[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:07] Good morning. Call meeting to order. Summary, please roll call. Summary, Kata. Here? Scott,
[0:13] going in? Here? Deb Hankins, I do not see her yet. Russell Wilson. Here? Thomas Ryan. Here?
[0:19] Okay, you have a quorum. All right, since we got roll call done, item two, minutes. Consider
[0:27] approval of minutes of environmental enforcement board, special meeting of June 22nd,
[0:32] Okay, 2026 and reconvening meeting of June 23 and 24, 2026.
[0:42] Motion to approve.
[0:44] 29.
[0:46] No.
[0:47] Second.
[0:48] Any motion?
[0:49] I'm motionless.
[0:50] Thank you.
[0:51] Any discussions?
[0:53] Okay.
[0:54] I got a question.
[0:56] I think if you go to 29 minutes
[1:03] of 29, can you open please?
[1:05] The
[1:14] minutes from the 29th, it
[1:21] might be a typo. I just wanted to clarify the
[1:26] end. Number 12, it says consider a motion to enter recess until June 23th, 2026. Is that the typo?
[1:41] No, because that was from the original agenda, so we were through the special meeting and the two raking bean meetings, we were following along the original agenda.
[1:50] So that was an item from as it was stated in the original agenda. So I don't know, Mandy, do you think there's a different way that should have been?
[1:59] I
[2:03] think it's appropriate, we went past the original two days that we had originally scheduled it, which is why we had the reconvening meeting on the 29th, and the number 12 is just adjourning the end of the meeting instead of reconvening into another day.
[2:18] Okay.
[2:22] It's all good.
[2:23] Okay.
[2:24] Casual ballot passes
[2:29] 4-0.
[2:34] Item 3, execute a session, consider convening into the executive session upon recommendation
[2:39] of the board's attorney, pursuant to 25 Oklahoma Statue 307-B4 and the city of Enid code
[2:48] 8-3-H-1-C to conduct confidential communication between the board and its attorney concerning
[2:57] pending action, where the board with
[3:04] the advice of its attorney determines that disclosure
[3:08] would seriously impair its ability to process the process proceedings in the public interest,
[3:16] specifically for the purpose of receiving legal advice and deliberating at the conclusion
[3:22] of the trial DNOO, hearing held in appeal of notice of violation order number NOV001
[3:31] and related administrative order issued to mid-con and packaging ink and reconvened into
[3:38] special session to announce its decision in the form of written findings.
[3:44] Do I have a motion?
[3:48] I will make a motion for to go into executive session.
[3:52] Second.
[3:53] All right.
[3:54] Cast your ballot.
[3:59] Practice 5-0.
[4:02] We're going to be downstairs on the lower level conference room
[4:05] for executive session today, guys.
[4:08] Do I have a motion to reconvene into the regular session?
[4:12] I'll motion to reconvene.
[4:13] I'll second it.
[4:15] All right.
[4:15] Cast your ballot.
[4:21] So do we need to continue?
[4:23] We need a motion to continue.
[4:25] Motion to continue.
[4:26] It will need to have date.
[4:28] date, time, place.
[4:31] Okay, so I will motion to reconvene tomorrow, August 10th, 10, August 11th.
[4:39] I apologize, tomorrow, August 11th at 10 a.m., here, the Council Chambers?
[4:48] Yep, okay.
[4:49] Second.
[4:50] All right, cast your ballot.
[4:52] Have any discussion?
[4:53] All right.
[4:57] Passes 5-0, so we'll reconvene in tomorrow at 10 o'clock.
[5:02] Yes.
[5:03] Okay.
[5:03] Two o'clock.
[5:07] All right.
[5:08] Item five.
[5:09] Public comments?
[5:11] Public comments is held to the end of the...
[5:14] Oh, okay.
[5:14] We haven't finished the second session.
[5:17] The second session.
[5:18] We'll pick up public comment tomorrow after we've finished the second session.
[5:23] Perfect.
[5:24] Okay.
[5:24] Okay, then it's an adjourn, I guess.
[5:28] All right, motion, do I have a motion to adjourn?
[5:31] Are we adjourning?
[5:33] We're continuing, we're continuing, so we're adjourned.
[5:35] We've already had a motion to continue the meeting.
[5:37] We're good to go.
[5:38] Yeah, cool.
[5:39] Yep.
[5:41] Go try again now.
[5:43] All right,
[5:49] do I have a motion to read, can we?
[5:51] We'll make a motion to read, can we?
[5:53] All right, I'll second.
[5:56] Ask your ballot.
[6:03] It passes 4-0.
[6:05] No?
[6:05] Do we need roll call?
[6:07] Okay.
[6:08] Just making sure.
[6:10] No.
[6:10] I don't think so.
[6:11] We don't.
[6:11] You're just going to...
[6:12] No, we're just...
[6:13] She's just going to note that, um,
[6:15] Paul is not at the reconvene meeting.
[6:18] Okay.
[6:19] All right.
[6:21] Do I have a motion to reconvene in two?
[6:25] I will make a motion to reconvene in two executive sessions.
[6:29] I second it.
[6:31] All right.
[6:31] Cast your ballot.
[6:33] passes 4.0. So do
[6:43] I have a motion to reconvene? Make a motion to reconvene?
[6:47] I'm seconded.
[6:49] Cash your ballot.
[6:50] Oh, sorry.
[7:03] Cash your ballot.
[7:04] Passes 4.0.
[7:11] And then we'll look for a motion on the order.
[7:13] Okay.
[7:16] Then now we get the final order.
[7:49] Okay, the control.
[7:51] Yep, now he needs to open the document.
[7:54] Right.
[8:08] Can you get that order pulled up?
[8:30] Findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the city of A&ED, Environmental Informants Board.
[8:41] The abost-lated matter came on the hearing before the city of A&ED, Environmental Environment Board hearing after called board.
[8:51] for mid-content packing here in after called mid-content appeal of the city of
[8:59] Enix here in after city of city. Notice of violation NOV 001 issued July 22nd
[9:09] 2025. It's administrative order issued November 21, 2025 and its amendment
[9:17] administrative order issued March 16, 2026.
[9:23] Pursuant to the city of Init Code of Ordnances 8-3H-1C, this appeal to board was conducted
[9:36] as a trial denoval.
[9:41] Pursuant to Init Code of Ordnance 8-3H-1, the board consists of the
[9:48] the city's Code Official, the city's Director of Engineering Services, two
[9:54] representative from among holding permits from the city as significant
[10:00] industrial users, SIU and a resident member.
[10:08] The board is chaired by
[10:11] Director of Engineering Moralikata, the city Code Official, Jesus Scott Gornet, the
[10:31] The board is subjected to Oklahoma Open Meanings Act, the board convened for three day
[10:44] Today, evidently hearing on June 22nd, 2026, June 23rd, 2026, and June 29th, 2026.
[10:54] A public meeting notice was posted for June 22nd and June 23rd meetings.
[11:00] A separate public meeting notice was posted for the continuation of the hearing on June 29th,
[11:08] 2026.
[11:09] 6. A quorum of board was presented throughout all the portions of the hearing. The city
[11:15] appeared by and through its council of record, Kaley Maddy, Davis and Tom Ferguson. The
[11:24] respondent, the mid-connants appeared by and through its council of record Mark Walker
[11:30] and Hank Heron. Prior to the evidentiary hearing, the board considered mid-connince motion
[11:40] to continue. The city's response, the mid-continent's reply, the motion to continue was denied
[11:48] and the matter proceeded to hearing.
[11:53] %2e needs code of ordinance 8-3h-1c provides that written findings will be made at the conclusion
[12:02] of each hearing and deliberations will occur in executive session, thereafter the board convened
[12:10] in properly noticed meeting on August 10, 2026 and deliberated in executive session. The August 10,
[12:20] 2026 meeting of board was continued to August 11, 2026 to allow for additional deliberation
[12:27] in executive session. During his executive session at the August 10 and August 11 meeting,
[12:34] the Board examined and pleading and considered all the evidence and arguments presented by
[12:42] Council during the evidentiary hearing. Upon leaving executive session, the Board convened
[12:49] the open public meeting and cast votes regarding the adoption of findings of the fact. Conclusion
[12:56] of law and final order as a reflection hearing.
[13:01] Findings of fact, the city owns and operates a public owned treatment works POTW, also referred
[13:08] to the referred to as the Water Reclamation Facility, WRF, which treats wastewater
[13:15] from residents, business and industrial industries before discharging treated effluent to skilled
[13:22] which water entering to POTW contains contaminants that must be removed through discharge,
[13:30] including ammonia, phosphorus, suspended solids, organic matter, material and other pollutants.
[13:38] Influent samples were influence samples are evidence of what entered into the plant.
[13:44] Influent water is what the biomass would be exposed to,
[13:48] subject to flow rate, basin volume and hydraulic retention time.
[13:53] The ENIT water reclamation facility, WRF, includes both physical treatment process and
[13:59] biological treatment process.
[14:00] The biological treatment process relies on biomass that includes bacteria and high life forms,
[14:07] but bacteria are primarily responsible for facilitating the treatment process to remove
[14:14] pollutants from wastewater before discharge.
[14:16] The E-N-W-R-F can be discharged as the act can be described as activated sludge treatment
[14:25] system because it uses active biomass and living organisms to treat wastewater.
[14:34] The primary treatment includes physical process such as screening, grit removal and gravity
[14:40] settling, while the secondary treatment includes biological treatment process.
[14:45] Because the activator sledge treatment relies on biological convening conversion of soluble
[14:52] organic material into biomass by microbial population and that
[15:00] Nitrification requires functioning ammonia oxidizing and nitrate nitrite oxidizing bacteria under aerobic conditions.
[15:11] Nitrification is biologically facilitated process in which ammonia is converted into nitrate and then nitrate.
[15:31] organisms and grow more slowly than heterotrophic bacteria.
[15:36] There are more sensitive than many other microorganisms present within the
[15:42] activated slash process. Once damaged are inhibited, they require
[15:47] significant time and effort to restore.
[15:50] Inhibitation process, inhibition reduces treatment rate while toxicity
[15:58] more directly relates to no treatment.
[16:02] Loss of inhibitation of nitrifying bacteria results in increased effluent ammonia.
[16:08] Ammonia is present in in its WRF, Influent and ESA, necessary nutrient for biological
[16:16] growth.
[16:17] Ammonia can be a pollutant of concern if discharged into the receiving stream.
[16:25] Ammonia distorts to a receiving stream can contribute to a algae problem, algae blooms,
[16:34] oxidation, oxygen depletion and fish kills in that ammonia itself can be toxic to fish
[16:41] and other aquatic species.
[16:44] Organic material, removal is important because oxygen demanding substance distorts to a receiving
[16:53] streaming stream can deplete dissolved oxygen and cause fish kill.
[16:58] Fast-for-rested removal at the in-it water reclamation facility also depends on biological
[17:04] activity including phosphate accumulating organisms.
[17:11] Disruption to the activated sludge process may adversely affect fast-for-rested removal,
[17:17] flock, formation, solid settling, sludge quality, and overall efficiency effectiveness of
[17:24] the treatment process.
[17:29] Quaternary ammonium compounds here in Cal Quack are used as disinfectant surfants in industrial
[17:36] cleaning products. Quack compounds disrupt bacterial cell membrane which is the disinfecting
[17:44] mechanism. Quacks have similar impacts on treatment
[17:48] plants including inhibitation and toxicity to biomass. Quacks inhibit nitrification and
[17:56] can be toxic to activated sludge. Quacks can be inhibitory to toxic to aquatic life, inhibitory
[18:06] are toxic to aquatic life. Dr. Sober here in after-call, Storer and Dr. Ed here in after-call
[18:15] after-ed, agreed that quacks may be capable of inferring with the biological treatment process
[18:24] at a wastewater treatment plant under appropriate conditions.
[18:31] Both experts also
[18:33] agreed that coaxmy inhibit or adversely affect the microorganisms
[18:38] responsible for biological wastewater treatment plant. Stover identified
[18:42] published literature reporting inhibitation of nitrification at
[18:47] concentrations ranging from approximately 0.1 to 1 milligrams per liter to
[18:53] three to five milligrams per liter, and that no one has determined any set number.
[19:00] Mid-condense exhibit 47 states that quacks kill bacteria by disrupting cell membrane.
[19:06] Recognizing operator concern over wastewater treatment plant,
[19:11] upsets and shows toxicity depends on MLSS. Sludge health and operating conditions.
[19:21] It also inhibitation at concentration well above 50 grams per liter when mixed liquor
[19:27] sorpente solids MLSS is a lawyer around 10 to 20 posh per million of nitrification.
[19:36] The studies relied upon by Eddie did not involve in its activated sludge nitrification process
[19:43] but instead address different biological processes including denitrification and aerobic
[19:50] treatment system and other wastewater environments.
[19:54] The city is regulated by ODEQ and Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, which in turn
[20:01] operates with delegated authority to regulate under the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972
[20:12] to implement the national pollution discharge elimination system called NPDES.
[20:17] This, the NPDS permit program address water pollution by regulating point source that
[20:25] discharge pollutants to waters of United States.
[20:30] It was created in 1972 by Clean Water Act.
[20:35] Under the NPDS permit, program states, governments are authorized by the United States Environmental
[20:40] Protection Agency EPA to perform many permitting administrative and enforcement aspects of
[20:48] the program. OPDS permit number OK-0021628 authorizes the city to discharge treated wastewater
[20:57] to skeleton creek, subject to specific number numerical effluent limitations and monitoring
[21:03] requirements, including ammonia limits of 4.0 milligrams per liter, monthly average,
[21:11] and 6.0 milligrams per liter, weekly average, and requirements that the permitting complies
[21:20] with all permit conditions conduct routine sampling and submit electronic discharging discharge
[21:27] monitoring reports.
[21:29] The city's permit further prohibits the discharge of pollution pollutants in a manner that interferes
[21:36] with the treatment process or causes deleterious
[21:44] effects to receiving water.
[21:48] Thereby defining the regulatory standards against which the document affluent concentration
[21:54] and discharge continues to violation.
[21:59] The city's OBDES permit gowns operate of WRF and authorizes discharge into skeleton
[22:06] and CREC and imposes mandatory discharge and monitoring obligations on the city.
[22:12] Failure to comply with the OPDES permit, many results in ODEQ investigation, notice of
[22:21] violation, imposition of corrective requirements, additional monitoring and penalties.
[22:28] these. Good
[22:31] to start reading numbers. That's okay. Number 31. As the holder of the OPDS
[22:38] permit, the city is legally responsible for the quality of treated effluent discharged
[22:44] from the what reclamation facility facility. Regardless of whether pollutants cause or contributing
[22:50] to a permit violation, originate from residential commercial or industrial users of the collection
[23:00] The city is responsible for compliance with its OPDS permit and is required to operate
[23:08] and maintain as industrial treatment program designed to prevent pollution, pollutants,
[23:14] discharged by industries, industrial users from interfering with treatment operations,
[23:21] Passing through P-W-T-W, untreated.
[23:26] Damaging treatment process are required, are equipments.
[23:30] Creating hazardous are causing violations of the city's OPDs permit, number 33.
[23:38] Pursuant to E in its code of ordinance, 8-3-A-2-S-I-U's may include an industrial user discharging
[23:47] more than 25,000 gallons per day, a categorical industrial user or a user with the capability
[23:56] of discharging toxic pollutants.
[24:00] Number 34, the city regulates SIUs through industrial wastewater permits, the sewer
[24:08] use ordinance inspections, monitoring, sampling, reporting requirements, and other pretentiment
[24:13] measures intended to protect the POTW number 35.
[24:19] SAUs are required to comply with their industrial user discharge permits.
[24:25] Notify the city of material operation changes, affecting the wastewater discharge,
[24:33] report slug or other significant discharge events,
[24:36] comply with applicable pretreatment requirements and cooperate with the city's pretreatment program.
[24:43] Number 36, Mid-Condent is a SIU of the city sewer system who operated under a city issued
[24:52] industrial wastewater permit during the 11th time period.
[24:57] Number 37, Mid-Condent's business involves mixing and packing chemicals, packaging chemicals,
[25:04] cleaning products, including sanitizers,
[25:09] soaps, toilet products, and other cleaning are
[25:12] surface active, surface active products that include Quacks and other toxic
[25:18] compounds. Number 38, Midconnans permit during the 11th time period was in effect
[25:24] from June 3, 2023, 2020 through June 2, 2025. Midconnans permit requests
[25:33] samples to be taken. A proper sampling point requires a location that is a safe
[25:39] accessible representative of the users discharge and isolated from mixing with other users affluent number 41.
[25:48] The city expressed concerns about mid-continent sampling point and methods.
[25:54] The sampling point was a floor drain located inside the facility.
[26:00] The sampling point method involves vacuuming the floor drain, the location and method did not provide a good representative sample
[26:08] of Midconnans discharge, number 42.
[26:12] City of Enid, Envonement, and Noanemental Special, Special, Specialist, Stephanie Syvanders
[26:20] here in call, herein after Syvanders, issued a directive requiring Midconnans to identify
[26:28] and implement a safer and more representative to sampling location, number 43.
[26:37] Seventers, the city, mid-connant, and envirotek engineering and consulting here and after
[26:44] envirotek work together to evaluate discharge pathways and identify a suitable sampling location.
[26:54] Number 44, documented, di-testing established that wastewater discharge from mid-connants
[27:00] internal flow drains is hydrolycally connected to the city's
[27:07] sanitary sewer system and specifically traveled from the facility through
[27:13] lateral lines to manhole MH1P020 where dye introduced into production area
[27:23] floor drain was directly observed at the manhole, thereby establishing the existence of a continuous
[27:32] and traceable discharge pathway from the facility.
[27:39] Number 45, MH1P020 is located on the east side
[27:46] of 54th Street, receives the combined industrial and domestic wastewater discharge from mid-continent
[27:53] and before the wastewater commingles with other source in the border collection system,
[28:04] number 46.
[28:06] MH1P020 was established as midconnance new sampling location by agreement of all parties,
[28:16] number 47.
[28:17] mid-condense permit authorized it to discharge industrial wastewater in the
[28:22] gardens with the stated terms and conditions which provided a part. See, the
[28:29] permutee shall not discharge wastewater containing any of the following
[28:34] substance from discharge point,
[28:38] part 1, C2. Any liquid solids are gases which by
[28:44] By reason of their nature, our quantity may be sufficient either alone or by interaction
[28:53] with other substances to be injurious to any other way of the POTW or to the operations
[29:03] of the POTW.
[29:05] Part 1-C-5, Part 1-C-5.
[29:11] Any wastewater containing toxic pollutants in sufficient quantity either single or by interaction
[29:19] with other pollutants to endure or interfere with any wastewater treatment process.
[29:26] Continue a hazard to human or animals.
[29:30] create a toxic effect in the receiving wastewater of the PVTW, or to exceed the
[29:37] limitation set forth in a categorical pretreatment standards. A toxic pollutant
[29:42] shall include but not be limited to any pollutant identified pursuant to
[29:47] sections 307, capital A small A of the federal wastewater waste, federal water
[29:57] under Pollution Control Act, clean water.
[30:01] Part 1, C8, any substance which will cause the POW to violate its NPDS permit and our state disposal
[30:09] of disposal system permit are the receiving water quality standards. Part 1, C11, any pollutants,
[30:19] including oxygen demanding pollutants, BOD5, etc., released at a flow rate and are pollutant
[30:26] concentration, which a user known knows as, knows or has reason to know, will cause
[30:35] interference to the city of any wastewater treatment facility.
[30:39] In no case, shall a slug load have a flow rate or a concentration of quantities of pollutants
[30:50] that exceed for any time period longer than 15 minutes, more than 5 minutes, the average
[31:00] 24-hour concentration quantities are flowed during normal operation.
[31:07] Part 1, C13, any wastewater which causes a hazard to human life creates a public nuisance.
[31:14] Number 48, Midconnist permit prohibits the discharge of substance, substances that could
[31:23] cause interference, pasture, hazardous condition or exceeded applicable standards.
[31:29] The permit further requires monthly monitoring and reporting of pollutant concentration
[31:35] from a designated discharge point, mandates the use of approved sampling and analytical
[31:42] methods and obligates the permit to report violations accidental
[31:47] discharges and changes in operation. Number 49.
[31:53] Wheat contents permit did not contain a numeric cubic quack effluent
[31:58] limitation. However, it did not contain prohibitions against discharging
[32:04] substances that may endure the POW. Poxic pollutants that may
[32:10] Any interferer with the treatment are created toxic effects in receiving water.
[32:17] Substances causing the PODW to violate its permit.
[32:22] Politons that interfere with the treatment facility and wastewater that creates a hazard
[32:27] are public's nuisance.
[32:29] Number 50.
[32:30] Any noncompliance with any city-issued permit conditions consists of a violation of the city
[32:37] of Initsur used Ardnes 51. On around May 19th, 2025, Stover reported that operations
[32:48] at the Initswater Reclamation Facility began experiencing abnormal plant condition, including
[32:54] elevated effluent ammonia, foaming and sanitation, cleaning or chemical type of order. The data
[33:02] indicated an initial interpretation of following followed by a failure of
[33:07] neuterification. Number 52, on around May 19, the 2025 savantors learned of the
[33:16] plant upset while conducting routine sampling across the sewer system for
[33:22] semi-annual regulatory process. Number 53, savantors sampling,
[33:30] sampling locations
[33:31] Included mid condense designated sampling location, MH1P020, number 54.
[33:40] Sarvanta's smell is strong, cleaner like odor and observed a thick layer of foam at MH1P020 when
[33:50] the manual cover was removed, number 55. The conditions at MH1P020 were abnormal compared to
[33:59] manual observations. Number 56. Sarvantus observed similar conditions at 54
[34:06] street lift station, which is where mid-content effluent flows into, flows to.
[34:12] Number 57. Sarvantus did not observe similar conditions throughout the
[34:18] remainder of the collection system. Specifically, Sarvantus observed a observed
[34:23] and compared multiple manuals across the system and testified that abnormal form and order
[34:30] were not uniformly present throughout the system.
[34:35] Number 58.
[34:36] Influence sampling collected at the Water Reclamation Facility during and immediately following
[34:41] the May 2025 upset identified multiple quacks, including numerous Benzol, Benzol
[34:53] Koming, Konium compounds, Dai, Decto, Diametho, Ammonium compounds, Dai-Octo, Diametho,
[35:05] ammonium compounds and other cationic surfactants. It did not report any
[35:13] detectable octodide cello dimethyl ammonium chloride.
[35:25] Number 59. On May
[35:27] 2025, Sarvant has collected a grab sample on mid-condense representative
[35:33] sampling point. The sample identified numerous coax species at exceptionally high-con
[35:41] concentration, including multiple benzolo, benzolo, gomium compound, di-declo, di-declo,
[35:56] di-methyl ammonium, DDC AC, di-octo di-methyl ammonium, and actol di-dachlo di-methyl ammonium,
[36:11] chloride and related co-ordinary ammonium compounds, number 60.
[36:17] Several of these compounds were represent at concentration thousands are for certain
[36:26] compounds hundreds of thousands times higher greater than the laboratory reporting limits.
[36:33] Optol, Dicol, Neymethyl ammonium chloride alone was reported at approximately 146,318
[36:44] milligrams per liter while dye, dye declo, dye declo dye method ammonium was reported at
[36:53] approximately 1,810 milligrams per liter demonstrating an extremely concentrated quack waste stream rather
[37:01] than trace environmental contaminations. At the influence sample sampling can confirm that quack
[37:08] containing wastewater had reached the city's biological treatment process during the period
[37:14] of the, period of the upset.
[37:17] Number 62, ed testified that a substantial portion of the quad concentrations identified
[37:24] in the May, May 20 mid-connets graph sample consisted of octol, di, octol, di-clone, di-methyl,
[37:34] ammonium chloride which was not detected in the efflu- effluency metonid
[37:43] influent composite sample number
[37:50] 63. The plant influent samples analyzed by
[37:54] effluency were composite samples representing which water entering the
[38:01] water reclamation facility over time after transparent transport through the
[38:06] city's collection system, whereas the May 20 samples were collected from the Midconn
[38:13] and representative sampling location was a grab sample reflecting the wastewater present
[38:18] at a single point in the time before combingling with other wastewater.
[38:26] Number 64, although the May 20 Midconn and grab sample and the May 20n Influent Composite
[38:33] example from a fluency how different relative concentration of individuals quacks and species
[38:42] they do not demonstrate different sources rather those difference are consistent with the dilution
[38:50] mixing different differing samples sampling methods methodologies travel time through the collection
[38:56] system. Adjobsion of cationic surfactants to solids and biomass, the liguration and changes in
[39:06] relative concentrations among compounds.
[39:10] Store agreed that, sorry, number 65, store agreed that
[39:14] graph samples and composite sample results should not be compared in an apple-to-apple fashion without
[39:22] caution. He defined a grab sample as a sample dipped from a basin stream or
[39:30] manhole that represents that what is passing through at the moment of the
[39:35] collection. Dr. Stover defined a composite sample as individual sample collected
[39:41] over time and compiled to represent what occurred over 24 hours.
[39:50] Number 66.
[39:51] source calculations demonstrated that WRF received approximately 700 pounds of quacks
[40:01] on May 20, approximately 300 pounds of pounds on May 21, and approximately 700 pounds
[40:10] on May 22.
[40:12] These calculations reflected the total quantity of quacks entering the POTW during those
[40:21] periods are not merely their concentrations in individual sample number 67. Quacks loading
[40:29] of the magnitude could not be reasonable be attributed to ordinary residential commercial
[40:37] or incidental consumer use within the collection system.
[40:43] The quantities of quacks entering the WRF during the upset or consistent with discharge from
[40:49] a significant industrial source handling quack containing products, number 68.
[40:56] Quack compounds are capable of causing the observed treatment upset and are consistent
[41:05] with the observed form, chemical order and biological impacts of the plant, number 69.
[41:14] On or around May 21, 2025, a fish kill was reported as a result of the reported fish kill
[41:22] ODEQ and the city conducted an investigation.
[41:26] The fish kill was concurrent with the POW upset.
[41:31] The investigation concluded that the fish kill was associated with the discharge of high ammonia
[41:37] levels from POW to a skeleton creek.
[41:40] As a result of the investigation, ODEQ issued a notice of violation to the city of City after the event.
[41:52] Number 71. The notice of violation stated that the city's wastewater treatment facility
[41:57] discharged partially treated wastewater into the skeleton creek in violation of its OPDS permit,
[42:04] resulting in a fish kill and widespread environmental impacts.
[42:07] and further established that the treatment plant upset was associated with the introduction of ammonia,
[42:15] surfactants and disinfectant type chemical that rendered biological treatment process inactive.
[42:25] With the documented effluent parameters, accidents including elevated ammonia, CBVOD,
[42:33] and total suspended solids, thereby providing independent regulatory evidence that
[42:39] pollutant discharge into the treatment system caused accidents of permit limits and environmental
[42:47] harm consistent with interference with interference attributable to upstream industrial contributions.
[42:55] 7.
[42:57] Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation issued a fine, our penalty related to the fish
[43:04] kill upset of the May 2025 event, number 73.
[43:09] The record supports that the fish kill occurred in a temporal proximity to the wastewater
[43:16] water treatment, water recommissioned facility, biological, upset, and elevated effluent ammonia.
[43:28] Number 74. Following the May 19, 2025, upset and the notification of a fish kill,
[43:34] Sarvantas and the city investigated significant industrial users with known discharge who operated
[43:42] under the city issued industrial wastewater permit during the relevant time period.
[43:47] Number 75.
[43:48] Sarvanta's investigation included sampling at multiple locations, field observations to
[43:54] determine presence of any form and strong chemical orders at Manhole 1P020 and other
[44:02] Manhole locations.
[44:04] Sample collected were analyzed by the cities in House Lab 76.
[44:09] Sarvandas conducted a subsequent sampling event at Manhole 1P020 and the 54th Street Lift Station.
[44:19] The samples continued to include elevated quad concentrations.
[44:27] Number 77. After the May 19, 2025 event at the water in its WRF, Sarvandas conducted
[44:35] contacted mid-content operations manager, Peter Harrison, here in order, here in
[44:41] after Harrison, to let him know the POTW was experiencing an upset.
[44:48] Mid-content responded to Sarvandas on at least two occasions to inform her
[44:54] additional cleaning took place on the 19th in preparation of an audit.
[45:00] Number 78. On May 23, 2025, Sarantas notified mid-continent that the POTW had experienced a biological
[45:09] upset, beginning on May 19, 2025, identified mid-continent as a potential contributor based
[45:17] on its location and discharge characteristics. Number 79. The city's investigation focused
[45:24] on mid-continent after sampling results were sampling results and field observations indicated
[45:31] abnormal form order and co-accrelated compounds associated with mid-continent discharge number 80.
[45:39] As part of the part of her investigation, Sarvant has required mid-continent to provide a written
[45:45] response and detailing all cleaning chemicals used associated safety data sheets here in our
[45:53] here in after SDS and disposable disposal practices, especially specifically
[46:01] including whether washwater or cleaning solutions were discharged into the
[46:08] floor drain connected to the sanitary sewer number
[46:16] 81. Midconments produced
[46:18] used at 1200 SDS containing 9,000 pages of data, number 82.
[46:27] The SDS shows that chemicals used by mid-conrent or toxic pollutants should not be disposed
[46:34] of in public source and are specifically inhibitory to aquatic life, number 83.
[46:43] In July, mid-continent advised that beginning May 2022, 2025, it voluntarily began containerizing
[46:53] cleaning wastewater generated around the coaxe production area for off-site disposal.
[47:02] Prior to this date, all coaxe containing wastewater was discharged into this sanitary sewer
[47:10] number 84. At the time of May 2025 event, ENIT WRF flow rate was approximately 7 million
[47:19] gallons per day. With the May 19 to 20, flow rate described as approximately 7.3 million
[47:28] gallons per day.
[47:35] Number 85. Operational monitoring data for the ENIT WRF for May 10, 2025 to June
[47:43] 2009 2025 showed a market increase in effluent ammonia concentrations beginning approximately
[47:51] May 2025 with values raising from near zero to levels exceeding 30 to 50 milligrams per
[48:00] litre and concurrent increases in effluent suspended solids and total phosphorus providing
[48:08] a contemporaneous sampling data demonstrating a significant deterioration in the treatment
[48:17] performance and elevated pollutant concentrations in discharged effluent during the upset period.
[48:25] There is a gap of missing data during the days when ODEQ directed that the POWB shut down
[48:33] because of the upset.
[48:35] Number
[48:38] 86. Before May 19, effluent ammonia values at the WRF were at our near non-detective
[48:45] levels of approximately 0.124 milligrams per liter, which represented a complete nitrification.
[48:53] Number 87. The ammonia patterns reflected, sir, inhibitation followed by complete failure
[49:00] of nitrification. The observed ammonia increase was consistent with loss of
[49:07] nitrification and would not be expected if nitrification were functioning
[49:12] properly. Number 88, the operational monitoring data led the stover to conclude
[49:18] that the plant began receiving some form of toxic
[49:22] it, toxicant on May 19, 2025, number 89.
[49:28] Stover was asked about the effect various other substances could have on the WRF.
[49:36] He testified that the arsenic alone would not form or smell like a cleaner, and cyanide
[49:43] would not smell like a cleaner.
[49:45] Stover pointed would not have been reasonable to test everywhere else in the cities for
[49:55] arsenic and heavy metal.
[49:57] Arsenic heavy metals and cyanide in response to the observed forming and mid-connanced
[50:03] manhole evidence.
[50:05] Number 90.
[50:07] The loss of nitrifying bacteria requires the city and its contract operator to actively
[50:13] restore the biological treatment process before the WRF could return to normal operations.
[50:20] Because nitrifying bacteria are slow growing by organisms, recovery requires substantial
[50:25] time, monitoring and operational adjustments, including investigations of the upset, sampling
[50:31] laboratory review, biomass monitoring and process control changes.
[50:36] Number 91. As part of the emergency response city and the store group implemented the extraordinary
[50:45] operation measures to restore the biological treatment process and reduce the effect of
[50:51] quacks on the WRF. Those measures included purchasing and applying
[50:57] neutral quad, a product intended to mitigate or neutralize the effects of quacks within
[51:04] Indian treatment process in an effort to preserve or restore biological activity.
[51:11] The Stover Group also ordered specialised nitrifying bacteria under receded the WRF Indian
[51:17] effort to restore the biological treatment process, a special pump was required for these
[51:24] offered efforts.
[51:25] Number 92, considering the pre-event complete nitrification, the abrupt post-
[51:33] May 19th Ammonia spike, observed foam and cleaning cleaner type order,
[51:41] quack detections associated with the mid-continent,
[51:44] confirms loss of nitrifiers and stores testimony regarding quacks,
[51:50] toxicity and inhibitation. The record supports the findings that the
[51:57] findings that an inhibitory or toxic industrial discharge caused the May 2025 nitrification failure.
[52:07] Number 93. Considering the source isolated sampling locations,
[52:12] die test confirms of confirmation of mid-connid discharge pathway,
[52:18] field observations at the mid-connid math hall, quack detections and the city's
[52:23] the city investigation, the regard supports the finding that mid-continent discharge
[52:29] was the source or a contribution to contributing source of the toxic or inhibitory discharge
[52:37] that caused the WRF upset.
[52:42] Number 94.
[52:43] On July 22, 2025, following the city's investigation of the May 19, 2019 to 2020, 25
[52:54] by any WRF plant upset and the fish kill, the city should mid-content notice of violation
[53:00] NOV-001, alleging that mid-content violated permit number 021 by discharging and violation
[53:12] of the permit, including causing an upset of the city's wastewater treatment plant in
[53:19] May 2025, number 95.
[53:22] The NOV was based on sampling detecting elevated concentrations of
[53:29] quaternary ammonium compounds in the facility's discharge, which were
[53:35] determined to have to have caused a significant wastewater treatment plant
[53:41] upset on May 19, 2025. The identified violations including discharge of toxic
[53:48] in quantities sufficient to interference with POTW operations. Failure to prevent
[53:56] pass-through or interfere interference. The lack of adequate pretreatment and chemical
[54:02] management control. It specifically documents that the facility failed to provide a
[54:14] return summary of discharge practices, fail to conform or evaluate pretreatment effectiveness
[54:21] and fail to identify all chemical products and processes contributing to the discharge.
[54:28] thereby evidencing both the existence of a discharge containing regulatory pollutants and non-compliance
[54:38] with reporting and operational requirements, number 96. On November 21, 2025, the city issued
[54:47] an administrative order to meet content for Notice of Violation NOV001, number 97. The
[54:55] administrative order to meet content requires a corrective action, additional pretreatment
[55:00] or controls, monitoring and sampling, planning and reporting and cost recovery. Mr. Gilbert
[55:08] Gilbert, herein after Gilbert, testified that the administrative order was intended to
[55:14] identify responsibility, protect the facility and prevent reoccurrence not to punish mid-convent.
[55:24] Number 98 On March 16, 2026, the city issued an amended administrative order to mid-convent
[55:33] for Notice of Violation NOE 001, number 99. Gilbert testified that mid-conon did not accept
[55:41] responsibility for causing the upset. Did not acknowledge that it is discharge contributed
[55:48] to the loss of nitrification and maintained that it was not responsible. The city incurred the
[55:56] The cost of responding to the event and paid penalties are fines associated with regulatory
[56:04] responses including ODEQ and Wildlife related consequences,
[56:11] number 100.
[56:13] The cost recovery summary which itemized expenses incurred as a result of the wastewater
[56:19] incident includes one regulatory enforcement cost including the administrative fee associated
[56:25] assisted by DEQ. Number two, natural resource damages including the fisheries damage claim associated
[56:35] with the downstream fish kill. Number four, extensive laboratory testing caused including repeated
[56:44] analytical testing performed by specifically specialty laboratories SPL or many months following
[56:52] the opposite. Number four, whole effluent toxicity wet testing performed because of the first wet
[57:03] test failed due to 2025 set number five pump equipment requires pump equipment required for
[57:11] the effort to restore the biological treatment process and reduce the effects of quacks on the WRF
[57:18] 6.
[57:20] Neutrachwat purchased and applied as part of the city's effort to mitigate or neutralize
[57:28] COACS impacts within the treatment process.
[57:34] 7.
[57:35] Biological receding material including specialized nitrifying bacteria purchased
[57:40] your restore the activated large process after the loss of nitrification.
[57:45] 8.
[57:46] Field sampling labor including repeated grab sampling at the mid-con and manhole over
[57:51] an extended period. Number 9, shipping costs including overnight shipment of analytical
[57:57] samples for laboratory testing. Number 10, certified mailing costs associated with the
[58:04] enforcement actions and regulatory notices. Number 11, publication costs associated with the
[58:12] notice of cities enforcement proceedings and additional enforcement costs, including those incurred
[58:19] by the city's environmental specialist to be subsequently assessed,
[58:27] number 101. These costs demonstrate the operational and environmental consequences associated
[58:35] with the discharge of pollutants into PIVW, number 102. The consequences of May 2025 discharge
[58:43] were not limited to the immediate expenses necessary to recover the plant. The violations of
[58:52] the mid-condense permit also created enforcement and monitoring expenses. Part of regulating
[58:59] an industrial user when a permit violation occurs is to work with the user to assure the
[59:07] cause of the violations is incurred and to monitor the user to assure that future violations do
[59:14] not occur. In this case, this included ongoing laboratory testing and testing of possible
[59:23] alternative sources such as Tyson and Integrus, as suggested by MitConnet.
[59:31] Number 103, City could not reasonably restore normal operations or ensure continued compliance
[59:37] with its OPDES and PDES permit without identifying the source of the inhibitory discharge,
[59:44] evaluating its component compositions, determining whether additional discharge
[59:52] were occurred and implementing measures to prevent reoccurrence.
[1:00:00] Number 104. Meet current timely appealed. The Notice of Violation NOV 001 issued July 22, 2025. The
[1:00:12] Administrative Order issued November 21, 2025. And an amended Administrative Order issued March
[1:00:20] March 16, 2026, number 105.
[1:00:24] An evidentiary hearing before the board was held on June 22, 2026, and June 23, 2026,
[1:00:34] and June 29, 2026,
[1:00:39] 106.
[1:00:42] The following exhibits offered by the city were admitted into evidence.
[1:00:47] Government Exhibit 135, 27-37, and 39-52.
[1:00:55] Mid-continent Objects to Admission of Government Exhibit 1719 and 50.
[1:01:02] Its objections were overruled, Number 107.
[1:01:06] The following defendant exhibits offered by Mid-continent were admitted into evidence.
[1:01:12] Defense, Defended Exhibit 12, 15, 22, 40, 41, 43, and 47.
[1:01:19] The city did not object to admission of the Mid-Condent Exhibit.
[1:01:23] Mid-Condent can offered Ed Demonstrate to Exhibit 3 and 4.
[1:01:30] The city objected to the Demonstrate to being admitted as Exhibits.
[1:01:35] Mid-Condent with the draw, the offer, and Ed Demonstrate Exhibit 3.
[1:01:39] At Demonstrative Exhibit 4 was admitted,
[1:01:48] Number 108.
[1:01:49] The board has not relied upon any single piece of evidence in reaching its decision.
[1:01:56] Instead, the board has weighed all of the direct and circumstantial evidence presented
[1:02:03] including the physical evidence sampling data, biological evidence, operational data, expert
[1:02:10] testimony, documentary evidence and witness credibility. When viewed collectively rather than
[1:02:18] in isolation, the evidence continuously demonstrate that mid-conrent discharge of quacks containing
[1:02:28] wastewater caused the materially contributed to May 2025 upset, the resulting interference with
[1:02:36] POTW and the violations found herein.
[1:02:41] Number 109.
[1:02:43] Midconnet is the only SIO in init that uses Quax containing compounds to manufacture products.
[1:02:51] Its usage of Quax is significantly larger than other facilities that use Quax for only cleaning
[1:02:59] and disinfecting purposes.
[1:03:01] forces.
[1:03:02] It is undisputable that MH-1P020 accepts the discharge of only effluent coming from mid-conrent.
[1:03:13] The POTW upset was accompanied by significant foaming and cleaner-like smells.
[1:03:20] The 54th Street lift station which directs effluent to the POTW at the same time was experienced
[1:03:28] significant foaming and cleaner like smells. MH1P0200 which is directly north of the 54-striplif
[1:03:36] station was at the same time experiencing significant foaming and cleaner like smell.
[1:03:43] All these conditions were abnormal. It defines common sense to deny a connection between these
[1:03:53] three observations and the sole manufacturer of cleaning products that
[1:03:59] discharge into the in-it wastewater system and in effect,
[1:04:03] discharges directly into one of the sites, MH1P020 110.
[1:04:15] The testing of the
[1:04:17] May 20 graph sample, along with subsequent samples in June, July and August, 2025,
[1:04:23] indicates the presence of quacks in MH1P020. In quantities that are not
[1:04:29] explainable by ordinary cleaning activities that one might see in any other
[1:04:35] significant business or industry. That is, it is apparent that the reading
[1:04:40] were the results of quacks being discharged in a greater quantity, not simply
[1:04:48] from wiping down counters are cleaning floors, not covered with quax waste.
[1:04:58] Number 111. Mid-conrent called no witness to dispute the evidence represented by the city
[1:05:06] with respect to the quax feedstock and material stored in the large quantities within its facility.
[1:05:13] Now, the city's evidence with respect to the conditions of the facility and the significant
[1:05:19] risk of the escape of Quacks laden substances.
[1:05:23] That unriberted evidence demonstrate the significant risk to the wastewater system from accidental
[1:05:32] or intentional discharges of the Quack effluent, number 112.
[1:05:37] The presence of quacks in MH1P020 demonstrates violations of the mid-conrent permit in addition
[1:05:45] to prohibiting actual interference with the PWDW and the pass-through, the permit prohibits
[1:05:51] discharge of substances that may interfere either alone or in conjunction with other
[1:05:58] discharges.
[1:06:01] Number 113.
[1:06:03] The city investigated other potential sources rather than assuming mid-conrent was a
[1:06:08] responsible. It's investigation include included field observation, wastewater pathways,
[1:06:15] analysis, pathway analysis, sampling from multiple locations, review of plant operational
[1:06:21] data, SDS review, documents review, meetings with mid-connet and evaluations of other industrial
[1:06:28] users. The investigation of investigation was interactive and data driven. As additional observations,
[1:06:36] Sampling Results, Plan Data, Operator, Reports and Facility Information became available.
[1:06:44] City Personal Adjusted the Investigation and Co-ordinated Additionally Sampling Review and Source
[1:06:52] Evaluation,
[1:06:55] number 114.
[1:06:57] The Board finds that the city responsible, city reasonably relied on multiple lines of evidence
[1:07:05] rather than a single data point, including foam and order observations,
[1:07:11] analytical testing, plant performance data, bacterial testing, facility
[1:07:15] information, sewer configuration evidence, and source pathway knowledge number
[1:07:21] 115. The absence of an eyewitness to the specific cleaning are
[1:07:28] are discharging even does not defect source attributions.
[1:07:35] The city's source determination is supported by circumstantial evidence, including mid-current
[1:07:41] operations, discharge pathways, timing, physical observations, sampling results, biological
[1:07:46] evidence, and evaluation of alternative sources.
[1:07:54] Number 116.
[1:07:55] The record supports a finding that the abnormal discharge indicator, WRF, upset indicators and downstream environmental consequences occurred within a closely connected time frame, and that the city reasonably expected its investigation after a report of a fish kill because the issue implicated downstream environmental impacts as well as planned operations.
[1:08:24] Number 117, the board does not find the absence of actor, actor Deco-Diamethalo ammonium chloride
[1:08:36] from certain influent reports sufficient to outweigh the remaining evidence.
[1:08:43] The numerous other compounds associated with midcontinent were identified in both midcontinent
[1:08:49] water and the plant influence. The board concluded concludes that the absence of a single
[1:08:58] analytical analyte does not negate the city's source attribution analysis number 118.
[1:09:08] The board does not find that any other SIU possess the same combination of quacks, handling
[1:09:15] operations wastewater pathway, physical observation, sampling results, and temporal
[1:09:20] relationship to the May 2025 upset as a mid-continent. The city's investigation reasonably eliminated
[1:09:28] other significant industrial users as the likely source of the discharge. Number 119,
[1:09:36] the board does not find persuade you a day's opinion that inhibitation could not occur below
[1:09:43] approximately 50 milligrams a liter, such that mid-condit is not reasonable for WRF upside.
[1:09:53] Number 120. The decision to issue the notice of violation administrative order permit modification
[1:09:59] cease and desist order emergency suspension and permit denail were based upon
[1:10:07] information developed during the city's investigation and recommendation of the city staff
[1:10:13] responsible for administration of the predatement program number 1-21. The board
[1:10:19] finds that neither the sewer use ordinance nor accepted wastewater engineering
[1:10:27] principle to require the city to establish an exact chemical fingerprint.
[1:10:33] Identifying every individual coax species at every sampling location are pro a single universal
[1:10:42] Inhibitory concentration before concluding that a prohibition prohibited discharge occurred,
[1:10:51] thus source attribution and interference are established by the totality of the evidence.
[1:11:03] Number one, one, two, two.
[1:11:06] The board finds that quacks are antimicrobial compounds intended to kill our inhibit microorganisms
[1:11:12] because the INIWRF depends on living micro-organisms to perform by biological treatment,
[1:11:20] including nitrification, quax containing wastewater, is capable of creating toxic effects
[1:11:26] within the POW when discharged into sufficient quantity. Number 1, 2, 3. The board finds that
[1:11:35] mid-condent discharge wastewater containing quax and cationic surfactants to the city's
[1:11:41] Sanitary sewer system, those compounds included Benzo, Benzolakomium, Family Compounds,
[1:11:50] DD-AXC, Family Compounds, ODD-MAC, D-O-MAC, and Related Quaternary Ammonium Compounds
[1:12:01] detected in samples collected from mid-connants, Rep. D. discharge location,
[1:12:08] number 124.
[1:12:09] The board finds that the Quack concentrations identified during the May 2025 event were
[1:12:19] not background municipal levels, ordinary household use or trace contamination.
[1:12:27] The concentrations detected at mid-conrent discharge point and the mass of Quacks entering
[1:12:34] the WRF were consistent with a significant industrial discharge, number 125.
[1:12:40] The board finds that the mere existence of quacks, former residential commercial, are
[1:12:46] industrial sources of sources, does not preclude a finding that mid-content caused a
[1:12:52] contributed to the May 2025 upset.
[1:12:56] The evidence established that mid-contents operations, the concentrations and mass of quacks discharged
[1:13:03] the timing of the event, the physical observations, the sewer configurations and the biological effects
[1:13:11] distinguished midcontinuous discharge from ordinary background sources.
[1:13:19] Number 126, the board
[1:13:21] finds that the quack containing wastewater caused are contributed to toxic effects within the WRF
[1:13:27] biological treatment process, including inhibitation or loss of nitrifying bacteria, loss of ammonia level,
[1:13:33] removal, disruption to disruption of biomass and impaired treatment performance number 127.
[1:13:44] The board finds that mid-conference discharge caused the contributions to interference
[1:13:49] with the operations and performance of the POW.
[1:13:53] Before the May 9, 2025 event, the WRF was achieving complete or mere complete nitrification.
[1:14:00] After the event, the effluent ammonia increased sharply, nitrification failure failed, suspended
[1:14:09] solids increased, phosphorus removal was impaired, and biological treatment performance deteriorated.
[1:14:18] Number 128.
[1:14:19] The board finds that the interference was not limited to a laboratory result, it was reflected
[1:14:25] in plant operations, form and order observations,
[1:14:31] loss of nitrifying bacteria, elevated ammonia, impaired phosphorous removal,
[1:14:39] operational response measures, and the need for recovery efforts, number 129.
[1:14:45] The board finds that the discharge interfered with the city's ability to operate
[1:14:50] the WRF in the ordinary course and required extraordinary operational measures including
[1:14:56] additional testing, cationic surfactants more.
[1:15:00] Neutra Court. Biological receding, pumping equipment, response planning, and diversion protocols.
[1:15:12] Number 130. The board finds that mid-convenants discharge costs are contributed to conditions that impaired the city's ability to complete comply with its OPDEs and PDEs obligations. The city's permit required compliance with ammonia limits and
[1:15:31] protection of the receiving stream at the May 2025 upset cause elevated effluent ammonia and
[1:15:39] downstream environmental consequences.
[1:15:44] Number 131, the board finds that the city
[1:15:47] as the OPDS in PDS permit holder was exposed to regulatory consequences because of the upset,
[1:15:54] including ODEQ enforcement and wildlife related assessment arising from downstream impacts.
[1:16:01] Number 132.
[1:16:04] The board finds that the discharge-created conditions that impair the city's ability
[1:16:09] to prevent a pass-through because pollutants entered the POW in quantities under circumstances
[1:16:18] that impaired treatment plant under the treatment and affected the city's ability to protect
[1:16:24] skeleton creek.
[1:16:26] Number 133.
[1:16:28] The board finds that the May 2025 event was acute and not a gradual decline in the planned
[1:16:36] performance.
[1:16:37] The WRF was operating with effective ammonia removal before the event followed by a
[1:16:43] sudden ammonia spike, foam order and biological treatment failure.
[1:16:51] Number 134.
[1:16:52] The board finds that the timing of mid-connence, May 19, the cleaning audit activities returned
[1:16:58] to full production, form, and cleaner order at the Mid-Condent Manhole and the immediate
[1:17:03] downstream observations support a finding that the discharge was episodic or slug like
[1:17:12] in nature, 135.
[1:17:15] The board finds that the discharge was of a nature volume or concentration sufficient
[1:17:21] to disrupt the POW and requires immediate operational response, number 136.
[1:17:26] The board finds that the mid-continent failed to adequately prevent
[1:17:31] quite containing wastewater, washwater, spills, tank-resins,
[1:17:37] rinse-sets, or related chemicals, and seduce from entering the
[1:17:44] sanitary sewer system number
[1:17:48] 137.
[1:17:49] The board finds that mid-continent did not demonstrate adequate
[1:17:52] pretreatment, segregation, contaminant, monitoring, or
[1:17:56] are Offside Disposal Controls sufficient to protect the POW from Quack's containing
[1:18:02] wastewater number 138.
[1:18:05] The board finds that midcontinent did not timely or completely provide the information
[1:18:11] necessary for the city to evaluate its discharge practices.
[1:18:15] Quack containing waste streams, SDS, chemical-investigate inventories, pretreatment practices,
[1:18:24] containerization,
[1:18:25] operation, off-site disposal and corrective measures.
[1:18:33] Number 139.
[1:18:34] The board finds that the city could not reliably protect the POW without complete information
[1:18:40] regarding mid-connants, quack-containing products, waste pathways, treatment practices
[1:18:45] and discharge controls.
[1:18:50] Number 14.
[1:18:51] The board finds that the administrative order was necessary because the NOV alone did not
[1:18:57] resolve the compliance concerns.
[1:18:59] Continued quack detections, unresolved wastewater pathways, incomplete information and inadequate
[1:19:07] demonstrated treatment in justifies the corrective measures, continued monitoring and enforceable
[1:19:14] compliance obligations, number 141.
[1:19:19] The board finds that the city's requested costs were reasonably and necessarily to incur
[1:19:27] to investigate the discharge, identify source, restore biological treatment, respond
[1:19:34] to ODEQ and wildlife-related consequences, protect the POTW and prevent recurrence.
[1:19:42] Number 142.
[1:19:43] The board finds that the requested penalties and cost-recovery water are reasonable in light
[1:19:49] of nature of the violations.
[1:19:51] The harm to the POTW, the downstream environmental impacts, the city's regulatory exposure
[1:19:58] mid-conference incomplete information and the resources required to investigate, respond
[1:20:06] to and prevent recurrence number 143.
[1:20:10] Having considered mid-conference defenses together with all of the evidence presented, the
[1:20:16] board concludes that those deficient defenses do not overcome the greater way of the evidence
[1:20:25] Since establishing that the mid-con and discharged quack-containing wastewater that caused
[1:20:30] the COST are materially contributed to the May 2025 WRF-Obset and the resulting violations
[1:20:37] of the sewer use ordinance and permit number 021.
[1:20:44] Number 144.
[1:20:46] The board finds that the NOV and administrative orders were issued not merely to impose penalties
[1:20:52] is but to identify and eliminate the cause of May 25, May 20, 25 upset, obtaining information
[1:21:00] necessary for the cities to evaluate mid-condense wastewater practices required corrective measures
[1:21:05] to protect the POW, ensuring future compliance with permit number 021 and sewer use ordnance,
[1:21:13] and reduce the likelihood of similar interference with the city's biological treatment process.
[1:21:21] the administrative order was reasonable, exercise the city's pre-treatment authority following
[1:21:29] completion of its investigation,
[1:21:34] number 145.
[1:21:36] Accordingly, the board finds that the city's proved the factual basis for the NOV and
[1:21:44] administrative order by greater way of its evidence of the evidence.
[1:21:49] Do
[1:21:54] you want me to, yeah, is that okay if I take over?
[1:21:59] Conclusion of laws, jurisdiction and standard of review, the Environmental Enforcement Board has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to the enit sewer use ordinance.
[1:22:10] The board conducted a denovo evidentiary hearing and serves as a finder of the fact, including determining witness credibility,
[1:22:18] when conflicting evidence and applying the applicable provisions of the sewer use ordinance.
[1:22:24] Permit number 021 and governing state in a federal pre-treatment law.
[1:22:29] Federal Regulatory Authority, the MPDS program begins with a federal regulation 40 CFR Part
[1:22:37] 403 covers pre-treatment regulations for existing and new sources of pollution.
[1:22:42] It establishes a responsibility of federal, state, and local government in industry and
[1:22:50] public to the implement national pretreatment standards to control pollutants which pass through
[1:22:56] or interfere with treatment processes and publicly owned treatment works, POTWs, or which
[1:23:03] may contaminate sewage sludge, 40 CFR 403.1A.
[1:23:08] At 403.5, it establishes national pre-treatment standards and defines prohibitive discharges,
[1:23:15] general prohibitions.
[1:23:17] A user may not introduce into APOTW any pollutants which cause pass-through or interference.
[1:23:24] These general prohibitions and the specific prohibitions and paragraph B of this section apply to each user
[1:23:34] are introducing pollutants into APOTW, whether or not the user is subject to the national
[1:23:41] pre-treatment standards or any national state or local pre-treatment requirements, 40 CFR
[1:23:48] 403.5A-1, specific prohibitions including any pollutant released at a rate or concentration
[1:23:55] that will cause interference with the POTW, 40 CFR, 403.5 B4.
[1:24:03] Two standards are used to regulate discharges.
[1:24:06] The Catergolfo standard and the prohibitive discharges standard.
[1:24:11] Petronas versus Marshall Durbin Food Corp. 205WAWL, 8158-435 at Star 111 in D-LAAL, March 17th of 2005.
[1:24:27] Why some categorical standards are set, not all pollutants are subject to a categorical standard,
[1:24:34] instead prohibited discharges are determined by toxic effect and potential.
[1:24:38] Why in Houser, in RCO, versus Washington State Department of Ecological and Pollution Control Hearings Board,
[1:24:47] 33 Washington at 2D, 1040, 2024, AM, Pepper, Industry,
[1:24:58] Inc. versus US EPA 996F 2D 346 349 DC circulate 1993.
[1:25:09] The Clean Water Act and its regulations recognize neither a good faith nor a de-minimus defense
[1:25:16] intended and intent and good faith are irrelevant in actions involving strict liability for contaminated
[1:25:32] It's a reference to the case citation, you've already referenced that case citation, just go ahead and say id.
[1:25:41] Okay, stay regulatory authority.
[1:25:44] The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality issues permits for municipal wastewater
[1:25:49] plants and requires municipalities to regulate industrial users, among other prohibitions
[1:25:55] on discharges.
[1:25:56] Oklahoma regulations prevent the discharge of seven wastewater causing alone or in conjunction
[1:26:03] with other sources.
[1:26:04] The treatment plants affluent to fill a toxicity test for purpose of this paragraph.
[1:26:11] Toxicity means of the end point of the acute biomonitoring test requirement as specified
[1:26:16] in the CCTS NPDES permit, Oklahoma Admin Code 25263623-3-1, Oklahoma regulations also expressly
[1:26:30] prohibited eight detergent, surfact surface agent, active agents, or other substances which may cause excessive foaming in the POTW.
[1:26:41] Oklahoma admin code 252-623-3-1. Further, ODEQ defines that interference includes a discharge with alone or with other discharges.
[1:26:54] Inhibits or disrupts the POTW treatment process or operations and contributes to a violation
[1:27:01] of requirements of the POTW, NPDES Permanent, Oklahoma Admin Code 25623-1-4.
[1:27:11] Pass through includes a discharge that exits the POTW into waters of the United States
[1:27:18] in quantities or concentrations that cause a violation of the POTW's NPDES
[1:27:25] permit, Oklahoma Admin Code 25623-1-4. Pre-treatment includes reduction in
[1:27:33] elimination or alteration of pollutants before discharge to a POTW, including
[1:27:38] controls to protect against surges or slug loads that might interfere with or be
[1:27:48] 623-1-4, 27A, 2-6-2025, slug includes any non-routine episodic discharge, including an accidental spill or non-customary batch discharge, Oklahoma admin code, 2526-23-1-4.
[1:28:09] City regulation authority, regulatory authority, the ENID code of ordinances contain several
[1:28:16] provisions prohibiting discharges in violation of an SIU's permit, 8-3F-3 requires a permit
[1:28:24] stating, A, permit required, it shall be unlawful for any significant industrial user to discharge
[1:28:31] any wastewater into any natural outlet within the city and or to the POTW without a wastewater
[1:28:38] Water Discharge Permit, except as also authorized by the Environmental Compliance Specialist in accordance with the provisions of this article.
[1:28:47] 8-3F-4 allows for conditions and ordinance compliance stating,
[1:28:52] C. Permit conditions, wastewater discharge permits,
[1:28:57] shall be expressly subject to all provisions of this article and all other applicable ordinances.
[1:29:02] other charges and fees established by the city.
[1:29:06] Specific prohibitions are also contained in the code of ordinances.
[1:29:10] 8-3A-8A, this charge of certain waters are waste to sanitary sewer.
[1:29:16] A, general prohibitions, no user shall contribute or cause to be contributed directly or indirectly into APOTW.
[1:29:25] any pollutant or wastewater which will interfere with the operation or
[1:29:32] performance of or pass through the POTW. Furthermore, no user may contribute the
[1:29:40] following substance to the POTW. 8-3A-8A1, any liquid, solids or gases which
[1:29:49] by reason of their nature or quantity are or may be sufficient either alone or in interaction
[1:29:57] with other substances too.
[1:30:00] Be injures in any way to the POTW or to the operation of the POTW. 8-3A-8A4. Any wastewater containing toxic pollutants in the sufficient quantity, either singly or by interaction with other pollutants to injure or interfere with any wastewater treatment process, constitutes a hazard to humans or animals. Create a toxic effect in the receiving waters of the POTW.
[1:30:29] POTW or to exceed the limitation set fourth in a categorical pretreatment standard.
[1:30:36] A toxic pollutant shall include, but not be limited to any pollutant identified pursuant
[1:30:42] to 307A of the ACC-33USC-1317A, 8-3A-8A7, any substance which will cause the POTW to violate
[1:30:59] its NPDES permit or the state water quality standards. 8-3A-8810, any pollutants, excluding
[1:31:09] oxygen demanding pollutants, BOD5 and the like, release in a discharge rate and or pollutant
[1:31:17] concentrate which will cause interference to the POTW. 8-3A-8A-12, any waste water which
[1:31:28] This causes a hazard to human life or creates a public nuisance.
[1:31:32] 8-3A-2 contains definitions of relevant terms.
[1:31:39] Interference, a discharge which alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges
[1:31:43] from other sources.
[1:31:45] 1.
[1:31:46] Inhibits or disrupts the POTW treatment processes or operations in its sludge process, use or
[1:31:52] disposal in two. Therefore, contributes to a violation of any requirement of the city's
[1:31:58] NPDES permit, including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation, or of
[1:32:05] the prevention of sewer sludge used or disposal by the POTW, in accordance with any of the following
[1:32:12] statutory regulatory provisions or permits issued there under, or more stringent state or
[1:32:18] local regulations. For five of the Clean Water Act, 3-3-USC, 1-3-4-5, or any criteria, guidelines,
[1:32:28] or regulations develop pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, SWDA, including title
[1:32:34] two commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, R-C-R-A, C-42-USC-6901.
[1:32:49] It's a reference to the entire section.
[1:32:53] Gotcha.
[1:32:55] Or more stringent state criteria contained in any sludge management plan prepared pursuant
[1:33:00] to subtitle D of the SWDA, C-42-U-S-C-6-941-EXEC, the Clean Air Act C-42-U-S-C-7401-EXEC,
[1:33:14] The Toxic Substance Control Act, C-15 USC, 26-01-XSEC, and the Marine Protection Research
[1:33:24] and Sanctuary Act, C-14-USC, 14-31-XSEC, and 33-USC, 14-01-XSEC.
[1:33:35] Past through, a discharge which exits the POTW into the waters of the U.S. in quantities
[1:33:41] or concentrations which alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources.
[1:33:47] It is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit,
[1:33:54] including an increase in the magnitude or duration of the violation.
[1:33:59] Slug, any discharge or non-routine episodic nature, including but not limited to an accidental spill,
[1:34:07] or a non-customary batch discharge.
[1:34:10] March, toxic pollutants, any pollutants or combination of pollutants listed as a toxic
[1:34:16] in-regulation promulgated by the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
[1:34:22] under the provisions of CWA-307-A-C-33-USC-1317-A and or other acts.
[1:34:33] Upset, an exceptional incident in which there is an unintentional and temporary non-compliance
[1:34:39] with categorical pre-treatment standards because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the industrial user.
[1:34:45] An EVSA does not include non-compliance to the extent caused by operational error in
[1:34:53] proper design treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance or
[1:34:59] careless or improper operations.
[1:35:03] Evidentiary standards, the city bears the burden of proof to establish which alleged
[1:35:08] by the preponderance of the evidence under Oklahoma law, this is also called the greater weight of the evidence, meaning that the burdens is to show something is more probably true than not.
[1:35:21] See, Bedillo versus mid-century insurance company, 2005, Oklahoma 48, 121p.3d, 1080, 1096, as corrected June 22, 2005.
[1:35:37] Insured was required to prove the essential elements of this claim for breach of the duty
[1:35:45] of the good faith and fair dealing by a greater weight of evidence standard, i.e. by a preponderance
[1:35:52] of the evidence, as of the well-known Axiom states. The preponderance of evidence does
[1:35:57] not mean the greater number of witnesses testifying to the fact, but that which to the mind
[1:36:03] of the trial of the fact or the secret of the truth seems most conveniencing and more
[1:36:10] probably true. The board may consider both direct and circumstantial evidence, C-E-G-O-U-J-I-3.2.5.
[1:36:20] The law makes no distinction between the way to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.
[1:36:26] You should consider circumstantial evidence together with all the other evidence in the case
[1:36:31] in arriving at your verdict.
[1:36:34] Mid-Conan argues that the issue is all about science
[1:36:37] and that is necessarily for scientific evidence.
[1:36:41] And the scientists to prove provide answers
[1:36:43] to whether it was responsible for the plant upset
[1:36:47] or violated its permit.
[1:36:49] The issue before the board is not whether the causation
[1:36:51] can be demonstrated with scientific certainty.
[1:36:55] Scientific certainty seeks to eliminate doubt
[1:36:58] A preponderance of the evidence simply asks which explanation is more probable one.
[1:37:04] Courts have long rejected scientific certainty as a standard in environmental matters.
[1:37:10] C. Ethel-Corp versus Environmental Protection Agency, 541F.2D, 1-28N.58DC, Circuit 1976,
[1:37:23] 76, petitioners demanding demands so resilience on scientific facts on evidence that reputable scientific techniques certify as certain.
[1:37:33] Typically, a scientist will not so certify evidence unless the probability of error by standard statistical measurement is less than 5%.
[1:37:43] That is scientific fact is at least 95% certain.
[1:37:48] Also see Friends of the Earth's Inc. vs. Gaston Cooper Recycling Corp. 204 F.3D 149 163
[1:37:57] 4th Circuit 2000 litigrants routinely rely on circumstantial evidence to prove any
[1:38:06] number of contested issues and if a prosecutor may rely wholly on circumstantial evidence
[1:38:12] to prove that a criminal defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no apparent
[1:38:18] current reason and certainly not a reason apparent from the Constitution, the federal rules
[1:38:23] or the Clean Water Act itself.
[1:38:26] To regard this type of proof as per se deficient for establishing standing in a Clean Water
[1:38:34] Act case, environmental enforcement statutes do not require scientific certainty before
[1:38:41] regulatory action may be taken.
[1:38:43] Courts have consistently recognized that environmental decision making necessarily involves evaluation of incomplete, conflicting and circumstantial evidence, and that the apropical legal question is whether the evidence makes the asserted conclusion more probable than not, not whether every competing hypothesis has been scientifically eliminated.
[1:39:06] Ethel Corp. vs. EPA, 541F.2D128DC, Circuit 1976. The administrator may apply his expertise
[1:39:19] to draw conclusions from suspected, but do not completely sustain relationships between
[1:39:25] facts from trends among facts, from theoretical projections, from imperfect data, from prohibitive
[1:39:33] preliminary data do not certifiably as fact and like.
[1:39:38] Lead industries.
[1:39:44] Association.
[1:39:45] Association.
[1:39:46] EPA, 467, F.2D, 1130, 1148-49.
[1:39:54] DC, Circuit 1980, Sierra Club versus US EPA, 774, F.3D, 383-395-395.
[1:40:04] through 9.6, 7th Circuit, 9th, 2014.
[1:40:11] Mid-connet further argues that the city was required to scientifically fingerprint its wastewater by proving that every individual QAC,
[1:40:21] species identified at Mid-connet's representative sampling location was likewise identified at the WRF Influent before source attribution can be established.
[1:40:31] the board rejects that argument. Courts addressing environmental
[1:40:35] contamination have repeatedly recognized that pollutants are diluted, mixed,
[1:40:40] transported, absorbed, degraded, and otherwise altered during migration
[1:40:44] through environmental systems, making exact chemical, fingerprinting,
[1:40:49] scientific, scientific difficulty difficult or impossible.
[1:40:55] Accordingly, courts have held that environmental liability may be
[1:40:59] established through the total of the evidence, including similar contaminants, migration pathways,
[1:41:06] operational evidence, expert testimony, and circumstantial evidence.
[1:41:10] And does not require proof that every contaminant may be chemically traced to a specific source.
[1:41:16] C. Arsko, LLC versus C. Max, Inc. 21F, Point, Sup, 3D, 784, 803-04, WED, Text, 2014.
[1:41:34] Holding that and imposing a fingerprinting requirement might permit the owners and
[1:41:38] operators of facilities to avoid financial responsibility.
[1:41:41] and that a plaintiff need not fingerprint contamination to establish liability.
[1:41:48] United States versus Fairchild Industries, Inc. 766F.Sup 405 413DMD 1991,
[1:41:59] holding that the government need not trace each defendant's hazardous waste to a specific release.
[1:42:05] but need only prove that the hazardous substance, like those contained in the
[1:42:10] defendant's ways, were present at the site. New York versus Adam Winske, 16 F
[1:42:18] SUP 3D123, 148-49 EDNY, 2014, holding that a CER CLA plaintiff is not
[1:42:32] not required to finger print downgraded.
[1:42:35] Contamination and that environmental causation
[1:42:38] need not be established with scientific certainty.
[1:42:41] Citations omitted.
[1:42:44] The board further concludes that neither the procedural order,
[1:42:48] the sewer use ordinance, Oklahoma pre-treatment law,
[1:42:51] nor accepted principles of the administrative law
[1:42:54] require the city to eliminate every possible alternative source
[1:42:57] of QACs, or disprove every competing hypothesis before enforcement could occur.
[1:43:05] The board is not changed with resolving charge with resolving every scientific disagreement
[1:43:12] or identifying the precise molecular fate of every QAC compound after discharge into the
[1:43:19] collection system, whether the board must determine whether the greater weight of the evidence
[1:43:24] establishes that midcontinent caused or contributed to the alleged violations.
[1:43:30] The board therefore evaluates the evidence under the proponderance of the evidence
[1:43:34] standard required by the procedural order rather than the heightened standard of scientific
[1:43:40] certainty advocated by midcontinent.
[1:43:43] For the reasons set forth in the findings of the fact,
[1:43:46] and infra, the board concludes that the city satisfies its burden.
[1:43:53] Interpretation of law of governing law, the ordinance creates effect-based prohibitions.
[1:44:00] The city operates its POTW pursuant to any LPDES, NPDES, permits, and remains responsible
[1:44:08] for complying with that permit effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, reporting obligations,
[1:44:14] and other regulatory requirements.
[1:44:16] The Clean Water Act, Oklahoma Environment, Environmental Quality Code, Oklahoma Pre-Treatment Regulations,
[1:44:25] in a sewer use ordinance and permit number 021 operate together to prevent industrial
[1:44:32] users from introducing pollutants that interfere with treatment, pass through inadequately treated
[1:44:39] damage sludge or resident, resident, resident duels, creating nuisance or safety
[1:44:46] conditions, or impair the city's OPDES, NPDES compliance.
[1:44:51] Because the city is the OPDES, NPDES, permit holder, ODEQ looks to the city for
[1:44:59] your permit complies.
[1:45:00] Violence, even when the pollutant causing or contributing to noncompliance originates from an industrial user. The sewer use ordinance must therefore be interpreted as a protective and preventative pretreatment ordinance. Its prohibitions apply when a discharge causes or contributes to prohibited effects on the POTW, receiving water, sludge, residuals, public safety, or the city's permit compliance. QAC is not needed
[1:45:29] need not be expressly listed.
[1:45:33] The board concludes that the absence of numerical local limit or specific reference to QACs
[1:45:39] in Perman number 021 or the sewer use ordinance does not authorize discharge of QACs containing
[1:45:48] wastewater, where the discharge causes or contributes or may cause to or contribute
[1:45:54] to interfere toxic effects, pass through nuisance conditions, sludge impacts, or impairment of the city's OPDES in PDES obligations.
[1:46:05] In it code 8-3a-a4 is not limited to pollutants identified under Clean Water Act 307a.
[1:46:16] The ordinance provides that toxic pollutants include but are not limited to those federally identified pollutants.
[1:46:23] Accordingly, QAC containing wastewater may constitute a prohibited discharge if it is
[1:46:31] present in a sufficient quantity either singly or by interaction with other pollutants.
[1:46:38] To injure or interfere with wastewater treatment, create toxic effects or otherwise cause one
[1:46:44] of the prohibited affected effects identified in the ordinance.
[1:46:48] Proof of causation, interference, or source attribution.
[1:46:53] The law does not require the city to prove each individual analytic.
[1:46:58] An analytical result in isolation, whether the board must determine whether the cumulative force of the evidence
[1:47:04] makes midcontinence responsibly more probable, true than not.
[1:47:09] Source attribution, interference, toxic effects, and pass-through may be established by the total of the evidence, including operational data,
[1:47:18] Sampling results, biological testing, field observation, sewer configuration, timing, expert testimony, and other direct or circumstantial evidence.
[1:47:29] Circumstantial environmental proof consists of multiple converging facts that individually may not establish causation, but collectively do.
[1:47:39] Here are those facts. The city's di-test confirming that manhole 1P020 represented mid-continent's
[1:47:48] discharge before co-mingling. The location of the sewer system and elimination of other
[1:47:54] significant industrial sources upstream of the sampling point. The sudden appearance
[1:48:01] of excessive foam and cleaner like odor at mid-continent's manhole. The 54th street
[1:48:06] listation and the WRF headworks. Repeated and analytical detection of numerous QAC compounds in
[1:48:14] mid-continent discharge over multiple sampling evidence.
[1:48:23] Contemporary detection of QAC's entering
[1:48:28] the WRF affluent, bacterial speciation, plant operational data, and ammonia trends demonstrating
[1:48:36] a sudden loss of nitrification.
[1:48:38] QAC mass load calculation showing quantities inconsistent with an ordinary residential
[1:48:44] or commercial sources.
[1:48:46] SDS' product information and chemical invitoids identify the same families of QAC used in
[1:48:53] midcontinants, manufacturing operations, and warning against discharge to sanitary sewers
[1:48:59] or aquatic environmenters, environmentalists.
[1:49:02] Mid-content emissions regarding cleaning activities immediately preceding the EBSET and its subsequent
[1:49:11] decision to containerize QACs containing wastewater after May 22, 2005, 2025.
[1:49:20] The city's physical investigation, including inspection of manholes, wastewater pathways,
[1:49:26] production areas, floor drains, contamination areas, hoses, and discharge routes.
[1:49:31] Mid-continent is incomplete, involving, and sometimes inconsistent explanations regarding its wastewater handling, chemical usage, and pretreatment practices.
[1:49:41] The elimination or evaluation of other potential industrial sources, and the testimony of cities, witnesses, explaining why the observed, operational, biological, and analytical evidence was consistent with a significant QAC discharge from Mid-continent.
[1:49:58] The board evaluates these facts collectively, rather than requiring any single piece of evidence to independently prove every element.
[1:50:09] Conclusions, interference, unit code 8-3A-8A prohibits any discharge that will interfere with the operation or performance of the POTW.
[1:50:20] Based upon the finding of facts, the board concludes that the Mid-Continence Discharge of QACs
[1:50:27] containing wastewater inhibited and disrupted the city's activated sludge treatment process
[1:50:33] caused the loss of nitrification, impaired ammonia removal, disrupted biomass and treatment
[1:50:41] performance, and therefore constituted interference within the meaning of ENID code 8-3A-8A and
[1:50:49] and Oklahoma pre-treatment regulations.
[1:50:55] Toxic pollutants.
[1:50:57] Inid code 8-3A-8A4 prohibits wastewater containing toxic pollutants in sufficient quantity
[1:51:06] to interfere or injure or interfere with wastewater treatment processes or create toxic effect
[1:51:14] within the POTW or receiving waters.
[1:51:17] Based upon findings of fact, the board concludes that mid-continent discharge QAC containing
[1:51:22] wastewater in the sufficient quantity to create toxic effects within the city's biological
[1:51:28] treatment process, including inhibition and destruction of nitrifying bacteria necessary
[1:51:35] for wastewater treatment, sludge and biological treatment.
[1:51:40] Enid code 8-3A-886 prohibits substances that render sludge or other POTW residuals unsuitable
[1:51:50] or otherwise impaired treatment.
[1:51:52] Based on findings of fact, the board concludes that mid-continent discharge disrupted biomass,
[1:51:58] flock formation, solid settling, sludge quality, and related biological treatment functions,
[1:52:05] thereby violating 8-3A-8A6.
[1:52:12] NPDES and water quality,
[1:52:15] ENID code 8-3A-8A7 prohibits
[1:52:20] discharges that will cause the POTW to
[1:52:22] violate its NPDES permit or state
[1:52:25] water quality standards. Based upon
[1:52:28] the findings of fact, the board
[1:52:30] concludes that mid-continence 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 resulted in ODEQ enforcement and therefore violated
[1:52:46] 8-3A-887.
[1:52:50] Polluting loading.
[1:52:51] Enid code 8-3A-8810 prohibits pollutant concentrates or discharge rates that cause interference.
[1:53:01] Based upon finding effect, the board concludes that the nature, concentration, and mass loading
[1:53:06] of QAC containing wastewater discharged by midcontinent constituted a prohibited pollutant loading
[1:53:15] under 8-3A-8810, public nuisance, ENID code 8-3A-8812 prohibits wastewater that creates
[1:53:26] a public nuisance. Based upon the finding effect, the board concludes that midcontinent's discharge
[1:53:32] producing excessive, excessive foaming strong cleaner like odors within the collection system of the POTW.
[1:53:41] Disruption of the wastewater treatment operations downstream environmental impacts and regulatory enforcement,
[1:53:48] all of which constituted nuisance conditions within the meeting of the ordinance.
[1:53:53] Permit violation. Permit number 021 required make continent to comply with the sewer use ordinance,
[1:54:00] maintenance, maintain adequate pre-treatment, prevent prohibited discharges, report operational
[1:54:06] changes, and provide information necessary for the city to evaluate compliance.
[1:54:11] The board finds that mid-continent violated permit number 021 by discharging QAC-Laden
[1:54:17] effluent into the public water's waste water system.
[1:54:21] QAC containing effluent is or may be toxic to his and is prohibited from individual discharge
[1:54:29] in quantities that cause foaming, interferes by itself or in combination with other effluent
[1:54:35] to interfere with the POTW or pass through the POTW.
[1:54:39] The mid-continent discharge violated each of the above-sided provision and its permit
[1:54:45] and caused the city to violate its permit issued by the DOD-EQ for operation of the waste
[1:54:51] water facility.
[1:54:52] These values constituted violation of permit number 021 and independently justified enforcement under the sewer use ordinance.
[1:55:03] City investigation and enforcement, based upon finding a fact, the board concludes that the city acted reasonably in investigating the May 2025 treatment upset through field observation.
[1:55:16] repeated sampling, biological testing, document request, facility inspections,
[1:55:22] engineering evaluation, expert consultations, and continued communications with Midcontinent.
[1:55:29] The city was not required to establish liability through direct observation of a discharge,
[1:55:34] or through an exact chemical fingerprint before taking a enforcement action.
[1:55:40] The evidence available to the city provided a reasonable factual basis to conclude
[1:55:44] that mid-continent caused or contributed to the WRF upset.
[1:55:50] The notice of violation was authorized by the sewer use ordinance and
[1:55:54] supported by the evidence available to the city at the time of its issuance.
[1:55:59] The administrative order likewise constituted a reasonable and authorized enforcement measure
[1:56:05] based upon the findings of fact, the board concludes that the continued QAC detections
[1:56:12] unresolved wastewater pathways, incomplete information, and inadequate
[1:56:17] demonstrated pre-treatment justified the corrective measures imposed therein.
[1:56:23] Mid-continent did not establish any affirmative defense recognized under Oklahoma
[1:56:28] pre-treatment regulations. The evidence demonstrates that mid-continent new or
[1:56:33] reasonably should have known that its handling and discharge of the QAC
[1:56:37] containing wastewater could interfere with a biological wastewater treatment facility, cost recovery and penalties.
[1:56:45] The sewer use ordinance authorizes recovery of costs reasonably incurred to investigate prohibited discharges, protect the POTW, restore treatment operations and enforce the city's pre-treatment program.
[1:56:59] Based upon the finding of facts, the board concludes that the city's requested cost, including sampling, laboratory analysis, wet testing,
[1:57:11] cationic, surfactant testing, biological receding, neutral and related treatment measures, engineering consulting,
[1:57:21] consultation, regulatory response, ODEQ compliance efforts, wildlife related costs, employee time,
[1:57:28] and associated enforcement expenses were reasonably and
[1:57:33] necessarily incurred as a result of mid-contains violations.
[1:57:38] The penalties and costs recovery sought by the city are authorized by the sewer use ordinance and are reasonable in light of nature of the violation.
[1:57:47] The operational disruption to the POTW, the city's regulatory exposure, the downstream environmental consequences, and
[1:57:55] and the resources required to investigate,
[1:57:57] remediate, and prevent reoccurrence.
[1:58:01] Midconn's violation of permit number zero to one,
[1:58:04] cause response cost incurred by the city
[1:58:07] in the amount of 104,799 and 46 cents.
[1:58:13] The amounts are assessed to midcontinent,
[1:58:16] which is ordered to pay the amounts within 10 days
[1:58:20] of the date of this final order.
[1:58:21] Response costs include enforcement costs are ongoing.
[1:58:26] The city may subsequently assess its enforcement cost against mid-continent.
[1:58:33] Mid-continent is entitled to appear any subsequent assessment under the terms of the
[1:58:39] Enid Code of Ordnances.
[1:58:41] Order.
[1:58:43] It is therefore ordered and a judge that, one, mid-continent violated the general prohibited
[1:58:49] the discharge provisions of Enid Code 8-3A-8.
[1:58:54] The requirements of the Industrial User Permit Number 021 and the city's pre-treatment
[1:59:00] program by discharging QAC containing wastewater that caused or contributed to interference
[1:59:07] with the POTW.
[1:59:09] Toxic effects within the biological treatment process, impairment of the city's OPDES
[1:59:16] S-N-P-D-E-S compliance obligations and other prohibited conditions identified in the sewer
[1:59:24] use ordinance.
[1:59:25] 2.
[1:59:26] Notice the violations number 001 is affirmed.
[1:59:30] 3.
[1:59:31] Administrative order and amended administrative order number NOV 001 are affirmed.
[1:59:40] 4. Mid-continent shall comply with the corrective measure set 4th in administrative order and administrative orders.
[1:59:48] Numbers, NOV-001.
[1:59:52] 5. Mid-continent shall comply with all corrective measures imposed herein.
[1:59:58] 6. The city is
[2:00:00] As awarded, recoverable cost in the amount of 104,799 and 46 cents. This is the amount shall be paid to the city within 30 days of the appealing parties receipt of the judgment of the board. The city's environmental compliance officer may proceed with any additional enforcement cost she finds necessary under the city's code. This decision is final unless appeal pursuant to 12
[2:00:29] Oklahoma State 951 to the Garfield County District Court within 30 days of the
[2:00:36] appealing party's receipt of the judgment of the board.
[2:00:39] Wherefore, these findings affect and conclusions the law are issued as the final
[2:00:45] judgment of the Environmental Enforcement Board as reflected by a vote held in
[2:00:49] public session on August 11th, 2026.
[2:00:53] six. Do I have a motion to?
[2:00:56] There needs to be one correction if you'll scroll back up to...
[2:01:05] So you thought about on?
[2:01:07] Scroll up just a little further.
[2:01:09] The amount should be 30 days of the date of the final order there.
[2:01:16] So your motion will need to include that amendment to the order.
[2:01:21] Okay. So 30 days. Do I have a motion to amend it? Do we do that all one motion to amend?
[2:01:30] I will make a motion to approve. Order as with the amendment of 30 days. Okay,
[2:01:43] cash
[2:01:44] about it.
[2:01:52] It's not working. The amendment was on the time to pay the. Yeah, it's a 10 days
[2:01:58] There's one place that 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.
[2:02:08] Oh, sure.
[2:02:08] It might be okay.
[2:02:13] Okay, catch your balance.
[2:02:16] Passes 40.
[2:02:18] Number five, public comment.
[2:02:20] Is there a hand sign?
[2:02:21] I don't think anybody's found out.
[2:02:23] Okay, do the habit motion do a adjourn?
[2:02:27] I will make a motion to adjourn.
[2:02:29] Ah, seconded.
[2:02:30] All right, catch your ballot.
[2:02:34] Passes five, four zero.
[2:02:36] Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.