UNITED STATES EPA REGION I EPA 901/1 -94-001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION JFK FEDERAL BUILDING MAY 1994
AGENCY BOSTON, MA 02203
FY 93 Enforcement
Accomplishments
Report
EPA
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
DEDICATION TO PAUL G. KEOUGH
The Fiscal Year 1993 Region I Enforcement Accomplishments Report is dedicated to
Paul G. Keough. Paul served the United States Government and the Environmental
Protection Agency for nearly half his life before he died suddenly on January 17, 1994.
Carol Browner, the EPA Administrator, recognized Paul Keough's contributions to EPA
in her announcement of a national award in his name as follows:
Paul epitomized the very best of EPA, serving the Agency in many
capacities in his twenty-three year career in Region I. At the time of his
death, he was the Acting Regional Administrator, a position he held almost
as often as his official position of Deputy Regional Administrator.
Paul was the toughest of defenders of the environment and EPA, fighting
passionately for what he believed to be the correct course of action.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
fKdon 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 Wect Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chic?3o, il 60604-3590
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
u
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments iv
Introduction v
Multi-Media Enforcement 1
Criminal Actions 7
Air 10
Water 19
Drinking Water 24
Superfund 26
Community Right-to-Know 32
Hazardous Waste 35
Pesticides 41
Toxic Substances 43
Federal Facilities 47
Summary Enforcement Tables: FY 89 - FY 93 53
Appendix A: List of Acronyms 59
111
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
**^n 5 Library (PL-12J)
//West Jackson Boulevard. 12th Floor
Chicago, JL 60604-3590
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
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. John Smaldone of the Deputy
Regional Administrator's office oversaw this project.
Special thanks to John Williamson, MTI Information Center Supervisor, for his valuable
assistance in the publication of this report, and to Barbara Waller, MTI Task Leader, for
her coordination of publishing resources.
IV
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
INTRODUCTION
This report describes the results of Region I's enforcement efforts in the six New England States during
fiscal year 1993 (October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993). 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 1989 through 1993 are also provided.
The states are the primary implementers of several of these programs. For these programs, statistics
about state enforcement achievements that are tracked in EPA's national databases are also provided.
Many states take additional enforcement actions that are not required to be reported to EPA. 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 1993, progress continued in state/EPA coordination efforts, 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 8,200 inspections hi New England during the
fiscal year. Over 500 new federal and state cases were filed (administrative, civil, and criminal) and over
95 previously-filed federal cases settled. Assessed penalties exceeded $12,000,000. 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.
For 1994 we have launched an effort to develop an even more effective enforcement strategy that will be
unveiled in the fall We will focus on improving our enforcement targeting by working more collaborativery
with the New England states on setting priorities and allocating resources to compliance and enforcement.
We will give priority to increasing Region Is inspection and enforcement presence hi environmental
justice areas. We will maintain a vigorous enforcement program, while also bolstering Region I's efforts
to provide technical assistance to industry.
John P. DeViUars HarleyF.Lalnkf\
Regional Administrator Regional Counsel \^J
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPUSHMENTS REPORT
VI
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
MULTI-MEDIA ENFORCEMENT
During FY 93 Region I continued to pursue many aspects of the inspection and enforcement process
from a multi-media perspective. Field inspectors routinely used a multi-media checklist. Case teams
were required to complete multi-media case screening before an enforcement action could be commenced.
Significant settlements were reached in several multi-media judicial enforcement actions, including a
precedent-setting settlement with the United Technologies Corporation. A record number of settlements
- 22 - included supplemental environmental projects. In FY 93 the New England states and Region I
also created a new committee to focus on enforcement information sharing and issues common across
media programs.
Inspectors' Multi-media Checklist
In FY 93 Region Fs inspectors were required to use a multi-media checklist during inspections. Use of
the checklist first started two years ago. The checklist includes questions from all of the regulatory
programs that EPA administers. By asking the questions on the checklist during a compliance inspection,
an inspector can uncover possible compliance problems beyond the program for which he or she is
inspecting the facility.
Region I's inspectors conducted 231 single-program inspections for which they completed the multi-media
checklist in FY 93. Of these 231 checklists, more than 50 were forwarded to another program office for
follow-up action because the inspector suspected a violation might exist. These referrals led to six
enforcement actions in six different programs and to two state enforcement actions. In addition, the
Region and the states conducted a number of follow-up inspections on identified violations that may
lead to future enforcement actions.
Multi-media Inspections
Although the majority of the inspections conducted by Region I are single-program with use of the
multi-media checklist, the Region is committed to multi-media inspections in appropriate circumstances.
During FY 93, the Region's inspectors participated in eight consolidated inspections (- full inspections
during which compliance with more than one program is investigated). The inspectors also conducted
32 coordinated inspections (- those in which two or more programs coordinate their planning and inspect
the same facility within 90 days of each other).
Multi-media Training
To advance the multi-media approach to enforcement, Region I conducted training in the spring of 1993
for all of the Region's field inspectors on a number of important topics. All inspectors attended a course
devoted exclusively to the subject of multi-media inspections at which experts from each of the enforcement
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
programs discussed the major requirements of their programs so that inspectors would be better able to
identify problems in areas beyond their individual programs. A separate course discussed ways in which
inspectors can promote pollution prevention during their inspections. Finally, the Region held a course
for inspectors and others which covered the litigation process and their role in it.
Enforcement Workgroup
Region Fs Enforcement Workgroup, which includes representatives of the Region's media enforcement
programs and the Office of Regional Counsel, in FY 93 continued to play a lead role in developing and
overseeing multi-media enforcement. As in recent years, the Workgroup held a roundtable discussion
early in the year at which each of the programs discussed their inspection and enforcement plans for the
year. During this meeting, opportunities for coordinated and consolidated inspections were identified
and the possibilities for participation hi the various regional and national enforcement initiatives surfaced.
The Workgroup also considered other important multi-media issues, including refinement of the Region's
multi-media inspection checklist, data collection efforts, and inspection and enforcement targeting.
Case Screening
In FY 93 the Region continued to follow multi-media case screening procedures 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. To conduct the screening, the case team relies on two computerized
systems: the national enforcement database, IDEA (Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis), and the
Region I database, METS (Multi-media Enforcement Tickler System). After checking the databases,
the case team also solicits information about the violating facility from all the Region's enforcement
programs. The screening provides a complete picture of the facility's compliance status and facilitates
decision-making about appropriate enforcement strategy.
The most significant refinement to the case screening process in FY 93 was revision to the worksheet
that the case team must prepare to summarize the information collected during the screening process.
Reflecting the Agency's commitment to environmental justice by providing environmental protection to
all members of the public, the worksheet now asks several questions about the community in which a
violating facility is located and the impact its emissions may be having on area residents. The worksheet
also now asks the case team several questions about the potential for including an SEP (supplemental
environmental project) hi any settlement of the case.
Multi-media Enforcement Actions
Although the number ofjudicial multi-media enforcement actions is not large, Region I in FY 93 achieved
significant settlements in several cases.
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
HIGHLIGHT: MULTI-MEDIA SETTLEMENT WITH
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
On August 23, 1993, a precedent-setting consent decree was lodged in U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, resolving a multi-media, multi-facility enforcement
action against United Technologies Corporation (UTC), a major defense contractor.
(The decree was entered by the court on October 19, 1993.) UTC agreed to pay a
penalty of $3,701,910 to the United States for violations of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), the highest civil penalty ever obtained in settlement of a civil
RCRA action. In addition, UTC agreed to pay a total penalty of $1,600,000, with
$1,050,000 to the State of Connecticut and $550,000 to the United States, for violations
of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and state water protection laws. UTC facilities
named in the suit design and manufacture jet engines andparts, aircraft and spacecraft
components, and helicopters.
The complaint in this action, originally filed in September, 1990 and amended in April,
1991, alleged that UTC had committed over 150 violations of RCRA at eight different
UTC facilities in Connecticut. The RCRA violations included improper handling of
hazardous waste, storage of hazardous waste without a permit, inadequate personnel
training, and inadequate groundwater monitoring. Along with the settlement, the
government filed a second amended complaint that addressed dozens ofC WA violations
at seven UTC facilities in Connecticut. Under the CWA, UTC was cited for the discharge
of pollutants without a permit, the discharge of inadequately treatedwastewater to surface
waters, and the discharge of water with a highpH that caused a fish kill in the Connecticut
River. As a delegated NPDES state, Connecticut chose to be a co-plaintiff in the action
and made valuable technical and legal contributions to the case.
As part of the settlement, UTC agreed to implement an extensive multi-media
environmental audit at all 26 of its New England facilities. The scope and range of the
audits are unprecedented. Under the audit provisions of the consent decree, UTC must
retain an independent management consultant to make recommendations for how UTC
can alter its management systems in order to improve its environmental compliance.
After the recommended changes to its management systems are made, the company
must retain an outside audit firm to assess the 26 facilities' compliance with all
environmental laws. The audit process is expected to take several years to complete and
will cost the company between $4-8 million, during which time EPA and the state DEP
will continue to inspect UTC facilities for compliance.
Attorneys: Amelia Katzen (RCRA) and Michael Wagner (Water)
Engineers/Scientists: Regina Snyder & Rich Piligian (RCRA)
Mike Fedak & Richard Hull (Water)
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
HIGHLIGHT: MULTI-MEDIA SETTLEMENT WITH
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
On September 9,1993, EPA, the State of Maine and Georgia-Pacific Corporation lodged
a consent decree with the federal district court resolving a multi-media enforcement
action against Georgia-Pacific Corporation's pulp and paper mill in Woodland, ME.
(The federal court entered the decree on November 2, 1993.) The case was originally
filed as part of EPA's pulp and paper mill enforcement initiative in September, 1992.
The consent decree settles an enforcement action addressing violations of both the Clean
Air Act and Clean Water Act at the facility. In 1990 and 1991, Georgia-Pacific
intermittently violated air emission andwater discharge standards, as-well as frequently
failed to comply with its air license's monitoring requirements. The consent decree
requires Georgia-Pacific to pay a civil penalty of $390,000, to be split between the state
and the federal government. The action reflects Region I's efforts to coordinate
enforcement between different media (in this case the air and water media) and between
state and federal governments. Maine was an active participant in the development of
the case and in the settlement negotiations with the company.
Attorney: Mike Kenyan
Engineers/Scientists: DonaldDahl (Air) & Joy Palmer (Water)
HIGHLIGHT: MULTI-MEDIA SETTLEMENT WITHMTD PRODUCTS
AND COLUMBIA MANUFACTURING COMPANY
The District Court of Massachusetts entered a consent decree onAugustJJ, 1993 settling
an action against MTD Products, Inc. and Columbia Manufacturing Company, Inc. for
violations ofRCRA and the Clean Water Act. MTD and Columbia are the former and
present owners and operators, respectively, of a bicycle and furniture manufacturing
facility in Westfield, MA. The initial action was filed in 1991.
The consent decree provides that the defendants will pay a total civil penalty of $100,000,
with $90,000 under RCRA and $10,000 under the CWA. Inaddition, thedecree requires
the defendants to complete any RCRA corrective action determined to be necessary at
the site and to assess the adequacy of the plant's CWA treatment facilities.
Columbia Manufacturing Company, which owns the real property at the site filed a
Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Without this consent decree, therefore, the site would
likely lay unexaminedfor years. This settlement is extremely beneficial because it will
result in completion of a RCRA Facility Investigation and corrective action. Depending
on the extent of environmental degradation which is uncovered, this consent decree
could result in a major benefit to the environment.
Attorney: Michael Wagner
Engineers/Scientists: Mary Garren (RCRA) & Brian Pitt (Water)
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
FY 93 was also the first year of implementation of the consent decree in the record-breaking settlement
achieved late in FY 92 with the Dexter Corporation.
HIGHLIGHT: THE FIRST YEAR UNDER THE MULTI-MEDIA
SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEXTER CORPORATION
On November 13, 1992, a multi-media consent decree was entered in federal district
court settlingfederal and state civil claims against The Dexter Corporation for violations
of the CWA andRCRA at its Windsor Locks, CT specialty paper manufacturing facility.
The civil decree was part of a global settlement involving a $13,000,000 penalty and
substantial injunctive relief resolving civil, criminal, and suspension and debarment
actions pending against the company. Under the civil consent decree, the company was
required to pay $9,000,000 in penalties, perform a multi-media audit at its Connecticut
facility, buildwastewater treatment facilities, conduct a RCRA Facility Assessment, and
perform closure of former hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal areas.
Approximately one year later, significant strides have been made at the facility in
complying with the settlement. The company is on the brink of completing all Clean
Water Act remedial work, including installation of a multi-million dollar treatment unit
for its pulp mill wastestream, preparation and implementation of a comprehensive spill
prevention plan, and construction of a diffuser that will allow sufficient mixing of Dexter's
discharge in the Connecticut River thereby preventing toxicity.
Because there were exceedences of some of the interim effluent limits imposed by the
consent decree during the period pending completion of the CWA remedial work,
stipulated penalties of $49,000 were assessed and collected against Dexter during FY 93.
The company is also moving forward with respect to compliance with the RCRA
requirements under the decree. After submitting the RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA)
Workplan and the closure plans for the 18 units which require closure, Dexter has begun
site characterization work pursuant to these plans.
Although not apart of the settlement, the company has also significantly reduced the
amount of toxic pollutants that it discharges by discontinuing the use of carbon disulfide
and reducing the quantities of sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid used in its paper
making process.
Attorneys: Tonia Bandrowicz (Water) & Andrea Simpson (RCRA)
Engineers/Scientists: Mike Fedak (Water) & Elaine Stanley (RCRA)
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
New England State/EPA Environmental Enforcement Committee
FY 93 was the first year of operation of the New England State/EPA Environmental Enforcement
Committee which was established to foster communication and coordination between EPA and the six
New England states on enforcement matters. The Committee includes high-level representatives from
the enforcement offices of all the state environmental agencies and from the environmental divisions of
the state attorneys general offices in Region I. The Committee meets approximately every four months
and addresses topics of mutual interest, such as the coordination of enforcement efforts, participation in
national enforcement initiatives, administrative penalty programs, and training needs. Establishment of
the Committee has created a forum for some of the key environmental enforcement managers in the
states to come together to exchange information and discuss issues with Region I.
Supplemental Environmental Projects
Region I's emphasis on a multi-media perspective in enforcement was again demonstrated in FY 93 by
the number of settlements including SEPs (supplemental environmental projects). Such SEPs often
involve pollution prevention or recycling projects under which the violator goes beyond the requirements
of the law to remediate the adverse public health or environmental consequences of the violations cited
in the enforcement actions. In FY 93, the Region incorporated SEPs in the settlement of 22 cases.
HIGHLIGHT: SEP IN SETTLEMENT WITH
AVCO CORPORATION, TEXTRON LYCOMING
On August 19, 1993, Region I settled administrative actions filed under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) andRCRA against AVCO Corporation, Textron Lycoming
of Stratford, CT, a manufacturer of jet engine parts. The agreement requires a penalty
payment of $151,625 ($84,500 for the TSCA violations and $67,125 for the RCRA
violations). The agreement also requires the company to perform an SEP with a value
of at least $434,800. The project consists of the company replacing its current method
of parts cleaning using 1,1,1-trichloroethane with an alternative method using an aqueous
based cleaner or ultrasonic cleaning. The effects of this SEP will be the reduction of the
trichloroethane waste stream at the facility, lessening the potential for spills and ground
contamination and reducing the volume of hazardous waste generated at the facility.
Attorney: Deborah Brown
Engineers/Scientists: Marianne Milette (TSCA) & Elaine Stanley (RCRA)
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
CRIMINAL ACTIONS
EPA has kept pace with the mandate of the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 and has nearly doubled
the number of special agents in Region Fs Criminal Investigation Division. In FY 93, the Region supported
seven search warrants and criminal charges against nine individuals. In addition, seven people were
convicted and sentenced, including the longest term of incarceration in New England history for a
violation of federal environmental law.
Referrals to Department of Justice for Criminal Action
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Fiscal Year
CASE HIGHLIGHTS
1. United States v. David Dellinger (D. R.I.)
David Dellinger was sentenced to the longest term of incarceration for a federal
environmental case in New England when he was given a 27-month sentence on
September 14, 1993 by District Judge Raymond Pettine. Dellinger pleaded guilty on
June 25, 1993 to an indictment charging him with violations ofTSCA and CERCLA.
Dellinger's co-defendant, Giacomo Catucci, was convicted by a federal jury on
October 22, 1993.
In the fall of 1991, Giacomo Catucci hired two metal salvagers to scrap certain equipment
at his mill in Providence, RI. The two men asked Catucci if they could have five
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
transformers for scrap. Catucci knew that two of the five transformers contained PCBs,
but let the men have them anyway. The two men enlisted the help of their friend David
Dellinger. Bellinger recognized the Pyranol nameplates on the two transformers as
designating them as PCBs. Dellinger loaded the transformers onto his pickup truck,
cracked open the covers on Interstate 95 just outside of Providence and let the PCBs
spray out along the highway during rush hour. He then dumped more PCBs onto and
along a side road, and then in the -woods, along with the transformer carcasses.
Attorney: Andrew Lauterback
Investigator: Robert Harrington
2. United States v. Victor Figueroa (D. Conn.)
Victor Figueroa, a/k/a Victor Figueroa-Soto, pleaded guilty to disposing of hundreds of
unlabeled bags of asbestos in a concealed storage room in the basement of a building at
17, 29, and 35 Bartholomew Avenue in Hartford, CT. On September 13,1993, two days
before trial was to begin, Figueroa pleaded to one count of violating 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)
by failing to dispose ofasbestos-containingwaste material in accordance -with the asbestos
NESHAP (40 C.F.R. §61.150). During his change of plea, Figueroa acknowledged that
in the spring of 1991, he assisted others in removing asbestos from the upper floors of
the Hartford building and placing it in a vacant basement storage room. The room was
then sealed shut with cinder blocks and mortar and painted to match the surrounding
basement -walls. Figueroa never notified EPA of his intent to remove asbestos from the
building and his activities resulted in asbestos contamination throughout the building.
Ultimately, the building owner retained other asbestos abatement contractors to dispose
of the asbestos properly and decontaminate the building.
Figueroa runs a boiler repair business, 1155 Southern Boulevard Corporation, in the
Bronx, NY. Although asbestos removal-was not the primary focus of Figueroa's -work, he
had received training as an asbestos handler on several occasions. The July 8, 1993
indictment charged both Figueroa and his company -with asbestos NESHAP notification
and labeling violations in addition to disposal counts. As part of the plea, the remaining
counts against Figueroa and all of the counts against the company have been dismissed.
This case began when an engineer in the Region s Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division received a tip about a suspicious removal operation and the possible concealment
of asbestos. That tip ultimately led the government to obtain a -warrant to search the
facility and break into the concealed storage room. On July 12, 1991, EPA's Criminal
Investigation Division executed the search warrant using a sledge hammer to break
through the cinder block-wall. CID discovered unlabeled bags of asbestos - much of it
dry - piled to the ceiling.
Attorney: Peter Kenyan
Investigator: David McGonigle
8
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
3. United States v. David Liebman et al (D. Conn.)
On July 7, 1993, David Liebman of Enfteld, CT was sentenced to ten months of
incarceration, followed by one year of supervised release and a $3,000 fine for his role
in dumping three truckloads of asbestos at the Kollar Wildlife Management Area in
Tolland, CT as -well as a site in Enfteld, CT.
Three co-defendants -were sentenced to terms of home detention and probation. Louis
Lavitt, 84, ofRockville, CT was sentenced to Jive years probation and a $4,000 fine.
William Janiak of Stafford Springs, CTwas sentenced to six months of home detention,
250 hours of community service, and five years probation. Thomas Janiak of Stafford,
CT -was sentenced to five years of probation and 250 hours of community service.
The asbestos had been removed from Shepard Realty Company, Inc. of Vernon, CT. The
Shepard mill -was owned by David Liebman and his family. In 1989, the Liebmans
•wanted to sell the mill and with the help of their realtor, Louis Lavitt, obtained several
bids for asbestos removal from certified contractors. The bids ranged as high as $76,000.
Lavitt arranged a meeting with David Liebman and Thomas and William Janiak to
remove two large boilers and pipes and the asbestos that covered them. The Janiaks
had no training or experience in asbestos removal and had only performed odd jobs and
metal salvaging in the Vernon, CT area prior to the Shepard asbestos removal. Liebman
paid them $15,000 in cash. In the summer of 1989, the Janiaks, with the help of two
teenagers, removed the asbestos, and in three separate dump runs, disposed of the asbestos
in the Kollar Wildlife Management Area in Tolland, and another wooded site inEnfield,
CT. Approximately three tons of asbestos were dumped at these sites.
Attorney: Andrew Lauterback
Investigator: Jennifer Olsen
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
AIR
In FY 93, the Region I Air Compliance Program contkued its strong federal presence in the core areas
of stationary source and asbestos demolition/renovation enforcement and was also aggressive k enfbrckg
newly established regulations relating to the protection of stratospheric ozone (Le., the chloroflourocarbon,
or CFC, program). In addition, the Region maktaks a strong emissions tampering inspection presence,
referring violators to EPA-HQ for enforcement follow-up.
FY 93 was the Region's first full year of implementation of the administrative penalty authority granted
EPA under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, issukg a total of 23 administrative penalty complaints
(four stationary source, two asbestos and 17 CFC orders). Approximately $870,000 of administrative
penalties were proposed and $188,000 k penalties were collected k FY 93 through the administrative
penalty program. One of the administrative settlements included a supplemental environmental project
costing the facility over $170,000 and consisting of a closed loop recychng project eliminating the use of
solvents and the generation of waste CFC.
CAA Administrative Penalty Orders Issued
1990
1991
1992
1993
1989 ' •"" Fiscal Year
Note: Implementation of the CAA's administrative penalty program began in FY 92.
10
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
CAA Administrative Penalties Proposed
Sl.OOOK
S800K
S600K
S400K
S200K
N/A
N/A
N/A/
y
$455,210
f
$869,491 .
/ *
1989
1993
1990 1991 1992
Fiscal Year
Note: Implementation of the CAA's administrative penalty program began in FY 92.
HIGHLIGHT: MAJOR MANUFACTURING FACILITY SETTLES
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE AND AGREES
TO ELIMINATE USE OF SOLVENTS
On July 23, 1993, EPA entered into a consent agreement with Texas Instruments, Inc. of
Attleboro, MA for violations of several provisions of the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) applicable to small boilers. The company engages in the manufacture
of various pressure bonded metal products. Texas Instruments also operates a utility
plant which houses six boilers. In January of 1992, Texas Instruments began operating
a new boiler. On January 26, 1993, EPA issued an administrative penalty order to
Texas Instruments for notification, performance testing, and reporting violations.
The case settled for a penalty of$49,900, in addition to an agreement by Texas Instruments
to perform a supplemental environmental project (SEP) in which Texas Instruments will
replace a vapor degreaser unit which emits approximately 6,800 pounds per year of
Freon-113, an ozone depleting chemical, with a closed-loop, zero-emissions degreaser
unit. This SEP, which will cost Texas Instruments over $170,000, is particularly
noteworthy because it is the first application of this particular technology to the metal
finishing industry.
Attorney: Mike Kenyan
Engineer/Scientist: Susan Jewett
11
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
At the same time as administrative enforcement was established as a significant component of the regional
CAA enforcement program, a significant judicial presence also was maintained. In FY 93, the Region
referred three new actions to the Department of Justice and also settled three previously filed judicial
actions, collecting over $108,000 in penalties. The Region also participated hi a large multi-regional
settlement with the Louisiana-Pacific Corporation. This settlement involved the payment of a muLti-inflHon
CAA Referrals for Civil Litigation
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Fiscal Year
Penall
S1400K
S1200K
S1000K
S800K
S600K
$400K
S200K
$OK
:ies Assessed in CAA Judicial Actions
$1,216,741
A
\
\
\
V-
$437,842
5638,000^
.jar
X*"^
$857,837
-A
^
\
v
\
$108.250
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Fiscal Year
12
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
CAA Administrative Non-Penalty Orders Issued
Fiscal
Year
dollar penalty and included a commitment to spend over $2 million for environmental improvements at
the Maine facility which was part of the settlement.
This combination of judicial and administrative penalty enforcement, along with the issuance of other
less formal actions such as non-penalty orders, represents a significant change from the way CAA
requirements previously were enforced and likely will be repeated by Region I in future years. With the
introduction of administrative penalty authority, the number of violators against whom penalties can be
sought has greatly increased. As a result, more than twice as many CAA penalty actions were initiated
by Region I hi FY 93 than in any previous recent year, when judicial action was the only available means
to seek a penalty against a violator. In the future, judicial actions will continue to be initiated against the
most serious violator s and administrative p enalty actions taken against the less serious, but still significant
violators.
HIGHLIGHT: MASSACHUSETTS COMPANY PAYS $200,000 PENALTY
AND AGREES TO INSTALL CONTROL EQUIPMENT
On August 16, 1993, a settlement between EPA Region I and Archer Rubber Company
ofMilford, MA wasfiledwith the U.S. District Court settling an action initiated by EPA
in July, 1990 alleging violations of the Clean Air Act and the Massachusetts State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The complaint alleged that the violations occurred at
Archer's Milfordfacility since 1985 and involved emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from the company's uncontrolled fabric surface coating operations. Under the
terms of the settlement, Archer is obligated to, among other things: (1) pay a $200,000
penalty, (2) install, test and operate VOC capture and control equipment in compliance
with the SIP, (3) keep extensive -written records concerning VOC emissions and the use
13
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
of emission controls, (4) report to EPA on a quarterly basis, and (5) pay significant
stipulated penalties for each day of each violation of the consent decree terms. The
Court approved the settlement on October 12, 1993.
Under the settlement, EPA agreed towithdraw a contractor listing action brought against
Archer based on Archer's record of continuing or recurring noncompliance with clean
air standards and on prior EPA enforcement actions taken against the company.
Contractor listing actions enable EPA to place companies on a List of Violating Facilities
and to prohibit federal agencies from utilizing such companies in any federal contracts,
grants, or loans. The Archer listing action was based on the same violations as the civil
judicial case.
Attorney:
Engineer/Scientist:
Hugh Martinez
Fred Weeks
A large number of the CAA enforcement actions brought by Region I were against violators of the
recently enacted CFC requirements. This aggressive enforcement of the CFC regulations highlighted
both the newness and the importance of the CFC requirements in protecting stratospheric ozone and the
potential for initially high non-compliance. To send a strong deterrent message to the regulated community,
Region I aggressively responded to tips and complaints of knowing releases of CFC during refrigeration
servicing and targeted sites that were illegally selling CFC's to unqualified purchasers. Well over 500
inspections were conducted by Region I in FY 93 to determine compliance with the new CFC
requirements. Through its aggressive inspection and enforcement activity, Region I was a national
leader in this area, initiating over half of the CFC enforcement cases included in the national enforcement
initiative announced in the summer of 1993.
CAA Inspections Conducted
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Fiscal Year
Note: FY 93 figure includes 540 Mobile Source inspections.
14
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
In addition to CFC enforcement, federal inspection and enforcement activity focused on a number of
other areas. One of these was the requirement now applicable to many sources that they install and
maintain continuous emission monitors (CEMs) in order to more accurately and reliably monitor facility
emissions. Continuous emissions monitoring is now required under various parts of the CAA and many
state regulations and permits. EPA and the states worked aggressively k 1993 to establish a program
that tracks and reviews CEM submissions and identifies potential emission violations from them Major
accomplishments for 1993 included commitments by the Region I states to review and input CEM data
into either an EPA database or the national database, facilitating analysis and enforcement follow-up.
As in past years, the Region devoted considerable effort in FY 93 to ensuring compliance with the
federal requirements for asbestos demolition and renovation operations. The Region issued ten
administrative orders to facilities found in violation of asbestos requirements and 202 Notice of Deficiency
letters to facilities submitting late or insufficient notification to EPA. The Region made great progress
in increasing the compliance rate of facilities required to notify EPA of demolition and renovation activities
in large part through its Demolition Operator Non-Notifier Tracking Program. A five-year trend analysis
shows that the number of demolition notifications received by the Region has tripled since FY 89 from
approximately 200 notifications to over 650 notifications in FY 93.
One of the most important components of the regional air compliance strategy is the role played by the
Region's state partners. EPA data systems indicate over 2,200 state inspections were conducted in New
England under the CAA Section 105 Grant program. In addition, the states share enforcement
responsibility for the CAA, issuing 52 stationary source administrative penalties or judicial referrals
during FY 93. (Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire do not have administrative penalty authority,
but may collect penalties with consent agreements.) Maine issued six asbestos orders.
Another indicator of the vigor of the joint regional CAA compliance program is the identification of
Significant Violators (S V), or major stationary sources in non-compliance. The data indicates an upward
trend (82% increase) over the last three years in SV identification. This upward trend is due in part to
changes in major source definition which expanded the universe of affected sources and an improvement
in SV reporting by the states.
Significant Violators Identified
EPA & State Combined
FY89 FY90 FY 91 FY 92
FY93
15
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
HIGHLIGHT: MAINE AND MASSACHUSETTS UNDERTAKE INITIATIVE
TO ENFORCE GASOLINE REFUELING REQUIREMENTS
During FY 93, Maine and Massachusetts conducted compliance inspections and
enforcement activities at gasoline bulk terminals and service stations. These facilities
can be a significant source of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions if the controls
for their fuel transfer equipment are not functioning properly. Stage I vapor recovery
equipment is required for these processes in order to capture VOC emissions -which
would otherwise escape to the atmosphere. Massachusetts conducted over 200 tanker
truck inspections and found approximately 25 percent in violation of the Stage I
requirements. After issuing notices of noncompliance to the violating facilities,
Massachusetts conducted follow-up inspections and found 100 percent compliance.
Maine initiated its compliance and enforcement activities by conducting outreach to
over 300 service stations. After conducting compliance inspections, Maine found seven
facilities in noncompliance with Stage I requirements, each of which were issued Notices
of Violation.
16
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
State CAA Enforcement Totals:
FY 1 989 to FY 1 993
TYPE OF ACTION
Civil Referral
Administrative Orders
Administrative
Penalty Orders
Notices of Violation
(Non-Asbestos)
Inspections
Fiscal Year
1989
0
26
N/A
142
1,580
1990
3
43
N/A
106
1,384
1991
3
*13
N/A
68
1,768
1992
11
95
7
209
1,890
1993
19
75
33
440
2,299
* Because of a problem in reporting, the number of administrative orders issued by CT and MA in 1991 is under-reported
here.
Note: The increase in the numbers reported for FY 92 and FY 93 is attributable to an improvement in the process for state
reporting of enforcement data to EPA.
T,A1R01 VSD
17
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
State CAA Compliance/Enforcement Totals: FY 93
STATIONARY
SOURCE
PROGRAM
Civil
Referral
Administrative
Order
Administrative
Penalty Order
Notice of
Violation
Inspections
ASBESTOS
DEMO/RENO
PROGRAM
Civil
Referral
Administrative
Order
Administrative
Penalty Order
Notice of
Violation
Inspections
COMBINED
PROGRAMS
(TOTALS)
Civil
Referral
Administrative
Order
Administrative
Penalty Order
Notice of
Violation
Inspections
State
CT
7
41
18
98
533
ME
1
10
N/A
17
176
MA
9
6
0
243
544
NH
1
12
N/A
28
217
Rl
1
1
9
9
96
VT
0
2
0
0
54
TOTAL
19
72
27
395
1,620
State
CT
0
0
0
0
110
ME
0
0
6
15
96
MA
0
0
0
29
88
NH
0
3
N/A
1
81
Rl
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
269
VT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
35
TOTAL
0
3
6
45
679
State
CT
7
41
18
98
643
ME
1
10
6
32
272
MA
9
6
0
272
632
NH
1
15
N/A
29
298
Rl
1
1
9
9
365
VT
0
2
0
0
89
TOTAL
19
75
33
440
2,299
NOTES: 1. N/A means Not Applicable.
2. Inspection numbers do not include Stage n gasoline stations unless negotiated into CMS plan (ex: MA).
3. Administrative Penalty numbers include non-judicial consent agreements/orders reported by a state.
4. Above numbers are from AFS and NARS except where augmented by a state in response to an EPA letter dated
1/25/94. AFS and NARS will be updated.
18
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
WATER
Fiscal year 1993 was a record year for the EPA Region I Clean Water Act enforcement program in a
number of respects. Civil court consent decrees were entered in the major Dexter enforcement action
and in three other cases, resulting in the assessment of the record amount of $4,365,000 in federal civil
court penalties (Dexter also paid a $3,600,000 civil penalty to the State of Connecticut). In addition,
twenty-two Clean Water Act administrative penalty cases were settled, resulting in the assessment of an
additional $785,913 in penalties, another record number. As a result of the civil court and administrative
penalty programs, the EPA water program thus obtained combined penalties of over five million dollars,
contributing significantiy to deterrence.
Penalties Assessed in CWA Judicial Consent Decrees
1989
1990
1991
Fiscal Year
1992
1993
54.50M
S4.00M
$3.50M
S3.00M
S2.50M
S2.00M
S1.50M
Sl.OOM
S0.50M
SO.OOM
New enforcement actions also were initiated against industrial and municipal violators of Clean Water
Act requirements. During FY 93, EPA Region I referred three new civil cases to the Department of
Justice, initiated 17 new administrative penalty actions and issued an additional 145 non-penalty
administrative orders or information demands. In addition, to address a reduction in the recent number
of new enforcement cases, the Region I water program conducted a reassessment of its enforcement
inspection program during the spring and summer of 1993. As a result of this reassessment, certain
facilities with good compliance records will be inspected less frequently, but where non-compliance is
believed to be higher inspections are being increased.
19
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Penalties Assessed in CWA Administrative Actions
$800K
$785,913
$300K
1989
1990 1991 1992
Fiscal Year
1993
CWA Referrals for Civil Litigation
FY90
FY91
FY89
FY93
FY92
20
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
A continued priority of the water enforcement program is ensuring the completion of construction of
modern secondary municipal treatment plants in those areas which still have not completed such facilities.
Major enforcement efforts continue to be underway involving Boston Harbor; New Bedford, MA; and
the South Essex Sewerage District. In addition, a major program to address combined sewer overflows
(municipal sewer systems which overflow during wet weather) is underway by the Region.
Number of CWA Penalty Orders Initiated
10
o
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Fiscal Year
HIGHLIGHT: BOSTON HARBOR CLEANUP
Challenges to the new extended outfall being constructed as part of the Boston Harbor
cleanup were defeated during the past year. The Boston Harbor cleanup plan, which
was developed after extensive public hearings and environmental reviews, calls for the
construction of a secondary treatment plant by 1999, and the construction of an extended
outfall which is to discharge dispersed effluent into Massachusetts Bay. EPA believes
that this cleanup plan will both better protect Massachusetts Bay (which currently suffers
from the inflow of pollutants which have been discharged into Boston Harbor after only
inadequate treatment), and markedly improve conditions at the inner Boston Harbor
waters and beaches near the current points of discharge.
This past year, however, EPA was sued by the Bays Legal Fund and by Greenworld,
which alleged that there had been violations of the Endangered Species Act in connection
with the outfall project. In July, 1993, the U.S. District Court (Mazzone, J.) found that
21
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
no violations had occurred. The case currently is on appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals (First Circuit). In the meantime, since the treatment plant's NPDES permit
is up for renewal, EPA agreed to conduct a new biological assessment (in addition to the
studies done when the project received its initial environmental review). EPA's assessment
was completed in April, 1993. In September 1993, the National Marine Fisheries Service
concurred \vith EPA's conclusions that the outfall project is not likely to jeopardize
endangered species.
Attorneys: Jeffry Fowley, Kenneth Moraff and Mark Stein
Engineers/Scientists: Richard Kotelly and Brian Pitt
Another continuing focus of the water program is enforcement against industrial noncompliers. In
particular, cases have been brought against "indirect dischargers" (i.e., dischargers to municipal sewers)
violating EPApretreatment requirements, although violators among direct dischargers (Le., dischargers
to rivers, lakes and other surface waters) also have been identified and enforced against.
HIGHLIGHT: PRETREATMENT ENFORCEMENT
Region I this past year continued to focus on industrial pretreatment enforcement in
order to more closely control the discharges of toxic substances and other pollutants
into the sewers. The Region is concerned that non-compliance rates among "indirect"
dischargers (which discharge to the sewers) remain higher than among "direct"
dischargers (which discharge directly to surface waters and which have been subject to
EPA regulation far longer).
Region I's efforts resulted in the following major settlements during FY 93. The General
Mills Company agreed to pay a $480,000 civil court penalty for local limits violations
at its fish processing plant in Gloucester, MA. Similarly, the O 'Donnel Company paid
a $375,000 civil court penalty for local limits violations at its fish processing plant in
Gloucester. The Mastex Company paid a $2 75,000 civil court penalty for pH violations
at its textiles plant in Holyoke, MA. The Starrett Company has agreed to pay a $325,000
civil court penalty for violations of metal finishing and pH limits at its Athol, MA facility.
Finally, in the administrative penalty program, the Strathmore Paper Company agreed
to pay a $9 5,000 penalty for local limits violations at its paper plant in Erving, MA, and
Cooper Industries agreed to pay a $98,000 penalty for violations of metal finishing
limits at its plant in Brunswick, ME.
All of these companies also agreed to take the necessary measures to fully comply with
the applicable pretreatment requirements.
Lead Pretreatment Attorney: Edith Goldman
Pretreatment Coordinator: Mark Spinale
22
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Finally, as in past years, EPA's water enforcement program continued to be supplemented this past fiscal
year by the enforcement activity of the six New England states. During FY 93, the states referred nine
cases for civil court action by their Attorneys General and issued a total of twenty-four administrative
compliance orders.
State CWA Enforcement Totals:
FY 1 989 to FY 1 993
TYPE OF ACTION
Civil Referral
Administrative Orders
Fiscal Year
1989
43
80
1990
24
53
1991
4
26
1992
5
42
1993
9
24
T-WATER1 VSD
State CWA Enforcement Totals: FY 93
ACTION
; Inspection
AO/APO *
Civil
Referrals
State
CT
246
8
7
ME
189
0
2
MA
199
1
NH
97
1
0 0
Rl VT
37
8
0
62
6
0
* AO/APO: Administrative Order/Administrative Penalty Order.
T-WATER2VSD
23
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
DRINKING WATER
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is primarily enforced by the states, which utilize a range of
techniques to secure compliance including conducting sanitary surveys, issuing administrative orders
(or entering into administrative consent agreements), and referring matters for court litigation. EPA,
however, is ultimately responsible for the enforcement of the federal standards protecting public drinking
water supplies. In FY 93, EPA Region I referred one matter for civil court enforcement and issued 24
notices of violation, 17 proposed administrative orders, 68 mandatory schedules in "exemption"
determinations, and three final administrative orders. Both federal and state enforcement levels were up
substantially compared to prior years due to the extensive work involved in implementing the Surface
Water Treatment Rule. This rule requires suppliers of drinking water who use surface water sources to
install filtration treatment unless they qualify for a waiver.
HIGHLIGHT: ENFORCEMENT AGAINST
THE BETHLEHEM VILLAGE DISTRICT
This past year, Region I brought and settled a civil court action against the Bethlehem
Village District in New Hampshire for violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This
was the first case nationally to be referred to enforce the June 29, 1993 deadline for
installing filtration under the Surface Water Treatment Rule.
The District had voted not to provide the necessary funding to comply -with this rule, but
has now voted to comply and is cooperating with state and federal regulators. About
$2,500,000 will be spent on a filtration plant and other system improvements in order to
ensure the provision of clean drinking water to the residents of the District. The District
also agreed to pay a $15,000 civil penalty as part of the settlement.
Attorney: Dianne Chabot O'Malley
Engineer/Scientist: Kan Thorn
24
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
State SDWA Enforcement Totals:
FY 1 989 to FY 1 993
TYPE OF ACTION
Referrals to
Attorney General
Administrative
Orders Issued
Fiscal Year
1989
2
48
1990
1
20
1991
0
12
1992
2
24
1993
3
145
State: Fiscal year 1993 total includes administrative consent agreements and "exemption determinations" as well as
unilateral administrative orders.
T-ORWTR1.VSO
25
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
SUPERFUND
FY 93 was another successful year for Region I's enforcement program under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund.
During FY 93, the Region maintained 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 and continued to conclude many important enforcement cases. At the same time, the Region has
recognized that its enforcement efforts must be fair and equitable as well as vigorous. The Region's
FY 93 enforcement efforts were consistent with these themes.
Enforcement is especially important to the Superfund program. Superfund enforcement not onbyprevents
further degradation of the environment, but also actually 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 to reduce or eliminate the
generation of hazardous substances hi the first instance.
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 hi 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.
CERCLA Referrals for Civil Litigation
FY89
FY90
FY91
FY92
FY93
26
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Civil judicial referrals are an important part of the Agency's "enforcement first" approach. Referrals
allow EPA to obtain court orders requiring parties to perform work at Superfimd 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 93 the Region referred eleven new Superfund cases for
judicial action, an increase of 38% over FY 92.
Five of these eleven cases were simultaneously settled. These settlements will result in or pay for the
cleanup of Superfund remedial sites, typically the largest and most complex hazardous substance cleanups.
Among the actions private parties will perform are the cleanup of the municipal landfill at Dover, NH,
valued at over $31,000,000, and the second phase of the Sullivan's Ledge site in New Bedford, MA,
valued at $5,800,000.
HIGHLIGHT: REFERRALS AND SETTLEMENTS RESULT IN
CLEANUP OF SULLIVAN'S LEDGE SITE
On April 23, 1993, the Massachusetts federal district court entered the consent decree
for the second operable unit at the Sullivan's Ledge Superfund Site in New Bedford,
MA. Simultaneously, the Court also entered an amendment to an earlier consent decree
for the first operable unit.
The site is an old granite quarry, located in an industrial/suburban area of New Bedford.
From about 1935 through the 1970 's, the City of New Bedford owned and operated the
Ledge as a dump for local industrial wastes and solid wastes.
The settlement requires the settling parties to excavate an ecologically sensitive marsh
•which lies in the midst of a golf course. They must dispose of the excavated sediments
beneath a cap to be constructed at the first operable unit. The expected cost of the
remedy is $ 5,800,000.
Under the consent decree, fifteen entities, including the City of New Bedford, agree to
perform the remedy. However, the responsibilities of the parties vary greatly. AVX
Corporation agreed to perform all the remedial action and operation and maintenance.
The City agreed to perform specific portions of the remedial action and to secure access
and institutional controls. Massachusetts -was a signatory to both the consent decree
and amendment.
The Region is also conducting litigation to recover additional past costs for the first and
second operable units. The Region referred the claims for the second operable unit in
FY93.
Attorneys: Brian Rohan andLeAnn Walls
Remedial Project Manager: Tony Pisanelli
27
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
FY 93 saw successful conclusions to some important enforcement litigation in the Region. Litigation
can serve the immedkte purpose of obtaining site cleanups or reimbursement of the Superfimd through
court order. la 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. In
FY 93, courts entered eleven consent decrees resolving Superfund enforcement cases in the Region.
HIGHLIGHT: OTTATI & GOSS SUPERFUND LITIGATION CONCLUDED
In September 1993, the United States lodged a civil consent decree effectively ending
thirteen years of litigation over the Ottati & Goss Superfund Site in Kingston, NH.
Under the settlement, Imcera Group, Inc. ("IMCERA ") and 355 defendants sued by
IMCERA agreed to pay to the United States and the State of New Hampshire a total of
$4,000,000. The settlement resolves claims initially brought under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act, andamendedin 1983 to seek
injunctive relief and recovery of past costs under CERCLA Sections 106 and 107 arising
from the disposal of hazardous substances at the Site. A variety of different chemicals
were found at the Site, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), acid and base/
neutral (ABN) compounds, metals, cyanide, andpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
The Site was placed on the National Priorities List in September, 1981. On
January 16, 1987, Region I issued a Record of Decision (ROD) outlining remedial action
for the site. The 1987 ROD called for on-site incineration of contaminated soils and
sediments and for a pump-and-treat system for contaminated groundwater. Under the
terms of settlement, the remedy and associated operation and maintenance for the site
will be completed by the United States and the State of New Hampshire.
A ttorney: Greg Dain
Remedial Project Manager: Steven Colder
Administrative enforcement complements judicial enforcement in the Superfund program. la FY 93 the
Region issued fifteen final administrative orders requiring parties to conduct cleanup activities, including
studies, at sites, to provide information or site access, or reimburse the government for money spent
addressing these environmental problems.
Nine of these orders were unilateral administrative orders (UAOs). The UAO continues to be a powerful
and effective enforcement tool. The law provides substantial penalties for failure to comply with UAOs.
The Region's CERCLA removal program uses UAOs with great success to obtain cleanups of sites that
present imminent threats. The pressing need for cleanup of these sites lends itself to creative use of
UAOs, sometimes hi conjunction with other enforcement and cleanup mechanisms.
28
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
CERCLA Unilateral Administrative Orders
FY91
FY92
FY90
FY89
FY93
HIGHLIGHT: UNILATERAL ORDER - COST RECOVERY STRATEGY AT
INTERNATIONAL DEPOSITORY, INC. REMOVAL SITE
At the International Depository, Inc. (IDI) removal site, the Region achieved an
administrative cost recovery settlement under CERCLA § 122(h) for $1,100,000 -with
56potentially responsible parties. Additionally, after the Region had conducted initial
response measures, it issued the site owner, the Rhode Island Department of
Transportation, a unilateral administrative order under CERCLA § 106 for approximately
half of the necessary cleanup activities at the Site. The result is a successful site cleanup
and cost recovery effort.
The IDI site is an abandoned hazardous -waste transfer facility that contained
approximately three thousand drums of improperly stored waste materials located near
the Narragansett Bay in North Kingstown, RI. EPA initially properly containerized the
waste materials and disposed of the extremely hazardous materials. The site owner
disposed of the remaining drummed wastes, excavated contaminated soil, and
decontaminated the building under the unilateral order.
The settling parties under the administrative cost recovery agreement, generators and
transporters of hazardous substances sent to the site, will pay EPA $1,100,000, the
majority of EPA's costs incurred at the Site. In an effort to facilitate settlement, the
Region developed a volumetric ranking list which the PRP group used to develop its
internal allocation scheme. The majority of the settlors are commercial entities, but a
number of federal, state and local entities also participated.
Attorney:
On-scene Coordinator:
Enforcement Coordinator:
Kathleen Woodward
Gary Lipson
Mary Dever
29
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Region I has historically been a leader in the innovative use of enforcement tools to further important
Superfund cleanup objectives. FY 93 was no exception. The Region used an administrative order to
implement the ideals of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) to speed the cleanup of the
Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. (BFI) Superfund Site in Rocknigham,VT.
HIGHLIGHT: ACCELERATED CLEANUP OF
BFI/ROCKINGHAM SITE
The BFI-Rockingham Landfill Superfund Site represents EPA's first comprehensive
application of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) at an NPL site in
Region I. The use of SACM expedited response activities at the Site by one to two years.
Moreover, SACM saved EPA and the PRPs substantial transaction costs in connection
with the performance of an RI/FS and the negotiation of an administrative order for
construction of a cap at the site.
Two subsidiaries of Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. entered an administrative order to
perform the RI/FS in August 1992. During the RI/FS, the Region recognized the
opportunity to apply EPA's new presumptive remedy for municipal landfills. In February
1993, the PRPs agreed to initiate an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the
source control component of the remedy. Based upon the EE/CA, EPA issued an Action
Memorandum in September 1993 which selected a multi-layer landfill cap source control
for the site. With the ultimate goal of constructing the cap in the summer of 1994, the
Region negotiated an administrative order on an extremely expedited schedule, reaching
agreement with the two BFI subsidiaries by the end of September.
The environment will benefit from prompt implementation of source control measures,
which will reduce further migration of contaminants to the environment, most notably
groundwater.
The BFI-Rockingham case represents a highly successful use of enforcement and response
program initiatives to expedite cleanup at all stages of a Superfund case, including site
investigation and development of response alternatives, negotiation of a response
agreement, and performance of the action itself.
Attorney: Andrew Raubvogel
Remedial Project Manager: Edward Hathaway
In FY 93 the Region continued to promote use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, de minimis
settlements, and other settlement tools to resolve Superfund liability fairly, efficiently, and to avoid
unnecessary litigation. In June 1993 the Congressional General Accounting Office submitted a report to
the House Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, which showed Region I to be a leader in the use of these settlement devices.
30
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
This fiscal year the Regional Superfund program concentrated on use of alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) to facilitate Superfund settlements. In FY 93 the Region nominated four matters for ADR The
Region remains committed to ADR use in appropriate circumstances.
HIGHLIGHT: REGIONAL ADR EFFORTS IN FY 93
During FY 93, Region I worked on several fronts to promote the use of ADR to settle
cases and to enhance community involvement in controversial environmental decisions.
These efforts have taken the form of educating regional management and staff about
ADR techniques and their possible applications (both in the context of regularly scheduled
meetings and through individual case screening sessions); educating the private bar
about EPA's receptivity to ADR through presentations at conferences and bar association
meetings; representing EPA on an American Arbitration Association task force on
environmental mediation; and continuing to nominate cases for ADR in a broadening
range of circumstances.
The success of these efforts has been evident in increased general inquiries by both EPA
case lawyers and members of the private bar about the appropriateness of mediating
specific cases, as -well as by the success of the Region's ADR efforts in a number of
complex Superfund cases, each -with a distinct set of challenges. The settlement for the
cleanup of the Sullivan's Ledge Site was achieved through mediated negotiations. It
represents the Region's first Superfund mediation success, and has become a model for
other Superfund mediations. In the Savage Well andNyanza cases, these efforts resulted
in mediation agreements; mediated settlement negotiations have occurred in both cases.
In addition, the convening process is progressing at the Iron Horse Park site, with a
particular focus on allocation issues. Finally, the Region is moving ahead with efforts
to convene a mediated process, in large part to facilitate community involvement, in the
highly controversial Pine Street Site in Burlington, VT. Following an outpouring of
opposition to EPA's proposed plan for the Pine Street Site, the Region is exploring
uncharted territory by pursuing the use of ADR during the remedy selection process.
This mediation is being structured both to allow for greater community involvement in
EPA's decision-making process and to achieve a settlement with the responsible parties
for performance of the cleanup.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Coordinator: Elissa Tonkin
31
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), Region I continued to
demonstrate a strong enforcement presence. Specifically, Region Fs enforcement activities continued
to focus on facilities that failed to submit required annual toxic chemical release inventory forms to EPA
and 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: FY 1 989 to FY 1 993
COMPLAINT STATUS
Issued
Settled
Fiscal Year
1989
15
0
1990
25
14
1991
24
23
1992
19
17
1993
17
20
T-CRTKQ1 VSD
The vast majority of Region Fs enforcement actions arose under the administrative penalty provisions
of EPCRA In FY 93, the Region issued 17 administrative complaints, proposing a total assessment of
$ 1,059,660 in penalties. Region I also referred its first EPCRA action to the Department of Justice.
Besides issuing a significant number of administrative complaints, Region I continued to resolve most of
the complaints filed during the previous years. During FY 93, the Region settled 20 administrative
actions, for an increase of 3 settlements over FY 92. The Region not only settled more cases between
FY 92 and FY 93, it also collected more in total penalties. In FY 93, the Region recovered assessed
penalties of $528,019, while in FY 92, the Region assessed a total of $347,487. A comparison of the
two years shows that the FY 93 penalties assessed exceed the FY 92 penalties assessed by $200,532, or
62%.
32
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Penalties in EPCRA Administrative Actions:
FY 1 989 to FY 1 993
Proposed
Assessed
Total Value of SEPs
Fiscal Year
1989
$515,000
$0
$0
1990
$1,599,040
$386,940
$95,000
1991
$1,541,040
$424,638
$127,800
1992
$631,603
$347,487
$209,475
1993
$1,059,660
$528,019
$449,614
T-CRTK02VSD
While the penalties assessed represent a dramatic increase in administrative settlements, the figures do
not include monies dedicated to supplemental environmental projects (SEPs). Region I has actively
encouraged innovative provisions for supplemental environmental projects. During FY 93, the Region
negotiated SEPs valued at $449,614. This is $240,139 (46%) more than the amount spent on SEP
projects in FY 92.
HIGHLIGHT: ADVANCE COATING COMPANY
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT FILED
On March 26, 1993, Region I issued an administrative civil complaint under Section
325(c) of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Knaw Act ("EPCRA"), to
Advance Coating Co. of Westminster, MA for violations of Section 313 of EPCRA.
Advance Coating principally manufactures polyester resins and organic chemicals for
the glass fiber fabrication industry. Advance Coating processed in excess of the threshold
amounts of acetone, maleic anhydride, phthalic anhydride and styrene monomer in
1987,1988 and 1989 andwas consequently required to submit Form Rsfor each chemical
by July 1 of the following year. Because of Respondent's failure to submit the Form Rs,
the complaint proposes a penalty for $156,000 for failing to submit Form Rsfor each
chemical used by the Company.
Attorney: Tanya Nunn
Engineer/Scientist: Linda Marinilli
33
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
HIGHLIGHT: COLFAX, INC.
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT FILED
On September 16,1993, Region I issued a complaint against Colfax, Inc. ofPawtucket, RI
alleging violations ofEPCRA. Colfax, Inc. manufactures food products such as vegetable
oils, vegetable shortenings and animal fats for the food processing industry. EPA's
complaint alleges that Colfax failed to submit to the Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC), the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), and the local
fire department, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for six hazardous chemicals,
including two extremely hazardous substances, or a list of hazardous chemicals stored
at its facility, on or before October 17, 1987 or within 90 days of the date that the
chemical first exceeded its threshold quantity, as required by Section 311 ofEPCRA. In
addition, no Tier I or Tier II forms were filed with the SERC, the LEPC, and the local
fire department for calendar years 1989,1990 and 1991, as mandated by Section 312 of
EPCRA. Because of the violations found at the facility, EPA proposed a penalty of
$86,480.
Attorney: Andrea Simpson
Engineer/Scientist: Donald MacJde
34
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Region I administers an enforcement
program consisting ofboth administrative and judicial components. Administratively, the programfocuses
on the issuance of administrative complaints assessing penalties against violators of the Agency's hazardous
waste management regulations. In FY 93, the Region issued five such complaints that proposed penalties
in the amount of $425,306. In addition, the Region made three civil referrals for the remediatiDn of
contaminated facilities.
RCRA Administrative Complaints Issued
FY91
FY92
FY90
FY89
FY93
During FY 93, Region I achieved settlements of a record dollar value for administrative and judicial
RCRA penalties. Under the terms of the twelve administrative consent agreements, the Region assessed
penalties totaling $572,028. This past fiscal year also represents the results of Region I's redoubled
efforts in identifying innovative supplemental environmental projects as part of the settlement process.
Because of these efforts, the RCRA program approved five SEPs valued at $1,433,051 during FY 93,
up from two SEPs hi FY 92 worth $191,000. These endeavors resulted in a $1,242,051 increase in SEP
values, which is more than 7.5 times the prior year's value. The drop in penalties assessed (see graph on
page 37) may be attributable to the increase in SEP dollars.
HIGHLIGHT: PIONEER PLASTICS CORPORATION
COMPLAINT/SETTLEMENT
On February 1,1993, EPA brought an enforcement action under Section 3008 of RCRA
against Pioneer Plastics Corporation, of Auburn, ME, a manufacturer of decorative
laminates, for violating the Maine Hazardous Waste Regulations and federal land
disposal restrictions. The complaint proposed the assessment of a penalty in the amount
35
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
of $291,169. On September 9, 1993, Pioneer Plastics Corporation and EPA entered
into a settlement agreement of the Region's 1993 RCRA administrative action against
the company. EPA and Pioneer agreed to settle this matter for $198,054.
Attorney: Tanya Nunn
Engineer/Scientist: Elaine Stanley
RCRA Consent Agreements and Orders Issued
FY89
FY92
FY93
HIGHLIGHT: ROSE HILL SUPERFUND SITE ORDER
On March 26, 1993, the Region issued a unilateral administrative order to the Town of
South Kingstown and the Town of Narragansett, ordering specified activities at the
Rose Hill Regional Landfill Superfund Site in South Kingstown, RI. The order -was
issued pursuant to Section 7003(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The Rose Hill Regional Landfill Site is a solid waste landfill located on approximately
70 acres on Rose Hill Road, South Kingstown, RI. The Site was listed on the National
Priorities List on October 4, 1989.
Sampling visits conducted by EPA during the summer of 1992 detected concentrations
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including approximately 4,000parts per million
(ppm) of vinyl chloride, and indicated the presence of combustible gases, including
methane, in soil gas in the vicinity of residential dwellings abutting the Landfill. Based
upon these investigations, EPA personnel determined that site conditions warranted a
time-critical removal action to abate, minimize, or mitigate the danger to the public
health posed by exposure to vinyl chloride or an explosion caused by methane gas.
Respondents, the Towns of South Kingstown and Narragansett, RI, owned and operated
the landfill when solid and hazardous wastes were disposed of there. The Respondents
are subject to the jurisdiction of Section 7003(a) of RCRA because they caused or
contributed to the disposal of solid and hazardous wastes at the Site.
36
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
The unilateral administrative order requires the implementation of work designed to
mitigate or minimize the danger or threat to the public health, -welfare and the environment
posed by methane and vinyl chloride. In particular, the administrative order and its
attached scope of-work require the Respondents to install, maintain, and monitor methane
alarms and to install a residential gas mitigation system.
Attorney:
On Scene Coordinator:
Remedial Project Manager:
Mark Lowe
Dean Tagliaferro
David Newton
Penalties t-
S1000K
S750K
5500K
S250K
SOK
Assessed in RCRA Consent Agreements
$98,211
*•--
5207,650
^
$530,953,
/
5878,800
$572,028
FY89 FY90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93
HIGHLIGHT: MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY SETTLEMENT
On June 21, 1993, EPA entered into a Consent Agreement and Order with Monsanto
Company in Springfield, MA to resolve a RCRA administrative penalty action. Monsanto
will pay a minimum cash penalty of$26,750. Monsanto will also perform a Supplemental
Environmental Project (SEP) at a minimum cost of $160,500. Monsanto will receive an
$80,250 credit toward settlement upon completion of the SEP. As part of the SEP,
Monsanto has proposed to install equipment to its melamine resin manufacturing process
that would enable the company to recover methanolfrom the methanol-rich distillate
waste stream that is currently generated at a rate of three million pounds per year.
Monsanto estimates that the recovery will result in a 60% reduction of the waste stream,
a 1.8 million pound per year reduction.
Attorney:
Engineer/Scientist:
Douglas Luckerman
Bryan Olson
37
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
HIGHLIGHT: TERADYNE INC. SETTLEMENT
On July 19, 1993, Teradynelnc. and EPA entered into a settlement of the Region's 1991
RCRA enforcement action against the company. This matter was settled for a penalty of
$50,000 and performance of two Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). Teradyne,
a manufacturer of soldering products, will expend approximately $800,000 for the
purchase and installation of solvent replacement units, one at the Nashua facility
(approximate cost of $350,000), and one at the Boston facility (approximate cost of
$450,000). Teradyne has certified that it is presently in compliance -with RCRA
requirements.
Attorney: Tanya Nunn
Engineer/Scientist: Elaine Stanley
HIGHLIGHT: ENGELHARD CORPORATION ORDER
On September 9, 1993, Region I issued a Consent Order, pursuant to Section 3008(h) of
RCRA, to the Engelhard Corporation. The Englehardfacility was involved in the rotting
of steel and titanium, the fabricating of uranium fuel elements, and the manufacturing
of precious metals into wire andflatstock. In the Consent Order, Engelhard agreed to
perform the following activities at its Plainville, MA facility: 1) investigate and determine
the nature and extent of contamination that has resulted from site activities at 20 Areas
of Concern; 2) implement four stabilization measures to stabilize certain releases or
limit exposures to hazardous wastes and/or hazardous constituents; and 3) propose
cleanup standards (Media Protection Standards). The stabilization measures, which
will be performed early in the process, include installation of a ground water pump and
treat system and the removal and/or treatment of highly contaminated soils in the southern
portion of the facility.
Voluntary investigations conducted by the company before issuance of the Consent Order
revealed significant contamination at the facility, which has now ceased operations.
Attorney: Andrea Simpson
Engineer/Scientist: Robert Brackett
The RCRA enforcement efforts focused on multi-media actions during FY 93. Of the five multi-media
actions settled during FY 93, each had a RCRA component. The largest multi-media settlement involved
the United Technologies Corporation (UTC). Region I collected the largest settlement in RCRA
history from United Technologies Corporation. UTC agreed to pay $5,301,910 (RCRA penalty:
$3,701,910 and Water penalty: $1,600,000) and to conduct an audit of its environmental management
systems at 26 facilities. The Dexter Corporation agreed to settle a RCRA and Water action for
$13,000,000. The penalties associated with RCRA violations total $3,800,000. The facility also
38
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
acquiesced to closing portions of the facility and to perform some corrective action work at the facility.
The total value of the RCRA injunctive relief exceeds $10,000,000. EPA assessed $90,000 under
RCRA and $10,000 under the CWA and obtained approximately $1,500,000 worth of injunctive relief
fromMTD Products, Inc. and Columbia Manufacturing Company, Inc. AVCO/Textron Lycoming
agreed to settle a joint RCRA and TSCA action for $151,625 ($84,500 for the TSCA violations and
$67,125 for the RCRA violations), and to complete a SEP worth approximately $434,800. Furthermore,
Coastal Metal Finishing, Me. agreed to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $100,00 to
settle a RCRA/EPCRA enforcement action.
UTC, Dexter, and Columbia were settled by judicial consent decree, and Avco and Coastal were
administrative settlements.
I
EPA Region 1 RCRA Inspections:
FY 1 989 to FY 1 993
STATE
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
TOTALS:
Fiscal Year
1989
43
7
13
4
2
0
69
1990
49
3
19
3
3
3
80
1991
65
5
28
1
9
5
113
1992
24
2
28
5
8
0
67
1993
17
2
24
0
14
0
57
Source: RCRIS, the RCRA program data management system data as of 12/20/93. Data reflects number of inspections
jonducted, not facilities inspected.
T-WASTE2 VSD
39
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
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 93, there was an increase in the
number of administrative actions and a decrease in civil referrals. The states issued 338 informal actions
and conducted over 1,200 inspections.
State RCRA Enforcement Totals:
FY1989toFY1993
TYPE OF ACTION
Notices of Violation
Orders
Referrals for Civil Actions
Criminal Actions
Fiscal Year
1989
398
108
18
0
1990
488
102
18
2
1991
508
59
37
1
1992
384
35
26
0
1993
338
I
i
\
37
16
0
T-WASTE1.VSD
40
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
PESTICIDES
FY 93 was record-setting in terms of penalties assessed and an all around very busy year for the pesticide
program in Region I. During this period, EPA pesticide staff, in cooperation with inspectors from the
State Lead Agencies, conducted twelve inspections pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Under the terms of Cooperative Agreements, the designated State Lead
Agencies (SLA) are delegated primary enforcement responsibilities concerning all FIFRA use-related
inspections and do the bulk of the field work.
Region I initiated a total of 23 enforcement actions for violations of FIFRA during FY93. These
actions included: fifteen Notices of Warning, four administrative civil complaints, two formal pesticide
product recalls, and two Stop Sale, Use and Removal Orders. These actions allege violations of either
FIFRA's registration requirements, regulations governing ialse and misleading claims, or pesticide product
misbranding.
In issuing four administrative civil complaints in FY 93, EPA proposed the largest fines ever, in terms of
total dollarvalue($110,500),forthe Region I pesticide program. EPA entered into a consent agreement
with one respondent which assessed a final penalty of $17,500. EPA also entered into three additional
consent agreements with recipients of Civil Complaints carried over from FY 92. These three agreements
assessed final penalties totaling $4,872.
HIGHLIGHT: REGION I PESTICIDE PROGRAM
SETS PENALTY RECORD
In FY 93, the Region I pesticide program established a new program record when it
issued four administrative civil complaints with proposed penalties totaling $110,500.
These penalties ranged in value from $21,000 to $37,000 and addressed a number of
the more serious FIFRA violations, including product container misbranding, sale and/or
distribution of unregistered pesticides, and numerous allegations for selling pesticides
•while making claims -which were not accepted by EPA during the registration review
process.
FIFRA requires that all pesticides be registered by EPA before they can be sold and/or
distributed in the US, and has very specific language requirements which a container
label must (and must not) bear. FIFRA also limits any claims made by the product to
only those which can be adequately supported with test data submitted at the time of
application for registration. FIFRA establishes maximum penalties of $5,000 per
violation per day.
A ttorney: Greg Dain
Engineers/Scientists: Bob Kalayjian andSharlene Speizer
41
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
As part of a national initiative which picked up steam in FY 93, the Region I office worked in close
partnership with EPA HQ and the State Lead Agencies to guarantee that hospital disinfectants, particularly
those which claim to work at "cold" temperatures, were in fact efficacious. EPA targeted and collected
a number of these products and conducted laboratory tests to ensure they satisfied their claims. As a
result of this initiative, the EPA Region I office issued two Stop Sale, Use and Removal Orders and
followed up with two Formal Recalls against two separate Region I distributors of these cold sterilizing
solutions, actions which resulted in the immediate removal of these ineffective products from the market
as well as from those hospital establishments which had been using them. The recall is considered one
of the highest level FIFRA enforcement actions and had not been used in Region I for several years.
The six EPA Region I states were also very busy with their pesticide enforcement programs during
FY 93. Overall, the State Lead Agencies (SLAs) conducted a total of 2,196 pesticide-related inspections
or approximately 145% of their cooperative agreement grant projections. Five of the six SLAs exceeded
their commitments by at least 15%.
Also, Region I SLAs initiated a total of 467 enforcement actions. The majority of these actions consisted
of the issuance of a written "notice of warning" and involved violations of recordkeeping and marketplace
requirements. The Region I State Lead Agencies also collected over $79,000 in penalties for
pesticide-related violations during FY 93.
State FIFRA Enforcement Totals:
FY 1 989 to FY 1993
TYPE OF ACTION
Civil Complaints
Referrals for
Criminal Action
Inspections
Fiscal Year
1989
12
2
2,496
1990
*125
0
2,573
1991
14
1
2,203
1992
18
1
2,039
1993
3
0
2,196
* Includes eight referrals to the Connecticut Attorney General, 63 civil complaints issued by Maine for Diquat misuse, and
two referrals to the Massachusetts Attorney General.
T-PEST01 VSD
42
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Toxic SUBSTANCES
In FY 93, the Region maintained a strong presence hi enforcing the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). The Region issued or settled enforcement actions for violations of pofychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) regulations, chemical manufacturing and importing provisions (Core TSCA) and
asbestos-in-schools requirements. The 23 cases issued in FY 93 proposed penalties in excess of
$2,400,000. In the Core TSCA program, the Region settled its first enforcement actions and issued its
first complaint for violations of TSCA's testing rules.
HIGHLIGHT: COMPLAINT ISSUED TO ALTANA, INC.
FOR VIOLATION OF CHEMICAL TESTING RULES
On September 30, 1993, Region I issued its first Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Section 4 civil administrative complaint to Altana, Inc., ofWallingford, CT, proposing
assessment ofapenalty of$75,000. BYK-Chemie USA, an independent operating division
of Altana, Inc., self-disclosed the violations of TSCA Section 4 testing rules resulting
from the importation of four subject chemicals without notice to the Agency or
participation in required toxicity testing on the chemicals.
Attorney: Cindy Lewis
Engineer/Scientist: Kim Schweisberg
TSCA Administrative Complaints Issued:
FY 1 989 to FY 1 993
TYPE OF CASE
PCBs
ASBESTOS
CORE TSCA
Fiscal Year
1989
18
3
N/A
1990
19
14
N/A
1991
24
4
2
1992
16
5
3
1993
19
0
4
T-TOXIC1 VSD
43
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
TSC A Section 4 testing rules are promulgated to gather toxicity information on chemicals already existing
in commerce. Companies that manufacture or import chemicals with unknown risk have an obligation
to participate in the chemical-specific testing. This information is needed to assess ongoing risks to
human health and the environment and to determine if further regulation on the manufacture, use or
disposal of the chemicals is necessary.
Also in FY 93, the Region continued to actively pursue incorporation of supplemental environmental
projects (SEPs) in case settlements. Case settlements in FY 93 included a total of more than $1,000,000
in penalties. In addition, respondents agreed to spend more than $450,000 to undertake SEPs intended
to benefit the environment or human health.
HIGHLIGHT: SETTLEMENT WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF
NEW HAVEN, CT INCORPORATES INNOVATIVE
AUDITING AND TRAINING PROGRAM
On August JO, 1993, EPA Region I approved the settlement of claims alleged in a civil
administrative complaint issued in December, 1990 against the Housing Authority of
the City of New Haven, a federally funded low-income housing provider. The complaint
alleged violations of regulations governing polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs ")
uncovered during an inspection in June, 1990, of an unoccupied, seven-building,
low-income housing complex known as the Elm Haven Extension Housing project in
New Haven. Specifically, the Housing Authority was cited by EPA for failing to properly
dispose of PCBs, failing to maintain records concerning PCBs, and failing to properly
mark and store PCB transformers. The Elm Haven complex was built in the 1950s and
demolished in 1990.
The settlement requires the Housing Authority, in lieu of paying a penalty, to spend at
least $112,000 on an environmental compliance program designed to protect public
housing residents from future environmental risks through better identification and
reporting of potentially hazardous conditions involving pollutants such as PCBs, asbestos,
lead, pesticides, and rodenticides. The settlement requires the Housing Authority to
hire an environmental consultant to train Housing Authority personnel at all levels in
recognizing and reporting environmental problems, as well as to perform an
environmental audit of all 32 Housing A uthority properties. This settlement evidences
EPA's commitment to principles of environmental justice and provides a direct benefit
to the low-income tenants whom Respondent serves.
Attorney: Hugh Martinez
Engineer/Scientist: Marianne Milette
44
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
HIGHLIGHT: SETTLEMENT WITH UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
INCLUDES $62,500 PENALTY, PCB REMOVAL
AND TRAINING PROGRAM
On March 10, 1993, the Agency settled a TSCA administrative action against the
University of New Hampshire in Durham, NHfor violation of PCB regulations. The
case was settled for a penalty of $62,500 and a supplemental environmental project
(SEP) with an estimated value of$271,000. The project included removing and disposing
of three PCB transformers and 28 PCB-contaminated transformers, and sponsoring,
organizing, presenting and financing a one-day seminar on the management ofPCBs
for area schools, colleges and universities.
The removal of all PCB items from the University eliminates the possibility of future
Penalties in TSCA Administrative Actions:
FY 1 989 to FY 1 993
CATEGORY
PCBs
Proposed in Complaint
Assessed
ASBESTOS
Proposed in Complaint
Assessed
CORE TSCA
Proposed in Complaint
Assessed
Fiscal Year
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
1993
$1,625,600
$635,600
$0
$47,875
$794,000
$447,889
Note: There is no 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.
T-TOXIC2VSD
45
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
violations and potential releases into the environment at this facility. The seminar for
area schools, colleges and universities -will help to ensure the future compliance of this
portion of the regulated community that has exhibited a poor compliance history.
Attorney: Tom Olivier
Engineer/Scientist: Tony Palermo
State Activities under TSCA
While none of the New England states are formally delegated the authority to manage the programs
implemented under TSCA, the states play an important role in the PCB and asbestos-in-school programs.
Under the PCB program, the states of Mame, New Hampshire and Connecticut perform the majority of
the PCB inspections in their respective states. They conducted a total of 203 inspections in FY 93.
They also assisted EPA in case development activities. Under the asbestos program, all six New England
states conduct inspections. In FY 93, they performed 263 inspections under federal grants.
Decentralization to the states of the PCB and asbestos programs remains a priority in Region I. The
PCB grants for Maine, New Hampshire and Connecticut include, or will include, 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.
46
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
FEDERAL FACILITIES
Federal statutes mandate that federal agencies comprywith federal, state, and local environmentalpoUution
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, EPA enforces Section 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly referred to as Superfund, which 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.
la addition, EPA has published a 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.
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 vioktions of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA).
47
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Nationally, the Federal Facilities Program was 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 Superftmd Federal Facility Program.
I. Multi-Media Federal Facility Program
The Region I Multi-Media Federal Facility Program goals and activities 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 continues to
be active. Potentially environmentally significant federal facilities were targeted for multi-media
inspections. In FY 93, Region I continued to emphasize a multi-media enforcement approach
under which the regional and state staffs conducted comprehensive facility-wide inspections to
determine whether the facilities were in compliance with environmental laws.
The Region conducted six multi-media federal facility inspections in FY 93 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
The Region has conducted sixteen multi-media inspections of federal facilities since 1990.
In FY 93, Region I initiated its first two RCRA administrative enforcement actions under the
Federal Facility Compliance Act. The actions were against the Rhode Island Air National
Guard and the Naval Construction Battalion Center, Davisville, RI.
In FY 93, Region I added an environmental justice ranking factor to its prioritization and
ranking system for multi-media inspections of federal facilities. This ranking factor identifies
high minority and/or low income areas at federal faculties located in Region I. In FY 94, the
Region will begin using the environmental justice ranking factor in its selection of federal
facilities for multi-media inspections.
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 400 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 hi 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 k Region I and provide active outreach
and technical assistance to facilities.
48
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
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 93, Region I conducted multi-media inspections at six federal facilities in New
England: New London Naval Submarine Base; Westover Air Force Base; Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Davisville; U.S. Coast Guard Academy; Brunswick Naval
Air Station; and South Weymouth Naval Air Station. The inspections -were conducted
under the EPA Office of Enforcement National Multi-media Enforcement Initiative, and
included reviews for compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. The Region
also plans to conduct six multi-media federal facility inspections in FY 94.
Multi-media Federal Facilities Program Coordinator: Anne Fenn
HIGHLIGHT: RCRA ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS AGAINST TWO FEDERAL FACILITIES
In FY 93, Region I brought its first two RCRA administrative enforcement actions against
federal facilities under the Federal Facility Compliance Act. The Region issued an
administrative complaint against the Rhode Island Air National Guard (RIANG) for
violations of RCRA land disposal restrictions and certain provisions of the State's
hazardous waste laws. The complaint did not propose a penalty because the violations
occurred before the effective date of the Act's penalty provisions. The Region and
RIANG entered into a Consent Agreement and Order in which RIANG agreed to comply
with all applicable federal and state hazardous waste laws.
The Region also issued an administrative complaint against the Naval Construction
Battalion Center, Davisville, which included a proposed civil penalty of $101,062. The
complaint alleged numerous RCRA violations, includingfailure of the facility to properly
conduct hazardous waste determinations, to retain copies of notices on site for certain
shipments of waste restricted from disposal, to provide annual hazardous waste training
to employees who manage hazardous waste, to maintain a written training program and
other required records for employees who handle or manage hazardous waste, to label
hazardous waste containers with the dates of accumulation, and to conduct weekly
container inspections.
Attorneys: Tanya Nunn and Douglas Luckerman
Engineer/Scientist: Ken Rota
49
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
HIGHLIGHT: COMPREHENSIVE GROUNDWATER MONITORING
AND EVALUATION INSPECTION CONDUCTED AT
U.S. ARMY ENGINE PLANT, STRATFORD, CT
In FY 93, Region I conducted a comprehensive groundwater monitoring and evaluation
inspection (CME) at the Textron-Lycoming U.S. Army Engine Plant, a government-
owned contractor-operated facility located in Stratford, CT, as part the National CME
initiative established by EPA Headquarters Office of Waste Programs Enforcement.
This inspection was conducted as part of a national effort to ensure that the nation's
most significant and environmentally sensitive federal facilities are complying with all
federal groundwater monitoring and assessment requirements.
Engineer/Scientist: Ken Rota
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
tune-consuming. The Region completed the evaluation of fourteen federal facilities in FY 93 in addition
to evaluations for nineteen facilities completed hi FY 90-92.
As a result of the evaluations completed to date, nine federal facilities in Region I have been listed on the
National Priorities List (NPL). In addition, in FY 93, EPA proposed six other Region I federal facilities
for listing on the NPL, and solicited public comment on the proposed listings. The Agency expects to
issue its final determination on the proposed listings hi FY 94.
Section 120 of CERCLA requires EPA to enter into an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with facilities
listed on the NPL 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
which can be enforced by citizens under the CERCLA citizen suit provisions.
Region I has completed negotiations and signed lAGs at eight federal facilities in the Region. The
Region expects to complete IAG negotiations hi 1994 with the Naval Submarine Base, New London,
CT, the remaining Region I federal facility on the NPL. Substantive investigation and cleanup activities
are underway at all nine facilities.
50
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
HIGHLIGHT: STIPULATED PENALTIES ASSESSED AGAINST
AIR FORCE AT LORING AIR FORCE BASE NPL SITE
LoringAir Force Base, located in Limestone, ME, is an NPL Superfund Site and is also
a closure base under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. The Air
Force is conducting the cleanup under an Inter agency Agreement (IAG) -which includes
the Air Force, EPA and Maine as parties. On May 19,1993, the Air Force agreed to pay
stipulated penalties in the amount of$50,000 for failure to meet enforceable IAG
deadlines for deliverables. The Air Force also agreed that in the future EPA may assess
stipulated penalties under the FFAfor any documents which are technically incomplete.
This was the Region's first assessment of stipulated penalties against a federal facility
under an IAG and reflects the Region's efforts to ensure that Department of Defense
components -will submit technically complete documents in a timely manner at federal
facility NPL sites.
A ttorney: Robert DiBiccaro
Engineer/Scientist: Johanna Hunter
HIGHLIGHT: SUPERFUND RECORDS OF DECISION
SIGNED IN FY 93
In FY 93, seven Records of Decision -were signed for Region I federal facilities on the
National Priorities List. Region I cleanup decisions for these sites are as follows: Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Davisville - PCB remediation; Naval Education and
Training Center, Newport - McAllister Point Landfill capping; Brunswick Naval Air
Station - Sites 5 &6 asbestos remediation and Site 8 disposal site remediation; Pease
Air Force Base - groundwater remediation and Landfill 5 capping; and Otis A ir National
Guard Base/Massachusetts Military Reservation - Landfill 1 capping.
A ttorneys: Beth Tomasello and Robert DiBiccaro
Engineers/Scientists: Michael Daly, Meghan Cassidy and Paul Marchessault
HIGHLIGHT: BASE CLOSURE UPDATE
There are five Region I federal facilities on the National Priorities List which have been
scheduled to close under recent base closure legislation: Pease Air Force Base; Loring
Air Force Base; Fort Devens Army Installation; Naval Construction Battalion Center,
Davisville; and Army Materials Technology Laboratory. 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, and
reuse/development authorities. Region I has allowed the transfer of parcels of land at
51
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
closing bases only after ensuring that the environmental cleanup -willproceed unimpaired
or that the parcel is uncontaminated.
Attorney: Robert DiBiccaro
Engineer/Scientist: Mary Sanderson
In FY 93, Region I began developing its regional implementation plan under EPA's Model Accelerated
Cleanup (MAC) program. In anticipation of new resources that are expected to support the base closure
initiative, the Region began preparing to hire additional technical team members as well as additional
project managers to fully staff the five NPL closing bases that are a part of this program in Region I.
52
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
SUMMARY ENFORCEMENT TABLES: FY 89 - FY 93
Region 1 Administrative Penalty Enforcement Actions
Initiated: FY 1 989 to FY 1 993
ACTION
Clean Air Act 1
Clean Water Act
Emergency Planning
and Community
Right-to-Know Act
Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
Toxic Substances
Control Act
TOTALS:
Fiscal Year
1989
16
15
4
8
21
64
1990
13
25
5
14
33
90
1991
16
24
4
17
30
91
1992
7
25
19
3
4
24
82
1993
23
17
17
4
3
23
87
FY 1992 was the first year of implementation of administrative penalty authority under the Clean Air Act.
T-SUM01 VSD
53
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPUSHMENTS REPORT
Region 1 Administrative Non-Penalty Enforcement
Actions Initiated: FY 1 989 to FY 1 993
ACTION
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation
and Liability Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
TOTALS:
Fiscal Year
1989
31
34
18
1
84
1990
38
49
22
8
117
1991
47
*98
13
3
161
1992
61
*163
13
3
240
1993
19
*147
15
88
269
* Includes Requests for Information
T-SUM02VSD
54
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Region 1 Administrative Penalty & Non-Penalty Enforcement
Actions Initiated: FY 1 989 to FY 1 993
ACTION
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation
and Liability Act
Emergency Planning
and Community
Right-to-Know Act
Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Toxic Substances
Control Act
TOTALS:
Fiscal Year
1989
31
50
18
15
4
13
1
21
153
1990
38
62
22
25
5
17
8
33
210
1991
47
*114
13
24
4
17
3
30
252
1992
68
*188
13
19
3
14
3
24
332
1993
42
*164
15
17
4
**5
88
23
358
* Includes Requests for Information. ** Includes two non-penalty enforcement actions.
T-SUM03VSO
55
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPUSHMENTS REPORT
Region 1 Civil Referrals for Litigation:
FY 1 989 to FY 1 993
ACTION
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation
and Liability Act
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Toxic Substances
Control Act
Emergency Planning
and Community
Right-to-Know Act
TOTALS:
Fiscal Year
1989
1
10
15
4
0
0
0
30
1990
10
12
13
4
0
0
0
39
1991
6
9
10
5
0
2
0
32
1992
2
5
9
3
1
0
0
20
1993
3
3
11
3
1
0
1
22
T-SUM04VSD
56
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Region 1 Criminal Referrals to the Department of Justice:
FY1989toFY1993
ACTION
Referrals
Fiscal Year
1989
8
1990
8
1991
7
1992
10
1993
7
T-SUM05VSD
57
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPUSHMENTS REPORT
Comparison of EPA Region 1 and the New England States'
Enforcement Activity in FY 93
Air
Drinking Water
Hazardous Waste
Water
Pesticides
i
TOTALS:
Total Number of Actions
Initiated by the Six
New England States
Administrative
Complaints/
Orders
75
*145
37
24
35
316
Civil
Referrals
19
3
16
9
3
50
Number of
EPA Region I
Actions
Administrative
Complaints/
Orders
42
88
5
17
4
156
Civil
Referrals
3
0
3
3
0
9
* Includes "exemption determinations"
i
T-SUM06VSD
58
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
ABN
ADR
AFS
AIRS
CAA
CEM
CERCLA
CFC
CID
CME
CMS
CWA
DEP
EE/CA
EPCRA
EDFRA
IAG
IDEA
LEPC
MAC
METS
MSDS
NARS
NESHAP
NPDES
NPL
NSPS
OMB
PCB
PRP
RCRA
RFA
RI/FS
ROD
SACM
SDWA
SEP
SERC
SIP
SLA
APPENDIX A: LIST OF ACRONYMS
Acid and Base/Neutral compounds
Alternative Dispute Resolution
AIRS Facility Subsystem
Aerometric Information Retrieval System
Clean Air Act
Continuous Emission Monitors
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(commonly known as Superfund)
Chlorofluorocarbons
Criminal Investigation Division (EPA)
Comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring and Evaluation inspection
Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Clean Water Act
Department of Environmental Protection (state)
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
Interagency Agreement
Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis
Local Emergency Planning Committee
Model Accelerated Cleanup progiam
Multi-media Enforcement Tickler System
Material Safety Data Sheets
National Asbestos Registration System
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Priorities List
New Source Performance Standards
Office of Management and Budget
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Potentially Responsible Party
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA Facility Assessment
Remedial Investigation/feasibility Study
Record of Decision
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
Safe Drinking Water Act
Supplemental Environmental Project
State Emergency Response Commission
State Implementation Plan (state)
State Lead Agencies
59
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPUSHMENTS REPORT
SV Significant Violators
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
UAO Unilateral Administrative Order
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
60
-------
FY 93 ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
61
------- |