STATE OF INDIANA ) BEFORE THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT )
) SS: OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COUNTY OF MARION )
OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) CAUSE NO. B-2044
)
EASTERN HENDRICKS COUNTY
UTILITY, INC. )
)
Respondent. )
The Complainant and the Respondent desire to settle and compromise this action without
hearing or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and consent to the entry of the following
Findings of Fact and Order.
327 IAC 5-2-14 requires, in substance, that any permittee required to monitor under 327
IAC 5-2-13 shall maintain records of all monitoring information and monitoring activities as set
forth in the rule.
327 IAC 5-2-15 and 327 IAC 2-4-1 through 2-4-4 require, in relevant part, that a
permittee submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) and Monthly Reports of Operation
(MROs) to the commissioner. Such reports shall:
a. include flow measurements and waste characteristics;
b. be prepared by a certified wastewater treatment plant operator;
c. be submitted prior to the 28th day of the following month.
327 IAC 5-2-8 requires, in relevant part, that the following conditions apply to all NPDES
permits and shall be incorporated into the permits either expressly or by reference:
1. A permittee shall comply with all terms and conditions of its NPDES
permit; any permittee non-compliance constitutes a violation of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and the Environmental Management Act (EMA) and is
grounds for enforcement action;
2. The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or correct any
adverse impact on the environment resulting from noncompliance with the
permit;
3. The permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order and
efficiently operate all facilities and systems (and related appurtenances) for
collection and treatment which are necessary for achieving compliance with
the terms and conditions of the permit;
4. The permittee shall allow an authorized representative of the commissioner
to have access to any records that must be kept under the terms and
conditions of the permit;
5. The permittee shall comply with monitoring, recording, and reporting
requirements established in accordance with 327 IAC 5-2-13, 327 IAC 5-
2-14, and 327 IAC 5-2-15.
a. To enter upon the permittee's premises where an effluent source is located or in
which any records are required to be kept; and
b. At reasonable times, to have access to and copy any records required to be kept
under the terms and conditions of the permit, to inspect any monitoring equipment
or monitoring method required in this permit, and to sample any discharge of
pollutants.
6. During a January 30, 1995 IDEM inspection, it was observed that laboratory data sheets
were not available on site for review. IDEM wrote an Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Inspection letter to Respondent dated March 1, 1995 regarding the results of the January 30,
1995 inspection, and asked for a written response within twenty (20) days of letter date, however
no written response was submitted by Respondent. During a May 12, 1995 IDEM inspection, it
was observed that MROs for February and March, 1995 were not available for viewing, nor were
any maintenance records. IDEM issued a Warning of Noncompliance (WONC) on July 19, 1995
for failure to submit MROs for the months of March through June, 1994, along with the failure to
maintain records for three (3) years at the facility. During August 11, 1995 and January 17, 1996
IDEM inspections, it was noted that laboratory data sheets were still not available on site for
review, but were instead apparently kept at Mooresville and Heritage contract laboratory testing
sites. Therefore, Respondent is in violation of NPDES Permit No. IN 0021806, 327 IAC 5-2-14,
327 IAC 5-2-15, 327 IAC 2-4-1 through 2-4-4 and 327 IAC 5-2-8.
7. 327 IAC 2-1-6(a)(1) states, in substance, that all waters at all times and at all places,
including the mixing zone, shall meet the minimum conditions of being free from substances,
materials, floating debris, oil or scum attributable to municipal, industrial, agricultural, and other
land use practices or other discharges:
a. that will settle to form putrescent or otherwise objectionable deposits;
b. that are in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or deleterious;
c. that produce color, odor or other conditions in such degree as to create a
nuisance;
d. which are in amounts sufficient to be acutely toxic to, or to otherwise
severely injure or kill aquatic life, other animals, plants, or humans; and
8.
Records review for the calendar years 1994 through 1996 and first quarter of 1997
indicated that Respondent was in violation of NPDES permit final effluent limitations for
Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3) for the months of: January through November, 1994. Respondent
was in violation of NPDES permit final effluent limitations for Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) for
the months of:
January and June through August, 1994. Respondent was
in violation of
NPDES permit final effluent limitations for Biochemical Oxygen Demand, five day (BOD5)
for the months of:
January through October, and December, 1994; March, 1995; March,
May, and July through September, 1996; and January, 1997.
Respondent was
in violation of
NPDES permit final effluent limitations for
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) for the months of:
January through October, 1994; and March, and May, 1996. Respondent was
in violation of
NPDES permit final effluent limitations for
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) for the months of:
June, 1994; June and August, 1995. In all, there were 20 months of effluent violations in the
thirty-seven (37) months of DMRs reviewed from January, 1994 through January, 1997. Flow
data was found to be missing from the DMRs submitted for the months of: April through July,
1996.
9. IDEM issued a WONC on November 10, 1994, for final effluent violations for the months
of: May, August, and September, 1993; January, March, April, June, July, and August, 1994.
The WONC also noted that the facility lacked a flow meter. Respondent sent a letter dated
November 22, 1994, that attempted to explain the final effluent violations by an intermittent lack
of representative sampling and/or unusual operational occurrences, such as supernatant draw-offs,
sludge disposal haulings, and process equipment failures. Respondent also indicated a flow meter
does exist, but has been inoperative until recently repaired.
Respondent expressed an intention to
renovate the wastewater treatment plant and remove excessive I/I.
10. During a January 30, 1995 IDEM inspection, it was observed that the Tenth Street lift
station does not have locks on the wet well, the flow meter was not calibrated, sludge was present
in the tributary to White Lick Creek, the chlorine contact tank needed cleaning and the secondary
clarifier was full of floating solids. During the same January 30, 1995 IDEM inspection, it was
further noted as unsatisfactory that even though the sewer is one hundred percent (100%)
sanitary, Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) problems exist during heavy rains, and neighbors called regarding
failed conditions at lift stations during the month of December, 1994. IDEM wrote an Operation
and Maintenance (O&M) Inspection letter to Respondent dated March 1, 1995 regarding the
results of the January 30, 1995 inspection, and asked for a written response within twenty (20)
days of letter date, which was not submitted.
11. During an April 5, 1995 IDEM followup inspection, it was observed that pockets of sludge were present in the tributary to White Lick Creek, one of the Red Oak lift station pumps was out of service, the chlorine contact tank and clarifier were being cleaned, but were both still full of sludge. Comments attached to the same April 5, 1995 inspection report noted that a
broken return line from secondary clarifier to aeration was allowing spilled sludge to run off the
site, and some evidence of puddles existed around the perimeter fence.
12. During a May 12, 1995 IDEM followup inspection, it was observed that floating ash,
sludge worms, and algae were present in the chlorine contact tank and secondary clarifier, and
both still needed cleaning. Also, the chlorine meter was observed to be of an unapproved type,
the maintenance program and housekeeping were both noted as unsatisfactory, and a lift station
failure had occurred on April 21, 1995 resulting in a bypass of untreated wastewater.
13. IDEM issued a Sewer Ban Early Warning Notification to Respondent on June 15, 1995
because actual flow from the wastewater treatment facility was found to be at ninety percent
(90%) of its hydraulic design capacity.
14. IDEM issued another WONC on July 19, 1995 for final effluent violations for the months
of September through December, 1994; and March, 1995. The WONC also noted the failure of
the lift stations on May 28, 1991, February 28, 1994, December 27, 1994, and April 22, 1995.
The WONC requested a detailed explanation and time table of the proposed construction
Respondent had outlined in his November 22, 1994 letter. Respondent did not submit this
information in any sufficient detail.
15. During an August 11, 1995, IDEM followup inspection, general improvements were
noted, however, floating solids were still unsatisfactorily present in the secondary clarifier. An
automatic dialer system was being installed for lift station alarms, and most of the other
operational problems were being effectively corrected.
16. During an October, 24, 1995 IDEM followup inspection, it was observed that the
operator was not at the facility. While the effluent was clear, the secondary clarifier had floating
sludge. The telephone line for Red Oak lift station's automatic dialer system was observed to
have been run.
17. During a November 28, 1995 IDEM followup inspection, it was observed that the
secondary clarifier had floating sludge.
18. During a January 17, 1996 IDEM followup inspection, it was observed that the receiving
stream had solids and paper products along the banks. Also, the facility was observed to be
bypassing the flow meter. It was noted that the facility operates by removing sludge on a regular
basis, but does not use mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration as a process control
test.
19. During a July 15, 1996 IDEM inspection, sludge was observed to be present in the
receiving stream.
20. The conditions found in Paragraphs 15 through 19 constitute violations of Respondent's
NPDES Permit, 327 IAC 5-2-8, and 327 IAC 2-1-6 (a)(1).
22. The original Respondent sold his interest in the utility in 1997. Mr. Jon Handy,
immediately initiated contact with IDEM, with the understanding that this Agreed Order would be
directly binding upon him, as a successor of the Respondent. A settlement conference was held
September 10, 1997 with the new owner, who requested an opportunity to demonstrate a good
faith compliance effort at the treatment facility with submission of a construction permit
application for treatment plant expansion. Representatives of IDEM inspected the treatment
plant, as operated by Respondent's successor, and discussed plans and specifications for the
expansion of the facility.
23.
In recognition of the settlement reached, Respondent waives any right to administrative
and judicial review of this Agreed Order.
d. Methods To Assure Timely and Complete Submission of DMRs,
MROs and Compliance with NPDES Permit Effluent Limits.
e. A Method To Assure Compliance with the requirement for the plant's
certified operator to prepare all reports, as stated in 327 IAC 2-4-4.
3. The CP is subject to the approval of IDEM. If the plan is deemed inadequate by
IDEM, a revised CP shall be submitted within fifteen (15) days of receipt of notice from
IDEM of the inadequacies thereof. If after the submission of the revised document(s) IDEM
still finds the document(s) are inadequate, then IDEM may require further modification of the
CP as necessary to meet IDEM's requirements. If further modification does not meet IDEM's
approval, IDEM will suggest appropriate modification to be undertaken by Respondent within
a specified time frame. If such modification is not timely undertaken or an alternative plan
timely submitted by Respondent is not approved by IDEM, the Respondent will be liable for
stipulated penalties. Respondent, upon written notification by IDEM, shall immediately
implement the approved plan, including the dates for completion of the schedule. The
approved plan shall be incorporated into the Agreed Order and shall be deemed an enforceable
part thereof.
4. All submittals required by this Agreed Order, unless notified otherwise in writing, shall be
sent to:
Section Chief, Water Enforcement
Office of Enforcement
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
100 N. Senate Avenue
P. O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
5. Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of Four Thousand and Fifty Dollars ($4,050). Said
penalty amount shall be due and payable to the Environmental Management Special Fund
within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order.
6. In the event the following terms and conditions are violated, the Complainant may assess
and the Respondent shall pay a stipulated penalty in the following amounts:
Violation Penalty
Paragraph 2. $200 per week CP submitted late;
8. In the event that the civil penalty required by paragraph 5 is not paid within thirty (30)
days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, Respondent shall pay interest on the
unpaid balance at the rate established by IC 24-4.6-1-101. The interest shall continue to
accrue until the civil penalty is paid in full.
9. This Agreed Order shall apply to and be binding upon the Respondent, its officers,
directors, principals, agents, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. The Respondent's
signatories to this Agreed Order certify that they are fully authorized to execute this
document and legally bind the parties they represent. No change in ownership, corporate,
or partnership status of the Respondent shall in any way alter its status or responsibilities
under this Agreed Order.
10. In the event that any terms of the Agreed Order are found to be invalid, the remaining
terms shall remain in full force and effect and shall be construed and enforced as if the
Agreed Order did not contain the invalid terms.
11. The Respondent shall provide a copy of this Agreed Order, if in force, to any subsequent
owners or successors before ownership rights are transferred. Respondent shall ensure
that all contractors, firms and other persons performing work under this Agreed Order
comply with the terms of this Agreed Order.
12. This Agreed Order shall remain in effect until Respondent has complied with all terms and
conditions of this Agreed Order, specifically paragraphs 1 through 5.
By: _________________________ By: _________________________
Mark Stanifer, Section Chief
Office of Enforcement Printed: ________________________
Title: ________________________
Date: _______________ Date: _______________
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT: COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:
Department of Environmental Management
By: _________________________ By: ________________________
Office of Legal Counsel
Department of Environmental Management
Date: _______________ Date: _______________
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT THIS _______________________ DAY OF ____________________, 1997.
Signed 1/18/98
___________________________
John M. Hamilton
Commissioner
Converted by Andrew Scriven