UNITED STATES EPA REGION I EPA 901/1 -93-001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION JFK FEDERAL BUILDING APRIL 1993
AGENCY BOSTON, MA 02203
FY 92 ENFORCEMENT
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
REPORT
EPA
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
MULTI-MEDIA ENFORCEMENT 1
CRIMINAL ACTIONS 5
AIR 7
DRINKING WATER 13
SUPERFUND 14
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW 19
HAZARDOUS WASTE 21
PESTICIDES 25
WATER 27
TOXIC SUBSTANCES 31
FEDERAL FACILITIES 35
SUMMARY ENFORCEMENT TABLES: FY 88 - FY 92 39
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
INTRODUCTION
This report describes the results of Region I's enforcement efforts in the six New England States
during fiscal year 1992 (October 1,1991 through September 30, 1992). It contains separate chapters
on each of our major enforcement programs and our multi-media and federal facility programs. Each
chapter contains narrative summaries of our enforcement accomplishments and highlights some of the
significant cases. Enforcement statistics from 1988 through 1992 are also provided.
The states are the primary implementers of several of these programs. For these programs, state
enforcement achievements are also provided. Although the multitude of state achievements is beyond
the scope of this report, we acknowledge the states' dedication and contribution to the successes of the
past year.
During fiscal year 1992, federal and state enforcement programs were tested by major budget
constraints. States endured mandatory work furloughs and layoffs. Notwithstanding these challenges,
progress continued in coordination with states, strategic targeting of enforcement, improving efficiency
of inspections, joining compliance with pollution prevention, and settlement of prior year enforcement
cases.
Federal and state enforcement programs conducted over 7,500 inspections in New England during the
fiscal year. Over 500 new cases were filed (administrative, civil, and criminal) and over 100
previously-filed federal cases settled. Assessed penalties exceeded $16 million. In addition to
provisions for paying fines and coming into compliance, many case settlements included Supplemental
Environmental Projects. These innovative approaches to settlement result in violators agreeing to
additional relief in the form of projects which remediate the adverse public health or environmental
consequences of the violations. These projects range from restoration of natural resources to pollution
prevention programs aimed at reducing the amount of wastes generated.
Our goal is compliance. Our challenge is to balance enforcement with technical assistance for
pollution prevention so that a healthy environment and economy may coexist. We will maintain our
efforts to continuously improve our enforcement targeting strategies and the equity of our enforcement
actions.
Paul G. Keough, (Acting) Harley F. Laisfc, RegionaYCounsel
Regional Administrator Special Assistant RegionaljAdministrator
for Enforcement *"
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Office of Regional Counsel coordinated the writing of this report with the Region's Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, Environmental Services Division, Waste Management Division,
and Water Management Division. Special thanks to John Williamson, MTI Information Center
Supervisor, for his invaluable assistance in the publication of this report.
V
0
-------
MULTI-MEDIA ENFORCEMENT
Region I in FY 92 continued to focus on ways to build a multi-media perspective into all phases of the
enforcement process. Use of the inspectors' multi-media checklist became standard. The multi-media
case screening process undertaken before an enforcement action is commenced was further refined. The
Region actively participated in several national enforcement initiatives. The Region also had much
success with encouraging settlements of enforcement actions that incorporate supplemental environmental
projects (SEPs), such as pollution prevention or recycling measures.
Inspectors' Multi-Media Checklist
Region I in FY 91 finalized design of a multi-media checklist which enables inspectors to perform multi-
media overviews during their regular inspections. The checklist includes questions from all of the
regulatory programs that Region I administers. By asking the questions on the checklist during a
compliance inspection at a regulated facility, an inspector can uncover possible compliance problems
beyond the program for which he or she is inspecting the facility. Under the procedures in place, an
inspector forwards the completed checklist to the appropriate program office for follow-up action when
a violation is suspected for that program. After successfully piloting use of the checklist, Region I in
FY 92 instituted a policy requiring that inspectors use the multi-media checklist on each inspection.
Multi-Media Inspections
Another example of Region Fs commitment to approaching compliance with a multi-media perspective
was the conduct of multi-media inspections in FY 92. Rather than each program in the Region
independently scheduling inspections at regulated facilities, in FY 92 the various program offices
routinely shared information about planned inspections. This heightened level of cross-program
coordination resulted in a significant number of both consolidated and coordinated inspections. (A
consolidated inspection occurs when a single inspection at a facility covers two or more programs. A
coordinated inspection occurs when, as a result of prior collaboration and planning between programs,
no more than three months elapse between inspection by one program and subsequent inspection by
another program at the same facility.)
As a result of the coordination in planning inspections, Region I's inspectors in FY 92 conducted a total
of 31 consolidated multi-media inspections. The Region's inspectors also participated in six coordinated
multi-media inspections and in two others that included state inspectors.
Case Screening
In FY 92 the Region further refined the multi-media case screening procedures followed before initiating
enforcement actions. Under these procedures, the Region's case team investigates whether there is a
history of enforcement, other current violations, or the existence of a TRI (Toxics Release Inventory)
report for the violating facility. If there is, then the planned action must be presented for discussion of
enforcement strategy by some of the Region's enforcement managers. The case team and managers
decide whether multi-media enforcement is appropriate in the circumstances.
-------
The most significant refinement to the case screening process that occurred in FY 92 was the Region's
reliance on computerized enforcement databases. Building on efforts started in FY 91, the Region in
FY 92 routinely relied on two databases in conducting case screening: IDEA and METS. IDEA
(Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis) is a computer system designed by EPA Headquarters that
links the data from nearly all of the Agency's national enforcement programs. IDEA provides
comprehensive enforcement data about individual violating facilities, as well as for corporate facilities
nation-wide. METS (Multi-media Enforcement Tickler System) is a Region I-designed computer
program that allows easy access to up-to-date information about planned or completed inspections and
about ongoing, concluded, or planned enforcement actions at Region I facilities, starting with data from
FY91.
Multi-Media Enforcement Actions
Late in FY 92, the Region announced a record- setting settlement in the Dexter case, a multi-media, multi-
facility judicial enforcement action brought under the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Region has also initiated a number of multi-media administrative
enforcement actions, most of which have arisen under Subtitle C of RCRA, the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act, and the PCB program under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
HIGHLIGHT: MULTI-MEDIA SETTLEMENT
WITH THE DEXTER CORPORATION
A consent decree was lodged in federal district court on Septembers, 1992 resolving civil
violations of the Clean Water Act and RCRA at the Dexter Corporation's paper
manufacturing and processing facilities and cogeneration plant in Windsor Locks, CT. At
the same time, the company entered a guilty plea to criminal violations of the Clean Water
Act and RCRA. In addition, in January 1992, Dexter entered into a compliance agreement
with EPA which resolved the administrative suspension of Dexter from government
contracting and subcontracting. Among other provisions, that agreement provides for
environmental audits at Dexter's manufacturing facilities nationwide.
The Clean Water Act/RCRA civil settlement requires the company to take corrective
actions including installation of water pollution treatment, conducting of a RCRA Facility
Assessment (RFA), and closure of former hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal
areas, and to pay a total of $9 million in civil penalties ($72 million for water and $1.8
million for RCRA). The settlementfurther requires the company to conduct a comprehensive
multi-media environmental audit of its facility.
The government's complaint charged Dexter with a series of violations of its NPDES
permit, unauthorized discharges, andspills under the Clean Water Act, andwith numerous
violations of RCRA including failure to file a Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity,
unpermitted treatment anal or storage of hazardous wastes, failure to prepare manifests
for hazardous wastes, violations of container management requirements, and violations of
land disposal restriction requirements. Pursuant to the settlement, the company will
correct all violations, including spending about $13.8 million for major water pollution
-------
control equipment and $2 to $5 million on the RFA and closure. As a result of these
cleanup efforts, there will be a 70% reduction in BOD (biological oxygen demand) and
TSS (total suspended substances) levels in Dexter's discharges to the Connecticut River,
soil and groundwater contamination by hazardous wastes at the facility will be addressed,
and hazardous wastes will be more safely handled.
The settlement resulted from lawsuits brought jointly on behalf of EPA and the State of
Connecticut. The penalties obtained in this multi-media action were the highest ever in the
history of the water enforcement program and among the highest in the RCRA program.
National Enforcement Initiatives
Again in FY 92 EPA planned several national multi-media enforcement initiatives directed at pollutants
and industries which posed national problems from the perspective of risk and compliance. Under such
initiatives, EPA Headquarters coordinates efforts nationally to announce at one time the filing or
settlement of several administrative and judicial cases addressing a targeted pollutant, industry, or
pollutant.
For example, on September 10,1992, EPA and the Department of Justice filed a series of enforcement
cases against industrial facilities in three manufacturing sectors. Facilities in the pulp and paper
manufacturing, primary metals manufacturing and smelting, and industrial organic chemical manufacturing
sectors were identified by EPA as having significant incidences of noncompliance with environmental
standards and as having large amounts of reported releases of toxic substances to the environment.
Region I contributed cases to each of these national enforcement initiatives. As part of the pulp and paper
manufacturing initiative, the Region filed a multi-media judicial action against the Georgia-Pacific
Corporation's mill in Woodland, ME. The Region also issued administrative complaints under the Clean
Water Act to the Federal Paper Board Company, Inc. for NPDES violations at the company's mill in
Versailles, CT and to the Strathmore Paper Company for pretreatment violations at the company's mill
in Westfield, MA. As part of the primary metals manufacturing initiative, Region I issued a unilateral
corrective action order under RCRA to the Engelhard Corporation of Plainville, MA; the order requires
the company to study the nature and extent of hazardous waste contamination from its metal fabrication
and finishing activities and implement short-term stabilization measures while long-term corrective
action remedies are pursued. Under the industrial organic chemicals manufacturing initiative, the Region
issued an administrative complaint to the Monsanto Chemical Company's facility in Springfield, MA
which alleges numerous RCRA violations and proposes a penalty of $502,300.
HIGHLIGHT: MULTI-MEDIA COMPLAINT FILED
AGAINST GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
On September 10,1992, the United States filed a judicial complaint seeking injunctive
relief and civil penalties against Georgia-Pacific Corporation for violations of the Clean
Air Act and the Clean Water Act at the company's pulp and paper mill in Woodland, ME.
The Clean Air Act violations involve emission and monitoring violations of a state-issued
-------
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit issued to the company in 1989. The
company has consistently violated sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides
emission limitations in the permit. Furthermore, Georgia-Pacific's continuous emission
monitors have been inoperative for excessive periods of time, and the company has failed
to measure accurately some parameters of operation necessary to determine compliance
with certain emission limits. It is believed that the air emissions from the mill may be
contributing to visibility impairment at the nearby Moose Horn Wildlife Refuge. In
addition, Georgia-Pacific has intermittently violated effluent limitations in its EPA-issued
NPDES permit under the Clean Water Act. Specifically, the company has exceeded its
permit limitations for total suspended substances and biological oxygen demand on 26
days. The mill discharges these pollutants from point sources at the facility into the
St. Croix River.
Supplemental Environmental Projects
Region I's emphasis on a multi-media perspective in enforcement was also reflected in FY 92 in the
settlement of many cases with provisions for supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) included.
Particularly in settling administrative enforcement actions, the Region encourages the violator to include
projects that achieve environmental benefits that go beyond compliance with the law. Such SEPs often
involve pollution prevention or recycling projects that help remediate the adverse public health or
environmental consequences of the violations cited in the enforcement actions. Through the end of
FY 92, Region I had incorporated SEPs into the resolution of more than sixty cases.
HIGHLIGHT: SETTLEMENT WITH SANITARY-DASH
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
In a consent agreement issued on July 28,1992, Sanitary-Dash Manufacturing Company,
Inc. agreed to pay a $23^00 penalty plus implement two SEPs with a combined cost of
$180,000 to resolve RCRA violations found at its North Grosvenordale, CT facility. The
two pollution prevention projects require Sanitary-Dash to modify its plating process and
to create secondary containment for the pan of the process where lead polishing dust is
collected. The SEPs will reduce the need for polishing finished products, thereby reducing
the generation of lead polishing dust. Also, the company's change from use ofhexavalent
to trivalent chrome will: 1) eliminate the need for the annual cleanup of the company's
chrome plating tank which was the source of some of the violations in the complaint;
2) decrease the proportion of solids in the sludge waste stream by 33%; and 3) substantially
reduce the need for sulfur dioxide which is used to reduce hexavalent chromium in the
company's wastewater treatment process.
Several other multi-media case settlement highlights are described in other sections of this report. These
cases and the respective sections in which they are described are; The Philips-Elmet Company (Water),
The Eyelematic Manufacturing Company (Community-Right-To-Know) and The Eastern Company
(Toxic Substances).
-------
CRIMINAL ACTIONS
Region I has for many years had a strong criminal enforcement program. In FY 92, the Region supported
the execution of seven criminal search warrants and obtained six criminal convictions and five
indictments. A total of five corporations and individuals were sentenced, and criminal fines exceeded
$4 million. In addition, the Region referred a record ten cases to the Department of Justice for
prosecution.
REFERRALS TO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR CRIMINAL ACTION
NUMBER
12
10
8
6
4
2
10
V
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
FISCAL YEAR
CASE HIGHLIGHTS
1. United States v. Dexter Corporation (D. Conn.)
On September 3,1992, the Dexter Corporation pleaded guilty to eight felony charges of
knowingly violating the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act and was sentenced to pay a criminal fine of $4 million. The criminal charges were
pan of a $13 million multi-media enforcement action against the company. The criminal
fine is the largest ever for environmental violations in New England. Dexter pleaded
guilty to illegally disposing of carbon disulfide, which is listed as an acutely hazardous
waste, at its facility in Windsor Locks, CT. During the transfer of carbon disulfide from
drums to a storage tank, the drums were routinely turned over to allow residual amounts of
the chemical to be dumped onto the ground. In addition, carbon disulfide was also
discharged into the Connecticut River through an overflow pipe which led from the
storage tank to the river.
-------
2. United States v. Alan Stevens (D. Mass.)
On September 21,1992, Alan Stevens, president of Stevens Analytical Laboratories, Inc.,
was sentenced to six months of home confinement for mail fraud relating to falsifying
environmental data. Stevens had previously pleaded guilty to providing false and
fictitious test results to his laboratory's customers, including various municipalities,
hospitals, and companies. The customers relied upon this false data to determine their
compliance with applicable environmental statutes.
3. United States v. Henry Edelbers (D. Conn.)
On July 27,1992, Henry Edelberg was sentenced for the illegal disposal of hazardous
waste to six months of home confinement, three years of probation, 150 hours of community
service, and was ordered to pay $213,90652 in restitution to the State of Connecticut. The
restitution reimburses the state for money spent for the cleanup of the dumping site and the
removal and destruction of the hazardous waste. Edelberg pleaded guilty to having hired
several men to dig a pit on his property and dump the contents of barrels which had been
stored in a tractor trailer for several years into the pit. The hazardous wastes included
metal finishing sludges, acids, flammable wastes, industrial solvents, and cyanides.
-------
AIR
Region I continued to have a strong presence in Clean Air Act (CAA) enforcement in New England
during FY 92. In addition to maintaining a significant judicial presence, FY92 marked the first year in
which the Region used the authority provided by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to initiate
administrative penalty actions. Seven administrative actions were commenced, proposing penalties of
$455,210. These cases involved violations of both the asbestos demolition and renovation standards
under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and the requirements
for stationary sources of air pollutants, including the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
In the judicial forum, the Region referred two cases to the Justice Department for civil litigation, both
of which involved violations of the Clean Air Act's permit requirements for new sources. In FY 92,
Region I also settled seven previously filed judicial actions through the entry of consent decrees. The
defendants in these actions agreed to pay in excess of $850,000 in penalties and to spend an almost
equivalent amount to come into compliance with the Act and to satisfy other requirements in the consent
decrees. Also notable was that in FY92 the Region obtained a penalty of $167,750 from a printing
company which violated the terms of a consent decree entered with EPA in 1989.
CAA REFERRALS FOR CIVIL LITIGATION
NUMBER
1988
1989 1990 1991
FISCAL YEAR
1992
HIGHUGHT: VOC SOURCE PAYS $167',750 IN STIPULATED
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CONSENT DECREE
On February 26,1992, Jay Printing Company of Warwick, RIpaid stipulated penalties of
$167,750 for its violations of a 1989 consent decree resolving an EPA enforcement action
against the company for violations of the emission limitations for volatile organic compounds
-------
(VOCs) in the Rhode Island State Implementation Plan. Under the 1989 consent decree,
Jay paid a civil penalty of $82342 and agreed to abide by certain VOC emission limits.
The decree provided for stipulated penalties for both emission and reporting violations.
In August 1990, Jay informed EPA that it had submitted a number of inaccurate daily
VOC emissions sheets in violation of the decree. On the basis of information provided by
Jay, EPA determined that Jay violated the VOC emission limits contained in the decree on
a total of40 days from October 1989 through August 1990. In response to a demand letter
from the federal government, Jay paid stipulated penalties of $167,750 in accordance with
the provisions of the 1989 consent decree. This case exemplifies the Agency's commitment
to ensuring that defendants comply with the terms of consent decrees resolving EPA
enforcement actions.
PENALTIES ASSESSED IN CAA JUDICIAL ACTIONS
AMOUNT (THOUSANDS)
$1,400 -:
! $1,216.741
$1,2004'
$1.000-1-
; / \ $857.837
$8004
$600 4
$4004- S485
$2004- |
$oJ i
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
FISCAL YEAR
HIGHLIGHT: RHODE ISLAND ASPHALT PLANT
PAYS $ 82,000 PENALTY
Defendants Cardi Corporation and Cardi Materials Corporation, which own and operate
a hot mix asphalt plant in Warwick, RI, failed to perform paniculate matter and opacity
tests as required by the new source performance standards, and failed to comply with a
subsequent EPA order requiring testing. When the defendants finally performed emission
tests, the asphalt plant was emitting five times the paniculate matter limit. These excess
emissions posed a threat to human health in a densely populated area.
Cardi Corporation spent approximately $50,000 on repairs and modifications to correct
the emissions violations. On August 30, 1992, the coun entered a consent decree
requiring the defendants to pay a civil penalty of $82,838. In addition, the defendants
must perform paniculate matter and opacity testing, install a continuous monitor, institute
8
-------
an operation and maintenance program to limit paniculate matter emissions, and submit
quarterly reports to EPA for one year, at an estimated cost of $50,000. The consent
decree imposes substantial stipulated penalties for failures to comply.
In FY92, Region I also issued 61 administrative orders, a record number in New England, exceeding by
almost one-third the previous record. Forty-seven of these orders required compliance with the NESHAP
for asbestos which establishes reporting requirements and work practice standards for handling asbestos
in renovation and demolition operations. These reporting and work practice standards are designed to
avoid exposing the public to airborne asbestos from such projects. The other orders were issued to
stationary sources of airpollution requiring compliance with various provisions under the Act, including
the New Source Performance Standards and state implementation plans.
CAA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS ISSUED
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
HIGHLIGHT: SETTLEMENT REACHED IN
THREE CONNECTICUT ASBESTOS CASES
In FY92, EPA Region I entered into settlements in three Connecticut cases involving
violations of the Clean Air Act asbestos regulations known as the "Asbestos NESHAP."
Each settlement involved an agreement to pay a monetary penalty and undertake extensive
measures designed to ensure future compliance. The three cases are U.S. v. Avco
Corporation. Textron Lvcoming Division et al.. U.S. v. Aetna Life Insurance Company.
Inc. et al.. and US. v. D'Addario Industries. Inc. et al.. Among other things, the
compliance terms require defendants: to provide detailed notification to EPA prior to any
asbestos job; to inspect, sample, and analyze samples for asbestos before working; to
ensure proper asbestos training for all workers and supervisors; to designate corporate
officials as company-wide asbestos program managers; and to pay substantial stipulated
penalties for future violations of the settlement terms or the Asbestos NESHAP. The
overall compliance cost to the defendants in each case is estimated to be approximately
-------
$185,000. The penalties paid in these cases ranged from $45,000 to $140,000.
EPA continues to recognize no known safe level of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers.
Due to the hazardous nature of asbestos, compliance with the Asbestos NESHAP is
considered essential in preventing significant human and environmental exposure to
asbestos. Aggressive EPA enforcement under the Asbestos NESHAP presents a substantial
tool with which to foster compliance. The provisions included in the settlements in the
Aetna. Avco. and D'Addario cases represent strong examples of such compliance
mechanisms.
The Region also issued twelve Notices of Violation (NOVs) in FY92. These NOVs are issued to notify
stationary sources that they are in violation of either permit requirements or regulations EPA has
approved in a state implementation plan. These permits and regulations are designed to ensure that the
states attain and maintain compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards issued for certain
pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide.
NOTICES OF VIOLATION ISSUED
NUMBER
20
15
10
5
17
13
V
':>£.>
11
12
1988 1989 1990 1991
FISCAL YEAR
19S2
In addition, Region I issued 311 Notices of Deficiency (NODs) to address notifications for asbestos
demolition or renovation operations which lacked all the required information. Recipients of multiple
NODs become likely candidates forreceipt of administrative orders. Without accurate notices, EPA and
the states are hampered in their efforts to determine compliance with the work practice standards for
handling asbestos in demolition and renovation projects.
In the field, the Air Program conducted 154 inspections. Forty-eight were inspections at renovation or
demolition projects involving potential asbestos removal, and 106 were inspections of stationary sources
of air pollution.
10
-------
CAA INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED
FY1989- 171
FY1990- 183
FY1988- 187
FY1991 - 171
FY1992- 154
The New England states also have the authority to enforce their state implementation plans and various
delegated New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants. The statistics in the State Enforcement Totals chart reflect the actions taken by the six
Region I states in FY92.
11
-------
STATE CAA ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE
OF ACTION
CIVIL
REFERRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS
NOTICES OF
VIOLATION
(NON-ASBESTOS)
INSPECTIONS
FISCAL YEAR
1988
3
42
298
1,862
1989
0
26
142
1,580
1990
3
43
106
1,384
1991
3
13*
68
1,768
1992**
11
95
209
1,890
* Note: Because of a problem in reporting, the number of administrative orders issued by Connecticut
and Massachusetts in 1991 is under-reported here.
** The increase in the numbers reported for FY 92 is attributable primarily to an improvement in the
process for state reporting of enforcement data to EPA.
12
-------
DRINKING WATER
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the primary focus for enforcement resides with the states.
EPA, however, is ultimately responsible for enforcement of the standards protecting public drinking
water supplies. In FY 92 the Region referred one matter for civil court enforcement, and issued 49
Notices of Violation, 9 proposed administrative orders, and 3 final administrative orders under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. In addition, the Region prosecuted to a successful conclusion its case against the
City of North Adams, MA for violations of maximum contaminant levels and other Safe Drinking Water
Act requirements. Following the trial, the Court ordered the City to construct a filtration plant and to
pay a $67,200 penalty.
The states in Region I conduct sanitary surveys of public drinking water systems and take enforcement
actions against systems violating drinking water standards. In FY 92 the six states together conducted
1,188 sanitary surveys, referred one matter for court litigation and issued 27 administrative orders.
STATE SDWA ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE
OF ACTION
REFERRALS TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS ISSUED
FISCAL YEAR
1988
1
30
1989
2
37
1990
1
20
1991
0
1
1992
1
27
13
-------
SUPERFUND
FY 92 was another successful year for Region I's enforcement program under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund.
During FY 92, the Region concluded many important enforcement cases and continued its efforts to get
responsible parties to perform or finance cleanup of hazardous substance disposal sites through vigorous
use of the enforcement tools available under the statute. At the same time, the Region has recognized
that its enforcement efforts must be fan- and equitable as well as vigorous. The Region's FY 92
enforcement efforts were consistent with these themes.
Enforcement is especially important to the Superfund program. Superfund enforcement not only
prevents further degradation of the environment, it also serves to improve the environment by
encouraging site cleanups. Superfund enforcement ensures that parties responsible for hazardous
substance pollution pay for cleanups. In addition, vigorous Superfund enforcement serves to prevent
the creation of new sites, by forcing parties to dispose of hazardous substances properly, or reduce or
eliminate the generation of hazardous substances in the first instance.
FY 92 saw successful conclusions to some important enforcement litigation in the Region. Litigation
can serve the immediate purpose of obtaining site cleanups or reimbursement of the Superfund through
court order. In addition, the prospect of complicated Superfund litigation is an unappealing alternative
to settlement and provides an incentive for responsible parties to settle their Superfund liabilities rather
than risk litigation.
In FY 92, the Region obtained judgments, settled, or otherwise concluded litigation concerning the four
Cannons Engineering sites in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, the Charles George Superfund Site
in Tyngsboro, MA, the Re-Solve Superfund Site in North Dartmouth, MA, the New BedfordHarbor Site,
and the Picillo Pig Farm Site in Coventry, RI.
HIGHLIGHT: SUPERFUND LITIGATION CONCLUDED
In 1992, the Region entered ten consent decrees (six referred in FY 92 and four earlier
decrees entered by the court) for settlement of litigation concerning response costs at the
four sites known collectively as the Cannons Engineering Corporation Superfund Sites.
The government's lawsuit was based on a theory of remote site liability. The settling
defendants consist of sixteen corporations and three individuals. With entry of these ten
decrees, the governments recovered approximately 87.4% of their past and expected
future costs for cleanup at the Cannons Sites. These settlements represent the grand finale
in litigation by the United States, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire against parties who
failed to participate in an earlier string of settlements involving hundreds of parties.
Similarly, in August 1992 Region I entered a settlement with four parties it had sued in
connection with the Re-Solve Superfund Site in North Dartmouth, MA. The settling
parties, all of whom had the opportunity to settle with EPA in 1989, each paid several
times what they would have paid had they entered the earlier settlements.
14
-------
EPA's pursuit of the recalcitrants in both the Cannons and Re-Solve cases sends a
message to potentially responsible parties that the government will pursue its claims
against those responsible for contamination at Superfund sites. This provides a strong
economic incentive for corporations and individuals to dispose of hazardous substances
correctly and may lead to settlement of future cases in a more timely manner.
FY 92 also saw the end of long-standing litigation over the New Bedford Harbor
Superfund Site and the settlement of the case against most of the panics at the Charles
George Site. In September 1992, Cornell-Dubilier Electronics and Federal Pacific
Electric Company agreed to pay $21 million to settle the government's lawsuit for PCB
contamination of New Bedford Harbor and surrounding waters. Coupled with two earlier
settlements, the government's total recovery for New Bedford Harbor was approximately
$100 million. At Charles George, fifty-four defendants agreed to pay $34 million to clean
up the site and end litigation begun in 1989. The case continues against the site owners,
who have refused to settle.
A March 1992 decision of the federal court in Rhode Island required two defendants to
pay the United States $4.1 million in cleanup costs for the Picillo Pig Farm Site and
provided EPA with favorable precedent on the standards for making defendants pay for
Superfund site cleanups.
The Region continues to practice the "enforcement first" approach to Superfund site cleanups,
encouraging or requiring the responsible parties themselves to conduct the cleanups. This results in
private parties taking responsibility for the health and environmental consequences of their past
hazardous substance disposal practices, and preserves the Superfund for use at sites where there are no
viable responsible parties. In FY 92, the Region used Superfund enforcement tools to obtain or require
private-party cleanups at three remedial sites and seven removal sites.
HIGHLIGHT: DOVER MUNICIPAL LANDFILL SITE SETTLEMENT
In FY 92 the Region reached a settlement with twenty-four potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) at the Dover Municipal Landfill Site in Dover, NH to perform cleanup activities at
the site and reimburse EPA response costs. This agreement exemplifies EPA's successful
use of the special notice procedures under CERCLA to obtain a strong settlement whereby
private parties have to address environmental threats. Soon after the Region issued its
Record of Decision (ROD) for the site, the case team obtained PRPs' agreement to
perform immediately certain pre-design studies to clarify uncertainties noted in the ROD.
Based on the ROD estimate, the injunctive relief and cost recovery secured by this
settlement are valued at over $22 million, and represent roughly 95% of costs sought.
This settlement provides significant environmental benefits. The prompt design initiation
will expedite site cleanup. Furthermore, implementation of the cleanup by the PRPs under
the decree will protect a local reservoir which is the source of drinking water, will stop the
degradation of the nearby Cocheco River, and will prevent direct contact with contaminated
landfill material and leachate.
15
-------
Unilateral administrative orders continue to be a powerful and effective enforcement tool. EPA may
issue unilateral administrative orders to require parties to perform cleanup work, provide site access, or
take other actions in response to releases of hazardous substances. In FY 92, Region I issued thirteen
unilateral administrative orders, the same number as in FY 91. Two of these required cleanups of large,
complex remedial sites.
The Region's CERCLA removal program has used unilateral administrative orders with great success
to obtain cleanups of sites that present immediate threats. In FY 92 the removal program issued seven
unilateral administrative orders requiring private party cleanups. The Region estimates that the value
of work to be performed by private parties under these orders is $6.5 million. These achievements
embody not only a strong enforcement approach but also swift, decisive action and fairness. In some
cases, the Region undertook the initial response using S uperfund resources to address the most immediate
threats, then ordered PRPs to complete the remaining work. The Region addressed issues of fairness in
appropriate cases by affording unilateral order recipients the opportunity to review and comment on draft
orders prior to issuance.
CERCLA UNILATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
5 10
NUMBER
15
HIGHLIGHT: UNILATERAL ORDER AT RAYMARK SITE
When Raymark, Inc. of Stratford, CT failed to comply with several orders issued under
RCRA, the Region issued a Superfund unilateral administrative order in September, 1992
compelling Raymark to implement work including capping of surface impoundments,
treatment of waste piles, fencing, securing of buildings, and additional investigation. This
case is particularly notable in that the RCRA and CERCLA programs cooperated to
address the most imminent health and environmental risks posed by the site.
16
-------
Civil judicial referrals allow EPA to obtain court orders requiring parties to perform work at Superfund
sites or reimburse the government for money it has expended to clean up hazardous substance sites.
Typical uses for civil judicial referrals are to enter judicial settlements, or to sue parties that have refused
to settle their liability for cleanups. The government typically sues non-settlers to ensure that all
responsible parties pay their share of the cost of site cleanup. In FY 92 the Region referred nine new
Superfund cases for judicial action, four of which were simultaneously settled. Three of the judicial
settlements will result in or pay for the cleanup of S uperfund remedial sites, typically the largest and most
complex hazardous substance cleanups. Private parties will conduct the cleanup of the Dover, NH
Municipal Landfill, valued at over $31 million, will pay $14 million for the cleanup of the Keefe
Environmental Services Site in Epping, NH, and will pay over $40 million to clean up the Silresim
Chemical Company Site in Lowell, MA.
Region I's historic success in obtaining private party cleanups through settlements and unilateral
administrative orders had led to a growing need for compliance enforcement to ensure that parties live
up to their obligations under these agreements or directives. Three of Region I's judicial referrals, those
at the Garabedian Landfill Site, the Norwood PCB Site, and the Auburn Road Landfill Site, included
claims for penalties for violations of unilateral administrative orders previously issued by the Region.
As the Superfund program matures, and more and more cleanups are performed by private parties,
compliance enforcement will likely become a larger part of the Superfund enforcement program in the
Region.
CERCLA REFERRALS FOR CIVIL LITIGATION
NUMBER
20
15
10
5
14
15
13
10
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
FISCAL YEAR
17
-------
HIGHLIGHT: GARABEDIAN PENALTY SETTLEMENT
In FY 92 the Region referred a proposed consent decree settling claims against Martin
and Violet Garabedian ofMethuen, MA for violation of a unilateral administrative order
requiring them to dispose of drums of solvents stored in a truck trailer on their property at
a proper disposal facility, to take samples from the trailer and surrounding soils, and to
submit a post-removal assessment of the site conditions. Instead, Mr. Garabedian merely
sold the drums. Under the proposed settlement, Mr. and Mrs. Garabedian will pay a total
of $170,000, of which approximately $103500 represents 100% of EPA's costs, and
approximately $66^00 represents penalties and punitive damages.
While the Region remains committed to a vigorous enforcement program, it recognizes that the
responsibility for hazardous substance cleanups must be shared fairly. Region I is among the national
leaders in use of the CERCLA deminimis settlement authority, under which parties that in fairness should
be held responsible for only a small portion of the cleanup costs at a site can pay their shares and resolve
their liability while minimizing transaction costs. This fiscal year's settlements at both the Silresim and
Keefe sites had formal de minimi s components, and the Dover Landfill and Cannons settlements had
provisions to accommodate certain minor parties. In a lawsuit brought by non-settling parties against
parties that had previously entered a de minimis settlement at the Landfill and Resource Recovery Site
in Rhode Island, the Region vigorously defended the de minimis settlement and obtained a precedent-
setting decision protecting the settling parties from further litigation by the non-settlers.
The Region has also actively promoted the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms to
resolve Superfund liability fairly, efficiently, and to avoid unnecessary litigation. This fiscal year the
Regional Superfund program nominated four matters for ADR. Though not all of the matters ultimately
used ADR, generally due to reluctance on the part of the private parties to enter ADR, the Region is
committed to ADR use in appropriate circumstances.
HIGHLIGHT: USE OF ADR IN SUPERFUND
In FY 92, Region I used the services of a convening neutral to explore the possibility of
mediation with the private parties in four Superfund enforcement matters. In the case of
the Sullivan's Ledge Landfill Site, which seemed to be heading for litigation, mediation
helped the parties overcome a number of major obstacles to settlement, including technical
and cost allocation issues. Those parties ultimately agreed to perform the remedy at the
site. In the Ottati & Goss case, the neutral was instrumental in bringing the parties back to
the table after a complete breakdown in negotiations. The parties have resumed discussions
toward the settlement of two complex lawsuits. In the Norwood and Auburn Road cases,
the private parties were reluctant to mediate at the time it was proposed; however, the
possibility exists to revisit the issue of mediation at a later time. The Region is encouraged
by these early experiences and continues to seek out appropriate opportunities to use
ADR.
18
-------
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), Region I maintained as
strong an enforcement presence in FY 92 as it had in the previous year. Specifically, Region I's
enforcement activities continued to focus on facilities that failed to submit required annual toxic chemical
release inventory forms to EPA and the appropriate state authorities by the annual July 1st reporting
deadline. The Region also continued to direct its enforcement attention to facilities that failed to provide
timely notification to government authorities of accidental releases of hazardous chemicals and that
failed to submit annual inventories of hazardous chemicals to state and local authorities.
EPCRA ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS
ISSUED
SETTLED
FY89
15
0
FY90
25
14
FY91
24
23
FY92
19
17
All of Region I's enforcement actions arose under the administrative penalty provisions of EPCRA. In
FY 92, the Region issued 19 administrative complaints, proposing a total assessment of $631,603 in
penalties.
In addition, during FY 92 Region I resolved seventeen administrative cases, with total penalties assessed
of $347,487. In negotiating EPCRA settlements, Region I actively encouraged innovative provisions
for supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), in addition to the payment of cash penalties and
correction of the violations. The Region negotiated SEPs valued at $209,475 as part of these settlements.
PENALTIES IN EPCRA ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS
PROPOSED
ASSESSED
SEP
FY89
$515,000
0
0
FY90
$1,599,040
$368,940
$95,000
FY91
$1,541,040
$424,638
$127,800
FY92
$631,603
$347,487
$209,475
19
-------
HIGHLIGHT: BALZERS SETTLEMENT
On October 23,1991, Region I issued a consent agreement in which Balzers agreed to pay
a $8^00 penalty to settle an administrative complaint for a violation of chemical
emissions reporting requirements at its Hudson, NH facility. The complaint alleged that
the company failed to report its emissions offreon-113 in calendar year 1987 in violation
of Section 313 ofEPCRA.
The company also agreed to undertake a supplemental environmental project in connection
with settling the case, in which the company will make expenditures in excess of $56,475 to
replace freon-based cleaning systems in its facilities in Hudson, NH and Fremont, CA.
Instead Balzers will use an aqueous-based system that will not result in emissions of toxic
chemicals to the environment.
HIGHLIGHT: EYELEMATIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY SETTLEMENT
On February 25, 1992, Region I issued a consent agreement in which Eyelematic
Manufacturing Company, Inc. agreed to pay a $44 250 penalty to settle an administrative
complaint for violations of chemical emissions reporting requirements at its Watertown,
CT facility. EPA's complaint alleged that the company failed to report its emissions of
dichloromethane, copper, and trichloroethylene in calendar year 1987 in violation of
Section 313 ofEPCRA. At its facility, the company manufactures metal products that are
produced by deep-drawing sheet metal in specially tooled eyelet machines.
In addition, as part of the settlement, Eyelematic has undertaken a supplemental
environmental project that protects the environment and public health and is beyond the
scope of existing law. The company has installed an on-site waste coolant recycling and
recovery system which reduced the amount of waste oil and water-based coolants generated
by the facility by at least 50% of its former levels, from generation of 52,000 gallons per
year to not more than 26,000 gallons per year. The cost of the project was $91,000.
HIGHLIGHT: MADICO, INC. SETTLEMENT
On March 20, 1992, Region I issued a consent agreement in which Madico, Inc. of
Woburn, MA agreed to pay a $30,000 penalty and undertake a supplemental environmental
project that will reduce its use of toxic chemicals to settle an administrative complaint for
violations of chemical emissions reporting requirements under EPCRA Section 313. The
complaint alleged that the company failed to report its emissions of toluene and methyl
ethyl ketone, two common industrial solvents, in calendar year 1987. Madico owns and
operates a window film and fabric-coating facility in Woburn.
In addition to paying the penalty, by December 31,1992, Madico was required to develop
a new formula for its scratch-resistant coating and have redesigned its coating process to
reduce its use of toluene by 90% and of methyl ethyl ketone by 50%.
20
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Region I administers an enforcement
program consisting of both administrative and judicial components. Administratively, the program
focuseson the issuance of administrative complaints assessing penalties against violators of the Agency's
hazardous waste management regulations. In FY 92, the Region issued four such complaints which
proposed to assess a total of $880,325 in penalties. In addition, the Region made three civil referrals for
the remediation of contaminated sites.
RCRA ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS ISSUED
FISCAL YEAR
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
17
J
14
5 10
NUMBER
15
20
During FY 92, Region I achieved settlements of a record number of administrative RCRA penalty cases.
Under the terms of these thirteen consent agreements, the Agency will collect a total of $878,800 in
penalties and $191,000 will be expended on supplemental environmental projects.
21
-------
RCRA CONSENT AGREEMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS ISSUED
FISCAL YEAR
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
!T?^:7TnT^^°????'f??^r^^Tr^r
^
'ffltffittS&tfZJ
12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
NUMBER
PENALTIES ASSESSED IN RCRA CONSENT AGREEMENTS
$1,000
AMOUNT (THOUSANDS)
$800 —
$600
$400
$200
$0
$878.8
$456.177
$530.953
$207.65
$98.211
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
FISCAL YEAR
22
-------
HIGHLIGHT: MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY COMPLAINT
In an administrative complaint issued by Region I on September 8,1992, EPA proposed a
$502300 penalty against Monsanto Chemical Company for violations of RCRA at
Monsanto's Springfield, MA facility. The complaint alleges that the company failed to
submit a revised permit application for the management of newly listed hazardous wastes,
failed to properly notify treatment facilities that its hazardous wastes are restricted from
land disposal, and failed to determine the appropriate code for its hazardous wastes. The
complaint also alleges that Monsanto improperly managed drums of hazardous wastes at
its facility by inadequately labelling and marking the drums and failing to: 1) delineate
hazardous waste accumulation areas; 2) provide appropriate secondary containment for
hazardous waste containers; 3) keep hazardous waste containers closed; and 4) keep the
drums in designated areas.
HIGHLIGHT: RHODE ISLAND BUCKLE COMPANY SETTLEMENT
On September 30,1992, the Rhode Island Buckle Company agreed to pay a $300,000 civil
penalty for violations of RCRA at its Providence, RI facility. EPA had brought an
administrative action against Rhode Island Buckle for violations of container management,
personnel training, contingency plan, and land disposal restriction (LDR) requirements.
As a result of this action, Rhode Island Buckle has developed a contingency plan for
emergencies at the site and has developed an extensive training program. Rhode Island
Buckle will now manage its wastes in accordance with RCRA requirements including
those governing container labelling, accumulation time, and LDR notice and recordkeeping
requirements.
HIGHLIGHT: CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION ORDER
On September 30, 1992, EPA negotiated a modification to a RCRA Section 3008(h)
corrective action order originally issued to Ciba-Geigy in 1989. This is the first stabilization
action to be negotiated and incorporated into a corrective action order by Region I. The
facility in Cranston, RI, now closed, was engaged in the manufacture of various organic
and inorganic chemicals from 1970 through 1986. During the course of these operations,
the facility generated chlorinated and non-chlorinated solvents, corrosive solids,
pofychlorinated organics, and other hazardous waste streams.
The modification requires Ciba-Geigy to submit a stabilization plan for performance of
the following interim measures: 1) treatment of contaminated soils in the production area
of the facility, and 2) installation of a ground water "pump and treaf system in this area
to prevent contaminated ground -water from migrating to the Pawtuxet River.
23
-------
The Region devoted a portion of its RCRA enforcement efforts to national enforcement initiatives.
Region I actively participated in four enforcement initiatives during FY 92. As part of the Illegal
Operator initiative, a criminal action was brought against Evergreen Construction for RCRA violations.
The Pulp and Paper initiative resulted in civil, criminal and debarment actions under RCRA and CWA
being filed against the Dexter Corporation. The Primary Metals initiative produced a corrective action
order pursuant to 3008(h) of RCRA to Englehard Corporation, Plainville, MA. Further, EPA brought
an administrative action against Monsanto as part of the Industrial Organic Chemicals initiative.
While Region I has its own enforcement program, the majority of the enforcement in the RCRA program
is carried out by the New England states' environmental agencies. In FY 92, there was a decrease in the
number of administrative actions. The states brought thirty-five actions in FY 92, down from fifty-nine
actions in FY 91. Civil referrals also experienced a decrease in the Region I states, going from 37 in FY 91
to 26 in FY 92. This overall decrease in actions can be attributed to the sluggish New England economy,
which in turn produced layoffs and furloughs at state agencies. The states were also reticent in filing
penalty actions against already financially distressed businesses. The states issued approximately 384
informal actions.
STATE RCRA ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE OF ACTION
NOTICES OF VIOLATION
ORDERS
REFERRALS FOR
CIVIL ACTIONS
CRIMINAL ACTIONS
FISCAL YEAR
1988
457
100
10
2
1989
398
108
18
0
1990
488
102
18
2
1991
508
59
37
1
1992
384
35
26
0
24
-------
PESTICIDES
Fiscal Year 1992 was a productive and busy year for the pesticides program in Region I. The Region
I office initiated a total of 26 enforcement actions for violation(s) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) during FY 92. These actions included: 22 Notices of Warning (NOWs),
three administrative civil complaints, and one Stop Sale, Use, and Removal Order (SSURO). In addition,
the Region issued two Notices of Intent to Terminate Registration of Pesticide-Producing Establishments.
The majority of these actions are attributable to the annual reporting obligations placed on pesticide
producers pursuant to FIFRA Section 7. These requirements mandate that all registered pesticide (and
device)-producing establishments submit a report on or before March 1, denoting the amount(s) of
pesticides produced and sold or distributed during the previous year. Of the 26 actions issued, thirteen
NOWs and two civil complaints, as well as both Termination notices, were for alleged violations of
FIFRA Section 7. The two civil complaints proposed penalties totaling $8,000. The two Notices of Intent
to Terminate Establishment Registration were initiated against pesticide-producing establishments
which failed to respond to letters of warning issued under FIFRA Section 7 for failure to submit their
required reports. Also, in FY 92, a consent agreement was entered with a firm which was issued a civil
complaint in FY 91.
Of the remaining enforcement actions, the Region issued nine NOWs and one civil complaint alleging
violations of FIFRA Section 3 or related regulations governing false and misleading claims attached to
pesticides or pesticide devices distributed in commerce. The civil complaint proposed a penalty of
$5,000. Region I also settled or received final decisions in two FIFRA administrative actions and
collected $3,000 in penalties.
During this period, EPA staff, in cooperation with inspectors from the states, conducted eighteen
inspections pursuant to FIFRA. Under the terms of a Cooperative Agreement, the designated State Lead
Agency (SLA) is delegated primary enforcement responsibilities concerning all FIFRA use-related
inspections and do the bulk of the field work. Nevertheless, the number of federal pesticide inspections
conducted during FY 92 represents an increase of over 50% from FY 91 levels.
The six EPA Region I states were also very busy with their pesticide enforcement programs during
FY 92. Overall, the SLAs conducted a total of 2039 pesticide-related inspections or approximately 134%
of their cooperative agreement grant projections. Five of the six SLA' s exceeded their commitments by
at least 15% with only Rhode Island, because of staffing shortages, failing to meet its FY 92 projections.
The Region I SLA's also initiated a total of 523 enforcement actions. The majority of these actions
consisted of a written Notice of Warning (NOW). Most of these NOWs involved violations of record-
keeping and marketplace requirements. The states also issued 108 administrative orders and collected
a total of $138,375 in penalties in FY 92.
25
-------
HIGHLIGHT: CONNECTICUT REVOKES LICENSE OF PEST CONTROL FIRM
The Connecticut SLA, working in conjunction with the Connecticut Department of Consumer
Protection (DCP), investigated Active Exterminating Company of Bristol, CT, a commercial
pest control firm, when 33 consumer complaints were registered with the DCP for failure
of the firm to honor post-application service guarantees. As a result of this joint
investigation, the company's license to do business in the state was permanently revoked.
This was the first action of its kind in Connecticut. In addition, the CT SLA launched a
separate investigation into the matter and as a result, filed court charges against this same
firm alleging some 65 violations of FIFRA and the state Pesticide Control Act. This
additional court action resulted in Active Exterminating being assessed a penalty totalling
$61,900, while the owner/operator was assessed a personal fine totalling $20,000.
STATE FIFRA ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE OF
ACTION
CIVIL
COMPLAINTS
REFERRALS
FOR CRIMINAL
ACTION
INSPECTIONS
FISCAL YEAR
1988
19
8
2,248
1989
12
2
2,496
1990
125*
0
2,573
1991
14
1
2,203
1992
18
1
2,039
* Includes eight referrals to the Connecticut Attorney General, sixty-three civil complaints issued by
Maine for Diquat misuse, and two referrals to the Massachusetts Attorney General.
HIGHLIGHT: MASSACHUSETTS INITIATES CRIMINAL ACTION
AND COLLECTS PENALTY FOR ALLEGED FISH KILL
For the third consecutive year, the Massachusetts SLA was the only Region I state lead
agency to initiate criminal action for violations of the state Pesticide Control Act. This
action led to a conviction and resulted in a forfeiture of $2,700 against Egan Trinity Pest
Control of West Springfield, MA. The SLA was also successful in a judicial action against
Baptiste Cranberry Company of East Wareham, MA which alleged that a substantial fish
kill resulted from violations of label directions. The judicial civil penalty levied in this
case was $30,000.
26
-------
WATER
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) in FY 92 the Region referred five new cases for civil actions in federal
district court. This continued a strong effort in which a total of forty-nine civil cases have been referred
during the last five years.
CWA REFERRALS FOR CIVIL LITIGATION
NUMBER
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
FISCAL YEAR
In the ongoing water cases in litigation, the Region in FY 92 obtained $884,000 in civil penalties. As
the fiscal year ended, the Region also was finalizing the record-setting settlement with the Dexter
Corporation regarding its Windsor Locks, CT paper plant in which the company paid $13 million in
penalties, including a $7.2 million water civil penalty.
PENALTIES ASSESSED IN CWA CIVIL JUDICIAL CONSENT DECREES
$2,000
AMOUNT (THOUSANDS)
$1.500--
$1.000--
$500--
$0
$1.637.5
$980
$884
$529.875
$446
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
FISCAL YEAR
27
-------
Again in FY 92, a major priority for enforcement under the Clean Water Act was bringing Publicly
Owned Sewage Treatment Works (POTWs) into compliance. Because of high levels of federal and state
activity, Region I and the New England states have taken court actions against virtually all major
municipalities which did not complete construction of secondary treatment facilities by July 1,1988.
During FY 92 the Region focused on such major municipal cases as those involving Boston Harbor, New
Bedford, and the South Essex Sewerage District.
HIGHLIGHT: BOSTON HARBOR CLEANUP
Perhaps the single most important event to date in the Boston Harbor cleanup occurred on
December 24,1991, when sludge discharges to the harbor finally were terminated. The
termination of these sludge discharges had been a central objective of the governments
enforcement case since its filing in 1985.
For years, sludge collected at the two Boston area treatment plants had been unlawfully
discharged at the end of each day, basically negating the benefits of the treatment. Under
court order, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) developed plans to
finally terminate the discharges. Pursuant to these plans, the sludge is converted into and
reused as fertilizer. The MWRA also is under court order to develop an in-state landfill to
ensure that any sludge which is not marketed as fertilizer is safely disposed.
The termination of the sludge discharges ends the discharge of about 70 tons per day of
solids. This is bringing about a significant improvement in the Boston Harbor -
Massachusetts Bay eco-system.
Another continuing focus of the Water Program is enforcement against industrial noncompliers. While
industrial compliance rates under the Clean Water Act generally are higher than those of municipalities,
there are exceptions. During FY 92, Region I concentrated on enforcement cases against several major
corporations. In addition to seeking correction of any violations and civil penalties, the Region
encouraged companies to undertake pollution prevention projects as part of case settlements.
HIGHLIGHT: PHIUPS-ELMET SETTLEMENT
A consent decree was entered on September 2, 1992 resolving violations of the Clean
Water Act at the Lewiston, Maine Philips-Elmet plant of the North American Philips
Corporation. The government's complaint had charged the company with violations of
national categorical pretreatment standards for metals manufacturing and metals forming,
violations of local pretreatment limitations and violations of pretreatment reporting
requirements.
Pursuant to the settlement, the company will correct its violations and pay a $500,000 civil
penalty. In addition, as a supplemental environmental project, the company will spend
about $583,000 to eliminate wastewater discharges from two non-federally regulated
28
-------
processes at its facility, thus going beyond minimum statutory requirements. EPA
encourages pollution prevention projects of this kind and can take such projects into
account when setting settlement penalties.
In coming into compliance and carrying out the pollution prevention project, the company
will significantly reduce its discharges of pollutants. Discharges of molybdenum will be
reduced by 1,446 kilograms per year, discharges of ammonia will be reduced by 839
kilograms per year, and discharges of fluoride will be reduced by 691 kilograms per year.
A critical component of EPA's efforts to ensure high levels of compliance with water standards in the
Region is maintaining a strong field presence. In FY 92, Region I conducted water inspections at 121
facilities throughout New England.
Another critical component of the water enforcement program is the enforcement activity by the six New
England states. During FY 92, the six states conducted a total of 440 water inspections, issued a total of
42 administrative orders, and referred 5 cases to their Attorneys General for civil litigation.
STATE CWA ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE
OF ACTION
CIVIL
REFERRALS
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS
FISCAL YEAR
1988
75
90
1989
43
80
1990
24
53
1991
4
26
1992
5
42
During FY 92, Region I maintained an aggressive administrative enforcement program. The Region
issued administrative compliance orders or information demands to 163 violators of the Clean Water ACL
In addition, in the five-year-old program enabling EPA to assess administrative penalties against
violators, Region I during FY 92 issued a total of twenty-five new administrative penalty orders. These
orders included several under the new Section 311 program to address oil and hazardous substances
spills. Also included were several orders in the Region's continuing enforcement effort against those
who unlawfully fill wetlands. Proposed penalties in these cases ranged up to $125,000. The Region
resolved twenty-three administrative cases during the year. The administrative penalties obtained by
Region I during FY 92 totaled $332,700.
29
-------
NUMBER OF CWA PENALTY ORDERS INITIATED
NUMBER
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
FISCAL YEAR
PENALTIES ASSESSED IN CWA ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
$500
AMOUNT (THOUSANDS)
$400
$300 —
$200 - -
$100 —
$0
$401.5
$332.7
$162.5
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
FISCAL YEAR
30
-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
In FY 92, Region I continued an active and aggressive administrative enforcement program under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA issued administrative complaints assessing penalties under
three different TSCA programs, one regulating PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), one regulating the
manufacture and import of chemicals (core TSCA), and one regulating asbestos found in public schools
(AHERA). The TSCA program issued complaints proposing a total of over $2.2 million in penalties in
24 separate actions. Both the PCB and asbestos programs showed significant increases in the level of
penalties proposed, as compared with the prior fiscal year.
Region I continued the effort begun in FY 91 to enforce core TSCA requirements against those who
improperly manufacture or import chemicals. Three such cases were initiated in FY 92, including one
that combined core TSCA and PCB authorities.
Highlight: $834,000 PENALTY PROPOSED AGAINST MTM RESEARCH
CHEMICALS, INC. FOR IMPORTING AND SELLING PCBs
In June, 1992, Region I issued an administrative complaint against MTM Research
Chemicals, Inc. of Charlotte, NC, seeking $834,000 for violations of the Toxic Substances
Control Act. A joint EPA and New Hampshire inspection of MTM's Lancaster Synthesis
Division in Pelham, NH disclosed that MTM had illegally imported PCBs on 32 occasions,
and had illegally distributed PCBs in commerce in the United States 117 times since 1984.
In addition, MTM was storing PCBs in containers that were not marked as required by
EPA regulations.
TSCA ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS ISSUED
TYPE OF CASE
PCBs
ASBESTOS
CORE TSCA
1988
20
4
N/A
1989
18
3
N/A
1990
19
14
N/A
1991
24
4
2
1992
16
5
3
31
-------
In addition to very aggressive case issuance, the TSCA program settled 26 administrative actions in FY
92 for over $438,000 in penalties. Many of these settlements also included agreements requiring the
violators to undertake environmentally beneficial projects which could not have otherwise been required.
Six TSCA settlements included such agreements, known as supplemental environmental projects,
requiring expenditures totalling over $345,000. These projects were primarily for the removal and
disposal of PCB equipment, activities not otherwise required by law.
HIGHLIGHT: THE EASTERN COMPANY AGREES TO UNDERTAKE $134,000
CREDIT PROJECT AND PAY A PENALTY OF $39JOO
On March 25, 1992, EPA reached a settlement with The Eastern Company, which
operates a facility in Naugatuck, CT where it manufactures malleable and stainless steel
castings. EPA's administrative complaint alleged that the company: 1) failed to mark
with an appropriate label a PCB Transformer; 2) failed to mark with appropriate labels
the means of access to two PCB Transformers; 3) failed to register its PCB Transformers
with the local fire response personnel in accordance with the federal regulations; and
4) failed to conduct quarterly leak inspections, and maintain records of such inspections,
for two PCB Transformers. All the violations of EPA's PCB regulations occurred at the
company's Naugatuck facility.
The settlement agreement required the company to pay a $39,100 penalty and to undertake
a supplemental environmental project involving the removal and disposal of PCB Capacitors
and PCB Transformers from its facility, at an approximate cost to the company of
$134,000. This project was beneficial to the environment and was not required by local,
state, or federal law. The agreement contained provisions requiring the company to pay a
proportional amount to the US. Treasury in the event that the cost of the environmental
project did not reach at least $134,000. The company has corrected the violations alleged
in the complaint.
32
-------
PENALTIES IN TSCA ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
CATEGORY
PCS
Proposed in
Complaint
Assessed
ASBESTOS
Proposed in
Complaint
Assessed
CORE TSCA
Proposed in
Complaint
Assessed
1988
$622,900
$503,600
$24,000
$18,300
-
—
1989
$1,186,800
$231,600
$32,000
$0
-
—
1990
$2,671,000
$242,800
$136,500
$12,400
—
—
1991
$1,386,800
$1,226,300
$28,400
$31,100
$1,333,900
—
1992
$1,731,500
$429,405
$96,000
$8,600
$405,000
—
NOTE: There is not direct correlation between penalties proposed in complaints and penalties
assessed in any given year. The penalties assessed are often achieved in settlements of cases
commenced in prior years.
33
-------
State Activities under TSCA
While none of the New England states are formally delegated the authority to manage the programs
implemented under TS CA, the states play an important role in the PCB and asbestos-in-school programs.
Under the PCB program, the states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Connecticut perform the majority
of the PCB inspections in their respective states. They conducted a total of 190 inspections in FY 92.
They also assisted EPA in case development activities. Under the asbestos program, all six New England
states conduct inspections. In FY 92, they performed 323 inspections.
Decentralization to the states of the PCB and asbestos programs has been a priority in Region I. The PCB
grants for Maine, New Hampshire, and Connecticut include, or will include shortly, funds for case review
and case development activities and for the issuance of Notices of Non-Compliance. In the asbestos
program, Connecticut and Rhode Island have been granted waivers which allow them to conduct the
program under state regulations. The states of New Hampshire and Maine are working towards asbestos
program waiver. All six New England states have approved asbestos accreditation programs for the
training and licensing of asbestos workers.
34
-------
FEDERAL FACILITIES
Federal statutes mandate that federal agencies comply with federal, state, and local environmental
pollution control requirements in the same manner and degree as other regulated entities. Reflecting
EPA's commitment in this area, the Agency established the program goal that EPA shall help ensure that
federal facilities achieve compliance rates in each media program which meet or exceed those of major
industrial and major municipal facilities. EPA believes federal agencies are obligated to demonstrate
leadership in compliance activities and thereby act as examples to the rest of the regulated community.
In addition, Section 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), commonly referred to as Superfund, requires that the federal government comply with
the hazardous waste cleanup requirements of the statute and regulations to the same extent as private
entities.
While federal agencies are subject to the same requirements as private parties for environmental
compliance, there are complexities associated with the Agency taking traditional enforcement actions.
For example, EPA generally cannot bring civil judicial suits or assess civil penalties against federal
agencies (although EPA can bring such actions against contractors at government-owned contractor-
operated facilities). In recognition of these and other restrictions, Executive Order 12088 was issued.
Executive Order 12088 established a three tier approach for EPA to follow in ensuring that federal
agencies comply with environmental requirements by providing that EPA:
• Enforce environmental regulations using typical enforcement methods and/or interagency
dispute resolution procedures;
• Provide technical assistance and information to federal facilities concerning their environmental
compliance responsibilities; and
• Participate in the budget review processes of other federal agencies to ensure that they direct
adequate resources to environmental pollution control. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) A-106 Circular specifically addresses pollution abatement planning and budget review.
In addition, EPA published its Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy. The Strategy provides a
framework for all EPA media programs to ensure federal facilities are fully integrated in state and federal
compliance monitoring and enforcement efforts. This strategy will be revised in FY 93.
An important exception to the prohibition against EPA assessing penalties against facilities is the Federal
Facility Compliance Act. This law, which was enacted in 1992, authorizes EPA to seek penalties in
administrative enforcement actions against federal facilities for violations of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.
Nationally, the Federal Facility Program is managed by the Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
within the Office of Enforcement. In Region I, there are two focal points for the federal facility program:
the Multi-Media Federal Facility Program and the Superfund Federal Facility Program.
35
-------
I. Multi-Media Federal Facility Program
In the past, the Regional Multi-Media Federal Facility Program focused on site-specific activities such
as review and assistance on pre-National Priorities List Superfund federal facilities and administrative
responsibilities. With additional staff assistance and the issuance of the National Federal Facilities
Compliance Strategy, the regional program's goals and activities have expanded to include the
following:
1. In coordination with the Region I media programs and the states, ensure compliance with federal and
state environmental laws at federal facilities in the Region.
An internal Federal Facility Workgroup with representatives from all media areas was established,
potentially environmentally significant federal facilities were identified, and these facilities were
targeted for multi-media inspections. In FY 92, Region I continued to emphasize a multi-media
enforcement approach under which the regional and state staffs conducted comprehensive
f acility- wide inspections to determine whether the facilities were in compliance with environmental
laws.
The Region conducted four multi-media federal facility inspections in FY 92 which uncovered
numerous serious violations, particularly under TSCA and RCRA. The Region in concert with
the states is currently in the process of requiring the facilities to come into compliance.
2. Manage and utilize the Federal Facility Tracking System in Region I.
The Federal Facility data base is a compliance record of the EPA/State inspections, violations,
enforcement actions, permits, and compliance rates for the 350 federal facilities the Region is
currently tracking. Region I chaired the National Federal Facility Tracking System User Task
Force and continues to play a major role in developing and upgrading the Tracking System. The
Region has updated and incorporated five years' worth of enforcement data in the Tracking
System. This data is provided to EPA enforcement managers and federal facilities.
3. Act as the regional point of contact for federal facilities in Region I and provide active outreach and
technical assistance to facilities.
The Region regularly provides statutory, regulatory, and policy updates, information on EPA
training programs, and pollution prevention initiatives to federal facility environmental managers
through regional conferences, mailings, and EPA briefings. Bi-annual meetings between the Air
Force and Navy regional operations offices and the Region are held to discuss compliance issues.
All site-specific technical assistance is provided by the media program staff.
HIGHLIGHT: MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTION AT FEDERAL FACILITIES
In FY 92, Region I conducted multi-media inspections at four federal facilities in
Massachusetts: Hanscom Air Force Base, Fort Devens Army Base, Otis Air National
Guard Base/Massachusetts Military Reservation, and Army Materials Technology
Laboratory. The inspections included reviews for compliance with the Clean Water Act,
the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Toxic Substances
36
-------
Control Act. The number of multi-media federal facility inspections will increase in FY 93
to six. These inspections will be conducted under the EPA Office of Enforcement National
Multi-media Enforcement Initiative.
HIGHLIGHT: NEW ENGLAND FEDERAL FACILITIES
POLLUTION PREVENTION CONFERENCE
Region I, in conjunction with the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, conducted a three-day
workshop entitled "Moving to Pollution Prevention Assessments in the 1990s" for federal
facilities in New England on May 5-7,1992. Representatives from more than eighty-five
federal facilities and state officials attended, including base commanders, environmental
managers, and attorneys. This hands-on workshop provided the opportunity to conduct
pollution prevention assessments and observe base pollution prevention initiatives.
II. Superfund Federal Facility Program
Under Superfund, EPA is required to establish a Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
and to evaluate the facilities on the docket for inclusion on the National Priorities List. Region I has over
forty federal facilities on the docket. Because of the size and complexity of the facilities, and the need
to obtain information on the nature of contamination from the facilities, the evaluation process is time-
consuming. The Region completed the evaluation of three facilities in FY 92 in addition to the sixteen
facilities completed in FY 90 and 91.
As a result of the evaluations completed to date, nine federal facilities in Region I have been listed on
the National Priorities List. Section 120 of CERCLA requires EPA to enter into an Interagency
Agreement (TAG) with these facilities and to afford state and local officials and the public the opportunity
to participate in the planning and selection of cleanup actions.
Because of the size of the federal facilities, the large number of contaminated sites on the facilities, and
the number of parties involved in the negotiations, the lAGs are complex documents. They provide for
the clean-up of the facility by the federal department that owns the facility, with oversight by EPA and,
in cases where the state is a formal party, by the state. The lAGs contain schedules for the cleanup process
at the facility, with stipulated penalties against the federal entity for failure to meet the schedules. They
also contain dispute resolution provisions with the EPA Administrator as the final authority, and can be
enforced by citizens under the CERCLA citizen suit provisions.
In FY 92, Region I completed negotiations and signed lAGs at two federal facilities bringing the total
to eight completed lAGs in the Region. The Region expects to complete IAG negotiations in 1993 with
the Naval Submarine Base, New London, CT, the remaining federal facility on the NPL in the Region.
Substantive investigation and cleanup activities are underway at all nine facilities.
37
-------
HIGHLIGHT: INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS SIGNED IN REGION I
In FY 92, Region I completed negotiations and signed lAGs at the following federal
facilities:
• Naval Construction Battalion Center, RI (parties: EPA, Navy, and Rhode Island)
• Newport Education and Training Center, RI (parties: EPA, Navy, and Rhode Island)
HIGHLIGHT: SUPERFUND RECORDS OF DECISION SIGNED IN FY 92
InFY92, the first four Superfund Records of Decision (RODs) were signed/or contaminated
sites at three New England federal facilities on the National Priorities List. Hazardous
waste releases targeted for remediation will result in resource protection for a sole source
aquifer on Cape Cod, Harpswell Cove and Casco Bay in Maine, and the NarragansettBay
estuary in Rhode Island. These cleanups are applications of EPA' s groundwater protection
strategy which calls for early extraction and treatment remedies to minimize further
contamination of ground water resources.
This work marks important first steps in the reduction of pollutant discharges and the
protection of uncontaminated resources at three federal facilities located near sensitive
environments. In each case the project team achieved technical, legal, and policy
consensus among the Department of Defense, EPA, the State, and the local community.
HIGHLIGHT: BASE CLOSURE CONFERENCES
Region I continues to play a national leadership role on base closure issues. The Region is
working with the other EPA regional offices, EPA Headquarters, states, the Department of
Defense (DOD), and reuseldevelopment authorities. Region I has permitted the transfer
of parcels of land at closing bases only after ensuring that the environmental cleanup will
proceed unimpaired.
Pease Air Force Base was the first base in the nation to close under the Base Closure and
Realignment Act. The Pease Federal Facilities Agreement continues to be a national
model for the language that was developed to address base closure issues, including land
transfer and access provisions. Since four of the nine National Priorities List Federal
Facilities in Region I that are on the NPL are either closed or scheduled for closure,
emphasis has been placed on accelerating cleanup to allow for redevelopment of the
closing bases.
Region I participated in the first national base closure conference in California in June,
1992, and Region I hosted the second national base closure conference in Boston in
September, 1992. The Boston conference focused on ways of expediting cleanup at
closing bases, and it added the real estate perspective and the impacts on site cleanup.
Site-specific acceleration initiatives were examined for each of the four NPL closing bases
in New England. The meeting was attended by DOD, EPA, state, and reuse/redevelopment
group representatives.
38
-------
REGION 1 ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
INITIATED: FY 1988 TO FY 1992
CLEAN AIR ACT
CLEAN WATER ACT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL ACT
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE,
FUNGICIDE & RODENTICIDE
ACT
EMERGENCY PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT
TOTALS:
(a) Includes 3 actions for imports of
chemical substances
FY 1988
_
18
8
027
9
1
63
FY 1989
—
16
8
21
4
15
64
FY1990
.
13
14
33
5
25
90
FY 1991
_
16
17
30
4
24
91
FY 1992
7
25
4
24
3
19
82
-------
REGION 1 ADMINISTRATIVE NON-PENALTY ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
INITIATED: FY 1988 TO FY 1992
FY1988
FY1989
FY1990
FY1991
FY 1992
CLEAN AIR ACT
29
31
38
47
61
CLEAN WATER ACT
27
34
49
<«>98
163
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
8
COMPREHENSIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSE, COMPENSATION,
AND LIABILITY ACT
13
18
22
13
13
TOTALS:
69
84
117
161
240
<•> Includes Requests for Information
-------
REGION 1 ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY & NON-PENALTY ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS INITIATED: FY 1988 TO FY 1992
CLEAN AIR ACT
CLEAN WATER ACT
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT
COMPREHENSIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSE, COMPENSATION,
AND LIABILITY ACT
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL ACT
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE,
FUNGICIDE & RODENTICIDE ACT
EMERGENCY PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT
* Includes Requests TnTA 1 es-
ter Information IVIALo.
FY 1988
29
45
-
9
13
27
9
1
133
FY1989
31
50
1
13
18
21
4
15
153
FY1990
38
62
8
17
22
33
5
25
210
FY 1991
47
*114
3
17
13
30
4
24
252
FY1992
68
*188
3
4
13
24
3
19
322
-------
REGION 1 CIVIL REFERRALS FOR LITIGATION
FY1988TOFY1992
CLEAN AIR ACT
CLEAN WATER ACT
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT
COMPREHENSIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSE, COMPENSATION,
AND LIABILITY ACT
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL ACT
TOTALS:
FY1988
7
13
2
0
14
1
37
FY1989
1
10
0
4
15
0
30
FY1990
10
12
0
4
13
0
39
FY 1991
6
9
0
5
10
2
32
FY1992
2
5
1
3
9
0
20
-------
REGION 1 CRIMINAL REFERRALS TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FY1988TOFY1992
FY1988
7
FY1989
8
FY1990
8
FY1991
7
FY1992
10
43
-------
COMPARISON OF EPA REGION 1 AND
THE NEW ENGLAND STATES'
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
IN FY 1992
AIR
DRINKING
WATER
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
WATER
PESTICIDES
TOTALS
TOTAL NUMBER OF
ACTIONS INITIATED BY THE
SIX NEW ENGLAND STATES
ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPLAINTS/
ORDERS
95
27
35
42
108
307
CIVIL
REFERRALS
11
1
26
5
18
61
NUMBER OF EPA
REGION 1 ACTIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPLAINTS/
ORDERS
61
3
4
38
3
109
CIVIL
REFERRALS
2
1
3
5
0
11
44
------- |