United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
iEnfo (cement and
'Compliance Assurance
Mail Code 2'20.1A
EPA 300 N 99012
Spring 2000
&EPA OECA EcHb
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance for a Cleaner Environment
IN THIS ISSUE:
.OECA sets
records in
1999...Page 1
. Revised audit and
small business
policies
issued...Page 1
. NEIC support
crucial in RCRA
case...Page 3
. Largest civil
penalty Is imposed
on Koch
lndustries...Page 4
. 10 compliance
assistance centers
available from
OECA...Page4
. Compliance
literature
summaries report
lssued...Page 4
. Toyota sued for
CAA violations
...Page 5
. Tampa Electric Is
first of seven
utilities to settle
Clean Air Act
charges—Page 5
. World's largest
meatpacker
ordered to cut
emissions ...Page 5
. Tele-
communications
companies settle
under audit
policy-Page 6
.Tribes get funds
for open dump
problems-Page 6
. Report on
environmental
compliance record
at U.S. federal
facilities-Page 6
.11 states receive
grants for
measurement
projects-Page 7
. New action plan
for innovative
technology—Page 8
From the Assistant Administrator
Steven A. Herman
Record Year for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
When I began my service at EPA eight years ago,
the goal Administrator Browner and I espoused for
OECA was a strong and aggressive enforcement and
compliance program targeted at achieving significant
environmental results. By using an array of measures
—old and new— the record shows that, once again, we
have accomplished that goal.
With respect to the civil enforcement program,
our accomplishments show that we have targeted
serious environmental problems such as smog-
producing nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and
paniculate matter emissions from major industrial
sources, as well as toxic discharges into the nation's
wetlands and water bodies.
The facts speak for themselves: We achieved
a record $3.6 billion towards requiringenvironmental
cleanup, installation of pollution control equipment,
improved monitoring, and carrying out
environmentally beneficial projects. The figure
includes a record $236.8 million in supplemental
environmental projects, up from $90 million in fiscal
1998, targeted at improving air quality, conducting
public health assessments, and creating greenway
corridors.
A record $166.7 million in civil penalties was
assessed, including the largest Clean Air Act
settlement ever against the seven diesel engine
manufacturers who used illegal devices to disable
their emission control systems. The $142.7 million in
civil judicial penalties was the largest ever.
We issued a record 1,654 administrative penalty
order complaints and handled a total of 3,945 civil
judicial and administrative enforcement actions in
fiscal 1999, the highest number of civil actions taken
over the last three years.
(Continued on Page 2)
Revised Audit and Small Business Policies Issued
As measures to expand its compliance
incentives program, EPA announced in April
revisions to its two self-disclosure policies, the Audit
Policy and the Small Business Compliance Policy.
The policies were revised after a two-year evaluation
of the current policies based on extensive public
outreach and our experience in handling self-
disclosure cases.
The policies are highly successful examples of
the EPA's reinvention efforts, as called for in an EPA
report, "Aiming for Excellence: Actions to Encourage
Stewardshipand Accelerate EnvironmentalProgress."
To date, more than 750 entities have disclosed
violations at over 2750 facilities under the two self-
disclosure policies.
Both policies protect human health and the
environment by encouraging companies and other
regulated entities to voluntarily disclose and correct
violations. Businesses that meet policy conditions are
eligible for penalty reductions including penalty
waivers and other benefits.
The policies include important safeguards by
excluding benefits for violations that may result in
seriousharmorrisk, for violations that reflect repeated
noncompliance or where corporate officials condone
criminal behavior. In addition, the policies allow the
agency to recover economic benefits to ensure that
businesses that comply with environmental laws are
not put at a competitive disadvantage by those who
do not comply.
The Audit Policy was first issued in December
1995 to encourage businesses to take a vigorous self
policing approach to compliance, including
discovering and correcting violations that might
otherwise go undetected. A 1998 survey of users
revealed a high satisfaction rate with 88 percent of
users stating that they would use the policy again and
84 percent stating that they would recommend it to
their clients and counterparts. The key revisions to the
Audit Policy:
Lengthens the amount of time from 10 to 21
days that entities have to disclose a violation after
discovery;
Clarifies that a facility may qualify for Audit
Policy creditevenif another facilityowned or operated
by the same parent organization is already the subject
of an inspection, investigation or information request;
and
Clarifies that companies with newly acquired
facilities willhaveatleast 21 days to disclose violations
discovered at those facilities and that the "no repeat
'"~1-*J—"" condition will not disqualify disclosures
(Continued on Page 6)
violations"
-------
OECA Echo/Spring 2000
1999 Sees Enforcement and Compliance Records Set
h
•fafrft*
Gerard Kraut
SheftyMlan
(Continued from Page 1)
We scored numerous successes in our criminal
program as well. Our strong criminal enforcement
program reflects our goal of punishing those who
callously disregard our nation's environmental laws
and who put the public at serious risk when they do so.
Most significantly in fiscal 1999, a record 208
years of jail time was imposed on criminal defendants,
including one sentenceof ISyears for a man responsible
for dumping 4 million gallons of contaminated
wastewater into the Tampa, Florida sewer system and
sending 170,000 pounds of hazardous sludge to the
city's incinerator.
The increase in sentences is extremely important
as a deterrent to others. The sentences show that judges
and juries regard environmental crimes as extremely
serious, warranting more than just a fine. A prison
sentence is personal it's not just a cost of doing
business that can be passed on to the consumer.
Here are highlights of some of the results we've
achieved, both in terms of reducing threats to the
environment and to public health, and in changing the
way companies do business.
— The environment has been made cleaner.
Our actions resulted in thereductionofS.Sbfflion pounds
of NOx, 573 million pounds of contaminated soil, 200
million pounds of iron, and 129 million pounds of PCB
waste.
— The air has been made cleaner. In the case
against the seven diesel engine manufacturers, we
required the manufacturers to produce engines that will
reduce nitrogen oxide pollution by 75 million tons over
the next quarter century.
— Water is cleaner. In a case against Royal
Caribbean Cruise Lines, the company pleaded guilty to
illegally dumping oil and hazardous chemicals into the
ocean. In some instances Royal Caribbean was
discharging chemicals from on-board dry cleaning and
photoprocessing facilities into coastal waters, including
into Alaskan waters. Royal Caribbean will pay an $18
million fine in addition to a $9 million fine it paid in fiscal
1998. As part of the plea agreement, Royal Caribbean
willoperateforfive years under aprescribed and closely-
monitored environmental compliance plan.
—The land has been made cleaner. The Atlantic
Richfield Company will spend $260 million to clean up
and restore natural resources caused by mine waste
contamination. Part of the penalty will be put toward
the creation or restoration of 400 acres of wetlands.
— Those most vulnerable in our society have
been protected. We stopped the Microban company
from making unproven health claims about protecting
children from disease-causing bacteria through the use
of its antimicrobial pesticide in toys. Three individuals
received jail sentences for conspiring to use homeless
men to illegally remove asbestos without protective
equipment. Another individual is in jail for spraying
methyl parathion, a toxic agricultural pesticide, inside
people's homes. We also convicted the owner of
Evergreen Resources for sending employees into a tank
containing hydrogen cyanide without proper protective
equipment. One employee is now severely brain
damaged.
But our enforcement program is more than
imposing penalties and achieving
environmental results. It is also about helping
responsible companies do business better while
meeting environmental requirements. :
Programs like our Self-Disclosure Policy
and our CAP programs offer incentives to
companies that want to do the right thing by
discovering and disclosing their violations.
Under the EPA Self-Disclosure Policy, in fiscal
1999 a record 260 companies disclosed violations
at nearly 1000 facilities. Some of these companies
are large multi-state corporations like GTE and
American Airlines. The violations disclosed by
American Airlines alone will eliminate nearly
700 tons of air pollutants annually. The GTE
settlement, which involved 600 violations at over
300 facilities, led to ten other telecommunications
companies voluntarily disclosing and correcting
1,300 environmental violations at more than 400
facilities.
In addition to our strong enforcement results
and our incentive programs, we've also helped
companies do better by offering extensive
compliance assistance. In fiscal 1999, our
compliance assistance activities and tools —
seminars, on-site assistance, mailings, and
handouts — reached approximately 350,000
entities.
In addition, four new on-line National
Compliance Assistance Centers opened, bringing
the total number to nine centers in operation by
the end of fiscal 1999. These Internet-based
centers provide compliance information and
pollution prevention techniques for certain
industry sectors, such as paints and coatings, metal
finishers, and automotive. Currently the centers
are being visited over 700 times a day. In fact,
preliminary results from a survey of users of
OECA's GreenLink Compliance Assistance
Center, a web-based center for auto shops, show
that compliance improves when fadlities are
given assistance. The results show that over a
two-year period, the number of facilities in
substantial compliance went from 25 percent to
51 percent.
We also added three new sector notebooks
covering major industries, bringing our total
portfolio of sector notebooks to 30. To date over
450,000 notebooks have been distributed. They
are one of OECA's most popular products.
We also made ground-breaking progress in
measuring the outcomes of our performance.
Measures we have implemented will give us a
better picture of the impact of our enforcement
and compliance activities, such as a better
understanding of significant noncompliance by
high priority facilities.
This year's results and our record from the
last eight years show that we have built a strong
and aggressive enforcement program that has
achieved significant environmental results. And
we have done so while providing compliance
assistance to both large and small businesses and
while offering real incentives to those who
voluntarily disclose violations.
Page 2
-------
OECA Echo/Spring 2000
From the Regions
NEIC Technical Support Crucial in Case That Has Resulted In
Longest Sentence Ever Imposed For An Environmental Crime
OECA's National Enforcement Investigation Center
jlayed a major role in resolving a case that resulted in
in Idaho man being sentenced in late April to 17 years in
mson for knowingly endangering the safety and health
>f his employees in a series of actions thatlefta20-year-
>ld employee with permanent brain damage from
lyanide poisoning. The sentence is the longest ever
mposed for an environmental crime in the U.S. It includes
i fine of approximately $6 million to be paid as restitution
o the employee and more than $300,000 to cover EPA
leanup costs.
Businessman Allan Elias was convicted in May 1999
>y a federal grand jury in Pocatello, ID, which found that
te had ordered employees of Evergreen Resources, a
ertilizer manufacturing company he owned, to enter and
lean out a 25,000-gallon storage tank containing cyanide
vithouttakingrequired precautions to protect them. Elias
ras also convicted of making a false statement to
)ccupationalSafeyandHealthAdministrationinspectors
y fabricating and backdating a safety plan for entering a
toragetankcontainingcyanidaThedayafterDominguez
ras critically injured, Elias prepared a backdated safety
lermit which falsely stated that employees had been
iven safety gear before they entered the tank.
OSHA= inspSeictors repeatedly had warned Elias about
:ie dangers of cyanide and explained the precautions he
lust take, such as testing for hazardous materials and
iving workers protection gear. Scott Dominguez, an
vergreen Resources employee, was overcome by
ydrogen cyanide gas while cleaning the tank and
ustained permanent brain damage as a result of cyanide
oisoning.
In August 1996, Elias directed his employees to clean
yanide waste from a tank at a mining operation he
wned. After the first day of working inside the tank,
averal employees met with Elias and told him the work
ras giving them sore throats, an early symptom of
ydrogen cyanide gas exposure. They asked Elias to test
le air in the tank for toxic gases and bring them protective
ear,whichisrequiredbyOSHA and which wasavailable
) Elias free of charge. Elias did not provide the
rotective gear and ordered the employees back into the
ink, falsely assuring them they would get the equipment
ley sought. After Dominguez collapsed inside the tank,
e could not be rescued for nearly an hour because Elias
ad not provided required rescue equipment.
Criminal Investigation Branch
On Case For 22 Months
The case was brought following a 22-month
vestigation by EPA's Criminal Investigation Division
and the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal
Revenue Service, with assistance from OSHA, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Idaho Department
of Health and Welfare's Division of Environmental
Quality, and the Idaho State Policy Department.
Lab's Technical Expertise
Helped Produce Conviction
NEIC's technical expertise was critical to the
CID investigationand led to Elias'ultimate conviction.
RCRA defines reactive hazardous waste as a cyanide-
bearing waste which when exposed to pH conditions
between 2 and 125 can generate toxic gases, vapors or
fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to
human health or the environment. NEIC's involvement
in the case began after an analysis of the waste which
caused the brain damage showed it did not exceed the
limit of 250 mg/kg when tested under a guidance
method called Releasable Cyanide and Sulfide". For
severalyears,theanalytical community has beencritical
of the guidance which, partly as a result of this case, has
: been rescinded.
since
Dr. Joe Lowry, NEIC's chief scientist, was asked
by the Department of Justice to clarify why a waste that
the guidance method did not indicate as being
hazardous could still cause serious brain damage to
humans. Dr. Lowry performed a series of tests and,
working closely with the Officeof Solid Waste and with
NEICs laboratory branch, was able to set-up a bench
scale experiment which proved that the cyanide waste
in the Elias case generated enough toxic gas to be
hazardous under the regulations and to present a danger
to human health.
Toevaluatethe scientific validity of NEICs bench
scale experiment, the court held a separate hearing,
known as a Daubert hearing, to determine the
admissibility of Dr. Lowiy's scientific findings. NEIC's
position that the bench scale experiment was
unrepresentative of the actual waste and conditions in
the tank at Evergreen Resources.
Throughout the three-week trial period, rapid
response to defense issues by the Denver laboratory
team and the availability of the laboratory's sophisticated
scientific equipment were vital to the prosecution. Dr.
Lowry gave both direct expert and expert rebuttal
testimony and, along with NEIC senior environmental
engineer Barrett Benson,provided technical consultation
to the prosecutors. NEICs enforcement library staff
also provided various reference documents on an
emergency basis as newissues emerged during the trial.
-------
OECA Echo/Spring 2000
Koch Industries Gets Largest Civil Penalty Ever Imposed
Koch Industries Inc., will pay the largest civil fine
ever imposed on a company under any federal
environmental law to resolve claims related to more
than 300 oil spills from its pipelines and oil facilities in
six states, EPA and the Justice Department announced
in January. The settlement requires Koch, the second-
largest privately held company in the U.S., to pay a $30
million civil penalty, improve its leak-prevention
programand spend $5 milliononenvironmentalprojects.
The settlement resolves lawsuits in Houston and
Tulsa^hkhchargethatKochfflegally discharged crude
oil and petroleumproductsinTexas, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Louisiana and Alabama. Texas joined the U.
SJn suing Koch, and the landmark penalty will be
divided equally between Texas and the federal
government,
Koch Industries, headquartered in Wichita, owns
and operates underground and above ground pipelines
that transport crude oil and related products in the
Midwest. Most of the spills at issue in the settlement
occurred in Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas. In one case,
almost 100,000 gallons of oil was spilled in Texas and
caused & 12-mile oil slick on Nueces Bay and Corpus
Christi Bay.
Complaints filed in 1995 and 1997 allege that Koch
unlawfully allowed some 3 million gallons of crude oil
and related products to leak from its pipelines into
ponds, lakes, rivers and streams, or onto adjacent
shorelines, from 1990 to 1997. Most of the spills were
caused by corrosion of pipelines in rural areas. The
governments allege that Koch could have prevented the
corrosion by proper operation and maintenance.
Under thesettlement,Kochmustassessthecondition
to implement an improved leak-prevention and
detection program, a maintenance and inspection
program, and a training program aimed at preventing
leaks. The company also must hire an independent
auditorto audit Koch annuallyfor at least three years
and report to the federal government and Texas on
whether the company is meeting the requirements of
the settlement and applicable laws.
In addition to changing its operations, Koch
also must spend$5 milliononenvironmentalprojects
in the states most affected by its illegal discharges.
The company will pay $15 million to buy and
preserve wetlands or wildlife habitat in Kansas and
Oklahoma. It will spend $1 million to conduct a
pipelinesafety study inTexas,Kansasand Oklahoma
aimed at educating the oil and gas industry about oil
spill prevention. Texas will receive $2.5 million
from me settlement for environmental projects to be
carried out under the direction of state officials.
Koch must pay $15 million of the $30 million penalty
into the federal government's Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund, created in 1990 following the Exxon Valdez
incident in Alaska. The fund helps pay for damages,
cleanup costs and some operation expenses related
to oil spills.
Oil spills can pose a serious threat to human
health and the environment. According to EPA, one
pint of oil released into the water can spread and
cover an acre of water surface area and seriously
damage an aquatic habitat. It can take years for an
ecosystem to recover from oil spill damage.
10 Compliance Assistance Centers Available from EPA
Addition of the Federal Facilities Compliance
Center in early 2000, brings to 10 the number of
compliance assistance centers available at EPA.
The latest Internet-based center aims at helping
federal government agencies comply with
environmentallaws and regulations. The center's web
address is www.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/cfa.
Four other on-line compliance assistance centers
were opened in 1999, focussing on chemical, local
government, transportation, paints and coatings
industries. Before 1999, centers already onlineserved
automotive service and repair shops, agricultural
facilities, metal finishers, printed wiring board
manufacturers, and the printing industry.
All centers are Internet-based and provide
compliance information targeted at specific industry
sectors. They help users understand which federal
regulations apply to their operations, share pollution
prevention tips and techniques, access relevant
compliance tools, and learn about new regulatory
developments.
According to surveys, the centers have a positive
impact on improving compliance. Survey results from
OECA'sautomotiveandrepairshopcenter(GreenLink)
showthatcomplianceimproveswhenfacilities receive
help. Audits in 1997 revealed that less than 25 percent
of theindustry were in substantial compliance (that is,
at 81-100 percent compliance) with all their regulatory
requirements. In 1999, after establishment of
GreenLink, the number of facilities in substantial
compliance jumped to 51 percent and the numberof
users increased from 1,000 shops in 1997 to 21,000
shops in 1999.
In all, OECA compliance assistance centers are
visited over 700 times a day by businesses that need
help, according to survey statistics. To access all
centers, go to: www.epa.gov/oeca/mfcac.html.
Sector Notebooks
Inl999,EPAaddedthreenewsectornotebooks,
bringing to 30 the total number of industries
profiled in this format. New notebooks cover the
oil and gas extraction and aerospace industries,
and local government operations. Sector notebooks
provide information about broad spectrum
environmental issues associated with major
industries. Each notebook contains information
that can help facilities recognize and resolve
compliance problems; business profile and trend
information, manufacturing process descriptions,
applicable federal regulations, compliance history,
profiles of chemical releases, pollution prevention
opportunities, contacts for help and assistance
materials. To date, more than 450,000 notebooks
have been distributed. To view EPA Sector
Notebooks, visit www.epa.gov/oeca/sector
Compliance Literature
Summaries Available
OECA's Office of
Planning and Policy
Analysis has issued its
Compliance Information
Project Literature
Summaries report which
presents the results of a
literature search for
creative, new papers
addressing a wide range
of environmental
compliance issues of
interest to regulators,
businesspeopte,
environmental profession-
als, and the public. The
report is available on-line
at OPPA's web site at
http://www.epa.gov/oeca/
oppa/. In addition, hard
copies may be ordered
from the National Service
Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP) by
calling 1-513-489-8190
(refer to document
number # EPA-300-R-99-
002. The 17 pieces of
literature described in the
report address such
topics as why firms
comply with environmen-
tal requirements; the
impact of government
sanctions, economics,
and social factors on
business decisions;
relationships between
plant and firm character-
istics, inspections,
enforcement, compliance
rates, and environmental
performance; how
superior environmental
performance promotes
enhanced profitability;
and more. Two appendi-
ces provide citations to
over 200 hundred
additional articles,
papers, and reports.
Page 4
-------
Toyota Charged With
Clean Air Act Violation*
Toyota Motor Sales
U.S.A., Inc., was sued in
July by the Department of
Justice on behalf of EPA for
selling certain 1996-1998
Toyota and Lexus model
vehicles equipped with
allegedly illegal emission
control monitoring systems
in violation of the Clean Air
Act. EPA contends that
Toyota's computerized
emissions control monitor-
ing systems, if not fixed,
could permit increased
emissions of hydrocarbon
vapors from the fuel
systems without owners'
knowledge.
Filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District
of Columbia, the case
involves 2.2 million model-
year 1996 to 1998 Toyota
Camrys, Avalons, Corollas,
Tercels, Paseos; Lexus
cars, Sienna minimvans;
4Runner and RAV4 sport
utility vehicles; and Tacoma
and T100 trucks.
The case is one
of a series of recent and
significant enforcement
actions the government has
initiated against auto
manufacturers for CAA
violations. Toyota is the
first manufacturer that
refused to settle. Past
settlements involved seven
manufacturers of heavy
duty diesel engines,
American Honda Motor
Company, and Ford Motor
Company.
OECA Echo/Spring 2000
Tampa Electric Company is First to Settle
Seven Electric Utilities Sued to Enforce Clean Air Act
EPA and the Justice Department announced on
February 29 settlement of a major Clean Air Act
enforcementactionagainsttheTampaElectric Company
that requires the company to significantly reduce
harmful air pollution from its power plants. Under the
settlement, Tampa Electric will pay a $3.5 million civil
penalty and spend between $10 and $11 million on
environmentally beneficial projects in its service region
designed to mitigate the impact of emissions from its
plants.
Renovation of two of the company's aging power
plants by switching one plant to natural gas and
making major changes at a second is expected to cost
the company an estimated $1 billion. Hundreds of
thousands of tons of air pollution have been
eliminated as a result of the settlement.
The settlement is the first reached under EPA's
national enforcement action against coal-fired power
plants for Clean Air Act violations. Unprecedented in
its scope, the settlement marks a major step in the
government's ongoing initiative to stop pollution
illegally released from coal-fired power plants.
In November 1999, the Justice Department, on
behalf of EPA, filed lawsuits against seven electric
companies in the Midwest and South charging that 17
of the companies' power plants illegally released
massive amounts of air pollutants for years,
contributing to some of the most severe environmental
problems facing the United States. In March 2000,12
additional plants were included in the lawsuits bringing
to 29 the number of plants covered by the litigation.
EPA also issued an administrative order against
the Tennessee Valley Authority, charging the federal
agency with similar violations at seven plants.
the seven separate suits allege that the electric
utility companies—American Electric Power, Cinergy,
FirstEnergy, Illinois Power, Southern Indiana Gas &
Electric Company, Southern Company,Tampa Electric
Company—or their subsidiaries, and theTVA, violated
the Clean Air Act by making major modifications to
many of their plants without installing the equipment
required to control smog, acid rain and soot. Eight
states—New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont,
Massachusetts,NewHampshire,Maryland,and Rhode
Island— have joined in the lawsuit against AEP.
The government will seek significant civil
penalties from all the violators. The Clean Air Act
authorizes civil penalties of up to $25,000 for each day
of violation at each plant prior to January 30,1997, and
$27,500 for each day thereafter.
Power plants existing at the time the Clean Air
Act was amended in the late 1970s were
"grandfathered" from a requirement to retrofit existing
plants with new air pollution control equipment, unless
the utilities undertook major modifications of those
plants. Thegovernmentassertsthattheutilities made
major modifications to their plants to extend their
lives and avoid the cost of building new plants. These
projects included replacing large portions of theboilers
that are the heart of the plants. Many of these actions
cost tens of millions of dollars and took years to
complete. Under the Clean Air Act, modifications of
this kind require installation of the "best available
control technology," but the utilities did not do so.
World's Largest Meatpacker Must Cut Hydrogen
Sulfide Plant Emissions To Protect Public Health
The government entered into an agreement on May
24 with IBP, Inc., the world's largest meatpacker, that
requires the company to take immediate steps to eliminate
a public health threat posed by nearly a ton each day of
hydrogen sulfide emissions at its Dakota City/South
Sioux City, NE, facility.
The agreement stems from a lawsuit the Justice
Department filed on behalf of EPA in January, charging
that IBP violated the Clean Air Act and other
environmental laws. The government asserts that IBP
failed to install required air pollution control equipment
as it expanded its complex from 1989 to 1995 and, as a
result, illegally emitted an excessive amount of hydrogen
sulfide into the air.
The agreement, a partial consent decree, is designed
to quickly improve air quality in the community near
IBPs facility as the federal lawsuit proceeds. The
agreement does not resolve the government's allegations
that IBP has violated federal environmental laws.
The agreement directs IBP to build covered
wastewater treatment lagoons by November 30;
decommission existing, uncovered wastewater lagoons
that are responsible for much of the facility's hydrogen
sulfide emissions; and undertake additional projects to
limit thereleaseofhydrogen sulfide into theair. Together,
the required actions are expected to reduce hydrogen
sulfide emissions by as much as 95 percent, based on
calculations provided by IBP.
Exposure to low concentrations of hydrogen
sulfide—a colorless gas that has a foul, rotten egg-Ske
smell — can cause respiratory problems, headace,
nausea, fatigue, eye irritation, and possible neurological
problems. In higher concentrations, hydrogen sulfide
can cause paralysis of the respiratory sytem, which
results in fainting or even death. The Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry is studying the
potential health effects of hydrogen sulfide exposure
on Dakota City and South Sioux City residents.
IBFs main slaughterhouse in Dakota City kills
and processes approximately 5,000 head of cattle a
day, and it operates 24 hours per day, six days a week.
The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
has documented that the air around the IBP complex
shows concentrations of total reduced sulfur ~
primarily hydrogen sulfide — that frequently exceed
state health standards. State tests also show that the
average measure of hydrogen sulfide exceeds the much
lower federal standard forcontinuous inhalation more
than half the time.
Page 5
-------
OECA Echo \Spring 2000
10 Telecom Companies Settle Under Audit Policy
Ten telecommunications companies last year
voluntarily disclosed and promptly corrected 1,300
environmental violations that occurred at more than
400 of thdr facilities.
The companies' remedial actions for violations of
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act (EPCRA) and/or the Clean Water Acf s
(CWA)SpillPreventionControlandCountenneasure
$PCX3 requirements mcludeproperlynotifymglocal
emergency planning committees of the presence of
hazardous chemicals and preparing spill prevention
plans to reduce the risk of environmental accidents, as
well as protect the safety of those who respond if an
accident occurs.
The proposed settlements were reached under
the EPA's "Audit Policy," which reduces and/or
eliminates penalties for companies that voluntarily
audit, promptly disclose and correct violations. Since
the Audit Policy was implemented in 1996,
environmental violations have been disclosed at more
than 1,800 facilities.
The companies and their violations:
Consent Agreements approved by Environmental
Appeals Board: Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company
(EPCRA); Cincinnati Bell Long Distance (EPCRA);
Convergys Customer Management Group (EPCRA);
Dallas MTA, LJP. (EPCRA); Houston MTA, L.P.
(EPCRA); PrimeCo Personal Communications
(EPCRA); and San Antonio MTA, L.P. (EPCRA).
Proposed Consent Agreements: Cellco Partnership
anditsaffuiatesdoingbusiness as BellAtlantic Mobile
or Cellular One (EPCRA and SPCC), Southwestern
Bell Telephone Company (SPCC); and United States
Cellular Corporation (EPCRA and SPCC).
The disclosures by the 10 companies resulted
from an agency outreach effort to the nation's
tclccommunicahons companies follovwngontheheels
of amajorsettlementbyEPAand the GTE Corporation
in January 1998. The GTE settlement resolved 600
EPCRA and SPCC violations at 314 GTE facilities in
21statesand was thelargest agency settlemcntreached
through EPA's self-disclosure policy.
Under the proposed and final settlements, the 10
telecommunications' companies will pay a total of
$128,772 for their violations, which is equal to the
amount the companies saved for delayed compliance.
Pursuant to the Audit Policy, the agency has waived
or proposed to waive more than $4.2 million in
potential gravity-based penalties that otherwise would
have been assessed.
EPCRA was enacted to help local communities
protect public heath, safety, and the environment
from chemical hazards.
Revised Audit and Small
Business Policies Issued
(Continued from Page 1)
The Small Business Policy—which is available for
companies with 100 or fewer employees — was first
issued in June 1996. It promotes environmental
compliance among small businesses by providing
incentives for voluntary discovery, prompt disclosure
and prompt correction of violations. The agency will
reduce or waive penalties for small businesses that
disclose and makegood faith efforts to correct violations
provided they meet the criteria in the policy. The key
revisions of the Small Business Compliance Policy are
that it lengthens the amount of time from 10 to 21 days
that entities have to disclose a violation after discovery;
and it expands the number of ways violations can be
discovered to include on-line compliance assistance
centers, checklists, or other means
The revised policies were published in the April
11,2000 edition of the Federal Register and take effect
May 11, 2000. Both revised policies will also be
available at: http://www.epa.gov/oeca. Extensive
background materials related to the evaluation and
the revisions areavailablethrough EPA's Enforcement
and Compliance Docket and Information Center by
calling 202-564-2614 or accessing the Center's website
at http://www.epa.gov/oeca/polguid/enfdock.html.
Tribes Get $1.6 Million To Fight Open Dump Threats
Eleven Native American Indian tribes received
approximately $1.6 million in 1999 to help close or
upgrade open dump sites considered high priority
threats to human health and the environment. The
funds were provided by a multi-agency workgroup
underaspecialdeanupproject intended to maximize
federal assistance to tribes in addressing solid waste
anagcment needs.
TheTribal Open Dump Cleanup Project" is part
of the workgroup's effort to coordinate federal
assistance for tribal solid waste management
programs. Theprojecf sspecificgoalsincludeassisting
tribes with completing and implementing
comprehensive integrated waste management plans,
developing realistic solid waste management
alternatives, closing or upgrading existing open
dumps, and developing post-closure programs.
Project funds are available to federally recognized
tribes and Alaska native villages, and to multi-tribe
organizations whosemembershipconsistsoffederally
recognized tribes or villages. Using information
gathered through the project, the workgroup
will devise a strategy to support further
assistance to tribes in their efforts to address
solid waste management needs. If funding is
available, the workgroup will solicit and fund
additional projects in future years.
Eight agencies comprise the workgroup.
In addition to EPA, they are the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Indian Health Services, the
Federal Aviation Administration, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
U.S. Geological Survey, the Department of
Agriculture, and the Department of Defense. It
was established in 1998 to design a federal plan
for helping tribes bring their waste disposal
sites into compliance with the municipal solid
waste landfill criteria. Contacts: MelanieBarger
Garvey, 202/564-2579 and Beverly Goldblatt,
703/308-7278.
Report Show*
Compliance Record
At U.S. Federal Facilities
A report on the
environmental compli-
ance record of federal
government facilities
throughout the United
States has been
published by EPA and is
available to the public.
Entitled "The State of
Federal Facilities: An
Overview of Environmen-
tal Compliance at
Federal Facilities FY
1997-98", the report
provides a breakdown of
compliance rates at
facilities owned or
operated by the federal
government regulated by
environmental law. It
shows, for example, that
rates have increased
under the Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act, remained
steady under the Clean
Air Act, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and the Toxic
Substances Control Act,
and declined under the
National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System. The report also
compares compliance at
federal facilities to private
sector facilities. The
report, which includes a
comprehensive analysis
of federal facility
environmental compli-
ance, is on EPA's
Federal Facilities
Environmental Office
web site at http://
es.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/
soff9798.pdf. Copies of
the report are also
available through the
National Service Center
for Environmental
Publications at 1-800-
490-9198. Contact:
Greg Snyder, 202/564-
4271.
Page 6
-------
OECA Echo/Spring 2000
11 States Receive Performance Measurement Grants
Eleven state environmental organizations from
across the country have or will receive grants to
develop and implement enhanced performance mea-
sures to assess the impact of their enforcement and
compliance assurance programs. OECA Deputy
Assistant Administrator Michael M. Stahl said the
cooperative agreements are intended to promote the
use of "outcome-based" performance measures, i.e.,
ones that can be used to indicate the effect of enforce-
ment and compliance programs on human health and
the environment.
The state organizations selected and a descrip-
tion of their proposals are:
. California's Air Resources Board will deter-
mine the statistically valid baseline noncompliance
rate for the chrome plating rule and will then examine
the effect of compliance assistance on the noncompli-
ance rate.
. Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment will develop a unified, multi-media,
facility-based, permanent system to collect and ana-
lyze output and outcome data from all enforcement,
compliance assistance and pollution prevention ac-
tivities undertaken by the agency.
. Connecticut's Department of Environmen-
tal Protection's Small Business Assistance Program
will develop a statistically valid baseline noncompli-
ance rate for compliance withgeneral permits and then
determine the effects of compliance assistance and
-enforcement initiatives on the noncompliance rate.
. Indiana Department of Environmental Man-
agement will develop a prototype for a sector-based
multi-media model for compliance and enforcement
for the auto-salvage industry. The project indues
building a complete database for the industry state
wideand provides compliance assistance and targeted
inspections followed by measuring outcomes from
each.
. Maryland Department of the Environment
will develop a methodology for statistically valid
noncompliance rates. This is part of a state-wide
environmental measurement effort which includes
eight outcomes of which four are indicators, including
measures on exceedences of air quality standards,
criteria pollutants, ozone standards and emissions.
. Missouri's Department of Natural Resources
will adapt the case conclusion data sheet to provide
environmental impact data from all state enforcement
actions.
•New Hampshire's Department of
Environmental Services will study the effectiveness
of its "partial-inspection" strategy which increases the
number of inspections by reducing the time spent at
each facility, targets inspections basedrisk, and focuses
on compliance with direct waste-handling
requirements. The strategy compares noncompliance
rates, environmental and human health improvements
and SNC rates for facilities included in the strategy to
facilities receiving either compliance assistance or
regular compliance inspections. The department will
also develop compliance assistance metrics software
for tracking results of environmental compliance
assistance and pollution prevention. Software
will be shared among states in the Northeast
(EPA Region 1) and will be available for other
states.
. Oregon's Department of Environmen-
tal Quality will, through surveys and inter-
views with the regulated community, quantita-
tively evaluate specific deterrence by compar-
ing such data elements as penalty amounts to
recidivism, and will qualitatively evaluate the
general effects of deterrence.
. The Texas Natural Resouces Conserva-
tion Commission's Small Business and Envi-
ronmental Assistance Division will use
OECA's Guide for Measuring Compliance Assis-
tance Outcomes to measure behavioral changes,
environmental and human health improve-
ments, and awareness and understanding of
environmental regulatory issues as a result of
technical assistance for small businesses.
. Washington's Department of Ecology
will use its Regulatory Compliance Indicator
(RCI) to examine how formal and informal en-
forcement and technical assistance impact the
RCI, a reflection of whether a facility is in
compliance with "highestrisk" hazardous waste
regulatory requirements recorded in the RCRIS
database.
. Wisconsin's Department of Natural
Resources Bureau of Air Management will
develop a universal interface system for the
EPA database (A.I.R. Facility System) to accept
state compliance and enforcement data from a
variety of state systems. This will facilitate
national measurement and analysis of state and
federal compliance and enforcement activity.
With the exception of the Colorado
grant, which was chosen in 1998, the pre-
proposals were selected from 32 pre-proposals
from nine states submitted in response to a 1999
solicitation. Preference was given to projects
included in the EPA National Performance
Measures Strategy or the accountability
measures developed by EPA and the
Environmental Council of States for the
Performance Partnership Agreements.
New Yellow Book
The Yellow
Book: Guide to
Environmental
Enforcement and
Compliance at Federal
Facilities.has been
revised and reissued
by OECA's Federal
Facilities Enforcement
Office. It is available
to other federal
agencies and the
public in hard copy or
via the internet.
Designed to
assist federal facilities
with achieving and
maintaining compli-
ance with federal
environmental
requirements and to
provide compliance
assistance to federal
facilities, it is meant to
help achieve EPA's
goal that federal
facility compliance
should equal or
surpass the rest of the
regulated community
and that federal
facilities should lead
the way in minimizing
environmental
contamination.
Although its
primary audience is
federal facility staff
with enforcement and
compliance responsi-
bilities, the document
is written to meet the
needs of others within
the environmental
community. Internet
address: httpy/
es.epa.gov/oeca/
fedfacfyellowbk/
index.html Contact:
Priscilla Harrington,
(202) 564-2461
Page?
-------
OECA Echo/Spring 2000
Action Plan to Assess Enforcement&Compiiance Assurance Activities
OECA's plan on how it intends to build on and improve its
enforcement and compliance assurance program was issued in
Rf«nlf>mber.
in a report entitled 'Innovative Approaches to
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance - Action Plan for
Innovation," the plan is the result of numerous stakeholder
discussionsandafive-yearreviewby EPA's OfficeofEnforcement
and Compliance Assurance to evaluate progress of existing
programs and to identify new directions for the enforcement and
compliance assurance program.
Among highlights of thereportisagreementamongEPAand
stakeholders that in its compliance assistance role the agency
should be more of a "wholesaler" than a "retailer'' of compliance
assistance. The shift in focus means that EPA's responsibility will
be to provide tools and other assistance to frontline compliance
assistance providers in states, localities; and the private sector. To
carry this out, EPA will focus on priority environmental and
compliance problems that need federally supported compliance
assistance and will commit to providing materials on certain new
regulations on a more timely basis.
The report emphasizes EPA's strong endorsement of self-
auditing by the regulated community and of environmental
management systems as key compliance and performance tools.
TorrJet this target, the agency's audit and small business pohcies
will be amended to further encourage companies to complete selt-
audits and to disclose and correct any violations discovered. The
enforcement and compliance assurance program will support
EPA's commitment to use environmental management systems to
assist in accomplishing strategic goals. The plan also calls for an
enhanced rolefor interested stakeholders in identifying compliance
and enforcement priorities. .
The action plan highlights EPA's commitment to implement
an enhanced set of performance measures for assessing
environmental and health improvements resulting from the full
range of EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance activities.
The plan pledges that a new set of outcome measures will be
fuUv implemented by the agency in the next few years.
Features of the plan include the fostering of a network of
complianceassistance providers that will include non-traditional
providers, such as product suppliers, and the development of a
clearinghouse of compliance assistance materials. The clearing
house wmprovideaccesstoinformationfromthe public sector and
from private providers, such as trade associations.
The plan stresses that EPA remains committed to a strong
enforcementprogram to address serious noncompliance problems.
Theactionplan was prepared after a comprehensive year-long
effort to seek stakeholder-input through major conferences in
Washington, D.C. and Salt Francisco. Four major areas examined
at the conferences were compliance assistance, compliance
incentives, information and accountability, and innovative
approaches to enforcement. .
The full innovative action plan report can be found in paf
format on EPA's web page under the OECA banner.
Page 8
sseuisna lepyjo
9€-Q -ON
ppy S33J pue aSeisoj
ssxno isuid
esnoqBuiJB8|0 suo»eouqnd Vd3
AouaBv
UO|p8JOJd |B}U8UJUOJ|AU3
Vd3«
------- |