VIA CERTIFIED MAIL:
To: Mr. Glenn Fitch, President
Carthage Town Council
P.O. Box 26
Carthage, IN 46115
Designated representatives of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM) have conducted a record review and inspections of the Town of Carthage publicly owned
wastewater treatment facility (POTW) located in Rush County, Indiana. The record review and
inspections indicate that The Town of Carthage (the Town), as owner and operator of the POTW,
has caused and contributed to violations of provisions of Indiana Code (IC), Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC), the Town's NPDES Permit No. IN 0024937, and the Town's Land
Application Permit No. IN LA 000415.
The violations are based on the following:
IC 13-30-2-1 states that a person may not discharge, emit, cause, allow, or threaten to
discharge, emit, cause, or allow any contaminant or waste, including any noxious odor, either
alone or in combination with contaminants from other sources, into the environment or any
publicly owned treatment works in any form that causes or would cause pollution that violates or
would violate rules, standards, or discharge or emission requirements adopted by the appropriate
board under the environmental management laws.
327 IAC 2-1-6(a)(1) states that all waters at all times and at all places 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, visible oil sheen, 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
(e) which are in concentrations or combinations that will cause or contribute to the
growth of aquatic plants or algae to such degree as to create a nuisance, be
unsightly, or otherwise impair the designated uses.
IC 13-18-4-5 states that a person may not throw, run, drain, or otherwise dispose into any
of the streams or waters of Indiana; or cause, permit, or suffer to be thrown, run, drained,
allowed to seep, or otherwise disposed into any waters; any organic or inorganic matter that
causes or contributes to a polluted condition off any waters, as determined by a rule of the board.
Part II.A.8. of the NPDES permit states that sludges shall be disposed of in accordance
with methods established in 329 IAC 2 and 327 IAC 6.
Part II.A.5(b) of the Permit states, "the permittee shall provide an adequate operating staff
which is duly qualified to carry out the operation, maintenance, and testing functions required to
insure compliance with the conditions of this permit."
327 IAC 5-2-8(8) and Part II. A.5. of the NPDES permit state, in substance, that all waste
collection, control, treatment, and disposal facilities shall be operated as efficiently as possible and
in a manner which will minimize upsets and discharges of excessive pollutants.
327 IAC 5-2-8(11) and Part II.A.7. of the NPDES permit state, in substance, that any
diversion from or bypass of facilities necessary to maintain compliance with the terms and
conditions of this permit is prohibited, except where unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal
injury, severe property damage, or there is no feasible alternative to the bypass. The permittee
shall promptly notify the Commissioner immediately of such occurrences by telephone and in
writing within five days of such diversion or bypass.
During an inspection of the Town's POTW conducted on February 24, 1998, IDEM staff
observed and documented that a temporary pvc pipe had been installed on the clarifier for the
purpose of draining solids. The solids from the clarifier drained into the chlorine contact tank,
rather than being returned to the sludge digester. The solids were released from the chlorine
contact tank through outfall 001. It was noted that there was a large amount of sludge in the
receiving stream. The Town Council President indicated that the clairifier had to be pumped out
to clean the sludge return line. No records were available to indicate that the bypass had been
reported to the state. The release of solids into the receiving stream is in violation of IC 13-30-2-
1, IC 13-18-4-5, 327 IAC 2-1-6(a)(1) and Part II.A.8. of the NPDES permit. The Town's failure
to operate the treatment facility as efficiently as possible is in violation of Part II. A.5. of the
NPDES permit. The diversion of the solids from the clarifier to the chlorine contact tank, rather
than the sludge digester, is in violation of II.A.7. of the NPDES permit. The failure to notify
IDEM by telephone or in writing of the diversion or bypass is in violation of 327 IAC 5-2-8(11)
and Part II.A.7 of the NPDES permit.
Additionally, during the above referenced inspection, it was observed and documented
that the weirs on the clarifier need to be cleaned on a regular basis and that the chlorine contact
tank needed to be cleaned. The failure to operate the treatment facility as efficiently as possible is
in violation of Part II.A.5. of the NPDES permit.
Part I.A.1. of the NPDES permit states, in part, that the permittee shall take samples and
measurements to meet the effluent limitations and monitoring requirements at a location
representative of the discharge and the discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee
as specified.
Part I.B.3. of the NPDES permit states that the permittee is to submit monitoring reports
to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management containing results obtained during the
previous month and shall be postmarked no later than the 28th day of the month following each
completed monitoring period.
327 IAC 5-2-14(a) and Part I.B.6. of the NPDES permit require the permittee to record,
for each measurement of sample taken, the following information:
The exact place, date, and time of sampling;
The person(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
The dates the analyses were performed;
The person(s) who performed the analyses;
The analytical techniques or methods used; and
The results of all required analyses and measurements
327 IAC 5-2-14(b) and Part I.B.8. of the NPDES permit require the permittee to retain all
records and information resulting from the monitoring activities required by the permit, including
all records of analyses performed and calibration and maintenance of instrumentation and
recording from continuous monitoring instrumentation, for a minimum of three (3) years. In cases
where the original records are kept at another location, a copy of all such records shall be kept at
the permitted facility.
327 IAC 5-2-8(7) and Part II.B.1. of the NPDES permit require the permittee to allow
authorized representatives of the commissioner to, at reasonable times, have access to and copy
any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit.
On the inspection report form for the February 24, 1998, inspection of the Town's POTW, IDEM staff noted, among other things, that only January, February, and March 1997, DMRs and MROs were available and the April 1997 reports were incomplete . Additionally, it was noted that the records which are required to be maintained under the terms and conditions of this permit were not available for review. The Town's failure to retain all records or copies of records at the permitted facility for three (3) years is in violation of 327 IAC 5-2-14(b) and Part
I.B.8. of the NPDES permit. The Town's failure to allow IDEM
staff to have access to and copy
any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of the permit is in violation of 327
IAC 5-2-8(7) and Part II.B.1. of the NPDES permit
. The Town's failure to have the records at
the POTW and available for review prevents IDEM from determining if the Town has monitored
the effluent and recorded measurements as required by 327 IAC 5-2-14(a) and Part I.B.6. and
Part I.A.1. of the NPDES permit
.
A record review of monitoring reports submitted for the Town's POTW indicates that the
Town submitted monitoring reports past the 28th day of the month following each completed
monitoring period for the months of September, October, and November of 1995, April and May
of 1996, and February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November,
and December of 1997
, in violation of Part I.B.3. of the NPDES permit. Additionally, as of April
7, 1998, IDEM had not received monitoring reports for January and February of 1998, also in
violation of Part I.B.3. of the NPDES permit.
327 IAC 6-2-1 provides that a land application permit shall be required for the disposal of
municipal sludge and/or wastewater by application upon or incorporation into the soil except for
specific exclusions. The exclusions provided by 327 IAC 6-2-1 do not apply to the Town of
Carthage land application activities.
327 IAC 6-2-6(a) states, "Characteristics of sludges, waste products and wastewater shall
be monitored and reported to the commissioner as required by the permit application form or a
permit. The results of analysis of such characteristics shall be reported on both a wet weight and
a dry weight basis."
327 IAC 6-2-6(b) states, in part, "Information regarding application rates and site
conditions shall be recorded daily by the permitee and reported annually by January 31, for the
preceding calendar year to the commissioner on forms provided by the commissioner or as
otherwise specified by the permit..."
Part IV.A.2.(a) of the Permit states, in part, "An annual report to the Indiana Department
of Environmental Management, Office of Water Management, Permits Section, Land Application
Group shall be submitted by the permittee by January 31 for the preceding year..."
The Town of Carthage did not submit an annual report by January 31, of each year for
land application activities for 1996 and 1997. An annual report is required to be submitted even
when no land application activities take place.
On March 17, 1997, IDEM sent a letter to the Town via certified mail that stated that a review of IDEM records indicated that the Town had not submitted an annual report for the year 1996, and notified the town that the annual report is required to be filed regardless of whether land application occurred during 1996 or not. The letter stated that the annual report for the year
1996 was to be submitted within 30 days of the Town's receipt of the letter, and failure to submit
the required documentation would result in the matter being forwarded to IDEM's Office of
Enforcement and may result in permit suspension or revocation or in the denial of a permit
renewal. IDEM received no response to the March 17, 1997, letter and no annual report for land
application for 1996, was received by IDEM. Therefore, the Town is in violation of 327 IAC 6-
2-6(b) and Part IV.A.2.(a) of the Permit.
On September 18, 1997, IDEM sent another letter to the Town via certified mail that
stated that IDEM had not received an annual report from the Town for 1996 land application
activities or any response to the March 17, 1997, letter that was sent to the Town. The letter
informed the Town that, pursuant to Part V, Section A.1. of the Town's permit, Land Application
Permit No. IN LA 000415 was suspended pending submission of the delinquent annual report.
The letter informed the Town that the required information was to be provided to the Land Use
Section prior to further land application by the Town. IDEM received no response to the
September 18, 1997, letter and no annual report for land application for 1996, was received by
IDEM.
On October 9, 1997, IDEM staff conducted a site visit at the POTW. The POTW's
certified operator stated that they were still land applying sludge and would submit the records for
1996 land application activities in about two (2) or three (3) weeks from the date of the site visit.
IDEM received an annual report for land application for 1996 on April 9, 1998.
On March 31, 1998, IDEM sent a letter to the Town via certified mail that outlined the
March 17, 1997 and September 18, 1997, letters and stated that a site visit was made on October
9, 1997. The letter noted that, while on site, the operator had explained why the reports had not
been submitted and that he would submit this report in approximately two weeks. The letter also
noted that the operator had stated that they were still land applying on their suspended permit.
Additionally, the March 31, 1998 letter stated, "The 1997 Land Application Annual Report was
due on January 31, 1998. As of this date, the required reports have not been received by this
office. Therefore, pursuant to Part V, Section A., of your permit, I hereby declare Land
Application Permit No. IN LA 000415, issued September 14, 1993, to be revoked. All land
application activities are to cease immediately."
As indicated by the above noted letters sent to the Town on March 17, 1997, September
18, 1997, and March 31, 1998, and the site visit conducted on October 9, 1997, the Town has
violated: a)
327 IAC 6-2-1 in that they have disposed municipal sludge by application upon or
incorporation into the soil without a land application permit,
b) 327 IAC 6-2-6(a) in that it has not
reported characteristics of sludges, waste products and wastewater to the commissioner as
required by the permit, and c) 327 IAC 6-2-6(b) and Part IV.A.2.(a) of the Permit in that it has
not submitted annual reports of land application activities for 1996 and 1997 to IDEM by January
31, for the preceding calendar year. As of April 9, 1998, IDEM had still not received an annual
report of land application activities for 1997.
In accordance with IC 13-30-3-3, the Commissioner is required to notify the Town of
Carthage in writing that he believes a violation exists and offer the Town an opportunity to enter
into an Agreed Order that provides for the actions required to correct the violations and for
payment of a civil penalty. The Commissioner is not required to extend this offer for more than
sixty (60) days.
If settlement is not reached within sixty (60) days of receipt of this Notice, the
Commissioner may issue an order pursuant to IC 13-30-3-4 that contains the actions the Town
must take to achieve compliance, the required time frames, and an appropriate civil penalty.
Pursuant to IC 13-30-4-1, the Commissioner may assess penalties of up to $25,000 per day of any
violation.
The timely entry into an Agreed Order will prevent the necessity of an Order of the
Commissioner being issued under IC 13-30-3-4 or the filing of a civil action. The advantages of
entering into an Agreed Order are:
1. The Town may not be required to admit that any violation occurred.
2. The civil penalty may be less than that imposed under an Order of the
Commissioner.
To discuss this matter further, please contact Aletha Carr, Enforcement Case Manager, at
(317) 232-8407 within fifteen (15) days after receipt of this Notice to request a conference. If
settlement is reached, an Agreed Order will be prepared and sent to the Town for review and
signature.
FOR THE COMMISSIONER:
Dated: June 5, 1998 ______________________________
David J. Hensel
Director
Office of Enforcement
Enclosure
cc: Rush County Health Department
U.S. EPA, Region 5
Converted by Andrew Scriven