax within

[51:04] the treatment process in an effort to

[51:07] preserve or restore biological activity.

[51:11] The sto group also ordered specialized

[51:14] nitrifying bacteria and receded the WRF

[51:17] in an effort to restore the biological

[51:19] treatment process. A special pump was

[51:22] required for these of efforts.

[51:27] Number 92. Considering the pre-event

[51:30] complete nitrification, the abrupt post

[51:34] May 19th ammonia spike

[51:37] observed foam and cleaning cleaner type

[51:40] order. Quack detections associated with

[51:43] the midcontinent

[51:45] confirms loss of nitrifiers and stores

[51:48] testimony regarding quax toxicity and

[51:51] inhibitation. The record supply supports

[51:54] the findings that the

[51:57] findings that an inhibitory or toxic

[52:01] industrial discharge caused the May 2025

[52:04] nitrification failure.

[52:07] Number 93. Considering the source

[52:10] isolated sampling locations, die test

[52:12] confirms of confirmation

[52:15] confirmation of mid-continent discharge

[52:17] pathway field observations at the

[52:20] midcarnate manhole quack detections and

[52:23] the city's investig city investigation.

[52:25] The regard supports the finding that

[52:28] midcontinent discharge was the source or

[52:31] a contribution to contributing source of

[52:34] the toxic or inhibitory discharge that

[52:37] caused the WRF upset.

[52:42] number 94. on July 20 22nd 2025

[52:48] following the city's investigation of

[52:49] the May 19 20th

[52:52] through 20 25 WRF plant upset and the

[52:57] fish kill the city issued a

[52:59] mid-continent notice of violation no 001

[53:04] alleging that midcarnate violated permit

[53:08] number 021

[53:10] by discharging and violation of the

[53:12] permit including

[53:14] causing an upset of the city's

[53:17] wastewater treatment plant in May 2025.

[53:21] Number 95. The NOV was based on sampling

[53:26] detecting elevated concentrations of

[53:29] quartonary ammonium compounds in a in

[53:32] the facility's discharge

[53:34] which were determined to have a to have

[53:38] caused a significant wastewater

[53:40] treatment plant upset on May 19, 2025.

[53:45] The identified violations including

[53:47] discharge of toxic pollutants in

[53:50] quantities sufficient to interference

[53:52] with POW operations, failure to prevent

[53:57] pass through or interfer interference,

[53:59] the lack of adequate pre-treatment and

[54:02] chemical manage management control. It

[54:05] specifically document documents

[54:09] documents that that the facility failed

[54:12] to provide a written summary of

[54:15] discharge practices. Failed to confirm

[54:18] or evaluate pre-treatment effectiveness

[54:22] and failed to identify all chemical

[54:24] products and processes contributing to

[54:27] the discharge. thereby evidencing both

[54:33] existence of a discharge containing

[54:36] regulatory pollutants and non-compliance

[54:38] with reporting and operational

[54:41] requirements. Number 96. On November 21,

[54:45] 2025, the city issued an administrative

[54:49] order to midcontent for notice of

[54:51] violation NOV001

[54:54] number 97. The administrative order to

[54:56] midconent requires a corrective action,

[54:59] additional pre-treatment or controls,

[55:01] monitoring and sampling, planning and

[55:04] reporting and cost recovery. Mr. Gilbert

[55:08] herein after Gilbert testified that the

[55:11] administrative order was intended to

[55:14] identify responsibility, protect the

[55:17] facility, and prevent reoccurrence, not

[55:20] to punish

[55:22] midcontinent.

[55:24] Number 98. On March 16, 2026, the city

[55:29] issued an amended administrative order

[55:32] to MidConet for notice of violation

[55:35] NOE001

[55:36] number 99. Gilbert testified that

[55:39] Midconent did not accept responsibility

[55:42] for causing the upset, did not

[55:45] acknowledge that it its discharge

[55:47] contributed to the loss of

[55:49] nitrification, and maintained that it

[55:53] was not responsible. The city incurred

[55:56] the cost of responding to the event and

[56:00] paid penalties

[56:02] or fines associated with the regulatory

[56:04] responses including ODQ and wildlife

[56:07] related consequences.

[56:11] Number 100,

[56:13] the cost recovery summary which itemized

[56:16] expenses incurred as a result of the

[56:19] wastewater incident includes one

[56:22] regulatory enforcement cost including

[56:24] the administrative fee associate

[56:26] assessed by DEEQ. Number two, natural

[56:29] resource damages

[56:31] including the fisheries damage claim

[56:34] associated within with the up downstream

[56:37] fish kill. Number four, extensive

[56:40] laboratory testing cost including

[56:44] repeated analytical testing performed by

[56:46] specifically specialtity laboratories

[56:49] SPL over many months following the

[56:52] upset. Number four, whole effluent

[56:56] toxicity vet testing performed because

[57:00] of the first wet vet test failed due to

[57:05] 2025 upset. Number five, pump equipment

[57:08] requires pump equipment required for the

[57:12] effort to restore the biological

[57:14] treatment process and reduce the effects

[57:16] of quax on the WRF. Number six, Neutra

[57:21] Quart purchased and applied as part of

[57:23] the city's effort to mitigate or

[57:26] neutralize quax impacts within the

[57:30] treatment process.

[57:34] Number seven, biological receding

[57:37] material including specialized

[57:38] nitrifying bacteria purchased to restore

[57:41] the activated sludge process after the

[57:44] loss of nitrification. Number eight,

[57:46] field sampling labor including repeated

[57:49] grab sampling at the midcontent manhole

[57:51] over an extended period. Number nine,

[57:54] shipping cost including overnight

[57:56] shipping shipment of analytical samples

[57:58] for laboratory testing. Number 10,

[58:02] certified mailing cost associated with

[58:04] the enforcement actions and regulatory

[58:07] notices. Number 11, publication cost

[58:11] associated with the notice of city's

[58:13] enforcement proceedings and additional

[58:16] enforcement cost including those

[58:18] incurred by the city's environmental

[58:20] specialist to be substant subsequently

[58:22] assessed

[58:27] number 101.

[58:30] These costs demonstrate the operational

[58:32] and environmental consequences

[58:35] associated with the discharge of

[58:37] pollutants into PW number 102. The

[58:41] consequences of May 2025 discharge were

[58:44] not limited to the immediate

[58:47] immediate expenses necessary to recover

[58:50] to recover the plant. The violations of

[58:52] the midcontinence permit also created

[58:55] enforcement and monitoring expenses.

[58:58] Part of regul regulating an industrial

[59:00] user when a permit violation occurs is

[59:03] to work with the user to asssure the

[59:07] cause of the violations is incurred and

[59:09] to monitor the user to asssure that

[59:13] future violations do not occur. In this

[59:16] case, this included ongoing laboratory

[59:20] testing and testing of possible

[59:23] alternative sources such as Tyson and

[59:26] Integras as suggested by Midcon.

[59:31] Number 103. City could not reasonably

[59:34] restore normal operations or ensure

[59:36] continued compliance with the with its

[59:38] OPDES NPDES permit without identifying

[59:42] the source of the inhibitory recharge.

[59:45] Evaluate evaluating its component

[59:47] compositions determining determining

[59:51] whether additional discharge were

[59:53] occurred and implementing measures to

[59:56] prevent reoccurrence.

[1:00:00] Number 104. Midcarnate timely appealed

[1:00:05] the notice of violation nov001 issued

[1:00:08] July 22nd

[1:00:10] 2025.

[1:00:12] the administrative order issued November

[1:00:14] 21, 2025 and an amended administrative

[1:00:19] order issued March 16, 2026.

[1:00:22] Number 105,

[1:00:24] an evidentary hearing before the board

[1:00:27] was held on June 22nd, 2026 and June

[1:00:32] 23rd, 2026 and June 29th, 2026.

[1:00:39] 106.

[1:00:42] The following exhibits offered by the

[1:00:45] city were admitted into evidence.

[1:00:47] Government exhibit 1 through 25, 27- 37

[1:00:52] and 39 to 52. Midcontinent object

[1:00:56] objected to admission of government

[1:00:59] exhibit 1719 and 50. Its objections were

[1:01:03] overruled.

[1:01:04] Number 107. The following defendant

[1:01:08] exhibits offered by midcarnant were

[1:01:11] admitted into evidence. Defendant

[1:01:13] exhibit 12, 15, 22, 40, 41, 43, and 47.

[1:01:18] The city did not object to admission of

[1:01:22] the midcontinent exhibit. Midcontinent

[1:01:25] offered

[1:01:27] a demonstrative exhibit 3 and four. The

[1:01:30] city objected to the demonstrative being

[1:01:33] admitted as exhibits. Midcontinent

[1:01:36] withdraw the offer and ed demonstrate

[1:01:38] exhibit 3 and

[1:01:41] demonstrative exhibit 4 was admitted

[1:01:48] number 108. The board has not relied

[1:01:51] upon any single piece of evidence in

[1:01:54] reaching its decision. Instead, the

[1:01:57] board has weighed all of the direct and

[1:02:01] circumstantial evidence presented,

[1:02:04] including the physical evidence,

[1:02:06] sampling data, biological evidence,

[1:02:08] operational data, expert testimony,

[1:02:11] documentary evidence, and witness

[1:02:14] credibility.

[1:02:16] When viewed collectively rather than in

[1:02:19] isolation, the evidence continuously

[1:02:23] demonstrate

[1:02:24] that midcarnate discharge of quax

[1:02:27] containing waste water caused the

[1:02:30] materially contributed to May 2025

[1:02:33] upset. The resulting interference with

[1:02:36] the PW and the violations found herein

[1:02:41] number 109. Mitnet is the only SIU in in

[1:02:46] ENIT that uses quax containing compounds

[1:02:49] to manufacture products. Its usage of

[1:02:52] quax is significantly larger than other

[1:02:56] facilities that use quax for only

[1:02:59] cleaning and disinfecting prop purposes.

[1:03:02] It is undisputable that MH1P020

[1:03:07] accepts the discharge of only affluent

[1:03:11] coming from midcarnate.

[1:03:13] The POWW upset was accompanied by

[1:03:17] significant foaming and cleaner like

[1:03:20] smells. The 54th Street lift station

[1:03:22] which directs effluent to the PW at the

[1:03:26] same time was experienced significant

[1:03:29] foaming and cleaner-like smells. MH1P020

[1:03:34] which is directly north of the 54th

[1:03:36] Street lift station was at the same time

[1:03:39] experiencing significant foaming and

[1:03:41] cleaner like smell.

[1:03:44] All these conditions were abnormal. It

[1:03:47] defines common sense to deny a con

[1:03:51] connection between these three

[1:03:53] observations

[1:03:55] and the sole manufacturer of cleaning

[1:03:58] products that discharge into the init

[1:04:01] wastewater system and in effect

[1:04:03] discharges directly into one of the

[1:04:05] sites. MH1P020

[1:04:13] number 110.

[1:04:15] The testing of the May 20 grab sample

[1:04:19] along with subsequent samples in June,

[1:04:22] July, and August 2025 indicates the

[1:04:24] presence of quacks in MH1P020

[1:04:28] in quantities that are not explainable

[1:04:30] by ordinary cleaning activities that one

[1:04:33] might see in any other significant

[1:04:36] business or industry. That is it is

[1:04:39] apparent that the reading were readings

[1:04:42] were the results of quacks being

[1:04:45] discharged in a greater quantity not

[1:04:47] simply from wiping down counters or

[1:04:51] cleaning floors not covered with quax

[1:04:55] waste.

[1:04:58] Number 11. Midconent called no witness

[1:05:03] to dispute the evidence repres presented

[1:05:06] by the city with respect to the quax

[1:05:08] feed feed stock and material stored in

[1:05:11] the large quantities within its facility

[1:05:13] nor the city's evidence with respect to

[1:05:16] the conditions of the facility and the

[1:05:19] significant risk of the escape of quax

[1:05:21] laddin substances

[1:05:24] that unrivate evidence demonstrate the

[1:05:28] significant risk to the wastewater

[1:05:30] system from accidental or intentional

[1:05:34] discharges of the quack effluent. Number

[1:05:36] 112. The presence of quacks in MH1P020

[1:05:41] demonstrates violations of the

[1:05:43] midcontinent permit. In addition to

[1:05:45] prohibiting actual interference with the

[1:05:48] PW and pass through, the permit

[1:05:50] prohibits discharge of substances that

[1:05:53] may interfere either alone or in

[1:05:56] conjunction with other discharges.

[1:06:01] Number 113. The city investigated other

[1:06:05] potential sources rather than assuming

[1:06:07] midcontent was responsible. Its

[1:06:09] investigation include included field

[1:06:13] observations, wastewater pathways

[1:06:15] analysis, pathway analysis, sampling

[1:06:17] from multiple locations, review of plant

[1:06:20] operational data, SDS review, documents

[1:06:23] review, meetings with midcarnate and

[1:06:26] evaluations of other industrial users.

[1:06:29] The investigation of investigation was

[1:06:33] interactive and datadriven. As

[1:06:35] additional observations, sampling

[1:06:37] results, plan data, operator reports and

[1:06:41] facility information became available,

[1:06:44] city personnel adjusted the

[1:06:46] investigation and coordinated

[1:06:48] additionally additional sampling, review

[1:06:51] and source evaluation.

[1:06:55] Number 114. The board finds that the

[1:06:59] city responsible

[1:07:02] city reasonably relied on multiple lines

[1:07:05] of evidence rather than a single data

[1:07:07] point including foam and order

[1:07:10] observations, analytical testing, plant

[1:07:12] performance data, bacterial testing,

[1:07:14] facility information, sewer

[1:07:17] configuration evidence, and source

[1:07:19] pathway knowledge. Number 115. The

[1:07:23] absence of an eyewitness

[1:07:27] to the specific cleaning or discharging

[1:07:29] EV event does not defect source

[1:07:33] attributions.

[1:07:35] The city's source determination is sus

[1:07:38] supported by circumstantial evidence

[1:07:40] including midcontinence operations,

[1:07:42] discharge pathways, timing, physical

[1:07:44] observations, sampling results,

[1:07:46] biological evidence, and evaluation of

[1:07:49] alternative sources.

[1:07:54] number 116. The record supports a

[1:07:57] finding that the abnormal discharge

[1:07:59] indic indicators, WRF upset indicators

[1:08:03] and downstream environmental

[1:08:06] consequences occurred within a closely

[1:08:08] connected time frame and that the city

[1:08:11] reasonably expected its investigation

[1:08:14] after a report of a fish kill because

[1:08:16] the issue implic

[1:08:19] implicated downstream environmental

[1:08:21] impacts as well as plant operations.

[1:08:25] Number 117. The board does not find the

[1:08:29] absence of octo octo deco dimethyl

[1:08:34] ammonium chloride from certain influent

[1:08:38] reports sufficient to outweigh the

[1:08:41] remaining evidence. The numer numerous

[1:08:44] other quack compounds associated with

[1:08:47] midcontinent were identified in both

[1:08:49] midcontinent's wastewater and the plant

[1:08:52] influent.

[1:08:54] The board concluded concludes that the

[1:08:57] absence of a single analytical analyte

[1:09:02] analyte does not negate the city's

[1:09:04] source attribution analysis number 118.

[1:09:08] The board does not find that any other

[1:09:11] SIU possess the same con combination of

[1:09:14] quacks, handling operations, wastewater

[1:09:16] pathway, physical observation, sampling

[1:09:19] results, and temporal relationship to

[1:09:22] the May 2025 upset as a midcontent. The

[1:09:25] city's investigation reasonably

[1:09:28] eliminated other significant industrial

[1:09:30] users as the likely source of the

[1:09:33] discharge number 119. The board does not

[1:09:37] find persuade you EDA's opinion that

[1:09:41] inhibitation could not occur below

[1:09:43] approximately 50 mgs per liter such that

[1:09:47] midcarnate is not reasonable for

[1:09:49] writation

[1:09:57] administrative order permit modification

[1:10:00] seess

[1:10:02] order emergency suspension and permit

[1:10:05] denial. were based upon information

[1:10:08] developed during the city's

[1:10:10] investigation and recommendation of the

[1:10:12] city staff responsible for

[1:10:14] administration of the pre-treatment

[1:10:16] program number 121. The board finds that

[1:10:20] neither the city sewer use ordinance nor

[1:10:24] accepted wastewater engineering

[1:10:27] principle require the city to establish

[1:10:29] an exact chemical

[1:10:32] fingerprint. Identifying every

[1:10:34] individual quack species at every

[1:10:37] sampling location are pro

[1:10:41] a single universal inhibitory

[1:10:44] concentration

[1:10:46] before concluding that a prohibition

[1:10:49] prohibited discharge occurred. Thus

[1:10:52] source attribution and interference are

[1:10:55] established by the totality of the

[1:10:57] evidence.

[1:11:03] Number 11 122.

[1:11:06] The board finds that quacks are

[1:11:08] antimicrobial compounds intended to kill

[1:11:11] or inhibit microorganisms because the

[1:11:13] ENT WRF depends on living micron

[1:11:16] microorganisms to perform by biological

[1:11:19] treatment including nitrification quax

[1:11:21] containing waste water is capable of

[1:11:24] creating toxic effects within the POW

[1:11:28] when discharged into sufficient

[1:11:30] sufficient quantity.

[1:11:32] Number one, two, three. The board finds

[1:11:35] that midcontent discharge waste water

[1:11:37] containing quax and cationic surfectants

[1:11:40] to the city's sanitary sewer system.

[1:11:43] Those compounds included benzo

[1:11:47] benzylcomium family compounds, DD A

[1:11:51] family compounds, OD MAC,

[1:11:55] D O M A and related quadinary ammonium

[1:12:01] compounds detected in samples collected

[1:12:03] from midcontinents representative

[1:12:05] discharge location.

[1:12:08] Number 124.

[1:12:11] The board finds that the quack

[1:12:13] concentrations

[1:12:14] identified during the May 2025 event

[1:12:18] were not background

[1:12:21] municipal levels, ordinary household use

[1:12:25] or trace contamination.

[1:12:27] The concentrations detected at

[1:12:29] midcarnate discharge point and the mass

[1:12:32] of quacks entering the WRF were

[1:12:35] consistent with a significant industrial

[1:12:38] discharge number 125. The board finds

[1:12:41] that the mere existence of quax from

[1:12:44] residential, commercial or industrial

[1:12:46] sources of sources does not preclude a

[1:12:50] finding that midcontinent caused a

[1:12:52] contributed to the May 2025 upset. The

[1:12:56] evidence established that midcontinence

[1:12:58] operations, the concentrations

[1:13:01] and the mass of quacks discharged, the

[1:13:04] timing of event of the event, the

[1:13:06] physical observations, the sewer

[1:13:08] configurations and the biological

[1:13:10] effects distinguished mid-continents

[1:13:14] discharge from ordinary background

[1:13:16] sources.

[1:13:19] Number 126. The board finds that the

[1:13:21] quack containing waste water caused or

[1:13:24] contributed to toxic effects within the

[1:13:27] WRF biological treatment process

[1:13:29] including inhibitation or loss of

[1:13:31] nitrifying bacteria, loss of ammonia

[1:13:33] level removal,

[1:13:36] disruption to disruption of biomass and

[1:13:39] impaired treatment performance.

[1:13:42] Number 27 127. The board finds that

[1:13:45] midcontinence discharge caused the

[1:13:47] contributions to interference with the

[1:13:50] operations and performance of the PW.

[1:13:53] Before the May 9 2025 event, the WRF was

[1:13:57] achieving complete or near complete

[1:14:00] nitrification. After the event, the

[1:14:03] event affluent ammonia increased

[1:14:05] sharply. Nitrification failure failed,

[1:14:08] suspended solids increased, phosphorus

[1:14:11] removal was impaired, and biological

[1:14:13] treatment performance deteriorated.

[1:14:18] Number 128. The board finds that the

[1:14:21] interference was not limited to a

[1:14:23] laboratory result. It was reflected in

[1:14:26] plant operations, foam, and order

[1:14:30] observations.

[1:14:32] loss of nitrifying bacteria, elevated

[1:14:35] ammonia, impaired phosphorus removal,

[1:14:38] operational response measures, and the

[1:14:41] need for recovery efforts. Number 129.

[1:14:45] The board finds that the discharge

[1:14:47] interfered with the city's ability to

[1:14:50] operate the WRF in the ordinary course

[1:14:53] and required extraordinary operational

[1:14:55] measures including additional testing,

[1:14:58] cationic surfectants monitoring,

[1:15:01] neutraquad, biological reeding, pumping

[1:15:05] equipment, response planning and

[1:15:08] diversion protocols.

[1:15:12] Number 130. The board finds that

[1:15:14] midcontinent's discharge caused or

[1:15:16] contributed to conditions that impaired

[1:15:19] the city's ability to comply comply with

[1:15:24] its OPDS NPDS obligations. The city's

[1:15:27] permit required compliance with ammonia

[1:15:30] limits and protection of the receiving

[1:15:33] stream. At the May 2025 upset cause

[1:15:37] elevated affluent ammonia and downstream

[1:15:39] environmental consequences.

[1:15:44] Number 131. The board finds that the

[1:15:46] city as the OPDS NPDS permit holder was

[1:15:50] exposed to regulatory consequences

[1:15:53] because of the upset including OP ODQ

[1:15:56] enforcement and wildlife related

[1:15:58] assessment arising from downstream

[1:16:01] impacts. Number 132. The board finds

[1:16:04] that the discharge created conditions

[1:16:07] that impaired the city's ability to

[1:16:09] prevent pass through because

[1:16:12] pollutants entered the PW in quantities

[1:16:16] and under circum under circumstances

[1:16:18] that impaired the treatment plant under

[1:16:21] the treatment and affected the city's

[1:16:24] ability to protect Skeleton Creek.

[1:16:26] Number 133.

[1:16:28] The board finds that the May 2025 event

[1:16:32] was acute and not a gradual decline in

[1:16:35] the plan performance.

[1:16:37] The WRF was operating with effective

[1:16:40] ammonia removal before the event

[1:16:43] followed by a sudden ammonia spike, foam

[1:16:45] order, and biological treatment failure.

[1:16:51] Number 134. The board finds that the

[1:16:53] timing of midcontinent's May 19th

[1:16:56] cleaning audit activities returned to

[1:16:58] full production foam and clean cleaner

[1:17:01] order at the midcontinent manhole and

[1:17:03] the immediate downstream observations

[1:17:06] support a finding that the discharge was

[1:17:10] episodic or slug like in nature.

[1:17:14] 135. The board finds that the discharge

[1:17:16] was of a nature, volume or concentration

[1:17:20] sufficient to disrupt the POW and

[1:17:23] requires immediate operational response.

[1:17:26] Number 136. The board finds that B

[1:17:29] midconent failed to adequately prevent a

[1:17:31] quack containing waste water, wash

[1:17:34] water, spills, tank resins, resin, rinse

[1:17:38] sets or related chemical

[1:17:42] residues from entering the sanitary

[1:17:44] sewer system.

[1:17:47] Number 137. The board finds that

[1:17:50] midcontent did not demonstrate adequate

[1:17:52] pre-treatment, segregation, contaminant

[1:17:55] monitoring or off-site disposal control

[1:17:58] sufficient to protect the POTW from

[1:18:01] quarks containing wastewater. Number

[1:18:04] 138. The board finds that MidCon did not

[1:18:07] timely or completely provide the

[1:18:10] information necessary for the city to

[1:18:12] evaluate its discharge practices. Quack

[1:18:15] containing waste streams, SDS, chemical

[1:18:19] investig inventories, pre-treatment

[1:18:21] practices,

[1:18:24] containerization, off-site disposal and

[1:18:27] corrective measures.

[1:18:33] Number 139. The board finds that the

[1:18:35] city could not reliably protect the PW

[1:18:38] without complete information regarding

[1:18:41] midcarnance quack containing products,

[1:18:43] waste pathways, treatment practices and

[1:18:45] discharge controls.

[1:18:50] Number 140. The board finds that the

[1:18:52] administrative order was necessary

[1:18:54] because the NOV alone did not resolve

[1:18:57] the compliance concerns. Continued quack

[1:19:01] detections, unresolved wastewater

[1:19:03] pathways,

[1:19:05] incomplete information and inadequate

[1:19:07] demonstrated pre- treatment in justifies

[1:19:10] the corrective measures, continued

[1:19:12] monitoring and enforcable compliance

[1:19:14] obligations.

[1:19:17] Number 141. The board finds that the

[1:19:20] city's require requested costs were

[1:19:23] reasonable reasonably and necessarily to

[1:19:26] incur to investigate the discharge,

[1:19:30] identify its source, restore biological

[1:19:32] treatment, respond to ODQ and wildlife

[1:19:35] related consequences, protect the PDW

[1:19:38] and prevent recurrence.

[1:19:42] Number 142. The board finds that the

[1:19:45] requested penalties and cost recovery

[1:19:47] were are reasonable in light of nature

[1:19:50] of the violations, the harm to the PW

[1:19:53] PW, the downstream environmental

[1:19:56] impacts, the city's regulatory exposure,

[1:19:58] midcarnance incomplete information, and

[1:20:02] the resources required to investigate,

[1:20:05] respond to, and prevent reoccurrence.

[1:20:08] Number 143. Having considered

[1:20:10] midcontinent's defi defenses together

[1:20:14] with all of the evidence presented the

[1:20:16] board concludes that the those

[1:20:18] deficiency deficient defenses do not

[1:20:22] overcome the greater way of the evidence

[1:20:25] establishing that the midcontent

[1:20:27] discharged quack containing wastewater

[1:20:29] that caused the caused or materially

[1:20:31] contributed to the May 2025 WRF upset

[1:20:35] and the resulting violations of the

[1:20:38] sewer use ordinance and permit number

[1:20:42] 021

[1:20:44] number 144. The board finds that the NOV

[1:20:47] and administrative orders were issued

[1:20:50] not merely to impose penalties but to

[1:20:53] identify and eliminate the cause of May

[1:20:56] 25 May 2025 upset. Obtaining information

[1:21:00] necessary for the cities to evaluate

[1:21:02] midcontinents wastewater practices

[1:21:04] require corrective measures to protect

[1:21:06] POW. ensuring future compliance with

[1:21:09] permit number 021 and sewer use

[1:21:12] ordinance and reduce the likelihood

[1:21:16] likelihood of similar interference with

[1:21:18] the city's biological treatment process.

[1:21:21] The administrative order was reasonable

[1:21:25] ex exercise the city's pre-treatment

[1:21:28] authority following completion of its

[1:21:30] investigation

[1:21:34] number 145. Accordingly, the board finds

[1:21:37] that the city's pro proved

[1:21:42] the factual basis for the NOV and

[1:21:44] administrative order by greater way of

[1:21:47] its evidence of the evidence.

[1:21:54] Do you want me to?

[1:21:55] >> Yeah. Is that okay if I take over?

[1:21:59] » Yeah. Is that okay if I take over?

[1:21:59] Conclusion of laws, jurisdiction and

[1:22:02] standard of review. The Environmental

[1:22:03] Enforcement Board has jurisdiction over

[1:22:05] the appe this appeal pursuant to the

[1:22:08] Enids sewer use ordinance. The board

[1:22:10] conducted a denovo evidentary hearing

[1:22:13] and serves as a finder of the fact

[1:22:15] including determining witness

[1:22:17] credibility, weighing conflicting

[1:22:19] evidence and applying the applicable

[1:22:22] provisions of the sewer use ordinance

[1:22:24] permit number 021 and governing state

[1:22:27] and a federal pre-treatment law. Federal

[1:22:30] Regulatory Authority. The MPDEes program

[1:22:34] begins with a federal regulation 40 CFR

[1:22:37] part 403 covers pre-treatment

[1:22:39] regulations for existing and new sources

[1:22:42] of pollution. It establishes

[1:22:44] responsibility of federal, state and

[1:22:46] local government, industry,

[1:22:49] industry and public to the implement

[1:22:52] national pre-treatment standards to

[1:22:54] control pollutants which pass through or

[1:22:56] interfere fear with treatment processes

[1:22:58] in publicly owned treatment works POWs

[1:23:02] or which may contaminate sewage sludge.

[1:23:05] 40 CFR 403.1A.

[1:23:09] At 403.5, it establishes national

[1:23:12] pre-treatment standards and defines

[1:23:14] prohibitive discharges, general prohib

[1:23:16] prohibitions. A user may not introduce

[1:23:19] into a POTW any pollutants which cause

[1:23:22] pass through or interference. These

[1:23:24] general prohibitions and the specific

[1:23:27] prohibitions in paragraph B of this

[1:23:32] section apply to each user in

[1:23:35] introducing pollutants to into a POTW

[1:23:38] whether or not the user is subject to

[1:23:40] the national pre-treatment standards or

[1:23:43] any national state or local

[1:23:45] pre-treatment requirements.

[1:23:47] 40 CFR 403.5A-1

[1:23:51] specific prohibitions including any

[1:23:53] pollutant released at a rate or

[1:23:55] concentration that will cause

[1:23:56] interference with the POTW 40 CFR

[1:24:00] 403.5B4.

[1:24:03] Two standards are used to regulate

[1:24:05] discharges. The categoral standard and

[1:24:09] the prohibitive discharges standard.

[1:24:11] Patronis versus Marshall Durban Food

[1:24:14] Corp. 205 WAW WL 8158435

[1:24:20] at star11 ND

[1:24:24] LA March 17th of 2005. While some

[1:24:28] categoral standards are set, not all

[1:24:31] pollutants are subject to a categoral

[1:24:33] standard. Instead, prohibited discharges

[1:24:36] are determined by toxic effect and

[1:24:38] potential. Ryan Howser, NRCO versus

[1:24:42] Washington State Department of

[1:24:43] Ecological and Pollution Control. He

[1:24:45] hearings board 33 Washington

[1:24:49] app 2D 1040 2024 AM Pepper Industry.

[1:24:56] Wow.

[1:24:58] Um, Inc. versus US EPA 996F

[1:25:02] 2D 346 349 DC circulate 1993.

[1:25:09] The Clean Water Act and its regulations

[1:25:11] recognize neither a good faith nor a

[1:25:14] deminimous defense intended a and intent

[1:25:18] and good faith are irrelevant in actions

[1:25:20] involving strict liability for

[1:25:22] contaminated MPDes permit violations.

[1:25:25] Patronis versus Marshall, Durban, Food

[1:25:28] Corp. I assume all the rest of this

[1:25:30] needs to be in the record. Is that

[1:25:32] accurate?

[1:25:33] >> It's a reference to the case citation.

[1:25:36] » It's a reference to the case citation.

[1:25:36] You've already referenced that case

[1:25:38] citation. Just go ahead and say ID.

[1:25:41] >> ID.

[1:25:42] » ID.

[1:25:42] >> Okay. State Regulatory Authority. The

[1:25:44] » Okay. State Regulatory Authority. The

[1:25:44] Oklahoma Department of Environmental

[1:25:46] Quality issues permits for municipal

[1:25:49] wastewater plants and requires

[1:25:51] municipalities to regulate industrial

[1:25:53] users. Among other prohibitions on

[1:25:55] discharges, Oklahoma regulation

[1:25:58] regulations prevent the discharge of

[1:26:00] seven wastewater causing alone or in

[1:26:03] conjunction with other sources. The

[1:26:05] treatment plants affluent who fail a

[1:26:08] toxicity test for purpose of this

[1:26:10] paragraph. toxicity means that the

[1:26:12] endpoint of the acute biom monitoring

[1:26:15] test requirement as specified in the

[1:26:17] CCTS NPDES permit. Oklahoma admin code

[1:26:22] 252

[1:26:24] 63 623-3-1

[1:26:27] Oklahoma regul regulations also

[1:26:30] expressly prohibited eight detergent

[1:26:32] surfac surface agent

[1:26:35] active agents or other substances which

[1:26:38] may cause excessive foaming in the POW

[1:26:41] Oklahoma admin code 252 623-3-1

[1:26:47] further ODQ defines that interference

[1:26:50] includes a discharge with alone or with

[1:26:53] other discharges, inhibits or disrupts

[1:26:56] the POTW treatment process or

[1:26:58] operations, and contributes to a

[1:27:00] violation of requirements of the POTW

[1:27:04] NPDES permit, Oklahoma admin code

[1:27:07] 25623-1-4.

[1:27:11] Pass through includes a discharge that

[1:27:14] exits the POTW into waters of the United

[1:27:18] States in quantities or concentrations

[1:27:20] that cause a violation of the POTW's

[1:27:24] NPDES permit. Oklahoma admin code

[1:27:27] 25623-1-4.

[1:27:31] Pre-treatment includes reduction,

[1:27:33] elimination, or alteration of pollutants

[1:27:35] before discharge to a POTW, including

[1:27:38] controls to protect against surges or

[1:27:40] slug loads that inter might interfere

[1:27:42] with or be incompatible with the POW.

[1:27:46] Oklahoma admin code 25623-1-427A

[1:27:52] 2-6-2025.

[1:27:56] slug includes any non-rine episodic

[1:27:59] discharge including an accidental spill

[1:28:01] or non-customary batch discharge

[1:28:04] Oklahoma admin code 25 2623-1-4

[1:28:10] city regulation authority regulatory

[1:28:13] authority the ENID code of ordinances

[1:28:15] contains several provisions prohibiting

[1:28:17] discharges in violation of an SIU's

[1:28:20] permit 8-3F-3

[1:28:23] requires a permit stating A permit

[1:28:26] required. It shall be unlawful for any

[1:28:28] significant industrial user to discharge

[1:28:31] any waste water in to any natural outlet

[1:28:34] within the city and or to the POTW

[1:28:37] without a wastewater discharge permit

[1:28:40] except as also authorized by the

[1:28:42] environmental compliance specialist in

[1:28:44] accordance with the provisions of this

[1:28:46] article. 8-3F-4

[1:28:49] allows for conditions and ordinance

[1:28:51] compliance stating C permit conditions

[1:28:54] wastewater discharge permits shall be

[1:28:57] expressly subject to all provisions of

[1:28:59] this article and all other applicable

[1:29:01] ordinances other charges and fees

[1:29:04] established by the city specific

[1:29:06] prohibitions are also contained in the

[1:29:08] code of ordinances 8-3A-8A

[1:29:13] discharge of certain waters or waste to

[1:29:15] sanitary sewer A general prohibitions.

[1:29:18] No user shall contribute or cause to be

[1:29:21] contributed directly or indirectly into

[1:29:23] a POTW

[1:29:25] any pollutant or waste water which will

[1:29:29] interfere interfere with the operation

[1:29:31] or performance of or pass through the

[1:29:34] POTW. Furthermore, Furthermore, no user

[1:29:39] may contribute the following substance

[1:29:41] to the POTW.

[1:29:43] 8-3A-8A

[1:29:46] 1. Any liquids, solids, or gases which

[1:29:49] by reason of their nature or quantity

[1:29:52] are or may be sufficient either alone or

[1:29:56] in interaction with other substances to

[1:30:00] be injurous in any way to the POTW or to

[1:30:05] the operation of the POTW.

[1:30:07] 8-3A-8A4.

[1:30:11] Any waste water containing toxic

[1:30:13] pollutants in the sufficient quantity,

[1:30:16] either singly or by interaction with

[1:30:18] other pollutants to injure or interfere

[1:30:21] with any wastewater treatment process,

[1:30:23] constitutes a hazard to humans or

[1:30:25] animals, create a toxic effect in the

[1:30:28] receiving waters of the PW, or to exceed

[1:30:31] the limitations set forth in a categoral

[1:30:34] pre-treatment standard. A toxic

[1:30:36] pollutant shall include, but not be

[1:30:39] limited to, any pollutant identified

[1:30:42] pursuant to 307A of the act C 33 USC

[1:30:49] 1317A

[1:30:51] 8-3A-87,

[1:30:55] any substance which will cause the POW

[1:30:58] to violate its NPDES permit or the state

[1:31:02] water quality standards. 8-3A-8A10

[1:31:08] any pollutants excluding oxygen

[1:31:10] demanding pollutants BOD5 and the like

[1:31:14] release in a discharge rate and or

[1:31:17] pollutant concentrate which will cause

[1:31:19] interference to the POTW

[1:31:22] 8-3A-8

[1:31:25] A12

[1:31:26] Any waste water which causes a hazard to

[1:31:29] human life or creates a public nuisance

[1:31:32] 8-3A A-2 contains definitions of

[1:31:37] relevant terms.

[1:31:39] Interference, a discharge which alone or

[1:31:41] in conjunction with a discharge or

[1:31:43] discharges from other sources. one

[1:31:45] inhibits or disrupts the POTW treatment

[1:31:49] processes or operations in its sludge

[1:31:51] process use or disposal and two

[1:31:54] therefore contributes to a violation of

[1:31:56] any requirement of the city's NPDES

[1:31:59] permit including an increase in the

[1:32:02] magnitude or duration of a violation or

[1:32:05] of the prevention of sewer sludge use or

[1:32:08] disposal by the POTW in accordance with

[1:32:11] any of the following statutory

[1:32:13] regulatory provisions or permits issued

[1:32:15] there or more stringent state or local

[1:32:19] regulations. 405 of the Clean Water Act

[1:32:22] 33USC1345

[1:32:26] or CR any criteria, guidelines or

[1:32:28] regulations developed pursuant to the

[1:32:30] Solid Waste Disposal Act, SWDA,

[1:32:34] including title 2 commonly referred to

[1:32:36] as the Resource Conservation and

[1:32:38] Recovery Act, RC A C 42 USC6901

[1:32:46] at

[1:32:48] SQL

[1:32:49] >> at SEC it means

[1:32:50] » at SEC it means

[1:32:50] the section that entire it's a reference

[1:32:53] to the entire section.

[1:32:54] >> Gotcha. Or more stringent state criteria

[1:32:57] » Gotcha. Or more stringent state criteria

[1:32:57] contained in any sludge management plan

[1:32:59] prepared pursuant to subtitle D of the

[1:33:02] SWDA C42USC

[1:33:06] 6941 XEC. The Clean Air Act C42 USC7401

[1:33:13] XEC. The Toxic Substance Control Act C15

[1:33:18] USC 2601X

[1:33:22] the and the Marine Protection Research

[1:33:24] and Sanctuaries Act C14USC

[1:33:28] 1431 XSE and 33USC401

[1:33:34] XEC pass through a discharge which exits

[1:33:38] the POWW into the waters of the US in

[1:33:41] quantities or concentrations which alone

[1:33:43] or in conjunction with a discharge or

[1:33:45] discharges from other sources. It is a

[1:33:48] cause of a violation of any requirement

[1:33:51] of the POTW's NPDES permit, including an

[1:33:55] increase in the magnitude or duration of

[1:33:57] the violation. slug. Any discharge or

[1:34:01] non-rine episodic nature, including but

[1:34:04] not limited to an accidental spill or a

[1:34:08] non-customary batch discharge, toxic

[1:34:11] pollutant. any pollutant or combination

[1:34:14] of pollutants listed as a toxic in

[1:34:17] regulation promagated by the

[1:34:19] administrator of the Environmental

[1:34:21] Protection Agency under the provisions

[1:34:23] of CWA 307A

[1:34:26] C 33USC

[1:34:30] 1317A

[1:34:31] and or other acts upset an exceptional

[1:34:35] incident in which there is an

[1:34:36] unintentional and temporary

[1:34:38] non-compliance with categoral

[1:34:40] pre-treatment standards because of

[1:34:41] factor factors beyond the reasonable

[1:34:43] control of the industrial user. An

[1:34:46] EPSSET does not include non-compliance

[1:34:48] to the extent caused by opture

[1:34:52] operational error, improperly designed

[1:34:54] treatment facilities, inadequate

[1:34:56] treatment facilities, lack of

[1:34:58] preventative maintenance or careless or

[1:35:00] improper operations.

[1:35:03] Evidentiary standards. The city bears

[1:35:06] the burden of proof to establish which

[1:35:08] alleged violation by the preponderance

[1:35:11] of the evidence. Under Oklahoma law,

[1:35:13] this is also called the greater weight

[1:35:15] of the evidence. Meaning that the burden

[1:35:18] is to show something is more probably

[1:35:20] true than not. C. Bedillo versus

[1:35:23] Midcentury Insurance

[1:35:25] Company 2005 Oklahoma 48121

[1:35:30] P3D

[1:35:31] 1080 1096 as corrected June 22nd 2005

[1:35:37] insured was insured was prov required to

[1:35:41] prove the essential elements of his

[1:35:43] claim for breach of the duty of the good

[1:35:45] faith and fair dealing by a greater

[1:35:48] weight of evidence standard i.e E by a

[1:35:51] prepoundonderance of the evidence. As

[1:35:53] the well-known axiom states, the

[1:35:56] preponderance of evidence does not mean

[1:35:58] the greater number of witnesses

[1:36:00] testifying to the fact, but it that

[1:36:02] which to the mind of the trier or of the

[1:36:06] fact or the seeker of the truth seems

[1:36:08] most conveniencing and more probably

[1:36:11] true. The board may consider both direct

[1:36:14] and circumstantial evidence. CE G O U JI

[1:36:19] 3.2 25. The law makes no distinction

[1:36:22] between the weight to be given to either

[1:36:24] direct or circumstantial evidence. You

[1:36:27] should consider circumstantial evidence

[1:36:28] together with all the other evidence in

[1:36:31] the case in arriving at your verdict.

[1:36:34] Midcon argues that the issue is all

[1:36:37] about science and that is necessarily

[1:36:39] for scientific evidence and the

[1:36:42] scientist to prove provide answers to

[1:36:44] whether it was responsible for the plant

[1:36:46] upset or violated its permit. The issue

[1:36:49] before the board is not whether the

[1:36:51] causation can be demonstrated with

[1:36:53] scientific certainty. Scientific

[1:36:56] certainty seeks to eliminate doubt. A

[1:36:59] preponderance of the evidence simply ask

[1:37:01] which explanation is more probable one.

[1:37:04] Courts have long rejected scientific

[1:37:07] certainty as a standard in environmental

[1:37:09] matters. C. Ethel Corp versus

[1:37:12] Environmental Protection Agency 541F.2D

[1:37:16] 2D 1 128N

[1:37:19] 58 DC circuit 1976

[1:37:24] petitioners demanding demand sole

[1:37:26] resilience on scientific facts on

[1:37:29] evidence that reputable scientific

[1:37:31] techniques certify as certain typically

[1:37:33] a scientist will not so certify evidence

[1:37:36] unless the probability of error by

[1:37:39] standard statistical measurement is less

[1:37:42] than 5% that is scientific fact is at

[1:37:46] least 95% certain. Also see Friends of

[1:37:49] the Earth, Inc. versus Gaston Cooper

[1:37:52] Recycling Corp. 204 F.3D

[1:37:56] 1491 163 Fourth Circuit 2000.

[1:38:01] Litig litigants routinely rely on

[1:38:04] circumstantial evidence to prove any

[1:38:06] number of contested issues. And if a

[1:38:09] prosecutor may rely wholly on

[1:38:11] circumstantial evidence to prove that a

[1:38:13] criminal defendant is guilty beyond a

[1:38:15] reasonable doubt, there is no apparent

[1:38:18] reason and certainly not a reason

[1:38:20] apparent from the constitution, the

[1:38:22] federal rules or the clean water act

[1:38:25] itself to regard this type of proof as

[1:38:28] per se deficient

[1:38:31] for establishing standing in a clean

[1:38:34] water act case. Environmental

[1:38:36] enforcement states statutes do not

[1:38:38] require scientific certainty certainty

[1:38:41] before regulatory action may be taken.

[1:38:44] Courts have consistently recognize that

[1:38:46] environmental decisionmaking necessarily

[1:38:48] involves evaluation of incomplete

[1:38:51] conflicting and circumstantial evidence

[1:38:54] and that the applicable legal question

[1:38:57] is whether the evidence makes the

[1:38:59] asserted conclusion more probable than

[1:39:01] not. not whether every competing

[1:39:03] hypothesis has been scientifically

[1:39:06] eliminated. Ethel Corp versus EPA

[1:39:10] 541 F.2D128

[1:39:14] DC circuit 1976.

[1:39:17] The administrator may apply his

[1:39:18] expertise to draw conclusions from

[1:39:20] suspected but do not completely substain

[1:39:24] relationships between facts from trends

[1:39:27] among facts from theoretical projections

[1:39:30] from imperfect data from prohibitive

[1:39:33] preliminary data do not certifiably as

[1:39:36] fact and the like. Lead indust lead

[1:39:41] industries

[1:39:45] » association

[1:39:45] >> association EPA 467 F.2D 2D 1130 1148-49

[1:39:54] DC circuit 1980 Sierra Club versus US

[1:39:58] EPA 774F.3D

[1:40:02] 383 395-96

[1:40:06] 7th circuit

[1:40:09] n 2014 midcontinent further argues that

[1:40:13] the city was required to scientifically

[1:40:15] fingerprint its wastewater by proving

[1:40:18] the that every in individual QAC species

[1:40:22] identified at mid-continent's

[1:40:23] representative sampling location was

[1:40:25] likewise identified at the WRF influent

[1:40:29] before source attributation can be

[1:40:31] established. The board rejects that

[1:40:33] argument. Courts addressing

[1:40:35] environmental contamination have

[1:40:37] repeatedly recognized that pollutants

[1:40:39] are diluted, mixed, transported,

[1:40:41] absorbed, degraded, and otherwise

[1:40:43] altered during migration through

[1:40:45] environmental systems making exact chem

[1:40:48] chemical fingerprinting scientific

[1:40:51] scientical difficulty difficult or

[1:40:54] impossible. Accordingly,

[1:40:56] courts have held that environmental

[1:40:58] liability may be established through the

[1:41:00] total of the evidence, including simil

[1:41:03] similar contaminants, migration

[1:41:05] pathways, operational evidence, expert

[1:41:08] testimony, and circumstantial evidence,

[1:41:10] and does not require proof that every

[1:41:13] containment may be chemically traced to

[1:41:15] a specific source. See Arsco LLC versus

[1:41:19] CX Inc. 21F

[1:41:23] point sub

[1:41:26] 3D784

[1:41:28] 803-04

[1:41:30] WD text

[1:41:33] 2014 holding that imposing a

[1:41:35] fingerprinting requirement might permit

[1:41:37] the owners and operators of facilities

[1:41:39] to avoid financial responsibility

[1:41:42] and that a plan plaintiff need not

[1:41:44] fingerprint contamination to establish

[1:41:47] liability. United States versus

[1:41:49] Fairchild Industries, Inc. 766F.UP

[1:41:54] 405413

[1:41:57] DMD

[1:41:58] 1991, holding that the government need

[1:42:01] not trace each defendant's hazardous

[1:42:03] waste to a specific release, but need

[1:42:06] only prove that the hazardous substance

[1:42:08] like those contained in the defendant's

[1:42:10] waste were present at the site. New York

[1:42:14] versus Adamski

[1:42:16] in

[1:42:18] 16 FSUP 3D123

[1:42:23] 148-49

[1:42:24] EDNY

[1:42:26] 2014 holding that a CER claiff

[1:42:31] is not required to fingerprint

[1:42:34] downgradant

[1:42:35] contamination and that environmental

[1:42:37] causation need not be established with

[1:42:40] scientific certainty. citations omitted.

[1:42:44] The board further concludes that neither

[1:42:46] the procedural order, the sewer use

[1:42:49] ordinance, Oklahoma pre-treatment law,

[1:42:51] nor accepted principles of the

[1:42:53] administrative law require the city to

[1:42:55] eliminate every possible alternative

[1:42:57] source of QAC's or disprove every

[1:43:00] competing

[1:43:03] hypothesis before enforcement could

[1:43:05] occur. The board is not changed with

[1:43:07] resolving resolving charged with

[1:43:10] resolving every scientific disagreement

[1:43:12] or identifying the precise molecular

[1:43:16] fate of every QAC compound after

[1:43:18] discharge into the collection system.

[1:43:20] Rather, the board must determine whether

[1:43:22] the greater weight of the evidence

[1:43:24] establishes that mid-continent caused or

[1:43:27] contributed to the alleged violations.

[1:43:30] The board therefore evaluates the

[1:43:32] evidence under the preponderance of the

[1:43:34] evidence standard required by the

[1:43:36] procedural order rather than the

[1:43:38] heightened standard of scientific

[1:43:40] certainty advocated by Midcontinent for

[1:43:43] the reasons set forth in the findings of

[1:43:45] the fact and infra. The board concludes

[1:43:49] that the satisfy the city satisfies its

[1:43:52] burden

[1:43:53] interpretation of law of governing law.

[1:43:56] The ordinance creates effectbased

[1:43:59] prohibitions. The city operates its POTW

[1:44:02] pursuant to any LPDDES,

[1:44:05] NPDES permit, and remains responsible

[1:44:08] for complying with that permit affluent

[1:44:11] limitations, monitoring requirements,

[1:44:14] reporting obligations, and other

[1:44:15] regulatory requirements. The Clean Water

[1:44:18] Act, Oklahoma Environment Environmental

[1:44:21] Quality Code, Oklahoma pre-treatment

[1:44:24] regulations, ENA SU sewer use ordinance,

[1:44:28] and permit number 021 operate together

[1:44:31] to prevent industrial users from

[1:44:33] introducing pollutants that interfere

[1:44:35] with treatment, pass through

[1:44:37] inadequately treated, damaged sludge or

[1:44:41] resident resid residules,

[1:44:44] creating nuisance or safety conditions

[1:44:46] or impair the city's OPDES NPDEES

[1:44:50] compliance because the city is the OPDES

[1:44:54] NPDES permit holder. ODEQ looks to the

[1:44:58] city for permanent compliance even when

[1:45:01] the pollutant causing or contributing to

[1:45:03] non-compliance originates from an

[1:45:05] industrial user. The sewer use ordinance

[1:45:08] must therefore be interpreted as a

[1:45:10] protective and preventative tree

[1:45:13] treatment ordinance. Its prohibitions

[1:45:15] apply when a discharge causes or

[1:45:17] contributes to prohibited effects on the

[1:45:20] POTW, receiving water, sludge,

[1:45:23] residules, public safety, or the city's

[1:45:26] permit compliance.

[1:45:28] QAC's not need not be expressly listed.

[1:45:33] The board's the board concludes that the

[1:45:35] absence of numerical local limit or

[1:45:38] specific reference to QAC's in permit

[1:45:41] number 021 or the sewer use ordinance

[1:45:46] does not authorize discharge of QAC's

[1:45:48] containing waste water where the

[1:45:50] discharge causes or contributes or may

[1:45:52] cause to or contribute to interfere

[1:45:55] toxic effects pass through nuisance

[1:45:58] conditions sludge impacts or impairment

[1:46:01] of the city's OPD dees NPDEES

[1:46:04] obligations. Enid code 8-3A-8A4

[1:46:10] is not limited to pollutants identified

[1:46:12] under Clean Water Act 307A.

[1:46:16] The ordinance provides that toxic

[1:46:18] pollutants include but are not limited

[1:46:20] those federally identified pollutants.

[1:46:23] Accordingly, QAC containing waste water

[1:46:26] may constitute a prohibited discharge if

[1:46:30] it is present in a sufficient quantity

[1:46:34] either singly or by interaction with

[1:46:37] other pollutants to injure or interfere

[1:46:40] with wastewater treatment, create toxic

[1:46:42] effects, or otherwise cause one of the

[1:46:44] prohibited effected effects identified

[1:46:47] in the ordinance. proof of causation,

[1:46:50] interference, or source attribution. The

[1:46:53] law does not require the city to prove

[1:46:56] each individual analytic

[1:46:59] analytical result in isolation. Rather,

[1:47:01] the board must determine whether the

[1:47:02] cumulative force of the evidence makes

[1:47:04] mid-continent's responsibility more

[1:47:07] probable true than not. Source

[1:47:10] attribution, interference, toxic

[1:47:12] effects, and pass through may be

[1:47:14] established by the total of the evidence

[1:47:16] including operational data, sampling

[1:47:19] results, biological testing, field

[1:47:21] observation, sewer con configuration,

[1:47:24] timing, expert testimony, and other

[1:47:27] direct or circumstantial evidence.

[1:47:29] Circumstantial environmental proof

[1:47:31] consists of multiple converging facts

[1:47:34] that individually may not establish

[1:47:36] causes causation but collectively do.

[1:47:39] Here are those facts. The city's die

[1:47:41] test confirming that manhole 1P020

[1:47:46] represented mid-continent's discharge

[1:47:48] before

[1:47:50] comingling the location of the sewer

[1:47:53] system and elimination of other s

[1:47:55] significant industrial sources upstream

[1:47:58] of the sampling point. The sudden

[1:48:00] appearance of excessive foam and

[1:48:02] cleaner-like odor at mid-continent's

[1:48:04] manhole. the 54th Street lift station

[1:48:07] and the WRF headworks. repeated an

[1:48:11] analytical detection of numerous QAC

[1:48:13] compounds in mid-continence discharge

[1:48:15] over multiple sampling evidence events

[1:48:23] contemporarious

[1:48:25] detection of QAC's entering the WRF

[1:48:29] affluent bacterial speciation plant

[1:48:32] operational data and ammon ammonia

[1:48:35] trends demonstrating a sudden loss of

[1:48:37] nitrification QC mass load calculations

[1:48:41] showing quantities inconsistence with an

[1:48:43] ordinary residential or commercial

[1:48:45] sources. SDS's product information and

[1:48:49] chemical inventories identify the same

[1:48:51] families of QAC used in mid-continents

[1:48:54] manufacturing operations and warning

[1:48:56] against discharge to sanitary sewers or

[1:49:00] aquatic environment environmental

[1:49:03] mid-continents emissions regarding

[1:49:05] cleaning activities immediately

[1:49:07] preceding the upset and a sub subsequent

[1:49:10] sub subsequential

[1:49:12] decision to containerize QAC's

[1:49:15] containing waste water After May 22nd,

[1:49:17] 2005 2025, the city's physical

[1:49:21] investigation, including inspection of

[1:49:24] manholes, wastewater pathways,

[1:49:26] production areas, floor drains,

[1:49:28] contamination areas, hoses, and

[1:49:30] discharge routes, mid-continents,

[1:49:32] incomplete involving, and sometimes

[1:49:35] inconsistent explanations regarding its

[1:49:37] wastewater handling, chemical usage, and

[1:49:39] pre-treatment practices, the elimination

[1:49:42] or evaluation of other potential indiv

[1:49:45] industrial sources and the testimony of

[1:49:48] city witnesses explaining why the

[1:49:50] observed operational biological and

[1:49:52] analytical evidence was consistent with

[1:49:55] a significant QAC discharge from

[1:49:58] Midcontinent. The board evaluates these

[1:50:00] facts collectively rather than requiring

[1:50:03] any single piece of evidence to

[1:50:05] independently prove every element.

[1:50:09] Conclusions

[1:50:10] interference

[1:50:12] Enid code 8-3A-8A

[1:50:15] prohibits any discharge that will

[1:50:17] interfere with the operation or

[1:50:19] performance of the POTW. Based upon the

[1:50:22] finding of facts, the board concludes

[1:50:24] that the mid-continent's discharge of

[1:50:26] QAC's containing wastewater inhibited

[1:50:29] and disrupted the city's activated

[1:50:32] sludge treatment process, caused the

[1:50:34] loss of nitrification, impaired ammonia

[1:50:37] removal, disrupted biomass and treatment

[1:50:41] performance, and therefore constituted

[1:50:43] interference within the meaning of Enid

[1:50:46] code 8-3A-8A

[1:50:49] and Oklahoma pre-treat. treatment

[1:50:51] regulations

[1:50:55] toxic pollutants.

[1:50:57] Enid code 8-3A-8A4

[1:51:02] prohibits wastewater containing toxic

[1:51:05] pollutants in sufficient quantity to

[1:51:07] interfere or injure or interfere with

[1:51:10] wastewater treatment processes or create

[1:51:13] toxic effect within the POW or receiving

[1:51:16] waters. Based upon findings of fact, the

[1:51:19] board concludes that mid-continent

[1:51:20] discharge QAC containing waste water in

[1:51:23] the sufficient quantity to create toxic

[1:51:26] effects within the city's biological

[1:51:28] treatment process, including inh

[1:51:31] inhibition and destruction of nitrifying

[1:51:34] bacteria necessary for wastewater

[1:51:36] treatment, sludge, and biological

[1:51:39] treatment. Enid code 8-3A-8A6

[1:51:44] prohibits substances that render sludge

[1:51:47] or other POW residuals unsuitable or

[1:51:50] otherwise impaired treatment. Based on

[1:51:52] findings of fact, the board concludes

[1:51:54] that mid-continence discharge disrupted

[1:51:57] biomass, flock formation, solid

[1:52:00] settling, sludge quality, and related

[1:52:03] biological treatment functions thereby

[1:52:06] there by violating 8-3A-8

[1:52:11] A6

[1:52:12] NPDES and W water quality enid code

[1:52:16] 8-3A-87

[1:52:19] prohibits discharges that will cause the

[1:52:21] POTW to violate its MPDES permit or

[1:52:25] state water quality standards. Based

[1:52:28] upon the findings of fact, the board

[1:52:30] concludes that mid-continent's discharge

[1:52:32] impaired the city's ability to comply

[1:52:34] with its OPDES permit, caused elevated

[1:52:38] affluent ammonium, contributed to

[1:52:40] downstream environmental impacts,

[1:52:42] resulted in ODEQ enforcement, and

[1:52:45] therefore violated 8-3A-87

[1:52:50] pollutant loading. Enid code 8-3A-8A10

[1:52:55] prohibits pollutant concentrates or

[1:52:58] discharge rates that cause interference.

[1:53:01] Based upon finding a fact, the board

[1:53:03] concludes that the nature,

[1:53:05] concentration, and mass loading of QAC

[1:53:07] containing wastewater discharged by

[1:53:10] mid-continent constituted a prohibited

[1:53:13] pollutant loading under 8-3A-810.

[1:53:18] public nuisance. Enid code 8-3A-8A12

[1:53:24] prohibits wastewater that creates a

[1:53:27] public nuisance. Based upon the finding

[1:53:29] effect, the board concludes that

[1:53:31] mid-continence discharge producing

[1:53:34] excessive excessive foaming, strong

[1:53:36] cleaner-like odors within the

[1:53:38] collectction system of the PW,

[1:53:41] disruption of the wastewater treatment

[1:53:43] operations, downstream environmental

[1:53:45] impacts, and regulatory enforcement. All

[1:53:48] of which constituted nuisance conditions

[1:53:51] within the meeting of the ordinance.

[1:53:53] Permit violation. Permit number 021

[1:53:56] required May continent to comply with

[1:53:59] the sewer use ordinance, maintain

[1:54:01] adequate pre-treatment, prevent

[1:54:03] prohibited discharges, report

[1:54:05] operational changes, and provide

[1:54:07] information necessary for the city to

[1:54:09] evaluate compliance. The board finds

[1:54:12] that mid-continent violated permit

[1:54:14] number 021 by discharging QAC laden

[1:54:17] effluent into the public waters

[1:54:20] wastewater system. QAC containing

[1:54:23] effluent is or may be toxic to its and

[1:54:26] is prohibited from individual discharge

[1:54:29] in quantities that cause foaming

[1:54:31] interferes by itself or in combination

[1:54:34] with other affluent to interfere with

[1:54:36] the POW or pass through the POTW. The

[1:54:40] mid-continent discharge violated each of

[1:54:42] the above sighted provision and its

[1:54:44] permit and caused the city to violate

[1:54:47] its permit issued by the DODQ for

[1:54:50] operation of the wastewater facility.

[1:54:53] These failures constituted violation of

[1:54:55] permit number 021

[1:54:58] and independently justified enforcement

[1:55:00] under the sewer use ordinance.

[1:55:03] City investigation and enforcement.

[1:55:06] Based upon finding a fact, the board

[1:55:08] concludes that the city acted reasonably

[1:55:10] in investigating the May 2025 treatment

[1:55:14] upset through field observation,

[1:55:16] repeated sampling, biological testing,

[1:55:19] document request, facility inspections,

[1:55:22] engineering evaluation, expert consult

[1:55:25] consultation, and continued

[1:55:28] communications with Midcontinent. The

[1:55:30] city was not required to establish

[1:55:31] liability through direct observation of

[1:55:33] a discharge or through an exact chemical

[1:55:36] fing fingerprint before taking

[1:55:38] enforcement action. The evidence

[1:55:40] available to the city provided a

[1:55:42] reasonable factual basis to conclude

[1:55:44] that mid-continent caused or contributed

[1:55:47] to the WRF upset. The notice of

[1:55:50] violation was authorized by the sewer

[1:55:53] use ordinance and supported by the

[1:55:55] evidence available to the city at the

[1:55:57] time of its issu is issuance. The

[1:55:59] administrative order likewise

[1:56:02] constituted a reasonable and authorized

[1:56:04] enforcement measure. Based upon the

[1:56:06] findings of fact, the board concludes

[1:56:08] that the continued QAC detections,

[1:56:12] unresolved wastewater pathways,

[1:56:15] incomplete information, and inadequate

[1:56:17] demonstrated pre-treatment justified the

[1:56:19] corrective measures imposed therein.

[1:56:23] Midcontinent did not establish any

[1:56:25] affirmative defense recognized under

[1:56:27] Oklahoma pre-treatment regulations. The

[1:56:30] evidence demonstrates that Midcontinent

[1:56:32] knew or reasonably should have known

[1:56:34] that its handling and discharge of the

[1:56:37] QAC containing wastewater could

[1:56:39] interfere with a biological wastewater

[1:56:41] treatment facility. Cost recovery and

[1:56:44] penalties.

[1:56:46] The sewer use ordinance authorizes

[1:56:48] recovery of costs reasonably incurred to

[1:56:51] investigate prohibited discharges,

[1:56:53] protect the POTW, restore treatment

[1:56:56] operations, and enforce the city's

[1:56:58] pre-treatment or program.

[1:57:01] Based upon the finding effects, the

[1:57:03] board concludes that the city's

[1:57:04] requested cost including sampling,

[1:57:06] laboratory analysis, wet testing, catac

[1:57:10] cat cationic

[1:57:12] surfactant testing, biological receding,

[1:57:15] neutraqu and related treatment measures,

[1:57:18] engineering consulting, consultation,

[1:57:22] regul regulatory response, ODQ

[1:57:25] compliance efforts, wildlife related

[1:57:27] cost, employee time and associated

[1:57:29] enforcement expenses. expenses were

[1:57:32] reasonably and necessarily incurred as a

[1:57:35] result of midcontinence violations. The

[1:57:38] penalties and cost recovery sought by

[1:57:40] the city are authorized by the sewer use

[1:57:43] ordinance and are reasonable in light of

[1:57:45] nature of the violation. The operational

[1:57:48] disruption to the POW, the city's

[1:57:51] regulatory exposure, the downstream

[1:57:53] environmental consequences, and the

[1:57:55] resources required to investigate,

[1:57:58] remediate, and prevent reoccurrence.

[1:58:01] MidCon's violation of permit number 021

[1:58:04] cause response cost incurred by the city

[1:58:07] in the amount of 14,79946.

[1:58:13] The amounts are assessed to

[1:58:15] mid-continent which is ordered to pay

[1:58:18] the amounts within 10 days of the date

[1:58:20] of this final order. Response costs

[1:58:23] include enforcement costs are ongoing.

[1:58:26] The city may sub subsequentially assess

[1:58:30] its enforcement cost against

[1:58:32] Midcontinent. Midcontinent is entitled

[1:58:34] to appear any sub subsequent

[1:58:38] assessment under the terms of the Enid

[1:58:40] code of ordinances. Order.

[1:58:43] It is therefore ordered in a judge that

[1:58:46] one Midcontinent violated the general

[1:58:49] prohibited discharge provisions of Enid

[1:58:51] code 8-3A-8.

[1:58:55] the requirements of the industrial user

[1:58:56] permit number 021 and the city's

[1:59:00] pre-treatment program by discharging QAC

[1:59:02] containing wastewater that caused or

[1:59:05] contributed to interference with the

[1:59:08] POTW toxic effects within the biological

[1:59:12] treatment process impairment of the

[1:59:15] city's OPDES NPDES compliance

[1:59:19] obligations and other prohibited

[1:59:22] conditions identified in the sewer use

[1:59:24] ordinance.

[1:59:25] Two, notice of violations number 001 is

[1:59:29] affirmed. Three, administrative order

[1:59:32] and amended ad administrative order

[1:59:36] number

[1:59:38] 01 are affirmed.

[1:59:41] Four, midcontinent shall comply with the

[1:59:44] corrective measures set forth in

[1:59:45] administrative order and administrative

[1:59:47] orders numbers

[1:59:51] 001

[1:59:53] five. Mid-Continent shall comply with

[1:59:55] all corrective measures imposed herein.

[1:59:58] Six, the city is awarded recoverable

[2:00:01] cost in the amount of 104,799

[2:00:06] 46. This is the amount shall be paid to

[2:00:09] the city within 30 days of the appealing

[2:00:12] party's receipt of the judgment of the

[2:00:14] board. The city's environmental

[2:00:17] compliance officer may proceed with any

[2:00:20] additional enforcement cost she finds

[2:00:22] necessary under the city's code. This

[2:00:25] decision is final unless appealed

[2:00:28] pursuant to 12 Oklahoma State 951 to the

[2:00:32] Garfield County District Court within 30

[2:00:35] days of the appealing party's receipt of

[2:00:38] the judgment of the board. Wherefore,

[2:00:40] these findings of fact and conclusions

[2:00:42] of law are issued as the final judgment

[2:00:45] of the Environmental Enforcement Board

[2:00:47] as reflected by a vote held in public

[2:00:50] session on August 11th, 2026.

[2:00:54] >> Do I have a motion to

[2:00:56] » Do I have a motion to

[2:00:56] >> There's There needs to be one

[2:00:57] » There's There needs to be one

[2:00:57] correction. If you'll scroll back up

[2:01:00] to

[2:01:04] » Scroll back. Are you talking about on

[2:01:07] >> um scroll up just a little further? The

[2:01:10] » um scroll up just a little further? The

[2:01:10] this

[2:01:11] >> uh the amounts it should be 30 days of

[2:01:14] » uh the amounts it should be 30 days of

[2:01:14] the date of the final order there.

[2:01:15] >> So your motion will need to include that

[2:01:18] » So your motion will need to include that

[2:01:18] amendment to the

[2:01:20] >> order.

[2:01:21] » order.

[2:01:21] Okay. So 30 days.

[2:01:24] >> So do I have a motion to amend that?

[2:01:27] » So do I have a motion to amend that?

[2:01:27] >> Do we we do that?

[2:01:28] » Do we we do that?

[2:01:28] >> It would just be a motion to amend. I

[2:01:31] » It would just be a motion to amend. I

[2:01:31] will make a motion to approve

[2:01:34] >> order as

[2:01:35] » order as

[2:01:35] >> with with the amendment

[2:01:39] » with with the amendment

[2:01:39] >> of 30 days. Y

[2:01:42] » of 30 days. Y

[2:01:42] >> I'll second.

[2:01:43] » I'll second.

[2:01:43] >> Okay. Cast your ballot.

[2:01:52] » It's not working.

[2:01:53] >> It's not working. It's not working.

[2:01:54] » It's not working. It's not working.

[2:01:54] >> The amendment was on the time to pay the

[2:01:57] » The amendment was on the time to pay the

[2:01:57] >> Yeah, it said 10 days one place. It

[2:01:59] » Yeah, it said 10 days one place. It

[2:01:59] should be it should have read 30 days.

[2:02:00] >> 30 days. Thank you.

[2:02:05] » Just vote by show of hands.

[2:02:07] >> Oh yeah, sure.

[2:02:08] » Oh yeah, sure.

[2:02:08] >> It might be working.

[2:02:13] » Okay. Catch your ballots. Passes 40.

[2:02:18] Number five. Public comment.

[2:02:20] >> Is there anyone signed up?

[2:02:21] » Is there anyone signed up?

[2:02:21] >> None. I don't think anyone signed up.

[2:02:24] » None. I don't think anyone signed up.

[2:02:24] >> Okay. Do I have a motion to adjurnn?

[2:02:27] » Okay. Do I have a motion to adjurnn?

[2:02:27] I will make a motion to adjurnn.

[2:02:29] >> I'll second it.

[2:02:30] » I'll second it.

[2:02:30] >> All right. Cast your ballot.

[2:02:34] » All right. Cast your ballot.

[2:02:34] It passes. Four zero. Motion journ.

[2:02:39] See you guys time.

Environmental Enforcement Board Special Meeting - August 10, 2026

Transcript