no
.c- S
903R93015
U.S. EPA Region III
Regional Center for Environmental
information
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Fnik'dolphia, PA 19103
ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 1992
Rcgionol Center for hmjronrnenra! /nfon
IIS FPA Region 111
!650AixhSt
Philadelphia, P\ T9IO!
Prepared by:
EPA Region III
February, 1993
-------
Dear Reader:
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III
and the environmental agencies of Delaware, the District of
Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia
regulate hundreds of thousands of sources of pollution in the
Middle Atlantic states through a strong and active enforcement
program. The goal of the Region III enforcement program is not
only to ensure that the regulated community complies with the
permits, plans, and regulations but also, most importantly, to
see that public health and the environment are consistently
protected by our work.
As you review the Region III FY'92 End-of-Year Enforcement
Accomplishment Report it will become apparent that this past
fiscal year has proven to be a successful one for our enforcement
program. We have exceeded some of our past accomplishments and
have marked several major milestones in the effort to protect our
environment. These milestones include:
o numerous record-breaking penalties and the continued
strong growth of the Region III enforcement program;
o development of a risk-based, multi-media enforcement
program which will reduce the threat to public health
and the environment from regulated and unregulated
pollution sources in the Region;
o commitments from private industries and Federal
facilities to substantially reduce the releases of
pollutants beyond the levels required by law;
o improved multi-media targeting and inspection
capabilities;
o incorporation of special pollution prevention
initiatives into consent orders or as a condition
of enforcement settlements; and
o strong participation in national enforcement
initiatives directed against high-risk pollutants
and violators.
While we are proud of our efforts in enforcement and our
actual achievements in FY'92, we also recognize that we must
continue to set our goals high so that we can exceed our
expectations in the future.
Thank you for your interest in EPA and our environmental
enforcement programs. We also extend our thanks to the dedicated
people in Region III and our state colleagues for a successful
enforcement year.
Stanley Lr Laskowski
Acting Regional Administrator
-------
Dear Reader:
On behalf of all the enforcement personnel in Region III of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), I am gratified to
highlight the Region's accomplishments in enforcing the nation's
environmental laws during the past fiscal year. EPA's regions
are the prime implementers of the Agency's enforcement programs,
and enforcement is a principal part of what the Region does.
During FY'92, Region III posted significant increases in criminal
enforcement actions; concluded a number of major cases involving
significant air and water pollution with record setting penalties
and millions of dollars in pollution control expenditures;
initiated an active program for enforcement of the new Oil
Pollution Act; negotiated a large number of pollution prevention/
waste minimization provisions in enforcement settlements; and
increased the value of its settlement of Superfund actions many-
fold. All of these accomplishments occurred against a background
of continuing enforcement activities in all programs. As a
result of improved enforcement targeting and screening, and more
effective coordination of enforcement activities among the
various environmental media programs, EPA's enforcement
activities have become more closely related to the violations of
higher risk and greater strategic importance.
Enforcement of environmental laws at the national government
level is but a part of overall environmental law implementation
in this country. The states of Region III and elsewhere remain
the primary enforcers of most of the environmental laws. EPA is
ever mindful that the cases taken and matters handled at the
national level should be designed to fit into the overall picture
in a way which assures that everyone affected by the
environmental laws (and that is everyone!) receives a full and
fair measure of the benefits these laws are designed to assure.
We think we are getting better and more effective at achieving
this result. We hope that this document summarizing our
accomplishments confirms that belief. In any event, we welcome
your evaluation of our enforcement programs and encourage you to
share your reactions with us.
Marcia E. Mulkey
Regional Counsel
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ii
LIST OF TABLES ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii
ABBREVIATIONS iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS V
I. OVERALL ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS AND TRENDS 1
A. Administrative Enforcement Actions 1
B. civil Enforcement Actions 3
c. Criminal Enforcement Actions 5
II. STATE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY 6
III. INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM SUMMARIES 11
A. Clean Air Act (CAA) 11
B. Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) 18
C. Clean Water Act (CWA) 23
D. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ... 28
E. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 32
F. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)/Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act(FIFRA)/Emergency and Community Right-to-Know
Act(EPCRA) 34
IV. MULTI-MEDIA ENFORCEMENT 38
A. Multi-Media Inspections 38
B. Tier I/Tier II: Case Screening 39
C. Cross Media Risk-Based Initiative 39
D. Chesapeake Bay/Federal Facilities Initiatives ... 40
E. Significant Multi-Media Case Summaries 41
V. CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 45
VI. SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES .... 49
A. Benzene Initiative 49
B. CAA New Administrative Authority Initiative .... 49
C. FIFRA Disinfectant Pesticidal Initiative 50
D. PA Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Initiative . . 50
E. Information Gathering Authority Initiative .... 51
F. Illegal Operators Initiative 51
G. SDWA State Enforcement Initiative 52
H. SDWA Nitrate Initiative 53
I. Asbestos NESHAP Landfill Initiative 53
J. Industrial Organic Chemicals Initiative 53
K. Primary Metals Initiative 54
Appendix A: Case Screening Summary
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure l. Trend of Administrative Enforcement Actions ... 1
Figure 2. Civil Referrals 3
Figure 3. Five Year Trend of Collected Penalties 4
Figure 4. FY'92 Collected Penalties 4
Figure 5. Criminal Referrals 5
Figure 6. CAA Program Administrative Actions 11
Figure 7. Air Program Civil Referrals 12
Figure 8. Air Violations by Type 13
Figure 9. Significant Violator Resolutions 13
Figure 10. CERCLA Program Enforcement Actions 18
Figure 11. CWA Program Administrative Actions 23
Figure 12. NPDES Enforcement Actions 24
Figure 13. Section 404 (CWA) Enforcement Actions 24
Figure 14. RCRA Program Enforcement Actions 28
Figure 15. PWSS (SDWA) Administrative Enforcement Actions . 32
Figure 16. UIC (SDWA) Administrative Enforcement Actions . . 33
Figure 17. Toxics and Pesticides Programs Administrative
Complaints 35
LIST OF TABLES
4
Table 1. FY'92 Administrative Enforcement Actions .... 2
Table 2. FY'92 State Enforcement Actions 6
Table 3. FY'92 Air Compliance Major Facilities 12
Table 4. FY'92 Criminal Enforcement Statistics 45
ii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Region Ill's Enforcement Program for FY'92 remained consistent
and strong when comparing the performance of past years. Below are
some of the highlights of this program.
o Region III issued 806 administrative enforcement actions during
FY'92.
o Forty civil referrals were made by Region III to the Department
of Justice.
o FY'92 saw criminal referrals grow to 15; the highest level of
criminal referral activity in the history of Region III.
o The Clean Air Act (CAA) enforcement program set five national
civil penalty records, including the largest civil penalty in the
history of the CAA. The total penalties obtained in CAA
settlements exceeded $14 million.
o Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) had a very strong year with the issuance of 60
administrative actions, a Region III CERCLA record.
o Gains in the number of enforcement actions taken under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) program were significant in FY'92. Included in the
total number of 70 administrative actions were 7 administrative
complaints and 9 Notices of Violations and Notices of Non-
compliance from the Spill Prevention, Containment and
Counter-measures program.
o Section 404 of the CWA, showed impressive growth in the past
year, increasing the number of Administrative Orders by three-fold.
o The Public Water System Supervision Program and the Underground
Injection Control Program (both programs are under the Safe
Drinking Water Act) marked an all-time high for the number of
Notices of Violations issued.
o The first Region III civil administrati\ce case was issued this
year for violations of the worker protection rule under the Toxic
Substances Control Act.
o Region III made significant advances under the various Regional
multi-media enforcement initiatives: Tier I/Tier II Case
Screening, Risk-Based Initiative, Chesapeake Bay Initiative and the
Federal Facilities Initiatives.
o over 40 multi-media inspections were conducted or coordinated in
FY'92 which included over 270 individual program inspections.
ill
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
AHERA - Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act
CAA - Clean Air Act
CERCLA - Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act
CWA - Clean Water Act
DMR - Discharge Monitoring
Report
DOJ - Department of Justice
EPA - Environmental Protection
Agency
EPCRA - Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act
FIFRA - Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FLMOA - Field Level Memorandum
of Agreement
FY - Fiscal Year
IAG - Inter-Agency Agreement
NESHAP - National Emissions
Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutant
NON - Notice of Non-compliance
NOV - Notice of Violation
NPDES - National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
NSPS - New Source Performance
Standards
OPA - Oil Pollution Act
PADER - Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources
PCB - Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PMN - Pre-Manufacture
Notification
PRP - Potentially Responsible
Party
PWSS - Public Water System
Supervision
RCRA - Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
SDWA - Safe Drinking Water Act
SEP - Supplemental
Environmental Project
SIP - state Implementation Plan
SNC - Significant Non-
compliance
TRI - Toxics Release Inventory
TSCA - Toxic Substances Control
Act
UAO - Unilateral Administrative
Order
UIC - Underground Injection
Control
UST - Underground Storage Tank
VOC - Volatile Organic Chemical
iv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following Branch Chiefs and their staffs contributed to
this report: Bob Boodey, James Burke, Dennis Carney, Bill Early,
Diana Escher, Cynthia Giles, Bob Greaves, Stu Kerzner, Bob Kramer,
Joe Piotrowski, Richard Pepino, Bernie Turlinski, and Neil Wise.
Information was also provided by Barbara Borden, James Butch, Sue
Canning, Larry Falkin, Martin Harrell, Larry Teller, and Mike
Vaccaro.
Jenifer Shannon, with the assistance of the Strategic Planning
and Program Integration Branch, prepared this report. This report,
particularly the historical data, has been based substantially on
the previous work of Larry Merrill. Betty Kamihira and Maria Kelly
provided editorial assistance.
-------
I. OVERALL ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS AND TRENDS
This section presents statistics and analyses of trends of the
formal enforcement actions taken by EPA Region III. These formal
enforcement actions are divided into three basic categories:
administrative actions, civil actions, and criminal actions.
A.
Administrative Enforcement Actions
Administrative actions include administrative orders and
complaints, Notices of Violation (NOVs), and Notices of Non-
compliance (NONs). These actions are initiated by EPA to order
facilities to comply with regulations or take other actions
necessary to protect the health of the public or the environment.
Administrative actions are generally taken against violators where
the infractions do not warrant civil action. The actions are used
to assess penalties sufficient to remove the economic benefit
gained by the violator, and to reflect the gravity of the risk
which the violation poses to public health or the environment.
During FY'92, Region III issued 806 administrative enforcement
actions. The five-year trend analysis for administrative actions
is shown in Figure 1.
Trend of Administrative Enforcement Actions
FY 88 - FY 92
2, MO
u
O
2,000 -
1,500 -
1,000 -
92
Figure 1
Note: In previous years, the total number of administrative orders
included both final orders and proposed orders. In order to avoid
double counting this fiscal year, only final orders were included
in the Region's total administrative orders.
-------
Table 1 provides a summary of administrative actions for each
program. Further information and analysis of program activity is
provided in the individual program summaries in Section III.
FY'92 Adm
Program
CAA
CAA- Asbestos ;
CERCLA/
EPCRA Non-313 1
CWA-NPDES
CWA-404 j
CWA-SPCC
EPCRA 313 :
FIFRA
RCRA !
RCRA-UST !
SDWA v .;;:. 7";%
TSCA ; ;:" :'-^ '!
TSCA-AHERA
OPA;
TOTAL
: * SDWA tot
33 Final Orders
included in the
inistrative
Orders £g
9
3
"- 58 . '. I
7
.'33 -.=
o
'." I-'.:.::;"1-.-. - ":
. 2 . '' '
22 ' I
4 ".":.' ;";}
52/33*
^42"' ^:'
0
3 ' ;
232 - ,;';': [
als include \
-..- Only the ;
Region III
Enforcement
implaints
15
9
....'.»... ....
11
2 '
"7 !
11, : '....,'
17
:-. i'"1:"" ' "
IT^./ ^
>^:/:v-;-;
.:;^W' . . :
SQ":r ";:
;li^; ;..v
53 : "Proposed':
Final Orders
total.
Actions
NOV/NON
14
0
0 ! "'...
i T 'V ' '.' :
: " 0- =_. "I- .'..
9 \ .;
..: ' .29 ",,-. :. ;
0
""' 0 """ :''"""
-.. 362. .
' ' 'V 37' -" ,' "V::
""" 15 '" .,
/'. .0 ; :;
474
orders and -I
5 are ;
Table 1
-------
B.
Civil Enforcement Actions
Civil enforcement actions involve cases which are referred by
EPA to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for consideration of filing
as civil cases in federal court. EPA pursues civil actions where
administrative enforcement authority is not available or
appropriate, where administrative actions have not succeeded in
achieving compliance, or when more extensive action or penalty is
appropriate. Court action is particularly appropriate when the
nature of the violation requires the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to initiate action to stop further environmental harm
or to force clean-ups. In FY'92, 40 civil referrals were made by
Region III. Figure 2 shows the number of civil referrals by
program for the past three years.
Civil Referrals
CERCLA
10 15 20
Number of ReferraIs
Figure 2
As part of the effort to deter noncompliance, EPA's
enforcement programs have developed penalty policies which recoup
any economic benefit that a noncomplying facility has realized.
Figure 3 shows the total dollar amounts of the administrative and
judicial penalties collected over the past five fiscal years.
-------
Five Year Trend of Collected Penalties
12,000,000
10,000,000 -
90 91
Fiscal Year
92
CCICLA p*naltlM tr» net. Included
th*
raootnry funds.
Figure 3
Figure 4 shows the breakdown of the administrative and
civil/judicial collected penalties for FY'92 by major individual
EPA programs.
FY'92 Collected Penalties by Individual Programs
Figure 4
CAA GENOA
OWk OCR* SOW
F i sea I Year
-------
C. Criminal Enforcement Actions
Criminal enforcement actions involve cases sent to the
DOJ/U.S. Attorney Offices for investigation and possible
prosecution in federal court. The federal environmental laws
authorize use of criminal sanctions against individuals who violate
environmental standards or statutes in a variety of circumstances.
Because of the strong stigma associated with criminal prosecution
and the potential for incarceration, criminal enforcement is EPA's
strongest remedy; its careful and selective use generates a strong
deterrent.
In FY'92 the number of criminal referrals grew from 11 to 15;
guilty pleas or verdicts grew from 6 to 17; and significantly,
individuals charged grew from 8 to 19. Case summaries can be found
in Section V which detail the pleas, fines, and imprisonments for
selected criminal enforcement actions during FY'92. This growth in
criminal enforcement can be attributed to an increase in resources
provided to the criminal program by EPA. The trend of the number of
criminal referrals for the past ten years is shown in Figure 5.
Criminal Referrals
FY B3 - FY 92
83
87 88
Fiscal Year
so 91 ae
Figure 5
-------
II. STATE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
EPA recognizes that an effective enforcement program requires
a coordinated working relationship with state agencies that have
enforcement responsibilities. In Region III, many of the EPA's
programs are delegated to the states.
Table 2 presents a summary of state enforcement activity by
program.
FY'92 State Enforcement Action Statistics
v Category " ""-: :" '
FIFRA Civil
FIFRA Criminal
FIFRA other
Enforcement Actions i
ITTIPTS*- . ': v-.'- - . ;.. ;.
f -XJTKA - ; ./ : '. ' ' -: : -
Inspections
CAA civil Referrals
CAA '-. .. = ;:'- '- ,
Administrative Orders
CAA " . :; \-.i- : l>';:':';-. : '
Court Consent Orders
KCRA complaints
RCRA Orders
RCRA Judicial
Referrals
RCRA civil Actions
RCRA Judicial Orders
RCRA Administrative
Referrals
SDWA Bilateral
Compliance Agreements
SDWA Administrative \
Orders
SDWA Criminal Filings
DC
30
0
110
387
O
*>
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
DE
4
1
101
_:33b"!
!(J -
" i & ,
;6:';
0
a
i i
o
0
0
3
2
0
MD
2
3
354
1554
- '::0 '
',12'.
:,-... ,:o =
7
3
2 '
0
0
0
0
0
0
*A
26
0
; 77
1S57
0
-" M ,
" -" 5'
7
36
1
4
4
*
'".'... 2.:
25
14
1
VA
5
0
46
1714
.- ' 1''
' ".f.35
-:. . :-l' '.
:10
9
0
O
0
3
1
7
0
mr
o
0
;:: /.32 ';
' *65 '
0
43
'.' : :- 0
-------
Significant State Case Summaries
Allegheny Ludlum pays $350,000 penalty and agrees to correct
illegal discharges and to remediate contaminated groundtrater.
On March 23, 1990, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) filed a Complaint for
Civil Penalties against defendant Allegheny Ludlum Corporation.
Allegheny Ludlum owns and operates a facility in Westmoreland and
Armstrong Counties, PA, which makes specialty steel products.
Allegheny Ludlum has an NPDES permit authorizing discharges into
the Kiski River.
In the complaint, PADER alleged discharges unauthorized by
Allegheny Ludlum's NPDES permit and discharges in violations of the
NPDES permit. PADER filed an Amendment to the complaint in 1992,
alleging the unauthorized discharges of scale from an outfall
permitted to discharge only non-contact cooling water.
Subsequent to filing the initial complaint in 1990, PADER
identified Outfalls 010, Oil and 012 as frequently discharging oil
and grease, a pollutant not permitted to be discharged. Outfall
017 was also identified as frequently discharging at a low pH and
containing nickel and chromium.
The civil penalty complaint generated two settlement documents
signed in November 1992. One document provides for phased payments
of a $350,000.00 civil penalty for violations known to the parties
In 1992. The second document is a remediation document whereby
Allegheny Ludlum has agreed to investigate and remediate the
conditions responsible for the illegal discharges at Outfalls 010,
Oil, 012 and 017 at the West Leechburg facility. The remediation
document also provides that Allegheny Ludlum will clean up oil
contaminated groundwater at a different Allegheny Ludlum Facility.
Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc* pays $3.8 million in
civil penalties and provides services valued at $300,000.
In a case imposing one of the largest environmental fines in
PA history, Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. agreed to pay
$3.8 million in civil penalties and to provide $300,000.00 worth of
goods and services for violations originating from record
falsifications. Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. also
developed and implemented institutional and procedural safeguards
at its landfills throughout PA to prevent the recurrence of events
that lead to the violations. The penalty resulted from violations
discovered at Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc.'s Lake View
-------
Landfill in Erie County, Erie, PA. PADER first learned about the
violations in July 1990, when Waste Management officials told the
State that its employees falsified records regarding the amount of
waste the landfill had accepted.
After an extensive nine month investigation, PADER determined
that Lake View Landfill employees did falsify records and illegally
accepted some 38,000 tons of municipal waste in excess of the
maximum or average daily permit limits. A Consent Agreement was
negotiated and signed on October 4, 1991.
Bankruptcy Court approves settlement requiring payment of $5.3
million toward cleanup ordered by Pennsylvania.
On November 4, 1991, the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of PA entered an Order in the H. K. Porter
bankruptcy proceedings approving a settlement between the PADER and
H. K. Porter. Under the settlement, H. K. Porter was required to
spend $5.3 million to comply with an Administrative Order issued by
PADER in 1990. The bankruptcy court approved the payment as
priority administrative expenses under Section 503 of the
Bankruptcy Code. The money was utilized to cleanup an industrial
waste dumpsite that had been used by an electrical products
manufacturing division of H.K. Porter located in Beaver County on
the north bank of the Ohio River. The dumps ite was near the south
bank of the Ohio River approximately five miles from the plant. A
citizen complaint had resulted in the Agency's discovery of the
dumps ite. The case is noteworthy because at the time of the
bankruptcy the company was not the owner of the dumpsite, having
sold the property twenty years earlier. The funds were
insufficient to cleanup the entire site, which was contaminated by
lead, PCBs and other hazardous substances.
Bear Tubular Steel restores wetland, pays $17,500 civil
penalty.
In settlement of its appeal of a PADER administrative order to
the State Environmental Hearing Board, Bear Tubular Steel agreed to
restore one-half acre of rare tidal mudflat on the Delaware River
Estuary, and to pay a civil penalty of $17,500 under the
Pennsylvania Dam Safety and Encroachment Act and the Pennsylvania
Clean Streams Law. The case was the initial enforcement action
taken under a joint initiative of PADER, EPA, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to
Protect wetlands of the Estuary. The USFWS conducts overflights of
the Estuary every 3-4 years; when the most recent was conducted in
1990, the Bear Tubular Steel site in Marcus Hook, PA was identified
as the most important of the recently-filled wetlands. While the
8
-------
filled area encompassed only one-half acre, there are only 180
acres of tidal mudflat in the state, making this half-acre
particularly precious.
The agencies agreed that this first enforcement action would
be taken by PADER, which proceeded to issue an order to Bear to
restore the wetland. After eighteen months of pursuing both pre-
hearing discovery and settlement negotiations, the company finally
submitted an adequate cleanup plan, which was accepted by PADER as
the basis for the settlement agreement. In a separate consent
assessment, a civil penalty of $17,500 was paid to settle the
company's liability under the two State laws. The company
completed the cleanup and restoration in the fall of 1992.
Cooper Industries, Inc. agrees to remediate contaminated
ground water to background quality and pays a fine of
$200,000.
On February 4, 1992, PADER and Cooper Industries, Inc., on
behalf of itself and its wholly-owned subsidiary Cooper Power
System, Inc. (collectively referred to as "Cooper"), entered into
a Consent Order and Agreement to install and operate a treatment
system to remediate groundwater contaminated with PCB-1260 and to
pay a civil penalty of $200,000.00. In approximately 1985, Cooper
merged with McGraw-Edison and became the owner of a plant engaged
in the manufacture of Power Switchgear and Power Transformers.
The plant is located in Canonsburg, PA and is adjacent to
Chartiers Creek. In approximately 1989, Cooper approached PADER
and volunteered that although the use of PCBs at the plant had been
discontinued in 1967, an area of groundwater underneath the plant
was contaminated with PCBs. Cooper was willing to design and
operate a treatment system. PADER, consistent with its long-
standing groundwater policy, insisted that Cooper agree to
remediate to background (in this case the cleanup standard for
PCBs, a non-naturally occurring substance was non-detect) . Cooper,
however, was unwilling to sign an agreement when it felt that it
was technically impossible to meet the cleanup standard. To break
the log jam, PADER drafted a unique termination clause for the
Consent Order and Agreement.
Accordingly, if Cooper is wrong in its present technical
assessment and cleans up the groundwater to background then PADER
has achieved its environmental goal. If Cooper cannot cleanup the
groundwater to background, PADER can use the findings of the
Consent Order and Agreement and the groundwater data submitted by
Cooper during the lift of the Consent Order and Agreement to build
a very strong case against Cooper to conduct further remediation.
Moreover, the termination clause forces PADER to revisit the
efficiency of the treatment system and require, if necessary, the
-------
installation of a better or different remediation system. The
creativity exhibited by PADER in this case avoided lengthy
litigation, required cleanup of contaminated groundwater and
maintained the Agency's flexibility to require improved remediation
technology in the future.
10
-------
III. INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM SUMMARIES
A.
Clean Air Act (CAA)
The Air Enforcement Branch in Region III is responsible for
enforcing the CAA which applies to over 12,000 stationary sources
of air pollution. Air emissions are regulated through the National
Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) program,
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program, State
Implementation Plans (SIPs), and New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS). The six criteria air pollutants are Volatile Organic
Chemicals (VOCs), TSP/PM10, lead, SO2, NOX, and CO.
Highlights of the CAA enforcement program for FY'92 include
the issuance of the largest Arsenic NESHAP Penalty of $1,825,000 to
Corning State College and the largest CAA Penalty of $6,700,000 to
Bethlehem Steel Corporation.
Figure 6 shows the distribution of the CAA administrative
actions over the past three years. Although the number of NOVs and
NONs has decreased from 25 to 14, this fiscal year the program
issued 15 administrative complaints resulting in a substantial
increase in administrative enforcement actions. Figure 7 plots the
number of the CAA civil referrals from FY'83 through FY'92. Since
1986 the number of referrals has been declining.
Clean Air Act Program
Administrative Actions
FY 90 - FY 92
91
Fiscal Year
Figure 6
11
-------
M
12
10
o
L.
Air Program Civ I I Referrals
FY 83 - FY 92
83 84 83
B7 OB N 90
Fiscal Year
1 82
Figure 7
Table 3 summarizes FY'92 compliance rates for major air
sources. Figure 8 shows the number of significant violators by
pollutant category during FY'92 and Figure 9 displays the
percentage of case resolutions by pollutant type. Figures 8 and 9
also demonstrate the emphasis the Region has placed on VOC
violations as well as the identification and resolution of
permitting violations, including failure to obtain required
permits.
HESHAPs
Source Review
Table 2
12
-------
Air Violations by Type
Beginning of Year and Newly Identified
FY 92
Beg. of Y«ar B Newly loan.
PWMftB/NSPS
Figure 8
Significant Violator Resolutions
FY 92 Beginning of Year Total = 72
43. OX
5.6*
6.9*
15.3X
29.2X
Figure 9
13
-------
Significant CAA Case Summaries
Bethlehem Steel Corporation consents to largest penalty in CAA
history and will make multi-million dollar investment in
Bethlehem and Johnstown facilities.
In the case U.S. and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Bethlehem
Steel Corporation (E.D. PA), on March 9, 1992, the U.S. lodged two
separate partial consent decrees with Bethlehem Steel Corporation
(BSC). Through these decrees, the largest penalty in CAA history
($6.7 million) was imposed for settlement of the CAA civil
enforcement action against BSC for two of its facilities located in
Johnstown and Bethlehem, PA.
The violations at the Johnstown facility included violations
of the NSPS for electric arc furnaces and the PA SIP. In the
partial consent decree addressing violations at the Johnstown,
Plant, BSC agreed to invest $1.6 million in pollution control
equipment and pay $1.7 million in civil penalties.
The violations at the Bethlehem facility included excess
fugitive emissions from its three coke oven batteries and blast
furnace, excess hydrogen sulfide content of the coke oven gas
consumed at the facility, and excess sulfur dioxide emission at a
boiler in violation of the NSPS. In the partial consent decree
addressing violations at the Bethlehem plan, Bethlehem agreed to
spend over $30 million dollars for the installation of new
pollution control equipment and the renovation of old equipment.
Additionally, BSC agreed to pay a civil penalty of $6.2 million
dollars, of which $5.0 million is to be paid in cash plus interest
and $1.2 million in the form of a supplemental environmental
project. The supplemental environmental project, the replacement of
coke oven battery doors, is expected to cost over $4.0 million and
result in an enforceable fugitive emission reduction of over 40%
from the coke oven doors.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation brings its MD Coke Plant into
compliance and agrees to pay $3.5 million, the third highest
penalty in CAA history.
The third highest penalty under the CAA resulted from a civil
enforcement action against Bethlehem Steel Corporation in the case
of the U.S. and State of Maryland v. Bethlehem Steel Corp (D. MD).
This settlement actually ties for third with a prior 1983 Region
III civil action settlement with what was then National Steel
Corporation's Weirton Steel Division. The Bethlehem suit involved
violations of the Maryland SIP with respect to particulate matter
emissions from coke oven batteries. During settlement of this
case, Bethlehem agreed to shut down its coke oven batteries, thus
14
-------
bringing them into compliance. This resulted in eliminating not
only all carcinogenic emissions emanating from the batteries, but
all emissions. Additionally, the consent decree imposes a civil
penalty of $3.5 million plus interest and requires BSC to comply
with all applicable SIPs and CAA permit requirements before
resuming operation of the coke oven batteries.
Corning, Inc. et. al. are to pay over $1.8 million, the
largest penalty for a violation of the inorganic arsenic
NESHAP.
A consent decree to settle the case of the U.S. v. Corning
Inc.. Ashahi. Ashahi Glass America. Inc. and Corning Ashahi Video
Products (M.D. PA) was entered on May 12, 1992 in U.S. District
Court. The consent decree requires the defendants to upgrade the
electrostatic precipitators serving the glass manufacturing
furnaces at the State College, PA plant. The upgrade will include
the installation of automatic voltage controllers, automatic rapper
controllers, and a supervisory computer. The defendants are also
required to develop and implement a detailed operation and
maintenance plan and to conduct certain stack tests and repair and
retest if either furnace is found to be out of compliance. In
addition, the defendants are required to pay $1,825,000 in civil
penalties. This penalty sum is, by far, the largest civil penalty
ever obtained in an inorganic arsenic NESHAP case, and is one of
the largest civil penalties obtained in any NESHAP case.
USX pays $700,000 for PA SIP violations at its Fairless
facility.
A consent decree to settle the case of the U.S. and
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. USX. Inc. was entered on January
21, 1992, in U.S. District Court. The consent decree provided for
the installation of emission controls at a sinter plant at USX's
Fairless Hills, PA plant, and requires compliance demonstration and
maintenance at the sinter plant, open hearth shop, and blast
furnaces at the plant. In addition, USX is required to pay
$700,000 in civil penalties. Subsequent to its execution of the
consent decree, USX ceased operation of the sources at the plant
covered by the decree.
EPA recovers penalties during bankruptcy proceeding in re:
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation.
In this case, the U.S. successfully pursued satisfaction of
unsatisfied civil penalty judgments against Wheeling-Pittsburgh for
prior CAA (SIP) and RCRA violations at Wheeling-Pittsburgh plants
in WV, PA, and OH, in the context of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceeding. The unsatisfied civil penalty totaled $5,086,552 (all
15
-------
of which, except for $17,500, were CAA penalties) and the U.S.
recovered 66.9% of that sum ($3,403,457). The terms of the
settlement are reflected in an original stipulation approved by the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court on May 11, 1989, and in an amended
stipulation approved by the Bankruptcy Court on April 26, 1991.
This case was not reported in FY'91.
Sharon Steel to comply with coke by-product NESHAP and pay
$300,000.
A consent decree to settle this benzene NESHAP case, U.S. v.
Sharon Steel Corporation/Monessen. Inc. (W.D. PA), for a coke by-
product recovery plant was lodged on August 5, 1992 and
subsequently entered on October 30, 1992. The consent decree will
require Sharon Steel/Monessen to expeditiously complete the
installation of controls necessary for compliance with the NESHAP
for benzene emissions from coke by-product recovery plants at the
former Wheeling-Pittsburgh coke plant in Monessen, PA, and will
further require Sharon Steel/Monessen to pay civil penalties of
$300,000.
Chevron to pay largest benzene NESHAP penalty to date.
A consent decree to settle the case of the U. S. v. Chevron
U.S.A. Inc. (E.D. PA) involving equipment leaks was entered on
September 15, 1992. The consent decree requires Chevron to pay
civil penalties of $1,000,000 for violations at Chevron's (formerly
Gulf Oil Corporation's) Philadelphia, PA petroleum refinery, to
conduct a comprehensive benzene NESHAP audit, to demonstrate
compliance at its benzene control device, and to maintain
compliance with the benzene NESHAP.
University City Housing Company agrees to immediate clean-up
of asbestos contaminated apartment complex.
A civil complaint was filed by the DOJ on behalf of EPA Region
III on January 27, 1992 in the U.S. District Court for Eastern PA
in the case of the U.S. v. University City Housing Company et. al.
(E.D. PA) for violations of Section 112 of the CAA asbestos NESHAP
regulations.
The complaint stemmed from an asbestos shingle removal project
conducted from November 1991 to January 1992 at the 600 unit Salem
Harbor Apartment Complex in Andalusia, PA. The improper removal
led to widespread contamination of the grounds and increased public
health risk from exposure to friable asbestos containing material.
Together with the complaint, the DOJ filed an application for
an immediate temporary order requiring University City Housing
16
-------
Company and Total Construction Incorporated to immediately abate
the imminent hazards posed by asbestos containing materials at the
site. However, DOJ and EPA agreed to allow the court to defer
consideration of the immediate order when University City Housing
stated on the record before the Judge that they would immediately
undertake a proper clean-up of the asbestos debris.
In addition to the immediate clean-up of the debris, the
government also seeks proposed civil penalties of up to $25,000 per
day for each violation of the asbestos NESHAP regulations 40 C.F.R.
Part 61 Subpart M.
Compliance order issued requiring remediation of asbestos
material and contaminated grounds.
A compliance order was issued against Publix, Inc. of
Parkersburg, WV on July 2, 1992 requiring the company to perform
short and long term remediation of asbestos containing material in
and around the facility site.
Publix, Inc. owns and operates a large multi-functional
industrial complex in Parkersburg, WV. They have conducted
periodic asbestos renovation/removal projects at the site for
several years. Upon discovery in June 1992 of widespread asbestos
containing debris at the site, Region III issued a compliance order
requiring Publix to immediately address the most serious health
risks and to perform longer term remediation of the remaining
health threats.
17
-------
B. Comprehensive Emergency Response/
Liability Act (CERCLA)
Compensation, and
Under the CERCLA, EPA is authorized to clean-up toxic or
hazardous contaminants at active, closed or abandoned sites, and
strives through litigation, to recover the costs of clean-up from
responsible parties or to compel them to clean up the sites.
Clean-up funds come from a "Superfund" created by taxes on
chemicals and hazardous wastes.
Figure 10 displays the number of CERCLA civil and
administrative actions issued over the ten-year period from FY'83
to FY'92. This year marks the issuance of the highest number of
administrative actions (60) for Region III.
CERCLA Program Enforcement Actions
FY 83 - FY 92
a t4
87 M
Fiscal Year
M *1 f2
Figure 10
18
-------
Significant CERCLA Case Summaries
EPA coordinates with Coast Guard to issue unilateral order
based on authorities of the CWA, RCRA, and Intervention of the
High Seas Act.
The sudden disappearance of over four hundred drums of the
hazardous substance arsenic trioxide from the ship Santa Clara, in
route to Baltimore in the Atlantic Ocean, captured news headlines
and resulted in the closure of fishing beds in January 1992. The
Coast Guard became interested in asserting jurisdiction over the
vessel, and securing appropriate vessel clean-up and drum recovery.
They contacted EPA, and Region III staff provided support in
guiding the Coast Guard in the novel practice of using Superfund
authority for the effective enforcement and oversight of the
arsenic trioxide drum recovery.
EPA approved expenditure of Superfund monies for the drum
search, and worked out an Inter-Agency Agreement (IAG) with the
Coast Guard, so that the Coast Guard could continue the search in
the Atlantic for the drums and other containers.
EPA prepared an enforcement case, U.S. v. MV Santa Clara (D.
SC), which was filed by the DOJ in May 1992 in the District of SC
where the vessel had come to port. In this case an in rem maritime
lien was placed against the vessel for the Coast Guard's and EPA's
response costs and for a general Superfund cost recovery action for
those costs, which had run over $800,000.
Region III also coordinated closely with the Coast Guard in
crafting a unilateral order, based on the authorities of Section
106 of the CERCLA, Section 311(c) of the CWA and Section 5 of the
Intervention on the High Seas Act, for the owners of the vessel to
take over the search at their own expense under Coast Guard
direction. This Order, the first of its kind, was issued by the
Coast Guard in February 1992. The vessel owners, Kyriakopulos
International, S.A., a Peruvian corporation, and the vessel
operators, Empressa Naviera Santa, S. A.,'a Panamanian company,
took over the response work as directed under the Order and
performed it under Coast Guard oversight. They successfully
recovered over 320 drums.
19
-------
CERCLA consent decrees lodged for remedial design,
remedial action, and cost recovery for Whitmoyer
Laboratories.
On April 22, 1992, EPA referred three civil actions and two
proposed consent decrees under the CERCLA SS 106 and 107 to the DOJ
for the Whitmoyer Laboratories Superfund site, Lebanon County,
Jackson Township, PA.
On September 16, 1992 the DOJ lodged the two consent decrees
under the CERCLA §§ 106 and 107 in Federal District Court for the
Middle District of PA for the Whitmoyer Laboratories, Inc.
Superfund site. The first proposed consent decree between the
United States, Rohm and Haas Co. and SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
requires the implementation of remedial design and remedial action
in accordance with Records of Decision for Operable Units 2 and 3
and reimbursement of $250,000 in past response costs. The selected
remedy, which involves the cleanup of extensive arsenic
contamination of soils, sediments and groundwater and the disposal
of arsenic contained in a "vault" located onsite, is estimated to
cost approximately $125 million. The second proposed consent
decree, between the United States and the Estate of Clarence W.
Whitmoyer, Sr., requires the Estate to pay $2.9 million in past
response costs, plus fifty percent of any amount remaining in the
residual estate trust after the accounting.
Whitmoyer Laboratories, Inc. was founded in 1934 by Clarence
W. Whitmoyer, Sr. to manufacture veterinary Pharmaceuticals. Rohm
and Haas bought Whitmoyer Laboratories in 1964 and operated it
until 1978 when it was sold to Beecham (now SmithKline Beecham).
SmithKline Beecham operated the facility until 1982. The two
consent decrees together, totalling $127.15 million, resolve 98.3%
of the estimated value of the United States' claims.
Litigation for Superfund costs at oil recycling site.
Several significant court developments occurred in the
litigation of the U.S. v. Berks Associates. Inc.. et al. (E.D. PA)
for Superfund costs regarding the Douglassville used oil recycling
site located in Berks County, PA. In April* 1992, Senior Judge E.
Mac Troutman granted the United States' motion to dismiss
counterclaims alleging that EPA was liable as a site
generator/operator because of EPA's 1972 clean-up activities
related to Hurricane Agnes. On September 9, Judge Troutman granted
the United States' proposed case management order for this complex
case, thereby setting a tight deadline to comply with the new civil
justice reform plan of the Eastern District, and allowing the
government to proceed expeditiously with formal discovery.
Finally, on September 14, Judge Troutman granted the U.S.' motion
to strike over eighty affirmative defenses, including a defense
related to divisibility of harm. The opinion construes the Third
20
-------
Circuit's recent U.S. v. Alcan liability language favorably for the
United States.
Region III issues unilateral administrative orders for the
remedial design/remedial action for Superfund site.
On August 13, 1992, the Regional Administrator of EPA Region
III signed two CERCLA § 106 Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAO)
for the remedial design/remedial action to be conducted on Operable
Units 1 and 2 at the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund site in
Allentown, PA. The first UAO added four Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) to the list of those participating in Operating Unit
1's construction of a cap for the landfill. The order mirrored an
earlier UAO requiring seven other PRPs to build the cap, and used
language such as "coordinate and cooperate" in order to hold the
four additional parties to the same standard set in the first UAO
despite whether parts of the work required by the order had already
been completed. The work to be performed by the PRPs has a present
worth value of approximately $14 million dollars. The second UAO
was signed by the Regional Administrator on the same day; it
addressed Operating Unit 2's groundwater remedy and was issued to
ten PRPs. The work to be performed under the second order has a
present worth value of approximately $500,000.
EPA and the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad
Company sign agreement for expedited response action at the
Potomac Yard site.
The Potomac Yard site is a former rail switching and
maintenance yard operated by Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac
Railroad Company (RF&P) and is located in Alexandria, VA. Initial
environmental investigations, including a preliminary assessment/
site investigation and an environmental assessment indicated the
presence of certain hazardous substances onsite. Further
evaluation of the property was determined necessary before a
decision could be made on whether to propose the site to be
included on the National Priorities List. Because the site was
proposed for the construction of a National Football League
stadium, the site operators, RF&P, were willing to quickly conduct
the additional studies, as well as any clean-up that may be
warranted as a result of those studies.
The administrative order, entered into by EPA and RF&P,
combines the elements of a removal assessment, an expanded site
investigation for listing considerations, and a remedial
investigation. Physical, onsite clean-up will be conducted under
an engineering evaluation/cost analysis as set forth in 40 C.F.R.
§ 400.15 (b). The principals of the Superfund Accelerated Clean-up
Model, calling for the performance of comprehensive expedited
response action, are clearly reflected in the work required by this
21
-------
agreement.
Regional Administrator signs administrative order on consent
with 170 de minimis parties at Tonolli Corporation Superfund
site prior to the issuance of a record of decision.
The Regional Administrator has signed an administrative order
on consent pursuant to the CERCLA. The consent order is intended
to resolve the liabilities of 170 de minimis parties for response
costs incurred at the site.
A PRP was eligible to participate in the settlement if the
volumetric contribution of hazardous substances to the site was
less than 1% of the total volume of hazardous substances and if
toxic or other hazardous effects of the hazardous substances
contributed by the PRP was minimal in comparison to the cumulative
toxic or other hazardous effects of the hazardous substances sent
to the site.
EPA has identified 532 PRPs at the site; 432 are de minimis
parties: of these 170 have signed the consent order. Because this
settlement was proposed prior to the issuance of a Record of
Decision (ROD), EPA estimated the future costs of the remedy by
reviewing RODs for 13 Superfund sites which involved similar wastes
and disposal practices. The 170 settling de minimis have agreed to
pay $3,491,233. Of this amount, $2,471,701 would reimburse EPA for
past response costs incurred at the Tonolli Corporation Superfund
site and the balance will be used to finance future work at the
site.
22
-------
c.
Clean Water Act (CWA)
A significant increase in the number of enforcement actions
taken under the CWA program for FY'92 is shown in Figure 11.
Included for FY'92 enforcement actions are seven administrative
complaints and nine NOVs/NONs from the Spill Prevention,
Containment and Countermeasures (SPCC) program.
Clean Water Act Program
Administrative Actions
FY 90 - FY 92
Fiscal Year
Figure 11
CWA enforcement supports the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program, which is the permit program
regulating both direct and indirect discharges to the nation's
navigable waters. The NPDES program enforces against wastewater
discharge facilities that are in non-compliance with construction
schedules, permit effluent limitations, previous enforcement
orders, or that discharge without a permit. There are over 12,000
municipal, industrial, and federal facilities subject to NPDES
requirements in Region III. Figure 12 shows the ten-year trend of
NPDES enforcement actions. >
Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredge and
fill material into navigable waters. Enforcement emphasizes
redress for unpermitted discharge in environmentally sensitive
areas and seeks restoration of, or compensation for environmental
damage. This year, 132 wetland enforcement cases were resolved.
These resolutions were obtained mostly through voluntary compliance
means and Region III led all ten regions in this compliance effort.
lAGs with the State College and Annapolis Offices of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service assisted greatly in these efforts, which have
resulted in the protection of over 122 acres of wetlands in the
23
-------
Region. Figure 13 shows the ten-year trend for Section 404
enforcement actions. This year marks an all-time high for the
number of Section 404 administrative actions.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Enforcement Actions
ZDO
91 92
Fiscal Year
Figure 12
Section 404 CCWA} Enforcement Actions
FY 83 - FY 92
30
o
«J
%
to
0)
I
z
83
Figure 13
24
-------
This year a new Field Level Memorandum of Agreement (FLMOA)
with the Pittsburgh District Corps of Engineers was developed and
finalized. The FLMOA gives EPA lead enforcement responsibility in
several western PA counties. Also, a FLMOA was initiated with the
Norfolk District Corps of Engineers.
Significant CWA Case Summaries
EPA Region III issues nation's first order for abatement of
endangerment under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) amendments of
the CWA.
EPA and the Pennsylvania Petroleum Products Company, Inc.
entered into an administrative order by consent for the
containment, recovery and disposal of oil that was released from
the facility during a fire in November 1991. As a result of that
fire, oil released from the facility infiltrated the city
stormwater system which discharges into the Delaware River. The
order required the submission of a response action plan and
schedule for developing and implementing appropriate clean-up
actions to abate the uncontrolled release of oil and to protect
public health and welfare (including natural resources), to safely
demolish remaining onsite structures, and to pay costs incurred by
EPA for oversight of the order.
EPA Region III issues first complaint under newly-promulgated
consolidated rules of practice for Class I administrative
penalty actions.
On March 21, 1992, in the case of the U.S. v. Darrell Linale.
EPA issued an administrative penalty complaint seeking a penalty of
$10,000 for the unauthorized filling of wetlands. This is the
first complaint in the Nation to be issued under the newly-
promulgated consolidated rules of practice for Class I
administrative penalty actions. The complaint alleges that Mr.
Lingle discharged fill into 1.5 acres of wetlands without a permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as required by Section 404
of the CWA.
25
-------
First penalty action in Sussex County, DE since EPA assumed
primary enforcement authority under a FLMOA.
On April 17, 1992, EPA issued an administrative order against
Gulfstream Development Corporation to stop violations and restore
wetlands at the Bahamas Beach Cottages Subdivision. At the same
time, EPA issued a Class I administrative penalty order for $7,500
for violations that included placing fill in a tidally influenced
ditch and grading for pond construction in a freshwater meadow.
This was the first penalty action in Sussex County since EPA
assumed primary enforcement authority there under a FLMOA with the
Philadelphia Corps District signed April 23, 1991. On August 20,
1992, the Regional Administrator issued a decision and order
assessing a penalty of $13,500 after Gulfstream Development
Corporation failed to file a timely answer to EPA's complaint. The
penalty assessed was $6,000 more than proposed in the complaint,
which had not considered economic benefit in calculating the
penalty. On September 18, 1992, Gulfstream Development Corp.
appealed the penalty to the U.S. District Court in DE. This case
will be among the first to address the procedures in 40 C.F.R. Part
28, which govern the administrative assessment of small penalties
under several statutes including the CWA.
$550,000 penalty against Shenango, Inc. for NPDES permit
violations.
A CWA consent decree addressing violations of NPDES permit
effluent limitations and monitoring and reporting requirements by
coke and iron producer Shenango, Inc. was lodged in District Court
(W.D. Pa.) on April 28, 1992. The decree provided for the payment
of $550,000 in civil penalties, compliance with the permit, and the
implementation of remedial measures including the installation of
appropriate treatment and the cessation of any discharges from
specified outfalls.
Region III seeks penalty from the City of Philadelphia
for 301 violations at the City's prisons.
On May 21, 1992, the United States filed a civil complaint in
District Court (E.D. Pa.) on behalf of EPA against the City of
Philadelphia regarding violations of Section 301 of the CWA at the
City's prisons. The complaint charges that on various occasions
the City responded to backups of sewage at the House of Corrections
and the Detention Center by intentionally pumping raw sewage into
the Pennypack Creek. The complaint also contends that there have
been additional, unintentional discharges of raw sewage from an
overflow point into the Pennypack Creek. The City is not
authorized by any of its NPDES permits to discharge sewage from the
prisons into the creek. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to
prevent further discharges and penalties.
26
-------
Penalties in excess of $550,000 sought from PA municipal
sewage pretreatment plants for failure to properly implement
local pretreatment programs.
In the case of the U.S. v. Chambersbura. PA; Dovlestown. PA;
Greater Hazelton. PA; New Kensington. PA; Milton. PA; Upper Merion.
PA; Hamburg. PA; St. Marys. PA; and SW Delaware County. PA. Region
III filed nine separate administrative penalty actions under
Section 309(g) of the CWA on March 13, 1992, against municipal
sewage treatment plants in PA for failure to properly implement
local pretreatment programs as mandated by the CWA and their NPDES
permits. Pretreatment programs assure that industrial waste that
is discharged to sewage treatment plants does not pass through the
plants and degrade the receiving waters, does not interfere with
the treatment plant's ability to treat, does not contaminate the
sewage sludge, and does not endanger plant workers. EPA is asking
for total penalties amounting to more than $550,000.
27
-------
D.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
The RCRA enforcement program supports a comprehensive
regulatory and corrective action program to ensure the safe
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. Solid
wastes, if land disposed, are regulated through state programs
under Subtitle D. The total number of RCRA regulated facilities in
Region III exceeds 7,400. Figure 14 shows the distribution of the
types of enforcement actions taken under RCRA authority for the
past three years.
RCRA Program
Enforcement Actions
FY 90 - FY 92
100
Fiscal Year
Figur* 14
The RCRA also governs Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) which
contain chemical and petroleum products or hazardous wastes. The
UST program of the state of MD has been approved by EPA under
Subtitle I of the RCRA, effective July 30, 1992. This constitutes
the first approved state UST program in Region III. Henceforth,
MD's program will operate in lieu of the federal program, and the
State will have primary enforcement responsibility with respect to
requirements of its program. '
During FY'92, Region III continued to require hazardous waste
facilities to undertake corrective action under Subtitle C of the
RCRA. Using both Section 3008 (h) and 3013 of the RCRA and a
combination of both unilateral and consent orders, Region III
issued ten corrective action orders. Seven of the orders required
a study to determine the nature and extent of site contamination
and an evaluation of corrective measures to address the
contamination. Three orders required implementation of the
corrective measure EPA selected to clean-up the site.
28
-------
Significant RCRA Case Summaries
UAO issued pursuant to the authorities conveyed by the OPA.
On May 28, 1992, the Regional Administrator of EPA Region III
issued a UAO, pursuant to Sections 311(c) and (e) of the CWA, as
amended by the OPA of 1990, to the Sovereign Oil Company of
Pennsylvania, Inc. and to Edward Roth and Steven Roth, president
and vice-president of the company respectively. The order required
respondents to undertake a removal action at the Sovereign Oil
Facility, located in Philadelphia, PA, to prevent the migration of
oil from the facility into the city sewer system and from there
into the Delaware River. Despite repeated efforts by the City and
PADER, respondents had refused to undertake the clean-up of
numerous oil spills that had occurred at the facility. Finally,
both the City and PADER requested assistance from EPA in addressing
the problems posed by the facility. This order is one of the first
UAOs issued by EPA pursuant to the authorities conveyed by the OPA.
Region III enters into an UST administrative settlement
containing a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP).
On February 11, 1992, the Regional Administrator signed a
consent order which finalized the settlement of a RCRA Section 9006
administrative complaint for violations of release detection
regulations for 15 USTs by Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) at
its facility in Lebanon, PA. The complaint ordered compliance with
the release detection regulations and proposed a civil penalty of
$24,839.
Region III negotiated a settlement which required ALCOA to
implement a SEP at the facility and pay a portion of the penalty.
The project involved the closure and removal of eight additional
30,000 gallon UST systems originally installed to store petroleum.
The estimated cost of the project was $290,000. In addition, ALCOA
paid a civil penalty of $6,500.
Judgment entered for action seeking recovery of RCRA oversight
costs.
In a precedential decision of national significance on March
30, 1992, judgment was entered for the United States and against
Rohm and Haas Company, Rohm and Haas Delaware Valley, Inc.,
Chemical Properties, Inc. and Bristol Township Authority by the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of PA in a CERCLA cost
recovery action. The Court awarded EPA, pursuant to CERCLA,
oversight costs incurred by the RCRA program (in addition to costs
incurred by the CERCLA program). This decision enables the Agency
to successfully pursue reimbursement of costs incurred under the
29
-------
RCRA in remediating hazardous waste sites under the CERCLA Section
107. The Court's decision was appealed by the defendants to the
United States Circuit Court for the Third Circuit on June 1, 1992.
In this case, EPA will, if the District Court decision is affirmed,
recover $401,348.78 plus interest representing 100% of past costs
and all future costs incurred.
U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals renders a favorable
decision on the definition of a surface impoundment in RCRA
enforcement action.
On May 12, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit rendered a precedential decision affirming the
District Court's order granting EPA's motion for summary judgment.
This case involves an administrative enforcement action against
Beazer East, Inc., Follansbee, WV for violations of Subtitle C of
the RCRA. The issue is whether certain aeration basins fall within
the wastewater treatment exemption or are categorized as surface
impoundments. If the basins are surface impoundments, they are
subject to groundwater monitoring requirements.
The Court found that EPA's interpretation of the "provide
structural support" language (that the unit must be completely
self-supporting when removed from the ground and filled to
capacity) was entitled to deference because of "the complex nature
of environmental statutes and regulations and the specialized
knowledge necessary to construe them."
This decision upholds the Agency's distinction between tanks
and surface impoundments and will facilitate compliance by the
regulated community and enforcement.
Regional Administrator signs UST agreement for Cheatham Annex
Emergency Fuel Storage site, the Commonwealth of VA.
An IAG for the VA Department of Emergency Services, VA
Emergency Fuel Storage Facility, Cheatham Annex, was signed by the
Regional Administrator on April 2, 1992. The 460-acre fuel storage
facility has extensive fuel oil contamination of soil, sediment,
and ground water. The Commonwealth of VA agreed to develop, submit
to EPA for approval and implement a supplemental site
characterization, an ecologic assessment workplan, and a corrective
action plan for soil and groundwater remediation pursuant to 40
C.F.R. Part 280. In addition, the Commonwealth agreed to submit to
EPA a plan to comply with Subtitle C of the RCRA.
30
-------
Federal Judge affirms magistrate's recommendation in RCRA
Section 3008, 3013 case against Municipal and Industrial
Disposal Company, and imposes $505,250 in penalties.
On August 20, 1992, a Federal District Court Judge in
Pittsburgh, PA affirmed the magistrate's penalty recommendations in
Municipal and Industrial Disposal Co. v. Reillv (W.D. PA) , a
defensive case involving a counterclaim by the United States. On
one counterclaim count, the Court affirmed entry of judgment in the
amount of $25,250, the penalty Administrative Law Judge Greene had
imposed on Municipal and Industrial Disposal Company in 1988 for
violations of the RCRA groundwater monitoring requirements.
Additionally, the Court affirmed the magistrate's recommendation on
another count, imposing a penalty of $2,000 per day on William
Fiore, the company's owner, for non-compliance with a RCRA Section
3013 order issued in 1987. The order required Fiore to study his
hazardous waste disposal facility to determine if hazardous waste
was leaking into the environment, including a nearby river. The
Court upheld the magistrate's determination that Fiore had not
attempted to comply in good faith, and that he had sufficient
assets to pay a $480,000 penalty. Fiore is currently in state
prison for hazardous waste, bribery and attempted murder
convictions. The Court had previously entered summary judgment in
the United States' favor on the company's appeal of the
administrative decision.
EPA uses administrative order while directing clean-up at
Pickett Road Terminal site in Fairfax, VA.
Using an administrative order on consent for emergency
protective measures that was issued September 23, 1991, EPA Region
III continued during FY'92 to direct the clean-up of oil at the
Pickett Road Terminal site. The respondent, Star Enterprise, Inc.
is a joint venture partnership organized under the New York
Partnership Act. The venture is held jointly between Saudi
Refining, Inc. and Texaco Refining and Marketing (East),Inc. Star
has reportedly spent over $27 million thus far on the clean-up.
The oil has migrated in the sub-surface from beneath Star's
Facility at 3800 Pickett Road in the City of Fairfax into nearby
residential communities, Stockbridge and Mantua, in Fairfax County,
Virginia. Since May 1991, when the Virginia State Water Control
Board asked EPA to lead the response to the clean-up, the EPA's
goal has been to control and stabilize the movement of the plume of
oil beneath the ground and to begin the process of recovery of free
product. EPA has had a continual presence since that time,
carrying out some response activities directly and by directing
Star Enterprise via the administrative order on consent and
subsequent amendments that also cited OPA authorities. Long term
clean-up actions will be the subject of a new order now in
preparation, which is expected to use both RCRA and OPA
authorities.
31
-------
E.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
A number of efforts were made during FY'92 to improve the
enforcement capability of Region III for the SDWA program. A Total
Quality project was initiated to investigate the use of EPA's
emergency authority under Section 1431 of SDWA for handling health
endangerments, and the first case using the emergency authority was
completed.
Figure 15 shows the trend of administrative enforcement
actions taken for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
program for the past six years. This fiscal year marks an all time
high in the number of NOVs issued (not including the short form
NOVs issued for Total Coliform Rule violations).
Pub Ii c Water System Superv i s i on C SDWA}
Administrative Enforcement Actions
200 -
08 M
Fiscal Year
Mota: MWk not Include 90 Short farm lot* tar
Total Col ir
-------
taken over the past five years for the UIC program. As with the
PWSS program, this year marks the issuance of the highest number of
NOVs for the UIC program.
Underground Injection Control Program CSDWA}
Administrative Enforcement Actions
200 -
O «o -
O 100 -
0)
3
82
Fiscal Year
Figure 16
Sicrnif icant SDWA Case Summarv
Emergency order requires oil production company to furnish
carbon filtration to home owners.
The Region issued a §1431 emergency order requiring an oil
production company, Belden and Blake Corporation of Canton, Ohio,
to furnish carbon filtration to six endangered home owners in
Custer City, PA. The Company's facility had an improperly
abandoned well containing benzene that was leaking and was believed
to be the source of ground water contamination. The Company
committed to maintain the carbon filtration units until a public
water supply line could be extended to the homes.
33
-------
F. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)/Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act(FIFRA)/Emergency and community Right-to-Know
Act(EPCRA)
The TSCA regulation of existing and new chemical substances
encourages the manufacture and use of substances that pose only
reasonable effect on human health and the environment. The TSCA
program issues actions to the violators of the Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCB) and asbestos programs which fall under the Asbestos
Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) as well as pre-manufacturing
notifications and reporting rules.
EPA regulates the use of pesticides under the authority of the
FIFRA by requiring that all pesticides sold and used in the U.S. be
registered with EPA. The FIFRA is designed to provide pre-market
clearance of pesticides and post-market surveillance of pesticides
and pesticidal devices. According to the statute, the states have
primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide use.
The EPCRA establishes requirements for federal, state, and
local government and industry regarding emergency planning and
"community right-to-know" reporting on hazardous and toxic
chemicals. This legislation builds upon EPA's Chemical Emergency
Preparedness Program and numerous state and local programs aimed at
helping communities to meet their responsibilities in regard to
potential chemical emergencies. Most EPCRA enforcement actions are
taken due to violations of Section 313 concerning a failure to
comply with the Toxic Chemical Release reporting requirements.
Figure 17 shows the administrative complaints issued for the
different toxic and pesticides programs over the past eight years.
The asbestos complaints include those issued under the TSCA AHERA
and CAA.
34
-------
Toxics and Pesticides Programs
Administrative Complaints
no
90
91
92
Fiscal Year
Figure 17
Significant TSCA Case Summaries
At estimated cost of $600,000, Bryn Mawr College replaces all
PCB transformers.
Region III signed a consent agreement and consent order
memorializing a settlement with Bryn Mawr College for violations of
TSCA and the PCB Rule. The agreement and order provided for a
civil penalty of $126,240 and takes into account a completed SEP in
which the college removed or retrofilled all of its PCB
transformers before the end of their useful life. The college
documented expenditures for the project totalling nearly $600,000.
Largest TSCA penalty in Region III history, $900,000 assessed
against Allied Colloids, Inc.
On September 29, 1992, the Regional Administrator signed a
consent order assessing a penalty of $900,000, the largest TSCA
penalty in Region III history, against Allied Colloids, Inc. (ACI)
for violations of Sections 5 and 13 of the TSCA. Penalties were
35
-------
assessed for failure to submit proper notices and documentation.
In addition, ACT must conduct an audit of its past compliance with
the TSCA, report additional violations discovered during the audit,
and pay stipulated penalties for these violations up to a cap of
$1,000,000.
First .Region JJJ civil administrative case issued for
violations of worker protection rule under TSCA.
Norristown State hospital was the first civil administrative
case issued by Region III for violations of the Asbestos Abatement
Project, Worker Protection Rule under the TSCA. Violations
included failure to conduct initial air monitoring to determine the
airborne concentration of asbestos, failure to provide a respirator
program, failure to provide special lockers for workers' street
clothes, and failure to perform annual medical examinations. A
consent agreement and consent order was issued on February 18,
1992. A civil penalty of $1500 was imposed.
Sicrnificant FIFRA Case Summarv
Administrative complaint filed against Avril, Inc. for a FIFRA
violation.
On January 21, 1992, an administrative complaint was filed
against Avril, Inc., Odenton, MD, for violations of Section 12(a)
(1) of the FIFRA. The complaint alleges that Avril sold and
distributed an unregistered and misbranded pesticide and seeks a
penalty of $35,000.
Significant EPCRA Case Summaries
Salem Tube, Inc. is assessed $295,000 for violation of EPCRA
§ 313.
On December 31, 1991, the Director of the Air, Radiation and
Toxic Division signed an administrative complaint with a proposed
penalty of $295,000 against Salem Tube, Inc., Greenville, PA, for
fifteen violations of Section 313 of the EPCRA. The penalties are
sought for failure to file Form R reports for five toxic chemicals
in a timely manner in 1987, 1988, and 1989.
36
-------
In resolving EPCRA §313 violation, Sheppard Co. will
recycle/reuse wastewater recovering 20,000 gallons of oil/year
On March 3, 1992, the Regional Administrator signed a consent
agreement and final order resolving an EPCRA Section 313 case
against R.H. Sheppard Co., Inc., located in Hanover, PA. The
settlement consists of a cash payment of $5,000 and a penalty
credit of up to $34,000 for performance of a SEP which requires the
respondent to undertake a major modification of its manufacturing
process through the construction and installation of an
\fcltrafiltration and reverse osmosis treatment of the process
wastewater, recycle/reuse the treated wastewater as a coolant and
recover approximately 20,000 gallons of usable heating oil.
37
-------
IV. MULTI-MEDIA ENFORCEMENT
Multi-media enforcement has been highlighted both at the
national and regional level as a priority. In response to the
increased importance of multi-media enforcement, various Region III
programs developed individual strategies toward multi-media
enforcement, namely - Tier I/Tier II, Risked-Based Initiative,
Chesapeake Bay Initiative, and the Federal Facilities Initiative.
These various strategies met with success during FY'92, but were
also found to be in need of better management and development.
In FY'92, in order to develop a more coordinated multi-media
enforcement program, senior management at Region III established a
Quality Action Team (QAT) to create a more efficient and responsive
multi-media enforcement process. The QAT process will be
implemented in FY'93. The major features of the new Multi-Media
Enforcement Initiative are:
The various multi-media enforcement initiatives will be
folded into one well-coordinated and integrated process.
Staff understanding of the Regional multi-media
enforcement process will be improved through a detailed
definition of the process.
Multi-media case selection will be based upon criteria
developed from Regional, program, Headquarters, and state
priorities.
A computerized case docket will be used by program staff
to facilitate coordination of single-media cases on a
routine basis.
A computerized tracking system will monitor multi-media
case development and disposition.
The following sections describe the significant
accomplishments of Region Ill's multi-media efforts during FY'92.
A. Multi-Media Inspections
Approximately 42 multi-media inspections were conducted or
coordinated this year by Regional Environmental Services Division
staff. They were targeted mostly through the various Regional
multi-media initiatives and the enforcement screening process.
During these 42 multi-media inspections, a total of over 270
individual program inspections were conducted. These inspections
have provided valuable experience for Regional staff and provided
excellent opportunities to enhance our skill.
38
-------
B. Tier I/Tier II: case Screening
Region III established a comprehensive case screening program
which achieved its goals of identifying potential multi-media
enforcement cases, improving civil/criminal coordination, and
enhancing docket management and the use of innovative enforcement
techniques. The entire Region III significant noncompliance case
inventory, over 225 cases, was screened during FY'92 in a series of
program-specific screening meetings. From these meetings, over 55
cases were evaluated for potential multi-media enforcement action
during multi-program screening meetings attended by senior program
enforcement managers. The Region maintains an active potential
multi-media case inventory of over 55 cases.
C. Cross Media Risk-Based Initiative
The Risk Based Enforcement Initiative seeks to identify risks
and potential risks at Region III facilities and reduce or
eliminate those risks through the creative use of all of the
Agency's authorities and influence. A Risk-Based Enforcement
Workgroup was created in FY'91, in direct response to the
Administrator's call for a new approach within EPA to set
priorities based on human health and environmental risks. The
approach inherently requires crossing traditional media lines and
therefore also furthers the Administrator's goal of increasing
multi-media efforts within the Agency.
Over the past two years, the Workgroup has functioned much as
a laboratory, developing, testing and refining approaches to
implement risk based multi-media enforcement in Region III. The
multi-media process that has been developed by the Workgroup will
serve as the template for Region III multi-media enforcement
efforts in FY'93. This Workgroup process consists of the following
basic steps: (1) identify a pool of sites with high potential for
unaddressed risks; (2) select sites from the pool for risk
reduction projects; (3) perform a risk screening to identify
significant risk situations at selected sites; (4) identify
technical fix(es) for each significant risk situation at selected
sites, (5) identify all sources of leverage available to the Agency
to obtain implementation of the identified ^fix(es); (6) develop a
strategy to use the leverage to obtain the fix; (7) implement the
strategy; and (8) re-assess/revise the strategy/report
accomplishments.
FY'92 Accomplishments^
By the end of FY'92, all of the cases selected in FY'91
had been fully characterized. Formal enforcement actions
taken include: 1 referral (Neville); 8 administrative
actions at 3 facilities (Neville, USX Fairless Hills,
Rhone Poulenc); and 1 informal action (Union Carbide).
39
-------
To date, 6 administrative actions have been settled or
resolved. A voluntary remedial action was also completed
(Westvaco) . Additionally, a series of enforcement actions
are targeted for Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel in FY'93.
Ten new sites were targeted in FY'92. For each of these
sites: a Project Manager and team members, both from the
EPA and the State, were selected for each site; initial
screening inspections were conducted at all 10
facilities; follow up activities were initiated at seven
sites. Informal risk reduction activities have been
initiated at several of the sites.
The process for targeting high risk sites was refined
using toxicity/potency adjusted TRI data, media specific
risk indicators, geographic priorities and media specific
compliance databases.
The concept of a "multi-media screening inspection" was
developed and implemented. Screening inspections
included an examination of plant processes, a review of
TRI reports, completion of a multi-media screening
checklist and visual inspection of the physical plant.
Screening inspections were used to verify the suitability
of facilities targeted in the site selection process and
identify follow up activities.
A multi-media training program consisting of a full day
instructional program and training manual was developed
for new Project Managers.
Better working relationships were developed with the
States. States participated as active team members and
provided assistance in site selection, site investigation
and strategy development.
D. Chesapeake Bay/Federal Facilities Initiatives
In a continuing focus on multi-media compliance within the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, Region III made significant progress in
the NPDES, RCRA, UST, UIC, TSCA, Air, and Federal Facilities
program areas. In the NPDES Program, Bay SNC rates at 2% fell well
below the Regional average rate of 8.6% and the national rate of
9%. In an expanded phase of the Chesapeake Bay Federal Facilities
Multi-Media Compliance Initiative, the Region brought the total
number of Federal Facilities with violations occurring within any
of the media program areas, down to a total of only three
facilities Baywide.
Further progress in the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort
requires having risk based environmental priorities. The
40
-------
identification of such priorities focuses Regional direction to
target enforcement resources. In order to maintain a sense of
orderly accomplishment, Region III developed a Chesapeake Bay Risk-
Based Targeting Strategy in FY'92. The Bay Targeting Strategy is
a guide for using data in a multi-media approach to more precisely
target enforcement program actions to address the priority areas of
environmental concern in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
At the August 1992 Chesapeake Bay Executive Council meeting,
EPA^s Administrator announced plans for a comprehensive state and
federal Multi-Media Initiative for the Chesapeake Bay using the
Targeting Strategy. Early implementation phases of the Initiative
were begun in the Federal Facilities, NPDES, RCRA, UST, SPCC and
Air Programs.
E. Significant Multi-Media Case Summaries
Civil complaint issued in U.S. v. Horsehead Resource
Development Company and Horsehead Industries
On January 6, 1992, the United States filed a civil complaint
in U.S. District Court under RCRA, CAA and the CWA against the
above-referenced defendants. The defendants operate an electric
arc furnace dust reclamation facility in Palmerton, PA. The
complaint seeks up to $25,000 per day for each violation. The
violations are alleged to have occurred over a period in excess of
5 years. The complaint also seeks appropriate injunctive relief
under all three statutes.
Westvaco volunteers to reduce dioxin and chloroform emissions.
Westvaco, a pulp and paper mill in Covington, VA, was selected
as a Risk-Based Enforcement Candidate because of large quantities
of chloroform, a carcinogen, being released via a permitted stack
discharge, and the high levels of dioxin found in the fish
downstream of the facility which resulted in a health advisory.
Using CERCLA and AIR information gathering authorities, EPA
obtained sufficient information to conduct independent air
modelling to evaluate the actual risk associated with the
chloroform emissions. In addition, EPA conducted an on-site
inspection to evaluate dioxin contaminated waste handling
practices.
Westvaco proposed, outside the scope of any formal EPA
enforcement proceeding, to conduct an investigation of the on-site
soils, sediments and ground/surface water. The sampling and
analysis revealed low levels of dioxin along the haul road to the
landfill. Westvaco has paved and curbed this portion of the road
41
-------
so that surface water is diverted to a catch basin and transported
to the wastewater treatment plant.
The steps that Westvaco has taken to reduce both dioxin and
chloroform emissions appear to be working. The dioxin
concentrations in both the wastewater and sludge have been
significantly reduced.
Multi-Media enforcement actions taken against Neville
Chemical.
An enforcement strategy was developed in FY'91 resulting in a
series of actions being taken by the Region. At the end of FY'91,
EPA administrative actions were issued by the Air Enforcement and
TSCA PCB program. In FY'92, the RCRA program prepared a judicial
referral to address RCRA violations which has been forwarded to the
Department of Justice. In addition, the CERCLA Program performed
a removal assessment in November, 1991 in response to staff
concerns regarding both current operating practices and past
releases at the facility. While it was determined that a removal
action was not appropriate, the site is being evaluated for
inclusion on the NPL. EPA coordinated its response with the State
of Pennsylvania which has an existing State Order to address
groundwater contamination.
Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows Point, MD is target of first joint
State/EPA multi-media effort in Region III.
The Sparrows Point facility has been targeted as the first
joint State/EPA multi-media effort in Region III. Both EPA and
Maryland have formed multi-media project teams. These teams have
undertaken a cooperative effort to identify and prioritize risks at
the facility which both Agencies would like the company to address.
FY'92 accomplishments include: completion of the RCRA Facility
Assessment; completion of a database to evaluate spill reports;
provision of funds to Maryland to assess groundwater quality at the
site; initiation of assessments of air releases, wetlands and waste
minimization at the facility; and completion of preliminary site
characterization by both agencies.
EPA issues administrative actions against USX, Fairless.
During FY'91, a series of administrative actions were issued
pursuant to violations in the TSCA and Wetlands programs, and
Consent Decree violations under the Clean Water Act. In FY'92,
$65,000 in penalties were collected under TSCA and $23,000 in
stipulated penalties were paid for the Consent Decree violations.
42
-------
The Wetlands complaint was subsequently dropped. In addition, a
draft RCRA 3008(h) Consent Order was issued to the company which
requires USX to conduct a remedial investigation and corrective
measures study at the existing facility. The order requires USX to
address past leaks of PCBs and Wetlands concerns as well as to
conduct interim measures at an adjacent facility. This order will
be finalized in FY'93.
Air Force signs Federal Facility Compliance Agreement.
An EPA multi-media compliance inspection, reported in 1991,
showed numerous RCRA violations at the Langley Air Force Base in
Virginia. A NON and compliance schedule issued in September 1991
laid out a detailed plan for permitting or closing previously
unpermitted storage units, improved record-keeping, comprehensive
training, and Land Disposal Restricted compliance. Following
several months of negotiation, a Federal Facility Compliance
Agreement was signed with the Air Force in April 1992. The
agreement required a pollution prevention program to be initiated
within 90 days. The Air Force Base has complied with all
requirements of the agreement.
Federal Facility Compliance Agreement reached for Quantico
Marine Base.
Annual RCRA inspections by VA and EPA at Quantico Marine
Base in VA during 1988 through 1990 revealed numerous RCRA
violations, including unpermitted hazardous waste storage at the
military training base on the Potomac River. The NON, issued in
November 1990, required prompt correction of these violations,
which also included inadequate waste minimization and improper
storage practices. A Federal Facility Compliance Agreement was
signed in January 1992, completing a lengthy negotiation which
involved participation by senior officials of EPA and the Navy.
The agreement required development and implementation of a
pollution prevention plan. This was one of the few remaining cases
included in the Chesapeake Bay Enforcement Initiative announced by
Administrator Reilly in December 1989.
EPA and Navy sign agreement for the Naval Surface Warfare
Center in Dahlgren, VA.
EPA and the Department of the Navy signed a Federal Facility
Compliance Agreement on May 22, 1992, to address RCRA violations at
the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Dahlgren, VA.
Under terms of the compliance agreement, the Navy is required to
correct all RCRA violations within a specific timeframe. This
enforcement action was a component of the Chesapeake Bay compliance
43
-------
initiative to target facilities whose violations directly impact
the water quality of the Bay.
The compliance agreement specified a number of corrective
actions to be taken and a timetable for their implementation. The
Navy was required to submit for approval by the VA Department of
Waste Management and review by the EPA the following items: (1) a
waste analysis plan, including methods for evaluating explosive-
contaminated waste, and procedures to inspect and analyze shipments
of hazardous waste; (2) a groundwater monitoring plan and designs
for a groundwater monitoring system installed to sample, on a
quarterly basis, all upgradient and downgradient wells, for a
minimum of at least four consecutive quarters; (3) all information
in its possession regarding the concentrations of lead in the soil
in areas where land application of sludge has occurred; and (4) a
Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Program to reduce the
quantity and/or toxicity of the wastes generated at the facility.
44
-------
V. CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
The Philadelphia Criminal
Investigation Division (CID)
works in coordination with the
program offices when criminal
activity is suspected or when
referrals of criminal cases are
warranted. The statistics for
this year are shown in Table 5.
In FY'92, the Philadelphia
CID Office has continued to
participate in a number of
environmental task forces which
have been initiated in most
judicial districts throughout
the Region.
Enforcement Statistics
-
Criminal Jtefferrals" " :
efcargetf5 "
-4
"IT
Table 3
Significant Criminal Case Summaries
Sentencing in U.S. v. Metro Container Corporation, et at.
(E.D. PA).
On May 1, 1992, Lewis Maslow, former CEO of Metro Container
Corporation and its subsidiary, Metro-Enterprise Container
Corporation, was sentenced to serve one year, one day jail, three
years probation, and 300 hours community service for each count of
the five felony counts of his conviction. The sentences are to run
concurrently. Maslow claimed to be without financial resources, so
no fine was imposed. On October 29, 1991, Maslow was convicted of
two counts of conspiracy, of operating Metro ^Container in violation
of pretreatment standards, of illegal disposal of hazardous waste
and of filing a false financial statement with EPA.
No fines were imposed on Metro Container Corporation and its
subsidiary, Metro-Enterprise Container, as both remain in
bankruptcy with no discernible assets. Both corporations were
convicted on October 29, 1991 of two counts of conspiracy to
violate the CWA and RCRA.
On May 1, 1992, Steven M. Zubrin, former maintenance
supervisor of Metro Container Corporation, was sentenced to serve
45
-------
sixty days in a community treatment center, three years probation
and 500 hours of community service for each count of five felony
counts on which he was convicted July 22, 1991. The sentences are
to run concurrently. No fine was imposed. Zubrin was convicted of
two counts of conspiracy, illegally disposing of hazardous waste,
operating the Metro facility in violation of pretreatment
standards, and illegally discharging pollutants into waters of the
United States.
Sidney S. Levy, former President of Metro Container and Metro-
Enterprise Container, passed away prior to his sentencing. Maslow,
Levy, and Zubrin were responsible for the burying of hundreds of
drums of hazardous waste on company property and inside the company
plant, as well as, discharging of thousands of gallons of
pollutants into Stoney Creek, a tributary of the Delaware River,
and discharging off-spec industrial waste water into the local
Public Owned Treatment Works.
Charges filed in Khian Sea case.
A federal grand jury has indicted two men for lying to a grand
jury investigating the disposal of municipal incinerator ash aboard
the ill-fated Khian Sea's two-year sail around the world. The two-
count indictment, returned in the District of Delaware, charges
that William P. Reilly, of Annapolis, MD, and John Patrick Dowd, of
Washington, DC lied to the grand jury when they denied knowing what
had happened to the ash. The grand jury alleges that the two men
knew that the ash had been dumped overboard in the Indian Ocean.
Reilly and Dowd were officers of the company which acted as agents
for the operators and owners of the Khian Sea. The Khian Sea
picked up 15,000 tons of incinerator ash, a non-hazardous solid
waste, in Philadelphia, in September, 1986, and made numerous
attempts to dispose of the ash in the Caribbean and elsewhere until
the ash went overboard in October of 1988.
RCRA, CERCLA, and CffA charges filed in U.S. v. Electrochemical
Company. Inc.. et al.
On September 21, 1992, the United States Attorney for the
Middle District of PA, filed five criminal Informations charging
four individuals and a corporation with felony violations of
environmental statutes and various Title 18 Defense Fraud offenses.
The charges arise out of an investigation of Electrochemical
Company, Inc. (ECI) of York, PA, an electroplating and metal
finishing business which electroplated parts for the Department of
Defense. All of the defendants have agreed to plead guilty.
Frank H. Leaman was the President and principal owner of ECI.
Leaman is charged with one count of violating the CERCLA, one count
of violating the RCRA, and a number of Title 18 violations. ECI,
46
-------
the corporate defendant is charged with one CWA pretreatment count.
Russell L. Walker, and ECI maintenance supervisor is charged with
one count of violating the CERCLA. Glenn L. Stover, Jr., an ECI
production manager, and John Gibble, and ECI shift supervisor were
charged with various Defense Fraud violations.
Sentencing in U.S. v. York Metal Finishing Company. (E.D. PA) .
On September 18, 1992, York Metal Finishing Company,
Philadelphia, PA, and its owner, Edwin A. Walter, were sentenced by
U.S. District Court Judge Robert F. Kelly, Eastern District of PA.
Restitution in the amount of $120,000 was assessed to York Metal
Finishing Company, and Edwin A. Walter was sentenced to probation
for five years and fined $100,000 with confinement of from six to
twelve months.
York Metal Finishing Company operates an electroplating
facility in Philadelphia, PA. Information had been received from
Philadelphia's Water Department that the company was discharging
untreated wastewater into the City's sewer system in violation of
the CWA.
Guilty verdict in U.S. v. Samuel Gratz (E.D. PA) .
On September 30, 1992, a Federal jury found Samuel Gratz
guilty of all charges following a six-day trial. Gratz was found
guilty of one count of illegal transportation of hazardous waste to
an unpermitted facility, one count of illegal transportation of
hazardous waste without a manifest, one count of unpermitted
storage of hazardous waste, and one count of unpermitted
discharging of pollutants into navigable waters of the United
States. Gratz, former President of Lannett Company, Inc., a
pharmaceutical manufacturer located in Northeast Philadelphia, was
indicted on these RCRA and CWA charges on March 24, 1992.
This investigation began in September 1991 and included a
consent search of the Lannett Company premises and an extensive
investigation of Lannett, its subsidiary, Astrochem Corporation and
Samuel Gratz. It was determined that in May 1987, Gratz had
Lannett employees transport hazardous waste from the Astrochem
facility located in northern NJ to Lannett's facility in
Philadelphia. This same hazardous waste was stored at Lannett from
June 1987 until August 1991. The hazardous wastes moved and stored
at Gratz's direction were both acutely hazardous wastes such as
phosgene and sodium cyanide, as well as, characteristic wastes that
were ignitable, reactive and corrosive. Through the investigation
it was determined that between May 1987 and July 1989, Gratz
directed Lannett employees to dump some of the chemical wastes
being stored down a storm drain which discharged directly into the
Delaware River.
47
-------
Indictment of Walter Baker and Matthew Girdich (W.D. of PA) .
On October 7, 1992, a Federal Grand Jury indicted Walter Baker
and Matthew Girdich on charges of making false statements on
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs). The indictments were sought
by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of PA in
Pittsburgh.
Baker was indicted on 11 counts of false statements for DMRs
filed between June 1988 and June 1989. Baker is the current
Assistant Director of the Water Pollution Department of the
Municipality of Penn Hills, PA. Girdich, who preceded Baker as
Assistant Director, was charged with five similar counts occurring
during the period September and November 1987.
The Municipality of Penn Hills operates five treatment plants
permitted under the NPDES program. Over the past several years,
four of the plants were found to be operating outside of compliance
during inspection by Allegheny County and PADER review. Non-
compliance areas include monitoring, reporting, sampling and
analysis, sludge handling, and bypassing.
Guilty verdicts in U.S. v. Barry Hess. Salvatore Sortino and
George Frew (E.D.PA).
On November 10, 1992, a Federal jury found Salvatore Sortino
guilty on one count and George Frew guilty on two counts of
violations of the CWA. At the same time, a third defendant, Barry
Hess, was found not guilty of one count of Title 18 Section 1001,
relating to the submission of a false DMR. Frew was found not
guilty on one additional CWA count and Sortino was found not guilty
on one additional CWA count with a third count unresolved. A total
of six additional CWA counts against the three defendants were
dismissed by the judge.
All three men worked in managerial positions at the Easton, PA
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Hess was the plant superintendent from
a contracted management firm, J. M. Montgomery, Inc., Frew was the
Supervisor of Maintenance and Sortin was the Supervisor of
Operations. The charges stemmed from an ^operation in January,
1991, when the chlorine contact tank at the plant was cleaned out
and approximately 14 to 20 tons of sludge and related materials
were washed through an outfall pipe, directly into the Delaware
River. There was no sampling, inadequate and illegal removal
techniques, and no reporting of the six day incident.
48
-------
VI. SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES
Special Enforcement Initiatives are used by the EPA at both
the regional and national levels as a way to focus on specific
sites, geographic areas, pollutants, or industrial sectors with
noteworthy environmental problems. Once specific enforcement
initiatives are identified, the Agency clusters or groups
individual cases together to gain maximum deterrence through
publicity and facility-specific impact.
In FY'92, Region III continued to be an active participant in
the EPA Initiatives Program at both the regional and national
levels.
A. Benzene Initiative
Region III was responsible for eight of the 11 actions filed
or issued nationally on August 4, 1992. Originally, there were
over 20 potential cases being evaluated by the various program
offices (RCRA, Superfund, Water, and Air). The final date for
filing all actions under this national initiative was August 4,
1992. The filed or issued actions include the following:
Chevron U.S.A, Philadelphia, a consent decree to settle this
benzene NESHAP case (equipment leaks) was entered on September
15, 1992. The consent decree requires Chevron to pay civil
penalties of $1,000,000.
Sharon Steel Corporation/Monessen, Inc., a consent decree to
settle this benzene NESHAP case (coke by-product recovery
plant) was lodged on August 5, 1992. The consent decree
requires Sharon Steel/Monessen to pay civil penalties of
$300,000.
Six administrative penalty complaints/orders were issued to
the following companies: County of Allegheny, Greater
Pittsburgh Airport (RCRA proposed penalty of $35,800); Shell
Oil Company, two stations (RCRA proposed penalty of $11,932
for each station); BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., two stations
(RCRA proposed penalty of $3,938 for each station); and
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (CAA proposed penalty of $35,000 for
violations of the benzene equipment leaks NESHAP).
B. CAA New Administrative Authority Initiative
A national initiative was conducted on May 20, 1992 to file a
cluster of cases under the new CAA administrative authority. The
Region initiated five air pollution control-related administrative
penalty cases as part of this activity for a total proposed penalty
amount of $277,600. These administrative penalty complaints/orders
were issued to the following companies:
49
-------
Miles Inc., New Martinsville, WV, for alleged violations of
the NESHAP for benzene storage vessels (proposed penalty of
$48,600);
Star Enterprises, Inc., Delaware City, DE, for alleged
violations of continuous emission monitoring requirements at
its Delaware City petroleum refinery (proposed penalty of
$40,000);
BP Oil Company, Inc., Marcus Hook, PA, for alleged violation
of continuous emission monitoring requirements at its Marcus
Hook petroleum refinery (proposed penalty of $60,000);
Beans Lime and Stone, Inc., Cabins, WV, alleged particulate
matter violations of WV SIP (proposed penalty of $40,000);
S&S Landfill, Clarksburgh, WV, for improper disposal of
asbestos waste material, failure to adequately protect the
public, and failure to furnish records, in violation of
Asbestos NESHAP (proposed penalty of $89,000).
C. FIFRA Disinfectant Pestieidal Initiative
On September 30, 1992, Region III issued seven separate
administrative penalty complaints and six Notices of Violation to
various companies for FIFRA pesticides violations in a coordinated
effort to target producers and distributors of unregistered
disinfectant pesticidal products within Region III. EPA's
complaints allege that the producers of distributors were selling
unregistered pesticides, producing pesticides at unregistered
facilities, and/or mislabelling their pesticidal products, in
violation of FIFRA requirements. The complaints seek a total of
$268,100 in penalties. The companies issued the administrative
penalty complaints were the following: Brotech Corporation, Bala
Cynwyd, PA ($144,900); Polyscience, Inc, Warrington, PA ($17,200);
Mateson Chemical Corp., Philadelphia, PA ($16,000); Thrift Drug,
Pittsburgh, PA ($45,000); O'Neill Industries, Philadelphia, PA
($20,000); Atlantic Aquatics, Inc., Berlin, MD ($22,200); and ICI
Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE ($20,000). >
The six Notices of Violation were filed against: Air-Shields
Vickers, Hatboro, PA; Oaktree Chemicals, Langhorne, PA; Spectrum
International, Trevose, PA; Sterling Supply Corp, Philadelphia, PA;
Atlantic Pressure Washers, Inc., Glen Burnie, MD; and Sorber
Chemicals of Holdrege, DE.
D. PA Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Initiative
Region III filed nine separate administrative penalty actions
50
-------
under Section 309(g) of the CWA on March 13, 1992, against
municipal sewage treatment plants in PA for failure to properly
implement local Pretreatment Programs as mandated by the Act and
their NPDES permits. Pretreatment Programs assure that industrial
waste that is discharged to sewage treatment plants does not pass
through the plants and degrade the receiving waters, does not
interfere with the treatment plant's ability to treat, does not
contaminate the sewage sludge, and does not endanger plant workers.
EPA is asking for total penalties amounting to more than $550,000.
The permittees included in the initiative were: Chambersburg, PA;
Doylestown, PA; Greater Hazelton, PA; New Kensington, PA; Milton,
PA; Upper Merion, PA; Hamburg, PA; St. Marys, PA; Southwest
Delaware County, PA.
The violations cited in the complaints included failure to
enforce against significant industrial users in significant
noncompliance, failure to permit industrial users, failure to
enforce against pass-through, failure to inspect industrial users,
and failure to submit an approvable pretreatment program.
E. Information Gathering Authority Initiative
During FY'92, Region III undertook several administrative and
judicial enforcement actions to ensure the sanctity of its
information gathering authorities. In Re: BP Oil Company the
Regional Administrator signed a consent agreement/consent order
resolving an administrative enforcement action based upon HP's
failure to respond to a RCRA S 9005 information request letter
after BP had provided the same. Similarly on December 16, 1991,
Region III conducted an inspection pursuant to RCRA S 3007 at
AT&T's Richmond, VA facility after EPA initiated an administrative
enforcement action against the company. AT&T argued unsuccessfully
before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Hoya that the Region was
precluded from using its RCRA 3007 information gathering authority
due to the pending enforcement action. Finally, on February 3,
1992, U.S. District Court Judge Cahn issued a favorable opinion in
a civil action, U.S. v. Barkman. upholding EPA's information
gathering authorities under Section 104(e) of CERCLA after a two
day trial. Judge Cahn held the length of delay in fully responding
(700 days) was per se unreasonable and assessed a $38,500 civil
penalty.
F. Illegal Operators Initiative
On February 4, 1992, Region III issued five administrative
enforcement actions seeking a total of $5 million in civil
penalties and injunctive relief requiring compliance with
applicable regulatory requirements as part of a major national
initiative against companies who have evaded RCRA regulation. The
following are brief summaries of the five administrative actions:
51
-------
Atlantic Alliance, Baltimore, MD - the company was cited for
operating a hazardous waste facility without a permit and a
civil penalty in excess of $1.2 million was assessed.
Potomac Electric Power Co. - failed to notify EPA and the
District of Columbia of hazardous waste being stored at a
facility in Washington, DC. The complaint assessed a civil
penalty of $453,000.
Go-Mart, Inc., St. Albans, WV - complaint cited company for
illegal storage of hazardous waste and assessed a civil
penalty of $559,000.
Beaumont Co., Morgantown, WV - facility was cited for storage,
disposal of hazardous waste without a permit and was assessed
a civil penalty of $1,278,400.
Alfab, Inc., Smithville, WV - the company was cited for
disposal of hazardous waste without submitting a notification
of applying for a permit and was assessed a civil penalty of
$2,096,500.
6. 8DWA State Enforcement Initiative
A major initiative was started in FY'92 to strengthen state
enforcement programs. To force more attention on state
enforcement, two statewide projects were instituted: (1) 50
abbreviated NOVs were filed for failure to monitor for VOCs in WV,
and (2) over 240 PA Public Water Systems who were on the SNC list
were reviewed and 166 NOVs were issued.
Regional staff met with PADER compliance specialists and with
representatives of the PA Water Utility Council to discuss
enforcement issues and methods of improving the program.
Enforcement protocols with the states were developed to improve
communication on enforcement and policy. New emphasis on
enforcement was added to grant guidance. Two State Director's
meetings contained more emphasis on enforcement and resulted in the
commitment for routine specialty meetings on enforcement and data
management. *
Federal Reporting Data System training for WV was held to
strengthen the data management program, since data management is
one prerequisite for accurate enforcement. Mid-year evaluations in
PA, MD and WV included more emphasis on enforcement than in
previous years. DE and WV were audited to ascertain their ability
to enforce the Surface Water Treatment Rule and the Total Coliform
Rule.
52
-------
H. SDWA Nitrate Initiative
A prototype enforcement case was developed for Regional use.
A signed agreement between state agencies and Townsends, Inc. was
the first major drinking water enforcement action in DE in which
EPA has been involved. It provided a long-term resolution of
nitrate violations and marked the first time in Region III that EPA
successfully negotiated for a local Wellhead Protection Program as
part of the agreement to attain compliance. NOVs were issued for
all current nitrate violators in PA to encourage the State to
develop a strategy of its own. A comprehensive technical paper on
nitrate in drinking water was developed for EPA staff which
summarized current technical knowledge and offered guidance for
handling Regional enforcement cases.
I. Asbestos NESHAP Landfill Initiative
During FY'92, the Asbestos Lead Management Section originated
a landfill initiative under the asbestos NESHAP program to identify
sources of asbestos containing waste material that did not notify
EPA or state agencies of asbestos renovation or demolition projects
as required by the asbestos NESHAP regulations. This initiative
prompted the inspection of landfills in MD, WV, and PA for
compliance with the NESHAP regulations, and also identified
potential asbestos containing waste material generators that sent
material to these landfills without complying with the asbestos
rules.
J. Industrial organic Chemicals Initiative
As part of the national EPA initiative an administrative
consent decree was filed on September 10, 1992, against PPG
Industries, Springdale, PA for violating the TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601-
2671, and the Pre-Manufacture Notification (PMN) regulations. PPG
Industries is a publicly held corporation, which manufactures
various compositions of glass, chemicals, paints, printing inks and
medical electronics. The Springdale facility produces and
distributes coatings and resins. On December 7, 1990, the company
voluntarily disclosed that on three separate occasions they
inadvertently manufactured a new chemical substance for a
commercial purpose, without submitting a PMN to the EPA. The
company was fined $20,000 for this violation and the full amount
was collected. This case was included in the National Initiative
on Industrial Organic Chemicals.
53
-------
K. Primary Metals Initiative
Four primary metals facilities were targeted as part of this
national EPA initiative. The DOJ filed three civil judicial
complaints against the four facilities for noncompliance with
federal environmental laws. In one of the actions, against
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation for NPDES violations by its
Allenport (WV) facility, DOJ simultaneously lodged a proposed
consent decree. The decree assessed a $2,000,000 penalty and
required the company to upgrade steel production and wastewater
treatment facilities to reduce the amount of pollution being
discharged from the plant. DOJ also filed a civil judicial
complaint for penalties and injustice relief against Cressona
Aluminum Company for PCB-related violations of the CWA (NPDES) and
TSCA by the company's facility in Schuylkil County, PA. In a third
civil judicial action for penalties, DOJ consolidated actions
against two Bethlehem Steel Corporation facilities, those in
Bethlehem, PA and Sparrow's Point, MD, for violations of the
NESHAPS requirements of the CAA.
54
-------
Appendix A:
Region III Case Screening Summary
-------
FY'92 Region III case Screenincr Results
Program Screening Docket
1. CAA: Non-PA 6
2. TSCA: Non-PA 8
3. SPCC 9
4. NPDES: Non-PA 21
5. UST 11
6. RCRA: MD/WV 10
7. NPDES: PA 37
8. NPDES: VA 4
9. FIFRA 8
10. TSCA/EPCRA: PA 10
11. NPDES: DE 9
12. RCRA: HQ Inits. 15
13. SPCC 4
14. RCRA: VA-PA 9
15. CAA: PA 13
16. NPDES: Non PA 24
17. NPDES: PA 30
18. TSCA 13
19. FIFRA 18
20. Wetlands 8
21. NPDES: Non-PA 14
22. SPCC 9
23. UIC 1
24. RCRA: VA/PA/MD/DE 8
A-l
Tier II Recommendations Date
5 10/30/91
4 11/14/91
4 11/25/91
2 12/2/91
3 12/9/91
5 12/13/91
10 2/18/92
0 2/18/92
0 2/18/92
3 2/19/92
0 3/10/92
2 3/13/92
3 3/13/92
5 4/10/92
2 5/19/92
2 6/25/92
4 7/1/92
6 7/1/92
J
0 7/2/92
1 9/11/92
1 9/14/92
1 9/14/92
1 9/16/92
5 9/16/92
------- |