-------
                      FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report	_^_
                                                                                  x&
                            Table of Contents
I.    Message from Administrator William K. Reilly and Herbert H. Tate, Jr.,
     Assistant Administrator of the Office of Enforcement

II.   Institutionalizing a Cross-Program/Multi-Media Enforcement Perspective

     A context setting narrative that describes the Agency's cross-program/multi-media enforcement
     initiatives and its progress implementing them.

III.  Environmental Enforcement Activity

IV.  Major Enforcement Litigation and Key Legal Precedents

     An alphabetized summary of important civil and criminal judicial case settlements, administrative
     actions, and key court decisions that occurred during the year.

V.   Building and Maintaining a Strong National Enforcement Program

     Summaries of major enforcement program strategies, initiatives, guidance, and management studies.
     Subsections on local enforcement, Federal facilities, cooperative work with environmental groups,
     relationships with other Federal agencies and international issues.

VI.  Media Specific Enforcement Highlights and Regional Accomplishments

     Brief summaries of each National program and each Region's FY 1991 highlights.

Appendix: Historical Enforcement Data
           FY 1991 National Penalty Report
           List of EPA Headquarters and Regional Enforcement Information
            Contacts

-------
FF1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report

-------
                   FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
      A Message from the Administrator and Assistant Administrator


     EPA's commitment to the vigorous enforcement of environmental law, and
the commitment of the Bush Administration, is reflected in the significant
expansion of the Agency's civil, criminal, and federal facility enforcement activities
since 1989.  Overall, this Administration has assessed about 55 percent of all the civil
penalties and criminal fines assessed in EPA history -- $200 million for FY 1989-1991
compared with $166 million for FY 1972-1988.  The Department of Justice under
Attorneys General Richard Thornburgh and William Barr has our gratitude —
indeed, the .Department deserves the thanks of every American for its full support
and participation in this enterprise.

     Over the past year, EPA enforcement again operated at record levels, setting all-
time highs for criminal referrals and civil penalties.  EPA's enforcement record
shows that over the past three years the Agency:

     • Referred to the Department of  Justice over 44 percent of all criminal
      referrals in Agency history;

     •Obtained  50 percent of the Agency's total guilty verdicts or pleas,
      resulting in sentences meting out more  than 65  percent of all months
      of incarceration ordered in Agency history; and

     • Assessed more than 67 percent of all criminal  penalties assessed in
      Agency history.

     During FY  1991, EPA moved  beyond its traditional enforcement of media-
specific laws to emphasize cross-program, multi-media  enforcement. We now target
our inspection and enforcement efforts on  the basis of the most significant health
and ecological risks across all environmental media.

     We achieved these levels  and took these steps even as we increased our use of
non-regulatory tools like voluntary pollution prevention, environmental
information and  education, and market-based economic incentives to achieve our
goals. Indeed, some of the voluntary, direct action programs like "33/50" are
achieving results faster than our more traditional regulatory programs. Under this
program, more than 700 companies have committed  to reduce - by 300  million
pounds - emissions of 17 high-priority toxics by 1995.

    Nonetheless, enforcement remains one of the most important tools in EPA's
arsenal. Only because we are committed unequivocally to vigorous enforcement are
we able to expand our methods as we seek the  most  cost-effective approaches to
environmental protection.

                                    1-1

-------
                        J99J Enforcement Accomplishments Report
    The FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report provides a concise
summary of the Agency's enforcement efforts over the last year, including
explanations of EPA's Strategic Plan for Enforcement, highlights of significant
enforcement cases, and statistical information on EPA and state programs.  Above
all, this report sends a clear message of deterrence to potential violators: this Agency
is committed to a vigorous and effective environmental enforcement program, now
and into the future.
William K. Reilly"
Administrator
 Herbert H. Tate, Jr.  /~    /
 Assistant Administrate?-^
    for Enforcement
                                    1-2

-------
                        1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
II,    FY1991:  Institutionalizing a Cross-Program/Multi-Media
      Enforcement Perspective
      In retrospect, FY 1991 may well prove to be a turning point for environmental
enforcement.  It  was the year that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
moved from policy development to implementation of its Enforcement Four-Year
Strategic Plan.  During the past twelve months, the Agency has made major strides
in  integrating  a  cross-program/multi-media  approach  to  its  inspection  and
enforcement programs.  By integrating a cross-program/multi-media perspective
into all  stages of  the enforcement planning and  decision-making, the Agency
intends to achieve additional public health and environmental protection results,
deterrence,  and  efficiency which could  not be achieved through  the use  of
traditional single-media approaches alone.

      EPA's commitment  to  cross-program/multi-media enforcement is  one
reflection of its greater emphasis on better integrating consideration of 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, better ensuring that  they do  not overlook
significant environmental problems.

      Throughout  its  Regional Offices,  EPA is  experimenting  with  different
techniques for  inspection targeting, case screening, and case  coordination.   The
Agency  is  carefully  building  the   structures  necessary  to  support  cross-
program/multi-media enforcement, since frankly, this type of enforcement does not
come naturally to  EPA's structure and culture.  This  building process, initially
viewed  by  many in the Agency with  skepticism and concern, is  now being
implemented with excitement and enthusiasm.

      An example of how this approach is working nationally is the series of cross-
media enforcement  actions, both civil judicial  and and administrative, filed against
major sources of lead emissions.  The actions were filed by EPA and the Department
of Justice on July 31,1991, against violators located in  each of EPA's ten regions.  EPA
coordinated  across its compliance programs to  file enforcement actions under six
environmental statutes to reduce a specific pollutant -- lead. Along with pollution
prevention,  education, and training, enforcement was  a major component of the
agency-wide strategy to significantly  reduce lead  exposures  to the public -  -
particularly  the risk of high blood lead levels in children ~ and to the environment.
The Department of Justice filed twenty-four civil cases in Federal courts across the
country,  and  EPA initiated direct  administrative enforcement actions against
fourteen  facilities, assessing some $14 million in total penalties.  The cases in the
initiative were filed under  six different statutes:  the Resource Conservation and
                                     2-1

-------
(
Jnfc
    1                     FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
  ^
    Recovery   Act   (RCRA);   the   Comprehensive   Environmental  .Response,
    Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); the Clean Water Act (CWA); the Safe
    Drinking Water Act (SDWA); the Clean Air Act (CAA); and the Emergency Planning
    and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),

         EPA has also focused geographically on  the Chesapeake Bay and the Great
    Lakes as cross-program/multi-media initiatives.  In FY 1992,  EPA plans  to add
    another  pollutant-specific initiative, and industry-specific initiative, a company-.
    specific initiative, other regional geographic-based initiatives, and an international
    initiative focused on the Mexican border.

         In order to have the capability to look at patterns of noricompliance within or
    across environmental  programs, EPA needs accurate, readily  accessible data on
    source compliance status.  These  data will.help targeting of specific geographic,
    industry, company, facility, or pollutant-specific sources based on compliance status,
    compliance history, and/or environmental risk profile.  To provide that capability,
    EPA  has developed an automated capability which can link information from its
    various mainframe computer systems. , This new capability, known as Integrated
    Data  for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) utilizes EPA's powerful mainframe computer
    capacity to allow EPA enforcement personnel to engage in an interactive analysis of
    compliance and enforcement data  that is contained in the various media program
    data  systems.   This  capability also provides access  to  corporate identification
    information allowing  users to structure their analyses based on corporate parentage
    or structure, industrial sector, pollutants, and/or geographic sector.             ,c

         EPA is also developing cross-program/.multi-media training courses- for its
    compliance inspectors and its technical and legal staffs; these courses  will ;be:
    available to  State environmental program  and legal personnel. , Courses will be
    offered under the umbrella of the  National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI),
    created  to  provide  training  to  EPA, State,  and local  personnel involved in
    environmental  enforcement.    State  representatives  serve on  the Institute's
    Advisory Council and participate actively in curriculum development and program
    design.

         The emphasis on cross-program/multi-media enforcement raises questions
    about EPA's working relationships with the States.  In response to requests from
    States for clarification, on August 9,  1991, EPA issued a proposed Addendum on
    Multi-Media Enforcement  to  the  Policy Framework on  State/EPA Enforcement
    Agreements.  As the proposed addendum makes clear, a  cross-program/multi-
    media approach is not intended to change the current structure under which State
    and local governments have the primary enforcement responsibility, nor  current
    ground rules for determining which level of government should assume the lead
    for enforcement response.  However, implementation of a cross-program/multi-
    media approach will require even  closer Federal/State working relationships, EPA
    is committed to working cooperatively with States to forge those relationships.  \

                                        2-2

-------
                     FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
m)
III.   Envkonmental Enforcement Activity

Federal Judicial and Administrative Enforcement Activity

  Judicial Enforcement • Civil

      During FY 1991, the EPA made a concerted effort to approach its enforcement activity
with a cross-program/multi-media  perspective,  and where appropriate, to bring cross-
program/mulH-media and multi-facility enforcement actions against violating facilities to
bring about comprehensive solutions to complex interrelated  environmental problems.
With this cross-program/multi-media perspective, the Agency 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 alonel

      An Agency-wide workgroup analyzed operational modifications that would facilitate
greater use of cross-program/multi-media approaches, and recommended modifications to
the counting methodology that had been used in the past  to track and account  for civil
referral activity.  These adjustments are, intended to  more accurately reflect the greater
magnitude of cross-program/multi-media actions and  the .variety  of violations being
addressed, and to remove any accounting-related disincentives to bringing these cases.
  j  •   *

      Through  this  transition  period,  EPA maintained  an  aggressive  civil  judicial
enforcement program by referring 393 cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ), While the
393 cases are the highest total ever referred in one year, EPA has not claimed a record year
since under the old counting method, the Agency would have had 366 referrals,  slightly
below-the previous referral record of 375 in FY 1990. (With the new counting! approach/we
estimate that the 375 civil cases referred to DOJ in  FY 1990 would  have] totaled 406).
                             EPA Civil Referrals to DOJ
                                  FY 1977 to FY 1991
      400 T

      350 . .
        FY77  FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81  FY82  FY83 FY84 FY85  FY86  FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90  FY91
• TOXICS/
PESTICIDES
Q WATER
DRCRA
Q SUPERFUND
DAIR
t
                                    Illustration 1
                                        3-1

-------
m
FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
        Since FY 1989,1,132 civil judicial cases have been referred to DOJ, nearly thirty percent
   of all civil cases referred in the 20 years since the Agency's creation (historical data are
   contained in the Appendix to this report). The federal Superfund program established a new
   high-water mark in FY 1991 with  164 civil judicial cases referred to DOJ (a  number not
   influenced by the new counting procedure).

    Monitoring Judicial Consent Decrees

         At the end of FY 1991, the Agency reported that 686  judicial consent decrees were in
   place and being monitored to ensure compliance with the provisions  of the decrees, an .
   increase of 40 over last year and three and a half times the number of six years ago. Where
   noncompliance  with the terms  and conditions of  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 14 cases to DOJ for enforcement of the
   consent decree with the court.

    Judicial Enforcement - Criminal

         In FY 1991, EPA's criminal program established records for most categories of criminal
   enforcement activity.  New records included referring 81 cases to DOJ (the previous record
   was 65 in FY 1990), bringing charges against 104 defendants (the previous record was 100 in FY
   1990), and the number of months of jail time to which defendants were sentenced with 963
   months  (the previous record was 745 months in  FY  1990).  Forty-eight criminal  cases
   concluded during the year, and 82 defendants were convicted.  In addition,  28 of the
   defendants convicted were sentenced to incarceration.
                           EPA Criminal Enforcement Program
                                      FY 1982 to FY 1991
              FY82   FY83   FY84   FY85   FY86  FY87   FY88   FY89   FY90   FY91
         E3 Referrals to DOJ    H Cases successfully  0 Defendants        • Defendants
                             prosecuted          charged        •    convicted
                                        Illustration 2
                                           3-2

-------
                      FY1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
      FY 1991  saw continued integration of the  criminal enforcement  program  into the
Agency's  regulatory programs, as well as greater recognition in the regulated community of
EPA's willingness to pursue violations utilizing criminal enforcement authorities.  As the
previous illustration indicates, case  referrals and  the number of defendants charged and
convicted have increased since 1982.  Evidence of  the strong recent growth of the criminal
program is that 53% of all referrals,  65% of all months sentenced, and 68% of all penalties
assessed have occurred during the last three years.

      Imposition of incarceration and probation is an extremely effective part of the criminal
program, and serves as a strong deterrent.   Probation is very effective because in the event
that an  individual commits  another  crime (not  limited to environmental crimes), the
provisions of the probation  normally call  for the automatic imposition of the prison
sentence that was suspended in lieu of probation.  Since 1982, individuals have  received
prison sentences for committing environmental crimes totaling 261 years, and 785 years of
probation have been imposed.

 Administrative Enforcement

      EPA posted its second highest annual total  for administrative enforcement activities
in FY 1991 with 3,925 actions.  The Agency record of 4,136 was set in FY 1989. The totals  for
FY 1991  demonstrate  that although judicial actions (both civil and criminal) are crucial to
EPA's overall success, and are generally looked to as the chief indicator of the vitality of
Agency  enforcement   efforts,  other  indicators need  to be evaluated  to assess  EPA's
effectiveness in enforcing environmental laws and regulations.  Congress  has given EPA
expanded authority  in recently enacted or reauthorized statutes to use administrative
mechanisms to address violations and compel  regulated facilities to achieve compliance.
The FY 1991 figures indicate that EPA programs continue to make widespread use of these
effective and less  resource intensive tools.
                     EPA Administrative Actions: FY 1977 to FY 1991
         FY77 FY78  FY79 FY8Q FY81  FY82 FY83 FY84  FY85 FY86 FY87  FY88 FY89 FY90  FY91
                    TSCA

                    RCRA
EPCRA      Q FIFRA      D  CERCLA

CWA/SDWA  Q] CAA
                                     Illustration 3

                                         3-3

-------
                            FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
  Federal Penalty Assessments            '                        •

      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, BPA's enforcement programs have developed  penalty policies designed to
assess penalties  which  recover any  economic  benefit that a  noncomplying facility has
realized, and assess additional penalties commensurate with the gravity of the violation(s),

  ;    In  FY 1991, $73.1' million in civil penalties were assessed, an all-time record ($41.2
million in civil judicial penalties and $31.9 million in administrative penalties, both all-time
records). This represents a 21 percent increase over FY 1990 and in FY 1991 alone, 23 percent
of all civil  penalty dollars in EPA's history were obtained. Overall, 53% of all civil penalty
dollars in EPA's history were assessed in the  last three years.  Since its creation,  EPA has
imposed $321.3 million  in civil penalties ($209 million with civil judicial actions and $113
million'with administrative actions).     '

      Criminal fines  totaled   $14.1  million  in FY 1991  (before deducting suspended
sentences), which represents a two and a half fold increase from FY 1990 and is the highest
amount  ever assessed  by  EPA  for  criminal  cases.   In the  five  years EPA's  criminal
enforcement program has been tracking penalty data, $43.8 million in criminal fines have
been  imposed before deduction of suspended sentences. One third of all criminal fines in
EPA's history, were assessed in FY 1991.

    '  Overall, in the last three years, EPA has assessed 55% of all civil penalties and criminal
fines combined (see chart below).
                          Total Criminal Fines and Civil Penalties Assessed
       250,000,000 j.


       200,000,000 ..


       150,000,000 • •


       100,000,000 ..


        50,000,000 - -
               0
                                 $200.7 million
$166.1 million
                            FY 1972-1988
                                  FY 1989-1991
      In FY 1991, $9.7 million in Clean Air Act civil penalties were assessed ($7.3 million for
stationary source violations and $2.3 million for mobile source violations); $26.6 million in
Clean Water Act penalties were assessed ($23.1 million  in civil judicial penalties and $3.5
                                          3-4

-------
                      FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
(j8p
 *c.,  ._*$.
 *[ (Ntd**1
million in administrative penalties); over $10.6 million in Toxic Substances Control Act
administrative penalties were  assessed; and  $17.7 million in Resource Conservation and
Recovery  Act penalties  were assessed ($10.0 million in civil judicial penalties and  $7.6
million in administrative penalties). The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
and Safe Drinking Water Act programs are largely delegated to  the States; however, EPA
assessed over $932,000 and $2.0 million respectively, under these statutes.  The Toxic Release
Inventory program assessed nearly $3.9 million. Over $889,700 in Emergency Planning and
Community  Right-to-Know  Act (EPCRA)  §3Q2-§312 and  CERCLA §104  penalties  were
assessed.  The Wetlands program assessed $504,200 and the Marine and Estuarine Protection
program assessed $264,000.  The FY 1991 total includes a civil judicial penalty for $220,000
assessed under the Lead Control Contamination Act (a 1988 amendment to the Safe Drinking
Water Act).  This penalty reflects the first case brought by the Agency under this Act
                               Federal Judicial and Administrative
                              Penalties Assessed FY 1977 to FY 1991
         80,000,000
               FYT7 FV78  FY7S  JY80  FWJ  FY«2  FY83  FW*  TOS  FYM  FVi7  FYM FYW  FY90  FY91
                                   I Administrative  Qjudicial
                                     Illustration 4

      For further information on EPA penalty practices, see the National Penalty Report in the
Appendix.

State Judicial and Administrative Enforcement Activity

      Several hundred thousand facilities are subject to environmental regulation, and the
job of ensuring compliance and taking action to correct instances of noncompliance with
federal laws is 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 agencies shouldering a significant  share  of  the nation's environmental
enforcement workload. In FY 1991, the  States referred 544 civil cases to State Attorneys
General and issued 9,607 administrative actions to violating facilities.
                                          3-5

-------
.,/<*">.
                              FY1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                            State Judicial Referrals; FY 1985 to FY 1991
             FY91

             FY90

             FY89

             FY88

             FY87

             FY86

             FY85
—1^	p=
 100    200
300
400
500    600
                                                            700
800
900
1000
                                     [RCRA   ClAIR     m WATER
                            State Administrative Actions: FY 1985 to FY 1991
                                                                              14000
                                        Illustrations 5&6
    EPA Contractor Listing
         In FY 1991, a near record number of facilities were added to EPA's List of Violating
   Facilities (List) under the authorities provided to EPA by Clean Air Act § 306 and Clean Water
   Act § 508, to  bar facilities that violate clean air or clean water standards from  receiving
   Federally funded contracts, grants or loans.  Federal  agencies are prohibited by statutory
   mandate from entering into contracts, grants or loans  (including subcontracts, subgrants or
   sibilance) to be performed at  facilities owned or operated by persons who are convicted of
   violating air standards under CAA  §ll3(c)  or  water standards under CWA §309(c) (and
   involved in the violations), effective automatically on the date of the conviction. Facilities
   which  are mandatorily listed  remain on  the List until EPA determines  that they have
                                              3-6

-------
                      FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
corrected the conditions giving rise to the violations.  Nineteen facilities were listed in FY
1991 based on criminal convictions — one short of the record set in FY 1990.  Ten facilities
were removed from the List in FY 1991.  Since FY 1986, 74 facilities have been placed on the
mandatory list. Fifty-two facilities remained on the List as of the end of FY 1991.

      Facilities with records of civil violations  may also be listed, at the discretion of the
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement, upon the recommendation of certain EPA officials,
a State Governor, or a member of the public (referred to as discretionary listing).  A facility
may be recommended for discretionary listing if there are continuing  or recurring violations
of the CAA or CWA after one or more enforcement actions  have been brought against the
facility by EPA or a state enforcement agency. Facilities recommended  for discretionary listing
have a right to an informal administrative proceeding.  Facilities listed under discretionary
listing are automatically removed from the List after one year, unless the basis for listing was
a criminal conviction in a state court or a court order in a civil enforcement action.  They
may be removed from the List at any time if the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
determines that the facility has corrected the conditions which gave rise to the listing or that
the facility is on a plan that will result in compliance.  In  FY 1991, BPA proposed to list  one
facility under its discretionary listing authority.  Seven pending discretionary listing actions
were withdrawn by EPA after consent agreements were entered into  in the underlying civil
enforcement cases.
                                          3-7

-------
FY1991, Enforcement Accomplishments Report

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
IV. Major Enforcement Litigation
     and Key Legal Precedents -
     Protecting Public Health and
     the Environment through
     Enforcement

     This chapter provides highlights  of major
FY  1991   litigation  which  support  media
enforcement    priorities   and    demonstrate
innovative  approaches  in  the  enforcement
process, FY 1991 was an exciting and challenging
year for EPA's enforcement effort.  The Agency
began  implementation   of  a  new  approach,
described in the Enforcement Four-Year  Strategic
Plan and the Enforcement in the 1990's Project, by
which  Federal and State governments  could
better  promote compliance with, and  effective
deterrence against violations of, environmental
laws. Cases are listed alphabetically and not in
order of importance

Clean Air Act Enforcement

     In  FY  1991, this program's  activities
centered upon implementation of  the Clean Air
Act  Amendments of 1990. The Clean  Air Act
program regulates the emission of  both 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    for   Hazardous   Air
Pollutants   (NESHAPS),   especially   those
involving asbestos  and benzene,  while mobile
source   air   toxics   litigation   emphasized
violations of the lead phasedown  rules, as well
those involving fuel switching, volatility, and
additives  requirements.   Enforcement of the

(NAAQS)  for the  criteria pollutants  involved
violations of  regulations for volatile organic
compounds   (VOCs),      sulfur   dioxide   and
particulates.

 Stationary Source Program

U.S. v. American CyflnaiUJd'  The largest penalty
to date for violations of §165 of the Clean Air Act
and  the regulations  regarding   Prevention of
Significant  Deterioration  (PSD)   was  obtained
from American Cyanamid  on  September 5, 1991.
The  company agreed to  pay a civil  penalty of
$625,000 for construction of a facility in the Pearl
River, New  York,  without first obtaining  a
necessary PSD permit and  without  giving  the
state  or EPA  the  notification of construction
required  by  the  New  Source  Performance
Standards.    EPA's  enforcement  efforts  forced
American  Cyanamid  to  halt  construction
immediately on the facility until it obtained  the
proper PSD permit, which the company received
in May 1990.
U.S. v.
Fructose
                               V AL' Region IV
negotiated  a judicial  consent  decree  with this
facility for violations of the federal New Source
Performance Standards under the Clean Air Act.
EPA charged the facility with failure to timely
conduct  certain  testing and  to  notify EPA  of
activities required by those standards. Under the
consent decree, the company agreed to pay a civil
penalty of $145,000.

Bakery Enforcement Initiative

     Large, commercial bakeries are significant
sources of VOC emissions (which come primarily
from the biological action  of yeast), Region  H
issued   Notices   of  Violations  citing   VOC
violations at six major baking plants,  including
such industry giants  as  Nabisco  Biscuit; SB
Thomas,  Inc. and  Continental  Baking.   Other
bakeries   cited   include  Harrison   Baking,
Marathon   Bakery,   and   Automatic   Rolls.
Continental Baking was the subject of a FY 1990
pre-referral negotiation (PRN), referral and in
FY 1991  reached a settlement with EPA pursuant
to which it 'will pay  a  civil penalty of over
$328,000.  Continental  has  also  spent  over
$500,000 on an  afterburner to control its  VOC
emissions.

U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel. (N.D. IN*. In May 1991,
the  United  States  settled  its   action  for
Bethlehem Steel's   State Implementation Plan
(SIP) violations under the Clean Air Act at two
coke  oven batteries  known  to   be  leaking
carcinogenic emissions into  the atmosphere from
more than ten percent of their doors,  Bethlehem
of Burns Harbor,  IN,  had also violated a site
specific SIP provision  which prohibited visible
emissions of more than 20 percent opacity on a two
hour average basis from a battery combustion
stack. The consent decree requires Bethlehem  to
achieve  and  maintain  compliance,   improve
operation and maintenance practices, self-monitor
emissions for the life of the consent decree, and
pay a penalty of $600,000.
                                             4-1

-------
mf^
                              FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 CFC Importer Cases

 In  FY  1991,  EPA  settled five  cases  against
 companies  that  imported  chlorofluorocarbons
 (CFCs)   without   first   obtaining   required
 consumption  allowances.  Such  imports  violate
 the Rule to Protect the Stratospheric Ozone, 40
 C.F.R,  Part  82,  which  limits  the  amount of
 identified    stratospheric    ozone-depleting
 chemicals   (ODCs)   that   can  either   be
 manufactured in the United States or  imported
 from other countries.  By limiting the amount of
 consumption allowances that  are available in a
 given year, the United States  limits the amount
 of ODCs that can enter the country in  that year,
 and fulfills its  international commitment not to
 use more than its share of these chemicals as the
 world phases out their production.  Companies
 found   to   have   imported  ODCs  without
 allowances can ensure that the United States
 remains  within   its  ceiling  by purchasing
 unexpended  allowances  after   the   fact,   by
 exporting ODCs to countries that are below their
 ceilings, or by transforming the ODCs into ozone-
 benign substances.

 U.S.  v.  Coors   Brewing   Company;      An
 administrative order under §167  of the  Clean Air
 Act was issued to Coors Brewing, Elkton, VA, on
 April 25, 1991, requiring cessation of construction
 of a major source without a valid permit. Coors
 obtained a prevention of significant deterioration
 (PSD) permit from EPA on March 19,1981, for the
 construction  of a  10  million barrel  per year
 brewery  facility   in   the   Elkton   area  of
 Rockingham  County,  Virginia.  Coors did  not
 commence construction of the brewery during the
 required time period, so the company  requested
 and  obtained extensions to the  permit. Each of
 these extensions was permissible because every
 extension required Coors to perform a  new best
 available   control   technology   (BACT)   and
 modeling analysis prior to  the  start  of  any
 construction related to the brewery. The company
 has  not  yet constructed anything   that  was
 provided  for in the permit.  Subject  to  certain
 conditions, the  latest extension gives Coors until
 April 15, 1992, to initiate construction of the
 brewery.

 Subsequently, Virginia was delegated  authority
 to administer the PSD program on behalf of EPA.
 Coors  violated  the PSD  regulations  when  it
 constructed,  without receiving  an appropriate
 permit  modification from the  Commonwealth,
one of two planned natural gas-fired (NG) boilers,
not contemplated by the original PSD permit, to
serve as back-up units  for the coal-fired boilers
that were permitted. In addition, a six-inch NG
line,  metering, and pressure  reducing  station;
outside overhead pipe gallery; and power house
building for the NG   boilers have  also  been
constructed at the planned Coors brewery site. The
continued construction of the facility without a
valid PSD permit would violate §165(a) of the
Clean Air Act, PL 101-549,42 U.S.C.' 7475(a), and
the Commonwealth's State Implementation Plan.

U.S. v. Ethyl Corporation (M.D. Louisiana]: An
eight-year old,  heavily contested, precedent-
setting Clean Air Act case concerning violations of
the  federal  regulations limiting  emissions of
vinyl chloride into the air, was settled on March
25,1991. A civil enforcement case was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana  in  February  1983,  against  Ethyl
Corporation regarding its plastics plant in Baton
Rouge,  Louisiana.  The complaint alleged  that
Ethyl   discharged   vinyl   chloride   to   the
atmosphere on at least 81 occasions, between 1976
and  1981. Ethyl moved  to dismiss the complaint
on the grounds that the vinyl chloride regulations
established   work   practices,  not   emission
standards, with the result that the regulations
would not be valid.  The District  Court  Judge
accepted Ethyl's  argument  and  dismissed the
complaint.  EPA appealed this ruling  and the
U.S.  Court of Appeals for  the  Fifth  Circuit
reversed   the   decision,  holding  that  the
regulations   were  emissions  standards,   and
remanded  the case to  District Court for  trial.
Ethyl filed  a Petition  for a  Writ of Certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court on August 30, 1985,
but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
After extensive discovery proceedings and then
settlement meetings in which the District Court
Judge participated,  EPA and Ethyl agreed on a
resolution of the case.  A consent decree was filed
on March 25, 1991, ordering Ethyl to pay a civil
penalty of $320,000.

U.S. v. Formosa Plastics (M.D. Louisiana):  A six-
year old  Clean  Air Act case against Formosa
Plastics Corp.,  Baton Rouge,  Louisiana, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana was settled on November 5, 1990. The
Formosa Plastics case was filed in January 1984,
alleging violations of the federal Clean Air Act
regulations  limiting emissions of vinyl  chloride
into 'the  air from  Formosa  Plastics' ethylene
dichloride  and  vinyl   chloride  manufacturing
                                               4-2

-------
                        F7 7997 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
facility. In mid-1985, a District Court Judge in the
Middle District of Louisiana had placed a stay on
proceedings in all cases alleging violations of the
Clean  Air  Act  requirements   regarding  vinyl
chloride emissions.  The  Judge had ruled in a
similar case against Ethyl Corporation that the
vinyl  chloride  regulations  established work
practices, not emissions standards, and so were not
valid.  The U.S. Court  of Appeals  for the Fifth
Circuit reversed the District Court  Judge in the
Ethyl  case, and  the  U.S. Supreme Court  was
asked  to consider the case.  The Supreme Court
declined to consider the Ethyl case, and the Fifth
Circuit ruling was final.  Subsequently, the stay
was lifted on the Formosa Plastics  case  and
negotiations resumed,    A consent decree  for
penalties only was entered on November 5,  1990,
and a  civil  penalty  of  $65,000 was  paid  on
November 8,1990, which closed the case.

U.S. v. Gates Energy Products (W.D. Mo.): As part
of the National Multi-Media Lead  Enforcement
Initiative, a complaint and consent decree were
filed simultaneously on July 31,1991, under which
Gates  agreed  to  pay $200,000  for  New Source
Performance  Standards (NSPS) violations  and
violations  of  the  SIP  requirement  to obtain
operating  permits  at  Gates'  lead-acid  battery
manufacturing plant in Warrensburg, Missouri and
four other  facilities.  Gates further  consented to
three supplemental environmental projects.  The
first  requires a  multi-media  environmental
compliance and management audit of the Missouri
and Florida plants.  The  second is a pollution
prevention  project  reducing the use  of  1,1,1,
trichloroethane (a solvent  and degreaser used at
the plant). The third  is  a pollution reduction
project designed to minimize lead oxide waste,

U.S. v. General DynamicsJMJ3. Texas):  General
Dynamics (GD) is the operator of Air Force Plant
No. 4 in Fort Worth, Texas, the only facility at
which the  F16 fighter  plane is made.   A case
filed in 1987 alleged that  GD violated the EPA-
approved Texas air pollution standards governing
emissions to the air of volatile organic compounds
at three coating operations at the facility.  In a
landmark decision in FY 1990, a court for the first
time ruled  that the contractor at a  Government
Owned, Contractor Operated (GOCO) facility is
considered the operator as a matter  of law. This
held  significance  for   cases involving  GOCO
facilities where the contractor claimed that it is
the alter ego of the United States  government,
exercising no independent  judgment or authority.
An Agreed Order was issued by the U.S. District
Court  for  the Northern  District of Texas  on
January  2,  1991,  granting  EPA's  request  for
summary judgment on whether GD had violated
the Texas standards. The court further ruled that
GD  must  come   into  compliance  with  the
applicable standards within three years or cease
operations.  The order also included a penalty
amount  of  $350^000,  that  was  offset by  CD's
claims against the Ai r Force.

U.S. v. General Motors Corp.,  (N.D, QHfc   A
consent decree was entered  on April 11,  1991,
resolving the Government's  action  under the
Clean  Air  Act (CAA)  against General  Motors
Corp. (GM)  for violations at its Lordstown, Ohio,
automobile  assembly  plant.   As  a result,  GM
installed a coating system that reduces volatile
organic compounds (VOC) from its paint  shop
operations from approximately 3,400 tons per year
to 750-800 tons per year. GM  paid a civil penalty
of $1,539,326.

George Fox College. (Newberg, OR) and Elliott-
Jorhimsen Construction: The  complaint in  this
case alleged that when the college renovated the
college  library, asbestos was not identified and
work  practice standards  were  not  followed,
resulting in asbestos  contamination throughout
much of the  library.    Subsequent to EPA and
Oregon    Department    of    Environmental
Conservation  inspection and  identification  of
asbestos, the college decontaminated the library
books and other items within the library. This is
the first asbestos case EPA has brought in Oregon
in many years, and  resulted  in  a penalty of
$131,250.

U.S. v. JM.. Huber  Corp; Pursuant to a settlement
with both  the United  States and  the  State of
Maine, J. M. Huber Corp,  paid  a $328,000 civil
penalty and installed costly control equipment to
ensure future compliance with the Clean Air Act.
The  federal  and   state  governments   had
concurrently filed actions against the company for
excess  particulate   matter  emissions  from  its
waferboard  facility in Easton, Maine.  From July
1988  to  December  1990,  J.M.  Huber  Corp.'s
particulate  emissions  exceeded the standard in
Maine's  federally-approved  state  implemen-
tation  plan.   As  part of the  settlement, the
company agreed to comply  with a particulate
emission limit which is even stricter than the
regulatory limit.  The consent  decree was entered
by the  U.S.  District  Court for the District of
Maine in July 1991.
                                              4-3

-------
                             FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Ketchikan Pulp Corporation:  Region X issued a
compliance order to Ketchikan Pulp Corporation
(KPC) during FY  1991 for failure to install sulfur
dioxide emission control equipment on an oil-fired
power boiler.   It  is estimated that KPC's failure
to .install this  equipment  resulted in an  extra
burden of approximately 910 tons per year to the
Ketchikan, Alaska,  airshed. KPC shut down the
boiler in response to the order.

U.S. v. MPM Contractors, fog, (D. Kan.fc  In this
case  involving  violations   of   the  asbestos
regulations, the court provided a clear statement
that the government may establish violations of
the  asbestos .work practice standards  without
proving visible emissions of asbestos. The U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas ruled on
October 2, 1990, that visible emissions of asbestos
are  not  an element  of  proof  in  establishing
violations of the asbestos work practice standards
under §112 of the Clean Air Act.  The court held
that the defendant is  liable for  penalties for
violations of the asbestos regulations  and the
Clean  Air Act, and granted  the  United  States
motion for summary judgment on liability.  The
case was originally  filed on August 22, 1989, for
violations of the  asbestos regulations, including
violations of the  work  practice standards for
asbestos at  three  facilities  where  asbestos
removal was conducted.

On  April  18,  1991  the court also issued  a
preliminary injunction  against MPM, its owner,
Michael McGill, and Asbestos Removal Company,
Inc., a company which had been  purchased by
McGill, prohibiting McGill from dispersing any
assets pending assessment of a  penalty for.the
asbestos violations.

U.S. v. Nevada Power Company  EPA  signed a
consent decree with Nevada Power on August 20,
1991, requiring the company to pay a civil
penalty of $400,000 for by-passing the pollution
control equipment at its Reid-Gardner fossil-fuel
fired electrical generating station  in  Moapa,
Nevada,  violating  opacity  and  partkulate
matter standards,  failing  to  properly  operate
continuous emission monitors ("CEM") and failing
to record and report CEM data in violation of §111
of  the  Act and  the  NSPS  for  opacity  and
particulate matter.

The case was generated  as  part of a Region IX
initiative  targeting "good  pollution  control
practices" and related  violations  at  electric
power generating stations.  This settlement also
authorizes  EPA to determine  compliance with
particulate and opacity standards on the basis of
data generated by the CEM.

U.S. v. Hprthern Aroostook Regional Incinerator
Facility, et. al.: The three Maine municipalities ,
(Madawaska, Fort Kent and Frenchville), which
own the Northern Aroostook Regional Incinerator
Facility located in Frenchville, Maine, agreed to
pay  a  civil penalty of $125,000  for particulate
violations at the incinerator. The defendants had
violated  the New  Source Performance Standard
for Incinerators, 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart E, and
the applicable particulate emissions standard in
the Maine  SIP.  The defendants have agreed to
shut down the incinerator and  switch to  a new
solid  waste  disposal   program   involving  a
combination of recycling and landfill disposal.
US. v. Sjflnson Wrecking Co. and Williams
Richardson Co:. (E.D. MI): On June 28, 1991, Judge
George   Woods,   Eastern   District,  Michigan,
entered an order in U.S. v. Stanson Wrecking Co.
and Williams and Richardson Co. requiring the
defendants to pay a civil penalty of $60,000.  The
order requires the defendants to comply with the
asbestos  NESHAP regulations under  the Clean
Air Act and  contains specific requirements with
regard to notice, inspector training, and asbestos
abatement worker training.  Fines of $20,000, were
assessed  against  each defendant  for  NESHAP
violations.    Additionally,  Stanson,  of Detroit,
was assessed $10,000 for failing  to respond  to a
§114 information request and $10,000 for violating
an administrative  order issued by EPA under §113
of the CAA.

U.S.  v.   State   of   Hawaii,  Department  of
Transportation:  Illustrating the unusual locations
with  the  potential  for  asbestos-related  air
pollution, EPA obtained a penalty of $20,000 from
the   State   of   Hawaii,   Department   of
Transportation  (HDOT) for violations  of the
asbestos  NESHAP,  during  a  demolition  of
asbestos-lined concrete planters at  the Honolulu
International Airport.  The complaint alleged
that HDOT violated the NESHAP by its failure
to notify EPA  of the demolition, its failure to
remove  the  asbestos  prior  to  demolition, its
failure to keep the asbestos wet during demolition
and its  failure to properly  store the  asbestos
debris. The consent decree was signed by EPA on
August 22, 1991.

U.S. v. Unitank Terminal Service, et al; A consent
decree entered on  April  30, 1991  resolved -a

-------
                        FY1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                                              k  \
                                            mj
                                              Of*
significant Clean  Air  Act civil action' against
Unitahk Terminal Service, Unitank, Inc., and DRT
Industries,  Inc.  for  past  violations  of  the
NESHAP for equipment leaks of benzene at a bulk
liquid storage terminal (petroleum and chemical
products) in Philadelphia, PA. After prevailing
on  certain issues  via  summary  judgment  and
obtaining a precedent-setting  opinion, the U.S.
obtained the defendants' agreement  to pay civil
penalties in the amount of $135,000, despite the
fact that the defendants had previously sold the
facility on March 7,1990.

U.S. v. USX Corporation (Clairton, PA) (W,p.
PAJ:r A Clean Air Act civil complaint  against
USX Corporation for violations of  the CAA and
the' Pennsylvania/Allegheny   County    State
Implementation Plan at various sources (coke oven
battery, bleeder stacks, and  quench towers) at
USX's coke plant  in Clairton, PA, was filed on
February 25, 1991, in the U.S. District Court for
Western Pennsylvania. The  violations involve
the venting of raw coke oven gas at the bleeder
stacks and the use of contaminated water to cool
hot coke at the quench towers. The violations are
alleged to have occurred on several occasions since
1987. The complaint seeks to have  USX install
new equipment- and take other steps to prevent
any additional violations and payment of a civil
penalty of $25,000 for each violation.

ILSrv. Wards Cove Packing Company; Wards
Cove  paid  a civil  penalty  of  $60,000 for
violations of the asbestos NESHAP during the
renovation of two retorts (sterilization vessels) at
the company's packing plant at  Excursion  Inlet,
Alaska.  Signed by  EPA on May 20, 1991, the
decree 'further provides  that  defendants  will
comply with the asbestos NESHAP in the future
and will institute an asbestos control program to
ensure such compliance.

U.S. V. Weyerhaeuser Company. Weyerhaeuser
agreed to pay a penalty of $500,000 for failing to
comply with PM and NOx emission limitations in
a   minor   source   permit   issued   by   EPA.
Weyerhaeuser also agreed to install additional
control equipment on their Marshfield, Wisconsin,
facility  and  undergo  Prevention of  Significant
Deterioration review if it ever again  exceeds the
permit emission restrictions.

U.S. v. Wick ConstructiQnP et al.f: In this case the
Port of Seattle and its contractors (Gordon Brown,
Ballard 'Construction and Toro Construction) paid
$80,000 for asbestos NESHAP violations  during
renovations at Sea-Tac Airport.   In  addition to
payment of the civil penalty, the consent decree in
this case requires the Port of Seattle and Wick to
implement an extensive internal asbestos control
program which includes inspection and sampling
of all facilities being  renovated  or demolished,
designation of asbestos program managers and site
coordinators, and complete  specified  asbestos
training.

U.S. v. Zjimmer Paper Products,, Inc. JS.D. IN): The
defendant agreed to pay a $250,000 civil penalty
and   to  comply  with   the  Indiana   State
Implementation Plan.  To reduce volatile organic
compound  emissions from its paper coating line,
Zimmer, of Indianapolis, IN, must either use low
solvent  technology, install  an incinerator and
capture  system,  or  cease  operation   of the
violating line by July 1992,15 months after  entry
of the consent decree.

U.S.  an.d   Commonwealth  of  PA.   v.  USX
Corporation (Fairless Hills, PA): A consent decree
resolving a significant Clean Air Act civil action
against  USX Corporation (USS Division) for
violations    of    the    Pennsylvania     State
Implementation Plan  at various sources (sinter
plant, open hearth furnaces, and blast furnaces)
at USX's steel plant in Fairless Hills, PA, was
successfully completed during FY 1991. The terms
of the settlement include the payment by USX of
civil penalties in the amount of $700,000, and
agreement  to provisions  requiring  compliance
with all applicable CAA requirements upon any
future resumption of operation of the previously
operating noncomplying sources. Operation of the
relevant sources was suspended by USX on January
31, 1991. The consent decree was executed during
FY 1991 and was lodged on October 4,1991.

U.S. and State of Maryland v. Bethlehem  Steel
Corporqflon (D. MD):  A Clean Air Act civil
complaint against Bethlehem Steel Corporation
for violations of the  Maryland  SIP at various
emission points {charging operations, door areas,
offtake piping,  combustion stacks, and  pushing
and hot coke transfer operations)  at three coke
oven  batteries at Bethlehem Steel's plant  in
Sparrows Point, MD, was filed on April 25,  1991,
in the U.S. District Court, The violations involve
excess  emission   of  paniculate  matter.  The
complaint seeks a court order to direct Bethlehem
Steel to  comply with the CAA and payment of a
civil penalty.
                                              4-5

-------
                             FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
State Air Enforcement Actions

Beginning  with  the FY 1991  Accomplishments
Report,  EPA will be including significant state
enforcement  actions  submitted  by   the  EPA
Regional  offices.   We anticipate that State
actions will play a greater role in future reports.

American Signature/Foote Pavies. Lincoln,  NE
(CAA):  A  State  consent decree was  entered  on
October 15, 1990, for  the defendant's failure to
obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration
permit   as   required   by   the   Nebraska
Implementation  Plan.   The  defendant  paid
$80,000  penalty and was required to obtained a
permit to comply with the SIP.

Gates Energy Froducfe, Inc.,Warrensburg. MQ A
State consent decree was entered on July 5, 1991,
for the defendant's failure to obtain new source
review    permits    under    the    Missouri
implementation  plan.   The  Company  paid  a
$20,000  penalty for the violations  which  was the
statutory maximum for the violation  under  the
facts of  the  case.  The source  is a lead-acid
battery  manufacturing plant.   This  case is  a
companion  case  the  Region's Clean Air   Act
judicial  case which was  filed as part of  the
Agency's lead initiative ( see page 4-3).

Slay Bulk Terminalsr Inc.. St. Louis, MQ  A State
consent decree was entered on January 31, 1991 for
violation of the emission standards for benzene
under the EPA's National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants,  The Company agreed
to pay a $28,000 penalty and was required to meet
a  schedule  to   comply   with  the emission
standards,

State of Texas v. Dynagen. Inc.: Dynagen, Inc., a
subsidiary of General  Tire Company,  operates a
rubber plant located in Odessa, Texas.  The Texas
Attorney  General's  office  filed  suit  against
Dynagen, Inc. in  December 1989, on behalf of the
Texas Air Control Board (TACB).  The TACB had
reported more than 70 air  emission  violations
including   styrene   and.  butadiene,  known
carcinogens,  against  the  company  over   the
preceding  two-year   period   after  receiving
numerous complaints  from local residents.   The
case was settled in September 1991, with  the
company  agreeing  to a   $1.4   million  cash
settlement.  In addition to the cash  settlement,
the company agreed  to  spend more than  $12
million  to  install state-of-the-art  equipment to
rid the plant of faulty air emissions.  This was
the largest settlement  ever  assessed under the
Texas Clean Air  Act,  making  it  a  landmark,
settlement,

State  of  Texas, y. International  Paper- Corp;
During  1987, International  Paper  Corporation
(IPC) at Nacogdoches,  Texas, started production
of wafer board  with a permit from the Texas Air
Control Board (TACB)  that allowed 280 tons per
year  (TPY)   emissions  of  volatile   organic
compounds (VOCs) from the resins used  to .bond
the wafer board  together. The  VOCs  were
methylene diphenylisocyanate. Via stack tests,
the TACB determined  that  the actual emission
rate was approximately 1,000 TPY, making IPC
subject   to   the  Prevention   of  Significant
Deterioration (PSD)  standards,  requiring  Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) for control
equipment. IPC entered into an order with TACB
in 1988; however, subsequently it was determined
that BACT (a wet electrostatic precipitator on
the veneer dryers) was not in use at the facility to
control VOCs.  On March  6, 1991, EPA staff met
with the company to discuss their violations and ,
urged them  to resolve  the situation with TACB.
Subsequently, IPC entered into negotiations with
TACB and agreed  to use  the BACT and pay  a
$350,000  administrative penalty.  EPA reviewed
and concurred with TACB's enforcement penalty.-

Federal Facilities - Air

FederaL Facilities  Asbestos Order:  Region  II
issued a  compliance order to the U.S.  General
Services Administration for asbestos NESHAPs;
violations  in   connection    with-  renovation-
operations at the federal office building in New
York City — the second largest government office
building in the country. The order was issued  in
response to a particular violation, but in deciding.
to issue the order Region II considered a lengthy
history of similar violations  at this building and
at other GSA-managed  buildings.  EPA had been
attempting to  reach   a settlement with  GSA
concerning these violations at the time the new
violations were documented.  The order applies to
all buildings owned or operated by GSA in Region
II.  The violations which gave rise  to the order.
involve the removal of ceiling tiles which were
covered    with  asbestos  dust (from  asbestos-
insulation which had   fallen  onto them from
above).  Region II determined that such asbestos-
covered  tiles  were  subject  to the requirements of
the revised  asbestos   NESHAPs  rule.    This
interpretation    was    confirmed   by    EPA
                                             4-6

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                                          tso
Headquarters,  In addition to GSA,  EPA  also
issued orders to  its  contractors performing the
renovation work.  Although GSA disagrees with
EPA's  interpretation  and  has  elevated  the
matter, it is cooperating in establishing a more
consistent  approach  to asbestos control at its
facilities, and states that it has suspended work
involving asbestos at its facilities-

General Services Administration *CPAE On May
6, 1991, EPA issued  a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration  (PSD)  determination  and New
Source    Performance    Standards    (MSPS)
applicability determinations  to  the  General
Services Administration (GSA), thereby removing
the  principal barrier  to  permit issuance  for
renovations to coal-fired boilers at  the GSA
Central and West Heating Plants in Washington,
DC    Concurrent    with    its    PSD/NSPS
determinations, EPA  drafted  a proposed long-
term Federal Facilities  Compliance Agreement
for the  two heating plants. The Agreement  was
signed by GSA and EPA.

In  March, 1989, GSA  notified EPA  and  the
District ot Columbia of its intent to renovate the
plants. In June,  1990, EPA, in  reevaluating the
scope of the  proposed projects, determined  that
PSD and NSPS might be applicable, and advised
GSA of this. In July, 1990, EPA learned that work
had  begun on West Unit #  4  in December, 1989,
without a permit. On July 20,  1990, EPA and the
District-of Columbia  met with GSA,  GSA  was
advised to discontinue work on West # 4 until the
PSD/NSPS questions  were resolved,  EPA  also
informed  GSA  that during its investigation of
PSD  applicability, modeled  violations of  the
sulfur dioxide  National Ambient  Air Quality
Standards were found to occur during normal
operation of  the heating plants. The violations
were caused by "downwash" effects resulting from
insufficient stack height.

GSA  continued construction on West  # 4 until
September 12,  1990, when  the   District  of
Columbia  issued  a  NOV  requiring  further
construction to  be suspended. The NOV stated
that, District of Columbia permits "...cannot be
issued until it has been determined  i( PSD or
NSPS applies..." An Interim  Federal  Facilities
Compliance Agreement with GSA was signed on
January  29,  1991  to  provide  conditions  and
requirements for operation of West Heating plant
pending final determinations  of PSD and MSPS
applicability.
ETA Region IV and PQE-Sayannah Rlvec  On
June 21, 1991, the U.S. EPA, Region IV and the
U.S, Department of Energy, Savannah River Field
Office (DOE-SR), entered  into the first interim
agreement between  EPA and DOE, an  Interim
Federal Facility  Compliance  Agreement and
negotiations for a Federal Facility Compliance
Agreement. This interim agreement was intended
to permit the parties to develop a final  phase
plan to bring  the DQE-SR into  compliance and
maintain compliance with  the Clean Air Act and
the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air   Pollutants   (NESHAP).   The   interim
agreement required DOE-SR to immediately enter
into good faith negotiations on a Federal Facility
Compliance  Agreement  and  to  take  certain
immediate corrective actions in  order to bring
DOE-SR into full compliance with the NESHAP.
A final agreement is now in place.

Clean Air Act Enforcement
Mobile Source Program

• Lead Phasedown

iLJLiJiuiient In this case, Dupant, the major
distributor of  tetraethyl lead, was alleged to be
liable under the lead phasedown regulations as a
"refiner," since it participated in the blending of
exorbitant amounts of  lead in excess of federal
limitations.  EPA's  determination of  "refiner"
status was based on the fact that Dupont was a
major supplier of lead  and Dupont oversaw the
blending operations of the lead.   EPA issued a
Notice of Violation on November 24,1986 alleging
lead phasedown violations and citing Dupont as a
refiner along   with  Will  Petroleum, Inc.,  A.
Ten-tome,  Inc., and Triad, Inc.   Since  Dupont
denied responsibility  and would not settle,  a
complaint was filed in Federal District Court in
New  Jersey  on December 28, 1989 against E,I.
Dupont Nemours Company. The United States
pursued litigation of this case in order to make
the supplier of such  a highly  toxic substance
responsible for such a  violation,  This case was
settled for $875,000 pursuant to  a court entered
Consent Decree filed on July 2,1991.

Western  fteffetiflfc  EPA  alleged  that  during
numerous quarters Western Refining had exceeded
the lead  standard,  illegally banked  and  used
lead rights, and incorrectly  reported usage of lead
to EPA. An excess of 4,640 million grams of lead
was introduced into the environment as a result of
                                            4-7

-------
m)
FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
   these alleged violations. In addition to liability
   being imposed against the corporate defendants,
   liability was imposed against two  individuals
   that were discovered to be integrally involved in
   the  management  and  ownership  of  Western
   Refining, This case was settled on April 24, 1991
   for a total penalty of $300,000,

   • Fuel Volatility
                                  *
   Unocal  Corporation^  On   March  5,   1990,  a
   complaint was filed  in District Court  alleging
   eight days of violations  of gasoline volatility
   regulations.   During  discovery  in this  case,
   Unocal's counsel notified the United States that
   he had determined that gasoline analysis reports
   relied on by Unocal in presenting  its defense had
   been  fraudulently altered  to  reflect complying
   RVP test results.  The United  States and Unocal
   subsequently  entered  into  an  Agreement  in
   Principal  in  September  1991,  providing  for
   payment of a civil penalty of $80,000, certain
   ongoing reporting  requirements by Unocal, and
   stipulated penalties for any future violations or
   failure   to    comply  with   the  reporting
   requirements.

   • Aftermarket Catalytic Converter Policy Cases

   Car Sound Exhaust System^ In a well publicized
   action   last  year,  EPA  initiated  enforcement
   against   Car   Sound  Exhaust    Systems,   a
   manufacturer of aftermarket catalytic converters.
   This case is significant because it expanded  the
   scope  of  EPA's  aftermarket  catalyst  program
   which   had   previously  only  focused   on  the
   installers of these catalysts. This  should further
   insure the integrity of the program by addressing
   the responsibilities of the catalyst manufacturers
   as  well.  Car  Sound  Exhaust   Systems  was
   manufacturing  and selling  catalytic converters
   with  insufficient  internal  catalyst  material,
   contrary  to   information   it  had previously
   submitted to EPA, and was thus in violation of the
   policy.  This case was settled on January 14,1991.
   The settlement included a penalty component of
   $30,000  and  a public education   component of
   $20,000.

   Cole Muffler: EPA issued a Notice of Violation in
   September,  1989  against  Cole Muffler  for  444
   violations   of  EPA's  aftermarket   catalytic
   converter  policy  at  27 separate  Cole  Muffler
   Shops  located in New York and Pennsylvania.
   Mitigation efforts by  Cole Muffler resulted in a
   voluntary recall of all  vehicles. •  However,  the
                    company would not agree to an acceptable penalty
                    for these violations.  A complaint was  filed in
                    federal  district court on  May  16, 1991.   EPA
                    subsequently determined  that Cole Muffler had
                    committed   additional   violations    of   the
                    tampering prohibition, resulting in a total of 3,288
                    violations.    The complaint  was amended on
                    February  27,  1992  to  reflect   the  additional
                    violations.  This  is  the  largest  aftermarket
                    catalytic converter case handled by EPA.

                    U.S. v.  Economy, Muffler and Tire Center EPA
                    received a very favorable decision in this case
                    which centered on EPA's aftermarket catalytic
                    converter  policy.    This   case  involves  an
                    automobile  repair  shop that installed 51  two-
                    way catalytic converters on vehicles requiring the
                    installation  of three-way catalytic converters,
                    and four aftermarket  catalytic converters on
                    vehicles   still   subject    to    the    vehicle
                    manufacturer's  five  year/fifty-thousand   mile
                    warranty.  A complaint was filed in the District
                    Court for Virginia after Economy refused to settle
                    with EPA.  The court granted the  government's
                    motion for summary judgment for liability, giving
                    "considerable   deference"   to EPA's  consistent
                    interpretation   that  replacing  a  three-way
                    converter  with  a  two-way  converter   was
                    tampering,   and   further  stated  that  the
                    legislative      history     supported     EPA's
                    interpretation.

                    • Tampering Cases

                    CED'S d/b/a Products for Power: During FY 1991,
                    EPA resolved its longest  running case against  a
                    manufacturer of emission control defeat devices,
                    CED's d/b/a Products for Power. This case arose
                    from an investigation initiated  in early 1980 of
                    this company  and a number  of others which
                    manufactured and distributed catalytic converter
                    replacement pipes, commonly referred  to as "test
                    tubes,"  which  were designed to be installed in
                    place of catalytic converters.   EPA proceeded
                    with its investigation  of manufacturers under the
                    theory  that  the   manufacturer  was  causing
                    regulated parties (repair  shops) to tamper with
                    emission controls in violation of § 203{a) of the
                    Clean Air Act  Prior to the  1990 Clean Air Act
                    Amendments it was a violation of § 203(a) of the
                    Act to "cause" a regulated party  to tamper with a
                    motor vehicle's emission control system. Effective
                    with the new Amendments,  the manufacture or
                    sale of  a "defeat device"  such as a test tube, is
                    now explicitly a violation.
                                                 4-8

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
After extensive litigation involving the legality
of EPA's search warrant and following extensive
investigation,  EPA  cited   CED's  for  causing
tampering on 42 vehicles.  EPA and CED's signed
a  Settlement  Agreement in  June 1987 which
required the company to terminate all operations
associated with test tubes within 120 days and to
pay $75,000 to the government over .the next 24
months.  After EPA discovered that CED's had
neither terminated its sale of test tubes, nor begun
it's payment of the required civil penalties, the
matter   was  immediately   referred  to   the
Department of Justice who filed for breach of the
agreement. The court agreed with the government
that CED's violated the agreement and that the
government assessment  of the company's profits
realized as a result of the breach of the agreement
resulted  in a penalty which  includes the original
settlement agreement penalty plus these profits
and a punitive penalty amount. Under the decree,
CED's must terminate all manufacturing and sales
of illegal "test tubes,"  pay a civil  penalty of
$292,000, insure EPA a  right of entry for future
inspections, and permanently enjoins CED's  from
engaging  in  the  manufacturing,   sale,  or
distribution of these devices.

• Cases  Involving Manufacturers that Engage in
High Performance Modification of Vehicles

     The Clean Air Act Amendments  of  1990
established    the   prohibition   against   the
manufacture  or   sale  of   defeat   devices.
§203(a)(3)(B) of  the Act, prohibits any person
from manufacturing, selling, offering  to sell, or
installing any part or component intended for use
with,  or  as part of, any  motor vehicle,  where a
principal effect of the part  or component  is to
bypass, defeat, or render inoperative any device
or element  of design installed  on or  in  a motor
vehicle in compliance with the regulations at 40
C.F.R. Part 86, and where  the person knows or
should know that such part or component is being
offered for sale or  installed for such use or put to
such use.

     The legislative history associated  with
the prohibition against defeat devices cites  "test
pipes" and  programmable  read-only  memory
(PROM) chips as examples of  such devices.   All
the'known  manufacturers  of  test pipes  have
ceased   such  production.   EPA  is  currently
investigating  PROM  chips  manufactured by
three  different 'companies.   Samples of the
PROM   chips  have  been  sent  to  the  EPA
laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, to determine
whether  they  are  defeat  devices  under  the
Clean Air Act provisions.

Callaway Cars, Inc,i In this case, EPA alleged
that Callaway  modified  111  1988  Chevrolet
Corvettes prior to  sale and  delivery to  the
ultimate  purchaser in violation of the Clean Air
Act. Records uncovered by EPA indicate that the
company was aware that these modified vehicles
would not meet federal emissions standards. This
action by EPA was well publicized  and  should
send a strong  message to the industry regarding
EPA's  efforts   to  control  high  performance
modifications that increase  emissions. This case
was settled on August 15,  1991. The settlement
amount is contingent on the results of an EPA
conducted test of a vehicle modified by Callaway
Cars. If EPA concludes that the modified vehicle
satisfies   federal  emission   standards,   then
Callaway Cars will pay  a •penalty of $200,000,
otherwise, it will pay a penalty of $356,000.

• Warranty-Cases

Chrysler Corporation: This action alleged that
Chrysler Corporation denied  warranty coverage
as required by the Clean Air Act in 40 instances.
This is EPA's second case of this nature.  The
emissions warranty covers  defects in emissions
related parts or components in an automobile for
five years or 50,000 miles, whichever  comes first.
This case was settled on January 25, 1991, with a
civil penalty of $80,000 and a public education
component of $80,000 to be paid to Colorado State
University.   Furthermore, Chrysler  agreed to
reimburse the owners of the vehicles at issue, as
well as those vehicle owners discovered through
a review of its records, for costs incurred because of
Chrysler's  failure   to  honor  the  warranty.
Moreover,  Chrysler   agreed   to  make  certain
changes  to its warranty policy as a term  of the
settlement with EPA.  .

• Nonconformance Penalty Program

General Mojors Cprporatjoni In FY 1991, pursuant
to the Nonconformance Penalty Program (NCP),
EPA performed a production compliance audit at
General  Motors Corporation to determine the
emission levels  emitted by certain heavy duty
engine families.   Based  on  the  audit, EPA
collected  $386,902 in  NCPs  from General Motors
for the introduction into commerce of 4,153  heavy
duty  engines  not  in compliance  with federal
emission  standards.
                                              4-9

-------
                             FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
• Manufacturers Investigations

     In addition to the recall, SEA, and imports
enforcement   programs,   in   FY   1991,   MOD
continued to investigate  whether  manufacturers
are in compliance with Title II of the Clean Air
Act.      These   investigations   focused   on
manufacturers  that  introduced  vehicles  into
commerce without obtaining an EPA certificate of
conformity   demonstrating   compliance   with
Federal emission  requirements.  FY 1991 efforts
yielded    several  full-scale    investigations
resulting  in substantial settlement payments to
EPA.  In addition  to these enforcement actions,
MOD   is   continuing   eight   manufacturer
investigations.

Cushmaiylnc.1 During FY 1991, EPA concluded its
investigation of Cushman, Inc.  EPA determined
that Cushman  introduced  into commerce 1626
vehicles without an EPA certificate of conformity
certifying compliance  with  federal  emission
requirements in violation of §203(a)(l) of the Act.
By settlement agreement, Cushman agreed to pay
civil penalties of $88,000 and to implement a
retrofit  and  incentive program  to  render  the
vehicles  excluded  from the  Clean  Air  Act
requirements. The retrofit and incentive program
required Cushman to provide free  service parts to
all vehicle owners as an incentive  to retrofit their
vehicles.   The  service  part  kit  is  valued at
$147.50.   To date,  Cushman  has delivered 244
service part  kits to vehicle owners for a total
value of $35,990.

Excalibur:  MOD  also  took action   against
Excalibur    Automobile    Corporation,   Inc.,
(Excalibur), a manufacturer of neoclassic luxury
automobiles.  Excalibur is currently in chapter 7
liquidation bankruptcy.   EPA determined that
Excalibur sold 148 vehicles in the United States
without a certificate of conformity in violation of
§203(a)(l) of the Act. In February of FY 1991, EPA
referred the  case to the U.S. Attorney's  office.
The U.S.  Attorney filed a proof  of claim in
bankruptcy   court  against   Excalibur  seeking
$1,480,000   in   civil  penalties  for  the  148
violations.

Clean Water  Act Enforcement

     Clean   Water  Act  (CWA)  enforcement
supports  the  National   Pollutant   Discharge
Elimination  System (NPDES) program, which is
the permit program regulating both direct and
indirect  discharges  to  the  nation's  navigable
waters.

U.S. v. Aliens Manufacturing Co. fac; On May 21,
1991,  the U.S. District Court for the District of
Rhode Island entered a consent decree requiring
that Aliens Manufacturing Co. Inc. of Providence,
RI pay a $210,000 civil penalty and comply with
federal and local pretreatment standards. Aliens
specializes  in the  production  of belt and  shoe
buckles and other metal stampings. As a result of
its  metal plating operations, Aliens discharges
process  wastewater containing heavy metals to
the   Narragansett    Bay    Water    Quality
Management District Commission publicly owned
treatment works.  This discharge  is  governed by
EPA's pretreatment standards. As alleged in the
government's   complaint,   Aliens   repeatedly
violated   federal  electroplating  and   metal
finishing pretreatment limitations as well as
local  pretreatment limits.   In  addition, Aliens
violated  various  monitoring   and   reporting
requirements.

U.S. v. Alto-Tronics Corp; On April 22, 1991, the
U.S.  District  Court  for  the  District  of
Massachusetts entered stipulated amendments to
the government's dean Water Act consent decree
with Alto-Tronics Corp. of Burlington, MA.  The
amendments contained a civil penalty of $300,000
for violations of the consent decree that required
compliance    with     national    categorical
pretreatment    requirements.   Alto-Tronics,  a
printed  circuit board  manufacturer, discharged
heavy metals  into   the  sewer and  sewage
treatment system operated by the Massachusetts
Water Resources  Authority  which,  in  turn,
discharges into Boston Harbor.

U.S. v. Ashland Oil. Inc. A Regional Presiding
Officer issued a decision on May 22,1991, granting
judgment against Ashland Oil, Inc., and assessing
Ashland a civil penalty of $51,000. The case was
brought  administratively under  §311(j)  of the
Clean Water Act, and 40  CFR  Part  114, and
alleged  that  Ashland did  not  have a  legally
adequate  Spill   Prevention,    Control   and
Countermeasures  Plan  in  effect  at  its Floreffe
facility near  Pittsburgh, PA, during the period
immediately   before,  during  and  after  the
disastrous spill of diesel oil on January 2, 1988. A
hearing  was held in  May of 1990, The Presiding
Officer rejected Ashland's defenses  that its Plan
was adequate under the regulatory standard, that
it  had no obligation  to  anticipate equipment
failure based on  its  past  experience at  that
                                             4-10

-------
                        FY1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
facility and that increasing the size of a tank did
not require amendment to the Plan.

U.S. v. Ashland Ethanol et aL.  (S.D. OHh  On
November 28,  1990,  the United States District
Court in  Cincinnati  entered a  consent decree
settling  a Clean Water  Act (CWA) enforcement
case against defendants over past  wastewater
violations  at their South  Point, Ohio facility.
The  decree resolved  a  suit   filed  by  the
Department of Justice  (DOJ) on  EPA's behalf
alleging   that  the  plant  had  exceeded   its
National   Pollutant   Discharge   Elimination
System  (NPDES) permit limits  more than  900
times between July 1983 and September 1987.  The
defendants agreed to pay a $627,000 civil penalty.
The case demonstrates that substantial penalties
will be imposed for past violations, particularly
when a  company saves significant amounts of
money by failing to promptly correct violations.

y.S. v. Bg  Oil. Inc;  On December 14, 1990, a
consent   decree   was  entered   resolving   an
enforcement action brought against BP Oil, Inc. for
Clean Water Act violations at the company's
Marcus Hook, PA, oil refinery. Under the decree,
BP was required to pay a $2,3  million penalty,
$2,191,000 to the United States  and  $109,000 to
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

y.S. VjJCaribe Tuna (Puerto Rjco| On August 1,
1991 a complaint was filed in this action citing
defendant's violations of  its Clean Water  Act
NPDES  permit  for discharges  into  Ponce  Bay,
Puerto Rico, The action was filed as part of EPA's
National Lead Initiative. Caribe Tuna exceeded
its  permit limits  for a number of  pollutants,
including lead,  some 370  times  from December,
1986 to July, 1990.   The  facility is  a tuna  fish
processing and  canning facility operated by a
wholly owned  subsidiary  of Mitsubishi Foods.
The only treatment provided prior to discharge of
its effluent is  screening,  and the effluent  has
consistently violated NPDES permit limits.

U.S. v. Cerro Copper fS.D. lit  A consent decree
was  entered in this  case on January 15, 1991,
requiring Cerro to recycle its wastewaters in order
to meet pretreatment  limits for copper and non-
ferrous metals at its Sauget, IL plant. Cerro  also
was required to pay a civil penalty of $1,400,000.

U.S. v. Ethyl Corporation (M.D.Louisiana): In
settlement  of one of the most  significant lead
discharge cases  in EPA history, the  owner  of a
Baton  Rouge,   Louisiana,  organic  chemical
manufacturing and lead recovery facility agreed
to pay the United  States  a civil  penalty of
$750,000 for violations of the effluent limitations
in a federal wastewater discharge permit.  As
part of the July 1991 EPA  Lead Initiative, the
United  States  filed  a  complaint  in  the U.S.
District  Court  for   the  Middle  District  of
Louisiana alleging that Ethyl Corporation had
violated its NPDES permit and §301 of the Clean
Water  Act by  discharging  to the  Monte Sano
Bayou  and the Mississippi  River,  on numerous
occasions during the period from December 1987
through July 1991, pollutants in  quantities in
excess  of permit limitations for total lead, total
suspended    solids,   total    organic   carbon,
chlorinated hydrocarbons  and pH.  The United
States  and  Ethyl subsequently   agreed  to  a
settlement whereby Ethyl will pay the United
States  a penalty of $750,000 and  undertake an
environmental audit of the Baton Rouge facility.
The  consent  decree setting  forth  the  terms of
settlement was lodged with the Court on August
28, 1991. The United  States' motion for entry of
the consent decree was  filed with the  Court on
October 17,1991.

U,«L v. Exxon (New York):  On June 14, 1991 the
New Jersey  District  Court  entered a  Consent
Decree in this case arising out of a January, 1990
oil spill from a ruptured underwater pipeline.
Under  the terms of the Decree, Exxon will provide
about  $10  million for a trust fund to  mitigate
environmental  damage   resulting  to  natural
resources from the spill of over 500,000 gallons of
oil. The fund will be administered by two federal
agencies, the States of New York and New Jersey
and  the  City  of New  York.    In  a  related
development   discussed   under   "Criminal
Enforcement Program," below, a guilty plea was
entered by Exxon  in  connection with  the same
spill.

LJ.S. v. Island Petroleum & Jorge Luring (Puerto
RicoJ; On April 6, 1991  the  Puerto Rico District
Court entered a an order requiring payment of
nearly  $2.8 million in penalties, and permanently
enjoining Island Petroleum Products, Inc. and its
owner, Jorge Luring, from any discharge from its
electroplating  facility,  either directly  to  the
waters of the United States or indirectly to  a
sewage system. Discharge may not resume until
payment has been made of a $50,000 penalty
owing  under a  1988 Consent Decree in the case,
plus  payment  of   $2,736,000   in  stipulated
penalties for civil contempt of the prior Decree.
                                             4-11

-------
                             FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
U.S. and California v.'Los Angeles, et al: In May,
1991, the United States and California filed suit
against the Cities of Los Angeles and Burbank and
against   Chevron,   U.S.A.,  Continental '  Can
Company,  Inc., Stainless  Steel Products,  Inc.,
Teledyne Industries, Inc.,,and Zero Corporation for
violations of EPA's industrial waste pretreatment
requirements.   EPA's  pretreatment  regulations
require  cities, like,Los Angeles and  Burbank, to
properly  regulate  discharges  of  industrial
wastewater to  their  cities'  sewer lines. In  1990,
EPA  and  California  conducted,  a  detailed.,
evaluation  of   Los  Angeles   and  Burbank's
performance in implementing their-pretreatment
programs and documented  a number of serious <
deficiencies. Most importantly, both cities had
numerous  industries  which  were   repeatedly
violating  Federal  standards for treating  toxic
wastewater  prior  to  discharge  to  the  sewer
system. EPA and  California identified the five
companies sued as serious violators of Federal
pretreatment  requirements  that were not being
properly regulated by Los Angeles or Burbank.

EPA has issued orders to  the  cities and  to the
industries to require them to comply with Federal
standards. The  civil action  is intended to ensure
compliance with  the orders and  to assess an
appropriate civil penalty  for the violations of
Federal requirements.

U.S.  v.  Louisiana   Pacific  (Corporation  and
Simpson  Paper   Company;   EPA   and  the •
Department of Justice lodged consent  decrees in a
Clean  Water  Act enforcement action  against.
Louisiana-Pacific  Corporation •  ("L-P").   and
Simpson  Paper   Company   ("Simpson")   on
September 9, 1991. The Consent Decrees resolved
claims brought  in 1989 against  L-P and Simpson
for repeated violations of NPDES permits at two,
pulp mills located near Eureka, California. Under
the  consent  decrees,  Louisiana  Pacific   and
Simpson are each required  to pay $2.9 million in
civil penalties,  the fourth largest penalties ever .
collected under the.Clean Water Act.

EPA and DOJ brought suit  to remedy.two  water
pollution problems: the persistent chronic toxicity
of the mills*  effluents (as  measured'by..several
bioassay  tests) and  the  adverse  impact, to
recreational users exposed  to the mills' effluent
discharges. The Consent  Decrees impose several
obligations to remedy  these problems. One, L-P
and Simpson must install treatment .technologies
shown effective at reducing chronic toxicity of the
companies' effluents.  Two, L-P must install an
outfall extension to ensure that L-P effluent does
not wash into areas used for recreation. Three,
Simpson must study whether treatment measures
can render its effluent colorless, odorless; free of
potential skin irritants and  free  of  compounds
demonstrated  in  surrogate  testing  to   have
carcinogenic potential.  If Simpson is unable to
meet  these criteria through  treatment, it  must
also install an outfall extension to ensure that its
effluent . does not  wash  into, areas  used for
recreation.                             •,  .

Boston- Harbor Cleanup  - U.S. v. Metropolitan
District  •  Commission:    EPA's   seven-year
enforcement case effort to clean up Boston Harbor
paid, off during FY 1991  with the initiation of
construction of the long-awaited new secondary
treatment   plant   at    Deer,  Island;   .The
groundbreaking ceremony was held in July  1991.
The harbor's water quality is expected to improve
when the primary treatment portion  of the  plant
is  completed  in 1995 and  when  the secondary
treatment portion  of the plant is completed in
1999." In the meantime, interim improvements to
existing  facilities and the elimination of scum
discharges  have  already  led   to  significant
improvements in the harbor's water quality.

At  the same time, the harbor cleanup  plan was
jeopardized this past year by the initial failure
of the State of Massachusetts to make available
a  landfill,  site needed to.  ensure  the  proper
disposal  of sewage sludge and other  treatment
plant residuals. In response, in February 1991; the
U.S.  District  Court   for   the   District . of
Massachusetts  imposed  . a  > sewer  connection
moratorium, throughout the  Boston metropolitan
area.  This finally led to the transfer  of a landfill
site in Walpole,  MA,  by the state  legislature,
breaking more than a decade of logjams in siting
sludge disposal facilities.                     -  '

U.S. v. Metropolitan Council/Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission (MC/MWCQ: On August 18,
1991,  a consent  decree was  entered in Federal
District Court in Minnesota to settle a suit against
the MC/MWCC  for  Clean  Water  Act  (CWA)
violations  at  the  Blue   Lake  and Seneca
Wastewater Treatment Plants,  The  case (which
came  about as a result of the U.S. filing over a
Minnesota  suit)   reaffirmed that  States  are
expected  to  act  as  U.S.  EPA's   partners  in
enforcement,  and  must seek penalties that are
consistent  with  Federal  policy.    U.S.  EPA
disagreed with  Minnesota  over the  relatively
small penalty levied by the State on MC/MWCC.
                                             4-12

-------
                        FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
As a result of the decree, MC/MWCC paid a total
civil penalty of $527,000 ($395,000 to the U.S.
and  $132,000  to  the State)  rather than  the
$132,000 in installments to be paid to the State.
                     Prggfapi: Consent Decrees
were entered in two National Municipal Policy
Enforcement   Initiative  cases  and   Phase  1
Pretreatment  Enforcement  Initiative  case  in
Region U. Under the Decrees the municipalities
in  question  will  provide  upgraded  sewage
treatment facilities, and pay civil penalties as
follows: Hoboken, New Jersey ($225,000; achieve
compliance  with NPDES  permit  limits   by
1/8/93);  West New York, New Jersey ($160,000;
achieve compliance by 5/31/93) and  Dunkirk,
New York ($100,000;  achieve compliance  with
pretreatment   and  NPDES  requirements   by
7/1/92).  The Hoboken and West New York cases
were two of a  number of cases  brought against
municipalities in Hudson County, New Jersey.  The
consent decrees resolve the last actions in that
group of cases, and culminate a decade-long effort
to bring these municipalities into compliance.

I/.ff, v. FermJrjills, PA W.P- fAV. On September
10,  1991, the United States District Court for the
Western  District of Pennsylvania  granted  the
government's motion for a preliminary injunction
against the Municipal ry of Penn Hills/ PA. Penn
Hills  had for  some  time been  discharging
untreated and partially treated sewage from
several treatment plants. The bypassing occurred
most often in wet weather. Two of the Penn Hills
plants are not far upstream from the intake of the
Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority, a water
supplier. Penn Hills had failed  to respond in
substance to repeated state  and federal  efforts to
address  Penn  Hills'   noncompliance  with  its
NPDES permits.  In the preliminary injunction,
the court ordered Penn Hills to  take immediate
steps  to  identify all  points  at which bypassing
was taking place, and to  develop a  plan  to
eliminate the bypassing. The court also ordered
Penn  Hills to  hire   an  independent  outside
contractor to review the operation of the plants
and to develop an overall process control strategy.

tf.S. v. Pfizer figments Jr^c.. et al. 
-------
-/*"*'"%
                                FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
   on the appropriate amount of the penalty.

   U.S. v. Roll Coater (S.D. Ind.fe On March 22,1991,
   the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
   of Indiana,  assessed one of the  largest civil
   penalties   ever  obtained  for   pretreatment
   violations -    $2,093,750.   The penalty was
   assessed against Roll Coater for its violations of
   the national categorical pretreatment standards
   for coil  coaters.  This was  one of the first Clean
   Water Act cases that EPA has taken to trial on
   the issue  of penalties.   The  court awarded  a
   penalty  well in excess  of  the economic benefit
   that Roll  Coater obtained as a  result of the
   savings  it obtained during the  years  it was
   discharging  wastewater containing chromium,
   zinc and cyanide to the public sewers in violation
   of applicable  national  pretreatment standards.
   This case was filed in July 1989. The opinion filed
   by the court only dealt with the issue of penalties
   since Roll Coater had completed installation of a.
   new treatment plant and achieved compliance by
   August 1989.

   Rosebud  Sioux  Reservation  (Rosebud.  South
   Dakota):  In   June  1991  an  administrative
   compliance order was issued to the Rosebud Sioux
   Tribe ordering the tribe to cease the discharge of
   raw   sewage  to  Rosebud  Creek.    Citizens
   complaints from the  reservation and the obvious
   human health risks associated with the release
   of raw sewage prompted this action.   Through
   close 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
   nations  .waters are  a  common  occurrence  on
   reservations due to the lack of federal  funding.
   Through coordination with municipal  facilities,
   EPA can help to eliminate these poor conditions
   by providing money, technical assistance and a
   reasonable schedule for  achieving compliance
   with the Clean Water Act to the tribes.  This case
   has served as a model for providing assistance to
   other  reservations   with  poor   wastewater
   treatment conditions.

   U.S.  v.  South  Essex  Sewerage  District- In
   September, 1991, EPA and Massachusetts  settled
   an  action against  the  South  Essex Sewerage
   District  (SESD) which addressed the discharge
   of pollutants into, Massachusetts Bay in violation
   of the Clean Water Act.  Under the consent decree
   entered  by,the U.S. District Court for the District
   of Massachusetts on September 16, SESD agreed to
   pay  &  fine of  $225,000  and  comply with  a
schedule to construct a secondary  wastewater
treatment plant and meet interim effluent -limits.
SESD is a  sewer authority that  represents the,
communities of Beverly, Marblehead, Peabody,
and Salem, MA. It operates a 41 million gallon a
day  primary  wastewater  treatment  facility -in
Salem.  SESD had applied for and been denied a.
§301(h) waiver under the Clean Water  Act, but
had  not proceeded  to • construct a  secondary
wastewater treatment plant.

U.S. v. Tcrre Haute, IN. (S.D. INk On November
7,  1990, a consent decree resolving U.S.  v.  Terre
Haute, IN was entered by the court. Among other
things,  the Decree   requires  Terre  Haute  to
undertake  both  short-term  and  a  long-term
compliance programs.  The main  features of the
long-term   program   are:  rehabilitating  tthe.
anaerobic digesters, constructing additional  plant
improvements, and carrying out a long-term solids
management plan, and an operating plan for the
treatment plant. Additionally, the consent decree
requires Terre Haute to pay a civil  penalty of
$81,000 for past violations of the Clean Water
Act.                           ,         •-..•..-•.

U.S. y.. USX Gary Works,, (N.P. INfc  The consent
decree  with USX  Corp.'s  Gary Works  facility,
entered in U.S. District Court in Hammond, IN, on
October 22, 1991, marked a turning point in-the.
history of the Grand Calumet River. At  a'cost of
$34.1 million,  including $1.6  million  in  civil
penalties, USX must  bring  its Gary Works  plant
into  compliance with the Clean Water Act/The
decree specifies more than  100 steps designed, to
effect   source-by-source  reduction   of  waste.
materials at the plant.  Furthermore,. USX  must
develop and implement a sediment remediation-
plan  designed to address contaminated  river
sediments along the five miles of Grand  Calumet
River abutting USX property. Not only  does the
settlement  require compliance with the  Gary
Works'  1983 permit,  it stipulates further .actions
in  anticipation of the more stringent limitations
in the next permit.                   .          :

U.S. v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel. (S. D. Ohio):
On July 16, 1991, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio  entered a  settlement
containing  the largest civil penalty ever obtained
by the United States, or a citizen group, for Clean
Water Act  wastewater  discharge  violations   -'-'
$6,184,220.   During the course of this litigation,
Wheeling-Pittsburgh installed most of the  basic
treatment  facilities  and  monitoring  stations
needed to  comply with its water permits  at its
                                                4-14

-------
                        FF 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                                           *'
                                           M
-'
Steubenville,   Mingo   Junction  and  Yorkville
facilities in Ohio, at a total  cost of  over $20
million. This record penalty and a comprehensive
compliance program  was obtained  despite the
fact  that  Wheeling-Pittsburgh  Steel  was in
bankruptcy from 1985 through 1991. In addition to
paying  the  penalty,  the  settlement  requires
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel to  undertake numerous
measures to remedy past violations and prevent
future  violations.  Pursuant  to  the  settlement,
Wheeling-Pittsburgh   Steel   will   conduct  a
comprehensive facilities evaluation  to identify
and remedy all possible sources of water pollution
discharges,  implement  a   toxicity  reduction
program,  and  conduct biannual environmental
audits. This case was initiated by the U.S. in June
1988  because  Wheeling-Pittsburgh  Steel  had
committed thousands of violations of applicable
Clean Water Act permit requirements,  including
repeated discharges of wastewater containing
lead, zinc, cyanide, total  suspended solids, oil
and grease, and total chrome to the Ohio River in
violation of applicable limits.
        Sugar: For discharging excess amounts of
sugar which resulted in increased levels of BOD
into the Yegen Drain, Yellowstone  River, this
facility in Billings, MT, paid total penalties of
$338,000,  (an  initial penalty of $185,000 plus
stipulated penalties of $153,000). The company
also  installed  monitoring  equipment  costing
$250,000.  The facility was  found to be out of
compliance  with  its  Consent Decree  which
stipulates payment of the  statutory maximum
penalty if high BOD levels resulted from further
discharge. Western Sugar also spent $1 million to
correct its new monitoring equipment. Sugar also
spent another $1,000,000.

State Water Enforcement Actions

Beginning with the  FY  1991 Accomplishments
Report, EPA  will  be including significant state
enforcement   actions  submitted  by  the  EPA
Regional  offices.    We  anticipate  that  State
actions will play a greater role in future reports.

COOTS Brewing (Gqldeiy Coloradj): The State of
Colorado  settled   three  enforcement  actions
against Coors Brewing during FY 1991. The first
enforcement action, settled on October 23, 1990,
resulted from an unpermitted discharge of ground
water contaminated with solvents and BTEX into
Clear Creek.   The State settlement included a
cash  penalty  of  $250,000  with an  additional
$400,000   in  credit   projects.    EPA's   RCRA
enforcement  action   for  this  discharge was
initiated  on June  16, 1990, and settlement for
$700,000 was reached on October 3, 1991. A second
State enforcement  action against Coors resulted
from an operator  error at  the  brewery  which
caused beer to  be  discharged  to the wastewater
treatment plant, which in turn caused a fish kill
in Clear  Creek.  The  State collected $36,000 for
this  discharge.   The State  issued  a separate
action  against Coors  for effluent violations of
their NPDES permit.  The State settled with
Coors for $175,000 for  these violations.   Coors
Brewing  has required  that  their departments
begin to  coordinate and clear all actions through
their  environmental  department  to  prevent
further environmental  damage.

Geneva Steel CggjocaUon: In the largest out-of-
court settlement for violations of the Utah Water
Pollution Control  Act and  the  Utah  Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit for its mill
at Orem,Utah  Geneva  Steel  Corporation paid
$467,000  in  upfront  and  stipulated  penalties
between  December 1989, and June 1991.  These
stipulated  penalties   for discharging  excessive
ammonia concentrations were included  in the
Settlement Agreement  signed May 31, 1990.
      Water. Co..  Noelr MO: The Noel  Water
Company treats wastewater from  the  Hudson
Foods poultry  processing  plant.  The   State
established  that the facility had improperly
discharged  wastewater  into  the  Elk  River,
located  in southeast Missouri.   The Missouri
Department  of Natural Resources  filed  suit in
federal court against Noel Water Company and
Hudson Foods on January 28, 1991, for repeated
water pollution  violations.  It  was the first
lawsuit of it  kind ever filed by  the State of
Missouri  under the  citizen suit provisions  of the
Clean Water  Act.  In  addition  to  compliance
schedules for  both  Noel  and   Hudson,  the
companies agreed to pay in excess of $200,000 plus
contributions to local agencies.
        Corporation: In one of the largest out-of-
court penalty settlements for violations of the
Utah Pollutant Discharge  Elimination  System,
Thiokol Corporation agreed  to  pay $70,000 in
penalties  to  the  State of Utah.   Meanwhile,
Utah agreed to  waive  another  $25,000  in
penalties  if Thiokol met all  deadlines of the
compliance schedule in the Settlement Agreement
signed by both parties September 9, 1991.  This
settlement   agreement   concluded   regulatory
                                             4-15

-------
                            FY } 991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
enforcement actions  against  the  company for
violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control
Act which began with the issuance of a Notice of
Violation and Order on February 22,1991.

Federal Facilities - CWA

USAF   Cheyenne  Mountain  (Colorado):  On
January  10,  1989,  a  NPDES  Reconnaissance
Inspection was performed at the facility.  As a
result of deficiencies found during an inspection,
EPA entered into a Federal Facility Compliance
Agreement to Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Base,
0anuary 4, 1991).  The Agreement  contained a
construction schedule  which required Cheyenne
Mountain AFB  to  connect  the  North  Portal
oil/water separator to the Fort Carson Sanitary
Sewer  and to  terminate discharge  from  Outfall
001 by September 30, 1991.  Cheyenne Mountain
AFB has met all requirements of the FFCA.

Mt.  Rushmore  National   Memorial  (South'
Dakota): Mt, Rushmore operates a wastewater
treatment plant  which  discharges  under  an.
NPDES Permit.  The facility  has had problems
consistently meeting  the  effluent  limit  in  its
permit.  To .correct  identified problems  at the
facility,  EPA  entered into  a Federal Facility
Compliance Agreement with Mt. Rushmore (April
20, 1991). The Agreement contained a construction
schedule to upgrade  the facility.  Mt. Rushmore
has met all requirements of the FFCA.
Marine    Protection    Research.
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
and
Qcean, Dumping Ban Act Enforcement:  During FY
1991 Region II continued to track compliance with
the nine judicial Consent Decrees and Enforcement
Agreements entered into by EPA with the States
of New York and New Jersey and the municipal
sludge dumpers. Although the six municipalities
in New Jersey ceased all ocean dumping of sludge
in March,  1991  as scheduled; EPA  negotiated
modifications of five of the nine Decrees to allow
time for the  exploration of beneficial reuse of
sludge as a long-term, land based alternative.
The   five   municipalities  for  which  such
modifications  were  made'   are: Westchester'
County,  N.Y.,  Middlesex County and Bergen
County Utilities Authorities, N.J., Linden Rosell
Sewage  Authority, N.J.,  and Rahway Valley
Sewage Authority, N.J.  In addition, EPA issued
demand letters to collect stipulated penalties for
violations of the Consent Decrees by the Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commission, N.J. and the Joint
Meeting of Essex and Union Counties, N.J.  The
violations  they  are   charged  with  involve.
inadequate interim sludge handling contracts.

In the Matter of Port of Oakland and Great Lakes
Dredge  and Dock Company:  EPA  Region- IX
entered into a consent agreement with the Port of
Oakland resolving its Marine Protection Research
and  Sanctuaries ,Act  (MPRSA)  administrative
enforcement action against the Port of Oakland.
The  Port  of .Oakland  and. -its  contractor, Great
Lakes Dredge and Dock Co., violated the MPRSA
by: 1) discharging contaminated dredge sediments
into  the Pacific Ocean in violation of a,MPRSA
permit,  and  2)  failing to  adhere  to  various
operational and monitoring requirements imposed
by, the  MPRSA  permit.  Under  the  .consent
agreement, the  Port  paid   a  civil  penalty of
$150,000.                    .  .     '•'.,..

Wetlands Enforcement (§ 404)

     Section   404  of  the   Clean, Water (Act
regulates  the discharge  of dredge  and -fill
material  into  navigable waters,- Enforcement
emphasizes, redress for unpermitted discharges
in environmentally sensitive  areas  and  seeks
restoration .   of, ,  or    compensation    for,,
environmental  damage.
                                     '• '    ' 'i
A&A Enterprises/Blue  Spruce  Placer  Mine
(Boulder County. Cploradofc On June  6,  1991,
Region VIII ordered A&A Enterprises to restore a
placer mining site in wetlands adjacent to Gamble
Gulch and Boulder Creek, The Region,also began
proceedings to assess up to $24,800 in penalties for
violations of §404 of the Clean Water Act in.1990
and  1991.   These  administrative  enforcement
actions  followed  attempts  to   resolve , the
violations informally.  Publicity associated with
the enforcement actions generated several  public
comments in support of strong enforcement against
the firm.   Small placer mining  operations are
widespread in Region VIII and' the deterrent
effect of the enforcement actions should .extend
beyond  the immediate area  of the Blue Spruce
Placer Mine violations.                   '.>'••

Richard   Anderson   &   City  of  Hampden
fHampden. North  Dakota): On  December-14,
1990, Richard  Anderson   and  the  City  of
Hampden,   North    Dakota,   signed   ;an
administrative  order   on   consent   requiring
restoration of seven  wetlands that  had .been
illegally drained into a county road right-of-way.
                                            4-16

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                                             - k %
                                            mj
                                               a/**
The  drainage  activities violated §404  of the
Clean   Water   Act   and  Federal   Highway
Administration  prohibitions  against draining
wetlands  into  the rights-of-way of federally-
funded  roads and highways.   The  restoration
work was overseen in the field by representatives
of the U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service and the
Soil   Conservation   Service,     Satisfactory
restoration of the 32 acres of wetlands affected by
the violation has been completed.

Clifton Water  District (Clifton. Colorado): On
the  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 Clean 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 was recently proposed for
listing as an endangered  species.  The 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 District to  perform  an
alternatives  analysis  and  studies  of  the
structure's impact on migration of endangered fish
species. On May 30,  1991, the District signed a
consent agreement requiring it to  seek after-the-
fact authorization for the structure from the Corps
of Engineers.  The consent agreement also requires
the  District to remove any structures and  fill
material that are not authorized by the Corps at
the  conclusion  of  the   after-the-fact   permit
process.

U.S. y*  Golf  Legends.  Ltd..(Conway. S.Ctfr  -
Region IV fined Golf Legends, Ltd. $75,000  for the
unauthorized filling, excavation, and  clearing  of
approximately 123 acres of forested wetlands near
Conway, SC   In  addition to the fine, Legends
restored and created approximately 40 acres  of
wetlands  on  site,  preserved  in   perpetuity
approximately 460 acres of wetlands  adjacent  to
the golf course and a 100 acre bay in the Conway,
SC area.

Markgl Homes.  Inc. (Boulder,  Colorado):  A
Colorado    developer    paid    a    $20,000
administrative penalty and agreed to perform a
three-acre wetland restoration project  on Boulder
Open Space property.  The wetland  restoration
project is intended to compensate for  Markers
filling of 1.3 acres of urban wetlands between 1984
and 1987 without a Clean Water Act §404 permit
and then building apartment units on  them.  The
19-acre wetland impacted by the project  was
given a high  priority for protection  under the
City  of   Boulder's  local wetland  protection
program  because of its size and the amenities it
provided to nearby residents.  EPA agreed to the
compensatory   mitigation  project instead  of
requiring the removal of the buildings  and the fill
they were built on because of the tenuous financial
condition of the developer and  the savings and
loan company that had financed the project.  The
City  of  Boulder  played  a  key  role  in the
enforcement action by providing technical advice
to EPA and  negotiating  the  agreements under
which the developer was allowed to perform the
mitigation work on Open Space land near Boulder
Reservoir.    The   case   reflects  the  Region's
continuing  commitment  to  enforcement actions
aimed at protecting wetlands in urbanizing areas
in the Rocky Mountain west.

Ramsey County Water Resources District (Ramsey
County.  Mmth Pakotak  On  January 17,  1991,
Region VIII completed a series of administrative
enforcement actions begun in 1989 against the
Ramsey  County Water  Resources District  for
violations of §404 of the Clean Water Act.  The
District is a  state-chartered drainage 'agency
operating in Ramsey County, North Dakota.  Late
in 1988 the District hired a contractor to  excavate
a channel at least 45 feet wide through prairie
pothole wetlands for the purposes of  converting
wetlands to crop land. An estimated  5,000 cubic
yards of vegetation and soil was discharged in
wetlands on either side of the drainage channel
and the ditch drained 600 - 700 acres.of palustrine
emergent  semi-permanently  flooded  wetlands.
The Region's enforcement actions culminated in
payment  of  a  $2,500  penalty  by  the  Water
Resources  District  and  the  completion  of
restoration measures aimed at blocking the ditch
and breaching the spoil piles along it. The case
marked  Region   VIII's  first   administrative
penalty action for  a §404 violation and sent a
strong deterrent  message  to  other  drainage
districts   in   North   Dakota  where   similar
enforcement actions were underway or pending.

U.S. v. Floyd  E. Riley and Fercom Aquaculture
Corporation (E.p.  Mo,):  As  a result  of this
enforcement action, 200 acres of wetlands will be
established to  replace wetlands destroyed by the
                                              4-17

-------
                             FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
defendant  In settlement of a Clean Water Act
§404 enforcement action on September 15,  1991,
forested   wetlands,  emergent  .wetlands,   and
aquatic  beds   will  be   established  in  the
floodplains  of  two streams in north  central
Missouri.  In addition, a 140 acre greenbelt will be
established in perpetuity along the larger of the
two streams,  and  the defendants  will pay  a
$5,000 civil  penalty.  In the construction of its
aquaculture  ponds,  the defendants destroyed 160
acres of  forested  wetlands, wetland  pasture,
oxbow wetlands and stream channels.
                    Corp. v. William Reilly. et
al. (New Jersey): After more than three years of
protracted litigation,  the  New Jersey District
Court on May 17, 1991 dismissed .this challenge to
an EPA "veto" under §404(c) of the Clean Water
Act of a wetlands fill permit. Though nominally
a defensive litigation,  the case has significance
to EPA wetlands enforcement program, holding
that EPA may "veto" an "after-the-fact" permit
proposed by  the Army Corps of Engineers.  The .
plaintiff, a  developer, sought  to enjoin EPA
and/or  the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers from
enforcing any provisions of the Clean Water Act in
connection  with property  it  owns  and  has
developed  in the   Hackensack  Meadowlands,
New Jersey.    The  plaintiff  asserted  that
enforcement  action  threatened  by   EPA  for
violations of P04 of the CWA was  causing it
irreparable injury.  The action arose after EPA, in
March,  1988, issued the §404(c) "veto"  of any
permit to fill wetlands within approximately 57
acres of property owned by the plaintiff.  The
plaintiffs request for  reconsideration  has been
denied;  an  appeal  to  the Third Circuit is
considered likely.

U.S. v. Marshall Sasser. South Carolina:  In July,
1991, a .Presiding  Officer  issued  an.  Initial
Decision,  assessing  a  penalty of $125,000,  and
directing the respondent  to  submit a restoration
plan for EPA approval, and to implement an
approved plan of restoration for approximately
75 acres of  tidal  wetlands.   Mr.  Sasser owns
property  in  South  Carolina   that  includes
wetlands which  were historically impounded to
facilitate rice cultivation.

Sinclair Oil  Corporation d/b/a Sunlight  Ranch
(Montana):  In the first ruling of its kind in the
9th Circuit,  the Sinclair Oil Corporation was
found in violation of §404 of the Clean Water Act
for  bulldozing  a  large  amount  of  streambed
material in the Little Big Horn River in Montana
during late winter and early spring, 1987.  The
court  held   that  a  redeposit  of  indigenous
strea-nbed materials constitutes an addition of
pollutants and  that the  defendant's  activities
were  therefore  regulated.     Following  the
appointment of a settlement judge to facilitate
the resolution of civil penalty, issues, the Sinclair
Oil Company agreed to pay a- penalty of $15,000
and a consent decree was entered by the court on
August 28, 1991.  Stream restoration work had
been   completed    pursuant   to   an   EPA
administrative order which was issued in 1987.
The court's favorable ruling is important because
the kind of  stream alteration work at issue is
commonplace throughout Region VIII.
U.S. v. plaine and j^nnfe Stewar^. Robbjpsf \llef
N.C.: - Region IV fined the Stewarts  $3,000 for
the unauthorized filling  in  a trout  stream in
Robbinsville, NC. The fill resulted in a large fish
kill  downstream.   The Stewarts restored the
impacted area and also paid the State of North
Carolina $3,000 for costs incurred by the fish kill
and restocking the impacted stream.

T^c^rtpartngrship  (Boulder.  Colorado):  During
December  1990, Techpartnership, • a  Boulder,
Colorado, commercial real  estate development
partnership,  completed  removal  of  illegally
discharged fill placed in  1.8 acres of a  19  acre
wetland. The discharges, which violated §404 of
the Clean Water Act, occurred in 1987 and 1989. In
March,  1991, Techpartnership paid  a. $5,000
administrative penalty following administrative
enforcement action begun by EPA Region VIII in
September, 1990.  The affected wetland. received a
high priority for protection in a City of Boulder
study of wetlands within the Boulder Planning
Area and was the subject of illegal discharges by
others as  well.    EPAs  enforcement  actions
reflected  the  Region's  emphasis  on  urban
wetlands  and  resulted  in the  restoration of
wetland values in the affected area.

U.S. v. Winding Brook Turf Farm: A conservation
easement was established as part of a consent
decree entered  on  July 18, 1991, by the  US.
District  Court for the District of Connecticut in
the wetlands enforcement case of U.S. v. Winding
Brook Turf Farm.  The defendant, which proposed
the easement as  a  supplemental environmental
project, was  alleged  to have filled 17  acres of
wetlands in Suffield, CT.  In settlement of EPA's
complaint,  the defendant agreed to restore the
damaged wetlands, pay a $35,000 penalty, and
establish a conservation easement on the filled
                                              4-18

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
wetlands and adjoining land to help ensure better
long-term protection of the wetlands.

Safe   Drinking   Water   Act  (SDWA)
Enforcement

Public Water Supply Program (PWSS)

      The   PWSS    program   establishes   a
regulatory program for public water systems and
requires  EPA  to set drinking water standards
{including Maximum Contaminant Levels) for a
variety of pollutants.

U.S. v. City of  North Adams  An important
precedent was  established  during 1991 in EPA's
drinking water enforcement case brought against
the City of North Adams, MA.  On August 7,
1991,the federal district judge ruled that the EPA
could bring a federal court action notwithstanding
the earlier filing of a state court action, where
the state court  action sought relief less extensive
than  that sought by EPA and where the state
court action was not filed within thirty days of
the state  receiving a Notice of Violation  from
EPA. Prior to  the initiation of the  federal  court
action,  the  City  had refused  to  agree  to any
binding schedule for the construction of a drinking
water filtration plant. Trial in federal court was
held in November 1991  to establish a federally
binding schedule and to set the penalty that the
City will need to pay because of its past delays.

U.S. v. EBCO Company, Inc.(S.D. Ohio): As part
of the Agency's  Lead Enforcement Initiative, a
civil  action   was  filed  against  the  EBCO
Company, Inc.  of  Columbus, Ohio,  for  the
manufacture  and sale of drinking water coolers
which were  not  lead free.  This  was the first
action under the Lead Contamination Control Act
of 1988, which  amended the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA).  A  Consent Decree was entered by
the Court which provided for a  repair recall
program and a $220,000 penalty.  This is the
largest penalty ever obtained under the SDWA.
Underground
Program (UIC)
Injection      Control
      The UIC program establishes a regulatory
program  for underground injection practices for
five  classes of  wells.    Enforcement priorities
include violations at deep hazardous waste and
commercial disposal wells (Class  I); violations
at oil and gas  wells (Class II);  using banned
shallow disposal wells (Class IV); enforcing the
hazardous waste restrictions promulgated under
the Hazardous and Solid  Waste Act (HSWA);
and  enforcing  against  violations at  injection
wells for other than hazardous waste, mining, or
oil and gas (Class V).

Underground      Injection      Control
Initiative

     On September 13,1991, EPA issued, after an
intensive period of negotiations, ten  National
Administrative orders on consent with ten major
oil companies.  The oil  companies to whom the
orders  were issued  are Amoco,  Ashland,  B.P.,
Exxon, Marathon, Mobil, Shell, Sun Oil,  Texaco
and  Unocal,    The Orders  require   extensive
inventory information,  cessation of  injection,
waste   minimization,   extensive  closure,  an
oversight contractor for a representative sample
of the closures, and penalties  totaling more than
$800,000.

     This enforcement action was the first of its
kind under  the  Underground Injection Control
Program  in its  use of  national  administrative
orders  to address oil company operations in 49
states and territories and was  brought to identify
the Class V wells of the companies and remedy
contamination associated  with  their use.  The
initiative will  result in the permanent closure of
over 1800 service station bay drain wells nation-
wide that  had  been  receiving automotive-
related wastes such as oil, anti-freeze, solvents,
etc., some  of which  had been seeping  into
underground sources of drinking water.  Closure of
these-wells will prevent  further  contamination,

U.S. v.  TLS. Inc. (S.D.  Miss.):  A judgement by
default was issued against TLS, Inc., Heidelberg,
Mississippi, on July 22, 1991,  for violation of the
Safe Drinking  Water Act's UIC regulations. TLS
failed  to pay  an  administrative  penalty  of
$10,000, and stipulated penalties of $200 per day
agreed to in an Administrative Order on Consent,
which also required TLS,  Inc., to properly plug
and  abandon  an   injection  well.   The  Court
awarded the government penalties of $7,500, the
unpaid  balance due, plus stipulated  penalties
accruing under the Administrative Order at the
rate  of $200 per day from October 7, 1988 until
compliance  is achieved with the provisions of
the Administrative Order, plus interest  on the
total amount from the date of the Court's Order
until paid in full, plus all costs.
                                              4-19

-------
                            FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Repon
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) Enforcement
(Swperfund)

     FY  1991  Superfund  enforcement  made
significant strides  toward refining certain areas
of  CERCLA enforcement  and  attaining  the
"Enforcement first" goal of the 90-Day Superfund
Management Review,  The  benefits  of the FY
1991 enforcement program include both savings in
the expenditure of the fund «»rf acceleration of
the nation's efforts to cleanup hazardous sites, A
model  consent decree ws  adopted which will
simplify  awl speed the settlement process.  In
addition, close integration of the Response and
Enforcement  Programs continues  to result  in  a
healthy increase in cleanup settlements through
judicial actions and consent decrees,
jLS._y. Alabama Pow.pt et
                                 j^ AJtil  A
settlement  involving  many  of the Southeast's
electric  cooperatives  and a subsidiary of the
Southern Company resulted, in a recovery for the
government of  $1325,518  in  costs  spent to
remediate . a  National   Priorities List  (NPL)
Superfund  Site.  'Over   100   generators   were
designated as  potentially  responsible  parties
(PRPs>.  They negotiated with EPA for one year to
achieve  the settlement which includes conduct by
the PRPs, of  thirty  years  of operation  and
maintenance at the Site,  The consent decree was
entered   in  the  U.S.  District  Court  for  the
Northern District of Alabama on May 10, 1991,

The  Site,  located   in   Greenville,,  .Alabama,
included two pieces of property which -had been
contaminated  with  PCBs  in  the course of
transformer repair   operations  at the  now-
bankrupt Mowbray  Engineering Company.  EPA
cleaned  up the Site pursuant to Superfund  before
discovering that there were viable PRPs,

U.S. et a3. v. Alcan Aluminum  Cprp..$laL (N.D,
Mew ?flrjkj: On  Jan. 15, 1993, the District Court
granted  in its  entirety the government's Motion
lor Summary Judgment against Akan Aluminum, a
PRP at  the Pollution Abatement Services (PAS)
Superitmd site in New York. Akan was ordered to
pay EPA and  its co-plaintiff, the State of New
York, about $4 million in past costs incurred in
connection with cleanup work at the site.  Alcan
had refused to participate in a 1987 settlement
with some 83 other PRPs, pursuant to which they
reimbursed the plaintiffs about $9.1 million in
past costs.  EPA sued  Alcan for  all costs not
recovered from those settlors.  From 1970 to 1977
Alcan had sent to PAS about 200 gallons of PCBs,
and about 4.6 million gallons of a waste emulsion
contaminated  with  small quantities of metals
including lead, cadmium and  chromium.  Alcan
had argued that these contaminants were in such
low concentrations  that  the  materials did not'
constitute "hazardous substances" under CERCLA;
the  court   rejected   any   lower  limit  for
concentration of hazardous constituents. The court
also  awarded  the  government  prejudgment
interest and declared that EPA's indirect costs are
also recoverable. The opinion  is particularly
important  because  Alcan  has  refused  .to
participate  in  numerous   other   Superfund
settlements involving essentially the  same sorts'
of waste shipments.
                                           4
Alioway v. U.S.  (D.  NgWJ«;isevk  The District
Court of New Jersey on February 19,1991, denied a
motion to stay an EPA administrative Order-for'
Access issued by  Region II pursuant to §104{e) of
CERCLA.  The court also granted EPA's cross-
motion and ordered the plaintiff to comply with
the administrative order.  That  order sought
access to Alioway s property which, although not
contaminated nor even contiguous to contaminated
property,  is  a  potential route to  the Ewan
Property Superfund site, which is  "landlocked"
and has no road access,  Alioway also argued that
the 5th Amendment of the Constitution required
EPA to  compensate  him  before  entering his
property.  The court dismissed this claim as we!!,
noting that Alioway could file  a TuckertAcf-claim
after the  action.  The opinion stressed'''EPA's
poHce power and  supported a broad;readirigof the",
statutory  term "adjacent property."  *•  AUoway
appealed the decision to the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals, which denied the requested stay of
the order.; EPA then promptly carried  out the site
work in question, rendering any further litigation
at this time moot.

Anspec Copipaay y.  Johnson. Contois, Iffi^  On
January 4, 1991,  the  Sixth Circuit reversed and
remanded   the  Eastern   District   Court  of
Michigan's ruling that a successor corporation
could not be liable under CERCLA §107(a). '-The
Department of Justice filed an  amfcus brief in the
plaintiffs appeal of the September 25, 1989,
decision   in   this   CERCLA  private  party
contribution action. The plaintiff seeks to recover
costs incurred in cleaning  a  site contaminated
with hazardous  substances.   The plaintiff sued
the successor  corporations  of the  site's former
                                            4-20

-------
                        FY1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
owner. The Sixth Circuit concluded that Congress
included  successor   corporations  within  the
description of entities that are potentially liable
under CERCLA for cleanup costs.  The court also
concluded  it did not have to fashion a  federal
common law rule to reach a determination.  The
court applied Michigan corporation law  to  find
that a successor corporation is liable after there
has been a formal merger.

Arctic  Surplus;    EPA  Region  X  successfully.
negotiated  and executed an administrative order
on  consent for a removal action  at a privately-
owned  site  with the  U.S.  Defense  Logistics
Agency (DLA). Two such administrative orders on
consent have been negotiated and executed with
DLA with respect to the Arctic Surplus site.

Arctic Surplus is a 22-acre site located in a mixed
commercial/residential  area  near  Fairbanks,
Alaska.  Past activities at the site involved the
disposal  and  treatment  of  military   surplus,
including  the  salvaging  of  batteries  and the
incineration   of   transformer   casings   and
transformer oil containing  PCBs.   Much of this
military  property was surplused by  the  U.S.
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA),  Asbestos, PCB,
and lead contamination are prevalent,. and pose a
direct threat  to the area's drinking water supply.
The first administrative order (1990) required
DLA to conduct specific removal activities at the
Arctic Surplus site.  In. 1991, DLA entered into a
second order with Region X which provided that
DLA would finance EPA removal activities at the
site during the summer of 1991, including an extent
of   contamination    survey    and   necessary
removal/containment activities. Pursuant to this
order, DLA agreed to pay $500,000, into  an EPA
site-specific  account  and  agreed  to   pay  an
additional  $500,000  if necessary.   These  costs
included the  payment  of oversight costs.   In
addition,  DLA  agreed  to  pay directly  for lab
work, continue  groundwater  monitoring  and to
continue  investigating  long-term  treatment/
disposal options for dioxin. Stipulated penalties
were included in the order.
U.S. v.  Atochept
                               -  Inc. (D. New
Jersey):  A Consent Decree was signed by the
Defendant  in June, 1991,  pursuant to  which
Atochem will carry out a $46 million RD/RA at
the. Meyers Property Site in  New  Jersey.  The
company has also agreed to reimburse EPA  $2.7
million in past costs, as well as all future costs
incurred by EPA. Under the settlement, Atochem
will carry remedial work at the site, located in
Franklin Township.  Soils at the site were found
to contain  a variety of chemicals, including
chlorinated  pesticides (particularly DDT and its
breakdown  products), and  volatile and semi-
volatile organic  compounds.   A predecessor of
Atochem  was  an owner/operator  of  the  site
producing DDT there in the early I940's.

U.S,_g. Automation Components^ et al. (D. New
Jersey): The District Court on September 9, 1991
entered  a   default  judgment   against   two
defendants in this action. The complaint in this
case named  nine defendants who are PRPs at the
SCP/Newark Superfund site in New Jersey.  The
defendants failed to participate with other PRPs
in a  1985 settlement for a removal action valued
at about $3 million. Region II then issued to non-
settlors  a   unilateral   administrative   order
requiring them to cooperate and coordinate with
the settlors  on the removal  work.   Four of the
defendants  did  not  comply  with  their  orders;
other  defendants failed  to  comply with the
consent order they executed.  The complaint in
this action seeks cost recovery, civil penalties and
treble damages against  the non-compliers.  The
two defendants involved in the default judgment,
Maas   &   Waldstein  Co.  and   Automation
Components,  Inc.,  had  declared  bankruptcy.
Under  the  default  judgment  they were each
declared jointly and severally liable for $289,272,
the full  amount of  costs incurred  by EPA in
connection with the site. The default judgments
will  be entered in the  appropriate Bankruptcy
Courts.

U.S. v.  AVX Corp.. et al;  On July 16, 1991, the
United  States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts entered the first consent decree for
this  site  between  plaintiffs   EPA,  National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,  and
the Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  and  two
defendants,   Aerovox,    Inc.   and   Belleville
Industries.   These defendants are  a current and
former  operator  of  a capacitor manufacturing
plant on New Bedford Harbor responsible for PCB
dumping which caused extensive contamination of
harbor sediments and biota.

Under  the  consent  decree,  the plaintiffs  will
recover a total of $12.6 million for  remedial
activities   and   natural  resource  damages.
Furthermore,   in   September   of  1991,  the
Department  of Justice lodged a  consent  decree
settling the  liability of AVX Corporation at this
Superfund   site  for  $66  million.   Under the
settlement    AVX   Corporation,    the   major
                                             4-21

-------
                             FF /99J Enforcement Accomplishments Report
contributor to PCB contamination of New Bedford
Harbor,  will  contribute  $50  million  toward
remedial activities at the site and $7 million to
federal and  state trustees for the restoration of
natural resources damaged by PCB contamination,

U.S. v. gethlehem  Steel. (7th Cir.  1990): On
December 28, 1990, the United States Court of
Appeals  for the Seventh Circuit upheld  the
District Court's determination that  U.S.  EPA
properly  denied  Bethlehem   Steel's  petition,
under §106(b) of CERCLA, for reimbursement of
costs expended by  the  Company  to conduct  a
partial cleanup  of  the  Conservation  Chemical
Company of Illinois (CCCI)  facility in Gary, IN.
§106(b) was enacted as part of the 1986 Superfund
Amendment  and Reauthorizaticm Act  (SARA)
amendments.  Bethlehem had  received a  §106
order to conduct the cleanup activities prior to the
enactment of the SARA amendments but complied
with the order  post-SARA.   The court agreed
with the EPA that §106(b) was applicable only to
a party which both received and complied with a
CERCLA §106 order after enactment of the SARA
amendments.  This  was  a  matter   of  first
impression although a  similar  case is pending
before  the District of Columbia Circuit and at
least one other case has been filed by Bethlehem
in Colorado.

jiingl^gm  Cregk; Channel  Keim^cott  Copper
Company (Utar^l:  An Administrative  Order on
Consent was issued May 20,1991, settling recovery
of $250,000 in past response costs, $2  million in
future  costs, and the  performance of certain
removal actions at the Bingham Creek Channel
site. Kennecott Utah Copper Company agreed to
reimburse the Superfund  for costs incurred by
Region VIH's Emergency Response program in the
investigation  and    cleanup   of  lead   soil
contamination in  residential  areas  near West
Jordon,   UT,  and  also  agreed   to  haul  the
contaminated soils to a repository on its property
for secure storage.

Hoarhead Corporation v. Edwin ErSckson:  In  a
case with potential precedential value involving
EPA's work  at Superfund sites, the U.S. Court of
Appeals  for the Third  Circuit  upheld a lower
court ruling against a property owner's request to
stay  EPA's  CERCLA-related   pre-clean  up
activities  until   EPA  conducted  appropriate
review under  §106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. The Court  of Appeals decision
of January 1991 agreed with  the U.S.  District
Court's   earlier   opinion  that  the  Boarhead
Corporation's  complaint  lacked subject  matter
jurisdiction pursuant to the timing procedures for
judicial review specified in §113(h) of CERCLA,
as amended.

The decision allowed  EPA to continue with site
investigative work at the Boarhead Farms site in
Bucks  County, PA. The decision  suggests  that
EPA's clean up activities at Superfund sites cannot
be slowed  or  halted as a result of legal actions
brought against EPA by private parties under
other statutes, where CERCLA  is determined to
take precedence over those statutes. The case had
added  importance since  both  the   State  of
Pennsylvania.Historical and Museum Commission
and the National Trust for Historic Preservation
filed an amicus curiae brief supporting Boarhead
Corporation's appeal of the lower court ruling.

U.S. v. BRIO Task Force (S.D. Texas): On April 4,
1991, the  U.S. District Court for the  Southern
District of Texas signed a consent decree between
the United States  and those parties who have
agreed to  conduct  a remedial action at the Brio
Superfund Site. The court also  entered an order
which denied petitions from a citizen group and
two utility districts who had wanted to change
the proposed consent decree. The court in its ruling
indicated that the  EPA, in proceeding  with this
settlement,    "adequately    represented    the
interests"  of  these parties.   The  intervenors"
concerns centered around objections to the remedy
decision (onsite incineration) and a belief that
potential   health  risks   were  inadequately
evaluated.  The intervenors  have appealed the
District Court's decision to the Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, however, there is no  stay of
the District Court's decisions. Consequently, entry
of the consent  decree has paved the way for EPA
to begin a  long delayed remedial process which
will  save  the government an estimated  $60
million and  eliminate a  potential  threat  to
human health and the environment.

Richard C. Schleck,J/a Brook Industrial Park v.
U.S. (D. New Jersey):  On  January 7,  1991 the
District Court rejected  plaintiffs claim  for an
alleged taking  at  its  property,  the. Brook
Industrial  Park Superfund Site  in Bound  Brook,
New Jersey.  The plaintiff refused to grant EPA
access  to the  property to  conduct investigatory
work.  Region II issued an administrative access
order under §104(e) of CERCLA.  The owner then
filed  this  lawsuit.  The  court dismissed  the
plaintiffs claims for compensation for an alleged
taking, on two grounds: (1) lack of subject matter'
                                             4-22

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
jurisdiction, and (2) failure to state a claim upon
which relief  may be granted.  The  plaintiff's
contention that EPA is bound by the terms of an
old State cleanup order was also rejected.  The
court  granted the Motion  of EPA and  its co-
defendant, the U.S, Air Force, to dismiss the case
entirely.

California Gulch Operable  Unit 2+ (Leadville.
Colorado): EPA issued  three  Administrative
Orders for the California Gulch Superfund  site
located  in  the  Leadville  Mining  District,
Leadville, Colorado. The study area covers about
16 square miles which  have been  impacted  by
mining, milling, and smelting activities for  over
100 years. The Site contains many mine waste and
smelter waste piles and acid  mine drainage.  Soil,
ground water, and  surface  water contamination
from  metals  in  these  mining wastes has been
documented.

Under the terms of  the  first  Administrative
Order, EPA required Resurrection Mining Company
to perform  certain tasks  in  support  of  the
Remedial Investigation  (RI)  activities  for  the
site.  The RI will identify contaminants of concern
and remedial action alternatives which will be
evaluated in  the Feasibility  Study and finalized
in the Proposed Plan and the Record of Decision.

Under the terms of the second Administrative
Order, EPA required ASARCO,  Inc., to perform
certain studies in support of the RI activities for
the site. The studies require development of Work
Plans and implementation of Work Plans  after
EPA approval.

Under the terms of  the third  Administrative
Order, EPA required the respondent, Hecla Mining
Company,    to    perform    an   Engineering
Evaluation/Cost  Analysis for the Malta Gulch
mine  tailings, to determine the nature and extent
of any  releases and any appropriate response
activities at  the Malta Gulch  tailings.   The
Order stipulates that Hecla  would  "resolve any
remaining liability  by  agreeing to implement
and/or pay an appropriate  share of the  cost of
EPA's chosen or likely response action  for the
Malta Gulch  tailings...."  The  response  action
would expedite remediation of  the impacts to
human health and/or the environment resulting
from the Malta Gulch mine tailings.

U.S. v. Chevron ChfiHUcal Co.. et al. (Operating
Industries. Inc. Superfund gite): On September 16,
1991, a Second Partial Consent Decree was entered
resolving claims for the first two operable units
and past costs with an additional 65 parties. The
first  decree involved  over  100  parties and was
worth over $67 million in site work and past costs.
The  second settlement  is  valued at  over $8.5
million, and it includes premiums  of  nearly $1
million from recalcitrant parties. In addition, the
District  Court  for   the   Central  District  of
California denied a motion  to intervene that had
been filed by a non-settlor  who sought to delay
entry by challenging EPA's allocation formula.
The  non-settlor  asserted  that its   right  to
contribution from the settling parties provided a
protectable interest under  §113(i) of  CERCLA.
The court did not agree and denied the motion.

The Operating Industries, Inc. site is a 190-acre,
former  landfill  that operated for  36  years,
accepting  industrial and municipal waste. EPA
has now, through the two Consent Decrees, settled
with approximately 185 parties for site  control
and   monitoring  and  leachate  management,
including  the construction  of an onsite leachate
treatment plant.

In the matter of Chevron  U.S.A. and the ATA
Pipeline Company (Albuquerque. New Mexico):
In an  innovative  first use of  authority under
CERCLA, four major petroleum  companies and a
pipeline partnership have been ordered  to take
actions necessary to prevent interference with an
ongoing Superfund remedial action.  On February
8,  1991,   Region  VI   issued  a   Unilateral
Administrative  Order  (UAO)   under   the
authority of CERCLA §106.  The Respondents to
the UAO are alleged to be responsible for releases
of petroleum  related contaminants which  are
threatening  to   interfere  with  an  ongoing
groundwater  cleanup  at  the  South  Valley
Superfund • Site  in  Albuquerque, New Mexico.
With this new  use  of   §106 authority,  the
Respondents  have been   brought  within  the
domain of CERCLA even though they are not all
Potentially Responsible Parties  and the releases
in  question   are  petroleum   related.    The
Respondents are currently in compliance with the
order and are expediting actions to address the
petroleum contamination.

Cinnaminson Landfill (Cinnaminson, New Jersey):
On July  7, 1991, Region II issued  a  unilateral
administrative   order  for  RD/RA  at   the
Cinnaminson Landfill to Sanitary Landfill, Inc., a
subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc.  The first
operable unit work  which the  company will
perform under the order, including  groundwater
                                             4-23

-------
/ «» \
                                 FY 199J Enforcement Accomplishments Report •  ,
    extraction  and  treatment,  is  valued  at  $20
    million.   In  addition,  Sanitary  Landfill  has
    reimbursed EPA about $3.2 million in past costs for
    the site.                                    •  •

    In the Matter of City Tndustriesr Winter-Park.
    Florida:  On September 10, 1991  a consent decree
    involving the City Industries site in Winter Park,
    Florida was lodged in U.S. District Court, Middle
    District of Florida.   Under the .terms of  this
    decree, approximately 146  settling  defendants
    (including  approximately  120  de   minimis
    defendants) agree to "cash out"  (Le^, fund all of
    the Remedial Action, which is estimated to  cost,
    over $4 million), to  reimburse  EPA for all future
    response costs, to reimburse EPA for all past costs
    incurred  since  a previous  decree in this  case
    (approximately $117,000), and to pay the long-
    term  operation  and  maintenance  costs  of  the
    cleanup.

    Commencement Bay/Tacoma Tar Fits Superfund
    Site.   Tacoma.  Washington:     Following  a
    complaint filed by the U.S. in FY 1990, six consent
    decrees were  entered in FY 1991  settling all
    government claims under CERCLA Chapters 106
    and 107 resulting in over 100% recovery of costs to
    the government.  EPA obtained  recovery  of all
    costs, implementation of all response actions  and
    recovery of penalties in this matter.        . -   ,

    U.S. v. Cordflva Chemical Corp..ejt_al. (W.D. MI):
    A Unilateral Administrative Order was issued in
    Ott/Story/Cordova  on February 5,  1991,   The
    Respondents,  Cordova  Chemical  Company of
    Michigan,  Cordova  Chemical  Company  of
    California, Aerojet  General  Corporation,  CPC
    International, Inc., and Dr.  Arnold C Ott, were
    directed  to perform remedial  design  for  the
    remedy as described  in the Record of Decision
    under CERCLA dated September 29,1990, for the
    second operable unit associated with the site and
    to  implement  such  design  through -remedial
    action.                                     <. ;

    On August 27,1991, after 15 days of trial and the
    entry  of thousands of exhibits and documents, the
    judge of  the U.S. District Court issued a  75 page
    opinion in favor of the United States, requiring
    O-tt/Story/Cordova   to  conduct a clean-up in
    Muskegon, MI, at a cost estimated  to exceed $50
    million. The judge held the State of Michigan not
    liable under CERCLA for clean up activities at -
    the site.   More importantly,  however,  the  case
    provides the government with a very favorable •
    precedent and guidelines  for determining  the
liability  of   parent   corporations   regarding
compliance with environmental law.  The Court
held CPC and Aerojet, the parent corporations,
liable  for 'cleaningup after  themselves, their
predecessors, and their subsidiaries.

U.S. v. Custony Industrial  This case  involved
three separate settlement agreements, in the form
of  two  judicial  consent  decrees   and  -one.
administrative agreement.  The consent decrees,
lodged on June 20, 1991, were CERCLA §107 cost,
recovery  agreements with 34 and 3 potentially
responsible parties (PRPs), respectively, together
reimbursing EPA  approximately $1,045,000 for.
removal.costs.  EPA also issued an administrative
order on consent for this site, obligating 199 de
minimis    generators   to   reimburse   EPA
approximately   $419,000.     The   total   sum
recovered,    approximately    $1.46   ' million,
represents 90% of the costs incurred by EPA during
the removal at this site.  In August 1991,  the
Department of Justice filed a complaint against
the two recalcitrant PRPs in order to recover the..
remaining ten percent. This case is particularly
noteworthy because it combines some  of  EPA's
major  enforcement themes,  i.e.,  de   minimis
settlements  and  actions  against   recalcitrant
parties.

U,S_,_v. Dow Chemical Company, et  aj, (Casper,
Wyoming):  EPA and three PRPs, KNEnergy, Inc.,
The Dow  Chemical  Company, and • Dowell-'
Schlumberger, Inc.,  reached  a settlement  for
Remedial Design/Remedial Action at this Site in
Casper, Wyoming.                           •  '
  *      '                             - ^  ' .'
The PRPs   agreed  to  pay   $5.4   million..in
reimbursement of past costs incurred by EPA at the
Site,  including   costs  associated  with   the
installation  of a municipal  water  system • for.
residents. The PRPs also agreed  to implement the
remedy set forth in the ROD issued by EPA 'in
September of 1990.  Because  the ROD calls for
separate remediation of the two  separate ground- •
water plumes, the PRPs will  perform the work
pursuant to two separate statements of  work,
allowing work to proceed in a more rapid, phased
manner.     .                    •'••'.•
                                         0-  •
In the Matter  of Defense Logistics Agency;* On
May 29,  1991, EPA  and  the Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA) entered into  an  administrative
consent order pursuant  to  §104 and  §106; of
CERCLA for the removal arid proper disposal'of
70,000  pounds of depleted uranium  stored in  a
dilapidated   building   owned  by  Chemical
                                                 4-24

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Commodities,  Inc. near  DeSoto,  Kansas.  CCI
purchased the depleted uranium from the Defense
Surplus Sales Office, a department in the Defense
Supply Agency  (now DLA)  in 1965 and 1966. The
material has been stored at the site for more than
twenty-three years.  Due to the weight of the
material,  the   floor  of  the  building. was  in
imminent danger of collapse threatening  the
release  of  the  depleted   uranium  into  the
environment. DLA commenced the response action
in July, 1991.

U.S. v. Dow Corning Corporation:   On May 22,
1991, a consent decree between the United States
and Dow  Corning Corporation  for the  Howe
Valley Landfill site was  entered in the Western
District  of Kentucky.  Under  the decree, Dow
Corning is obligated to'  perform  or pay for all
remaining cleanup at the  site.   EPA's selected
remedy  consists  primarily  of  excavation  of
contaminated  soils.   Soils contaminated  with
inorganics  will be disposed  of off-site;  soils
contaminated with organics will be aerated.  Air
and ground-water monitoring are also required as
are certain deed restrictions.  Dow Corning agreed
to reimburse EPA for all of its past and future
costs, totaling approximately $154,000.

U.S. v. En trad a Industries.  Inc., et al. (Salt Lake
City. Utah):  In • September,  1991, an RD/RA
consent decree was  entered for the  Wasatch
Chemical Site  in Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. This
decree is a three party agreement among EPA, the'
State, and the settling defendants  which requires
the defendants to: 1) reimburse 100 % of past EPA
costs totaling  $419,000;  2)  pay EPA's  future
response costs; and  3)  implement  the selected
remedy through performance of  RD/RA.  The
selected remedy includes  the use of an innovative
technology, in-situ vitrification.

U.S. v. Environmental Service Group, qt al. (W.
.D. New Yofkj:  On September 30 a consent decree
was lodged  in  District Court in connection-with
the  Resolve Manufacturing  Superfund  site  in
Falconer, New York. The five settling defendants,
as  well as  a number  of other companies and
individuals, are PRPs at  the site,  but refused to
participate in   a  1987 settlement pursuant  to
which over 100  other PRPs carried out a removal
action  valued  at about  $1  million.   Region II-
issued     the    non-settlors    a    unilateral
administrative order requiring them to cooperate
and coordinate  with  the  settling   PRPs  in
performing  the removal work.   While some
respondents complied with this order, others —,
                                             4-25
including the defendants in this lawsuit — did
not.  The-.settling defendants in this decree are:
ESG, Custom Muffler Service Center; Inc., Products
Finishing, Inc., Ethan Allen, Inc., and Seco Corp.
These companies agreed to pay all outstanding
EPA costs, in connection  with  the  site, .about
$88,000,  plus civil  penalties  in  the' amount of
$40,000  for  their  violation   of  -the   EPA-
administrative order.   EPA is considering  what
action  to  take  against  the  remaining  non-
complying PRPs who also refused to join in this
consent decree.

U.S. v. Farbejf. et al. (D. New Jersey); On August
29, 1991  the  New Jersey District  Court issued a
ruling favorable to the government with respect to
the scope of review of EPA's selection of a response
action.   The defendant had  requested de  novo'
review of the remedy  selection, arguing that it
had an inadequate opportunity to participate in
the public comment procedure because it  been
notified late that it was a PRP. The court.rejected
the  challenge,  agreeing  with  EPA  that  any
opportunity  to  comment  it  might  afford • the
defendant should be limited to the procedures set
forth at 40 CFR §300.825{c) of the 1990'National
Contingency Plan. The court remanded the matter
to EPA,  allowing the defendant to comment as
provided in that rule.   The court specified that
comments must be based on information available"
at the time of the original comment period.  The
court further held that review of EPA's remedy,
selection  will be based1 on  the'administrative
record under the standard of review set forth in
§113(j){2) of CERCLA. The decision is significant
in that it is the first time a court has applied 40
CFR §300.825(c), and it represents a narrowing of
the comment opportunity afforded by the  same
court in  U.S. v. Rohm  &  Haas  Co. in similar
circumstances.

U.S. v.  Frola.  et  al.  (D.  New  Jersey); On
September 27,  1991, a  complaint was  filed in
District  Court  against  nine individuals  and
companies in connection with Quanta Resources
Superfund site in Edgewater,  New Jersey.   The
defendants are PRPs that refused to participate in
a 1985 settlement pursuant to which more than 60
other PRPs carried out a removal action valued at
about $9 million. Region II then issued"to  these
non-settlors  a  unilateral  administrative  order
requiring them (1)  to cooperate and  coordinate-
with the settlors  in  performing the' removal- •
action, and  (2)  to  perform  certain  additional'
removal work which the settlors were not obliged
to perform.   The additional work called for by"

-------
                             FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
this "carve-out" order — one of the first of its kind
in the nation — included testing and removal of
soil  and waste  storage tanks,  and testing  of
Hudson River sediments.  The  defendants, who
refused to comply with this order are: James Frola
and  Albert Von  Dohln  (site   owners),  Alcan
Aluminum  Corp.,  Chemical Management, Inc.,
Luzon  Oil  Co.,  Petroleum Tank Cleaners, Inc.,
Snyder Enterprises, Inc., Texaco, Inc. and Total
Recovery, Inc.,  The complaint seeks recovery of
about $617,000 in past  EPA expenditures, plus
civil penalties and treble damages.  Two other
firms which received  the same unilateral order
and  also  failed to comply previously  signed
consent  agreements with EPA.   Browning Ferris
Industries   paid   $125,000    and   Peabody
International  Corp. paid $360,000 in past EPA
costs. These amounts represent more than 10 times
what those companies would have paid had they
chosen to participate in the original settlement

State of Colorado  v. Idarado Mining Company:
On October 11, 1990, the United States Court of
Appeals  for   the  Tenth  Circuit vacated two
injunctions  granted to the State of Colorado  for
activities on  the Idarado mining site, located
between  the  towns of  Telluride and Ouray in
southwestern   Colorado,    These   injunctions,
granted  by the District Court for the District of
Colorado  on  February  22,  1989,  imposed a
modified state cleanup  plan on the defendants
and  required  them  to  pay   the  permanent
relocation costs of tenants on the property.

The  United States filed an amicus  curiae brief
seeking  to  overturn  the District Court's ruling
based on the lower court's incorrect interpretation
of the statutory  language  found  in  CERCLA
§121(eH2).  The United States  argued that  the
state was not  entitled to injunctive  relief under
CERCLA §121(e)(2).   Relying on the  Cadillac
Fairyjew. Cannons, and Akzo Coatings cases,  the
Tenth Circuit agreed and held that the language
of CERCLA §106  and  §121  do not create an
explicit right to injunctive relief for the states.

In trig flatter qf InterChem: This Administrative
Order on Consent issued pursuant  to §106  of
CERCLA was negotiated using the  theory  of
liability  successfully advanced  by  EPA  in  the
United States  y.  Aceto Agricultural Chemicals
case.    The  site  is  an  abandoned  pesticide
formulation facility which had been  operated
under  several  corporate  names  by  several
different  parties. Because there  were no  former
owners  or  operators  apparently  capable   of
carrying out the necessary response actions, EPA
successfully  negotiated  an  order for removal
actions with a group of nine generator PRPs who
had sent technical grade pesticides to the site for
formulation. The settlement, which was filed,on
June 18,  1991, will  foster the  use of the Aceto
theory of liability at other such facilities.

U.S. y. I. Jones Partnership  et^al. (N.D. ILfc
Through an innovative de minimus settlement
under   the   Superfund   law  involving  five
administrative orders, combined with persistent
non-settler/non-complier   enforcement   actions.
Region V EPA obtained full clean-up of the I. Jones
site  in Fort Wayne, IN, reimbursement of  90
percent of past costs  and  substantial §106(b)
penalties.  The  finances included a $5 million
PRP-conducted  final phase of  a three  phase
removal action, and reimbursement of $2,575,041
in response costs.  Following  the  original de
minimus  settlement with  139  generators  in
October  1989,  the. Region  negotiated  specific
compiler,  ,non-complier,  de   minimus   and
"installment payment"  plans with  individual
parties.  In addition,  a cost  recovery referral
against the current owners was made to DOJ in
September  1990; in  October  1991, the  U.S.
amended  the   filed  complaint   to  include
additional parties. This is the first suit filed in
the Region seeking treble damages and statutory
penalties for noncompliance with the unilateral
removal orders under §106,
                                         E"'ff
IFC  y^ Aetna Casualty and Surety Co.:  In this
case, the District of Columbia Circuit  Court of
Appeals decided that the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals  misapplied Missouri  insurance .law  in
Continental Insurance Co. v. NEPACCO. 842 F.2d
977 (8th Cir. 1986). The three judge panel in IPC
held that CERCLA  response costs are damages
under Missouri insurance law compensable under a
comprehensive   general    liability  .policy.
Specifically, the court reasoned that a Missouri
court would rely on the  common understanding of
the word "damages" and would not impose a
technical meaning.  The panel thus agreed with
the federal government,. which  participated  in
this case as amicus curiae urging the court to find
that  CERCLA  response  costs  are  "damages"
which must be paid by an insurance carrier.

Kentucky Avenue Site  (porseheads. New York):
On June  28, 1991, Region II issued.a unilateral
administrative order for RD/RA at the Kentucky
Avenue Wellfield Superfund site to Westinghouse
Corp.  The  work which.Westinghouse will; do
                                             4-26

-------
                                                                                             .,/*"*>.
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
under the order is an interim remedy valued at
$15   million,   and   includes   treatment  of
contaminated  ground water. The RI/FS  for the
first  operable  unit  at  the  site  identified
Westinghouse   as   the  primary   source  of
contamination  in  the  portion  of  the  aquifer
addressed by the remedy. Westinghouse agreed, in
a  separate  administrative  consent  order,  to
perform the RI/FS for the second operable unit.

King of Prussia Site  (Win4ow  Township, New
Jersey); On  April  15,  1991, Region  II issued a
unilateral administrative order for RD/RA at
the King of  Prussia Superfund site to five PRPs;
Cabot Corp., Carpenter Technology  Corp., Ford
Electronics & Refrigeration Co., Johnson-Matthey,
Inc., and Ruetgers-Nease Chemical Co. The work
to be conducted under the order is valued at $15
million, and includes excavation and treatment of
contaminated soils, sludges and groundwater. The
site  is  an  abandoned  liquid  chemical  waste
treatment/disposal facility operated by the King
of Prussia Technical Corp. from 1970 to 1975.

U.S.  v.  Koppers  flpcjustries  &  Beazer  East.
Gainesville. FL: After executing the Record of
Decision for the Cabot  Carbon/Koppers  Site on
September 27, 1990, EPA issued a Special Notice
Letter to the Cabot Corporation, which was the
past owner  of one half of the Site.   EPA also
issued  Special  Notice  Letters   to  Koppers
Industries,  Inc.  (Koppers)  and   to  Beazer
Industries, Inc.  (BEI), which were, respectively,
the current  and past owners of the other half of
the Site.  Negotiations for a global consent decree
were unsuccessful, as BEI refused to accept joint
and several  liability for the groundwater remedy
for the entire Site.  However, Cabot continued to
negotiate concerning its half of the Site, resulting
in  a Consent  Decree  which was  lodged  on
September 12, 1991.  Under  this Consent  Decree,
Cabot agreed to perform the RD/RA on its half of
the Site; as  well as to  reimburse EPA for over
$416,000 in past costs. Region IV issued unilateral
administrative orders  (UAOs) to  Koppers and
BEI  on  March 22,  1991.   Those  parties are
complying with the UAO as it pertains to work on
the Koppers half of the Site.

ILS. v. Koppers (Oroylllg. CAt  On June 12,1991,
EPA and the  Department  of Justice  lodged a
consent decree in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.   The
consent  decree requires  Beazer  East,  Inc.,  a
potentially responsible party, to perform RD/RA
of the Koppers NPL Site in Oroville, California.
Wood products were treated at the site, resulting
in  soil  and  groundwater  contamination  by
hazardous substances including cyanide, dioxins
and furans.  Beazer has agreed to perform design,
construction, operation  and  maintenance  of a
groundwater and surface soil operable unit valued
at approximately $77 million.  The  decree also
requires Beazer to pay past costs and future costs
associated with the site.

U.S. v. Helen Kiamer: On February 8, 1991, the
United States  District Court  for  the District of
New Jersey  granted the United States' motion to
strike affirmative defenses in  the above CERCLA
§107 cost recovery case and issued a lengthy
opinion favorable to the government. Thirteen of
the defendants filed a third-party action against
more than  250  defendants,  including 17  local
governments.  The  defendants asserted that the
United States excluded a class of defendants in
violation of  the Constitution when it named only
industrial defendants and  not  municipalities.
The  court  found  that  the   Agency's  Interim
Municipal Settlement Policy  is  consistent  with
EPA's broad discretion to select defendants and is
rationally related to CERCLA's purpose, and thus
does not  violate the equal protection clause of  the
Constitution.   The court also  held  that the
Interim Municipal Settlement Policy is a general
statement of policy rather than a rule subject to
the notice   and  comment  requirements  of  the
Administrative Procedure Act.  Response costs for
remediating contamination at the Helen Kramer
Landfill,  the number four site on the NPL, are
estimated at $60 million.

Laurel Park Superfund Site:  In FY 1991 EPA
entered into a $21 million settlement, whereby 19
potentially  responsible  parties  will  perform
cleanup  at  the  Laurel  Park  NPL  Site  in
Naugatuck,  CT, and reimburse EPA and the State
of Connecticut for past and future response costs. In
addition, to  expedite cleanup, EPA negotiated an
agreement  whereby  the PRPs  begin  remedial
design activities administratively,  prior to  the
consent  decree being lodged  with the court.
Moreover, concurrent with the settlement referral,
the United States filed a CERCLA cost recovery
action  for unreimbursed costs against four  non-
settling PRPs.  This action sends a clear message
to  PRPs   that  recalcitrance   in  settlement
negotiations has a high price.

U.S. v. Lecarreaux et al. (D. New Jersey): On July
3, 1991,  the court  granted  EPA's  Motion  for
Summary Judgement in this  case which seeks
                                             4-27

-------
                             FY1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
penalties from two PRPs which failed to comply
with a unilateral cleanup order. In 1984 Region II
issued a unilateral order for a removal action at
the Duane Marine  site in Perth Amboy, New
Jersey, to about 35 PRPs, including the site owner
and' operator,  Edward  Lecarreaux.    All  but
Lecarreaux complied with the order. Some months
later, EPA identified additional PRPs and  issued
a second unilateral order requiring these new PRPs
to cooperate and coordinate with the first group of
Respondents  in the performance of the removal
action; Again, all but one — Lightman Drum Co. —
complied.   EPA filed suit seeking response costs
and civil penalties from these two non-compliers.
The July 3 decision held the companies liable for
costs and-penalties; a hearing  on'the amount, of
penalties was scheduled for November 1991.  The
case is notable because it is the first time a court
has ruled that  penal ty= liability  accrues against
PRPs  who fail  to comply with an order, even
though  other PRPs  have elected to  comply  and
carried out the work in question.   ,      ,  . •  •

The Lone Fine Cases: U.S. v. Acton  Corp.* et aL;
and U.S. v. Armstrong \yorld Industries, et al. (D.
New Jersey):  A consent decree was lodged on July
3, 1991, for  performance of the  RD/RA for
Operable Unit 2  at the Lone  Pine  site in New
Jersey (the Acton case).  The settlement, signed by
some1  118 companies,  is valued • at about $10.3
million. The RD/RA work for Operable Unit 1,
valued at about $40 million, is also being done by
PRPs under a 1989 settlement.  In the  Armstrong
case, EPA sued 17 PRPs who refused to join that
earlier settlement, seeking recovery of additional
past costs.  'A settlement with  all but one  of the
Armstrong defendants  was lodged on 'April '29,
1991,  providing for payment  of $4,4 million —
about 95% of EPA's outstanding costs.

Lowry Landfill (Denver. Colorado): The City and
County  of  Denver   and  Metro  Wastewater
Reclamation  District •  will be conducting  the
RI/FS  for  the  Soils  and Surface Water  and
Sediments Operable Units {Operable Units 4&5)
at the Lowry  Landfill site in Denver, CO.  These
studies  will focus the  data collection  needed to
characterize  the  extent  of  contamination and
contribution of contamination from the soils and
the surface water and sediments to  the other
operable units.   An  Administrative  Order on
Consent was signed March 25,1991, and is the last
of-the RI/FSs to-be conducted on the site.1 The
studies are anticipated to be completed by March
1993 at a cost to the Respondents of two million
dollars.             ,   • .         .......
U.S. v. Marathon Battery (S.D. New York): A
consent decree was lodged on September 27, 1991,
providing for a cash out of $10.85 million for the
costs of the Superfund RD/RA work for Area II of
the .Marathon Battery Site in Cold Spring, New
York.  There were two settling parties: Marathon
Battery Company and the U.S. Army.  A third
PRP, Gould, Inc., declined to settle.   EPA-will
perform the RD/RA  work for this Area.   The
Army  is making  an additional payment of
$500,000 to  Marathon for past  work at the site
which  Marathon carried out.  EPA plans to seek
recovery of its unreimbursed costs for 'Area II, past
costs for  the  entire site, and  a  declaration • of
liability for future costs for the entire site,'from
Gould.    In  addition,  EPA  is  commencing
negotiations   with   the   settling  parties  for
reimbursement of costs for Areas I and III;    • ' •: %

U.S. v.  Mass  Merchandisers  Inc»   Arkwood
Superfund Site (W.P. Arkansas);  In  June 1991,
Mass Merchandiser's Inc., agreed  to conduct the
cleanup  under  CERCLA   at   the  Arkwood
Superfund Site. This agreement was included in a
Consent  Decree  requiring   implementation  of
remedial • design  and   remedial action  plus
reimbursement of all oversight and prior response
costs.    Mass  Merchandisers  will  implement
treatment involving  both  soil  washing  and
incineration at an estimated  cost  of $12 million.
The Arkwood  Superfund Site is a former wood
preserving     facility      utilizing      both
pentachlorophenol (PCP) and creosote processes:'  ,

IJ.S, y. MexicCT^Feed anfl Seed Co,, Inc.. James
Covington, individually and_doing business as
Mexico Feed  artd Seed  Co.. Mary.. Covington,
Pierce  Waste Qjl Service Inc.. Jack Pierce, Mid-
MjsgQuri Electrjg Co.. MORECO Energy Inc.  (E.P;
Mo.); This cost recovery  case provides a  ruling
favorable to  the government concerning successor
corporation liability.  On May 16, 1991, after a
trial on the merits, a judgment was entered for the
United States  in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern  District  of  Missouri,  against  the
Defendants.  In particular, the court held  that
Defendant MORECO Energy Inc. was  liable as a
successor corporation under a broadened version of
the "mere continuation" exception known as the
"substantial   continuity"  or  "continuity   of
enterprise"  exception to  the   general  asset
purchase rule which does not impose liability on
a -. corporation  purchasing assets for  acts "or
omissions of the  seller corporation.  The Court
awarded EPA  a judgment against all defendants
for $1,200,000 in past response costs.          •  '
                                             4-28

-------
                       FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Rep&n
U.S. y. jffidwes^ _$_q|ygAt  Recovery f  Inc.-.  On
Friday, March 22, 1991, the first d§ minirru§
landowner settlement in Region V was lodged in
this case.  This settlement with Penn Central
Railroad will result in recovery  of $1,2 million.
Trial on enforcement of unilateral administrative
orders is scheduled to begin on May 6, 1991, EPA
has negotiated and lodged in court a sjfi ffiiBJSHS
landowner settlement.  The settlement with Penn
Central, a defendant in the Mldco case, provides
a cash payment  of $1,150,000.   Perm  Central
acquired a railroad right-of-way adjacent  to the
Midco II NPL site when it came into being  in the
late 1970s,
Gold an
-------
 :  On May 31,
    1991, .the U.S. District  Court  for the  RD/RA
    Consent Decree between the United States,  Dow
    Chemical  Company,  Ashland Chemical,  Inc.,
    Aristech Chemical Corporation, E.H. Shilling &
    Son, and General Contractors, Inc.   The Decree
    provides for a remedy with an estimated value of
    $11 million at the E.H. Shilling & Son Landfill
    site  near Ironton, Ohio.   Significantly for the
    Agency, the Decree parallels the model RD/RA
    consent   decree  and  contains  provisions  for
    technical   impracticability,  periodic  review,
    additional   work,   and   alternative   dispute
    resolution  that may  be  useful in  subsequent
    negotiations involving other sites.

    U.S.  ₯. Schujlkill Metals Corporation. Plant
    City, Fk   This  settlement consent decree for
    remedial  design/remedial  action  requires  a
    conservation easement to preserve  and maintain
    the wetlands at the NPL Site.  This is  the first
    consent  decree in  EPA Region IV which  provides
    for the government's acquisition of a conservation
    easement.   The easement  consists  of  specific
    restrictions on the wetlands to ensure that these
    areas remain undisturbed, except as necessary for
    the implementation of the remedial action.  EPA
    will  transfer  the easements  to  the  State  of
    Florida  after completion of the remedial action.
    The State of Florida has formally assured EPA
    that it' will accept the transfer of  the easement
    following completion of the remedial action.

    U.S. v. Sharofi Steel Corp.. et ah  On November
    13,1990, three consent decrees were entered in the
    District Court for the District of Utah, Central
    Division.  The Sharon Steel settlement involved
    three cash-outs, under the authority of CERCLA
    §104, §106, and §107, totaling over $63 million.
    The settlements are embodied in  three consent
    decrees that resolve  the United  States' claims
    against  Sharon Steel  Corp., UV Industries and
    the UV Liquidating Trust, and Atlantic Richfield
    Co.  ("ARCO") relating to both  the   Midvale
                    Tailings   Site  and  the  Midvale  Slag  Site.
                    $2,300,000 of the total settlement  fund will  be
                    allocated to the Department of the Interior for
                    purposes of restoring, replacing, or acquiring the
                    equivalent  of   natural  resources,   with  the
                    remainder of the  funds to  be credited  to the
                    Superfund  and earmarked  for purposes  of the
                    Sharon Steel Site.  An  Administrative Order  on
                    Consent (AOO was  previously entered between
                    the U.S. and the State of Utah as  a de minimus'
                    landowner.

                    U.S. v, Sheller-Globe Corporation (W.D. Mlh On
                    March 28, 1991, the  U.S. District Court for the
                    Western District of Michigan entered  a Consent
                    Decree under the Superfund Law in U.S;  v.-
                    Sheller-Globe  Corporation,   et al..   Forty-one
                    Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) signed the
                    Decree for the Auto Ion Chemical Inc. Superfund
                    site in Kalamazoo, MI. The settlors  agreed to
                    implement  the   Remedial   Design/Remedial
                    Action for soil remediation in the  first operable
                    unit and to pay to certain response  costs incurred
                    (and  to be  incurred)  with  remediation  of the
                    facility.   The  estimated  cost of remediation
                    associated  with this first operable site is $3.4
                    million.

                    Solvent Savers  Site (Lincfclgen. New Yorkfc On
                    May  29,  1991,  Region II  issued a  unilateral
                    administrative order for RD/RA at the Solvent
                    Savers site to  five PRPs; The American Locker •
                    Group, Bristol-Myers  Squibb Co., General'Electric
                    Co., IBM Corp., and  Pass & Seymour, Inc. The
                    work  they will  do under the order is valued at
                    about $29 million.  The site was formerly used as
                    a   chemical   waste   recovery   and    drum
                    reconditioning  plant.   Soils at  the  site  are
                    contaminated with volatile organic compounds,
                    metals  and   PCBs;   grotindwater   is   also-"
                    contaminated.  The remedy includes ground water
                    treatment, and removal and  treatment or off-site
                    disposal of contaminated soils.
                                                               . I' -
                    ILS. v. $ynjex:  The District Court of the Eastern
                    District  of Missouri  entered a  consent  decree
                    between   the  United  States and Syntex  on
                    December 31,1990, obtaining work valued at $100
                    million. The decree calls for Syntex  to do the bulk
                    of the work at the Missouri Dioxin sites including
                    excavating and  burning in a portable incinerator
                    the dioxin-contaminated soil. The decree also
                    provides that Syntex  will pay EPA  $10 million in
                    past costs.
                                                 4-30

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
US. v. Town of Oyster Bay (EJ3. New York): On
February 22,  1991, a consent decree was entered
regarding the Syosset Landfill Superfund  Site.
Under the decree  the Town will implement the
remedial  action   selected   by  EPA  for  this
municipal  landfill.   The  Town will cap  the
landfill using a geosynthetic membrane, and will
additionally reimburse EPA for oversight costs.
The value of the settlement is estimated at $26.3
million,

Union Chemical Supprfund Site:  On August 7,
1991,  EPA  and  the State of  Maine reached
agreement with 60 potentially responsible  parties
at the Union Chemical Co. Inc. Superfund Site in.
South  Hope, Maine,   Under  the  terms  of the
settlement, the 60 PRPs will perform the remedy
selected in EPA's record of decision, and will pay
the United States a total of $2.8 million towards
EPA's future oversight costs and in reimbursement
of EPA's past costs.  The settlement also allows
the  PRPs  to undertake  optional  treatability
studies for an alternative remedy for treatment of
contaminated soils. In addition, EPA approved a
dg minimis  settlement with an additional 270
PRPs,  who  will contribute approximately $3.1
million towards performance of the remedy. The
settlements constitute a 96% recovery of EPA's
remaining claims with respect to the site.

Moreover, also regarding the Union Chemical Site
in FY 1991, in U.S. v. Union Research Co. Inc. et al.
(D, Maine),  EPA  recovered significant penalties
against three defendants who failed to respond in
a timely way to EPA information requests issued
under §104 of CERCLA and §3007 of RCRA. The
three defendants, Ethan Allen Inc., Spencer Press
Inc., and IMC Magnetics Corp, (New Hampshire
Division)  agreed  to  pay  penalties of $21,000,
$15,000 and  $7,500, respectively, for failing to
respond in a timely way to information requests
issued in 1987  concerning  their shipments  of
hazardous substances to the Union  Chemical Co.
site.

United Agri  Products, Inc. (North Dakota):  A
Consent Decree settling recovery of $280,000 in
past response costs was entered with the  United
States   District    Court   of  North  Dakota,
Northwestern Division, on April 8,  1991.  United
Agri  Products, Inc.,  agreed to reimburse  the
Superfund  for costs  incurred  by  Region VIIFs
Emergency Response program in responding to and
overseeing the clean up of contamination resulting
from a fire at a pesticide warehouse in  Minot,
ND, which occurred in April 1987.
U.S. v. White Chemical Company; On October 2,
1990, Region  II  and  the  Agency  for  Toxic
Substances  and Disease Registry conducted an
inspection of the White Chemical Company in
Newark, New Jersey and determined that  the
site  conditions  were so dangerous  that  it was
necessary to shut down the factory and evacuate
the site. White Chemical refused to comply with
EPA's  request  and  Region  II  requested  the
Department of Justice  to file a complaint for a
temporary restraining order (TRO). On October 3,
1990, White Chemical  filed a motion for show-
cause order in bankruptcy court in an effort to
preempt EPA's  TRO.  On October  5,  1990, the
Bankruptcy  Judge ordered White Chemical to
leave the site immediately.  The United States
filed its motion for a TRO in federal district court
on October 9,1990. On that day, the court granted
the  United  States'  motion  for  a  TRO; a
preliminary injunction was subsequently granted,

Superfwnd     Information     Request
Enforcement Initiative

     Enforcement   of  CERCLA   information
requests remains a high priority of the Agency's
Superfund   enforcement  program.   Compelling
compliance with such requests helps  to generate
acceptable settlement offers from PRPs.  PRPs
will, for example, be more  willing to settle when
they are  assured  that other parties are  not
escaping  participation  by   ignoring   EPA's
information   requests   or  filing   incomplete
responses.

     The Agency launched a  national initiative
to emphasize enforcement of CERCLA §104(e)(2)
requests in  September  1989. This emphasis was
reiterated  in FY 1S91  as  the Agency  not only
continued to litigate previously filed cases  but
also filed seven additional cases of this type,
which are summarized  below.

U.S. v.  AIco  Tool  Supply  Company    The
complaint,  filed February 12, 1991, seeks  civil
penalties and injunctive relief for the defendant's
failure to comply  with Region  V's  request for
information relating to the Conrail Railroad  site
in Elkhart, Indiana.

U.S. v. Ernest Barkmarc The complaint, filed on
November 15, 1990, seeks  an  injunction ordering
the  defendant   to   supply   the   requested
information as well as civil  penalties for  his
failure to respond to EPA's request. The defendant
                                             4-31

-------
                             FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
failed to comply with Region Ill's request for
information regarding the Walsh Landfill site.

U.S. y. Builder's Hardware finishers. Inc.:  The
complaint,  filed November  19,  1990,  seeks  to
compel "compliance with Region  DCs request for
information and asks the court to assess penalties
for the defendant's  failure  to respond  to  the
request regarding the BHFI electroplating site in
Los Angeles, California.

U.S. v. Pacific Intermediate. ITU;, .and Benjamin L.
Adams.:  The complaint, filed July 16, 1991, asks
the court to order the defendants to comply with
Region IX's request for information as well as to
assess   penalties    for    the   defendants'
noncompliance.

U.S.  v. Frattec  The court entered a default
judgment against the site operator on October 10,
1990. The judgment included a $50,000 penalty for
the defendant's failure to respond to Region IX's
information request.  This is the second largest
penalty ever assessed for noncompliance with a
CERCLA information request.

U.S. Y, Pretty Products,. Inc.. et aL The U.S. filed
a complaint on January  28,  1991,  seeking civil
penalties and injunctive relief for the refusal of
Pretty Products, Inc. and its corporate  parent,
Lancaster Colony Corporation, to supply certain
requested information relating to the Coshocton
City Landfill site in Ohio.

U.S. v. Union,  Research  Co.. Inc^et al;  The
Agency recovered penalties  from  three  parties
who  failed to  respond  in  a timely manner  to
Agency information  requests, issued pursuant to
CERCLA §104(e) and RCRA  §3007, regarding the
Union Chemical Company site in  Maine.  The
three defendants, Ethan Allen Inc., Spencer Press
Inc, and IMC Magnetics Corp. {New Hampshire
Division) agreed in a settlement with Region I to
pay penalties totaling $ 43,500.

Supetfund Enforcement Lead Initiative

      As  part  of an Audi lead  initiative, EPA
and   the   Department  of  Justice  filed  six
complaints  and  lodged two consent decrees' under
CERCLA.  These  Superfund  enforcement actions
involve various  sites across the country and over
a  hundred  potentially  responsible   parties.
Together,    the    six    complaints   request
reimbursement  of approximately $10 million  in
Superfund  money  that  EPA spent on  cleanup
actions at six sites where lead was a contaminant
of concern.   EPA's  Superfund  cleanup actions
helped reduce lead  contaminated' graundwater, t
treat  lead contaminated surface  and subsurface
soils, and eliminate the airborne threat of lead
contaminated dust to nearby  residences. These
Superfund  enforcement  actions are  designed  to
support  EPA's  overall  enforcement  effort  to
target lead, a highly toxic metal,  and reduce
lead exposure from Superfund Sites.

Lead Cases

In   the   Matter  of   ASARCO/East  Helena
Superjund   Site:      EPA  entered  into -an
Administrative Order on Consent with ASARCO,
the potentially responsible party (PRP) at this
Site on July 19,1991.  Under the Order, ASARGO
is removing lead-contaminated soil  fronri schools^
daycare centers, yards,  parks, playgrounds and
unpaved streets and  alleys.The ASARCO/East
Helena Superfund Site occupies eighty acres arid
is located in East Helena,  Montana.  ASARCO
Incorporated (Asarco)   owns  and  operates  a
primary  lead smelter in East Helena, Montana.
During the 102 years of operation of the smelter,
both  stack  and fugitive emissions have" been
released  into the Helena Valley.  As an operating
smelter, the plant's air emissions are undergoing
air  quality State  Implementation  Plan'  (SIP)
review and revision by the state of Montana. The'
smelter is about one quarter mile from residential
areas of  East Helena.  About half  of the yards,
playgrounds and parks in East Helena have more
than 1,000  parts per million (ppm)  lead in their
surface soils. Natural background soils in the area
contain 12-20 ppm lead.                  •    "'

The site has three separate operable units (OUs).-
The  first OU was addressed in  July 1990. "The
second operable unit will address the removal of
lead-contaminated soil from  residential  'areas
such as yards, parks, playgrounds,  and unpaved
streets and alleys.    EPA,  in conjunction with
ASARCO  and  the  Montana  Department  of
Health  and • Environmental Sciences,  believes'
that  the  removal of highly contaminated lead
soils is the most effective way  to lower exposure
to lead in  East Helena.  The  removal action'is
expected to take several years to complete.

U.S. v. Atlas Lgderer.   On July  31, 1991, the
Department of Justice filed a complaint in the
United States District Court  for the Southern
District of Ohio under CERCLA. The complaint
                                             4-32

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
seeks reimbursement of $1,2 million in Superfund
monies expended at the Site in connection with
EPA response actions and requests a declaratory
judgment on liability for future expenditures.

The United Scrap Lead Superfund Site is located
in Troy, Ohio and  is about twenty-five  acres in
size RI/FS was completed in August 1988 and the
ROD was signed on September 30,1988. The ROD
requires excavation  and  on-site treatment  of
battery casings, excavation and on-site treatment
of  surface soils containing lead  concentrations
greater  than 500  parts  per  million  (ppm),
demolition of structures,  monitoring  of surface
water, air and groundwater,  and construction of
new  well. Remedial actions at this  Site  will
involve an innovative soil washing technique.

U.S. v. Berks Associates. Inc.. et al • On July 31,
1991, the Department of Justice filed a complaint
in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania seeking reimbursement of
more  than   $5  million in  Superfund  money
expended for past response costs and a declaratory
judgment on liability for future response costs
pursuant to CERCLA §104, §106, §107 and §113.
The Douglassville Disposal Superfund Site is a
defunct waste oil  processing facility  located  in
Douglassville, Pennsylvania.  The site  consists of
approximately 50 acres located along Highway
724 on the southern bank of the Schuylkill River.
The site is approximately three miles northwest
of Pottstown and 11 miles southeast of Reading
and is;; almost; entirely  within the  100 year
floodplain,of(trie Schuylkill River. The facility
consists!>of\ a -.waste oil  processing area in  the
southern portion of the  site and numerous other
areas used for waste disposal.   These disposal
areas included two large lagoons that were once
filled with waste oil  sludge, an  oily  filter cake
disposal area, an oil drum storage area, an area
where waste oil was landfarmed into the  soil,
the former processing/tank farm area,  a small
backfilled lagoon, an old incinerator, and an area
of scrap metal and tanks.

A second Record of Decision, representing the first
operable unit ("OU1") at the site, was signed on
June  24,  1988.   The  remedial  action  selected
consisted of removing liquids and sludges from
various areas at the site and transporting them
off-site for incineration.  In addition, the former
processing area  was  to  be  dismantled  and
uncontaminated  tanks  sold  for  scrap.  Lastly,
provisions were  made  for  the  disposal  of
contaminated and uncontaminated rubble at both
on-site and off-site locations.
U.. v. Este of Loyie M.
                                 et ah On July
31, 1991, the  Department of  Justice; filed  a
complaint in the United States District Court for
the Eastern  District of Pennsylvania seeking: (i) ,
injunctive relief pursuant to CERCLA §104(e) for
site access for EPA authorized representatives to
effect remedial activities; (ii) reimbursement of
about $1 million  in  Superfund money spent on
response costs at the site; and (iii) a declaratory
judgment on liability  pursuant to CERCLA §113(g) •
for further response  costs in connection with the
site.

The Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard Superfund Site
occupies about 20 acres of land  adjacent to and
north of Old Route 22 in Weisenburg Township,
Lehigh  County, Pennsylvania, approximately 9
miles from Allentown.  During the 1950s, 60s, and
70s, the property was used as an automobile
junkyard  at which  battery salvage  operations
took place.   Over time,  large piles of  battery
casings  were  accumulated at  the Site.   On
December 15, 1985,  an EPA  Field  Investigation ,
Team site inspection of  the property revealed
soils  downgradient  from the  battery  piles
contaminated  with high  amounts  of lead and
chromium.    Three  homes  are  immediately
adjacent to the property.

ILS. v. NL Industries, et aL- On July 31, 1991, the
Department of Justice filed a complaint in the
United  States District Court  for  the Southern
District  ;of  " Illinois  seeking  enforcement  of
Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAOs) issued
under CERCLA §106 and reimbursement under
CERCLA §107.                                 .

The NL IndustriesXTaracorp Superfund Site  is
located  in Granite City,  Illinois.   The  primary
source of contamination at this site is a secondary
lead smelter that operated from the  1903 through
1983.  Uncontrolled air emissions have caused the
lead contamination to migrate off-site, with lead
being  distributed  throughout the  surrounding
community.  EPA signed a Record of Decision on
March 30, 1990, which required the cleanup of
contaminated  residential  soils to 500 parts per
million (ppm) lead. About 1,200 residences in and
near Granite City, Madison, and Venice, Illinois
are to be cleaned at an estimated cost of over $28.5
million dollars.

On November 27,  1990, the Region  issued forty-
three UAOs  to the potentially responsible parties
                                             4-33

-------
                              FY1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
PRPs  at  this  site  and  requested  that  they
commence remedial  action.  After a period of
negotiation, the PRPs refused to comply with the
orders. EPA's complaint requests that the  PRPs
reimburse   EPA's  past  costs,  imposition  of
penalties  and punitive damages for failure to
comply with the UAOs, and injunctive relief to
require the defendants to implement the remedial
action.

U.S. v. Peter Gull and N.L. Industries  On July 31,
1991, the Department of Justice filed a complaint
in  the  United  States  District Court  for the
Southern  District of California to  recover $2.5
million  in  Superfund  money,   EPA  is also
requesting the court impose punitive damages and
penalties  of  more  than  $7  million  for the
defendants' failure to comply with a UAO,

The B & H Battery Site  is 2.8 acres in size and is
located in a mixed residential and open livestock
area  in  Norco,  California.    The former site
operator bought old batteries and refurbished
them.  However, a number of batteries were not
refurbished and  the operator either dismantled
the batteries or  sold them intact to scrap  metal
yards  and  two lead smelters.   Dismantled
batteries were broken open and the waste battery
acid was drained directly onto the ground.  Lead
contaminated battery pieces were also scattered
over the Site.

EPA issued a UAO to the PRPs at the Site that
required   the   PRPs   to   remedy  the   lead
contamination and commence Site cleanup.  The
PRPs refused to fully comply with the order, thus
forcing EPA to take over response actions  at. the
Site and incur costs of several million dollars.

Municipal Initiative

      On July 17, 1991, EPA Administrator Reilly
announced an initiative on municipal liability,
EPA  committed  to develop national guidelines
for allocating costs to municipal solid  waste
fMSW), convene a national conference to discuss
cost allocation issues (which  was subsequently
held October 10 & 11,1991), and develop a model
settlement  document  for  municipalities  that
have   generated  or   transported   MSW  to
Superfund  sites.   The  October   conference,
involving a cross-section  of all affected private
and public sectors,  discussed  the  problems in
allocating costs and a  wide variety  of creative
possible solutions. The guidelines will be used to
limit  the  number  of third party suits  brought
against local governments that have contributed
waste to Superfund landfills,

Municipal Cases

U.S.. et al. v. Acushrtet Co., et ah In June 1991, the
United States  District Court for the District of
Massachusetts  entered a CERCLA §106 and §107
consent decree.  Under the consent decree, fourteen
potentially responsible  parties  have  agreed to
conduct the remedial design, remedial action, and
operation and maintenance for thirty years at the
First Operable Unit. The  present value of these
activities is estimated to be $10.5 million.   The
settlers have also agreed to reimburse the United
States for:  (1) 100% of the United States' future
oversight costs  for the first five years of the
remedy, and 50% thereafter, up  to a total of $1.5
million; and (2) past costs of $620,000.

U.S..  et al. v. Simpson Tacoma Kraft Cov et ak
On June 24, 1991, a complaint was filed and a
proposed consent decree in the above referenced
case was lodged with the United States District
Court for  the Western District of Washington.
The  consent decree is designed  to  settle the
enforcement action under CERCLA §106 and. §107
at the St. Paul Waterway Problem Area of the
Commencement    Bay   , Nearshore/Tideflats
Superfund Site.  The complaint also includes 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  potentially
responsible   parties   (PRPs)    to    assume
responsibility for 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
agree to reimburse the United States for: (1) all
past costs through the date of the  Record of
Decision (ROD), which total $354,536; (2) 60% of
EPA's 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
resource damages  by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the Department of
Interior, the State of Washington, the Puyallup
Tribe of Indians,  and the  Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe.
                                              4-34

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Prospective Purchaser Agreements

Indfan  Bend  Wash  Superfund  Site  (South),
Teqipef Arizona   On September 27,  1991, the
Department of Justice concurred in a Prospective
Purchaser Agreement for this site. The Agreement
pertains   to   the  Arizona   Department   of
Transportation's (ADOT) proposal  to construct a
freeway  through  the  northern portion  of the
South Indian Bend Wash Superfund Site (SIBW)
in Tempe, Arizona.

The  Prospective Purchaser Agreement provides
the ADOT with a  covenant not  to sue  under
CERCLA §106 and §107 and RCRA §7003 for any
present contamination on  or under the proposed
freeway  portion of the SIBW  site.  ADOT has
agreed  to  conduct response  activities on  the
freeway portion of the SIBW site worth over $1.1
million.  In addition, ADOT  also grants EPA an
irrevocable  right  of   access  to  the  Freeway
Property, upon reasonable notice and at reasonable
times, for the purpose of monitoring compliance
with the agreement and undertaking response
actions at the SIBW site.

In _t|te Matter  of  Bankamerica Corp., et al.; On
May 9, 1991, the Department  of Justice concurred
in the above  referenced  Prospective Purchaser
Agreement   The Agreement pertains  to  the
purchase of the Pick  Foundry property at the
Mouth of City Waterway Problem Area of the
Commencement     Bay    Nearshore/Tideflats
(CB/NT)  Superfund  Site.    The  Agreement
provides the Settling Parties,  and any successors
in interest, a covenant not to sue for the sediment
contamination at  the Mouth of City Waterway
Problem Area. The Settling Parties have agreed
to pay the United States $350,000 and perform
cleanup activities at the Pick Foundry Property.

Federal Facilities -  Superfund/RCRA

Cra> Orchard:   On  September  13, 1991,  the
Regional Administrator signed a Federal Facility
Agreement under  CERCLA  §120  that provides
remedial action at  the Crab Orchard National
Wildlife  Refuge.  The other  signatories are the
Department  of the  Interior,  the Department of
the  Army,  and   the  Illinois  Environmental
Protection Agency. It is the first CERCLA Section
120 agreement to  include more than one other
Federal agency as a PRP.   It is  also the  first
CERCLA §120 agreement to  provide for  private
party  participation   in  remedial   activities
pursuant to §120(e)(6) and §122 of CERCLA.

In the Matter of Dyess Air Force Jjase. Abilene.
lexas;   On September 28, 1990, EPA issued  a
Notice of Non-compliance  (NON) against the
facility  citing improper  waste determination,
inadequate closure plan, inadequate ground water
monitoring,  improper management   of  land
disposal restricted wastes, and other violations
including non-compliance with an Administrative
order issued by the state on February 16,1988. On
September 4,1991, a separate NON was issued for
leaking  underground  storage  tanks.    During
negotiations, there was agreement that the RCRA
Federal  Facility Compliance  Agreement  should
be revised to include the UST order requirements.
The  final  FFCA was  signed by the facility on
September  12,   1991.    The   FFCA requires
comprehensive   assessment   of   ground water
contamination, remediation, and implementation
of procedures to bring  the facility into compliance
with RCRA.

Femald Federal Facilities Agreement (Eernald.
Qblol:  On September 20,  1991, the Regional
Administrator   signed an   Amended  Federal
Facilities Agreement between U.S. EPA and the
Department of Energy (DOE) for the clean-up of
the Feed Material Production Center in Fernald,
OH,  For the first time, DOE has acknowledged
EPA's authority to assess stipulated penalties,
noting  RI/FS submittals  are inconsistent  with
CERCLA  and the National  Contingency  Plan.
The  agreement,  which utilizes  innovative risk
assessment techniques,  requires DOE to implement
remedial action, pay $100,000 in penalties, and
perform  supplemental environmental  projects
worth $150,000.

In tihyg J^t&ttcr of theFormer !frjfihra.slc3. Qrcttiiincs
Plant:    In September  1991,  EPA  signed  an
agreement with the State of Nebraska and the
U.S. Department of the Army  covering cleanup of
the former Nebraska  Ordnance Plant,  located
near  Mead,  Nebraska.  The  former Defense
Department facility,  much  of  which  is  now
occupied  by  the  University  of  Nebraska's
Agronomy Research Center  as  well  as  several
private landowners, has contamination in  both
soil  and  ground water   from   the  Defense
Department's handling of explosives and solvents
at the site. The interagency agreement pursuant
to §120 of CERCLA  covers investigation and
cleanup by the Army over  approximately five
years.
                                            4-35

-------

                             FY 1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Fort JP evens - Sudbuiy Training Annex and Fort
Deveqs:   EPA  entered into Federal Facilities
Agreements {FFA) with the Army for these two
facilities in  May  1991.  The FFAs address the
investigation,   development,   selection,   and
implementation  of  response  actions  for  all
releases  or  threatened  releases  of  hazard
substances at the installations.   A site  specific
Master Environmental Plan will be appended to
each FFA to serve as a detailed comprehensive
plan for the work to be performed pursuant to
CERCLA.

LoringAir Force Base:  EPA, the state of Maine,
and the Air Force entered into  a FFA under
CERCLA §120 on January  30, 1991.   Loring  is
located in the north of Maine in a very rural area.
Loring was selected for closure pursuant to the
1990 Base Closure and Realignment  Act and  is
scheduled to close September 30,1994.  Hazardous
wastes generated  on the base include waste oils,
fuels cleaned from aircraft and  vehicles, spent
solvents,   polychlorinated   biphenyls,   and
pesticides.  EPA is committed to overseeing the
remediation of the contamination at the base
pursuant to the terms of the FFA,

Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant:  EPA,
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency  and the
Navy entered into a CERCLA §120 FFA which
became effective June  7, 1991.  The Navy will
undertake  work  necessary  to  implement the
September 1990 ROD for ground water remediation
at the facility, conduct RI/FS work as needed  to
characterize  the  source   of   groundwater
contamination, and remediate soils on site. The
FFA also provides mechanisms to conduct other
response actions  and  CERCLA-mandated  five
year reviews, as necessary.

Pease, Air Force Base Superfund Site: On April 24,
1991, EPA, the Air Force, and the State  of New
Hampshire signed an Interagency Agreement for
the Superfund cleanup at Pease Air Force Base in
Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Pease  is an NPL
Site under CERCLA.  The Interagency Agreement
contains  precedent-setting  provisions   which
ensure that  the cleanup will be unimpeded by
closure  and redevelopment, while at the  same
time allowing those activities to take place,

Rocky  Flats  Plant:    A  Federal   Facility
Compliance  Agreement (FFCA) was signed by
EPA and DOE on May 10, 1991.   The FFCA
addresses storage prohibition violations of the
land disposal restrictions program of RCRA for
certain mixed wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant..
These wastes are prohibited from land disposal •
without prior treatment and can  not  be stored
except  for the  sole  purpose  of  accumulating.
sufficient quantities of waste as,are necessary for
the  proper  recovery, treatment  or   disposal.'
However, no  treatment capacity  nor  treatment
technologies  exist at this time to  handle these
wastes.  The purpose of the Agreement  is to have
DOE address the storage violation by getting
treatment    technologies    developed    and
operational.

Savannah River_Sitei  On March 13,  1991,  EPA'
signed a RCRA FFCA with DOE to address RCRA
Land  Disposal   Restriction  issues   at   the
Department of Energy's (DOE's) Savannah River
Site (SRS) in  Aiken, South Carolina. The FFCA
was' negotiated because DOE is storing wastes at
SRS  which are prohibited  from land disposal.
The land disposal restrictions program prohibits
the land disposal of certain wastes unless  pre-
treated using specific technologies or- to specified
treatment standards.  For a number of prohibited
waste streams at SRS, no operational  treatment .
systems  exist The  storage  of  these  wastes
constitutes a technical violation  of  the land
disposal  requirements of  RCRA.   This FFCA
contains an important commitment on behalf of
DOE   to  develop,  construct   and   operate
technologies  to  treat radioactive  mixed waste
streams  and  to  address  the  related  waste
management  issues associated  with those waste
streams at SRS.

Steamtftwn National Historic  Site  (Scrantoiy
PA): On September 30, 1991, Region HI issued a '
Notice of Noncompliance, Compliance Schedule
and Notice of Necessity for Conference (NON) to
the United States Department of the Interior,
National  Park Service for violations  of   the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the'
Pennsylvania. Solid  and   Hazardous  Waste
Management   Regulations  at  the Steamtown
National Historic Site in Scranton, PA.  The NON
cites the  respondent  for,  among  other  things,
accumulating   more  than  1000  kilograms  of
hazardous waste at the facility without a permit
or interim status, storing hazardous waste at the
facility without a  permit, storing open containers
of hazardous waste at the facility, and failing to
have the prescribed  containment  system in trie
facility's container storage  area. The  Region
hopes   that   an   ensuing  Federal   Facility
Compliance   Agreement   will   resolve   long
                                             4-36

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
outstanding PCB problems.

In the Matter of U.S. Department of the Army -
Ft.  Riley.  KS:   A CERCLA  §120 Interagency
Federal Facility  Agreement between  the  U.S.
Department of the Army, the Kansas Department
of Health and  Environment (KDHE)  and EPA,
Region  VII,  became   effective  in June,  1991
following' 45 days  of public  comment.  This
Agreement requires the Army to conduct an RI/FS
and  select and perform appropriate  remedial
actions under KDHE and EPA oversight  and/or
approval  at the  Fort  Riley Kansas NPL  Site.
Addressing  the entire facility, this Interagency
Agreement requires the Army  to investigate  and
remediate all  known  and  suspected  areas of
contamination which resulted from the historical
disposal practices at the facility including seven
solid  waste landfills  and surface areas.. Each..
discrete area of contamination  will be  addressed
as operable units under the agreement.  There was
substantial public opposition to  this agreement,
and  the Region engaged. in  extensive public
education and  outreach.  The primary area of
concern to the  public,  the 4 square mile impact  •
zone, will be included in the RI/FS.

In the ^flatter  of U.S. Department of  Energy.
Pantex ' Plant.   Amarlllo.  Texas:   The -first
corrective action order under RCRA to be issued by
EPA Region VI to a Department of Energy (DOE)
facility was issued on December 10, 1990, to the
DOE  Pantex facility  at  Amarillo, Texas.   The
order includes  a Corrective Action Plan which
outlines timeframes, scope of corrective action
activities  during  interim  measures,  RCRA
Facility Investigation  (RFI), corrective measures'
and corrective measures  implementation phases.
The  proposed  order   "alleged  that hazardous
waste constituents were land disposed via unlined
ditches, playa lakes, and/or the on-site sanitary
landfill.   Wastes  have  migrated  into   the
underlying Ogallala Formation  which contains
the Ogallala aquifer, one of the most productive
and extensive aquifers in the United States.   The
final  order provides  for  the  cessation of  land
disposal of certain waste streams, sampling  and
analysis, submission of interim measures reports
and   recommendations,  along  with. RFI   and
corrective measures requirements.

Warren Aii Force Base On  September 25, 1991,
EPA,  the Air Force, and the State of Wyoming
entered into a FFA  under CERCLA §120 for the
Warren Air Force Base; Waste generated at the
facility has consisted primarily of spent solvents
from equipment cleaning and various maintenance
operations.   The Air Force also maintained an
acid well  used for  spent battery acid disposal.
Five landfills are located at the facility and
these hold various non-hazardous and hazardous
wastes.    Two  fire  protection  areas  involve
extensive use  of various fuels and combustible
materials for fire training exercises.  Both areas
are now closed and were replaced by a third. The
agreement calls for the investigation and cleanup
of the facility.

Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Enforcement

     The RCRA enforcement program supports a
comprehensive regulatory  and corrective action
program  to  ensure  the  safe treatment,  storage,
and disposal of hazardous  wastes. In  the past
fiscal year, an aggressive enforcement program,
including both civil judicial and administrative
actions, emphasized multi-media  coordination
and targeted  initiatives.   With  a new  RCRA
civil  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.

NATIONAL INITIATIVES

Land Ban Initiative

     On  February  22,  1991,  EPA  and  the
Department  of Justice announced eight  judicial
and 20 administrative  actions  to enforce the
Land Disposal Restrictions  (LDR) of RCRA. The
Land Ban  Initiative  was  well-publicized and
should play a significant role in deterring future
LDR violations.  EPA Administrator William K.
Reilly  underscored  the  importance  of  these
enforcement   efforts   stating   that    "Itjhese
enforcement  actions  are part of a  continuing
nationwide campaign  by  EPA  and the  Justice
Department to stop people from illegally putting
hazardous wastes in the ground. The restrictions
are intended to significantly reduce the  nation's
reliance on land disposal of hazardous wastes in
order to protect ground water and minimize risks
of exposure to  hazardous wastes."

     As part of the Land Ban initiative, a $1,85
million consent decree was lodged with  E.L Du
Pont de Nemours in federal district court.  The
                                             4-37

-------
   k \
mJ
                              FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
consent  decree  resolved  certain  alleged  past
violation  of  the  land   disposal  restrictions
provisions at Du Font's Chambers Works facility
in  New  Jersey,    It  also  provided  for  an
independent  compliance  audit  and  pollution
prevention measures.   Several other significant
cases were filed  as part of the initiative. The
administrative cases sought a total of over $3.5
million  in   penalties against  a  variety  of
companies,  including  BF  Goodrich and  Ciba-
Geigy.   The judicial cases  included  actions
against Grumman St.  Augustine Corp., National
Rolling Mills,  and Protect) and a multimedia
enforcement action  under RCRA and  the  Clean
Water Act against Columbia Manufacturing.

U.S. v Gp|imtan. St. Augustine, FL:  Grumman -
St.  Augustine  Corporation's  (GSAC) business
consists of  stripping,  painting and refurbishing,
aircraft.  GSAC generates two major F002 waste
streams,  wastewater treatment sludge and paint
chips.    The  complaint alleges  that   after
November 8,1986, GSAC violated LDR by  failing
to  determine  if these   waste  streams   were
restricted {40  CFR  §268.7(a)}  and  failing  to
provide the required notice and information to  the
disposal  facility {40 CFR  §268.7(a)}.

U.S. v. NatJQpal  Rolling Mills,  Incj  A judicial
complaint was filed on February 22,1991, alleging
multiple RCRA violations by National Rolling
Mills, Inc. ("NRM"),  Paoli, PA. The violations
alleged in  the complaint  included:  storage of
drums of land ban restricted hazardous waste  on-
site for more than one year; failure to maintain
on-site copies of notifications and  certifications
for off-site  shipments of restricted  hazardous
waste; failure  to notify off-site  treatment  or
storage   facility  of   applicable  treatment
standards for shipments  of restricted  hazardous
waste; and failure to include waste minimization
description  efforts  in their 1990 Biennial  (both
treatment, storage and disposal and  generator)
Reports.

U.S.  v,  MTD   Products  Inc.  and  Columbia
Manufacturing Co. Inc.: On February 22,1991,  the
United States filed a multi-media civil action  for
penalties and injunctive  relief against Columbia
Manufacturing Co. Inc., the present facility owner
and  operator,  and  MTD Products  Inc.,  the
facility's prior owner  and operator, under RCRA
and the  CWA.  Columbia  manufactures bicycles
and school  furniture  at its factory in Westfield,
MA.    EPA  multi-media  inspections  of  the
Columbia  facility  disclosed  29  violations  of
                                                    federal and Massachusetts RCRA regulations at
                                                    the  Columbia  site,  as  well  as  significant
                                                    violations  of the CWA by  Columbia  and MTD
                                                    Products Inc. Among other matters, the complaint
                                                    focuses on two unlined surface impoundments at
                                                    the  facility  which  were  used  as  part of its
                                                    wastewater   treatment   facilities.      Metal
                                                    hydroxide sludge (waste from its electroplating
                                                    operations) was routinely  pumped  into  these
                                                    impoundments for permanent disposal until May
                                                    1983.  Analysis  of soils  in and  around  these
                                                    impoundments  detected significant  levels  of
                                                    cyanide. Analyses of groundwater samples in the
                                                    vicinity   of   these   impoundments   indicate
                                                    significant levels  of  several hazardous wastes,
                                                    including chromium, cadmium, trichloroethylene
                                                    and volatile organic compounds (VQCs).

                                                    U.S. v. E.I. dti Pont de Nemours & Co. (Chambers
                                                    Works):  The  United  States  entered  into  a
                                                    settlement agreement with  E, I,  du  Pont de
                                                    Nemours ("Du Pont") in this RCRA enforcement
                                                    action focused on New Jersey's largest hazardous
                                                    waste treatment and disposal  facility.  On May
                                                    22, 1991, the U.S. District Court for the District of
                                                    New Jersey entered a consent decree settling this
                                                    RCRA §3008 case.  The consent decree was filed .
                                                    with the court concurrently with a complaint on
                                                    February 22, 1991. The settlement resolves certain
                                                    past LDR  violations  that  the  United States
                                                    alleges occurred at  the  company's Deepwater,
                                                    New Jersey facility, known as "Chambers Works."
                                                    Du  Pont violated the LDR provisions of RGRA by
                                                    unlawfully disposing of corrosive acids and toxic
                                                    solvent wastes at the Chambers  Works, and by •
                                                    violating related  LDR  testing,  waste analysis ,
                                                    and. record keeping provisions. The consent decree .
                                                    requires Du Pont to pay a $1.85 million penalty to ;
                                                    the  United States.    In addition,  Du  Pont is ,
                                                    required to conduct an environmental compliance
                                                    audit and pollution prevention study pursuant to ,
                                                    the  settlement.                             .  -
U.S.
Prteccion.   Tecpica
                                                                                             Inc.*
                                                    Proteccion Tecnica Ecologica, Inc. ("Proteco") is a
                                                    hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal
                                                    facility located in Puerto Rico.  Proteco allegedly
                                                    violated eight separate provisions of a  consent
                                                    decree that it had  previously entered into with
                                                    the United States to address alleged violations of
                                                    RCRA at its facility.   Additionally,  Proteco
                                                    allegedly violated 16 requirements, under RCRA's
                                                    "interim status"  provisions .for hazardous waste
                                                    facilities  operating prior  to the  issuance of  a
                                                    permit.  . Three  of these  interim status claims
                                                    allege  violations  of the  LDR  requirements:
                                             4-38

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Proteco allegedly failed to  retain appropriate
records from generators who shipped LDR wastes
to its facility; Proteco allegedly failed to amend
its  Waste  Analysis Plan  to incorporate  LDR
requirements; and Proteco  allegedly stored LDR
wastes at its facility for more than one year for
purposes   other   than   the  accumulation  of
quantities necessary to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment or disposal,  Proteco lost its interim
status to operate on May 15, 1990.  In this action,
the United States is seeking injunctive relief and
civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day for each
violation of RCRA, and stipulated penalties and
injunctive  relief  for  violations  of the consent
decree.

Lead Initiative

      On July 31,1991, 20 RCRA cases (12 judicial
and S administrative) were filed as  part  of a
multi-media initiative to enforce existing  laws
and regulations aimed at reducing lead exposure
to the public and the environment. A total of 36
(24 judicial and 12 administrative) actions  were
filed under six environmental statutes — the first
time  a  specific   pollutant  was  targeted  for
multimedia enforcement action. The RCRA cases
in   the  initiative  were  truly  multi-media,
addressing lead contamination in soil,  water and
air.

U.S. v. American Brass. Inc., (M.D. Ala.): On July
31, 1991,  a civil  Complaint  was filed against
American  Brass,  which  owns and operates  a
secondary  brass smelting  facility in Headland,
Alabama.  The company was cited for violations
of   the  RCRA   Land  Disposal  Restrictions
prohibiting placement   of  hazardous  wastes
which contain lead  (D008)  in  excess of the
regulatory treatment level  for that metal.  The
lawsuit   seeks    injunctive   relief   requiring
compliance   with   LDR   requirements   and
prohibiting  further operation until  American
Brass can  assure  EPA that  it  can operate in
accordance with RCRA. Simultaneously, a Motion
for Contempt was filed in the Middle District of
Alabama regarding violations of a Consent Decree
lodged  against American  Brass.    This Motion
sought injunctive relief requiring American Brass's
compliance with the Consent Decree requirements
and  prohibiting   further  operation  until  the
company  can assure  EPA  it can operate  in
accordance with the Consent Decree. These issues
were resolved as  of March 9,  1992  when the
District Court entered a modified consent decree
between        EPA       and        American
Brass,

In the Matter of Amoco Oil Co.: On July 31, 1991,
Region   III   issued   a  RCRA   administrative
complaint  seeking  penalties against  Amoco,
regarding   the    unpermitted   storage   and
management of  lead-  containing  wastes  at
Amoco's  Yorktown,  VA  oil   refinery.  This
complaint was issued as part  of EPA's Lead
Initiative. In addition, the complaint cites Amoco
for storage of hazardous  wastes in  drums and
tanks for longer  than the 90-day accumulation
period without a permit, numerous record keeping
violations, an inadequate contingency plan, and
failure  to   make adequate  hazardous  waste
determinations. Concurrent with issuance  of the
complaint,  EPA  sent Amoco  a  draft  RCRA
§3008(h) corrective action consent order to address
releases from  the  facility.     Administrative
litigation is pending in this matter.
In the Matter of AT&T (Richmond, VAfc On July
31,  EPA  issued   a   3008(a)   administrative
complaint seeking penalties to AT&T for RCRA
violations at its  Richmond Works facilities in
Richmond,  VA.   The   complaint  allegations
include: unpermitted storage of hazardous wastes,
failure to manifest  hundreds of  shipments  of
hazardous wastes, numerous LDR record keeping
violations, an inadequate contingency plan,and an
inadequate training  program. Concurrent  with
issuance of  the complaint, EPA sent a RCRA
3008(h) consent order to AT&T to implement the
remedy selected by EPA  in the RCRA Record of
Decision for the facilities.

U.S.  v.  Environmental   Pacific   Corporation.
Amityf  Ojfr  As  part of Environmental Pacific
Corporation's (EPC) operations at Amity, Oregon,
EPC received  lead acid  and alkaline batteries,
which it allegedly drained prior to shipment to
recyclers or sent undrained to recyclers. During an
inspection conducted by  EPA Region  X and the
Oregon Department of Environmental  Quality,
hazardous constituents, including lead, cadmium,
chromium, barium, mercury and silver, were found
in soil  and  surface  waters off-site.  The civil
judicial  action  undertaken by Region X seeks  an
injunction requiring EPC to clean up the lead and
other hazardous  constituents contaminating  its
facility  and to study all areas where  releases
might have occurred.
U.S. v. GrQtjp Dekko International. Tnc^ This is an
enforcement action against Group  Dekko  for
unlawful  land disposal  of toxic, lead-bearing
                                             4-39

-------
                             FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
waste in an uncontrolled pile that may contain as
much as 60 million pounds of waste.  The waste
pile was generated at a copper recovery facility
near Kendallville, Indiana, that is part of Group
Dekko's  Reclaimers  operating  division.   The
complaint also addresses an unlawful shipment of
waste  as  well   as  numerous  testing  and
recordkeeping  violations  at  Reclaimers.   The
complaint  seeks an  injunction  requiring Group
Dekko to cease using  the waste  pile and  to
maintain  testing  and records  at  the  site  as
required by RCRA. The complaint also seeks civil
penalties.

U.S.   v.   Kurdziel   Industriesf  Incj   Kurdziel
Industries (formerly Kurdziel Iron Industries, Inc.)
is  an enforcement action  concerning  Kurdziei's
gray iron foundry located in Rothbury, Michigan.
Wastewater   and    waste  by-products   from
operations containing hazardous  amounts of lead
had been discharged into settling ponds and other
areas at the foundry for years. The United States
has filed a motion to hold Kurdziel in contempt of
court for numerous violations of a Consent Decree
it had agreed to in 1987, including failure to abide
by   the   Decree's   requirements    concerning
groundwater monitoring, financial assurance for
closure of the contaminated  areas,  and,liability
insurance  in case of an accident involving the
contaminated  areas.   The  action  seeks an
injunction requiring compliance and payment of
stipulated penalties by Kurdziel.

U.S. v. Raymark Industries Inc.: On July 31, 1991,
the Department of Justice  filed a civil complaint
in the U.S.  District Court for the District  of
Connecticut   against  Raymark  Industries Inc.
requesting that the court order Raymark  to study
and perform corrective action  at its  facility in
Stratford,  CT.   Raymark  had manufactured
automobile brakes and friction products at this 34
acre facility from 1919 through 1989, and disposed
of its  hazardous   wastes  (principally   lead-
asbestos wastes and dust) on-site. In some areas,
this lead-asbestos fill is up to 17 feet deep.  There
is also extensive groundwater contamination on-
site.  The complaint requests that the court  order
Raymark to comply with an administrative order
issued by EPA on March 31, 1987, pursuant to
§3013(a) of RCRA, which  instructs the company
to study its  site in order to ascertain  the nature
and extent of the hazard created by the presence
and release  of hazardous waste.  Raymark has
failed to  comply with the terms of  the  order.
Based on the results of this study, the complaint's
second claim requests that Raymark be ordered by
the court to carry out a corrective action plan as
approved by EPA.

U,S, v. Torrington Hide & Metal (Wyoming): On
July 31, 1991, the U.S. filed a case  in the U.S.
District  Court  of  Wyoming against  Torrington
Hide & Metal under CERCLA §106 and RCRA.
§7003 imminent and  substantial endangerment
statutory authorities.  On February 28,. 1989, U.S.
EPA  issued a RCRA  §3008(a)  administrative
complaint, to Torrington Hide & Metal for twenty
years of illegal disposal of  hazardous  waste
resulting in lead contamination in the soils. The
administrative  case was vacated and a referral
was filed in 1991 due to injunctive relief needs at
the  site.    The   defendants  have  claimed
bankruptcy, and EPA  has performed assessment
and  stabilization  activities  at  the  site  ,to
minimize potential  exposure.

Export-Import Cluster Filing

      On  September  26,  1991, EPA filed  16
administrative actions under RCRA as part of a
multi-media  effort targeting illegal  export and.
import of hazardous waste or chemicals. A total
of 23 cases  were filed  to enforce the export and
import, regulations of RCRA, TSCA,  FIFRA and
the Clean Air Act.  This cluster filing illustrated
the increasing priority the Agency is placing  on
transboundary environmental problems.

      Eight  of  the 16  RCRA cases  concerned
shipments  of hazardous waste  to Mexico and
were developed in  cooperation with the Mexican •
government.    Other  RCRA  actions involved
shipments  of hazardous waste or chemicals  to
and from  Canada,  and exports  to  Asia and
Europe.  These administrative actions address a
broad .range of • export  and  import  violations
including:  failure to  notify  EPA  and  receive.
consent prior to export of hazardous waste to a
foreign country; shipments of hazardous waste in "
violation of  quantity  limits set out in  EPA's
acknowledgement"of  the consent  provided by the
receiving -country;-  and  violations   related  to '
tracking of waste-shipments.

jn Jbe  Matter of Birmingham  Bolt Company,.
Southern  United  Steel Division:   This RCRA
action involves a  bolt and  bar manufacturing
operation that  uses  steel reclaimed  from scrap
metal in its manufacturing process.   Hazardous
waste generated at the facility, emission control.
dust from an electric arc furnace, was collected in a
baghouse   and was  exported  to   Mexico   for
                                             4-40

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcemint Accomplishments Report
reclamation. EPA issued an Acknowledgement of
Consent to export after it received BBC's Notice
of Intent to Export, and obtained Mexico's consent.
EPA  alleges,  however,  that  BBC exported  a
greater quantity of  waste than it indicated it
would export in its original Notice of Intent, and
prior  to  obtaining  EPA's  acknowledgement of
Mexico's consent to increase the volume of waste
which may be shipped, in violation of 40 CFR
§262.53.  EPA's complaint asks  BBC  to comply
with  the  regulations and  seeks a penalty  for
violations.

In the Matter  of Coastal Metal Finishing; This
action involves an electroplating facility which
performs  several types  of plating  operations.
These operations include precious metal plating,
plating of common  metals  and anodizing.  The
facility  uses   conventional   treatment  which
includes chrome reduction, cyanide destruction
and chemical precipitation of  metals to treat its
process   wastewater.     The   alleged  RCRA
violations, which have been occurring since 1987,
include failure to notify EPA of  some exports of
hazardous wastes, resulting in some unauthorized
shipments; failure to properly complete manifests
for export shipments; failure  to submit annual
reports; and  additional  regulatory  violations
under Subtitle C of RCRA, including violations of
the Land  Disposal  Restrictions, and container
management   provisions   of   RCRA.   EPA's
Complaint asked Coastal  to  comply  with  the
regulations and seeks penalties for violations

In the Matter of Sheffield Steel Corporation:
This RCRA action involves a steel mill operated
by Sheffield Steel Corporation located  in Sand
Springs, Oklahoma.   Waste  generated by  the
facility includes emission control dust (K061) from
the production of steel in electric arc furnaces, and
contains chromium,  lead,  and cadmium.   The
waste is  shipped to Zinc  Nacional, Monterrey,
Mexico, for reclamation.  The  violations alleged
in the complaint include export of wastes prior to
receiving an EPA Acknowledgement of Consent for
the export; the export of a greater quantity of
hazardous  waste  than   represented  in  the
facility's notification of intent  to export, without
renotifying EPA of the intent  to ship additional
wastes and obtaining an EPA Acknowledgment of
Consent to  the additional shipments; and  the
export   of    wastes    without    the   EPA
Acknowledgement of .Consent  accompanying the
shipment.   EPA is 'seeking compliance with the
regulations and penalties.
In the Matter of Stablex (R.I.)f Inc.: This action
involves a commercial wastewater treatment and
hazardous  waste  storage  facility,  which  is  a
major exporter of  hazardous wastes to Canada.
Essentially  all of the  waste generated  and
handled by Stablex are  shipped to  Stablex
Canada, in  Blainville,  Quebec,  which  was
formerly owned by • the same company.  The
alleged RCRA  violations,  which  have  been
occurring since 1988, include the export of certain
types  of  hazardous wastes  which  were  not
included in the facility's notification of intent to
export upon  which Canada's consent  to  receive
the wastes was based; failure to provide adequate
Notification  of Intent  to  export;  failure  to
properly   complete   manifests   for   export
shipments; and additional regulatory  violations
under Subtitle C of RCRA, including violations of
the Land Disposal Restrictions.  EPA  is seeking
compliance with the regulations and penalties.
|n the Mattef °f Universal Metal and Ore Co.. Inr .
(New Yorkh  In September Region  II filed an
administrative   complaint  against  this  firm
alleging  violations  of  RCRA pertaining to the
trans-boundary   movement  and  handling  of
hazardous  wastes.  The  Region  II  case seeks
penalties which may be among the largest of the
16 RCRA cases included in the initiative.

REGIONAL INITIATIVES

Great Lakes Enforcement Initiative

     As part of its effort to clean-up the Grand
Calumet River  area and Great  Lakes  Region,
EPA filed three civil judicial lawsuits on October
16, 1990 against companies with facilities  near
Gary, Indiana.    These actions, against  Inland
Steel  Co.,  Inc., Bethlehem  Steel  Corp.  and
Federated Metals Corp., involved violations of
hazardous  waste,  air  and  water  laws  and,
together, constituted a unique, geographically-
limited  coordination of  statutory enforcement
authorities.

     EPA  sought to  compel Inland to  comply
with its air, water and hazardous waste permits
and to clean up toxic contamination deposited in
sediments  at  the  Indiana  Harbor  area of
southern Lake Michigan  and on  its 2  1/2  mile
man-made  peninsula which the  company  used
for  hazardous  waste  disposal.    Bethlehem
Steel's  operation  in  Burns  Harbor,  Indiana
generates several types  of hazardous  wastes;
releases  threatened  the  Little Calumet River
                                             4-41

-------
*~af
                               FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 and  the  Burns  Ditch  which flow  into Lake
 Michigan. At Federated Metals' former smelting
 and  refining  facility  in  Whiting,  Indiana,
 releases of lead and cadmium threatened human
 health and endangered the surrounding wetlands
 and Lake George.
  California      Generators
  Enforcement Initiative
Administrative
       Beginning in FY 1990, EPA  Region  VIII
  developed   an   administrative-  enforcement
  initiative  targeting  a  group  of  California
  hazardous waste generators  who  improperly
  shipped  wastes  to  unpermitted facilities in
  Wyoming and  Utah.  The region filed a total of
  eleven such actions.  The cases, which  involved
  multiple shipments, alleged three violations per
  shipment:   (I)  the  improper   shipment  of
  hazardous wastes to unpermitted facilities, (2)
  the failure to include a proper shipping manifest
  wit the shipments, and  (3) the failure to provide
  a  land disposal  ban notice.   Several  of these
  cases were concluded in FY 1950.

  In FY 1991, Region VIII successfully resolved the
  remaining cases,  with  penalties  ranging from
  $20,000  to $247,000.   The defendants  in these
  actions included  BFM Energy, Cessna  (General
  Dynamics), City of Fontana,  SAIC, Harbor, Inc.,
  Paul-Munroe,   VAL-  Circuits,  DICO,  Inc. and
  Exotic Materials.

  Region II Fur Pelt Industry Non-Notifier RCRA
  Enforcement Initiative

       During   FY   1991,   Region   II • filed
  administrative  complaints  against six  New
  jersey firms  engaged  in fur  processing  and
  transportation of the resulting wastes. The firms
  illegally  generated,  stored,  transported  and
  disposed of hazardous wastes generated during
  the processing  of  fur pelts.  The industry  uses
  sawdust  soaked with solvents to clean fur pelts.
  Two fur  processors charged, Ella  lndustriesf Inc.
  and Superior Dyed Furs, Inc., ignored all RCRA
  rules and  disposed  of  the solvent-laden waste
  sawdust   through  transporters  which  then
  brought  the sawdust to horse  stables,  factories
  and  other locations  not authorized to  accept
  hazardous  wastes.  The improper handling and
  disposal  of the  solvent-laden  waste  sawdust
  could  cause  environmental  contamination  and
  human  health  problems;  the  solvents  used
  include suspected  carcinogens.  The  transporters
  cited are Lignum Chemical Works, Inc., Atlantic
Sawdust and Paper Shredding, Landew Sawdust,
Inc., and Ray Reilly Stables, Inc.  During FY 1991
Region  II  inspectors  visited  27  /«r industry
facilities.

Virgin Islands UST Enforcement

      In FY 1991, Region II issued a complaint
seeking penalties and  compliance  order against
Frank Mustafa in the U.S. Virgin Islands, for •
violations of UST notification and  leak detection
requirements.  The Virgin Islands environmental
agency reported a large upsurge  of interest in
compliance following the press reports.  Of 25
parties issued Notices of Violation by the Virgin
Islands government  in FY 1991  regarding  leak
detection infractions, all have  since responded.
The  compliance rate for leak  detection  in the
Virgin  Islands  now  stands  at   100%,  either
through  implementation  of  the leak detection
requirements  of   through  closure of  existing •
facilities.

Region n Waste Oil Enforcement Initiative  '

      In FY 1990 civil actions were filed against
seven Region II waste oil handlers  for violations '
of the used  oil  regulations and  other  RCRA
requirements. (Two administrative actions were
also   filed   at  that  time  against  waste oil
handlers.)    With  respect  to two of  the  civil
actions   there   were   significant   litigation
developments in FY 1991. On August 8,1991, the
court in U.S.  v.  Nassau  Oil (E.D.  New York)
issued a  default  judgment  in favor of  EPA
awarding a civil penalty of $900,000.  In U.S._v.
Eastern Oil (D. New Jersey), the court denied the
bulk of summary judgment motions filed by both •
the government and the  defendant, but granted
the government's summary judgment motion as to
certain counts. The parties subsequently reached '
a settlement, providing for a penalty payment of
$195,000.  The ensuing consent decree was  entered
on February 28, 1992.  Eastern has also agreed to
adopt newt operating procedures at its facility to
insure the  proper  handling of  used  oil,  and to
mark its tanks with logos reading "Don't Pollute
- Recycle Oil"

Other Significant RCRA Actions

In the Mattel of Accurate Associates, Inc. (New
Yorkfe On May 24, 1991, Region  II issued an order
under §7003 of RCRA requiring the removal of
hazardous wastes from the premises  of a former
metal plating factory in New York City. The order
                                               4-42

-------
                         PY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 was directed to the owners and operators of the
 former factory, and specified steps which had to
 be taken to ensure the prompt and safe removal of
 the  wastes discovered at the site, as well  as
 certain  testing  and  possible  remedial action
 reMng  to the sewage system connections at the
 facility.   This  case was developed with cross-
 media cooperation in the Regional office,  A
 Region II EPCRA inspection in December  I989r
 resulted in an administrative complaint issued to
 Accurate Famous  Castings, Inc.   When  the
 Respondent company  failed  to respond to the
 complaint, EPCRA inspectors again visited the
 facility and found that the company had vacated
 the premises. The inspectors found about seventy
 55-gallon drums on site, many in poor condition,
 and many marked as containing cyanide plating
 wastes,  an  acutely hazardous  substance.  The
 EPCRA  program forwarded this  information to
 the  RCRA program, and  after an accelerated
 investigation the §7003 cleanup order was issued.

                        - Bass
                                       In  an
administrative  case, the  owner/operator  of  a
brass and aluminum foundry in Iowa was found
liable  under §3004 of  RCRA  for  conducting
treatment of hazardous waste without a permit.
The Chief Administrative Law Judge ruled on
September  24,  1991,   that  Acme  Brass and
Aluminum Foundry's practice of mixing hazardous
baghouse dust with non-hazardous foundry sand
in an open pile behind its facility was treatment
of a hazardous waste which  required a RCRA
permit. In addition, the ALJ ruled that although
the company was a small quantity generator, it
failed to comply with certain conditions of the
small quantity generator regulations and thus was
not exempt from the RCRA permit requirements.
.. y.
                            Corp.-  On January
25, 1991, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio entered a consent decree
settling a RCRA enforcement action  against GSX
Chemical Services of Ohio, Inc. formerly- known
as Alchem-tron, Inc.).  The settlement provided,
in part, for the payment of a  civil penalty of
$350,000,00. to this action,  filed on  December 5,
1986, the United States alleged that a number of
the units at the Defendant's facility located in
Cleveland, Ohio, lost interim status on November
8, 1985, when  Alchem-tron failed to certify
compliance  with   the  applicable  financial
responsibility requirements.  In  1989, the district
court granted the United States motion for partial
summary judgment and held that  the units at
                                               issue  had  lost  interim  status.    The  court
                                               permanently   enjoined  the   Defendant  from
                                               treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste
                                               in the units that lost interim status. The parties
                                               subsequently  entered into  the  consent decree in
                                               order  to  settle the remaining  penalty-related
                                               issues.

                                               H^vY.gACkgyeyyodtict!ltJfaCuC)n January 30, 1991,
                                               the United States District  Court for the Eastern
                                               District of Michigan issued  an order  holding
                                               Buckeye in contempt for failing to comply with a
                                               1987 consent decree. The contempt order includes
                                               provisions    requiring    defendant    to:   (1)
                                               immediately commence ground water monitoring
                                               on a  quarterly  basis; (2)  fully  and  timely
                                               implement post closure care; (3) pay $104,871 as
                                               payment of the outstanding  civil  penalty due,
                                               plus interest;  and  (4) pay   $5.31  million  in
                                               stipulated  penalties for  violating the consent
                                               decree. The government subsequently garnished
                                               Buckeye's assets to satisfy the contempt order,
                                               The  defendant  has  moved  to  quash   the
                                               government's efforts to execute the contempt order
                                               and that motion is currently pending,
fa the
             of
                                                                        Northern (Cheyenne.
                                                     ing): On September 10, 1991, the U.S.EPA
filed a RCRA 7003 Administrative case on consent
against  the  Burlington  Northern  Railroad
Company. The action was filed to impel cleanup
of a Cheyenne site containing high levels of lead.
Known  contamination  of soil, and  potential
contamination  of  surface  and ground  water
including drinking water sources made this site of
imminent and substantial endaitgennent to human
health and the environment.  Cleanup activities
to  be  performed   include  immediate  access
restrictions to the site, installation of wells and
groundwater monitoring,, an evaluation  of  the
depth  of soil  contamination and  contaminants
present,  an evaluation of  all drinking water
supply wells within  1 /4 mile of the facility,  soil
stabilization and removal, and site reconstruction.
This case  was  interesting  because  Burlington
Northern was  neither an owner or an operator,
and most of the disposal activities  at the  site
occurred prior to 1980.  A simultaneous unilateral
§7003 order was filed against the owner of  the
site to cdmpel their participation in the cleanup
as  necessary   and  to  ensure  that   if  any
contamination remained on site, a deed notice was
entered  with   the   appropriate  local  zoning
authority.
                                            4-43

-------
&
                                I9S*/ Enforcement Accomplishments Report
LLij. v.
                           S. Han
                                         and
         H- Hunter, fe On August 28, 1991,, a
complaint was filed against three respondents,
each an operator and owner of a. hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal  facility located
in  Santa  Barbara  County,  California.  The
complaint seeks civil  penalties  and  injunctive
relief for numerous violations of RCRA, including
improper  expansion  of  landfills,  disposal  of
waste  in  excess  of specified design capacity,-
inadequate insurance coverage  and  failure  to
amend its closure plan for new construction. The
complaint also seeks corrective action. The case
has been consolidated with an .action filed the
previous day  by the County  of Santa  Barbara
under RCRA's citizen suit provision. The State of
California has  moved to intervene to  present
claims under both, RCRA and state law.
    In fhq. Matte? pf Comical
                                       & aj.d
     eiad
                In  this  action  to  debar  the
respondents from  federal . assistance,  loan and
benefit  programs.  Region   VII  obtained  an
agreement by respondents to accept a debarment
for three years.. The three year period was the
amount of time proposed by the Region  in its
notice.  The debarment  order  was entered on
September 17, 1991. The debarment was proposed
by  the Region as  a  result  of respondents'
violations  of hazardous waste regulations under
RCRA,  including  a  -conviction of respondent
Chemical Commodities, Inc. for violations.
      thft
             of
                                      erces> .
Texas;  Treatment jQjig,  a. _ Division  of  SET
Environmenjat fag., Texas; Rollins Environmental
          i In the first such actions taken by the
EPA, these four companies -were cited in early
1991 in administrative enforcement actions for
importing hazardous waste  from  facilities  in
Mexico without the required notifications to EPA,
The  hazardous waste regulations under RCRA
require that before importing hazardous, waste, a
company .must submit a, written notification  to
EPA at least  four weeks  in advance of the date
the hazardous waste is expected to arrive at the
U.S. facility.    ,
Region issued to C.P. Chemical because the state
had been unable, for a number of years, to bring
the Respondent into  compliance  with  RCRA.
Among the diversity of RCRA violations the
Region charged the company with  were:  (1)
continuing   to   operate  a  hazardous   waste
management unit for 173 days after losing interim
status to operate this unit; (2) failing to submit a
closure/post-closure plan for this unit; and <3)
failing  to  certify  compliance  with   RCRA
financial assurance requirements for three of its
hazardous waste management units.
                                                 In the
                                                                    Craig Adhesives (New Jersey);
                                                 EPA and  Craig Adhesive  Company  signed  a
                                                 Consent Agreement  in late September  1991,
                                                 settling  a  RCRA  Administrative  action for
                                                 violations  of seventeen regulations  in  the N.J.
                                                 Administrative  Code.   Operating a hazardous
                                                 waste storage  facility without  having applied
                                                 for  a   RCRA   permit,  using  leaking   and
                                                 deteriorating containers for hazardous waste, and
                                                 failure to inspect its storage area  were among the
                                                 most significant of the allegations in the EPA
                                                 Complaint, The company is presently undergoing
                                                 a New Jersey RCRA cleanup and has agreed to
                                                 pay a  civil penalty  of  $230,000  and spend
                                                 $185,000, over three years, and  to implement a
                                                 research and development program to reduce or
                                                 substantially   eliminate   hazardous   solvent
                                                 constituents  from  its  solvent-based  adhesive
                                                 formulations. •
In the IVtatter of C. P. ChemicatSj. jfac. .     _
Carolina^ On January, 7, 1991, Region IV entered
into  a RCRA §3QQ8(a), Consent  Agreement  with
C.P.   Chemicals,  Inc.  The  consent  agreement  .
provides  for  C.P. . Chemical's  payment  of  a
$242,500  civil  penalty and settlement  of  a  '
complaint  and  compliance  order ( which  the
                                            4.44
                                                    InJhfi,Matter pfCypress Aviation^ and Tlifc City of
                                                    ^ajcg|atid.   pa.: An administrative law judge's
                                                    decision established strict liability for absentee
                                                    landowners by awarding a penalty of $25,000
                                                    against the operator of a facility for violations of
                                                    Land  Disposal  Restrictions  and  assessed  a
                                                    penalty of $12,500  against the city that owned
                                                    the facility. The judge found the city liable :as
                                                    the owner, although it was not involved in the
                                                    operations.  However, the judge calculated the
                                                    city's penalty based upon its own conduct  and
                                                    declined to hold the owner strictly liable for the
                                                    penalty assessed,

                                                    ta.-Jhfc_.Mqttre-i>l geluxe Packages. Division flf
                                                    Papgjjoayd  Packaging Corpoiation;  On August
                                                    24, 1990, EPA Region DC issued a RCRA 3008(a)
                                                    order  against  Deluxe  Packages  for  alleged
                                                    violations of Subtitle C of RCRA at its South San
                                                    Francisco, California facility.  Deluxe Packages
                                                    produces flexible packages for the food industry.
                                                    EPA cited Deluxe Packages for failure to make a

-------
                         FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
waste determination of generated waste and for
storage of hazardous waste without a permit.  On
May 22, 1991, EPA  signed a  consent agreement
with Deluxe Packages.  Deluxe Packages agreed
to pay a civil penalty of $93,000 and perform all
work  EPA  ordered  to  bring the facility  into
compliance,   including   implementation    of
hazardous waste management unit closure plan.

In  the  Matter  of  Eli  Lilly  Industries:   On
September 16, 1991, the Regional Administrator
in Region  II signed  a  Consent Agreement  and
Consent Order  in  the  above matter.  EPA had
issued a Complaint to EH Lilly on December 24,
1990, alleging that  the company had  violated
the terms of its RCRA permit.  The five counts set
forth in the Complaint alleged that Eli Lily had
violated the  terms  of  its  RCRA  permit  by
improperly   operating  its   hazardous  waste
incinerator.  The violations included: 1) failure to
maintain the scrubber pH monitor; 2) failures to
maintain the total dissolved  solids  monitor;  3)
exceeding  the allowable  total dissolved  solids
concentration in the scrubber water; 4) failures to
perform checks  to  verify that the incinerator
automatic   waste  feed  cut-off  system   was
operational;  and  5) failure  to  perform daily
calibrations  of   the  incinerator stack  carbon
monoxide monitor. As part of the conditions of
settlement of this matter, the company agreed to
pay a penalty of $74,127 and  to develop  and
install  a Distributed Control  System  for its
hazardous waste incinerator, which will provide
improved combustion, temperature, pH, and waste
destruction control for the incinerator.

U.S... v, Envirite  Ctyporatiori:  On November 8,
1991, the U.S. District Court  for the District  of
Connecticut  granted  a  request  by  Envirite
Corporation to re-open the Consent Decree in U.S.
v. Envirite Corporation. Civil  Action No. H-89-
279(EBB). The Judge vacated the Consent Decree,
ordered the return of the penalty, and restored the
case to active status.  In a Joint Stipulation  of
Dismissal resolving this litigation and a Consent
Agreement and Order resolving a related  RCRA
civil administrative  action,  the United  States
has agreed to a dismissal of the complaint and
will return to Envirite the sum of $66,740  and
Envirite  will address several  matters including
revisions to the ground-water assessment program
for its  Thomaston,  CT  facility.    The  Joint
Stipulation  of Dismissal  was  filed with the
District Court on March 31, On April 2, 1992 the
Court  signed  the  Stipulation, ordering  the
dismissal of the civil judicial action.
U.S. v. Environmental Wa.ste Control ("EWC"L
d.b.a. "Four County I^andfiU":  in a 1989 decision,
the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana assessed penalties of $2.778
million against Environmental Waste Control
(EWC), permanently  enjoined  operation of the
EWC  landfill,  and  ordered  EWC  to conduct
corrective action.  The penalty in this case was
the  largest RCRA civil  judicial  penalty ever
assessed by a court at that time. The tower court
granted such relief based on EWC's operation of
the landfill after losing interim status as a result
of   financial  assurance  and  ground   water
monitoring  deficiencies,  and based  on  the
contamination to ground water that resulted from
landfill releases. On October 31,1990, the United
States  Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed in all respects the district court's  order
in favor of the government (and the intervening
citizen's group, Supporters To  Oppose Pollution
(STOP)).  On April 22, 1991,  the U.S. Supreme
Court denied EWC's petition for certiorari.  The
issues presented in the certiorari petition related
to whether the lower courts correctly ruled that
EWC lost interim status and whether the district
court erred in issuing an injunction closing the
landfill,

federal-Hoffman.  Iric. v. EPA: On November 21,
1990, the  District Court of Minnesota upheld a
decision by the Chief Judicial Officer ("CJO"}
that assessed a  $77,000  civil penalty against
Federal-Hoffman,  Inc. for violations  of RCRA
regulations governing placement of liquid waste
into landfills. In 1986, EPA Region V brought an
administrative enforcement action under RCRA
§3008(a)  alleging  that the  plaintiff, a  small
arms manufacturer, illegally disposed of waste
containing free liquids in that plaintiffs interim
status  unit which did  not have  "a liner and
leachate collection and  removal  system  that
meets  the  requirements  of  §264,301(3),"  as
required by 40 CFR §265.314(a).  The company
argued that its unit  qualified for the "existing
portion" exemption provided in §264301(a). The
Agency's position  was upheld by the CJO, who
imposed  a civil  penalty of  $77,000  for the
regulatory violations.  The district court deferred
to  the Agency's  interpretation  of  its  own
regulations,  and   agreed  that  the  "existing
portion" exemption did not allow the plaintiff to
by-pass the regulatory restrictions on disposal of
liquid  waste into landfills.  The court also found
that the  administrative record fully supported
the factual basis for the CjO's decision regarding
the  existence of  a regulatory violation,  and
                                             4-45

-------
                              FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 upheld the amount of civil penalties assessed by
 the Agency.
In

                         Industries, Inc.  (M;D.
 Iowa):   This  case   involved  persistent  and
 successful  efforts to assert  EPA's authority to
 conduct inspections under RCRA.  EPA Region VII
 tried unsuccessfully . to  secure  access  to  the
 Flexsteel Industries, Inc. (Flexsteel) facility  in
 Dubuque, Iowa,  for purposes of  conducting  an
 inspection   to   determine  whether  hazardous
 wastes   or  hazardous   constituents  had  been
 released into the environment from solid  waste
management units. On August 1, 1991, pursuant to
 §3007 of RCRA, EPA filed an application for an -:
 administrative search  warrant  in  the  United
 States District Court for the Northern District of
 Iowa, Eastern Division.  Following an ex  parte
 hearing on the application, a  Chief  United
 States  Magistrate  issued  the  administrative
 search warrant. On August 6, 1991, Flexsteel filed
 a  motion to quash  the administrative warrant
 and requested oral  argument.  The Magistrate
 denied  Flexsteel's motion.  The inspection of the
 Flexsteel facility  was performed  on August 13, •
 1991. On August 22, 1991, Flexsteel renewed  its
 motion  to   quash  the  administrative   search
 warrant. Finding that Flexsteel's renewed motion
 failed to raise any claims not previously  heard
 and considered by the court, on October 8, 1991,
 the   Magistrate   issued  an  order  denying
 Flexsteel's renewed motion.

 In the  Matter of Formosa Plastics,  Inc..  Point
 Comfort, Texas: An order representing the largest
 civil  penalty yet assessed  under  RCRA was
 entered into with Formosa Plastics Corporation,
 Point Comfort, Texas, on February 27, 1991. ,On
 October 11, 1990, EPA Region VI had  issued a
 RCRA §3008{a) Complaint against  this  facility
 for several RCRA violations, including failure to  ;
 submit  a RCRA permit application, develop a
 waste analysis plan, make a, hazardous waste
 determination, maintain leakproof  containers, ,
 develop a closure plan, and demonstrate financial
 assurance. Under the agreed final order, Formosa
 Plastics  agreed  to  pay  a  cash  penalty  of >
 $3,375,000, set up a $1,000,000 trust fund to benefit
 the environment, and implement a • program of -
 pollution prevention projects and environmental
 audits.  Formosa Plastics was also issued a RCRA ,
 agreed  corrective action order on February 27,
 1991. Under this corrective action order, Formosa .
 Plastics  will investigate the type and extent of
 soil and ground water contamination  at  the
 facility   and will  develop  and  implement  a
                                             4-46
remedial action plan.           	

U.S. v. General Electric Co; On March 29, 1991,
the United States District Court for the Northern
District  of New York  entered  a  consent  decree
between General Electric  Co.  and  the  United
States..   Pursuant  to  the agreement.  General
Electric  Company  agreed  to  pay  $176,000 in .
penalties for violations of RCRA Subtitle C, at its
silicone production facility in  Waterford, New
York.   In addition, GE agreed  to  construct a
container/drum storage pad with a protective roof
and take  other measures  related to container.
storage and management practices.

In the Matter of GSX Chemical  Services of Ohio,
Insm GSX Chemical Services of Ohio, Inc. owns
and'operates as a hazardous waste management
facility  in   Cleveland,  Ohio.   A .Consent .
Agreement and Final Order was entered between
GSX and  EPA Region  V with an assessment of
$110,000  penalty   for   violations  -of   an
Administrative Complaint.  GSX was cited for
improper  storage of hazardous materials, non-
marked   containers,   storage   of   waste  in
unpermitted areas, non-documentation of training
for emergency coordinators,  and several  other.,
violations. -In addition, an earlier penalty was •
assessed for $350,000 as part of a LOIS .judicial,
action.                   .                 .:

U.S. v.-The Hanlin Croup Inc.:  In one of the
Agency's first efforts to enforce the terms of an
interim status corrective action order,  a complaint
was filed  on July 31,  1991, in  the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maine against  The
Hanlin Group Inc.   The  consent order,  issued
pursuant  to  §3008{h)  of  RCRA, required, the
company to conduct a site assessment with respect
to mercury, carbon  tetrachloride, and chloroform •
releases  to   the.  groundwater  and  mercury .
contamination of soil at the  company's Orrington,
Maine,  site  and  to submit  an  interim  RCRA
facility  investigation report, all of which the-
company  is  alleged to  have  failed to  do in'
accordance with the order.  The complaint-seeks,
payment of penalties of up to $25,000 per day or in
the alternative, stipulated penalties of $5/000
per  violation per day as spelled  out  in ,the ,•
administrative consent order; for violations of the*
consent  order.  and  completion  of  the,  site
assessment,   subject   to   EPA  approval,,  as
expeditiously as' possible.   Hanlin filed,, for '
protection from creditors under  Chapter. 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code three weeks prior -to;the
filing of the complaint.          •       > • .:

-------
                         FY1991 Stforcement AccompUfhments Report
     it In this bankruptcy case, EPA was successful
 in obtaining an  order  approving the sale of a
 facility by a bankrupt owner (Harklau Industries)
 to a  prospective  purchaser of  the property
 (Hawkeye  Leisure  Trailers  Limited) on the
 express condition that  both  the owner and the
 buyer sign  a consent agreement  negotiated  by
 Region VII, under §3008(a) of RCRA, The order
 wa$ entered on August 26, 1991, by the United
 States  Bankruptcy  Court   for  the  Northern
 District of  Iowa, Both parties and EPA  have
 subsequently  signed  the agreement  and,  as  a
 result, the  process of  removing the  drummed
 wastes and  testing for possible hazardous waste
 contamination in the soil and ground water at the
 site has commenced.

 iliS, jfe tioj^j^I^Qtd^MffiBl gffrtf teg Co-? to October
 of 1990, the U-S, District Court for the Northern
 District of Ohio, entered a consent decree between
 the U.S. and Household Manufacturing, Incv Eljer
 Industries, Inc. and Eljer Manufacturing, Inc. This
 action concerned the Eljer Plumbingware Division
 facility (Eljtr) of  Household Manufacturing, Inc.
 located in Salem, Ohio. The facility is an iron
 foundry that manufactures and enamels bathroom
 fixtures.   The consent decree provided that the
 defendants would implement  ft closure plan for a
 land disposal unit that had lost interim status;
 implement a  proper  ground  water monitoring
 system; cap all  hazardous wastes until closure
 was   initiated;   comply   with    financial
 responsibility  requirement;  and comply  with
 other operating requirements along with paying a
 civil penalty of $235,000,

 IL&L.&JLS& On October 8, 1991, more than three
 years after the trial of this case  was concluded,
 the U,S. District Court for the Northern District
 of Alabama issued a  final judgment in McJigd.
                £LaL The United States filed
this multi-media action against ILCO and ILCO's
president, Diego Maffei, in March 1985, and the
State of Alabama intervened as co-plaintiff. The
action sought civil penalties and injunctive relief
for  violations  of  RCRA  and   CWA,  and
reimbursement of response costs incurred by BPA
under  to  CERCLA,   The original  action  also
included claims for further tnjunctive relief under
§3008
-------
                             FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report '
In the Matter of Midwestern Drum Services, Inc.:
Midwestern Drum Services, Inc. located in Venice,
Illinois, owns and operates as a hazardous waste
management facility.  A Consent Agreement and
Final  Order was entered between Midwestern
Drum  Service  and  EPA  Region V  for  a civil
penalty of $112,125  for such violations as failure
to amend the contingency plan to include all drum
areas, failure to make weekly inspections, failure
to keep containers closed during storage, failure to
identify hazardous  wastes, and numerous other
violations.   Major  issues  in the case included
whether or not Midwestern Drum was  a small
quantity  generator   and  whether  Midwestern.
Drum operated an incinerator at its facility.  The
small  quantity generator issue was resolved on
procedural  grounds  in  a  partial  motion  for
summary judgment  when  the company failed to
file a timely response.

In the Matter of the  Missouri Air National Guard
Facility. (Bridgeton, MissourjJ!  In Region VII's
first RCRA settlement with a National  Guard
facility, the Region  successfully  negotiated  a.
consent agreement and consent order pursuant to -
§3008(a)  of  RCRA  with  the  Missouri  Air
National Guard  facility located in Bridgeton,
Missouri, near  the  St. Louis, Missouri  airport.
Based on an EPA inspection on June 21, 1989, EPA
filed a RCRA §3008(a) complaint on January 3,
1990,  alleging violations of RCRA  storage . and
land ban requirements. In addition, the complaint
demanded  payment- of  civil penalties  in  the
amount of  $11,560.   The. Missouri Air National
Guard admitted to  the violations; however, the
Guard argued that  it was a federal facility, not
subject to penalties under RCRA. EPA argued that
the facility was a  state facility and therefore
subject to  RCRA penalties.   The Missouri  Air
National Guard ultimately agreed to settle the
case and paid the civil penalty, despite its prior
assertions  that  the facility  was  a  federal
facility.                               •  .•  .
Municipal OTd Industrial Disposal Co. v. Reilly:
On August  26,  1991 Municipal and Industrial
Disposal Company (M&I) appealed a Summary
Judgment granted in favor of the EPA on July 26,
1991, by the US. District Court for the Western
District of  Pennsylvania.   In  Municipal and
Industrial  'Disposal  Co.  v.   Thomas, . filed
December 1988,  M&I sought review of a Final
Decision by EPA's Chief  Judicial  Officer (CJO)-
holding that M&I had violated RCRA's ground-
water  monitoring  requirements at its inactive
hazardous  waste landfill located in Elizabeth
Township, PA.  The CJO's Decision awarded EPA
an administrative penalty of $25,250.  EPA filed
a counterclaim against M&I seeking enforcement
of the Final Decision, including payment of the
$25,250 plus interest, as well as the imposition of
penalties for M&I's failure to comply with  the
Final, Decision.  EPA also  sought penalties for
M&I's failure  to  perform a study  pursuant to.
RCRA § 3013, which EPA had ordered,in March,,
1987. In mid-1989, both parties filed Motions for
Summary Judgment and the District Court denied.
M&I's Motion while  granting the U.S.'s Motion,
The  Court. found M&I liable for, the  original
administrative penalty of $25,250, for penalties
plus interest on the unpaid original judgment, and
found M&I liable, without setting a fixed dollar
amount of liability, for its failure to comply with
the § 3013 Order.   ,

U.S.  v. Ownbey Enterprises. Inc.: A civil .suit was •
filed  on  -March  27,  1991,   against  Ownbey
Enterprises, Inc. of Dalton, GA, alleged violations
of ,the  underground, storage tank  provisions of
RCRA.  According to the 'complaint, Ownbey ,
Enterprises, Inc., . failed  to undertake 'certain
corrective actions to address groundwater and soil,
contamination resulting from leaking underground •
storage-tanks at Deep Springs Grocery, located-on
Beaverdale  Road., near  Dalton,  GA.  ,  The..
requirement   had   been   included   in   an •
administrative Consent Order  agreed .to by, the
company on February. 15, 1989.  The  Complaint
further alleges, that Ownbey Enterprises failed to
provide a  permanent water supply to users of a
drinking,   water   well    which   had  r.been
contaminated  by petroleum  leaking from., the
underground storage . tanks.   -The  suit, further
alleges that the company did.not carry out its own ,
plan to clean up the groundwater contamination/ .
in violation of the administrative Consent Order..
This action, seeks  to  require  the  Ownbey.
Enterprises,   Inc.   to   comply    with    the
administrative  Consent  Order,  impose  civil
penalties for the company's  failure • to comply
with the Order up to $25,000,  for each day'of'
violation after July,20,1990.  -    •        :...'>.
                                        .* • , " * *
In the Matter of Powder  River Crude, -et al. :
(Texaco. Wyoming):  On September 17, 1991; the
U.S.  EPA  issued  a §7003 Administrative.Order'
against Texaco,Inc.  for cleanup  of the Powder
River Crude (PRO facility.  Starting in August,
1988; PRG -received  at least 210,000 .gallons of
waste  oil  from  the Texaco  Casper Refinery.
Between  receipt  of  this  waste and September
1989, PRC ceased operations. In September-1989;
                                             4-48

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
EPA identified  significant  staining  and other
evidence of random discharges and releases of
oily waste at the PRC site.  In August 1990, EPA
collected  samples  at  PRC  which  contained
benzene over the TCLP hazardous waste criteria
as well as high concentrations of lead. A visit in
August 1991 identified that waste had breached
impoundments  and  tanks  and  was  flowing
uncontrolled through the site. In addition, concern
was  raised  over  the  structural integrity of the
tanks themselves.  In conducting an environmental
assessment  of the  PRC  release,  EPA contacted
Wyoming Game & Fish (WG&F) and U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service. The PRG area was identified as
a migration pathway for peregrine falcons  and
bald  eagles,  federally-listed  threatened  and
endangered  species.  These agencies expressed
concern about the hazard to migratory water fowl
and  sparrows which might feed  in  the area.
WG&F  identified  wetlands  in  the  area  and
ranked  it as having value  for  recreation  and
wildlife habitat.  The issuance of  the order to
Texaco was one of a series of fifteen orders issued
by EPA and  compels clean-up of PRC including the
necessary removal  of the  contamination. On a
short term basis,  the §7003 action is intended to
prevent endangerment to wildlife as well as the
catastrophic failure  of the containment structures
currently holding the waste materials.

U.S. v. Production Plated Plastics. Inc. et al.-  On
October 15, 1991  the United States filed a reply
brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit responding to Production  Plated
Plastics' (PPP)  interlocutory  appeal  of  two
district  court decisions,   PPP challenged  the
district  court's grant  of  summary judgment on
liability  and  a  separate   grant  of  summary
judgment  for injunctive relief.  On February 20,
1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth  Circuit  affirmed  both  district  court
decisions.

In an opinion and order dated January 24, 1991,
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Michigan, granted  in part  the  United States'
Motion   for  Partial  Summary  Judgment   on
Injunctive Relief, in  an action brought  under
RCRA; Accordingly, the court ordered  defendants
PPP, i Michigan  City Plastics, Inc.  (MCP)   the
company which owns PPP, and Michael J. Ladney,
Jr., majority stock holder of MCP and corporate
officer^  of  both  corporations, to  immediately
commence closure  of its  Richland,  Michigan,
facility in accordance with its approved closure
plan. Although PPP obtained interim status in
1980, its authorization to treat, store and dispose
of the listed hazardous waste F006, generated in
its processes, was lost in November 1985.  This is
believed  to be the first RCRA case in which the
court awarded  injunctive relief  on  summary
judgment. The court held that an  evidentiary
hearing is not always required before an injunction
is issued, if affidavits or other documentation
clearly  establish  the  plaintiff's  right  to  the
injunction.   Furthermore, if the purpose of the
legislation would  be thwarted by a failure to
comply,   and   the   legislation   specifically
authorized  injunctive  relief,  no  finding  of
irreparable injury or balancing of the equities
need be made.

U.S. Y. Publix Oil Company. Inc.f et al.. (Georgia):
On July 11,1991, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court ruled
in favor of the United States' objection to Publix's
motion to abandon property, including underground
storage  tanks. The U.S.  objection, filed  July 3,
1991,  alleged   that  abandonment  was  not
appropriate in that the underground storage tanks
located at 41 facilities may pose an  imminent and
identifiable harm to the environment in violation
of RCRA. The Court not only ruled that the
debtors  had  the burden  of   proving   that
abandonment was appropriate, but also that six
months was an appropriate extension of  the bar
date to allow an investigation of the 41 facilities
located in five southeastern states.

In The Matter of Rail  Servicgsr  fCalvert City.
Kyi: Region IV  issued a §7003 unilateral order
which compelled Rail Services to cease operation
until it  trained  its employees in  the  proper
techniques for safely managing  the solid  and
hazardous  wastes generated at  the facility.
Previously, an employee was killed when he used
improper safety measures in entering  a rail car. In
addition, hazardous waste removed from the rail
cars  were  managed  unsafely.  This   action
represented  the Region's first §7003 order issued
for mismanagement of solid waste.

In the Matter of Rhone Poulenc.: EPA has alleged
in an administrative penalty complaint that the
Rhone Poulenc  facility  in  Institute,  WV,  has
violated  §268,3(a) of Subtitle  C  of RCRA by
impermissibly diluting  a multi-source leachate
waste stream containing metal constituents. EPA
Hazardous  Waste  No.  F039  (wastewaters) is
prohibited from land disposal  unless the waste
meets  applicable  treatment  standards.   The
complaint alleges  that  the  facility has been
diluting such wastes to achieve compliance with
                                             4-49

-------
                             FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report.
LDR • as a  substitute  for  adequate  treatment, •
Penalties  assessed  for  this  violation  and
additional LDR violations total $546,000.

In  the  Matter  of  Safety-Kleen  Corp.:  On
Thursday, June 27,1991, a Consent Agreement and
Order was filed with the Region I Hearing Clerk
resolving  this  action.    The  complaint and
compliance order in this action was originally
filed  in September,  1990,  and asserted that
Safety-Kleen had failed to properly determine
whether two of its waste streams, generated at its
Bridgewater, Massachusetts, Service Center were
LDR wastes prior to off-site shipment. A penalty
of $19,000 was assessed. During negotiations with
the company, Safety-Kleen came forward with
information  relating  to  the   same  violation
occurring  at  seven  additional  Safety-Kleen
facilities in  Region I, relating to 27 additional
waste streams. Under the terms of this Consent
Agreement,  Safety-Kleen has  agreed  to pay a
civil penalty  of $116,000 and EPA has  agreed to
release  the  company  from  liability for  the
originally cited and additional violations.   A
$16,000  portion of the civil penalty is to be offset
in  return  for  Safety-Kleen's  production and
distribution  of  a video, aimed at generators of
LDR wastes, explaining the LDR requirements.
The videotape will  be distributed  by Safety-
Kleen to  100 trade associations and industry
groups chosen by EPA Region I.

In  the  Matter of Salt Rivpr Project (Navajo
Generating Station Page, Ar jzona): On November
22,  1989, EPA Region IX issued a RCRA §3008(a)
order  against  Salt  River  Project  (SRP)  for
violations  at its  Navajo  Generating Station
(NGS),  The Order cited the facility for disposal
of hazardous waste without a permit, storage for
greater than 90 days, and failure to notify EPA of
storage  and disposal activities.  NGS is a coal-
fired electric generating station located "on  the
Navajo  Nation near Page,  Arizona.  Since  the
facility  is located on  Indian  lands,  EPA  has
jurisdiction.   The  facility  uses a   chromium
compound  in the bearing cooling water (BCW)
system.  The water is well  over the EP Toxicity
concentration  for  chromium.    Under  normal
circumstances, the BCW system  is a closed-loop
system,  with the  cooling  water running from
storage tanks to-heat exchangers and equipment to
be cooled and back to  storage tanks.   However,
these systems  require periodic cleaning and
maintenance and this means the system must be
drained. Since 1982, the BCW system had been
drained four times, with the water from the BCW
systems • being  released  to  a  concrete-lined
channel, going through an unlined ditch, .through
a  pipe, into a  surface  impoundment.   These
activities  were  never reported  to  EPA.   In
addition,  EPA found that drums  of various
hazardous wastes were stored for over 90 days in
the facility's storage area.                ,

On January 4,1991, EPA and SRP signed a consent
agreement wherein SRP agreed to pay a $113,500
penalty and to undertake a site investigation to
determine whether contamination exists at the
facility as a result of the release of  chromium-
contaminated water.  If significant contamination
is found, the facility will prepare a remediation
plan  for   EPA  approval  and  then  conduct
remediation.  To help ensure future  compliance
with  regulatory requirements,  SRP. agreed  to
submit written operating •procedures describing
steps taken to assure that wastes will be  stored no
longer than 90 days as well as  submit  quarterly
reports  and  manifests to EPA for  the  year
describing  hazardous waste   generation  and
disposal,

U.S. v. Sinclair Oil, Little American Refining Co.
(Wyoming); On July 23, 1991, the United States
District Court for the District of Wyoming entered
a consent decree between  Sinclair Oil and the
United  States  resolving  disputes relating  to
Region   , VIII's    issuance    of    unilateral
administrative orders  under RCRA §7003{a) and
§3008(h)   against  Sinclair  Oil  Corporation's
Little America Refining Company ("LARCO") in
Evansville, Wyoming.  Pursuant to the consent
decree, Sinclair will perform Interim Measures, a
RCRA Facility Investigation, and a Corrective
Measures   Study,  and will  implement  those
corrective   measures  proposed.   In  addition,
Sinclair will resolve all pending issues regarding
closure of the hazardous waste management units
at  the LARCO facility,

Ip'the Matter of  Solvay Anin^ Health. Inc.
(Charles  City.  Iowa*  Following   the  first
administrative hearing in Region VII under the
40 C.F.R.  Part 24 regulations,  EPA, Region VII,
issued a Final Administrative  Order  (FAO) to
Solvay Animal  Health,  Inc. on June 3,  1991
pursuant   to  RCRA  §3008(h).     An  Initial
Administrative  Order  (IAO) , under  RCRA
§3008(h) was issued to the company on December
29,1989. Solvay contested the IAO and requested
a  hearing  on this  matter  which was held on
March 6, 1990 pursuant.to the Part 24 regulation.
The Presiding Officer's Recommended Decision
                                             4-50

-------
                        FY1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
and the Regional Administrator's Final Decision
were issued on February 26, 1991 and April 22,
1991,  respectively.   Both  the  IAO  and  FAO
required Solvay  to conduct a  RCRA  facility
investigation  and  corrective  measures study to
address the nature and extent of any release of
hazardous  wastes/constituents from its facility.
The decision  provides significant  precedential
value to other contested RCRA §3008(h) orders
because  Solvay   contested   virtually   every
provision of the IAO, which was patterned after
the model IAO. The final decision upheld all the
model IAO provisions in all but two respects. The
Final  Decision requires the  Region to provide
copies of all guidance documents that are utilized
by  the Region  in reviewing  submitted   work
products or   in  overseeing the  work  to  be
performed,  and   precludes  the Region   from
requiring indemnification in the unilateral order.

In the Matter of  Standard Tank Cleaning Corp.
(New Jersey):  On July 19,1991, the Chief Judicial
Officer (CJO)  Ronald  upheld an Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ)  Initial Decision of  March 28,
1991,  and  rejected Standard Tank's  appeal as
untimely. The Respondent/Petitioner, one of the
Frank Family  companies which were the subject
of  Region  IPs  most extensive  multi-media
enforcement work during  FY 1991,  was charged
with RCRA violations for  failure to demonstrate
that it  had obtained insurance for its  hazardous
waste  treatment  and storage facility.  After a
two-day trial in February  1989, the  ALJ had
found Respondent liable and  imposed a penalty of
$132,312.50 —  more  than  twice  as   much  as
requested  in  EPA's  administrative  complaint.
This  amount  was $10,000  higher  than  the
economic benefit calculated  by  EPA.   The ALJ
decided   on   that   increase,   finding   that
"Respondent's conduct ...  displayed  deliberate
neglect, indifference, or both.  It is a luminous
example of lack of good faith."  When rejecting
Standard Tank's  appeal,  the CJO  also  denied
Respondent's Motion to Reopen the Hearing.

U.S. v. United Technologies  Corp;  On April 1,
1991,  the United  States  amended the  RCRA
complaint filed in  September,  1990 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of  Connecticut
against the United Technologies Corp.  (UTC),
significantly  expanding the  case  to  include
additional   violating   facilities,  as   well  as
violations at previously included facilities. The
original complaint alleged over 100  violations of
RCRA's requirements  at  six UTC facilities in
Connecticut.  These violations included improper
hazardous waste container management, storage
of  hazardous  wastes   without   a  permit,
inadequate personnel training and record keeping,
incomplete  contingency   planning,  inadequate
groundwater  monitoring,  non-compliance  with
land disposal restriction notification requirements
and export regulations, and  violations of a prior
consent agreement  with  EPA.   The  amended
complaint  adds  over 50   additional  RCRA
violations at five of the  original  six facilities,
and at a Pratt & Whitney  facility on Colt Street
in East Hartford and a Sikorsky Aircraft facility
in Stratford, CT.

U.S. v. Vineland Chemical dylyuy On March 7,
1991,  the  U.S. Court of Appeals for the  Third
Circuit affirmed an April, 1990, decision by the
U.S. District court for the  District of New Jersey
ordering Vineland Chemical Company (Vineland)
to  pay  a  $1.223   million   civil   penalty  for
violations of the LOIS  provisions of RCRA, and
to close their  two  surface impoundments  in
accordance with New Jersey requirements.

In affirming the decision  of the District Court,
the Third Circuit found that: 1) joint and several
liability  attached  under  RCRA to  a facility
owner/operator without any need for a showing of
bad faith, and 2) constitutional due process is not
violated by imposition of a penalty  for RCRA
violations which occurred during the pendency of
a  defendant's judicial appeal of  EPA's LOIS
determination.  Vineland lost their authorization
to operate under Interim Status on November 8,
1985, as a result of submitting a deficient RCRA
§3005(e)(2)(B)  certification of compliance with
groundwater    monitoring     and    financial
responsibility requirements.

In thf Matter of Whitehead Oil Co. Inc. (Lincoln.
Nebraska): On Sept. 6, 1991, EPA settled its first
complaint   for  violations   of  the   financial
responsibility rules for underground storage tanks
(UST).  Whitehead   Oil Co.  Inc.  of Lincoln,
Nebraska, came into  compliance  and paid a
$60,768 penalty.  This enforcement action will
discourage UST owners from transferring USTs to
smaller  companies,  as   suggested  in  trade
publications, as a  strategy to comply with the
phased-in  financial  responsibility  rule  which
provides  later  compliance  dates  for  small
businesses.  Whitehead had  transferred three of
its USTs  to an affiliate  in  order  to defer  its
compliance date.
                                             4-51

-------
                             FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
In the Matter of Wilson and Hampton Painting
Contractors  (California, Wyoming): On June 26,
1991  the  U.S.  EPA  entered  into  a  final
order/consent •  agreement   with   Wilson  and
Hampton ' Painting   Contractors,   a  painting
contractor in Southern California  that shipped
hazardous waste to an illegal TSD facility in
Wyoming, A  RCRA  §3008(a) administrative
order was issued on November 8, 1990, for "non-
compliance with the RCRA generator regulations
which resulted in a  final assessed  penalty of
$20,000.  Wilson and Hampton, as a part of the
settlement, agreed  to purchase and utilize' a
solvent recovery system, prepare an article for a
national  paint  trade  magazine discussing the
necessity of understanding and complying with
RCRA, present a seminar to  the  Painting and
Decorating Contractors Association concerning the
importance  of  compliance,  and  train  their
personnel in regulations covered by RCRA and the
Department of Transportation.

State   RCRA/CERCLA   Enforcement
Actions

      Beginning    with     the    FY     1991
Accomplishments Report,  EPA will be including ,
significant state enforcement actions submitted
by.the EPA Regional offices,  We anticipate that
State actions will play a greater role in future
reports,     •    •      \

State Agency for Surplus Property, (Jefferson City,
Missouri): This  is a state  agency that manages .
the surplus properties of  the State of Missouri;'
The  Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) found that the facility had improperly
managed and disposed of  hazardous  waste. On
April  11,   1990,  the   MDNR   issued   an
administrative order that required the facility to
investigate • and  remediate  any contamination.
The  MDNR  assessed  a  penalty against  their
sister state  agency  for  the hazardous  waste
violations.  On January 9, 1991, MDNR and the
State Agency for Surplus  Property developed a
settlement agreement that required  payment of a
monetary penalty  and the  establishment of a
state-wide hazardous waste training program for
state employees., A penalty of $22,000 was also
assessed.

CP  Chemicals  (New  Tersey):  The New  Jersey
Department  of Environmental Protection  and
Energy reached agreement with CP Chemicals,
Inc.,   of  Middlesex   County,  New  Jersey,  in
connection with an administrative enforcement
action for a series of  water pollution discharge
violations.  The company agreed to pay a penalty
of $3,2 million> and to investigate and clean up
groundwater  contamination  at  its  Sewaren
facility.
E.I. DuPont dc
                      (New Jersey): E.L DuPont
de Nemours agreed  to  pay  the State of New
Jersey" a  civil  penalty  of  $663,000  in  an
administrative enforcement  action which  cited
air   pollution  violations' at  the   company's
Deepwater (Salem County) plant.  The company
also  agreed  to install  improved  equipment to
prevent excess ' emissions  in the future,  and
committed  itself  to  a  schedule  to  achieve
compliance with State emission limits.

Missouri State Penitentiary,  Jefferson City. MQ
This facility is a correctional institution for the
State of Missouri.  The Missouri Department of
Natural  Resources (MDNR)  found that  the
facility had improperly managed and disposed of
hazardous waste.  On May 18, 1990,  the MDNR
issued an administrative order that required the
facility to correct hazardous waste management '
procedures.  On January 30, 1991, MDNR and the
Missouri  State  Penitentiary   developed   a
settlement agreement that required payment of a
monetary penalty of $25,000.             • '

Orleans Sanitary Landfill. (New York): The, New
York  State   Department   of  Environmental'
Conservation   (NYSDEC)    took  . ; vigorous
enforcement action against the Orleans Sanitary
Landfill (OSL) and its owner,  John  Smith, for
systematic under-reporting of waste accepted at
the landfill.  In addition to obtaining the highest
penalty in  New York history— $3.1 million—the
Department   pioneered   the  use  of   several
innovative  sanctions designed to insure that
future  operations at OSL are conducted in full
compliance with environmental laws. NYSDEC
barred the owner of OSL from being involved,
owning or operating  a  solid waste management
facility operation anywhere  in New York State.
In addition,  the Department required the future
landfill operations to fund a Department monitor
to serve  as NYSDEC's eyes  and ears  at the
facility and  ensure future  compliance;  and  it
required the hiring of  a Certified Investigative
Auditing Firm to oversee and audit the company's
operations to ensure  compliance with operating
requirements.
                                             4-52

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Safety-Kleen Corporation:   On  November 21,
1991, the California  Environmental  Protection
Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) signed a consent agreement with Safety-
Kleen Corp. which resolves violations are fifteen
separate  Safety-Kleen hazardous waste  storage
and  treatment facilities located in California. In
this  agreement, DTSC agreed to process Safety-
Kleen's  numerous  permit  applications  in  a
coordinated  statewide   review  and  provide
Safety-Kleen  with  DTSC's   final  approval
covering all applicable  Safety-Kleen facilities.
Safety-Kleen agreed  to  pay  a  total  of $1.3
million which consists of a penalty component of
$1 million and a $300,000 component  which is a
reimbursement to DTSC  for their  cost associated
with  reaching  and  executing  the  settlement
agreement.

Schenectady Chemicals, Inc.f (Schenectady, New
York):  NYSDEC issued a comprehensive, multi-
media   Order  on  Consent   to  Schenectady
Chemicals, Inc. (SCI),  imposing a  $1.3  million
penalty against SCI, and requiring the company
to undertake, subject  to  extensive Departmental
oversight,   a  wide  array   of  compliance,
investigative and remedial measures in numerous
program areas including water, air and hazardous
waste.   SCI must also develop and  implement a
Best Management  Practices plan at each of its
four  facilities  designed to  identify  specific
practices which will  prevent or minimize the
potential for releases of pollutants to  the waters
of the State.  Altogether, SCI expects to spend up
to $60 million to meet its obligations under the
Order.

Terry  Schulte  Chevrolet  (joint  State  & EPA
actions):  On October 22, 1990, the South Dakota
Department  on  the Environment  and  Natural
Resources issued the state equivalent  of a §3008
(a) order to  Terry Schulte.  Violations included
failing, to manifest properly, failing  to make a
hazardous waste determination, failing to label
drums properly, failure  to undertake activities
required for contingency plans such as posting fire
extinguisher locations,  spill control  materials,
and  fire  alarms.   No penalties were collected,
although compliance was achieved and land ban
violations were referred  to Region  VIII  EPA for
action.

On December 14,  1990,  the U.S. EPA  filed an
administrative  penalty   order   against  Terry
Schulte  Chevrolet  Incorporated,  Docket  No.
RCRA §3008 VIII-91-04.  This action was at the
request of South Dakota due  to  the  state not
having delegation for-land disposal  restriction
violations.  The  violations included  failure to
ship listed hazardous waste to an authorized
hazardous waste facility with the required land
disposal restriction notices and/or certifications,
and a penalty of $156,250 was proposed. To date
no settlement has been reached, and the case is
proceeding  toward  an administrative hearing
before an ALJ.

People v.  Seagate Technology.  Inc. dba Seagate
Magnetics  Division  (California):     Seagate
Magnetics was investigated in regard to their role
in  causing  the  unlawful  transportation  of
unmanifested plating waste to an unpermitted
facility. On December 7, 1990 a final  judgement
was entered against  Seagate Magnetics in Santa
Clara  County Superior  Court.  The  judgement
ordered the defendant to pay  $600,000 in civil
penalties  pursuant  to  the  Hazardous  Waste
Control Act, $250,000 pursuant to the Business and
Professions Code, $100,000 in cy-pres restitution to
the Department of Toxic Substances Control and
$42,197 in costs, for a  total  of  $992,197. A
permanent injunction was also ordered.

Sola Optical USA. Inc.f (EldouJMO): This firm
manufactures  optical  lenses.   The   company
produces a lead sludge which they had disposed
of improperly.    The Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR) conducted  a  multi-
media  investigation of this facility and  found
that the facility has  caused lead contamination
in the Lake of the Ozarks.  On May 15,1991, the
MDNR referred the case to the Missouri Attorney
General's  Office for  formal enforcement action,
which  is  to  include environmental  relief  and
monetary  penalties.  The MDNR and  Sola have
tentatively reached  a multi-media settlement
(both waste and water programs) for Sola's past
hazardous waste management  practices  and
environmental damages.  A penalty in excess of
$250,000 is being discussed.

Arizona v. Talley Pejense Systems  On September
4, 1991, Arizona and defendant Talley agreed to
settle this civil action for a $500,000 penalty, the
largest environmental penalty in Arizona history.
The action, filed in October 1990, charged Talley
with 15 violations of Arizona's  hazardous waste
laws. Under the agreement, Talley will amend its
application  for  a hazardous  waste   treatment
permit, meet  record-keeping   and   employee
training requirements, and search for and clean up
any existing hazardous waste.
                                              4-53

-------
                             FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
USDOD/Tooele  Army  Pepot  (North)  (Tooele,.
Utah): The State of Utah completed negotiations
with the Tooele Army Depot concerning an August
24, 1990  NOV/CO issued by the State of Utah,
The agreement required Tooele to remedy all 136
counts of the NOV/CO.

Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Enforcement

      TSCA  enforcement  embraces  the  basic
tenets of pollution prevention  and data  quality.
TSCA's regulation of existing and new chemical
substances encourages the manufacture and use of
substances  that pose only reasonable effects on
human health and the environment. In FY 1991,
TSCA   enforcement    actions    emphasized
compliance    with     the    premanufacture
notification   requirements  for  new  chemical
review,   the   reporting   and   retention   of
information   under §8,  compliance-  with  the
AHERA  rule, and the  proper  use, storage, and
disposal of PCBs.  Many settlements  resolving
TSCA administrative  enforcement actions  are
notable  for  their inclusion  of supplemental
environmental projects  incorporating  pollution
prevention    and    environmental   auditing
provisions.

In the Matter of A&D International: On May 28,
1991, the Chief Judicial Officer signed  a  consent
order settling an  administrative  civil  penalty
action.    The  Agency  had   charged  A&D
International, Inc.,  with  violations   of  the
Halogenated    Diberizo-p-dioxin/Dibenzofuran
Test Rule  and violations  of  the TSCA  Good
Laboratory Practices Standards  (GLPs).   A&D
imported the  chemical  substance chloranil, for
which dioxin testing is  required under the Test
Rule and §4 of TSCA.  The Agency accepted the
payment of a penalty of $12,000 and an agreement
not to import chloranil in the future to settle this
case.

Airline Maintenance Facilities: During FY 1991,
Region  II   issued  administrative complaints
against a number of airlines for PCB violations at
aircraft   maintenance  facilities.   PCBs  are
contained in transformers and  other electrical
equipment  used and  serviced  at  the facilities.
Complaints   were  issued  against   American
Airlines (seeking  $354,000 in penalties), British
Airways  ($131,000) and TWA ($296,000) as part
of this industry-specific enforcement initiative.
la thrMatter of Alcolac, Inc.: In September 1989
EPA charged Alcolac with violating §5 and §8 of
TSCA.  The violations impaired  the Agency's
ability to evaluate a chemicals effect on human
health and  the  environment.   Earlier in 1989,
Alcolac pleaded guilty in  Federal  court  to
illegally exporting  a  solvent  used in  making
chemical weapons,  which was ultimately to be
re-exported  to  Iran. In  October  1990,  Alcolac
agreed to pay a'civil penalty of $280,000, conduct
a  TSCA compliance audit covering  four U.S.
manufacturing facilities, and conduct two industry
outreach programs.   In  accordance  with  the
settlement agreement, EPA anticipates issuing a
demand letter for stipulated penalties based upon
the final audit report.

In the Matter^jif American CyanamkL Company
and In the Mattel* of Ruetger4-frfea.se Chemical
Company: These companion cases were EPA's first
administrative  actions involving  violations  of
the terms of TSCA §5(e) consent orders.  Under
§5(e), EPA  may issue  a  consent order  which
prohibits  or  limits  manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of a
premanufacture notification substance pending the
development  and  review   of   information
addressing  potential  risks.   The settlements
included   penalty  payments  of  $28,345  by
Cyanamid, $3,600 by Ruetgers-Nease,  and  the
implementation by both companies of a Company
Standard Policy and Practice Directive.

In the Matter of Bedoukja,n. Research,. Inc.:  The
Chief Judicial Officer  signed  a consent  order
settling this TSCA §5 and §8 administrative civil
penalty matter.  The settlement consists of the
payment of $37,200 civil penalty, implementation
of an environmentally  beneficial  project, and
additional certifications for TSCA compliance.
Bedoukian   was  charged   with  improperly
submitting  to  the Agency untimely and false
notices of  commencement of the manufacture of
new chemical substances.

U.S. v. Bolidpn frtetech. Inc.: In a consent decree
entered on January 10, 1991,  in settlement of  a
civil enforcement  action,  Boliden Metech Inc.
agreed to  undertake a sampling and analytical
program   to  determine  the  extent  of  PCB
contamination   of  several  piles   of  shredded
materials containing precious  metals.  Once the
extent of   PCB  contamination  is determined,
Boliden is required to dispose of the contaminated
piles and materials in accordance with the PCB
                                             4-54

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
regulations.    Until  1990,  Boliden  shredded
computer parts and other products at a shredder
facility  in  Providence, RI  in  order to recover
valuable metals.  In the late 1980s, the piles of
shredded material were found to contain PCBs.
Boliden  has now  shut  down  the  shredding
operation.

In the Matter oj  Burlington Industries^ Inc.:  In
February 1991, EPA filed  a  $3,061,000 TSCA
administrative complaint alleging violations of
§5 premanufacture  notification requirements by
Burlington  Industries.   Settlement  negotiations
are underway.

In the Matter of DSM Resins U.S.. Inc. (New
Jersey): This major TSCA §5 and §13 importer case
was settled in August, 1991, with an agreement by
the respondent to pay a penalty of $750,000 and
implement  various steps  to prevent  recurring
violations. Under TSCA, anyone manufacturing or
importing a new chemical substance not included
on EPA's Chemical  Substances Inventory must
submit a premanufacture notice at least 90 days
prior to manufacture or import. Compliance with
TSCA must also be certified by  importers.  EPA
inspections at DSM Resins found  that the  firm
had  not filed  appropriate  notices for several
chemical substances. In addition,  the  company
has now implemented  a computerized  tracking
system to ensure  that all of its imports comply
with TSCA rules.

In the Matter of General Electric Co.: In March
1991,  General Electric Co. {GE) agreed to pay a
$150,000 penalty to settle Region I's complaint for
violations  of  the PCB regulations  under  the
TSCA.  EPA  charged  GE  with  widespread
violations at its Pittsfield, MA facility: failing
to properly  mark  PCB  transformer locations,
storing   combustible   materials   near   PCB
transformers, improper PCB storage, inadequate
recordkeeping, and failing to follow required PCB
spill  response procedures.  GE also violated its
approval for PCB incineration through improper
operating and recordkeeping procedures.

As part of the settlement, GE committed to the
removal  of all  of its PCB  electrical equipment
from the Pittsfield facility over a period of three
years. The equipment to be removed from service
and properly disposed of includes over 130  PCB
transformers and over 1300 PCB capacitors. These
actions are expected to reduce the risks of  PCB
spills and fires at  the facility. EPA estimates the
cost of the removal and disposal project at over $1
million.

In the Matter of General Electric Chemicals, Inc.:
In June 1991, the Chief Judicial Officer approved
a  settlement agreement  with General  Electric
Chemicals  which included penalty,  audit, and
pollution  prevention  provisions.     A  TSCA
administrative complaint was  issued alleging
violation   of  §8{e),   the  substantial   risk
information reporting provision. General Electric
Chemicals agreed to pay a $75,000 penalty, and
General  Electric  Company,   GECs  corporate
parent,  agreed   to  conduct  a   TSCA  §8(e)
compliance audit of all its domestic subsidiaries.
In  addition, both   GEC  and  GE  agreed   to
implement $890,000 worth of pollution prevention
projects involving reductions in emissions or  the
use  of  acrylonitrile,   1,3-butadiene,   various
phenols, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,  and  methylene
chloride.   These chemicals  are  some of  the
Agency's top 25 chemical candidates for pollution
prevention targeting.

In the Matter of General Motors, In the Matter of
CECOS, International, and In the Matter of CWM
Chemical Services (New Yorkk In March 1991,
Region  II issued administrative complaints  to
these companies  for violations- of  the TSCA
regulations  and  approvals   relating  to   the
handling and  disposal  of  PCB-contaminated
wastes.  EPA inspections of the records at GM's
Massena,   New   York   facility   showed  that
hydraulic fluid in some machines contained PCBs
in excess of 500 parts per million.  These fluids
were  processed  through  the   waste  water
treatment  system  where  reclaimed  fluid  and
sludge from the process also had over 500 ppm of
PCBs,  This sludge was solidified with sand and
limestone and shipped to the landfills operated
by CECOS  and CWM (a subsidiary of Chemical
Waste  Management, Inc.).  These landfills hold
TSCA approvals issued by EPA  for disposal of
PCB wastes.  Under  the conditions  of their
approvals, PCB-contaminated wastes, of the sort
sent by GM, required  testing prior to being
accepted for interment in the landfills.   The
companies failed to test the wastes, and did bury
them. They should have rejected such wastes for
burial, requiring instead that they be incinerated
due to the elevated PCB concentrations.

In  ihE  Matter of  Goodyear Tirg &  Rubber
Company:  On November 29, 1990, the Region VI
Regional  Administrator   signed  a   Consent
Agreement  and Final Order  (CAFO), resolving
the  case  against  Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber
                                             4-55

-------
                             FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Company, Houston, Texas. The CAFO assessed a
$135,000 penalty.   However, $121,500  of  the
penalty was deferred pending timely completion
of the removal  of PCB  Transformers from .its
Houston facility in accordance with Remittance
Agreement  The Remittance Agreement provided
that   Goodyear   shall   remove    all   PCB
Transformers from its facility by October 1, 1990,
and spend at least $405,000 on the removal and
replacement of eight transformers.  Goodyear had
been charged with improperly disposing of PCBs
(five leaking transformers) and failing to timely
repair or replace the five PCB Transformers.

In the Matter of Great I^orthern isfekoosa Corp.:
In the first joint effort in Region I under TSCA and
the Superfund  Removal  Program   to  address
violations of TSCA and subsequent remedial work
relating to the clean-up of PCB spills, Region I
entered into an administrative  settlement  on
September  30,  1991,   with  Great  Northern
Nekoosa  Corp,  Under  the  agreement, Great
Northern agreed to pay a penalty  and reimburse
EPA for its  investigative and oversight costs of-
remedial  work  conducted  at the company's
facility in East Millinocket, Maine.  In addition
to spending in  excess  of $7 million for  the
remediation  of PCB spills, the company agreed to
pay an administrative penalty  of $20,800  and to
reimburse EPA  for its costs  in  the amount of
$210,000.  The  clean-up   performed  by. Great,
Northern  Nekoosa Corp. was  completed   in-
January, 1991.

In the Matter  of Hall-Kimbrell:   In July and
August of 1991, nine additional  administrative
cases    were   filed   against   Hall-Kimbrell
Environmental Services Inc. for alleged violations
of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response  Act
("AHERA") involving Respondent's inspections of
schools for   asbestos  and  its preparation   of
management plans to abate asbestos found. Total
proposed penalties against this Respondent now
exceed $5.8 million and are the result of one case
each from Regions V and IX, and seven from
Region VII,  in  addition  to the original  eleven
from Region VIII.   All of the  complaints allege
that materials which may  contain asbestos were
missed during Respondent's inspections, and  the
Region V and  IX complaints allege that  the
resulting management plans did not contain all of
the  elements   required   by  the   regulations
promulgated pursuant to  AHERA.  Negotiations
aimed at a national settlement of the outstanding
violations have been ongoing since September of
1990, but, since no settlement had been reached as
of August, EPA notified the 1300 local educational-
agencies in 40 states where Respondent worked
that  there   may  be  deficiencies  in  their
inspections and management plans. On September
6, 1991, EPA issued a  TSCA subpoena to Hall-'
Kimbrell  requesting , that  EPA  inspectors be
allowed to inspect the copies  of management
plans stored in Respondent's Lawrence, Kansas,
warehouse.    Also in  September, the  House
Subcommittee on the Environment, Committee on
Governmental Operations,  held a hearing on
EPA's  AHERA  program  in general  and  the
prosecution of this case in particular.

In   the  Matter  of  Halocarbon   Products
Corporation:     In  one  of the   first  TSCA
administrative  actions  seeking  the  statutory
maximum  penalty  of  $25,000   per-day  of
violation,  the  Administrative. Law Judge ruled
that notice to OSHA of the death and injury to its
employees does not relieve Halocarbon of the
duty to report under §8(e), the substantial, risk
information reporting provision of TSCA.   The
ruling  came  through  an Order  granting EPA's
Motion to Strike Affirmative  Defense.    This
administrative   enforcement  action   involves
failure to report substantial  risk  information
under  §8(e)  based  upon  the  February   1989
chemical  release  incident  at  a  Halocarbon
facility where one worker was killed and another
seriously incapacitated.  The case is still pending
and a Hearing date has not yet been set.
In the Matter of JetCQ Chemicals 'Inc.:  In this
TSCA  administrative civil  penalty  action  for
violation of the §8(a) Preliminary  Assessment
Information Rule, Jetco agreed to pay a penalty of
$19,500, review and certify compliance with all
§8(a) reporting .requirements, and -prepare and
submit a TSCA compliance manual
       Aluminum and Chemical Corporation,
Trgn.jwood Works,.  Spokane,  Washington: ...  A
consent agreement between the facility and EPA
was signed in February 1991, assessing a penalty
of $30,600. The company paid $15300 in cash;
the remainder of the assessed penalty  will be
permanently suspended, provided the company
spends $30,600 to dispose of PCBs remaining in use
at their facility. . The facility had been issued an
administrative  complaint  in  November  1990,
alleging  that the facility violated  TSCA PCB,
regulations regarding disposal, recordkeeping and
inspections.
                                             4-56

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
In the Matter of Markem Corp.:  On June 6, 1991,
Markem Corp. of Keene, NH agreed  to  pay a
penalty  of   $33,000   and   undertake •  three
supplemental environmental projects not required
by  law in a  multi-media  settlement of  an
administrative complaint filed by EPA for the
company's violations of Federal PCB regulations.
This settlement is unusual in that each of the
three SEPs involves reduction or elimination of a
different pollutant.  Each of the projects results in
the elimination or reduction of a pollutant and are
therefore beneficial for  the  environment: 1)
removal and   proper  disposal  of   a  PCB
transformer; 2) installation of a cleaning-solvents
recovery system; and  3)  a project designed to
eliminate the use of heavy-metal pigments in the
company's ink products. These three projects all
The estimated cost ' of these  three  projects is
$210,500. This settlement is the culmination of an
action begun by EPA in June 1990, for violations of
the Federal regulations promulgated under TSCA
controlling the use and recordkeeping of PCBs.
In
             oj; J^ionsanto Chemical Corporation:
This  administrative  enforcement  action  was
brought for violation of TSCA §8(e).  Monsanto
failed to report the results of a carcinogenicity
study  of Santogard PVI  within  15 days  as
required.  Pursuant   to  a  consent  agreement
Monsanto agreed to pay a fine of $198,000 and
conduct an environmental audit on its studies of
developmental  toxicity   effects,  reproductive
effects,  and  carcinogenicity.   Post  audit, the
company paid $648,000 for the ^delations found in
the audit.

In the fiiatter of Moore Business Forms, Inc.: On
June 27th, 1991, EPA and Moore Business Forms,
Inc. signed a consent agreement settling a TSCA
case for $2.2 million — the largest §5 penalty on
record.   The  consent agreement also required
completion of an independent TSCA audit, with
the highest stipulated penalties ever ~ $50,000 -
- for violations of TSCA §5 and §8. This also was
the  first  consent   agreement  to  require an
Emergency Planning  and Community  Right-To-
Know Act (EPCRA) audit and training program.

Moore self-disclosed violations of TSCA §5 and
§8 to EPA in  April  1991.  After  an expedited
safety review by EPA's Office of Toxic Substances,
the Agency granted enforcement discretion to the
company for release of customer-owned stocks of
paper products containing the chemical substances
involved in the violations.  In exchange, EPA
secured  Moore's  agreement  to  accept  EPA's
jurisdiction  over the matter,  to  provide batch-
records, to waive its right to  an  administrative
hearing, and to cooperate fully in negotiating the
case.    The  company's  request  for  further
enforcement discretion was  denied  pending the
signing of the consent agreement.

EPA cited the company with failing to notify the
Agency prior to manufacturing and using six
chemical substances- that did not  appear on the
TSCA Inventory. §5 of TSCA mandates that no
person may manufacture  or import a chemical
substance  which does  not appear on the TSCA
inventory    without   submitting   to   EPA   a
premanufacturing notice (PMN). The complaint,
which was  issued   simultaneously  with  the •
signing of the consent agreement, also cited Moore
for failure to provide a certification statement to
the  district director  at  the port  of  entry
adequately  representing  the   true  compliance
status of a chemical substance.

In the Matter of Moses Lake Industries:  In this
administrative civil penalty action, Moses Lake
disclosed  to the Agency that it had violated'
TSCA §5 by importing new chemical substances
which did not appear on the TSCA  Inventory of"
existing chemical  substances, and  that it had
failed to provide a certification statement to the
district director  at the port  of entry as the true
compliance status of  these chemicals pursuant to
TSCA §13. This matter was settled for $130,000
following    issuance  of   an   administrative
complaint.
                *                             '
In the Matter of New Jersey Transit Rail Corp.
(New  Jersey):    On  September  27,   1991,  a-'
settlement was executed in this case providing for
payment of a  $120,000 penalty  and including
significant pollution  prevention provisions. The
Respondent  failed to  remove from service by July
1,  1986 transformers  containing dielectric fluids
with more than 1000 ppm of PCBs, as required by
the TSCA rules. As  part of the settlement, New
Jersey Transit agreed to spend nearly $110,000 to
conduct an  extensive  PCB  sampling survey  at
seven of its rail facilities; a total of 1050 samples
will be taken. The company also selected retro-
fitting or rebuilding of transformers as its means
of •  coming   into   compliance,   which   is
environmentally- " more sound  than • having  the
transformers drained  and refilled.     •
                                                      n Steel Mills, Portland, Oregon:  A consent •
                                                 agreement was signed on August 1, 1991, assessing
                                                 a penalty of $286,000,  the largest TSCA PCB
                                              4-57

-------
                             FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
penally ever assessed in EPA Region X,  Of this
total penalty, the company paid $143,000 in cash.
The  remainder of the assessed penalty will be
permanently  suspended,  provided Oregon Steel
Mills spends at least $286,000 by 1993  to dispose
of PCBs remaining in use at their facility.  The
complaint alleged violations of the federal TSCA
PCB regulations, including improper disposal,
storage, marking,, recordkeeping,  and failure to
register PCB transformers.

Fort of Poland, Portland, Oregon:  The Port was
issued an  administrative complaint  in  March
1991, alleging that the Port violated TSCA PCB
regulations, including disposal,  recordkeeping,,
and registration violations. A Consent Agreement
was  signed in August 1991, assessing a penalty of
$55,208,  a   reduction  based  on  the   Port's
expenditures of $43,500 to dispose of PCBs at the
facility.

In the Matter of SIKA Corporation: In September
1991  the  Agency  issued   an  administrative
complaint against SIKA for violations of TSCA's
§5   premanufacture  notification  and   import
requirements.  The Agency proposed to assess a
civil penalty of $13,118,500, but reduced  this.
amount by 50%, to $6.6 million, to reflect SIKA's
timely and voluntary disclosure of the violations
to the  Agency in accordance with the TSCA §5
Enforcement Response Policy. This case was issued
as part of the .Agency's border  cluster filing
initiative  in  which  it took action against 23
facilities for violating law concerning the illegal
import or export of hazardous waste and certain
chemical substances and pesticides.

In the Matter of Texaco. Inc;  On March 28, 1991,
an administrative complaint was issued against
Texaco, Inc.,  Midland, Texas, seeking a $157,150
civil penalty for PCB violations. The Complaint
charged Texaco with improper disposal of PCBs,
improper  use  of PCB  capacitors,  incomplete
annual documents, and storage for disposal of PCB
capacitors in excess of the one year limit imposed
by the PCB regulations. On November 7,  1991, a
Consent Agreement  and Final  Order was filed
with the Regional  Hearing Clerk, assessing a
$134,520 civil penalty against Texaco, Inc.  The
violations  resulted from  an  August 1989, EPA
inspection of Texaco, Inc.'s Midland, Texas office.
Triangle performed testing required under §4 of
TSCA on the behalf of four  chloranil importers.
The Agency filed a motion  to strike five of the
affirmative   defenses   raised   by   Triangle
Laboratory  in  response  to an  administrative
complaint   charging   the   laboratory  with
violations of the TSCA Good  Laboratory Practices
Standards.  Despite the  answer's  general denial"
and  thirteen  affirmative  defenses,  the only
significant  • issue   was  whether  a  • testing
laboratory can be subject to,  TSCA.  The Agency.
moved to strike all affirmative defenses relating
to liability, so as to address this issue directly.
That issue was never decided because a settlement
was soon reached.  On October 18, 1990, the Chief
Judicial Officer signed a CACO to settle the first
enforcement action brought. against a laboratory
for violations , of  the  TSCA Good Laboratory
Practice Standards. Triangle agreed pay a civil
penalty of $13,950 in settlement.
In  the  Mattej^ of  United8 Technologies'
United  Technologies Corp.  paid  $730,000  in
August   1991  to   settle  an  EPA  action  for
widespread PCB  violations.  EPA brought  this
action under TSCA  in December 1989, to address
violations  at  five  UTC  manufacturing .and
research facilities. The severity of the violations
and UTC's history of prior PCB .violations in New
England prompted  the assessment of .the largest
TSCA penalty ever by Region- 1.

The settlement incorporates a unique commitment
by UTC to submit to a PCB testing program and
compliance audit  by an  independent consulting
firm.  The audit component requires an intensive
PCB testing and removal program for a variety of
manufacturing and research equipment (hydraulic
systems; heat transfer systems, air compressors)
at four separate facilities. The audit  is expected
to be completed  in 1992.  The audit firm will
monitor  compliance  with  all  PCB  regulatory
requirements, including proper marking, storage,
and recordkeeping.  The audit and the removal of
PCBs from equipment are expected to reduce the
risks of spills, improper disposal,. PCB fires, and
other human and environmental exposure at the
facilities.  The  audit firm  will also analyze
UTC's management systems as they relate to PCB
compliance.  UTC will pay stipulated penalties
to EPA for any violations disclosed by the audit.  .
In the Matter of Triangle Laboratory. Inc.: EPA    The    settlement   includes   an   additional
issued a civil administrative complaint against    supplemental  environmental, project  in which
Triangle Laboratory,  Inc.,  for violations  of the    UTC will remove and properly dispose  of PCBs
TSCA  Good  Laboratory  Practices  Standards.    from PCB electrical equipment at three facilities
                                             4-58

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
at a cost to the company of $150,000.

In  the  Matter of  Wego Chemical Co.  (New
Jqrseyh   EPA Administrative Law Judge  Frank
Vanderheyden  issued  a ruling  in  June  1991,
holding Wego liable for violations of TSCA §8(a)
reporting rules.  The ruling followed a two-day
trial in June 1990, during which Wego argued that
during  negotiations   to   settle  a   previous
enforcement  action  the Agency lawyer  had
promised EPA would not sue the company  again.
EPA denied such representations had been made,
sought to prevent Wego from  calling the EPA
lawyer as a witness, and argued that testimony on
the subject by Wego witnesses should be stricken
from  the record.   Judge Vanderheyden granted
these motions and held Respondent liable for the
violations.  The Judge reserved his ruling on the
question of penalties.---

M.SL  y.  Norristown (PA)  State  Hospital:  On
September 27, 1991, Region HI issued a complaint
alleging  violations  of  §2614  of  the  Toxic
Substances Control  Act  to Norristown  State
Hospital.  This is  the  first  Region III  Worker
Protection  Rule  civil   complaint issued.  The
complaint  alleges that the hospital failed  to
conduct  monitoring at the  initiation of each
asbestos job,  failed   to  institute  a  required
respirator program, failed  to provide separate
storage   facilities   for  protective  and  street
clothing, and failed to provide  annual  medical
examinations.      , ,

U.S. v.  Sugaihouse Realty. Ii>c.  and William  H.
Thayer  (E.D. PA):  In what is believed to be the
first use of a receivership to accomplish a PCB
clean up under TSCA, a District Court granted a
motion  by the United  States, and  ordered the
appointment of a receiver to manage the clean up
of PCB contamination of the Jack Frost Sugarhouse
in Philadelphia,  PA.  The  Court also  entered
judgment against the defendants for $500,000 to  be
used by the receiver to accomplish the clean up.
The United  States requested  this relief after
defendants' repeated  failure  to comply  with
terms of consent decrees requiring clean up  of the
site.

Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act  (EPCRA)
Enforcement

      EPCRA 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  the  community,  which
shall  be  made available  to  the public.   Under
§313   certain  manufacturing  facilities   must
provide EPA with annual data on the amounts of
chemicals   that   they    release   into  the
environment,  either routinely or as a result  of
accidents.  In  addition,  facilities  must  report
accidental  releases  of  "extremely  hazardous
substances" and CERCLA  "hazardous substances"
to state and local response officials, and report  to
state and local officials inventories of chemicals
on their premises  for which  Material  Safety
Data sheets exist.  FY 1991 enforcement  efforts
targeted  nonreporters as  well  as  late  and
incorrect  reporters.

Al| AiUffTOM Gourmet Company (Salt Lj|k.e City,
HtflM: On May 8,1991, EPA and the All American
Gourmet  Company  entered  into  a  consent
agreement for violations of EPCRA §313.  The
agreement  was  based upon failure to  submit
required  reports under EPCRA §313. In addition to
agreeing the  pay a civil  penalty of $25,740, the
All American Gourmet Company was required to
assist in the  construction of a new sewer line
which  will   reduce  and/or  eliminate  the
formation of  hydrogen  sulfide  in the sewer
system.

InJhe Matter of Bittner Industries:  On July 3,
1991, Region IV ratified a consent agreement and
order in this matter including a penalty of $6,000.
The Region  had initiated an  administrative
enforcement action against Bittner for failure to
report its processing of  styrene and its  use  of
acetone in its facility in Diaz, Alabama in 1989.
The agreement includes Bittner's commitment  to
reduce styrene emissions by either using a  styrene
vapor suppressant additive in its manufacturing
process or by installing air scrubbing equipment.
The cost of  either of these  improvements  is
estimated to be $20,000.

In the Matter of Bristol County Water Authority
On May  9, 1991, Region I signed a Consent Order
settling  the  civil  administrative  enforcement
action brought  against   Bristol   County  for
violations of CERCLA §103 and EPCRA §304 and
§312 resulting from a chlorine release. Under the
terms of the Consent Agreement and Order, Bristol
County  will   pay  $7,000  and   will   make
supplemental environmental expenditures  with
first year costs estimated at $60,000 to $70,000.
These expenditures will be for the replacement
                                             4-59

-------
                             FY 199J Enforcement Accomplishments Report
all of the Water Authority's gaseous chlorination
systems with less hazardous liquid hypochlorite
systems.

In .re  CBI  Servfces:   , On April 30,  1991, an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded $99,000
in this case. Complainant had alleged  that the
Respondent, CBI Services of Bourborutais, IL;
violated  §313  of the Emergency Planning and
Community RighMo-Know  Act (EPCRA) ' by
filing  the  required  Form  R's for  six  listed
chemicals 230  days after the due date of July. 1,
1988, and  after an EPA  inspection.  The ALJ
lowered  the complainant's penalty,  holding that
because the date of inspection of a facility can be
controlled  by  EPA,  the  regulated  community
cannot determine the point at which penalties for
failure to report will  increase under the policy;
therefore, disparate treatment or the appearance
of disparity must result from the application of
the policy to these  "nonreporters,"  Because the
CBI  Services decision is the third that. questions
the  basis of the distinction  between  late and
nonreporter, the  Office  of Enforcement issued
guidance for the resolution and initiation of all
§313 EPCRA cases against similar nonreporters.  ,
Fashion  Cabinet  Manufacturing.  Inc.
Jordan. Utah): On April 26, 1991,, EPA  and the
Fashion Cabinet Manufacturing, Inc. entered into
a consent agreement for violations of EPCRA §313.
The agreement was based upon failure to submit
the. required reports  under EPCRA- §313.    In
addition  to a  $19,950.50  civil penalty,  the
Agreement requires Fashion Manufacturing, Inc. to
undertake and  complete capital , environmental
projects including: installation of  a laminator
which would replace a substantial quantity of
toluene, methyl ethyl ketone and methyl isobutyl
ketone, installation* of a new dust collector  and
removal of the underground toluene storage tank.
                                i  •
In the flatter of Fqam Design^ Inc.: On August 31,
1991,  Region FV ratified a consent agreement and
order in this matter. The Region had initiated an
administrative enforcement action against Foam
Design of Lexington, Kentucky, for  its failure to
report for 1988 its use of Methylenebis (phenyl-
isocyanate).  Under the terms of the settlement,
Foam Design, will  pay a penalty of  $10,450 and
will   spend  approximately   $53,000   on   ah
environmentally  beneficial project.  That project
will consist  of the construction of  a system to
recycle polystyrene scrap, which will result in an
85%  reduction in  the  amount  of methylenebis
used.
In' the  Matter- of Gary Chen^aJ  Corp.:   On"
December  14,  1990,  in   the  largest  EPCRA
settlement in the nation to date, Region I resolved
an administrative action against Gary Chemical
Corp., "a  plastics  and  rubber  manufacturing
facility in Leominster, MA, for failure to submit
estimates of its emissions of four toxic chemicals.
Violations included the failure to notify EPA and
the- Commonwealth  of Massachusetts  of its
emissions    of   lead   compounds,   antimony
compounds,   barium  compounds,   and  di-(2-
ethylhexyl)  phthalate in  calendar years  1987
and 1988.  In settlement  of the case, the company
submitted the required information and agreed to
pay a penalty of $142,800.

In the Matter of. Granite State Packing Co.: On
August   15,   1991,   in   settlement   of  an
administrative  action  against  Granite  State
Packing of Manchester, NH, the company agreed
to pay  a  $35,190 penalty  and  donate  $35,400
worth of computer and other emergency response
equipment to the NH State Emergency Response
Commission and the Manchester Fire and Police
Departments. The computer equipment will assist
the SERC in tracking hazardous materials within
the  state  and  will enhance fire  and police *
hazardous material response capabilities.  The
company was cited  for failing to make timely
notifications,of an anhydrous ammonia release,
under §103 of CERCLA and P04 of EPCRA, and
for failing to provide chemical inventory data to
local and state contingency planning groups, under
§312 of EPCRA.    • •    .'

Longmont Foods Inc.  (Loiigmon^. Colorado): On
June 26,1991, EPA and Longmont Foods Inc. entered
into a Consent Agreement for violations of EPCRA
§313.  In addition to a $11,850 civil  penalty,
Longmont Foods Inc. agreed to provide  training"
courses for its management and  other personnel
involved  in the  generation,   handling,  and-
disposal of hazardous materials. The Company
also agreed to expend $53,550 on an environmental
project including  sending  its sludge which it
currently landfills for disposal to the Department
of Energy's bioconversion program.           •

U.S. v- NVF Company On March 29,1991, Region
in signed a consent agreement and consent order iri
final  settlement of an EPCRA §313 complaint
filed against the NVF Company (Yorklyn,  DE).
The  settlement  of  the  complaint  called  for
performance of two pollution  prevention projects
costing a  total  of $435,000 and payment  of a
$16,500 cash penalty.
                                             4-60

-------
                                                                                             ,/'"*>,
                                                                                             '
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Pitt-Des  MoineSf Inc.:  EPA filed  a complaint
against Pitt-Des  Moines,  Inc. (PDM)  alleging
PDM failed to file a Form R for the calendar year
1988 for the substances nickel and chromium. In
July of 1990 the case was heard by Judge Daniel
Head.  PDM argued  that it did not exceed the
EPCRA threshold for these substances and  was
therefore not liable. In a final ruling, Judge Head
assessed a penalty of $12,000.00 for failing to file
a Form R for nickel in 1988. The major points of
the decision are:   rejects the argument that the
amount of material "processed" only includes the
portion  actually  affected  by the  processing,
accepts the contents of the  company's Form R as
admissions,  but rules  that admissions can be
controverted or explained  at trial, accepts as
correct the  proposed  penalty, but  reduces, the
penalty for "mitigating factors" such as the  lack
of possibility of any  accidental release and the
lack of a danger to the people involved in the
processing. The decision provides further support
for calculating the EPCRA threshold amount
using the total amount of material processed,
rather  than just the  portion affected by the
processing.

In the Matter of Rainbow Pajnt and Coatings. Inc.:
An ALJ  held that an  action for penalties for
EPCRA violations is not subject to the automatic
stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. An order
granting EPA's motion for accelerated decision
was entered   on   August  8,  1991,     Judge
Vanderheyden  concluded  that Respondent  had
violated §313 of EPCRA and assessed a penalty of
$10,000.

A complaint was issued for failure to submit toxic
chemical  release  inventories  for  xylene  for
calendar  years 1987 and 1988.   The respondent
answered the complaint denying the allegations
and further stating that it was  a debtor, in  a
Chapter 7 bankruptcy  proceeding and had ceased
all business activities.  A motion  for accelerated
decision on the issues  of liability and penalty was
then filed by Region  VII.  Judge Vanderheyden
concluded in his order that: 1) this matter was not
subject to the automatic stay provisions of the
Bankruptcy  Code;  2)  it was  shown  clearly  and
conclusively that the  respondent  was subject to
the requirements of  EPCRA  and had  violated
§313 by failing to submit Form Rs for xylene for
the years 1987 and 1988; and 3) complainant had
demonstrated   persuasively  that the  penalty
amount  sought  was  appropriate  under  the
provisions of EPCRA and the EPCRA enforcement
response policy.
Rohr Industries. Auburn, WA: On August 21,1991,
an ALJ issued an accelerated decision in response
to an EPCRA administrative complaint which
had been issued on June 19,1989 to Rohr for failure
to report to the Toxics Release Inventory the toxic
chemical    1,1,1-trichloroethane    which    it
"otherwise used" at its Auburn facility in 1987.
The decision granted EPA's motion for accelerated
decision  on liability and  penalty, and assessed
the full proposed penalty of $17,000.

In the Matter of St, Joe Minerals Corporation, Inc..
et al.t In the first administrative case filed in
Region VII for violations of the emergency release
notification requirements,  EPA collected $63,000.
The  settlement was entered on February 7,  1991,
resolving violations of §304 of EPCRA and § 103
of CERCLA.  The company  had failed to timely'
notify Federal,  state and local  authorities, as
required by CERCLA and  EPCRA, of a release of
539,000 pounds of sulfuric acid from its facility in
Herculaneum, Missouri.

Spence-Geiger.   I^c,    (Golden.  Colorado):   On
September  6, 1991,  EPA entered  into a Consent
Agreement  with Spence-Geiger, Inc.  (SO  for
violations of AHERA,  The case involved  the
failure to properly inspect and identify asbestos
containing materials in school buildings.   The
settlement  ensures that all  potential inspection
and  management plan violations of  AHERA by
SG  are addressed  within  one  year.   This is
significant  because the total number of schools
involved is in excess of 160 in Colorado. This case
also  sends a message to the regulated community
and  school districts of the Agency's  position on
the seriousness of complying  with the AHERA.

Tiz's Door  Sales, Everett,  WA:  EPA filed an
EPCRA administrative  complaint against  Tiz's
Door Sales alleging it failed  to report three toxic
chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
for  the  years 1987,  1988  and 1989.   The  final
assessed  penalty was $14,450. A portion of  the
penalty was deferred pending implementation of
supplemental  environmental  projects  (SEPs)
consisting of the  purchase of  high efficiency spray
equipment and improvements to the  paint spray
booth at the facility; this portion of  the penalty
will  be waived  if the SEPs are installed. The
SEPs are  expected to significantly  reduce  the
releases of TRI  chemicals from  this facility as
well.as reduce the amount of chemicals used at
the facility.
                                              4-61

-------
                             FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, &
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Enforcement

     EPA  regulates the use of pesticides in the
United States under the authority of FIFRA by
requiring that all pesticides sold and used in the
United States,  including imported  products,  be
registered  with  EPA.   FIFRA is  designed  to
provide for pre-market clearance of pesticides
and post-market  surveillance  of pesticides and
pesticidal  devices   to  ensure  prevention  of
unreasonable adverse effects upon human health
or the environment-   In accordance  with  the
statute  the States have  primary  enforcement
responsibility for pesticide use  violations.   FY
1991 enforcement efforts focused on  violations of
the import-export requirements, good laboratory
practices requirements, product mislabeling, and
sale of unregistered pesticides.

In the Matter of Carter  Wallace (Lambert Kay
Division):  In October 1991, the Agency issued its
first ever administrative civil penalty complaint
alleging   violations   of   the  FIFRA   Good
Laboratory Practices Regulations. The sixty count
complaint  was  issued for  $260,000.   Carter
Wallace was the sponsor and registrant of several
studies submitted to the Agency in  support of a
pesticide registration, which were conducted  by
AMA Laboratories. An EPA inspection revealed
that, despite  a compliance statement signed by
Carter Wallace and AMA that the  studies  were
conducted  in  accordance   with FIFRA  Good
Laboratory  Practices,  serious  violations  had
occurred  during the conduct of the studies.  A
Notice of  Warning was  issued against  AMA
Laboratories pursuant to  FIFRA §14(a)(2), which
is the maximum level of action that  can be taken
for a  first-time violation by a laboratory under
FIFRA.

Columbia  Cascade, Vancouver,. WA, Permapost
Products^  Hlllsboro,OR.  and  Pacific Wood
TreatingJportland. OR  EPA  Region X charged
three  companies, Columbia  Cascade, Permapost
Products, Inc., and Pacific Wood Treating, with
distribution of an unregistered pesticide because
they sold wood products which had been treated
with  unregistered  wood  preservatives.   The
Region settled with Pacific Wood Treating for  a
penalty of $4,920 and with Columbia Cascade for
a penalty of $1,188.

In the Matter of Harlz Mountain Corporation: On
November  11, 1990, the  Agency settled a civil
administrative action against Hartz Mountain for
violations of §6(a)(2) of FIFRA. Section 6(a){2)
requires-registrants to notify  the Agency of any
additional  factual  information that  comes to
light regarding unreasonable  adverse effects of a
registered pesticide.   An inspection  of  Hartz
Mountain's   facility  revealed   that   Hartz
Mountain had received numerous  complaints of
adverse effects following exposure to the Hartz
Blockade Cat Flea and Tick Repellent and Hartz
Blockade Dog Flea and Tick Repellent.  These
complaints contained sufficient information to
enable Hartz Mountain to investigate whether or
not the reported adverse  effects and exposures
occurred. Four counts of the  Agency's complaint
charged Hartz Mountain  with failure  to  notify
the Agency of four series  of similar incidents of
adverse effects reported to Hartz Mountain by its
customers.   Hartz Mountain was  charged with
failure to notify the Agency of fourteen incidents
of adverse effects where  Hartz Mountain  was
advised by an expert that the effect may have
resulted from  exposure to the pesticide.  Hartz
agreed to pay $45,000 in settlement.              •

In the Matter of  Impex Industries Inc^   In  a
decision that  has  broad  implications for the
producers of ultrasound pesticide devices, the AL]
held that Impex Industries ultrasound units were
"misbranded"  within the  meaning  of FIFRA.
Basing her decision on testing data presented by
EPA, the AL} found that Impex's ultrasound units
did not  control  or  repel rodents as  stated in
labeling. EPA  brought the action against  Impex
Industries in 1984.  The ALJ's June  1991, decision
assessed Impex a $1,000 penalty.

In the Matter of  Gotfoafti Chemical  Co. Inc.:  In a
settlement between EPA  and  Gotham  Chemical
Co. Inc. in September,  1991, Gotham agreed to pay
a $21,250 civil  penalty  for  violations FIFRA.
EPA  had  brought  an   administrative  action
against Gotham, located in Stamford, CT,  for its
misbranding   and  adulteration   of   pesticide
products used for controlling algae and bacteria in
water.    Gotham  sold  these  misbranded  and
adulterated products to four CT hospitals in 1988
and 1989 for use in the water cooling towers of the
hospitals.    The   penalty   obtained   in   this
settlement is the largest ever obtained by Region I
for violations of FIFRA.

In the Matter of Monsanto Company. Inc; In April
1991, the Chief Judicial Officer signed the consent
order approving  the  consent  agreement in this
matter,  which  required  Monsanto  to pay  a
                                              4-62

-------
                        FT / 991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
penalty of $287,920 to settle the administrative
action brought for violations of HFRA  §17(a)
export labeling  and  notification requirements.
This represents the highest penalty obtained in
settlement of a  FIFRA administrative  action.
The consent agreement also requires Monsanto to
bring  all  past and  future  shipments  of the
pesticide  into compliance with the  purchaser
acknowledgement  requirement.   The  amended
complaint  charged Monsanto  with  failure to
obtain the purchaser acknowledgement statement
for shipments of an  unregistered pesticide and
failure to provide bilingual labeling.

In the Matter of jjando;z Crop Protection Corp,: In
October  1990, EPA   filed  an  administrative
complaint  against Sandoz  Corp.  for violating
§!7(a)(l) and §12(a)U)(a) of FIFRA by exporting
shipments of four unregistered pesticides without
first  obtaining  statements  from  the  foreign
purchasers acknowledging that  pesticides were
not registered for use in the United States, and the
same  shipments  violated  FIFRA  §17(a)(l),
§2(q){l)(H)  and   §12(a)(l)(E),  because  the
products  were not labeled with the statement
"Not  Registered  for Use in the United States of
America",  Pursuant   to  a  consent  agreement,
Sandoz paid a penalty of $98,000 and conducted
an audit to determine compliance with FIFRA §17
export requirements.  EPA has issued a demand
letter  for  stipulated   penalties  of $11,000 for
violations found in the audit.

In ihe Matter of Shield-Brite Corporation: On
June  28,  1991,  EPA   was  granted  motion  for
accelerated  decision   on   liability    which
favorably  disposed of a  number of  arguments
raised during  the Agency's recent  pesticides
export initiative,   The decision  affirmed the
Agency's position that for pesticides exported to
non-English speaking countries,  FIFRA requires
bilingual labeling, and that this labeling must be
affixed before the pesticides reach the  foreign
country.     The  court  rejected  Shield-Brite's
argument  that the  requirement  for bilingual
labeling was not  valid because it appeared in a
policy statement  rather  than a  regulation, and
stated that "the requirement for  such  labeling is
clearly  established   by  FIFRA   and   EPA's
published  interpretation." The  Court  rejected
Shield-Brite's argument that the  language of the
policy could be read  to allow either  English QJ
the language of  the importing country, holding
that such a construction would be illogical.  The
decision clearly states that exporters must comply
with  the bilingual labeling requirement  before
the pesticides reach the foreign country  even if
the export is an intra-corporate transfer.

In the Matter of Spnricidin International: This
was the first administrative enforcement FIFRA
case to be heard in EPA Headquarters. Sporicidin
appealed  the  initial  order which held that
Sporicidin  made  unauthorized  claims for two
disinfectant  products, i.e., that  the  products
would kill the AIDS  virus. The Chief Judicial
Officer  affirmed  both the  findings  and  the
$10,000 violation  penalty.  In  the  text of the
appeal decision, the Chief Judicial Officer made
several  legal  findings of  importance to  both
FIFRA enforcement  and  to the administrative
process in general. The major finding is that the
phrase "claims made  as  part  of the  products
distribution and sale"  is to  be construed broadly.
Thus,  the  Chief  Judicial  Officer  rejected
Sporicidin's  contention that  only claims that
physically accompany particular pesticide stocks
during their  sale  or distribution are covered  by
FIFRA.   EPA charged Sporicidin with  making
false claims and using misleading information in
the  process  of   selling   its   disinfectants  to
hospitals.  At the time of this violation, the
Agency had  accepted no  claims  that a product
would kill the AIDS virus and had approved no
claims to  that effect.  Making such claims for a
pesticidal product was therefore in violation of
HFRA, This case was part of a 1988 initiative
against the making of such unacceptable claims.
U.S. v. EJ.
df
                           ^ & Company, et alj
On March 29, 1991, EPA issued an administrative
complaint against EJ. DuPont de  Nemours &
Company, Terra  Chemicals International, Platte
Chemical Company and Lesco, Inc. for numerous
multiple  sales   and/or  distributions   of   an
adulterated pesticide registered to DuPont. EPA
had  earlier   discovered  that  quantities  of
DuPont's benomyl pesticide products had been
contaminated with atrazine (an herbicide) during
production by Terra  Chemicals,  an  agent of
DuPont, some time in 1989. EPA issued stop sale
orders  to  DuPont  and  the  other   named
corporations   shortly   after  discovering  the
adulterated  benomyl,  and  DuPont  voluntarily
recalled   the  adulterated  products.   EPA's
administrative complaint seeks civil penalties
from each of the corporations for each of the 256
documented   sales  or   distributions   of  the
contaminated benomyl.

At  the  time   this complaint was issued, EPA
learned   from  DuPont  that  new   batches  of
                                              4-63

-------
                             FY 3991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
atrazme-contaminated   benomyl   had   been
discovered. DuPont has begun a voluntary recall
of all of its benomyl products. On March 29,1991,
EPA issued  stop sale orders  to DuPont  and the
related producing and distributing corporations,
prohibiting the further distribution of DuPont's
contaminated benomyl products.

Criminal Enforcement - All Statutes

U.S.  v.   Alcus  and  AEI-KAARS  Production
Company (E.D. Kentucky):  On February 1, 1991,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, Samuel
T. Alcus, III was sentenced to pay a $10,000 fine
and to serve three years probation pursuant to his
guilty plea to one count of the negligent discharge
of brine into the Birch Branch River in MagofHn
County, Kentucky  between November 1989 and
January 1990.   Alcus is the president  of AEI-
KAARS Production Company, an oil production
company with several leases throughout Western
Kentucky.   The company was also  sentenced
pursuant to  a plea of guilty, to one count  of the
knowing discharge of brine into the Birch Branch
River during  the  same  time period  and was
sentenced to a $100,000 fine.   As part of  the
sentence, Alcus and AEI-KAARS paid $55,000 of
the imposed fine as restitution to the Kentucky
Hazardous Waste  Management Fund,  a fund
established to assist in financing the  Kentucky
Environmental Crimes Workshop. The sentencing
marked an  end  to the first  successful  CWA
conviction in the history of Kentucky relating to
the stripper well industry.

U.S. v. Baytank Inc.. et al. (5th Cir.): On June 13,
1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit  affirmed  the conviction  of  Baytank
(Houston), Inc., a chemical transfer and storage
facility, on two  counts of improper storage of
hazardous wastes in violation of RCRA.  On one
count, Baytank was fined $50,000, and received a
suspended sentence on a second count  provided
that it execute a community service program.  On
appeal,   the   defendant   challenged   jury
instructions  given  at • trial  relating  to  the
knowledge requirement under RCRA.  The court
rejected the-challenge, and adopted the general
intent standard for criminal violations of RCRA,
holding that it is not necessary to prove that the
defendant  knew  that  the  waste  had  been
identified under EPA regulations as hazardous.
The  court stated  that "knowingly" as used  in
RCRA means that the defendant knows factually
that he/she is storing, what is being stored, that
what is being stored factually has the potential
to harm others or the environment, and that
he/she  has  no  permit.    On  appeal,  the
government's  challenge  to  the  trial  court's
overruling conviction on a 'number of counts was
successful. A retrial on these counts is pending.

U.S. v. Birchfield. et al. (N.D. Georgia):  On July
17; 1991, in the United States District Court for
the  Northern  District  of  Georgia,  Atlanta,
Georgia, Kenneth Birchfield was convicted by a
federal jury of the illegal disposal of hazardous
waste, in violation of RCRA. Birchfield was also
convicted of manufacturing and possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine, carrying a
firearm during a drug offense, and possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon. Birchfield  and his
codefendant James Angerami were also convicted
of conspiracy to manufacture and possess with-
intent   to  distribute   methamphetamine  and
possession  of a  nonregistered  firearm.   The
defendants and three  (3) other individuals had
been  involved   in  the  illegal  production • of
methamphetamine from a business named  Metro
Fab.  During the illegal manufacturing process,
all wastes and substandard product batches were
dumped on the ground adjacent to the clandestine
laboratory  located in  the Atlanta metropolitan
area.    The three   (3)   individuals,  Glenda
Newsome, Edwin Eugene Trout and Shawn  Lee
Rawls.had been convicted on April 26,  1991 of
conspiracy and possession of an illegal drug.  All
defendants in the case have been sentenced to
serve lengthy prison sentences.
U.S. v,  ohfl
                             Borohji
Technology  Inc;   On  November 7, 1990,  U.S.
District Judge Douglas Woodlock sentenced  John
Borowski to 26 months in prison, followed by two
years of supervised release, and a $400,000 fine in
the first knowing endangerment criminal  case
under the CWA.  It is the longest prison term in
New  England  for an  environmental violation,
The case concerned the illegal discharge of toxic
metals and dangerous chemicals into the sewer
system, and  the endangerment of employees as a
result.   John Borowski  is president of  Borjohn
Optical Technology Inc.  of Burlington, MA.  The
company was also fined $50,000  and ordered  to
make a lump sum payment of $15,500 for medical
insurance for two of its former employees.

The  illegal discharges stemmed  from Borjohn's
metal  finishing   operations,   in  which  the
company plated various metals, including nickel,
onto Bradley Fighting Vehicle elevation  mirrors,
                                             4-64

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
M-l Tank mirrors,  and  cruise missile  folding
mirrors.   The defendants ordered employees  to
dump the chemicals down the sewer using plastic
buckets.    During  the  illegal disposals,  the
employees were exposed to toxic levels of nickel,
nitric acid, and nitrogen dioxide. The discharges
to the sewer eventually led to the Massachusetts
Water  Resource  Authority's sewage  treatment
plant, which in turn discharges to Boston Harbor.

U.S. v. grlttain (10th Cir.h  A jury in the U.S.
District  Court  for   the Western  District  of
Oklahoma convicted Raymond  T. Brittain, a city
public  utilities   director  exercising   general
supervisory authority over the Enid, Oklahoma's
wastewater treatment plant, for failure to report
discharges of pollutants in violation  of  a CWA
permit. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the  Tenth Circuit addressed  the question  of
whether a "person," as opposed to the permittee,
could be liable for a  permit violation. The court
held that  the statute plainly states that  any
"person"  (including  an  individual as well as a
corporation  or   other   organization,   i.e.  a
municipality) who  causes  a  permit violation
through knowing or negligent conduct, is subject to
criminal  sanctions.   The court   went  further,
however, and stated that responsible corporate
officers, to be held criminally liable,  would not
have to "willfully or negligently" cause a permit
violation.  Instead, the willfulness or negligence
of the subordinate actor would be imputed to the
supervisor  by   virtue   of  his   position  or
responsibility.                       .. •-''

U.S. v. Buckley (6th dr.): On April 30,1991, -the.
US. Court of 'Appeals  for the  Sixth  Circuit
affirmed" the convictions of Paul J. Buckley for
criminaiviqlations of the CAA and CERCLA. At
trial, ini the U.S. District Court  for the Northern
District of Ohio, a jury found Buckley, the project
manager,  guilty of knowingly  emitting asbestos
into the environment in the process of demolishing
a stationary source, as well as for failing to notify
the  appropriate  Federal agency  of a  known
release of  a  reportable quantity of asbestos, as
required  by CERCLA.  On review, the Court  of
Appeals  upheld  the trial court's finding  that
both the CAA and CERCLA are general intent
statutes. The knowledge elements of both  statutes
require merely that the defendant had knowledge
of the emissions themselves, not knowledge of the
statute proscribing the  emissions.   Thus, the
government need not prove  wrongful intent or
awareness of wrongdoing in  prosecutions under
these statutes. Good faith on the part of the
defendant is immaterial. The court rationalized
its  holding by  finding  that  dealing  with
hazardous   materials,  such  as asbestos,, puts
individuals  on notice  that  criminal  statutes
regulate the  handling  and  disposal  of  the
substances.

U.S. v. Control Disposal, et al. (N.D. Texas):   In
the  first  Federal  criminal   prosecution • for
violations of  a  city's  pretreatment  program.
Control Disposal (located in  Dallas, Texas) and
its CEO, Herman Gpldfaden, pled guilty to felony
violation of  the CWA for disposing of industrial
waste trap residues into the Dallas sewer system.
The defendants also  pled guilty  to  a felony
violation of RCRA.  The company and Goldfaden
were sentenced  on July 16,  199,1  with Control
Disposal receiving a one-million dollar criminal
fine. Goldfaden was sentenced to three years  of
imprisonment and a $75,000 fine.

y.S.  Y. Defense  Systems   Corporation:  On
September 30, 1991, Defense Systems Corporation
a/k/a  Hi-Shear Corporation  pled guilty to  two
RCRA  counts in the United States District Court
for the  District  of  Nevada.  The corporation
agreed to pay a penalty of $375,000 on each count,
or a total of $750,000 to the federal government
and was placed on  5 years of probation.  The
corporation  further agreed to pay a penalty  of
$375,000 to the State of Nevada.

Defense  Systems   Corporation  retails   and
manufactures explosive devices. The first count  of
the indictment  charged that  the corporation
transported     hazardous    wastes,    namely
propellants  and other explosive wastes from its
California   facility  to  its   Nevada  facility,
without a hazardous waste manifest as required
by  RCRA.  The  second  count  charged  the-
corporation  with the illegal storage of hazardous
wastes, namely propellants and other explosive
wastes, at  the  Nevada facility although  the
corporation  did not have  a  storage  permit or
interim status as required by RCRA.

On July 23,  1991 three  employees of the Defense
Systems Corporation were indicted for four counts
of illegally transporting, storing and disposing of
hazardous waste and making a false statement  to
EPA. Trial for the three individuals is scheduled
in the near future.

U.S. v. Exxon Corporation, et al. (P. Alaska): As
part of a global settlement of Federal enforcement
actions  arising  from the discharge of over ten
                                              4-65

-------
                             FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
million gallons of crude oil from the tanker "Exxon
Valdez" in the Prince William Sound, Alaska on
March 23, 1989, the two corporate defendants,
Exxon Corporation  and  the  Exxon  Shipping
Corporation, entered into a new plea  agreement
with the government on September 30,1991. (The
Captain was prosecuted by the State of Alaska).
The original plea agreement was rejected  by the
federal judge on April 24,1991.

In the new agreement, formally entered before the
court on October 8,1991, Exxon Shipping agreed to
plead  guilty   to   three   counts  and   Exxon
Corporation agreed to plead to one  count of the
indictment returned against them in Anchorage,
Alaska on February 27,1990. Exxon Shipping pled
to a misdemeanor violation of the CWA for the
negligent discharge of oil  without a permit, a
misdemeanor violation of the Refuse Act for the
illegal discharge of refuse (oil) from a ship, and a
violation  of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act  for
unpermitted  killing of over  36,000  migratory
birds. The company agreed to pay a fine of $20
million.   The  Exxon Corporation pled to the one
Migratory Bird Treaty Act  count, and agreed to
pay a fine of $5 million.  Both defendants also
agreed to now make a remedial payment of $50
million to the State of Alaska, and $50 million to
the federal government for restoration projects
relating  to the  oil spill.  A  companion civil
consent   decree  requires  establishment  of  a
$900,000,000 trust fund for remediation.

U.S. y. Exxon (New Jerseylt  On March 20, 1991,
Exxon pled guilty to a misdemeanor information
charging it with negligently discharging oil into
the Arthur Kill without a permit, in violation of
the  CWA.  As  part  of a  global  settlement *
involving the United States,  the States of New
York and New Jersey, and the City of  New York,
Exxon agreed to pay a criminal fine of$5,000,000.
In   addition,   as  described   under   "Water
Enforcement Program," above, on the same date in
the  Eastern  District  of  New  York,  Exxon's
agreement to a civil settlement of $10,000,000 was
accepted by the court.

U.S,  v.   Enviro- Analysts,.  Irtfv  et  al.  (D.
Wisconsin): On October 4,1991, in one of the first
successful environmental criminal trial involving
the sale of fraudulent laboratory reports, Enviro-
Analysts,  Inc. and its  owner,  John  Ruetz, were
found  guilty of falsifying analytical  data for
clients who were  required to comply with the
CWA and RCRA. Ruetz  and  the  lab  were
convicted for routinely falsifying data by using
incorrect equipment  and  procedures  to certify
compliance  and   fabricating  test  results • for
samples that had never been taken.  The vice-
president of Enviro-Analysts, Robert Schloesser,
was charged  separately  and previously  pled
guilty  to  two counts of  violating the CWA.
Eventually, Schloesser  testified   against  the
corporation and Mr. Ruetz.  The extent of the
effect of Enviro-Analysts' criminal conduct on the .
program reliance on voluntary compliance by the
regulated community is now being examined by an
extensive review of permits issued by the State of
Wisconsin.
U.S. v. Kamjl Salieb Gabra^ e| al. (New
On August 29, 1991 Kamal Gabra pleaded guilty
to a criminal violation of FIFRA.   This case,
handled  by EPA's Office of Inspector General,
involved  illegal  export  of  misbranded  and
mislabeled pesticides, and falsification of  EPA
documents in furtherance of the scheme. Gabra's
three     companies.     Liberty    International
Agricultural  Products,   Nevacide,   Ltd.,  and
Hercules Chemicals, U.S.A., shipped hundreds of
thousands  of dollars  worth  of pesticides  to
Middle Eastern countries since 1988, though not
all  the shipments were illegal.   Sentencing is
scheduled for November, 1991. Gabra apparently
took the orders for the pesticides from clients, and
others mixed the chemicals for him, Gabra has
agreed to provide information about those  who
helped him circumvent  Federal laws. 'Gabra is
also now  out  of  the   business of exporting
pesticides.                  •               >

U.S. v Reginald Max Goldsmith. Ga. (RCRA): On
August  30,  1991, in the United  States District
Court  for  the Northern District  of  Georgia,
Atlanta, Georgia,* Reginald Max  Goldsmith was
convicted by a jury on both counts of a two count
indictment charging violations  of  RCRA.  The
indictment, handed down on July  2, 1991, charged
Goldsmith with the illegal transportation  and
storage of  hazardous waste to an  unpermitted
storage facility.  The proof at trial demonstrated
that Goldsmith,  using  a fraudulent company,
contracted  with Hunt  Chemicals Company  to
transport  and  dispose  of  approximately  two
hundred  55-gallon  drums  containing  various
hazardous  wastes.  After improperly removing
the drums, Goldsmith provided Hunt Chemicals
with   fraudulent   documents    representing
compliance  with  all  EPA regulations regarding
the transportation and  disposal of hazardous
waste.  The drums ultimately were  discovered,
and illegally  discarded,  at  three  separate
                                             4-66'

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                                              * '%
                                           mj
                                             naf
locations  in  the  Atlanta  metropolitan  area.
Sentencing is scheduled for a later date.

U.S. v. Hassler (M.D. Florida): On November 21,
1990, Charles A, Hassler was sentenced pursuant
to his guilty plea to the charge of violating the
Land Ban Restrictions of RCRA.  Hassler was
sentenced  to  serve  three  months  community
confinement and to pay a $500 fine, Hassler, the
former Director of Public Works and City Engineer
for Longwood, Florida, admitted that in October
1988, he knowingly directed municipal employees
to  illegally  bury  sixteen drums of hazardous
waste  within 100 yards  of  the city's  water
reservoir.  Several of  the drums ruptured, causing
contamination of  the  surrounding  soil. The
sentencing marked  a successful end to the nation's
first   prosecution   under   EPA's   recently
implemented Land Ban Restrictions,

U.S. v Croda^Inks. George Ault.  George Moore,
Kevin  G. Moora  and  John Michael  Cox.  Tn.
(RCRA/CW A/Title 18): On September 16, 1991, in
the United States District Court for the Western
District   of  Tennessee,   Western   Division,
Memphis, Tennessee, George Auit entered  a plea
of guilty  to a one count  indictment charging  a
felony violation of  the CWA. Ault, a supervisory
employee  of Croda Inks, an ink formulator and
producer,  admitted to the knowing discharge of
solvent washes and  water washes, which were
generated  during the ink formulation process, into
McKellar  Lake without a permit. Also indicted
on that date was George Moore,  former general
manager  at  Croda's Memphis   plant,  for  the
illegal storage of  hazardous  waste without  a
permit, in violation  of RCRA in addition to  a
knowing  discharge  in  violation of the  CWA.
Moore's son Kevin G. Moore and John Michael Cox,
both Croda employees, also pled guilty to making
false statements and misrepresentations to EPA
Special Agents investigating  the violations at
Croda.  All defendants will be sentenced at  a
later date.  The corporation, pursuant to a  guilty
plea  entered   in  April,  1991   for  negligent
violations  of CWA  was sentenced on July 10, 1991,
to three years probation and ordered to pay a fine
of  $200,000,  half  to be  suspended  upon  the
payment of $100,000 restitution to the State of
Tennessee  Hazardous  Waste  Remedial  Fund.
Further, the corporation was ordered to publish a
public apology, and incur  the costs  of remedial
action at the Memphis plant site.
U.S. v. International Paper Company (D.
On July 3, 1991, in Portland, Maine, International
Paper Company pleaded guilty to violations of
Federal laws at its  Androscoggin  Mill in Jay,
Maine, and was fined $2.2 million.  The mill is
the largest paper mill in Maine, and the fine is
one  of  the  largest imposed  in  Maine  for
environmental  violations.   The company was
convicted of three counts of storing  and treating
hazardous waste without  a  permit or interim
status in violation of RCRA,  and two counts of
making false statements to the government  in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001.  From 1986 to 1988,
the company  generated  and  mixed  ignitable
waste solvents with waste oil prior to disposal by
incineration in the mill's power boilers.  In 1987,
the company  falsely  stated that  it  did not
generate hazardous waste at its mill, and in 1986
it, falsely stated that its  mill  had  only one
outfall to the  Androscoggin River, when in fact it
had two.  All  of these crimes were committed
knowingly by the company.  No individuals were
charged. The U.S. Attorney said that since 1988
the company  has  taken  steps to  come into
compliance with environmental requirements.

U.S. v Mark ftby, S.C. (CWA): On September 13,
1991,  in Richmond,  Virginia, the United  States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed
the sentence  of two  years  and nine (9) months
incarceration  for Mark Irby (the longest jail term
ever  handed  out  in  South Carolina for an
environmental  crime).  Irby,  the former  plant
manager of a wastewater treatment facility, was
convicted of multiple violations of the CWA.  He
was sentenced on November 28, 1990 pursuant to.
his conviction on charges that from March, 1987
through   September,   1988,  he   knowingly
discharged sewer sludge into the Reedy River in
South    Carolina,   tampered   and   caused
falsification  of  wastewater monitoring reports,
and failed to report  nonpermitted discharges to
the appropriate State and Federal authorities as
required by law.

Irby appealed  his only sentence, which  he is
presently serving. Irby asserted that the District
Court erred in  increasing his offense level  under
Part Q of  the Sentencing  Guidelines, which
states,  if  the offense  resulted in  an  ongoing,
continuous, or  repetitive discharge, release,  or
emission of a pollutant into the environment, the
offense level increases by six levels.

The  Court of  Appeals found that the CWA's
definition of "pollutant" encompasses  "sewage
sludge"." The  record showed that Irby ordered the
discharge of  approximately  500,000 gallons of
                                             4-67

-------
mj
   «p
                             FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
partially treated sludge at least twice a week for
two years.  The District Court found as fact that
actions  performed  at  Irby's direction allowed
sewage  sludge from. the  waste  sludge holding
basin to be discharged virtually untreated into
the adjacent river. Because of the huge quantities
of pollutant discharged, the finding of the lower
court clearly was not erroneous, said the Appeals
Court.

U.S.  v. Paul Tudor Jones n and William B. Ellgn
(D. MD):  On April 15, 1991, William Ellen was
sentenced to serve six months in prison, 12 months
probation  and  60 hours  of  community  service
relating to his conviction on five  felony counts of
violating  the  CWA.  Ellen was  the  project
manager involved in the filling of 86 acres of
wetlands on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
                     i*
LLj;-  Y- Laughlin and Donnelly (N.D. New Yorkfc
On June 20,1991, the United States District Court
in the Northern District of New  York reaffirmed
the principle that under RCRA, ignorance of the
law is no excuse. Defendant Laughlin, president
and/or  plant manager of GCL Tie Treating, Inc.,
and  defendant Donnelly,  a  supervisor at GCL,
were charged, in a twenty-seven count indictment
with  the  illegal  storage   and  disposal   of
hazardous waste without a permit.  In a pre-trial
determination,   the  court   agreed  with  the
government's assertion that, in order to obtain a
conviction  under  RCRA §6928(d)(2)(A),  the
government need not prove that the defendants
knew that it was illegal to treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste  without a permit.   The
government, thus does not have to prove that the
defendants knew that a permit was required or
that  the defendants knew that the company  did
not have a permit. In coming to  its  decision, the
court explicitly disagreed with a contrary case,
U.S. v. Tohnson and Towera finding the reasoning
weak and unpersuasive.   Instead,  the  court
adopted the rule from U.S.  v. Hoflia  which is
that  due to the public welfare nature of  RCRA,
proof of knowledge of the permit requirement or
permit status is not required..  For the first time, a
court in the Second Circuit ruled on the issue of the •
state of knowledge  necessary to  prove a RCRA
disposal violation.  This  decision should have
important precedential value with the Second,
Circuit.

U.S. v. James Long, (New York): On May 17, 1991,
James Long pled guilty to a one count information
charging   him   with   falsifying   information
pertaining  to  asbestos removals performed by
                                                   Safe  Air  Environmental  Group,  Inc.  at  the
                                                   Bethlehem Steel Plant in Tonawanda, NY.  (See
                                                   also discussion under "Air Enforcement Program,"
                                                   above,  describing  parallel  civil  proceedings
                                                   initiated in connection with NESHAPs violations
                                                   at  this facility.) , This  case  was  investigated
                                                   through the auspices of the Western District of
                                                   New York LECC sub-committee on environmental
                                                   crimes.,.  •

                                                   U,S. v. Louisville Edible Oil Products. Inc.. et al.
                                                   tfjh Cir.): On October 7,1991, the Supreme Court
                                                   refused to grant the Petition for Writ of Certiorari
                                                   filed by Louisville Edible Oil Products, Inc. This
                                                   action allows the appellate  decision below to
                                                   stand.  In a  decision of first impression  in the
                                                   context of environmental law,  the,Sixth Circuit
                                                   Court of Appeals ruled that the Western District
                                                   of Kentucky was correct to deny defense motions to •
                                                   dismiss   the   indictments   based  , on  the
                                                   Constitution's   prohibition    against    double
                                                   jeopardy.  The reason for the decision was that,
                                                   under  the  dual   sovereignty  doctrine,  the
                                                   prohibition  against  double jeopardy does  not
                                                   apply to  charges placed by separate sovereigns
                                                   (the Federal and county governments) even, if the
                                                   charges  are both  for  the  same offense.  Even
                                                   though EPA had delegated EPA's CAA authority
                                                   to Kentucky,  (which then redelegated to  a county
                                                   agency) to enforce the NESHAPs requirements for
                                                   asbestos, the  court found that the county agency
                                                   was not  a mere  "tool" or conduit for Federal
                                                   enforcement. The reason for this finding was that
                                                   EPA Jacks  statutory  authority to  control'the
                                                   actions  of the county agency,  and  indeed with
                                                   regard to the violator the county agency  acted on
                                                   its own authority and despite  EPA's conflicting
                                                   views on how to proceed on the violations. This
                                                   important  decision  has  confirmed   EPA's
                                                   traditional position  that in the criminal context
                                                   the Federal government and the states maintain
                                                   separate, independent, and concurrent enforcement
                                                   authority.. As a result ,of this decision, the  case
                                                   will now proceed  to trial.  The company, which
                                                   manufactures edible  oils  such  as  salad  oil,
                                                   demolished or renovated  two facilities that it
                                                   owns in  Louisville,  Kentucky.   The indictment
                                                   charges the company, an affiliated company, and ,
                                                   several   top, corporate officers  with  asbestos
                                                   related violations of CAA and CERCLA.

                                                   U.S,  v.  MacDonald  and Watson Waste • Oil
                                                   Company etLal. (1st Cir.):   A circuit court.for the
                                                   first  time  addressed  whether  the  RCRA's
                                                   "knowing" requirement applies to  a corporate
                                                   officer  who   did not actually  know  of  his
                                             4-68

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
corporation's illegal act  (as  opposed  to  not
knowing  the  regulations  which  covers  the
corporation's activity)!  Following  a jury trial
during September 1989, in  the US. District  Court
for the District of Rhode Island, MacDonald and
Watson  Waste  Oil  Company,   Eugene  E.
D'Allesandro,   President  of  MacDonald  and
Watson, and two other MacDonald  and Watson
employees were convicted,  among other counts, of
knowingly   transporting   and   causing   the
transportation of hazardous waste  to a facility
which  " did   not  have   a   RCRA   permit.
D'Allesandro's  conviction  was  based  on  the
"responsible  corporate  officer"  doctrine,  oh
evidence that he was a "hands-on" manager, and
that  he  knew  in the past the company had
violated  RCRA.  There  was no  direct evidence
showing  that   he  actually  knew • that  the
shipment of  hazardous  waste in question was
being  transported  to 'his company's  disposal
facility in Providence, Rhode Island.  The First
Circuit Court of Appeals vacated D'Allesandro's
conviction and  rejected the broadest form  of the
"responsible corporate officer" doctrine,  which
would  allow for the conclusive establishment of
the element of knowledge by a mere showing that
the individual  held  a- position of  corporate
responsibility.  At the same time, however/the
First Circuit affirmed that knowledge did  not
have to be proven by direct evidence  but could be
inferred  from the defendant's position,  conduct
and other facts and circumstances. The court went
further and stated that "willful blindness to facts
constituting  the  offense   may  be  sufficient  to
establish knowledge."  The case was-remanded
for retrial of Mr. D'Allesandro, who  is presumed
innocent unless proven guilty.  The convictions of
the MacDonald and Watson Waste Oil Company
and the two other employees were affirmed.

U.S.  v. Nanticoke Homesf Inc. (D. DE):   The
largest  employer  in  southern  Delaware  pled
guilty to Federal hazardous wastes violations'on
March  26,  1991, for storing  hazardous  waste
without a permit and failing to notify the EPA of
a release of  a  hazardous substance. Nanticoke
Homes, Inc. generated  ignitable waste at  the
company's Greenwood, DE facility and failed to
ship  any hazardous wastes offsite  for disposal
over a  31 month period, and company employees
crushed and buried drums containing hazardous
wastes on the property. As a result of the first
Federal environmental prosecution in the State of
Delaware, Nanticoke Homes, Inc. was sentenced
on July 30, 1991, to pay a fine of $300,000 and to
perform  400 hours of community  service. The
parallel Nanticoke Homes criminal prosecution
and expedited environmental cleanup represent a
model example  of  multi-office,  multi-program,
and civil/criminal coordination.

U.S. v. New York Bus Service. (Mew Yorkfe  On
May 29,1991, New York Bus Service was assessed
a criminal penalty of $25,000 based upon its plea
of guilty to a one count information charging it
with negligently discharging ethylene gJycol into
the  Hutchinson  River, New York without a
permit, in violation of the Clean Water Act. This
case was a joint investigation between the FBI,
New  York City Dept of Sanitation Police and
EPA; •

U.S.  v.  North  Bcnnington Board  of Water
Commissioners, e* aL (D. Vermont):  In the first
Federal  criminal   prosecution  for  violations
related to the SDWA's regulation of public water
supply systems, on October 29,1990, the municipal
Board, its Superintendent (Gerald Elwell), and
employee    (Peter    Lauzon),     and    the
owners/operators of the Pownal Water Company
(Murray and Bertha Lewis) entered pleas  of
guilty, in  the U.S. District Court  for Vermont, to
charges  that  they  filed  false  statements  on
monthly  water  system   operations   reports.
(Charges against several  co-defendants  are still
pending.)   Under   the  Safe Drinking Water
program,   water   suppliers  must  test   for
contaminants such as turbidity and report results
to state authorities  and to EPA,   It was alleged
that the defendants  knowingly falsified these
reports, in violation of  the Federal Criminal
Code's false statement statute. Pursuant to a plea
agreement with  the government, the Board was
fined $100,000,  with  payment  suspended  on
condition that the Board comply with all legal
requirements in the future.  Lauzon was placed on
probation; Elwell and the Lewises were placed on
probation and fined $500.

U.S. y. Pillsbury Company  (W.D. Mo.): The
United States obtained a  plea agreement in this
case  which   is an  excellent   example   of
Federal/state cooperation and  coordination  in
criminal enforcement  of environmental statutes.
On October 20,1990, the Pillsbury Company plead
guilty  to  one count  of  negligent discharge  of
ammonia  into  the  Silver   Creek  in   Joplin,
Missouri,   which  resulted   in   a  substantial
fishkill.   The  plea  agreement  provides  for
payment of a  $100,000 fine.
Pillsbury also paid $75,000 to the City of Joplin
                                             4-69

-------
                             FY1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
as compensation for damages from the spill. The
State of Missouri  Attorney General settled its
case against Pillsbury for $100,000. The City will
use  the  settlements  to  purchase   composting
equipment for  use by  the  Southwest  Missouri
Regional Solid  Waste Commission, (SMRSWC).
SMRSWC is a non-profit corporation formed by
six southwest Missouri communities.

U.g. v. Jlaza Health Laboratory. (New Yorkfe On
January 31, 1991, Geronimo Villegas, the owner of
Plaza Health Laboratory,  was convicted, after a
jury trial, of two counts of knowingly  discharging
hepatitis tainted blood vials  into the Hudson
River without a permit and two counts of knowing
endangerment for discharging those vials into the
Hudson  River  in  violation  of   the  CWA.
Following that conviction, the  defendant moved,
pursuant  to  Rule  29 of  the  Federal  Rules  of
Criminal Procedure, for a judgment of a acquittal.
On  December  13,   the  judge  set  aside  the
convictions  of  knowing   endangerment  and
affirmed the convictions on knowing discharge.
The  defendant  was  sentenced  to   one  year
imprisonment, but is now out pending appeal. The
Government has appealed the dismissal, and the
defendant  has   appealed  the  convictions  not
dismissed.
U,g. v Rjiy R. Pleasant andJWilliam f. McMurray,
Tn^fCWAl: On August 21, 1991, in the Eastern
District of Tennessee, Greenville, Tennessee, Ray
R.  Pleasant  and William F. McMurray.  each
entered guilty pleas before U.S. District Judge
Thomas  G.  Hull to  a  criminal  information
charging  violations  of Federal  environmental
laws.   The information charged  Pleasant and
McMurray with a violation of the CWA alleging
negligent  discharge  of  oil-contaminated  water.
Pleasant and McMurray were also charged with a
violation  of  the Migratory  Bird Treaty  Act,
stemming from the deaths of numerous waterfowl
as a result of the illegal discharge. The charges
resulted from the defendants' actions on Memorial
Day, May  27, 1991,  when they pumped water
contaminated with diesel fuel from underground
storage tanks and  from  an  excavated pit on
Pleasant's property in Kingsport, Tennessee into a
storm  sewer which  emptied  into  the  Madd
Branch of the Holston River.

U.S. v.  Puregio  Compa|tyf  Ii\c..  et  al.  (D.
Washington): On September  18,  1991, the  U.S.
District Court,  sitting  in  Yakima, Washington,
entered into a  plea agreement  whereby  the
PureGro  Company  pled guilty  to one  FIFRA
misdemeanor count. The case arose from the firm's
application  of  a  wastewater mixture  from  a
company   evaporator  tank   containing   the
pesticides Dyfonate and Telone II to a field near
Pasco, Washington on May 12, 1987, in a manner
inconsistent with the labeling of those pesticides.
The pesticides were sprayed on the surface of the
field  without   calibrating   the  amount  or
concentration of the pesticides, causing  illness.to
several  nearby  residents.     The Government
dismissed  four RCRA counts against the  company
and all the individual defendants. The Company
was fined  $15,000.  In addition, the District Court
ruled that,  despite the "responsible  corporate
officer"    doctrine,   a   corporate   employee
responsible for environmental and safety matters
could  be  held  criminally  liable  only  for
"knowing" conduct, and not for activities of others
of which  he, "should have  known." The court
further held that the term "knowingly"  modifies
hazardous waste,  as  well  as,  treats, stores or
disposes of.

U.S. v. Queen Products Company,Incorporated and
John Thomas Cnttrell  (W. D. Kentucky): On May
22, 1991, in the  United States  District Court for
the Western District  of  Kentucky,  sitting  in
Louisville, Queen Products Company (QPC) and
John Thomas Cottrell were sentenced pursuant to
their guilty pleas entered on March 20,1991, to an
information charging  violations of RCRA. QPC
was also sentenced pursuant to its guilty plea to  a
one count  information originating in the  Southern
District of Indiana, charging the company with
the knowing disposal of hazardous waste without
a permit.    QPC, a corporation engaged in the
manufacture of  electrical enclosures, admitted to
the knowing disposal of hazardous waste without
a permit at its Louisville, Kentucky facility and
at  property  owned  by   the  president  in
Jeffersonville,  Indiana.    The  company  was
sentenced  to pay a fine of $165,000, half to be
suspended upon  payment  of $82,500  to  the
Commonwealth of Kentucky as restitution  and an
additional $10,000  to be  paid to the  State of
Indiana as restitution.
QPC  was  also  placed  on  eighteen   months
probation,  and  ordered to  publish  a  public
apology and to incur the cost of remedial action at
the   sites.      Cottrell,  the   former   plant
superintendent of QPC, admitted to the  knowing
transportation and disposal of hazardous waste
without a  permit. He was sentenced to serve four
months incarceration of a three year sentence, the
balance suspended, two years of probation, and to
pay a total of $10,000 in fines.
                                             4-70

-------
                        FY1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
U.S. v. Sanchez Enterprises. Kpc;,f et al. (E.P.
Tenn| A jail term for an environmental crime was
imposed   against   Gale  Eugene  Dean,   the
production manager of General Metal Fabricators,
a metal coating facility in Irwin, Tennessee, and a
division of Sanchez Enterprises, Inc. On August 5,
1991, the U.S.  District Court for the  Eastern
District of Tennessee sentenced Dean to 40 months
imprisonment for his  part in the illegal disposal
of spent  solvents by  burying the  drums at the
General Metal Fabricators' site between 1984 and
1989.  On August  22, 1991,  Sanchez Enterprises,
Inc.  entered a plea of guilty to a single felony
violation  of RCRA for the  illegal disposal  of
hazardous waste.   The  corporation was fined
$150,000, of which $25,000 is to be paid into  an
environmental fund for the State of Tennessee.

U.S.v,  Saunders Asbestos  Service,  Imy et al. (D.
Maisi In a case against one of the largest asbestos
removal  companies in Massachusetts, Saimders
Asbestos  Service  and  its   foreman,  Dominic
Lamarra, were sentenced on April  1, 1991, in the
District of Massachusetts, for violating the CWA
by discharging large  amounts of  asbestos-laden
wastewater into the Charles River. Lamarra was
sentenced to four months incarceration,  and the
company to a $5,000 fine and  2 years probation. In
1988,  Lamarra supervised  and  directed  his
employees to wet down asbestos with water and
then illegally dispose of the waste by pumping
the  asbestos-laden  water   into  a  street  in
Brookline, Massachusetts. The case is the result
of  the first  joint environmental prosecution
brought  cooperatively  by  the  United States
Attorney's Office, the Commonwealth's Attorney
General's   Office,   and  the  Commonwealth's
Environmental Strike Force,
U.S. v. United
                           Corp;  On May 14,
1991, United Technologies Corp. pleaded guilty to
six felony violations of RCRA and was sentenced
to pay a $3,000,000 fine, the largest criminal fine
for a hazardous waste violation in the country.
The  case related to the use and disposal of  an
industrial solvent at the  company's  Sikorsky
Aircraft Division in Stratford,  CT.   Workers at
the facility  sprayed the solvent on helicopter
transmissions after the transmissions were tested.
The  resulting waste fell to the floor  and was
routinely hosed and squeegeed out the door onto
the ground.   An  area  of approximately 4,000
square  feet  was contaminated  and eventually
removed by Sikorsky under  EPA supervision,
During the  relevant  period  of time,  Sikorsky,
which  employs 14,000 people,  had one  person
responsible for environmental compliance for all
of its facilities nationwide.

U.S.  v.  Michael  Weitzenhoff  and  Thomas
Mariam: On October 2,1991, a jury, in the District
Court   in   Hawaii,   convicted   two  former
government   officials  of  the  Hawaii   Kai
Wastewater Treatment Plant of Clean Water Act
violations. The two were found guilty of illegally
dumping tons of partially treated  sewage sludge
into the waters of  Hawaii, and are the  first
individuals   convicted  in  Hawaii  of CWA
violations.   Michael  Weitzenhoff,  the formal
plant manager, and Thomas Mariani, the former
assistant manager, were convicted of five felony
counts under the  CWA, and of an  additional
conspiracy count, charging them with authorizing
the illegal discharges. The government alleged
the discharges occurred in 1988 and 1989 on an
estimated  40  occasions.  The  discharges  were
secretly  made at  night  to  avoid  detection.
Although it was not possible to  determine the
exact amount discharged, an expert  estimated
that some  440,000  Ibs. of  solids were in  the
millions of  gallons  of waste activated sludge
discharged   through the  outfall.  Sentencing is
scheduled for January 13,1992.

U.S. v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (W.D. Washington):
On  November  16,  1990,  the  Weyerhaeuser
Company agreed to enter a plea of guilty to  five
misdemeanor counts for violations of  the CWA.
The  criminal  charges  stemmed  from   the
unpermitted discharge over a nine year period of
paint  wastes  and  wash  water  into  Shannon
Slough, a tributary of the Keyholes River, from
the end seal and stencil painting operation at the
company's Aberdeen, Washington sawmill.   As
part of the plea agreement, Weyerhaeuser agreed
to pay a $125,000 criminal fine and $375,000 will
be placed in a trust fund to be controlled by public
officials as a form of restitution to the  citizens of
Grays Harbor County.  The money from the fund
will be used for cleaning up and  eradicating all
pollution sources  along  the  Shannon Slough.
Trustees of  the fund will be representatives of
governmental entities, including EPA.   This case
was the  first effort of  the newly  created
Environmental Crimes Unit of the U.S.  Attorney's
Office  for the Western District of  Washington,
now staffed full-time by two Assistant United
States Attorneys.

Contractor Listing

     Under the Clean Air  Act CAA  §306  and
                                             4-71

-------
(m
     <*
FF J99J Enforcement Accomplishments Report
      the Clean  Wafer Act CW4  §505,  EP,4 has
      authority  to  prevent  facilities  that  violate
      Federal   water  pollution  and  air  pollution
      requirements from receiving or being used in the
      performance  of  Federally  funded  contracts,
      grants  or loans, by placing the facility on the
      List of Violating Facilities. Federal agencies are
      prohibited  by  statute  from  entering  into
      contracts, grants or loans (including subcontracts,
      subgrants  or  subloans)  to   be  performed  at
      facilities owned or operated  by persons who are
      convicted of violating air standards under CAA
      §113(c) or  water standards under CWA §309(c).
      The prohibition is effective automatically on
      the date of the conviction.  Facilities which are
      mandatorily listed remain on the List until EPA
      determines  that  they  have  corrected  the
      conditions giving rise to the violations.

           Facilities with records of civil violations
      may  also  be  listed,  at  the discretion of the
      Assistant Administrator for Enforcement,  upon
      the recommendation  of certain EPA officials, a
      State Governor, or a member of the public (this  is
      referred to  as  discretionary  listing).  A facility
      may  be  recommended for  listing  if there are
      continuing  or recurring violations of the CAA or
      CWA after  one or more enforcement actions have
      been  brought against the facility  by EPA or a
      state    enforcement   agency.        Facilities
      recommended for discretionary listing  have  a
      right to an informal administrative proceeding.
     _ Facilities-listed under discretionary listing may
      be removed from the List automatically after one
      year, unless the basis for listing was a  criminal
      conviction in a state  court or a court order in a
      civil enforcement action. They may be  removed
      from  the  List  at any time  if  the Assistant
      Administrator determines that the facility has
      corrected the conditions which gave rise  to the
      listing or that the facility is on a plan that will
      result in compliance.

           Two significant  contractor listing cases in
      FY 1991 were Exxon Corporation (Exxon Bayway
      Refinery, Bayonne Terminal and Inter-Refinery
      Pipeline) and  Big Apple Wrecking Corp.  The
      Assistant Administrator's decision in  the Exxon
      mandatory listing case established  that a listed
      facility may include integrally related sites of
      operation constituting one complex facility, in
      this case a  petrochemical refinery, pipeline, and
      terminal.

           In Big Apple, a discretionary listing case
      against a construction and demolition company,
                      the General  Counsel  upheld  on  appeal  the
                      Agency's  interpretation  of the  definition of
                      "facility" as including the business address  of a
                      construction  company —  not  the building or
                      demolition  site  where  the  violation  occurred.
                      The General Counsel  reversed on other grounds
                      the Case Examiner's  decision to list Big Apple,
                      and remanded the case to  the Case Examiner for
                      further proceedings.,

                      Big  Apple   Wrecking   Corporation:     In  a
                      discretionary  listing   proceeding  against  Big
                      Apple Wrecking Corporation of Bronx, New York,
                      an EPA Case  Examiner had determined in  1990
                      that Big Apple should  be placed on the List.

                      On appeal of the Case Examiner's decision by Big
                      Apple,  the  General  Counsel  upheld  EPA's
                      interpretation of the "facility" to be listed as
                      being  the  business  address  of  a mobile or
                      transitory business, rather than the site at which
                      the violations occurred (which  usually  is not
                      owned by the violator). However, the EPA  Case
                      Examiner's decision to place Big Apple on the List
                      was  vacated   and   remanded   for  further
                      proceedings; the General  Counsel  held  that he
                      was unable  to determine from the record of the
                      proceeding  whether  the Case Examiner  had
                      applied a pass rule that any series of  violations
                      could   constitute   "continuing   or   recurring
                      violations" (the legal  standard for discretionary
                      listing), or  whether  the Case Examiner  had
                      conducted a case-by-case  determination, as  EPA
                      had indicated it would in the  1985 preamble to
                      the contractor listing  regulations.  Nevertheless,
                      the  General  Counsel  -held  that there  were
                      undoubtedly numerous violations by Big Apple of
                      the asbestos NESHAPS standards, which could
                      constitute a basis for listing if the proper legal
                      standard was applied.   The  General Counsel
                      indicated  that, on  remand, the  Region could
                      initiate  a new listing  proceeding against Big
                      Apple, or  continue the  current proceeding to
                      clarify the  application of  the legal  standard
                      applied.

                      Exxon  Company. U.S.A. (Linden  and Bayonne.
                      MJh In a mandatory listing case involving Exxon
                      Company,  U-S.A.'s  (Exxon)  Bayway  Refinery,
                      Bayonne Terminal, and Inter-Refinery Pipeline
                      (1RPL),  EPA determined  that the three sites.of
                      operation are not independent facilities, and that
                      Exxon's facility consisting   of  the three  sites
                      should remain on the List of Violating Facilities
                      (List).  Exxon's complex petrochemical  facility in
                      Linden and  Bayonne,  NJ,  was listed after Exxon
                                                   4-72

-------
                        FF1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Corporation pled guilty to criminal violation of
CWA § 309(c> for spilling some 567,000 gallons of
Number 2 heating oil into the Arthur Kill, as a
result   of   negligent  failures   in   training,
supervision, and operation.

In  denying  the  first  "independent  facilities
petition" filed under 40 CFR Part 15, the Acting
Assistant   Administrator  relied  upon   the
historical, operational, personnel, and budgetary
connections among the three sites of  operation,
finding that the IRPL was controlled solely by
employees and  managers of the Terminal and the
Refinery, and that together the three sites were
part of a larger  system serving a unitary purpose.
The Acting Assistant Administrator also  noted
that even if  the Terminal and Refinery were
independent,  each  could  be  listed   properly,
because each could be deemed  to be  a  facility
which gave rise to Exxon Corp.'s conviction, in
view   of  the  responsibilities   each   had  for
operating the  IRPL.  Therefore, all three sites
were  properly placed on the List, and remained
listed  pending  resolution of Exxon's petition for
removal of the facility from the List.

Wheeling-Pittsburgh   Steel    Corp,:       A
discretionary   listing  action   against   three
Wheeling-Pittsburgh  Steel Corp,  (Wheeling-
Pittsburgh) facilities for continuing  or  recurring
violations of the  CWA  was  concluded  when
Wheeling-Pittsburgh  entered  into  a  Consent
Decree, settling the  civil  enforcement actions
against it. The discretionary listing case played
an important role in facilitating the settlement of
the   judicial   enforcement   actions   against
Wheeling-Pittsburgh,   which    included   a
$6,000,000 civil penalty.

Multi-Media Enforcement

Bethlehem Steel/Lackawanna FlanJ: In FY 1990,
EPA  became aware  of  serious  CAA asbestos
NESHAPs  violations in  connection  with  the
demolition of BSC's Basic Oxygen Furnace at its
Lackawanna, New York plant. At that time, EPA
initiated  a  case concerning this  violation, and
scheduled a full multi-media inspection for the
first quarter of FY 1991.   As  a result of this
inspection and  other  information EPA gathered
subsequently,   EPA  identified  an  additional
serious asbestos violation in connection with the
demolition  of  the Slab  Mill,  and  significant
EPCRA and CWA/SPCC  violations. EPA issued
an  administrative  complaint  for the- EPCRA
violation;  EPA issued several administrative
orders  to  BSC  and  its  contractors  for  the
CAA/NESHAPs  violations; EPA  prepared  an
administrative  complaint for  the CWA/SPCC
violation, which will be issued in early FY 1992;
and EPA terminated settlement negotiations with
BSC, and requested that DOJ immediately file a
civil action for  the asbestos violations (which
was done on October 1,1991). EPA also continued
to oversee  implementation of a RCRA §3008(h)
order issued to BSC in FY 1990 addressing cleanup
of contamination at the facility.

U.S. v. fipeing Company On June 28, 1991, Region
III issued complaints under §16 of the  TSCA and
§3008(a) of RCRA against the Boeing  Company,
Ridley Township; PA. The complaints were issued
following a  multi-media investigation of the
Boeing Helicopter Company Division. The RCRA
complaint alleges fifteen  counts, including the
failure to provide LDR prohibition levels on 107
LDR notifications, failure to ensure that facility
personnel  complete   initial  safety  training
programs, and failure to remedy the deterioration
or malfunction of equipment or structures, which
an inspection had revealed, on a schedule that
ensures  the  problem  does not  lead  to  an
environmental  or human health  hazard. The
TSCA  complaint  alleges nine counts, including
marking, storage and record keeping violations of
the PCB Rule.

Brookhaven National • Labs:  EPA performed a
comprehensive  multi-media inspection  of this
contractor-operated Federal facility located on
Long Island, New York, and documented serious
violations in  a  number of media.   EPA issued
administrative complaints citing serious TSCA
and  RCRA  violations.  EPA  also  issued  an
administrative order under the Clean Air Act for
asbestos NESHAPs violations; EPA  identified
serious CWA/SPCC violations, which will be the
subject of an administrative complaint to be issued
in early FY  1992. Further, EPA is in the process of
negotiating  plume stabilization  measures  (a
pump-and-treat system), and a CERCLA  IAG for
long-term cleanup of contaminated groundwater.
Finally,  EPA   required   the   submission  of
information pursuant to §114 of the CAA and is
investigating potential  violations  of  PSD and
VOC regulations.

Caldwell Systems. Inc.: Caldwell Systems (CSI),
a defunct commercial hazardous waste incinerator
in North Carolina, was the subject of a public
health  advisory by a TSDR in July 1990. Region
IV issued a RCRA §3008(h) order in May 1991,
                                             4-73

-------
                             FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report   "
requiring corrective action in response to releases
that occurred  at the CSI site. The Region also
conducted a site investigation under §104(b) of
CERCLA to establish whether the site poses any
current  risk to area residents, and to  identify
information  relevant  to the  corrective action
under the RCRA order.
         Street Site : On December 20, 1990, the
Region  III  Regional  Administrator  signed a
CERCLA unilateral administrative order for the
East 10th Street  Site in  Marcus Hook, PA. This
order was  issued  to  several past and present
owners  and  operators  of • the  site.  The  order
requires the respondents to identify and properly
dispose of bagged and loose asbestos, identify and
properly dispose , of drums  of  PCB-contairung
materials and other hazardous substances, and to
identify and  properly  dispose  of other  PCS
contamination. These tasks are to be completed in
compliance with the CAA and TSCA.  The  order
also restricts and conditions access to the site by
the respondents and their agents,

Hawk.  lnc.f  Phar  Q|i  Company  and  Jim
Daugherty, Ky- • Kentucky Oil Well Violations:
CWA and SDWA authorities were used to stop
unpermitted  discharges.  The Region  used its
authority under both the CWA and the SDWA to
address violations at  two  separate  oil   well
operations  in Kentucky.  In  one  case, against
Hawk, Inc., and Phar CHI, the Region negotiated
a  combined  settlement  of  $8,000  with  .these
parties for the unpermitted injection of brine into
wells. The enforcement action was the result of.
joint  inspections by  EPA  and  the  State  of
Kentucky.  In addition  to the  penalty,  Hawk
completed   remedial  actions   to   stop   the
unpermitted discharges,

The Region used the same approach in enforcing
against  similar violations by Jim Daugherty in
the Taffy  Field  in  Ohio County, Kentucky. To
settle this matter, Daugherty agreed to obtain a
UIC permit for  one of  the  wells, to  plug and
properly abandon, four other injection wells, to
monitor all wells and take any other necessary
corrective action. He also agreed to pay a penalty
of $5,000.

Lawtey   Correctional   Institute;  A  consent
agreement and administrative penalty  order was
filed with the Regional Hearing Clerk on August
27, 1991 to fully resolve a CWA  administrative
action  against  the, Florida Department  of
Corrections (DOC) for IsfPDES violations at the
Lawtey Correctional Institute in Lawtey, Florida,
The  agreement requires  payment  of  a $12,600
penalty and the implementation of a mitigation
project  consisting  of  a Radon  survey  and
abatement  work  at  Lawtey and other  DOC
facilities.

Region IV had cited  the Lawtey facility  for
exceedances of its  NPDES  permit limits  and
assessed  a Class I  administrative penalty of
$25,000 against the DOC.  In exchange for a 50%
reduction in the penalty, the DOC offered a series
of environmentally beneficial projects,  the Region
accepted  a  Radon  project  valued at $35,000,
which involves a survey  to determine the levels
of radon at DOC facilities. Those facilities with
radon  readings above recommended  levels will
undergo   remediation  to.  reduce  the  radon
emissions.

Letterfcenny   Army   Depot Federal  Facility
Compliance Agreement: On July 17, 1991, Region
III and the Department of the Army entered into
a  multi-media  Federal   Facility  Compliance
Agreement (FFCA)  regarding  the Letterkenny
Army  Depot.   The  FFCA  resolves   numerous
outstanding  RCRA and CWA  violations and is
designed to bring the  Depot into RCRA and CWA
compliance. The FFCA also commits the Depot to
perform  a multi-media environmental audit of
the   Depot,  and  further establishes  pollution
prevention and waste  minimization projects to
reduce the production and disposal of hazardous
wastes at the Depot.

Louisiana Land  &  Exploration  (LL&E^  Ah
RCRA was  the lead  program with  the  UIC
program in issuing an Order to LL&E for failure to
notify in  a timely manner, pursuant to RCRA, of
benzene injections. The State cited LL&E for UIC
and base RCRA violations and assessed a $25,000
penalty. LL&E owns  an oil refinery in southern
Alabama which injects wastewater into Class  I
UIC  well. LL&E injection well  was erroneously
permitted as a Class II well (a well  associated
with production of oil and  gas). LL&E injected
benzene  into the  well on several  occasions in
amounts in excess of the Land Disposal Restricted
Treatment  Standards.  EPA's   RCRA  program
coordinated and led a multi-media inspection at
the facility. As a result of the order, the facility
then made, process changes that  rendered  the
waste non-hazardous.

Maiqg v. International Paper Co;  On April 12,
1991, the State of Maine  entered into  a consent
                                             4-74

-------
                       FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
decree with the International  Paper Company.
Under the consent decree, International  Paper
agreed to pay a civil penalty of $885,000 to
resolve multi-media violations  of  the State's
environmental regulations. The State  of Maine
inspected  International Paper's Jay,  ME facility,
the largest paper mill in the state, in  1988 and
found  numerous   violations  of  the  RCRA
regulations,  as well as of water, air, hazardous
matter, and  waste oil  regulations. The consent
decree requires  International  Paper to comply
with  all  the  applicable  federal  and   state
environmental regulations and provide testing,
analysis, and monitoring of the site,

Monsanto -  Pensacola. PL (RCRA/UIC): RCRA
and UIC issued  a Consent Agreement  and final
Order with  an April 23, 1991  effective date to
Monsanto  for  disposing hazardous wastes in a
surface impoundment and the subsequent injection
of the waste to a UIC well. The order assessed a
total penalty of $29,300 for the RCRA and UIC
violations, The  Monsanto  Chemical  Company
plant in Pensacola, Florida had a spill  of maleic
anhydride, a land disposal restricted  waste on
July  10,  1990.  Because  the  material   was
discharged     into     Monsanto's     surface
impoundments,  all  of  the  material in the
impoundments became a  listed hazardous waste
under  RCRA's mixture rules.  When the  liquid
from the impoundments was then injected into an
underground injection well that was not permitted
to receive listed waste, a  violation of the SDWA
occurred.

NASAJkangley Research Center:  On  December
31,  1990,  a   Federal   Facility  Compliance
Agreement (FFCA) was signed with the NASA
Langley Research  Center located in Hampton,
VA. This FFCA addresses violations of both the
CWA and the TSCA  and represented the first
multi-media FFCA completed  in the Region.
Since this facility is in the Chesapeake  Bay
drainage  basin,   the   FFCA   helped   the
Chesapeake  Bay  Program  goal  of   bringing
Federal facilities in the Chesapeake  drainage
basin into compliance with environmental laws
by the end of December 1990.

Nelson Galvanizing: This facility, located  in a
densely populated area of New York  City, was
found to be operating with virtually no proper
management of its hazardous feedstock and waste
streams.  Toxic chemicals were leaking into the
ground, and there  was  almost  no security to
prevent persons from entering into the plant area.
A  multi-media  inspection identified significant
RCRA  and  EPCRA  violations.  A  CERCLA
removal order on consent was issued for clean up of
the waste materials and reimbursement of EPA's
oversight costs. The order was complied with.
Administrative  complaints citing  RCRA and
EPCRA violations were  then  issued, seeking
penalties of about $1 million.
U.S.
                   Chemical  Company  On
September 30, 1991, EPA issued an administrative
complaint  to  Neville  Chemical   Company,
Pittsburgh, PA for violations of the chemical
reporting requirements under  §8 of the  Toxic
Substances Control Act. The complaint assessed a
penalty of $78,000. On the same date, EPA issued
a  CAA  administrative  compliance order  to
Neville ordering the company to comply with the
benzene  Waste Operation  National Emissions
Standard for Hazardous Pollutants. This facility
is one  of the targeted sites in the Region's  cross
media risk-based enforcement project.

Oxy OH & Gas USA, Inc.. Tn.: - On September 15,
1991, EPA executed a  CERCLA  §106 Order on
Consent with Oxy, the past owner and operator of
a contaminated area in Copperhill, Polk County,
Tennessee.  Oxy  has  agreed  to  operate  a
wastewater treatment plant that treats acid  mine
drainage, deep mine waters, and contaminants
from  an abandoned  tailings  pond, until the
influent  to  the  plant  meets  water   quality
standards. Oxy will also conduct a hydrogeologic
study of the area, install ground monitoring wells,
and  upgrade  the wastewater treatment plant.
Effluent limitations established by the State of
Tennessee's NPDES permit program are included
in the  order as ARARs, and  OXY has agreed to
pay stipulated penalties if the effluent from the
plant violates the  ARARs.
Peach
         _M£ials_
Industries.
Inc.
Site
(CERCLA/RCRAL  Ga.: - On February 12,  1991,
the Region  issued a CERCLA  106 Unilateral
Administrative Order requiring the removal of
numerous 55-gallon drums  and vats containing
electroplating  chemicals  and  other   plating
process wastes, and all associated contamination
from an  abandoned electroplating facility.  The
order  also   required  the  removal   of  all
contamination contained  in and about a surface
impoundment and drainage ditch at the facility.
Prior to the issuance of the order, EPA coordinated
its enforcement action with the State of Georgia,
Immediately after issuance of the EPA Order, the
State issued an administrative enforcement order,
                                             4-75

-------
                             FY19911 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
pursuant   to  'its'  RCRA-equivalent  statute,
requiring  the  present  owners  to apply  for  a
Closure/Post-closure RCRA Permit and to conduct
corrective actiort(s) at the facility.

The  corrective action(s)  required by  Georgia's
order   involved    addressing .  groundwater,
contamination  problems (releases from the surface
impoundment  primarily)  from  the  disposal of
hazardous wastes at the facility.            ,

U.S. v. Precision National Plating Services, Inc.
On September  30,1991, Region III entered into an
administrative  order by consent pursuant to §1431
of the SDWA and §106 and §122 of CERCLA. The
consent order settles  an  appeal to  the  Third
Circuit Court  of Appeals of an administrative
order issued.by EPA on February 11, 1991. Region
III had issued its  first combined  SDWA  and
CERCLA  unilateral  administrative  order  to
Precision National Plating Services, Inc. requiring
remedial action for groundwater contamination at
the company's Clark's Summit,  PA facility. EPA's
order,found that underground drinking water was
contaminated  by   chromium   released   from
Precision  National's facility. The appeal of the
order  will be  withdrawn as part  of  the
settlement.                :

U.S. v. STCPA. Inc.:  On .September 25, 1991, a,
consent order  was  issued  assessing a penalty of
$710,000 against SICPA Industries of America for
violations  of TSCA §5, §8, and §13 and EPCRA
§313. SICPA's violations of TSCA include among
other things, the failure to  file a pre-manufacture
notification before  importing  a  new  chemical
substance on 54 days in 1984 and 1985 and failing
to certify  that these imports. either complied
with the requirements of TSCA .or were not subject
to TSCA.  The  agreed penalty  for  all TSCA
violations reflected in the consent order, including
those  voluntarily   disclosed  to. EPA during
settlement  negotiations, is $681,100,  believed to
be the largest penalty ever  collected by Region III
for violations of TSCA. The EPCRA penalty was
$28,900.                        ,    .

STAR  Enterprises  (Joint  SDWA/RCRA Order):
On September 23,  1991,  Region III  issued an
administrative  order by consent under RCRA,and
the SDWA to  STAR Enterprises, a joint venture
partnership in which Texaco Marketing, Inc. has
an interest, to address a massive release  of oil
that  is migrating  under  a residential area in
Fairfax, VA.
The  order constituted an arrangement for , the
removal of oil within the meaning of §311(c)(l> of
the CWA. In order to obtain access for STAR to
perform the work, it was necessary for the United
States  to  file  suit  against  the  Stockbridge
Community Association which owns an 8.3 acre
parcel  of property between  the site from which
the oil apparently originated and a community of
residences. The Association had refused to grant
access voluntarily because.its members were angry
about the spill and about the threats of explosion
and  drinking  water  contamination   the  spill
presents.  Access was granted  by the  Court on
October 2,1991, and work has commenced.

U.S. v. USX Corporation (Pairiess  Hills.  PA*
Region III sent USX a draft RCRA consent order
for  corrective   actions   and  also   issued
administrative  penalty complaints  under  the
CWA and  TSCA and  the United States sent  a
demand for stipulated penalties for violations of
the consent decree in U.S. et al v. USX Corp.. in
response to violations at USX's Fairless Hills, PA
steel  plant. > The draft RCRA order  seeks  to
initiate   a   process   whereby  USX  would
characterize  the extent of hazardous waste
deposition at the Fairless facility, evaluate the
risks posed by that contamination, and prepare
and evaluate alternatives for remediation.  This
site was one of the targeted  sites in  the Region's
cross media, risk- based enforcement project ,

U.S. v. York Metal Finishing Company and Edwin
Walter (E.D. FA):  The first Federal  charges as a
result  of an  investigation  conducted by  the
Philadelphia  Environmental Task  Force  were
filed on September 11,1991. York Metal Finishing
Company and its  owner Edwin  Walter  were
charged with storing hazardous waste without a
permit   and   with   discharging   polluted
wastewaters   containing   cyanide   into   the
Philadelphia  sewer  system.  The  defendants
have agreed to pay $120,000 to reimburse the City
and to pay a fine  to the federal government of
$100,000  for RCRA  and  CWA  violations.  In
addition, the company's discharge to the sewer
system has ceased and the illegally stored drums
have been removed. Sentencing for the defendants
has  not  been  scheduled.   The  Philadelphia
Environmental Task Force was formed to organize
and coordinate Federal, state, and local  resources
to more effectively investigate and  prosecute
environmental crimes.
                                             4-76

-------
                         FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
V.  Building and Maintaining a Strong National Enforcement Program



Program Development

                        FY 1991 Pollution Prevention Activities

     A strong  enforcement  program creates a  climate of deterrence which  forcefully encourages
pollution prevention on the part of the regulated community. The costs of being in violation — both the
direct litigation costs as well as those resulting from remediation and civil or criminal penalties -- may
be substantial. Compliance with stringent regulatory requirements creates an incentive for companies to
find better ways to reduce and manage their waste,

     ' Once the Agency has detected a violation and initiated an enforcement action, it can use its
formal negotiations/settlement process to fashion pollution prevention conditions as part of the consent
order or  decree.  During FY 1991, the Agency issued two policies relating to  the systematic use of
pollution prevention conditions in enforcement settlements:  The Policy on the Use of Supplemental
Environmental Projects in Enforcement Settlements (February 12,1991) and the Interim Policy on the Use
of Pollution Prevention and Recycling Conditions^n Agency Enforcement Settlements (February 25,
1991).  Both encourage the federal negotiators to incorporate pollution prevention conditions in both
single and multi-media settlements when feasible, and lay out the boundaries and criteria the Agency
will  use  to consider whether to  seek and/or accept a pollution prevention activity as a basis for
compliance and/or penalty mitigation activity. The Agency is interested in proposals that not merely
transfer problems from one media to another, but  is instead seeking genuine and permanent source
reduction. (For further information contact OCAPO)

                    National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI)

     Section 204 of the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 mandated that the Administrator establish
the National Enforcement Training Institute within the Office of Enforcement to train Federal, State,
and local lawyers, inspectors, civil and criminal investigators, and technical experts in the enforcement
of the Nation's environmental laws.  During FY 1991, the Agency took several steps to meet  that
statutory mandate.

     An Advisory Council consisting of 38 representatives from EPA (Headquarters and the Regions),
the NEIC,  DOJ, State and local governments,  and  academia  was formed to  focus  on significant
enforcement training issues such as developing alternative funding approaches to assure that the NETI
is self-sustaining, communications, outreach/delivery, and adequacy and effectiveness of enforcement
curricula.

     A key element of the  NETI's training mission is the  development and delivery of basic
enforcement training with a multi-disciplinary, multi-media perspective. An agenda for this course
was prepared and circulated for comment. New training on the Clean Air Act Amendments, RCRA, the
Non-APA Consolidated Rules (Part 26, and an Enforcement Workshop for Lab Personnel were developed
and delivered.  Existing generic enforcement skills courses covering inspections, criminal investigations,
financial  case analyses, technical  and scientific case development, information  systems, enforcement
communications, enforcement negotiations, and administrative practices and procedures were brought
under the NETI "umbrella."  Over 1800 enforcement personnel at the Federal, State, and local levels
were trained in more than 60 courses delivered at EPA Headquarters and the Regions, the NEIC, and
FLETC. (For further information contact OCAPO)


                                            5-1

-------
                          FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                       Addendum on Multi-Media Enforcement

     The Office of Enforcement drafted an Addendum on Multi-Media Enforcement to  the Policy
Framework on State/Federal Enforcement Agreements (1986).   This Addendum describes EPA's
approach to multi-media enforcement and encourages, but does not require, States to undertake multi-
media enforcement; lays out how EPA will build state capacity; outlines general processes for advance
notice and consultation including strategic planning, enforcement cluster planning, and case screening.
Most importantly, the Addendum lays out principles for multi-media enforcement by EPA in delegated
or approved states that reflect the criteria in the Policy Framework.  Members of the Steering
committee on the State/Federal Enforcement Relationship,  EPA's Programs Offices and Regions
commented extensively on this draft in the last quarter of FY 1991.  OE will issue the final Addendum
during FY 1992. (For further information contact OCAPO)

              Contractor Listing Policy on The Role of Corporate Attitude,
                            Policies, Practices and Procedures

     EPA issued a policy statement clarifying the role of corporate attitude, policies, practices and
procedures in determining whether the condition giving rise to a criminal conviction has been corrected.
This policy has been applied in several recent cases. Such policies, practices and procedures will
always be relevant when a facility that has been listed as the result of a criminal conviction requests
removal from the List. The significance of these factors will depend upon the degree of intent involved
in the violation. Cases involving fraud, concealment, falsification or deliberate deception are the most
serious.                                         '                                  .

     Factors which EPA will consider relevant  include  the existence or lack  of appropriate and
effective programs to prevent and detect environmental problems and violations of law; appropriate
and effective training programs; effective communication of standards for employees, and enforcement
of those standards; and appropriate and effective corrective action (including environmental audits in
appropriate cases) after a problem or violation has been detected. (For further  information contact
OCAPO)

                      Penalty Calculation Models (BEN and ABEL)

     The BEN model, which is used to calculate a violator's economic gain from noncompliahce, was
used over 4,000 times by the EPA and 36 States.  It was used in two States to set all time record civil
penalties in two enforcement actions.  It is estimated that the ABEL model, which is used to analyze
violators' claims that they cannot afford to pay for compliance or penalties, was used in a similar
number of instances.  The Office of Enforcement provides consultation help on inquiries and conducts
training  courses in the Regions, Headquarters and one local government enforcement program  (For
further information contact OCAPO)

                              Federal Facility Enforcement

     In 1991, the Deputy Administrator approved an OE reorganization which created the new Office
of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE). This reorganization consolidated the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response's (OSWER's) Federal facilities program with those Federal facility-related
functions previously assigned to the Office of Federal Activities (OFA). OFFE is charged with securing
compliance by Federal agencies with all environmental laws. The creation of OFFE reflects EPA's
commitment to multi-media enforcement of environment laws against Federal facilities.


                                           5-2

-------
                         FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
     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 with Federal
environmental statutes.  Although Federal facilities  are  only a small  percentage of the regulated
community, many Federal installations are larger and more complex than private facilities and often
present a greater number of sources of hazardous waste requiring cleanup. During FY 1991, a total of 15
Federal  agencies  reported  a combined budget  of  approximately $2.9 billion  to  be devoted  to
environmental programs in the various media areas. This amount, a new record, was almost double the
FY 1990 record of $1.5 billion.

     EPA has continued to encourage compliance at Federal facilities through a vigorous enforcement
and outreach program. Nationwide, over 820 inspections were conducted at Federal  facilities during
Fiscal Year 1991. The cornerstone of the enforcement program dealing with the 116 Federal facilities
listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) is the negotiation of an enforceable Interagency Agreement
(IAG) under CERCLA at each facility, with specific schedules for cleanup of the hazardous wastes at
the sites located on those installations. During FY 1991, EPA negotiated 24 agreements under CERCLA
to accomplish required hazardous waste cleanups, for a  total of 85 lAGs signed to  date with other
Federal agencies.  Additionally, to date  EPA has signed 70 Federal Facility Compliance Agreements
(FFCA's) and issued 18  Unilateral Orders and Administrative  Consent Orders with other Federal
agencies under statutes other than CERCLA.

     EPA took several precedent setting actions in Federal facilities cases during FY 1991. One of the
most significant of these came as a result of a stipulated penalty dispute at the Department of Energy
(DOE) Fernald facility. This was the first time a stipulated penalty dispute under a CERCLA IAG was
elevated  all the way to the EPA Administrator for resolution. In May 1991 the dispute was settled.
The settlement provided that DOE pay  $100,000 in fines and spend $150,000 on extra environmental
projects at Fernald. This settlement received national attention by the Federal regulated community.

     Another difficult and complex  negotiation  with DOE covered RCRA violations at the Rocky
Flats Plant in Colorado. The agreement, signed in May 1991, requires DOE to take steps to come into and
maintain compliance with the land disposal restrictions ("land ban") provisions of RCRA. In this case,
in lieu of stipulated  penalties, a system was devised whereby EPA will be able to cite violations of the
agreement  and declare the amount of the  penalty that would have been assessed against a private
party in  similar circumstances. DOE, in turn, must report the violation and the penalty amount to
Congress.

     EPA also negotiated a federal facility compliance agreement to address TSCA violations at the
DOE gaseous diffusions plants in Ohio, Kentucky,  and Tennessee.   Also in the TSCA area, EPA
negotiated a TSCA compliance agreement with the Navy to address the large number of Naval vessels
contaminated with PCBs.

     On September 13,  1991, EPA signed  a Federal  Facility Interagency Agreement  under CERCLA
Section  120  with the Department  of Interior,  the  Department of  the  Army, and the  Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, which provides for remedial action at the Crab Orchard National
Wildlife Refuge. The agreement is the first to date between the Department of the Interior and EPA
pursuant to CERCLA Section 120 and it is one of the first, if not the first CERCLA Section 120 agreement
to include more than one other federal agency as a PRP.  It is also the first CERCLA Section 120
agreement to provide for private party participation in remedial activities pursuant to Sections 120 (e)
(6) and 122 of CERCLA.

     The EPA Federal facilities program also represented the Agency on the Defense Environmental
Response Task Force, an interagency group tasked with reporting to Congress under the Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1988. On November 5,1991, the Task Force submitted its report, which addressed:

                                            5-3

-------
                                  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
a) ways to improve interagency coordination within existing laws, regulations, and administrative
policies; and b) ways to consolidate and streamline, within existing laws and regulations,the practices,
policies, and administrative procedures of relevant federal and state  agencies in  order to expedite
response actions. EPA is continuing the base closure discussion. To support this effort, EPA established a
formal internal workgroup on base closure issues during FY1991.                              ': ,  '

      EPA also worked during FY 1991 to develop a consistent approach to the environmental issues
associated with the closure of military  bases. The initial focus of this effort was on Pease'Air. Force
Base in Portsmouth, N.H., where a proposal  has been made to redevelop a portion of the base as an
aircraft maintenance facility. The EPA Federal facilities program facilitated the development of an
agency position that would enable the  base to be redeveloped in an environmentally sound mariner •
while at the same time ensuring that the Air Force can discharge its responsibilities under CERCLA.  •

      EPA continues to recognize that it is far more efficient to prevent pollution problems at Federal
installations through educational outreach before those problems actually occur. The Agency has
continued to seek fundamental change in the  behavior and understanding of Federal agency, personnel
regarding responsibilities in the environmental arena. To promote this change, EPA has continued ,to
coordinate a number of important interagency educational and outreach efforts in the enforcement area
to accomplish this goal. For example, during FY 1991 EPA  continued to host the highly successful
EPA/Federal Agency Environmental Roundtable, where representatives of approximately 50 Federal
agencies meet monthly to exchange information. At the Roundtable, EPA media experts discuss existing
or proposed regulatory approaches affecting compliance by the other Federal agencies..The Roundtable.
also provides a forum for an exchange of technological information between agencies.       ,   •  ,  .

      EPA also continued a high-level  dialogue  with DOD  and DOE to improve protection of the
environment at installations under their control. This was  accomplished through the efforts of a
steering committee consisting of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environment), the Director
of the Office of Environmental Restoration and  Waste Management at DOE, the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Federal Facilities Enforcement at EPA, and seven workgroups consisting of subject
matter "experts" from each of the three agencies. These workgroups are developing position papers and
approaches to remove barriers, to developing effective compliance and cleanup  programs. These
position papers will be coordinated throughout EPA,       '                            '>.',.-

      To facilitate  close coordination throughout the Agency  on Federal facilities issues,  the EPA
Federal   facilities   program  established  a  "Leadership  Council"  consisting  of  headquarters
representatives, regional officials from program offices  and regional Counsels  as  members. The
Leadership Council met for the first time during FY 1991. It has focused initially on policy matters and
strategic initiatives related to  cleanup programs at Federal facilities.   Priority topics  included
oversight, accelerated cleanups, technology development and base closure.
                                               *                •              •      '"*,,.
      Also during FY 1991, OFFE began a pivotal  national dialogue on Federal Facility Environmental
Management. The  participants in this  effort, facilitated by the  Keystone Center,  met several times:
during FY 1991. This multi-party group includes representatives from DOD, DOE, EPA, State and tribal
governments,environmental and public interest groups.- The group has focused on the development of a
consensus concerning priority setting for the cleanup of federal facilities. Its deliberations will continue
in FY 1992. (For further information contact OFFE)
                                             5-4

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
National Reports on FY 1991 EPA and State Performance

                   Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response

     The  Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response  concept seeks to establish predictable
enforcement responses  by both EPA and the States,  with each  media program defining  target
timeframes for the timely escalation of enforcement responses. Tracking of timeframes commences on
the date the violation is detected through to the date when formal enforcement action is initiated.
The programs have also defined what constitutes an appropriate formal enforcement response based on
the nature of the violation, including defining when the imposition  of penalties or other sanctions is
appropriate. Each year OE compiles an end-of-year report which summarizes the performance by each
of the media programs. (For further information contact OCAPO)

                                National Penalty Report

      Each year, EPA produces a comprehensive analysis of the financial penalties EPA obtained from
violators of environmental laws. The report contains an Agency-wide overview for each program and
compares annual performance with historical trends,  (see Appendix)

       Summary of State-by-State Enforcement Activity for EPA and the States

     Each year, EPA assembles an end-of-year report  which summarizes quantitative  indicators of
EPA and State enforcement activities on a State-by-state basis. The FY  1991 report is scheduled for
publication in May 1992. (For further mlormation 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-specific and  cross-media components.   The
Enforcement Four-Year Strategic Plan  outlines the capabilities which  will be needed to  enhance
enforcement efforts for the future. Several of these efforts are  now being implemented on a pilot basis,
while others will be fully developed over the next several years.  The Strategic Plan is a  sound guide
for the Agency's future enforcement efforts. (For further information contact OCAPO)

                                Enforcement in the 199Q's

     The decade of the 1990's 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
nation's environmental laws.  The strategic planning reflected in the Enforcement Four-Year Strategic
Plan, set themes and  directions for the  Agency's enforcement program.  In FY  1991, the Office of
Enforcement, other EPA personnel in Headquarters and  the Regions, and, in some instances, non-EPA
personnel, produced reports, collected in  the Enforcement in the 1990's Project, which complement the
earlier Strategic Plan.  These final reports provide recommendations for action in six discrete areas:
measures  of  success,  the  State/Federal  relationship,  environmental  rulemaking, innovative
enforcement techniques, compliance incentives, and the role of local governments.

     The 1990's Project reports establish an agenda that points  in new directions and identify numerous
action steps for EPA staff at Headquarters, the Regions, the States, the local governments, and citizens.
EPA has begun to implement many of  these, and more will  be undertaken in the  near future. The
Enforcement in the 1990's Project provided valuable,  practical ideas whose implementation will
strengthen significantly the Agency's enforcement program. (For further information contact OCAPO)

                                           5-5

-------
                          FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 Intergovernmental/International Enforcement Activities

                 International Environmental Enforcement Training

     Environmental issues  have become a  global concern and many countries  are  developing
requirements to protect the environment Without a strong program to ensure compliance with those
requirements and deter violators, however, environmental requirements will not achieve their intended
results.

     In FY.1991, the US. Environmental Protection Agency, in conjunction with Poland's Ministry of
Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry, the Katowice Ecological Department and
the Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment, developed a three-day
environmental  enforcement training course  to address these issues.  This course  was designed  for
international use by many countries and cultures.  The goal of the course is to develop a replicable
training program on environmental enforcement principles  for any country, or locale interested  in
enhancing compliance and achieving results. By introducing policy-makers,  including government
officials, industry and academic leaders, and private citizens, to essential elements in the design  of
enforcement programs, the course will create a forum within which officials can design their own
environmental  management  approach,  write  enforceable requirements  and  structure  their own
compliance monitoring and enforcement programs. (For further information contact OCAPO)

                                     Mexican Border

     In FY 1991, EPA released the Integrated Environmental Plan for the U.S.-Mexico Border Area for
public comment. The plan is currently in the process of being revised. The integrated plan for the border
is part of a larger plan by which the economies of Canada,  the U.S. and Mexico will be further united  in
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  The NAFTA will incorporate the integrated
plan for the border as part of the Administration's commitment to help strengthen environmental
protection on both sides of the border.

     SEDUE (Mexico's EPA) and EPA are jointly responsible for administering the plan and have made
commitments to initiate cooperative environmental protection, monitoring and enforcement activities in
the coming years. Among the priorities identified in the plan are: control of  municipal and industrial
discharges to surface waters; tracking the movement of hazardous waste and the proper disposal  of
waste to prevent surface or  subsurface water contamination; controlling and reducing air  pollution
sources; and development of  joint contingency response plans for spills of hazardous materials. These
initiatives will be implemented through the cooperative efforts of SEDUE, EPA and the states  as
embodied in the Border plans and its annexes.  (For further information contact OE-Water)
Clean Air Act

                      Inspector Training Delivery Demonstration

     EPA signed a multi-year, cooperative agreement with Rutgers University at Cook College and
the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Environmental and Occupational Health
Sciences Institute to demonstrate and deliver quality compliance inspector training on a quarterly basis.
to State, local, and EPA compliance staff. The training will fulfill requirements of EPA Order 3500.1.
While this training is not required of State/local personnel, State/local officials have identified the
need for systematic training and indicated a strong desire to participate. Non-agency personnel may
                                           5-6

-------
                         FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
attend  if space is available. The agreement is a turn-key operation requiring communication and
marketing, training delivery, and evaluation functions. (For further information contact Stationary
Source Compliance Division (SSCD))

                           Lead NAAQS  Attainment Strategy

     The Lead NAAQS Attainment Strategy is part of the Agency Lead Strategy which is intended to
lower population exposure to lead.  To accomplish this goal, the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards {OAQPS) identified 29 lead sources in non-attainment areas. These sources were inspected to
determine compliance status. Enforcement actions were initiated against eight sources for violations of
SIP requirements and ambient air quality standards. To ensure accurate recording of data, OAQPS has
positioned two monitors at each source to monitor the ambient air quality. In addition to the monitoring
efforts, OAQPS  is recommending changes to SIPs in order to provide greater enforceability in
regulations. (For further information contact SSCD)

                                    Rule Effectiveness

     The Stationary Source Compliance Division has been working to revise the Rule Effectiveness
protocol.  Revisions stress State involvement in the program and address calculation methods and
application of the results of the studies to challenge the 80 percent effectiveness default value in the
ozone  strategy.  The national protocol  document  should be issued  early in FY 1992.  (For  further
information contact SSCD)

                            Compliance Monitoring Strategy

     SSCD issued the Revised Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) on March 29,1991. The  revised
CMS provides a more flexible and systematic approach for determining State inspection commitments.
This strategy recommends the development of  a  comprehensive inspection plan that identifies all
sources committed to be inspected by the State  agency during their fiscal year, and the subsequent
evaluation of the commitments by the Regional Office at the end of the year.

     The first year of  CMS implementation demonstrated that a closer coordination and exchange
between  the Region and State was possible by encouraging flexibility in determining the Inspection
Plan for the following year. This and other lessons learned from the implementation of CMS have been
used to revise and subsequently strengthen the Strategy.  This coordination and open negotiation  is
encouraged and strengthened under the revised CMS.

     The revised  CMS requires additional reporting activities and responsibilities.  Additional
reporting is justified in the interest of developing the most environmentally effective inspection
program  in a given State, and as a basis for more open and informal planning and negotiation between
the State and EPA. These efforts will help build a stronger State-Federal partnership. In addition to
reporting activities and  responsibilities, a network of CMS Regional  Representatives has  been
established to ensure successful implementation of the strategy.  (For further information contact SSCD)

                           Early 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 to qualify for a six year extension of
compliance with  MACT.

     A draft "Early Reductions Program; State Delegation Manual' was prepared to combine some of
the requirements currently used by NSPS, NESHAP, and PSD programs. Recommendations are provided
                                            5-7

-------
                          FF1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
on the criteria a Regional Office should consider in evaluating a State's request for delegation. (For
further information contact SSCD)

                Significant Violator/Timely and Appropriate Guidance

     A  substantial revision to  the Agency's Significant Violator (SV) and Timely and Appropriate
Guidances has been under development during the past two years to: (1) encourage a greater degree of
team-building and cooperative resolution of Significant Violators by all responsible agencies, <2)
encourage agencies to give priority attention to those violators which they believe  are  most
environmentally  important; (3) permit an increased degree of agency flexibility in identifying and
resolving Significant Violations and, (4) provide a more accurate picture of the time and resources
necessary to bring and maintain major sources into a state of continuous compliance.

     The guidance specifically  defines what  a Significant Violator is and gives agencies two options
in resolving them. They may resolve all Significant Violators or prioritize the Significant Violators
with the use of a checklist provided in the guidance. The violators would then be resolved according to
their ranking.  The guidance is expected to be effective in mid FY 1992. (For further information contact
SSCD)

           Volatile Organic Compound (VOC ) Technical Agenda Activities

     Ten VOC "Technical Agenda" activities were accomplished by the Stationary Source Compliance
Division during FY 1991. These projects were selected after surveys of the Regions identified where
guidance and support were needed to  assist  Regional and  State/local  agencies enforce the  air
compliance program. The  projects consisted of compilation of data  bases and  policy documents,
development of inspection procedures and clarification of test methods so that the compliance status of
VOC  sources could  be  determined and appropriate,  consistent  enforcement  follow-up  activity
determined. (For further information contact SSCD)

                 Stratospheric Ozone Protection Compliance Program

     Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 expands the restrictions on consumption and use
of chemicals  that deplete the stratospheric  ozone layer; adds new chemicals to the list  of those
already regulated, and; accelerates the phaseout of CFCs and halons.  The Amendments add carbon
tetrachloride,  methyl chloroform and ten previously unregulated CFCs to the list  of chemicalsS
controlled by  the Rule to Protect the Stratospheric Ozone. The Agency built upon the existing program
to ensure compliance among producers and importers of the newly regulated chemicals. The compliance
program relies upon the submission and analysis of quarterly reports, production and shipping records,
information from U.S. Customs and inspections to monitor compliance. (For further information contact
SSCD)


Clean  Air  Act - Mobile Sources

        Enforcement Provisions for Reformulated Fuels, Anti-dumping and
             Oxygenated Fuels of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

     The  Office of  Mobile Sources  (OMS) established workgroups to draft  the new enforcement
provisions, through negotiated  rulemaking, prescribed by the  Clean Air  Act  Amendments of 1990.
These enforcement provisions include: reformulated gasoline regulations, anti-dumping regulations, and
oxygenated gasoline guidelines to be implemented through  a State Implementation Plan (SIP).  The
purpose of the reformulated gasoline regulations is to reduce VOC and toxic emissions by at least 15% in
                                            5-8

-------
                         FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
the nine most severe ozone non-attainment areas with the option for many other areas to enter the
program as well.  The purpose of the anti-dumping regulations is to prevent the dumping of "dirty"
gasoline components removed in the reformulated areas into ozone attainment areas that would
degrade air quality from levels below that resulting from the use of gasoline produced in 1990.  The
purpose of the oxygenated gasoline guidelines is to reduce carbon monoxide (CO) emissions in 39 CO non-
attainment areas throughout the country during the winter months by the addition of oxygenates (e.g.,
alcohols and  ethers) to gasoline. Enforcement of the oxygenated program will be handled by the
respective state, rather than by the EPA. (For further information contact FOSD)

                             Volatility Enforcement Program

     Last year OMS increased the efficiency of field inspectors by equipping each with a reliable and
accurate instrument for quickly measuring gasoline volatility in the field. This eliminated the need to
ship over 9,000 samples (90%) for enforcement analysis to the laboratory in Ann Arbor and resulted in
an enormous  cost savings.  This new device enabled inspectors to inform facility operators on site of
potential violations and advise that the product be removed from distribution or sale until it  was
brought into compliance. More importantly, EPA resources were able to reach a much larger segment of
the regulated industry. (For further information contact FOSD)
Clean Water Act

                         Chesapeake Bay Enforcement Initiative

     Upon assuming the  chair of the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council in December 1990, EPA
Administrator Reilly announced two concrete goals: 1) reducing the Clean Water Act significant non-
compliance (SNC) rate of major dischargers in the Bay watershed by 50% by the end of calendar 1991
and  2) bringing all Federal facilities located in the Bay watershed into full  compliance with all
environmental statutes by the end of 1991.  Through an enhanced enforcement effort by EPA Region III
and the Bay States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, the 50% reduction in the SNC rate was
achieved by December 1991, and nearly all the Federal facilities had been compelled to fully comply.
Region III and the Bay States also executed a long-term strategy for increased enforcement in the Bay
watershed. (For further information contact OE-Water)

                                 Wetlands Penalty Policy

     On December 14, 1990, EPA issued the final "Clean Water Act Section 404 Civil Administrative
Penalty Settlement Guidance and  Appendices."  The document provides guidance to EPA staff on
calculating an appropriate  settlement penalty for Class I or Class II Section 404 administrative penalty
proceedings.  The guidance considers all  of the statutory penalty factors and contains a matrix for
environmental significance. The statutory criteria portion of the policy can also be used to calculate
judicial settlement amounts.  Use of the Guidance will promote more nationally-consistent settlement
penalties for Section 404.  (For further information contact OE-Water)

                 Publication of Proposed Non-APA Penalty Procedures

     On  July  1, 1991, EPA published  in  the Federal Register  a proposed  rule for  assessing
administrative penalties under several statutes without recourse to the Administrative Procedure Act.
The proposal  encompasses  actions under the NPDES and  Oil Pollution Act sections of the Clean Water
Act, the Underground Injection Control provisions of the  Safe Drinking Water Act, as well as elements
of CERCLA and EPCRA.  The Agency also announced its plan to use these procedures as guidance for the

                                            5-9

-------
                         FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Clean Water Act sections before the rule is promulgated as final, EPA is now considering the public
comments received on its proposal,  (For further information contact OE-Water)

                EPA/Army Guidance on Judicial Enforcement Priorities

     During FY 1991, EPA and the Department of the Army jointly issued guidance to the EPA Regions
and Army corps of Engineers districts on judicial enforcement priorities for unauthorized discharges of
dredged or fill material to waters of the United States in violation of the Clean Water Act.  The stated
purposes of the guidance are: encouraging consistency in the manner in which EPA and the Corps enforce
the Act's requirements nationally, protecting the integrity of the Section 404 regulatory program, and
directing limited program resources in  a manner that  produces the most beneficial environmental
results,  (For further information contact OW-Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds-Wetlands
Division)

       Implementing the Regulatory Definition of Significant Noncompliance (SNC) for
                                  Industrials Users (IU)

     In July, 1991, the EPA promulgated modifications to the General Pretreatment Regulations (40
CFR 403) which included a regulatory definition of SNC for Ills. In response to comments and questions
from the regulated community, the EPA issued a policy statement which clarifies how the definition is
to be properly implemented.  The  policy clearly  establishes a rolling quarters  evaluation  of SNC,
similar to the NPDES direct discharge program, and identifies how POTWs and EPA Regions are to use
effluent data in determining SNC,  This policy promotes parity in how IU  SNC is determined  and
allows the EPA to more efficiently assess the implementation of the National Pretreatment Program.
(For further information contact OWEC)

     Guidance on Division of CWA Administrative Penalties with State or
                                  Local Governments

     On September 27, 1991 EPA issued to Regions, guidance on the issue of whether the  1987 Clean
Water Act (CWA) authorizes EPA to divide administrative penalties with State or local governments.
The Agency had previously issued guidance on the subject of dividing judicial penalties with the States
(October 30, 1985).  Based on a review of the relevant statutes (the CWA and the  Miscellaneous
Receipts Act),  the guidance finds that no authority exists under the CWA administrative penalty
authority for EPA or an administrative law judge to award any portion of an administrative penalty to
a State or local government.  The CWA limits the administrative assessment of penalties to penalties
for violations of Federal law. Further, the Miscellaneous receipts Act requires that penalties finally
assessed by an administrative law judge must be paid only  to  the United States Treasury, (For further
information contact OWEC)


                Revised Pretreatment Compliance Inspection Checklist

     On September 27,1991, the final revised Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) checklist  was
transmitted to the Regions. A revised PCI guidance  document and a question-by-question PCI reference
guide were also transmitted with the checklist. This package was developed to replace the PCI section
of the Fretreatment Compliance Inspection and  Audit Manual for Approval Authorities,  issued  July
1986.  The PCI checklist was revised to reflect the considerable evolution of the pretreatment program
in the past five years. The  revisions ensure that the PCI would continue to be a useful tool in accurately
assessing POTW pretreatment monitoring and enforcement activities.  In addition, emphasis on the
interview section of the PCI checklist was reduced and the format of the file review section was revised

                                           5-10

-------
                         FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
to encourage the inspector to better document problems.  Regions and States are generally expected to
begin using this revised PCI checklist in FY 1992. (For further information contact OWEO

                          Pretreatment Enforcement Initiative

     On May  1, 1991,  EPA  and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that judicial
enforcement actions were filed that day against the City of Los Angeles, four other public entities, and
six companies to address pretreatment violations. Those Actions were part of an ongoing Federal and
State effort that addressed, through formal enforcement actions, pretreatment violations by over 250
other public entities and companies since late 1989.  In 1989,  EPA and DOJ launched the first phase of
their pretreatment enforcement initiative against public  entities which had failed to implement and
enforce pretreatment requirements. EPA also announced that a $3,100,000 settlement with Pfizer, Inc.
(of Easton, PA) had been lodged in court; this constituted the largest federal civil penalty which had
been obtained (up to that date) under the Clean Water Act. (For further information contact OWBC)

           NPDES and Pretreatment Inspector Training and Development

     The Water Enforcement Division of OWEC presented a variety of  inspector training during FY
1991.  NPDES/Pretreatment program specific minimum training was  presented nine times (Dallas,
Denver,  Cleveland,   Boise, New York,  Atlanta,  San  Francisco,   Philadelphia,  and  Trenton).
Pretreatment compliance inspection training was  present five times  (Denver, Buffalo, New Paltz,
Philadelphia, and Boston). Two specialized training workshops were held: (1) to conduct diagnostic
inspections in  Florida, and (2) for offshore oil facility compliance  evaluation in New  Orleans.
Approximately 300 EPA and State inspectors received training. More than thirty on-the-job-training
(OJT) exercises held as part of compliance inspections conducted by OWEC contractors. A new class for
compliance evaluation inspections (CEIs) was developed.

     Five inspector training modules which address NPDES Overview, Legal Issues, Laboratory
Analysis, Biomonitoring, and Sampling Procedures were presented in workshops. The sampling module
was completed in December 1990 and the others earlier in FY 1990. Drafts of the Diagnostic Inspection
Manual and Training Guides for Students and Supervisors were prepared during the year.  A 16 minute
training video on "Inspecting a Parshall Flume" was also completed. (For further information contact
OWEC)
Safe Drinking Water Act

                       Underground Injection Control Initiative

     On July 18,1991, EPA announced the 5X28 Class V Proposed National Administrative Orders on
Consent with ten major oil companies, (Amoco, Ashland, BP, Exxon, Marathon, Mobil, Shell, Sun Oil,
Texaco, and Unocal).  On September 13,1991, the ten National Administrative Orders on Consent were
issued  in final.  The Orders  require extensive inventory  information, cessation of injection, waste
minimization, extensive closure, an oversight contractor for ten percent of the closures, and penalties
totaling more than $800,000 for the ten oil companies. This action will lead to the permanent closure of
over 1800 service station bay drain wells nationwide which had been receiving automotive-related
wastes such as oil, anti-freeze, solvents, etc. This enforcement action was the first of its kind under the
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program in its use of national administrative orders to address oil
company operations in 49 states and territories.  (For further information contact OE-Water)
                                            5-11

-------
                             1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

                        The Revised RCRA Civil Penalty Policy

     EPA issued a new RCRA Civil Penalty Policy (RCPP) in October, 1991. A 1989 Inspector General
Report and a 1990 Agency  review of the overall RCRA program, the RCRA Implementation Study
(RIS), had concluded that the prior 1984 penalty policy did not create a sufficient deterrent effect and
failed to adequately reflect the gravity and duration of violations.  The new RCPP is designed to ensure
that penalties reflect the gravity and duration of violations and requires that  economic benefits of
noncompliance (EBN) be recouped using the BEN computer model. The RCPP also includes mandatory
penalty documentation requirements. Further, for the first time, the RCPP will apply to civil judicial
settlements, in addition to administrative  complaints and settlements.

     Under the 1990 RCPP, the penalty for a violation is calculated in four steps: (1) determining the
appropriate gravity based penalty (GBP) based on the "probability of harm" posed by a violation and
its "extent of deviation from regulatory requirements"; (2) calculating a multiday component based on
the duration of the violations (if appropriate); (3) adjusting the overall GBP based on case-specific
factors; and (4) calculating and recapturing the EBN obtained by the violator.

     A critical change in the new RCPP concerns the assessment of multiday penalties. Under the old
penalty policy, multiday penalties were in assessed in rare, "egregious" cases only.  The 1990  RCPP
creates three classifications of violations based  on the relative gravity of the  violations.  These
multiday penalty classifications, which apply to days 2-180 of continuing violations, are "mandatory,"
"presumed," and "discretionary." Multiday penalties for days 180+ of all violations are discretionary.

     To  facilitate the implementation of the RCPP, the Office of Enforcement (OE) and Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) developed a joint RCPP training course.  OE and OWPE presented
the course  to  all Regional  EPA  offices,  Headquarters,  the  Department of Justice,  and  State
representatives.

     While the new RCPP has been in effect throughout FY 1991, EPA has continued to litigate and
settle a significant number of older cases under the 1984 policy. Nevertheless, preliminary indications
are that the RCPP is resulting in significantly higher penalties (see Section VI, pp. _ - _). Agency data
show that in FY 1990, prior to the Revised RCPP, the number of proposed administrative actions or
complaints totaled 122 with proposed total penalties of $18.8 million.  The highest penalty collected
was $550,000, After implementation of the revised RCRA Civil Penalty Policy, the number of proposed
administrative actions totaled 99 with proposed total penalties of $56.7 million. The highest penalty
collected  was $3.3 million.  EPA  anticipates penalty totals in future years to continue to exceed pre-
RCPP levels. (For further information, contact OE-RCRA or OWPE).

                                  Pollution Prevention

     The Office of Solid Waste  and Emergency Response (OSWER) has  been working to develop a
pollution prevention action plan for RCRA, including an enforcement section which recognizes the need
for several activities, including training for inspectors and guidance on the use of pollution prevention in
enforcement settlements.  OSWER developed a policy on the "Role of the RCRA Inspector in Promoting
Waste  Minimization," which was released in September, 1991. The policy provides RCRA inspectors
with extensive background on pollution prevention  and its relation to RCRA inspections, minimum
training requirement for inspectors before conducting an inspection for pollution  prevention and an
outline of the inspectors' role in outreach, (For further information contact OWPE)
                                            5-12

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                                Air Emissions Training

     The RCRA Enforcement Division provided training on the first phase of the Air Emission Rule to
RCRA field inspectors/enforcement personnel in all ten Regions.  This is the first rule under RCRA that
requires TSDFs to regulate air emissions from certain types of equipment.  (For further information
contact OWPE)

          Land Disposal Restrictions Handbook/ Land Disposal Restrictions

     OWPE revised the LDR Handbook to include the latest LDR rule development. The handbook is
designed to help the regulated community understand and comply with land disposal restrictions. This
handbook was distributed in February, 1991. OWPE up-dated the original LDR Enforcement Strategy to
include all of the latest LDR determinations. The strategy is intended to help the EPA Regions' and
States'  RCRA Enforcement  Programs  establish work load and violation priorities.   (For further
information contact OWPE)


       Organic Toxicity Characteristic (TO Workshop Rule Enforcement Strategy
                                    and Workshops

     OWPE developed and issued a strategy on enforcing the requirements of  the new  TC  Rule.
Workshops on enforcing the TC Rule were held in ten regions and two states. (For further information
contact OWPE)

                          Enforcement Policy Compendium

     OWPE updated  and significantly expanded RCRA enforcement policy compendium for use by
Headquarters, Regional and State enforcement staff. The three-volume compendium contains  guidance
documents and other pertinent information, along with  an  extensive  listing of other applicable
documents not included in the compendium. (For further information contact OWPE)

                       RCRA Inspection Information Pamphlets

     Two pamphlets were  developed which  describe three  different types of  RCRA compliance
inspections; Compliance Evaluation Inspection; Compliance Groundwater Monitoring Evaluation; and
Operations and Maintenance Inspection. The pamphlets are designed to educate owner/operators of
facilities that are subject to such inspections on what is being evaluated, what EPA authority is, and
what follow-up action might be expected. (For further information contact OWPE)


Superfund

                Alternative  Dispute Resolution Enforcement Program

     A highly successful  pilot program in Region V in the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
techniques in Superfund actions made major strides toward meeting Agency goals of implementing ADR
into Agency practice.  The pilot demonstrated the transaction  costs benefits to the Agency of using
mediation professionals to assist in the resolution of complex Superfund actions. The Agency is currently
expanding this pilot to other Regions for use in additional Superfund actions.

     In the Fall  of 1990, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement presented testimony
before Congressional committees in support of passage of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act
                                          5-13

-------
                          FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
(subsequently enacted as Public Law 52-101). In furtherance of the Act, the Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement has been appointed by the Administrator as Agency Dispute Resolution Specialist with
responsibility for statutory requirements. The Office of Enforcement has established an Agency-wide
task force to oversee implementation of the Act.  (For further information contact OE-Superfund)

                             Model RD/RA Consent Decree

     On July 8,1991, EPA published in the Federal Register an Interim Model CERCLA Consent Decree
for Remedial Design/Remedial Action  Settlements.  This document provides model language for
drafting RD/RA consent decrees for settlements pursuant to CERCLA sections 106, 107 and 122.  The
model language standardizes CERCLA consent decrees and will expedite settlements by reducing the
time and resources consumed by RD/RA settlement discussions.  (For further information contact OE-
Superfund)

                             Residential Homeowner Policy

     On July 3,1991, EPA issued a guidance document entitled "Policy Towards Owners of Residential
Property at Superfund Sites", signed by Assistant Administrators of the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response and the Office of Enforcement.  The policy provides guidance for Regional staff
regarding  the Agency's policy toward  residential homeowners whose activities  have not led to a
release or threat of release of hazardous substances, resulting in the taking of a response action at the
site. (For further information contact OE-Superfund)

                                     Lender Liability

     On June 24,1991, EPA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule interpreting the "secured
creditor" exemption in CERCLA.  The  proposed rule specifies a range of activities  that a security
holder can  undertake  without incurring Superfund liability. The  rule also provides that a security
holder can  foreclose on contaminated  property without necessarily voiding the  exemption, provided
that the foreclosing lender also seeks to sell the property within a reasonable period of time so as to
recoup the loan loss. In addition, the proposed  rule provides protection for federal entities such as the
Resolution Trust Corporation that acquire property involuntarily. The Agency received approximately
350 public comments on the proposed rule and is  in the  process of finalizing the rule.  (For further
information contact OE-Superfund)
Toxic Substances Control Act

                 TSCA Section 8(e) Compliance Audit Program (CAP)

     During FY 1991, EPA launched the TSCA Section 8(e) Compliance Audit Program (CAP), a first-
of-its-kind voluntary audit program designed to achieve the Agency's goal of obtaining any outstanding
Section 8(e) substantial risk  information, and provide maximum encouragement for companies to
voluntarily audit their files.  Section 8(e) applies to any person who manufactures, imports, processes,
or distributes a TSCA-covered chemical substance or mixture and who obtains new  information that
reasonably supports a conclusion that the substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to
health or the environment. Under the CAP, companies agreed to register for the program, conduct a
corporate-wide audit  for TSCA 8(e) reportable information, and pay stipulated penalties for each
study reported up to an overall $1,000,000 ceiling.  The CAP sets forth guidelines that identify - in
advance - EPA's enforcement response, and allow companies to assess liability prior to  electing to
participate.  Approximately 125 companies (excluding subsidiaries) registered  for the CAP which is
                                            5-14

-------
                                                                                         , A
                        FY 1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
not scheduled to conclude until late 1992 or early 1993. The CAP program follows closely the approach
taken by EPA in the settlement of the TSCA Section 8(e) case involving Monsanto Corporation, in which
Monsanto paid a record penalty of $859,000 for such violations, (For further information contact OE-
Toxics Litigation Division (TLD))

              OSHA-EPA Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding

     A joint OSHA-EPA Enforcement Workplan for  FY 1991 was  signed  by the EPA Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and the Administrator of OSHA.  The workplan, and supplemental
agreement covering cross-agency  training and  data  exchange,  implement the  November 1990
Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding signed by Administrator Reilly and former Secretary of
Labor Elizabeth Dole. The work implements ongoing efforts to inspect petrochemical facilities as part
of the  OSHA "PetroSEP" initiative, lead  reduction initiative, and cross-agency tip and  complaint
reports. In addition, EPA is exploring the possibility of having OSHA monitor compliance with TSCA
Section 5(e) consent orders which require manufacturers of new chemicals to implement a number of
protective measures for their employees,  such as dermal and respiratory equipment, and a hazard
communication program. Ideally, when OSHA conducts an industrial  hygiene inspection at a facility
which produces, processes or uses a chemical covered by a 5(e) order, it would monitor for compliance
with the 5(e)  order as  well as for compliance with the  OSHA health standards. (For further
information contact OE-TLD)

                               Inter-Agency Agreements

     Two examples of Inter-Agency agreements, initiated  in  FY 1991, involve the  Department of
Defense (DOD) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). In December, 1990, EPA and
DOD entered into an agreement that allows the import of 300,000 pounds of PCBs and PCB items into
the U.S. for disposal.   The  agreement requires DOD to comply with the  PCB  Notification and
Manifesting for PCB Waste Activities Final Rule and provides for a specific schedule to be followed
during shipment, transport and disposal phases of the project. The Office of Compliance Monitoring
(OCM) also entered into an agreement with MSHA for cooperation on inspections and targeting for PCBs
in underground mines. This agreement will be implemented in FY 1992. (For further information contact
OCM)

                           Compliance Monitoring Strategies

     During FY  1991,  EPA updated  and finalized compliance monitoring strategies addressing the
asbestos ban and phase out rule, and polychlorinated-biphenyls  (PCBs) rule. (For further information
contact OCM)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

                        Pesticide Export Enforcement Initiative

     EPA issued complaints charging nine companies with unlawful export of pesticides in violation of
FIFRA  §17 and §12.  The charges included export of pesticides labeled only in English to foreign
countries in which English is not an official language, failure to obtain a statement from the foreign
purchaser acknowledging that the pesticide was not registered for use in the United States, and failure
to label pesticides "Not Registered for Use in the United States of America".
                                           5-15

-------
                          PY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
      These cases are highly significant as they represent the first cases brought since PIFRA was
 amended in 1978 to bring exported pesticides within the purview of the Act, They, therefore, involved
 highly complex legal, policy and technical issues of first impression. Furthermore, they were of great
 interest to the public and Congress as they were brought during the Congressional session which focused
 on the "circle of poison" issue, ie,, illegal pesticides returning to the US on imported food stuffs.  Third,
 the  labeling violations had the  potential to result »n serious illness,  death or environmental
 contamination.  Finally, settlement oi these cases resulted in adoption of a tough enforcement stance of
 "zero tolerance" or "no mitigation" for certain violations,

      The companies charged in these complaints and the amounts of the proposed penalties are as
 follows: Dow Chemical Company, $22,400; SWeld-Brite Corporation, $222,000; Mobay Corporation,
 $314,800; Exxon Chemical Americas, $36,400; Rohm and Haas Bayport, Inc. $36,000; Sandoz Crop
 Protection, $1,629,200; Monsanto Chemical Corporation $562,800; NL Industries, Inc. $19,600;  Chevron
 Chemical Comparvy $29,200,  Penalties obtained so far * $470,360. (For further, inforaaatiori contact OB'
 TLD)

                         Section 6(aK2) Reporting Requirements

      In January 1991 EPA mailed a letter to over 225  persons and firms holding registrations for
 pesticides used on domestic animals.  The letter explained the requirements of F1FEA §6
-------
                        FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                      Senior Pesticide Officials Training Program

     In FY 1991, OCM and the Office of Pesticides Programs implemented the second year of a national
training program to assist  senior State  officials managing State-delegated  pesticide enforcement
programs. Two hundred and fifty pesticide program leaders from 49 States, six tribal groups and two
U.S. territories participated in the 1-2  week  residential training session at the University of
California at Davis.  The goal of this program is to enhance State and Regional capabilities to develop
and implement pesticide regulatory programs for the 1990's and to undertake new environmental
initiatives which feature reduction, pollution prevention and innovative approaches to pesticide
management and enforcement. (For further information contact OCM)

                              FIFRA §19 Procedural Rule

     In FY 1991, EPA drafted the FIFRA §19 Proposed Procedural Rule, which covers procedures for: a)
EPA acceptance of canceled pesticides for  disposal; b) the requirements for a voluntary or mandatory
recall of suspended or canceled pesticides; c) requirements for submittal of storage and disposal plans,
and the Agency's procedures for review of plans; and d) indemnification procedures for suspended and
canceled pesticides.  (For further information contact OCM)

                              FIFRA §6(g) Policy Statement

     On March 28,  1991, EPA issued the  FIFRA §6(g) Proposed Policy Statement  which outlines the
responsibilities of persons who must  submit information under FIFRA §6(g) and accompanying
procedures for information submittal. Section 6(g) of FIFRA requires persons to notify the Agency and
appropriate State and local  officials of the quantity and location  of any suspended or canceled
pesticides in their possession.  (For further information contact OCM)

                         Policy Statement for Pesticide Exports

     In FY 1991, OCM  drafted the Final Policy Statement for Pesticide Exports. The policy clarifies
the requirements for labeling exported pesticides and the requirements affecting the export of research
and development pesticides. It also broadens the  scope of actions  which will trigger international
notifications and presents a new system for transmittal of international notices. The policy is expected
to be published In the Federal Register in January, 1992. (For further information contact OCM)

                         Case Development Training Program

     In FY 1991, OCM conducted a highly successful Case Development Training Program for Regional
and State case development officers in NJ, MO, CA, VA, TX, MA and WA. The course covered a range of
topics including evidence gathering and evaluation, and the civil administrative process.  About 300
State and federal case officers, attorneys, and inspectors attended. Each attendee  received a manual
which  outlines TSCA,  FIFRA,  and the Emergency Planning  and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA), as well as a TSCA case study used in a mock settlement conference. (For further information
contact OCM)
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) S 313

                          EPCRA §313 Targeting System (ETS)

     By the end of FY 1991, OCM had installed the pilot EPCRA §313 Targeting System (ETS) in nine
                                           5-17

-------
                          FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Regions. The system provides the Regional EPCRA §313 inspectors with a flexible, PC-based tool for
creating automated inspection targeting lists based upon region-specific  priorities,   (For further
information contact OCM.)

                           EPCRA §313 Late Reporter Initiative

     On June 10, 1991, EPA issued approximately 2,429 Notices of Noncompliance to facilities which
had submitted over 5,000 late reports under EPCRA §313 after the July 1 deadline in 1989 or 1990 or both
years.  This effort required a quality  assurance review of the EPCRA files of over 400 suspected late
facilities; a crosscheck, by hand, of the list of late facilities with  the list of over 1500  facilities
inspected by  the Regions; and the creation of a d-Base file downloaded from the TRIS database, of
facilities submitting late  reports.  EPA is now able to track the timeliness of those facilities  which
received an NON for late reporting; enabling EPA to assess penalties  for repeated late reporting. (For
further information contact OCM.)
                                             5-18

-------
                         FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
VL  Media Specific Enforcement Performance and
     Regional Accomplishments

Clean Air Act - Stationary Sources

     At the beginning of FY 1991, EPA's Stationary Source Compliance Program, in conjunction with
State agencies, identified 401 Significant Violators (SV).  Throughout the year an additional 660 SVs
were identified.  By the end of the fiscal year, 608 SVs were brought into compliance, subject to an
enforceable compliance  schedule,  or  were subject to formal enforcement action.  In addition to
traditional SIP, NSPS, and NESHAP inspection activity, the air compliance program conducted 1,250
inspections of wood heater manufacturing and retailing operations.

     To improve efforts to  return air emissions facilities to compliance, the EPA's Stationary Source
Compliance Division piloted Compliance Planning and Oversight initiatives in Virginia and Maine.
This program, developed   with  close State  and  EPA Regional  involvement,  establishes  an
accountability process in which the States negotiate compliance program goals and strategies.

     EPA supplemented the successful asbestos NESHAP  outreach program by developing  and
distributing brochures to asbestos removal contractors.

     Under Title VII  of the Clean  Air Act, EPA initiated a  number of regulatory activities to
implement the title's enforcement provisions.  These initiatives include work on Field Citations,
Citizen Suits, and contractor listing.

Clean Air Act - Mobile  Sources Field Operations and Support Division

     EPA's Field Operations and Support Division in the Office of Mobile Sources enforces the fuels,
anti-tampering, emissions warranty, and related provisions of Title II of the Clean Air Act and assists
in developing enforcement policy. This enforcement program covers all phases of enforcement including:
field investigating (augmented by State and local efforts and by contractor inspections), the issuance of
Notices of Violation  (NOVs), negotiation of settlements, referral of cases to the U.S.  Department of
Justice, and litigation if  necessary.

     Major enforcement achievements during FY 1991  include the acceptance by all participating
parties of an  Agreement in Principal relating to the reformulated gasoline and oxygenated  fuels
provisions of the Clean Air  Act Amendments of 1990. The volatility enforcement program resulted in
continuing high levels  of compliance.  Settlement of lead phasedown  cases brought substantial
penalties for violations.   As a result of the Clean Air Act Amendments of  1990, tampering enforcement
was initiated in the area of high performance modifications to vehicles.

     EPA issued a total of 269 NOVs, of which 157 were for violations of the aftermarket catalytic
converter policy, 56 were for fuel volatility violations, 54 were for tampering and fuel violations and
two were for lead phasedown violations.

     EPA settled 211 cases in FY 1991 with cash civil penalties totaling $2,246,008, and  additional
payments totaling $454,381 went  to alternative payment projects.  The largest civil  penalties were
generated from the settlement of five outstanding lead phasedown cases with $1,218,249 in total civil
penalties.
                                            6-1

-------
                          FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Clean Air Act - Mobile Sources Manufacturers Operations Division

     The Manufacturers Operations Division in the Office of Mobile Sources enforces the provisions of
Title II of the Clean Air Act related to the manufacture of new motor vehicles, including the testing of
production line motor vehicles and engines and in-use vehicles to determine conformity with Federal
emission requirements. EPA conducts its own investigations, surveillance, and testing of new and in-use
vehicles, and concentrates its enforcement efforts on testing of new motor vehicles and engines on the
production line;  testing and recall of in-use motor vehicles; and, monitoring the importation and
modification of nonconforming motor vehicles,                                               .

     EPA's  recall testing  program is  a  key  component of efforts to  enforce  Federal emission
requirements. Since the beginning of recall activity, a total of 31 million vehicles have been recalled as
a direct result of EPA investigations.  In FY 1991, the motor vehicle emission recall program continued to
play an important role in EPA's enforcement efforts, investigations resulting in 6 influenced  recalls
involving 2 manufacturers and a total of 1.2 million recalled vehicles. In addition, 830,000 vehicles
were recalled voluntarily by manufacturers  without specific EPA action.

     In addition, EPA continued motor vehicle enforcement testing in a high altitude area '(Denver,
Colorado).   This high-altitude program conducted in coordination with the Colorado Department of
Health, was initiated  to  ensure vehicles in  high altitude areas comply with  Federal emission
standards.  Colorado tested 8 engine families representing 1.0 million vehicles, and 4 influenced recalls
are expected as a result of this testing program.

     The Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA) program consists of production-line emission.testing of..
new light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines. Less than 80 individual tests ordered during FY 1991
induced over 24,000 additional  voluntary emission tests conducted by manufacturers.  The heavy-duty
SEA audits focused on engines that manufacturers choose to participate in the averaging, banking and
trading programs. The audits targeted engines which had family emission limits either below the
Federal standards or close to the engines certification level.  Thirteen (13) heavy-duty  engine audits
were conducted and a result of these audits, EPA revoked two manufacturer's certificates of conformity
for two engine families which  failed the audits because the engine configurations would not meet
applicable emission limits. The certificates  were re-issued when the manufactures made modifications
to the engines and testing demonstrated compliance with Federal standards.  The manufacturers also
agreed to recall previously produced engines.

     EPA's Imports Program,  implemented on July 1, 1988, permits only independent commercial
importers (ICIs) that possess an appropriate certificate of conformity from EPA to import nonconforming
vehicles. Accordingly, the ICI  is solely responsible for meeting all EPA emission requirements for all
nonconforming vehicles it imports. To determine compliance with the Imports program in FY 1991, MOD
conducted in-office document audits of all operating ICIs conducted four on-site ICI inspections and one
port of call inspection. Pursuant to these audits, numerous imports regulation violations were identified.,
In addition to pursuing enforcement action on these violations, investigations of four other  ICIs for
various imports regulations violations are continuing.              ,      ^ ,           ,
                                                        *      '                      "'    • f
Clean Water Act Enforcement - NPDES

     Record Penalties under NPDES                                          •     .   • '  .
                                                                                             1
     EPA  water enforcement  in FY 1991  obtained record-breaking penalty dollars, removing to the
greatest  extent feasible the economic  benefit of non-compliance.  An overview of recent water
enforcement activities shows the following accomplishments:

                                             6-2

-------
                         FY1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
     • Nearly 25 percent ($26.6 million) of total civil penalties assessed under the Clean Water Act
       since 1975 ($106 million) were assessed in FY 1991;

     • Five of the ten largest civil penalties ever assessed under the Clean Water Act were assessed in
       FY 1991;

     • The top two civil penalties were obtained in FY 1991 ($6.1 million against Wheeling-
       Pittsburgh Steel Corp. for effluent violations and $3.1 million against Pfizer, Inc. for
       pretreatment  violations); and

     • Over half (21 of 39 cases) of civil CWA penalties in excess of $500,000 were assessed in the last
       three years.

Timely and Appropriate Enforcement and the NPDES Exceptions Report

     The  NPDES  enforcement program has defined Significant  Noncompliance (SNC) to  include
violations of effluent  limits, reporting requirements, and/or violations of formal enforcement actions.
The NPDES program does not track SNC against a  "fixed base" of SNC  that is established at the
beginning of the year, rather, the program tracks SNCs on a quarterly basis. During FY 1991, 91% of all
NPDES SNCs were resolved in a "timely and appropriate" manner.

       Those  facilities that have been  in  SNC for two or  more quarters  without  returning to
compliance or being addressed by a  formal enforcement action are identified on an "exceptions list".
During,FY. 1991, 354  facilities were reported on the SNC exceptions list including 152  facilities that
were unaddressed  from the previous year and 202 facilities that appeared on the list for the first time
during the year. Of the 354 facilities on the exceptions list, 204 returned to compliance by the end of the
year, 109 were subject to formal enforcement action, and 41 facilities remained to be addressed during
the upcoming year.

National Municipal Policy

     Through implementation  of the National Municipal  Policy {NMP), over 95%  of  all major
Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW) are in compliance A total of 101 major POTWs  completed
construction to meet final effluent limits during FY 1991, and all but four facilities in the NMP universe
have been  addressed through a judicial or administrative schedule, are in the  referral process to
establish a schedule,  or have already complied.  Estimates of environmental benefits directly related
to NMP requirements include removal of an additional 2.8 million Ibs/day of conventional  pollutants
and removal of over 18,000 Ibs/day (approximately 9 tons) of toxic pollutants.

Clean Water Act Enforcement - §404 (Wetlands)

     EPA and the  Army Corps of Engineers jointly enforce the requirements of §404 of the Clean Water
Act, which prohibits the unpermitted discharge of dredged  or fill material into wetlands  and other
waters of the United States.  Under a Memorandum of  Agreement between the two agencies, the Corps -
as the  Federal permitting agency - has the lead on Corps-issued permit violations and EPA has the
lead on many unpermitted discharge cases.

     A primary goal of EPA's wetlands enforcement  program is environmental protection.  EPA seeks
timely removal of the unauthorized discharge and restoration of the site, where appropriate. Another
important goal of §404 enforcement is deterrence, both with regard to the particular violator and to the
regulated community as a  whole. Consequently, EPA may seek monetary penalties either alone or in

                                             6-3

-------
                          FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
addition to injunctive relief. The program also strives for fair and equitable treatment of the regulated
community.   EPA is committed to enforcing the requirements of §404 to ensure' that violators are not
allowed to profit from  their illegal actions, During FY 1991, EPA continued  to use  the various
enforcement mechanisms provided under the Clean  Water Act  in  response to violations of §404.
Nationwide, the EPA Regions issued 98 administrative compliance orders, 21 administrative penalty
complaints, and referred 11 civil and criminal judicial cases to the  Department of Justice.  In addition,
the Agency continued to build on recent efforts to strengthen coordination with the Department of the
Army and the Department of Justice on §404 enforcement matters.              ;

Safe Drinking Water Act Enforcement

Public Water System Supervision Program(PWSS)

      In FY 1991, the PWSS Program strengthened and improved enforcement at the State and Federal
levels. EPA Regional offices more than doubled their enforcement efforts from the previous year, with
significant increases in the numbers of notices of violation (NOVs),  proposed administrative orders
(PAOs), and final administrative orders (FAOs) issued against violating systems. EPA issued a total of
2,448 NOVs, 443 PAOs, and 303 FAOs (as compared with 453 NOVs, 312 PAOs, and 149 FAOs in FY
1990).

      Many of these enforcement actions were a. result of Regional initiatives. Several Regions issued
PAOs and FAOs against  water system users in an attempt to address water systems in violation where
no owner was identified. Regions also issued NOVs against the majority of coliform monitoring and,
reporting violators in selected states. Nationally, the Regions focused on violations incurred by water
systems that serve over 10,000 people. Both Regions and States have issued NOVS and administrative
orders (AOs) against many of these water systems.                    •  . ., ..--t  •    •.  -

      State and EPA timely and appropriate enforcement performance  continued to improve along with
improvements in the rate of resolving exceptions.  More SNCs were identified in FY 1991 as a result of a
more stringent SNC definition that became effective during the year.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Enforcement (RCRA)   ,

      The primary recommendations of the 1990 RCRA Implementation Study (RIS)  for the RCRA
Enforcement Program included strategically targeting enforcement actions,  publicizing enforcement
actions, maximizing the deterrent effect of RCRA enforcement, improving the mix of civil judicial and
administrative  cases, seeking  higher  penalties, and  incorporating pollution  prevention  into
enforcement settlements. During FY  1991, the RCRA  Enforcement  Program  implemented  those
recommendations.

      The RCRA  Enforcement Program played a significant role  in three strategically targeted
initiatives in FY 1991: 1) In February, 1991, EPA announced eight judicial and twenty administrative
actions targeted at violators  of the Land Ban Disposal Restrictions regulations.  Assessed penalties
from the administrative cases totaled $3.5 million. The settlement of a civil judicial  action against
DuPont netted a $1.85 million penalty. 2)The twenty RCRA cases (12 judicial and 8  administrative
cases) filed in July, 1991 were a significant part of a multi-media initiative (total 36 cases)  to enforce
against a  specific pollutant-lead; and 3) A multi-media  initiative against exporters (generators and
transporters) of hazardous waste was  announced in late September, 1991.  The RCRA Enforcement
Program contributed sixteen of twenty-three cases to the initiative. Each  of these well-publicized
initiatives sought to convey the message that company non-compliance of RCRA regulations will be
likely to result in enforcement actions and will involve significant monetary penalties. In addition, the'

                                             6-4

-------
                                                                                             x"*1^.
                         FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
initiatives targeting exporters and violators of the Land Disposal Restrictions follow from priorities
identified in OE's Enforcement Strategic Plan.

     Consistent with the RIS, the RCRA program has worked to improve the ratio of civil judicial
enforcement actions to administrative actions.  In FY 1991, the Agency witnessed a dramatic surge in
judicial referrals as part of this effort.  EPA referred 34 civil judicial actions to the Department of
Justice for filing in Federal District Court. This represents a significant increase over FY 1989 and FY
1990, in which the Agency referred 16 and 18 cases respectively.

     The revised RCRA Civil Penalty Policy (RCPP) was implemented in FY 1991.  This revised
policy provided the Regions with the ability  to assess multi-day penalties as well as assess higher
dollar  penalties.  Agency data show that in  FY 1990, prior  to the RCPP,  the number of proposed
administrative actions or complaints totaled 122 with proposed total penalties of $18.8 million.  The
highest penalty collected was $550,000.  After implementation of the revised RCRA Civil Penalty
Policy, the number of proposed administrative actions totaled 99 with proposed total penalties of $56.7
million.  The highest penalty collected was $3.3 million.

     The Regions incorporated more pollution prevention activities into enforcement settlements.  One
such action in FY 1991 involved the Du Pont  facility at Deepwater, NJ.  As part of the enforcement
settlement, Du Pont must study 15 processes for waste minimization opportunities and provide EPA data
on their findings.  This data will assist EPA in future efforts to promote pollution prevention.  The
RCRA Enforcement Program also developed a policy on the role of the inspector in promoting waste
minimization. The policy included extensive background information on pollution prevention, minimum
training requirements of inspectors before they  could perform a pollution prevention inspection and the
role of the inspector in this outreach program.

Superfund Enforcement

     FY 1991 was a banner year for the Superfund Enforcement Program. The estimated value of the
263 settlements reached with Potential Responsible Parties (PRPs) in FY 1991 exceeded $1.4 billion for
all activities (compared with 283  settlements worth $1.3 billion  in FY 1990).   Of this amount,
approximately $1.1 billion was for §106 or §106/107 remedial (RD/RA) settlements (versus $1.0 billion
in FY 1990).  In FY 1991 the Agency "referred 71 §106 or §106/107 consent decrees for RD/RA to the
Department of Justice (DOJ), for remedial work estimated at $834 million (60 consent decrees  worth
$730.6 million were referred in  FY 90).  In  FY 1991 the Agency issued  a total  of  137  unilateral
administrative orders (UAOs), versus 134 in FY 90, and 132 administrative orders on consent were signed
with PRPs. Of the total of 137 UAOs issued, 48 UAOs were issued under §106(a) for RD/RA work (44
were issued for RD/RA in FY 90). At  the end of FY 1991 PRPs were in compliance with 29 of the UAOs
issued for RD/RA; these were valued at $286 million. Under §107 only, the Agency referred 73 cases to
DOJ seeking cost recovery for past costs worth $164.8 million (as opposed to 79 referrals seeking $184.5
million in FY 1990). Since the inception of the Superfund Program in 1980, PRPs have committed
to response actions worth over $5 billion. The percentage of PRP leads at NPL sites (under enforcement
consent decrees or administrative orders) for remedial design (RD)  and remedial action (RA) responses
has increased to 70% for RD and 63% for RA respectively (Federal Facilities excluded). When SARA
was passed in FY 1987 the percentage of PRP leads at NPL sites was 27% for remedial designs, and 37%
for remedial actions.
                                             6-5

-------
                          F7 799.7 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
180 -p

160 - -

140 -

120 -

100 -

 80 - ,

 60 4-

 40

 20

  0
                             Superfund Program Accomplishments
                                          (All Actions)
                  Total RI/FS
                                    Tolal ROD

                                                         Total RD


                                                                           TotalRA
                                                                         I
            FY88  FY89 FY90 FY9I FYB8 FY89 FY90 FY91  FY88 FY89  FY90 FY 91 FY88  FY89 FY90 FY 91
                        EPA Selected Remedy  D Fund-Lead Response   Q PRP-Lead Response
Toxic Substances Control Act Enforcement (TSCA)

     During FY 1991, OPTS launched the TSCA §8{e) Compliance Audit Program (CAP), a first-of-its-'
kind voluntary audit program designed to achieve the Agency's goal of obtaining any outstanding §8(e)
substantial risk information, and provide maximum encouragement for companies to voluntarily audit
their files. Section 8(e) applies to any person who manufactures, imports, processes, or distributes a
TSCA-covered chemical substance or  mixture and who obtains  new information that  reasonably
supports a conclusion that the substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the
environment. Under the CAP, companies agreed to register for the program, conduct a corporate-wide
audit for TSCA §8(e) reportable information, and pay stipulated penalties for each study reported up
to an overall $1,000,000 ceiling.  The CAP sets forth guidelines that identify, in advance, EPA's
enforcement response  and allows companies to assess liability prior, to electing to  participate.
Approximately 125 companies (excluding subsidiaries) registered for the CAP which is not scheduled to
conclude until late 1992 or early 1993. These companies represent a wide variety of industries including
those engaged in chemical production and importation, petroleum  refining, paper production, the
aerospace industry, and microelectronics.

     During FY 1991, the  EPA's toxics enforcement program included approximately 168 settlements
with Environmentally Beneficial Expenditures (EBEs) (16 rcr FIFRA, 87 under TSCA,  and 65 under
EPCRA) or Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP)..  These settlements include provisions such as
altering manufacturing processes to reduce waste, use of safer products, removal of PCB-containing
transformers, and requirements to conduct compliance audits.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Enforcement  (FIFRA)

     EPA's  FIFRA program  placed high  priority  on  import/export issues in FY 1991, including
participating in the Agency's import/export initiative and case filing.

     Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs), which are management standards for operating laboratories
                                            6-6

-------
                         FY1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
active in environmental matters, are a major factor in efforts to assure high quality data in support of
pesticide registrations.  A significant  amount of FIFRA test data comes from abroad, and OPTS1
international program, involving bilateral Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and multilateral
activities in the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD), is an important means
of ensuring the quality of the data,

     In 1991,  OCM implemented three MOUs with inspectional visits addressing GLPs to Germany,
Switzerland, and the  Netherlands. OCM initiated new MOU activities with Japan (related to toxic
chemical inspections) and established contact with the European Commission and Israel. In May 1991,
OCM also successfully managed the OECD  Vail Consensus Workshop on the application of GLPs to
field studies. The document produced by this Consensus Workshop will have a major impact on how the
U.S. and our major trading partners conduct studies in the field.

B.  Regional Office Accomplishments

                                     Region I - Boston
     (Connecticut,, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont)

     During FY  1991, Region I accelerated its efforts to build a multi-media perspective into all
phases of  its enforcement programs. In pursuit of this goal, the Region made  adjustments to many
aspects  of the enforcement process,  including inspections,  case development,  negotiations,  data
compilation, and policy-setting.

     For example, in FY 1991 the Region completed design of a facility multi-media survey form to be
used by EPA inspectors conducting single-program inspections. This checklist form provides inspectors
with key questions to ask under any of EPA's regulatory programs if they see evidence of possible
violations of a program other than the one for which the inspection is being conducted. During FY 1991,
75 of Region Fs  senior inspectors received training on  use of the  multi-media survey form, and the
Region designed  procedures for ensuring  that the  inspectors' observations are addressed  by the
appropriate program.

     In its Federal facilities  enforcement program, the  Region conducted multi-media inspections at
four federal facilities  posing significant environmental problems.  The follow-up  actions to these
inspections are being coordinated among the EPA programs in which violations were uncovered and also
with the affected States.  Because of the success of this effort. Region I is planning to increase the
number of multi-media inspections at Federal facilities in FY 1992.

     Region I also made further refinements to its case screening process under which a multi-media
compliance/enforcement status check is conducted for any facility slated for enforcement, and a Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI) Report for the facility is reviewed. As a result of this screening process, the
Region coordinated the  issuance of several administrative penalty actions  to facilities found to be
simultaneously violating more than one regulatory program. The programs most commonly involved in
these multi-media administrative actions were those under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
The Region also has ongoing three significant multi-media  judicial actions involving violations  of
RCRA and the Clean Water Act.

     In negotiating settlements to enforcement actions,  Region I continued efforts begun in FY 90  to
encourage innovative  forms of relief.  The Region has achieved many settlements  incorporating
supplemental environmental  projects which  go beyond merely correcting the violations cited by the
action. Often the ideas for such projects arose from review of the TRI report for the violating facility

                                            6-7

-------
                          FY 199J Enforcement Accomplishments Report.
and led to adoption of projects to reduce or eliminate releases of toxic air pollutants not currently
regulated under Federal law. In two major judicial enforcement actions. Region I ended the year having
made  substantial   progress  toward  negotiating  settlements  that  will   include  comprehensive
environmental auditing programs.

     Region I also recognized the need for better integration of data from each enforcement program.
The Region thus designed a multi-media enforcement tracking system (MMETS) which complements a
national effort to  integrate enforcement data. MMETS is a tickler system that contains information
about current enforcement actions and planned inspections and enforcement at facilities throughout New
England. In FY 92 use of MMETS will become a standard component of case screening in the Region,

     To  facilitate the multi-media approach to enforcement, Region I has frequently relied on  an
Enforcement Workgroup composed principally of managers of the Region's enforcement programs. With
representatives  from all  the programs, the  Workgroup has been effective in developing  regional
policies for implementation of new directions in enforcement, such as fine-tuning the multi-media case
screening process.  Taken together, all the changes described send a clear  signal  that Region I has
broadly embraced the Agency's push towards a multi-media perspective in its enforcement programs.

                                   Region II - New York
                   (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands)  ,

     Region II's record for FY 1991 displays a continued strong commitment to an aggressive enforcement
program.  It was also a year in which the Region devoted considerable effort to a number of enforcement
initiatives, including notably the multi-media enforcement program. The Region is proud of the results
they have achieved: the  Region carried out six major, consolidated multi-media inspections, and
commenced five multi-media  enforcement cases. The Region has in place an ambitious multi-media
inspection program for FY 1992 to build on their current efforts.  Perhaps of greater importance, the
Region  has created effective institutional  structures in the Region for enhanced multi-media
coordination, communication, and tracking.

     Region II had a very strong year in the civil enforcement program. The Region sent nearly 60 civil
referrals, consent decree enforcement referrals and PRN packages to Headquarters or the Department of
Justice during FY 1991; the Region's second highest total ever.  Region II settled or otherwise resolved
fifteen non-Superfund civil cases, yielding penalties of over $3.8 million - their highest ever, and over
two and a half times the FY 1990 total.  One single case - the Dupont RCRA settlement ~ accounted for
$1.85 million in penalties, and included landmark pollution prevention provisions.

     The Region's  Superfund  enforcement program accounted, for 26 civil referrals and  pre-referral
negotiation packages, a Regional record. The total dollar value of all settlements and orders complied
with, including Federal facility Inter-Agency Agreements, was over  $280 million. This brings the
dollar value of their Regional Superfund enforcement program to $970 million during the past three
fiscal years alone, and substantially over $1 billion since its inception -- a significant and  impressive
milestone. Region  II developed, four  new civil  referrals in support of the national Superfund Non-
Settlor /Non-complier (NS/NC) Enforcement initiative.  r         •    j               .     .

     Region II's administrative enforcement activity levels reached an all time high  in FY 91, with
over 585 new actions commenced proposing penalty assessments of over $50 million. Indeed, proposed
penalties in five separate programs exceeded $1 million.  Region II completed about 175 adjudicatory
cases; the administrative case resolutions resulted in penalty assessments of about $4.34 million, nearly
twice the.FY 90 assessments.               .                            ,                 ,

     The Region continues to closely monitor compliance with civil and administrative consent decrees
                                             6-8

-------
                                                                                              >•*!!>.
                                                                                             '-  *
                         FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
and  orders, fully utilizing  the  Agency's Consent  Decree Tracking System,  Five  consent decree
enforcement cases in FY 1991, and some six Motions to Enforce were filed in court.

     The pace and intensity of the criminal enforcement program has increased in FY 91, with six new
case referrals;  plea agreements in several cases (including one very significant case -- Exxon/New
Jersey), and a substantial number of new investigations initiated.

                                 Region HI - Philadelphia
(Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland,  Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia)

     During FY 1991, Region III organized a cross-media  enforcement workgroup to explore multi-
media enforcement opportunities for situations involving noncompliance and risk to human health and
the environment. At the close of the fiscal year, the  work group had completed site characterization
reports on  six facilities  and had brought enforcement actions against four. In addition to facility-
specific actions, the work group  established a model process to conduct multi-media site screening,
including risk assessments, at facilities; developed and piloted the use of cross-media enforcement
authorities  to address significant environmental concerns; and accelerated the use  of multi-media
inspections in the Region. Participation in the work group was praised by both technical and legal
members as a positive experience that provided cross program education.

     Region III established a comprehensive case screening  program which achieved its goals of
identifying potential  multi-media enforcement  cases, improving  civil/criminal coordination and
enhancing docket management and the use of innovative enforcement techniques. The entire Region III
significant noncompliance case inventory, over 325 cases, was screened during FY 1991 in a series of
program-specific screening meetings. From these meetings, over 70 cases were evaluated for potential
multi-media enforcement action during multi-program screening meetings attended by senior program
enforcement managers. The case screening process played an important role in a  number of successful
multi-media enforcement actions issued during FY 1991 and at the close of the fiscal year the Region
retained an active potential multi-media case inventory of over 25 cases.

     Region III was an active participant in the national Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Land Ban Initiative which sought to focus attention and enforcement action on violators of the RCRA
land disposal restriction rule. The Region completed five administrative complaints and referred one
case for judicial action. AH of these actions were completed and announced as part of the national Land
Ban Initiative on February 22,1991.

     In a comprehensive multi-media enforcement initiative designed to address significant lead
compliance problems, Region III completed four judicial and nine administrative actions as part of the
national Lead Initiative announced on July 31, 1991. The penalties being sought  in the administrative
actions totaled  over  $10 million. Enforcement actions were issued as a result of violations in the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,

     As part of its continuing focus on multi-media  compliance within the Chesapeake Bay drainage
area. Region III completed many significant actions during FY 1991  to initiate compliance actions by
industries, municipalities, and Federal facilities. Enforcement actions continued under the Clean Water
Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Clean Air Act,
with notable successes attained in completing Federal  Facilities Compliance Agreements for Federal
facilities. Other activities  included increased attention  to  Federal Insecticide,  Fungicide,  and
Rodenticide Act inspections and encouragement of alternative pest control measures and Integrated Pest
Management in the Bay area.

     Approximately a dozen multi-media inspections were conducted or coordinated this year by
                                             6-9

-------
                          FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Regional Environmental Services Division staff. They were targeted mostly through the Regional cross
media enforcement project or by the enforcement screening process. These inspections have provided
valuable experience  for  Regional  staff and provided excellent opportunities  to  enhance skills.
Significant progress has been made on developing a multi-media screening protocol and it is anticipated
that a pilot effort will be implemented in the second quarter of FY 1992.

     The Region participated in the development of the nation-wide EPA/Occupational Safety and
Health Administration Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which calls for information exchanges,
cross agency  referrals,  training, and joint inspections. The joint  inspections are viewed as the first
tangible product, and Region III was the first EPA Region to achieve this goal by conducting a joint
EPA/OSHA multi-media inspection at WITCO Corporation, Bradford, PA. This facility was part of
OSHA's Petroleum  Special Emphasis initiative and  also was  consistent with  EPA priorities.  In
addition, EPA staff have  referred  several potential violations  to OSHA and, as a result of those
referrals, OSHA investigations were initiated.

     An enforcement action, initiated by Region HI staff,'was escalated to  the  Office of Drinking
Water and Office of Enforcement and evolved into the first national administrative orders on consent
issued by the Agency.  These orders, completed following extensive negotiations  with both primacy
States and companies, have proven to be an effective mechanism to address violations for corporations
which operate on a national basis.

     The orders address the discharge of automotive wastes into injection wells (septic tanks and
drywells, commonly known as Class 5x28 wells) by ten major oil companies. The generic orders for all
companies had many "firsts" including distribution of outreach materials, mandatory implementation
of pollution prevention and waste minimization procedures for service stations, generic closure plans,
and oversight contractor services supplied by the company to certify compliance with closure.

                                   Region IV - Atlanta
                   (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
                      North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee)

     Region  IV supported the Agency's national multi-media enforcement focus by initiating new
activities and implementing institutional  changes to accomplish multi-media objectives and goals.
Region  IV  has identified five regional geographic initiatives  that support the Agency's goal  of
increased multi-media activities.   Currently, Region  IV is  working  with  the  Commonwealth  of
Kentucky, West Virginia, and Ohio and Regions III and V on  what is know as the Tri-State Initiative.
The principal goal is to achieve environmental improvements through the use of regulatory and non-
regulatory tools. Examples of these tools include  sampling, monitoring, multi-media inspections,
pollution prevention, and voluntary reduction. Other Regional geographic initiatives underway or in
the planning stage are;  Calvert City, KY, Chattanooga Creek Basin, (GA and TN),  Tampa Bay, FL, and
South Florida.

     Region IV completed several other  activities that provide the institutional capability  to
respond to multi-media requirements. These activities include:                                 »

      • development of multi-media inspection and enforcement protocols;

      •  pollution Prevention training of key enforcement staff, to determine what
       is  pollution  prevention and  when  and  how  to incorporate it into  enforcement
       settlements;

      • development of a multi-media enforcement training course in cooperation with NEIC;
                                            6-10

-------
                         FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
      • improvement of enforcement communications  that include quarterly issuances of the
       regional multi-media news to highlight current and ongoing regional activities; and,

      • establishment of a Total Quality Management Quality Action Team (QAT) chaired
       with improving multi-media enforcement actions.

Region IV programs continue to make significant contributions to creating EPA's outstanding national
record, including participation in several national initiatives.  Notable  achievements in this area
include a civil case filing against American Brass, Inc., as part of the National Lead Initiative, and a
filing against Grumman as part of the National Land Ban Initiative.

                                   Region V - Chicago
              (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,  Ohio, Wisconsin)

      Region V's record of enforcement accomplishments during FY 1991 again demonstrated national
leadership in environmental enforcement. The region led the national in numbers of judicial referrals,
settlements, and assessed  penalties by a wide margin.  Region V also accelerated  its efforts in
implementing a risk-reduction based, cross-program perspective in its  enforcement targeting, screening,
case development, negotiations, and filings." The Geographic Enforcement  Initiative (GEI) targets
limited geographic areas with chronic non-compliance profiles and severe risks to human health and
the environment.  The GEI has  lead to an acceleration of multi-media, risk-based targeting of facilities
for enforcement actions. This geographic approach promises a greater opportunity to obtain measurable
results, primarily in  terms of  Toxic Release  Inventory (TRI) reductions.   The first GEI focused its
attention and resources on Southeast Cook County and Northwest Indiana.  The overall goal of this GEI
is 50% reduction in toxic loading to NW Indiana by 1995.  Within the  regulated community, GEI hopes
to  instill  both environmental concern  and momentum.   Ideally,  the Initiative will serve both as a
deterrent to non-compliance and an inspiration for voluntary environmental improvements. Amoco Oil's
voluntary testing program in NW Indiana suggests this may already be happening.

      On October 16, 1991, DO], on behalf of Region V EPA, filed three civil enforcement cases in NW
Indiana-Inland Steel Corporation's Indiana Harbor facility (RCRA, CWA, SOW A, CAA). Bethlehem
Steel  Corporation's Burns  Harbor Facility (RCRA, SOW A),  and the Federated Metal Corporation's
Whiting facility (RCRA).  The  coordinated case filings included in the GEI not only mark a turning
point in this area, but also stand out as a ground-breaking model  for interdivisional cooperation and
multi-media enforcement. Widespread  press coverage that EPA will be seeking 50% reduction of toxic
releases in NW Indiana and throughout the Great Lakes Basin  promises to deter  non-compliance
throughout the target area.

      The GEI for the Northwest Indiana/Southeast Chicago area developed very rapidly to produce
tremendous results in water enforcement. A final stipulation resolved consent decree violations by the
East Chicago Sanitary District. It was entered in Federal District Court on October 4,1991.  A consent
decree with the bankrupt USS  Lead  Company designed  to control contaminated run-off from the site
into the Grand Calumet River was entered on May 28,  1991, and the first installment  of a $40,000
penalty has been paid. An agreement in principle was reached with LTV Steel of East Chicago which
will result in the payment of a  $250,000 fine and a $3 million sediment remediation  effort in a water
intake plume that opens directly into Lake Michigan. The company is expected to sign the decree by
late October 1991. Gary Sanitary District signed a Consent Decree on  September 3,1991, that calls for a
$1.25 million civil penalty, the  repair and proper operation and maintenance of the Gary wastewater
treatment facilities and  $1.7  million  of sediment  remediation  on  the Grand  Calumet  River
immediately downstream of the USX Gary Works discharges.  The decree is expected to be entered in
October 1991. These cases form the foundation of the first comprehensive enforcement effort undertaken
                                            6-11

-------
3                         FY1991 Enforcement-Accomplishments Report
in a specifically designated Area of Concern.

      In response to public concern for the ambient air quality in this GEI area, and the nationwide
interest in coke oven emissions, Region V instituted an area-wide coke oven compliance initiative. Coke
oven  emissions are a known carcinogen, which have been listed  under §112 of the Clean Air Act as
hazardous emissions.  The Agency is currently developing standards for these emissions under its
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) program. There are fifteen
operating coke oven batteries in this area in Region V, representing over 50 percent of the Region's total,
and almost 20 percent nationwide. Under the direction of the Region V air enforcement office, detailed
inspections of all NW< Indiana/SE Chicago coke oven batteries were completed in FY 1991. Violations
were  found at five of the coke oven batteries, and settlement negotiations to remedy the problems are
underway.

      Region V has actively participated  in national enforcement initiatives, including the  filing of
eight of the 24  judicial actions filed national-wide in the Lead initiative. These complaints include
actions under RCRA, CERCLA, and the dean Water Act.

      On September  26, 1991, Region V  filed  two  administrative RCRA cases involving improper
import of hazardous waste from Canada.  These cases  were part of a, nation-wide Import/Export
Enforcement  Cluster  filing of  two  judicial  and " 21  administrative . import/export  cases.  An
Administrative Complaint filed against Industrial Fuels and Resources South Bend, Indiana alleged
that the facility failed to submit required annual reports for exporting material during the periods of
1987-8 and 1989-90.  The  Agency is  seeking compliance with annual report regulations as well as
penalties  for  past violations. * The  second regional  action, brought, against  the Safetv-Kleen
Corporation, alleges that the facility failed to submit the required notifications of its intent to receive
hazardous wastes from foreign sources.  The Administrative Complaint entered against the facility
requires the filing of such notices and seeks payment of a civil penalty.   '   .

                                    Region VI - Dallas   ,                 ,      '  ,    .'•
                 (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas)

      The Fiscal Year 1991 enforcement accomplishments in Region VI include expansion of multi-media
enforcement and intense involvement in the  (development of enforcement activities and environmental
enforcement planning with Mexico.                              . ;

      Four very intensive multi-media inspections were completed in Region VI during FY 1991. These
inspections included inspection and enforcement personnel from all EPA programs and from  the State
agencies.  The inspections were designed to assure that facilities in a targeted  geographic are in
compliance with all environmental statutes and are not releasing toxics to the environment in violation
of the law. In addition, each of these  facilities was requested to and has submitted  a voluntary Toxics
Reduction Plan, in which  the facility has  outlined proposed methods of reducing  the level of toxics
released to the environment beyond the level required by law. The compliance status of each of these
facilities  in  the various media is either under review or  negotiations 'have commenced toward
developing a compliance order.  Toxic Reduction Plans  are being completely analyzed  and will be
approved -after the compliance status is determined for all media.

      The four multi-media inspections completed during FY 1991 were completed in two phases, with
Air, NPDES, and RCRA being conducted during Phase A and all other programs and sampling under Air,
NPDES, and RCRA being conducted during  Phase B. The phased approach allowed a more complete
inspection with a  second opportunity to address issues not adequately addressed or  understood during
Phase A.  The phased approach worked better with smaller  facilities due to the limited number of
environmental staff the facility had available to escort EPA personnel throughout the site. The larger
                                            6-12

-------
                                                                                              xnv
                         FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
facilities generally had a larger staff and more flexibility.  Regardless of the size of the facility,
advanced planning and knowledge of the size and expertise of the facility's environmental start is
paramount in the effective completion of a multi-media inspection.

     Multi-media training is being implemented in Region VI with a module being added to the Basic
Inspector Training Course which provides new inspectors with an overview  and  status of multi-media
inspection activities in Region VI.  In addition, multi-media inspection screening checklists are being
developed for use in FY1992.

     In order to plan for expanded multi-media enforcement activities in FY 1992, Region VI prepared
a Multi-Media Enforcement Strategy which centers on a method for targeting facilities for multi-
media inspections, based on environmental risk and on the likelihood for violations in more than one
program. The strategy is intended to provide for several levels of multi-media inspections, including
the very intensive inspections with personnel from  all programs, limited two media inspections, and
the use of multi-media screening checklists in single media inspections. The FY 1992 strategy has also
been provided to the States with requests for development of similar strategies in FY 1992 for FY 1993.

     Four cases were filed against hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDs)
for failing to provide notifications to EPA of the intent to import hazardous waste, as required by RCRA
regulations.  These cases were the first to be filed against violators involved in illegal hazardous
waste shipments from Mexico.  Two export cases were filed against hazardous waste generators for
failing to comply with the terms of export notifications and Acknowledgements of Consent to export to
Mexico emission control dust or sludge from the primary production of steel in electric furnaces. These
two cases were part of the national cluster filing of import/export cases on September 26,1991.

     EPA Region VI  met with SEDUE, EPA's counterpart in Mexico, to begin work on an import/export
database integrating existing EPA/SEDUE data sources. The purpose of the database is to use as a tool
for coordinated  enforcement  of U.S--Mexico regulations related  to hazardous  waste transport and
management. The Region  joined with  SEDUE on seven  cooperative  visits to U.S. and Mexican
{maquiladora) facilities in order to review compliance by those  facilities with  U.S. and Mexico
hazardous waste requirements. The United States is particularly interested  in "maquiladoras", which
are manufacturing plants located in Mexico in a  sister city  to one in the United States (e.g., Ciudad
Juarez and El Paso). The raw materials are  shipped from a plant in the United States to a plant in
Mexico, where the manufacturing is done.

     In December 1989, Presidents Salinas and Bush requested that environmental agencies draft an
Integrated Border Environmental Plan (IBEP) to assure that the border environment would be protected.
Region VI was the major author of the industrial source control section of  this  document and of the
hazardous waste section of the version which was first made available to the public in 1991.  The
Region also participated in multiple meetings with states and local governments regarding the plan.
Finally, Region VI participated with the Office of International Activities in conducting six public
hearings and one public meeting on the IBEP in Texas and New Mexico.

     In FY 1991, EPA Region VI co-hosted the third annual Maquiladora Conference in Tijuana, Mexico,
along with SEDUE.  The conference was attended by 700 participants.  The purpose of the conference
was to present information and discussions of the 1983 U.S./Mexico Agreement on Cooperation for the
Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area,  The Conference focused on the
implementation  of Annex  III of the agreement, which  concerns  the  transboundary shipment  of
hazardous wastes and and hazardous materials.  The conference also addressed U.S. and Mexican
regulations that govern  the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous
wastes generated by the maquiladoras and U.S. border facilities.


                                            6-13

-------
                          FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
     A meeting was held on September 11,1991, with representatives of the U.S. parent companies of
eight maquiladoras operating in the border region in order to discuss the latest international
environmental developments and their prospective impacts on their operations.  EPA explained the
status and direction of the proposed Integrated Border Environmental Plan (IBEP), as well as United
States federal and state initiatives planned for the remainder of 1991 through 1994. Each company
was asked to sign an environmental compliance pledge committing to make every effort to ensure that
its operations in Mexico, as well as the operations of all maquiladora subsidiaries or other affiliates
operating in Mexico fully comply with Mexico's environmental laws. In addition, each company was
requested to sign a compliance assessment pledge committing to initiation of an  assessment of the
compliance status of all of its operations in Mexico.  The assessment would include a review of all of its
operations to determine whether they are in compliance .with all applicable provisions of Mexico's
environmental laws.  Each company was  asked to  submit to SEDUE, either a statement  that its
operations are in compliance with Mexico's environmental laws or a proposal to expeditiously come into
compliance with Mexico's environmental laws and  was asked to submit to Region VI a confirmation
that it has transmitted the results of the assessment to SEDUE.             -.

                                 Region VII -  Kansas City
                           (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska)

     Region VII  actively participated  in  the National Lead Enforcement Initiative. Region  VII
contributed to the overall effort with one judicial and four administrative enforcement actions.  The
judicial  case was filed under the Clean Air Act, and the Region filed one CERCLA, one CWA, one
EPCRA  and two RCRA administrative cases.  These cases were in addition to other EPA and state
enforcement actions taken since 1990  to  address  lead contamination under  state and  federal
environmental statutes.

     Region VII filed three RCRA administrative cases on February 22, 1991, in the national effort to
address violations of  the land disposal regulations.  One of the  cases, In the Matter of Universal
Rundle Corp.. was settled by an order entered July 18, 1991, requiring the respondent to pay a civil
penalty  of $96,280.                  ,                       .    .

     Region VII filed its first export case under RCRA on September 26,1991, against a facility which (
failed to file a notice of intent to export hazardous  wastes and failed to obtain EPA approval prior to
exporting the wastes.

     Region VII  initiated a number of enforcement actions involving  two or more statutes, and
negotiated several settlements which require environmental remediation in more than one media.  For
example, in United States v. Gates Energy Products, an action under the Clean Air Act, the defendant
agreed to develop and implement an operational change to reduce lead releases into air, land, and
water media. In a RCRA administrative action, In the Matter of Hallmark Cards. Inc.. the respondent
is required to reduce printing-related hazardous wastes by 80% and to reduce air emissions of volatile
organic compounds by 80%. The Region also included requirements for multimedia environmental audits
in a number of settlements of enforcement actions.

     Region VII included pollution prevention and waste minimization requirements in a number of
settlements of enforcement actions in FY 1991, primarily in actions under EPCRA, TSCA and FIFRA.  In
twelve settlements entered pursuant to  EPCRA §313, the Region assessed penalties of $208,500 and;
required supplemental environmental projects totaling $294,150, including reductions in or cessation of
the use of chemicals  regulated under §313.  In 33  settlements under TSCA  for violations of the
polychlorinated byphenyls (PCB) regulations, Region VII  obtained agreements to dispose of 6,500 PCS'
transformers, 381 PCB-eontammated transformers,  265 capacitors,  and to test and eliminate PCBs in
65,919 transformers,
                                            6-14

-------
                         FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                                   Region VIII - Denver
       (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming)

Organizational Improvements

     During FY 1991, Region VIII implemented several organizational changes designed to enhance
the Region's media-specific enforcement activities as well as to expand multi-media capabilities. An
important modification has been the implementation of a two person team: the Regional Enforcement
Officer and  the Regional Enforcement Coordinator,  whose fulltime duties center on multi-media and
other enforcement issues. Their duties include: (1) monitoring new directions in the national enforcement
program and strengthening  the  Region's ability to address these new directions (2) promoting the
Administrator's multi-media program by developing the multi-media aspects of various enforcement
processes, such  as  case screening and  inspection  targeting;  (3) assisting with  regional initiatives
(geographic, industrial, or pollutant-specific); (4) supporting the Enforcement Standing Committee in
addressing enforcement issues and activities, such as case screening and inspection targeting.

      Region VIII also broadened and strengthened the role of the Enforcement Standing Committee
which is responsible for making Regional enforcement-related decisions.  The committee is chaired by
the Deputy  Regional Administrator, and made up of the Division Directors and their Deputies, the
Enforcement Branch Chiefs, the Regional Enforcement Officer, the Regional Enforcement Coordinator,
the Office of Regional Counsel, the  Office of Criminal Investigations, the Office  of External Affairs,
The Committee meets at least once each month to review and screen potential  cases according to the
national case screening guidance. For Regional issues, the committee establishes subcommittees (which
function as a Quality Action  Team) to research specific topics and/or to develop options.  To date this
method has successfully redesigned  the  screening process, targeting, enforcement strategic planning,
communications, and financial analyst support.  In pursuing the multi-media processes, the Region has
seen value added in the improved communication and coordination between EPA Regions and programs
and Region VIII and its  States.  Region VIII's  involvement in multi-media efforts has  increased
knowledge of other program requirements, and and it has improved working relationships among the
people who manage the programs. Many of the Region VIII programs reported that the multi-media
efforts have given them an extra set of ears and eyes in the  field, resulting in more efficient use of
resources and more comprehensive correction of environmental problems.

     To enhance multi-media capabilities, Region VIII established a new branch and a new office: the
Multi-Media Enforcement Branch (MMEB) and the Office of Strategic Integration (OSI). The MMEB,
which is housed in the  Environmental Services Division, focuses on multi-media and cross-program
inspections and coordinates the Region VIII multi-media field work. The OSI, which is housed in the
Policy and Management Division, focuses on ambient and compliance data for effective targeting of
enforcement resources across programs, coordinates policy activities and data integration in support of
multi-year planning and inspection  targeting and supports multi-media efforts  through use  of the
Agency's  new  Integrated Data for Enforcement  Analysis (IDEA)  system  and the  Geographic
Information System (GIS), Region VIII has been a national leader in the use of IDEA.  Activities in FY
1991 included: (1) in June 1991, the Region  sponsored a demonstration for managers  and staff and
training for enforcement data  personnel on the Integrated Data for  Enforcement Analysis (IDEA)
system; (2)  the Region  used the IDEA system to develop FY 1992 inspection targets; (3) IDEA is
routinely used in the Regional case screening process which has resulted in identification of additional
multi-media components to cases.

       Region VIII's Sand Creek Enforcement Pilot Project is a multi-media, cross-program, geographic
initiative designed to survey and inspect facilities in the Sand Creek area near metropolitan Denver.
This initiative, includes  not only EPA Region VIII but also the State of Colorado and local entities. It
has provided experience in the use of inspection checklists, multi-media inspection coordination, multi-

                                            6-15

-------
                          FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
media enforcement the use of the CIS for initiatives, and multi-agency coordination. This initiative
was  designed to be  performed in three phases. Phase One, involving selection of the study area,
preparation of the workplan, and preparation of the communications plan, is complete. Phase Two
consists of two parts. The first portion consists of initial "survey" inspection performed by teams of
inspectors from individual programs as well as the State and local Health Departments. Each program
prepared its own checklist and trained the state and local personnel in its use.  Evaluation of  the
checklists used during the inspections will help to target inspections where information obtained
during the inspections indicated  potential violations. Eighteen  (18) inspectors were trained to  use
survey forms which outlined the basic requirements for each of 13 regulatory programs. The results of
these "surveys" will indicate which facilities require more in-depth program specific inspections at a
later date. The second portion of Phase Two consists of follow-up inspections. The planning stage for
these inspections began in the first quarter of FY 1992. and the actual field work is scheduled for  the
second quarter of FY 1992. The lead inspection and /or enforcement role will go to either Colorado
Department of Health or EPA Region VIII with the lead depending on which agency has authorization
for the regulations. Phase Three will be the wrap-up phase where the Region looks at the costs versus
the benefits and lessons learned. Thereafter a comprehensive enforcement strategy between the State
and EPA will be developed.

                                Region IX - San Francisco
                (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Trust Territories )

       Region IX concluded a geographically based Enforcement  Pilot Project which focused  the
Pretreatment Program, Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Program and Wetlands Protection
Program to  preserve and protect the unique  environmental character of San Francisco Bay. Both,
referrals and administrative enforcement actions resulted  from the Region's intensive Pretreatment
Program Evaluations which were conducted at three south bay wastewater treatment plants. Enhanced
coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District office for Clean Water Act,
§404 permitting, and multi-agency training in wetlands enforcement will support this initiative well
into  the future. The SPCC efforts  verified substantial compliance levels which reflect the deterrence
established by the 1989 Shell Oil, Martinez case. Additional geographically based multi-media
enforcement initiatives will be considered as part of the Region's enforcement management process.
                                                       i
      Region IX enforcement efforts produced landmark settlements with the signing of Clean Water
Act Consent Decrees with two northern California pulp mills (Louisiana Pacific and Simpson Paper
Company), achieving $5.8 million in penalties, commitments to alter  processes, provide treatment,  and
extend discharge structures as necessary to comply with their NPDES permits, notably chronic toxicity
limits. These nationally publicized settlements incorporate our concern  for chronic  toxicity, coastal
protection, and pollution prevention.

      Aggressive Region IX enforcement on the US/Mexico border continues, Elpower Corporation,  a
battery manufacturer with facilities in San Diego and in Mexico, was found to have violated EPCRA at
one  of their U.S. based facilities.  In negotiating a settlement of the administrative action, Elpower
agreed to reduce,the  lead usage at  their Mexican based facilities by 88,561 pounds per year.

      Assuring proper operation and maintenance at major electric power plants was supported by recent
Region IX settlement agreements  reached with Nevada Power Company (NPC) and Arizona Public
Services Company (APSC). These coal-fired steam generating  facilities continued to operate NSPS-
affected units during periods of malfunction without employing good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions. NPC will pay $400,000, APSC will pay $1,310,000, and both companies agreed
to significant stipulated penalty provisions. These cases are the first time that failure to comply with,
good operations and maintenance requirements was used successfully as the principal cause of action,  ,


                                             6-16

-------
                          FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
      The Department of Justice on behalf of EPA filed a major lawsuit against the owner and operators
of the Casmalia Landfill, a commercial hazardous waste land disposal facility in Santa Barbara
County, California. This is the largest case filed under RCRA in the State of California. EPA is seeking
penalties in excess of six million dollars and injunetive relief for conducting clean-up activities at the
site. Costs for closure and cleanup of the site are expected to exceed $20 million.

                                    Region X - Seattle
                          (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington)

      Five multi-media inspections were conducted by Region X during FY 1991. The Region inspected
pulp  and paper mills, and also focused on the Longview, Washington geographic area.  Region X
learned that multi-media inspections can be a very effective method to  establish  the baseline
compliance status of a source and to look at a facility from a more holistic viewpoint.  Even when civil
enforcement actions were not taken, procedures to ensure continuous compliance, such as establishing
formal operation and maintenance programs, helped to increase awareness and promote  an integrated
view of environmental programs.  The Region believes the effort brought about a strong deterrence effect
since  other mills,  as well as other companies in the  area, heard about the  "new" EPA inspection
approach.  Inspections were conducted at Weyerhaeuser, Longview, WA; Boise Cascade, St. Helens, OR;
Kalarna Chemical, Longview, WA; Reynolds Aluminum, Longview, WA; and Port Townsend Paper, Port
Townsend,  WA.

       Criminal enforcement  in  Region X  produced three landmark actions.  In US. v Exxon
Corporation and  U.S. y  Exxon Shipping Corporation, as part  of a global  settlement of  Federal
enforcement actions arising from the discharge of over 10 million gallons of crude oil from the tanker
"Exxon Valdez" in Prince William Sound on March 23,1989, the two corporate defendants entered into a
new plea agreement with the government on September 30,1991. In the new agreement, Exxon Shipping
agreed to plead guilty to  three counts and Exxon Corporation agreed  to plead to one count of the
indictment returned against them in Anchorage, on February 27,1990. Exxon Shipping will plead to a
misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1311(a) and §1319(c)(l)(a), for the negligent
discharge of oil without a  permit; a misdemeanor violation of the Refuse Act for the illegal  discharge
of refuse (oil) from a ship, 33 ILS.C. § 407 and §411; and a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
16 U.S.C. §703 and §707(a) for the unpermitted killing of over 36,000 migratory birds; and  pay a fine of-
10-$20 million. The Exxon Corporation will plead guilty to the one Migratory Bird Act count and pay a
fine of $5 million.  Both defendants also agreed to make a remedial payment of $50 million to the State
of Alaska and $50 million to the federal government for restoration projects relating to the oil spill.
The plea agreement was accepted in Federal District Court on October 8,1991.

      The second was a RCRA guilty plea in U.S. y_. Rogue Valley  Circuits, Inc. On March  25, 1991
Henry Broughton,  on behalf of Ms corporation, Rogue Valley Circuits, Inc. of  Medford,  Oregon, pled
guilty to  both felony counts of the indictment that had  been issued on March 20, 1991.  Rogue Valley
had been charged with violation of  RCRA as a result of its  illegal transportation  and disposal of
hazardous  wastes. The company manufactures circuit boards and had  disposed of its electroplating
wastes on Broughton's rural ranch in southwestern Oregon.  On April 24,1990, agents executed a federal
search warrant authorizing the excavation of buried sludge by EPA's  Superfund contractors at the
ranch. Based on the analysis  of this sludge, EPA and Broughton signed a consent order under CERCLA
which holds Broughton liable for the clean-up costs amounting to about $800,000.

      In pleading guilty, Rogue Valley Circuits, Inc. also entered into a plea agreement  with  the U.S.
Attorney's  Office.  Under the agreement, the company will bear all cleanup costs, which have been
estimated to  range between  $500,000 and $800,000. On May 28, 1991,  Rogue Valley  Circuits was
sentenced to pay a $1 million fine.


                                            6-17

-------
                                  Enforcement-Accomplishments Report
     In the third  criminal case,  Weyerhaeuser Company agreed to enter a plea of guilty to five
misdemeanor counts for violations of the federal Clean Water Act  The criminal charges stem from the
unpermitted discharge of paint wastes, solvents and wash water into Shannon Slough, a tributary of
the Chehalis River, from the end seal and stencil painting operation at the company's Aberdeen,
Washington, sawmill.

     As a result of an inspection and a subsequent search warrant executed on October 6, 1989, the
agents learned that Weyerhaeuser  had discharged these wastewaters directly into  the Shannon
Slough for almost nine years.  As part of the plea agreement, Weyerhaeuser paid a total of $500,000 in
a combination of fines and restitution.  Of this half million dollar amount, $125,000  was paid by
Weyerhaeuser as a criminal fine. This represented a fine of $25,000 per count, the maximum possible
fine under the Clean Water Act.  The  remaining $375,000 was placed in a trust fund controlled by public
officials as a form of restitution to the citizens of Grays Harbor County. The money from the fund was
used for cleaning up and eradicating all pollution sources along the Shannon Slough. Since the federal
involvement commenced  in July 1989,  Weyerhaeuser has spent almost  $1.4 million to clean up the
property adjacent to the Shannon Slough, and to remedy historic pollution problems at the plant. The
$375,000 for the trust fund was in addition to this amount.

     As a result of their criminal convictions, both Exxon and Weyerhaeuser were mandatorily listed
for violation of the Clean Water Act under provisions of the EPA's contractor listing process pursuant to
40 CFR 15.10 etseg.
                                             6-18

-------
          FY1991 Erforcement Accomplishments Report
                 Appendix






           Historical Enforcement Data



            National Penalty Report



    List of Headquarters Enforcement Contacts



List of Regional Enforcement Information Contacts

-------
2997 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
IB
en

o 3 •
*-l en
> ^
eng
rt
en
S
»— »

t— i
ON
4^

OJ
O

«

s
to

SO
W
M*
xj m

i— i i— i
!_i |— 1
SO CO
4=> to

CO CO

M K»
O \O

«s
t—t _i
•-> oo

>-» to
tn rf^.
en
^rt
\2
s
M
0



K?
O
00

(— 1
to
tn
i— »

S

i— >

1— i
Ul
to
1— »

t— >
^>
>LBMJ
5w
a

r^






Ol ON OO
tn ON 3*
ON sO oo
W
SO OO i<
tn ro co
^^3
Wo, oo
_» _» 3
^-t H"l ^X
vo tn oo
ON
}R NJ 3
N> |sj 00
XI
g$3

SO SO H<
4^ W 00
OO Q 3
"^ NJ s«
. O
SO OO ><
4^ ON \g
M
TOXIC
5/3

9«
H en
JM d
t— <
a
rt
en
-
*=>

to
s
00

1— 1
CO

K3

4^
ro
h- >
o

1— »
oo
o
o

o
o
o

o

o

CO
_»

J— i
jd co ^ >
Q § > £3
Ct *3t$
""M *
s
j£j
a



3
O O i— * O *x
3
O O O rfi" Jx
CO
3
O O O CO J<
4*.
o o g tn 5
en
"*3
0 ° xa tn t5
as
00 wg^
X|
orsaSC3
x^ W x|
OS
oo ^ 3
*» tn J2 4^. Jx
»f», »-j Cn o K
to o ox g oo
o
J-J KJ CO ON H<
K3 ' x] ON OO
I-*
                                                                w
                                                                ITS
                                                                >

                                                                Q
                                                                PI
                                                             so
                                                             so
                                                                W
                                                                H
                                                                s
                                                                «
                                                                Z
                                                                H
                                                                O
                                                                en
                                                                H
                                                                M
                                                                n
                                                                w

-------
FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report




















cfl H 3 O 5*3
Qei»e>
g>£p£
S *
H
n
cn
OO


OO

CO
I— I

K>
ON
I^O
o*\
1—1

CO
O
OO
cn
i— »
CO
ON
OO
CD
*>-
CO
VO
K
>-»•-» K3
O XI O CO
H-» C3S XI

l"sj f\^ J1^1
VO VO O CO
t£t ON ON

CO INJ >-4 Cn
ON 1x3 XI ^P*

X] K) (-> OJ
CO CO ON NJ
CO ON O XI
xi co i-» NJ
OO CO CO CO
i_i oo vo cn
g W^K»
H ON CO 4^
J3 o cn co

ON W |sj CO
O XJ KJ O
X] ON ht^. VO
co $> ho cn
oo co o co
KJ Cn >£>• NJ CO
O CO O XI ON
ON i— » K3 O ON
>— i >£*. CO hJ CO
XI |Nj O ON ON
vo INJ o vo rf*>
nn
crs
a
i>

3
vo -' fj

22 ^ oo

|K|

1"™* fr t *"5l
§K«
vO >£* ^
O C*J OO
rt- 3
fc? VO K
s

cn *"• §g
ti ca ^3
S CO ^
S^ Os OO
ON <*0
^^ g^
1° KJ *"}
.__i rw ._J
^^ in- 	 I **S
H 3 n 5* n n
cn s w n 5^ >
P^s?!^
g > s
1 ^
• r1
CO
00
ON
o

t— '
KJ

>—>
OJ
00
XI

Ul
K>
CO
ON
1—4
CO
I

1— »
ON
i— »
i— »
s
1— »
1—4
1—1
O
XI
00 3
O ON O O Q O K
O >J

i-» hrt
o ^ o o o o |<

O §Q O O O O *j
XI IcJ

^ xi 3
o 2 o o &> ° ^
O fe O O i—1 i— » *">
gg cnog
CD pj O Q j^ VD ^
\O 00 ^ Nq

•vj V] t---l ^^
*— i CTS C> CD CO |Sj ^^
W 0 vo £3
K-% N3 Ol »4^«- ^1
N cn o o o o J<
O«5 Cr^ tifft. ^»l
i3 xi o CD os SP J5
1=1 ON VO '•^ OO
o
>— » i— * >— » cn i— » 3
KJ cn o cn ON i— » JS
O 4^ vO KJ K3 0°




2
>
a
M
25
)-H
H
^H
vo Cfl
i|
£§
vo )— I
^2
i—*
Cfl
a
03
n




-------
SB)
 'tmf^
FF J992 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
          000
          O O O
          3 9 3
          <•*» «•»« *»
          ET 5T 5T
          Cfl O> WJ
          "T3 W> 05

          3 3 §
          rf < 9

          §
                                                2.
          •On
          tn Ox ON

                00
          QO N3 K)
          K3 O K]
          OO 03 MD
                00
                .
             oo en
                                                       P  3
                                                       £L CL
«  ft


   6>
                                                       3  3  rt

                                                       (A  «3  TO  O


                                                       8  S-&2
                                                       3  ft  C-  O
3
en
                             CL
                       00
                                ro
                                o
                                                                   ^n

                                                             IsJ ON oo
                                                                   OJ
                                                                OJ
                                                      o  o en o
                                   en
                                                       00
                       cn ON ro ^
                       QO ON v] *->>
                       On vo- M Cn
                       O -v] rf^ ^O
                                   00
                       XI SO 4^- ON
                       K> tn W o
                                   MD
                       Cn
                                                                ON
                       ui    ^a en
                                   0
                          _
                       OO o 4^ OO
                       K>    00 N-
                                                  n
                                               00
                                                  tn


                                                  H

-------
FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
"3
3.
o
H
ft-
O
3
t-»
$
O
^^
tr
fO
C/l
5T
I-*-
(0
a

>
{X
3
MI-
?
cr.
e Action 1
total included
*
%
era
(•«.*
s
CB
8

w > 5 ^ •*** S! 2
°S> n3 >^
P«l *>-! ^^ ^i Hw *J »w
^^ ja» tarf ^^ IP* tapri !£)»
XH p^ rn /"s *^ en ^
| * | *
r1 ' t-1


§



i


a
g
N|
^_i

C5s
^sO


SO
^


i— >
Sg§| |


H-i
^gg| ^ 2
1
P
00 5^ H 3 ^ 1-»
ON a 8? » r1 o
X| ta- V
m
w
ON ^j sj go J^ 0\
^00 p W
CO
^o^«l 6
M3 ^ VO OS ^3
.Jj
-_ M. >£k [3 ^3
^ ON to g o
0 Cn


^ S x5 i . s


jsj ^oo hrt
en 3^ ^0 00 ><
vo 00 OJ VO OO
ON VO Cn


.
i_j as OO O *% PI
XD o W CJ1 OO V
^ ^ x] en ON gj
s
W5
... _ i— ' cji Nfj H
ON \O H ^ ~J ^^
^"^ C3 *^ ^^ ^^ F^
OJ *vl ON N2 OO ^^
WK>
XI ON V., •»_ ^ 5k
i|a.- Cjl OO O *% fl
S3 CJl 00 XI 00 M
w W1 xi oo oo g
o
C/3
^ C! tf <£ 15
oo ta o oo os
vo vo o ^ NO

i— > i— » gj ^ i-ri
bi t»j "KJ "J-" *<,
O I"O OO C/l O


* > -H. *^ ^\
sO OO OO tf^" ViO
en xi o' en H*





.
•_i
n
JMM|
>C^
l-H
5»>
W H
2 w
m
93 n
**j ^fl 5J
K J^ ^
i-i {-i i-3
S^g
m > O
3*3
ooS
3>z
-il
vo S >
sO •— i t- <
^Z
4GENCIES
ISTRATIVE
S
a
o
2
en




-------
 •E 1m U
2J22,»                           FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report  '

-------
     FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
        NATIONAL PENALTY RipQRT

OVERVIEW OF EPA FEDERAL PENALTY PRACTICES

                     FY 1991
                 March 1992
          Compliance Policy and Planning Branch
                Office of Enforcement

-------
                      FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                            ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was coordinated by the Compliance Policy and Planning Branch of the Office of
Enforcement. Ann DeLong was the project manager and principal author,  Robert Banks
provided the graphs. The following contributed the program-specific data:

Criminal Enforcement                                   Howard Berman, OE

Clean Water Act
       Judicial                                         David Drelich, OE
       Administrative                      '            Ken Keith, OWEP

Safe Drinking Water Act
       UIC                                             Peter Bahor, ODW
       PWSS                                           Anne Jaffe Murray, ODW

Wetlands Protection                                     John Goodin, OWOW

Marine and Estuarine
 Protection                                             Catherine Crane, OW

Stationary Source Air                                    Jerry MacLaughlin, OE

Mobile Source Air                                       Marcia S. Ginley, OMS

RCRA
       Judicial                                         James Chen, OE
       Administrative                                  Robert Small, OWPE
                                   r
EPCRA § 302-312 and                                    Joe Schive, OWPE
 CERCIA § 103

Toxics Release Inventory,                                Jerry Stubbs, OCM
 TSCA and FIFRA

These authors and their colleagues devoted many long hours to the collection, verification,
analysis and display of these data. Questions and comments concerning this report should
be addressed to Ann DeLong, (202) 260-8870,

-------
                       FY199J Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       General Findings
       Program Highlights

II. PURPOSE, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT

       Programs Covered
       Cases Covered
       Purposes and Limitations

HI. GENERAL OVERVIEW

       Highlights
       Median and Average Penalties
       Percentage of Cases Concluded with a Penalty
       Range of Penalty Amounts
       Highest Penalties
       Types of Cases
       Criminal Enforcement
       Relative Contributions

-------
FJ1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report

-------
                         FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
I-  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

General Findings

   •    Overall, this Administration has assessed some 55% of all civil penalties and criminal fines,
        combined, assessed in EPA history ($200.7 million for FY 1989-1991 compared with $166,1 million for
        FY 1972-1988).

   •    Fiscal Year 1991 brought the highest penalty dollars in EPA's history, with $73.1 million in civil
        penalties.  This represents a 21 percent increase over FY 1990. There was only a slight increase in the
        number of cases from FY 1990 to FY 1991, indicating that this increase in penalty dollars was due
        primarily  to an increase in penalty amounts per case. Program offices are making effective and
        forceful use of EPA's penalty authorities.

   •    EPA has obtained almost $320 million in cash civil penalties from FY 1974 through FY 1991 in some
        12,530 civil judicial and administrative cases.

   •    In FY 1991 alone, 23 percent of all civil penalty dollars in EPA's history were obtained.

   •    In the last three years, 53 percent of all civil penalty dollars in EPA's history were assessed.

   •    The FY 1991  total includes a civil judicial penalty  for  $220,000 assessed under the Lead Control
        Contamination Act.  This Act, designed to prevent excessive lead from drinking water coolers, was a
        1988 amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act. This penalty reflects the first case brought by the
        Agency under this Act

   •    Criminal fines totaled $14.1 million in FY 1991 (before deducting suspended sentences). This
        represents a two and a half fold increase from FY 1990 and is the highest amount ever assessed by
        EPA for criminal cases. Seventy-five years of incarceration were imposed (before suspension).

   •    In the five years EPA's criminal enforcement program has been tracking penalty data, $43.8 million
        in criminal fines and 298 years of incarceration have been imposed  before deduction of suspended
        sentences. One third of all criminal fines in EPA's history were assessed in FY 1991.

   •    Penalties were obtained in 85 percent of the cases concluded in FY 1991.

   Program Highlight^

   •    Most programs set new records for total civil judicial and administrative penalty dollars.

         In descending order of total penalties assessed, these programs were the following; CWA, RCRA,
         Stationary Source Air, EPCRA §313, UIC, FIFRA,  EPCRA §302-§312 and Marine and Estuarine
         Protection.  The increases for these programs over last year's totals ranged from 22% for Stationary
         Air to 214% for UIC.

         Medians reached record highs for both judicial and administrative cases in the CWA and UIC, and
         for administrative cases alone in Wetlands*.
     * Throughout the report, Wetlands actions refer to CWA §404. CWA §402 and pretreatment actions are
     referred to as CWA actions.

-------
                         FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
        Many programs set records for highest penalties within program offices.
         The largest penalty assessed in FY 1991 was $6,184,220 obtained in a GWA judicial case. The second
         largest penalty was assessed in a RCRA judicial case which settled for $5,405,000*. Both penalties
         were higher than the second highest penalty assessed in FY  1990 ($3,750,000}**.  Additional
         programs with highest penalties greater than $1 million included Stationary Air judicial, RCRA
         administrative and TSCA administrative.

   •    Federal  penalty dollars were dominated by CWA with 36% of the total.  RCRA was second with
        24%, followed by TSCA (15%), Stationary Air (10%) and EPCRA 313 (5%).

   •    Numbers of cases were dominated by five programs, TSCA had the highest number of cases with 20%
        followed by Mobile Source Air (16%), CWA (15%), FIFRA (13%) and EPCRA 313 (12.7%),  All five
        programs rely heavily on administrative enforcement.

II. Purpose, Scope. and Limitations of jhis Report

This overview report summarizes the penalty practices of EPA in FY 1991 in civil judicial, administrative,
and criminal enforcement actions.   Except  where specifically noted, the term "penalties" is used in this
overview to refer only to civil (administrative and judicial) penalties, not criminal fines.

This report does not attempt to portray a complete picture on penalties obtained during enforcement of federal
environmental laws, because it does not reflect penalties obtained by state or local governments, either
directly or through court actions with EPA. States conduct the vast majority of enforcement actions under
these laws, working through programs approved by EPA to carry out federal requirements.

Programs Covered

Thirteen EPA penalty programs are addressed in this report.  Table 1 gives their names, the  types of
enforcement cases each used in FY 1990, and any acronyms by which they are cited in this report.

CasesCovered                               '            •              .      ,

The penalties discussed in this report are cash amounts assessed in EPA enforcement cases that were concluded
in FY 1991. They include final judgments by court settlements in consent decrees and consent orders and final
administrative orders.

This report does not include proposed penalties or other amounts under discussion prior to the conclusion of a
case,  and it does not include penalties paid to entities other than the Federal Government.  Contempt
enforcement actions (cases seeking to invoke sanctions for a failure to comply with a prior court order, decree,
or administrative order) are not included.***  "Stipulated penalties" and "deferred penalties" also are not
included in this report; they are penalties stipulated in an administrative or court order that are due only if
the violator fails to carry out certain other requirements of the order. Nor does the report include the use of
other sanctions, such as contractor listing, sewer moratoriums, or the suspension or revocation of permits.
         The RCRA judicial penalty contains $5 million in contempt actions.

         The highest penalty in FY 1990 was $15 million assessed under TSCA and RCRA in the Texas
         Eastern Pipeline case. This was the single highest penalty in the Agency's history.

         With the exception of a RCRA judicial case in Region V which includes $5,000,000 in contempt
         actions.

-------
                         FY 1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                                          fe %
                                          By1
                                        Table 1
                        Penalty Programs Covered in this Report
       Program

Criminal Enforcement

Clean Water - NPDES (CWA)


Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)


Wetlands Protection


Marine and Estuarine Protection

Stationary Source Air


Mobile Source Air


Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Emergency Planning and Community
 Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA §302-§312)

Comprehensive Environmental Response,
   Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA §103,
   orSuperfund§103)

Toxics Release Inventory
   (TRI, or EPCRA §313)

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),   •
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
   Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Typea of Cases

   Judicial

   Judicial
   Administrative

   Judicial
   Administrative

   Judicial
   Administrative

   Ad ministrati ve

   Judicial
   Administrative

   Judicial
   Administrative

   Judicial
   Administrative

   Administrative


   Administrative
   Administrative
   Judicial
   Administrative

   Administrative
Credits, benefit projects, or non-monetary actions which parties in enforcement cases often agree to carry out as
part of a settlement are also not included in this report. Such actions may yield large environmental benefits
of substantial dollar value. Narrative description of specific cases can be found in the FY 1991  Enforcement
Accomplishments Report,

As in past reports, the FY 1991 Federal Penalty Report does not include penalties assessed in the Underground
Storage Tank program (UST).  The reason for this exclusion was because UST is primarily a state delegated
program.

One element of this report is an analysis of the extent to which EPA used penalties in its enforcement cases.
Some cases did not obtain penalties.  The cases without penalties included in this report are enforcement

-------
                           FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
actions in which a penalty is authorized by the statutes and regulations on which the case is based. If
Congress did not authorize EPA to assess a penalty for a given type of violation, an enforcement action for such
a violation would not be counted as a case in this report,

Penalties are counted in this report as assessed in a final administrative action or in a court order; appeals and
collection of penalties are not considered here. The word "obtained" is used in this report as a general term
referring to penalties that were assessed by a court or by EPA administrative orders.  Its meaning is the same
as "assessed" or "imposed."

Purposes ar^d Limitations

This overview report is not an evaluation of practices by EPA programs, and it should be viewed in the context
of the total enforcement effort.  The report may illuminate individual characteristics of programs  and
provide a helpful comparison among programs. Identifying differences may stimulate further thinking about
penalties in general, advancing the goal of more effective use of penalties as part of an overall enforcement
program.

The reader should bear in mind that the data presented here are historical in'nature, and do not necessarily
represent present penalty practices.  Nothing in this report may be used as  a defense or guide to future
settlements of federal cases involving penalties.

The specific penalty data used in this report were obtained  from several federal data systems. The data have
been approved by the responsible program offices, but the quality and completeness of the data may vary.

HI, GENERAL OVERVIEW

Highlights

    •    Fiscal Year 1991 brought the highest penalty dollars in EPA's history, with $73.1 million in  civil
        penalties. This represents an 21 percent increase over FY 1990. There was only a slight increase in
        the number of cases from FY 1990 to FY 1991, indicating that this increase in penalty dollars was due
        primarily to an increase in penalty amounts per  case. Program offices are making effective  and
        forceful use of EPA's penalty authorities.

    •    EPA has obtained almost $320 million in cash civil penalties from FY 1974 through FY 1991 in some
        12,530 civil judicial and administrative cases.

    •    In FY 1991 alone, 23 percent of all civil penalty dollars in EPA's history were obtained.   -.

    •    In the last three years, 53 percent of all civil  penalty dollars in EPA's history were assessed.

    •    The FY 1991 total includes a civil judicial  penalty for $220,000 assessed under the Lead Control
        Contamination Act,  This Act, designed to prevent excessive lead from drinking water coolers, was a
        1988 amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act.  This penalty reflects the first case brought by the
        Agency under this Act.                                                          '   s

    •    Criminal fines totaled $14.1 million in FY 1991  (before deducting suspended sentences). This
        represents a two and a half fold increase from FY  1990 and is the highest amount ever assessed by
        EPA for criminal cases.  Seventy-five years of incarceration were imposed (before suspension).

    •    In the five years EPA's criminal enforcement program has been tracking penalty data,,$43.8 million
        in criminal fines and 298 years of incarceration have been imposed before deduction of suspended
        sentences. One third of all criminal fines in EPA's history were assessed in FY 1991,     , ,.

    •    Penalties were obtained in 85 percent of the cases concluded in FY 1991.
                                                 6

-------
                         FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
The total amounts of civil penalties for each program in FY 1991 are shown in Table 2. Criminal penalties are
shown in Table 4. The historical picture is shown in Figures 1 and 2, displaying total penalties by fiscal year.
The relative contributions of the different EPA programs to the FY 1991 totals of civil penalty dollars and
number of cases with penalties are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
Seven programs set new records for total civil judicial or administrative penalty dollars.  These programs
were CWA, Marine, Stationary Air, RCRA, EPCRA §302-§312, EPCRA §313 and FIFRA. The penalties ranged
from the high for FIFRA of $932,925 to a high for CWA of $26.6 million. The percent increases for these
programs over last year's totals ranged from 22% for Stationary Air to a 214% increase for UIC.

A comprehensive summary of the programs' civil penalty data appears in Table 3.

                                          Table 2
              Total Amount of Civil Tudicial and Administrative Penalties in FY 1991
Clean Water Act
   Judicial
   Administrative

Safe Drinkin
   Judicial
   Administrative

Wetlands Protection
   Judicial
   Administrative

Marine and Estuarii
   Administrative
Mobile Source Air
   Judicial
   Administrative

RCRA
   Judicial
   Administrative
TOTAL
Total dollars (%)
t $ 26,623,930 (36%)
23,109,832
ive 3,514,098
faterAct $ 2,035,734(3%)
570,514
ive 1,465,220
:tion $ 504,200 (1%)
172,500
ive 331,700
larine Protection
ive $ 264,200 (<1%)
ce Air - Judicial $ 7,346,481(10%)
,ir $ 2,334,008(3%)
9,800
ive .. r 2,324,208
$17,671,457 (24%)
10,026,594
ive 7,644,863
12 - Administrative $ 631,218 (<1%)
Administrative $ 258,450 (<1%)
nventory - Administrative $ 3,910,210 (5%)
itrative $10,591,315 (15%)
strarive $ 932,925(1%)
$ 73,104,128
No. All Cases*(%)
205 (12%)
57
148
161 (10%)
8
153
23 (1%)
8
15
5 (<1%)
65(4%)
212 (13%)
3
209
142 (8%)
18
124
23 (1%)
20 (<1%)
194 (12%)
336 (20%)
278 (17%)
1,664
  "Number of all cases" includes all cases with or without penalties. Percentages shown here will differ from
 analyses presented elsewhere in this report which are based on only those cases with cash penalties.

 * The total RCRA judicial amount includes $5,000,000 in contempt actions.

-------
                        FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                                       FIGURE 1
   80/100,000

   70,000,000

   60,000,000 -
D
O  50,000,000 -
L
L  40,000,000
A
R  30,000,000 -
S
   20,000,000 .

   10,000,000 -
                          Federal Judicial and Administrative Penalty Assessments
                                           FY 1977 to FY 1991
          FY77  FY78  FY79  FY80  FY81  FY82  FY83  FY84 FY85  FY86  FY87  FY88  FY89  'FY90  FY91
                                   I ADMINISTRATIVE   H JUDICIAL
                                       FIGURE 2
                                     •  i  '    ' ' •      -              •   •'/
                                  TOTAL PENALTIES BY FISCAL YEAR
70 000 000 •
60,000 000 '
D
i-i 50 000 000 -
L
L 40 000 000 •
A
R 3fl 000,000 •
S
20,000 000 •
10,000 000 •
1
0 .





;
x
"**^_
^^*""-i







_— .— '
«-""^















^***>>i







— .,







-rf«^'
«*—"^







— — i
.





I
/
'













^**^"1
— "






/
/






	 ...




1
/
/
]/

-.

i
jff
/






           FY77  FY78  FY79  FY80   FY81
                                             FY83  FY84  FY8S  FY86  FY87  FY88  FY89  FY90  FY91
                                         1 I

-------
                           FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                                                                               o   o
                                                                                   &
                   ass


             r°   «§£***•*«»f*9»BKR*   SS2"-
s
CO
     O
     O
     CO
     
H   w
     0-
     -J
     £
     U
     u.
     0
     *•
     *&
               0.
               ^
             «- u
|*##|J#rf
I I § I I I
K   ffl
                                                         S § 55
                   I
                                                                          «-> OC9 fiQ
             11
             H -S
                            !""b'^8wCH*i'»ri
                            ^-x c^ ^ — rt H u^ K

                                                                              s;   sg
                                                                              >h   04 o>
                   < < <
                              ss
                              Is
                         y y y
                         3 P D
                                    * 2
                                    2* O
                                    O "^
                                   . < < < <


                                    £ t/l t/3 tA
                                          li
                                                     1

                                                                      i o
    55
                                      eg

-------
.90)
       FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                   FIGURES
                      FY 1991
     PERCENT PENALTY DOLLARS BY PROGRAM

          OTHERS 10%
    TSCA15%
      RCRA 24%
                                       CWA36%
                                 STATAIR10%
                       TRI5%
                  FIGURE 4
                     FY1991
     PERCENT PENALTY CASES BY PROGRAM
                 OTHERS 5%
    FIFRA 17%
MOBILE 13%
       SDWA 10%
                                                CWA 12%


                                                      STATAIR 4%



                                                         TRI12%





                                                        RCRA 8%




                                               TSCA 20%
                         10

-------
                                                                                            /s
                         FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                                          Table 4
                   Total Amount of Criminal Fines and Incarceration in FY 1991


Number of defendants convicted                                                  72

Total fines assessed
     Before suspension                                                       $14.1 million

Total months incarceration
     Sentenced (before suspension)                                           963 months (80 years)
     Ordered (after suspension, before parole)                                 610 months (51 years)

Median and Average Penalties

This section of  the report attempts to  look beyond the aggregate figures to see what the typical penalties
were for each program. Average and median penalty figures represent different aspects of the program,

The average penalty is the total dollars divided by the number of penalty cases in a given program. While
an average is useful in seeing overall program accomplishments, it may give a misleading picture if the
penalties within that program went to  extremes. One high-penalty case and a large number of low-penalty
cases could produce a mid-level average, even though no cases had a mid-level penalty.

The median is useful  to  gain a  different perspective  on a program without the heavy influence of a few
extremely large or small  penalties. The median penalty represents  the middle number in the series of all
penalties for  a given program arranged in order of size.  That is, there were  as many penalties below the
median as above it.

Medians - Figure 5 shows trends in medians over several years for the largest EPA penalty programs during
that period.  Among the  programs with five years or less of penalty history, only RCRA judicial cases are
shown. In the Mobile Source Air and TSCA programs, the data reflect several different penalty authorities,
including some  that lead to higher-dollar penalties.  However, most of the cases in both these programs are in
lower-dollar categories, which results in low median penalties.

Medians increased for both administrative and judicial cases in the RCRA program and remained the same for
judicial cases in the Water and Stationary Source Air programs. The median for administrative cases in the
Mobile Air program remained at the same level as FY 1990. Decreases were seen in the median penalties in
administrative cases in both the TSCA and FIFRA programs in FY 1991.

In the  foregoing discussion of change in medians, there  is no mention of  TSCA judicial cases or  Stationary
Source Air administrative cases, because there were too few cases in  FY 1990 or 1991 or  both years to make
these categories suitable for such analysis.
  • Clean W^ter Acfc  The median judicial penalty rose from its FY  1990 level of $63,000 to a record high
of $100,000 in FY 1991. The median administrative penalty also rose to a new high of $12,000 from $10,650 in
FY 1990.

  • Safe_Prinking Water Acfc  The median judicial penalty remained at $8,500, the same level as in FY
1990.  (This reflects FY 1991  medians of $14,000 for four UIC cases and $11,250 for two PWSS cases.) The
median administrative penalty remained at $4,000 in  FY 1991, the same as in  FY  1990.  (The subprogram
medians in FY 1991 were $6,000 for 140 UIC cases and $4,000 for 14 PWSS cases.)*
*This does not include the $220,000 Lead Control Contamination Act penalty.

                                                11

-------
                          FY1991  Enforcement Accomplishments Report
  • Wetlands Protection;  In this fourth year of administrative penalty cases concluded by the program,
the median dropped to $5,000, compared to the FY 1990 level of $11,000.  The median judicial penalty was
$42,500, an $5,000 increase from $5,000 in FY 1990.  (This is the fourth year Wetlands penalties have been
presented separately in this report. They were included as part of Clean Water Act data in penalty reports
prior to FY 1988.)

  • Marine and Esttiarine Protection:  This program is in its second year for cases concluded and
median administrative penalty from $19,594 in FY 1990 to $66,050 FY 1991.

  • Stationary Source Air; The median judicial penalty rose slightly from $48,000 in FY 1990 to $48,250
in FY 1991. The record was set in FY 1987 with a median of $65,750.

  * Mobile Source Air; The median judicial penalty was $4,900, reflecting only three cases.  This is a
slight increase from the FY 1990 level of $4,000 for three cases. The median administrative penalty remained
at 1,200 in FY 1991, the same level as FY 1990.

  • RCRA:  The median judicial penalty of $157,942 was the highest to date in this program.  The median
administrative penalty continued rising for the eighth year in a row, also attaining a new record of $21,475.

  • EPCRA § 3Q2-312:  In the third year of concluded cases, this program surpassed its first two years
median's with a penalty of $40,500 compared to $20,600 in FY 1990.

  " CERCLA § 103;  In the third year of concluded cases, this program's median penalty decreased from the
FY 1990 level of $25,000 to $13,900 in FY 1991.

  • Toxics Release  Inventory;  In this third year of concluded cases, this program's median penalty also
decreased slightly from $13,000 in FY 1990 to $12,750 in FY 1991.

  * TSCA: The median administrative penalty attained a record high of $12,500, rising from $8,000 in FY
1990.  Prior to FY 1986, TSCA medians were not calculated on a program-wide basis.

  * FIFRA; The median penalty rose from $1,056 in FY 1990 to $1,920 in FY 1991, setting a new record for
F1FRA medians.       '    •

Averages - Average civil judicial or administrative penalties increased in seven programs in FY 1991 as
compared with twelve in FY 1990. Declines were evident in five programs. However, it should be noted that
averages may be influenced by a few 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 cases,

Averages rose to record highs in the Clean Water Act in both judicial and administrative cases. For judicial
cases only, averages rose to new highs in the Stationary Source Air and RCRA programs. For administrative
cases, increases in the averages were seen in the Safe Drinking Water Act program. Wetlands program, RCRA,
TRI and FIFRA programs.

Lower average penalties were reported in the SDWA and Wetlands programs in  judicial cases  and in
administrative cases in the Mobile Air, EPCRA and CERCLA §103 programs.

  • Clean Water Acfc The average judicial penalty rose to a record high of $405,258, In the fourth year of
administrative penalties, the average attained a record of $23,937.


                                                12

-------
                         FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 • Safe Drinking Water Act  The average judicial penalty dropped to $21,152 compared to a high of
$37,557 in FY 1990. However, the average administrative penalty rose to $9,566 in FY 1991.*

  • Wetlands Protection:  The average judicial penalty dropped to $21,563, compared to $49,114 in FY
1990.  In the fourth year of administrative penalties, the average rose in FY 1991 to a record high of $22,113.

  • Marine j*M Esttiarine Protection: In the third year of administrative penalties, the average rose
to a record high of $66,050 in FY 1991 with five cases concluded.

  * Stationary Source Air; The average judicial penalty rose from $100,615 in FY 1990 to $112,217 in FY
1991.

  • Mobile Source Air:  The average administrative penalty rose for the first time in two years, from
$8,962 in FY 1990 to $11,121 in FY 1991.  The average judicial penalty dropped sharply from $335,667 in FY
1990, to $3,267 in FY 1991 based on only three cases.

  • RCRA; The average judicial penalty increased from the FY 1990 average of $325,333, to $527,245 setting
a record. The average administrative penalty rose substantially to $37,129, compared lo $25,339 in FY 1990
(this excludes one very large penalty of $3375,000 from the average).

  • EFCRA § 302-312: In this third year of concluded cases, the average penalty dropped from $40,627 to
$29,709.

  • CERCLA § 103:  In this third year of concluded cases, the average penalty dropped sharply from
$31,400 to $8,550.

   • Toxics Release  Inventory  In this third  year of concluded cases, the average penalty rose from
$15,626 to $20,464.

  • TSCA:  The average administrative penalty decreased slightly to $33,867 compared to $34,311 in FY
1990.  (Averages were not calculated on a TSCA program-wide basis before FY 1986.)

  • FIFRA: The average penalty rose to a new high of $3,350. For the FIFRA program, this is an increase
over the FY 1990 average of $2,555.

Percentage of Cases Concluded with a Penalty

A high percentage of cases were concluded with a penalty in all programs except one (UIC). Excluding this one
program from the calculation, 84 percent of all FY 1991 cases were concluded with a penalty, a decrease from
the FY 1990 level of 93%.  (See Table 4 for each program's percentage with penalty.)

Range of Penalty Amounts

This section  examines how EPA's penalties in FY 1991 ranked along the scale from low dollars to high dollars.
The penalty  cases are sorted into eight ranges from no-penalty cases ("zero dollars") to cases of $1 million or
more.

Figure 6 shows the penalty distribution of all FY 1991 cases.
"This does not include the $220,000 Lead Control Contamination Act penalty.


                                                13

-------
j"^f"V
                          FY1991, Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 U
 en
 Q s
 0
 es
 n,
                                       u.
                                                                                  u
                                                                                  IQ
                                                       OOOOOOOOo
                                                       OOOOOOOO
                                                       OOOOOOOO
 *J'.
 <
 U
SI

If

si
s£
S
c:'
Q   '
O
si
 SK
 w

 c


 <5

55
 k.

<

4
         15
             OOOOOOO
             o  o o  o  o o  o
             o  o o  o  o o  o
             o  o o  o  o o  o
             K   I
co a.
                                           < 13
I!
<<
eti
O
O
tf
c_
            CO


            o
                                                                  \
                                                                          cr


                                                                          Q-
                                                                   *
                          \
                                                                        •




                                                                         a
                                  o>

                                  o
                                                                             O3

                                                                             GO
                                                                             CO

                                                                             00
                                . , "1
                                                                             C*3

                                                                             03
                                                                             CM
                                                                             00
                                                                                 u
                                                                                 IT.

                                                                                 ul
                                                       o
                                                       o
                                                       o
                o
                o
                o
                o
                                                       o
                                                       o
                                                       O
                                                       in
                            o
                            o
                            o
                            o
o
o
o
in
                                                                             O

                                                                             03
                                         14

-------
                   FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 >.
? *% \
ussy
x,«x
                               FIGURES
N
u
01
b
e
r

o
f
                    PENALTY DISTRIBUTION - ALL PROGRAMS
                                     FY1991
        ZEROS   <$5,000   =$!
                                                                     MILL

                                       Ranges
                        ADMINISTRATIVE D JUDICIAL
                        PIN ALTY DISTRI1UTION - FY 1991
                         Minus Mobile and FIFRA Administrative
        ZEROS   *$!
                                                                     MILL

                                      Ranges
                                     15

-------
                         - Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                              FIGURE 7
                                                                          o
                                                                          Q
                                                                          Z>
                                                                          ->

                                                                         D

                                                                          LJJ


1*355
                                 16
                                                                          DC

                                                                          CO

                                                                          z

                                                                          5
                                                                          O
                                                                          <

-------
                 FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                                                                       u
                                                                       %
.m
                             FIGURES
I
>

i
§i
i
          -i—i-
    a a » a s • * •

    Z » 1 * » *•  • —  U
                                             i t B i  a  §
                                                                    g

                                                                    o
                                                                    ZD
                                                                    —3


                                                                   D


                                                                    HI
- D
? 1
£

ALTY DISTRIBUTION - STAT
mws-cwo



i
1


c
1
1 
-------
                          FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Highest Penalties

Eight programs established new records for highest individual administrative or judicial penalties -- that is,
the highest penalty assessed in a single case.  Record judicial penalties were set in FY 1990 in the Safe
Drinking Water Act (UIC) and Wetlands programs.  Record administrative penalties were set in the Clean
Water Act, EPCRA §302-312, CERCLA §103, Toxics Release Inventory (EPCRA §313), and FIFRA. TSCA set
the highest administrative and judicial penalties in  FY 1990.  The highest penalties in each program are
shown in Table 5,
                                          Table 5
                             Highest Penalty in FY 1991 by Program
                                         $ 1,500,000

                                           $5,000

                                         $ 5,405,000*
Clean Water Act

Safe Drinking Water Act

Wetlands Protection

Marine and Estuarine Protection

Stationary Source Air

Mobile Source Air

RCRA

EPCRA §302-312

CERCLA §103

Toxics Release Inventory

TSCA

FIFRA

* Includes $5,000,000 in contempt actions.

Types of Cases

About $41.2 million, or 56 percent, of all EPA federal penalty dollars in FY 1991 came from judicial cases. The
remaining $31.9 million (44 percent) came from administrative cases.

There were more administrative cases than judicial cases. Some 89 percent (1,250) of all cases with penalties
were administrative enforcement actions, compared to 11 percent (152 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 instance, among EPA's larger penalties in FY 1991, the highest administrative penalty was $3.4
million brought by the RCRA  program, and the  highest judicial penalty was $6.2 million brought by the
Clean Water Act program.

                                                18
Administrative

  $125^000

  $ 125,000

  $ 100,000

  $ 150,000



  $ 875,000

$ 3,375,000

  $ 82,250

  $ 60,000

  $ 142,800

$ 2,220,000

  $ 287,920

-------
                         FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Considered on an agency-wide basis, the proportions of dollars and cases from the judicial and administrative
categories in FY 1991 are similar to those in the past five fiscal years. The percentages within that period
varied within a range of 15 percentage points for penalty dollars, and 4 percentage points for cases.

Criminal Enforcement

The 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 one predominant
statute.  On this basis, the programs with the largest numbers of fines assessed in FY 1991 were RCRA ($8.7
million), CWA ($5.2 million) and CAA ($.3 million).

Relative Contributions

The Clean Water Act program dominated civil penalty dollars in FY 1991, with 36 percent of the total (see
Figure 3).  It was followed by RCRA (24 percent), TSCA (15 percent). Stationary Source Air (10 percent) and
Toxics Release  Inventory (5 percent) programs.

The majority of cases with  penalties in FY 1991 were concluded by programs  that made heavy use of
administrative cases (see  Figure 4): TSCA (20 percent), FIFRA (17 percent),  Mobile Source Air (13 percent).
These shares are very similar to FY 1990 program shares.
                                                19

-------
                    FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                   EPA Headquarters Enforcement Offices
Office of Enforcement (OE>

Assistant Administrator
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Deputy Assistant Administrator-Federal Facilities
Director of Civil Enforcement
Enforcement Counsel for Air Enforcement
Enforcement Counsel for Water Enforcement
Enforcement Counsel for Superfund Enforcement
Enforcement Counsel for RCRA Enforcement
 202-
 202-
 202-
 202-
'202-
 202-
 202-
 202-
Enforcement Counsel for Pesticides and Toxic Substances Enforcement 202-;
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Office of Compliance Analysis and Program Operations (OCAPO)
Office of Federal Activities (OFA)
Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE)
Contractor Listing Program
National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC - Denver)

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)

Stationary Source  Compliance Division (SSCD)
Field Operations and Support Division (FOSD)
Manufacturers Operations Division (MOD)

Office of Water (OW)

Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC)
Office of Drinking Water (ODW)
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)

Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE - CERCLA)
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE  - RCRA)

Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances

Office of Compliance Monitoring (OCM)
 202-
 202-
 202
 202
 202-
 303'
260-4134
260-4137
•260-4543
•260-4540
•260-2820
•260-8180
•260-3104
•260-3050
260-8690
260-9660
260-4140
260-5053
•260-9801
475-8780
236-5100
 703-308-8600
 202-260-2633
 202-260-2479
 202-260-5850
 202-260-5543
 202-260-7166
 703-308-8404
 202-260-4808
 202-260-3807

-------
                       FY1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices
                      Enforcement Information Contacts
Region I - Boston

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont

Region II - New York

New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands
Region III - Philadelphia

Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia

Region IV - Atlanta

"Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee

Region V- Chicago

Illinois; Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota
Ohio, Wisconsin

Region VI - Dallas

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
Region VII - Kansas City

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Region VIII - Denver

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

Region IX - San Francisco

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada,
Trust Territories

Region X - Seattle

Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Office of Public Affairs
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA  02203
617-565-3424     FTS: 8-835-3417

Office of External Programs
Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY  10278
212-264-2515     FTS: 8-264-2515

Office of Public Affairs
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA   19107
215-597-9370     FTS; 8-597-9370

Office of Public Affairs
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA   30365
404-347-3004     FTS: 8-257-3004

Office of Public Affairs
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, 1L  60604
312-353-2072     FTS: 8-353-2072

Office of External Affairs
First Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Ave.  12th Floor  Suite 1200
Dallas TX   .75202
214-655-2200     FTS: 8-255-2200

Office of Public Affairs
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS   66101
913-551-7003     FTS: 8-276-7003

Office of External Affairs
999 18th Street Suite 500
Denver, CO  80202-2405
303-293-1692     FTS: 8-330-1692

Office of External Affairs
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA  94105
415-744-1020     FTS: 8-484-1585

Office of the Deputy Regional Administrator
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA   98101
206-442-5810     FTS: 8-399-5810

-------