j^S^ffe^"^
%giQg!fc^£*&£g^**J^ ,?£ >'^v X'^-t^ . •"*"*j?.y ''*-^I^'^
iiS*^E**a»i»"«™^fe~=Si'iB.-= t—tsi.i^"-ij«.L.—.—...-«..—>-ii.-.^J.-ji.^:jji>.. .-a, .^,J:j—»— .j:,.i..i. '!j.'tUj—
-------
The FT 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments
Report was prepared by the' Targeting and Evaluation Branch within the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Information contained in
the report was supplied by the EPA regional offices and the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
Printed on recycled paper
-------
FT 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments: Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1-1
2. Monitoring Compliance with Environmental Requirements 2-1
2.1 Innovations in Compliance Monitoring 2-3
3. Using Enforcement to Ensure Protection through Compliance 3-1
3.1 Civil Enforcement 3-7
3.2 Criminal Enforcement 3-11
3.3 Supplemental Environmental Projects 3-13
3.4 Injunctive Relief 3-15
4. Using Incentives to Increase Industry Compliance 4-1
4.1 New Incentive Policies 4-1
4.2 Environmental Leadership Program 4-2
5. Using Assistance to Increase Sector Compliance : 5-1
5.1 Compliance Assistance Centers 5-2
5.2 Sector-specific Compliance Assistance 5-3
5.3 Compliance Assistance to Federal Facilities 5-7
6r New Approaches to Solve Environmental Problems 6-1
6.1 Sector-based Information and Initiatives 6-1
6.1.1 Sector Notebooks 6-2
6.1.2 Sector-specific Initiatives 6-2
6.2 Place-based Initiatives 6-6
6.2.1 Geographic Initiatives ... 6-6
6.2.2 Sensitive Ecosystem Initiatives 6-9
6.3 Multimedia 6-13
6.4 Environmental Justice 6-14
6.5 Pollution Prevention 6-16
July 1996
-------
7.
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Enhancing Program Infrastructure: Policies, Training, and Guidance
7-1
7.1 Policies and Regulations 7-1
7.2 Training Programs 7-3
7.3 Guidance Efforts 7-6
8, Measuring Results and the Impact of Activities 8-1
8.1 Steps Toward Improved Measurement 8-1
Appendix: Significant Administrative, Judicial, and Criminal Cases A-l
July 1996
11
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
ACRONYMS
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
BIF Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFA Civilian Federal Agency
CWA Clean Water Act
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of the Interior
DOT Department of Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act
FFA Federal Aviation Administration
FFCA Federal Facilities Compliance Act
FFEO Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
FEFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FY Fiscal Year
MED Multimedia Enforcement Division
MO A Memorandum of Agreement
NETI National Enforcement Training Institute
NOV Notice of Violation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OC Office of Compliance
OCEFT Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OPA Oil Pollution Act
PPA Pollution Prosecution Act
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USD A United States Department of Agriculture
UST Underground Storage Tank
WPS Worker Protection Standard
m
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
This page is intentionally blank.
July 1996
IV
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
1. INTRODUCTION
In Fiscal Year 1995 (FY95), the Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA) made significant strides
in protecting the American people from the ills of environmental pollution and restoring the
quality of our nation's environment. This work in FY95 led to the reduction of thousands of tons
of pollutants being dumped into the country's rivers and streams, leaked into the soil, and spewed
into the air by those caught violating the federal environmental laws. These accomplishments are
the result of a common-sense approach to environmental enforcement - one that combines strong
criminal and civil cases, swift administrative actions, policies and programs designed to provide
incentives to companies to voluntarily confront, report, and correct their environmental violations,
and compliance assistance measures principally targeted at small businesses.
FY95 marked the first full year following the reorganization of the Agency's enforcement and
compliance program. The expansion of the types of tools that EPA uses to ensure environmental
protection through compliance fully complements the existing criminal and civil enforcement
programs. The civil and criminal enforcement programs are the bulwark of efforts to punish
environmental violators, deter would-be violators, and ensure a level playing field so violators do
not gain an unfair competitive advantage over law-abiding members of the regulated community.
The integration of all these approaches in FY95 has made the impact of EPA's actions more far-
reaching than ever. Precedential enforcement cases have sent strong messages that the
environmental cop remains on the beat, and companies, both large and small, are availing
themselves of the compliance incentives provided by new EPA policies and the various
compliance assistance programs that have recently been developed at the state and federal levels.
This report of EPA's FY95 accomplishments describes the results of these efforts. Section 2 of
this report details various activities related to monitoring compliance with the environmental laws.
On-site inspections, investigations, and other information-gathering techniques are used to
identify and assess violations, allowing the-Agency and its state partners to appropriately address
those problems posing the greatest risks to human health and the environment. These compliance
monitoring activities remain a vital conduit between the Agency and the regulated community,
and help to provide the best picture of individual instances of noncompliance.
Section 3 details significant criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement actions, and the results
achieved on behalf of the American public and the environment. These and other cases brought
by the Agency and the Department of Justice (DOJ) continue to be a highly effective means of
ensuring broad-based compliance. In every medium, and in every state, environmental
enforcement actions have led to huge reductions of pollutants that would otherwise spoil our
environment hi violation of .our laws. The results of many of the cases, set forth in this section of
the report, demonstrate the immense value of this part of the enforcement and compliance
program.
V
Sections 4 and 5 deal, respectively, with various compliance incentive and compliance assistance
approaches used in FY95. This past fiscal year has seen tremendous progress on each of these
fronts, which is the direct result of the previous year's reorganization of the Office of
1-1
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) - new approaches building on traditional
successes. EPA's promulgation of final Agency policies on self-detection, self-reporting, and self-
correction, and for small businesses, offer the regulated community increased incentives to take
full responsibility for their actions, and for their compliance with environmental laws. These and
other approaches embody a recognition that environmental results are EPA's bottom line; these
results are maximally achieved when a company monitors its own pollution practices, and when
those who responsibly come forward to correct their violations are treated differently (i.e., better)
than those who abuse the public trust in failing to discover and disclose their violations. EPA also
created several national compliance assistance centers in FY95, which will serve several sectors of
the regulated community and help those entities understand and comply with environmental
protection requirements. Working with the states, Native American tribes, and the regulated
community, these and other programs are reaching increasing numbers of people, which will
continue to yield benefits from compliance far into the future.
Section 6 of the report focuses on additional new approaches EPA is using to address
environmental pollution resulting from noncompliance. These activities include a range of
targeting approaches that address multimedia compliance issues, industrial sectors, and
geographic areas. In addition, these approaches are being employed in the specific context of
environmental justice issues. In FY95, the Office of Environmental Justice became a part of
OECA. Efforts designed to ensure that no one suffers disproportionately from the effects of
environmental violations remain a priority in EPA's enforcement program. Section 7 deals with
infrastructure issues, including training and guidance that support state and federal environmental
enforcement and compliance programs. Section 8 discusses EPA's FY95 actions that measure the
results of the overall program. New approaches in this regard are critical and are evolving to
account for the expansion of enforcement and compliance-related tools now in use by the Agency.
The Appendix to this report highlights significant criminal, civil, and administrative actions taken
inFY95.
This FY95 accomplishments report documents an impressive array of achievements by EPA.
These programs and policies work in concert to bring measurable results to the American people -
cleaner and healthier air, water, and land. Enforcement and compliance continues to play a vital,
and irreplaceable, role in the mission of EPA to ensure that the country's environmental laws
work to their fullest extent in protecting our environment.
July 1996
1-2
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
2. MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
Compliance with the nation's environmental laws is not discretionary, and the vital protections
that our laws afford the American public depend on adherence to their requirements. Compliance
monitoring activities provide a crucial link between the regulated community, the Agency, and the
American people. Information garnered through these activities serves many purposes: 1) it
allows the Agency to carry out its mission of protecting public health and the environment from
pollution by providing necessary data on the effectiveness of our environmental laws, and other
Agency programs; 2) it allows the Agency, and OECA in particular, to address the greatest risks
to human health and the environment through priority targeting and remedial work; 3) it ensures
that the environmental laws are being complied with uniformly, so that those who violate the law
do not gain a competitive advantage through noncompliance; and 4) it helps OECA focus
compliance incentives and compliance assistance programs on those sectors, or entities, that need
the most regulatory attention.
There are several broad categories of compliance monitoring activities, including on-site
inspections, investigations, record reviews, settlement oversight, and targeted information
gathering. Many of the environmental statutes require facilities to monitor their own pollution
practices, and provide periodic status reports regarding their various emissions. In addition to
reviewing these required reports, the Agency has other information-gathering authorities that may
be used to obtain specific information from a targeted facility or industrial sector. Inspections
and/or other investigations also occur on a routine basis, or in response to tips or other
information provided by the public. Finally, settlement oversight involves monitoring a facility's
compliance with terms of any agreements reached with the Agency as a result of an enforcement
action or a court order.
These and other compliance monitoring activities are used by OECA to most appropriately target
those violations that pose the greatest risks to human health or the environment. Depending on
the nature and scope of any violations discovered as a result of these monitoring activities,
criminal, civil, or administrative enforcement actions may be taken to provide immediate relief
from the illegal pollution activity, and other protective measures may be sought. Inspection
results are also used to inform the office's compliance incentives and compliance assistance
programs. These types of information exchanges ultimately provide the foundation for allowing
EPA to administer the nation's environmental laws in the most fair, effective, and efficient way
possible - one that provides the maximum benefits to the American people and the regulated
community as well.
In FY95, EPA and the states conducted 90,671 inspections at regulated facilities across the
nation. Table 2-1 shows the number of inspections conducted under each environmental statute
for each of the 10 EPA regions.
2-1
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
CJ
•g
1
i
&
: *~
M
Jjfc.
^
S
8
-
«s
S '
i
^s
ll
5-
•Ot -
*•*•
CO
c?
o
CO
m
CN
§
CO
o^
s
CN
VO
CN"
00
CO
VO
VO
CO
CO
"*
ON
ON^
ON
CN
ON
p^
CO CO
g 8
• ~-l 1-1
s §
CO CO
< ^
0 §
,_
VO
CN
ON
CN
CN
CO
CN
CN
£
CN
ON
ON
CO
*"
•*
VO
VO
9
CO
si
^
£2
CN
CO
VI
CO
VO
•**•
ON
VO
CN
VO
vi
CO
CO
CO
•s
"c
§
-Q
5
a
July 1996
2-2
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
2.1 Innovations in Compliance Monitoring
In FY 1995, EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) completed its analysis of
the FY 1993-94 Federal Facilities Multimedia Enforcement/Compliance Initiative (FMECI).
During the FMECI, regions and states_conducted 73 multimedia inspections and issued more
than 110 enforcement actions for violations of nine separate environmental statutes.
Approximately 44 percent of inspected facilities violated more than one statute and nearly 20
percent violated three or more statutes. In addition, during FY 1995, FFEO continued to
promote a commitment to multimedia inspection and enforcement strategies by the regions.
Most regions continued to conduct multimedia inspections at federal facilities during FY 1995,
and the results of the FMECI indicate that most regions and states see benefits to using a
multimedia approach. Lastly, an increasing number of regions and states included
supplemental environmental projects and/or pollution prevention conditions in enforcement
settlements as part of the FMECI.
In Region VI, improved information management contributed to more effective compliance
monitoring. Region VI developed a U.S./Mexico Hazardous Waste Tracking System
(HAZTRAKS). This system, a binational database that tracks the transboundary movement of
hazardous waste between Mexico and the U.S., serves both as a compliance monitoring tool
on waste shipments and assists in detecting violations of import/export regulations. During
FY95, nine administrative and judicial enforcement actions were filed and/or settled against
companies for failure to comply with federal laws applicable to the transboundary shipment of
hazardous wastes. These enforcement actions have been effective in signaling to the regulated
community the need for proper waste management practices.
HAZTRAKS has entailed significant international cooperation, with Region VI providing
computers and hardware/software on HAZTRAKS to Mexico to facilitate data entry of import
and export information into the binational tracking system. Computer training was also
provided through the University of Texas at El Paso.
A second information management effort consisted of the Electronic Data Interchange. Under
this project, which focused on streamlining existing paper processes associated with
transboundary movement of hazardous waste, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Enforcement Program in partnership with the Office of Regulatory Management and
Evaluation, Mexico's Institute Nacional de Ecologica, and the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission initiated a pilot project for the electronic transmission and exchange
of environmental compliance reports. Due to the transborder nature of the business conducted
by Maquiladora facilities, they are subject to the environmental compliance reporting
requirements of both the U.S. and Mexico, as well as to additional requirements of their
respective customs and other State agencies. The automation of reporting is providing a
unique opportunity to streamline environmental compliance reporting requirements by
collapsing the paper requirements of multiple agencies into a single electronic format. For
FY95, the pilot phase of this project tested the viability of electronically reporting manifest
compliance data that are required of industry for shipments of hazardous waste crossing the
2-3
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
border into the U.S. for treatment, storage, and disposal. The pilot has demonstrated that it is
feasible to electronically exchange data, reduce paperwork, speed up transboundary hazardous
waste transactions, reduce data entry costs, and provide real-time data for ongoing border
compliance monitoring efforts.
July 1996
2-4
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
3. USING ENFORCEMENT TO ENSURE PROTECTION
THROUGH COMPLIANCE
Criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement actions remain an effective, and appropriate,
means of addressing a wide range of environmental violations. The continued use of strong and
aggressive enforcement actions to ensure compliance has also driven the widespread acceptance
of EPA's other compliance incentives and compliance assistance-related programs and policies.
This strategic combination of traditional enforcement actions and other compliance-related
activities allows EPA to best apportion its resources to obtain the greatest protection for the
American people by ensuring full compliance with the environmental laws.
Traditional enforcement actions, brought at both the state and federal levels, serve several
purposes:
• Emergency authorities allow the Agency to take immediate actions when public health or
the environment is at serious risk of harm from pollution and violations of the law. These
judicial or administrative actions often result in the immediate cessation by the violator of
the harmful pollution emission, and may require remediation or cleanup efforts to avert
additional harm to neighboring communities or to the environment.
• Criminals, recalcitrant violators, or those whose violations pose serious risks to people or
the environment, can be punished through strong enforcement actions. Compliance with
our nation's environmental laws is not optional, and enforcement actions are an effective
means of penalizing those who disregard the protection required by law.
• Enforcement actions prevent violators from gaining any competitive advantages by
skirting pollution control requirements. No one should gain from violating the
environmental laws, and putting people's health and the environment at risk. Furthermore,
responsible citizens and companies who make the necessary expenditures to comply with
our laws should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage to those who do not. EPA is
committed to ensuring that actions are taken to level the economic playing field for law-
abiding companies.
• Enforcement actions help deter future violations, providing assurance to the American
people that the environmental cop remains on the beat and that serious environmental
violations will not go undetected and unpunished.
• Enforcement actions ensure that those responsible for the pollution pay for its cleanup,
and that the public does not shoulder the burden of these costs.
This section contains the highlights of EPA's enforcement accomplishments in FY95. This past
year saw a continued increase in the number of environmental crimes prosecuted, addressing the
most egregious violators and cases of illegal pollution. In addition, FY95 saw a continued
increase in the amount of injunctive relief obtained by EPA through its enforcement actions (see
3-1
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 on the following pages). This figure represents a direct investment by
violators into the cleanup, protection, and preservation of our nation's environment. Specific
highlights include:
• Largest JflFKA §6(a)(2) Case in Program History - DowElanco agreed to pay
$876,000 in penalties for failing to disclose adverse effects incidents, most of which
involved the widely-used insecticide chlorpyrifos. The complaint alleged 327
violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
§6(a)(2). The Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) remanded the originally-proposed
settlement of $732,000 because of concerns over DowElanco's lengthy delay in
reporting, which affected the penalty reduction calculation under the FIFRA
Enforcement Response Policy (ERP). EPA negotiated an increased penalty and
provided supporting documentation to show that it was hi the public interest to
encourage registrants to disclose violations, even when such disclosure was very late.
The DowElanco case arose in November 1994 after CBS News investigated an incident
in which the parents of a disabled child obtained a judgement against DowElanco for
injuries the court found were caused by pre-natal chlorpyrifos exposure. DowElanco
disclosed to EPA 249 unreported claims-related adverse effects incidents which spanned
approximately a decade.
• FY95 Worker Protection Standard (WPS) Labeling Cases - EPA filed its first
FIFRA WPS misbranding actions against DuPont and.Rhone-Poulenc in October 1994.
DuPont is charged with 379 counts of sale or distribution of four misbranded pesticide
products; the proposed penalty is $1.895 million. Rhone Poulenc is charged with 46
counts for a proposed penalty of $230,000. Both DuPont and Rhone Poulenc failed to
include required worker protections on the pesticide labels.
• TSCA §§5 & 8 Cases Issued - In FY95, EPA issued 53 administrative enforcement
actions for violations that occurred under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
This number represents the most cases ever taken by headquarters under TSCA in a
single fiscal year. The penalties assessed for the 53 cases totaled $1,137,000.
All of the 53 cases involved violations of the TSCA §8(a) Inventory Update Rule
(IUR). Specifically, these actions involved the chemical manufacturer's and/or
importer's failure to report hi a timely manner specific chemical production and site
information to the Agency.
The information required to be reported is used by the Agency to make informed
decisions on potential environmental hazards, worker safety and the amounts of toxic
chemicals being introduced into the environment. In addition to federal and state
agencies who rely upon the information hi establishing priorities, the Interagency
Testing Committee (ITC) also uses the data to prioritize chemical testing needs.
July 1996
3-2
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
I
•*•>
sn
O
a
|
§
.o
1
O
4)
I
:-•>•*•»,"",","
5
o
o
o
"T,
oo"
•<*
, cn
i
3
3-3
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
i
1
£J
«? 1
*° y
_o ^3
« a
TJ
*•>
1
3
09
(3
-, -, V
&M-! A
X-.
rf ^
\J" s
g ;
3&4}g
||"$
^ ;
^> v
-1^ 0
**v<\ i
fi
s s:
* -£ " ^
|\!
v« :
•, :
S \
£tt^ :
m ^ :
"x;
jsii
|s\i
V, ^ sj
llj
® ^i
\|J
§x ;
, :
f :
^
"•
•.^^
'S^'1 :
1^1
VO
*o
0
cs
s
cs
o
CO
1
1— (
OS
oo
CO
CO
Criminal Referral
s
co
0
.0
Tt-
T— (
T— <
CO
CO
T-H
CO
g
t— 1
f-
co
Civil Referrals
S
t-H
i-H
f-
oo
i-H
O
VO
00
OS
s
1—4
5
CN
8
t-
co
c-
co
CN
2
VI
Adm. Penalty Ore
_
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
&
a
OS
Tt-
VO
t— <
0
. o
s
r-
00
9
Civil Referrals
2
T-H
OS
CO
CM
T,
in
s
i—4
s
rH
1— 1
o
"*•
2
t— (
OS
00
ts
CN
1— <
™
"«
1
PH
1
S
00
*-H
.
^*
^
^
^
i-H
T— 4
VO
i-H
S
3
1^1
O
1
a
oo
t-.
CS
o
co
£2
Compliance Orde
co
o
o
o
CN
o"
,
o
o
0
o
0
«
a
S
Federal Facility
Compliance Agre
1
S
u
£
i>
§
||
?"8
§ a
0 e
^S tj
i s
25 1
ll
11
^ 1
-s-S
1 r
§*** ^H
~. ?s
t> •*>
Si
"S «
ll
^3 1
S i '••§ <• x
•il § i
4 i §" *
S ^ § ^s
cs bo o -^
-S •« » -s
-2 "2 '•§ -S
1 1 -i t!
lf|l
SJ -p* O ft
.*• S x. 10
•1?*S
^5 Q ^
*j* (ji ^J* OO
•S Qj ^> »^
X. ^ ^> ^^
^ 8 a *5
**^* *"** &a* S
•r»» •!*• ^) &a
E* g j* Qj
*^ CN ^S
3-4
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
National Enforcement Initiative on Inefficacious and Unregistered Sterilants and
Disinfectants - On February 15, 1995, EPA issued 13 civil administrative complaints
against the registrants of eight ineffective sterilant medical products, and against the
manufacturer and distributors of other sterilant and disinfectant products that were not
properly registered with EPA. A total of $3.1 million in civil penalties was sought.
Sterilants are used in hospitals, dental, medical and veterinary facilities for destroying
all forms of spores, bacteria, fungi and viruses on inanimate objects, particularly on
delicate medical and surgical instruments and equipment. Disinfectants are also used in
these facilities and in the home to control certain microorganisms. Ineffective sterilant
and disinfectant products may cause people to become ill because infectious
microorganisms that should have been destroyed remain viable.
National EPCRA §313 Community Right-to-Know Initiative - On June 16, 1995,
the Agency announced a nation-wide enforcement initiative against 47 companies that
emitted or released toxic chemicals into the environment but failed to make this
information available to EPA and the public as required under the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
EPA assessed $2.6 million in penalties against the companies for failure to supply
information on the release, transfer and management of 36 toxic chemicals, thereby
failing to make local communities aware of their potential exposure to these toxic
chemicals. This community right-to-know information is required under the Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI) provisions of EPCRA.
The TRI reporting requirement provides the public, industry and federal, state and local
governments with a basic tool for making risk-based decisions about management and
control of toxic chemicals, which can have significant adverse effects on human health
and the environment. TRI data also allows the public as well as regulated entities to
gauge the progress of industry and government efforts to reduce toxic chemical wastes.
National EPCRA §304/CERCLA §103 Hazardous Release Notification
Enforcement Initiative - On August 14, 1995, EPA announced an EPCRA §304 and
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
§103 Enforcement Initiative focusing on accidental releases of ammonia and chlorine.
This initiative included fines to 18 companies for failure to immediately notify local,
state, and federal authorities at the time of a non-permitted, non-exempted release of a
hazardous substance, as required by EPCRA §304, and CERCLA §103. The EPA
regional offices issued the enforcement cases, which were part of this national
Hazardous Release Notification Enforcement Initiative. Without timely notification,
emergency responders cannot adequately determine the need for a response action,
which may include evacuations, public announcements, and emergency medical care.
Timely notification also ensures that local citizens, fire departments, and health care
3-5
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
providers have sufficient information to make informed decisions about protecting the
community and the environment.
Antimicrobials - First Disinfectant Case - On Februaryl5, 1995, EPA issued a Stop
Sale, Use or Removal Order on all quantities of Broadspec 128 and 256 (SSURO-95-H-
3) and announced civil penalties totaling $3.1 million against the registrants of eight
ineffective sterilants of medical instruments, the two hospital disinfectants, and against
the manufacturers and distributors of other sterilant and disinfectant products that were
not registered as required by EPA. Additionally, a civil administrative complaint was
issued against the company for $30,000 hi penalties on violations of labeling
requirements of FIFRA. This was EPA's first enforcement action against a disinfectant
product under its sterilant and disinfectant testing program.
Specifically, the violations involved the sale or distribution of a misbranded/
inefficacious disinfectant. EPA tested these products as part of an ongoing pesticidal
efficacy effort to verify the effectiveness of disinfectants. If these products are not
effective, patients hi hospitals, nursing homes and trauma rooms are put at much
greater risk of infection.
As a result of EPA's enforcement action, the company sought a temporary restraining
order CTRO) against the Agency hi U.S. District Court of Indianapolis, Indiana. Brulin
Corporation and the Agency subsequently entered into an agreement that requires the
company to retest the Broadspec products for efficacy.
November 1994 Enforcement Initiative at Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities
As part of a continuing effort to protect human health and the environment from risk
associated with improper burning of hazardous waste, OECA coordinated its third
hazardous waste combustion enforcement initiative in FY95. The initiative included 32
enforcement actions involving $7.5 million hi penalties against owners and operators of
incinerators and boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs) that burn hazardous waste. The
32 cases—22 settlements collecting over $3.3 million in civil penalties, and ten
administrative complaints seeking an additional $4.2 million hi penalties-were brought
under RCRA and filed by EPA and state environmental agencies hi Georgia, Michigan,
South Carolina, and Utah.
Model Lead-Based Paint Enforcement Program - OECA prepared a Model Lead-
Based Paint Enforcement Program and an accompanying guidance document. The
Model Program, developed pursuant to §404 of TSCA and codified as part of the
TSCA §404 rule, will serve as the basic guide for the federal lead-based paint
compliance and enforcement program, as well as a guide for states and tribes seeking
authority to administer and enforce state/tribal lead-based paint programs.
July 1996
3-6
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
3.1 Civil Enforcement
As shown earlier in this section, EPA assessed more than $70 million in civil penalties hi
FY95. On the judicial side, nearly $35 million hi penalties were assessed, with nearly one-
third of these penalties assessed under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Administratively assessed
penalties totalled more than $36 million, with more than one-third of these penalties being
assessed under RCRA. Combined, these penalties sent a strong message of deterrence to the
regulated community. Some of the more significant civil enforcement cases are discussed
below.
• Koch Materials - On March 29, 1995, EPA filed both a complaint and innovative
settlement agreement with Koch Materials and its sister asphalt companies, Elf Asphalt,
Texas Emulsions, and Southwest Emulsions. The agreement requires the asphalt
companies to immediately pay $102,000 in civil penalties for violations of TSCA §8(a)
for failure to report chemical production data to the EPA TSCA Chemical Inventory, as
required under the TSCA IUR. The updated inventory then provides EPA with a
significant tool for identifying, prioritizing, evaluating and developing a profile of toxic
chemicals in the United States. The data in the inventory is considered the only
reliable source of national production volume information for organic chemicals, and is
used by the Agency to determine testing and regulatory actions taken by the Agency.
The settlement requires the company to review records for the past 10 years at each
facility to disclose TSCA and EPCRA §313 reporting violations, which allows local
communities to be aware of their potential exposure to these toxic chemicals. The
audits will cover approximately 90 operating facilities plus more than 50 formerly
owned or merged facilities across the country. This settlement arises from Koch
Materials' disclosure of its failure to report emulsifiers and other chemicals used hi
asphalt production as required under the TSCA IUR for 1990.
• Koch Industries - In one of the largest Clean Water Act/Oil Pollution Act
(CWA/OPA) cases ever brought, DOJ, EPA, and the Coast Guard announced the filing
of a civil lawsuit against Koch Industries and several of its subdivisions for unlawfully
discharging at least 3.5 million gallons of oil into the waters of the United States.
Since 1990, Koch and its subsidiaries were responsible for more than 300 separate oil
spills affecting waters of the United States, including wetlands, across the states of
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and Alabama. In this action, Koch faces
potential penalties in excess of $50 million as well as requirements to take such actions
as are necessary to protect waters of the U.S. and eliminate future spills.
• Copper Range - In a landmark settlement that will help reduce air and water pollution
in the northern regions of Michigan and Wisconsin, the Copper Range Company agreed
to curb the mercury, lead and cadmium output from its smelting plant in White Pine,
Michigan and to pay $4.8 million for civil penalties and environmental projects.
3-7
July 1996
-------
FY199S Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Copper Range's emissions of particulate matter have been a threat to air quality,
resulting in potential health effects including breathing impairments and respiratory
ailments, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, damage to
lung tissue and alterations of the body's defense system against inhaled particles. The
Copper Range Company is also the largest emitter of mercury in the Upper Great
Lakes. Environmental justice issues involve fish advisories caused by excessive levels
of mercury in fish taken for subsistence purposes by local Native Americans.
The settlement resolves a 1992 CAA suit brought by the National Wildlife Federation
and Michigan United Conservation Clubs that was later joined by the United States,
Michigan and Wisconsin. Alleged violations include: exceedances of emissions limits
on particulate matter (including excessive stack opacity) on a continuous basis, in
violation of Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP) (CAA); and failure to report air
toxics emissions (metals and metallic compounds) (EPCRA and CERCLA). The case
will result in annual emission decreases of 1200 pounds of mercury, 50,000 tons of
sulfur dioxide and at least 900 tons of particulate matter. Mercury emission reductions
will enhance Lake Superior water quality and reduce mercury levels for continued
subsistence fishing by local Indian tribes. The settlement also offered relief for local
Native Americans whose blood contains elevated levels of mercury from air pollution.
Under the settlement, Copper Range will pay $1.6 million in civil penalties to the
United States, $200,000 in civil penalties to the state of Michigan, and $3 million into
a trust fund to be administered by Michigan and Wisconsin as trustees. As much as
$1.4 million of the civil penalty payment to the U.S. may be placed in a special
§304(g) citizen suit fond which may be appropriated for air enforcement and compliance
activities. This is the first time this new fond, added by the 1990 Amendments to the
CAA, has been utilized. The $3 million trust fund will be used for evaluation of the impact
of mercury and other heavy metals on the Lake Superior basin.
Burlington-Northern - On March 29, 1995, Burlington Northern Railroad settled one of
the largest OPA cases. The claims arose from three separate oil and hazardous waste
spills caused by train derailments, including one near the town of Superior, Wisconsin,
which spilled nearly 22,000 gallons of aromatic concentrates containing various volatile
organic compounds, including carcinogens such as benzene and toluene; forced the
evacuation of approximately 50;000 people; and caused thousands offish to be killed.
The other two derailments were in Wyoming and together spilled more than 3,400 barrels
of oil into the North Plate River.
Under the settlement, Burlington Northern agreed to pay a total of $1.5 million, including
a $1.1 million civil penalty (the largest single penalty awarded so far under the OPA),
$260,000 to reimburse EPA and other federal agencies for costs in responding to the
Wisconsin spill, and a $140,000 contribution to a fond managed by the Department of the
Interior and two bands of the Lake Superior Chippewas for injury to natural resources
caused by the Wisconsin spill. In addition, Burlington Northern agreed to spend $1.2
July 1996
3-8
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
million to purchase three ultrasonic rail inspection cars which will improve the company's
ability to detect rail defects and prevent derailments like those that caused the three spills.
Burlington-Northern will also pay $100,000 into a fond to study internal rail defects of the
type involved in these derailments.
In FY 1995, EPA issued a total of 20 enforcement actions with sanctions under RCRA to federal
facilities. RCRA penalties at federal facilities in FY 1995 totalled more than $1.5 million with an
additional $1.5 million worth of supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) initiated as part of
enforcement settlements. In addition, the federal facilities program negotiated three. CERCLA
Interagency Agreements and stipulated approximately $225,000 in penalty actions and $720,000
in supplemental environmental projects under CERCLA Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs).
EPA also continued implementation of multi-media inspections and enforcement actions initiated
during the FY 1993 -94 FMECI.
Specifically, EPA continued to emphasize aggressive enforcement of environmental regulations at
federal facilities, particularly RCRA requirements under the Federal Facilities Compliance Act
(FFCA). In FY 1995, FFEO and the regions issued 12 Consent Agreements and Final Orders
under RCRA §3008. The types of violations addressed under these actions ranged from illegal
transport of hazardous waste and improper waste management to inadequate waste
characterization and various procedural/administrative errors. Total penalties associated with
these actions amounted to nearly $360,000, with an additional $1.5 million worth of supplemental
environmental projects. During FY 1995, EPA also issued a total of six RCRA §3008 Complaints
and Orders with opportunities for hearings. The potential penalties associated with these actions
exceed $1.1 million. During the year, EPA, Region IV, and Region VI issued two Corrective
Action Orders under RCRA §3008(h) against the Air Force. Federal facilities affected by
RCRA Orders were located across seven EPA regions and included Army, Navy, and Air
Force installations, as well as facilities under the oversight of civilian federal agencies (CFAs)
such as the Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of the
Interior (DOI).
In addition to the activities conducted specifically by FFEO, the regions provided a strong
enforcement presence at federal facilities. Examples of such presence are discussed below:
• Rocky Flats - In Region VIII, hi resolution of 14 violations of the Rocky Flats
Interagency Agreement (IAG), the Department of Energy (DOE) agreed to pay
$700,000 in cash penalties and to expend $2.1 million for SEPs, with both the cash and
SEP components to be split evenly between EPA and Colorado. The settlement
agreement required DOE to request a specific authorization and appropriation for
payment of the $350,000 cash penalty to EPA. Also in late September, DOE sent
letters to effect the transfer of funds for all of the $2.1 million set aside for SEPs.
These transfers include approximately $1.5 million for purchase of open space
surrounding Rocky Flats. Most of these funds will support an effort by
Westminster/Jefferson County to establish a wildlife corridor between the Rocky Flats
Buffer Zone and Standley Lake. These property acquisitions may also ensure the
3-9
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
protection of habitat of the Treble's Meadow Jumping Mouse, which has been proposed
for the Endangered Species List.
• Non-DOE Federal Generator Facilities - In this Region IX enforcement initiative, the
region found significant violations rates and ended the year with two complaints issued
and one pending against facilities located in different bureaus of DOI. Another
highlight of Region IX's formal compliance effort was the settlement of the RCRA
complaint against Schofield Army Barracks in Hawaii. The settlement included a SEP
valued at over $1.2 million dollars. The SEP required a range of actions! including
elimination of 10,000 pounds per year of spent solvent waste, reduction and upgrading
of satellite accumulation points, and adoption of a model hazardous substance
management system, which should reduce the generation of waste as well as assure that
waste which is still generated is handled in an optimal manner.
• Alaska Department of Defense (DOD) Faculties - Upon passage of the FFCA,
Region X took significant penalty enforcement actions against three facilities which
were considered significant non-compliers because of over 10 years of chronic
compliance problems. As a result of the enforcement actions, these facilities have
turned then: operations around and are now model facilities for RCRA compliance, to
the point where no violations were noted during the most recent inspections. Fort
Richardson was recently awarded the Green Star Award, recognized by EPA for
environmental excellence, by the city of Anchorage for its efforts in recycling. Other
Army facilities hi Alaska are in the process of receiving similar awards from their
communities. In addition, EPA and the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation have signed a Statement of Cooperation with the Army to provide a
framework to resolve environmental issues, an agreement which has since expanded to
include the Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and other DOD
facilities.
The Superfund enforcement program secured $851 million in private party cleanup
commitments in FY95. Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) commitments to site cleanup have
averaged over $1 billion per year for three of the past five years. Since the inception of the
program, the total value of private party commitments is estimated at more than $11 billion.
PRPs continued to initiate over 75 percent of new remedial work at National Priority List
(NPL) sites during FY95.
PRP commitments for remedial design and remedial action (RD/RA) response work exceeded
$670 million. The type of response settlements and their estimated values were:
• 40 consent decrees referred to DOT with an estimated response value of $362 million
• 31 unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) with which PRPs complied arid for work
estimated at $306 million
July 1996
3-10
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
• 6 administrative orders on consent (AOCs) for response work estimated at $2 million.
In an ongoing effort to promote enforcement fairness and resolve small party contributors'
potential liability under §122(g) of CERCLA, the .Superfund enforcement program concluded
42 de minimis settlements with over 1,800 parties in the fiscal year. Through FY95, the
Agency achieved more than 200 de minimis settlements with more than 12,000 settlers.
In FY95, under CERCLA, the Agency reached a total of 163 administrative orders on consent,
and issued 94 unilateral administrative orders. The Agency addressed 184 past cost cases,
including statute of limitation cases, all valued at more than $200,000 each. Of these cost
recovery actions 38 were administrative settlements, 30 were §107 referrals to DOJ, and 40
were consent decrees. Seventy-five were decision documents to write-off past costs; one was a
claim in bankruptcy. In addition, the Container Corporation of America was assessed a $1.2
million penalty under §104(e) of CERCLA. The penalty is the largest civil penalty ever
obtained from a defendant under §104(e).
During fiscal year 1995 the Agency achieved a total of 220 cost recovery settlements estimated
at more than $160 million, and collected over $254 million in past costs. To date the program
has achieved approximately $1.6 billion in cost recovery settlements, and collected over $1.1
billion in past costs.
3.2 Criminal Enforcement
As shown on the following page in Table 3-3, a high level of enforcement activity by EPA's
criminal enforcement program during FY 1995 is reflected hi several statistical categories.
For example, 256 cases were referred to DOJ in FY 1995 (the previous highest number was
220 in FY 1994), and the number of cases initiated was up from 525 in FY 1994 to 562 in FY
1995.
In FY 1995, the number of months of jail time to which defendants were sentenced totaled 890
months. One hundred and sixteen individual defendants pleaded or were found guilty and 31
corporate defendants pleaded or were found guilty. Over $23 million in criminal fines and
restitution were assessed hi FY 1995. Additionally, in FY 1995, 245 corporate and individual
defendants were indicted.
Incarceration is a key component of the criminal enforcement program because of its deterrent
effect. Individuals are more likely to be deterred from criminal environmental misconduct
because of the stigma associated with a criminal conviction, as well as potential imprisonment.
Those who are convicted and sentenced to jail cannot pass the sentence on as another "cost of
doing business;" it must be served by the violator. Since 1990, individuals have received over
422 years of incarceration for committing environmental crimes.
3-11
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
V)
o\
O\
OJO
1
ON
o\
go
o
*e?
s
•*->
g
es
c
«
S 3i
1
o\ o\
*—1 "—I
July 1996
3-12
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Clearly contributing to this increase in criminal prosecution is the Pollution Prosecution Act
(PPA) of 1990, which authorizes a number of enhancements to EPA's criminal enforcement
program, including increases in the number of criminal investigators to 200 and a
commensurate increase in support staff. By the end of FY 1995; EPA had increased the
number of criminal agents to 153 compared to 47 in FY 1989. This additional investment hi
agents has yielded significant increases in most key areas of the criminal program including
562 cases initiated by the end of FY 1995.
3.3 Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
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 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.
- mlfitr dtopete car emt&stom^ eases)
w
m
As shown in Table 3-4 on the following
page, EPA negotiated nearly 350 SEPs in
FY95, totalling more than $103 million.
Perhaps more importantly, however, are the
environmental and human health benefits that
were derived from these cases. The text box
provides examples of such benefits. In
FY95, the highest number of SEPs was
negotiated under EPCRA (more than one-
third). More than half of all SEPs were
categorized as either pollution prevention or
pollution reduction.
Through the use of SEPs, Region I is requiring facilities to either reduce or eliminate certain
waste streams. In Region I during FY95, 19 SEPs were included in a total of 14 settlements.
The types of SEPs included 3 pollution prevention, 7 pollution reduction, 2 environmental
restoration, 3 equipment donation, 2 environmental audits, 1 public awareness, and 1 public
health/environmental justice. In Region II, -more than 260,000 pounds of EPCRA §313
chemicals will no longer be used or released-into the environment due to the implementation of
SEPs. The expenditures incurred by the facilities to achieve this reduction in emissions/usage
was approximately $1.6 million.
3-13
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
JS
"o
Q
T>
O)
*-•
.s
CJ
o
en
CO
e^
"X3 &4
^* IA]
« 1/3
.«. «
•= 13
-2 a
n es
2 «
B -a
c 3
o «
t-i •*-
•: co
es
.
a
W3
IO
1
fe^ ^
til'
5 § 'it'
£. ft*.''
O 13
** S
& -C
m
• &
f i
If
E S
63
iii
,-s
\£"
»1^^
3&'t-:
•• «•«• v \
1'
a
\g\
CO
ts
&
CN
§
li
T
^ '
1
55
July 1996
3-14
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Region IV identified two significant SEPs it achieved in FY95. Woodgrain Millwork, located
in Americus, Georgia, agreed to implement a $2.4 million pollution prevention SEP to
redesign and install a coating process to predominantly eliminate the current use of solvent-
based toxic chemicals, resulting in an overall 50 to 60 percent reduction of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Another SEP, hi Clay County, Florida, involves construction of a force
main from Ridaught Landing Wastewater Treatment Plant to the County's reuse wastewater
treatment facility. This will eliminate the current surface water discharge into Little Black
Creek. Construction will cost the County approximately $2.1 million.
In Region V, 14 SEPs were developed hi settlement of EPCRA §313 enforcement actions and
2 in settlement of TSCA §§5 and 8 enforcement actions. These 16 SEPs resulted in the
reduction in the use of 1,134,128 pounds per year of toxic chemicals and in the reduction in
the release of 825,560 pounds per year of toxic chemicals. In addition, Region V settled 16
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) cases with SEPs costing $3,173,401 and involving the disposal
of 1,039,282 pounds of PCBs and PCB items.
In FY95, Region VII was able to negotiate SEPs in 28 percent of its enforcement settlements.
Over 80 percent of the SEPs negotiated involved pollution prevention projects representing
expenditures of nearly $3 million. Examples of the types of environmental benefits gamed
from these SEPs include reduction of 20,000 pounds of xylene emissions per year; protection
of underground drinking water sources from contamination; immediate elimination of release
of over 110 tons of sandblast residue to the environment, and permanent elimination of 388
tons per year thereafter; replacement of refrigerant systems resulting hi elimination of the use
of over 1,700 pounds of chloroflourocarbon (CFC)-containing materials; and a collective
reduction of TRI chemicals by 3,165,000 pounds.
Region VIII is also encouraging industries to implement SEPs. Among its numerous SEPs,
Region VIII had the largest OPA penalty collected to date: the Burlington Northern Railroad
settled for $1.5 million in cash and the remaining in SEPs, and cost recovery. The SEPs
included a $100,000 study on improving early detection of spills in the industry.
3.4 Injunctive Relief
As shown earlier in this chapter, EPA actions resulted in more than $900 million in injunctive
relief. More than one-third of this relief was under the CWA. One of the more significant
injunctive relief cases was Ketchikan Pulp Company. On March 21, 1995, two weeks after
agreeing to pay $3 million hi criminal penalties, the Ketchikan Pulp Company of Ketchikan,
Alaska, agreed to pay an additional $3.1 million in civil penalties, and to spend up to $6
million more cleaning up damage it caused to Ward Cove. Accumulated wastes from the
Ketchikan mill have deprived the cove of its potential as a marine habitat.
The case alleged hundreds of violations of the CWA and CAA. The CWA allegations
stemmed from 42 occasions when the mill's discharges into Ward Cove failed to meet the pH
requirements of its discharge permit, more than three dozen times when other effluent limits
3-15
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
were exceeded, and repeated failure of the mill to report effluent monitoring results as required
by its discharge permit.
Under the CAA, it was alleged that an oil-fired Ketchikan Pulp boiler failed to meet emission
standards over a two-year period, resulting in an estimated 1,600 tons of sulfur dioxide
emissions that should not have been released.
This case is significant because it is among the largest penalties ever obtained by EPA in a
CAA New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) case and because of the innovative nature of
some of the injunctive relief hi this case. Examples include Ketchikan's agreement to: 1)
conduct an independent facility-wide multimedia audit that will ensure full compliance with
environmental laws and help efforts to prevent pollution; 2) eliminate direct discharges from
its water treatment plant; 3) develop a mill operations and maintenance program designed to
minimize pollution; and conduct a pollution prevention study modeled after EPA protocols that
emphasizes the prevention of toxic discharges or emissions. In addition, the case also
demonstrates the concept of polluter pays, since Ketchikan Pulp will be paying for the
restoration of Ward Cove.
July 1996
3-16
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
4. USING INCENTIVES TO INCREASE INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE
As mentioned earlier in this report, compliance with this nation's environmental laws is an
obligation of all Americans - it is not discretionary. EPA's goal is to ensure that the regulated
community fully complies with these laws to provide the maximum benefits for people's health
and the environment. As a result of the reorganization of OECA, additional tools designed to
boost compliance with environmental laws are being used to enhance, and complement, the
traditional enforcement activities mentioned in the previous section. This section of the report
details certain programs and policies that provide the regulated community with incentives to
voluntarily comply with environmental requirements.
These programs and policies, which are set forth below, encourage the regulated community to
take full responsibility for their compliance status and their pollution practices. By providing, for
example, certain incentives for companies to engage in environmental audits or other
environmental management practices, this aspect of EPA's programs helps lay the foundation for
internal corporate mechanisms that can detect and prevent future violations from occurring at a
facility. In addition, these incentives policies encourage a degree of openness between the
regulated community and the Agency. This increased level of trust and communication allows
EPA and the participating entity to jointly confront and address any violations without the delays
and expenses normally associated with contested litigation.
The following are some of the more significant compliance incentives activities undertaken by
EPAinFY95.
4.1 New Incentive Policies
EPA developed and implemented three major compliance incentive policies during FY95:
• Environmental Audit Policy - EPA issued the "Voluntary Environmental Self-Policing
and Self-Disclosure Interim Policy," which offers dramatic new incentives for
companies that evaluate their own operations for compliance, then voluntarily disclose
and correct their violations. The policy provides incentives, such as reduced penalties
and reduced criminal liability, for companies that meet established conditions for
finding, disclosing, and fixing violations. It does not apply to parties engaging in
recurring violations, or violations that reflect criminal conduct or result in serious
actual harm or imminent and substantial endangerment. In addition, while the
"punitive" or gravity-based component of the penalty may be reduced, EPA will
continue to recover any economic advantage that companies may have gained from
their noncompliance.
• Small Business Incentives Policy - EPA issued the "Interim Policy on Compliance
Incentives for Small Business," which is intended to promote environmental compliance
among small businesses by providing incentives for participation in compliance
assistance programs and prompt correction of violations. Under the interim policy,
4-1
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
EPA will eliminate or reduce the civil penalty where a small business has made a good
faith effort to comply with applicable environmental requirements by receiving
compliance assistance from a non-confidential government or government supported
program and the violations are detected during the compliance assistance. The policy
does not apply if the violation is caused by criminal conduct or has caused actual
serious harm or imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or the
environment.
• Small Communities Flexibility Enforcement Policy - This policy describes the
circumstances in which EPA will generally defer to a state's decision to place a small
community on an enforceable compliance agreement and schedule that requires
compliance with all applicable environmental mandates by a specified date. Under the
policy, states'can allow small communities to prioritize among competing
environmental mandates on the basis of comparative risk, and EPA will defer to the
state's decision to waive part or all of the noncompliance penalty.
4.2 Environmental Leadership Program
The Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) is a national program currently being piloted
by EPA and the states in which facilities have volunteered to demonstrate innovative
approaches to environmental management and compliance. The ELP recognizes and rewards
companies that develop and implement comprehensive environmental management systems that
result in significant environmental improvements and yield outstanding compliance records.
On April 7, 1995, EPA announced the 12 pilot facilities that would participate in the program
(see Table 4-1 on the following page). These 12 facilities (10 private sector firms and 2
federal facilities) were selected from a field of more than 40 applicants; The ELP projects
focus on such issues as development of innovative environmental management systems,
creation of mentoring programs, testing of third party auditing and self-certification protocols,
and enhanced community involvement policies.
July 1996
4-2
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Table 4-1
Environmental Leadership Program Participants
Company
EM Region
Gillette (3 facilities)
Ocean State Power
Duke Power Company
The John Roberts Company
Ciba-Geigy St. Gabriel
Motorola
Arizona Public Service
Salt River Project
McClettan Air Force Base
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
Simpson Tacoma Kraft Company
WMX Technologies
Regions I, V, IX
Region I
Region FV
Region V
Region VI
Region VI
Region IX
Region IX
Region IX
Region X
Region X
Region X
Massachusetts, Illinois, California
Rhode Island
North Carolina,
Minnesota
Louisiana
Texas
Arizona
Arizona
California
Washington
Washington
Oregon ' •
4-3
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
This page is intentionally blank.
July 1996
4-4
-------
jFY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
5. USING ASSISTANCE TO INCREASE SECTOR COMPLIANCE
Compliance assistance pertains to information and technical assistance provided to the regulated
community to help it understand and fully comply with the requirements of the environmental
laws. Along with the various incentives discussed in the previous section, compliance assistance
activities supplement the traditional enforcement actions EPA uses to ensure compliance with the
environmental laws.
Compliance assistance activities take place at both the state and federal levels and are mainly
targeted toward small businesses that make up the bulk of those facilities who need to comply
with environmental regulatory and statutory requirements. Many of EPA's compliance assistance
activities involve partnerships with states and industry associations. For example, in FY95, these
efforts resulted in the initiation of four compliance assistance centers, located throughout the
country, and serving the following industrial sectors: printing, agriculture, metal finishing, and
auto repair. The participation of states and industry partners in the development of these
compliance assistance programs has allowed the Agency to tailor its assistance to those areas
where it can provide the most benefits.
There are several broad categories of compliance assistance:
• Outreach to the states and regulated community through marketing of compliance guides,
seminars, infoHnation services, and other means of assistance
• Response to requests for assistance, which may include requests for EPA to determine the
applicability of a particular regulation to a specific source, or more general inquiries to
hotlines or information centers
• Partnerships between EPA, states, and industry, which may include development of self-
audit materials
• Research to develop technologies needed to comply, or verify compliance, with new
regulations, or the development and dissemination of information pertaining to pollution
prevention technologies
• On-site assistance, such as compliance consultations or audits.
These various compliance assistance activities help industry and government to work in tandem
toward the same goal - environmental protection through compliance with our laws. The
integration of these types of programs into QECA's operations both promotes and ensures the
effectiveness of the other enforcement actions discussed in previous sections of this report.
5-1
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
5.1 Compliance Assistance Centers
EPA, in partnership with industry, academic institutions, environmental groups and other
federal and state agencies, is establishing national Compliance Assistance Centers for four
specific industry sectors heavily populated with small businesses that face substantial federal
regulation. The four centers are:
• National Compliance Assistance Center for Printing Sector - In FY95, EPA's
Office of Compliance (OC), in conjunction with the Universities of Illinois and
Wisconsin, the Council of Great Lakes Governors, and the Environmental Defense
Fund initiated development of a National Resource Center targeted to the Printing
Industry. This electronically based "virtual" Center will conduct focus groups,
distribute "best in class" pollution prevention information, develop high quality
technical and regulatory information, and conduct training and outreach activities.
• Agriculture Services Compliance Assistance Center - EPA initiated the Agriculture
Services Compliance Assistance Center in FY 1995. Utilizing existing distribution
networks, including the USDA Agriculture Extension Service, the Center will be a
source of environmental compliance information for agriculture producers. The Center
will develop material to be distributed by the USDA Extension Service and other
national associations that will give farmers "plain English" information on their
regulatory duties and pollution prevention opportunities.
• Metal Finishing Resource Center - In FY95, EPA, and its partner, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), initiated development of a Compliance
Assistance Center for the Metal Finishing Industry that will provide comprehensive and
reliable information on pollution prevention opportunities, regulatory compliance, and
technologies for reducing pollution. Initial products planned for release early in 1996
include an industry needs assessment survey; a directory of assistance providers; "plain
English" regulatory interpretations; pollution prevention on-line data; creation of a
home page on the World Wide Web; on-line expert assistance; and manufacturing
efficiency case studies.
• Automotive Compliance Assistance Project - In FY95, EPA initiated a grant with
the Coordinating Committee for Automotive Repair (CCAR) for the development of an
Automotive Compliance Assistance Center. Initial products for this Center, when
operational in FY96, will include a 1-800 toll free system and an electronic bulletin
board on the Enviro$ense Home Page on the Internet. In addition, the grant will
develop community college compliance curriculum containing compliance and pollution
prevention information and local government consolidated inspection protocols.
July 1996
5-2
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
5.2 Sector-specific Compliance Assistance
In recognition of the specific risks and prevalence of certain industry sectors, EPA continued
targeting specific sectors for compliance assistance. The following are some examples of the
sectors and the types of compliance assistance targeted toward them.
• Dry-cleaning - EPA has targeted specific compliance assistance initiatives to the
perchloroethylene dry cleaning industry to increase compliance in the sector through
heightened awareness of the environmental regulations impacting their activities and the
pollution prevention opportunities available to the sector. Specific assistance projects
completed or underway include:
- Multimedia Inspection Guidance for Dry Cleaning Facilities - This manual
will assist environmental personnel in conducting multimedia inspections or
audits at a perc dry cleaning facility. A draft manual was completed in
September 1995 and will be finalized in FY96.
- Plain English/Korean Version of Perc Dry Cleaning Regulations - To assist
dry cleaners in complying with various environmental regulations, the Agency
is developing a comprehensive,- readable version of environmental requirements.
A "Plain Korean" version of the guidance is under development as well to meet
the needs of the large component of Korean-Americans that populate the
industry. These guidances will be field tested at dry cleaning facilities in the
Fall of 1995 and will be made widely available in FY96.
• Auto Services Industry - In FY95, EPA initiated two compliance assistance efforts
targeted at the auto services industry:
- National Environmental Curriculum - EPA, working through its grantee
CCAR, has identified 18 automotive topics of instruction to be used in the
development of curriculum modules for automotive technicians. These modules
will address compliance issues facing the automotive repair industry, as well as
available pollution prevention technologies. The curriculum should be available
inlateFY96.
- Automotive Services Checklist - EPA has also developed a draft checklist of
federal environmental requirements that impact an automotive service and repair
shop. The checklist, which is ready to be pilot-tested by regional inspectors,
will be finalized in FY96. It will be made available to automotive shopowners
to assess their compliance status.
5-3
July 1996
-------
FT 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Printing Facilities - In FY95, EPA initiated multimedia compliance/pollution
prevention assessment guidance for lithographic printers. The assessment guidance was
developed in conjunction with the Common Sense Initiative (CSI) Printing Sector. The
assessment guidance helps states and/or EPA regional offices determine the compliance
status of printing facilities, as well as identify opportunities to use pollution prevention
and innovative technology to help facilities come into compliance or go beyond
compliance. It can also be used as a self-audit tool by printers to identify compliance
issues and learn how to incorporate pollution prevention into their facilities' practices.
The guidance also contains an extensive list of compliance assistance and pollution
prevention materials available for printers. EPA field tested the guidance at four
facilities in the State of Washington in conjunction with Washington State's Department
of Ecology.
In addition, Region I provided compliance assistance to printers, including:
- Coordinated the activities of several state, private, and industry organizations in
Massachusetts offering compliance and pollution prevention services to printers
- Assisted Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation in establishing
the first of five model compliance facilities, which will also test pollution
prevention technologies
- Assisted the Toxics Use Reduction Institute at UMass-Lowell 'in demonstrating
near-zero VOC lithographic ink and blanket wash systems
- Began developing six compliance and pollution prevention workshops for
printers, and a joint workshop for textile manufacturers and screen printers.
Partners in Healthy Drinking Water (Mentoring Outreach on TCR Rule) - In
August 1995, EPA awarded four grants in the total amount of $150,000, to three states
and one tribal organization to fund participation hi a compliance assistance mentoring
program pilot designed to assist small and very small public water systems to come into
compliance with EPA's Total Coliform Rule (TCR). The TCR requires public water
systems to monitor the microbiological quality of drinking water. In FY94, 54 percent
of the small community water systems failed to meet the microbiological requirements.
Pilot grantees included the Colorado Department of Public Health, Iowa Department of
Natural Resources, Alaska Water Management Association, and Tanana Chiefs
Conference, Inc. Each grantee is responsible for identifying small public water
systems in their jurisdiction that are out of compliance with the TCR on a recurrent
basis and pair them with a volunteer from a "mentor" public water system with a good
compliance record. Mentors provide such assistance as monthly reminders to conduct
required sampling, and advice on sampling protocols.
July 1996
5-4
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
issues^
<*«. tftree fa&ae&rM sectors $u& ore &&&CSI sectors
Mlared assistance {to mmmpaMes
workshops/framing^ pmtied infarmatiffttj technology
EPCRA Outreach - Region II
conducted EPCRA outreach for non-
reporters and current reporters. A
mailing was sent to over 1,000 New
Jersey facilities in SIC Codes 26
(paper and allied products), 28
(chemicals and allied products), 30
(rubber and miscellaneous plastics
products), 33 (prunary metals), and
34 (fabricated metals). The
recipients were facilities with less
than 50 employees that had not reported for TRI. This was followed up with three
seminars held in January 1995 for these groups. New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection representatives also participated in these seminars, making
presentations on the New Jersey Community Right-to-Know Release Reporting
Requirements and Pollution Prevention Laws. In addition, 10 EPCRA §313
compliance assistance seminars were held in the region.
Metal Furnishing Manufacturers - Region Ill's Air Enforcement Program
implemented a Pilot Business Compliance Assistance and Incentive Strategy. The goal
of this new approach is to achieve the same or greater emissions reductions as would be
achieved through traditional enforcement actions by offering incentives for compliance
(i.e., technical assistance and reduced penalties). The metal furniture manufacturing
sector has been selected as the pilot sector for compliance assistance. In FY 1995, the
Region provided staff training to deliver compliance assistance, coordinated discussions
with state and local authorities, developed compliance assistance materials that explain
applicable regulations and compliance requirements, and determined the baseline
compliance rate.
Public Water Supply Systems (PWSS) - The PWSS Program in Region IV developed
a program for lead and copper field assistance for small systems in North Carolina.
The State and National Rural Water Associations will assist 200 systems that have lead
and copper violations by providing on-site technical assistance and compliance
workshops to return systems to compliance.
Noncommunity Water Systems - Region V and the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management Drinking Water Branch co-sponsored 15 compliance
assistance workshops at nine locations. The compliance assistance effort targeted
almost 850 small transient noncommunity water systems that had failed to collect
annual nitrate samples for the past 2 years. A total of 309 system representatives
attended the compliance assistance workshops. As a result of joint efforts, about 600
5-5
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
of the targeted systems are working to achieve compliance with the Federal nitrate
requirements.
Foundries - To address high rates of noncompliance among foundries in Region VI, a
full spectrum of compliance and enforcement tools is being used. In partnership with
the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), EPA developed a
compliance assistance pilot project for the foundries hi Oklahoma willing to participate
in the program. The project started with a outreach seminar in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in
April 1995. Facilities were offered a six month grace period to conduct a multimedia
self-assessment of their operations, correct violations, and self-report to ODEQ on
changes in their operation as a result of the outreach. Participants were given relief
from civil penalties while they corrected any regulatory deficiencies discovered during
the audit. In addition, ODEQ provided on-site multimedia technical assistance to
participating facilities that is similar to the CAA §507 program for small businesses.
Twenty-three of Oklahoma's 63 foundries took part hi the program. ODEQ reported
the foundries' compliance concerns and interests were in air (52 percent), storm water
(30 percent), solid waste (17 percent), and hazardous waste (17 percent). Preliminary
statistics indicate 14 of the facilities hi the program participated in the ODEQ/self-audit
program. The survey results of the workshop indicated six facilities had made changes
to their operations to address compliance issues as a result of the workshop. The
Oklahoma pilot has been praised by the industry and will serve as a model for helping
to shape future compliance assistance programs in the region to strengthen compliance
and promote pollution prevention.
Small Businesses - Region VII worked closely with the state Small Business Assistance
Programs (SBAPs) in all four states, as well as with pollution prevention contacts, to
implement active and successful compliance assistance programs that provide assistance
to businesses and communities on all federal and state environmental regulatory
requirements. All of the SBAPs conduct extensive outreach to a diverse group of small
businesses and all have received very positive feedback from stakeholders on their
compliance assistance efforts. Examples qf the scope and types of compliance
assistance provided by the state SBAPs hi FY95 include:
- The Nebraska SBAP addressed 34 complaints and 230 inquiries, provided on-
site assistance to 26 small businesses, and participated in outreach at various
meetings attended by 1,882 people.
- The Iowa SBAP (with the Iowa Waste Reduction Center) provides compliance
assistance training to small businesses. The training addressing spray painting is
designed to reduce air emissions and material consumption. After attending this
training, one small business reduced material consumption by more than 30
percent and average monthly material costs from $6,000 to $2,000.
July 1996
5-6
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
- The Kansas SBAP has produced numerous compliance assistance materials
including fact sheets for farmers concerning air conditioning certification,
quick-reference guides for dry cleaners, a degreasing manual, and materials for
chromium electroplaters and printers. In addition^ the Kansas SBAP distributes
a quarterly newsletter focusing on specific CAA information that is important to
small businesses.
- The Technical Assistance Program (TAP) in the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources has established an environmental education program for
elementary and secondary school teachers. The TAP offers between 15-18
courses each year. The courses assist teachers in development of environmental
education curricula.
• Hazardous Waste Generators - Region IX, in cooperation with the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control, put on workshops for small- to medium-sized
hazardous waste generators across the state. The primary strategy was to conduct the
generator workshops in rural counties where information on the hazardous waste
handling requirements was harder to obtain.
Region IX also identified federal facilities as a sector requiring compliance assistance.
A total of seven generator workshops for federal facilities was conducted during the
year. Five workshops were conducted for the U.S. Navy in Hawaii, one for the San
Francisco Bay Area Health and Safety Council, and one as part of a federal facilities
conference held in the regional office. The combined total attendance for all the
workshops conducted hi FY95 was approximately 1,000 people.
• CFC Emitters - Region X's Air Program compliance assistance efforts focused on
outreach efforts to the regulated community for new requirements. The region
prepared information packets to sources regulated under the CFC program (primarily
§§608 and 609) and conducted a limited number of inspections in areas where low
numbers of notices were filed. The region also targeted outreach efforts at demolition
and renovation contractors that remove heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
systems. The region conducted a workshop in conjunction with the local chapter of the
Air and Waste Management Association for Title V and new maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) standards.
5.3 Compliance Assistance to Federal Facilities
During FY95, FFEO continued development and implementation of compliance assistance
programs in concert with the other offices within OECA. The following presents information
on some of the more significant compliance assistance efforts:
5-7
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
EPA/Army Pollution Prevention Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) - EPA
recently completed a series of pollution prevention technical assistance projects through
an MOA with the Army. In January 1995, FFEO helped form a partnership between
EPA and the Army to conduct pollution prevention research at three Army
installations: Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois; Ft. Benning, Georgia; and White Sands
Proving Ground, New Mexico. The pollution prevention opportunity assessments
provided under the EPA-Army MOA encouraged the development and adoption of
production, recycling, and treatment processes that result in the reduction of hazardous
wastes. Each assessment included an on-site visit, consultation with Army personnel,
and a written report, which is a public document.
FEDPLAN-PC - EPA developed a PC-based information management system (known
as FEDPLAN-PC) to support the federal agency environmental program planning
process. The new system was implemented in all 10 EPA regions this year and many
federal agencies and departments received demonstrations of the software. The goal of
the process is to ensure that federal agencies identify all relevant environmental
requirements and devote adequate resources to address them. EPA uses FEDPLAN-PC
to analyze individual agency data submissions, identify gaps in agency plans, evaluate
funding trends, and forecast future budget requirements. The system also can be used
by federal agencies hi their internal environmental program management. FEDPLAN-
PC is comprehensive, covering the full range of activities from pollution prevention
and compliance to remediation.
Federal Facilities Tracking System (FFTS) - EPA developed a significantly enhanced
version of FFTS to extract federal sector compliance data from other EPA compliance
data systems and to make it more readily available to EPA personnel. In addition, EPA
is currently sponsoring a pilot effort in Region X to test the capabilities of FFTS to
track the entire universe of facilities on a sector-by-sector basis. If the expansion to
other sectors proves successful, FFTS will save the government time and resources,
and will enhance the efficiency of EPA regional staff in promoting environmental
compliance in both the public and private sectors.
Environmental Benchmarking - In FY 1995, EPA continued its identification of areas
in which federal agencies need improvement hi fulfilling their environmental
responsibilities. This identification establishes a benchmark from which to measure the
degree of improvement in federal agency environmental management programs. In
addition, the benchmarking initiative will enable EPA to assess the effectiveness of its
own compliance assistance and outreach efforts.
Civilian Federal Agency (CFA) Task Force - To offer enhanced compliance
assistance to the civilian departments and agencies throughout the government, EPA
formed a task force to address federal facilities' unique environmental compliance
management problems. The purpose of the task force, chaired by EPA, is to identify
deficiencies hi CFA environmental management and compliance programs, determine
July 1996
5-8
-------
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
their causes, and make recommendations for improvements. The task force has been
instrumental in the development of two key documents during FY 1995:
- CFA Environmental Improvement Strategy, which" contains specific
recommendations for improvements in six primary areas of need that could be
made through increased technical assistance from EPA or other sources
- Generic Audit Protocol is intended to assist in the conduct of environmental
audits and environmental management assessments of federal facilities.
Environmental Auditing - The Generic Protocol for Conducting Environmental Audits
of Federal Facilities was released in March 1995. The document was a collaborative
effort by the Federal Audit Protocol Workgroup consisting of environmental audit
experts from various federal agencies and departments (DOD, DOE, DOI; EPA; Postal
Service; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; USDA; and FAA). This
document contains specific procedures (protocols) for evaluating the performance of
facility specific technical and multimedia programs, such as air, water, solid and
hazardous waste against compliance with federal environmental requirements.
In addition to guidance development, in March 1995, EPA, in joint effort with the
Institute for Environmental Auditing and DOE, sponsored a seminar and training
designed to provide an accelerated learning experience for audit professionals.
Practitioners throughout the federal government examined proven techniques,
innovative tools, and methods. In May 1995, EPA, in partnership with audit experts
from DOE, designed and conducted a one-day training course for 50 EPA personnel to
support the Environmental Leadership Program.
Pollution Prevention - To assist federal agencies in meeting the challenges posed by
Executive Order (EO) 12856 "Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and
Pollution Prevention Requirements" andEO 12873 "Federal Acquisition, Recycling,
and Waste Prevention," EPA initiated or participated in a number of efforts ranging
from the formation of an interagency pollution prevention task force and the
establishment of a federal agency environmental management challenge program to
pollution prevention training and preparation of guidance documents. EPA conducted
six training workshops for federal agencies on how to prepare pollution prevention
plans required under EO 12856. EPA also has developed a number of guidance
documents to assist federal agency compliance with the provisions of these executive
orders. Specific examples of these documents include:
- Federal Facility Pollution Prevention Planning Guide
5-9
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
- Federal Facility Pollution Prevention Project Analysis: A Primer for Applying
Life Cycle and Total Cost Assessment Concepts
- Executive Order 12856: Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and
Pollution Prevention Requirements: Questions and Answers
- Guidance for Implementing Executive Order 12856: Federal Compliance with
Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements
- Meeting the Challenge: A Summary of Federal Agency Pollution Prevention
Strategies.
July 1996
5-10
-------
FT 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
6. NEW APPROACHES TO SOLVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
In FY95, EPA continued to enhance its programs that strategically target enforcement and
compliance activities to address the most significant risks to human health and the
environment. These innovative approaches to targeting, which are discussed in this section,
are organized around whole facilities, industrial sectors, and geographic areas. In many
instances, a multimedia approach allows the Agency to better address persistent problems
affecting a whole facility or industry. A geographic orientation also permits the Agency to
target its enforcement and compliance efforts based on the aggregate impacts of pollution
sources on certain communities. For example, these types of activities are used to support the
office's commitment to environmental justice. These new orientations for targeting
enforcement and compliance activities also help integrate the work of the enforcement and
compliance assurance program into the community-based environmental protection efforts
throughout the Agency.
waters,
ncei
. Tke -
mwm mqfte&feto wmbot ett-qpim.
6.1 Sector-based Information and Initiatives
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-based approach enables the Agency to:
• Address noncomplying sectors more effectively
• Allow for "whole facility" approaches to enforcement and compliance
• Measure more specifically rates of compliance and the effectiveness of enforcement
strategies
6-1
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
• Augment enforcement strategies with appropriate compliance enhancement activities
• Develop sector expertise, which should improve performance in all aspects of the
Agency's enforcement program.
During FY95, EPA made great strides in developing sector expertise. Such strides will allow
the Agency to begin making sector-based enforcement and compliance assurance an integral
part of everyday activities.
6.1.1 Sector Notebooks
In the Fall of 1995, EPA published a series of 18 Industry Sector Notebooks that provide an
in-depth profile of specific industry sectors. Each notebook includes discussions of general
industry information (economic and geographic); a description of industrial processes;
pollution outputs; pollution prevention opportunities; federal statutory and regulatory
framework; compliance history; and a description of partnerships that have been formed
between regulatory agencies, the regulated community and the public.
' - ^^^^^^rm&mM
. s sf -A "''• A; ss\ . S ,-. V ff . s f
xlxs (t\',,f'+'s"s-\"«*: '"<,/" ,;.
VryCteaning ' \*«?'&x}'$i$£®*-'' r:'fe
Btectfowes W^^e^f X ,/;\ :'; ^ ^'" ' '**^*
Fat^tfed^t^'lfeipjjctpl /||'^V;}K?V^ =
JJ^rg^fcC^^^^^ ,x
•J**R«iH*&& ^^f^C^^-^^P' 'f^?*^?^r
liaj^f/me^&so^u^^JA' 1.. ^"^ -1' : < ''%*&)&m$,&ostie
Motor
6.1.2 Sector-specific Initiatives
A major national accomplishment during FY95, was OECA's first ever sector agreement.
This agreement with the Gas Processors Association (GPA) settled 51 enforcement actions.
The focus of this national agreement is reduced penalties for gas processors in exchange for a
substantial amount of TSCA chemical production information being reported to EPA. As a
result of this sector agreement, 249 facilities provided chemical production information for the
1990IUR. Both GPA and EPA sought an agreement to encourage natural gas processors to
file reports pursuant to the Update of the TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory. Sixty-eight
companies registered to participate in this natural gas sector agreement and 51 settlement
documents were approved by the EAB in FY95.
July 1996
6-2
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Based on its specific industrial base, each region develops and implements sector-based
initiatives to target those sectors presenting serious environmental problems. In FY95, several
regions pursued sector-based initiatives. Select initiatives are discussed below:
• Printing - In FY95, Region II inspected 30 of the approximately 100 flexographic
printing operations in the New York City metropolitan area and found a noncompliance
rate of 35 percent.' Most of the cases are still pending, but when completed, the region
estimates approximately 200,000 pounds per year of VOC emissions will be eliminated.
• Non-metallic Mineral Processing Operations - Due to the suspected noncompliance
among the rock crushing/processing operations hi Region II, the region targeted this
sector for compliance/enforcement activities in FY95. The particulate matter (PM)
produced hi rock quarrying and processing is usually of relatively large particle size,
though some of the dust generated tends to be hi the respirable range (< 3 microns)
and constitutes a health hazard. The region's efforts were concentrated mainly hi
Puerto Rico, because of its PM 10 nonattainment areas.
• Industrial\Commercial Boilers - Region II is participating hi a national Boiler
Enforcement Initiative designed to address the noncompliance status of such sources,
which have the potential to emit total particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. The region
is developing inventories of boilers in New York and New Jersey and has already
issued select informational request letters targeting two large organizations (New York
City [NYC] Board of Education-School Construction Authority .and NYC Housing
Authority) that have approximately 1,000 boilers, out of the approximately 3,000
boilers hi the NYC area.
• Sources of VOC Emissions - Region III completed the targeting strategy, identified
the largest VOC sources hi a limited number of SIC code categories, and discussed
each facility/VOC source with the enforcement programs.
• Wood Product Companies - Region III actively supported the National Wood
Products Initiative, which was designed to address excess air emissions, primarily of
VOCs, hi the wood products industry. This included issuing and reviewing CAA §114
letter responses. Region III supported three wood products facilities (Georgia Pacific)
for the national Notice of Violation (NOV). As an offshoot of the national initiative,
Region III issued nine §114 letters to smaller wood product companies to determine
their compliance with Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations and
conducted inspections of six wood products facilities hi the region.
• Foundries - Region VI targeted inspections across the region hi FY94 and several
enforcement actions were initiated. During FY95, the RCRA Enforcement Branch
developed baseline information on the industry while on-going enforcement support
shifted resources to compliance assurance activities. To address high rates of
noncompliance hi the region, a full spectrum of compliance and enforcement tools is
6-3
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
being used. In partnership with ODEQ, EPA developed a compliance assistance pilot
project for the foundries in Oklahoma willing to participate in the program.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) - Region VI issued a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit to concentrated
animal feeding operations in February 1993. After 2 years of compliance and
enforcement efforts, nearly all major producers (400) in Oklahoma are compliant. The
EPA issued approximately 100 orders to producers to complete pollution prevention
plans and the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture met with each producer
individually so the plan would be implemented in a timely manner. Overall,
compliance has been achieved through outreach in combination with traditional
enforcement mechanisms.
In Region X, EPA, the state of Idaho, and the dairy industry agreed on a new approach
to inspect the approximately 1,400 dairy operations (CAFOs). In the past, EPA was
only able to inspect 5 percent of the dairy operations per year. In an effort to increase
the number of inspections, and educate the farmers about water quality protection, the
Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISOA) will take the lead in inspections, while
EPA retains its oversight authorities. The ISDA already inspects the diaries for milk
quality and with the new agreement will expand their inspections to look at the waste
management practices. With the number of ISDA dairy inspectors, it is anticipated that
more than 95 percent of the dairies will be inspected per year. For those dairies who
are illegally discharging or have inadequate waste management practices, ISDA will
have the ability to revoke the farmer's license to sell milk.
For the CAFO program in Oregon, EPA, and the Oregon Department of Agriculture
also entered into an agreement establishing a partnership for regulating the industry. In
FY95, 30 joint inspections were conducted and EPA overfiled on four enforcement
actions (Oregon is a delegated NPDES state.) In addition, last fall approximately 150
farmers attended an EPA and state sponsored "mock" inspection, prior to the joint
inspections. The purpose of the "mock" inspection was to inform the fanners of what
aspects of their farms would be inspected and what type of waste management practices
were expected by the farmers.
Over the past three years, Region X has inspected approximately 200 CAFOs and
issued 17 administrative orders and 21 complaints in Idaho. In addition, in the past
year Region X has issued 4 orders and 4 complaints in Oregon.
Oil and Gas Exploration and Production - In response to Region VI1 s December 3,
1993, modification of the NPDES general permit for offshore oil and gas exploration
and production, which incorporated newly promulgated discharge guidelines established
at 40 CFR Part 435, the region undertook an initiative that ranked the 150 discharging
companies according to the seriousness of the violations and the relative magnitude of
their operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Administrative Orders requiring immediate
July 1996
6-4
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
corrective action were drafted for those companies ranked among the most serious
violators. In some instances, violations were serious enough that administrative penalty
orders were also issued.
Vigorous enforcement of the NPDES general permit for offshore oil and gas
exploration and production has contributed to significant reductions in the reported
concentration of pollutants discharged to the Western Gulf of Mexico. Among the
most toxic of the discharges from these platforms is produced water (i.e., water
extracted from the underground formation of oil and gas, which is separated out,
treated, and discharged to the Gulf). Oil and grease concentrations hi the produced
water are measured monthly, and the worst case measurement is reported annually for
each discharge location. The figure presented below depicts the reduction in reported
oil and grease concentrations on an annual average basis of more than 900 discharge
points during the tune period 1989 to present.
Produced Water Oil and Grease
Average Reported Concentration (mg/l)
1989
1990
1991 1992 1993
Monitoring Year
1994
1996
In addition to compliance monitoring for produced water oil and grease, the permit
limitations for discharges of deck drainage, drilling fluids and cuttings, sanitary waste,
and other miscellaneous waste streams have also been closely monitored, and
rigorously enforced. Although not as readily quantified, it is apparent that substantial
reductions have also occurred in these areas.
Region IX also conducted an inspection initiative of the 19 oil and gas facilities
(refineries, exploration and production platforms) in the Cook Inlet region of Alaska.
This was in part hi response to a citizen suit notice and the region's enforcement
actions against 18 oil and gas exploration and production facilities. The purpose of the
inspections was to determine if the non-compliance activities identified hi the
6-5
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
enforcement actions were still continuing. Inspections determined that the facilities
were in compliance.
• Bulk Pesticide Repackaging - Region VII continues to work with EPA headquarters,
states, and the pesticide industry in the bulk pesticide repackaging initiative begun four
years ago to assess the integrity of bulk repackaged pesticides. Based upon inspection
findings that 70 percent of bulk repackaged pesticides were contaminated with one or
more other pesticide active ingredients, EPA initiated several meetings of stakeholders
to identify and resolve this situation. In FY95, Region VII continued to work with
stakeholders to define toxicologically significant levels of pesticide cross-contamination
in bulk repackaged pesticides. •
• Boilers and Industrial Furnaces - Region VII combined compliance assistance and
RCRA administrative enforcement actions to address compliance issues involved with
implementation of the RCRA BIF Rule. During the past two years, Region VII has
issued a number of RCRA administrative enforcement actions to seven of the eight
cement kilns in the region that burn hazardous waste as interim status facilities under
the BIF Rule. Concurrent with the issuance of these enforcement actions, Region VII
also conducted compliance assistance activities such as semi-annual regional roundtable
discussions between Region VII, states, and members of the cement kiln recycling
coalition. Many of the industry participants in these roundtable discussions were from
facilities involved in the Region VII enforcement actions. This combination of
enforcement and compliance assistance activities has led to increased communication
and understanding among Region VII, states, and the cement kiln industry.
These activities have also resulted in the development and use of specific approaches to
implement the BIF Rule including a protocol for sampling and analysis to ascertain if
the cement kiln dust meets the Bevill exemption. Use of this protocol significantly
decreases the risk that hazardous cement kiln dust will be improperly disposed of and
negatively affect human health and the environment.
6.2 Place-based Initiatives
More and more, EPA and the states are focusing their compliance assurance and enforcement
efforts on specific places that require special attention. Such places can either be geographic
locations (e.g., cities, counties) or ecosystems (e.g., lakes, rivers). Like sector-based
initiatives, these national initiatives are best implemented at a regional level, where each
individual region can assess its own geographic areas and ecosystems and develop specific
programs to meet the individual needs.
6.2.1 Geographic Initiatives
At the national level, one specific example of a geographic-based initiative was the Miami,
Florida, initiative conducted by the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training
July 1996
6-6
-------
FT 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
(OCEFT). Over the course of FY 1995 there has been a dramatic increase in the illegal
importation of CFCs and other ozone depleting chemicals (ODCs) in the United States
subsequent to the promulgation of stringent amendments to the CAA. EPA's Criminal
Investigation Division (CID) responded with aggressive investigation of these activities. Illegal
importations of CFCs often involve violations of United States Customs Service (USCS)
statutes related to smuggling and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) codes regarding the
payment of CFC excise taxes. During FY 1995, the majority of criminal activity in this area
occurred in the Miami, Florida, area. EPA's Miami Office initiated 12 investigations
involving illegal ODC importations. EPA has selected a national coordinator to serve as a
focal point among all area offices, the USCS, and the IRS. In FY 1995, the first successful
prosecutions of ODC smuggling cases occurred with two convictions and four pleas to criminal
counts. Four individuals were sentenced to prison terms totaling 50 months.
EPA and the states are realizing that certain geographic areas create more harm to human
health and the environment than others. To address this situation and provide protection to
residents of these areas, the Agency is moving its compliance assurance and enforcement
priorities to specific geographic areas. The examples below highlight some of the specific
initiatives in such areas:
• Specific Urban Areas - Region I originally targeted four urban areas for special
enforcement attention and later added a fifth. The targeted urban areas were:
Providence, Rhode Island; Boston, Massachusetts; and Bridgeport, Hartford, and New
Haven, Connecticut. Regional staff worked with community groups and state and local
officials to identify sectors and facilities that posed the greatest risk of environmental
harm in these areas and to develop SEPs that would benefit the local population.
• Long Island, New York and Camden, New Jersey - Much of Region II has high
population density and depends on ground water for potable water. To enhance aquifer
protection, especially sole source, the region has conducted aquifer protection
initiatives since 1991. In FY95, the region continued to emphasize this regional
priority and conducted geographic initiatives to protect groundwater in Long Island and
Camden.
• Chester, Pennsylvania - TRI reporters have been identified and ranked using the
Chronic Index, and four multimedia inspections have been conducted. For air
emissions, 39 facilities were screened, 16 file reviews were conducted, 12 inspections
were conducted, and five NOVs and three §114 letters were issued in support of the
initiative. Formal administrative and/or judicial actions are still being considered at
several facilities. For RCRA, 43 hazardous waste and underground storage tank leak
detection inspections were conducted and coordinated by EPA (21) and the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) (22). Inspections
were targeted at a mix of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDs), large
quantity generators (LQGs), and small quantity generators (SQGs) that had not been
6-7
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
previously inspected. Four NOVs were issued by EPA and seven NOVs were issued
by PADEP in response to identified violations.
South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - TRI reporters have been identified and ranked
using the Chronic Index. Two multimedia and several individual program inspections
have been planned and will be carried out during the second quarter of FY 1996. A
health study is being undertaken by Johns Hopkins University, the results of which will
be used to further target inspection candidates. A compliance assistance initiative has
been started for the auto body sector. In support of this initiative, the Air Radiation
and Toxics Division has screened 46 facilities, conducted 17 file reviews, and
performed eight inspections. Fourteen facilities were screened for RCRA and NPDES
program interest and inspections will be conducted at five to ten of these facilities
during FY 1996. One air case was referred to DOJ. While this source was outside of
South Philadelphia, it was adversely impacting the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for lead in a residential neighborhood in South Philadelphia.
Greater Chicago, Illinois - In the Greater Chicago Geographic Initiative area, Region
V has continued to implement a strong enforcement program, and, in a separate non-
regulatory program, the region has continued to work closely with state and local
partners to provide quality pollution prevention technical assistance in the community.
The region recently announced a significant settlement at the PMC facility in Southeast
Chicago where EPA joined in an action brought by two public interest plaintiffs under
the Clean Water Act. The settlement calls for payment of a $1.6 million penalty. The
region also continues to prosecute a 39-count multimedia judicial action against PMC's
neighbor, Sherwin-Williams, Inc. Vigorous enforcement of the CAA has also resulted
in NOVs against LTV Steel, Ford Motor Company and the City of Chicago's
Northwest Incinerator. The region is working to resolve each of these matters.
Southeast Michigan - There have been three ongoing projects in Southeast Michigan
Initiative (SEMI) that have involved compliance assistance activities. A pollution
prevention provider network has been established and is a self-sustaining organization.
This was accomplished through an EPA grant to the Michigan Energy and Resource
Research Association (MERRA). MERRA also gathered names of industrial contacts
at the annual Michigan Department of Natural Resources pollution prevention
conference and met with about 25 assorted industry representatives. .
An EPA grant was given to the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments to conduct
pollution prevention outreach activities to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).
They conducted many site visits to communicate the existence and availability of
pollution prevention resources. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
was awarded a grant to continue pollution prevention compliance assistance at local
POTWs.
July 1996
6-8
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report,
The Southeast Michigan Coalition on Occupational Safety and Health received funds to
establish labor/management discussion groups to identify pollution prevention methods
in selected facilities. They have identified a number of sites and are continuing to work
with them on establishing and implementing comprehensive pollution prevention
programs.
• Gateway Initiative - This Region V initiative has resulted in significant enforcement-
related activities, including the following actions:
- TWI Consent Decree - A July 1995, Illinois EPA consent decree with Trade
Waste Incinerator (Sauget, Illinois) included a $200,000 SEP for the disposal of
tires and other garbage that has accumulated in vacant lots and abandoned
housing. Fly-dumping (the unauthorized disposal of construction and household
waste material) is one of the Gateway community's highest concerns. TWI will
place large containers around East St. Louis, Alorton and Washington Park, the
exact locations to be selected with community input.
- Chemetco - Settlement discussions continue with Chemetco (Hartford, Illinois)
regarding particulate matter and lead violations cited in the July 13, 1993,
complaint. Ambient lead monitoring around the facility continued to
demonstrate violations in FY95.
- Clark Refinery - Sulfur dioxide-related violations at the Clark Refinery
(Hartford, Illinois) were resolved through an administrative law judge's ruling
following a hearing on the violations. EPA prevailed on all counts and a final
penalty of $139,440 was assessed and paid. An NOV of alleged air permit
violations was also issued in March 1995.
- Other Notices Issued - An NOV and Finding of Violation (FOV) were issued to
National Steel (Granite City, Illinois) for alleged particulate matter and benzene
violations. An NOV and FOV were issued to Shell Oil (Roxana, Illinois) for
numerous alleged violations of sulfur dioxide, ozone and benzene regulations.
The EPA reviewed a benzene wastewater waiver from Shell and issued an initial
intent-to-deny letter.
6.2.2 Sensitive Ecosystem Initiatives
The value of ecosystems can be measured in several ways. Living things and the ecosystems
on which they depend provide communities with food, clean air, clean water, and a multitude
of other goods and services. Consequently, the high rates of species endangerment, loss of
natural resources, habitat fragmentation, and losses of recreational opportunities pose a
potential threat to the health, lifestyle, and economic future of all Americans.
6-9
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
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. Although
these laws and regulations address such 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,
it did not concentrate on the overall environmental health of specific ecosystems. However,
EPA is currently placing high priority on developing compliance assurance and enforcement
programs that focus on such ecosystems. The following highlights some of the specific
programs:
• Chesapeake Bay - EPA was actively involved in the regional Chesapeake Bay program
geographic initiative. Involvement included having pesticide cooperating state
programs conduct at least 10 percent of their compliance monitoring inspections in the
Chesapeake Bay drainage basin. EPA was also involved in promoting Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) implementation in the Chesapeake Bay area through extensive
outreach and incorporation of IPM principles in state applicator training and
certification programs. Chesapeake Bay issues have also been included in over 40
"TownTalk" outreach events and in major educational exhibits such as the Philadelphia
Flower Show and the Pennsylvania Farm Show.
The
areas, Stcoitf,
Nev England state*
wfMtm* Mn fflmne^tiw
%foo$f
industries inspe
July 1996
6-10
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Anacostia River - Region III completed investigation of two major storm sewers to
identify potential sources of PCS and heavy metal contamination to the Anacostia
River. As a result of multimedia inspections and sediment sampling, Region III
determined that two federal facilities were likely connected with historic PCB and
heavy metals contamination of storm sewer sediment and river sediment in portions of
both the Anacostia River and the Tidal Basin. Beginning in the first quarter of FY
1996, Region III will work with the identified federal facilities to determine how to
remedy the past contamination.
Great Lakes Enforcement Strategy (Region V) - The purpose of this strategy is to
eliminate or control to the maximum extent feasible, the discharge of critical pollutants
from point sources to the Great Lakes. For the past three quarters, Great Lakes
significant noncompliance rates have been reduced to at or below the 10 percent goal
and are in fact within 1 percent of the national average. The table shows that the
Great Lakes Enforcement Strategy has been especially successful in reducing critical
pollutant loadings in the Great Lakes.
t '- ' - " ; - ' > : :: :iv ?fei^il4i&^i^ if ^i|pp|Hi$ - >, - - T ~v ' . /:
'- /./',, >'CfJ<--, '
JfteroiiiBr "-"'''' * •• -^
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Dioxin/Furan
Hexacblorobenzene
Lead
Mercury
Oil & Grease
Polyaromatic hydrocarbon
Polycblorinated Biphenyls
Zinc
T*a»l J&ite&at I^jatfe
mmm
14,646
46,909
114,518
0
17
53,322
347
17,650,661
194
54
337,010
'$&&#»'
~mM%g$' •
9,408
38,355
109,558
0
0
29,548
357
14,704,619
83
13
337,562
• l&228£&
^£lW,
, 7,188
24,184
94,363
0
0
23,645
269
13,681,581
63
5
331,691
; / s vwarite.
'ffcesreasfc .,,..
51%
48%
18%
NA
100%
56%
22%
22%
68%
91%
2%
22%
Galveston Bay Watershed - Located in Region VI, the Galveston Bay Watershed area
consists of the five counties surrounding the Bay. Within the watershed there are 1,680
municipal and industrial facilities of which 240 (approximately 15 percent) are major
facilities and currently tracked in the NPDES program. The remaining 1,440 facilities
6-11
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
are minor facilities and historically are not tracked for compliance in the NPDES
program. Region VI developed a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
for Galveston Bay that identifies problems and action plans to correct those problems.
The plans include prioritizing permitting, outreach, and enforcement actions for FY
1996; conducting 140 inspections of minor facilities in Harris and Galveston Counties;
and issuing administrative orders to 250 industries under the Storm Water Permit
program.
As a part of a civil lawsuit settlement with EPA, the City of Houston agreed to conduct
an $800,000 toxicity study of the Houston Ship Channel, and associated side bays and
tributaries. As a result, Region VI has negotiated agreements with five industries
discharging to Patrick Bayou which are potential sources of water quality violations in
the Bayou. The industries have agreed to perform self audits of their facilities and
processes to locate any potential source of the pollutants identified in the Bayou.
Lake Pontchartrain - EPA, Region VI, and the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) initiated an enforcement and compliance outreach
effort to address water quality problems in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. As part of
this initiative, EPA is monitoring compliance of all major facilities and all minor
facilities that have received an NPDES permit. The LDEQ is continuing to initiate
enforcement actions as needed to address citizens complaints and address violations of
state permits. A number of enforcement actions that have been completed or are
pending include:
- Civil actions with the cities of Baton Rouge, New Orleans, and Kenner
- Administrative fines pending with St. Tammany Parish Sewer District #6 and
Delatte Metals
- EPA orders to 64 scrap metal yards and approximately 25 minor sewage
treatment plants
- State orders to over 80 facilities in 1994 and 1995.
A number of outreach efforts have also been completed, including:
- Joint EPA, LDEQ, and Farmers Home Administration meetings with minor
facilities to explain how the enforcement process works and what funding
programs may be available to facilitate compliance
- Contacting each facility prior to issuance of any administrative action
- A press release issued concurrent with the issuance of orders to minor facilities:
July 1996
6-12
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Initiative - Under this initiative, Region VI led a
major targeting effort to identity LQGs for RCRA inspections. Targeting was limited
to the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem, extending one parish on either side of the
river from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico (a total of 14 parishes).
This system has been identified as a sensitive environmental area and has a significant
environmental justice component along much of the corridor. Industrial sectors located
in this area include: organic chemical and coatings manufacturers; inorganic chemical
manufacturers; pulp and paper mills; shipbuilders, barge cleaners, and associated
fabrication operations.
B&J;
&eM&&&gjpiKw&'W&t®$Jted, T&e ,;
Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, and
M ifa ttese
JRRi %«? »
• San Francisco Bay - Region IX
undertook, with members of the
Association of Bay Area Governments,
the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control, a San Francisco
Bay Area Green Business Recognition
Program. This program seeks to create
a multi-agency program that would
recognize businesses for two levels of
environmental performance. Level I
recognition would occur when
businesses demonstrate compliance with
all environmental regulations while
Level II recognition would occur for
businesses achieving excellence in
waste reduction, pollution prevention,
and resource conservation. At end of
FY95, this team presented the program
concept to the Region's Green Business Advisory Committee and nine counties in the
San Francisco bay area for review and comments. During FY96, the goal is to begin
implementation in two bay area counties. The targeted industry selected to focus on is
automotive repair.
6.3 Multimedia
At the headquarters level, the Multimedia Enforcement Division (MED) continued to aid the
development of regional multimedia enforcement capacity by serving as a clearinghouse of
information and experience on multimedia inspections, case development, and litigation.
MED has been gathering various regional documents outlining different implementation
strategies and, along with headquarters policy and guidance, has developed a central repository
for information that is unique to multimedia enforcement or applies generally to all media
programs. MED is also providing support for the improvement of multimedia inspections by
participating in various workgroups developing inspection guidance, and by working with the
6-13
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) to develop a multimedia inspector training
program.
IV
£ ike r&ea&y
eat kupiimm,
wspw&ms mm-mforeemettt mtfms as
^s^tmeefr&grmitr
An example of MED's involvement with the
regions and states was the 1995 Multimedia
Enforcement National Conference. The 118
attendees at the conference represented EPA
headquarters, including senior OECA
management, all 10 regions, and 17 state
environmental and enforcement agencies. A
final report, which is intended as a tool to
help disseminate knowledge of multimedia
enforcement activities and further
development of multimedia programs,
especially at the regional and state level, has been published, and is also available on the
Environ$ense electronic information system.
At the regional level, Region IV continued to significantly improve its Multimedia Targeting
Strategy. The region is using more environmental databases, (e.g., STORET, National
Sediment Inventory and GIS) to further improve and refine this process. The region conducted
32 multimedia Category D Consolidated Inspections with 13 of these inspections occurring at
federal facilities and another conducted with the National Enforcement Investigations Center.
Region IV's purpose for conducting these inspections was to emphasize holistic targeting,
maintain a holistic approach to compliance monitoring, and establish a holistic compliance
presence.
6.4 Environmental Justice
Many minority, low-income communities have raised concerns about the disproportionate
burden of health consequences they suffer from the siting and operation 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 concern is that environmental programs do not adequately address
these disproportionate exposures.
To better address these types of issues, OC established an office-wide environmental justice
network and completed an environmental justice strategy entitled "Vision 2000 - A Five-Year
Strategic Plan for Environmental Justice," which includes workplans for nine specific program
initiatives. These initiatives included emphasizing environmental justice concerns in the
development of state grant guidance and regional MOA guidance.
FFEO prepared environmental justice profiles of 25 federal installations across all 10 EPA
regions to serve as models for how agencies should consider environmental justice in their
planning processes and to assist EPA and states in targeting enforcement actions.
July 1996
6-14
-------
FF1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Throughout the regions, an awareness of environmental justice issues is increasing and
becoming a consideration in all regional strategies and operations. For example, as part of its
strategy to assess the compliance status and gain insights into environmental concerns in
environmental justice areas, Region II has made compliance initiatives in environmental justice
areas a priority for a number of years. Environmental justice areas where local community
groups had voiced environmental concerns and environmental justice industrialized/residential
areas with aging infrastructure have received hundreds of targeted compliance evaluations as
well as follow-up enforcement. Areas include Catano, Puerto Rico; Greenpoint-Williamsburg,
New York; Newark, New Jersey, and Camden, New Jersey. In addition, in FY95, an analysis
of factors such as inspections and violation
rates in environmental justice and non-
environmental justice areas was conducted
using GIS and RCRIS. Region IV has also
responded to community concerns by
placing special emphasis on environmental
justice areas. The region prioritized
inspections at combustion facilities with
environmental justice concerns and has
evaluated, using census data, corrective
action facilities for environmental justice
issues. Through multimedia inspections,
another environmental justice area has been
identified for further focus in FY96.
by
minority vr
In Region VI, activities in conjunction with the Agriculture Street Landfill Superfund NPL and
Environmental Justice Site have been a model of intergovernmental cooperation and
community relations. These activities have included meetings between EPA staff and the City
of New Orleans, as well as meetings of the Region VI Regional Administrator and the
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response with the
Mayor of New Orleans and with senior officials of the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). Region VI has used a fast track approach to investigation and
NPL Listing of the site, as well as remedial investigation/feasibility study.
The Agriculture Street Site includes about 95 acres and was operated as a solid and liquid
waste landfill by the City of New Orleans between 1910 and the 1960s. Following the
landfill's closure, the City became closely involved in developing the property for residential
use and later built a school on the site. In the mid-1980s, EPA, state, and local officials
studied the site extensively in response to public concern over possible health problems caused
by contaminants to which residents may be exposed. Data from those studies indicated that the
site did not pose an immediate health threat to the residents. Nevertheless, in response to
renewed concerns, Region VI conducted an expanded site inspection (ESI) in 1993 for both
site ranking and removal assessment purposes. EPA also conducted emergency removal action
at the site and has continued its investigations with a removal/remedial integrated investigation
study.
6-15
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
With its FY95 reorganization, Region VIII created an Environmental Justice Program within
the Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental Justice Office. This program office will
work closely with the Technical and Legal Program Offices, as well as the other Assistant
Regional Administrator Offices, to develop a comprehensive way to target NPDES inspection
and enforcement to the greatest advantage to take care of environmental injustices.
6.5 Pollution Prevention
Pollution prevention continues to garner much attention throughout all EPA offices and the
states. Pollution prevention and waste minimization activities are routinely negotiated as SEPs
into settlement agreements. In addition, much of the Agency's compliance assistance involves
pollution prevention and waste minimization activities.
The Region II strategy has been to consistently promote pollution prevention through
numerous approaches at both state and federal levels. This includes major SEPs with
significant waste reduction, outreach through training and technology transfer, in-depth waste
minimization audits, screening inspections during all RCRA inspections, major grant support
for innovative state approaches, outreach, and waste oil reuse program development in die
Caribbean. For example, Kodak and DuPont are in the process of conducting major waste
minimization projects as part of SEPs. As a result of the Kodak settlement, nearly $12 million
will be spent by Kodak for pollution prevention/waste minimization projects that will result in
an anticipated annual reduction of 872,000 pounds of hazardous waste. Region II also funded
the Multimedia Pollution Prevention Program implemented by New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). In FY95, NYSDEC inspectors targeted for
inspection and potential pollution prevention 50 of the top 400 toxic releasing facilities within
the state. Region II also conducted 40 waste minimization audits to ascertain whether
generators of ozone depleting chemicals and generators that send their hazardous wastes to
incinerators are implementing RCRA-required waste minimization plans.
The Greater Chicago Pollution Prevention Program (GCP3) is a Region V cooperative non-
regulatory partnership of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, the
City of Chicago Department of Environment, the Illinois Hazardous Waste Research and
Information Center, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and EPA. GCP3 promotes
the adoption of pollution prevention ethics and activities in industry, government, and
community groups in the Chicago area.
Since GCPS's inception, 60 site visits and 31 industrial assessments have been completed,
resulting in significant pollution reductions as well as industrial cost savings from improved
production efficiency and reduced treatment costs. GCP3 has worked with industry to provide
workshops such as "Practical Solutions to Industrial Solvent Problems" and "Charting the
Course to Environmental Soundness in the Printing Industry." In addition, GCP3 joined with
the Calumet Area Industrial Commission, Chicago Legal Clinic, and Citizens for a Better
Environment to co-sponsor "Good Neighbors: Making the Toxic Release Inventory and
Pollution Prevention Work for You."
July 1996
6-16
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
In Region IX, the Merit Partnership for Pollution Prevention (Merit) is a voluntary program
involving industry representatives, state and local regulatory agencies, and EPA Region IX.
The goal of Merit is to facilitate and implement demonstration projects that reduce
environmental impacts and make good business sense. Projects proposed to Merit are
evaluated by a community advisory panel and a steering committee of industry and agency
representatives to ensure that they are consistent with the goals of Merit. Merit is currently
working with the metal finishing industry, the oil refinery industry, an industrial laundry,
semiconductor manufacturers, alternative fuel vehicle proponents, and a multi-industry
initiative to proactively address toxic spills. Merit is also coordinating with representatives
from the CSI, Design for Environment, and other EPA initiatives.
6-17
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
This page is intentionally blank
July 1996
6-18
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
7. ENHANCING PROGRAM INFRASTRUCTURE:
POLICIES, TRAINING, AND GUIDANCE
The effectiveness of the various enforcement and compliance activities described in this report
depends, in large measure, on the improvement of policies, training, and guidance that support the
pverall program. In FY95, the Agency worked with state and tribal partners, and with industry
representatives, to develop and implement several new or revised policies to improve program
implementation. Several of these policies have previously been discussed in this accomplishments
report, but other significant policies developed in FY95 are discussed below. In addition, EPA
has continued to expand its training programs at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels, working
to increase environmental protection capacities in all jurisdictions.
7.1 Policies and Regulations
In addition to new policies on environmental audits, small business compliance incentives, and
compliance flexibility for small communities (described in Section 4), EPA developed or revised
other significant policies:
• Revised SEP Policy - This revision makes numerous improvements to the February
1991 policy. Specifically, it clearly defines a SEP and establishes guidelines to ensure
that SEPs are within EPA's legal authority. The policy also defines seven categories of
projects that may qualify as SEPs and specifically encourages projects that 1) address
environmental justice concerns, 2) are multimedia in scope and 3) implement pollution
prevention techniques.
• RCRA Enforcement Response Policy - EPA revised the 1987 policy to give the states
and regions practical, flexible guidance for use in evaluating and responding to
facilities in violation of RCRA. In particular, the revision focuses RCRA enforcement
actions against significant violators that present the greatest risk to human health and
the environment, and implements risk-based enforcement.
• NPDES Inspection Policy - This revised policy provides the regions flexibility in
conducting NPDES inspections. The new policy states that rather than inspecting 100
percent of the NPDES majors, the regions may now shift resources from low risk
majors to high risk minors to better address problem facilities or priority geographic
areas.
• Clean Water Act Penalty Policy - The policy provides the flexibility needed to secure
appropriate relief in settlement of cases against municipalities. The new policy
provides many improvements to the 1986 policy, including an alternative approach to
determine penalties against municipalities; a revision to the method for calculating
gravity; and two new gravity adjustment factors to provide incentives for quick
settlement and to mitigate penalty amounts for small facilities.
7-1
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
• Title V - EPA issued several CAA Title V policy and implementation statements
designed to clarify Title V requirements. In particular, some of the clarifications
address Title V application requirements and key Title V certification issues.
• Guidance on Agreements with Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Property -
The new guidance supersedes the 1989 guidance and allows the Agency greater
flexibility in entering into agreements that provide a promise by EPA not to sue the
prospective purchaser for contamination existing at the time of purchase. The new
guidance allows for a broader application of prospective purchaser agreements by
expanding the universe of eligible sites to include sites where any form of federal
involvement has occurred or is expected to occur and there is a realistic probability of
incurring Superfund liability.
• Policy Towards Owners of Property Containing Contaminated Aquifers - The
policy describes EPA's decision to exercise its enforcement discretion and not take
enforcement actions under CERCLA against owners of property containing aquifers
contaminated by hazardous substances as a result of the migration from a source or
sources outside the property.
• Policy on CERCLA Enforcement Against Lenders and Government Entities that
Acquire Property Involuntarily - The policy states that EPA and DOJ intend to apply
as guidance the provisions of the Lender Liability Rule promulgated in. 1992. (In 1994,
the D.C. Court of Appeals vacated the Lender Liability Rule after it determined that
EPA lacked the authority to issue a rule delineating the scope of CERCLA liability.)
The policy advises EPA and DOJ personnel to consult both the regulatory text of the
Lender Liability Rule and the accompanying preamble language in exercising their
enforcement discretion under CERCLA as to lenders and government entities that
acquire property involuntarily.
• Standardizing the De Minimis Premium - The guidance establishes presumptive
premium figures and describes the most likely basis for deviating from such figures.
Additionally, the guidance recommends a method for effectively communicating the
premium determination process to the de minimis settlors and other interested parties at
a site.
In FY95, FFEO participated in two significant policy-making efforts. FFEO, in collaboration
with several other agencies, published a report entitled Improving Federal Facilities Cleanup.
The report, which represents the culmination of several years of intensive effort, explores the
origins of the federal facility environmental contamination problems, acknowledges federal
responsibility for addressing these problems, and identifies potential obstacles on the path
towards reforming federal facility environmental management. In addition, FFEO participated
in the development of a joint EPA/DOE policy on decommissioning DOE facilities under
CERCLA. The policy was formally executed on May 22, 1995, and establishes a
decommissioning approach that protects workers, human health, and the environment; is
July 1996
7-2
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
consistent with CERCLA; provides stakeholder involvement; and achieves risk reduction
without unnecessary delay.
Other significant regulation/rulemaking efforts include:
• Hazardous Waste Combustion Rulemaking - This rule, which regulates all
combustion units that burn hazardous wastes, is being proposed under joint RCRA and
CAA authorities. EPA utilized the procedures established by the CAA for development
of MACT standards to establish new standards for organic and inorganic parameters for
combustion activities. OECA's primary role in the development effort has been to
ensure the overall enforceability of the rulemaking.
• Detergents Rule - EPA finalized and published the gasoline detergents Phase 1 final
rule (enforcement provisions). The Act and rule require that all gasoline contain
effective detergents to assure prevention of fuel injection and engine deposits. Such
deposits can increase vehicle emissions. EPA hosted or participated in several regional
and national detergents rule workshops that were widely attended by industry and also
drafted an enforcement manual for detergents. In addition, EPA has drafted extensive
regulatory provisions and preamble language for the gasoline detergents Phase 2 rule
(enforcement provisions).
7.2 Training Programs
To educate EPA and state personnel on new policies, regulations, rules, or programs, EPA
routinely conducts training sessions and writes and issues guidance. The primary training arm
of OECA is NETI. In FY95, NETI developed or participated in the development of seven
new training courses: Advanced Negotiation Skills, Environmental Justice, Multimedia
Inspection, Pollution Prevention, Protecting Water Quality Through Enforcement and
Compliance, Enforcement Communications, and the RCRA Practitioners Workshop.
Throughout the year, NETI delivered training to more than 5,300 environmental enforcement
personnel at the federal, state, and local levels. NETI also organized the first EPA National
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Conference attended by more than 200 enforcement
and compliance professionals from EPA's headquarters and regions. The conference promoted
a common understanding about strategic directions for EPA's enforcement and compliance
assurance program and explored issues surrounding working relationships and partnerships
with key stakeholders.
In addition to the NETI-sponsored training, OECA conducted numerous other training courses
in FY95, including:
• SEP Training - In conjunction with the issuance of its revised SEP Policy, OECA
presented a series of training sessions on the revised policy. The course was produced
as part of the implementation of the policy and covers numerous improvements made
by the revised policy, including: definition of a SEP; guidelines to ensure that SEPs
7-3
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
are within EPA's legal authority; the seven categories of projects that may qualify as
SEPs; step-by-step procedures for calculating the cost of a SEP and the percentage of
that cost that may be applied as mitigation before calculating the final penalty; and
administrative procedures when a SEP is included in a settlement.
The course also contains modules on the Revised General Enforcement Policy
Compendium and on the PROJECT computer model, which is used to calculate the cost
of a SEP. It consists of a day of classroom work followed by a hands-on computer
session. The course has been presented twice at headquarters and at least once in each
of the regional offices. More than 500 EPA, state, and local environmental managers
and staff have attended.
• RCRA Practitioners Training Workshop - This workshop is designed to impart
program and legal staff with a strong working knowledge of RCRA and its enforcement
authorities as well as provide opportunities for discussion of cross-cutting issues.
• RCRA Inspector Institute - This three day course is designed to enhance inspectors'
knowledge and skill, thereby improving the quality of RCRA inspections. The RCRA
Inspector Institute was presented jointly by OECA and NETI on three occasions in FY
1995. The Institute was presented in Regions II and III and at NETI West. Over 140
state and regional personnel received the training at these three presentations.
• Training on Air Emissions Rules - This training provides an overview of the recently
promulgated RCRA air emissions rule for tanks, surface impoundments, and containers
at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs).
• RCRA Penalty Policy Training - OECA hosted a RCRA Advanced Practitioners
Penalty Policy Roundtable for regional and headquarters employees. The attendees
participated in discussions on various new developments in penalty policies, including
the SEP, Audit, and Small Business policies, and were updated on current
administrative and judicial enforcement developments.
• National FDBRA, TSCA and EPCRA Case Development Training Program - Four
national case development training courses were conducted in FY95 addressing FIFRA,
TSCA and EPCRA. The courses, covering two days of instruction each, explain the
civil administrative case development process from the gathering and evaluation of
evidence through the issuance of the complaint to the ultimate settlement or litigation of
the issues. A course manual is provided to each attendee. The manual explains the
case development process through the citation of pertinent case law and actual examples
of case documents.
• Principles of Environmental Enforcement and Compliance - In bilateral exchanges
and capacity building, OECA coordinated, managed, and/or participated in deliveries
of the course "Principles of Environmental Enforcement and Compliance" in Bulgaria,
July 1996
7-4
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Chile, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Mexico, Russia (several deliveries there),
Taiwan, Ukraine, and in Washington, D.C. to the World Bank. The course serves as
an important component of the U.S. program to meet its commitments undertaken at
the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, including the
commitment to develop institutions and capacity for effective environmental
enforcement.
Introduction to Superfund Enforcement - OECA developed a computer-based
overview that uses narration, video, text, animation, graphics, and interactive exercises
to explain the planning, management, and reporting requirements for basic CERCLA
enforcement activities. The training course covers PRP liability, PRP search,
negotiation and settlement, cost recovery, environmental justice and community
involvement. The course was delivered on compact disk (CD-ROM) and runs on a
standard multimedia personal computer. The four hour course was made available to
all regional Superfund offices as well as to EPA libraries. In the future, OEC A will
conduct a comprehensive course evaluation to determine the effectiveness of CD-ROM
as a training tool.
PRP Search Training - The two-day PRP search training focused on the increased
importance of PRP search activities at the Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection
phase. The training was intended for site assessment managers, civil investigators, case
development staff for cost recovery referrals, regional counsel staff with PRP search
responsibilities, and contractors who had been involved in the search process for one
year or less. Topics covered include: elements of liability, prima facie case, PRP
defenses, criminal liability, and information documentation.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Training - Training on the effective use of
mediation and other ADR techniques to assist EPA enforcement actions was provided
to all regional offices and headquarters during FY 1995. The intensive one-day
training was designed for legal and program staff who participate in enforcement
settlement activities. The ADR Users Training, taught jointly by EPA ADR staff and
ADR professionals who have served as mediators in Superfund cases, concentrated on
the inherent difficulties in Agency negotiations and how ADR can facilitate prompt
resolution of such disputes.
CERCLA Education Center (CEC) - During FY95, EPA's Office of Site
Remediation and Enforcement provided support to the Technology Innovation Office in
delivering two courses offered within the CEC curriculum.
- Fundamentals of Superfund - This five-day course provides an overview of
CERCLA, the National Contingency Plan and the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model. It includes introductory-level coverage of enforcement topics,
such as CERCLA liability, identifying PRPs, settlement tools, ensuring
adequate PRP response and employee authorities and liabilities.
7-5
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
- Enforcement Process - This course provides in-depth information on
enforcement activities and responsibilities under CERCLA. The first two days
are dedicated to an enforcement overview and review of Superfund liability,
PRP search activities, administrative and judicial law involvement, settlement
tools and cost recovery. The last two days involve participants in an intensive
negotiation skills workshop.
• PRP Search Conference - The two-day PRP search conference focused on methods of
obtaining and documenting high quality evidence earlier in the search process and
reorienting the process to facilitate expedited settlements. The conference was intended
for experienced personnel who deal with liability and viability determinations and
information collection and documentation. Topics covered included: PRP searches for
expedited settlements and allocations, exchange of good ideas for searches, ability to
pay/financial analysis, information management including on-line systems, and early
sharing of information with PRPs.
• National ADR Conference - In cooperation with Region I and the National Corporate
Counsel Association, the ADR Program held a conference on the effective use of ADR
in environmental disputes. The two-day conference brought together over a hundred
corporate executives, representing a wide range of the regulated community, with
upper management of EPA regional and headquarters offices and DOJ.
In addition to the several training courses specifically cited, EPA headquarters and the regions
are constantly offering and providing training to states and municipalities on similar topics
relating to development and implementation of EPA programs. Some of these
training/seminar topics have included:
• Multimedia inspector training
• Pollution prevention planning
• Waste minimization
• EPCRA reporting
• EPCRA compliance assistance
• Various statute-specific inspector courses.
7.3 Guidance Efforts
To further educate EPA and state employees on programs, EPA develops and issues guidance
documents or guidance statements. In FY95, the following are some of the significant
guidance pieces issued:
• Agriculture WPS Interpretive Guidance - OECA issued three sets of WPS Questions
and Answers in FY95. This effort reflected a major effort to respond to all but the
most recent questions raised concerning the standard. The question and answer
documents are the work of a multi-office work group established to address interpretive
July 1996
7-6
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
policy questions on the WPS. Questions have come from regions, state lead agencies,
and the public.
• Guidance on the Exercise of Investigative Discretion - OCEFT issued this guidance,
which establishes discrete criteria for Agency investigators when considering whether
or not to proceed with a criminal investigation. The guidance is designed to promote
consistent but flexible application of the criminal environmental statutes. The criminal
case selection outlined in the guidance is based on two general measures - "significant
environmental harm" and "culpable conduct." These measures, in turn, are divided
into nine factors which serve as indicators that a case is suitable for criminal
investigation.
• FY96/97 MOA Guidance - OECA's annual MOA Guidance serves as EPA's vehicle
for articulating the goals and direction of the national enforcement and compliance
assurance program to EPA's regional offices and state programs. The FY96/97
guidance represented a significant change in strategic direction, shifting from our
traditional focus on media-specific enforcement activities to the balanced application of
a broad range of enforcement and compliance assurance tools to address community-
based, industry sector-based and media-specific programmatic priorities. These tools
include compliance assistance, incentive and recognition programs, compliance
monitoring and data analyses as well as civil and criminal enforcement actions.
• FY95 Pesticides/Toxics Grant Guidance - In FY95, OECA took over management of
the pesticides and toxics cooperative agreement (grants) programs, which included the
lead-based paint grants program. These grants programs are designed to assist states,
territories, and Tribes in maintaining comprehensive compliance and enforcement
programs.
• Draft Priority Guidance for Addressing Discharges of Raw Sewage from Separate
Sanitary Sewers - OECA publicly released its draft priority guidance for addressing
discharges of raw sewage, known as sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), from separate
sanitary sewers. EPA will continue to enforce against SSOs (which are violations of
the Clean Water Act in most instances) while a Federal Advisory Committee reviews
the national scope of the SSO problem and drafts solutions to control these unpermitted
discharges of raw sewage.
• Guidance Document for §404 of TSCA, State Administered Lead-Based Paint
Programs - EPA has developed a "Model Lead-Based Paint Compliance and
Enforcement Program" guidance document. The purpose of the guidance document is
to clarify the term "adequate enforcement" with regard to lead-based paint programs
and establish guidelines for a "Model Lead-Based Paint Compliance and Enforcement
Program" for both state and federal programs. The document also establishes
guidelines for EPA approval of the compliance and enforcement program portion of
state lead-based paint programs.
7-7
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
In addition to its training and guidance efforts for domestic programs, OEGA has continued
progress in international collaborative efforts for environmental compliance arid enforcement
through the co-sponsorship of international conferences and development of hands-on
workshop and support materials. As an outgrowth of the Third International Conference,
OECA completed and distributed internationally, five technical support documents that
summarize environmental problems, control and prevention opportunities, and references for.
metals mining, petroleum refining, deforestation, tourism, and residential and industrial waste
disposal. Six new capacity building support documents are being developed for the
conference, including international comparisons of programs for source self-monitoring,
record keeping and reporting; multimedia inspection protocols; organizing permitting,
compliance monitoring and enforcement programs; financing and budgeting; communications
for enforcement; and transboundary shipments of hazardous waste, pesticides and contraband
CFCs.
July 1996
7-8
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
8. MEASURING RESULTS AND THE IMPACT
OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES
Environmental results are the ultimate measure of success, These environmental results can only
be achieved, at a minimum, when there is full compliance with our nation's environmental laws.
In FY95, while EPA continued to improve on its ability to ensure compliance with these
requirements, EPA also improved the methods of measuring the effectiveness of these efforts.
The expansion of compliance-related activities used by EPA, as a result of the 1994 enforcement
reorganization, has required additional means of measuring success. Although certain numerical
statistics of enforcement activity remain good indicators of Agency performance, EPA has
adopted new approaches that focus on sector compliance rates and environmental health. These
new approaches to measuring results have three principal objectives: 1) to measure
accomplishments for the full spectrum of enforcement and compliance assurance activities,
including those new compliance incentives and compliance assistance programs that supplement
traditional enforcement activity; 2) to measure the degree to which these various program
activities serve to protect human health and the environment; and 3) to measure industry
performance in terms of compliance rates.
8.1 Steps Toward Improved Measurement
In FY95, EPA took significant steps toward meeting the three objectives of the improved
approach to measuring success. FY95 became a transition year to develop and pilot test new
measures, information collection techniques, and re-engineered data systems. These changes will
lead to a much improved set of measures that will be used to assess more accurately the
effectiveness of enforcement and compliance assurance efforts and the performance of industry in
complying with environmental laws and regulations. Among the steps taken in FY95:
• Established compliance assistance measure - Effective in FY 1996, EPA win begin
collecting information about compliance assistance activities. All regions will provide
information about the amount and types of general compliance assistance they deliver.
They will also provide information about the results and impact of compliance assistance
initiatives targeted at specific industry sectors. States have been asked to report
voluntarily on this measure for FY96.
• Emphasized environmental results of enforcement activities - The Case Conclusion
Data Sheet, piloted in every EPA region in FY95, was designed to provide systematic
reporting of the qualitative and quantitative impacts and results of administrative and
judicial enforcement cases. Information collected through this effort will include actions
8-1
July 1996
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
tmspw $${&($ vases)
air emts&am&
taken by violators to return to
compliance, environmental impact
or benefit of actions taken by
violators, and qualification of
pollution reductions resulting from
these actions. (The text box
provides examples of some of the
impacts identified during the 1995
pilot.) Use of this sheet will also
provide useful information on the
value of injunctive relief and the
nature and value of SEPs.
* Developed industry-specific
compliance rates - Through re-
engineering single-statute
compliance databases to organize
data by industry sector and facility,
EPA will be able to establish and
monitor rates of noncompliance
for industry sectors. This will
allow EPA and industries to see
the effects of various strategies on industry compliance and monitor the performance of
industries in complying with environmental requirements.
Thus, for each of the tools of the integrated enforcement and compliance .assurance program
described in Sections 2 through 5 (compliance assistance, compliance incentives, compliance
monitoring, and civil/criminal enforcement), EPA's improved approach to measuring success will
move beyond merely counting activities by EPA and states to include actions by regulated entities,
benefits to the environment and public health, and compliance level of industry sectors. On the
following page, Table 8-1 on improved measures shows how new information being collected
about each of the tools will contribute to the use of new and more powerful measures that can be
used to assess program effectiveness and industry performance. In FY 1996, EPA will be able to
use these new measures to further refine and adapt its enforcement and compliance assurance
program, and thereby increase its effectiveness in protecting public health and the environment.
July 1996
8-2
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Table 8-1
Improved Measures of Success
f
,,>, ' r>"<-
- T««ls
' ' '' '-f
Compliance
Assistance
Compliance
Incentives
Compliance
Monitoring
Civil/Criminal
Enforcement
'
" " -ActKHisby"'
EM/Sfc*fes -
''
Aggregate data on
assistance
provided
Aggregate data on
cases and
agreements
Aggregate
inspection data
Aggregate case
and penalty data
.. , ^ .. , peas
Aetfoas fey '
- Segalated
C
-------
FY1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
This page is intentionally blank.
July 1996
8-4
-------
Appendix
Significant Administrative, Judicial,
and Criminal Cases
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REGION I A-l
Clean Air Act A-l
United States v. Borden, Inc. (D. MA) A-l
United States v. Housing Authority of the City of New Haven and Aaron Gleich, Inc. (D. CT) A-l
In re: City of Providence, Central High School A-l
CERCLA • A-l
United States v. Coakley Landfill, Inc. (D. NH) A-l
In re: General Electric Company A-l
M&V Electroplating Super/and Site A-2
Clean Water Act A-2
United States v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (D. MA) A-2
United States v. City of Lynn (D. MA) A-2
United States v. City of New Bedford (D. MA) A-2
United States v. Freudenberg-NOK General Partnership (D. NH) A-2
United States v. Hercules, Incorporated (D. MA) : A-3
BayBank, Inc. and Northland, Inc A-3
In re: Town ofBrooldine A-3
EPCRA A-3
In re: Colfax, Inc A-3
RCRA • A-3
In re: Yale University A-3
In re: United States Coast Guard Academy A-3
In re: Giering Metal Finishing, Inc A-3
SDWA A-4
United States v. West Stockbridge Water Company and Victor Stannard (D. MA) A-4
TSCA A-4
In re: Altana, Inc A-4
In re: Polaroid Corporation A-4
In re: Litton Industrial Automation Systems, Inc A-4
Federal Facilities - A-4
U.S. Coast Guard Academy A-4
Massachusetts Military Reservation A-5
U.S. Naval Education and Training Center A-5
REGION II A-7
Clean Air Act A-7
United States v. MTP Industries, Inc. A-7
United States v. Caribbean Petroleum Corporation . . . A-7
United States v. Consolidated Edison and John's Insulation A-7
United States v. Public Service Electric & Gas A-7
United States v. Del'Aquilla A-7
In the Matter ofGlenmore Plastic Industries, Inc., and In the Matter of Supreme Poly
Products, Inc • • • A-7
In the Matter of Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc. A-8
Clean Water Act : A-8
United States v. Lifesavers Manufacturing Inc A-8
EPCRA • A-8
United States v. TR Metals Corp A-8
July 1996
-------
Table of Contents
In the Matter ofForto Chemical Corp ......... A-8
In the Matter of Astro Electroplating, Inc. A-8
In the Matter of Insular Wire Products Corp A-8
In the Matter ofRicogas, Inc. A-9
In the Matter of Puerto Rico Battery Co .- . A-9
In the Matter of National Can of Puerto Rico, Inc . . A-9
In the Matter ofParke-Hill Chemical Corp A-9
In the Matter of Tropigas de Puerto Rico, Inc. , A-9
In the Matter of Ciba-Geigy, Inc. A-9
Ocean Dumping Act A-9
United States v. Westchester County A-9
RCRA . A-10
United States v. Mustafa (D. VI) A-10
In the Matter of Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc. A-10
In the Matter of Mobil Oil Corporation. A-10
In the Matter of Rollins Environmental Services, Inc A-10
In the Matter ofB&B Wood Treating & Processing Co., Inc. A-10
In the Matter of the New York City Department of Transportation and R.J. Romano Co. . . A-l 1
In the Matter of Oliver R. Hill and O.R. Hill Fuel Co., Inc A-ll
In the Matter of Wee Service Centers, Inc , ; .. . . . A-ll
TSCA , A-ll
In the Matter of CasChem, Inc. A-ll
In the Matter of Millard Fillmore Hospital A-12
In the Matter of San Juan Cement Co A-12
In the Matter of Johnson & Johnson , A-12
In the Matter of Glens Falls Cement Co., Inc. A-12
In the Matter of the New York City Board of Education A-12
In the Matter of Degussa Corporation . „ . ... . , . . . A-12
In the Matter ofNissho Iwai American Corp A-13
Multimedia , A-13
In the Matter of U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and Burns & Roe Services Corp A-13
In the Matter of Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc , A-13
In the Matter of Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company . A-13
In the Matter of Knowlton Specialty Paper, Inc. . . A-13
In the Matter ofNepera, Inc. A-13
In the Matter of American Cyanamid Company A-13
In the Matter of The United States Department of the Army, U.S. Army Armament
Research and Development Command, Picatinny Arsenal (. . A-14
In the Matter of New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. , . . A-14
Federal Facilities . A-14
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Plum Island Facility A-14
U.S. Army Picatinny Arsenal A-14
17.5. Army Fort Dix A-14
Seneca Army Depot A-15
Plattsburgh Air Force Base A-15
Stewart Air National Guard Base , A-15
REGION m ! A-17
Clean Air Act A-17
Consolidated Rail Corporation (CONRAIL) (Third Circuit, E.D. PA) . . . ; . . A-17
LTV Steel (W.D. PA) . . A-17
Shenango, Inc. (Neville Island, PA) A-17
USX-Clairton and Edgar Thomson Plants (Clairton & Braddock, PA) A-17
u
July 1996
-------
Table of Contents
Paragon Environmental Group and Haverford College A-17
E.K. Associates (EKCO/GLACO Ltd.) (Baltimore, MD) A-18
Mundet-Hermetite, Inc .'*. A-18
S.D. Richman Sons, Inc. (Philadelphia, PA) . . . . A-18
PECO Energy and Pepper Environmental Services, Inc. (Chester, PA) A-18
Harrison Warehouse Services Company, Inc., and Dewey Wilfong (Clarksburg, WV) .... A-18
Kammer Power Plant (Moundsville, WV) A-18
Hercules, Inc. (Covington, VA) A-19
Joseph Smith & Son, Inc. (Capital Heights, MD) A-19
CERCLA and EPCRA non 313 A-19
Brown's Battery Breaking Superfimd Site ; A-19
GMT Microelectronics (Montgomery County, PA) A-19
Virginia Scrap, Inc. (Roanoke, VA) A-19
Malitovsky Cooperage Company, et al. (Pittsburgh, PA) A-20
Abex Superfimd Site (Portsmouth, VA) A-20
Delaware Sand and Gravel (District ofDE) A-20
Strasburg Landfill (Chester County, PA) A-20
Blosenski Landfill A-20
Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. (WV) A-21
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation and Universal Food Corporation A-21
Clean Water Act A-21
John C. Holland Enterprises/Holland Landfill (Suffolk County, VA) A-21
Antoinette Bozievich-Buxton (York County, PA) A-21
Allegheny Ludlum Corporation (Pittsburgh, PA) '. A-21
Blue Plains STP (Washington, DC) A-22
Witco Corporation (Petrolia, PA) A-22
Modular Components National, Inc. (Forest Hill, MD) A-22
Goose Bay Aggregates, Inc. (Washington, DC) A-22
Elk River Sewell Coal Co., Inc. (Monterville, WV) A-22
Conagra Poultry Company (Milford, DE) A-22
Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority (Leechburg, PA) A-22
Potomac Electric Power Co. (PEPCO) (Faulkner, MD) A-23
USX Corporation Steel Mill (Dravosburg, PA) A-23
PEPCO (Benning Generating Station) (Washington, DC) A-23
National Railroad Corporation (AMTRAK) (Washington, DC) A-23
Columbia Natural Resources, Inc A-23
United Refining Co. (Warren County, PA) : A-23
EPCRA §313 A-24
Owens-Brockway (Erie, PA) A-24
Dayton Walther Corporation (Harrisburg, PA) A-24
Beaver Valley Alloy Foundry Company (Monaca, PA) A-24
Cabinet Industries, Inc. (Danville, PA) A-24
FIFRA A-24
Aquarium Products, Inc. A-24
Panbaxy Laboratories, Inc. A-24
Thrift Drug, Inc. (Pittsburgh, PA) . A-24
Precision Generators, Inc A-25
E.G. Geiger, Inc. (Harleysville, PA) A-25
RCRA A"25
USTNOVsfor Violations of the RCRA UST Requirements . A-25
General Chemical Corporation (Claymont, DE and Marcus Hook, PA) A-25
AT&T Richmond Works (Richmond, VA) A-25
Amoco Oil Company (Yorktown, VA) A-25
in
My 1996
-------
Table of Contents
Alexandria Metal Finishers, Inc. (Lorton, VA) A-26
Exide/General Battery Corporation (Reading, PA) A-26
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (Ravenswood, WV) A-26
In re: Beaumont Company A-26
Aberdeen Proving Ground Facility (Aberdeen, MD) ;- A-26
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. (Institute, WV) A-26
Lynchburg Foundry Company (Lynchburg, VA) A-26
Rapid Circuits, Inc. A-27
Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics (South Charleston, WV) A-27
RCRA Corrective Measures A-27
AT&T Corporation A-27
Honeywell, Inc. (Fort Washington, PA) A-27
Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc A-27
Allied Signal Inc. 's Baltimore Works (Baltimore, MD) A-27
Honeywell, Inc. (Fort Washington, PA) A-27
Allied-Signal, Inc. (Claymont, DE) A-27
SDWA A-28
Leisure Living Estates (Elkton, VA) A-28
Perry Phillips Mobile Home Park, (E.D. PA) . A-28
TSCA A-28
General Electric Co. (Philadelphia, PA) . A-28
ANZON, INC. (Philadelphia, PA) . A-28
Philadelphia Masjid, Inc. (Philadelphia, PA) A-28
Multimedia A-28
Horseshead Resource Development Company A-28
Brentwood Industries (Reading, PA) A-29
REGION IV A-31
Clean Air Act A-31
United States v. Environmental Resources, Inc. (W.D. KY) A-31
CERCLA A-31
Peak Oil and Bay Drums Sites (Tampa, PL) A-31
Peak Oil Site (Tampa, FL) A-31
LCP Chemicals Site (Brunswick, Glynn County, GA) A-31
Yellow Water Road Site (Duval County, FL) A-31
Maxey Flats Disposal Site (Fleming County, KY) A-31
Bypass 601 Ground-water Contamination Site (Concord, NC) A-32
Woolfolk Chemical Site (Fort Valley, GA) A-32
Aqua-tech Environmental, Inc., Site (Greer, SC) A-32
General Refining Site (Garden City, GA) A-32
Reeves Southeastern Site (Tampa, FL) A-32
Shaver's Farm Site (Walker County, GA) A-32
Para-Chem Southern, Inc. (Simpsonville, SC) . . . . A-33
Dickerson Post Treating Site (Homerville, GA) A-33
Murray Ohio Dump Site (Lawrenceburg, TN) A-33
Riley Battery Site (Concord, Cabarrus County, NC) A-33
Cedartovm Battery Site (Polk County, GA) .....,.: A-33
Sapp Battery Site (Jackson County, FL) A-33
Sapp Battery Site (Jackson County, FL) A-34
Kalama Specialty Chemical, Inc. (Beaufort, SC) A-34
Sixty-One Industrial Park Site (Memphis, Shelby County, TN) A-34
Carolina Chemicals Site (West Columbia, SC) A-34
Saad Trousdale Road Site (Nashville, TN) A-34
IV
July 1996
-------
Table of Contents
Florida Steel Site (Indiantown, Martin County, PL) A-34
Rutledge Property Site (Rock Hill, York County, SC) A-34
Sayles-Biltmore Site (Asheville, NC) A-35
Fuels and Chemicals Superfund Site (Tuscaloosa County, AL) A-35
Diamond Shamrock Landfill Site (Cedartown, Polk County, GA) A-35
Brantley Landfill Site (Island, KY) A-35
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site (Wilmington, NC) A-35
Koppers Charleston Site (Charleston County, SC) A-35
Lexington County Landfill Site (Lexington County, SC) A-36
Pike County Drum Site (Osyka, MS) A-36
Cedartown Municipal Landfill Site (Cedartown, GA) A-36
E.G. Manufacturing Property (Pineville, Mecklenberg County, NC) A-36
JMC Plating Site (Lexington, NC) A-36
Monarch Tile, Inc./Rickwood Road Site (Lauderdale County, AL) A-36
Shuron/Textron Site (Bamwell, SC) A-36
J-Street Site, (Erwin, Harnett County, NC) A-36
Clean Water Act/SDWA : A-37
United States v. IMC-Agrico Company (M.D. FL) A-37
United States v. City ofMarianna, Florida (N.D. FL) A-37
United States v. Metropolitan Dade County, et al. (S.D. FL) A-37
United States v. Perdue-Davidson Oil Company (E.D. KY) A-37
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (IN) . . A-37
Truman Griggs, individual (KY) A-38
Florida Department of Transportation Rest Areas (FL) A-38
Clay County, Florida - Ridaught Landing WWTP A-38
Anheuser-Busch Companies (Jacksonville, FL) A-38
City ofPensacola, FL A-38
Jacksonville Suburban Utilities, Jacksonville Heights WWTP (FL) A-39
EPCRA A-39
WoodGrain Millwork, (Americus, GA) . . .- A-39
Grief Brothers (Cullman, AL) A-39
Eufaula Manufacturing Company (Eufaula, AL) A-39
Kason Industries (Shenandoah, GA) A-39
Memphis/Shelby County Airport, TN A-39
RCRA A-39
Union Timber Corporation (GA) A-39
Masonite Corporation (MS) A-39
Takeda Chemical Products USA, Inc. (NC) A-40
Westvaco Corporation (SC) - A-40
United States Coastal Systems Station (FL) A-40
Central Florida Pipeline Corporation (FL) A-40
United States Air Force Base at Myrtle Beach (SC) '. A-40
Georgia-Pacific Corporation (GA) A-40
Southland Oil Company, Inc. (Sandersville and Lumberton, MS) A-40
Arizona Chemical Company (MS) A-41
ElfAtochem North America, Inc (AL) A-41
Florida Solite (FL) A-41
Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation (SC) ••• A-41
Everwood Treatment Company, Inc., and Gary W. Thigpen (AL) A-41
TSCA A-41
National Cement Company, Inc. (Ragland, AL) A-41
Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center (Louisville, KY) A-42
Brook Run Mental Health Facility (Atlanta, GA) A-42
July 1996
-------
Table of Contents
Federal Facilities A-42
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base (MBAFB) A-42
REGION V A_43
Clean Air Act A-43
United States v. Copper Range Company (W.D., MI) A-43
Navistar International Transportation Corporation (S.D., OH) A-43
Clark Refining & Marketing (Hartford, IL) A-43
Oscar Mayer Foods Corporation (Madison, WI) A-43
United States v. Coleman Trucking, Inc. (N.D., OH) A-44
Cass River Coatings, Inc. (MI) '. A-44
Schepel Buick & CMC Truck Company (Merrillville, IN) A-44
Clean Water Act A-44
Buffalo Oilfield Services v. Ohio Division of Oil and Gas A-44
Burlington Northern A-44
Akron, OH A-44
115th Street Co., Chicago, Illinois (a.k.a. PMC Specialty Chemical Company) A-45
Southern Ohio Coal Company A-45
Northwoods Organics, Inc. & Faulk Bros. Construction, Inc. (St. Louis County, MN) .... A-45
Northwoods Organics A-45
A & WDrilling & Equipment Co., Inc. (Gibson County, IN) A-45
Danny L. Long & Sons Disposal Services, Inc. v. Ohio Division of Oil and Gas A-46
PPG Industries, Inc. A-46
Tenexco/Terra Energy A-46
The Pillsbury Company A-46
EPCRA §313 A-46
United Screw and Bolt Corporation (Bryan, OH) A-46
Enamel Products and Plating Company (Portage, IN) A-47
FIFRA A-47
J.T. Eaton & Company, Inc. (Twinsburg, OH) A-47
Citizens Elevator Co., Inc. (Vermontville, MI) A-47
RCRA A-47
Marathon Oil Company (Robinson, IL) A-47
Great Lakes Casting Corporation (Ludington, MI) A-47
Abbott Laboratories A-47
S.C. Johnson & Sons, Inc. (Sturtevant, WI) A-47
Republic Environmental Systems (Cleveland), Inc. A-48
CMI-Cast Pans, Inc. (Cadillac, MI) A-48
Van den Bergh Foods Company Madelia, MN) A-48
Metro Recovery Systems d/b/a U.S. Filter Recovery (Roseville, MN) A-48
HRR Enterprises, Division of Kane-Miller Corporation (Chicago, IL) A-48
/. Stephen Scherer, Inc. (Rochester Hills, MI) A-49
PS7 Energy, Inc. (West Terre Haute, IN) A-49
Long Prairie Packing, Inc. (South St. Paul, MN) A-49
TSCA A-50
Ford Motor Company (Dearborn, MI) A-50
H & H Enterprises and Recycling, Inc. A-50
S.D. Meyers, Inc. A-50
Dexter Corporation A-50
Lawter International Corporation (Northbrook, IL) A-50
Federal Facilities A-50
U.S. Army Fort McCoy : . A-50
U.S. Naval Industrial Reserve Ordinance Plant (NIROP) A-51
July 1996
-------
Table of Contents
REGION VI A-53
Clean Air Act A-53
In the Matter of: Nitrogen Products, Inc A-53
CERCLA ..-• A-53
United States v. Gurley Refining Co., Inc., et al. (8th Cir.) ;- A-53
United States v. Bell Petroleum Services, Inc. (5th Cir.) •. A-53
United States v. Vertac Chemical Corporation (8th Cir.) . . . . A-53
United States v. Allied-Signal, et al. (E.D. TX) A-54
United States v. American National Petroleum Co., et al. (W.D. LA) A-54
United States v. Bayard Mining Corp., et al. (D. NM) A-54
United States v. Lang, et al. (E.D., TX) A-54
United States v. David Bowen Wallace, et al. (N.D. TX) A-55
Hillsdale Drum Sites A-55
Hi-Yield Chemical - - A-55
Lithium ofLubbock A-55
In re: Reliable Coatings, Inc. (U.S.B.C., W.D. TN) (Liquidating Chapter 11) A-55
Clean Water Act • - A-55
United States v. Mr. Roger Gautreau (S.D. LA) A-55
In the Matter of: City of Albuquerque, NM A-56
EPCRA A-56
In the Matter of: Formosa Plastics Company A-56
In the Matter of: Koch Refining Company A-56
Formosa Plastics Co A-56
Shell Chemical Company . . . . . A-56
In the Matter of: Koch Refining Company A-57
Formosa Plastics Co. A-57
Shell Chemical Company A-57
RCRA A-57
In the Matter of: Altus Air Force Base • • A-57
SDWA A-57
Cushman, Arkansas A-57
Colonias in Texas .' A-57
TSCA - A-58
In the Matter of: PPG Industries A-58
In the Matter of: El Paso Electric Company A-58
United States v. USS Cabot/Dedalo Museum Foundation A-58
Federal Faculties A-58
Lackland Air Force Base A-58
REGION VII : A-59
Clean Air Act • • • • • A-59
IBS Utilities, Inc. (Cedar Rapids, IA) A-59
Stupp Brothers Bridge & Iron Company A-59
Barton Nelson Inc A-59
CERCLA A-59
United States v. Bliss, 28 DIOXIN-Contaminated Sites, Eastern Missouri A-59
United States v. Bliss, Horse Arena, et al., 28 Dioxin-Contaminated Sites, Eastern Missouri A-59
United States v. Monsanto Company, et al A-60
United States v. Cooperative Producers Inc. and Farmland Industries, Inc A-60
Rogers Iron and Metal Corporation (Jasper County, MO) A-60
Mason City, IA and Bob McKinness Grading & Excavating, Inc. (Mason City, IA) A-60
Pacific Activities, Ltd. (Davenport, IA) A-60
West Lake Landfill NPL Site (Bridgeton, MO), OU-2 A-60
Vll
July 1996
-------
Table of Contents
I.J. Stephens Farm Site (Newton County, MO) A-61
Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings (St. Louis, MO) A-61
The Aluminum Company of America Site (Riverdale, IA) A-61
Doepke Holliday Site (Johnson County, KS) A-61
29th and Mead Superfund Site (Wichita, KS) - A-61
Emory Plating Company (Des Moines, IA) A-62
Fremont Pesticides Superfund Site (Fremont County, IA) A-62
Helena Chemical (Hayti, MO) A-62
Waterloo Coal Gasification Plant (Waterloo, IA) A-62
Irwin Chemical Company (Des Moines, IA) and Emory Plating Company (Des Moines, IA) A-62
Clean Water Act A-62
St. Columbfdll Association and Berra Construction Co A-62
EPCRA A-63
Texaco Refinery (El Dorado, KS) A-63
K.O. Manufacturing, Inc. A-63
Heyco, Inc. (Garden City, KS) A-63
FIFRA A-63
Farmers Cooperative Grain Company (Memo, NE) A-63
Oil Pollution Act A-63
Koch Industries, Inc. .- A-63
RCRA A-63
University of Nebraska A-63
SDWA A-64
Kansas Public Water Supplies A-64
Kansas Bureau of Water A-64
Multimedia A-64
Iowa National Guard, AASF #2, Waterloo, IA A-64
REGION Vm A-65
Clean Air Act A-65
South Main Texaco A-65
Plum Creek Manufacturing • A-65
Colorado Refining Company A-65
Asarco, Inc. A-65
ARCO, Snyder Oil Corporation A-65
CERCLA A-65
United States v. Alumet Partnership, et al A-65
Portland Cement Company A-65
Lowry Landfill Superfund Site A-66
Rockwell International A-66
City and County of Denver A-66
Denver Radium/Robco Project a Brownsfield Redevelopment Success Story A-66
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel A-67
Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Site A-67
Hansen Container Site A-67
Layton Salvage Yard Site A-67
Broderick Wood Products Site A-67
S.W. Shattuck Chemical Company A-67
Smuggler Durant Mining Company A-68
Clean Water Act A-68
United States v. John Morrell Company A-68
United States v. Excel Corporation, Fort Morgan, CO (CD, CO) A-68
United States v. City of Fort Morgan, CO (CD, CO) A-68
vm
July 1996
-------
Table of Contents
City ofWatertown, South Dakota • • • • A~68
Sheyenne Tooling and Manufacturing Company A-69
Trail King Industries • - - A"69
Pettingill A'69
Zortman Mining/Pegasus Gold . . . A-69
F.L. Thorpe & Company A~69
Twin City Fan & Blower Company A"69
Newman Signs Company A"69
FKI Industries A'70
Gopher Sign Company • A'70
EPCRA A-?°
United States v. Pennzoil Products Company A-70
KBP Coil Coalers A-?O
Pillow Kingdom, Inc A'70
Federal Facilities Agreement A'7^
F.E. Warren Air Force Base A"70
Oil Pollution Act A~71
United States v. Burlington Northern Railroad A'7l
Phillips Petroleum Company A~71
RCRA A'71
United States v. Stanley L. Smith, et al A-71
Powder River Crude Processors A'71
Cordero Mining Company A"72
Worland Laundry and Cleaners, Inc A"72
Amoco Oil Company A"72
SDWA A'72
Fort Thompson Water System, Fort Thompson, SD and Lower Brule Water System, Lower
(Brule, SD) A-72
Clark Electric Motor Co. UIC-VIII-95-07. A"72
Bobby Smalley, Donald Creager, Petroleum Products, Inc., and Straight Arrow Oil
Company—Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission A-73
Missoula Bottling Company, Inc A'73
TSCA A-73
Frontier Refining Corporation , • A~'J
Gary-Williams Energy Corporation A'73
Western Slope Refining Company A'73
Montana Resources Company A'73
Multimedia A'74
Weld County Waste Disposal, Inc.; Amoco Production Company; and HS Resource, Inc. . . A-74
Rocky Flats IAG ..." • A'74
REGION IX - • • A'J^
McColl Superjund Site A'75
Dunsmuir Spill A"75
KRDC, Inc., and Sundance International, Ltd. A~75
Jibboom Junkyard A"75
:•• California Almond Growers Exchange : . . . . A-76
Witco Corporation (Oildale, CA) A"76
Masonite Corporation A"7°
Minerec Mining Chemical A"77
IX
July 1996
-------
Table of Contents
Federal Facilities A-77
Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Yuma
Facility , A-77
U.S. Army Schofield Barracks A-77
U.S. Army Johnston Atoll . . - A-78
REGION X A-79
Clean Air Act A-79
United States v. Potlatch Corporation (D. ID) A-79
United States v. Nu-West Industries (D. ID) A-79
United States v. Daw Forest Product. Company (D. ID) A-79
Clean Water Act A-79
United States v. Alaska Pulp Company (D. AK) A-79
James Roland A-79
Alaska Pipeline Service Company , : A-79
EPCRA '.'.'.'.'. A-79
Leer-Gem Top and American Cabinet Concepts A-79
Hopton Technologies A-79
Patrick Industries A-79
Cascade General A-80
Nosier, Inc. A-80
Gary Looms, Inc. , A-80
RCRA , . . \\ A-80
Alaska Pollution Control, Inc., Palmer, Alaska ; A-80
United States v. Taylor Lumber & Treating, Inc. (D. OP) A-80
Northwest Enviroservice, Inc. (WA) , A-80
TSCA A-80
Northwest Aluminum Company A-80
Peoples Utility District, Tillamook, Oregon . . A-80
Willamina Lumber Company , A-80
Caterpillar, Inc. A-81
Washington Department of Social and Health Services , A-81
Multimedia A-81
United States v. Ketchikan Pulp Company (D. AK) A-81
FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE -. A-83
Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Fort Defiance Facility .... A-83
RCRA/Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program . . A-83
Groom Lake A-83
U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) A-83
Altus Air Force Base . A-83
£7.5. Army Picatinny Arsenal A-83
U.S. Army Natick Research Facility A-83
F.E. Warren Air Force Base A-84
U.S. Army Rocky Mountain Arsenal A-84
Army Materials Technology Laboratory . . . A-84
Defense Distribution Depot Memphis, Tennessee (DDMT) A-84
OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT A-85
United States v. William Recht Company, Inc., et al. (M.D. FL) . A-85
United States v. Roggy (D. MN) A-85
United States v. Boomsnub Corporation (W.D. WA) , . A-85
United States v. Adi Dara Dubash and Homi Patel (S.D. FL) A-85
July 1996
-------
Table of Contents
United States v. Irma Henneberg (S.D. FL) A-86
United States v. John Tominelli (S.D. FL) A-86
United States v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (D. MA) . . . A-86
United States v. Herman W. Parramore (M.D. GA) A-86
United States v. Ketchikan Pulp Company (S.E.D. AK) A-86
United States v. Ronald E. Greenwood and Barry W. Milbauer (D. SD) A-87
United States v. OEA, Inc. (D. CO) A-87
United States v. Percy King (D. KS) A-87
United States v. Gaston (D. KS) • • • • A-87
United States v. David Albright (E.D. WI) A-87
United States v. Attique Ahmad (S.D. TX) : A-87
United States v. Joel S. Atwood. (D. WA) A-87
United States v. Barker Products Company (N.D. OH) A-88
United States v. Mary Ellen Baumann, et al. (D. DC) A-88
United States v. James W. Blair (E.D. TX) A-88
United States v. Lawrence M. Bordner, Jr. (N.D. IL) A-88
United States v. Michael A.J. Brooks (W.D. WA) A-88
United States v. Cenex Limited, aba Full Circle (E.D. WA) A-89
United States v. T. Boyd Coleman (W.D. WA) A-89
United States v. Cherokee Resources, Inc., et al. (W.D. NC) A-89
United States v. Circuits Engineering (W.D. WA) A-89
United States v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (E.D. CO) A-89
United States v. Daniel J. Fern (S.D. FL) A-90
United States v. Gary Merlino Construction Co. Inc. (W.D. WA) A-90
United States v. Reginald B. Gist and William Rodney Gist (N.D. TX) A-90
United States v. Roland Heinze (W.D. TX) A-90
United States v. James David Humphrey (S.D. TX) A-91
United States v. Donald Jarrell (S.D. VA) A-91
United States v. William Kirkpatrick (D. KS) A-91
United States v. L-Bar Products, Inc. (E.D. WA) A-91
United States v. Lee Engineering and Construction Company (M.D. GA) A-91
United States v. Mantua Manufacturing Company (S.D. TX) A-91
United States v. Marjani, et al. (E.D. PA) A-92
United States v. Kenneth D. Mathews (D. OR) A-92
United States v. Roy A. McMichael, Jr. (D. PR) A-92
United States v. Micro Chemical, Inc. (W.D. LA) A-92
United States v. Roger Mihaldo (W.D. MO) A-93
United States v. Steve Olson (E.D. MO) A-93
United States v. Paul E. Richards (W.D. NC) A-93
United States v. R&D Chemical Company, Inc. (N.D. GA) A-93
United States v. William Reichle and Reichle, Inc. (D. OR) A-93
United States v. Donald Rogers (D. KS) • • • • A-94
United States v. Rose City Plating, Inc. (W.D. OR) A-94
United States v. Richard Schuffert (M.D. AL) A-94
United States v. Bruce D. Spangrud (D. OR) A-94
United States v. Spanish Cove Sanitation, Inc., and John Lawson
(W.D. KY) A'94
United States v. Yvon St. Juste (S.D. FL) A-95
United States v. Andrew Cyrus Towe, et al. (D. MT) - • A-95
United States v. T&T Fuels (N.D. WV) - A-95
United States v. Warehouse Rebuilder and Manufacturer Inc. and Lonnie Dillard (D. OR) A-95
United States v. George E. Washington (M.D. LA) A-95
United States v. Paul Zborovsky and Jose Prieto (S.D. FL) A-96
XI
July 1996
-------
Table of Contents
State of Oregon v. Roger W. Evans, et al. A-96
State of Washington v. Kevin L. Farris . A-96
States v. West Indies Transport, et al A-96
United States v. Herbert Zschiegner A-96
United States v. Patel A-97
United States v. Southwest Trading Fuel Oil, Inc A-97
United States v. Peter Frank, et al. \\ A-97
United States v. Caschem, Inc A-97
United States v. Con Edison A-97
Mohammed Mizani, H. Lee Smith and Lloyd Smith A-98
George M. Tribble A-98
Kenneth Morrison A-98
Buckey Pile Line Company A-98
Linden Beverage A-98
Billy Lee Brewer A-98
Kenneth Chen A-99
Summitville Consolidated Mining Co. . . A-99
Louisiana Pacific Corp A-99
Wheatridge Sanitation District and Mr. Lenny Hart .....' A-99
State of California v. John Appel, et al. A-99
XII
July 1996
-------
REGION I
CLEAN AIR ACT
United States v. Borden, Inc. (D. MA): On March
24, 1995, the federal district court entered a civil
consent decree in which Borden agreed to pay a
penalty of $82,278 for Clean Air Act violations. The
action addressed violations of Massachusetts SIP
regulations that limit volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from vinyl surface coating operations. From
September 1986 to May 1992, Borden's Vernon
Plastics Division in Haverill, Massachusetts, operated
vinyl surface printing lines using coatings that emitted
VOCs in excess of the SIP limits. In response to
EPA's enforcement action, Borden achieved
compliance by reformulating its coatings and by
installing and testing full enclosures around two
printing lines and by routing all VOC emissions to
incinerators. The full enclosures represent state-of-the-
art emissions capture technology previously considered
technically and economically infeasible. In reaching
compliance, Borden reduced VOC emissions by at
least 200 tons per year below 1986 levels.
United States v. Housing Authority of the City of New
Haven and Aaron Gleich, Inc. (D. CT): On August
17, 1995, the U.S. District Court in Connecticut
approved a consent decree which settles this Clean Air
Act asbestos case, originally filed in 1991 against a
federally funded low-income housing provider and an
asbestos abatement firm now in Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceedings. The case Involves claims by EPA that
the defendants failed to wet asbestos-containing
material (ACM) and improperly disposed of ACM
during the 1990 demolition of a large, vacant public
housing complex in New Haven, Connecticut. At the
time of the demolition, the facility was owned by the
Housing Authority which had hired Gleich as the
asbestos abatement contractor for the demolition
operation. The settlement includes payment of a
$43,000 penalty for which defendants are jointly and
severally liable as well as injunctive provisions
designed to ensure future compliance with the asbestos
NESHAP.
In re: City of Providence, Central High School: A
consent agreement and final order was signed on
November 8, 1994, in which the City of Providence,
Rhode Island, through its school department, agreed to
pay a $91,000 penalty for violations of the federal
Clean Air Act and the federally approved State
Implementation Plan. At its Central High School
facility, the City failed to meet opacity emission limits,
to operate opacity monitors in accordance with the
regulations, and to combust fuel with the required
sulfur dioxide content under federal regulations. In the
course of negotiations with EPA, the City agreed to
purchase fuel with the required sulfur dioxide content
and to operate its opacity monitor as required by the
regulations.
CERCLA
United States v. Coakley Landfill, Inc. (D. NH): The
United States and the State of New Hampshire have
entered a consent decree with Coakley Landfill, Inc.,
Ronald Coakley, and other individual members of the
Coakley family resolving the liability of the Coakley
entities as owners and operators of the Coakley
Landfill Superfund site. The Coakleys did not settle at
the time of the first operable unit remedial
design/remedial action (RD/RA) cleanup negotiations
in 1991 because of lack of financial resources. After
that, however, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
rendered a decision in favor of the Coakleys against
their insurers. The Coakleys then negotiated
settlements with their insurers, the federal and state
governments, and the first operable unit RD/RA
settlers. Under the settlement, the Coakleys will pay
$1,404,000. The United States and New Hampshire
will receive $842,400, to be divided among EPA, the
U.S- Department of the Interior, and the State based
on the proportion of expected costs at the site. The
Coakleys also agreed to impose controls on their
property and to provide permanent site access. The
settling parties with whom EPA entered into a RD/RA
consent decree in September 1991 will receive
$561,600.
In re: General Electric Company: In September
1995, the Region issued a unilateral administrative
order to the General Electric Company (GE) requiring
GE to remove soils highly contaminated with PCBs
from residential properties forming part of the Fletcher
Paint Works and Storage Facility Superfund site in
Milford, New Hampshire. The contamination of the
residential properties resulted from the spread of PCB-
laden soils from the Fletcher property to the properties
of neighboring homeowners. The Fletcher soils
became contaminated primarily through disposal of
waste PCBs at the site by GE in the 1950s and 1960s.
A-l
My 1996
-------
Region I
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
The soils addressed in the removal order were up to
130 times the safe level for unrestricted residential
exposure to PCBs set by national guidance.
M&V Electroplating Superfund Site: On September
7, 1995, EPA-New England issued an administrative
order for removal action to three potentially
responsible parties at the M&V Electroplating
Corporation Superfund site in Newburyport,
Massachusetts. The order compelled Circle Finishing
Corporation, former tenant and generator, Joyce
Vigeant, current owner and owner at the tune of
disposal, and M&V Electroplating Corporation, former
operator and generator, to remove hundreds of gallons
of dangerous chemicals improperly stored at the
former electroplating facility. These substances
presented an immediate and substantial threat of fire.
The site is located in a mixed
residential/commercial/industrial neighborhood, near a
daycare center,, a play area, and within one half mile
of a grammar school. The town middle school and the
downtown commercial district are within one mile of
the site.
CLEAN WATER ACT
United States v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (D.
MA): On April 4, 1995, the federal district court
entered a civil consent decree requiring the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its general
contractor, Dimeo Construction Company, to
undertake a $1.5 million wetlands mitigation project;
pay a $50,000 penalty; pay an additional $378,000
penalty (economic benefit) if the Commonwealth ever
sells die undeveloped land abutting the jail site; pay
$150,000 to the Massachusetts Audubon Society for
the establishment of an endowment for the preservation
of 264 acres of valuable wetlands hi Halifax,
Massachusetts; and offer a wetlands training course to
employees of Dimeo and to the Associated General
Contractors of Massachusetts. Between 1988 and
1990, the Commonwealth and its contractor filled
approximately 11.5 acres of forested wetlands hi
Dartmouth, Massachusetts while constructing the
Bristol County House of Corrections. The defendants
neither applied for nor obtained a federal CWA
Section 404 permit for this activity.
A unique feature of the settlement is the Supplemental
Environmental Project (SEP) which involves the
Commonwealth funding an endowment to be created
by the Massachusetts Audubon Society (MAS) to be
used to preserve and maintain valuable wetlands that
will be conveyed to MAS hi connection with another
EPA-New England wetlands settlement. This is the
first time hi the country that a settlement hi one
wetlands case has been used to ensure the success of
the settlement in. another case.
United States v. City of Lynn (D. MA): EPA
negotiated an agreement with the City of Lynn,
Massachusetts, to add a schedule for the construction
of combined sewer overflow controls to an existing
consent decree. Lynn's CSO discharges violated
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act. The required
CSO controls, which are estimated to cost
approximately $50 million, will eliminate an overflow
which discharges near shellfish beds and will greatly
reduce overflows which discharge onto a popular
public beach. The schedule also includes a "reopener"
date for negotiation of additional facilities to eliminate
the remaining overflows onto the beach.
United States v. City of New Bedford (D. MA): On
June 16, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts entered a modified consent decree
requiring the City of New Bedford to construct a
secondary wastewater treatment plant. In 1993, the
City of New Bedford refused to construct the
secondary plant hi accordance with the requirements of
an earlier consent decree. The United States filed a
motion to enforce the decree. Subsequently, New
Bedford agreed to construct the plant, and EPA
negotiated a modified consent decree. The modified
decree requires completion of the new secondary
treatment plant by 1996, and payment of a $51,000
penalty to the United States. In addition, the decree
requires payment of a penalty of $51,000 to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which will be
waived if New Bedford complies with certain terms of
the modified consent decree.
United States v. Freudenberg-NOK General
Partnership (D. NH): On October 17, 1994, the U.S.
District Court entered a civil consent decree in which
Freudenberg-NOK agreed to pay $550,000 hi civil
penalties hi settlement of a civil action brought for
violations of Sections 307 and 308 of the Clean Water
Act. This action arose out of Freudenberg-NOK's
violation of the federal metal finishing pretreatment
standards and reporting requirements. The Region
referred this action following an inspection made as
part of the Region's efforts to ensure that industries
subject to categorical standards but located hi
jurisdictions without federally approved pretreatment
programs were meeting federal requirements.
A-2
July 1996
-------
Region I
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
United States v. Hercules, Incorporated (D. MA): On
December 13, 1994, the federal district court entered
a civil consent decree which requires Hercules
Incorporated to achieve and maintain compliance with
pretreatment limitations, to pay a civil penalty of
$250,000, and to complete SEPs at a projected cost of
$375,000. The consent decree resolves a federal civil
action which arose under Section 307 of the Clean
Water Act for pretreatment violations at Hercules'
branch facility in Chicopee, Massachusetts. Included
.hi the action were violations of federal and local
wastewater pretreatment standards for pH, violations
of national pretreatment standards for organic
chemicals, and a violation of the prohibition against
discharging pollutants that may pass through the
treatment plant.
Bay Bank, Inc. and Northland, Inc.: On January 11,
1995, the United States signed agreements with
BayBank, Inc., and Northland Cranberries, Inc., to
resolve potential future claims against those companies
related to unlawfully-filled wetlands in Hanson and
Halifax, Massachusetts. The agreements require a
variety of restoration and mitigation projects, including
the conveyance of a 264-acre parcel of Atlantic white
cedar swamp to the Massachusetts Audubon Society.
In re: Town of Brookline: EPA issued an .
administrative penalty order against the Town of
Brookline, Massachusetts, for discharges of sewage
into the Muddy River in violation Section 301 (a) of the
Clean Water Act. The discharges resulted from illicit
connections of sewer lines to storm drains. EPA
negotiated a consent agreement with Brookline which
requires the Town to locate and remove all such
connections by 1997, and to undertake a variety of
stormwater management practices. The consent
agreement requires that Brookline pay a $25,000
penalty if the Town does not comply with the schedule
for removal of the illegal sewer connections.
EPCRA
In re: Colfax, Inc.: On September 29, 1995, EPA
issued an initial decision ordering Colfax, Inc., of
Pawtucket, Rhode Island, to pay a fine of $56,480 for
its failure to file MSDS sheets and chemical inventory
forms as required under EPCRA Sections 311 and
312. An administrative complaint was issued against
the company in September 1993 following discovery of
the violations during an inspection of the facility. The
inspection revealed a history of non-compliance with
reporting requirements necessary for local authorities
to conduct chemical emergency planning.
RCRA
In re: Yale University: An administrative consent
agreement and order was signed September 19, 1995,
to settle Yale University's failure to comply with
various RCRA requirements involving the management
of hazardous wastes and the preparation of emergency
procedures. The case was negotiated following a
routine inspection of four facilities at Yale. In addition
to requiring Yale to comply with RCRA regulations,
EPA agreed to a cash penalty of $69,570 and SEP
expenditures of $279,205 on three projects. One SEP
is to test micro-scaling of undergraduate organic
chemistry laboratories, which will promote pollution
prevention; the second is a hazardous chemical waste
management training program, which will promote
environmental compliance; and the third is renovation
of a building to be used for a lead poison resource
center, which will promote public health in an
environmental justice location.
In re: United States Coast Guard Academy: An
administrative consent agreement and order was signed
on September 21, 1995, to settle the Coast Guard
Academy's failure to comply with various RCRA
requirements involving the management of hazardous
wastes and the training of employees. The case was
negotiated following a routine inspection of the Coast
Guard Academy. In addition to requiring the Coast
Guard Academy to comply with RCRA regulations,
EPA agreed to SEP expenditures of $259,362.92 on
two projects in lieu of a proposed cash penalty of
$171,809. Under the terms of one SEP, the Coast
Guard will remove two underground fuel storage tanks
and one above ground storage tank and will replace
them with one dual compartment above ground tank to
serve as a central fueling station. The other SEP calls
for construction of a concrete block container storage
building to replace the current waste storage modular.
In re: Giering Metal Finishing, Inc.: On September
8, 1995, EPA filed a consent agreement and order to
settle an administrative penalty action against Giering
Metal Finishing, Inc., (Giering). EPA initiated this
administrative action against Giering for violations of
RCRA requirements for the management of hazardous
wastes and the training of employees. The settlement
agreement requires Giering to pay a civil penalty hi the
amount of $65,000, and to make expenditures hi the
amount of at least $93,000 to implement three SEPs at
A-3
July 1996
-------
Region I
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
the facility. The SEPs include: (1) enhanced closed
loop pre-coat rinses; (2) solvent substitution; and (3) a
compliance and pollution prevention audit.
SDWA
United States v. West Stockbridge Water Company
and Victor Stannard (D. MA): On December 20,
1994, the court entered a default judgment against the
West Stockbridge Water Company and its owner,
Victor Stannard, assessing a civil penalty in the
amount of $350,000 and enjoining the defendants to
comply at all times with the requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Water supplied by the water
company periodically exceeded the maximum
contaminant level (MCL) for coliform bacteria, with
many samples showing the presence of fecal coliform.
The water company also violated the Act's monitoring
and public notice requirements and the filtration
treatment requirements of the surface water treatment
rule (SWTR). Believing that the water company's
violations presented an imminent and substantial threat
to the public health, EPA issued an emergency
administrative order to the defendants. The
defendants' failure to comply with the emergency
order led to the filing of the civil action and the
$350,000 penalty.
TSCA
In re: Altana, Inc.: A consent agreement and final
order was signed February 15, 1995, settling an
administrative action for violations of TSCA Section 4.
Altana, Inc. is a corporation operating a business, the
Byk-Chemie USA facility involving the manufacture
and import of paint chemical additives. BYK-Chemie
self-disclosed violations of TSCA Section 4 testing
rules resulting from the importation of four subject
chemicals without notice to the Agency or participation
in required toxicity testing on the chemicals. The case
was settled for a penalty of $35,000. Incorporated into
the settlement agreement is Altana's performance of a
full TSCA environmental compliance audit at its BYK-
Chemie facility.
In re: Polaroid Corporation: In November 1994,
Region I entered into a consent agreement and order
with Polaroid Corporation resolving TSCA new
chemicals program violations. Polaroid had notified
EPA in October 1994, that an internal audit revealed
the manufacture and use of a new chemical for several
years without compliance with TSCA's premanufacture
notification (PMN) requirements. Beginning in 1992,
Polaroid, of Waltham, Massachusetts, had exceeded its
low volume exemption for the chemical by
manufacturing in excess of 1,000 kilograms per year
without having submitted the chemical for the required
EPA review of. health and environmental impacts.
Polaroid paid a penalty of $80,000, reduced from
$160,000 in light of the prompt and voluntary
disclosure of the violations. Polaroid is also
performing an audit of its compliance with TSCA low
volume exemption requirements for approximately 100
other chemicals, and will pay stipulated penalties for
any further violations uncovered by the audit.
In re: Litton Industrial Automation Systems, Inc.:
The Environmental Appeals Board upheld EPA's
inspection authority and procedures under TSCA, and
assessed a $36,000 penalty for PCB transformer
violations. The violations were discovered during an
inspection of Litton Industrial Automation Systems,
Inc.'s New Britain, Connecticut, facility conducted by
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
personnel under EPA's inspection authority. The EAB
decision affirms that under TSCA Section 11, the EPA
Administrator is authorized to appoint state inspectors
as "duly designated representatives" of EPA to conduct
TSCA compliance inspections. This decision supports
EPA's ability to supplement its PCB compliance
monitoring efforts by using TSCA Section 28 grants
for state inspections. The EAB also clarifies that a
respondent's voluntary consent to an inspection by
State inspectors holding EPA credentials waives any
Fourth Amendment right to exclude from evidence
information derived from a warrantless search.
FEDERAL FACILITIES
£7.5. Coast Guard Academy: Region I announced on
September 27, 1995, that the U.S. Coast Guard
Academy in New London, Connecticut, has agreed to
spend $259,254 on pollution prevention remedies as
part of an enforcement settlement for hazardous waste
violations. During and inspection of the facility, the
Region cited the Coast Guard Academy for violations
ranging from failure to maintain adequate records to
improper storage of incompatible waste. The Coast
Guard has agreed to conduct an SEP to remove two
underground storage tanks and one above-ground tank
to serve as a central fueling station. The Coast Guard
also will replace its current waste storage modular
building with a permanent concrete block container
storage building. The new building will be used for
the management of hazardous and Connecticut
regulated wastes. The Region announced that the
A-4
July 1996
-------
Region I
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
$260,000 SEP, a 50% increase over the original
proposed penalty amount was agreed to because the
Coast Guard Academy is located within an
environmental justice area identified by EPA for the
State of Connecticut. The SEP will directly decrease
the likelihood of pollution migrating into the Thames
River, with which members of the community
regularly come into contact for fishing and recreational
purposes.
Massachusetts Military Reservation: Region I
approved, with concurrence by EPA Headquarters, two
SEPs at the Massachusetts Military Reservation
(MMR) as part of a settlement with the National Guard
Bureau (NGB). In April 1994, EPA and NGB reached
an agreement hi principle to settle a dispute relating to
the October 6, 1993, assessment of penalties under the
MMR federal facility agreement. Under the
agreement, NGB will pay a $55,000 cash penally and
conduct and SEP hi the amount of $500,000 which
meets the requirements of EPA's SEP guidance.
A review of past and present operations and waste
disposal practices identified potentially contaminated
areas, including eight that cover 3,900 acres on the
southern portion of MMR. The materials found at the
eight areas are fly ash, bottom ash, waste solvents,
waste fuels, herbicides, and transformer oil. The
municipalities of Bourne and Sandwich, and the Air
Force base have an estimated population of 36,000
people and have drinking water wells within 3 miles of
hazardous substances at the site. Irrigation wells are
also within 3 miles. Ashumet Pond, less than one mile
from the former fire training area, is used for
recreational activities. A freshwater wetland is 3,600
feet downstream of the area.
U.S. Naval Education and Training Center: Region
I reached a settlement with the Navy over violations of
the federal facilities agreement for the Naval Education
and Training Center (NETC), Newport, Rhode Island.
The Navy agreed to pay $30,000 hi stipulated
penalties, undertake $220,000 hi SEPs, pay $10,000
for an EPA-Navy "partnering" meeting, and provide
the necessary ecological risk assessments for two
specific areas of the facility. '
The dispute concerned the Navy's repeated failure to
submit draft remedial investigation reports including
ecological and human health risk assessments for the
McAllister Point landfill and the old fire fighting
training area at the facility. The Region took the
position that until the Navy completes and submits the
outstanding human and ecological risk assessment
reports, the Navy was out of compliance with the
requirements of Section 6.4 of the FFCA for NETC.
A-5
July 1996
-------
Region I
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
A-6
July 1996
-------
REGION II
CLEAN AIR ACT
United States v. MTP Industries, Inc.: On December
19, 1994, a consent decree was entered in federal
district court in this case involving a graphic arts
company that was using printing ink with excessive
solvent content without requisite control equipment.
The decree provides for payment of a $120,025 civil
penalty by MTP and requires the company to maintain
compliance with the Clean Air Act and applicable New
York State Implementation Plan (SIP) regulations. At
present, the facility has installed required pollution
abatement equipment in advance of the compliance
schedule requirements of the decree. Stack tests
conducted on-site demonstrate compliance with the
pertinent emission standards.
United States v. Caribbean Petroleum Corporation:
In addition to the four administrative Subpart J cases,
in Fiscal Year 1992 Region II referred to DOJ one
judicial enforcement action against the Caribbean
Petroleum Corporation (CPC). A consent decree was
entered on March 16, 1995, in the District Court for
Puerto Rico, which provides for payment of a civil
penalty of $350,000. The complaint in this case
alleged CPC violated the federal Subpart J new source
performance standards; specific conditions of its PSD
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality)
permit; and specific provisions of the Puerto Rico State
Implementation Plan. The consent decree requires
CPC to comply with Subpart J performance standards,
its PSD permit and those provisions of the Puerto Rico
SIP which were alleged to have been violated. In
1994 Region II referred to DOJ three judicial
enforcement actions which included Subpart J SO2
emission violation counts in addition to monitoring
violations. The Caribbean Petroleum case is the first
of these matters to be resolved.
United States v. Consolidated Edison and John's
Insulation: On March 8, 1994, the United States filed
a complaint against Consolidated Edison of New York,
as owner, and John's Insulation, Inc., as operator, for
violations of the asbestos demolition/renovation
NESHAP that occurred at Con Ed's Waterside
generating station in New York City. Allegations
included violation of the work practice and notification
provisions of 40 CFR § 61.145. A partial consent
decree resolving the action against Con Ed was entered
on April 14, 1995, requiring a $100,000 penalty,
which was paid in full May 1. John's Insulation
signed a partial-consent decree soon thereafter that
required a penalty of $42,500, to be paid in three
installments. However, John's Insulation filed for
bankruptcy protection hi December of 1994, causing
the United States to file a proof of claim to protect its
judgment on August 30, 1995.
United States v. Public Service Electric & Gas: The
vigilance of an off-duty Region II inspector resulted in
this enforcement action, resolved with the payment by
PSE&G of $230,000 in civil penalties. The inspector,
while commuting home, noticed a pile of old pipes
laying in a yard. A later inspection of the old gas
cracking operation revealed numerous violations of the
asbestos NESHAP by PSE&G. Following pre-filing
negotiations with the company, a consent decree was
lodged at the same time the complaint was filed, and
subsequently entered on March 30, 1995. The decree
required payment of the penalty and the completion of
an extensive worker training and notification program
by PSE&G.
United States v. Del'Aquilla: On August 23, 1995, a
judicial consent decree was entered in New Jersey
District Court resolving this action against Anthony
Del'Aquilla concerning asbestos demolition/renovation
NESHAP violations. The decree memorializes the
defendant's agreement to a civil penalty of $400,000
for those violations. The agreement was signed by the
Chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee, which acknowledges
the validity of the claim. When the bankruptcy judge
eventually enters Del'Aquilla's reorganization the
United States will receive payment of the penalty. The
original court order enjoining violations at the site will
also remain hi effect.
In the Matter of Glenmore Plastic Industries, Inc.,
and In the Matter of Supreme Poly Products, Inc.:
In September 1995, Region II issued two
administrative complaints to Glenmore Plastic
Industries, Inc., and Supreme Poly Products, Inc.,
seeking penalties of $137,000 and $183,361,
respectively, for violations of the applicable emission
standards for volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Both plants are located hi Brooklyn, New York, a
severe non-attainment area for ozone. Inspections at
the two facilities (hi late 1994 and early 1995) revealed
that these coating and graphic arts facilities used
coatings and inks with VOC contents well above
A-7
July 1996
-------
Region II
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
permissible limits, causing excess VOC emissions
which exacerbates the area's ozone air quality
problem. Supreme also operated its facility without a
valid operating permit.
In the Matter of Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc.: The
last of four administrative actions issued by Region II
as part of a national Subpart J Enforcement Initiative
was resolved on November 17, 1994, by issuance of
an administrative consent order to Phillips Puerto Rico
Core. The order requires Phillips to achieve
compliance with the regulations in question, and to pay
a civil penalty of $99,000. The four Subpart J
administrative Complaints were issued in September of
1992 for failure to comply with H2S monitoring
requirements which became effective in October of
1991. In Fiscal Year 1994, prior to the settlement of
the Phillips Puerto Rico Core case, the other three
Subpart J administrative cases were settled. In total,
the four matters resulted in $271,680 penalty
payments.
CLEAN WATER ACT
United States v. Ufesavers Manufacturing Inc.: On
March 23, 1995, a consent decree was entered in
Puerto Rico District Court in this Clean Water Act
case. The decree requires Lifesavers to pay a civil
penalty of $527,000 for its past violations of the CWA
and its NPDES permit. Lifesavers owns and operates
a manufacturing facility, producing chewing gum, in
Las Piedras, Puerto Rico. Industrial and stonnwater
discharges were regulated under an NPDES permit, the
terms of which Lifesavers violated on various
occasions during 1990-1992. Lifesavers has now
ceased the direct discharge of industrial wastes; the
wastes are pre-treated and sent to a publicly owned
sewage treatment plant. Lifesavers has improved its
stonnwater collection and treatment system and is now
meeting the stormwater requirements of its modified
NPDES permit.
EPCRA
United States v. TR Metals Corp.: At the request of
EPA Region n, the U.S. Attorney for the District of
New Jersey initiated a civil action against the TR
Metals Corporation. Filed hi federal district court, the
complaint seeks collection of a $34,000 default
judgment due and owing to the United States plus costs
and interest. The debt arose as the result of an
administrative default order issued to the company for
violations of the EPCRA. The violations occurred in
1987 and 1988 and involved the failure to report toxic
releases associated with the facility's use of lead in
amounts exceeding the reporting threshold. The
default order was subsequently appealed by the
company and confirmed by the Environmental Appeals
Board. The judicial complaint seeks an award of
$44,371.99 plus any accrued interest, penalty interest,
and costs associated with the maintenance of this
action.
In the Matter of Forto Chemical Corp.: On January
25,1995, Region II issued an administrative complaint
charging Forto Chemical Corporation with failing to
submit hazardous chemical information to the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and local planning and
emergency response organizations in accordance with
Section 312 of EPCRA. The 9-count complaint seeks
$139,200 in penalties for these violations. The
complaint alleges that the company failed to submit
annual inventory forms for hydrofluoric acid present at
the facility to the Commonwealth and local emergency
planning committees and the local fire department for
the years 1991 through 1993. The information is
intended to be available to the public and to aid
emergency response personnel in responding to any
accidental releases of chemicals at facilities.
In the Matter of Astro Electroplating, Inc.: -On
March 30, 1995, Region II issued an administrative
complaint to Astro Electroplating, Inc., a New York
company, citing violations of Sections 311, 312 and
313 of EPCRA. The complaint, which seeks a civil
penalty of $318,300, alleges that the company failed to
(1) submit to State and local emergency authorities, as
required under Section 311, copies of material safety
data sheets for nitric acid and sulfuric acid stored at its
facility; (2) submit Tier I or Tier II forms for those
chemicals, as required by Section 312, for the years
1992 through 1994; and (3) submit forms R for
copper, sulfuric acid and nitric acid, as required by
Section 313, for the years 1990 through 1992. Several
of these chemicals are designated as "extremely
hazardous" in the EPCRA regulations.
In the Matter of Insular Wire Products Corp.: On
June 6, 1995, Region II issued an administrative
complaint against Insular Wire Products of Bayamon,
Puerto Rico, alleging violations of EPCRA. The
complaint proposes assessment of $306,000 in fines.
The complaint alleges that the company stored and
used sulfuric acid—designated an "extremely
hazardous" substance under the law—and diesel fuel
between 1991 and 1993 in amounts exceeding the
A-8
July 1996
-------
Region II
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
EPCRA reporting thresholds. The company failed to
submit MSDS forms to State and local emergency
authorities; failed to submit Tier I and Tier II forms to
those authorities for the years 1991 through 1993; and
failed to submit forms R for sulfuric acid for the years
1992 through 1994.
In the Matter of Ricogas, Inc.: On September 26,
1995, Region II issued an administrative complaint to
Ricogas, Inc., seeking $134,640 in penalties for failure
to comply with the EPCRA Sections 311 and 312
reporting requirements for its Arecibo, Puerto Rico,
facility. Ricogas is a distributor of propane and
liquified petroleum gas (LPG). Propane and LPG are
hazardous chemicals, and were stored at the facility hi
excess of the 10,000 pound reporting threshold.
Ricogas failed to submit the required Material Safety
Data Sheets to state and local emergency planning and
response authorities; and it also failed to submit
emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms
(Tier I or Tier II forms) to these entities.
In the Matter of Puerto Rico Battery Co.: On
September 29, 1995, Region II issued an
administrative complaint to the Puerto Rico Battery
Company of Camuy, Puerto Rico, citing it for EPCRA
violations and seeking $204,000 in penalties. The
company failed to prepare a Material Safety Data Sheet
for the storage of sulfuric acid, an "extremely
hazardous substance," at its battery manufacturing
facility as required by EPCRA Section 311(a); and it
failed to submit hazardous chemical inventory forms
(for three reporting years) to the Commonwealth
Emergency Response Commission, Local Emergency
Planning Commission and local fire department, hi
violation of EPCRA Section 312(a).
In the Matter of National Can of Puerto Rico, Inc.:
On September 27, 1995, Region II issued an
administrative consent order to National Can of Puerto
Rico, Inc. The order resolves a case initiated a year
earlier, in which the company was cited for violations
of EPCRA Section 312 for its failure to submit to local
emergency planning and response agencies the required
emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms
(Tier I or Tier II forms) with respect to sulfuric acid
(for the reporting years 1990 through 1993). Under
the settlement, the company will pay a civil penalty of
$160,000.
In the Matter of Parke-Hitt Chemical Corp.: On
September 29, 1995, Region II issued an
administrative complaint to the Parke-Hill Chemical
Corporation of Mount Vernon, New York, for
violations of EPCRA Sections 311 and 312. The
complaint seeks $143,550 in penalties for the
company's failure to submit MSDSs to the appropriate
federal, state and local authorities for four hazardous
or extremely hazardous substances (as required by
Section 311 of EPCRA); and for the Respondent's
failure to submit Tier I/Tier II forms (as required by
Section 312 of EPCRA) to the appropriate authorities
in 1992, 1993, and 1994.
In the Matter of Tropigas de Puerto Rico, Inc.: On
September 29, 1995, Region II issued an
administrative complaint to Tropigas de Puerto Rico,
Inc., seeking $229,500 hi penalties for failure to
comply with the reporting requirements of EPCRA
Sections 311 and 312. Tropigas is a distributor of
propane, a hazardous chemical, which it stores at its
facility hi excess of the 10,000 pound reporting
requirement. Tropigas failed to submit the required
Material Safety Data Sheets for these chemicals to the
state and local emergency planning authorities and the
local fire department as required by Section 311.
Tropigas also failed to submit emergency and
hazardous chemical inventory forms (Tier I or Tier II
forms) to these entities as required by Section 312.
In the Matter of Ciba-Geigy, Inc.: On November 7,
1994, Region II issued an administrative consent order
to Ciba-Geigy, Inc., assessing a penalty of $130,000
for violations of EPCRA at its Toms River, New
Jersey, facility. The order was based upon an
inspection of Ciba-Geigy's facility that resulted hi a
sixteen count complaint alleging that Ciba-Geigy failed
to report that it used certain of the following: copper
compounds; glycol ethers; chromium compounds;
cobalt compounds; C.I. Disperse Yellow 3;
diethanolamine and ethylene glycol during the calendar
years 1988 through 1991.
OCEAN DUMPING ACT
United States v. Westchester County: On October 3,
1994, a second order amending the consent decree was
filed in this Region II case hi the Eastern District of
New York. Under the terms of the modified consent
decree, Westchester County, New York, will, no later
than September 15, 1995, achieve long-term
compliance with the Ocean Dumping Ban Act (ODBA)
through implementation of a beneficial use sludge
management program. In addition, Westchester paid
$200,000 hi stipulated penalties, to be evenly divided
between the United States and New York State. Of
A-9
July 1996
-------
Region II
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
this sum, $100,000 was paid to the State to be devoted
to an environmental benefits plan in Westchester
County. One million dollars currently in escrow for
past noncompliance will remain in escrow pending the
County's compliance with the requirements of the
amended decree.
RCRA
United States v. Mustafa (D. VI): On May 18, 1995,
a complaint was filed on behalf of EPA Region II in
the U.S. District Court of the Virgin Islands against a
recalcitrant violator, Fahri Mustafa, alleging violations
of Subtitle I of RCRA, governing underground storage
tanks (USTs). Mustafa, the subject of a prior EPA
enforcement action, ignored a final administrative
order issued on September 7, 1993. That order
required immediate compliance with UST regulatory
obligations and the payment of $74,105 in civil
penalties. Since issuance of the final administrative
order, Mustafa not only failed to pay any of the
assessed civil penalty, but continued to violate the UST
regulations at issue in that matter, and also violated
additional UST regulatory requirements. Releases of
petroleum into the environment are suspected at each
of two gasoline filling stations owned and operated by
Mustafa on St. Croix.
The complaint seeks not only collection of the past due
amount under the administrative order, plus interest
and costs, but also a further civil penalty for
continuing and additional violations, as well as
injunctive relief. The violations alleged in the
complaint include failure to employ a method of
release detection, failure to close out-of-service USTs,
failure to report and investigate suspected releases,
failure to conduct testing following repairs to an UST
system, and failure to respond to an information
request letter.
In the Matter of Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc.: On
September 29, 1995, Region n issued a corrective
action order under RCRA §3008(h) for the Guayama,
Puerto Rico, facility owned and operated by Phillips
Puerto Rico Core, Inc. The order requires that
Phillips: (1) complete the RCRA facility investigation
(RFI) it had undertaken pursuant to an earlier RCRA
Section 3013 order; (2) complete a corrective measures
study (which requires it to recommend a final
corrective measure or measures) and construct, operate
and maintain the corrective measure(s) selected; and
(3) implement interim measures as necessary. The
facility manufactures various petrochemical products,
including gasoline and xylenes; and generates, treats,
stores and disposes of hazardous wastes including
corrosive waste, spent non-halogenated solvents,
sludges, toluene and various other aliphatic and
aromatic hydrocarbons.
In the Matter of Mobil Oil Corporation.: On
September 29, 1995, Region II issued a unilateral
RCRA Section 3013 administrative order to Mobil Oil
, Corporation regarding its Port Mobil facility on Staten
Island, New York. The order is based on a
determination that the presence or release of hazardous
waste at this facility presents a substantial hazard to
human health or the environment. EPA found that
there had been repeated releases at the facility over
several years and that sampling showed
contamination—severe in some instances—of the soil
and groundwater with benzene and other petroleum-
derived wastes. Many of these samples showed
benzene at concentrations so high that the samples
themselves would be classified as hazardous waste
when discarded. The order requires Mobil to perform
a RCRA facility investigation and groundwater
monitoring around two large surface impoundments.
In the Matter of Rollins Environmental Services,
Inc.: In June 1995, Region II amended a RCRA
Section 3008(h) corrective action order issued in 1987
to Rollins Environmental Services in connection with
its hazardous waste disposal facility in Bridgeport,
New Jersey. The amended order designated a
corrective action management unit (CAMU) at the
facility, the first to be approved in Region II. The
CAMU is expected to result in cost savings of about
$3 million through on-site disposal of up to 50,000
cubic yards of industrial sludge.
In the Matter of B&B Wood Treating & Processing
Co., Inc.: On October 25, 1994,, EPA issued an order
granting Region IPs motion for partial accelerated
decision against B&B Wood Treating & Processing
Co., Inc., a Puerto Rico-based wood preserver.
Finding that there existed no genuine issue of material
fact, the ALJ decided the Agency was entitled as a
matter of law to a judgment on liability for all five
counts of the complaint, originally filed in 1993: (1)
failure to notify EPA that it generated hazardous
wastes; (2) failure to obtain, a proper written
assessment of its drip pad (used in the wood preserving
operations); (3) failure to have a curb or berm around
the drip pad; (4) failure to properly document me
cleaning of the drip pad; and (5) failure to properly
document the procedure for handling the treated wood.
A-10
July 1996
-------
Region II
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
The complaint sought nearly $221,000 in civil
penalties, and was the first case commenced in Region
II against a wood preserving operation.
In the Matter of the New York City Department of
Transportation and R.J. Romano Co.: On February
21, 1995, Region II issued an administrative consent
order settling an action against the City of New York
Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) and its
contractor the R.J. Romano Co. The complaint,
issued in December 1992, addressed RCRA violations
involving the release of, lead-based paint waste during
abrasive blasting of the Williamsburg Bridge. The
case, which established a. national precedent,, is
believed to be the first such RCRA action to cite the
RCRA rule which requires generators to minimize the
release of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents to
air, waterj or soil. Under the - settlement, the
respondents jointly paid a $25,000 penalty.
Compliance had been secured previously through a
separate administrative action. The Region's
investigation also uncovered the operation of an illegal
hazardous waste storage facility by NYCDOT, in
which lead-based paint waste from structures
throughout New York City was stored without a
RCRA permit after being transported without
hazardous waste manifests. These violations were the
subject of a second complaint issued to NYCDOT in
December 1992, which sought a $691,500 penalty.
Settlement negotiations regarding this action are
ongoing. ,
In the Matter of Oliver R. Hill and O.R. Hill Fuel
Co., Inc.: On March 6, 1995, Region II issued a
unilateral administrative Order pursuant to §7003 of
RCRA to Respondents Oliver R. Hill and O.R. Hill
Fuel Co., Inc. On October 8, 1994, the occupant of
a residence located near O.R,*s Gas & Grocery
detected gasoline fumes while digging a groundwater
well on his property. Site assessment activities
confirmed that O.R.'s Gas & Grocery was the source
of the release. On February 16, 1995, Hill met with
representatives of EPA and NYSDEG to discuss the
release and required steps for corrective action. Hill
subsequently informed EPA that he would not sign a
consent order assuming responsibility for the clean up.
Region II then issued the order unilaterally. The order
requires respondents to assess the structural integrity
of all underground storage tank (UST) systems at the
facility; repair and test, or permanently close, any
UST system determined to be corroded or potentially
subject to structural failure; characterize the rate and
extent of vertical and horizontal migration of
.hazardous constituents in soils and groundwater at and
adjacent to the facility; and to remediate such
contamination. To date the respondents have failed to
comply with any aspect of the order. EPA will be
pursuing additional enforcement against the violators.
In the Matter of Wee Service Centers, Inc.: On
August 30, 1995, Region II won a motion for partial
accelerated decision against Wee Service Centers, Inc.,
of Brooklyn, New York. The motion sought a finding
that the company is liable for underground storage tank
(UST) violations documented at a gasoline service
station it operates. Wee Service was cited for multiple
violations of Subtitle I of RCRA at its Brooklyn
facility and assessed a total civil penalty of $34,603.
The violations at the station involved failure to
maintain records of release detection for underground
storage tanks and failure to provide adequate methods
of release detection for underground storage tanks.
The violations are considered serious because the
facility is located over a sole-source aquifer which
would be greatly harmed by ,a petroleum release. Wee
contested the allegations in the complaint and sought
an administrative hearing. Region II filed the
successful summary judgment motion in response.
Wee is the operator of one of a number of gasoline
stations owned by the 1833 Nostrand Avenue Corp. of
Baldwin, New York. In a related matter, In the
Matter of 1833 Nostrand Avenue Corp., Region II is
proceeding to an administrative trial over UST
violations at its five service stations in Brooklyn and
Queens. The company at 1833 was cited for multiple
violations of Subtitle I of RCRA at all five facilities
and assessed total civil penalties exceeding $170,000.
The violations involved failure to maintain records of
release detection for USTs; failure to provide adequate
methods of release detection for USTs; and failure to
maintain out of service USTs. The violations are
considered serious because all the facilities are located
over a sole-source aquifer which would be greatly
harmed by a petroleum release.
TSCA
In the Matter of CasChem, Inc.: On October 13,
1994, Region II issued an administrative consent order
to CasChem, Inc., a subsidiary of Cambrex
Corporation. As part of the agreement, CasChem has
agreed to pay a civil penalty of $180,000 for violations
of TSCA. In the action, EPA had alleged two separate
.violations: CasChem's failure to have timely
submitted a notice of commencement for a chemical
A-ll
July 1996
-------
Region II
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
substance, and its failure to have timely submitted a
report for the partial updating of the TSCA Inventory
Data Base for 29 separate chemical substances. The
matter was contested in an administrative proceeding.
Both parties sought partial accelerated decision with
regard to the inventory updating count, EPA seeking
a ruling that each separate failure constituted a separate
violation and CasChem arguing that whatever multiple
reporting failures occurred represent but one
cognizable violation.
In the Matter of Mttlard Fillmore Hospital: On
December 5, 1994, Region II issued a four-count
complaint against Millard Fillmore Hospital, Buffalo,
New York, alleging violations of the TSCA regulations
governing the use and maintenance of electrical
equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). The complaint, covering me 1989-1993
period, seeks a total civil penalty of $233,000. The
Hospital owns and operates five PCB transformers,
each of which contains PCB concentrations at or above
500 parts per million. The complaint alleges the
following violations: (1) failure to prepare and
maintain annual documents for the PCB transformers;
(2) failure to maintain records for quarterly visual
inspections of the transformers; (3) improper storage
of combustible materials too close to the transformers;
and (4) failure to protect the transformers against low
current faults.
In the Matter of San Juan Cement Co.: On
December23,1995, Region II issued an administrative
complaint against the San Juan Cement Co. Inc., for
TSCA violations at its facility in Dorado, Puerto Rico.
The complaint alleged 72 violations of the TSCA PCB
regulations, and proposed a civil penalty of $347,000.
During a 1993 inspection of the facility, EPA
representatives determined that since 1978 the
company had owned, operated and maintained twelve
PCB transformers at its facility in ten separate
locations. The inspection revealed that respondent was
deficient in submitting required quarterly and annual
reports and in the required marking of access doors to
the majority of these transformers. In addition,
respondent had not notified the local fire department of
the location of the transformers, as required by the
regulations.
In the Matter of Johnson & Johnson: On March 31,
1995, Region H issued a four count TSCA
administrative complaint against Johnson & Johnson,
Inc. The complaint alleges that the corporation failed
to keep records of its visual inspection of its PCB
transformers, that it failed to maintain PCB annual
documents, that it improperly manifested PCBs, and
that it improperly disposed of PCBs. Arising out of a
1994 EPA inspection of the company's North
Brunswick, New Jersey, facility, the complaint
proposes that a penalty of $102,000 be assessed.
In the Matter of Glens Falls Cement Co., Inc.: On
June 23, 1995, Region II issued an administrative
complaint citing violations of TSCA by Glens Falls
Cement Company at its Glens Falls, New York,
facility, and seeking $103,500 in fines. The facility
consists of a limestone quarry and a portland and
masonry cement manufacturing operation. An EPA
investigation revealed that the company owned and
used several PCB transformers during the years 1989-
1993. The complaint alleged the following TSCA
violations concerning those transformers: failure to
maintain complete records of visual inspections; failure
to maintain annual document logs; failure to mark and
to correctly mark specified access areas to the
transformers; and failure to mark specified PCB
transformers.
In the Matter of the New York City Board of
Education: On July 5, 1995, Region II issued an
administrative complaint under Title II of TSCA, the
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA),
against the New York City Board of Education. The
complaint alleged 375 violations of AHERA, and
proposed a $1.5 million civil penalty. The Board is
the Local Education Agency (LEA) for the City and
has AHERA responsibility for over a thousand school
buildings. The complaint alleges that the head of the
Board's Asbestos Task Force, who acted as the
designated person (DP) having responsibility for the
development and transmission of all of the LEA's
AHERA Management Plans to the Governor,
knowingly submitted false information on at least 375
of them.
In the Matter ofDegussa Corporation: On December
1, 1994, Region II issued an administrative consent
order to Degussa Corporation. Degussa agreed to pay
acivil penalty of $170,000 for self-disclosed violations
of TSCA alleged in a fifteen count civil administrative
complaint. In the action, EPA alleged violations for
Degussa's failure to submit Premanufacture
Notifications before importing new chemical
substances, and its failure to provide a proper TSCA
import certification on imported chemicals.
A-12
July 1996
-------
Region II
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
In the Matter of Nissho Iwai American Corp.: On
December 27, 1994, Region II issued an administrative
consent order to Nissho Iwai American Corporation,
a New York City-based chemical importer. The
company agreed to pay $130,000 hi fines for TSCA
violations. EPA's 1992 complaint in this matter
alleged that the company failed to submit to EPA
forms U for several chemicals by December 1986 and
February 1991. Respondent had filed the missing
forms prior to the issuance of the complaint.
MULTIMEDIA
In the Matter of U. S. Dept. of Agriculture and Burns
& Roe Services Corp.: On December 27, 1994,
Region II issued two separate complaints for violations
of RCRA to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
its contractor, Burns & Roe Services Corp. of Oradell,
New Jersey. The violations occurred at the USDA's
Plum Island Animal Disease Center on Plum Island,
New York. The complaint against the USDA alleges
four separate violations of RCRA, including storage
and treatment of hazardous wastes without a permit,
inadequate notification, and failure to make a waste
determination. The USDA complaint seeks a civil
penalty of $ 111,100. The complaint against Burns &
Roe alleges a single violation—hazardous waste storage
without a permit—and seeks a penalty of $79,600.
The violations were documented as part of a 1993
multimedia inspection by Region II at the Plum Island
facility. These cases follow an earlier complaint,
issued by Region II on October 21, 1994 citing USDA
for failing to respond to a RCRA Section 3007
information request letter issued in connection with this
investigation; that complaint seeks a penalty of
$18,750.
In the Matter of Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc.: On
December 29, 1994, Region II issued administrative
complaints against Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc.,
seeking penalties for violations under both TSCA and
EPCRA. The EPCRA complaint proposed a $51,000
penalty, and was based on Phillips' failure to file a
form R for nickel compounds for each of the years
1989, 1990, and 1992. The TSCA complaint proposed
a $7,500 penalty and was based on Phillips' violations
of regulations pertaining to the handling of PCB waste.
Later in the fiscal year, on September 29, 1995,
Region II issued a corrective action order under RCRA
Section 3008(h) for the Phillips Guayama facility.
This order requires that Phillips: (1) complete the
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) it had undertaken
pursuant to an earlier RCRA Section 3013 order;
(2) complete a corrective measures study (which
requires it to recommend a final corrective measure or
measures) and construct, operate and maintain the
corrective measure(s) selected; and (3) implement
interim measures as necessary.
In the Matter of Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company: On
September 13, 1995, Region II issued two
administrative consent orders assessing a combined
penalty of $170,000 against Puerto Rico Sun Oil
(PRSO) of Yabucoa, Puerto Rico, for violations of
RCRA and EPCRA. The two orders were based upon
independent inspections of PRSO that resulted in
coordinated RCRA and EPCRA multimedia cases.
The RCRA complaint was based upon the unauthorized
storage of hazardous waste and the EPCRA complaint
was based upon the failure to file a form R for any of
several listed toxic chemicals for the reporting years
1989 through 1992. In addition to the civil penalty,
PRSO agreed to submit a new Part A RCRA permit
application designating where its hazardous waste will
be stored; and PRSO will be submitting to EPA the
required form Rs that comprise the basis of the
EPCRA complaint.
In the Matter of Knowlton Specialty Paper, Inc.: On
June 30, 1995, Region II issued two administrative
complaints assessing penalties against Knowlton
Specialty Paper, Inc., a Watertown, New York,
company. One complaint sought $93,000 in fines for
EPCRA violations, and the other sought $36,000 in
fines for TSCA violations. The EPCRA complaint
alleged that Knowlton failed to submit form Rs for
methyl ethyl ketone, methanol, acetone and phenols for
the 1989 and 1992 reporting years. The TSCA
complaint alleged the company's failure to properly
mark, label, store and maintain records relating to the
storage of one PCB transformer.
In the Matter of Nepera, Inc.: On May 25, 1995,
Region II issued an administrative complaint against
Nepera, Inc., of Harriman, New York. The complaint
sought a penalty of $30,715 for the company's failure
to submit a timely form R for hydrochloric acid for the
reporting years 1992 and 1993. The violations were
identified as the result of an August 1994 consolidated
multimedia inspection performed jointly by Region II
and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. This was one of the first such joint
inspections between EPA and the State of New York.
In the Matter of American Cyanamid Company: On
June 28, 1995, Region II issued an administrative
A-13
July 1996
-------
Region II
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
complaint against American Cyanamid Company for
violations at its Lederle Laboratories facility located in
Pearl River, New York. The complaint proposed
assessment of a $272,424 fine for the company's
failure to submit timely form Rs for 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, naphthalene, phosphoric acid, toluene,
manganese compounds and zinc compounds for the
reporting years 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993.
In the Matter of The United States Department of the
Army, U.S. Army Armament Research and
Development Command, Picatinny Arsenal: In
September 1995, Region II and the U.S. Department
of the Army executed enforcement and compliance
agreements under TSCA, the Clean Water Act and
RCRA. The agreements were embodied in two
separate documents. A federal facility compliance
agreement (FFCA) was issued pursuant to Executive
Order 12088 to ensure the Army's compliance with
TSCA regulations concerning the handling of PCBs;
and the regulations under Section 311 of the CWA for
spill prevention, control and countermeasures. The
FFCA includes schedules to insure the Army's
compliance with these regulations as well as a
continued commitment to remain in compliance.
A RCRA consent agreement and consent order was
also issued under Section 3008 of RCRA and the
Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. The order
resolved EPA's allegations that the Army stored waste
in an unauthorized area and open-burned hazardous
waste which did not constitute waste explosives, hi
violation of RCRA. The order requires the Army to
comply with these requirements and to pay a civil
penalty of $41,565.
In the Matter of New Jersey Transit Bus Operations,
Inc.: On June 30, 1995, Region n issued an
administrative complaint under Section 6009 of RCRA
against New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. The
complaint alleged five different types of underground
storage tank (UST) violations at 18 company-owned
facilities throughout New Jersey. The complaint seeks
a penalty of $322,704 and alleges that the respondent
failed to: (1) properly close numerous UST systems;
(2) satisfy release detection requirements for tanks; (3)
satisfy release detection requirements for pipes; (4) use
required spill equipment; and (5) use required overfill
equipment.
FEDERAL FACILITIES
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Plum Island Facility: In December of 1994, Region
II issued two complaints to the USDA Plum Island
Animal Disease Center at Greenport, New York, and
to a USDA contractor for illegal storage and disposal
of hazardous waste. The administrative orders carry
with them proposed civil penalties in the amount of
$111,100 against USDA and $79,600 against the
contractor.
U.S. Army Picatinny Arsenal: Region II completed
enforcement activity on September 29, 1995 at the
U.S. Army Armament Research, Development, and
Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey,
based on a July 1993 multimedia inspection. The
Arsenal is on the NPL and has approximately 150
areas of concern.
Included in the Region's consent agreement and
consent order under RCRA was; a civil penalty of
$41,565. The inspection found Part B permit
violations, including storing hazardous waste in
unauthorized locations and open burning of non-
explosive hazardous waste. The Region also issued an
NOV for failure to clearly mark accumulation start
dates on containers in the less than 90-day
accumulation areas and satellite accumulation areas,
failure to label containers with the words "Hazardous
Waste," and for violation of the land disposal
regulations storage prohibition. Under the CAA, the
Region issued a compliance order for violations of the
new source performance standards relating to
rndustrial-commercial institutional steam generating
units. Also issued was a notice of violation for
violation of the New Jersey State Implementation Plan
for constructing equipment and control devices without
first obtaining a permit to construct. The Region also
completed a federal facility compliance agreement to
address TSCA/PCB and SPCC violations.
U.S. Army Fort Dix: Region II issued notices of
violation on January 24, 1995 to Fort Dix, New
Jersey, for Clean Water Act violations. The NOV
cited violations of the interim limits contained hi
Attachment I of the order on consent EPA-CWA-II-91-
95 for the alkalinity parameter permit limitation in July
and August 1994 and the violations of their permit
A-14
July 1996
-------
Region II
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
limit for the pH parameter in August 1993. Under the
order, the Army will be responsible for the completion
of an environmentally beneficial project (EBP) to
offset the effects of the violations. The sum of the
EBP due is $39,000.
Seneca Army Depot: Region II issued a proposed
administrative order on February 3, 1995, which
requires the facility to comply with rules under the
Safe Drinking Water Act for installing filtration
systems. The facility failed to install filtration required
under the regulations by December 25, 1994, the
deadline set by,an EPA determination with state input.
Plattsburgh Air Force Base: Region II issued a notice
of violation to Plattsburgh Air Force Base, for
underground storage tank violations. A consent
agreement and consent order was issued March 31,
1995, addressing violations from a June 1988
inspection, including inadequate record keeping and
hazardous waste sampling. In February 1995, the
Region issued a compliance order for the NSPS
violations. The Facility chose to shut down the boilers
that were out of compliance and the violations were
resolved as of March 7, 1995.
Stewart Air National Guard Base: Region II issued a
notice of violation to the Commander of Stewart Air
National Guard Base for record-keeping violations
under the underground storage tank regulations. A
multimedia inspection on March 6, 1995, revealed the
facility's failure to maintain the results of release
detection monitoring for at least one year. The letter
required the facility to correct the violation within 30
days and certify its compliance within 10 days of
taking action. A federal facility compliance agreement
was executed in July 1995 to deal with the facility's
failure to develop its pollution prevention plan, which
placed the facility out of compliance with its
stormwater-general permit under the CWA. In March
1995 the Region sent a noncompliance letter to the
facility for SPCC deficiencies related to tank truck
loading areas and overfill protection. The facility's
schedule for implementation was received in May 1995
arid the facility is developing an entirely new SPCC
Plan, which was to be completed by December 1995.
A-15
July 1996
-------
Region II
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
A-16
July 1996
-------
REGION III
CLEAN AIR ACT
Consolidated Rail Corporation (CONRAIL) (Third
Circuit, E.D. PA): In what marks the largest
negotiated settlement of its kind, the U.S. Department
of Justice and the U.S. EPA (Region III) have reached
settlement with Consolidated Rail Corporation
regarding violations of the asbestos regulations
(asbestos NESHAP) established pursuant to the Clean
Air Act. The settlement, embodied in a partial consent
decree, has been lodged in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The asbestos NESHAP violations at
issue occurred at an abandoned grain elevator site.
In satisfaction of the alleged asbestos NESHAP
violations, Conrail has agreed to pay a civil penalty in
the amount of $800,000—a figure representing the
largest settlement of its land, and the second largest
amount ever assessed under the Clean Air Act's
asbestos regulations. In addition to penalties, Conrail
has also agreed to conduct all present and future
renovation and demolition activities in compliance with
the Clean Air Act asbestos NESHAP.
LTV Steel (W.D. PA): In October 1994, a consent
decree was entered in the Western District of
Pennsylvania memorializing the settlement negotiated
between the United States, Allegheny County, and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Plaintiffs, and LTV
Steel Company (LTV), Defendant, hi response to
violations of the federally enforceable Clean Air Act
State Implementation Plan for Pennsylvania by LTV at
its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania coke production facility.
The consent decree required LTV to pay a civil
penalty of $900,000. LTV made changes to its plant
and operations during the time between the filing of
the complaint and settlement of the matter sufficient to
bring the facility into compliance with the provisions
of the Clean Air Act that were the subject of the
complaint. Nonetheless, the Decree required LTV to
make certain significant improvements.
Shenango, Inc. (Neville Island, PA): EPA filed a
contempt action for Shenango's failure to comply with
the requirements of an existing consent decree.
Shenango owns and operates a 57 oven by-product
coke oven battery located at Neville Island,
Pennsylvania. Coke oven gas (COG) is produced by
the destructive distillation of coal. Undesulfurized
COG when burned can result in sulfur-dioxide
emissions of over 10 tons per day. When COG is
properly desulfurized, sulfur-dioxide emissions are
approximately 1 ton per day. Under the existing
consent decree, Shenango was required to operate the
existing desulfurization plant (DSP) at agreed upon
efficiency and make certain modifications that would
enable it to maintain compliance with applicable
regulations. EPA identified that the COG DSP was
removed from service on January 6,1994, and was not
operational until May 28, 1994. A complete shutdown
of the DSP for almost five months was not reported to
EPA immediately. EPA and Allegheny County also
identified several consent decree violations that
required resolution.
USX-CMrton and Edgar Thomson Plants (Clairton &
Braddock, PA): On March 1, 1995, Region III issued
a CACO (consent agreement/consent order) in
settlement of an administrative Clean Air Act
complaint for penalty which was filed against USX
Corporation on September 30, 1994. The complaint
alleged USX was in violation of the Pennsylvania SIP
requirement for NOX monitoring at large size
combustion units at three separate emission sources in
the Clairton, Pennsylvania, facility and at three
separate emission sources in the Braddock,
Pennsylvania, facility.This action was taken by EPA hi
support of the State program which helps to foster a
better partnership between the two agencies. After
negotiations, EPA finalized a settlement with USX
requiring the installation of appropriate monitoring
equipment for NOX on an enforceable schedule and the
payment of a $125,000 civil penalty.
Paragon Environmental Group and Haverford
College: On March 20, 1995, EPA Region III filed a
Clean Air Act administrative complaint against
Paragon Environmental Group, Inc., and Haverford
College for violations of the National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (asbestos). The
complaint alleges that Paragon workers violated
asbestos NESHAP work practice standards by
removing spray-on asbestos from a Haverford
dormitory attic without adequately wetting the
asbestos. (Paragon operated a HEPA vacuum to
collect paniculate matter, but this collection system
was not adequate to contain asbestos emissions.) EPA
proposed a civil penalty of $25,000 for this violation.
A-17
July 1996
-------
Region III
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
E.K. Associates (EKCO/GLACO Ltd.) (Baltimore,
MD): On April 27, 1995, Region III filed a consent
agreement and consent order (CACO) resolving Clean
Air Act violations at a Baltimore bakeware
refurbishing facility owned and operated by E.K.
Associates, LP (d/b/a Ekco/Glaco Ltd). EPA alleged
that the facility violated the regulatory standard
governing emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) at miscellaneous metal coating facilities. The
CACO required payment of a civil penalty of $37,000,
which is in addition to a $15,000 penalty previously
paid to Maryland for these violations.
Mundet-Hermetite, Inc.: EPA resolved Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) violations against
Mundet-Hermetite Industries (MHI) in a consent
decree filed on April 25, 1995. The PSD violations
are based on construction of Line #8 (rotogravure
printing/coating line) at the facility (an existing major
stationary source, emitting approximately 840 tons of
VOCs per year) hi 1988. This construction constituted
a physical change to the facility which resulted in a
significant net emissions increase. MHI's solvent
usage reports for calendar years 1989 through 1992,
inclusive, demonstrated that the net emissions increase
from Line #8 was greater than 40 tons per year. MHI
did not obtain a PSD permit prior to beginning
construction of Line #8. MHI initially reported its
permit violations to the Virginia Department of Air
Pollution Control which issued an notice of violation
to MHI. VDAPC and MHI entered into a consent
agreement and order to settle the permit violations in
which MHI agreed to pay a penalty of $16,177.40 and
conduct a study on the use of reduced solvent coatings.
Due to the seriousness of the violation, the uncertain
injunctive relief, and the low penalty, EPA took
another enforcement action to assure MHI's
compliance and to indicate to the regulated community
that EPA expects compliance with PSD requirements.
MHI has permanently dismantled Line #8 avoiding
PSD permitting and paid a civil penalty of $90,000.
S.D. Richman Sons, Inc. (Philadelphia, PA): On
May 4, 1995, an administrative complaint was issued
to S.D. Richman Sons, Inc., a Philadelphia wholesale
scrap metal dealer, for violations of the stratospheric
ozone protection requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Specifically, the company disposed of numerous small
appliances without verifying that the refrigerant had
been evacuated from the appliances. This failure to
verify prior refrigerant evacuation resulted hi the likely
release of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) containing
refrigerant to the environment. The complaint seeks
, a civil penalty of $186,000.
PECO Energy and Pepper Environmental Services,
Inc. (Chester, PA): On April 19, 1995, Region III
filed an administrative Clean Air Act (CAA) penalty
action, alleging that PECO Energy (owner) and Pepper
Environmental Services (operator) violated the CAA
asbestos NESHAP when they demolished an asbestos-
containing building at a PECO facility located in
Chester, Pennsylvania. EPA sought a total proposed
civil penalty of $30,000 for these alleged violations.
On July 18, 1995, the Regional Judicial Officer
approved the settlement (CACO) between EPA and
respondents PECO Energy and Pepper Environmental
Services. PECO and Pepper agreed to pay a total civil
penalty of $21,000.
Harrison Warehouse Services Company, Inc., and
Dewey Wilfong (Clarksburg, WV): On March 6,
1995, the U.S. District Court ruled that the defendants
were liable for a total of 276 days of violations of the
following requirements: (1) failure to give notice of
demolition; (2) failure to remove RACM (regulated
asbestos containing material) prior to demolition;
(3) failure to wet RACM during demolition; (4) failure
to wet RACM awaiting disposal.; and (5) failure to
dispose of RACM as soon as practicable. The court
awarded a $50,000 civil penalty.
Kammer Power Plant (Moundsville, WV): On July 7,
1995, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of West Virginia approved a modification of a
previously negotiated consent decree. The United
States and the defendants agreed to extend the deadline
for compliance with the federal emissions limit from
September 1, 1995, to January 15, 1996. As part of
the agreement, the defendants agreed to further reduce
the sulfur dioxide emission limitation for Kammer,
which reduces the allowable SO2 emissions by
approximately 15,000 to 19,000 tons per year. The
Kammer Power Station is in violation of the federally
enforceable West Virginia State Implementation Plan
(SIP) emission limitations for Units 1, 2 and 3. The
West Virginia SIP established a statewide sulfur
dioxide (SOa) emission limit of 2.7 Ibs per million Btu
design heat input (Ib/mmBTU). For the past several
years, SQ2 emissions from Kammer have exceeded the
federal emission limit by from 80,000 to 100,000 tons
per year.
A-18
July 1996
-------
Region III
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Hercules, Inc. (Covington, VA): EPA and the
Department of Justice signed a partial consent decree
settling an action between the United States and
Hercules, Incorporated, for violations of the Clean Air
Act at a facility formerly owned by Hercules in
Covington, Virginia. This action was settled as a
result of pre-filing negotiations and the partial consent
decree will be filed concurrently with the complaint.
Hercules, Inc., and Carver Massie Carver, Inc.
(CMC), the demolition contractor, violated several of
the asbestos NESHAP regulations.
The injunctive relief provisions of the partial consent
decree apply to all demolition and/or renovation
operations, in which Hercules is the owner or
operator, in all states, territories, and possessions of
the United States. In addition to complying with all
the requirements of the asbestos NESHAP the partial
consent decree requires Hercules to perform the
following: (1) provide a training program for its
safety and environmental specialists to assure
awareness of the asbestos NESHAP; (2) appoint an
"Official Responsible for Asbestos Compliance;" and
(3) distribute the memorandum attached to the partial
consent decree to those persons who have
responsibilities for the maintenance and demolition of
facilities owned or operated by Hercules. For its
violations of the asbestos NESHAP, Hercules will pay
a $1.2 million civil penalty. The penalty represents
the largest settlement in an asbestos NESHAP case.
Joseph Smith & Son, Inc. (Capital Heights, MD):
On September 28, 1995, EPA Region III filed a
complaint and notice of opportunity for hearing against
Joseph Smith & Son, Inc., for violations of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) at its Capital Heights, Maryland
facility. The complaint alleges violations of the
stratospheric ozone protection requirements of
Subchapter VI, Section 608 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
§7671(g) and regulations promulgated thereunder at 40
C.F.R. Part 82. The complaint alleges respondent's
failure to evacuate and recover refrigerants from small
appliances prior to disposal and seeks a civil penalty of
$27,000. •
CERCLA AND EPCRA NON 313
Brown's Battery Breaking Superfund Site: On July
10, 1995, DOJ lodged a consent decree with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
by which the settling defendants resolved their liability
to the United States with respect to the Brown's
Battery Breaking Superfund Site (Site).
Under the terms of the consent decree, General Battery
Corporation (GBC) agreed to do the following: (1)
perform the final site remedy, (2) perform extensive
work to protect natural resources, (3) pay $3 million
in EPA's past- response costs and EPA's future
response costs, (4) pay $24,217 hi past natural
resource costs and up to $10,000 of the Department of
the Interior's future costs, and (5) provide financial
self-assurances for GBC's consent decree obligations
by either GBC or GBC's parent, Exide Corporation.
The consent decree also provides GBC with the
opportunity to elect mediation of certain disputes
concerning EPA's decisions that additional response
actions are necessary or if EPA determines under
Section 121(c) of CERCLA that the remedial action is
no longer protective of human health or the
environment. In addition, the decree provides GBC
with a mechanism to prove to EPA that certain
groundwater cleanup standards are technically
impracticable to achieve and that less stringent
standards are appropriate.
GMT Microelectronics (Montgomery County, PA):
On December 30, 1994, the Assistant Attorney
General for the Environment and Natural Resource
Division at the Department of Justice concurred on the
prospective purchaser agreement negotiated and
executed by EPA and GMT Microelectronics (the
Purchaser of the Commodore Semi-Gonductor
Superfund site in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania)
which resolves certain potential EPA claims-under
Section 107 of CERCLA against the purchaser.
The Agreement provides that in exchange for a limited
covenant not to sue which relates only to existing
contamination at the site, and contribution protection,
the purchaser will provide the Agency with a
"substantial benefit" which consists of the following:
(1) payment of EPA's response costs at the site
incurred prior to the effective date of agreement,
approximately $625,000; (2) payment of approximately
$375,000 into an escrow fund; and (3) payments of up
to $65,000 annually for response costs incurred at the
site.
Virginia Scrap, Inc. (Roanoke, VA): On February 2,
1995, Region III entered a consent order with Virginia
Scrap, Inc., for clean up of lead contamination on its
property in Roanoke, Virginia. This follows a nearly
identical consent order recently entered into between
EPA and Cycle Systems, Inc., also regarding lead-
contaminated property along the Roanoke River. Both
A-19
July 1996
-------
Region III
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
are removal orders under the authority of Section 106
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act. The lead
contamination was discovered as part of an
environmental assessment of properties which may be
affected by an upcoming Corps of Engineers flood
control project.
Malitovsky Cooperage Company, et al. (Pittsburgh,
PA): On February 21, 1995, a consent decree for
response costs in U.S. v. Malitovsky Cooperage
Company, et al. was entered by the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The
consent decree was entered into between the United
States and seven defendants pursuant to Section 107 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. §9607. The consent decree requires the
settling defendants to pay $750,000 of the costs
incurred by the United States in connection with the
Malitovsky Drum site located hi Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. EPA had conducted a removal action at
the site, where a drum reconditioning and hazardous
waste storage and disposal facility had operated.
Abex Superfund Site (Portsmouth, VA): On
September 28, 1995, the Regional Administrator
signed the proposed consent decree with the PRPs,
Pneumo Abex Corporation, the City of Portsmouth and
the Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority,
for the Abex Superfund site and requested the
Department of Justice to execute the consent decree
and lodge it in the Eastern District of Virginia. The
proposed consent decree requires the PRPs to
implement EPA's selected remedy for Operable Unit
No. 1 at the site as that remedy is described in the
Amended ROD executed in August 1994. The consent
decree requires Pneumo Abex to pay 100% of the past
response costs incurred hi connection with the site
totaling $1,170,131.37 and future response costs
associated with the implementation of the remedy.
Delaware Sand and Gravel (District ofDE): On June
14, 1995, the U.S. District for the District of
Delaware entered a consent decree related to the
Delaware Sand and Gravel Superfund site (site). The
consent decree calls for full performance of the
remedial design and remedial action at the site,
reimbursement of $4,328,335.55 out of $4,962,423.00
in previously unreunbursed past costs, and payment of
all of EPA's oversight and future response costs
pursuant to the remedial design/remedial action, with
the exception of remedial design oversight costs.
On July 27, 1995, DOJ lodged, and on September 22,
1995, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware entered two consent decrees by which the
settling defendants resolved their liability to the United
States with respect to the Delaware Sand and Gravel
Superfund site. In the first consent decree Avon
Products, Inc., agreed to pay $375,000 in partial
reimbursement of the United States' Superfund
response costs incurred at the site after April of 1988.
In the second consent decree MRC Holdings, Inc.,
agreed to pay $300,000 hi partial reimbursement of the
United States' response costs at the site.
Strasburg Landfill (Chester County, PA): On
February 3, 1995, the United States filed a CERCLA
Section 104(e) action, seeking injunctive relief and
civil penalties, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against David Ehrlich,
Buckley & Company and Robert Buckley, Sr. These
parties have been identified by EPA as former owners/
operators of the Strasburg Landfill site in Chester
County, Pennsylvania. They had failed to adequately
respond to CERCLA Section 104(e) requests seeking
financial information, as well as requests concerning
corporate relationships/control and the involvement of
the individual officers in the landfill operation.
On May 22, 1995, the United States moved to enter a
partial consent decree between the United States and
Robert Buckley and Buckley & Company for penalties
and injunctive relief hi connection with their failure to
adequately respond to EPA's CERCLA Section 104(e)
requests, hi U.S. v. David Ehrlich, et al. (E.D. Pa).
Buckley and Buckley & Company are PRPs at the
Strasburg Landfill site as former owners or operators
of the site. The consent decree calls for the payment
of a collective penalty figure of $107,000 and
injunctive relief for production of after-acquired year-'
end certified financial statements.
Blosenski Landfill: On July 11,1995, the Department
of Justice entered three consent decrees, settling with
20 defendants hi U.S. v. Blosenski, et al. The first
decree with 17 companies (including ARCO, ICI
Americas, Monsanto, Valspar and Occidental
Chemical) requires the reimbursement of $4 million in
past response costs and the performance of all future
remedial design and remedial action work, which could
total $13 million. In addition, the decree requires that
Delaware Container Corp. pay $15,000 and that ICI
pay $35,000 hi penalties for violating a CERCLA
Section 106 Administrative Order. The second decree
with the site owner and former operator, Joseph M.
A-20
July 1996
-------
Region III
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Blosenski, Jr., his wife and related companies,
requires the reimbursement of $1 million hi past costs,
the payment of $100,000 hi penalties for failing to
comply with a CERCLA Section 106 Administrative
Order and the provision of continued access to the site,
The final cash-out decree with Alexander Barry, a
former owner of a portion of the site, requires $5,000
reimbursement hi past costs. These consent decrees
provide for over 90% of EPA's past response costs.
Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. (WV): On
January 10, 1995, the Regional Administrator signed
consent orders settling three administrative complaints
(filed in September of 1993) and two administrative
complaints (filed hi March of 1994) issued to Union
Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., Inc. (Union
Carbide). Two of the five complaints concerned
violations of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). The remaining three
complaints were issued for violations of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
The complaints relate to Union Carbide's failure to
notify the appropriate government agencies of releases
of hazardous materials into the environment in a timely
manner. The releases occurred at three Union Carbide
facilities located hi Sistersville, Institute, and South
Charleston, West Virginia. Penalties to be paid to
settle the five complaints total $94,000.00.
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation and Universal
Food Corporation: On August 3, 1995, Region III
filed four administrative penalty actions. Two of the
actions (one CERCLA/one EPCRA) were commenced
against Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation for its
failure to notify immediately the National Response
Center (NRC) and the State Emergency Response
Committee (SERC) and the Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC) of a 1993 release of spent
hydrochloric acid (KO62), hi excess of the reportable
quantity (RQ), at its Allenport, Pennsylvania, facility.
EPA seeks $75,000 hi total penalties (i.e., $25,000 for
the CERCLA action; $25,000 each for two EPCRA
counts.) The other two actions (one CERCLA/one
EPCRA) were commenced against Universal Food
Corporation for its failure to notify immediately the
NRC, SERC and LEPC of a July 1994 ammonia
release, hi excess of the RQ, at its Baltimore,
Maryland, facility. The complaints seek $8,250 for
the CERCLA violation and $16,500 for the EPCRA
violations.
CLEAN WATER ACT
John C. Holland Enterprises/Holland Landfill
(Suffolk County, VA): On July 31, 1995, John C.
Holland Enterprises, Inc., and EPA Region III entered
into a consent agreement and consent order settling a
wetlands violation at the Holland Landfill hi Suffolk,
Virginia. The corporation destroyed approximately 70
acres of wetlands over a 15-year period for the
purpose of operating a landfill. The settlement
requires the corporation to restore a 22-acre parcel of
disturbed wetlands; restore a 25-acre parcel of prior
converted cropland, planting approximately 15,000
white cedar seedlings; convey the successfully restored
25-acre parcel to the Great Dismal Swamp National
Wildlife Refuge; to acquire title to a certain parcel
consisting of 250 acres of wooded swamp along the
North River; and to convey that 250-acre parcel to the
North Carolina Nature Conservancy upon the written
direction of EPA. The Corporation also agreed to pay
a $45,000 civil penalty, and an additional $80,000 if it
does not satisfactorily perform the
restoration/mitigation work contained hi the consent
order.
Antoinette Boaevich-Buxton (York County, PA): On
June 13, 1995, the Acting Regional Administrator
signed the recommended decision of the Regional
Presiding Officer, which found that Ms. Antoinette
Bozievich-Buxton was liable for a $5,000 civil penalty
for the filling of wetlands at her horse farm hi York
County, Pennsylvania, without the necessary Clean
Water Act Section 404 permit.
Allegheny Ludlum Corporation (Pittsburgh, PA): On
June 28, 1995, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed
a complaint against Allegheny Ludlum Corporation,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for numerous violations of
the Clean Water Act. The complaint alleges that the
specialty steel manufacturer violated, inter alia, the
effluent limitations hi both its industrial user permit
(issued by the Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control
Authority) and its National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) permit issued to its
Vandergrift, Pennsylvania facility. It also alleges that
the company violated certain parameters contained hi
the NPDES permits. The complaint further charges
violations as a result of numerous oil spills and other
discharges. Moreover, the complaint cites reporting
violations and charges Allegheny Ludlum with
violating the Clean Water Act at the company's
Wallingford, Connecticut (Region I) facility by
discharging pollutants without a permit. For these
A-21
July 1996
-------
Region III
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
violations, the complaint seeks permanent injunctive
relief requiring Allegheny Ludlum to achieve and
maintain full compliance with the Act; civil penalties
of up to $25,000 per day per violation; and such other
relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Blue Plains STP (Washington, DC): On January 24,
1995, the Department of Justice lodged in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia a consent
decree settling the CWA enforcement litigation against
the District of Columbia. The consent decree requires
the District to: (1) pay a civil penalty of $500,000; (2)
undertake a 12-month pilot study of an experimental
technology called "biological nitrogen removal" (BNR)
designed to reduce the levels of nitrogen in the Blue
Plains plant's effluent; (3) retain an independent
consultant to review the current practices and
procedures used by the District to procure parts,
equipment, labor and chemicals needed to keep the
Blue Plains plant operating within the limits of its
NPDES permit; and (4) undergo a periodic
"Operational Capability Review."
Wltco Corporation (Petrolia, PA): On February 14,
1995, EPA issued an administrative complaint to the
Witco Corporation of Petrolia, Pennsylvania, for
violating the Clean Water Act. The complaint alleges
that since March 1990, Witco discharged pollutants in
excess of limits established in its National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The
limits violated include pH total suspended solids, oil &
grease, nitrogen, ammonia, total manganese, fecal
coliform, and biological oxygen demand. The
complaint also alleges that Witco discharged
approximately 3,000 gallons of mineral oil from its
facility to the Allegheny River hi violation of its
NPDES permit and the Clean Water Act. EPA
assessed a proposed civil penalty of $96,000.
Modular Components National, Inc. (Forest Hill,
MD): On March 20, 1995, the Water Management
Division issued an administrative penalty complaint to
Modular Components National, Inc., of Forest Hill,
Maryland for violations of the Clean Water Act.
EPA's penalty complaint alleged that Modular
Components had violated EPA pretreatment standards
for the metal finishing industry in its discharges into
the Hartford County, Maryland Treatment Facility.
EPA's complaint proposed a civil penalty of $65,000.
Goose Bay Aggregates, Inc. (Washington, DC): The
Region has settled an administrative enforcement action
in an NPDES case. Goose Bay Aggregates, Inc.,
operates an aggregate processing and storage yard hi
Washington, D.C., which discharges pollutants to the
Anacostia River. Goose Bay violated its NPDES
permit by failing to file its discharge monitoring
reports and by not., taking some samples for
approximately a year. Goose Bay and the Region
agreed to a penalty of $18,500 for the violations.
Elk River Sewell Coal Co., Inc. (Monterville, WV):
On April 4, 1995, EPA issued an administrative order
(AO) to Elk River Sewell Coal Co., Inc., of
Monterville, West Virginia, the operator of a coal-
mining facility. The AO cites the company for viola-
tions of its NPDES permit as well as various
provisions of the Clean Water Act, including discharge
of pollutants hi excess of permit effluent limitations
and failure to submit discharge monitoring reports as
required by the NPDES Permit. The AO, which was
issued as part of the regional data integrity initiative,
orders Elk River to: (1) come immediately into
compliance with the conditions of its NPDES Permit;
(2) submit an evaluation of the treatment system,
operations and neutralization chemical usage at the site
covered by the Permit; (3) submit discharge
monitoring reports as required by the permit; (4) cease
all discharges not permitted by a valid NPDES permit;
and (5) provide a written response to EPA of its intent
to comply with the order. .
Conagra Poultry Company (Milford, DE): On June
15, 1995, the Acting Water Management Division.
Director signed a consent agreement and consent order
settling this administrative case against ConAgra
Poultry Companies, Milford, Delaware, for violations
of Section 307 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §1317. This
is the first case brought by the Region against an
industrial user (IU) in the state of Delaware. The
complaint, issued on August 16, 1994, and amended
on November 23, 1994, sought an $18,000 penalty.
The complaint alleged that during March 1994, the
pretreatment facility at respondent's poultry processing
facility malfunctioned and discharged partially treated
wastewater into the receiving publicly owned treatment
works (POTW) and caused pass through and/or
interference with the POTW, hi violation of
respondent's IU permit. Both respondent and the
POTW exceeded their respective BOD limits during
March and April 1994. Respondent has agreed to pay
a $14,000 civil penalty.
Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority
(Leechburg, PA): On June 29, 1995, the Regional
Judicial Officer signed a consent order requiring a
A-22
July 1996
-------
Region III
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
publicly-owned treatment works (POTW), the Kiski
Valley Water Pollution Control Authority, to pay a
civil penalty of $45,000 for violations of both its
pretreatment program and effluent limitations contained
in its NPDES permit. Specifically, the Kiski Valley
Authority, located in Leechburg, Pennsylvania,
violated its pretreatment program by failing to conduct
sampling visits of its significant industrial users (SIUs)
during 1992 and failing to adequately enforce
violations of one of its categorical SIUs, Allegheny
Ludlum. The POTW also violated its NPDES permit
by exceeding effluent limitations for suspended solids
and five-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand, and flow limits.
Potomac Electric Power Co. (PEPCO) (Faulkner,
MD): The Department of Justice, on July 3, 1995,
simultaneously filed a complaint and consent decree in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland,
against the Washington, D.C.-based PEPCO for Clean
Water Act violations that occurred at the defendant's
fly-ash disposal facility in Faulkner, Maryland. The
violations occurred from 1988 to 1993 during which
time a site supervisor either pumped or oversaw the
pumping of polluted water from holding ponds into an
adjacent swamp.
PEPCO discovered the illegal discharge and informed
the federal government of its occurrence. The consent
decree provides for a penalty of $975,000, and the
company has taken measures to assure there will be no
recurrence of the situation. In part because of the
self-confessed nature of this action and subsequent
cooperation, no criminal charges were brought against
the company or its officers.
USX Corporation Steel Mill (Dravosburg, PA): On
September 29, 1995, the Director of the Water
Management Division signed an administrative
complaint issued under Section 309(g) of the Clean
Water Act against USX Corporation for violations of
its NPDES permit at its steel mill in Dravosburg,
Pennsylvania (the Irvin Works). The complaint alleges
that the Irvin Works discharged pollutants into the
Monongahela River in excess of its NPDES permit
limits on eleven occasions since 1990. The complaint
also alleges that on May 26, 1994, an equipment
malfunction caused the Irvin Works to discharge
approximately 4000 gallons of oily, untreated
wastewater into the Monongahela River, causing a
large oil slick. USX reported this discharge to the
National Response Center and hired a contractor to
attempt to clean up the spill. However, this discharge
was unauthorized by the permit and violated several
conditions of USX's 1989 NPDES permit. The
complaint also cites a September 22, 1994, discharge
of oil which left a sheen of oil on the Monongahela
River. The complaint seeks a total penalty of $40,000
for these violations.
PEPCO (Benning Generating Station) (Washington,
DC): On September 22, 1995, Region III filed an
administrative complaint against PEPCO (Respondent)
for violation of Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C. 1311(a) for discharging water contaminated
with PCBs into the Anacostia River from its Benning
Generating Station. Respondent reported the incident.
For this violation, EPA is seeking a penalty of
$10,000.
National Railroad Corporation (AMTRAK)
(Washington, DC): On March 17, 1995, the Region
issued a CACO hi settlement of an administrative
CWA complaint for penalty which was filed against
National Railroad Corporation - Amtrak for violations
of its NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity.
Amtrak agreed to pay a penalty of $30,000.
Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.: On June 28»
1995, the U.S. EPA filed an administrative complaint
against Columbia Natural Resources, Inc., for
violations of Section 311 (b)(3) of the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C. §1321(b)(3), for the discharge of oil into
the navigable waters of the United States. The
complaint alleged that from November 1993 through
April 1994 on four separate occasions, respondent
spilled a total of approximately 12 barrels
(approximately 500 gallons) of oil. The complaint
sought penalties of $9,093.75 and offered an incentive
of a 15% reduction ($7729.69) for settlement within
thirty (30) days of the date upon which the
administrative complaint was issued.
United Refining Co. (Warren County, PA): On June
28, 1995, the Associate Division Director for
Superfund Programs issued an administrative penalty
complaint for violation of Section 311(b)(3) of the
Clean Water Act to the United Refining Company
seeking $10,000 in penalties. On December 1, 1993,
there was a spill at the Company's refinery in Warren,
Pennsylvania, of approximately 2,000 gallons of light
cycle oil which entered Glade Run, a tributary to the
Allegheny River, and a navigable waterway as defined
in the CWA. The company responded quickly and
effectively to the spill, and most of the oil was cleaned
A-23
July 1996
-------
Region Iff
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
up by the following morning. The effectiveness of the
company's response was reflected in a reduced
penalty.
EPCRA §313
Owens-Brockway (Erie, PA): On May 16, 1995, an
administrative complaint was filed against Owens-
Brockway of Erie, Pennsylvania. The complaint
alleges violations of the Emergency Planning arid
Community Right-to-Know Act. Owens-Brockway
failed to submit toxic chemical release form Rs for
four toxic chemicals used at the facility hi 1991,1992,
and 1993. The complaint seeks penalties of $146,132.
Dayton Walther Corporation (Harrisburg, PA): On
October 21, 1994, a consent agreement and consent
order (CACO) was entered wherein Dayton Walther
Corporation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, agreed to pay
a $27,209 penalty for violations of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to Know Act. Walther
failed to submit Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
forms to EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
for chromium and xylene for three reporting years,
1989, 1990, and 1991.
Beaver Valley Alloy Foundry Company (Monaco,
PA): On November 18, 1994, a consent agreement
and consent order (CACO) was signed wherein Beaver
Valley Alloy Foundry Company, of Monaca,
Pennsylvania agreed to pay a $12,750 civil penalty for
violations of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act. Beaver Valley failed to submit a
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory form to EPA and
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for manganese
releases for three reporting years.
Cabinet Industries, Inc. (Danville, PA): On August
18, 1995, the Regional Presiding Officer signed a
consent order requiring Cabinet Industries, Inc., of
Danville, Pennsylvania, to pay $8,000 in settlement of
an administrative complaint filed by EPA on April 4,
1995. The complaint alleged that Cabinet Industries
committed six violations of EPCRA by failing to
submit toxic chemical release forms for six toxic
chemicals used at its Danville facilities in 1990 and
1991. Following issuance of the complaint, Cabinet
submitted revised usage figures and an affidavit which
showed that the company used less than the threshold
amount of xylene, MIK, MEK, and toluene in 1990.
The $8,000 civil penalty settles EPA's claim for the
remaining two counts.
FIFRA
Aquarium Products, Inc.: On June 30, 1995,
Administrative Law Judge Head issued an initial
decision in the case of In the Matter of Aquarium
Products, Inc., which held that Aquarium Products
violated FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act) by selling the unregistered and
misbranded pesticide "Aquarium Oxygenator" on two
occasions, for a total of four violations. Judge Head
felt that only a warning was warranted because of
Aquarium Products' cooperation in remedying its
violation. The decision reaffirms several important
FIFRA issues, including the fact that a product is
determined to be a pesticide not by what its
manufacturers want it to be used for, but what the
labelling suggests it may be used for.
Panbaxy Laboratories, Inc.: On February 15, 1995,
the Region issued a consent agreement and consent
order, resolving our FIFRA complaint which cited the
sale of the unregistered pesticide products "AIDEX
Spray Cleaner" and "AIDEX Soaking Solution" by
product developer Dr. Yash Sharma, individually and
d/b/a as Panbaxy Laboratories, Inc. The "AIDEX"
products had been sold to hospitals with the claim that
they contained ingredients effective in killing HIV, and
were primarily for use on medical instruments and
contact surfaces. The products are no longer produced
and the corporation no longer exists. Settlement is for
a minimal penalty of $500 based on an ability to pay
analysis assessing Respondent Sharma's very low
income for several years.
Thrift Drug, Inc. (Pittsburgh, PA): On January 24,
1995, the Regional Administrator signed separate
consent orders providing for the payment by Thrift .
Drug, Inc., of $5,000, and by Fitzpatrick Brothers,
Inc., of $23,500 for violating FIFRA by the
sale/distribution of the unregistered pesticide product
"Treasury Brand Cleanser" which claimed on its label
that it "disinfects as it cleans." Pittsburgh-based Thrift
Drug asserted that its supplier, cleanser manufacturer
Fitzpatrick Brothers, of Chicago, had provided a
"guarantee" that the product as supplied complied with
FIFRA, thereby relieving Thrift Drug of penalty
liability under the Act. Having decided to settle with
EPA, and split the payment of the penalty in this
action, the Respondents will take their ongoing
contractual dispute, over the effect of the "guarantee,"
into state court.
A-24
July 1996
-------
Region III
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Precision Generators, Inc.: The Regional
Administrator has signed a consent order in the
Precision Generators, Inc., FIFRA case, in which the
respondent has agreed to pay the $4,000 proposed
penalty. The administrative complaint cited the
respondent's sale and misbranding of its unregistered
pesticide product ethylene fluid used to accelerate the
ripening of fruits and vegetables. Such a product is a
"plant regulator" falling within the definition, of
"pesticide" in FIFRA.
E.C. Geiger, Inc. (Harleysville, PA): On August 18,
1995, the Regional Administrator signed a consent
agreement and consent order finalizing settlement of
the administrative proceeding against E.C. Geiger,
Inc., Harleysville, Pennsylvania, for violations of
Sections 12(a)(l)(A) and (E) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. §§
136j(a)(l)(A) and (B). The complaint alleged that
during 1992, Geiger sold or distributed an unregistered
and misbranded pesticide product, a rooting hormone
called "Indole-3-Butyric Acid - Horticultural Grade."
For these violations the complaint sought a $14,000
penalty. Geiger has agreed to pay a penalty of $8,900.
RCRA
UST NOVs for Violations of the RCRA UST
Requirements: On June 28, 1995, Region III issued
17 UST NOVs to facilities in Pennsylvania and 2 UST
NOVs to facilities in Virginia. The NOVs notified the
recipients of violations of the RCRA UST regulations
and advised non-compliers that further enforcement
action may be taken if they did not, within 30 days
after receiving the NOV, provide EPA with
documentation which demonstrated their compliance
with UST requirements.
General Chemical Corporation (Claymont, DE and
Marcus Hook, PA): The U.S. EPA signed a consent
agreement and consent order (CACO) with General
Chemical Corporation hi settlement of an
administrative complaint, compliance order, penalty
assessment, and notice of opportunity for hearing
issued to General Chemical Corporation. The CACO
settles violations of RCRA alleged against respondent's
manufacturing plant located at Claymont, Delaware,
and Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. The facility had
operated three hazardous waste surface impoundments
without a permit or interim status, had failed to make
hazardous waste determinations, and had failed to
comply with land-disposal restrictions.
The settlement consists of a penalty of $350,000.
General Chemical will pay $100,000, and place
$250,000 hi escrow until respondent completes, to
EPA's satisfaction, a $2.5 million pollution prevention
supplemental environmental project (SEP) in
accordance with the conditions stipulated in the
CA/CO. A penalty credit will be granted by EPA to
respondent upon the completion of the SEP. The ratio
of the SEP gross cost to penalty credit dollars is
approximately 4:1 for estimated after-tax net present
value to penalty credit dollars. In the event respondent
fails to complete the SEP, the escrow funds plus
accrued interest will be forfeited to the United States.
The pollution prevention SEP will reduce the release
of pollutants to the environment by eliminating the
current use of a sluiceway where chemicals are treated
and subsequently discharged into the Delaware River.
The SEP will modify the current industrial process at
the Respondent's Marcus Hook manufacturing plant by
recirculating and recycling the wastewater for process
reuse. The recirculation and recycling of the
wastewater for process reuse will decrease the current
thermal loadings of approximately 25.0 million gallons
per day into the Delaware River to approximately 1
million gallons per day of non-process stormwater.
AT&T Richmond Works (Richmond, VA): On
December 30, 1994, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Thomas W. Hoya issued a ruling on cross-motions for
partial accelerated decision in the Matter of American
Telephone and Telegraph Company. The ruling
constitutes a final decision with respect to five of
twenty-six counts in a $4.18 million administrative
complaint initiated by EPA on July 31, 1991. The
complaint alleges numerous violations of RCRA at the
AT&T Richmond Works Facility. The ALJ ruled for
EPA on three counts related to inadequacies of
AT&T's waste analysis plan in meeting regulatory
requirements and ruled for AT&T concerning the
required frequency of wastestream analysis and
additional analyses when tank systems are proposed for
use with substantially different hazardous wastes.
Amoco Oil Company (Yorktown, VA): On December
30, 1994, the Regional Administrator signed a consent
agreement and consent order resolving a RCRA
administrative penalty action against Amoco Oil
Company for alleged violations at Amoco's Yorktown,
Virginia, facility. Under the terms of the CACO
Amoco agreed to pay a $245,715.00 civil penalty and
undertake injunctive relief to comply with RCRA,
including cessation of unpermitted treatment, storage,
A-25
July 1996
-------
Region III
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
and disposal of hazardous waste, and meeting related
waste handling and recordkeeping requirements.
Alexandria Metal Finishers, Inc. (Lorton, VA): On
February, 2, 1995, the Regional Administrator
executed a consent agreement and consent order
(CACO) settling a RCRA administrative penalty action
filed against Alexandria Metal Finishers, Inc., for
alleged violations at Alexandria's Lorton, Virginia,
facility. In addition, the CACO requires Alexandria to
pay a $100,000 civil penalty.
Exide/General Battery Corporation (Reading, PA):
On December 9, 1994, the Acting Deputy Regional
Administrator signed a consent agreement and consent
order (CACO) resolving a RCRA administrative
penalty action against Exide/General Battery
Corporation for alleged violations at Exide's Reading,
Pennsylvania, facility. Under the terms of the CACO,
Exide agreed to pay a $212,372.50 civil penalty and
undertake injunctive relief to comply with RCRA.
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
(Ravenswood, WV): On April 3, 1995, the Acting
Regional Administrator signed a final administrative
order on consent for the performance of a RCRA
facility investigation (RFI) and a corrective measures
study (CMS) under Section 7003 of RCRA, for the
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation facility in
Ravenswood, West Virginia. The respondent was the
former owner of an aluminum reduction and
fabrication facility located on a 3,000-acre site adjacent
to the Ohio River. In 1989, ownership was transferred
to Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation, with the
exception of two parcels of property, one of which was
known as the spent potliner pile. The Section 7003
consent order concerns the real property under the
current ownership of the respondent upon which the
spent potliner pile is located. (The remaining portions
of the former Kaiser operation are being addressed
through a separate RCRA Section 3008(h)
administrative order on consent issued in September
1994 to Ravenswood for the performance of an
RFI/CMS.)
In re: Beaumont Company: On April 28, 1995, the
Office of Regional Counsel, in conjunction with the
OECA RCRA Enforcement Division, filed an appellate
reply brief with the Environmental Appeals Board
(EAB) in support of the Agency's interlocutory appeal
in In re: The Beaumont Company. EPA's
interlocutory appeal seeks to overturn an adverse
ruling by an administrative law judge (ALJ)
dismissing, in part, a $1.2 million RCRA
administrative complaint against the Beaumont
Company, a West Virginia glass manufacturer.
Aberdeen Proving Ground Facility (Aberdeen, MD):
On July 25, 1995, EPA entered into a RCRA consent
order and consent agreement with the U.S. Army
resolving a January 5, 1994, RCRA §3008 complaint
issued to the Army for storing 171 containers of
hazardous waste subject to RCRA's land disposal
restrictions at its Aberdeen Proving Ground Facility in
Aberdeen, Maryland for longer than the one year
period authorized by statute. In addition, the Army
was also cited for failure to properly complete
manifests for 22 such containers which were shipped
off-site for disposal. The settlement requires the Army
to pay a fine of $92,500 and properly dispose of the
containers of hazardous waste cited in EPA's
complaint. At the time of settlement, the Army had so
disposed of this material. This action was the first
enforcement action taken against a federal facility in
Region III under the 1993 Federal Facility Compliance
Act.
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. (Institute, WV): Region III has
reached a settlement with Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., in an
Part 22 administrative action brought for violations of
RCRA boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) regulations
at Rhone-Poulenc's Institute, West Virginia, plant.
The settlement calls for Rhone-Poulenc to pay a
penalty of over $244,000 and to undertake numerous
compliance tasks.
Lynchburg Foundry Company (Lynchburg, VA): On
August 24, 1995, the Regional Administrator signed a
consent order pursuant to of RCRA which requires
Lynchburg Foundry Company to perform tasks set put
in the compliance section of the consent agreement,
and to pay $330,000 to EPA. Lynchburg, located in
Lynchburg, Virginia, operates two facilities: Radford
and Archer Creek, both of which manufacture metal
automotive parts. Under the terms of the consent
agreement and order, Lynchburg must: (1) list all
hazardous wastes handled at both facilities within its
hazardous waste notification filed with the Virginia
Department of Hazardous Waste; (2) amend or
supplement its emergency contingency plans for both
facilities to reflect the arrangements agreed to by local
emergency services; and (3) permanently cease
illegally storing or treating D006 and D008 hazardous
wastes in waste piles at either facility.
A-26
July 1996
-------
Region III
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Rapid Circuits, Inc.: On December 19, 1994, The
Regional Administrator signed a consent agreement
and consent order In the Matter of Rapid Circuits, Inc.
The consent agreement requires Rapid Circuits to pay
a penalty of $23,250. The consent agreement and
consent order represents a settlement of an
administrative complaint that charged Rapid Circuits
with violating the notification/certification and
recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR Section 268.7.
Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics (South
Charleston, WV): On May 16, 1995, the Regional
Administrator signed a consent order resolving a
RCRA administrative penalty action against Union
Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc. (UCC),
for violations of the BIF Rule (Boiler and Industrial
Furnace Rule) at UCC's South Charleston, West
Virginia, plant. The complaint alleged failure to:
continuously monitor and record operating parameters;
accurately analyze the hazardous waste fed into the
boiler; and properly mark equipment. Under the
settlement terms UCC is required to pay a $195,000
civil penalty and comply with the requirements of the
BIF Rule.
RCRA CORRECTIVE MEASURES
AT&T Corporation: On October 14, 1994, the
Associate Division Director for RCRA Programs
signed a final administrative order requiring the AT&T
Corp. to implement corrective measures at its
Richmond Works Facility in accordance with the
RCRA Record of Decision and two subsequent
explanations of significant differences for the facility.
EPA had issued AT&T a unilateral initial
administrative order in July 1994, and AT&T
thereupon disputed certain provisions of the initial
order and requested a hearing.
Honeywell, Inc. (Fort Washington, PA): The
Regional Administrator signed the final decision and
response to comments on proposed corrective measures
under RCRA Section 3008(h) for the Honeywell, Inc.,
facility in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, on
December 16, 1994. The final decision describes the
corrective measure selected by EPA to address releases
of hazardous waste at Honeywell, presents the
concerns and issues raised during the public comment
period and responds to all significant comments
received by EPA regarding the proposed corrective
measure. EPA previously described and evaluated
corrective measure alternatives in the statement of
basis for Honeywell, which was signed on August 26,
1994.
Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc.: On December 30, 1994,
the Regional - Administrator signed a final
administrative order on consent hi the matter of Akzo
Nobel Chemicals, Inc., under Section 7003 of RCRA,
42 U.S.C. §6973. The order requires the respondent
to conduct a RCRA facility investigation (RFI) and a
corrective measures study. Respondent will also be
responsible for an interim measures study initially hi
the form of sampling. Part of the Akzo facility,
originally a chemical manufacturing facility owned by
Stauffer Chemical Company, is part of the Delaware
City PVC Plant currently on the National Priorities
List.
Allied Signal Inc.'s Baltimore Works (Baltimore,
MD): On October 20, 1994, Judge William R.
Nickerson of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland signed the "Second Amendment to Consent
Decree" for Allied Signal Inc.'s Baltimore Works, a
20-acre site located on a peninsula in Baltimore's Inner
Harbor. In September of 1989 the court entered a
consent decree between Allied, the United States, and
the State of Maryland pursuant to Sections 3008(h) and
7003 of RCRA, under which Allied agreed to
remediate chromium contamination at the site, to
conduct further studies, and to carry out additional
corrective measures based on the results of such
studies.
Honeywell, Inc. (Fort Washington, PA): On August
18, 1995, the Regional Administrator signed a consent
order for the Honeywell, Inc., facility hi Fort
Washington, Pennsylvania. The order requires
Honeywell, Inc., to implement the corrective measures
selected by EPA in the final decision and response to
comments signed by EPA on December 16, 1994.
Among other things, the remedy includes the
installation of two recovery wells and continued
treatment of contaminated groundwater.
Allied-Signal, Inc. (Claymont, DE): On December
29, 1994, EPA issued an administrative complaint,
compliance order and notice of opportunity for hearing
to Allied-Signal, Inc., located in Claymont, Delaware,
for failure to comply with the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act and the federal underground storage
tank regulations. The administrative complaint
proposes a civil penalty of $24,324. The alleged
violation occurred at the Allied-Signal, Inc., facility,
located at 6300 Philadelphia Pike, Marcus Hook,
A-27
July 1996
-------
Region III
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Pennsylvania. In addition to the proposed penalty in
the administrative complaint, EPA is also seeking
compliance by ordering Allied-Signal to permanently
close the underground storage tank located at the
facility.
SDWA
Leisure Living Estates (Elkton, VA): Region III
issued a Safe Drinking Water Act Emergency Order to
David Short, Wayne Moore and Universal of
Harrisonburg - Leisure Living Estates. Messrs. Short
and Moore own Universal, a mobile home park in
Elkton, Virginia, with a community water supply
system. The system has had, among its deficiencies,
acute violations of the total coliform rule. An
improperly operated septic system at the site may have
caused the coliform violations. The order requires the
system to provide an alternate source of water,
increase monitoring for coliform, begin corrective
measures, analyze for coliform contamination in
surrounding wells and develop a plan to correct the
sewage problem.
Perry Phillips Mobile Home Park, (E.D. PA): On
September 1, 1995, the U.S. Attorney's Office filed a
complaint under the Safe Drinking Water Act against
Perry Phillips and Jeanne Phillips, d.b.a. Perry
Phillips Mobile Home Park, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The
complaint alleges that the water supplied to the
approximately 60 residents of the mobile home park
served by the park's public water system has violated
the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane (TCA) and 1,1-Dichloroethylene
(DCE) for every month since at least June 1993.
Although EPA issued an administrative emergency
order to the Phillips in May 1993 for these same
violations, the Phillips have only partially complied
with the terms of that emergency order, prompting the
need for injunctive relief. The complaint also seeks a
penalty for these violations.
TSCA
General Electric Co. (Philadelphia, PA): On March
21, 1995, the RA signed a partial CACO which was
negotiated in partial settlement of a TSCA
administrative complaint that was filed against GE for
violations of the PCB regulations codified at 40 C.F.R.
Part 761. This partial settlement relates to one count
of the complaint which alleges GE's failure to properly
dispose of PCBs. GE has agreed to pay $16,000 in
settlement thereof. The unresolved counts relate to
GE's failure to obtain a permit for its freon flush
system; because this freon flush system was used
nationwide, these counts have also been pled by
Regions IV, V, VI, and X. The Agency's motions on
liability having been previously granted by ALJ Nissen
and upheld by the EAB.
ANZON, INC. (Philadelphia, PA): On March 30,
1995, EPA Region III sent a letter of remittance to
Anzon Inc., concluding a TSCA administrative action
against Anzon for violations of the TSCA Inventory
update reporting requirements. Respondent agreed to
pay $57,800 in settlement of this case, $43,620 of
which was remitted upon completion of two
supplemental environmental projects (SEPs).
Philadelphia Masjid, Inc. (Philadelphia, PA): On
May 15, 1995, the Regional Administrator, EPA
Region III, signed an order granting EPA's motion for
default in an Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response
Act case against the Philadelphia Masjid, Inc.
Respondent owns a private, non-profit elementary
school located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On
December 16, 1994, an administrative complaint was
filed against respondent for failure to file an asbestos
management plan as required regulations promulgated
pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act. The
default motion was based on respondent's failure to file
an answer to the complaint and failure to seek an
extension of tune in which to submit an Answer. The
order mandates, inter alia, that the respondent pay a
$4,000 penalty and develop an asbestos management
plan for the school in accordance with the
requirements of TSCA.
MULTIMEDIA
Horseshead Resource Development Company: On
August 23, 1995, a consent decree was entered by the
U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
The consent decree resolves the civil action filed by
the United States in January 1992 pursuant to Section
3008(a) of RCRA, Sections 301 and 402 of the Clean
Water Act and Sections 113(a)(l) and (b)(l) of the
Clean Air Act. This consent decree satisfies EPA's
goals of bringing the defendants into compliance and
deterring other potential violations by defendants and
other parties. The injunctive relief, which fully
satisfies existing federal and state environmental
standards, constitutes a comprehensive upgrading of
the entire facility. The defendants have estimated the
cost of the injunctive relief to be between 30 and 40
A-28
July 1996
-------
Region III
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
million dollars. The civil penalty of $5.6 million is
substantial, recovering one million dollars more than
the full economic benefit calculated in this case.
Brentwood Industries (Reading, PA): Brentwood and
the United States (EPA and DOJ) resolved outstanding
violations at Brentwood's Reading plant through a
consent decree entered on March 24, 1995. The
consent decree provided for a penalty payment of
$200,000 and an expedited schedule for reducing VOC
emissions to below 50 TPY by September 30, 1995.
During the period of violation, VOC emissions ranged
between 120 and 315 tons per year with no control
equipment. Brentwood constructed and operated these
air contamination sources in an ozone non-attainment
area without first undergoing new source review as
required by law. This enabled Brentwood to avoid
installing required control equipment or process
modifications. This case addresses both Clean Air Act
and EPCRA violations.
A-29
July 1996
-------
Region HI
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
A-30
July 1996
-------
REGION IV
CLEAN AIR ACT
United States v. Environmental Resources, Inc.
(W.D. KY): On May 9, 1995, the U.S. District Court
entered a civil consent decree in which Environmental
Resources, Inc. (ERI) agreed to pay $13,000 in civil
penalties in settlement of an action brought under the
Clean Air Act for violations of the National Emission
Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants for asbestos.
The action arose out of ERI's removal of asbestos-
containing pipe insulation from three buildings owned
by the Louisville Water Company in Jefferson County,
Kentucky. The action focused on ERI's failure to
adequately wet the asbestos-containing material as
required to prevent asbestos from contaminating the
air.
CERCLA
Peak Oil and Bay Drums Sites (Tampa, FL): On
June 20, 1995, Region IV referred RD/RA consent
decrees for the Peak Oil and Bay Drums Sites to DOJ.
Three separate consent decrees have been signed for
the two adjacent Superfund sites. Under the first
decree, 45 Peak Oil site PRPs will conduct the RD/RA
for soils, sediments and surface waters at the Peak
site. Under the second decree, 85 Bay Drums site
PRPs will conduct the RD/RA for soils, sediments and
surface waters at the Bay site. Under the third decree,
the PRPs from both sites will conduct the RD/RA for
the area-wide ground water underlying both sites, as
well as the wetlands monitoring for the south and
central wetlands lying adjacent to the abandoned site
facilities. Under the first two decrees, the PRPs will
reimburse EPA a total of $7.6 million for EPA's past
costs.
Peak Oil Site (Tampa, FL): On July 17, 1995, EPA
entered into administrative settlements with 350 de
minimis PRPs for this site, under which the settling
parties are required to pay a share of past and future
response costs. Each PRP's payment amount is based
on the PRP's volume of waste oil sent to the site.
Under the settlement, EPA will retain the first $4.6
million generated through the de minimis settlements
and anything in excess of this amount will be
forwarded to the PRP group which has signed a
consent decree for performance of the remedial design/
remedial action, to help pay the costs of that work.
Thus far, in excess of $5 million has been received in
payments from the settling de minimis parties.
LCP Chemicals Site (Brunswick, Glynn County, GA):
On July 6, 1995, Region IV executed a §122 AOC for
performance of the RI/FS for this site by three (3) of
the five (5) corporate PRPs that EPA has identified for
the site. The three PRPs that will perform the RI/FS
under EPA oversight are Allied Signal, Inc., Atlantic
Richfield Co. (ARCO), and Georgia Power Company.
Yellow Water Road Site (Duval County, FL): On July
5, 1995, the Department of Justice lodged a consent
decree for performance of the RD/RA for this site, in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida. Under this settlement, ten companies and
three Federal Agencies that sent PCB-contaminated oils
to this storage site will perform the RD/RA for both
the groundwater and soil units, reimburse over
$1,467,000 in past EPA response costs, and reimburse
100% of EPA future response costs. The RD/RA
requires on-site solidification of PCB-contaminated soil
and monitoring of PCB-contaminated groundwater. If
monitoring indicates that the PCBs are migrating in the
groundwater, the groundwater ROD requires a pump-
and-treat remedy to contain the groundwater plume.
Maxey Flats Disposal Site (Fleming County, KY): On
July 5, 1995, a consent decree for the remedial
design/remedial action at the site, and an
accompanying de minimis consent decree, were lodged
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky. The parties settling with EPA under these
decrees include the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 19
major and de minimis federal agency PRPs, 43 private
party major PRPs (including corporations, utility
companies, hospitals and universities), and more than
200 de minimis parties.
The site was operated as a low-level radioactive waste
landfill from 1963 to 1978, during which time an
estimated 4 to 5 million cubic feet of radioactive
wastes were disposed of in unlined trenches.
Radioactive leachate was discovered to be migrating
from the trenches in the early 1970s. The consent
decrees provide for closure and perpetual monitoring
of this landfill, and the recovery of more than $5
million in response costs incurred by EPA in
connection with the site.
A-31
July 1996
-------
Region IV
, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site
(Concord, NC): On January 25, 1995, the Middle
District of North Carolina entered an RD/RA consent
decree at the site in Concord, North Carolina. The
consent decree provides for the $40 million cleanup
and collection of 100% of past costs at the site,
utilizing preauthorization mixed-funding, as well as a
unique de micromis settlement.
The site includes an inactive battery "cracking11 facility
and 10 source areas around the site, where the battery
casings were buried after being cracked.
Approximately 4,000 PRPs were identified, including
approximately 2,400 de micromis parties. Of the non-
de micromis parties, only approximately 500 PRPs
were located, creating an orphan share of
approximately 1,100 PRPs. The $40+ million remedy
(which could potentially climb to 100+ million)
selected for the site includes soil solidification and
stabilization, as well as an aggressive pump-and-treat
system. Additionally, past costs at the site currently
total approximately $4 million.
Woolfolk Chemical Site (Fort Valley, GA): With the
concurrence of EPA-Headquarters and the Department
of Justice, Region IV has entered into an agreement
and covenant not to sue with three parties who plan to
redevelop land cleared and cleaned as part of a
removal action at the site. The site is a pesticide
formulating facility which was placed on the National
Priorities List in 1990. During the RI/FS, soil
contamination was discovered in residential yards
surrounding the operating facility. EPA issued a
removal order, and the PRP performing the removal
purchased certain of the residential properties, razed
the houses, and removed contaminated soil to the
expected non-residential cleanup level. That PRP is
now willing to donate the land to the Peach Public
Libraries, the Fort Valley Redevelopment Authority,
and the Peach County Chamber of Commerce, who
plan to construct a public library, an adult literacy
center, and an office for the Chamber of Commerce
and Redevelopment Authority on the property. The
covenant not to sue is conditioned upon EPA's
concurrence that the redevelopment project will be
consistent with EPA's upcoming ROD for this area.
Aqua-tech Environmental, Inc., Site (Greer, SC): On
July 21, 1995, Region IV entered into administrative
de minimi's settlements with 98 parties for this site.
This de minimis settlement represents the first phase of
the total de minimis settlement for the Aqua-Tech site.
This phase of the de minimis settlement was offered
only to those de minimis parties who sent gas cylinders
to the site. Settlements which resolve drum and lab
pack liability will be offered when additional
information becomes available concerning the full
extent of contamination at the site. Consequently,
parties to this settlement who sent both cylinder and
drum or lab pack waste are resolving their liability for
cylinders only through this settlement and will have
continuing liability for other non-cylinder waste. The
site underwent a removal action which was completed
in January of 1994. On September 25, 1995, the
Region and 77 major PRPs entered into an AOC for
performance of the RI/FS for the site.
General Refining Site (Garden City, GA): On
November 23, 1994, the final consent decree settling
United States v. General Refining Company, etal. was
entered in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Georgia. Pursuant to the terms of the
consent decree, the United States recovered
$2,150,000 in response costs incurred at the site.
The General Refining Company, a closely-held
corporation, owned and operated a waste oil re-
refining facility at the site from 1961 to 1975. Waste
oil, sludge and filter cake containing hazardous
substances, including lead, cadmium, chromium and
copper, were deposited on-site. EPA conducted a
removal action at the site during the period 1985-1987.
The Settling Defendants included the owners of the
property and forty-six (46) generators.
Reeves Southeastern Site (Tampa, PL): On July 17,
1995, the U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, entered the RD/RA consent
decree for the site. Under the decree, the Reeves
Southeastern Corporation will conduct the RD/RA for
three operable unit Records of Decision and will
reimburse EPA's past costs hi the amount of $297,000.
In the past, wire fence manufacturing operations
resulted hi the generation of waste waters'contaminated
with zinc and other heavy metals. The waste waters
were stored in unlined holding ponds. Soils and
sediments in the ponds, soils and sediments hi hot spot
areas around the site, ground water underlying the site,
and adjacent wetlands became contaminated with heavy
metals. The three Records of Decision covered by the
consent decree address, respectively, soils, sediments
and surface waters; ground water; and the wetlands.
Shaver's Farm Site (Walker County, GA): On
October 31, 1994, DOJ filed a cost recovery action
styled United States v. Velsicol Chemical Corporation
A-32
July 1996
-------
Region IV
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. The action seeks $5.8 million for past
response costs plus a declaratory judgement for future
costs. In 1988, after investigation disclosed a large
number of buried drums and some releases of dicamba
and benzonitrile disposed of by Velsicol at Shaver's
Farm, EPA entered into a consent removal order with
Velsicol. In 1990, EPA took over the work because
of serious performance problems by Velsicol's
contractor. The complaint seeks to recover all of the
Government's response costs pursuant to Section 107
of CERCLA.
Para-Chem Southern, Inc. (Simpsonville, SC): On
October 7, 1994, the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, entered a consent decree
for RD/RA in connection with the Para-Chem
Southern, Inc., Superfund site in Simpsonville, South
Carolina. Under the terms of the consent decree,
Para-Chem Southern, Inc., will perform and fund the
entire RD/RA, and reimburse the United States for
costs incurred by the United States hi connection with
such work, including, but not limited to, oversight
costs. The estimated cost of implementing the selected
remedy is $5,498,000. Para-Chem has already agreed
to pay all outstanding past costs incurred in connection
with the site in the amount of $275,563.23 under the
terms of a cost recovery agreement entered September
2, 1993.
Dickerson Post Treating Site (Homerville, GA): On
March 31, 1995, in a case entitled United States v.
Amtreco, et al., the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia approved and finalized a settlement
of the United States' $2.1 million judgment for
recovery of direct and indirect response costs incurred
hi a cleanup of this site. The settlement requires the
defendants, the individual and closely-held corporate
owner/operators of the site, to pay $300,000 to the
United States in satisfaction of the judgment and
resolution of all issues.
Murray Ohio Dump Site (Lawrenceburg, TN): On
April 20, 1995, Region IV issued a unilateral
administrative order to Murray Ohio Manufacturing
Company (Murray Ohio) for performance of the
remedial design/remedial action at the site. Murray
Ohio operates an active bicycle manufacturing facility
on approximately 27 acres southwest of Lawrenceburg,
Tennessee. Murray Ohio began land disposal of F006
paint and plating sludge hi 1963 and continued until
1982, on property then owned by the City of
Lawrenceberg, Tennessee. The sludges contained
chromium, nickel and zinc, and the landfill poses a
threat to groundwater from these contaminants. The
UAO requires Murray Ohio to implement a RCRA
landfill closure of the disposal area. The City of
Lawrenceberg was not named in the UAO because
Murray Ohio indicated that they would assume
responsibility for the entire cleanup.
Riley Battery Site (Concord, Cabarrus County, NC):
On December 15, 1994, Region IV signed an AOC
with Troutman Land Investments, Inc. (Troutman),
which requires Troutman to perform a removal action,
as well as reimburse EPA for approximately $44,000
hi past costs, at the site. The site is comprised of two
adjoining parcels of property formerly owned by the
Riley family and generally located at 5050 Zion
Church Road, Cabarrus County, Concord, North
Carolina, where excessive levels of lead contamination
were discovered, due to the presence of discarded
battery casings and associated wastes. Operations at
the site, which occurred during the late 1940s and
early 1950s, included the cracking of lead batteries to
reclaim lead for scrap. Once the batteries were
"cracked," the lead plates were removed for sale as
scrap metal, and the lead contaminated battery casings
were stockpiled and littered across the site.
Cedartown Battery Site (Polk County, GA): On
December 5, 1994, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, in a case captioned
United States v. AmSouth Bank N.A., et al., entered
three (3) consent decrees negotiated by Region IV and
the Department of Justice, resulting in the recovery of
$230,760 hi response costs for a removal action
performed by EPA at the site. Henry Dingier and his
sons operated a battery cracking operation from the
1960s through September 1974 in rural Polk County,
Georgia, which recovered lead from used automotive
batteries. As a result of a citizen's complaint, EPA
found levels of lead contamination ranging from 7,080
to 19,300 parts per million. EPA conducted a two-
stage removal at the site beginning hi January of 1989.
The three (3) settling parties are the owner of the land,
AmSoudi Bank, N.A. as trustee for the W.M. Leary
Trust, and two (2) companies which sold batteries to
the Dinglers: Aaron McMahon, d/b/a Hester Battery,
Inc., and Carl Parker, d/b/a Dalton Battery Service,
Inc.
Sapp Battery Site (Jackson County, PL): A cost
recovery action captioned U.S v. Ben Shemper & Sons,
Inc., et al. was filed on December 27, 1994, hi federal
court in the Northern District of Florida against several
A-33
July 1996
-------
Region IV
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
recalcitrant potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at the
Sapp Battery Superfund site. This complaint against
viable non-settlors seeks to recover the remainder of
EPA's past costs in connection with the site which
total approximately $2.7 million.
Sapp Battery Site (Jackson County, FL): On
September 18, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida entered a Consent Decree
in United States v. Bay Area Battery, et aL, which
provides for eleven businesses and individuals that sent
batteries which were disposed of at the site to pay to
EPA approximately $214,500 toward unreimbursed
costs (with an additional amount of approximately
$50,000 going to a group of PRPs who have
undertaken the cleanup of Operable Unit One at the
site). The eleven (11) parties that signed this consent
decree are alleged to have sent large quantities of
waste to the Sapp site, but due to their financial
conditions, are not able to pay their proportionate
share of the cost of the clean up. The settlement
amounts paid by each of these parties were negotiated
on an ability-to-pay basis after a detailed analysis of
their financial conditions was conducted by the
Department of Justice.
Kalama Specialty Chemical, Inc. (Beaufort, SC):
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
South Carolina entered the RD/RA consent decree for
the site on December 28, 1994. On August 10, 1994,
Region IV referred the RD/RA consent decree to the
Department of Justice for lodging and entry. Pursuant
to the consent decree, Defendants Kalama Specialty
Chemical, Inc., and Kalama Chemical, Inc., will
perform soil and groundwater remediation estimated to
cost $3,502,167. In addition, the Defendants agreed
to reimburse EPA for all of its past costs and for all of
its future oversight costs.
Sixty-One Industrial Park Site (Memphis, Shelby
County, IN): On January 26, 1995, EPA issued a
unilateral administrative order to UT Automotive, Inc.,
Sixty-One Industrial Park, Lazarov Brothers Tin
Compress Company, Inc., and Lazarov Brothers
Surplus Sales Company, Inc., and Mr. David Lazarov
for removal activities at the site. The UAO requires
the Respondents to remove and dispose of
contaminated lagoon sludges, drums, drummed waste,
batteries, slag piles, explosives, contaminated soils,
and associated contamination. Respondents are either
current of former site owners or operators.
Carolina Chemicals Site (West Columbia, SC): On
February 1, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, entered
a CERCLA §107 consent decree in United States v.
Carolina Chemicals, et al., which provides for the
defendants at the site to pay EPA $5,631,000,
approximately 98% of past costs for a 1989-1991 EPA
removal. In addition to the payment of past costs, the
settlement resolves all claims alleged against the
United States and its contractor in a separate but
related cause of action, Richland-Lexington Airport
District v. Atlas Properties Inc., et al. In this lawsuit,
one of the PRPs alleged that EPA improperly placed
the contaminated stockpile from the 1989-1991
removal on its property.
Saad Trousdale Road Site (Nashville, TN): Region
IV utilized a combination of two AOCs and one UAO
over the last year, with various parties, to effectuate a
removal cleanup action at this waste oil site in
Nashville, Tennessee. The first AOC was signed
October 5, 1994, with approximately 100 PRPs who
sent waste oil to the site (the "Steering Committee"),
and required limited removal activities. The second
AOC was entered into on December 9, 1994, between
EPA and Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA),
and required additional removal activities of a limited
nature. The Steering Committee refused to enter into
an AOC for full removal of the remaining source soils
and sludges. Consequently, EPA issued a UAO to
Steering Committee members on July 28, 1995,
requiring that the remaining removal work be
completed.
Florida Steel Site (Indiantown, Martin County, FL):
On January 24, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida entered a consent decree
executed by Florida Steel Corporation as settling
defendant under which Florida Steel has agreed to
conduct RD/RA (Operable Unit 2) for cleanup of
metals contamination in groundwater at the site as well
as wetlands restoration. Florida Steel also agreed to
reimburse all future response costs incurred by the
United States. (Past response costs were paid under
the first operable unit consent decree which addressed
soil and sediment contamination.)
Rutledge Property Site (Rock Hill, York County, SC):
On February 14, 1995, EPA Region IV, under the
authority of CERCLA, issued UAOs to BASF/Inmont
Corp., Burlington Industries Inc., CTS Corp., Engraph
Inc., FMC Corp., Hoechst Celanese Corp., Reeves
Brothers, Inc., Rexham Inc., Textron Inc., Union
A-34
July 1996
-------
Region IV
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Camp Corp., W.R. Grace & Co., and William
Rutledge, for RD/RA. Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) receiving the UAO included 11 generators and
the owner/operator of the facility. The selected
remedy for groundwater contamination at the site is
pumping and discharge to a publicly owned treatment
works (POTW).
Sayles-Biltmore Site (Asheville, NC): Pursuant to the
"Guidance on Landowner Liability under Section
107(a)(10) of CERCLA, De Minimis Settlements,
under 122(g)(10)(B) of CERCLA, and Settlements with
Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Property,"
Region IV entered into a prospective purchaser
agreement with River Bend Business Park, Limited
Liability Corporation (LLC) for the sum of $165,000.
The agreement was signed by the Regional
Administrator on March 20, 1995, and was forwarded
to Headquarters and DOJ for concurrence. EPA
initiated a removal action at the site hi May 1, 1994,
removing several hundred drums, laboratory
containers, and eight vats of caustic material inside the
various buildings at the cost of $745,000.
Fuels and Chemicals Super/and Site (Tuscaloosa
County, AL): On March 27, 1995, Region IV ratified
the first amended AOC with U.S. Steel and 43 other,
PRPs to complete Phase II of the removal at the site.
This action was at the request of the PRPs to facilitate
the removal agreement between the PRPs and add 9
additional parties to the existing AOC signed on
September 23, 1994. The site, a 57-acre parcel of
land located hi a sparsely populated area, operated
from 1981 to 1992 as a fuels blending and treating
facility and was abandoned in September 1992. EPA
initially inspected the site on February 4, 1993. At
that time, there was approximately 800,000 gallons of
waste stored on-site. On July 20, 1993, EPA entered
into an administrative order on consent (Phase I AOC)
with 11 parties requiring them to conduct Phase I of a
removal action at the site. Phase I of the removal
action consisted of the removal of pumpable liquids
from on-site tanks and drums and off-site disposal in
a manner satisfactory to EPA. On May 2, 1994, EPA
executed a unilateral administrative order directing 55
parties to conduct Phase II of the removal action at the
site. Following negotiations with EPA and 33 other
PRPs, on August 31, 1994, USX submitted aproposed
administrative order on consent requesting that it be
ratified and act to supersede the Phase II UAO.
Region IV ratified this "Phase II" AOC on September
23, 1994. This recent action acts to amend the Phase
II AOC to add an additional 9 PRPs to the order.
Diamond Shamrock Landfill Site (Cedartown, Polk
County, GA): On March 31, 1995, hi a case
captioned United States v. Henkel Corporation, the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia entered-a consent decree between EPA and
Henkel Corporation for RD/RA at the site. Under the
terms of the proposed settlement, Henkel will perform
and fund the entire RD/RA (estimated to cost
$460,000), and reimburse the United States for past
costs of almost $388,000 and future costs incurred by
the United States hi connection with such work.
Brantley Landfill Site (Island, KY): On March 21,
1995, Region IV issued a UAO which orders Barmet
Aluminum Corporation to conduct the RD/RA selected
for implementation at the site. The site consists of
approximately four acres used from 1978 to 1980 by
Doug Brantley and Sons, Inc., for the disposal of
250,306 tons of salt cake fines generated by the
Barmet Aluminum Corporation. High concentrations
of chlorides, sulfates and other metals from the salt
cake fines threaten the groundwater. The remedy
chosen requires that a new cap be installed at the
former landfill while groundwater monitoring takes
place to determine the extent of leachate contamination
migrating offsite. hi the event that unacceptable offsite
migration is occurring, the remedy requires the
installation of a short-term or long-term leachate
collection system.
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site
(Wilmington, NC): On Wednesday, April 5, 1995,
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina entered, a consent decree for the
payment of all of^EPA's past costs by three PRPs.
The signatories to the consent decree include Cape
Fear Community College, City of Wilmington, and
New Hanover County. The consent decree involves
the reimbursement of $545,723.52 plus interest of
$19,269.41 for costs spent by EPA and the Department
of Justice through August 31, 1994.
Koppers Charleston Site (Charleston County, SC):
On May 22, 1995r EPA Region IV, under the
authority of CERCLA, issued a UAO to Beazer East
Inc., for interim RD/RA. The interim RD/RA will be
implemented to mitigate the transport of non-aqueous
phase liquid (NAPL), from the former wood treating
site into open drainage ditches, marshlands, and the
Ashley River. By monitoring the effectiveness of the
interim remedial action, information will be gathered
that will play an integral role hi determining the
A-35
July 1996
-------
Region IV
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
optimal and most cost effective method of site wide
remediation.
Lexington County Landfill Site (Lexington County,
SC): On June 13, 1995, EPA issued a UAO to
Lexington County, South Carolina in this CERCLA
case. Despite extended negotiations between EPA and
the County, the parties could not reach agreement on
a proposed consent decree. The Record of Decision
(ROD) for this landfill site was signed on September
29,1994. The selected remedy includes the following:
consolidation/containment/gas recovery/groundwater
Extraction and Treatment and Disposal at
POTW/monitoring. The remedy involves excavation
of waste in one part of the site and consolidation with
waste in another part of the site. An existing landfill
cap in yet another part of the site will be modified.
Finally, a groundwater leachate collection system will
be installed and a gas extraction system will be
augmented.
Pike County Drum Site (Osyka, MS): EPA signed a
cost recovery agreement for the above-referenced site
on September 22, 1995. On September 22, 1995,
Region IV signed a cost recovery agreement in which
the settling potentially responsible parties are
reimbursing the Superfund- $198,292.82. This
settlement represents a recovery of 61% of the site's
total costs. The statute of limitations expired in
February 1995 and the cost recovery agreement was
completed pursuant to a tolling agreement.
Cedartown Municipal Landfill Site (Cedartown, GAj:
Pursuant to an administrative recovery agreement,
eight industrial generator PRPs, the City of Cedartown
and Polk County have agreed to pay $668,302.88,
which includes all past costs through April 1995
associated with the selected remedy at the site. The
PRPs are conducting the RD/RA under a unilateral
administrative order issued on March 22, 1994.
E.G. Manufacturing Property (Pineville, MecMehberg
County, NC): On September 20, 1995, EPA Region
IV, under the authority of CERCLA, issued a UAO to
Dr. Amir Farahany, the present owner of the property.
The UAO requires the removal of drums of plating
waste and the removal of lead contaminated soil in a
waste disposal area on the property.
JMC Plating Site (Lexington, NC): On December 29,
1994, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina, Greensboro Division, entered a
second CERCLA 107 partial consent decree in United
States v. Gaither S. Walser et. al. This decree
requires two defendants at the site to pay EPA
$145,000 of past costs for a 1988 EPA removal at the
former metal plating facility. Combined with
$446,000 recovered in a 1993 partial consent decree
between EPA and other site defendants, EPA's total
recovery will amount to 54% of $1,295,168.50 in past
costs.
Monarch Tile, Inc./Rickwood Road Site (Lauderdale
County, AL): On December 1, 1994, EPA signed the
final AOC for an EE/CA and non-time-critical removal
action for the site. The AOC provides for expedited
investigation and commencement of removal activities,
in accordance with the National Contingency Plan
(NCP) at 40 C.F.R. Section 300.415, and "Guidance
on the Implementation of the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model SACM under CERCLA and the NCP,"
July 7, 1992 (OSWER # 9203.1-03). Investigation of
the site, conducted by EPA, Alabama Department of
Environmental Management, and Monarch Tile, Inc.,
showed the presence of hazardous substances at the
facility, including barium, nickel, lead, zinc, cadmium,
and chromium, which may constitute a threat to the
public health, welfare, and the environment.
Shuron/Textron Site (Barnwell, SC): On November
21, 1994, Region IV signed an AOC with Textron,
Inc., which requires Textron to perform a limited
removal action, as well as an early action RI/FS, at the
site in Barnwell, South Carolina. The site is
comprised of a defunct opthalmic lens manufacturing
facility, which was originally owned by Textron, but
was later old to Shuron, Inc., which recently dissolved
after bankruptcy. Because of serious health threats at
the site associated with metal contamination in the soils
and surface waters, it was determined that a time
critical removal action was necessary to address the
immediate threat. Additionally, because preliminary
data from the site indicated the presence of large
amounts of contamination in the groundwater, the
option of performing an early action RI/FS was
proposed to potentially responsible parties (PRPs). As
a result, the AOC provides for a limited removal to
address the immediate threats at the site, while an
RI/FS is performed concurrently to determine what
remedial alternatives are best suited for remediating the
entire site.
J-Street Site, (Erwin, Harnett County, NC): On
August 9, 1995, EPA issued unilateral administrative
orders (UAOs) to Swift Textiles, lac., and Burlington
Industries, Inc. The UAOs require Respondents to
A-36
July 1996
-------
Region TV
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
conduct an engineering evaluation/cost analysis,
expanded site investigation and a removal action for
the J-Street Site, located in Erwin, Harnett County,
North Carolina (the site). Swift Textiles, Inc., is the
present owner/operator of the site and Burlington
Industries, Inc., and was an owner/operator of the
facility at the time of disposal of hazardous substances.
Both Burlington and Swift have been very cooperative
and are complying fully with the terms of the UAO.
CLEAN WATER AcT/SDWA
United States v. IMC-Agrico Company (M.D. FL):
On November 8, 1994, the Regional Administrator
ratified a consent decree between the United States and
IMC-Agrico Company (IMC) concerning IMC's
violations of Section 301 (a) of the CWA. IMC owns
and operates phosphate rock mines and associated
processing facilities in Florida and Louisiana. Eight of
its mineral extraction operations located throughout
Florida and its Port Sutton Phosphate Terminal located
in Tampa, Florida, were the subject of this referral.
The action arose out of IMC's violation of its permit
effluent limits for a variety of parameters including
dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, ammonia, and
phosphorus, as well as non-reporting and stormwater
violations at the various facilities—over 1,500 permit
violations total. The case was initiated following
review of the facility discharge monitoring reports and
EPA and state inspections of the sites. The consent
decree settlement involved an up-front payment of
$835,000 and a $265,000 Supplemental Environmental
Project (SEP). The pollution prevention SEP involved
converting IMC's scrubber discharge and intake water
systems into a closed loop system, greatly reducing
pollution loading at the Port Sutton facility, by April
1995.
United States v. City of Marianna, Florida (N.D.
FL): In June 1995, EPA and the City of Marianna
settled this civil action brought under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The City agreed to pay $50,000
in civil penalties to settle the action, which arose out
of the City of Marianna's failure to comply with the
monitoring and reporting requirements of the lead and
copper rule.
United States v. Metropolitan Dade County, et al.
(S.D. FL): This Clean Water Act enforcement case
was filed in June of 1993 to address an emergency
situation caused by the deteriorated condition of a large
sewage pipeline (cross-bay line) running under
Biscayne Bay, Florida, as well as chronic and
widespread overflows of raw sewage into homes,
streets, businesses and public waterways, including
Biscayne Bay and the Miami River. A first partial
consent decree, entered by the court in January 1994,
addressed replacement of the cross-bay line, as well as
some short term preventative measures, pursuant to the
endangerment claim under Section 504 of the Clean
Water Act. The second and final partial consent
decree, entered by the court hi September 1995,
addresses the remaining claims under Section 309 of
the Act. The settlement provides for a cash penalty of
$2 million and supplemental environmental projects
(water reuse and conservation) totaling at least $5
million. The county is expected to spend more than
$800 million rehabilitating its system to prevent the
chronic overflows of sewage. The new cross-bay line
has been constructed and is now operational.
{
United States v. Perdue-Davidson Oil Company (E.D.
KY): On November 8, 1994, the court entered final
judgment hi this multi-media civil referral. Perdue-
Davidson is an oil production company which produces
crude oil from two stripper-well fields in eastern
Kentucky. EPA filed this multi-media civil action
pursuant to §§ 301 and 311 of the Clean Water Act,
§1423 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (Underground
Injection Control) and §311 of the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) to
address Perdue-Davidson's and the owner's, Charles
Perdue, numerous environmental violations, including:
repeated violations of an underground injection control
(UIC) administrative order, NPDES permit reporting
violations, unpermitted discharges, reporting violations
under the spill prevention and control regulations, an
illegal discharge of 70 barrels of crude oil, and other
EPCRA reporting requirements.
Injunctive relief hi the November 1994 judgment
required the owner to cease all well injection and
disconnect all pipes and lines used to transport fluid to
and from the water treatment plant, and submit a plan
to ensure that further non-compliance did not occur
after injection activities ceased. An earlier judgment,
entered May 6, 1994, provided for payment of a $3.8
million penalty. This case represents an important
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 of
the CWA.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (TN): A
consent agreement and final order signed on August 2,
A-37
July 1996
-------
Region IV
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
1995, sets forth du Font's elimination of underground
injection and the plugging and abandonment of the
New Johnsonville, Tennessee, facility injection wells
by December 1998. Du Pont has set forth a
systematic procedure to change waste disposal
operations at the facility which will allow for the
elimination of underground injection of the eight
hundred thousand (800,000) gallons per day of the 0.1
to 1.5 pH injectate into the Knox Formation.
Truman Griggs, individual (KY): A Safe Drinking
Water Act §1431 emergency order was issued on June
2, 1995, to Truman Griggs of Henderson, Kentucky,
to address three Class n injection wells. The injection
process was causing brine and oil waste to enter the
drinking water supply of an adjoining resident. The
emergency order mandated the respondent to stop
injection and immediately provide a temporary source
of drinking water to the affected resident. Provisions
of the order will also require permanent water to be
supplied if the contamination persists. Mr. Griggs has
complied with the order and will also seek to permit a
new injection well in a lower horizon. The latest
sampling shows no improvement in the water well
impacted by the injection activities.
Florida Department of Transportation Rest Areas
(FL): Six administrative complaints were issued to the
FOOT for violations of the CWA at interstate rest
areas. Subsequent investigation indicated that two of
the facilities had discharges that did not reach waters
of the United States, and consequently the complaints
will be withdrawn. The typical STP serves an
interstate rest area, was constructed when the Florida
interstate was built over 20 years ago, and had effluent
and non-reporting violations in approximately 1991 and
1992. Both the physical rest areas and the STPs were
subject to intermittent overloading until the FOOT
installed surge tanks which helped to bring these
facilities into compliance. Consent agreements were
signed for the remaining four facilities and all of the
rest areas and STPs are hi the process of being
expanded to handle the increase in interstate traffic.
As part of the settlement process the FOOT proposed
to eliminate the surface water discharges.
Approximately $600,000 has been appropriated by the
State of Florida to combine each set of two STPs into
one and to install either percolation ponds or
underdrain systems, thus eliminating four point source
discharges. The four SEPs (at a ratio of approx. 1:7)
were allowed a mitigation value of $85,000. The
FOOT has agreed to pay a cash penalty of $25,000.
Clay County, Florida - Ridaught Landing WWTP:
Clay County, Florida, has owned and operated
Ridaught Landing WWTP since January 1994. The
respondent violated several NPDES permit conditions
and discharged 2 million gallons of wastewater from a
break in an onsite pond berm. EPA issued an APO in
the amount of $60,000 for these violations. Clay
County will complete an SEP of constructing a force
main from the Ridaught Landing WWTP to a nearby
re-use facility to eliminate the discharge to Little Black
Creek. The after tax net present value of this project
is $1.879 million with a capital outlay of $2.149
million. The SEP is expected to be complete in early
1998. EPA and Clay County settled for a $12,000
cash penalty and the completion of the SEP.
Anheuser-Busch Companies (Jacksonville, FL):
Anheuser-Busch Companies was issued NPDES
permits for its Main Street and Lsm Turner Sod Farms
allowing the discharge of contaminated run-off,
irrigation runoff, and field underdrains from
stormwater detention ponds. The waste generated
during the brewery operation is digested on-site. A
part of that waste is discharged into the City of
Jacksonville's regional sewer system and a portion of
that waste is transmitted via a pipeline to the Main
Street Sod Farm. The wastewater is stored at the
Main Street Sod Farm and periodically a portion is
transferred via pipeline to the Lem Turner Sod Farm,
10 miles away. The wastewater is sprayed onto the
various acreage at both sod farms.
Each of these two facilities was issued two AOs
allowing for time to pursue a stormwater control
program. Administrative complaints were issued for
each permit for effluent limitation violations resulting
from the pond discharges from May 1991 through
October 1994. In addition, wastewater from the
brewery was discharged into the stormwater collection
system at the brewery site. Wastewater was released
into a wetlands area and then into the Broward River.
On March 24, 1995, Anheuser-Busch requested a
hearing and filed an answer to the Complaints. The
cases were consolidated and negotiations between
Anheuser-Busch and EPA resulted ha a tentative
consent order (TCO) on May 8, 1995, for a combined
penalty of $32,600. This action will be finalized upon
execution of the final consent order.
City ofPensacola, FL: EPA issued an administrative
complaint alleging that the City of Pensacola was in
violation of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act. The
A-38
July 1996
-------
Region IV
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
City of Pensacola owns and operates a municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4), which discharges
storm water into Pensacola Bay and its tributaries.
The City of Pensacola failed to submit a complete
NPDES Part II storm water permit application. EPA
issued a Class II complaint, citing the violations, on
September 26, 1994, assessing a penalty of $74,720.
EPA and the City of Pensacola reached a settlement of
$35,000 and EPA issued a tentative consent order on
November 10, 1994. ••
Jacksonville Suburban Utilities, Jacksonville Heights
WWTP (FL): EPA issued a complaint to the
respondent on September 23, 1994, in the amount of
$44,000 for violations of its National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit by failing 27
whole effluent toxicity tests from September 1989
through July 1994 at the facility, which discharges
pollutants to Fishing Creek. The respondent is
currently under administrative order to perform a
TIE/TRE in an effort to identify the toxicant. The
final penalty amount of $35,000 was agreed upon.
EPCRA
WoodGrain Millwork, (Americus, GA): The company
agreed to implement a $2.4 million pollution
prevention SEP to redesign and install a coating
process to predominantly eliminate the current use of
solvent based toxic chemicals, resulting in an overall
reduction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from
4.8 -5.7 pounds per gallon of paint to 2.4 pounds of
VOCs pounds per gallon of paint applied. In addition
to the SEP, a penalty of $36,669 was paid.
Grief Brothers (Cullman, AL): The company agreed
to implement a $196,000 SEP to install equipment to
eliminate 1,1,1-Trichloroethane from its process, a
100% Section 313 chemical reduction. In addition to
the SEP, a penalty of $28,000 was paid.
Eufaula Manufacturing Company (Eufaula, AL):
The company agreed to implement a $110,000
pollution reduction SEP that includes the purchase of
a solvent recycling unit for recycling paint solvent
wastes and the installation of eight water spray-booth
filtration systems to allow capture of 100% emissions
eliminating the need to dispose of these solids in a
landfill environment. In addition to the SEP, a penalty
of $13,800 was paid.
Kason Industries (Shenandoah, GA): This company
agreed to implement a $234,000 pollution prevention
SEP that involves the implementation of a closed-loop
treatment system which will exceed the required level
of compliance stipulated hi the company's pretreatment
permit and eliminate process wastewater discharge to
the POTW. None of these installations are required by
law. In addition, a penalty of $13,430 was paid.
Memphis/Shelby County Airport, TN: The County
Airport Authority agreed to implement a $475,000
pollution prevention SEP that involves the purchase of
equipment that will assist in the de-icing of runways.
The use of this equipment will reduce the amount of
de-icing fluid required, resulting in substantial source
reduction in the use,of ethylene glycol. In addition,
the Authority agreed to pay a $9,000 penalty to resolve
its past violations of EPCRA Section 304 and
CERCLA Section 103.
RCRA
Union Timber Corporation (GA): On September 29,
1995, Region IV issued an administrative order under
Section 7003 of RCRA to Union Timber Corporation
and its President and Vice President. The order was
issued to address the potential hazard to health and the
environment presented by creosote contamination at a
wood treating facility formerly operated just outside
the small south Georgia community of Homerville.
Over the years, Union Timber was the subject of
numerous state notices of violation, administrative
orders and consent orders, hi response to its
compliance failures. However, little progress was
made on actual cleanup. To support the State's
continued efforts to address this facility, Region IV
issued its order to abate the hazard under Section
7003, directed to the corporation and its President and
Vice President, Alex K. and Alexander Sessoms, as
persons who have contributed to or are contributing to
the potential hazard.
Masonite Corporation (MS): On September 29, 1995,
Region IV issued a RCRA Section 3013 administrative
order requiring the Masonite Corporation to perform
monitoring, testing, analysis, and reporting to
determine the nature and extent of hazards which may
be posed by the presence and release of hazardous
waste at its facility in Laurel, Mississippi. Masonite
is a division of International Paper. A draft RFA and
other information gathered by EPA on this facility
revealed that 20 SWMUs and 2 AOCs require further
investigation due to past or present potential releases of
hazardous waste. Jurisdiction is based upon the
facility's storage of hazardous waste.
A-39
July 1996
-------
Region IV
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Takeda Chemical Products USA, Inc. (NC): On
August 31, 1995, Region IV entered into a CACO
resolving claims against Takeda Chemical Products
USA, Inc., for violations of RCRA at its vitamin
manufacturing plant in Wilmington, North Carolina.
As part of a solvent extraction process, Takeda
generated a by-product referred to as DAS-fuel, which
Takeda intended to bum for energy recovery. Prior to
receiving any permits to bum the DAS-fuel, Takeda
generated DAS-fuel and stored it on-site for a period
in excess of 90 days without a permit or interim status,
and later shipped it off-site. EPA determined that the
DAS-fuel (essentially spent toluene mixed with DAS
water and polymers) was F005 hazardous waste. As
a result, on September 24, 1994, Region IV issued a
complaint for illegal storage of hazardous waste,
failure to make a hazardous waste determination, and
failure to manifest the DAS-fuel shipped off-site. The
CACO requires Takeda to pay a civil penalty of
$99,000, but allows Takeda to bring DAS-fuel back
on-site for reprocessing, provided Takeda manages any.
waste it produces as a result as a hazardous waste.
Westvaco Corporation (SC): September 25, 1995,
Region IV entered into a CACO with Westvaco
Corporation that requires the company to pay a
$255,150 civil penalty, to perform RCRA closure of a
hazardous waste management unit, and to remediate
groundwater affected by the unit. The unit consists of
a lime mud lagoon whose contents had leached, raising
the pH of the surrounding groundwater to above 12.5.
Westvaco has agreed to remove the material from the
lime mud lagoon and to close the contaminated area
beneath the lagoon as a "Subpart X" unit. RCRA
closure will be considered complete when the pH of
the groundwater is reduced to below 12.5. Westvaco
has also agreed to continue remediation until the
groundwater pH is 10 or below. If clean closure is not
successful, Westvaco will perform post-closure care.
This case establishes a precedent for RCRA regulation
of Kraft process intermediaries and should encourage
industry's trend toward management of Kraft process.
by-products and intermediaries in above-ground tanks
rather than in surface units.
United States Coastal Systems Station (FL): On
August 30, 1995, Region IV entered into a CACO
resolving claims against the U.S. Navy Coastal
Systems Station, a federal facility, for violations of its
RCRA permit at its facility in Panama City, Florida.
The violations related to a late corrective action
submission. The CACO requires the facility to pay a
civil penalty of $19,000.
Central Florida Pipeline Corporation (FL): A CACO
was filed with the Regional Hearing Clerk on
September 29, 1995, resolving violations of RCRA
alleged in a complaint filed against Central Florida
Pipeline Corporation on February 22, 1994. The
respondent operates a bulk petroleum products storage
and transfer facility hi Taft, Florida. The complaint
alleged that the respondent had managed a petroleum-
contaminated water tank containing benzene, which
was discharged into two lined surface impoundments
up until September 1991. The respondent had
submitted a timely Part A application, although it
stated that it did so as a protective filer, questioning
whether it was managing a hazardous waste. The
allegations in the complaint included exceeding the 90-
day accumulation period; failure to comply with
closure, financial and groundwater monitoring
requirements; and failure to submit an adequate Part A
application. Under the CACO, respondent will pay a
penalty of $150,000. The unit has been closed under
State oversight.
United States Air Force Base at Myrtle Beach (SC):
On September 28, 1995, the Regional Administrator
for Region IV issued his final decision regarding the
RCRA Section 3008(h) initial unilateral administrative
order issued on September 19, 1994, to the U.S. Air
Force, requiting corrective action at Myrtle Beach Air
Force Base. The Base was closed in 1992, and has
been the subject of numerous environmental restoration
programs such as the Installation Restoration Program
and, more recently, the Base Realignment and Closure
Act.
Georgia-Pacific Corporation (GA): On September 29,
1995, Region IV entered into a consent agreement and
consent order (CACO) with Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, requiring the company to pay a
$127,168.50 penalty and to perform RCRA closure of
a leaking black liquor storage surface impoundment.
Leakage from the impoundment resulted in
groundwater with a pH above 12.5 and chromium
above the MCL. This case establishes a precedent for
RCRA regulation of Kraft process intermediaries and
will further encourage industry's trend toward
management of Kraft process intermediaries in above-
ground tanks rather than in surface units.
Southland Oil Company, Inc. (Sandersville and
Lumberton, MS): On September 29, 1995, Region IV
issued two RCRA complaint and compliance orders to
Southland Oil Company, Inc. The orders require
Southland to perform RCRA closure of unpermitted
A-40
July 1996
-------
Region IV
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
surface impoundments managing F037 hazardous waste
at its two refineries. In addition, the orders propose a
civil penalty of $920,000 for each of the two
refineries, for a total proposed penalty of $1,840,000.
The F037 hazardous waste listing became effective on
May 2, 1991. Prior to and after that date, Southland
managed its refinery wastes in a series of ditches and
aerated and non-aerated surface impoundments.
Southland never filed RCRA Section 3010 notifications
or Part A permit applications for its management of
the F037 waste. After EPA discovered the violations
during inspections hi April 1995, Southland
discontinued use of the ditches and non-aerated surface
impoundments. Southland has not yet, however,
performed RCRA closure of those units.
Arizona Chemical Company (MS): On September 29,
1995, Region IV entered into a CACO with Arizona
Chemical Company resolving violations of the Boiler
and Industrial Furnace (BIF) regulations, 40 C.F.R.
Part 266, Subpart H, at Arizona Chemical's facility in
Gulfport, Mississippi. Pursuant to this CACO,
Arizona will pay a penalty of $442,150, to resolve
numerous violations alleged in a complaint and
compliance order issued in September 1994. These
violations included: submittal of an inadequate
certification of compliance; inadequate continuous
monitoring; violation of certified maximum feed rates;
failure to conduct periodic testing of the monitoring
equipment; failure to keep adequate BIF records; and
violation of maximum allowable emission limits for
carcinogenic metals and for chlorine/chlorides.
Elf Atochem North America, Inc (AL): On
September 28, 1995, EPA and Elf Atochem North
America, Inc., entered into a CACO to resolve
allegations contained hi an amended complaint and
compliance order, filed on September 21, 1995. The
amended complaint, as well as the complaint
previously filed on June 27, 1994, alleged RCRA
storage and permit violations at Elf Atochem's Axis,\
Alabama, facility. The CACO requires Elf Atochem
to pay a civil penalty of $95,678.
Florida Solite (FL): EPA entered into a CACO
agreement with Florida Solite Corporation on
September 14, 1995, under which the respondent
agrees to pay a civil penalty hi the amount of $51,500,
to resolve violations of the Boiler and Industrial
Furnace (BIF) regulations at the company's facility hi
Green Cove Springs, Florida. The allegations included
failure to continuously monitor the composition and
flow rate of all feed streams; failure to develop and
implement an adequate waste analysis plan; failure to
make a hazardous waste/Bevill determination on a
waste pile of lightweight aggregate kiln dust; failure to
submit a complete and accurate certification of
compliance (COC); and failure to make a hazardous
waste determination on a waste pile of refractory
brick.
Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation (SC): On
September 19, 1995, EPA entered into a final
administrative order on consent under Section 3008(h)
of RCRA with Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation.
The consent order requires Gaston Copper to perform
corrective action, from initial assessment through
implementation, at its facility hi Gaston, South
Carolina. The importance of the order is underscored
by Gaston Copper's recent decision to cease operations
at the site hi the immediate future. Most of the facility
will be dismantled and either sold or moved to other
sites. This order will ensure that appropriate
remediation occurs during this closure process.
Everwood Treatment Company, Inc., and Gary W.
Thigpen (AL): On July 11, 1995, an initial decision
was entered hi a RCRA Section 3008(a) action filed hi
June 1992 and tried before an ALJ hi an 8 day hearing
in September 1993. The ALJ's decision found the
respondents liable but reduced the $497,500 proposed
assessed penalty to $59,700. On September 29, 1995,
Region IV appealed the decision to the EAB on the
amount of the penalty. The complaint had charged
respondents with the illegal disposal of D004 and D007
hazardous waste without a permit and violation of the
land disposal restrictions, hi the burial of waste at the
respondents' wood treatment facility near Mobile,
Alabama. This case represents the second
administrative initial decision under the 1990 RCRA
Civil Penalty Policy.
TSCA
National Cement Company, Inc. (Ragland, AL): On
January 17, 1995, Region IV filed a consent
agreement/consent order (CACO) signed by National
Cement Company, Inc., to settle alleged violations of
Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §2605(e). The order required the
respondent to pay $8,500 to the U.S. Treasury and to
spend a minimum of $68,000 to complete a
supplemental environmental project (SEP) which
involves the removal, transportation and disposal of
two PCB transformers. The case resulted from EPA
Region IV filing an administrative complaint against
A-41
July 1996
-------
Region IV
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
the respondent on September 26, 1994, charging the
respondent with 26 violations of the TSCA PCB
marking and recordkeeping requirements.
Kentucky Fear and Exposition Center (Louisville,
KY): On January 10, 1995, Region IV filed a consent
agreement/consent order (CACO) signed by
Commonwealth of Kentucky Tourism Cabinet to settle
alleged violations of Section 6(e) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §2605(e).
The order required the respondent to pay $23,120 to
the U.S. Treasury and to spend $92,480 to complete a
supplemental environmental project (SEP) which
involves the removal, transportation and disposal of
two PCB transformers. The case resulted from EPA
Region IV filing an administrative complaint against
the respondent on September 28, 1994, charging the
respondent with violations of the TSCA PCB use,
marking, and recordkeeping requirements.
Brook Run Mental Health Facility (Atlanta, GA): On
August 22, 1995, Region IV filed a consent
agreement/consent order (CACO) signed by Georgia
Department of Natural Resources to settle alleged
violations of Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §2605(e). The order
required the respondent to pay $3,750 to the U.S.
Treasury and to spend $37,500 to complete a
supplemental environmental project (SEP) which
involves the removal, transportation, and disposal of
two PCB transformers. The case resulted from EPA
Region IV filing an administrative complaint against
the respondent on September 30, 1994, charging the
respondent with violations of the TSCA PCB use and
recordkeeping requirements.
FEDERAL FACILITIES
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base (MBAFB): On
September 28, 1995, Region IV Administrator issued
a final decision regarding the RCRA Section 3008(h)
initial UAO issued on September 19, 1994 to the U.S.
Air Force requiring corrective action at MBAFB.
MBAFB was closed in 1992, and has been under the
Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) Program.
The base has 254 RCRA solid waste management units
(SWMUs) which had been identified as requiring
Investigation of releases of hazardous waste, including
at least two areas where releases from SWMUs will
.require interim corrective measures. Due to
inadequate efforts on the part of the Navy to address
environmental concerns and involve EPA and the
State^ EPA decided to exercise its authority under
RCRA. On September 19, 1994, following six months
of intensive efforts to negotiate an order on consent,
EPA issued the initial UAO to MBAFB. Contaminants
including toluene, benzene, methylene chloride, and
chlorobenzene at MBAFB pose threats to off-site areas
with contamination flowing through drainage ditches to
the Intercoastal Waterway, Atlantic Ocean, wetlands,
and tidal march areas. Extensive contamination is also
found in groundwater in many areas of the base. The
final UAO requires MBAFB to conduct adequate
RCRA facility investigations and where appropriate,
RCRA corrective measures.
A-42
July 1996
-------
REGION V
CLEAN AIR ACT
United States v. Copper Range Company (W.D., MI):
On April 6, 1995, the U.S. District Court, for the
Western District of Michigan entered a civil consent
decree in which Copper Range Company (CRC)
agreed to pay a civil penalty of $4.8 million. This
action settled a citizen suit filed by the National
Wildlife Federation and the Michigan United
Conservation Clubs against CRC under the Clean Air
Act. The civil action alleged that CRC caused excess
emissions of paniculate matter and excess stack
opacity,, in violation of the Clean Air Act. CRC also
allegedly failed to report air toxics emissions (metals
and metallic compounds), in violation of CERCLA,
and EPCRA. There was also concern about substantial
smelter emissions of sulfur dioxide and heavy metals,
including mercury, hi the sensitive Lake Superior
ecosystem. The settlement created' a private trust
fund. From the penalty payment, $3 million has been
directed toward environmentally beneficial projects
such as a study of the impact of mercury on the Lake
Superior basin. . .' ' .
As a result of the settlement, CRC agreed to either
implement an interim program to reduce mercury
emissions 40% by February 1995, and to achieve
compliance with Michigan's paniculate rules by
August 1996, or to temporarily close the smelter. Due
to economic reasons, CRC chose to close the smelter
pending a decision to modernize. The settlement also
outlined a schedule for modernizing the smelter or
permanently shutting it down by the end of 1999. This
program will ultimately result in annual emission
decreases of 1,200 pounds of mercury, 50,000 tons of
sulfur dioxide, and at least 900 tons of particulate
matter, after operations resume.
Navistar International Transportation Corporation
(S.D., OH): On January 3, 1995, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio entered a
consent decree between the United States and Navistar
International Transportation Corporation (formerly
International Harvester Company), located in
Springfield, Ohio. Navistar agreed to settle the case
by paying $2,703,000 in civil penalties for past
violations at its assembly and body plants. Navistar
violated the allowable emission limits for volatile
organic compounds (VOC) under the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Ohio, at its Body and
Assembly Plant hi Clark County, Ohio, an area which
has been designated as a primary nonattainment area
for ozone. The State of Ohio referred the case to U.S.
EPA for enforcement. Navistar came into compliance
by installing a robotics painting plant and incineration
system, which cost over $105 million. Navistar's
emissions of VOC have been reduced 77% from its
1984 level; the amount of paint required for the
operation has been reduced by 80,000 gallons per
year; and the amount of solvents used has been
reduced by 90,000 gallons per year.
Clark Refining & Marketing (Hartford, IL): On
March 9, 1995, Administrative Law Judge Frank W.
Vanderheyden issued an initial decision hi the matter
of Clark Refining & Marketing, Hartford, Illinois.
The administrative complaint alleged violations of the
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at
Subparts A and J. U.S. EPA filed an administrative
complaint on December 30, 1992, alleging that Clark
had exceeded the limit for hydrogen sulfide in its fuel
gas; failed to continuously operate its continuous
emission monitor; and had failed to, at all times,
operate its facility in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practice for minimizing emissions.
The complaint was amended on July 19, 1994, based
on 26 days of excess hydrogen sulfide readings by
Clark's continuous emission monitoring in the first
quarter of 1994. Throughout the case, Clark remained
very litigious, filing an appeal to the EAB after the
initial decision was issued. The appeal was later
withdrawn and the $139,440 penalty paid.
Oscar Mayer Foods Corporation (Madison, WI): On
March 13, 1995, a consent agreement and final order
was signed by Oscar Mayer Foods Corporation and
U.S. EPA resolving violations of the particulate matter
emission limit contained in the Wisconsin State
Implementation Plan. U.S. EPA alleged that Boiler
No. 6 at Oscar Mayer's Madison, Wisconsin, power
plant was emitting 1.16 pounds of particulate matter
per million BTU which is almost two times the
allowable emission limit for a boiler. Facts provided
by Oscar Mayer after issuance of the complaint
reduced the civil penalty from $154,000 to $42,000.
In addition, as the result of the U.S. EPA enforcement
action and hi response to the Wisconsin air toxics rale,
Oscar Mayer agreed to cease combustion of coal hi
Boiler Nos. 5 and 6 and replace them with two new
boilers that burn natural gas. This action has
A-43
July 1996
-------
Region V
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
eliminated a major source of paniculate matter from
the Madison area.
United States v. Coleman Trucking, Inc. (N.D., OH):
On July 28, 1995, the U.S. District Court entered a
civil consent decree in which Coleman Trucking, Inc.,
agreed to pay $60,000 in civil penalties in a settlement
of the civil actions brought under the Clean Air Act.
These actions arose out of Coleman's violation of the
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for asbestos at four renovation
operations located in and around Cleveland, Ohio.
The actions alleged notice and work practice violations
of the NESHAP for asbestos.
Cass River Coatings, Inc. (MI): A consent agreement
and consent order was signed August 10, 1995,
concerning Cass River Coating's alleged violation of
Michigan's State Implementation Plan. These
violations stem from occasions when the company used
coating formulations that contained volatile organic
compounds in excess of amounts allowed by the SIP.
U.S. EPA initially sought a civil penalty of $50,000
for these violations. During negotiations, Cass River
Coatings demonstrated an inability to pay the total
$50,000 penalty. The Agency therefore mitigated the
proposed penalty from $50,000 to $30,000.
Schepel Buick & GMC Truck Company (MerrOMlle,
IN): On May 22, 1995, the Regional Administrator
signed a consent agreement and consent order
resolving allegations in a complaint issued for
violations of the Clean Air Act against Schepel
Buick/GMC Truck, Inc., Merrillville, Indiana. U.S.
EPA alleged that Schepel Buick/GMC Truck, Inc.
allowed persons who were not properly trained and
certified by a technician certification program approved
by U.S. EPA pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §82.40 to service,
for consideration, air conditioners, involving
refrigerants for such air conditioners. U.S. EPA
sought a civil penalty of $17,575 for these violations.
Schepel Buick/GMC Truck, Inc. certified that it has
corrected the violations alleged in the complaint and
that it is currently in compliance with Section 609(c) of
the Act. Schepel Buick/GMC Truck, Inc. has agreed
to pay a penalty of $3,470 and to perform a
Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) that will
cost $8,766. Schepel Buick will conduct a symposium
on air and other environmental compliance topics for
regulated automotive industries hi northwest Indiana
and will conduct 135 free air-conditioning leak tests on
cars that do not have a manufacturer's warranty for
such work.
CLEAN WATER ACT
Buffalo Oilfield Services v. Ohio Division of Oil and
Gas: On June 15, 1995, the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas entered
into a consent agreement with Buffalo Oilfield
Services, Inc. regarding operation of the Miller #1
well, saltwater injection well #9 API number
3415521648, located in Bristol Township, Trumbull
County, Ohio. This agreement was based on facts and
findings that indicated that Buffalo Oilfield Services,
Inc. had violated the terms and conditions of the
permit by exceeding maximum surface injection
pressure on the Miller #1 well on September 29, 1992,
January 1, 1993, and January 26, 1993. With the
signing of the consent agreement, Buffalo Oilfield
Services, Inc. agreed to pay $5,000 hi penalties.
Burlington Northern: Region V entered in a federal
consent decree with the Burlington Northern Railroad
Company to settle Oil Pollution Act (OPA) claims for
three separate oil and hazardous waste spills caused by
train derailments (one in Wisconsin and two in
Wyoming). The $1.5 million civil settlement includes:
$1.1 million civil penalty under the OPA (the largest
single penalty to date awarded under that statute in a
single case); plus $260,000 to reimburse EPA and
other federal agencies for their costs in responding to
the Wisconsin spill near Superior; and $140,000
contribution to a fund managed jointly by the
Department of Interior, the Bad River Band of the
Lake Superior Chippewas and the Red Cliff Band of
Lake Superior Chippewas for injury to natural
resources caused by the Nemadji spill. Burlington
Northern will also pay $100,000 into a fund to be used
to study internal rail defects of the type involved in the
Nemadji River, Wisconsin, and Worland, Wyoming,
derailments.
Akron, OH: Region V entered into a federal consent
decree with the City of Akron, Ohio on July 28, 1995.
This decree settles the civil lawsuit filed by U.S. EPA
and Ohio EPA against Akron for violations of the
Clean Water Act. The consent decree requires the
City of Akron to pay a civil penalty of $290,000, with
$194,300 going to U.S. EPA and $95,700 to Ohio
EPA. The decree requires the city to improve its
wastewater treatment facility to meet NPDES permit
limits. The decree also requires the city to perform a
supplemental environmental project valued at $1.5
million to eliminate septic tank systems by providing
connections to sanitary sewers. This decree will
eliminate the discharge of inadequately treated
A-44
July 1996
-------
Region V
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
wastewater to the Cuyahoga River from the Akron
WWTP, the discharge of raw sewage from the city's
separate sanitary sewers during storm events, and the
elimination of septic sewers in rural areas.
115th Street Co., Chicago, Illinois (a.k.a. PMC
Specialty Chemical Company): During August 1995,
the subject civil action case was settled in principle,
with all issues remaining in dispute agreed upon by
company and Agency representatives. The terms of
the decree include: the company will pay a cash
penalty of $1.645 million to the U.S. EPA and pay
substantial costs to the citizen's group that was co-
plaintiff with the government in this case; the
company agreed to do a feasibility study and construct
a biological pretreatment system; and as a pollution
prevention measure, the company agreed to shutdown
their alkali blue process which will eliminate many
toxic organic pollutants.
Southern Ohio Coal Company: On August 22, 1995,
the Regional Administrator signed and forwarded to
Headquarters a consent decree which settles the United
States' case against Southern Ohio Coal Company
(SOCCO). Due to a structural failure in one of two
active coal mines, one of the active mines, Meigs
Mine No. 31 filled with approximately one billion
gallons of acid mine drainage (AMD). SOCCO went
to OEPA seeking permission to dewater the mines and
OEPA issued a Director's findings and final order on
July 26, 1993, approving SOCCO's dewatering plan
which allowed SOCCO to discharge the AMD from
the flooded mine into adjacent waterways. The
discharges of AMD eventually killed all or virtually all
of the aquatic fauna in Leading Creek and caused some
mortality in the upper reaches of the Raccoon Creek
system. The consent decree requires full restoration of
the streams affected by SOCCO's discharge, and
extensive biological and chemical monitoring and
reporting by SOCCO during and following the
restoration efforts. The consent decree also calls for
the payment of a $300,000 penalty, $240,200 in
payments to U.S. EPA and DOI to cover the costs of
monitoring, field, and laboratory work incurred by the
government, $1.9 million into the Leading Creek
improvement fund which was created by the decree to
finance projects to enhance leading Creek over and
above the restoration efforts, and $100,000 to the State
of West Virginia for projects to benefit the Ohio
River. SOCCO will also spend an estimated $500,000
to develop a plan for implementing the Leading Creek
improvement fund, and is expected to spend an
additional $1 million on its monitoring efforts.
Northwoods Organics, Inc. & Faulk Bros.
Construction, Inc. (St. Louis County, MN): A
consent agreement and consent order was signed on
March 25, 1995, requiring Northwoods Organics and
Faulk Bros. Construction to pay a $63,000 civil
penalty for past violations of Sections 404 and 402 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA). The violations included:
the discharge of dredged and fill materials into
approximately 135 acres of wetlands adjacent to Pirtala
Creek, a tributary to the St. Louis River and Lake
Superior, without a Section 404 permit from the Corps
of Engineers and Northwoods Organics' failure to
comply with reporting requirements of its NPDES
permit. A parallel CACO was issued, pursuant to
Section 309(a) of the CWA, requiring Northwoods
Organics to restore approximately 100 acres of
additional wetlands and to submit a feasible wetlands
reclamation plan for the 135-acre impact to the Corps
with a Section 404 permit application. This
enforcement action has resulted in a State-Federal
partnership with private industry to establish pollution
prevention and best management practices for mining
industry in the upper midwest.
Northwoods Organics: An administrative complaint
and consent agreement was issued for NPDES permit
violations and for dredging and filling wetlands without
a permit. Northwoods Organics mines peat from peat
bogs. The process of peat mining includes dewatering
the bogs removing the peat which is then dried and
sold. The water discharges from the bog violated
NPDES limitations for iron, aluminum and pH. Since
the CACO has been signed compliance with the
NPDES permit has improved, but there are still
sporadic iron violations which U.S. EPA will
encourage MPCA to pursue. The wetlands portion of
the agreement required Northwoods Organics to
restore 100 acres of previously impacted wetlands,
submit a feasible wetlands reclamation plan upon
cessation of all mining activity on-site. Northwoods
was fined a total of $63,000 with $58,000 for wetlands
claims and $5,000 for NPDES.
A & W Drilling & Equipment Co., Inc. (Gibson
County, IN): On August 16, 1995, the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources and A & W Drilling
signed an administrative agreement regarding the
failure to demonstrate mechanical integrity on three
Class II injection wells. The agreed order also
addressed various minor violations associated with
eleven oil wells also located hi Gibson County. These
violations were discovered through file reviews and
routine inspections conducted in April 1993.
A-45
July 1996
-------
Region V
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Provisions in the order called for A & W to pay a fine
of $12,100 and perform corrective action on all wells.
At this time, A & W has paid their entire fine and
corrected violations on all but one well. This should
ensure the prevention of contamination of underground
sources of drinking water.
Danny L. Long & Sons Disposal Services, Inc. v.
Ohio Division of Oil and Gas: On June 2, 1995, the
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Oil and Gas entered into a consent agreement with
Danny L. Long & Sons regarding operation of the
Creighton #1 well, saltwater injection well #9, API
number 3415121920 and the Summers #4 well,
saltwater injection well #12, API number 3415124256,
located in Sandy Township, Stark County, Ohio. This
agreement was the result of investigations that
indicated that Danny L. Long & Sons had violated the
terms and conditions of the permit by exceeding the
maximum surface injection pressure on the Creighton
#1 well and the Summers #4 well between September
of 1992 and December of 1993. Upon signing of the
agreement, Danny L. Long & Sons agreed to pay
$5,000 for its previous noncompliance.
PPG Industries, Inc.: Since 1988, the Ohio Division
of Oil and Gas in cooperation with Ohio EPA, has
been working to get improperly plugged and leaking
salt Solution mining wells replugged at PPG Industries,
Inc.'s abandoned salt solution mining facility and
chemical plant at Barberton, Ohio. Additionally, it
was suspected that industrial wastes had been disposed
of in these solution mined caverns in the 1960s and
1970s. In April of 1991, U.S. EPA, Region V
finalized a RCRA corrective action consent agreement
with PPG Industries, Inc. regarding this site. In
November 1991, U.S. EPA notified PPG that the
leaking brine wells were to be included as an
additional interim measure to the administrative order
on consent. In March of 1994, replugging operations
commenced for four leaking wells. The last leaking
well was plugged in January of 1995. Sampling and
analysis of the solution mining cavern fluids indicated
the presence of man-made chemicals associated with
PPG waste streams. All wells are now in compliance.
Tenexco/Terra Energy: Two final administrative
consent orders were issued concerning this case which
dealt with two related respondents. Tenexco was the
Class II injection well owner, and Terra Energy
operated the well. The well was located in Kalkaska
County, Michigan. Monitoring reports showed
operating and other permit violations, namely injection
at a pressure that exceeded the maximum in the
permit, and there were also failures to submit various
monitoring reports and an acceptable alternative
demonstration of financial responsibility. Terra
Energy, as the operator, paid a higher penalty than
Tenexco. Indeed, this was the highest penalty assessed
in the Region V UIC program in FY 1995, $35,000.
Tenexco paid $7,500 as the owner in a separate FAO
issued hi FY 1994.
ThePillsbury Company: On October 11, 1994, a final
administrative consent order was issued to the
Pillsbury Company concerning a nonhazardous Class
I injection well located their Aunt Nellies Farm
Kitchen facility in Buckley, Michigan, and included a
unique SEP. The permit violations included operating
at an injection pressure which exceeded the maximum
and monitoring violations. The SEP consisted of
upgrades to their monitoring and alarm systems;
adding an automatic shutdown mechanism to the alarm
system, so that if the maximum pressure was exceeded
again, the well would shut down without requiring a
human to act; and replacing the fluid in the annulus
with fresh water so if .a leak occurred, there would be
less harm to the environment, and improving their
plant filtration system. None of these are required
under the UIC program but will result in better
compliance. There was also a $9,500 penalty assessed
and paid.
EPCRA §313
United Screw and Bolt Corporation (Bryan, OH): A
consent agreement and consent order was signed on
April 17, 1995, concerning the United Screw and Bolt
Corporation, Bryan Custom Plastics, Bryan, Ohio,
facility's alleged failure to timely file R forms
reporting releases to the environment of methyl ethyl
ketone, toluene, xylene for 1987, 1988, and 1989; and
n-butyl alcohol for 1989; as required by Section 313 of
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act. Because of facts provided by United
Screw and Bolt Corporation' after issuance of the
complaint and in consideration of their agreeing to
spend $111,983 on supplemental environmental
projects (SEPs), U.S. EPA reduced the penalty to
$47,672. The SEPs involved converting the facility's
plastic parts manufacturing process from one in which
all parts had to be painted to one in which all parts are
molded to the desired color and do not need to be
painted. The SEPs also included recycling of solvents
still used at the facility.
A-46
July 1996
-------
Region V
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Enamel Products and Plating Company (Portage, IN):
A consent agreement and consent order was signed on
June 13, 1995, concerning the Enamel Products and
Plating Company, Portage, Indiana, facility's alleged
failure to timely file R forms reporting releases of
glycol ethers, methyl ethyl ketone, naphthalene, zinc
compounds, xylene, toluene, ethyl benzene and n-butyl
alcohol for 1988, 1989, and 1990, as required by
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act. Because of facts
presented by Enamel Products and Plating Company
after issuance of the complaint, and in consideration of
their agreeing to perform a Supplemental
Environmental Projects (SEP) costing $221,900, U.S.
EPA reduced the penalty to $136,610. The SEP is of
the pollution prevention type involving new equipment.
FIFRA
J.T. Eaton & Company, Inc. (Twinsburg, OH): J.T.
Eaton & Company, Inc., distributed and sold at least
13 unregistered pesticides (mostly rodenticides). These
unregistered pesticides resulted from varying the form
of the rodent bait and the packaging of several of
Eaton's registered products (e.g., registered as a bulk
product) but sold in ready-to-use place packs. The
company also distributed and sold a misbranded
pesticide product and made improper claims in
advertising for another product. A stop sale, use, or
removal order and an administrative complaint were
issued simultaneously on March 23, 1995. The
penalty assessed in the complaint was $67,500. The
complaint was settled on August 25, 1995, for
$40,000.
Citizens Elevator Co., Inc. (Vermontville, MI):
Citizens Elevator Co. repackaged and distributed and
sold the pesticide "Preview" in 5 gallon buckets, many
bearing pie filling labels, to at least 24 customers,
constituting the distribution and sale of an unregistered
pesticide. The complaint, issued June 30, 1994,
assessed a penalty of $108,000. In supplemental
environmental projects for the prevention of spills of
pesticides and fertilizers and the' safer, more efficient
storage and application of pesticides and fertilizer,
respondent spent $184,771. A consent agreement
signed June 30, 1995, settled the case for $8,400.
RCRA
Marathon Oil Company (Robinson, IL): A consent
agreement and final order (CAFO) was signed on May
16, 1995. The CAFO required Marathon Oil
Company to implement a supplemental environmental
project (SEP) and pay a penalty of $41,500. The SEP
consists of the installation, and continued operation for
a period of 5 years, of a closed loop sampling system.
The sampling system will reduce hydrocarbon air
emissions by 6,200 pounds per year and the liquid
hydrocarbon discharge to the facility wastewater
treatment system by 9,600 gallons per year, and
reduce benzene releases to the atmosphere and
wastewater treatment system by 830 pounds per year.
The SEP will cost a minimum of $200,000 and
provides significant environmental benefits by
essentially eliminating contamination discharges and
emissions at a critical part of the facility.
Great Lakes Casting Corporation (Ludington, MI):
On November 15, 1994, a consent decree was entered
hi the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Michigan hi the U.S. v. Great Lakes Casting
Corporation case requiring Great Lakes to pay a civil
penalty of $350,000 for illegal hazardous waste
disposal under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
Abbott Laboratories: A consent agreement and final
order was signed hi September 1995, concerning
Abbott Laboratories Corporation's violations of RCRA
standards applicable to the burning of hazardous waste
hi boilers and industrial furnaces (BIF) at its North
Chicago, Illinois facility. Negotiations with Abbott
Laboratories after issuance of the complaint in
February 1994, resulted hi a penalty of $182,654.
Abbott also agreed to conduct a supplemental
environmental project (SEP) that will allow Abbott to
recover and recycle the methylene chloride produced
hi its manufacturing processes and will reduce fugitive
methylene chloride emissions. The SEP involves three
separate, albeit similar, operations, replacing "wet"
vacuum pump systems with "dry" pumps and high
efficiency condensers. The projected cost of the SEP
is $480,000.
S.C. Johnson & Sons, Inc. (Sturtevant, WI): A
consent' agreement and final order was signed on
August 25, 1995, concerning S.C. Johnson's alleged
violations of the boiler and industrial furnace (BIF)
regulations. S.C. Johnson burns waste solvent from its
manufacturing processes hi two boilers located at its
Waxdale facility hi Sturtevant, Wisconsin. Violations
cited by the U.S. EPA found during its initial BIF
inspection included failure to adequately analyze the
waste before burning, and exceeding its certified feed
rates for total hazardous waste, chlorine and chloride
A-47
July 1996
-------
Region V
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
and ash. S.C. Johnson agreed to pay a cash penalty of
$50,000, and to conduct a supplemental environmental
project (SEP). The SEP requires technological process
changes, including the installation of a liquid-liquid
coalescer that will separate organic solvent from the
process waste for reuse. This will result in a decrease
in the amount of hazardous waste being produced and
burned in S.C. Johnson's boiler. The value of the
SEP is estimated to be more than $500,000.
Republic Environmental Systems (Cleveland), Inc.:
A consent agreement and final order (CAFO) was
signed June 7, 1995, concerning Republic
Environmental Systems (Cleveland), Inc.'s (RESI)
alleged failure to comply with the corrective action
requirements of its RCRA permit. The CAFO
requires RESI, a commercial waste treatment facility,
to pay a 560,000 civil penalty and conduct a
supplemental environmental project (SEP). The SEP
is a pollution reduction project that will minimize
permitted air emissions from their non-hazardous waste
stabilization process. The SEP involves moving the
stabilization process indoors and installing particulate
and organic emission control systems. The SEP is
projected to cost at least $380,000 and will eliminate
greater than 20 tons/year of uncontrolled particulate
and organic emissions from the facility.
CMl-Cast Parts, Inc. (Cadillac, MI): A consent
agreement and final order was signed on December 22,
1994, which settled an administrative complaint filed
concurrently with the CAFO against CMI-Cast Parts,
Inc. CMI-Cast Parts, Inc. is a Michigan corporation
which owns and operates an iron foundry hi Cadillac,
Michigan. CMI-Cast Parts, Inc. failed to obtain
interim status or a proper operating permit to treat,
store or dispose of hazardous waste at its Cadillac
facility. From September 1990, to January 1994, the
facility failed to comply with the hazardous waste
management standards. On January 26, 1995, CMI-
Cast Parts, Inc., submitted a certified check in the
amount of $454,600.00, payable to the Treasurer of
the United States of America, for final settlement of
this enforcement action.
Van den Bergh Foods Company Madelia, MN): On
March 14, 1995, U.S. EPA filed a consent agreement
and final order to resolve an administrative complaint
issued against Van den Bergh Foods Company, a
manufacturer of frozen foods in Madelia, Minnesota.
The complaint was for alleged violations of the release
notification provisions of EPCRA & CERCLA
stemming from an October 14, 1993, release of
approximately 6,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia.
U.S. EPA had proposed $75,000 in penalties.
During settlement negotiations, U.S. EPA became
aware of two other less egregious releases of ammonia
from this facility which also appeared not to have been
immediately reported to the proper authorities. In
consideration of the quantity released, the turnaround
tune between the start of the releases and notification,
the amount of penalties which could be sought for
these two additional releases, the conservation of
resources and the litigation risks, it was in the
Agency's best interest to fold the potential new
violations into the original settlement.
Metro Recovery Systems d/b/a U.S. Filter Recovery
(Roseville, MN): On March 23, 1995, U.S. EPA filed
a consent agreement and final order to resolve a
compliant issued against Metro Recovery Systems, a
hazardous waste recycling facility in Roseville,
Minnesota. On March 25, 1994, U.S. EPA issued an
administrative complaint against the facility assessing
$75,000 in penalties for failing to immediately notify
the National Response Center (NRC) and the State
Emergency Response Commission (SERC) of a release
of a hazardous substance greater than its reportable
quantity, and failing to, submit a written follow-up
report to the SERC as soon as practicable after the
.release. This release was 18 tinies the RQ and was
not reported to the proper authorities until 5 hours
after they discovered the release.
During settlement negotiations Metro Recovery
provided additional information regarding the quantity
of ammonia released which would reduce the proposed
penalties. However, during the pre-hearing exchange
period, U.S. EPA discovered two additional releases
of hazardous substances which occurred during the
time period of January 22, 1992, and the date of the
filing of the complaint. The facility reported these
release under the name of U.S. Filter. These releases
were also greater than the reportable quantity and not
immediately reported to the NRC and SERC. Rather
than amend the complaint and start all over, U.S. EPA
and Metro Recovery decided to settle all three releases
for $70,000.
HRR Enterprises, Division of Kane-Miller
Corporation (Chicago, IL): On November 14, 1994,
U.S. EPA, OCEPP, filed a consent agreement and
final order (CAFO) to settle an administrative
complaint against HRR Enterprises, Division of Kane-
Miller Corporation, Chicago, Illinois. On July 9,
A-48
July 1996
-------
Region V
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
1992, the respondent released 800 pounds of
anhydrous ammonia into the atmosphere. This release
was eight times the reportable quantity. On March 28,
1994, U.S. EPA filed an administrative complaint
under the' authority of CERCLA Section 109, 42
U.S.C. §9609, and EPCRA Section 325, 42 U.S.C.
§11045, with allegations of failing to immediately
notify the National Response Center, the Illinois State
Emergency Response Commission (SERC), and the
Chicago Local Emergency Planning Committee
(LEPC) of this release. Additionally, the complaint
alleged that the respondent failed to file the annual
emergency and hazardous chemical inventory form, as
required under EPCRA Section 312, for calendar years
1987-1992 with the SERC and LEPC. The proposed
penalty was $186,450.
The respondent brought forth convincing evidence
proving the actual storage quantity was less than
originally identified, reducing the penalty to $113,850.
The settlement-in-principle was reached during the
week of September 1, 1994, for $69,795, or 61% of
the reduced penalty.
/. Stephen Scherer, Inc. (Rochester Hills, MI): On
February 15, 1995, U.S. EPA, filed a consent
agreement and final order to resolve a complaint issued
against J. Stephen Scherer, Inc., Rochester Hills,
Michigan. This facility manufactures finger nail polish
remover. On October 16, 1991, a flash fire occurred
at this facility when static electricity ignited acetone
while an employee was transferring acetone from one
container to another. The employee sucked the flames
into bis chest, scorching his throat and lungs. The
employee was also burned externally over 30%-40%
of his body. As a result of this incident, the Oakland
County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC)
reviewed their files and found that J. Stephen Scherer,
Inc., had not reported the storage of hazardous
chemicals as required under EPCRA §§ 311 and 312.
The LEPC sent the facility two requests to come into
compliance prior to referring the facility to the State
Emergency Response Commission (SERC). The
SERC also attempted to bring the facility into
compliance, to no avail. On March 31, 1993, U.S.
EPA issued a complaint against J. Stephen Scherer,
Inc., assessing $277,200 in penalties for failing to
report to the SERC, LEPC, and fire department the
storage of hazardous chemicals above the threshold
quantities by their respective due dates.
PSI Energy, Inc. (West Terre Haute, IN): On April
25, 1995, U.S. EPA filed a consent agreement and
final order to resolve a complaint issued against PSI
Energy, a privately owned utility company in West
Terre Haute, Indiana. On September 25, 1992, U.S.
EPA issued a complaint against PSI assessing
$100,000 hi penalties for failure to immediately report
the release to the State Emergency Response
Commission (SERC) and the Local Emergency
Planning Committee (LEPC), and failure to submit a
written follow-up report as soon as practicable after the
release. This release was 1,000 times the RQ and was
reported to the SERC 4 hours and 55 minutes, and to
the LEPC 5 hours, after the release began. A written
follow-up report was submitted 73 days after the
release.
Long Prairie Packing, Inc. (South St. Paul, MN):
On March 2, 1995, U.S. EPA filed a consent
agreement and final order to resolve a complaint issued
against Long Prairie Packing Company, Inc., a cold
packing facility in South St. Paul, Minnesota. On
October 21, 1993, U.S. EPA issued an administrative
complaint against this facility assessing $75,000 in
penalties for failing to immediately notify the National
Response Center and the State Emergency Response
Commission (SERC) of a release of a hazardous
substance greater than its reportable quantity, and
failing to submit a written follow-up report to the
SERC as soon as practicable after the release. This
release was 15 tunes the RQ and was not reported to
the proper authorities until 33 hours after they
discovered the release.
During negotiations, Long Prairie Packing, Inc.,
provided information that reduced the proposed
penalties to $39,500. The settlement includes 4 SEPs
and a monetary payment. The SEPs include: 1) the
installation of ammonia sensors in all condenser and
compressor areas of the facility; 2) the hiring of
security personnel equipped with pagers to ensure early
detection of releases and coordination with persons hi
charge of the facility on a 24 hour basis; 3) providing
HAZMAT training to appropriate employees; and 4)
rerouting the ammonia fill line so that it can be located
outside the building. The total estimated cost of the
SEPS is $17,800. In addition, a small portion of the
$125,100 security employees' payroll costs can be
credited to the SEP because of their additional duties
regarding on-call monitoring. Long Prairie Packing,
Inc., will also be making a monetary payment of
$27,000; $13,500 to the Superfund for the CERCLA
violation and $13,500 to the U.S. Treasury for the
EPCRA violations. The SEPs and monetary payment
exceed the proposed penalties.
A-49
July 1996
-------
Region V
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
TSCA
Ford Motor Company (Dearborn, MI): A consent
agreement and consent order (CACO) settling
violations of TSCA was filed on July 20, 1995. As a
result of a federal PCB inspection investigating an
unmanifested waste report, Ford Motor Company's
Research and Engineering Center was found to have
improperly distributed in commerce and failed to
manifest PCB contaminated wastewater, in violation of
the TSCA PCB rules. As part of the settlement, Ford
Motor Company agreed to implement a supplemental
environmental project (SEP) which entails removing
and disposing of five PCB transformers and replacing
them with non-PCB 'transformers. Ford Motor
Company is to complete this project by August 1,
1996, at a cost of $1,225,000.
H & H Enterprises and Recycling, Inc.: At the
request of the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management, Region V conducted a PCB inspection of
the above site on August 7, 1992. IDEM suspected
contamination at the facility because of the dumping of
automobile residue "fluff." Regulated concentrations
of PCBs were found at the site. A local court issued
a cease and desist order and ordered a site cleanup.
The order was not completed and H & H Enterprises
was found to be hi contempt. Shortly afterward, the
site caught fire and emergency response personnel
evacuated residents of the area. Region V personnel
testified on behalf of IDEM charging H & H Recycling
with five criminal counts in Lake County Criminal
Court, Crown Point, Indiana, hi April 1995. The
President of H & H Enterprises and Recycling; Inc.
was convicted on two counts of violating Indiana's
Environmental Management Act.
S.D. Meyers, Inc.: U.S. EPA issued a civil
administrative action for violating the TSCA PCB rules
against S.D. Meyers, Inc., a corporation specializing
in consulting, brokerage and disposal of transformers.
A competitor of S.D. Meyers filed a complaint to U.S.
EPA Headquarters, charging that S.D. Meyers was
importing samples into the United States. The matter
was referred to Region V, where a subpoena was
issued to S.D. Meyers for information about its sample
handling and customers. In response to the subpoena,
S.D. Meyers submitted information that showed that
oil samples containing PCBs had been, and were still
being imported from areas outside the U.S. Customs
territories. A civil administrative action was filed
April 20, 1995, against S.D. Meyers with a penalty of
$5,000.
Dexter Corporation: Region V filed a TSCA civil
complaint against the Dexter Corp. facility in
Waukegan, Illinois, on October 7, 1993, seeking
$76,300 hi penalties for Sections 5 and 12 violations.
EPA HQ issued a civil complaint to the Dexter
headquarters facility in Windsor Locks, Connecticut,
on December 16, 1992, seeking $226,875 hi penalties
for Section 5 violations.
Region V and HQ settled the two complaints with one
CACO executed on October 11, 1994. Dexter paid
civil penalties to both Region V and HQ, $51,105 and
$86,400 respectively, and agreed to conduct a TSCA
compliance audit at 20 facilities in seven EPA
Regions. Dexter also will expend an estimated $1.5
million on equipment and labor at their plant hi
Waukegan, IL, to reduce VOC emissions from an
aerospace coating manufacturing operation by between
23 and 38 tons per year. Dexter will receive up to
$500,000 credit for the SEP, credit which EPA will
apply to the penalties Dexter will owe as a result of
violations discovered during its compliance audit. In
a memo to AAs and RAs, Steve Herman singled-out
this settlement saying, "...it should serve as an
example of how we may use traditional enforcement
actions to advance these (audit and SEP) projects and
encourage forward thinking solutions to environmental
pollution."
Lawter International Corporation (Northbrook, IL):
The Region simultaneously issued and settled a civil
complaint against Lawter International Corp. on
September 25, 1995, for 15 separate violations of
Sections 5 and 8 of TSCA. To settle Lawter paid a
$280,000 civil penalty and agreed to conduct a TSCA
compliance audit at 15 facilities in five EPA Regions.
Lawter will pay stipulated penalties for violations it
detects and reports hi accordance with the CACO up
to a maximum of $300,000.
FEDERAL FACILITIES
U.S. Army Fort McCoy: In February of 1995, Region
V issued an administrative order to Fort McCoy,
Wisconsin, which is a RCRA hazardous waste
generator and- a treatment and storage facility. In
1993, Region V cited Fort McCoy for operating an
open detonation unit (covered under RCRA Subpart X)
without obtaining interim status. The order provides
for a penalty of approximately $6,000, and Fort
McCoy will also implement a SEP worth nearly
$11,000. The SEP involves purchasing and utilizing
aqueous parts washers instead of solvent cleaners, and
A-50
July 1996
-------
Region V
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
will eliminate approximately 2,600 gallons of solvent
from the facility's waste stream.
U.S. Naval Industrial Reserve Ordinance Plant
(NIROP): In June of 1995, EPA Region V negotiated
an agreement in principle with the Navy regarding
penalty and site management issues at NIROP in
Minnesota. As a result of various violations of the
NIROP cleanup agreement, the Navy agreed to pay a
penalty of $130,000 and develop a site management
plan to improve the pace of cleanup at the site,
including adding a second project manager. Region V
is currently reviewing the Navy's proposed site
management plan, and will develop a final document
with all provisions of the agreement. The final
agreement may result in changes to the existing LAG
for the NIROP site.
A-51
July 1996
-------
Region V
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
A-52
July 1996
-------
REGION VI
CLEAN Am ACT
In the Matter of: Nitrogen Products, Inc.: On
September 25, 1995, a joint stipulation and order of
dismissal was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas. Nitrogen Products, Inc.
(NPI), agreed to pay a civil penalty of $243,600 to the
United States for violations of the Clean Air Act, and
Subparts A and R of 40 C.F.R. Part 61. The foreign
parent corporation, Internationale Nederlanden Bank,
N.V., acquired the facility through foreclosure and
expended over $2 million to cover the phosphogypsum
stack and regrade.
CERCLA
United States v. Gurley Refining Co., Inc., et al. (8th
dr.): On December 28, 1994, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its opinion on
this appeal of the judgment of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas in United States v.
Gurley Refining Co., Inc. et al. The defendants hi this
matter, William Gurley, Larry Gurley, and Gurley
Refining Company, Inc. (GRC), leased a one-acre oil
sludge disposal pit hi Edmonson, Arkansas, hi which
they disposed of oil sludge wastes containing CERCLA
hazardous substances during the early 1970s. In
March 1992, the district court found the defendants
liable to the United States for $1.79 million and for
future CERCLA costs, estimated at $12-14 million.
Defendants filed notices of appeal with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The defendants
raised issues concerning the "collateral estoppel" or res
judicata effect of a 1985 decision holding the
corporation liable under the Clean Water Act. Also in
issue were the admissibility of cost summaries
presented at the CERCLA trial and whether retroactive
imposition of personal liability upon employee Larry
Gurley as an "operator" violated due process.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeals held that the district
court did not err when it found that Larry Gurley was
liable as an "operator" and that the imposition of
liability upon Larry Gurley for conduct that preceded
the effective date of CERCLA did not violate due
process. The Court of Appeals reversed' the district
court by holding that under the res judicata doctrine
EPA's CERCLA action against GRC was precluded by
the 1985 Clean Water Act decision, because the
CERCLA action was the "same cause of action arising
out of the same nucleus of operative fact as the prior
claim." The Court also held that the district court did
not err by concluding that the collateral estoppel
doctrine does not preclude EPA from proving the
elements of CERCLA liability against William Gurley
(President of GRC) or Larry Gurley and that the
wastes the Gurleys and GRC deposited in the Gurley
pits did not fit within CERCLA's petroleum exclusion.
Last, the Court of Appeals upheld the district court hi
the award of objected-to-attorney fees as CERCLA
response costs. The Court of Appeals remanded the
district court's judgment hi part for further proceedings
consistent with its opinion. In June 1995, William
Gurley petitioned the United States Supreme Court for
a writ of certiorari, which was opposed by the
Solicitor General and summarily denied by the
Supreme Court on October 2, 1995.
United States v. Bell Petroleum Services, Inc. (5th
dr.): On September 15, 1995, the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals issued an opinion hi a second appeal of the
Bell Petroleum cost recovery action. This opinion
reversed the judgment of the district court on an earlier
remand that found defendant Sequa Corp. liable for
only 4% of the Odessa Chromium I Superfund site
response costs, to the extent the district court
interpreted the prior Fifth Circuit opinion to foreclose
taking additional evidence on volumetric
apportionment, and remanded for further proceedings.
The Circuit Court also affirmed the district court's
finding that the United States can recover the costs of
the focused feasibility study (FFS), even though its
earlier opinion held the design and construction costs
of the remedy based on the FFS were not recoverable.
United States v. Vertac Chemical Corporation (8th
dr.): On January 31, 1995, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion hi
which it upheld the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas' rejection of Hercules, Inc., claim
that the United States is a liable party under CERCLA
Section 107(a) due to Hercules' manufacture of Agent
Orange (made up of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T) for the
Department of Defense under the Defense Production
Act of 1950 (DPA), 50 U.S.C. §2061 et seq. In
addition, the Court of Appeals upheld the district
court's ruling that Hercules was not entitled to
immunity under Section 707 of the DPA, 50 U.S.C.
§2157, and therefore, was not entitled to implied
A-53
July 1996
-------
Region VI
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
indemnity from the United States. The Court of
Appeals cited its recent decision concerning operator
liability hi Gurley Refining Co., Inc., et al. v. U.S.
(8th Cur. Dec. 28, 1994), noted elsewhere herein, and
distinguished the Vertac case from FMC Corp. v. 17.5.
Department of Commerce, 29 F. 3d 833 (C.A. 3rd
Cir. 1994) (en band).
The Vertac NPL site was a herbicide and pesticide
manufacturing facility in Jacksonville, Arkansas. A
ROD for a contaminated off-site area was signed hi
September 1990. A UAO for off-site remediation was
issued to the PRPs hi June 1993. In addition,
Hercules Inc., the principal viable PRP, agreed to
comply with a UAO issued in March 1994, to perform
one of the on-site operable units. Under the Order,
Hercules will implement a $28.5 million remedy to
dismantle the old manufacturing process plant, and
treat residual liquids and sludge left hi old tanks and
vessels. This marked the fourth of six operable units
to reach the clean-up phase of activity. The combined
costs to clean up all six operable units is expected to
exceed $100 million. In the civil enforcement action
associated with this site, the district court had granted
summary judgment to the United States hi October
1993 on the issue of Hercules" joint and several
liability for past and future costs related to remedition
of the Vertac site. Also hi late 1993, a jury had
issued an advisory opinion that Uniroyal Ltd. be held
liable for past and future costs related to remediation
of the site. In 1994, the United States entered consent
decrees for cost recovery with both Velsicol and Dow
Chemical Company hi that action. The Vertac case
demonstrates among other things, EPA's continuing
resolve to obtain both remediation and cost recovery at
even the most complex and controversial of sites,
benefitting both the public health and public interest.
United States v. Allied-Signal, et al. (E.D. IX): On
July 19, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas entered a consent decree for the
recovery of costs related to the remediation of the
Bailey Waste Disposal site. The parties to the consent
decree are potentially responsible parties which did not
enter into the previous consent decree providing for
site remediation. This new settlement provides for the
reimbursement of approximately 85 % of the funds paid
out by the government under the mixed funding
consent decree (for a total estimated recovery of
approximately $2.6 million).
United States v. American National Petroleum Co., et
al. (W.D. LA): On June 2, 1995, the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana entered the
consent decree for the Gulf Coast Vacuum Site,
Abbeville, Louisiana, remedial design and remedial
action involving the United States and 14 potentially
responsible parties (PRPs). Implementation of this
excavation and on-site biological treatment and disposal
remedy is anticipated to take three to ten years. The
consent decree also requires that if performance
standards set out hi the amended ROD are not
achieved, the hazardous substances will be incinerated.
United States v. Bayard Mining Corp., et al. (D.
NM): On June 15, 1995, the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Mexico entered a consent decree
hi the Bayard Mining case, which settles the United
States' claims against Viacom International Inc.,
Mining Remedial Recovery Company, and the Bayard
Mining Corporation for the remediation of the
Cleveland Mill Superfund NPL site. Under this
consent decree, these companies have agreed to
conduct or finance the $6,214,000 remedial action at
the site, to pay all past costs ($970,000) and to pay all
future costs incurred by EPA hi the remediation of the
site. The consent decree also provides $200,000 to
State and federal natural resource trustees for
mitigation of natural resource damages. The New
Mexico Office of Natural Resource Trustee is a
signatory, as is the U.S. Department of the Interior.
United States v. Lang, et al. (E.D., TX): On
November 29, 1994, the United States reached a
settlement hi principle just prior to trial with
defendants Atlantic Richfield Company and ARCO
Chemical Company (collectively "ARCO") to resolve
in part the U.S. CERCLA cost recovery litigation
concerning the Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc.,
Superfund NPL Site (also known as the Turtle Bayou
Site), Liberty County, Texas. Under the terms of the
proposed settlement, ARCO has agreed to perform the
remedial design and remedial action, as" well as
operation and maintenance on primary threat areas of
the site including the Main Waste Area, as well as a
pilot study on the effectiveness of the soil vapor
extraction site remedy. These response activities are
valued at $15.6 million (which may be low due to the
complexity of remediating the Main Waste Area) and
ARCO will also pay the fund $1.1 million for past
costs, for a total settlement value of about $16.7
million, representing about half of the estimated total
response costs at the site. That same date the United
States also reached settlement in principle with
individual defendant Donald Lang (now deceased) for
$250,000 based upon his ability to pay, his advanced
A-54
July 1996
-------
Region VI
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
age and ill health. The United States also agreed to
dismiss the remaining other individual defendant,
Wallis Smith, without prejudice, due to his inability to
pay any amount in settlement.
United States v. David Bowen Wallace, et al. (N.D.
TX): On July 17, 1995, the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas issued a memorandum
opinion and order entering the consent decree for the
Bio-Ecology Systems NPL site, Dallas, Texas. This
partial consent decree provides for reimbursement to
the fund of over $8.34 million from state, federal and
private defendants, as well as over $1.13 million in
cost recovery by the State of Texas. The Court based
its decision to enter the decree upon its findings
(vigorously contested by non-settling defendants United
Technologies Corp. [UTC] and CTU of Delaware
[CTU]) that the consent decree is fair, reasonable, and
consistent with the purposes of CERCLA. In its
memorandum, the court discussed in detail the factual
bases for its findings.
Hillsdale Drum Sites: On March 30, 1995, the
Region issued a CERCLA administrative cost recovery
(CR) agreement pursuant to Sections 107(a) and
122(h)(l) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a) and
9622(h)(l). Under this CR agreement, EPA will
recover $548,500 in CERCLA response costs.
Hi-Yield Chemical: On April 13, 1995, the Director
of the Region VI Hazardous Waste Management
Division signed an administrative order on consent
(AOC) with potentially responsible party (PRP)
Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc. (VPG) for removal
action at the Hi-Yield Chemical Superfund site,
Commerce, Texas, estimated to cost over $3,000,000.
Releases of arsenic from the Hi-Yield plant had
resulted in the contamination of neighboring residential
areas. The removal action required by this AOC
addressed arsenic contamination at the nearby
residences by removal of soils contaminated above 20
ppm arsenic and either off-site disposal or re-
consolidation of the soils on the former plant site.
On September 27, 1995, the Director of the new
Superfund Division signed an action memorandum
providing for the construction of a cap and slurry wall
on the site of the former Hi-Yield Chemical Plant, as
well as for the removal of contaminated sediments in
nearby Sayle Creek. On September 29, 1995, Region
VI and the site PRPs (including VPG) entered into an
AOC providing for PRP performance of removal
action and reimbursement of all EPA oversight costs,
as well as providing for PRP monitoring and
maintenance activities for a period of thirty years.
Lithium ofLubbock: On July 21, 1995, the Regional
Administrator -for Region VI executed an
administrative order on consent providing for recovery
of over $595,000 in past costs for the Lithium of
Lubbock Superfund site, Lubbock, Texas, representing
approximately 94% of the total CERCLA response
costs incurred in connection with the site.
Region VI initiated a CERCLA emergency removal
action at the Lithium of Lubbock site in June 1992.
This response action consisted of stabilizing batteries
involved in a fire at the site and disposing of or
recycling the batteries. The response action at the site
was completed hi November 1992, and all batteries
have been disposed of or recycled. Parties responsible
for reimbursement of costs included two federal
agencies, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Defense
Logistics Agency, as well as California Institute of
Technology, Altus Corporation, West Texas
Warehouse and the Burlington Northern Railroad,
demonstrating a multi-sector federal, state, and private
cooperative commitment to reimbursement of the fund
for the costs of expeditious Superfund cleanup.
In re: Reliable Coatings, Inc. (U.S.B.C., W.D. TN)
(Liquidating Chapter 11): On February 15, 1995, in
confirmation of a plan of liquidation for Reliable
Coatings, Inc., debtor Reliable settled its liability to
EPA and the United States for $93,288 as an
administrative priority claim for removal costs at the
Reliable Coatings site in Euless, Texas. The United
States received about 93% of the available estate
assets. On August 9, 1994, the Region forwarded to
DOJ an urgent letter referral of this matter, seeking
immediate assistance hi opposing an unsecured
creditor's motion for allowance of administrative
priority claim and hi filing EPA's own priority
administrative claim against the estate. Region VI
Emergency Response Branch had initiated a time-
critical removal action pursuant to CERCLA Section
104(a) at the site on July 25, 1994, where about 1,800
drums of hazardous wastes, sludge, and resins were
stored, as well as numerous totes, tanks, and vats
containing the same waste materials and solvents, and
thousands of smaller containers.
CLEAN WATER ACT
United States v. Mr. Roger Gautreau (S.D. LA): On
October 25, 1995, a complaint and consent agreement
A-55
July 1996
-------
Region W
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
were filed with the court concerning Gautreau's
discharge of dredged and fill material on 2.75 acres of
cypress swamp in St. Amant, Louisiana. The consent
order resolves the matter through Mr. Gautreau's
agreement to perform onsite restoration of hydrology,
removal of fill, revegetation, and payment of penalty
of 52,500. The case was referred to EPA from the
Corps of Engineers. Gautreau initiated a construction
project in waters of the U.S. (wetlands) prior to
obtaining authorization under CWA §404.
In the Matter of: City of Albuquerque, NM: In
1995, EPA initiated an enforcement action against the
City of Albuquerque for failing to properly operate its
approved pretreatment program in accord with Section
402 of the Clean Water Act and with its own NPDES
permit. The action was settled by an agreement for
the City to pay a civil penalty and to conduct a study
of the feasibility of doing direct injection of treated
effluent from the sewage treatment works into the
aquifer underlying the facility and the City of
Albuquerque. The study is hoped to be the precursor
of a project to accomplish the groundwater injection
sometime in the near future.
EPCRA
In the Matter of: Formosa Plastics Company: EPA
filed suit against the facility alleging thirty counts of
failure to report releases pursuant to Section 103(a) of
CERCLA, three incidents of failure to report releases
as required under EPCRA Section 304(a), and two
failures to file follow-up reports as required under
EPCRA Section 304(c). The complaint sought nearly
$600,000.00 in penalties.
The settlement with Formosa consisted of various
supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) and the
payment of a penalty. The primary SEP was the
installation of a $1.68 million containment system
designed to capture releases from the emergency
release valves at the facility. The implementation of
this SEP should substantially decrease the release of
hazardous pollutants into the environment from the
facility. In addition, the company agreed to allow
EPA to perform a chemical safety audit at the facility
to determine whether there were training or process
changes the company could implement to alleviate
other types of releases from the facility. The company
also agreed to implement the Section 112(r) risk
management program requirements well in advance of
the required implementation date. The company
further agreed to perform a SEP for the City of Point
Comfort, the SEP to identified by the LEPC and the
City Council, to have a nexus to the violations and cost
no less than $10,000.00, and to donate $35,000.00 to
the Regional LEPC conference. In addition, the
company paid $40,000.00 penalty.
In the Matter of: Koch Refining Company: On
August 18, 1995, Region VI filed a fully executed
consent agreement/consent order (CA/CO) to settle an
administrative action against Koch Refining Company
for alleged data quality violations of EPCRA §313(a)
and 40 C.F.R. §372.30. Koch agreed to pay a penalty
of $192,000 and submitted revised form Rs prepared
hi accordance with an agreed methodology for
specified chemicals for calendar years 1989,1990, and
1991.
Formosa Plastics Co.: On May 31, 1995, a Class I
CERCLA 103(a) and EPCRA 304(a) consent
agreement and consent order (CACO) was entered with
Formosa Plastics for numerous releases of vinyl
chloride form its Point Comfort, Texas, facility
between February 1989 and August 1992 that were not
reported to the National Response Center (NRC) in a
timely manner following the release. Additionally,
respondent experienced a release of ethylene dichloride
in September 1990, and a release of hydrochloric acid
in July 1991. Respondent did not report these releases
to the NRC, State Emergency Response Commission
(SERC), and Local Emergency Planning Committee
(LEPC) hi a timely manner. Respondent agreed to pay
a civil penalty of $50,000 and agreed to construct and
maintain a secondary containment system which will
prevent large pressure releases of vinyl chloride from
the facility. The system cost is estimated to be $1.68
million with an anticipated start-up date of January
1996. Additionally, as part of a SEP, respondent
agreed to complete the following actions: (1)
implement a chemical safety project for the citizens of
Point Comfort, Texas at a cost of $10,000; (2) permit
a chemical safety audit to be performed by a team led
by EPA personnel to review facility emergency
response procedures and plans; (3) develop and
implement a risk management program; and (4)
provide funding ($35,000) to support a Region-wide
LEPC conference.
Shell Chemical Company: A CERCLA §103, Class
I, consent agreement and consent order (CACO) was
entered on April 12, 1995, with Shell Chemical,
requiring it to pay a civil penalty of $58,200 for
substantial releases of 1,3-pentadiene sulfuric acid,
sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide, and phenol in 1990 and
A-56
July 1996
-------
Region VI
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
1991 from its Deer Park, Texas, facility that were not
timely reported to the National Response Center. The
penalty was based on the quantity of the material
spilled in excess of reportable quantities and the time
period from when the release occurred to when it was
reported to the NRC. During settlement discussions,
respondent provided information on modifying
reporting procedures at the facility to ensure that this
type of violation will not occur in the future.
In the Matter of: Koch Refining Company: On
August 18, 1995, Region VI filed a fully executed
Consent Agreement/Consent Order (CA/CO) to settle
an Administrative Action against Koch Refining
Company for all alleged data quality violations of
EPCRA §313(a) and 40 C.F.R. §372.30. Koch agreed
to pay a penalty of $192,000 and submitted revised
Form Rs prepared in accordance with an agreed
methodology for specified chemicals for calendar years
1989, 1990 and 1991.
Formosa Plastics Co.: On May 31, 1995, a Class I
CERCLA 103(a) and EPCRA 304(a) Consent
Agreement and Consent Order (CACO) was entered
with Formosa Plastics for numerous releases of vinyl
chloride form its Point Comfort, Texas facility
between February 1989 and August 1992 that were not
reported to the National Response Center (NRC) in a
timely manner following the release. Additionally,
Respondent experienced a release of ethylene
dichloride in September 1990, and a release of
hydrochloric acid in July 1991. Respondent did not
report these releases to the NRC, State Emergency
Response Commission (SERC), and Local Emergency
Planning Committee (LEPC) in a timely manner.
Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $50,000
and agreed to construct and maintain a secondary
containment system which will prevent large pressure
releases of vinyl chloride from the facility. The
system cost is estimated to be $1.68 million with an
anticipated start-up date of January 1996.
Additionally, as part of a SEP, Respondent agreed to
complete the following actions: (1) Implement a
chemical safety project for the citizens of Point
Comfort, Texas at a cost of $10,000; (2) Permit a
chemical safety audit to be performed by a team led by
EPA personnel to review facility emergency response
procedures and plans; (3) Develop and implement a
Risk Management Program; and (4) Provide funding
($35,000) to support a Region-wide LEPC conference.
Shell Chemical Company: A CERCLA §103, Class
I, Consent Agreement and Consent Order (CACO) was
entered on April 12, 1995, with Shell Chemical,
requiring it to pay a civil penalty of $58,200 for
substantial releases of 1,3-pentadiene sulfuric acid,
sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide, and phenol hi 1990 and
1991 from its Deer Park, Texas, facility that were not
timely reported to the National Response Center. The
penalty was based on the quantity of the material
spilled in excess of reportable quantities and the time
period from when the release occurred to when it was
reported to the NRC. During settlement discussions,
Respondent provided information on modifying
reporting procedures at the facility to ensure that this
type of violation will not occur in the future.
RCRA
In the Matter of: Altus Air Force Base: On March
24, 1995, Region VI filed a unilateral RCRA Section
3008(h) order against Altus AFB, Altus, Oklahoma.
This is the first Region VI unilateral RCRA Section
3008(h) order against a federal facility, and is only the
second unilateral RCRA Section 3008(h) order against
a federal facility in the nation. The order requires the
Air Force to perform interim measures, a RCRA
facility investigation, a corrective measures study, and
corrective measures implementation.
SDWA
Cushman, Arkansas: The Town of Cushman,
Arkansas, owned and operated a public water system
that used an unprotected spring for its source of water
and provided no water treatment except for
disinfection. Rain adversely affected the water quality
of the spring, resulting in consumers being served
inadequately treated water not meeting federal nor state
standards. As a result, in October 1990, the Arkansas
Department of Health ordered the town to install
filtration treatment to correct the problem. The town
received a grant of $600,000 to perform the work from
the State but still violated the State order. As a result
of the civil complaint, the Town of Cushman settled
with EPA and DOJ by agreeing to install filtration
treatment and hire a State certified operator. The new
treatment plant began operation hi September 1995 and
has significantly decreased the risk to consumers of
'consuming water that does not meet all of the Federal
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The
Town also paid a penalty of $15,000 for the violations
and its recalcitrance.
Colonias in Texas: Colonias are severely distressed,
rural, residential developments along the U.S./Mexico
A-57
July 1996
-------
Region Vf
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
border that are characterized by substandard housing,
lack of paved roads, and inadequate or no water and
wastewater facilities. The environmental conditions at
these developments pose a serious health risk to the
residents of the border region, largely due to a failure
on the part of the developers to install necessary
infrastructure. A partnership was established with the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), EPA Headquarters
and Region VI, and Texas Office of the Attorney
General (TX AG) to address the problems existing in
the Colonias.
This resulted in a civil referral to DOJ against a major
Colonia developer. EPA is seeking as relief through
the civil referral an injunction requiring the developers
to provide on a temporary basis an alternative drinking
water supply for the residents of Cuna del Valle. In
addition, the developer would be required to take
permanent action to prevent further endangerment to
the health of residents of the Colonia, preferably
through the installation of essential but lacking
infrastructure.
TSCA
In the Matter of: PPG Industries: In a settlement
with PPG Industries for violations of TSCA, PPG
agreed to conduct a SEP with the following
components: (1) replacement of the heat transfer fluid
in the Oxyhydrochlorination Reactor at the Vinyl
Chloride II Unit with a "white oil" material called
XCELTHERM 600. This switch in fluid eliminated
the source of inadvertently produced PCBs in the LP
EDC reactor; (2) removal of PCB capacitors from the
facility, and replacing them .with 36 non-PCB
capacitors; and (3) retrofitting and rectification of
five PCB contaminated transformers located at the
facility. PPG spent $324,318.53 on these three SEP
projects.
In the Matter of: El Paso Electric Company: In a
settlement with El Paso Electric Company for
violations of PCB regulations promulgated under
TSCA, the company agreed to remove and dispose of
in an authorized facility 614 capacitors containing over
500 ppm PCBs from its electrical substations. These
capacitors were replaced with non-PCB capacitors.
This project removed from service a substantial
quantity of PCB oils which could have been released
into the environment in the event of leakage or other
failure, and removes certain El Paso Electric facilities
from regulated status.
United States v. USS Cabot/Dedalo Museum
Foundation: On November 17, 1994, the United
States filed for a permanent injunction to prohibit the
Foundation from selling and exporting the USS Cabot/
Dedalo to India for dismantlement. The ship is subject
to TSCA regulations because it has on board PCBs in
concentrations above 50 parts per million. The U.S.
District Court granted a permanent injunction against
the Foundation on March 30, 1995.
FEDERAL FACILITIES
Lackland Air Force Base: In early 1993, EPA Region
VI discovered that Lackland was illegally operating an
open burning ordinance disposal unit for waste
ordinance. This operation posed a potential threat to
San Antonio's drinking water supply. In an
administrative complaint issued against Lackland, EPA
sought a penalty of $346,500, closure of the open
burning/open detonation unit, and an environmental
audit of the facility.
On May 12, 1995, Administrative Law Judge Spencer
Nissen ruled that EPA was not estopped from
enforcing because Lackland had relied on a letter from
the state regulator incorrectly advising the installation
that it had interim status. Judge Nissen also ruled that
even though Lackland had not disposed of additional
hazardous waste at the disposal facility after the
effective date of the Federal Facility Compliance Act,
which ended federal facility penalty immunity under
RCRA, the failure to obtain a permit was a continuing
violation.
A-58
July 1996
-------
REGION VH
CLEAN AIR ACT
IBS Utilities, Inc. (Cedar Rapids, IA): During FY
1995, Region VII settled the first acid rain
administrative penalty action in the country. The
complaint alleged IBS Utilities , Inc., of Cedar Rapids,
Iowa, failed to complete timely certification testing of
the acid rain continuous emission monitors required for
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and
volumetric flow at the Sixth Street Power Station and
Prairie Creek Generating Station, Cedar Rapids, Iowa;
Ottumwa Generating Station, Chillicothe, Iowa; and at
the Sutherland Generating Station, Marshalltown,
Iowa. A penalty of $124,100 was proposed in the
complaint for these violations of the CAA.
As part of the settlement, IES agreed to a supplemental
environmental project involving the purchase and
permanent surrender by the utility to EPA of 589
sulfur dioxide (SO2) allowances as defined under the
Acid Deposition Control provisions of Title IV of the
Clean Air Act. Each allowance constitutes an
authorization to emit during or after a specified
calendar year, one ton of SO2. Value of the
allowances permanently removed from the market was
$76,570 at the time of the settlement. IES was also
required to pay a penalty of $25,630 to settle the
claims.
Stupp Brothers Bridge & Iron Company: The State
of Missouri requested Region VIFs assistance in
regard to air emission violations by Stupp Brothers
Bridge & Iron Company in St. Louis, Missouri. EPA
issued a notice of violation on April 1, 1995, pursuant
to Section 113(a)(l) of the CAA, finding Stupp
Brothers hi violation of Section 110 of the CAA.
Stupp Brothers operates an industrial coating operation
and emits more than 2.5 tons of VOCs a year. Stupp
Brothers violated the state implementation plan by
failing to comply with the emission limit for
miscellaneous metal parts. EPA encouraged Stupp
Bros, to work out a compliance schedule with the
State. The State and Stupp Bros, thereafter entered
into a consent agreement/consent order addressing the
violations and bringing the facility into compliance
with the Act.
Barton Nelson Inc.: A printer of miscellaneous
products, including stick-on notes, undertook
construction without a permit of a facility hi Kansas
City, Missouri. At the time of construction, Kansas
City was a non--attainment area but has since been
designated as hi attainment. The City of Kansas City,
Missouri, asked Region VII to assist with the
permitting and enforcement actions. EPA personnel
performed an inspection to determine the applicability
of NSPS Subpart RR - Standard of Performance for
Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating
Operations. After evaluating me permit requirements
and the NSPS applicability, EPA assisted the City with
calculating the economic benefit and gravity
components of the penalty.
After obtaining a permit from the Kansas City,
Missouri, Pollution Control Agency, the source
refused to enter into a consent order to resolve its
violations. The city referred the source to the State,
but the source continued to refuse to enter into a
consent order. At the State's request, EPA initiated an
enforcement action against the source, whereupon the
source, on receiving word of this pending action,
entered into acceptable consent orders with both the
State and local agency.
CERCLA
United States v. Bliss, 28 DIOXIN-Contaminated
Sites, Eastern Missouri: On April 14, 1995, EPA and
the Missouri Department of Natural Resources issued
a permit to IT Corporation, Syntex Agribusiness, Inc.
and Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation for a
thermal treatment facility to be located at the
disincorporated city of Times Beach for thermal
treatment of dioxin contaminated soil and non soil
materials from Times Beach and other eastern
Missouri dioxin sites under the provisions of the
CERCLA Consent Decree and Final Order Between
the United States of America; the State of Missouri;
Syntex Corporation; Syntex (U.S.A.) Inc.; Syntex
Laboratories, Inc; and Syntex Agribusiness, Inc.
entered by the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri hi the case of United States v. Bliss, Civil
Action No. 84-200C(l). The facility will'consist of a
hazardous waste incinerator as well as associated
facilities for storing and processing contaminated and
treated material.
United States v. Bliss, Horse Arena, etal., 28Dioxin-
Contandnated Sites, Eastern Missouri: On August
15, 1995, Judge Nangle issued a favorable order hi
A--59
July 1996
-------
Region VII
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
ruling on motions by the defendant Syntex to construe,
effectuate and enforce the consent decree entered by
the court on December 31,1990, and the motion of St.
Louis County to intervene in the existing litigation as
plaintiff and its memorandum opposing the Syntex
defendants' motion. The original motion filed by
Syntex was necessitated by the County's issuance in
February 1995, of an air permit setting limits on
emissions from the incinerator which Syntex has
constructed at the Times Beach Site. Such limits are
at odds with the limits set in the joint EPA-State
RCRA permit.
United States v. Monsanto Company, et al.: On May
31, 1995, the United States, on behalf of the EPA,
filed a civil action for recovery of over $700,000 hi
costs under Section 107(a) of CERCLA. The action
was filed against Monsanto Company, Allied-Signal,
Inc., Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, and
Superior Oil Company, Inc., d/b/a Superior Solvents
and Chemicals, Inc. The United States seeks to
recover past costs and oversight costs incurred by EPA
in response to releases and threatened releases of
hazardous substances at the Thompson Chemical
Superfund site in St. Louis, Missouri. A number of
different industrial facilities have operated at the site
since the late 1800s, which is currently in use as a
bulk terminal facility for solvent products.
United States v. Cooperative Producers Inc. and
Farmland Industries, Inc.: On September 29, 1995,
a consent decree was signed and forwarded to DOJ for
lodging with the District Court of Nebraska. The
consent decree requires the settling defendants,
Cooperative Producers, Inc. (CPI, the current
owner/operator), and Farmland Industries, Inc.
(Farmland, the former owner/operator), to pay
$954,019 in past costs and to continue operation of a
soil vapor extraction (SVE) system to remediate the
source control operable unit at the FAR-MAR-CO
subsite of the Hastings ground water contamination
site.
Rogers Iron and Metal Corporation (Jasper County,
MO): As part of the Superfund Brownfields initiative,
the Regional Administrator entered into a prospective
purchaser agreement with Rogers Iron and Metal
Corporation (RIMCO), Rogers, Arkansas, on June 18,
1995. The Agreement involves RIMCO's purchase of
property located within the Jasper County Superfund
NPL site. This agreement meets the criteria discussed
in the Agency's new guidance for prospective
purchaser agreements issued in May 1995.
Mason City, IA and Bob McKinness Grading &
Excavating, Inc. (Mason City, IA): On July 28,
1995, an administrative order on consent was filed
with the Regional Hearing Clerk wherein Interstate
Power Company and Kansas City Power & Light
Company (the "Performing Respondents") agreed to
conduct a non-time critical removal action of coal tar
buried at the site and to pay a specific amount of
EPA's past costs and all of EPA's oversight costs. In
addition, by signing the order, two additional parties,
the City of Mason City, Iowa, and Bob McKinness
Grading & Excavating, Inc. .(the "Non-Performing
Respondents") agreed to contribute money toward the
costs of the response action and payment of EPA's
costs.
Pacific Activities, Ltd. (Davenport, I A): On June 6,
1995, an administrative order on consent (AOC) for
the performance of a time-critical removal action at
this site was filed with Region Vll's Hearing Clerk.
The site was formerly occupied by a locomotive
foundry as well as by a company that conducted
smelting operations for the production of nickel alloys.
Site soils are extensively contaminated with lead (at
levels up to 160,000 ppm), cadmium (at levels up to
2,400 ppm), and nickel (at levels up to 120,000 ppm).
The removal action provides for the in-situ
solidification of contaminated soils, with off-site
disposal of any media which is not amenable to
solidification. PAL has agreed to reimburse EPA for
all of its past and future response costs for this
removal action. In addition, as PAL entered into a
consensual RCRA order with EPA in 1991 which it
failed to comply with, we have required that PAL
establish and fund a financial assurance mechanism
prior to EPA entering into the order. The AOC also
provides for the use of ADR in the form of non-
binding third-party mediation in the event that PAL
disagrees with the resolution of certain delimited
disputes by the Superfund Division Director.
West Lake Landfill NPL Site (Bridgeton, MO), OU-2:
An administrative order on consent (AOC) for the
performance of an RI/FS for OU-2 was signed by the
owner/operator of the landfill, Laidlaw Waste Systems
(Bridgeton), Inc., on December 9, 1994. This
operable unit addresses the nonradiologic hazardous
substances present at the site. Laidlaw, along with
three other PRPs, are currently conducting an RI/FS
for OU-1, which is the radiologic contamination
contained in two cells at the landfill. Studies have
indicated that VOC, metals, and pesticides are present
in the landfill. This is a municipal solid waste landfill
A-60
July 1996
-------
Region VII
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
that has operated since 1962. Pursuant to this AOC,
Laidlaw has agreed to reimburse EPA for its past and
future response costs for this operable unit.
/. J. Stephens Farm Site (Newton County, MO): On
September 28, 1995, EPA and Sunbeam Products,
Inc., formerly Sunbeam Corporation d/b/a Sunbeam
Outdoor Products (Sunbeam), entered into an
administrative order on consent for removal response
activities and reimbursement of response costs at the
IJ. Stephens Farm Site. The consent order was issued
pursuant to Sections 106(a) and 122 of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. §§ 9606(a) and 9622. The settlement will
result in Sunbeam's performance of a clean-up that
will provide significant environmental benefits. In
accordance with the consent order, Sunbeam must pay
$30,000 for past response costs; remove and dispose
of all drums, drum components, and waste containers
from the site; excavate and dispose of soils
contaminated by the materials contained or formerly
contained in the drums; test drum contents, soil, and
any other contaminated materials prior to disposal; and
restore site to its pre-removal condition by backfilling
and seeding the soil.
Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings (St. Louis, MO):
In July and August 1995, EPA entered into four
separate de minimis administrative settlements pursuant
to Section 122(g) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9622(g).
Pursuant to the administrative orders on consent, the
de minimis parties are responsible for the following
costs: (1) Peerless-Premier Appliance Company has
an attributable share of 1.20% and is responsible for
$13,236.65 in past costs and $1,193.24 in future costs;
(2) Canam Steel Corporation has an attributable share
of 1.29% and is responsible for $14,238.45 hi past
costs and $1,283.55 in future costs; (3) St. Louis Steel
Products has an attributable share of 1.665% and is
responsible for $18,412.20 in past costs and $1,659.80
hi future costs; and (4) Henkel Corporation has an
attributable share of .30% and is responsible for
$3,453.48 hi past costs and $311.32 hi future costs.
The Aluminum Company of America Site (Riverdale,
IA): On August 10, 1995, EPA Region VII issued an
administrative order on consent for removal action and
remedial investigation/feasibility study to the
Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) to address
contamination at its Davenport Works facility, which
is located on the Mississippi River hi Riverdale, Iowa.
The removal actions will address each area of potential
contamination at the facility, most of which were
identified hi a facility site assessment (FSA) performed
by Alcoa pursuant to a 1990 CERCLA Section 106
AOC. The FSA identified over 75 potentially
contaminated areas (FSA units). The unique aspect of
the removal portion of the AOC is that it establishes a
risk-based process by which Alcoa will assess each
area of potential area contamination and, if necessary,
cqnduct removal actions to abate endangerments to
human health or the environment. Alcoa will conduct
a FSA unit evaluation hi accordance with the AOC's
attachments and prepare a risk-based concentration
report for each unit or group of units, which will serve
as the basis for Alcoa's recommendation for further
investigations, a tune-critical removal action, an
EE/CA, or no further action. Upon EPA approval of
Alcoa's recommendation, the company will implement
the required work.
Doepke Holliday Site (Johnson County, KS): On
February 16, 1995, Region VII issued an
administrative order to 34 parties directing them to
begin implementation of the remedial action for this
site. The main requirement of the order is to construct
an impermeable cap over an old disposal area on the
site. The order also requires environmental monitoring
and operation and maintenance activities. EPA is
committed to resuming and completing consent decree
negotiations promptly. It was used for disposal of
industrial and commercial wastes hi the 1960s and
early 1970s. The principal component of the site
clean-up is installation of an impermeable cap over the
former disposal area. The cap will prevent contact
with any of the contaminated materials hi the old
disposal area. It will also reduce infiltration of surface
water through the old disposal area, thereby
minimizing movement of contaminants away from the
site.
29th and Mead Superfund Site (Wichita, KS): On
July 20, 1995, EPA, the Kansas Department of Health
and Environment and the City of Wichita, Kansas,
announced that the 29th and Mead site in Wichita,
Kansas, would be removed from the National Priorities
List (NPL) based on the State and City agreeing to
address the contamination at the site. This action is
being carried out as a state de-listing pilot project.
The site will be removed from the NPL based on a
determination by EPA that no further response action
under CERCLA is required at the site, contingent upon
the finalization of an agreement between the City of
Wichita and the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE), which requires the City to take
responsibility for clean-up activities at the site with
KDHE oversight.
A-61
July 1996
-------
Region VII
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Emory Plating Company (Des Moines, IA): In July
1995, EPA entered into a CERCLA Section 122(h)(l)
settlement agreement with the owners of the site. EPA
had performed a fund-lead removal costing $325,000
at this abandoned electroplating facility located in Des
Moines, Iowa. EPA filed a Superfund lien against the
site. Notice of the settlement was published in the
Federal Register and the agreement became effective
on September 25, 1995. The agreement provides that
the site owners will make their best efforts to sell the
site and turn over the net proceeds to Superfund. At
the request of EPA, both Polk County, Iowa, and the
City of Des Moines agreed to write off a major portion
of the outstanding real estate taxes. A sale was
pending at the end of October 1995, and it is
anticipated that EPA will recover approximately $25-
27,000 in costs that otherwise would have been written
off. The sale will likewise get this commercial site
back into productive use and on the tax roles.
Fremont Pesticides Superfund Site (Fremont County,
IA): In December 1995, EPA entered into a CERCLA
Section 106 consent order with the Randolph State
Bank of Randolph, Iowa, to perform a removal action.
The site consisted of two proximate parcels in rural
Iowa, with the first parcel being surrounded by a state
nature preserve. The bank acquired the first parcel
through deed in lieu of foreclosure and proceeded to
move containers of hazardous waste pesticides from
the first parcel to the second parcel (owned under
contract for deed by the debtor), where the containers
were abandoned. The removal order required the bank
to dispose of the containerized waste and test for soil
contamination at the first site as well as contamination
in on-site farm- structures. The containerized waste
was shipped off-site for disposal. Contaminated
building debris will be shipped off-site for incineration.
Helena Chemical (Hayti, MO): In November 1994,
EPA issued a unilateral order for removal site
evaluation and engineering evaluation/cost analysis and
removal action to Amoco Corporation, Helena
Chemical Company, and Rupert Crafton Commission
Company. This site is contaminated with pesticides as
a result of pesticide formulation and storage activities
that occurred from approximately 1965-1978. Amoco
and Helena were in business at the site until 1969,
when Amoco sold its interest to Helena. Rupert
Crafton Commission Company acquired the site in
1978. Contamination is highest in the soils, but
migration to the groundwater has been detected.
Waterloo Coal Gasification Plant (Waterloo, IA): In
May 1995, EPA and Midwest Gas (a division of
Midwest Power Systems Inc., Sioux City, Iowa)
entered into a CERCLA administrative order on
consent for remedial investigation/feasibility study. A
coal gasification plant operated at the site for the first
half of this century. Waste handling practices at the
site resulted in spreading coal tar residue, ash and
associated wastes on unlined soils, and filling
topographical lows on the site. Removal work has
been done at the site to reduce the migration of
contamination from source areas.
Irwin Chemical Company (Des Moines, IA) and
Emory Plating Company (Des Moines, IA): At both
these urban sites where fund lead removal actions have
resulted in cleanup costs being incurred by the United
States, Region VII has executed innovative
administrative CERCLA 122(h) settlement agreements
which will result in partial reimbursement of
government costs and return the properties to
beneficial use. Each agreement provides that the
respondents will make their best efforts to sell the
respective site and turn the proceeds over to EPA (net
of certain expenses). At EPA's request, the County
and City agreed to compromise taxes and special
assessments on the Emory Plating Site property.
CLEAN WATER ACT
St. Columbkill Association and Berra Construction
Co.: On September 29, 1995, a CWA administrative
order on consent was issued to the St. Columbkill
Association and Berra Construction Company requiring
the removal of a river crossing which had been placed
in a creek, without first obtaining a Clean Water Act
Section 404 permit. Because of the crossing's inability
to pass expected high flows, water had backed up
during storm events, damaging property both upstream
and down. After extensive negotiations, St.
Columbkill and Berra entered into an administrative
order on consent with the Agency requiring the
removal of the crossing and the restoration of the
scour hole. Removal and restoration has been timed
by the order to allow the bridge to continue to be used
for a short period while the only other access bridge to
a small adjacent community is being replaced.
A-62.
July 1996
-------
Region VII
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
EPCRA
Texaco Refinery (El Dorado, KS): An innovative
settlement was reached with Texaco Refinery located
in El Dorado, Kansas, to resolve reporting violations
of EPCRA Section 313. As part of settlement, the
company agreed to the accelerated development and
completion of risk management programs for each of
the following regulated substances at the El Dorado
refinery: ammonia, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide,
hydrofluoric acid, propane and butane.
In addition, Texaco agreed to develop and submit to
EPA a generic risk management plan for each of the
above listed regulated substances. These generic plans
will be available for use as models by other members
of the regulated community to assist them in
developing plans for their own facilities when the
requirements become effective under the Clean Air
Act. The estimated costs of the programs and plans by
Texaco is $247,000.
K.O. Manufacturing, Inc.: On April 13, 1995, the
Environmental Appeals Board ,(EAB) issued its
decision inK.O. Manufacturing, Inc., EPCRA Appeal
No. 93-1. The EAB reversed and remanded the
original decision by Judge Greene and held that
respondent violated EPCRA Section 313 by failing to
file a form R for glycol ether compounds 1987. The
case was remanded for the assessment of a penalty.
Region VII appealed the February 28, 1993, initial
decision as to the issue of liability for failure to file a
form R for glycol ether compounds for 1987. In the
initial decision, the Presiding Officer granted
respondent's motion for accelerated decision and found
that respondent was not liable to file a form R for 2-
Butyoxyethanol because 40 CFR §372.65 did not
provide adequate notice that reporting was required.
On appeal, Region VII argued that the initial decision
was based upon an incorrect legal conclusion and that
the final rule and the 1987 instructions for form R
provided adequate notice of the meaning of the
requirement. The EAB agreed with the Region and
adopted the reasoning in Region VIFs brief on appeal
and reversed the initial decision.
Heyco, Inc. (Garden City, KS): As part of the
settlement to resolve reporting violations under
EPCRA §313, Heyco, Inc. agreed to undertake a
supplemental environmental project (SEP) which
entails the installation of a new paint system and the
use of new chemical formulations, at a cost to the
company of approximately $228,000. The new
process will totally eliminate the use of xylene hi the
company's operations. Furthermore, Heyco agreed to
limit its use of all EPCRA Section 313 chemicals to
under 5,000 pounds per year per chemical.
FIFRA
Farmers Cooperative Grain Company (Merna, NE):
As part of settlement of a complaint issued against for
violations of the FIFRA bulk repackaging
requirements, Farmers Cooperative Gram Company,
Merna, Nebraska, agreed to install and operate oilers
hi the legs of their grain facilities. The project results
hi the reduction of fugitive dust emissions from the
facility by approximately 90%. Community-based
environmental and public health benefits were achieved
at a total cost of the project to the facility at $8,392.
OIL POLLUTION ACT
Koch Industries, Inc.: On April 17, 1995, a
complaint was filed in federal district court against
Koch Industries, Inc. and a number of its subsidiaries
for violations of the Clean Water Act, as amended by
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The case was filed by
the Department of Justice in the Southern District of
Texas, and represents a cooperative effort among
Regions IV, VI, and VII, EPA Headquarters, the U.S.
Coast Guard, and DOJ. The Complaint proposes
penalties of $1,000 per barrel of oil discharged hi over
300 spill events over the course of the last 5 years.
The total amount of oil discharged is hi excess of
50,000 barrels. The Region VII portion of the
complaint addresses over 30 separate discharges of oil
totalling hi excess of 2500 barrels. The parties are
now involved hi the discovery process.
RCRA
University of Nebraska: Pursuant to a consolidated
settlement of two RCRA §3008(a) complaints, the
University of Nebraska agreed to implement a system-
wide chemical and waste tracking program. As part of
the system-wide program, departments are able to
offer unneeded chemicals, that would have otherwise
been shipped offsite as waste, to other University
departments, resulting hi a reduction hi the amount of
waste required to be shipped offsite.
A-63
July 1996
-------
Region VII
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
SDWA
Kansas Public Water Supplies: During FY 1995,
EPA negotiated and issued administrative compliance
orders on consent to nine (9) public water systems
(PWS) for exceedances of the nitrate Maximum
Contaminant Level of 10 mg/1 for public water
supplies. Each of the nine orders require the PWS to
undertake certain tasks within a twenty-four month
period to achieve compliance. These tasks include the
provision of an alternative water supply to pregnant
women and children aged six months or less and the
provision of public notification for each prior violation
of the Act. Consent orders were entered into with the
following Kansas Public Water Supply Systems: City
of Abilene, City of Axtell, City- of Attica, City of
Beverly, City of Kirwin, City of Osborne, City of
Portis, City of Preston, and City of Raymond.
Kansas Bureau of Water: Kansas' Bureau of Water
issued 25 wastewater treatment orders against various
municipalities and trailer courts located within the
State. Particularly noteworthy were orders issued to
the cities of Lawrence, Topeka, and Leavenworth and
to four trailer courts in Pittsburgh. The consent orders
with the three cities initiate projects to eliminate the
discharge of water treatment sludges to streams. The
orders to the trailer courts have resulted in ongoing
efforts to form sewer districts that will have collection
and pumping facilities connected to the Pittsburgh
wastewater treatment, plant, eliminating sewage
discharges into abandoned mine shafts.
MULTIMEDIA-
lowa National Guard, AASF #2, Waterloo, IA: A
multimedia consolidated consent agreement and consent
order effective December 16, 1994, concluded three
complaints against the Iowa National Guard. The
complaints concerned facilities located in Johnston,
Waterloo, and Davenport, Iowa, and violations of
RCRA and SDWA. The settlement requires the
respondent to return to compliance with respect to the
violations, pay $35,000 in penalties, and to perform
$500,000 in SEPs for two city sewer connections and
RCRA/SDWA environmental audits at 21 facilities.
In response to the RCRA violations, the respondent, a
state militia helicopter reserve unit, asserted that it was
a federal facility as opposed to a state facility and that
under the Federal Facilities Compliance Act it was not
subject to penalties for those RCRA violations.
However, respondent had no such defense in the
SDWA case. By consolidating the three cases, the
Region and respondent were able to negotiate a
satisfactory global settlement, allowing both the EPA
and the respondent to avoid the time, and expense of
litigating the state militia/FFCA issue.
A-64
July 1996
-------
REGION VIH
CLEAN AIR ACT
South Main Texaco: A consent agreement settled
charges against South Main Texaco (1101 S. Main,
Torrington, Wyoming) for allegedly violating ozone
protection requirements of the Clean Air Act. At issue
were EPA charges that the company serviced
automotive air conditioners without using proper freon
recovery or recycling equipment. The penalty
included money the company saved by ignoring
requirements. South Main Texaco has since obtained
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) recovery equipment and
ensures technicians are properly trained and certified
in its use.
Plum Creek Manufacturing: On August 22, 1995, a
civil consent decree was lodged in the U.S. District
Court hi Helena, Montana, in which Plum Creek
Manufacturing, L.P. (Plum Creek) agreed to pay
$106,000 in penalties for releasing visible contaminants
from their veneer dryers. These violations took place
from at least September 1989, until April 1992, at its
Kalispell, Montana, plywood plant. The State of
Montana had previously brought an enforcement action
against Plum Creek for veneer dryer violations which
resulted in Plum Creek paying a $7,000 penalty and
installing an air pollution control device on the dryers.
Plum Creek has a history of non-compliance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act. EPA concluded
that the State's penalty was insufficient to recover the
economic benefit realized by Plum Creek, and brought
its own action. This action demonstrates EPA's
commitment to see that violators do not profit from
their violations.
Colorado Refining Company: Colorado Refining
Company (CRC) agreed to pay a $320,000 penalty and
will spend about $1.7 million upgrading equipment to
reduce air pollution from its oil refinery in Commerce
City, Colorado. As part of a settlement with EPA and
the U.S. Department of Justice, CRC—a subsidiary of
Total Petroleum—will modify equipment to prevent
excessive amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO^ from
escaping into the air when the oil refinery is operating.
To achieve this, CRC will upgrade its "Claus Plant,"
or sulfur recovery unit to boost its sulfur removal
capability.
The Agency's complaint alleged two Clean Air Act
(CAA) permit violations. One claimed the refinery
degraded air quality when its SO2 emissions surpassed
allowable levels several times between 1989 and 1994.
At one point the refinery registered emissions of
16,000 parts per million (ppm).
Asarco, Inc.: Alleged lead and paniculate pollution
has cost Asarco, Inc., $200,000 according to an
agreement between the company and the federal
government. In the consent decree lodged November
29, in U.S. District Court in Helena, Montana, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Justice maintained that Asarco violated
national clean air standards for several months hi
1992. According to the EPA, the company exceeded
acceptable levels for lead and small particle emissions
at its East Helena lead smelting facility.
ARCO, Snyder Oil Corporation: Atlantic Richfield
Company (ARCO) and Snyder Oil Corporation paid an
$875,000 penalty for Clean Air Act (CAA) violations
committed at the Riverton Dome gas plant on the Wind
River Indian Reservation. The CAA settlement is the
largest reached in EPA Region VIIFs six-state region.
As part of the agreement, EPA issued Snyder a PSD
permit last July, which required it to reduce nitrogen
oxide emissions by installing control equipment. The
equipment was installed and tested, and met acceptable
emissions limits. ARCO and Snyder agreed to pay the
penalty and comply with all applicable laws in the
future.
CERCLA
United States v. Alumet Partnership, et al.: On July
10, 1995, a proposed consent decree hi United States
v. Alumet Partnership, et al., was lodged with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The
settling defendants agreed to pay the United States
$7,283,104 hi return for a covenant not to sue relative
to all past and future costs, excluding potential costs
associated with the standard statutory reopeners
included hi the consent decree. The settlement amount
includes a premium payment to cover a variety of risks
such as cost overruns and uncertainties of litigation.
Hence, the contribution protection granted by the
consent decree covers all response costs incurred by
PRPs at the site, as well as the past and future costs of
the United States.
A-65
July 1996
-------
Region VIII
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Portland Cement Company: EPA and the State of
Utah reached a settlement agreement with Portland
Cement Company (Lone Star Industries, Inc.). The
settlement agreement has been entered in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New
York. The agreement provides that EPA and the State
of Utah will receive cash and securities worth
approximately $18.5 million.
This settlement was filed by the U.S. Department of
Justice on behalf of EPA, the Department of the
Interior, and the State of Utah. The settlement funds
will be used to pay for past and future cleanup costs at
the Portland Cement Company Superfund site. The
site was used for the deposit of cement kiln dust, a by-
product of cement manufacturing, from 1965 through
1983. Cement kiln dust is caustic in nature and
contains high levels of lead and arsenic, which pose a
threat to health and the environment.
Lowiy Landfill Superfund Site: On November 18,
1994, EPA-Region Vffl issued a unilateral
administrative order (UAO) for the performance of
remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) to 34
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at the Lowry
Landfill Superfund site. From 1965 to 1980, the City
and County of Denver, the owner of the site, accepted
liquid, solid industrial, and municipal wastes there.
Approximately 138 million gallons of wastes were
disposed of in 75 unlined waste pits and covered with
'refuse, native soils, and/or used tires. Waste
Management of Colorado, Inc. (WMC), under contract
with Denver, assumed landfill operations in 1980.
Chemical Waste Management (CWM) is a successor-
in-interest to one or more persons who accepted
hazardous substances for transport to the site. After
two years of RD/RA settlement negotiations with
Denver, WMC, and CWM, the Region issued the
UAO to those parties and 31 de maximus PRPs based
on the refusal of Denver, WMC, and CWM to
implement the remedy selected in the ROD and pay
more than 76% of the United States' past response
costs. Most of the 31 de maximus PRPs have been
sued by Denver, WMC, and CWM in private cost
recovery litigation and have settled with those parties.
Rockwell International: On March 28, 1995, EPA-
Region VIII issued and made effective administrative
order on consent, de minimis settlement, Docket No.
CERCLA Vm-94-26 (AOC), with Rockwell
International Corporation (Rockwell), a PRP at the
Lowry Landfill Superfund site (site). Under the terms
of the AOC, Rockwell is required to pay $3 14,587 to
the Superfund by April 27, 1995, to settle its liability
as a generator at the site.
The Rockwell settlement is nearly identical hi its terms
to, and is considered an extension of, the previous 27
de minimis settlements negotiated relative to the site.
The settlement is based on the amount of waste sent by
Rockwell to the site from the Rocky Flats Plant
(55,630 gallons). The U.S. Department of Energy,
which owns the Rocky Flats Plant, will make payment
on behalf of Rockwell, which operated the plant. The
Region will apply the settlement monies to past
response costs incurred at the site. Past response costs
originally totalled $26 million; to date, the Region has
recovered approximately $13 million.
City and County of Denver: On September 18, 1995,
EPA proposed a stipulation of compromise between the
United States and the City and County of Denver
regarding Civil Action No. 84-JM-1507. The City and
County of Denver were in noncompliance with the
modified consent decree on August 11, 1993, October
14 and 19, 1993, and November 8, 1993; arising from
operating and reporting obligations related to the
testing performed on such dates. The alleged
violations included: exceedance of performance
standards by air emissions from the treatment plant on
two occasions; failure to notify EPA and the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment of
discovery of noncompliance with the performance
standards within 24 hours and follow-up hi writing
within 72 hours; failure to recycle vapor-phase carbon
units and implement changeout procedures; and failure
to submit a schedule for proposed corrective measures
within 14 days on an event requiring corrective
measures. Within 45 days of approval of this
stipulation of compromise by the court, Denver shall
pay $79,550 to the United States in full and complete
satisfaction of the claim of the United States.
Denver Radium/Robco Project a Brownsfield
Redevelopment Success Story: On July 26, 1995, the
prospective purchaser agreement between EPA, the
State, and Home Depot was signed by Bill Yellowtail,
EPA Region VIII Regional Administrator. The
agreement was sent to Department of Justice for their
signature and publication in the Federal Register for a
30-day comment period.
This agreement represents a major Brownfields
redevelopment success. In exchange for a covenant
not to sue from the United States and the State, Home
A-66
July 1996
-------
Region VIII
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Depot has committed to share in the work at the site.
The projected cost of the remedy for operable unit IX
was approximately $1.7 million. Out of this total, the
work Home Depot will perform will save EPA and the
State approximately $900,000.00. Home Depot plans
to redevelop this site by construction of one of their
home improvement supply stores.
Utah Power & Light/'American Barrel: The RD/RA
consent decree was entered on April 26, 1995. This
will implement a cleanup estimated to be worth up to
$10.5 million, plus all "future response costs." Soils
at the site contaminated with polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) will be excavated and recycled
into asphalt to be use in paving roads offsite. PAH-
laden soil which fails TCLP will be incinerated. The
only unusual aspect of the consent decree is that the
covenants explicitly cover asphalt that may be used in
paving projects offsite.
Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Site:
On December 15, 1994, EPA issued unilateral
administrative orders for removal action at the CSMRI
site, a former mining research, facility, the State of
Colorado, Colorado School of Mines, and fifteen
private potentially responsible parties (PRPs). The
unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) require
respondents to conduct an evaluation of off-site
disposal options for stockpiled radioactive soils at the
site, and implement the removal option selected by
EPA after EPA's review of respondents' evaluation.
Under the terms of the UAO, the parties will complete
the removal action, estimated to cost approximately $4
million, by April 1996.
December 20, 1994, was the effective date of the
administrative order on consent for de minimis
settlement for the above-referenced site. The
settlement partially resolved the liability of 47
generator PRPs, each of whom contributed less than
2% of the total waste at the CSMRI site. The value of
the settlement is $1,340,584.00, which represents
approximately 13% of the total estimated cost of
completion of the Superfund removal activities at the
site. In keeping with Agency policy, EPA did not
offer complete cash-out settlements to de minimis
parties because it lacked sufficient information about
the possibility and cost of future remediation actions at
the site.
The wastes were left over from some 40 years of
research that CSMRI conducted for the mining
industry. Wastes and soil excavated during the 1992
emergency response total about 15,000 cubic yards.
EPA's order calls on the parties to arrange for off-site
disposal at a facility approved by EPA and the State
and designed to safely manage such wastes by
December of 1995.
Hansen Container Site: On September 22, 1995,
EPA entered into a de minimis settlement with 147 of
the 205 generator PRPs who sent waste to the Hansen
Container site, a former drum recycling facility located
in Grant Junction, Colorado. A total of $1,328.358.04
will be recovered as a result of this settlement; this
represents 22% of total estimated site costs. The
settlors are responsible for 17% of the total volume of
waste sent to the site.
Lay ton Salvage Yard Site: On September 21, 1995,
EPA signed the Layton settlement agreement to resolve
liability of potentially responsible parties for the United
States' past response costs at this military
surplus/salvage yard site. Under the terms of the
settlement agreement, the owner/operator of the
facility, Mr. Marvin Allgood, paid $5,000 (based on
an ability to pay analysis) and the two federal
respondents (the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Defense
Logistics Agency) paid $445,936.28. This settlement
resulted in the recovery of 78% of EPA's past
response costs. The settlement was reviewed as part
of a 30-day public comment period and became
effective in early November.
Broderick Wood Products Site: The Broderick
Investment Company will pay nearly $25 million for
the government's past cleanup costs and for future
cleanup of contamination at the Broderick Wood
Products "Superfund" site at 58th and Galapago in
South Adams County. That agreement was part of a
settlement lodged hi U.S. District Court hi Denver
involving EPA, the U.S. Department of Justice,
Broderick Investment Company (a trust-operated
Colorado limited partnership) and Tom Connolly, a
trustee for BIC and several Broderick family trusts.
The company will pay for and, with EPA oversight,
conduct the cleanup of the site at an estimated cost of
$13 million. In addition, they will reimburse the
Superfund and the State of Colorado for past response
costs of $10.7 million and $630,000, respectively.
The defendants agreed to pay future EPA oversight
costs, estimated at $700,000.
S.W. Shattuck Chemical Company: DOJ filed a
complaint against the S.W. Shattuck Chemical
A-67
July 1996
-------
Region Vffl
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Company, Inc., to recover response costs incurred in
connection with the remediation of operable unit VIII
of the Denver radium site. Those costs total
approximately $2.8 million. The complaint also
sought a declaratory judgment that Shattuck is liable
for response costs incurred at OU VIII. Discussions
are ongoing among DOT, EPA and Shattuck to settle
this matter.
Smuggler Durant Mining Company: A cashout
consent decree with Smuggler Durant Mining
Company was entered by the U.S. District Court on
August 2, 1995. SDMC was the last party to settle in
the United States v. Smuggler, and the case is now
completely closed. SDMC paid $400,000 to the
United States and guaranteed work at OU2 worth
approximately $30,000. An administrative consent
order for work at OU2 (guaranteed by SDMC) was
entered on May 8, 1995. Work under the AOC is not
yet complete.
•
CLEAN WATER ACT
United States v. John Morrell Company: On August
31, 1995, John Morrell signed the partial consent
decree to address injunctive relief. The consent decree
stays the civil penalty portion of the complaint due to
parallel proceedings that have been invoked since
August 12,1994. On September 27, 1995, the Region
signed the partial consent decree to address injunctive
relief.
Region VIII referred this matter as an emergency
referral hi the Spring of 1993, after Morrell came
forward to the Agency and revealed that persons at
Morrell had been falsifying documents and destroying
documents indicating that Morrell was not meeting its
NPDES permit effluent limits. A criminal
investigation of this matter is ongoing, and therefore,
Region VTII pursued only injunctive relief during
negotiations with the defendant. The Region fully
expects to negotiate penalties, in excess of $2 million,
upon completion of the criminal case, assuming there
are no double jeopardy concerns.
United States v. Excel Corporation, Fort Morgan, CO
(CD, CO): On July 18, 1995, the U.S. District Court
entered a civil consent decree in which Excel
Corporation, a beef slaughterhouse located in Fort
Morgan, Colorado, agreed to pay $ 245,000 in civil
penalties to the United States, and $205,000 to the City
of Fort Morgan. The civil action alleged that Excel
had failed to comply with federal and local
pretreatment standards developed to prevent pass
through and interference.
In mid-1991, Excel Corporation underwent an
expansion, and-' increased the number of cattle
slaughtered at its Fort Morgan plant. Excel failed to
provide the additional level of pretreatment required by
its increase in pollutants, and overloaded the City's
publicly owned treatment works, causing the City to
violate effluent limits contained in the City's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System discharge
permit.
United States v. City of Fort Morgan, CO (CD, CO):
On May 31, 1995, the U.S. District Court entered a
civil consent decree in which the City of Fort Morgan,
Colorado, agreed to pay $268,000 hi civil penalties in
addition to taking significant steps to achieve
compliance with federal pretreatment regulations under
the Clean Water Act. The civil action alleged that the
city had failed to implement its pretreatment program,
to the degree that one of its industrial users caused the
city to violate its own discharge permit. The Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment took its
own action against the city's effluent violations and
settled with the city for a $110,000 penalty.
City of Watertown, South Dakota: A consent decree
for the resolution of the injunctive relief portion of the
United States' judicial case against the City of
Watertown, South Dakota was lodged with the court
on October 3, 1995. Any civil penalty settlement will
be addressed under the terms of a separate consent
decree (CD). The city agreed to come into full
compliance with the terms of its permit by December
31, 1997. It was estimated that the new POTW the
city envisions will cost hi excess of $17.3 million.
Concerning operation and maintenance of its POTW,
the city agreed to properly staff, operate and maintain
the facility, including the performance of timely and
appropriate replacement of malfunctioning and broken
equipment. The city shall adopt legal authority to
enforce the requirements of Sections 307 and 402 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA) and shall thereafter
implement its industrial pretreatment program as
approved by EPA, including the implementation of
certain local limits. The city must also issue permits
to all significant industrial users (SIUs) providing for
the payment of not less than $500 per day per violation
for any noncomplying SIU. The city shall also
conduct and document inspections and independent
compliance monitoring of all of its SIUs.
A-68
July 1996
-------
Region VIII
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Sheyenne Tooling and Manufacturing Company: The
U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint on behalf
of the EPA against Sheyenne Tooling and
Manufacturing Company for alleged violations of the
Clean Water Act. Periodic compliance reports have
shown that Sheyenne Tooling has violated the monthly
average and daily limitations for zinc on numerous
occasions from at least April to November of 1993,
and possibly earlier. From July 1986, to April 1993,
the company failed to conduct sampling and analysis of
its wastewater streams before discharge into the
Cooperstown sewage treatment plant. The complaint
sought civil penalties against Sheyenne Tooling for
discharging pollutants hi violation of national
pretreatment standards, failing to submit timely and
complete reports, and failing to sample and analyze its
wastewater for cadmium, lead, zinc, copper and
chromium, before discharging it to a publicly-owned
wastewater treatment facility.
Trail King Industries: On behalf of EPA, the U.S.
Department of Justice filed a civil action against Trail
King Industries, located hi Mitchell, South Dakota, for
alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. Trail King
Industries, Inc., a metal finishing operation which
manufactures long-haul trailers, was cited for alleged
failure to comply with industrial pretreatment limits.
The complaint alleged that discharges violated national
wastewater pretreatment standards for metal finishing
operations.
Pettingill: Action by EPA has helped restore a portion
of the San Juan River and its shoreline about seventeen
miles south of Pagosa Springs, New Mexico, damaged
by two riverfront property owners and an earthmoving
contractor. EPA ordered landowners and their
contractor to perform restoration work to return the
river and wetlands to their original condition. EPA
also fined the contractor for withholding information
on the unauthorized dredge and fill work.
Zortman Mining/Pegasus Gold: On June 6,1995, the
U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit, on
behalf of EPA, alleging that the Pegasus Gold
Corporation and Zortman Mining, Inc., failed to
comply with the Federal Clean Water Act at its
Zortman and Landusky Montana mines. The
complaint alleged that Pegasus Gold Corporation and
Zortman Mining, Inc., failed to comply with the Clean
Water Act by discharging pollutants without National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits. Specifically, the complaint alleged that
Zortman Mining Inc., and Pegasus Gold Corporation
had discharged metal-laden mine drainage without
NPDES permits for at least five years.
F.L. Thorpe & Company: A consent order was issued
in which F.L. Thorpe and Company agreed to pay a
$5,000 cash penalty and perform a supplemental
environmental project (SEP) worth approximately
$5,000. The SEP included a complete environmental
compliance audit of respondent's facility by an
approved environmental consultant, along with an
agreement to correct any noncompliance identified by
the audit. EPA reviewed financial information
submitted by respondent and made a determination that
respondent had an inability to pay the proposed penalty
of $25,000.
EPA issued a Class I APO to respondent on July 18,
1994, for violations of the Clean Water Act's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements. Specifically, respondent failed to submit
required monitoring reports, and upon submission of
the reports, monitoring revealed violations of the
effluent limitation for cadmium, lead, and cyanide.
Respondent is currently hi compliance with applicable
reporting requirements and effluent limits for its
wastewater.
Twin City Fan & Blower Company: On July 13,
1995, two consent agreements were filed for National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
violations at two separate Twin City Fan & Blower
Co. (TCP) facilities. The total sum of penalties was
$150,000. The violations consisted of zinc and pH in
excess of categorical effluent limits.
On April 4, 1994, EPA filed a complaint against TCP
at its Brookings facility for violation of pretreatment
regulations. On July 1, 1994, EPA filed a complaint
against TCP at its Mitchell facility for violation of
pretreatment regulations. Compliance orders were also
issued to each facility and the violations have been
addressed by TCP. The Brookings facility settled for
$85,000, and the Mitchell facility settled for $65,000.
Newman Signs Company: A consent order was
signed May 15, 1995, concerning Newman's alleged
violations of federal pretreatment regulations for metal
finishers. In the complaint, EPA Region VIII had
proposed a $25,000 penalty for the company's failure
to submit a baseline monitoring report (BMR), a 90-
day compliance report, and semi-annual monitoring
reports. In the final settlement the respondent agreed
to pay $6,000 for the economic benefit enjoyed by not
A-69
July 1996
-------
Region VH1
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
monitoring its industrial wastewater discharge and
submitting the reports on tune. Also, the company
launched a year-long billboard campaign throughout
North Dakota promoting user protection of wastewater
treatment plants. This campaign was. valued at
$33,000.
FJH Industries: On June 13, 1995, a consent order
was issued to the Faultless-Nutting Division of FKI
Industries for alleged reporting violations of the federal
pretreatment regulations for metal finishers. The
company paid $4,500 in penalties and agreed to install
a total reuse treatment system valued at $37,200. This
treatment system was a valuable tool for studying
pollution prevention. The company provided monthly
evaluation reports on the operation and maintenance of
the treatment system, : which functioned as it was
designed.
Gopher Sign Company: On June 1, 1995, a consent
order was issued resolving a Class I penalty
proceeding under the Clean Water Act. Gopher Sign
Company (GSC) agreed to pay a $15,000 cash penalty
and perform a supplemental environmental project
(SEP) valued at $1,500. The SEP required GSC to re-
engineer its wastewater disposal system by installing a
specialized holding tank used for separating pollutants
prior to discharge. This new system was designed to
decrease the amount of regulated pollutants in the
wastewater by significantly increasing the retention and
monitoring time which allows for separation of the
solids prior to discharge. Additionally, the new
holding tank provides the opportunity to recycle this
water back into the manufacturing process.
On February 21, 1995, EPA issued a Class I
administrative penalty order for violations of the Clean
Water Act and regulations implemented under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
program. Specifically, respondent failed to submit
required monitoring reports and exceeded the effluent
limitation for zinc on one occasion after it began to
submit the required reports.
EPCRA
United States v. Pennzott Products Company: A
consent agreement and final order for United States v.
Pennzoil Products Cony any (Roosevelt Refinery) was
signed on May 4, 1995, by EPA and Pennzoil
Products Company. Violations included failure to
submit EPCRA Section 313 form Rs for sulfuric acid
for three years, failure to submit timely form Rs for
ammonia for two years, failure to maintain records and
documentation for several toxic chemicals, and failure
to report reasonable estimates of releases to the
environment for several toxic chemicals. The final
assessed penalty- agreed to in the consent agreement
was $93,900. Since this facility has shut down, there
was no supplemental environmental project (SEP)
proposed.
KBP Coil Coalers: Alleged, failure to notify
authorities of hazardous materials stored at their
establishment could cost KBP Coil Coaters $35,790.
In an administrative complaint EPA's Denver regional
office charged that KBP violated EPCRA when it
failed to disclose the presence of over 1,000 pounds of
extremely hazardous sulfuric acid, and more than five
tons of the flammable white enamel paint, known as
Dynakote, provide facility chemical inventory, release
information to State and EPA officials, and submit
health and safety information about chemicals used on
location to State and local emergency officials and fire
departments.
Pillow Kingdom, Inc. A consent agreement and
consent order was signed October 10, 1995;
concerning Pillow Kingdom's alleged failure to report
under EPCRA §§ 311 to 313. Pillow Kingdom, a
wood furniture manufacturer, is one of the five largest
emitters of toxic chemicals in Colorado as reported in
the National Toxic Release Inventory database. Pillow
Kingdom caught the attention of a Denver fire
inspector when he was informed that the local fire
department was repeatedly responding to dumpster
fires at the facility caused by disposal of rags used at
the facility; EPA was contacted and a multimedia
inspection was conducted. OSHA and State Health
(RCRA) inspectors participated in the inspection with
the EPCRA program. An administrative complaint
was issued for the EPCRA violations; OSHA found
deficiencies in the areas of the OSHA hazardous
communication standard and hi the respirator standard
and issued a citation; RCRA/State Health issued a
warning letter. Pillow Kingdom, Inc., will pay a
$26,960 penalty and will spend a minimum of
$255,400 as a pollution prevention SEP to significantly
reduce VOC emissions.
FEDERAL FACILITIES AGREEMENT
F.E. Warren Air Force Base: On December 27,
1993, the Region notified F.E. Warren Air Force Base
that they had violated the Federal Facilities Agreement
(FFA) by failing to containerize investigation-derived
A-70
July 1996
-------
Region VIII
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
waste as required by the field sampling plan. EPA and
•the Air Force have entered a settlement agreement,
effective January 4, 1995, that required the Air Force
to request appropriation and authorization from
Congress to pay a penalty of $10,000. Additionally,
the Air Force implemented a supplemental
environmental project, instituting a base-wide recycling
program for glass, newsprint, aluminum, plastics, and
steel/tin cans.
OIL POLLUTION ACT
United States v. Burlington Northern Railroad: On
April 3, 1995, the consent decree was lodged in United
States v. Burlington Northern Railroad for $ 1.7 million
in penalties in settlement of three violations of §311 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA). The violations included
two oil spills in the State of Wyoming and a hazardous
waste spill in the State of Wisconsin. Burlington
Northern settled for $1.5 million in cash and the
remaining in a supplemental environmental project and
cost recovery. The SEPs included the purchase of
three rail cars to detect fractures in the rail and a
$100,000 academic study on improving early detection
of spills in the industry.
Phillips Petroleum Company: On April 3, 1995, a
consent order was filed for Phillips Petroleum for
settlement of the first Oil Pollution Act (OPA), Section
311 Class I penalty action under the Part 28 rules in
Region VIII. The matter was concerned a spill of 10
barrels of oil. The matter was settled for $4,500.00.
There was no injunctive relief necessary as the
company responded immediately to the spill. -This
action was a part of the national OPA initiative
coordinated out of headquarters last year.
RCRA
United States v. Stanley L. Smith, et aL: On June 8,
1995, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Wyoming entered a civil consent decree in which
Stanley L. Smith, et al., agreed to pay $24,000 hi civil
penalties over a two-year period. The case was
initially issued as a RCRA civil administrative order on
February 28, 1989, with a proposed civil penalty of
$45,000. The two RCRA violations, which were
retained in the subsequent enforcement action, were
for failure to notify of hazardous waste activity and for
failure to obtain a RCRA hazardous waste permit to
conduct disposal activities.
Powder River Crude Processors: This case arose from
the contamination of an abandoned oil recycling facility
commonly referred to as Big Muddy Oil Processors
(BMOP) and most recently, Powder River Crude
Processors (PRGP), located near Glenrock, Wyoming.
BMOP was originally established for recycling
petroleum wastes. BMOP was poorly operated and
went into bankruptcy hi 1983, at which time it ceased
operations. The facility was not operated again until
1988, at which tune Richard Wallace leased the facility
from Dale Valentine and commenced operations under
the name Powder River Crude Processors (PRCP).
After approximately six months of operation, PRCP
ceased operations hi September 1988. What remained
were large open pits, leaking tanks, railroad cars, and
drums containing petroleum wastes. EPA investigators
discovered bird and small mammal carcasses at the site
and observed some mammal carcasses trapped hi oily
wastes. In addition, the area is a known bald eagle
feeding and nesting area.
A review of scientific abstracts indicated that this
facility could have substantial adverse impacts on
wildlife. EPA therefore issued orders under RCRA
§7003, hi September and October 1991, to Valentine,
Wallace, and the generators and transporters known to
it at the time: Texaco, Conoco, Phillips, True, and 88
Oil Companies, Jim's Water Service, and Valentine
Construction Company.
The provisions of the §7003 administrative order
included: (1) secure the site for both the public and
wildlife; (2) assess the integrity of all tanks and
impoundments; (3) prevent the release of any
additional contamination; (4) characterize the extent of
contamination from any of the units, (5) submit a
work-plan to cleanup the site; and (6) submit various
reports for review.
Some of the respondents, including Conoco, Phillips,
True/88 and Texaco, grouped together and provided
security around the processing and storage part of the
facility and installed netting and chain link fences
around the surface impoundments, but failed to comply
with the other provisions of the order. The case,
based on the lack of complete compliance with major
provisions, was referred to the Department of Justice
(DOJ). DOJ filed its §7003 order on February 19,
1993, seeking injunctive relief and penalties for failure
to comply with the order. Conoco, Phillips, True/88,
and Texaco entered into a settlement with the United
States, agreeing to cleanup a substantial majority of the
site at a cost of $4.2 to $8.9 millon, and pay a total
A-71
July 1996
-------
Region VIII
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
penalty of $300,000. Wallace subsequently settled for
a penalty of $30,000, based on bis ability to pay, and
Valentine lodged a consent decree with the court on
which included paying a December 21, 1994, $25,000
penalty. Litigation against the non-settling defendants
is currently underway for the remaining injunctive
relief and penalties.
Cordero Mining Company: In 1992, Region VIII filed
a complaint against Cordero Mining Company alleging
that Cordero had committed approximately 70
violations of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Most of the violations were made in
connection with twenty three shipments of used oil and
spent solvents off their facility.
Cordero evidenced a willingness to settle by, among
other things, instituting a number of voluntary
practices at the mine which have resulted in the use of
less chlorinated solvents, and better management of
each hazardous waste stream. Cordero also made two
gifts to community colleges in Wyoming and
Colorado, to develop programs which will educate the
community about various aspects of solid and
hazardous waste management. Cordero also agreed to
a penalty of $100,000.
WorlandLaundry and Cleaners, Inc.: In a complaint
filed February 2, 1995, hi Denver, Colorado, EPA
charged Worland Laundry and Cleaners, Inc., and its
officers and directors, Dan and Gail Dover, and Duke
and Jane Dover, with seven counts of violating the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
According to the complaint, WLC employees dumped
water contaminated with spent solvents
(perchloroethylene (PCE)) down city sewers every day
of operation. About four tunes a month workers
dumped PCE-contaminated "still bottoms" into city
dumpsters in an alley between WLC and the
Stockgrowers Bank. Still bottoms are wastes created
when dry-cleaning machines are "cooked down" and
cleaned.
Amoco Oil Company: EPA and Wyoming's
Department of Environmental Quality, on November
21, 1994, ordered Amoco Oil Company to begin the
formal studies that will shape environmental cleanup at
the company's shut down refinery on West
Yellowstone Highway at Casper, Wyoming, Studies
will concentrate on refinery property that lies south of
the North Platte River, on Soda Lake, and the Soda
Lake caustic pit northeast of the "operations" portion
of the refinery. Preliminary investigations over the
past several years have found high levels of lead and
floating hydrocarbons on the refinery grounds., At
Soda Lake, oil grease, benzene, carbon tetrachlofide,
chloroform, tetrachloroethylene, and dichloroethylene
have been found in inlet water .and sludges. Water
samples from Soda Lake showed low levels of
chloroform and methyl-ethyl ketone. Amoco is
required to provide information on the extent and depth
of contamination of various kinds, on any migration of
wastes off the site, and to describe past releases. At
the end of the studies, the agencies will give Amoco
the opportunity to enter into an order "on consent."
The company would then undertake the cleanup as
described in the order and agreed to by EPA, the
State, and the Company.
SDWA
Fort Thompson Water System, Fort Thompson, SD
and Lower Brule Water System, Lower (Brule, SD):
On May 25, 1995, EPA conducted inspections of the
filtration treatment plants at the Fort Thompson and
Lower Brule water systems. During the inspections,
it was determined that the filtration treatment being
used at both systems was ineffective. As a result of
these findings, Region VIII issued emergency
administrative orders under Section 1431 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), on May 26, 1995.
The source of water for the Fort Thompson and Lower
Brule water systems is Lake Sharpe on the Missouri
River, and is of sufficiently poor quality that it must be
filtered. Missouri River water is microbiologically a
high risk source, because of the presence of livestock
and other sources of contamination within the
watershed.
Clark Electric Motor Co. UIC-VIII-95-07. Clark
Electrical Motor Co. is an electrical motor repair
facility located in an unsewered area of Billings,
Montana. This area lies above a high quality, shallow
aquifer, and there are many private wells utilizing
groundwater hi this area. Based on Class V well
inventory information, EPA required that the facility
either permit or close then: drain, which was accepting
waste fluids from cleaning and repairing electrical
motors. The Region issued several notices of
noncompliance for failure to respond to the deadlines
for permitting or closing. The Region has attempted
to involve the RCRA program in these efforts and has
issued a proposed adrninistrative order that requires
A-72
July 1996
-------
Region VIII
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
closure of the Class V well, cleanup of the surrounding
area, acceptable alternative disposal, and a penalty in
the amount of $125,000. This is one of the Region's
first Class V cases, where a respondent has actually
admitted to pouring highly contaminated waste into the
drain. This area of Billings may be considered an
environmental justice area.
Bobby Smalley, Donald Creager, Petroleum Products,
Inc., and Straight Arrow Oil Company—Wyoming Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission: On March 10,
1995, the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (WOGCC) filed an administrative order
revoking $50,000 in financial bonding from Mr.
Bobby Smalley, Mr. Donald Creager, Petroleum
Products, Inc., and Straight Arrow Oil Company.
This action was taken against these four well owners
for numerous violations including failure to plug and
abandon two wells near Evanston, Wyoming, failure to
file a change hi well ownership, and failure to file
monthly monitoring reports. The WOGCC order
required the $50,000 to be used to plug the wells and
remediate the well sites. The WOGCC also barred
these parties from doing business in Wyoming and
referred them to the Wyoming Department of Criminal
Investigations on suspicion of falsifying information
requested by the WOGCC.
Missoula Bottling Company, Inc.: Missoula Bottling
is a mid-sized business located in Missoula, Montana,
and serves as a Pepsi-Cola distributor. On January 3,
1995, Missoula Bottling formally agreed to pay EPA
an administrative civil penalty of $17,500 for failing to
prevent fluid movement into or above an underground
source of drinking water. EPA targeted this facility
because it had discharged auto service related
wastewater above the Missoula Valley Sole Source
Aquifer. This UIC settlement was reached within
eight weeks of Missoula Bottling receiving EPA's
proposed administrative order, fully recovered
economic benefit, and levied a substantial fine
reflecting the gravity of the violation.
TSCA
Frontier Refining Corporation: EPA issued a
complaint to Frontier Refining Corporation alleging
violations of the partial updating requirements of
inventory update rule requirements promulgated
pursuant to TSCA. This case was filed as part of a
nationwide initiative against a large number of
members of the oil and gas industry, all of whom
failed to comply with the partial updating requirements
by February 21, 1991. The parties agreed to a
settlement which requires Frontier to pay a $90,000
penalty. The penalty is comprised of a $30,000 cash
penalty payment and a supplemental environmental
project which will cost $120,000. A consent
agreement reflecting these terms was filed with the
Regional Judicial Officer requesting that it be
incorporated into a consent order.
Gary-Williams Energy Corporation: EPA issued a
complaint to Gary-Williams Energy Corporation,
alleging violations of the partial updating requirements
of inventory update rule requirements promulgated
pursuant to TSCA. This case was filed as part of a
nationwide initiative against a large number of
members of the oil and gas industry, all of whom
failed to comply with the partial updating requirements
by February 21, 1991. The parties agreed to a
settlement which requires Gary-Williams to pay a
$28,800 penalty. A consent agreement reflecting these
terms was filed with the Regional Judicial Officer
requesting that it be incorporated into a consent order.
Western Slope Refining Company: EPA issued a
complaint to Western Slope Refining Company,
alleging violations of the partial updating requirements
of inventory update rule requirements promulgated
pursuant to TSCA. This case was filed as part of a
nationwide initiative against a large number of
members of the oil and gas industry; all of whom
failed to comply with the partial updating requirements
by February 21, 1991. A penalty of $102,000 was
proposed. The parties agreed to a settlement which
requires respondent to pay a $15,300 penalty, based on
a documented inability to pay the penalty as proposed.
A consent agreement reflecting these terms was filed
with the Regional Judicial Officer requesting that it be
incorporated into a consent order.
Montana Resources Company: Presiding Officer
Smith has lodged a consent order relating to Region
VIII's and Montana Resources' execution, a consent
agreement whereby Montana Resources agreed to pay
a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000 and expend
$35,000 over the next year to implement a pollution
prevention supplemental environmental project (SEP)
involving early retirement of PCB transformers to
resolve the above-captioned administrative complaint,
which sought $27,625 in civil penalties for alleged
violations of TSCA §15 for illegal disposal of PCB and
significant paperwork omissions.
A-73
July 1996
-------
Region VIII
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
MULTIMEDIA
Weld County Waste Disposal, Inc.; Amoco Production
Company; and HS Resource, Inc.: Three companies
cleaned up oily ponds that have killed birds and
contaminated soil and water near Ft. Lupton in Weld
County, according to the U.S. EPA in Denver. Weld
County Waste Disposal, Inc., a San Antonio, Texas,
corporation, Amoco Production Company, and San
Francisco-based HS Resources, Inc., immediately
began a series of actions aimed at ending the threat
posed by oily ponds at 4982 Weld County Road 35,
east of Ft. Lupton.
On May 11, 1995, working with the USF&W, the
Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, and the Weld County Health
Department, EPA issued an order to the companies
specifying actions to correct problems at the facility.
EPA issued orders to Amoco and HS Resources
because they were the two largest contributors of waste
during the last six years of operation. Soon after the
orders were issued, Weld County Waste Disposal
decided to close the facility, and the companies
proposed a number of short-term measures beyond
those set out in the order. EPA agreed and modified
the orders on June 7 to incorporate these measures.
Rocky Flats IAG: In July 1995, in resolution of 14
violations of the Rocky Flats IAG, DOE agreed to pay
$700,000 in cash penalties and to expend $2.1 million
for supplemental environmental projects, with both the
cash and SEP components to be split evenly between
EPA and Colorado. The settlement agreement
required DOE to request a specific authorization and
appropriation for payment of the $350,000 cash
penalty to EPA. DOE made this specific request, and
hi anticipation of receiving this line-item appropriation
hi its FY 1996 budget, sent a letter to the Treasury in
late September 1995, requesting payment of this sum
into the EPA Hazardous Substances Response Trust
Fund.
Also in late September, DOE sent letters to effect the
transfer of funds for all of the $2.1 million set aside
for SEPs. These transfers included approximately
$1.5 million for purchase of open space surrounding
Rocky Flats. Most of these funds support an effort by
Westminster/Jefferson County to establish a wildlife
corridor between the Rocky Flats Buffer Zone and
Standley Lake. These property acquisitions may also
ensure the protection of habitat of the Preble's
Meadow Jumping Mouse, which has been proposed for
the Endangered Species List.
A-74
July 1996
-------
REGION IX
McColl Superfund Site: On December 9, 1994, the
District court approved a consent decree embodying a
past cost settlement for the McColl Superfund site hi
Fullerton, California. Co-plaintiffs the United States
and the State of California had reached agreement with
four oil company defendants—Shell, Union, ARCO
and Texaco, for the payment of $18 million to cover
costs incurred by the governments from 1980 to mid-
1990. The governments' total claim for the ten-year
period was $25.7 million including interest. The
governments had filed a motion for summary judgment
on costs following the court's favorable summary
judgment ruling on liability. The governments are
pursuing further cost recovery against the site
landowner, who has also been found liable, and will
later be seeking recovery from all defendants for costs
incurred since 1990.
Qunsmuir Spill: In July 1991, a Southern Pacific train
derailed near, the town of Dunsmuir in Northern
California causing a tank car filled with the herbicide
metam sodium to be spilled into the Sacramento River.
Hundreds of thousands of fish were killed along with
virtually the entire food chain of the river. Within 48
hours of the derailment, EPA issued a Section 106
order under CERCLA to oversee the removal action.
EPA worked in cooperation with approximately 60
local, state and federal agencies to monitor the
contamination as it flowed downstream and ultimately
to develop a treatment method to dissipate the
contamination once it reached the Lake Shasta
.reservoir.
Following the initial response action, EPA, with the
Department of Justice, worked in conjunction with the
State of California and other federal agencies to pursue
a coordinated enforcement action to recover response
costs, penalties, natural resource damages and other
compensation from the PRPs. After extensive efforts
to assess natural resource damages, in 1994, a joint
settlement was reached totaling $38 million. The
settlement recovers approximately $14 million for
natural resource damages, to be managed by a joint
federal and state trustee committee, and an additional
$5 million for on-going monitoring studies.
Approximately $13 million was for all of the agencies'
response costs. EPA recovered all of its response
costs as well as a $500,000 penalty under Section 311
of the Clean Water Act. This penalty recovered
approximately the statutory maximum and was one of
the first to be assessed under the increased penalty
authority enacted by the 1990 Oil Pollution Act.
Although the consent decree was entered by the federal
District Court for the Eastern District of California,
the consent decree has not gone into effect because of
an appeal by intervenors which is still pending before
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
KRDC, Inc., and Sundance International, Ltd.: EPA
negotiated an administrative settlement for violations of
Clean Water Act permitting requirements at Vail Lake
located hi Riverside County, California. The
defendants, KRDC, Inc., and Sundance International,
Ltd., had discharged fill material through dumping and
grading activities below the ordinary high water mark
of Vail Lake without obtaining a Section 404 permit,
from the Army Corps of Engineers as required by the
Clean Water .Act. The discharges impacted
approximately 22 acres that contained potential habitat
for endangered and threatened species, including the
least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow
Flycatcher.
This case was resolved with an administrative order on
consent that required approximately 13.3 acres of on-
site revegetation and restoration and approximately
16.25 acres of off-site mitigation. A conservation
easement for the off-site acreage was deeded to the
California Department of Fish and Game and protected
a downstream portion of the same watershed. In
addition, the defendants agreed to pay a $60,000
administrative penalty to the EPA and a $40,000
penalty to the County. This joint settlement was
marked by a high level of cooperation and coordination
between EPA, the County, California Department of
Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. .
Jibboom Junkyard: On March 17, 1995, the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California
entered a consent decree in the Jibboom Junkyard cost
recovery case. The consent decree requires six
potentially responsible parties to reimburse the United
States in the total sum of $4,463,438, and the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control in
the total sum of $711,562, for past costs incurred by
the United States and DTSC at the Jibboom Junkyard
Superfund site hi Sacramento, California. The
settlement amount represents approximately 90% of the
A-75
July 1996
-------
Region IX
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
past costs incurred by the United States and DTSC at
the site. The six PRPs are: Levin Enterprises (the
successor in interest to the owner/operator, Associated
Metals Company); Southern Pacific Transportation
Company; Pacific Gas & Electric Company; the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District; the U.S.
Department of Defense; and the California Department
of Transportation. To date, approximately 75% of the
settlement amount has been paid. The balance will be
paid in FY 1996.
The fourth partial consent decree for the Operating
Industries Superfund site was entered by the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on
April 3, 1995. This consent decree, valued at more
than S60 million, resolved the liability of numerous
municipal entities, including 14 cities, one county, five
garbage disposal districts, and the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and 29
municipal solid waste transporters. These parties had
been sued for contribution by settlers under prior
consent decrees, for arranging for the disposal of
municipal solid waste which allegedly contained
CERCLA hazardous substances. Additional claims
had been brought against the cities of Monterey Park
and Montebello based on a theory of owner/operator
liability, and against Caltrans for the construction of
the Pomona Freeway through the site. The consent
decree culminated a three-way negotiation between
EPA, the municipalities apd their transporters, and the
prior settlers. A portion of the proceeds was retained
by the prior settlers as reimbursement for litigation
expenses, and approximately $4 million was paid for
state and federal past costs and to fund work under
prior settlements. The balance of the settlement
proceeds is being held in escrow to fund future cleanup
efforts at the site, including final remedy.
California Almond Growers Exchange: California
Almond Growers Exchange (CAGE) is a cooperative
of almond growers. CAGE processes the almonds of
its members at a processing plant located in
Sacramento, California. At an adjacent facility,
CAGE owns and operates a biomass fired cogeneration
facility. Most of the biomass fuel for the cogeneration
facility is almond shells from the processing plant.
The cogeneration facility produces steam for the
processing plant and electricity which is sold to the
local utility company. The cogeneration facility emits
carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of nitrogen
into the atmosphere.
The Sacramento area is nonattainment for CO. Prior
to EPA's enforcement action, the cogeneration facility
emitted CO at a rate exceeding 6,000 tons per year and
could, by itself, cause localized exceedences of the
national ambient-air quality standard for CO. A minor
source permit issued by the Sacramento Metropolitan
Air Quality Management District (the "District")
limited the cogeneration facility to 99 tons per year of
CO, but the District refused to enforce the limits
contained in that permit. As a result of EPA's
enforcement action, CO emissions at the cogeneration
facility are less than 250 tons per year and the
cogeneration facility is now a relatively minor source
of CO for the area. In addition, NOx emissions were
lowered from approximately 180 tons per year before
controls were added to approximately 135 tons per
year after controls were installed.. While the
Sacramento area is in attainment for nitrogen oxide,
NOx is a precursor for ground level ozone and the
Sacramento area is in nonattainment for ozone. This
enforcement action also resulted in CAGE paying a
civil penalty of $675,000.
Witco Corporation (Oildale, CA): Earlier this year, a
district court entered a consent decree which
successfully resolved an EPA multi-media enforcement
action against Witco Corp.'s Oildale, California oil
refinery. Witco has been disposing its wastewater into
a deep disposal well, risking contamination of an
aquifer that may have some long-term resource value.
The wastewater recycling project will allow Witco to
terminate this practice and to conserve large amounts
of water (2,400 barrels of water per day) in a water-
scarce region. This recycling project will serve as a
model of innovative wastewater management for other
refineries and will help EPA's efforts to promote water
recycling and pollution prevention.
Witco is also: (1) continuing an on-going investigation
of subsurface contamination at its refinery site
resulting from leaking storage tanks and waste disposal
in injection wells, (2) installing and maintaining a
continuous emissions monitoring system for monitoring
the H2S content of fuel gas burned at its refinery, and
(3) installing and operating a scrubber to lower the H2S
content of fuel gas burned at its refinery. Witco has
also paid $700,000 civil penalty for its violations of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Resource Recovery and
Conservation Act, and the Clean Air Act.
Masonite Corporation: Masonite Corporation has
operated a hardboard manufacturing facility in Ukiah,
California, since the.early 1950s. Beginning in
A-76
July 1996
-------
Region IX
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
January 1989, Masonite modified its facility to add a
new production line. Region IX determined that the
new production line resulted in a significant net
emissions increase for volatile organic compounds.
Section 165 of the Clean Air Act, therefore, required
Masonite to conduct an air quality review and obtain
a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit
prior to construction to determine if the modification
would effect ambient air quality. A second violation
arises from Masonite's exceedence of a permit
limitation on fuel oil consumption. Region DC issued
a notice of violation to Masonite in March 1992, and
a compliance order in May 1992. Masonite installed
a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) in June 1992.
Region DC also negotiated a resolution of the
enforcement action with Masonite. On January 17,
1995, the United States filed a civil complaint and
concurrently lodged a consent decree requiring
Masonite to pay a civil penalty of $600,000, and
providing for injunctive relief including continuous
operation of the RTO pending issuance of a final
permit. The citizen group objected to entry of the
consent decree on the grounds that it did not take into
account the issues on which the EAB remanded the
permit and because the group believed that the civil
penalty should be paid towards further pollution
reductions rather than to the U.S. Treasury. Region
DC and the Department of Justice are currently
preparing a motion for entry of the consent decree
which will respond to the citizen group's comments.
Minerec Mining Chemical: EPA issued a precedential
emergency order under Section 303 of the Clean Air
Act terminating the Minerec Mining Chemical's
production operations after the Minerec facility
released a cloud of hydrogen sulfide gas into the
environment in June 1994 resulting in approximately
thirty-five individuals seeking medical treatment. The
Minerec facility has a history of odor complaints,
minor spills, and other incidents. State and local
officials, however, could not act to shut down the
facility or modify the company's operations because
the facility is located on Tribal land.
After lengthy negotiations and Minerec's
implementation of revised safety and production
procedures subsequent to EPA's shutdown order, EPA
amended the order to allow limited chemical
production. The company, however, again released
hydrogen sulfide gas hi May 1995, resulting hi sixteen
individuals seeking medical care. At this time, EPA
requested that the company voluntarily shut down
production operations pending judicial arbitration to
resolve the parties' disputes concerning ongoing
Minerec operations, plant shutdown, and site
remediation. Subsequent to arbitration proceedings hi
June 1995, U.S. District Court Judge Richard M.
Bilby issued an order allowing Minerec to produce one
chemical until September 30, 1997, subject to strict
operational, safety, and air monitoring provisions.
Further, Minerec is required to vacate the premises,
have remediated any hazardous contamination, and
have removed all improvements from the site by
December 31, 1997. Finally, the order provides that
any further releases of hydrogen sulfide gas into the
environment shall result in an immediate, final, and
complete shutdown of the plant.
FEDERAL FACILITIES
Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR) Yuma Facility: In August 1995, Region DC
issued a complaint and compliance order to the BOR's
Yuma Desalting Plant located in Yuma, Arizona,
assessing over a $250,000 penalty. The Yuma
Desalting Plant engages in the desalination of Colorado
River water. On March 6, 1995, EPA conducted an
inspection of the facility. EPA inspectors observed
approximately 61 containers (equal to thirty-five full
55-gallon drums) of hazardous waste at the facility
stored in and around the storage area. The containers
contained ignitable waste, corrosive waste, reactive
waste, chromium, lead, etc. These containers had
been stored on-site for up to 40 months without a
permit. Considering these wastes were largely
characteristic wastes that explode or ignite and that the
storage area was subject to extreme desert heat and
cold, the likelihood of release to the environment and
danger to BOR employees is potentially significant.
U.S. Army Schofield Barracks: Schofield Barracks,
headquarters for the 25th Infantry Division and the
45th Support Group, is located in Wahiawa, Hawaii.
The Army operates numerous motorpools and
maintenance shops located at the facility that generate
wastes such as waste paint, waste solvents, and
contaminated waste oils which are RCRA regulated
hazardous wastes. On July 14 and 15, 1995, EPA and
the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) conducted a
RCRA compliance evaluation inspection to evaluate
compliance with RCRA regulations. EPA/DOH
discovered numerous conditions throughout the facility
indicating Schofield was illegally operating as a RCRA
storage facility and violating numerous generator
requirements. Moreover, EPA/DOH noted repeat
A-77
July 1996
-------
Region IX
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
violations already identified during earlier visits by
DOH. On May 6,1994, Region IX issued a complaint
and compliance order assessing a $543,900 penalty.
On September 26,1995, EPA settled the case with the
Army for $77,347 in civil penalties plus 4 SEPs worth
a total of $1,245,135.
U.S. Army Johnston AtolL- On March 13, 1995,
Region IX issued a complaint and compliance order to
the Army in response to a release of chemical nerve
gas from the incinerator at the Johnston Atoll Chemical
Agent Disposal System (JACADS). The incinerator»
located on Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean, is the
world's first full-scale, modern chemical weapons
destruction facility, and was built as a prototype for
eight proposed facilities on the U.S. mainland. Region
IX inspected the facility in August 1994. As a result
of the inspection and other information provided by the
Army, the Region assessed a $122,300 penalty, for
three violations.
A-78
July 1996
-------
REGION X
CLEAN AIR ACT
United States v. Potlatch Corporation (D. ID):
Consent decrees with Potlatch Corporation and Olshan
Asbestos Removal Corporation were entered January
24, 1995, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho to resolve alleged violations of the asbestos
NESH AP regulations during demolition activities at the
Potlatch Pulp and Paper facility in Lewiston, Idaho.
Potlatch agreed to pay a civil penalty of $250,000 and
to implement an extensive internal asbestos control
program at all its facilities nationwide. Olshan, agreed
to pay a civil penalty of $353,800 and to not conduct
any further NESHAP regulated asbestos operations.
The total penalty of $603,800 reportedly is the largest
negotiated penalty to date for asbestos NESHAP
violations.
United States v. Nu-West Industries (D. ID): The
Idaho District Court approved a consent decree
resolving Region X's claims that Nu-West had violated
the Idaho State Implementation Plan and new source
performance standards at its fertilizer production
facility in Conda, Idaho. The decree assesses a
$150,000 penalty, requires expenditure of $3.5 million
to reduce sulfur dioxide air emissions by 20,000
pounds per day and requires the recycling of tons of
waste material.
United States v. Daw Forest Product Company (D,
ID): A consent decree was entered in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho settling Clean
Air Act claims against DAW Forest Products
Company, Huetter, Idaho. The allegations involved
violation of the Idaho State Implementation Plan
opacity limits. DAW agreed to a penalty of $215,000.
The case was part of a geographic initiative assessing
effectiveness of the rule in the Idaho Panhandle. In
response to our enforcement action, DAW installed
controls reducing its particular emissions by about 100
tons per year.
CLEAN WATER ACT
United States v. Alaska Pulp Company (D. AK):
EPA's action to collect penalties for violations of the
Clean Water Act and of the terms of a prior consent
decree by the Alaska Pulp Company settled for
$1,274,500.
James Roland: For alleged Clean Water Act permit
violations, James Roland, an Alaska placer miner,
agreed to pay $4,000 and to remediate previously
mined land. Runoff from the mined land had reduced
the water quality of a creek. This is believed to be the
first time that an administrative enforcement settlement
agreement with an Alaskan placer miner includes
performance of a supplemental environmental project.
The SEP is valued at about $11,000.
Alaska Pipeline Service Company: For alleged Clean
Water Act permit violations at its sewage treatment
plant in Valdez, Alaska, Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company agreed to pay $25,000 and to undertake
supplemental environmental projects at a cost of
$160,000. The SEPs include non-required training of
the plant operators and the training of other non-
certified sewage treatment plant operators in Alaska.
EPCRA
Leer-Gem Top and American Cabinet Concepts:
EPCRA cases against Leer-Gem Top and American
Cabinet Concepts were resolved. Leer-Gem agreed to
pay $5,782 and to replace surface coating guns with
high volume low pressure spray guns that would
reduce solvent use at its Clackamas, Oregon, facility
in return for a credit of $1,927 towards the assessed
penalty. American Cabinet agreed to pay $6,577 and
to alter its Longview, Washington, facility to support
a water base coating system, which would reduce its
annual use of 25,000 pounds of xylene by
approximately 75%, in return for a credit of $3,288.
Hopton Technologies: For alleged EPCRA reporting
violations, Hopton Technologies, a resin manufacturer
in Oregon, agreed to a penalty of $84,700. Half will
be in cash. The rest will be waived if the company
installs a dust control scrubber system, which will
substantially reduce fugitive dust and vapors, and an
improved sump system, which will reduce discharges
to the local sewage treatment system. The SEP is
valued at over $60,000.
Patrick Industries: For alleged EPCRA reporting
violations, Patrick Industries, a cabinet manufacturer
in Oregon, agreed to a penalty of $120,389 and
installation of a finishing system to cure coating using
ultraviolet light. This project will cost about
$304,000. It is expected to reduce by 95% air
A-79
July 1996
-------
Region X
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Repon
emissions of xylene, methyl isobutyl ketone and
toluene by enabling the company to switch to low-
solvent coatings.
Cascade General: Cascade General, a ship repair
facility in Portland, Oregon, agreed to a penalty of
$78,568 for alleged EPCRA violations. The company
agreed to pay $39,284 in cash and install ak filtration
dust collector and solvent recovery systems and to
switch to water-based paint to remediate the balance of
the penalty. The SEPs will cost about $117,000 to
implement. The dust collector will improve air quality
in the facility by reducing dust in work areas. The
solvent recovery system will reduce by 90% the
amount of solvents discharged to the air by recovering
batch solvents for reuse in the facility. For TRI
reporting years 1988-1993, total releases were reported
at 253,000 pounds.
Nosier, Inc. Nosier, Inc., a bullet manufacturer,
agreed to a $54,798 penalty for failing to file toxic
chemical release reports. The amount of $33,704 is to'
be paid in cash. The balance is to be remediated by
eliminating the company's use of trichloroethylene hi
the production of lead slugs and by reducing the
amount of lead dust generated during ballistic testing.
Project costs are estimated at $42,000.
Gary Loomis, Inc.: Gary Loomis, Inc., a sports
equipment manufacturer hi Washington, settled an
EPCRA action for $18,100. Half the penalty will be
waived when the company installs a new technology
distillation unit reducing its use of acetone by 90 % and
reducing air emissions by about 65 barrels of acetone
a year. The SEP will cost about $18,400 to
implement.
RCRA
Alaska Pollution Control, Inc., Palmer, Alaska: The
Regional Administrator signed a consent agreement
and consent order resolving RCRA violations at Alaska
Pollution Control, Inc. (APC). APC operated a used
oil processing plant, a contaminated soil incinerator,
and hazardous waste boiler in Palmer, Alaska. APC
agreed to pay a cash penalty of $270,000. The facility
has since closed its hazardous waste operations
(storage and incineration), thus eliminating population
exposure to pollutants emitted from its hazardous waste
combustion activities. The hazardous waste generated
by the facility will be shipped elsewhere for similar
treatment.
United States v. Taylor Lumber & Treating, Inc. (D.
OR): The U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon entered the consent decree between the United
States and Taylor Lumber & Treating, Inc. The
decree hi this R€RA enforcement action requires that
Taylor close an unpermitted surface impoundment,
conduct facility-wide corrective action, and pay a civil
penalty of $70,000.
Northwest Enviroservice, Inc. (WA): EPA alleged
Northwest Enviroservice, hie. (NWES), violated
RCRA by unauthorized storage and disposal of
hazardous wastes hi unlined pits and hi containment
sumps, failure to fully monitor for ak leaks from
hazardous waste processing equipment, and improper
management of hazardous waste containers which
could result hi explosions or releases to the storm
drain. EPA determined the facility was no longer
eligible to receive CERCLA wastes. The facility had
a history of violations for federal and state hazardous
waste, water, and PCB requirements, and concerns
about local fire and worker safety issues.
During negotiations EPA and NWES entered into a
Section 3008(h) agreement for site-wide investigation
and clean-up of contamination. Independent of the
enforcement action, the company sold the hazardous
waste portion of the business and will only operate as
a non-hazardous waste processing facility at the site.
The company is closing out and decontaminating the
hazardous waste portion of the facility.
TSCA
Northwest Aluminum Company: For alleged TSCA
violations, Northwest Aluminum Company hi Oregon
agreed to pay $22,525 and to perform a project worth
$45,050 involving the early removal and disposal of
PCB large capacitors or reclassification to non-PCB
status of PCB-contaminated transformers. The project
will eliminate the potential risk of PCB exposure to
human health and the environment,,
Peoples Utility District, Tillamook, Oregon: The
Tillamook, Oregon, People's Utility District settled a
TSCA PCB action for '$9,350; half of which will be
waived if the utility completes early disposal of PCB
equipment.
Willamina Lumber Company: Willamina Lumber
Company of Oregon settled a TSCA PCB action for
$12,750, half to be paid hi cash and the other half
A-80
July 1996
-------
Region X
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
suspended if the company completes early disposal of
the PCB equipment remaining at its facility.
Caterpillar, Inc.: Caterpillar, Inc., of Oregon resolved
a TSCA PCB complaint by agreeing to a penalty of
$28,900, half to be paid in cash and the other half
suspended in recognition of the company's early
disposal of PCB equipment. The SEP will cost
approximately $32,000 to implement.
Washington Department of Social and Health Services:
For violations of TSCA PCB . regulations, the
Washington Department of Social and Health Services
agreed to a penalty of $16,660. Region X agreed to
mitigate half the assessed penalty in exchange for the
early removal and disposal of PCB transformers and
PCB contaminated electrical equipment.
MULTIMEDIA
United States v. Ketchikan Pulp Company (D. AK):
A consent decree was entered in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Alaska on September 19,
1995. The case involves Clean Water Act and Clean
Air Act violations at the Ketchikan Pulp Company mill
hi Alaska. The Clean Water Act allegations include
numerous violations of KPC's discharge permit and
unpermitted discharges of red liquor, magnesium and
cooking acid. The Clean Air Act part of the case
involves violations of the new source performance
standards. The air violations resulted in excess
emissions of more than 1,600 tons of sulfur dioxide.
The consent decree requires KPC to pay a civil penalty
of $3,111,000 and to spend up to $6 million to
remediate contaminated sediments in Ward Cove.
KPC also agreed to eliminate direct discharges from its
water treatment plant, develop and implement a spill
contaminant program, use state certified wastewater
treatment operators and improve its monitoring and
laboratory program. Specific to air, KPC agreed to
conduct additional performance tests and conduct a
facility mass balance for sulfur. Finally, KPC agreed
to conduct a facility-wide multi-media environmental
audit and pollution prevention study and to develop an
operation and maintenance plan incorporating the
results of the audit.
A-81
July 1996
-------
Region X
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
A-82
July 1996
-------
FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE
Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) Fort Defiance Facility: On September
27, 1995, EPA issued a complaint and compliance
order to the BIA for RCRA violations at the Fort
Defiance, Arizona, facility, including: operating a
storage facility without a permit, storing LDR waste
beyond allowable deadlines, and failure to file a notice
of hazardous waste activity. Total civil penalties
assessed for the violations were $269,019.
RCRA/Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program: In
September of 1995, EPA transmitted five consent
orders to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program
(NNPP) for final negotiation and signature. On
October 5 and 6, 1995, EPA and the NNPP signed all
five consent agreements and compliance orders for
facilities in Regions I, III, and IX in accordance with
the requirements of RCRA as amended by the Federal
Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) of 1992. The
facilities involved were Knolls Atomic Power
Laboratory-Windsor Site hi Connecticut, Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard in Maine, the Bettis Atomic Power
Laboratory in Pennsylvania, the Norfolk Naval
Shipyard hi Virginia, and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard
in Hawaii.
The FFCA also provided a limited three-year
exemption from the assessment of fines and penalties
for Section 30040) land disposal restriction storage
prohibition violations involving radioactive mixed
waste at DOE facilities. The FFCA specified that
DOE must develop an inventory of mixed waste and
develop comprehensive site treatment plans (STPs) for
mixed waste. All the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
facilities and DOE facilities that generate or store
mixed waste were required to develop and submit
STPs to EPA or an authorized state for approval. The
STPs were required to: (1) identify the appropriate
treatment facilities which will treat each mixed waste
stream, and (2) develop schedules for treating each
identified waste stream generated by the facilities.
The FFCA further provided that EPA or a state with
the requisite RCRA authority had to approve the site
treatment plan and issue an Order pursuant to Section
3008(a) of RCRA by October 6, 1995, that required
adherence to and implementation of the approved site
treatment plan. The failure of a facility to have an
approved site treatment plan would result hi the loss of
sovereign immunity for fines and penalties.
Groom Lake: On May 19, 1995, the Director of the
FFEO and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force signed a memorandum of agreement ensuring
that EPA has continued access to the operating location
near Groom Lake for administering environmental
laws. Moreover, due to national security concerns, the
Air Force agreed to provide reasonable logistical
assistance to EPA. Finally, EPA agreed that any
classified information obtained by EPA would be
treated in accordance with applicable laws and
executive orders regarding classified materials.
U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG): On
June 19, 1995, a consent order was signed by the
Army for violations of RCRA land disposal restrictions
pursuant to a multimedia inspection conducted by
NEIC at APG hi June of 1993. The Army was
assessed with a penalty of $100,000 for the violations
and reached a settlement amount of $92,000 as part of
the order.
Altus Air Force Base: On March 24, 1995, EPA
issued a unilateral administrative order under Section
3008(h) for RCRA corrective action, including a
RCRA facility investigation and corrective measures,
if needed. Altus requested a hearing on the order. In
July 1995, a hearing was held, with the Regional
Judicial Officer (RJO) presiding. The Region awaits
a recommendation by the RJO to the Regional
Administrator.
U.S. Army Picatinny Arsenal: Region II completed
enforcement activity on September 29, 1995 at the
U.S. Army Armament Research, Development, and
Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey,
based on a July 1993 multimedia inspection. The
Arsenal is on the NPL and has approximately 150
areas of concern,
U.S. Army Natick Research Facility: The U.S. Army
has agreed to pay a $49,000 penalty for mishandling
hazardous wastes at its Natick Research, Development,
and Engineering Center, Massachusetts. The facility
specializes hi food engineering, aero-mechanical
engineering, and clothing, materials, and equipment
engineering. The Army failed to properly identify
wastes generated on site, and failed to label, date, and
mark hazardous waste containers. The facility was
recently named to the National Priority List.
A-83
July 1996
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
F.E. Warren Air Force Base: As a result of
contamination of ground water, surface water, and
soils, F.E. Warren Air Force Base was listed on the
NPL in 1990. EPA, Wyoming, and the Air Force
subsequently signed a FFCA in 1991. In the fall of
1993, the Air Force violated the terms of the cleanup
agreement. EPA discovered these violations in
December and notified the Air Force that it was
assessing stipulated penalties for failure to containerize
and test sampling and field investigation-derived
wastes. The Air Force has agreed to undertake a
supplemental environmental project implementing a
recycling program for glass, newsprint, aluminum,
plastics, and steel/tin cans and to pay a cash penalty of
$10,000.
U.S, Army Rocky Mountain Arsenal: The Army
manufactured chemical weapons, such as napalm
bombs and mustard gas, and conventional munitions,
until the 1960s and destroyed weapons at the Arsenal
through the early 1980s. In addition, the Army leased
a portion of the Arsenal to the Shell Oil Company
from 1952 to 1987 to produce herbicides and
pesticides. The Arsenal has been described by courts
as "one of the worst hazardous waste pollution sites in
the country" due to extensive soil and groundwater
contamination from more than 750 different hazardous
wastes spilled or improperly disposed of in several
areas. Three plumes of contaminated groundwater
migrated off-site before intercept systems were
installed, contaminating local wells and forcing EPA
and local authorities to provide residents with bottled
water. The Arsenal was placed on the NPL in 1987,
and in 1989 a CERCLA cleanup agreement was signed
between EPA, the Army, and other stakeholders.
However, the State did not sign the agreement because
of ongoing litigation with the Army and Shell.
On June 13, 1995, EPA's Region Vm Administrator,
the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Colorado, the
U.S. Army, the Shell Oil Company, and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service signed a conceptual agreement for
the cleanup of the Arsenal. Based on the agreement,
the Army estimates the cleanup will cost $2.1 billion
and will be completed hi about 2010. Prior to the
agreement, the Army estimated cleanup would cost
$2.8 billion to $3.6 billion. Once the cleanup is
certified completed by EPA, the arsenal is to become
a national wildlife refuge managed by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.-
Army Materials Technology Laboratory: EPA and the
Army agreed on the terms of a federal facility
agreement for the Army Materials Technology Lab
(AMTL) in Watertown, Massachusetts.. AMTL is a
BRAC I, fast track base, slated for Closure in
September 1995. The Army and EPA agreed on ways
to accelerate the schedule of the remedial process at
this BRAC I base to reach a ROD date of August 30,
1996. The Army and EPA also agreed on new
language in the FFA on the land transfer issue that
addresses EPA's concern regarding protecting the
ongoing cleanup and ensuring the activities of
subsequent transferees do not interfere with cleanup
efforts. The FFA is accompanied by a side letter from
the Army reinforcing its commitment to ensure that the
substance of protective language worked out with EPA
is actually included hi the appropriate land transfer
documents. The AMTL site was placed on the NPL
in May 1994. In anticipation of NPL listing and
because it was a BRAC site, EPA became actively
involved in the fall of 1993.
Defense Distribution Depot Memphis, Tennessee
(DDMT): A three party CERCLA Section 120
cleanup agreement addressing cleanup at the DDMT
NPL site was finalized during FY 1995. The three
parties were EPA, the State of Tennessee, and the
Defense Logistics Agency. DDMT encompasses 642
acres,- four miles from Memphis's central business
district hi a mixed residential, commercial, and
industrial land use area of Shelby County, Tennessee.
This agreement, entered into under both RCRA and
CERCLA authorities, was significant in that it gives
the state authority to assess a penalty and if a dispute
can't be resolved at the Regional level, the Regional
Administrator may delegate resolution to the Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance.
A-84
July 1996
-------
OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT
United States v. William Recht Company, Inc., et al.
(M.D. FL): On January 3, 1995, the statutory
maximum fine of $1.5 million was levied on the
William Recht Company, doing business as Durex
Industries, and the company was placed on probation
for five years for violations of RCRA that ultimately
led to the deaths of two nine year old boys in Tampa,
Florida. On June 13, 1992, the boys were overcome
by toluene fumes emanating from a trash dumpster in
which they were playing. The boys died as a result of
theur exposure to the toluene, which had been illegally
dumped into the dumpster. A criminal investigation
revealed that for many years it had been the routine
practice of the William Recht Company to dispose of
waste toluene hi the facility's dumpster and to treat and
dispose of hazardous waste on site without a permit.
The company had been warned in 1988 by
Hillsborough County officials to discontinue its
pouring of waste toluene generated hi Durex's urethane
roller manufacturing process into its trash dumpster.
William Whitman, Durex's plant manager, and Duane
Whitman, shop foreman, were previously convicted by
a jury on July 28, 1994, of knowingly treating,
storing, and disposing of hazardous waste without a
permit; and was each sentenced to serve 27 months in
prison.
United States v. Roggy (D. MN): F. George Roggy,
owner of Fumicor, Inc., of Edina, Minnesota, was
sentenced in St. Paul to five years in prison for
unlawfully applying anunapproved pesticide, Dursban,
on 19 million bushels of oats used by General Mills in
the production of 160 million boxes of breakfast
cereals, including Cheerios and Lucky Charms. The
sentence followed Roggy's November 15, 1994,
criminal conviction by a jury on one count of misusing
pesticides, one count of adulterating food and 11
counts of mail fraud. Following the prison term,
Roggy also received three years of supervised release,
including 200 hours of community service hi which he
will lecture the community on the hazards of
pesticides. Fumicor was under contract with General
Mills to apply the approved pesticide Reldan on oats
stored by General Mills at gram elevators in the port
of Duluth/Superior. Roggy submitted invoices totaling
$166,120 to General Mills that showed he had used the
approved pesticide Reldan to spray the grain. By
knowingly making the illegal switch from Reldan to
the unapproved and less expensive Dursban, Roggy
saved over $85,000. General Mills, which
subsequently destroyed the grain, suffered a loss in
excess of $140 million as a result of the fraud.
United States v. Boomsnub Corporation (W.D. WA):
Edward Takitch, Vice President and General Manager,
and William Trimbo, Operation Manager, of the
Boomsnub Corporation, pleaded guilty to violations of
RCRA and the Clean Water Act. The Boomsnub
Corporation also pleaded guilty to unlawfully storing
and disposing of chromium-contaminated hazardous
waste, and disposing of hazardous waste into a State of
Washington groundwater remediation system. The
Boomsnub Corporation is an electroplating facility
located in Vancouver, Washington, that has repeatedly
illegally disposed of spent hexavalent chrome into the
environment. As a result, the entire water supply for
the City of Vancouver, and the Clark County area, has
been imminently threatened. The Washington State
Department of Ecology (WDOE) initiated a
groundwater remediation project at the cost of more
than $3 .million to the Washington State taxpayers. A
Superfund emergency clean up action has removed
more than 300,000 pounds of chromic acid from a 40-
foot diameter hole dug beneath the Boomsnub facility
and an underground network of pipes used to dispose
of chrome contaminated waste. To date, six thousand
tons of highly contaminated soils have been removed.
Nonetheless, the plume of contaminated water
continues to spread and increasingly threaten the water
supply for the citizens of the Clark County area. An
estimated $10 million will be spent in an attempt to
save the City of Vancouver's water supply.
United States v. Adi Dara Dubash and Homi Patel
(S.D. FL): Adi Dara Dubash was sentenced on July
24, 1995, after pleading guilty to smuggling 8,400
cylinders of the ozone depleting refrigerant gas
dichlorodifluoromethane (known as "CFC-12") into the
United States in violation of the Clean Air Act. He
was sentenced to 22 months of imprisonment, 3 years
of probation and a $6,000 fine. Dubash's co-
defendant, Homi Patel, was sentenced on July 25,
1995, for the same offenses. Patel was sentenced to 3
years of probation and was required to pay a
mandatory special assessment. Beginning hi October
1994, Dubash, Patel and other co-conspirators caused
seven cargo containers of the CFCs to be shipped into
the New York/New Jersey area in bonded status.
They further arranged for five of the seven containers
A-85
July 1996
-------
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
to be forwarded to Miami, purportedly for reshipment
out of the United States.
United States v. Irma Henneberg (S.D. FL): Irma
Henneberg, manager of Caicos Caribbean Lines, Inc.,
was found guilty by a federal jury on August 30, 1995
on 34 counts of making false statements on customs
documents used to illegally smuggle the refrigerant gas
dichlorodifluoromethane (also known as CFC-12) into
the United States. Henneberg made false statements
on shipping manifests filed with the U.S. Customs
Service to document the purported shipment of 209
cargo containers of refrigerant gas allegedly shipped
from Miami. The purpose of the false manifests was
to conceal the smuggling of large quantities of CFC-12
into the domestic commerce of the United States.
Untied States v. John Tominelli (S.D. FL): Customs
broker John Tominelli pleaded guilty on June 23,
1995, to one count of violating the Clean Air Act by
importing into the United States 11 cargo containers of
the ozone depleting refrigerant dichlorofluoromethane,
known as CFC-12, without possessing the consumption
allowances required by the CAA; one count of
smuggling CFC-12 into the United States; and one
count of importing distilled spirits without paying the
required taxes. Tominelli faces possible penalties
including 15 years incarceration and fines in excess of
$750,000.
United States v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (D.
MA): The Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail)
agreed to plead guilty to six Clean Water Act felonies
and pay $2.75 million in fines according to a plea
agreement filed in U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on July 24, 1995. The information
charged Conrail with three counts in violation of the
CWA, knowingly discharging a harmful quantity of oil
to waters of the United States; knowingly discharging
a pollutant without a permit; knowingly discharging a
pollutant in violation of a limit imposed in a permit;
and knowingly violating a NPDES permit condition
requiring the submission of monthly discharge
monitoring reports. Conrail operates a railroad switch
and terminal facility in Allston, Massachusetts, where
it refuels and repairs locomotives and freights cars.
Conrail discharges yard drainage and groundwater
from a groundwater recovery well to the Charles
River. An oil and water separator (OWS) at the site
is designed to treat the discharge prior to its entry into
the Charles River. EPA's investigation of Conrail was
triggered by a large discharge of oil to the Charles
River on April 7, 1994, which created a soupy film
thicker than a sheen over an area covering several
hundred yards. The discharge resulted when the OWS
at the site failed due to improper operation and
maintenance. In addition, the system's audible alarms,
which Conrail knew did not work properly, failed to
sound. The investigation revealed that Conrail has
been discharging without a permit since September of
1992 when its NPDES permit expired. When
Conrail's permit was in effect, Conrail consistently
failed to submit the necessary discharge monitoring
reports which showed that Conrail had been
discharging excessive amounts of oil to the Charles
River in violation of the permit. On at least one
occasion, Conrail knowingly b3'-passed the OWS
altogether.
United States v. Herman W. Parramore (M.D. GA):
On April 12, 1995, Herman W. Parramore, Jr. entered
a plea of guilty to two felony counts charging
violations of federal environmental laws. Parramore
and his companies, Sogreen South Carolina, Inc.,
Sogreen Tifton, Inc., and Sogreen Corporation were
indicted hi September 1994, for violations of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
and the Clean Water Act (CWA). Parramore pleaded
guilty to si: rage of waste acids without a permit and
illegally discharging untreated acidic substances into
the Tifton public sewer system. Parramore
represented to the State of Georgia and waste
generators that he recycled hazardous wastes by using
them to produce fertilizers and other agricultural
products. Instead of producing fertilizer products,
Parramore accumulated vast quantities of hazardous
wastes on his property in violation of his storage
permit.
United States v. Ketchikan Pulp Company (S.E.D.
AK): Ketchikan Pulp company (KPC) was sentenced
on September 18, 1995, to pay $3 million in fines and
to serve five years of probation for one felony and 13
misdemeanor violations of the Clean Water Act.
Pursuant to a plea agreement between it and the U.S.
Government, KPC was ordered to pay $1.25 million in
fines within 15 days and allowed to defer $1.75
million in fines, which may be offset during the term
of probation by improvements to the company's
wastewater treatment system. Ralph Lewis, President
of KPC, appeared in court for me sentencing and
acknowledged responsibility for KPC's actions and
apologized to the court. In April 1995, Lewis
appeared in court to enter a guilty plea on behalf of
KPC to one felony count of knowingly discharging
wastewater and removed solids from KPC's primary
A-86
July 1996
-------
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
clarifier into waters of the United States over a five-
day period in 1990 in violation of the company's
NPDES permit, and to 13 misdemeanor counts of
negligently discharging magnesium oxide (MgO) from
sewer manholes into waters of the United States
without an NPDES permit.
United States v. Ronald E. Greenwood and Barry W.
Milbauer (D. SD): The falsification of discharge
monitoring reports (DMRs) by two former managers
employed by the John Morrell Company located in
Sioux Falls, South Dakota, led to both entering guilty
pleas on January 6, 1995, to violating the Clean Water
Act and committing other criminal offenses. Ronald
E. Greenwood, former manager of MorreU's waste
water treatment plant, and Barry W. Milbauer, former
assistant manager and chemist, each pleaded guilty to
information charging them with conspiracy to commit
offense or to defraud the United States in violation of
the Clean Water Act.
United States v. OEA, Inc. (D. CO): The District
Court for the District of Colorado ordered OEA, Inc.,
to pay a fine of $2.25 million and a witness/victims
special assessment fee of $1,200. During his
sentencing statement Judge Babcock admonished.the
defendant that "RCRA is a fact of life and it is crucial
that corporate America understand its responsibility to
environmental problems and there is no reason why
this country should not set an example for the world."
This sentence was imposed after OEA, Inc., pleaded
guilty to six felony counts in violation of RCRA on
April 28, 1994. These violations include one count of
illegal transportation of hazardous waste, three counts
of illegal treatment of hazardous waste, one count of
illegal disposal of hazardous waste, and one count of
illegal storage of hazardous wastes. ,
United States v. Percy King (D. KS): Percy King,
owner and operator of the King's Truck Wash in Park
City, Kansas, pleaded guilty on February 10, 1995, in
the District Court of Kansas, to three counts of
violating the Clean Water Act. King pleaded guilty to
two counts of violating national pretreatment standards
for introducing a flammable and toxic pollutant into the
Park City, Kansas, sewer system and one count of
knowingly discharging a pollutant into the sewer
system which could result hi personal injury or
property damage to the POTW. Between March and
August 1994, King's Truck Wash allowed trucks to
wash out residual methyl acrylate, a flammable and
explosive liquid.
United States v. Gaston (D. KS): Donald Gaston, a
former Montgomery County, Kansas, Highway
Administrator, was sentenced hi the Federal District
Court of Kansas to six months of home detention, and
a $2,000 fine. He was also placed on probation for
two years. Gaston had previously entered a plea of
guilty on July 21, 1993, for failing to report the
release of hazardous substances into the environment.
The road painting activities of the Montgomery County
(Kansas) Highway Department generated a variety of
hazardous wastes. These hazardous wastes, along with
various types of solid wastes, were kept in a storage
and equipment shed known as "the Barn." 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 the closed Montgomery County
Landfill where trenches were dug (with the use of a
county backhoe) and hi which the drums were buried.
United States v. David Albright (E.D. WI): A plea
agreement and information were filed on August 10,
1995, charging David Albright, process engineer at
Aunt Nellie's Farm Kitchens in Clyman, Wisconsin
(Aunt Nellie's), with concealing material information
in violation of federal law. In the plea agreement,
Albright pleaded guilty to concealing information and
filing false statements. Albright was responsible for
preparing, signing and submitting monthly discharge
monitoring reports (DMRs) to the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) under the
Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(WPDES) permit. From approximately 1986 to April
1992, Albright submitted false and misleading DMRs
to the WDNR relating to the biological oxygen demand
(BOD) of cooling water which was discharged to
Clyman Creek. The BOD of the cooling water
exceeded Aunt Nellie's WPDES permit limits, but the
DMRs submitted by Albright during the relevant time
period understated the actual BOD levels.
United States v. Attique Ahmad (S.D. TX): Attique
Ahmad, owner of Spin N #12 Market, was sentenced
on July 24, 1995, hi Houston, Texas, for pumping
over 5,000 gallons of water contaminated gasoline
from his business' underground storage tank into both
a gutter and the sewer system of Conroe, a city 50
miles north of Houston, hi violation of the Clean
Water Act, Ahmad was sentenced to 21 months of
imprisonment, and was ordered to pay restitution to
the City of Conroe and to the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission for over $20,000 of
expenses incurred hi remediating the illegal discharges.
A-87
July 1996
-------
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
United States v. Joel S. Atwood. (D. WA): Joel S.
Atwood, former owner of Atwood Plastics, Inc., in
Vancouver, Washington, was sentenced on March 17,
1995, for illegal disposal of hazardous waste, hi
violation of RCRA. Atwood was sentenced to 30 days
of incarceration, and 90 days of electronically
monitored home detention. He was also ordered to
pay $19,000 in restitution and placed under supervised
release for three years. As a condition of his.
supervised released, Atwood was ordered to properly
dispose of approximately 45 remaining drums of
acetone and "still bottoms'1 (residue remaining after the
drums have been emptied). The case began in
September of 1993, when the Washington State
Department of Ecology (DOE) received information
that eighty 55-gallon drums of spent acetone were
being stored at the Atwood Plastics facility. The
company subsequently vacated the warehouse, leaving
thirty-five 55-gallon drums of acetone waste inside,
and eighty 55-gallon drams of acetone and acetone still
bottoms on an adjacent parcel of rented property.
United States v. Barker Products Company (N.D.
OH): Barker Products Company (Barker Products)
and its owner and President, Hal H. Myers, were each
sentenced on August 7, 1995, to two-year terms of
probation for violations of the Clean Water Act. The
firm was caught using an illegal bypass system to
illegally discharge pollutants into the City of
Cleveland's sewer system. Myers was not fined, but
was ordered to perform 200 hours of community
service for an organization dedicated to preserving
clean water. Barker Products was required to provide
20 hours of waste treatment education to all of its 55
employees. The company was discharging
electroplating rinses which contained heavy metals,
including cadmium and zinc, into the sewer system.
United States v. Mary Ellen Baumann, et al. (D.
DC): Mary Ellen Baumann, President of East Chem
Corporation, of Hyattsville, Maryland, was sentenced
on August 28, 1995, to five years of probation, 200
hours of community service, and more than $5,000 in
restitution for the unlawful disposal of toxic chemical
waste. Patrick J. Hill, her co-defendant, was
sentenced to five years of probation, six months of
home detention, and more than $5,000 hi restitution.
As part of the plea agreement, the company will also
pay $43,984 in restitution. Both Baumann and Hill
pleaded guilty on June 12, 1995, to one count of
unlawful disposal of hazardous waste, hi violation of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Hill, a
warehouse worker employed by East Chem, was
directed by Baumann to dispose of the hazardous
chemicals that were of no use to East Chem. On June
1, 1994, Hill loaded the hazardous waste from East
Chem's warehouse into his pickup truck and dumped
it in a dumpster located hi a low-income minority
community. Baumann later paid Hill $400 for
disposing of the chemicals. Upon discovery of the
hazardous waste, the residents of three nearby
apartment buildings had to be evacuated to a hotel
where they stayed at the expense of the District of
Columbia government. The hazardous wastes were
later removed.
United States v. James W. Blair (E.D. TX): On May
17, 1995, James W. Blair, III, President of Smith
Tank and Equipment, Inc., located outside of Tyler,
Texas, was sentenced on one count of directing the
illegal burning and subsequent release of lead waste in
1992, and for failing to notify the National Response
Center of the release. Blair received one year of
probation and a $10,000 fine payable hi 30 days. In
September 1992, Smith Tank employees were filmed
by a local television station burning the contents of a
storage tank.
United Stai.sv. Lawrence M. Bordner, Jr. (N.D. IL):
Lawrence M. Bordner, Jr., sole owner of the now
defunct electroplater, Bordner Manufacturing Company
(Bordner), located in Freeport, Illinois, was sentenced
on January 31, 1995, to fifteen months of
imprisonment for illegally disposing of hazardous
electroplating wastes. The court imposed the sentence
for one count of disposal of hazardous waste without
a permit, hi violation of RCRA. In addition, the court
fined Bordner $750, imposed 50 hours of community
service as a condition for 2 years of supervised
release. Over a 15-year period, Bordner's hazardous
wastes were continually poured into a floor drain that
discharged into an outdoor ditch, and dumped onto the
ground outside the company's building. Wastes were
also abandoned hi open vats and drams in a decaying
building after Bordner ceased operations hi 1991. As
a result, the U.S. EPA has been forced to expend
$750,000 hi clean-up activities at the site to date.
United States v. Michael A.J. Brooks (W.D. WA):
On November 21, 1994, Michael AJ. Brooks received
three years probation, 150 hours of community
service, and was ordered to pay $5,604 in restitution
for the illegal disposal of RCRA hazardous waste.
This investigation was initiated hi response to
information provided by the State of Washington
Department of Ecology (WDOE) regarding an illegal
A-88
July 1996
-------
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
dumping of 27 drums of ignitable hazardous waste in
a remote area of the Columbia Business Center in
Vancouver, Washington. Investigators traced the
drums to R.A. Gray and Purcell, Co., Inc., which had
paid $5,604 to Michael A.J. Brooks, an employee of
the firm, Pacific Coast Environmental, Inc. (PCE), to
transport the drums to an authorized treatment, storage
and disposal (TSD) facility for proper disposal.
During an interview with case investigators, Michael
A.J. Brooks admitted that on April 13, 1994, he
picked up the drums from Gray and gave Gray a $500
discount in return for full payment in advance. Brooks
said he requested that the check be made payable to
Pacific Coast, omitting the "Environmental." He then
drove to the Columbia Business Center and disposed of
the drums.
United States v. Cenex Limited, dba Full Circle (E.D.
WA): Cenex Supply & Marketing, Inc., doing
business as Full Circle, a pesticide applicator and retail
supplier located in Quincy, Washington, was sentenced
on June 27, 1995, to one year of probation and
ordered to pay a fine of $10,000 for knowingly using
trifluralin, a registered pesticide, in a manner
inconsistent with its labeling in violation of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Cenex
was further ordered to supply $3,000 in chemicals to
the City of Quincy and to report to EPA the existence
of any impoundment containing pesticides at any
Cenex location.
United States v. T. Boyd Cole/nan (W.D. WA): T.
Boyd Coleman, President of Advanced Electroplating
and Finishing, Inc., was sentenced on July 28, 1995,
to four months of home detention, three years of
supervised release, a $2,000 fine and 500 hours of
community service. Coleman pled guilty on May 31,
1995, to the illegal treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste, hi violation of RCRA. Coleman was
responsible for abandoning 100,000 pounds of cyanide
waste in deteriorating tanks, drums and supersacfcs,
along with forty thousand gallons of flammable liquids
and shock sensitive materials. Sixteen supersacks,
approximately 500 barrels and containers of hazardous
waste and other hazardous chemicals, and deteriorating
tanks of cyanide waste that were abandoned by the-
corporation, posed a significant threat to the health and
safety of children in a nearby school, to this
environmental justice community, and to the
groundwater of the nearby Duwamish River.
United States v. Cherokee Resources, Inc., et al.
(W.D. NC): Fifty-one month sentences were imposed
upon Corporate President, Keith Eidson, and Vice
President, Gabe Hartsell, of Cherokee Resources, Inc.,
as the result of their convictions for violations of the
Clean Water Act. The corporation was ordered to pay
a fine of $50,000. Cherokee operated a facility hi
Charlotte, North Carolina, which purported to reclaim
waste oil for energy recovery and to treat and dispose
of oil-contaminated and other industrial wastewater.
The evidence showed that Cherokee would routinely
discharge contaminated wastewater into the sewer
system by running a hose into the employee toilet.
The wastewater contained toxic heavy metals far in
excess of the limits of Cherokee's pretreatment permit.
Evidence also indicated that the defendants instructed
employees to tamper with monitoring devices to avoid
detection.
United States v. Circuits Engineering (W.D. WA):
Denney A. Renando, President and owner of the
Circuits Engineering Corporation (CEI), and Correy
Youngren, wastewater treatment operator, were
sentenced on July 27, 1995, for discharging lead and
copper into the local sewer system hi violation of the
CWA. Renando was sentenced to five months of
imprisonment, five months of home confinement, a
$5,000 fine, and one year of probation which requires
him to participate hi a mental health treatment
program. Youngren was sentenced to provide 50
hours of community service, one year of probation,
and one month of home confinement for bis role in the
discharges. CEI, located in Bothell, Washington,
previously paid a $40,000 fine, and Renando, on
behalf of the corporation, was sentenced to 500 hours
of community service. The corporation has also spent
thousands of dollars to update CEI's waste treatment
operation. In February of 1994, agents learned that
CEI was •unlawfully discharging pollutants through a
by-pass hose to avoid detection by sampling and
monitoring devices installed by the local water
authority at CEI's.facility.
United States v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (E.D.
CO): Roland Farmer, Vice President of Eagle-Picher
Industries, Inc., pled guilty on September 26, 1995, on
behalf of the corporation to an information charging
Eagle-Picher with two counts of unlawfully failing to
report to authorities the discharge from its facility of
a reportable quantity of hazardous substances. Eagle-
Picher was ordered to pay a $300,000 fine on the same
day. The discharge contaminated the Fountain Creek
aquifer, which leads to U.S. navigable waters. Eagle-
Picher's Colorado Springs facility produces high-tech
nickel/cadmium batteries for aerospace, aircraft and
A-89
July 1996
-------
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
other uses. The hazardous substance at the facility
resulted from the manufacturing of these batteries.
The substances include sodium hydroxide, potassium
hydroxide, cadmium and nickel. In December 1989,
a criminal search warrant was executed at the Eagle-
Picher, Colorado Springs facility where documents
were seized revealing that on two occasions hi 1989,
regulated quantities of hazardous substances were
leaked into the groundwater that was a tributary to
navigable waters.
United States v. Daniel J. Fern (S.D. FL): On May
1, 1995, Daniel J. Fern, President of Air
Environmental Research Services, Inc., was sentenced
to 57 months imprisonment for three counts of making
false statements hi violation of the Clean Air Act, for
four counts of mail fraud, and for one count of
obstruction of justice. Air Environmental Research
Services, Inc., was a Davie, Florida, based company
•engaged hi asbestos consulting and abatement. Fern
falsified air samples and filed false notices with the
Metro Dade County Department of Environmental
Resources Management regarding asbestos
contamination at the Monte Carlo Ocean Front Resort
Hotel, located in Miami, Beach Florida. Fern
defrauded the hotel's insurance company by overstating
the amount of asbestos contamination and by
misinforming the insurance company about the
existence of the asbestos abatement work needed at the
hotel. Fern perpetuated a fraud of over $500,000. An
investigation of Fern's abatement and renovation work
at the hotel showed that Fern did not have a valid
Florida license for asbestos abatement, and forged the
name of another individual on three different EPA
required notices.
United States v. Gary Merlino Construction Co. Inc.
(W.D. WA): On March 21, 1995, the Gary Merlino
Construction Company, Inc., entered a guilty plea to
two Clean Water Act violations and was sentenced to
pay $70,000 in penalties and placed, on probation for
three years. The CWA violations, involving
discharges without a NPDES permit, were actually
committed by Stoneway Sand and Gravel (Stoneway),
a division of the Gary Merlino Construction Company.
The case began on November 4, 1993, when Stoneway
Sand and Gravel discharged process wastewater from
one of their holding ponds to the Cedar River by
means of a pipe that lead to a drainage ditch. The
outfall from the process wastewater pond was
controlled by a locked valve. The valve had been
locked pursuant to an order from King County
regulatory authorities who had documented a number
of prior discharges from the pond. The November
discharge was witnessed by Washington State
Department of Fisheries biologists who were
conducting salmon surveys on the river. King County
regulatory authorities were notified and again ordered
Stoneway to -cease and desist from illegally
discharging. The foreman of the facility locked the
valve and again promised no further discharges.
Investigation by CID special agents documented
several additional illegal discharges of thousands of
gallons of waste water from Stoneway to the Cedar
River. Some of those discharges literally flooded
neighboring residential property en route to the River.
The Cedar River is a chief drinking water supply for
the City of Seattle and surrounding areas. The Cedar
River also supports a critical salmon population, which
has been decreasing hi recent years.
United States v. Reginald B. Gist and William Rodney
Gist (N.D. TX): Reginald Blair Gist and his son,
William Rodney Gist, pleaded guilty on September 22,
1995, to three counts of an indictment charging them
with unlawfully disposing of hazardous waste,
unlawfully transporting hazardous waste, participating
hi a conspiracy to dispose of and transport hazardous
wastes, and unlawfully discharging wastewater
containing hazardous wastes hi violation of RCRA.
From 1986 through approximately January 1990, the
Gists operated a zinc cyanide plating facility named
High Tech Plating, located hi Balch Springs, Texas.
hi January 1990, the Gists abandoned the facility and
relocated to Forney, Texas, where they began
operations as Metal Plating Systems (MPS), also a zinc
cyanide plating facility. In September 1992, MPS
ceased doing business at the Forney site and relocated
to Terral, Texas. On December 6, 1994, the Gists
were indicted for violating RCRA., the Clean Water
Act, and Title 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code for the
disposal of hazardous wastes at the High Tech Plating
facility in Balch Springs.
United States v. Roland Heinze (W.D. TX): A
Federal Judge sentenced a San Antonio, Texas, waste-
hauling company and its Vice President for violating
the Clean Water Act and conspiracy. The company
Vice President, Roland Heinze, was sentenced to serve
twelve months and one day of confinement hi a
halfway house followed by two years of supervised
release, and a $30,000 fine. The company, LDI of
San Antonio, Inc., was sentenced to a fine of
$470,000. Heinze and LDI pled guilty to Clean Water
Act and conspiracy charges on March 13, 1995. LDI
was hired by San Antonio-area restaurants and
businesses to collect and dispose of liquid wastes. LDI
A-90
July 1996
-------
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
trucks collected the wastes from industrial and
commercial grease, mud, and sand traps. Instead of
disposing of the wastes in landfills as required by EPA
regulations and a city ordinance, LDI discharged the
waste into conduits and conveyances that led to sewer
lines.
United States v. James David Humphrey (S.D. TX):
On March 29, 1995, James David Humphrey pleaded
guilty to two counts of making a false statement under
Section 1319(c)(4) of the Clean Water Act. In 1992,
Humphrey was employed at Fox Testing Laboratory,
Inc., hi Harlingen, Texas, and was responsible for
performing analyses of samples taken from the City of
Edinburg's wastewater treatment system to determine
the amount of mercury, cyanide, and other materials
discharged by the city. Instead of actually performing
the tests, Humphrey admitted to falsely reporting to
Edinburg that the laboratory had performed the
appropriate analyses.
United States v. Donald Jarrell (S.D. VA): Donald
Jarrell, owner and operator of a waste water treatment
plant in Fairdale, West Virginia, was sentenced on
September 6, 1995, to 30 months of imprisonment
with one year of probation. The discharge of the
sewage resulted from Jarrell's failure to upgrade the
plant over time as required by his NPDES permit
conditions. Jarrell abandoned the plant when it ceased
to function, causing raw sewage to back up, to spill
through manholes in the- residential area, and
eventually to discharge into a nearby stream. During
the past year, EPA Superfund cleaned up the
discharges and rebuilt the plant, and its ownership has
been transferred to the county public health
department.
United States V. William Kirkpatrick (D. KS):
William Kirkpatrick, a former superintendent in the
City of Stafford, Kansas, pled guilty on June 20, 1995,
to a CERCLA violation for the disposal and release of
over one pound of polychlorinated biphenyls and
failing to notify the appropriate authorities. The
investigation revealed that during late summer or early
fall of 1992, William Kirkpatrick ordered two City of
Stafford employees to bury nine electrical capacitors
containing PCBs in the city landfill.
United States v. L-Bar Products, Inc. (E.D. WA): On
April 25, 1995, Stanley O. McCurdy, Plant Manager
for L-Bar Products, Inc., of Chewelah, Washington,
pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to unlawfully
dispose of hazardous waste and one count of disposal
of hazardous waste in relation to the 1991 burial of 79
drums containing spent sulfuric acid and sludge on
L-Bar property in Chewelah. McCurdy, L-Bar and
Paul Ortman, the General Manager were indicted on
April 18, 1995-, by a federal grand jury. This
investigation began in January 1992 when EPA
received information from a former employee of L-Bar
Products, Inc., that numerous drums containing
sulfuric acid and sludge were buried on L-Bar's
premises. Further investigation revealed that Ortman
knew that McCurdy had ordered an L-Bar employee to
bury 68 acid-containing drums. Ortman filed several
annual dangerous waste reports with the Washington
Department of Ecology which failed to reveal that
hazardous waste was stored on L-Bar's premises. In
May 1992, a search warrant that was executed at the
facility uncovered 80 buried drums. Several of the
drums were leaking or had been crushed.
United States v. Lee Engineering and Construction
Company (M.D. GA): Grover C. Lee, President of
Lee Construction and Engineering Company, entered
a guilty plea on June 21, 1995, on behalf of Lee
Engineering, to one count of illegally dumping
hazardous waste without a permit, in violation of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In 1990,
Lee Engineering entered into a contract with AT&T to
remove cables buried between Augusta, Georgia and
Jacksonville, Florida. Lee Engineering stripped the
cable and reclaimed the copper and lead, which was
sold to various metal recycling companies. The cable
had a black tar-like substance surrounding the outer
layers of cable and an inside layer of lead. Lee
Engineering decided that it would be easier to burn off
the tar-like substance than properly dispose of it. The
ash and residue resulting from the burning contained
pieces of lead that accumulated around the burn site.
Company employees were then directed by Kenneth
Lee, Vice President of Lee Engineering, to load the
ash onto trucks and to dump it into holes dug into the
ground to conceal it.
United States v. Mantua Manufacturing Company
(S.D. TX): The Mantua Manufacturing Company of
Houston, Texas, pled guilty and was sentenced on
September 11, 1995, for failing to register with EPA
as a hazardous waste generator, storing hazardous
waste without a permit, and causing the transportation
of hazardous waste without a manifest, all in violation
of RCRA. The maximum fine of $150,000 was
immediately imposed. Mantua is a manufacturer of
metal bed frames with its headquarters in Walton Hills,
Ohio, and plants in Ohio, Florida and Houston.
A-91
July 1996
-------
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Federal and state officials first became aware of
Mantua s activity in June 1995, when the plant
manager hired a Houston area businessman, Clarence
Holcomb, to pickup and dispose of eighteen 55-gallon
drums of paint sludge and spent solvent generated by
the plant's operations. The drums were dumped at a
vacant lot in a residential neighborhood hi Houston.
Area residents reported the dumping to the Houston
Police Department, who then called hi investigators
from the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission and the EPA.
United States v. Marjani, et al. (E.D. PA): Lalit
Verma was sentenced to five years of probation on
August 9,1995, and fined $25,000 following his guilty
plea of June 17, 1995, to an indictment charging him
with conspiracy to violate the asbestos NESHAP rules
promulgated pursuant to the Clean Air Act. This
investigation was initiated following a complaint hi
April 1992, received by the City of Philadelphia Air
Management Services (AMS), that asbestos was being
thrown out of windows from the Beury building, a
fourteen-story commercial building located in
Philadelphia. Investigation by EPA OCE Agents and
other law enforcement agencies determined that
Mohammed Mizani, a New Jersey real estate
developer, had begun asbestos removal hi the building
as early as 1988, when he used homeless men, who
resided at a shelter he owned and operated, to remove
the asbestos. In January 1992, Mizani hired a crew of
unqualified workers to continue the abatement job.
When AMS inspectors were allowed into the building,
large quantities of asbestos were discovered. It was
evident that the asbestos had been dry stripped.
Asbestos was strewn throughout the building and large
quantities had been thrown down an elevator shaft
United States v. Kenneth D. Mathews (D. OR): On
March 13, 1995, Kenneth Dean Mathews was
sentenced in Portland, Oregon, after having pled guilty
to one count of hazardous waste disposal hi violation
of RCRA. Mathews was an employee of the U.S.
Forest Service at Winema National Forest located in
rural Klamath County, Oregon, when he disposed of
hazardous waste containing lead and chloroform hi
toilet vaults at the Oux-Kanee recreational site hi the
Choloquin Ranger District located hi Klamath County.
His participation hi the illegal manufacturing of
methamphetamine led to the illegal hazardous waste
disposal. The judge sentenced Mathews to five years
of probation, three months hi a community corrections
center with no supervised release, and three months of
home detention with an electronic monitor. The judge
also sentenced Mathews to 150 hours of community
service.
United States v. Roy A. McMichael, Jr. (D. PR): A
tugboat captain, Roy A. McMichael Jr., pleaded guilty
hi U.S. District Court in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on
November 4, 1994, to negligently letting a barge under
tow break loose and run aground, spewing more than
750,000 gallons of oil into the waters off a popular
Puerto Rican beach in January 1994. McMichael was
the captain of the Emily S, a tugboat, when it left San
Juan on January 6, 1994, towing the Morris J.
Herman, a tank barge loaded with approximately
35,000 barrels of Number 6 fuel oil (a barrel contains
about 42 gallons). Shortly after getting underway, the
towing cable between the Emily S and Morris J.
Herman parted. At the direction of McMichael, the
crew of the Emily S fashioned a makeshift repair, but
failed to install a protective thimble on the broken end
of the towing cable to help maintain the repair and
failed to obtain assistance hi San Juan. McMichael
placed Victor Martinez, the first mate, in charge of the
Emify S, and ordered that the Emily S proceed at full
speed to its destination, Antigua. A few hours later,
after the rest of the crew had gone to sleep, Martinez
discovered iat the towing cable had parted again.
Using searchlights and radar, the crew looked for the
Morris J. Berman, but could not find it. Later, on
January 7, the Morris J. Berman ran aground about
500 feet off Escambron Beach. The grounding pierced
its hull, spewing more than 750,000 gallons of oil into
the water. McMichael failed to notify the Coast Guard
that the barge had broken loose and was adrift hi an
unknown location. According to the factual statement
that was part of the plea, McMichael knew the towing
cable on the Emily S was hi poor condition and needed
to be replaced, but, nevertheless, agreed to go to sea
with the Morris J. Berman under tow.
United States v. Micro Chemical, Inc. (W.D. LA):
The illegal transportation of hazardous waste by a
Louisiana pesticide formulation company, Micro
Chemical, Inc., to an unpermitted disposal facility in
violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, resulted hi a $500,000 fine, five years of
probation, and compliance with corrective action
measures contained hi an EPA corrective action
administrative order on consent. In March 1990,
Micro Chemical transported hazardous waste from its
facility to a field hi Baskin, Louisiana—a location that
did not have a RCRA permit. After its discovery, it
was removed under the Louisiana Department of
Agriculture's guidance. Micro Chemical has taken
A-92
July 1996
-------
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
measures to stabilize and prevent the spread of
pesticide contamination from the Micro Chemical
facility site, as required by a RCRA 3008(h) corrective
action administrative order on consent. The order will
result in the removal of all contaminated soil at the
site, remediation of contaminated ground water, and
the remediation of all off-site contamination that has
migrated into a drainage basin located adjacent to the
site.
United States v. Roger Mihaldo (W.D. MO): On
April 5, 1995, the U.S. Attorney's Office hi Kansas
City Missouri filed a one count criminal information,
pursuant to a plea bargain, with the U.S. District
Court regarding the illegal storage of hazardous waste
by Roger Mihalko, a retired Program Manager for the
Kansas City, Missouri Health Department. On March
16, 1993, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) employee was attending a meeting of the
Small Quantity Hazardous materials located in Kansas
City, Missouri commonly referred, to as "Fort
Hazard." On March 19, 1993 the MDNR employee
inspected the facility and determined that it was not in
compliance with EPA regulations for the temporary
storage of hazardous waste. During his inspection he
noted that there were approximately 100 barrels of
different types of waste being stored together. Some
of the barrels were leaking, open and rusty.
United States v. Steve Olson (E.D. MO): Steve
Olson, owner of a commercial and residential building
hi the St. Louis, Missouri area, pleaded guilty on
August 2, 1995, to failing to report the release of
asbestos in violation of CERCLA after having illegally
removed and handled asbestos from his building.
Olson had planned to sell the building, but during an
inspection by a prospective buyer, the buyer noticed
asbestos on pipes hi the basement. The basement was
used by some of the occupants to do laundry and
children played hi it. The prospective buyer told
Olson the asbestos would have to be removed prior to
the sale of the building. Olson subsequently hired two
individuals to remove the asbestos insulation. In the
process, they contaminated the entire basement area,
including the personal property of some of the
occupants of the building. The asbestos insulation was
put into containers that were not properly designed or
marked for asbestos disposal, placed into a dumpster,
and then transported to a landfill not permitted for
asbestos disposal.
United States v. Paul E. Richards (W.D. NC): Paul
E. Richards, former employee of Cranford Wood
Carving, Inc., also known as IMP Wood Products,
Inc., located hi Newton, North Carolina, entered a
guilty plea on July 7, 1995, for illegally disposing a
listed hazardous waste without a permit, in violation of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In
1993, Richards buried drums of formaldehyde on his
employer's property hi two different locations. He had
been paid to properly dispose of the drums, but instead
illegally buried the drums and pocketed the money.
When he disposed of the drums, he removed the labels
which stated that the drums contained hazardous waste.
He has admitted to knowing that the drums contained
formaldehyde.
United States v. R&D Chemical Company, Inc. (N.D.
GA): On October 6, 1994, R&D Chemical Company,
a family-owned and operated business in Mansfield,
Ohio, was sentenced. Brothers Noble and Oscar
Cunningham and their corporation were charged with
conspiracy to transport hazardous waste from Ohio to
an unpermitted facility hi Georgia and with illegal
disposal of hazardous waste. R&D Chemical
accumulated a quantity of sludge from industrial
operations on the company farm hi Ohio. The sludge
was a hazardous waste exhibiting the toxicity
characteristic for barium. Nevertheless, R&D
Chemical misrepresented the substance 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 fifteen roll-off
containers of the waste to a company in Atlanta. The
containers were abandoned hi 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. The court sentenced
R&D Chemical to five years probation, a $200,000
fine and $146,716 restitution to the Atlanta company
where the waste had been abandoned.
United States v. William Reichle and Reichle, Inc.
(D. OR): On November 21, 1994, William Chester
Reichle was sentenced six months home confinement
and five years probation. The defendant and his
company were sentenced to joint restitution hi the
amount of $30,000 for clean-up costs, a joint fine in
the amount of $5,000, and 150 hours of community
service. The above sentences came about as the result
of an indictment which was filed against William
Reichle and his company, Reichle, Inc., on August 24,
1993, by a Federal grand jury hi Portland, Oregon, hi
which they were both charged with two counts of
hazardous waste disposal. The investigation began hi
A-93
July 1996
-------
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
March 1992, when an unpermitted hazardous, waste
disposal site was discovered on BLM property in rural
Clackamas County, Oregon, consisting of numerous
55-gallon drums of paint waste and spent solvent.
United States v. Donald Rogers (D. KS): Donald
Rogers, President and CEO of theKantex Corporation,
a printed circuit board manufacturing company, was
sentenced on September 1, 1995, for illegally
transporting hazardous waste without a manifest,
illegal storage, and illegal disposal of hazardous waste
in violation of RCRA, and for failure to notify the
appropriate government agency of the release of a
reportable quantity of a hazardous substance, in
violation of CERCLA. Approximately 59 drums of
hazardous waste were generated and transported from
Kantex s facility during the research and development
of the circuit board devices. The drums were illegally
transported from Kantex's Olathe, Kansas, facility to
an unpennitted facility hi Kansas City, Missouri.
Rogers failed to properly dispose of the hazardous
waste after ordered to do so under CERCLA. Rogers
received three years of probation with a special
condition that he be confined to his home for a six-
month period.
United States v. Rose City Plating, Inc. (W.D. OR)
On May 4, 1995, Sharon Lynn LeBeck, Corporate
Secretary of Rose City. Plating, Inc., pleaded no
contest to one count of hazardous waste disposal.
Sharon LeBeck and her husband, Nicholas LeBeck had
been charged on March 17, 1995, with 32 counts of
unlawful disposal, storage, or treatment of hazardous
waste, one count of supplying false information to an
agency, and three counts of theft. A search warrant
was executed at Rose City Plating, Inc., on September
29,1994, when it was discovered that the LeBecks had
disposed of thousands of gallons of hazardous waste by
abandoning their plating operation.
United States v. Richard Schuffert (M.D. AL) As a
result of transporting 60 drums filled with hazardous
paint wastes and solvents to an Alabama field, and
abandoning them there, a used-oil hauler was
sentenced on June 30, 1995, to a one year and one day
prison term for transporting hazardous waste to an
unpermitted facility hi violation of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. Richard Schuffert, a
used-oil hauler not licensed to transport hazardous
waste, transported 60 drums of paint waste and
solvents from' a former ambulance manufacturing
company. Schuffert hauled the drums and abandoned
them in an Alabama field.
United States v. Bruce D. Spangrud (D. OR): Bruce
Douglas Spangrud, President of a water filter
manufacturing company, was found guilty by a jury on
September 20, 1995, of two counts of submitting false
written statements in lab reports submitted to EPA.
Pursuant to an earlier plea agreement, Spangrud had
previously entered a guilty plea to one violation. Prior
to sentencing, however, the government was advised
that Spangrud was also suspected of having made false
and misleading statements relative to issues involving
restitution. As a result, the U.S. Attorney's Office
withdrew its original plea agreement with Spangrud
and provided him with the option to agree to a
lengthier jail sentence or stand trial. Spangrud chose
to stand trial, which commenced on September 20,
1995. Spangrud's company, Accufilter International,
Inc., had produced and marketed worldwide a water
filtration device that used silver impregnated charcoal.
The silver portion of the filter controlled bacterial
growth within the carbon filters, and is therefore
classified as a pesticide requiring registration with EPA
pursuant to FIFRA. At the time the violations
occurred, allowable levels of silver in drinking water
set forth by the Safe Drinking Water Act were 0.05
mg/1. To support his application for pesticide
registration, Spangrud submitted data to EPA that
reported 24 samples of silver contained within water
that was treated by the water filtration devices. The
24 samples were all below the threshold level of 0.05
mg/1. During the investigation, however, it was
determined that of the 24 silver samples reported to
EPA, 14 of the values exceeded the allowable'levels
by as much as ten times. Also, discovered at
Spangrud's business office were copies of the fictitious
laboratory reports as well as the true and accurate
laboratory reports reflecting the higher silver values.
United States v. Spanish Cove Sanitation, Inc., and
John Lawson (W.D. KY): On October 25, 1994, John
Lawson was sentenced to serve 6 months in prison
followed by six months home incarceration for his
conviction on five felony and nine misdemeanor
violations of the Clean Water Act. His company,
Spanish Cove Sanitation, Inc., was fined $35,000.
The Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) had issued Lawson an NPDES permit for the
operation of Spanish Cove Sanitation's wastewater
treatment plant, which serves a residential subdivision
in Louisville. Despite frequent citations (including a
criminal complaint) from the local Department of
Public Health and the Kentucky DEP for operational
and equipment deficiencies at the Spanish Cove plant
and other treatment 'plants operated by Lawson,
A-94
July 1996
-------
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Spanish Cove repeatedly violated effluent limitations
for several years. On December 30, 1991, the
Department of Public Health and DEP inspectors found
that Spanish Cove was pumping water over a hillside
with a submersible pump from a sludge bed. The
water then flowed directly into a creek leading to the
Ohio River. Samples taken revealed that the
discharges contained up to 5,800 colonies per milliliter
of fecal coliform bacteria, far in excess of the 400
colonies permitted by the NPDES permit.
Additionally, on May 22 and August 4, 1992, Spanish
Cove was not chlorinating its effluent, which also
resulted in discharges of effluent with high levels of
fecal coliform bacteria in violation of its NPDES
permit.
Untied States v. Yvon St. Juste (S.D. PL): Yvon St.
Juste, a representative of the owners of the Honduran
vessel M/V Earth, entered a guilty plea on August 28,
1995, to violating the Clean Water Act for directing
the discharge of oil into the Miami River. St. Juste
supervised the operations of the M/V Earth, a vessel
designed to haul liquid cargo. The vessel delivered a
load of cargo and diesel fuel to Haiti and apparently
filled one of the tanks, which still contained some
diesel fuel, with water for the return trip. Upon
arrival in Miami, the ship was docked at a facility on
the Miami River. St. Juste is charged with ordering
the ship's engineer to discharge the diesel/water
mixture into the river.
Untied States v. Andrew Cyrus Towe, et al. (D. MT):
On August 4, 1995, Andrew Cyrus Towe and the
Powell County Museum & Arts Foundation pleaded
guilty and were sentenced for illegal asbestos removal,
a violation of the Clean Air Act. Towe was sentenced
to one year of supervised release and a $1,000 fine.
The Powell County Museum & Arts Foundation's
sentence included an $8,000 fine. These sentences are
the result of an investigation of a renovation project
that took place in February 1990, at the Old Montana
State Prison located in Deer Lodge, Montana. The
Old Montana State Prison is a Museum administrated
by the Powell County Museum & Arts Foundation.
During the renovation, friable asbestos was improperly
stripped from boilers, and left lying on the ground
both inside and outside of the boiler house. The cost
to the Montana Department of Health for the
emergency clean up of the friable asbestos was
$58,000. Waters previously pleaded guilty on July 10,
1995, to environmental and other criminal violations,
and was sentenced to serve one year of supervised
release, and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine.
Untied States v. T&T Fuels (N.D. WV): Clyde
Bishoff, employed as superintendent of two
underground coal mines at T&T Fuels, Inc., located in
Presto County, West Virginia, pleaded guilty on
September 18, t995, to one count of discharging acid
mine drainage (AMD) in noncompliance with NPDES
permit limits from April 1994 to August 1995, in
violation of the Clean Water Act. The permit required
T&T Fuels, Inc., to meet certainpH, iron, manganese
and suspended solids limits which were not met as a
result of the volume of AMD wastewater being
discharged. Additionally, Bishoff admitted in his plea
agreement that he conspired with other persons that
have not been charged as of yet, from 1982 to August
of 1995 to violate the CWA by diverting AMD from
the two mines, called T&T #2 and T&T #3, prior to
treatment and to discharge it via concealed pipes into
waters of the United States.
Untied States v. Warehouse Rebuilder and
Manufacturer Inc. and Lonnie Dittard (D. OR): On
March 28, 1995, Lonnie Dillard, owner and President
of Warehouse Rebuilder and Manufacturer, Inc.
(WRM), was sentenced after entering guilty pleas on
December 21, 1994, to the unlawful storage of
hazardous waste, hi violation of RCRA. The case
began in September 1993 with the discovery of
approximately 40 leaking fifty-five gallon drums near
a river bank in rural Oregon. Within days, EPA/CID
agents identified a generator owned by WRM and
served a search warrant at that facility in Grants Pass,
Oregon. During the search warrant, the owner and
President of WRM, Lonnie Dillard, confessed to the
unlawful transportation and disposal of approximately
40 drums of hazardous waste, trichloroethane (TCE),
over a two-year period.
Untied States v. George E. Washington (M.D. LA):
George E. Washington, former employee of H.B.M.
River Plant, Inc., a subsidiary of Hall Buck Marine,
pleaded guilty on September 29, 1995, to a one-count
indictment, charging him with causing the illegal
discharge of approximately fifteen 55-gallon drums
containing industrial waste into the Mississippi River.
As a result of his guilty plea, Washington faces a
maximum of three years of imprisonment and a
maximum fine up to $250,000. HBM previously
pleaded guilty to a felony criminal information filed on
June 28, 1995, which charged that HBM intentionally
discharged contaminated wastewater into the
Mississippi River without a permit. HBM agreed to
pay $440,000 in fines. HBM is a vessel and barge
cleaning and repair facility which handles hazardous
A-95
July 1996
-------
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
materials, including, benzene, toluene, xylene,
chromium, mercury, lead, carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform, and tetrachloroethylene.
[
United States v. Paul Zborovsky and Jose Prieto (S.D.
FL): Jose Prieto and Paul Zborovsky were sentenced
on September 6, 1995, for smuggling the ozone
depleting refrigerant gas dichlorodifluoromethane (also
known as CFC-12) into the United States. Prieto was
sentenced to 26 months of imprisonment. Co-
defendant Paul Zborovsky was sentenced to two
months of imprisonment, two months of home
detention and a $5,000 fine. Zborovsky entered a plea
prior to trial. Zborovsky pleaded guilty to one count
of violating the Clean Air Act (CAA) by importing
CFC-12 into the United States without the consumption
allowances issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency. He also pleaded guilty to one count of
smuggling.
State of Oregon v. Roger W. Evans, et al.: On April
4, 1995, Surgichrome, Inc., a plating operation, and
its President, Roger W. Evans entered guilty pleas to
two informations, each containing two (2) counts
alleging violations of Oregon State law for the
unlawful disposal of hazardous waste hi the first
degree. As the result of his plea, Roger W. Evans
was sentenced to serve five (5) years of probation, to
pay $30,000 in joint-restitution with the corporation
payable to the complainant at the rate of $500 per
month, and 100 hours of community service. As the
result of its plea, Surgichrome, Inc., was sentenced to
serve five (5) years of probation, to pay the $30,000
in joint restitution with Roger W. Evans, and 100
hours of community service to be performed by the
President or any Vice President of the corporation.
Consent searches of Surgichrome by CID and OSP
investigators with the assistance of ODEQ technical
personnel revealed that the company had multiple leaks
in its scrubber unit associated with its plating tanks.
It was determined, however, that the main source of
contamination was a leaking concrete sump which
allowed chromium contaminated "drag-out" (used to
re-supply material for the plating operation) to flow
directly into an aquifer which served as the major
source of drinking water for the neighbors of the
facility and others located down-gradient from
Surgichrome. Surgichrome was also illegally storing
substantial amounts of hazardous waste on site since its
opening in 1979.
State of Washington v. Kevin L. Farris: On May 3,
1995, Kevin L. Farris pleaded guilty to one count of
malicious mischief hi the first degree for illegally
dumping numerous containers containing hazardous
liquids on Larch Mountain hi Vancouver, Washington.
Several witnesses reported to police that they had seen
a truck bearing the description of Farris's truck
carrying loads similar to those found at the dump site
heading hi the direction of the dump site. The lands
on the mountain are managed by the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources. Two witnesses
reported they sat some of the cans upright to prevent
further spillage. During an interview, Farris admitted
his involvement hi the dumping and provided a written
statement to investigators. He also admitted that he
had known that his actions were wrong. On May 3,
1995, Farris pleaded FY1995 guilty to the information
filed hi Superior Court, waived his right to a pre-
sentencing investigation, and was subsequently
sentenced to 14 months hi prison.
States v. West Indies Transport, etal.: On December
19, 1994, after a trial hi St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands, a jury convicted W. James Oelsner, West
Indies Transport Co., Inc., and WIT Equipment Co.,
Inc., of 15 separate environmental, visa fraud and tax
fraud counts and a racketeering count. The defendants
brought hi a group of Filipino laborers after illegally
obtaining "crewman" visas, for the purpose of doing
drydock work on dead vessels as well as other shore-
based operations. Once here, the foreign workers
were required to live hi shipping containers and to
work 56-hour weeks for salaries that fell far short of
the U.S. minimum wage. The defendants engaged hi
a myriad of environmental crimes including ocean
dumping, violations of the Clean Water Act and
violations of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The
defendants were convicted of depositing raw sewage
and pollutants from the drydocking operations within
150 feet of the Virgin Islands' municipal power plant
desalinization intake pipes.
United States v. Herbert Zschiegner: Herbert
Zschiegner, the former owner and operator of
Zschiegner Refining Co., a Howell Township, New
Jersey, precious metals recovery operation, pled guilty
on April 26,1995, to illegally dumping chemicals into
a Monmouth County brook and adjacent wetlands
during the period from 1990 to 1992. Zschiegner
admitted to violating three counts of the Clean Water
Act by illegally discharging, without a permit, acids,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, zinc and iron
from his metals recovery operation into the Haystack
Brook and surrounding wetlands between January 1990
and October 31, 1992. On September 28, 1995,
A-96
July 1996
-------
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
Zschiegner was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment
on each of three counts of violating the Clean Water
Act, to run concurrently, and 3 years probation. As
part of his plea agreement and sentence, Zschiegner is
also required to pay $650,000 to EPA as partial
restitution for the costs incurred by the Agency in
cleaning up the former business site.
United States v. Patel: On January 17, 1995,
Mahendra "Mike" Patel was convicted after a jury trial
in federal District Court for the Northern District of
New York oh one count of violating RCRA relating to
illegal storage of a hazardous waste. Patel, the former
president of MGM Textiles Industries, was indicted hi
1994 for illegal disposal (by abandonment) of a
hazardous waste, and for illegal storage of a hazardous
waste. The indictment followed an abandonment of
property in St. Johnsville, New York. Patel was
sentenced on May 12, 1995, to five years probation
and six months home confinement. In addition, Patel
was ordered to make restitution to EPA, for its costs
hi cleaning up the MGM site, hi the amount of
$415,082.11. In furtherance of this restitution, Patel
was ordered to forfeit $50,000 by June 1995. The
remaining monies will be paid at the rate of $2,500 per
month.
United States v. Southwest Trading Fuel Oil, Inc.:
On April 11, 1995, South West Trading Fuel Oil, Inc.,
pled guilty in federal District Court for Puerto Rico to
one count of violating the Clean Water Act, by
negligently discharging, or causing to be discharged,
oil from a tank into Guaypao Bay, Puerto Rico. In
addition, the corporation has agreed to pay a $50,000
fine. On May 5, 1994, about 80,000 gallons of used
oil spilled from a storage tank at the company's
facility; approximately 5,000 gallons entered the
pristine bay hi Guanica, Puerto Rico. The remaining
75,000 gallons have sunk into the ground hi front of
the storage tank. The spill occurred when a thief tried
to steal a motor from a storage tank within the former
Guanica Sugar Mill, rupturing a hose and allowing the
oil to spill out. The motor, which was left on the
ground is used to pump used oil into the tank where it
is stored. The thief was not caught. The tank, which
was originally intended to hold thousands of gallons of
molasses (utilized hi sugar refining), had no dyke
surrounding it. Its use for the storage of oil was
therefore illegal.
United States v. Peter Frank, et al.: On April 4,
1995, after a trial hi federal District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, Noble "Buzzy"
Darrow—one of five defendants hi this matter—was
found guilty of knowingly and willfully causing waste
oil to be placed on board the Nathan Berman (a
barge), though he knew that the barge did not have a
Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection to carry oil. The
. remaining defendants were acquitted of all charges,
and Darrow himself was also acquitted of other
environmental crimes; however, the defendants face
additional environmental charges on which they are
scheduled to be tried starting hi January 1996.
The prosecutions arose out of an investigation by EPA
and other federal agencies of a September 27, 1990,
oil spill that occurred hi the Kill van Kull waterway,
off Staten Island, New York. The spill was a result of
the sinking of the barge Sarah Frank. The indictment
alleged that the defendants sought to enrich the Frank
Companies by, among other methods, the illegal
disposal of sewage sludge and industrial waste; the
illegal handling, storage and disposal of waste
containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the
illegal disposal of oil into United States waters. The
conspiracy counts were severed from this first trial;
they will be the subject of the separate trial mentioned
above.
United States v. Caschem, Inc.: On October 21,
1994, Caschem Inc., a subsidiary of Cambrex
Corporation, and its former regulatory affairs
manager, Stuart Cooper, pled guilty to a one count
information filed the same day related to the storage of
hazardous waste without a permit, a violation of
RCRA. The arraignment took place hi U.S. District
Court for New Jersey. As part of the plea agreement,
Caschem Inc., will pay a $1 million fine. On January
12, 1995, Stuart Cooper was sentenced to 2 years
probation, a $5,000 fine and 200 hours community
service.
United States v. Con Edison: On August 19, 1989, an
explosion of a Con Edison steam pipe hi the Gramercy
Park area of Manhattan released approximately 200
pounds of asbestos into the air. Many people had to
be evacuated from their homes during the ensuing
cleanup operation. In 1993, Con Edison and two
corporate officers were indicted on various charges
including conspiracy to conceal the release of asbestos
hi violation of CERCLA and EPCRA and Title 18,
failure to notify the United States of the release hi
violation of EPCRA, failure to notify the community
emergency coordinator and the state emergency
planning commission hi violation of EPCRA, and
giving false statements and causing others to give false
A-97
July 1996
-------
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
statements in violation of Title 18. After
commencement of trial in October 1994, Con Edison
and Constantine Papakrasas, an Assistant Vice
President in charge of Con Edison's Steam Operations
Division, pled guilty. Con Edison pled to four counts,
including conspiracy, EPCRA failure-to-notify, and
two violations of Title 18. Con Edison was sentenced
to three years of probation under the supervision of a
court-appointed monitor, and fined $2 million. Due in
part to his failing health, Mr. Papakrasas was fined
$5,000.
Mohammed Mizani, H. Lee Smith and Lloyd Smith:
On July 16, 1995, Mohammed Mizani, H. Lee Smith,
and Lloyd Smith pled guilty to count one of the
indictment charging them with conspiracy to violate the
asbestos NESHAP rules promulgated pursuant to the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq. Lee Smith
was sentenced to one year probation and a $50 special
assessment on July 17, 1995, for his role in the illegal
asbestos abatement. Mohammed Mizani and Lloyd
Smith each face a maximum sentence of 5 years
imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.
On August 9, 1995, Lalit Verma was sentenced to five
years probation, fined $25,000 plus a special
assessment of $50. This sentence follows his guilty
plea entered on June 17, 1995, to count one of the
indictment charging him with conspiracy to violate the
asbestos NESHAP rules promulgated pursuant to the
Clean Air Act.
George M. Tribble: George M. Tribble, a former
civilian supervisor at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia, was
sentenced January 24, 1995, to six months home
detention, fined $5,000 and ordered to pay restitution
of approximately $31,000 and to perform 250 hours of
community service for removing asbestos-containing
material from a building owned by his wife and
burying it on post. Tribble pled guilty to one count of
negligently endangering another person pursuant to a
Clean Air Act misdemeanor. The $31,000 hi
restitution covers the Army's expenses in cleaning up
Tribble's disposal site.
Kenneth Morrison: On January 30, 1995, Kenneth
Morrison entered a plea of guilty to two counts of a
nine count criminal indictment for violations of the
Clean Water Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act
and the asbestos NESHAP regulations. On August 2,
1994, Morrison, a scrap metal salvager, was indicted
by a federal grand jury on charges that he violated the
CWA by discharging a harmful quantity of oil into
waters of the United States and failed to notify
authorities of the oil spill. Approximately 1,000
gallons of oil were discharged into the Schuylkill River
during a tank salvaging operation conducted by Mr.
Morrison at the former Celotex industrial facility
located at 3600 Grays Ferry Avenue, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Buckey Pile Line Company: Buckeye Pile Line Co.
pled guilty May 12, 1995, to a Clean Water Act
misdemeanor and was sentenced to pay a fine of
$125,000 and $100,000 hi restitution in connection
with the discharge of oil from a ruptured pipeline in
1990. The company pled guilty to negligently
violating the CWA when a landslide occurred in the
area of its pipeline, causing it to rupture. The rupture
resulted hi the discharge of significant amounts of oil
into the Allegheny River in western Pennsylvania.
Linden Beverage: On September 8, 1995, a federal
jury hi the Western District of' Virginia at
Harrisonburg, found Linden Beverage Corporation,
Inc., of Warren County, Virginia, and its President
and Chief Operating Officer, Benjamin Rice Lacy, III,
guilty of multiple violations of false reporting and
violating Clean Water Act NPDES effluent limitations.
An associated company, Freezeland Orchard Co., Inc.,
was found guilty of one count of falsifying CWA
discharge monitoring reports. Lacy was found guilty
of seven counts of falsifying DMRs and lab reports,
and one count of knowingly discharging pollutants.
Linden was found guilty of six counts of falsification
and one count of knowing discharge. On the first day
of trial, co-defendant Jeffrey Allen Morris, former
plant manager, agreed to cooperate with the
government pending acceptance into the U.S.
Probation Office, Pre-Trial Division Program. Lacy
faces a maximum sentence of three years in prison and
a $50,000 fine for the discharge count, and a two-year
sentence and $10,000 fine for each count of falsifying
documents.
Bitty Lee Brewer: Billy Lee Brewer, plant manager at
the Dunbar, West Virginia, sewage treatment plant,
pled guilty to negligently violating the Clean Water Act
hi connection with the discharge of untreated sewage
into Kanawha River hi violation of the facility's
NPDES permit. The investigation began when citizens
complained of smelling sewage hi a wetland area
adjacent to the Kanawha River. Inspectors for the
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
observed sewage slicks hi the river. They then
discovered that a lift station had been disabled, causing
A-98
July 1996
-------
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
raw sewage to discharge to the wetland area and the
Kanawha River rather than going to the treatment
plant. The investigation revealed that Brewer had
directed plant personnel to disconnect the power to the
lift station. Brewer is scheduled to be sentenced on
December 4, 1995, and.faces a maximum jail term of
one year, a fine of up to $100,000 or $25,000 per day
of violation, or both.
Kenneth Chen: Kenneth Chen, a California-based real
estate investor, was sentenced to 4 years hi jail, 4
years probation and fined $25,750 as a result of his
plea to charges of illegal storage of hazardous waste at
the Worsted Mills Complex in Cleveland, Ohio. .Chen
was also ordered to pay $1.4 million in restitution to
the City of Cleveland to repay clean-up costs.
Numerous investors in the property have been
prosecuted hi state court as a result of a joint state/
federal investigation. Chen's firm, Premiere
Enterprises, was also charged and,sentenced to pay a
fine of $25,000.
Summitville Consolidated Mining Co.: A grand jury
in Denver, Colorado, returned an indictment charging
the Summitville Consolidated Mining Company and
Thomas Chisholm, its former environmental manager,
with violations of the Clean Water Act at what was
once the largest producing .gold mine hi Colorado.
The indictment charged that Summitville and Chisholm
committed one count of conspiracy, knowingly
discharging pollutants without Clean Water Act
permits, knowingly and willfully submitting false
statements to the EPA by not reporting the quantity
and quality of discharges at or about the mine, and
knowingly and willfully violating Colorado Department
of Health permits. The Summitville Mine is now a
Superfund site, listed on the EPA's National Priority
List for cleanup.
Louisiana Pacific Corp.: The U.S. EPA and the U.S.
Department of Justice announced that a federal grand
jury in Denver, Colorado, indicted Louisiana-Pacific
Corp., and two former employees of its mill hi
Montrose, Colorado. The indictment alleged that
Dana Dulchery, the former mill manager, and Robert
Mann, the former mill superintendent, engaged in a
conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act hi connection
with the operation of the Montrose facility. The
indictment alleged in other counts that the corporation,
Dulchery and Mann committed separate violations of
the Clean Air Act by tampering with monitoring
devices at the mill and by making false statements
about emissions and production levels at the mill.-
Wheatridge Sanitation District and Mr. Lenny Hart:
On February 25, 1993, a federal grand jury hi the
District of Colorado returned an indictment charging
Mr. Lenny Hart, Acting Superintendent of the
Wheatridge Sanitation District (WSD), with six counts
of false statements hi accordance with the Clean Water
Act, and diree counts of illegal treatment and disposal
of hazardous waste hi accordance with RCRA.
Ultimately, as a result of a plea agreement, the
defendant pled guilty to three counts of making false
statements hi violation of the Clean Water Act, and the
other counts were dismissed. Pursuant to the plea
agreement the Wheatridge Sanitation District was fined
$35,000. The court found "relevant conduct" did
occur, with respect to Lenny Hart, and that he bore
responsibility as an aider and abetter. The court also
found that "intent" did exist and as a result changed
the sentencing level to 18 as opposed to 12 (the level
in the plea agreement). Hart was sentenced to 27
months hi federal prison. On January 12, 1994, Hart
filed an appeal with U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals stating that his sentence should have been
based on a level 12 rather than level 18 as agreed to in
the plea agreement. Hart contended that the district
court misapplied the sentencing guidelines by imposing
"relevant conduct" and "intent."
On July 28, 1995, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
. issued an order and judgment which affirmed the
district court's imposition of sentence hi the case.
Hart must serve 27 months hi federal prison.
State of California v. John Appel, et al.: A jury at
Ventura, California, convicted John Appel and his son
Tony Appel of conspiracy and violation of the State
Water Code for their unpermitted filling activities on
San Antonio Creek in 1994.
John Appel owns Eager Beaver Tree Trimming
Service and farmland along San Antonio Creek near
Ventura, California. For several years he had
disposed of the refuse from this business in the bed of
the creek thereby avoiding landfill charges. Efforts to
compel Appel to stop this activity by state Fish and
Game authorities and by the Corps of Engineers were
unsuccessful and resulted hi a referral to EPA for
enforcement hi early 1994. In April 1994, Appel was
issued an administrative order by Region DC requiring
him to stop the discharges and to remove illegal fill.
Investigation showed that Appel continued to dump
refuse and other fill into the river through the summer
of 1994. In December 1994, Region IX obtained a
A-99
July 1996
-------
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report
preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court
requiring him to stop the discharges and Appel
apparently complied. In heavy rains that winter,
Appel's fill affected the hydrology of the river in a
way that caused neighboring properties to flood.
A-100
July 1996
------- |