-------
FY1992 Enforcement AccoHipiutongati Repon
tbm Ft 1992 Enforcement Accomplishment* Report was prepared by the Compliance
Evaluation Branch within the Office ol Enforcement Robert Banks was the
principle editor and coordinator for this report. TO Wmtt helped to edit and
prepare graphics far the report. Infocmatkn contained in the report was supplied
by the EPA Regional Offices, Headquarters program offices and the Office of
Printed on rtcycUd paper
-------
u
\ FY 1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Table of Contents
I. FY 1992: Strong Performance in Traditional Enforcement Activity,
Record Setting Penalties and Fines, and Implementation of a
Cross-Program/Multi-Media Enforcement Perspective
II. Environmental Enforcement Activity
HL Major Enforcement litigation and Key Legal Precedents
An alphabetized summary erf important dvil and criminal judicial caw settlements,
administrative actions. and key court decisions mat occurred during «K» ya«»
National Multimedia Enforcement Initiative page 3-1
CAA Enforcement Cases ' p*ge3-2
CWA Enforcement Cases page 3-10
nt Cases page 3-20
SDWA EnforoHnent Cases page 3-21
RCRA EufbraBumii Cases page 3*23
CERCLAEruoro«n«n*Ca»« - * p«g«3-37
TSCA Enforcement Cases p«g«3-81
EFCRA Enforcement Cases ' pagt3-87
FIFRAEn/orcement Cases pag*3-90
MuJtf^nedia Enfbtcament Cases pagi3-92
Federal Ftdlity Cases p«g«3-93
Oiinin*! Enforcement Cases p*g«3-97
IV. Federal Facilities Enforcement
V Building and Maintaining a Strong National Enforcement Program
Summaries qf male* enforcement program strategies, initiatives, guidance, and management studies.
Subsections on local enforcement cooperative work with environmental groups, relationships with
other Federal agendes and International issues.
VI Media Specific Enforcement Highlights and Regional Accomplishments
Brief summaries of each National program and each Region's FY 1992 highlights.
Appendix: Historical Enforcement Data :
F* 1992 National Penalty Report ' \;,
list of EPA Headquarters and Regional Enforcement Information
Contacts
-------
FY1992 Erforcemau Accomptisjanttoj Report
I. FY 1992: Strong Performance in Traditional Enforcement
Activity, Record Setting Penalties and Fines, and
Implementation of a Cross-Program/Multi-Media
Enforcement Perspective
FY 1992 was a very successful year for both the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and State enforcement programs. EPA and the States maintained high
aggregate levels of judicial and administrative enforcement activity, and new
records for Federal civil and criminal penalties and ones were established (see
Section H for detailed information). At the same time, EPA continued to fully
implement the targeted enforcement approaches that are called for in its
Enforcement Four-Year Strategic Plan.
Significant progress was made in the broad effort to integrate a cross-
program/multi-media approach into all stages of the inspection and enforcement
program. Has will enable the Agency, to better pursue its goal of additional public
health and environmental protection results, deterrence, and efficiency which could
not be achieved through the use of traditional single-media approaches alone.
Notable achievements in FY 1992 include the effort to strengthen the cooperative
relationship between EPA and the States through issuance of the Multi-Media
Addendum to the Policy Framework on State/EPA Enforcement Agreements. The
Multi-Media Addendum establishes procedures for enhanced multi-media
enforcement by Federal and State authorities and involves States more fully in the
process of identifying and implementing annual national enforcement initiatives.
In FY 1992, national initiatives were undertaken to address specific pollutants,
industries, and geographic areas which present a national risk from the standpoints
of human health, the environment, and maintenance of the integrity of Agency
regulatory programs.
EPA's long-term commitment to cross-program/multi-media enforcement is
a reflection of its desire to better integrate health and ecological risks into inspection
targeting and case selection. While these concepts apply in single-medium cases as
well, cross-program/multi-media enforcement is intended to result* in
comprehensive identification and remediation of problems at a facility. Cross-
program/multi-media inspections also have the potential of better focusing senior
management in the regulated community on the broad range of environmental
compliance issues, encouraging a more holistic approach to significant
environmental problems.
EPA's Regional Offices have strengthened operating procedures and
organizational structures to support cross-program/multi-media enforcement
Initially viewed by many in the Agency with reservation and concern, this process is
now being implemented with enthusiasm in the spirit of Total Quality
Management.
v
14
-------
\
1 FY 1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Criminal enforcement continues to be the fastest growing component of the
Agency's enforcement effort with Resident Agent Offices opening in Houston, Los
Angeles, Buffalo, St Louis, and Miami The program supports program-specific
enforcement priorities and is expected to be increasingly useful in supporting cross-
program/multi-media and international enforcement efforts and in addressing
interstate violations.
The Office of Criminal enforcement is working closely with the media
programs to implement the new Sentencing Guidelines for Organizational
Defendants (primarily corporations) convicted of environmental crimes.
Implementing these guidelines will require extensive Regional program technical
input to develop recommended conditions of corporate probation including
restitution* remediation, and compliance-related relief. The goal is smooth
coordination within EPA so that timely support can be provided to sentencing
judges and probation officers.
During FY 1992 the Agency crafted the Criminal Enforcement Addendum to
the Policy framework on State/EPA Enforcement Agreements which was issued in
final form in January 1993. The Addendum will improve coordination and
communications among Federal, State, and local .law enforcement units. Its major
provisions include the designation of one or more intra-State contact to serve as a
focal point lor exchanging information regarding the status of criminal
investigations and cases, cross referral of cases, technical support and training, and
coordination of State/Federal civil and criminal proceedings.
EPA's rapidly developing Federal Facility Enforcement program had many
notable achievements during FY 1992, many of which are highlighted in the pages
of this Report The program is working to protect public health and the
environment through expeditiously cleaning up and ensuring compliance at
Federal hazardous and radioactive waste sites. EPA is also establishing a framework
th, t ensures the Federal government is held accountable to the public for its
environmental record. In recognition of the public's vital interests, EPA will work
to further engage the public with the Federal sector in the decision-making process
for management and clean-up of environmental contamination at Federal facilities.
A key to implementing EPA's new and enhanced approaches to enforcement
is the ability to readily look at patterns of noncompliance within or across
environmental programs. To meet this requirement, EPA developed a computer
capability which links information from over ten Agency mainframe computer
systems. Known as Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA), this computer
capability utilizes EPA's powerful mainframe computer capacity to allow EPA
enforcement personnel to engage in am interactive analysis of EPA's compliance and
enforcement data. This capability provides EPA staff with the ability to structure
enforcement analyses based on areas of potential concern including industrial sector,
pollutants, corporate structure, and/or geographic sector.
1-2
-------
FY1993 Enforcement Accomplistvntnu Report
Environmental Enforcement Activity
A. Federal Judicial and Administrative Enforcement Activity
During FY 1992, EPA worked to institutionalize Hit strategic approaches called for in the
Agency's Enforcement Four-Year Strategic Plan through through crosa-program/multi-media and
multi-facility enforcement actions which seek to bring about comprehensive solutions to complex
interrelated environmental problems. With this perspective, EPA intends to achieve additional public
health and environmental protection results, deterrence, and efficiency which might not be achieved
through use of traditional single-media approaches alone. In FY 1992, EPA fully implemented
modifications to its activity counting methodologies mat track and account for civil referral activity.
These adHistmcnts were recommended by an Agency-wide workgroup and act intended to account
for the greater magrutude ofcross-prognun/nudti-media actions, and to remove any accounting-
related disincentives to bringing uaxe complex cases.
. EPA is developing other enforcement indicators intended to provide a more complete and
balanced picture of the quality and magnitude of its enforcement efforts, m this and other sections of
this report more information to provided on IPA's us* of Administrative Penalty Orders, which are
an effective complement to dvil judicial gifoitement tools, along with information on the value of
inhmctive relief and Supplemental Environmental Projects, which complement information reported
on civil penalty assessments. These an new areas of reporting and, urUikt other types of Quantitative
information ircluded rn this repoit, o^mparativ^
B. Federal Civil Jadidal Enforcement . . . -•• : ;: , . ' •
m FY 1992, EPA referred 361 dvil judicial casts to the Dep.rtment of Justice, down ei^tt
percent from FY 1991, and right at the annual average lor the previous five yean. Program-specifk
Increases were recorded for the Safe Drinking Water Act (up 320%}, dean Air Act (up 18%), and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (up 18%). Clean Water Act dvil referrals declined by 28
cases, however, use of Oean Water Act Administrative Penalty Order (APO) authorities increased by
82 cases, an increase of 56\ over the FY 1991 level Agencywide, issuance of APd increased by 167
cases from FY 1991, an increase of 13%. Hit Office of Enforcement .rrpccts that the treid toward
greater use of APO authorities will continue, and in the future the ctrfl Judicial referral and APO
indicators wfll need to be viewed together in assessments of dWi enforoamerU activity levels.
OvtlJudidalKfirerrals to DOJ Since FY 1977
9 9 9 * 9
5 Hi i *
NMiBf aacm msuvmm mm
Dlustntionl
'2-1
-------
FY1992 Eaforcaneia Accomplishments Report
C Monitoring Judicial Consent Decrees
The high levels ol civil judicial enforcement activity over the last several yean have resulted
in accompanying large increases in the number ol consent decrees which the Agency has entered
into with violating facilities. EPA places high priority on ensuring that defendants live op to the
obligations assure that are spelled out in consent decrees. At the end of FY 1992, tht Agency
reported that 815 active judicial consent decrees wen in place and being actively monitored to ensure
compliance, an Increase of 129 (up 19%) from FY 1991 and four times me number reported six years
ago. Where noncompliance with a decree is found, EPA may initiate proceedings with the court to
compel the facility to live up to its agreement and seek penalties for such noncompliance. EPA
initiated actions against more than 100 violating facilities during the year including the referral of 19
cases to DOJ for enforcement of me consent decree, up five from FY 1991.
D. Federal Criminal JadidaJ Enforcement
EPA't criminal program established records in FY 1992 for most categories of activity. New
records included referring 107 cases to DOf (the previous record was 81 fet FY 1991), bringing charges
against 130 defendants (the previous record was 104 in FY 1991), and the number of months of jail
time to which defendants were sentenced with 1,135 months (the previous record was 963 months in
FY 1991). Sixty-four criminal cases concluded during the year, In which 99 defendants were
convicted. In addition, 44 of the defendants convicted were sentenced to incarceration.
Incarceration and probation am key parts of the criminal prognin, mdudmg serving a strong
deterrent role. Probation is very eflectlte because in the event that an individual commits another
crime (not limited to environmental crimes), the provisions of the probation normally call for the
automate imposition of the prison sentenct mat was suspended in lieu of probation. Since 1982,
individuals have received prison sentences for committing environmental crimes totaling 355 years,
and 991 years of probation rave been imposed.
EPA's increased emphasis on the criminal enforcement program over me past four years,
coupled with passage and implementation of the Pollution Prosecution Act ol 1990, has significantly
raised f- profile of criminal enforcement both within EPA and in the regulated community. By the
end of FY 1992, EPA had increased the number of criminal agents by 38 percent over the FY 1988
leveL IWs mcidest additional investment in agents has yielded significant incceases in most of the key
outputs of me criminal program. As Illustration 2 shows, the number of defendants charged with
criminal environmental violations, the amount of criminal months sentenced in cases successfully
prosecuted, and the amount of fines resulting from prosecutions have increased dramatically.
Criminal Enforcement Increases: FY89 to FY92
'Ifodeet nuwnre ffrrreiite j-ftfif f Ifrrrlffftrr* ——*••
f Afott lavwiifttiaiu tMtff""f Mootfai
Illustration 2
2-2
-------
FY1993 Enforcement Accompiishmena Report
E. Administrative Enforcement . \f . ;
EPA posted its fourth highest annual total for administrative enforcement activities in FY 1992
with 3^67 actions. Hie Agency record of 4,136 was wt in FY 1989. HM total* for FY 1992
demonstrate that although Judicial actions (both dvil and criminal) have been tht most visible
indicators of EPA's performance, other indicators need to be considered to fully ascertain EPA's
effectiveness in enforcing environmental laws and regulations. In recently enacted or reauthorized
statutes. Congress has expanded EPA's authority to use administrative enforcement mechanisms to
address violations, compel regulated facilities to achieve compliance, and assess penalties: Many of
these administrative authorities provide for mjunctive relief and penalties that are comparable to those
which can be obtained through dvil judicial enforcement EPA programs Issued 1,434 administrative
penalty orders (AFOs) in FY 1992, an increase of Iff (13%) from the PY 1991 estimate of 1,267 (EPA
has not routinely disaggregated APOs from other types ol administrative actions. A best estimate of
FY 1991 activity is provided for purposes ol comparison). . ; ,
1PA Administrative Orders Since FY 1977
rr -n
.CM
TSOUBK9M
H2ustntkxv3
" ' - .... -..,., • |
F. EPA Contractor Listing ' , , , '
In FY 1992, twenty facilities were added to EPA's LUt of Mokting Facilities (List) under me
authorities provided to IPA by dean Air Act 13W and dean WSuer Act § 508, to bar facilities that
violate dean air or dean water standards from receiving Federally funded contracts, grants or loans.
Federal agendas an PiohibileJ by statutory mandate from" entering into contracts, grants or loans
(Including subcontracts, sub-grants or sibiknc*) to be performed at faculties owned or operated by
persons who are convicted o? violating air standards under CAA §113(e) or water standards under
CWA §309(c) (and involved m me violations), effective automatically on the date ol the conviction.
Facilities which at* mandatorO* listed remain on the List until EPA determines that they have
corrected me conditions giving rise to me violations. Twenty facilities were listed in FYJ992 based
on criminal convictions -matching Hit record set in PY 1990. Three facilities were removed from (tie
List in FY 1992. Since PY 1986,li facilities have been placed on the mandatory list. Sixty-nine
facilities remained on me List as ol the end of FY 1992. . . !
Facilities with records ol chrfl violations may also be listed, at& &*&*** at ********
Administrator for Enforcemeiuv upon the recommendation of certain EPA officials, a State Governor,
; ' 2-3 ' '
-------
JF71992 EnforceHUM Accomplishments Repon
or a member of the public (referred to as discretionary listing), A facility may be recommended for
discretionary listing if theft an continuing or recurring violations of tin* CAA or CWA after one or
more enforcement actions have been brought against the faculty by EPA or a state enforcement
agency. Facilities recommended for discretionary listing have a right to an,informal administrative
proceeding. In FY 1992, one proposed discretionary listing remained active. Also, the possibility* of
discretionary listing helped to achieve settlements in numerous other civil enforcement cases.
G. federal Penally Asseaeaanto
Delaying or foregoing capital investment in pollution controls, as well as failure to provide
resources for annual pollution control operating expenditures, can allow undeserved economic
benefits to accrue to a regulated entity. As part of the effort to deter noncompliance, EPA's
enforcement programs have developed penalty policies designed to assess penalties which recover
any economic benefit that a. ncncomplying facility has realized, and assess additional penalties
commensurate with the gravity of the vtoJationfs).
In FY 1992, S7SJ million in civil penalties were sstessed, *n all-time record ($SOJ million in
civil judicial penalties, a record, and $28*0 million in administrative penalties). Hie overall increase
was in part a result of a substantial Increase in stationary source Clean Air Act penalties (from $7,4
million m FY 1991 to $19.9 miUkm in FT 1992), Since 1974 ETA has assessed $320.8 million in cml
and judicial penalties, with two-third* of Has total being assessed in the last three years. Criminal
fines totaled $619 million in FY 19W, including the record $22 inilllon fine kvied in the Exxon Valdez
case. Sbm 1984, $1093 million In fines have been levied in EPA criminal
In FY 1992, $22-0 million In dean Air Act dvil penalties were assessed ($19.9 million for
sta^-mary *-mrce violations and 12.1 million for mobile source violations); $33.1 million in dean
Water Act penalties went assessed, ($"17 J million in dvil judicial penalties and $5- million in
administrative penalties); over $8J million in Toxic Substances Control Act penalties were assessed
(all but $5,000 assessed ad^ministrativtly); $13.6 million in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
penalties went assessed ($5J million In dvil judicial penalties and $7.7 million in administrative
penalties); and $6J million in CERCLA dvfl Judicial penalties went assessed. The Federal Insecticide,
Fungjdde, and Rodentidde Act and Sail Drinking Water Act programs an largely delegated to the
States; however EPA assessed $1.1 mutton, and $481 thousand, respectively, under mesfi „.-lutes. The
Toxic Release Inventory program assessed nearly $2J million, the remaining $700 thousand was
fairly^ equally distributed among the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPOA), Wetlands, and Marine and Estaaitne Protection programs.
QvU judicial and Administrative Penalties
arui Criminal Fines Assessed
I
(for further infem^rion *n PPA
01uscr»Bon4
«*H» dm National Ponaitv RePCft Jn the
2-4
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
H. State Judicial and Administrative Enforcement Activity
Several hundred thousand facilities an subject to environmental regulation, and the job of
ensuring compliance and taking action to correct instances of noncompliance with federal laws a
entrusted both to EPA and to the States through delegated or approved State programs. EPA and the
States must rely on a partnership to get the job done, with State environmental agendes shouldering a
significant share of the nation's environmental enforcement workload. In FY 1992, the States referred
574 dvil cases to State Attorneys General and issued 8,643 administrative actions to violating facilities.
The major portion of State administrative actions occur In the FIFRA and water programs, 36% and
32% respectively. (Additional data on State administrative orders and referrals U contained in me
Appendix.)
Slate Administrative Orders: FY85 to FY92
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
FIFRA D WATER HAIR
RCRA
Slate Judicial Referrals: FY85 - FY92
1.030
Illustrations 5 & 6
2-5
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement Accomplishmejtti Report
L Supplemental Environmental Projects
The analysis of FY 1992 settlement data indicated mat the EPA Regional offices negotiated 409
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) during the year worth an estimated $50.1 million.
Approximately 48% of the SEPs were in the category of Pubflc Awareness (virtually all negotiated by
the Air Mobile Sources compliance program), 29% were in the category of Pollution Reduction (the
majority negotiated by the TSCA compliance program), and 15% were In the category of Pollution
Prevention (virtually ail negotiated by the EPCRA §313 compliance program). More detailed
information on SEPs can be found bt the National Penalty Report which is induded in the Appendix
of this report . «-
J. Crcss-Progr-m/Multi-Mcdla Enforcement and Targeted Enforcement
Initiatives
While mamtaming strong traditional enforcement programs, EPA stressed implementaiion of
the cross-pragram/muln-inedla perspective and use of targeted and Innovative enforcement
approaches. The Agency's primary goal in implementing these approaches it to obtain additional
public health and environmental protection results, greater deterrence, and efficiency which might
not bt achieved through use of traditional approaches alone. Highlights of Regional performance in
these areas include: ' . • • •
* Croe*>program/Anlti-ffi*dila inspection* and enforcement actions - The Regions
Implemented the croas-programy multi-media perspective through use of workgroups which targeted
cross-program/multi-medLa inspections, conducted cast screening on single media enforcement
casts, and coordinated cast management against faculties with cross-program violations. FY 1992
was the first year for which the Agency has collected date on cross-program/multi-media activities,
and the data- art very encouraging. In -FY 1992, the Regions conducted 407 consolidated
(simultaneous) cross-program/muTti-media Inspections and 183 additional coordinated Inspections
(inspections conducted in foQow-up to concerns raised during an inspection by another program).
In all, Iy496 individual program, compliance assessments occurred In nest 590 inspections. During
FY 1992, the Agency initiated 64 cross-program/multi-media administrative enforcement actions,
addressed 44 discrete program violation* through dvil judicial referrals to DO], and completed 54
cross-prc^ram/multi-media settlements wrddi grew out of a single media case.
* National Targeted Enrorctnuni Initiatives - In FY 1992. EPA conducted targeted national
multi-media enforcement initiatives focused on violations of benzene standards and the regulations
regarding three industry sectors: pulp and paper manufacturing; organic chemical manufacturing;
and primary metals (metal manufacturing and smelting). During At year, a number of enforcement
cases resulted from these initiatives. The pulp and paper initiative included flve Judicial actions and
settlements and three dvil administrative actions; the primary metals effort included four judicial
complaints, three Judicial settlements, and a dvil administrative action, and the organic chemical
initiative resulted in three new administrative actions and an administrative consent ordec These
cases will result in more man $11 auUton bi dvil and criminal penalties. To date, the benzene effort
has resulted m actions involving violation* of the CAA, RCRA, and CZRCLA. Cases include seven
administrative enforcement actions and two dvil judicial actions.
2-6
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Repon
HI. Major Enforcement titigatioii
and Key Legal Precedents -
Protecting Public Health and
' the Enyironment
Enforcement
This chapter provides highlight, of major
FY 1992 litigation which support Agency
enforcement priorities and demonstrate
innovative approaches in the enforcement
proeem FY 1992 was an exdring and challenging
year for EPA's enforcement effort. The Agency
, continued implementation of the new
approaches, described in the Enforcement faun.
"VilBV Git9&1t^Mm£*m fif^^B M^fJt tfH^M C-^&^ff-fr^ff^-Jt Jt^f Jtfc^
ISSELEotfttfc by which Federal and State
governments could better promote compliance
with, and effective deterrence against violations
of, environmental laws. Cases 'are listed
alphabetically.
National Multimedia Enforcement
Initiatives
The Office of Enforcement's (OS) multi-
media enforcement initiatives ensure thai EPA
most .Jxtively implements multi-media\cross-
program enforcement to achieve public health
and environmental protection through integrated
use of all available resources. In FY 1992, OS
'conducted national multi-media enforcement
initiatives focused on violations of benzene
standards and the regulations governing three
specific industry sectors.
On August Sf 1992, SPA and DOf announced
a number of benzene-related enforcement actions.
EPA selected benzene as the target of an
enforcement initiative, in part, based upon the
1990 Toxics Rdease Inventory, ranting benzene
fifih among eamnogem in terms of total pounds
released to the environment. The benzene
initiative resulted in enforcement actions under
the CAA, SOU, and CERCIA. On behalf of
EPA, DOf lodged two significant civil judicial
actions for benzene-related violations. First, in
an action against Chevron, U.S.A.'s
Philadelphia, PA petroleum refinery, the
largest penalty for violations of hazardous air
pollutant standards for benzene was obtained.
An additional benzene-related civil judicial case
was settled with Sharon Steel's Monessen, PA
plant, and SPA filed seven administrative
actions against chemical and petroleum
companies for violations of the Underground
Storage Tank regulations. ..". '
On September 10, 1992, EPA and DO/
announced the filing of number of industry-
specific enforcement actions focused an violations
of statutes in three industry sectors - pulp and
paper manufacturing, metal manufacturing and
smelting, and organic chemical manufacturing.
The initiatives were based on each industry's
history of significant non-compliance and large
amounts of reported releases or transfers of toxic
* to the environment.
In FY 1992, EPA entered into enforcement
settlements with pulp and paper companies that
violated environmental statutes that will result
in men than 919 tnttlum in dvQ and criminal
penalties. Most significant was the $13 million
settlement, including criminal and civil
penalties, against the Dexter Corporation (see
below) for violations of the CM and the SOW.
The $73 mSUon dvU penalty assessed against
Dexter for violations of the CWA is the largest
fine ever assessed fir violation of a water
pollution permit. One-half of the $7.2 million
penalty will go to the State of Connecticut
which joined the SPA as a plaintiff in the action
against Dexter. Dexter also agreed in the consent
decree to install eampment to treat both nan-
toxic and toxic pollutants, to prepare a spill
prevention plan, fo perform extra monitoring and
reporting, to clean-up hazardous waste areas at
the facility and perform a mul'i-facility
environmental compliance audit. ..
Another significant agreement involving
corrective measures designed to help ensure
future compliance is a modified consent .*
requiring the Louisiana Pacific Corporation's
Samoa, California, pulp mill to install a new
chlorine-free bleaching process by 199S. Under
the agreement, the plant would become the first
plant in the nation to achieve 100% production of
chlorine-free pulp. The pulp and paper
initiative included five dvQ judicial actions and
settlements and three civil administrative
enforcement actions.
Pursuant to the primary metals
enforcement initiative, EPA filed five new, civil
judicial and administrative enforcement actions
3-1
-------
(gg)
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
"anil three settlements involving metal
manufacturing and metal smelting facilities.
This included a settlement with the Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel Corporation in which it agreed
to pay » 12 million dollar coil penalty jar CWA
violations.
The EPA also filed three new
administrative enforcement actions and an
administrative statement involving industrial
organic chemical manufacturing facilities, A
civil penalty of $488,200 If sought in an
administrative complaint filed against
Monsanto Chemical Company for 23 alleged
violations of the RCRA and applicable
Massachusetts regulations. In addition t the
Agency issued an Administrative Order on
August 6, 1992, requiring tin . Union Camp
Corporation In Dover, Ohio, to perform a facility
assessment and to began to remediate hazardous
waste violations.
Clean Air Act Enforcement
In FT 1992, this program's activities
centered upon implementation of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990. The dean Air Act
(CAA) program regulates the emission of oath
toxic and criteria pollutants from both
stationary (factories, plants, utilities) and
mobile (auto) sources. Stationary source air
toxics litigation centered upon violations of the
National Emissions Standards or
Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), especially those
involving asbestos and benzene. Stationary
Source enforcement of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for tht criteria
pollutants involved violations of regulations for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur
dioxide and particulates. Mobile source
litigation emphasized violations of tht lead
phasedown .rules, as well those involving fuel
switching, volatility, and additive
Stationary Source Program
U.S. v. A. A. Mactal Conatnu.'titm Company Inc.
(D. Kan.): This is the first dean Air Act case in
which the court upheld EFA's assertion that the
appropriate civil penalty should be determined
by first calculating the statutory maximum
penalty and then adjusting that amount
downward only to the extent each mitigating
factor under subsection 113(e) If found to be
applicable.
On March 31, 1992, the United States District
Court for Hie District of Kansas issued a decision
and order against AJL Mactai Construction
Company, Inc. (Mactai) assessing a penalty equal
to the defendant's entire economic benefit of
$126,000. This was an action for civil penalties
for violations of §112 and §114 of the dean Ak
Act 42 US.C §7412, and the National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
asbestos (Asbestos NESHAP), 40 CER. Fart 61,
Subpart M at two separate facilities.
Beginning with the statutory maximum, the court
proceeded to examine each mitigating factor
under 133(t) to reduce me $475,000 calculated
penalty The only factor which reduced the
penalty in this cast was the economic impact on
tht violatot Moreover, tht court stated that
recovery of tht economic benefit is "essential and
thai economic benefit should serve as the floor
below whkh tht maximum penalty should not be
mitigated.''
U.S. %. Ainarif an
CpmanTl TMs Case
involves the largest civil penalty ever collected
by EPA for construction of a facility without a
required PSD permit In December, 1991, a consent
decree was lodged In UJ. District Court
providing for a dvil penalty of $625,000 for
violations of tht PSD (Prevention o£ Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality) provisions of the
Clean Air Act. Tht decree also requires
Cyanamid to achieve and maintain compliance at
its Pearl River, New York facility. Cyanamid '>
Lederit Laboratories Division had started
construction of a PSD-affected facility prior to
receiving a PSD permit; it also failed to notify
tht State, in violation of CAA New Source
Performance Standards. After this enforcement
action was initiated, a PSD permit was issued,
and the company recommenced construction In
conformanct with its terms.
U.S. v. AriMMia PqhH
Aria.): fa F¥ 1992, as part of legion DCs "good
pollution control practices* initiative, the Region
discovered NSPS and SIP violations at a plant
•owned by Arizona PubUc Service Company. The
company failed to adhere to the NSPS
requirements concerning the installation,
operation and maintenance of continuous emission
3-2
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishmnts Repon
monitors (CIMs) at a fossil-fuel fired utility
plant regulated under the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS), and failed to
follow good pollution control practices by
operating during numaous and routine bypasses of
tha sulfur diojdds and partkulato mates' control
equipment on soms of thsr boites. Arizona Public
Service Company agreed to pay a $13 million
civil penally. Tho Arizona Public Sarvica
Company settie&teii is tho Mghet penalty ever
receivedl foe Qmn Ate Act violations In Region
DC Tha consent decrea requirss the company ID
follow explicit bypaao procedures, Install and
operate CEMo, pass performance teats and apply
for ail appropriate permits.
fD.
Hiatfotdl
v.
(D. Ct, Bridgeport); In FY 1992, EPA Bsgtet 1
entered Info sttttemsnlB in thsss ConnsctEcut ess&
irr; -iving v»ilaficn0 ol «3 Cteis* Air Act asBSSf&s
regulations. Each sardamsit Involved on
agreement to pay Q ntonotory penalty and
urtdortaha extaistvo moflsur® dsigRfid to caisuro
future compllartce. Uta threo cases ars
and
Among otfis? things, ths compUsrtCQ &3WQ requ
defendants: to provide datailod notification to
EPA priot? to any asbestos job; to insp^J, sample,
and analyze samples fop asbestos before working;
to aisure propo asbestos training let? afl worfesrs
and supervisors; to designate corporals officials
as company-wids astetos ptograaa atsnagas; and
to pay substantial stipulated pstoltfiss to? futuro
violations of tha sctttemstf terns or mt Asbsstos
MISHAP. TltQ overall compttanco cost to
defendants la eadi caao lo estimated to
approximately
In AgfijA, EPA alleged osbotoo vtoiatiojio during
a rsujvotion of Aatna'o corporate offlco in
Hartford, Connecticut, tha atone doremdants
named in tho casQ include Rsed and Greenwood
Insulation, Inc. and Safety Environmental
Control, Inc. Tito spsdfle violations included
failure to adequately wet friable asbestos and,
with respect to defendant lead md Greenwood,
violation ol a prior-issued EPA administaitivQ
ordez. Unde.me setttemsnt tha di^andants paid.
a $43,000 fines.
In 4xgQ, EPA alleged violations during
renovations at Avco's facility in Stratford,
Connecticut and tha William B. Meyer Rigging,
Inc. facility in Hamden, Connecticut Other
named defendants include William B. Meyer
Rigging, Inc., Asbsstoo Abatemtnt and Insulation
Ssrvkes, me, Logano Thiddng, me, and Lorens
Mattes, Sally Tsiaraa, Stephei Lang, and me late
Thomas Dolan, Trustees. This alleged vioktions
indudisd (allure to provido prior written notice of
tha rstovstion to. EPA, failure to wet asbestos
material adequately during and aftv stripping,
and discharge of visible asbestos emissions to the
ambient ate Under the -%n settlement,
dafend£ints paid Q S120X3QO psudty.
Finally, In EEAddario. EPA aUeged violations
which included inadequate wetting and improper
handling off asbestos material ao well as
noncompllortCQ with a prior-Issued EPA
administrative ordaz The violations allegedly
tooit place during two separate ratovations
carried out at tha .arms Read 097 aisnt Store
and the Old Bridgeport Brass Building, both in
Bridgeport, Connecticut Ths other named
defendants include Mechanics and Farmers
Savings Bank, BEZ, fee, tha Estats of P. Francis
lyAddarto (artd named Executors), Enviromrtmtal
Waata Rasourccs, Ine, Statewide * «**3 Cleaning
Services, Inc., David D1 Addario, in his
individual capacity, anid Petco Insulation
Company, tec. fa tyAddarifl tfta defendants have
paid a S140^JtH) paialty.
This
involvod tho largsst dean Ate Act penalty to
date, $6.7 million, in ssttiemenl over violation*
at Bethlehem Steel's Bethlehem, Pennsylvanu,
and Johnstown, Pcmnsylvania, feidlities. EPA >
CAA actions against Bethlehem Steel addressed
unlawful Qousiions that presented significant
risks to human haalth and tho aivironmsnt in
donsory populated areas ol Pennsylvania and
2chi0ved a fundamental priority of ths Agency'ii
Air Toaics program by dramatically reducing
Resolved whan two partial consent decrees were
lodged on March 9, 1992, in tho United States
District Court foe tho Eastern., District uf
Pennsylvania, this caao has tha largest penalty
in tho history ol tho dean Air Act stationary
sourco eiforcement program. A cash penalty of
3-3
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
$6.7 million will be paid by Bethlehem for their
particulat* matter violations of the federally
enforceable Pennsylvania Slate Implementation
Plan (SIP) at their coke oven batteries and
electric axe furnaces In Johnstown and Bethlehem.
Coke ovens are used to transform coal Into coke,
which is then used in furnaces in the steel making
process. Also included in this settlement is S32
million worth of injunctive relief which will
return Bethlehem to compliance, plus a
Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) to
install Luter-type cuke oven doors which will
serve to prevent the release of benzene and other
air toxics in a manner consistent with the
MISHAP recently proposed by EPA for emissions
uDmcokei
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources Is a party to both consent decrees and
will .receive one-hall of the ctvtt penalties fai till
Johnstown decree and thirty-percent of the
penalties in the Bethlehem decree.
U.S. •». B«tH1*h«m St*»l (Sparrows Point,
Maryland, Plant) (0. MdJ: A consent decree was
entered on April 24,1992, resolving a CAA civil
enforcement action against Bethlehem Steel
Corporation for afleged excess partkulate matter
emissions from coke oven batteries and the Bask
Oxygen Furnace during steel manufacturing at
Bethlehem's Sparrows Point Maryland, phnt in
violation of the federally enforceable Maryland
SIP.
Earlier in 1992 Bethlehem ceased coke oven
operations at the Sparrows Point plant for repairs
and possible re-building. Under the terms of the
decree Bethlehem has agreed to pay a civil
penalty of S3J million, to be divided equally
between the United States and the State of
Maryland. Bethlehem must also comply with all
applicable Maryland SIP and/or CAA permit
requirements before any construction or resumption
of operations of the coke oven batteries.
U.S. v C*
iln* ln
AflhaHL
Comin
(MJ>. PA): The penalty sum in this case is, byte
the largest civil penalty ever obtained in an
inorganic arsenic MISHAP case, and is one of the
largest civil penalties obtained in any MISHAP
case. A consent decree to settle this inorganic
arsenic MISHAP case was entered on May 12,
1992, in US. District Court. The consent decree
requires the defendants to upgrade, the
electrostatic predpitators serving the glass
manufacturing furnaces at the State College, PA
plant (by installing automatic voltage
controUexii, automatic nipper controllers, and a
supervisory computer); 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
$1325,000 in dvil penalties.
Til tfj H^rcQ^ MatMiala. T«^J On November 13
1991, legion V fled its first administrative
compliance order under me new CAA. This order
required ESSROC Materials, Inc. to improve its
emission control equipment at its Speed, Indiana,
facility by August 1,1992.
ESSROC had violated New Source Performance
Standards for Portland Cement Plants. The
§U3
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Idaho Forest Industries, Inc., operates several
lumber mills, one of which is located in downtown
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. The complaint alleged
that emissions from the hogged fuel boiler at this
facility exceeded the opacity standard in March
and September 1991 and alleged continuing
violations under the presumption of continuing
noncemptianceof §113(e)(2), 42 U5.C §7413
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
replacing the equipment, periodic outages for
maintenance were necessary. These cleaning
operations, conducted during outages, resulted in
massive bursts of participate emissions. EPA
alleged PSCC failed to maintain good ail-
pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions.
Under the terms ol the consent decree, PSCC
agreed to replace the Pawnee facility's faulty
pollution control equipment (electrostatic
predpitator) with another available pollution
control technology (Fiber Filter Dust Collector) at
a cost of approximately $66,000,000 by December
of 1991. To settle the actions at both facilities,
PSCC has agreed to pay a civil penalty of
$600,000, ol which $440,000 wffl be paid to the
United States Treasury and $160000 will b» paid
to the State ol Colorado,
; A consent decree to settle ids particulate
matter SIP t^se was entered on January 21, 1992, in
US District Court. The Consent Decree provided
for the installation of emission controls at a sinter
plant at USXs Fairies* Hills, PA plant and
requires compliance demonstration and
maintenance at the sinter plant, open hearth
shop, and blast furnaces, bi addition* USX is
required to pay $700,000 in dvil penalties.
Subsequent to its execution of the Consent Decree,
USX ceased operation of the sources at the plant
covered by me Decree.*
U.S. v. Tain»« W«Nh (W.D. Washington}: On
November 20, 1991, Judge Thomas Zilly of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington held that James Walsh, the project
superintendent for an asbestos abatement
company, was liable for asbestos violations during
renovations at the Seattle-Tacoma Airport and
Pier 52 on the Seattle waterfront This dedsion is
significant because it is the first time a court has
dearly stated that an asbestos worker who has no
ownership interest in the asbestos abatement
company is personally liable for asbestos
violations that he or she causes. Hie violations
alleged were discovered by inspectors from the
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency.
A complaint was filed in. 1989 against Savage
Enterprises, James Walsh and James J. Savage,
owner of the firm, for failure to keep asbestos wet
until collected for disposal during the renovation
activities. Savage Enterprises and James Savage
had previously entered into a consent decree with
the United States in which Savage agreed to pay
a penalty of $5,000. The court assessed a penalty
of $3,500 against Walsh after rinding that he
had no assets. Walsh has appealed this dedsion
to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
U.S. v. Waihitirttm State n»«jrfrm«nt of
TVarnpoTt^flofi; MgPonild't Carponflflfp
TimM Vf. Pfri» Comtfm'tton. Ittfc.
District of Washington, Seattle, Washington): On
August 241992. UA Attorney Mike McKay filed
a Complaint and partial Consem Decree in the
above-named action. EPA alleged that
defendants committed violations of the dean Air
Act during a 1987 demolition/renovation of a
Seattle facility being remodeled to become a
McDonald's fast food restaurant, the partial
Consent Decree required McDonald's to pay a
dvil penalty of $150,000. ft also required mat
McDonald's implement, at all applicable
McDonald's franchises in Region X, an extensive
internal asbestos control program which includes
inspection, sampling, notification, and training
requirements if its facilities are renovated or
demolished in the future. This matter has a
strong Regional enforcement impact and, as a
direct result of the settlement negotiations,
McDonald's indicated that it will undertake the
asbestos control program activities on a national
basis.
In the case at Issue, Washington Stale DOT owns
the facility, M-Oonald's leases the facility, and
Pirie Construction Company was engaged in the
demolition/renovation activity. The matter
remains before the Court for the other defendants.
The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
provide pre-demoUtion/renovation notice, foiled
to remove friable asbestos containing materials
(ACM) from the facility before any wrecking or
dismantling that would break up the materials,
failed to wet the ACMs when they were being
snipped 600 facility components, failed to keep*
the ACMs wet until collected, failed to carefully
lower the ACMs to the floor rather man dropping
or throwing them, failed to deposit ACMs at an
appropriate waste disposal site, failed to
prevent the discharge of visible emissions to the
outside air, and discharged pollutants (ACM and
demolition/renovation matter) to waters of the
United States.
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishmems Report
In »«
of
In this case,, the US. successfully
pursued satisfaction of unsatisfied dvil penalty
judgment! against Wheeling-Pittsburgh for prior
CAA (SIP) and RCRA violations at Wheeling-
Pittsburgh plants in West Virginia, Pennsylvania,
and Ohio, in the context of a Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceeding. The unsatisfied dvil
penalty totaled $8,086,552 (all of which, except
for $17,500, wen CAA penalties) and the US.
recovered 66.9% of that sun ($3,403/457). Hie
terms of the settlement are reflected in an
original stipulation approved by the US.
Bankruptcy Court on May 11, 1989, and in an
amended stipulation approved by the Bankruptcy
Court on April 25, 1991.
r ' '* **
dean Air Act Administrative Penalty
Initiative .
On May 20, 1992, EPA announced the
coordinated nationwide, /Sing of 52 Clean Air
Act administrative penalty cases setting more
than $4 million in penalties. The coo, fled in
26 States and Puerto Rico, enforced a wide
variety of Clan Air Act provisions and
regulations, including new requirements for
continuous emissions monitoring equipment at
petroleum refineries, national emissions
standards for asbestos, benzene and uranium
mining waste piles, and State standards for
smoke density and airborne particle emissions.
In all, 96 cases were /Bed during the jbe months
of FY 92 during which the authority to bring
these . coses existed. In Ft 92f twelve
administrative penalty cum settled with
penalties totaling $413,045.
The initiative warn designed to
publicize EPA's use of its new dean Air Act
administrative penalty authority, .one of several
new enforcement tools provided to EPA In the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Publicized
through national and regional . press releases
that wen coordinated with a speech given by
the Assistant Admoastmtor for Enforcement, tilt
initiative demonstrated EPA's commitment to
vigorous enforcement of the Clean Air Act and
sent a message of deterrence to. regulated sources.
Administrative penalty actions, with their
streamlined litigation procedures, allow EPA to
expend .moderate resources on middle-range but
important casts, and to reserve more resources far
judicial litigation in larger, mare complex cases.
Accordingly, EPA's new administrative
enforcement program ensures that middle-range
violations receive a commensurate enforcement
response, which in turn -results in greater
compliance with the Clean Air Act at less cost
both to government and to the regulated
community.
Multi-Media Benzene Enforcement
Initiative
A number of CAA -cases were included in
the August S, 1992, cross-media Benzene
Initiative, Prosecution and settlement .of these
cases mill result in significant reductions of the
amount of this hazardous .chemical emitted to
the otr. •••'.•••„>
UftS^ «. Qi«yrtm, 11.8.*^ (UJ. f§4; This consent
decree received significant attention as part of
the August 5, 1992, benzene initiative Chevron
agreed to pay a dvil penalty of $1 million and
'stipulated penalties, the largest benzene
NESHAP settlement to date. EPA addressed a
sensitive environment; namely a minority
community in Philadelphia, thereby promoting
environmental equity. This settlement
incorporates a plant-wide compliance audit
designed not only to establish compliance, but to
recommend improvements in training,
management structure, and standard operating
and maintenance practices to ensure continuing
compliance, Tne recommendations of the auditor
win becoim an enforceable part of the decree.
U.S.
' Stt«l Core. It -MonMa* ji. Inc.
CMonsssan, Pennsylvania} ( W.D. Pa4: A corewm
decree resolving a CAA civil enforcement action
against Sharon Steel Corporation (Sharon) and
Moncssen, Inc. (Monessen) was entered on August
5th as part of the benzene enforcement initiative
Hie decree addressed alleged violations of the
Qean Air Acf • National Emission Standard fur
Hazardous Air Emissions tor Benzene Emisjions
from Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene
Coke NESHAP) at Sharon's Moncsstn.
Pennsylvania, plant Under the terms ol th«
decree Sharon agreed to pay a civil penalty of
$300,000 and to come into compliance with the
Benzene Coke NESHAP by October 13, 1992,
3-7
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
State Aif folorecment Adioos
MEN Hie Maine Department of Emntausranlal
Protection, in a consent agreement finalized on
June 24, 1992, assessed a penalty of $179,000
against the Srunswiefc Naval Air Station. Hut
violation cited addressed Brunswick Neva!
Air Station's failure to install opacity
monitors as required by the facility's license
issued through the state's . licensing
regulations. This enforcement action
highlights the fact that states can be
successful in pursuing violations at federal
facilities, including the assessment of
penalties when warranted as a deterrent.
California v. Imerial
Cal EPA's Air B
Board and
the Disttict Attorney of Imperial County have
settled a dvfl lawsuit in Imperial County against
Imperial Resource Recovery Associates, LJP., a
power plant located tat Imperial, California. The
lawsuit alleged that the company fe&ed to bum
the required amount 'of field waste annually
(permit condition); exceeded visible emissions
limits for fuel handling and storage; operated
unpemutted equipments failed to inject ammonia
lor the reduction of emission* of ocricksofnjUzogen
(NQx); exceeded emission limits fo* oxides of
sulfur ,(SOx), NOx and opacity (a* shown by
ZRRA's continuous emission monitors); failed to
install ambient partfculate monitoring
equipment; burned excess natural gas; exceeded
emission limits for NOx and SOx (source tests);
and failed to observe continuous emissions
monitoring requirements for NOx, SOx and stack
oxygen. On October 20, 19*2, thecompatty agreed
to pay a fine of $123,000.
Cji|HforTvtfl T- Aatmttexm Clti Mfetjhuir CuitllC>f*eHtHI
Cal EPA's Air Resources Board and m» Dfstrkt
Attorney of Imperial County have settled a dvd
lawsuit against American G!*i Mining
Corporation, an operation extracting gold-bearing
ore from surface operations (open pits) and
underground (mine shafts). The lawsuit alleges
that American Girl operated a heap leach
cyanide application process usfiig sprinkler
irrigation instead of drip irrigation for me
application of sodium cyanide solution to its
leach piles; combusted high sulfur diesel oil in its
stationary and mobile diesel equipment instead of
combusting low sulfur diesel oil; felted to report
the total number of operating hours for each
diesei engine generator quarterly to me Air
Pollution Control District; failed to maintain a
certified opacity observer at the mine site; and
operated a € ton/hour portable cement batch
plant without the required permits. On
September 141992, the company agreed to pay a
$75,000 fine,
Coastal Chem constructed an
ammonium nitrate plant under a permit that
required me installation of low NQx burners on
the plant's fire tube boOez. When the failure to
install the burners was discovered during the
plant's initial start-up phase. Coastal Chem was
cited and appealed the dtation. On October 26,
1992, the State Environmental Commission
appellate panei in imposing a $135X100 penalty
(the maximum penalty of $S,000/day te* 27 days
of violation), noted concerns about the need for
ever/ operator to meet the obligations of self*
conqpuance under dean air statutes and the risks
to the system's integrity if non-compliance is
tolerated.
Pal a void Cofpftratian (Freetown* MA):
Polaroid Corporation of Freetown, MA
Installed and operated unapproved VOC
processes without obtaining a permit operated
in violation of other permit specifications •
regulating VOC emissions, and failed to
submit accurate VOC usage data. The source is
located in a serious ozone nc€t*ttainment area.
Polaroid signed an administrative consent
order with me Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection on October 18,1991,
with provisions for payment of a $200,000
penalty and a compliance schedule. The
compliance schedule required installation of
control equipment and submission of a top down
BACT analysis to the DEP by October 24,1992.
THmnrApej; (AtHafeoio, MA): Teknor Apex of
Attieboro, MA, e manufacturer of various
plastieizers, was found by the Massachusetts
DEP to be in violation of ai« wate% and
hazardous waste regulations. The air
violations included, among others, installing
unapproved VOC control equipment. After a
referral to the state Attorney General's office,
a final consent Judgment was filed on August 6,
t992 between Teknor Apex and the
3-8
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This multi-
media settlement requites payment of a
$850,000 penalty and adherence to. a
compliance schedule. - ' ...'",
SJ. WMTM (Wts brook, NE): In a consent
agreement signed on June 16,1992, the Maine
DEP fined S.D. Warren in Westbrook, Maine
$725,000 for air emission violations and
failure to maintain emission monitoring
devices properly, which 'include illegal
venting of Tbtal Reduced Sulfur (TRS)
compcunisiiuDtheatiiK^here-TRSiathegu
responsible for the "rotten egg" smell in the
nmuniry. At high concentrations TRS is
toxic At low levels TRS is not hazardous but is
1 a significant public welfare problem which is
taken seriously by the Maine DEP. The
company was also died for 73 counts of opadty
violations documented by a continuous opacity
monitot, S.D. Warren's failure to maintain its
continuous emission monitors property resulted
in large amounts of time when emissions were
unverified. • ' . - ' •
An additional violation was SJ). Warren's
incineration of TRS gases in a power boiler
which resulted in triggering PSD requirements
due to the increase in sulfur dioxide emissions.
To avoid the PSD review process legally, 5.D.
Warren lowered Its sulfur dioxide emissions by
agreeing to bum OJ% sulfur ofl instead of 2J%
in the power boiler. Hie company strenuously
disagreed with the state on this issue because
the incineration of TRS gases can be viewed as
a control device. However, If a device results
in increasing emissions of a regulated
pollutant it can trigger PSD regardless of
whether mat device it used for controlling
emissions. -' '- ' * — •
a«an Air Act Enforcement
Mobile Source Program
ARCO/Lvtmdat!
gai Cnnninf. On
January 3, 1990, the Department of Justice fited a
complaint against ARCO m the UJ. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas for a
violation of the lead phasedown regulation*.
The violation involved ARCO reporting
blendstock as gasoline during the fourth quarter of
1984, banking 43,698 kg of unlawful lead rights
during the first quarter 1985, and using 20,928 kg
of these unlawful lead rights to meet the lead
content standard during the third and fourth
quarters of 1987. The case was settled for $500,000
after being vigorously contested by lyondell, a
subsidiary of ARCO. The decree was signed by
the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement in
late FY 1992, and was entered in early FY 1993.
118. «. CTvmf , on jujy 31/1991, the Department
of Justice filed a complaint in the UJS. District
Court for Minnesota, alleging multiple violations
of the Lead Phasedown regulations by Fanners
Union Central Exchange, Ir»c (CENEX). A consent
decree was entered in November 1992, resolving
this matter and CENEX agreed to pay a penalty
of $571,000.
LanyortVa Mnfl!** ghoyi Longoria's Muffler Shop
removed at least ten catalytic converters in
violation of me tampering prohibition. The case
was filed in federal district court in Corpus
Qiristt, Texas, in September 1990. A Consent
Judgment was entered September 27, 1992, for a
$10,080 cash penalty plus S2«000 for a training
program to be presented by Colorado State
University for auto mechanks in Corpus Christi.
^Qgorfj, in conjunction with Shaffer Muffler.
decided by the same court several years ago,
establish a significant deterrent against
tampering in south Texas. The training program is
expected to prevent future violations by informing
the repair industry in south Texas about proper
maintenance and specific violations of the CAA.
MSA M«nuf ^'hirtug Company hi*-* This Case WAS
the first enforcement action undertaken pursuant
to the defeat device provision of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 and sought to enjoin MSA
Manufacturing Co., Inc. from manufacturing and
selling catalytic converter replacement pipes.
The consent decree provides for a dvil penalty of
S28,500 and prohibits MSA from manufacturing,
selling, trading, or otherwise supplying test
pipes. The decree requires MSA to issue a recall
letter to all ctistomers who purchased test pipe*
on or after the effecnve date of me defeat device
provision (November 15, 1990), through the date
of entry of the decree, in addition, the decree
•prohibits MSA from referring to test pipes in its
advertising or sales-related documents.
of
N«w TtfltlP
September 19, 1991, EPA issued a NOV
3-9
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
the township of North Brunswick, New Jersey,
addressing violations of the tampering
prohibition of the Clean Air Act The violations
involved the intentional disabling of catalytic
converters on eight township-owned police
vehicles, the township subsequently submitted a
report to EPA certifying that all 70 township
vehicles had been inspected and no further
tampering was discovered. Upon reinspectton on
November 6,1991, EPA found an additional police
vehicle with a disabled catalytic converter and a
second NOV was issued. Tint case was settled on
February 14,1992, with the township agreeing to
pay the entire $16,000 penalty.
OU In July and August 1992, EPA
discovered violations of the gasoline volatility
regulations at eight Sunoco retail stations in
Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and West Virginia, Sun has agreed
to complete an extensive internal Investigation to
determine the cause of the violations and to
stengilten its ->verMght progmun in &•• future,
This case was settled in early FY1993 for $48,600.
dean Water Act Enforcement
Clean Water Act (CWA) enforcement
supports tht Ntiiontl Pollutant D'-charge
Elimination System (NPDES) program, which is
tht program regulating both direct and indirect
discharges to the nation's navigable waters.
T«
Qtr at
A Consent Agreement and
Final Oder (CAPO) was filed on July 15, 1992, in
settlement of US. EPA's administrative action
against the City of Adrian, Michigan, for
violations of the CWA, The CAPO requires
Adrian to pay a dvil penalty of $25,000 and
perform three environmentally beneficial
projects. First, the city will install a
dechiorination system at its wastewater
treatment facility at a cost of $15,000. Although
Adrian Is presently in compliance with Its TRC
limits, installation of • back-up dechiorination
system wifl reduce the possibility of future TRC
exceedances. Second, the dty has agreed to
perform a water quality study of the South
Branch of the River Raisin, in conjunction with
the River Raisin Watershed Counsel. This study
will cost $38,937. The resulting data will be used
to improve stormwater management of the mostly
'rural area through which the South Branch runs.
Third, Adrian has agreed to perform a
comprehensive study of the Fho-Strip process (for
removing phosphorous) at a cost of $61.000. The
study will identify the impact of toxicants on the
Pho-Strip process and determine die cause of
sudden Fho-Strip upset
Qtr of Altamant*
BflXida; The City of Altamonte Springs, Florida,
was issued a Class n administrative penalty
order on September 25, 1990, in the amount of
$125,000. The Complaint was settled on March 2,
1992, by Altamonte Springs' entering into a CAPO
Assessing Administrative Penalties. The
settlement included a dvil penalty of $55,000
plus a supplemental environmental project (SEP)
valued in excess of $3,300,000 for the construction
of a distribution system for reuse of the Gty's
wastewater treatment plant effluent.
Implementation of the SEP will significantly
reduce the POTW* impact on the Little Wckiva
Rive^ which is classified as an Outstanding
Florida Water, the most protected class of streams
inPorida.
On September 1, 1992, the Federal District Court
for the Western District of Texas, entered a
consent agreement which required the American
Lantern Company to pay -a penalty of $300,000 for
past violations of categorical pretreatment
requirements at a facility it had owned and
operated in San Antonio, Texas. This agreement
settled a United States, action against the
American Lantern Company for discharging
pollutants Into the G*y of San Antonio's publicly
owned treatment works in violation of an
industrial user permit issued by the City of San
Antonio and the categorical pretreatment
standards for the electroplating industry.
American Lantern Company is a Delaware
Corporation which is engaged in the manufacture
of lighting fixtures. The Company owned and
operated a small decorative lighting fixture
manufacturing facility in San Antonio, Texas,
until December 1988 when it moved its operations
to Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. As part of its
manufacturing process, the company generated
process waste water which it was required to
treat prior to discharge to the City of San
Antonio's POTW In accordance with an industrial
user permit issued by the City ard the categorical
pretreatment standards for the metal finishing
industry. From August 1984 to December 1988 the
3-10
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Company discharged untreated procaso water to
the POTW in violation of its permit and the
categorical standards.
U.S. T.
U.S. v.
(S.D. OHh
On February 12, 1992, a consent decree was
entered in ths Southam District of OWo resolving
a" long-standing enforcement action under tha
CWA. for discharging pollutants in violation of
Its NPDES permit; Aristech paid a dvil pmalty
of 872^)00 and installed a carbon absorption
system, dual media sand filters, ami ultraviolet
disinfection unit to tnoft ito sanitary waatewatsr
discharges to a Isrol moro stringent than tho
secondary treatawit rsquiramsnts of tils Onto
Rivoa TfMt SHpsoted bsrtafifc to tha environment
includes mo additional nmov&Toff suspended
solids, soluble organic matter phosphorus,
ammonia, and fecal collf orm bacteria. In
Addition, t&s mstaHatten of caitai absorbs?*! and
tertiary ffltaas aio expected to redoes suspsnded
solids and Mechanical 0x7331 dsraend (BOD) in
ins effluent by at teas* 67% (<10 rngn/1 vs. 30
mg/1) on a consistent baste.
Aristech's Havorhill plant nanufactiires bulk
and commodity chemicalo from organic chsmicai
and p<2troleurn-bas6d fraction feedstocks. Tha
United Stafcs) had initiated this action on Jons 30,
1989, after a review off dischargo monitoring
reports rsvoalsd tfiaft Ariat^h was discharging
- sanitary w&stewato? la tno Ohto Ihref In
amounts which osceedsd the company'a NFDES
permit limits fas total suspended solids and TOD.
Ins company has demonstrated compliance with
ibi tertiary pomit limits amco July 19S9.
TJfft. Y< /V"tgh*g' TtifewiMttoBal; A rfvil actten was
filed against Arcchem fbff its violations of the
CWA at its pcttccrtanteai fedliiy in GuaynnUIa,
Puerto Rico. A conssnft decree settling the Qaan
Wator litigation was lodged will tna Court in
its NPDES permit and pay a dvil panalty off
$£134Sra. Baforo mo dooe could ba ottorsd,
however Arocham was placed In Qiaptsr 11
bonbrupteyt Tko pondaney of tha bankruptcy
action precluded tns entry oS ma decree. In
August, 1992, Arcchem petitioned for dissolution
under Chapts 7 of ths Bankruptcy Act Arocham
has ceased operation of its facility. MSeptsmbor
1992 tho Region requested tha Dspartment of
Justico to filo a Proof of Claim in a bankruptcy
action involving Arocham International, Inc.
l&sao)t On Februaty 20, If92, the UJ. was
awarded $400,0$) against ths Qty of Baautnont
1tea§ for foiling to implamait an industrial
prerreatmsnt program, required by the
Defendant's NPDES permit under §402 of the
dean Miter Act. Tho City's pratreotmant
program required ths Qty to regulate Industrial
discharges into its treatmstf worte. Among oths
thingp, tfts pretreatment program required the
Ory to (1) Identify significant Industrial uses of
tfcs tesatmaztf plant, (2) Icmia parmits to these
usfst which ragulatQ what caiba discharge •••
tha troatmsnt plant, and (3) require tho use, ,.
submit sdf mtBiitoring data. Insst vtoktior. :
ths roquirod protrootmont program .w. . .-*
discovarod during audits of tho City's
prstreatmsn* program. Tbs Court ruled in mo
govommanf 8 favor stating that tho above
program octhritiea u wara important aspects of a
protreatment program and not "unessential
bureaocratic functiono* m tha Qty had argued.
.Tr» Cottft iar ->Q®G& a.poialty in txc@ss of the
Gconomie. savings the Qly obtained during its
u.s.
i Ch
Dacamtea 2, 1991, tha Federal District Court for
tho Diststet cf !.Iiiyiand ottered a consent decree
rasolving ths United Stoles doan Wfator Act
dvH soft agamst Bothlahaxn Steal Corp. (BSQ.
In this suit tte United Stobahcd alleged that
BSC had opillod roportable quantities of
hazardous substance into tha Patapeco River on
thraaccootom: two sputa olmiiharteacM and one
of teiie chiorfda. Undo tha consent decree BSC
agreed to pay tha statutory imudmum penalty of
2130,000 (lass 13,000 paid to ono stetn for the
sam® violationc). Bethlehem also agreed to
remove ttt@ equipmsnt that was ths source of
many of ins spins, and to undsrtakc a program to
educate Its czmployoes in spill prevention and
Ta. fe Irttae at
. omnang: In
February 1992, Eagkn I issued its consent order
first assessing an administrative penalty against
a public writes supplkr under §1412 of the Safe
Drinking Wats? Act. At ths request of the State
of Miw Jorssy, EPA had Issued an administrative
compliartcQ ordesr against Brunswick for failure to
submit sampling results for fecal coiiform and
nitrates. Brunswick violated tha compliance
orde? by failing to submit sampling results for
3-11
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Aecomplutantnu Report
nitrates. EPA issued a penalty complaint for
$5X00 (the maximum permissible under § 1412).
tLS g Q of Ca
**• *lff The
penalty in this cas« Is the largest penalty ever
obtained in legion IV for violations of a NPDES
permit by a municipality. On October 13, 1992, a
Consent Decree was lodged in me US. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida to settle
the above case. Under this Consent Decree, Cape
Coral agrees to pay a dvil penalty erf $750,000 fox
past violations of tf» Oean Water Act
U- •»- Qium
Tiw (CD, Calll)} On July
28, 1992, the United States District Court entered
a dvil consent decree in which "Chevron agreed to
pay $15 mflllcn In dvil penalties In addition to
the $6J million In criminal fines agreed to In a
global settlement of the criminal and dvil actions
brought under the OcenWiter Art these action*
arose out of Chevron's violations of ofl and grease
effluent limitations in a NPDES permit for its
offshore oil platform, Platform Grace* located in
federal waters of the Santa Barbara Channel off
the coast of Southern California. The dvil action
alleged both violation! of the effluent
limitations and reporting violations. The
criminal action focused on the failure to report,
illegal dilution, and other discharges from the
platform.
The case was first referred as a dvfl matter
following the Issuance of an administrative order
after an inspection of the platform. Information
received In response to this administrative
enforcement brought to light the reporting
failures and the true extent and long history of oil
and grease violations from the platform. The
criminal case exemplifies the Agency's
commitment to the Integrity of the self-
monitoring system under the Gean Water Act
COL, tne. ^ H.PV
May 1, 1992, Judge Wright, of me Eastern District
of Arkansas, Jonesboro Division, entered a consent
decree assessing a penalty of ft million against
CPS Chemical Company, Inc, for violating the
requirements of Its NPDES permit from 1984
through 1989 and violating the requirements of
five administrative orders Issued during that
period, in a prior memorandum opinion issued on
November 12, 1991, me court found that CPS, a
specialty chemical company, was tn violation of
its 1984 NPDES permit requirements for 62
months, including over 1700 violations of daily
maximum limitations and over 200 violations of
daily average {imitations. The court also found
that CPS had violated all five of the
administrative orders issued during die life of
the 1984 permit.
CPS Chemical Co* Inc, which owns and operates
a specialty chemical nuwuf acturing company in
West Memphis, Arkansas, oMnuracture*, among
other things, toxic pesticides. CPS failed to
comply with the NPDES limits contained in its
1984 permit from the date of Issuance until one
month before the permit was due to expire and
several months after a dvil action was Initiated.
The $1 million penalty, is the largest penalty
ever obtained in the State of Arkansas and in
Region VI for an NPDES violation.
tia. v. p«ti« r^rp^a m (sj3. IN), on March 4*
1992, the US. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana entered a consent decree
settling UA EPA's CWA dvfl penalty action
against Dan* Corporation. According to the
decree, Dana will pay a dvfl penalty of $750,000
and construct a recirculating water cooling system
and a treatment facility it its Hagerstown,
Indiana, Engine Products Division. This work
should reduce toxk poOutant loadings to the West
Fork of me Whitewater Rivet
The United States had filed this complaint
against Dana on February 27, 1991, In order to
recover monetary relief for past discharges of
hexavalent chromium and total chromium in
excess of effluent limitations in Dana's NPDES
permits. Dana's monthly discharge monitoring
reports had showed a total of 1324 violations of
Dana's effluent limits.
FU* A March 1992 Consent Agreement and Order
settled this action, against the Escambia County
Utilities Authority (ECU A) for NPDES permit
violations occurring at its Main Street waste
water treatment facility In Pensacola, Florida,
discharging to Pensacola Bay. The action was
prompted by numerous violations of fecal ooliform
and total residual chlorine permit limits over a
12 month period. The Consent Agreement and
Order which Included a dvil penalty of $26,000
and a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP)
valued at 150,000. The SEP, proposed by the
Northwest Florida Water Management District
3-12
-------
, F? 1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
and supported by the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, consisted of an
eighteen-month water quality data collection
effort in Pensacoia Bay and parts of contiguous
water bodies. The study was designed to provide
an updated water quality characterization of the
Bay as a sound basis for subsequent waiteload
allocation determinations and non-point source
control decisions, and to provide a bertdhoiarfc
against which to measure the effects of ongoing
pollutant control efforts.
OR January 8,1992 EPA
issued a Final Penalty Order assessing a $9,000
penalty against FMC for discharging without an
NFDIS permit 52,000 gallons of alkaline process
water to the Black Fork Riv-r, resulting in a fill
kill for 10 miles downstream. It to anticipated
that this ease will send a strong message to the
regulated community, that will deter future
violators. • . • • ' '. ". •
Mi«ldl«MK Cfttmtr UtaWmm Aatfmritn A Consent
Deere* in this cast against three New Jersey
municipalities resulted in fines of almost SI
million for more than a decade of' violations of
the dean Water Act, The Consent Decree
requires the Township of Woodbridge, the
Borough of Carteret and the CHy of Perth Amboy,
to p^ a collective dvfl penalty of $990,000 for
past violations of the Clean Water Act at their
sewage treatment plants. Compliance had been
achieved previously by having the communities
divert their sewage flows to the treatment
facilities oi the Middlesex County Utilities
Authority (MCUA).
This case was initiated to compel the
municipalities to join the MCUA'» regional
sewage system. Each munidpaiity had operated
its own inadequate sewage treatment facilities.
' Even though they finally complied by neJng into
MCUA, it was only after numerous orders were
issued by the Court and at least three contempt
actions were initiated to enforce those orders.
t« tit tndtn*
*nt
Indiana. (N.D.
Indiana): this litigation commenced in January
1978 when the United States filed a complaint
against the Qty of Gary and the Gary Sanitary
District for NPDES violations at their POTW. In
July 1986 EPA filed a complaint against Gary for
violations of me Toxic Substances Control Act
The CWA and TSCA actions were consolidated in
June 1987. Gary failed to comply with a 1983
settlement and after a modified consent decree
was entered in September 1987 to resolve me prior
violations, Gary again violated the new
settlement Gary's violations of the 1987
settlement and its gross failure to properly
operate and maintain its treatment plant were
among the most severe seen anywhere in the
country!) .
Consequently in 1988 and 1989 the United States
filed various motions to enforce the 1987 modified
consent decree. After trial briefly commenced in
November 1990, with considerable pressure from
the court the parties reached an agreement
which resulted in mis second modified consent
decree, which was lodged with the court in
November 1991, and subsequently entered in
November 1992. '
The consent decree contains an extensive set of
remedial measures that Gary must undertake to
achieve and maintain compliance with its
NPDES permit the dean Water Act and the
Ibxk Substances Control Act The Decree requires
the defendants to complete numerous projects to
repair, rehabilitate -*wi maintain their
wastewater treatment plant and their sewer
system pursuant to a schedule. The Decree also
requires the defendants to take various measures
to implement their pretreatment program to
control industrial discharges of toxic pollutants
into the sewer system. In addition, the settlement
requires the defendants to remediate the PCB-
containing sludge lagoon that is immediately
adjacent to the Grand Calumet Rivet
The settlement requires the defendants to pay a
total sum of $U million (in five equal annual
irtstayUments of $340,000) for the study and
Uation of contaminated river sediments in
the Grand Calumet River (East Branch). This
sediment remediation project will b«
implemented consistent with, and potentially as
an addition to, the sediment remediation work
being done by USX pursuant to EPA's 1990
settlement with USX, "
The Decree also contains several innovative
measures designed to address the fact thai the
defendants have grossly violated several
previous settlements and to, hopefully, prw«nt
3-13
-------
•
m)
FY1992 Enforcement Accomptishmtau Report
further violations. Pint, the Court will appoint a
Special Administrator to oversee compliance
with the Decree. This Special Administrator
will have extraordinary powers to aid the
defendants' compliance with this Decree,
including the ability to circumvent other
governmental subdivisions that have previously
blocked necessary increases In user rates. Second,
the Special Administrator subject to prior
approval by EPA, must appoint an independent
contractor to operate the wastewater treatment
plant This independent contractor is given broad
authority to operate the plant in compliance
with the Decree, including the authority to hire
and fire employees and procure supplies. Third,
the Decree requires the defendants (or the
Special Administrator) to provide sufficient
funding necessary to comply with the
requirements of the Decree.
Finally, unlike previous settlements with the
defendants, this settlement •* requires the
defend- ts to p. y a dvtf penally of $1.25 million
over four years.
U-^T, jftidi R«
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
permit limitations. Under the decree Mennen
paid a civil penalty of $573,700; ceased the direct
discharge of wastewater from one of its outfalls;
and agreed to undertake certain measures to bring
its facility into compliance With its NPDES
permit '. .
* . * • ^
The decree called for compliance to be achieved
by September 30, 1992. After entry of (the decree,
however, Mennen notified EPA that it could not
comply with one parameter of the permit (the
color parameter) by that date, and requested that
an interim Unit be extended until September 30,
1994, A modification to the decree providing such
an extension is now being prepared.
U.S.
M»tf*»aoUlMi TVatrfrt (*ftnnrH««4 North American
Philips Corporation. The government's complaint
had charged the company with violations of
national categorical pretreabzient standards for ,
metals manufacturing and metals forming,
violations of local pretreatment limitations and
violations of pretreatment reporting
requirements. : _ ,, . . _,v-
Pursuant to the settlement, the company will
correct its violations and pay a* $500,000 civil
penalty. In addition, as a supplemental
environmental project, the company will spend
about $583,000 to eliminate waste water
discharges from two non-federally regulated
processes at its facility, thus going beyond
miru^um statutoiy requuwnertts. EPA encourages
pollution prevention projects of this kind and an
take such projects into account when setting
settlement penalties, .
In coining into compliance and carrying out the
pollution prevention project, the company will
significantly reduce its discharges of pollutants.
Discharges of molybdenum wiU be reduced by
1,446 kilograms per yean discharges of ammonia
will be reduced by 839 kilograms per ye« and
discharges of fluoride will be reduced by 691
kilograms per year,
Oylfjfr ftliMMf RM«ryarioT^ QTint Ridge, South
Dakota): On October 16,1991, an administrative
compliance order was issued to the Sioux Tribe
ordering the tribe to cease the discharge of raw
sewage "from its Pine Ridge facility. Citizen
complaints from me reservation and the obvious
human health risks associated with the release
of raw sewage prompted this action. Through
dost coordination with the municipal facilities
branch of EPA this action proved to be successful.
The discharge was ceased as required by the
Order The discharge of raw sewage to the
nation's waters art a common occurrence on
reservations due to the lack of treatment
capacity. Through coordination with municipal
facilities, EPA can help to eliminate these
conditions by providing the tribes with money,
technical assistance and a reasonable schedule for
achieving compliance with the dean Water Act
This case has served as a model for providing
assistance to other reservations with inadequate
wastawattr treatment faculties.
IT
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Passaic Valley Sewerage Conunissionen (FVSQ
lo pay $300,000 In stipulated penalties and Joint
Meeting to pay $200,000. These penalties will be
shared between the State and Federal
governments. In addition, the Court gave each
defendant 120 days to cure their noncompUance.
The Consent Decrees were entered in 1989 actions
to enforce the OOBA, which requires municipal
sludge dumpers to cease the practice of ocean
dumping of sewage sludge and implement long
term alternative methods of disposal.'
Under those Consent Decrees the defendants were
to develop and implement both "short term* and
long term" sludge management practices as
alternatives to the ocean disposal of sludge. Both
PVSC and Joint Meeting selected as their "short
term" alternative the dewatering of sludge and
contracting for the sludge to be disposed of in
landfills. Under the terms of the Decrees,
defendants were to have contracts which
extended until "long term" alternatives could be
implemented, fin both cases this was a period of
seven years. However* both defendants entered
into landfill disposal contracts of only five years,
dting a purported stale law which limited the
terms of contracts. The five year term of the
contracts was not in compliance with the
requirements of the Consent Decrees. Despite
numerous attempts to have defendants curt their
incompliance, they refused. Motions to Enforce
the terms of Consent Decrees and assess stipulated
penalties were filed In October 1991.
In the Matter of Pi
EPA Region 01 issued the nation's first
order lor abatement of endangerment under the
Oil Pollution Act Amendments of the. dean
Water Act EPA and the Pennsylvania Petroleum
Products Company, Incorporated entered into an
Administrative Order on Consent for the
containment, recovery and disposal of oil that
was released from the facility during a fin. in
November 1991. As a result of that fire, oil
released from the facility infiltrated **** city
stormwatar system which discharges into the
Delaware River. The Order required the
submission of a Response Action Plan and schedule
for developing and implementing appropriate
cleanup actions to abate the uncontrolled release
of oil and to protect public health and welfare
(including natural resources); to safely demolish
remaining on-site structures; and to pay costs
Incurred by EPA for oversight of the Order.
LLS. v. Pnartn Rlgo Adm-trd utration of Ceirreetian*:
A Consent Decree was entered in June resolving a
civil action Initiated in 1990 against the Puerto
Rico Administration of Corrections (PRAQ for
violations of its NPDES permits at three prisons.
Under the Consent Decree, PRAC will pay a $1
million civil penalty for its past violations, and
undertake plant, improvements to bring the
facilities into compliance with their permits by
May 1993. The penalty is one of the largest
obtained by Region EL under the dean Water Act
against a public agency to Puerto Rico,
The facilities involved arc located in Guavate,
Zarzal and Guayama, Puerto Rico. EPA obtained
partial summary Judgment on the issue of
liability for permit violation* in October, 1991.
The Consent Decree requires PRAC to tie its
Guayama facility into the PRASA system by May
1, 1993, and to undertake improvements to its
Guavate and Zarzal facilities so that they will
be in compliance with their NPDES permits by
May 1, 1992 and February 1,1993, respectively.
The penalty Is to be paid in two installments,
with interest
In
i Rica Stu
orgon
More
Region II issued a consolidated Consent
Agreement and Order m June which resolved
three administrative penalty actions pursuant to
§309(g) of the CWA against the Puerto Rfco Sugar
Corporation. The Order requires the Sugar Corp.
to pay a cash penalty of $85,000 and undertake
Supplemental Infotcement Projects (SEPs) costing
at least $50,000. If the Sugar Corporation fails to
implement the SEFs it must pay an additional
$50,000 as a cash penalty.
In March 1990, EPA issued a Class II
administrative Complaint against Sugar Corp.
for violations of the CWA at its Aguirre facility.
EPA **•" issued 'a Q*st 0 Complaint in December
1990 against the company's AquadflU facility. In
May 1991, EPA issued a Class I Complaint against
the firm for violations at the Central Mercedita
facility. These actions were consolidated for the
purposes of settlement discussions, which lead to
issuance of the Consent Agreement and Order
resolving all three actions.
U.S. v. Btoii^Poulettg Ay Ca. and Union Carbid*
Ontmical iml Ptaatic* Cow. Tnc. (S.D. W.Va.): In
October 1990, the United States filed suit against
Rhone-Poulenc and Union Carbide alleging
3-16
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Repon
violations of tha Qean Water Act Specifically,
the United States alleged that these companies
had on numerous occasions spilled various
substances into the Kanawha Rivar, Including ma
listed hazardous substances naphthalene, sodium
hydroxide, and toluene, Ths United States also
alleged that Rhone-Poulenc had violated the
effluent limitations la Is NPDES permit for ma
pollutants chloroform, naphthalene, and
suspended soBdo.
On Decanbsz 19, 1991, fie Federal District Graft
entered a consent dscreo containing an agrsartatf
between tho parties resolving tha violations.
Undo? ma decree;, Rhona-PouJenc and Union
Carbids paid a dvfl penalty erf S423<00a ihona-
Poulsnc further agreed to undertaka necessary
remedial actions, including btotojddty testing of
Ht0 facility wastewata? and an snvironmental
compliance audit. Tte terms ol ths compliance
audit; require Rhono-Poulonc to hire ah
EPA^approv^ conaultant who is to
detenu' w tho causes ol the violations and
dovsJop a TCmvi^E action pktn to ba
by Rricff6>Pculs*£. '.
ono of several that EPA Region HI
tabsi against polluters located in the heavily
Induotr^^ed ICanawha VaOsy tat Wast Virginia
in an eifort to dean up tfts Kanawfta Wrasr. II id
agpecially important because off tho
tht rsxnedy obtained by tha
United Stats and tha strong deterrent msssago
sett to KanawhaVaflsy poUutera.
i i i .
(S.D. ni)i Tiro VUlagQ otf Sauge^ an UUrtou)
municipality of approximately 2(3 peopk, owns
two publkiy owned treatment works. Together,
(ona plant flowo Into tha other), ms plants
provide primary and secondary treatnvent for
wastewater rot *a communities oi Saugs*; East
St Louis, CahoMa, and mo Commcmfiaids (total
sardco population of approximately 84^HJO), and
a numbs1 of largo Industries. Ovor 50 par csmt o?
tho wastewater discharged to me Mississippi
Rivor by Saugst, apprcodmatciy 13 to 20 million
g&IIona per day, comas feon mdustrlal uasrs.
15 • -
In May 1988, EPA filed a complaint alleging that
Saugot had foiled to develop an approvablo
pfstreatmeit program and exceeded its NFDE5
effluent limits for biochemical onygen demand,
iron, moeury, total suspended solids and 'zinc on
voriouo occasions. Tho complaint also alleged
that Saugat had failed to demonstrate
compliaiKQ with & whole eMuott toxldty limit
In addition, tha complaint alleged that Sauget
was violating its permit by. discharging an
effluent with a bright yeflow color and a strong
solvent odot in violation of. applicable state
water mtattty standards.
In March 1992, after tengthy negotiations and
litigation, the court ratarsd a consent decree
setttestsnt Pursuiait to ma settisment, Sauget
wffl pay a penalty of 3750,000: $480,000 will be
paid to tfes ,ttS. and 8270^00 to tha Stats of
' ' '
Tha primary purpose of tht consent decres is to
further roduco ma toaicity of Sauget's
wastawftter dischargs by treating tho known
tenricsrtfs, and by idantifying and finding mathods
to treat the toxicants which aro presently
unknown. ThsaA^ tha ckcrearisquires Sauget to
a number ol measures,' including me
continnaticn erf adding powdered activated carbon.
to ite treatment process- In order to immediately
i Reduce tha onpect of tha tonic effluent on aquatic
Ufa on in bank of tha Mississippi Rivet Sauget
bus agreed to construct and is ROW operating a
"high rote difrussK0 In osdsr to address the
ammonia problem, which lo primarily
responsible fog tha noialning ^fluent tosicity,
Saugst will install a "Una bubble aeration
system"/ osid will undartake other steps to
improves ommonin treatment Additionally,
Monsanto, H&rcros Figments, and trade Vfeate
fedrtsratton, fitree of Saugef s mdustral users
whidi collectively discharge roughly 23,000
pounds of MMwmia to tha Sauget POTWsperday,
are required to reduce their ammonia discharges
by mm 90 par cent over tha next four years.
Sauga* also will pay Qlirtola EPA $30,000 for at
Isaat asm year to hire an independent consultant
(to bo oatected by &Unoi& EPA) who will act as an
on-oits "obcorvor" ol tfea Implementation of
Seugefs Protreatment Program. Tho observer's
primary function io to cznauro mat Sauget
adequately aiforces Monsanto's and'Harcros
Pigments' comsnitmatts to reduce ammonia. In
addition, the settlement requires Sauget to
conduct $i» ssparate studies oHts wastswatar ^and
traatmont Thsss studios will assist EPA in
learning more about how Saugat's discharge
impacts tha Mississippi Rive* where the
3-17
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishment! Stpon
problem . pollutants an coining from, and in
reissuing an appropriate NPDES permit for
Saugetinl99&
O.S. y.
.D. CaW: On March 11,
1992, a consent decree was entered in this dean
Water Act enforcement action requiring Simpson
Paper to pay a dvil penalty of $2.9 million (plus
interest). Suit was filed against Simpson Paper in
1989 for National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit violations
occurring at its pulp mill on the Humboldt
peninsula in Northern California. The facility
had experienced numerous violations of its
NPDES permit including violations of numerical
limits for chronic toxidty (as measured by a
bioassay), violations of numerical limits for
reduction of natural light transmittance in
receiving waters, and general prohibitions
against causing adverse Impacts to beneficial uses
of receiving waters, induding re
In addition to the payment of dvfl penalties, the
settlement requires Simpson Paper to implement
treatment measures or process changes to abate
tontity in the mills' effluent. Under the decree,
Simpson Paper was also required to study
whether its effluent can be treated to the point of
being essentially free of color, odor, skin irritants,
and potentially muta genie /carcinogenic
compounds. If Simpson Paper is unable to
demonstrate through Its study that treatment
will accomplish these goals, it is required to
extend its ocean outfalL Simpson Paper also
agreed to reduce the use of chlorine from lit pulp
bleaching process.
U.S. »t
. Stratfi
Ditrict and Florida D«nartm«nt af
nmental Ri
February 24,1992 the Men
Order entered the previously
(S.D. Florida)*; On
andum Opinion and
apeed to
Settlement Agreement as a consent decree, and
resolved all claims of the original parties to the
lawsuit,, filed more than three years ago by the
United States against the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) and Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER)
for alleged failure to enforce stats water quality
regulations. The Complaint, claimed mat high
levels of phosphorous in the farm-water runoff
from the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA)
have impacted the.fragile ecosystems of the
Everglades National Park (Park) and
loxahatchee National Wildlife Refup (Refup},
altering the native plant communities and
endangering indigenous plant and animal life.
The runoff, which falls under the irrigation
return flow exemption of the Clean Water Act
was released into the Refup and Park through
structures operated by the SFWMD in violation of
DER regulations.
The Settlement Agreement which establishes
interim and long-term phosphorous concentration
limits for water entering the Refup and. Park,
sets out specific remedial programs to achieve
these limits. The Agreement was developed in
consultation with several Federal Apndes and
will require the Army Corps to modify the
operation of the Central and South Florida canal
system. Although the,Court found that these
activities constitute "major federal action" under
.NEPA, the Court concluded that rejection or
delaying implementation of the Settlement
Agreement would frustrate the statutory purpose
of NHPA and therefore required NEPA compliance
simultaneous with, but not as a condition to,
implementation of the Settlement Agreement
in issued a unilateral administrative order,
pursuant to §§311(c) and (e) of the dean Water
Act as amended by the OU Pollution Act of 1990,
to the Sovereign OU 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 Cram the facility into the city
sewer system and from mere into the Delaware
River. Despite repeated efforts by the Gty of
Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources (PADER), respondents
had refused to undertake the cleanup of numerous
oil spills that had occurred at iiut facility.
Finally, both Philadelphia and PADER
requested assistance from EPA in addressing th*
problems posed by the facility. This order is
believed to be .the first unilateral administrative
order issued by EPA pursuant to the authorities
conveyed by the OH Pollution Act
SYNTHES USA (Monument Coloridoh On
February 23, 1992, EPA Region VTH issued *
Proposed Administrative Order against Synthes
USA, a categorical metal finisher in Monument,
3-18
-------
FY1992 Enforcemau Accomplujanejos Ripen
Colorado, tot violations of national pretreatment
requirements. Among other things, the facility
exceeded Federal categorical limits for
chromium, cyanide, and pR A Consent Order was
issued on November 12, 1992, that requires
Synthes USA to pay a dvii penalty of $15,000
and undertake Supplemental Environmental
Projects (SEPs) totaling $141,256. The SEPs that
will be undertaken include development of an oily
waste disposal system and a fluid management
system. •
Data Quality Enforcement Initiative
In May and June, 1992, Region II issued a
total of nineteen Clam t administrative
Complaints pursuant to §309(g) of the Clean
Water Act. The Complaints attege that NPDES
permittees (mainly POTWs) have faffed to
comply witk f 301 of the CVfA at not submitting
analytical data m required by EPA's Discharge
Monitoring Report Quality Assurance Study Ho,
V Eaeli Complaint seeks the imposition of »
$10,000 penalty.
Each year, EPA seeks to review the
quality of self-monitoring data generated by EPA
permittees. The permittees an sent blank
*.mples 0) unknown constituents; they must
.analyze these and 'return the results to EPA. In
the past, substantial numbers of permittees have
failed to fully comply. Last year similar actions
were initiated against 22 permittees.
Slate Water Enforcement Actions
Alaska
Environmental
Alaska's environmental and law
enforcement agencies Joined forces during FY 1992
to form an Environmental Crimes Unit, with a
full-time prosecutor, state trooper investigator,
legal assistant, and coordinated support from
within the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC). In the first months of
operation the unit participated in several
investigations, ranging front "phantom dumping"
of hazardous waste to tracking those responsible
for releases of dangerous chlorine gat. The office
is expected to concentrate on hazardous waste and
water violations and to seek restitution which
can assist in pollution prevention objectives.
Indictments were brought against two individuals.
for . dumping hazardous waste and other
indictments are pending.
During FY 1992, the largest criminal and civil
settlement for an environmental infraction in
American history was made between the State
and Federal governments and Exxon Corporation
for the Exxon Valde* oil spilt The settlement,
totaling over $1 billion, provided $112 million in
criminal fines and restitution. The "civil
settlement to be paid over a period of ten years,
will be managed by six federal and state trustees
to provide for restoration and enhancements to
Prince William Sound.
' S&ttt frf Tftall fJt {"**•••«• 4lek«] {""nvwitPHiiltft T tl«
largest outof-court settlement for violations of
the Utah Water Pollution Control Act and me
Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit for its mill at Orem, Geneva Steel
Corporation paid over $650,000 in stipulated
penalties between December 1989, and September
1992., These stipulated penalties for discharging
excessive ammonia concentrations were included
in two Settlement Agreements, signed May 31,
1990 aitfDecemb-'11,1991.
* fn response to odor
complaints from local residents, Washington
Department of Ecology conducted several
inspection* at Wfeyerhaeuser'* Cosmopolis,
Washington, pulp and paper facility over the
five-month period beginning in May 1991.
Ecology's inspection* determined mat the odor
was caused by the release of hydrogen sulfide and
mercaptans resulting from Weyerhaeuser s
dredging of sludges from Its wastewater treatment
ponds and depositing the sludges on a dredge
spoils area. The order was settled when
Weyerhaeuser agreed to reinstall aerators at the
wastewater treatment ponds to prevent
development of the odors and submit an operating
and closure plan for the ponds.
}|tita al Wyoming tt Holly Sugar Corp.
(Torrington, WY)» Holly Sugar exceeded its
NPDES permit (WY-OOOOI91) limitations for
BOD and temperature for a period of six months
and nineteen months respectively. As a result, the
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
filed action in court to seek dvil penalties and
injunctive relief for these violations. On July 14,
1992, Holly Sugar Corp. paid $70,000 in civil
penalties and has agreed to an additional $5<),
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Stat* fll Wfrpmtay y. Waitom Sufam fLoTtlL WY):
Western Sugar exceeded the BOD limitations
established in its NPDES permit for a period of
six months. As a result, the Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality filed
action in court to seek civil penalties and
infunctive relief for these violations. On June 29,
1992, Western Sugar paid $35,000 in civil
penalties and has agreed to an additional
$100,000 in stipulated penalties should it have a
"significant violation" tat the future,
Maria* Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Ad (MFRSA)
Ocean Dumping Ban Act Cipei
The New York and New . Jersey
municipalities which were flumping sewage
sludge at the 106-mile site off the coast of New
Jersey for many yean hove new ott ceased
dumping sewage sludge into the ocean, as
required by the Ocean Dumping Sat Act of 1988
COOBA*), The Office of Enforcement wot
heavily involved in the negotiation and
drafting of the federal judicial consent orders
that were negotiated with the municipalities.
The ODBA amended the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33
U.S.C 1401 et seq., and required m and W
municipalities to cease ocean dumping by
December 32, 1992. The Nf municipalities were:
Bergen County Utilities Authority, Joint Meeting
of Essex and Union Counties, Linden Roselle
Sewerage Authority f Middlesex County
Utilities Authority. Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners and Rahway Valley Sewerage
Authority. All tht NJ municipalities ceased
dumping ay March 17, 1991. hew York was
granted a six month extension of time to comply
with tht statutory deadline. NY ceased
dumping half of Us sludge by December 31, 1992
and completely ceased dumping by June 30, 1992.
lfl| tfif Matter at Port of Oakland »tt J gff |
Dr«dgt and Dock Company (U.S. ERA
Environmental Appeals Board): On an appeal
brought by EPA of the initial decision of the
presiding officer imposing a $10,000 penalty, the
Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) reversed
and assessed a penalty of $125,000 for
Respondent's violations of the Marine Protection
Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). The
EAB found mat the presiding officer had erred by
independently evaluating the risk posed by ocean
disposal of tilt dredged sediments in question.
EPA had made a permit determination under the
MPRSA mat certain sediments in the Oakland
Inner Harbor were unsuitable for ocean dumping.
The presiding officer had reduced the proposed
penalty for Great Lakes violations of the MPRSA
(which occurred while Great Lakes was working
as a contractor on a dredging project in the Inner
Harbor) based on toxidry evidence Introduced by
Great Lakes suggesting mat the permit should
have authorized ocean disposal of all Oakland
Inner Harbor sediments. In a ruling that is
significant for future enforcement under the
MPRSA, the EAB reversed tht presiding officer's
decision, holding that EPA need not Introduce
evidence of taddty as part of its affirmative
case, nor may a Respondent attempt to show that
the gravity of its violations it slight by
presenting tmddty data. The EAB decision
makes clear that the initial, permit
determination establishes the element of harm
for violations of me MFRSA
Wetlands Enforcement (§ 404}
Section 404 of the dean Water Act
regulates the discharge of dredge and fill
material into navigable waters. Enforcement
emphasizes redress for unpermiited discharges
in environmentally sensitive areas and seeks
restoration of, or compensation for,
environment^1 damage.
QUffmi Wf*** Diatriefc On wit eve of. a Class I
administrative penalty hearing scheduled to
begin on September 23,1991, the Clifton Water
District agreed to pay a $20,000 penalty for
constructing a municipal water supply diversion
structure in the Colorado River east of Grand
Junction, Colorado, in violation of §404 of the
dean Water Act The discharges, which occurred
in the late fall of 1988 and winter of 1989,
affected a reach of the river inhabited by the
Colorado Squawfish. a federally listed
endangered species, and the razorback sucker,
which has been proposed for listing as an
endangered species. Tht penalty settlement
represented a milestone in a series of enforcement
actions in response to the District's Clean Water
Act §404 violations during .construction of the
diversion structure. In June, 1989, EPA ordered the
3-20
-------
FY1992 EnforcemJfnt'AccomplLshmeras Report
f
\
District to perform an alternatives analysis and
studies of the structure's impact on migration of
endangered flsh spsdss. On May 30, 1991, tha
District signed a consent agreement requiring it to
seek after-the-fact authorization for tha
structure from tha Corps of Enginecra. Ihsconsent
agreement also requires the District to remove
any structures and fill material that arc not
authorized by tha Corps at tha conclusion of the
after-tha-fact permit ptoceso. Tha final order
settling tho penalty action wan signed on
November 20, 1991, and mo penalty was paid
shortly thereaftm " -
In tfaa
TR.
GHt Trails*
^ On April 29,
1992, Region I settled this administrative! case
against Judson M. Grant, Jr., and Maine
corporations KEY-LAN, Inc. and Giant traitor
Salos, Inc. (GTS) few placing dredged and fill
materials in wetlands under federal jurisdiction
without a dean Water Act §404 panitifc. Judson
M, Grant, Jr. ia tho controlling partis* of KEV-
LAN, and solo siBCfchoMaf and president of GTS.
Grant; a Bongos, Maine area developer and
businessman, performed tho illegal ruling on
portions of threa adjoining properties ownM by
KEV-LAN and GTS, and located in tha outskirts
of Bangor. ., Grant placed tha fifl from October
1990 through Apru, 1991 to construct a retail
facility for a gas station, convGnistco star® and
car wash complex. Ths wetlands filled wera part
of a forested and shrub swamp whkh drain to tha
Ksnduskaag Stream, thai to «o ?@nobscot River.
Ths defendants paid a $20,000 administrative
penalty and restored fivo acres of wetlands to
settle thio casa EPA first bacon® involved with
this matter what it received a complaint from
staff of tha US. Fish and Wildlife Sarriea ofrks
located In Gwnw, Mains, legioa I pursued this
casa because o^autctan about cumuktivo wetland
loso in the Bongo? arra -and' a desiro to send a
strong message to that community regarding tha
need for §405 permits and tha values of wetlands.
yra<1_;pJL_Kigfrfc Bgfl^flmn'fTiiJgli WJX IU: On
August 7, 1992, tho United States filed a
complaint in tho Northern District of Illinois,
pursuant to ths CWA, against Krilich BuUdere, ot
ai, for violations of wedands provisiom at two
sitza in Illinois— Oalibrook Terrsco and L^ikamoor.
After years of negotiation, Krilich has agreed to
restore soms wedands, create soma new wetlands,
avil penalty. Accordingly, the consent decree
embodying these agreements was filed on the
saionaday. ' "
, * * .*• *
Krilich's violations at tha Laioancor site occurred
in January 1936 when Krilich filled wetlands in
violation of a Corps of Engineers permit.
Violations at tha Oakbrook Tarrace sits occurred
in Stptember 1988 and various ttmas thereafter
EPA isouod administrativo orders for both sites
requiring Krilich to stop violating tha CWA and
to restore tha wstiands. After much negotiation,
satisfactory restoration plane wora received for
both site, and Krilich agread to create wetiands
•both on and ofMlt as compensation for wetiands
which wore beyond restoration. Ths penalty of
8183,000 io tha largest am flgpqMfd to date in tha
regional wetiands program. It is estimated-that
mote titan $30,000, will ba spent on creation,
enhancement and restoration of wetiands under
tfuc
tltnhii Gtl August 6, 1992,
Washington City, Utah, signed an agreement
committing it to pay 870,000 in administrative
pataltisa £0? violations of CWA §§301 and 404.
Ths unauthorised fill in wetlands occurred in 1988
during construction of a golf course in the
southwestern Utah resort community. The
discharges of fill material affected nearly six
acres of opring-fed desat wetiands that contained
an uncommon wetland plant known as Yerba
Manas (Angmopa^ ffltiMf>m^)r which is found in
only two counties in Utah. EPA's enforcement
action was triggered by a Corps of Engineers
inspection off the sits In 1989. Washington City
also performed wetland restoration and
mitigation worls on tha golf course site following a
March 1990 compliance order issued by Region
VH2. Thasa eu^rcemait actions have corrected
tha environmental harm caused by the original
violations and have had a dotarrant affact
against similar -unauthorised activities
1 thfoughout Utah. , • , ;
Sale DrimMng ffela? Act (SDWA)
Enfoeccsmenfe '
PoMIc Walts Supply System Program
cpwss) ' ..... '/;••' ,-' „•
The PWSS program establishes a
z=7=£75=r=^r.. WM» - «^^ ««•>• i™"* """ wff--
3-21
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
nqmrm EPA to set drinking water standards
(including Maximum Contaminant Levels) for a
variety of pollutants.
U.S. T. Bott« W»t«r Co. fD.Motit.1 ind U.S. T.
SilvM Bow Watff, Inc. rt. al IDAfantJ; Qfl
December 20, 1991, the United States filed • civil
complaint alleging that the Butte Water
Company had violated regulations setting the
maximum contaminate level for turbidity, as well
as for violations of the monitoring and public
notice requirements. On December 31, 1991, the
PWS system was sold to Silver Bow Watet fee.
Hie United States and the State of Montana filed
a complaint and lodged a consent decree with
Silver low Whta« Ihc on April 10, 1992. Hi»
content decree was entered by the Court on May
IS, 1992. The decree settle* aQ Injunctive relief
necessary to ensure that the new owners and
operators of the drinking water system come into
fufl compliance with the SDWA. the settlement
requires Silver Bow to complete by December 31,
1999, construction of two drinking water filtration
plants and other improvements costing an
estimated 120 million. Silver Bow must
immediately take interim measures to improve
water quality. Litigation continues with the
Butte Water Company for substantial dvil
penalties for past violations.
U.S. T. City ol Mor+h Adama (P. Ma.,
Springfield): In an order issued on June 24, 1992,
the Court imposed a dvil penalty of 167,200
against the City of North Adams, Massachusetts
for violations, of the Sale Drinking Water Act In
addition to awarding the penalty, Judge
Freedman granted the United States' request for
permanent injunctivc relief. The order requires
the dry to construct a water filtration plant and
achieve compliance1 with the Safe Drinking
Water Act by January 31, 1994, to addition, the
order requires the Qty to implement significant
interim .measures, including extensive additional
monitoring of the water supply and the use of an
alternative water source as necessary in order to
insure the delivery of safe water until the
treatment plant is operational.
On August 7, 1991, the Court had granted the US.
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
determining that the City is liable for violations
of the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for
turbidity > and colifbrm and for violations of
monitoring requirements. A trial was conducted on
the issues of penalty and injunctive relief in
November-December 1991. bt an opinion issued on
May 19, 1992, the Court underscored the
seriousness of drinking water violations, stressing
the Increased risk of disease presented by MCL
violations. In addition, the court accepted EPA's
position that the economic benefit to me violator
should be considered in determining the amount of
a dvil penalty under the Safe Drinking Water
Act Mitigating against a larger penalty, in the
court's view, was the inability of North Adams'
residents to pay a very large penalty to addition
to the exceptionally high costs of compliance
Underground Injection Control
Program (U1O .
The IMC program establishes a regulatory
program for underground injection practices for
ftot classes of wells. Enforcement priorities
indude violations .t deep hazardous waste a~i
commercial disposal wells (Class 13; violations
at eU and gas well* (dam ID} using tanned
shallow disposal wells (Class IV); enforcing the
hazardous waste restrictions promulgated under
tht HmuntouM and Solid Waste Aft (HSWA);
and enforcing agmnst violations at injection
wells for other than hazardous waste, mining, or
a& and gm (Oass V}.
Oil
Ine^ On May. 8,
1991, a Final Administrative Consent Order was
issued to American Ofl Investments requiring
American Oil to either pay a fine of $31,100 or to
plug and abandon five underground injection wdls
which had been Improperly abandoned to Greene
County, Indiana. On January 25, 1992, US. EPA
Region V received verification from the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources that the five
wells in question had been properly plugged and
abandoned, concluding, the respondent's
obligations under the ordet
US EPA had issued Its proposed Administrative
Order to American OB on September 20, 1990, due
to the respondent's unauthorized operation of the
welL Although American Ott had not profited
by its unauthorized operation of the well, it
agreed to perform a supplemental enforcement
project
3-22
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Afcomplisiynenu Report
In r» A
On July 13,
the Regional Judicial Officer (RJO) for
Region V entered an order withdrawing a
proposed administrative order issued to Aristech
Chemical Corporation on May 15, 1991. The RJO*S
Order concluded' a long series of enforcement
related proceedings between US. EPA, Ohio EPA
(OEPA), & Aristech, The order was entered into
after Aristech paid a penalty of $200,000 to Ohio
for violations of ito class I deep injection well
permits for wells located at it> Haverhili, Ohio,
facility.
Region V had become cunceined .with Aristech's
facility when Aristech, while drilling its third
deep injection wefl, discovered contamination of
the Rose Run formation, a formation into which
Aristech was not permitted to inject OEPA
immediately issued an administrative order,
which was ultimately resolved with a consent
decree requiring the completion of a test monitor'
well and the submission of a study regarding the
cause of the contamination of the Rose Run
During 1990-1991 Aristech failed to comply with
the consent decree and continued to violate its
class I deep injection wefl permits, m spite of US
EPA's efforts to encourage OEPA to take
"appropriate enforcement action* under the
SDWA, OEPA did not initiate formal enforcement
action. Thus, on March 13, 1991, Region V issued a
Notice of Violation (NOV) to Aristech, followed
by a proposed administrative order issued on May
15,1991.
On the thirtieth day after ,EPA issued a second
NOV, Aristech and the Ohio Attorney General's
office filed a complaint and consent agreement in
the Circuit Court of Sdoto County, Ohio. This
decree virtually resolved all outstanding issues
and requiring Aristech to pay a penalty of
$200,000. . ,
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Enforcement
: TJu RCRA enforcement program supports a
comprehensive regulatory and corrective action
program to ensure th* soft treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous (pastes. In the post
fiscal year, an aggressive enforcement program.
including both civil judicial and administrative
actions, emphasized multi-media coordination
and targeted initiatives. With a new RCRA
civU penalty policy' in place, the .RCRA
enforcement program will seek increased
penalties and economic sanctions, while
continuing to encourage settlements incorporating
pollution prevention and waste minimization
goals.
Alfunifttmft
v AS?
la; On February 11,
1992, a Consent Order finalized the settlement of
a RCRA §9006 Administrative Complaint for
violations of release detection regulations for
fifteen underground storage tanks fUSTs") by
Aluminum Company of America ("ALCOA") at
id facility at 3000 State Drive, Lebanon, PA.
The settlement required ALCOA to implement a
Suppli
1 Environmental Project f SEP") at
the facility for the closure and removal of eight
additional thirty thousand (30,000) gallon UST
systems originally installed to store petroleum.
The estimated cost of the SEP was $290,000. In
addition, ALCOA paid a idvfl penalty of $6.500.
ioJlllfbillc* (M.D. Ala.)t On
March 9,1992. a modified Consent Decree was
entered settling an action against ABI for failure
to comply with the terms of a previous Consent
Decree. ABI is a secondary brass smelter which
recovers brass and other useable metals from soap
metals. One of the end products of this process is
a furnace slag with a high lead content ABI had
been placing this slag directly on the ground since
1986 and accumulating the slag speculatively in
violation of RCRA. This case was part of a multi-
media lead-initiative aimed at reducing lead
exposure to the public and the environment
The modified Consent Decree called for continued
payment of $300X100 in civil penalties and
extensive tajunctive relief and increased
stipulated penalties. Under the original Consent
Decree, ABI was required to nunove all slag from
the slag pile. The modified Consent Decree
enforces this requirement and requires ABI to
complete health-based action level closure of the
site of the former slag pile. In addition, all
shipments of slag must be accompanied by
shipping papers as outlined in the Modification.
IiuJnatria*. Ine. (N.D. Ohio): On
September 10, 1992, the US. lodged a Consent
Decree as pan of the multi-media Primary
Metals Initiative. The complaint ft** M*V 26>
3-23.
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Rtpo
1987, alleged that Amsted Industries violated
RCRA at two facilities; its Alliance, Ohio
foundry, where Amsted allegedly generated,
treated and shipped hazardous wastes without
complying with RCRA; and its Sebrtng landfill*
where it allegedly disposed of hazardous wastes
illegally. Hie Consent Decree requires Amsted to
pay a $250,000 civil penalty and comply with
RCRA closure and post-closure care requirements
at both
Tn !••
M«rk»MTig» On February
5, 1992, a Consent Agreement and Hnal Order
(CAPO) with Ashland Branded Marketing (a
division of Super America), was issued requiring
Ashland to address violations of the UST release
detection and LUST corrective action regulations
at its facility in Burton, Ohio. Ashland is also
required to pay a penalty of $65,125.
' Region V had filed a complaint in May 1991. In
its answec Ashland moved to dismiss the
complaint Although it did not deny mat it had
violated the UST regulations, it disputed the
particular requirements it had transgressed and
admitted to various other violations under other
competing legal theories. The Region moved to
file an Amended Complaint that addressed all
possible alternate* theories of liability, and
demanded a significantly larger penalty based
upon all the competing theories. Before the ALJ
could rule on any of me various motions, Ashland
approached EPA to settle.
Burning and Blending Casts
During FT 1392, < number of cases wen
settled which weft a pert of Region ITs cluster
filing to redress Burning .and Blending
regulations associated w'ffe marketers of
hazardous mute and/or used oil burned for
energy recovery.
IL3. v. B It L OH gaipanMbii- tod 1. * L Oil
Service. Ine^ (D. NJ.)t Consent Decrees were
lodged in these cases brought pursuant to RCRA
§300§(a) and (g>- The eases were filed separately
in June 1990 as part of a Region H cluster filing to
redress violations of RCRA's "Burning and
Blending" regulations. Used oil contaminated
with hazardous waste allegedy has been
marketed .as heating fuel and burned in
residential and commercial boilers, often in
densely populated areas. The regulations make
this practice illegal. Through investigations and
RCRA §3007 Information requests, IPA
determined that L & L and B IE L's marketing
activities failed to comply with the waste oil
regulations.
The Consent Decrees call for a number of actions
including implementation of workplans and
payment of civil penalties. B fit L will pay a
civil penalty of $25,000 and L & L will pay a
civil penalty of $55,000.
UJ3.
etf N«
TfML. Aftd Pj«t»m nf
1me_ JT*. N.JJ*The District Court
entered a Consent Decree on February 28, 1992.
Eastern of New, Jersey, Inc. ("Eastern"} is a
treatment; storage and disposal ("TSD") facility
located in Jersey City, N.J. Through
investigations and RCRA §3007 information
request!, EPA determined that Eastern's
marketing activities failed to comply with the
waste oil regulations and related testing,
nodfication and wcordkeeptnfc provisions.
The Consent Decree calls for payment of $195,000
in dvil penalties and inhmctfve relief. The
injunctive relief, valued at $38,900 per year,
requires employee training and the
implementation of a work^Un that requires
Eastern to perform supplemental analysis on
Incoming and outgoing used ofl.
.S. *
Oil R*
7n fnfrr (D. N.J.h A
Consent Decree was entered on March 23, 1992.
Uonettt OH Recovery, Inc. is a treatment, storage
and disposal (TSD-) facility located in Old
Bridge, N.J- The UJS. brought the case pursuant
to RCRA §300S(a) and (g) as part of Region 11
cluster filing to redress alleged violations of
RCRA's "Burning and Blending" regulations.
Through investigations and RCRA §3007
information requests, EPA determined that
Uonettfs marketing activities failed to comply
with the waste oil regulations codified at 40
C.F.R. Pact 266, Subpart E, and related testing,
notification and recordkeeping provisions.
The Consent Decree calls for payment of $73,000
in civil penalties. It also calls for injunctivc
relief, including employee training and
implementation of a compliance plan that
requires defendant to perform supplemental
analysis on incoming and outgoing used oU.
total cost estimate of this plan is $200,0007 y
3-24
-------
FY 1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
B«.r~ E..» iti^ 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 cas* involves an
administrative enforcement action against Beazer
East, Inc. for violations of Subtitle C of RCRA.
The issue is whether certain aeration basins are
tanks and thus fall within the wastewater
treatment exemption, or whether they are surface
impoundments, and thus subject to groundwater
inonitoringrequimnerits.
The court found that EPA's interpretation of the
•tank* definition's "provide structural support'
language (mat 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
dedsion upholds the Agency's distinction between
tanks and surface impoundments and will
facilitate compliance by the regulated community
and enforcement. -
U.S. it C
QgBL fS.D.
aJi Qn
April 17, 1992, a Consent Decree .was entered.
Cedar Chemical Corp. ("CCC") owns and
operates a chemical manufacturing plant in
Vkksburg, Mississippi. EPA inspections revealed
that the company generated hazardous waste and
violated RCRA's land disposal, treatment,
groundwater monitoring, and storage regulations.
Extensive soil contamination was .visible and
indicated that there may be contamination of
other media. The Consent Decree requires Cedar'
Chemical to spend approximately ten million
dollars to perfonn collective
' FPA • «<
••ft Kiln* Sit
kiln* located in Missouri and Kansas entered into
operating agreements for the burning of hazanious
waste, for energy recovery under the Boiler and
Industrial Furnace ("IIF") regulations,
promulgated pursuant to RCRA. All facilities
subject to the HP regulation* were required to
certify compliance with BIF emissions standards
as of August 21,1992, or request an extension of
time to do so. Continental Cement Company, Inc.
of Hannibal, Missouri; Holnam, Inc. of
QarksviUe, Missouri; and Ash Grove Cement
Company's facility located in Quutute, Kansas,
.were unable to meet the August 21, 1992 deadline.
Each facility requested an extension of time
pursuant to the.BlF regulations. As a condition to
granting the requested extensions of time, Region
vn required each of the three facilities to enter
into an Agreement regulating the continued
burning of hazardous waste at each facility. The
Agreements require each facility to meet rigorouj
operating standards for the burning of hazanious
waste, until such time as the facility is able to
certify compliance with the BIF regulations. The
agreements also set forth detailed compliance
schedules. which each facility must meet, with a
final date by which each facility must certify
compliance with the BIF regulations or cease
burning hazardous waste. In addition, the
Agreements contain terms by which each facility
consents to enforcement of the Agreements under
RCRA §3008
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishmeia$ Repon
The Court ruled on other Important policy and
programmatic issue that were not enforcement-
related, including 1) EPA's authority to establish
treatment standards below the level at which
wastes are identified as hazardous by
characteristic; 2) EPA'i authority to allow
dilution as a permissible means of treatment for
characteristic wastes that are identified as
hazardous for reasons other than toxicity
(namely ignitable, corrosive, and reactive (ICR)
wastes); 3) EPA's authority to allow
characteristic wastewaters to be aggregated for
centralized treatment in Subtitle D surface
impoundments, if the aggregation also dilutes the
wastewaters so that they no longer exhibit a
hazardous waste characteristic; 4) EPA's
authority to allow characteristic wastewaten to
be diluted so that they no longer exhibit a
characteristic and then be injected into Oast t
nonhazardous deep wcfls; 5) the reasonableness of
the treatment standard* for EP toxk lead and
chromium wastes; 6) treatment standards for
residues from B», /ill unit: that c • process
prohibited hazardous wastes along with Bevill
raw materials.
Am M«tt«g at
fji On September 30,
1992, EPA negotiated a modification to a RCRA
§3008(h) comctivv action order original^- issued
to Qba-Geigy In 1989, This to the first
stabilization action to be negotiated and
incorporated into a corrective action order in EPA
Region L the fceflity in Cranston, Rhode Island,
now closed, was engaged in the manufacture of
various organk and inorganic chemicals from 1970
through 1986. During the course of these'
operations, the facility generated chlorinated
and non-chlorinated solvents, corrosive solids,
polychlorinated organic) and other hazardous
waste streams.
Ciba-Geigy*s Phase I RCRA study, conducted
pursuant to the requirements of the original
§300801) Order, demonstrated that areas of the
facility and the Pawtuxat liver are
contaminated with volatile and semi-volatile
organic compounds, and that contamination
originating on-site is migrating via ground water
to the River. The modification requires Gba-
Geigy to submit a stabilization plan for
peiformance of the following interim measures: 1)
treatment of contaminated soils In the production
area of the facility, and 2) installation of a
ground water "pump and treat" system In this
area to prevent contaminated ground water from
migrating to the Pawtuxet Rivet
dbj.fUJyg CflipftraHnn; Art Tim* 1 1QOT g^i^,
IV settled a RCRA §3008(a} action involving
violations of the Land Disposal Restrictions at
the Ciba-Cdgy Corporation facility located in
Mclntosh, Alabama. The violations arose from
the company's alleged disposal of wastewater
treatment sludge in an on-site land vault The
wastewaters treated in the facility's wastewater
treatment system included a wastewater from the
operation of a hazardous waste Incinerator,
which was mixed with other wastewaten from
the plant before treatment. Region IV Sled its
initial complaint in February 1991 as part of the
1991 LDR Initiative. The settlement provides for
payment of a 1150,000 dvil penalty.
dd»Gi*mie»l
of
iK.: On May 14,1992, Region V signed a
CAFO which requires Waste Management of
mirj3is. Inc. (WMI) to pay a $2^50 penalty ar.'l
perform a supplemental environmental project
costing at least $101,000. This It the Region's
first RCRA settlement to incorporate a SEP.
The Big Marsh is an approximately 280-acre
wetland site adjacent to and east of Lake Calumet
in Calumet City and Chicago, Illinois, and is
located within the immediate vicinity of the
QD facility. The central components of the SEP
ate as follows: 1) the construction and operation of
a permitted water control structure within the
Big Marsh, and 2) the development and
Implementation of a plan (which is subject to
approval by EPA, in consultation with the US.
Corps of Engineers, the US. Fish * Wildlife
Service, and the niinols Department of
Conservation) for managing the operation of the
water control structure. The purpose of the water
control structure is to control 4he level of water in
the Big Marsh in a manner that wfll improve the
quality, quantity, and diversity of vegetation, as
well as improve wildlife habitat, existing
within the Big Marsh. This action had begun on
September 22,1986, when EPA filed Its complaint
against WMX alleging numerous RCRA violations
relating to inadequate groundwater monitoring.
U.S. T. Qty at Q«v»lan
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Rspan
alleging that ths defendants are liable under
RCRA § 7CH39 few money EPA expended installing
and operating a methano extraction system in'
orde to abate a release of aiathan® gas at tha
Matousak i^nHflii in Gariteid Hdghte, OH. "Rio
municipalities have agreed to pay $412,000 to
resohrs thtir liability. In addition, tha State of
Ohio will assums operation and maintaiancQ
responsibilities fo? ths systosi.
(CD. ffljs On May 20, 1992, &a District
Court aitared a Consent Dscroo setting an action
against Com-Pak Engineering Involving nUsgad
IOA violation® at tha Brighton Landfill.
Brighton t-amMiij a suboidifltfy o^ Com-Pak
Engineering, to a Missouri corporation that
disposed ol solid and hazardous wastes fci a 43-
acro interim status landfill fei Mscoupin County
until 1983. SPA ascertained that Brighton
Landfill ho<2 violated RCEA'o ground water
monitoring regulations and BCRA's regulation®
regarding clowiK? and post-dosuro care. EPA
tsnisd an administrativs complaint against
Brighton irftyKJflU In ScptestSxa? 1984, and tho
Conaai6 Agfesmoit and Rnai
(CAFO) settling the matte bt
1983. Brighton Landfill alkgsdty violated tte
, CAFO, prompting tha EPA lo bring this action
against tho parent company, Com-Pak
Ehgincaing on Ssptsnbs H, ISS* • _ •
, tlta Qmsant Daieo settling this action teqaiia
tho dsf@ndants to 1) Instafl a ground watsr,.
monitoring system; 2) us^lects&s cb»nra activitiss
related .to AQ ifm^jfiH cap and managemsnt ol
IcachatQ generated in tfaa IsndflQ; 3) comply
with financial raongfltfUf raquiremanta for
posKlosurQ'and liability coverags; and
4) pay a dvfl pstalty oi S60,DtHX Hit fafuncti-ro
may cost tfea dorfandana appfOJdmately
MAI? Region I
Issued a RCRA §3CCE grourtdwD4(» contamination of
chlorinated hydrouarbcm. Mstals, irtduding zinc.
c^lmium, and chromium, also have fcsai detected
In cstsiSs lofls srtd
bi on Osdsr signed oa Pateuaiy 18, Iff^ Uto US.
District Cot.t foe th® Eastsm Distrirt of
Michigan aiiartid. Judgment for ths US. against
Erto Coatings and ChssnieiL Inc. (Erio) and its
corporate officoiD. Tits Court awardai.lhe US.
and tho Michigan Dopartmsnt of Natural
Emoveem fMDHS") 33,1<12/(HJO in .stipulated
paisltfcB and oBitempt'ssrctfons fox violations of
fea Comsnfe 0aaras. Bti9 Coatrngs srfcd Chemkal
(TEda15) la a corporation ongaggd bi tf» busmesoof
producing roof coatings, drfvsway ssalers, and
fowtdattei pdnt Erio olco rccoivGd, stored and
o&tirwis® haitdkd hazardous wastes at its Erie
Michigan facility. On February 24, 1984, EPA
Region V issued an odminUtrativQ complaint
against Erie mad Ito corporate officers for several
HCRA violations. EPA md Erta aitsed Into a
Cement Agreement and final Older (CAPO) on
R&niary 3, 1533. On April 4 1536, tha US filed
a civil Judicial action bcxausa Erio continued to
operate ihs facility in violation of RCRA and the
CAfO. C2i Jwaa 2£, 1988, tho UJ. and tho
sntorEal into a Consult Dscres which
def&fcdants to taica apodfbd actions
dssignad to bring Ihs facility into compliance.
Eris conflnued to violate tha fearmo of ths Consent
lucres, prompting tho US. to CDs a motion for
dvilcontanpt on July ^1989.
In ma Osdo^ tha Court also admonished the
defendants that it would not hesitate to
incarcerate tha dafendanls fof acting !n contempt
of Court tf may violated envlronmmtal laws or
3-27
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
failed to cooperate with EPA and the MDNR.
Erie has given EPA full access to the facility, and
a EPA Superfund Removal Team from Michigan
has obtained approval from Region V for
$2,000,000 worth of dean up activities. Hie
Michigan team will perform waste sampling and
characterization along with cleanup activities.
This case demonstrates EPA'* commitment to
aggressively enforcing Consent Decrees through
In th> _Maitet of Gilbert and
: On March 25,1992
tpt tfi
(DX. O&}t In June 1992, the Court of Appeals for
the D/l Circuit niled tn favor of EPA and denied
a petition filed by Friends of the Earth jy P»*m>«tm* Cet^ fafr (SJD, 1114*
On March 31,1992, the US, District Court entered
a Consent Decree. Gateway Petroleum Co. Inc.,
(Gateway) is a small blending and marketing
facility operating in East St. Louis, Illinois.
Through inspections, EPA determined mat
Gateway was mixing hazardous wastes with used
oil without a permit and selling it a* non-
haaidous used oiL The US. filed a ctvfl action
pursuant to RCRA §3008(a) and1 (g) on August 17,
1988.
The Consent Decree settling this case requires
Gateway to- pay a dvil penalty of $20.000. In
addition, Gateway must close it facility in stages,
screen all oil shipments, and send any off*
specification oil samples to a laboratory that has
prior approval from EPA.
the Gilbert and Bennett Manufacturing Co, Inc. of
Georgetown, Connecticut; agreed to pay a $290,000
penalty and to conduct a site assessment to settle
.an EPA Region I complaint for violations of
RCRA. EPA's complaint alleged that Gilbert and
Bennett failed to comply with hazardous waste
management requirements, managed hazardous
waste without proper permits, and inadequately
monitored ground watec • *
As part of the settlement, the company will
perform a site assessment, which is estimated to
cost the company at least $100,000, to identify
areas when wastes were managed and/or
disposed of and. to determine if releases of
hazardous wastes occurred. The.Georgetown
facility was a steel wire fence manufacturer unto
1989. The owners are in the process of
decomadssianing and doting down the plant
12i£LJL£rjQdJBio&lLud£QLjQC( (&D« MDi On
June 5, 1992, the US District Court entered a
consent decree hi resolution of this case. The
decree requires Grand Blanc Landfill, Inc. to
submit a post
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
which the government discovered the alleged
violation. The Court's decision clarifies and
strengthens an important aspect of EPA's
enforcement authority under RCRA because,
where a Court applies a statute of limitations to
a RCRA action, the US. will have support in
arguing that the tolling ol such statute ol
limitations should not begin until the government
knew or had reason to know ol the violation.
Grumman St. Augustin* Corp. ("Grumman")
generates a number ol RCRA hazardous wastes
from its operation stripping, repainting and
refurbishing aircraft at its facility in St.
Augustine, Florida.-
U.S. -*. Indiana
-------
FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
waste disposal facility located in Elizabeth
Township, Pennsylvania, to determine if
hazardous waste was leaking into the
environment including a nearby river. The Court
upheld the magistrate's determination that Mr.
Hore had not attempted to comply in good faith
and that he had sufficient assets to pay a
$480^100 penalty for his noncompiiance. Mr. Hore
is currently in state prison for hazardous waste,
bribery and attempted murder convictions. The
Court had previously entered summary judgment
in the US.' favor on MIDCs appeal of the
administrative decision and on MIDCs liability
for not complying with the RCRA $3013 Order.
m&^L^dBficv^EjitKrfiSseStXD^v {N«D» Gajt On
March 27, 1992, the District Court denied bom
the U.S,' and the defendant's morions for
summary Judgment This action, which was filed
on March 27,1992, Is the flm civil Judicial case
involving the Federal enforcement of RCRA's
underground storage tank requirements. Ownbey
Enten/udes owiwd two underground gasonrw tanks
at a convenience store in Dalton, Georgia. A
nearby private drinking water well became
contaminated with benzene from the tanks,
prompting EPA to issue an administrative
complaint. Ownbey signed an Administrative
Order on Consent (AOQ on February 15,1989,
wherein it agreed to implement a corrective
action plan and provide a permanent alternative
drinking water supply to users of the
contaminated wefl. Ownbey later repudiated the
AOC claiming mat mere was no proof that the
contamination emanated from its tanks.
EPA brought a dvfl action seeking penalties and
injunctive relief to compel Ownbey to comply
with the terms of the AOC, and Ownbey asserted
numerous affirmative defenses. In denying bom
parties' summary judgment motions, the Court
disagreed with Ownbey1* claims that EPA
violated the defendant's due process rights, its
claims that EPA did not comply with applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements prior to
approval of the AOC and its claims mat SPA
acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it
entered into the AOC The Court also found mat
the US. had failed to meet Its burden of showing
the absence of material facts as to the
affirmative defenses. The case is pending.
U.S. Pollution Control Inc. CflSPCH: On
September 30, 1991, thii facility was issued a
Complaint, Compliance Order and Notice of
Opportunity for Hearing, and assessed a $610,130
penalty. The Complaint alleged that USPO
failed to perform the required chemical analyses
on incoming hazardous waste as required by the
EPA issued HSWA permit. The required chemical
analyses was required by the permit to screen for
the presence of halogenated organic compounds
(HOC) in the waste loads. Research has shown
that mas* HOC* can degrade the synthetic linen
used in hazardous waste landfill ceils, thereby
causing the release of hazardous waste
constituents into the groundwater system. On
February 26, 1993, USPd signed a Consent
Agreement with EPA which required USPd to
pay $500,000 and required USPQ to have an
outside laboratory to perform its HOC type
analyses.
fJ.S
p«- Inc. rt.
<*fe Or h On February 20, 1992, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
affirmed two.significnt District Court Jxisions
in US- **. at. v. Prodoftton Plated Plaitic*
("PPP"). The precedents established by the
District Court tn this RCRA action, and now
affirmed by the Sixth Circuit, involve 1) holding
a corporate officer personally liable as an owner
and operator of a treatment, storage zr J iisposal
facility, and 2) granting injunctive relief through
summary judgment.
PPP engaged in molding, electroplating, and
painting of plastic parts, primarily for the
automotive industry. » March 1987, the US. and
me State of Michigan filed an action in District
Court alleging, fat** •»«. that the defendants
had been operating a surface impoundment and
waste pile to violation of RCRA after losing
"interim status* to operate pursuant to RCRA
§30G5
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishmenu Report
a permanent injunction requiring defendants to
comply with RCRA's financial responsibility
requirements, identifying issues of fact to be
considered at trial. The Sixth Circuit found that
the District Court had properly applied the
standards for infunctivc relief. Significantly, the
Sixth Circuit rejected the defendant's defense
that it is impossible to comply with the District
Court's injunction. While not directiy addressing
the Issue of individual corporate officer liability,
the Sixth Circuit expressly adopted both opinions
of the District Court. The decision is
environmentally significant in that it holds
officers liable. It is ate believed to be the first
RCRA case where injunctive relief was granted
through summary judgment .
The District Court held trial on the remaining
issues of financial responsibility and dvU
penalties. On September 4, 1992, the District
Court awarded $1,500,000 ki penalties hi August
1992. In doing so, the Court acknowledged that
the defenajntt *iave asat~ that cat: > liquidated
to satisfy the Court's judgment and stated that if
defendants £siled to do so, the Court would
"appoint a trustee recommended by the plaintiffs
to operate defendants' business and personal
affairs and expeditiousty liquidate whatever
assets are necessary to provide funds for
compliance." The District Court's Opinion
Included a good discussion of the purpose and
effect of a civil penalty, indudmg the recovery of
economic benefit The Court deemed.that the
defendants had received an economic benefit of
•"incompliance of at least $1 million through
their failure to comply with RCRA. On March 4,
1993, the District Court denied the defendant's
motion to vacate its opinion.
lit ttm Matte* at
Maud Bqckl*
On September 30, 1992, the Rhode Island Buckle
Company agreed to pay a $300,000 dvil penalty
for violations of RCRA at its Providence, Rhode
Island facility. EPA brought an admh-dstrativ*
action against Rhode Island Buckle for alleged
violations of container management; personnel
.training, contingency plan, and land disposal
restriction requirements. As a result of this
action, Rhode Island Buckle has developed a
contingency plan for emergencies at the site and
has developed an extensive training program.
Rhode Island Buckle will now manage its wastes
in accordance with RCRA requirements, including
those governing container labeling, accumulation
time, and LDR notice and recordkteping
requirements.
U.S. yr Rohm «nd ff|»«_ »t al. (EJ?t Ptnn)* fri 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 ^fclley, fee,
Chemical Properties, Inc. and Bristol Township
Authority 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). Thai decision enables the Agency to
under RCRA in remediating hazardous waste ;
sites under CERCLA §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 plus •
interest representing 100% of past costs and all
future costs incurred. • '
lit tfi* IUfftM0V tU§ 1al^*?F VfsBeMt jT'llLiPimii'1 A ii Jim it |"Vt
April 30,1992, EPA Region I approved Safety-
Kleen Corp.'s Supplemental Environmental
Project a videotape on land disposal restrictions
(LDR). the videotape was produced pursuant to a
June 1991. CAPO resolving alleged violations of
RCRA'S LDR requirements at eight Safety-Ween
facilities. Under the terms of the agreement,
Safety Been agreed to pay a dvil penalty of
$H6^00L A $16,000 portion of the penalty was to
be offset In return for Safery-lOeen's production
and distribution of a video, aimed at generators of
LDR wastes, explaining the LDR requirements.
Safety-IQeen was given twenty days fa distribute
'the videotape to 100 trade associations and
industry groups chosen by EPA Region L
On July 28, 1992, Sanitary-Dash
Manufacturing Co* Inc. agreed to pay a $23,300
civil penalty plus implement two supplemental
environmental projects (SEPs) to resolve alleged
RCRA violations found at its North
Grosvenordale, Connecticut fcdiity. EPA issued
an administrative complaint against Sanitary-
Dash for violations of requirements for hazardous
waste container management, contingency
planning, personnel training and records,
hazardous waste storage, hazardous waste
testing, and inspection logs. As a result of this
3-31
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
action, tht company is row in compliance with
the RCRA regulations. Under the terms of the
agreement, the company will pay the cash
penalty and perform two SEPs at a combined cost
of $180,000. The two pollution prevention projects
require Sanitary-Dash to modify its plating
process and to create secondary containment lor
the part of the process where lead polishing dust
is collected.
The SEPs will reduce the need for polishing the
finished product, thereby reducing the generation
of lead polishing dost. Also, a change from
hexavalent to trivalent chrome will: (1)
eliminate the need for the annual cleanup of the
chrome plating tank which was the source of some
of the violations fat the complaint; (2) decrease
the proportion of solids in the. sludge waste
stream by 33%; and (3) substantially reduce the
use of sulfur dioxide which is currently used to
reduce hexavalent chromium in the company's
wastewater treatment process.
K«>r * 1O01
Sli.H Oil * ILS.
D.C Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in
Shell Oil ra. •*. us. FPA wMrft. among other
things, vacated and remanded the "mixture" and
"derived from* rules, and soil pore leachate
monitoring requirements for land treatment
facilities. Hie "mixture" rale classifies as a
hazardous waste any mixture of a listed
hazardous waste with any other solid waste.
The "derived from" rule <**m?iB*m as a hazardous
waste any residue derived from the treatment of
hazardous waste. The Court based its decision
solely on procedural grounds-EPA's failura to
provide adequate notice and opportunity to
comment when the rule was originally
promulgated in 1980. EPA reenacted the
"mixture" and "derived from* rules on an interim
basis pending full notice and comment
proceedings, on Feb. 14, 1S92.
In the decision* the Court also upheld EPA's
definition of "treatment" and the 'permit shield"
provision. The Court held that EPA had not
exceeded its statutory authority in including
resource recovery in the regulatory definition of
"treatment" of hazardous waste, and that EPA
had complied with notice and comment
requirements with respect to mat regulation.
Secondly, the Court held that EPA's "permit
shield" provision, protecting RCRA permit
holders from enforcement actions for most RCRA
requirements other wan violations of permit
conditions, was within EPA's enforcement
(SflCh A Consent
Sinclair Qtl
Agreement and Hnal Order was signed September
16, 1992, concerning SOCs alleged failure to
revise its RCRA Part A application to include
benzene (DO18). Facts provided by SOC after
issuance of the complaint reduced the proposed
penalty to $25750. EPA agreed to waive the
penalty amount over $10,000 if SOC would
conduct a Supplemental Environmental Project
(SEP) to improve the quality of the refinery
effluent The SEP wffl include the construction of
a sour-water stripper at the refinery which will
reduce benzene, •ulfides, and ammonia, and
increase water conservation which will be
ically beneficial to SOC The SEP is of the
pollution reduction type, involving new
equipment. The projected cost of the SEP is in
excess of $1,000,000, Also, as the SEP Is
reportedly going to save SOC money due to water
conservation, then is a greater likelihood that
SOC win take steps to ensure its i
Pl«» Wand
and Br«r
On February 28, 1992 the
Judicial Officer denied Region IVi Motion for
Region IV had filed the motion to contest the
Judicial Officer's earlier ruling, which held mat
"absent circumstances that justify a piercing of
the corporate veil, the Agency may not reach
beyond a corporate operator to impose liability
for violations of Part 265 upon a corporate
officer- Although the Judicial Officer denied
the Motion for Reconsideration, he agreed that
the liability of corporate officers under RCRA
was not limited to traditional corporate veil
pierdng theories and that operators who exercise
active and pervasive control over the overall
facility omy be Bable as an •operator.* Southern
Umber Products, Inc. was formed in 1977 for the
purpose of purchasing the Wiggins wood
treatment plant. The corporation was
established to shield its four shareholders from
personal liability. Mr. Batson was a shareholder
corporate officer and director. He was also the
"conduir" between the plant managers and the
Board of Directors and the the primary link
between the corporation and the regulatory
official*. Region IVs complaint alleged that
3-32
-------
FY1992 Enforcement AccompUshaiata Report
Southern Umber Products and Mr. Batson violated
the RCRA interim status rates governing closure.
and post closure with respect to a wastewater
, surface impoundment at the Wggins facility.
U.S.
Rock
U.S. v.
fag.. (W.D.
Consent Decree was entered on May 27, 1992,
: which requires Structured Metals, Inc. ("SMI") to
remove and properly treat all illegally disposed
waste, and pay a $323,000 civil penalty. As part
of its steel manufacturing process, SMI generates
large amounts of particulate emissions from its
electric arc furnaces, which are collected by a
scrubbing system. The resulting electric arc
furnace baghouM dust (K061) is one of the "first
third* listed wastes for which EPA promulgated
land disposal prohibitions and treatment
standards in 1988. The pollutant of concern is
lead. EPA discovered mat SMI land disposed of
some its high zinc K061 wastes in violation of the
LDR requirement*, found at 40 CER. Part 268.
The US. brought an action against SMI as part of
the IXI Initiative, filed m February, 1991.
tf>AJ—.. — j^*li^^_j^4^_^^^ fb^^^^^^^^^jttt^^^^ *JHaVj,^ m*m^^ AeW^ fi\mmt
3IBBa^wIUMuKfBCB8miBBI iius was me nrst
RCRA case in Region IV to incorporate pollution
prevention as a term of a RCRA settlement On
October 30, 1991, Region IV settled a RCRA §
3008
-------
FY1992 Enforcement ActamplishmsnnRtpon.
The order requires Vulcan to implement interim
measures to mitigate any currant or potential
threat to human health or the environment
which requires immediate corrective action and
perform a RCRA Facilities Investigation, a
Corrective Measures study (if necessary), and
associated work plans. An important component
of this Order requires Vulcan to sample the
Wisconsin Elver and sediments near its facility
for mercury contamination.
EPA estimates that 'Vulcan will incur
approximately $250,000 under the ordet Vulcan
Materials produces chlorine, sodium hydroxide,
and potassium hydroxide using a mercury cefl at
its 16.75 acre faciUty. BASF Wyandotte
Corporation owned Vulcan's fedlity between 1970
and 1980, and on September 8, 1974 440,000
gallons of mercury containing brine reportedly
spilled at the facility. Approximately 300X100
gallons of that material left the facility, 40,000
of which entered the Wisconsin Elver. The
facility estimates that approximately & pounds
of mercury were contained in the solution that
migrated from the site.
hi th«
at
N«w Yrk NneU a
em Ctntft- in a cooperative effort between
federal and state agencies, a Corrective Action
Order was issued jointly by Eegion 1 and the New
York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEQ in March for cleanup
work at the state-owned Western New York
Nuclear Service Center near West Valley, NY.
The Order is the first one issued to • federal
facility in Eegion Q under RCRA $3008(h).
Signatories to the order include the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOS) and the New York
State Energy Research Development Authority
(NYSERDA).
This Order is the first in a two step compliance
package to be negotiated with the three other
agencies; it was finalized after two years of
negotiations. The Order addresses known releases
of hazardous waste at the lite, and is being
followed by a Federal and State Facility
Compliance Agreement dealing with the storage
of mixed radioactive and hazardous waste at the
location.
Under the agreement, DOE, the operator of the
site, and NYSERDA, me site's OWTMH; will take
corrective action on the release of hazardous
wastes, including radioactive mixed waste. DOE
and NYSERDA will perform a RCRA Facility
Investigation and Interim Measures as well as
additional work depending on what the
Investigations reveaL
The 3400 acre site is home to the West Valley
Demonstration Project (WVDP), a joint
Federal/State effort, authorized by Congress in
1980, to solidify high level radioactive wastes
left over from the nation's only commercial
nuclear fuel reprocessing operation, and to dean
up the facilities used in the project
f A ganaant Agnwrwit ar>H
Final Order was reached with the University of
Wyoming which included the largest settlement
with a public institution Jn the Region and
perhaps in the United States in the amount of
$43,000. Additionally, the respondent agreed to
submit a comprehensive waste minimization plan
and submit a comprehensive personnel training
plan. The respondent hired a qualified
safety /RCRA hazardous waste coordJnatot
The complaint alleged 10 separate incidents of
Illegal disposal of RCRA hazardous waste by
open burning and/or open detonation; one count for
failure to notify of hazardous waste activity was
also included.
NATIONAL INTIIATJVIS
Illegal Operator Initiative
On February 4 1992, EPA and nine states
announced • major nationwide e 8 m p * i g n
against those who hoot been avoiding the
nation's hazardous waste management system
and handling such waste m a potentially
dangerous manner EPA end the states together
issued 50 ewfl enforcement actions, assessing
over 120 million in penalties, against
generators and transporters of hazardous waste
and owners and operators of facilities who have
disregarded the requirements of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, In addition, EPA
announced that it had taken several criminal
enforcement actions to holt criminal hazardous
waste activities. The states participating in the
initiative were: Maryland, Alabama, Florida.
Georgia. South Caroline, North Carolina, Onto,
Colorado, and Washington. Some of the casts
filed included:
3-34
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomp/JjAmenw &pon
In TJ. |}a«%«r Foondrv. Ine. (Lincoln, NE)i EPA
Region VII brought an administrative
enforcement action against Deeter Foundry, Inc.
located in Lincoln, Nebraska. Hi* foundry
produces municipal gray Iron castings using
green sand molds. Thefeeility generates a
sludge from Its air pollution control scrubber
which is hazardous because it fails th*
Tbxkity Characteristic for lead and cadmium.
The administrative Complaint and Compliance
Order alleged that the facility had been
disputing of the hazardous waste scrubber sludge
on the land, and it required development and
implementation of closure and postclosur* plans
for the facility's hazardous wast* disposal unit,
the installation of groundwater monitoring, and
tli« maintenance of financial assurances to ensure
appropriate ctoture and postdosure can as well
as liability insurance coverage for accidental
i due to management of hazardous
wait*.
B« '- t*afi*e dam (Charlotte, NQi The
Slate of North: Carolina' brought an
admimi*r*tiv« «n£oicssMCVt action against Ram
Leather Car*, located in Charlotte, North
Carolina. Hi* company la a dry cleaning
facility specializing in leather, suede, and nm.
Coring a s-^t inspection, open drum* of waste
mineral spirits were found stored at th*
facility, and inspectors discovered that
some of the contents of th* drums had been
discharged to the ground. Sampling indicated
that boiler "blow down* was contaminated with
tetrachloroethylen* and other organics, which
are classified a s hazardous wastes under RCRA.
In addition, groundwater supplies within 1/2
mil* of the facility were found to contain
tetrachloroethylene and related organic
contaminants. A Compliance Order was issued by
the State to address m* soil and groundwater
contamination.
OJi. m
frf
(NJ?. Tex4i On January 14 1992, a
federal grand jury in Dallas indicted two
former officers of Dat-tH* Corporation, Robert
M, Bfitttngham and John J. LoMonaco, for
felony violations of RCRA and conspiracy to
violate RCRA. Dal-TUe, which employs more
than 5 JOO people throughout th* US. and
Mexico, makes ceramic tttes at a large plant in
Dallas County, Texas. The charges arose from
th* alleged disposal of lead-contaminated
hazardous waste in a unpermitted sand and
gravel pit in Daflas County. Me Brittingham is
the former Chairman of me Board and .former
partowner of Dai-Hie. Mr. LoMonaco is a
former Board member and the former President
of Dai-Hie. .-
U.S.-Mexican Border Enforcement
Actions
On funt 3, 1992, EPA Administrator Rally
announced the first enforcement actions in the
United States resulting from efforts outlined in
tht Integrate Environmental flan for. the
Mcooan-tiS. Border Arm - * total of 17 federal
out state actions, seeking mart then $2
million in penalties. Four of the actions (2
criminal actions and 2 administrative actions)
wertjbr alleged violations of ROW. All of
Ar stair and federal actions involved alleged
violations of (IS. environmental laws in tht
border arm, or alleged violations of LT.SL laws
governing tran*'
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Repon
Oil Rffi^ffy( These companies had been
charged with violations of RCRA used-oil
regulation* in 40 CFH Port 266, Tim consent
•decrees, which have a five year duration,
included penalty and injunction relief provisions.
Under the decrees, Eastern mil pay * penalty of
$135,000 and Lionetti will pay a penalty of
$75,000. The decrees /also incorporate workplans,
exceeding the regulatory requirements, to ensure
that the facilities do not handle hazardous
waste fuel and that they manage used oQ fuel
properly. Significant stipulated penalties art
included to promote compliance with the
workpltn.
State RCRA/CERCLA Enforcement
Actions
at
AlMxl
M. lfUL:O>
January 6, 1992, the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality and the Attorney
General's Office signed a consent judgment with
Allied Aircraft Sales, Inc. of Tucson. In tht
consent judgment; Allied agreed to pay a penalty
of $120,000 and proceed with the dean up of ill
property. In its complaint the State alleged that
Allied had illegally disposed of more than 2900
tons of aluminum dross, containing high levels of
in tfrft Lot PftJft I apjffll. An
estimated 3000 to 4000 tons of material remained
at the Allied property. Aluminum dross is a by-
product of an aircraft smelting process which
involves the melting of aircraft parts to recover
aluminum. The complaint alleged several
violations of the Arizona Hazardous Waste
Management Act including illegal treatment,
storage, or disposal of hazardous waste without a
permit failure to perform a hazardous waste
determination, failure to prepare a manifest
before transporting hazardous wast- off-site, and
failure to comply with Arizona Department of
Transportation regulations. Allied agreed to
submit a sampling plan lor two existing dross
piles and to test the soil and concrete at its
facility for possible contamination.
Stat« Q * f^r\fon* w. Coftfnfl; On September 25,
1992, two men fromToUeson, Arizona pled guilty
to charges that they had dumped barrels of toxk
chemicals in the desert near Avondale, Arizona.
According to the indictment drums of hazardous
waste from the Phoenix and San Diego
warehouses of Atlas Construction Supply were
dumped in the desert in September and November
of 1991. The drums contained materials that were
ignitable, corrosive, or toxic As part of their
plea agreements, the defendants agreed to
perform community service relating to the
environment
Stmtm ot Ariranm w. Maea* f orp^ On Sqmmfeg \§
1992, the federal district court for Arizona
approved a 51-275 million settlement between
Nucor Corp-., and the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality fADEO*). ADEQ had
brought an action against Nucor under CSRCLA in
an effort to dean up groundwater in Wfest Central
Phoenix. Tb date, three plumes of groundwater in
that area have been identified as contaminated
with the industrial chemicals trkhloroethylene
(TCI), 1,1-didUoroethylene (DCI), and
tetrachloroethylene _ (also known, as
perchloraethyiene, or PCE). Nucor operated as an
electronic components manufacturing firm at a
facility known as the West Osbom Complex.
Q*»*»* v M«A
t^fi in the first case
in which the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality has obtained e criminal
search warrant investigated possible criminal
activity and referred hazardous waste violations
to a District Attorney for criminal prosecution,
Mark Kefster was tried in Gackamas County
District Court on May 26, 1992, found guilty of four
environmental crimes, and sentenced to spend 72
hours in Jail, 36 months' probation, and to pay a
total of S1S£QO in fines,
TOtemf Co. of Puerto
Since early spring of 1992, the
Environmental Quality Board's (EQB) Land
Pollution Control Program personnel became
suspicious of several incidents that they thought
were taking place at the aforesaid company's
facilities at Manatf, Puerto Rico. Safety-lGeen,
whose business is to provide services of
recollecting, transporting and disposing all
hazardous and nan hazardous solid waste, was
suspected of accumulating large quantities of
hazardous waste for extended periods of time
(over the regulatory limit of 90 days); for
transporting hazardous solid waste out of the
company's premises without the filing of the
required manifests; for accumulating hazardous
solid waste on unauthorized locations and other
environmental irregularities. A investigation was
subsequently ordered.
3-36
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Surprisingly, though, the defendant's parent
company made an unexpected internal
environmental audit on the Manati plant; all the
company's lop and books were completely
overhauled. As a result the Manati's plant top
management was abruptly Substituted, and
voluntarily the parent company's representatives
submitted all the Informations they gathered
during the audit to both the EQB and the EPA.
Subsequently, the EQB issued an administrative
order against Sa/ety-ldeen (Manati) and
assessed the unprecedented amount of S3 3 million
as proposed penalty for several violations to the
EQB*s Regulations for the Control of Hazardous
Solid Wast*. Tb th* EQB*s record, this penalty
was the largest ever assessed against a single,
private company. Finally, the company agreed to
pay EQB fl.l million for the violations
mentioned in the order; and included an
additional amount ol $350,000 to sttti* other
additional violations, making this the largest
single penalty ever collected by the EQB.
'-tiflltr Cart J*"1*— i**t-l NO: Hie State of
North .Carolina brought an administrative
enforcement action against Kan Leather Care,
located In Charlotte, North Carolina. The
company is a dry cleaning faculty specializing in
leathsx juede, and fun. During a state inspection,
'open drams of waste mineral spirits were found
stored at the fadllty, and Inspectors discovered .
that some of the contents of the drums had been
discharged to the ground. Sampling indicated
that boiler "blow down" was contaminated with
tetrachloroethylent and other organics, which
are classified as hazardous wastes ondir RCRA.
In addition, groundwater supplies within 1/2
mile of the facility were found to contain
tetrachloroethylene and related organic
contaminants. A Compliance Order was issued by
the State to address the soil and ground water
contamination. ' .
TL Bag Ranch
la«h«
Ing.
{.Utah): A Stipulation and Consent Order was
signed with Commercial Beef, Inc. doing business
as the T-L Bar Ranch and Flasher Barricades, Inc.
for operating a hazardous wast* storage and
disposal facility without prior application for or
approval of a hazardous waste operation plan.
Hazardous waste was leaked and spilled on the
land and regulated hazardous waste was land
disposed. Containerized hazardous waste was
being stored. A penalty settlement of $100,000
was levied with $26,000 defend, provided there
was compliance with the Consent Order. In
addition, a sum of $5,645.88 was to be paid to the
Utah Department of Environmental Quality as
reimbursement for laboratory analytical and
other costs incurred.
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) Enforcement
(Superfund) •
Saperfund Information Request
Initiative
Enforcement of CERCLA § 104
-------
FT 7992 Enforcement Accomptislmemx Report
EPA's enforcement action arose from Asarco's
failure to furnish Information relating to its
involvement with a Superfund site in Kansas dry
KS known as the Kansas City Structural Steel
site. On August 30, 1990, Region VII sent a request
for information pursuant to CERCLA §104
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplisimants Ropon
LLS. v. Afczo Cnattrum ntf AlBffriff* (Stfe Of.): On
December 5, 1991, tha Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals issued a favorable decision in tha above
caso, which was a challenge to a Suparfund
consent, decrea The "State ol Michigan appealed
tha July 18, 11989, entry ol a consent deom between
tha United States) and twelve defendanto whkh
requires tint defendant to perfoim remedial work
at the Roea Township Site in Michigan. Tha
remedial work includes the possible USD of soil
flushing to remove volatile organk compounds
from tha soJL Ths state objected to tit® us® ol soil
flushing, asserting mat it will not meat tho
stato'o anti-degradation law, which it claims is
an Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requiraffiatt (ARAR). Tits District Court found
this tha anti-degradation kw is an ARAB, but
that tha remedial action plan wiD msot the
raquiremsti. Ths state appealed tha entry, white
ths defendant applied ths determination that
ths anti-degradation law is an ARAB. ,
Tha Court ol Appeal® speed with the District
Conit that rcvtew ol tha consent decres should bo
limited to t&a adminlafrativo record, applying
the arbitrary and capricious standard* and
specifically rejected tha Western District ol
Oklahoma's opinion in ffgfogf that EPA's
selection d a remedy ahouM be reviewed dscaaj,
Tho Court ol Appeals also agreed with tho
District Court that Michigan's anti-digndatiofi
Jnw constitute an ARAE within tha meaning of
CERCLA §121(dX2), but mat the isowilal action
m a whote can attain all ARARa. In addition, .
tha court found that EPA Implicitly wairod the
ARAB, but thg state} did not meet its burden to
show that tits waive? was unhistifi&L
: On January 13, 1591, th@
District Court to SSso Northern District ol New
Yorfc gisnted tfs? govsnmfirtlf s suounsry |udgBiBit
mottai finding Aksn Aluminum Corp. Uablfi as a
gemrator ol hazardous substsnos deposited at
tha PAS Supsfund Site tat Oawsgo, Naw York.
"Dto court specifically rejected the dsfandant's
argument; that the wastei wao coyarad by tha
"pstrolcum eaceptton" stect »t onulsion contains
kv@Io ol mctolo designated ac hazardous
substances well balow that found bi virgin oiL
Ths court concluded that tha petroleum exclusion
dooo not warrant inclusion ol oil which has
become contanunatEd with hazardous) substonces
through USQ. Tho court also found Cornell
University jointly and severally liable, but
requirad a, hearing to detsnnma tho extent of
ComaiTs fair sham ol tha dsm up costs.
7.
CvamiBiM nitd Rohm
(DJLU: Amsrican Cyanamid Co. and Rohm &
Haao Co. have paid tha Unitod States $4.1
minion imder rulingi issued by tho District Court
for mo District ol Rhode Island tn March, April,
and July of 1992 for past costs related to cleaning
up this Pfdflo Sepetrtind Site to Covottry, Rhode
Inland. Thay wva*also orderad to pay all of
EPA'a future costs ol additional dsanup ectivities
at tha oite; the US. io about to fesuo a demand for
SSQQjBSQ is* oifoicansit cost:}. Ths court
found &s d^BndantD liabls in 1990 on summary
judgment bassd on a novol application ol
coHateral oatoppel as gengators under CERCLA
§lfl7(aX3) for ansnging for disposal of hazardous
cu6etanc®i tekisa across state linss to tha site in
tha 1970s. Hi® defendants em multi-billion*
doflar chamkal comp&niss.
• Tha PM&o Ste cams to tfea attention ol EPA ond
Rhcda Island authorities what combustible
chmicals osptoded at tha site fat 1977, causing a
hugafim Tfet site had boan an fttegal dump, and
had Irnku to ozganized otea, Tha costs for which
EPA caught fBimbursement were for tha removal
ol over IQJQQQ barrels that ccntoinsd solvents,
osplosiv^s, postiddea/ and other hazardous
substencBS and of soil contaminated with PCBs
and pJtsnols. • - •
Tfcs Mareh 17, IS92, opinion provides EPA with
feforadils precodent on tha gfnndytrdg for making
do&aidants pay fid Supafuml site cleanups. The
os&a chculd cswouragd defendants to settle and
cfrgpp up ills mths? than foci tha now-difficult
odda of cttcccBsruIly challenging EPA's costs in
tits defendants argued that EPA spent too
atcmjii After noting tltt defendants could
deaned up tfca cita thfimselves if they
wanted to control costs, tha Judge wrote:
°£D]cfendanto should tea onbarzassed* after all
[this] litigation, to claim that they understand
- O^ flmiflQfli d!ftO4irOffii»
Aaaoriataa. fne-
(ED.
Ssveral significant court devclopmsnts occurred
during FY 1992 in ths litigation for Superfund
coots regarding the used oil recycling site located
In DouglaasviHe, Berks County, Pennsylvania. In
April 1992, tha District Court for the Eastern
3-39
-------
FY1992 Efijorctment AfcompUsfanuas Ripon
District of Pennsylvania 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, 1992, the
court granted the United States' proposed case
management order for this complex cue, thereby
setting a tight deadline to comply with the new
dvil justice reform plan of the Eastern District
and allowing the government to proceed
expeditiously with. formal discovery. Finally, on
September 14 1992, the court granted the motion
to strike over eighty affirmative defenses,
including a defense related to divisibility of
hum, The opinion construes the third Circuit's
recent II^JL^AJOBI liability language favorably
for the United States. •
BiFi fhlttdrfr* * Mmdi*. (id O&H On March 12,
1992, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the ruling of the district court m this
case. Ike Second Circuit heM mat (1) CERCLA
does not exempt municipal ioUd waste (MSW)
rrom the definition of hazardous substances
contained In §101(14), (2) the imposition of
liability on municipal genatatms and transporters
of hazardous substances (if proven) is consistent
with the purposes of CERCLA* and (3) the
Agency's construction of the statute as it applies
to liability for MSW in the 1989 Interim
Municipal Settlement Policy is reasonable and
operator of a piatmg shop that was destroyed by
a fire, and Joseph and Boy Dunn, two officers of
the company who exercised control over the
handling and storage of hazardous substances at
the facility. The action sought to recover all
response costs EPA expended in performing an
emergency removal at the site as well as
penalties against Joseph Dunn for his failure to
respond to a CEHCLA §104(e) information request
Builder's Hardware Fmlshecs' Inc. failed to file
an answer and a defnalt Judgment was issued as to
them, m response to a summary Judgment motion
filed by the US* 'the District Court for the
Central District of California ruled that Joseph
and Boy Duran wire liable under CERCLA §107
in their capacity as individuals. After a trial as
to costs and EPA's CERCLA §10*Xe) daim, the
court awarded EPA 100% of Its response costs,
mdudJngaB attorneys fees. In addition, the court
ordered Joseph Dunn to pay a penalty of $25X100
for his fciiure to respond to a CERCLA §104
-------
F71992 Enforcmmt Acco&pl&tst&Bs Stepon
O-^n y. Marvin Pgflaefl, at nL. (W.D. P&4* Oil
March 30, 1992, tha District Court to? the Western
District of Pennsylvania rejected tha arguments of
seventeen defendants that th® said of scrap
materials and metals from manufacturing
processes at the Metcoa Radiation Sits in
PulasM, Pennsylvania, did mrt constitute on
arrangement for disposal o? treatment of
hazardous substance. Ilia site is a defunct metal
reclaiming facility, operated by MotaUurgkal
Company of America, fee. (Metcoa) £rom 193% to
1983, Matcoa handled low-tevaJ radioactive
compounds and hsavy metals, which EPA has
alleged were improperly stored and resulted in
releases to ms ernrt
In adopting tha magistrate's report with minor
ravisions, me court hakJ theft tha dsfrodsnts are
not relieved ol liability simply because they
received monetary consideration te thair scrap
materials in most instance!. Tits coast found mat
the defendant had treated th© materials during
procca.ing ol tha scrap material, and dispos-d of
ma material when wastes w®o misused to land
and air during pi
U.S. v.
Jaft, (W4J.
On December 26,1991, «@ District Court to th®
Northern Division el Illinois, Eastern Division,
issued a ruling favorable to th® gwauunaait with
respect to CERGIA statnte ol limitations m this
•«UJQ. Tho court held thafc the stmtnta ol
limitations foe a ronoval actloa bagins to ran on
the date EPA's ROD is issued and not when the
rer^lial investigation report was iepzsd.
Ilia defendant argued sfeaft EFA'o °nstoval
action" wao "completed,0 and fite otarofca ol
limitationo thera/orQ began to ran* when ma
EPA's contEactoi? issued te RI rapoft on April 4,
19S6. Since EPA had ffied its complains on
SsptemJxsr 13, l$9t, tha adfaaa was fiv® mcnthc
too late and barred EPA's actica nrtdfir CERCLA
§113
-------
Ft 1992 Enforcement AccompUdmaes Report
recovery by i RCRA administrative consent order
under a res judicata or claim preclusion doctrine.
The court found little support in the statutes or
case law for the defendants' first argument ami
stated that Iwjtthout a clear statutory statement
to the contrary, this CERCLA remedy must be
upheld.^." In regard to the second argument the
court found that the administrative consent order
had a broad and sweeping reservation of fights
clause that prevented any res judicata or claim
preclusion defense. The court granted recovery of
all of EPA's past CERCLA costs including interest
and "any other appropriate and proper response
costs shown to be due after the filing of this action
and fa the future.* The decision was appealed by
the defendants to the Third Circuit on June 1,
1992. In this case, EPA wu% if the District Court
decision is affirmed, recover $401,348.78 plus
interest representing 100% of past costs and all
future costs incurred.
Ue _ *• • - •• »
3
ILS.
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Siport
\
Also, an Administrative Settlement between EPA
and two federal agencies - Griffiss Air Force
Base in Rome, Hew York, and the Veterans
Administration Medical Center, in Carandaigua,
New York - is effective simultaneously with the
Decree. It requires that the agendas pay $10,854
and $17,172, respectively, toward EPA's oversight
costs and past costs, and contribute to the
implementation of the remedy.
The Fulton Site was active from 1971 through
1977 as « staging and storage area for bulked
wastes scheduled for incineration at the Pollution
Abatement Services (PAS) fecfflry in neighboring
Oswego. The remedy includes, tajjjf »H«-
exeavation and treatment of soils in the area of
former storage tank areas, and extraction and
treatment of contaminated groundwatet
U.S. y. City al Algama. fJLD* WL) Algoma
Municipal Landfill, Algoma, Wisconsin On
December 4 1991, a RD/RA consent decree was
Ic^ed wit- the District Court for the-Dtstrict al
Wisconsin, Eastern Division concerning the City of
Algoma Municipal Landfill. The State of
Wisconsin la also a plaintiff In the action. The
decree requires the dry of Algoma and eight
generator PRPs to implement the remedy selected
by the ROu, which includes constructing a new
cover over the mam portion of the landfill in
accordance with current Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) standards, extension
of the cover over the other portions of the site if
warranted by further investigation, installation
of groundwater monitoring walls, and fendng the
site. The settling defendants wffl also reimburse
both EPA and the Slate of Wisconsin for their
future oversight costs and pay 90% of EPA's past
oversight costs. The total value of this
settlement is approximately SO million. The
Algoma Municipal Landfill la a 13 acre former
municipal landfill located three mites west of
Algoma, Wisconsin. The Ory of Algoma operated
the landfill from 1969 to 1983. The main portion
of the landfill waa dosed in accordance with the
1983 standards of the WDNR, but It doe* not
conform to current WDNR standards. There art
three other smaller disposal areas believed to
contain construction debris, asbestos, and animal
carcasses. Monitoring detected an cxceedance of
the Maximum Containment Level (MCL) for
cadmium; iron and manganese fa excess of Federal
Secondary MCLs; and benzene, iron, and
'manganese in excess of Wisconsin enforcement
standards. EPA placed the site on the NPL In July
1987. A group of the PRPs performed the RI/FS
and IPA issued Its ROD on September 29,1990.
Tig.'* AnW SifMl. •» a.. (N.DJN.Y4 dothitr
Disposal Site, East Granby, New York; A consent
decree was entered in June, 1992 in connection with
the Clothier Disposal Supcrfund Site. The
settlement, with 24 generator PRPs, provides for
reimbursement of S2J2S million in past costs, plus
a $25,000 penalty paid by one of the defendants,
Shell Oil Company, for noncompUance with a
removal order under §106 of CERCLA.
The Clothier Disposal • Site is a National
Priorities List site. Prom 1986 through 1988, a
three-phased removal action. Involving the
removal of drums of haardous substances, was
conducted on site. The majority of the- PRPs
carried out me first two phases of the removal
action under an administrative order; the third
phase was performed by EPA after seven PRPs
^Including SheP failed to co< ly with a
unilateral order for mis phase of the removal
v. AIlf«4-Sli
il TIM- •*
m.fi.C*J Bluff
Road Svparfaad eite In Columbia, South Carolina:
The District Court for the District of South
Carolina entered the corner.: decree for
performance of the RD/RA at the Bluff Road
Superfund site in Columbia, South Carolina. The
site was operated by South Carolina Recycling &
Disposal, Inc. in the 1970*s as a chemical
recycling and disposal facility. In 1982 and 1983,
over 7JOO drums and contaminated soil and debris
wen removed from the site as part of a surface
daanup. EPA recovered its costs for this cleanup
under a court judgment Under me consent decree,
the flute of the defendants will conduct the
RD/RA for the site, which consists of extraction
and treatment of contaminated groundwater, and
soil vacuum extraction to remove volatile organic
compound* from site soils. The RD/RA is
expected to cost $5,574,984. In addition, under the
decree the 30 defendants wil pay EPA $2,304,628
in past response costs, representing virtually a
100% recovery.
tlA * A««ri«*ti Siting Coiiifiifiv. ft ll.. (W.D.
MU Folktrtinu Refuse Site, Walket Michigan:
On Augusts, 1992, a consent decree was entered in
the District Court for the Western District of
Michigan which requires eleven defendants to
pay past costs and to undertake RD/RA at the
3-43
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Folkertsma Refuse site in Walkeu Michigan. This
site is a former landfill that accepted primarily
industrial waste, the majority of which was
foundry sand. Contaminants detected at the site
include volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile
organic compounds, poly-chlorinated biphenyls,
pesticides, and metals. Pursuant to the consent
decree, the defendants will perform the RD/RA,
which consists of construction of a clay cap,
excavation of sediments from an on- site creek and
two surface bodies, ground water and drainage
water monitoring, installation of a fence, and
implementation of institutional controls. The cost
of the remedy will be approximately $L5
million, The defendants win also reimburse EPA
for $919,227 in past costs, thereby funding 96% of
the combined remedy and past costs for this site.
m, Auto Ton
(W.D. ML) Attto
^l% liifT Sttpcxfund Site,
Michigan : On April 7, 1992, the District Court for
the Western District of Michigan entered a
consent decree for unrecovered past costs at the
Auto Ion Chemicals, Inc. facility in Kalamazoo,
Michigan. Under the decree, EPA will receive
$225/000 from twenty FRPs inducting the dry of
and $35,000 from the US Navy for
past response costs incurred at the facility
through December 27, 1989. The Agency's past
costs as of that date were approximately
$294,000. "Die Agency will also be recovering
interest on the $225,000 since October 15, 199L A
decree for the remedial design/remedial action
(RD/RA) work for the first operable unit at the
facility was entered in March of 1991. Past
response costs were not addressed under the
RD/RA consent decree, although oversight costs
for the work were. The majority of the
defendants agreeing to the cost recovery decree
are newty identified PRPs. However the biggest
contributors to this consent decree, the City of
Kalamazoo and the UJ. Navy, were both
recalcitrants from the RD/RA consent decree. A
ROD for the second operable unit is scheduled for
1993,
"MiSi.Ti AntBP**^01* C°mpon»nt« «t aL. (p^N.J.)
SCP/N«wirk NFL Site, Newark, New Jets**.; On
July 16, 1992, three consent decrees were lodged in
the District Court for the District of New Jersey
with Madack, Inc., Randolph Products Company,
Inc., Sigmond Presto and Dominkk Presto in HA
V. Automation Component* »t al. involving Ihe
SOYNewark NFL site. Madack and Randolph
Products agreed to pay substantial penalties for
their noncompBance with orders issued by EPA for
a removal action at the site. All defendants
agreed to pay EPA's oversight costs and
enforcement costs for this action.
EPA issued four orders to PRPs to cooperate in
performing a removal action at the Scientific
Chemical Processing (SCP) facility in Newark,
New Jersey. Over 130 PRPs performed the action
but some PRPs did not comply with the order. EPA
brought an action against the viable
noncomprying parties for penalties and oversight
and enforcement costs and against several other
non-partidpants for costs. EPA obtained default
judgments against two parties that declared
bankruptcy, and settled earlier with a third
party.
In this series of settlements, Randolph Products
and the estate of the former owner of the company
agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty and an $85,000
cost share. Madack agreed to pay a $125,000
penalty and a $75,000 cost share. The
partnership of Presto and Sigmond, and Dominkk
Presto, as an Individual, agreed to pay $50,000 in
costs. EPA expects to obtain 100% of its costs and
interest in this matter.
U A v. AVX Catp. at il- (O. MimJ Maw Bad ford
Harbor Svperfaad Site, New Bedford,
Massachusetts: On January 29,1992, the United
States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts entered the second consent decree
for the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site. The
New Bedford Harbor NFL site encompasses the
Acushnet River estuary, New Bedford Harbor,
and portions of Buzzards Bay in southeastern
Massachusetts. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) initiated-
this case in 1983 by filing a natural resource
damage case against manufacturers that had
dumped PCBs into the harbor, causing widespread
contamination of harbor sediments and biota.
Suits brought by EPA and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts were consolidated with NCAA's
case. Due to the complex nature of remediating
harbor sediments, EPA decided that the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers should handle the
remediation.
The second decree settles the liability of
defendant AVX Corporation with plaintiffs EPA,
NOAA, and the Commonwealth of
3-44
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement Accomplisfuntnu Report
Massachusetts. AVX Corporation is a former
operator of a capacitor manufacturing plant on
New Bedford Harbor responsible for a substantial
portion of the PCB dumping. Under the consent
decree, AVX Corporation paid $66 million into an
escrow account for remedial activities and
restoration of natural resources. The account
balance is iicw over $73 million. Hie first consent
decree, which settled the liability of defendants
AerovQx, toe. and BtOeviBe Industries, Inc. for a
total of $124 million, was entered by the court on
Juryl6,199t
On September 4,1992, the United Stales and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts lodged a third
and final consent decree for this site, between
plaintiffs EPA, NOAA, and Massachusetts and
defendants Federal Pacific Electric Company
(FPE) and Comell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc.
(CDE). CD! operates a capacitor manufacturing
plant on New Bedford Harbor and is responsible ,
for PCB dumping. FPB is a former parent
corporation of CDB, Under mis cot jent decree,
CDS and FPE will pay a total of $21 million to
the plaintiffs for remediation and natural
resource damages.
U.S. T. HASP. •» il.,,,' (HJD. ML)
Superfvnd Site, Green Oak Township, Michigan:
On April 30,1992, Judge Newblatt of the District
Court for the* Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division entered the RD/RA consent
decree in resolution of this .CB8CLA §§ 106 and'
107 case. This consent decree embodies an
agreement between the Agency and ten PRPs who
were United as generator* to the Rasmuisen Site,
which is located in Green Oak Township,
Michigan, It provides for the payment of 100% of
the Agency's past and future costs and calls for
the construction of a "dosed loop* groundwater
extraction and treatment system for the affected
groundwater acnes. Thegfoundwatermustnowbe
treated to health based cleanup standards before
being discharged into the seepage basin. In
addition, the decree requires a RCKA Subtitle O
cap to be constructed over a portion of the facility.
The total value of this settlement is
approximately $12 million, ' '.
U.S. Tf Jf i««g Pa at. «t al- (N.D. Ohio) Summit
National Facility, Deerfield, OMe: On February
20, 1992, the District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio entered a consent decree between
the United States and Beazer East, Inc., f/k/a/
Koppers, Inc., regarding the Summit National
Facility in Deerfield, Ohio. Pursuant to the
terms of the decree, Beazer East will pay the
United States the sum of $2,42X73047 together
with interest on the sum of $2,400,000, such sum
accruing from December 13,1990, as reimbursement
«or past costs incurred by die EPA at the site.
With this settlement and a settlement reached
with named defendant, Mansfield Graphics, Inc.
(addressed below), the EPA will recover 98% of
its past costs at the site. The Department of
Justice (DOf) had previously lodged a consent
decree on behalf of the EPA on June 30, 1990.
Pursuant to the decree, 28 companies would
undertake the $34 million clean-up at the Site.
Because Beazer East and Mansfield refused to be
signatories, DOJ filed an action against both
companies forretaburscrnent of past costs incurred
byEPA.
B^_
AM£
U.S. y.
•* «L IP. Conn.) Beacon Heights
Landfill and Laozel Park, Inc. Supcrnud Sites,
Naugatuck, OHinertkit ; On August 10, 1992, the
District Court for the District of Connecticut
entered two consent decrees in ttus case. The first
is" a CERCLA $ 107 action that requires the
defendants to pay $5.375 million . as
reimbursement for past and future costs st the
above two sites. The settlement also includes a
number of non-monetary obligations on the part of
the defendants, including providing full and
unrestricted access to both sites and a dismissal of
claims against the United States Government
entities. The second settlement entered, a consent
decree under CERCLA §§106 and 107 and RCRA §
7003, lodged in June of 1991, addresses RD/RA at
the Laurel Park Landfill in Naugatuck,
Connecticut, hi addition to performing the work.
the settling defendants have agreed to reimburse
$500,000 of past ;EPA response costs, and to pay for
ail but the initial $200,000 of the oversight costs.
EPA estimates the value of the remedial action
and OAM portion of the settlement to be $19J
million. • * "• • . •
B.P. c««uiH<;h/Atrgn sit*. Calvert City,
Kantnckr- On June 29, 1992, the District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky (Loutsviite
Division) entered a consent decree in connection
with the B.E Goodrich/ Airoo Site in Calvert
City, ICentucky. The decree obligates the two
settling defendants (1 J. Goodrich and the BOC
Group, Inc.) to undertake the cleanup, which
3-45
-------
FY1992 Enforcemtw Accomplishments Report
includes soil excavation and ground-water pump
and-treat. It also obligates the FBPs to reimburse
the U.S. for nearly ail of its past costs.
Cabot C«bon/KgT»p«r« Sit«( Gainesville,
Florida: On April 20,1992, the District Court for
the Northern District of Florida entered a consent
decree in connection with the Cabot
Carbon/Koppers site in Gainesville, FL. The
decree obligates the settling defendant (Cabot
Corporation) to undertake the cleanup for its
portion of the site. This portion is the former site
of Cabot's pine tar and charcoal manufacturing
operation; it was subsequently developed into a
shopping center. Cabot's response action includes
lining the ditch located on this portion of the
site; continued operation of an already existing
system for removing and treating ditch water;
and, certain ground-water pump-ond-treat, The
decree also obligates Cabot to. reimburse the US.
for over $414000 in past costs. Region IV has
previously ordered other PRPs to conduct the
remainder v* the cleanup.
U.S.
dnnotu
|J|yff jfc
^^^B^^^ejfti*^^^^^^*^^^^ ^^iioTi^it^^^ft \pttci|NKi?a%i*ftR
Svpexfoad Sites, Bridgeware* Matsadtasetts; On
September 22, 1992, the District Court for the
District of Massachusetts entered the final
consent decree for settlement of response costs at
the four sites known collectively as the Cannons
Engineering Corporation Superfund Sites. The
Cannons Engineering Corporation operated a
hazardous waste incineration facility in
Bridgewater Massachusetts. Wastes from the
Bridgewater facility were transshipped to a site
in Plymouth, Massachusetts, to the "Unkham's
Garage Site in Londonderry, New Hampshire,
and to the GUson Road Site in Nashua. New
Hampshire. The State of New Hampshire and
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are also
parties to the consent decrees.
Settling defendants consist of sixteen corporations
and three Individuals. With entry of these ten
decrees, the governments recovered
approximately 87.4% of their past and expected
future costs for cleanup at the Cannons Sites.
These settlements represent the grand finale in
litigation against parties who refused to
participate in an earlier string of settlements
involving hundreds of parties. EPAs pursuit of
the recalcitrants sends a message to PRPs that the
government will pursue its claims against those
responsible for contamination at Superfund sites.
This provides a strong economic incentive for
corporations and individuals to dispose of
hazardous substances correctly and may lead to
' settlement of future cases in a more ornery mannec
U.S. v.
Coman, at •!.
Cal.) Operating Industrie*, Inc. Sup*rrund Site,
California : On March 30, 1992, the District Court
for the Central District of California, after a
hearing on the same day, entered the Third
Partial Consent Decree resolving claims for a
significant portion of the third operable unit
This settlement with an estimated value of $130
million, is between the United States and
California against 178 PRPs for work, and
payment of state and federal past costs and
oversight One group of defendants (the "Work
Defendants") wui perform remedial design and
construction of landfill gas control, surface water
management, and landfill cover systems with the
exception at certain "Excluded Work" carveouts.
Work Defendants will operate and maintain
these systems for three years. The settlement
also includes approximately thirty-five Cash
Defendants who made a cash payment in lieu of
performing work
The Operating Inaustries, Inc. Site is a 190-acre,
former landfill that operated for thirty-six
years, accepting industrial and municipal waste.
In two earlier consent decrees, EPA has entered
into settlements for the first two operable units
for site control and monitoring, and the
construction o* an orwite leachate treatment
plant.
tf A
Cororation. (S.D. Ala4 Qba-
G«igy Supcrfund Site, MclnttMh, Alabama: On
November 18, 1992, the District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama entered a consent
decree requiring Ciba-Geigy Corporation to
conduct a remedial design and remedial action,
requiring Qba-Geigy to clean up soil and
groundwater contaminated by a variety of
chemicals including chlorinated pesticides
(particularly DDT and its breakdown products),
herbicides, volatile* and semi-volatiles at its
Mdntosh, Alabama Plant This agreement is one
of the largest private party settlements in
Superfund History, valued at approximately $120
million. The company has also agreed to
reimburse EPA for $322,000 in past costs, as well
as all future oversight cost incurred by EPA.
3-46
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement Aecompttshmmi Repon
The remedial action includes soil removal,
treatment by Incineration, and storage of
treatment residuals in a land vault on die
Mdntoah site. The consent decree covers the
second of four phases of remedial action planned
for tha sits. Tha consent decrea also requires that
Oba-Geigy Corporation pay all future costs
incurred by EPA in oversight of tha remedial
action and'r&unburs&DRsnt of post costs. . •.
U.S.
eri aL.
Crystal Ctieaical S«p«rfoad Site,
Tssae: On January fi, 1992 trW government
lodged a partial consent decrss in tha United
Stats District Court in the Southern District ol
lesas to resolvo tha litigation fai tha above case.
Defendants Southern Pacific Transportation
Company and Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc.
agreed to pay tha United State S3 milUaa for
past oast far As Crystal Chemical Super&nd site.
The government also ffled a stipulation of
diamJOTai without prajudka tor defendants Joseph
Ellas Wntost \%rd»narv John Person, Cumberland
Chemical Corporation and Cumberland
International Corporation. Hie stipulation will
fe§ effective upon the date of entry of the content
decree with Southern Pacific Transportation
Company and Voluntary Purchasing Groups, me.
Tha Crystal Chemical Supernand Ste is located
in Houston, "fexas.
»-
f, towm On Saptembas 23,1992,
ma'Dfeteic* Court fof tte Southam District of
lows. Central Division, lodgsd a consent decree
ssttttng soms EPA claims against John Deere &
Company, me property owner and operator at the
John Daera-Ctbimwn Works Site, and tha State of
Iowa Department of Transportation, an easement
owmsr at ths Site. Tha decree calls foff recovery of
$24,939 in past costs, and TO/HA valued at
$104,000. Tha Sto te currentty used by Deera &
Company for its? manufacturing fecSBSy located In
Ottumwo, Iowa. Under the September 1991 ROD,
waste) shall remain buried m place based on o
finding that 90% of ths waste 10 affsctivoly
capped by pavement and buildings, and tha tow
toaicity and mobility of wastes at ths Sit®. Ths
remedy also includes a statutory five year
periodic review, continued surface and
groundwater monitoring, fencing, and deed
restrictfono. • .
'U.S. ?. Cite of Dovtw ae a3L. (DJ^J.HJ Dover
Municipal Landfill, Dov@% NOR? Hajapohto: On
August 10, 1992, s CERCLA RD/HA action conssit
decree regarding the Dover Municipal Landfill in
Doves New Hampshire (site) was lodged in
federal district court Pursuant to ths consent
decree, 24 PRPs will perform cleanup activities at
ths site and reimburse EPA response coats. Thia
&gECQB(cnt fijunnpttflflBi EPA'o succosful Mgg of thcj
spsdal noJfce pfocedutes under CESCLA to obtain
a strong settlement whereby private parties have
to eddresa envmmmental thraate. Soon aftear the
Ragtei issued its ROD for ths si to, ths case team
obtainod P&Ps' agreement to perform
obtain pro-design studies to clarify
uncertainties noted in ths ROD. Based on tha
ROD catimatB, the injunctivo ndief and cost
raoovory eeeur@d by this sottiammt QTQ valued at
ovor SS22 million, and represent roughly 93% of
Tills oottlament provides significant
OTvironffisntal benefits. Tha prompt design
iaitiatiofi witt oapadUo oite cleanup.
rurtrtsmore, unplementauon c3 vts clconup by
ths PRPtj under tha decret will protect a local
rsaervote tvhkh Is ths cource of drinldng wztsr,
wifl stop «h« dogradation of tha naarby Cochsco
Rivs% ond will prevent direct contact with
contaminated landfill msbgriaToRd
(D. W7O.)
s E«a4/II.3. Highway iQ
Sapesfand Silas, Natroaa Coant^ 'Wyoming : On
Qcttfev 2, 1S91 a consent dscrea was entered in the
Dtotrict Court for the District of Wyoming
concerning the Mystery Bridgs Road /U.S.
Highway 20 Superfund Site (a/h/o/ Brookhurst)
located in Natecaa County, Wyoming. This site
tadttdaa a ra^kJtPtM subdivision with extensive
groundwater contamination. Pursuant to ths
ccmtpl dcansa, dafertdante wfll reimburse all of
EPA'o pao« costs, totaling §3.4 million, and will
install an alternative public water system. The
dta WES listed osi the NPL m August 1990.
. ?. Gaago.
olaL. (M.P. Ohio) Fiolda
Break Soperfnnd Site, Aohtalrala, Ohio; On
August 6, 1993, ths District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio altered, a consent
decrea requiring PSFs to pay $1,230,000 in past
costs incurred at tht Fields Brook Superfund Site.
Fields Brook is located nsar Ashtebula, Ohio. A
number of faculties are located along the Brook
3-47
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement Afcompluhmew Report
and contributed to the contamination in the
brook's sediments and in areas alongside it A
group o! PRPs an doing the remedial design for
thermal treatment of the sediments and an also
conducting a source control remedial investigation
(SI), EPA filed its lawsuit for past costs against
PRPs that weft not doing work tt the site.
Subsequent to the settlement, the two groups of
and the RL The settlement resulted in recovery of
over 90% of past costs.
U.3. w.
Fla*} Hants
Corporation Site, Palm Bay, Florida: A
settlement Involving Karris Corporation resulted
in an agreement that the company would conduct
an RD/RA for the first operabift -mit at the Site.
The remedy consists of reviewing the existing
groundwater remediation at the complex and
performing necessary modifications to comply
with the ROD requirements. EPA estimates the
remedy will cost approximately $1-6 million.
Hie corporation alsc agreed to pay up to $800,000
in futun costi and $150,000 in past costs. Hie
consent decree was entered in the District Court
for the Middle District of Florida on October 29,
1991.
The site located in ?alm Bay, Florida is owned by
the Harris Corporation which operates a
manufacturing facility at the site. Pursuant to
Harris Corporation's request, EPA Is currently
drafting an Explanation of Significant Difference
to modify the ROD and consent decree so it is
consistent with the corporation's consent
agreement between the corporation and the State.
IAS. v. Th« dtr of Tacks
l*, ftaidda «* al-
fM.O. Ff».i Ptdketrtille Road Landfill Site,
Jacksonville, Florid* : On April 24, 1992, the
District Court for the Middle District of Florida ,
entered a settlement pursuant to which thirteen
settling defendants Including die City of
Jacksonville, Florida, Ken-McGee Chemical
Corporation, CSX transportation, and Sherwin-
Williams Company agree to (1) undertake
implementation of a remedy valued at 19 million
at the Flckettville Road Landfill Site in
Jacksonville, Florida* and (2) pay the United
States 100% (roughly $400,000) of its remaining
unreimbursed costs incurred in connection with the
site. The Pickettville Road Landfill was
operated by the City of Jacksonville as a
municipal dump for residential, commercial, and
industrial wastes (Including numerous CERCLA
hazardous substances) tern 1968 to 1977 when it
dosed. The remedy to be implemented by the
settling defendants involves capping and long-
term monitoring of this NFL lite, plugging and
abandonment of water supply wells located
downgradient of the site, extension of dry water
supply lines to designated areas downgradient of
the site, and restoration of a stream (Six Mile
Creek) contaminated by wastes from the site.
U.S. m ICawti^lry gaifipa. Tng. «t «1-
-------
FY1991 ErforcemsntAccomplishminU Report
$3.6 million remedy includes a groundwater
extraction 1791011 and a pilot project designed to
evaluate the feasibility of a soil vapor extraction
system for organks,
U.S. v. Maaq Mqtyhaitdtoaq, Tng.. (W.D.
Aziswcod, Inc. Sit©, Boons County, Arkansasi On
September 9, 1992, tha District Court for the
Western District erf Arkansas entered a consent
decrea it which Mass Merchandisers, fac. (MMI),
a priot ownez of ths Arfeweod Supsrfund (NFL)
Sito in Boono County, Arkansas, agrees to
implement a remedy selected for the site by EPA
and pay mora than $282,000 in costt previously
incurred by tha United States In connection with
tha
Waste from wood-treating operations conducted
at tha sito from the early 1960*9 to 1984,
principally pentachloropnenol and creosote,
contaminated on-atte soils and stormwatar runoff.
at $18 million and Involves excavation and
washing of soils, treatment of contaminated
wate% and on-ste incineration of certain wastes.
MeAdnn Say«i*iitiJ site. Kline Township,
ScheyUdU Coonty, Pennsylvania: On August 10,
1992, a consent decrea foe 12 mflHosi in remedial
costs waa lodged in tha United States and lodged
with th® United Slates District Court fof th®
Eastern District of Penraytvanis. Whan combined
with tho settlement under o prioe decree, tha
total recovery for the site is $3.? million of $6
million of afl remedial costs awttfaffd with the
first operable unit aft th® McAdoo site,
representing a 93% recovery. Ite decree resolves
tho liability off International Flavors is
Fragrances, Irwu; S is W Waste, Inc. (S & W);
Kalama Chemical, Inc.; Champion Auto
Generator Servian, Insy Schuics Electroplating,
IRC; McAdoo Associate, tow Payw, Inc.; and
Edward and Noreen Payee ' '. .
Tho McAdoo Associates SUa is 'en
-------
(A)
>
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishment] Report
1991, the District Court for the District of
Arizona, Phoenix Division entered a consent
decree in this case requiring the defendants to
remediate contaminated groundwater through an
extraction and treatment system and reimburse
the stats of Arizona and EPA for 100% of their
future oversight costs. The consent decree
addresses the groundwater contamination in the
middle and lower aquifers of the North Indian
Bend Wash Site. Contaminate-. in the sods and
upper aquifer unit of North Indian Bend Wish
and all of South Indian Bend Wish will be
addressed in separate actions.
Hie settlement wflL (1) provide a potable water
source for the dry of Scottsdale using, as far as
possible, existing facilities; (2) protect publk
health and the environment by precluding
contamination of unaffected wells; and (3)
provide for long-tarn management of the VOC
contaminated groundwater through treatment
designed to improve the regional aquifer, The
remedial action 'nvolves "onstru *M.ng a
groundwater monitoring system, a groundwattr
extraction system, and a groundwater treatment
plant. Th* total estimated value of the
settlement is $17,037,000.
Ztoacville, indiaaai On November 12, 1991, a
consent decree for RD/RA was entered in the
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
for the Northside Sanitary landfill NFL Site.
The decree requires the Installation of a
hydraulic Isolation wall, leachate collection
trench, monitoring, and capping parts of the
landfill. The site consists of a landfill and
adjacent recycling company, Environmental
Conservation and Chemical Company which
disposed of wastes at the landfifl.
LLS.
Ittlm A jla (SJD* Fla.)
Petroleum Products Saperfund Site, Pembroke
Park, Florida ;On December 11, 1991, ihe District
Court for the Southern District of Florida entered
a consent decree between the United States and 19
PBPs (including CSX, me City of Miami, General
Ire Corporation, and Safety-Kleen Corporation)
whkh required the PRPs-to design and implement
an interim remedial action at the Site, a former
waste oil refinery. The parties agreed to design
and Implement enhancement to a free-product
recovery system which is estimated to cost
$400,000.
The Petroleum Products Corporation (PPC)
operated at the Site from approximately 1958 to
1971 as a processor and broker of waste oil and
other hydrocarbon products. Contaminated
sludges generated by the refining process were
disposed of in unlined pits and reportedly were
spread across the southern third of the Site,
extending the contamination by approximately
seven acres. The principal element of the Interim
Action ROD is enhancement of the free-product
oil recovery system located along the southern
third of the Site. Subsequent RODs will address
contaminated soils and groundwater.
•HA y.
ey (S.D. 04 Crab
Orchard Wildlife Refuge, Marion, QUaols: On
August 27, 1992, the District Court for the
Southern District of ulinois entered a consent
decree negotiated in this CERCLA case. Under
the terms of ihe decree, Schlumberger will dean
up PCI contamination at the Crab Orchard
Wildlife Refuge, which is located near Marion,
UUncJs. The cost of the cleanup is expected to b*
between $17,000,000 and $25,000,000. Most ot
these costs will be borne by Schlumberger; the
remainder will be paid by the US. Department of
the Interior, who is the owner of Ihe site. The
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge contains
areas that had been leased for industrial use*.
including the manufacture of electrical
equipment. Serious contamination problem*
caused by PCBs, heavy metals, arid volatile
organic compounds an a legacy of mis activity.
In 1987, EPA added the Refuge to the National
Priorities List In 1990 EPA issued a ROD, calling
for ort-site incineration or vitrification of PCS
contaminated soils.
U.S. T. Srh»nmt»«rpr Tndaitri«a. lafc. (D.S.C.)
Sangaao WestowTWtlve-Mlle Creek/Lake
Hartwell PCI Site, Hcicena County, South
Carolina: On April 15, 1992, the Department of
Justice lodged a consent decree in the District
Court for the District of South Carolina, Anderson
Division. The consent decree requires
Schlitmberger Industries, Inc., a PRP, to perform
RD/RA of the Sangamo Weston/Twelve-MH*
Creak/take Hartwell PCI Site (Operable Unit
No. 1) in Ptckens County, South Carolina, There
have been releases of hazardous substances,
including PCBs at the Sangamo manufacturing
facility and six disposal areas known as the
Brtaieale property, the Dodgens property, the
Crois Roads property, the Welbom property, the
3-50
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Nix property, and the John Irotter property. The
remedial action selected for Operable Unit No. 1
includes excavation and treatment of soils and
related materials at the plant and six satellite
sites, and extraction and treatment ol
contaminated gzoundwater at the plant and
several satellite sites. The cost of the remedy is
currently estimated in the range of 147 to $63
million. The agreement also Includes recovery of
past EPA costs of $742^00.
•UJ8.
Vtartt Qt.Inc*
lL.(M-D. FlaJ Schoyikill Metal* Sop«rfand Sit*
In Plant City, Florid* ; On April 22, 1992, the
United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida entered the consent decree for
performance of the remedial design and remedial
action (RD/RA) at the SchuyUOU Metal*
Superfund Site in Plant dry, Florida, a former
battery recycling operation. Under the decree,
the defendants wffl perform the RD/RA for the
site, which consists of excavation and treatment
of approximately 38,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil; treatment ami disposal of
contaminated groundwater and surface water;
wetlands restoration and mitigation; and
institutional controls including a conservation
easement to assure that the wetlands remain
undisturbed. The estimated cost of the remedy is
$6,230,000.
U.S. T. Sharwood
~ (M.D. Fla.)
Sherwood Medical Sap«rfund Site, DeLand,
Florida: The United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, entered a consent
decree for the Sherwood Medical Superfund Site
on February 3,1992. In 1982, Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation (DER) proposed the
Site for Inclusion on the NFL because of
groundwater contamination. The groundwater is
contaminated with trichloroethylene and
tetrachioroethylene as a result of past waste
disposal activities. The site is an active medical
supply manufacturing facility owned and
operated by Sherwood Medical Company. The
facility is located just outside the dry Emits of
Deland, Florida. .
The consent decree requires Sherwood Medical,
the sole PRP, to cleanup the groundwater and
reimburse EPA for past costs. The interim
remedial action includes installing a system of
recovery wells in the on-*ite jurfidal aquifer; and
pumping and treatment of the contaminated
ground water .using air stripping. The estimated
capital cost for this interim remedial action is
$400,000, with an annual operation and
maintenance cost of $35,000,
(U.S. y. StmtMpii T^CQir* Kr*ft CQBIP.. ml il..
(W. D. Wash.) Commtnctmtnt Bay
Nttrthort/HtUflat* Sapwfund Site, St. Paul
'Waterway Problem AIM, Tacoma, Washington:
On December 31,1991, a consent decree in the
above referenced case was entered by the District
Court for the Vfejtern District of Washington.
The consent decree is designed to settle the
enforcement action under CERCLA §§106 and 107
at the St. Paul \\aterway Problem Area of the
Commencement Bay Nearshore/Hdeflats
Superfund Sitba. The complaint filed by the US.
Department of Justice in this case also included a
claim for relief under §311 of the Clean Water
Act and the consent decree contains a covenant not
to sue under that provision of the statute. The
consent decree requires the PRPs to assume
responsibility *%r monitoring the effectiveness of
a cap placed over contaminated sediment
pursuant to a previous consent decree entered into
with the State of Washington. The PRPs also
agreed to reimburse the United States for: (1) ail
past costs through the date of the ROD, which
total $354,536, £) 60% of EPA'i oversight costs
from the date of the ROD through the date of
entry of the consent decree and (3) all future
oversight and response costs. The consent decree
also settles claims for natural resources damages
by the- National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the US. Department of Interior/
the Slate of Washington, the Ptiyallup Tribe of
Indians, and the Muckieshoot Indian IHbe.
Sfarty-Sacanji S.fr«tt SttQ«rf
-------
FF1992 Etifsroumt Aeeemptisiungm Ktpon
primary contaminants *t the Sits. The project is
estimated to have a total value of $16,460,000.
Under the consent decree, the defendants have
also agreed to reimburse the US. for $914,395,69
in past response costs and to reimburse the US. for
future response costs,
U.S. » SKRL. •» al- (N.D. Ohio) Prfcroitojr and
Powet Maintenance (PPM) Sapexfvnd Site,
Louisville, Ohio : On July 22, 1992, a consent
decree was entered by the District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio approving the
agreement between the United States and USX,
Chevron, Chrysler and SKRL Diecasting, for
payment ol past costi inclined by EPA from 1985 to
present while responding to a release ol
hazardous substances (PCS*) at the Petroleum
and Power Maintenance (PPM) site In Louisville,
Ohio, Pursuant to the terms of the decree, the
settling defendants win pay 70% ($230,000) ol
US. past costs and interest, and the Department
ol Defense (Nary) will pay EPA $20000. Tbtal
site costs t. date are approximately $320/300,
This ease is significant to that EPA was alleging
liability based on tht feet mat the defendants'
hazardous wastes (PCBs) were stored at the PPM
facility for a period ol time. The defendants
settled despite the fact that they had produced a
manifest signed by tht receiving fmdlity (Rose
Chemical) proving that the PQ* -wastes were
eventually removed from tht PPM site and
disposed ol, and despite tht fact that she they
had entered into a previous settlement with EPA
for disposal ol the very same shipment at tht
Base domical site.
tLS.
...
iJLiCD. CotoJ Smuggler Moantaia St^exramd Site,
Colorado: Pour consent decrees wet* lodged In tht
District Court for tht District of Colorado in
March and April ol 1992 for mt Smuggler
Mountain Superrund Site, tnest decrees were
Sled pursuant to a cost recovery sui* fited October
14 1989, seeking $1,311,116 in past cost* and
interest pursuant to §107 of CESCLA; Ten
defendants were named in tht judicial complaint.
The Smuggler Mountain Site covets
approximately HO acres ol land in the City ol
Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Mining
activities. Including milling and processing
operations were begun in the late 1800% and it Is
estimated that heavy metal-laden wastes were
discarded and/or concentrated on the Site from
the 1880's to 1960'$. Lead and cadmium
contamination are almost concern, since the high
levels ol these substancesfa the tailings and soils
throughout the Site could pose toxic and
carcinogenic health risks to the over 1,100
residents living there.
Under one decree, entered into with the Atlantic
tkhfield Company (ARCO) and the U.S.
Department ol Interior (DOQ, EPA will recover
$3,252^00 in past and future costs. Three other
groups ol PRPs art involved in this Site:
Centennial PRPs, the Hunter Creek Management
PBPs, and the Smuggler Lid. group. A settlement
with tht Centennial PRPs, owne* financier, and
developer ol portions ol the Site, requires them to
perform the remedy, operation and maintenance
on the Centennial property, and pay $33,000 in
cash. The value of the cleanup to be performed by
tht Centennial PRPs hat been estimated at
$63,000.
Tht two other consent decrees for this Site
involved "ability to pay" parties - Smuggler
Limited, developer ol the Smuggler Run Trailer
Paris, and Hunter Creek Management, Inc.,
operator of maintenance at the Hunter Creek
Condominiums. Tht decrees involving the
Centennial and ability to pay PRPs were entered
by the court on September 28,1992.
U.S. y. f.B. Sirtnffollow. Ik. «t ah. (CD. C*U
Sbifigftllow Saperfund Site, Riverside County,'
California: EPA substantially advanced the long-
standing litigation over the SbingfeUow Acid
Pits Supesfund Site in PY1992 with the conclusion
ol a series ol settlement agreements providing far
significant remedial work at the Sforingfellow
Site and nearly full cost recovery. The settlement
package, valued at approximately $132 million,
is embodied in three settlement documents, two
consent decrees and one administrative order un
conscnti
On fufy 30,1992, a consent decree was lodged with
the District Court for the Central District of
California on July 30,1992. This consent decree,
referred under CERCLA §§106 and 107 and RCRA
§7003, requires defendants to conduct remedial
design and remedial action specified to the fourth
Strirtgfellow ROD and reimburse the United
States for certain costs. Response work under this
setyement is valued at $3€ million. Past costs
recovery will total in excess of $80 million, ami
future coats are estimated at approximately $8-16
3-52
-------
FY1992 Enforcemtnl Accompl&untnu Rtpon
million over th« next eight yean. Therefore, this
settlement has a total value of approximately
$132 million. The decree was entered by the court
on October 24, 1992.
U.S. Scrap Site. Chicago, Illinois: On January 24,
1992, legion V Issued a letter to 84 settling
respondents stating that the CERCLA 122(h)
Administrative Agreement for the U.S. Scrap
Ste had beeii signed by EPA and issued far public
comment The letter further stated that since no
public comment had been received, the Agreement
was effective and $566,332 nuot be deposited in
the Superfund within thirty (30) days of the date
of the Agency's letter In 1985, EPA performed an
emergency removal action at the US Scrap Site
in Chicago, Illinois. Wadt performed Included
extinguishing a landfill fin, fencing the site, and
excavating contaminated soil, debris, crushed
drums, and drums of hazardous wastes. In
addition, EPA conducted a Special
Study /Expanded Site Inspection which
recommended that the Site be evaluated under
the new MRS scoring , package. This
recommendation is currently being implemented.
The $566,332 due under the Agreement along
with a prior bankruptcy settlement and payments
due under a consent decree lodged on January 3,
1992, represem a recovery of more than 93% of
past costs.
U.S. v. i.
•» « (M.D.N.O Aberdeen
Pesticides Dump KPL Site, Aberdeen, North
Carolina: On August 31, 1992, a consent decree for
RD/RA with defendant Oba-Geigjr was lodged
in the District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina in this case. Pursuant to the
decree, Qba-Gelgy has agreed to perform a
soil/source and groundwater remediation, and
pay $695^00 in past costs for the rite. The wastes
at the Sit* consist of pesticide-related
contaminants, residues of technical grade
materials, and containers. This decree settles
liability for two of five areas in the Site.
U.S. T
nt of
(ED. Wi.) Bunfs DispOMl Landfill Saptrfond
Site, Caledonia, Wisconsin: On July 20, 1992, a
consent decree was entered by me District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin approving
the agreement between the United States and 39
PRPs to implement the September 1990 EOD and
perform the RD/RA for the Hunt's Disposal
Landfill Site in Caledonia, Wisconsin. Pursuant
to the terms of the decree, the setting defendants
will pay 100% of the United States' past costs
and interest (IIJ million); conduct extensive pre-
design and design phase investigations and'
studies; and design, construct, and operate the
remedy. The total cost of the RD/RA is
estimated to be $21 million.
The source containment remedy required by the
ROD calls for the encapsulation of the waste
mass (and numerous hazardous substances
contained therein) within the landfill through
capping, installation of a full perimeter slurry
wail tied Into the cap and underlying day layet
and performance of - groundwater
extraction/treatment for purposes of gradient
control. The decree requires extensive pre-design
investigations to be performed in order to confirm
the continuity of the day layer,.determine the
need for an active landfill gas extraction system,
evaluate impacts on surrounding wetlands, and
evaluate potential off-site groundwater
contamination. The remedy should result in the
prevention of contaminant migration to
surrounding receptors and media, which include
nearby residences, a recreational rivet, and
several valuable wetlands and forests.
fJA m WMHtigfroM* Fl-vtrie Cory, pj\fl FfjlJfim
A M«taL hie.. fS.D. Ttid.i Fell Iron * Metal
Scrapyard Saperfond Site, Bloomington, Indiana:
On March 28, 1992, the District Court for me
Southern District of Indiana entered a consent
decree in this case, thereby resolving the United
States' dates against Westinghouse and Fell Iron
* Metal Inc This is me first CERCLAf 107 cost
recovery consent decree providing for payment of
past and all future response costs where the
United States EPA has not completed selection of
the remedy, the decree provides for the payment
by Vvestteghouse of $887,598.90, representing 95'«
of the .United States' past costs, and payment of
100% of sll future response costs. Westinghouse
and Fell agreed to these terms despite the fact
that EPA has not yet selected a remedy for
disposing of the PCB-contemJnated soil and
materials staged at the site. The Fell Iron &
Metal Scrapyard Site, located in downtown
Bloomington, Indiana, is the subject of an ongoing,
non-time critical removal action, EPA's action at
the site began In 1984, with the commencement of
emergency removal activities. As further
contamination was discovered, EPA's removal
action continued with non-time-critical removal
3-53
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishmatis Report
activities, including the excavation of
approximately 15,000 cubic yards of PCB
contaminated soils and materials from the site.
These soils and materials are now stored at the
site The ultimate method of disposing of die
excavated soils and materials is the subject of an
.Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA),
but no disposal decision has been made by EPA.
EPA's action against Westinghouse and Fell
commenced in 1988 and sought recovery of all past
costs and a declaratory Judgment for all future
costs. On January 25, 1991, the District Court
granted EPA's motion for summary Judgment on
liability, m settlement, Westinghouse agreed to
pay $587,598,90 for past costs and to pay 100% of
all future response costs. Future response costs, as
identified in the EE/CA, range between three and
ten million dollars depending on the disposal
technology ultimately implemented.
Whitm
Labor. torin<
Stt*.
L County, Pennsylvania:
On Sej »mber 6,1992, two settlements for total
of $127.15 million were lodged in the District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
representing an approximate 983% recovery of
the estimated value of the United Slates' claims
at the Whitmoyer Site. The Whitmoyer
Supen'and Site ^ a 22 acre tract of land located in
Jackson Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania
owned by Whitmoyer Laboratories, IRC. An
estimated 3 J5-4 million pounds of arsenic were
placed in a waste storage vault at the Site. In
1984, EPA detected elevated levels of arsenic in
the downgradient surface water and sediment
and elevated levels of organks were also found in
on-site monitoring wells.
The first proposed consent decree between the
United States, Rohm and Haas Co. and
SmithJQine Beecham Corp. requires the
implementation of remedial design and remedial
action (RD/RA) in accordance with Records of
Decision for Operable Units 2 and S and
reimbursement of $250,000.00 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, St, requires the Estate
to pay the EPA S2.9 million in past response costs,
plus fifty percent of any amount remaining in the
residual estate trust after the accounting. Rohm
and Haas bought Whitmoyer Laboratories,
founded in 1934 to manufacture veterinary
Pharmaceuticals, in 1964 and operated it until
1978 when it was sold to Beecham (now
SmithJQine Beecham). SmithJCline Beecham
operated the facility until 1982.
Can*
•tfan t«
_iUk
-------
Ft 1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Jtepon
within the next six months. This case exemplifies
how effective EPA can be in cost recovery when
negotiations an well focused and given sufficient
time to mature. • ' • .
State Supcrfund S«ttitm«nt§
Stata Q^ Arizona v. Nncor Corp.. ffl- Al**-| West
OftbcmCxnttpln, Phoenix, Azlzona: On September
15, 1992, the District Court for Arizona approved
a $1.273 znjuon settlement between Nucor Corp.
and the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ). ADEQ had brought an action
agairat Nuo>r under CERCLA in an effort to dean
up groundwiter in West Central Phoenix To date,
three plumes of groundwater in that area have
been identified as contaminated withthe
industrial chemicals trichloroemylene (TCI),
1,1-dichloroethylene (DCE), and
.tetrachloroethylene ^ (alto known as
pvrduoroemyien*, or PCB% Nucor operated as an
electronic components manufacturing firm at a
facility knuwn .s the V\fct Osbom ~ mptex,
Settlemente
If a PRPs involvement with a site to t*
minimi*. EPA will fo receptive to reaching a
final settlement with such parties 'srly in the
process. Use of the it mhiimia settlement tool
has tern an priority of EPA't CERCLA,
enforcement program during FY 1992. As the
eases that follow demonstrate, ii minimi*
settlements may If Appropriate when the
emeunt and the toxic or hazardous effects of the
substances a 4g minima PUP contributed to a site
'are minimal in comparison to the contamination
at the site. Of minimi* settlements may be
reached administratively, or through a consent
decree.
If,**, v. Aaron Sermf Vf •+»!•. TfM»_ m* ml. IM.P. Fla.)
Aaron Scnp Metals Saperfund Site, Jackson
County, Florida: A settlement involving
approximately 50 PRP*, was lodged in District
Court for the Northern District of Florida on
October 30, 1992. This settlement will result in
the implementation of the source control remedial
action arui m« repayment to EPA of $1,000,000 in
past Agency costs. Over 200 companies that were
designated as PRPs were sent special notice
letters in May 1991 and negotiated for
approximately a year before reaching a
settlement Over half of the PRPs that settled
were sk mMmfe parties. The & ^_^
provision allows these PRPs to cashout based
upon their volumetric contribution of batteries to
the Site, the estimated cost of the cleanup, and a
premium. EPA is now in the process of offering dfi
mfaimfa settlements to qualifying PRPs who did
not sign the consent decree. These settlements are
identical to the original d& mfarfmjf settlements
in me consent decree with the addition of a "Late
Settlor Premium." Funds gathered with this
premium wifl be applied to EPA's past costs. The
non dj| mJoinuj PRPs Witt be responsible for
performing the source control remedial action and,
unlike the settling & minimi* parties, will
remain liable for the groundwater and the Steele
Qty Bay remedies. Also, EPA is still In the
process of identifying additional PRPs.
The Site, located in Jackson County, Florida,
includes approximately 30 acres of land
contaminated by heavy metals. The
contamination resulted from the activities of a
•battery recycling plant that was formerly I* cated
on the Site. EPA had spent extensive funds
investigating the Site prior to discovering that
there wex* viable PRPs. Only me source control
remedy is covered by this settlement; the
groundwater remedy and the Steele City Bay (an
offsite wetlands) remedy will be covered in future
settlements. ' • •
Aliakan BJM«TT Sltm. Fqjf^nJM, AJ»«l*«t On July
14,1992, EPA signed Region Iffs first AOC for a d£
mfcifaidf settlement. Previously, all such
settlements were in the form of consent decrees
and were products of cleanup negotiations.
However, at mis site it was decided that de
minimi* parties should have a chance to settle
with the government prior to selection of the
remedy. The 27 parties include bom local small
businesses and large corporations, all of whom
sent batteries to the Site when a recycling
company was operating there. EPA did a removal
action at tht Alaskan Battery Site in 1988-89,
and tile money recovered ($179,447) will be
applied to removal and RI/FS costs. EPA is
continuing negotiations with the major parties at
this lit* for the balance of the costs; future
cleanup actions are yet to be determined;
H. Brawn Cfl- Sqp«rfan J Site. Walkt* Michigan:
This case is one of the fitjt "early" de minimia
settlement cases under a new policy adopted by
. the EPA in June of 1992. EPA sent general notice
3-53
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
letters to approximately 1200 parties with an
invitation to participate in a lit ""*"*"*
settlement at the H. Brown Superfund Site in
Walkei; Michigan. The settlement proposal was
sent to the parties over two monlhs prior to
remedy selection for the Site, which was a
battery breaking facility from the early 1960s
until the early 1980s, containing soil heavily
contaminated with lead.
Over 150 small businesses and individuals
accepted the dfi ftifriifnfo often amounting to
$630,000 in costs to be collected by the Agency.
Included to the group of settling parties are 10
individuals and two corporations who were
allowed to participate in the settlement for an
•mount less man their allocated sham based on
their demonstrated Inability to pay. 'All
signatories will receive a full covenant not to sue
and .complete contribution protection upon the
payment of their settlement amount The Region
later sent special notice letters to over 100 major
FRPf to request their performance of the remedy.
t*f^forn^ Cujffr ftppffpptid Sit*. Laadville,
Colorado: The United States filed CERCLA
§§106 and 107 actions against thirteen parties on
August 6,1986 in the Consolidated District Court
for the District of Colorado, resulting in two
consent decrees for me Site, The California Gulch
Superfund Site is located In and near Leadville,
Colorado, a mining town approximately 100 miles
southwest of Denver California Gulch, a small
stream south of Leadville, flows 725 miles from
its origin to its confluence with the Arkansas
Rivet The site which is approximately 11J
square miles, encompasses the California Gulch
drainage basin and several drainage basins that
are tributaries to the Gulch. The key subsurface
feature at the Site is the Kak Tunnel, which
drains water from numerous mines. The tunnel
discharge contains high levels of metals,
including cadmium, copper lead, and zinc. These
levels exceed the ambient water quality criteria
for toJddty to freshwater aquatic life. Three
types of mine waste an also present fl *~ waste
rock, tailings and slag) are their concentrations of
heavy metals pose a significant to human health
and the environment." This case involves
challenges to EFA's assessment of the risk from
lead and other metals at Superfund mining sites.
The enforcement actions taken reinforce me
strategic implementation of statutory mandates;
in particular the Agency's'lead strategy.
The consent decree with Robert L Udec owner of
certain mining claims, was based on the fact mat
he obtained his mining claims through
inheritance and is thus a "da minimi*
landowner/ The Elder decree therefore provides
for access and deed, restrictions without any
recovery of response costs. The Elder decree was
entered on June 26, 1992.
The consent decree with the Kecia Mining
Company, operator of the Malta Gulch Tailings
Ponds, provides for recovery of $450,000 of "site-
wide'' response cost* and performance of an EE/CA
and ultimately a response action oh the Malta
Gulch Tailings portion of the Site. The Heda
consent decree was lodged in April of 1992.
City IndnatriM Sii»t Winter Park, Florida: On
December 10, 1991, the District Court for the
Middle District of Florida entered a consent
decree in connection with the City Industries site
In Winter Park, Florida, The decree obligates 146
settling defendants (including 120 dfi minimis
defendants) to finance the HPA-oonducted
remedial action (estimated to cost approximately
$4 million), to reimburse EPA for all future
response costs (Including the cleanup's operation
and maintenance costs), and to reimburse EPA for
ail past costs incurred since a previous decree.
EPA also took several actions against the
recalcitrant PRPs who formerly operated this site
(Arthur Greer; City Industries, Inc.}.. For
example, in November 1991, the court granted the
government's motion for partial summary
judgment on liability against these parties. On
February 6, 1992, the United States filed a motion
to compel Greer to respond to the government's
interrogatories. In addition, on June 29, 1992, the
U.S. filed its motion for summary judgment
against these two defendants. These actions
demonstrate the government's commitment . to
pursue recalcitrant parties for costs not recovered
in previous settlements,
Croqndwat«T _Sitet Colorado Avenue
Subsite de **W**i* Settlement Nebraska: This
innocent landowners dfi Hinimi* settlement,
which was finalized in June, 1992, requires the
landowners to dear their property and provide
access to EPA and any party taking response
action pursuant to an order with EPA. Before Che
comment period closed on the proposed
settlement the major PWs filed « contribution
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
action against the proposed dfi mfr"WB settlors.
Simultaneously, the major PRFs filed comments
objecting to the settlement. The Region provided
all commentors an opportunity to state their
position at a meeting as well as submit further
comments. The Region finalized the order on June
10, 1992, after the second comment period dosed.
On September 9, 1992, the Federal District Court
of Nebraska y anted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the basil that the dfi
mfaimla- settlement, barred contribution actions.
The court also staled that it did not reach the
Issue of whether it had Jurisdiction, to review
EPA's decision to settle. The ruling is significant
because it is the only reported decision upholding
the coniiibuUmi protection granted in an EFA
administrative settlement. -
UA v.
•» «l. IM.D. PeJ_Lackjwaiuu
Jtafoae Site, Old Forge, Pennsylvania : A sit
iriinimfa settlement resolving Hie liability of
fourteen dc «nmfan*| parties at the Ladcawanna
.Refuse .'4te to the United States and the Sta'« of
Pennsylvania, and a consent decree resolving the
liability of the major generators and the dvil
liability of Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
went entered in this case. These settlements wen
filed in conjunction with a criminal plea
agreement for a total recovery of $27,031,396, of
which $24,172,086 will go to the United States
and S23S9 ,310 wffl go to the State.
Pits at the site were used for the disposal of
municipal and commercial wastes, including
dru*ns of solvents and sludge wastes. Leachate
containing a wide variety of hazardous substances
was released from the pits into the surrounding
environment. The selected remedy called for the
removal of all drums and highly contaminated
soils, capping, instillation of a surface water
drainage diversion, construction of .a leachate
collection and treatment systenxand removal of
contaminated soli from the borehole pit, the
access road, and the paint spffl area. 'The
remedial construction at the Site is virtually
U.S. v. i. Ton**
Obtton Strtet Soptrfund
Site, Fart Wayne, Indiana: On January 18, 1992,
the Regional Administrator for Region V signed
three administrative cost recovery settlements
which resolved the liability of 43 PRFs at the I.
Jones Recycling, Clinton Street Superfund Site in
Fort Wayne, Indiana. These settlements require
the PRPs to pay a total of $1,212,531 into the
Superfund. Of that sum, $654795 reimburses EPA
for response costt; $530,511 represents settlement
of the potential liability of some PRPs for
penalties under §106(b) of CERCLA; and $27,223
represents settlement of the potential liability of
some PRPs for statutory interest Through these
settlement orders, and a previous dfi mniimij
settlement; EPA has resolved the liability of all
187 viable generators at the Site. EPA had begun
removal activities at this abandoned recycling
facility in October, 1986. After the site owners
refused to comply with unilateral cleanup orders,
EPA conducted a phased removal at the site.
Pram October 1986 through November 1988, the
Agency stabilized and secured the site and
characterized and disposed of over 400,000
gallons of waste at a cost of approximately $3
million. Pursuant to a July 27, 1988, unilateral
ordct a group of generators completed the final
phase of the removal, including the cleanup of
tank sludges, contaminated soils and site
biifldings, at a cost of more than $5 million. EPA's
oversight of these activities cost an additional
1200,000.
In March, 1989, EPA offered a dfi minimi*
settlement to afl generators who contributed less
than 45% of the total waste at the site. Under
that settlement 1** generators paid a total of
S&05&091 to reimburse EPA's response costs. As
with the present settlements, those de minimi*
settlers who had not compiled with the
unilateral order paid additional amounts
(totaling $331^62) to resolve their potential
liability for noncompUance with that ordet The
Agency is currently pursuing a cost recovery action
against the owner/operators of the site to recover
the remaining $500,000 in response costs, plus
penalties and treble damages.
iii«TU«y Site. Tfanpa. Florida; Region
IV finalized its first landowner de minimi*
settlement in late April 1992. EPA and the dt
tnftnimia landowners signed an AOC pursuant to
§U2(g) (1) of CERCLA, under which the dt
mjnjmia parties agreed to reimburse EPA the sum
of $250,000 to cover a portion of EPA's past costs.
The Kassouf-Klmeriing Site was used by the Gulf
Coast Lead Company to dump battery casings.
The Site is located in marshy area adjacent to
wetlands. Both the Site and the wetlands have
become contaminated with lead. Gulf Coast Lead
3-57
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Atcomplishmims Repon
signed a consent decree with EPA in which it
agreed to perform EPA's selected remedy and also
to reimburse EPA for $130,000 of its past costs
(past costs totalled $380,00). Several of the
landowners requested that they be allowed to
enter into a dfi """"la landowner settlement
with EPA. After consideration ol their petition
and all the facts, EPA determined that they were
eligible for such a settlement.
Sl*
forty-three of the 260 PRPs at the Lowry Undfifl
site met EPA's eligibility criteria for a &
nrfniinfr settlement Of the 143, thirty-three
expressed an Interest in settling with EPA (over
100 eligible parties entered Into a private
indemnification agreement with Waste
Management tac, the operator of the landfill).
Of the thirty-three eligible PRPs indicating
interest in settling their liability with EPA,
sixteen Non-Federal PRPs and six Federal FRPs
elected to accept the tern* of an AOC The
settlement agreement offers the PRPs the choice
of selecting one of two premium options. Tiding
into account the various premium options selected,
the cumulative monetary contribution for the dc
mHtoffM settlement amounts to $633,789.78. Both
EPA Headquarters and DOJ concurred on the
settlement The AOC was announced In the
Federal Register on November 18, 1992, requesting
public comment on the settlement.
The MEW site is extensively contaminated with
PCBs as a result of transformer repair and
remanufacturing business operated by MIssoure
Electric Works since 1954. The soil it
contaminated with up to 53,000 ppm PCB. PCB
have also been detected In ground water by mis
contamination has not yet been fully
characterized. The ROD calls for incineration of
the contaminated soils,
U.S. vMldwcat Solvent R
•covcrv.
Tn
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
U.S. v. Peniayivaaia: EPA Issued an AOC
pursuant to §122(gX4) of CERCLA to resolve the
liabilities under CERCLA of 170 dt jntelm^
parties for response costs incurred at the TonolU
Corporation Superfund Site.
j ,
A party was eligible to participate in the
settlement if the volumetric contribution of
hazardous substance to meSJet was less man 1%
of the total volume of hazardous substances and if
toxic or other hazardous effects of the hazardous
substances contributed by the PIP wts minimal in
comparison to the cumulative toxic or other
hazardous effects of the hazardous substances
sent to the Site.
EPA has identified 132 FRFs at me Site; 432 are
of these, 170 have signed the
Consent Order. Because this settlement was
proposed prior to the issuance of a 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 dj mfafrnj* 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.
U.8. v. Ut^on Fl«rtrie Co~ (gJJ. M«U Missouri
Electric Wodca, Cape Giiardeaa, Mlssood: On June
29, 1992, a RD/RA consent decree for the Missouri
Electric Works Ste (MEW). The settlement used
both mixed-funding and dj mfa*imi« settlement
authorities to ensure an equitable settlement The
consent decree, valued at $13,373,430, provides a
cashout for certain federal agencies and de
jgjajmjs] parties. The consent decree was signed
by 167 defendants, 39 of which were non-jje,
Due to the large number of orphan shaiw, mixed
funding was appropriate for rh' settlement.
Accordingiy, EPA* committed to reimburse the
pRFsfor op to $3 J million ta response costs. The
jjg rrrfftimfai provision, signed by nearly 100
panfta, gives PSPi a menu of settlement plans to
choose from, varying me payment and covenant
not to sue provisions -for — .J«r certain
circumstances.
CERCLA Administrative Enforc«n*nt
EPA hat brought * number gf
administrative actions undtr CERCLA against
PRPi in fiscal y«r 1192. As an alternative to
litigation, CERCLA grm& EPA Ou authority to
issue administrative orders, called Unilateral
Administrative Qrsm (UAO), or to reach
aiminittrative agreements, called
A&nvtutntme Orders m Consent (AOC). The
ust of EPA's administrative authority at
Superfund. sifts Has dramatically sped "P
cleanup activities, and effectively avoided
many of tht expenses associated with iitigation.
foUomng an a Jtw representative caso.
ifpn* g^Milfti Fttctmrria Carp.
Miami. Florida; In February 1992,
EPA Region IV and the Atlantic Richfield
Company entered into an AOC for ARCQ to
perform a removal action tar a portion of me
Site in Miami, Florida. The Site consists of two
3-59
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Ripon
distinct parcels of property located across the
street from one another in Miami, Florida, this
order involves only the portion of die property
which was formerly owned by the Anaconda
Alurninum Company. ARCO, or its predecessors in
interest operated an aluminum anodizing facility
on the Anaconda property from approximately
1962 to 1982. Operations at the Site generated
contaminated waste water which was discharged
into a percolation pit on the property. The AOC
deals with the contaminated soil from a former
percolation pit at me Site. The removal is
intended to eliminate the source of further
contamination to groundwater at the Site. In the
ordet ARCO has agreed to pay all of EPA's
oversight costs in connection with the removal
action. ,
Afytie Stuplnii Sop^rfan^ y*^ Fai-phanka. Alaska:"'
On July 24, 1992, the US. Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA) signed an AOC with SPA under
which it agreed to conduct a RI/FS for the Arctic
Surplus sit*. DLA is the parent agency of the
Defense ReutUization and Marketing service,
which arranged for transport of contaminated
materials to the site, where they wen salvaged.
DLA also conducted a removal action at Arctic
Surplus in 1990 and financed a further removal in
1991. This Is one of the few sites in the country
where a federal PRP has agreed to conduct
response actions at a privately-owned site.
U.S. T. A*»TCO Incorporated. 07* KS«); EPA
obtained the highest penalty to date for failure
to comply with CERCLA §104
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
provide disposal and transportation services (and
replacement soil) for contaminated soil excavated
from residential and commercial properties with
the Site. . . .
The same PRPs agreed to perform similar work in
1991 and funded EPA's performance of residential
soil deanup work in 1990. EPA also conducted its
own residential soil removal action in 1989.
BMT.TI
Slta. Lak« Park, Florida:
OiJune30,1992,1extroa,mc.,signedanAOCfbra
RI/FS at the BMI-Textron Superfund Site. The
Site was included in the National Priorities List
on August 30,1990. The approximately 3.4 acre
Site is located in an industrial park in Lake Park,
Florida. Prom 1969-1980 the Site was owned by
Basic Microelectronics, Incorporated (BMI),
which manufactured chrome-backed glass plates
used mtrteprcduction of €lcc(ronfc components at
the Site. Process waste was disposed on site-
through a combination of settling basins and
percolation ponds. In December 19W, BMI was
sold to Textron and continued operations under the
name of BMI-Textron until December 1985.
Pursuant to two consent agreements with the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
in 1984 and 1988, BMI-Textron removed
contaminated soils from two percolation ponds
and capped a third percolation pond. In addition,
a gnundwater monitoring plan wu implemented.
Analytical results of the groundwater on-site
showed elevated concentrations of chromium,
aluminum, iron, cyanide, manganese, and acetone.
'Ch«nanl Suparfnnd Sit*. Platataway Tuwnship,
New Jersey^ A UAO was issued by Region II in
March requiring four PRPs to carry out RD/RA at
this NPL sit*, located in a highly developed
residential and commercial area in Pbcataway
Township, New Jersey. The site was used as a
solvent leuiveiy and waste reprocessing facility
in the 1950s through the mid-1960s, Groundwater
in the area contained high levels of volatile
organic compounds emanating from the site; the
contaminant plume extended down to a depth of
approximately 130 feet near the site. Residential
wells nearby had also been contaminated with
VOCs. The. remedy includes extraction and
treatment of the contaminated groundwater, and
is estimated to cost about $7.7 million;
Cfy«tal Chsmifal Stip«ffaHd Stt». Houston. Ttxa s:
On September 3, 1992 EPA Region VI issued a
UAO to Southern Pacific Transportation Company
seeking performance of the remedy after failing
to reach an agreement during RD/RA consent
decree negotiations. The Region recently
completed a second ROD to select a new remedy
for the site after the national vender for in situ
vitrification withdrew its technology from the
marketplace last summer. The new remedy calls
for capping the contaminated soil and
groundwater extraction and treatment The
Region estimates the cost of the remedy to be
approximately $14 million.
Sooarfand Sit*
Taconu, Washington: On October 23, 1991, Region
X issued a UAO to the Port of lacuna to expedite
removal of contaminated material from a
property along the Hyiebos Vfeterway, a part of
the Commencement Bay/Nearshores Superfund
Site. The contaminated material was excavated
and disposed of offsite. The Port of Tacoma,
which planned and implemented the response in
full compliance with the order, is cleaning the
property before it Is transferred to the Puyallup
Indian Tribe as part .of the 1988 land claims
settlement EPA and the Port of Taconu also
reached a settlement agreement on July 7, 1992,
pursuant to $$104 and 106 of CERCLA, on actions
to be taken by the Port of lacoma at four
properties to be transferred to die Puyallup
Indian Tribe under the 1988 land claims
settlement • .
Colorado: On
August 31, 1992, EPA issued a UAO to me S.W.
Shattuck Chemical Company, Inc. (Shattuck)
pursuant to CERCLA §106(a) to perform remedul
work at the eighth operable unit (OU-4) at the
Denver Radium Superfund Site in southw**t
Denver, Colorado. Shattuck was directed to
perform the remedial design/remedial action fur
radioactive soils, buildings and groundwater in
OU-8, estimated to cost $26,600,000. The
Shattuck property was the location of several
mineral processing operations from the early
1900s to 1985, including the processing of tungsten
ores, radium slimes and molybdenum ore. As a
result the site's soil, groundwatet air, and
buildings are variously contaminated with
radium, thorium, uranium, arsenic and oth«r
organk compounds. EPA listed the entire Denver
Radium site on the NPL in September 1983, and
has divided the site into eleven operable units for
response. By issuing the UAO, Region VIM »
3-61
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Rtpon
continuing to emphasize PRP cleanups as
appropriate, as well as conserving a considerable
portion of the That Fund.
Barney o L
Pennsylvania; On August 13, 1992, EPA Region HI
issued two CERCLAS 106 UAOs for the RD/1A to
be conducted on Operable Units 1 and 2 of the
Domey Road Landfill Superfund Site in
Allentown, P«nnsytvania, The first UAO added 4
PRPs to the list of those participating in
Operable Unit 1's construction of a cap for the
landfill. The order mirrored an earlier UAO
requiring 7 other PRPs to build the cap, end used
language such as "coordinate and cooperate" in
oider to hold the 4 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. A second
UAO was signed on the same day, addressed
Operable UrJt 2*s groundwater remedy. The work
to be performed under the second order has a
present worth value of approximately $300,000.
Fttat PUdmrmt ftaA Qua try fttont* TL9) Sit«f
Dinvillt, Pittaylvanla County, Virginia: EPA
Region in sought instillation of a $2.2 million
RCRA Subtitle C landfill cap, and cost recovery
of $140,000 in past and future costs under §§106,
107, and 113 of CERCLA. After settlement
negotiations with the PRPs, Coming, Inc., First
Piedmont Corporation, and The Goodyear Hre &
Rubber Co., did not succeed, a UAO for the
RD/RA was issued July 23, 1992. On me deadline
for response to the UAO, August 24, 1992, the PRP
Group notified Region ifi mat they would
perform the RD/RA.
In tha Matter of Hatflay Str««f Dram Sit*. St.
tggtf If , Mnipnrf? The Kadley Street Drum site is
located in downtown St Louis, Missouri. The site
is a former fabric coating facility operated by
Neese Coated Fabrics, me The site comprises two
attached buildings. One building owned by Neese
Coated Fabrics, Inc. was the site of a fund lead
removal action in July and August of 1992, after
the owner /operator failed to respond to a
unilateral order on July 24, 1992. The other
portion of the site is owned by the Hadley Street
Real Estate Company, Inc. A Unilateral
Administrative Order was issued on July 24, 1992,
requiring the owner to conduct removal response
activities at the portion of the site owned by the
company. Respondent Hadley Street RealEstaie
Company, toe. agreed to undertake the removal
response activity required by the Unilateral
Administrative Order. The removal activities
required by the Order include removal of
approximately 800 drums, some containing
ignitable waste,', and pumping of several
underground storage tanks containing hazardous
substances.
Corporation Stroorfurnl Sit*. Brevird-
Florida: On January 23, 1992, the Harris
Corporation executed an AOC for the RI/FS for
Operable Unit 2 at me Harris Superfund Site.
The AOC also requires the Harris Corporation to
reiirbune EPA for all response and oversight costs
incurred during the RI/FS process. The RI/FS
will address the semiconductor property portion
of the Site. The portion of the Site known as the
Electronic Systems Sector is presently being
addressed by a recently entered consent decree for
the RD/RA of the i miconductor property woru
The consent decree and mis order are structured to
incorporate as much of .the previous studies and
cleanup as possible, while at the same time
assuring that Supernmd guidance, laws, and
regulations are met
Jgh Portliad C
t Coamaav Sit*. Mason
City, Iowa: On September 29, 1992, EPA issued a
UAO to the Lehigh Portland Cement Company
(Lahigh). The Administrative Order directs
Lehigh to perform the remedial design of the
remedy describ«i in the Jane, 1991 ROD for the
Site, and to implement the design by performing a
remedial action. The Site is located north of
Mason City, in Cerro Gordo County, Iowa. The
Site consists of property upon which Lehigh
presently operates a cement manufacturing plant
and property formerly owned and operated by
Lehigh which is now part of a public recreation
area known as the Lime Creek Nature Center.
Lehigh began cement manufacturing operations at
the Site in 1911. Large quantities of cement kiln
dust (CKD), e byproduct of Lehigh's cement
manufacturing processes, have beat disposed of on
the surface of the Site and in abandoned
limestone quarries at the Site which have, over
time, filled with water. Date collected during
the Remedial Investigation indicate that the
CKD disposed at the Site is the source of
elevated Ph levels and heavy metals at the Site.
Water from the quarries discharges into Calm us
3-62
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Creek, which is located approximately 1,000 feet
sou* pf the Lehigh site, via a tile drain outlet.
Studies of the quality of the water in Calmus
Creek show that effluents from the Lehigh plant
have contributed to the elevation of Ph levels in
the creek resulting In deterioration of the water
quality and the biological quality of the creek.
the estimated cost of the remedy is $5 million.
On October 29, 1992, Lehigh notified EPA of its
intent to comply with the ordtt
I49dagtott County, Sooth Carolina: On April 14
1992* Region IV entered into an -AOC with
Lexington County, South Carolina for the County
to perform the RI/F5 lor th» Lexington County
Landfill Superfund Site- Lexington County also
agreed to pay all of EPA's past costs totaling
approximately '$174,233 3? as well as future
.oversight costs* , • "
The Lexington County Landfill Site was
permitted by the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control in 1971 to
accept household and industrial waste. Since
early 1972 Lexington County has operated the
Site, and during this period the County accepted
hazardous wastes at the landfill which include*
but are not limited to: lead, mercury, PCBs,
benzene, cadmium, aidfin, and arsenic The Site
was Ustad on the NFL in October 19S9. The
County is among 40 PKFs identified for Hie Site.
EPA negotiated with the County to perform the
RJ/FS after the 39 remaining PRFs railed to
submit a good faith offer to EPA pursuant to a
CERCLA 122(a) spedal notice request.
Maltha C, Raf* Chomtteaim. tjjf. &uy*rtunil Sit*.
Holder*, MlMooit On September X 1992. EPA
issued a UAO pursuant to CERCLA §106(a), to 16
generator PKPs for the design and implementation
of the remedial action at the above-referenced
site In accordance with the ROD issued by Region
Vn on March 6,1992.
This non-NPL site is owned by the City of
HoMev Missouri, fa 1962, the Martha C Row
Chemicals Company leased the property from
the City and began a PCI processing and
treatment operation. In March, 1986, the company
abandoned the facility , leaving behind
approximately 14 million pounds of PCBs, PCB
items, and other PCl-contaminated materials.
As a result of the company's operation, surface
and subsurface soils, a nearby creek, and facility
smicturw are contaminatBd with PCS*. ThePRPs
to whom the UAO was issued, who are commonly
referred to as the Rose Chemicals Steering
Committee (RCSQ previously entered into two
CERCLA §106(») AOCs with EPA, one in 1986,
and me other in 1987. Under the 19S7 order, the
RCSC removed and disposed of PCS oil and PCI
items that were at the site, and conducted an
11/fS which provided the basis for EPA's ROD.
The value of mis remedy valued at f 13 J million.
The members of RCSC are major utility companies
across the nation and a Fortune 500 company. Over
700 generator PRPs have been identified for this
Site, including municipal, state, and federal
governmental agendes.
In th« MattM > at MUiouri V\me+rtc Wadta
content decree was lodged; on June 29, 1992, that
require performance of RD/RA for PCB-
contaminated soil and further investigation of
PCB contamination fai the groundwater at the
MEW site. The settlement, which was signed by
179 parties, includes Region VIFs first p re-
authorized mixed funding settlement, a de
minimis settlement and a settlement with three
federal agencies. * Forty-one (41) Settling
Defendants committed to performing the RD/RA
activities, which are estimated to cost $15-3
million. EPA agreed to reimburse the Settling
Defendants 20 percent of these costs, to a
maximum of S3 J million from the Hazardous
Substance Superfund. Settling Defendants also
agreed to reimburse EPA for Future Response
Costs. One hundred thirty eight (138) D«
Minimis Settling Defendants and three Settling
Federal Agencies participated in cash out
provisions included » the Consent Decree.
Sttf . La Barge, Wyoming:
On September 29, 1992, EPA signed an AOC with
twelve PRPs at the Mountaineer Refinery sue
located fei La Barge, Wyoming. The order requires
the PKPs to perform all necessary cleanup actions
at the site with EPA's oversight, and to reimbun*
EPA for afl past and future response costs. A UAO
was Issued to nine parties shortly after the AOC
was signed In order to bring these recalcitrant
parties Into Iht cleanup and cost recovery effort.
The PRP committee is working out an agr*em*m
with at least three such parties at the time uf
this writing. Upon agreement among the PRP*.
EPA will amend the AOC to include the newly
3-63
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accompllshmiw Rtpon
joined parties. The RemovaJ action is presently
under way at the site and Is on schedule, this
order made a significant contribution to the
accelerated site cleanup initiative.
U.S. v. MV
(D.S.O: The sudden
disappearance of over four hundred drums of the
hazardous substance arsenic trioxide from the
ship Santa Clara, in route to Baltimore in me
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 m staff
provided support in guiding the Coast Guard in
the novel practice of using Sup«rfund 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 with the Coast Guard, in order that
the Coast Guard cotld continue the search in me
Atlantic for me drums and other containers.
EPA prepared an enforcement case, which was
filed by the Department of Justice in May 1992 in
the District of South Carolina, where the vessel
had come to port asserting an tp iff"' maritime
lien against the vessel for the Coast Guard's and
EPA's response costs and for a general Superfund
cost recovery action for those cost*, which had run
over $800,000,
EPA Region ID staff also coordinated closely with
the Coast Guard in crafting a UAO, based on the
authorities of §106 of CERCLA, §3U(c) of the
CWAand §5 of the Interv«\tion 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 ordet 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 me order and performed it under Coast
Guard oversight. They successfully'recovered over
320 drums,
SiiB«_N«wport, Rhode Island/Naval Construction
Battalion Ctnttr Suptrfond Site, Davisvtllt,
Rhode Island; On July 28, 1992, CERCLA §120
Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs) for
Superfund cleanups at Naval Education and
Training Center Newport (NETC) and Naval
Construction Battalion Center Davisvtlle
(NCBQ, bom in Rhode Island, became effective
for EPA, the Navy and the state. These facilities
are NPL Sites under CERCLA, and NCBC is a
closure base under the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990. NETC currently serves
as the Navy's largest officer training facility and
formerly was an active naval facility. It consists
of approximately 1400 acres of land. There are
ten known or suspected .areas of contamination
which are being investigated at the site. NCBC
consist of 1300 acres. Then an fifteen krcwn or
suspected areas. of contamination which are
currently being investigated at the site. The
mission of NCBC was to provide mobilization
support to naval construction forces* .
There were no modifications to the agreements as
a result of the public comments. The FFAs
identify the parties* responsibilities for
compliance and cleanup under CERCLA, RCRA,
and state law. The FFAs establish procedures and
schedules for developing and implementing
appropriate cleanup actions to protect human
health and the environment The FFAs also
address off-site contaminatfu. associated with
activities at me facilities.
[^orman
-------
FY 1992 Enforcement Accomplistontnis Report
Carolina Slate University (NCSU) entered into
an AOC for the state to conduct thf RJ/FS at trie
school's HPL Site in Raleigh. N.C, pursuant to
CERCLA §§ 104
-------
FY 1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Rtport
residents were hospitalized as a result of the
release and over one hundred people required
medical attention. This administrative civil
penalty matter was settled in April 1992 when
the Regional Judicial Officer signed a Final
Order approving a consent agreement negotiated
between EPA and Pioneer The terms of the
settlement required Pioneer to pay a civil penalty
of $105,800 and to certify compliance with
CERCLA and EPCRA.
Potomac Yard Snparfand Stt»f Alexandria,
Virginia: The Potomac Yard Site, is operated by
Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad
Company (RF&P) and is located in Alexandria,
Virginia. Initial environmental investigations,
including a Preliminary Assessment/Site
Investigation (PA/SI) and an Environmental
Assessment (EA) indicated the presence of certain
hazardous substances on-site. Further evaluation
of the property was determined necessary before a
decision could b* rnaHe on whether to prooose the
Site to be included on the National Priont^s List
(NFL). Because the Site was proposed for the
construction of a National Football League
stadium, the Site operators, RF&P, were wiling
to quickly conduct me additional studies, as well
as any cleanup mat may be warranted as a result
of those studies. The Administrative Order that
was entered into by EPA and RF&P combines the
elements of a removal assessment, an expanded
Site Investigation (for listing considerations} as
well as a Remedial Investigation. Physical, on-
site cleanup would be conducted under an
Engine-ring Evaluation /Cost Analysis as set
form in 40 CFJL § 400.15 (b). The principles of
the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model,
calling for the performance of comprehensive
expedited response action, an dearly reflected in
the work required by this Agreement.
Haypijiric Induatri<». Ing. Sqgfffliint Sltft.
Stratford, Connecticut: On September 11, 1992,
EPA issued a UAO to Raymark Industries, Inc.
pursuant to §106(a) of CERCLA compelling
Raymark to perform specified removal activities
at its facility in Stratford, Connecticut This
action is a part of an ongoing effort to compel
Raymark to address hazardous conditions at its
facility and was a joint effort between the Region
I CERCLA and RCRA programs. The order
'requires Raymark to abate the danger or threat to
pubiic health, welfare and the environment
posed by four open lagoons containing asbestos,
metals, solvent), and PCBsj a hazardous waste
pile; buildings and land containing hazardous
substances; large tanks of questionable integrity
containing asbestos and hazardous substances; and
the potential for hazardous substances to migrate
off-site.
Roytttf WifuhqnM Suparfand Sltmt St. Louis,
Michigan: On March 3,1992, Region V issued a
UAO to American Cyanamid Company, Ciba-
Geigy Corporation, FMC Corporation, and
Midwest Building Distributors. The UAO
requires these PRPs to perform a soil
contamination investigation and remove in* soil,
if necessary, from the Royster warehouse site in
St Louis, Michigan. EPA estimates mat this
work will cost approximately SI million.
Herbicides and insecticides contained in the
Royster warehouse had been destroyed by fire on
April 6,1991. Hazardous material was released
and spread when tht fin was extinguished. On
April 8, 1991, the Royster Company filed a
petiuon in bankruptcy for reorganization relie:
under Chapter 11. Under an agreement reached in
a CERCLA §106 order, which the bankruptcy
court approved; Royster agreed to: 1) treat and
dispose the remaining contaminated water,
excavated soils, and debris and 2) Investigate and
remediate any groundwater contamination. The
total cost for this work is approximately
$505,000. EPA agreed to pursue the other PRPs
(the site owner and generators} for the remaining
investigation, and possible removal, of
contaminated sofl.
flm S*nd*r* Fraparty Site, LaGnngt, Kentucky:
On November 4,1991, a UAO was issued to three
PRPs at the Jim Sanders Property Site, located in
LaCrange, Kentucky. The Site is located in a
rural area of LaGrange, Kentucky and Is owned by
ME. Jim Sanders. ME Sanders conducted a salvage
operation on the Site where he stored a large
number of junk vehicles, appliances, equipment,
and other debris. Mr. Sanders and his faurnUy also
reside on the Site. The major threat posed by the
Site involved over 100 drums of leaking waste
varnish and waste solvent Many of the drums
.found at the Site had the name 'Anaconda*
written on them. The UAO was issued to Mr. Jim
Sanders, Atlantic Richfield Corporation, parent
company to Anaconda, and Mr. Robert Layet *
transporter of waste sent to the Sice by Anaconda.
Atlantic Richfield Corporation is in full
compliance with the UAO.
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
South Eighth Street Landfill fika WW Walhm farm Stm.
Slt»
w«at Memphis, Arkansas:
The South Eighth Street Landfill consists of five
pits located within the tare* on the West
Memphis, Arkansas side of the Mississippi The
site was used as a disposal site for waste sludge
from refining processes in the area, and contains
solvents and various waste oil substances. In
December 1991, EPA commenced to identify FRPs
and initiated development of statements of work
and the drafting of orders consistent with the
Supefund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM).
On May 22, 1992, a UAO was issued for the
Immediate response of lending the 40 acre site and
the conduct of a sludge pit investigation. No PRPs
had come forward to indicate a willingness to
conduct the RI/FS and on May 23, 1992, the
negotiation moratorium ended. A scope of work
and associated costs was negotiated during June
and July of 1992, and on-site activity commenced
on August 3rd. An additional sixty-nine FRPs
were identified and issued General Notice on
September 9, 1992, The removal action fencing
was completed in July, 1992.
Lanmie,
Response
work at the UP/Baxter site fat Lanmie, Wyoming
has been ongoing since the early 1980s, The site is
a former railroad tie and wood products treating
plant Releases of hazardous substances from
. ponds and other disposal areas have occurred at
the plant The owner of the site. Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UPRR), has been performing
the work and had previously reimbursed EPA for
response costs incurred prior to 1986.
In FY 1992, EPA issued • letter demanding
payment of response cost incurred from 1986 to the
present fin order to facilitate a quick negotiation
and settlement period, both parties agreed to the
use of an administrative settlement father than
referring the case and settling with a consent
decree. During the negotiations, EPA was faced
with the issue of whether the US could recover
arguable RCRA oversight costs pursuant to
CERCLA §107. SPA took the position that it
would pursue recovery of RCRA "remedial action*
type oversight costs. This discussion and
settlement preceded the final decision on the
Rohm & Haas case (790 P. Supp. 1255 (ED Pa.
1992)). One hundred percent ($237,996) of
demanded costs were collected under a CERCLA
§107 administrative settlement (March 31,1992).
Je»eyj Region D issued an AOC to PPG Industries,
Inc., providing for implementation of a removal
action at the Walton Farm Supcrntnd Sits. This
is a non-NFL site, which contains approximately
one acre of contaminated land located, on a 37+
ac» rural property. The area whkh was the
subject of the order was used for the disposal *>f
DDT in the 1950s. Soil at the Site was
contaminated with DDT and DDT breakdown
products in some cases at levels greater then
30OOOO ppm. The Site had allegedly been used as
a "satellite" dump site for off-spec products that
had been formulated at_a pesticides formulation
, £adHiy once owned by PPG Industries located in
Moorestown, New Jersey. The order requires that
PPG delineate the area of contamination and'
remove contaminated soil. The estimated cost of
the work required by the order was
approximately $7 million.
On January 16, 1992;
the Director o Region Vs Waste Manag?
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Rtport
Enforcement Against Non-Settfot*
In order to ensure a, vigorous and fair
enforcement program, EPA has been aggressively
punning parties who refust to settlt thdr
liability under CERCIA. In FY 1S92, EPA
brought administrative enforcement actions
against over 500 iwn-sfttttnf PRPs it ow 50
Super/and sites, requiring dean up actions valued
at over $270 million. These casts represent
significant enforcement accomplishments far the
agency and indicate that EPA Jus successfully
implemented its policy to vigorously pursue non-
sftiling PRPs. ;
A.h«r gnp«rftifid Slt«. Portsmouth, Virginia*
March 30, 1992, the Regional Administrator for
EPA Region HI signed a UAO requiring i $4
million Removal Action at the Abex Superfund
Site- in Portsmouth, Mrgmia by Pneumo Abex, the
former owner/operator of the Site. The Abex Silt
was listed on the National Priorities List In
August 19? l and Pneumo Abex Is currently
performing a RI/FS pursuant to a Consent Order.
Preliminary sampling results ol the Remedial
Investigation Indicated Ugh levels of lead in
residential areas adjacent to the Sit*. The UAO
was issued after negotiations with Fnuemo Abex
failed to resuu in a Consent Order for the work in
a timely manner.
A.Q. Polm«r
Slim. Sparta, New
Jersey: On March 31, 1992, Region 1 issued a UAO
for implementation of a cleanup of sou and
groundwater contamination at the A.O. Polymer
NPL site. fhe Respondents Include the
owner/operator of the site, and one generator of
hazardous substances released there.
The 4-acre site has been used for resin processing
and reclamation of electronic component cleaning
fluid, and has an active resin processing facility
located on it Soil contamination is confined to an
area where there had once been a disposal
lagoon, which is the primary source of
groundwater contamination emanating from the
Site. The remedy, estimated to cost $4 J million,
requires extraction of contaminants from soils by
me use of soil vapor extraction, and addresses
groundwater contamination through a powdered
activated carbon treatment system.
Aon»-T*ch Sit*. Gt
. South Carolina: On April
24,1992, a UAO under CBCLA § 106 was issued
to ninety-seven PRPs at the Aqua-Tech
Environmental, Inc. Site located in Greer, South
Carolina.
The Aqua-lech Site consists of approximately 181
acres and is located in a mixed
residential/business district The Site was owned
and operated by Groce Laboratories from 1975
through 1987, when the property was sold to
Aqua-Tech Environmental, Inc. The Site was used
as a waste treatment, storage, recycling,
reclaiming and disposal facility and accepted
many types of hazardous wastes from off-site
sources. EPA estimated that approximately 6,000
drums, 1,000 lab packs, and 500 gas cylinders are
currently on-«ite. The UAO was issued to ninety-
seven generators who each shipped at least 5,000
pounds of waste to the Site since 1987. EPA,
estimates that removal at the site could cost up to
$40 mutton. Under the terms of the UAO, work
was to begin orvaite on May 4,1992.
BT«ndt«y Mm P»Aagjng Sit*. Artingtety
On January 30,1992, EPA Region IV
issued a UAO for RD/RA pursuant to §106 of
CERCLA against several pesticide manufacturers
to address the contamination at the Arlington
Blending & Packaging Site in Arlington,
Tennessee. The respondents to the administrative
order are Velsicol Chemical Corp., Termirux
International, Chemwood Corp., Ciba-Geigy
Corp., and Wormald U.S., Inc., as well as
William BeU, a former owner and operator of the
Site. The Site was a pesticide blending and
packaging facility, now defunct and contaminated
with a variety of pesticides and solvents. The
respondent pesticide manufacturers sent technical
grade pesticides-and in some cases, solvents-to
the facility for formulation and packaging. EPA
maintains that the formulation agreement
constituted at least an implicit arrangement iw»
disposal. A Judicial action under §107 of
CERCLA, filed la 1987 against three of the
respondents (Velsicol, Terminix, and BeU) and
several other parties to recover response costs
incurred in conducting a removal at the Site, is
currentfy pending in district court
The respondents had failed to make an
acceptable offer to conduct the remedial design
and remedial action before the dose of the
negotiation moratorium under §122{e). The
respondents were willing only to conduct the
remedial design. Consequently, EPA issued a
3-68
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplisimtnu Repon
unilateral administrative order requiring the
respondents to conduct both the remedial design
and the remedial action.
ATCQ SttpegfaiiJi Sit*. WiUlim»pOrt,
Pennsylvania: On May 7, 1992, Region IS Issued a
UAG for RD/RA at the Avco Lyccrrang Supernmd
Site. The order was issued to Avco Corporation,
which has owned and operated an aircraft engine
aunuiacturJng plant on the Site since the 1920s.
The order directs Avco to perform on-site
extraction .and. treatment of contaminated
gfOundwateE at an estimated cost of 99 3 mjffion.
B«av»r Wood Ptodggti JUa. Columbia Heights,
Mantua: On October 22, 1991, Region VHI issued
a UAO to several PRPs for a removal action at
the Beaver Wood Products Site in Columbia
Heights, Montana. The Site contains a post and
pole treating facility which has contaminated
the soil with rOry dim In, and fuxw
The order requirt; the owners and operators of the
Site to place a six-inch gravel cap over
contaminated soils and provide site security by
erecting a sbc-foot chain-link or hog-wire fence
around the perimeter of. me Site. . • .
Mmt»l»
Situ. Buffalo, New York:
On September 19, 1992, Region D issued a UAO
pursuant to §106 of CERCLA, to General Motors
Corporation, Buffalo Color Corporation,
National Fuel and Gas Distribution Corporation,
New York State Electric * Gat Corporation and
Allied Signal Corporation, the order will
require me Respondents to repair and maintain a
fence surrounding the Bern Metal Site, Since
September 1987, EPA ha* performed several
response actions at the Slot including the
excavation and disposal of contaminated soils
and drum.
Town Coal Tag SM». l*£fmoa County.
West Virginia: On January 28, 1991 Region E
issued a UAO against non-Mttiing parties, Roger
f. Ferry, William C Perry and Mary B. Smith for
phase n removal response activities at the
Charles Town Coal Tar Site. The Respondents are •
the owners of the Site, which it already
undergoing a removal cleanup tinder an AOC
entered into with another party, Supertane Gas
Corporation. ,The UAO requires the Respondents
to commence and complete performance of the
work consistent with the work to be performed by
Supertane under me AOC The work, estimated
to cost over $1 million, includes soil removal and
groundwater remediation to remove coal tar and
associated organic chemicals created by a coal gas
fuel generating facility previously located on the
Site. ' t • • _ • _ • >
Cham Alt gpfav Sit*. Bryant. Palm Btach
Goorty, Florid* On April 1. 1992, EPA Region IV
issued a UAO to New Farm, Inc., Juan Montalvo,
and Chem Air Spray, Inc. for the Chem Air Spray
Site near Bryant Florida. Chem Air Spray, Inc.,
operated a pesticide formulating and application
facility at the Slot from 1972 to 1985. Sampling
conducted by EPA and the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (FDER) showed high
concentrations of toxaphene and methyl
parathion at me Site. The parties are conducing
the removal activities. Additionally, New Farm, ;
Inc, and the South Florida Water Management
District conducted a RI/FS under a FDER AOC
The result! of the RI/FS are being reviewed by
5DE8, and remediation activities at the Site
win be administered by FDER.
Chemical Sale* Co. Snn^rfand Sit*. D*nvet
Colorado* On January 27, 1992, Region VH issued
a UAO under §106 of CERCLA to Chemical Sales
Co. and other respondent? for RD/RA and past
costs at Operable Unit #1 of the Chemical Sales
Superfund Site. Negotiations for RD/RA broke
down after several months, thus necessitating the
!S9Uance of the order. Although CSC filed a
Chapter It petition for Bankruptcy protection on
February 21, 1992, it is currently in substantive
compliance with the UAO.
. Inf.. Charlotte, North
Carolina: On September 23, 1992, Region IV issued
a UAO to obtain access to the Cherokee Resources,
inc. Site. Cherokee Resources, fine., revoked oral
consent for. access after its takings claim was
dismissed from the Western District of North
Carolina federal court for lack of jurisdiction.
The Region is conducting a fund-lead removal of
over 4000 drums of hazardous substances,
including cyanide waste, at this drum storage
facility which to bounded by residences and
- Buffalo, New
qiiitett/Blii*1' H««1
York: On June 19, 1992, Region H Issued a UAO
directing five generator PRPs to remove and
dispose of contaminated soils from residential
3-49
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
arid commercial property at the Qinton Street
and Bender Avenue Removal Site in Buffalo, New
York. The site la adjacent to the Bern Metal*
Removal Site and was contaminated by runoff
from the Bern Metals Site.
The five Respondents to the unilateral ordet
General Motors Corporation, Buffalo Color
Corporation, National Fuel it Gas Distribution
Corporation, New York Slate Electric & Gas Corp.
and JAlIied-Signal Corporation, ar» industrial
generates who arranged for treatment or disposal
of hazardous substances which wen disposed of
at the Bern Metals Site, a scrap metal
reprocessing facility. The elevation of the Bern
Metals Site caused the migration of contaminants,
inducing lead and copper via surfacewater
runoff, into the yards of nine residential homes,
four apartments, and one business located within
the Site. Lead was present in surface soils in
levels'of up to 18,930 ppm.
Resu1... of the sampling conducted at the Sit*
were forwarded to the Agency for Tfcadc Substances
and Disease Registry which issued an advisory to
the residents at the Site warning then to refrain
from digging in the soils and directing that
parents not allow children to play to any exposed
soil
The order, calls for the excavation of
contaminated soils to meet cleanup levels
established by EPA and replacement of the
excavated soils with dean OIL The order also
calls for the voluntary temporary relocation of
the Site residents during the excavation and
during the period their homes and accessory
structures are surveyed, sampled, and assessed for
any structural damage. Finally, the order calls
for proper off-site disposal of contaminated soils
and the grading and partial capping of the
abutting portions of the Bern Metals Site. The
work is expected to cost about $2 million.
CAR ip aMaty Company. Ing,. SUm^ Chesterfield
Coomv, Virginia: On March 27, 1992, IPA issued a
UAO pursuant to §106 of CERCtA, requiring
twenty-one respondents to perform remedial
action at the C & R Battery Company, Inc. Site, In
Chesterfield County, Virginia. The UAO directs
the respondents to perform the remedial action as
set forth In a ROD issued on March 30, 1990,
which includes the excavation of .surface and
subsurface soil containing lead above an 1000
mg/kg action level and sediments above a 450
mg/kg action level, treating them with a
stabilization process and then disposing of the
soils in an off-site RCRA approved landfill.
Remedial action at the site is expected to cost
$13,400,000.
IPatty Sit*.. New JfTMV :
On September 17, 1992, Region II issued an
Administrative Order for access pursuant to
§104(e) of CERCLA, to the owner of a portion of
the Delewal Chemkal Company Superfund Site.
The owner. lack Ford, had, not responded to
numerous requests to sign a voluntary access
agreement.
The approximately 3.7 acre site is located in
Wngwood Township, New Jersey and was leased
by the DeRewal Chemical Company during the
early 1970s. DeRewal used the Site to store a
variety of hazardous substances and to
manufacture an agricultural fungicide and a
textile preservative. EPA received r. irts mat
numerous spills occurred during the period that
DeRewal leased the Site. The Site has been
placed on the National Priorities Ust and the
remedial design is presently underway.
ndmtiM fitta Ml*- '( flodda:
On December 27, 1991, a UAO was issued requiring
the respondents to conduct a removal action to
respond to a release and threat of release caused
by chemicals stored at -a warehouse. The
Respondents include Pumo Enterprises, which
owned the warehouse and rial Ellis, an
independent chemist who was renting the
laboratories.
On December 19, 1991, local officials responded to
a fire at the warehouse. Upon entering the
building, officials discovered over 100 boxes in
which various containers of chemicals were
haphazardly packed. These chemicals, which
appear to have caused' the fire, were packed
without regard for compatibility, were in leaking
containers, and included shock sensitive and air
reactive chemicals. The local officials -notified
the state and then EPA. EPA responded to the
Site on December 20, 1991, and arranged for the
Miami bomb squad to detonate some containers of
shock sensitive materials.
Enterprise fH1 Removal Slt». Detroit; Michigan:
EPA issued a UAO for removal of soil and tanks
3-70
-------
FY1992 Enforcement AcccmpUsfuntrus Report
(A)
containing used oil at the Enterprise Oil Removal
Sits in Detroit Michigan. Hie Site, which was
formerly used as a waste oil storage terminal, is
located in downtown Detroit, dost to private
residences, a school and small businesses. The
UAO was issued to Moreco after- alter
negotiations for a consent order were unsuccessful.
Moreco complied with the order Initially, then
fell out of compliance and filed lor protection
under Chapter tl of the Bankruptcy dock. The
case was settled pursuant to the reorganization
plan and a settlement agreement and stipulated
order was entered in December 1992 resolving
Moreco's liability at the Sits.
,N«wY<*k;
Region n issued two unilateral administrative
orders to CM for RD/RA at Its Massena, Hew York
plant GM manufactures cast aluminum engine
blocks at this plant The facility has been a
significant source of PCB contamination in the
adjacent St. Lawrence River; the contamination
has also •ffec.'d the nearby Afci *.aasne Indian
Reservation. The two orders address two
operable units o/ the remedy. The first order was
issued in March and requires, inteilia, dredging
of PCB-contaminated sediment from the River,
treatment of contaminated groundwatet and
removal of couiaminated soils. Thir work has an
estimated value of $78 million. Hie second order,
issued in August requires capping of a tandfin on
the site, and other related activities, with an
estimated value of $iS million. The combined
value of the two orders is thus $123 million. GM
h*s agreed to comply with both orders.
Upriver on the St Lawrence, and further
upstream on its tributary the Grass River, are
plants operated by ALCOA and Reynolds
Aluminum Corp, which have also contributed
PCB and other contamination to this river system.
In 1989 Region U issued UAOf to ALCOA and
GMC requiring investigation and remediation of
that contamination.
Snp«rfand sit*. Portland, Oregon: On
January 22, 1992, EPA issued a UAO pursuant to
§106 of CERCLA, to ML Industries, me., Gould,
Inc., Johnson Controls, Inc., Bride, Inc., ATleT
Technologies, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc, and Burlington
Northern Railroad Co. (Could PRPs). The UAO
dictated that the Gould PRPs perform the
remedial action for the SoUs Unit of the Gould
Superfund Site in Portland, Oregon. The
prescribed remedial action, which was developed
by Canonie Environmental on behalf of ML
Industries, Inc, involves the excavation of buried
battery casing* and other materials, treatment of
the excavated material to produce recyclable
products, off-site recycling of materials mat can
be recycled, stabilization and on-site disposal of
materials which can not be recycled, and closure
and monitoring to ensure mat the remedial action
satisfies the cleanup goals set forth in the ROD
for the Soils Unit The UAO further requires me
Gould PRPs to reimburse me EPA for oversight
costs it incurs during the performance of remedial
B«tri tA
sit».
w*tm* County, Ntw Yodc
On September 21, 1992, Region H issued a UAO to
Ford Motor Company, Western Publishing
Company, me and various other parties requiring
then to undertake remedial action at the Hertel
Landfill Site m Ulster County, New York. The
landfill was in operation from 1963 until 1977 and
received both hazardous and solid wastei The
remedy, which has a present worth cost of $8.2
million, includes constructing a multi-layer cap,
installing gas vents, implementing a
comprehensive groundwaterHnoni toring program,
and fendng the 13-acre landfill. Groundwater
wifl be treated to remove metals and organic and
to mitigate the potential harmful impacts to
adjacent wetlands.
Knnmmm City Sftrqgfrgral St««l/Bincn^«fica
Kansas Qty, Kansas: A UAO was
issued to ASARCO on December U, 1991. The
order requires ASARCO to conduct a removal
action at the Site and In so doing, to coordinate
and cooperate with Bancamerica Commercial
Corporation, who signed an AOC in February,
1990, wherein it agreed to perform a removal at
the Sill. The UAO to ASARCO also demands
payment of EPA's oversight costs.
iitl Site. CofdOTl, North
,
Carolina: On June 18, 1992, EPA Region IV issued a
UAO for RD/RA pursuant to §106 of CERCLA
against eleven responsible parties (five
individual property owners, one corporate
owner/operator and five corporate generators) to
address the Macon/Dockeiy site In Cordova,
North Caroline. The site, also known as the
Charles Macon Lagoon *r.d Drum Storage site,
was operated by Charles Macon and C & M Oil
Distributors in me IWs and early 19WTs for the
3-71
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
recycling of used oil, industrial solvents, anti-
freeze, and assorted other chemical wastes. In
1983, EPA conducted a removal action it the site,
draining approximately one-dozen lagoons filled
with used oil and hazardous substances, and
removing approximately 2,000 drums filled with
chor.ical waste. EPA recovered the costs of this
removal action in a prior settlement.
Groundwater monitoring at the site revealed
widespread contamination by organic and
inorganic contaminants, and EPA placed the site
on the National Priorities List (NFL). During
settlement negotiations for performance of the
RD/RA, the responsible parties objected to the
EPA Model RD/RA Consent Decree and to the
schedule in EPA's Scope of Work, and negotiations
broke down. Consequently,, EPA issued the UAO
requiring the respondents to conduct the RD/RA,
which consists of extraction and treatment of
contaminated groundwater, soil vapor extraction
to remove volatile organic compounds from site
soils, btoremediation to treat soils contaminated
with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarboiis, and
disposal of tanks and containers. Trie remedy is
cted to cost S&7 million,
Str««t Will FffH SJti, *nv»n**r Indiana:
On February 20,1992, Region V issued a UAO to
nine PRPs to conduct remedial activities,
including soil vapor extraction,, installation of
interceptor wells, and continued operation and
maintenance of an air stripper that became
operational in 1987 as the first operable unit at
the Site. Hie cost of implementing mis remedy
has been estimated at $1.5 million in construction
costs plus $130,000 in annual operation and
maintenance costs. - •
The Main Street Well Field provides
approximately 80% of the City of Elkhart's
drinking water needs. In 1985, in response to the
discovery of elevated levels of volatile organic
compounds in the groundwater, EPA conducted a
RI/FS, which culminated In construction of the
air stripping 'facility that was the remedy
selected for the City's contaminated water
supply. The subject of this UAO is source and
plume control to prevent further contamination
beneath and upgradient of the well field. This is
expected to be a final operable unit
Malli
CjBad tor Site.'
On March 4,1992, EPA Region IV issued a UAO
for RD/RA pursuant to §106 of CERCLA against
'Battery Properties, Inc. to address the MaUory
Capacitor Site in Waynesboro, Tennessee. Battery
Properties, Inc., the respondent, is the sole
responsible party. The MaUory Capacitor Sits Is
a former electrical component manufacturing
facility. Groundwater at the Site is contaminated
with high levels of polychjorinated biphenyis
PCBs, trichloroethyiene TCE, and other organic
solvents. The Site is located adjacent to a
residential area.
The Respondent was unwilling to commit to full
performance of the remedy, and settlement
negotiations for the RD/RA broke down.
Consequently, EPA Issued the UAO requiring the
respondents to conduct the RD/RA. which consists
of extraction and treatment of contaminated
groundwater and Institutional controls. The
remedy is expected to cost approximately $3
million.
Moiiat TrtJoiitrlM Sap«gftntd Sit*. Cofamboa,
Montana: On November 12,1991, five responsible
parties for the Mouat Industries NFL Site were
issued a UAO to undertake cleanup of soils. The
parties liable under the terms set forth in the
UAO arc the Town of Cohnnbus, past and present
owner of the Site; operators of the Site; Mouat
Industries, Monte Vista Company, FMC Company,
and Umberweid Manufacturing Company.
The Mouat Site is located Just south of the airport
in Columbus, StiUwater County, Montana. It is
situated in the flood plain of the Yellowstone
River and is less man 04 miles north of the
present river channel. Groundwaters at the
Mouat Site are contaminated with chromium and
arsenic. Additionally, soils, sediments, and
surface waters both on-site and off-site are
contaminated. The contamination is the result of
operations at a processing plant which converted
chromium ore Into high-grade sodium
diduomate. By-products of the process were
sodium sulfate wastes containing nexavalent
chromium. There were dkhromata spills and
teaching into the surrounding soils and
groundwater from the piles of sulfate wastes.
FMC Company prepared a work plan for the
removal action, and pilot testing of the soil
treatment system was conducted on November 16-
17,1992. Due to severe weather conditions during
the winter months, the cleanup is scheduled to
begin in the Spring of 1993. It is anticipated that
complete cleanup of the source materials will be
3-72
-------
Ft 1992 Enforcement Accomplishm&its Rapon
achieved by this removal action resulting in no
further remedial action for soils at the Site.
This enforcement action supports the
Headquarters /Regional Priority to accelerate
site cleanup and incorporates innovative us® of
CERCLA Removal authorities to
comprehensively address soils cleanup at this
NFL Site. ' .'
Qak Gmva
Slta.
Cororation
Plaii
Sussex County, Delawafs: On
March 31, 1992, EPA issued a UAO for RD/1A.
The action to expected to cost approximately S3
millicn. IPA mala the decision to isfiaa the ordar
alter the PRPs failed to submit an acceptable
neit offer u«ler§122(e) of CERCLA. .
Tha major PI?, NCS Corporation, refused to
comply with tfea order and sought a temporary
restraining order, claiming that Q consent order
previously entered into with the State of
Delaw;
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplislungitts Rtpon
inside the homes and on porches. Paramount is
the former owner/operator of the facility
responsible for the contamination.
EPA attempted to negotiate a consent order with
Paramount and Horsehead Industries, Inc for the
dean up of the homes already identified and the
extent of contamination study to identify other
homes which have been contaminated by lead
dust Hbtsehead eventually agreed to dean up
the interior of the homes, but Paramount refused
to participate.
Put* H«fln««y **np*rfand Sit*; On March 24, 1992,
Region n issued an Administrative Order for
access to the Port Refinery Co., Inc to Edmund
Barbera and Nonna Barbera pursuant to §104(e)
of CERCLA. EPA has been conducting a removal
action at the Port Refinery Superfund Site to
address mercury contamination found there.
Because respondents denied EPA access to the Site
to conduct the response action, they were ordered
to provide EPA with all access to the property,
induding the interior of its structures necessary
for EPA to take this response action. Respondents
also were ordered to refrain from excavating
and/or moving the soils at the Site and taking
any other actions that interfere with EPA's access
to or response activities at the Site.
Coil «pd Spring Company. Q Mont»,
California: On October 29, 1991, EPA issued an
Administrative Order pursuant to §106 oi
CERCLA, to Precision CoU and Spring Company
in El Monte, California, ordering them to conduct
a facility Remedial Investigation. This order
was issued after the facility refused to comply
with the Regional Wnter Quality Control
Board's directives for submission, of a satisfactory
facility investigation workplan. Precision CoU
and Spring Company is located within the San
Gabriel Valley Superfund Sites, Areas 14.
Pttrit-r Oil Sal«g Sapfy^ind Stt»t FrBHldt
California; On September 30, 1992, Region DC
issued an order under §106 of CERCLA, directing
nine PRFs at the Purity Oil Sates Superfund Site
to conduct the RD/RA at the StaL The Region ii
currently negotiating with other PRPs to recover
past response costs associated with the RI/FS.
Purity Oil Sales operated as an oil recycling
facility in Fresno, California from approximately
1937-1974. Purity picked up waste oil from
service stations, car dealerships, industry,
military installations, governmental entities, etc.
The Region issued special notice letters to 87 PRPs
in April, 1992. The Region and the PRPs were
unable to reach settlement.
Saparlnnd Sffg, Nodumixon,
Pennsylvania: A UAO was signed by the Regional
Administrator on December 13, 1991, directing the
following PRPs to conduct a removal action at the
Revere Site: ATfcTi Carpenter Technologies
Corp.; GTE Products Corp,; IBM; Unisys Corp.;
Quantei Corp.; Vates Industries Corp,- East Falls
Corp.; Harbucks Corp; and Manfred DeRewai.
The remedy required by this order includes
removal ol heavy metals from soils and
groundwater at the Site. The Site was formerly
used by a number, of the listed PRPs as a
reclamation facility.
RoHcaway
Slt«. TirweodL
Y*te Rtgion 1 issued a UAO to 175 Inwood
Associates, requiring the performance of a
removal action. The Site formerly was leased
from the Respondent by Rockaway Metal
Products, Inc. (Rockaway), which conducted a
manufacturing operation at the Site. Alter filing
for bankruptcy protection, Rockaway abandoned
the Site In 1989, leaving behind various
hazardous substances stored hi tanks, drums and
other containers. The removal action required by
the UAO tndudes the removal, treatment and /or
disposal of drums, underground storage tanks,
pressurized cylinders, a tanker-trailer and its
contents, and contaminated soil.
1jfl^T»t* Inc. The order requires those
companies to implement the remedy selected in
EPA's ROD which call* for pumping and
treatment of groundwater at the Vestal, New
York Site. Groundwater at 'the Site is
contaminated with volatile organic compounds.
Buffton Corp. 1* the current owner of the Site, and
was also an owner of the Site at the time of
disposal of hazardous substances. Both Buffton
and Etectro-Mech refused to agree to conduct the
remedy pursuant to a consent decree
Sail Fernando VaHay Saparfund Sifa, flarbartk
Unit. Burbank, California: On March
26, 1992, EPA unilaterally issued an order
3-74
-------
FY1992 Enforcement A£complishmaU3 Rtpcrt
perform the surface soils remedy selected for the
refinery portion of the site, and to implement the
capping of the landfill portion. The remedial
work generally involves: (a) excavation of the
refinery soils which exceed approved levels for
arsenic and lead; (b) any necessary treatment of
those soils; (c) placing the soils into the central
elevated landfill area (CELA) on site, and (d)
capping the CELA. This work has an estimated
value of $45 million.
The second order. Issued in September directs
ARCO to cany out the remaining elements of the
second operable unit of the remedy, concerning
treatment of contaminated groundwate* This
work has an estimated value of $132 million.
ARCO was already performing a portion of the
remedial action Cor the landfill section of the site
under a 1989 consent decree. ARCO also performed
the RJ/FS under a 198S consent ordes, The ROD
was issued in September 1991. finally, pursuant
to a June, 1991 consent . order,, ARCO
decontaminated and decommissioned an
oil/water separator (contaminated by heavy
metals and organic*) and addressed deteriorating
asbestos at a warehouse on site.
fhtrtr^ocham ^ Sqp^ff^pd _ Slt«- MnktSjtn,
Michigan; EPA issued a §106 UAO for RD/RA to
18 parties on May 6,1992. Sixteen of these parties
responded that they would be willing to either a)
conduct work limited to a portion of the Site or b)
pay $273 million dollars (the remedy is expected
to cost $243 million} based on their share of
waste contrtbutian and a premium.
THanf-la P»tTpl«t|fll s*^*i Froita, Colorado: On
August 20, 1992, Region Vffi issued a UAO for a
removal action at the Triangle Petroleum Site, a
former waste oil recycling operation in Fruita,
Colorado. Named respondents include the former
operators of the facility, the property owner, and
several generators (including Pepsi Cote and
Wagner Equipment). None of the respondents had
expressed an interest in executing an
administrative order on consent. .The effective
date of the order was August 27, 1992,
fr Tndo«trfal
Sit*. Oble Unit
fJL Brocks, Itaillit County, Kentucky. Alter
negotiations failed to result in a consent decree,
Region tV issued a UAO to Waste Management of
Kentucky, Inc., Ford Motor Company, Inc., and
Dow Coming Corporation for the performance of
the RD/RA for Operable Unit f 1 on March 4,
1992. All three PRPs sent node* to the region
indicating their intent to comply with the UAO,
The Site was an industrial landfill operated by
Tri-City Industrial Services, Inc., from 1964 until
1967. Waste Management of Kentucky, Inc., is the
corporate successor to TH-dty Industrial Services,
Inc. Ford Motor Company, me, and Dow Coming
Corporation arranged for me disposal of
hazardous substances at the Site. The remedial
action to be conducted for Operable Unit f 1
includes the treatment of groundwater as it
reaches the surface as springs, continued provision
of an alternative water supply, implementation
of institutional controls, confirmatory sampling to
determine if additional source remediation is
necessary, and bng-tttm monitoring.
v«f*Mu W«H Et«l of CERCLA, to
26 PRPs at the Verona Well Field Site in Battle
Creek, Michigan. The RD/RA is intended to
implement a ROD calling for the cleanup of
solvent-contaminated source areas and the Well
Field itself. The Verona Weil Field is the
primary source of drinking water for the dry of
Battle Creek, Michigan. The UAOs were issued.
after attempts to negotiate a consent decree
failed.
Warvri A L«f -»Kt1 Sop+ffand S»«, Warwick, N«W
Yadc Region U issued a CERCLA unilateral
administrative order against six PRPs on
February 28,1992. They were ordered to perform
the RD/RA for the first operable unit at the
Warwick Landfill site. The respondents are Ford
Motor Company, Georgia-Pacific Corp., LS.A- in
New Jersey, Inc., Round Lake Sanitation
Corporation, Union Carbide Corporation, and the
Town of Warwick, New York.
The Warwick Landfill Site, was operated by the
town of Warwick primarily as a municipal
landfill from the mid-1950s through 1977,
Between 1977 and 1980, the site was operated
privately by Grace Disposal and Leasing.
Georgia-Pacific, Ford and Union Carbide were
generators of hazardous substances disposed of at
the landfill; I.S.A. and Round Lake were
transporters.
3-76
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Aeeomplishmenu Report
pursuant to CERCLA §106 to Aeroquip
Corporation, Crane Company, Inc., Janco
Corporation, Sargent Industries, Inc., Ocean
Technology, Inc., and *e Antonini Family Trust,
for remedial design and remedial action work at
the Burbank Operable Unit of the San Fernando
Valley Superfund Site. The work covered is the
design, construction and non-routine maintenance
of a blending facility. The estimated cost of this
work, which was "carved-out" from the other
work nnjuiieU to implement this interim remedy
is $23 mOBon. The facility win be used to tike
groundwater previously treated to remove
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) but high in
nitrates and mir. it with water not containing
nitrates in excess of the MCL. The treated and
blended water will then be delivered to the Gty
of Burbank't publk water supply system.
Issuance of this order follow* the entry of a
consent decree in the case of *f.g -'»-
»t. ai. That settlement, reached
wi
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
The order requires the PHFs to carry out the
remedial action, which involves capping the
landfill; monitoring gas emissions and
groundwater; and sampling residential wells,
•with installation of point ol use treatment
.I/stems for wells which exceed maximum
contamination levels (MCL). Hie remedy is
estimated to cost $14.2 million. In September a
separate administrative consent order was Issued
to the Mm* parties requiring performance ol the
11/15 for the second operable unit at mis site.
Wliltj QtftjiJg^l f^flrpttrartdfi S'gMffnntJ Sit*.
, N«w*rk, New Jersey: legion H Issued a UAO for
remedial action In March 1992, for remedial
action with respect to surface contamination at
the While Chemical Corporation Superfund Site,
The site was placed on the NFL in September
1991. A ROD was prepared immediately
following completion of * focused feasibility
study. The remedy selected includes continuation
ol the removal action which EPA had already
initiated, and pretreatment or neutralization of
contaminated material. The estimated cost is $22
million. Completion is expected before Spring
1993.
White Chemical manufactured add chlorides,
alkyl bromides and brominated flame retardant
compounds on the site, from August 1982 to October
1990, as a lessee of the landowner, AZS
Corporation, and stored Its hazardous wastes on
site. In addition. Whits Chemical manufactured
products for its customers according to formulation
agreements, pursuant to which it charged a fee for
manulacturing products from material* supplied
and owned by its customers throughout the
manulacturing process. The PIFs include the
landowner two operators, and eight generators.
EPA began removal action in October 1990 at me
request of the New Jersey Department ol
Environmental Protection and Bnergy. The site
contained approximately 11,000 drums of
hazardous substances as well a* tanks, laboratory
containers and other polluted material. By late
1992, all the drums had been removed from the
site, along with th* contents of 117 out ol 126
tanks. EPA has incurred costs ol $145 million.
The PRPs are conducting the remainder of the
cleanup, which includes removal ol 12,000
laboratory containers and a number of gas
cylinders, among other items.
City,
Iowa: On September 18, 1992, the District Court in
the Northern District ol Iowa entered a CERCLA
remedial action consent decree between the OS.
and Allied Productions Corporation. Theconsent
decree obligates Allied to implement a remedial
action at me Whit* Farm Equipment Dump Site
in Charles City, low*. The principal components
of the remedy we extraction and treatment ol
contaminated groundwater and capping a 5-tcre
landfill at the Site. One unique feature ol the
remedy is that Allied is going to use non-
hazaidous foundry sand waste that is generated
at a manufacturing plant near the Site as
material lor a portion of the cap. This
exemplifies an innovative, cost-effective
remedial approaches.
On July 21, 1992. me United States filed a
CERCLA §107 east recovery action against TIC
United and TIC Investment Corp., seeking
recovery of approximately $500,000 in past costs
.incurred by the United States with respect to the
White Farm Site, from 1910 to 1985, the TIC
companies controlled a company which disposed
of hazardous substances at the Site, refused to
participate m settlement negotiations. The filing
ol this case shows the Agency's intent to
vigorously pursue non-settlors at Superfund sites.
Praia*
Stt», Kewfecny,
WeM&m On March 5, 1992, EPA legion V issued
a UAO to Chrysler Corporation for removal
action at the Wlflow Drums Site in Newbeny,
Michigan. The order requires Guysler to remove
approximately 2000 drums from the Site, perform
containment and prepare an extent of
contamination study. EPA expects to recover over
$1 million ht oversight costs from Chrysler.
Admi*i*tr*tiu* ordrrs to perform cleanup
it Superfund Silts art m important part of EPA's
effort* to protect health and tit* environment.
mm rtspcnsibU pottos refust to comply mith
administrative orders; EPA it authorized to levy
penalties of up to 125,000 for each day of non-
compltanct. In 'coses where EPA must t**e over
cleanup activities of the sit*, the statute
authorizes recovery of up to three times EPA's
costs incurred in cleanup as * punitive measure to
prevent non-compliance with administrative
orders. Following art two cases where EPA
3-77
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
recovered the cost$ of cleanup actions And
additional punitive damages.
U.S. m LeC^atraaim and TJghtjyaq PTBBI C°ii-
(D.N.J.): The District Court for the District of
New Jersey granted the highest penalty and
damages ever awarded to the government In any
Superfund case nationwide. Additionally, it was
the first time that both treble damages and
penalties were awarded, and was the first
adjudicated case nationally to award daily civil
penalties under $106(b) of CERCLA. The court
awarded nearly $3,9 million in penalties and
treble damages for defendants1 violation of
unilateral cleanup orders, adopting fan its entirety
the government1 j request for all,costs (nearly
$350,000), plus civil penalties and treble damages
amounting to nearly $3.9 million. This is the first
case to award daily dvil penalties under §106(b)
of CERCLA.
The two defendants in this action, Edward
LeCarreaiir and Ughtman Drum Company, were
among about 40 PRPs which received unilateral
administrative orders in late 1984 and early 1989,
requiring the performance of a removal action at
the Duane Marine Superfund Site In Perm Amboy,
NT, which was operated as a waste storage,
treatment and disposal operation during the
1970*8. All the remaining PRPs compiled with
the orders and carried out the removal, valued at
several million dollars. The two defendants
neither complied nor participated with the other
FlPs to carrying out me required work.
EPA sued the two defendants lor past costs, daily
dvil penalties, and treble damages. In July 1991,
the court panted the government's Motion for
Summary Judgment as to the defendant's
liability. In November 1991 a hearing was held
on the amount of costs, penalties and damages.
The court awarded the government
• its full response costs ($346,646.28,
incurred in connection with overseeing die PRPs'
removal work, and in prosecuting the case);
* $1,998,336 in penalties and damages
against LeCarreaux, the owner and operator of
the Duane Marine facility (of this amount,
§22SJ36J1 is earmarked as treble damages); and
* $1336,336 in penalties and damages
against LJghtman Drum, a transporter, which
brought hazardous substances to the facility (of
this amount $228,326J1 is for treble damages).
U.S. v. Qrfain IndnstrJM. fag, and KQT+ Ofhjn
Ing.. (W.Al Madison Wire
Seneca, Buffalo, New Yosk ;
The District Court for the Western District of
Hew York rendered a split decision in August
under CERCLA, awarding the government costs
and treble damages under §107, but declining to
impose penalties under §106) penalties.
In the court's decision, a default judgment was
entered against Orban Industries, Inc. (OH) and
Kurt Orban Company, Inc. (KOCI) for a $500,000
in response costs incurred at the sit*. On is *
wholly owned subsidiary of KOCL The court also
awarded $1.1 mil it In treble damages agair**
OH for failure to comply with a §106 unilateral
removal order. However the court did not awani
penalties under §106(b) for failure to comply with
theordec
Section 106(b) provides that penalties may be
imposed if a party "willfully violates, or fails or
refuses" to comply with an order. The government
contends that the court's interpretation mat a
§106 penalty can only be imposed when a party
acts .willfully ignore* the "fails or refuses*
language in the wction,
In 1987 Region II issued a unilateral
administrative order to OQ and Kurt Orban
ordering the removal of hazardous substances,
such as waste acids, which were left at the Site
in drums, tanks, and process equipment after Oil
abandoned it Kurt Orban, the majority
shareholder of OQ and president of both
corporations, asserted that due to the lack of
resources following the voluntary assignment and
sale of KOCTs assets neither he nor Ofl could
comply with EPA's ordec EPA completed the
removal action. In 1990 the government initiated
a cost recovery action against Kurt Orban, OH,
KOCI, Robert Uwlor, and Atlantic Wire
Company, Inc. and also commenced actions for
penalties and punitive damages against Kurt
Orban and On.
3-78
-------
FY1992 EnforcemeW Accomplishments Report
A consent decree was altered in March, 1992
settling EPA's cost recovery claim against Kurt
Orban, Robert Lawlor, and Atlantic Wire
Company, Inc for $185,000, and also settling
EPA's penalty claim against Kurt Otban for
$30,000.
Bankruptcy Cues
Banker
l- Shoo
Idaho: This action 1*
both for its strategy and
'
ecedented in Regkm X
the amount recovered,
and moves- me'CERCLA cleanup strategy several
steps doser to th« success contemplated by the
Region's Coeur d* Atene mitiative.
When the Bunker Hill Mining Company, an
owner/operator at the Bunker HiU site in
Shoshone County, Idaho, filed for bankruptcy In
January 1991, EPA realized Its rights to the
company's assets were In danger, and moved
quiddy to prevent a similar situation with a
related entity,, the Bunker Limited Partnership
(BLP). Hn% the agency filed QESCLA Uem on
BLP and all of i* subsidiaries' property within
the boundaries of the 21-eem site. This not only
prevented the company from selling its assets, but
also provided EPA with priority over BLFs
unsecured creditors once BLP filed for bankruptcy
(which it did that June). Second, EPA issued a
CERCLA §106 Unilateral Administrative Order
(UAO) to BLP in September 1991, specifying
cleanup actions which BLP was now required to
undertake. As a result EPA now had a priority
claim which BLP was required to fund, and the
Bankruptcy Court ordered the transfer of $2
million into an EPA Remediation Account
After obtaining the $2 million, EPA continued to
seek administrative priority for the majority of
BLP's remaining assets, valued at over $10
million. Despite the claims ol other parties, EPA
prevailed and on July 13, 1993, the Bankruptcy
Court ordered that at least $13 million of BLFs
assets be set aside for cleanup.
C3i«iiiiqH_3i|f a Company f^jQ .SBfflrfllMiii iUfa
and related Sites located in O»ram*rat.City,
Denver Adaaia and Denves Counties, Colorado:
The Chemical Sales Company (CSQ Supeifund
Site, and related Sites are located In Commerce
City, Denver, Adams and Denver Counties,
Colorado. The site soils and ground water are
contaminated with volatile organic chemicals,
resulting from various leaks and spills from the
CSC tank farm, rail cars during unloading
operations, and jpflb raulting during transfer of.
chemicals from bulk storage to containerized
'Storage. * • -
The Ouemka! Sates Company (CSQ, one of me
ten PRPs, is a Respondent regarding several
matters resulting from a common set of operative
facts, ftat CSC on September 9,1989, signed an
Administrative Order on Consent (AOQ to
perform m« SI/PS for the first operable unit
(OU1), Th» AOC directed payment of all EPA
oversight costs. EPA received $91425 as a first
installment payment. CSC was billed for
$106415 for the remainder ol IPA's oversight
costs, This amount has never been reimbursed.
CSC Is also a Respondent to a UAO issued on
February 2& 1992, pursuant to CERCLA §106 at
OmoftheCSCSiiRirfundSlte. CSC is liable for
a dvU penally of $7,423 pursuant to a Consent
Order and Consent Agreement entered into by CSC
for a violation of CERCLA §103. This penalty
assessment resulted from CSCs failure to
immediately report a release of methanot from
its fodJity which was in excess of its reportable
quantity to the National Response Center. And
lastly, CSC is also potentially liable for past
costs incurred as parr of EPA Off-Post Rocky
Mountain Arsenal OU1 (RMA-OU!) and costs
incurred undef the site name "South Adams
County*, bom of which are physically located in
CSCOU2. , • •
On February 21, 1992, CSC filed a petition for
reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code, H U5.C 101 £U2CU ^ **« u-5-
Bankruptcy Court On June 9,1992, EPA completed
a Bankruptcy Litigation Report requesting that
the Department of Justice file a Proof of Claim.
Because of the above situation, delays occurred In
the work schedule specified in the February 1992
UAO. On August 31,1992, a Q&CLA § 107 co*t
rery referral was sent to DOJ. EPA seeks to
recover $16,085X33.41 in removal and remedial
action costs as well as all penalties associated
with me EPCRA violation, and the AOC, and
the (JAO- TtOs action will be filed in the Federal
District Court for the District of Colorado.
This case supports the Headquarter*/Regional
priorities in the use of enforcement tools n resolve
violations in the most effective and efficient way.
, 3-79
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
tgT AcHoti.
IL (N.D. DtU: On June 22, 1992, two consent
orders settling the claims of the United States
were lodged in the above-referenced case in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court lor the District of
Delaware with Harvard Industries of
Fannington, NJ, a direct subsidiary of F E L
Corporation (formerly Frequency Engineering
Laboratories) ol Fannington, NJ. Harvard
Industries nmnufactures automotive accessories,
hose products, specialty fasteners, armaments,
and electronic products. Hie settlement involved
four NFL sites, the Also Anaconda Site to Region
V, the Kramer Site in Region VH, the Mega Alta
Site in Region Q, and the Keefe Site in Region L
The total amount of this settlement to be paid to
cash and pursuant to plan doPars is $769729.
EPA had filed a multi-regional proof of claim on
August 29,1991 , . '
hi me Imfleo C
qrp^iUon
S«b«faM«ri«a- (W.D.
TtxJ: This is a large, nationwide bankruptcy
action, potentially settling the United States*
claims against Insiko at approximately 264 sites
located throughout the country. On January 13,
1991, Insilco Corporation and thirteen of its
subsidiaries (hereinafter Insiko") filed a
voluntary petition for '•"y**"***'1 pursuant to
Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.
§1101 et seq. in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Western District of Texas in San
Antonio. . • '
On August 20, 1991 and January 13, 1992, the
United States, on behalf of EPA and the
Department of Interior (DOI), Sled proofs of
claim alleging Insilco and its subsidiaries are
jointly and severally liable to the United Slates
under the CERCLA for response costs incurred in
connection with a number of sites across me
nation. Approximately 264 additional sites,
broken down into four categories, have been
identified by ImUcoard will be dealt with in the
proposed agreement. Fifteen sites are either on
the NFL or sites at which EPA has performed
removal activities. Thirteen others, most
unknown to EPA, are currently believed by Insiko
to be undergoing some form of remediation as
State-lead sites. At three other State-lead sites,
remediation is underway by other parties. Insilco
may have additional liability at 233 other sites
as a result of Insilco' s past ownership and/or
operation of such sites or Irailco's arranging for
disposal of hazardous wastes at such sites.
In m National Gyp«qn; In a CERCLA bankruptcy
case the 5th Circuit held that when mere was
more than one responsible debtos they each may
be found jointly and severally liable. The court
issued its decision In February, 1992; the case has
many implications for similar actions. The site,
comprised of a main site and three satellite sites
with asbestos contamination, was an asbestos
manufacturing plant. The main site is located in
Millingtnn, in Morris County, NJ, and the
satellites are located in MeyersviUe and in the
Great Swamp areas of Passaic and Harding
Townships. Gypsum filed for Chapter 11
reorganisation in 1990.
The holdings to the decision an:
* Joint and several liability applies in
bankruptcy cases; Where there is more than one
debtor each debtor may be held jointly and
severally liable under CERCLA.
' The CERCLA §U3,'h) ban on pre-
enforcement review applies to bankruptcy cases.
The exceptions to this bar are activated when the
US. files a proof of daim. Response costs incurred
post-petition, resulting from pre-petition conduct
may be entitled to priority for administrative
expenses if the costs were required by conditions
that posed "Imminent and identifiable" harm to
the environment and public health.
* Response costs incurred by the US at sites
presently owned by the debtor are entitled to
priority for administrative expenses, if the "costs
were necessary to remedy conditions posing an
imminent and identifiable threat to public
health or safety."
tn rft Unimyjl Bankruptcy. (N.D. Ind.): On
September 29,1992, an agreement to settle EPA's
and DOfs claims against the Debtors in a
Chapter 11 bankruptcy was entered in the
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division. The debtors, five
companies which were former operating divisions
of Uniroyal, fine, and are currently held by the
Jesup Group, Inc., filed for Chapter 11
reorganization on November 20, 1991. The
companies manufacture plastics, rubber-based
products, and adhesives and sealants. EPA's Proof
of Claim covered claims under CERCLA at nine
sites located in Regions I and V, and for one Clean
Air Act civil penalty data at a facility in Region
3-80
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement Accomplishment Report
V. After negotiations between EPA, DOJ, the
Jesup Group, and Jesup's outside counsel, 11 other
sites, located In Regions I, n, and V, were included
in the settlement agreement
Under the settlement in this case, EPA, along
with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and
the States of Wisconsin and Indiana, will receive
distributions under the Reorganization Plan, of
allowed claims totaling $27,290,419, representing
approximately 15% of the reorganized Uniroyal
stock. A total of $18,885,104 will go to EPA
directly, $4,022415 'to PRP Trust Funds at NFL
sites where FRPs an doing the y*mffM work,
v.EPA.- Although this is a defensive
$229,000 to DOI, $154.00 to Indiana, and
$4,351,000 to Wisconsin. All these claims will be
treated like most of the other general unsecured
creditors, and will bt satisfied by distribution of
stock of the reorganized companies, which have
current estimated values of between 20 to 40 cents
on the dollar
Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Enforcement
TSOt - enforcement embraces tits baste
tenets of pollution prevention and data quality,
TSCA'5 regulation of existing and new chemical
substances encourages the manufacture and use of
substances that post only reasonable effects on
human health and the environment. In Ft 1992, *
TSCA enforcement actions emphasized
compliance with ih* premtnufacture
notification requirements fur -mm chemical
review the reporting and retention of
information under §8, compliance with the
AHEXA rule, and til proper use, storage, and
disposal of PCS*, Many settlements resolving
TSCA administrative enforcement actions are
.notable for their inclusion of supplemental
environmental projects incorporating pollution
prevention and environmental auditing
provisions* .. .*;*., '•
AlH«d! Colloida. fae: On September 29.1991 EPA
signed a Consent Order assessing a penalty of
$900,000, against Allied Colloids, Inc. CACH
for violations of §§5 and 13 of TSCA. Penalties
were aMOicd for failure to submit proper notices
and documentation. In addition, AQ must conduct
an audit of its past compliance with TSCA, report
additional violations discovered during the
audit and pay stipulated penalties for these
violations up to a cap of $1 mutton. —
case rather man an enforcement action, a
September, 1992, decision by me US. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has important
enforcement implications. The decision affirms
EPA's assessment of fines against ALM Corp. of
New Jersey for violations of TSCA §13 import
certification requirements. The decision is the
first court test of these requirements. It affirms
EPA's requirements of self-policing by importers,
upholds SFA's authority to enforce me Customs
Service regulations that require certification, and
subjects importers which violate certification
requirements to civil penalties. AIM filed
petition for certiorari with the UJ5. Supreme
Court which was denied. ' ,
M
Region HI signed a Consent'
Agreement and Consent Order ("CACO")
memorializing a settlement with Bryn Mawr
College for violations of TSCA and the PCB Rule.
The CACO provided for a civil penalty of
$126,240 and takes into account a completed
supplemental environmental project In which the
college removed or retrofitted all of its PCB
transform's feejofg the end of their useful life. .
The college documented expenditures for the
project toiling nearly $600000.
- Oipyijcal Produrtm IXvtiionj Cf*
March, 18, 1992, the Regional Administrator for
EPA Region IV executed a Consent Order in lojhe.
n/ fargJII Tnr Ctwmteal Prducts
The Regional Administrator for EPA
Region V had executed a companion Consent
fv hi In tt» Matter of Caryin Tr^f , , f"himical
Dtvfarion on February 19, 1992. This
concluded the first and only multi-regional
settlement of a TSCA administrative enforcement
action.
Region V issued an administrative Complaint
against CargUl on March 27, 1990. After t Region
IV TSCA inspector arrived' at CargUl's Georgia
facility, CargUl approached EPA about the
possibility of a single, national settlement. EPA
negotiated a national settlement covering five
EPA Regions. Tne Consent Agreement for these
two cases provides that Cargttl will pay a civil
penalty of 5121,050, or 90% of me proposed
penalties in both cases, and will conduct a TSCA
§§4, 5, 8, 12, and 13 Compliance Audit covering
seven CargUl research and manufacturing
facilities in Minnesota, Georgia, Illinois.
3-ai
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishmenu Repon
California, and Texas. Cargill will pay
stipulated penalties for violations identified
during the audit, up to a limit of $1,200,000.
Cargill may perform some or all of eleven
supplemental enforcement projects described in
the CACO at Cargill Resin Products Division
facilities across the country in exchange for credit
against stipulated penalties in excess of $250,000.
TadmoiogjfK On April 22, 1992,
Environmental Appeals Board Judge Edward S.
Reich signed t Consent Order which required an
administrative civil penalty of $50,644 for
violation* of TSCA. The Agency's original dvil
administrative Complaint charged Champion
with violations of the TSCA §5 Premanufacture
Notification (PMH) nil*, and also with
violations of the TSCA Inventory Update Rule
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Repan
transformers; and had failed to properly dispose
ofPCBs.
l«
t During FY 1992, Region V
settled its aabestos-in-schools complaint against
Hall-KLmbreU. This was the Agency's largest
case Issued under TSCA's AHERA requirements
and involved alleged violations at 160 schools
within me Archdiocese of Detroit. Specifically,
in the complaint; Region V had alleged that
management plant developed by Hall-Klmb«U
did not contain sufficient information to allow
schools to properly manage their asbestos-
contoining materials, ' • '
As a result of the settlement, Hall-Kimbrell
revised 160 management plant (MPs) within the
Archdiocese of .Detroit, 188 MPs for Local
Education Agencies within Michigan,
approximately -600 MPt it had prepared for
schools within Blinds, and approximately 50
other MPs it had prepared lor schools within
legion V. HaU-KImbrefl win alto correct at no
cost to 'the school* aQ identified dtfidgndin in
any MP it had prepared which constitute
AHERA violations in the event that a school
identifies the violation, and requests correction.
DM rework has already cost HaU-lQmbreU at
least $2£ million, and even though they have
neither admitted or denied liability, they have
also agreed to pay a settlement of $160,000
U.S. . w.. TTnt
Ttteorpaf itxlt A
coordinated multi-media inspection under TSCA
§§5 & 8 and EPCRA §313 was conducted at Huiach
Detergent located In Salt Lake City, Utah.
Violations of both statues were discovered.
Huisc^i Detergent agreed to a combined
TSCA/EPCRA cash settlement of $30,940 and a
SEP of $400,000. The SEP will consist of the
construction of an enclosed chlorine delivery
system and ancillary systems such as a scrubber,
control, and ventilation system. The SEP will
minimize the possibility of a chlorine release
into me surrounding «
eo
Tn«?.i In this TSCA
administrative action, failure by IctCD':
Coraiona, Texas facility to submit a Preliminary
Assessment Information Rule (PAIR) Report was
alleged. PAm reporting is required by §8(a) of
TSCA, and Involves basic production/Importation
volume, use, and exposure Information. The.
Consent Agreement and Consent Order settling
this case required payment of $19,300 penalty,
establishment of a revised TSCA Compliance
Manual, additional training for Jetco employees,
and changed company operating procedures to
ensure TSCA compliance, especially with regard
to PAIR and other TSCA §8 reporting
requirements* '
Kanak* T«C«a Corpora Hatu This TSCA
administrative action is one of the few cases
involving alleged violations of the requirements
for the research and development (R&D)
to TSCA premanufacture notification
(PMN) regulations. The settlement included a
penalty payment of $17,000, and development
and implementation of a comprehensive training
program and a standard operating procedure for
proper adherence to TSCA for all chemicals
handled by Kaneka (with specific emphasis on
TSCA import certification* and compliance with
the requirements for R4D exemption from PMN
requirements). The company also agreed to
relocate and c^eraie its drum crushing system
away mm a nearby stream to provide enhanced
containment of hazardous material residues, and
to construct and operate a new storage facility for
drummed treatment chemicab to greatly reduce or
eliminate the possibility of an environmental
release. The*": supplemental environmental
projects cost approximately $20,500, and were
—npleted in October 1992,
'mjtttm UHyti««. Lafiyttt*.
A TSCA PCI administrative
complaint was Issued against Lafayette Utilities
In 1991. Settlement included a supplemental
environmental project requiring the testing of 8%
of the utility's transformers witttin one year of
the date of the compliance ordec .The compliance
order required expenditures of $94,200 and a 10%
cash penalty of $3,140. Monthly status reports are
also required to be submitted to EPA, to include
sampling and analytical results showing PCB
concentrations of oil in transformers; total number
Qy ^Zea^nflwOe^ETslECft OBAnlMA ^S'lJUrtlfltfJ uHaft CeufiAi^LAf TsTCHi'HTW
and actual cost documentation, contracts. Invokes,
and related correspondence with the status
reports. Lafayette Utilities had expended
approximately $162,838 and tested
approximately 2348 transformers by June 1992.
I«i tfi« Matter of
m Oi«|«itgala- tiM.i On June 30, 1992,
Environmental Appeals Board signed a Consent
Order settling an administrative civil penalty
3-83
-------
FF /P92 Enforcement AccompUsfarsims Report
action against this chemical manufacturer. The
Agmcy had charged Lindau Chemicals, Inc. with
two violations of the Inventory Update Rule
(IUR). Lindau had failed to report two chemical
substances manufactured in excess of 10,000 pounds
during its latest complete corporate fiscal year
before August 25, 1986, as required by the IUR.
Subsequent to issuance of the Complaint; Lindau
voluntarily disclosed that it had also failed to
report three chemical substances manufactured
during the company's last complete fiscal year
before August 25, 1990, in violation of the IUR
recurring reporting provisions, Lindau agreed to
pay a $51,000 penalty to settle all Eve of the '
violations.
Corpora ttotn EPA c hai-opd Meghan
.. a subsidiary of Union Carbide, with
illegal manufacture of chemicals under TSCA §5.
EPA filed an administrative complaint seeking an
adjusted dvil penalty of $384,000. Pursuant to a
recent consent agreement McGhan NuSil agreed
to pay SIS'' 393 as the gravity-based penalty.
This penalty is due within 30 days of a signed
consent ordet
This administrative enforcement
action was brought for violation of TSCA §B(e).
Monsanto -**Zldd to report the results of a
cartinogenkity study of Santogard PV1 within 15
days as required by §8(e). Pursuant to a consent
agreement; Monsanto agreed to pay a fine of
$198,000 and to conduct an environmental audit on
its studies of developmental toxidty effects,
reproductive effects, and cairinogenldty. Post
audit, tne company paid $648,000 for the
violations found in the audit.
SIka Corporation! Late last year the Agency
issued an administrative complaint against Sika
Corporation for the illegal manufacture (import)
of chemicals into the United States. The
complaint sought an adjusted proposed penalty of
over S6J million. This is the highest penalty
ever sought under TSCA §5(a) which requires
chemical manufacturers to notify the
Administrator at least 90 days prior to
manufacturing a new chemical. Pursuant to an
executed settlement agreement Sika has agreed to
pay a cash penalty of $1,120700.
iy! In the last opinion from EPA's
Chief Judicial Officer (C]O), the QO ruled that
the general, five-year federal statute of
limitations does not apply to the assessment of
dvil penalties under TSCA. (The Environmental
Appeals Board now handles appeals that were
formerly heard by the chief judicial officer) The
ruling resulted from EPA's appeal of a TSCA
administrative case involving the Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing (3M) Company, based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota,
In 1988, EPA assessed a $1.3 million fine against
3M for importing two new chemical substances
between '1980 and 1986 without submitting a
premanufacture (PMN) as required by §5 of TSCA.
After a Hearing, the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) reduced the penalty to $104,700. EPA
appealed the penalty reduction on the ground
that the AL| had not properly applied EPA's
TSCA §5 enforcement response policy. During the
appeal, 3M argued mat the ALJ erred in narrowly
construing the general statute of limitations as not
applicable to an administrative action for the
assessment of a dvil penalty under TSCA.
In ruling on EPA's appeal, the QO upheld
reduction of the penalty and also ruled that held
that EPA was not barred from filing charges for
TSCA violations more than five years after an
event had occurred because "Federal courts have
held that the United States is not bound by
statutes of limitation unless Congress dearly
manifests such an intention. 3M has appealed
mis dedsion with respect to the statute of
limitations to the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
TV«a« Eaitami EPA ts supervising the dean up of
PCBs at 89 sites subject to a Consent Decree
entered in October 1989, with Texas Eastern Gas
Pipeline Company (Texas Eastern). The Consent
Decree remains the most extensive settlement
ever obtained by the Agency against a singL
company, requiring PCB deanup estimated to
exceed $750,000,000. The Consent Decree requires
investigations at 89 compressor station sites,
which indudes: Remediation of 49 Class A*l sites
(heavily contaminated sites that require
remediation), characterization of 27 A-2 sites
(sites that are contaminated with PCBs at less
man the PCB deanup levels of 25/10 ppm), and
13 Class A-3 sites (sites where no PCBs arc
thought to be present).
To date, 12 A-l sites have been remediated {six
sites were remediated in 1991, six sites have been
3-84
-------
171992 EnforcfTnent Accompliihjneras Report
remediated in 1992). In addition to the six sites
remediated in 1992, Texas Eastern conducted
limited remediation activities at one other sits.
Further site characterization or sampling
activities have been completed at the 30 Class A-
1 sites, with six additional Class A-l site
characterizations being undertaken. Sampling
has been completed at four of the 27 Class A-2
sites. ,
Under ths decrea, Texas Eastern is required to
perform groimdwater monitoring at ths 76 Oaso
A-l and A-2 sites. To date, grpundwater
contamination, primarily PCBS and BTEX hava
been detected at 29 sites. Texas Eastern has, to
installed 500 groundwats1 monitoring wells.
ChJorsfiil
fUSA>, fafri Chief Judicial Office? Ronald
l~ McCaflum on January 30,1992, signed a Consent
Drdsr requiring Tbsoh (USA), Int. to pay a $60,510
administrative civil penalty lor stvaral
violations of TSCA, Specifically, Tbsoh: felled to
submit to EPA i Notice of Commencement after
beginning manuracturo or import of two new.
chemical substances, in violation a* TSCA §S;
imported for- commercial purposes & covered
chemical substsnca without submitting a
Manufacturer's Report - Preliminary Assessment
Information (FAIR), in violation of TSCA §0; and
foiled to provide written notification to customers
to whom it distributed a research and
development (R&D) substance that it waa to be
used only for R&D purposes, in violation of TSCA
§5. In addition to paying thodvil penalty, Tosoh
agreed to notify each of ite customers that ths
substances they received were for E&D purposes
only. / - - '
UnivpMifrg ftfl W^^n^ton. SanttJQ.Waghifflgfr*"'
On January 6,1992, tte University of Washington
was fined $52,488, fot storage mazbing, disposal,
and use violatfcata of «a PCI regulations. (Tha
poialty amount was affected by the feet that th®
University had voluntarily disclosed several of
tho violations jprior to tho inspection;
• accordingly, a portion of the penalty had been
reduced consistent with EPA's T5CA Enforcemant
Rasponsa Policy.) In settling the complaint by ths
signing of a Consent Agreement and Consent Order,
ma University agreed to a cash penalty of
$26,244, and received mitigation of «ho remaining
balance of S26J44 by agreeing to spend at least
532,438 on the disposal of PCS «fuipment not
required by regulation.
Sandoz Chemical a. bie
Arnicas fqg^ The unique coordination
between enforcement rnd regulatory forces
continued in FY 1992 in ths chloranil cases.
Preliminary risk assessirtaits on chloranil by the
Offico of Pollution Provonrion and Toxics
indicated significant health risks resulting from
dkndn contamination of cruoraniL The fortunate
coincidence of OFs ongoing enforcement actions
against all chloranil importers created the
opportunity to quickly ochisve important risk
fadttettei through sstttemoii of mss3 enforcement
actions, rather than a protracted TSCA §6
rulonaldng.
Ths Agaicy arranged settlements with each of
th® chloranil Importers that would reduce the
amount of dfasxfat imported Into ma United States.
Undo? truss sattiamants, tha companies commit to
stop importing chloranil or to import only
chloranil containing k&9 than 20 ppb dloxin.
During FY 1992, OI satisfactorily settled cases
With Sandoz Chomifaljj, Jqflf Hoechst-^pJangse
1Q Amgrf fog- Together with AhB.
Qtuga
i Boeki
(settled in FY 1991} and
Cogg. (who has
itted to tha dlojdr. isducticn, but not yet
resolved all Issues related to settling the
enforcement case), all chloranil importers and
manufacturers hava significantly nsiuced dloxin
contamination. OPPT is now in ma process of
Qiauring mat other companies do not import or
manufactures chloranil with higher dioxirt
concentrations by issuing a Significant New Use
Rula under TSCA §5.
Hoaehfit Colanamn On Juna 1, 1990 the Agency
fifed a civil Gdministrativo complaint against
Hoschat Cgt«n«»
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
(G1PS). The complaint proposed a penalty of
526,500. In addition to agreeing to pay a propose
penalty of $15,300, Hoechst Celanese agreed to
import only low diorin chloraniL
Sandta Chemical Corporation? Oil June 10,1992,
EPA entered into a Consent Agreement and
Consent Order with f j«dQ»
•of Charlotte, North Carolina,
resolving alleged violations, of TSCA §4.
Specifically, EPA filed a civil administrative
complaint in the amount of $39,750 against
Sandoz in June of 1990, alleging violations of the
Halogenated Dibenzo-p-dioxin/Dibenzofuran
Test Rule (Test Rule) and violations of the TSCA
Good Laboratory Practices Standards (GLPs).
Sandoz imported the chemical substance
chloranil, a chemical used in the manufacture of
dyes and rubber for which testing is required
under the lest Rule and §4 of TSCA. The
complaint charged Sandoz with late submission
of a notice of intent to test, late submission of test
proton i, late . ibmission of test data, failure to
test in accordance with the EPA approved
protocol, failure to submit statements certifying
that the tests adhered to the TSCA GLPs, failure
to perform the test in accordance with the TSCA
GLPs, and failure to submit additional required
infon»«ation U|>on detection of halogenated
dibenzo-p-dioxins or dlbenzofurans above the
limit of quantification. The original complaint
was amended in October of 1991 to add an
additional day of violation, increasing the
proposed penalties up to $87,000. The settlement
called for a cash penalty of $32,521 and a
commitment from Sandoz to import a lesser-
contaminated form of chloranil in the future. EPA
has negotiated similar agreements on a voluntary
basis with other manufacturers and importers of
chloranil not subject to enforcement actions, until
such time as a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR)
can be promulgated. This will allow EPA to
gather detailed information on specific uses and
exposures resulting from the" import or
manufacture of more contaminated chloranil and
enable the Agency to control risk on a case-by-case
basis.
Anti-MIcrobial Testing Initiative
EPA and FDA have embarked on a joint
testing and enforcement initiative covering the
anti-microtriol industry. Following a GAO report
"Pesticides, EPA Lacks Assurance They Work',
the two Agencies negotiated a Memorandum of
Understanding under which the fDA laboratory
in Minnesota is conducting anti-microbial testing
for EPA. FDA perform parattd tests for FDA on
sterilant products classified for use on "medical
devices." Bdscd on risk reduction, test
gludereldehyde based sterilanta were tested
first, followed' by hospital level disinfectants.
Collections were done by states where the
product is produced. (Information on production is
submitted to the Agency annually under FIFRA
See, 7.) EPA has issued two SSUROs pursuant to
the testing and three civil complaints. In
addition, follow up actions has included
laboratory audits of the laboratories which
generated the registration data for claims which
were found to be fids* by the tests and meetings
are- being held with companies to change labels
to delete unsubstantiated claims.
Airline Maintenance Facility Initiative
In addition i> participating f»" in the
Region's multi-media enforcement program, the
TSCA program also continued work on the
Airline Maintenance Facility enforcement
initiative it commenced the precious year. As
part of (Ms industry-specific enforcement
initiative, complaints were issu^ against
several airlines during FY 1991 for violations
involving the use of PCBs in transformers and
other electrical equipment at airports. FY 1992
follow-up included:
lit the Matter of American AlfUn«>. IHC.I An
administrative complaint had been issued by
Region Q against this carrier which cited PCS
infractions at its facility in JFK Airport in New
York City. A Consent Agreement and Consent
Order (CA/CO) was issued imposing a penalty of
$112,700. The complaint dted 57 violations
concerning 13 PCB transformers in six separate,
locations at American's facility. The violations
included failure to maintain records of annual
inspections and maintenance history, failure to
prepare annual documents and to provide required
protection against electrical faults.
Tn th« Matter of BriHah Airway* t-h*- In March,
1992 Region II settled an administrative
complaint against British Airways which
concerned PCB violations at the carrier's cargo
facility at JFK Airport in New York. The Consent
Agreement and Consent Order (CA/CO) provides
3-86
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Repon
for a penalty of $65,000. The complaint, issued in
June 1991, cited failures to mark PCS transformers
properly, to perform required quarterly
inspections, and to prepare and maintain annual
documents. The complaint was based on an EPA
inspection done November 1990i
Emergency Planning and Community
RighMo-Know Act (EPCRA)
Enforcement
, EPC&A establishes a structure at the state
and local levels to assist communities in planning
for chemical emergencies and requires facilities
to provide information to EPA on various
chemicals present in tht community, which
shall to made available to the public. Under
§313 certain manufacturing facilities must
provide EPA vith annual data m the amounts of
chemicals that they release into the
environment, either routinely or m a result of
accidents. In addition, facilities must report
accidental releases of extrtmetj hazardous
substances' and CERCLA 'hazardous substances"
to state and heal response officials, and report to
state and local officials inventories of chemicals
on their premises for which Material Safety
Data ihetts exist. FT U91 enforcement efforts
targeted nonreporters as wett m late and
incorrect reporters*
Galvanizing is a hot dip galvanizer which was
inspected and found in violation of the Toxics
K 'ease Inveroory for Fafluze to Report (6 counts).
The facility was assessed a penalty of $32,300, of
which'$19,000 was payable bi cash, with the
remainder (J13,300) mitigated fat consideration of
the Respondent's expenditure of more than
$168,000 for a Supplemental Environmental
Project. This project provided a new sulfnrk add
recovery system which reclaims and treats the
add used at the facility, thereby reducing the
amount of add required In me galvanizing process
and reducmg acid wastes. .
JjjtjhjLfi^ajtlaXjfltJajxcj* On October Z3,1.191»
Region I issued a consent agreement in which
Balzers agreed to pay a 58,300 penalty to settle a
administrative complaint for a violation of
chemical emissions reporting requirements at its
Hudson, New Hampshire facility. The complaint
alleged that the company failed to report its
, emissions of freon-113 in calendar year 1907 in
violation of §313 of EPCRA. At its facility; the
company manufactures high technology vacuum
equipment for film processing and cryogenic
equipment for laboratory applications,
The company also agreed to undertake a
supplemental environmental project in connection
. with settling the case, in which the company
will make expenditures in excess of $56,475 to
replace freon-based cleaning systems in its
facilities in Hudson, New Hampshire and
Fremont, California. Instead Balzers will use an
aqueous-based system mat will not result in
emissions of tank chemicals to the environment
fii tfi*
mnftt V «*al-
In May of
1991. Region Q had issued an administrative
complaint against Belmont Metals of Brooklyn, ;
New York, the company contested me complaint,
contending mat EPA's enforcement response policy
is arbitrary and capricious. ' Chief
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Henry B. Fnzier
granted EPA's motion for a partial accelerated
decision against me Respondent. Judge Frazier
found mat Belmont violated §313 of EPCRA for
failing to file Forms R for nine chemicals in the
1967 and 1.988 reporting years. Frazier also
denied Bebnonfs motions to, dismiss and for
discovery. Late* one day before me penalty issue
was to be tried, the parties reached a settlement
in which Belmont agreed to pay a penalty of
$90,000.
Belmont had contended that EPA's enforcement
response policy was arbitrary and capricious, it
claimed that EPA arbitrarily excluded it from
4va teas punitive enforcement actions taken und«r
EPA's June I, 1991, Late Reporting Enforcement
Initiative, Judge Prazier rejected these arguments,
ruling mat EPA's decision to prosecute and enfoi :*
or not is one of absolute discretion for me agency.
Additionally; he held that the factors which
determine the appropriate penalties are not
relevant In deciding whether Belmont
EPCRA's reporting requirements.
fa_ffc« M«ff»» «>< a.Ai^Mt Stttl Cor
action, initiated by Region tt, was me nation »
first EPCIA p!3 daita quality case Issued ana
settled. In addition to four non-reporting
violations, m* complaint alleged data quality
violations (failure to report a reason^t*
estimate) for three chemicals. The ease w.i»
3-37'
-------
FT 1992 Enforcmeru Accomplufaninu Rtpon
settled for a penalty of $45,000 and the company's
agreement to file a corrected form R for one
chemical.
In ^fr« Vfatfay $f Diirymiin'a CaoparariTf
Crttm>rv AM«ri.tf«•, On July 13, 1992, EPA
signed » CAFO with Dairyman's Cooperative
Creamery Association ("Dairyman's") to settle
violations ol §313 of EPCRA. The CAFO contains
significant supplemental mvtronmentai projects
worth more man $500,000, These projects include:
1) testing and Installation ol equipment to remove
nitric and phosphoric add from a liquid waste
stream; 2) installation of a computer controlled
system ID increase the efficiency of cleaning milk
evaporation equipment, thus reducing, of the
amount of nitric and phosphoric add used during
the cleaning process; and 3) Installation of
reverse osmosis, ultraviolet light, and other
equipment to treat milk evaporator condensat**
thus providing potable water and reducing the
amount of chlorine used at ma facility.
The CAFO also requires Dairyman's to conduct a
one day seminar concerning the requirements of
§313 of EPCRA for other daily processors and to
pay a penalty of $30,000,
of Evalfrmirig M«nt»ftcEnf
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments fopori
it with a 1,000 gallon tank for a period of one
year; and thai decontaminate and eliminate the
1,000 gallon tank; 3) eliminate a trichlorethytene
vapor degreaser; 4) install a dosed loop cooling
system for non-contact furnace water; and 5)
complete an environmental audit of its facility.
Midwest Sintered has agreed to complete the
projects at a cost of more than $78,000. The
implementation of these projects will result in me.
elimination of use and storage of anhydrous
ammonia and elimination of use of
triehtoroethyiene vapor degreaseE
EPA'* action in this
on September 26V •
1989, when legion V Issued an administrative
complaint against Midwest Sintered alleging.
that it had failed ID submit Toxic Chemical
Release Inventory Reporting Forms for copperr
chromium, trichlorethylene, methanol, and
ammonia, respectively, for calendar year 1987.
Midwest Sintered admitted violations for copper,
chromium, trichloremylene, and ammonia. With
respect to net* moi, Mk*"-est Sbil rsd provided
Information which demonstrated that it had
processed an amount below the 75,000 pound
processing reporting threahokL During settlement
discussions, Midwest Sintered completed an
environmental audit to develop a SEPs proposal
fa *~ Mtti.nl M.+. nn Aprit 24 1992, Region V
signed a CAPO settling the Region's
administrative action against Mineral Met Inc.'*
Cleveland, Ohio facility. Mineral Met has
agreed to pay a penalty of $130tOOQ,whkh is me
largest settlement amount bi the EPCRA §302-
3U/CERCLA $133 program to date.
On October 19, 1990, Region V filed an
administrative complaint against Mineral Met
for EPCRA §311-312 violations. The. complaint
alleged late reporting of 22 hazardous chemicals
stored above the threshold planning quantity of
10,000 Ibs. and late submission of Emergency and
Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms (Tier
forms) to the State Emergency Planning
Commission, Local Emergency Planning
Committee, and local fire department for 1987
and 1988. In response to the complaint; Mineral
Met argued mat it did not have to report certain
of me substances. The Region reviewed consultant
and accountant reports and, in some cases,
accepted Mineral Mefs claims. However,
Mineral Met incurred substantial costs in
providing this information which, in addition to
the penalty and attorney's fees, should deter it
from, in it§ own words, having 'some [employee]
who doesn't know anything type up a list" in
order to satisfy EPCRA statutory requirements in
the future.
U.S. v. M^ptri Rubturr Company; Nephi Rubber
Company (NRQ makes specialty rubber hoses fur
the gas and oil industry, hydraulic hoses and
many other forms of specialty hoses. An EPCRA
inspection revealed a number of violations of
EPCRA. The inspection also helped identify a
number of possible multi-media violations in aic
watex and discharge to land. EPA, Region VETs
Aift Watt* and VMmste Management Divisions
were notified and they in turn notified the State
of Utah. A. joint Utah and EPA inspection
resulted in joint complaints being issued (State of
Utah, EPCRA SS 3U. 312, and 313, and RCRA).
Complications developed when a financial
review discovered that NRC was in Chapter 11
bankruptcy. Because me company had de-tared
bankruptcy, EPA faced the prospect of not
receiving any fine. It was jointly decided with
the Slate of Utah to minimize the .cash fine and
maximize SEP. The company agreed to cooperate.
Based upon divisions within the Region and
with the State of Utah, a Pollution Prevention
Grant was awarded. The SEP/Pollution
Prevention Grant alternative provided a win-win
situation and will help make NEC a company
that is environmentally acceptable,
environmentally benefit the community of Nephi,
Utah, enhatxe the State of Utah's environmental
activities, and settle EPA's complaint against
NRC
TH tfi.M«tf«T at Stan A Shop Snptnrnrktt
Qffynr On September 22,1992, Region I issued
a consent agreement in which the Stop & Shup
Supermarket Company of Braintree,
Massachusetts agreed to pay a $25,323.25 penalty
to settle an administrative complaint for
violations of EPCRA reporting requirements at its
facility in Rtadville, Massachusetts. In
addition, me company has agreed to donate
S2U10J3 worth of computer and other emergency
response equipment to the Local Emergency
Planning Committees (LEPCs) of the
municipalities of Boston and Dedham in
connection with the settiemant of the action. The
computer equipment will assist the L£PC> m
tracking and storing information about the
-------
FY1992 EnforcewieruAaxmpi&ttntJiaJieport
identity and location of hazardous chemicals
within the LEPC districts, and the other
equipment will enhance the LEPO' existing
'emergency response information systems by
providing dedicated telecommunication links at
chemical release incidents.
The violations wen discovered during an
inspection conducted as a result of an incident
notification report made by the facility to the
National Response Center (NRQ. _Thi company
was cited under QEBCLA and EPCRA for Its
failure to immediately notify the NRC, the State
Emergency Response Commission (SEHQ ofjhe
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the UEPC
of a release of the extremely hazardous substance
sodium hydroxide from the company1! facility on
Turf 9, 1990. In addition, EPA alleged that the
company faikd to provide a written follow-up
report of the release to the ^RC and me LEPC or
to file a material safety data sheet for ammonia
or a Bat of chemicals including ammonia or
hazardous chemical inventory forms with the
LEPC, SERC, and local fire department, aa
required by law. .
Federal Iiwctidde, Fungidde, fc
Rodentidde Act (FIFRA) EoJofeemeni
EPA regulates the ust of pesticides in On
United States under the authority of FIF14 fry
requiring Out all pestiddes sold and met tit titt
United States, including imported products, In
registered with EPA. FIFRA provides pre~
market datrmce of pesticides and pest-market
survettlanct of pesticides and pesticidal demos
to prevent unreasonable adverse effects upon
human health or the environment. Wider the
statute,: States hoot primary enforcement
responsibility for pesticide ust violations. FY
1391 enforcement efforts focused on violations of
the import-export requirements, good Moratory
practices retirements, product mislabdtng, and
• sale of uxrtg&tnA pesticides. *
in re fun
f On March 25, 1992, a
final administrative Consent Agreement and
Consent Order (CACO) was issued to Beil
Laboratories, fine, of Madison, Wisconsin, thereby
resolving numerous alleged violations of FIFRA.
The CACO requires Bell to pay a fine of $100400
and terminates a Stop Sale Order issued to the
company pursuant to §13(a) of FIFRA. In
addition. Bell has agreed to cease production,
distribution and sale of Its unregistered products,
except tinder specific conditions identified in the
CACO, aa well as to amend its 1991 annual
production report to reflect actual and accurate
production information regarding its registered
pesticides. As a result of this enforcement action,
the company has submitted registration
applications, for an unregistered products
identified in me compUint
'» ! • • '
Bell Laboratories, Inc. produces and distributes
rodentfddesandpestiddea. On February 2& 1992,
EPA had issued ea administrative complaint
alleging 31 violations of FEFRA. The violations
include violations of a cancellation order,
violations of regulations prohibiting the sale or
distribution of untegistered pesticides, violations
of-regulations requiring the filing of product
information, sefling or distributing a misbranded
pcstidde, and violations of distributing or selling
adulterated pestiddes. m addition, on March 4,
1992, Region V conducted an inspection of Beffs
facility at which t* ne EPA issued to the oanpa«y
a Slop Sale, Use oe Removal Order which ordered
Bett to stop distributing or seQing the products
identified In the complaint (35 tons of
rodentiddes).
mttmm
The Agency settled two civil administrative
enforcement actions alleging FIFRA violations In.
connection with pestidde export* to North and
Central America'
(a subsidiary of Crompton. and Knowles
Corporation) was charged with failure to provide
required label information in both English and
the language of the Importing country,, and for
errors in the annual shipment records which the
company submitted to EPA. bi a separate action,
the Agency charged HBDaboaJoc* with failure to
obtain a written statement from a foreign
puidiaser adDBDwledgmf that the p^itidde is not
registered lot use m me United States and cannot
be sold in the United States, and for failure to
label unregistered pestiddes intended for export
•Hot Registered for Use in the United States."
The respondents claimed the identities of me
foreign countries Involved as confidential business
information.
The Chief Judicial Officer (predecessor to the
Environmental Appeals Board) executed a consent
order on February 3, 1991 settling the Transbas
case for a civil penalty of 17,200. The
3-90
-------
FY1992 Enforcemoa AecoftpUshmatu Beport
Environmental Appals Bond executed a consent
order on May 5, 1992, settling the CNK
Dispositions cue for a civil penalty of $17;000.
I T'tl**** Coii lie- Q*h«P«- WariilttfftiiB The P.
J.Taggares Co., Inc., has agreed to pay a $300,000
penalty to settle a FIFRA administrative
complaint. Hie company has also agreed to
develop an internal pesticide safety and training
plan for its employees. P. J. Taggares Co. owns a
hay cubing facility In Othello, Washington.
During 1990, it was the practice of this frdttty to
have its truck drivers apply the fumigant
Phostoxjn to truckloads of alfalfa< cubes, which
were then hauled to the Ports of Seattle and
Tacnma/From May to October 1990, at least 368 erf
these fumigant applications took; place.
Phostwdn is a restricted use pesticide and must be
applied only by certified- applicators, or by
trained workers in, the physical presence of a
certified applicator. At the time of these
udder (s, neither of these fequircmBits was met
by Taggares employees, lite EPA Region X
complaint alleged 479 violations of FIFRA.
Additional violations included failure to placard
fumigated sites, failure to aerate containers
before moving them over pubic roads, and failure
to aer—: fumigated areas prior to reentry by
unprotected workers. This ease was referred to
EPA by the Washington Stale Department of
Agriculture, which had received a complaint
from a Taggares employee that he had become ill
after handling the rumigant This case will
emphasize the seriousness with which EPA views
worker piotection issues.
£lStlfJMIlfii2 Cfi October 4,199% EPA issued an
administrative complaint against C*i*»r
W»n»f» T amh«r» Ka Phriateii far wfadattotia of
the FIFRA Good Laboratory Practice regulations.
This was the first enforcement action brought
against a study sponsor under the GLP regulations,
40 CPU. Part 160. Any person who submits to EPA
an application for a research or marketing permit
and who, in connection with the application,
submits data from a study to which the GLP
regulations apply, shall mdude a statement that
the study was conducted hi accordance with the
GLP regulations. Carter Wallace submitted such a
statement to EPA In connection with its
application for a research or marketing permit.
However that statement was found to be false in
that the studies submitted were found to have
been conducted in violation of the GLP
regulations. That false statement formed the
basis of the $360,000 FIFRA Complaint. The
parties agreed to settle the matter for $132,000.
In addition to the cash penalty, Carter Wallace
agreed to submit a "GLP Assurance Protocol"
which is intended to serve as an in-house
corporate guidance document on preventing future
violations of the GLP regulations.
Slat* Enforcement Actions
Montana PeaaitiiiMit at Apicnltafa fMPAh
MDA responded to a complaint alleging that a
county weed district was transferring pesticides
from their origmai containers to other empty
containers bearing different brand names and
labels and not recording the actual product name
on application records. Specifically, the product
Thmsline was befog used in place of and in the
containers of me products Stinger and the product
Silhouette was being used to replace, the product
Arandop In Routdup container: viis switch was
being done to save the County money. The County
was found to have committed the following
violations: .false information was entered on
application records, use inconsistent with the
'actual" product label, chemical repackaging into
unauthorized containers, *nd . chemicals
distributed in unauthorized containers. After
intense deliberations, the MDA settled for a fine
of $730 and me County's agreement to implement
a pesticide education campaign in the media and
to implement a training program for employees.
The employee training program was scheduled to
cost the County $3,000.
Targeted enforcement of Phostoxin (aluminum
phosphide) labeling (including endangered
species label requirements). Region VIII
identified the sate and use of Phw»»«~.*.»
especially for the control of prairie dogs, for
special attention in FY 91 and continued this
emphasis in FY 92. Compliance monitoring
activities had indicated that RUP dealers were
not routinely providing complete labeling to
purchasers of Phostoxin (the labeling refers to a
* separate booklet). This problem seems to have
been uaiecled. There were concerns that users
were not complying with labeling requirements
aimed at protecting me Black Footed Ferret. Asa
result of this effort the Region has issued several
warning letters to Certified Private Applicators
in Colorado (Taytor Farm, Johnson Farm, •"" - -
3-91
-------
FY1992 Enforcaoau Accompluhaieat Jteport
Farm, Reed Farm, French Farm and Coppinger
Farm) for failure to comply with endangered
spedes labeling. The Region ha* also been
actively involved with the US. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Division of Wildlife to
resolve issues concerning prairie dog control and
the need to protect the Black Footed Ferret
Multi-Media Enforcement
i. w. Tha
Conorttiom
_ ct,
Bartfotdh A Consent Decree was lodged on
September 3,1992 resohrmg dvfl violations of (ha
dean Water Act and RCRA at tha Dexter
Corporation's paper manufacturing and]
facilities and oogeneration plant in Windsor
Locks, Connecticut At the came time, the
company entered a guilty plea to criminal
violations of the dean Water Act and RCRA. In
addition, in January 1992, Daxter entered mto a
compliance agreement with EPA which resolved
the admlniatratrve suspension of Daxter from
government conu.ictxng and subcontracting.
environmental audifs at Dexter's manufacturing
facflitksnationwide •• .
The dean Water Art/RCRA dvfl settlement
requires the company to take corractiv* actions
including installation of water pollution
treatment conducting of a RCRA. Facility
Assessment (RFA), and doaure of former
hazardous waste treatment storage or disposal
areas, and to pay a total of $9 million to dvil
pent'les ($7.2 million for water and $1J million
for RCRA). The settlement further requires the
company jp conduct a ajmyrehemfre multi-media
environmental audit at its fedlity.
The government*s complaint charged the company
with a series of violations of its NPDES permit
unauthorized discharges, and spills under ma
Clean Water Act and wan numerous violations of
RCRA mduding failure to file a Notification of
Hazardous Waste Activity, unpermitted
treatment and/or storage of hazardous wastes,
failure to prepare manifests for hazardous
wastes, violations of container management
requirements, and violations of land disposal
restriction requirements. .Pursuant to me
settlement the company will correct all
violations inducting spending about $13J million
for major water pollution control equipment and
$2-$5 million on the RFA and dosura. As a result
of these cleanup efforts, there will be a 70%
reduction In BOD and TSS levels in the company's
discharges to the Connecticut River, soil and
ground water contaminatfon by hazardous wastes
at the facility will be addres?*d, and hazardous
wastes will be more safer/ handled.
The settlement resulted from lawsuits brought
jointly on behalf of EPA and the State of
Cniaieuioit The penalties obtained were the
highest ever In die history of the water
. enforcement program and among me highest in
U.S.
1992, the United States filed a drfl complaint
in United State* District Court under RCRA, CAA
and , the CWA against the above-referenced
defendants. The defendants operate an electric
arc fumaca dust reclamation facility in
Palmerton, PA. The complaint seeks up to $25,000
pei day for each violation. The violations » e
alleged to have occurred over a period fci ! excess of
3 years. Tha complaint 'also seeks appropriate
N.D. Alajt Tha United SUtea brought ihis
action agamst ILCO, a secondary lead smelter,
and Ita president Dtegd Maffat seeking
its under OERCLA and injundzve
nriief, and dvil penalties for violations of RCRA
and CWA. Tt» original action Included daims for
further mhmctira relief under RCRA §3008{h)
and $7003, and CERCLA §106, although these
daims were settled during trial hi Jury and August
1988. Tha Court Issued a preliminary ruling on
December 10, 1990, ruling in favor of the U5, on
most Issues, finding defendants liable for dvil
penatthtf, li^uncii v« relief, and rebnbutsement of
response costa. Tha Court did not at that time
enter a judgment not did It rule on the amount of
or the form of mfunctive relief*
In its final Judgment on October 8, 1999X the Court
imposed a $3J Bullion penalty on ILCO. The
Court also ordered ILCO to comply with RCRA
and CWA, imposing several specific requirements,
including a requirement that ILCO meet the
RCRA financial responsibility requirements
during dosura, Tha Court alro awarded the US.
$045,033 in response costs under CERCLA. The
Court apportioned me penalty between the State
3-92
-------
Ft 1992 Enforcement Acawnp&Ancttj Riport
.(gg)
and Federal governments, with $2 million to be
paid to the United States and $1 J million to be
paid to the State of Alabama. This case has been
appealed to the Court of Appeal* for the
Eleventh Circuit
t«
yt Thte
case contained violation! of the PCS regulation*
as wtfl as reporting violations of EPCRA and
CERCLA. The oooipany agreed to dispose of four
PCB transfonnen and to install overflow alarms
on its add and caustic tanks. The one was settled1
for $9,6TO and the total cost of SEPs was $83,680.
In_nx Xcillv Ifer and Ounleili On !
1992, legion Vi Waste Management DtvUion
issued aa amendment on consent, to an
Administrative Order on Consent requiring a
remedial investigation and feasibility study
(RI/P5) at the Railly Tar * Chemical Superfund
site in Indianapolis^ Indiana. The amendment
integrates RCRA cunectlve action requirements
fc» ilia) /-,dlity Into the framewock of tha
original RI/P5 ordet
In Match of 1987, the Region had issued an
Administrative Order on Consent, pursuant to
122(a) and (dX3) of CERCLA, to Reilly tar *
Chemical Company for an RI/FS at me site. The
first record of decision (ROD) for the site was
signed on June 30,1992, and has a present worth
cost of $15,000,000. This first operable unit
remedy consists of the installation, operation,
and maintenance of a ground water well
extraction and treatment system and is designed
to prevent the migration of ground water.
contaminated with benzene, pyriduws, and
ammonia beyond the site boundaries.
The Region had moved to incorporate RCRA
corrective action Into the RI/FS because the
facility is also an operating RCRA treatment
storage and disposal (TSD) fadBty. It was Issued
a RCRA Part B permit in September of 1990. The
manufacturing processes at the facility Involves
the custom synthesis of pyridmes and pyridine
derivatives used la the manufacture of
automobile tires. The federal portion of the
permit contained extensive corrective action
requirements for those solid waste management
units (SWMU5) at the facility where a release or
threat of release had been Identified by a RCRA
facility assessment conducted by US. EPA. The
facility appealed most of the corrective action
provisions contained in the permit because of
alleged problems of RCRA/CIRCLA
coordination* • • • ,
In r ei Union
VTTPa
multi-media administrative penalty action has
been settled. The Administrative Complaint
included violations of the CWA, EPCRA, md
TSCA. ta addition to payment of a civil penalty
of $80,000, Union Electric agreed to undertake a
number of pollution prevention initiatives.
Federal Facilities Enforcement
•-Mir
Washington. DO
Violations of the NAAQS for SO2, caused by
building downwash at the Central and Wfest
Heating Plants of GSA,have been demonstrated
bydtopeakmmodeung. On February 18,1992, a 3-
party Federal Faculties Compliance Agreement
(Including Eh,t, G"A and the Distr! if Columbia
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs)
wascncuted. Thepurposeof the Agreement is to
bring the Central and West Heating Plants into
fafl compliance with fte requirements of
PSD/NSI, NSPS and the NAAQS. The
Agreement negated the need fc» - formal EPA
declaration of Nbnattalnment in the Nation's
Capital. . .
Roekv flat* fMlSHAPSk On March 3, 1992,
Region. VIH issued a dean Air Act §113
CompUai-oe Order to EG&G, the site's operators
for DOE. for violations of Subpart H of the
radlonudtde NESHAPS. The order requires
EG&G to achieve compliance with the effluent
monitoring requirements of 40 CPJL §61J3(b) and
to complete four specified projects fat order to
evaluate the, existing radionuciide monitoring
systems for modifications to bring them Into
A Federal
Fadltty CompUanot Agreement between EPA and
DOE was executed on October 31,1991, wifl brmg
DOS into fttfl regulatory compliance with the
Subpart H radionuciide National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Aif ™l**"£
(NESHAPS) lequirements by September 30,19».
This agreement Is a foUow-up to the JUitenm
compliance agreement completed in June 1991.
3-93
-------
FY1992 Eitforcemau Accomplishments Repon
operable units for purposes of investigation and
i l(rm Battalion
(NCBO i tfi
and TVrirdn
EPA, the State of Rhode bland,
and the Navy entered Into Federal Facilities
Agreement* (FFA) under CERCLA $120 for these
two fcdlitia on March 23, 1992. The NCBC and
NETC agreements an designed to address the
investigation, development, selection and
implementation of response) actions for all
releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances at the two installations. The FBAs
wen negotiated concunendy and £"**•*•» yimtia*
language, except far she specific provisions..
NCBC Devisville is eighteen nfles south of
Providence to Nc*m Kingstown, Rhode Island. ft
was listed on the NFL on November 21, 1989.
NCBC Is scheduled for dosun pursuant to the
Defense Base Oosun and Realignment Act of
1990. The tentative down* date is September,
1994. NBTC Newport was listed on the NFL on
November a, im NEIC Is mnenny-- Navy's
largest officer training fai IMIe. • •
the US. Defense Logistics Agency (DIA) signed a
Consent Order with BPA under which ft agreed to
conduct a Remedial Investigation/B-mlbillty
Study for the Arctic Surplus site near Fairbanks,
Alaska. DIA to the parent agency of the Deans*
Reutilizatfon and Marketing service, which
arranged for transport of contaminated materials
to the site, when (bey wen salvaged. DtAalso
conducted a removal action at Arctic Surplus in
1990 aid financed a further removal to 1991. This
is one of the few sites In the country when a
federal PRP has agreed to conduct response
actions at a prrvatetyWwned site.
Federal Facilities Agreement (FA) for Oak
Ridge was finalized in November 1991 and
became effective on January U 1992. The Oak
Ridge Reservation Is a DOB "megasite* that
consisto of three different major faculties: the
Oak Ridge National Ub, whfch Is charged with
conducting research for both defense and non-
defense purposes; the Y-12 Fumt which produces
components for various nudearwi
and the Oak Ridge Caseous Diffusion Plant
which was used for Uranium enrichment until
1985 when the plant was permanently shut down.
The Oak Ridge site is currently divided up into 43
During Fiscal Year
1992, U5. DOE clean-up of its Peed Materials
Production Center located in Femald, Ohio has
progressed to accordance with the requirements of
the Amended Consent Agreement signed on
September 20, 1991. Most activities have been
timely and for those activities that were
delayed, US. DOB obtained extensions of time in
accordance with procedures and criteria set forth
to the Consent Agreement Then an currently 27
plated, ongoing, or
One of the most notable problems at Femald are
tt* K-63 sflofc These two 80-foot (diameter)
surface tanks of-residue from the Manhattan
Project Juuiied the largest point source of Radon in
the country. The K-65 Silo removal action,
involving the installation of 800 tonsof bentonite
into the silos was completed ahead of schedule o^
November 28,1991. During the past fiscal year,
US. DOS reorganized its management at Fernald,
including the hiring of a new lead clean-up
tnctor to order to more efficiently focus its
Hanforrf
Ufa
As part of the
Hartford Iki-party agreement, DOB was to
complete construction and initiate operations of a
low level mixed waste laboratory on or before
January 31,1992. On October 31, 1991, DOE
submitted a request to change this deadline
which EPA and the suite of Washington denied.
DOE then initiated dispute resolution.
After protracted negotiations, the parties
reached agreement on the dispute. As part of the
settlement, DOE must seek funding for new
expedited response actions at Kanford, and
construct and operate an on-stie laboratory that is
smaller than that original laboratory. In
addition, DOB agreed to the assessment of a
$100.000 penalty.. Finally, the settlement allows
DOE one year to demonstrate that low level
mixed waste laboratory needs can be satisfied
using the combination of existing commercial
laboratory capacity and me downsized on-sita
laboratory currently under construction.
rm|> HiiffBTi' In February of
1992, EPA and DOB amended an existing pre-
Wtldgn Sprint Slat
3-94
-------
SARA cleanup agreement for the VfcJdon Spring
Site to bring U irto line wim tr* reo^iremeri* of
5120 of CERCLA. The §120 Agreement became
effective Jury 1991 The Weldon Spring Site is
located approximately 30 antes west of Sfc Louis,
Missouri. ttcor*istsoftwoncavcait%uotaiaress,a
217-acrecheinical plant area and a 9-acrt
limestone quarry. These areas an put of what
origfMfljr was a 17,000 act* ordnance work* used
by the Department of the Anny during World
The oidnance works
cfaeedatiheendofWoiidWtfnandaflbrtZOOO
acres of the property wen transferred to the1
State ol Missouri and the University ol Missouri.
In tfat odd- 1990% ABC a pmlemsor to DOB,
acquired what it now the chemical plant ana for
us* fat processing uranium and thorium ore
cuntemistta. Uranium and thorium processing
took place at th* chemical plant from
spproximetely 1997 unto . 196o» Tne Army re*
acquired the? property in 196T and began
.preparation for herbicide manufacturing, but no
*
-------
F71992 Eafortgsnsat Attomplahn&au Sepott
Nairy. 1*a Agreemmt required c^dopmsm and
implementation of a pollution prevention plan,
Tte was ons of tha fwy remaining case included
in ths Qiesapea&Q 837 EnfbrcemsnS Initiativa
announced by Administrator R&Oly in December
1989.
EPA
Department of tho Navy signed a Federal
Fsdlity Compliance Agreetwmi on May 22, 1992,
to fiddrzasRCRA violations at the Naval Surfec&
Warfeag Center DaMgran Division, Dahlgren,
VA. Under terms of fts Comptknca Agreasnent,
tho Navy in required to correct al RCRA
violations within a sp&dSs tim^irairtQ, This
enrbrcemertf action, was o component ol the
Chesapeake Bay cowpUara initiaftvi to target
facilities who*3 violations directly impact tho
water quality of me bay:
specific violation® indnded fafling to: (1)
irupacs ahipmento ol waeta to dttennine tf
to d
if tfe«y w«r® hazardous;
(3) oondoet analyst,, pric? to tftenaei
on esplodTQ-contaminatBd waste for Mi
valuct* Bid to halogen,, ratfa^ lad aid m«aay
OOR6BBS; (4) detemlna tfist ths shidgfi generated
IRMU tts on-5its wartewatec traateuent rlant la a
hasaidous waste and to mtifchaS feooa land
dbpcad; and (5) obtain a pad* ft» traatemtt otf
hazardous waste in cvtato osiifco of the
wastewater treaHnait plant
Tha Icppliance Agreement spadflai & numbe of
conucttv@ actions to b@ t&ki3i and & Unstable for
carrying tham ovft. IRQ Navy was required to
submit for approval by tha VA Department ol
Waste Management (VDWM) and revtew by the
EPA tha following H«JKS (1) a waste analysis
plan, tadudmf mttftcdi te enraJuatrng aKpte^v®'
_ contmninAtsd wasta, ind pfosedufK) to insptct
and analyaB shipments of h&zardcua waste (2) a
froundwaler monitoring plaa and deigns for a
groiutdwats; monitoring systom Installed to
on a quarterly basis affl upgradlcnt and
downgradioil w«Ds, fiw a minimum of at toast
feu* consecutive quarters; P) all Information in te
possesaioii regarding wa oanfflntrailom of lead in
the soil in areas where land applka&m ol aludp
has occurred; (4) a PoUution Prtventton/W&sts
Minimization Program to reduco tha quantity
and/of tojddty of tho wmstas gaataratad a2 the
facility. .
USI
Uahfl
Istaf*
& fidd dtoticn to tha Dspartmant of inargy at
the Idaho National Engineering Lab for
compUsna violatfcns of the underground storage
provistaa, DOB Etdtibmd compliance wi» tha
flgd citation in a timely
Pedoral P&dlity Compliance
whidi addresses 1SCA. violations at
ths DOS paeons diffusions plants in Ohio,
Kentucky sod "Bzsnsssca, fMcams affective in
Fabruary 1992. Ths-Agreemart establishes a plan
to "bring DQE% Uranium Enrichment Plants in
Portsmouth, Ohte ;csnd Paducoh, Kentucky and
DOE*8 fofmifr t?M»in«« Enrichment Plant fees ted
'taOafe RidgB, l^nesset Into full compUancs with
T5CA «nd ^ FO regulations. .
Ihft FPCA addressts fiv fequbonants of tha PO
f^utetfors agrpUcabfa to fha unauthorized usg of
PCBs 6s process lubrication oQ, vontilatfon duct
S&fllQI$BU flflo. otortjiflM'jjU 8OftBfl9Hl Q@R>lcQSES Qflol CM@
unauthorixed sttaafflt of PCBi at th* fvdlttn.
Thfe FPCA ccsnmte DOS to a dcsn-up schedule,
i ul trt3
maantime (e.g. Kroughmg and air aampBng).
FFCA wiS remain in effect until decommissioning
and dtmontion of al rares ^fllties (scheduled
for 2313).
A related case against a DOE contractor-operator
at the facilities, Martin Marietta Energy
Systems, was settled with payment of & WO Jim
penalty and correction of the violations.
r
rrtpHarmi A;
m,^m „ _ _ When
tha tegaidary Navy aircraft carries USS
~ r^gton was slated *P &a tiffli»faied to tha city
JMWMBKIMHMH** IT^IHP WBBMMWM^ VMF V IBB BiP"^" '••"• " ™ • "~^ ^—~ ^^ Jf
of Corpus Oviflti* "teas as & Etuseum, OFFE
undertook primary rsspondbulty te coordinating
al! tha ntcasaaiy EPA offkn and drafting ms
required documents to address tha unauthorized
use of PCBa en ft* vessel. Facilitating tha
transfer of the TOSS*! required «st drafting and
osecutton of two Compliance Agre«ma»ti within
an ecpadited toeftanis. Hw AgreameiH were
executed on Juna ia 1592, about thrst months torn
tha tints OFFE w&6 Inittafly contacted by the
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplatangru Stpon
Navy and Region VL The aircraft cairier Is now
exhibited as a museum in Corpus ChristL
Criminal Enforcement - All Statutes
UA v.
Kenth On October 9, 1991, Bright Leaf Sewage
Treatment Inc. (BLST) entered a plea of guilty to
a fekwy violation of the CWA. BLST,aKdttucky
corporation, was sentenced to a fine of $330,000
£iuAagllfi (D. MeyiOnJuneS, based on its conviction for the willful discharge of
effluent into Dry Branch, a tributary of me Salt
River in Mercer County. As part of the sentence.
1991 Anthony St Angeio, former owner of the St
Angelo's East Coast Furniture Renewal me of
IJamsvlDe, Maryland, was sentenced In Federal
District Court in Baltimore, Maryland, to 21
months in Jail and one year of supervised release
Mt St Angeio was convicted in-December 1991 of
four counts of }^*ff"* disposal of a hazardous
watte under RCRA. He was Indicted by a federal
grarid/iiry in May 1991 for dtrectmg employees »
dispose of waste furniture stripping solvents at
the company site In Maryland. He operated a
furniture refintohing business which largely
handled US, Government contracts.
U&JbJotuk <&O. Texas* On March 24,1992,
Baytank, foe* and three of Its current or former
employees, entered guilty plear -and were
sentenced in Houston, Texas. Baytank was fined
$1 million for six violations of the CWA occurring
between 1983 and 1986, and one conviction under
CERCLA. Havaar Nordberg, the former
executive vice president as wefl as Roy Jbhnsen,
the operations manager at Baytank, each pled
guilty to two violations of the CWA. Donald
Gore, an environmental consultant for Baytank
also pled guilty to one violation of the CWA.
Nordberg and Johnsen were each fined $40,000.
Gore was fined $20,000. The defendants had
dtodtti ged hazardous wastes, generated from the
rinsing of onshore chemkal storage tanks. Into
waters of the United Slates from vessels. The
discharges caused potentially significant damage
to the aquatic environment located near the
Bayport Turning Baste which flows into the
Houston Ship Channel.
Baytank, Nordberg, Johnsen, and Gore had been
tried previously on these charges in late 1988,
After the jury convicted the defendants, the court
dismissed certain counts against the company and
the individuals, and granted a new trial on other
charges. The appellate court reinstated the
guilty verdicts against Baytank, and ordered the
corporation to be sentenced for the offenses of
which it had been convicted; it also ordered
Havaar Bordberg, Roy Johnsen, and Donald Gore
to be retried.
the corporation conveyed ownership of the
the property upon which
the plant to located, and afl sewer lines and other
equipment necessary to operate the plant to a
corporation formed by the homeowners of the
Bright Leaf Estates subdivision, who are serviced
by the plant m addition, BLSTs principal
office* Jerry Tyiet conveyed ownership of
addttonal property to the same entity. BLST and
Tyler were also ordered to publish a public
apology lor the environmental violation and
Tyler waa ordered permanently barred from
participating in the operation of sewage
treatment f-dllties,
TJA v. Brfrtai Meyerf Sqiribb (N.D.N.Y.): On
April 24,1992, Bristol Meyers Squibb Co, located
in Syracuse, New York pled guilty, pursuant to a
plea ageeeaient to tour counts of violations of the
CWA m a- information filed by the US.
Attorney's office in the Northern District of New
York. Counts I and B alleged negligent discharge
of wastewmter Into a- water of the UJS. in
violation of a permit Counts m and TV alleged
negligent discharge of acetone,
memyilsobur/lketone, and condensate into a
water of the US. from a point source without a
permit Bristol Meyers Squibb was sentenced to
pay a fine of $3,500,000. Three muTlon dollars of
the fine was suspended upon the condition that
Bristol Meyers Squttb pay 8 milHdn to New York
State as restitution. Bristol Meyers Squibb
agreed riot to seek Federal or State tax deductions
for mese mantes. They atop agreed not to seek to
apply these monies to any other litigation with
regard to this agreement Furthermore, they
agreed to build and place into operation before
1996 e pretreatment facility for the wastewater
genetated by their operations, at a cost of no more
then $30 mfllkm nor less man $10 million.
i_y,S- •* Qie^pifia^ CopserVjati,fltt»£firjpflrABfln^flt
Gtaemim ifrf *•§•*»* M<1tM|i fZtAdfu*mx On July 8,
1992, a one count Information was filed charging
Chemkal Conservation of Georgia, Inc. (CCGI)
and Eugene Milton Goldfuss, the former plant
-------
FY1992 Enforcement AccompiMmsaa Xapon
manages- of CCQ, with felony violations erf tho
RCRA. On the above date, both CCQ and
Goldfuss pled guilty as charged to aiding and
abetting each other and other unnamed
defendants in tha illegal treatmant of hazardous
Cmmn
Qeven individuals
violation of Tide 42, United States Coda,
§6929 (dX2Xa). Ths violations occurred over a
ftva year peiiod beginning in 1S87.
As part of tha plea agreement CCQ was placed
on fiva (3) years probation and ordered to pay a
fln6 of eignfi hundred thousand dollars
now cooperating with IPA special agsnls, has not
During tSss period charged in tfes
CCQ owned and operated a hazardous waste foe!
blending and solvent recycling facility in
Vaktots, Georgia. .Ths facility was permitted to
accap^ various waste aolvenii including FWJ1,
PDJH, PfflB and POOS. Prom approximately April, *
1987 tc '.ugust1J89,GoMfwsasjndoth® onaamed
perseno acting on bsftal of CCQ, caused "Land
Ban* listed "F wastes to bo unlawfully treated
U3A (CD. Cat4t SLsty-flvo
ILS.
misdemeanor violations of the Ctei Wafter Act
ralaled to tfto unp^rmittod discharging of oil*
grease, and sandblast waste* and ths fab®
Aborting of *e»a dischargea, havt feai Oievnm
USA to plead guilty to oil 63 charges, and
pursuant » a plea agreemsit to pay ^J nrifllon
in criminal Sites. The piaa was altered ca July 20,
1SS2. In odditksn, a ecnsent decraj was lodged
with lha Court settling a parafld dirffl suit for
$1,300,000 fo? s totol of {d arilBan in ines. tin
case stssuned from ths operation ol Platform
Grace, an oil production facility In ths Santa
Barbara ChannsI ofif tna California eoast His
platform has & NPDES permit to dlschargo
treated process watee IE ths earty 1980*9,
company managtra realised tha8 th@ existing
treatatami system was inadequate to properly
remove oil and grease from tfta process watat An
effective method was discovered in 1984
becausa of expense, ths company sought cheap«
means to treat ths vratsa Hie cheape? means
waro unsuccesaful and caused tha platform to
exceed its discharge limit for grease and oil by
several hundred times. Chevron wimheld data
from Q Discharge Monitoring Report that would
havo alerted ths EPA to tha problem.
pled guilty since a 20-count indictmsnt was
returned against Craven Laboratories, its owns,
Don Cr&vei, and mree other employe®, in
Austin/ Texas. Sait&tcing has beat postponed
until after the trial of ths laboratories and Don
Cravens. The eleven Individuals (most of whom
am former Cravens Laboratory employee) have
all agreed to testify against the lab and Don
Craven at tsiaL
Craven tabo contracted with pesticides
msnufcfitoRss to conduct psstidde residua tats.
feifonnatfoa about these testa .was thai submitted
to EPA by *a aanafaeturaxs to ca>aJbls EP A to
tdenmces for pesticides and to
oursuant to PIFRA and &s Fadenl food. Drug,
and Cosmetic Ac*. Tha defendants allegedly
concealed and falsified material information
about Ins calibrations, quality controls ond
mathoda used &i tarts they prfoaned, supovtssd
and reviewed. Ao a result ctf Ihia ccneaalmtatt and
falsification, tha Indlnrasnl alleges stiddo
«MM%m|ft^tmujjfli wore defisuded of money pmid fo?
ths pastidds residue testa and foiae information
was submitted ID EPA for use in getting tolerances
and wgistssing pestfadfs. .
' *SBB)& On September 17,1992, Gsorgs B4bore, Jr., ^
was sentenced to p»y a Qste of $8,000 and serve ons *
year supervised probation for violations of the
dean Wfefenr Act. Mooro, tiha formar Gezneral
Manager at Croda In&s Corporation, on Ink
formulation and manufacturing company in
Memphis, Ttaiessea wn cpavtetad In March 1992,
of knowingly causing the unpermitted discharge
of solvent washea and water washan, by-products
of ths ink manu&cturlng process. Into MdCeOar
Laics, an o^ow lake of the Mississippi liven
y^. ?. y^te&iiiiQttSis, (O. Maakali On May 26,
1992, John fioyt Curtis, was sentenced to 10 months
in prison for violating the dean Whfcar Act by
conttmmating an Inbt of me Bering Saa with fat-
pfopubian fueL Curtis had been convicted on
Hardt IS, 1992, te Ifet V3. Dfatrtet Court of
Anchorage, AK of both latawtng and nsgllgent
vioJationa of ths dean Water Act
*
Curtis, a civilian employee, wao ths Fuels
Division Director for the Naval.Air Station,
Adals, Alaafca during lota 19^ and early 1989.
During mat tints Curtis repeatedly ordered the
3-S8
-------
FY1992 Enforcatiaa Accomplishments Rtpon
pumping of Jet fuel through a pipeline he knew to
be leaking. As a diract cOTsequence of his actions,
hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel flowed
into Sweeper Cove, an inlet cf the Bering Sea.
U.S. V. Hrnrv IL E«i«ll^|g
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplistatusas faport
The "Cherokee" !0 owned and operated by
Southern Dredging Company, fine. (Southern), of
Charleston, South Carolina. Southsov previously
pled guilty to violations ol tha Rivers and
Harbors Act and was fined $100,000 and placed on
one yea* probation. Ins conviction resulted in
Southern being Dated as a company barred from
obtaining government contracts.
UJS.
of chemical wastes kilo a storm drain, and illegal
transport and storage of acute and characteristic
hazardous waste led to a guilty pardkt /or the
president ol & pharmaceutical manufacturing
compmy on Septemb^ 3Q, 1992. Samuel Grate ia
tna lonnfii Ircsidcnfi os unmlS Company, Inc., &
pharmaceutical -manufacture? located in
Northwest Philadelphia. Ha was found guilty of
ana couns ol tn^ftmi tranartpt^rifmi of hosaixiouc
to an unpermitted facility, one count ol
illegal transportation off hazardous waste
without a manifest on® couxrt ol unpermitted
storage ol hazarciuus wasfe, and on% ceunft of
unpennitted! discharging of pollutants into
navigable watef of the United States. Lsnnett
wholly owned a tnbtkHary named Astrechem
CorpoeaticA. Crate was found gutty ol directing
Lannett employees bi May 1987 to transport
hazardous waste from tha Astrcchai~ facility
located in northern Hew Jersey to Lannettf »
facility In Philadelphia. Into name hazardous
waste was stored at the Lamed facility from June
1987, until August 159L the hasardooo wastes
were both acutely hazardous (phosgene and
aod'-un cyanida) and cfiafacterfstk foe
ignitobillty, reactivity and cowosivitji 7n@
investigation furlhe? datenntaitd *at
May 1987, and Juty W89, Crate directed Lanmtt
employees to dump soma ol the chemical wastes
down a stona drain which discharged diradhr
into tins Delaware ihm
UA a gpf: On'
December §, 1991, to Aibnia, KegJnaM Man
Goldsmith was sentenced to mrec years and tan
months ol fanpnacnmsttpurauant to his conviction
by a Jury on two counts ol an Indictment charging
felony violations ol RCRA. Tha proof at trial
demonstrated that Goldsmith, using a fraudulent
f, contracted, witfe Hunt Chemicals
.Company to transport and dispose ol
approximately two hundred 55-gallos\ drums
containing various hazardous wastes. After
improperly removing tits drums. Goldsmith
provided Hunt Chemicals with fraudulent
documents representing compliance with all EPA
regulations regarding tha transportation and
disposal ol hazardous waste. Hie drums
ultimately were discovered. Illegally discarded,
at three separate locations in the Atlanta
metropolitan area.
vtt John p «» fBJi Mak Failure to raport tha
release ol a hazardous substance to tht National
Response Canters has led to a cms-count CERCLA
felony convkticn of Jdm Manhal Halt and his
bring sentenced to four yens of probation snd o
IKIOO fine, Sentencing occuffed on Juna "3, 1992.
violation pertained to Kan's participation
in the unlawful disposal of 13 dram of spent dry
cleaning solvent* .to a rural area ol Jeffs
Missouri, In March el 1989. Haifa co-
defendant Marvin MuoUat had been previously
IL3.
_—^^__—^__^—_P.^_WC» »—
j dumping ol liquid hazardous waste or o
tfw ground, and the burning ol hazardous waste
that *fitf*"fii In used drums, ted a drum
reconditioning company, fe president, and
another company official to plead guilty to
RCRA and CAA violations. The pleas were
altered on August 2% 1992. Hansen Cccntair^r
Company is a drum reconditioning business with
offices and plant faculties located In Grand
Junction, Colorado, where it obtained used 53-
gailon drums from industrial find govemmental
sources. If processed many ol ftase drums by
dumping liquid hazardous waste from ths drums/
and running than through an tednerator, which
burned off residue and paint the mdnerator was
operated Illegally, and caused ptumss of black
smoka and lead waste to be released Into the
environment. Hansen Conteinsr does not havs a
permit to store, treat or dispose ol hazardous
waste. Christian B. Hansen, Jr., President and
parft^wner ol Hansen Container Company, and
Mkhael BOney, former Bsecutive Administtmtivo
Assistant ol Hansen Container Company, pied
guilty to misdemeanor violation* erf tha dean Air
Act. this case was a joint SPA/FBI effort
Assisting to ihe investigation was the Colorado
Department ol Realm, the Colorado State Patrol
and the City ol Grand Junction Fire Department,
Grand Junction Colorado.
Christian E. Hansen, Je, President and part-owner
of Hansen Container Company, and Michael
3-100
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement Aaxmpl&annB Atpon
Bilney, former Executive Administrative
Assistant of Hansen Container Company, were
each sentenced on October 21,1992, to a one-year,
sentence composed of 30 days of incarcention, the
balance to be served on probation, and $10,000
fines. These sentences are the first ever to be
ordered under the CAA regarding opacity
violations.
UA w. SiffMi* ftafrtoi^gaa- i* el, (JJ. KCV.)* C«
May 21,1992, a jury at Reno, NV returned verdicts
in the trial of former employees of Hi-Shear
technology, IncL, now called Defense Systems
Corp. Eugene Holdemess, former executive
assistant to the president of Hi-Shear, was
convicted of one count of transportation of a
hazanious waste without a manifest one count of
disposal of a hazardous waste in violation of a
permit and one count of making a frlse statement
to the Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection. Richard Heuer, Conner director of
operations for Hi-Shea* was convicted of one
count nf making a false statement but he was
acquitted of the charge of transporting a
hazardous waste without a manifest Defendant
Harold Karp, former manager of Hi-Shear's
snipping and receiving department was
acquitted of the charge of transportation of a
hazardous waste without a manifest TWs ease
represents the first time mat corporate officials
have been convicted for their roles in federal
environmental offenses fa% Stixey County, Nevada.
Hi-Shear was a manufacturer of explosive bolts .
and small rocket motors foe NASA and the Navy.
As part of that operation, the company obtained
a RCRA permit from the State of Nevada to store
and dhpoea of uailln waste propeQant in a burn
pit ("thermal treatment unit*). The permit
prohibited die storage and disposal of wastes
generated elsewhere. Hi-Shear had shipped its
reactive hazardous waste to permitted facilities,
but.stopped hi 1987. Hi wastes generated at
Iterance, California, wen men shipped, without
manifests, to the Storey County site and disposed
of there. Olivers were- instructed to take back
roads and to misrepresent the toads they carried.
Holdemess was sentenced to 15 months of
imprisonment and a fine of $3,000 as a result of
his conviction. Richard L. Heuer, was sentenced
to five years probation and a $5,000 fine for
making false statements to the DIP. Defense
Systems Corporation was sentenced to pay a fine
of $75X300 and to serve five years of probation.
Defense System had pled guilty on December 18,
1991. to the fflegal tesnsportatMju and storage of
»__i^^—^^j^, __ __^^_^__
(D. Or.): On June 15,1992,
Frank Jordan, envinximenul control supervisor lor
the wastewatef treatment plant at Ore-Ida Foods
of Ontario. Oregon, was sentenced to two mourns
of house anest five y*a» of probation, a $S,OUQ
fins, and 100 hours of community service. Ionian's.
sentencing was me result of Ms guilty plea to a
one count information charging him with
tendering inaccurate a monitoring method in
violation of me CWA, on Mardt 24,1997. Ore-
Ida Food*, Inc. has its corporate headquarters to
Boise, Idaho, and is a subsidiary of the HJ.
Hem* Ox, Joe. of Pittsburgh, PeuuylvuiU.
199% fat forth YMbrth, Texas, Norman Klrkham
pied guflry to two RCRA felonies, one involving
storage of hazanious waste without a permit and
the other cr • ^Jng filttf!^Hrti\ of a twdous
waste msnifexf He was sentenced to 21 months tn
No fine was Imposed.
Klrkham wt, JM owner and operator of
Hazardous Kute Management, Inc., of
Sonthlakev '« -is, a company mat Illegally
stored hazardous wastes and biomedksl wastes
in three unpennitted iocstions. IQrkham had
collected numerous shipments of tiazafdous waste
front various generators, and was paid to properly
dispose of the waste. Instead, he was storing me
waste at three locations without having obtained
any RCRA permits or interim status. He also
illegally forged hazardous waste manifests in an
effort to conceal me bet mat the wastes had not
been properly disposed of. Manifests were signed
by Klrkham indicating that the waste had been
properly disposed; thus the generators were
unaware that the waste was being improperly
rfdlii. •*. «L
11 4. v If «
May 29, 1992, Kenneth Laughlin and John
Donnelly eacn pled guilty to one count of
violating CERCLA by failing to notify the
National Response Cotter of the release of a
reportablc quantity of a hazardous substance
(creosote). Laughlin was the president and plant
manager of GO. Tie and Heating, and Donnelly
was the operations supervisor. GCL He and
Heating, which was located in Sydney, New
3-101
-------
r
S
IT 7992 Enforcement AceoiaplutoMm Sspon
York, treated unfinished railroad ties with
creosota from April, 1986 until tha sits was
abandoned In January 19JB. Creosote sludge was
illegally disposed of on site and on adjacent lands
chiring tte plants operation. The plea agreement
required each to provida Information and
testimony relative to alleged crimes committed
by a third defendant, Harris Goldman, former
owner o* GCL Tie and Treating. In September
1992, Goldman was convicted of one count of
feflur® to nodfy und^ CERCLA and one count of
illegal disposal urtdos 9QUL
and MA.
On'
Octofes? 13, 1591, James Long, Chief Executive
Officer of fee Safe Air Eiivinuuitental Group waa
• sentenced in tte Wiii&cui District of New Yor& fn
a related case, oa April 8, 1992 Scott Brady,
Foreman of tha Safe Afc Envirorunenfal Group,
was sentenced in the' sum court Both men had
plead guilty to violations of 10 U3C §1001, and
both were sentenced to ores year probation, a
Hlmi mmj yy* hFnrrff vftoaviauntt
-ease® Involved the ifleg&J removal ol
asbestos from tfet Bute Oxygen Purnaca at th*
Both omvictfqnfl WBTO obttiiwd es a f®ratf al
investi^ticns conducted by *® WDNY LECC
on Qnvizomnc
im u Oeyd (N 43, OH* OB August H, 1992.
David Uoyd. tha fiorratt Sapirintendwl of tl»
Allen County (Ohio). Sanitary Engineering
Dtetrfct was aenbstced foDowtng Ws goflry piea
to charges df fal»ificatksn of moomiy
reports submitted to Ohio EPA. Uoyd
ona yter of probation on each of fhra countv, to nm
cortcurrajiry, and a flrw of IfiSlS. As & ccmditUm .of
probation, Uoyd win be reqaired to famrnin at
hoBia and wear an electrical monitoring dcvkt far
iSOdayo.
Through search warrants 2nd !ntanrt«ws of
Mwaga treatnwn* plane employws, EPA had
detarminsi that Uoyd orclansd tns falalflcatkm
ol numerous wastewater analyses, m an attzmptt
to COVE? vp tmtsnenft plant modaquades. Tho
detected falaiflcations involved the fallowing
pollutants: fecfiJ collfonn, ammonia, and
dteoired oxygen.
MacDonald Ami Vfetson
M aLa On April 14 1986, a grand jury
indicted MaeDonald and Wafton Wssta OO, Inc,
Narrtganaatt Improvomanl Co., IR&, Eugene K.
D'Allejandro, and several other lower-level
employees of MacDonaid and Whtson for
knowingly transporting. and causing the
transportation of hazardous waste to a facility
mat did not HSVQ a 3CRA'permit, Cor failing to
notify the National Response Gaiter of a rdeasa
of a hazardous substance in violation of CE8CLA,
and for rotated charge*, A jury convicted all
defendants onoept on« employeg of some of the
charge* against than. I?AJtoai«lro's conviction
was based on mt "respons< corporate officer"
doctrine, on avktanoa that ha was a "hands^n"
mamgct and that tiw hnew fai the past the
company hid violated RCRA,
On appeal, tiie l%st Circuit rovorsad tho
of D'Altesandro and ttut
to (tew defendants, Th»Hn&Omrft reacted (ha
•broadest fcera of me "swpcnsible o>?por»te officar
doctrine, which imold a£tow for the condusiva
QstabUthmcnt of the dement of teowledga by. a
mere showing that me individflil heU s position
of corporate responsibility. Ae «fo* same timo,
however me first Circuit affirmed mat actual
taowtedgodtd not bat** & be proven by direct
evidence but could be inferred from tho
dafendanfV position, ccwfttct'snd other tocta and
drcumsfences. the court:went farther and stated
that "wiltful bttndrass to -feels constituting tho
offense nqr o* sufldent to estabHsh Imowtedgt*
On November 3< 1991, Narragansett Improvematt
Co. pled guilty to & single count of feulure to
rtotiry under CEFCLA, &rtd on January % 1992, was
fined em thousand debars. Onjanuary 13,1997, a
jury began me rattlal of Eugene PAlkiandro for
shipping hazardous waste to on unpermttted
facility, M me conduskm of me government's
case, ihe eorat granted me defendanlf s Motion for
Judgment of Acq*
ttitmL
b^-^^^^^^K^^K jg"lt^»^^».^LJ—jUI.^^^ f*& O\ fSS t"%
jijj--^—. __ jwaim^H^a irMfliBa^eia^Pa^iv TMi^iTTwPaialBfliB
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplisfanrnu Ripon
disposal of hazardous waste, and of filing a false
financial statement with EPA. No fines wen
imposed on Metro Container Corporation and its
subsidiary, Metro-Enterprise Container, as both
remain in bankruptcy vrim no discernible assets.
Both corporations were convicted on October 29,
1991, of two counts of conspiracy to violate the
CWA and RCRA. Steven M. Zubrin, former
maintenance supervisor of Metro Container
Corporation, convicted of two counte of conspiracy,
illegal disposal of hazardous waste, operating
the Metro facility in violation of pretreatment
standards, and illegally discharging pollutants
into waters of the United States was sentenced to
2 months imprisonment 36 months probation and
500 hours community service, file defendants1
were found to be responsible for burying hundreds .
of drums of hazardous waste on company property
and inside the company plant ae well as
discharging of thousands of gallons of pollutants
into Stoney Greek, a tributary of the Delaware
Rivet, and discharging off-epec industrial waste
the local F0IW.
indictment and was sentenced in January, 1992.
Mq«ii«r
T. UIIT
Milla and
OHD. Hajs CWA convictions and
-a jafl term were obtained as a result of two
defendanfi actions during the design, construction
and subtequer^ operation of a municipal sewage.
treatment system for the town of ZoUb Springs,
Florida. On Match 11,1992, Dale I. MBit and hie
firm. Dale Mills and Associates, Ihc, were
sentenced pursuant to guilty pleas to an
Indictment charging them with felony violations
of the CWA, and falsification of material
information within the jurisdiction of federal
agencies* Date J, MUs was sentenced to ten
months imprisonment to be followed by five and
one-half yean of supervised probation. Mflls and
Associates, Inc. was sentenced to five yean
probation and ordered to. pay %72JOOO in
restitution, Mffla and his firm were contracted to
design and construct a self-contained secondary
treatoent plant using a spray Irrigation system.
Holm, an employee of Dale Mflls and Associates,
waa the resident inspector for the ZoUb Springs
wastewater treatment plant construction project
Mflls and Holm withheld information regarding
the suitability of the plant site for a treatment
piant and spray irrigation field. The installation
of the Irrigation pipes resulted in nonpermitted
discharges of effluent into waters of the United
States. Sidney Holm previously pled guilty to
related felony violations as charged in the
Moh The hiring of
two men to take twenty-eight 5$-gaBon drums,
thirteen of which contained igtiitable waste, and
dump them in a rural area of Jefferson County
Missouri in March of 1989, led Marvin Mueuer to
be sentenced on September 25,1991 to pay $94,000
to restitution to the state of Missouri, four months
of jafl tic3, and four monthsof home confinement
for disposal of hazardous waste without a
permit to violation of RCRA. Mueller was the
owner and operator, of Lafayette Square Cleaners
of St Louis, Mo, as wefl as Mn Mar Supply Co.,
which bought and sold chemicals useu in dry
cleaning and industrial cleaning. Local residents
reported the abandoned drums. Hie Jefferson
County Sheriffs office investigated and found
that ttie drums were leaking. The investigation
proceeded under the auspices of a newly created
Envimnmentel Crimea Task Force, a joint effort
including EPA, the United States Attorney's
•Office, and stet and kral offid '
1992, Kenneth R. Nugent an environmental
consultant for the Evergreen Construction
Company, pled guilty to submitting a false
hazardous waste penrri* appUc-.!~n to the EPA.
Nugent submitted a falaely backdated permit
application to EPA hi an attempt to mislead the
Agency into believing that bis company,
Evergreen Construction Company of BeHingham,
Massachusetts, had submitted a valid and timely
permit application under RCRA. .He received a
i of 12 months probation.
OM C
y (P. WY):
Illegal disposal of hazardous and solid wastes at
three Wyoming oil fields operated on public
land! administered by the US. Bureau of Lard
Management led Pacific Enterprises OQ Company
(PEOQ to plead guilty on January 22, 1992; to
eight misdemeanor violations of the Federal
Land PoBcy and Management Act. Hiis case is
the first major criminal prosecution for hazardous
. waste dumping under the federal land Policy and
Management Act which requires the Bureau of
Land Management to protect and administer
public lands. Pursuant to the plea agreement
PEOC agreed to pay $16 million in fines and to
pay restitution by deeding to the United States
1,000 acres of land along the Green River in
Desolation Canyon, Utah, a popular recreation
3-103
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accompiishmtnu Report
in the Rocky Mountain states. The court also
ordered PEOC to conduct all remedial action
required by federal and state authorities at the
Notches Dome, Boone Dome and Salt Creek Oil
Fields, and to perform environmental compliance
audits (including RCRA, CWA, CAA & CERCLA)
of it3 operations in Wyoming.
PEOC buried hazardous waste and other
chemicals at the Notches Dome Oil Field near
Powder Rivet Wyoming in November 1984 buried
asbestos, scrap metal, pipes and other solid waste
at the Boone Dome Ofl Field near Powder River,
Wyoming, in April 1987 and illegally disposed of
hazardous waste at the Salt Creek Oil Field,
near Midwest, Wyoming, between October 1988
and June 1990. These illegal disposals mduded
chemicals* bunt drums and spreading the
chemicals along dirt roads at the ofl field burying
the empty drums at the ofl field pumping
chcBticals from other drums and disposing of the
chemicals in abandoned wefls at the ofl field and
burying druOi. of 'jnitable ^zardou. -vaste at
the oil Held. PEOC la a subsidiary of Pacific
Enterprises, which also owns Southern California
Gas Company; the nation's largest natural gas
distribution utility and Thrifty Corporation* •
chain of WOO drag and sporting goods retail stores
in the West and :.fldwcst In additit*-. to its
Wyoming operations, PEOC {produces ofl and gas
In several other states, Canada and the Dutch
North
U.s.
(N.D, IDiOn May 26, 1992, Jeffrey
Pytiarz. president and owner of P&H Plating
Company of Chicago, was sentenced, to serve
fifteen months tn prison for dumping 4JOOO gallons
of electroplating solution into the Chicago sewer
system in 1989. Pydarz was also required to serve
one year of supervised release after the jail term
is computed* _ . •
Hie offense forced a complete shutdown of the
Northwest side treatment plant and was dlrectty
responsible for the death of 20,000 fish in the
Chicago River. Hie other defendants pleaded
guilty and were sentenced to probation. ••
U g y. Ray H. PlMMitt and W11»a«T» g.
(tD.TennJt On October 30, 1991, Ray X. Pleasant
and William P. McMurray were sentenced
pursuant to a guilty plea to a criminal
information charging violations of the dean
Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Hie convictions resulted from the defendants
actions on Memorial Day, May 27, 1991, when
they pumped water contaminated with dlesel
fuel from underground storage lanks on Pkasant's
property in lOngsport, Tennessee into a storm
sewer which emptied into the Madd Branch ol
the Holston River, the illegal discharge resulted
in the deaths of numerous waterfowl at Madd
Brandt Creak.
Pleasant and McMurray were both sentenced to
pay fines of $2,500 for violating the CWA, and
$5,000 for violating the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act; Additionally, Pleasant was ordered to pay
restitution in the amount of $2^00 to the City ol
lOngsport aid $1^ to the State of Tennessee.
OR August 26,1992, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Alabama,
Mobile, Alabama, Judge Alex X Howard
sentenced Norman Porter, the former general
manager of Resource Consultants, Incorporate
(Id), to three (3) years* probation on an
indictment charging Porter (and others} with
felony violations of the dean Water Act and
Conspiracy. Porter, along with Rd President
Johnny Sanders and the corporation, Rd, had
been indicted on Apffl 25,1992. Porter pled guilty
on June 23,1992. As part of the plea agreement,
Porter agreed to cooperate fully with the United
States government and to provide truthful
testimony at the trial for Johnny Sanders and
Rd. After a 4-day jury trial which commenced
July 27, 1992, Sanders and Rd were each
convicted on ail dean Water Act and conspiracy
charges. Sentencing for Sanders and RCI is
scheduled for November 20,1992.
\ ' ** «
The criminal activity of which the defendants
were convicted centers around the illegal
discharge of sanitary sewage waste Into the
Theodore Industrial Canal in May 1968. Rdwas
involved to the processing of drilling mud and
sanitary sewage wastes and was permitted by the
State of Alabama to discharge the treated
wastewater into the dry of Mobile sewer system
pursuant to a State Indirect Discharge permit.
Rd did not have a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit for any type of
discharge into the navigable waters of the
United States. Porter and Sanders were charged
with ordering employees to pump untreated
sewage Into the Theodore Industrial Canal
3-104
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement AfcompUshmtJtts Keyon
through an underground piping system. Once the
discharge was detected by Alabama Department
of Environmental Management inspectors,
Sanders and Porter lied about the existence of the
piping system and denied discharging anything
into the canal
KflcjQxsiOfiiiniiJii&iaJU Rockwell International
Corporation pled guilty ini federal court on March
24 1992, to an Information charging It with ten
counts of environmental violations during its
operation of the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons
Plant near Boulder, Colorado, and agreed to pay
$18.5 million in criminal fines - the largest
amount ever imposed in a hazardous waste case.
Rockwell-pleaded guilty fat US. District Court in
Denver to four felony violations of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and to
one "flony ami ftf> w^nf*ttmmtw Tfpiatlffns of the
dean Water Act (OVA),
Accerling t3 the federal sentencing -"-morandum
filed with the court SodcwtU illegally stored
and treated hazardous wastes generated during
the production of ptutonium "triggers" and other
components of nuclear weapons at Rocky Flats,
about 16 miles northwest ol Denver. The
government also asserted that .th* company
improperly and illegally discharged wastes
through its sewage treatment plant creating the
potential for contamination by runoff to a
reservoir used for drinking waiet
U A. v.
Flint Cflt (N.O. OH)i On June 1,
a Roland Brothers, Rkk Brothers, and
Donald Cole were sentenced . for illegally
disposing of hazardous wastes under RCRA. All
defendants had pleaded guilty to the charges.
Roland Brothers, the former president of Sentco
Paint Company, me, was sentenced to fifteen
mantra in jail and two years supervision. Rick
Brothers, the former Plant Superintendent was
sentenced to eighteen months in Jail and three
yean supervision. A third defendant Donald
Cole, received a sentence of six months of home
detention and two years supervision. The
corporation will be sentenced at a later date.
Charges went dismissed against Sam Minor, as he
was determined to be incompetent to sfend trial,
In the investigation of the case, EPA had
determined mat Sentco Paint made an adhesive
product from a variety of waste chemicals. When
the product {»m«d unusable, customers returned it
to Sentco. The defendants solved their resulting
disposal problem by buying the unusable {and
hazardous) glut under a loading dock, being
constructed and dumping more material in a
neighboring trash dumpstec EPA executed two
search warrants and recovered barrels of the
hazardous waste adhesive from under the
ait H? n frf? >•
m. Sfc^il fill MatoiM
An 860000-sallon oil *pill into the Mississippi,
Gasconade, and Missouri rivers caused by an oil
pipeline rupture led Shell Oil Pipeline
Corporation to plead guilty to a violation of the
Refuse Act and to agree to the payment of
$8,400,000 in fines, restitution, and settlements.
SheB pled and was sentenced on February 3, 1992.
Shell was ordered- to pay a $200,000 fine, and to
make restitution to the Federal and State
Governments in the amount of 1900,000. In
addition, « dvfl action by the State of Missouri
was settled 1 the amount of $7 million. Ai^ther
$300,000 In restitution was made to Individuals
directly affected by th* spilt The rupture
occurred on December 24, 1968, hi Maries County.
Missouri. The rupture caused a spin in excess of
MQJOOO gallons of crude oil into the Gasconade,
Missouri, ai-i Mississippi Rivers, the largest
known spul into the Inland waters of the United
States. Potentially, mis spffl caused significant
degradation to the aquatic environment of these
rivets. t
IIJL *. 8fjf*M yH^rtdttf r*imp«nv. tng. (E.D.
Mo* On May 22,, 1992, Spirtas Wrecking
Company, Inc. was sentenced to US District Court
in St Louis, Missouri. Spirtas had previously
pled guilty to four counts of TSCA violations, 4nd
one count of giving a false statement to me EPA.
Spirtas was sentenced to 3 years probation
count to run concurrently, a $40,000 fine on
count of which $15,000 pet count will be
suspended by
-------
FT1992 Enforcement Accompksbmtfm Repon
defendant with tha Missouri Atfcomay Gensral's
Office.
fUSL
^
7. Unitad Statefl ^fgiuf Com, (S.D. FlaO: On
February 3, 1992, in Wnt Palm Beach, United
States Sugar Corporation (USSQ was sentenced
to pay a receud fine pursuant to a guilty plea to an
eight-count Information ' charging felony
violationo of RCftA, , USSC wao ftnod
S3,7SO,OC».08, Ola largest monetary flits eve?
imposed for RdA and RCSA related criminal
violattais. J. Nelson Faiifcanks, Chfef Executive
Officer of USSC was present at sentencing (and 021
ration made a public stotemssrtt
admitting guilt ond promising natura compUancQ
with all EPA regulates and tits lawo of tho
United Stats. USSC to tedmurtored m
dswiflton, Florida, with additional fecflltto
throughout tha State. Tfta conviction stemmed
fe*s$ USSCo Qlsgol transportatlca of hazardous
waste without a manifasV transportation of
hazardous waste to a nonpamltted fedltty, and
BV3 lUSjEEfil CuBtB^QSoli ^i "^^ftysffct^^"1fe^^^w^ frtf^r^y^ft
1 ISM BK& March 19S9 @t te corposattoa's
Canal Poine fadlity. Jho hazanlouo
mclud^d thousands ef galtaiQ off 8{rant Dohrsn&
that vrera g^uzrated in USSCo milling and
raaintsnanm departmsn&j. "Rta sol^aite were
disposed of by &nploy&33 wSto ayotematicaily
poured fltm onto tho ground and into droinagQ
ditdiao and >pf*Q|p- In oddition, §s@nt solvsits
woro commingled with oil and illegally
transported to a nsnpamittBd fedHly. USSC also
utilized a soluble lead compound to ran
approsimeteiy 33,000 analytical te3to pa? ycoE.
This gensrated a largq voluma otf highly toaic
lead, a hazardous was to, Shaft was illegally
dlspoaadfOf on sits and at tha county landnTL
UJ9.
(B. Ma@&}t Oa May 28, 1992,
Stevens Analytical Laboratorias, Inc., which Is
located in Stonehftm, Maaaachusatts, and its
president Alart Storoio, pted guilty in federal
district court to ten coun&D ol matt fraud. Tho
dofiauisnfiD had beet charged 'a Hasardoua Materials
SpcdaUats m wen as investlgatora of Iha San
Fraredaco IMsWct Attomsy'o offica os^ted a
search warrant at IHple A Machrna Shop in
Hunter's Poinfi. Tfe» subsequent investigation
confirmed mat Ste subjat had urdawfuDy stored
and disposed of largo quantities of hazardous
waste resulting' from its chip repair operation.
The east* which was prosecuted by the San
Francisco County District Attomsy'o office went
to jasy total hi J«ns of 1992. Ths company was
convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of
§9,265,000.
U.S. g. WgatfiaAofl Supply (W.D. C&gnDs On
April 13, 1992, Weatterbte Supply, Incorporated,
was sattenoai purauant to a guilty plsa 'to ana (1)
count of an fewflctmsnt charging fticny violations
of ths Underground bif^ttora Control (UIC)
provisions ol mfi Safe Drinking Vfets? Act Tho
convtetfon reulted Iron ths defendant?* cctions
involving th@ construction and operation of
unpermitted underground Injection walls in
Wnn«i County, Kentucky. Tte court ssttencrf
Weathsrbea Supply, to pay a flns of S7|00 and
placed ths company on probation for 3 years.
-------
FY1991 Ettforcemtni AccomplufontHtj Repon
Weatherbee Supply, Incorporated, an oil and gas
production a«l equipment company, pied guilty in
October 1991, to illegally constructing an injection
well and Injecting produced gas at high pressures
into an oU well without first obtaining the
required permit The UIC program is designed to
regulate injection watts to protect groundwater
supplies from contamination. This conviction was
the first and remains the only federal criminal
conviction under the UIC provisions of the
SDWA.
UA. T. W^ifffnjtnff ***- HaJ: On October 2,1991,
in the District Court in Hawaii, a jury convicted
two former government officials of the Hawaii
Kai Wastewater treatment Plant of dean Water
Act (CWA) violations, they found guilty of
illegally dumping tons of partially treated
sewage sludge into me waters of Hawafl, and are
m* first individuals con vk ted la Hawaii of
CWA violations. Michael Weitzenhoff,
former plant manager, and Thomas Mariard, the
farmer ^tistant manage* wen convicted of five
felony counts under the CWA, and ol an
additional conspiracy count charging them with
authorizing th« illegal discharges. Both
defendaittt, and a cc-defendant, Charles Reeves,
wen employed by MEPAC Inc. (Metcalf and
Eddy, P»''.fick which had been contacted by East
Honolulu Community Services to operate the
treatment plank The defendants bypassed
treatment facilities at night when the plant
became overwhelmed. Codefxndant Charles
Reeves pleaded guilty to violations of the dean
Water Act and testified against Weitrenhoff and
Maaani. The government alleged mat the
discharges occurred in 1988 and 1989 on an
estimated 40 occasions* arid that the discharge*
were seactry mad* at night to avoid detection.
Although it was not possible to determine the
exact amount discharged* an expert estimated
that some 440X300 H*. of solids were in millions of
gallons of sludge discharged from the outfall
located 450 yards off shore. Weittenhoff and
Marian! were sentenced on February 4, 1992, to
twenty-one months and thirty-three months
(H.D. OHhOn December 4, 1991,
Tracy Westfall was sentenced to twelve months in
jail, following his guilty plea to charges that he
had knowingly scrapped electric transformers
containing PCBs. Westfall was charged in
September 1990, in a two-count indictment
charging him with Illegal disposal of PCBs under
T5CA, and failing to report a release of PCBs
under CERCLA. Westfall pleaded guilty in
August 1991, to the CERCLA felony In a plea
agreement dismissing the TSCA count which was
a misdemeanot WestfalTs sentence also provided
for one year of supervised release following
npletionofhfefailt
In May 1989, duo EPA received a citizen's tip
mat WestfaU was cutting up electric transformers
at his machhie shop In Columbus, Ohio.
Inspector* far Chk> ETA visited the shop but were
initially denied aeons by WestralL After an all-
night surveillance!, CWo EPA gained access the
next mouang and found a drained f\J transformer
in the shop, a cut-up transformer In a roll-off box
outside the facility, PCB-eontaminated paper
windings in a dumpster, and several barrels of
PCS ofl on the loadmg dock. The case was jointly
Investigated by special agents for the EPA, FBI,
and technical staff from Ohio EPA. Ohio EPA
also supervised the removal of tN» contaminated
materials.
3-10?
-------
FY1992 En/brcemau AccomplisJmtxLt Rgpon
IV. Federal Facilities Enforcement
fin 1992, the Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (QFFE) continued to ensure Federal
Government compliance with ill environmental laws. Recognizing the unique challenges and
opportunities posed by Government facilities, federal fidlitte* enforcement and compliance was
achieved through » mix of enfcmainant awi techrdcii jasutarce activiaes. These activities range torn
me cons inspections and enforcement activities which are required tinder every federal environment:1
statute to innovative pollution prevention approaches, crucial technology development, and testimony
and passage of lay legislation (e#» Federal Facility Compliance Act).
The Federal government manages a vast array of industrial activities at its 27,000
installations, these activities present unique management problems from the standpoint of compliance
witti federal environmental statutes. Although Federal facilities are only a small percentage of the
regulated community, many Federal installations are larger and mme complex man private facilities
and often present a greater number of sources of pollution in an media. The Federal government is
investing significant resources in addressing environmental ffrtmip and compliance issues at Federal
facilities. With the DOD supplement enacted late irr September, SS42 billion was authorized in FY
1993 to implement over 10,000 environmental prefect*. The Pieskienfs FY 1993 budget request provides
for an additional $1.48 bulion for environmental projects, bringing the total to $9.49 billion.
At the start of SrWs Federal facilities enforcement progrsan, EPA dnwted Its resc largely
to the completion of negotiations for CEROLA Section 120 irtferageocy agreements. These •greements
made up the oangntone of me enfoicemot program addressing me 123 final and 3 proposed Federal
fcolitie listed on the National Priorities Ust (NFL) at the end of FY 1992. Each agrees^ : contained
or win contain specific schedules for me study and cleanup of hazardous substances at theM facilities.
During FY 199% twelve additional Federal facility OERCLA Interagency agreements (IAGs)
were executed. Of the 123 £acflities listed on theNPU 101 are now covered by enforceable agreements.
With the majority of (nest agreements completed, EPA now concentrates most of its efforts on the their
unpteav-ntation. The. number of accomplishments reported by the legions reflects that work has
proceeded Into the implementation phase. For example, me Regions have reported 45 RODs signed in
FY1992. In addition, they have reported 36 remedial d«sign stam, 27 remedial design completions, 27
remedial action rtarts and 10 remedial action completions.
EPA anticipates that with more work moving through me stady and cleanup phfae^inore issues
will arise leading to disputes between EPA and Federal agencies. This past fiscal yeatEFA had a major
dispute arise at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (IMA). The parties to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Federal Facilities Agreement (RMAFFA), the Army, Shell, the Fish fc Wildlife Service and EPA,
reached an agreement on September tt* ISM, resolving me dispute M defers the issue of whether me
Endangered Spedes Act BaM and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act are
crmicai sp«dffc airf kxaticn specific ARAR* for tne R^^ The settlement
acknowledges that these statutes apply at RMA and that they wifl provide a basis for establishing
remediation goals which will maintain and enhance wildlife populations and their habitats at RMA.
4-1
-------
FY1992 En/brcen*nx Accompfiifenciiis Xtport
EPA has also increased its efforts to ensure compliance under" ail statues. For example, five
additional Federal facility compliance agreements (FFCAs) were signed under RCRA providing a total
of86FFCAs. Under the dean Water Act OFF! and Region I successfully concluded negotiations with
the U.S. Anny for issuance of a legion H consent order under IheCWA to addrts* long standing CWA
violations at Ft. Dlx, New Jersey. Die compliance order requires construction of a new waste water :
treatment facility to serve Ft, Dfx. The order also incorporates a unique sanction provision for
violations of the agreements. When then it a violation, the order will require the US. Army to
propose and fund ttivu\aiiiittila%beneidaiproje^
OFF! continues to pursue federal facility compliance with the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). TSCA compUance became an Issue in the transfer oi a Navy aircraft carrUst OFF! was
requested to coordinate all the necessary parties and to address the compUance requirements under
TSCA and the PCB regulations when the Oty of Corpus Quisti, Texas acquired the legendary Navy
aircraft carrier USS IJEXIrKTION ftx use as a museu
'the drafting and execution of ttJoCtanyHanceAyeamenttwhiA Also
during the peat fiscal yea* OFFB ha* been engaged in negotiations with the Navy for an umbrella
Gnriplunce Agreement that acUresaes the una^ The
Agreement which provides for maintenance, transfer and lUtbrate du^xisal c< 6Vse vessels is expected
to be executed in FY 1993. • • • . ' " .- .. ; _ - ' 'C-".
" , 9 ,
EPA has also successfully enforced air requirements at Federal facilities. On March 3, 1992*
Region Vffi i»ii.,l a deer. Alt Act faction 113 Compliance Order to EG4G (Department of Ene ^y
contractor at the Rocky Flan Plant) for violations of Subpart H of the radlonucHde NESHAPS. The
order requires EGfcG to achieve compUance win the effluent monitoring requirements of 40 CF.R.
section 61.93(b) and to complete four specified projects in order to evaluate the existing radionudide
monitoring systems for modifications to brmg them fate compliance. ImpJementatkKof the Rocky Flats
dean Air Act order hat been very successful. As a result of this and similar actions, EPA will be
Increasingly era uismg Its enforcement authorities against contractors where appropriate.
rt>nnl?anfg Aft
n September, Gorigfistpai^ The new
legislation, which become law on October 6, 1992, greatly enhances stats and EPA enforcement
authorities. For example, state and EPA can now assess and eoBect penalties for violations of RCRA
requirements. A ^provision regarding iro*xe^
the Department of Energy s mixed waste treatment technology development program, the new taw
furthe/provides mat federally-owned treatment works are eligible for me domestic sewage exclusion.
that public vessels should be treated like private vessels for purposes of hazardous waste regulation,
and mat EPA wOI develop regulatkx>»gov«n\ingmunitiomaih*2«rdcra»wmat^ ;
' " ' "
, „
There are currently & military inftafladons, not tadudtag residential Iwdlitte, which are
scheduled to be dosed under the 1988 and 1990 base closure adft. Of these, fifteen are currently on tfte
National Priorities List (Nfl). Bases Identified for closure frequently contain land and frcflitfes mat
are desired for non-military use for purposes of economic deveiofnotpnt. EPA and DOD are working witfi
states to achieve the goal of protecting publk health and the environment and returning closing bases to
safe and productive use as soon as possible.
4-2
-------
FY1992 En/brcemgiu Accompiisfenim Report
Building on the efforts of the Defense Environmental KaspormTask Fcro, a multi-agency group
directed by Congress to examine tht environmental issues raised by base closun, EPA has worked
extensively with DOD to identify and Implement solutions ID tht questkxts raised. In February, EPA
announced its position on the appropriate balance between tht nted to protect human heal* and the
. environment and the desire to make property at dosing installations available for reuse. Hie
memorandum described the point in the remediation process at which EPA believed that a transfer by
deed could occut In October, Congress amended the statute to provide for transfers by deed at a
comparable point, allowing property to be cieecM whik kng term remedial action continued.
Another major effort has been to establish procedures for the Identification of unoacitammated
parcels at closing bases which could be transferred by deed for revise. The jomteflbm produced a DOD
guidance document released in June which sets forth the necessary process to identify and document
parcels of reel property that are enrironinentally suitable for transfer. Under this procedure, DOD was
to prepare a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (POST) cJocumemmo^nsultatknwim EPA and the State.
Hie procedures an being reexairdned m Hgbl of the n^ whidt Qingress gave EPA n Octobex. In
addition, EPA is reviewing procedures OOD has proposed for tnnsferring remediated parcels by deed
and procedures for leasing parcels. . - .-._-._ .
On the Regional and State level, EPA and-DOD co-sponsored conferences in Sacramento,
California and iP'MlPHj Massachusetts, which served as forums for Improving ft*m***ui*i*^ftew* between
DOD, EPA, states, and other interested parties to facilitate deanup and redevelopment ri dosing bases
and help reserve issues affecting the bejedosurepnxess. ^ _ ' '
' "
Coufemce participants met to discuss acceierarJon mraadves, .isk managemer . .eal estate
and redevelopment (Boston), remediation technologies, and the development of standardized
techniques relative to hazardous waste deannpe at doting miBttry bases. 'Among the acceleration
initiatives which offered the greatest potential for improving the cleanup and reuse) process were:
installation-wide joint planning; Htrfo''****1" of deanup standards based on land-use concurrent
review of documents; intensive in-person review erf cc«n«ents and rescJudon of issues; overlapping the
* phases 'of tne C*ifPO«A pfootss? kientiflcatlon and Implementation of interim actions; an* improving
%nMKaWe»Ue
-------
\
J
-
FY 1992 Enforcement Accomplishment Rtpon
EPA abo look significant enforcement actions at DOE facilities in FY1992. For example, as part
of the Hartford Trf-party agreement, DOE was to complete construction and Initiate operatiora of a low
level mixed waste laboratory on or before January 31,1992. On October^!, 1991, DOE submitted a
request to change,this deadline which EPA and the State of Washington denied DOE then initiated
dispute resolution. .
.," ******
After protracted negotiations, the parties reached agreement on the dispute. As part of the
settlement DOE must seek funding for new expedited response acttes at f&riford, and construct and
operate an on-lite laboratory that is smaller mart the original laboratory. In addition, DOE agreed to
the assessment of a $100,000 penalty. Finally, the settlement allows DOE one year to demonstrate that
low ievd mixed waste laboratory rM ad i can be satisfied usmg the oombiruuiM of existing commercial
laboratory cape^ and the ctownsizedcn-titelab^ .
EPA signed a latter erf mtent for a CERCLA agreement at DOF* Savannah River Site (SRS) in
South Carolina. SRS is • DOB megasite that produces nudear matsartals for defense programs (tritium
is currentiy the primary product of the SRS). The SRS is currentiy divided Into 64 'study areas" for
purpceeserfmvestigaticnandremedlatk^underCERCLA. . . •„ •'. •
The Federal Facility Compliance Agreement which addresses TSCA violations at me DOE
gaseous diffusions plants in Ohio, lUritudcy, and Tenriessee. beouw t«ectr™ The
agreement establishes a pita to bring the facilities into full compliance with TSCA and the PCB
regulations. It also commits DOB to a dean-up schedule and requires worker safety measures in the
meantime. -A related case against a DOB contractor-operator at the faculties, Martin Marietta Energy '
Systsar , wa* . crfied wi* payme : at • $50,000 peruJty and correction of me violations.
In DOB poBcy matters, SPA initiated dialogue on A mixed waste compliance strategy, a multi-
yea* compliance and tschnoiogy development effort to characterize and develop the technology to
tree* mixed waste. Preliminary strategies and ivcoirunendaticcts have been devek>p«d for sevmouxcd
waste and materials management issues: scrap or .excess lead, scrap and residue, transportation of
reeycklZa hazardous material, tr-nagement of wastes, containing only source, special nuclear or
byproduct material, representative sampling of rcmhomogeneous waste forms, DOB compliance with
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions and DOB compliar^ with RCRA tedoucal standards. In addition,
DOE and EPA have established a dialogue to address policy concerns regarding RCRA technical
standards and applicability of RCRA to radioactive wastes exhibiting a hazardous characteristic.
Inuuagency agreements were signed at DOB facilities such as Idaho National Engineering
Laboratoty and Lawrence Uvermore National Uboratory (Site 300). By the end of FY1992, *JJ nuclear
weapons sites were covered under multryear enforcement agreements with States as signatories,
itfng 100 -150 bfltton doflars to cleanups.
•MfWHH f»fai-jn•fiFijfiim tij^Migi l^mftniltefifV OdC&al't
In PY19ft two updates to th« docket were published to the federal Register, the purpose of
the docket is to identify federal *•*•"« H»« that engage in hazardous waste activity or have the
potential to rsJeett hazardous substances into the environment to compile and maintain the
Information submitted to EPA on those facilities, and to provide a mechanism to make the information
available to the public. At the end of last year, there wen 1,709 Federal facilities listed on the
obcket an increase ollC7 from FY 1991. v . . • /' ^
Last year it was determined that privately-owned, gov«wnent-operated (POGOs)
should be listed on the docket POGOs were formerly excluded from docket listing,
4-4
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement Accomptuhnav Stpon
defines Federal facilities as ".... facilities which art owned or operated by a department, agency, or
instrumentality of th* United States —*. Regions and Federal agencies wen asked to identify any
facilities that fit into the POGO definition for inclusion in FY 1993 aid subsequent updates. Responding
to Federal agencies' concern* and inquiries, OFFE provided oral pnmntatloni and training that
explained the docket process, te., how a facility gets reported prior to listing; what cadi reporting
mechanism (CERCLA §103, RCRA §3005, §3010, §3016) means; how Federal agenda get an opportunity
im. These presentations reinforced
cotnnnmicatians between EPA and the Federal agencies.
Pollutin
EPA continues to recogniae that It is far mote efficient «o prevent pollution problem* at Federal
installations before those problems actually occur. The Agency has continued to seek fundamental
<^ange m the behavior and understanding of Fedendagen^
environmental arena. To promote IhJs change, EPA has continued to coordinate a number of Important
interagency efforts in the enforcement area to accompUah dtis goai A national agreement wWi DO!
has been initiated to signifkantiy reduce ttte amount of waste being generated by Federal facilities.
Tht agreement involves voluntary participation in TH reporting and participation bi EPA'i 33/90
program, ' , . . .
• , .,"„». ~ *
• EPA also commenced implementing the Tidewater 'f*teTH{fm'y Poflution Pntvendon Program
(llrW) as a model installation demonstration program wife Army, Navy, Air Force end NASA. Under
the TIPFP, participating agencies an charged with developing and implementing alternative practices
to rerince the wastes, emissions and adverse environmental \m 'acts of their tadMttas. EPA, in
conjunction with the Air Force, conducted PoBgtionPiwendonOppc^^
at various Air Force instillations and is developing plans for PPOA training wim other Federal
agendes. Additionally, the Federal Government PoUution Prevention Strategy was drafted. The
strategy sets pollution prevention goals and objectives for the Federal lector by focusing on the four
primary roles in which the government can make a significant impact I*, manufacturer and generator,
consumer and large purchasec and policy maker and regulator, and .±rocate fix technology research,
development and tranriipc • - •
In the ares) of technology development, EPA is attempting to be a leader In innovative
technology research, development and implementation. EPA established federal facilities as
development centers for Innovative technologies in site assessment and remediation. McOeUan Air
Force base Is the rite of a public-private partnership project The project is a collaborative effort among
EPA. the State, the Air Force and Fortune 500 companies with cleanup liabilities to measure th«
performance of a number of innovative tachnologjes for rita remediation. Implementation of me project
is expected to lower cost reduce time to cleanup, and increase efficiencies at Federal sites.
EPA signed the joint implementation plan for a MemorardumofUndar»tartlirig(MOU)v>nth th«
Western Governors Association, DOE, DOD and DOL The implementation p>in requires an
examination of technology needs for environmental restoration and watte management activities in
western stetes. Reports generated from the MCU Identify barriers to technology development and
address a more coocmative approach bi developing technical sohxtfons to environmental restoration
and waste management proWatns. Th* key part of tWs MOU will be to establish a number of Federal
sites as innovative technology demonstration sites to collaboration with the private sector.
4-3
-------
FTf 1993 Ettforctmtm Affompl&vntnts Rtpon
Aclu*r«n«nt» w«r« mad* in tht aiM of multimedia compllw* m4 tNfbretm«nt SPA
throuv conpftiianKhr* evaluations at Fadatml fcdlitltt.' Th» multUmdia lnitlativ« U daaigntd to
provida a ttoUstk view of owirorunantal complknca and tmphaalaa pnwntbxv-bajad solution* to
envirafiawntai compliance problems. Guidanca fef m FT 1943m muldnwdla inrttitiv. in aJJ ten
region* ww dn/ted in FY 1991 EP A and th« S<»t*j wifl b« co^ucttt^ over 50 muitimedJa in»p«ik^
during fY 1«3 and FY 1994 and tiirt compltttd poQiitfan pravwttn pcofite on
fer UM during Jnsptctfoni and to dwetoptng SEB fn«fo«tJi*ntj*ttkwnt».
Edticttian and aatnvch ttfovt* oontfatuad dining PY 1592. SKA «QRlfattad to host th* highly
araMfai IFA/Badtani Agtncy aufcuuiMMlal Ro«rdtaW«, wfam n?m«vtaJfrv of approjdm*triy »
Ptdtrai *gtnda» raMt monlWy to axchangt Womrtttan. M *• Roandtabla, EPA «xpcrts diseust
milting or paopoxd r*gulatary ayf^onAtt afflKttng opgfHMM by tha mtiar F>d«rai aggndai. Th«
RouixitaW«alM provide a fotumfwrnawhan^*
toilet ftidi^ haxmloiii waM etamt^
----- •' ' " . • . - .
BPA ate funtfniiad a Mgh4ard dialogtM %^ith OOO and DOE in irnpnv* prottctkm of *«
at bvtallaliaoa vnoV ih*fr cutittol. Thfai wav accompllihao HURM^I ttM afiuttt of a
ftm. jQm&iil&CKg&i^itto'Dip^Ai^^
at Hm Offlct of TTiii Umiaiiiilil Tiiiialhui and Wana Manaffnunt al'DOir UM Ofpotr A«i»tai*
fry Faiknl farmrtaa Cutocaama at EPA, art mm wU^twpt cortfiting of yutjtct
i ftotH, aatjk of tha ttuiA a^nciaa* TMM
cootdlnaiao VVIM^I vv Ofliua of Padanl Padfittos GncoicaEMn^ ttttl fccMad oxi ivuuviin^ oaixwn to
Al»o dmiaff FY 199% OPFB condnued tti pirotai natkud dlalogM 00 Mlanl FadUty
EnglfxxuwtaJ Managemctt "n» partdpant* in *i» tflott iac<iled fcf tha IGqptcx* Center, net
scr«ral tone during FY 1992. TW» omW-party group tadudcs n^tcMnlattvcs from DOD, DOB, EPA,
5diara^^ FIan««nabo
'
Padarai fadUtt«t Oaanup L«ada«hjp Coondl, cotuUttng of
nptc$«itaiive«, itgtofiil officials froa i»ogri«
/bcu* on polky natttn and ttrattgic Wttatira*. tht kay national ckarrap ptoywn iaauas of 1993
OM of Of«^ (taoiita^
4-6
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accotnpluiimtns Rtpon
V Building and Maintaining a Strong National Enforcement Program
ProgramDevelopment . •-...-.
National Enforcement Training Institute (NET!)
Doling FY 1992, NET! scored nujor breakthroughs in the development of a comprehensive,
integrated approach to enforcement training for Federal, State and local enforcement personnel, as
directed by the Pollution Prosecution Art of 199a NlTTs first your of delivering training products and
services was marked by a variety of success culminating in the training of 3,800. environmental
enforceniera penorud acroa tte NaikA
Headquarters and Regions, the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NHQ, the criminal
program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETQ, the four regional environmental
prefects, and the EPA program offices Hive gone, a long way towards meeting NETTs Congressional
mandate.' - .'•- •••- ' "• ' '•"'•• ••'""• '," -•'•' ' •• . • .
Assisting in the development of NFTTs overall structure and substantive programs during FY
1992, the NETI Councfl - a body consisting of 39 representatives from EPA (Headquarters and the
Regions), the NHC, the US. OcvaVuiieui of Justice (DOJ), State and beat governments and their
representative c^ganizations, and academia - has met semt-annualty and provided Invaluable taput to
the NETI Executive Director. In addition to its twice yearly deliberations as a body of me whole, the
K .ICoui.ll has runctic*^ throughout the year by means of six worfcir^ es,aswefl
as a seventh Coordinating Subcommittee (consisting of the chain of the other six Subcommittees) to
guide the work of the various groups. The working Subcommittees have focused their attention on the
areas of Curriculum Development,, Faculty Development, training Delivery, Finance, Communications
and Outreach, and Evaluation. . " , .-..'.'.•
CoBi|Memeittiiig the work of the NFTI Council and its Subcommittees in FY 1992, !_: sfac NET!
Standing Committees on Curriculum Development focused their collective expertise on the development
of the core curricula for the six enforcement professional disciplines as outlined in the Pollution
Prosecution Act namely, inspectors, dvil investigators, prosecutors, criminal investigators, civil
attorneys, and technical experts. Membership within these six Standing Curriculum Committees
includes enforcement personnel from the above six disciplines. • •
With respect to the substantive training efforts of NFTI to *Y1992. the year was marked by the
delivery of 51 training courses by EPA Headquarter* staff, ranging in topics from Pollution Prevention to
Superfund and ROtA Attorney Orientation to Enforcement Negotiations Skills. Additionally, NETI-
HQ piloted the Basic Enforcement Course in May of 1992. This new training approach emphasize*
teain-buildtagatid a broad understating of tlw Thirty-six
enforcement personnel, represen«ing afl media and levels of government nationally, participated in this
two-week event. •
f ',
NETI training also was offered by the EPA criminal program at the FLETC in Qynco, Georgia.
Training courses on topics ranging from Environmental Investigations to Special Agent In-Charge were
delivered, training a total of 37S enforcement personnel, including 50 tribal representatives.
With the dedication of the a state-of-the-art NET! training facility in Denver in September
1993, NET! accomplished the first phase of its facilities acquisition. Since the Summer of 1991, 241
enforcement personnel have been trained at the facility by NETI staff in topics ranging from Mum-
• '5-1 .
-------
FY1992 E*forct*iatt Accomptiskmaiu Atport
Media Investigations to Enforcement Techniques for Laboratory Personnel With tht anticipated
opening of a Headquarters NET! training center in tht Washington, OC area, in FY 1994, NETf s two
training facilities wiH serve as an important foundation for estabtaning NET! as a premiere training
network.' '"'""
In addition to EFA-sponsored training, NET! training was offered by tht four regional
environmental projects, namely, the Northeast Environmental Enforcement Project, tht Southern
Environmental Enforcement Network, tht Midwest Environmental Enforcement Association, and the
Western States Hazardous Waste Project A variety of training courses in topics ranging from
Prosecuting Environmental Crimes to Case Management Siilis to *Tra» the Trainer* courses resulted in
tht training of oUstatt and local enforcement personneL Additionally,)
the projects, which went attended by 630 state and Iocs! enforcement personnel (For further
information contact OCAPO) ' " ....•..'.'!,.•.;.•-, ' '.•'•.•--*- -.-..:
Penalty Calculation Models (BEN and ABEL)
Hit 'B8N model, which is used *o calculate a vioUtor's ecorank gam mm nocK&mpUance. was
used over <3M times in FY-1992 by the EPA and 41 States, tht ABEL mode!, which is used to evaluate
violators' daim* that they cannot afford to pay for compliance costs or civil penalties, was used over
1,000 times. In order to better support the Superfund program, the Office of Enforcement devebped
Superfurd versions of bom models in FY 1992. The Superfund version of BEN, CASHOUX determine*
tht present valtt of Supcrfund cfeanMips even whm t^ Tht,
firffmu valut figure is used in df nripimfr settlements. Suptrfund ABEL evaluates PRP claims of
mabflity o«<*7Tdckan-pa- - --"v-. ;.;;', -.'./''....;;' ...,-.,'•': .'.•,*'
Tht models have had a dramatic impact on tht penalty lust rnmant process. Prom FY 1977 to FY
1984, tht Agency's total assessed dvil penalties averaged about $6 million per year. Since tht
Introduction of the BEN model in FY 1985, the- total assessed dvfl penalties have averaged about 136
million per year. Tht Office of Enforcement provides consultation help on inquiries and conducts
tramrng cou**«s MI tht models in **t Regions, Headquarters and tht States. (For further infer-arton
contactOCAPOJ .. .-.-'•• » •• --.; , -.> ' '•.*:• .'' . .-' • -.-'•' •
...»-.. . . .
As pa*t ol its ovenB effort to develop qualitative ineasorei of environmental enforcement (in
idditfou to the tradlttonaJ emphasis on the number of enforcement actions taken) tht Office of
Enforcement asked the Regions to provide estimates of tht environmental and economic impact of
supplemental environmental prefects CSEPs) m enforcement settlements contained bi FY 1992 judicial
andyadministr»tive enforcement easts. Tht categories of eHgiblt SEPs art poflutiCT prtyfntioff*
•nvironmehtal rMtontton. mvironmmtailH^aai> paMfc tWtma> Md targeted
support to Statt and Local Planning Agencies to help them cany out their responsibilities under
EPCRA. SEPs provide additional environmental benefits beyond those which can be required by
tahmctivt rtUtl. .....-, . .^:- -.-_..--'•--- ' '• -'. ' -•';./: :• '
The puiiminaa analysis of FY 1992 stttiement data indicated that the Regions negotiated 224
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPS) during FY 1993. Approrfmattly SO* of tht SEPs were «
tht ealepcy of pollution reduction (primarily T5CA cases) and about 30* of tfct SEPs wtre in the
pollution prevention category (primarily EPCRA casts). Tht total estimated *alu«o f tne
dtfendaiuWrespondants commitment to undertake tht environmental activity secured through *u ot
tht SEPs was over $48 minion. '*'''- ' , : '' *" '.'*' "'•"' • : -••' '
-------
FT 1992 Efifbrctmtnt Aceompluiunau Rspon
Most of these pollution prevention-oriented settlements enhanced source reduction through
chemical substitution (e.g., replacing a high toxic solvent with a less toxfc product) or process change
(e.g., replacing chemical cleaning systems with mechanical ones). About one-half of the settlements
involve chemicals on the Agency's "33/50" reduction list, including 14,1 TCE, toulene, MEK, xylene, and
chromium. The total cost to implement the pollution prevention-oriented SEPs was approxiinatehr $24
million. O -rr .7
In March 1992, Deputy Administrator F. Henry Habkht fl, as chairman of the Agency's Pollution
Prevention Senior Policy Council, charged an Agency-wide workgroup with the task of developing
recommendations on how to expand the number of pollution prevention SEPs negotiated by ail medi
programs. The workgroup reported back with a number of policy, institutional and technical
recommendations. One of the major recommendations involved more specific enforcement-oriented
training to bom legal and technical en/utteumU personnel. This training should emphasize the types
of pollution prevention technology which is most appropriate to the types of CadUttes regulated by the
media programs and me types of violations encountered. The SEP Workgroup developed a "needs
survey of training mat was sent to the Regions to help fadHtste mis effort. The Agency la currently
review teg the Regional responses to assess the moat appropriate type of training. (For further
information contact OCAFOD
- •• •-.-•:: •• Total Quality Management : '
As me result of the groundwork laid daring FT W92, the Om^ of Enforcement b in a position to
to make the tools and philosophy offered by Total Quality Management (TQM) aa integral part of the
activities of the enforcement program m FY1993. Functioning compor*nts of the TQM rollout include a
comprehensive schedule of bask training, which has already provider instruction ta TQM prindp::; to
80 per cent of Headquarters OS personnel, an internal Quality Improvement Board, which helps steer
the training and implementation process, and the completion of several TQM projects. The potential
now exists to use TQM in the planning and execution of muldrmedla initiatives and oner mission-
oriented issues, wen as for improvements in customer relationships and general administrative
operations, m order to produce a more eflecU ve enforcement program. ^pr further information contact
OCAPO.)
Intergovernmental/International Enforcement Activities
International Enforcement Accomplishments
In FY 1992, EPA was involved in several activities to enhance enforcement efforts internationally.
EPA co-sponsored the second International Conference on Environmental Enforcement in Budapest,
Hungary, on September 22-25, 1992, where over 140 representatives from 38 different countries and
international organizations met to exchange expertise and experiences on enforcement philosophies and
approaches. The Conference focused on enforceability of environmental requirements, development of
compliance monitoring and enforcement response capabilities, organizational options for structuring
compliance and enforcement programs, ways to address economic and ownership issWs man enforcement
context citizen involvement in enforcement and the role of publk disdcaure in encouraging compliance
as well as applications to hazardous waste disposal and transport issues. .
In FY 1992, EPA also introduced and delivered the Principles of Environmental Enforcement
training course to governments worldwide, including Poland, Hungary, Ukraine and the United States.
The course has been enthusiastically received internationally and has been requested in Turkey, Brazil,
• • • -• .$•»•• • . :
-------
FY1991 Sffcrcmtm Accomptisiontxa Htport
«nfcita»»tpiopiailiii«yculttiiiiit«taf and is designed ta an intswdonal audim* Facilitators
si* trained te eadt country to ojnttoo* to ddivar At course on in ongoing t« law» fyyeiulug tranaboundary sWpmenta el Kttaidooa waste* or toxic mtetancn.
UJ. federal en/brcement resulted in two criminal indictments and 10 ertfl aeaon* lor vielaMtons of
federal ai< todc substance, cotwnardryria^-«o^^ _ ; ".
Also on June 3, the Maadcan gowruneut announced environmental Inspection and superriaion
acJlvttfas in Mesdcm states along th« US. border to verify coinpUanct in the tnaquiladora industry
with Metico't environmeneal laws and refactions. As a result of these acttvitte*. the Secretariat of
..Social OtmluiHiy.it CSEDESOU, Mr^co's tnvironmeatai agency, ordered A* ahttt down of eight
noctcomptytae; laefflifes and~the fiorfritore of sarety bonds poatedTby an addttfonai four companies.
riotjctst of nuSracBOfts % 1PA administrative actions, wettng ne«riy HJ atfSfen la penjaJlies, w«re
taken agmimt OAU. Avtatton, Tuoon, Aftellic<3*eiiiCSorp^taiJi*«^ Corp-
CaJIf.; Apex Mkrotechnofog/ Com, tbcson, A>i&; and tour flrms In S Fseo, ikua** 5win-
to furtre* information contact
Region DO ' •
• : ' • ' ' .- S-t
-------
International Environmental Enforcement Iraining
In FY1992, NETI developed and delivered turn international euviiuiuimUil enforcement training
programs. En the Fall of 1991 the President erf Mexico announced that SEDESOL (Mexico's EPA) was
hiring 200 new environmental inspectors whose responsibility would bt to inspect the approximately
2,200 maqafladora (L*., manufacturing) facilities that operate in Mexico along the 2#XHnUt Mexico*
US. Border and which an typically owned by US.-parant corporations. NETI was asktd to design,
develop and deliver a quality training coune for these mspectors during FY 1992*
Bf the end erf September 1992, the NEB had met this considerable chmlknge when it completed
four separate training sessions for these 200 Mexican Inspectou at the foOowing La-country locations:
Tffuana, Ondad Juarez, Mexkall and Mataaioros, This, week-long training provides instruction in
Mexican environmental laws and^regukttons; health and safety techniques for the individual
Inspector; EPA inspection procedures and protocols; hitensfoe, hands-on inattnction in various
manu/acturing processes (e^j, prbitad circuit boards, eiectroplatfatg, futnitara finishing, and plastic
Ejection moidlr^ ar^ flruuly, site visits to two kMaJ maqu^
NEIT) • •: • .-_:.-•.-•
Nationq] RgMffs on FY 1992 EPA and State P
Hmtlj ami Appropriate Enforcement Easpoaa*
"m- *
the Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response concept seeks to establish predictable
enforcement responses by both EPA and ttM States, with each media program defining target
tkoefraincsfc*th«dinefreKaIattonof crfutuen^ Tiaekir
the data the violation Is detected through to the date when formal enforcement action la initiated.
Ihi programs hart also defined what constitutes an apimspriate formal enfercemera response based on
the rurture erf the ^sUtfon, axtalmg defirrfrig when tr^
appropriatB. Each year OT eotro;fle3 an ct^i-cfyear repc^wMdisunurutfizeatheperfOTinancebyeach
of the media programs. (For rurthermfnmad^ contact OCAPO)
National Penalty Report
Each year, EPA produces a comprehensive analysis of me flnandal penalties EPA obtair-d from
of envif oim^ial laws, tht report contains an Agency-wide overflew tor each program and
pares annual performance .wife hislwlcal trends, (see
Sojmnary of SUte-by-Stat« Enforcement Actrvity for EPA and the States
Each year, EPA assembles an cnd-of-year report which summarizes quantitative indicators of
EPA and State enforcement activities on a State-by-State basis. The FY 1992 report is scheduled for
publication in May 1993. (For further uitainajtion contact OCAPO)
, • • « ^ „
• '• .. Enforcement Four- Year Strategic Plan
As part of EPA's Agency-wide strategic planning process, the Office of Enforcement developed a
comprehensive enforcement plan with both media-ipedrk and cross-media components. The
3-3
-------
FY1992 En/brcantnt Afcomplaiuntnu Rtpon
Enforcement Four- Year Strategic Plan outlines the capabilities which will be needed to enhance
enforcement efforts for the future. Several of these efforts an now being implemented on a pilot basis,
while others will be fully developed over the next sevenl yean. The Strategic Plan is a sound guide
for the Agency's future enforcement efforts. (For farther taforiMtfon contact OCAPO)
. . Enforcement in Hit 1990's
The decade of the 19917s represents a new era in environmental enforcement as the Federal. State
and local governments and citizen's groups better combine their resources to vigorously enforce the
ration's environmental tows. The strategic planning reflected in the Enforcement Four-Year Strategfc
PJltt set themes and directions for the Agency's enforcement program. In FY 1991, the Office of
personnel miieado^^
personnel produced reports, collected in the lafimmKSiiJtoJlilJSElf^
eariier StntBgigJ3aB- These final reports provide recommendations for action fat six discrete areas:
measures of success, the State/Federal relationship, environmental rulemaking, innovative
eriforcement tfdudo^coBiplia^
ts establish an agenda trut poir^ m rww directiora awd Identify numerous
action steps for EPA staff at Headquarters, the Regions, the States, the local governments, and citizens.
EPA has began to implement many of these, and more will be undertaken in the near future. The
Enlafeemeni tn the 199ff» Prefect provided valuable* practical ideas whose implementation wilt
strengthen significantly tht Agency's enforcement progrim(Fw farther irtfbnrutiOT contact OCAPO)
Clean Air Act
Operating Pennies Regulation ' • " •
"Tin) new Ckeu Air Ad Hdf/y Operating Permits program should signifkantry benefit fu^
-------
Ft 1992 Enforcement Acaovplistoivi*f Etpon
Add Rain Regulation - Maxfctt Based Incentives
The acid rain regulations, becoming effective in 1995, will allocate to each affected unit a set
amount of allowances, each allowance to represent a ton of allowable sulfur dioxide emissions. Units
are free to buy and sell allowances. Emissions reductions acnfeved through reduced operation of the
unit (as opposed to reductions achieved through installation and operation of emissions controls) result
in the forfeiture of allowances. At the end of the compliance yew; a urdfs total annual emissions may
not exceed the number of allowances the unit holds in its account A unit with excess emissions must pay
a penalty of &0QO per ton of exceedance (adjusted for inflation from November 15, 1990) without
demand from EPA, and will have its allowances for the next near reduced by an amount equal to its
exoeedanoes. Because accurate measurements of a unit's i inlMluni are i MI mill to the integrity of this
program, EPA expects to direct most of its enforcement effort to monitoring, lecordkeeptag, and reporting
violations. (Bw further information contact OE-Air) .
F¥ IfM Pollution Prevention Activities)
EPA it seeking to Integrate Pollution Prevention (P2J as a work ethic in all its activities in
accordance with the Pollution Prevention Act of 19901 P2 Is defined as pollution reduction and
prevention of die release of hazardous substance at the source or the elimination of poDutfon through
efficient use of energy, water, or i
In FY1992, the Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) represented OAR in the "Agency-
wide Supplemental Enforcement Program, (SEP)/Enforcement Pollution Prevention Workgroup". The
Deputy Administrator organized the v crkgroup to spur the Agency into incorporating P2 project rest, j
Into Its routine enforcement activities. An important outgrowth of this was SSCD's formation of an "Air
Compliance and Enforcement P2 Workgroup" comprised of Headquarters and Regional compliance and
entonjeuamt personnel. During FY 1992. the workgroup worked to enhance team-buflding. (For further
information contact SSCD) ;
Insp«ctian "training Delivery Demonstration
In FY 1992, the EPA-funded Air Pollution Compliance Training Demonstration Center at Rutgers
University completed its first year of inspector training. This three-year demonstration for 15
states/locals and EPA la Regions I, 0, and ID is a turn-key cooperative agreement covering
conurninkatfons, delivery, and evaluation. It included 24 weeks of 1-spectcr curriculum, off-site training
in Kegkm I Boston, and industry training. The training which, meets EPA Order 3500.1 requirements, is
organized into bask/safety, inspection/monitoring, and program specific courses and is available
quarterly. A user group was formed and recommendations were made ID improve the course materials.
More off-site and satellite training are being considered for PY1993.
The Inspector Training Delivery Demonstration program Is a multi-year, cooperative agreement
between several colleges and environmental occupational health sciences institutes. The program was
developed to demonstrate and deliver quality inspector training to stale, local, and EPA compliance
staff. " . - . . . - •' ' .
m FY 1992, a California Air Resources Board prefect (CARS I) was Wtiated using California Air
Resources Board staff and retired personnel for on-site compliance training with basic course videos in
14 states/locals and SPA in Regions VTH, EX and X. A Senior Environmental Employee Program
cooperative agreement was developed with the National Council On Aging to provide experienced
• . 5-7 •'
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Atxomplistonew Rtytat
trainer support A successful project may prompt broader nationwide application, a higher training
level, and/or state train-the-trainers programs.'•' '•:-•'
A proposal by the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAQ was approved. It included
technical assistance and training on provisions of the dean Air Act (CAA). It involved state legal
staff in EPA efforts to develop CAA enforcement program policies and to identify issues concerning the
enforcement of market-based regulatory programs. (For further information contact SSCD)
• 'i. . .! . .,' ' . ' ., ' ' ' "
. Lead NAAQS Attainment Strategy
The Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Attainment Strategy is part of
the Agency Lead Strategy whidib intended to lower hunian exposure to leedi Due to the effectiveness
of the Lead NAAQS Attainment Strategy, the Regional Lead Coordinators wet* able to identify three
additional sources ta non*ttainznent areas. The number of sources being tiackedbncretaed from 29 in FY
1991 to 32 in FY 1992. Ux^ state and Regkmd offices r.we able to idcntiry tte
and initiate entaoHneni action with the use of the monitoring data from tte strategy.
Since At strategy was implemented, 10 consent decrees hat* beta completed and six additional
consent decrees were negotiated. On the regulatory side, the Regions are undertaking or considering
nonattairunent designation and SIP calls for five areas with lead problems. (For further information
contact SSCD) • - •-..•••-• •••-.•--.•-. •.-.-,•.•'.-.':•—,v -::^-r."; - '" •' I""" •'
- . • • « ' - ' , •'"*''' ' ' . - t-
.-.-." RuleEffecU
Rule Effectiveness (RE), Is the method by which regulators determine how effective an
environmental statute is in reducing source pollution. In FY 199% SSCD initiated revisions ID the RE
Protocol. The revisions emphasized state involvement to the program and addressed calculation
methods and application of the results of the studies to challenge o¥> *> percent effectiveness default
value in the ozone strategy. Four 11 studies were completed in FY 1992: "Emissions from
FerdOoroethyfene Dry Cleaner** (Region 0; "Surface Coating of Paper* (Region 0); *Uak Tight
Certification of Gasoline Tank Truck- (Region VTO; and "Can and Cod Coating Industry* (Region 00.
(For further mfbrmation contact SSCD) . _ / _ ' • • \ , ' i
• ' .".' "" -s," 4, •.,,
Compliance Monitoring Strategy ,
/ The revised Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS provides a more flexible and systematic
approach for determining state inspection commitments. The strategy recommends the development of
a comprehensive inspection plan that identifies all sources committed to be inspected by the state
agency, during its fiscal year. In order to assist states in developing comprehensive enforcement plans,
SSCD provided a computer program and siipported the Inspection
TZrir computer program allowed states to consider quantitative factor*, qualitative factors,
emissions, and past compliance history, which is important to program inspector's observations when
ranking sources for inspection. States could then reflect their available resources in ITM in order to
finalize the list of targeted inspections. In FY 1992. 20 Stales used ffM. (For further ^formation
contact SSCD) ' - • • . - /
5-8
-------
FY 1992-£nfircanau Accompiisfongitu Report
Eariy Reductions-State Delegation
Under the Early Reductions Programs, a source must submit an enforceable commitment to EPA or
its delegatee, pledging to achieve the required emission reductions from their baseline emission to
quality for a six year extension of compliance with Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT).
The commitment would be enforced under IS USC1001 or under Section 114 of the CAA, and would be
policed by random inspections performed by the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NHQ.
After 1994 the commitments will be integrated into either a specialty Title V permit or a letter of
compliance issued by EPA. A draft Early Reductions Program-State Delegation Manual was prepared
to combine some of the requirements currently used by various ptogiaiiis. .(For further information
contact SSCD)
Significant Violator/Timely and Appropriate Guidance
The Significant Violator Program encourages effective prioritization of compliance and
enforcement activity toward sources posing the greatest environmental threat. In the second quarter of
FY 1992 a revised Significant Violator CSV)/Timely and Appropriate (TtA) Guidance was issued and
implementation is proceeding. All of the Regions and states are expected to fully implement the
SV/TesA guidance by the beginning of FY 1993. The Guidance has: 1) encouraged a greater degree of
team building and cooperative resolution of Significant Violators by all responsible Agendes, 2)
encouraged agendes to give priority attention to those violators which they believe are most
er.\ .jonimuaUy Important, 3) permitted an Increased degree of agency flexibility In Ide !ying and
addressing Significant Violations, and 4) provided a more accurate picture of the time and resources
1 to bring and maintain major sources into continuous complian
Under the revised guidance the universe of sources has expanded. The SV universe expanded
because the guidance now incorporates the 1990 Clean Air Act definition of a major air pollution source.
and becai"* the Guidance now encompasses asbestos sources1 and sources m attamintii. ^eas. This
expansion In the SV universe resulted in an approximate 25 percent Increase in the number of SV's
identified and addressed in the fourth quarter of FY1992. SSCD expects the number of SV's identified
and addressed to continue to increase in Fiscal Year 1993. (For further information contact SSCD)
Volatile Organic Compound* CVOO Technical Agenda Activities
-'During FY 1992, SSCD and the Regional Offices identified and initiated 10 "technical Agenda*
projects for VOCs, Air Toxics and Radionudldes. These projects were selected after Regional surveys
identified guidance and support needed to assist Regional and state/local agendes ability to enforce
the air program.
As a result SSCD published seven VOC inspection reports inducing procedures EOT sampling ana
analysis, test observations and complianc* chedOistf; completed development of 23 plant specific
inspection manuals for CTC sources and presented a CFC limmingcouJiejflMMzedgttidelmes addressing
the confined space entry issue for storage vessels subject to Benzene NESHAP (40 CFR 61, Subpart Y);
and completed Regional and OAQPS review of inspection manuals for the Benzene NESHAP Coke By-
product Recovery Plants (40 CFR «, Subpart U» Storage Vessels (40 CFR 61, Subpart Y) and Transfer
Operations (40 CFR 61, Subpart BB). (For further information contact SSCD)
5-9
-------
FY1992 En/brumal* Accomplistunatu Ripon
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Compliance Program
dean Air Act amendments requiring recycling of ozone depleting refrigerants went into effect
during FY 1992. On January 1, 1992, service stations that repair automobile air conditioner! are required
to recover and recycle the refrigerant To implement the regulation, guidance was prepared and over
500 inspections were completed. Compliance is good and a complete analysis of inspection results will
be completed in FY 1993.
- Effective July 1, 1992, venting of refrigerant is prohibited during the maintenance, service, repair
or disposal of air conditioning or refrigeration equipment (except automobile air conditioners). SSCD
issued interim enforcement guidance to assist the Regions in investigations and enforcement actions.
Also during FY 1992, EPA settled the largest penalty case far violations of the import controls on ozone
depleting chemicals. (For further information contact SSCD) .
Wood Heater Program •
During FY 1992, a wood heater Random Compliance Audit (RCA) program was developed and
implemented to siiengUien implementation of the New Source Performance Standards for Residential •
Wood Heaters, tlie RCA program requires manufacturer* to send pioduction models of wood heaters to
the laboratory that originally conducted the certification lasts. If the appliance fails to meet the
emission standard, certiAab^ . . ,. '
To >»npi*nent mis program, * RCX guidance document was prepared, the guidance describe the
procedures tor selecting, testing ant* tesolv^ problems during th« course of audit testing. The guxunre
was released tome regulated community and Aey were given an opportunity to comment on it During
the yesa; two lefts were completed, both of which passed the 1CA» (Par further information contact
SSCD) • '.".".
. • ' * - • *
dean Air Act - Mobile Sources ' - ' '
. , Administrative Hearings) -
Pursuant to the 1990 dean Air Act Amendments, -which provide for the use of the administrative
racess for certain mobile source violations, the Field Operations and Support Division (POSD) tus
developed procedures, finalized in early FY 1993, to conduct administrative hearings. Similar to other
EPA. Of flees, POSD Witt be using the ggtea of PratlfffC Gownine. ** Administrative Assessment cf
Qvfl '
During me past yea* POSD coordinated with the Office of Enforcement, the Department o<
Justice, and the Office of Administrative Law Judges in developing an internal policy for the
administrative process. POSD will continue its policy of issuing Notices of Violation to violators prior
to the issuance of an administrative complaint and hopes to continues its excellent rate of settlement
using the NOV process to reduce litigation. O^r ftirthcr tofoirnadon contact FOSDV
- • . Diesel Desulfurization ^
The final rule to reduce sulfur and regulate other properties in diesel fuel was published in ttw
Federal Hester on May 7, 1992, and takes effect October 1, 1993. TOs rule was Issued to protect
5-H)
-------
FY1992 Enforctmens Acc&npluJunfKU Jtepon
devices installed on diesel engine* to reduce particular emissions and to provide other air quality
'benefits. Tte new standard nsquirw died hid for on-ro^
maximum aromatic content of 35 volume percent and a sulfur percentage, by weight, no greater than 0.05
percent FOSD has begun the extensive process of developing procedures and policies to implement a
nationwide program to enforce these requirements. ,POSD is presently preparing a question and answer
document to be distributed at a public meeting planned for May 1993. In addition, POSD is developing
an enforcement strategy and will train contractors and EPA personnel on diesei desulfurization
regulations and inspections this summer, (For further information contact POSD)
ovisio ef
ol thg Osan Al AH m»nt« ol
ThereformtuatedgasoUiieandanti-d^umptagratanak^ FOSD
continued its role of developing and drafting the enforcement previsions of these requirements. The
most significant event was tag April publication of the Supplemental Notice of Propoaed Rulcmakmg,
formally proposing me reformulated and anti-dumping program that resulted from the Regulatory
Negotiation conducted in 1991. The reformulated gasoline regulations will result in the reduction of
VOC, NOX and toxics emissions by 13* in the worst ozone nonattainmimt areas in the country. The
anti-dumping regulations win ensure that the quality of gasoline in the remainder ol the country does
not degrade from its 1990 kveis.
The general structure of the proposed programs is the result of an extensive negotiated rulemaking
process comprised of representatives of all segments of the industry, environmental groups, state and
local agendes and various federal agencies, including DOE, OMB nd EPA. However due to a
presidential decision regarding the tieatmtiit of ethanot in refonnulav.d gasoline, m? of the
enforcement provisions have to be reproposed. This reproposal win be issued by March 15, 1993, with a
final no later than September IS, 1993. The program will be effective January 1, 1995. (For further
information contact FOSD)
Detergent Additized Gasoline
The Office of Mobfl* Sources established a workgroup and has been working extensively to draft
the new enforcement provisions prescribed by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 for detergent
additized gasoline. The purpose of the detergent addittzed gasoline regulations is to prevent intake
valve and ponied fuel infection deposits from occurring in gasoline engines. These deposits have been
shown to cause increases in hydrocarbon (HO emissions. A proposal and final rule are due out within
the next year. Th* detergent additized gasoline regulations will be effective beginning January 1. 1995.
(For further information contact FOSD)
Defeat Device Prohibition
The dean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established tht prohibition against the manufacture or
sale of defeat devices. Section 203
-------
.®
FY1992 Etfoirmtrt A&ompl&ontnu Mtpert
, The legislative' history -associated with the prohibition against defeat devices eittsv"!^t pipes*
(i.e., catalytic converter replacement pipes) and programmable read-only memory (FROM) chips as
examples of such devices. FOSD settled several er\forcement*ctions for me maiuifacrure and/or sale of
test pipes under mis provision in 1992. As a result of FOSp1* aggressive enforcement action, all the
known manufacturer* of test pipes have oa^ such function, FOSD Uoinentrymvestigating PROM
. chips manufactured by several different companies, indudingan extensive test program to determine
their effect on emission*. (For farther information contact FOSDJ
Volatility Enforcement Program
FOSD conducted approximately 11,000 volatility inspections in FY 1992, issued 73 Notices of
Violation for volatility violations, and settled 29 volatility eases during FY 1992, collecting $48J?1 in
dvtt penalties and $31,046 in alteniative payment projects. A signlfiouit numbered the NQVs issued in
FY 1992 wem for violations discovered toward the arid o/ the fiscal yoat These cases wffl be conduded
* '
„
The number of NOVs isnied in FY 1992 for vdatiBty violations is a substantial increase over the
number issued m FY 1991. Tbg increase in flit number of violations tt attributable, in latge part to the
more stringent standaKls Imposed under the Phase H Volatility Regulations which became effective
daring At 1992 volatility season, and to misd^verlei of M^^
areas requiiing fcjwtr RVT gasoline. EPA targeted its mvestigative eflbm dtirlr^ FY 1992 m mose ozone
nonattainment anas when the potential for misdelivery was greatest. (For further information
contact FOSD) - ,_.'\ '•" ;' ' ' . '•'/_' " __ '• ',*'_ '"- ' .:.",/'•,,.!..'• ='"'•
•• . , _" _ * - -•. .' " AftenuiifcetCitalvtk Converter Policy ,
*.* '" »., , .-.'•
Oozing FY 1992 then waa aa Increase in compliance with respect to the Installation of
aftermarket catalytic cunveatg*. FOSD attributes this Increase in comptiance to Its aggressive
enforcement program, which indudes the investigation of repair shop* to determine compliance, the
«rtww^
the public and the regulated community; EPA tampering survey data indicates that the neea for
cataivtkcOTwrtorepia«mentb as high as 4% of the national fleet Because of mis substantial need
for catalytic converter!, the demand for new afiermarfcet catalytic converters has steadfly increased in
" recent years, (For further information contact FOSD)
Clean Water Act . •."•'•. • . • .••..>
• *
Review of Citizen Suit*
The Office of Enforcement continues to iwiewwalwenlbiwment cases fM
that these cases an consistent with public policy. In F* 1992, th» Offioi ol Enferament reviewea
approidmatety 190 «Way notice letters filed inlbnntag *• Ager*ey and *• vWaitor ti^
goinir to ffle suit EPA *l»rertewri approximately 30 ojnsertt decrees mjmcttiierabrin^
violations of th* Oepi Water A«t Saw Drinking WW« Act or Ocean Dwnptog Art. SPA.'«
consultation with the Department of Justta, reviews Ctean VMiter Act cWam
drtermme whether A* penalties, supplemental envtaonmenlalprojettt,and ta
CWA goals, promo* compliance, follow regulatory remiiiwnentf, and avoid
precedents tf the pro|»sed citizen suit settieimnts re cwi^^
. • . • 5-12 • •
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement AcampBslaatm Stpon
t**
(m
EPA review t»m worka with th» putiej to negctUtt a bettw nsnlt If negotiation fcils, the team may
file comments or objections with the court, « Bit an amkuB brief on beliatf of OM of the parties setting
forth the position of me United States. (For further information contact OE-Water).
Issuance of Revised G«an Water Act Enforcement Policy Compendium
During FY 1992, EPA'* dean Water Act Enforcement Poficy Comr^rdium waa revised and made
available to EPA Regional offices and to the public The nde»d four volume Compendium contains
copies of all current and publicly-available EPA wafer enforcement polfcles reUting to tr* NTOES and
pretreetment programs under the Qeait Wafer Act. (Foe further mformttion contact OE-Vfcttr).
Report on Gear* Water Act Enforcement Mechanisms
Qfl March, IS, 1992, EPA leleefed Hie E*pott to CoH^m* ™ rr^n Wmlme Act Fnfr.rr.frw^t
TWsRjportwMrequirtdby Ginpew puauBit to Section 314$) of ItitWafie? Quality Act
of 1987, P.L. 1004. T7wr«port«ulfZt»th«r«iou«tnferctin«nlopdan»aT^l*^
tfw Clean V^ter Act and oowkten hour the Agency1* various CtoanWattr Act e^bn»Mfit programs
an IsipleoMtitod. In the course of deretoping the Eepoit an Agency workgroup abo conattend th*
mtrits of seveal possible ravislom to the Ctaen Worn Act and dewlolped a disoiaiioii peper anaiyzliig
possible amendiswti to the C3een Water Act ThiadJacusrionpapgwaa trirumitted toCongrtMby tf>e
Agany oontanporaneouafy wttli *e Report to Congftss on Oawi Watar Act Enforcement Mechanisms.
(^ rurtr^ infonnarjon contact OB-V^ttr). - • •
Propoaed 40 CFE Fail 28 Regulatiooa Adopted as Guidance
rropoeed 40 CFJL Part 28, wnteh it to govern a number of Agency non-APA administrative
penalty proceedings, was adopted aa guidance for $309(g) dean Water Act data I proceedings,
begimlnf on November 1,1991. IWi Part 28 guidance replace! 1987 guidance. The Part r proceduro
were also applied at initial guidance in CWA Qasa I spifl eases, beginning In December 1991. The
Agency wiD use its experience with proposed Part 28 in these programs, as well aa the comments it
received on the proposed regulation,, in determining the final form of 40 CFJL Fart 28. (For further
information contact OE-Water).
NPDES "Minors* Workgroup
/EPAfs nanagement priority tn the peat has been with the approximately 7,100 major NPDES
permitter*. Currently, an eflbtt ia underway to asaesa the ourent marogemerU apj>roa
-------
F71992 Ex/orcematt AeeompUjjaatsa Jbpen
.central purpose erf the study waa to establish baseline data. ^tog « definition of significant
noncosnpUanc* which EPA adopted in July of 1990, Tht study resuto wfll bt mid to flfetjiaze future
trands in industrial compliance. the moat significant result descrfced fa the report to that 51% of tht
3Q»QDQ significant industries nationwide would have been la significant noncootplianca with either
effluent tinu'H oc reporting rtquifeMrtai of both, talnf the new Federal «<
attempt 'to identify whether or when industries returned to compliance during the year, either
voluntarily or through enforcetnenL (For further Information contact OWBCX .
. • Electronic Reporting Pilot , _ '
Tb redao the reporting burden on peimimJ fMfllttet and {myrove- the quality of trtformatton
submitted, OWBC ia actrverf exploring optiort* available for electranic submiudon of Cteduige
MonitDitnj Reportt from pemitttau fjiofllfis into the PwiiH CJDBipff§npi ^fHBi**!
pilot to teat deettenie data tnmfer was sucotsaful. «*ultin§ in ntmnttad reportn^ of d*ta foe four
OMWha dirertry to PCS. Urn additional pUota, one to legion V and the other in legion VI art
underway OWEC ia developing an rraiuaiiaii approedi to that ftw remit* of theae pilot cart Mrve at
the fcxmdaikn lot fotare management dedah^ ta tr* renvaJr^ 7,100 »i^ facflttto to PCS,
mate nef abo provide injight into how to »ddr«M tneUrger unlrerieorfmi^» pennitled
'""
'",.••''. '- PCS DaiaQoaJltyafld teaming Ariaiy»a»R«vi«w • •
A oata quelltf rrrlew hat been 'completed on all Vdattr Entocesiew National D»taba5*
(WENDB) date, ^f«^N« wtthtn the Permit Compliance Detabeae (PCS). The goal of thia effort b
In addlbon, a nationwide PCS date quality check of measurement data for ten selected
penmrtr . ha» Uen compteted. Prcb'aiM wtth tr« datt ha« been klertlfled awl pnxadurw to
it up are beinej deveiopeo* • - ' ' ,
rtanttoedlngs to wafcrs of the -
If S> fu"**t*»*fff {§ being klervtifled by the Agency ai an indirect eutlioniiiroltt indlcttof and wfll over a
period of Maw provide an indication of the impact of permitted discharge* upon our nation's
waterwayi. Loadings dad hi cosjonction wit* other environmental Indicators wffl provide nguktors
and uw puJltc iafonnatfon in order to make aaaessmenti of the health of itreaint and whether
improvernent or deterioration ha* occurred. Finally, loadtngi may provide a way »identify the mo»t
significant sources ofpofluttnt which potwtialiy may be addrwsed through enforcement. (For further
information contact CWGCX ' • '•
i ffprtftttmtm* \f y^llJ •
OWEC haa oanpletel the flrst phase of • project to »«er»Ja> and enter latitude md longitude
coordinats* fbf majors end ftfenti ninaa bito PCS. damnify, att but 1^300 m«jon heve IMHBI «n»r«d
into the daiaoaa* This effort will Increase the usefulness of PCS data in managing the NPDES
Thla irObririation la key to llnWr^
.
pollutant discharjjrrs. Tne ojordbvatte* will also provide new opportunities JD jitberfaee with other EPA
which hive these mapping
-------
Ft 1992 Enforcement AcconoXirtHfUMtr Rtpcrt
te^1
(^
National Pretreatmeni Enforcement Initiative
On Oetobtr 15* 1992, ** Agency announced the results of 1H third enforcement initiative to
address noncompliance with pretreatment requirements by amnkipaUoes and industrial users. In i
meeting with the trade press and through a "Note to Cornapondenis", the Agency announced that
Fedeni, State and local governments had combined to target 354 noncompliers (at mot* than 1184
million In penalty actions since May, 1991 In addition, six separate actions agairat industrial users
went filed in Federal court on the day ol the i«ncwKen«ttt AU irf ihe actloni anixxint^ irxiuded cash
penalties. Fifty four actons wen against munidpaiitiej, and 300 w«n against industrial users.
fhcs* actions represented the third phaae oi an ongoing campaign to ensure the effective
Implementation and enforcement ol pntreatment program, EPA announced the first pretreatment
irudatfre in October, 1989 with action* against 63 munfcipaiiHei for failure to implement their
approved programs. The second initiative, announced in May, 1991, included actions against both.
munidpaiities and industrial users. This year's initiative again included actions egtinst both
municipalities and industrial users, but was unique because it included for the first lime, actions taken
by municipalities against industrial users. As a result of these three initiatives, more than STO Judicial
or administrative actions have been taken obtaining more than $54.1 million in penalties through
enfuix^uau^{Focnjrtrierinfannation .. ..._ .. _ . .
NFDES/Pr«
-------
FY1991 Enforcanau Accomplish!*** Xgpott
This action will result in the permanent closure of over 1400 sertlee station bay dnla wells nation-
wide which had been receiving automotive-related waste such m ofi. anti-freexe, solvents, etc. This
enforcement action was the first of its kind under the UKleipoond Injection Control (UIQ Program in its
use of national administrative orders to address oil company operations in 49 States and Territories.
The UIC Compliance and Enforcement Section at Headquarters is actively tracking compliance with
the Orders and sharing inventory information with the Regions and States. (For further Information
contact OCWDW).
• ** • '• , , * •**. *•
-* . UIC Administrative Settlement Guidance • • -" :
' TJ» final UIC Program Administrative Order SetdamtmPcdky, UIC CukUnceNa 73, wa»ia»^
on January 24,1992. Headquarters staff with support from the National enforcement Investigations
Center and Clayton Environmental Services conducted Settlement PoBcy training sessions for UIC
pryrim and fTirpmal rmmul itiffi hi ft Hints Pnrinr inrl Ian rnnrlsro Thi mining install wrnr
well received and the Regions are now using the Settlement Potky in the negotiation of UIC
administrative cases. A companion UIC Civil Settlement Policy will be developed in FY 1993. (For
further infonMtion contact OCWDVVX . _• ' .
, . Second Rotind Enforcement Initiatir* -
A "second round" of national administrative settlement negotiations was announced by the
Offices of Ground Water and Drinking Watet Federal Fadlitte* Enforcement, Waste Programs
Enforcement, and Water Enforcement tat July. The second round initiative is focused on the closure of
•hatiww mjecndn weOs at fadlitks ownedlind/or operated by 12 ott oompa.Jes not covered' Ja'fttal
round" and at federally operated Fleet Mar«gement Centers. Information request tetters under $30G7(a)
of 1CRA wen mailed to 82 regional GSA Fleet Management Offices on September 23,1992. Letters
offering to negotiate itmenW* with 12 ofl companies went mailed on October 38,1992. Negotiations
wimtr»owi«t»ancVor operator has uuiMienceJ and is gxp^
FY1993, Cr^ further mfonnation contact OGWDW}. .
The Office ol Groondwater and Drinking Water's (OCWDW) strategy to strengthen the PWSS
enforcement program has three mala points; to change the culture in State and Regional Offices; to
raise the visibility of the program/and increase State capacity; and to obtain voluntary compliance as
frequently and quickly as possible. OCWDW's approach to carrying out this strategy has been (and
win continue to beh .. .
<* . a "
• to increase State and Federal Enforcement activity
• to focus on the enforcement ol *« St»«ace Water Treatment and Lead & Copper Regulations
• to link with priority setting and primacy retention initiative.
In Ft 1992, OGWDW issued several guidances and began to implement several Initiatives. The
major guidances are listed: ; . , ' -
5-16
-------
FY1992 Eirforctmau Accomplish**** Kffott
Guidance on tilt Use of Emergency Authorities .
Under §1431 of tin SDWA
This guidance emphasized that §1431 has a broad application and provides EPA with an
effective tool for handling publk health endangerments at public water supplies and underground
sources of drinking water. The guidance explains when the authority may be used, 4iirwso EFA's
intamai procedures for issuing Section 1431 orders, and provides information on how to support and
prepare such an ordet (Sor further information contact OGWDW).
Guidance an Enforcement of tin Requirements of the Surface Water
Treatment Rait
In this guidance, OGWDW reaffirmed mat the Surface VNkter Treatment (SWT) ruk Is on* of th«
office's highest priorities for eutocanient and mat the office waa taking an aggressive approach to
enforcing the lequUeuienU. The guidance stales that systems which an required to Alter must have
filtration in place by June 29,1993 or they will become significant noncompUen on that date. The
guidance further states that large systems (those serving 1OOOO or more persons) should be subject to
State or federal Judicial actions. Smaller systems may be addressed by administrative actions. (For
further information i
L«ad/Copp«r Enforcement Initiative
hea developed definition* of significant noneompHance fag me lead/copper regulation,
dnAed an uuoecement strategy fior this rule, and has begun detadled^traddng of complL-^ with the
morutodng remiiiemgiU under this 'rule. mPY1993,CX^VDWwfflcortte«toaggrei»rverylmplemer.t
and cnfocce the rsquircmenls of this regulation by issuing orders to systems which fail to complete
initial monitoring by the itteiiUfitg, m addition, the office win work with me States/ using
enforcement actions where appropriate to insure mat public health Is being protected until corrosion
central is ftJIy Implemented. (For further Wonration contact OGWDW).
Sorfact Water Treatment RoJe Enforcement.
OGWDW has been tracking the systems serving more than HWGO persons in detsJL States and
Regions have been encouraged to initiate enforcement actions where possible based on current
violations. The office wffl mitiati enforcement actions once the dakdlme of June 29,1993 haj passed.
(For further information contact OGWDW).
Data Quality
Complete, accurate data it critical to an enforcement program. OGWDW is m the process of
derignmganew data base *y*twn which wifl have many features. Including the ability to make
specific compliance determinations and wfll contain parametric data, In addition, the office has an
ongoing program of conducting audits of State programs to tavesflpti if the State Is dtermiiung
compliance o»rectfy and if m*infoiBiflta is befag completely and ac Iwelve
such audit, went conducted in FY 1992. OGWDW is also investigating potential cases of data
(for ftanlMg {nfermatlon enrttart QCWDW). v
S-17
-------
FT 1992 Enforccmtnt Accompl&untHU Report
•Resggyce Conservation and Recovers Act
Advanced RCRA Inspector Institute .
OWPE has developed an advanced RCRA Inspector Institute to tnia state and regional
Inspection personnel llus grilling goes beyojidtti* basic ICRAc^^
that affect the future direction of the RCRA program. Thi Advanced Institute wifl cover multi-media
inspections, Import and export issues, combustion inspections, non-notifier detection, waste
minimization issue*, federal facilities and tribal land issues, and ease development and inspection
paradigms. (For forte mmrmation contact OWPE}.
* ' . Environmental Extension Network (EEN) PUo*
Educating RCRA handlers can assist hi *• teductknotteipcovetheJwndlir^otandaMvirt the
final disposition of hazardous wa***. In ihort educated handlm cm bnpn^ compliance with RCRA
regulations. OWPB las IsM Urn foundation for a pilot extension project that wifl link current
regulatory and tsrttnifai assistsnoe programs wtth copununities, small and Urge businesses and any
other organization that is involved ta (and overwhelmed by) the RCRA program, (For further
'' * '
RCRA latendivi 1/IM i- land DUpoeal Restricriom
Providing consistent and ttmery traWng (or state and Ivglonal ICRA inspeetois hu always tMen
a chaOenge lor the RCRA pTDgranL "Di ineat tMs challenge, RED has dev eloped a esanpteheiialve Land
Disposal Restrictions training program through the development of an laleMCtUe disk. The 8 hour
training is drrfcied m*> several modules aflowtng the mspector to work at his/her own pace. (For
further informatkn contact OVVFE). •
Inspector "Training on N« w RCRA Regulations
OWPE provided training on the BoOer and industrial Furnace and the Wood Preserver Rules.
Inspector and enlbtogacMpegagu^wegigh^OT
able to ask questions aboot the rules vta satellite. As a fbflow-«p fromFY »W, RID undertook a train-
uamalnei program m all ten Regions on the Air Emissions Rule. (For farther Information contact
OWFI).
/ ' . ' .
Imports and Exports of Haiaxdous Waste*
waste Import and export program. Owe the pest yes*, RID developed pawed™ tor processing and
°^
currendy in the process of developing a national automated database for the
storage and reporting of Import and export notifications. Tr«s development is bemg perfarmtd m
phased approach. T& import database trmdkmg system was on Bnefor lasting hiDaoimber^i^Tiie
phasetoei^isrKetheoaxentexpoxtnoti&atfonptoeessissd^edaM 11» program is
expected to grow substantiaD/wtth the implementation of two bUematfonal agreements regulating
the movemcruolruvaurdoua wastes -OEO> and IASEL. (r\» further tafoctnatfcwojntactOVVPE).
5-1S
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accoififlishmmu Rtpon
Laboratory Audit Inspection (LAI) Pamphl«t
OWPi developed the third in • Mta of pamphlet* designed to describe the scc>p« and authority
of specific RCRA Inspections to the regulated community. Hit LAI pamphlet It aimed it labs doing
analysis of samples from RCRA facilities. (For further information contact OWPE).
Alternative Dispute Resolution Training
OWPE/RED has developed a training course on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) lor the
RCRA Enforcement Program. The objecthre of the training Is to stew how mediation^
techniques may be useful hi reducing the time spent negotiating consent orders, this training will be
conducted in an ten Region* during FY 1913. (Fw hiro^Wormaticn contact OWPE).
Unfam iMUly of Regulati
OWPB/RED hat finalized a training course for EPA's RCRA regulation writers on the
enforceability of RCRA tegnlaiiona. the course wifl Sndude pteserttatfcw on the "day in the life of the
inspector* and RCRA regulations from an enforcement peispeOlve. the teaming is scheduled for early
1993. (For further WbnMtk» contact OWPE). •
- Boflcf and Industrial Furnace Enforcement Strategy • • • •
OV.7E completKi and distributed TJ^Eflfampfr^^t StUfe^t^g iflegjgrf Iraimtrt*!
Jlfilfng_Wa**Tiffl1*lflfrflttT to the Regions. This strategy wiB serve at guidance for the Regions in
developing their own specialized strategies, ensuring effective implementation and enforcement of this
complex rule. (1^ further information contact OWFEV
Non-Notifier Guidance
OWPE and Office of Enforcement - RCRA (OE-RCRA) developed and distributed to me regions
• guidance on the appropriate enforcement response to RCRA TSDFs that failed to submit a §3010
notification and/or a Part A application on time. (For further Unfonnattoi contact OWPE).
RCRA avil Penalty Policy
OWPE/RED is neaxing completion on guidance affecting the cost* of complying with common
RCRA regulatory requirements. These compliance costs win be used in the BEN computer model to
fariUtaha ralnilaHn j ^rrmrtmir ^BntP* ^ nmfampllinca. The guidance, for example, diSCtlSSeS the COStS
of transporting waste off^rite, mstaflmg a groundwater monitoring system and treating LDR regulated
wastes. (For further information contact OWPI).
Hazardous Waste Transportea Initiative
WMh a grant from OWPE, the Midwest iiivfnxisrwiiiJ Enforcement
13 states and the Provmce of Ontario. Canada, investigated the compliance of motor carriers with
hazardous waste regulation*. Over a six man* period, States within the Association examined motor
carriers along interstate*, weigh stations and at commercial treatment storage and disposal facilities
for hazardous materials and hazardous waste compliance. These inspections were performed by state
S49
-------
V
FY1992 Enforcemttu Accomplishntxu Rtpoa
police; state hazardous waste and state transportation inspecton. During a ont week period in ,
seven states participated in a regional initiative. Inspections went conducted within a state or Jointly
among several states. Over 700 motor carriers wen inspected Approximately 225 of these motor
carriers were identified as hazardous material carriers. Of the 225 hazardous materials carriers, 90
were identified as hazardous waste transporters. The majority of the transporters' violations wen for
Department of Transportation violations, egv equipment failure or the driver's failure to have proper
and/or current documentation. (For further information contact OWPEV
• •» •
., Illegal Operators Initiative
In conjunction with me Regions and nine States, the Office of VVhrtt Program Enfu«iju»a«ndtt»
Office of Enforcement - RCRA announced a national enforcement initiative against handlers of
mat had failed to notify either me Region or the SMe of their hazardous waste
activities. This Initiative was the culmination of one year** investigative work that yielded 50
administrative compbinM. Hie Regions issued administrative complaints against 27 owner/operators
and the Slates Issued 23 admmistntive compUmtsl Assessed penalties totaled over 120 million. (For
further information contact OWPBV •-- ' : , :
MuW-MedKa fnJtfatfvr -
The RCRA Enforcement Program supported the Office of Enforcement's Three Industries and
Benzene multi-media initiatives. Hie RCRA program contributed six of the eight cases in the Benzene
initiative. Phre cases were for violations of Subtitle land one eaie for Subtitle C Six hundred
'thousand dollars-was aieused for thc*e six cases. The Three Industries initiative (Pulp and Paper,
Primary Metals and Industrial Organks) amconced 24 dvffl and fadUdal fiHngt. The RCRA program
contributed 9 caeca with assessed penalties of over $ 4 mflUon. (^orturmerinforinallcct contact OWPE).
UST Held Citation Program
The Office of Uhdergic4ind Storage lanks (OUST), with the assistance of Regional USt programs,
Regional UST attorneys. Office of Enforcement; and Office of General Counsel, has developed a
national strategy for*a federal field citation program. OdAmnc* tnr VmA*r*\ Weld citation
r™n»muMt (April, 1992X cstsbHshes the parameters for the federal program, including the citation
form and list of'dtabkO violations. By the end of FY1992, Regions t VI Vm, and X had issued field
citations and me renaming Regions are expected to have active programs in place by the end of FY
1993. (For farther information contact OUST).
Superfund.
Final Role and Policy on Liability of Banks
and Other tender* Under CERCLA and RCRA
Following a period of Intense mteragency negotiations, the Fbul CEROA Lender Liability Rule
was signed by Administrator Reffiy on Thursday, April 23,1992, and was announced by the White
House me following day aa a key component of the President's Regulatory Reform Initiative Its
publication in the Federal Register on April 29,1992, irarised me end of* process begun August 2,1990,
when EPA first announced in Congressional testimony that it mtsnded to promulgate a rule to danfy
5-20
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
the liability of tenders under Supcrfund. Ilia proposed lender liability rate waa transmitted to OMB on
September 14, 1990, which started a protracted series of intengeney negotiation* on the proposal,
including imob/ematt by the White House's Council on Competitiveneaa. the proposed role was signed
JuneS, 1991.
Well over 350 comments were submitted on the proposed rale, the vast majority of which
supported the rule and its overall approach to clarifying the liability .rules applicable to lenders
following the llth Circuit's 1990 decision in United States v. Fleet Factors. Hie rule defines the
CERCLA §101(2QXA) 'security interest exemption,* which provides mat any person whose "Indicia of
ownership" in held "primarily to protect a security interest" Is not an owner or operator of a CERCLA
facility, provided thai (hey do not "participate in the management" of the facility. The rule lists a
number of common loan management practices that an sperifkally defined not to be evidence that a
lender is "participating in management" and also provides a general test of management participation
by which the legality of activities that are not specifically covered can be,
By clarifying ma liability rukf applicable to lenders, it enhances the Agency's enforcement
posture by making it dear when and under what drcumstances lenders should be heM liable under
Superfund, thereby making enforcement cases easier to evaluate. By mmimizmg the liability risks for
banks, and in particular by allowing lender* to ."police" their borrowers (commonly a site's
owner/operator), the rule also serve* to create incentives for the owner/operator to maintain sound
, environmental practice*. Because the rule also ensure* that fund* will be available to otherwise credit-
worthy borrower*, it was exempted from the Administration's moratorium on the Issuance of new
regulation* and made a part of the Administration's package to reduce adverse economic impacts
to jsedb) federal regulations. ....
The final rule also interpret* a component of the §101(35) ^innocent landowner* defense
applicable to government entities mat "involuntarily acquire* contaminated properties. Under the
rule, insolvent banks and savings and loans that have been taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation and/or the Resolution Trust Corporation are considered to have acquired the failed bank's
a»*et* "Involuntarily" for purposes of the defense. Othe* government lenders are treated -'~
-------
FY1992 Enforcement AccompUshaiim Report
sees these committees as dynamic subgroups which interact with each other and which can be realigned
to serve as troubleshooters and resolution-builders as different issues arise The goaf ultimately is to
officially finalize the guidance and policy memoranda which cwigmate within these committees. (For
rurther information contact OE-Superrund) *•''""
Policy Toward Generators and Transporters of MSW
Approximately 25% to 30% of the Superfund Sites on the National Priority Ust are considered
municipal sites, either because they are munidpally owned or operated, or contain significant
quantities of municipal solidwaste (MSW). MSW I* largely composed of non-hazardous substances
although studies indicate that MSW may contain a very small percentage of hazardous substances.
The Agency has a king-standing policy of not pursuing transporters or generators of MSW, absent any
site-spedfic evidence that the MSW contributed by a party contains hazardous substances found at the
site. • ..:.,.-,- • . ' . • _ -' •
Increasingly, MSW contributors are being named as o!efendants u pnVate contribution or in third-
party Soperfund enforcement actions, m situations in which the Agency would not ordinarily pursue
such parties. Because of the problems created by litigation against MSW cc«rtzibutors, EPA has begun
investigating ways to which to deal with such actions in a manner that is fairand equitable to all
parties involved at a Superfund site. ';;-
The Agency fa currently involved «i»<> fng to resolve these cases ai a variety of sites around the
country, and many were nearing final resolution by the end of FY 1992. Settlements or other Agency
Involvena-'t to Boater settlements aH currently underway in connection with the Charles George (MA),
Beacon Heights (CT) and Laurel Park (CT) Sites in Region I the WestKL Avenue (MI) and Oak Gtove
(MI) Sites in Region V, and the Operating Industries (CA) Site in Region DC Settlements with
contributors of MSW are intended as part of the Agency's ongoing etom to peircJ the parameters of the
CERCLA liability scheme. (For farther infoaution cmtact OB-Superrund) . : •
Non-binding >'location of Responsibility Pilot Project
A successful pilot project with OWPE, NEK. and Regions IX X andIV was established in FY 1992
to perform non-binding allocations of responsibility (NBARs) pursuant to CERCLA Section 122(«K3>-
Superfund Counsel Vraiam X White and OWPE Director Bruce M. Diamond Initiated the NBAR pilot
project wimNEIC Director Frank M,Covington in August 1991. A rM NBAR for 121 responsible parties
wan completed for Hassayampa Landfill in Martcopa County, Arizona. This Agency allocation
included re-allocation of defunct and non-viable party shares ao»-ng viable PRPs, m proportion to the
PRPs' Site waste contribution. The Hasaayampa NBAR was sent to the viable FRPs at the end of FY
1992, with special notice and a proposed consent decree for TO condiart of rarnedlalctasign and remedial
action at this Superfund site. A partial NBAR was completed at the Gould site fc Region X, prompting
the major PRPs to pnpose an alternate allocation which formed the basis for their settlement A third
NBAR at the Arrowhead Refirwry Site in Hermantown, Minnesota Is to development The 1989
volumetric waste-in database ha* been updated with discovery information concerning more than 300
third party defendants, brought into the Arrowhead Utigatfc» by rwerve FRPs brtlally naired by EPA
andDOJ. ThtAfHOTfavited the Mimesota Arrowhead Steering Committee (MASC) to work jointiy on
the Arrowhead NBAR, or alternately to share MASCs separately developed database, but the
.steering committee decline* The Agency allocation thus wifl address difficult issues raised by
litigation involving an active steering committee and numerous small third party defendants. Final
stages of the NBAR Pilot Project win include consideration of methods to decentralize NBAR
capabilities to the ten Regions, and development of the NBAR Pilot Project Report (For rurther
Information contact OE-Superrund)
5-22
-------
Enforcement Coordination with the Securities and Exchange Commiwion
Fiscal year 1992 saw continued coordination between EPA's enforcement program and the
Securities and Exchange Commission in ensuring adequate disdontn of environmental liabilities,
particularly Superfund liability, by publicly-held companies. The Agency transfers enforcement
information, Including Superfund FRF data, to the SEC, which uses the data to review firms' financial
reports and identify violations of securities laws. EPA also reviews select disclosures and advises SEC
as to their accuracy. . This sharing of date and expertise Increases the deterrence effect ol the Agency's
own enforcement efforts as OMnpanies reaUae that an EPA grfmoBiient action can affect their financial
importing. The Agency hopes that this will lead companies to take a fresh look at ways of reducing
releases of todc substances and perhaps adopt waste minimization or other pollution prevention
{POT ^fiPW iHHfliHtJBI* **l>>very of S&i million. Three cases an still In the midst of active
negotiation while th* two remaining cases hs^« been raten^ ani £uad m ftderal c^stiict court seeking
a total of $518,000 k> peat response costs and a declaratory fudgmcn* that EPA fe entitled t? recovery of
•any tumpeR's
- Since the early 19SQs» th* Slate of California, throiigh tti State Water lesoiirces Control Board
and' Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)* has actively pursued the clean-up of
contaminated groundwater at me South Bay sites, iy the time many of these sites were placed on me
National Priorities Us*, the RWQCB had already used state »"fatcement authorities to order
potentially res|*onsibli parties (PHP*) to investigate and deaa-up the South Bay groundwater
contamination. In 1989, EPA awarded RWQCB federal money under the Multi-Site Cooperative
Agreement (MSCA) to oversee the FRF studies and decvup. Usii^ federal fundj, RWQCB, acted aj thg
lead GERCLA agency oveneeing the PRPswork. The cost recc^eryooiruiunirentsreirnburseEPA for the
federal MSCA monies awarded- to the RWQCB as well as EPA's own intramural and extramural costs.
(For further Information contact OB4«perfund) .
TSCA Section 8(e) Compliance AuxUtPrograin (CAP)
Phase One reporting of TSCA section 8(eJ health effects Io6ormation was nearry conupleted by ih«
end of FY 1992 (Phase Two reporting of envuxxuratal effects Intonation shou^
1993V Approximately 7X300 studies haw submitted under the CAP, with estimates of total stipulated
penalties rangmg from five to twenty mflBon doOan. During Flf 1991, EPA latinchedthe TSCA Section
8(e) CAP, a fir»t-of-its-kind voluntary audit program designed to achieve the Agency's goal ul
obtaining any outstanding section 8
-------
stipulated penalties for each study reported up to an ovcraQ fSJOOMIOO ceiling. Mont than 120
companies (excluding subsidiaries) ifgiatated for the CAP. (Ra farther mtomaaon contact OE-TLD).
EPA/OSHA MOU
The Secretary of the Department of Labor and the. Adnuritarator of the Environmental r'rotection
Agency (EPA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) OR November 23, 1990, with the goal ol
establishing Y program lor improved environmental and woikplact health ami safety. The MOU
requites developo^ent of wodopUro to implement,
On him 19, 1992, the Acting Assistant Secretary of tin US. Department of tabor Occupational
Safety IB Health Adminiitrmtion (OSHA) and the Assistant Administrator ol the Office of
Enforcement EPA, signed th* O5HA-EPA worfcplan tot FY 1992, (For Anther information contact OE-
• "
Spppjfitif*iffl Eirrironffietital PmiiMif (SEPi) • •
The Office ol Compliant Monitoring (OCM) In the Offfct ol Prevenaon, Ftatlcides and Toxic
Substance. (QPFI5) rekued anbrtarim Final AccomVliihments Raport for Fiscal Year 1991/1992 on
gPf m tht TSCA., FCPRA and EPCRA yi3 eiifbcoement prognuna. TMa report mdodes a summary of *
Hit SE? data extracted from the OHPtS enforcement data base, the PIFKA fc TSCA Tracking System
(FTTS)/National Compliance Data Base (NCDB), three sampl* regional cases settled with SEP
stiflememataitf, arid tosttudlonaaa how
In this report tnchide the following: (1) During FY 1992, a total of !»• vil administrative compUirM
under TSCA. EPCRA §313 «nd F1FRA were settled with SEPt; ff) PoOutlon prevention SEPs under
EPCRA §113 constituted ttw largest number of pollution prevention SEPi settled by the Agency as a
whole during I¥ 1992 P3% at of July 1992); $) Nort^x>Qutk»praventlanSEI^urider TSCA constituted
the largest number of non-poflatton pwvwtionSEPj settled by the- Agency as a whole (46% as of July
1992); and, (4) During FY 1992, the ratio of average cost to respondent for ownpleting anSEP versus
average penalty rediictlcei received for the SEP was approximately 6:1 fb. Z3CA. 61 for EPCRA and 2:1
for FIFRJLTh* final report wffl be published te second Barter of FY 19931 Cbpksinay be obtained from
OCWs Compliance Branch. > ' ' . • •
Supplemental envirorunental projects (SEPs) art environmentally beneficial actions that a
violator of a statute or regulation agrees to undertake in exchange for a partial mitigation of a civil
penalty. During FY 1992, OCM has been very active in the area of .SEP policy developtnent OCM is
currently chairing the Agency-wide Wbrkgroup on Supplemental Environmental Projects. This
workgroup is charged with Identifying and addressing barriers to incorporating pollution prevention
bitoSEPs. OCM also onipietid ti» raport "bnrastfgatiM
For Settlement Agreements.' This report evaluated the effectiveness of SEPs and Identified the types
of SEPs that may be especially beneficial to the environment. Additionally, OCM is preparing an SEP
guidance which is specific to the OPPTS Enforcement Program. This guidance would ippty the Febm»ry
42, 1991 menwrandum from (he Office of Enforcement on iheuseofSEftiRlPAsjrttleBMnla. (For further
information contact OCM). " , '. .
. National Inspection Gutdanct and Training Effort
, (: . •
In December 1992, the Draft Report outlining the Racommendations of the OPPTS Inspector
TrairiiM Straw Group was forwarded to *eR*g^
the National Enforcement training Institute flOET^ The OrYR IR*F«CIQ» TraMr^
5-24
-------
oxjuired by the Office of Compliance Monitoring (OCM) and legion IV. The Regora were asked to
ensure that all interested pesticide and toxics enforcement grantee* be provided an opportunity to
comment on the draft report. the purpose of the OFFIS Inspector Training Strategy Group Is to: 1)
Jcientifyar>d discuss short and toog-^^
training for the OPPT5 prognun areas of HFRA, TSCA (PCBt, Asbestos, and Core TSCA), and EPCRA
'§313; and 2} discuss appropriate and feasible approaches to implement these programs. The Strategy
Group looked at overall and major OPPTS inspector training needs in an integrated and coordinated
manner. The report discusses the recommended framework for training, options for delivery, and
proposed timtfrnmes for iinptenieTUatkm. The Strategy Group proposed the foitowing Framework and
OxirMCunJculum for Inspector Thrtifrtg for H ; .
inspector Training Curriculum (Fi PO inmerMlsjd to be completed within first two
yean): l)Ba*k Inspector Training Course (fa existence); 2)Baak Health and Safety Training (in
existence); 3)On-the Job Training and Developmental Training: 4)Program-5pedflc Modules: SJOtheir
cDu^sei^ecomme^MjcdforoDP^p^etk»by^favk»mse«ctors
BL Advaimed Technical Training ' • : '.
Thi» is a specialized or advanced curricula for complex, difficult, or 'new* components, of
mspections (lA spedfk training for conduct^
IMI training for specific technical activities to be employed during inspections (Le, advanced sampling
* tachnknies or photography)^
C Advanced Professional Tkmining .
These are training courses designed to strengthen specific stiUft associated with the compliance
and enforcement activities. .
It U planned that the development of the introductory Pesticides couraes would be completed by
•he end w FY 1993. The development and delivery of the TSCA, EPCRA, and reme^-g pesticides
ojursesihould be completed by the end erf FY 1994. (Fwhirther Wbnnation contact CXM).
... • . »_•
. TSCA §5/8 Inspection Guidance • . •
(Chemical reporting)
The TSCA §5/8 Inspection Guidance was distributed by the Office Compliance Monitoring in
OPPTS. This manual, distributed in final form, consider* f** OPPTS FY 1999 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) priorities and includes guidance on inspection targeting, pre and post-inspection
activities and the conduct of TSCA inspections under §§4 (non-GIF), 5. 8, 12 and 13. (For further
frforaution contact OCM). . ' : . "
PCS Inip€Ction Manual
The revised PCB Inspection Manual wis distributed In draft form by the O«kc of Compliance
Monitoring in OPPTS. The manual reflects revised inspection priorities* consistent with the national
priority areas Identified in the OPPTS FY 1993 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) guidance. It was
distributed for review and comment by the Regional Branch Chiefs, Regional PCB Coordinator*, PCB
State grantees, OPPt and NEC The final version will be completed m mid-FY 1993. (For further
mfonnadon (xintact OCM). ' • " •
• ' . 5-25
-------
FY1992 En/orctmcniAtcompiishmgntjlUpon
' • ' '
AsbcsfeM Abatement Inspection Goidanc*
The Asbestos Abatement Inspection Guidance was disseminated In Snal form by th* Office of
G»if»liana Monitoring in QPF1& 1^
asbestosinspectiant, including itviewi of abatanentactioro performed at sdwoU a priority am un^
the OPFISFY 1999 Memonmoum of Agreement. (P» nirth»tnfewTTMHpn
- ' • -. -• • l Hexavalent Chromium _ '.*""• .
' • " '«""*?." ' ' • . ,
Doing PY 199% OCM hat been developing a HexariJentChTOf^timEnfcccHnentResponM Policy.
this policy win be used by the Agency to determine the appropriate enforcement response for
violations of Water Hmtment Qwmkali Regulation. Hie Water treatment ChemkaJj Regulation
praMMlai, lander 1SCA$& the distr^^
chenrialafatiiM^ooarfbitcooUngtowen. (For further infonnidonoantactOCM). ••
'•''. AWIilytoPay
During Wf Iff2» OQi cooipleled a draft guidance ininual for o>tennming the abUir/o/ a not-^br-
profit organization or governmental entity to pay dvfl penaltict atattttd under TSCA and ottier
statutei when abfltty to pay must be conaJdered. Thto goidanoi mnmal Is designed for use by EPA
' enforcement ttaft The draft manual to currently undergoing review by the Regidna and Headquartars.
Ttm final guidance wffl be completed tn emrty FY 1993, (1^ further Wbrmation contact OCM).
, * .
AllMSfM Kazazd Emergency Response Act (AHERA)
During FY 1992. OCM completed development and began hnplementation of the AHERA
InieipieUve Guidance Proem. TWa prooeaa, which Involved a workgroup oonriatmg of mecnben from
to AHERA nbed by the Region*, states, and publk. At the lead far the proceM, OCM dcyaloped
sevecal poUcy papers, including, ItisceJlaneoua and Nonniable Suspect Material Sampling
Requirement!; "Suspectf1 Atbestoa-Containing Building Materiala; Vbual Inspection; Project Deign;
LEA Turning HemdnHnenti lor Contractor Maintewice V\bric«rs; and Response Actions Related tn VAT
Removal. TKe Guidance Workgroup alto responded to questtont ranging from whether to inspect for
suspect ACBM under carpeting to enforcement-related triennial reinspection Issues. (For further
information aontactOCM).
i - ' * <' • » •
/ Amendment to the AHERA Enforcement Response Policy (ERP)
In January 1992, OCM tamed an amendment to '«he AHBRA ERP. TWs amendment changed the
January 1989 AHERA ERP to reflect changes in the violations and penalty amounts created by the
Asbestos School Haiari Abatement Raeumcciiabon A*L (ForfurtrterinfcmnatkinairdaetOCM)-
. -.. , C4Xip«ntiv« Agreements and Grant Awards -TSCA
During FY I99t a tooU of $5 million w« dUtrftuted to the States under T5CA Enforcei«Hit
Cooperative Agnementk During W 199% OCM also drafted « poBcy whidi wffl aBow States that
have waivers fat the AHERA program to receive grant funding from the EPA, Grants hadnot
previously funded these programs. This new policy was reflected hi the final FY 1993 TSCA
3-24
-------
Cooperative Agreement Guidance, and AHERA wahnat state progiaans) win bt eligible for funding
begmnaiginFYlWa,
Upon recommendations from a workgroup of headquarters and regional participants, OCM
awarded a total $400,000 in cooperative agreements to states fa support of multi-media toxic*
compliance programs In f¥ 1990, The Slate of Pennsylvania noefoad a $200,000 award for their multi-
media enforcement initiative, and the State of Washington received $200,000 to support a combined
asbestos-^n-achools/leed survey pro^ (I^hirtherinfbrniatioo contact OCM).
OCMTSCA/IJribalConf««nct
OCM conducted a TSCA/Tribal Conference on November 5 arrf 6, 199^ m Genre* Colorado.
AlfeGMiee*incliaied B Indian part^^
Indian Affairs, Indian Health Services, the Office of Pofliitk» Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), and
OCM. The pvrpose of the con/miKe waa to Introduce Unvested tribal personnel to HPA's TSCA
program, risk assessment!, the TSCA gnmt rtmding and gnntpmce^ and tr^onnatkm on asbestos^
PCB regolaHom. (For roniiermfonoaiian contact OCM). . • • •
Infin^pfiriiTt GuidAncc Acctst System
Poring ftf 1992, OCM developed a eoapprehenstve mterpredve guidance accesa ADP system that
will pTOvide quick; and eeay aocesa to TSCA and AHERA enforcement poUdea, interpntitions, and
correapundence. The sy»t*m contains over 1*000 document abstrac.i. comptete with bibllogrkrhk
ft mBo** Urn agff In H*«*nnitt* tf ^.y
reUtmg^ a present qiiest^ dates,
etc. The systan wfll be user tested daring a three- month tdal period in the flnt quarter of FY 1993.
Afte? a satbcactorf tttt^wv the computer piognun wiU be copied ak>ng~ with the ocigmal documents,
and distributed to the Region*. OCM wifl maintain and update the system periodically at new
documents aie produced. (For nutl>ei htsomiattan contact QCM). • . - • •
AHERA SWAT Tain ami AHERA Case Support GoJdance Manual
* , ~ * ' . „
OCM, along with OGC, OS, and OffT continued the AHERA SWATTkam to address substantive
AHERA issues. During FY 1992, the SWAT Team evaluated the Region IV 'other person* cases and
evaluated the litigation risk of each of these cases. The SWAT1t»m'» findings were iwued as t report
to Region IV on June IX WW. The findings from last years Region V AHERA SWAT Tfeam report and this
ytai* Region IV report wen complied into a user friendly reference document entitled the "AHERA
Cases Support Guidance Manual' Thai manual was distributed to tr* Regions on Oaober 8, 1992, for the
purpose of fostering a consistent approach to the development of AHERA cases. (For further
Mint Safety and Health Adminlatration and PCB«
m response to concemi about ahendonment of PCBs in underground mtnes, and the resulting risk to
groundwatsx OCM has been developing a Memoranda of Agrtement with the Mine Safety and Health
Adinfaistratiai (MSHA) to asaM 1PA m identtrying
ia currently being reviewed bjr tht Federal Employees Untonv
5-27
-------
Under the terms of the agreement being developed, MSHA inspectors would fill out PCB
c&eckBsti for each underground mint and send them to the EPA Region* for foflowup inspection.
Hwough the information collected by MSHA, the EPA i«gipp* wul know how mijch PCB equipment ij
underground, whether there are any apparent violations or ^nvironmenlaj concerns, and whether the
mine piant to dote in the near fatura. By the end of W 1993, OQC *q»A to have a complete rerad of
mine* with PCBs. OCM wifl us* this information to tijget ntfm op«ntt» foe outreach and inspection*
in order todecrea^thflHbHlhoodof ninneabanctooinenta. (For further infonnadon contact OCM)-
OCM Strategic DUlogut ^
In FY 199Z lor tttt papcw of txt^^
ami enforctoient prognun, the Office of Compliance Monitoring Mt up the 'Strategk DUtogue Task
Force*. During Hit ymt <, the Strategk Dialogue task Potte inade rigniflcant progrm In refeing our
virion and redirecting the fatore aiEPA't petttcide and toxta coeapflance progmn. UM Tuk Fence
conrim of rapreaentattves ton the ttatea, the EPA Regk)nalOacea,theOaic«otf Eidbrcenientind the
Office ^e^> «M»^^H^tt^i^KrfM ^^M»«^^m^^ w^^l^^ §fc ^j. ------- - _______ §._.,. - *.» --------- ** — .
fTTeliTeingO IDet fUBl^UlS Uml WHeuMBVS Of BIB JUIIMIf ODOApuBlCel pCOgfUCL ITCBI Qlett CXeWUAnM\ ill§
Tiik Fora defined a vision of the ideal futxn«coinpliaiK» program, a compflance pro
st^ement orf hituni dli»ctlc« to heip define and gulde-ch«^^ 1heTa$k
Fotci alao agreed to implement a Ml of cootptiance initfairftaiiarFy 1993; begnwock on developing a
sefiea of envl/otuneiital measujiei in adected toxici and pcsticidct prognuoc; and, Auitas defined and
began to implement Hat Pestidda Field Data Plan. Ttm Tuk Fora abo agraed to Implement a set of
coaiptianet initiative* to FY 1993: begm wo^
- selected toidla and pcfllcid» pfogii^
Fkld Date Flan. The Taaklkxcealw ctevetop^ a propo»ed jet of criteria
and between existin tonm
Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodentidde Act • • '
HiRA |lf FhaM 1 Procedural Rule
OCM heeded (he workgroup that developed the propo^d Pestkkle M*nagemcrit and Disposal
regulation* foe tne acc^tance, recilt wbnu^^
suspended and canceled peatlddej (FIFRA §19 Phaae 1 Procedurml Rule). Thi» rule win prescribe
procediana for conductfRg mads w^
proposed regulation iasued by the Office of Solid Wute. (For nirther Wonnitlon contact CCM).
FIFRA§6(g)
As part of the 1988 amendtnenti to the Federal Iiuectidde, Pungidde and Rodentidde Act
(FIFILA^ Congicaa added IVRA |i(g> llito
and appropriate State and Local Official* of the quanaty and location of canceled or suspended
pestfddes hi their poaiesiton. ' •
In FY 199% OCM was Involved with several activities to further Implement trdi new section of
the statute OOI continued to chair the vnilf^^ftom^^eiaSm^UM^nfm^of^d
policy on FffRA section 6(g) 06 FR 130I2K TWi p^*md^lt*mplmml**ttf^J&&>
outline the responsibilities of people who must submit information under FIFRA §6(gX and delineate
the pioc^iua wMch oiiiat te foOowed w^
9-28
-------
FY 1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Additionally, OCM prepared a FIFRA §6(g) Notice which was published in the EcdflaL
along with the Ethyl Parathion Cancellation Ordec The Parathion FIFRA $ 6(g) Notice resulted in
approximately 120 report* from people mat possess canceled parathion product*, The information
collected through the panthion HFEA §6
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Actsmpt&anaB Jtepart
FIFRA Project Officer's Manual
la May 1992, OCM issued the "HFRA Project Officer's Manual' Tl^ owiud describes tr* role o*
and c^^
that will be needed in carrying out cooperative agreement nianagement This rnanual was enveloped by
a Regwn/Hfiadquarten Workgroup, (^furtho-infbrnwtloncortict OCM).
Agricultural Worker Protection Standard
'""•„» .j , , , ",,„-,
On August 13» 199*, EPA promulgatad the Wotkat Prottrtim Standard (40 CFR Pirt 170) and the
related labeling requirements (40 CFR Part 156) which address pesticide related occupational safety
' CX1I played an active tote on «w wmicg^
Worker ProtcctEon Standard and iriatad luppnitiiig dnniimftfa. Sine* |i«Mnm>giirtfom of Hi* icgulatiam,
OCM hat b«md«v«k3ping ttwCotnpUana Monttc^ Strategy $p«dalimp«ctDC trmining, developing
oiiif«^ i^ oaatpBana asslsiana imtaiato
and aswbting OFF with to outre** ptognun. (I^furfter information contact OCM).
in, * *• •>.,', , , . * - ^ •• , ,,^
. •• . ' • " ' ' .*• " OuLpBacn to, Pcsticid* Impccton •• - • • •
Durfa^F>'l992,OO'produc :• three teoe? emkal Sode^y in August
OCM also organized and conducted two Sen^r«n/ConfererK» on tt» FDTU GLPs. The fint was
held in June fat Headquarters personnel m program ecem«ntof theGLPior
data reviews where GLP compUance Is an issue, Topics included an overview and background of the
regulations, inspection and case review related to the GLPs, GLP policy development and the
Enroreeraent Reponse Policy, Hie second was h^Septemlw 9 and 10 for me regulated oanonunify.
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accairpilsfanatts Report
This conference was attended by representatives from U5DA, Stale Agencies, University Laboratories,
and IR-4, as well as private industry. The conference was used to present a wide array of topics,
including explanations of the regulations and Iheir history and related enforcement and compliance
Issues. Presentations on tnspectional programs, o^ata requirements, and industry perspectives were also
made.
OCM conducted six seminara on the GLPs for saentiffcpenonnriinOFF,inordertouiiproveOPFs
understanding of the GLP program and enhance OCM's interaction with the Office of Pesticide
Programs (OFF) on GLP matters. Additionally, a total of 34 OFF scientists participated on GL°
inspections. (For further information contact OCM).
to Suspend Pesticide Registration
Suspension is an Agency action which affects *e legal status of a pestldcle oroduct registration.
After a suspension becomes final and effective, the pestidde registrant sub^ to the suspension may not
legally distribute, sell, or use the product subject to the suspension.
Staee November, 1989 fee Office of Compliance Monitoring (OC3^ has had the responsibility for
issuing Notices of Intent to Suspend (NOTTS), traddng the status of pesticide products* and enforcing
non-compliance with data requirements imposed pursuant to §$3(cX2XB) and 4 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Li FY 1992, OCM initiated 103 NOFTS action* for non-compT mce with FIFRA resulting *n 48
suspensions. In aAer cam, various c-ccomes resulted, juchas suspension did not occar or the mat* rs
were settled resulting in data submission. (For furthei information contact OCM).
Case Development Training
During FY 1992, OCM conducte-4 Case Development Haining in Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, ?nd
Chicago for the regional staff and the regional counsel. Each participant received a manual covering
pertinent TSCA, FIFRA, and EPCRA law as well as a case study used in connection with a mock
settlement conference. A special edition of the Case Devetopment Training Course was also presented in
Washington, DC for me Office of Pesticide Programs. TWs ccrose was spedflcalry designed to give OPP
staff an appreciation of the difficulties encountered in the enforcement of pesticide labels and other
wwjlatbry decisions and programs pn^rmlgated by OPP. (For fiulhermfoautfion contact O(^
- Training Conne for Good laboratory Practices Inspectors
The Office of Compliance Monitoring (OCM), Laboratory Data Integrity Assurance Division
(LDIAD), held a training course for EPA inspectors involved in the Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)
program in August 1992. The theme wet "GLP Inspection and Fraud Detection*. Participants included
EPA Inspectors from OCM, regions IL ULIV, V and the National Enforcement Investigations Center.
Other participants were representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Agency
for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, National Institute of Health, Office of Inspector General
(EFA) and the Society of Quality Assurance. International GLP authorities came from SwitoerUnd and
the United Kingdom. A follow-up training course wUl be held tai May, 1993. (For further information
contact OCM).
3-31
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement Accomplufuntnu Rtpon
Emergency Wanning and Community Rightto Know
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Ad (EPCRA)
' Enforcement Response Policy
In response to advene Administrative Law Judge (AIJ) decisions and other Issues raised by
practical applkaticn of the December Z, 1988 EPCRA Enforcement Response Policy (ERF), OCM revised
me Enforcement Rtsponse Policy for EPCRA §313. TWi poiicy, which was issued a* final on August 10,
1992, will be used by 1PA to determine the appropriate enforcenwnt response for violations of EPCRA
§313. The r«?iied EBP, which was the result erf a cooperative effort between Headquarters and ma
Regions, provide* fot identical treatment of la* rrporten a«i nonfeporttri, wim up to 50% reductions
for selfmisdosure. Tin' new policy also Identlflti eight types of data-quality violations as well as
recordkeeping and supplier notification violations. Aa a result of the difficult/ hi obtaining OMB -
approval for tr« 1991 Form R and subseqiient late issuance of the for^
pttpa^ a Question and AnwerDxuinent to espial
section 313 Reports. This Q4A Document was distributed to the Regions on Jury 4.1991 (For further
information contact OCM). . ' , " • " . ."
The EPCRA §313 Data Quality Inspection Manual was distributed by the Office Compliance
Monitoring in OJ7I3. This manual is intended to p.ovide EPCRA §313 inspectors with the tools
necessary g> fulffll the new emphasis on data quality tnspectfcins. tt trw add specific guidance to £•;
Inspectors regarding th* uae of the EPCRA Targeting System (ET5), me OCM developed automated
Inspection targeting and tracking tool The manual, distributed in Interim final form, wffi be field
tested by me Regions from January through June 1999. Enhancements will be made as appropriate after
June. (Ibr further information contact OCNQu
• Cooperative Agreements and Grant Awards - EPCRA ''"
During PY 199fc OCMoflfered $200,000 of extramural rttf^ing in EfOUEnloreement Cooperative
Agreements, this represents an increase of $100,000 from the FY 1991 funding available for this
program. As a result of this Increase in fundmg New Yc^ Kentucky, CWo,arriTe»v^«
with $50,000 to support compUarce activities related to the reporting requlrementi of me EPCRA
sectionals. (For hirtr«ir»fbnr«tlon contact OCM).
Fonun on Slat* and Tribal Toadca Action (tuii'lA)
TOSrm Iy^ a ve^ iuccis^ fii« y«f to whiA
of these meetings, there hat been a significant increase to state tot ol vement tn a variety ofdgveioping
toxics related issue*. Also during IY Wit POSTIA included tti fiiit Wfcal paitldpaiilt, POSTTA's FY
1592 activities included: a State and IHbal Enhancement ftojeefc a Oiemfcal Management ftoject a
Chemical Information Management Project pPOU/tM lelasad top^a); a Poiutlon Pievertlon Proj^
and, a Ued(Pb) Project. (For further Information contact OCM),
3-32
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Aaompl&aneati Xtpon
VI Media Specific Enforcement Performance and
Regional Accomplishments ,
A. Media Specific Enforcement Performance
dean Air Act - Stationary Sources
The implementation of the revised Significant Uolator (SV)/ Timely and Appropriate (TfcA)
Guidance in the second quarter of FY 1992 significant tacreaaed the anfrefM of m
number of sources added to the SV list and me number of SVs addressed each rose by more than 25
percent. In FY 1992, 77S sources wen added, an increase of 130 from FY 1991't total of 608. The
Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) expects ttMttanbef of SV*s identified ai^addrene* to
ojnttane to increase in FY 1993. ••'.'.''..''"''
in the third quarter FY 1912, the dean Air Act Amendment (CAA) administrative penalty
authority was implemented, which resulted m the Issufa^ of over 1O) orders. The number of dril cases
referred to the Department of Justice (DQJ) Increased to 86 to W1992 from FY1991's total of 74.
SSCD led a national mittatrre against Louisiana-Padflc Corporation (If) for violations of the
Pieveiiiiun of Significant Deterioration (FSB) regulations under the Hew Source Review Program. A
Notice of Uoknon (NOV) was issued against LPC for eight faculties to three Region* for violating
state permits and PSDpermtts, If to the market leader mtr« oriented strand board industry with over
U, peroMu of the market ahare. The Regions covered te the NOV were .;Jegioru IV, V ar. L Region X
had pfM/iomiy iatuecl an NOV against LPC .or similar violations at their Chifco, ID, facility.
*B> improve effbrta to return air emisaiom fadUttes to compliancsv SSCD pitoted Comp
"" ------ fct addition. New Jersey,
North Caroline, Alabama, HOliboto County, Fl* Amaa, Utah, Arizona and Wuhington have all
oegnn developing compliance plane. Hie program, developed with .clow stale anu ZTA Regional
involvement; establishes an larountabiHty process in which the state sets compliance program goals
and strategies with the Region. .
dean Air Act - Mobile Sources Held Operations and Support Division
"Hie Held Operations and Support Dtviaion (POSD) hi the Office o/ Mobile Sources (QMS)
enrrrces the fuels, and^ampedng, emissiona warranty, and {dated provisions of Tltie D of the Qean
Ai/Act and aasisis k\ developing enfacoeirMrtt r»lfcy fb^ Eaenenii of this enforcement program
include: field investigating (augmented by state and local eflbm and by contractor inspections), the
issuance of Notices of Molatfon (NOV»), negotiation of settlements, referral of cases to the US.
Department of Justice, and litigation if necessary. This centralized approach to enforcement
historicalh; has been extreme^ successful ;
Major enfeicement adOevementi daring FY 1!W tr*±jde thi d«r«k>pwmt of an totem*! policy
and rnechanbm for conducting admtniatratrve hearings, a procesa provided for ki the Clean Air Act
fCAA") Amendments of 1990, and the continued development and drafting of the enforcement
provisions for the reformulated gasoline, anti-dumping and detergents rnlemaidngi.JIhe volatility
enforcement program resulted In continuing high levdj of compliance as a remit of PORys aggressive
enforcement efforts. Aggressive enforcement of (he defeat device prohibition of the CAA resulted in
settlement of several cases against manufacturers and sellers of catsJytic ujttvaLei replacement pipes.
Aggressive enforcement also resulted in an increase in compliance regarding the installation of
aftermarket catalytic converter*. ~ -
6-1
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplidonersa Mgpoa
FOSD sctded 214 cases in FY 1992 with cash drU pcn^tiM totaling S1XB9XXX). Additional
payments totaling $410,000 went to alternative payment project*. * Tha largest dvll penalties were
generated from tht settlement of five outstanding lead phasedown cases with $674,000 in dvil
penalties. In addition. Consent Decrees wen entered » four judicial cases during FY 1992 for penalties
totaling $136X380.
dean Water Act Enforcement - NPDES ,
11
Timely and Appropriate Enforcement and the NPDES Exceptions Report.
*-' • ^ ' • , * '
Ui« NPDES enforcement program hat defined Significant NoncoinpUance (SNQ to include
violations of effluent limits, reporting requirements, and/or violations at formal enforcement actions.
Ine NFDES program does not trad; SNC against a "fixed base1* of SNC that is established at the
begfaming rf trie yeai, ratettr* program irrnda^ During FY 1992,90% of ail
NPDBS SNC* were resolved In a 'timely and appropriate* marmet
Those facilities mat have %een to SNC lot two Of more (ruarten wither returning to compliance
or being addressed by a formal 'enfonjsmsiit action are identified on an 'exceptions list*. During FY.
1992, 277 fadHtfe* were reported on KM SNC exceptions list including IDS facilities that were
unaddres»«d rrom the prertou* year and M» tedHtfes mat appeared on the list for the first time
during the year. Of the 277 fadlittM«tne exception* U*t, 153 retoir^
yea« Si wrv »uHect to formal enfotr-nwnt action, and 40 iidilits remained to te addxessed during the
Qean WiUr Act Enfbrctment - §404 (Wetlands>
I?A and the Army Corps oi Engineen Jointly cnforci^itmjmnMnts of pM of iht Clean Water
Act which pconibits the unpefnittfcf discharge ol dredged or ffll material into wetlands or ot^tr
water* of the United States. Under a Memorarrfum of Agreement between the two agenda, the Co^
as tr« r«deral penrdttmg agor^ < has the lead on Corps^ssued p«nr^ the
lead on many unpennitted discharge <
A primary goal of the EPA'» wedandj cnrorcemeni program Is environmental protection. EPA
S tteely removal ol the unauthorized discharge and restoration of the site, where appropriate.
Another Important goal of $404 is dattmnca, both in regard to a particular violator and » Ow
regulated community as a whole. Consequently, EPA may stak monetary penalties either alone or in
addition to fefimctiv* icUsf. Tha program aJsostr^es for £ilr and equitable treatment of m«re^
community. EPA is committed to enforcing the requirements of §104 to ensure mat violators are nut
allowed to profit from their Illegal actions. '
During PY1992, EPA continued to use me various enforcement mechanisms provided under the
Ckait Vfetar Act to response to violations of §404. In FY 1992. EPA issued 128 administrative
compliance orders, 26 administrative penalty complaints, and referred 15 dvtt and criminal judicial
cases to the Department of Justica to contrast. In FY 1991, EPA issued 98 admlnistratfva complianc*
orders, 21 administrative penalty complaints, and referred n dvil and criminal cases to the
Deparbncnt of Justice. .
6-2
-------
FY1992 En/brc*mmt AfcomplaJmttiu Rtpon
US Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices
Enforcement Information Contacts
Region I -Boston
Connecticut, Maim, Massachusaetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, lament
Region n- New Yoric
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico,
Office of External Programs
JFK Federal Building- One Congras* Street
Boston, MA OZ2Q3
Region m - Philadelphia
Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryiand,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wet Virginia
Region IV -Atlanta
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
Region V- Ch'cago
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota
Ohio, Wisconsin
Region VI -Daflas
Arkansas, Louisiana, Hew Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
Region \H - Kansas Off
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Region Vm- Denver
Colorado, Monttna, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Region DC - San Frandsco
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada,
Trust Territories
Region X-Seattle
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Office of External Programs
Jacob K. Javttz Federai Building
26 Federmi Plaza
New York, NY 10278
m-26^2515
Office of External Ar&in
Ml destrtnt Building
Philadelphia, PA 191O7
OfflaofPnblk Affairs
34S Courttand Street
Atlanta, GA 30365 • - •
404-J47-3004
j*» -
Office of PublkAffain
77 Vfet Jackson BouJ?vard
Chicago,^ 60604^507
312^93-2072
Office of External Affidrs
First Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain Place
M4S Host Avg._12th Floor Suite 1200
Dallas TX 75202-2733
2H-dS5-220Q
Office of PublkAfiain
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas ary,KS 66101
913-551-7003
Office of External Affairs
999 IB* Street Suite 500
Denver CQ 80202-2408
303-294-1120
Office of External Affairs
75 Hawthorne Street
SanFrancbco,CA 94105
415-744-1583
Office of the Deputy Regional Admtntstrator
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-U07
-------
FY 1992 Enforcement AfcompliduiattsRcpan
Safe Drinking Water Act Enforcement
PWSS Enforcement Program
to FY 1992, the Office erf Groundwater and Drinking Water (QGWDW) continued to strengthen its
PubUc Water System Supervision {PWSS) enforcement program through record numbers of
administrative actions, several precedent setting judicial action*, and the development and
Implementation of several program guidances and initiatives. These win lay the foundation for an
mniim *lini uiuy ll 110 In Pi
mFY 1992, the PWSS programs* new records for numben
program issued S39 proposed administrative orders and 382 final admmistrative orders (up from 443
PAO» and 297 BAG* in FY 1991). m addition, the program doubled the number of complaints for
administrative penalty, issuing 32 in f¥ WW {m 16 in FY 1991); the program also increased by one-
third tr«miiiib«o^U31 oro>rs- 9 were issued JnFY 1992 T» 6 in FY199L
The program continues to work to Increase the number of dvfl Judicial actions. The program
anticipates a large number of additional civil cases as it nxn^ to enforce tr» reijuinnnentt of the new
regulatk>n»,espedaUyoftrieS«rfsceVVil«Th»tmentRui«. •
Resoorce Conservation and Recovery Act Enforcement (RCRA)
1 "Hie WiO RCRA Implementation Study (W§> ?rovided an opp rturdty to evaluate th* impact to
th* atioruJ hazardous waste program jon proterting human hesJm and ^ environment "Tie Study
continues to be a major cornerstone fat implementing me RC31A program. The Study recommended
several areas of Improvement for the RCRA Enforcement Program. They were, to strategically target
enforcement actions to protect public health and the environment to pubUdxe enforcement actions, to
seek higher penalties to maximize deterrence, and to improve S*a*s4ir«d with «n« r^ 1991 dvfl juclkiai total of $10 m
increase in dvil judicial penalties tan me FY 90 figuie c^ 13.9 iniOlon and P¥ 89 figure of $4 J ouilioa
Penalties in adirdnistrative enforcement actions also increased, with the average proposed penalty
rising from $160,000 in FY 91 to $208X»2-50 in FY 92. Since FY 8t, final admmistoatlve penalties have
more than quadrupled, rising from $17 JOS hi FY 89 to f 77 ,364 in PY 92.
During the past yea* the RCRA enforcement program continued to emphasize strategic targeting
through its success hi a number of national enforcement initiatives white simultaneously grappling
with the effect* of the decision in g»U QU Co. v. EPA. 930 F 3d 741 (IXC Or. 1991). .The StwU i Oil
decision vacated and remanded the "mixture* and *derived-from* rules, two significant RCRA
regulations relating to the identification of hazardous wests. Despite me &*•» Qi» decision, the
RCRA program had a very sttong showing underallofthettsdlttonaliriolcatorsofenfo
This was reflected in the six national enforcemeu initiatives announced last year mat included RCRA
cases: the RCRA illegal operator Initiative, the UStMexkan border enforcement actions, and the four
multi-madia initiatives to address pulp and paper manu&cturing, metal manufacturing and smelting,
industrial organic chemical manufacturirig arul the poUutant beraene.
6-3 . ' ' • • '
-------
FY1992 Enforcmafii Afojrapfutessca Mefs>n
Significantly, tha DJegjJ Operate? Initiator laun&ad1 o ^ ias^tem ^Swt to fcJatfli and
acttet afpingg psgeoaa not complying «riA !OL(X gat^^ay^t^ In fci fiict
ECHA erforoansnt initiattve, EPA aid tuna stales aimctsttd on fssteoaif CA>, Q fltS5fr^4to-pRd TOliait^ aiaUt profram
tad lo sditero tita Agsncy's §»sl ol obtaining any catotardlng P(o) oubatonifeil tish infonnatlcm,
and provido masicmisa eitoufagEniait fc? compantes to voJiattesily ocdtS thafcr flDka. Xfcdo tits CAP,
cranfmks agreoi to regfoto to tte progcm^
i»d piy stifmfet^ p^tte
day 'par violattai. Mcso thsn 120 companies (caadtaiing safcjUiaries) registsGd for
GAP. Pltt^ Oaa fspo^ ol TS^ P(eJ haatth a«^
FY W2(Flia^ 2 repotting of «vtonttmta^
-------
FY 1992
Approximately 7,000 studies have been submitted under the CAP, with estimates of total stipulated
penalties ranging from 10 to 20 million dollar*
Superfund Enforcement
FY 1992 was another outstanding year for the Superfund Enforcement Program. The program
reached 241 settlements valued at greater than $14 biffim with potential responsible parties (PRPs).
(This equals with FY 1991 when the value of total PIP response work was estimated to exceed $1.4
billion.) Of this amount approximately SO billion was for §106 or §106/107 remedial (RD/RA)
9ettLanentt(vcr»uj$14bfllioninFYl990). In FY 1992 the Agency (eJenad 48 §106 or §106/107 consent
decrees for RD/RA to Hit Department of Justice, for icanadial work estimated it $819.1 million (71
(xnsent decrees worm $S34ira11k)n were nferred in FY 1991). m FY 1992 the Agency iieued a total of 110
unilateral admfaustatrf* orders (UAO»), vwiu» U7 m FY 199t ard 138 adn*ustom*v« for remedial designs, and 37% for remedial ac*S»a.
SujHEffundi Progmn AccoropHithmenti
(All Actions) «
ToMBA
ryst ma mi nn rm nm im. mm nw nrn rm nn nm rm rm
••FA
6-5
-------
mifj FTf 1992 Enfor&mtiu Accomplishmtnu Rtpon
B.
Region I - Boston
(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode bland, Vermont)
During FY 1992, Region I further refined! its efforts to build a multi-media focus into its
enforcement programs and to emphasize strategic targeting in selecting facilities for inspections and
enforcement These efforts affected nearly all aspects of the enforcement process, including policy
'. formulation, inspections, cap selection, seaiemert ra^otiations, arrf data collection.
. The Region's Enforcement Workgroup, which includes representatives erf all the Region's
enforcement prc>grams, continued to play a lead r^
media enforcement For example, early In me year, the Woricgroijpr^kl a round table discussion of the
national and regional enforcement initiatives planned for the year and designated contacts to
coordinate the Region's participation hi each initiative. This coordination helped the Region make
significant contributions to the Agency's national enforcement initiatives for FY 1992, particularly
those against the pulp and papa* primary metals, and industrial organic chemicals industries.
Btafldtag on to succetsrul pilot p
media checklist during aU inspections. TWs chackBst contains key miastions under each of EPA's
rogram to Iwtym Inspector detsxirte
than the <» for whkh me mspection ta b«mg corrfuc^
InvoMny •** in.p«ctoaf :»Tiew of . .^ IDEA (Inlcgal^d Dan for Enforcement Analysis) prinl-ou» *or
a facility Lefore conducting an inspection. Witt the multi-media mformation avaflabk through the
IDEA system, the Inspecton were aMe to obtain a snapshot of the fisdHty's compliance status and
history under each EPA program before the inspection.
Continuing iti multi^nedia approach to Federal fafJHHe*. Region I conducted nultf-medla
inspectior^ at iwur federal Cad&ties !*. FY 1992. Hit follow-up actions to these inspections art bt^ng
coordinated among me :EPA programs hi which vic4ations were discovered and with the states.
. The Region also further refined m irniltiiBidla caM lowntag f»ioe»M
enforcement The standard practice is now for the case team to review the IDEA print-out and Toxic
Release Inventory report for the violating facility and then communkate, via the legion's Local Area
Ntwork, with ertfoccement contacts hi aU programs for additional mforknation about the facility. This
proc*Jure p-ovkies me enforcement case team wttfa a coir^leta pirture of the envirorunentai status of
the vtjlaang tadltty,
1b complement the use of IDEA, Region I relies on to o^ramulti-metUa enforcement tickler system
(METS), which includes mformation about planned inspections and enforcement actions, as well as
enforcement actions already Mtiated.
bom judicial RCRA/C>«n V*ts» Act irmlti-tfcdUry action In the Djeste case, the Region achieved
a record-tetting $13 million settiement In the other case, significant progress was made toward
negotiation of another miiWHcninion dollar settlement
In negotiating settlements to enforcement actions in FT 1992, Region I actively encouraged
innovative provisions for supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), in addition to the payment of
cash per^tiesarrf correction of the vioUtlons. By the end of FY 1992, the legion had achieved a total
' " 6-6- . "'
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement AccomplaiuvxuXtpon
of. more than sixty settlements with SEP*. Many of the SEPs were poflution prevention projects that
invorrai toxics use reduction or recycling. Tin most cases with SEPsanm under T5CA and EPCRA.
What these developments show is • continuing cninmitawit to Region I in FY 1992 to pursuing a
holistic environmental enforcement prognm to get maximum leveuge from inspections and enforcement
actions and that targets inspection and enforcement resources for the maxirnum envirarunental benefit
Region II - New York
(New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, \fagin Islands)
Region U had a record year in a number of categories: multi-media inspection activity; multi-
medk referrals; penalties assessed; value of Soptrfundwock secured through enfoicement; and vaiue of
ebU damages judgments.
A* the same time, the Region remained strong in other areu of traditional measurement They
exceeded FY 1991 outputs and had their second strangest year ever in the number of new Judicial
litigation referrals, the total number of new administrative cases was sUghtiy down from their record
FY 1991 level, but the number of administrative case seuiemaus was up. Hie value of administrative
penalties proposed and assessed during the year was also th« second highest <
Region H continued its aggressive implementation of multi-media enforcement Under the
auspices of the Regional Multi-Program Er^rcsanent Steering Committee, major consolidated
inHnrftng ruarfy mvmrj gagjioMl pmgram offlr» -oimrm rmm. id cm** af 1? f*fftHfa A nil.Tlb€r
-of these yielded evidence of violations In one or more program areas. The Region's inspections of the
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) gave rise to what to probably the largest litigation
.referral Region D has ever prepared, addressing violations of five different statutes at all five PREPA
facilities visited, with potential penalties totaling millions of dollars. A detailed discussion of the
multi-media enforcement prognm. follows below.
Judidal penalty assessments resulting from settled and adjudicated cases totaled $5.6 million in
FY 1992, neariy 50% above the Region's previous record of $3J mUBon last year. In fact, in FY 1992
Region IT* water enforcement program accounted for more judidal penalty assessments than the entire
ffglfK"' j1ff*Trtl flnfprB*>ft*>i*ymy**** BJ P» 19OT.
Artministrative penalty proposals contained in FY 1992 ad«urdstrative complaints totaled S2S J
million; for the second year hi a row, proposed ad-ministrative penalties in five separate programs
exceeded $1 million (Air, EPCRA, RCRA, VST and CWA), and three individual complaints proposed
penalties exceeding 11 million. This is one measure of tne significance of the cases which the Region i»
pursuing through the use of the administrative enforcement tools. Administrative penalty assessments
(in settlements and adjudicated decisions) totaled nearly $3J minion, only slightly less than the
Region's FY 1991 record leveL Total judidal and administrative penalty assessments were thus $9 J
million, a record for Region H.
The accomplishments of the Region's Superfund program were also impressive. The total dollar
value of the CERCLA enforcement program in FY 1992 exceeded half a bflHon dollars - nearly half
again as much as afl past years combined, and over one quarter of the national FY 1992 toad. The total
included neariy $476 million in work secured through Superfund enforcement mechanisms (Including
Federal facility agreements), $283 million in cost recovery case resolutions, and a striking $55 million
in settlements and court judgments for CERCLA dvil penalties and treble damages, more than the total
of all previous CERCLA penally and treble damage settlements and awards.
6-7 ' . . •
-------
Region HI - Philadelphia
(Delaware, District ol Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,, \fcgtaia, Wfest Mrginia)
Multi-media enforcement It a priority both at the national and regional level Region m has
developed strategies and an initiatives for multi-inedJa enforeemenl. Following an sipiificant
accomplishment of Region UTi multisnedia efforts during FY 1992.
Approximate^ i2 multi-media irapeciiom weni oiodu^
Environmental Services Division staff, Tney warn targeted moitry through Regional multi-media
initiatives and the enforcement meaning process. During these 42 multi-media Inspections, over 270
Region m established a-emapietmtslye case sobering program which identified potential multi-
uHprovmi cryfl/eriminal coordinaiiQn and enhance diktat Mnygy**tnt *M
' * Hie entire Region III siftuiffcaiiinflncompB*M^faM fa*»frtnrv.
—^^, B " ^ " — ^s» . •" ^^ ! # *
From
ieiii^encvainaM
HM RegJoo'i Risk Baaed Enforcement >Nt»tgroiip la Identifying riaJa and woridng to reduce or
ntt thoM rJsloi throagh the aeatff* uat of aU of the Agency's «athoritk». 1i» Wofkgroupuaei
Ae faOowlng bacic stepK 1) Wenn/y a poof ol sitea wWi high potBiliai for unaddnssed risk*. 2)
Select sites tan the pool lor risk reduction projects. .3) Perfbra a risk screening to Identtry significant
risk ritoationa at saiedad sttaa. 41 Identify techniral Ox
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishment Report
Ba Federal PariHttea
In a continuing focus on multi-media compliance within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Region
01 made significant progress. In the NPDES Program, Bay SMC rates at only two percent were well
below (he regional average rate of 8.6% and the national rate of nine percent In an expanded phase of
the Chesapeake Bay Federal Facilities Multi-Media Compliance Initiative, the Region brought the
number of faculties with violations in any program, down to just three facilities bay-wide.
Further progress in the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort requires having risk based
environmental priorities to better target enforcement resources. The Bay Targeting'Strategy is a guide
, for using data in a multi-media approach, to more precisely target enforcement program actions to
m Hw» Owfctapa.V* P*y Mte~K«rf At «e AugUSt
1992 Chesapeake Bay Executive O)undl meeting, EPA armount^ puu» for a comprehensive State and
Federally coordinated Multi-Media Initiative for the Chesapeake Bay ustag me Targeting Strategy.
Region m had eight of the fl actions filed or issued nationally on August 4, 1992 for the benzene
initiative* Originally, then wt» over 20 petentiaicases being evaluated by the various program
c*£ffces(ROlA.SuperAmd,VVatecandAir). Six actions were administrative and two were judkiaL
A national initiative was conducted on May 20, 1992 to file a duster Of cases under the new CAA
administrative authority. As part of mis effort the Region initiated five air pollution control-related
a^^unistn Jve penalty cases with a total proposed penalty amount of $L/7,600,
AM a result of its Pauaylvatiia Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Initiative, me Region filed
nine separate administrative penally actions under §309(g) of the CWA OR March 13, 1992, against
municipal sewage treatment plants In Pennsylvania 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 pas* otrough 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.
legion 01 undertook several enforcement actions to ensure the sanctity of Us information
gathering authorities. Actions included an administrative enforcement action based upon failure to
respond to a RCRA § 9008 information request letter and an Inspection pursuant to RCRA g 3007 after
EPA initiated an administrative enforcement action against the company where the company argued
unsuccessfully befor* an Administrative Law Judge mat the Region was pwchided from using its RCRA
§3007 information gathering authority due to the pending enforcement action. Finally, on February 3,
1992 US. District Court Judge Cahn issued a favorable opinion in a dvfl action upholding EPA's
information gathering authorities under §104(e) of CERCLA after a two day trial. Judge Cahn held
the lerigm of delay mruUyres{KX«iirtg (TOO days^ .
During FY 1992, the Region originated a landfill initiative under the asbestos NESHAP
program to identify sources of asbestos containing waste material (ACM) who did not notify EPA or
state agencies of asbestos renovation or demolition projects as required by the asbestos NESHAP
regulations. This initiative enabled inspection of landfills in Maryland, West Virginia, and
Pennsylvania and identification of potential generators who sent material without complying with
the asbestos rules. '
6-9
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement AccomplisbnerasJUpon
Region IV- Atlanta
. (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
; ' North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee)
••..'••.••..••'•• ' . . .. • . ' • -t' .- -• -•.,,•>'• • *'" '
Region IV demonstrated a strong commitment to multi-media enforcement by successfully
completing a total of 67 consolidated multi-media inspections. Region IV accomplished this while also
increasing their output totals for dvU judicial referrals from 32 in FY 1991 to 35 In FY 1992, an Increase
of 9%, At flit same time. Region TVs admirdstrative perolty orders increased from 95 in FY 1991 to 188
in PY 1992, «n increase of 98%. Additionally, Region IV was involved in several regional multi-media
geographic initiatives aa well as the national enfonxment initiatives. • •
-.••.-.-. . • ...'-.. :• • -.''..A-., • •'. /-*;-. •
Region IV developed t plan .to cleanup a major natural gas pipeline corrtaminated with PCB
(Terowco). This protocol invofrea TSCA, CERCXA, tr* Corp* of EngtneWa ar^ regies affected by the
contamination (1, 10, IV, V and VI) and is the lai-gest TSCA case ever uiidertaken. The deanup costs
could approach a half billion dollars at 23 sites. HA shall ;incur mmimal oast for this deanup and the
raiftiijteij penalty {§ in fffCTft of $7*y million dollars. • " .
• • • • *""" • • ' • * • - • ""
Region IVs RCRA prognun assessed the largest, penalty amounts fa Region IVs history totaling
$20 million dollars. Into I* • significant increase over FY 1991 $2 miUlon dollars. RCRA also
implemented the BIP Initiative whkh should regulate the release of toxic substances from 41
frdtitie*. The results of the first 22 Inspections found 49 major violations with proposed penalties of
$6 J million dollars. . '
'-.'.. ' , : : ... •,,"•'" i '"';'*', ••'• ''•..." -* ". ;
Region IV acttveJjr supported ih* nationally managed Louisiana Padfle case. Region IV referred
two> facflYti« for action, the 068 plant in .Cents* Georgia, and the medium density fiberboard plant in
Clayton, Alabama, Both facilities were dted for violation* of the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Ato Quality (FSD) regulations of the Oean Air Act
' . . ....:•.' ,. •• .; . ';_ i:j. ,; ..• •- .. ' _ .:' -'"-,
Region |V*s N7DES program enforcement actions art among the highest in the nation. The
prognun referred seven dvfl and one criminal east, had 33 administnitive penalty orders and 116
administrative orders. NPDES made extensive use of Supplemental EnvUutm>a>tal Projects (SEP*»): six
of the APQs settled thto year contained SIPs valued at a total of 54,157,581.
Region IVs 404 enforcement program Issutd 30 §309 (a) Administrative Orders,' seven ^309 (g)
Penalty Orders and 22 final Consent Orders. Region IV resolved the Hendley 404 wetlands case to
ii*Jude relocation of two houses, restoration of wetland condition over much of the site and donation of
the wetland portion of the property to a state university. This successfully handled a major national
issue and set a national precedent - - • •'' . ^ • '. • .' -.-;'
Region IV took 239 actions to enforce the Safe Drinking Wtter Act in FY 1992. In addition, two
final penalty orders were issued in the amount of $8,373 and 23 eases went closed due to systems
retuzrung to compliance; Region IV completed twke as many actiom during FY 1992 than FY 1991.
• Agairv Region FV was tr« tasder m cn^rOnal enforcemerit For a^
has led the nation in the number of referrals to the Department of Justice. On July 12, 1992
cnvliuuiiental officials announced mat a grand jury had returned a seven count indictment charging me
illegal exportation of hazardous waste to a third world nation, the fiat such indictment in me
Agency's history. . •
6-10
-------
FY1992 Eaforcemau Acccmpiistanenis Kfpon
Region V - Chicago
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Msconsin)
Region V continued its Geographic Enforcement Initiatives commenced in FY 1991 for the
Southeast Cook County and Northwest Indiana area. This geographk enforcement initiative made
significant progress in achieving commitments tinder the FY 1992 Great Lakes Action Plan and in
integrating risk- based multi-media enforcement Into regional operations. New geographic enforcement
initiatives are scheduled for FY 1993 and FY 1994.
m FY 1992, tt* Region took me initiative to ensure trtat safe drlrikirig water would be provided to
ail segments of the Amiih Gjtmnurdtias, This effort was made with two goals in mmd: 1) to have the
Anrish communities realize me importance of monitoring (heir school weJb for contamination; and 2) to
• have other Asriah schools infonned of their responsibiUties. Gjm^
on Decsartber 27, 1991 and February 21, 1992. Bom systems had vioUted administrath^ orders and had
numeroua violations of the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and monitoring requirements for
bacteriological contamination. The enforcement actions stressed the importance of the drinking water
monitoring requirements and the importance of preveBtative maintenance. Both schools have agreed to
pay a penalty for past violations and agreed to remam m eompUarce with me regulations.
Region V brought 23 Clean Air Act enforcement actions pursuant to the Agency's new
administrative penalty authority. Nine of these cases were ffledcci May 20m as pert erf an enforcement
duster m which 32 cases wtm commenced nationwide. Th» Region lied nme complaints allegir^ that
tfit respondents had failed to certify compliance with Federal regu ttions limiting volatile org*
-------
FY/S92 Enforcement Acccmplxhmaia Report
Slati and Local Accomplishment* During FY1992, Region V otgariaed Environmental Criminal
Task Forces with dtles throughout the Region. The dties include Chicago, Milwaukee, Twin Cities,
Springfield, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Cleveland. Hit task /eras indudt tht US. Attorney, the
local FBI offices, State Attorney Generals and State envirorunenai agenda, Slate law enforcement
agencies, major metropolitan sewer authorities, and county health agencies. These task forces are
designed to coordinate law enforcement efforts, enhance law enforcement response in prosecution, as
well as to develop training for other ag
Region VI -Dallas ,
(Arkansas, T^wisiiii1*! New Mexico/ Okiahoina, Texas)
Teotm Mint Superfund Site* Pico*, San MlguriGMmty, ^04:Thl» site, loaited In, and adjacent to,
a National Wilderness Area b an abandoned mine waste site witfv high cc«varttrations of kad (Pb)
contaminated leachates migrating to a smafl wrtands habitat iwl Wki «rd Scenfc River (The PecoaV
As the area is impacted by extreme weather condition* (heavy winter snowifaJQ, nwponse activity is
restricted to about fire months during the year. In that tat PRP» at the rite are the United Slates
Forest Service, two agendes of the State erf New Mexico ant a major raining corporation, there is a
significant challenge In coordinating agency policies affecting other Federal Agendas, State and
Municipal polkies and a mini waste titinption concerns. Upon discovery and determination of the
release at the end 'of September 1991, Regional Enforcement ctforti initiated an en\M to encoun
immediate voluntazy revporae action by the parties Identified to f*»MMf» and mitigate th* impact ol
any discharges to the wedands and ilwr during the Sprir^runc^£s. Afl erf tr«FFPs joined mtWs effort,
with the Maw Merioo Etwlroiuuent Department (NMED) ovuseeing afl non-federal response actions.
Response actions Induded fencing ar^ securing of the site, duet nippniirion mtainras on roadway* and
tilling in of limestone dost on the waste pita to assist bi neutralizing leachates which might discharp
» tht following Spring. H» U Jb Forest Service, usirtg their co«urimtauir«rittes,lDolt«tonj* actions
in the recreation ams of the Nationai WUdanws*.
During the winter perkxi ths) VHP* developed design plans for me dhrersian ol runoffs, the
remediatkn ol State owned campgrounds (consolidation ol contaminated materials back to tht mine
site) and tht installation of monitoring wefls at tht mint site. In At Spring tht Fift commenced to
Implement these approved actions on a voluntary basis. The pre-nanediai actions vastly accelerated
dean-up at tht site, which to cummtiy being reviewed for ranking, and is expected to contribute
significantly to future remedial actions shc^M they become nece«ary. The vc4untary response actions
havt been monitored to ensure consistency with theNCP.
.fa FY 1991 tht Hazardous Waste Management Wvisic« i»siied nir« oonsert agr«ement» and firul
orders, with tht highest asatsatd penalty being S909,OQ& The Division obtained commitments for ov«r
S300XXM in poilution prevention projects over tht next 3 Tears and is currently negotiating for an
aclcUtioiial S3 infflion in pollution pn^^ referred one case to DOf /or a v,i
fudidal action and supported litigation in fowreases.. . .
Since September 199ft BagJon Vlnat been developing a Iiawdout waste tnc)di% system to tmrgt
and compart Mexican hazardou* waste shipment authoriratiom with UJ. Maniieste to confirm
movement of hazardous wastes from Mamjiiadoras to facilities in tht United Slates. Hit database
provides reports showing volumes, types, iwiign genatato* and idttaatedispoiitiM of waste.
!PA *»*»«•* to
date. Wh and SEDESOt devdoped a worfcphn » liint i9« with irttetopfs for ful)se4«»**«p.u'
database development. STOESOL transmitted their 1987 - 1991 Import and export Guto icologica
datebast to EPA in July 1992. This database Is cumndy l»eing integrated Into tht HWTS The tracking
6-12
-------
FY1992 Ejiforcemtru Accomplishments Rtpon
. system is being utilized to develop a MaquUadon suspect list and to target EFA/SEDESOL cooperative
facility visits. The tracking system also serves as a tool to identify illegal hazardous waste shipments.
Region VI coordinated with SEDUE in hosting the Fourth Annual MaquUadon Conference in
November, 1991, in Gudad Juarez, Mexico. Mexico's regulations for hazardous waste were presented on
the first day and US. regulations on the second day. The Region joined with SEDUE in conducting six
cooperative facility visits to U.& and Maquiiadon companies to review compliance with U.S./Mexico
hazardous waste requirements. Three visits to the US. facilities wen multimedia inspections.
Th* EPCRA § 313 program in Region VI has attempted to focus its enforcement response activities
on Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) as opposed to collecting only fines. As a result, this
Region entered into six Consent Agreemenb/QansentOrdenstipulatirig SEft during FY 1992. Examples
of the benefits of the SEPs are: A company which was going to install a system using hydrochloric acid
to purify water for cleaning glass for mirrors instead eliminated th* use of HQ at the facility by
installing a reverse osmosis system. Two companies installed semi-'aqueous cleaning systems that will
eliminate most of the use of Preon 113. A facility win replace at least 50% of its coatings to water base
or powders within a year. Th* facility win also Install a powder paint booth system and Is doing a
report on how to convert finishes to water base and powders* •
Region VT has utilized th* FfFRA § 27 referral procedure, when necessary, to track potentially
serious violations or to impose Federal penalties in cases where Stat* action has not been adequate. One
cas* In Arkansas involved 35 violations for th* use of 2,4-DB on rice, a crop for which 2,4-DB is not
registered. A total of $19,000 in Federal penalties has been proposed by Region VI in this case, the
largest penalty In history for a pestidd* violation in Arkansas.
Insectidd*Chalk - In FY 1991, Region VI discovered a large shipment of unregistered insecticide
chalk Imported from China; Th* shipment was held by th* US. Customs Service, and subsequent
investigation of th* chalk distribution by th* Texas Department of Agriculture and Region VI staff
resulted in an enforcement case in FY 1992. •. • ,
Region VTJ - Kansas Gty
(Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska)
During FY 1992, Region VH restructured its organization to build a nwltiHiiedla perspective into
all phases of its enforcement efforts. A multi-media committee consisting of all Program Compliance
Chiefs, th* Regional Criminal Enforcement Contact and Special Agent in Charge, th* Office of
Regional Counsel Branch Chiefs, th* Regional Counsel, and th* Deputy Regional Administrator meets
monthly. A number of subcommittees with specific assignments were designated from mis group.
Region VH, although th* eighth smallest region, generally ranks in the top half of the Regions
on numbers of enforcement actions taken. Th* strong combined enforcement responses by the Region and
ib states has resulted in consistently high compliance rates across all media.
Th* Iowa Attorney Genenfs Office has established an 'environmental crime team* to expand
and enhance Iowa's criminal enforcement program, In FY 1992, ** unit (on* ruB-tim* prosecutor and
on* full-time investigator), investigated or filed charges in 30 cases and obtained guilty pleas in four
cases. Th* guilty pleas involv« water pollution violations for which significant fines wen levied.
Part time assistance is to th* unit is provided by th* DepartMntof NataalRtsc^irces.
In negotiating1 settlements. Region VTJ continues to encourage innovative forms of relief. In FY
1991 and FY 1992 combined, th* Region used SEPs in settlement of over 85 eases under TSCA.FIFRA, and
. 6-13
-------
—^.. FY1992
-X
EPGtA-kwiing the country in atttkmctto using SEPs under thoae statutes. In 10 administrative cases
alleging violations of TSCA PCB regulations settled during FY1992, Region VH achieved significant
environmental benefits through the UM of SEPs in the settlement erf thost cases, negotiating Consent
Orders requiring the disposal or redasaification of 80 PCB Tranafonnen and 131 PCB-Contaminattd
Transformen.atacosttDResporderUiinexceMofSUmi^kn.
Region VH participated In a number of national enforcement Initiatives, including the CAA
Administrative Penalty Case Initiative. On May 20, 1992, Region VD filed five cases as part of a
national CAA initiative using the new administrative enforcement authority. Three cases addressed
violations of the asbestos NE5HAP reguUtioraartd twoow«9dtedTkjtatk»(rfthenewhESPSSubpart
J regulation requiring installation of continuous emission moniiozing systems at petroleum refineries.
ClMctf the Solves*} earn was a au^
as wen as the CAA. ' < *
'
Region YD Is OM^ttsri to maintaining a^ Recognizing
that most of the programs which cm be delegated to the jtaies hare been ta the Region, they have
invested time and resources in helping their stotes dcvetop and utillz* their erufercement capadty. The
remit of this effort has been aa Improved relationship between EPA and the states, and better
leveraging of the fencreasfngly scarce state 'and federal:
Iowa: Sara Lee Corporation and Jimmy Dean Manufacturing Company have paM a $100X100 dvil
penalty for pretreatment violations which oonirred at u\e Jhraiy Dean Pork sUugrtteiJwnise kxated in
Osceoia, Iowa, fa a separate criminal acticcvjunmy Dean was seniarKsri to pay
negligent discharge into the munidpa* sanitary sewer system. In addition, the company was required
to pay $14500 for fish killed as a result of the illegal discharge, $Z500 for state investigative costs,
and a $4000 criminal surcharge.
A Belle Flame automotive parts manufacturer wffl pay $78JMO after ptesxllr^gu^
of water pollution for intentionally dumpmg waste oil into the ctty sewer system. The plant's general
manager was charged and sentenced to pay $101300.
The American Muling Company, a barge operator, pled guilty to three counts of intentionally
discharging raw sewage directly into the Mississippi River and has agreed to pay over $98,000 for me
violations. Investigation by the Iowa E-Team and the US. Coast Guard discovered that a towboat
owned by the company had altered Us sewage system to dump raw sewage direc% overboard while en
route downstream from St Paul, Minnesota, The company was charged with three separate counts of
pollution for each dty it was in Iowa waters. ...
Missouri: Under a recent agreement with the Missouri Attorney General, the Mhade Recreation
Equipment Company wiD pay $27,612 for alleged violations of the state's hazardous waste laws. The
company, a inanufacturer of recreation equipment, generates hazardous wastes including polyvinyi
coating wastes, waste ofl acetore and paint wastes in the manufacturing process. Specifically, Miracle
Recreation allegedly teikd to: property dose oil and solvent waste drums; label and date the contents
of the drums; have a seeo?rfary containment system bi place »the evertf of an accident or spilfc provide
adequate aisle space n the waste storage area; keep accurate recceds; arid cojidiictweelch/mspecttons.
Inc, a Kansas Qty, Missouri soybean extraction plant which uses hexane, a volatile
organic compound (VCQ in its process, failed to obtain a oerrnit te a major modlfkation. Cargslland
the Kansas dry Health Department signed an agreemera wrikh remiires tlie swum to test the dryer for
VOCs and to pay a 91004)01 penalty. The MDNR issued 66 Notices of .Eolations.
6-14
-------
F^f 1992 Enforcement AccompUshmnts Report
/X*:
US2,
N—^
Nebraska; Platte Chemical Company will pay a penalty of $99,000 in settlement for alleged
violations of Nebraska's hazardous waste regulations, including: storage of hazardous waste for over
90 days; failure to property document hazardous waste shipments; £ajhire to label hazardous waste
containers as hazardous waste, inadequate cleanup of hazardous waste discharges; feilure to conduct
weekly inspection of hazardous waste storage areas; and failure to provide hazardous waste training to
facility personnel. The company, which manufactures ready-to-use agricultural chemicals and
pesticides, denied the state's allegations, put has agreed to pay the civil penalty to settle the case.
Site cleanup is estimated at nearly $400,000. ,
Nebraska and ttmmerman and Sons Feeding Company, Inc. reached a settlement over alleged
violations of state livestock waste discharge regulations, the company's NPDES permit allows
livestock waste to be discharged from the site only during unusual precipitation conditions; however,
• inspectors observed livestock waste flowing from retention £udUties to a nearby creek at a time when
precipitation conditions wen not unusual, the coinpany will pay a $5^00 dvfl penalty, and submft a
strategy and schedule intended to bring the feed lot operation into compliance with me company's
NFDES permit and state surface water quality and livestock waste conM regulations.
Safety Kleen has agreed to pay a dvil penalty of $20,000 for alleged failure to adequately
inspect and analyze waste received at its Going facility in violation of the hazardous waste storage
permit issued by the Department of Environmental Quality. In addition. Safety Kleen's Omaha
Facility was dted for improperly working overfill/spill control equipment which resulted in a
hazardous waste storage tank being overfilled. Subsequently, the company spent a total of nearly
$26,00° to redesign the hazardous waste storage tanks at its three Nebraska facilities to prevent a
similar recurrence. Although Safetv Kleen denied any violations occurred at the Omaha facility, it
paid a civil penalty of $5,000 to rescue the case.
Region Vm * Denver
(Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming)
During 1992, Region Vffl implemented and capitalized upon a number of organizational,
operational, and management efforts to improve ib enforcement program. As a partial result of these
efforts, the Region increased the numbers of dvfl Judicial actions referred to DOJ by 10% and increased
its administrative enforcement activity by over 25%.
In *ha> realm of multi-media enforcement, Regional and State of Colorado inspection teams
c-Tducted50miiIti-mecliainsp«ctiCM4ipartof theSandOwkPnotPro^ct In addition to Sand Creek
efforts, the legion undertook 39 multi-media inspections at other sites. Four targeted comprehensive
inspections were conducted by Joint State/EPA teams. Indications are that all of these targeted
inspections will result in enforcement actions. During the year, the Region identified over 28 additional
potential multi-media actions, and initiated 10 such actions. More importantly, however, e**~-*-
undertaken during me year not only increased the numbers and types of enforcement actions initiated,
but also improved the quality of enforcement undertaken. .
flit level and quality of enforcement achieved by me Region was to part the result of a variety
of organizational and management changes initiated in FY 1991 and fully implemented and utilized
during FY1992. These included m* activities of a full time Iegic«al Enforcement Office^ operations of
newly reorganized multi-media offices in the Environmental Services Division and Policy and
Management Division, and increased operations of the Enforcement Standing Committee.
The Office of Multi-Media Enforcement in the Environmental Services Division directed and
improved the Region's initial efforts to undertake targeted multi-media inspections. Multi-media
6-15
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement Accompksiwvrtto Xtport
teams, consisting of EPA and State inspectors and lad b* u« new muitt-medU coordinatoo, conducted
comprehensive targeted inspections at four major facilities,
The multi-media Office of Strategic Integration (OSI) improved Regional integration of
actiora by increasing us«^e^
: capabilities, \\forking wim the office of the Regional Enforcemer* C>fficer, spedalized expertise w«
developed in OSI to assist in evaluating and directing potential multi-media rases in the Region.
Training in case screening and the Integrated Date for Enforcement Analysis, (IDEA) system was
provided to all enforcement programs. The case screening process was revised to meet progr^^
needs and to fuUy utilize the IDEA'system to increase evaluation of aB case*.
The Region also expanded its errfbrcement targeting capabilities. Using the IDEA system as the
foundatio^ data base* potential iwi^^
' from the Regional and State enforoemem programs. Sites initially identified for multi-media: coverage
'were scored, ranked and jointly selected by the Region and the Stales. The Region also conducted a
separate evaluation of Federal facilities, focusing on risk, noncompliance and pollution prevention
potential aa the primary targeting criteria. This targeting exercise waa then integrated 'into the
editing targeting program and allowed the Region to select federal facilities for Inclusion in the
National Federal Facility Initiative during 1993.
During 199Zr the Regkm partidpated m ot^
initiatives. The Region has targeted a number or* Federal £adUtiea foe mulo^^nedia inspections and
anticipates participation in the National Federal Facilities Initiative during 1993. The Region
V contributed actions to the National Enforcemerit Ousters irehidir^
primary metal, and benzene clusters. The Region also participated in tin National Pollution
•.:V-.. Prevention Initiative, the Data Integrity/ Tcodc Retatse Inventory ir.lattve and the Cross Program
A -;i?1 Inspection Checklist Initiative, ' " :. . ' •'...':'. . • • .-;••.' - :•'••.. :..-..
The Region participated in a number of national program-spedfk enforcement irutUdves. This
included the New Clean Air Act Administrative Order Authority Initiative, the Resource
Conservation Recovery Act Non-notifier Initiative, and (he National NPDES P-zuealnieut Initiative.
A short summary of the enforcement highlights of the Afc l^ter, and tfa»« Divisions follows.
, ' The RCRA program provided leadership in the Regtora iWtf-tnedia efforts extmpllfied by the
RCRA mtaltt-medla inspector leading three of the four targeted comprehensive inspections conducted
by the Region. The Underground Storage lank (UST^ enforcement piogiim begm to ni%
Citation Authorities, issuing over 63 such citations and collecting over $20,000 in penalties. RCRA
enforcement collected over $6^ niiflton m peruJto, nearly dcrubU^ As part of
. • : the P6wder River Basin coal company geograpW
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomptishmau Repon
The NPDES program participated heavily in the National Pftetreetment Initiative with five
Judicial and four administrative actions initiated as part of this effort During 1992, the NPDES
program focused on building Stale capacities to improve and implement penalty policy applications.
The wetlands program maintained its high level of enforcement activity and in addition implemented
an Initiative to educate the public about wetiand related violations and enforcement activities.
During the yea* the Region and me Denver Area Office of the Crimiroi Investigation Diviaion
worked closely on a number of criminal investigation* and cases. These included the Rockwell
International case bi which Rockwell pled guilty to felony ontnts and agreed to pay S18^C)0(OOa
Targeting Inspection and enforcement of high risk Class V wells involves targeting potentially
Itoslas* at defined ante The Region
targeted several "non-Indian* operators on "Indian Lands" to obviously assert jurisdiction and insure
"environmental equity*. The tnte wen kept mformed of these actions. . v - -
Region DC - San Frandj
(Arizona, California, Hawaii Nevada, That Territories)
In FY 1992, Region DCs enforcement initiatives'mduded actions taken against polluters on the
US.-Mexteo Border and the South San Francisco Bay Cost Recovery Initiative. The Mexico Border
initiative involved 17 federal and state actions, including two criminal indictments, seeking more than
$1 million in penalties.
EP\ announced, June 3, 1992, the first enforcement actions in the United States resulting from
efforts outlined in the Integrated Environmental Flan for the Mexican-US. Border Area. All of the
state and federal actions involved violations of U.S. environmental laws in me border area, or
violations of US. laws governing trans-boundary shipments of hazardous wastes or toxic substances.
US. federal enforcement resulted in two criminal indictments and 10 civil actions for violations of
federal air, to^ substance, cooxnainityr^
.
Also on June 3, the Mexican government announced environmental inspection and supervision
'activities in Mexican stales along the US border to verily compliance in the Maquiladora industry
with Mexico's environmental laws and regulations. As a result of these activities, the- Secretarial of
Social Development (SEDESOL), Mexico's environmental agency, ordered me shut down of eight
noncomplying frdlities and the forfeiture of surer/ bonds' posted by an additional four companies.
Notices of infractions were issued against another 22 (adlities,
The US. federal criminal indictments were handed down bi two cases mat involved the illegal
exportation erf hazardous wastes to Mexico. Om of the cases was developed as a result of cooperative
efforts by customs officials of bom countries, with assistance from a number of US. local, state and
federal environmental and law enforcement agencies. A tip-off by Mexican customs officials, after
refusing an alleged bribe at the border crossing, resulted In the indictment of Sbicca of California, L...,
of El Monte, California and three of its employees who were transporting hazardous waste into Mexico
illegally. In the second case, Ignado Lopez, (he operator of a Calexico, California, transportation
company was charged with Ukgatty shipping a number of different types of hazardous waste into
Medea. The case was investigated with the cooperative assistance of Mexico's environmental agency,
as well as the US Customs Service. EPA, and the Imperial County Health Depaz unent.
Eight of the civil actions were recently filed EPA administrative enforcement actions, and two
were judicial actions. In addition, California took four actions, and Arizona filed one action, enforcing
air and hazardous waste laws in Ihe Mexican border area of these states.
6-17
-------
H1992
SOUTH SAH FEANaSCO BAY COST EECOVEEY INmAlWB
As part of an initiative begun In fY 1991 to recover costs at 20 $tjle-te»d Superfund sites kxated
in Silicon Valley south of San Frandsco, EPA resolved IS of the cases either by payment in full of past
costs demanded or settlements of past and future costs under CSECLA §122(h) administrative
authority. Through demand letters to the owners and/or operators of the South Bay facilities, EPA
demanded reimbursement of approximately $5.6 million. Through payments or subsequent settlements,
EPA received coinntitrnents for recovery of $34 million. Three cases an still in the midst of active
negotiation while the two remainmg onus h^
a total of $515,000 In pest response costs and a di^ratroy judgment that EPA is entitled to recovery of
any future response costiincuned. .
Since the earty 1988s, the Stale of California, through its State Witer Resources Control Board
and Regional Water Quality Control Board fRVVQCB"), has actively pursued the dean-up of
contaminated groundwater at the South Bay sites. By me time many of these sites were placed on the
National Priorities Ust, the EWQCB had already used state enforcement authorities to order
potentially responsible parties fPEPs") to investigate and dean-up the South Bay groundwater
contamination. In 1985, EPA awarded EWQCB federal money under the Multi-Site Cooperative
Agreement ("MSCA") to oversee the PEP studies and dean-up. Using federal funds, EWQCB, acted as
the lead CBtCLA agercy ovvseomg me PRPs work. The cost recovery commibwsu* reimburse EPA for
the federsi MSCA inccues awarded to the RWQCB as wea as EPA's Jntramural arid frtramnral rmH
Region X- Seattle
, (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington)
Building upon groundwork laid to FY 1991. the Region X Office of Enforcement had success in
several areas ra FY 1992: more sophisticated targeting based on .risk in multi-media inspections; * 30
percent increase in multi-media inspections; continued expansion of states' roles in targeting ami
inspections; an unprecedented Joint Operating Agreement with the Slate of Washington; and stronger
emphasis on pollution prevention through Special Environmental Projects (S5PS) in.settlement
agreements. The Region settled 23 administrative cases with SEPs in FY 1992, with a total cost to trw
companies involved of at least $2,154,500, Commitment to national multi-media duster initiative*
resulted m partdpato\ m *e uxiustry »ped^
ETA received authority to issue CAA administrative penalty complaints in March 1992. Region
X Issued the first three administrative penalty complaints in the nation on March 19,1992, and led all
other Regions in total number of cases (14) filed in the national administrative case initiative on M jy
20,1992. Region X issued a total of 17 administrative penalty complaints in FY 1992. The Region <*!»«
settled six of these administrative cases in FY 1992, one of which was the first national CAA
settlement to contain a SEP. ThtSiPwt* worth over SI minion. .
« *-
Six of these cases dted oil refineries for telling to install and calibrate continuous emission
monitors for hydrogen sulflde, SU cases involved opacity violations of sawmills in Northern Idahu,
These cases were developed *» part of an ongoing project Region X undertook in FY 1991 to evaluate th«
effectiveness of the state's rules In controlling emissions of Inhalabl* paniculate mattec which focusaJ
on the wood prcducti industry in the Ui^ Panhandle. The remaining five eases involved violations o<
the asbestos refutations In Alaska and Idaho. (These two states are not delegated authority to
implement and enforce the Asbestos NESHAP program.)
The Region X Superfund program continues to emphasize enforcement actions to
responsible party cleanups at Superfund sites. The Region issued 12 administrative orders, refer«U
6-18
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
five cases to Headquarters and/or the Department of Justice, and negotiated Interagency Agreements
for dcanup of four federal facility Superfund sites during fiscal year 1992.
Region X was the first in the nation to negotiate and sign a CERCLA 120 (eK6) Rl/FS Consent
Order for a federally owned facility, this Order was signed by EPA and a private PRP generator for
the Standard Steel & Metals Salvage Yard Superfund site. EPA also negotiated and signed four
Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs), two in Idaho and two in Alaska. Ihese mree-party agreements
(EPA, state and federal facility) provide the framework, including the schedule, for the cleanup of
these installations. At the Hartford site, the existing FFA and Consent Order were renegotiated to add
new milestones and restrictions on the discharge of liquid effluents. These new milestones establish
cease discharge dates for 15 additional disposal sites, as well as imposing new flow rate limits and
total volume discharge restrictions.
Penalty amounts in the Ibxfc Release Inventory program are proportional to number of chemicals
and years of failure to report. As the program goes into its fifth enforcement year, penalties for
facilities which have never complied can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Although a
substantial portion of nit is collected in cash, the Agency also utilizes the settlement process as an
opportunity to convince facilities to make environmentally beneficial expenditures which reduce
emissions. When mis occurs, the facility receives a partial credit for the capital expenditures and this
mitigates a portion of the total assessed penalty. Tne Region's EPCRA program entered into 12
settlement agreements with such terms in FY1992.
In FY 1992, the Regional FIFRA program made a special effort to enforce pesticide requirements
for §ra*.i and hay fumigation. Grain and lay fumigation have been a major source of pesticide
complaints for a number of years. FaflureTb carefully follow label direction* can result in sr . ^ injury
and death to fumigators, grain Inspectors and other workers, legion X issued four civil complaints,
alleging illegal use of the fumigant aluminum phosphide, a restricted use pesticide. In addition EPA
conducted a Joint field operation with the Oregon Department of Agriculture and the U. S, Department
of TransTxjrtation in which grain trucks were stopped and inspected.
* * '
The RCRA enforcement program continued to implement the new RCRA penalty poucy which
became effective In November 1990, In FY 1992, the average penalty per administrative complaint was
$552,540 (seven actions), up from$207,000fat FY 1991 and $53,000in FY 1990. TheRegion and the State
of Washington were major participants in the "illegal operators" enforcement initiative issuing three
administrative complaints and referred one case to POf as part of the national effort.
FY 1992 was a landmark year for UST enforcement, the Region issued its first civil complaint,
with multiple alleged violations ranging from failure to provide leak detection fot and notification of,
existing tanks, to inadequate foilowup of a suspected release, for which the proposed penalty totaled
$368,244. Fourteen requests for information were sent to facilities in FY 1992 after state, local
governments, or dtizen involvement made EPA aware that a potential problem existed.
6-19
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Appendix
Historical Enf orcement Data
National Penalty Report.
*
List of Headquarters Enforcement Contacts
List of Regional Enforcement Information Contacts
-------
EPA CIVIL REFERRALS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FY1972TOFY1992
AIR
WATER
SUPERFUND
RCRA
TOXICS/PESTICIDES
TOTALS
_
AIR
WATER
SUPEHFUND
RCRA :
TOXICS/PESTICIDES
TOTALS
vm
0
i ;.
6 '''
0
0
,, i •
FY82
36
45
• 20
9
2
112
FV73
4
0
0
'"*0 :
0 ,
•'.?';:
FY83
69
56
28
5
7
165
*Y74
3
0
0
'' 0 ' '
1ro ,:
..;•?
FY84
82
95
41
19
14
251
FY75
5
20
0
0
i.1 0
25
FY85
116
93
35
13
19
276
FY76
15
67
> 0
0
0
82
FY86
115
119
41
43
24
342
FY77
50
93
0
0
0
143
FY87
122
92
54
23
13
304
PY78
123
137
2
0
0
262
FY88
86
123
114
29
20
372
FYTf
149
81
5
4
3
242
FYTO
92
94
153
16
9
364
FY80
100
56
10
43
1
210
PYW
102
87
157
18
11
375
FY81
66
37
2
12
1
118
FVW
86
94
164
34
15
393
•
FY92
92
77
137
40
15
361
-------
EPA ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS INITIATED (BY ACT)
CAA
CWA/SDWA
RCRA
CERCLA
FIFRA
TSCA
TOTALS
CAA
CWA/SDWA
RCRA
CERCLA
FIFRA
TSCA
EPCRA
TOTALS
FY72
0
0
0
0
860
0
860
FY82
21
329
237
0
176
101
!
864
FY73
0
0
0
0
1274
0
1274
FY83
41
781
436
0
296
294
*•' •••' •
1848
FV74
0
0
0
0
1387
0
1387
FY84
141
1644
554
137
272
376
3124
FY7S
0
738
0
0
1614
0
2352
FY85
122
1031
?27
160
236
733
2609
FY76
210
915
0
0
2488
0
3613
FY86
143
990
235
139
338
781
2626
FY77
297
1128
0
0
1219
0
2644
PY87
191
. 1214
243
135
360
1051
3194
FY78
129
730
0
0
762
1
1622
FY88
224
1345
309
224
376
607
3085
FYTf
404
, 506
0
0
253
22
1185
FY89
336
2146
453
220
443
538
4136
FY80
86
569
0
0
176
70
901
FYfO
249
1780
366
270
402
531
206
3804
FY81
112
562
159
0
154
120
1107
FY91
214.
2177
364
269
300
422
179
3925
FY92
354
1977
291
245
311
355
134
3667
-------
EPA CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT
FY1982 TO FY1992
I*lif82 FVB3 FifM
Referrals to DOJ
Cases successfully prosecuted
Defendants charged
Defendants convicted
o Months sentenced
o Months served
o Months probation
.«*!
20 26
7 12
14, 34
11 28
*
<
,534
31
14
36
25
^
6
552
?
FY85
40
15
40
40
78
44
882
FY86
41
26
98
66
«Y •
279
203
828
* ' *
FW FY88 1*1(89
41
27
66
58
456
100
M10
59
24
97
50
278
185
1*284
€0
43
95
72
325
208
1,045
FWO
®
32
100
55
745
222
1,176
wm
81
48
104
82
963
610
1,713
FTO
407
61
150
99
1,135
744
2,478
-------
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES
JUDICIAL REFERRALS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
FY1985 TO FY1992
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
FIFRA
WATER
AIR
RCRA
TOTAL
WATER
AIR
RCRA
TOTAL
FY85
8,899
2,936
448
459
12,742
FY85
137
182
82
401
FY86
6,055
£827
7m
519
10,161
FY86
221
162
25
408
FYS7
5,922
1,663
907
613
9,105
JUDICIAL
FY87
286
351
86
723
FY88
5,078
2387
65$
743
9,363
FY89
6,698
3,100
1,139
1489
12426
FY90
4,145
3,298
1312
1350
10405
FYM
3,245
3480
1,687
1,495
9,607
FY92
3,095
2,748
1,411
1389
8,643
REFERRALS
FY88
687
171
46
904
FY89
489
96
129
714
FY90
429
156
64
649
FY91
297
190
57
544
FY92
204
258
112
574
Prior to FY1990, the State FIFRA Administrative Action total Included warning letters.
-------
FY1992 Eiifbrcanau AjccompixJoaexts Xtpon
NATIONAL PENALTY REPORT
PRACTICIS
FY1992
May 1993
Compliance Policy and Planning Branch
Office of Enforcement
-------
FY1992 En/brcanaa Actyinplaiuia
-------
NATIONAL PENALTY REPORT
OVERVIEW OF EPA FEDERAL PENALTY PRACTICES
FYI992
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......... ........ ^. ....... ......... 1
Geneti Finding* ............ -................^L. ..... ......... l'
Prognm Highlight! ......................... ..... ............... 1
O. FURIHDSE, SCOPE AND UMTIATIONS OF THE REPORT.... 2
m Cowrad .............................. . *. ..*.... ........ 3
................... ........ ..-.,... ....L ........... I
Purpoies «^ Unrutatkmi... ...................... ...^... ......... . 5
HL GENERAL OVERVIEW.......^ ..... .v....;...;^... ........ .. 5
.*................................. 3
.... ......... ...... .......... ...... 10
Peranbge of Cuts Concluded with a Penalty . ... ...... s ..... ...... 13
lUnfp of Penalty Amount*......... » ............ .. ......... ... ---- • 13
Highest Penitoa...... ......... , ........ . ...... ............ ..... 18
1Vpe« of Owes .................... .. .......... . .......... ....... If
Criminal Enforcement .... ...... . ........... ....... ..... . ..... ... 19
ReMttf* Contributions. ..... . ................. .... ......... ....... 19
IV. SUPPLEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IKQJECIS,,..,...... 19
A. SEP Category Raview. ..... ....... ..... .......... ...... ........ 20
RPrognunRaviaw.................. ---- .... ..... . ............. . 23
-------
enforcement efforts.
General Finding*
Fiscal Yea* 1992 set another record for penalties aswssed by EPA, wim $7&JmiIIJon in civil
penalties and $6ZJ in criminal fines (befc« sutpenslan). This was diie primarily to a tvro and
a half fold Increase in penalties assessed under the Stationary Source Air program and a four>
fold increase over FY 1991 in the amount of oinunai fines assessed. "
••)'•"• _ • •
In FY 1992 alone* EPA assessed some 28% of all cfrU penalties and crunmal 8r^ combined,
assessed in EPA's history (550^4 nufflon for FY~ 1972-1992).
EPA has obtained almost $400 Billion mc^
in aotn* 14,174 dvil judicial and »dministT*tiv«
In FY 199? alone, 194 percent of all civil penally dollars hi EPA's history were obtained.
In the last two ytars, 30 percent of alldvil penalty doilars in EPA's history were assessed.
* Criminal fines totaled 162.9 BaffionterY 1992 (beforadedudirtg suspended
.c^resenti a four fold increase fawn FY 1991 and Is the highest amount ever assessed by EPA
* for crimln^t cases. Ninecy^btirveaiso^
from 75 years impcued in FY 1991.
* In th« sfac yean EPA's criminal enforcement program haa been tracking penalty data, $106 J
million hi criminal fines and 392 yens of incarceration have been imposed before deduction ol
suspended sentences, in FY 1992, 59% of all criirdrtal firm m EPA's hiitory were assessed.
* • Penalties were obtained In 8S percent of the cases concluded in FY 1992.
• Four hundred and ntwiSEPs were negotiatad during FY 1992 with a total estimated value of
$50.1 million. Poflution Reduction SEPs comprised 59 ptzcent ($29 JM) of the estimated
dollar value of all SEPf, and Poflution Prevention SEP»o»tpribed another 31 percent
($15 JMT of the total estimated vmlut
Proyram Highlight
* This year for the first time, the Penalty Report also includes administrative penalties
assessed under the Clean Wfcter Act P« as amended by tht Oil Pollution Act (hereafter
referred la as CWA §311) and Judicial penalty *ssessed under CERCLA 104, 106, 107.
L EXECUTIV1 SUMMARY
This report summarizes the penalty practices of EPA in FY 1992 In chrfl judicial, administrative and
criminal enforcement actions. Penalties are only one measure of the enforcement efforts of the Agency,
and reflect only a portion of the consequences of violating federal entiranmerttal statutes in large part
since State or local enforcement constitutes the major of enforcement actions. Information on
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) embodied within enforcement settlement agreements is
included for the first time this year in an attempt to further capture the scope of the Agency's
!'«•• fifiaWaraMMl **mJI .-^f^-^-j^^ * '
-------
Federal penalty dollars wen dominated by CWA* with 29% of the total Stationary Source
Air was second with 25%, followed by RCRA (17%) and TSCA (10%). CERCLA 104,106,107
cases assessed 8% of the total penalty dollars white EPCRA §313 and Mobile Source Air
contributed 4% and 3% respectively.
Five programs supplied 76% of the cases. TSCA had the highest nuvi-er of cases with 20%
followed by FIFRA with 17%, CWA with 16%, Mobile Source Air with 14%, and EPCRA pl3
with 9%. AH five programs rely heavily on administrative enforcement
The Stationary Source Air program and FIFRA programs assessed higher total penalty
dollars than in FY 1991. -.,.-.--
In descending order of total penalties assessed, these programs were the following: CWA,
Stationary Source Air, RCRA, TSCA, dtCLA 104 «*«fr,IIOA| 3m MoWIe Source Air,
FIFRA, iftC, EPCRA § 302412 and Marine andEstaarme ftotscte Ite laigett increase for
. these prognum over last year's totals was 2M% for Stalsonsr^ : . - V
Medians reached recrd highs fer judicial casts to the MobOe Afc SDWAand UK programs.
The largest penalty assessed fa FY 1992 was ItfJ niffloB** obtained in a Stationary Source
Air Judicial cam Ttos was Mghar than the largo* penaltyassessed taFY 1991 (a CWA case
forl41S422Q)b The second largest penalty was sinned tea RCRA and CWA judicial ease
which Mttied for $3,300,000 in a federal/stele joint case (J2 million fedenl/S15 million
stile). MfHffrmii pregranw wtth higNfi /-ff^Wff grwffr 4^» ^^ff^ «~*MJ*''
j-dJdal, CERCLA 104,106,-107/Mobfl* Source Air ^»d»d^ and tSCA admmistratim
erf SEPs(lS7X
EPCRA and TSCA programs (both with 82). The Vu)bileSourcescc)o^liar» program
negotiated 9i% of an the ftibBc Awsrer^ S!^ the
negottaiad S4% of ai of the Poflutlon Prevention SEF^ and the TSCA co^ipliancs program
negotiatad 55% ol all of the Pollution Reduction SEPs. - .
This overview report smamartes the penalty practices of EPA fax FY 1992 in civil Judicial,
administrative, and criminal enforcement actions. Except where specifically noted, the term
•penalties' is used in this overview to refer only to dvil (adminia*-mtiv« and Judicial) penalties, not
criminal fines. • ' . '
Thtt report dots not attempt to portray a ownplettpfctuie on penalties obtair^ during enfo^
federal environnenlal laws, beau*« ft does not reflect penalties obtained by stats or local
CWA feflZ and {netnatment actions are
referred to as CWA actions. This is the filth year Wetiands penalties have been presented
separately in this report, They were included as part of Clean Water Act data in penalty reports
prior to FY 1968.
-The single highest penalty in the Agency's history was'flS mfllion assessed under TSCA and RCRA
in me Texas Eastern Pipclin* case In FY 1990.
-------
•
FY 1992 EnforixmaitA£a)mpiu*ma93 Report^
govenmi«rti,ctth« directly or throu^ojurtactlorawHh EPA. State* conduct the vast majority of
enforcement action* under tfiese laws, working through programs approved by EPA to cany out
federal retjuirements*
It also does not Include all categories of ptniMgr In FY 1,993, EPA plans to include additional
information on stipulated penalties, contempt action*, main-media penalties and State/federal split
penalties in this report Although these penalties ant not cuirentiy incorporated into the report
they can represent an important part of the program'* efforts to achieve compliance. For example, in
F 99 i
FY 1992, $3.1 irdffion in stipulated penaJtia was asae»^
Thto also to the first year that Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEF») that the Agency
negotiated dining PY 1992 as pact of consent orders or decrees are included in the annual National
Penalty Report. The collection, analysis and (to the extent possible) quantification of SEP data is
part of the Agency's cnvrallemirt to deso^ the overaflimp^ The SEP
analysis in this report Is based upon data obtained from a pik* pro^ m which the Regions and
programs provided (wham feasible) estimates of the dollar value of implementing SEPs In
mforcement settlements contained In PY 1992 judicial andadnimfctratrveenforcwwtcajea.
Program! Qatad -
Fourtem EPA penalty programs an addressed in mb repeat TaMe 1 gtres their names, the types of
enforcement cases each used in PY 19*2, and any acronyms by whidk they an cited m this report SEP
data was provided by the TSCA, EPCRA, RCXA, OVA, CAA-OMS, CAA-SSCD, CERCLA and
FEFRAi
the penalties discussed in this mport focus on cash amounts assessed in EPA enforcement cases that
ncfodedinFYlJftZ. They include final judgments by court settlements m consent decrees and
consent -rlers and final administrative orders. However, far the first Hat in PY 1993, credit*, benefit
projects, or non-monetary actions which parties in enforoement cases orten agree to cany out as part of
a settlement (ooflecmnfr referred to as Supplemental EiiylroiuBicittal Prefects ccSEPs) an included in
this report Such action* may yield large environmental benefits of substantial dollar value.
Narrative description of specific cases can be fcwrid to me fallowing section.
This report does not induda proposed penalties or other c •Counts under discussion prior to .the
conclusion of a case, and it does not include penalties paid to entities other than the Federal
Gymnuneot Contempt enforcement action
with a prior court oide* decree, or admfaiisttative older) an not included. "Stipulated penalties"
and "deferred pfnaMt** also an not included in this report; they an penalties stipulated in an
administrative oc court ore1* that an do* only if the violator fail* to carry out certain other
requirenvnti of the oeder. Nor does the report include the use of other sanctions, such as contrar*-
Bsting, sewer moratoriums, or the suspension or nrvocation of permits.
As in past reports, the FY 1992 Federal Penalty Report does not Include penalties assessed in the
Underground Storage Tank program (UST). The reason for this exclusion is because UST is primarily a
ttata delegated program. . •
One element of this report is'an analysis of the extent to which EPA used penalties In its enforcement
cases. Some cues did not obtain penalties. The cases without penalties included in this report are
-------
FT 1993 ExjQTcantxtAcaxnplatateta Megan
enforcement action* in which a penalty is authorized by the statutes and regulation* on which tht
case b based. If Congress did reauthorize EPA to assess a pereUry fora g^
enforcement action lot such a violation would not be counted as a cast in thfc report
rtf
Criminal Enforcement
dean Wittr Act- NPDES(CWA)
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
««»-.«- _ .»- ^ . ..
w •tunas rrocacQon
Stettonar Souret Air
Mobil* Source Air
RooqrcaCoiM€ivaUoiiandRacovtryAct(RCRA)
and Co
nfty
RighMo-Know Aa (BFCRApQZ-312)
and UaMBljr Ad (CERCLAorSuperfund)
Judicial
Adminiitrmtiv*
Judicial
AdminittraUve
judicial
AdminUtrttive
Judidai
Admlnijtnttv*
Judicial
Administrative
Jodidal .
Admlniitrathre
Administrative
Judkdal
Inrentory (TRt or EPCRA $313)
Tbxk Subrtancea Controi Act (TSCA)
Fedeni Iniectkkk, Pongidd«
and Rod«nikid« Act (FIPRA)
Administrative
Judidai
Administrative
Administrative
Penalties an counted in this report as
appeals and collectionol penalties are note
as a general term referring to penalties that
Its meaning la the same at "assessed" or Imposed,*
__ In a final adariristrativt action or to a court order:
ttfdandhem Hnmoid "obtained" is osed trx this report
assessed by a court or 6y WA. administratfve orders.
-------
This overview repeat is not an evaluation of practices by SPA program, and it should be viewed in
the context of the total enforcement effort, HM report may Ulumtnate individual characteristics of
programs and provide a hdpfal comparison among program*. Identifying differences may stimulate
further thinMn8 tbout penalties in general advancing the goal of mm effective UM of penalties as
part of an overall enforcement program.
Hit reader should bear in mind that ti« data ptesented hen art historical in nature, and do not
necessarily represent present penalty practices. Nothing in this report may be used as a defense or
guid« to future settlements of federal cases involving penalties.
•a . -
The specific penalty data used in this report were obtained from several federal data systems. The
data have been approved >y the responsible program offices, but tr« quatity ard completeness of the
data may vaftR. • -:--.?| _• .* • • .^ • . • . .- •
:''** "'i '
111- CENBAT. OVIJBVT
*•
penalties and $6Z9 In oirnir^ fines (berore smpension). Thb was due primarily to a twp and
% half ibid Increaae in penalties antiied under the Stationary Somea Atr proyain and a fcnir-
'TKreaM over FY 1991 in the amount of criminal fines.
fin FY 1992 alone, EPA assessed some 28% of aD crtfl penalties and criminal fines combined,
assessed in EPA's history ($508.4 million for FY 1972-1992).
^4 hat obtained almost $400 million in cash dvtf penalties from FY 1974 through FY 1992 in
H17I diH Judicial and adndnistntive cases.
£n FY 1992 alone, 194 percent of afl drtt penalty dollars tn EPA's history were obtained.
fii At last two yean, 30 percent of all chHl penalty dollars Mi EPA's histtny wen assessed.
Criminal fines totaled SGJ mOBon In FY 1992 (before deducting suspended sentences). This
represents a four fold Increase from FY 1991 and is the high«*tainountevef assessed by EPA
foe criminal cases. Ninety-four years of incarceration wen imposed (before suspension), up
from 75 yean imposed hi FY199L •
In the «fac years EPA'f oimmal enforcement program has bean tracking penalty data, $106.7
minion in criminal fines and 392 years of incait»ation haw been iii^osedbeiow deduction w
suspended sentences. In FY 199X59% of aUcnniiral fines faiEPA'shistDry were assessed.
Penalties wwe obtained in 85 percent of th« cases concluded in FY 1992,
. ,
fiscal yeat Th« relative contributions of tn» different iPA prognnw to tn« PY 1992 totals of cml
penalty dollars and number of cases with penalties an shown in Figures 3 and 4.
5 , .
-------
\
Table!
Tbtat Amrnm» rrf rftril TurKi-ia!and AAnliil^^||||
1
dean Water Ad
Judicial
Administrative
Safe Drinking Wate Ac*
Judicial
$22^05,662(29%)
17^17,997
5^87^85
2(7/44
Judicial
1 241,300 (<1%)
300
24UXB
§311 - Administrative S 162,542 {
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplatanuos Report
FIGURE 1
Federal Judicial and Administrative Penalty Assessments
FY1977 to FY1992
80,000,000
70.000,000
FY77 FY78 FY79 PY80 FVB1 FYSJ FY83 FY84 FM§ FV86 FYB7 FYW FY89 FY90 FY91 FY97
BjUDIOAt
• ADMINISTXATIVB
HGURE2
Total Penalties by Fiscal Y
80JPO>GPO
AQjQPPjDOD
D
L
t 40,000,000
A
marxum
10,000,000
FW7
-------
TABLES
SUMMARY OF CIVIL PENALTIES BY PROGRAM IN FY1992
*..
Total
w/m
To*.'
AvfAl
OVA ADM
CWAJUD
CWAADUtJUO
IHCADM
tncpD *
U1CADM4JUD
MMU
rvMjuo
HMNAAOM
WWAJUD
IOWAADM4JUD
WlflDADM
WITU>M>
WITU>ADM*JUD
STATAUAOM
iTATAIIIUD
STATAOM«JUD
UUBS
m
m
uuot
MMM
IMUJ47
IM7UI2
MBJ0
>AOU*JU
KOLAIUD
KOUk AOM+1U
llCtAMMU
fiifni nit •
m
fAHJW
HCAJUD
TOTAL
taut
A7SUU
lit
M
1
•M
IS
4
If
tf
*
n
u
i
»
i
u
u
o
m
M
M
Ml
M
U
Mi
m
I
in
M*
I
I
I
M
*
1
I
M
I
a
i
i
i
ii
a
«s
Ml
it
V*
n
t
M
U
$
.11
M
f
4
II
-M
M
2H
4
m
M
II
lit
U
14
IM
sn
4
Mi
2M
n
m
M44
Mft 4iun
mja
llfjOOO
tut
W41
4ua
ou
UM
auei
0
0
•ua
Ml
lift
MM
Ma
t .
MM
0
3AM
Oil
itt
MJM.
ItJM
IM
, IM
MM
WJHt
ItJOt
0
4JM
4UMO
WOO
7JOO
300
0
ooo
S7jDOO
40JMO
njaoo.
njooo
SjDDO
41JOO
tt^oo
49JOO
njjoo
njaoo
70,000
300
70,000
I2IAOO
90,000
ijooooo
MUU
uat
MJU
•ait
MTU
•M
IUM
ID4W
uun
2UI4
IJW
3M14
t
•
1IJM
o
t
I1J2S
I MOO
1004)00
100400
tOftHOD
3JM400
JJOtJDOO
I30J00
Fflt27t
900JMO
tjm
42%
MjMt
ant
IMIt
47JW
I
1
8
I
-------
FY1992 Enjbrcsmaa Accomplulumxu Rtpon
FIGURES
PERCENT PENALTY DOLLARS BY PROGRAM
FY1992
STATAIR
10%
FIGURE 4
PERCENT PENALTY CASES BY PROGRAM
FY1992
STATAIR
S%
MOBILE
14%
-------
am _
FY 1992 Enforcement AccompUiamasa Report
Table 4
Trrfal A mniTrtt rrf Criminal FTrm« anH Tnrarr0raHnn m BV IQM
Number of defendants convicted 99
Total fines assessed -
Before suspension ., $62.9 million
Total montita incarceration .
SentirK»d(befort suspension) 1,135 morths (94 yean)
Median and Averaa
This section of the report attempts to took beyond the aggregate fignrea to sea what the typical
penaittes were for each program. ianm^taAmf^^fim^B^mBmptmmit^^mtaa^Kaof
thai
The average penalty is the total doQaa divided by ma mnnber of penalty cases in a given program.
While an average la uaefm in seeing overall program accomplishments, it may give a misleading
picture If the penalties within mat program want to tnlfimta. One high-penalty case and a large
number of low-penalty cases cc«Upnrtuct a mai4avii average even mough
penalty, •.-•"- . • ' • .
The median is useful to gain a different perspective on a program without the heavy Influence of a
few extreoMiy targe or small penalties. The median penalty represents the middle number in the
senea of all penalties for a given proglkm arranged m order of size, '.hat Is, there we is many
penalties below the median as above it . , • /, . . •. , '
- Figure 3 shows trends in medians over several yean for the largest EPA penalty programs
daring that period. Amat>g^fiOsaa»w^Aymaof1fm^fm^MttorytaafyKXA^u m lew inedlan penalties.
Medians increased for judicial cases in me RCRA and CWA programs and remained me same for
Judicial cases in the Stationary Source Air program. Medians abo Increased for administrative cases
^ the RCRA«nd TSCA programs. Tha median for admmisttative caaea m the FIFRA and Mobile Air
programs remained at the same level aa W1991.
In the foregoing discussion of change in medians, there to no mention of TSCA judicial cases or
Stationary Source Air administrative cases, because mere were tc» few cases in FY 1992 to make trwve
categories sui*aMa for such analysis*
* n*«« vtmter AA Th> a^liaa fudklal penalty rose from its FY 1991 level of $100.000 to a
. record high of $225^00 m FY 1992. Tha swdian.admirdstntiva penalty decreased from a high of
SIXOOOinFY 1991 tolo^OOmfY 1992.
* S»h,TMnMH*Wmi*r Aj-te Th« m»fl«i tudiri*! ngaltv mae from 18JOO hi FY 1991 to $29,500
in FY 1992. (TJus reflect* FY 1992 medians of $42,122 tat two UC caaea and »fj000 for ft*e FWSS
cases.) The inedian administrative penalty o^creaaed to $3^38 mFY 1992 hmn
(The subprogfam medlana born dedined in FY 19« to iiOOO for 7S UK eases and $1,400 for 13
PWSS cases.)
10
-------
FY1992 Enjbrcemau Accomplulaviia Xspott
* W*d«ufa P**tBttnrr to *W» fifth year of administrative penally cases condodcd by the
program, the median increased to $10,000, up from $6£OQ to FrU99L The median iudidal penalty
dropped to $300 (for only one case) from $H^50 to FY199L
* a«ni Wihn- Aft S an? This is the first year the National Penalty Report has tracked this
program. The median administrative penalty for FY 1992 was $3,350.
* -farina and B^jyMe Pmteetfa^|i Tills program la in It* thfrtt y»» far r* p*py^iit mrpancd its first three
yeas* medians with a penalty of $56,120 compared to $40^00 to FY 1991.
itSi Ih the fourth year of concluded cues, this program's median penalty
deceased from the FY 1991 kvei of $13300 to $5,431 to FY 1991
B tdi. 106. im TNi is the fist year the National Penalty Report has tracked
penalties assessed under this program. Ira iredian judicial penalty for FY 1992 was $50^)0a
* , Thirtea Rg|ga» Tirgetitorv; m this fourth year of concluded cases, this program's median
penalty also decreased slightly from $12,750 in FY 1991 to $11,060 to FY 1992.
* . 32CA: Hit median adaimiftraaVe penalty decreased illghdy to $10^00 to FT 1992 from
$1Z500 in FY 1991. It* median judicial penalty (for just one case) was $3,000,
* BEKA; Hii median penalty rose from 11,920 in FY 199 1 io $Z050 In FV 1992, setting a new
record far FIFRA medians.
Average* . Average dvtl judicial or administrative penalties increased to seven programs in FY
1992, the same as to FY 1991. Oedines were evident to five programs. However it should be noted
' that averages nay be tofluencea by a lew large cases - A year with one or two extremely large cases
may have a much higher average penalty than a year without any, even though the latter may have
had larger penalties in most enforcement <
Avenges rose to record highs for judicial cases in the dean Water Act and Stationary Source Air
programs. For judicial cases only, averages rose in the SDWA, UIC and Mobik Air programs. For
administrative cases, increases In the avenges were seen in me RCRA, Stationary AU-,CERCLA 103
and FIFRA programs. • .
11
-------
Lc«ww average penalties compami wim FY 1991 wen rept)^^
the PWSS end Wetland* program*. For admmistniive cue*, avenges decreased in the OVA,
* Q*an Water Aft- Ttia «M*»g» fiMJIrial parity BB«» *i * mtemi MgK ^ ««g an TV.
administrative penalty decreased to $22,314 In FY 1992 compared to the high of $23,937 in FY
1991, ' ' ;
1 FY 1991 tt
$34,624 in FY199L However the average administrative penalty decreased to $5,321 in FY 1992.
Wethndc Prafc ^
FY199L In jfaeflftii yearol nfminttttitiyt penalttet, the OTeray dropped to 113,389 fa FY 1992
from *wcocd high to FY 1991 of $22,03. ,
• i ,i if ill | g^—ttf^^ft^e* flL. m^^^lm^^ •f^^^^^^^^mm^^ j.^,, -fg-j , |M - JHBt «MJii
^•••Qe^K ^EaB DCm^^ele^aTev &0K ^Ew^^Kev^BeT elBiBe^E^^I^K^^^EW aw^HealUEv ilW9 9v ^v 4UU
..." „'. "*"V- •* ,* * " -• *?¥'''
-- •• -wfc^f - • "• •" "; • " -
&MM imrtfi jreaw o< administrative penalties, the average
* StitfaMfy SMUT* Air » flM «MMy fudirUl pMHy m^ faam iP^My tn PY 1991 to J38O13
In FV 1992. The average adminirtnuiv. pendly ww $34^420. ;
* *^bilg> SflOTl Aif- tte averuge adnrfniatrittve penalty dwMMd to SMOi ta FY 1992 from
$11,121 in FY199L The »v«r»g« judicial penalty tnoeaitd dnmaikallr Inn mSS hiFYI99ito
$101413 in FY 1992.
* BCB& Tht avengt judicial penalty deoeued from the Wt 1911. average o* I66M40 to
J592713. the avermge adminiatr»tive penalty res* »ub«t«ntiafly to $84,165, cm^aitd to $37,129
inFY!99L *
| ya^lHi In )hl» fourth vear o«F condudW ca»e», the avenge penalty dropped
$29,709 to $20,323 fat FY 1992. , .
if ins* fin this fourth year of conducted cases, the average penalty increased from
$8,550 in FY 1991 to $U,419tiFY199r
A 6 104 ifX. 107r Thia h the fint V«M the Nattonai Penalty Report has tracked
penalties under this program. The«v«r»gf jucfldaj penalty wa« $303^36 in FY 1992.
decitMedsiigruty from $20464 in FY 1991 to $19^1« in FY 1992.
fa this fourth year o/ concluded casw, the avenge penalty
* TSCA.- Hit avenge administrative penalty decreased lUghtfy to $29/470 compared to
$33367 in FY 1991. (Average* were nc.v^8.p^«ltvn».toan«whJaho<$eU7X POT the FIFRA progagy this is an
incrtase over the, FY 1991 average erf $3^5a
12
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Afcomplistuntas Sgpori
nf C»*#* rmvliiHarf wih a Penalt
A high percentage of cases were concluded with a penalty in all piograim except Vfedands judicial,
U1C administrative, SDWA administrative and HFRA. Overall, 85% of administrative cases were
concluded with a penalty and 87% of judicial cases assessed a penalty. This compares to 84% of all FY
1991 cases which concluded with a penalty. (See Table 3 for each program's percentage with
penalty.)
Range (rf Penalty Amounts
• ' "-. - • I '•-.•'.- '• : ""'.".
This section examines how EPA's penalties in FY 1992 ranked along the scale from low dollars to high
dollars. The penalty cues an sorted into eight ranges from no-penalty cases f zero dollars") to cases
of $1 million or mere. •' . . .. • . . ' ... •- - _ •
Figure 6 shows the penalty distribution of all FY 1992
13
-------
PROGRAM MEDIANS BY FISCAL YEAR
judicial Penalties
250000 _f
i i i i i i > i t
PROGRAM MEDIANS BY FISCAL YEAR
Adminittntiv* PcaatUc*
FtotalYMff
PROGRAM MEDIAN BY FISCAL YEAR
Judicial P«naUi«»
PROGRAM MEDIANS BY FISCAL YEAR
AdminUtntivt PenilliM
79ttflH13MI$ttl7BBa990f]
I
I
a
-------
FY1992 Enforcanaa Accompl&untnu lUpon
FIGURE 6
PENALTY DISTRIBUTION - AtL PROGRAMS
FV1992
MILL MILL
ADKON1STRATTVE D JUDICIAL
PINALTT DISTRIBUTION - F*1592
Miav Mobfl* ami FffRA Admloirtniiv*
ZEROS -(48,000 «$!
MILL
15
-------
FY1992 Eitforctmau Accompluhmtnu Rtpon
FIGURE?
S I
[
1
>
t
i
j
f
I
I
I
I
! i
-------
FY1993 Enforcmtnt AccotifiishmaiB Rtpon
FIGURES
1
s s a s
2
i
I
Q
|
i
c
I—I—I—I—I I I
I
•»
9
i
j i
-I a «
S
D
}
o
a
i
-------
FT 1992 Enforcement Accomptistuninu JUpon
Several programs had highest penalties greater than FY 1991. Judicial penalties for Stationary
Source and Mobile Source Air programs were higher than in FY 1991. The highest administrative
penalties in the EPCRA 302-312, CERCLA103 aiui FIFilA progiii» we» h%h« *an FY1991 levels.
The largest penalty assessed in FY 1992 was $6.7 million obtained in a Stationary Source Air judicial
case This was higher than the largest penalty assessed in FY 1991 (a OVA case for $6,184,220). The
second largest penalty was assessed in a ICJl^ and CWA judicial federal/state ose which sett^ for
$3,500,000. Additional program* with highest penalties greater man $500,000 included CWA
judicial, CERCLA 101,106,107, Mobile Source Air Judicial and TSCA administrative. The highest
penalties in each program are shown in Table 5. -' -
Table!
ffgtlfff F'*najty k* P^199? by lV>gra*«
Ridfrffl
Oean Water Act
Safe DrinJdng Wito Act
Wetlands Protection
dean Witer Act §311
Marine and Estuarine Protection
Stationary Source Air
Mobile SOUK* Air
RCSA
EPCRA §302-312
CERCLA §103
CERCLA §104,106,107
Toxics Release Inventory
TSCA .
RFRA
75JXQ
$125,000
40,000
70/WO
50,000
mOOO
6700^300
500^00
3,500,000*'
1,988^36
5^00
264^80
900JOOO
130^00
70^75
10ZOOO
900^00
300^00
This was a RCRA and CWA judldal case which settled for $3,500,000 in" a federal/state split ($2
million federal/SU million stele). •
18
-------
FY1992 EnforctmtM Accomplishments Stport
About $507 million, or 64 percent of all EPA federal penalty dollars in FY 1992 came from civil
judicial cases (up from 56 percent in FY 1991). The remaining $28 million (36 percent) came from
administrative cases.
There wen more administrative cases than judicial cases. Some 90 percent (1,487) of all cases with
penalties were administrative enforcement actions, compared to 10 percent (157 cases) that were
judicial actions.
In general, the penalty is likely to be higher in a judicial case than in an administrative case, but the
ranges overlap. For instsnc*, among EPA's larger penalties in FY 1992, the highest administrative
penalty was $900X100 brought by the RCRA and TSCA programs, and the highest judicial penalty
was $47 minion brought by the Stationary Source Air program.
Considered on an agency-wide basis, the proportions of doflars and cases from ths judicial and
administrative categories in FY 1992 are similar to those in the past six fiscal years. The percentages
within that period varied within a range of 15 percentage points for penalty dollars, and 4
p0ECCRGUBI PQ1H*S iGMf
Criminal
Hie Criminal Enforcement program operates on a cross-media basis, serving all the major programs
that have been authorized by Congress to use criminal sanctions against violators. Most criminal
cases include charges under more than one environmental law, but for statistical purposes each case Is
listed under on* predominant statute. On this basis, the programs with the largest numbers of fines
aaaesaedmFY 1992 were CWA ($397 million) and RCRA ($22.9 million). " _-
Relative? Contributions
Hie dean Water Act program dominated civil penalty dollars in FY 1992, with 29 percent of the
total (see Figure 3). It was followed by the Stationary Source Air (25 percent}, RCRA (17 percent),
TSCA (10 percent), CERCLA 104, 106, 107 (8 percent). Toxics Release Inventory (4 percent) and Mobile
Source Air (3 percent) programs.
The majority of cases with penalties in FY 1992 were concluded by programs that made heavy use of
administrative cases (see Figure 4): TSCA (20 percent), FIFRA (17 cwrcent), OVA (16 percent), Mobile
Source Air (14 percent), and TM (9 percent). ,
Supple.me.ntil Enyf rflnnKnMl Projects (SEP*)
Enforcement settlements usually consist of injunctive relief, Le. the activities needed to correct the
violation and return to compliance, as well as a dollar penalty. As part of the settlement process,
consent orders and consent decrees also may include additional relief in the form of SEPs. SEPs are
environmental activities, undertaken by the violatot which the government could not have required
as injunctive relief or other activities needed to correct the violation. The criteria and guidelines for
negotiating SB's are described in the Agency's February 12,1991 Policy on the Use of Supplemental
* A year-by-year breakdown of penalties can be found in the FY 1992 Enforcement Accomplishments
Report.
19-
-------
FT 1992 En/bmmait AccompBslantatt Rtpon
Eixvinmmentil Project! in Enforcement Setttenenti The mam at the final assessed penalty may reflect
me commitment of the defendant/respond
The five general categories of eligible SEPi described in tne February 12, 1991 Policy are PoHntian
Prevention, Pollution Reduction, Environmental Restoration, Environmental Auditing, and Public
Awareness projects. A sixth EPCRA program-specific category consisting of support to Local
The Regions provided information on 222 SEPi negotiated as part of enforcement settlements during FY
1992. In addition, the national Mobile Sources Air program (QMS) negotiated another 187 SEPS
during fY 1992, almost all in the Public Awareness category.2 Table 1 presents a summary of the data
brokmoVwnbyconipilancerm^rsmandSEPcsiegocy. . .
Die "estimated cost" cohamn represents the Region's attempt to value the cost of implementing the
SEP by oW defendant/ respondent. The "esntoaeed cost' of a SEP Is based upon a number of potential
factors, including construction costs, O&M costs, and. tht time needed to construct the project
Therefore, while these costs are included for illustrative purposes, they cannot be as "definitive" as
are the direct penalty dollars which an reviewed in the first section of this report (Cf discussion
below). ^ . ' '
A total of 409 SEPs wen negotiated for all programs tn PY 1992. The estimated dollar value of those
SEPs Is approximately S50.1M. • ,.' ' .
A. SEP CATEGORY REVIEW .' . ' • '* /• .
As, Chart 1 shows, the Mobfle Sources Program made the most^eagenstvt use of SEPi. MOB negotiated
approximately 47% of all FY 1992 SEPs, followed by the EPCRA and TSCA programs (both with
20%). As Chart 2 shows, due to the influence of the QMS program, almost one-half of afl the SEPs
negotiated during fY 1992 (48%) involved r>ibu^Awir«nes* projects.
Chart 3A and 3B show the. distribution of SEPs when QMS cases an exdudad from the analysis.
Fifty-two percent of the remaining SEPs involved Pollution Reduction and another 28% involved
Pollution Prevention. These two dominant categories were followed by Environment Auditing (9%)
'See the February 12, 1991 Policy on the Use of Supplemental Environmental Projects in Enforcement
Sutriemertt for a fall dhontignof tht crltgH* **** matrietfoM on the aae-QlSEPt. Even when a SEP is
part of the settlement the final dollar penalty must ilfltinlr11**11 reflect the economic benefit of
Some of the significant SEP?
also are described in Chapter ffl of the fY 1992 Enforcement Acoamplishments Report
1 183 of the 187 SEPS negotiated by OMS wen public awareness projects. QMS makes extensive use of
Public Awareness projects as part of settlements dealing with tampering or fuel switching violations.
In order to discern patterns which may otherwise be obsoir^bytl»largeniiinberof*eses«ttiemenb,
some of the following analysis wiB excnide mobile source SEPs, as noted.
20
-------
FT 1993 Enforcantru AccompUshmtnu Rgport
CHART 1
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJ1CTS
By Program (%)
EFOU20%
CAA-OMS4T*
Total. 409
OTHERS 1%
HiRAt%
CWA5%
ECBA5%
TSCA20%
CHART2
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
ByTyp«<%)
Pollution
Rtductioa
. 29%
Total» 409
FoUatioa Prarmtioa
13%
EXIT. Restoration 1%
Audit 5%
21
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomplishments fypon
CHART3A
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
Pollution Pnraniian
29%
PolhrtioaKWaction
n%
Total •« 222 (txdndM QMS)
2% Enr.l
CHART 3B
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
• r '~- ByP*ogmn(%) " •
TSCA38%
EPCXA38%
Total • * 222 (ctdudM QMS)
22
-------
FY1992 Enforcement AccompUshmtnu Report
support for Local Emergency Planning Cocunitte** (4%) *«* Envinmmeatal Restoration (2%).J Pablfc
Awareness projects comprise oily 3% of the SEPs negotiated by the other compliance programs.
Chart 4 shows the estimated value erf SEPs by category. Pollution Prevention SEPs had an estimated
dollar value of almost $15 JM (31%) and Pollution Reduction SEPs had an estimated dollar value of
over $29 JM (59%). The total estimated values lor the other categories of SEPs were a little over
S3M lor Environmental Audits (6%); almost S1.1M for Environmental Restoration (2%); $S34JK for
Public Awareness (1%, of which $411 JK were for QMS SEPs); and just over $72K in support for Local
Emergency Planning Concussions ( accounted for 47% of the estimated value of all FY 1992
SEPs, followed by EPCRA ($10M, 20%), CWA ($&5M, 13%), CAA-Stationary (S4JM, 10%), and
1 As Table 1 indicates, QMS emphasizes a large number of SEPs with relatively small associated
costs. The total estimated value of their 183 Public Awareness SEPs was a Uttie less than $412K.
Therefore, excluding CMS cases from subsequent awaysis has a gite,t« iir^pact on trie clbtrftution of
SEP categories than on the total dollars associated with mem,.
* ExdudingMobik Sources prc^rairts, the other compliance program had a t^
$49 JM. Since QMS deals with a large volume of smaller penalties, it has greater impact on the total
number of SEPs negotiated by the Agency than on the estimated value of AoseSEPs,
1 See the May 28, 1992 Memorandum of Deputy Adirunistrator Habicht for the Agency-wide
definition of Pollution Prevention.
23
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Accomptisbfitnu Report
CHART 4
VALUI SiPS 1Y TYPE,(%)
Total All Program* - J30.1M
vital *
-------
FY1992 En/brcfmau Aecomptiahtntatt Rtpon
EBQQSAM CATEGORY
Aware
* «
CAA(SSCD) P2
PR
Audit
Restore
U5PC
Aware
CAA (OMSJP* P2
PR
Audit
Restore
IHC
Aware •
RCRA*** , P2
PR
• Audit
Restore
LEPC
Aware
CWA m
PR
Audit
Restore
- ; • ". . UPC
.•/'•'. Aware
F1FRA P2
PR
• r*. :>*:,.... Audit • '
' Restore .
' UEPC"
Aware
' «'•
m
(t)
(i)
(0)
CO)
(0)
(0)
CO
ve?
m
(4)
CO)
(0).
(0)
cm
(6}
(7)
(1)
a)
(2)
(4)
au
(2)
(10)
0)
0)
(0)
0).
-------
FY1992 Enforcement Aecomplishmtru Report
ERQGEAM
CE8QLA
»
A ••v^^Mm *
* rATECQEI
P2
PR
Audit
Restore
LEPC
Aware
• * » J> _a* "_ _
• SSTTMATIP rogr ' " ' '
a> 9X300
(0)
(0)
0) S 27J10
: 0) -'
O ($36^10)
¥
' (409) (SS0411,300>
** OMS Includes 1 MOD SEP; all othen are POSD
•** ROA cases indude 2 SPCC SEP» and1USTSEP
28
-------
PY1992 Enfbrcan&t Afcompliskmtxtt Repan
CHARTS
CHEMICALS IN P2 SETS
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT REDUCED/HJMINATED
U4TCB»(10)'
TOLUENE (10)
MEK* (8)
XYLINE* (7)
SULFURICAOD(6)
FREON (6) '
ACETONE (4)
VOCi p)
AMMONIA (2)
CHROMIUM* (1)
>185,400Ibs/yr (5)
> 87,300 B»/yr (6)
>30XWOIba/yT (3)
>32355 Ibs/yr (2)
>8,8501b9/yf (1)
>8^30gal/y? (1)
> 250,000 H»/yr(l)
>l,500XXX)Ibs/yr(l)
N/A
CHART?
VALUE SEPS BY PROGRAM (%)
Total Afl Program* - I5O1M
opitai co*t * 1 y» OAM
TSCA
EPGRA
CAA
CWA
RCRA
Othoa
-------
FY1992
It should be noted that a small number of SEPs with an estimated value of over SIM skew the
arithmetic mean f average") cost upward to approximately 5225K/SEP). The range of cost estimates
for me SEPs (exdudmg QMS) presents a different picture: -. •. .
101K-250K»14%
250.lK-500K-3%
500.1K-750K=3%
<5K=. 10%
5.1K-10K»13%
10.HC-25IC»14%
25.1K-SOK«14%
50.1K-1001C-17%
Cumulatively, 10%'of the SEPs have an estimated cost of under S5K, 23% under S10K, 37% under
S25K; and 68% under J100K. By contrast; only 4% have an estimated value of over SIM.
NEXTST1PS _ ,-,'•,'.'' - ,. • ' •' (' -
As previously noted, FY 1991 waa the first year mat the Agency,systematically compiled SEP data.
Each Region used Its own methodology for their estimates of the costs, of implementing the SEPs (e.g.,
capital costs, interest ales, single vs. multi-year implementation, etc.)* Therefore, while the cost
estimates are useful for providing an overall "snapshot" of the cumulative impact of SEPs, a standard
methodology is nudtii to help make sure that all Regions value their projects simflariy.
The Enforcement Management Council (EMC) has authorized an Agency-wide workgroup to develop a
standardized methodology for estimating the value of SEPs. The workgroup will complete this
assignment during the last half of PY 1993, so that subsequent annual SEP reports will be
comprehensive, accurate and consistent from Region to Region,
Table I
Tntml
*"
(The SEP Category Abbreviations are: P2 » Pollution Prevention; PR * Pollution Reduction; Audit «
Environmental Auditing; Restore * Environmental Restoration; L£PC» Support for Local Emergency
' '
PROGRAM
EPCRA*
TSCA
PATSCQRY
P2
PI
Audit
Restore
LEPC
Aware
P2
PR
Audit
Restore
LEPC-
(52)
(22)
0)
(0)
(5)
(82)
0).
$8,018^81
IJB96J301
15,000
($10^07,600)
$1,830,000
(14)
(0)
(0)
------- |