ymtedjStates
ifeW/'f;
t-'StVjMH? ;S
-------
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
FY98 Accomplishments Report
June 1999
-------
Foreword
May 1,1999
This past year has witnessed notable progress in making EPA's enforcement and compliance
programs more effective in protecting public health and the environment. Since the
reorganization of OECA in 1994, we have been striving to build EPA's capacity for effective
enforcement action at the same time that we develop new approaches to achieving compliance.
The principal building blocks of an integrated enforcement and compliance assurance strategy
are now in place and the results are encouraging. As an introduction to our Fiscal Year 1998
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report, I would like to highlight just
a few of our diverse accomplishments over the past year.
EPA maintained a strong and fair enforcement program in FY98. We expanded our efforts to
give industry incentives to voluntarily disclose and correct violations. We also worked hard to
give small businesses the information and assistance they need to maintain compliance with the
law. This three-pronged approach — enforcement, compliance incentives, and compliance
assistance — is reaping great dividends in terms of protecting the public and the environment.
Our FY98 record of referrals — 677 criminal and civil cases, with over $180 million assessed
in penalties and fines — represents the second highest combined totals in EPA's history. Perhaps
more importantly, the settlements we achieve are bringing about significant environmental
improvements. Settlements in FY98 alone have contributed to the reduction of five million
pounds of ozone-depleting CFCs, seven million pounds of asbestos, 188 million pounds of
carbon monoxide, and 23.6 million pounds of nitrogen oxide in the environment.
EPA's extensive set of compliance assistance tools helps businesses and communities all across
the country comply with environmental requirements by offering "plain English" guides to
environmental requirements, translations of requirements into several languages, sector
notebooks, and national Compliance Assistance Centers. EPA added five new centers, bringing
to a total of nine industry-specific, Internet-based Compliance Assistance Centers that are up
and running.
These are but a few of the noteworthy accomplishments we realized in FY98. We look back
with pride on these activities and with gratitude to our dedicated staff. In this last year of the
20th century, we look forward to a renewed effort to provide the best possible living
environment to all Americans.
Sincerely,
Steven A. Herman
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
1. Introductory Summary 1
1.1 Overview of FY98 Accomplishments 1
1.2 Guide to This Report 6
2. Meeting EPA's Strategic Goals 7
2.1 Goal 9: A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater
Compliance with the Law 7
2.2 Goal 7: Expansion of Americans' Right to
Know About Their Environment 18
2.3 Goal 5: Better Waste Management, Restoration of
Contaminated Waste Sites, and Emergency Response 22
3. Priority Industry Sectors 27
3.1 The Sector Approach 27
3.2 Petroleum Refining 27
3.3 Primary Nonferrous Metals 30
3.4 Inorganic Chemicals and Chemical Preparations 32
3.5 Agricultural Practices/CAFOs 37
3.6 Automotive Service and Repair Shops 39
3.7 Dry Cleaning 42
3.8 Other Sectors 45
4. Media-Specific Priorities 49
4.1 Clean Air Act 49
4.2 Clean Water Act 51
4.3 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 53
4.4 FIFRA 54
4.5 RCRA 55
4.6 Safe Drinking Water Act 57
5. Highlights: Enforcement Cases 59
5.1 Civil Cases 59
5.2 Criminal Cases 73
6. Highlights: Compliance Assistance Programs 81
6.1 Compliance Assistance Activities 81
6.2 Compliance Monitoring Activities 84
6.3 New Policies 87
Appendix: Historical Enforcement Data 89
-------
List of Acronyms
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CFC Chlorofluorocarbons
CWA Clean Water Act
DMR Discharge Monitoring Report
DOJ Department of Justice
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FY Fiscal Year
IDEA Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis
NEIC National Enforcement Investigation Center
NESHAP National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NOV Notice of Violation
OCEFT Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
SNC Significant Noncompliance
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
UAO Unilateral Administrative Order
UST Underground Storage Tank
-------
CHAPTER 1
Executive Summary
-
1.1 | Overview of FY98 Accomplishments
Fiscal year 1998 (FY98) saw a strong record of enforcement and compliance assurance activity,
close to the previous year's record level of achievements. Some categories of activity — such as
inspections, administrative penalty order complaints, and numbers of criminal cases initiated —
logged a substantial increase. The numbers of civil cases settled or referred, on the other hand,
recorded slight declines. Compliance assistance activity is tracked less formally than enforcement,
but also recorded significant accomplishments in FY98. Following are highlights of the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's (OECA) activities and accomplishments.
Environmental Results
^- Pollutant Reductions: For the third year, EPA is reporting performance measure data
on pollution reductions achieved when enforcement actions are taken. For the FY98
cases reporting pollutant reductions, total suspended solids (TSS) and fecal coliform
were the two pollutants most frequently reduced through an EPA enforcement settlement.
^ Most Common Chemicals Reduced: For the FY98 civil cases reporting amounts
of pollutant reduction, the three largest pollutant reductions were for contaminated
soil, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and wetlands fill material. During FY98,
chlorofluorocarbons were reduced by over five million pounds, asbestos by more than
seven million pounds, carbon monoxide by 188 million pounds, and nitrogen oxide
by 23.6 million pounds. The top 10 amounts of pollutant reductions reported are shown
in Exhibit 1-1.
^ Qualitative Environmental Impacts: Qualitative impacts were reported for 64% of
FY98 civil settlements. The most frequent benefits reported were human health protection
(42%) and ecosystem protection (31%). At the statute level, Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) settlements had the highest proportion protecting human health benefits (72%
of SDWA cases), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) settlements had the highest
proportion of worker protection benefits (35% of TSCA cases), and Clean Water Act (CWA)
settlements showed the greatest ecosystem protection (73% of CWA cases).
-------
Changes in Facility Operations: About 46 percent of civil enforcement settlements
required violators to change the way they manage their facilities or reduce emissions or
discharges into the environment, while another 54 percent required violators to improve
their environmental management systems, take preventive action to avoid future non-
compliance, or enhance the public's right-to-know. See Exhibits 1-2 and 1-3 for details
on complying actions.
Criminal Case Outcomes: For the first time, there is information on the qualitative
environmental impacts of criminal cases. Of the criminal investigations/cases concluded
in FY98 that reported an environmental benefit, the most frequently reported benefit
was human health protection (28%), followed by ecosystem protection ^ s-0/~
Enforcement Cases and Penalties
^ Civil and Administrative Settlements: Overall, EPA concluded 3,479 formal actions
or settlements in FY98, EPAs second highest level.
^- Civil Referrals: EPA submitted 411 civil case referrals to the Department of Justice
(DOJ) in FY98; $91.8 million in civil penalties was assessed. The number of cases
represents a 4% drop from FY97 but a 40% increase over FY96 cases. (Exhibit 1-4)
^ Criminal Program: In FY98, 266 criminal cases were referred to DOJ and $92.8 million
in criminal fines was assessed. The criminal program set annual records for defendants
charged (350) and investigations initiated (636).
^ Administrative Orders Initiated: EPA increased its use of administrative penalty
orders in FY98, issuing 1,400 complaints — a 7% increase over FY97 levels and the second
highest total in this decade.
Exhibit 1-1: Top 10 Pollutants
Reduced, FY98
Exhibit 1-2: Types of Compliance
Activity, FY98 Civil Cases
Contaminated soils
BOD
Wetlands fill material
Carbon monoxide
Battery casing chips I |112
Explosives ^^^ ge
Total suspended solids P^ 64
Sludge FJ 53
Wood tar FJ 50
Used oil/waste/spills^| 46
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Millions of pounds reduced
Reporting
Monitoring/sampling
Recordkeeping
Remediation/restoration
Emissions/discharge change
Removal
Storage/disposal change
Training
Permit application
Industrial process change
Use reduction
Remedial design/action
25%
H 25%
H 22%
13%
10%
H10%
Note: Based on 3,103 of the 3,479 settlements for
which complying actions were reported. Many
settlements reported multiple complying actions.
2 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
HV Making Polluters Pay: Polluters spent more than $2 billion to
correct violations, take additional steps to protect the environment,
and clean up Superfund sites — over $85 million more than was
collectively spent the previous year. The FY98 estimated value of
injunctive relief ($2 billion) was at its highest total since EPA began to
estimate the value in 1995; it was 38% higher than in FY96 and 4%
higher than FY97 (see Exhibit 1-5). Clean Water Act settlements were
responsible for the highest amount of injunctive relief ($860 million
or 43% of the total) and supplemental environmental project (SEP)
value ($42 million, or 46% of the total).
^- Penalties: Since 1974, EPA has assessed fines and penalties
amounting to over $1.5 billion. In FY98, the Clean Air Act (CAA)
was responsible for 53% of criminal penalties ($49 million) and
44% of civil judicial penalties ($28 million). The Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) garnered the most
administrative penalties (20%) at $5.5 million.
^- Federal Facilities: FY98 was a watershed year for enforcement at
federal facilities, with EPAs exercise of newly-clarified enforcement
authorities under the SDWA, CAA, and the lead-based paint notice
provisions of the TSCA, as well as an innovative compliance
initiative with the Department of the Interior. Nationwide, 30
multi-media inspections were performed at federal facilities during
FY98 in a coordinated effort with EPA Regions and state/local
inspectors. Twenty-two of the inspections were conducted at
Defense Department facilities.
Supplemental Environmental Projects
SEPs are environmentally beneficial projects that may be proposed by a
violator during the settlement of an enforcement action. EPA examines
whether a violater is committed to, and has the ability to, perform a
SEP when determining the appropriate settlement penalty. Although
violaters are not legally required to perform a SEP, their cash penalty
may be lowered if they choose to perform an acceptable SEP. An
acceptable SEP must reduce risks to, improve, or protect public health
or the environment.
HV Numbers Of SEPs: SEPs continue to be included as part of the
settlement of administrative penalty actions and, to a lesser extent,
judicial settlements. In FY98, EPA settlements produced 221 SEPs,
lower in number than in FY97 but higher in monetary value ($90.8
million). Over the last three years, 20% of all judicial and
administrative penalty orders included a SEP. In FY98,14% of such
actions included a SEP. (See Exhibit 1-6.)
Exhibit 1-3: Types of Compliance Activity,
FY98 Criminal Cases
Storage/disposal change
Emission/discharge change
Removal
Remediation
Monitoring
Process change
Recordkeeping
Use reduction
Audit
Cleanup
Permit application
118%
116%
• 12%
111%
110%
9%
1 4%
1 4%
1 3%
Note: Based on 41 7 criminal investigations/ cases concluded in FY98
Exhibit 1-4: Referrals, Fines,
& Penalties, FY96-98
Civil f Criminal | Total
800M
600^
400-
200-
557 referrals
$172.8 million
| 1
704 referrals
$264.4 m
1
| 1
lion
677 referrals
$184.6 million
1
J
FY96
FY97
FY98
FY98 figures are the second highest in OECA's history. EPA referred
677 civil and criminal cases to the Department of Justice and assessed
$184.6 million in fines and penalties.
Exhibit 1-5: Value of
Injunctive Relief, FY96-98
$1.9B
$2B
$1.4B
FY96
FY97
FY98
Executive Summary I 3
-------
Exhibit 1-6: EPA's Use of SEPs in
Settlement of Formal Enforcement
Actions, FY95-98
350 -i 1 1 1 r $120
300^
£ 250 -_
LLJ
C/l
•b 200^
*
• 150H
100^
50^
0-
V
u
-100 i
1
8.
LU
-eo i2
-40 -5
Types of Cases Producing SEPs: The use of SEPs is most prevalent
in the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) and RCRA programs. In FY98, 36% of EPCRA and 23% of
RCRA penalty actions included a SEP. While only 10% of CWA
enforcement actions included a SEP, CWA cases continue to obtain
the highest dollar value SEPs of any one program, and were responsible
for 46% of the FY98 total SEP value and 36% over the last three years.
Environmental Benefits: Pollution prevention continues to be the
most frequent category of SEPs. EPA estimates that 60% of SEPs
offered human health or worker protection benefits, while 52%
offered ecosystem protection.
FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98
Exhibit 1-7: Inspections
Up Sharply in FY98
23,237
18,210
18,706
FY96
FY97
FY98
Exhibit 1-8: Regional Compliance
Assistance Activities, FY98
Telephone 529 workshops &
hotlines reached —. training courses
39,510 entities reached 27,026 entities
Inspections and Noncompliance Rates
>• Inspections: In FY98, EPA's Regional staff conducted 23,237
inspections under the various environmental statutes, a 19% increase
over FY97 levels. (See Exhibit 1-7.)
^ Significant Noncompliance: This report includes tentative data
on noncompliance with major statutes. Significant noncompliance
(SNC) rates are given in Chapter 2 for the pilot sectors included in
the Sector Facility Indexing Project. Beginning in FY99, OECA will
be implementing new measurement systems as part of the National
Performance Measures Strategy (see box on next page), and will
report on SNC duration and recidivism in the FY99 Annual
Accomplishments Report.
Compliance Incentives
^- Audit Policy: As a part of EPA's compliance incentive policies and
strategies in FY98, at least 200 companies disclosed potential violations
at 950 facilities under the auspices of the Agency's self-disclosure (audit)
policy and 63 companies have settled those cases by correcting
violations at 390 facilities and taking steps to prevent their recurrence.
Since the inception of the audit policy, a total of 430 companies have
disclosed violations at 1,788 facilities and relief was granted to 164
companies at 540 facilities that returned to compliance.
^ Targeted Initiatives: EPA has undertaken several initiatives
targeted to specific industries, that combine the audit policy with
incentives such as reduced penalties or penalty caps. FY98 efforts
were targeted at the food products, industrial organic chemicals, and
telecommunications industries.
2,285 tools were distributed
to 177,382 entities
4 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Future Improvements in Measurement:
National Performance Measures Strategy
In FY98, OECA proceeded with the initial stages of implementing the National Performance
Measures Strategy (NPMS) as a way of measuring the results of EPA's enforcement and
compliance assurance activity. Among the enhanced measures are compliance rates for
selected regulated populations, pollutant reductions and other outcomes from
enforcement actions, behavioral changes resulting from compliance assistance, and average
time for significant violators to return to compliance. These measures will foster analysis
of program performance and improve effectiveness by identifying activities and strategies
that achieve the best results.
NPMS will also help meet the goals of the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA), which requires federal agencies to report on performance using outcome-
based measures.
In December 1997, EPA issued a report summarizing over 20 public meetings with
stakeholders and a set of 12 measures known as the Performance Profile. (Both the Profile
and the report can be found on the OECA website at http://es.epa.gov/oeca/perfmeas/.)
During 1998 and now into 1999, EPA has been developing definitions, designing
information collection and reporting processes, modifying existing data systems, and
conducting pilots projects to test the measures. Several NPMS measures are discussed in
Chapter 2; future Annual Accomplishments Reports will use the full set of measures to
provide a more comprehensive assessment. Below are listed the NPMS measures and the
timeframe in which they will be activated.
Performance Profile: NPMS Implementation Timetable
Measures Already Being Used (Possible Refinements in FY2000)
Set 2 Environmental and human health improvements from enforcement
Set 5 Number of self-policing efforts from using compliance incentive policies
Set 10 Facilities/entities reached through compliance assistance
PHASE I - April 1,1999 Implementation for FY99 Reporting (3rd & 4th Quarters)
Set 6 Average duration of time for significant violators to return to compliance
Set 7 Percentage of significant violators with recurrent significant noncompliance
within a 2-year period
Set 8 Number of investigations conducted
Set 9 Number of notices of violation by media
Set 11 Capacity-building efforts provided to state, local, or tribal programs
PHASE II - October 1, 1999 Implementation for FY2000 Reporting
Set 1 Statistically valid compliance rates for selected regulated populations
Set 3 Improvements resulting from compliance assistance
Set 4 Improvements resulting from integrated initiatives
Set 8 Number of records reviews
t 9 Number of self-policing settlements concluded
Executive Summary I 5
-------
Compliance Assistance
^ Numbers of Facilities Reached: In FY98, EPA's Regional offices collectively reached
approximately 250,000 regulated entities through compliance assistance outreach in
priority industry sectors and environmental media. The highest amount of compliance
assistance activity occurred through the distribution of compliance assistance tools, which
reached over 175,000 facilities. (Exhibit 1-8.)
^ Compliance Assistance Centers: Working in partnership with businesses and
municipalities, EPA created five new National Compliance Assistance Centers for
chemical manufacturing, local governments, paints and coatings, printed wiring board,
and transportation sectors. This increased the total number of compliance assistance
centers to nine. In FY98, the six centers that were in operation most of the year logged
over 190,000 visits to their websites by small businesses, assistance providers, government,
and the public, and responded to over 3,600 calls and questions via e-mail and telephone
assistance lines. See Chapter 2 for more details.
^- Sector Notebooks: EPA published nine new Sector Notebooks — a series of industry-
specific multimedia profiles that help owners and operators of regulated industries
understand their regulatory obligations and identify ways to run their businesses more
economically and efficiently. There are now a total of 27 Sector Notebooks. To date, over
300,000 Notebooks have been distributed in printed and electronic formats to audiences
in the United States and abroad.
Public Access
^ Sector Facility Indexing Project: During FY98, EPA completed the pilot phase of
the Sector Facility Indexing Project, which compiles and makes environmental data
publicly available on 653 facilities in five key industrial sectors — automobile assembly,
pulp manufacturing, petroleum refining, iron and steel production, and primary smelting.
1.2 | Guide to This Report
Chapter 2 of this report presents the key accomplishments and activities of OECA in FY98,
using as a framework the goals of EPA's strategic plan and the concepts embodied in the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Chapter 3 discusses priority industry
sectors; Chapter 4 discusses priorities within specific environmental media.
Chapter 5 highlights major enforcement cases and achievements during the year, and Chapter
6 concludes with a presentation of key program achievements in compliance assistance. An
appendix contains historical data for EPA's enforcement program.
6 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
CHAPTER 2
-
Meeting EPA's Strategic Goals
EPA's Strategic Plan charts a course for protecting human health and the environment. To
transform this ambitious mandate into concrete actions with measurable results, EPA has
identified 10 goals, each of which is a high priority for all Agency offices. One of the goals —
Goal 9, which mandates compliance with environmental laws — is the responsibility of OECA
and relates almost exclusively to OECAs mission. Two other goals also represent important
parts of OECAs mission: Goal 7 expands public involvement in environmental protection by
giving citizens easy access to information about their local environment, and Goal 5 ensures
that wastes will be managed in an environmentally protective manner and that polluted sites
will be restored. This chapter briefly highlights each of these goals and discusses OECAs
accomplishments in FY98 that support them.
2.1 | Goal 9: A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and
Greater Compliance with the Law
As its basic mission, OECA seeks to ensure full compliance with laws intended to protect
human health and the environment. OECA staff work to identify and reduce noncompliance,
maintain a strong enforcement presence, and increase the use of compliance assistance tools
and incentives policies.
Over the past five years, EPA has developed new tools such as compliance assistance (i.e.,
providing information and guidance about environmental requirements to regulated entities)
and compliance incentives (i.e., policies to encourage self-policing through identification,
correction, and disclosure of violations by regulated facilities). These new tools join a strong
program of compliance monitoring (through inspections and investigations) and civil and
criminal enforcement actions, to form a national program which applies the appropriate tool
-------
or combination of tools to address environmental problems and patterns of noncompliance.
A strong enforcement effort is the foundation of the national program, providing a deterrent
effect which motivates regulated entities to seek assistance and use incentive policies, and
providing fairness in the marketplace to ensure that noncomplying facilities do not gain an
unfair competitive advantage over facilities that have dedicated resources to compliance.
The FY98 record of accomplishments illustrates how both traditional and innovative
approaches are being used to achieve the compliance necessary to protect public health and
the environment. The following sections discuss some of these FY98 accomplishments in
terms of the two objectives that support Goal 9. In light of the vital role states play in
implementing programs, one of our most important efforts has been establishing more effective
partnerships with states to improve our collective compliance and enforcement capacity.
Objective 1: Identify and reduce significant noncompliance in high priority areas
while maintaining a strong enforcement presence in all regulatory program areas.
OECA's first objective envisions a targeted effort to reduce significant noncompliance (SNC) in
high priority areas while simultaneously maintaining the necessary strong enforcement presence
across the board. Significant noncompliance refers to the most egregious violations under
each program or statute. The priority areas focus on environmental and noncompliance
problems which might be based on a geographic location, an industry sector, or a specific set
of statutory requirements. Perhaps more than any other single objective, Objective 1 embodies
the essence of OECA's mission. The components of this objective are discussed separately below.
Reducing Significant Noncompliance in High Priority Areas
OECA concentrates on two types of high priorities — industry sectors and environmental
media. Chapters 3 and 4 provide more detail on activities in each of these priority sectors.
Although overall compliance rates or SNC rates are not yet available for each of the priority
industry sectors, in FY98 OECA completed a pilot project — the Sector Facility Indexing
Project — to compile two-year SNC rates for five key industries. A large part of the success of
this project rests on EPAs concerted efforts to identify the universe of facilities in each sector.
The compliance information, which is available online (http://www.epa.gov/oeca/sfi) and
updated regularly, is summarized in Exhibit 2-1, which shows the wide variability in SNC
rates in FY98 as well as historically in these sectors.
For environmental media, EPAs traditional databases on permits and enforcement actions
provide rough compliance rates, some of which are of particular cause for concern. In FY98:
^- NPDES-Permitted Major Sources: 27% of facilities classified as major National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) sources were in significant
noncompliance with their water permits in at least one quarter in FY98; another 27%
were in a less severe category of reportable noncompliance.
8 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Exhibit 2-1: SNC Rates for Five Priority Sectors, Sector Facility Indexing Project
Industry
AUTOMOTIVE ASSEMBLY
IRON AND STEEL MILLS
Integrated Mills
Mini Mills
NONFERROUS METALS
Aluminum Smelting/Refining
Copper Smelting/Refining
PETROLEUM REFINING
PULP MANUFACTURING
Number of
Facilities
58
23
91
23
14
179
244
Percentage of Facilities in
Significant Noncompliance
as of June 1998
Air
11.8%
72.7%
21.2%
26.1%
27.3%
45.0%
19.0%
Water
0.0%
39.1%
2.7%
4.3%
12.5%
11.8%
4.7%
RCRA
1.7%
30.4%
4.5%
4.3%
9.1%
14.1%
0.0%
Historical Noncompliance*
Air
0.9
5.0
1.5
1.1
1.0
2.1
1.1
Water
3.0
5.4
2.7
2.3
2.0
2.4
1.9
RCRA
2.3
5.7
1.7
1.6
3.2
3.4
0.6
Total
4.0
7.9
3.9
4.1
3.4
4.8
2.7
Note: SNC data are based on inspected facilities. 'Average number of quarterly periods, June 1996-June 1998, with one or more violations or noncompliance events.
^- CAA Majors: EPA data suggest that 7% of air sources were significant violators in FY98.
However, review by the Inspector General suggests that violations are underreported.
OECA's targeted initiatives also suggest much higher rates of noncompliance with the
Clean Air Act's crucial New Source Review requirements.
^- RCRA: Approximately 20% of combusters and land disposal facilities are in
significant noncompliance. About a third of tank owners and operators do not meet
Underground Storage Tank (UST) program requirements.
^- SDWA: One quarter of drinking water systems are not in compliance with public health
standards.
Over the next two years, EPA will be using several new measures to provide a more sophisticated
understanding of significant noncompliance of high priority facilities. The measures will show
the length of time it takes for companies in significant noncompliance to make environmental
improvements that return them to compliance, as well as recidivism rates. In addition, OECA
will be developing statistically significant compliance rates for sectors and media priorities,
drawing on data in the media-based data systems supplemented by random inspection data.
The data will be critical for establishing baseline performance rates for priority areas and for
determining progress over time.
Meeting EPA's Strategic Goals I 9
-------
Maintaining a Strong Enforcement Presence
Maintaining a strong enforcement presence is a joint imperative for EPA and the states. States
carry out the vast majority of environmental inspections. This report tracks only EPA data. In
FY98, EPA significantly increased the number of inspections by 19%; nevertheless, the 23,000
inspections carried out are a small fraction of the universe of regulated facilities. Exhibits 2-2
and 2-3 provide a rough picture of the universe of facilities that need to comply with
environmental statutes and the statutes under which they typically fall.
OECA has begun tracking investigations as a significant and separate type of intervention,
usually more technically detailed and systematic than inspections. Another important measure
of enforcement presence is how EPA responds to citizen complaints. In FY98, EPA began
implementing two pilot programs in Regions 2 and 5 to collect data on the number of informal
enforcement actions taken. Such actions are defined as notices of violation or noncompliance
or deficiency warning letters (see box on next page). These actions contribute significantly to
compliance when followed by formal enforcement actions if response is inadequate. Informal
enforcement actions and responses to citizen complaints will both be reported in next year's
annual report.
Exhibit 2-2: Core Regulated Facilities That
Need to Comply with Environmental Statutes
Exhibit 2-3: Other Regulated Entities That
Need to Comply with Environmental Statutes
CAA (3%)
TSCA (12%)
CWA (8%)
EPCRA (1%)
FIFRA(1%)
SDWA (37%)
RCRA (38%)
Core Regulated Facilities
CAA
CWA
EPCRA
FIFRA
RCRA
SDWA
TSCA
Stationary sources
NPDES
Pretreatment Users
TRI Reporters
Producers/Registrants
Haz. Waste Management
Drinking Water Systems
Underground Inj. Wells
Core TSCA
TOTAL CORE FACILITIES
39,961
89,455
30,000
22,085
16,124
429,080
173,272
405,657
183,000
1,366,634
TSCA (27%)
»^ CAA (7%)
CWA (3%)
RCRA (15%)
FIFRA (48%)
Other Regulated Entities
CAA Mobile Sources Program
Asbestos Demolition
Dry Cleaners
CWA Stormwater
CAFOs/AFOs
Wetlands
FIRFA Farms/Applicators
RCRA Underground Storage Tanks
TSCA Asbestos
PCBs
TOTAL OTHER REGULATED ENTITIES
360,585
94,885
33,863
200,000
6,600/7
3,080,740
969,652
1,300,000
500,230
6,546,555*
(excludes 12.8 million lead sites under TSCA)
10 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Exhibit 2-4: EPA Civil Referrals to
DOJ, FY89-98
QAir QCERCLA Q Water | RCRA Q Tox
cs/Pestic
des/EPCRA
400 -_
350 -_
300 -_
250 -_
200 -_
•\50-_
•\00-_
50 ^
n :
=
—
—
—
—
—
—
I
— i
~
—
—
-
_
—
;
Exhibit 2-5: EPA Criminal Program Shows
Sustained Growth in Key Outputs Over
10-Year Period
E
o
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
Fiscal Year
>uu -
!50-
!00-
50-
00-
50-
Q
••-.
-*'
—
/
^
^
/ S
|— i
^
v-
"~
A
/
s 1
•
r- 1
1
i
/
K
n
\
V
- i ou
^160
-120 1
5
L80 £
-60 1
E
^40 5
j20 |
n
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Fiscal Year
Number of Informal Enforcement Actions Taken by Region 2 in FY98 (by Statute)
CAA: 8 notices of violation; 124 notices of deficiency
CWA: 187 warning letters
TSCA: 91 notices of noncompliance
FIFRA: 2 warning letters; 1 stop sale, use, or removal order
RCRA: 90 warning letters
Beyond the initial response and inspection stage, EPA's enforcement program as a whole is
intended to maintain a strong presence in the regulated community — first, by insisting that
violators pay for and correct the damage they caused and prevent future problems, and second,
by deterring others from violating environmental laws. Continuing the momentum from last
year's record level of enforcement, EPA referred the second largest number of civil and criminal
enforcement cases in its history to DOJ and assessed the second largest total amount of civil
and criminal penalties in any one-year period in its history.
Exhibit 2-4 shows the number of referrals of civil cases to DOJ over the last 10 years; Exhibit
2-5 shows the sustained growth of the criminal program, in terms of numbers of cases and
penalties assessed, over the last 10 years as well. In FY98, EPA referred 266 criminal cases and
assessed $92.8 million in criminal fines. On the civil side, EPA referred 411 cases — the third
highest one-year total in history — and assessed $91.8 million in civil penalties. Included
among these actions are the first-ever penalty orders at federal facilities using new and clarified
enforcement authorities under four different environmental statutes.
Meeting EPA's Strategic Goals I 11
-------
Exhibit 2-6: Pollutants Most
Frequently Reduced
TSS
Fecal coliform
Produced water
BOD"
Lead"
Sewage
PCBs "
Asbestos
Oil (oil and grease)
Paniculate matter
VOCs
DDFO
CFCs
Chromium
MFO
Ammonia
Toluene
TCE
Copper
Industrial stormwater
[
1 119
I 93
I 91
I 79
I 64
I 58
I bb
I 55
I 48
1 40
I 3/
I x/
• 35
• 32
1 32
• 27
• 27
• 27
1 25
20 40 60 80 100 120 14
Number of Settlements with Reported Pollutant Reductions
Exhibit 2-7: Environmental Impacts of FY98
Civil Enforcement Actions
Increased Public
Awareness (8%) Environmental
• Restoration (4%)
Other Benefit (1%)
Increased
Government
Knowledge (13%)
Human Health/
Worker
Protection (42%)
Ecosystem
Protection (31%)
Reductions Beyond
Requirements (1%)
Note: Based on 2,214 cases for which benefits were reported.
Tallying the Environmental Effects of Enforcement
Data collected by EPA indicate that the enforcement actions settled in FY98 helped protect human
health and the environment. EPA's criminal enforcement agents, working with the U.S. Customs
Service, reduced ozone-depleting CFCs by more than five million pounds, a tenfold reduction
over the previous year. Asbestos, a known carcinogen, was reduced by more than seven million
pounds. Carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide, both pollutants which can cause severe respiratory
problems, especially among the young, the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems,
were reduced by 188 million pounds and 23.6 million pounds, respectively. Exhibit 2-6 shows the
pollutants most frequently reported reduced through an EPA enforcement settlement.
As a result of EPA enforcement, polluters spent just over $2 billion to correct violations, take
additional steps to protect the environment, and clean up Superfund sites — more than $85
million dollars over what was spent the previous year. Exhibits 2-7, 2-8, and 2-9 show the
environmental impacts of FY98 civil enforcement actions, SEPs, and criminal cases, respectively.
Objective 2: Promote the regulated community's voluntary compliance with
environmental requirements through compliance incentives and assistance programs.
While enforcement cases often take the limelight, compliance incentives and assistance
programs can be equally important in educating and motivating the regulated community
to comply with the law and shoulder their environmental responsibilities.
12 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Exhibit 2-8: Environmental Impacts of FY98 EPA SEPs
Increased Public
Awareness (12%) Environmental
_ • Restoration (3%)
Other Benefits (4%)
Increased
Government
Knowledge (8%)
Ecosystem ~~^^^^~~ Human Health/
Protection (24%) Worker Protection (48%)
Note: Based on 474 benefits reported for 189 SEPs.
Exhibit 2-9: Environmental Impacts of FY98 Criminal Cases
Reductions Beyond
Compliance
Requirements
Environmental
Restoration (2%)
Worker
Protection (14%)
Increased Public
Awareness (14%)
Human Health
Protection (28%)
Ecosystem
Protection (19%)
Increased Fed./State/
Local Knowledge (18%)
Note: Based on 542 benefits reported for 420 investigations/cases
concluded during FY98.
Promoting Voluntary Compliance
Through Compliance Incentives
Audit Policy: EPA's Audit/Self-Policing Policy was developed in 1994-95 to encourage
voluntary auditing and self-disclosure of environmental violations, to provide penalty
mitigation for responsible environmental behavior, and to set forth a positive alternative to
state audit privilege and/or immunity laws, which undermine law enforcement and the public's
right-to-know. Under the Audit Policy, if companies voluntarily discover, promptly disclose,
and expeditiously correct violations found through voluntary environmental audits or a
compliance management system, EPA does not seek gravity-based penalties and generally
does not recommend corporate criminal prosecution.
Approximately 430 regulated entities have identified and disclosed violations at 1,788 facilities
under the Audit Policy, leading to numerous environmental improvements (reduced pollution,
reduced likelihood of spills, safer management of PCBs and other hazardous wastes). EPA has
settled 141 cases under the Audit Policy, including 124 cases resulting in no penalty.
In FY98, OECA initiated an evaluation of the Audit Policy to study its effectiveness and to
recommend appropriate revisions. Results of the evaluation to date have been positive. For example:
^- Disclosure rates — both in terms of the number of entities reporting and the number of
violations disclosed — have increased every year since the effective date of the policy.
^- In some instances, voluntary disclosure by one company has alerted EPA to potential
industry-wide problems. For example, following GTE's disclosure of EPCRA and CWA
violations at 314 of its facilities, EPA undertook to heighten awareness of environmental
requirements across the telecommunications industry.
^- In a voluntary, anonymous survey of 252 disclosing entities, 44 of the 50 entities
responding (88%) stated that they would use the Audit Policy again; 84% would
recommend the Audit Policy to clients/counterparts.
Meeting EPA's Strategic Goals I 13
-------
"EPA's Audit
Policy creates an
incentive for
comprehensive
self-auditing."
- Audit Policy
Survey
"It enhances
compliance,
environmental
performance
and de-
polarization of
regulators and
the regulated
community."
- Audit Policy
Survey
The Audit Policy in Action: U.S. v. GTE Corporation
In January 1998, the largest settlement under EPA's Audit Policy was reached when
GTE Corporation agreed to resolve 600 violations at 314 facilities in 21 states.
GTE disclosed 511 violations of EPCRA, for failing to notify state agencies and
local fire departments of sulfuric acid filled batteries at 229 GTE telecommunications
sites across the country. This information is needed by state and local response
authorities to protect communities and firefighters in case of a chemical spill or release.
Another 89 violations were noted for failure to develop required spill prevention
plans under the Clean Water Act for diesel fuel stored at the facilities. Such plans are
required to help prevent or mitigate spills and keep hazardous chemicals from polluting
streams, rivers and other bodies of water.
After discovering noncompliance at several facilities, GTE promptly notified EPA
of the violations pursuant to EPA's self-disclosure policy and undertook a company-
wide audit at 10,000 sites nationwide. After self-disclosure, GTE worked closely with
EPA to ensure that all the violations were corrected. Under the terms of the settlement,
GTE filed the required EPCRA reports with the appropriate state and local agencies,
and is implementing spill prevention plans at the facilities. The company paid a $52,264
penalty, which is equal to the amount of money saved by the company during its
period of non-compliance. Since the company voluntarily disclosed and corrected
the violations, EPA waived another $2.38 million in potential penalties.
EPA is making improvements to the text of the policy, including broadening the prompt
disclosure period, and clarifying that a facility may satisfy the "independent discovery"
condition even where inspections or investigations have commenced at, or information requests
have been issued to, other facilities owned by the same parent corporation. EPA also encourages
the use of disclosure checklists in order to reduce the time needed to process Audit Policy
cases. EPA is particularly interested in encouraging use of the Audit Policy by companies with
multiple facilities. Such disclosures leverage goverment resources, allow regulated entities to
review their operations holistically, and benefit the environment. For the same reasons, sector-
based enforcement initiatives involving the Audit Policy may figure prominently in EPA's future
enforcement and compliance efforts.
Targeted Incentives: EPA has undertaken several incentives initiatives targeted to
specific industries. Often, these efforts combine the audit policy with other incentives
such as reduced penalties or penalty caps. Examples include:
^ Telecommunications: As follow-up to the GTE settlement, EPA sent letters in FY98
to a number of large telecommunications corporations inviting them to consider the
audit policy to resolve potential environmental concerns, and heightening their awareness
of their enviornmental responsibilities. Several companies have come forward and agreed
to disclose and correct violations.
14 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
^ Organic Chemicals: In August 1998, EPA launched a Compliance Incentive Program
for the Industrial Organic Chemical sector (SIC Code 2869). Facilities were informed
that they had six months to perform voluntary environmental audits of their operations
and identify to EPA potential areas of noncompliance uncovered by the audit. In
accordance with EPAs audit policy, participating facilities may receive substantially
reduced penalties for disclosed violations.
^- Food Products: Under a special time-limited EPA initiative targeted to the food products
industry, nearly 200 companies submitted hazardous chemical information required
under EPCRA and were able to receive reduced penalties for reporting their violations.
As of Feb. 1, 1998, 170 food products companies had paid individual fines of $2,000
(totaling $340,000), which is significantly lower than they would have paid had they not
participated in the initiative.
Reaching the Regulated Community with Compliance Assistance
OECA implemented several pilot projects in FY98 to collect more comprehensive and outcome-
oriented data on the effects of its compliance assurance activities. Exhibit 2-10 on the following
page summarizes information currently available on FY98 activities in priority industry and
media sectors. Among the highlights:
^- Distribution of tools to the regulated community accounted for the largest number of
regulated entities reached by compliance assistance activities, with over 177,000 tools
distributed, including over 18,000 to the auto service and repair sector alone.
^- TRI reporting and other requirements of EPCRA Section 313, as well as stormwater
requirements, generated the largest number of calls to EPA Headquarters and Regional
hotlines — over 22,000 for those two programs, and close to 40,000 for the FY98 total.
At the present time, EPA has only limited data on the effects of compliance assistance activities
on environmental results. As part of NPMS implementation, OECA is developing a consistent
method for tracking outcomes of compliance assistance. As a result, future reports will contain
information in the following categories:
^- Changes in awareness or understanding, which reflect an increased knowledge of
regulatory or nonregulatory environmental issues, including reporting and monitoring
requirements, regulatory schedules, and pollution prevention opportunities.
^- Behavioral changes, which include improvements in compliance and other actual changes
that a regulated entity undertakes as a result of compliance assistance.
^- Environmental and human health improvements, which represent specific environmental
and human health improvements at specific facilities resulting from compliance assistance
activities. An example would be the number of pounds of pollutant emission reductions at
a facility resulting from the adoption of a control technology explained in a training video.
Meeting EPA's Strategic Goals I 15
-------
Exhibit 2-10: Compliance Assistance Summary Data (includes all EPA Regions)
Area
SECTOR-BASED
Agricultural Practices
Auto Service & Repair
Chemical Preparation *
DOI Facilities
Dry Cleaning
Industrial Organics *
Municipalities
Sector-based Totals
MEDIA-BASED
CFC Regulation
New Air Toxics Regulations
EPCRA Section 313
EPCRA Section 301 -31 2
TSCA Section 1018
TSCA Section 402/404
CWA CAFOs
CWA Urban Wet Weather
SDWA Amendments of 1 996
SDWA-PWSS for Microbials
SDWA-UIC
RCRA Generators
RCRA Combustion/Fuel Blenders
RCRA Organic Air Emissions Rule
Media-based Totals
COMBINED TOTALS
Telephone
Hotlines
No. of
Entities
Reached
175
1550
100
3
220
135
75
2258
1975
410
12564
2182
2848
269
100
10200
125
74
1705
4751
0
49
37252
39510
Workshops/
Meetings/Training
No. of
Activities
26
11
15
6
16
13
12
99
4
3
79
15
53
11
48
38
75
14
20
47
3
20
430
529
No. of
Entities
Reached
199
348
280
31
816
509
1595
3778
200
400
4396
570
5920
500
2620
1315
1735
1820
448
2319
125
880
23248
27026
Tools
Developed
In-House
No. of
Activities
3
9
29
1
12
7
9
70
6
3
20
5
6
7
2
12
2
1675
10
124
0
343
2215
2285
Tools
Distributed
No. of
Activities
Reached
3833
18460
1775
544
1451
1905
425
28393
2065
2020
62813
4378
11771
2645
6010
47876
3
996
2105
919
0
5388
148,989
177382
On-site
Visits
No. of
Entities
Reached
0
192
1
5
192
0
87
477
0
0
6
0
46
0
97
5
108
164
1579
202
0
0
2207
2684
'Chemical Preparation and Industrial Organics were combined by one region, so activities in these sectors may be double counted.
16 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Compliance Assistance Centers: EPA's nine national Compliance Assistance Centers are
USG OI tllG
intended to help small businesses and small governmental entities understand and comply
with their regulatory obligations. The centers' Internet sites and toll-free assistance lines provide
centers
comprehensive environmental regulatory and technical information in convenient and user-
friendly forms. Designed and operated by cooperative partnerships of public and private
organizations, the centers offer "plain English" summaries of regulations, access to state "I1
regulations, emission calculation tools, vendor directories, and numerous technical resources.
Iflfl IIP Tiff*
EPA created five new Compliance Assistance Centers in FY98, serving the chemical industry,
local government, paints and coating, printed writing boards, and transportation. See box for „
. r „ . t action.
information on all nine centers.
Compliance Assistance Centers: How to Reach Them
CCAR-Greenlink®: the Automotive Compliance
Information Assistance Center
http://www.ccar-greenlink.org
1-888-GRN-LINK (476-5465)
ChemAlliance
http://www.chemalliance.org
1-800-672-6048
Local Government Environmental Assistance Network
http://www.lgean.org
877-TO-LGEAN (877-865-4326)
National Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center
http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ag
1-888-663-2155 or 913-551-7207
National Metal Finishing Resource Center
http://www.nmfrc.org
1-800-AT-NMFRC
Paints and Coatings Resource Center
http: //www. p aintc enter.org
Printed Wiring Board Resource Center
http://www.pwbrc.org
Printer's National Compliance Assistance Center
http://www.pneac.org
1-888-US PNEAC (1-888-877-6322)
Transportation Compliance Assistance Center
http://www.transource.org
1-888-459-0656
Meeting EPA's Strategic Goals I 17
-------
Six centers that were in operation through most of the year logged over 190,000 visits to their
websites by small businesses, assistance providers, government, and the public. These visits
generated over 1.9 million hits and over 450,000 separate page views, including compliance
documents. The centers also responded to over 3,600 calls and questions via e-mail and
telephone assistance lines. The most popular features of the websites were the technical data
bases, fact sheets, and compliance documents.
Use of the centers appears to influence action. In an online survey of users, 83% reported
taking one or more of the following actions as a result of using a Compliance Assistance
Center: contacting a vendor; requesting technical assistance; contacting a regulatory agency;
changing a process; obtaining a permit; or changing the handling of a waste. Of those using
the centers to help understand federal regulations, 72% of respondents rated the centers either
as useful or very useful. Over 85% of surveyed users visit a center at least once a month.
Nearly one-third of those surveyed visit at least once per week.
2.2 | Goal 7: Expansion of Americans' Right
to Know About Their Environment
Goal 7 is based on the premise that all U.S. citizens have a "right to know" about pollutants in
their environment. Enabling citizens to become involved and informed decision makers is an
important part of OECA's comprehensive approach to protecting the environment. This
approach is particularly important for minority, low-income, and Native American
communities that suffer a disproportionate burden of health consequences from poor
environmental conditions.
Objective: Increase the quality and quantity of education, outreach, and
data availability.
Information is only valuable and useful if the people who need it have access to it. Until
recently, compliance and enforcement information was generally available only through a
Freedom of Information Act request or through commercial information retrieval services.
Too often, this resulted in the requestor receiving boxes of computer printouts and reports
which were difficult and time-consuming to understand and synthesize. Of late, EPA has
embarked on many innovative Internet-based initiatives that are designed to provide useful
information to the public in a form that is easily accessible and user friendly.
18 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Enhancing Public Access
Sector Facility Indexing Project: In FY98, EPA completed the pilot phase of the Sector
Facility Indexing Project (SFIP), which makes it easier for the public to access a wide range of
environmental information about regulated facilities. SFIP currently contains records for five
industry sectors (automobile assembly, pulp manufacturing, petroleum refining, iron and steel
production, and primary smelting and refining of nonferrous metals) that comprise a total of
about 650 facilities. These records had been publicly available but were difficult for government
and public users to access because they were spread across many different databases. SFIP
integrates the information in one place, so that it can be used to better understand overall facility
environmental performance. The data include information on past inspections and enforcement
actions, the size of facilities, annual releases of chemicals into the environment, compliance with
federal regulations, and spill incidents. Background information on the location of facilities and
demographic data about communities near the facilities are also included.
The SFIP database has multiple uses. While SFIP does not rank or order the information,
users can view and sort the data in a number of ways. Users can select standardized report
formats or create their own analyses. Government agencies can use the information as a
planning tool. Facilities can benchmark their data against those of other similar facilities, or
simply monitor their own regulatory performance. Environmental and community groups
now have usable information on the environmental performance of individual facilities. SFIP
has proven to be a valuable tool for sector-level analysis. SFIP has been used by EPA, state
agency staff, and public interest groups to undertake a wide variety of sector analyses and
facility comparisons that were not formerly possible due to inconsistent definitions of facilities,
inadequate identification of permits, inability to access the most current compliance
information, or lack of confidence in the compliance data.
EPA publicly released the SFIP data on May 1,1998, via the Internet (http://www.epa.gov/oeca/
sfi) and made hard copy reports available in September 1998. In its first 11 months, the website
logged approximately 52,000 user sessions and 305,000 hits. Since its release, the data have been
updated regularly. These frequent updates keep the information current and maintain the high
quality of data. Prior to the public release of SFIP, EPA worked for three years to identify the
facilities in SFIP and to assure the accuracy and usefulness of the data. Also, EPA conducted an
unprecedented data quality assurance review, in which each facility included in the project's
database was invited to review and comment on its data; 62% of the facilities responded. EPA
and the states then reviewed the responses and made changes to the data as appropriate.
Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking
(EMPACT): The President's EMPACT Initiative focuses on improving data collection and
data quality and on deploying new technologies for real time and automated measurement,
monitoring, and information delivery.
Meeting EPA's Strategic Goals I 19
-------
EMPACT aims to provide timely, accurate, and understandable environmental information
to the public. By 2001, Americans in the largest metropolitan areas in the country will have an
easy way to answer questions like:
^- "What is the ozone level in my city this morning?"
^- " What is the water quality at my beach today?"
^- "How high is the ultra violet radiation in my metropolitan area today?"
^- "What is the level of contamination in the groundwater at the hazardous waste site in my
community"?
In FY98, OECA began work on an EMPACT project related to wastewater discharges. The
goal is to notify the public of any 24-hour noncompliance with the NPDES permitting program
of the Clean Water Act and explain the environmental and heath significance of this
noncompliance so that community residents can make educated decisions on the use of local
water resources.
OECAs EMPACT project will automate the noncompliance reporting process and provide
timely information to communities through the Internet. A key feature of the project is
development of a ranking system similar to the "ozone alerts" given in most metropolitan
areas during the summer. All of the FY98 project plans were accomplished, including: (1)
developing procedures for receipt, storage, and reporting of the 24-hour noncompliance events,
(2) developing a Noncompliance Event Database, (3) evaluating the environmental and public
health risk assessment of sample noncompliance events and developing an approach for
communicating the risk to the public, and (4) developing a Web page to communicate the
information. A pilot project was conducted in Houston, and will be expanded to other
metropolitan areas in FY99.
IDEA Win: The Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis system (IDEA) is the most
comprehensive single-source of environmental performance on regulated facilities within EPA.
IDEA offers comprehensive historical profiles of inspections, enforcement actions, penalties
assessed, toxic chemicals released, and emergency hazardous spills for each EPA regulated
facility. This single point of access provides information from EPAs air, water, hazardous waste,
TRI, and emergency response notification systems. In addition to usage by EPA staff and
contractors, 16 government agencies and private companies accessed the IDEA database,
running 917 queries. During FY98, EPA staff prepared Version 2.0 of the IDEAWin software
for Windows-based computers. Formally released on November 12,1998, the software includes
various enhancements, including a category for facilities that have never been inspected, new
options for creating user-specified reports, plain English report names, and additional standard
report formats.
20 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Tackling Environmental Justice
Through Enforcement Cases
Dumping of Asbestos-Contaminated Construction Debris Near Middle
School (U.S. v. Philadelphia Construction and Equipment, Inc. et al.): On
December 11, 1997, Howard Parsons, General Manager of Grant Paper Company,
was found guilty of charges stemming from the illegal disposal of construction debris
contaminated with asbestos at a dumpsite located less than a mile from Cobbs Creek
Turner Middle School (approximately 900 pupils). Families with young children reside
in and participate in recreational activities in the affected African-American
neighborhood. It was determined that Grant Paper Company was responsible for the
dumping and was aware that its factory contained over 7,000 feet of asbestos prior to
its demolition. The Grant Paper Company, a subsidiary of BUNZL, USA, subsequently
pled guilty to Clean Air Act violations and remediated the dump site at a cost of $ 1.5
million as part of their probation. On July 21, 1998, Parsons was sentenced to 15
months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release, and ordered to pay $42,000 in
restitution. During his release he is required to restore the residential property he
used as the disposal site to acceptable use and to pay each of the families living in the
area $2,000.
Illegal Methyl Parathion Sprayer Jailed: In 1996, EPA and the state lead
agencies for pesticides enforcement identified a disturbing pattern of pesticide misuse
incidents across many states. Restricted use pesticides — primarily ethyl and methyl
parathion — were being diverted from the agricultural sector into urban, low-income
neighborhoods for control of pests such as spiders, rats, and roaches. When sprayed
indoors, these pesticides retain their toxicity for long periods. This illegal use was the
suspected cause of several deaths and injuries. In FY98, Ruben Brown was sentenced
to two years in federal prison as a result of his illegal spraying of methyl parathion in
thousands of homes in Chicago. Brown, an unlicensed exterminator, pled guilty to
two counts of using methyl parathion to kill roaches in residences. Several thousand
homes were inspected by EPA and state and local agency staff, and dozens of homes
were identified as requiring clean-up. Residents were temporarily relocated during
the clean-up work.
New Orleans SEP: As part of a $200 million settlement reached in April 1998
addressing spills of raw sewage from its antiquated sewage collection system into
nearby waters, the City of New Orleans will spend $2 million on a supplemental
environmental project to improve water quality along Lincoln Beach. This park was
created to serve African-Americans who were barred by law in the 1960s from
admission to the then white-only Pontchartrain Beach amusement park.
Meeting EPA's Strategic Goals I 21
-------
Promoting Environmental Justice
Environmental justice means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of
the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial or government operations
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. OECA maintains an active presence in
environmental justice efforts, through grants, initiatives, and casework. Several cases with a
strong environmental justice component are highlighted on the previous page.
In outreach efforts, OECA developed an "EJ Quarterly" newsletter during FY98 to serve as a
conduit for the exchange of information between EPA and environmental stakeholders. The
newsletter has a current circulation of over 3,000 subscribers, and features articles, news items
covering the full range of environmental justice issues, meeting information, biographical
sketches, and more. A Spanish-language brochure on SEPs is being prepared to help inform
the Hispanic community of how to become involved in these projects.
One current area of emphasis focuses on potential environmental violations occurring in the
Mississippi River Basin. Throughout FY98, EPA participated with the Department of Justice,
the U.S. Coast Guard, and other federal and state entities in environmental task forces located
within the Basin. Using traditional law enforcement techniques, as well as scientific and data
intelligence, EPA opened investigations focusing on the elimination of illegal pollutant
discharges along the Mississippi River and its tributaries. These investigations frequently target
sources that threaten ecosystems and environmental justice communities.
EPAs State and Tribal Environmental Justice Grants Program is intended to help states and
tribes comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and promote environmental justice
in the development and implementation of their environmental programs. In FY98, EPA
awarded five grants of $100,000 each to four states (Vermont, New Jersey, Tennessee, and
Texas) and an Indian tribe (Kalispel in Washington State).
2.3 | Goal 5: Better Waste Management, Restoration of
Contaminated Waste Sites, and Emergency Response
Goal 5 tasks EPA with ensuring that wastes are stored, treated, and disposed of in ways that
prevent harm to people and to the natural environment. It also delegates to EPAs enforcement
program part of the responsibility for cleaning up previously polluted sites, restoring them to
uses appropriate for surrounding communities, and responding to and preventing waste-
related or industrial accidents. The enforcement program addresses this goal by applying the
fastest, most effective waste management and cleanup methods available, while involving
affected communities in the decision-making process.
Superfund Enforcement: Surpassing Last Year's Performance
The Superfund enforcement program achieved results in FY98 that surpassed the previous
year's performance. Significant cases are reported on in Chapters 4 and 5. Statistics on cases
and settlements are as follows:
22 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
PRP Commitments: In FY98, OECA secured commitments from potentially
responsible parties (PRPs — parties that can be held responsible for response costs under
section 107 of CERCLA) exceeding $1 billion. Of this amount, PRPs signed settlements
for more than $806 million in future cleanup work, and approximately $230 million in
past costs. Since the inception of the Superfund program, the total value of private party
commitments (future and past) is approximately $15.5 billion ($13.1 billion in response
settlements, and $2.4 billion in cost recovery settlements).
PRP Actions: In FY98, PRPs continued to initiate approximately 72% of new remedial
actions at National Priorities List sites. PRP commitments for remedial design and
remedial action response work exceeded $618 million during FY98. Remedial response
settlements in FY98 consisted of: 37 cases referred to DOJ, 26 unilateral administrative
orders with PRP compliance, and 8 other administrative orders on consent or consent
agreements for response work.
De Minimis Settlements: To promote enforcement fairness and resolve small party
contributors' potential liability under Section 122(g) of CERCLA, the Superfund
enforcement program concluded 34 de minimis settlements at 26 sites with over 2,200
parties in FY98. Through the end of FY98, EPA has achieved over 400 de minimis
settlements with more than 18,000 parties.
Prospective Purchaser Agreements: EPA's "Guidance on Agreements with Prospective
Purchasers of Contaminated Property" has stimulated the development of sites where parties
otherwise might have been reluctant to take action. With prospective purchaser agreements
(PPA), bona fide prospective purchasers are not held responsible for cleaning up sites
where they did not contribute to or worsen contamination. In FY98, 24 PPAs were signed,
bringing the total to over 90 agreements reached in the program to date.
Orphan Share Reform: EPA made orphan share offers at all eligible remedial and
removal sites in FY 98. (These are shares of Superfund liability attributable to non-viable
or defunct parties.) The reform was expanded to allow for orphan share compensation
offers during cost recovery negotiations. During the past three fiscal years (FY96-98),
EPA has offered approximately $145 million in orphan share compensation at 72 sites.
Administrative Orders: In FY98, EPA signed a total of 125 administrative orders on
consent, and issued 88 unilateral administrative orders. Also in FY 98, the enforcement
program reached 18 ability to pay settlements.
Past Cost Cases: The Agency addressed 194 "past cost" cases (cases for recovery of
EPA's past cleanup costs), including statute of limitation cases, all valued at more than
$200,000 each. Of these cost recovery actions, 61 were CERCLA Sectionl07 referrals to
DOJ, 25 were administrative settlements, 34 were consent decrees, 3 bankruptcy referrals,
and 71 were decision documents to write-off past costs.
Cost Recovery: During FY98, EPA achieved a total of 187 cost recovery settlements
estimated at $230 million, and collected approximately $320 million in past costs. To
date the program has achieved approximately $2.4 billion in cost recovery settlements
and collected over $2.1 billion in past costs.
Meeting EPA's Strategic Goals I 23
-------
Alternative Dispute Resolution Becomes
Standard Operating Procedure
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has become standard operating procedure not only at
EPA, but at other federal agencies and in the court system as well. ADR includes mediation,
arbitration, and a wide range of techniques involving the use of neutral parties to resolve
disputes and obtain community participation. Significant strides were made in FY98 in
incorporating ADR mechanisms into EPAs enforcement program, through case use of ADR,
case support systems, training, provision of ADR services, and outreach to the regulated
community. The ADR Specialists Network offers ADR-experienced staff as consultants to
other EPA and DOJ staff on the effective use of ADR in enforcement actions.
Using ADR to Settle Long-Standing Cases:
General Electric in Pittsfield, Massachusetts
In September 1998, EPA and the Department of Justice announced an agreement in
principle with the General Electric Company (GE) for cleanup and environmental
restoration of the Housatonic River in Massachusetts and associated areas, cleanup
of the approximately 254-acre GE plant facility, brownfields redevelopment of a
portion of the site, compensation for natural resource damages, and government
recovery of past and future response costs. The mediated agreement involved EPA
Region 1, EPA Headquarters, the Department of Justice, federal and state natural
resource trustees, environmental agencies from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and State of Connecticut, and the City of Pittsfield.
The GE Pittsfield/Housatonic River Site has been subject to numerous
investigations dating back to the early 1980s. Since 1990, GE has been engaged in
cleanup activities at the site and associated areas under a Massachusetts consent order.
Since 1994, cleanup has been conducted under an EPA RCRA corrective action
permit. Cleanup under this RCRA permit was slow and laborious, and the Region's
ability to oversee GE's activities was limited by funding constraints in the RCRA
program. The slow pace of remediation increased the human health and ecological
risks resulting from extensive PCB contamination in the area. In September 1997
EPA proposed the site for inclusion on the Superfund National Priorities List. The
site received a score of 70.71 on the Hazard Ranking System where the minimum
score for inclusion on the list is 28.5.
Negotiations with GE began in October 1997. With the assistance of two mediators,
the government met its goal of obtaining a settlement which would restore the
Housatonic River, remediate areas contaminated with PCBs, and allow for
redevelopment of part of the GE plant site under a brownfields agreement with the
City of Pittsfield. At the request of Region 1, the Massachusetts Office of Dispute
Resolution facilitated establishment of a Citizen's Coordinating Council to serve as a
focal point for community participation in the cleanup. The Council includes leaders
from Berkshire County's political, environmental, community and business sectors.
24 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
U.S. v. ASARCO, Inc.
In December 1997, EPA reached a historic agreement with ASARCO, Inc., an
international mining and smelting company. This innovative agreement successfully
combines settlement of three enforcement actions brought under two different
environmental statutes to leverage multimedia environmental change throughout
the corporation's national operations. The synergy created through this agreement
is resulting in far greater protections to human health and the environment than
could have been achieved through litigation of the three claims separately.
The agreement requires ASARCO to institute a very structured, detailed and court-
enforceable environmental management system (EMS) at each of its 32 operating
facilities, affecting over 6,000 ASARCO employees in seven states. The EMS should
significantly reduce the chances of future environmental violations and reduce
ASARCO's environmental releases. ASARCO currently ranks third nationally among
parent companies in total air, water, and land contaminant releases. The agreement
is also unique because it calls for the company to treat certain materials at various
facilities as hazardous, despite their equivocal status under the law. Finally, as in
other environmental settlements, ASARCO is required to correct violations,
remediate environmental harms related to those violations, and to pay a penalty;
the company will also restore a wetlands as a supplemental environmental project.
Under the settlement, the company will pay a $6.38 million penalty, spend up to
$250,000 to establish an environmental project, and spend up to several hundred
thousands of dollars for injunctive relief. The final costs of the injunctive relief,
particularly the corrective action required at ASARCO's East Helena smelter, will not
be known until the investigative stage of the process is complete; the EMS is estimated
to cost $20 million over the five year life of the decree. The EPA ASARCO team came
from Headquarters, EPA Regions 8 and 9, and from the Department of Justice.
During FY98, EPA Regional offices supported PRP allocation settlement efforts through ADR
at more than 40 sites. Regional support for the use of ADR continues to grow substantially,
with all EPA Regional offices using or supporting PRP use of ADR to assist settlement efforts.
Awareness of ADR as a tool for increasing the efficiency of future disputes also continued to
increase during FY98, with mediation included in the dispute resolution provisions of many
judicial and administrative settlement documents.
Multimedia Enforcement Strategies
OECA's multimedia enforcement program evaluates violations, risks and remedies across all
of the environmental programs in a deliberate and coordinated manner. Multimedia
enforcement allows EPA to leverage its resources to obtain broader environmental results
than a single-media approach would permit, and is particularly effective in dealing with
industry sectors, ecosystems, facilities with multiple statutory violations, and companies with
multiple locations in different states and Regions.
Meeting EPA's Strategic Goals 25
-------
EPA's National Enforcement Screening Strategy (NESS) is intended to identify and remedy
significant violations by large corporations of multiple environmental statutes at multiple
facilities across the country. NESS is designed to complement, but not duplicate, the individual
enforcement efforts of EPA Regions, states and local governments. Through this effort, EPA
seeks to effect change at a corporate level that will result in improved compliance across all of
a company's facilities. One of the major cases settled in FY98 through the NESS strategy is
described in the box on page 25.
26 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
CHAPTER 3
-
Priority Industry Sectors
3.1 I The Sector Approach
Over the past few years, OECA has identified a number of industry sectors that require special
attention. A sector-based approach allows EPA to think broadly about the nature of the
compliance problems facing a particular industry, and to identify an appropriate mix of tools
to address the problems. Selecting priority sectors also conforms to the directives of the
Government Performance and Results Act and is a prime element of EPAs Memorandum of
Agreement between OECA and the Regional offices.
Factors considered in selecting sectors include: compliance history, Regional and state concerns,
size of the sector, and potential environmental and human health risk posed by releases.
For FY98-99, 11 sectors were selected as priorities, as shown in the sidebar. Seven of the sectors
are discussed in this chapter in detail, with shorter write-ups on the other four. Most of these
sectors became a priority in FY96 with work continuing through 1999. In FY 2000 only petroleum
refining will continue as a priority sector; some of the other sectors will continue with ongoing
projects, and the rest will enter a maintenance phase. OECA has reduced the number of sectors
it will focus on in FY 2000 in order to concentrate national resources on a few key areas to
allow the Regions and states greater flexibility in addressing their priority areas.
Priority
Industry
Sectors
Agricultural practices/
Concentrated animal
feeding operations
(CAFOs)
Automotive service
and repair shops
Coal-fired power
plants
Dry cleaning
Industrial organics
Chemical
preparations
Iron and steel
Municipalities
Petroleum refining
Primary nonferrous
metals
Pulp mills
3.2 | Petroleum Refining
Petroleum refining is one of the leading manufacturing industries in the U.S. in terms of
commercial transactions ($158 billion in 1996). The sector was selected as a priority because
of the magnitude of its air pollution problems and its high record of noncompliance. Between
1996 and 1998, the sect or had a significant noncompliance (SNC) rate of 45% for air; 12% for
water; and 14%forRCRA. During 1996 and 1997,96% of petroleum refineries were inspected,
resulting in enforcement actions at 49% of the facilities.
Priority Industry Sectors I 27
-------
Facilities Profile: There are relatively few facilities in this sector, but each facility tends to be
large, handling approximately 105,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Currently, 169 operable
domestic refineries are spread among nine of the 10 EPA Regions, down from over 320 in the
early 1980s. Facilities tend to be more concentrated along the Gulf Coast and near heavily
industrialized areas of the east and west coasts. Seventy-six refineries are within three miles of
population centers containing over 25,000 people and 44 are within three miles of centers
containing 50,000 or more people.
Fuel products account for over 87% of the refining sector's output. Refineries also produce
chemical feedstocks and finished nonfuel products (solvents, waxes, asphalt, etc.). Refinery
input is primarily crude oil (162 of the refineries have crude distillation capacity).
Pollutants Profile: The vast majority of refinery releases are air emissions (75%). In a
comparison of 496 other industry categories included in EPA's AIRS database, petroleum refining
ranked first in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), second for sulfur dioxide,
third in nitrogen dioxide emissions, and fifth for carbon monoxide. Releases reported on the
1996 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) averaged 493,162 pounds released per facility, and over 88
million pounds for the sector as a whole.
Compliance Profile: Refineries are routinely and regularly inspected and many of the
inspected facilities have had multiple enforcement actions taken against them. Roughly 80%
of refineries are inspected on an annual basis for air, 65% for water, and 62% for RCRA. The
rate of significant noncompliance has increased for air and water over the last five years, while
decreasing for RCRA over the same period.
Activities and Accomplishments
Inspections and Enforcement: The refining sector has been a priority sector for the
national compliance and enforcement program since 1996. During 1996 and 1997, most field
efforts focused on traditional inspections followed by enforcement as necessary. In FY98,
there were 698 inspections at petroleum refining facilities, 5 referrals, 11 administrative penalty
orders, 36 concluded cases, and penalties assessed in the amount of $2.42 million. Other
enforcement data for the last three fiscal years are summarized in Exhibit 3-1.
Exhibit 3-1 : Petroleum Refineries, FY96-98 Federal Enforcement Data
Actions 1996 1997 1998
Injunctive Relief (Value
of activities to return
company to compliance)
Number of Facilities with
Compliance Actions Required
Number and Value of SEPs
$.12 million
12
3SEPs/$0.15
million
$8.08 million
38
7 SEPs/$2.68
million
$5.81 million
28
6 SEPs/$1 .07
million
28 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
The administrative and judicial settlements EPA reaches with the major
petroleum refining facilities require non-complying facilities to correct
their underlying operational and permit violations in addition to paying
their penalty assessments and fulfilling their supplemental
environmental projects (SEPs). Exhibit 3-2 lists the types of complying
actions required of refineries in FY98.
Significant Cases: Recent significant cases included a multimedia
action against Texaco Refining for violations at its Bakersfield, CA
refinery; a $1.1 million settlement with Coastal Eagle Point Oil
Company, Eagle Point Cogeneration Partnership and Coastal
Technology, Inc. (New Jersey); a complaint filed against Phillips
Petroleum for violating its sulfur dioxide emission limit since 1994 at
its Woods Cross, Utah, refinery; the largest-ever EPCRA 313
enforcement case for Region 6, settled in May 1998 against Sinclair Oil Corporation, Tulsa
Refinery, Oklahoma; and a criminal indictment against M&S Petroleum which dumped
hazardous wastes at a closed refinery and then abandoned it, leaving more than 1.5 million
gallons of waste onsite. That investigation was handled cooperatively by the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality, EPA, the FBI, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Strategic Approach: A sector strategy was developed in FY98 which focuses EPAs efforts
on specific problems at refineries. The overall goals of the sector strategy are to:
^- Reduce emissions from refineries
^- Bring the refineries into long-term compliance (with the issues investigated)
^- Ensure more consistent interpretations and enforcement of regulations.
As part of a more strategic approach, EPA is concentrating on air pollution problems, but is
shifting away from inspections towards more targeted, and more resource-intensive, air
investigations. As a result of this shift, there were fewer referrals in 1998, but indications are
that they may increase again in 1999 as the results of investigations are developed into referrals.
Following are the key compliance problems in this sector and the strategic approach that is
expected to lead to pollution reduction and long-term compliance. The first four elements
involve investigations by the Regions; the last is a compliance assistance program that will be
directed from Headquarters.
1. NSR/PSD Compliance and Permitting: Although average refinery size has increased
by 58 percent in the last two decades, relatively few petroleum refineries have applied for
and obtained pre-construction and operating permits for physical expansions under EPAs
New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) program.
Investigations are focusing on noncompliance with the permitting process, particularly
for fluidized catalytic cracking units, the single largest air emission source at petroleum
refineries. In FY98, 21 investigations were initiated.
Exhibit 3-2: Actions Required of Non-
complying Petroleum Refineries, FY98
Reporting
Recordkeeping
Monitoring
Facility testing
Emissions teductions
Storage and disposal
Remediation
Process changes
Audits
Training
Labeling/manifesting
Removal action
C
28
15
14
12
111
• 8
• 6
^•4
^•4
^•4
^•4
5 10 15 20 25 3
Priority Industry Sectors I 29
-------
2. Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR): Leak detection and repair requirements under
various air regulations require facilities to identify equipment and components subject
to monitoring, ensure that open-ended lines are capped, and monitor the equipment for
leaks. However, monitoring by EPA typically identifies leak rates that are 2 to 10 times
higher than rates identified by the refinery.
3. Refinery Fuel Gas Combustion Devices: These devices represent a significant source
of refinery emissions of sulfur dioxide. In FY98, 23 reviews of excess emissions reports
were initiated.
4. Benzene Waste: Enforcement experience has found widespread refinery noncompliance
and erroneous calculations of total annual benzene in wastestreams, resulting in
uncontrolled and unaccounted-for benzene emissions. EPA will distribute a compliance
assistance package to refiners, establish a baseline, and conduct detailed investigations,
including sampling, to determine refinery compliance.
5. Slotted guide poles: Significant emissions reductions could be gained through the
installation of controls that reduce or eliminate the use of slotted guidepoles for product
sampling and other purposes, which permit vapors to be emitted to the atmosphere.
3.3 | Primary Nonferrous Metals
The primary nonferrous metals sector is comprised of 51 smelting and refining facilities
operating throughout the United States. This sector has been identified as a national priority
since FY96 because of the volume of pollutants released by its facilities and its high rate of
noncompliance. Some areas of the country are unable to meet national ambient air standards
because of releases from smelters. Some of the smelters are individually responsible for not
meeting lead and sulfur dioxide standards in their regions. The sector ranked seventh in overall
noncompliance during FY97 and FY98. About 70% of primary nonferrous metal facilities
inspected during this time frame were out of compliance with at least one of their permits,
and approximately 30% of inspected facilities were in significant noncompliance.
Facilities Profile: Most of the smelters and refineries in this sector are owned by fewer than
20 large companies. Of the 51 facilities, 23 are aluminum, 21 copper, 3 lead, and 4 zinc.
Aluminum, copper, lead, and zinc are also the four most widely used nonferrous metals in the
U.S. Over half the facilities in this sector are found in Regions 6, 9, and 10.
Pollutants Profile: Categorization as a "primary" nonferrous facility refers to the source material.
Primary smelting and refining produces metals directly from source material that is more than 50
percent ore. Secondary smelting and refining produces metals from scrap and process waste. The
pollution resulting from these operations varies depending upon the metal and the type of recovery
technology used. The two metal recovery technologies generally used to produce refined metals
are pyrometallurgy, which uses heat, and hydrometallurgy, which uses aqueous solutions. Air and
water are affected most by these processes. Air pollutants include sulphur dioxide, fluoride, and
particulate matter containing lead, copper, zinc, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium. Water pollution
results primarily from wastewater containing sulfuric acid and caustic. Other wastes requiring
treatment, storage, and/or disposal include spent aluminum potliners, waste slurry/sludge, slags,
and tailings, which are regulated by RCRA as hazardous waste.
30 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Exhibit 3-3: Rates of Significant
Noncompliance Among Primary
Nonferrous Facilities
CM
40%
Compliance Profile: Since 1996, approximately 89 percent of
primary nonferrous metals facilities have been inspected annually
for compliance with either air, water, or hazardous waste laws —
averaging four inspections per facility each year. Most of the
inspections monitored compliance with the Clean Air Act, followed
by inspections for the Clean Water Act and RCRA. As Exhibit 3-3
shows, SNC rates have improved since FY97, but as of the end of
FY98, about 33% of facilities were in significant noncompliance with
the Clean Water Act, and over a quarter were in significant
noncompliance with the Clean Air Act.
Primary copper smelters and refineries had the highest average
pollutant release of any facility reporting to the 1996 TRI. The sector
as a whole ranked second for air pollutant and TRI air releases.
To help uncover the root causes of noncompliance, OECA conducted
a "root-cause" analysis of ten primary and secondary nonferrous
metal facilities. The study focused on surface water, RCRA, and air
compliance problems; the processes involved; the types of
enforcement actions taken by regulators; and probable causes for the noncompliance. The
study is being expanded to address additional facilities, and findings will be used to identify
and address specific environmental compliance problems.
Activities and Accomplishments
Strategic Approach: In 1998, OECA and the EPA Regions began developing a strategy for
improving this sector's compliance rates and reducing its total emissions, discharges, and
releases. The initial approach is to ensure that all primary smelters are accurately classified;
that applicable regulatory provisions for each smelter are clearly identified; and that timely
enforcement action is pursued when significant violations remain unresolved. Five specific
problem areas have been identified:
^ Proper identification Of facilities: Regions and Headquarters staff have worked on
identifying all facilities in this sector through SIC code verification efforts and TRI analysis
since 1996. The sector is being tracked in the Sector Facility Indexing Project.
^ Potential misapplication Of the Bevill Exclusion: Some facilities may be combining
an array of non-metallic industrial waste with their Bevill-excluded wastes generated by
mining/smelting operations. The goal of this activity is to ensure that RCRA inspectors
and the regulatory community fully understand the Bevill exclusion as it applies to this
industry and ensure that all wastes not covered under Bevill are managed appropriately.
^- Permit coverage: Regions and states will be asked to ensure that each facility has a
complete permit, accurately reflecting the source's size, regulatory requirements, and
full range of activities.
^- SNC rate: The strategy identifies a goal of decreasing SNC in this sector from 30% to
10% nationwide.
CWA
RCRA
0%
FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98
Note: Based on facilities inspected during the current or previous year.
Priority Industry Sectors I 31
-------
^ Use of imminent and substantial endangerment authorities: Where appropriate,
EPA will consider using imminent and substantial endangerment authorities to address
unacceptable risks to human health and the environment.
Inspections and Enforcement: During FY98, EPA and the states conducted 223 inspections
and took 21 enforcement actions at primary nonferrous metal facilities. From FY96 to FY98,
EPA and the states concluded 37 enforcement actions against facilities in this sector, assessing
just over $4 million in federal penalties and $1.65 million in SEPs. Four facilities — ALCOA
and Reynolds in New York, Asarco in Nebraska, and Kennecott in Colorado — are part of
state or federal Superfund cleanup actions.
Compliance Assistance: Some compliance assistance efforts were initiated during the course
of the year. Training was developed on Bevill requirements pertinent to RCRA waste at these
facilities, and courses open to industry representatives began in FY99. EPA Region 4 has begun
developing a pollution prevention strategy for this sector now that the overall noncompliance
rate for facilities in this Region has dropped below the target level.
3.4 | Industrial Organics and Chemical Preparations
Industrial organic facilities (SIC 2869) manufacture more than 166 different chemicals
(usually carbon compounds derived from petroleum and natural gas sources) used for
intermediate or end products; shipments in 1996 totaled $75.67 billion. The sector has the
second highest noncompliance rate among priority sectors and the largest number of accidental
chemical releases.
Chemical preparation facilities (SIC 2869) comprise 106 distinct industries primarily
engaged in manufacturing miscellaneous chemical formulas for sale. Within the chemical
industry, this sector had the greatest number of facilities with TRI releases in 1994. Between
1990 and 1995, EPA and states inspected just over 3% of the facilities, finding 505 violations
across 77 facilities.
Facilities Profile: Estimates of the total number of facilities in each of these sectors are
based on "known" facilities with an EPA ID number and facilities located from commercial
sources. The industrial organics industry has an estimated 1,400 known facilities; the chemical
preparations industry has about 2,700 known facilities. Facilities are located in almost every
EPA Region, but primarily in Regions 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9, and are significantly represented in
environmental justice communities. Although chemical plants are commonly thought of as
large operations, more than 60% of the facilities have nine or fewer employees.
Pollutants Profile: The abundance of petrochemicals and other chemicals used and the
diversity of products and processes means that no one pattern of pollution or waste
management characterizes these sectors. In the industrial organics sector, close to half of the
waste released to the environment is injected into underground (Class I) injection wells, with
32 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
another third released to the air. This sector is the largest source of chemical releases reported
to TRI within the chemical industry, and ranked fourth highest nationally in the amount of
releases of TRI chemicals. In the chemical preparations sector, facilities often use such items
as heavy metals (e.g., barium, lead, mercury, chromium, and oxides of these metals), ethylene
and propylene glycols, and strong acids and caustics.
Compliance Profile: A 1996 study1 indicated that compliance monitoring remained fairly
constant between 1990 and 1994 across all statutes. However, EPA and state inspectors are not
reaching the entire universe. Facilities that were inspected showed repeat violations, particularly
ofRCRA,CWA,andCAA.
Because many facilities in these two sectors have fewer than 10 employees, they are exempt
from TRI reporting and are not usually targeted for EPA inspections. Prior to 1996, both
sectors had low rates of inspections (3% for chemical preparation facilities, 12% for industrial
organics between 1990 and 1995). Since 1996, inspections for both industrial organics and
chemical preparations manufacturing facilities have increased substantially. For the
industrial organics facilities listed in EPA databases, inspections have covered about half
the facilities, with an average of just over two inspections per facility. For the chemical
preparation facilities in EPA databases, inspections have covered about 30% of the field,
with an average of one inspection per facility.
Exhibit 3-4: Industrial Organics and Chemical Preparation —
FY98 Enforcement Data
Activity
Industrial Organics Chemical Preparation
Injunctive Relief
(Value of activities to return
company to compliance)
Number of Facilities with
Compliance Actions Required
Value of SEPs
$2,956,800
82
$23,500
$177,070
40
$684,700
Activities and Accomplishments
Inspections and Enforcement: In FY98, 2,500 EPA inspections were conducted at industrial
organics facilities, and 900 at chemical preparation facilities. (The majority of inspections,
however, are conducted by states.) Thirty-two civil actions were settled with industrial organics
companies, yielding $1.3 million in penalties; 21 civil actions against chemical preparation
facilities were settled, with $198,285 in penalties. Since 1996, 97 civil actions have been settled
in the industrial organics industry, totaling over $5 million in penalties. Activities to return to
'U.S. EPA. Chemical Industry National Environmental Baseline Report, 1990-1994 (EPA 305-R-96-002).
Priority Industry Sectors I 33
-------
Exhibit 3-5: Actions Required of Noncomplying
Chemical Industry Facilities, FY98
Reporting
Recordkeeping
Monitoring
Facility testing
Emissions reductions
Storage and disposal
Labeling/manifesting
Removal action
Process changes
Remediation
Permit application
Training
Audits
-n
Chemical Preparation
Industrial Organics
10
15
20
25
30
compliance were valued at $60 million, with another $7 million invested in SEPs. In the
chemical preparation industry, 49 civil actions have been settled since 1996, totaling over
$495,407 in penalties, $575,570 in injunctive relief, and SEPs of just under $700,000. Data for
FY98 are reported in Exhibit 3-4 on the previous page. Exhibit 3-5 shows the types of actions
to correct underlying operational and permit violations that chemical facilities were required
to undertake in FY98.
Compliance Assistance: Through a multimedia integrated sector strategy, many compliance
assistance tools were developed and distributed to help facilities comply with regulations.
These include audit protocols, the CAA Hazardous Organic NESHAP Tool, Chemical Industry
Compliance Improvement Tool, and the Industrial Organic Process-Based Self Assessment
Tool. Results from compliance assistance, combined with a targeted outreach program to
encourage use of the Audit Policy, yielded over 57 self-disclosures from facilities.
In FY98, the EPA Regions responded to over 135 hotline inquiries from this sector, sent out
compliance assistance mailings to over 2,400 facilities; held workshops that reached over 500
entities; and developed and distributed over 30 different tools to an estimated 2,000 entities.
The opening of ChemAlliance, a "virtual" compliance assistance center for the chemical
industry, has brought free compliance assistance and regulatory information to any chemical
company with Internet access.
34 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
National Compliance Initiative for the
Organic Chemical Industry
Region 5 is participating in the national Compliance Incentive Program to help
facilities in the industrial organics sector determine whether they are in compliance
with federal environmental requirements and to resolve any discovered violations.
Under the Compliance Incentive Program, facilities will have six months to perform
voluntary environmental audits of their operations and identify to EPA potential
areas of noncompliance uncovered by the audit. In accordance with EPA's audit
policy, participating facilities may receive substantially reduced penalties for disclosed
violations. Beginning in January 1999, EPA and/or the states will initiate increased
inspections in this sector.
As part of Region 5's multi-media strategy for this sector, a concerted effort was
made in FY98 to identify and evaluate a large number of sources identified in
commercial databases but not in EPA's databases. Visual verification surveys were
conducted at 140 sites, of which 25 were identified as high priority sites. Multi-media
screening inspections were conducted at 14 sites in FY98 with regional staff from the
air, hazardous waste, and EPCRA programs; the remainder will be conducted in FY99.
Letters were then sent to 186 facilities in the industrial organic chemicals sector to
promote compliance; targeted facilities received compliance assistance materials, plus
an invitation to participate in a compliance incentive program under EPA's audit policy.
Strategic Approach: During 1996-1997, EPA developed a multimedia sector strategy to
improve compliance in these sectors through a mix of traditional and innovative tools. Activities
included: identifying and verifying all potentially regulated facilities; using a mix of compliance
assistance, monitoring, incentive, and enforcement projects; developing compliance assistance
tools to help regulators and the regulated community; and maximizing use of EPA and state
resources to achieve higher enforcement efficiency.
Below are highlights of the five projects included in the strategy that began in FY98 and
that will continue in FY99/2000. (Note: Documents mentioned are available through the
National Service Center for Environmental Publications at 1-800-490-9198 and electronically
at http://www.EPA.gov/oeca/ccsmd/ogp/oga.html.)
^ Compliance Incentive Program: This multimedia project is marketing EPA's audit policy
to approximately 960 industrial organic facilities across nine EPA Regions. In August 1998,
EPA mailed letters with compliance assistance and audit policy information encouraging
facilities to self-disclose violations to EPA by January 31,1999. Twenty companies, representing
45 facilities, disclosed violations covering most major statutes. To help facilities conduct audits
to determine compliance with regulations, 13 media specific audit protocols are being
developed. Four protocols (covering RCRA generators, RCRA treatment,storage, and disposal
facilities, CERCLA, and EPCRA) have been completed, with over 2,000 copies distributed.
The remaining audit protocols will be completed in FY99.
Priority Industry Sectors I 35
-------
Universe Verification Project: The purpose of this project is twofold: (1) to help
EPA and states expand their presence in the regulated community by focusing on facilities
in high priority areas that would not otherwise be reached; and (2) to improve national
and local database information through a systematic verification process. Once facilities
are confirmed by Regions and states as a chemical sector facility, EPA determines the
appropriate activities to help these facilities improve compliance. To date, follow-up
activities have included single and multimedia inspections, compliance assistance, and
enforcement. To help Regions and the regulated community locate resources that may
help in improving compliance, EPA developed the Chemical Industry Compliance
Improvement Tool (EPA #305-B-98-101). In FY99, EPA will update its database based
on the Regions' work on this project.
EPCRA 312 Project: Section 312 of EPCRA requires that facilities that store hazardous
chemicals in the community report the identity and quantity of those chemical to the
State Emergency Planning Commission (SERC) and the Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC) so that contingency plans for accidental releases may be developed.
This project focuses on three priority areas. First, in the past year, EPA notified 2,005
facilities in the industrial organic sector of their obligation to submit reporting forms to
their LEPCs and SERCs. EPA also made these facilities aware, through compliance
assistance outreach efforts, of similar obligations under Section 112 (r) of the CAA, which
requires facilities to develop risk management plans for chemicals used on-site. Finally,
EPA verified facility affiliations through a series of mass mailings in March, June, and
August 1998. This effort resulted in the proper identification of 1,573 facilities confirmed
to have received materials. In FY99, EPA will confirm with the states whether facilities
have in fact submitted the required reporting forms to determine the impact of the
compliance assistance efforts.
Air Toxics (HON) Inspection Tool and Training: This national project provided
training to 350 federal and state inspectors in Regions 2-7 to support inspections at 250
HON sources. A HON Inspection Tool (EPA #305-B-97-006) was also published and
450 copies were distributed to industry and government users.
Root Cause Analysis Pilot Project: EPA and the Chemical Manufacturers
Association (CMA) developed this project to identify and evaluate the root causes of
noncompliance with regulations, recommendations for improving compliance, and
the effect of environmental management systems on compliance. An EPA/CMA report
presents an overview of responses to a survey of chemical industry representatives
about the root and contributing causes of noncompliance that were identified in federal
civil judicial or administrative actions. The findings will be useful for both industry
officials and regulating agencies. Regions 1,2,5, and 6 provided input on the evaluation
of the survey responses and the development of the report. The report will be
completed in FY99.
36 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
3.5 | Agricultural Practices/CAFOs
Agricultural practices are the most widespread source of pollution in the nation's surveyed
rivers, and rank as the number one cause of impaired rivers, streams, and lakes. Within the
agricultural sector, the 450,000 animal feeding operations (AFOs) represent one of the largest
sources of polluted runoff. AFOs are livestock-raising operations where animals such as beef
cattle, hogs, chickens, and turkeys are kept and raised in confined places. AFOs are a priority
under the President's Clean Water Action Plan issued in February 1998 and the Unified National
Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations issued in March 1999 by USDA and EPA.
At least 6,600 and possibly up to 10,000 of these facilities are considered to be Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) because of the large number of animals present at the
facility or the method of discharge from the facility. In recent years, as the livestock industry has
consolidated into fewer and larger operations (particularly in the case of poultry and hogs), the
effects of polluted runoff from CAFOs on water quality have assumed increasing importance.
Over the years, EPA relied on the zero discharge effluent limitation of the CAFO effluent guideline
and general permits to address potential environmental risks. Recent events (such as massive spills
of hog manure in North Carolina and the Pfiesteria outbreaks in Mid-Atlantic estuaries) suggest
that current regulatory and voluntary efforts have failed to adequately address the environmental
and health problems associated with AFOs. These environmental and human health problems
persist and, in some areas of the country, have intensified as the size and density of AFOs have
increased with changes in the industry, yet little is known about the universe of facilities that fall
under the definition of AFO and CAFO. The Vice President's Clean Water Action Plan specifically
calls for a strategy to address pollution resulting from animal feeding operations.
Facilities Profile: Most CAFOs are small operations with no more than a handful of
employees. Revenues may range from $500,000 to several million dollars for the larger
operations. CAFOs are distributed across the United States (primarily in Regions 2-10),
with a heavier concentration in the mid-plains, eastern seaboard, and western coastal
regions. Although regulations have been in place covering CAFOs for 20 years, EPA does
not have a comprehensive listing of all these facilities. Because many of the facilities that
have a discharge do not apply for permits, historically few permits have been issued.
Because there are few permitted facilities, there are few inspections of the facilities that
fall into the regulated universe.
Pollutants Profile: AFOs can pose a number of risks to water quality and public health,
mainly because of the amount of animal manure and wastewater they generate. Manure and
wastewater from AFOs can contribute nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus), sediment,
pathogens, heavy metals, hormones, antibiotics, and ammonia to the environment. Excess
nutrients in water overstimulate the growth of aquatic weeds and algae, which then clog the
waters and deplete the water of dissolved oxygen needed by other living organisms. The result
can be harmful algal blooms, fish kills, and contaminated drinking water from nitrates and
pathogens. Excess nutrients in water also may result in outbreaks of microbes such as Pfiesteria
piscicida found in the Chesapeake Bay and in North Carolina.
Priority Industry Sectors I 37
-------
CAFOs produce quantities of manure that are a risk to water quality and public health whether
the facilities are well managed or not. Because the amount of manure stored is so large, a spill
while handling manure or a breach of a storage system can release large quantities of manure
and wastewater into the environment, causing catastrophic water quality impacts and
threatening public health.
Compliance Profile: CAFOs are considered to be "point sources" under the Clean Water
Act, subject to NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit
requirements if they cause pollutants to be discharged to waters. Currently, only about 2,000
CAFOs have NPDES permits (often supplemented by state permits). At the majority of
non-permitted facilities, the typical violations found by inspectors are discharges without a
permit; however, because discharges often occur only when it rains, the inspector may only
be able to note that the facility has the potential to discharge (e.g., lagoons are too full,
inadequate storage, etc.).
Activities and Accomplishments
Compliance Assistance: The National Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center awarded
a $300,000 grant to a consortium of land grant universities to develop and implement a livestock
environmental issues curriculum and implementation project.
Inspections and Enforcement: In FY98, EPA Regions conducted 339 compliance inspections.
EPA has concluded a total of 93 enforcement cases against this sector in the last three years.
Significant Cases: In May 1998, Region 7 reached settlement on an administrative penalty
order that had been issued to DeCoster Farms of Iowa in late FY97. The violation involved
application of 2.5 million gallons of manure to a field drained by an agricultural drainage
well. The state ordered the well temporarily plugged on the same day the manure was being
applied, but sample results showed that some of the manure had entered the drainage well
prior to plugging. The settlement requires DeCoster Farms to pay a $7000 fine, implement
best management practices at this well and 13 other agricultural drainage wells owned by the
company, and close all 14 wells within three years.
Strategic Approach: OECA's CAFO sector strategy calls for:
^ Consistent compliance/enforcement across Regions and states: The strategy
calls for state development and implementation of compliance/enforcement strategies
and inspections of priority CAFOs by 2001 and all others by 2003. In 1998 OECA
supported this goal by conducting NPDES CAFO inspector training for approximately
92 Regional and state staff in Regions 3, 4, and 5. Each EPA Region is working with its
NPDES states to develop and implement state-specific CAFO strategies. To date, 12 states
have developed CAFO compliance/enforcement strategies.
38 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Improved risk assessment, information, and environmental indicators: OECA
initiated projects (e.g., $95,000 grant to the Environmental Law Institute to identify state
databases which contain CAFOs) to identify the CAFO universe and develop information
and data to assist Regional and state efforts to target compliance assistance, inspection,
and permitting activities. OECA also developed a CAFO model administrative order.
3.61 Automotive Service and Repair Shops
The automotive service and repair sector comprises the largest number of conditionally exempt
and small quantity generators of any industrial/commercial sector. The types of pollutants,
the widespread location of these shops, and the sheer number of automotive repair shops led
to designating this sector as a priority sector in 1996. According to an industry survey conducted
in FY97, noncompliance is likely to be found in up to 74% of the industry.
Facilities Profile: By EPA and industry estimates, there are roughly 500,000 shops located
throughout the United States. These shops are located in every part of the country, from
urban and suburban communities to rural locales.
Pollutants Profile: Pollutants generated include petroleum and ethyl-based liquids,
halogenated and non-halogenated solvents, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Potential
impacts to the environment and human health occur when these materials are mishandled,
either during the repair process or in final disposal. Improper repair results in CFCs being
emitted into the atmosphere, reducing the ozone layer that protects the Earth from harmful
ultraviolet radiation. Improper handling and disposal of petroleum, solvents, and ethyl
liquids can contaminate water supplies and release VOCs into the atmosphere, contributing
to ground level ozone.
Activities and Accomplishments
Compliance Assistance: Since the total number of automotive service and repair shops
is very large, and the typical shop is quite small, EPA is unlikely to reach the vast majority of
auto service and repair shops with traditional inspections and enforcement action. Instead,
the Agency's primary focus is on compliance assistance. A key element in that effort is the
continuing presence of CCAR-GreenLink®, the Automotive Compliance Assistance Center,
which reaches an unlimited number of shops over the Internet with plain language
explanations of environmental rules.
One compliance assistance effort launched by the Office of Compliance focused on the
franchise shops of national/regional chains (e.g., Sears, Goodyear, Pep Boys, Midas) where
one would have expected compliance to be higher than at the smaller, independent shops. OC
staff met to discuss the survey results with the Automotive Maintenance and Repair Association
(AMRA) whose members include the national/regional chain shops. Many of the members of
the AMRA have notified their respective stores about maintaining compliance with
environmental regulations.
Priority Industry Sectors I 39
-------
Baseline Compliance Survey of
Automotive Service and Repair Shops
In conjunction with the Coordinating Committee for Automotive Repair, OECA
sponsored a baseline survey of compliance levels in the automotive service and auto
body repair industry. This project used statistical sampling techniques and evaluated
auto shops on all applicable environmental statutes rather than individual
environmental programs. Five community colleges assisted in the survey of 440 shops,
using a questionnaire based on the Consolidated Screening Checklist for Automotive
Repair Facilities that OECA completed in FY97. The questionnaire covered most,
but not all, applicable federal requirements and no state-specific requirements.
Using a rough analogy to educational grades, of the 440 shops participating in
the survey, 26% would receive at least a B grade for compliance (scoring above 80%
on their answers to the questionnaire); 58% would receive a C or D grade (scoring
between 51% and 80%); and 16% would fail, with scores of 50% or less.
The survey indicated no difference in levels of compliance for auto repair shops
based on their location (urban/suburban vs. rural). Contrary to expectations, no
significant differences were found in compliance levels across three different types
of auto shops surveyed: franchise, independent auto, and independent collision/
paint shops. (New car dealers did appear to be more compliant with regulatory
requirements — 61% scored at an A or B level — but the sample size of new car
dealers was not large enough to make statistically valid inferences.)
tA follow-up national survey will be conducted in FY99 to determine if levels of
:ompliance have changed from the baseline survey. EPA will use the baseline and follow-
jp studies to measure the effectiveness of its compliance assistance programs (including
CCAR-GreenLink®), and to identify areas within the industry that require improvement.
In FY98, compliance assistance staff in the 10 EPA Regions handled 1,550 telephone assistance
calls, reached 348 automotive shops through workshops and meetings, distributed compliance
assistance tools to 18,460 entities, and made 192 on-site visits. Regional compliance assistance
activities during FY98 included:
^- Region 1 launched a newsletter, Details, distributed to over 14,000 auto body and repair
shops in New England. The New England Environmental Assistance Team (NEEATeam)
made 108 on-site visits in connection with a geographic priority, the Lower Charles River
watershed; responded to 250 hotline requests; and reached 300 entities with workshops
and conferences. Tools developed included a checklist for auditing and a plain-language,
comprehensive compliance manual, entitled Collision Repair Auto Shop Help (CRASH)
Course, distributed to 1,500 auto shops in partnership with the Massachusetts Office of
Technical Assistance.
^- Region 2 participated in two seminars with the Greater New York Dealers Association
providing federal compliance information on hazardous waste, water and air regulations.
EPAs small business and audit policies were discussed as well as other assistance tools
40 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Region 9's Green Business Program
Since January 1996, Region 9 has been providing support to local governments in
several San Francisco Bay Area counties to implement the Green Business Program.
The program is testing a new inspection and compliance model which consolidates
compliance requirements and provides resource conservation and pollution
prevention information to small businesses. Businesses that pass this unique
compliance inspection program are rewarded through a local recognition program.
Four California counties — Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa and Sonoma — have
implemented the program, starting with automotive service and repair shops. Contra
Costa was the most recent county to join, in FY98, with 23 auto repair shops
participating in the program. OECA has provided funding to develop a program
guidance manual for other interested communities and to create a national "Road
Show" through the Joint Center for Sustainable Communities (a partnership of the
U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties). The "Road
Show" will include the Green Business Program as one of several local models which
will be marketed to other communities across the U.S.
available to the participants. Twenty-five seminars were held throughout the Region
discussing the December 1998 UST upgrade deadline. Additionally, the Region mailed
reminders to all regulated facilities in New York and the US Virgin Islands. New Jersey
and Puerto Rico mailed reminders to facilities within their respective borders.
Inspections and Enforcement: Headquarters and many of the Regions monitor
automotive shops through the underground injection control, chlorofluorocarbons, fuels,
RCRA, and UST programs. In FY98, the Regions conducted more than 2,300 inspections in
these program areas. Some of these inspections were conducted at automotive service and
repair shops. Also, 192 enforcement actions were concluded in FY98 with more than $500,000
in assessed penalties.
Significant Cases: In FY98, in one of the largest environmental actions ever taken against
the state of Connecticut, EPA settled its complaint against the Connecticut Department of
Transportation (CT-DOT) for a penalty of $334,548 for hazardous waste violations at
Bradley Airport in Windsor Locks and two other repair and maintenance facilities in
Wethersfield and Rocky Hill. The consent agreement also required CT-DOT to properly
label its hazardous waste containers; conduct hazardous waste management training for
appropriate personnel; conduct weekly inspections of the facility for malfunctions and
deterioration, operator errors, and discharges; conduct proper hazardous waste
determinations for all wastes generated at the facility; take precautions to prevent accidental
ignition or reaction of ignitable waste; and notify receiving facilities of the land disposal
restrictions for waste shipped offsite.
Priority Industry Sectors I 41
-------
3.7 | Dry Cleaning
The dry cleaning sector was one of the first sectors identified as a national priority by OECA.
The cumulative environmental impact from thousands of dry cleaning facilities located in
population centers can be significant. Dominated by "mom and pop" businesses and with a
heavy concentration of owners/operators who do not speak English as their first language,
dry cleaners may not fully understand the environmental regulations impacting their business.
After five years of implementing a 1993 EPA air toxics rule, including providing compliance
assistance and conducting inspections, EPA believes that the dry cleaning sector has improved
its awareness and understanding of its environmental regulatory responsibilities as well as its
level of compliance. As a result, this sector will not be considered a national priority sector in
the FY 2000/01 Memorandum of Agreement. Based on Regional inspection findings, most of
the requirements related to emissions control equipment installation and retrofitting have
been addressed, although additional compliance improvements for recordkeeping and
reporting requirements need to be achieved.
Facilities Profile: Most of the 25,000-35,000 facilities in this sector are small businesses
which ordinarily do not have the resources to obtain, read, and interpret the numerous
environmental regulations that apply to them under RCRA, CWA, SDWA, and CAA. A large
percentage of the owners/operators do not speak English as their first language. Thirty percent
of the cleaners are owned/operated by Korean Americans. Commercial dry cleaners are
distributed in a six to one ratio of urban to rural locations. Industrial laundries (that primarily
clean uniforms) tend to be located in medium to small cities; and the small number of coin-
operated dry cleaning units in laundromats tend to be found in rural areas.
Pollutants Profile: The most commonly used cleaning solvent in this sector is
percholorethylene (perc), which is a carcinogen that readily volatilizes in the air and can
contaminate soil and water if improperly handled. Perc dominates in commercial dry cleaning
establishments, while petroleum solvents are used in the majority of industrial machines. The
1993 EPA air toxics standard for perc dry cleaners requires both existing and new facilities to
use designated vapor control technologies and undertake leak detection and equipment repair
to prevent fugitive emissions.
Compliance Profile: Dry cleaners, which are categorized as service industry
establishments, are not required to report to TRI. Moreover, most dry cleaners are not
traditionally tracked by EPA compliance and enforcement databases. As part of the FY98/
99 MOA, each Region was asked to evaluate the baseline compliance status of 1% of the dry
cleaning sector in the Region. All Regions have already met or exceeded this inspection
goal. Generally, the Regions found high rates of compliance for air toxics requirements
such as proper installation of control equipment (usually in the 80% to 90% range). Lower
rates of compliance — at times as low as 30% — were found for recordkeeping and
monitoring requirements. The high percentages of compliance were usually determined to
result from compliance assistance visits and inspections.
42 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Activities and Accomplishments
Compliance Assistance: Once dry cleaners were identified as a national priority sector,
OC developed and distributed various compliance assistance projects to heighten dry
cleaners' awareness of environmental regulations. This included a Plain English Guide, Plain
Korean Guide, and a Dry Cleaners Compliance Videotape. To assist the Regions and states
in providing front-line assistance and inspections, OC developed a Dry Cleaning Compliance
Strategy, a Compendium of Educational Materials, and a Multimedia Inspection Manual
for Dry Cleaners.
Regional and state compliance assistance has been offered to the dry cleaning sector, usually
through the Clean Air Act Section 507 Small Business Technical Assistance Programs. Outreach
included mailings of plain language materials explaining the regulations, seminars, training
courses, trade shows, on-site compliance assistance visits, and promotion of hotlines and web
sites. Partnerships were developed with trade associations to increase the effectiveness of
outreach efforts. EPA has distributed over 7,000 materials. All ten EPA Regions and many
states have held multiple seminars for dry cleaners. One Region televised its outreach program
to an audience of over 2,000 dry cleaners.
Region 2 Dry Cleaners Initiative
With approximately 4,500 dry cleaners in Region 2, and with an estimated 70,000
residents in New York City living in apartment buildings which also house dry
cleaners, a major effort to enhance dry cleaner compliance remained a top priority
in Region 2 in FY98. The full range of compliance and enforcement tools has been
applied to this sector, beginning with seminars for dry cleaners given in cooperation
with trade groups, environmental organizations, and the state and local regulatory
and compliance assistance agencies. The seminars provide information, both in
English and in Korean, on the applicable regulations, pollution prevention
opportunities, alternative technologies, and Region 2's Small Business Compliance
Incentive Program for dry cleaners. The region also visited 130 dry cleaners to
offer on-site compliance assistance in FY98. Only 25 facilities (less than 20%)
agreed to participate in this voluntary program, which includes a full compliance
review using the multimedia checklist from the Multimedia Inspection Guidance
for Dry Cleaning Facilities, with the allowance of a correction period if violations
are detected. Three facilities which accepted the offer of compliance assistance in
FY98 were found to be in complete compliance. Enforcement activities are an
essential complement to compliance assistance and compliance monitoring. In
FY98 Region 2 issued 28 administrative orders under the Clean Air Act, and 33
RCRA notices of violation.
Priority Industry Sectors I 43
-------
Working in Partnership with States
on Compliance Assistance
Region 4 established a partnership with the State of Georgia to conduct a compliance
assistance initiative for perc dry cleaners, consisting of inspections and a series of
workshops throughout the state. The initiative was publicized through a press release
and ajoint letter from Region 4 and Georgia that was distributed to all the identified
perc dry cleaners. Voluntary compliance assistance audits were offered by the Small
Business Assistance Program and both agencies participated in the annual conference
of the Southeastern Fabricare Association.
Region 4 and Georgia conducted 249 inspections of facilities that were possibly
subject to the dry cleaning regulation. Of the 249 inspections, 165 were perc dry
cleaners, 65 were pick-up stores and 19 used alternate cleaning processes. Of the
perc facilities inspected, 16% were in full compliance, 12% had one violation, and
72% had multiple violations. Georgia distributed self-certification forms to facilities
in violation and requested that they return the form upon reaching compliance.
Forms were received from 56% of the 138 dry cleaners, indicating that they have
corrected deficiencies observed during the inspections. The state conducted follow-
up inspections on the dry cleaners that did not submit the self certifications to ensure
compliance. All were eventually returned to compliance.
In FY98 alone, the EPA Regions responded to 220 hotline inquiries from dry cleaning
establishments, held 16 workshops that reached over 800 entities; conducted 192 on-site visits;
and developed and distributed 12 tools to 1,450 entities.
Inspections and Enforcement: The emphasis on outreach and compliance assistance
followed by inspection and enforcement has produced useful results. Most of the violations
found more recently are for failure to comply with recordkeeping and monitoring
requirements. For example, after several years of conducting outreach and one-on-one audits
with 260 dry cleaners, Region 8 found a 42% increase in their compliance rate. Region 8
estimated that compliance with Clean Air Act air toxics regulations and initial outreach
activities would result in a 44% annual reduction of perc emissions from process vents and
fugitive sources in the Region's 685 dry cleaners, and a further 1.5% reduction after Region
8's audit outreach and enforcement.
Significant Cases: Dudley Laundry Co. is a dry cleaning establishment located in downtown
Norfolk, Nebraska, which generates several waste streams in its dry cleaning processes.
Approximately 25 years ago, Dudley used Stoddard Solvent as its cleaning agent, but switched
to tetrachloroethylene. In the past, Dudley stored the Stoddard Solvent and kerosene in storage
tanks which were removed in 1989. The groundwater, which is used for drinking water in
Norfolk, recently has been found to be contaminated with benzene, trichloroethylene, Stoddard
Solvent, and other contaminants that have been traced to past and current disposal practices
of Dudley. The Region has issued an order pursuant to Section 7003 of RCRA which requires
44 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Dudley to take certain interim and final remedial actions to identify the nature and extent of
the contamination and then to abate the groundwater contamination.
3.8 I Other Sectors
Iron and Steel
There are currently 117 iron and steel mills operating in the U.S., including 27 integrated
mills (coke-making and basic oxygen furnaces) and 90 mini-mills (electric arc furnaces).
Most of the plants are located in the Great Lakes area, corresponding to EPA Regions 3 and
5. The industry has a very high rate of noncompliance. Of the integrated mills inspected in
FY96 and 97, 96% were out of compliance with one or more statutes, and 65% were in
significant noncompliance.
During FY98, OECA addressed two main areas for this sector. First, the Office of Compliance
continued work on the root cause analysis of compliance and enforcement data gathered on a
representative sample of 34 steel mills located in Region 5 (including Michigan, Illinois, Ohio
and Indiana) and in Pennsylvania. Second, OECA developed a sector strategy for iron and steel,
in conjunction with Regions 3,5, and 6. The strategy identifies the most relevant compliance
and environmental problems that need attention and actions that can be taken by Headquarters
and the Regions. Nine key compliance and environmental problems are identified in the strategy:
^- Groundwater contamination from slag disposal
^- Contaminated sediments from steel making
^- Electric arc furnace dust (K061)
^- Unregulated sources
^- SNCs resulting from reoccurring and single peaks violations
^- Mini-mills not conducting baseline testing
^- Lost knowledge of facility infrastructure
^- Inadequate contractor management
^- Violations of RCRA administrative procedures.
The three Regions continued to implement their commitments under the MOA process during
the course of the year.
Pulp Mills
Currently, 283 pulp mills are operating in the United States, with a heavy concentration in
Regions 4 and 5. Of the 90% of facilities inspected in FY96 and 97,61% were out of compliance
with one or more statutes and 12% were in significant noncompliance. Over the last two
years, however, SNC rates have risen to 19% for air and 4.7% for water.
Priority Industry Sectors I 45
-------
FY98 saw the completion of a final draft of the Kraft Pulp Mill Compliance Assessment
Guide. This process-based, multimedia inspection manual will assist federal and state
inspectors, compliance assistance providers, auditors, and industry personnel in evaluating
a pulp mill's compliance with major environmental regulations. By explaining the various
processes found at these facilities, applicable regulations, and appropriate inspection
techniques, the guide enables users to more easily target potential compliance problems
and identify the underlying causes.
Region 3 investigated nine pulp mills for Clean Air Act violations stemming from un-permitted
facility expansion. These investigations, which followed extensive research into the production
maximization trend in the pulp industry, revealed significant compliance problems at 8 of the
9 mills. The Region has prepared civil cases against the facilities which will prevent the release
into the atmosphere of thousands of tons per year of sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, and
total reduced sulfur. In order to capitalize on the work done by the Region, a seminar is being
jointly conducted by OECA and Region 3 for other EPA Regions and states. The seminar will
provide technical training on the pulp manufacturing process, emissions, applicable
regulations, and successful investigation methods.
Coal-Fired Power Plants
The Coal-Fired Power Plants Sector Strategy is ajoint effort of OECA and Regions 3,4, and 5,
and has a primary goal to achieve significant NOx emission reductions at targeted power
plants in these three Regions by raising the rate of compliance with Clean Air Act requirements.
Under OECAs leadership, the sector strategy was finalized in FY98 and several key activities
were completed by OECA and the three Regions. These include: (1) a review of state
environmental and public service commission files for all targeted plants; (2) issuance of
extensive information requests to some plants and boiler manufacturers; and (3) field
inspections at four plants in Region 3, and two plants each in Regions 4 and 5.
Region 8 also worked on this sector in FY98, trying to identify any deficiencies in assessing air
pollution control equipment and continuous emission monitoring performance for all coal-
fired power plants in the Region by reviewing recent state air inspection reports and excess
emission report data. Most of the state inspection reports and some of the excess emission
reports were reviewed, and some significant deficiencies have been identified. Follow-up work
with the states has begun to correct the deficiencies.
Municipalities
There are approximately 39,000 local general-purpose governments in the United States.
Analysis of air, water, and waste data as of October 1996 shows that the municipalities (sanitary
services including municipal operations, SIC Code 4950) were fourth in noncompliance.
Municipal governments face a host of environmental requirements, often with limited
resources, and new regulations (stormwater, MACT standards for POTWs, etc.) will require
even greater efforts. Three major compliance assistance activities were undertaken in FY98
for this sector:
46 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
The Local Government Environmental Assistance Network: LGEAN is designed
to help local government officials stay on top of the latest environmental requirements
and technologies. Opened in October 1998, LGEAN (http://www.lgean.org) is coordinated
by the International City/County Management Association in partnership with Water
Environment Federation, Air & Waste Management Association, American Water Works
Association, Solid Waste Association of North America, Environmental Council of States,
and the National Association of Counties. LGEAN is one of EPAs nine Compliance
Assistance Centers and offers an efficient and user-friendly contact point for
environmental compliance and assistance information for state and local officials,
inspectors, and regulators.
Profile of Local Government Operations: This profile presents information
operation- by-operation, rather than rule by rule, making it easier for local governments
to understand applicable environmental regulations, develop a comprehensive compliance
plan, and identify pollution prevention opportunities. The profile also provides other
useful information such as a compliance baseline, summary of enforcement actions, and
an overview of local government management and financial structures. The profile is
available via LGEAN.
Implementing ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems at the
Municipal Level: Seven municipalities, a county, and a state prison system have
said yes to the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System (EMS) under a two-
year project to assist small and medium-sized public sector organizations to develop
and implement an ISO 14001 EMS. Each participating municipality has selected a
facility/organization (a "fenceline") in its community to implement the EMS.
Municipalities and fencelines include:
City/County
Facility Implementing EMS
Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire
City of Lowell, Massachusetts
Wayne County, Michigan
City of Indianapolis, Indiana
Massachusetts Dept. of Corrections
City of Gaithersburg, Maryland
Lansing Board of Water & Light, Michigan
City of Scottsdale, Arizona
New York City, New York
Public Works
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Public Works
Corrections Facility
Public Works
Electric Generating Facility
Municipal Government
Transit Authority
Priority Industry Sectors I 47
-------
This pilot project is intended to demonstrate that the EMS approach for managing
environmental activities is equally applicable to local government operations as to private
sector entities. The municipalities have participated in two intensive implementation
workshops and are now working through the planning phase of the ISO 14001 standard (section
4.3). Some of the activities in this phase include: developing procedures for identifying aspects
and impacts associated with the organizations activities, products, and services; developing a
procedure for setting objectives and targets; providing training and awareness at each relevant
level and function; implementing the EMS procedures; and developing environmental
management programs.
48 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
CHAPTER 4
-
Media-Specific Priorities
In FY98, EPA made progress in addressing priority problems related to specific environmental
media under EPA's statutory mandates. The 25 priority areas that were slated for special attention
in FY98-99 are shown in the sidebar. This chapter reviews highlights in selected priority areas.
4.1 I Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA) protects and enhances the quality of the nation's air by regulating
stationary sources of air emissions, which include manufacturers, processors, refiners and
utilities. Major sources are required to install pollution control equipment and to meet specific
emissions limitations. In addition, the CAA mandates controls on air pollution from mobile
sources by regulating the composition of fuels and emission-control components on motor
vehicles. In FY98, EPA announced two major settlements with the Ford Motor Company and
American Honda to settle allegations that the companies installed illegal defeat devices in
certain vehicles in violation of the Clean Air Act. (See Chapter 5 for details.)
Title V Permits
In FY98, EPA Regions continued their review of Title V permit applications to identify
noncomplying facilities and the submission of required compliance schedules. In contrast to
previous years, the Title V permit program now consolidates all major sources' Clean Air Act
requirements into a single document and requires sources to certify compliance annually.
Title V is expected to provide the main focus of the air enforcement program for the future.
NSR/PSD and Synthetic Minors
In FY98, EPA placed special emphasis on violations of the New Source Review/Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) regulation to prevent further air quality degradation.
As an example, in September, Region 2 announced a settlement with Esso Virgin Islands, Inc.,
for violating requirements of the New Source Performance Standards for bulk gasoline
Media-Specific
Priorities
Clean Air Act
Title V permits
Synthetic minors
Air toxics
CFCs
Clean Water Act
Wet weather
CAFOs
Emergency Planning
and Community
Right-to-Know
Section 313 TRI
expansion
Section 313 TRI data
quality
Industrial organic
chemicals initiative
Federal facilities
enforcement
FIFRA (pesticides)
Antimicrobials
Urban pesticides
Adverse effects
RCRA (hazardous
waste)
Generators
Organic air emissions
rule
Combustion/fuel
blenders
USTs
Transportation issues
Safe Drinking
Water Act
Public water system
microbials
Safe drinking water
information system
SDWA amendments
UIC Class V wells
— continued on the
following page
Media-Specific Priorities I 49
-------
Superfund
Reduction of
transaction costs
Construction
completion
Federal facilities
compliance
TSCA (toxic
substances)
Asbestos
Lead-based paint
PCBs
terminals. The settlement requires the company to carry out a compliance plan that includes
new operating procedures and the installation of a mechanical/electronic system to limit the
fuel loaded at any time to ensure compliance with the standard for total organic compounds.
EPA also addressed synthetic minor permit violations in many sectors. Targeting of the refinery
and power generation industries resulted in several case referrals to DOJ (see Chapter 3).
Region 3 has also been active in investigating the pulp and paper industry, which also has led
to several referrals to DOJ.
Air Toxics
In FY98, air enforcement focused on inspecting sources of air toxics (often referred to as
HON sources), and compliance assistance to states and sources for newly-promulgated air
toxics regulations. The HON sources were specifically targeted for enforcement action due to
the high toxicity of their pollutants. EPA Regions also continued to identify other high-risk
air toxic sources using risk and exposure criteria, and conducted investigations and inspections
of those sources. Compliance assistance activities reached over 2800 entities, including 410
telephone calls and distribution of tools to 2,020 entities.
In FY98, EPA Region 3 brought the first judicial case against a HON source, Standard Chlorine,
which was settled successfully by a penalty of $349,500. In addition, numerous administrative
penalty actions were brought against chrome-plating sources because of the high
noncompliance rate in this sector. EPA Region 5's case against Diamond Chrome Plating for
alleged violations of the chrome plating standard at its facility in Howell, MI, resulted in the
company replacing two emission control systems at a capital cost of at least $300,000.
CFCs
Chlorofluorocarbons have been used as refrigerants in cars, homes, and offices, and as foam
blowing agents and cleaning/degreasing substances by commercial/industrial facilities. The
Clean Air Act requires that use of these chemicals be phased out and not imported. Meanwhile,
users of these chemicals must recycle CFCs extracted from refrigerators/air conditioners and
label their products to identify them as being manufactured with stratospheric ozone depleters,
among other requirements. EPA has focused on areas of greatest potential harm, such as
violations of the importation restrictions. Inspections at auto shops continued to be
coordinated by EPAs mobile source enforcement branch, which allows for fuel requirements
and CFC recycling to be checked at the same time. As a result of EPA enforcement settlements,
CFCs were reduced by more than five million pounds during FY98.
Enforcement of regulations phasing out CFCs and other ozone-depleters is important to ensure
that the United States meets its obligations under the Montreal Protocol — the international
treaty to protect the ozone layer. Enforcement focuses on ensuring deterrence through targeted,
highly publicized enforcement actions. For example, in FY98 EPA Region 4 filed administrative
50 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
complaints against seven companies for CFC violations. The complaints sought a total of
more than $100,000 in civil penalties for violations ranging from the failure to use certified
technicians while servicing refrigerated appliances and auto and residential air conditioners
to the use of unacceptable substitute refrigerants.
Compliance assistance activities in FY98 reached 4,240 entities with information on CFC regulations,
including telephone assistance to 1,975 callers and tools distributed to 2,065 recipients.
4.2 I Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act prohibits any discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States,
except in compliance with specific sections of the law. The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) enforcement program targets those entities discharging
pollutants without permits or in violation of their permits. Historically, the program has
focused its attention on the approximately 6,900 major facilities ('majors'). However, increased
attention is being placed on other aspects of the CWA program, including wet weather sources
and minor facilities that are or could be causing significant water quality impacts.
Wet Weather
Run-off from wet weather (i.e., overflows from combined sewers, sanitary sewers, discharges
and run-off from concentrated agricultural feeding operations (CAFOs), and storm water
run-off) is a leading cause of water quality impairment and represents a significant threat
to public health. Sewer overflows contain bacteria and other pathogens which cause illnesses
and lead to beach and shellfish bed closures. CAFOs pose a number of risks to water quality
and public health because of the amount of animal manure discharges and run-off generated,
particularly as a result of storm events. Efforts to control wet weather flows have been
underway for several years.
Two major wet weather flow cases were settled in FY98 with the City of Atlanta (see box on
page 53) and the City of New Orleans (see Chapter 5 for details), in support of EPAs sanitary
sewer overflow (SSO) and combined sewer overflow (CSO) enforcement priorities.
In compliance assistance activities, the Regions have reached close to 60,000 entities regarding
CWA urba wet weather issues, including 10,200 telephone assistance calls, workshops involving
1,315 attendees, and tools distributed to over 47,000 recipients.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
See Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion of this priority sector.
Media-Specific Priorities I 51
-------
The "Clean Charles" Initiative in Region 1
Working with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the
Charles River Watershed Association, Region 1's "Clean Charles" initiative combines
enforcement and compliance assistance with the goal of restoring fishable/swimmable
conditions in the Lower Charles River by Earth Day 2005. In FY98, Region 1 sent a
letter and supplemental compliance assistance information to 3,100 businesses/
institutions located in the Lower Charles River watershed to educate them on storm
water permitting requirements and to encourage those not subject to the requirements
to make voluntary efforts to lessen storm water impacts. The mailing included a
cover letter outlining EPA's Clean Charles 2005 program, monitoring activities,
permitting requirements, examples of voluntary measures, and a description of the
Region's Partners for Change recognition program. The letters also described
opportunities for compliance assistance which EPA had developed specifically for
Charles River facilities. These included customized assistance materials for auto-related
facilities, creation of a "report-a-sheen" oil spill reporting hotline, and development
of a innovative storm water technology trade show.
Many facilities took advantage of compliance assistance opportunities
provided by the Region. Some environmental consulting firms developed compliance
seminars specifically targeted to Charles River facilities. The advertisements for these
seminars ("Urgent!! Are you ready? EPA's Charles River Initiative Enforcement
Inspections begin May 1, 1998") provided repeated reminders to the regulated
community of EPA's field presence, and of the need to ensure compliance. When EPA
conducted inspections in May, inspectors observed that the Charles River facilities
had taken significant steps to review their operations and ensure that they were in
compliance with environmental requirements. Anecdotal evidence indicates that
similar activities took place in many of the facilities EPA did not inspect — i.e., that
the deterrent effect of EPA's inspections was multiplied by the early alert to the entire
regulated community. In a few cases, significant violations were found, and
enforcement actions are being developed. A second round of inspections is planned
to ensure a sustained commitment to compliance.
Water quality in the Charles has improved dramatically as a result of both
the enforcement and compliance assistance efforts. When EPA's initiative began in
1995, the Lower Charles failed standards for recreational boating an average of 223
days per year. That figure has since been reduced by two-thirds, to 77 days per year.
The number of days that the Lower Charles meets swimming standards has more
than doubled, from 69 to 164 days per year. The Lower Charles, once home to the
most popular swimming beach in Greater Boston, is on the road to recovery.
52 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
City of Atlanta, Georgia
The City of Atlanta owns and operates three wastewater treatment plants, eight combined
sewer overflow (CSO) facilities (two additional facilities are reported by the City as
separated), and a 2,100 mile collection system (21 square miles of which are combined).
Additionally, Atlanta accepts wastewater from surrounding municipalities.
In April 1997, EPA and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD)
announced the commencement of a joint enforcement effort against the City of
Atlanta. A full evaluation of all wastewater programs was undertaken by EPA and
EPD beginning in May 1997 (wastewater treatment facilities, laboratory, sludge
handling and disposal, pretreatment, collection system, CSO facilities, and storm
water). EPA and EPD uncovered numerous and systematic violations of the CWA,
the NPDES permits, and violations of Georgia laws and regulations.
On September 24,1998, consent decrees were entered resolving violations of federal
and state laws at all of the City's CSOs. This represents the combined enforcement
efforts of EPA, DOJ, EPD, the State Attorney General's Office, and citizen plaintiffs
representing the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc., the Chattahoochee
Riverkeeper, Inc., and W. Robert Hancock, Jr. Under the terms of the settlement
agreement, the City has agreed to pay a $2.5 million civil penalty, to implement a
corrective remedial action plan to bring its CSOs into compliance with the CWA and
state law, and to implement a $25 million "Greenways" and stream cleanup
supplemental environmental project. The City has agreed to complete all remedial
action necessary to bring its CSOs into compliance with the CWA and state law by
July 1, 2007, unless EPD and EPA agree to an extension.
EPA, DOJ, and EPD are currently involved in negotiations with the City of Atlanta
regarding a final remedy for the wastewater treatment facilities and collection
system. A supplemental consent decree encompassing remedial relief for the
wastewater treatment facilities and collection system will be filed with the court
once negotiations are complete.
4.3 I EPCRA
EPA and the public rely on the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) mandated by the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA) for information on chemicals
entering the environment. EPA must ensure that companies report data accurately and within
required timeframes. Priorities include providing compliance assistance for additional
industries that have recently been brought into the TRI reporting framework, and a
compliance monitoring/enforcement bulletin on TRI data quality. In FY98, EPA launched
a combined Headquarters/Regional initiative aimed at industrial organic chemical facilities
(SIC Code 2869) regarding their requirements under EPCRA (Sections 311, 312, and 313)
and Section 112 (r) of the CAA. In this two-year initiative, the first year focuses on compliance
assistance, and the second year on enforcement of EPCRA Sections 311 and 312
Media-Specific Priorities I 53
-------
requirements. FY98 Regional compliance assistance activities reached over 86,000 entities
on EPCRA requirements — fielding over 14,000 telephone calls, involving close to 5,000
attendees at workshops and meetings, and distributing 25 different compliance assistance
tools to over 67,000 recipients.
In June 1998, EPA Region 4 announced a settlement with the Coca-Cola Bottling
Company in Kentucky to resolve alleged violations of EPCRA Sections 311,312 and 313.
The company paid a civil penalty of $14,838, and agreed to provide $44,000 worth of
equipment to the Hardin County Emergency Planning Committee to enhance emergency
response capabilities.
4.4 | FIFRA
Key areas of priority for the pesticide enforcement program under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in FY98 were promoting compliance with
antimicrobial product registration requirements and timely reporting of adverse effects.
Antimicrobial Enforcement
EPA and the public rely on pesticide manufacturers to provide accurate information about
pesticides and their associated risks. EPA enforcement efforts include monitoring unregistered
and ineffective antimicrobial products (disinfectants, tuberculicides, virucides, fungicides, and
sanitizers), as well as products making false or misleading public health protection claims,
since they pose a potential public health threat when the public is given inaccurate or misleading
information. Pursuant to FIFRA, these products must be registered by EPA before they may
be sold, held for sale, or distributed in commerce. Of the 5,000 or more registered antimicrobial
products, approximately 3,000 make claims of public health protection.
EPA took enforcement actions in FY98 against several companies that sold products that
claimed to protect against infectious bacteria and germs, where the product was not specifically
registered with EPA for that purpose. Enforcement actions against companies making illegal
pesticidal claims in FY98 included:
^- Lifetime Hoan: EPA issued a stop sale order to the company and fined it $66,000
for selling unregistered kitchen gadgets making claims of built-in antibacterial
protection along with promotional material citing use in hospitals, restaurants, and
commercial kitchens.
^ Snow River Wood Products: EPA issued a stop sale order to Snow River and
fined it $26,400 for selling an unregistered cutting board claiming to fight salmonella
and E. coli.
^- McNeil-PPC: The company was fined $100,000 for selling unregistered toothbrushes
making antibacterial claims and claims to inhibit the growth of germs.
54 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
'Adverse Effects' Enforcement
EPA enforces FIFRA Section 6 (a) (2), which requires pesticide registrants to report to EPA any
adverse effects from use of their pesticide products. This information allows EPA to update
pesticide registration information with information from real-life exposure incidents and
studies that were not available at the time of the registration decision. This information can
alert EPA if there is reason to believe that a registered pesticide is having unreasonably adverse
effects on human health and the environment. In such a case, EPA would need to reassess
whether continued registration of the pesticide is warranted or adjustments to the conditions
of registration are necessary.
On July 31, 1998, EPA reached a $180,000 settlement with Novartis Corporation (formerly
Ciba-Geigy) for violations of FIFRA section 6 (a) (2). Some of the more serious late-reported
incidents involved adverse effects of the insecticide Diazinon. Diazinon's adverse effects include
cancer, neurological symptoms, and respiratory impediments.
4.5 RCRA
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C Program regulates the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. With
authorized state programs and through compliance and enforcement activities, EPA is
responsible for ensuring that the regulated community complies with standards designed to
ensure the safe management of wastes that are toxic, explosive, ignitable, corrosive, or otherwise
dangerous to human health and the environment.
EPA continues to find serious violations both at facilities that are subject to regulatory or
compliance monitoring scrutiny (such as mineral processing facilities and smaller generators),
and at facilities that operate in the 'grayer' areas of regulation, such as recycling operations.
Industries with higher than average rates of noncompliance include petroleum refineries,
ship building, industrial organics, primary and secondary non-ferrous metals, blast furnaces,
and metal products and finishing.
Generators
The RCRA enforcement program has not traditionally focused on the generator universe.
However, beginning in FY 1996, increased emphasis was placed on these facilities, which
includes more than 20,000 large quantity generators (i.e., facilities that generate more
than 100 kg of hazardous waste per month or more than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste
per month). Because many of these facilities are small businesses, EPA used a mix of
enforcement tools and provided compliance assistance to specific industry groups. For
example, Region 6 held an outreach workshop for the maritime industry where
approximately one-third of the facilities were out of compliance. Overall, the Regions
reached over 8,000 generators, through telephone calls (4,751), workshops (2,319), and
124 tools distributed to 919 recipients.
Media-Specific Priorities I 55
-------
Organic Air Emissions (Subpart CC rule)
Compliance Assistance Tool for RCRA Organic Air Emissions Standards: This
compliance assistance tool, developed in partnership with the Chemical Manufacturers
Association, provides a user-friendly explanation of the requirements of the RCRA organic
air emissions standards contained in 40 CFR Parts 264/265, Subpart CC. When the rule was
issued, EPA estimated that organic air emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage
and disposal facilities exceeded 2 million tons per year. Full compliance with Subpart CC
standards should reduce the level of organic air emissions to approximately 150,000 tons per
year and ultimately reduce cancer and other adverse health effects.
Requirements for Organic Air Emissions (Subpart CC rule) became effective Dec. 6, 1996.
Because a very large part of the RCRA universe is potentially subject to Subpart CC, the
enforcement program focused on identifying those facilities most likely to be regulated by
these requirements and that posed high risks. Regional compliance assistance activities in
FY98 reached over 6,000 recipients, including distributing 343 compliance assistance tools
(brochures, fact sheets, etc.) to 5,388 entities. Compliance assistance efforts were followed up
with inspections and at least one case has been referred to DOJ for violations of the Subpart
CC air emission regulations.
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
The principal focus of the UST program has been the approximately one million petroleum
tanks at gas stations and other automotive fuel storage and distribution centers around the
country. Designed to protect groundwater from contamination, UST regulations ensure the
proper construction and operation of tanks, and ensure the closure of old tanks to reduce the
chance of leaks into the surrounding soil and groundwater.
With the Dec. 22, 1998, deadline by which all existing tanks had to be upgraded or begin
closure, increased enforcement attention in FY98 was focused on ensuring that underground
storage tanks were in compliance with maintaining adequate leak detection and other current
regulatory requirements. Although the UST program primarily relied on field citations, the
increased enforcement attention resulted in numerous actions taken through the formal
administrative enforcement process, including actions at the Puerto Rico Land Authority,
several actions at public works facilities in the District of Columbia, and at petroleum
wholesalers in Houston, TX. In addition, a judicial action was taken against Fahri Mustafa
for violation of the UST regulations. (See Chapter 5 for details on several of these cases.)
The Regions and states also continued their compliance assistance efforts to ensure that the
regulated community was aware of the December 1998 deadline requirements. In EPA
Regions with tribal populations, much attention was directed to USTs on tribal lands. As an
example, Region 9 focused on training tribal inspectors, conducting tank inventories, and
recruiting state UST inspectors to serve as technical resources for the tribes and territories.
56 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
4.61 Safe Drinking Water Act
The drinking water enforcement program seeks to ensure that the public water systems in the
United States comply with all health-based standards, including all monitoring and reporting
requirements. The program generally focuses on community water systems (those serving
year-round populations) and nontransient noncommunity systems. This program is
particularly important because there are direct public health effects from drinking water that
does not meet safety standards.
Public Water System Microbials
The effects of contaminated drinking water can be severe, especially on children, the elderly,
and persons with compromised immune systems. Adverse health effects of microbial
contamination include gastrointestinal distress, fever, pneumonia, dehydration (which can
be life-threatening), or death. Serious effects were seen in the Milwaukee outbreak of
cryptosporidium responsible for symptoms in over 400,000 persons, 4,000 hospitalizations,
and more than 100 deaths. In the summer of 1998, in Austin, Texas, contamination of
drinking water wells infected more than 1,300 persons. Region 8 issued two emergency
orders under Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act to address serious threats to
public health in the Town of Alpine, Wyoming and the McGee Mobile Home Park, Gillette,
Wyoming. The use of the emergency powers of the SD WA has provided valuable information
to persons served by these systems and helped to avoid further endangerment to the health
of persons served by these systems.
The drinking water regulations that deal with microbial contamination are the Total Coliform
Rule and the Surface Water Treatment Rule. These rules have been in effect for many years.
EPAs priority for this program continues to include substantial outreach and assistance as
well as enforcement activity. In FY98, EPA Regions reached over 3,000 entities on SDWA/
PWS microbial issues, including holding 14 workshops or training involving 1,820 attendees.
Due to the high level of noncompliance and the direct public health effects of violations,
enforcement of microbial regulation remains a high priority for EPA.
Also in FY98, the government settled with the City of New York for violations of SDWA (see
Chapter 5). Region 6 continued its efforts to address drinking water problems in the Colonias
along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class V Wells
The Regions continued to work on identifying Class V wells and closing potentially
endangering wells. In addition, through outreach activities, the Regions have entered into
partnerships with states and local authorities to identify Class V wells. Region 7 is also
conducting outreach to trade organizations and other potential Class V well owners/
operators, particularly those related to the automotive and dry-cleaning sectors. These
Media-Specific Priorities I 57
-------
activities have helped the Region to bolster the injection well inventory and target 'problem
wells' for compliance assistance and/or enforcement action. In May 1998, Region 7 reached
settlement on a penalty administrative order against DeCoster Farms of Iowa to close several
Class V agricultural drainage wells due to potential nitrate and bacteriological contamination.
EPA Region 5 has undertaken an extensive outreach effort to make county health/
environmental officials aware of the UIC program, Class V wells, and the risk that these wells
pose to underground sources of drinking water. As a result of this outreach, five counties in
Michigan have entered into partnerships with EPA to identify Class V wells. The counties
visited about 475 sites to identify approximately 129 wells, which resulted in the closure of an
unknown number of endangering Class IV/V wells. In Indiana, the UIC program continued
to support the environmental "Circuit Rider" program — an environmental specialist who
provides cities and towns with free, confidential assistance to address environmental problems.
The program promotes local implementation of the Wellhead Protection and UIC Class V
programs and provides outreach to small businesses.
58 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
CHAPTER 5
-
Highlights: Enforcement Cases
Civil Cases
Clean Air Act
American Honda
Ford Motor Company
Block Island Power
Company
Esso Virgin Islands, Inc.
Trinity America
Corporation
Borden Chemicals
and Plastics, Inc.
Plum Creek
Manufacturing,
Union Oil Company
of California
This chapter presents summary descriptions of selected major civil and criminal cases settled
or concluded in FY98.
5.1 I Civil Cases
Clean Air Act
American Honda: EPA, DOJ, and the California Air Resources Board settled a case against
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Honda will spend $267 million to settle allegations that it violated
the Clean Air Act (CAA) by selling vehicles with disabled emission control diagnostic systems. The
United States alleged that Honda disabled the misfire monitoring device on 1.6 million 1996 and
1997 model year Accords, Civics, Preludes, Odysseys, and Acuras, as well as 1995 Honda Civics.
The complaint also alleged that Honda failed to report this fact when applying for Certificates of
Conformity, which allow for vehicles to be legally sold if they meet federal emission standards.
The misfire monitoring device is part of an enhanced computer system, known as the On-
Board Diagnostic System, which checks a vehicle's emission performance when the vehicle
is in use. When the misfire device is disabled during an engine misfire, the system's
malfunction indicator light will not operate. Because the vehicle's owner is unaware that
the engine needs to be serviced, increased exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons and damage
to the vehicle's catalyst may occur.
Under two related agreements with the U.S. government and with California, Honda will
extend the emissions warranty for all affected models to 14 years/150,000 miles, provide an
engine check and any emissions-related repairs needed between 50,000 and 75,000 miles of
use, and provide a free tune-up between 75,000 and 150,000 miles of use, at a cost to Honda
of at least $250 million. In addition, Honda will spend, under the federal and state agreements,
$17.1 million, including $12.6 million in civil penalties and $4.5 million to implement
environmental projects to reduce pollution.
Clean Water Act
Hudson Foods
City of New Orleans
Puerto Rico Aqueduct
and Sewer Authority
Gulf Park Water
Company, Johnson
Properties
ConAgra
Cominco
EPCRA
Royster-Clark, Inc.
Sinclair Oil
Weyerhauser
FIFRA
DuPont
Microban Products
Company
Atlantic Mills
Safetec of America
— continued on the
following page
Highlights: Enforcement Cases I 59
-------
RCRA
Handy & Harman
Electronics Material
Corp.
Puerto Rico Aqueduct
& Sewer Authority
United States Steel
Petroleum Wholesale
Inc.
Mr. Louis Wyman
Conoco Refinery
Safe Drinking
Water Act
New York City
Superfund
Gould Superfund Site
Talache Mine
Sapp Battery Site
Industri-Plex
Sangamo Weston/
Twelve Mile
Creek/Lake
Hartwell PCB
Contamination
Interstate Lead
Company
LCP Chemicals-
Georgia
ICG Iselin Railroad
Yard
Murray Smelter
Libby Groundwater
TSCA
New Jersey Dept. of
Corrections
Safety-Kleen
East Ohio Gas
Ford Motor Company: EPA, DOJ, and the California Air Resource Board reached an
agreement whereby Ford Motor Company will spend $7.8 million to settle allegations that it
violated the Clean Air Act by illegally installing a device which defeats the emissions control
system in 1997 Ford Econoline vans. About 60,000 vans are affected.
The government's claims against the automaker involve the illegal use of a defeat device, in
this case a sophisticated electronic control strategy designed to enhance fuel economy.
According to EPA, the system caused smog-causing nitrogen oxide emissions to increase well
beyond the limits of the Clean Air Act emission standards when the vans are driven at highway
speeds. The consent decree entered on June 8,1998, requires Ford to recall all of the affected
Econolines in order to deactivate the strategy at an estimated cost of $1.3 million, pay $2.5
million in civil penalties, purchase 2,500 tons of nitrogen oxide credits valued roughly at $2.5
million to offset the excess emissions, and spend $1.5 million on projects designed to reduce
future harmful pollutants in the air. The company also voluntarily implemented a special
service instruction to dealers to deactivate the strategy in the vans and cooperated with EPA
and DOJ during the investigation. About 25 percent of the 60,000 Econoline vans equipped
with the strategy have been captured through Ford's special service instruction to date. The
remainder of the vans will be recalled.
Block Island Power Company (Rhode Island): To correct long-standing Clean Air Act
violations, Rhode Island's Block Island Power Co. (BIPCO) agreed in a federal enforcement
settlement to eliminate its diesel generators or install state-of-the-art pollution control
equipment on them, thereby reducing the company's smog-causing nitrogen oxide emissions
to virtually zero. BIPCO also agreed to pay a $90,000 fine. Like much of New England, Rhode
Island is not meeting national standards for healthy air quality regarding ozone or smog, and
BIPCO's pollution reductions will help improve the state's air quality.
BIPCO is the sole utility company on Block Island, about 15 miles off the Rhode Island coast.
EPA alleged that BIPCO failed to obtain Clean Air Act New Source Review (NSR) permits for
eight electricity-generating diesel generators that BIPCO installed and operated between
approximately 1981 and 1993, which caused NOx emissions above NSR statutory and
regulatory thresholds. Under a federal court-approved settlement filed in 1998, BIPCO will
either install an underwater electric power cable from the mainland that will eliminate the
need for the diesel generators, or will retrofit the generators with lowest achievable pollution
control technology.
Esso Virgin Islands, Inc. (U.S. Virgin Islands): EPA alleged that Esso Virgin Islands
violated Clean Air Act New Source Performance Standards for bulk gasoline terminals. In a
settlement entered in federal court on September 25,1998, the defendant agreed to pay a cash
penalty of $294,200 and to follow a compliance plan that will avoid further violations. The
compliance plan includes new operating procedures as well as a requirement that Esso install
a mechanical/electronic system to limit the amount of fuel loaded at any given time in order
to ensure compliance with the standard for total organic compounds.
60 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Trinity America Corporation, d/b/a Trinity Foam of Carolina, and Trinity Fibers
Of Carolina, Inc. (North Carolina): EPA Region 4 issued an imminent and substantial
endangerment administrative order on October 7,1997 in accordance with Section 303 of the
CAA to prohibit manufacturing operations at Trinity American Corporation, doing business
as Trinity Foam of Carolina, and Trinity Fibers of Carolina, Inc. of High Point, NC. EPA
confirmed that air emissions of toluene diisocyanate (TDI) and other chemical irritants from
the facilities have caused or contributed to adverse health effects experienced by residents
living nearby. The two plants closed as a result of the order and the company has elected to
relocate. This was the first Section 303 CAA action taken by the Region.
In addition, EPA issued a unilateral administrative order (UAO) to Trinity on June 27, 1997,
pursuant to the imminent and substantial endangerment authority provided by Section 1431
of the SDWA. The UAO requires Trinity to sample groundwater wells used for drinking water
within a 3/4 mile downgradient and cross-gradient radius from the facility.
On August 11,1997, Trinity American Corporation filed a notice of the filing of a Petition of
Appeal of the UAO. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision dated August 4,1998,
upheld in every respect EPAs issuance of the UAO pursuant to Section 1431 of the SDWA.
The decision is one of only three nationwide addressing Section 1431, and contains precedential
language regarding EPAs authorities and thresholds for finding an imminent and substantial
endangerment. The Fourth Circuit held that EPA need not demonstrate that individuals are
drinking contaminated water to justify issuing an emergency order, that the Agency's authority
to take action to protect public health is very broad, and that EPAs requirements for quarterly
sampling and provision of safe water are reasonable.
Plum Creek Manufacturing (Montana): On October 22, 1997, a consent decree was
entered settling the pending litigation concerning Clean Air Act New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) violations at Plum Creek Manufacturing's facility in Pablo, MT In the decree,
Plum Creek agreed to pay $300,000 in civil penalties to the United States and to spend an
additional $75,000 on the purchase and delivery of clean, washed, sieved road sanding materials
to be treated as a SEP. The sand will be distributed to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, and to state and local entities which maintain roads within
the vicinity of the Pablo facility. These entities will use the sand on iced-over roads in winter,
reducing the typically high concentrations of particulate matter (PM) emissions into the
ambient air in the Pablo area during that time of year. This is expected to result in a decrease
in PM concentrations of between 27% and 74% during the time the sanding material is utilized.
Plum Creek has also agreed to comply with all applicable NSPS requirements for the life of
the Wellons boiler. Plum Creek has accomplished this by means of a new electrostatic
precipitator installed at a cost of approximately $ 1 million. It has also installed a new continuous
monitoring system. Furthermore, Plum Creek will replace an old oil-fired boiler which was
used very infrequently with a gas-fired boiler. The gas-fired boiler will emit less than 40 tons
of sulfur dioxide per year.
Criminal Cases
U.S. v. H & J Auto Inc.
U.S. v. Louisiana
Pacific Corporation
U.S. v. Safewaste Inc.
U.S. v. Saybolt, Inc.
U.S. v. Hess
Environmental
Laboratories Inc.
U.S. v. Barry Shurelds
U.S. v. Ruben Brown
U.S. v.Frank V.
Carlow
U.S. v. Warner-
Lambert, Company
Inc.
U.S. v. Royal
Caribbean Cruise
Lines, Ltd.
U.S. v. BFI Medical
Waste Systems, Inc.
U.S. v. City Sales Ltd.
U.S. v. American
Scientific Technology,
Inc.
U.S. v. Neptune
Fireworks, Inc.
U.S. v. Holland
American Cruise Line
U.S. v. Lam Pine, Inc.
U.S. v. T.T. Barge
U.S. v. T&T Fuels, Inc.
U.S. v. Surpass
Chemical Company,
Inc.
Highlights: Enforcement Cases I 61
-------
Union Oil Company of California (Alaska): This case involves Clean Air Act violations
at UNOCAL's urea and ammonia plant in Kenai, Alaska. The company operated its facility
contrary to procedures resulting in excess emissions of at least 1,200 tons of hydrocarbons in
1995 and 6,600 tons of carbon monoxide between 1987 and 1992. An unpermitted change to
the facility also caused a significant increase in particulate emissions. To settle the case,
UNOCAL agreed to pay a civil penalty of $550,000 and to perform two SEPs costing over $6.6
million. The projects include development and implementation of an operations and
maintenance program to monitor combustion efficiency and substantially reduce hydrocarbon
and carbon monoxide emissions. UNOCAL also agreed to reduce ammonia emissions by
about 1,200 tons per year at a cost in excess of $6.6 million and to reduce substantially the risk
of catastrophic emissions caused by major process upsets.
Clean Water Act
Hudson Foods: On May 8, 1998, Hudson Foods, a subsidiary of the Arkansas-based food
processing company Tyson Foods Inc., agreed to a $6 million settlement to resolve allegations
it polluted Maryland waters that flow into the Chincoteague Bay. According to the government,
Hudson's Berlin plant discharged wastewater with illegal amounts of fecal coliform,
phosporous, nitrogen, ammonia and other pollutants into Kitts Branch, which flows into
Trappe Creek, Newport Bay, and Chincoteague Bay. The government's lawsuit also alleged
that Hudson violated pollution monitoring, sampling and notification requirements in its
Clean Water Act permit. These requirements include ensuring that testing equipment is
accurate, lab tests are performed properly, and sampling records are up to date.
Under the settlement, the company will pay a $4 million civil penalty and spend $2 million to
stem the flow of water-polluting agricultural run-off from Hudson's and Tyson's processing
plants and farms in Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and Pennsylvania. The $2 million Hudson
will spend on environmental projects will reduce nitrate discharges from Tyson and Hudson
Food facilities and reduce phosphorous runoff into local waterways. The settlement also
requires the food processing companies to assist their poultry growers across the Delmarva
Peninsula to develop and implement site-specific nutrient management plans that will help
prevent pollution and protect the environmental health of waterbodies throughout the Region.
City of New Orleans (Louisiana): On April 8,1998, the City of New Orleans agreed to a
settlement worth more than $200 million to address allegations that its sewage collection
system spilled raw sewage into nearby waters, as a result of the city Sewerage and Water Board's
failure to properly maintain its treatment and collection system, and in violation of the federal
Clean Water Act. Under the settlement, the Sewerage and Water Board will renovate its
antiquated sewage collection system to prevent future sewage discharges into the Mississippi
River and other nearby waters. It also will pay $1.5 million in civil penalties and spend $2
million improving water quality along Lincoln Beach, a park that was created to serve African-
Americans who were barred by law in the 1960's from admission to the then white-only
Pontchartrain Beach amusement park.
62 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
City of Atlanta (Georgia): On April 13,1998, EPA, DOJ, the State of Georgia, and City of
Atlanta agreed to a settlement to upgrade Atlanta's sewer system, which regulators and a citizens
group have alleged has been spilling partially treated sewage into nearby waters throughout
the city for several years. Under the proposed agreement announced at a U.S. District Court
hearing, Atlanta will pay a $2.5 million penalty to resolve alleged federal Clean Water Act
violations, spend $27.5 million cleaning the city's rivers and streams and preserving riverbank
property, and replace part of the city's antiquated sewer system at an estimated cost of several
hundred million dollars.
Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (Puerto Rico): On October 16,1997,
Region 2 issued seven §309 (g) Class II administrative penalty complaints proposing the
assessment of a total of $683,500 in Clean Water Act penalties in cases involving the Puerto
Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA). PRASA is a public corporation and an
autonomous governmental instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico created for
the purpose of providing water and sanitary sewer service to the inhabitants of Puerto Rico.
The administrative complaints allege PRASA's failure to implement its industrial pretreatment
program by failing to develop plant-specific local limits applicable to industrial users at the
seven plants and to place such limits in its industrial user permits. On August 26,1998, Region
2 entered into a consent order with PRASA settling the cases against the seven wastewater
treatment plants. The aggregate penalty amount for all seven plants is $65,000. In addition,
PRASA is required to spend at least $210,000 on three SEPs which will reduce the possibility
of sewer system by-passes, thus reducing the amounts of pollutants which may reach the
waters without receiving adequate treatment.
Gulf Park Water Company, Inc., Johnson Properties, Inc., and Glenn and Michael
Johnson (Mississippi): On December 30,1993, DOJ filed a complaint against Gulf Park
Water Company, Inc., Johnson Properties, Inc., and Glenn and Michael Johnson for violations
of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act. The defendants own and operate a wastewater treatment
facility in Gulf Park Estates, Jackson County, MS. Since 1985, the defendants had been violating
the CWA by discharging treated wastewater to the Mississippi Sound without the authorization
of an NPDES permit.
On April 20,1997, the U.S. District Judge found all defendants liable for violating the CWA.
Therefore, the only issues that remained for trial were the assessment of the penalty and
injunctive relief. The trial was held in May 1997. The defendants claimed that they were
unable to pay the penalty and presented a financial expert at trial that testified accordingly.
The court found that there was conflicting financial information and appointed a special
master to evaluate the financial experts' testimony.
On March 11, 1998, the court concluded that although Johnson Properties had a cash flow
problem, Johnson Properties and Glenn Johnson had substantial assets and could pay a penalty
of $1.5 million. Since the filing of the complaint, Gulf Park had been physically connected to
a Regional wastewater system, but could not discharge to it until it paid the Regional Authority
$44,000. Gulf Park finally paid the fee during the summer of 1997 and began discharging to
the Regional wastewater system.
Highlights: Enforcement Cases I 63
-------
ConAgra (Idaho): After three years of intensive litigation, ConAgra agreed to settle a
judicial action EPA brought against the company for Clean Water Act violations at its
Armour Meat slaughterhouse in Nampa, ID. The settlement requires payment of a civil
penalty of $1 million. In addition, ConAgra agreed to cease all land application of its
wastewater on-site, to build new wastewater treatment ponds costing about $1.5 million,
and to move its cattle feedlot off-site at a cost of about $1,032,000. The total value of the
settlement, including the penalty, injunctive relief, and supplemental environmental
project, exceeds $3.5 million.
Cominco (Alaska): A consent decree was entered on November 25, 1997, resolving Clean
Water Act violations that occurred at Cominco's lead-zinc mine in Alaska. It requires payment
of a $1.7 million penalty, and includes several supplemental environmental projects (SEPs)
with an aggregate cost exceeding $3 million. The SEPs include an extensive groundwater
monitoring study of the effects of the mine's large tailings pond on the surrounding permafrost,
the risks of eventual contamination of ground or surface waters, and the long-term structural
integrity of the pond. Smaller SEPs will study the impacts on and protect aquatic life from
wastewater discharges.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act
Royster-Clark, Inc. (Wisconsin): Royster-Clark agreed to pay a $12,000 EPCRA §313
penalty on February 23, 1998 and to perform a SEP costing at least $219,777. The SEP
will involve installation of a new process for manufacturing agricultural fertilizer. The
new process will eliminate the use of 1,480,000 pounds per year of sulfuric acid, 3,466,000
pounds per year of phosphoric acid, and 750,000 pounds per year of ammonia. Royster-
Clark's market for fertilizer is largely in the southeastern U.S., in areas with sandy soil. In
the new manufacturing process, the fertilizer will be attached to a molecule of clay, and
will therefore be less likely to be washed out by rain and contribute to enrichment of
streams. Although the releases of sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, and ammonia at the
Madison, WI, facility were very small, the potential for reduction in water pollution from
fertilizer runoff is considerable.
Sinclair Oil Corporation, Tulsa Refinery (Oklahoma): The largest ever EPCRA
313 enforcement case for Region 6 was settled on May 19, 1998. Discovered violations
included 10 counts for non-reporting EPCRA 313 chemicals and 28 counts for data quality
errors on emissions from Form R. In the consent agreement Sinclair agreed to pay a
$201,968 penalty and implement a $350,000 supplemental environmental project. The
project involves the construction of a 70,000 barrel external floating roof tank to store
waste water prior to treatment. Fugitive emissions of VOCs are expected to be reduced by
as much as 8000 pounds per year.
Weyerhaeuser Company (Washington): A consent agreement and consent order
resolving CERCLA §103(a) and EPCRA §304 violations against Weyerhaeuser Company was
filed on March 17, 1998. The underlying complaint charged the company with failure to
immediately notify the National Response Center of the accidental release of crude sulfate
turpentine, a hazardous substance, and to provide written followup notice to state emergency
64 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
response commissions and local emergency planning committees. The release occurred at
Weyerhaeuser's Longview, WA, facility. Weyerhaeuser had a prior history of similar violations
at the same facility. In the settlement, the company agreed to pay a civil penalty of $400,000
and to complete a supplemental environmental project at a cost of $305,710. The supplemental
environmental projects requires the provision of emergency response equipment to local
emergency response centers and development and operation of an Internet site with current
meteorological data from the facility to enable emergency response centers to more rapidly
and accurately project the likely spread of any future chemical release. In addition,
Weyerhaeuser undertook $6 million of environmental improvements at the facility in response
to EPA's concerns about the repeat notice violations.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act:
DuPont: On April 30, 1998, an administrative law judge imposed the largest administrative
penalty in EPA's history — $1.89 million — against DuPont for ignoring EPA orders to stop
shipping pesticides with inadequate labels. The labels failed to state that protective eyewear is
required when using the product to protect against the risk of accident or injury. DuPont
shipped pesticides on about 380 occasions with labels that omitted the protective eyewear
warnings required by the Worker Protection Standard rule, which was enacted under FIFRA
in August 1992. This is the first case to be tried under the rule. EPA charged DuPont with
improperly labeling four herbicides sold and distributed under DuPont's Bladex and Extrazine
II product lines. Based on information obtained from DuPont, EPA calculated that the company
made more than $9.4 million from the sale of its mislabelled pesticides.
The Worker Protection Standard requires that all pesticide products sold and distributed after
April 21, 1994 display proper warning labels. The rule, which covers more than 3.5 million
farmworkers and other pesticide handlers, is designed to limitworkers' exposure to pesticides,
reduce adverse health effects when exposure occurs, and inform and educate workers about
hazards associated with occupational pesticide use.
Microban Products Company: On September 18,1998, an administrative lawjudge issued
a decision finding Microban Products Company liable for making unlawful public health
claims in the sale and distribution of its antimicrobial pesticide, Microban Plastic Additive
"B" to Hasbro Inc. for use in toys. In its sales promotion material, the company unlawfully
claimed that the pesticide would reduce the growth of many common and harmful bacteria
by 99.9 percent. A hearing will be scheduled later to decide the appropriate penalty. The ruling
ensures that unsubstantiated claims by companies, such as those made by Microban, do not
put the public health at risk.
Atlantic Mills (New Jersey): Region 2 issued an administrative consent order in July
1998 resolving a FIFRA enforcement action against Atlantic Mills, Inc. of Lakewood, NJ.
The settlement contains two SEPs with a combined worth of more than $ 150,000, and assesses
a penalty of $15,000. The Region had filed a complaint against Atlantic Mills, a manufacturer
and exporter of pesticides, alleging that on 11 separate occasions in 1997 Atlantic Mills
distributed or sold unregistered pesticides in violation of FIFRA. Additionally, Atlantic Mills
was charged with two counts of producing a pesticide in an unregistered establishment.
Highlights: Enforcement Cases I 65
-------
The settlement requires Atlantic Mills to develop and present two different educational
programs regarding antimicrobial pesticides. One program, directed to manufacturers and
distributors of food service products for which antimicrobial pesticidal claims are made, is
intended to increase compliance with FIFRA. The second program, directed to food service
operators, is intended to promote and improve sanitation and hygiene in the food service
industry.
Safetec Of America (New York): In September 1998, Region 2 issued a consent order to
Safetec of America, Inc. of Buffalo, NY, in settlement of an administrative penalty action
under FIFRA. The consent order requires the company to pay a civil penalty of $100,500.
Safetec violated FIFRA by selling certain products which were not registered by EPA for sale
as pesticides. The company made numerous claims — in the labels on the products and in
advertising catalogues — of antimicrobial, disinfectant properties for these products, which
included surface wipes and towelettes for use in health-care facilities and elsewhere, as well
as spill control products, or "encapsulators," which are used to clean up human bodily fluids
in health-care facilities. FIFRA prohibits making such claims for products which have not
undergone EPA review for effectiveness and safety. This was one of the first actions by EPA
to classify such "encapsulators" as unregistered pesticidal products. In addition, Safetec
violated FIFRA by failing to submit in a timely manner an annual report on its pesticide
production for 1996.
Pursuant to the consent order, Safetec will comply with FIFRA by removing pesticidal claims
from its product labels and catalogue descriptions. The company will also send letters to its
distributors which advise them that the label and catalogue changes were made to inform the
public that the products are not sanitizers, disinfectants or alternative medical waste treatments.
In addition, the company will remove its name and products from state lists of alternative medical
waste treatment technologies, since such lists bear evidence of pesticidal intent for those products.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Handy and Harman Electronics Material Corporation (Massachusetts): On March
27, 1998, EPA reached agreement with Handy and Harman Electronic Materials Corporation
for the payment of a $ 132,125 penalty for hazardous waste and community reporting violations
at the company's facilities in North Attleboro, MA and East Providence, RI. These two facilities
manufacture specialty electronic components by electroplating metal with precious metal
and non-precious metal solutions. EPA cited the company for the following RCRA violations:
improper hazardous waste container management practices; failure to segregate incompatible
hazardous waste; failure to properly classify wastes as hazardous; failure to conduct inspections
where hazardous waste is stored; failure to provide training to employees who handle hazardous
waste; and failure to maintain a current contingency plan to respond to hazardous waste
spills. EPA also settled its claims against Handy and Harman under EPCRA. In 1993 and 1994,
Handy and Harman failed to maintain complete records for copper, nickel, hydrochloric acid,
and sulfuric acid. Additionally, the company failed to accurately report the amount of copper
and nickel transferred off-site.
66 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority (Puerto Rico): On May 21,1998, Region 2
issued a consent order in settlement of an administrative proceeding under RCRA §9006
against PRASA for underground storage tank violations at 19 of its facilities in Puerto Rico.
PRASA violated the UST regulations by failing to comply with leak detection and permanent
closure requirements. As part of the settlement, PRASA complied with leak detection
requirements at two facilities and was ordered to permanently close USTs at the remaining
facilities. PRASA also agreed to pay a civil penalty of $95,000 and perform two SEPs valued at
$105,000. The first SEP involves a site assessment and use of innovative technology in an
attempt to cleanup a contaminated well located in Juana Diaz, PR. The second SEP involves
the installation of telemetric measuring devices in wastewater pump stations at PRASAs sewage
treatment systems in Trujillo Alto (Bridge) and Sabana, Liana pump stations in Puerto Rico.
The telemetric measuring devices detect pump station malfunctions and thereby reduce the
threat of undetected bypasses at these pump stations which could result in thousands of gallons
of untreated sewage being discharged.
United States Steel (Alabama): On February 13,1998, a consent decree was entered settling
RCRA violations against United States Steel (USX) in Fairfield, AL, and requiring facility-wide
cleanup of contamination. USX had continuously failed to make hazardous waste determinations
on its wastestreams, and illegally disposed of hazardous waste without a permit or interim status.
In addition, groundwater monitoring at the facility indicated the presence of groundwater
contamination from hazardous constituents. The terms of the settlement are that USX will pay
a $1 million civil penalty and perform two SEPs (a PCB-transformer replacement and a
brownfields economic redevelopment), the combined values of which will be at least $1.2 million.
For injunctive relief, USX must perform corrective action at the facility; stop the practice of
reinserting flush solvent waste from the pipe mill varnish operation back into the varnish
operation; stop the practice of disposing of its flush solvent waste from the pipe mill at Exum
landfill, a solid waste landfill; isolate the wastes from the pipe mill practice that were disposed of
at Exum landfill and fence in the entire landfill; perform an investigation and, if necessary,
corrective action at Exum landfill; and perform RCRA closure at the coke plant.
Petroleum Wholesale, Inc. (Texas): On August 26,1993, and September 9,1993, EPA and
the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission jointly inspected facilities owned by
Petroleum Wholesale, Inc. (PWI) located at seven facilities in Houston, Texas. Twenty-seven
USTs were found to be out of compliance with federal UST regulations, resulting in a total of 80
violations. A consent agreement and consent order was issued on May 15,1998, to PWI which
included a penalty of $274,000, primarily for failure to conduct adequate release detection for
UST systems. Release detection systems are necessary to enable owners and operators to detect
releases from USTs in sufficient time to prevent major releases of product into the environment.
Mr. Louis Wyman (Colorado): Region 8 issued a unilateral administrative order under
RCRA §7003 to the oil pit operator, Mr. Lou Wyman, who has a commercial oil field waste
disposal operations known as Williams Fork Waste Systems located south of Hayden, CO.
The entire surface of one pond, which is approximately 1.2 acres in size, is covered with oil.
The second pond is also over two thirds covered with oil. The ponds are also filled to capacity
Highlights: Enforcement Cases I 67
-------
which is in violation of the Colorado Solid Waste Regulations requiring at least two feet of
"freeboard." The facility has no security and inadequate fencing which results in uncontrolled
access to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and wildlife. The facility has received many notices
of violations by the state; and has been the subject of local government inquiries, hearings,
and abatement actions since the 1980s. The Region has coordinated its action with the Fish
and Wildlife Service, the State of Colorado, and Routt County. The UAO requires the operator
to clean the ponds and assure that the ponds will be permanently kept clean, address the
security and access issues in a variety of ways, and a develop a permanent method for
maintaining two feet of freeboard.
Conoco Refinery (Colorado): On March 18,1998, Region 8 filed a complaint against Conoco's
Denver Refinery seeking a penalty for failure to comply with numerous RCRA generator
requirements from 1992 to 1995. On August 7, 1998, the parties finalized a consent agreement
which requires Conoco to pay a cash penalty of $112,500 and perform a SEP valued at $627,500.
The SEP — a reduction of sulfur emissions by 200 tons/year — will alleviate citizen concerns
regarding odors and minor respiratory problems alleged in a citizen's suit brought by Colorado
Public Interest Research Group. This case represents the coordination of EPA, Conoco, the State
of Colorado Air Program, the citizen group, and the community at large.
Safe Drinking Water Act
New York City: On May 20, 1998, New York City agreed to build a filtration plant for its
Croton Drinking Water System to reduce the risk of cryptosporidium and other contaminants
for its nearly one million residents, including the elderly and young. Under the settlement
filed in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, the City will build the filtration plant no later than
September 2006, spend $5 million primarily on projects to protect the Croton watershed, and
pay a $1 million penalty to resolve an April 1997 lawsuit brought by the federal government.
The suit alleged that the City violated the federal Safe Drinking Water Act by failing to filter
the Croton water supply. New York State intervened as a plaintiff in the lawsuit and also was a
party to the settlement. New York City will monitor the quality and safety of its Croton Drinking
Water System until the filtration system is in full operation. The watershed protection measures
the City will implement include, purchasing land and replacing faulty septic tanks with sewers,
and preventing storm water runoff from contaminating the watershed.
Superfund
Gould Superfund Site (Oregon): On May 14, 1998, a consent decree was entered for
cleanup of the Gould Superfund Site in Portland, Oregon. The settling defendants include NL
Industries, Gould Electronics, Johnson Controls, Exide Inc., Lucent Technologies, Rhone-
Poulenc, Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railway Co., ESCO Corp., and Schnitzer Investment
Corp. The decree requires the defendants to implement a $15 million remedial action and to
reimburse EPA for oversight and response costs totaling more than $100,000.
Talache Mine Superfund Site (Idaho): On June 22,1998, EPA issued a CERCLA unilateral
administrative order to Monarch Greenback directing time-critical removal activities designed
to stabilize waste at the Talache Mine Superfund Site in Atlanta, ID. These interim activities
68 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
have been completed. EPA has since directed Monarch Greenback to perform preliminary
work on a non-time critical removal. This site consists of two large piles containing tailings
from historic gold mining operations, and areas where tailings have been released in the past
(for instance, in May 1997, at least 35,000 cubic yards of contaminated tailings were discharged
into an adjacent wetland, and then into tributaries of the North Fork of the Boise River). The
tailings contain significant concentrations of arsenic and other hazardous substances.
Sapp Battery Site (Florida): On October 2, 1997, a summary judgment was entered in
favor of the United States in the case of U.S. v. Ben Shemper & Sons, Inc.; M. Bernstein Metal
Co.; Dynamic Metals, he.; Gulf Coast Recycling, Inc.; Southern Scrap Metals; and Taracorp, he.
Defendants were held jointly and severally liable for response costs incurred at the Sapp Battery
Superfund Site, as well as prejudgment interest totaling almost $4 million. The defendants
were also held liable under CERCLA for all future response costs at the site. In addition,
defendant Ben Shemper & Sons, Inc. was found liable for failure to comply with an
administrative order directing cleanup of the site.
The Sapp Battery Site is a former battery-cracking facility near Cottondale, FL. From 1970 to
1980, tens of thousands of spent batteries were cut open to recover lead for resale. Over the
years, severe acid and heavy metals contamination occurred at the site. The site was listed on
the NPL in 1982. In 1991, after 10 years of study, cleanup, and settlement negotiations, EPA
issued a CERCLA §106 order to some 225 PRPs. As a result, several dozen major PRPs entered
into a consent decree with the United States to fund and undertake the cleanup at the site.
Many others entered into de minimis settlements. Six of the PRPs that did not enter into the
consent decree became the subject of this case.
Industri-Plex Superfund Site (Massachusetts): This site is a successful example of
EPAs effort to achieve both the remediation and the reuse of a Superfund site. The site includes
approximately 245 acres, of which about 110 acres contain heavy metals (lead, arsenic, and
chromium) in the soils. Additionally, benzene and toluene hotspots exist in a portion of the
groundwater. The remedy for the site is construction of a variety of covers over the
contaminated soils, measures to address the groundwater contamination, and institutional
controls. A group of responsible private parties is performing and paying for the remedy.
Construction of the covers was completed in 1998. Groundwater cleanup is ongoing, and
institutional controls to ensure the long term protectiveness of the remedy are being completed.
At the same time that remediation has been proceeding, significant portions of the site are
being developed or redeveloped for economic reuse. As part of the consent decree, EPA, the
responsible parties, and the City of Woburn formed a custodial trust to hold title to, manage
and develop about 120 acres of the site contributed by the prior owner as "payment" of his
share of the remediation costs. The trustee has worked actively to promote development of
that property. EPA has entered into prospective purchaser agreements with purchasers of
three different parcels of the site that protect those parties from Superfund liability. One
agreement is with a private company that is operating a recycling center. A second is with
three state agencies who are constructing and operating a Regional transportation center (RTC)
consisting of a commuter rail station, a commuter express bus facility with service to Logan
Airport and downtown Boston, and a new interchange from the adjacent Interstate highway
Highlights: Enforcement Cases I 69
-------
onto the site. The third is with a private company that will be constructing and operating a
large retail store. A fourth agreement with a private company to develop an office park on yet
another parcel of the site is currently being negotiated. In addition, the City of Woburn is
upgrading and extending the main road that runs through the site.
Reuse offers considerable environmental benefits. In constructing the RTC, the three state
agencies will be installing a cap three feet thicker than required by EPA. The RTC also will
remove 2400 vehicles daily from entering Boston, reducing traffic and helping the state comply
with the Clean Air Act. Additionally, keeping viable companies and state agencies operating
on the site helps ensure that the protective covers will be properly maintained and repaired.
Sangamo Weston/Twelve Mile Creek/Lake Hartwell PCB Contamination (South
Carolina): This site comprises Lake Hartwell, certain tributaries, and seven properties in
Pickens County, SC. The Sangamo Plant manufactured capacitors containing PCBs. PCBs
and other hazardous substances were disposed of on the Sangamo plant and at the satellite
properties. Effluents containing PCBs were also discharged into surface waters. Two significant
actions were taken at this site in FY98:
^- A complaint was filed in District Court in May 1998 seeking recovery of all past costs
incurred at the site through FY97. A consent decree entered on September 23, 1998
requires the defendant to pay the United States $5,635,286 for past response costs
incurred for the site plus interest.
^- A unilateral administrative order was issued for Operable Unit Two, which comprises
the sediment, surface water, and biological migration routes downstream from the
Sangamo Plant and satellite disposal areas that have site-related PCB-contamination. A
Record of Decision had been issued for this site in 1994. The respondent, Schlumberger
Resource Management Services, Inc., began to voluntarily perform work at the site with
EPA oversight but a formal agreement could not be reached. Upon resolution of
outstanding cost issues at the site, Region 4 issued the UAO on September 25,1998 which
requires Schlumberger to implement a fish consumption advisory and a public education
program, to perform annual aquatic biota and sediment monitoring to determine PCB
levels in fish and other aquatic life, and to pass sediments through three impoundments
to facilitate burial of PCB-impacted sediments further downstream. The estimated cost
of this remedy is approximately $55 million.
Interstate Lead Company Superfund Site (Alabama): In an April 1997 consent decree,
a group of large quantity generators — the ILCO Site Remediation Group — agreed to perform
and fund the complete design/remedial action for the site, at an estimated cost of $59,440,500.
The ILCO Site Remediation Group received orphan share compensation in the form of a $14
million credit against outstanding past response costs and agreed to reimburse the government
for the balance of $1.82 million. The consent decree also provided that proceeds from de
minimis settlements would be split evenly between EPA and the ILCO Site Remediation Group
with EPAs share to be applied against outstanding past costs.
70 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
On April 4,1998, EPA Region 4 entered into an AOC with 210 de minimis parties at the site.
Under the terms of the settlement, approximately $2.14 million will be collected toward past
cleanup activities at the site and future response costs. This amount will be split equally between
EPA and the ILCO Site Remediation Group. EPAs share will be used to reimburse the Superfund
for outstanding past costs and the ILCO Site Remediation Group's share will go into a special
account to fund future work at the site.
A CERCLA §122(h) ability-to-pay settlement for recovery of response costs was entered into
between EPA and the City of Leeds and the ILCO Site Remediation Group on September 2,
1998, which includes an agreement to reimburse EPA and the City of Leeds $25,000 each.
LCP Chemicals-Georgia Site (Georgia): On March 23, 1998, an agreement and
administrative order on consent for removal action under CERCLA Sections 104, 106, and
122 with three PRPs at the site was deemed final following expiration of the requisite period
of notice and comment. Under the terms, EPA preauthorized $1.7 million in mixed funding
for the final stage of removal action to be performed at the site by the respondents; the
agreement and administrative order also comprised $4.6 million in past costs incurred by
EPA during prior removal activities at the site.
The site consists of about 500 acres of tidal saltwater marsh and about 50 acres of upland.
Following the February 1994 shutdown of the chemical plant, EPA issued unilateral
administrative orders for removal to the PRPs at the site. Three of the PRPs receiving a unilateral
order thereafter undertook extensive removal activities in the upland portion of the site, and
performed focused studies and general investigations site-wide. These same three PRPs are
the respondents to the 1998 agreement and administrative order; it is estimated that their
overall removal response costs could eventually total $40 million.
ICG Iselin Railroad Yard Site, Jackson (Tennessee): On November 20,1997, EPA entered
into a prospective purchaser agreement (PPA) with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
(TWRA) to facilitate the purchase and preservation of wetlands and bottomland hardwood
forests adjacent to the ICG Iselin Railroad Superfund Site. The site was paced on the NPL on
December 16, 1994 and is a non-Fund financed state enforcement lead project under a 1994
agreement between EPA and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.
TWRA is purchasing the 355-acre property lying south/southwest of the site to manage in
perpetuity solely in conformance with state law which includes uses for complimentary
educational and recreational purposes which are passive and noncommercial. EPA believes
that this PPA (which provides a covenant not to sue) will benefit the citizens of Tennessee.
Murray Smelter (Utah): The site, located immediately to the south of Salt Lake City, in
Murray, UT, is the location of the former Murray and Germania Smelter facilities. The smelters,
which operated from the late 1800s until 1949, caused soil and ground water contamination
through stack emissions and poor handling and storage of flue dust and arsenic trioxide. The
former owner and operator of the facility, Asarco Inc., performed a site investigation and
feasibility study under a 1995 administrative order. These studies, which were approved by
EPA, were the foundation for a Record of Decision for the site, which was issued on April 1,
Highlights: Enforcement Cases I 71
-------
1998. The ROD calls for excavation and off-site disposal of extremely high level arsenic bearing
soils, excavation and disposal of lower level arsenic bearing soils in an on-site repository,
excavation and replacement of high lead level soils in specific residential areas, and natural
attenuation (including institutional controls) of ground water.
EPA worked with Asarco, the City of Murray, the State of Utah, current landowners, and
prospective purchasers to develop a settlement strategy that would result in full cleanup
and redevelopment of this blighted area. As a result of this process, all parties signed the
consent decree, and the prospective purchasers, through a PPA, will build a medical campus,
movie theaters, and other commercial-retail establishments. The consent decree, entered
on August 19,1998, provides that Asarco will perform full cleanup on the site and reimburse
all response costs. Two federal agencies considered by EPA to be Section 107 (a) (3) arrangers
during World War II will also be resolving their potential liability to Asarco in the decree.
Pursuant to the consent decree, the City of Murray commits to implement and enforce
institutional controls along with Asarco. The current landowners are required to provide
access and comply with all institutional controls, some of which are dedicated property
interests granted by those parties to Asarco and the City. The approximate total of all response
costs at the site is $16.5 million.
Libby Groundwater Superfund Site (Montana): The site is located in northwestern
Montana in and adjacent to the City of Libby. The site was originally part of a lumber and
plywood mill complex which produced timbers and poles that were treated with creosote and
pentachlorophenol, along with carrier oils. Groundwater contamination was first detected in
domestic wells within the City of Libby in 1979 and the site was placed on the National Priorities
List in 1983. As of August 1998, the remedy is complete except for ongoing long-term
groundwater biotreatment. Approximately 13 acres in size, the property contains a park, several
buildings formerly utilized as a motel, a convenience store, and a chiropractor's office. The
site owner, Stimson Timber Company, received a proposal to sell part of the site to a new
developer to build a shopping center. The new companies, P.O.B. Montgomery and Albertsons,
requested a Prospective Purchaser Agreement prior to accepting title.
The companies were willing to pay for the costs associated with obtaining a PPA as well as to
conduct the remaining work needed at the property, including the abandonment of one
monitoring well and the modification of four monitoring wells to protect against damage
from surface activities at the property. The new development — approximately 60,000 square
feet of retail development occupied, in part, by national level chain stores — is expected to
generate approximately 100 permanentjobs for the community, a $4.8 million increase in the
local tax base, and $17 million annually in sales. The PPA was signed in August 1998.
Toxic Substances Control Act
New Jersey Department of Corrections: On November 13, 1997, Region 2 issued a
consent order to the New Jersey State Department of Corrections under which that agency
agreed to pay a civil penalty of $476,196 and spend over $2.2 million for SEPs. The settlement
resolved an administrative complaint under TSCA for violations of PCB regulations. The
complaint had cited 16 violations of TSCA that occurred at two different facilities owned and
72 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
operated by the Department in Yardville and Avenel. EPA inspections of these facilities revealed
numerous violations of inspection, record-keeping, disposal, marking, and registration
requirements concerning PCB transformers. The SEPs will include the removal and disposal
of PCB transformers, electrical upgrades, and environmental assessments at the Department's
facilities throughout New Jersey.
Safety-Kleen Corporation: On July 31,1998, EPA Region 5 signed a consent agreement and
consent order resolving allegations that Safety-Kleen had violated Sections 5 and 13 of TSCA .
The company will pay cash penalty of $ 141,500 and undertake an innovative SEP to treat PCBs
worth $667,000. The SEP targets treatment of PCB oil in environmental justice communities
and at not-for-profit entities that might otherwise go untreated. In a 1996 complaint, EPA had
alleged that Safety-Kleen manufactured and imported "Luwa Bottoms" without proper
premanufacture notice.
East Ohio Gas Company: On July 13,1998, Region 5 filed a consent agreement and consent
order resolving 161 alleged violations of PCB regulations under TSCA which had been self-
disclosed to the Agency by the East Ohio Gas Company (EOG). Pursuant to EPAs Self-
Disclosure Policy, EPA reduced the gravity portion of the proposed civil penalty of $1,247,460
by 100% and required EOG to pay a penalty of $193,260, which represented the economic
benefit to EOG of the disclosed violations. As part of the settlement, EOG also certified that it
is currently in compliance with TSCA.
On June 8, 1995, EOG voluntarily disclosed violations at its facilities located near Cleveland,
OH. As part of the self-disclosure, EOG also notified EPA that similar violations of TSCA may
have existed elsewhere in its multi-facility gas distribution system and that EOG intended to
immediately conduct a company-wide audit of all of its facilities to determine its compliance
with TSCA. The company disclosed additional violations of TSCA on four occasions in 1995
and 1996. On April 6, 1998, EOG completed a lengthy and extensive audit of its facilities, and
submitted those findings to the Agency.
5.2 | Criminal Cases
U.S. V. H & J Auto Inc., et al. (Oklahoma): Carl E. Hines ran a salvage yard as a cover for
an interstate methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution network. His efforts to dispose
of trailer loads of 55-gallon drums of hazardous waste, which had accumulated at his salvage
yard over the years, prompted Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality interest, a
subsequent investigative referral to EPAs criminal division, and a series of false explanations
to law enforcement officers concerning the disappearance of the drums. Of the five defendants
in the case, three pled guilty prior to trial. Jack Hensley pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture
and distribute methamphetamine; former Marshall County Sheriff Decco Bazter pled guilty
to conspiring to manufacture, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine,
possession of methamphetamine, intimidating a federal witness, aiding and abetting the
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and conspiracy to illegally transport hazardous
waste; and Bill Orange, pled guilty to conspiring to illegally transport hazardous waste. On
February 12, 1998, Carl Hines and Daniel R. Martin were convicted by a federal jury in
Highlights: Enforcement Cases 73
-------
Oklahoma. Hines was convicted of conspiring to manufacture, possession with intent to
distribute and distribution methamphetamine; attempt to manufacture methamphetamine;
possession of a firearm after a felony conviction; intimidating a federal witness; causing the
illegal transportation of hazardous waste without a manifest; and conspiring to illegally
transport hazardous waste.
On June 23,1998, all five defendants were sentenced. Hines was sentenced to anon-pardonable
prison term of 420 months and to 120 months of supervised release. Martin was sentenced to
two non-parolable prison terms of 240 months and a 120-month term of supervised release.
Baxter was sentenced to concurrent terms of 102 months imprisonment and a 120-month
term of supervised release. Hensley was sentenced to a 76-month prison term and a 60-month
term of supervised release. Orange was sentenced to a 27-month prison term and a 36 month
term of supervised release.
U.S. v. Louisiana Pacific Corporation, et al. (Colorado): Louisiana Pacific Corporation
operates a wood products plant at Olathe, CO. An indictment alleged that plant mill manager
Dana Dulohery and plant superintendent Robert Mann conspired to violate the Clean Air
Act, filed false reports with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and
EPA, and committed mail and wire fraud. The defendants were indicted on 50 felony counts.
On February 18, 1998, Robert Mann was sentenced to six months incarceration, five years of
supervised probation, and fined $10, 000. On April 3, 1998, Dana Dulohery was sentenced to
10 months incarceration, three years supervised probation, and fined $15,000. On May 28,
1998, Louisiana Pacific Corporation pled guilty to 14 felony counts for violating the CAA and
four felony counts for consumer fraud. The company was fined $36.5 million and ordered to
pay $500,000 in restitution. This was the largest fine ever collected under the Clean Air Act.
U.S. V. Safewaste Inc., et al. (California): In 1993, the Sacramento Fire Department
inspected a warehouse leased by Frank Fiorillo, Jr. and Art Krueger which led to the discovery
of illegally stored hazardous wastes. A subsequent search warrant by the Sacramento County
Environmental Crimes Task Force revealed more wastes illegally stored in a concealed room,
rocket motors, warheads, 17,000 artillery shells, and 7,500 pounds of explosives. The
investigation disclosed that Fiorillo and Krueger operated Safewaste and West Coast Industries,
Inc. They had contracted with Diversey Inc., a national manufacturer of cleaning chemicals
based in Michigan, to handle its off-specification material as a hazardous waste. The material
was taken to their Sacramento warehouse where much of it was hidden in the concealed
room. Fiorillo and Krueger provided Diversey with false certificates of disposal for the waste
and fraudulently billed them over $250,000 for waste disposal services that were never
performed. On July 2, 1997, Fiorillo and Krueger were convicted for the illegal storage and
transportation of hazardous wastes to an unpermitted facility, as well as wire fraud. Fiorillo
was also convicted of federal firearms and explosives regulations. On December 12, 1997,
Frank Fiorillo, Jr. was sentenced to 51 months incarceration, a $75,000 fine and ordered to
pay $14,000 in restitution to Sacramento Fire Department. On December 19,1997, Art Krueger
was sentenced to 21 months incarceration and a $450 special assessment.
74 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
U.S. V. Saybolt, Inc., el al. (Massachusetts): On April 17,1998,David H. Mead, President
and CEO of Saybolt, and Frerik Pluimers, of The Netherlands, formerly President and
Chairman of the Board of Saybolt North America Inc. and Chairman of the Board of Saybolt
Inc., were charged in a five-count indictment. The indictment charged violations of the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, interstate travel in aid of a racketeering enterprise, conspiracy, and
aiding and abetting. Mead and Pluimers were also charged with bribing Panamanian officials.
Mead and Pluimers are alleged to have conspired with others to pay a $50,000 bribe in
December 1995 to officials of the Republic of Panama, in hopes of obtaining contracts from
the government of Panama for an affiliated company, Saybolt de Panama, S.A. As a result of
this payment, Saybolt de Panama was expected to receive expedited tax benefits and a
commercially-attractive operating location along the Panama Canal. On August 18, 1998,
Saybolt, Inc., pled guilty to violations of the Clean Air Act and the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act. Under the plea agreement, the company will pay a $4.9 million fine and serve five years
probation. As a condition of its probation, Saybolt is required to establish and maintain an
effective compliance program regarding the operation of its qualitative inspection and testing
services, subject to the review and approval of EPA. Saybolt also agreed to fully cooperate in
the investigation of individuals responsible for its criminal conduct. A separate provision of
the plea agreement requires Saybolt to purchase display advertising in petroleum industry
trade publications, announcing the terms of its guilty plea to data falsification charges.
U.S. v. Hess Environmental Laboratories Inc., etal. (Pennsylvania): Hess Labs was
engaged in the business of providing analysis of environmental samples to various customers.
Michael Klusaritz was the Laboratory Director at Hess Labs until June 1995 when he left to
start his own environmental laboratory, Phase II Labs. Klusaritz operated Phase II through
November 1996. Investigation revealed that both Hess Labs and Phase II were providing
fraudulent analysis to many customers. Hess Labs provided false and fraudulent environmental
testing results to customers over a nine-year period. The company did not have the proper
equipment to conduct the requisite analysis and failed to conduct the analysis in accordance
with EPA methods. False lab results were provided to schools, hospitals, local governments
and businesses and were relied upon by the EPA, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection and the U.S. Department of the Army. On November 10, 1997, Hess Labs pled
guilty to a total of nine felony counts including conspiracy, mail fraud, false statements, false
claims and Clean Water Act violations, including knowingly aiding, abetting or causing
violations of Tobyhanna Army Depot's CWA permit.
On April 9,1998, Hess Labs was sentenced to five years probation and ordered to pay $5,553,634
in restitution. Michael Klusaritz and Phase II each pled guilty to false statements, false claims
and mail fraud violations and were sentenced October 28,1997. Michael Klusaritz is currently
serving a sentence of 12-months incarceration. Both Klusaritz and Phase II were held jointly
and severally liable for restitution in the amount of $40,000. Judith McCoy, former Technical
Director at Hess Labs pled guilty to conspiracy, false statements, and mail fraud. McCoy was
sentenced on September 21, 1998, to three years probation and ordered to pay a $10,000 fine
and restitution of $27,000. William L. Hopkins, former President of Hess Labs, pled guilty to
four felony counts including conspiracy, mail fraud, false statements and CWA violations. On
May 30, 1997, Hess Labs closed and terminated its business as a result of the investigation.
Phase II was also closed as a result of the investigation.
Highlights: Enforcement Cases 75
-------
U.S. V. Barry Shurelds, etal. (Kentucky): On October 3, Barry Shurelds of Philadelphia;
Sam Robinson of Philadelphia; Sean Shurelds of Camden, NJ; Hosea Eusebio of Jersey City,
NJ; the IES Lead Paint Division and its parent corporation, IEMC Environmental Group,
Inc., were sentenced in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in Lexington
for violating the Clean Air Act. Barry Shurelds, project manager, was sentenced to 51 months
in prison. Robinson, the on-site supervisor, received a 10-month sentence. The two other
individual defendants received probation. The companies were not fined, as they are out of
business. The defendants were convicted of removing asbestos-containing material from the
Hess Department Store in Louisville in early 1993 without following federal regulations that
prevent exposure to workers and the general public. When inhaled, asbestos fibers can become
trapped in the lungs. This can lead to lung cancer and asbestosis. As a result of the improper
asbestos removal, the owner of the store, Crown American Corporation, was ordered by the
Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection on March 10, 1993 to conduct an
emergency cleanup. The cleanup cost to Crown American approximately $ 1 million. The case
was investigated by EPAs Criminal Investigation Division, the FBI, and the Kentucky
Department of Environmental Protection.
U.S. V. Ruben Brown (Illinois): Ruben Brown, doing business as Ruben Brown
Extermination and J. D. McKinley Extermination, operated a pest extermination business
without state certification in the Chicago area for several years. Brown admitted spraying
Chicago residences with methyl parathion between 1991 and 1996. He also admitted to selling
bottles of methyl parathion to individuals for spraying. The spraying occurred in predominantly
low income, African American communities. Many of the residences had young children
residing in them. Exposure to methyl parathion can produce convulsions, coma, and death.
On June 20, 1997, Brown was charged with misusing a restricted use pesticide. On July 24,
1997, Brown pled guilty, admitting that he sprayed methyl parathion in 1,000 homes in Chicago,
and sold the chemical in concentrated form to his clients. On December 9, 1997, Brown was
sentenced to two years imprisonment and one year supervised release. EPA Region 5 completed
its cleanup of 90 Chicago area homes in May 1998. Some 900 homes were sampled for the
presence of the toxic pesticide. Total cleanup costs exceeded $10 million.
U.S. v. Frank V. Carlow (Pennsylvania): On February 3, 1998, Frank V Carlow of
Uniontown, PA, owner of several coal mining and demolition companies, was sentenced to
serve 87 months in federal prison and pay $4,591,027 in restitution. Carlow was convicted on
November 3, 1997 of illegally storing hazardous wastes, tax evasion, mail fraud, pension
fraud, and obstruction of justice. Carlow admitted that he illegally stored over 170 55-gallon
drums of hazardous wastes at the former Beaumont Glass Company in Morgantown, WV,
from 1992 to 1997. Many of the drums contained hydrofluoric acid which can cause severe
chemical burns. In addition, Carlow evaded over $10 million in federal taxes and $2.5 million
in state worker insurance payments by under-reporting the hours worked by approximately
400 miners whom he employed. The case was investigated by EPAs Criminal Investigation
Division, the FBI, the IRS, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the Secret Service.
76 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
U.S. v. Warner-Lambert, Company Inc. (Puerto Rico): On September 19,1998, Warner-
Lambert Company, Inc., pled guilty to six counts of violating the Clean Water Act, and agreed
to pay a $3 million criminal fine. The guilty plea was for falsifying discharge monitoring
reports (DMRs) on the levels of pollutants it was releasing from its Vega Bajo, PR,
pharmaceutical plant into a drainage channel that feeds into the Cibuco River. The receiving
waters and the river are used by poor area residents for both drinking water and recreational
purposes. The company will also pay a civil penalty of $670,000 for routinely releasing excess
levels of pollutants between 1992 and 1995. The plant manager, Juan Ruiz Orengo, pled guilty
the same date to false reporting under the CWA. On March 5, 1998, he was sentenced to 21
months imprisonment.
U.S. v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, Ltd. (Puerto Rico): In October 1994, the cruise
ship, Sovereign of the Seas, was observed by a Coast Guard plane emitting a visible oil sheen
into ocean waters off the coast of Puerto Rico. When the Coast Guard boarded and inspected
the vessel, it was presented with a false logbook that omitted some oil discharges and
misrepresented others. Additionally, under orders of a senior officer, the bypass pipe that
circumvented the oil-water separator (thereby resulting in the sheen observed by the Coast
Guard) was removed between the first Coast Guard inspection in San Juan after the incident
and the second inspection in Miami, and was cut up in pieces and disposed of in a dumpster.
The appearance/disappearance of this pipe was documented in a Coast Guard videotape.
During the ensuing investigation, it was established that the discharge of oily bilge water was
not an isolated occurrence; rather it was endemic to the fleet of Royal Caribbean cruise ships.
Likewise, the maintaining of false logbooks was endemic.
Royal Caribbean pled guilty in Puerto Rico on June 3, 1998, to seven counts of a ten count
indictment and agreed to pay a fine of $8 million. Violations included discharge of oil from
the Sovereign of the Seas off the coast of Puerto Rico, and failure to report same, both in
violation of the Clean Water Act, conspiracy, witness tampering, obstruction of justice
(destruction of evidence), and false statements. On the same day, Royal Caribbean also pled
guilty in Miami to one count for presenting a false oil record book for the Nordic Empress,
and agreed to pay a $1 million fine.
U.S. v. BFI Medical Waste Systems, Inc. (Washington, D.C.): On September 18,
1998, a $1.5 million fine was imposed on a subsidiary of Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., for
1995 and 1996 criminal violations of the Clean Water Act at a now-closed medical waste
treatment facility in the District of Columbia. BFI-Maryland owned and operated a facility
which treated medical wastes using an "autoclave" steam processing system. In a 1991
application to the District of Columbia, the company stated that the wastewater would be
pre-treated prior to discharge to the sewer system. As a result of facility design changes, BFI-
Maryland began accumulating rainwater, snow melt, and other liquids in a loading area used
to load treated medical waste for shipment to a permitted landfill. This "trailer pit" also
accumulated treated medical waste, untreated wastewater from the autoclave system, and, in
the government's view, untreated medical waste. Gregory Ryan Smith, the local plant manager,
and others had employees pump wastewater from the trailer pit onto the facility's parking lot
and into a drain leading to the sanitary sewer. BFI-Maryland, along with Smith, pled guilty in
Highlights: Enforcement Cases 77
-------
June to knowingly failing to notify District of Columbia authorities of a substantial change in
the nature of the wastewater the facility was discharging into sewers leading to the Blue Plains
waste water treatment plant. In addition to the $1.5 million criminal fine, BFI-Maryland was
sentenced to two years probation and community service, in the form of a $100,000 payment
to the Conservation Fund to advance land and water conservation activities at the community
level. Also, the parent company, Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., of Houston, TX, will execute
an environmental audit and develop and maintain an environmental compliance program at
each of its autoclave facilities in the United States.
U.S. V. City Sales Ltd., et al. (Maine): Between March 1993 and July 1994, City Sales,
Ltd., a Canadian automobile parts dealership, illegally imported 246 tons of CFC-12 into the
United States through the port of Houlton, ME. During this period, City Sales made thirty
separate imports of CFC-12 to more than a dozen United States companies, accounting for
eight percent of all CFC imports to the United States during 1993. These transactions netted
City Sales over $2.4 million in gross revenues and over $650,000 in profits. City Sales never
possessed the Clean Air Act (CAA) "consumption allowances" required for these imports and
the company made false declarations on import invoices, in violation of the CAA and Customs
laws, respectively. In addition, City Sales failed to pay the United States $1.6 million in excise
taxes owed on these transactions.
On May 29,1998, City Sales owner Larry LeBlanc pled guilty and was sentenced to 15 months
imprisonment and a $28,000 fine. His wife, Anne LeBlanc, pled guilty and received a sentence
of a $1,500 fine. Former sales manager Scott Campion entered a guilty plea in April 1997 to
tax evasion and was sentenced on October 7,1997, to a $2,500 fine. On July 16,1998, Michael
Cormier entered a guilty plea to tax charges. The corporations, City Sales, Ltd., Trans Canada
AutohousLtd., and 051544N.B. Inc, have been charged and sentenced in Canada, to a $20,000
(CDN) fine.
U.S. V. American Scientific Technology, Inc: American Scientific Technology (AST), located
in Little Rock, AK, conducted tank tightness tests on underground storage tanks and associated
pipes. Federal regulations require that owners and operators of underground storage tanks test the
tightness of these tanks to determine whether they are leaking. Mark Smith was employed as a tank
tester by AST and several related companies between 1993 and 1997, including American
Underground Storage Tank Testing, located in Austin, TX, and American Southern Technology,
Inc. located in Little Rock, AK. Smith conspired to provide fraudulent test results to customers in
numerous states including Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, and West Virginia. These test results were fraudulent because the data was falsified, the
proper method of testing the tanks was not followed, and/or the names of the tester were falsified.
The United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, filed a Criminal Information
against Smith on June 10, 1998, charging him with conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud,
and false statement violations by providing false and fraudulent underground storage tank tightness
test results from October 1993 to April 30,1997. Smith pled guilty the same day.
78 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
U.S. v. Neptune Fireworks, Inc., et al. (Florida): On October 22,1997, Neptune Fireworks,
Inc., of Dania, FL; Neptune's president Itzhak Dickstein; its former vice-president for operations,
Leslie Grimes; and Neptune's warehouse manager, Mark Williams, all pled guilty to federal charges
that resulted from a fire caused by the illegal disposal of hazardous fireworks waste. The defendants
admitted to causing the February 17,1997 fire at the V. Ponte & Sons recycling facility in Pembroke
Park, FL, by illegally concealing thousands of pounds of damaged and otherwise unsaleable
fireworks in 12 cardboard bales after the fireworks had been soaked in water. One of the bales
ignited and started a blaze that took six hours to bring under control. Neptune agreed to pay
fines and restitution totalling $500,000. Dickstein, Grimes and Williams all pled guilty to one
count of illegal treatment of a hazardous waste under RCRA. The case was investigated by EPA's
Criminal Investigation Division, the FBI, the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, and the Broward
County Sheriff's Office, with the assistance of EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center.
U.S. v. Holland American Cruise Line (Alaska): The Holland America Cruise Line, a
subsidiary of the Dutch company HAL Beheer BV, agreed to pay a $ 1 million fine and provide
$ 1 million to the National Park Foundation to benefit marine ecosystems at a hearing on June
19, 1998 in U.S. District Court in Anchorage. The company admitted to violating the Act to
Prevent Pollution from Ships during the summer of 1994, when oily water was illegally
discharged from the bilge of the cruise ship SS Rotterdam while it was sailing within Alaska's
Inside Passage. In addition to the $2 million payment, Holland America agreed to establish a
company environmental compliance plan, to add pollution reduction equipment on each of
its vessels, and to serve five years probation. The case was investigated by EPA's Criminal
Investigation Division, the Marine Safety Office and the Investigative Service of the U.S. Coast
Guard, and the FBI.
U.S. V. Lam Pine, lnc.,etal. (Idaho): On May 18, George E. Betts, president of Lam Pine,
Inc., of LaGrande, OR, was sentenced to pay $163,177.34 in restitution to the EPA Superfund
program. Betts had previously been convicted of being involved in the illegal transportation
of more than 230 55-gallon drums of paint and solvent wastes to the North Point Milling
(NPM) facility which Betts owned in Payette, ID. In August 1996, EPA conducted a cleanup
of a total of 452 55-gallon drums of paint and solvent wastes which had been stored at the
NPM facility. Betts was also sentenced to serve six months in prison. The case was investigated
by EPA's Criminal Investigation Division, the Oregon State Police, the Idaho Division of
Environmental Quality, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
U.S. V. T.T. Barge Cleaning, Inc. (Louisiana): T.T. Barge Cleaning has three marine facilities
along an 80-mile stretch of the Mississippi River and provides barge cleaning and repair services
to the marine industry. The barge cleaning process involves the stripping, steaming, and washing
of customer barges with water and/or chemical cleaners. The cleaning process also includes the
removal of rust, scale, mud, and sludge from inside cargo tanks within the customer barges.
Allegations stated that from 1986 to February 1997, TT and its employees routinely discharged
untreated wash waters directly from customer barges and vacuum tanks into the Mississippi
River in contravention of LDEQ permits. TT cleaned a wide variety of commercial vessels
Highlights: Enforcement Cases 79
-------
including petroleum barges that carried gas, diesel, benzene, toluene, and chemical compounds
such as acid, calcium chloride, methanol, chlorine, glycol, and ethanol. The untreated wash
water discharged into the river containing the above mentioned substances as well as cleaning
solvents and chemicals used in the cleaning process. On August 20, 1997, TT pled guilty to
violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants over an eleven year period. On October
29,1997, TT was ordered to pay a fine of $300,000 and placed on five years probation. In addition,
the company must conduct environmental audits and retrieve and remove the drums pushed
into the Mississippi River.
U.S. v. T&T Fuels, Inc., et al. (West Virginia): On March 9, 1998, Paul Thomas of
Morgantown, WV, president and co-owner of T&T Fuels, Inc., was sentenced for violating the
Clean Water Act by discharging millions of gallons of acid mine drainage in violation of state
and federal permits. Thomas was ordered to pay $273,000 in back civil penalties and $170,400
in land reclamation costs to the State of West Virginia, plus serve six months home detention
and five years probation. Thomas also must pay two-thirds of the monthly cost of nearly
$36,000 for treating discharges from T&T mines for as long as they discharge.
U.S. v. Surpass Chemical Company, Inc. (New York): This case resulted in the first
conviction nationwide for negligent endangerment under the Clean Air Act. Surpass Chemical
Company, Inc. had a spill of hydrochloric acid on April 8, 1997. A 5,700 gallon storage tank
ruptured suddenly and a portion of the contents surged over a secondary containment wall.
The rupture brought the acid into contact with a drum of sodium hydroxide, and the resultant
mixture generated chlorine gas. Green clouds of this gas were observed in and near the facility.
Eight workers and about 32 others were taken to hospitals for observation and treatment.
EPA, OSHA, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC),
and the City of Albany Fire Department and Police Department all participated in the
investigation. It was determined that the tank had been designed to work at atmospheric
pressure only, i.e., it would not withstand pressure changes associated with filling or emptying
the tank if its vents were blocked. Due to odor problems associated with the tank, Surpass had
bolted down the large vent on the tank and replaced it with a small vent and piping that
directed any gases into a drum of soda ash and later, sodium hydroxide. The sodium hydroxide
in time clogged the line. As a result, the tank burst during filling operations. The negligent
operation of the tank, including both the inadequate substitute vent and the failure to ensure
that the vent remained free from blockage, caused the spill and resultant release into the ambient
air of the chlorine gas.
On August 7, 1998, Surpass pled guilty to a negligent endangerment charge under the CAA
and to illegally discharging a substance into a sewer system. Additionally, it entered into
administrative settlements with OSHA and a civil consent order with NYSDEC. Under the
plea agreement and civil settlements, Surpass will pay $30,000 in fines to the U.S. and to the
State of New York, $30,000 in civil penalties to OSHA, and $15,000 to NYSDEC and the City
of Albany for reimbursement of cleanup costs.
80 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
CHAPTER 6
-
Highlights:
Compliance Assistance Programs
Compliance
Assistance
Programs
Compliance
Assistance Activities
Compliance
Monitoring Activities
New Policies
This chapter reviews FY98 highlights of OECA's efforts in compliance assistance and
compliance monitoring, as well as new policies issued during the year.
6.1 | Compliance Assistance Activities
Tool Development
One of OECA's primary compliance assistance activities is the development of compliance
assistance tools such as plain language guides, videos, websites, and more. Importantly, these
tools are shared with Regions and states which deliver hands-on compliance assistance.
Sector Notebook Series: EPA added nine new sector notebooks to the industry Sector
Notebook series, bringing the total to 27 at the end of FY98:
^- Profile of the Metal Casting Industry
^- Profile of the Ship Building and Repair Industry
^- Profile of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry
^- Profile of the Plastic Resin and Man-made Fiber Industry
^- Profile of the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Industry
^- Profile of the Textile Industry
^- Profile of the Ground Transportation Industry — Trucking, Railroad and Pipeline
^- Profile of the Water Transportation Industry
^- Profile of the Air Transportation Industry.
Highlights: Compliance Assistance Programs I 81
-------
Each notebook provides a basic explanation of the major environmental issues relating to the
subject industry and includes information on industry background; size and national
distribution; economic trends; common manufacturing processes; wastes released; pollution
prevention opportunities; summaries of applicable federal statutes and regulations; compliance
and enforcement history; and resources for further research. In response to user demands,
EPA also prepared and published the Sector Notebook Data Refresh-1997, which revised the
Toxics Release Inventory and compliance and enforcement data presented in the first cluster
of 18 notebooks published in 1995. Over 300,000 notebooks have been distributed in printed
and electronic formats to audiences in the United States and abroad. (See the Sector Notebook
Web page at http://www.epa.gov/oeca/sector/index.html.)
Environmental Management Systems Primer for Federal Facilities: In 1998, EPA's
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, in partnership with the Department of Energy's Office of
Environmental Policy and Assistance, developed the Environmental Management Systems Primer
for Federal Facilities. The Primer is designed to help federal managers who are considering adopting
an environmental management system (EMS). The Primer is not intended to be a technical or
detailed manual on EMS implementation. Rather, its goal is to help federal managers understand
EMSs and how they can improve environmental management at their facilities.
Environmental Compliance Guide for Rural Electric Cooperatives: The guide helps
rural electric cooperatives better understand their obligations under federal environmental
regulations, and improve their level of compliance. The guide explains how to comply with the
federal environmental regulations. It covers 13 environmental topics applicable to non-power
generating activities at the cooperatives: PCBs; waste management; hazardous waste/material
transport; storage tanks; hazardous products management; spills/releases; wastewater/storm
water; drinking water; wetlands and endangered species; herbicides/pesticides; air; and asbestos.
The guide also provides information on pollution prevention options that are available and
where additional help can be obtained. The primary users of the guide are intended to be
maintenance and other staff of rural electric cooperatives, with other potential users being local,
state, and federal government environmental professionals, especially compliance inspectors.
Self-Audit and Inspection Guide for Organic Coating of Metal Parts: This useful
audio-visual compliance assistance tool consists of a CD-ROM and written guidance that
lead the user through a virtual organic coating facility. The guide provides a video or animated
presentation of 17 processes in metal parts cleaning, coating, and curing. For each process
area, information is provided on: federal environmental statutes and regulatory requirements;
hot links to the full text of federal environmental statutes and regulatory requirements; self-
audit and inspection questions; sources of pollution; common causes of violations; pollution
prevention alternatives; and hot links to other Internet resources. This tool will help
environmental professionals identify activities and requirements necessary to complete an
audit of production processes, equipment, and management systems.
Lead-Based Paint Tool Kit: OECA prepared and distributed to the Regional Lead
Coordinators a Lead-Based Paint Tool Kit for Enforcement and Compliance of the Real Estate
Notification and Disclosure Rule. The package contains tools such as an Investigation Guidance
Manual, Inspection Checklist, Targeting Strategy, Enforcement Response Policy, and sample
subpoenas and complaints. The tool kit aids EPA Regional inspectors in determining
82 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Integrating Compliance Assistance and Enforcement
In March 1998, EPA Region 1 undertook a landmark action against the Rhode Island
Department of Transportation for improper handling and illegal storage of large
amounts of hazardous waste, seeking a penalty of $796,492. The violations were
discovered during a multimedia inspection of RI-DOT's vehicle maintenance complex.
EPA inspectors found 938 containers filled with various ignitable hazardous materials,
including waste paints, solvents, and thinners, some of which were open or leaking.
The building had no fire extinguisher nearby nor a fire alarm system.
In an effort to maximize the deterrent effect of the enforcement action and provide
much-needed compliance assistance to public agencies, EPA mailed out 1,700 letters
to state, federal, and municipal officials in each of the six New England states informing
them of the new regulation and offering a compliance workshop. The response was
so positive that people had to be turned away from the workshop.
compliance with the Disclosure Rule and in taking appropriate enforcement response against
violators. Compliance with the Disclosure Rule is important in lowering the incidence of
childhood lead poisoning.
DOI Compliance Initiative
During FY98, EPA initiated a joint effort with the Department of the Interior (DOI) to increase
compliance at D 01 facilities, which had increasingly become a matter of concern for both federal
agencies. EPA and DOI agreed to work jointly to enhance compliance assistance across DOI
Bureaus and facilities with the overall goal of raising the level of regulatory awareness and
compliance at all DOI facilities. This was the first time that EPA pledged to provide compliance
assistance across an entire federal agency. Senior management at each of the five major DOI
Bureaus (National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau
of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs) distributed a memorandum to Regional and
field-level personnel affirming Bureau policy regarding compliance with environmental
regulations and urging cooperation with EPA in compliance assistance activities.
One of the most innovative and far-reaching efforts in the EPA/DOI compliance initiative is an
analysis of current environmental management systems within the National Park Service (NFS),
including an analysis of support relationships between the field-level facilities and NFS and DOI
Headquarters environmental offices. This review is based on the Code of Environmental
Management Principles (CEMP) for all federal agencies developed by an interagency committee
in response to Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-KnowLaws and Pollution
Prevention Requirements. The five primary CEMP principles address: 1) management commitment;
2) compliance assurance and pollution prevention; 3) enabling systems; 4) performance and
accountability; and 5) measurement and improvement. With an estimated 1000 facilities covered
by EPA regulations, DOI has a significant opportunity to benefit from this effort by improving
compliance throughout the various DOI Bureaus. Moreover, the DOI/EPA effort will result in
compliance assistance tools that can be used by other agencies, particularly civilian federal agencies.
Highlights: Compliance Assistance Programs I 83
-------
Region 2 Federal Facility
Environmental Management Reviews
In FY98, the EPA Region 2 Federal Facilities Program continued several pilot
Environmental Management Reviews (EMRs) — with the US Postal Service (USPS)
New York Metro Area, and the US Military Academy, West Point — in accordance
with EPAs Interim Final Policy for Conducting EMRs at Federal Facilities. These
pilot EMRs are intended to help the Postal Service and the Military Academy evaluate,
and ultimately improve, their environmental management systems, and help EPA
test the Interim EMR Policy.
The Postal Service EMR project differs from a traditional EMR in its scope.
EMRs were originally designed to evaluate the environmental management system
(EMS) at a specific facility or site. The USPS EMR, however, is taking this concept
a step further by reviewing the EMS of an entire Postal Service Area, the New
York Metro Area, which can be compared to an EPA Region. The USPS Metro
Area consists of: 7 districts (New York City; Triboro; Long Island; Westchester;
Central NJ; Northern NJ; and the Caribbean); 1700 facilities; 18 vehicle
maintenance facilities; 30 plants (distribution operations); 14,000 vehicles; and
85,000 employees. Once the actual reviews are completed, EPA and USPS will
extend the EMR project to other USPS Areas.
6.2 | Compliance Monitoring Activities
Enforcement Alerts
EPA has long recognized that publicity surrounding enforcement actions can deter
noncompliance by others. In August 1998, the Office of Regulatory Enforcement published its
first issue of Enforcement Alert to inform and educate the public and regulated community of
important environmental enforcement issues, recent trends, and significant enforcement actions.
Issues of Enforcement Alert are intended to help the regulated community anticipate and prevent
violations of federal environmental law that could otherwise lead to enforcement action. By
raising awareness and explaining how compliance pitfalls can be avoided, EPA is helping the
regulated community stay in compliance and minimize the risk of an enforcement action.
Enforcement Alert topics in 1998 focused on the illegal use of engine control "defeat devices,"
the Clean Air Act's "General Duty Clause," the Worker Protection Standard, and the Real
Estate Notification and Disclosure Rule.
Hazardous Waste Import/Export Activities
In calendar year 1998, the Import/Export Program tracked a record number of export notices
(807) for hazardous wastes and, more significantly, a record total of 5,350 waste streams (both
import and export). These hazardous wastes were subject to review by EPA and were allowed
84 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
to move across international borders only with the consent of the government of the receiving
country. EPA also consented to the first import notice received under the new bilateral
agreement between the United States and Costa Rica. (The notice concerned imports of waste
solder paste, lead sludge and other items.)
The Import/Export Program continued its efforts to identify and refer for appropriate enforcement
action any violations, including apparent failures to notify wastes for export prior to shipping. The
Program referred eight matters for appropriate enforcement action. A publication, "International
Trade in Hazardous Waste: An Overview," was issued to promote compliance assistance and public
outreach. The program also developed a system of reminder and warning letters to encourage the
timely filing of annual reports by exporters; 250 reminder letters and 124 warning letters were sent.
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program
In FY98, OECA continued to strengthen its environmental partnership with Mexico by
implementing and developing programs along the border and within border states. Both countries
contributed to sustained progress in numerous areas, including enforcement cooperation,
training, and compliance assistance. Following are examples of some progress in FY98:
^- EPA worked with the border states, the Western States Project, the Southern
Environmental Enforcement Network, and Mexican environmental officials to help deliver
training for environmental officials in the United States and Mexico on pretreatment
inspections for waste water systems, field investigations and sampling techniques,
principles of environmental enforcement and compliance, hazardous waste inspections,
and pesticide handling.
^- EPA officials received training from Mexican officials on Mexico's environmental laws
and participated in a workshop in which U.S. and Mexican legal structures, laws, and
regulations were comparatively analyzed.
^- EPA Region 9 hosted a U.S.-Mexico workshop on the legal challenges in transboundary
environmental enforcement. In attendance for the first time were non-governmental
organizations from the U.S. and Mexico that focus on maquiladora issues.
^- EPA created a pollution prevention video geared toward border industries and provided
three hazardous waste compliance seminars to encourage pollution prevention practices
and voluntary compliance.
Inspector Training
The Office of Compliance (OC) prepared inspector training materials and conducted
numerous inspector training courses during FY98. Training was provided to over
1300 inspectors (540 federal, 667 state, 28 tribal, 83 local, 5 other). Specific training
highlights include:
^ CAA Title VI Inspector's Manual and Training: In cooperation with EPA's
Stratospheric Protection Division, OC developed an Inspector's Manual on stratospheric
ozone protection. The manual includes a Title VI Compliance/Enforcement Strategy,
Highlights: Compliance Assistance Programs I 85
-------
copies of all applicable FR notices, applicability determinations, sector-specific profiles,
and an inspection checklist. Additionally, OC and SPD staff conducted Title VI training
in FY98 in three Regions.
^ CAFO Inspector Training: One of the first action items under the Agency's CAFO
implementation plan was CAFO inspector training for federal and state inspectors. OC
developed and conducted the first three of these courses, which involve classroom work
and mock inspections at cooperating private feedlot facilities. To facilitate better
understanding among EPA/state CAFO inspectors, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(which has primary federal technical assistance responsibilities), and farmers, the courses
generally include USDA personnel and meetings with interested farmers and farm groups
in the area of the training. OC developed a CAFO inspection manual for the course.
^ FIFRA Inspector Training: OC organized and led two FIFRA state inspector training
courses which brought together over 100 inspectors from states, territories, and tribes.
The courses covered pesticide product and use enforcement.
Superfund Training
During FY98, OECAs Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) taught more than ten
courses, and trained more than 300 federal and state employees for the CERCLA enforcement
and RCRA corrective action programs. In FY98, OSRE:
^- Trained 90 new Superfund attorneys from all ten EPA Regions, EPA Headquarters, the
Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture,
on their roles and responsibilities in the Superfund process.
^- Trained 130 state and Regional Remedial Project Managers, and more than 120 technical
and legal staff in three Regions and Headquarters, in the use of tools available to
determine the shares of insolvent, and defunct PRPs at CERCLA sites. (The remaining
seven Regions will receive the training in FY99.)
Case Officer Training
In FY98, the Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division conducted two sessions of "Case
Development Training Course." The sessions were conducted in Washington, D.C. in October
1997 and Seattle, Washington in May 1998. Courses included both federal and state personnel
involved in the enforcement of environmental laws regulating pesticides, toxic substances
such as lead, asbestos, PCBs, and the release of toxic chemicals. The course covers the civil
administrative case development process from the point of evidence collection to settlement
or final decision in the proceeding.
Inspector Dialogue
In FY98, OECA conducted inspector dialogues in each Region, as a means of establishing
better communications within EPA and identifying ways of enhancing the effectiveness of
inspection programs. The dialogues each lasted up to a day and a half with approximately
500 compliance inspectors, supervisors, and other staff actively participating. The dialogues
86 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
responded to concerns about the increasing complexity of regulated facilities, the expanded
base of information necessary for compliance inspectors to do an effective job, and the
wider variety of tools now available to inspectors.
The dialogues led to a series of action items on improving training and communications.
OECA has focused on providing advanced training courses on petroleum refining, pulp mills,
animal feeding operations, and lead paint, and has also developed multimedia inspector guides
for metal finishing, auto service and repair, and dry cleaners. Computer-based training guides
are being developed for basic inspectors and RCRA inspections.
Other Inspection Activities
Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) Inspections and Audits: OC conducted 95
inspections and 273 data audits in FY98. Based upon these inspections, ORE has issued six
actions against three labs and three sponsors, requesting $30,000 in penalties. OC unveiled
the GLP homepage in April 1998, providing the public direct access to our standard operating
procedures for conducting inspections and to the complete library of GLP advisories that
provide applicability determinations concerning the GLP regulations.
First Multi-Media Laboratory Inspection Conducted: OC staff organized and led EPA's
first civil multi-media laboratory inspection. The team, composed of members from OECA,
OAR, and Regions 1 and 2, looked at the laboratory performance in analyzing compliance
data in the air, water, waste, and Superfund programs.
6.3 | New Policies
EPA's MSW CERCLA Settlement Policy
Signed in February 1998, the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Policy is intended to provide a
fair, consistent, and efficient settlement methodology for resolving the liability of municipalities
that disposed of municipal solid waste at sites on the National Priorities List. The policy
reaffirms EPA's practice of not identifying generators and transporters of MSW as potentially
responsible parties at NPL sites. However, in recognition of the strong public interest in
reducing the burden of contribution litigation, EPA will offer settlements to any MSW
generators and transporters that wish to resolve their potential Superfund liability. In addition,
the policy sets a presumptive settlement range for municipal owners and operators of co-
disposal sites on the NPL who desire to settle their liability. The policy potentially applies to
the estimated one quarter of NPL sites that accepted both MSW and other wastes, such as
industrial wastes, containing hazardous substances.
Memorandum on CERCLA Section 106
In addition to EPA and the Coast Guard, other federal agencies have significant responsibilities
and substantial programs for responding, or requiring others to respond, to releases and
threatened releases of hazardous substances. Under Section 106 of CERCLA, these Federal
Highlights: Compliance Assistance Programs I 87
-------
Resource Managers have the authority to issue administrative orders or seek judicial relief
with respect to a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance affecting either natural
resources under their trusteeship, or a vessel or facility subject to their control. This
Memorandum of Understanding among EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Justice, is intended to ensure that the
signatories exercise their authority in a cooperative and integrated fashion, and in a manner
that ensures interagency coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness.
Enforcement Y2K Policy
Although EPA has encouraged companies to test their computers for Y2K problems, the testing
process could result in environmental violations. OECA issued an enforcement policy in late
1998 to alleviate this concern, and also to encourage the prompt testing of computer-related
equipment to ensure that environmental compliance is not impaired by computer glitches
related to the year 2000. EPA intends to waive civil penalties and recommend against criminal
prosecution for any environmental violations caused during specific tests that are designed to
identify and eliminate Y2K-related malfunctions. This policy is limited to testing-related
violations disclosed to EPA by February 1, 2000, that also meet nine specified criteria.
Administrative Cashout Settlements, CERCLA Section 122(h)
EPA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) jointly issued the CERCLA Section 122 (h) guidance,
and five model settlement documents. The guidance announces a new type of expedited
"cashout" settlement for "peripheral parties." Peripheral parties are those parties who, although
not technically de minimisor de micromis are not the focus of CERCLA enforcement activities.
They include ability to pay parties, parties for whom unresolved CERCLA liability is an "extreme
burden," and other parties as defined on a case-by-case basis. For qualifying peripheral parties,
a cashout settlement that resolves the settlor's liability at the site is possible under the terms
outlined in the guidance. The guidance and model agreements offer the possibility of increasing
the efficacy and consistency of CERCLA administrative settlements nationally.
Guidance for Implementing Superfund
Reform Initiative 9a: Risk Sharing
Estimates of the eventual cost of cleaning up the nation's hazardous waste sites highlight the
need to support the development of more cost-effective cleanup technologies. Potentially
responsible parties are sometimes reluctant to implement new technologies due to concerns
about having to "pay twice" if the innovative approach fails to achieve the required levels of
cleanup. As part of the Superfund Reform Initiatives, EPA's guidance identifies a program
designed to share the risk of using selected innovative technologies. The purposes of this
initiative are: 1) to encourage the demonstration and use of innovative technologies with the
potential to lower costs and/or improve performance at a particular site and at other Superfund
sites, and to document these early applications to assist future selection of response actions;
2) to support developers of promising technologies, especially small businesses, by enhancing
contracting opportunities with PRPs; and 3) to encourage PRPs to assume a more active role
in the development of new technologies for site remediation.
88 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
APPENDIX
Historical Enforcement Data
-------
Exhibit A-1: National Totals, FY96-FY98 Enforcement Activity
EPA Regional Inspections
CAA Stationary
CAA Mobile Source
Asbestos
NPDES Minors
NPDES Majors
CWA 31 1
CWA 404
EPCRA313
EPRA non-31 3
FIFRA
RCRA
UST
SDWA
TSCA
TOTAL
FY96
2,064
107
635
499
1,046
2,267
342
571
689
116
1,829
579
6,568
898
18,210
FY97
2,844
104
653
784
918
1,666
529
473
438
207
2,165
1,421
5,490
1,014
18,706
FY98
2,722
64
806
1,116
1,019
1,344
968
584
804
264
2,727
1,253
7,983
1,537
23,237
SOURCE: program databases/IDEA, manual reports. There were also 96 GLP inspections and 277 data audits by HQ (OC/AED/LDIB).
FY98 total includes 46 other inspections.
EPA Administrative Compliance Orders Issued
CAA
CERCLA
CWA
EPCRA
FIFRA
RCRA
SDWA
TSCA
TOTAL
FY96
154
197
504
2
10
35
284
0
1,186
FY97
209
279
815
7
7
44
453
4
1,818
FY98
277
233
849
4
18
49
287
4
1,721
In addition, there were 66 HQ CAA Mobile Source NOVs w/ penalties. SOURCE: Docket
90 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
EPA Administrative Penalty Order Complaints
CAA
CERCLA
CWA
EPCRA
FIFRA
RCRA
SDWA
TSCA
TOTAL
FY96
88
37
153
196
73
88
57
178
870
FY97
126
26
329
293
174
139
45
181
1,313
FY98
156
1
389
233
187
155
65
214
1,400
Starting FY98-CERCLA 103 actions included under EPCRA. SOURCE: Docket
EPA Administrative Penalty Settlements
CAA
CERCLA
CWA
EPCRA
FIFRA
RCRA
SDWA
TSCA
TOTAL
FY96
103
39
169
184
107
119
76
207
1,004
FY97
139
33
205
366
161
154
44
248
1,350
FY98
127
3
324
259
173
149
43
167
1,245
SOURCE: Docket
EPA Field Citations
UST
FY96
115
FY97
240
FY98
194
SOURCE: Docket
Appendix I 91
-------
New EPA Civil Referrals to DOJ
CAA
CERCLA
CWA
EPCRA
FIFRA
RCRA
SDWA
TSCA
TOTAL
FY96
70
127
48
9
3
19
17
2
295
FY97
89
154
98
11
4
49
13
8
426
FY98
113
138
81
11
4
49
15
0
411
SOURCE: Docket
EPA Civil Judicial Settlements
CAA
CERCLA
CWA
EPCRA
FIFRA
RCRA
SDWA
TSCA
TOTAL
FY96
62
121
60
10
5
22
7
5
292
FY97
45
159
35
3
2
18
9
3
274
FY98
46
148
33
3
4
14
2
3
253
SOURCE: Docket
92 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Exhibit A-2: Dollar Value of FY98 EPA Enforcement Actions by Statute
CAA
CERCLA
CWA
EPCRA
FIFRA
RCRA
SDWA
TSCA
Title 18/MPRSA
TOTAL
Criminal
Penalties
Assessed
$49,019,653
$509,400
$36,171,595
$0
$2,973,582
$2,838,381
$5,100
$30,000
$1,250,000
$92,797,711
Civil Judicial
Penalties
Assessed
$27,758,838
$1,032,573
$18,582,253
$524,084
$24,400
$15,465,383
$118,700
$25,500
$0
$63,531,731
Administrative
Penalties
Assessed
$3,407,644
$446,450
$4,822,104
$4,640,551
$3,877,190
$5,540,874
$513,455
$3,748,494
$1,267,000
$28,263,762
$ Value of
Injunctive
Relief
$305,659,541
$731,507,566
$859,639,752
$4,822,104
$48,100
$33,457,366
$38,162,507
$3,462,117
$0
$1,976,759, 053
$ Value of
SEPs
$26,262,598
$525,100
$41,982,830
$26,262,598
$393,872
$8,663,203
$43,240
$3,720,065
$0
$107,853,506
Exhibit A-3: EPA Administrative Actions Initiated by Statute, FY75-FY98
Statute
CAA
CWA/SDWA
RCRA
CERCLA
FIFRA
TSCA
EPCRA
Totals
Statute
CAA
CWA/ SDWA
RCRA
CERCLA
FIFRA
TSCA
EPCRA
Totals
FY75
0
738
0
0
1,614
0
0
2,352
FY87
191
1,214
243
135
360
1,051
0
3,194
FY76
210
915
0
0
2,488
0
0
3,613
FY88
224
1,345
309
224
376
607
0
3,085
FY77
297
1,128
0
0
1,219
0
0
2,644
FY89
336
2,146
453
220
443
538
0
4,136
FY78
129
730
0
0
762
1
0
1,622
FY90
249
1,780
366
270
402
531
206
3,804
FY79
404
506
0
0
253
22
0
1,185
FY91
214
2,177
364
269
300
422
179
3,925
FY80
86
569
0
0
176
70
0
901
FY92
354
1,977
291
245
311
355
134
3,667
FY81
112
562
159
0
154
120
0
1,107
FY93
279
2,216
282
260
233
319
219
3,808
FY82
21
329
237
0
176
101
0
864
FY94
435
1,841
115
264
249
333
307
3,544
FY83
41
781
436
0
296
294
0
1,848
FY95
232
1,774
92
280
160
187
244
2,969
FY84
141
1,644
554
137
272
376
0
3,124
FY96
242
998
238
234
83
178
198
2,171
FY85
122
1,031
327
160
236
733
0
2,609
FY97
391
1,642
423
305
181
185
300
3,427
FY86
143
990
235
139
338
781
0
2,626
FY98
499
1,590
398
234
205
218
237
3,381
Appendix 93
-------
Exhibit A-4: EPA Criminal Enforcement Actions, FY84-FY98
Action
Referral to DOJ
Defendants Charged
Months sentenced
FY84
31
36
6
FY85
40
40
78
FY86
41
98
279
FY87
41
66
456
FY88
59
97
278
FY89
60
95
325
FY90
65
100
745
FY91
83
104
963
FY92
107
150
1,135
FY93
140
161
892
FY94
220
250
1,188
FY95
256
245
888
FY96
262
221
1,116
FY97
228
322
2,351
FY98
266
350
2,075
Exhibit A-5: EPA Civil Referrals to the Department of Justice, FY75-FY98
Statute
CM
CWA
CERCLA
RCRA
TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA
Totals
Statute
CAA
CWA/SDWA
CERCLA
RCRA
TSCA/ FIFRA/EPCRA
Totals
FY75
5
20
0
0
0
25
FY87
122
92
54
23
13
304
FY76
15
67
0
0
0
82
FY88
86
123
114
29
20
372
FY77
50
93
0
0
0
143
FY89
92
94
153
16
9
364
FY78
123
137
2
0
0
262
FY90
102
87
157
18
11
375
FY79
149
81
5
4
3
242
FY91
86
94
164
34
15
393
FY80
100
56
10
43
1
210
FY92
92
77
137
40
15
361
FY81
66
37
2
12
1
118
FY93
80
84
129
30
15
338
FY82
36
45
20
9
2
112
FY94
141
97
144
35
13
430
FY83
69
56
28
5
7
165
FY95
37
54
102
14
7
214
FY84
82
95
41
19
14
251
FY96
70
65
127
19
14
295
FY85
116
93
35
13
19
276
FY97
89
111
154
49
23
426
FY86
115
119
41
43
24
342
FY98
113
96
138
49
15
411
94 I FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report
-------
Exhibit A-6: State Environmental Agencies Administrative Actions
and Judicial Referrals, FY88-FY98
Administrative Actions
Statute
FIFRA
SDWA/ CWA
CAA
RCRA
Totals
FY88
5,078
2,887
655
743
9,363
FY89
6,698
3,100
1,139
1,189
12,126
FY90
4,145
3,298
1,312
1,350
10,105
FY91
3,245
3,180
1,687
1,495
9,607
FY92
3,095
2,748
1,411
1,389
8,643
FY93
4,172
3,960
2,005
1,744
11,881
FY94
3,528
4,063
2,050
1,609
11,250
FY95
2,486
4,231
1,833
1,235
9,785
FY96
2,333
4,598
1,534
841
9,306
FY97
1,101
7,051
1,919
444
10,515
FY98
1,163
6,960
2,410
727
11,260
Judicial Referrals
Statute
SDWA/ CWA
CAA
RCRA
Totals
FY88
687
171
46
904
FY89
489
96
129
714
FY90
429
156
64
649
FY91
297
190
57
544
FY92
204
258
112
574
FY93
383
174
133
690
FY94
162
325
91
578
FY95
169
124
104
397
FY96
169
198
66
433
FY97
151
164
64
379
FY98
146
146
60
352
Exhibit A-7: EPA Criminal Enforcement: Major Outputs, FY96-FY98
700
FY96
FY97
FY98
0
636
262 - 266
322
221
Cases
Initiated
Referrals Defendants Sentences Fines
Charged (Years) ($ millions)
Appendix 95
------- |