« Ind. Decisions - Mistrial in Allen County cases after two mistakes by prosecution | Main | Ind. Gov't. - Goldsmith quit NYC post after being busted for domestic violence [Updated] »
Thursday, September 01, 2011
Environment - "Peppermint farmers from LaPorte, Starke and Pulaski counties just want to be left alone to grow mint and distill its oil"
Dan Carden's story in the NWI Times continues:
That no longer may be possible, said state Rep. Tom Dermody, R-LaPorte, who believes state regulation of mint farm boilers and water use may help the farms avoid tougher federal rules.ILB: The $40,000 Agreed Order discussed in the story has not yet been posted online by IDEM, but here is the Notice of Violation, issued Sept. 28, 2010. The charge:The Indiana Department of Environmental Management began reviewing the water and air output of the state's 16 mint farms last summer after a dog allegedly was scalded to death in water discharged from a Starke County farm.
Materna Mint Farms of Hamlet has agreed to pay a $40,040 civil fine to Indiana for its unpermitted water discharges, though the U.S. EPA is considering criminal sanctions.
IDEM Director Tom Easterly said mint farms would gain protection from the EPA if their operations were licensed and permitted through IDEM, but the mint farmers said their operations should be classified as farming, which precludes state regulation.
Mint farmers use steam from boiling water to extract mint oil from the underside of a mint leaf during a monthlong period in July and August when the mint oil is at its peak.
Pursuant to 327 IAC 5-2-2, any discharge of pollutants into the waters of the state as a point source discharge is prohibited unless in conformity with a valid NPDES permit obtained prior to the discharge.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 which violates rules, standards, or discharge or emission requirements adopted by the appropriate board pursuant to this title.
On August 9, 2010 and subsequent dates, Respondent was observed by IDEM staff to be discharging wastewater from its mint distillation operation into a roadside ditch tributary to Robbins Ditch, without a valid NPDES permit obtained prior to the discharge, in violation of 327 IAC 5-2-2. These events caused or contributed to a polluted condition. Because 327 IAC 5-2-2 is a rule of the Water Pollution Control Board, Respondent’s discharge of pollutants also was in violation of IC 13-30-2-1.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 1, 2011 09:19 AM
Posted to Environment