NOTICE OF VIOLATION

 

 

Via Certified Mail #:

 

 

 

 

To:

Mr. Robert Gray, President
Town Council of Andrews
P.O. Box 386
Andrews, IN 46702

 

 

 

Case No. 2005-14602-W

 

Based on an investigation, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) has reason to believe that the Town of Andrews (Respondent) has violated environmental rules and provisions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit No. IN0022268 (Permit).  The violations are based on the following:

 

1.                  Respondent owns and operates a minor municipal wastewater treatment facility located south of U.S. 24 on State Road 105, in Huntington County, Indiana (Site).

 

2.                  Pursuant to 327 IAC 5-2-8(1) and Part II.A.1. of the Permit, the Respondent is required to comply with all terms and conditions of the Permit.

 

3.                  Pursuant to 327 IAC 5-2-8(8) and Part II.B.1. of the Permit, the Respondent is required to maintain in good working order and efficiently operate all waste collection, control, treatment, and disposal facilities.

 

4.                  Pursuant to 327 IAC 5-2-8(11) and Part II.B.2 of the Permit, the permittee may allow any bypass to occur that does not exceed any effluent limitations contained in the NPDES permit, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation.  The permittee must provide the commissioner with the following notice:

 

(i)                 If the permittee knows or should have known in advance of the need for a bypass (anticipated bypass), it shall submit prior written notice. If possible, such notice shall be provided at least ten days before the date of the bypass for approval by the commissioner.

 

(ii)               The permittee shall orally (or by facsimile) report an unanticipated bypass within 24 hours of becoming aware of the bypass event.  The permittee must also provide a written report within five days of becoming aware of the bypass event.

 

Bypass is prohibited, and the commissioner may take enforcement action against a permittee for bypass unless the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage, and there were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime.

 

5.                  IDEM records review revealed that there were 25 days of wet-weather bypass/overflows at three different locations in the Respondent’s collection system in 2003 and on 23 consecutive days during January 2005.  Excessive wet-weather infiltration/inflow (I/I) was noted in the 100% designed sanitary sewer collection system, during a January 27, 2005 IDEM inspection, when hydraulic overload created bypass conditions at Outfall 002, a.k.a. the Main Plant Bypass, also resulting in untreated sewage entering to the Wabash River.  These bypasses were avoidable, and therefore the Respondent is in violation of 327 IAC 5-2-8(11).  These bypasses indicate failure by the Respondent to maintain in good working order and efficiently operate its waste collection, control, treatment, and disposal facility, in violation of 327 IAC 5-2-8(8) and Part II.B.1. of the Permit.  By committing these bypasses, the Respondent is also in violation of 327 IAC 5-2-8(1) and Part II.A.1. of the Permit.

 

6.                  Pursuant to IC 13-18-4-5, it is unlawful for any person to 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 of any waters, as determined by a rule of the board adopted under IC 13-18-4-1 and IC 13-18-4-3.

 

7.                  During the bypasses noted above, the Respondent ran, drained, or disposed of wastewater, an organic matter, into waters of the state, including the Wabash River, in a manner that violated 327 IAC 5-2-8(1), 327 IAC 5-2-8(8), and 327 IAC 5-2-8(11), and therefore is also in violation of IC 13-18-4-5.

 

8.                  Pursuant to IC 13-30-2-1, no person may 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 into any publicly owned treatment works in any form which 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.

 

9.                  During the bypasses noted above, the Respondent discharged, emitted, or caused or allowed the discharge or emission of wastewater, a contaminant or waste, into the environment in a form that caused pollution in violation of 327 IAC 5-2-8(1), 327 IAC 5-2-8(8) and 327 IAC 5-2-8(11) and therefore is also in violation of IC 13-20-2-1.

 

10.             Pursuant to Part I.A.1. of the Permit, the Respondent is required to meet flow monitoring requirements and effluent limitations for parameters including carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand, five day (CBOD5), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and pH.

 

11.             Pursuant to Part I.B.3. of the Permit, the Respondent is required to submit monitoring reports to IDEM 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.

 

12.             IDEM records for the period between November 2004 and May 2005 indicate that the Respondent failed to report flow data and results pertaining to effluent limitations for the following parameters:  TSS, CBOD5, and pH for the month of January 2005.  Respondent’s failure to report flow data and results pertaining to effluent limitations is in violation of 327 IAC 5-2-8(1), Part I.A.1, Part I.B.3. and Part II.A.1 of the Permit.

 

In accordance with IC 13-30-3-3, the Commissioner is required to notify an alleged violator in writing that a violation may exist and offer an opportunity to enter into an Agreed Order providing for the actions required to correct the violations and for the payment of a civil penalty.  The Commissioner is not required to extend this offer for more than 60 days.

 

Entering into an Agreed Order will prevent the issuance of a Notice and Order of the Commissioner under IC 13-30-3-4, or the filing of a civil court action under IC 13-14-2-6.  IDEM encourages settlement by Agreed Order, thereby saving time and resources.  Timely settlement by Agreed Order may result in a reduced civil penalty.  Settlement discussions will also allow the opportunity to present any mitigating factors that may be relevant to the violations.  In addition, as provided in IC 13-30-3-3, an alleged violator may enter into an Agreed Order without admitting that the violation occurred.

 

If settlement is not reached within 60 days of receipt of this Notice of Violation, the Commissioner may issue a Notice and Order containing the actions that must be taken 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 for each violation.

 

Please contact Dave Knox at 317/233-5975 within 15 days after receipt of this Notice regarding your intent to settle this matter.  If you are willing to resolve this matter as provided for in the enclosed Agreed Order, please sign and return it to the Office of Enforcement at the above address within the sixty (60) day settlement period.

 

 

 

For the Commissioner:

Date:

 

 

Signed on June 13, 2005

 

Matthew T. Klein
Assistant Commissioner
Compliance & Enforcement

 

Enclosure

cc:       Huntington County Health Department (w/o enclosure)