-------
The FY 1994 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
was prepared by the Targeting and Evaluation Branch within the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The title was revised from
"Enforcement Accomplishments Report" to reflect the mission of the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance created in FY 1994 during the Agency's
reorganization of its compliance and enforcement operations. Information
contained in the report was supplied by the EPA Regional Offices and the Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
Printed on recycled paper
-------
3£>0 R
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 REINVENTING A STRONG NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE PROGRAM 2-1
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 2-1
2.2 MULTIMEDIA APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS 2-4
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 2-7
2.4 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS 2-10
2.5 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS 2-12
2.6 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION 2-15
2.7 FEDERAL FACILITY ENFORCEMENT AND FEDERAL ACTIVITIES 2-16
2.8 OTHER ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES . 2-18
2.8.1 Redelegation 2-18
2.8.2 Task Forces and Work Groups 2-19
2.8.3 Training and Guidance 2-19
2.8.4 Initiatives 2-20
2.8.5 Regulations, Rulemaking, Policy, and Interpretive Guidance 2-21
2.8.6 Native American Affairs 2-22
2.8.7 International Activities 2-23
3.0 REGIONAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
ACTIVITIES 3-1
3.1 MULTIMEDIA APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS 3-1
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 3-4
3.3 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS 3-6
3.4 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS 3-9
3.5 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS • 3-12
3.6 FEDERAL FACILITIES 3-13
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AND PENALTIES 4-1
4.1 CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT 4-2
4.2 CIVIL ENFORCEMENT 4-4
4.3 CIVIL REFERRALS 4-8
4.4 CERCLA ENFORCEMENT 4-8
4.4.1 Alternative Dispute Resolution 4-9
4.5 EPA CONTRACTOR LISTING . 4-10
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. FY 1994 Enforcement Actions 2-3
Figure 2-2. FY 1994 Monetary Breakout 2-3
Figure 4-1. EPA Civil Penalties and Criminal Fines 4-2
Figure 4-2. Office of Criminal Enforcement .... 4-3
Figure 4-3. Number of Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area 4-6
Figure 4-4. Total Penalties Assessed in Administrative Penalty Orders
(by Statute/Program Area) 4.5
Figure 4-5. Number of Civil Judicial Penalties by Statute/Program Area 4-7
Figure 4-6. Total Amount of Civil Judicial Penalties (by Statute/Program Area) 4-7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1.
Table 4-1.
Table 4-2.
Table 4-3.
Table 4-4.
Types of Supplemental Environmental Projects in Case Settlements 3-11
Number of New Investigations Opened and Referrals to DOJ by EPA's
Criminal Enforcement Program in FY 94 4.4
Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area 4-5
Civil Judicial Penalties by Statute/Program Area 4.5
Number of Civil Referrals by Statute 4-8
11
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT j
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In Fiscal Year 1994, under the direction of Administrator Carol Browner, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) reorganized its enforcement and compliance operations to further strengthen
enforcement capability and place increased emphasis on compliance assurance. The result of this
reorganization was the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). This newly created
office now provides a single voice for national enforcement and compliance assurance policy and
direction.
OECA's national policy integrates enforcement and compliance assurance into an approach that
targets noncomplying sectors of the regulated community, as well as sensitive ecosystems and populations.
This new enforcement and compliance approach fully supports the Federal initiative of "reinventing
government," which, from the Agency's standpoint, translates into improving environmental compliance
and encouraging innovative solutions to compliance problems.
This FY 1994 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report documents the
steps EPA has taken in the past year to improve environmental compliance and incorporate innovative
solutions into its enforcement cases. This document reports on EPA efforts on the national and regional
levels and provides information on some of the enforcement and compliance assurance activities
undertaken by some States. It also provides national, regional, and State enforcement highlights and
includes information on the cases taken, developed, and settled by EPA and the States.
The report is structured around six Agency themes:
• Multimedia approaches to environmental problems
• Environmental justice
• Industry-specific sectors
• Supplemental environmental projects
• Sensitive ecosystem protection
• Federal facility environmental management.
Definitions and general information on each of these themes is presented in Section 2. As
expected, not all FY 94 enforcement and compliance assurance accomplishments can be categorized under
the six themes. Significant accomplishments outside the themes are also addressed throughout the
document.
Specifically, Section 2 of the report discusses reinvention efforts underway in EPA's national
enforcement program and the role EPA (Headquarters and Regions) and the States play in that reinvention.
It defines national enforcement initiatives and highlights some of specific enforcement activities conducted
throughout the year. In addition, it provides information on enforcement and compliance assurance efforts
led by the primary offices within OECA.
Section 3 focuses on regional enforcement accomplishments and region-specific initiatives. It also
discusses the relationship between the EPA Regions and the States and highlights some of the coordinated
efforts between the two partners. It also contains State-specific activities, including initiatives, penalties,
and cases.
1-1
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Section 4 of the report provides overview information on the enforcement activities (e.g., civil and
judicial enforcement, referrals) and penalties sought and assessed by EPA, at both Headquarters and the
regional level. This section includes graphics and tables that display the specific numbers and amounts
of actions initiated and closed by EPA. (Note: State-specific information on these topics is included in
Section 3.)
Finally, Appendix A to this report contains significant judicial, administrative, and criminal cases
settled in FY 94 by EPA. The cases are presented by statute (multimedia cases are first, however) in
alphabetical order. Appendix B presents the cases reported by individual States. These cases are ordered
by EPA Region, that is, States from Region I are presented first, and so on.
1-2
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
2.0 REINVENTING A STRONG NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE PROGRAM
When the Agency reorganized its enforcement and compliance program and created the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, it realized that the changes would affect all levels of its national
enforcement program, including Headquarters, the Regions, and the States. EPA knew that the national
program itself would need to undergo "reinvention." An integral part of reinventing the national program
was recognizing that EPA's traditional enforcement tools—monitoring, administrative actions, criminal
sanctions, and monetary penalties—could not, in isolation, lead to sustained compliance in the regulated
community. After detailed analysis, Agency officials determined that EPA needed to combine compliance
assistance and promotion programs with the traditional aspects of compliance monitoring and enforcement.
The heart of EPA's national enforcement program now comprises the following components:
• Compliance assistance: Activities designed to assist the regulated community and encourage
voluntary compliance with regulations
• Compliance monitoring: Activities designed to provide information on the compliance status
of the regulated community
• Enforcement actions: Powerful sanctions designed to compel compliance by the regulated
community.
These three components, together with enhanced coordination of EPA and State actions, will lead
to improved compliance with national environmental laws. When EPA Headquarters and Regional
personnel join forces with individual States, the result is a far-reaching national program fully capable of
using all available compliance tools within each of the three components.
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
One new tool in the area of compliance assistance is recognizing and rewarding facilities that
exhibit leadership in environmental management and compliance. To this end, EPA developed the
Environmental Leadership Program (ELP). The ELP is a national pilot program with a two-fold purpose:
• To recognize facilities that develop and implement innovative environmental management
systems and "beyond compliance" programs
• To work with these facilities and understand their systems and programs, and then share the
information gathered with the regulated community to improve environmental management
and increase compliance.
Forty proposals were submitted for the ELP volunteering to demonstrate innovative approaches to
environmental management and compliance. In April 1995, EPA selected 12 facilities to participate in
the pilot program.
In exchange for participants' commitment to demonstrate their innovative approaches, EPA offers
the facilities several benefits, including:
2-1
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
• Public recognition by EPA as an environmental leader
• A limited period to correct any violations identified during the pilot program
• An absence of routine inspections by EPA or the State.
By offering these benefits, EPA has attracted the environmental leaders from all industrial sectors,
including Federal facilities. The Agency will use the ELP pilot projects to explore ways that it and the
States can encourage facilities to develop innovative auditing, compliance, and pollution prevention
programs and to establish public accountability for compliance with existing standards in environmental
laws. The pilots also will help EPA develop the elements of a full-scale Environmental Leadership
Program, which will be open to all facilities willing and able to meet the program criteria. The pilot phase
of this project will run approximately 12 months.
The second component, compliance monitoring, is being reshaped to provide a holistic, facility-
wide perspective instead of the more traditional programmatic one. This multimedia concept continues
to mature into a significant method of accomplishing EPA's goals. During the past year, EPA inspectors
conducted approximately 2,000 multimedia inspections at facilities nationwide. Multimedia inspections
not only provide EPA and State personnel with a comprehensive view of a facility, but also result in a
more efficient allocation of resources and effective use of personnel. In addition, these inspections are
usually less time consuming and burdensome to the inspected facility.
Compliance monitoring activities are also being refocused to support specific Agency initiatives.
For example, facilities are now being targeted for inspection based on their location or specific industry
type. Environmental justice concerns are playing an increasingly more important role in targeting facilities
for inspection, as are concerns about sensitive ecosystems.
EPA's increased emphasis on compliance assistance did not signal weakening of traditional
enforcement, the third component. The Agency combined quality cases that protected the public and the
environment in substantial ways with a record level of cases to promote deterrence. As shown in Figure
2-1, the Agency brought a record 2,246 enforcement actions with sanctions, including 220 criminal cases,
1,596 administrative penalty actions, 403 new civil referrals to the Department of Justice, and 27
additional civil referrals to enforce existing consent decrees. In addition, the States took 11,334
enforcement actions. These administrative and judicial sanctions, which surpassed those taken last year,
are the primary enforcement tools to correct violations, establish deterrence, and create incentives for
future compliance.
As shown in Figure 2-2, EPA assessed penalties for FY 94 totaling approximately $151 million
combined for civil penalties and criminal fines and another $206 million was returned to the Treasury
through Superfund cost recovery. Injunctive relief and supplemental environmental projects in non-
Superfund cases exceeded $740 million. The number of consent orders, decrees, and penalties and the
vigor with which they were pursued illustrated that EPA is serious about its enforcement commitments.
The following high-profile examples illustrate EPA efforts under the new enforcement and compliance
assurance approach:
• A corporation will spend more than $3 million to eliminate the generation of hundreds of
pounds of hazardous wastes it currently disposes of through underground injection.
• Another corporation will pay for an independent audit covering TSCA compliance at all of
its facilities, not just the one facility in violation. It will also disclose and correct all
violations discovered as a result of the audit.
2-2
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Criminal Referrals
FY1994
FY
Civil Judicial Referrals
1994 (includes consent decree enforcement actions)
Administrative Penalty Actions
FY 1994 (a subset of total administrative activity)
State Enforcement Actions
FY1994
Figure 2-1. FY 1994 Enforcement Actions
$740 Million
Civil/Criminal Fines
Superfimd Cost Recovery
Non-Superfund
Injunctive Relief and SEPs
Figure 2-2. FY 1994 Monetary Breakout
2-3
-------
1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
• A company will spend $1 million to develop an innovative cooling system that will reduce
the amount of water it has to withdraw from an aquifer by 259 million gallons annually.
• A State highway department will conduct lead paint abatement on bridges, targeting those
located in minority and low income residential areas.
These types of settlements both significantly expand the environmental and health protection
achieved through individual enforcement actions and enhance the prospects for long-term compliance.
Similarly, EPA enforcement actions are sending a clear deterrence message to would-be violators, as
illustrated by the following examples:
• The manager and shop foreman of a facility whose illegal disposal of toluene in a dumpster
resulted in the death of two 9 year-old boys were sentenced to 27 months in prison.
• The owner of a now-defunct electroplating facility who illegally abandoned more than 27,000
gallons of hazardous substances within 500 feet of an elementary school received a sentence
of 2 years in prison.
• A laboratory that falsified pesticide residue data used by EPA to ensure the safety of the
American food supply received a $15 million fine and its owner was sentenced to 5 years in
prison.
When EPA prosecutes violations and publicizes the results, it sends an unmistakable message to
violators: "If you threaten the health and safety of the public, you will be caught and you will be
prosecuted." This combination of strong, fair, and effective enforcement and compliance promotion will
continue to characterize future Agency efforts.
The remainder of this section highlights selected enforcement and compliance assurance activities
accomplished at the national level. Several of the activities involved extensive coordination among EPA
Headquarters and regional personnel and States. Sections 2.2 through 2.7 discuss national efforts in each
of the six themes identified Section 1. Section 2.8 presents information on national enforcement and
compliance assurance activities that cannot be categorized according to the themes.
2.2 MULTIMEDIA APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Multimedia enforcement is a unique and effective tool for addressing environmental problems in
a comprehensive way. It encompasses a range of enforcement activities, including inspections, notices
of violations, administrative orders, and judicial actions, using a wide-range approach to evaluate the
violations, risks, and problems and to develop remedies across multiple environmental programs and
statutes in a deliberate and coordinated manner.
Multimedia enforcement is integral to EPA's mandate to protect human health and the Nation's
environment. Because it is comprehensive, multimedia enforcement provides EPA with the opportunity
to further the Agency's most important goals, including:
2-4
-------
5 •
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT f ^
• Improving ecosystem health
• Creating incentives for business to adopt pollution prevention and environmental auditing as
a corporate commitment
• Attacking the complex problems posed by environmental justice
• Creating partnerships among States, Regions, tribes, and EPA Headquarters.
Multimedia enforcement is effective and appropriate in almost any situation, from small companies
to major corporate entities. Moreover, it can be implemented on a local, regional, or State, level.
Multimedia approaches also benefit industry. Facility-wide multimedia assessments can assist corporate
planners in achieving production goals, while complying with environmental laws, in a cost-effective
fashion.
The consolidated multimedia design utilizes trained and experienced teams of experts to develop
cases from inspection through litigation or settlement. Potential multimedia cases are identified through
multimedia inspections, integrated targeting,
coordinated case screening, and improved
communication among regulatory programs. To
prepare personnel for these multimedia activities,
a national multimedia enforcement workshop was
held at NETI-West. Nearly 100 people attended,
representing legal and program offices from
OECA, nine Regions, the National Enforcement
Investigations Center (NEIC), Department of
Justice, and four States. Panel discussions focused
on key multimedia issues, including the use of
geographic initiatives; targeting multimedia
enforcement for risk reduction, ecosystem
protection, environmental justice, or other factors;
multimedia inspections; case development and
management; use of supplemental environmental
projects and pollution prevention in multimedia
cases; and State, local, and community
involvement. A primary purpose of the workshop
was to provide training on the challenges
presented by multimedia enforcement and to
discuss solutions developed by various Regions.
Inspection Types
Consolidated Inspections:
Comprehensive facility
evaluations not only addressing compliance in targeted,
program-specific regulations, but also identifying
environmental problems that might otherwise be
overlooked. When regulated activities or waste
streams are identified, a compliance evaluation is
made with respect to applicable requirements.
Coordinated Inspections: Concurrent and coordinated
program-specific pompliance investigations conducted
by a team of investigators representing two or more
program offices, Regions, or States. The team
conducts a detailed compliance evaluation for each
target program.
Single Media Inspections with a Multimedia Checklist:
Program-specific compliance inspections that are,
conducted by one or more inspectors. The
inspector(s) screens for and reports on obvious key
indicators of possible ndncompliance with other
environmental statutes, usually using a multimedia
checklist.
Using this training as the springboard, EPA inspectors conducted approximately 2,000 multimedia
.inspections in FY 94. It should be noted that there are at least three different types of multimedia
inspections: 1) consolidated, 2) coordinated, and 3) single media with multimedia checklists.. Of the
2,000 inspections, 113 were consolidated, 42 were coordinated, and 1,917 were single media using
multimedia checklists.
2-5
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
These inspections resulted in the following enforcement actions:
• Nineteen multimedia civil judicial referrals to DOJ
• Thirty-two multimedia administrative actions
• Four multimedia administrative/judicial actions
• Twenty-two single media actions with multimedia settlements.
The following list highlights some examples of these enforcement actions and the coordination
among HQ, regional, and State enforcement personnel:
£7.5. v. Marine Shale: In the 1994
multimedia trial against Marine Shale
Processors (MSP), the complaint
alleged violations of RCRA, CAA,
and CWA and sought cost recovery
under CERCLA. The original
complaint, filed in 1990, alleged that
the company violated RCRA by
operating an incinerator and hazardous
waste storage units without a permit
or interim status, placing on the
ground incinerator ash that exceeded
land disposal restriction (LDR)
treatment standards and storing the
incinerator ash in unpermitted waste
piles. The company claimed that it
operated a RCRA-exempt recycling
facility that produced an aggregate
product from hazardous waste. The
complaint was amended in 1993 to
allege violations of the CAA,
including failure to obtain a
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permit, violations of the
company's State minor source air
pollution permit and operating 29
unpermitted air pollution emission
sources; violations of the CWA,
including discharging water pollution
without a permit; and demanding the recovery of the government's costs in a cleanup action
under CERCLA. Information on the violations was obtained from citizen complaints and
through a number of EPA and State inspections and requests for information. The results of
the trial are provided on the next page.
Allied Tube & Conduit: Region V issued a landmark multimedia administrative complaint
against Allied Tube & Conduit for alleged violations of EPCRA and RCRA. This action arose
from multiple inspections to determine the company's compliance under both statutes. As a
result of the EPCRA inspection, EPA determined that the company failed to report toxic
chemical releases to the air in 1989. The RCRA inspection revealed numerous violations,
In the Marine Shale multimedia trial, the District Court
divided the trial into 5 phases; the results were as
follows:
• In the RCRA sham recycling issues, the jury was
not able to determine whether MSP was a legitimate
recycler or an incinerator. The jury was dismissed,
and no date was set for the retrial.
• The court ruled MSP was liable for failure to obtain
a PSD permit and for failure to obtain a State
Implementation Plan permit for 29 miscellaneous
emission sources. The court assessed civil
penalties of $2.5 million and $1 million,
respectively.
• The court ruled that MSP had operated four water
outfalls without an NPDES permit and that it had
discharged large volumes of heated water into the
adjacent bayou in violation of its NPDES permit. A
civil penalty of $3 million was assessed.
• The judge ruled in favor of the United States on a
summary judgment motion claiming that MSP was
storing certain hazardous wastes without a permit
and without meeting LDR treatment standards. The
court assessed civil penalties of $1 million for
storage violations and $500,000 for land disposal
restricted waste violations.
• The Court also entered an injunction prohibiting
further violations of the CAA, CWA, and RCRA;
however, the effectiveness of the injunction was
stayed pending appeal.
2-6
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
including failure to 1) properly mark containers, 2) record weekly inspections, 3) conduct
personnel training, 4) adequately maintain fire protection equipment, aisle space, and closure
of hazardous waste containers, and 5) properly prepare several hazardous waste manifests.
Corrections of these multiple statutory violations will provide benefits to the public health and
environment.
• U.S. v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company: DOJ filed a civil multimedia action against
the Burlington Northern Railroad Company on behalf of Regions V and VIII. The complaint
alleges that the company discharged hazardous substances into the Nemadji River near
Superior, Wisconsin, discharged oil into the North Platte River in Guernsey, Wyoming, and
discharged oil into navigable waters near the Bighorn River in Worland, Wyoming. DOJ also
sought a cost recovery claim under CERCLA for costs incurred by EPA in response to the
Nemadji River spill.
• U.S. v. Tenneco Settlement Finalized: After almost 3 years of negotiations, Tenneco reached
a settlement with EPA for cleanup of PCB contamination along its natural gas pipelines and
payment of a TSCA civil administrative penalty. Tenneco and the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.
will pay a $6.4 million administrative TSCA penalty and cleanup under a CERCLA Removal
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC). Region IV is the lead region on this case, which
covers contaminated sites in five Regions. In the AOC, Tenneco has agreed to reimburse EPA
for past costs of $357,087. Long-term cleanup costs covered by the AOC may exceed $240
million.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Many minority, low-income communities have raised concerns about the disproportionate burden
of health consequences they suffer from the siting of industrial plants and waste dumps, as well as from
exposures to pesticides or other toxic chemicals at home and on the job. Their primary concerns are that
environmental programs do not adequately address these disproportionate exposures.
In accordance with President Clinton's Executive Order 12898, EPA is addressing these concerns
by assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives and developing an environmental justice
strategy to enhance environmental quality for all U.S. residents. The Agency looks to assure, through its
policies, programs, and activities, that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national
origin, or income, bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects.
To achieve the objectives of its environmental justice strategy, EPA is:
• Ensuring that environmental justice is part of all Agency programs, policies, and activities
• Identifying methodologies, research, and data needed to identify and evaluate populations at
disproportionately high environmental or human health risks,as well as ensuring that these
needs are considered in developing the overall Federal research program
• Promoting outreach, communication, and partnerships with stakeholders to ensure sufficient
stakeholder access to training, information, and education.
2-7
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Because implementation of the Agency's environmental justice policy is ongoing, the majority of
its efforts to date have been in outreach and education for both Agency employees and the public. The
Agency is refining its strategies and analyzing data to direct its compliance assurance, compliance
monitoring, and enforcement activities more effectively in support of this principle.
Of primary concern to OECA is the lack of capacity of some low-income and minority populations
to become involved in permit decisions and enforcement and compliance monitoring activities. To address
this issue, the Enforcement Capacity and Outreach Office (ECOO) of OECA is leading a pilot program
to provide education on a variety of environmental justice topics, including:
• Citizens' rights and regulatory processes
• Opportunities for community involvement in permitting decisions
• Training in interpreting data and enforcement/compliance monitoring activities.
In addition to these outreach efforts, the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) developed
an approach for heightening environmental justice awareness among OECA employees and for enhancing
citizen participation in environmental compliance monitoring and enforcement functions. Several of the
individual HQ and regional offices have also developed and sponsored environmental justice training for
their employees. In addition, the Office of Compliance sponsored the Environmental Justice Bike Tour,
which educated students and communities about environmental awareness and environmental justice issues.
At the national policy level, OECA established a process for assuring environmental justice in all
OECA programs, policies, and activities. It named a full-time Environmental Justice Coordinator and
established an Environmental Justice Coordinating Council (EJCC). The EJCC comprises representatives
from each major office within OECA and assists in developing the agency-wide strategic plan. It also
provides recommendations to promote environmental justice through enforcement activities at all levels—
regional, State, and national.
To date, the EJCC has produced three major draft documents for use within the Agency:
• OECA draft strategy outline, which describes the office's goals and objectives
• Potential projects list, which provides a matrix of current and future activities
• Draft OECA workplans, which include project descriptions, descriptions of project
relationships to goals set forth in the strategy outline, anticipated time frames for the projects,
and key efforts for completing the projects.
These documents are currently being circulated throughout the Agency for review and comment
and will be the Agency's road map for all environmental justice activities.
Several of the primary offices in OECA are developing their own strategies for including
environmental justice concepts into enforcement and compliance assurance activities. In conjunction with
the Regions, ORE is developing enforcement guidance documents concerning identification of
environmental justice cases and emphasizing the need for discussion of environmental justice concerns in
litigation packages and consent decrees. It is also coordinating a national enforcement initiative to ensure
that pesticide registrants adhere to the pesticide product labeling requirements of the agricultural Worker
2-8
-------
FV 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT I ^
Protection Standard (WPS). In October 1994, the first civil administrative cases under the WPS were filed
against two of the Nation's largest pesticide manufacturers for misbranding or incorrectly labeling
pesticides and posing a risk to workers' health. EPA is seeking a total of $2.1 million in penalties.
EPA is undertaking other activities to incorporate environmental justice into its enforcement and
compliance monitoring activities. For example, OC provided access to an extract of the 1990 Census data
in the Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) information retrieval system that allows IDEA
users to identify regulated facilities based on Census data, such as race and/or income, and then gather
compliance/enforcement information about the facilities. Environmental justice efforts under the
Superfund program have involved conducting a comparative analysis of Superfund enforcement process
data for all NPL sites. OSRE also continues to coordinate with OSWER on identifying site characteristics
and environmental justice indicators to ensure that information relevant to environmental justice issues are
incorporated with enhancements to the Superfund information system (CERCLIS).
The Office of Criminal Enforcement has implemented
an aggressive, multimedia, cross regional enforcement
initiative that strategically targets businesses and other
violators in minority communities. In partnership with
the FBI, ATF, U.S. customs, and other Federal and
State law enforcement and regulatory officials, OCE
special agents will investigate business enterprises in
these communities using confidential informants,
undercover sting operations, aerial-infrared and
electronic surveillance, and covert sampling and
monitoring. The overall effect of this combined effort
will have direct and positive impact on the health and
safety of community residents.
In addition, EPA is meeting the White
House's call for making the Federal sector a
national leader in environmental justice efforts.
For example, OFA assisted with the development
of an executive order on environmental justice,
analyzed environmental justice issues and
socioeconomic impacts under NEPA, and drafted
preliminary guidance for assessing environmental
justice in CAA Section 309 reviews of other
agency NEPA documents. EPA's Federal
facilities offices also completed projects related to
environmental justice, including an extensive
geographical information system (GIS) analysis at
25 Federal facilities nationwide. This analysis was based on environmental justice parameters, as
designated in Executive Order 12898. These 25 surveys will be sent to the 10 EPA Regions as models
for conducting GIS analysis at the regional level.
In FY 94, the Criminal Investigations Division of OCE dedicated 27 percent of its resources to
conducting investigations in minority communities. OCE's other accomplishments in achieving
environmental justice include:
• Special agents in charge from all 10 Regions have submitted innovative plans for proactive
strategic targeting initiatives on environmental criminal violations in communities with
environmental justice concerns. These plans include joint investigations with other Federal
and State agencies and tribal governments to prosecute violators in environmental justice
communities, as well as geographical initiatives that target environmental criminal violations
in such communities.
• OCE modified its agent training course and other law enforcement personnel training to
include an environmental justice segment.
• Low income and minority areas of Dallas, Texas, received $6 million in remediation projects
as the result of EPA's criminal prosecution in United States v. Robert M. Brittingham and
John J. LoMonaco (N.D. Tex.). The former board chairman and the former president of a
large ceramic tile manufacturer were convicted for dumping lead-contaminated hazardous
2-9
-------
| FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Tifton is a small Georgia town of approximately 15,000
residents. A total of 19 CERCLA potential hazardous
waste sites are located in Tifton. Of these, one is
already on the National Priorities List (NPL) (Tifton
Drums), one is being evaluated for inclusion on the
NPL, and six have undergone waste removal or are
currently undergoing waste removal.
EPA, in conjunction with CLOUT (a citizen's group in
Tifton), the Georgia Environmental Protection Division,'
and the lift County Board of Commissioners, is
implementing the lift County, Georgia, Environmental
Justice Geographic Initiative to address the
environmental harm from the multiple sites in Tift
County. The Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) has also been active
through existing agreements with EPA, which provide
for public health assessments in communities
surrounding NPL sites. To highlight the activities in
Tift County, Region IV's senior management officials
attended several community/public meetings to
maintain open communication with local community
leaders and residents.
waste into a sand and gravel pit in a
Dallas suburb.
Although somewhat limited, high profile
situations have involved environmental justice and
enforcement and compliance monitoring activities.
In these situations, EPA Headquarters, Regions,
States, and municipalities have worked together to
forge a solution beneficial to all involved. The
Tift County Georgia (Region IV) Environmental
Justice Geographic Initiative is an example of this
coordination. Under this initiative, Region IV
developed and is in the process of implementing
a pilot project in Tift County, Georgia, to address
waste sites located within the city of Tifton and
throughout Tift County.
Another environmental justice case
involves a major utility company with four electric
power plants in the Catano, Puerto Rico, area.
Catano is a community in which the majority of
the people are below the poverty level and suffer
from poor air and water quality. The major thrust
of the action is to improve the regional water and
air quality. Section 3 provides more detail on this
case.
2.4 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS
The new framework for EPA's
enforcement and compliance assurance programs
reorients the Agency's focus to compliance
problems that pervade certain sectors of the regulated community. This "sector approach" enables the
Agency to 1) address noncomplying sectors more effectively, 2) allow for "whole facility" approaches to
enforcement and compliance, 3) measure more specifically rates of compliance and the effectiveness of
enforcement strategies, 4) augment enforcement strategies with appropriate compliance enhancement
activities, and 5) develop sector expertise, which should improve performance in all aspects of the
Agency's enforcement program. During the past year, EPA made great strides in developing sector
expertise, which will allow the Agency to begin making sector-based enforcement and compliance
assurance an integral part of everyday activities.
The agency-wide Common Sense Initiative is a prime example of EPA's sector-based initiatives
and effort to extend its expertise. This program is considered the Agency's cornerstone sector-based
initiative. The purpose of this initiative is to develop and implement strategies for making environmental
regulation more efficient and more effective. Six industrial sectors were selected to participate:
EPA provided a $200,000 Clean Water Act grant to the
Texas Attorney General to fund a Strike Force that
enforces State and local laws against developers of
colonias. The purpose of the money is to remedy the
colonias' current environmental situation. Colonias are
Hispanic communities concentrated near the Mexican
border in Texas and New Mexico; they usually lack
adequate infrastructure. OFA also worked with ORE,
Region VI, DOJ, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the Texas and New Mexico
Attorneys' General Offices to explore additional
responses to the colonias' problem. This initial
groundwork will form the basis of an enhanced Federal
and State effort in 1995.
2-10
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
• Iron and steel
• Electronics and computers
• Metal plating and finishing
• Auto assembly
• Petroleum refining . .:
• Printing.
For each sector, EPA is convening a high-level team comprising industry executives,
environmental leaders, government officials, and labor and environmental justice representatives. OECA
is represented on every sector team and is the Agency lead for the printing sector. The teams will be
looking at six key elements that affect the specific sector:
• Promoting pollution prevention opportunities .
• Conducting regulatory reviews
• Undertaking innovative compliance assistance and enforcement initiatives
• Simplifying and improving reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Implementing permit streamlining opportunities
• Promoting innovative environmental technologies.
The Common Sense Initiative, one of EPA's primary
sector-based efforts, comprises 18 industries:
Printing
Pulp and Paper
Inorganic Chemicals
Organic Chemicals
Petroleum Refining
Iron and Steel
Rubber, and Plastics
Non-Ferrous Metals
Auto Assembly
Ship/Rail/Car/Truck
Cleaning
Dry Cleaning
Metal Mining
Non-Metallic Mining
Lumber/Wood
Furniture and Fixtures
Stone/Glass/Concrete
Metal Fabrication
Electronics and
Computers.
To further enhance the Agency's
knowledge of specific sectors, the Office of
Compliance is conducting an extensive analysis to
develop a comprehensive profile of 18 major
industrial sectors. The completed profiles will
contain a variety of information, including
industrial process descriptions, multimedia
regulatory requirements, historical enforcement
performance data, pollutant release information,
current public and private sector initiatives, and an
assessment of potential pollution prevention
opportunities for the sector. These profiles will be
the basis for development of sector compliance strategies, which will address the appropriate mix of
compliance and enforcement activities, inspection priorities, regional/State roles, and the use of
enforcement actions and targeted initiatives.
In addition to these sector-based programs, several other projects focus on industrial sectors. Some
of the programs specifically target compliance assistance; others are primarily enforcement-based
programs. Some of the specific sectors and descriptions of the initiatives are described below.
Compliance assistance initiatives included:
• Dry cleaning: To assist the perchloroethylene (perc) dry cleaners in complying with the
various environmental regulations, OC is developing an easy-to-read version of the
environmental requirements for dry cleaners, including a Korean language translation of the
brochure. This document explains the environmental requirements under CAA, RCRA, CWA,
and SDWA and includes commonly asked questions concerning the regulations and a quick
reference checklist of activities that an owner/operator must perform to comply with the
regulations.
2-11
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
• Auto body shops: OC is also working with auto body shops and the Department of Education
to develop a new national curriculum for auto technicians that includes environmental
requirements.
• Animal feeding operations: The Water Enforcement Division of ORE participated in the
development of an initiative targeting animal feeding operations. The goal is to increase
protection of water resources by promoting, encouraging, and requiring sound environmental
management and practices in the animal feeding operation community.
• Pulp and paper mills: The Toxics and Pesticides Division of ORE helped develop a
voluntary program to restrict the land application of sludges containing dioxin. The American
Forest and Paper Association, as well as two pulp and paper mills, signed agreements
implementing the program.
The following examples were all enforcement-based initiatives:
• Municipal waste combustion facilities: The RCRA Enforcement Division of ORE, in
conjunction with OC, developed and wrote a strategy for implementing the U.S. Supreme
Court decision in the City of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund concerning municipal
waste combustion (MWC) ash. The decision held that RCRA Section 3001 (i) exempts MWC
facilities from RCRA hazardous waste regulations but that MWC ash is not exempt from
RCRA's hazardous waste definition. The strategy provided the Regions with guidance in
bringing waste-to-energy facilities affected by the decision into compliance with RCRA
Subtitle C as quickly as possible.
• Incinerators and boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs): EPA and DOJ announced the
second Hazardous Waste Combustion Initiative, which included filing 13 settlement
agreements and 10 complaints against owners and operators of incinerators and BIFs. The
settled cases recovered $1.5 million in penalties from 4 incinerators and 9 BIFs. The 10
complaints included the first civil judicial BIF complaint; the 9 remaining administrative
complaints sought $4.8 million in penalties from 7 BIFs and 2 incinerators.
Also in FY 94, OFA updated its Environmental Assessment (EA) guidance for reviewers of new
source NPDES permits. This EA guidance was completed for the following industrial sectors: mining,
fossil-fueled electric steam generating stations, pulp and paper mills, timber processing, and coal
gasification facilities.
These strategies and other compliance assurance projects will eventually lead the Agency to sector-
based compliance monitoring and enforcement. All of this preliminary work, however, will only make
those activities more effective and efficient when they are undertaken.
2.5 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
Historically, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took a civil administrative action
against a violating facility, it sought only monetary penalties. In the 1990s, however, EPA changed its
enforcement approach to seek not only monetary penalties but also an improvement in environmental
quality. Environmental improvement is expected to occur as a result of Supplemental Environmental
Projects (SEPs). A SEP is a project that a respondent/defendant in a case agrees to conduct as a term of
settlement sometimes in exchange for partial mitigation of a civil penalty. The purpose of these projects
2-12
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT I
is to expand protection of human health and the environment beyond that required by the specific Federal,
State, or local law directly related to an enforcement action.
Types of SEPs Used In Enforcement Cases
• Cleanup/restoration projects
• Disposal
• Environmental audit
• Outreach/public awareness projects
• Training
• Source reduction/pollution prevention—process
modification
• Source reduction/pollution prevention—recycling
• Source reduction/pollution
prevention—technological improvement
• Waste minimization/pollution reduction—process
modification
• Waste minimization/pollution reduction—recycling
• Waste minimization/pollution
reduction—technological improvement
SEPs are an important tool in promoting
the Agency goals of pollution prevention,
pollution reduction, and environmental justice. In
addition to the continued use of SEPs in
enforcement cases, the Revised Supplemental
Environmental Project Policy is being prepared
which will make it easier to incorporate SEPs into
settlement negotiations. The policy has been
revised to allow maximum flexibility to achieve
settlements that enhance environmental protection
while maintaining a strong penalty policy to
promote deterrence. As part of an enforcement
settlement, the amount of the agreed-upon penalty
may be reduced to reflect the commitment made
by an alleged violator to undertake a SEP. Two
critical factors must be considered in negotiating
SEPs: 1) the assessed penalty must reflect the gravity of the violation and the economic benefit achieved
and 2) the enforcement settlement must foster a deterrent effect. In addition, projects undertaken in SEPs
must go beyond compliance requirements with applicable laws and regulations.
During FY 94, EPA incorporated SEPs in settlements for violations under a broad range of
programs. As in the past, SEPs were applied in EPCRA, TSCA, and FIFRA cases. In FY 94, for
example, 190 cases with SEP terms were negotiated under TSCA (55), EPCRA Section 313 (49) and
FIFRA (8), with an additional 78 SEPs negotiated under other sections of EPCRA. EPA also applied
SEPs in cases brought under CAA, CWA, RCRA, and CERCLA.
Many of the SEP cases in FY 94 represented landmark cases in terms of the scope of the action,
the nature of the'violation, the type of environmental benefits achieved, or for other reasons. For example,
the State-Federal agreement resolving a case against the Massachusetts Highway Department represents
the largest ever commitment of public resources to address RCRA violations at State facilities anywhere
in the country. In a consent agreement resolving a RCRA administrative action, EPA-New England, the
MA DEP, and the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) agreed that MHD will spend $20 million
to investigate and remediate environmental problems at all 138 of its facilities and will dedicate $5 million
to several SEPs, including projects that will benefit environmental justice areas. The 138 State facilities
are the most facilities to be addressed by a single RCRA-related agreement.
Another record setting component of this SEP is MHD's $5 million commitment, a significant
portion of which is designated for training approximately 350 local and municipal transportation and
public works agency personnel and for providing emergency response equipment to Local Emergency
Planning Committees (LEPCs) affected by MHD operations, with particular focus on low-income and
minority neighborhoods.
Region IV s case against Ashland Petroleum is another notable example. EPA filed a consent
agreement and consent order (CACO) that settled alleged reporting violations under Section 304 of
EPCRA. The CACO provided for a $1.56 million penalty, for which Ashland agreed to pay $312,000
in cash to EPA, with the remainder of the penalty to be put toward SEPs valued at more than $1,248,000.
2-13
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
The total $1.56 million value of the settlement made this the Agency's largest EPCRA penalty ever. This
is also the first multi-State EPCRA action in Region IV's history.
The following list provides additional examples of SEP agreements and the specific activities
conducted under the SEP terms:
• U.S. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (W.D.N.Y.): EPA and DOJ announced the settlement of a RCRA
case against Eastman Kodak in Rochester, New York. The consent decree included a cash
penalty of $5 million, a $12 million investment in six SEPs to reduce hazardous wastes in its
2,200 acre Kodak Park, and a compliance schedule. The aggregate reduction in hazardous
wastes as a result of the SEPs is expected to exceed 2.3 million pounds of pollutants by the
year 2001.
The major violations addressed in the complaint and consent decree involved Kodak's failure
to properly characterize waste streams, the leakage of hazardous wastes from a massive (31-
mile long) industrial sewer, and operation of an unpermitted incinerator. An NEIC-led team
that conducted a 9-week, comprehensive multimedia investigation of the Kodak facility
discovered these violations.
In a separate TSCA administrative enforcement action against Kodak, the company agreed to
spend $3.6 million to remove 17 PCB transformers located at the Rochester facility. Based
on this very valuable SEP, a $17,000 penalty reduction was allowed; the final cash penalty
provided for in the October 1993 settlement was $42,000.
• United States v. Beech Aircraft Corporation (D. Kansas): The U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas entered a consent decree resolving civil violations of the CWA at Beech
Aircraft Corporation's Wichita, Kansas, facility. Beech was required to pay a civil penalty of
$521,000 for its violations of Federal categorical pretreatment standards for metal finishers,
failure to meet the reporting requirements of the general pretreatment regulations, and failure
to comply in a timely manner with an administrative order issued by Region VII.
In addition to paying the civil penalty, Beech agreed to perform a supplemental environmental
project valued at approximately $200,000 that consists of installing centrifuges or equivalent
systems to remove sludge from the Wichita facility's existing water wash paint spray booths.
The purpose of this pollution prevention project is to reduce the total volume and toxicity of
hazardous waste sludge generated and to allow the recycling of paint spray booth wastewater,
thereby reducing the volume and concentration of pollutants in the wastewater ultimately
discharged to the city of Wichita's POTW.
• United States v. City and County of Honolulu (D. Hawaii): A consent decree was lodged
resolving a CWA enforcement action brought by the United States and the State of Hawaii
against the City and County of Honolulu. This action arose as a result of the city and county
of Honolulu's poor maintenance of its sewer system, which resulted in more than 300 spills
of raw or partially treated sewage into Hawaiian waters (including a spill of 50 million gallons
of raw sewage into Pearl Harbor in 1991 that attracted national attention). The city and
county of Honolulu also failed tp implement an adequate pretreatment program to regulate the
discharge of toxics from industries discharging into its sewer system.
2-14
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Under the consent agreement, the city and county of Honolulu will pay a civil penalty of $1.2
million and committed to improving the operation and maintenance of its sewer system,
including the renovation of 1,900 miles of sewer lines during the next 20 years, and to
developing and implementing a pretreatment program to regulate the discharge of industrial
toxic wastewater. Under the decree, the city and county also committed to spending $30
million on SEPs for treating and reusing wastewater and sludge. Honolulu will recycle 10
tons of sewage sludge per day by 1998 and 10 million gallons of wastewater per day by the
year 2001.
2.6 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION
The United States and other parts of the world are experiencing a serious loss of essential natural
resources. If this continues, this loss will result in a long-term threat to the Nation's economic prosperity,
security, and the sustainability of remaining ecological systems. The value of ecosystems can be measured
in many different ways. Living things and the ecosystems upon which they depend provide communities
with food, clean air, clean water, and a multitude of other goods and services. Native American tribes
and many others believe that air life is interconnected—that the health of one depends directly on the
health of another. Consequently, the high rates of species endangerment, loss of natural resources (e.g.,
timber), habitat fragmentation, and losses of recreational opportunities pose a potential threat to the health,
cultural values, lifestyle, and economic future of virtually every American.
Many EPA activities have helped protect ecosystems. The Agency has implemented laws to
control many of the major sources that pollute the Nation's air, water, and land. Yet, even as the more
obvious problems are resolved, scientists discover other environmental stresses that threaten ecological
resources and general well-being. Evidence of these problems can be seen in the decline of the salmon
populations in the Pacific Northwest and the oyster stock in the Chesapeake Bay, the decrease in migratory
bird populations, and degraded coral reef systems.
Although many Federal, State, tribal, and local regulations address these problems, past efforts
have been as fragmented as the laws enacted to solve the problems. Because EPA concentrated on issuing
permits, establishing pollutant limits, and setting national standards, as required by environmental laws,
the Agency did not pay enough attention to the overall environmental health of specific ecosystems. In
short, EPA has been "program-driven" rather than "place-driven."
As the Agency moves increasingly to a place-driven approach, existing barriers to progress must
be identified and addressed. EPA must collaborate with other Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies,
as well as private partners, to remove the barriers and achieve the ultimate goal of healthy, sustainable
ecosystems. The Agency, therefore, will act to solve integrated environmental problems through a
framework of ecosystem protection in close partnership with others. This approach will integrate
environmental management with human needs, consider long-term ecosystem health, and highlight the
positive correlation between economic prosperity and environmental well-being.
EPA is currently placing high priority on developing compliance assurance and enforcement
programs that focus on sensitive ecosystem protection. However, it is still a relatively new emphasis in
the Agency, and, therefore, applicable projects are developing. To date, EPA has promoted this initiative
and mandated that it become an integral part of all Agency decision making, as well as an integral part
of the compliance assurance and enforcement programs in particular.
2-15
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
OECA's Office of Federal Activities (OFA) has been active in sensitive ecosystem protection >. .1
has taken the lead in a number of important ecosystem management and protection initiatives during fY
94:
• Midwestfloods: OFA served as EPA's representative to the White House Task Force on levee
repair and long-term recovery and ensured a focus on the opportunities for significant long-
term transformation of floodplain management practices in the region. OFA established an
overall principle for the Task Force: the need to capitalize upon the lessons learned from this
event to trigger reinvention of current Federal programs affecting floodplain management.
OFA, in conjunction with the White House, pursued a strategic assessment of Federal activities
in floodplains and issued the report entitled, Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management
Into the 21st Century.
• Everglades: OFA represented EPA at the final negotiations and signing of the multiagency
agreement on restoration of the Everglades. OFA continues to coordinate with Region IV, the
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, and other EPA offices to build a team of experts
to participate in the technical and scientific studies of this complex ecosystem necessary to
create a plan for environmentally sustainable development in the region.
• Endangered species activities: OFA has been a lead for the Endangered Species Coordinating
Committee, which was established to describe current activities and obligations, set priorities,
and establish appropriate training, support, and liaison functions with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. OFA also coordinated the Deputy
Administrator's agency wide Taskforce on Endangered Species Management within EPA.
• Forest conference: The forest conference was designed to break the impasse developed over
the use and protection of the Northwest forest resources. From the beginning, OFA has been
an active member of the President's Forest Team, providing input to ecosystem protection and
watershed management in particular. OFA staff have been involved in both the review and
preparation of the Draft Forest Conference Supplemental EIS.
2.7 FEDERAL FACILITY ENFORCEMENT AND FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
EPA's newly reorganized enforcement and compliance program has provided the Federal facilities
offices With improved opportunities to assure compliance with environmental requirements across the
Federal sector. The 1992 Federal Facility Compliance Act boosted enforcement capability by clearly
establishing RCRA penalty authority against Federal facilities. The act authorizes EPA to levy fines
against other Federal agencies.
In addition to traditional enforcement measures, the Federal facilities program includes compliance
assistance activities designed to ensure full compliance without exacting severe penalties. Executive Order
12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements, committed
Federal agencies to implement pollution prevention practices across all missions and activities. EPA is
taking a leadership role in implementing the Executive Order and has issued a guide for agency-wide
pollution prevention strategies, interpretive guidance for all of the Executive Order's requirements,
guidance for developing facility-specific plans, a guide for meeting pollution reduction goals, and a user's
guide to environmental cost accounting.
2-16
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT!^
To further educate its employees and exchange and develop ideas, EPA held the annual Federal
Facilities Coordinator's Meeting. The meeting included Headquarters and regional personnel and covered
a range of topics, including regional impacts from the HQ reorganization, revision of the Federal
compliance strategy, Federal Facility Compliance Act implementation, implementation of Executive Order
12856, OMB A-106 revisions, and current status of the multimedia initiative.
To help Agency personnel monitor compliance at Federal facilities, the Federal facilities office
developed a new version of the Federal Facility Tracking System (FFTS), a pilot computer system that
tracks compliance activities at Federal facility sites. The new system provides a multimedia view of
activities to assist with planning, targeting inspections, and reporting.
In FY 94, EPA and participating States issued:
15 Warning Letters
27 Notices of Violation
8 Notices of Noncompliance
18 Administrative Orders
3 Field Citations
4 Federal Facility Compliance Agreements.
In FY 94, EPA and the States issued 40
administrative orders totaling more than $6.5 million in
penalties. The Federal facilities compliance strategy will
continue to include joint EPA and State multimedia
inspections at targeted Federal facilities. EPA and
participating States recently completed first year activities
associated with the FY 93/94 Federal Facilities
MultiMedia Enforcement/Compliance Initiative (FMECI).
In FY 94, EPA evaluated 31 Federal facilities using a
multimedia approach; the FY 93 inspections resulted in 75 FY 94 enforcement actions under nine statutes.
Federal facilities in seven Regions were assessed a total of $2.1 million in penalties.
EPA continued its FY 93 enforcement efforts in cleanup and environmental restoration. At the
end of FY 94, EPA had crafted 111 Interagency Agreements with Federal agencies defining the cleanup
process at 121 NPL Federal facilities. These agreements are backed by stipulated penalties, which are
used to ensure compliance with the terms of the cleanup activities.
In July 1994, for example, the Department of Energy settled a CERCLA penalty action with EPA
and the State of Colorado for $2.8 million for violations of several cleanup deadlines for the Rocky Flats
facility. These violations are resulting in the delay of the overall cleanup at this facility.
The following list highlights selected examples of the enforcement actions taken against Federal
facilities in FY 94:
Coast Guard, Kodiak, Alaska Facility: EPA Region 10 issued a complaint against the U.S.
Coast Guard Kodiak Support Center, Kodiak, Alaska, seeking $1,018,552 in penalties. The
complaint resulted from two major violations of RCRA: 1) failure to properly monitor ground
water in an area where cleaning solvents had been dumped and 2) the illegal storage of
hazardous waste without a proper permit from EPA. The complaint was the first action
brought against a civilian Federal agency under the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992.
The Presidio: Region IX filed a complaint and citations against the U.S. Army Garrison,
Presidio of San Francisco, for violating RCRA and assessed a penalty of $556,500 for the
hazardous waste violations. Region IX inspectors identified a number of violations at the
Presidio, including failure to transport hazardous waste offsite within 90 days, failure to label
properly approximately 200 drums of hazardous wastes, failure to keep 15 containers of
hazardous wastes closed, and failure to make weekly inspections of three hazardous waste
storage areas.
2-17
-------
) FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
• Schofield Barracks: Region LX assessed $543,900 in penalties under RCRA against Schofield
Barracks, a U.S. Army facility located in Wahiawa, Hawaii. The facility operates numerous
motorpools and maintenance shops that generate various wastes, including waste paint, waste
solvents, and contaminated waste oils, which are listed as hazardous waste under RCRA.
Region IX inspections determined that the facility was illegally operating as a RCRA storage
facility. Violations included failure to transport RCRA-regulated waste offsite within the
allowed 90-day accumulation period, failure to label waste properly, and failure to make
adequate hazardous waste determinations. In addition, the facility failed to comply with
requirements pertaining to the hazardous waste training program, the contingency plan, and
preparedness and prevention measures.
EPA's Federal facility offices are also responsible for reviewing all Federal facility documentation
prepared under NEPA. In FY 94, for example, 515 environmental impact statements (EISs) were filed
with OFA under its delegation from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (278 draft and 237
final). EPA commented on 210 draft EISs and 172 final EISs. Of these, EPA rated 2 draft EISs EU
(environmentally unsatisfactory), 30 draft EISs EO (environmental objections), and the remaining draft
EISs either EC (environmental concerns) or LO (lack of objections). Also during the year, OFA approved
eight Environmental Policy Agreements between EPA and other Federal agencies, including the
Department of Justice, Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Department of Defense, Small
Business Administration, Department of Commerce, and Department of Transportation.
2.8
OTHER ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES
In FY 94, enforcement and compliance assurance accomplishments occurred in arenas beyond the
six theme areas. Significant achievements were accomplished across all program areas and under each
environmental statute. The following sections document some of the more significant accomplishments
throughout the year.
2.8.1 Rcdelegation
As an adjunct to the reorganizational changes that occurred in FY 94, OECA eliminated
unnecessary or duplicative layers of review by assessing and revising existing delegation of authority and
concurrence procedures by redelegating a substantial portion of the authority to manage and settle civil
judicial and administrative enforcement cases to the Regional Counsel. The redelegation authorizes the
Regions to settle a substantial number of enforcement cases without the formal involvement of OECA,
thus eliminating a potentially redundant and time-consuming level of review and freeing OECA to focus
with the Regions on enforcement cases that present nationally significant issues.
The Assistant Administrator redelegated to the Regional Counsel the authority to settle
enforcement cases with bottom-line penalties of less than $500,000 without formal OECA involvement,
provided that the cases present no nationally significant issues. With the agreement of OECA's Office
of Regulatory Enforcement, the Regional Counsel may also settle non-nationally significant cases with
penalties higher than $500,000. OECA's continued formal involvement in nationally significant cases,
regional audits, the regional Counsels' reporting relationship to the Assistant Administrator, and numerous
informal contacts between OECA and the regions will all ensure that national policy goals will continue
to be met.
Redelegation marks a real turning-point in the Headquarters/regional relationship in the
enforcement and compliance assurance arena. The new approach preserves and enhances OECA's
2-18
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
leadership role of setting national directions and policies on enforcement issues, while providing regional
managers the flexibility to implement their compliance and enforcement programs in a more efficient
manner. To help implement the redelegation, OECA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement produced a
uniform, cross-media set of procedures that further emphasize trust, flexibility, and common sense as the
fundamental principles of the Headquarters/regional relationship.
2.8.2 Task Forces and Work Groups
In FY 94, Headquarters and regional personnel represented OECA on numerous task forces and
work groups. The Air Enforcement Division of ORE worked on an intergovernmental task force designed
to coordinate the government-wide response to the illegal importation of ozone depleting chemicals. OFA
chaired a work group that examined EPA programs and NEPA. The work group conducted a
comprehensive study of EPA activities with respect to the key NEPA criteria—environmental analysis,
consideration of alternatives, and public participation. The work group also look at program office
compliance with other environmental requirements, such as the Endangered Species Act.
OFA also represented EPA on the Technical Advisory Group to develop international standards
for environmental auditing by coordinating EPA comments and working on this draft report to reflect
EPA's preferred positions. In addition, OFA chaired a new group designated to develop U.S. proposed
standards for environmental audits of Environmental Management Systems.
The Enforcement Capacity and Outreach Office's Constituent Outreach Team (COT) established
a framework that assists OECA in consulting with State, local, and tribal governments on broad policy
and specific issues associated with enforcement and compliance assurance. As a result, OECA has
designed an intergovernmental relations framework that incorporates three components: a Forum of
senior-level policy makers to focus on broad enforcement and compliance policies; a network of federal,
State, local, and tribal enforcement and compliance practitioners; and specific strategies for strengthening
regional and State interaction.
When fully implemented, the network will consist of 30 to 40 environmental enforcement
practitioners from EPA (Headquarters and regions) and State, local, and tribal governments. The main
objectives of the network are to enhance State/EPA communications and to develop a network of
environmental enforcement and compliance assurance managers to provide expertise on planning and
priority setting process.
2.8.3 Training and Guidance
As a result of the OECA reorganization, the National Enforcement Training Institute (NET!)
experienced significant growth in FY 94. NETI made progress in the area of training technology by using
the computer and satellite transmission to disseminate training materials, information, and courses. NETI
also emphasized its role serving as a clearinghouse for training information, in assessing constituent needs,
in continuing international training, and developing plans for the state-of-the-art NETI Headquarters
Training Center in Washington, DC. In FY 94, NET! trained more than 7,000 enforcement professionals.
NETI provided training through 180 courses conducted in all 10 regional offices, the NETI-West facility
at Lakewood, Colorado, various State locations, and Mexico. Through funding by grants and cooperative
agreements, NETI assisted the four Regional Environmental Enforcement Associations. This year, the
associations jointly sponsored the Environmental Crime Awareness Training for Law Enforcement, which
was transmitted via satellite to 2,200 local law enforcement officers.
2-19
-------
1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Moreover, NETI redesigned and delivered the Basic Environmental Enforcement Course, which
focuses on the entire enforcement process, including a walk-through inspection, writing inspection reports,
and a mock negotiation simulation. NETI offered several new courses, including the Advanced RCRA
Inspector Institute. Experienced EPA and State RCRA inspectors applied their experiences in RCRA
enforcement through an exchange of information, concepts, and skills.
EPA also conducted several inspector training courses in FY 94, including the following FIFRA
and EPCRA courses: FIFRA Worker Protection Inspector Training, Pesticide Use Inspector Training,
Pesticide Product Enforcement Course, and EPCRA Section 313 Inspector Training and EPCRA Health
and Safety Training.
EPA also developed and distributed several guidance documents, including:
• Acid Rain Compliance/Enforcement Guidance
• Waste Analysis Plan Guidance
• Final guidance on ways to incorporate pollution prevention into NEPA and Clean Air Act
Section 309 environmental review processes.
2.8.4 Initiatives
In addition to the accomplishments discussed according to the six themes, EPA began several other
national initiatives, as demonstrated by the examples in the following list:
• Oil Pollution Act Initiative: EPA, in conjunction with DOJ and the U.S. Coast Guard,
announced the coordinated filing of 28 cases against commercial polluters who unlawfully
discharged oil or other hazardous substances into waters of the United States or adjoining
shorelines and, in some cases, who violated oil spill prevention regulations. The initiative
included two judicial cases filed by DOJ on behalf of EPA and the Coast Guard — 1 civil and
1 criminal — as well as 26 EPA administrative penalty actions in 13 States. The administrative
cases collectively sought civil penalties of approximately $1 million.
One DOJ case involved the discharge of bilge water and waste oil from the cruise ship Viking
Princess that left a 2.5-mile oil slick off the Florida coast. This case resulted in a plea
agreement and the payment of a $500,000 fine. Among the administrative cases, one involved
Tosco Refinery, a refiner and marketer of wholesale petroleum products in Martinez,
California, for spilling more than 2,500 gallons of oil into a drainage ditch that emptied into
U.S. waters. Another involved Burlington Asphalt Corporation in Mt. Holly, New Jersey,
which spilled more than 7,500 gallons of fuel oil onto county property and a storm drain that
emptied into a creek.
• Diesel Enforcement Initiative: EPA' s Mobile Source Program executed a joint initiative with
the State of Maryland and the Internal Revenue Service for enforcement of the diesel
desulfurization regulations. Upon receiving a tip from a Maryland State trooper about possible
diesel misfueling, including the use of untaxed, high-sulfur diesel in motor vehicles in
violation not only of EPA's diesel desulfurization regulations but of both Federal and State
tax laws, a series of joint inspections were conducted, resulting in both State and Federal
2-20
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT I
enforcement actions. Eight notices of violations with proposed penalties of $46,500 were
issued. Three of the cases have been settled for penalties of $8,400.
• TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) Case Initiative: The IUR seeks information to update
EPA's TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory, which is EPA's baseline of information on toxic
substances. To target violators and highlight the importance of compliance with the IUR, EPA
Headquarters and regional offices filed complaints seeking approximately $2.9 million in
penalties against 39 U.S. chemical manufacturers and importers for failing to report specific
chemical production and site information in a timely and accurate manner. EPA launched the
IUR case initiative to increase industry awareness of IUR reporting requirements and of the
IUR reporting cycle.
• FIFRA Good Laboratory Practice Standards Case Initiative: EPA issued 12 civil complaints
against pesticide registrants proposing $183,000 in penalties for violations of the Agency's
GLP standards and FIFRA. Citing the GLP violations, the Agency also issued five warning
letters to the testing facilities that had conducted studies supporting pesticide registrations and
issued one warning letter to another registrant for less serious violations. These enforcement
actions reaffirm EPA's commitment to vigorous enforcement of FIFRA's data quality
provisions.
2.8.5 Regulations, Rulemaking, Policy, and Interpretive Guidance
In FY 94, EPA proposed and promulgated several rales and regulations that focused on various
aspects of the Clean Air Act. For instance, AED worked with the Office of Air and Radiation on
numerous Title Vl-related rales and regulations, including:
• A rale on the phase out of ozone depleting chemicals
• A rale on the sale of nonessential products
• A proposed rale concerning the labeling of products containing ozone depleting chemicals
• Regulations addressing certification of individuals to service motor vehicle air conditioners.
In addition, AED contributed to a proposed rale for the Clean Air Act Field Citations Program
and a proposed rale for the Clean Air Act Citizens Awards. The Mobile Source Enforcement Branch
(MSEB) of AED completed the reformulated gasoline (RFG) and anti-dumping standards and
requirements.
EPA also completed its first year of compliance monitoring and enforcement of the diesel
desulfurization regulations. These regulations, which require the removal of approximately 80 percent of
the sulfur content from unregulated diesel fuel, are a companion to other agency regulations that require
substantial reductions in particulate emissions from diesel motor vehicle engines beginning with the 1994
model year. Program office and enforcement staff conducted extensive public outreach targeting all levels
of the diesel fuel industry, including diesel fuel users, to ensure a smooth industry transition into this new
requirement and to maximize compliance. EPA inspectors were in the field monitoring compliance on
the first effective date of the regulations and completed more than 4,000 inspections during the first year.
EPA also undertook the following regulatory and ralemaking efforts in FY 94:
2-21
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
• Published a proposal to create a new EPCRA Section 313 reporting threshold of 1 million
pounds for facilities that release and/or transfer offsite less than 100 pounds of a regulated
toxic chemical per year.
• Published in the Federal Register a final rule adding 21 chemicals and proposed another rule
to add more than 300 chemicals to the list.
• Published in the Federal Register a final rule amending EPA's hexavalent chromium rule. The
amendment resulted from a petition filed by the Chrome Coalition in the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals. EPA negotiated a settlement agreement under which it would propose an amendment
to narrow the scope of the hexavalent chromium rule.
• Proposed several amendments to its new chemical review process under TSCA Section 5.
These amendments included an expanded exemption for polymers, an expanded low volume
exemption, increased opportunities to use the expedited process for issuing significant new use
rules, and various procedural changes.
• Completed the interim final amendments to the Agency's asbestos Model Accreditation Plan.
This regulation now extends the training and accreditation requirements of AHERA to asbestos
inspectors and abatement personnel in all public and commercial buildings. The new
regulation also contains criteria and standards for revoking the accreditation of persons and
the approval of training courses and state programs.
• Proposed requirements for lead-based paint activities. These regulations establish a training
and accreditation program for lead abatement workers that resembles the asbestos Model
Accreditation Plan. The regulations also prescribe standards for conducting lead-based paint
inspections, hazard assessments, and abatements in target housing (housing built prior to
1978), public and commercial buildings, and superstructures, such as bridges.
In addition to the rules and regulations, EPA issued some major policies and strategies. For
example, the Agency published the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy, which addresses
pollution that occurs as a result of combined sewer overflows. CSOs are overflows that occur when the
capacity of sewer systems or treatment facilities is exceeded due to a precipitation event. The policy is
both a permitting and enforcement strategy and clarifies how CSOs should be permitted in the future.
EPA also issued its Storm Water Enforcement Strategy. The enforcement priorities for the storm water
program were designed to address covered municipalities that have not applied for a storm water permit
and to identify and enforce against covered facilities with industrial activity that have failed to apply for
a storm water permit. EPA also revised the UIC Class I Wells Significant Noncompliance (SNC)
definition in FY 94. Under the revised definition, violations with the potential to affect underground
sources of drinking water are maintained as SNC violations; minor infractions would not necessarily
require SNC reporting.
2.8.6 Native American Affairs
Throughout FY 94, the Agency, specifically OFA, was involved extensively in Native American
affairs and programs. OFA held Interagency Indian Work Group meetings with numerous Federal
agencies, chaired the Headquarters Indian work group monthly meetings, and sponsored the annual
national conference. In addition, OFA completed the FY 93 report entitled, Environmental Activities on
2-22
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Indian Lands and assisted many of the 545 tribes and Alaska Native villages that are preparing to
environmentally manage to their lands. Selected accomplishments in this area include the following:
• General Assistance Program: The Multimedia Assistance Program began in FY 90 with
$151,000 for two pilot projects. In FY 94, $8.5 million was appropriated for the program,
bringing the total to $22.9 million with 133 new and continuation grants serving more than
350 tribes under individual tribal and intertribal consortia grants.
• Treatment as a State Regulations: An intra-agency work group, chaired by OF A, drafted
regulations simplifying the procedure and making it less burdensome and offensive to tribes
to apply and become eligible for grants and program authorization.
• Tribal Enforcement Report: OFA prepared the first annual report to Congress on the number
of tribes approved by the Administrator to enforce environmental laws and the effectiveness
of that enforcement. Although the Administrator had not approved any Native American
tribes to enforce environmental laws, the Agency did enter into pesticide enforcement
agreements with 23 tribes and certified a number of tribal pesticides inspectors.
2.8.7 International Activities
EPA is becoming more involved in international environmental affairs, especially with our North
American neighbors. In FY 94, EPA designed and delivered several programs to an international
audience. For example, NET! trained 56 Mexican inspectors at a 5-day Multimedia Inspection Course.
This course is part of ongoing cooperative training activities between EPA and Mexico's environmental
protection agency, the Secretaria de Desarrollo Social (Ministry of Social Development) (SEDESOL).
NETI also designed and presented a 4-day Train-the-Trainers workshop in Mexico City for 17 SEDESOL
officials, who were selected as future trainers in Mexico.
OFA developed a training course for U.S. and Mexican customs and environmental officials in
detecting and inspecting hazardous waste shipments. The course will be delivered at key border crossings
throughout 1995. OFA also performed the following activities:
• Trained and provided technical assistance to Mexican environmental inspectors and
enforcement personnel
• Promoted interagency cooperation among agencies on both sides of the border through grants
to border enforcement programs implemented by State environmental agencies
• Initiated efforts' to promote voluntary compliance with applicable environmental laws among
U.S. operations in Mexico through environmental auditing and pollution prevention
• Helped prepare subpoenas issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act to U.S. parent
companies of Maquiladoras operating in Mexicali, Mexico.
In conjunction with Regions VI and IX, OFA led EPA efforts with the U.S. /Mexico Cooperative
Enforcement Strategy Work Group. EPA initiated cooperative training efforts with U.S. /Mexican customs
officials in compliance monitoring for transboundary shipments of hazardous waste and began activities
to encourage U.S. parent companies to take leadership roles in promoting compliance and pollution
2-23
-------
TS?
• HOtlF
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
prevention among their Mexican operations through participation in Mexico's environmental audit
program.
In addition, through cooperative activity with Federal and provincial officials, EPA worked with
the Province of Manitoba, Canada, to require pollution control for a major new facility that is equally
stringent to the control on U.S. plants. The Canadian precedent will help maintain competitiveness of U.S.
industry by requiring comparable levels of pollution control for facilities in both countries. OFA also
supervised management of an environmental project in Nizhnii Tagil, Russia, designed to target low-cost
efforts to address the most serious problems in a highly polluted provincial region. Compliance and
enforcement are key elements in the institution building project component, which also includes training
and technical assistance in monitoring, risk assessment, standards, and regulations.
2-24
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
3.0 REGIONAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES
As discussed in Section 2, EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance program involves
coordinated efforts among EPA Headquarters and regional and State offices. This section focuses
primarily on the accomplishments of the regions and on partnerships that exist between the regions and
States in monitoring and ensuring compliance throughout the regulated community.
Authority to implement the wide variety of environmental regulations is sometimes widely
distributed across several regional and State programs. Accordingly, several situations involving disparate
program offices require cooperation and coordination between those offices. To achieve this coordination,
many of the regions have actively promoted region/State partnerships, and FY 94 provided numerous
examples of the beneficial results, including:
• EPA-New England and Massachusetts have begun piloting a coordinated case initiative for
CAA violations; the region is also working with Connecticut to direct pilot efforts at CWA
violations. EPA-New England also undertook an initiative to coordinate CAA Stage I bulk
terminal vapor recovery activities with the States. The region provided inspector training for
the States, issued information requests and emission testing requirements to subject sources,
and conducted emission tests in Massachusetts, Maine, and Connecticut.
• Region II conducted consolidated inspections that were performed jointly with the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, the first such joint Federal/State multimedia
inspections in Region II.
• Region V and the States in the region have entered into cooperative agreements with EPA for
pesticide enforcement. The States now work closely with Region V on inspections and take
many enforcement actions for pesticide misuse violation. The States still refer most of the
product violations to Region V for enforcement. Therefore, most of Region V's FIFRA
enforcement actions are based on the findings of State inspections.
• Region VIII Multimedia Field Inspection Team performed several cooperative inspections that
included State and city agency personnel.
These are a few examples of the coordination that is currently occurring between regions and
States. The following sections provide more examples of these partnerships, as well as further describing
regional and State enforcement and compliance assurance accomplishments.
3.1 MULTIMEDIA APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
As described in Section 2, multimedia compliance monitoring and enforcement represent
increasingly important tools in EPA's efforts to enforce environmental regulations. Multimedia inspections
provide a cost-efficient approach for directing compliance monitoring resources and also increase the
environmental return on enforcement investments.
During FY 94, EPA regions continued to expand their multimedia enforcement activities. Positive
developments have taken place in areas of multimedia program coordination, inspections conducted, and
multimedia enforcement cases brought and settled. Joint efforts have included: increasing the focus on
3-1
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
multimedia issues and methods through implementation of oversight committees, participation in
multimedia enforcement training, and incorporation of national and region-specific priorities in
enforcement targeting strategies. As a result, more multimedia inspections were conducted, with a
corresponding increase in case referrals, administrative actions, criminal actions, and case settlements.
Overall, regional multimedia activity for the year increased. Region II reported 12 consolidated
multimedia inspections, involving essentially all of the program offices. Region III also placed increasing
importance on the role of multimedia enforcement. During FY 94, the region undertook six major
multimedia inspections. The inspections focused on several major regional objectives, including
environmental justice, State-Federal relations, and Federal facility compliance. Region VII conducted eight
consolidated multimedia inspections. These inspections, resulting from the regional targeting mechanism,
included State and local participation, and evaluated environmental justice factors.
Region IV multimedia activities for FY 94 included 19 consolidated multimedia inspections with
two or more programs sending inspectors simultaneously. Two of the inspections were undertaken as part
of the Federal Facility Multimedia Enforcement/Compliance Initiative (at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and the
Naval Complex, Pensacola, Florida). In addition to the 19 multimedia inspections, all of Region IV's
Federal facility inspections were multimedia in nature. The Region IV Federal Facilities Coordination
(FFC) program conducted seven Federal facilities multimedia inspections in FY 94. These FFC program
inspections resulted in at least seven State or EPA Region IV enforcement actions.
Region VIII defined an organizational plan designed
to more effectively address cross cutting,
multimedia issues. The goal of this reorganization
was to place programs and functions in
organizations that will enhance multimedia
opportunities and maintain the large majority of
single-media responsibilities. In FY 94, the region
conducted 10 targeted multimedia inspections. By
including census data evaluation and the three
"lifestyle clusters" suggested by OECA into both
targeting and screening activities, an environmental
justice profile was prepared for each site.
Region IV settled six cases in FY 94
resulting from these multimedia activities. The
total penalties amounted to more than $10.3
million with several penalties yet to be
determined. The RCRA .program settled its
multimedia case against Gulf States Steel for $1.1
million. The RCRA program and the
Underground Storage Tank (UST) program
participated in a major multimedia case against
Somerset Refinery and reached settlement in
principle with penalties of $2.75 million. The
TSCA/CERCLA multimedia case handled by
Region IV against Tennessee Gas Pipeline for violations in several regions was settled for $6.4 million.
Region X multimedia efforts continued to integrate and strengthen a cross-program/multimedia
perspective and capacity into all stages of the compliance assurance and enforcement planning and
decision-making process. The region targets multimedia inspections using risk factors, including the
toxicity and amounts of the pollutant(s) emitted, the proximity to sensitive/disadvantaged populations, the
sensitivity of the environment and history of noncompliance. The region also continued to invest in the
National Multimedia Federal Facilities Initiative, which resulted in enhanced compliance at the Federal
facilities that have been inspected. Two facilities received comprehensive multimedia compliance
inspections.
These examples reflect the increasing emphasis the regions have placed on multimedia
enforcement activities during FY 94. For some regions, the emphasis is maintained and leveraged through
the development of multimedia oversight committees responsible for coordinating multimedia enforcement
activities. In Region VIII, for example, the multimedia program is carried out by a number of offices and
through several mechanisms. The Regional Enforcement Officer and the Regional Enforcement
3-2
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Coordinator are responsible for coordinating the multimedia activities of the 15 separate Regional
enforcement programs. The Regional Enforcement Forum represents all enforcement programs and
coordinates the review and implementation of regional, cross-program, and multimedia inspection and
enforcement activities including inspection coordination and review of selected enforcement actions.
In addition to providing a management structure supportive of multimedia enforcement, some
regions have increased awareness of the potential for multimedia actions through training. Training has
been directed at both regional program office staff and State agency personnel. During FY 94, Region
VII provided multimedia training to the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ). This
training was a result of dialogues between the region and NDEQ management in which NDEQ identified
several specific training needs. Region VII then designed, developed, and provided training that met
NDEQ's needs.
Another example of the region-State partnership at work in multimedia enforcement is provided
by the multimedia inspection of KBP Coil Coaters (Denver, Colorado) conducted in Region VIII. Six
environmental programs were interested in this facility and inspectors participated from four entities,
including EPA, the State, the Denver County Air Program, and the Denver Metro Wastewater Reclamation
District. Various violations were discovered during the inspection, including unidentified waste streams,
unknown process modifications, abandoned underground storage tanks and drums, potential PCB leaks,
fire code violations, and potential OSHA violations.
Based on the coordinated inspections, Region VIII and Colorado began a coordinated enforcement
response to bring this facility into compliance and seek penalties for past violations. The response
includes coordination of additional information requested from the facility, financial status research,
prioritization of compliance activities, tracking and timed issuance of two NOVs, and two administrative
complaints. A team approach involving EPA and State personnel was taken in all these activities.
*
The regions have improved implementation of multimedia enforcement through oversight, training,
and State/region coordination. Equally important, however, are changes in the application of enforcement
efforts. The Regions have expanded the use of multimedia enforcement as one of many tools in support
of broad regional and national enforcement initiatives. For example, an inspection of the New Jersey
Transit Bus Operations supported the national transportation facilities initiative and South Dakota and
Region VIII conducted a multimedia inspection at Merrilat Industries in support of the National Wood
Products Initiative.
Regional targeting strategies directly address national priorities. A primary example is the
incorporation of environmental justice considerations in prioritizing and targeting multimedia inspections.
Regions III, IV, VIII, and X reported consideration of environmental justice in multimedia targeting
strategies. Region VIII, for example, prepares an "environmental justice profile" for each site included
in its inspection targeting and screening process, so that environmental justice is evaluated with other
criteria in determining the need for action at particular sites. (For more information on environmental
justice activities, see Sections 2.2 and 3.2.)
Multimedia enforcement in the regions has also benefitted from the consideration of priorities
particular to the individual regions. For example, Region II actively pursued several regional geographic
enforcement initiatives. The region's initiative in the Catano region of Puerto Rico generated a number
of enforcement cases in addition to its major multimedia cases against PREPA and the Caribbean Petro-
leum Company. The region also pursued geographic initiatives in the Corning, Chemung, and Cortland
aquifer regions of New York, the Camden Aquifer region of New Jersey, and the Niagara Frontier region
3-3
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
of New York. Similarly, as part of the Puget Sound Initiative, Region X participated in inspections in the
Duwamish River watershed, an environmental justice area identified by a GIS mapping system used for
multimedia targeting. In conjunction with these inspections, Region X worked with contractors to create
a multimedia checklist designed to obtain readily available information relating to potential violations of
CWA, EPCRA, CAA, and TSCA.
Region X's experience illustrates another development in multimedia enforcement activities in the
regions, the use of multimedia checklists. Several of the regions have increased their use of this tool to
broaden the scope of program-specific investigations. Region II leads the Nation in single-media
inspections performed using multimedia checklists.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
FY 94 efforts to include environmental justice in enforcement activities vary widely among
regions, with some regions explicitly including environmental justice as a criterion in targeting and others
creating specific geographic initiatives to address enforcement and compliance issues in environmental
justice areas. Some regions have incorporated environmental justice-oriented projects in SEP terms of case
settlements or included equity considerations as part of larger geographic initiatives. This section
summarizes select environmental justice activities in the regions, focusing first on compliance monitoring
efforts and second on enforcement. Taken together, these examples indicate that consideration of
environmental justice is becoming a standard operating procedure in the regions, with environmental
justice activities being combined with other ongoing enforcement and compliance assurance activities.
Region III developed two geographic
initiatives aimed at areas with environmental
justice concerns. One of these initiatives focuses
on Chester, Pennsylvania, an area in which more
than 68 percent of the residents are African-
American, more than 60 percent are on public
assistance, and the average per-capita income is
less than $9,200. This area has a concentration of
industrial sources contributing to pollution, as well
as traffic and noise, which are of great concern to
the residents. The region's enforcement strategy
in Chester has two components: toxic emission
reductions and compliance.
Region IV has made environmental justice a focus
of its enforcement activities within its NPDES
program by doubling monitoring efforts at facilities
located in minority or lower income areas to ensure
compliance. All of the major industrial facilities
along the Lower Mississippi Corridor, from Baton
Rouge to New Orleans, Louisiana, are monitored
closely to ensure compliance. These facilities
comply with their NPDES effluent limitations more
than 99 percent of the time. Compliance rates of
municipalities in the corridor are also closely
monitored as it became necessary to file a
complaint against the City of New Orleans in FY
1994, for long-term improper treatment of its
Region III ranked facilities in Chester using the chronic index, a system of weighing TRI
emissions by their toxicity. The 10 highest scoring facilities were then reviewed for enforcement potential
and a number of multimedia and single-media inspections scheduled. Four multimedia inspections and
numerous single-media inspections are planned in FY 95. The goal of these actions is to reduce, either
directly through injunctions or indirectly through SEPs, emissions of toxic pollutants. A second aspect
of the toxic emission reduction strategy will grow out of a long-term risk assessment for Chester that is
targeted for completion in FY 95. Emissions estimates will be used to model exposures in order to
determine which areas of the city are at the greatest risk. Facilities with the highest emission levels will
then become candidates for increased enforcement surveillance. Region III also plans to improve
compliance with environmental regulations in Chester by increasing oversight in a number of programs.
3-4
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
The region's second geographic initiative focuses on the Anacostia River, Washington, DC. The
Anacostia River is among the most contaminated in the country. Fish tissue contamination is a public
health concern. Economically disadvantaged residents of the surrounding communities are exposed to
risks that EPA and others are seeking to eliminate. Recent studies of the Anacostia identified "hot spots"
of sediment contamination that appear to be associated with particular storm sewers. The sources of these
contaminants, and their potential as continuing sources, are not fully understood.
Region Ill's enforcement strategy is to identify the major sources of the contamination isolated
in the sediment/storm sewer studies and commence enforcement for ongoing discharges. The region will
separately evaluate the contribution of spills (especially of PCBs) in the storm drain area to the observed
contamination of sediments and fish in the Anacostia and evaluate enforcement as a means of preventing
future spills. In addition, the region will evaluate nearby Federal facilities and assess their present or
historic contribution to the problem and responsibility for participating in its solution.
Region X is incorporating multimedia enforcement
tools to address enforcement and compliance
issues in an environmental justice area. As part of
the Puget Sound Initiative, Region X oversaw SPCC
inspections in the Duwamish River watershed, an
environmental justice area identified by the GIS
mapping system used for multimedia targeting. In
conjunction with these inspections, the region
created a multimedia checklist designed to obtain
readily available information relating to potential
violations of CWA, EPCRA, CAA, and TSCA.
Region X is working cooperatively with the State of
In at least two cases in FY 94, EPA-New
England incorporated environmental justice
projects in SEP terms of case settlements. One
such case, involving the Massachusetts Highway
Department (MHD), includes SEP conditions for
provision of hazardous materials emergency
response equipment to the local emergency
planning committees (LEPCs) in communities
affected by MHD operations, with particular focus
on low-income and minority neighborhoods. The
equipment will assist the local committees in
tracking and storing information on the identity
and location of hazardous chemicals in their
districts and enhance their response action information systems. Efforts will also be made to remediate
lots in inner city communities affected by MHD's hazardous waste practices; the plan is then to convert
the lots into beneficial areas, such as parks, green spaces, or economic development projects in the
neighborhoods.
Similarly, EPA entered a consent agreement and final order in which the city of Boston agreed
to pay $117,300 in civil penalties for violation of the TSCA PCB requirements at Boston City Hospital.
The city also agreed to perform a SEP as part of the settlement, which involves removal of 10
underground storage tanks located throughout the city at a cost of more than $80,000. Boston City
Hospital serves mostly a low income, minority population. The settlement will bring this inner city
hospital into compliance with environmental regulations and reduce the risk of harm to public health and
the environment in the Boston minority community.
During FY 94, Region VI developed a civil judicial enforcement action that was filled on October
27, 1994, in the Middle District of Louisiana, against Borden Chemicals and Plastics and two related
Borden entities. The case involves alleged hazardous contaminant releases at Borden's Geismar, Louisiana
facility, which is located in a highly industrialized area on the Mississippi River with a predominantly
African-American population. In addition, the case alleges other violations, including illegal export of
hazardous wastes to South Africa. In a press release issued on October 27, 1994, EPA Administrator
Carol Browner said, "The Clinton Administration is committed to making sure that no company will
realize unfair profits from pollution anywhere in the U.S., but particularly in minority and low-income
communities that already face disproportionate risks." The Administrator also noted that "environmental
3-5
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
pollution does not stop at U.S. borders, and we will use all of our enforcement authorities against those
who engage in the illegal international hazardous waste trade."
3.3 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS
FY 94 witnessed significant enforcement activities aimed at specific industrial sectors in the
regions. Some of the initiatives represented regional efforts to implement larger national programs, as
described in Section 2; others developed from region-specific priorities. This section highlights selected
industry-specific initiatives by region.
Several of the regions accomplished industry-specific compliance monitoring activities during FY
94. EPA-New England, for example, developed and implemented an initiative under the CAA
amendments of 1990. Under the CAA Stage II initiative, the State of Connecticut conducted
approximately 970 inspections at gasoline stations and other facilities subject to the vapor recovery
requirements and issued approximately 800 notices of violation. Also, as part of the National
Administrative Order with Automotive Service Stations project, Region III confirmed the closure of all
facilities inventoried by the major oil corporations within this region. More than 200 wells were closed
as part of the compliance and outreach effort specified in this order. The region also issued proposed
orders for noncompliant facilities that required the violators to inventory all facilities operated in this
Region for additional injection wells and to implement pollution prevention measures at all facilities.
Region VI provides an example of compliance monitoring under the National Combustion
Initiatives. The region and the States annually inspect 100 percent of the combustion facilities actually
burning waste. During FY 94, Region VI issued consent agreement and final orders (CAFOs) for five
combustion cases. In addition, through the course of 30 inspections, Region VI discovered wide-spread
noncompliance among foundries. Based on pervasive noncompliance and the concerns over impacts to
the environment and worker safety, the region targeted the foundry sector for compliance assistance. The
Region conducted inspections, gathered data, and met with industry and State agencies to lay the
groundwork for a meaningful State/EPA compliance outreach to the industry in FY 95.
Region VI's EPCRA enforcement activities included targeted -compliance sweeps of facilities in
a number of industrial sectors. EPA conducted these sweeps in San Antonio and Fort Worth, Texas,
targeting manufacturers, plating shops, refineries, and warehouses. Of the 120 facilities inspected, 11
complaints were issued under EPCRA Section 312, for non-filing of inventory reports with State and local
emergency response agencies.
Region VII also focused much of its
efforts on industry-specific compliance assistance
activities. For example, the region conducted the
following activities:
• Conducted extensive outreach for two
new air toxics rules that were
promulgated under the CAA during
FY 94. Two massive mailings were
sent to the dry cleaning industry and
the region set up a hot-line number to
allow people quick access for answers.
Region VI initiated an effort to ensure that quality
data is being submitted by laboratories. The region
developed an initiative within the NPDES
Enforcement Program to inspect and enforce, as
necessary, against contract laboratories that have
been providing analytical services to a number of
major discharge facilities. The Enforcement
Program also works closely with the Regional
Office of Criminal Investigation to develop cases
against individuals for falsification of discharge
monitoring report data.
3-6
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
• Conducted outreach efforts in the chemical manufacturing industry for the new Hazardous
Organic NESHAPs regulation. A mail-out was sent to 300 potential sources subject to the
new requirements. The region emphasized education and outreach to facilities subject to new
toxics rules promulgated under Section 112 of the CAA.
• Implemented the Missouri Voluntary Compliance Program, which was aimed at non-metallic
mineral processing plants. This program offered a time-limited opportunity to a specific
industrial sector to disclose violations of the CAA NSPS testing/reporting requirements in
exchange for reduced administrative penalties and compliance assistance. This program
brought 45 facilities into compliance, most of which would not have been reached via
traditional enforcement methods. Region VII is continuing with the second phase of this
program, which is to follow up with non-participating facilities in this sector with strong
traditional inspection and enforcement activities.
• Conducted outreach meetings with the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition to assist that industry
sector in complying with the RCRA Boilers and Industrial Furnaces Rule.
• Conducted extensive outreach/compliance assistance activities in the four States to alert and
inform members of the agricultural sector, Congress, State legislatures, and the public of the
requirements of the FIFRA Worker Protection Standards (WPS).
In FY 94, Region VIE conducted three major compliance and enforcement initiatives:
• Mining Initiative: The goal of the Mining Initiative was to obtain compliance with the CWA
at approximately 300 active metal mines and metal mining exploration facilities. In South
Dakota, EPA identified and inspected all metal mines prior to delegation to the State. EPA
has issued NPDES permits to two of the mines and is pursuing an administrative enforcement
action for discharge without an NPDES permit for one of the mines. It is expected that the
State will issue permits to the remaining South Dakota mines by the end of 1994. The
knowledge gained during the initiative will help identify and develop optimum approaches for
regulating mining activities. Previous RCRA inspections at about a dozen mining facilities
(including two trona mines) in Wyoming led to 8 RCRA § 3008(a) orders with FY 94
settlements totalling $506,267 and SEPs totalling $675,794.
• Refinery Initiative: Under this initiative, Region VIII reviewed the issues surrounding the
RCRA/CWA interface pertaining to contaminated ground water seeps to surface water from
petroleum refineries. (This issue gained attention due to recent citizen suits against CRC and
Texaco in the Region.) The region identified approximately 40 operating and closed
refineries. Of these, six have a "high" RCRA corrective action ranking for surface water under
NCAPS. In FY 94, the Court entered a consent decree between the United States and
Defendants known as the Powder River Crude Processors (Texaco Refining and Marketing,
Conoco Pipeline Company, Phillips Petroleum Company, Eighty-eight Oil Company, and True
Oil Company) which requires, among other things, payment of $300,000 in penalties and
performance of work at the Site, estimated to cost several million dollars, which addresses
conditions posing imminent and substantial endangerment to the environment. The Regional
Refinery Workgroup is now completing a comprehensive evaluation of and strategy for all the
refineries in the Region.
3-7
-------
| FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
• Trona Initiative: Wyoming holds the largest deposits of soda ash in the U.S., in the form of
an ore known as "trona." As a result, five trona mines and processing plants have been built
and are currently in operation. The region of southwestern Wyoming in which these plants
are congregated often has a visible layer of air pollution hanging over it, which has prompted
several citizen complaints over the past few years. EPA and the States believe that the five
trona plants are contributing significantly to this pollution. Region VIE decided that, due to
exceedances of mass particulate limits, as determined by stack tests, condensable organic
matter is being emitted and is likely a major contributor to the pollution. Due to the
grandfathering of these sources to the test methods for measuring condensable organics, none
of these "violations" has been able to go forward. The goals of the initiative are to determine
an approach for documenting the opacity violations at these plants and a strategy for correcting
this deficiency, such as a Finding of Violation pursuant to CAA Section 113(a)(2), which may
also lead to additional controls for volatile condensable organics. In FY 94, the RCRA
program settled two RCRA § 3008(a) orders with two trona mines for a total of $239,000.
Additionally, the RCRA program identified a need for training in the management of
hazardous waste at several of the plants. The Region is also addressing acid rain and visibility
issues affecting the Wind River Reservation (9,000 Arapahoe and Shoshone) in the Rock
Springs area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is looking into issues affecting how the
evaporation ponds affect migratory birds and effects on the Bridger and Fitzpatrick Wilderness
Area. Other programs participating in this initiative include: RCRA, NPDES, EPCRA §§
311/312/313, TSCA/PCB, and TSCA §§ 5 and 8. The Region is now completing a
comprehensive multimedia compliance evaluation of all trona mines arid auxiliary industries
in the Region.
Region VIII also contributed to other industry-specific initiatives. In response to the Data Quality
Initiative, the Region undertook targeted inspections of injection well operators' data gathering and
reporting procedures. As a result of the initiative, the region reinforced its belief that clearer UIC
reporting requirements in the UIC regulations are needed and that continued outreach is needed for
operators to ensure that permit/regulatory requirements are thoroughly understood and expectations for
compliance are consistent.
As part of the Federal enforcement program in Colorado and Wyoming, Region VIII specifically
targeted pesticide-producing establishments potentially subject to the WPS, including bulk repackagers and
users of aluminum phosphide type pesticides for prairie dog control. Both initiatives documented
compliance issues (i.e., bulk repackagers are not complying with worker protection relabeling requirements
and users of aluminum phosphide type pesticides continue to violate endangered species labeling).
Region X participated in industry-specific initiatives in FY 94. One Region X air program
initiative involved rock crushing operations subject to Federal NSPS under the CAA. Region X conducted
an intensive training effort to inform the regulated community about the Federal requirements, including
giving operators copies of the checklists used by compliance inspectors, to help facilities voluntarily
comply. Region X conducted several inspections in northern Idaho, met with concerned citizens, and
assisted the State of Idaho in its enforcement against several facilities that were out of compliance. In
addition, Region X reviewed more than 100 pest control advertisements that allegedly made false or
misleading safety claims. A citizen's group submitted the advertisements to EPA for review. As a result
of the review, the region issued 25 warning letters for clear violations of FIFRA and 16 letters advising
companies to make changes to their advertisements for less obvious violations.
3-8
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Region X also funded an initiative by the Idaho Department of Agriculture to conduct a
compliance audit of every commercial and public pesticide applicator in the State during a 2-year period.
The State inspector uses a checklist during the site visit to evaluate recordkeeping, pesticide use,
mixing/loading, storage, and disposal. The inspector signs the checklist, which serves as a warning letter
if violations were noted, and the applicator is given time to make corrections. The initiative gives the
department a chance to make contact with every applicator. More than 400 audits were conducted in FY
94, and the program has been well received in the State.
Under two separate initiatives aimed at public water
systems, Region III issued 209 NOVs to systems
that failed to comply with sampling and reporting
requirements of the Lead and Copper Rule, SDWA,
and 226 NOVs to systems that failed to comply with
sampling and reporting requirements for nitrate
under the Phase II Rule, SDWA.
Several regional industry-specific
enforcement actions also took place in FY 94.
Region II initiated industry-specific enforcement
activities under the CAA. The Region issued
administrative penalty complaints against the
owners of six boating supply stores for violating
the ban on the sale of "non-essential" products
containing CFCs. The region issued these penalty
actions after inspections of the stores revealed that each store was selling CFC-based propellants for
marine safety horns. Region II also initiated the first administrative penalty actions to secure compliance
with the Sewage Sludge Use/Disposal Regulations (Part 503 Regulations) recently promulgated under
Section 405 of the Clean Water Act. In August 1994, the Region filed five administrative complaints
against municipal wastewater treatment works under Section 309(g) of the CWA.
Region IV s RCRA program continued to lead the Nation in providing cases for the National
Combustion Initiative. Region IV and its States had 12 of the 22 cases settled and 2 of the 10 new actions
announced under this national initiative. Special emphasis was also given to the CFC initiative in the
region. Region IV announced the filing of nine administrative enforcement actions seeking $256,989 in
penalties for violations of Sections 608 and 609 of the CAA. The cases involving Section 608 allege
violations of disposal regulations for appliances containing refrigerant capable of damaging the ozone layer
and/or violations of prohibitions of venting refrigerant directly into the atmosphere. The cases involving
Section 609 allege failure to have certified equipment and technicians servicing motor vehicle air
conditioners.
During FY 94, Region VII issued 26 administrative complaints for violations of Section 609(c)
of the CAA. Respondents were charged with servicing or repairing motor vehicle air conditioners without
proper training and certification by an approved technician certification program and/or without proper
use of approved equipment. The complaints addressed violators in each of the States located in Region
VII and the proposed penalties totaled $170,000. Eleven of the 28 FIFRA administrative complaints
issued by Region VII in FY 94 involved cross-contamination of bulk repackaged pesticides. These cases,
which are highly complex and controversial and have no precedent, have consumed a significant amount
of regional resources to develop and litigate. They have also focused national attention on the regulated
community and the Agency on pesticide product cross-contamination and have encouraged coordination
among the members of the regulated community, States, and the Agency to try and resolve the difficult
regulatory and potential risk and food safety issues posed by cross-contamination of pesticides.
3.4 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
EPA uses SEPs to gain significant environmental benefits in conjunction with the settlement of
enforcement cases. Nominally, SEPs are projects voluntarily undertaken by members of the regulated
community in conjunction with case settlements to provide some level of environmental benefit usually
3-9
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
unrelated to the nature of the violations committed. In exchange for SEP performance, the facility is
granted penalty relief equaling some fraction of the total value of the stipulated penalty. Historically
applied predominantly in reporting violation cases, SEPs are maturing into a more versatile tool, with
SEPs now included in CAA, CWA, RCRA, and other program area settlements.
In FY 94, EPA-New England negotiated 21 SEPs worth approximately $7.3 million. Region II
included SEPs in 28 settlements under the CAA, EPCRA, TSCA, RCRA, and CWA programs with a total
dollar value of more than $18.5 million. In most cases, the value of these SEPs substantially exceeded
the value of the civil penalties that they were used to offset; overall, penalty offsets totaled less than $4
million. Region IH negotiated 10 SEPs, at a total dollar value of approximately $10.2 million. Region
VII incorporated SEPs into settlements at a value of more than $7 million. Region V also settled several
cases using SEPs with a total value of the SEPs being approximately $5.4 million. Thirteen SEPs were
worth more than $100,000. Region X negotiated 25 SEPs in FY 94. The dollar value of the. SEPs was
nearly $1.3 million. Of the 25 SEPs, 20 were in the pollution reduction and pollution prevention
categories.
In FY 94, SEPs included diverse projects such as resource commitments to local emergency
planning councils, an air toxics reduction technology demonstration study, source reduction and pollution
reduction programs and process changes, energy conservation, land reclamation, and recycling. Pollution
prevention projects received particular attention, in keeping with current regional and national priorities.
Table 3-1 lists some of the types of projects included as SEPs in case settlements.
Some of the SEPs incorporated into settlements require substantial process modifications at
manufacturing facilities resulting in significant source reduction gains benefitting the environment. Region
III executed a CACO, with an associated Settlement Conditions Document, settling an EPCRA
administrative action filed against the Homer Laughlin China Company for violations of EPCRA Section
313. The settlement included a substantial SEP, exceeding $9 million, in which Laughlin converted its
entire china dinner-ware production system to a lead free process.
A consent decree filed in settlement of claims against I.E. DuPont de Nemours for violations of
its NPDES permit and Section 301 of the CWA contained a pollution prevention SEP. This SEP will
prevent the generation of between 60 million and 145 million pounds of RCRA hazardous waste per year
currently being deep well injected in onsite disposal wells. The information on the violations was received
from self-reporting and from an EPA inspection. Under the consent decree, DuPont agreed to pay a civil
penalty of $516,430 and to perform a SEP costing an estimated $3.2 million.
The process modifications required in some SEPs may also involve the application of developing
innovative technologies, thereby serving a valuable technology demonstration function with possible
attendant environmental benefits at future sites. For example, Region IV filed a CACO against Everwood
Treatment Company, Inc., resolving Everwood's violations of Section 103 of CERCLA and Section 304
of EPCRA. The CACO settled this action for $54,500 and required the respondent to pay $32,000. In
addition, the CACO calls for Everwood to implement a SEP to construct a new wood treatment plant built
specifically for the use of a wood preservative that is not a hazardous waste. This SEP will cost
approximately $225,000. If successful, Everwood's SEP could set a precedent for other wood treaters and,
thus encourage the reduction in one the Nation's most toxic hazardous wastes.
3-10
-------
s •
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT I^
Table 3-1. Types of Supplemental Environmental Projects in Case Settlements
SEP Category
Cleanup/Restoration Projects
Disposal
Environmental Audit
Outreach/Enforcement-Related Environmental
Public Awareness Projects
Source Reduction/Pollution Prevention —
Process Modification
Source Reduction/Pollution Prevention —
Technological Improvement
Training
Waste Minimization/Pollution Reduction—
Process Modification
Waste Minimization/Pollution Reduction —
Recycling
Waste Minimization/Pollution Reduction —
Technological Improvement
Example of Project Type Included in FY 1994 SEP
• UST removal
• Abandoned oil production well plugging and site restoration
• Abandoned mine land reclamation (partial)
• PCB testing and removal
• Asbestos abatement
• Facility environmental and chemical usage audits
• Resource commitments (e.g., computers, other equipment,
personnel) to LEPCs
• Solvent substitution and other toxics reduction through product
substitution
Installation of alternative cooling system to reduce fresh water
withdrawals
Compliance awareness publications in trade journals
Training for LEPCs
• Installation of high-efficiency lighting
Wastewater treatment facility improvements
Utilization of wastewater treatment sludge as fertilizer
• Improved scrubber performance for air toxics reduction
• Demonstration project for air toxics reduction
In Region IV, the U.S. District Court entered a
consent decree that settled Crown, Cork & Seal
Inc.'s (CC&S) alleged violations of the CAA's
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
requirements and NSPS. The CACO had a civil
penalty of $343,000 and required CC&S to perform
three SEPs valued at more than $2 million. The
penalty represents one of the largest CAA
Several FY 94 SEPs required violators to
perform environmental projects at locations other
than where violations occurred. This approach
directed effort toward achieving a greater
environmental benefit than may otherwise have
been practicable. In one such case,.the U.S.'
District Court entered a consent decree resolving
a suit brought by EPA and the State of Arizona
against Magma Copper Company in response to
violations of the CWA and related State law at three copper mining and processing facilities operated in
southeastern Arizona. The decree requires Magma to pay penalties of $385,000 to the United States and
$240,000 to the State of Arizona. The decree also requires Magma to undertake compliance measures and
to complete a SEP designed to control contamination at an abandoned mine. The cost to Magma is
estimated to be $1.5 million. In addition, the decree further requires Magma to pay $50,000 to fund three
additional SEPs that the U.S. Forest Service will complete to benefit the affected watersheds.
In another multisite SEP, Region III and Anzon, Inc., a manufacturer of lead products, settled a
TSCA administrative complaint involving violations of the Inventory Update Rule (IUR) requirements of
the TSCA. Anzon failed to submit IUR reports on four chemicals manufactured at its Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, plant. Anzon agreed to pay a $57,000 civil penalty, $43,620 of which may be remitted by
EPA upon completion of SEPs in Anzon's Philadelphia and Laredo, Texas, facilities. The Philadelphia
project involves the early removal and disposal of four PCB transformers. The Laredo project requires
increased controls for the capture of antimony oxide emissions from the facility. These projects have a
combined estimated cost of $198,800. The Laredo project represents a TSCA settlement in Region III
with an "inter-regional" SEP.
3-11
-------
1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
In Region V, two noteworthy SEPs were negotiated in FY 94. In the first, Ohio Power agreed
to remove 600 PCS capacitors at a cost of $61,547. The second SEP, for EPCRA Section 313 violations,
requires Welded Tube in Chicago, Illinois, to replace its solvent paint with water-based paint to reduce
the release of toluene and xylene by 298,610 pounds per year. The SEP is estimated at $300,000.
3.5 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS
Unlike other initiative areas discussed in this document, consideration of sensitive ecosystems in
regional enforcement activities does not relate to discrete program activities. Whereas SEPs and
multimedia activities relate to the specific category of enforcement activity conducted, and industry-
specific or Federal facility initiatives relate to identifiable sub-populations of the regulated community,
sensitive ecosystem activities can include a wide range of enforcement or compliance assurance tactics
and can be aimed at any specific or mixed population of the regulated community. As shown in Section
3.2, several environmental justice initiatives could also be categorized as sensitive ecosystem or sensitive
environment initiatives. This section presents regional efforts to protect identified sensitive ecosystems
and environments, other than those with environmental justice concerns.
During FY 94, a number of regions conducted geographic initiatives targeting identifiable
ecosystems. Region II, for example, brought a case against Broomer Research, Inc., which is located in
a mixed industrial and residential area of Islip, Long Island, New York, and is situated directly over a
ground water aquifer, a source of drinking water for the community. The plant manufactures optical
lenses and uses thorium fluoride and organic solvents in the coating and cleaning process. The Suffolk
County Department of Health (SCDOH) identified organic solvents in the wastewater sludges generated
and then discharged by Broomer into its sanitary septic system. EPA, SCDOH, the U.S. Attorney for the
Eastern District of New York, and several other Department of Defense offices executed a search warrant
to inspect this facility. Samples taken during this inspection contained appreciable amounts of organic
solvents in the wastewater and appreciable levels of radionuclides, assumed to be thorium, in the sludge
discharged to the septic system. On June 24, 1994, Region II issued an administrative order on consent
to Broomer Research, Inc. under the "emergency" authorities of Section 7003 of RCRA and Section 1431
of SDWA. This is the first time the Region has used its emergency authority under Section 1431 of
SDWA.
The Mid-Snake River area (near Twin Falls, Idaho) has and continues to be a high-priority
watershed for Region X. The region conducted a workshop in Boise, Idaho, for State and EPA inspectors
in preparation for the upcoming inspections of feedlots and dairies in the Twin Falls and Boise areas. The
workshop covered items to look for at these operations and information required for the inspection reports.
Region X and the State inspected 74 facilities, several of which were identified as having violated the
CWA. EPA is preparing these cases for formal enforcement actions. The inspections also identified 24
facilities with potential problems. These facilities were sent letters notifying them of the potential
problems.
Another example of ecosystem protection is Region V's new effort to protect the ecosystem of
the Mississippi River basin. In addition to its Cleveland office, the region's Criminal Investigation
Division has recently announced the opening of new offices in Minneapolis and Detroit. These offices
ensure that a local workforce is available to investigate and support prosecutions in these areas. Region
V has also taken steps to protect other sensitive ecosystems in the region, including:
• 21 SEPs negotiated in the Great Lakes Basin of Region V in hopes of providing added
protection for that sensitive environment
3-12
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT f
• 6 SEPs negotiated in the geographic region of the SEMI Initiative
• SEPs in other geographic initiatives as well, including 2 under the Gateway Initiative.
3.6 FEDERAL FACILITIES
In FY 94, the regions continued to focus their enforcement and compliance assistance activities
on Federal facilities. Using the Federal Facilities Compliance Act as its basis, Regional enforcement
personnel continued to target, inspect, and take enforcement actions against Federal facilities. In several
of the activities, the region and the applicable State worked closely to ensure that the action taken would
benefit both public health and the environment. EPA-New England initiated a specific compliance
assistance program in FY 94 — the Multimedia Federal Facility Program environmental management review
(EMR) effort. The purpose of conducting an EMR is to review a Federal facility's overall environmental
management program (structure, staffing, training program) and assist the facility with compliance issues.
After an EMR is conducted, a brief report is prepared and provided to the facility. In FY 94, two EMRs
were conducted, and six are planned for FY 95.
Several regions also conducted compliance monitoring activities at Federal facilities. During FY
94, for example, Region III continued its vigorous oversight of environmental regulations/statutes at
Federal facilities. This included multimedia inspections at Ft. Belvoir, Maryland, and the Naval Surface
Warfare Center at Indian Head, Maryland. Regions n and IV also targeted Federal facilities for
multimedia inspections. Region II conducted three Federal facility multimedia inspections in FY 94;
Region IV conducted seven Federal facility multimedia inspections.
While the majority of such actions are typically taken against military installations (i.e., Army
bases, Navy bases), some are taken against other types of Federal facilities. For example, Region HI
issued an emergency administrative order under Section 1431 of the SDWA to the District of Columbia.
The Government of the District of Columbia owns and operates a public water system for the storage and
distribution of piped water for human consumption to the residents ,of the District and surrounding areas.
The Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, provides the water. In late 1993, water samples
collected by the District and analyzed were total coliform positive, a violation of the Total Coliform Rule.
One repeat sample was fecal coliform positive, an acute violation that may pose a risk to human health.
The District issued a boil water advisory to the people in the vicinity of the fecal coliform positive sample
location, issued public notice of the violations, and increased its distribution system flushing program.
In response to the imminent and substantial endangerment created by the unusually high
percentage of total coliform-pbsitive samples within the District of Columbia' s public water system, EPA
Region III issued an Emergency Administrative Order to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore
District, to determine whether the Corps contributed to or could have helped prevent the District's
violation. EPA staff from Region III, Headquarters, and Cincinnati, inspected the treatment plants and
made recommendations for further action by the Corps of Engineers.
Before the Corps had the opportunity to implement EPA's recommendations, an exceedance of
the turbidity maximum contaminant level (MCL) occurred at the Dalecarlia water treatment plant. In
response to this turbidity MCL exceedance, EPA issued a boil water notice to all users of the distribution
system in Falls Church and Arlington, Virginia, as well as in the District. EPA established a command
center and hotline in the offices of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and directed
the Corps to conduct extensive water quality monitoring. Testing was negative, and the boil water
advisory was lifted. Following inspections of the Dalecarlia plant by EPA Headquarters, Cincinnati, and
3-13
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
regional personnel and a subsequent investigation by EPA's NEIC, Region HI issued an Emergency Order
to the Corps that incorporated the recommendations from the inspections. In addition, the order
incorporated the recommendations from EPA's previous investigation of the coliform problem. EPA
subsequently participated hi two congressional hearings on the matter conducted by the District's
Representative to Congress.
94:
EPA and the States initiated the following enforcement actions against military installations in FY
Naval Construction Battalion Center (NCBC): EPA-New England reached a precedent-
setting settlement with the Navy under RCRA. The Navy agreed to pay a penalty of $57,223
for RCRA violations at the Naval Construction Battalion Center in Davisville, Rhode Island.
The penalty was the first RCRA penalty collected by the region against a Federal facility and
the first collected nationally from the Navy under the Federal Facility Compliance Act of
1992. The action resulted from a multimedia inspection of the facility conducted by EPA-
New England with State participation. The complaint alleged numerous hazardous waste
management and disposal violations by the Navy.
Natick Army Laboratory: EPA-New England issued its first complaint against the Army
pursuant to EPA's authority under the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. Based on
an inspection at the Natick facility, the region proposed a civil penalty of $117,000. The
respondent violated a variety of RCRA base program requirements, including failure to
properly conduct hazardous waste determinations, failure to clearly label and mark satellite
accumulation containers, failure to keep containers of hazardous waste closed during storage,
and failure to label properly containers stored at the less than 90 day storage area.
West Virginia Ordnance Works: A dispute with the U.S. Army resulted in payment of
stipulated penalties to Region III in the amount of $500,000 for violations occurring at the
West Virginia Ordnance Works Superfund Site. EPA assessed stipulated penalties in the
amount of $2 million for the Army's failure to submit documents within the established
deadlines of the second IAG. The Army invoked the dispute resolution provisions of the
lAGs; the disputes were eventually elevated to the Senior Executive Committee, which settled
on a $500,000 penalty with requirements to implement an improved reporting and tracking
system.
RCRA-Aberdeen Proving Ground Facility: EPA Region HI issued a RCRA Section 3008(a)
administrative complaint to the U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) facility in
Aberdeen, Maryland, citing APG for storing for more than 1 year 171 containers of hazardous
waste restricted from land disposal. The complaint also cited APG for manifest violations
concerning the shipment of land disposal restricted hazardous waste. The penalty was
$115,546. This administrative complaint was the first issued by Region III to a Federal
facility pursuant to the newly enacted Federal Facility Compliance Act. In addition to this
RCRA action, the SDWA-UIC program is undertaking an inventory and remediation action
at Aberdeen in response to the identification of numerous injection wells at the facility.
In the Matter of U.S. Naval Air Facility, El Centra, California: Region IX signed a CACO
resolving an administrative complaint against the U.S. Naval Air Facility in El Centro,
California, involving various RCRA violations. Under the terms of the settlement, the Navy
will pay a penalty of $100,000 and will implement two SEPs relating to pollution prevention.
3-14
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT I rw^}
V
The first SEP involves the installation of six jet parts washers that will use high-velocity water
and biodegradable detergent in lieu of the solvents currently used to achieve a 90-percent
reduction in the volume of hazardous wastes used in degreasing operations. The second SEP
involves the construction of a hazardous waste minimization center, which will achieve a 25-
percent reduction in hazardous waste generation through centralized ordering and distribution
of hazardous materials. The total cost of the two supplemental environmental projects is
approximately $250,000.
The case is significant because it was Region IX' s first enforcement action under the Federal
Facility Compliance Act of 1992. In addition, the consent agreement is significant because,
for the first time in an agreement with a Federal facility, EPA was able to limit the dispute
resolution process to the regional level. Any disputes under this consent agreement will not
go beyond the Deputy Director of Region IX' s Hazardous Waste Management Division.
3-15
-------
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AND PENALTIES
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) mandate to protect public health and safety
depends on effective enforcement. The costs of violating environmental laws, both direct litigation costs,
as well as costs resulting from remediation and the assessment of civil penalties or criminal fines and
incarceration, are great. Strong, deterrence-based enforcement—as reflected, for example, in the rapid
growth of EPA's criminal enforcement program—creates a climate that forcefully motivates innovation,
prevention, and compliance by the regulated community.
EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance program operates at its peak when strong
enforcement is used in tandem with the compliance assistance programs. The tools and methods are
familiar:
• Criminal sanctions
• Administrative actions/injunctive relief that force violators to correct their violations
• Civil/Judicial referrals
• Monetary penalties that are designed to punish violators and assure the recovery of the
economic benefit of noncompliance.
These tools, used in conjunction with the compliance assurance activities identified and discussed
throughout this document, will continue to play a pivotal role in increasing compliance with environmental
laws and regulations, and thus protecting human health and the environment.
During FY 94, the Agency brought a record 2,246 enforcement actions with sanctions, surpassing
the previous mark established in FY 93. This record includes 220 criminal cases, 1,596 administrative
penalty actions, 403 new civil referrals to the Department of Justice, and 27 additional civil referrals to
enforce existing consent decrees. These administrative, judicial, and criminal sanctions are the primary
enforcement tools used to correct violations, establish deterrence, and create incentives for future
compliance.
The FY 94 figures also indicate that the States were active in their enforcement efforts against
noncomplying entities. These figures indicate that States took 11,334 enforcement actions. The States
take the majority of environmental enforcement actions and are primary partners with EPA in assuring
national compliance with the environmental laws and regulations.
Penalties for FY 94 totaled a record $151 million combined for civil penalties and criminal fines
and another $206 million was returned to the Treasury through Superfund cost recovery. Figure 4-1
presents the FY 94 penalty totals compared to the totals for the last 5 years.
The Agency's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) greatly expanded the scope of its
activities. In October 1992, Congress, through the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA), clarified that
EPA has RCRA order and penalty authority against Federal agencies. Since passage of the FFCA, EPA
has issued 20 compliance orders to Federal agencies. In FY 94, it issued 10 RCRA administrative penalty
orders to military facilities with proposed penalties exceeding $5.7 million. In addition, the program
negotiated 5 federal facility compliance agreements and 2 CERCLA cleanup agreements. OFFE also
4-1
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Figure 4-1. EPA Civil Penalties and Criminal Fines
$22 Exxon
ValdezFine
continued to implement its Federal Facilities Multimedia Enforcement/Compliance Initiative by taking
follow-up enforcement actions after conducting 41 multimedia investigations at federal facilities across
the country in FY 93.
The following sections discuss some of the specific environmental enforcement activities, including
criminal enforcement, administrative enforcement, referrals, and CERCLA enforcement. There is also a
general discussion of penalties. This section concludes with several tables that contain regional-specific
information pertaining to environmental enforcement activities and penalties.
4.1 CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT
EPA's criminal enforcement program set new records in several categories, including 220 referrals
to the Department of Justice (36 percent more than the record of 140 set in FY 93), criminal charges
brought against 250 individual and corporate defendants (40 percent more than the record of 161 set in
FY 93), and 99 years worth of jail sentences imposed (25 percent more than the 74.3 years of
incarceration imposed in FY 93). The program also assessed $36.8 million in criminal fines (19 percent
more than the $29.7 million assessed in FY 93). Figure 4-2 provides a statistical comparison of criminal
enforcement activities over the last 5 years.
The Pollution Prosecution Act (PPA) of 1990 authorized a number of enhancements to EPA's
enforcement program. Most significantly, the Act mandated an increase in criminal investigators to 200
by FY 96. In addition, the PPA required "increasing numbers of additional support staff (i.e., technical,
legal, and administrative) to the Office of Criminal Enforcement." By the end of FY 94, EPA had
increased the number of criminal agents to 123 compared to 47 in FY 89. As shown in Figure 4-1, this
4-2
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
1
•MK
•B
O
CM
O
\O tr>
§ 10 O •* TT
a
§3; o T-I o
o in ^o in
T-I i—< i—< rH C O
^ s
•^ V)
O rH P< tf) Tf
S S 21 S1 ^
Q^ o> vs ^ 9\
fa t£
a
o
O
I
*
* *
4-3
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
additional investment in agents has yielded significant increases in most key areas of the criminal program
including 525 new investigations in FY 94.
As mentioned, OCE referred 220 criminal cases to DOJ in FY 94 and opened 525 new
investigations. Table 4-1 presents information on the number of referrals and new investigations by
statute.
Table 4-1. Number of New Investigations Opened and Referrals to DOJ
by EPA's Criminal Enforcement Program in FY 94
Statute/Program Area
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Wetlands
Safe Drinking Water Act
RCRA
CERCLA
TSCA
FIFRA
Other
Total
New Investigations Opened
89
174
14
7
173
21
11
22
14
525
Referrals to DOJ
39
66
3
2
74
12
6
15
3
220
Also contributing to the increase in criminal enforcement activity is a document issued by OCE—
"Guidance on the Exercise of Investigative Discretion." This guidance was the first comprehensive
guidance issued by EPA that established discrete criteria for Agency investigators when considering
whether or not to proceed with a criminal investigation. The guidance was designed to promote
consistent, but flexible application of the criminal environmental statutes.
4.2 CIVIL ENFORCEMENT
In FY 94, the Agency took nearly 3,600 administrative enforcement actions. This number
emphasizes the importance EPA is placing on administrative enforcement mechanisms to address
violations, compel regulated facilities to achieve compliance, and assess penalties. EPA's expanded
authority with administrative actions now allows the Agency to impose injunctive relief and penalties that
are comparable to those that could be imposed through civil judicial enforcement. In FY 94, EPA issued
1,596 administrative penalty orders for more than $48 million. Table 4-2 provides information on
administrative penalty orders by statute/program area.
4-4
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT I
Table 4-2. Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area
Statute/Program
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
RCRA
UST
TSCA
EPCRA
FIFRA
CERCLA
Total
No. of Cases
171
272
70
103
102
288
242
150
35
1,433'
Penalties
(in dollars)
3,882,550
5,154,892
393,402
9,824,031
3,760,190
14,236,483
8,266,020
1,779,448
723,925
48,021,941'
1 These numbers do not include the 163 administrative penalty actions taken by EPA
Headquarters under the Clean Air Act. Penalty amounts were not available at the time of
publication.
In addition to the administrative penalty orders, EPA issued a total of 166 civil judicial penalties
totalling more than $65 million. Table 4-3 presents a breakout of those penalties by statute/program area.
Figures 4-3 through 4-6 on the following pages are graphical representations of the administrative
and civil judicial statistics.
Table 4-3. Civil Judicial Penalties by Statute/Program Area
Statute/Program
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
RCRA
TSCA
EPCRA
FIFRA
CERCLA
Multimedia
Total
No. of Cases
67
51
2
24
2
0
1
17
2
166
Penalties
(in dollars)
13,490,486
20,006,225
20,000
12,342,760
1,121,100
0
500
4,999,859
13,655,000
65,635,930
4-5
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Figure 4-3. Number of Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area
300
250
200
ISO
100
50
272
242
Clean Air Clean Safe RCRA UST TSCA EPCRA FIFRA CERCLA
Act Water Drinking
Act Water Act
Figure 4-4. Total Penalties Assessed in Administrative Penalty Orders
(by Statute/Program Area)
$15,000,000
$12,000.000
$9.000.000
•1
$6.000.000
$3,000,000
$0
Clean Clean Safe RCRA UST TSCA EPCRA FIFRA CERCLA
Air Act Water Drinking
Act Water Act
4-6
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT j
Figure 4-5. Number of Civil Judicial Penalties by Statute/Program Area
80
70
60
50
30
20
Clean Clean Safe RCRA TSCA EPCRA FffRA CERCLA Multimedia
Air Act Water Drinking
Act Water Act
Figure 4-6. Total Amount of Civil Judicial Penalties (by Statute/Program Area)
$24,000,000 -
$22,500,000 -
$21,000,000 -
$19,500,000 -
$18,000,000 -
$16,500,000 -
| $15,000,000 -
•§ $13.500,000 -
.3.
g $12,000,000
1| $10,500,000
^* $9,000,000
$7,500,000
$6,000,000
$4,500,000
$3,000,000
$1,500,000
$0
$20,006,225
$13.490,486
$13,655,000
Clean Clean Safe RCRA TSCA EPCRA FIFRA CERCLA Multimedia
Air Water Drinking
Act Act Water Act
4-7
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Several regions reported information on injunctive relief. In Region II, for example, there was
approximately $350 million in non-CERCLA injunctive relief (largely driven by the Kodak settlement)
and approximately $112 million in CERCLA injunctive relief. In Region III, preliminary estimates
indicate an injunctive relief/cost recovery total of nearly $412 million. The large dollar value reported
is largely attributable to the region's Superfund Enforcement Program, especially the Removal
Enforcement Program, which had a $267 million multi-regional settlement in FY 94. In Region V, there
were 63 injunctive relief cases. The value of the injunctive relief in FY 94 was $141 million. However,
there are still several cases pending that could change this number. Region VIII reported five cases with
injunctive relief.
4.3 CIVIL REFERRALS
The 430 civil referrals brought in FY 94 by the regions and the regulatory enforcement office—
both new and to enforce existing consent decrees—are the highest 1-year total in EPA's history. In
addition to the 403 civil referrals, the Agency also referred 27 cases to DOJ to enforce existing consent
decrees. Table 4-4 presents information on the statute/program area of the 430 FY 94 civil referrals.
Table 4-4. Number of Civil Referrals by Statute
Statute
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
RCRA
TSCA
EPCRA
FIFRA
CERCLA
Total
Number of Civil Referrals
139
86
11
35
6
6
1
144
428'
This number does not include 2 civil referrals made by EPA Headquarters.
4.4 CERCLA ENFORCEMENT
The Superfund program secured more than $1.4 billion in private party remedial cleanup
commitments in FY 94. This was the fifth consecutive year in which private party cleanup commitments
exceeded $1 billion, bringing the total value of private party cleanups to $10 billion since the program's
inception. Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) conducted approximately 80 percent of the remedial
work at National Priority List sites during FY 94, the largest percentage to date.
Of this total amount, approximately $959 million was for remedial design and remedial action
(RD/RA) response work. The three types of RD/RA settlements and their associated values were:
4-8
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
• 35 consent decrees referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for cleanup response estimated
at $585 million
• 35 unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) issued to PRPs and with which they have agreed
to comply, for response worth over $295 million
• 18 administrative orders on consent (AOCs) for remedial design estimated at close to $79
million.
The Superfund program also concluded "de minimis" settlements with over 4,000 PRPs, by far
the most negotiated in any single year since the inception of the program. The Superfund enforcement
program has expanded the use of these settlements to make negotiations more efficient and to reduce the
transaction costs to parties that had been only minor contributors of wastes to superfund sites.
In FY 94 the Agency issued a total of 110 unilateral administrative orders (versus 126 in FY-93),
and signed 154 administrative orders on consent (versus 108 in FY-93) with PRPs. The Agency addressed
186 past costs cases, including statute of limitations cases, for amounts greater than or equal to $200,000.
Of these actions:
• 42 were cases referred to DOJ for cost recovery
• 34 were administrative settlements
• 74 were decision documents in which EPA formally decided not to pursue any further cost
recovery actions.
The program achieved total cost recovery settlements worth over $205 million (compared to $199
million achieved in FY 93).
In FY 94 approximately 75 percent of the total RD/RA starts at non-federal facility sites were
initiated by PRPs. In FY 93, the percentage of PRP initiated RD starts was 65 percent, and the percentage
of PRP initiated RA starts was 79 percent.
Since the inception of the Superfund Program in 1980, PRPs have committed to response actions
estimated at over $10 billion, and the program has achieved cost recovery settlements for over $1.4 billion.
4.4.1 Alternative Dispute Resolution
During FY 94, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Regional Offices
of Regional Counsel made substantial progress toward the Agency's stated goals of making the
consideration and appropriate use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms standard operating
procedure for all enforcement actions and implementing the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and
Executive Order on Civil Justice Reform. Significant strides were made in every aspect of the ADR
Program including case use of ADR, case support systems, training and internal ADR services, and
outreach to the regulated community.
The use of ADR mechanisms to assist resolution of enforcement negotiations were initiated by
Regional offices in 13 civil actions during FY 94. These results substantially surpassed the figures for
FY 1993. In addition, at 29 sites regional offices supported PRP allocation settlement efforts through
4-9
-------
I FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
encouraging and providing ADR services in coordination with OSRE. Regional support for the use of
ADR grew substantially, with all regional offices using or supporting PRP use of ADR to assist settlement
efforts. FY 94 also heralded an increased awareness of ADR as a tool for increasing the efficiency of
resolution of future disputes, with mediation included in the dispute resolution provisions of several
judicial and administrative settlement documents.
The scope of ADR use also expanded during FY 94, with the first significant uses of ADR beyond
traditional Superfund cost recovery and RD/RA cases. For the first time in actions of this magnitude,
Region n and Region IH utilized ADR professionals to obtain agreement on major de minimis settlements
involving over 1,000 parties. In addition, a pilot in the use of arbitration to resolve Superfund cost
recovery cases, conducted with the assistance of private arbitration experts, resulted in the drafting of
proposed case selection criteria and hearing procedures.
4.5 EPA CONTRACTOR LISTING
In June of 1994, the responsibility for administering the contractor listing program shifted from
OECA to the Office of Administration and Resources Management. Prior to the reorganization, 18
facilities were added to EPA's List of Violating Facilities (List) under the authorities provided to EPA by
the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 306 and Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 508. Under these sections
of the CAA and CWA, Federal agencies are prohibited by statutory mandate 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), effective automatically on the date of the conviction. Facilities that are mandatorily
listed remain on the List until EPA determines they have corrected the conditions that resulted in the
violations. As of June 1994, 133 total facilities were on the List. Eighteen of these were added in FY
94. Seven facilities were removed from the List in FY 94 and an additional 13 removal requests were
pending.
4-10
-------
I FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REGION I • , A-l
CLEAN AIR ACT - A-l
U.S. v. D'Addario Industries, Inc., et al. (D. Conn.) • • A-l
In re Syncor International Corporation A-l
CLEAN WATER ACT . A-l
U.S. v. L.S. Starrett Company (D. Mass.) A-l
RCRA A-l
Allegro Microsystems, Inc • • • •.....;.... A-l
In re Massachusetts Highway Department A-l
U.S. v. Hanlin Group, Inc. (D. Maine) - A-l
In re Hamilton-Standard A-2
In re Upjohn Company A-2
TSCA A'2
U.S. v. New Waterbury, Ltd. (D. Conn.) A-2
In re City of Boston, Boston City Hospital A-2
EPCRA A-2
In re Wyman-Gordon, Inc A-2
CERCLA A-3
U.S. v. O.K. Tool Company, et al. (D. N.H.) A-3
U.S. v. Conductron Corporation, et al. (D. N.H.) A-3
U.S. v. William Davis, et al. (D. R.I.) A-3
U.S. v. DiBiase Salem Realty Trust, et al. (D. Mass.) A-3
REGION II A-4
CLEAN AIR ACT A-4
In re Ronzoni Foods Corporation A-4
U.S. v. Amelia Associates and Joey's Excavating, Inc. (D. N.J.) A-4
U.S. v. 179 South Street (D. N.J.) A-4
CLEAN WATER ACT A-4
U.S. v. PRASA A-4
U.S. v. City ofHoboken (D. N.J.) A-4
In re Cheeseborough Ponds Manufacturing Corp A-4
SDWA A-5
U.S. v. Kennemuth (d/b/a Moose Oil) (W.D. N.Y.) A-5
U.S. v. Wasson & Regis (W.D., N.Y.) - A-5
In re PRASA A-5
U.S. v. Melvin Blum A-5
RCRA A-5
U.S. v. Eastman Kodak (N.D. N.Y.) A-5
In the Matter of Redound Industries, Inc. d/b/a Interflo Technologies and Liqui-Mark,
etal. A-6
U.S. v. BCF Corp. (E.D. N.Y.) A-6
In the Matter of Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company A-6
A-i
-------
JTFY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
'
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
In the Matter of PPG Industries, Inc. A-6
In re Westchester County, New York, Sportsmen's Center A-6
In the Matter of Gaseteria Oil Corp 'A-6
TSCA A-7
In the Matter ofDIC Americas, Inc A-7
In the Matter ofSUNY-New Paltz A-7
In the Matter of Cray Valley Products, Inc A-7
In the Matter of Eastman Kodak Co A-7
In the Matter of Sharp Electronics Corporation A-7
In the Matter of General Electric Company A-8
In the Matter of Presbyterian Homes of New Jersey Foundation A-8
U.S. v. State of New York Department of Transportation (N.D. N.Y.) , . . . . A-8
In the Matter of New York State Department of Mental Health A-8
In re Corporacion Azucarera de Puerto Rico A-8
In re Edgewater Associates A-8
TSCA §8 Inventory Update Enforcement Initiative A-9
In the Matter of Ciba-Geigy Corporation A-9
In the Matter of OCG Microelectronics Materials, Inc A-9
EPCRA A-9
In the Matter of Mobil Oil Corp A-9
In the Matter of Agway Petroleum Corporation A-9
In the Matter of Rich Products Corp A-9
In the Matter ofNTU Circuits, Inc A-9
In the Matter of R&F Alloy Wires, Inc A-IO
In the Matter of Silverton Marine Corporation A-10
In re Rexon Technology Corp , A-10
In re Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co A-10
Catano EPCRA Enforcement Settlements A-10
In the Matter of National Can Puerto Rico, Inc A-10
In the Matter of Petroleum Chemical Corp A-11
In re Hess Oil Virgin Islands A-11
In re Statewide Refrigerated Services, Inc A-11
In the Matter of Freeman Industries, Inc A-11
In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co A-11
CERCLA - A-12
The Lipari Site A-12
U.S. v. CDMG Realty Co., et al. (D. N.J.) A-12
£7.5. v. Vineland Chemical Company, et al. (D. N.J.) A-12
U.S. v. The Carborundum Company, et al. (D. N.J.) A-12
In the Matter of the Frontier Chemical Superfund Site A-12
U.S. v. Ciba-Geigy Corp (D. N.Y.) A-13
In the Matter of Diamond Alkali Superfund Site A-13
In the Matter of Liberty Industrial Finishing Site A-13
In re ENRX and Buffalo Warehousing Superfund Sites A-13
A-ii
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT!*
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
In re York Oil Company Superfund Site A-13
In re A&Y Realty Corp A-13
In re PVO International, Inc A-14
Quanta/New Jersey Non-Complier Case Settlements A-14
In re Niagara County Refuse Superfund Site A-14
In re Muratti Environmental Site A-14
U.S. v. Signo Trading International, Ltd., et al A-14
U.S. v. Zaklama (D. N.J.) ': . . . A-15
U.S. v. Thiokol Corp. (D. N.J.) A-15
U.S. v. Town of North Hempstead (ED. N.Y.) A-15
In the Matter of Aero Haven Airport Site A-15
U.S. v. Wheaton Industries, Inc. (D. NJ.) A-15
MULTIMEDIA CASES . A-15
In the Matter of Brookhayen National Laboratories and Associated Universities,
Inc. "..'. . .... .''.'.' .... . . .'. . . . . . . :'. A-15
In re American Cyanamid Company A-16
In re Broomer Research, Inc A-16
In re Abbott Laboratories A-16
In re Picatinny Arsenal A-17
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey A-17
Safety Kleen A-17
REGION III A-18
CLEAN AIR ACT A-18
Ohio Power Company (N.D. W.Va.) A-18
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (E.D. Penn.) A-18
U.S. v. Coors (D. Va.) A-18
Florida Marina and Boat Sales A-18
Hussey Copper A-18
Manny, Moe, and Jack, Inc.- The Pep Boys A-18
U.S. v. Sun Oil, Philadelphia (E.D. Penn.) A-19
U.S. v. Sun Oil, Marcus Hook (E.D. Penn.) A-19
LTV (W. D. Pa) A-19
U.S. v. Sun Company, Inc. (E.D. Penn.) A-19
CLEAN WATER ACT A-19
U.S. v. Sun Oil, Marcus Hook (E.D. Penn.) A-19
Sun Oil, Philadelphia (E.D. Penn.) A-20
Sun Company (Pennsylvania) A-20
Ocean Builders Supply .'...' A-20
DELCORA (E.D. Pa) A-20
City of Philadelphia (E.D. Pa.) A-20
Eastern Energy Investments A-21
SDWA A-21
Consolidated Gas Transmission Corporation (1311) A-21
A-iii
-------
1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Jiffy Lube (7538) A-21
RCRA A-21
Bethlehem Steel Corporation Steelton Plant A-21
Medusa Cement A-21
U.S. v. National Rolling Mills (E.D. Penn.) A-21
Osram Sylvania Glass, Wellsboro, Pennsylvania A-22
Action Manufacturing Company, Atglen, Pennsylvania . A-22
Quaker State Corporation, Newell, West Virginia A-22
Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation, Ravenswood, West Virginia A-22
AT&T, Richmond, Virginia A-22
Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc., Middletown, Delaware A-22
ITT Corporation, Roanoke, Virginia A-22
TSCA A-22
Allied Colloids '• A-22
Bethlehem Steel Corporation A-23
Reading Tube Corporation A-23
Anzon, Inc A-23
Columbia Gas A-23
VA Dept of Emergency Services A-23
EPCRA • • • A-23
T.L. Diamond, Spelter, West Virginia A-23
Premium Beverage Packers, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania A-23
Steel Processing, Inc., Pottstown, Pennsylvania A-24
Messer Greisheim Industries, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania A-24
Diversey Corporation, East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania A-24
Homer Laughlin China A-24
Action Manufacturing A-24
EDFRA A-24
DuPont A-24
CERCLA A-24
Columbia Gas A-24
Greenwood Chemical A-25
Recticon/Allied Steel Site ; . . A-25
Sackville Mills Company A-25
United Chemical Technologies A-25
U.S. v. Lord Corporation (W.D. Penn.) . A-25
U.S. v. Chromatex (3rd Cir.) A-25
REGION IV • A-26
CLEAN AIR ACT • A-26
U.S. v. Rohm and Haas, Inc. (W.D. Ky.) '. A-26
U.S. v. Olin Corporation (E.D. Tenn.) A-26
U.S .v. Crown, Cork & Seal, Inc. (N.D. Miss.) A-26
CLEAN WATER ACT/SDWA A-26
A-iv
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
U.S. v. Metro-Dade County, et al A-26
United States v. IMC-Agrico Company (M.D. Florida) A-27
U.S. v. Perdue-Davidson Oil Company (E.D. Kentucky) A-27
In the Matter of Manatee County, PL: A-27
In the Matter of IMC-Fertilizer, Bartow FL '. A-27
In the Matter of Jacksonville Beach, FL A-27
Oil Pollution Act Enforcement Initiative A-28
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency v. Polk County A-28
United States v. City of Port St. Joe, Florida; et al. A-28
RCRA A-29
Holnam, Inc A-29
Arizona Chemical Company A-29
Giant Cement Company A-29
Todhunter International, Inc., d/b/a Florida Distillers A-29
U.S. v. Gulf States Steel, Inc. (N.D. Ala.) A-29
Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc A-29
Florida Department of Transportation A-30
TSCA A-30
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company/Tenneco, Inc. . A-30
General Electric Company A-30
EPCRA A-30
Gro-Tec, Inc A-30
Everwood Treatment Company, Inc A-31
North American Royalties, Inc., d/b/a Wheland Foundry A-31
Ashland Petroleum Company A-31
FIFRA A-31
Courtaulds Coatings, Inc A-31
CERCLA A-31
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation A-31
Parramore Fertilizer Site in Tifton, Georgia A-32
Distler Farm and Distler Brickyard Superfund Sites in Kentucky A-32
Jadco/Hughes Site, Gaston County, North Carolina A-32
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. Site in Albany, Georgia A-32
Helena Chemical Company for Fairfax, South Carolina Site A-32
Rochester Property Site in Travelers Rest, South Carolina . . A-32
Jones Tire and Battery Site in Birmingham, Alabama A-33
Townsend Saw Chain Superfund Site in Pontiac, Richland County, North Carolina . . A-33
Yellow Water Road Superfund Site, Baldwin, Duval County, Florida A-33
Smith's Farm Site in Bullitt County, Kentucky A-33
Cedartown Battery Superfund Site in Polk County, Georgia A-33
Enterprise Recovery Systems Site in Byhalia, Mississippi A-33
The City of Cedartown, Polk County, Georgia A-34
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site, Cabarrus County, Concord, North
Carolina A-34
A-v
-------
1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Stoller Chemical Company Site in Jericho, South Carolina A-34
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Site in Albany, Dougherty County, Georgia A-34
Woolfolk Chemical Works NPL Site, Fort Valley, Georgia A-35
Hercules 009 Landfill Site, Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia A-35
U.S. v. Otto Skipper (ED., N.C.) A-35
National Southwire Aluminum Superfund Site in Kentucky A-35
Prairie Metals and Chemical Company Site (Prairie, Mississippi) A-35
REGION V A-36
REGION V's CONTEMPT INITIATIVE A-36
Anthony Chambers (Midland, MI) . A-36
Big D Campground/Rodebaughs (Ashtabula, OH) A-36
Petoskey Site (Petoskey, MI) A-36
Copperweld Steel (Mahoning, OH) A-36
Midwestern Drum Services (Venice, IL) A-36
Silvertone Plating Company (Ypsilanti, MI) A-37
GTE North (Belvedere, IL) A-37
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Burns Harbor, IN) A-37
ILLINOIS CASES A-37
OHIO CASE A-37
CLEAN AIR ACT A-37
B&W Investment Properties, Inc., and Louis Wolf A-37
New Boston Coke Corp. (S.D. Ohio) A-38
U.S. v. Consolidated Papers, Inc. (Wisconsin Rapids, WI) A-38
Monitor Sugar Co. (E.D. Mich.) A-38
Stern Enterprises, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio/Eastern Division) A-38
CLEAN WATER ACT A-39
LTV Steel (East Chicago, IN) A-39
1MB Urban Development Company (Columbus, OH) A-39
City of Middletown (OH) A-39
Wayne County-Wyandotte (MI) Wastewater Treatment Plant A-39
IBP, Inc. (Joslin, IL) A-39
Appleton Papers (Appleton, WI) A-40
Commonwealth Edison Company, Inc. (Chicago, EL) A-40
MULTIMEDIA CASES A-40
Taracorp Industries (Granite City, IL) A-40
Glidden Company (Strongsville, OH) A-40
EPCRA A-40
Vie De France (Bensenville, IL) A-40
HRR Enterprises, Inc. (Chicago, IL) A-41
Shell Oil Company's Wood River Manufacturing Complex (Roxana, IL) A-41
Consumers Power Co. (West Olive, MI) A-41
Karmazin Products Corp. (Wyandotte, MI) A-41
A-vi
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
TSCA A-42
University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana, IL) A-42
Wayne State University (Detroit, MI) A-42
U.S. Graphite, Inc. (Saginaw, MI) A-42
RCRA/UST . . A-42
BASF Corp. North Works (Wyandotte, MI) A-42
Hilton Davis Co. (Cincinnati, OH) A-42
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (Cleveland, OH) . A-43
Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Saint Paul, MN) A-43
U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (7th Cir. 1994) A-43
U.S. v. Ekco Housewares, Inc. (Massillon, Ohio) A-43
U.S. v. Laclede Steel Company . . . A-43
City of Columbus, Ohio and the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio ......... A-43
SDWA A-44
Total Petroleum (Alma, MI) . . A-44
George Perry (Oceana County, MI) A-44
JPT Petroleum Production Corp. (Gibson County, IN) A-44
Gahanna Water Department (Gahanna, OH) A-44
CERCLA . . . A-44
Circle Smelting (Beckmeyer, IL) . . A-44
Core Craft (Northern Township, MN) A-45
Kerr-McGee Site (Chicago, EL) . . . . A-45
Lockhart Construction (Akron, OH) A-45
National Presto (Eau Claire, WI) . A-45
Olin Corporation (Ashtabula, OH) A-45
Wedzeb (Lebanon, IN) .... A-46
Jackson Drop Forge (Jackson, MI) •'...•• A-46
Spickler Landfill Site (Marathon County, WI) A-46
REGION VI : ;.;.... ; ....... A-47
CLEAN AIR ACT ', A-47
U.S. v. Enpro Contractors, Inc.; Train Property, Inc.; and Jimmy Patton Contractor,
Inc. (E.D. Ark.) A-47
In the Matter of Herd Enterprises, d/b/a Broward Factory Service A-47
CLEAN WATER ACT . . A-47
U.S. v. City of Kenner and the State of Louisiana (E.D. La.) A-47
U.S. v. City of Bossier City, and the State of Louisiana (W.D. La.) A-47
U.S. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company (E.D. Tex.) A-47
Vulcan Chemical A-47
In the Matter of Albert Kramer III d/b/a Kramer Development Corporation ....... A-48
Citgo Pipeline Company A-48
Hamner Inc A-48
Jayhawk Pipeline Corporation A-48
Petrolite Corporation A-48
A-vii
-------
|FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Red River Entertainment Group A-48
RCRA A'48
In the Matter of Micro Chemical Company A-48
In the Matter of Dow Chemical A-49
In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management A-49
In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management A-49
In the Matter of Texas Industries A-49
In the Matter ofAristech A-49
In the Matter ofRexene A-49
In the Matter ofChapparal Steel A-49
In the Matter of Hydrocarbon Recyclers, Inc A-50
In the Matter ofREM TEX A-50
In the Matter of Jeep Collins A-50
In the Matter ofRanco A-50
In the Matter of Citgo Refining A-50
In the Matter ofAquaness Chemical ••,•••• A-50
In the Matter of Helena Chemical A-50
In the Matter of Helena Chemical A-51
U,S. v. Marine Shale Processors, Inc. (W.D. La.) A-51
TSCA A-51
In the Matter ofAsarco, Amarillo, Texas A-51
Central Power and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Texas A-51
CERCLA A-51
U.S. v. David Bowen Wallace, etal. (N.D. Tex.) Bio-Ecology Systems Superfund Site,
Dallas County, Texas • • A-51
U.S. v. American National Petroleum Company, et al (W.D. La.) Gulf Coast Vacuum
Superfund Site, Abbeville, Louisiana, and Gulf Coast Vacuum Services Superfund
Site, Vermillion Parish, Louisiana A-52
U.S. v. City of Jacksonville, Arkansas (E.D. Ark.) Jacksonville Municipal Landfill,
Lonoke County, Arkansas, and Rogers Road Municipal Landfill, Pulaski County,
Arkansas A-52
U.S. v. Gulf States Utilities Company (S.D Tex.) Industrial Transformer/Sol Lynn Site,
Harris County, Texas A-52
U.S. v. Venae Chemical Corporation, et al., Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology v. Vertac Chemical Corporation, et al. (E.D. Ark.). In the
Matter of Hercules Inc., Uniroyal Chemical Ltd., and Vertac Chemical
Corporation (Administrative) Vertac Superfund Site, Jacksonville, Arkansas . . . A-53
In the Matter of Amerada Hess Corporation, et al, PAB Oil Superfund Site,
AbbeVille, Louisiana A-53
In the Matter of Waste Management of Oklahoma, Inc., Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill
Superfund Site, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma A-53
In the Matter of Aluminum Company of America, Alcoa/Lavaca Bay Superfund Site,
Point Comfort, Texas A-53
A-viii
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Pas
In the Matter of National Zinc Site, Bartlesville, Oklahoma; Salomon, Inc., Cyprus
Amax Minerals Company, and Kerramerican, Inc., National Zinc Company
Superfund Site, Bartlesville, Oklahoma A-54
Marco of Iota A-54
Pab Oil A-54
South 8th Street A-54
B.P. Chemical A-54
Miles Inc A-54
REGION VII A-56
CLEAN AIR ACT ' A-56
U.S. v. Archer Daniels Midland (S.D. la.) A-56
U.S. v. Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc. (W.D. Mo.) A-56
In the Matter of Holnam, Inc A-56
CLEAN WATER ACT A-56
In the Matter of the Boeing Company A-56
U.S. v. Beech Aircraft Corporation (D. Kan.) A-56
RCRA A-57
In the Matter of Burlington Northern Railroad A-57
In the Matter of The Dexter Company A-57
In the Matter of Missouri Highway Transportation Department A-57
In the Matter of Iowa Army Ammunition Plant A-57
In the Matter of G.E. Company A-57
In the Matter of Cuba Paint Company A-58
EPCRA A-58
In the Matter of Kaw Valley, Inc A-58
In the Matter of The Iowa Packing Company . A-58
CERCLA A-58
U.S. v. Chemical Waste Management of Kansas, Inc. (D. Kan.) . . A-58
U.S. v. TIC Investment Corp., et al. (N.D. la.) A-58
In the Matter of the Big River Mine Tailings Site A-59
In the Matter of Lee Chemical Co. Superfund Site, Liberty, Missouri A-59
U.S. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health, Inc. (D. Neb.) A-59
In the Matter of Renner Road Shooting Park A-59
U.S. v. City of Clinton, Iowa (S.D. la.) A-59
U.S. v. Midwest Asbestos Control, Inc., et al. (D. Kan.) A-60
REGION Vin A-61
CLEAN AIR ACT A-61
Sinclair Oil Corporation A-61
CLEAN WATER ACT . . A-61
Dirt Merchant Construction/Sandra Tarr A-61
Lucas Western (Jamestown, North Dakota) A-61
Farmers Union Central Exchange COOP (CENEX) (Billings, Montana) A-61
A-ix
-------
1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Burlington Northern Railroad (W.D., Wise.) A~61
Hub City, South Dakota A'62
City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota: A~62
Star Circuits A'62
SDWA . . ., A'62
Town ofMeeteetse, Wyoming A-62
City Oil Corporation A'62
RCRA A"63
Reclaim Barrel A"63
EPCRA • A"63
Advanced Forming Technology A-63
Accurate Plastics (now SPM/Denver) A'63
Denver Metal Finishing Company A-63
Nephi Rubber Products A"63
Thatcher Chemical Company A-63
FIFRA A"63
Biotrol International, Inc A-63
CERCLA A'64
Apache Energy and Minerals Co. (D. Colo.) A-64
Smuggler-Durant Mining Corporation (D. Colo.) A-64
Clear Creek/Central City Superfund Site, Western Diversified Builders A-64
Whitewood Creek A-64
Petrochem/Ekotek Site A"65
Petrochem/Ekotek A'65
Colorado School of Mines Research Institute A-65
North American Environmental, Inc A-65
REGION DC A"67
CLEAN AIR ACT A'67
U.S. v. Shell Western E&P, Inc. (E.D. Calif.) A-67
U.S. v. TABC, Inc. (C.D. Calif.) A-67
U.S. v. Minerec, Inc. (D. Ariz.) A~67
U.S. v. All American Pipeline Company (C.D. Calif.) A~67
CLEAN WATER ACT • • • A'67
U.S. v. American Global Line, Inc. (N.D. Calif.) A-67
U.S. v. Magma Copper Co. (D. Ariz.) A~67
U.S. v. City and County of Honolulu (D. Haw.) A-68
U.S. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Corp. (E.D. Calif.) A-68
U.S. v. Teledyne, Inc. (S.D. Calif.) A-68
U.S. v. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (S.D. Calif.) A-68
RCRA • A'69
U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel, Ltd., Estate of James Campbell, Ipsco Inc. and
Cominco Ltd. (D. Hawaii) A~69
In the Matter of U.S. Naval Air Facility, El Centra, California A-69
A-x
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPon
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
U.S v. City of Los Angeles and U.S. v. Lockheed Corporation (C.D. Calif.) A-69
U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel, et al. (D. Haw.) A-69
CERCLA A-69
U.S. v. Peter Gull and NL Industries, Inc. (C.D. Calif.) A-69
Pearl Harbor Naval Complex Federal Facilities Agreement A-69
U.S. v. Montana Refining Co. (9th Cir.) A-70
In the Matter of Iron Mountain Mine A-70
U.S. v. Alcatel Information Systems, Inc. (D. Arizona) A-70
REGION X A-71
CLEAN AIR ACT A-71
Alyeska Pipeline Services Company and ARCO Products A-71
Norma and Frank Echevarria, d/b/a Echeco Environmental Services A-71
Phillips Petroleum Company and AGI, Inc A-71
Trans-AK Environmental Services & Construction Corp., Giddings Mortgage and
Investment Company, and Neeser Construction A-71
U.S. v. Global Travel, Jordan-Wilcomb Construction, and Allied Construction (D.
Id.) A-71
U.S. v. Zemlicka and Davis A-71
U.S. v. Martech USA, Hobbs Industries, Chugach Electric Association, Inc. A-72
U.S. v. Hagadone Hospitality Co A-72
CLEAN WATER ACT A-72
Wesley M. Sherer A-72
U.S. v. Steve Burnett and Dean Schroder (W.D. Wash.) A-72
Kenco Marine A-72
City of Ocean Shores, Washington A-72
Rodger Forni A-72
Martin Nygaard A-73
Rogge Mills A-73
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) A-73
Northlake Shipyards A-73
City of Tacoma A-73
Arctic Fisheries A-73
U.S. v. Stanley C. Rybachek A-73
RCRA A-73
U.S. v. Robert and Geneva Stobaugh (W.D. Wash.) A-73
U.S. v. R.H. Bowles, Inc. and Central Marketing, Inc. (E.D. Wash.) A-74
Alaska Railroad Company A-74
Boeing Company A-74
U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright, Alaska A-74
U.S. Army, Fort Richardson A-74
CERCLA A-75
Commencement Bay - South Tacoma Channel A-75
Bunker Hill A-75
A-xi
-------
1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE A-76
RCRA/FFCA A-76
RCRA/FFCA Penalty Order-Coast Guard, Kodiak, Alaska Facility A-76
Presidio of San Francisco A-76
Schofield Barracks A-76
Norfolk Naval Shipyard A-76
Yorktown Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia A-76
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Dahlgren, Virginia A-76
Fort Dix, New Jersey A-77
U.S. Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba, Puerto Rico A-77
OFFICE OF REGULATORY ENFORCMENT A-78
CLEAN AIR ACT A-78
U.S. v. Atlantic Richfield Company and Snyder Oil Corporation (D. Wyo.) A-78
U.S. v. W.R. Grace Company (D. Mont.) A-78
U.S. v. ICI International, Inc A-78
U.S. v. JBA Motorcars, Inc. and Dr. Jacob Ben-Ari (S.D. Fla.) A-78
U.S. v. Daniel Rosendahl (S.D. Tex.) : A-78
U.S. v. Ken Ball and Phil McCreery (W.D. Mo.) A-78
TSCA A-78
Town of Wallingford, Connecticut A-78
Cressona Aluminum Company PCB Cleanup A-79
USS Cabot/Dedalo A-79
Port of New Orleans A-79
Sunshine Mining Company -. A-79
Imperial Holly Corporation A-79
EPCRA A-79
General Chemical Corporation A-79
Alaska Pulp Corporation A-80
Trail Wagons A-80
Northwest Castings A-80
FIFRA A-80
Pinnacle Agricultural Technologies A-80
Accuventure, Inc.: Criminal and Civil Enforcement Coordination A-80
Argent Chemical Laboratories, Inc A-80
MULTIMEDIA CASES A-81
Allied Tube & Conduit A-81
U.S. v. Columbus Solid Waste Reduction Plant A-81
U.S. v. Southern Pacific A-81
U.S. v. Texas Eastern (S.D., Tex.) A-81
OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT A-82
U.S. v. Hartford Associates (D. Md.) A-82
U.S. v. Penn Hills (W.D. Penn.) A-82
A-xii
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORif^sg^}
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
U.S. v. Reilly A-82
U.S. v. Wietzenhoff A-82
U.S. v. Laughlin, 10 F.3rd 961 (2d Cir. 1993), cert, denied, 114 S.Ct. 1649 (1994) . . A-82
U.S. v. Advance Plating Works, Inc., et al. (S.D. Ind.) . A-83
U.S. v. Carlo Arco and Automatic Plating Company, Inc. (D. Conn.) A-83
U.S. v. AT&T and Harry J. Kring (E.D. Penn.) A-83
U.S. v. Richard Vernon Bates, et al. (C.D. Calif.) A-83
U.S. v. Giacomo Catucci (D. R.I.) A-83
U.S. v. Larry A. Christopherson (E.D. Wise.) • • • • • A-84
U.S. v. Craven Laboratories, Inc., et al. (W.D. Texas) A-84
U.S. v. Dean Foods Company and Winfred Smith (W.D. Ky.) A-84
U.S. v. Doyle Crews, (N.D. Tex.) . . A-84
U.S. v. Charles A. Eidson and Sandra A. Eidson (M.D. Fla.) A-84
U.S. v. Cherokee Resources, Inc., et al. (W.D. N.C.) , . . . . A-85
U.S. v. Garlick Helicopter, Inc. (D. Mont.) A-85
U.S. v. Gaston (D. Kan.) A-85
U.S. v. Hedge, (S.D. Ohio); State of Ohio v. Hedge and City Bumper Exchange, Inc.,
(Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas) A-85
U.S. v. Hofele. (W.D. Mo.) A-85
U.S. v. Robert H. Hopkins (D. Conn.) A-85
U.S. v. George Frederick Heidgerken (W.D. Wash.) A-85
U.S. v. Comer's Diesel and Electric Company (D. Mont.) A-86
U.S. v. Jay Jurek (W.D. Wash.) A-86
U.S. v. MOR, Inc. (S.D. Fla.) A-86
U.S. v. Francis Morgan, et al. (D. Haw.) A-86
U.S. v. M. Tyronne Morgan and Meydenbauer Development Corp. (E. D. Wash.) . . . A-86
U.S. v. Bob Murphy, et al. (D. Nev.) A-87
U.S. v. Norwood Industries, Inc., et al. (E.D. Penn.) A-87
U.S. v. OEA, Inc. (D. Colo.) A-87
U.S. v. Palm Beach Cruises (S.D. Fla.) A-87
U.S. v. Pacific Aqua Tech, Ltd. (E.D. Wash.) . . A-87
U.S. v. Robert Pardi (S.D. N.Y.) A-88
U.S. v. Nicholas Pasquariello (S.D. Fla.) A-88
U.S. v. Norma Phillips, et al. (W.D. Mo.) A-88
U.S. v. Pioneer Chemical, Inc. and Gerald Butler (D. Ky.) A-88
U.S. v. John Pizzuto (S.D. Ohio) A-89
U.S. v. Nobert Efren Pohl (D. N.M.) A-89
U.S. v. R&D Chemical Company, Inc. (N.D. Ga.) A-89
U.S. v. Recticel Foam Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tenn.) A-89
U.S. v. William C. Reichle and Reichle, Inc. (D. Ore.) A-90
U.S. v. Reilly and Dowd (D. Del.) A-90
U.S. v. Sentco Paint Manufacturing, Inc., et. al. (N.D. Ohio) A-90
U.S. v. Mark Steven Stewart, et al. (D. Ariz.) A-90
A-xiii
-------
|FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
U.S. v. Thermocell S. E. Inc., Douglas Kirchofer and Sherwin T. Haskell (E.D.
Tenn.) A-90
U.S. v. Weaver Electric (D. Colo.) A-91
U.S. v. Safety Kleen A-91
U.S. v. Steve Weinsier (S.D. Fla.) A-91
U.S. v. Larry Kenneth West (W.D. Mich.) A-92
U.S. v. William C. Whitman and Duane C. Whitman (M.D. Fla.) A-92
Harry Zucker (W. D. Pa) A-92
U.S. v. Dale Valentine et al. (D. WY) A-92
A-xiv
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
REGION I
CLEAN AIR ACT
U.S. v. D'Addario Industries, Inc., et al (D.
Conn.): On July 5, 1994, the court approved a
Stipulated Settlement Agreement (SSA) resolving
a consent decree enforcement action in this CAA
asbestos case. The SSA requires defendants to
pay the full amount of stipulated penalties owed,
plus interest, for a total payment to the United
States of over $109,000. EPA took this action for
stipulated penalties after defendants paid a portion
of the underlying penalty more than 6 months late.
The decree required payment of stipulated
penalties of $500 per day for each day the penalty
payment was late.
In re Syncor International Corporation: On
September 26, 1994, EPA issued an administrative
order to Syncor International Corporation of
Woburn, MA, for failure to comply with the
radionuclide NESHAP (Subpart I) emission
standard. The order required Syncor to comply
with the emission standard and to begin submitting
monthly reports to EPA and a compliance plan as
required by Subpart I for those facilities that report
exceedances of the radionuclide emission standard.
CLEAN WATER ACT
U.S. v. L.S. Starrett Company (D. Mass.): On
May 12, 1994, the court entered a consent decree
resolving violations of CWA pretreatment
requirements by the L.S. Starrett Company, a
metal finisher located in Athol, MA. EPA had
alleged that Starrett had violated §§ 307 and 308
of the Act by (1) exceeding effluent limitations,
(2) violating the pH standard, and (3) failing to
comply with reporting requirements. The consent
decree requires Starrett to maintain compliance
with pretreatment requirements and to pay a civil
penalty of $325,000 for its past violations.
RCRA
Allegro Microsystems, Inc.: On April 5, 1994,
EPA-New England issued a RCRA complaint
against Allegro Microsystems, Inc. of Worcester,
MA. The complaint alleges that since August 21,
1991, Allegro has been burning hazardous waste
in two industrial boilers without a permit or
interim status. In addition, the complaint alleges
that Allegro failed to comply with the operating
conditions for boilers contained in the boiler and
industrial furnace (BIF) regulations. These
regulations require emissions monitoring and set
emissions standards for a number of pollutants.
The complaint proposes a penalty of $102,194 and
orders Allegro to cease burning hazardous waste.
This was the first action brought by EPA pursuant
to the BEF regulations.
In re Massachusetts Highway Department: In a
consent agreement resolving a RCRA
administrative action issued on September 30,
1994, EPA, the MA DEP, and the Massachusetts
Highway Department (MHD) agreed that MHD
will spend $20 million to investigate and
remediate environmental problems at all 138 of its
facilities and will dedicate $5 million to several
SEPs, including projects that will benefit
environmental justice areas. In addition, MHD
will pay a civil penalty of $100,000 to settle this
action brought by EPA for the state agency's
violations of hazardous waste laws.
U.S. v. Hanlin Group, Inc. (D. Maine): On
December 22, 1993, a consent decree was entered
by the court against the Hanlin Group, Inc. of
Linden, NJ. Hanlin agreed to pay a $1,152,000
penalty for violations of RCRA at its Orrington,
Maine, facility. Hanlin also agreed to complete a
site investigation and corrective measures study
prior to undertaking any necessary corrective
action at the facility. EPA determined that Hanlin
had allowed releases of mercury, carbon
tetrachloride, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, and
trichloroethylene into the groundwater flowing
under the facility and the Penobscot River. A
1986 administrative consent agreement entered
into by Hanlin and EPA had required Hanlin to
undertake an RCRA facility investigation,
including sampling, analysis, monitoring, and
A-l
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
reporting of hazardous wastes, at the facility. The
December 23, 1994 settlement addressed the
violations of the 1986 consent agreement.
In re Hamilton-Standard: On April 18, 1994,
EPA and Hamilton-Standard entered into EPA's
first RCRA §3008(h) corrective action order to
contain Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR)
provisions. EPA determined that a plume of
contaminated groundwater migrating from the
facility might present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to human health or the environment,
specifically to groundwater used by residents.
Further, the contaminated plume released
hazardous levels of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) into the basements of some residences.
The consent order abates known and potential
threats through implementation of four separate
interim corrective measures, including: (1)
groundwater containment, (2) monitoring of VOC
levels in indoor air of residences above the plume,
followed by any necessary corrective measures, (3)
monitoring of residential drinking water, followed
by any necessary provision of alternate water
supplies, and (4) containment of contaminated
water flowing to the wetland area to minimize
ecological impacts.
In re Upjohn Company: On June 12, 1994, EPA
signed a RCRA corrective action consent order
with the UpJohn Company for the remediation
(including immediate control of the release of
hazardous wastes to groundwater) of its North
Haven, CT, facility. Upjohn's plant is now
inactive, but in the past produced more than 20
different specialty and industrial chemicals. In
1989, EPA issued an RCRA §3013 administrative
order to Upjohn, requiring the company to conduct
a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) at the facility.
Based on reports generated by that order, EPA
determined that the facility poses a threat to
human health and the environment.
TSCA
U.S. v. New Waterburv, Ltd. (D. Conn.): On
May 23, 1994, the U.S. District Court entered a
civil consent decree settling PCB violations under
TSCA. The consent decree requires defendants
New Waterbury Ltd., Vanta, Inc., and Winston
Management and Investment, Inc. to remove and
properly dispose of approximately 91 tons of
abandoned, illegally stored PCBs from equipment
at the former Century Brass Products, Inc. facility
in Waterbury, CT. Pursuant to this settlement,
defendants have removed and properly disposed of
all PCB equipment and PCB waste at an estimated
cost of $450,000.
In re City of Boston, Boston City Hospital: On
September 30, 1994, EPA entered a consent
agreement and final order in which the City of
Boston agreed to pay $117,300 in civil penalties
for violation of the TSCA PCB requirements at
Boston City Hospital. The City also agreed to
perform an SEP as part of the settlement which
involves removal of ten underground storage tanks
located throughout the city at a cost of over
$80,000. This civil administrative case arose as a
result of EPA's PCB inspection of the hospital.
The complaint alleged that the City violated the
PCB regulations by failing to comply with the
marking and recordkeeping requirements
pertaining to PCB transformers.
EPCRA
In re Wvman-Gordon. Inc.: In a consent
agreement issued on May 18, 1994,
Wyman-Gordon, Inc., of North Grafton, MA,
agreed to pay a $137,955 penalty and implement
a SEP to reduce its use of two dangerous acids to
settle a complaint alleging that the company
violated §103 of CERCLA and §§ 312 and 313 of
EPCRA. Wyman Gordon, a forged metal
components manufacturing facility, failed to
immediately notify the National Response Center
of a release of hydrofluoric acid during a fire at
the facility on September 24, 1988. The company
also failed to submit emergency and hazardous
chemical inventory forms and report various
emissions of chemicals during 1987 and 1988.
The company has agreed to construct a $474,000
acid purification and recovery system to recover
80 percent of the hydrofluoric and nitric acid from
its waste acid stream.
A-2
-------
1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
CERCLA
U.S. v. O.K. Tool Company, et al (D. N.H.): On
December 5, 1994, the court entered this consent
decree settling all remaining CERCLA and fraud
claims in connection with the Savage Municipal
Water Supply Well Superfund Site in Milford,
NH. The cashout settlement represents the final
agreement in a global resolution of the legal issues
arising out of the contamination of a groundwater
aquifer which supplied Milford with 45 percent of
its drinking water prior to 1983. A mixed work
consent decree with two other corporate PRPs at
the Site, as further described below, was entered
by the Court on June 27, 1994. The work being
performed by the government is valued at $10
million. Under the cashout consent decree, 22
settling defendants whose liability arises out of a
relationship to O.K. Tool Company have agreed to
pay the federal government approximately $2.1
million.
U.S. v. Conductron Corporation, et al. (D. N.H.):
On June 27, 1994, the court entered a civil consent
decree in which two corporate PRPs agreed to
perform the remedial action for part of the Savage
Municipal Water Supply Well Superfund Site in
Milford, NH. The consent decree resolves claims
under CERCLA for releases of hazardous
substances into the environment. Under the terms
of the decree, Conductron, d/b/a Hendrix Wire &
Cable and Hitchiner Manufacturing Company, will
undertake response actions including extraction
and treatment of contaminated groundwater, long-
term monitoring, and institutional controls to
protect human health. It is estimated that the cost
of the response action to be performed by the
settling parties will be $15 million. The settling
defendants have also agreed to pay approximately
$1 million in past costs and oversight costs subject
to a ceiling of $3 million or 15 percent of the cost
of the work, whichever is greater.
U.S. v. William Davis, et al (D. R.I.): On
January 18, 1995, the court entered a consent
decree that resolves the liability of Clairol, Inc.
and Ciba-Geigy Corporation, defendants in the
Davis Liquid Superfund Site cost recovery
litigation. Under the settlement, Clairol will pay
$3 million plus interest and Ciba-Geigy will pay
$475,000 plus interest. In exchange, both settling
parties will receive a covenant not to sue under
CERCLA §107(a) with standard reopeners. The
decree also contains a "cost reopener" that allows
the government to institute new proceedings
against Clairol and Ciba-Geigy in the event that
the total response costs at the site exceed $68
million.
On October 31, 1994, the court entered a civil
consent decree providing that Providence Journal
Co., also a defendant in the Davis cost recovery
litigation, will pay $650,000 plus interest. In
exchange, Providence Journal obtained a covenant
not to sue with standard reopeners. Also on
October 31, the District Court entered a third
consent decree providing that Pfizer, Inc., another
defendant in this cost recovery litigation, will pay
$1.5 million plus interest. The decree also
contains a cost reopener that allows the
government to institute new proceedings against
Pfizer in the event that total response costs exceed
$68 million. In exchange, Pfizer received a
covenant not to sue with standard reopeners.
U.S. v. DiBiase Salem Realty Trust, et al. (D.
Mass.): On December 5, 1994, the court entered
this consent decree in connection with the Salem
Acres Superfund Site in Salem, MA. Under the
terms of the settlement, DiBiase Salem Realty
Trust and Ugo DiBiase agreed to pay $80,329 in
past costs, to perform remedial activities valued at
approximately $650,000 on a portion of the Site,
and to pay the future oversight costs incurred in
connection with those remedial activities, valued
at approximately $110,000. The DiBiases agreed
to these terms to settle a civil action brought under
CERCLA.
A-3
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
REGION H
CLEAN AIR ACT
In re Ronzoni Foods Corporation: On January
25, 1994, EPA entered into a consent agreement
with Hershey Foods, the parent of Ronzoni Foods,
resolving an administrative enforcement action
brought under the Clean Air Act to address
opacity violations at Ronzoni's facility located in
Queens, NY. Hershey Foods elected to close the
violating facility because it felt it could not ensure
long-term compliance, but volunteered to
undertake a supplemental environmental project
(SEP) involving another facility, its San Georgio
plant located in Philadelphia, PA (within EPA
Region HI). The consent agreement included a
$30,000 penalty.
U.S. v. Amelia Associates and Joey's Excavating,
Inc. (D. N.J.): On November 3, 1993, the court
entered a consent decree that settled CAA claims
against a real estate partnership and demolition
contractor regarding the defendants' demolition of
a 5-story hotel building in Atlantic City, NJ, in
1990. The complaint in the case charged
defendants with violations of the NESHAPs
pertaining to asbestos removal in demolition
operations. The settlement provides for payment
of a civil penalty of $112,000, and includes broad
injunctive relief. The consent decree requires both
defendants to implement an asbestos control
program, with the goal of ensuring that the
companies' future operations are in compliance.
U.S. v. 179 South Street (D. NJ.): On July 29,
1994, the court entered a consent decree that
enjoins the defendants from further violations of
the asbestos NESHAP. The decree also requires
the defendants to institute an Asbestos Control
Program, and obligates them to pay $74,000 in
civil penalties. The case involved several
violations, including failure to notify EPA of
asbestos removal, failure to ensure that the
asbestos remained wet prior to disposal, failure to
properly dispose of the asbestos and failure to
comply with previously issued compliance orders.
CLEAN WATER ACT
U.S. v. PRASA: During FY94, EPA filed four
more quarterly Motions to Enforce in this
enforcement action against the Puerto Rico
Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA). In these
motions, EPA sought a total of $284,000 in
penalties from PRASA based on violations of
provisions of the 1985 and 1988 consent decrees
entered in the action. Substantial penalties result
from PRASA's noncompliance with the "alternate
power" and "sludge handling" provisions of the
1985 Court Order. EPA has been filing quarterly
Motions to Enforce the requirements of the
consent decrees against PRASA since January
1989, pursuant to a "preclusion order" from the
Court that violations be promptly identified. The
motions allege violations based on the Court-
appointed Monitor's quarterly compliance reports.
In the 24 Motions filed to date, EPA has sought
nearly $3.3 million in noncompliance penalties
from PRASA. In FY94, PRASA paid close to
$1.5 million in judicial and administrative
penalties for CWA and consent decree violations
at its various facilities.
U.S. v. City ofHoboken (D. NJ.): On September
13, 1994, the Court entered a stipulation and order
in this case. Under the stipulation, the Hoboken,
Union City, Weehawken Sewerage Authority
(HUCWSA) agreed to pay stipulated penalties in
the amount of $2.8 million for its violations of a
January 1991 consent decree entered in this action.
Of this amount, $1,152,000 will be paid to the
EPA; $850,000 will be paid to the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, and the
balance will be paid to the Interstate Sanitation
Commission.
In re Cheeseborough Ponds Manufacturing
Corp.: On March 31, 1994, EPA issued an
administrative order on consent against
Cheeseborough Ponds, which assessed a penalty of
$105,000 in administrative penalties under CWA
§309(g). The company owns and operates a
wastewater treatment plant at its manufacturing
A-4
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
facility in Las Piedras, Puerto Rico, which has
effluent discharges into Los Muertos Creek. In
March 1993, EPA issued an administrative
complaint alleging violations of Respondent's
NPDES permit between 1989 and 1993 and
proposing the assessment of $125,000 in
administrative penalties.
SDWA
U.S. v. Kennemuth (dfbla Moose Oil) (W.D.
N.Y.): On June 1, 1994, the court entered a
Default Judgment requiring the defendant to plug
75 injection wells in Allegheny County, NY, in
accordance with a previously approved plugging
and abandonment plan, and the payment of
$138,095 in civil penalties.
U.S. v. Wasson & Resis (W.D.. N.Y.): On April
26, 1994, a complaint was filed in the court
alleging that Wasson & Regis was in violation of
an administrative order issued by EPA. The order
was to enforce the financial responsibility, casing
and cementing and closure requirements of the
underground injection control (UIC) program of
the Safe Drinking Water Act against Class II
enhanced recovery injection wells owned and
operated by defendants in Allegheny County, NY,
The judicial complaint seeks to compel
defendants' compliance with the administrative
order and seeks penalties for past violations of the
substantive requirements of the UIC program and
the administrative order.
In re PRASA: On September 30, 1994 the EPA
issued four CACOs that resolved four
administrative penalty actions against PRASA
under §1414(g)(3) of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) for violations of the Surface Water
Treatment Rule (SWTR). The four CACOs
assessed a collective administrative penalty of
$15,000 and established new compliance dates by
which PRASA must install filtration. PRASA had
failed to comply with previous administrative
compliance orders requiring that it initiate
filtration pursuant to the SWTR at four of its
public water supplies.
U.S. v. Melvin Blum: The President of Burlington
Bio-Medical Corporation was found guilty on
August 8, 1994 on two counts of conspiring to
obstruct an EPA investigation and three counts of
falsifying pesticide records submitted to EPA
under FIFRA. A codefendant pled guilty on May
19, 1994 to FIFRA violations. On October 31,
1994, Melvin Blum was sentenced to 5 months
imprisonment, to be followed by 5 months of
home confinement and 2 years of probation, and
fined $10,000. His codefendant, Charles
Monteleone, was given 1 year of probation and a
$25 fine.
RCRA
U.S. v. Eastman Kodak (N.D. N.Y.): On October
7, 1994, EPA lodged a consent decree with the
court to resolve various RCRA violations
concerning Eastman Kodak Corporation's
Rochester, NY, facility. Under the settlement,
Kodak agreed to upgrade miles of industrial
sewers and reduce the discharge of hazardous
wastes. Kodak agreed to an $8 million civil
penalty, and will spend millions of dollars more to
inspect, repair and upgrade an estimated 31 miles
of industrial sewers at the facility, and will correct
a series of other violations. Kodak violated RCRA
by failing to identify hazardous wastes generated
at the Kodak Park facility, and by allowing the
unlawful disposal of various hazardous wastes
through leaks in the facility's industrial sewer.
Kodak will be permitted to reduce the penalty by
up to $3 million by implementing six
environmental projects worth at least $12 million
to reduce hazardous wastes in its 2,200 acre
Kodak Park. The aggregate reduction is expected
to exceed 2.3 million pounds of pollutants by the
year 2001, which should improve the water quality
of the Genessee River and air quality in
northwestern New York.
In addition to its other RCRA violations, Kodak
failed to obtain a permit for an incinerator used to
treat its industrial wastewater sludge, and failed to
disclose both hazardous and solid waste
management units that should have been included
in Kodak Park's RCRA permit. Kodak also failed
to comply with several of its RCRA permit
A-5
-------
1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
conditions, and additionally committed violations
of regulations covering the import and export of
hazardous wastes and the proper closure of certain
underground storage tanks.
Jn the Matter of Redound Industries, Inc. dlbla
Interflo Technologies and Liqui-Mark, et al.: On
June 24, 1994, EPA issued a unilateral
administrative order pursuant to RCRA §7003 to
Redound, its President Irving Wolbrom, and Fil
Realty Ltd. This order directs the Respondents to
perform numerous tasks at various facilities owned
or operated by them to abate an imminent and
substantial hazard to the environment, their
employees and surrounding areas. Respondents
are engaged in the manufacture of water-based and
alcohol-based marking pens, ballpoint pens and a
variety of porous plastic products. They conduct
their business at several facilities in Greenpoint,
Brooklyn, and Westbury, Long Island. All of
these facilities generate hazardous wastes.
Nevertheless, none of the Respondents had ever
notified EPA or the State of New York, pursuant
to the requirements of RCRA §3010, of their
hazardous waste activities.
U.S. v. BCF Corp. (E.D. N.Y.): On May 4, 1994,
the court entered a consent decree executed by the
United States and BCF, a used oil refiner located
in Brooklyn, NY. The decree addresses violations
of RCRA requirements at the facility, which
handled waste oil contaminated with hazardous
waste although it was not authorized to do so.
The settlement includes detailed provisions for
operation of the facility so as to ensure that no
contaminated waste oil will be received in the
future. The decree also provides for payment of
$100,000 civil penalty to resolve the past
violations.
In the Matter of Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company:
On June 14, 1994, EPA issued an administrative
order on consent pursuant to RCRA §3008(h) to
Puerto Rico Sun Oil. The order requires PRSO to
investigate 17 solid waste management units/areas
at its facility to determine the nature and extent of
any possible contamination from these units/areas.
The PRSO refinery, formerly known as Yabucoa
Sun Oil, was the subject of a Corrective Action
order issued unilaterally by EPA in 1992.
In the Matter of PPG Industries, Inc.: On May
27, 1994, EPA issued an administrative
Modification/Amendment on consent to a 1990
RCRA §3008(h) corrective action consent order to
PPG Industries, Inc. As a result of the
development of groundwater monitoring wells,
purging and sampling of groundwater monitoring
wells and aquifer testing at its Guayanilla, Puerto
Rico facility, PPG generated wastewater for which
it needed storage. The company requested
approval of a temporary storage unit for 1 year.
Approval of the unit was published for public
notice and comment; no comments were received.
The Amendment/Modification specifies the
conditions under which the temporary storage unit
is required to operate and the contingency plan
which will be implemented in the event of a spill
or discharge from the unit.
In re Westchester County, New York,
Sportsmen's Center: On January 28, 1994, EPA
issued an administrative order on consent to the
County of Westchester. The order was issued
pursuant to RCRA §7003, and requires the County
to assess the nature and extent of the
contamination (predominantly lead) from shooting
activities at the Sportsmen's Center located in the
Blue Mountain Reservation, in the town of
Cortlandt, NY. The County is further required to
design and implement a plan for the remediation
of the contamination, and to design and implement
a plan to prevent the re-contamination of the
facility in the future.
In the Matter of Gaseteria Oil Corp.: On April
28, 1994, EPA settled an administrative
enforcement action against Gaseteria Oil
Corporation. The 1992 complaint which initiated
the action alleged that Gaseteria violated RCRA
Subtitle I requirements concerning underground
storage tanks (USTs). Under the settlement the
company agreed to the assessment of a civil
penalty of $3 million; the parties further agreed to
a $339,000 settlement of this assessed penalty in
the context of the company's reorganization
pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
A-6
-------
M
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT!
TSCA
In the Matter of PIC Americas, Inc.: In
December 1993, an EPA administrative law judge
issued a Decision and order assessing the full
$85,000 civil penalty sought by EPA in an
EPCRA enforcement action against DIG Americas,
Inc. DIG imports chemical substances for
commercial purposes. Based on an inspection of
its Fort Lee, NJ, facility EPA issued an
administrative complaint citing the company for
failures to submit, by the December 1986 deadline,
the required Inventory Update reports for five
chemical substances imported during the
company's 1985 fiscal year. The judge had, in
December 1991, issued an order finding in favor
of EPA on the issue of DIC's liability. A hearing
on the question of, the amount of the civil penalty
to be paid.was held in March 1992. This case is
now before the Environmental Appeals Board
awaiting a decision on Respondent's appeal.
In the Matter of SUNY-New Paltz: In October
1993, EPA entered into an administrative consent
agreement and order with the State University of
New York at New Paltz. The order required the
University to pay a civil penalty of $90,750 for
various TSCA violations, and replace all PCB
transformers at the campus. The action arose out
of an incident in December 1991: an electrical
surge resulted in PCB transformer explosions and
damage to six separate buildings. Based on
subsequent inspections EPA determined SUNY
had failed to comply with TSCA PCB regulations;
an administrative complaint was issued in June of
1992. In addition to the penalty, the settlement
provided for the removal and proper disposal of 10
PCB transformers from the campus by November
31, 1994.
In the Matter of Cray Valley Products, Inc.: On
September 1, 1994, EPA entered into a CACO
with Cray Valley Products, Inc. The 1992
administrative complaint which initiated the case
charged the company with eight counts of TSCA
violations concerning its failure to comply with
premanufacturing notice and chemical importation
requirements. Under the CACO the company will
pay a civil penalty of $175,000.
In the Matter of Eastman Kodak Co.: On
October 25, 1993, EPA finalized settlement of an
administrative case against Kodak. The complaint,
filed in 1992, charged the company with ten
violations of the TSCA PCB regulations. Under
the settlement, Kodak paid a penalty of $42,000
and, in addition, undertook an environmentally
beneficial expenditure by removing and properly
disposing of 17 PCB Transformers at a cost of
approximately $4 million. The removal work was
completed by September 30, 1994. On March
18,1994, EPA entered into another administrative
consent order with Kodak, which required the
company to pay $13,750. The complaint in that
case, issued on December 9, 1993, charged the
company with one count of unauthorized disposal
of PCBs, based on a voluntary disclosure made by
Kodak on July 1, 1993. In addition to
emphasizing the importance of pollution
prevention, the settlement, which was negotiated
during FY94, emphasizes the federal government's
commitment to cleaning up aging industrial
facilities, the strong deterrent effect of a large
penalty, the efficiencies resulting from prefiline
negotiations, the ability of multimedia inspections
to serve as a catalyst for changing the ways that
companies do business, and the outstanding
cooperative partnership with New York State
throughout the entire process.
In the Matter of Sharp Electronics Corporation:
On December 10, 1993, EPA issued a consent
agreement and order to Sharp Electronics
Corporation resolving an administrative TSCA
enforcement action brought pursuant to TSCA §§
5 and 13. The complaint in this action cited Sharp
for importing chemicals which were not on the
TSCA Inventory without prior notification to EPA
of its intent to import, and for inaccurately
certifying to U.S. Customs officials that it was
importing the chemicals in compliance with
TSCA. Under the settlement agreement, the
company will pay a $685,000 penalty. Sharp also
agreed to carry out several environmentally
benefical projects at a cost in excess of $800,000.
Sharp agreed to develop and implement TSCA
training programs for its company and for the
electronic trade, to upgrade its internal compliance
program, to produce a compliance manual and a
A-7
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
video presentation on TSCA and Sharp's
compliance programs and to undertake an internal
TSCA audit of its last 5 years of operation.
In the Matter of General Electric Company: On
December 30,1993, EPA issued an administrative
complaint to the General Electric Company (GE)
charging multiple violations of TSCA, and seeking
a penalty of $139,875. GE operates a research
and development facility in Niskayuna, NY, where
for many years it conducted research on PCBs
without an approval from EPA. Since research on
PCBs is deemed to be a form of disposal, the
complaint charges GE with unpermitted disposal.
The complaint also charges that GE manufactured,
processed, and distributed PCBs without the
requisite EPA permits, and failed to prepare annual
documents concerning the disposition of its PCB
materials. The matter was settled in June 1994,
with GE's agreement to pay a penalty of $70,000
and maintain compliance with the TSCA
requirements.
In the Matter of Presbyterian Homes of New
Jersey Foundation: On March 31, 1994, EPA
issued a two count complaint to Presbyterian
Homes of New Jersey for its failure to maintain
records of quarterly inspections of its PCB
Transformer, and its failure to compile and
maintain annual documents on the disposition of
PCBs and PCB-items. The complaint proposed a
penalty of $197,000. The violations were detected
during an inspection in 1993 at the Foundation's
Hightstown, NJ facility. EPA discovered that
Respondent had not compiled any of the requisite
documents for any of its several PCB transformers.
U.S. v. State of New York Department of
Transportation (N.D. N.Y.): On March 23, 1994,
the court entered a consent decree settling an
action brought by EPA under TSCA against the
New York State Department of Transportation.
The Transportation Department had sought and
received a temporary EPA approval to dispose of
the dredged material. The approval was granted,
but the Department failed to live up to its terms,
as well as the terms of a later administrative
consent order reached with EPA. The complaint
filed in this case cited the Department for
violations of EPA's PCB regulations as well as of
the TSCA approval and the administrative consent
order. An injunctive order will ensure that the
Department properly maintains two disposal sites
for PCB-contaminated material dredged from the
Hudson River.
In the Matter of New York State Department of
Mental Health: On June 29, 1994, EPA issued an
administrative complaint to the New York State
Office of Mental Health citing violations of the
TSCA PCB regulations and proposing a civil
penalty of $215,000. The Mental Health
Department owns and operates the Bronx
Psychiatric Center in New York City. During an
inspection of the Center EPA found that the
Department had failed to compile and maintain
required records and logs concerning inspections
and the disposition of PCBs and had failed to
dispose of PCBs in an authorized manner.
In re Corporation Azucarera de Puerto Rico: On
September 27,1994, EPA issued an administrative
complaint under TSCA against the Corporacion
Azucarera de Puerto Rico (Sugar Corporation of
Puerto Rico). The complaint cited nineteen
violations of TSCA §6(e) and proposed a civil
penalty of $798,000. The violations occurred at
four different facilities owned and operated by the
Respondent in Aguada, Arecibo, Guanica and
Mercedita, Puerto Rico. Inspections of these
facilities revealed that Respondent had numerous
violations of inspection, record keeping, disposal,
marking and registration requirements concerning
PCB Transformers.
In re Edsewater Associates: On September 30,
1994, EPA issued an administrative complaint
under TSCA against Edgewater Associates for 8
violations of PCB regulations at its facility in
Edgewater, NJ. The complaint proposes a civil
penalty of $222,000. EPA conducted an
inspection of the facility in December 1993, to
determine whether Respondent was in compliance.
The inspection was conducted because EPA had
become aware that Respondent had been engaged
in PCB waste handling activities and storing PCB
contaminated oil at its facility.
A-8
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
TSCA §8 Inventory Update Enforcement
Initiative: In June 1994, EPA issued eight
administrative complaints as part of a nationwide
initiative targeting TSCA §8 Inventory Update
Rule violators. The cases were filed against:
Alnor Chemical, Inc., Valley Stream, NY, with a
proposed penalty of $85,000; Browning Chemical
Corp., White Plains, NY, $136,000; Capelle, Inc.,
Scarsdale, NY, $12,000; Coastal Eagle Point Oil
Co., Westville, NJ, $374,000; Kyowa Hakko USA,
Inc., New York, NY, $6,000; Magna-Kron Corp.,
Jackson, NJ, $17,000; Nippon Paint (America)
Corp., New York, NY, $18,000; and White Cross
Corp., Rye, NY, $51,000. The violations alleged
involve either failure to submit inventory update
forms or late submission of forms to EPA for
chemicals these companies manufactured or
imported.
In the Matter of Ciba-Geigy Corporation: On
December 17, 1993, EPA entered into an
administrative consent order with Ciba-Geigy
Corporation of Ardsley, NY. The order required
the company to pay a civil penalty of $182,550 for
violations of TSCA §§ 5, 8, and 13. The
complaint, which was the consequence of a
voluntary disclosure of the TSCA violations by
Ciba-Geigy, was issued on November 24, 1993.
In the Matter ofOCG Microelectronics Materials,
Inc.: On December 30, 1993, EPA entered into an
administrative consent order with OCG
Microelectronics Materials, Inc. of West Paterson,
NJ. The order required OCG to pay a civil
penalty of $162,900 for violations of TSCA §§5
and 13. The complaint, resulting from a voluntary
disclosure of the TSCA violations by OCG, was
issued on September 29, 1993.
EPCRA
In the Matter of Mobil Oil Corp.: On September
29, 1994, EPA's Environmental Appeals Board
(EAB) rejected an appeal by Mobil Oil from
decisions by two EPA Administrative Law Judges
(ALJs). In December 1993, Senior ALJ Gerald
Harwood ruled for EPA in this EPCRA action.
Judge Harwood determined that Mobil had
unreasonably delayed in notifying the Local
Emergency Planning Commission (LEPC) of a
reportable release of sulfur dioxide; that Mobil
could have notified the LEPC at least 3 days
earlier than it did; and, accordingly, that Mobil
should pay a penalty for each of the 3 days during
which noncompliance continued. This was the first
time EPA had sought and been awarded a
multiple-day penalty assessment in an EPCRA
case.
In the Matter of Agway Petroleum Corporation:
On August 4, 1994, EPA issued an administrative
complaint against Agway Petroleum Corporation
for violations of the regulations promulgated
pursuant to §312 of EPCRA. The complaint cited
violations of EPCRA and assessed a proposed civil
penalty of $1,926,600. Agway Petroleum owns
and operates numerous facilities throughout New
York and New Jersey. The complaint cites Agway
for its failure to submit Tier One or Tier Two
Forms for at least one of five possible petroleum-
related hazardous chemicals found at each of 164
of the company's facilities. The violations were
with respect to the 1990 and 1991 reporting years.
In the Matter of Rich Products Corp.: On
November 12, 1993, EPA executed an
administrative consent agreement and consent
order (CACO) with Rich Products Corp. The
settlement resolved an action commenced in July
1992 citing the company for five violations of the
EPCRA reporting requirements relating to the
chemicals phosphoric acid and sodium hydroxide
"otherwise used" at the company's Buffalo, NY,
facility for the 1987 through 1989 reporting years.
Pursuant to the settlement, Rich Products will pay
a penalty of $34,425 and, in addition, will
undertake an SEP in the form of the design,
installation and startup of a Modified Clean-In-
Place system. This system, which will cost the
company about $64,000, will serve to reduce
phosphoric acid usage at the facility; the project
was required to be completed by November 30,
1994.
In the Matter ofNTU Circuits, Inc.: In February
1994, EPA issued an administrative consent order
to NTU Circuits, Inc. requiring the company to
pay a civil penalty of $97,500 for its violations of
A-9
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
EPCRA §§ 311, 312, and 313. NTU had stored
and "otherwise used" sulfuric acid and ammonia in
quantities exceeding the reporting thresholds at its
facility in Bayshore, NY, since 1986. NTU had
failed to submit MSDSs and emergency and
hazardous chemical inventory forms (Tier I or Tier
II forms) to the appropriate local and state
agencies. NTU also had failed to submit toxic
chemical release forms (Form R) to EPA and the
State of New York for four out of 5 years from
1988 to 1992.
In the Matter of R&F Alloy Wires, Inc.: In
March 1994, an EPA Administrative Law Judge
issued an order granting EPA's Motion for Partial
Accelerated Decision on the question of liability in
an EPCRA enforcement action against R&F Alloy
Wires, Inc. The company was held liable for
eleven violations of EPCRA. The complaint, filed
in 1993, assessed a civil penalty of $79,000. The
violations at R&F involved its failure to file a
Form R in a timely manner for chemicals
manufactured, processed or otherwise used in
amounts exceeding the threshold reporting
requirements. R&F failed to submit Forms R in a
timely manner for ammonia, copper, and 1,1,1-
trichloroethane in 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.
The case was settled in September 1994 for a cash
penalty of $25,000 plus a commitment by R&F to
implement a substantial SEP, valued at over
$55,000.
In the Matter of Silverton Marine Corporation:
On June 20, 1994 EPA issued an administrative
complaint against Silverton Marine Corporation for
violations of the regulations promulgated pursuant
to §313 of EPCRA. The complaint cited six
violations of EPCRA and assessed a proposed civil
penalty of $129,441. Silverton Marine owns and
operates a facility in Millvile, NJ. The complaint
cites Silverton for failure to submit Toxic
Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms to
EPA and the State of New Jersey for styrene and
acetone which were manufactured, imported,
processed, or otherwise used at the facility in
quantities exceeding the applicable thresholds.
The violations were with respect to the 1989,
1990, and 1991 reporting years.
In re Rexon Technology Corp.: On September
15, 1994, EPA issued a complaint proposing a
penalty of $102,000 Dollars against Rexon
Technology Corp., Wayne, NJ, for violations of
EPCRA §313. Specifically, the complaint alleged
that the corporation had failed to submit to EPA,
as required by EPCRA, Toxic Chemical Release
Inventory Reporting Forms (Forms R) for Methyl
Chloroform and Freon 113 for the 1990 through
1992 reporting years.
In re Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.: On
September 30, 1994, EPA II issued an
administrative complaint to The Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company for violations of CERCLA
§103(a) and EPCRA §304. Goodyear failed to
immediately notify the appropriate officials after
releases of vinyl chloride on three occasions from
its facility in Niagara Falls, NY. EPA is seeking
$165,900 in penalties for these violations. The
company did not notify the NRC, SERC, and
LEPC of vinyl chloride releases on August 17,
1992, July 26, 1993, and August 2, 1993 until
about 7-31 hours after the releases occurred.
Further, the releases contained from 2-19 times the
reportable quantities for vinyl chloride.
Catano EPCRA Enforcement Settlements: On
September 30, 1994, EPA executed a settlement
resolving five administrative enforcement actions
brought against facilities operating in the Catano
region of Puerto Rico. These cases were part of
EPA's Catano geographic initiative carried out
over the previous 2 years. The complaints in
those five cases alleged violations of EPCRA §§
311, 312, and 313. The settlement provides for
the five companies to jointly pay a civil penalty of
$90,000. Under the settlement they will also
implement SEPs valued at $210,000 in the form of
training and education programs for both the
regulated and the local community; and provide
$100,000 worth of emergency response equipment
to the Catano Health Center. The five companies
are: American Chemical, Inc.; Easton, Inc.; Goya
de Puerto Rico, Inc.; Island Can Corp.; and Water
Treatment Specialists, Inc.
In the Matter of National Can Puerto Rico, Inc.:
In August 1994, EPA issued an administrative
A-10
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
complaint against National Can for violations of
the regulations promulgated pursuant .to §312 of
EPCRA- The complaint cited twelve violations of
EPCRA and assessed a proposed penalty of
$300,000. National Can owns and operates a can
manufacturing plant in the Catano area of Puerto
Rico. The complaint cites National Can for failure
to submit Tier I or Tier II forms to the fire
department, LEPC and SERC for the extremely
hazardous substance, sulfuric acid, which was
present at the facility in amounts equal to or
greater than the reporting threshold in the years
1990 through 1993.
In the Matter of Petroleum Chemical Corp.: In
June 1994, EPA issued an administrative
complaint against Petroleum Chemical Corporation
for violations of the regulations promulgated
pursuant to EPCRA §§ 312 and 313. The
complaint cited nine violations of EPCRA §312,
four violations of §313 of EPCRA and assessed a
total proposed penalty of $245,000. Petroleum
Chemical owns and operates a facility in the
Catano area of Puerto Rico. The complaint cites
Petroleum Chemical for failure to submit Tier I or
Tier II forms to the local fire department, LEPC
and SERC for the extremely hazardous substance,
phosphorus pentoxide, and the hazardous
chemicals asbestos, kerosene asphalt and
aluminum paste, which were present at the facility
in amounts equal to or greater than the reporting
thresholds in the years 1987 through 1992. In
addition, the complaint cites Petroleum Chemical
for failure to submit Toxic Chemical Release
Inventory Forms to EPA and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico for friable asbestos which was
processed at the facility in quantities exceeding
applicable thresholds for the years 1988 through
1992.
In re Hess Oil Virgin Islands: On June 21, 1994,
EPA issued an eleven-count administrative
complaint against Hess Oil Virgin Islands
Corporation citing EPCRA violations. The
complaint alleges that Hess failed to submit in a
timely manner the required Form R for each of
five chemicals; and alleges that Hess failed to
report a reasonable estimate of its fugitive air
emissions for another. The complaint alleges these
violations for calendar years 1988 through 1990
and seeks a civil penalty of $252,000. This
complaint arose out of an earlier consolidated
multimedia: inspection at the facility.
In re Statewide Refrigerated Services, Inc.: On
September 30,1994, EPA issued an administrative
complaint to Statewide Refrigerated Services, Inc.
for violations of CERCLA §103(a) and EPCRA
§§ 304, 311, and 312. Statewide failed to
immediately notify the appropriate officials of a
release that occurred at its Rochester, NY, facility.
EPA is seeking $147,120 in penalties for these
violations. The company did not notify the NRC,
SERC, and LEPC of an ammonia release that
occurred on November 12, 1993 until about 94
hours after the release occurred. Further, the
company had failed to submit a MSDS and annual
Tier I/II forms as required by EPCRA §§ 311 and
312.
In the Matter of Freeman Industries, Inc.: On
September 29, 1994, EPA issued an administrative
complaint proposing a penalty of $108,900 against
Freeman Industries, Inc. of Tuckahoe, NY, for
violations of EPCRA §§ 311 and 312.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Freeman
failed to submit the MSOSs, for bromine, an
extremely hazardous substance, to the SERC for
New York, the LEPC for Westchester County, and
the Fire Department for the Town of Eastchester,
as it was required to do by January of 1991. In
addition Freeman failed to submit the Emergency
and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms to these
agencies from 1991 through 1994.
In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co.: On May
17, 1994, EPA issued a seven-count civil
administrative complaint against DuPont's
Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ, facility, alleging
violations of EPCRA §313. The complaint was
the result of an EPCRA §313 Data Quality
Assurance inspection conducted at the facility on
July 21, 1993 as part of a Regional multi-media
investigation. It alleged that DuPont failed to
submit in a timely manner Forms R for
nitrobenzene for the years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991,
and 1992, and for formaldehyde for 1991. The
complaint sought penalties of $142,000.
A-ll
-------
IFY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
CERCLA
The Lipari Site: On March 16, 1994, the U.S.
lodged a proposed consent decree in partial
resolution of U.S., et al. v. Rohm & Haas, et al.,
an injunctive relief and cost recovery case arising
out of EPA's work at the Lipari Landfill site,
which is the number one site on the NPL. Under
the decree, Rohm & Haas, one of the primary
responsible parties at the site, which is located in
Mantua Township, NJ, agreed to perform the ROD
III remedy at the Site. The site received
hazardous industrial wastes from 1958 through
early 1971. Rohm & Haas was the largest
contributor of wastes to the Site.
On April 15, 1994, the court entered a separate
consent decree in this case, which resolved the
liability of Rohm & Haas and two other PRPs,
Owens-Illinois and ManorCare, for ROD I, ROD
II, and two additional components of ROD III at
the Lipari site. Because the portion of the remedy
settled in this decree had been essentially
completed by EPA, the three defendants agreed to
cash-out payments to EPA and the State of New
Jersey valued at $52,939,375. In September 1994,
EPA signed a settlement with Mr. Nick Lipari, the
owner of the Lipari Site, resolving his liability.
Under this proposed settlement, Mr. Lipari,
through his insurers, has agreed to pay to the
United States and the State a total of $1.3 million.
U.S. v. CDMG Realty Co., et al. (D. N.J.): On
December 2, 1994, the court entered a consent
decree, in partial resolution of this CERCLA
action concerning the Sharkey's Landfill
Superfund site, located in the Townships of
Parsipanny-Troy Hills and East Hanover, NJ. The
decree involves various settling parties, including
two owner parties, twenty-nine non-owner parties
and twelve de minimis parties. The decree
requires that the settling parties design and
construct the remedy and perform the necessary
operation and maintenance. This work has an
estimated present value of approximately $42
million. The settlement also provides that parties
reimburse EPA $1.75 million of its past costs and
up to $250,000 of its Supervisory Costs and
reimburse the State of New Jersey $300,000 of its
past costs. The de minimis Settling Parties have
agreed to pay $1,390,034 to the other settling
parties towards the cost of implementing the
remedial action.
U.S. v, Vineland Chemical Company, et al. (D.
N.J.): In March 1994, the U.S. entered a consent
decree pursuant to CERCLA and RCRA, resolving
litigation between the United States and Vineland
Chemical Company and its owners/operators,
Miriam Schwerdtle and the Estate of Arthur
Schwerdtle. In the consent decree the defendants
confessed liability for $76 million under CERCLA
and agreed to surrender all but certain specified
assets to the United States for payment of an
earlier RCRA penalty judgment and for costs
incurred and to be incurred by the United States in
performing all response actions pursuant to
CERCLA. The settlement included agreement by
the defendants to bring money back from two
overseas trusts which the United States alleged had
been established to prevent EPA from recovering
its CERCLA costs.
U.S. v. The Carborundum Company, et al. (D.
N.J.): On March 30, 1994, a consent decree was
lodged in the court which partially settles EPA's
cost recovery claims relating to the Caldwell
Trucking Company Superfund Site in Fairfield
Township, NJ. The nine settling defendants
agreed to pay $2.46 million for EPA's past and
future costs and also agreed to perform all
scheduled remedial and natural resource restoration
work at the site, valued at an additional $32
million. Under the decree, the State of New
Jersey will also receive its first natural resource
damage payment under CERCLA and the U.S.
Department of the Interior will receive
compensation for its assessment and monitoring
costs.
In the Matter of the Frontier Chemical
Superfund Site: On July 5, 1994, EPA issued an
administrative consent order for the removal of all
wastes contained in tanks at the Frontier Chemical
Superfund site located in Niagara Falls, NY.
There are approximately 45 tanks at the Site
containing over 360,000 gallons of waste. The
A-12
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
order was issued to 31 PRPs; the work is expected
to cost about $3.6 million.
U.S. v. Ciba-Geiev Corp (D. N.Y.): On April 21,
1994, the court entered a consent decree settling
EPA's CERCLA claims against Ciba-Geigy
Corporation. The settlement provides for the
performance, by Ciba-Geigy, of the remedial
design, the remedial action, operation &
maintenance and post-remediation monitoring for
the first operable unit (groundwater) at the Ciba-
Geigy Superfund Site in Toms River, NJ. The
estimated cost of the work is approximately $60
million. In addition to providing that Ciba-Geigy
undertake the response work, the decree calls for
the company to reimburse the United States for
$8.4 million in past response costs incurred by the
U.S. with respect to the Site, and future response
costs, including costs to be incurred by EPA with
respect to overseeing the work to be performed by
Ciba-Geigy.
In the Matter of Diamond Alkali Superfund Site:
On April 20, 1994, EPA issued an administrative
consent order pursuant to which Occidental
Chemical Company agrees to undertake the RI/FS
for the Passaic River Study Area portion of the
Diamond Alkali Superfund Site in Newark, NJ.
Remedial action on the property where the facility
was located has been undertaken by Occidental
pursuant to a judicial consent decree. Because of
the presence of dioxin in the sediments of the
Passaic River, EPA determined that a RI/FS
should be undertaken for areas in the River
adjacent to the site. The Passaic River Study Area
identified in the RI/FS is a six-mile area up-River
from the confluence of the Passaic and
Hackensack Rivers. The study is expected to cost
$10 million.
In the Matter of Liberty Industrial Finishing
Site: On August 30, 1994, EPA issued an
administrative consent order to 9 PRPs for the
removal of, inter alia, soils contaminated with
PCBs at the Liberty Industrial Finishing Site,
Village of Farmingdale, NY. At the same time, a
second administrative order was issued unilaterally
to six non-settling PRPs requiring them to perform
the same removal action and participate and
coordinate with the recipients of the consent order.
The recipients of the consent order include two
federal agencies, the Department of Defense and
the General Services Administration. All the PRPs
are current or former owners or operators of the
facility. The work is expected to cost about
$500,000.
In re ENRX and Buffalo Warehousing
Superfund Sites: On September 30, 1994, EPA
entered into an administrative settlement to recover
over $1 million from more than 90 PRPs at these
two sites, pursuant to §122(h) of CERCLA.
Beginning in September 1989 and concluding in
March 1992, EPA performed a removal action at
the ENRX Site which included such activities as
the securing, segregating, sampling, transporting
and off-site disposal of 400 drums and containers,
and the treatment and disposal of materials found
in various tanks. Starting in July 1991 and
concluding in April 1992, EPA also performed a
removal action at the Buffalo Warehousing Site.
The removal action at this site consisted of the
securing, segregating, sampling, transporting and
off-site disposal of approximately 66 drums and
containers. The settling PRPs are parties who
generated waste which was disposed of at the two
sites.
In re York Oil Company Superfund Site: On
September 30, 1994, EPA issued a unilateral
administrative order in connection with the York
Oil Company Superfund Site in the Town of
Moira, NY. The order requires respondent
Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa), a
generator PRP, to undertake certain removal
activities there. Because of the deteriorated and/or
unstable condition of the tanks and drums at this
site, EPA issued the order to Alcoa requiring the
company to undertake a removal action at the Site
pursuant to CERCLA. This removal action
includes the characterization, removal, disposal
and/or treatment of on-Site tanks and drums and
their contents, and is expected to cost about
$200,000.
InreA&YRealty Corp.: On September 29, 1994,
EPA reached an administrative settlement with the
A&Y Realty Corporation mandating the sale of
A-13
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
real property that constitutes part of the Radium
Chemical Company (RCC) Superfund Site located
in New York City. The proceeds of the sale (after
satisfaction of prior tax obligations and the
expenses of sale) will be reimbursed to the
Superfund. The settlement agreement specifies the
terms upon which the real property is to be sold.
Contemporaneously with the administrative
settlement, the Site is being noticed in the Federal
Register for intended deletion from the National
Priorities List, since Site remediation has been
completed. In December 1994 the property was
sold under the agreement, realizing some $250,000
for the Superfund, and resulting in the return of
the property to full commercial use.
In re PVO International, Inc.: On September 30,
1994, EPA issued an administrative order on
consent to PVO International Inc. requiring
performance of a removal action at its site in
Boonton Township, NJ. Under the order PVO has
agreed to sample and dispose of several thousand
containers, drums, vats and tanks off-site. The
estimated cost of the work is $350,000. PVO also
has agreed to pay EPA approximately $63,000 in
past response costs, plus interest. PVO's payment
obligation will be secured by an EPA lien on the
Site, which will continue until the payment
obligation is fully satisfied.
Quanta/New Jersey Non-Complier Case
Settlements: On March 24, 1994, the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey
entered seven consent decrees settling EPA's
claims against 8 PRPs at the Quanta Resources
Site in Edgewater, NJ. The settlements provide
for reimbursement of past response costs totaling
$940,000, civil penalties and punitive damages in
an amount of $800,000, and placement of
$785,000 into an escrow account to finance future
removal activities at the Site, resulting in a total
settlement value of $2,525,000. The Settling
Defendants are: Estate of James Frola, co-owner
of the property; Albert Von Dohln, co-owner of
the property; Republic Environmental Systems
(New York), Inc. (formerly Chemical
Management, Inc.); Petroleum Tank Cleaners;
Snyder Enterprises; Texaco, Inc.; and Total
Recovery, Inc.
In re Niagara County Refuse Superfund Site:
On September 23, 1994, EPA signed an
administrative order on consent with 11 de
minimis parties to settle their liability with respect
to the Niagara County Refuse Superfund in New
York pursuant to §122(g) of CERCLA. A ROD
was signed in September 1993 selecting a cap and
related measures as the remedy for the Site, with
a cost presently estimated at about $20 million.
The de minimis settling parties each contributed
less than one percent of the total wastes disposed
of at the Site. These de minimis parties have
agreed to pay $793,866 to the Superfund. This
settlement was reached in conjunction with a
major party consent decree, which has been signed
by the PRPs and by EPA, and is awaiting lodging
with the court. Taken together, the de minimis
settlement and the major party settlement would
require the settling parties to undertake the full
performance of the RD/RA; the payment of EPA's
future response costs; and the payment of
$866,280 of EPA's past response costs (out of
total past response costs of $1,030,000).
In re Muratti Environmental Site: On September
30, 1994, EPA entered into an administrative
cost recovery agreement with 12 PRPs pursuant to
§122(h)(l) of CERCLA, regarding the Muratti
Environmental Site (Site), located in Penuelas,
Puerto Rico. Under the agreement the settling
PRPs will pay EPA $525,000 in reimbursement of
95 percent of EPA's unreimbursed past costs for
a removal action at the site. The settling PRPs are
the generators of hazardous substances that were
disposed of at the site, which consists of an
abandoned, approximately 2-acre former industrial
waste disposal facility.
U.S. v. Sisno Trading International, Ltd., et al.:
On December 10, 1993, the court signed two
partial consent decrees and a default judgment in
connection with the Signo Trading Superfund Site
in Mt. Vernon, NY. These court orders resolve an
action brought in 1987 on behalf of EPA, seeking
recovery of response costs incurred by EPA in the
performance of a removal action at the Site, and
seeking treble damages against certain defendants
for noncompliance with an EPA administrative
cleanup order issued in 1984. Under the decrees,
A-14
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
defendants Jack and Charles Colbert and the
"Colbert Companies" (Signo Trading International,
Ltd., SCI Equipment and Technology, Ltd., Mount
Vernon Trade Group, Ltd., Northeast By-Products
Recycling Corp.) agreed to pay $22,500 as a
penalty for failure to comply with the order.
Defendants Arnold Schwartz, Arnold Fader, New
Island Investors and Lynric Associates, Inc.,
agreed to pay $71,000 in past response costs.
Finally, a default judgment was entered by the
court against defendant 11 Hartford Avenue, Inc.
in the amount of $311,658.54, for costs incurred
by EPA in connection with the Site.
U.S. v. Zaklama (D. N.J.): On April 25, 1994,
the District Court of New Jersey ordered the
owner of a residential property within the
Montclair/West Orange Superfund Site to grant
access to EPA for the purpose of conducting
additional sampling and performing remedial
construction on the property. Esmat Zaklama, the
absentee owner of a residential property at the site,
refused to grant EPA access to remediate his
property because the government had refused his
demand that it buy the property or compensate
him because he could not lease out the
contaminated property.
U.S. v. Thiokol Corp. (D. N.J.): On October 26,
1994, the court entered a judicial consent decree
between the United States and Thiokol Corp.
Under the settlement, which had earlier been
lodged with the court, Thiokol agreed to conduct
remedial action, operation and maintenance and
post-remediation monitoring for a portion of the
Rockaway Borough Site in New Jersey, and
reimburse the U.S. for all associated oversight
costs. Thiokol also agreed to fund the future
operation and maintenance of Rockaway
Borough's water treatment system, which treats
contaminated groundwater from the site. The
decree also provides for recovery of approximately
half of the $2 million in total costs incurred by the
United States at the Site, resulting in a total
settlement value of approximately $13 million.
U.S. v. Town of North Hempstead (E.D. N.Y.):
On September 18, 1994, a consent decree in this
case was lodged with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York. The decree
would settle ongoing litigation against the Town of
North Hempstead for recovery of some $2.64
million in past EPA cleanup costs incurred at the
Port Washington Landfill. The Town is already
undertaking the remedial work at the landfill, at an
estimated cost of $45 million.
In the Matter of Aero Haven Airport Site:
During FY94, EPA entered into two administrative
orders on consent pursuant to which Owens-
Corning Fiberglas Corp. will perform and fund
private removal actions to permanently close an
asbestos containing material (ACM) landfill at the
Aero Haven Airport Site. The first order was
signed on June 27, 1994, and the second order was
signed on September 30, 1994. In the first order
Owens-Corning agreed to fund and perform an
emergency removal action to stabilize the Site by:
(1) installing high visibility fencing around
portions of the Site, (2) covering exposed areas of
ACM with clean fill or soil, and (3) posting
warning signs. The second order was signed on
September 30, 1994, pursuant to which Owens-
Corning has agreed to properly and permanently
close the site by: (1) consolidating the current
18.5 acres of ACM and satellite piles of ACM into
a fill area (or approximately 122,000 cubic yards
of ACM), (2) placing a cover over the ACM, and
(3) installing vegetation and erosion and run-off
system. The total cost of the work required under
both orders is in excess of $1.2 million.
17.5. v. Wheaton Industries. Inc. (D. N.J.): The
court entered a consent decree settling EPA's
complaint brought under §107 of CERCLA against
Wheaton Industries, Inc. The consent decree
requires Wheaton to pay $4 million in full
settlement of the litigation. The complaint sought
recovery of past and future response costs incurred
by the United States at the Williams Property
Superfund site, located in Cape May County, NJ.
The State of New Jersey joined in this lawsuit to
recover state funds expended on this Site.
MULTIMEDIA CASES
In the Matter of Brookhaven National
Laboratories and Associated Universities, Inc.:
A-15
-------
1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
During 1994 Region n settled a number of actions
involving this Federal research facility on Long
Island, New York, and the private contractor
which operates it for the U.S. Department of
Energy. On March 29, 1994, Region II executed
an administrative consent order with Associated
Universities which resolved the TSCA
enforcement action. The TSCA settlement
provided for a penalty of $31,875, and included
injunctive provisions to insure compliance with
applicable TSCA requirements. On May 10, 1994
Region II and the U.S. DOE also signed a Federal
Facility Compliance Agreement which resolved a
Notice of Noncompliance issued under TSCA,
relating to some of the same violations as those
for which Associated Universities was penalized.
On April 23, 1994 Region II entered a consent
order with DOE and Associated Universities
resolving alleged RCRA violations set forth in a
Notice of Violation issued to DOE and an
administrative complaint issued to Associated.
These actions were merged into a single settlement
document due to the enactment of the Federal
Facilities Compliance Act and because of DOE's
indemnification agreement. Subsequent Federal
violations referred to EPA by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, were
also merged into this action. The settlement
included a penalty of $63,250 and requires
compliance with the RCRA provisions, violations
of which were cited in the action. In addition,
DOE and Associated Universities agreed to
implement two supplemental environmental
projects jointly valued at $170,000. The
Respondents will perform a wildlife management
survey and, if necessary, implement a subsequent
management plan for the wetland and forested
areas at the Long Island, New York facility.
Should these projects not be timely completed,
Associated Universities will be required to pay an
additional penalty of $85,000.
In re American Cyanamid Company: In April,
1994 Region II issued two administrative
complaints to the American Cyanamid Company
of Wayne, New Jersey for violations of the
EPCRA and TSCA. The complaints seek to assess
a combined civil penalty of $27,000 for violations
at the Lederle Laboratories facility in Bound
Brook, New Jersey. The EPCRA violations
include the failure to file a Form R in a timely
manner for Ammonia otherwise used in amounts
exceeding the threshold reporting requirements;
and TSCA violations include failure to compile
and maintain annual documents concerning the
disposition of PCBs and PCB Items. The
complaints cover violations at the facility for the
years 1989 through 1992. The TSCA matter was
settled in May, 1994, with a penalty payment of
$10,000. The EPCRA matter resulted in a consent
order issued in September, and assessment of a
$9,000 penalty.
In re Broomer Research, Inc.: On June 24,
1994, Region II issued an administrative order on
consent to Broomer Research, Inc. and 3 Beech
Realty under the "emergency" authorities of §7003
of RCRA and §1431 of SDWA. EPA found that
these companies' handling of hazardous and
radioactive wastes at their facility in Islip, New
York may present an "imminent and substantial
endangerment" to the health and environment.
This is the first time the Region has used its
emergency authority under §1431 ofSWDA. The
order requires Broomer immediately to post signs
and restrict unauthorized access to the facility and
prohibits it from treating, disposing or removing
hazardous waste from the facility without prior
EPA approval of such action. Broomer was
required to submit, within 20 days after the order,
a workplan for the Investigation of Releases at the
facility, including the implementation of a
sampling plan and medical monitoring program.
After Broomer completes the Investigation, it is
required by this order to submit its findings to
EPA, and submit a workplan for the Remediation
of Releases, which it must then implement starting
within ten days after EPA approval.
In re Abbott Laboratories: On May 18, 1994
EPA initiated a multi-media action against Abbott
Laboratories' facility located in Barceloneta,
Puerto Rico. The action consisted of the filing of
two administrative complaints. The first complaint
was issued under the Clean Air Act, and alleged
that Abbott violated the Puerto Rico SIP by failing
to operate its air pollution control equipment at all
A-16
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
times. The CAA complaint seeks a proposed civil
penalty of $50,000. The second complaint alleged
that Abbott violated §313 of EPCRA by failing to
timely submit a required Toxic Chemical and
Release Inventory Reporting form. This complaint
included a proposed penalty of $34,000. The
violations were documented as the result of a
consolidated multi-media inspection in March of
1994.
In re Picatinny Arsenal: In August, 1994 Region
II initiated enforcement actions against the U.S.
Army's Picatinny Arsenal, citing violations under
RCRA, the Clean Air Act, TSCA and the Clean
Water Act. On September 13, 1994 the Region
sent to the Arsenal four enforcement actions, and
a proposed Federal Facility Compliance
Agreement (FFCA) to address these violations.
The enforcement actions were: 1) an
administrative complaint citing RCRA storage and
disposal violations, proposing a penalty of
$60,150, 2) a RCRA Notice of Violation citing
certain additional storage and land disposal
violations, 3) a compliance order under the Clean
Air Act arising out of violations of New Source
Performance Standards for steam generating units,
and 4) a Notice of Violation under the Clean Air
Act for constructing equipment and control devices
without first obtaining the necessary State permit
to construct.
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey:
In April, 1992 Region II conducted a major
consolidated multi-media inspection of Kennedy
International Airport in New York City, which is
operated by the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey. A number of violations were
documented, both at facilities operated by the Port
Authority itself, as well as at some facilities
operated by airline or service companies. In Fiscal
Year 1993 a complaint was issued to the Port
Authority citing it for TSCA violations and
proposing a penalty of $289,000. On June 28,
1994, Region II issued three additional
administrative complaints to Ogden Aviation
Services, Inc., citing that company for violations
of the Federal underground storage tank
regulations, and proposing penalties totalling
$109,125.
Safety Kleen: In Fiscal Year 1994 Region II
carried out inspections at a number of facilities
operated by Safety Kleen, Inc., a waste oil and
chemical recycling and disposal firm. Region II
documented violations at several Safety Kleen
facilities. An administrative complaint under
§309(g) of the Clean Water Act was issued on
June 30 in connection with the company's Manati,
Puerto Rico facility, seeking $125,000 in penalties
for NPDES violations. Another complaint was
issued on March 31, 1994, citing RCRA violations
at the company's Linden, New Jersey facility.
That case was settled in September with the
company's agreement to pay a penalty of $35,075.
A-17
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
REGION HI
CLEAN AIR ACT
Ohio Power Company (N.D. W.Va.): On
November 15, 1994, the U.S. Department of
Justice filed a CAA complaint with the court
alleging that Ohio Power Company violated
federal sulfur dioxide emission limitations at the
Kammer Power Plant in Moundsville, WV. On
the same date, the Department lodged a partial
consent decree resolving the United States' civil
claims for injunctive relief relating to these
violations. The partial decree requires the
Defendant to operate the Kammer plant in
compliance with applicable provisions of the CAA,
including a 2.7 Ibs/mm BTU hourly SO2 'emission
standard. Ohio Power is also required to install
and maintain a Continuous Emission Monitoring
System (CEMS), which will enable EPA to
monitor Defendant's compliance with the interim
and final emission limitations, and to submit
quarterly reports documenting Defendant's
compliance status.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (E.D. Penn.): On
July 5, 1994, the court entered a consent decree
which resolved the United State's claims in U.S. v.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Civil Action No. 92-
5213, a civil action filed against Bethlehem Steel
Corporation (BSC), for violations of CAA and
NESHAP regulating benzene emission from coke
by-product recovery plants, 40 C.F.R. Part 61,
Subpart L, at the company's coke works facilities
in Bethlehem, PA, and Sparrows Point, MD. BSC
failed to meet compliance deadlines set forth in
the NESHAP, as a result of which BSC continued
to operate sources of benzene in violation of the
NESHAP. BSC also failed to submit interim and
final reports required by the NESHAP. The
decree required BSC to pay a civil penalty of
$650,000 and to comply with the requirements of
the NESHAP with' respect to any and all
operations at these two facilities.
U.S. v. Coors (D. Va."): On January 31, 1994, the
court entered a consent decree with the Coors
Brewing Company (Coors) which required Coors
to pay a civil penalty of $245,000 and to not
construct a brewery at its facility in the
Shenandoah Valley in Elkton, VA (Facility)
without a permit authorizing such construction.
The consent decree resolved violations of the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
regulations. Coors had initiated the construction
of the facility without undergoing new BACT and
modeling review, and without obtaining a revised
PSD permit to include the new emissions sources,
in violation of §165(a) of the Clean Air Act and
the Commonwealth of Virginia's State
Implementation Plan.
Florida Marina and Boat Sales: On January 26,
1994, EPA issued an administrative complaint
against Florida Marina and Boat Sales, Inc.
(Respondent) for violations of §610(b) of the CAA
and the Nonessential Products Rule.
Respondent, a retailer of new and used boats and
marine supplies, is alleged to have sold at least six
(6) noise horns propelled by a CFC, in violation of
the Rule and the CAA. Respondent agreed to pay
a civil penalty of $3,000.
Hussey Copper: On April 28, 1994, EPA settled
an administrative CAA complaint with Hussey
Copper for violations of the Pennsylvania SIP.
Hussey Copper engages in the smelting and
production of secondary copper. Specifically,
EPA's complaint alleged that Hussey violated
Article XX of the Pennsylvania SIP which
established mass and visible emissions limitations
for fugitive particulate matter (PM-10). In
settlement, Hussey agreed to pay a civil penalty in
the amount of $135,000.
Manny, Moe, and Jack, Inc.- The Pep Boys:
On March 15, 1994, EPA filed an administrative
penalty action against the Pep Boys - Manny,
Moe, and Jack, Inc. for violations of §609 of the
CAA and the regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 82.
Those provisions, among other things, prohibit the
sale of small containers of CFC-12 unless the sale
is to a certified technician or to a person intending
A-18
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT I i
to resell the containers. The complaint alleged
that PEP Boys sold such containers in violation of
the regulations on numerous occasions, and sought
a penalty of $8,726.
U.S. v. Sun Oil, Philadelphia (E.D. Penn.): On
July 27, 1994, the court entered a consent decree
between EPA, Sun Company, Inc. (R&M), and
Atlantic Refining and Marketing Corporation
resolving many violations of the CAA at
Defendants' refinery located in South Philadelphia.
The violations included the expansion of the fluid
catalytic cracking unit at the refinery, resulting in
increased emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur
dioxide. This expansion triggered the permitting
and technology review requirements of the
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) rule,
which protects air quality in areas where the air is
cleaner than mandated by national air standards for
certain pollutants. Defendants also violated limits
on visible emissions and failed to meet the
deadline for conducting a performance evaluation
on a continuous emission monitor. Additionally,
Defendants committed many violations of work
practice rules designed to minimize emissions of
VOCs at the Refinery.
In addition to injunctive relief that will reduce
emissions and prevent future violations,
Defendants paid a civil penalty of $1.4 million
plus interest.
U.S. v. Sun Oil, Marcus Hook (E.D. Penn.):
During FY94, EPA and Sun Oil negotiated a
consent decree requiring Sun Company, Inc.
(R&M) ("Sun") to pay a civil penalty of $160,230
and to operate its petroleum refinery in Marcus
Hook, PA ("Facility") in compliance with EPA's
Benzene Transfer NESHAP. EPA alleged that
Sun violated the Benzene Transfer NESHAP when
it failed to meet the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§
61.302, 61.304, and 61.305 by the February 28,
1992 deadline that was imposed under the waiver
of compliance that was granted to Sun and in that
it failed to meet certain deadlines required by the
waiver.
LTV (W. D. Pa): On April 11, 1994, the United
States lodged a consent decree between the United
States, Allegheny County and the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, Plaintiffs, and LTV Steel
Company (LTV), Defendant, in response to
violations of the Clean Air Act by LTV at its
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania coke production facility.
The violations alleged in the initial complaint
pertained to the doors, lids, charging, offtakes,
pushing and combustion stacks emission standards.
The decree requires LTV to pay a civil penalty of
nine hundred thousand dollars ($ 900,000). The
amount to be paid in settlement takes into account
payments of over $ 150,000 previously made to
Allegheny County for violations alleged in the
complaints. The decree requires LTV to make
significant improvements, at a cost of over $3
million, and implement, and make available to the
Plaintiffs and the public, the results of two studies
of coke oven door back pressure.
U.S. v. Sun Company, Inc. (E.D. Penn.): On
May 26, 1994, EPA, lodged a consent decree in
the court resolving many violations of the CAA at
the Sun Company refinery in South Philadelphia.
The most environmentally significant violations
were for increased emissions of nitrogen oxides
and sulfur dioxide. As part of the settlement, the
defendants will restrict their emissions at the
cracking unit and will apply advanced control
technology to reduce their emissions, thereby
contributing a benefit to the environment.
CLEAN WATER ACT
U.S. v. Sun Oil. Marcus Hook (E.D. Penn.): On
June 6, 1994 Defendant Sun Oil (R&M) signed a
proposed consent decree that resolves a civil
judicial action for Sun's pretreatment violations of
the CWA occurring at Sun's Marcus Hook, PA,
Refinery. EPA brought the case against Sun for
incidents of "pass through" by which the Marcus
Hook Refinery discharged oil and grease to the
receiving POTW, DELCORA in Chester, PA,
causing DELCORA to violate its NPDES limits
for oil and grease. The case also focused on Sun's
numerous violations of national and local
pretreatment standards applicable to the Refinery
discharge, including oil and grease, ammonia,
phenols, pH, benzene and other pollutants. Under
the proposed settlement, Sun would pay the United
A-19
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
States a penalty of $1.058 million plus interest.
For injunctive relief, Sun would upgrade its
wastewater treatment, conveyance and operational
practices to prevent further violations of
pretreatment standards and incidents of pass
through.
Sun Oil. Philadelphia (E.D. Penn.): On June 6,
1994 Defendants Sun Oil (R&M) and Atlantic
Refining & Marketing Corp. signed a proposed
consent decree that settles a civil judicial action to
resolve violations of the CWA and NPDES permit
occurring at Defendants' Philadelphia, PA, oil
refinery. On numerous occasions Defendants'
Philadelphia Refinery discharged pollutants
(including oil and grease, total suspended solids,
BOD, ammonia, pH and phenols) into the
Schuylkill River in amounts exceeding the
limitations set in their NPDES permit. Defendants
also violated NPDES requirements for monitoring,
sampling, reporting and bypassing. Under the
proposed settlement, Sun would pay the United
States a penalty of $1.25 million with interest.
For injunctive relief, Defendants would upgrade
their Philadelphia Refinery wastewater treatment,
stormwater conveyance and operational practices
to prevent further violations of the NPDES permit.
Sun Company (Pennsylvania): On September 7,
1994, EPA and the Department of Justice
announced the settlement of two CWA lawsuits
against Sun Company, Inc., at its Marcus Hook
and Passyunk Avenue Refineries, respectively.
The settlement levied penalties exceeding $2.3
million, and will also require the improvement of
poor environmental practices at both facilities.
Sun was alleged to have violated numerous
parameters of its NPDES permit at the Passyunk
Avenue Refinery, including illegal discharges of
oil and grease, chromium, ammonia-nitrogen, and
zinc. In addition, the refinery illegally discharged
untreated wastewater on 14 separate occasions to
the Schuykill River between 1991 and 1994. The
Marcus Hook facility illegally discharged
excessive amounts of oil and grease, which caused
the Delaware County Regional Water Authority's
(DELCORA) sewer system to violate its NPDES
permit. The improper discharges from both of
these refineries added to the overall degradation of
the Schuykill and Delaware Rivers.
Ocean Builders Supply: On July 6, 1994, EPA
issued a proposed $125,000 administrative penalty
to Ocean Builders Supply and Mr. Leonard Jester
for filling a high quality wetland on Chincoteague
Island, VA, despite the fact that a permit for the
action had previously been denied.
Despite being denied a permit, Mr. Jester acquired
a local building permit in June 1992 and
subsequently built the structures on land owned by
his company, Ocean Builders Supply. Similar
unauthorized activities have taken place on two
adjacent lots to Mr. Jester's but have not yet
resulted in irreversible impacts.
DELCORA (E.D. Pa): On July 28, 1994, a
consent decree was entered in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in the case of United States and
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Delaware
County Regional Water Quality Control Authority
(DELCORA). The consent decree required
DELCORA to construct an additional secondary
clarifier at its wastewater treatment plant at a cost
of approximately $3.5 million dollars to be
completed by May 1, 1997, and to pay a civil
penalty of $350,000 plus interest. The decree also
provided for stipulated penalties for NPDES
effluent violations and failure to meet construction
milestone deadlines. This facility is located in
Chester, Pa., a community of mostly poor and
minority residents.
City of Philadelphia (E.D. Pa.): On January, 27,
1994, the Court entered a consent decree requiring
the City of Philadelphia to pay $225,000 in civil
penalties to the U.S. and Pennsylvania, and
perform injunctive relief necessary to prevent
future violations. The complaint filed May 21,
1992, charged that on 19 occasions, the City
responded to backups of sewage at the House of
Corrections and the Detention Center by
intentionally pumping raw sewage into the
Pennypack Creek, a tributary of the Delaware
River. The U.S. and the Commonwealth each
received 50% of the civil penalty. The City has
A-20
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
completed the projects necessary to prevent further
violations at an expenditure of over $1. million.
Eastern Energy Investments: On March 24,
1994, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) listed
the first EPA case, Eastern Energy Investments,
Inc., of Pinch, West Virginia, onto its Applicant
Violator System (AVS). Section 510(c) of
SMCRA requires OSM to deny new mining
permits to an entity or its "owners or controllers"
when any Federal agency notifies OSM of an
unresolved air or water violation resulting from
surface mining by that entity. OSM will not issue
a new mining permit until the violator
demonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that the
violation has been or is being corrected. This
"permit block," through OSM's ownership and
control rules, reaches not only Eastern Energy
Investments, Inc., but other mining entities with
which Eastern's corporate officers, board
members, and stockholders with greater than a
10% interest are associated. On January 12, 1994,
EPA, Region III, issued an administrative order
(AO) to Eastern Energy for outstanding pH and
metals violations, including discharges in violation
of a permit and, after the NPDES permit had
expired, discharges without a permit. This AO
formed the basis for the AVS listing.
SDWA
Consolidated Gas Transmission Corporation
(1311): On September 26, 1994, EPA issued an
administrative penalty action against Consolidated
for violating the conditions of its permit for the
operation of a brine disposal well in Potter
County, PA. Specifically, EPA found that they
had operated the well without mechanical integrity,
and numerous other provisions of the permit, in
violation of 40 CFR Part 144. The action required
Consolidated to pay a penalty of $10,000 and
perform corrective action to ensure the integrity of
the well.
Jiffy Lube (7538): On October 4, 1993, Region
III issued an administrative penalty action against
Jiffy Lube for the operation of a shallow injection
well which could cause the migration of petroleum
and other harmful chemicals into underground
sources of drinking water. The settlement required
Jiffy Lube to inventory all of the faciliies operated
in the region and determine if there were
additional wells in operation. Jiffy Lube identified
a total of eight facilities operating similar disposal
wells. Jiffy Lube was required to remediate each
of the locations and institute recycling and best
management practices at each facility, and pay a
penalty of $3,200. This administrative action was
coordinated with the State of Maryland where
several wells were located. Maryland issued its
own administrative action, modeled after the
regional action.
RCRA
Bethlehem Steel Corporation Steelton Plant:
On January 21, 1994, EPA and Bethlehem Steel
Corporation (BSC) signed an Addendum to a
March 2, 1992, RCRA §3008(h) Corrective
Measures Study consent order for the
implementation of final corrective measures at
BSC's Steelton, PA, facility. BSC will install a
concrete cap inside its steel manufacturing
building, modify manufacturing procedures to limit
worker exposure to lead contaminated electric arc
furnace dust and use institutional controls to
further limit possible exposure.
Medusa Cement: On February 23, 1994, EPA
signed a consent order resolving an administrative
penalty action against Medusa Cement Company
for violations of regulations regarding the burning
of hazardous wastes in boilers and industrial
furnaces. The complaint alleged that Medusa
failed to submit a revised certification of
precompliance and failed to reduce feed rates as
required under 40 C.F.R. §266.103. Medusa
agreed to pay a civil penalty of $200,000 in
settlement of the action.
U.S. v. National Rolling Mills (E.D. Penn.): On
July 11, 1994, National Rolling Mills (NRM)
agreed to pay a civil penalty of $300,000 for
RCRA violations. The civil charges included the
storage of land disposal restricted (LDR) waste for
over a year, shipment of LDR waste for disposal
to off-site facilities without notifying those
facilities whether the waste met applicable
A-21
-------
IFY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
treatment standards, and various other violations of
RCRA.
Osram Sylvania Glass, Wellsboro,
Pennsylvania: OSRAM Sylvania signed a
3008(h) consent order on October 22, 1993.
OSRAM submitted the RH Workplan on January
25, 1994. EPA approved the RH Workplan for a
Phase I investigation of the Osram facility on
September 29, 1994. The Workplan outlines the
schedule and activities for the investigation of
soils and groundwater at the facility. The RFI will
focus on the chromium contamination of the
groundwater and the identification of potential
human and ecological receptors.
Arfion Manufacturing Company, Atglen,
Pennsylvania: On September 23, 1994, Action
signed an RCRA §3008(h) consent order. The
order was effective September 29, 1994. It
requires Action to conduct an RCRA Facility
Investigation (RFI) to define the extent of
environmental contamination, and a Corrective
Measure Study to evaluate clean-up alternatives.
Action is an explosives manufacturing facility with
a history of land-based disposal activities.
Quaker State Corporation, Newell. West
Virginia: On December 30, 1993 a unilateral
order was issued to the Quaker State Congo Plant
in Newell, WV. This order required Quaker State
to perform Interim Measures (IM), an RCRA RFI,
and a Corrective Measures Study (CMS). EPA
has approved Quaker State's IM Work Plan. The
IM Work Plan requires Quaker State to recover
free floating petroleum product from a series of
wells installed in a portion of their facility.
Ravcnswood Aluminum Corporation,
Ravenswood, West Virginia: On September 30,
1994 an RCRA §3008(h) consent order was issued
to Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation. This
order required Ravenswood to perform IM, an
RFI, and a CMS. EPA has received
Ravenswood's IM Work Plan and is reviewing it
for technical adequacy and completeness. The IM
Work Plan requires Ravenswood to install and
operate a network of recovery wells to recover
petroleum contaminated groundwater.
AT&T, Richmond, Virginia: On June 20, 1994,
EPA issued an Initial RCRA §3008(h) unilateral
order to AT&T to implement corrective measures
at its Richmond, VA, Facility. The unilateral
order was issued after AT&T failed to negotiate a
consent order in good faith. The unilateral order
required AT&T to submit a work plan within 30
days to pump and treat chlorinated organic
contamination in the groundwater. AT&T
appealed EPA's issuance of the order. As a result
of the appeal, EPA and AT&T resumed
negotiations to resolve the appeal. A settlement
was reached between the parties and a joint
stipulation was submitted to the presiding officer
for approval.
Johnson Controls Battery Group. Inc.,
Middletown. Delaware: On March 8, 1994, an
RCRA §3013 consent order was issued to the
Johnson Controls Battery Group. The order
required Johnson Controls to conduct an RFI to
determine the extent of contamination that has
resulted from activities at the facility. Johnson
Controls submitted its RFI Work Plan in a timely
manner.
ITT Corporation, Roanoke, Virginia: On May
19, 1994, EPA issued an RCRA §3008(h)
administrative order on consent to the ITT
Corporation. This order required ITT to perform
an RFI t'o determine the extent of contamination
and to conduct a CMS to evaluate potential
remedial alternatives that might be used to
mitigate releases of hazardous wastes or
constituents from their Roanoke, VA facility.
TSCA
Allied Colloids: Allied Colloids, Inc. paid
$398,000 in stipulated penalties as a result of an
audit of its operations. The audit revealed
violations of TSCA §§5 arid 13 involving a
variety of chemicals. This audit payment is in
addition to payments totalling $900,000, plus
interest, made by Allied Colloids in settlement of
TSCA violations alleged by EPA in an underlying
enforcement proceeding.
A-22
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Bethlehem Steel Corporation: EPA issued a
complaint against Bethlehem Steel Corporation for
violations of the PCB Rule at its facility in
Sparrows Point, Maryland. The complaint alleged
that Bethlehem Steel: (1) improperly disposed of
PCBs by allowing spills onto the ground, (2)
failed to maintain adequate records of inspection
and maintenance history for leaking PCB
Transformers, (3) failed to conduct daily
inspections after a leak was discovered in
numerous PCB transformers, and (4) failed to
repair the source of the leak and to remediate the
contaminated area within 48 hours. EPA sought
a total penalty of $145,500 for these violations.
Reading Tube Corporation: On January 21,
1994, EPA and Reading Tube Corporation (RTC)
settled an administrative penalty action for alleged
violations of the PCB Rule at RTC's Leesport,
PA, facility. RTC, a manufacturer of copper
tubing, agreed to pay a cash penalty of $75,000
and to undertake an SEP involving the
replacement of 7 PCB Transformers and 74 PCB
Capacitors with new non-PCB Equipment, at an
estimated cost of $313,500.
Anzon. Inc.: On June 1, 1994, EPA and Anzon,
Inc, a manufacturer of lead products, settled a
TSCA administrative complaint involving
violations of the Inventory Update Rule (IUR).
Anzon failed to submit IUR reports on four
chemicals manufactured at its Philadelphia, PA,
plant. Anzon agreed to pay a $57,000 civil
penalty, $43,620 of which may be remitted by
EPA upon completion of SEPs to be performed in
Anzon's Philadelphia, PA, and Laredo, TX,
facilities. The Philadelphia project involves the
early removal and disposal of four PCB
transformers. The Laredo project requires
increased controls for the capture of antimony
oxide emissions from the facility. These projects
have a combined estimated cost of $198,800.
Columbia Gas: On September 23, 1994,
Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation agreed to
pay a civil penalty of $4,916,472 in settlement of
violations of the TSCA dating to 1989. The
settlement involved TSCA violations in Regions
IE, IV, and V. Following issuance of a 1992
subpoena, Columbia offered to enter into an
expedited process to clean up the pipeline and
settle TSCA civil penalties. This settlement, along
with a CERCLA administrative order on consent,
resulted from that process. The administrative
complaint alleged three broad classes of violations:
unauthorized use of PCBs in air compressors at 29
compressor stations spread over much of the
19,000-mile length of the pipeline system; regular
improper disposal of PCBs to the environment as
a result of liquid blowdowns from these air
compressors; and additional improper disposals
(that are not the result of air compressor
blowdown) of PCB-contaminated liquids from
pipeline and air compressors to soils and
sediments at these stations.
VA Dept of Emergency Services: On December
27, 1993, EPA filed a consent order settling a
TSCA administrative penalty complaint against the
Virginia Department of Emergency Services.
Under the terms of the settlement, the
Commonwealth of Virginia agreed to pay a civil
penalty and to perform underground storage tank
upgrade (UST) projects, at an estimated cost of
$100,000. The UST upgrades will significantly
reduce the risk of underground storage tank
contamination at Commonwealth facilities, which
was the major focus of EPA's concern about the
Cheatham Annex site.
EPCRA
T.L. Diamond, Spelter, West Virginia: On June
3, 1994, EPA settled an administrative
enforcement action brought against T.L. Diamond
& Company for violation of §313 of the EPCRA.
T.L. Diamond and Company violated §313 by
failing to file a toxic chemical inventory release
form for zinc dust and zinc oxide in calendar years
1990 though 1992 for its operations at its Spelter,
WV, plant. The settlement provided for a cash
penalty payment of $41,477, the penalty amount
proposed in the complaint.
Premium Beverage Packers, Wyomissing,
Pennsylvania: On August 1, 1994, EPA executed
a consent order with Premium Beverage Packers,
Inc. settling violations of EPCRA §§ 311 and 312.
A-23
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
The violations involved the presence of two
hazardous chemicals at the facility in excess of
threshold reporting levels (ammonia and carbon
dioxide) for the years 1988 and 1989. Under the
terms of the consent order, Premium Beverage
Packers, Inc. agreed to pay a penalty of $73,011.
Steel Processing, Inc., Pottstown, Pennsylvania:
On August 14, 1994 EPA signed a CACO settling
an administrative enforcement action brought
against Steel Processing, Inc., located in
Pottstown, PA, for violations of EPCRA §§311
and 312. Steel Processing, a carbon steel sheet
manufacturer, failed to submit an MSDS or list for
hydrochloric acid to the LEPC, SERC, and the
local fire department, in violation of §311 of
EPCRA and failed to submit an Emergency and
Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form for the
calendar years 1988, 1989, and 1990, in violation
of §312 of EPCRA. An inspection of the Steel
Processing facility revealed that Steel Processing
utilized as much as 617,000 pounds of
hydrochloric acid during those years. The
settlement provided for the payment of a $7,500
penalty.
Messer Greisheim Industries, Inc., Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania: On September 6,1994 EPA signed
a CACO negotiated in settlement of a nine count
administrative complaint issued against Messer
Griesheim Industries, Inc., d/b/a M.G. Industries,
Inc., a Philadelphia welding supply business, for
violating the Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act (EPCRA). M.G. Industries
failed to report to the State Emergency Response
Commission, the Local Emergency Planning
Committee, and the Local Fire Department for
reporting years 1991 and 1992, in violation of
EPCRA §§ 311 and 312. M.G. Industries agreed
to pay a $100,000 civil penalty. At the time, this
penalty was the fifth largest ever obtained for
EPCRA §§ 311/312 violations.
Diversey Corporation, East Stroudsburg.
Pennsylvania: A Pennsylvania Corp with 63
employees, Diversey is a manufacturer of
industrial cleaning compounds. On April 27,1992
there was a non-permitted release of chorine and
the facility failed to notify the NRC, the
Pennsylvania SERC, or the Monroe County LEPC.
EPA and Diversey Corporation settled the case
with an assessed penalty of $43,750, and an
agreement that Diversey would undertake a SEP
with a projected cost of $10,974. The SEP
involved the donation of computer, software, and
other equipment to the LEPC.
Homer Laughlin China: On December 9, 1993
EPA executed a CACO, with an associated
Settlement Conditions Document, settling an
EPCRA administrative action filed against the
Homer Laughlin China Company for violations of
§313 of that Act. The settlement included a
substantial SEP, exceeding $9 million in cost, in
which Laughlin converted their entire china
dinner-ware production system to a lead free
process.
Action Manufacturing: On September 28, 1994,
EPA settled a penalty complaint against Action
Manufacturing in which the company agreed to
pay an administrative penalty of $37,658. The
settlement also included a SEP which required the
company to spend at least $93,000 to replace its
current 1,1,1-TCA parts-washing system with an
aqueous-based parts washing system. The new
parts washing system will allow Action to
significantly reduce its use of 1,1,1-TCA and
Trichloroethylene (TCE) at its Philadelphia
facility.
FIFRA
DuPont: On September 29, 1994, EPA and E.I.
DuPont de Nemours (DuPont), Platte Chemical
Company (Platte) and Lesco, Inc. (Lesco) settled
an administrative FIFRA penalty action involving
the distribution of Benlate, a fungicide, which had
been contaminated with atrazine, an herbicide.
The consent order required DuPont and Platte to
pay a total of $1 million in civil penalties.
CERCLA
Columbia Gas: On September 23, 1994, EPA
entered into a multi-regional CERCLA consent
order with Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation under which the company will
A-24
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
characterize contamination and perform CERCLA
removal actions selected by EPA at compressor
stations and other locations along the Columbia
pipeline system. Columbia estimates that this
project will require expenditures of between $15 to
20 million a year for approximately 12 years.
Greenwood Chemical: On June 30, 1994 EPA
issued an order pursuant to §106 of CERCLA to
the Greenwood Chemical Company and the High
Point Chemical Corporation to implement EPA's
Remedial Design for the excavation, treatment
(where necessary), and offsite disposal of
contaminated soils at the Greenwood Chemical
Site, located approximately 20 miles from
Charjottesville, VA.
Recticon/Allied Steel Site: On March 24, 1994,
EPA issued an order pursuant to §106 of
CERCLA to Highview Gardens, Inc.; Allied Steel
Products Corporation; Allied Steel Products
Corporation of Pennsylvania; and Rockwell
International Corporation for the Recticon Allied
Steel Site, located in Parker Ford, Chester County,
PA. This order requires the performance of
Remedial Design and Remedial Action as called
for in EPA's June 30, 1993 Record of Decision for
the Site.
Sackville Mills Company: On June 17, 1994,
Sackville Mills Company, the present and former
owner/operator of a closed textile mill in
Wallingford, PA, entered into an administrative
order by consent (Order) with EPA to conduct
removal response activities at the former textile
mills facility. The order also prohibited the PRP
from disturbing or excavating areas on the Site
which are suspected to contain anthrax bacteria
allegedly disposed of during the textile operations;
required measures to be taken to identify potential
anthrax contamination in soils; and required
removal of anthrax from a part of an on-Site
building.
United Chemical Technologies: On June 27,
1994, EPA issued a unilateral removal CERCLA
§106 order directing United Chemical
Technologies, Inc. ("United"), the operator of a
chemical manufacturing facility in Bristol, PA, to
stabilize and clean up hazardous substances at a
site which was the scene of a massive explosion
and fire on June 21. The order provided a
comprehensive framework for establishing site
security, site stabilization, and identification and
proper handling and disposal of hazardous
substances on site.
U.S. v. Lord Corporation (W.D. Penn.): On
March 15, 1994, the court entered a consent
decree, settling the United States' claims under
CERCLA §§ 106 and 107 for injunctive relief and
reimbursement of costs related to the Lord
Corporation Property portion of the Saegertown
Industrial Area Superfund Site ("Site"). The
consent decree required Lord Corporation to
implement the selected remedy for the Lord
Corporation Property portion of the Site, a remedy
estimated to cost $3.4 million. The consent decree
also required Lord Corporation to pay $21,928 in
past response costs incurred by the United States,
and to pay certain categories of the United States'
future response costs associated with the consent
decree and Site.
U.S. v. Chromatex (3rd Cir.): On September 29,
1994, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in
favor of the United States' interpretation of the
statute of limitations provision of CERCLA. The
court affirmed the district court's February 9,
1994, summary judgment ruling under §107(a) of
CERCLA finding the defendant's liable for
$682,002 in Agency response costs incurred
during a removal action at the site. On appeal, the
defendants argued that EPA had let more than 3
years pass since completion of the removal action,
at the Valmont Superfund Site and consequently
was barred by the statute of limitations. The Third
Circuit rejected this argument, applying a broad
standard to determine when a removal action was
completed. As a result, the court found that the
United States had brought suit for removal costs
within the 3 years of completing the removal
action.
A-25
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
REGION IV
CLEAN AIR ACT
U.S. v. Rohm and Haas. Inc. (W.D. Ky.): On
August 2, 1994, a stipulation, settlement
agreement and order (Stipulation) was entered by
the court concluding a 1992 CAA Pre-Referral
judicial enforcement action against Rohm & Haas
Kentucky, Inc. and provided for the payment of a
$32,500 civil penalty to the United States. Rohm
and Haas operates a specialty chemical CAA
processing plant in Louisville, KY. Rohm and
Haas violated §lll(e) of the act and its
implementing regulations codified at 40 C.F.R.
Part 60 Subparts A and D when it failed to
monitor and measure emissions of nitrogen oxides
from a natural gas boiler located at its plant from
July 1989 to June 1991.
U.S. v. Olin Corporation (E.D. Tenn.): On June
9, 1994, the court entered a consent decree to
resolve violations of the mercury standards under
the CAA NESHAP by Olin's Chattanooga facility.
The penalty amount was $1 million.
EPA filed a civil complaint alleging violations of
the work practice standards for mercury NESHAP,
and issued an agreed order for decontamination of
the workers' homes under §106 of CERCLA. A
second amended complaint in January 1992
alleged additional NESHAP mercury violations,
and added a count for failing to notify the NRC of
the mercury release, a violation of CERCLA §103.
U.S .v. Crown, Cork & Seal, Inc. (N.D. Miss.):
On January 3, 1994, the court entered a consent
decree which settled Crown, Cork & Seal Inc.'s
(CC&S's) alleged violations of the CAA's PSD
requirements and New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS). The CACO required the
payment of a civil penalty of $343,000 and
required CC&S to perform three SEPs valued at
more than $2 million after tax. During June 1987,
Crown commenced operations of a new two-piece
can coating facility in Batesville, MS, without first
obtaining a PSD permit, or testing and reporting
commencement pursuant to requirements under
NSPS.
CLEAN WATER ACT/SDWA
U.S. v. Metro-Dade County, et al: Concerns
regarding the structural integrity of a sewage
pipeline (cross-bay line) under Biscayne Bay
prompted Region IV to initiate a civil enforcement
action in June 1993. Rupture of the cross-bay line
would have caused catastrophic environmental
damage to Biscayne Bay and surrounding
waterbodies. In December, 1993, the government
and Metro-Dade County entered into a partial
consent decree addressing the emergency claim,
contingency plans and short term measures. Under
this First Partial consent decree, the County has
completed construction of the new cross-bay line
(a year ahead of schedule) and the line is now
operational.
In an action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on June
10,1993, the Region sought emergency relief from
the court based on the deteriorated condition of the
cross-bay line. Metro-Dade had experienced some
very large sewer spills due to breaks in lines that
were of a similar age and type as the line under
the bay and it was therefore feared that the cross-
bay line could break at any time. Janet Reno, then
the State Attorney, convened a special grand jury
to investigate pollution in the Miami River and the
grand jury concluded that the aged and corroded
sewer system, and the cross-bay line in particular,
presented the greatest threat to the health of the
river.
The action also contains four claims addressing
system-wide unpermitted discharges, improper
operation and maintenance, and reporting
violations. The Second and Final Partial consent
decree, which addresses all other injunctive relief
and penalty, is in the last stages of finalization.
A-26
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
United States v. IMC-Asrico Company (M.D.
Florida): On April 1, 1994, Region IV submitted
a referral to the Department of Justice asking that
a civil judicial action be filed against IMC-Agrico
(IMC) for the company's alleged violations of
Section 301 (a) of the CWA. EPA alleged IMC
exceeded its permit effluent limits for a variety of
parameters as well as non-reporting and
stormwater violations. IMC owns and operates
phosphate rock mines and associated processing
facilities in Florida and Louisiana. Eight of its
mineral extraction operations and its Port Sutton
Phosphate Terminal were the subject of this
referral action. The subject IMC facilities had
over 1,500 permit violations since 1988. On
October 17,1994, IMC submitted a signed consent
decree resolving this multi-facility civil referral.
The settlement provides for an up-front payment
of $835,000 and a $265,000 Supplemental
Environmental Project (SEP). The SEP will
involve conversion IMC's scrubber discharge and
intake water systems into a closed loop system
(greatly reducing pollution loading at the Port
Sutton facility).
U.S. v. Perdue-Davidson Oil Company (E.D.
Kentucky): On May 6, 1994, the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky required
Perdue-Davidson and Charles Perdue to pay EPA
stipulated penalties, calculated at $3.8 million, and
compliance with all requested injunctive relief.
Perdue-Davidson is an oil production company
which produces crude oil from two stripper-well
fields in eastern Kentucky. As a result of Perdue-
Davidson's repeated violations of a prior UIC
administrative order on consent, as well as
statutory and regulatory environmental
requirements, EPA filed this multi-media civil
referral pursuant to § 301 of the CWA, § 311 of
the CWA, § 1423 of the SDWA (UIC) and § 311
of the EPCRA.
On March 10, 1994, the government filed a
motion for partial summary judgement on five of
the ten claims for relief in the complaint. In
addition, the government requested injunctive
relief and that the Defendants pay stipulated
penalties due to violations of a UIC AOC. This
represents an important court decision requiring
payment of stipulated penalties for violation of a
UIC administrative order on consent, as well as for
corporate officer civil liability for company and
corporate officer violations of §§ 301 and 311
(SPCC) of the CWA.
In the Matter of Manatee County, FL;: On
February 1, 1994, the Regional Administrator
ratified the negotiated settlement in this action,
which provided for payment of a $60,000 penalty.
In September 27, 1993, EPA initiated a CWA
Class II administrative penalty action against
Manatee County under Section 309(g) alleging
violations of Section 301 (a) of the CWA by
exceeding the no-discharge requirements of its
NPDES permit. The County had periodically
discharging from its wastewater treatment plant
into the receiving stream during the period of June
through October 1992. Based on consideration of
the factors identified at Section 309(g)(3), EPA,
and following settlement discussions, the parties
reached a negotiated settlement of $60,000.
In the Matter of IMC-Fertilizer. Bartow FL:
On February 17, 994, the Regional Administrator
ratified the negotiated settlement in this action,
which provided for a $40,000 penalty. In March
1993, EPA initiated a CWA Class II
Administrative Penalty Action against IMC
Fertilizer under Section 309(g) alleging violations
of Section 301 (a) of the CWA by exceeding the
permit effluent limits for Dissolved Oxygen, Total
Suspended Solids, Fixed Suspended Solids,
Unionized Ammonia, and pH during the period of
March 1988 through February 1991 at its
Haynsworth mining facility. Based on
consideration of the factors identified at Section
309(g)(3), and following settlement discussions,
the parties reached a negotiated settlement with
penalty of $40,000.
In the Matter of Jacksonville Beach, FL: On
May 6, 1994, the signed consent agreement was
ratified by the Regional Administrator. This case
was the first regional action against a facility for
failure to comply with the new stormwater permit
application requirements. In December 1993, EPA
initiated a Class I administrative penalty action
against the City of Jacksonville Beach under
A-27
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Section 309(g) of the CWA alleging violations of
Sections 301 (a) and 308 of the CWA through
failure to submit a timely and complete stormwater
permit application for the City's municipal
stormwater system. Based on consideration of the
factors identified at Section 309(g)(3), and
following settlement discussions, EPA and the
Jacksonville Beach reached a negotiated settlement
with a penalty of $3,500.
Oil Pollution Act Enforcement Initiative: In a
concerted drive against contamination of the
nation's waters, Region IV participated in a
government enforcement action announced on
May 26, 1994. This action was filed against 28
commercial polluters who discharged oil and other
hazardous substances into water and adjoining
shorelines. These actions reinforce the clear
Congressional intent to punish violators of Clean
Water Act provisions prohibiting of oil and
hazardous substance spills and requiring
preventative measure against such spills.
Region IV filed five administrative cases against
two individuals and three corporate commercial
entities:
Alamco Inc., (Complaint seeks penalty of
$123,942) located in Clairfield, TN, is an oil and
gas exploration and producing company. It
spilled at least 7,300 gallons of crude oil affecting
the Clearfork and the Hickory Creeks and failed to
prepare an SPCC plan.
Cumberland Lake Shell, Inc., (Complaint seeks
penalty of $92,387) located in Somerset,
Kentucky, is a distributor of gasoline and
petroleum products to service stations; it spilled at
least 200 gallons of diesel affecting Sinking Creek.
Cumberland also failed to prepare an SPCC plan.
Texfi Industries, Inc., (Complaint seeks penalty of
$24,672) located in Jefferson, Georgia, is a fabric
manufacturer. It spilled at least 1,900 gallons of
diesel affecting an unnamed tributary of the
Oconee River and failed to prepare an SPCC plan.
Wesley Griffith, (Complaint seeks penalty of
$78,287) an independent oil producer, spilled at
least 11,130 gallons of oil affecting South Fork of
Coles Creek and failed to prepare an SPCC plan.
John D. Herlihy, (Complaint seeks penalty of
$37,425) an independent oil producer, spilled at
least 2,100 gallons of oil affecting Cameron and
Middle Fork Creeks. Herlihy also failed to
implement an SPCC plan.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency v. Polk
County: A consent agreement and order assessing
administrative penalties was signed by the
Regional Administrator on February 24, 1994,
settling this case for a penalty of $100,000.
Region IV issued a Class II administrative penalty
order complaint against Polk County, Florida, on
September 30 1991. The complaint assessed
penalties in the amount of $125,000 for alleged
discharged without a valid NPDES permit from
the Wilson Acres waste water treatment plant since
at least September 30, 1986. EPA alleged the
facility had been continuously discharging since at
least March 20, 1983. The agreement provided
that up to $15,000 in penalties to be paid the
State of Florida would be credited toward the
penalty in this case, conditioned on the connection
of the Wilson Acres WWTP to the City of
Auburndale collection system. That connection
has been completed and all discharges from
Wilson Acres WWTP have stopped.
United States v. City of Port St. Joe, Florida; et
aL: On August 13, 1994, the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Florida entered a
consent decree settling litigation between the
United States and the City of Port St. Joe, Florida;
the St. Joe Forest Products Company; and the
State of Florida. The consent decree provides for
the payment of a $25,000 civil penalty by the City
and a $325,000 civil penalty by the Company, for
a total civil penalty of $350,000. This case, filed
as part of the National Pulp and Papermill
Enforcement Initiative, alleged that the City and
the County violated the federal Clean Water Act.
The City operates a municipal wastewater
treatment facility which discharges treated
wastewater into the waters of the United States,
A-28
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
under a permit issued pursuant to the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. EPA alleged that, since November 1988,
the City repeatedly violated the discharge
parameters set in its NPDES permit. EPA alleged
the Company violated the pretreatment
prohibitions of the Clean Water Act by
contributing pollutants in excessive quantities,
which caused interference and pass through of the
City facility and caused the City to violate its
NPDES permit.
RCRA
Holnam, Inc.: A CACO was entered on
September 30, 1994, resolving an RCRA action
filed against Holnam, Inc. addressing violations of
the BIF Rule found in routine EPA inspections in
1992 and 1993 at two cement kilns operated in
Holly Hill, SC. The company had failed to make
a hazardous waste/Bevill determination on its
cement kiln dust, failed to submit a complete and
accurate Certificate of Compliance for one kiln,
and failed to submit an adequate Waste Analysis
Plan. In the CACO, Holnam agreed to pay a
penalty of $670,000, to make required
submissions, and to conduct additional
groundwater monitoring.
Arizona Chemical Company: On September 28,
1994, a CACO was entered settling an RCRA
action filed against Arizona Chemical Company
for violations of the BIF Rule. The violations
were identified by a joint EPA and state inspection
at the facility located in Panama City, FL. The
facility had failed to operate within limits
contained in its Certification of Pre-compliance
and Certification of Compliance; failed to develop
an inspection schedule, an adequate waste analysis
plan, and a closure plan for one boiler; and failed
to conduct required air emissions monitoring. In
settlement, the company agreed to pay a civil
penalty of $79,000 and to make required
submissions.
Giant Cement Company: On February 15, 1994,
a CACO was entered settling an RCRA
administrative action filed against Giant Cement
Company. The complaint was based on violations
found during an EPA inspection of Giant's
Harleyville, SC, Portland Cement manufacturing
facility. The violations included BIF Rule
violations, as well the facility's failure to make a
Hazardous Waste/Bevill determination for cement
kiln dust. The CACO required Giant to pay a
civil penalty of $520,000 and to implement a
cement kiln dust sampling and analysis protocol
approved by the Agency.
Todhunter International. Inc.. d/b/a Florida
Distillers: A CACO was entered on
September 30, 1994, settling an action filed in
1993 that found numerous RCRA violations at
facilities in Lake Alfred and Auburndale, FL,
where the Respondent manufactures beverage
alcohol products. The CACO settles this case for
$400,000, $100,000 in cash, with up to a $300,000
reduction in the penalty for implementation of a
specified SEP. The SEP, which will cost more
than $1 million, involves installation of cooling
tower equipment, significantly reducing cooling
water withdrawal from the Floridan aquifer, and
the upgrade of a waste water treatment plant to
significantly reduce the loading of nutrients and
BOD.
U.S. v. Gulf States Steel, Inc. (N.D. Ala.): On
September 27, 1994, the U.S. District Court
entered a civil consent decree that requires Gulf
States Steel Corporation to pay a civil penalty in
the amount of $1.1 million. The consent decree
also provides for a possible reduction in the
penalty of up to $300,000 for SEPs to be proposed
for EPA approval, as well as extensive injunctive
relief, including corrective action. This settlement
was reached in pre-filing negotiations pursuant to
Exec. Order No. 12778, which requires that the
government make reasonable efforts to settle prior
to litigation.
Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.:
On September 30, 1994, EPA entered into an
RCRA §3013 order on consent with Laidlaw
Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., addressing
TOC's commercial hazardous waste incinerator in
Roebuck, SC. The order requires TOC to conduct
a systems design and quality control evaluation of
the computer control system which monitors and
A-29
-------
I FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
controls the incinerator's emissions; and to gather
information to enable EPA to conduct a site-
specific multi-pathway risk assessment. In
addition to agreeing to perform the work required
under the consent order, TOC has agreed to pay
penalties in the amount of $500,000.
Florida Department of Transportation: A
CACO was entered on September 20, 1994,
settling an administrative action filed against the
Florida Department of Transportation for
violations of RCRA at the Fairbanks Disposal Pit
Site in Fairbanks, FL. Under the CACO, FOOT
has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $2,407,550,. of
which $170,000 will be paid in cash and the
remainder of which may be satisfied through
performance of 3 SEPs. Under the SEPs, FOOT
will discontinue the application of lead and high
VOC content (or solvent-borne) pavement marking
paints and thermoplastics on all roads constructed
and maintained by FOOT throughout the State.
The CACO also requires FOOT to submit and
implement an adequate closure/post-closure plan.
TSCA
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company/Tenneco, Inc.:
In FY 94, Region 4 negotiated two separate
settlement agreements relating to the Tenneco
natural gas pipeline system that stretches 16,000
miles from Texas and Louisiana to different parts
of the Northeast. On August 10,1994,1994, EPA
executed a consent agreement and consent order
(CACO) under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) with respondents Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company and Tenneco, Inc. The CACO settled
an administrative penalty action that alleged TSCA
violations at 42 compressor stations along the
pipeline, the multi-Regional, multi-state settlement
required the two companies to pay a civil penalty
of $6.4 million for violations relating to use and
disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
dating back to 1979. The $6.4 million penalty is
the largest administrative penalty ever recovered
by the Agency for TSCA violations.
On the same day, the Region also executed an
administrative order on consent (AOC) under
CERCLA with the two companies for study and
cleanup of PCB contamination along most of the
pipeline. (State agencies in New York and
Pennsylvania are independently addressing
contamination at compressor stations within their
respective borders, although the stations in
Pennsylvania may be added to the AOC if the
respondents do not conduct the work
appropriately.) The value of this settlement is not
certain since it will ultimately depend on the
amount of contamination that is identified. EPA
expects, however, that the response action will
likely cost more than $240 million, thus making
this the largest administrative settlement in
CERCLA history.
The multi-media settlements reflect the Agency's
first coordinated use of CERCLA authority for
cleanup with TSCa authority for administrative
penalties. Shortly after the announcement of these
two settlements, Region 3 announced the
successful negotiation of two similar settlements
for the Columbia Natural Gas Pipeline.
General Electric Company: On November 1,
1993, the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB)
issued its Final Decision in EPA's 1989 TSCA
PCB case against General Electric Company (GE).
The Final Decision upheld EPA's position that
PCB solvent distillation systems used in disposing
of PCB transformers are subject to PCB disposal
regulations. The decision also clarified that once
PCBs are in a state of disposal, those PCBs are
governed only by the PCB disposal regulations
and cannot be simultaneously subject to PCB use
regulations. Based upon its findings, the EAB
assessed a $25,000 penalty against GE for its PCB
disposal violations. The EAB's Final Decision
was appealed by GE and is currently pending in
U.S. District Court.
EPCRA
Gro-Tec, Inc.: On April 1, 1994, a CACO was
filed for the payment by Gro-Tec, Inc. of a
$12,750 penalty and the performance of two SEPs.
The SEP calls for Gro-Tec, Inc., to donate at least
$21,000 worth of equipment to the Eatonton-
Putnam County Emergency Management Agency.
Additionally, it requires the company to undertake
A-30
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
certain construction activities at its facility,
designed to accomplish pollution reduction. The
projected costs of these activities will equal or
exceed $60,000. The complaint, filed April 1,
1994 alleged that Gro-Tec, Inc., a producer of
agricultural products, was in violation of EPGRA
§§ 311 and 312 and charged the company with
failure to submit an MSDS, and complete
emergency -and hazardous chemical inventory
forms. The complaint proposed an $85,000
penalty.
Everwood Treatment Company, Inc.: On
August 29, 1994, a CACO was filed resolving
Everwood Treatment Company, Inc.'s
(Everwood's) violations of §103 of CERCLA and
§304 of EPCRA. The CACO settled this action
for $54,500 and required the Respondent to pay
$32,000 (plus interest) in cash in four installments
within 1 year of the effective date of the CACO.
In addition, the CACO calls for Everwood to
implement a SEP which requires it to expend
approximately $225,000 to construct a new wood
treatment plant that is built specifically for the use
of a wood preservative that is not a hazardous
waste.
A complaint was filed against Everwood on
January 5, 1994, pursuant to §103 of CERCLA
and §304 of EPCRA alleging that Everwood failed
to immediately notify the NRC of a release of
arsenic acid, failed to immediately notify the
SERC of a release of arsenic acid, and failed to
provide a written follow-up emergency notice of
the release to the SERC and the LEPC. Everwood
is located in Irvington, AL, and is in the business
of treating wood with a copper, chromate, arsenate
solution.
North American Royalties, Inc., d/b/a Wheland
Foundry: On December 20, 1993, a CACO was
filed which settled an EPCRA administrative
enforcement action against North American
Royalties, Inc. d/b/a Wheland Foundry (Wheland).
The CACO required that Wheland pay a civil
penalty of $25,724. In addition, the CACO
provided that Wheland undertake, as a SEP, the
purchase of an emergency response vehicle, to be
donated to the Hamilton County (Tennessee)
LEPC. The SEP expenditure was estimated at
$102,880.
Ashland Petroleum Company: On May 10,
1994, a CACO was filed which settled alleged
reporting violations under §304 of the EPCRA.
The CACO provided for a $1.56 million penalty,
for which Ashland agreed to pay $312,000 in cash
to EPA, with the remainder of the penalty to be
provided in SEPs valued at over $1,248,000 in
after tax value. In addition to the $312,000 cash
penalty to the government, Ashland will pay
$45,000 to the Cabell-Wayne (WV) LEPC for its
use, and will pay $48,500 to the Kentucky SERC
for computer hardware for the SERC and for
various projects benefitting the Boyd (KY) LEPC.
The SEPs performed in-house at Ashland's
Catlettsburg refinery will total $2,382,500 in actual
cost, arid include reducing hydrocarbon emissions
from storage tanks, routing relief valve discharges
to a flare, and performing asbestos abatement
projects on site.
FIFRA
Courtaulds Coatings, Inc.: On November 11,
1993, EPA filed a CACO in settlement of FIFRA
violations alleged against Courtaulds Coatings Inc.
(Courtaulds), located in Louisville, KY. The
settlement required Courtaulds to pay a $38,640
penalty and comply with FIFRA and the pesticidal
regulations.
In November 1992, EPA filed an administrative
complaint against Courtauld's for selling
unregistered pesticidal products. Eight Porter
Paint products in the PorterSept product line were
cited for making pesticidal claims. PorterSept
products contain Intersept, an antimicrobial. The
labels and advertising on this product inferred that
PorterSept products had antimicrobial properties.
As part of the settlement, Courtaulds agreed to
disconcontinue the violative advertising, correct
the labels, and pay a penalty of $38,640.
CERCLA
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation: On March
14, 1994, a CACO was filed to settle an
A-31
-------
Jl FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
•
administrative enforcement action against Kerr-
McGee Chemical Corporation (Kerr-McGee) for
violations of CERCLA 103(a). The CACO
required the payment of a $32,940 penalty and the
performance of a SEP. Under the SEP, Kerr-
McGee is required to undertake certain
environmental improvements at its Hamilton, MS,
facility which will reduce the potential for titanium
tetrachloride emissions from its control equipment.
The project will be performed at an estimated cost
of $280,000.
Parramore Fertilizer Site in Tifton, Georgia:
On December 16, 1993, EPA issued a UAO for
removal response activities to Atlantic Steel
Industries, Inc., Florida Steel Corporation,
Georgetown Steel Corporation, Owen Electric
Steel Company of South Carolina, Inc., and U.S.
Foundry & Manufacturing Corporation. The UAO
requires these steel companies to take over clean
up of the Parramore Fertilizer Site in Tifton, GA.
The Site is contaminated with emissions control
dust (EC Dust) from electric arc furnaces, a RCRA
listed hazardous waste (K061), which was
generated by the steel companies.
Distler Farm and Distler Brickyard Superfund
Sites in Kentucky: On January 3, 1994, EPA
forwarded a signed consent decree to the
Department of Justice for lodging, reflecting the
settlement of cost recovery actions arising out of
the Distler Brickyard and Distler Farm Superfund
Sites in Hardin and Jefferson Counties, KY.
Under the terms of the consent decree, four groups
of defendants and the owner of the Brickyard Site
will pay $6,355,000 for past costs incurred by the
United States and the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, as well as all additional costs which
EPA and the Commonwealth incur in performing
remedial actions at the Sites. A core group of
generator defendants will be responsible for paying
the costs of the remedial action as they are
incurred. The three other groups and the owner of
the Brickyard will contribute fixed sums in
varying amounts.
Jadco/Hughes Site, Gaston County, North
Carolina: On November 1, 1993, EPA executed
two consent decrees, one of which was previously
executed by each member of the Jadco/Hughes
Site Steering Committee, the other being
previously signed by AKZO Coatings, Inc.,
(AKZO) and Jadco, Inc., (Jadco), both of which
are late-settling parties. The Steering Committee's
decree provides that its members will reimburse
EPA past costs in the amount of $555,000, and the
AKZO and Jadco decree provides for
reimbursement of $75,534.04 (by AKZO) and
$151,919.16 (by Jadco).
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. Site in
Albany, Georgia: On October 22, 1993, four
PRPs which were named as Respondents in a
UAO for Remedial Action/Remedial Design (RD/
RA) for Operable Unit 1 at the T.H. Agriculture &
Nutrition Co., Site (the Site) provided notice to
EPA that they intended to comply with the UAO.
UAOs were issued to five PRPs at the Site after
no PRP submitted a good faith offer in response to
a special notice letter. One of the PRPs, T.H.
Agriculture & Nutrition Co., Inc., (THAN) has
indicated that it will comply with the UAO and
will undertake the work required to implement the
Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1 at the
Site. Three other PRPs which received UAOs
have indicated that they will propose a level of
participation to THAN and enter into negotiations
with THAN to reach agreement about an
appropriate level of participation in the RD/RA, as
required by participate and cooperative provisions
of the UAO. A fourth PRP, Phillips Electronics
North America Corporation, the parent company of
THAN which exercises pervasive control over
THAN, has indicated that it will not comply with
the UAO because it does not believe that it is
liable under CERCLA.
Helena Chemical Company for Fairfax, South
Carolina Site: On Thursday, May 26, 1994, EPA
issued a unilateral order for the performance of
Remedial Design and Remedial Action to Helena
Chemical Company ordering Helena to begin
remediation at the above-referenced Site.
Rochester Property Site in Travelers Rest,
South Carolina: On May 17, 1994, EPA issued
A-32
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
a unilateral administrative order for Remedial
design/remedial action to Colonial Heights
Packaging, Incorporated, to conduct groundwater
remediation at the Rochester Property Superfund
Site located in Travelers Rest, Greenville County,
SC. According to the most recent cost
documentation, EPA has expended a total of
$303,446.50 through September 30, 1993. EPA
will seek to recover all past response costs and
will seek a commitment from Colonial Heights to
pay all future response costs.
Jones Tire and Battery Site in Birmingham,
Alabama: On May 3, 1994, EPA formally
requested DOJ to concur in a de miminis
Settlement with 79 small quantity generators at the
Jones Tire & Battery Site in Birmingham, AL.
Cleanup is underway at the Site and is being
conducted by large quantity generators under a
UAO. The de miminis Settlement offer was
initially made to 219 PRPs, of which 79 indicated
their desire to accept the settlement.
Townsend Saw Chain Superfund Site in
Pontiac, Richland County, North Carolina:
EPA issued a unilateral administrative order to
Textron, Inc., to conduct an Interim Action
Remedial Action to contain and control chromium
contaminated groundwater at the Site. The UAO
was signed on May 4, 1994, and was issued to
Textron, Inc., the owner of the Homelite-Textron
chainsaw chain manufacturing facility at the Site.
Because unrestricted migration of the contaminated
groundwater at the Site may pose a possible threat
to private water-well users living near the Site,
EPA determined that an Interim Action Remedial
Action was necessary to control and contain the
contaminated groundwater plume. Due to the
time-critical nature of the proposed action, EPA
and Textron, Inc., determined that a unilateral
administrative order, instead of a traditional
consent decree, would be more appropriate as the
enforcement document used to implement the
Interim Action Remedial Action.
Yellow Water Road Superfund Site, Baldwin,
Duval County. Florida: On April 21, 1994, EPA
notified 102 desettlors that the de minimis
settlement for the Yellow Water Road Site was
finalized. The public comment period for this
administrative settlement expired on April 11,
1994, and no public comments were received
which caused EPA to seek modification of or to
withdraw from the settlement. The settlement will
recover approximately $300,000 in EPA's
response costs, which currently total over
$1,897,000. In addition, the settlement will
recover approximately $1.3 million in future
response costs and premium money.
Smith's Farm Site in Bullitt County, Kentucky:
On April 22, 1994, EPA issued unilateral
administrative orders, requiring 10 PRPs for the
Smith's Farm Superfund Site to conduct the
Remedial Design/Remedial Action for Operable
Unit Two. On October 28, 1993, special notice
letters were sent to 41 PRPs for Operable Unit
Two Remedial Design/Remedial Action at the
Smith's Farm Superfund Site. These letters
envisioned a global settlement including the
remediation of both operable units at the Site and
the payment of past costs, which are currently the
subject of ongoing cost recovery litigation. Based
upon the PRPs failure to present an acceptable
final offer for settlement of the case, unilateral
administrative orders were issued to all PRPs who
did not qualify for a de minimis settlement at the
Site.
Cedartown Battery Superfund Site in Polk
County. Georgia: On March 31, 1994, EPA
referred to the Department of Justice an action
against nine (9) potential owner/operator/generator
Defendants to recover approximately $1.5 million
in removal response costs for a Fund-lead removal
action at the Cedartown Battery Superfund Site
(Site).
The referral requests that DOJ file suit against
AmSouth Bank, N.A., the current owner and
operator at the time the disposal occurred, together
with one (1) operator and seven (7) generators
who supplied batteries to the Site.
Enterprise Recovery Systems Site in Byhalia.
Mississippi: On March 23, 1994, EPA executed
an administrative order on consent for de miminis
A-33
-------
} FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
settlement with 275 small quantity generators,
regarding liability for an ongoing removal action
at the Enterprise Recovery Systems Site in
Byhalia, Marshall County, MS. The settling
parties included 271 private Respondents and 4
settling Federal Agencies. The proposed
settlement provides a release from liability and
contribution protection for the settling parties
while raising over $500,000 to assist major
generators in performing the removal action
projected to cost approximately $1.3 million.
The City of Cedartown, Polk County, Georgia:
On March 25, 1994, EPA issued a unilateral
administrative order to the City of Cedartown,
Polk County, and 12 private companies for
remedial response activities at the Cedartown
Municipal Landfill Site in Cedartown, GA, some
60 miles northwest of Atlanta. The UAO requires
the Respondents to maintain the existing landfill
cover, repair seeps, maintain institutional controls
including a ban on new drinking water wells in the
area, and monitor groundwater quality through
sampling and analysis.
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site,
Cabarrus County, Concord, North Carolina: In
accordance with the recent Superfund
Administrative Improvements Initiatives, EPA has
signed a consent decree at the Bypass 601
Groundwater Contamination Site, Cabarrus
County, Concord, NC. Entering into a precedent
setting settlement which embodies $10.1 million of
Preauthorization Mixed Funding, a separate de
minimis settlement, and a unique de micromis
settlement included within the consent decree.
Through detailed records and ledgers,
approximately 4,000 PRPs were identified at the
Site, including approximately 2,400 de micromis
Parties. Of the non-de micromis parties, only
approximately 500 PRPs were located,
approximately 150 of which will be treated as de
minimis, and each of these parties received Special
Notice Letters in August 1993. The remedy
selected for the Site includes soil solidification and
stabilization, as well as an aggressive pump-and-
treat system. The remedy is expected to cost
approximately $40 million, but could escalate to as
much as $100 million, depending on the soil
quantities to be treated. Additionally, past costs at
the Site currently total approximately $4 million.
EPA has entered into a consent decree with the
Steering Committee at the Site which provides for
Preauthorization Mixed Funding of approximately
$10.1 million under the newly promulgated
regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 307, because of the
large orphan share at the Site. As part of the
settlement, EPA will recover 100 percent of its
outstanding past costs. Additionally, EPA has
negotiated a unique de micromis settlement within
the consent decree, which provides for a covenant
by the Settling Defendants not to sue de micromis
parties at the Site. This approach achieves the
policy goal of protecting small parties from
contribution suits and unnecessary transactional
costs with a relatively low administrative burden
on the Agency.
This settlement also includes a separate traditional
de miminis settlement. The de miminis settlement
will be embodied in a separate AOC, and will
follow the new HQ guidance and matrix approach.
The de miminis settlement will also include the
same covenant language in the consent decree
regarding de micromis parties, thus affording these
parties greater protection.
Stoller Chemical Company Site in Jericho,
South Carolina: On January 21, 1994, UAOs
were sent to approximately 60 PRPs at the Stoller
Chemical Company Site in Jericho, SC, requiring
the implementation of a removal action. EPA
documented the release of hazardous substances
from the facility during a Site Assessment in June
1992 and determined that a removal action was
necessary.
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Site in Albany,
Dougherty County, Georgia: The U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Albany
Division, entered the Remedial Design (RD)/
Remedial Action (RA) consent decree for the
above-referenced Site on August 10, 1994.
Pursuant to the consent decree, Defendant
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., will perform soil and
groundwater remediation estimated to cost $2
A-34
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
million. In addition, the Defendant agrees to
reimburse EPA for all of its past costs totalling
$348,333 and for all of its future oversight costs;-
Woolfolk Chemical Works NPL Site. Fort
Valley. Georgia: On May 23, 1994, EPA issued
a CERCLA §106 UAO to three PRPs at the
Woolfolk Chemical Works Site. The order
requires the PRPs to implement the RD/RA for
Operable Unit 1, which will address groundwater
contamination at the Site.
One PRPj Canadyne-Georgia Corporation (CGC),
is the former owner/operator of a pesticide
formulation plant at the Site and current owner of
a portion of the Site. The other two PRPs are the
first and second-level parent corporations of CGC.
CGC has submitted a notice of its intent to comply
with the UAO, which will cost approximately $4
million. Canadyne Corporation and Reichold,
Limited have indicated that they will not comply,
with the UAO.
Hercules 009 Landfill Site, Brunswick, Glynn
County, Georgia: On November 29, 1993, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia entered a consent decree executed by
Hercules, Incorporated, (Hercules), the EPA, and
the Department of Justice. Under the terms of the
consent decree, Hercules will conduct the final
remedial design and remedial action, , and
reimburse the government for all past and future
costs associated with the Site. Under the terms of
the consent decree entered by the Court on
November 29, 1993, Hercules will perform the
remedial action enumerated in the Record of
Decision designated OU#1. The remedial action
will consist of a removal action to consolidate
soils, and a treatability study followed by in-situ
stabilization of toxaphene-contaminated soil. The
remedy is expected to cost about $10 million; the
settlement also requires Hercules to reimburse the
government for all past costs ($544,199) as well as
100 percent of. all future response and oversight
costs.
U.S. v. Otto Skipper (E.D., N.C.): On October
21, 1993, the court entered a CERCLA consent
decree resolving the liability of the McLambs 'and
Investors Management Corporation (IMC) with
respect to the Potter's Pits Site. EPA's past costs
total $1,822,477, while projected future costs total
$10 million. Within 30 days of entry of the
decree, the McLambs, who are also the sole
representatives of the now defunct EMC, will pay
a lump sum of $230,000 to resolve their liability
and the liability of IMC.
National Southwire Aluminum Superfund Site
in Kentucky: On April 19, 1994, the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
entered a consent decree for performance of an
interim remedial action at the National Southwire
Aluminum (NSA) site in Hawesville, KY. Under
the terms of the settlement, NSA will perform
interim cleanup actions and reimburse EPA
$407,544 in past response costs.
Prairie Metals and Chemical Company Site
(Prairie, Mississippi): On September 28, 1994,
EPA referred to the Department of Justice an
action against two potential owner Defendants to
recover approximately $1.4 million in costs for a
Fund-lead removal action conducted at the Prairie
Metals and Chemical Company Site (Site) in
Prairie, MS. Beginning in 1973 and continuing
until February 1977, the Site was operated as a
chromium metal production facility. Operations at
the Site resulted in serious levels of chromium in
the Site soils and surface water. Between 1989
and 1991, EPA conducted a Fund-lead removal
action at the Site expanding approximately $1.4
million.
A-35
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
REGION V
REGION V's CONTEMPT INITIATIVE
As part of an effort to crack down on violators of
Federal consent decrees and orders, Region V and
DOJ took eight enforcement actions in the
Midwest during FY94. In addition, Illinois EPA,
the Illinois Office of the Attorney General, Ohio
EPA, and the Ohio Office of the Attorney General
also recently took separate actions to enforce State
decrees and orders. The following are summaries
of the FY94 Regional cases.
Anthony Chambers (Midland, MI): Anthony
Chambers operated two underground-injection
wells in Midland County without the permits
required under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He
failed to comply with an administrative order
requiring that he pay a 48,650 civil penalty and
either demonstrate the mechanical integrity of his
wells or plug and abandon them. The United
States filed an enforcement action on June 7, 1994
against Mr. Chambers in U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan. Through this action,
EPA seeks to enforce the terms of the order and to
collect penalties for noncompliance with the order
and the Act.
Big D Campground/Rodebaughs (Ashtabula,
OH): Joseph and Glenna Rodebaugh failed to
comply with a March 1994 access agreement at
the Big D Campground Superfund site. The
Rodebaughs refused to allow EPA access to their
170-acre property, where EPA plans to install four
groundwater-extraction wells to intercept
contaminated groundwater leaching from the
campground. After EPA referred this matter to
DOJ, the Rodebaughs agreed to provide access to
their property at the campground site. No
penalties were sought in the agreement.
Petoskey Site (Petoskey, MI): The PRP at this
Superfund site, Petoskey Manufacturing Co.
(PMC), filed for protection under bankruptcy laws.
PMC agreed in bankruptcy court to reimburse
EPA for some of the costs the Agency incurred at
the Petoskey Superfund site, but was delinquent in
its payments. On May 19, 1994, the United States
filed a motion for conversion or dismissal in the
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Michigan.
Copperweld Steel (Mahoning. OH): Copperweld
Steel Co. uses an electric arc furnace process to
manufacture steel and steel alloys. This process
generates furnace dust (a hazardous waste). This
waste is disposed of in a landfill at the site. In
1986, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Ohio, against
Copperweld for failing to obtain either interim
status or a permit under RCRA as well as for
other RCRA violations. A May 1990 consent
decree with Copperweld required numerous
compliance activities including closure and post-
closure care of the landfill. On November 22,
1993, Copperweld filed a Chapter 11 petition for
bankruptcy. In a proof of claim filed on April 20,
1994, with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Ohio, the United States is seeking to
enforce the terms of the 1990 decree. Specifically,
EPA is seeking the payments that Copperweld
committed to make to the site's post-closure trust
fund.
Midwestern Drum Services (Venice, IL): In
November 1989, EPA filed an administrative
complaint against Midwestern Drum Services, Inc.,
for RCRA violations. A December 1990
administrative agreement resolved the complaint
and required that $112,125 in civil penalties be
paid in six installments. Midwestern Drum failed
to make full, timely payments for the last four
installments. It now owes approximately $74,000
(not including interest and late payment charges).
On September 13, 1993, the company filed for
Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court of the Southern District of Illinois. On
February 4, 1994, DOJ, on behalf of EPA, filed a
proof-of-claim with the bankruptcy court seeking
payment of the amount owed under the
administrative agreement and additional penalties
for noncompliance.
A-36
-------
f^ '
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT!tw?l
Silvertone Plating Company (Ypsilanti. MI):
Silvertone generates spent stripping and cleaning
bath solutions containing chromic acid and
cyanide, along with other hazardous wastes. On
October 15, 1992, the United States filed a
complaint against the company for its repeated
failure to fulfill its obligations under an April 1988
administrative agreement with EPA. Specifically,
Silvertone failed to submit and carry out a closure
plan for its facility, remove all hazardous waste in
90 days, and comply with applicable hazardous
waste regulations. Silvertone had agreed in a May
1993 consent decree to comply with these
obligations, to submit and carry out a closure plan
and to pay a $1,000 civil penalty.
GTE North (Belvedere. ID: Under a March 19,
1993 consent decree, GTE North was required to
reimburse EPA for $575,000 in costs related: to
cleanup activities at the Belvedere Municipal
Landfill Superfund site. Although the decree
required GTE North to pay by April 1993, EPA
did not receive payments until late July 1993. The
decree carried a proviso that GTE North would
pay stipulated penalties of $1,000 a day for each
day of violation. In response to EPA's demand,
GTE North has tentatively agreed to pay $30,000
in stipulated penalties, in addition to another
$10,500 in interest payments.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Burns Harbor.
IN): This matter arose from U.S. EPA's discovery
that Bethlehem Steel Corp. was in violation of a
May 1991 partial consent decree. The violations
involved visible emissions from a coke oven
battery. On December 30, 1993, EPA advised
Bethlehem of the violations and assessed stipulated
penalties of $255,750. Bethlehem quickly
responded by paying in full the entire stipulated
penalty, and the matter was resolved without
litigation.
ILLINOIS CASES
Illinois EPA took action against two violators for
contempt: Robert Krilich d/b/a Lakemoor
Building Associates (Lakemoor, IL) and
Enamelors & Japanners of Chicago.
OHIO CASE
The State of Ohio took a contempt action against
Union Cheese Co. of Holmes County.
CLEAN AIR ACT
FY94 was a highly successful year for Region V's
air enforcement program, marked by record levels
of initiated actions and administrative resolutions.
Increasingly, these accomplishments flow from
efforts to target Federal enforcement activity. In
1994, the Region targeted sources .located in
specific geographic areas that have high
concentrations of industry, a history of
environmental insults, and are often significant for
environmental justice reasons. Also targeted were
sources that are subject to the many new
regulatory requirements of the Clean Air Act, and
industrial categories which are technically
complex.
B&W Investment Properties, Inc., and Louis
Wolf: On October 24, 1994, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a February
17, 1994, District Court's decision that B&W
Investment Properties Inc., (B&W), Chicago, and
Louis Wolf should pay a civil penalty of $1.675
million. The Appellate Court also upheld the
District Court's September 30, 1992, decision to
grant the Government's motion for summary
judgment on liability.
The case involved an improper asbestos removal
project which took place in August 1990, at a
former factory complex in Cicero, Illinois. The
property was owned by Mr. Louis Wolf and
managed by B&W. Asbestos.removal operations
began at the site without the prior notice required
by U.S. EPA's asbestos NESHAP regulations.
The work practices used in the removal also
violated the NESHAP regulations. In late August
1990, EPA issued ah administrative order
requiring compliance with the NESHAP
regulations at the site. The buildings, at that time,
were unsecured and located adjacent to the
terminal of a Chicago Transit Authority commuter
rail line. Transients occasionally used the
buildings in the complex for shelter.
A-37
-------
| FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Louis Wolf and B&W argued that they were never
given a notice of violation prior to the filing of the
complaint. B&W and Louis Wolf also argued that
they were not owners or operators as those terms
are defined in the regulations. They also argued
that they had no prior knowledge of the renovation
project. Both the District Court and the Court of
Appeals found the arguments irrelevant or
unpersuasive. B&W and .Louis Wolf challenged
the size of the penalty awarded by the District
Court after a trial on the penalty.
The Court assessed fines of $1,675,000 against
both defendants, but reduced Mr. Wolfs liability
to $1,500,000 based on his inability to pay a
higher penalty. The penalties were assessed only
for the work practice violations of the asbestos
regulations. No penalty was assessed for failing to
provide EPA prior notice of the project because, in
part, Mr. Wolf was in the hospital at the time of
the violation and the penalty already imposed for
the work practice violations had exhausted his
ability to pay additional penalties. (SIC/N/A)
New Boston Coke Corp. (S.D. Ohio): In October
1993, more than 3 years after the government filed
a motion in Federal Court (S.D. Ohio) to compel
New Boston Coke Corp. (New Boston) to comply
with a 1986 consent order at its New Boston, OH,
a major modification to the consent decree was
entered with the court. In the settlement, New
Boston agreed to maintain compliance at its coke
oven battery, rebuild a major portion of the rest of
the plant, and install equipment to control the
emission of hazardous benzene. As a result of the
rebuild, numerous leaking process vessels and
storage tanks were to be replaced, eliminating
wastewater discharges to the Ohio River. In
addition, wastewater treatment equipment is to be
installed to treat other coke plant wastewater,
which had been discharged to the atmosphere as
steam. The agreement also assesses a $250,000
civil penalty. (SIC/3312)
U.S. v. Consolidated Papers, Inc. (Wisconsin
Rapids. WI): An October 19, 1993, consent
decree (U.S. District Court, Western District of
Wisconsin) settles the Clean Air Act case against
Consolidated Papers, Inc. (CPI). CPI must
achieve, demonstrate and maintain compliance
with the Federal Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) regulations and pay a
$510,000 civil penalty. The case arose from CPI's
violation of the particulate limits contained in the
PSD permit for its lime kiln. The case was filed
in September 1992 (after a notice of violation) as
part of the Agency's pulp and paper industry
initiative. (SIC/2611)
Monitor Sugar Co. (E.D. Mich.): Monitor Sugar
Co. has agreed to pay $1.06 million to the State of
Michigan and the Federal Government after
reaching a settlement with the DOJ. The
agreement ends the court case against Monitor
Sugar brought by EPA for violations of a 1987
consent judgment. Specifically, on January 7,
1993, the District Court for the Eastern District for
Michigan held Monitor Sugar in contempt for
failing to comply with the judgment and ordered
the company to pay $478,500 in stipulated
penalties. Following the court decision, Monitor
agreed to settle two outstanding issues for
$581,500 and forego appealing the decision. In
the past year, Monitor Sugar replaced its three
coal-fired boilers with three new natural gas-fired
boilers. This change alone is expected to
eliminate the ongoing opacity violations of the old
boilers. (SIC/2063)
Stern Enterprises, Inc., et al. (U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio/Eastern
Division): Under this July 18, 1994, consent
decree with Stern Enterprises, Inc., Elie Wrecking
Co., Obie Elie, Herbert Sugarman and the
executors of the Estate of Ernest Stern must pay a
$205,000 civil penalty for asbestos violations at a
Cleveland facility. Additionally, the consent
decree requires the owners to do what citizens,
city officials and local judges unsuccessfully
demanded for years—abate all the asbestos at the
facility. The settlement was especially significant
because it obtained relief for minority and low-
income persons who are disproportionately
affected by the environmental hazards posed by
asbestos.
This case was unique because it was the first time
the Government has alleged in a Clean Air Act
A-38
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
judicial complaint that the stripping activities
conducted by vandals in a vacant building
constitute a "renovation," as defined in the
regulations thus subjecting the owners of the
facility to a civil judicial penalty. After vigorous
opposition, the defendant finally agreed to pay the
Region's second largest civil penalty for an
asbestos NESHAP case for a judicial case.
Furthermore, the defendants have agreed to
remove all remaining asbestos in the facility at a
cost of $1 million. (SIC/N/A)
CLEAN WATER ACT
LTV Steel (East Chicago, IN): On .February 1,
1994, EPA 'approved LTV's court-ordered,
sediment remediation and disposal plan. It
outlines the removal of all of the oil-contaminated
sediment (approximately 110,000 cubic yards)
from LTV's No. 2 Intake flume, located off Lake
Michigan. The remediation project which began
in July 1994 consists of removing sediment (via
diver-assisted vacuuming of the sediment) and de-
oiling/de-watering it (via coagulation/flocculation
in conjunction with final sand-filtering of the
discharge and belt filter pressing of the sludges).
The de-oiled/de-watered solids are being disposed
of in a special-waste landfill in Wyatt, IN. Oils
from the sediment are being recycled back into the
facility's waste oil reclamation system. The final
discharge of any waters from the remediation
project are sent_ through an NPDES-permitted
outfall. LTV's estimated $3 million remediation
is part of the Region's Northwest Indiana
initiative. (SIC/3312/blast furnace/steel works/
rolling.)
JMB Urban Development Company (Columbus,
OH): A January 1994 consent decree (U.S.
District Court in Columbus, OH) resolved all
Clean Water Act allegations against JMB Urban
Development Co., Chicago. EPA alleged that the
JMB violated Sections 301 and 404 of the Act by
discharging dredge and fill materials into
approximately 37 acres of wetlands adjacent to
Olentangy River during the initial development of
a shopping mall. JMB must mitigate the violation
by constructing an 80-acre wetland to be donated
as an educational facility to the local school
district. The total injunctive relief in excess of $1
million, includes a civil penalty of $200,000 also
paid by the defendant. (SIC/1542/general
contractor, non-residential buildings.)
City of Middletown (OH): A February 1994
consent decree (U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio/Eastern Division)
resolves the combined NPDES, pretreatment, and
wetlands case against the City of Middletown.
The City's wastewater treatment plant was cited
for past NPDES effluent limit violations (total
suspended solids, fecal colifbrm, and ammonia),
failure to adequately carry out its approved
pretreatment program, and filling in , a ; river
channel of the Great Miami River to expand a
City park. The City contracted for professional
services to administer its pretreatment program and
made plant improvements costing $209,000. A
total civil penalty of $288,000 was
assessed—$188,000 for CWA §402 violations, and
$100,000 for CWA §404 violations. (SIC/4952/
sewerage systems).
Wayne County-Wyandotte (MI) Wastewater
Treatment Plant: A May 1994 consent decree
(U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan/
Southern Division) resolved Wayne -County's
water violations at the Wyandotte wastewater
treatment plant and tributary sewer systems. In
1987, the Government filed suit against Wayne
County and 13 tributary communities for illegally
discharging untreated wastewater into the Detroit
River and Lake Erie. The defendants paid a
$413,000 civil penalty (equally divided between
the United States and the State of Michigan).
Injunctive relief will consist of sewer system
rehabilitation, plant improvements, and
construction of a tunnel storage system for
overflows. The estimated $230 million project
will take about 6 years to complete. This case is
located within the Southeast Michigan Initiative
area. (SIC/4952/sewerage systems).
IBP. Inc. (Joslin, IL)t A July 26, 1994, consent
decree (U.S. District Court in Rock Island, IL)
resolved all outstanding violations alleged by U.S.
EPA and Illinois EPA in their respective
complaints against IBP, Inc. of Joslin, IL. The
A-39
-------
IFY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Agencies alleged that IBP had repeatedly violated
the effluent limits of its NPDES .permit for
ammonia-nitrogen, total suspended solids, and
fecal coliform. EBP must pay civil penalties of
$250,000 to the United States and $30,000 to the
State, expand its current wastewater treatment
system and install equipment to treat ammonia-
nitrogen. The case is significant because IBP was
unsuccessful in its attempt shield itself from
enforcement by adjudicating its NPDES permit
limits. (SIC/201 I/meat packing plants and 311II
leather tanning & finishing.)
Appleton Papers (Appleton, WI): A July 1994
consent decree with Appleton Papers, Inc. (U.S.
District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin)
resolved this 1992 pretreatment case. EPA had
cited the facility for violating bypass provisions
and local limits for aluminum, copper, zinc and
pH. Injunctive relief was not required because the
company has maintained consistent compliance
since it installed the necessary treatment plant and
pretreatment equipment. The civil penalty
assessed was $670,000, plus interest from the date
of lodging. (SIC/267 I/coated and laminated
packaging.)
Commonwealth Edison Company, Inc.
(Chicago. IL): EPA's August 1994 consent order
to Commonwealth Edison Co. (CpmEd), Chicago,
resolved this case involving Section 301 and 404
violations. ComEd had discharged dredge and fill
materials into 2 acres of wetlands in South
Chicago. The consent agreement requires ComEd
to pay a $10,000 civil penalty and to contribute a
minimum of $90,000 to the Nature Conservancy
for the purchase and preservation of the Indian
Boundary Prairie in Markham, IL.
(SIC/491 I/electrical services).
MULTIMEDIA CASES
Taracorp Industries (Granite City, ID: On
September 19, 1994, the U.S. Southern District
Court of Illinois' decision resolved a multimedia
civil action filed against Taracorp Industries, Inc.,
of Granite City, IL. EPA had alleged that
Taracorp violated the Clean Water Act (excessive
discharges of lead and antimony to Granite City's
wastewater treatment plant) and RCRA (financial
assurance violation). The Court awarded a cash
civil penalty of $201,850 and $199,500,for the
RCRA and CWA violations, respectively. No
injunctive relief was necessary since Taracorp
completed installing the required pretreatment
system before the trial.
Importantly, the Court rejected Taracorp's
argument that its delay in installing the treatment
system caused economic detriment (rather than
benefit) due to inflation, higher fees and
equipment costs. As the Court ruled these higher
costs resulted directly from defendant's
noncompliance and deemed it "inappropriate to
view as mitigation a cost that the defendant
incurred only because it did not comply with the
Clean Water Act." On September 30, 1994,
Taracorp filed a motion to amend the conclusions
of law and judgment on the CWA count. Region
V filed a motion in opposition in October 1994.
To date, the Court has not ruled on EPA's motion.
This case is located within the Gateway (East St.
Louis) Initiative area. (SIC/3356/roll, draw &
extruded nonferrous).
Glidden Company (Strongsville, OH): In
December 1993, Region V settled enforcement
actions under TSCA and FIFRA against Glidden
Co. for importing and distributing an unregistered
pesticide. Glidden had made a series of self
disclosures to EPA regarding violations of TSCA
§§ 5, 8, 12, and 13. This case marks the first time
that Region V has taken simultaneous actions for
violations of both TSCA and FIFRA. Glidden
paid a total penalty of $290,100. (SIC/2851)
EPCRA
Vie De France (Bensenville. ID: On February
14, 1994, The Region filed an administrative
complaint seeking a $247,140 penalty against Vie
De France, Bensenville, IL, for failing to report to
authorities both its release of anhydrous ammonia
and its storage of ammonia. The complaint
addresses Vie De France's May 1991 release of
about 4,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia due to
a broken pipe in the refrigeration system.
Employees were evacuated and the doors of the
A-40
-------
0^ '
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT I rw^»|
plant were opened to vent the ammonia. Vie De
France notified the National Response Center and
the State Emergency Response Commission
(SERC) 26 days after the release but never
notified the Local Emergency Planning Committee
(LEPC). The company submitted a written follow-
up report to the SERC 43 days after the release,
but never a written follow-up report to the LEPC.
> ' -
The maximum quantity of ammonia stored at the
facility during each of the calendar years 1989-
1991 was 5,000 pounds. Ammonia is an
extremely hazardous substance with a threshold
planning quantity of 500 pounds. The facility has
never submitted Material Safety Data Sheets under
Section 311 of EPCRA and has never filed a Tier
report under Section 312 of EPCRA to the SERC,
LEPC, or local fire department. (SIC/2051)
HRR Enterprises. Inc. (Chicago. ID: On March
28, 1994, the Region filed an administrative
complaint seeking a $186,450 penalty against
HRR Enterprises, Inc. (a division of Kane-Miller
Corp. Chicago) for failing to immediately report a
toxic release. In July 1992, HRR Enterprises had
released 200 to 300 pounds of anhydrous ammonia
but failed to notify Federal, State and Local
emergency-response officials for more than 24
hours. EPA further alleges that HRR Enterprises
failed to file a Material Safety Data Sheet for
anhydrous ammonia.' HRR Enterprises did not file
an Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory
Form from 1987-1990 and filed late reports 1991.
(SIC/2079)
Shell Oil Company's Wood River
Manufacturing Complex (Roxana. ID: The
$431,312 penalty required by this September 1994
consent agreement with Shell Oil Co.'s Wood
River Manufacturing Complex, Roxana, IL, is the
highest to date for violations of CERCLA 103(a)
and EPCRA 304. In a 1992 compliant, EPA had
alleged that 57 separate violations arose from
Shell's failure to immediately notify the proper
Federal, State and local emergency authorities
about a number of separate releases at various
locations. EPA cited Shell for air releases of
benzene, hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan and
sulfur dioxide, and a sulfuric acid release to the
ground. The Region also cited Shell for failing to
provide emergency follow-up notices after each
release.
Shell Oil's answer to EPA's complaint claimed
that many of the releases were Federally permitted.
The company interpreted CERCLA 101 (10)H to
mean that having ia permit or being subject to a
control regulation exempted it from CERCLA
103(a) emergency notification requirements. The
company also claimed that the hazardous
substances released were fractions of petroleum
and thus exempt under CERCLA. EPA contended
that individual chemicals were released.
(SIC/2911, 4612, 5541,1311,2821, and 1221)
Consumers Power Co. (West Olive, MI): A
September 1994 consent agreement resolved
EPA's administrative complaint against Consumers
Power Co., West Olive, MI, for EPCRA
violations. The company agreed to carry out three
supplemental environmental projects (SEP's) at a
total estimated cost of $247,741.50. The projects
are: (1) convert heat exchangers from ethylene
glycol to propylene glycol which is 300 times less
toxic; (2) send information on EPCRA
requirements (via mail) to an estimated 3,000
facilities in Ingham, Kalamazoo, and Ottawa
Counties; and (3) conduct an outreach program on
the EPCRA 302 notification requirement to the
rural community in Ingham and Ottawa Counties.
The company must also certify its compliance with
EPCRA. In its complaint, EPA alleged that the
company failed to notify Federal, State and local
authorities about an accidental release of 1,400
pounds of sodium hypochlorite. The total cash
penalty and estimated cost of the SEPs equals
$255,769.50 or 2.5 times EPA's proposed penalty
of $100,000. The settlement requires a $7,828
cash penalty to be paid to a Superfund account.
(SIC/4911)
Karmazin Products Corp. (Wyandotte, MI):
EPA's May 1994 consent agreement with
Karmazin Products, Corp., Wyandotte, MI,
required a $195,560 penalty to resolve a 1993
complaint alleging that Karmazin failed to notify
the proper authorities that it stored large quantities
of hazardous chemicals. This violation contributed
A-41
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
to the injury of 3 Karmazin employees, 12
firefighters, and 8 police officers who. responded
when an employee was overcome by vapors when
using trichloroethylene to clean an underground,
sludge-filled pit. That employee later died from
exposure to trichloroethylene. (SIC/3443/
3585/3531)
TSCA
University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana, IL):
A January 1994 consent agreement with the
University of Illinois called for a $74,500
supplemental environmental project and a $1,000
fine to resolve PCB violations. EPA cited the
university improperly storing six 55-gallon drums
of PCB's and 524 large PCB capacitors. These
drums and capacitors were moved from one
building to another for storage, awaiting disposal.
During the move, PCB's were spilled or leaked at
several places between the buildings. Under
Federal regulations, leaks and spills constitute
illegal disposal. The stringent agreement calls for
the university to remove and dispose of the PCB
items from the Environmental Engineering
Research Laboratory and the Aeronomy Field as
partial settlement.
Wavne State University (Detroit, MI): EPA's
March 1994 consent agreement with Wayne State
University included a $631,000 supplemental
environmental project as well as a $7,150 fine.
The university was cited for violating Federal rules
on PCB use and recordkeeping. As part of the
agreement, the university did asbestos abatement
work at several buildings on campus. Removing
friable asbestos from Wayne State's buildings
prevents its potential release into the environment.
U.S. Graphite. Inc. (Saginaw. MI): EPA's
March 1994 consent agreement with U.S.
Graphite, Inc., to resolve PCB includes a $10,000
fine and removal of more than 500 PCB-
contaminated transformers and capacitors at an
estimated cost of $195,000. Earlier the company
had spent $32,025 to remove two PCB-
contaminated transformers and 16 PCB capacitors.
EPA had cited U.S. Graphite for improper use,
disposal, marking, storage, and recordkeeping of
PCB equipment. This outstanding settlement
moves Region V closer to the goal of totally
eliminating all PCB's.
RCRA/UST
BASF Corp. North Works (Wyandotte. MI):
EPA's March 1994 consent order with BASF
Corp. called for an investigation into hazardous
waste at its Wyandotte site. BASF agreed to
evaluate the effectiveness of a groundwater
cleanup project already proceeding under State
consent orders and to investigate the nature and
extent of present soil and groundwater
contamination at the facility. In its order, EPA
specified that the company must perform
appropriate cleanup if the investigation shows
additional dangerous contamination.
BASF's North Works facility is a 230-acre site on
the Trenton Channel of the Detroit River. The
facility has been a source of hazardous waste
releases to the river in the past. EPA is concerned
that hazardous wastes from the facility may still be
migrating into the river. While owned and
operated by BASF, the North Works has been
used as a manufacturing, research, and pilot
projects site for industrial organic chemicals,
polyether polyol resins, polyurethane plastics and
castings, vitamins A and E. The site was used for
the manufacture of soda and coke in the late
1800s.
Hilton Davis Co. (Cincinnati. OH): EPA's July
1994 administrative order to Hilton Davis Co.
proposed a $1.6 million penalty for hazardous,
waste violations at its Cincinnati, OH, plant. EPA
alleges that the company failed to: conduct
adequate waste analysis; properly monitor and
record operating parameters; develop a closure
plan; establish financial assurance for closure;
monitor equipment leaks; submit accurate
precompliance certification, and comply with
emissions standards for ash, chlorine, arsenic,
chromium and lead.
The Hilton Davis plant makes organic chemicals
including dyes, food colors, organic pigments, and
optical brighteners. It also generates, treats, stores,
A-42
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
and deposes of hazardous wastes. Until August
1992, the plant operated a boiler using hazardous
waste from as many as 60 different processes as
fuel. As a result, it had to comply with EPA
regulations for boilers and industrial furnaces,
known as the BIF rule which became effective in
August 1991.
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
(Cleveland. OH): In August 1993, Region V
filed an administrative complaint against the
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
(GCRTA) for alleged violations of underground
storage tank (UST) regulations at three of its
facilities. EPA alleged that GCRTA failed to meet
construction, notification, release detection, and
closure requirements at its Brooklyn, Triskett, and
Hagden facilities. Violations were uncovered
during an April 1992 inspection, and a complaint
was issued when a March 1993 follow-up
inspection revealed repeated and uncorrected
violations.
On August 12, 1994, after less than a year of
negotiations, the Region and GCTRA reached a
verbal agreement that was formalized in a
September CAFO. GCRTA corrected all past
violations and paid $174,718 in penalties.
Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Saint Paul. MN): In
February 1993, Region V filed an administrative
complaint against Northwest Airlines for alleged
violations of UST regulations at its
Minneapolis/St. Paul airport facility. The
complaint proposed a $115,710 penalty and
alleged that Northwest failed to meet tank
notification and release detection requirements. A
February CAFO requiring a $54,989 and
compliance resolved this case.
U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (7th Cir. 1994):
On September 26, 1994, the court affirmed in part
and vacated in part the district court's grant of
summary judgment in this action. The Seventh
Circuit upheld the district court's rejection of
impossibility as a defense to allegations that
Bethlehem Steel failed to comply with the
corrective action requirements of its IUC permit.
The corrective action claim accounted for $4.2
million of the district court's 1993 $6 million
judgment in this case. The vacated portions of the
decision involved the government's claims that
Bethlehem Steel had illegally disposed of F006
waste (wastewater treatment sludge from
electroplating operations, which can contain such
hazardous constituents as hexavalent chromium
and cyanide).
U.S. v. Ekco Housewares, Inc. (Massillon, Ohio):
On January 28, 1994, the court issued a $4.6
million judgment for the government based on
Ekco's failure to maintain financial assurance for
closure, financial assurance for post-closure, and
liability coverage. This case arose because Ekco
generated waste products at its Massillon, OH,
facility which it discharged to an on-site surface
impoundment. In its complaint, the United States
cited violations of both a 1987 Partial Content
Agreement and Order (PCAO), and RCRA rules
(including financial assurance and liability
insurance provisions. Ekco appealed the penalty
assessment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.
U.S. v. Laclede Steel Company: Laclede Steel
entered into a consent decree settling this civil
judicial action for violation of RCRA's land
disposal restrictions (LDR) rules. In the
complaint, the United States alleged, among other
things, that Laclede had illegally land disposed of
tons of lead-bearing K061 electric arc furnace
baghouse dust. The consent, decree requires
Laclede to pay a $300,000 civil penalty, complete
an environmental audit, and remediate its illegal
waste piles, in accordance with the State of
Illinois-approved closure plan, using a new, $25
million High Temperature Metals Recovery
(HTMR)unit.
City of Columbus, Ohio and the Solid Waste
Authority of Central Ohio: An RCRA §7003
administrative order was issued on September 9,
1994, by EPA to the City of Columbus (owner)
and the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio
(SWACO) (operator). The order required the
respondents to conduct measures to abate the
potentially imminent threat to public health and
the environment posed by the past and present
A-43
-------
} FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
emissions of dioxins. The incinerator, which
burns approximately 1,700 tons of trash daily, was
determined by a stack test in 1992 to have among
the highest MWC dioxin emissions in the nation
(i.e.t an average concentrations of 13,000 ng/dscm,
with highest concentrations at nearly 18,000
ng/dscm).
SDWA
Total Petroleum (Alma. MI): A May 1994
consent order resolved EPA's case against Total
Petroleum for failing to: maintain the annulus
pressure differential in an on-site injection well,
report the violation and, sign the monitoring
report. Class I wells are the most likely to
endanger drinking water. The pressure differential
is a safeguard necessary to ensure even leaks will
not stop the waste from flowing to its intended
zone, not to an underground source of drinking
water. (SIC/2911/petroleum refining).
George Perry (Oceana County, MI): EPA's
December 1993 consent order resolved the case
against Perry for failing to plug and abandon a
Class II injection well that was in disuse for more
than 2 years. Not only did Perry plug the
injection well, he agreed to a SEP to plug three oil
production wells also in disuse. EPA does not
regulate oil production wells. Perry's actions will
eliminate four potential sources of contamination
to underground sources of drinking water.
(SIC/1311.)
JPT Petroleum Production Corp. (Gibson
County, IN): On February 1, 1994, the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources and JPT signed
an administrative agreement regarding missed
deadlines for demonstrating mechanical integrity
of three Class II wells. The agreement also
addressed minor violations associated with nine oil
and gas wells in Gibson County. These violations
were discovered through file reviews and routine
inspections conducted in 1992. JPT agreed to pay
a $3,000 penalty. This action will prevent
contamination of underground sources of drinking
water. (SIC/131 I/crude petroleum & natural gas.)
Gahanna Water Department (Gahanna. OH):
A June 1994 consent order resolved EPA's case
against the Gahanna Water Department for
violating public notice requirements. Gahanna has
agreed to notify the public of its failure to
complete monitoring on time. In addition,
Gahanna completed a second round of lead and
copper monitoring in June 1994, sampling twice
the number of homes as required by SDWA
regulations. Gahanna also sent an educational
notice on how to avoid the hazards of lead in
drinking water to selected residences. The
additional monitoring and educational notice were
considered a SEP and thus the final penalty was
reduced by $2,300. Gahanna paid a $1,000
penalty.
CERCLA
Circle Smelting (Beckmeyer, IL): On March 22,
1994 the Region issued a unilateral administrative
order for a time critical removal to potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) ASARCO, Inc.,
Federated Metals Corporation, and Circle Smelting
Corporation at the Circle Smelting Site in
Beckmeyer, Illinois. The UAO directs the PRPs
to perform an estimated $710,000 time critical
removal of lead-contaminated materials along a
water main route in residential areas of the Village
of Beckmeyer.
Since the operation of the secondary zinc smelter
began in the early 1900's lead-contaminated
material from the smelt operations was used
extensively as fill throughout the Village of
Beckmeyer. On March 17, 1994 the Region
issued an action memorandum for the time critical
removal of lead-contaminated material in the path
of a water main replacement project in the
residential areas of the village. There was concern
that trenching through the contaminated material
(lead concentrations ranged as high as 31,000ppm)
might expose residents to the lead-contaminated
material. ASARCO, Inc. agreed to comply with
the UAO and the removal action was completed in
August 1994. This case demonstrated that an
expediated cleanup can be achieved at an NPL-
caliber SACM site by using accelerated
investigations and coordination techniques.
A-44
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Core Craft (Northern Township. MN): On
March 1, 1994, a consent decree was entered with
the U.S. District Court of Minnesota between the
U.S. and Core Craft, Inc. The consent decree
providel for payments by the defendants of a total
amount of approximately $5 million as
reimbursement for response costs incurred and to
be incurred by the U.S. EPA at the Kummer
Sanitary Landfill Superfund Site. Additionally, the
decree provides for the payment by the defendants
of $22,000 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
as reimbursement for damages to natural resources
at the site.
Kummer Sanitary Landfill was licensed to accept
"mixed municipal waste" from 1971-1984, at
which time groundwater contamination was
detected in private wells downgradient from the
facility. The site was placed on the NPL in 1986.
Because the largest contributor of waste at the site
was a municipality which demonstrated an
inability to pay, and because the evidence against
the other defendants presented difficult liability
issues, the Agency agreed to this mixed-funding
cash-out settlement despite the lack of other viable
PRPs from whom to seek full recovery.
Kerr-McGee Site (Chicago. ID: Region V, with
DOJ and OECA consultation, negotiated for the
conduct of removal actions at the West Chicago
Residential Areas NPL site, which involves
radioactive contamination of possibly hundreds of
residential properties at a potential cost of
$100,000,000. On October 31, Kerr-McGee
refused EPA's final offer. EPA issued a unilateral
order to Kerr-McGee on November 18, 1994.
Lockhart Construction (Akron, OH): On
February 24, 1994, Region V executed an
administrative order on consent with Lockhart
Construction for a removal at its facility. In the
order, Lockhart agreed to complete a removal at
the site and pay $8.6 million for costs.
The Lockhart Construction site is located in
Akron, Ohio. In May of 1992, during an
inspection by the Army Corp of Engineers, it was
discovered that illegal fill activities had taken
place at the facility, and that wetlands along the
Ohio Canal had been filled in. A subsequent
delineation of the wetland indicated that
approximately five acres of wetlands had been
filled in by Lockhart. Later inspections discovered
that several leachate seeps were flowing toward
the Ohio Canal and these leachate seeps had pH
levels greater than 13 as well as phenol
contamination.
National Presto (Eau Claire. WD: On October
14, 1993 U.S. EPA issued an administrative order
on consent pursuant to which National Presto
Industries, Inc. (NPI) agreed to conduct a removal
action at the NPI Superfund Site in Eau Claire,
Wisconsin. NPI will spend approximately $2.2
million pumping VOC contaminated sludges from
a large lagoon on the NPI property. The sludges
will be transported off-site and burned as a
secondary fuel at a RCRA permitted cement kiln.
The NPI site was listed on the NPL in 1986.
Until 1980, the NPI facility produced 8-inch and
105-mm shells for the Department of the Army.
The fogging operation at the facility pumped into
on-site lagoons. Lagoon No. 1, the subject of this
removal action, contains approximately 13,000
gallons of floating oil and over one million gallons
of sludge. U.S. EPA has determined that the oil
and sludge present a potential imminent and
substantial endangerment to groundwater as well
as to migratory birds and fowl.
Olin Corporation (Ashtabula. OH): On March
3, 1994, a consent decree was lodged in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Under the terms of this consent decree, Olin
Corporation, the sole PRP in this action, has
agreed to pay $1,542,540.82 to the U.S. EPA for
past response costs incurred plus interest through
September 1992, at the Big D Campground
Facility. As a result of the consent decree, U.S.
EPA will be recovering approximately 98% of its
past costs. Olin is also agreeing to pay the
Agency's future oversight costs, which are
anticipated to be between $500,000 and $600,000.
The total consent decree is worth over $2 million.
The Big D Campground Superfund site is located
in Kingsville, Ohio, and consists of a former 1.5
A-45
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
acre quarry used as a landfill. The facility was a
sand and gravel quarry from 1964 to 1976. Olin
delivered and disposed of hazardous materials at
the quarry during its operations. U.S. EPA placed
the facility on the National Priorities List in early
1983. Olin is currently complying with a
unilateral administrative order for the Remedial
Design/Remedial Action work.
Wedzeb (Lebanon, IN): During May through
July 1994, the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, entered five separate
consent decrees resolving outstanding claims by
the U.S. EPA against Wedzeb, its owner, William
Daniels, its successor, USA Manufacturing, and
various manufacturer defendants. The United
States recovered a total of $2.14 million to offset
the costs of the removal action. In addition, a
penalty of $100,000 was assessed against William
Daniels and Wedzeb for violation of a Section 106
CERCLA order and a penalty of $50,000 was
assessed against USA Manufacturing for violations
of Section 104(e) of CERCLA.
Jackson Drop Forge (Jackson. MI): The
Region's January 1994, administrative consent
order required two Jackson/Innova Corp. and
Mercer Forge Corp. to remove several thousand
drums of hazardous substances and contaminants
from the Jackson Drop Forge Site and reimburse
EPA for the Agency's past costs. This site,
located in a mixed industrial and residential area,
was used as both a forge and a dump for several
years. Adjacent to the Grand River, the site is in
a flood plain. The Region's December removal
action memorandum approved spending about $2
million to address conditions at the Site.'
Spickler Landfill Site (Marathon County. WI):
The Region's January 1994 unilateral order directs
all the PRP's to carry out an estimated $4.9
million remedy for the first operable unit at the
Spickler landfill in Marathon County, WI, The
remedy involves constructing an impermeable cap
over the mercury brine pit and a solid waste cap
over the rest of the landfill. In addition, the PRP's
must pump and treat contaminated leachate, install
a system to collect landfill gases, and monitor
groundwater.
A-46
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT I rw/li
REGION VI
CLEAN AIR ACT
U.S. v. Enpro Contractors, Inc.; Train Property,
Inc.; and Jimmy Patton Contractor, Inc. (E.D.
Ark.): On October 3, 1994, a civil consent decree
was entered by the court in which the above
defendants agreed to pay $20,000, $12,270, and
$10,000, respectively. The Government had
settled in FY93 with a fourth Defendant, Missouri
Pacific Employees' Hospital Association
(MPEHA) , for >, $62,000, bringing the total
settlement, amount to $104,270. These actions
arose from violation of the CAA and the NESHAP
promulgated thereunder. In particular, the
Defendants failed to keep friable asbestos materials
adequately wetted until collected for disposal as
required by the NESHAP during demolition of the
Missouri Pacific Hospital in Little Rock, AR.
In the Matter of Herd Enterprises, d/b/a Broward
Factory Service: EPA issued an administrative
penalty order (APO) on December 28, 1993, to
Herd Enterprises for a violation which occurred in
Richardson, TX. Technicians for the company
were observed (one case was video taped) venting
refrigerant during service/repair of residential air
conditioning units. The source of the information
came from the people at whose homes the
violations occurred; in both cases the home owners
themselves were knowledgeabje about both the
regulations and air conditioning work. In one
instance a video tape was provided of the actions
of the technician. The penalty assessed in the
final order was $20,650.
CLEAN WATER ACT
U.S. v. City ofKenner and the State of Louisiana
(E.D. La.): On January 4, 1994, a consent decree
was entered by the court settling the Government's
claim that the City of Kenner, LA, had violated
the CWA and assessing a civil penalty of
$215,000. The complaint alleged that the City had
violated certain conditions of its NPDES permit,
including failure to adequately implement its
approved pretreatment program and causing the
unpermitted discharge of pollutants to waters of
the United States.
U.S. v. City of Bossier City, and the State of
Louisiana (W.D. La.): A SEP which had been
included in a consent decree under the CWA with
Bossier City, LA, filed on February 4, 1993, was
substantially completed in 1994. In lieu of EPA's
proposed settlement amount of $325,000, Bossier
City agreed to pay a civil penalty of $200,000 and
to conduct the SEP. The project cost of the SEP
was approximately, $375,000. The complaint filed
in U.S. District Court alleged that Bossier City had
violated the CWA by failing to properly operate
and maintain its POTW, failing to comply with
effluent limitations in its NPDES permit, and
failing to fully implement its industrial
pretreatment program.
U.S. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company
(E.D. Tex.): A pollution prevention SEP was
contained in the consent decree filed on August
15, 1994, in U.S. District Court in settlement of
claims against DuPont for violations of its NPDES
Permit and §301 of the CWA. Under the consent
decree, DuPont agreed to pay a civil penalty in the
amount of $516,430 and to perform a SEP costing
an estimated $3.2 million. The SEP requires
replacement of existing steam-powered vacuum
jets in their adiponitrile process units with
mechanical vacuum pumps. The steam,
contaminated with waste materials from the
adiponitrile process, was condensed as water and
became a waste stream.
Vulcan Chemical: EPA received information in
correspondence from Vulcan regarding NPDES
permit violations involving zinc and issued an
administrative order under the CWA to Vulcan
establishing a schedule to reduce zinc from the
company's wastewater discharges. In response,
Vulcan devised and implemented an alternative
treatment technology which resulted in a reduction
of pollution created at the facility with only a
minimal delay in the compliance schedule.
A-47
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
In the Matter of Albert Kramer III dlbla Kramer
Development Corporation: On January 21, 1994,
a consent agreement/final order was issued in
which Mr. Kramer agreed to pay $6,005 to resolve
an administrative penalty action. Development of
the case, which was referred to EPA from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, included an original
proposed penalty of $10,000. Kramer had initiated
construction of a series of roads in wetlands as
part of an unspecified future development project.
No permit had been obtained under CWA §404,
for the discharge of fill material into wetlands.
Citgo Pipeline Company: An administrative
Class II complaint was issued to Citgo Pipeline
Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, on March 4, 1994,
with a proposed penalty of $124,900 for violations
of §311(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the CWA. The
corporation's facility discharged 200 barrels of
crude oil from its onshore pipeline in Claiborne
Parish, LA, and 250 barrels of crude oil from an
onshore pipeline in Gregg County, TX.
Information on the discharge was received from
the report made by Citgo to the NRC. The
discharged oil entered navigable waters of the
United States in quantities determined to be
harmful under 40 C.F.R. §110.3.
Hamner Inc.: An administrative Class I
complaint was issued to Hamner, Inc., Corpus
Christi, TX, on May 24, 1994, with a proposed
penalty of $9,108 for violations of
§31 l(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the CWA. The corporation's
tanker truck overturned, discharging approximately
24 barrels of petroleum naphtha. The petroleum
naphtha entered navigable waters of the United
States in quantities determined to be harmful under
40C.RR. §110.3.
.Tayhawk Pipeline Corporation: A consent
agreement and final order was signed July 11,
1994, concerning Jayhawk Pipeline Corporation's
discharge of 20 barrels of crude oil from an
onshore pipeline in Kay County, Oklahoma. The
spill was reported to the NRC by the responsible
party and EPA responded to the spill. Jayhawk
paid a penalty of $3,825 to the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund.
Petrolite Corporation: A consent agreement and
final order was signed July 11, 1994, concerning
the corporation's violation of §311(b)(6)(B)(ii) of
the CWA. Petrolite Polymer Division discharged
200 barrels of wax from its facility located in
Kilgore, Gregg County, TX. The oil entered the
stormwater drainage and migrated off-site into
drainage areas and Rabbit Creek. The discharge
was reported to the NRC and EPA responded to
the spill. Petrolite paid a penalty of $5,500 to the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Red River Entertainment Group: On May 19,
1994, a consent agreement/final order was issued
in which Red River Entertainment agreed to pay
$3,000 to resolve an administrative penalty action.
Development of the case, which was referred to
EPA from the Corps of Engineers, included an
original proposed penalty of $5,000. Red River
had applied for a CWA, §404, permit to build a
bulkhead associated with casino development on
the Red River in Shreveport, LA, but initiated
construction work in waters of the U.S. prior to
issuance of the permit. The impacts of the
violation were corrected, and the permit was
eventually issued by the Corps of Engineers.
RCRA
In the Matter of Micro Chemical Company: An
RCRA administrative CAO on consent was issued
to Micro Chemical Co. on September 30, 1994.
The order followed from a citizen's complaint of
releases from the facility. The order first requires
the facility to stabilize a ground water plume of
pesticides, located 3,000 feet upgradient from the
city's drinking water wells. The order then
requires clean up of the soil on the remainder of
the site. Thus, the site requires ground water and
soil remediation measures. The study phase for
both media may cost $1.4 million. The ground
water remediation will be carried out over a great
deal of time (10 to 20 years) which will involve
substantial yearly costs. The soil remediation will
require a much shorter period of time to reach a
conclusion but will require a greater amount of
money. A rough estimate of the total cost of
remediation of the site would be in the area of $4
to 10 million.
A-48
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
In the Matter of Dow Chemical: Violations
found at this facility in Plaquemine, LA, related to
RCRA BIF requirements. They included failure to
maintain the prescribed scrubber blow down rate
and liquid-to-gas ratio and failure to maintain the
operating'controls and end points for automatic
waste feed cut off established in the Certification
of Compliance. The case was settled with a
consent agreement and final order, filed September
9, 1994, in which the assessed penalty was
$26,000.
In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management:
This facility operates a hazardous waste incinerator
in Port Arthur, TX, permitted under both the
RCRA (for hazardous waste) and the TSCA (for
polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs). The facility
commingled the listed hazardous waste F039
(leachate from landfills) with PCB's from
capacitors and transformers during incineration.
The resulting ash failed to meet the RCRA land
disposal restriction (LDR) treatment standards for
PCBs in F039. Although the PCB concentrations
in the ash were probably derived from the PCBs in
the electrical equipment, not the F039, the Mixture
Rule requires that the ash meet LDR standards for
F039. The facility failed to make an adequate
waste determination and shipped the ash to a
disposal facility without notifying the disposal
facility that the ash did not meet LDR treatment
standards. The ash was subsequently placed on
the land without having met LDR treatment
standards for PCB's in F039. (The receiving
facility, Chemical Waste Management, Carlyss,
LA, also received a penalty.) Shipments occurred
on several occasions during 1993. The company
self-reported the violations. An order assessing a
civil penalty of $15,000 was issued on April 8,
1994.
In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management:
This facility is a hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facility in Carlyss, LA.
Violations found at this facility related to disposal
on the land of hazardous wastes which may be
land disposed only if they meet LDR treatment
standards. The facility in Port Arthur, TX,
commingled the listed hazardous waste F039
(leachate from landfills) with polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) from capacitors and transformers
during incineration and failed to notify the
receiving facility that the resulting ash failed to
meet the RCRA land disposal restriction (LDR)
treatment standards for PCBs in F039. (The Port
Arthur facility also received a penalty.)
In the Matter of Texas Industries: This facility
is a cement plant in Midlothian, TX, which burns
hazardous waste as a part of its fuel. Violations
found at this facility related to RCRA BIF
requirements. The facility violated these
requirements by its failure to operate the kiln
within feed rate limits established in, the
Certification of Precompliance, failure to make an
adequate Bevil exclusion determination, and failure
to maintain unit inspection records. An order
assessing a civil penalty of $26,000 was issued on
June 23, 1994.
In the Matter of Aristech: Violations found at
this chemical plant in Pasadena, TX, related to
RCRA BIF requirements. They included
exceedances of waste storage accumulation times,
failure to conduct unit integrity testing, failure to
label waste storage tank, failure to maintain unit
inspection records, failure to update waste analysis
and contingency plan, and failure to prepare unit
closure plan. A civil penalty of $21,500 was
assessed in an order issued on August 8, 1994.
In the Matter ofRexene: Violations found at this
chemical plant in Odessa, TX, related to RCRA
BIF requirements. They included failure to
establish appropriate Certification of Compliance
operating limits, failure to comply with prescribed
feed rates, failure to amend waste analysis plan,
inspection schedule and contingency plan, and
failure to prepare unit closure plan. A penalty of
$33,750 was assessed in an order issued
September 15, 1994.
In the Matter of Chapparal Steel: This steel
manufacturing company in Midlothian, TX,
exports emission control dust and sludge from the
primary production of steel in its electric arc
furnaces, listed hazardous waste K061, for
recovery of other metals. It failed to provide
annual reports of its hazardous waste exporting
A-49
-------
SEP
IFY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
activities for 1991 and 1992 and failed to properly
manifest shipments during that period. On
December 23,1993, an order was issued assessing
a civil penalty of $5,000.
In the Matter of Hydrocarbon Recyclers, Inc.:
This hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma, receives
hazardous waste which has been imported from
another country. The case involved violations of
the RCRA requirement that treatment, storage and
disposal facilities submit advance notice to EPA or
the authorized State agency of anticipated receipt
of foreign waste. An order assessing a civil
penalty of $35,000 was issued on May 4, 1994.
In the Matter ofREM TEX: This case involved
violations of the RCRA hazardous waste importing
requirements by a manufacturer of electrical and
electronic equipment in Del Rio, TX. Violations
included failure to notify EPA or the authorized
State agency of hazardous waste activity and
failure to provide foreign generator's name on
manifest. REM-TEX acts as U.S. importer of
hazardous waste for its foreign maquiladora
facility, located in Tamaulipas, Mexico. REM-
TEX operates a U.S. facility, located in Del Rio,
TX, which serves as a warehouse or transfer point
for waste imported from REM-TEX's maquiladora
facility destined for TSD facilities in the United
States. A civil penalty of $9,000 was assessed in
an order issued on May 31, 1994.
In the Matter of Jeep Collins: This case
involved violations of the RCRA hazardous waste
importing requirements by a jewelry manufacturer
in Fredericksburg, TX. Violations included failure
to notify EPA or the authorized State agency of
hazardous waste activity and failure to provide
foreign generator's name on manifest. Jeep
Collins acts as U.S. importer of hazardous waste
for its foreign maquiladora facility, located in
Coahuila, Mexico. Jeep Collins operates a U.S.
facility, located in Fredericksburg, TX, which
serves as a warehouse or transfer point for waste
imported from Jeep Collins' maquiladora facility
destined for TSD facilities in the United States. A
civil penalty of $6,300 was assessed in an order
issued on May 31, 1994.
In the Matter of Ranco: The case involved
violations by a manufacturer in Brownsville, TX,
of plastic and metal parts for heating and air
conditioning units of requirements for storage and
manifesting of hazardous waste. The facility
imports hazardous waste from its maquiladora
operation in Mexico, and it used an incorrect
RCRA ID number on its manifests. An order was
issued on August 3, 1994, assessing a civil penalty
of $19,520.
In the Matter of Citeo Re fining; This petroleum
refinery in Lake Charles, LA, failed to meet the
regulatory deadline for retrofitting impoundments,
which receive toxicity characteristic hazardous
wastes, with liners and leak detection systems.
Even after the statutory deadline for retrofitting
impoundments or ceasing to use them, Citgo
continued to place hazardous wastes in the
impoundments. The violations were self reported.
The facility was assessed a civil penalty of
$47,500 in an order issued September 30, 1994.
In the Matter ofAauaness Chemical: Aquaness
Chemical, formerly an oil field chemical blending
operation in LaFayette, LA, was converting its
facility to a warehouse and distribution center for
oil field chemicals. The facility failed to notify
EPA or the authorized State agency of its
hazardous waste activity and hazardous waste
storage. The company was involved in generating
large quantities of various hazardous wastes
(thousands of gallons a year) without notifying the
authorized State or EPA about their activity. In
addition, wastes wt"v, being managed in a manner
that presented a potential for release to the
environment because of mislabeling the waste
containers and not inspecting the areas where the
waste was stored on a regular basis. The facility
also failed to adequately train its personnel in the
management of hazardous waste. A civil penalty
of $105,350 was assessed in an order issued on
October 1, 1993.
In the Matter of Helena Chemical: Helena
Chemical in Delhi, LA, is a pesticide distribution
warehouse for northeast Louisiana. This facility
failed to notify the regulatory agency of hazardous
waste activity and to comply with hazardous waste
A-50
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
X
storage requirements. The facility had been
storing hazardous wastes in one of its warehouses
since it ceased its pesticide blending operation in
1986, without following the requirements for
storing hazardous waste. A civil penalty of
$71,482 was assessed in an order issued on
October 1, 1993.
In the Matter of Helena Chemical: Helena
Chemical in West Helena, AR, blends technical
grade pesticides and herbicides for distribution to
warehouse facilities in the mid-west and southern
United States. The facility also does contract
blending and packaging of pesticides for other
companies. The facility failed to notify the
regulatory agency of hazardous waste activity and
failed to follow hazardous waste storage and
manifesting requirements. The facility was storing
15,000 gallons of a mixed hazardous waste in a
tank at the facility. The company had failed to
characterize this waste as hazardous and had
actually manifested similar waste from the site as
non-hazardous. The company was assessed a civil
penalty of $98,125 in an order issued on
December 29, 1993.
U.S. v. Marine Shale Processors, Inc. (W.D.
La.): On August 30, 1994, the court issued an
opinion requiring Marine Shale Processors (MSP)
to pay the United States and the State of Louisiana
an $8 million civil penalty for violating the
RCRA, the CAA, and the CWA. The court also
ordered Southern Wood Piedmont (SWP), a
company that sent hazardous waste to the MSP, to
pay a $25,000 civil penalty for sending hazardous
waste to MSP was in violation of the RCRA
storage permit regulations. Finally, the court
prohibited MSP from disbursing dividends,
royalties, loans, debentures and other funds to
company shareholders and officers, except
amounts to pay their normal current salaries and
MSP's local, state and federal taxes. The MSP,
SWP and the government have appealed portions
of these decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.
TSCA
In the Matter of Asarco. Amarillo, Texas: An
administrative complaint under the TSCA was
issued to Asarco, Inc., Amarillo, TX, on
September 29, 1993 for failure to comply with the
PCB regulations. Violations included improper
disposal of PCBs, inadequate records of PCBs, and
failure to notify EPA of PCB waste handling
activity. The proposed penalty in this complaint
was $51,500. This complaint was settled on
February 8, 1994, through the issuance of a C AGO
with a final penalty of $51,500. In addition, the
CACO required that the company conduct post-
verification sampling of a PCB spill that was the
subject of a count contained in the complaint.
Central Power and Light Company. Corpus
Christi. Texas: An administrative complaint
under the TSCA was issued to Central Power and
Light on September 30, 1994, with a proposed
penalty of $90,750. Among the violations found
were failure to properly mark PCB containers,
improper storage and disposal of PCBs, and
inadequate recordkeeping. The .facility failed to
cleanup three spills for 82 days, 69 days, and 58
days respectively.
CERCLA
U.S. v. David Bowen Wallace, et al. (N.D. Tex.)
Bio-Ecology Systems Superfund Site, Dallas
County, Texas: On August 1, 1994, the United
States filed a Notice of Lodging of a consent
decree .for recovery of past and future costs, as
well as operation and maintenance costs. This
consent decree, if entered by the Court, would
provide for recovery of $8.34 million in U.S.
response costs and $1.14 million in State of Texas
response costs associated with implementation of
a Superfund remedy at the Bio-Ecology National
Priorities List (NPL) Site. The settlement resolves
the liability of 73 defendants, including 59 de
minimis generators of hazardous substances
disposed at the site.
A-51
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
U.S. v. American National Petroleum Company,
t at (W.D. La.) Gulf Coast Vacuum Superfund
Site, Abbeville, Louisiana, and Gulf Coast
Vacuum Services Superfund Site, Vermillion
Parish, Louisiana: In FY94, both an
administrative order on consent and a consent
decree were signed for this site where both the soil
and a shallow perched aquifer are contaminated
with oil field wastes containing barium, arsenic,
mercury, cadmium, lead, benzene, and numerous
other organic compounds. About 15,000 cubic
yards of sludge and 19,500 cubic yards of site
soils will be remediated. On September 28, 1994,
an administrative order on consent became
effective after a 30-day public comment period.
The order, between EPA and 54 de minimis
parties, allowed the parties to "cash out" their
liability at the site by paying a settlement based on
their volumetric percentage of waste at the site.
The de minimis settlement raised $ 3.1 million for
EPA expenses and contractor oversight of clean-up
activities for Operable Unit 1 at the site.
On June 14,1994, EPA completed negotiations for
a proposed consent decree with 15 major
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), including
many large oil companies. The parties signed the
proposed consent decree which calls for a change
in the remedy for organic contamination specified
in the 1992 Record of Decision from incineration
to biological treatment to the same treatment
standards as incineration. The proposed consent
decree will become effective after it is lodged and
entered and after an Amended Record of Decision
is issued. On January 26, 1994, EPA received the
final close-out report from the 15 major PRPs for
their work on Operable Unit 2 (the Interim Source
Action) under a December 1992 unilateral
administrative order. All activities under the order
were certified complete except for Operation and
Maintenance prior to the initiation of Operable
Unit 1 construction; therefore, the PRPs have
fulfilled their obligations under the unilateral
order.
U.S. v. City of Jacksonville, Arkansas (E.D. Ark.)
Jacksonville Municipal Landfill, Lonoke
County, Arkansas, and Rogers Road Municipal
Landfill, Pulaski County. Arkansas: On April 6,
1994, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Arkansas, lodged two consent decrees for the
Jacksonville and Rogers Road Municipal Landfill
Superfund Sites which were subsequently entered
on June 20,1994. Approximately 800 cubic yards
of soil in the two landfills are contaminated with
dioxin that was produced by a local herbicide
manufacturer. "The City agreed to pay $100,000 in
past costs.
U.S. v. Gulf States Utilities Company (S.D Tex.)
Industrial Transformer/Sol Lynn Site. Harris
County, Texas: The first EPA Prospective
Purchaser Agreement was lodged with the court on
November 18, 1993, for the Industrial
Transformer/Sol Lynn Site (the Site) in Houston,
TX. The Site was the location of an electrical
transformer salvage and recycling operation
conducted by the property owner, Sol Lynn, from
approximately 1965 to 1975. Contamination at the
Site resulted from the transformer salvage
operations and from a chemical manufacturing and
supply company which leased property from Sol
Lynn. The principal contaminants of concern are
PCBs and TCE. Both of these substances were
released onto the ground at the Site. TCE
migrated into the ground water and PCBs
remained in the first two feet of soil. The Site
was placed on the NPL in March 1989.
On April 9, 1.991, the United States filed a
complaint against the Estate of Sol Lynn seeking
past and future cleanup costs pursuant to §107 of
CERCLA. The settlement was achieved through
two documents. First, the consent decree settled
the civil liability of the defendants for cleanup
costs and injunctive relief while retaining certain
"reopener" rights for previously unknown site
conditions. The United States received an up-front
payment from sale of site property, and will
receive a percentage of a future sale of other real
property owned by the Estate.
Second, the Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue,
requiring Department of Justice approval, between
EPA and the purchaser of the Estate's interest in
the site required the purchaser to establish an
escrow for the purchase. The Estate's payment
under the consent decree was funded through this
A-52
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
escrow. In consideration for funding the Estate's
payment, the purchaser received a covenant not to
sue for civil liability and injunctive relief related
to existing contamination at the Estate property
and an adjacent tract. The agreement imposes
certain use restrictions on current and future
owners of the Site and will give EPA, the Texas
Water Commission, and their cleanup contractors
irrevocable access to the property for future
remediation.
U.S. v, Vertac Chemical Corporation, et al.,
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology v. Vertac Chemical Corporation, et al.
(E.D. Ark.). In the Matter of Hercules Inc.,
Uniroyal Chemical Ltd., and Vertac Chemical
Corporation (Administrative) Vertac Superfund
Site, Jacksonville. Arkansas: Hercules, Inc., the
principal viable PRP agreed to comply with a
UAO issued in March 1994 to perform site
cleanup. Under the order, Hercules will
implement a $28.5 million remedy to dismantle
the old manufacturing process plant, and treat
residual liquids and sludges left in old tanks and
vessels. The combined costs to clean up all six
operable units is expected to exceed $100 million.
Additionally, in the civil enforcement action
associated with this site, on October 12, 1993, the
U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to
the United States on the issue of Hercules' joint
and several liability for past and future costs
related to remediation of the Vertac Site. That
summary judgment was an interim ruling as part
of ongoing CERCLA cost recovery action brought
by the EPA against multiple parties.
In the Matter of Amerada Hess Corporation, et
al., PAB Oil Superfund Site, Abbeville,
Louisiana: In September 1994, EPA issued a
UAO to approximately 30 potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) requiring them to clean up the
abandoned site. Most PRPs subsequently agreed
to comply with the order. Under the order, PRPs
will undertake a $13 million effort to bioremediate
hazardous organic wastes left in pits and lagoons
at this site in southern Louisiana. Surface water
will also be treated and discharged. In addition to
the UAO, EPA offered de minimis settlement to a
large number of small volume contributors. Most
of the de minimis parties have signed the
settlement which is now being finalized- All non-
settling PRPs have been offered an opportunity for
Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR). The ADR
will not interrupt the ongoing site remediation
being performed under the UAO, but will afford
the PRPs an opportunity to resolve allocation
issues that could not be resolved prior to the
deadline for a "good faith offer" to settle.
In the Matter of Waste Management of
Oklahoma, Inc., Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill
Superfund Site, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: A
UAO was issued to Waste Management of
Oklahoma (WMO) on January 28, 1994. The
UAO requires WMO to conduct the Remedial
Design and Remedial Action at the site. The site
was contaminated with liquid industrial wastes
which were hazardous substances and which had
been disposed of in a solid waste landfill under
state permit. The remedy selected in the Record
of Decision was the capping of the landfill,
construction of a gas recovery system, and
remediation of the contaminated ground water. A
settlement in the form of an administrative order
on consent was reached with 19 de minimis parties
on March 24, 1994, for $1.2 million. This
settlement was included in the national de minimis
initiative. The de minimis settling parties included
18 generators and a transporter.
In the Matter of Aluminum Company of
America, Alcoa/Lavaca Bay Superfund Site,
Point Comfort, Texas: The site includes the
Aluminum Company of America's (ALCOA)
Point Comfort Operations Plant which covers
approximately 3,500 acres and Lavaca Bay which
is approximately 68 square miles in size.
In May 1993 EPA proposed the Site for listing on
the National Priorities List (NPL), and the listing
became final on April 23, 1994. In. January of
1994, EPA's site negotiation team set a goal of 45
days to reach agreement with ALCOA on a scope
of work for a comprehensive remedial
investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS). This
deadline was established so as to try and meet
A-53
-------
1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
NOAA's and the State's statute of limitations.
The result was an administrative order on consent.
In the Matter of National Zinc Site, Bartlesville,
Oklahoma; Salomon, Inc., Cyprus Amax
Minerals Company, and Kerramerican, Inc.,
National Zinc Company Superfund Site,
Bartlesville, Oklahoma: On February 2, 1994,
EPA issued a UAO for removal action at the
National Zinc Site in Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
During operation of the National Zinc smelter,
lead and cadmium were deposited through air
releases on surface soils within three miles of the
facility. The UAO required PRPs, Salomon,
Incorporated, and Cyprus-Amax, to remove lead
contaminated soil from residential properties in the
area contaminated by the smelter. In addition, this
two-pronged process provided for state oversight
in a separate agreement by the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
with the PRPs to perform a RI/FS to address a
long term remedy for the site. The RI/FS was
carried out by the PRPs with a state Record of
Decision targeted for late in calendar 1994.
Marco of Iota: An Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) process has been initiated to
assist in reaching a cost recovery agreement at the
Marco of Iota Superfund site in Iota, LA. Marco
of Iota was a fuels blending and recycling facility
located in Iota, LA. The Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality had repeatedly cited the
facility operators for operational violations. In
January 1992, the Louisiana State Police in
conjunction with LDEQ closed down the facility
and initiated a criminal investigation. At closure
the operators abandoned a large volume of
hazardous substances on the site. WPA identified
over 600 potentially responsible parties (PRPs) and
offered them the opportunity to conduct the
cleanup. The PRPs declined the opportunity and
EPA began a Fund removal action in July 1992.
The removal was completed in June 1994, at a
cost of $4.5 million.
Pab Oil: In 1994, EPA initiated an Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) process to help resolve
allocation issues among Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) at the PAB Oil NPL site in
Abbeville, LA. The site includes impoundments
which were used to hold hazardous substances
from oil field truck discharges. EPA has identified
in excess of 30 PRPs. While the ADR process is
not complete, most PRPs agreed to participate in
the process and early signs are encouraging. The
offer of ADR appears to have convinced PRPs to
comply with the UAO for RD/RA and will
hopefully lead to a cost recovery agreement based
on the final allocation of liability.
South 8th Street: In 1994, EPA also initiated an
ADR process to help resolve allocation issues
among PRPs at the South 8th Street NPL site in
West Memphis, AR. EPA has identified in excess
of 30 PRPs. While the ADR process is not
complete, most PRPs agreed to participate in the
process and early signs are encouraging and EPA
is hopeful that the effort will lead to an allocation
which will facilitate a settlement agreement.
B.P. Chemical: This petrochemical plant in Port
Lavaca, TX, had a release to the environment of
ammonia in an amount just above the reportable
quantity. A consent agreement and final order was
signed October 6, 1993, concerning B.P.
Chemical's late reporting of the release to the
NRC under CERCLA §103. B.P., located in Port
Lavaca, TX, agreed to perform certain SEPs to
mitigate the penalty, which was reduced to zero
because of uncertainty regarding the amount
released. In return for the penalty reduction, B.P.
provided the LEPC in Calhoun County with
funding to purchase a weather radar for
environmental determination. Additionally, B.P.
purchased and installed a pump on the ammonia
blow down stream to reduce pressure problems on
the production unit. The projected cost of the two
SEPs is $49,000. SIC code 2869.
Miles Inc: A consent agreement and final order
was signed August 29, 1994, concerning Miles
Inc.'s late reporting to the NRC of a release of
dichlorodifluoromethane. This petrochemical plant
should have reported the release immediately, as
required by CERCLA §103. A penalty of $1,000
was agreed to by both parties. Miles, located in
Baytown, TX, agreed to perform certain SEPs to
A-54
-------
PV1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORTItjwz)
mitigate the penalty. The projected cost of the
SEPs is $13,000.
A-55
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
REGION VH
CLEAN AIR ACT
U.S. v. Archer Daniels Midland (S.D. la.): In
1989, EPA began documentation of CAA
violations at the Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)
Cedar Rapids and Des Moines, Iowa, facilities
resulting in establishment of 88 violations of PSD
permit conditions, state-issued PSD permit
conditions, and NSPS violations. The case was
concluded with a consent decree, which required
ADM to hire a contractor to conduct a company-
wide environmental management audit, to
document and recommend practices and
procedures to ensure compliance with federal,
state, and local environmental laws. The consent
decree also requires payment of a civil penalty of
$700,000.
U.S. v. Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc. (W.D. Mo.):
A consent decree was entered on June 30, 1994,
resolving notification, testing, and emission
violations of NSPS Subpart OOO at two Hunt
Midwest Mining, Inc. facilities. Hunt will pay a
civil penalty of $134,800. Hunt owns two plants
in Missouri, one in Kansas City and one in
Randolph. Hunt Midwest Mining installed a new
primary crusher and a new bin with loadout at the
Kansas City, MO, plant, and replaced the
Randolph, MO, plant in its entirety after the
Subpart OOO applicability date of August 31,
1983. Hunt failed to give the required
notifications, failed to conduct the required
performance tests at the Kansas City plant, and
was 30 months late performing these same
requirements at the Randolph plant. There were
also emissions violations at the Randolph plant.
In the Matter of Holnam, Inc.: EPA issued a
3008(a) complaint in July 1993, as part of the BIF
regulations initiative against Holnam, Inc., which
owns and operates a cement kiln in Clarksville,
MO, manufactures Portland cement, and burns
hazardous waste as fuel. The facility was unable
to certify compliance with certain emissions
standards by August 21, 1992, as required under
the BIF regulations. The violations alleged in the
complaint included failure to obtain a detailed
analysis of hazardous waste before burning,
inadequate waste analysis plan, and failure to
minimize releases of hazardous waste. The
consent agreement/consent order has been
executed by all parties resolving the violations
contained in the July 1993 BIF complaint.
Holnam is to pay $100,874 in penalties, and must
adjust their closure cost estimates and financial
assurance for closure.
CLEAN WATER ACT
In the Matter of the Boeing Company: The
Boeing Company filled approximately 1.4 acres of
the Arkansas River channel with broken concrete,
dirt, reinforcing bar, conduits (metal and plastic)
and miscellaneous demolition debris. The
administrative consent order requires the
Respondents to develop, obtain approval from
EPA, and implement a plan for removing the fill
material and restoring the area to its full condition.
The penalty paid was $30,000. EPA
simultaneously filed a complaint and consent
agreement against Boeing for violations of EPCRA
§313 reporting requirements, conducted pre-filing
negotiations, and reached settlement by which
Boeing agreed to pay full penalty of $58,500.
U.S. v. Beech Aircraft Corporation (D. Kan.):
On May 27, 1994, the court entered a consent
decree resolving civil violations of the CWA at
Beech Aircraft Corporation's Wichita, KS, facility.
Under the consent decree, Beech was required to
pay a civil penalty of $521,000 for its violations
of federal categorical pretreatment standards for
metal finishers, failure to meet the reporting
requirements of the general pretreatment
regulations, and failure to timely comply with an
administrative order issued by EPA. In addition to
paying a civil penalty of $521,000, Beech also
agreed under the consent decree to perform a SEP
valued at approximately $200,000 that consists of
installing centrifuges or equivalent systems to
remove sludge from its Wichita facility's existing
water wash paint spray booths.
A-56
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
RCRA
In the Matter of Burlington Northern Railroad:
An RCRA §7003 consent order was issued on July
8, 1994, addressing chlorinated solvent
contamination in the groundwater in the northeast
portion of the Hobson Yard, believed to have
resulted from a leaking perchloroethylene (PCE)
tank and from historical discharges of wastewater
into unlined lagoons. Burlington Northern's
Hobson Yard in Lincoln, ME, has a history of
environmental problems. A multi-media
inspection of the northeast portion of the Yard was
done in the summer of 1992, and based on
findings from the inspection, a UAO was issued to
Burlington Northern in the spring of 1993 citing
RCRA, CERCLA, CWA, and OPA authorities.
The UAO required Burlington Northern to cease
the discharge of oil and chlorinated solvents to
surface waters, including a rare inland saline
wetland located on Burlington Northern's property.
The consent prder requires Burlington Northern to
characterize .the extent of contamination, define the
source(s), and develop remedial alternatives to
address the same.
In the Matter of The Dexter Company: EPA
Region VII issued an administrative complaint to
The Dexter Company (SIC 2851) for RCRA
violations at its storage facility in Fairfield, IA.
The complaint charged The Dexter Company with
the following RCRA violations: violation of a
May 15, 1991 consent agreement/consent order
Respondent previously entered into with EPA;
storing hazardous wastes at its facility without
having achieved interim status or having a permit
for storage in violation of Section 3005 of RCRA;
and failure to label or date hazardous waste
containers. The total penalty proposed under this
complaint was $280,537. Under the terms of the
consent agreement, Respondent is to carry out a
pollution prevention SEP valued at $776,131, pay
a $32,125 penalty, and conduct closure at the Site.
The SEP involves the Respondent changing the
nature of its current painting operation to one
which does not use solvents, thus ceasing its
generation of this waste stream.
In the Matter of Missouri Highway
Transportation Department: On September 30,
1994, Region VII issued a consent
agreement/consent order requiring sampling,
further clean-up if needed, and development of a
plan for future handling of sandblast residue. The
case involved RCRA violations resulting from
sandblasting lead based paint from the Chariton
River bridge and the subsequent handling of the
sandblast residue. Missouri Highway
Transportation Department (SIC 9621) will pay an
initial penalty of $70,000. An additional $115,398
penalty will be deferred and subject to offset upon
completion of SEPs estimated to cost more than
$350,423.
In the Matter of Iowa Army Ammunition Plant:
On March 8, 1^94, EPA Region VH filed a
consent agreement/consent order (CA/CO) settling
a RCRA Section 3008(a) administrative
enforcement case with the Iowa Army
Ammunition Plant, Middletown, IA (IAAP) (SIC
9711). This was the first time the Army entered
into a RCRA CA/CO that included penalties since
the enactment of the Federal Facility Compliance
Act on October 6, 1992. The twelve count
complaint alleged violations of the groundwater
monitoring requirements and of IAAP's operating
permit conditions for storage and incineration of
hazardous wastes. The complaint assessed an
initial penalty of $201,640. During the
negotiations the penalty was reduced to the
amount of $138,921.75. The IAAP will initially
pay $75,704 and the balance of the penalty,
$63,217.75, will be deferred to allow for
implementation of a SEP which is estimated to
cost in excess of $300,000. If IAAP completes
the SEP in two years, the deferred amount will be
waived. The planned SEP will eliminate one of
lAAP's NPDES permitted discharges of explosive
contaminated wastewater.
In the Matter of G.E. Company: On June 30,
1993, as part of EPA's illegal operator initiative,
a civil administrative action was filed against G.E.
Company (SIC 3469) for its violations of RCRA
at its facility in West Burlington, IA, for a
proposed total penalty of $38,250. The settlement
reached included the payment of $10,500, plus the
A-57
-------
IFY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
obligation to conduct a SEP, which involves the
consolidation of two metal plating lines, with an
estimated 35% reduction in the amount of
hazardous wastes generated, and an estimated 80%
reduction in the generation of plating rinse waters.
The cost of the SEP totals an estimated $225,000.
In the Matter of Cuba Paint Company: On
September 30, 1992, EPA issued a complaint to
Cuba Paint Company, Inc. (SIC 2851), for
violations of RCRA at its facility in Cuba, MO.
The complaint proposed a total penalty of
$257,335. On May 11, 1994, the parties reached
a settlement whereby Cuba agreed to pay a
mitigated penalty of $87,000, and to perform two
SEP. The value of the SEPs total an estimated
$417,000.
EPCRA
In the Matter of Raw Valley, Inc.: This case
arose out of an administrative complaint issued to
Kaw Valley of Leavenworth, KS, by EPA alleging
three counts of failure to file reporting forms as
required under EPCRA §313. An Administrative
Law Judge found Kaw Valley liable for failure to
report. Kay Valley, however, argued that EPA's
proposed penalty of $15,000 should be reduced.
Kaw Valley, relying on information presented in
a 1987 EPA seminar, believed it was exempt from
reporting. The ALJ reduced the penalty to
$12,750 on the grounds that the seminar presented
a definition of "full-time employee" that differed
significantly from the definition later adopted in
EPA's final rule. The ALJ found that only a small
reduction was warranted because, although it was
informed in January 1989, by EPA officially that
it was required to file, Kaw Valley submitted its
Form Rs at least 6 months later, only after the
EPA filed a complaint. Kaw Valley sought
judicial review in the federal District of Kansas of
the EPCRA §313 definition of "full-time
employee" at 40 CFR §327.3, arguing that EPA
lacked authority to issue the definition, and that
EPA's rulemaking defining "full-time employee"
failed to comply with the Administrative
Procedure Act. Kaw Valley also appealed the
penalty assessment. The federal district court
found that EPA had authority to interpret the term
"full-time employee," that EPA's interpretation
was reasonable, that the rulemaking was
procedurally adequate, and, alternately, that issuing
such an interpretation was within the Agency's
inherent authority and exempt from notice and
comment requirements.
In the Matter of The Iowa Packing Company: A
CACO was entered August 8, 1994, whereby the
Iowa Packing Company of Des Moines, Iowa,
agreed to pay $28,000 for failing to submit
EPCRA §312 Tier II reports for ammonia to
SERC and LEPC for 1988 and 1989, and for
failing to report EPCRA §313 use of ammonia for
calendar years 1987 through 1989. In addition,
Respondent agreed to construct and implement a
wastewater pretreatment facility for a cost of
$850,000, which will significantly reduce
pollutants discharged into the City of Des Moines,
IA sanitary sewer system. Respondent also spent
$11,500 for the installation and implementation of
an ammonia diffusion system for its Des Moines,
IA facility.
CERCLA
U.S. v. Chemical Waste Management of Kansas,
Inc. (D. Kan.): On July 21, 1994, a cost
recovery consent decree in this matter was entered
with the court. The National Industrial
Environmental Services Site (the Site) is a
contaminated hazardous waste facility located near
Furley, KS. The Site has been stabilized through
remediation by Chemical Waste Management of
Kansas, Inc. (CWMK) with EPA oversight. EPA
continues its oversight with regular sampling and
related activities. In this consent decree, CWMK
has agreed to pay 90 percent of EPA's past costs
($1,561,594.24) plus 100 percent of all of EPA's
oversight costs after the date of entry. In return,
EPA is granting CWMK a covenant not to sue and
contribution protection regarding the Site.
U.S. v. TIC Investment Cory., et al. (N.D. la.):
On September 18, 1994, the court issued an
opinion and order holding two parent corporations
and a corporate officer/shareholder directly liable
on summary judgment for costs of response at the
White Farm Equipment Dumpsite in Charles City,
A-58
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Iowa. The opinion is significant for two reasons.
The decision held a parent corporation and a
corporate officer directly liable under §107(a)(3)
as arrangers for disposal. It also held the parent
company liable on summary judgment. The court
held that there must be some actual parent/officer
involvement in the operations of the subsidiary,
but that it is not necessary to show involvement in
waste disposal activities or daily operations of the
subsidiary. The opinion also contains a discussion
of the policy considerations which support
extending use of parent "owner/operator" liability
case law to "arranger" cases.
In the Matter of the Bis River Mine Tailings
Site: On July 7, 1994, EPA issued an AOC
requiring Doe Run Resources Corporation and St.
Francis County Environmental Corporation to
perform a non-time critical removal action
designed to prevent any further releases of lead
from the 600-acre tailings pile. The estimated cost
of the work to be performed is $12 million.
Under the terms of the AOC, Doe Run Resources
agreed to perform extensive slope stabilization,
regrading, and revegetation of the entire pile. The
objective of the removal action is to prevent any
further releases of lead-contaminated tailings from
the site.
In the Matter of Lee Chemical Co. Superfund
Site, Liberty, Missouri: A CERCLA §122(h)
Agreement for Recovery of Costs filed on May 23,
1994, recovered $389,522 from the Department of
Energy and Allied Signal, Inc., which was 100
percent of EPA's past response costs for the site
located in Liberty, MO. The settlement was
initiated as . part of a cooperative EPA/state
enforcement effort in which the State of Missouri
took the lead for ensuring completion of the
remedial action via an AOC with the site owner,
a municipality, while the EPA pursued its past
costs against the federal agency and government
contractor parties who were the site's waste
generators.
U.S. v. Boehrinser Inselheim Animal Health,
Inc. (D. Neb.): This consent decree settled EPA's
Superfund cost recovery case against Boehringer
Ingelheim Animal Health, Inc. (BIAH) as a de
minimis waste contributor settlement. BIAH
contributed about 0.495 percent of the 1,354,801
pounds of hazardous substances processed at the
Site. The total EPA costs, incurred for the EPA
clean-up of the Economy Products facility
amounted to $3,812,461. BIAH's pro rata share
of the response costs is calculated at $18,872. The
$100,000 settlement includes a 400-percent
premium.
In the Matter of Rentier Road Shooting Park:
The Renner Road Shooting Range Site is located
in Shawnee, KS. It contains serious lead
contamination from years of operation as a
shooting park. EPA issued , an Action
Memorandum on March 18, 1993, for conducting
a time-critical removal, which was completed in
1994. EPA incurred approximately $1 million in
clean-up costs.
In September 1994, EPA issued two AOCs to the
two de minimis parties pursuant to the authority
under the de minimis waste contributor provisions
of CERCLA §122(g)(l)(A). The de minimis
settlements provide that the parties will pay a total
of $41,250. The settlement amounts were $30,000
for one party and $11,250 for the other, based on
the amount of waste each party contributed to the
site (5 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively).
U.S. v. City of Clinton. Iowa (S.D. la.): In
September 1994, EPA referred to the Department
of Justice a de minimis landowner RD/RA consent
decree that it is proposing to enter into with the
City of Clinton, Iowa, pursuant to .CERCLA
§ 122(g)( 1 )(b). The City of Clinton has held title
to the Chemplex Superfund Site since 1967 as part
of an industrial development bond sale-leaseback
arrangement. There is no evidence that the City
has had any involvement with the Site other than
as a nominal title holder who holds indicia of
ownership to protect a security interest. Thus, the
EPA is entering into a de minimis landowner
settlement with the City of Clinton, Iowa. The de
minimis settlement requires the City to provide site
access to EPA and the other PRPs, and to comply
with deed restrictions. In exchange, the City
received a covenant not to sue and contribution
protection.
A-59
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
U.S. v. Midwest Asbestos Control, Inc., et al. (D.
Kan.): On July 25, 1994, Philip Buch, a former
supervisor for Midwest Asbestos Control, Inc., and
the company itself were sentenced in the District
Court of Kansas after their respective guilty pleas.
The pleas stemmed from the unlawful disposal of
asbestos at the site of a related company, Midwest
Metals, Inc.
Buch pled guilty to the CERCLA misdemeanor of
failing to notify EPA of the existence of a facility
at which hazardous substances had been disposed,
a violation of 42 U.S.C. §9603(c). He was
sentenced to 3 years probation and 100 hours of
community service, and was fined $25 in Special
Assessments. Midwest Asbestos Control pled
guilty to the CERCLA felony charge of failing to
notify the appropriate government agency of the
release into the environment of a reportable
quantity of a hazardous substance, a violation of
42 U.S.C. §9603(b). Midwest Asbestos was
sentenced to a fine of $2,500 and a $200 special
assessment.
A-60
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT {4gg)
REGION Vin
CLEAN AIR ACT
Sinclair Oil Corporation: On October 15, 1993,
EPA filed a fiilly executed CACO for Payment of
Civil Penalties, settling a §113(d) administrative
penalty order issued May 20, 1992. The violations
cited involved NSPS Subpart "J" CEM
requirements, specifically the failure to install
continuous emission monitors for all affected fuel
gas combustion devices by October 2, 1991. The
original administrative action sought a penalty of
$105,187. The settlement reduced the penalty to
$35,000 and gave credit of $70,187 in exchange
for a SEP valued at about $270,000, resulting in a
3.85:1 offset ratio. The SEP required the upgrade
of the existing sulfur recovery unit.
CLEAN WATER ACT
Dirt Merchant Construction/Sandra Tarr: On
April 14, 1994, EPA issued an AO against Dirt
Merchant Construction Company, Inc. and Sandra
Tarr, a Delta, CO, landowner for violations of
§404 of the CWA. The violations occurred when
the company built two illegal dikes in the
Gunnison River near Delta, CO, in endangered
fish species habitat. The enforcement action
successfully abated an imminent threat to river
stability and endangered fish species. The owner
of the property is now cooperating with the Corps
of Engineers by seeking authorization for bank
protection measures.
Lucas Western (Jamestown, North Dakota): On
June 26, 1991, EPA referred the Department of
Justice a case citing Lucas Western for violations
of federal pretreatment regulations. Lucas Western
discharges its wastewater to the Jamestown
wastewater treatment plant. Lucas Western
violated reporting requirements and pretreatment
discharge limitations for pH and chromium and
NPDES proceeded to refer the case independently.
On May 4, 1992, the complaint was filed in
Federal Court. In FY95, the Court entered a
consent decree settling the case for $250,000, plus
an environmental audit.
Farmers Union Central Exchange COOP
(CENEX} (Billings. Montana): EPA issued an
NOV to the State of Montana on November 11,
1990, for violation by CENEX of its NPDES
permit limits for Oil and Grease dating back to
December 1986. The State replied on
January 29, 1991, that due to a lack of resources,
the State would not pursue enforcement against
CENEX. On June 26, 1991, EPA referred the
CENEX case to the Department of Justice. EPA
agreed to settle this action with the Company for
a penalty of $316,000.
Burlington Northern Railroad (W.D., Wise.):
The case against Burlington Northern, a registered
corporation, is being jointly pursued by Regions V
and VIII. It involves three incidents: [1] On June
30, 1992, several cars of a freight train operated
by Burlington Northern derailed on or near a
trestle over the Nemadji River in Wisconsin.
Three of the cars fell from the trestle. One car,
which contained a product called "aromatic
concentrates," ruptured and discharged
approximately 21,000 gallons of its contents into
the Nemadji River. [2] On January 9, 1993, 25
cars of a freight train operated by Burlington
Northern' derailed on or near a track in the
Wendover Canyon, adjacent to the North Platte
River in Guernsey, WY. Eleven cars fell from the
track. Several of these cars, which contained
decant oil, ruptured and discharged at least
100,000 gallons or 2,380 barrels of oil into the
North Platte River. [3] On May 6, 1993, nine cars
of a freight train operated by Burlington Northern
derailed from a track near Worland, Wyoming.
Three of these cars, which contained clarified oil,
ruptured and discharged at least 40,000 gallons or
953 barrels of oil into drainage ditches which
empty into and are tributaries of the Bighorn
River.
The spill into the Nemadji River released benzene,
toluene, isoprene, naphthalene, and styrene in
excess of their reportable quantities. The two
Wyoming releases caused a film or sheen upon or
discoloration of the surface of the North Platte
A-61
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
River, the drainage ditches of the Bighorn river or
their adjoining shorelines, or caused a sludge or
emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of
those bodies of water or upon their adjoining
shoreline. Burlington Northern made proper
notifications to EPA about the Wyoming spills.
In this civil action, brought under the CWA as
amended by the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), EPA
also sought $279,078 to recover costs incurred
consistent with the National Contingency Plan
under CERCLA and OPA, and natural resource
damages totalling $250,000. The CWA penalties
totaled $2.5 million.
Hub City. South Dakota: EPA issued a
complaint dated December 2, 1992 charging Hub
City with violations of the Clean Water Act and
the General Pretreatment Regulations Reporting
Requirements for failing to timely submit a BMR,
a 90-day Compliance Report and Periodic
Compliance Reports. EPA Region VIII and Hub
City, Inc. have signed a consent agreement settling
this administrative case. Hub City has agreed to
pay a civil penalty of $12,500 and to undertake a
SEP requiring the installation of a coolant
recycling system, to recycle spent coolant from
Hub City's machining process. The SEP will
reduce loadings of biological oxygen demand to
the City of Aberdeen, South Dakota's sewer. It is
estimated that the cost of the SEP will be at least
$68,000. The project will be completed by Hub
City by December 31, 1994. The cash penalty
amount of $12,500 recovers economic benefit and
the cost of the SEP ($68,000) is more than two
times the gravity which was calculated at $27,000.
City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota:: EPA Region
VIII and the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota
have agreed to settle this Clean Water Act
administrative case for a civil penalty of $26,250
and the undertaking by the City of a SEP. The
SEP is a household hazardous waste recycling
program which cost will be in the $150,000 -
$200,000 range. EPA initiated this action by
issuing a complaint to the City dated November
19, 1992 alleging violations of the Clean Water
Act, its NPDES permit and the General
Pretreatment regulations codified at 40 CFR Part
403. Most of the violations relate to the City's
failure to properly implement the Industrial
Pretreatment requirements of 40 CFR Part 403.
Star Circuits: EPA Region VIII and Star
Circuits, Inc. have agreed to settle this Clean
Water Act administrative case for a civil penalty
of $17,500 and the undertaking by Star Circuits of
two SEPs requiring environmental audits of both
the Star Circuits facility, as well as Star Circuit's
parent, Daktronics' facility, both located in
Brookings, South Dakota. The second SEP is a
waste minimization project for the Star Circuits
facility. It is estimated that the costs of the SEPs
will total approximately $30,000.
SDWA
Town ofMeeteetse, Wyoming: On September 1,
1994, EPA issued an emergency administrative
order to the Town of Meeteetse, Wyoming. The
order was issued when tes*« indicated the presence
of Giardia in the finished drinking water.
Additional testing, performed immediately after the
emergency order was issued, detected the presence
of Cryptosporidium in the finished drinking water.
The emergency order required the Town to
provide an alternate source of potable water;
provide . public notice of the presence of
microbiological contaminants in the public water
supply; issue a boil water notice to those served
by the system; perform an evaluation of the
system to determine changes necessary to bring
the system into compliance with the filtration
requirements for a system that uses a surface water
source; and submit quarterly reports on progress
made toward bringing the system into compliari'ce
with requirements for a system that uses a surface
water source.
City Oil Corporation: A default judgment was
entered against Christopher Martin Pedersen
requiring compliance and assessing a penalty of
$1.8 million. The case against City Oil
Corporation resulted in the same judgment,
including the $1.8 million penalty. There were
numerous violations of the UIC program for 19
injection wells located on or near the Blackfeet
A-62
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Indian Reservation in Northwestern Montana.
Violations included: unauthorized injection,
failure to maintain gauges, monitor, report perform
mechanical integrity tests, plug and abandon, etc.
City Oil Corporation filed for bankruptcy and the
bankruptcy court ordered that the wells could be
abandoned from the company's liabilities.
RCRA
Reclaim Barrel: This facility is a former barrel
reconditioner located in West Jordan, Utah.
Following an inspection in FY94, it was identified
as an illegal storage and disposal facility. Three
Regional programs (RCRA, CERCLA, and
NPDES) coordinated their information requests
and sampling. An initial RCRA §3008(a)
complaint and order was issued on September 14,
1994. The proposed penalty is $488,749.
EPCRA
Advanced Forming Technology: In FY94, an
administrative complaint was issued to Advanced
Forming Technology for failure to report under
EPCRA §313 for the use of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
(TCA). As a result, EPA and Advanced Forming
Technology settled in FY94 for a penalty of
$8,110 and a SEP costing approximately $20,000.
The SEP required the facility to purchase and
install Vapor Trap Freeboard Chillers and Mylar
Rolling Covers on each of the two solvent
degreaser baths in order to reduce the amount of
TCA released to the environment. The outcome of
the project resulted in a 35-percent usage reduction
of TCA, while production output increased by 45
percent.
Accurate Plastics (now SPM/Denver): On March
2, 1992, an administrative complaint was issued to
Accurate Plastics for failure to report under
EPCRA §313 for the use of Ethyl Ketone and
Toluene in 1989. EPA and Accurate Plastics
settled the case in FY94 for a penalty of $2,060
and a SEP costing approximately $89,742. The
facility purchased and installed a Graco-Assisted
Airless Paint Spray Unit and a Fanuc Robotics
Spray Unit to reduce total VOCs releases to the
atmosphere by as much as 10 percent.
Denver Metal Finishing Company: In December
1991, EPA issued an administrative complaint
against Denver Metal Finishing Company for
failure to report under EPCRA §313 chemicals
that were otherwise used. In FY94, the case was
settled requiring the facility to pay a monetary
penalty of $8,900 and to undertake a SEP
requiring the purchasing and installation of a DSF
12 DynaSand Filter. The DynaSand Filter is a
continuous backwash, upflow, deepbed granular
media filter. The filter media is continuously
cleaned by recycling the sand internally through an
airlift pipe and sand washer. The purpose of the
filter is to remove any heavy metals from waste
generated during the process conducted by the
facility.
Nephi Rubber Products: An EPCRA §311/312
compliance inspection was conducted at the
facility in Nephi, Utah, and $49,920 in proposed
penalties were assessed as a result of the
inspection findings. In addition to the EPCRA
violations, the State of Utah issued a NOV and
CO for RCRA violations. Prior to the issuance of
the complaints, the company filed a petition for
bankruptcy. The company has little, if any, ability
to pay a penalty.The State of Utah and EPA will
negotiate with the Respondent on which the P2
project is to be undertaken by the facility as a
SEP.
Thatcher Chemical Company: Over 100 pounds
of sulfur dioxide was released into the
environment when a hose connection failed during
a transfer from rail car to fixed tank. Notification
to the proper authorities was delayed—a violation
of EPCRA §304. Proposed penalties in this
complaint were $33,250. Negotiations with the
Respondent on a SEP as partial settlement to this
complaint were successful. The SEP included the
construction of a building with scrubbing
equipment for enclosure of vehicles while loading
products to prevent future releases into the
environment of hazardous chemicals.
FIFRA
Biotrol International, Inc.: EPA settled
administrative actions against Biotrol and Stepan
A-63
-------
| FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Company (subregistrant and registrant) for making
unsupported claims for the disinfectant vacusal.
EPA also finalized settlement of two previous
cases against Biotrol for a $21,000 penalty.
CERCLA
Apache Energy and Minerals Co. (D. Colo.): On
December 15, 1993, the district court entered a
consent decree in which the Denver and Rio
Grande Western Railroad (D&RGW) agreed to
reimburse EPA over $1,125,000 in past response
costs at the site. D&RGW also agreed to conduct
a feasibility study and implement remedies to be
selected by EPA in the future for certain portions
of the site. On August 17, 1994, the district court
entered a consent decree in which Hecla Mining
Company agreed to pay $516,000 for past and
future response costs. The United States as
defendant agreed to pay EPA $172,000 for
response costs to resolve claims for its potential
liability at the site. On August 26, 1994 the U.S.
District Court entered a consent decree in which
Asarco, Inc., Resurrection Mining Company,
Newmont Mining Company and the Res-Asarco
Joint Venture agreed to reimburse EPA for $7.4
million in past response costs at the site. The
Settling Defendants also agreed to complete
feasibility studies and perform remedial actions at
a majority of the site. It is estimated that Settling
Defendants commitment to perform work at the
site is in excess of $60 million.
SmuEKler-Durant Minine Corporation (D. Colo.):
On July 6, 1994, the court entered a civil consent
decree in which the Atlantic Richfield Corporation
(ARCO) and the United States Department of
Interior both agreed to pay $1.6 million each for
past response costs incurred at the Smuggler
Mountain Superfund site in Aspen, CO. The
Department of Interior paid their portion of the
settlement from the newly established DOJ
judgment fund. In addition, EPA concluded very
difficult and lengthy negotiations with both Pitkin
County and MAXXAM. Two civil consent
decrees were completed in late FY94. The County
decree was lodged in December 1994 and the
MAXXAM decree should be lodged in January
1995. The conclusion of negotiations with these
parties in FY94 means that only one party of the
original eleven parties that were sued by the
United States in 1989 now remains in the
CERCLA§107 litigation.
Clear Creek/Central City Superfund Site, Western
Diversified Builders: EPA assessed stipulated
penalties in the amount of $44,000 for violations
of an AOC for Removal Action at the Clear
Creek/Central City Superfund site. Under the
order, Respondent was obligated to perform a
removal action at the National Tunnel portion of
the site. The action included piping of discharge
from a mine and the removal and proper disposal
of contaminated soils. Despite repeated notices
and warnings, Respondent failed to submit status
reports and was substantially behind schedule.
EPA imposed penalties to ensure a return to
compliance for reporting violations and to push
completion of the removal action. After issuance
of the penalties, Respondent returned to
compliance and agreed to Complete the project
according to a revised schedule. EPA agreed to
settle payment of the penalties for $22,000, if
Respondent completed the project on schedule.
Respondent completed the project on schedule and
made payment of $22,000 as final resolution of
the penalty action.
Whitewood Creek: EPA's Cost Recovery Program
sent its annual bill for oversight costs in the
amount of $681,164 to Homestake Mining
Company (Homestake) on May 14, 1992, pursuant
to a consent decree with Homestake. On June 9,
1992, Homestake invoked the dispute resolution
and placed the $681,164 in an interest-bearing
escrow account. Several letters and phone
conversations occurred during the following year
with no resolution. On March 2, 1993, EPA sent
its second annual billing to Homestake in the
amount of $238,966.23. Homestake, again,
disputed this bill and placed the amount in another
interest- bearing escrow account. In FY95 EPA
received a check for $992,204 from Homestake
Mining, the total amount in dispute. In addition to
collecting $63,604 in interest that had accumulated
in the Escrow Account, EPA during this period,
discovered an additional $8,471 in expenditures
that were omitted from original billings.
A-64
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT f
Petrochem/Ekotek Site: EPA's Cost Recovery
Program billed the Ekotek site Remediation
Committee (ESRC) PRPs for oversight costs
pursuant to AOC (CERCLA-Vni-92-21) for a
RI/FS in the amount of $416,636.39 in August of
1994. The ESRC objected to many of EPA's
oversight costs, EPA's cost accounting procedures,
and the level of documentation that was provided.
In FY95 the ESRC paid EPA the total amount in
dispute.
Petrochem/Ekotek: During FY94, EPA conducted
a de minimis settlement project resulting in
settlement proposals being offered to over 1,000
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) who were
believed to have sent waste materials to this
Superfund site. Early projections for cleanup costs
at the site had been projected at approximately $69
million. In an effort to be fair to these smaller
waste contributors, EPA moved quickly, sending
out hundreds of CERCLA 104(e) Information
Request letters, proposing settlement offers and
reviewing eligibility for de minimis settlement. In
July, 1994, the Hazardous Waste Management
Division Director signed 363 administrative orders
on consent, including 16 federal entities. This
expedited de minimis settlement is anticipated to
generate $7.8 million. The funds will be placed in
a special account to be used for site cleanup and
EPA oversight of the selected remedial action,
which is projected to occur in the Spring of 1995.
EPA has also initiated proposed de minimis
settlements with two additional groups at the site
totaling 38 parties. One of these groups include
parties who have successfully demonstrated to
EPA their inability to pay the full settlement.
EPA has offered these parties reduced settlement
payments in an effort to ensure significant but fair
PRP participation in the cleanup of the site. It is
anticipated that when these additional settlement
are finalized, total de minimis settlements for the
site will total $8.3 million.
Colorado School of Mines Research Institute:
Waste materials which resulted from work
performed by CSMRI at the facility include low-
level radioactive waste, lead, arsenic, and other
heavy metals. Removal actions began at the Site
on January 25, 1992, in response to a water main
break. Negotiation for a removal AOC started
almost immediately; however, these negotiations
were not successful. A de minimis settlement was
offered to 56 PRPs on June 10, 1994. The offer
was accepted by 47 PRPs.
The de minimis AO was finalized in FY95, for a
total of $1,340,584. One de minimis PRP was a
federal facility, the Tennessee Valley Authority,
and the remaining PRPs were private companies or
corporations.
North American Environmental, Inc.: The North
American Environmental, Inc. (NAE) Site engaged
in the business of collecting, packaging,
transporting, and disposing of waste oils and
debris (transformers, capacitors, light ballasts, etc.)
containing PCBs. Other contaminants found at the
Site included solvents and cyanide. NAE began
receiving wastes at the Site in September of 1986.
In August of 1990, NAE submitted an application
to EPA for a commercial storage permit for PCB-
contaminated wastes for the Site. EPA denied
NAE's application for a permit due to the failure
of NAE to provide sufficient and/or complete
information regarding a financial assurance
mechanism required for closure. On October 5,
1990, EPA notified NAE that it should not accept
any more waste at the Site, and that it should
dispose of the remaining inventory within 30 days.
On December 3, 1990, EPA notified NAE that it
was denied final storage approval and that it
should close the facility. NAE claimed financial
inability to do so, and abandoned the Site.
On February 28, 1992, EPA allowed the
landowner (Freeport Center Associates), to provide
an opportunity for the generators of the waste
stored at the Site to retrieve and dispose of their
own wastes, according to EPA protocol, from
March 1, 1992, through September 1, 1992. On
September 2, 1992, approximately 700 drums and
26 transformers remained at the Site. In addition,
four railroad tanker cars, containing varying
volumes of liquid waste and one railroad boxcar
containing approximately 15 drums of waste
remained at the Site. EPA negotiated a removal
AOC with Freeport Center Associates, the current
owner of the Site, and the U.S. Defense Logistics
A-65
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Agency, a generator of wastes at the Site. The
AOC was issued to the two above-mentioned
Respondents on October 5, 1993. The AOC
required that a site inventory be completed prior to
the start of the removal action.
Respondents were found to be in violation of the
AOC for failure to notify EPA in writing seven
days before beginning the site inventory of
hazardous substances and for failure to submit
daily, weekly, and monthly reports as required by
the AOC. EPA assessed stipulated penalties for
these violations and sent a demand letter for
$12,000 to the Respondents on March 23, 1994.
Payment was received on April 4, 1994. The
PRP-lead removal action began on August 1, 1994
and is scheduled to be complete by the 3rd quarter
ofFY95.
A-66
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
REGION IX
CLEAN AIR ACT
U.S. v. Shell Western E&P. Inc. (E.D. Calif.):
On August 11, 1994, the court entered a
stipulation and order of dismissal in which Shell
Western agreed to pay $337,000 in civil penalties
in order to settle a civil action brought under the
CAA. This action arose from Shell Western's
violations of California SIP requirements
applicable to oil recovery at the company's
Belridge Oil Field in Kern County, CA. The civil
complaint alleged violations relating to emissions
of VOCs and breakdown reporting violations. An
NOV was issued to Shell Western after EPA
reviewed the company's responses to information
requests under §114 of the CAA.
U.S. v. TABC, Inc. (C.D. Calif.): On May 26,
1994, the court entered a consent decree in which
TABC agreed to pay $485,000 in civil penalties
and to install and operate pollution control
equipment in order to settle a civil action brought
under the CAA. This action arose from TABC's
violations of California SIP rule that limits the
VOC content of coatings applied to automobile
parts at TABC's facility in Long Beach, CA. The
civil complaint alleged that TABC violated the SIP
at its facility by using coatings with VOC contents
that exceeded the limits imposed by the SIP rule.
U.S. v. Minerec, Inc. (D. Ariz.): On August 26,
1994, EPA issued an emergency order to Minerec
Mining Chemicals, a chemical manufacturing plant
located in the San Xavier District of the Tohono
O'odham Nation in Arizona. EPA made a finding
that operations at the Minerec facility presented an
imminent and substantial endangerment to the
public health or welfare or the environment and
issued an order requiring that Minerec shutdown
its manufacturing operations. That order was
subsequently amended to allow limited production
at the facility, and to require that Minerec install
monitoring devices. This case involves the
precedent setting use of a CAA §303 order to
close down a facility based on the risk of
uncontrolled releases of hazardous chemicals.
U.S. v. All American Pipeline Company (C.D.
Calif.): On September 19, 1994, the court entered
a civil consent decree in which All American
Pipeline Company (AAP) agreed to pay $714,000
in civil penalties. AAP also agreed to perform an
SEP and injunctive relief. For the SEP, AAP
agreed to remove three internal combustion (1C)
engines, thereby eliminating substantial NOX
emissions.
CLEAN WATER ACT
U.S. v. American Global Line, Inc. (N.D. Calif.):
On September 20, 1994, the captain of an 800-
passenger luxury liner and two shipping company
executives pled guilty in federal court in San
Francisco to illegally dumping several tons of
debris into the ocean. The firm, American Global
Inc., pleaded guilty to a felony violation and was
fined $100,000. Lloyd R. Haugh, captain of the
Independence, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor
offense for instructing his crew to illegally dump
about five tons of debris into the ocean in May
1992. He was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and
placed on probation for a year. The incidents
involved the dumping of renovation debris from
the cruise ships Independence and Constitution
during trips from Honolulu to Portland and
Honolulu to San Francisco.
Two corporate officers of American Global Line,
Peter Bianchi Jr., senior vice-president for
operations, and Robert Elder White III, vice
president of marine operations also pleaded guilty
to a misdemeanor. They were each fined $5,000
and placed on probation for a year.
U.S. v. Magma Copper Co. (D. Ariz.): On
November 8, 1994, the court entered a consent
decree resolving a suit brought by EPA and the
State of Arizona against Magma Copper Co. The
suit was brought in response to violations of the
CWA and related State law at three copper mining
and processing facilities operated by Magma in
southeastern Arizona. The decree requires Magma
to pay penalties of $385,000 to the United States
A-67
-------
Jl FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
'
and $240,000 to Arizona. The decree also
requires Magma to undertake compliance measures
and to complete a SEP designed to control
contamination at an abandoned mine. The cost to
Magma of implementing the SEP is difficult to
predict prior to completion of the project planning
phase, but is estimated to be $1.5 million. The
decree further requires Magma to pay $50,000 to
fund three additional SEPs which the U.S. Forest
Service will complete to benefit the affected
watersheds.
U.S. v. City and County of Honolulu (D. Haw.):
On October 3, 1994, a consent decree was lodged
resolving a CWA enforcement action brought by
the United States and the State of Hawaii against
the City and County of Honolulu. This action
arose as a result of the City and County of
Honolulu's poor maintenance of its sewer system,
which resulted in over 300 spills of raw or
partially-treated sewage into Hawaiian waters
(including a spill of 50 million gallons of raw
sewage into Pearl Harbor in 1991 that attracted
national attention). The City and County of
Honolulu also failed to implement an adequate
pretreatment program to regulate the discharge of
toxics from industries discharging into its sewer
system.
Under the consent agreement, the City and County
of Honolulu will pay a civil penalty of $1.2
million and has committed to improve the
operation and maintenance of its sewer
system—including the renovation of 1900 miles of
sewer lines over the next 20 years and to develop
and implement a pretreatment program to regulate
the discharge of industrial toxic wastewater.
Under the decree, the City and County of
Honolulu has also committed to spend $30 million
on SEPs for treating and reusing wastewater and
sludge. Honolulu will recycle 10 tons of sewage
sludge per day by 1998 and 10 million gallons of
wastewater per day by the year 2001.
U.S. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Corp.
(E.D. Calif.): On March 14, 1994, a consent
decree was lodged in court resolving the remaining
claims of the United States arising from the 1991
spill of metarn sodium into the Sacramento River
caused by a Southern Pacific train derailment on
July 14, 1991.
The settlement resolves the causes of action
against Southern Pacific Transportation Company,
its parents and subsidiaries, against the General
American Transportation Corporation and GATX
Corporation (owners of the tank car), as well as
against the companies that were lessors/lessees of
the tank car. The settlement provides for recovery
of $36 million in response costs, which provides
for full payment of all EPA response costs. The
decree also requires payment of a $500,000 CWA
civil penalty, equivalent to the statutory maximum
for the violations in question. In addition, the
consent decree requires that the Settling
Defendants establish a $14 million fund to be
administered by the natural resource trustees,
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for
use in restoration/mitigation of natural resource
damages.
U.S. v. Teledvne. Inc. (S.D. Calif.): On April 12,
1994 a consent decree was entered resolving the
CWA enforcement action against Teledyne, Inc.
for violations at its Ryan Aeronautical facility in
San Diego, CA. The decree requires Teledyne to
pay a civil penalty of $500,000 in settlement of
the United States claims. This action was brought
as a result of Teledyne's repeated violation of the
federal categorical pretreatment standards
governing metal finishing point sources. Teledyne
had also violated the prohibition against dilution as
a substitute for treatment by adding unnecessary
quantities of water to its process wastewater prior
to discharge into the City sewer system.
U.S. v. County Sanitation Districts of Los
Aneeles County (S.D. Calif.): On June 6, 1994,
a consent decree was entered resolving the CWA
enforcement action against the County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County (CSDLAC). The
United States and the State of California sued in
January 1992 to compel CSDLAC to achieve
secondary treatment at the Joint Water Pollution
Control Plant located in Carson, CA, and to
address additional intermittent violations of other
permit conditions. Under the terms of the consent
decree, CSDLAC was required to pay a civil
A-68
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT I ^
penalty of $300,000 to the United States and a
penalty of $200,000 to the State of. California.
The decree further requires CSDLAC to complete
a program to promote the beneficial reuse of its
wastewater, and requires CSDLAC to implement
a household hazardous waste collection program
costing at least $1.2 million.
RCRA
17.5. v. Hawaiian Western Steel, Ltd., Estate of
James Campbell, Ipsco Inc. and Cominco Ltd.
(D. Hawaii): On August 2, 1994, the court
entered the consent decree signed by three of the
four defendants in this case. The decree provides
for payment of $700,000 in penalties by all
settling defendants jointly. The decree also
provides that HWS will implement corrective
action and closure at the facilities at issue and the
Estate will annually survey its tenants concerning
their compliance with environmental laws and
organize programs educating its tenants concerning
hazardous waste laws and pollution prevention.
In the Matter of U.S. Naval Air Facility, El
Centra, California: On August 29, 1994, EPA
signed a CACO resolving an administrative
complaint against the U.S. Naval Air Facility in El
Centro, CA, involving various violations of the
RCRA. Under the terms of the settlement, the
Navy will pay a penalty of $100,000 and in
addition will perform at the facility two SEPs
relating to pollution prevention. The total cost of
the two SEPs is approximately $250,000.
U.S v. City of Los Angeles and U.S. v. Lockheed
Corporation (C.D. Calif.): On September 14,
1994, the United States filed settlements in five
industrial pretreatment civil cases. The settlements
totaled $750,000 in civil penalties. The defendants
were Lockheed Corporation (an aerospace
manufacturer), Chevron, U.S.A. (an oil refiner),
Teledyne Industries (a computer chip
manufacturer), Stainless Steel Products, Inc. (an
aerospace manufacturer), and Zero Corporation (an
aerospace manufacturer). All of the defendants
operate facilities in the greater Los Angeles area
and discharge into the City of Los Angeles sewer
system. The defendants had numerous violations
of EPA's categorical pretreatment standards,
mostly for toxic metals, which contributed to the
City of Los Angeles' discharge of toxics into
Santa Monica Bay from its Hyperion Treatment
Plant.
U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel, etal. (D. Haw.):
Hawaiian Western Steel operated a secondary steel
production plant in the Campbell Industrial Park in
Ewa Beach, Oahu, HI. The plant's emission
control system collected particulate matter from
the furnace, thereby generating "baghouse dust"
which is an RCRA hazardous waste due to high
concentrations of lead and cadmium.
Approximately 43,500 tons of HWS' waste filled
a 4.5-acre on-site landfill. Three of the four
named defendants, including Hawaiian Western
Steel signed a consent decree which required them
to pay $700,000 in penalties for violating RCRA's
permitting requirements for storing and treating
hazardous waste, and complete closure of the
landfill and on-site and off-site corrective action at
an estimated cost of over $5 million.
CERCLA
U.S. v. Peter Gull and NL Industries, Inc. (C.D.
Calif.): On April 12, 1994, the court signed a
judgment approving $2,687,982 in response costs
and $3,670,274 in punitive damages for NL
Industries' failure to comply with a CERCLA
§106 order to clean up lead contamination at the
B&H Battery site in Norco, CA. The only other
defendant, property owner Peter Gull, had
previously entered a settlement with the United
States. In imposing the penalty, the court found
that NL did not have a sufficient cause defense to
the order because it "did not have an objectively
reasonable basis for believing that EPA's order
was either invalid or that EPA's order was
arbitrary and capricious."
Pearl Harbor Naval Complex Federal Facilities
Agreement: On March 17, 1994, EPA, the State
of Hawaii, and the U.S. Navy signed the Federal
Facilities Agreement (FFA) for the Pearl Harbor
Naval Complex CERCLA site. This agreement
contains several changes over prior FFAs,
including strengthened language on splitting
A-69
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
stipulated penalties with the State and a modified
dispute resolution process. Under the modified
dispute resolution process, only the Secretary of
the Navy may elevate disputes to the
Administrator, and the parties state their intention
that such disputes will be limited to issues of
national significance.
U.S. v. Montana Refinins Co. (9th Cir.): On
August 17, 1994, the Ninth Circuit granted the
United States' appeal of the district court decision
in this CERCLA cost recovery case brought
against C. Michael Wilwerding, Poly-Carb, Inc.,
and Montana Refining Company in connection
with a removal action conducted at the Poly-Carb
facility in Wells, NV. Montana Refining sent two
shipments of toxic spent phenolic caustic to the
Poly-Carb facility, operated by Michael
Wilwerding, allegedly as "feedstock" for an
untested recycling operation. Montana Refining
paid the costs of shipment and did not have any
arrangement with Mr. Wilwerding for payment for
the feedstock. The phenolic caustic subsequently
spilled. EPA incurred response costs of $482,410
in cleaning up the spill after Montana Refining
failed to comply with an EPA order. The United
States subsequently brought a cost recovery case,
the first such action in Nevada.
In the Matter of Iron Mountain Mine: On April
22, 1994, EPA issued a CERCLA §106 order to
the current and operators of the Iron Mountain
Mine Superfund Site, T.W. Arman and Iron
Mountain Mines Inc., and the former owners and
operators Rhone-Poulenc Inc., requiring that they
construct new facilities and operate facilities
currently under construction to treat the three
largest sources of acid mine drainage. This acid
mine drainage eventually enters the Sacramento
River where it has been responsible for fish kills
and chronic adverse impacts on an important
fishery population, including a commercial run and
the winter run chinook salmon, an endangered
species. Iron Mountain Mine was identified as the
largest uncontrolled toxic point source in the
nation under the CWA §304(1) program and was
one of the first sites placed on the Superfund
National Priorities List.
U.S. v. Alcatel Information Systems, Inc. (D.
Arizona): On September 2, 1994, a civil consent
decree for the remedial design and remedial action
at the Hassayampa Landfill Superfund site ("Site")
was lodged in the court. The settlement requires
12 major settling defendants to design, construct,
and operate the remedy selected in EPA's Record
of Decision for the Site and to reimburse EPA for
all of its past and future response costs at the Site.
The twelve major settling defendants are:
Honeywell Inc.; Bull HN Information Systems,
Inc.; Alcatel Network Systems; Digital Equipment
Corp.; General Instrument Corp.; AT&T Corp.;
Shell Oil Company; Arizona Public Service
Company; American National Can Company; Intel
Corporation; Reynolds Metals Company; and
Maricopa County, AZ (all of the major settling
defendants are generators except for Maricopa
County, which owned and operated the Site). The
settlement also provides for 74 de minimis
corporate generators and 3 settling federal agencies
(the U.S. Air Force, the Veterans Administration
and the U.S. Forest Service) to resolve their
generator liability at the Site by cashing out to the
twelve major settling defendants.
A-70
-------
PV 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
V
REGION X
CLEAN AIR ACT
Alyeska Pipeline Services Company and ARCO
Products: On November 4, 1993, the Regional
Administrator entered a CACO resolving the three
administrative complaints issued to Alyeska. The
CACO assessed a final penalty of $135,000 and
incorporated the requirements of an alternative
monitoring plan (AMP) to be used at the pump
stations in lieu of the CEMS. Under the
alternative monitoring plan, Alyeska installed H2S
treatment process to remove H2S from the fuel gas
at the pump stations. The treatment, a dry
chemical bed produced by SulfaTreat Company,
will reduce SO2 emissions to virtually zero (from
the existing approximately 120 ppm). On
September 30, 1994, the CACO was modified to
allow until October 8, 1994 for the SulfaTreat
systems to be installed and to require that the
topping unit at Pump Station 8 be permanently
shut down no later than March 31, 1995.
Norma and Frank Echevarria, d/b/a Echeco
Environmental Services: On December 27,1993,
EPA held that respondents were strictly liable for
violations of the CAA and asbestos NESHAP,
EPA need not prove that visible emissions of
asbestos occurred to prove violation of the wetting
requirements, EPA could rely on the observations
of inspectors to establish that asbestos is
inadequately wetted and that once the asbestos
material has been collected and contained, the
wetting requirements of 61.145 no longer apply.
EPA ordered Echeco to pay a penalty of $9,500.
Phillips Petroleum Company and AGI, Inc.:
EPA filed an administrative case against these two
companies alleging they had violated the asbestos
NESHAP wetting requirements. After obtaining
affidavits from Phillips documenting that it had
hired and paid a qualified contractor (AGI) to
perform the asbestos removal properly and an
independent third party to monitor the contractor's
work, EPA entered into a settlement ordering AGI
to pay a penalty of $16,500, and a stipulation of
dismissal of the claim against Phillips (at Phillips'
and AGI's request).
Trans-AK Environmental Services &
Construction Corp., Giddings Mortgage and
Investment Company, and Neeser Construction:
In FY94, EPA issued and resolved an
administrative complaint against Giddings
Mortgage and Investment Company, Neeser
Construction, and Trans-Ak Environmental
Services & Construction Corp. The complaint
alleged violations of the asbestos NESHAP
regulations during renovation of the city hall in
downtown Anchorage, Alaska. The consent
agreement assesses a penalty of $40,000. In
addition, Trans-Ak agreed to develop and
implement an internal asbestos control program.
U.S. v. Global Travel, Jordan-Wilcomb
Construction, and Allied Construction (D. Id.):
On October 18, 1993, a consent decree was
entered in by the court resolving a complaint filed
against Global Travel, the building owner, Jordon-
Wilcomb Construction, the general contractor; and
Allied Construction, the demolition contractor, in
October 1992 for violations of the asbestos
NESHAP. The complaint had alleged violations
of the notice provision of the asbestos NESHAP
and three work practice requirements during
renovation of a building in Boise, Idaho. In the
consent decree, the Defendants agreed to pay a
$50,000 penalty and to injunctive relief.
U.S. v. Zemlicka and Davis: On October 20,
1993, two consent decrees were entered which
resolved an asbestos NESHAP case in Idaho. The
defendants were the owner of a building and the
demolition contractor that he hired to demolish the
building. A preliminary environmental assessment
prepared for the owner showed the likelihood of
asbestos-containing material in the building, yet he
failed to point this out to the demolition
contractor. The contractor hired more than a
dozen itinerant workers who had no respiratory
protection while working. The penalties paid were
$25,000 (building owner) and $1,000 (contractor),
A-71
-------
} FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
which reflect reductions for inability to pay. The
injunctive relief is valued at $4,000 to.$6,000.
U.S. v. Martech USA, Hobbs Industries, Chueach
Electric Association, Inc.: In late 1993, the
United States filed a partial consent decree
resolving its claims against Martech USA in this
asbestos NESHAP case. Martech had previously
escrowed the $85,000 penalty, which the court
then released to the United States after Martech
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in
November 1993. The consent decree settled
claims arising out of asbestos removal work
performed by Martech USA, Inc. at a
decommissioned power plant in Anchorage, Alaska
in 1990. The first consent decree, entered in
November 1991, resolved claims against Martech's
co-defendants, Hobbs Industries and Chugach
Electric Association, Inc.
U.S. v. Haeadone Hospitality Co.: On August 13,
1993, the United States filed a complaint against
the Hagadone Hospitality Company of Coeur
D'Alene, Idaho, alleging asbestos NESHAP
violations under the CAA. At the same time the
US lodged a consent decree in which Hagadone
agreed to a penalty of $48,000 and injunctive
relief. The violations occurred during the summer
of 1990 when Hagadone was demolishing
buildings to build a large resort. The consent
decree was entered on November 30, 1993.
CLEAN WATER ACT
Wesley M. Sherer: An order was issued
requiring removal of fill and bulkhead from the
Stehekin River at Stehekin, WA. Fill had been
put in by an individual for bank protection of
private property within the boundary of the
Stehekin National Recreation Area and in a
designated National Scenic River. This settlement
agreement provided for complete removal of the
fill, restoration of the site, provision of a buffer,
continuing negotiations for acquisition of a
conservation easement on the property, and an
understanding by the county to require future
compliance with state shoreline protection
measures. Fill removal was begun in the spring of
1994 and completed in November.
U.S. v. Steve Burnett and Dean Schroder (W.D.
Wash.): In September 1994 a Plea Agreement
and Judgment was entered which provided for
establishment of a Trust Agreement. A Trustee
was established to receive, hold, administer, and
distribute more than $150,000 "to preserve, protect
and restore wetlands in the Battle Ground area for
the benefit of the community's citizens." The plea
to the misdemeanor charge resulted from
investigation of a citizen complaint of filling of
wetlands adjacent to the Salmon River near Battle
Ground, WA. Compliance was initially
established with a fill removal order. The
Defendants subsequently refilled the same area,
again without benefit of a Corps of Engineers
permit. Additional investigation by the Corps and
EPA resulted in the bringing of criminal charges
which were resolved by the Plea Agreement.
Kenco Marine: An order was issued for removal
of fill material placed in the Duwamish River at
Seattle, WA. The violator, Tom Kent (d/b/a
Kenco Marine), placed fill, including concrete
rubble, in an anadromous fish-bearing river which
is currently the focus of watershed restoration
efforts. EPA assumed the lead for enforcement
from the Corps of Engineers and, following
negotiations and issuance of a removal order,
established compliance by fill removal and site
restoration including revegetation. Significantly,
the site is adjacent to a coastal America restoration
project which was occurring simultaneously.
City of Ocean Shores, Washington: At the
request of the Corps of Engineers, the EPA
assumed the lead for enforcement against the City
of Ocean Shores for placing fill in interdunal
wetlands adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. Following
difficult negotiations, the city removed the
unauthorized fill, replanted the site, and restored
an adjacent site which had long been degraded by
vehicle traffic. The compliance action resulted in
a net gain of wetlands functions and values.
Rodger Forni: Individual (d/b/a Lighthouse Inn)
entered a settlement agreement which provided for
creation and restoration of interdunal wetlands
adjacent to the Pacific Ocean at Ocean Shores,
WA. EPA assumed the lead for enforcement at
A-72
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
the request of the Corps of Engineers.
Negotiations coordinated with the. State of
Washington resulted in wetlands creation,
restoration (at a 2:1 ratio) and the deeding to the
state of dunal wetlands and beach adjacent to a
public access and state park in an accreting coastal
reach. Educational signs indicating the
significance of the wetlands were also erected by
the violator.
Martin Nygaard: Repeat violator attempted to
drain approximately 15 acres of freshwater marsh
near Warrenton, OR, by ditching. EPA entered
into a joint enforcement action with the State of
Oregon Division of State Lands resulting in the
complete restoration of the wetlands as well as a
state fine.
Rogge Mills: The mill in eastern Oregon was
responsible for unauthorized placement of
woodwaste in approximately five acres of wetland
in violation of the CWA and two state statutes.
EPA assumed the Federal lead and in conjunction
with the State of Oregon obtained fill removal
from most of the wetlands as well as mitigation
for remaining fill.
Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT): Unauthorized filling
of several acres of wetland in conjunction with a
major highway project in western Washington led
to the halting of construction (at a cost of several
million dollars) and an agreement by WSDOT to
have middle and upper management undergo 404
training sponsored by the Corps of Engineers,
EPA and the Washington State Department of
Ecology.
Northlake Shipyards: EPA, DOJ and the state
negotiated a complex settlement arrangement with
Northlake and the bankruptcy trustee for Unimar
for cleanup of the contaminated site. Under that
arrangement, Northlake entered into a prospective
purchaser agreement .with the state that creates a
trust fund to pay for remediation of existing
sediment contamination and resolves Northlake's
liability under the state's Superfund law. EPA
agreed to terminate the existing CWA consent
decree. Northlake will pay up to $1.1 million into
the trust fund. This will pay for the cleanup
contemplated by the original CWA decree.
City of Tacoma: The United States settled a
CWA judicial action against the City of Tacoma,
WA, for secondary treatment violations.
Settlement includes payment of a $525,000 penalty
and a SEP valued at $100,000 for the sewage
treatment plant hookup of low income housing
which currently discharges untreated wastewater
directly to Commencement Bay.
Arctic Fisheries: The United States settled this
CWA lawsuit (part of a Region X enforcement
initiative) against the Alaska seafood processor for
$725,000 for the unlawful discharge of fish
wastes.
U.S. v. Stanley C. Rybachek: The United States
settled the government's long-standing case against
two Alaska placer miners, for a $15,000 penalty
and dismissal of outstanding litigation the
Rybacheks had filed against the government and
individual employees in the Court of Claims and
Alaska District Court, requesting millions of
dollars in damages.
RCRA
U.S. v. Robert and Geneva Stobaueh (W.D.
Wash.): The State of Alaska notified EPA of a
Chapter 7 bankruptcy action filed by the
Washington State owners of two Anchorage
service stations with documented petroleum
releases. The State requested EPA assistance in
obtaining funds from the bankruptcy estate to
clean up the sites. After receiving the Region's
expedited referral on December 10, 1993, DOJ
filed a protective proof of claim with the
bankruptcy court for the estimated cost of
investigating and cleaning up the contamination at
the two sites ($427,000 to $779,000). In March
1994 an agreed order was entered by the
bankruptcy court placing about $39,477, the funds
remaining after payment of taxes and
administration fees, into an environmental cleanup
trust account to be used to remove the leaking
tanks and begin investigation of the extent of
contamination and cleanup.
A-73
-------
) FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
17.5. v. R,H. Bowles, Inc. and Central Marketing,
Inc. (E.D. Wash.): Case involved two closed
service stations on the Yakima Indian Reservation
in Toppenish and Wapato, WA. On May 27,
1994, EPA sent a referral to DOJ to file an
objection to the trustee's intent to abandon these
two properties as a part of the liquidation of these
two corporations because petroleum contamination
had been identified at the Toppenish site and the
tanks had not been properly closed at either
facility. As a result of the objection filed, the
trustee withdrew his notice of abandonment and is
currently in the process of selling the properties to
a third party who has agreed to remove the
abandoned tanks, conduct site assessments, and
undertake remedial action at both properties as
needed.
Alaska Railroad Company: In a settlement
reached between EPA and the Alaska Railroad
Company (ARRC) in April 1994 ARRC agreed to
three Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs),
which included the following: 1) installation of
three state-of-the-art hazardous waste accumulation
buildings to temporarily store the hazardous waste
and used oil ARRC generates at its Anchorage,
Alaska, repair and maintenance facility; 2)
conducting an audit of ARRC's waste generation
and management practices and implementing the
findings of the audit; and 3) funding and
sponsoring a series of used oil management and
compliance seminars in Alaska for the benefit of
similarly-regulated industries and the general
public. These seminars will assist the public and
the regulated community in Alaska to comply with
EPA's newly-promulgated used oil regulations
codified at 40 CFR Part 279. These SEPs were
proposed by ARRC during settlement negotiations.
Implementation of the SEPs will allow ARRC to
discover and implement changes in its waste
management practices in order to prevent improper
management of those wastes. It was improper
management which led to the violations alleged in
EPA's complaint. 'When the complaint was
originally issued in 1992, EPA proposed penalties
of $1,829,574. The case was settled for a civil
penalty of $685,999, with $274,400 of the penalty
being suspended and deferred pending ARRC's
successful completion of the three SEPs mentioned
above. The settlement also requires ARRC to pay
a $411,599 cash penalty, with quarterly payments
over two years, plus interest. This case was one
of the cases filed nationally by EPA as part of the
1992 RCRCA "Illegal operations Initiative."
Boeing Company: Seattle, Washington and
Portland, Oregon: In January of 1994, the Boeing
Company entered into two separate, very similar
administrative orders on consent, pursuant to
Section 3008(h) of RCRA, to take corrective
action at its aircraft manufacturing/assembly
facilities in Seattle and Portland. The orders
obligate Boeing to implement specified interim
measures and to evaluate and assess opportunities
for additional interim measures while
implementing the orders. Boeing will also
perform RCRA Facility Investigations and
Corrective Measures Studies for the facilities, and
following Final EPA Corrective Action
Decision(s), Boeing will implement the selected
corrective measures, subject to a right to withdraw
consent for the implementation of any specific
final corrective measure(s).
U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright, Alaska: On April
29, 1994, Region X issued an administrative
complaint and compliance order against the
Department of the Army, Fort Wainwright, Alaska.
The order alleges six violations of RCRA
requirements, including illegal storage of
hazardous waste and failure to make hazardous
waste determinations. Region X and the state of
Alaska have tried through both informal
outbriefings and through a Federal Facility
Compliance Agreement to address Fort
Wainwright's failure to achieve compliance. The
Region decided to use the enhanced enforcement
authority of the Federal Facility Compliance Act
of 1992 to assess a penalty of $659,450 both to
underscore the significance of the violations and to
force Fort Wainwright to come into compliance
with RCRA requirements.
U.S. Army, Fort Richardson: On April 29,
1994, Region X issued an administrative complaint
and compliance order against the U.S. Army, Fort
Richardson, Alaska, for $1,337,332. In the order,
EPA alleges twelve violations of the RCRA
A-74
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
requirements, including illegal storage of
hazardous waste; failure to make hazardous waste
determinations; inadequate closure, contingency
and waste analysis plans; and failure to obtain
detailed physical and chemical analysis. As with
Fort Wainwright, Region X and the State of
Alaska have addressed Fort Richardson's
noncompliance over the past four years with
notices of noncompliance, informal and formal
outbriefings and through a Federal Facility
Compliance Agreement. Because these past
efforts have not been successful, Region X is
taking this enforcement action to force Fort
Richardson to come into compliance with RCRA.
CERCLA
Commencement Bay - South Tacoma Channel:
Well 12A, a municipal well in Tacoma, WA, was
contaminated by organic chemicals from property
presently owned by the Time Oil company.
Evidence uncovered in the Time Oil case indicated
that the Boeing Company and the military (Army
and Air Force) were potential generators at the
site. DOJ filed U.S. v. Boeing Company in 1992;
Boeing then countersued based on the possible
military contribution. The parties settled in spring
1994 and a consent decree was lodged in
December with the following (terms. The Boeing
Company will pay EPA $2.3 million »to settle
claims related to its alleged liability. Boeing has
agreed to drop its claim against the United States
for reimbursement of past and future cleanup costs
which Boeing is required to pay EPA. The
military has agreed to pay EPA $7.7 million to
settle claims related to their alleged liability.
Bunker Hill: In a consent decree referred in
March 1994 and entered by the court in
November, EPA settled with six companies who
owned or operated mines upstream from this
21-square-mile site in Shoshone County, Idaho..
The site, which includes five communities, was
contaminated by past mining and smelting
activities. The respondents will continue the
residential soil cleanups that were begun several
years ago under an Agreement on consent using
removal authorities. The estimated value of the
work to be done by the respondents is $4Q million.
EPA has more recently settled with other PRPs for
this site, and has undertaken Fund-lead cleanup
actions at the Bunker Hill smelter complex, for
which the owner-operators are bankrupt.
A-75
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
•ry
tnatr
FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE
RCRA/FFCA
RCRA/FFCA Penalty Order-Coast Guard,
Kodiak. Alaska Facility: On July 14,1994, EPA
Region X issued a complaint against the U.S.
Coast Guard Kodiak Support Center, Kodiak,
Alaska, seeking $1,018,552 in penalties. The
complaint resulted from two major violations of
the RCRA: failure to properly monitor
groundwater in an area where cleaning solvents
had been dumped on the ground, and the illegal
storage of hazardous waste without a proper
permit from EPA. The complaint was the first
action brought against a civilian Federal agency
under the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992
(FFCA), an amendment to RCRA which allows
EPA to assess civil penalties against federal
agencies in the same way that it does against
private companies.
Presidio of San Francisco: Region IX filed a
complaint and citations May 9, 1994, against the
U.S. Army Garrison, Presidio of San Francisco for
violating federal environmental laws and proposed
a penalty of $556,500 for the hazardous waste
violations.
Besides paying the penalty, the complain charging
hazardous waste violations required the Army to
inspect each building on the Presidio for hazardous
wastes and to remove all such wastes currently
stored there by July 1, 1994.
Schofield Barracks: Region IX assessed
$543,900 in penalties under the RCRA §3008(a),
April 21, 1994, against Schofield Barracks, a U.S.
Army facility located in Wahiawa, HI. Schofield
Barracks is headquarters for the 25th Infantry
Division and 45th Support Group. The facility
operates numerous motorpools and maintenance
shops that generate wastes such as waste paint,
waste solvents, and contaminated waste oils which
are listed as hazardous waste under RCRA.
Norfolk Naval Shipyard: EPA Region III issued
RCRA §7003 emergency orders March 25, 1994
(traditionally used in the hazardous/solid waste
area) requiring the Department of the Navy and
the private operator of the municipal waste
incinerator at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard to
address air emissions. The order is designed to
address the dioxin emissions in the short term.
As a result of the Navy's efforts following the
order, a June 1994 stack test indicated that dioxin
emissions have been reduced by 95 percent from
one of the four units at the municipal waste
incinerator. Region HI and the Navy are moving
to the other three units and hope to accomplish
similar results.
Yorktovm Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown,
Virginia: EPA, the Navy, and the Commonwealth
of Virginia reached settlement on an interagency
agreement (IAG) for the Naval Weapons Station at
Yorktown, VA. The Yorktown Naval Weapons
Station is a 10,624 acre installation located in
York and James City Counties and the City of
Newport News. Hazardous substances and other
contaminants of concern detected among 14 sites
at WPNSTA-Yorktown included arsenic, cadmium,
chlordane, ethylbenzene, explosives, heptachlor,
hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury, PAHS,
PCBS, phenols, TCE, TCA, 1,2-DCE, thallium,
toluene, and zinc. EPA conducted an RCRA Solid
Waste Management Unit Investigation at the
WPNSTA, and issued a final report in December
1992. The final report identified 94 areas at the
WPNSTA that require additional investigation
under RCRA. Of the 94 identified areas, 10 areas
will be deferred to the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality Underground Storage Tank
(UST) Program. The agreement requires the Navy
to determine the nature and extent of
contamination at the Yorktown Naval Weapons
Station. In addition, should any remedial action
be necessary, the Navy will perform it.
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren
Division, Dahlgren, Virginia: EPA Region III,
the Navy, and the Commonwealth of Virginia
reached settlement on an interagency agreement
A-76
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
(IAG) for the Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Dahlgren Division, Dahlgren, VA. The agreement
requires the Navy to determine the nature and
extent of contamination at NSWC-Dahlgren. In
addition, should any remedial action be necessary,
the Navy will perform it.
Fort Dix, New Jersey: Region II issued a Notice
of Violation July 15, 1994, to Fort Dix, NJ, for a
CWA violation. The Army violated the interim
limits on biological oxygen demand contained in
the order on consent EPA-CWA-II-91-95 and the
final limits of the facility's NJPDES permit. Under
the order, the Army will be responsible for the
completion of an environmentally beneficial
project (EBP) to offset the effects of the violation.
The sum of the EBP due for the period in
question, January 1994 through March 1994, is
$4,000.
U.S. Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba,
Puerto Rico: EPA settled a dispute with the
Navy at USNS-Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico.
The dispute was over a revised consent order
under the NPDES program for violations of an
existing Federal Facility Compliance Agreement
(FFCA). The CWA matter in dispute covered
violations of the effluent parameters of the
facility's NPDES permit and interim limits of an
existing FFCA, as well as for overflows of the
sewage collection system. A proposed order was
originally issued on February 12, 1993. EPA has
issued approximately three NOVs to the facility
since 1990 under the CAA and the CWA (SPCC),
and a Warning Letter pursuant to Subtitle I of
RCRA (UST, all of which have been resolved or
are on track to be resolved.
A-77
-------
) FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
OFFICE OF REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
CLEAN AIR ACT
U.S. v. Atlantic Richfield Company and Snyder
Oil Corporation CD. Wyo.): EPA settled
violations of the provisions of Part C-PSD of Air
Quality PSD of the CAA, at the ARCO Riverton
(Wyoming) Dome Gas Plant. This consent decree
provides that the defendants pay a civil penalty of
$875,000, the largest CAA settlement in Region
VHTs history.
U.S. v. W.R. Grace Company (D. Mont.): EPA
resolved an action against WR Grace for alleged
violations of the work practice standards for
demolition and renovation activities where the
building contains asbestos. The alleged violations
took place during demolition activities at Grace's
vermiculite mill in Libby, MT. The $510,000
penalty paid by Grace in settlement of this action
is the largest paid in settlement of an Asbestos
NESHAP case in the Region and second
nationally. In addition to the penalty, Grace also
agreed to engage in a specific compliance program
at 29 of its facilities across the nation as part of
the settlement.
U.S. v. ICIInternational, Inc.: An administrative
settlement agreement was executed by EPA on
April 26, 1994 with the respondent, resolving
numerous violations of the CAA committed over
the past several years. The respondent is an
importer of motor vehicles, who was licensed by
EPA to convert motor vehicles that do not meet
Federal emission requirements into complying
vehicles. The settlement agreement required that
the respondent lose its EPA import license for a
year, hire an EPA compliance manager, and pay
$10,000 in civil penalties. This case was the first
time that an importer lost its license to import cars
under EPA's motor vehicle imports program.
U.S. v. JBA Motorcars, Inc. and Dr. Jacob Ben-
Art (S.D. Fla.): On December 15,1993, judgment
was entered against the defendant by the court,
resolving numerous violations committed over the
past several years. The defendant was an importer
of motor vehicles, who was licensed by EPA to
convert motor vehicles that do not meet Federal
emission requirements into complying vehicles.
The court ordered the defendant to pay $196,000
in civil penalties. This was the largest penalty
ever assessed under EPA's motor vehicle imports
program.
U.S. v. Daniel Rosendahl (S.D. Tex.): On July
13, 1994, judgment was entered against the
defendant by the court for $120,000. The district
court found the defendant liable for importing 12
disassembled Citroen 2CVs that did meet Federal
motor vehicle emission standards in violation of
the CAA. Because the defendant had imported the
cars as parts, instead of as whole cars, this case
helped close a potential loophole in the CAA
related to the importation of incomplete
automobiles.
U.S. v. Ken Ball and Phil McCreery (W.D. Mo.):
A consent decree was formally entered October
17, 1994. Ball, a scrap dealer, had sold McCreery,
a muffler shop owner, used, untested automobile
catalytic converters to be used as replacement parts
on vehicles needing new converters, in violation of
section 203 of the CAA. An improper or non-
functioning catalytic converter can result in 400 to
800 greater greater emissions than would occur
from the same vehicle with a proper converter. A
complaint had been filed on September 29, 1993,
and alleged up to 39 separate violations of the
tampering prohibition of section 203 of the Act.
Both Defendants made a showing of financial
hardship. Based on that, the United States settled
with Ball for $12,500 and with McCreery for
$10,000.
TSCA
Town of Wallingford, Connecticut: Wallingford
will test all town-owned transformers for PCBs
and, at a cost of over a million dollars over the
next 3 years, will remove all that were previously
improperly disposed and pay a cash penalty of
A-78
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
$40,050, pursuant to this TSCA settlement
negotiated by Tom Olivier.
Cressona Aluminum Company PCS Cleanup:
The United States settled a judicial case against
the Cressona Aluminum Company addressing the
improper use, storage and disposal of PCBs at the
company's facility in Cressona, PA. Cressona
manufactures various extruded aluminum parts at
its 115 acre facility on the bank of the west branch
of the Schuylkill River and high concentrations of
PCBs were previously used in the company's
hydraulic equipment.
EPA's complaint sought injunctive relief under
TSCA §§ 6 & 7 to address PCBs that presented an
imminent hazard. The settlement requires
Cressona to clean up the PCB contamination at the
facility. The company will decontaminate all plant
equipment, including the hydraulic and waste
water treatment systems, and where necessary,
remove concrete floors up to 1.5" depth. Plant
outfalls will undergo a Toxics Reduction
Evaluation to eliminate PCB discharge into the
Schuylkill River. All PCB-contaminated debris
will be disposed of in a proper manner.
USS Cabot/Dedalo: EPA learned on June 8,
1994 that the owners of the USS Cabot/Dedalo, a
retired Navy warship, proposed to export the ship,
which contains high levels of PCBs in its wiring.
The presence of PCBs at levels over 50 ppb makes
the ship subject to TSCA §6(e).
On June 27, 1994, EPA learned that the
Foundation had a contract to sell the vessel for
scrap and salvage to a company in the Republic of
India and had requested export clearance from the
U.S. Customs Service. EPA requested that
Customs deny clearance until the Foundation could
comply with TSCA §6(e). In response, on July
11, 1994, the Foundation sought a TRO in the
New Orleans U.S. District Court, alleging that
EPA is without statutory or other authority to
instruct Customs to restrict the export of this
vessel. EPA requested and DOJ has filed an
action seeking a TRO to halt the export. DOJ has
submitted a legal brief in opposition to the
Foundation's motion as well as a complaint on
behalf of EPA.
Port of New Orleans: The Port of New Orleans
will remove and dispose of PCB transformers,
capacitors and contaminated pads as part of a SEP
under the terms of a September 12, 1994, CACO
which EPA negotiated with the Board of
Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans for
violations of the TSCA PCB requirements. The
Port also will pay a civil penalty of $8,520.
Sunshine Mining Company: EPA cited Sunshine
Mining Company for improper disposal of PCBs
both on the surface and underground at the Eureka
Mine in Utah. Alleging 16 TSCA PCB counts,
the proposed penalty is $109,500.
Imperial Holly Corporation: Imperial Holly
Corporation will pay a $7,490 penalty and perform
a $224,700 SEP involving removal and
replacement of PCB equipment pursuant to a
settlement with EPA of a TSCA case involving for
PCB registration, record keeping, inspection and
disposal violations.
EPCRA
General Chemical Corporation: On July 26,
1993, there was a release of approximately 7800
pounds of sulfur trioxide, an EPCRA extremely
hazardous substance, from a railroad tank car
located at the General Chemical facility in
Richmond, CA—an area where environmental
equity is of critical concern.
On September 29, 1993, EPA issued an
administrative complaint to the General Chemical
Corporation (GCC) with proposed penalties of
$65,625 for violations of CERCLA Section 103
and EPCRA Section 304(a) and (c). These
violations involved GCC's failure to immediately
notify the NRC and the SERC of the release and,
its failure to provide adequate written follow-up
reports to the SERC as soon as practicable. On
February 11, 1994, only 61A months from the date
of the release event, EPA closed the case with an
executed consent agreement and consent order
(CACO). The CACO required GCC to pay 100
A-79
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
percent of the $65,625 penalty proposed in the
complaint and required them to certify, that it had
come into compliance with CERCLA Section 103
and all Sections of EPCRA.
Alaska Pulp Corporation: In Region X's first
multimedia settlement, reached on February 17,
1994, Alaska Pulp Corporation (APC) will pay
cash penalties of $64,600 for TSCA violations,
$45,650 for TRI violations, and $27,068 for
RCRA violations. The settlement also requires
APC to spend at least $129,200 to dispose of PCB
transformers at its Sitka facility; to spend a
minimum of $83,000 to implement a "Nutrient
Pollution Prevention Project" and a "Caustic Wash
Reuse Project" at its Sitka facility; and to pay up
to an additional $10,062 in cash if it does not
expend at least $40,250 more on the Nutrient
Pollution Prevention and Caustic Wash Reuse
Projects (over and above the initial $83,000).
Trail Wagons: EPA inspected Trail Wagons, a
Yakima, WA, van conversion operation, and found
that it had used 1,1,1-trichloroethane and styrene
in amounts exceeding the Toxics Release
Inventory reporting thresholds. EPA filed an
administrative complaint on October 22, 1992 for
$51,000. The company submitted sales data
supporting penalty reduction because of inability
to pay, and proposed two SEPs which consisted of
a solvent recycling unit and high efficiency spray
equipment, at a total cost of $7,872, resulting in a
final penalty of $7,314 which was paid in cash
pursuant to a settlement entered on January 24,
1994.
Northwest Castings: Northwest Castings, Seattle,
WA, a manufacturer of steel castings which
contain chromium, nickel and manganese, was
inspected by the EPA on June 10, 1993, The
inspection revealed that the company exceeded the
TRI reporting threshold for manganese. An
administrative complaint seeking penalties of
$14,200 was issued. After settlement negotiations,
the company was assessed a penalty of $9,940, of
which $4,970, was paid in cash, and the balance
was deferred as credit for an SEP involving
installation of a baghouse to reduce air particulate
emissions.
FIFRA
Pinnacle Agricultural Technologies: A tip and
complaint led EPA to ask the Arizona State
Department of Agriculture to inspect two facilities
suspected of distributing unregistered growth
regulator products. Pinnacle Agricultural
Technologies was charged with three counts of
distributing the unregistered product "Boost" to
three companies in Mexico without obtaining a
foreign purchaser acknowledgement. The
proposed civil penalty is $13,500. Westmark Ag
Group was charged with distributing the
unregistered product "BIOBOOST" within the
United States and to Mexico without a foreign
purchaser acknowledgement. The proposed
penalty for the two violations of §12(a)(l)(A) is
$7,000.
Accuventure. Inc.; Criminal and Civil
Enforcement Coordination: EPA issued an
administrative complaint r*n October 9, 1992,
against Accuventure, Inc., alleging 13 violations
for distribution of unregistered pesticides and one
violation for an unregistered establishment. After
Accuventure failed to respond to EPA's motion for
accelerated decision on the issues of liability and
penalty, or to Administrative Law Judge Frank
Vanderhay den's order to show cause,
Vanderhayden issued an order granting EPA's
motion for accelerated decision with regard to both
liability and penalty of $70,000. The penalty,
which was due August 3, 1994, has not been paid
and EPA is filing a collection action with the
Attorney General.
Argent Chemical Laboratories, Inc.:
Negotiations conducted during FY94 have led to
settlement of EPA's July 8, 1993 complaint
against Argent Chemical Laboratories, Inc. for sale
of unregistered pesticides, sale of pesticides which
compositions differed from those described on the
product's Confidential Statement of Formula,
export of products without required bilingual
labeling, and pesticide misuse. The company has
agreed to pay a penalty of 50,000, which was
reduced by ability-to-pay considerations, for 21
violations.
A-80
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
MULTIMEDIA CASES
Allied Tube & Conduit: On September 30, 1994,
EPA issued a multimedia administrative complaint
against Allied Tube & Conduit for alleged
violations of EPCRA and RCRA. In the EPCRA
inspection, the company failed to report toxic
chemical releases to the air in 1989. The RCRA
inspection revealed numerous violations, including
failure to properly mark containers, failure to
record weekly inspections, failure to conduct
personnel training, failure to adequately maintain
fire protection equipment, failure to maintain
adequate aisle space, failure to maintain closure of
hazardous waste containers, and failure to properly
prepare several hazardous waste manifests.
Corrections of these multiple statutory violations
will provide benefits to the public health and
environment.
U.S. v. Columbus Solid Waste Reduction Plant:
In response to an EPA administrative order and
community concerns about dioxin emissions the
city of Columbus agreed to shut down the
Columbus Solid Waste Reduction Plant in
Columbus, OH, an electricity generating facility
for the city which operates six refuse and coal-
fired boilers. EPA interest began after numerous
citizen complaints about air emissions. EPA
negotiated an AOC under RCRA §7003 to require
the facility to design systems to achieve the lowest
dioxin emissions due to be required by EPA's
municipal combustion regulations.
Subsequently, several circumstances arose which
affected the proposed AOC. First, citizens made
numerous comments about the AOC at a public
meeting. Second, a meeting was held between
EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry on June 23, 1994, to discuss
conducting human health evaluations of the area
surrounding the facility. Third, two recent
Supreme Court decisions may result in the facility
greatly changing its operations. Then, on
September 9, 1994, EPA issued a unilateral
administrative order pursuant to RCRA §7003
requiring essentially the same injunctive relief as
the AOC. In response, the city decided to
authorize closure of the facility.
U.S. v. Southern Pacific: A second consent
decree resulted in a multimedia settlement that will
resolve the liability of a number of parties under
a number of statutes (including Superfund, RCRA,
CWA, FIFRA, and others) arising out of the 1991
train derailment and spill of metam sodium into
the Sacramento River in California. The spill
created a toxic plume which killed aquatic life
along a long stretch of the river.
U.S. v. Texas Eastern (S.D.. Tex.): On June 16,
1994, the Second Modification to the Texas
Eastern Federal consent decree was lodged by the
court. The modification incorporates the PCB and
mercury cleanup provisions of the settlement
negotiated between Texas Eastern and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania into the federal
decree and also allows the Agency to consider off-
site remediation workplans on a case-by-case basis
for all Texas Eastern sites located in 14 states. To
date, 18 compressor station sites have been
remediated pursuant to the federal consent decree.
Six additional compressor station sites will be
remediated in 1994, as well as 36 Off-Site
Equipment Area Locations in Pennsylvania.
A-81
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT
U.S. v. Hartford Associates (D. Md.): The court
sentenced Hartford Associates, a New Jersey
partnership engaged in property development, on
October 7, 1993, to pay a $100,000 fine and to
grant a conservation easement on more than 100
acres of wetlands for violating the CWA.
Hartford, a limited partnership based in Berlin, NJ,
pled guilty to one count of negligently discharging
dredged or fill material without a permit in
wetlands located on a 375-acre tract of land the
partnership owns near Elkton, Maryland. Under
the sentence imposed by Judge Nickerson, the
partnership must pay one third of the $100,000
fine immediately and the remaining portion over a
2-year period of probation. The conservation
easement must become effective within 30 days.
The easement will effectively restrict further
development of a large portion of the property.
U.S. v. Penn Hills (W.D. Penn.): Rejecting pleas
of municipal poverty and taxpayer hardship, a
federal judge, on September 8,1994, sentenced the
Municipality of Penn Hills, Allegheny County,
PA, to 5 years probation and a $150,000 fine for
illegally disposing of sewage sludge and other
pollutants from three of its sewage treatment
plants in violation of its NPDES permit and the
CWA. On July 8, 1994, Penn Hills pled guilty to
a three count information charging it with failing
to remove and knowingly illegally disposing of
sewage sludge and other pollutants in violation of
the CWA from the three plants.
U.S. v. Reillv: Defendant William P. Reilly, a
shipping company executive, was charged with a
violation of the Ocean Dumping Act, 33 U.S.C.
§1411 (a), for the knowing discharge of
approximately 11,000 tons of incinerator ash from
the ship Khian Sea, a bulk cargo ship, into the
Atlantic and Indian e Oceans. On appeal, the
convictions of Reilly and his codefendant, John
Patrick Dowd, which included false declaration
charges under 18 U.S.C. §1623(a) were affirmed.
Issues relating to defendant Reilly's knowledge of
the Ocean Dumping Act's permit requirements
were not appealed.
U.S. v. Wietzenhoff: Michael Weitzenhoff and
Thomas Mariani appealed their felony convictions
for conspiracy and knowing violations of the
CWA. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit presents a highly favorable
precedent concerning the knowledge requirements
of the CWA's criminal provisions. A jury
convicted the two plant managers, Weitzenhoff
and Mariani, of six felony counts. The judge
sentenced Weitzenhoff to 21 months and Mariani
to 33 months in prison. On August 3, 1993, the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions. The Court
agreed with the District Court that the felony
provisions of the CWA do not require proof that
the defendants knew that their conduct violated the
NPDES permit. The defendants then requested
that the Ninth Circuit rehear the case en_ bane. On
August 8, 1994, the Ninth Circuit denied the
request and slightly modified its original opinion.
The Supreme Court denied the defendant writ of
certiorari on January 23, 1995.
U.S. v. Lauehlin, 10 F.3rd 961 (2d Cir. 1993).
cert, denied, 114 S.Ct. 1649 (1994): The
defendant, an owner of a railroad tie treating
business, was convicted after trial for knowingly
disposing of hazardous waste without a permit in
violation of RCRA and for failing to report the
release of a hazardous substance in violation of
CERCLA. The court held that the RCRA
provision prohibiting knowing disposal of a
hazardous waste without a permit, 42 U.S.C. §
6928(d)(2)(A), requires only that a defendant have
a general awareness that he is performing acts
proscribed by the statute, and that the trial court
did not err in refusing to charge the jury that the
government had to prove the defendant knew that
the waste was identified or listed under RCRA.
The court further held that under section
6928(d)(2)(A), the government does not have to
prove that the defendant was aware of the lack of
a permit to dispose of hazardous waste.
Consistent with the RCRA ruling the court also
found that section 9603 (a) of CERCLA does not
require proof of knowledge of regulatory
requirements, but only that the defendant be aware
A-82
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT l^w^l
of his act. Thus, the trial court did not err when
it failed to instruct the jury that the government
must prove that the defendant knew the release of
the hazardous substance violated the provisions of
CERCLA.
U.S. v. Advance Plating Works, Inc., et al. (S.D.
Ind.): Advance Plating Works, Inc., an
electroplating and metal finishing shop located in
Indianapolis, IN, was fined, and its owner and
president, Eugene Doughty, was sentenced to jail
and fines, on October 8, 1993. The defendants
engaged in the tampering of samples and illegal
discharges of company wastes into the
Indianapolis sewer system under the CWA.
Doughty sought to conceal his CWA violations by
tampering with discharge samples which were
being taken in order to determine compliance.
Advance Plating also illegally stored and disposed
of hazardous wastes at its facilities without a
permit to do so. Doughty was sentenced to 12
months in jail, and ordered to pay a fine of $3,000
and restitution of $5,165. Advance Plating was
sentenced to 3 years probation, and was ordered to
pay a fine of $200,000 with $100,000 suspended.
U.S. v. Carlo Area and Automatic Plating
Company, Inc. (D. Conn.): Carlo Arco was
sentenced to 15 months in prison for attempting to
cover up the release of sodium cyanide from the
company's Bridgeport, CT, facility. The June 24,
1994, sentencing followed the March 16, 1994,
conviction of Arco and Automatic Plating Co.,
Inc. on one count of failing to report the release of
a hazardous substance under the CERCLA and one
count of knowingly introducing pollutants to the
Bridgeport sewer system in violation of federal
CWA categorical pretreatment standards.
U.S. v.AT&T and Harry J. Krins (E.D. Penn.):
Harry J. Kring was sentenced to 3 years probation,
6 months of home confinement, and a $5,000 fine
stemming from his plea of guilty to one count of
negligent violation of the CWA and one count of
making false statements to the EPA and the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources. Kring pleaded guilty to these charges
on March 3, 1994. In a related case, AT&T
pleaded guilty to a one count information charging
the company with negligently discharging
pollutants in violation of its NPDES permit
limitations. The company was fined $175,000.
Although Kring knew that AT&T's internal
laboratory conducted monitoring in addition to the
outside laboratory, he failed to incorporate all the
analytical information and the DMRs. Had Kring
reported all the analytical results, the effluent from
the air stripping tower would have been reported
in violation of the effluent limitations on numerous
occasions.
U.S. v. Richard Vernon Bates, et al. (C.D.
Calif.): On April 11, 1994, Richard Vernon Bates
was sentenced for knowing violations of the
CWA's Pretreatment Standards. Bates, former
vice president and general manager of Travelin'
West Textiles (also known as Melody Knitting
Mills, Inc.), Simi Valley, CA, was sentenced to 5
months incarceration, 100 hours community
service, and 3 years probation. Kenneth Allen
Baber, former plant engineer, was sentenced to 3
months incarceration, 3 years probation and 100
hours community service. The company received
a $45,000 fine. Bates, Baber, and the corporation
had pleaded guilty to two counts each of violating
pretreatment standards in the discharge of acidic
wastewater into the Simi Valley Sanitation District
POTW.
U.S. v. Giacomo Catucci (D. R.I.): Giacomo
Catucci, former president of Post-Tron, Inc., a
computer software company, was sentenced on
February 15, 1994, to 27 months in prison for the
unlawful disposal of polychlorinated biphenols
(PCBs) and failing to report the release of a
hazardous substance into the environment. Catucci
was convicted on October 22, 1993, after a 2-week
trial for illegal disposal of toxics (PCBs) in
violation of the TSCA and failing to report the
release of a reportable quantity of a hazardous
substance in violation of CERCLA. The violations
occurred after Catucci gave the workers
permission to scrap two PCB transformers,
knowing that the transformers contained PCBs. At
sentencing, Senior District Court Judge Raymond
Pettine enhanced the penalty under sentencing
guidelines because substantial clean up costs had
A-83
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
been incurred by the government as a result of the
illegal acts.
U.S. v. Larry A. Christopherson (E.D. Wise.):
On May 3, 1994, Larry Christopherson, the former
owner of Nardi Electric Company, an electric
contracting firm in Milwaukee, WI, was sentenced
to 3 years probation and 100 hours of community
service. Nardi Electric shut its doors in the 1980s
leaving behind 17 barrels of PCBs and ignitable
hazardous waste, principally solvents. When the
new owner of the property objected to the waste
left behind, Larry Christopherson loaded the
barrels onto a trailer and abandoned it on
neighboring property. Christopherson had been
charged with and pleaded guilty in January 1994
to the illegal storage and disposal of hazardous
waste, including PCBs and characteristic waste,
under the RCRA and for violations of the TSCA.
U.S. v. Craven Laboratories, Inc., et al. (W.D.
Texas): Don Craven and his company pleaded
guilty on December 1, 1993, to various charges
including FIFRA misdemeanors and criminal
conspiracy. Dale Harris and Donald Hamerly
together with twelve other defendants pleaded
guilty to similar charges. Craven, who was the
owner of the laboratory, directed his employees to
use testing short cuts that resulted in the
production of false data. This data was used for
pesticide residue studies, which in turn was used
for pesticide reregistration. Numerous employees
knowingly followed Craven's instructions (and
were often paid bonuses for doing so), and
understood that the data was false and misleading.
Craven was sentenced to a maximum 60 months
imprisonment and, along with the company, paid
$30 million in fines and restitution. Fourteen
employees received sentences ranging from
imprisonment to probation and fines totaling
$250,000.
U.S. v. Dean Foods Company and Winfred Smith
(W.D. Kv.): In July 1992, a biologist from the
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife
investigated a massive fish kill in Beargrass Creek
located in Louisville. A 3.5 mile trail of dead
fish, crayfish, algae and other aquatic life led to a
pipe entering an unnamed tributary of Beargrass
Creek from a facility operated by the Dean Foods
Company, a manufacturer and distributor of
wholesale and retail foods. The Kentucky
Department of Fish and Wildlife estimated the fish
kill at approximately 15,000. As a result of
investigations and prosecutions for illegal
discharges in violation of the CWA, Dean Foods
Company was convicted on December 30, 1993,
on one count of negligently discharging pollutants
into navigable waters of the United States without
a permit in violation of the CWA.
U.S. v. Doyle Crews, (N.D. Tex.): Doyle Crews,
the former President and owner of Crews Plating,
Inc., located in Dallas, TX, was sentenced on
August 3, 1994, for a criminal violation of the
CWA. Crews was sentenced to 5 years probation
and 6 months of home confinement after he
pleaded guilty to illegally discharging untreated
chromium wastes into the Dallas sewer system.
The Judge declined to impose a fine or prison time
against Crews, but instead imposed special
condition of probation that requires Crews to pay
the total costs of the clean-up of the electroplating
facility pursuant to an EPA approved plan.
U.S. v. Charles A. Eidson and Sandra A. Eidson
(M.D. Fla.): Sandra Eidson former owner and
officer of Cherokee Oil Company, Ltd., was
sentenced on April 27, 1994, to serve 37 months
in prison and her husband, Charles Eidson, was
sentenced on March 11, 1994 to serve 70 months
in prison for federal crimes committed while
operating an oil recycling business. A Florida jury
had previously convicted the Eidsons of one count
of knowingly discharging used oil into waters of
the United States without a permit, a violation of
the CWA and of three counts of mail fraud. The
Eidson's operated a oil recycling and waste water
disposal business in Tampa, FL. An investigation
revealed that the company represented to clients
that it would dispose of the wastes in a lawful
manner. However, they instead illegally disposed
of the wastes into storm sewers. They concealed
their illegal practices by falsifying business
records. Samples taken in and around the facility
showed significant contamination of the area with
petroleum by-products.
A-84
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
U.S. v. Cherokee Resources, Inc., et al. (W.D.
N.C.): On June 29, 1994, following an 8-day
trial, a jury convicted Cherokee Resources, Inc.
(Cherokee) and two corporate executives, Keith
Eidson and Gabe Hartsell, on five counts of
illegally discharging wastewater into the municipal
sewer system and one count of criminal conspiracy
to violate the CWA.
U.S. v. Garlick Helicopter, Inc. (D. Mont.):
Garlick Helicopter, Inc. (GHI), a Montana
corporation, with large federal government
contracts and one of the largest employers in the
Bitterroot Valley of Montana, pleaded guilty
January 13, 1994, to illegal storage of hazardous
waste in violation of the RCRA. GHI is owned by
Ron Dean Garlick, who entered the plea on behalf
of the company. From approximately 1982
through 1992, GHI generated hazardous waste in
connection with its airplane and helicopter paint
and repair business.
U.S. v, Gaston (D. Kan.): Donald Gaston, the
Highway Administrator for Montgomery County,
KS, pleaded guilty to a felony CERCLA charge on
July 21, 1994. The plea was the result of an
Indictment returned by a Federal Grand Jury on
March 9, 1994, which charged Gaston with three
RCRA felony violations and one CERCLA
violation. Sometime after he became the County
Highway Administrator, Gaston ordered the
employees of both the county road crew and the
county bridge crew to haul 11 drums of hazardous
waste to a closed Montgomery County Landfill
where trenches were dug and the drums buried
with the use of a county backhoe.
U.S. v. Hedse, (S.D. Ohio); State of Ohio v.
Hedge and City Bumper Exchange, Inc.,
(Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas):
Roland Hedge, the owner of City Bumper
Exchange, Inc. (City Bumper), an abandoned
electroplating facility in Cincinnati, OH, was
sentenced by Federal and State courts to a total of
24 months and a $25,000 fine for violations of
CERCLA, and the State of Ohio's hazardous waste
act. City Bumper, although defunct, was also
sentenced in the State court to pay a fine of
$25,000 for violating the State's hazardous waste
act. Hedge abandoned the facility with over
27,000 gallons of hazardous substances left on the
site. Clean-up of the site pursuant to action by
EPA cost the Federal Government $875,000.
U.S. v. Hofele. (W.D. Mo.): The owner/manager
of a Missouri car repair shop entered a guilty plea
on May 11, 1994, for knowingly releasing freon
(which contains CFCs) while servicing automobile
air conditioners at his business in Chesterfield,
MO. As many as 60 automobiles were serviced
by Hofele between January 1992 and July 1993.
Hofele entered a guilty plea on one count of
violating the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §7671h, in the first
criminal prosecution involving the January 1992,
CAA requirements that repair shops use freon
recycling equipment. The requirements also
mandate that employees be trained and certified in
the use of this equipment before servicing motor
vehicle air conditioners.
U.S. v. Robert H. Hopkins (D. Conn.): On July
20, 1994, Robert H. Hopkins, former Vice
President of Manufacturing at Spirol International
Corporation in Killingly, CT, was sentenced to
serve 21 months in prison and to pay a $7,500
fine for tampering with wastewater samples
required under the CWA. In September 1990,
Hopkins directed and conspired with others to
filter, dilute, and selectively collect samples of the
discharge from Spirol's wastewater treatment
system. Hopkins then submitted false reports to
the Connecticut Department of Protection to
conceal Spiral's discharge of heavy metal bearing
wastewaters to the Five Mile River—a heavily
stocked trout stream in northeastern Connecticut.
U.S. v. George Frederick Heidgerken (W.D.
Wash.): George F. Heidgerken, the owner of
several companies including GFH Timber
Products, was sentenced on December 3, 1993, to
5 months in prison, followed by 4 months of
electronically monitored home detention.
Heidgerken was also sentenced to 3 years of
supervised release subsequent to his incarceration
and ordered to pay a $4,000 fine. Heidgerken
pleaded guilty to violation of the RCRA.
Heidgerken's offenses involved approximately 260
drums of ignitable lacquers and paints. The 55-
A-85
-------
} FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
gallon drums were stored in warehouses and
outdoors in Detroit, OR, where they were exposed
to the elements in an area of pristine rural land
and natural hot springs.
U.S. v. Comer's Diesel and Electric Company (D.
Mont): Comer's Diesel and Electric Co., with
automotive and truck repair facilities located in
Belgrade, Great Falls, and Missoula, MT, was
sentenced on March 24, 1994, following a plea of
guilty to a one-count of the unlawful transportation
of a hazardous waste in violation of the RCRA, 42
U.S.C. §6228(d)(l). The company was placed on
supervised probation for a period of 2 years and
fined $100,000 to $50,000 of which was
suspended in recognition of remediation conducted
at its Belgrade facility.
U.S. v. Jay Jurek (W.D. Wash.): On July 12,
1994, Jay Jurek, a production manager for
Boomsnub Corporation and Pacific Northwest
Plating Company (Boomsnub), entered a plea of
guilty to a federal criminal information charging
him with attempting to harass a witness to
dissuade him from assisting a criminal prosecution
of Boomsnub. On June 6, 1994, EPA's Criminal
Investigation Division Special Agents arrested
Jurek, without incident, at the Boomsnub facility
in Vancouver, WA, on a warrant issued by a U.S.
Magistrate. On June 2, 1994, Jurek had threatened
bodily harm to a person for allegedly providing
information to EPA/CID in the course of EPA's
criminal investigation into activities of Boomsnub.
The person threatened had been named as a source
of information for the EPA by a local newspaper.
U.S. v. MOR, Inc. (S.D. Fla.): On May 19, 1994,
MOR, Inc., pleaded guilty to a one-count
information charging it with knowingly violating
the CAA. In March and April of 1991, extensive
renovations were made to the Sea Isle Hotel (now
known as the Miami Beach Ocean Resort) in
Miami Beach, FL, including the stripping of
thermal insulation materials containing friable
asbestos from piping and the removal of facility
components, such as boilers, that were encased in
friable asbestos. The removal was accomplished
through the use of itinerant workers who were not
supervised by a licensed asbestos contractor nor
provided with respirators or protective clothing.
None of the work practice standards for asbestos
removal were followed and clouds of asbestos
were released as a result of the operation. The
unsealed asbestos was transported to a solid waste
landfill in ordinary trash dumpsters.
U.S. v. Francis Morgan, et al. (D. Haw.): On
May 31, 1994, Francis Morgan was sentenced to
1 year unsupervised probation and a $6,000 fine
for three counts of negligently discharging a
pollutant into the Pacific Ocean in violation of the
CWA. The defendants had been managers at the
Hamakua Sugar Company from 1988 to 1990.
The sugar company mill had an NPDES permit to
discharge treated waste water from the processing
of sugar cane. The indictment charged that the
defendants conspired to violate the CWA,
manipulated the treatment system to misrepresent
discharges during regulatory inspections, and
falsified required discharge monitoring reports
with regard to exceedences and other violations of
CWA regulations and permit requirements. In
addition, the defendants had been charged with
fourteen counts of operating a secret by-pass
which discharged untreated waste water directly
into a gulch leading to the Pacific Ocean. These
discharges of total suspended solids contributed to
the degradation of coral communities off the
Hamakua Coast of the island of Hawaii.
U.S. v. M. Tyronne Morgan and Meydenbauer
Development Corp. (E. D. Wash.): On July 6,
1994, a jury returned guilty verdicts for both
Marvel Tyronne Morgan, the President of the
Meydenbauer Development Co., and the
Meydenbauer Development Corporation (MDC).
Morgan and MDC were convicted under the CAA
for unlawful removal of asbestos in connection
with the demolition/renovation of the former
Deaconess Hospital. The defendants were also
convicted of failing to report the release of
asbestos and PCBs. Bradley Brown, one of the
defendants in this, was sentenced on January 28,
1994, to incarceration for a year and a $5,000 fine
following his guilty plea. The case originated in
September of 1992 when CID received reports of
allegedly unlawful removal and disposal of
asbestos, and the alleged unlawful disposal of PCB
A-86
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
fluid and PCB transformers from the former
Deaconess Hospital located in Wenatchee, WA.
U.S, v. Bob Murphy, et al (D. Nev.): This case
involved the removal of asbestos-containing
material from approximately 70 apartments in a
413-unit complex. Defendants in this case were the
owner of the apartment complex, Robert Murphy,
and the former manager of the apartments, Thomas
Devins. Devins hired casual laborers for asbestos
removal without following the required work
practice standards. After asbestos debris was
deposited in trash dumpsters at the complex, other
residents, including small children, were exposed
to airborne asbestos fibers. Murphy was convicted
on February 3, 1994, of knowingly violating
asbestos work practice standards, of failing to
report the release of asbestos and concealing the
violations from local authorities under the CAA
and failing to report the release of a hazardous
substance in violation of CERCLA. After
pleading guilty to violations of the CAA and
conspiracy, Devins was sentenced to 32 months
incarceration on October 25, 1993.
U.S. v. Norwood Industries. Inc., et al. (E.D.
Penn.): Norwood Industries, Inc. a southeastern
Pennsylvania adhesive tape manufacturer was
fined $100,000 (suspended) and ordered to
perform beneficial environmental projects after
pleading guilty to criminal violations of the CAA
VOC regulations. The company was sentenced
March 1, 1994, in federal court in Philadelphia for
failing to install control technology or use
compliant coating at its Malvern, PA, plant from
July of 1989 to August of 1990. The plant's VOC
emissions are regulated by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania's SIP.
The Court order included requirements that the
company develop a corporate environmental
regulatory compliance program, including
development of an environmental compliance
manual within 90 days of sentencing and spend at
least $30,000 annually during the company's 5-
year period of probation on research and
development to replace solvent-based coatings
with water-based materials.
U.S. v. PEA. Inc. (D. Colo.): OEA, which
manufactures 60 percent of the world supply of
explosive air bag initiators, pleaded guilty on April
28, 1994, to six felony violations of the RCRA—
illegal transportation of hazardous waste, illegal
treatment of hazardous waste without a permit,
illegal disposal, and illegal storage of hazardous
wastes. The company engaged in the practice of
on-site detonation of excess waste materials
consisting of ignitable solvents and reactive
explosives used in the company's manufacturing
process. During the manufacturing process, waste
hexane and acetone mixed with explosive
zirconium potassium perchlorate (ZPP) was
generated, in addition to flawed initiators
containing ZPP. These wastes were the subject of
the charged violations. In three separate incidents
four employees were injured, one with serious
burns, during the disposal activities.
U.S. v. Palm Beach Cruises (S.D. Fla.): Palm
Beach Cruises, the corporate owner of the cruise
ship MV Viking Princess, was sentenced on
August 30, 1994, on two felony counts of having
knowingly violated the CWA and the OPA, 33
U.S.C. §§ 1319(c)(2) and 1321(b)(3). The basis
for the prosecution was the deliberate dumping of
waste oil from the cruise ship into the ocean off
the coast of Florida. The discharge created a
visible sheen which was detected during a joint
operation conducted by the Coast Guard, EPA, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Department of Justice. The corporation entered its
guilty pleas to a two count information on May
19, 1994. Palm Beach Cruises was sentenced to
5 years probation and must pay a fine of
$500,000.
U.S. v. Pacific Aqua Tech, Ltd. (E.D. Wash.):
On June 14, 1994, Gerhard Herman Zimm, Sr., the
President of Pacific Aqua Tech, Ltd., was
convicted by jury trial of conspiracy and
substantive violations of the CAA and the
CERCLA. Zimm and his corporation also pleaded
guilty to a CERCLA count in the indictment and
entered into a detailed plea agreement with the
Government which provided for the funding of a
$1 million trust fund annuity for the future
medical expenses of the workers who were
A-87
-------
} FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
exposed to asbestos during the company's scrap
metal removal operations (the trust is to pay the
cost of medical and associated expenses of
asbestosis or asbestos-related diseases). Zimm
conducted the scrap operation at Pacific Aqua
Tech's Toppenish, WA, facility from 1986 through
the spring of 1991. Contamination at the facility
necessitated a superfund clean-up effecting the
removal of 111 tons of asbestos contaminated
material from Pacific Aqua Tech's property.
U.S. v. Robert Pardi (S.D. N.Y.): On May 25,
1994, Robert Pardi, an architect and the former
Director of the Asbestos Task Force of the New
York City Board of Education was sentenced to 30
months of imprisonment for falsely reporting that
school buildings were free of asbestos
contamination. He pleaded guilty in federal court
on March 24, 1994, to making false statements
and to criminal conspiracy to make false
statements in violation of the criminal laws of the
United States, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 371, and to
a substantive count of violating the TSCA by
failing to maintain required reports concerning
asbestos conditions in the public schools. Pardi
was responsible for reporting to the EPA
concerning the inspection and testing of New York
City public schools for the presence of asbestos.
U.S. v. Nicholas Pasauariello (S.D. Fla.): On
May 16, 1994, sentence was passed on Nicholas
Pasquariello after he was found guilty in a non-
jury trial on all counts, including six counts of
violating the CWA, among other criminal charges
alleged in a 15-count indictment filed in 1989.
Pasquariello was convicted on January 25, 1994,
after a sporadic bench trial which began in August
1993, and took 33 court days. The various
charges ranged from Pasquariello having filled
jurisdictional lakes and wetlands on property
owned by him and associates in the Ft.
Lauderdale, FL, vicinity, to charges of violating
income tax laws, criminal conspiracy, and making
a false statement to Department of Labor officials
investigating labor law violations. Pasquariello was
sentenced to 70 months incarceration and 36
months supervised probation following
incarceration.
U.S. v. Norma Phillips, et al. (W.D. Mo.): The
owners and operators of the A-l Electroplating
Company facility in Kansas City, MO, were
sentenced on February 11, 1994, to prison and
probation for the illegal disposal of pollutants into
the Kansas City sanitary sewer system in violation
of the RCRA and the CWA. During the period of
their operations, Phillips and the Mammens
ordered the discharge of hazardous waste
generated by their electroplating process. On
February 11,1994, Philip Mammen was sentenced
to 27 months of incarceration and David Mammen
received a sentence of 18 months of incarceration.
Norma Phillips was sentenced to 2 years of
probation and 6 months house arrest. Hazardous
waste generated by A-l Electroplating was literally
swept out of front and back doors into the
adjoining working class residential neighborhood.
The hazardous waste was also discharged into the
sewer system where the Kansas City Water
Department noted numerous violations. The Water
Department had sought civil fines from the
business, and ultimately turned off the sewer and
water connections to the facility in an attempt to
stop the discharges. However, the defendants
managed to dismantle the sewer connection plug
and continued their illegal discharges into the
system. After the business was forced to shut
down in early 1990, Phillips and the Mammens
attempted to start a new plating operation in
another Missouri community. They transported
hazardous waste from the Kansas City, MO,
facility to the new location and ultimately illegally
disposed of some of the waste at the new location.
U.S. v. Pioneer Chemical, Inc. and Gerald Butler
(D. Ky.): Gerald Butler and Pioneer Chemical
Inc. were sentenced August 8, 1994, in Louisville,
KY, for violations of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
§7413, for the illegal removal of asbestos-
containing material without complying with
applicable permitting and work-practice
requirements. Pioneer Chemical Inc. (Pioneer)
was also sentenced on one count for having
violated the RCRA by storing hazardous waste
without a permit. Pioneer was fined $37,300 per
count for a total of $75,000 in criminal fines and
costs. In addition, Pioneer paid $25,000 in
restitution to the Jefferson County Air Pollution
A-88
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Control District Air Quality Trust Fund. Butler
was sentenced to 1 year of probation. Pioneer had
hired Butler, and a co-defendant, Jewell, to
demolish and remove asbestos-covered
components from one of Pioneer's buildings.
Pioneer's RCRA conviction resulted from its
illegal storage of 100 drums of hazardous waste.
U.S. v. John Pizzuto (S.D. Ohio): In his second
environmental prosection, Pizzuto pleaded guilty,
on December 16, 1993, in Huntington, WV, to a
three count indictment of violating the TSCA, 15
U.S.C. §§ 2614 and 2615b after his illegal storage
of PCB's in Nitro, WV. On April 1, 1994, he was
sentenced to 18 months incarceration for his
violations of TSCA. As a result of the West
Virginia crimes, which occurred during Pizzuto's
probation in Ohio, the Ohio federal judge on July
18,1994, revoked Pizzuto's probation, and ordered
him jailed for 18 months. The judge imposed the
prison sentence consecutively, not concurrently, to
the West Virginia sentence, meaning Pizzuto is
required to serve a total of 36 months
imprisonment.
U.S. v. Nobert Efren Pohl (D. N.M.): Defendant
Pohl, a former owner and operator of Service
Circuits, Inc. (SCI), an electroplating company that
manufactured printed circuit boards, pleaded guilty
to knowing storage of hazardous waste without a
permit and the knowing disposal of hazardous
waste without a permit under the RCRA. On
December 20, 1993, Pohl was sentenced to 1 year
and a day incarceration. Pohl generated hazardous
waste at a metal plating facility in Albuquerque
from 1985 to 1989. CWA charges were also filed
for the knowing discharge of lead in
concentrations above those allowed under SCI's
wastewater discharge permit and the knowing
failure to submit complete quarterly reports to the
City of Albuquerque. SCI's process involved the
dipping of circuit boards into acidic solutions
containing heavy metals. Solvents were used to
clean and dry the boards and printing inks were
used for labels. Irresponsible waste handling
practices, resulting in serious contamination of the
property, were discovered after the defendant
ceased operation and abandoned the facility in
1989.
U.S. v. R&D Chemical Company, Inc. (N.D.
Ga.): Noble and Oscar Cunningham and their
corporation, R&D Chemical Company, were
charged with conspiracy to transport hazardous
waste from Ohio to an unpermitted facility in
Georgia and with illegal disposal of hazardous
waste in violation of the RCRA. R&D Chemical
accumulated a quantity of hazardous waste sludge
from industrial operations on the company farm in
Ohio. R&D Chemical misrepresented the sludge
as being non-hazardous and made arrangements to
sell it to a Georgia company, calling it "RD-344"
to disguise it as a product. R&D Chemical leased
a truck and trailer and transported approximately
15 roll-off containers of the waste to a company in
Atlanta. The containers were abandoned in the
company's parking lot. In addition, R&D
Chemical caused a portion of the hazardous waste
to be disposed of at a non-hazardous landfill in
Atlanta. Commenting that the case involved
"aggravating" circumstances, the court sentenced
R&D Chemical on October 6, 1994, to 5 years
probation, a $200,000 fine and $146,716
restitution to the Atlanta company where the waste
had been abandoned.
U.S. v. Recticel Foam Corporation, et al. (E.D.
Tenn.): On July 22, 1994, Recticel pleaded guilty
to a felony charging that it knowingly omitted
material information in a record filed with EPA
and the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC) and failed to keep a record
of a hazardous waste determination made by it in
July 1990. Recticel also pleaded guilty to a State
environmental misdemeanor in a related State
prosecution. The case had begun on October 15,
1990, when TDEC conducted an administrative
inspection of two manufacturing facilities located
in Morristown, TN, owned by Recticel. The
TDEC inspectors observed methylene chloride
waste in solid waste dumpsters at the plants.
Subsequent investigation revealed that Recticel
was burying drums containing allegedly hazardous
waste on property owned by Cansler, and dumping
it in rolloff containers that were destined for
disposal in solid waste landfills in eastern
Tennessee.
A-89
-------
IFY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
U.S. v. William C. Reichle and Reichle, Inc. (D.
Ore.): William Chester Reichle, the President of
Reichle, Inc. and his Portland, OR, based
corporation both entered guilty pleas on May 23,
1994, in the District of Oregon to one count each
of felony violations of the RCRA. The federal
charges resulted from a joint investigative effort
by EPA's Criminal Investigation Division and the
U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) special agents based in
Portland, OR. Reichle owns and operates a large
commercial painting and drywall company which
performs jobs in southwest Washington and
northwest Oregon areas. Reichle frequently
participates in contract work at federal, state, and
local construction and renovation projects. In
March 1992, an unpermitted hazardous waste
disposal site with numerous 55-gallon drums of
paint and spent solvents was discovered on BLM-
administered public land in a rural area of
northwest Oregon. In June 1992, investigative
efforts led federal agents to a second unpermitted
hazardous waste site on privately-owned land, also
in northwest Oregon, which is used as a dairy
farm. Reichle and his company were responsible
for the illegal disposal at these sites.
U.S. v. Reilly andDowd (D. Del.): On October 4,
1993, two shipping executives were sentenced to
prison terms on ocean dumping, 33 U.S.C.
§1411 (a), and perjury charges in connection with
the freighter, Khian Sea. Reilly received a
sentence of 37 months imprisonment. This case
arose after approximately 15,000 tons of municipal
incinerator ash was loaded on the Khian Sea
vessel destined for a disposal location in the
Bahamas. After sailing the Atlantic in 1987 in an
unsuccessful effort to find a disposal location, the
ship returned to the lower Delaware Bay in March
of 1988. The ship ultimately sailed away against
the orders of the Coast Guard, and dumped its
cargo in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Both
defendants were found guilty of lying to a federal
district court judge concerning what had happened
to the shipment of ash. Reilly was also convicted
of one count of lying to a grand jury in
Wilmington over the ash's disappearance.
Evidence presented at trial included trans-oceanic
cable messages linking the defendants with
instructions to illegally dump the ash in the ocean.
U.S. v. Sentco Paint Manufacturing, Inc., et. al.
(N.D. Ohio): On March 17, 1994, Sentco Paint
Manufacturing Company, Inc., was sentenced to 3
years probation and an $8000 fine for its part in
having violated the RCRA through the illegal
disposal of hazardous wastes. The sentencing of
Sentco concluded an investigation which resulted
in previous guilty pleas and the sentencing of
Roland Brothers, President of Sentco; Rick
Brothers, Plant Manger; and Donald Cole, a
company employee involved in the illegal disposal
of hazardous waste. They had pleaded guilty June
1, 1992, to a 1990 indictment charging them with
having buried fifty-six drums of paint waste, a
hazardous waste, under a cement loading dock at
the plant site. The guilty pleas resulted in
sentences of 15 months incarceration of Roland
Brothers, 18 months incarceration for Rick
Brothers, and 6 months home detention for Donald
Cole.
U.S. v. Mark Steven Stewart, et al. (D. Ariz.):
Mark Steven Stewart, the president of a crop
dusting company in Pinal County, AZ, was
incarcerated for a year for illegal disposal of
methyl parathion (a hazardous waste from his crop
dusting activities) and illegal use of a pesticide in
violation of the FIFRA. As part of his guilty plea
on December 13, 1993, Stewart agreed to liquidate
the assets of the company and use that money to
pay for clean-up costs at the illegal disposal site.
Two aircraft, valued at approximately $60,000,
were forfeited to the United States Marshal under
terms of the plea agreement. Stewart transported
methyl parathion and unsuccessfully attempted to
incinerate the material in concrete tanks. Two
county zoning officials who inspected the
uncontrolled site were exposed to airborne
contaminants and became ill from the exposure.
Stewart's illegal practices lead to a clean-up of the
disposal site contaminated with methyl parathion.
U.S. v. Thermocell S. E. Inc., Douglas Kirchofer
and Sherwin T. Haskell (E.D. Tenn.):
Thermocell Inc. was fined $125,000 for illegal
transportation of hazardous waste in violation of
A-90
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT I rwr!
the RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6928 (d)(2)(A). As a
condition of probation, $100,000 of this fine was
suspended on the condition that, as restitution and
compensation to the State of Tennessee,
Thermocell pay $50,000 into the State's
Environmental Protection Fund and pay cleanup
cost of $38,000. Kirchofer, the corporate
secretary, was sentenced to supervised probation
for 1 year and fined $5,000. The comptroller,
Haskell, was sentenced to 1 year of supervised
probation and a $1,000 fine. Each of the men had
pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of
RCRA as an accessory after the fact pursuant of
Title 18 U.S.C. §3. This case arose after
Thermocell sold machinery and 320 drums of
chemicals to an Atlanta, GA, manufacturer for one
dollar. The Atlanta manufacturer subsequently had
financial difficulties, and at least 35 drums were
abandoned on farmland in Norcross, GA. The
farmer contacted Haskell and requested removal of
the drums. Haskell and an associate loaded the
drums on a rented Ryder truck and abandoned
them on unused property in an isolated area of
Scott County, TN. The drums were then
discovered by a U.S. Office of Surface Mining
inspector.
U.S. v. Weaver Electric (D. Colo.): Weaver
Electric Company was in the business of buying,
refurbishing, and selling used electrical equipment.
As part of its operation, it collected, used, and
stored PCBs. Indictments charged individuals with
illegal storage of PCBs, in violation of the TSCA,
conspiracy, and false statements. An individual
defendant, Daniel Rodriguez, was charged with
transporting tractor trailers full of 55-gallon drums
containing PCB fluid for eventual illegal export to
Mexico. The, Weaver Electric Company was
convicted and sentenced to pay a $200,000 fine
and $300,000 for remedial activities. The
company participated in a scheme to illegally
dispose of PCBs by burial at a remote Colorado
horse ranch and to illegally export PCBs to
Mexico in order to avoid paying the costs
associated with the lawful and proper disposal of
PCBs in the United States. Rodriguez had agreed
with Weaver to receive three tractor trailers full of
55-gallon drums containing PCB fluid in El Paso,
TX, for eventual illegal exportation into Mexico.
After numerous unsuccessful attempts by
Rodriguez to pay individuals to transport the three
trailers full of leaking drums, the trailers were
eventually discovered by the local fire marshal.
Due to PCB contamination at two facilities, the
company agreed to spend $300,000 for
environmental remediation. Restitution was
ordered for superfund clean-up of PCB
contaminated property at the facilities.
U.S. v. Safety Kleen: A joint Federal/State
investigation of Safety Kleen and Booth Oil Co.
relating to improper handling of hazardous waste
oils at a Buffalo, NY, facility, resulted on August
19, 1994 in Booth pleading guilty to a State felony
count for possessing hazardous waste (PCB-laden
oil) in violation of its State permit, and paying a
fine of $100,000. Safety Kleen and Booth Oil had
been running the Booth Oil facility jointly. Safety
Kleen settled in a civil action with the Federal
government at the same time, by forfeiting $1.9
million; agreeing to purchase the Booth Oil facility
for $2.4 million and install new management; and
accepting appointment of a State environmental
monitor to assure compliance.
U.S. v. Steve Weinsier (S.D. Fla.): Steve
Weinsier, former owner of Florida Waterway
Management, an aquatic management company,
entered a guilty plea January. 18, 1994, to ten
counts of illegally using the pesticides Direx and
Karmex on aquatic areas in violation of the
FIFRA. Weinsier had been indicted November 19,
1993, on ten counts of violating FIFRA and seven
counts of Mail Fraud. Weinsier pleaded guilty to
the illegal use of the pesticides Direx and Karmex
on sensitive Florida aquatic areas. Weinsier knew
that the products Direx and Karmex, which contain
the active ingredient diuron, were not approved by
the Environmental Protection Agency for use on
water. However, he used mail solicitations to
attract customers for his business of removing and
controlling unwanted aquatic vegetation and algae
growth using these chemicals. Weinsier obtained
written contracts for his services by falsely
represented that he used only EPA-approved
products in his removal and control activities.
A-91
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
U.S. v. Larry Kenneth West (W.D. Mich.): On
January 14, 1994, Larry K. West, owner of Cal-
Art, a defunct Cassapolis, MI, plastics business,
was sentenced to 4 months home confinement, a
$10,000 fine, $40,000 restitution, and 2 years
probation for his actions in abandoning drums of
chemicals at his former business site in Cassapolis
in July of 1988. West had previously pleaded
guilty on November 5, 1993, to one count of
violating the RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6928 (d)(2)(A),
and a second, under the CERCLA, for having
knowingly and unlawfully failed to report an
unpermitted release of a reportable quantity of a
hazardous material. This case is related to another
federal RCRA criminal case, U.S. v. William
Meyers, which resulted from the activities of the
owner of the premises where Cal-Art had been
located. The waste had been illegally transported
to Ohio and abandoned there, and the perpetrator
of that violation had been ordered to reimburse
EPA for its costs of the Ohio clean-up and
disposal of the waste.
U.S. v. 'William C. Whitman and Duane C.
Whitman (M.D. Fla.): On July 28, 1994,
following a 2-week jury trial in Tampa, FL,
William C. Whitman, a plant manager, and Duane
C. Whitman, a shop foreman, of Durex Industries
were found guilty of treating and . storing
hazardous waste without a permit from June 1991
to June 1992. The company that owned Durex,
William Recht Company, Inc., pleaded guilty to a
two-count indictment which charged the
defendants with illegal treatment, storage and
disposal of hazardous waste without a permit and
knowing endangerment in violation of the RCRA.
The prosecution of the defendants was initiated
following the deaths of two 9-year-old boys from
toluene fume asphyxiation on June 13, 1992. The
two children had been playing in a dumpster in
which toluene waste had been discarded. The
company and individual defendants were sentenced
in FY95.
Harry Zucker (W. D. Pa): On July 8, 1994,
Harry Zucker was sentenced in Federal court to
eight months home detention, one year probation
and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine on his conviction
for discharging brine waste water from oil
production wells into waters of the United States
without a permit in violation of the Clean Water
Act. Harry Zucker plead guilty to count one of an
eight count indictment on February 3, 1994. The
indictment charged the defendant for illegal
discharges which occurred between November
1989 until July 1992. As a condition of the
Federal criminal plea, Marley Industries entered a
guilty plea to state criminal charges for the
unpermitted discharges and paid a $40,000 fine to
the Commonwealth on May 24, 1994.
U.S. v. Dale Valentine et al (D. WY): In one of
the largest RCRA setion 7003 cases ever, EPA
finalzied a series of settlement agreements during
fiscal year 1994 as well as receving a number of
favorable rulings. The case arose from Regions
VIITs enforcement action relating to the Powder
River Crude Processors site near Glenrock,
Wyoming.
In 1991, EPA issued UAOs under RCRA §7003 to
several parties, demanding cleanup of this former
oil re-processing facility. Surface impoundments
at the site pose a serious risk to wildlife, with
birds and antelope becoming trapped and dying in
the oily wastes. In addition, abandoned above-
ground tanks, which could fail, pose a potential
risk to human health. Some of the respondents
constructed a security fence around the facility and
netted the open pits; otherwise, they declined to
clean up the site. The U.S. subsequently filed a
complaint against ten of the parties.
In March 1994, the Agency lodged a settlement
with five generator-defendants (Texaco, Conoco,
Phillips Petroleum, True Oil, Eighty-Eight Oil).
Under the consent decree, the settling defendants
are obligated to pay a $300,000 penalty and clean
up the site. Cleanup consists of the removal and
treatment of materials from the impoundments and
tanks, plus contaminated soils. Estimated cost: at
least $4.5 million, perhaps (depending on amount
of soil requiring remediation) as much as $8.9
million.
During the summer of 1994, the Agency
concluded negotiating a settlement agreement with
one of the former site operators, Richard Wallace,
A-92
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
obligating him to pay a $30,000 penalty.
Settlement negotiations with the four remaining
defendants continued into fiscal year 1995.
The U.S. District Court for the District of
Wyoming issued several favorable decisions in FY
94 during litigation of this case. For example, in
a decision dated June 1, 1994, the court granted
the government's motion for summary judgement
on issues related to the presence of an imminent
and substantial endangerment at this particular site.
In addition, the court held that the administrtive
orders unilaterlally issued by EPA pursuant to
RCRA section 7003 were "reasonable." In doing
so, the court rejected the argument of one of the
defendants that its due process rights were violated
by the lack of an opportunity for a hearing prior to
issuance of the orders. The court found that EPA
had provided the defendants a timely opportunity
to confer, subsequent to the issuance of the orders,
regarding implementation. It also noted that the
defendants would have an opportunity, during an
upcoming trial, to challenge their liability under
RCRA section 7003. This portion of the court's
decision supports EPA's position that defendants
are not entitled to a judicial hearing to review such
orders prior to the government filing an action to
enforce them.
A-93
-------
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX B STATE CASES . . B-l
ALASKA B-l
Anchor Forest Products B-l
CH2M-HU1 Engineering B-l
City of Angoon, Alaska B-l
Construction Rigging, Inc. (CRI) B-l
Echo Bay Alaska, Inc B-l
Enstar Natural Gas Company B-l
Kake Tribal & Kake Tribal Logging B-2
Northland Fisheries, Inc B-2
Ronnie C. Fisheries B-2
William A. Wood B-2
COLORADO B-2
State of Colorado v Colorado Refining B-2
State of Colorado v Conoco B-2
State of Colorado v The City of Ft. Morgan B-3
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA B-3
Concerned Citizens of Brentwood, et al., v. The District of Columbia, et al B-3
D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. Coastline
Purchasing Corporation B-3
D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. Kayfirst
Corporation B-3
D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. The U.S. General
Services Administration B-4
District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA),
Environmental Regulation Administration (ERA) v. Respondent Mr. Jerry
Schaeffer B-4
FLORIDA B-4
Boston Chicken B-4
Department of Environmental Protection v. Lake County '. B-5
Department of Environmental Protection v. Pinellas County Board of County
Commissioners B-5
Department of Environmental Regulation v. Cabot Corporation B-5
Department of Environmental Regulation v. Pilot Properties Co. and Durham Utility
Service, Inc B-5
Florida Department of Corrections B-5
Florida Department of Environmental Protection v. NRG/Recovery Group, Inc., aka
Ogden Martin Systems of Lake, Inc B-6
Florida Gas Transmission B-6
Florida Gas Transmission B-6
Hazardous Waste Consultants, Inc. and Hazardous Waste Services, Inc B-6
Kissimmee Utilities , B-7
Master Packaging B-7
Mur-Shel, Inc B-7
B-i
-------
| FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Ogden Martin B-7
Pinellas County Department of Solid Waste Management B-7
Polyplastex International B-8
R.P. Scherer Corp B-8
South West Florida Water Management District B-8
State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection v. United States Naval Air
Station—Jacksonville B-8
State of Florida v. Urbano Diaz-Devillegas; Romulo Juan Delgado; German Delgado;
Darwin Mesa and Errol Woon B-8
Tampa Bay Center B-8
Trend Management B-8
Venture Properties B-9
Waste Management B-9
GEORGIA B-9
Oxford Industries, Greenville, Georgia B-9
U.S. Navy Submarine Base, Kings Bay, Georgia B-9
Young Refining Corp., Douglasville, Georgia B-9
IDAHO B-9
Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc B-9
Stibnite Mining Company B-10
St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, Boise, Idaho B-10
ILLINOIS B-10
Pork King Packing Company B-10
INDIANA B-ll
Confined Feed Lot Facilities B-ll
JPT Petroleum Production Corp B-ll
State of Indiana v. James E. Nichols, State of Indiana v. Custom Finishing Corp. ... B-ll
IOWA B-ll
In the Matter of the City of Winterset, LA B-ll
KANSAS B-12
In the Matter of Dawson Brothers, Inc., Wichita, KS: B-12
In the Matter of Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation, Kansas City, KS B-12
In the Matter of Sunflower Manufacturing Company, Inc., Beloit and Cawker City,
KS B-12
MICHIGAN B-12
Ace Finishing, Inc B-12
MINNESOTA B-13
LTV Steel Mining Co B-13
MISSOURI B-13
In the Matter of Barton Nelson, Inc B-13
In the Matter of International Paper Company, Joplin, MO B-13
Norfolk and Western Railway Co B-14
MONTANA B-14
State of Montana v Continental Lime B-14
NEBRASKA B-14
Ash Grove Cement Company '. B-14
NEW JERSEY '. B-14
State of New Jersey v. Patricia Nazzaro, John Martinez, Augustine Scalzitti & Frank
Scalzitti B-14
B-ii
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT I t
NORTH CAROLINA B-15
Carolina Mirror Company (North Wilkesboro, NC) . B-15
Duke University (Durham, NC) B-15
Fawn Industries (Middlesex, NC) . B-15
Greer Laboratories B-16
Midway Body Shop (Winston-Salem, NC) B-16
NC DOT—Ferry Division (Manns Harbor, NC) B-16
Phillips Plating Company (Bridgeton, NC) B-17
Watts Regulator Co./Regtrol (Spindale, NC) B-17
OHIO B-17
Andersons Management Corp B-17
PENNSYLVANIA B-17
ARCO Chemical Company B-17
Graphic Controls B-18
Keystone Cement Company B-19
Mays Properties, Inc B-19
Performax Engine Works, Inc B-19
U.S. Steel-Carnegie Natural Gas B-19
SOUTH CAROLINA B-19
Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation •. - B-19
Green Oasis Environmental, Inc B-20
Holnam, Inc , B-20
Shakespeare Products Group B-20
Spartanburg Steel B-20
ThermalKEM, Incorporated B-20
TENNESSEE B-20
Department of Energy K-25 B-20
Gabriel Ride Control Products, Inc B-21
State of Tennessee v. Flavil Ray & Robert Wallace Bradford B-21
State of Tennessee v. Gabriel Ride Control Products, Inc B-21
U.S. v. Recticel Foam Corporation & State of Tennessee v. Recticel Foam
Corporation B-22
Wheland Foundry Division of North American Royalties, Inc B-22
TEXAS B-23
State of Texas v. Gary Giles Cocke, et al B-23
WASHINGTON B-23
Fiberglass Technologies Inc B-23
Perfection & Letz Paint Company B-23
United States Army Base Fort Lewis, Washington B-23
WISCONSIN B-24
Dean Foods Vegetable Company B-24
B-iii
-------
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT I
APPENDIX B
STATE CASES
ALASKA
Anchor Forest Products: Anchor Forest
Products was convicted of three misdemeanors
following a bench trial. The convictions are for
Pollution, Illegal Discharge of a Petroleum
Product, and Illegal Discharge of Non-domestic
and Domestic Wastewater. The court merged the
first two counts, then imposed a fine of $1,000
and 30 days in jail on each of the remaining two
counts, but suspended the fines and jail on the
condition that Anchor Forest Products conduct
adequate remediation over the next two years,
and comply with DEC regulations.
CH2M-HH1 Engineering: CH2M-Hill
Engineering agreed to pay a $25,000 civil
settlement to the state's Hazardous Substance
Mitigation Account in July 1994 in Unalaska
District Court. The agreement resulted from a
compromise on four misdemeanor charges
involving the same chlorine discharge into Icy
Creek to which CRI pleaded guilty. Magistrate
Hawkins approved the agreement following
arguments by both sides in favor of the dismissal
and compromise. CH2M-Hill also agreed to
institute an in-house training program to avoid
future chlorine discharges.
City of Angoon, Alaska: The City received a
$5,000 fine in August, 1994 in Juneau Superior
Court following a plea of no contest to a class A
misdemeanor charge of failing to file water
treatment records in a timely manner. The
record keeping problems occurred between 1990
and 1993. Superior Court Judge Walter R.
Carpeneti suspended all of the fine and placed
Angoon on probation for a period of 3 years on
the condition that the city have no environmental
violations during that period. In addition, the
court ordered Angoon to complete a report upon
consultation with DEC which addresses how the
city will supervise its water treatment operators,
verify reports, educate the community about
water treatment, maintain schedules for supplies
and equipment and fund its maintenance of the
water treatment plant.
Construction Rigging, Inc. (CRI): CRI, an
Alaska Corporation, pleaded guilty in July in
Unalaska District Court to four misdemeanor
charges involving a chlorine discharge into Icy
Creek. CRI accepted responsibility for the acts
of its agent whom they had instructed not to
participate in a discharge of the chlorine without
first neutralizing it. The discharge killed
approximately 40 Dolly Varden (Char).
Magistrate Mary Hawkins sentenced CRI to pay
a total fine of $5,000 with $2,500 suspended on
the condition that CRI not have any similar
violations for one year.
Echo Bay Alaska, Inc.: Echo Bay Alaska, Inc.,
entered into a civil Consent Decree with the
State of Alaska in which the company agreed to
pay the State a total of $250,000 for violation of
State environmental laws. The amount includes
$125,000 in civil penalties, $50,000 for
investigation cost reimbursement, and $75,000 to
offset future costs of ADEC oversight and
monitoring of the Alaska Juneau Mine. In the
Consent Decree Echo Bay Alaska, Inc., admitted
liability for violating State laws concerning the
reporting of oil spills and disposal of materials
used in oil spill cleanup actions. The action
resulted from an ADEC investigation of a
turbidity event in Gold Creek. An investigation
led ADEC to inspect operations and discover the
violations. The mine is operated in an
exploratory phase by Echo Bay Alaska.
Enstar Natural Gas Company: Enstar paid a
$15,000 civil settlement to the State of Alaska in
October, 1994. The agreement resulted from a
compromise to three misdemeanor charges
brought by the State's Environmental Crimes
Unit involving unpermitted stream crossings near
Meadow Creek in Wasilla, Alaska. Minor
damage resulted to the rearing habitat of coho
salmon during installation of a gas pipeline. The
B-l
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
crossings occurred in October, 1993. Enstar also
agreed as part of the settlement to- conduct
mitigation efforts on the streams under the
direction of the Department of Fish and Game's
Habitat Division.
Kake Tribal & Kake Tribal Logging: Kake
Tribal Logging Camp is located at Point
Macartney, five miles northwest of Kake, on
Kupreanof Island in Southeast Alaska.
Respondents were charged with numerous
violations of state pollution laws, which included
oil and chemical spills, open burning of used oil
and oily wastes, discharge of improperly treated
sewage, failure to notify the State of Alaska
DEC of oil and hazardous substance spills,
unpermitted disposal of solid waste, and
violations of the State Drinking Water
regulations. In settlement for damages and
penalties, Respondents agreed to pay the state
$125,000 with $50,000 suspended on condition
that the Respondents complete all cleanup and
remediation required by the Compliance Order
by Consent entered into by the parties. In
addition, the Respondents agreed to pay $15,000
to the City of Kake to purchase emergency
response equipment, and an additional $15,000
to provide spill response training to citizens of
the Kake community.
Northland Fisheries, Inc.: A Washington State
based corporation, Northland pleaded no contest
to one count of violating its NPDES permit in
Akutan Harbor in the Aleutian Islands. The
violation involved discharge of ground crab
viscera and shells at a depth not allowed by
permit. The court fined Northland $20,000,
suspending all but $17,500 of the fine on the
condition that Northland have no violations for
one year.
Ronnie C. Fisheries: Ronnie C. Fisheries, an
Oregon Corporation, received a $10,000 fine in
August, 1994 in Unalaska District Court
following a plea of no contest to a class A
misdemeanor charge of illegally discharging oil
into Dutch Harbor. The spill occurred in March
of 1993 and involved approximately 50 gallons
of diesel fuel from the fishing vessel "AJ."
Attempts by the vessel owners to disperse the
spill with liquid detergent were unsuccessful and
did not meet DEC standards for oil spill cleanup.
Magistrate Mary Hawkins suspended all but
$2,500 of the fine and placed the corporation on
probation for a period of one year on the
condition that Ronnie C. Fisheries have no
similar violations during that period.
William A. Wood: William A. Wood pled no
contest to three water treatment misdemeanors
resulting from development of a trailer court on
Prince of Wales Island in southeast Alaska. The
convictions were for charges of failing to obtain
a plan review for his water and wastewater
system, in addition to not conducting proper
fecal coliform tests. He was utilizing a surface
water source. The court imposed a fine of
$5,000 for each count concurrently, suspended
the fines and placed Mr. wood on probation for
one year.
COLORADO
State of Colorado v Colorado Refining: In
coordinated multimedia State and EPA actions,
CDPHE's NPDES and RCRA programs took
enforcement actions against Colorado Refining to
clean up seeps to Sand Creek. Colorado
Refining also had effluent violations of their
NPDES permit. The State ordered injunctive
relief and has settled for $375,000 cash plus $1.4
million in SEPs. This will be the largest
penalty the State has collected. Further, the
Agency got a favorable ruling on the
applicability of CWA to discharges of pollutants
reaching surface waters via groundwater. In a
related citizen's suit under the Clean Water Act,
Sierra Club v Colorado Refining Company, 838
F. Supp. 1428 (D. Colo. 1993), where pollutants
migrated through the groundwater into surface
water, the Court concluded that the Clean Water
Act's prohibition of the discharge of any
pollutant into "navigable waters" includes such
discharge which reaches "navigable waters"
through groundwater.
State of Colorado v Conoco: In coordinated
multimedia State and EPA actions, CDPHE's
B-2
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
NPDES and RCRA programs took enforcement
actions against Conoco to clean up seeps to Sand
Creek. The State ordered injunctive relief and
collected an NPDES penalty of $200,000. In a
related citizen's suit under the Clean Water Act,
the Sierra Club settled with Conoco for $280,000
per year for five years for a Supplemental
Environmental Project along Sand Creek. EPA
supported these settlements as recovering
Conoco's economic benefit ($200,000 cash
penalty to CDH) and appropriate gravity in the
SEP negotiated by the Sierra Club.
State of Colorado v The City of Ft. Morgan:
In coordinated State and EPA actions, the
Colorado Department of Health's NPDES
program and EPA's Pretreatment program took
enforcement actions against The City of Ft.
Morgan. The State addressed the effluent
violations and ordered injunctive relief related to
the effluent violations. The State collected
$115,000 for the effluent violations. This is the
largest penalty the State has collected against a
municipality.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Concerned Citizens of Brentwood, et al., v.
The District of Columbia, et al.: The citizen
plaintiffs initially obtained a TRO from the Court
which set aside District Government permits
issued to Consolidated Waste Industries, Inc. for
the purpose of expanding a solid waste
management operation into a receiving, sorting,
and baling operation for recyclable materials.
The TRO was in effect until the Court was
satisfied that the District Government had
complied with the D.C. Environmental Policy
Act, which requires consideration of the
environmental impact of proposed activities
meeting the statutory threshold criteria.
Multimedia inspections were directed by the
Court and ultimately, the Court found in favor of
the government and vacated the TRO, allowing
the expansion of CWI's operations.
Subsequently, residents complained to the
Attorney General's office, raising the issue again
as a matter of environmental equity and justice.
Ms. Reno's office referred the complaint to
EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and
Region HI requested the D.C. ERA to conduct a
Multimedia environmental justice inspection of
Consolidated Waste Industries, Inc., now a
business partner of Browning Ferris Industries,
Inc. The inspection has been completed and a
report forwarded to EPA.
D.C. Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs (DCRAV v. Coastline
Purchasing Corporation: Administrative
enforcement action was initiated to remedy
contamination of soil and ground water resulting
from leaking underground storage tanks. DCRA
obtained consent agreement from owner/operator
authorizing DCRA to enter on property to
perform further site investigation and corrective
action. Respondent acknowledged that the
District of Columbia was authorized to recover
costs against it and was further authorized to file
a notice of lien against the property. DCRA
agreed that after issuing a demand letter to
Respondent for the costs of remediation, that
DCRA would refrain from selling the property at
a tax sale for a period of at least one year and 30
days in order to provide the Respondent with an
opportunity to sell the property and pay off the
lien first.
D.C. Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. Kaviirst
Corporation: Administrative enforcement action
was initiated to remedy contamination of soil and
ground water resulting from leaking underground
storage tanks. Action was first brought against
current owner of the property, Kayfirst
Corporation, which had failed to comply with
agency directives. However, initial investigation
conducted by Kayfirst Corporation in response to
administrative action revealed that 6 underground
storage tanks, thought to have been previously
removed from the property, were still on-site.
Thereafter, DCRA issued discovery directives to
previous owners and operators, including
Sunoco, CSX Transportation Corporation, Inc.
and Mount Clare Properties, Inc. Through
discovery responses, it was learned that Sunoco
previously leased the site and operated a gas
B-3
-------
} FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
station, and that while 3 tanks had been removed
from the site before Kayfirst purchased in 1989,
6 remained, out of 9 tanks shown to have been
installed by Sunoco.
On July 19, 1994 a revised Stipulation was
entered among the parties. Once the remediation
system is fully installed and operational, a final
stipulation and conditional order of dismissal
without prejudice will be entered.
D.C. Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. The U.S.
General Services Administration: The U.S.
General Services Administration (GSA) operates
two large heating plants in Washington, DC.
These plants provide steam to heat Federal
buildings. During the late 1980s, GSA began a
boiler refurbishment and replacement program at
both plants. After completing their
refurbishment program, GSA planned to burn
coal as their principal fuel.
In January 1991, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) determined from air
dispersion modelling that violations of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) may occur in
areas around these plants when coal is fired in
plant boilers. To resolve air quality compliance
issues associated with the plants, GSA, EPA and
the District entered into a Federal Facility
Compliance Agreement in the spring of 1992.
The agreement required that GSA increase the
height of the smoke stacks at the heating plants
to better disperse air pollutants or develop an
alternative compliance plan. GSA was unable to
secure timely approval for taller stacks from the
National Capitol Planning Commission and other
regulatory agencies pursuant to the agreement.
As a result, GSA was forced to develop an
alternative compliance plan.
In May 1993, GSA committed to burn only
natural gas and very low sulfur fuel oil at their
heating plants to ensure NAAQS were not
violated. EPA and the District accepted this
alternative compliance plan. GSA failed to
adhere to commitments made in their alternative
compliance plan during the 1993/94 heating
season, however. In response to violations of
their alternative compliance plan and other air
quality violations, the District issued a Notice of
Non-Compliance and Proposed Order to GSA
April 15, 1994. After lengthy negotiations, GSA
has agreed to strictly adhere to their commitment
to burn only natural gas and very low sulfur oil.
GSA has also agreed to improve continuous
emission monitor performance at their facilities.
The District issued an operating permit to GSA's
heating plants September 8, 1994. The permit
requires that GSA operate in compliance with the
significant elements of their alternative
compliance plan and other air quality regulations.
The operating permit, which has been submitted
to EPA as a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision, is Federally enforceable.
District of Columbia Department of Consumer
and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA),
Environmental Regulation Administration
(ERA) v. Respondent Mr. Jerry Schaeffer:
The D.C. Environmental Regulation
Administration (ERA) participated in a
multimedia inspection and coordinated the
issuance of a multimedia compliance order
(under RCRA AU3013) to the violator. The
facility was used for automobile salvage and
storage operations. The investigation revealed
illegal traffic in stolen vehicles and parts
distribution was also occurring at the site. The
project site was known locally as "the Deanwood
Dump." The administrative order directed the
site owner to identify the presence and extent of
any soil contamination. A sampling and analysis
plan was submitted and approved by ERA. The
area was found to be free of serious toxic
contamination but was greatly cleaned up as a
result of this action. The D.C. City Council
recognized the participants' initiative to solve a
pressing community problem in a ceremony and
Council Resolution on January 4, 1994.
FLORIDA
Boston Chicken: Boston Chicken was cited for
no notification, no trained on site representative
B-4
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT!^
V
and inadequate wetting of approximately 2,400
sq. ft. of RACM ceiling tile. Boston Chicken
has signed a Consent Order and paid a $25,000
penalty.
Department of Environmental Protection v.
Lake County: Lake County operated the Lake
County Sign Shop, a road striping facility,
located in Tavares, Florida. The operation
involved the use of toluene for cleaning
machinery, and of paints containing lead and
chrome. Toluene, lead and chrome were
discharged to the ground. Hazardous waste
violations were documented after a RCRA
hazardous waste compliance inspection was
conducted. In settlement of these matters, the
parties entered into a Consent Order. Lake
County agreed to pay $2,000 in costs and
$22,000 in in-kind penalties.
Department of Environmental Protection v.
Pinellas County Board • of County
Commissioners: The violations in this case
included numerous instances of effluent dumping
in excess of amounts allowed by the operating
permit for the South Cross Bayou waste water
treatment plant. Treated effluent, which was
pumped deep underground, migrated into an
underground source of drinking water. In
settlement of these matters, a Consent Order was
approved by the Pinellas County Commission.
Pinellas County agreed to pay $120,400 to DEP
in penalties and costs. The County is replacing
the deep-well injection systems at South Cross
Bayou and at its McKay Creek treatment plant
with reclaim water reuse systems. A report is to
be prepared concerning potential impacts of
deep-well injection at South Cross Bayou on the
drinking water aquifer. The total estimated cost
for replacing the systems at the two sites is $133
million.
Department of Environmental Regulation v.
Cabot Corporation: Cabot Corporation owned
and operated a pine tar and charcoal facility
("Facility") in Alachua County, Florida from
1945 to 1966. During the Facility's operation,
by-products containing hazardous substances
were dumped into three unlined lagoons. In
1983, the Department filed a complaint against
Cabot and other parties, seeking to require Cabot
and the others to clean up the Cabot/Kopper
Superfund Site ("Site") in Alachua County.
Prior to this action, EPA had placed the Site,
which included the former Cabot Corporation
property, in the Superfund National Priority List.
Approximately six years after the court case was
suspended, the Department filed a motion to
revive the circuit court action. On March 10,
1989, the Department and the Cabot Corporation
signed a Stipulation for Settlement whereby
Cabot agreed to pay $650,000 to resolve the
claims between the parties.
Department of Environmental Regulation v.
Pilot Properties Co. and Durham Utility
Service, Inc.: This case involved a wastewater
treatment plant located in Jacksonville, Florida.
Pilot Properties Co. ("Pilot") owns an apartment
complex, Turtle Lake Apartments, along with its
wastewater treatment plant. Durham Utility
Service, Inc. ("Durham") operates the plant under
Pilot's direction. Violations at this plant
included the routine discharge of effluent into
areas that were accessible to the general public,
thereby creating a risk to public health.
Subsequent to the Department obtaining a
temporary injunction, Pilot connected the facility
into the regional system. The Department settled
with Pilot for a penalty of $10,000. Durham, a
co-defendant in the civil action, had a default
entered against it on the issue of liability. On
June 1, 1994, a Final Judgment was entered
against Durham Utility Service, Inc. and the
Department was awarded $250,000 in penalties.
Florida Department of Corrections: The
Department executed a Consent Order with the
Florida Department of Corrections on May 3,
1994, concerning violations at its Sumter
Correctional Institution regarding replacing and
operating process steam boilers without the
necessary air pollution permits. The Department
discovered these violations after receiving an
after-the-fact construction permit application
from FDC. The Department agreed to waive
penalties if FDC agreed to survey its facilities
statewide to identify all potential sources of air
B-5
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
pollution and submit permit applications for any
facility found not in compliance. The FDC
found 11 facilities out of compliance and
submitted permit applications within the
timeframe agreed to in the Consent Order.
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection v. NRG/Recovery Group, Inc., aka
Ogden Martin Systems of Lake, Inc.: On
March 3,1994, Ogden signed a Consent Order to
address its exceedance of the permitted one-hour
100 ppmdv CO standard and six-hour 60 ppmdv
SO2 standard. The Department assessed
penalties against Ogden at $14,799, plus
Department costs of $350,00. The Department
found the company in violation of its State and
Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permit conditions. The corporation owns
and operates two 288 tons-per-day Municipal
Waste Combustors located in Okahumpa, Lake
County, Florida. The Unit 1 combustor is
permuted to combust 51.60 tons/day of
biohazardous waste as part of its 288 tons/day
load. Ogden operated Unit 1 for three six-hour
periods on July 22, 1993 with SO2 emissions at
65, 85, and 73 ppm. Ogden also operated Unit
2 on July 16 and 18, 1993 with CO emissions
for three one-hour periods of 183, 238 and 503
ppm. The violations were found as a result of
self-reporting and subsequent Department
inspections. Along with the assessed penalties,
the company agreed to install two additional SO2
analyzers to monitor the unabated concentrations
of SO2 in the flue gas prior to the scrubbers.
The company was previously operating two SO2
analyzers to monitor the stack effluent as
required by its State and PSD permit. The
installation of the additional analyzers gives
Ogden an early warning to allow for a more
timely response to fuel related SO2 increases.
Ogden implemented a corrective action plan to
abate the CO excess emissions. The plan
involved stepped up inspections of the material
before combustion, and avoidance of wet waste.
Florida Gas Transmission: Florida Gas
Transmission was cited for exceeding the
permitted gas consumption rate, late test report,
and failure to timely apply for a construction
permit extension. Consent Orders were signed
with the penalty for Brevard's 2 units amounting
to $13,128 and Marion County's amounting to
$7,068. In another county, Florida Gas
Transmission was cited for exceeding this
permitted gas consumption rate, late test report,
and failure to timely apply for a construction
permit extension. FGT signed consent orders for
all these units. Penalties received are as follows:
Gadsden, $8,400; Washington, $8,400; Santa
Rosa, $7,800. Still in another county, Florida
Gas Transmission was cited for exceeding the
permitted gas consumption rate and failure to
timely apply for a construction permit extension.
FGT signed a Consent Order and paid a $6,150
penalty.
Florida Gas Transmission: The Department
has collected a total of $575,400 from Florida
Gas Transmission (FGT) for 110 violations in
construction in the Florida Panhandle. In
addition, the DEP executed a temporary
emergency suspension of FGT's construction
permit, required FGT to contract with an
independent consulting firm to oversee their
construction activities, and to submit a
restoration proposal. The violations included a
total lack of required Best Management Practices
in certain construction areas, the creation of
excessive levels of turbidity, and violations of
design' specifications outlined in the permit
application for the project. The violations
spanned the Florida Panhandle and included the
Blackwater River State Forest, Joe Budd
Management Area and Outstanding Florida
Waters. Of the $575,400 total penalty, FGT paid
a cash penalty to the DEP of $375,400. The
remaining $200,000 will be paid by the company
for longleaf pine forest restoration within the
Blackwater River State Forest.
Hazardous Waste Consultants, Inc. and
Hazardous Waste Services, Inc.: Two
hazardous waste companies, Hazardous Waste
Consultants, Inc. and Hazardous Waste Services,
Inc., and their president, Patricia Ricketson, were
fined more than $1 million in civil penalties on
September 22, 1994 by an Orlando County
Circuit Judge. The lawsuit focused on hazardous
B-6
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT f ^
^
waste violations in Orange and Seminole
Counties. Violations included storage of
hazardous waste past the ten-day limit and
improper disposal of waste. Portions of
hazardous waste went to the Seminole County
landfill which is not a hazardous waste disposal
facility. Landfill employees were not told they
were handling hazardous waste. A dozen small
bottles were disposed of in Orange County in the
Tosahatchee State Reserve near residential areas.
One bottle contained high levels of mercury.
Kissimmee Utilities: An inspection revealed the
facility did not have a continuous monitoring
system to monitor and record the ratio of water
to fuel being fired in the turbine and had been
submitting the CEM quarterly reports without
having the required system to obtain the data.
Kissimmee Utilities agreed to purchase and
install a new monitoring system to comply with
NSPS requirements. After signing the consent
order and paying a penalty of $14,758.80, the
company requested an additional meeting. The
district, along with the Division air attorney
Jeanne Elias, met with Kissimmee Utilities
explaining the state's position on the matter of
enforcing the NSPS requirement.
Master Packaging: A stack test conducted at
the flexographic printing facility revealed VOC
emissions were 68.7 Ibs/hr vs. the permitted limit
of 48.2 Ibs/hr. Also, the 65% minimum capture
and 90% minimum destruction efficiencies were
not being met. On a later date, an inspection of
the source revealed there was circumvention of
the control equipment. Master Packaging signed
a Consent Order and will pay a $7,000 penalty.
In addition, they will be implementing a
Supplemental Environmental Project, with a
minimum cost of $45,000, intended to increase
the overall capture efficiency from the presses to
the incinerator from the current permitted level.
Also, the company is to incur a minimum $6,000
cost for an independent environmental audit of
the air pollution sources, which is to result in a
compliance plan for these sources.
Mur-Shel. Inc.: Larry Shelton, Lois Shelton
and Melvin Powell were arrested on November
4, 1994, by Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission officers for improper storage of a
hazardous material "asbestos" in Panama City
and Fort Walton Beach, Florida and several
counts of theft. The arrests culminated a
criminal investigation initiated by DEP Air
Resources Management staff. The Sheltons
operated Mur-Shel, Inc., an asbestos abatement
company. During 1990-1992, they conducted
abatement projects for a number of businesses,
schools and industries in the Florida Panhandle.
The asbestos waste was placed in rented
warehouses in Fort Walton Beach and Panama
City. They declared bankruptcy in 1992 and
turned all of their assets, including the contents
of the warehouses, over to Mr. Powell. The
asbestos waste is still stored in the warehouses
pending negotiations with Powell and the
Sheltons for cleanup.
Ogden Martin: Ogden Martin exceeded the
permitted one-hour average CO standard on July
6, 1993 and exceeded the permitted six-hour
average SO2 standard on July 22, 1993. A
Consent Order was executed on March 3, 1994
with a penalty of $14,799 assessed for the
violations.
Pinellas County Department of Solid Waste
Management: The Department issued a
Warning Letter on September 2, 1994 to the
Pinellas County Department of Solid Waste
Management for excessive downtime on its
Resource Recovery Facility, Unit 3, carbon
monoxide continuous emission monitoring
system during the first quarter of 1994. The
Department detected the violation after reviewing
the quarterly excess emissions report. PCDSWM
agreed to purchase and certify a new carbon
monoxide monitor, replace the existing monitor
control, upgrade communications between the
monitor cabinet and the data acquisition system,
purchase a backup strip recorder, rewrite the
quality assurance plan and upgrade the data
acquisition system at a total cost of nearly
$37,000. Because of the PCDSWN's good faith
effort to achieve compliance, the Department
reduced the penalty from $7,530 to $3,830.
PCDSWM will keep the old carbon monoxide
B-7
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
monitor as a spare to prevent future excessive
downtime problems.
Polyplastex International: The facility failed a
VOC compliance test on its incinerator. The test
showed actual emissions to be 82.21 Ibs/hr vs. a
permitted limit of 12.21 Ibs/hr. A retest
conducted on 4/11/94 showed the facility to be
in compliance. The company signed a Consent
Order and has paid a penalty of $22,000.
R.P. Scherer Corp.: R.P. Scherer Corporation
was found in violation of its annual permitted
VOC emission limit for 1992. A Consent Order
was signed and a penalty of $18,000 was paid.
South West Florida Water Management
District: SWFWMD was cited for no
notification, no survey, no wetting during
removal and improperly packaging and disposing
of 2,000 sq. ft. of asbestos containing floor tiles.
As property owner, they have completed
abatement, which totaled approximately $50,000
and have paid a penalty through an in-kind
settlement totaling $2,700. Excluding the
subcontractor, Thunder and Lighting, the two
other parties involved in the case have signed
consent orders and each has paid $1,800 in
penalties. A settlement was not reached with
Thunder and Lightning and a case report was
sent to the Department's Office of General
Counsel (OGC).
State of Florida Department of Environmental
Protection v. United States Naval Air
Station—Jacksonville: The Respondent
operates a facility in Jacksonville, Florida. The
facility has a large industrial complex for the
repair and overhaul of airframes and engines of
naval aircraft. Hazardous waste management,
collection and transportation manifesting
activities are conducted at the facility. A
departmental inspection documented hazardous
waste violations, including the operation of a
hazardous waste storage facility without a valid
permit. In settlement of these matters, the
parties entered into a Consent Order. The
Respondent agreed to pay $1,000 in costs,
$30,000 cash penalty and $120,000 in in-kind
penalties. This case is significant because it is
believed to be the first monetary settlement in
Florida since the Navy waived its immunity
under RCRA.
State of Florida v. Urbano Diaz-Devillegas;
Romulo Juan Delgado; German Delgado;
Darwin Mesa and Errol Woon: During May
through August, 1993, Special Agents from
EPA's Criminal Investigation Division Miami
Resident Office, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Everglades National Park Service Rangers and
members of the Metro-Dade Police Department
cooperatively conducted an initiative to identify
and apprehend individuals responsible for illegal
disposal of construction debris in the wetlands of
southern Florida. This initiative was called
"Operation Sawgrass." Both aerial and ground
surveillance activities were conducted to detect
and apprehend violators. Operation Sawgrass
resulted in detection of a number of potential
violations of the Federal Clean Water Act and
State of Florida environmental laws. Five
individuals were arrested on probable cause by
the agents after they were actually observed in
the act of dumping construction debris in
southern Florida, near the Everglades National
Park. As a result of Operation Sawgrass, the
five individuals arrested by the investigative
team have been successfully prosecuted and
sentenced.
Tampa Bay Center: Tampa Bay Center, Inc.
was cited for removing 400 square feet of spray
on fireproof coating from the air conditioning
duct. Samples contained 30-35% asbestos.
Violations cited were failure to notify, failure to
survey, failure to wet, improper bagging and
improper disposal, and untrained personnel.
Tampa Bay Center, Inc. signed a Consent Order
and is paying a penalty totaling $8,000.
Trend Management: Violations included
demolition without notification, failure to wet
and maintain wet, and improper disposal of
approximately 5,218 sq. ft. of spray on ceiling
containing regulated asbestos containing material
(RACM). Trend Management has completed
abatement and has signed a consent order. A
B-8
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT I
X
penalty amount of $18,000 is to be paid over a
24-month period.
Venture Properties: The owner of Venture
Properties and OPC General Contractor, Inc.
have settled with Duval County over the removal
of approximately 94,000 sq. ft. of RACM ceiling
tile. The violations included failure to maintain
adequately wet and failure to seal the material in
leak tight containers. Both parties signed a
Consent Order and paid a total penalty of
$36,000.
Waste Management: Waste Management
exceeded their SO2 emission limit on their
combustion turbines. Waste Management paid a
$60,000 penalty and has signed a Consent Order.
As a requirement of the Consent Order, they will
install a desulfurization control system.
GEORGIA
Oxford Industries, Greenville, Georgia: A
Consent Order was executed July 20, 1994
which concerned the illegal operation and
overflow of an in-ground concrete tank that
contained hazardous waste. Operation of this
device is believed to be the source of
contamination of the town's public water supply
well. In addition to full RCRA compliance and
facility-wide corrective action, the company was
required to pay a cash settlement of $99,000
eliminate the use of chlorinated solvents at the
plant, and replace the town's well at a cost of
$100,000.
U.S. Navy Submarine Base, Kings Bay,
Georgia: A Consent Order was signed June 14,
1994 concerning the Navy's improper
identification, storage and disposal of hazardous
paint waste. In addition to rectification of the
violations, the Navy was required as a condition
of the settlement to construct and operate a
protected breeding habitat for an endangered
species of migratory marine bird and to conduct
a breeding bird survey for declining neotropical
migratory birds. The habitat and the population
study must be done in accordance with state and
federal wildlife protocols. The agreement
included a $10,000 cash settlement, plus a
minimum of $40,000 that must be spent on the
endangered species work.
Young Refining Corp.. Douglasville, Georgia:
A Consent Order was executed July 8, 1994
which concerned the illegal disposal of listed
refinery wastes into a lagoon. As a condition of
the settlement, Young Refining agreed to the,
required RCRA closure, monitoring, post-closure,
and facility-wide corrective action, plus
supplemental environmental projects that are
non-mandatory environmental improvements.
The $400,000 penalty included $175,000 in cash
plus expenditures of not less than $225,000 on
the supplemental environmental projects.
IDAHO
Envirosafe Services of Idaho. Inc.: Envirosafe
Services of Idaho, Inc. (ESII) is located
approximately ten miles west of Grandview,
Idaho. The facility was originally a missile
complex operated by the U.S. Air Force until
1965, and ultimately taken over by ESII in 1981.
ESII is situated on layered interbedded gravels
and clays which overlay regional basalt flows.
ESII is a RCRA permitted facility for the
treatment, storage and disposal of regulated
hazardous waste. Treatment processes at ESII
include stabilization via microencapsulation,
crushing and macroencapsulation of hazardous
debris. Land disposal occurs in a landfill which
is constructed to meet the minimum technology
requirements.
The State of Idaho, Division of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), performed approximately 14
inspections and record reviews at the site
between September 1992 and June 1993. As a
result of these inspections, two Notices of
Violation (NOVs) alleging 25 violations of the
RCRA Operating Permit, proposing penalties of
$137,492, were issued on October 21, 1993. The
violations alleged included failure to comply
with the waste analysis plan, preparedness and
prevention, contingency plan, manifesting and
LDR requirements of the permit. The NOVs
also alleged improper treatment of hazardous
B-9
-------
} FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
waste to meet LDR standards, inadequate
response to a fire in the landfill trench, and
improper management of spent aluminum
potliners.
Complex negotiations between ESn and the State
of Idaho to resolve the violations took place. On
March 24, 1994, a Consent Order was signed by
the parties to resolve the violations and return
the facility to compliance. A penalty of $50,000
was collected. The Consent Order requires ESII
to cease acceptance of spent aluminum potliners,
re-evaluate and improve the stabilization
treatment process and modify the permit where
necessary. Idaho's oversight of ESITs
compliance with the terms, conditions and
schedules set forth in the Consent Order is
ongoing.
Stibnite Mining Company: On October 20,
1993, the Stibnite Mining Company entered into
a Consent Order through which Stibnite agreed
to pay $15,000 in penalties in settlement of
violations of Idaho's Water Quality Standards.
On July 13, 1992, Stibnite reported a diesel fuel
leak from an above-ground storage tank at the
company's cyanidation gold mine facility located
in Valley County, Idaho. Subsequent
investigations by DEQ indicated that the fuel
leak, itself a violation, was caused by improper
fuel storage and handling techniques. Additional
violations discovered during the investigation
included elevated nitrate in ground water,
possibly caused by leaky cyanidation ponds, and
failure to characterize and properly dispose of
hazardous wastes. Groundwater contamination at
the Stibnite Mine is of particular concern
because it discharges to the East Fork of the
South Fork of the Salmon River, a tributary to a
major salmon spawning and recreational stream
in Idaho. The mine, an unpermitted
(grandfathered) cyanidation operation, is now in
the process of mitigation of groundwater
pollution according to conditions set forth in the
Consent Order, and is in the process of obtaining
a cyanidation permit through the DEQ for future
operations.
St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, Boise,
Idaho: On December 13, 1993, a Consent Order
was signed in which St. Alphonsus Regional
Medical Center agreed to pay $11,500 in civil
penalties. This action arose out of St.
Alphonsus's alleged failure to adequately control
visible emissions from their medical waste
incinerator and failure to obtain a Permit to
Construct prior to construction of a boiler and
back-up electrical generator. A notice of
Violation was issued to St. Alphonsus on
February 22, 1993 which included four alleged
violations (two visible emission violations and
two failure to obtain permit to construct
violations) along with a proposed total penalty of
$21,500. Settlement negotiations with St.
Alphonsus after issuance of the Notice of
Violation resulted in the reduction of the penalty
to $11,500.
The issuance of a Notice of Violation to St.
Alphonsus Regional Medical Center was one of
several similar actions taken as part of a
statewide initiative to ensure the proper operation
of medical waste incinerators in Idaho. In
addition to payment of the civil penalty, the
December 13, 1993 Consent Order also required
St. Alphonsus to prepare, and submit to IDEQ
for approval, a comprehensive Operations and
Maintenance Manual which thoroughly describes
the methods and procedures which St. Alphonsus
will follow to ensure compliance with the Idaho
Environmental Protection and Health Act and
Idaho Code Section 39-101 through 39-130.
Over a period of three months, IDEQ and St.
Alphonsus carried on negotiations to determine
the scope and content needed to develop a
meaningful and effective Operations and
Maintenance Manual. These negotiations
produced a document that was approved by
IDEQ.
ILLINOIS
Pork King Packing Company: In response to
a citizen complaint, Illinois EPA cited Pork King
Packing Co., (a slaughter/packing operation) for
the unpermitted discharge of blood wastes and
raw wastewater (contaminated with BOD, total
B-10
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
suspended solids, and ammonia) through a tile
field into a small stream tributary to the
Kishwaukee River. The company was also cited
for unpermitted waste storage pits. The State's
March 1994 consent decree required the
company to haul wastes off-site temporarily.
Pork King has since constructed a wastewater
treatment system utilizing an anaerobic
facultative percolation three-stage treatment
lagoon, plus groundwater monitoring wells
installed around the percolation cell, as
confirmed by a State compliance inspection in
November 1994. Estimated costs for installing
the system were up to $1 million. The facility
paid a $50,000 penalty to the State, as well as
the $l,375/week cost of hauling wastes off-site
for treatment while negotiations were ongoing
and the treatment plant was being constructed.
(SIC/201 I/meat packing plants.)
INDIANA
Confined Feed Lot Facilities: Confined feed
lot operations have been found to have a
significant impact on Indiana streams. Non-point
source discharges from such facilities are not
generally regulated under NPDES permits. The
State of Indiana has initiated aggressive
enforcement against a number of feed lots for
violating State discharge permits limits for:
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total
suspended solids, ammonia-nitrogen and bacteria.
The State's settlements are summarized in the
following table:
JPT Petroleum Production Corp.: On
February 1, 1994, the Indiana Department of
Natural Resources and JPT signed an
administrative agreement regarding missed
deadlines for demonstrating mechanical integrity
of three Class II wells. The agreement also
addressed minor violations associated with nine
oil and gas wells in Gibson County. These
violations were discovered through file reviews
and routine inspections conducted in 1992. JPT
agreed to pay a $3,000 penalty. This action will
prevent contamination of underground sources of
drinking water. (SIC/131 I/crude petroleum &
natural gas.)
State of Indiana v. James E. Nichols, State of
Indiana v. Custom Finishing Corp.: James E.
Nichols, the owner of Custom Finishing, Inc.,
located in Indianapolis, Indiana, was sentenced
on January 19, 1994, in Marion County Superior
Court on one count of storing hazardous waste
without a permit in violation of an Indiana state
statute. Nichols was sentenced to eighteen (18)
months of incarceration, of which the court
suspended twelve (12) months. The remaining
six (6) will be served under a home detention
program. Nichol's company, Custom Finishing,
Inc. was fined $250,000 on each of two counts
of the information charging the unlawful storage
and disposal of hazardous waste without a permit
at the facility. Nichols and the company entered
guilty pleas to the State charges December 29,
1993.
IOWA
In the Matter of the City of Winterset IA.: In
a case representing the first criminal
environmental charge against an Iowa
municipality, the City of Winterset entered guilty
pleas to: 1) Knowingly discharging a pollutant;
2) Knowingly constructing a disposal system
without a permit; and 3) Falsifying a Monitoring
Report. The City was sentenced to pay the
maximum fines on all three charges, for a total
of $110,000, with fines for two of the three
charges being applied to upgrade the sewage
collection system. The charges arose from an
investigation that revealed that the City had
installed covert automatic sewer bypass lift
stations, which avoided sewage backup into
residential basements by discharging onto streets
or into storm drains. In a related case, the
former mayor pled guilty to Non-felonious
Misconduct in Office and received a deferred
judgment. Charges of Conspiracy and
Knowingly Constructing a Disposal System
without a Permit are pending against the city
engineer. The City also paid a $20,000 civil
penalty for effluent violations at its wastewater
treatment facility.
B-ll
-------
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
KANSAS
In the Matter of Dawson Brothers, Inc.,
Wichita, KS;: Based on two separate
inspections of the Dawson Brothers, Inc. facility,
the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment finds that the Dawson Brothers
have violated K.A.R. 28-31-1 et seq., which
regulates the generation, transportation, storage,
and disposal of hazardous waste. The
inspections revealed that Respondents 1)
disposed of waste paint coated tape in the trash
dumpster; 2) disposed of waste Iridide powder in
the trash dumpster; 3) allowed plating process
tanks to leak; 4) stored for over 90 days over
1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste paint
thinner, paint filters, paint-related materials, and
bead blast; 5) had not evaluated stored wastes to
determine if they were hazardous; 6) violated
reporting requirements; 7) did not mark several
drums of hazardous waste as "Hazardous Waste";
8) did not conduct weekly inspections of the
hazardous waste storage area; 9) did not develop
a hazardous waste training program; 10) did not
develop a Contingency Plan; 11) stored ignitable
hazardous waste within 50 feet of the property
line; and 12) did not allow sufficient aisle space
to allow unobstructed movement of personnel
and equipment. The Dawson Brothers paid a
penalty of $41,500.
In the Matter of Owens-Corning Fiberglas
Corporation, Kansas City, KS: On April 9,
1993, the U.S. EPA issued a Notice of Violation
alleging visible emissions in excess of 20%
opacity. Recurrent blue-colored carryover from
combined stack and fugitive emissions,
periodically emanated from the plant. Owens-
Corning and KDHE entered into a Consent
Agreement to resolve the issues raised by EPA's
NOV. Owens-Corning agrees to establish
written procedures to operate, maintain, and
clean the control equipment. Owens-Coming
agrees to conduct visual emissions evaluations of
stack emissions from cooling scrubbers and
smoke strippers and prepare an emissions
reduction plan.
In the Matter of Sunflower Manufacturing
Company, Inc., Beloit and Cawker City, KS:
On February 10, 1994, the Secretary of KDHE
issued a Notice of Proposed Penalty and Order
for Corrective Action based on results of
separate inspections at the Sunflower-Beloit, and
Sunflower-Cawker City, Kansas facilities. Both
facilities stored wastes over 90 days in containers
not marked "Hazardous"; had not marked open
containers with the accumulation start date and
the containers were not in good condition; had
inadequate aisle space; failed to develop a
contingency plan and failed to develop and
implement a personnel training program. Beloit
received regulated quantities of hazardous waste
from the Cawker City facility without a permit.
In addition to the above violations, the Secretary
of KDHE also found that Cawker City failed to
prepare a manifest for the shipment of hazardous
waste; failed to apply for and obtain an EPA
identification number prior to generating,
treating, storing, dispo-;ng, transporting, or
offering for transportation hazardous waste;
transported waste without first registering as a
transporter to a facility which is not authorized;
and failed to prepare a land disposal restriction
notice for each shipment of hazardous waste.
The Secretary assessed a penalty of $57,600 and
an order to come into compliance.
MICHIGAN
Ace Finishing, Inc.: A July 1994 jury verdict
against Ace Finishing, Inc. in Macomb County
Circuit Court, MI, resolved an important case
taken by the State of Michigan. API is a metal
finishing facility that discharges to the City of
Warren's wastewater treatment plant. The City
imposed pretreatment limits on API to meet
categorical limits and to prevent harm to the
wastewater treatment works and the environment.
After a routine inspection uncovered an ongoing
sludge discharge, the City began monitoring
API's control manhole. Discharges of zinc and
chromium resulted from the company's improper
operation of its pretreatment system. API was
diverting all or part of the wastestream around
the treatment facility. Manhole sampling
B-12
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
confirmed numerous violations of the City's
sewer use ordinance.
The City requested assistance from the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources and the State
Attorney General in initiating legal action. API
was charged with felony violations of the
Michigan Water Resources Commission Act
(1929 PA 245, as amended). The jury returned
guilty verdicts against API for 10 felony counts
for the unlawful discharge of zinc and
chromium. API has 3 years to pay a $100,000
penalty ($10,000 per count). In addition, API
will be on a 3-year probation. The court also
ruled that AH had 90 days to reimburse the City
and the State for court costs. The total
restitution to be paid was $9,228.67.
(SIC/347I/plating and polishing.)
MINNESOTA
LTV Steel Mining Co.: On July 27, 1994, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
and LTV Steel Mining Co. Steam Electric
Generating Plant (LTV) of Taconite Harbor, MN,
entered into a negotiated stipulation agreement to
address environmental problems caused by a
landslide of ash from LTV's power plant.
Almost exactly a year earlier (on July 28, 1993)
a landslide of about 400,000 cubic yards of
power plant ash (mixed with 8,000 gallons of
mineral oil from a subsequent spill) cascaded
down a slope from LTV property towards Lake
Superior. LTV subsequently spent about $10
million to clean up the ash spilled on the land.
MPCA also requested that LTV conduct a
dredging survey which determined that about 400
cubic yards of contaminated sediment ended up
in Lake Superior.
MPCA then proceeded with an enforcement
action, citing LTV for violations of State
environmental statutes. The stipulation
agreement requires LTV to pay a $66,430
reimbursement to the MPCA for expenses related
to the slide and a calculated $240,000 economic
benefit recovery (LTV's estimated savings for
not removing the ash from Lake Superior.) The
State will assess the environmental damage after
the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources
conducts a detailed survey of native fish habitat
along the north shore of Lake Superior. The
survey is scheduled for Summer 1995.
(SIC/101 I/iron ores).
MISSOURI
In the Matter of Barton Nelson, Inc.: City and
Federal inspections established that Barton
Nelson, Inc. violated Section 110 of the Clean
Air Act, and Missouri Department of Natural
Resources regulations when it failed to obtain
permits for construction presses in 1992. Barton
Nelson also violated 40 CFR Subpart RR, New
Source Performance Standards for Pressure
Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating
Operations. The City of Kansas City, Missouri
and the State of Missouri referred this matter to
the EPA when settlement negotiations between
Barton Nelson and the City/State broke down.
In July, 1994, EPA, the City and State met with
Barton Nelson and reaffirmed the State's bottom
line offer of $100,000. EPA gave the source a
specific time deadline to settle with the State for
the full $100,000, or EPA would initiate its own
action against Barton Nelson. Barton Nelson,
Inc. settled with the State of Missouri for
$100,000 the day before the deadline expired.
In the Matter of International Paper
Company. Joplin, MO: International Paper
Company will pay a $273,000 penalty as a result
of its alleged failure to meet a timetable to close
several hazardous waste ponds at its wood
treatment facility. Waste sludge from the wood
treatment process, classified as a hazardous waste
due to creosote and pentachlorophenol
contamination, was placed in nine ponds at the
facility. In 1986, MDNR had approved a plan to
close the ponds and treat soil contaminated with
hazardous waste. The Company failed to
comply with the original plan's timetable and did
not submit a modified closure plan in a timely
fashion. In addition to the penalty, International
Paper is also required to close the ponds and
treat the contaminated soil under a modified plan
approved by MDNR.
B-13
-------
IFY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Norfolk and Western Railway Co.: The
railway company has paid $700,000 in civil
penalties and damages and will provide another
$2.7 million in payments and equipment to the
State of Missouri to compensate for illegally
disposing of more than 500 containers waste
paint at its Moberly railroad yard. In the civil
settlement, Norfolk and Western agreed to: 1)
pay $350,000 in civil penalties to the Randolph
County School Fund as required by the Missouri
Constitution; 2) pay $350,000 to the Natural
Resources Protection Fund; 3) take any steps
necessary, including closing the site, to bring the
railroad yard into compliance with hazardous
waste management laws and regulations; and 4)
comply with the Missouri Hazardous Waste Law
and RCRA.
Under the terms of the criminal plea, Norfolk
and Western agreed to: 1) pay $1 million to the
Missouri State Parks Earnings Fund to benefit
the Katy Trail State Park, 2) buy for the state
$1.7 million worth of material and equipment
used in identifying, investigating, and
prosecuting environmental offenses, and 3)
develop and implement an organization-wide
environmental awareness program. The criminal
plea also requires the company to pay a
$500,000 fine - the highest penalty allowed. The
company also must pay an additional $500,000
to the United States for its cost and damages.
MONTANA
State of Montana v Continental Lime: This
case was comprised of several NSPS, SIP permit,
and PSD violations which included failure to
obtain a PSD permit for SO2 emissions, failure
to submit quarterly excess emissions reports,
failure to install a State-required baghouse for
control of paniculate emissions, failure to
conduct initial performance tests for particulates
and opacity, and failure to conduct CEM initial
performance tests. The State used the EPA
Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy but then
reduced the calculated amount by 60%, or a
factor of 0.4 purportedly to account for its
$10,000 per day per violation maximum penalty
compared to EPA's maximum of $25,000 per
day per violation (i.e., $10,000/$25,000 = 0.4)
and did not include the PSD permitting violation
due to equitable defenses the source had against
the State, but which it did not have against EPA.
This resulted in a State penalty assessment of
$60,000. On June 17, 1994, EPA issued an
NOV and Order to Continental Lime, but in the
cover letter encouraged CL to reach an
appropriate settlement with the State. The State
and Continental Lime agreed to the penalty of
$144,000 thereby avoiding an EPA civil judicial
action. This is an example of State capacity
building using EPA oversight and enforcement
agreements.
NEBRASKA
Ash Grove Cement Company: The Ash
Grove Cement Company will pay $15,000 in
accordance with a settlement with the Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ)
and Nebraska Attorney funeral's Office. Ash
Grove Cement owns and operates a portland
cement manufacturing facility. The Company
manufactures cement by heating a mixture of
limestone, clay, sand, and mill scale in two
cement kilns that are fueled primarily by coal.
The kilns use hazardous waste as a supplemental
fuel. A March, 1993 NDEQ inspection allegedly
found: recordkeeping violations involving
inspections of a hazardous waste storage area;
improperly marked containers; no independent
certification of the facility's hazardous waste
storage tank system integrity; and inadequate
information in the facility's contingency plan and
training records.
NEW JERSEY
State of New Jersey v. Patricia Nazzaro, John
Martinez, Augustine Scalzitti & Frank
Scalzitti: On October 5, 1993, Patricia Nazzaro,
John Martinez, Augustine Scalzitti, Frank
Scalzitti and Paul Scalzitti pleaded guilty to a
New Jersey State Accusation for violations of
New Jersey Code § 2A(2): 17 - 2C, Reckless
Release 'and Abandonment of Hazardous Waste
and Toxic Pollutants. On November 18, 1993 in
Passaic County Criminal Court, John Martinez,
B-14
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPOJRT I t*j*^l
i^^AIA^^.y
Augustine Scalzitti, Frank Scalzitti, and Paul
Scalzitti were each sentenced to three years
probation, fined $1,000, and directed to perform
100 hours of community service. Patricia
Nazzaro was sentenced to four years probation,
fined $85,000 and directed to perform 100 hours
of community service. Martinez and the
Scalzittis were workers hired by Nazzaro to pack
up and dispose of hazardous printing and
lithographic wastes from her property located in
Fairfield, New Jersey. En route to the dump
site, the trailer caught fire due to incompatible
wastes having spilled and mixed during
transport. The smoking trailer was then
abandoned.
NORTH CAROLINA
Carolina Mirror Company (North
Wilkesboro, NO: Carolina Mirror Company
manufactures a variety of mirror products for
commercial use which vary in shape, size and
thickness. Lead based paint is used in the
manufacturing process to coat the back of the
plate glass. Various activities produce mirror
cullet which consist of off-specification or
damaged broken pieces of mirrors, and mirror
generated by cutting, polishing and other
processes. The facility disposed of mirror cullet
in a North Carolina solid waste landfill and
stockpiled cullet on-site. Some of the waste
exhibits the hazardous waste toxicity
characteristic.
An Administrative Order on Consent with a
$25,000 penalty pending characterization of the
mirror cullet entered on April 14, 1994, to
address the characterization and remediation of
the mirror cullet on-site and at the solid waste
landfill. The agreement was revised on
December 7, 1994, to include a potential SEP if
Carolina Mirror can initiate a Household
Hazardous Waste Collection Program in Wilkes
County at a reduction in penalty of $0.50 on the
dollar.
Duke . University (Durham, NC): Duke
University is a private institution which generates
and manages hazardous waste from a variety of
sources. This Consent Agreement specifically
addresses the management of hazardous waste
located at the Paul M. Gross Chemical
Laboratory. During a routine inspection as a
Large Quantity Generator (Generator) Duke
University was found to be storing mercury and
dioxin related waste longer than ninety (90)
days. Therefore, a Consent Agreement was
entered with the university to address the closure
of the unpermitted storage unit. The settlement
was entered into February 28,1994, and included
a $10,000 administrative penalty with a SEP in
the amount of $15,000 which called for an
external environmental audit of all environmental
protection programs and implementation of an
inventory and risk analysis of previously utilized
hazardous waste TSD facilities.
Fawn Industries (Middlesex, NC): Fawn
Industries is located approximately 1/4 mile from
the nearest resident. The Compliance Order with
Administrative Penalty was the result of the
following violations: failure to conduct a proper
waste determination; failure to properly label and
date containers of hazardous waste; failure to
maintain adequate aisle space; and failure to
properly complete land disposal restriction forms.
Total penalty assessed against the facility was
$21,250. The settlement figure was $10,000 and
approved SEPs estimated at 295,000. Settlement
date was July 21, 1994.
SEPs consisted of:
• RCRA Compliance Audit (cost $68,000).
• Pollution Prevention:
product substitutions such as water-based
paints, alternate solvents and re-tooling
manufacturing process (cost $72,000);
purchasing in bulk to reduce paint can
residues (cost $5,000); and
evaluate on-site wastewater treatment
(initial equipment/permit/operation cost
$150,000 with payback in 2.3 years).
B-15
-------
} FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
Greer Laboratories: Greer Laboratories is
located approximately 1/4 mile from the nearest
resident. A Compliance Order with
Administrative Penalty was issued as a result of
the following violations: operating without a
correct EPA identification number; tank
violations including failure to obtain a written
certified assessment, provide secondary
containment, conduct daily inspections and
properly label the tank; failure to maintain a
contingency plan; and failure to properly train
personnel and maintain the required training
documentation.
Total penalty assessed against the facility was
$17,200. The settlement figure was $10,000 and
an approved SEP. The SEP consisted of
development and implementation of a acetone
recovery system (Cost $7,290). Settlement date
April 26, 1994.
Midway Body Shop (Winston-Salem. NO:
Midway Body Shop is a small business
personally owned and operated which performs
body shop repairs and automobile painting
operations. The facility transported five 55-
gallon drums of spent paint thinner to a piece of
property owned by brother of the body shop
owner. Two of the containers appeared to be
leaking during an on-site inspection. The brother
contended that he was using the spent solvent to
clean painting equipment, though two drums
were labeled "Hazardous Waste."
The Compliance Order with Administrative
Penalty was issued to address the following
violations: transporting hazardous waste to a site
that has not received an EPA identification
number; failure to manifest the shipment of
hazardous waste; and failure to properly label
and date containers of hazardous waste. The
penalty was assessed at 75,000. Review of the
owner's financial documents indicated that the
company was in poor financial condition and
could not pay the penalty. A Consent
Agreement was entered on September 29, 1994,
in which the owner would pay a $5,000 penalty
and perform eight hours of community service as
a volunteer at the Envirofair in Winston-Salem,
North Carolina.
NC DOT—Ferry Division (Manns Harbor,
NC): An Administrative Order on Consent for
NC DOT - Ferry Division was the result of the
following violations: open container of waste
paint thinner; failure to conduct weekly
inspections; failure to train personnel involved in
hazardous waste management and complete
annual training updates; failure to maintain
training records; and the facility was not
maintained and operated to minimize releases.
Total penalty assessed against the facility was
$25,750. The settlement figure was $10,000 and
approved SEPs. Settlement date was June 6,
1994.
SEPs consisted of:
• Waste reduction:
replace conventional oil filters with
reusable oil filter screening system and
use of filtration units on coolant system
(six systems replaced at $625, expected
annual savings of $3,512);
use of filter system in parts cleaning
machines to cut down on replacement of
solvent (initial cost $8,070 with payback
in 1.06 years); and
implement a solvent distillation system
(initial cost $14,625 with payback in 1.5
years).
• Recycle Program:
further development of a ferry customer
newsletter on recycled paper
aluminum/cardboard/plastic collection
operation at four additional ferry sites;
re-use of plastic dredge piping as chafing
gear on piling clusters; (Cost $4,400)
and
B-16
-------
FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT f <
public awareness through use of posters
and distributing brochures -to ferry
customers.
Phillips Plating Company (Bridgeton. NO:
Phillips Plating Company was cited in the
Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty
for the following violations: failure to properly
determine what waste is a hazardous waste;
disposal of hazardous waste in a non-permitted
unit. The facility operated a wastewater
treatment system under a Clean Water Permit.
The units, however, would not structurally
qualify as tanks due to their design, construction
and evidence of cracks. Therefore, the units
which received wastewater exhibiting the toxicity
characteristics of hazardous waste due to the
cadmium and lead content were considered
surface impoundments subject to hazardous
waste permit standards.
The total penalty issued against the facility was
$75,000. An ABLE analysis indicated the
company was in poor financial condition. A
settlement was reached November 21, 1994, with
a $5,000 administrative penalty and a $5,000
SEP commitment to conduct one or more SEP
projects (to be initiated by December 20, 1995,
and completed by November 21, 1995). In
addition, Phillips Plating will be retro-fitting its
wastewater treatment system as it undergoes
extensive site characterization and remediation to
address any contamination resulting from the use
of existing wastewater treatment system.
Watts Regulator Co./Regtrol (Spindale. NO:
Watts Regulator is located in an
industrial/business area. The distance to the
nearest residence is approximately 1/4 mile from
the facility. The Compliance Order with
Administrative Penalty was the result of the
following violations: open hoppers of D008
sand and failure to properly label and date
containers/hoppers; •• storage tank violations
including no written assessment of the D008
hazardous waste coolant storage tank system,
lack of a leak detection mechanism, failure to
remove released waste from the secondary
containment system within 24 hours and operate
the facility in a manner to minimize the potential
for releases, failure to provide overfill protection
equipment, failure to conduct daily inspections
and failure to document inspections; and failure
to complete annual training for all employees
engaged in hazardous waste management
activities.
Total penalty assessed against the facility was
$85,999. The settlement was signed February 9,
1994, with an administrative penalty of $37,000
and approved SEPs which included an
environmental education/awareness program for
all employees and construction at the baghouse
collection area to eliminate the possibility of
baghouse dust handling problems.
OHIO
Andersons Management Corp.: On November
14, 1994, a State consent order with the
Andersons Ltd. Partnership and the Andersons
Management Corp. was filed in Common Pleas
Court, Lucas County, OH. At Ohio EPA's
request, the State Attorney General's Office took
action again the Toledo facility on August 14,
1992. The violations of the Ohio Revised Code
(ORC) 6111 relate to the unpermitted discharge
of pollutants into the Maumee River.
Stormwater and subsurface drainage was
contaminated with arsenic, lead, phosphorus and
other pollutants. The source was glass
manufacturing waste placed in settling lagoons
by previous owners. The consent decree levied
a $430,000 penalty and required the following:
compliance with the applicable sections of ORC
6111; cessation of discharge (except in
accordance with NPDES regulations) and
analytical testing of all wastewater removed from
the facility. (SIC/4221/ farm prod, warehousing
& storage.)
PENNSYLVANIA
ARCO Chemical Company: ARCO owns and
operates a manufacturing facility known as the
Beaver Valley Plant, which is located on the
south bank of the Ohio River. Other waters that
flow through or bound the plant site include
B-17
-------
I FY 1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
dangerous waste outside in containers without
lids or labels, and failure to ship dangerous
waste to a facility authorized to treat, store, or
dispose of it within ninety days of generating it.
The case was settled when Fort Lewis agreed to
pay $15,000 to Ecology, develop a "continuous
inspection program" with the help of an
independent contractor, and conduct a detailed
waste streams study of Madigan Army Hospital.
WISCONSIN
Dean Foods Vegetable Company: During FY
94, eight judgments resolved the State of
Wisconsin's case against nine Dean Foods
Vegetable Co. (formerly known as The Larsen
Company) facilities. Wisconsin had alleged
numerous violations of wastewater discharge
permits and State water pollution laws. Dean
Foods discharged not only excessive pollutants
but also wastewater at excessive temperatures
and pH levels. The company also failed to
sample its wastewater on hundreds of occasions
between 1987 and 1993. In addition, spills at
several plants resulted in the illegal discharge of
pollutants into State waters. The spills consisted
of treated/untreated process wastewater and
leachate from sweet corn silage stacks. A total
forfeiture of $207,500 was assessed (penalty
breakdown for each facility is listed below).
Wisconsin has a large food canning industry, and
the whole industry took note of this case.
(SIC/2033/canned fruits, vegetables, preserves,
jam.)
B-24
------- |