[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.