EPA 910/9-92-010
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Office of Enforcement
Revised February 1992
FY1991
Region 10 Enforcement
Accomplishments Report
Pto urge
^-^ :""':::'::' T.:?'^- :"'' '::-- .-:'"':'" *''*'''' V^ ':."i ' '
' " ' '
''::-.-> '-:. ':. .-.'"
:: '-..-' ::'.-:;;:. :;.-::
''''';:.'>"... "''-
^
: i> :;:-:^:x >:; ;:;. >;:";$ *Sv* :$.
.-::- . ::- .-::;-.- >..-'.- ::-. :.:' ':.:-
x-:: x-.-x- .<.:. --::-. :--.-'._ -:-:-. -.-:>,:: V-' -1---.-- v7 :- -:-, .7
n - en-
er
'* k...;;
.%;.:
;^V
-------
Introduction
Region 10 expanded its enforcement emphasis in
Federal Rscal Year 1991 (FY91). One factor in this
increased emphasis was the new Region 10 manage-
ment team, with Dana A. Rasmussen as Regional
Administrator and Gerald A. Emison as Deputy
Regional Administrator. The team is committed to firm
and fair enforcement and to streamlining our proce-
dures to ensure the most effective use of EPA's
enforcement resources. Another factor in the expan-
sion has been our heightened interest in establishing
and implementing methods of achieving the
Administrator's multi-media enforcement goal.
Toward the end of the fiscal year, the Region
reorganized to create a new Office of Enforcement.
The purpose of this office is to more effectively
coordinate Region 10's enforcement efforts both
internally among media programs, and externally with
ourstates: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
The Office of Enforcement has already organized the
targeting procedures to be used for FY92 multi media
inspections and coordinated this process with our four
states. In addition, the Office of Enforcement solicited
the creation of a Quality Action Team to address
effectiveness and efficiency in our enforcement screen-
ing process. We anticipate that the enhanced effects of
the Office of Enforcement will be evident in FY92.
Building state enforcement capability continues to
be a priority, as does coordinating with Region 10
states during targeting, inspection and enforcement
activity. FY91 saw marked improvement in such
coordination, and the process will continue to be
refined. The Region is committed to the belief that our
states are integral to successful enforcement of environ-
mental laws.
The Region learned that multi-media inspections
can be a very effective method to establish the
baseline compliance status of a source and to look at
a facility from a more holistic viewpoint. Even when
civil enforcement actions were not taken, companies
subject to these inspections instituted procedures to
ensure continuous compliance, such as formal opera-
tion and maintenance programs, helping to increase
awareness and promote an integrated view of environ-
mental programs. The Region believes this effort
brought about a strong deterrent effect, since other
facilities heard about the "new" EPA inspection
approach.
The enforcement of environmental regulatory
provisions is a demanding job. The cases described
in this report represent both substantial work effort and
commitment to improving environmental quality.
Regional enforcement achievements for FY91 are
directly attributable to the EPA employees who
comprise this region's enforcement team, whether
they are involved in administrative, civil or criminal
enforcement programs, and to our colleagues at the
state level. These people make the environmental
enforcement actions described in this report possible
and meaningful. We dedicate this report to them and
to the public they serve.
This document is a regional supplement to the
national report of the same title, prepared by EPA's
Office of Enforcement in Washington, D.C.
In order to facilitate the use of this report, some of the terms used throughout the text are explained as follows:
CAA- Clean Air Act
CERCLA- Superfund, or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CWA404- Clean Water Act Section 404 Wetlands Enforcement
NPDES- Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
FIFRA- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentlclde Act
RCRA- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SDWA- Safe Drinking Water Act
PWSS- Public Water Supply Systems
UIC- Underground Injection Control
TSCA- Toxic Substances Control Act
AHERA- Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
TRI- Toxics Release Inventory
EPCRA- Emergency Planning and Community Rlght-to-Know Act
Notice of Violation (NOV) or Notice ofNoncompllance (NONC) - When a less serious violation occurs, anNOVor NONC Is sent to the
owner or managers of the fadlity. (Note: For certain violations tr^CAA requires an NOV as tra initial enforcement a^^
significance of the action.) This notice is a formal letter which outlines the violation and offers the facility an opportunity to confer with EPA,
Administrative Order, Administrative Complaint-if an NOV does not result in compliance, or for more serious violations, an
Administrative Order Is issued which includes a directive and a schedule for compliancewiththelaworregulation. An Administrative
Complalntisissuedtocollectpenaltiesforviolatingenvironmentallaws.
Reforml,CortsentDecroo, Judicial Porialty-ForthemostegregiousviolationsJncludingttses\rtereadminte^
effecti\^inachievingcompliancxandincaseswrmm^emisnoauthohtytobringadministrativeactions,acMlorchminalreferralofthe
case Is made to the U.S. Department of Justice. In such cases, EPA can negotiate a Consent Decree with the violator to describe actions
whichmustbe taken, under court order, to solve the problem and/or assess penalties. Acriminal case can resultin a jail sentence aswett.
-------
-------
State Summary
The four states in Region 10 - Alaska, Idaho,
Oregon and Washington - have very different environ-
mental enforcement concerns and problems. Varia-
tions in population and demography, geography and
industry types are all factors which determine how
each state focuses its enforcement activity and what
means it uses to achieve compliance. Federal envi-
ronmental laws are often delegated to the states for
direct implementation. Not all states are authorized to
implement all programs, however. In those circum-
stances where a program is not delegated, the federal
EPA implements the program directly. This portion of
the Enforcement Accomplishments Report concerns
those programs in the air, water and hazardous waste
areas which have been delegated to the states. State
regulations for delegated programs are at least as
stringent as federal regulations and sometimes more
stringent.
The graph below illustrates the numbers of adminis-
trative orders (which impose a penalty or prescribe an
action) issued by all Region 10 states during Federal
Fiscal Years 1987 through 1991. The inclusion of only
five years of data reflects an attempt to use uniform
definitions of actions. Each of the states and EPA have
different authorities for enforcement actions.
Figure 1
Region 10 States' Enforcement Actions
Orders Only
250
200 -
150 -
100
50 -
Table 1
Region 10 States Enforcement Actions
Administrative Orders
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
19
23
29
131
31
14
34
144
23
54
98
217
14
57
138
215
FY91
34
77
212
237
Civil Referrals
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
0
3
1
11
1 8
0 5
0 0
8 11
0
7
0
4
3
4
0
0
As can be seen, the data for FY91 show consider-
able increases in numbers of actions taken by state
programs. The adoption and implementation of new
enforcement and penalty policies by these states have
gone a long way toward improving overall state enforce-
ment performance.
The graphs and charts do not represent the total
universe of the states'enforcement activities, but only
that portion which corresponds to federal programs.
Each of the states implements a wide range of environ-
mental regulations outside the scope of this report.
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90
| Alaska Hf Idaho H Oregon Q Washington
3
FY91
-------
SteteSummary
State of Alaska
As indicated in the graph below, FY91 formal
enforcement actions issued by the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC) were up from
FY90. In July 1990 DEC increased its enforcement
capability by hiring an Environmental Investigator to
serve in each of DEC'S three regions and by entering
into an agreement with the Department of Law for the
services of a full-time attorney dedicated to
prosecution of environmental crimes.
Even though Alaska is not yet authorized to run the
federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) program, it has further advanced its RCRA
enforcement program by beginning to issue its own
state compliance orders, as well as continuing
issuance of Notices of Violation (NOVs) and referrals
to EPA and close cooperation with EPA through the
Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement (FFCA) and
other federal enforcement actions. DEC continues to
utilize its authority to issue uniform summons to
assure the compliance of public drinking water
systems. Three uniform summons were issued in
FY91.
DEC'S Air Quality program is fully delegated by
EPA. The Air Quality Section issued 17 compliance
orders during FY91, a large increase over previous
years, the section resolved a variety of non-
compliance issues during the last year. Longstanding
violations of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
requirements with various onshore seafood processors
were finally resolved. The Southeast Regional Office
has made a determined effort to reduce visible
emissions from cruise ships, through a program of
operator awareness and aggressive enforcement. All
Figure 2
Alaska Enforcement Actions
Orders Only
Regional Offices have responded promptly to citizen
complaints, despite the 24% increase in the number of
recorded complaints. In addition, the Regional Office
staff have taken a proactive role in the resolution of air
quality violations, especially at non-permitted facilities.
DEC'S Wastewater Program issued five criminal
complaints in FY91 for failed on-lot septic systems.
DEC has continued its focus on enforcement
activity. The apparent trend of decreasing numbers of
actions over the period FY88 through FY90 has been
reversed as newly-instituted enforcement initiatives
mature. However, formal enforcement is only one tool
DEC uses to achieve compliance with its regulations.
Technical assistance and education are still the
mainstays for ensuring compliance at regulated
facilities.
TaU02
Alaska Enforcement Actions
Administrative Orders
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90
Air 2224
Water 15 21 12 8
Haz. Materials/
Solid Waste 2892
Civil Referrals
Air 0
Water 0
Haz. Materials/
SolldWaste 0
Air
Water
Haz. Materials/
SolldWaste
0
2
Criminal Complaints
0 0
10 12
FY91
17
12
0
8
** 2 3 0 1
Criminal complaint authority did not exist prior to FY88.
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
| Air gj Water* Q Oil/Hazardous Mtrls/Solld Waste
4
-------
Sta teSummary
State of Idaho
Idaho now administers a delegated RCRA
enforcement program. The number of consent orders
issued in FY9I is more than double the number issued
in FY90. Where facilities fail to enter into consent
orders, the state quickly moves to judicial referral.
Regulating the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
(INEL) and Envirosafe Service of Idaho, Inc. (ESII) is
a major component of the State's RCRA workload.
Numbers of administrative actions taken by the
Water Quality Bureau continued to increase due to
active detection of leaking underground storage tanks
in a program which has not yet been formally
delegated to the state. The Water Quality Bureau filed
three civil law suits seeking cleanup of petroleum
contamination and reimbursement of response costs
at such sites. Several notices of violation involved
land application permit violations and mining
operations affecting water quality. The Water Quality
Bureau continues to strive to ensure compliance with
regulations in order to protect water quality.
Tatrie3
Idaho Enforcement Actions
Administrative Orders
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90
Air
Water
Haz. Waste
Air
Water
Haz. Waste
7
14
2
1
11
2
4
23
27
5
44
8
FY91
6
52
19
Civil Referrals
FY87 FY88 FY89
FY90 FY91
1
0
2
0 4
0 1
0 0
0
0
4
Stateofldaho
Case Summaries
City of Pocatello. In December 1990 the Water
Quality Bureau obtained water samples from
approximately 17 drinking water wells in the area of
the Pocatello city landfill. The landfill is no longer
actively being used. Several wells show chloride
and manganese levels in excess of state drinking
water standards. The city agreed to perform a
thorough investigation to determine whether area
drinking water wells are being contaminated from
the landfills
Schweitzer Mountain Resort, Sandpoint. jn
October 1990 the Water Quality Bureau discovered
that a tributary to Schweitzer Creek contained high
turbidity caused by the construction of a hotel,
parking lot and ski slope near Sandpoint, Idaho by
Schweitzer Mountain Resort (SMR). SMR obtained
a stream channel alteration permit from the Idaho-
Department of Water Resources, but did not adhere
to the terms of the permit by failing to take the
steps necessary to prevent mass slope failure.
Moreover, the ski resort company conducted timber
removal activities in violation of the Idaho Forest
Practices Rules and Regulations, ignored standard
anti-erosion practices, and impaired the beneficial
uses of the creek which includes its being a drinking
water supply. A Notice of Violation was issued,
followed by a consent order in which SMR agreed,
in lieu of a $10,000 penalty, to restore Schweitzer
Creek and to develop a plan for its future protection.
SMR did pay a penalty of $500 to the State and
agreed to provide up to $3,000 for the maintenance
of a monitoring station.
-------
StateSummary
State of Oregon
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) has been delegated authority to administer all
the major federal enforcement programs, and
continues to significantly increase the number of
formal enforcement actions initiated under the
Enforcement Policy and Civil Penalty Procedural
Rules adopted in 1989. The rules include civil penalty
matrices for violations according to classification (risk
of harm) and magnitude, and make objective civil
penalty determinations based on the circumstances of
the violation. The rules are undergoing further
refinement to improve their enforceability and
consistency. Greater emphasis is given to offsetting
economic gain, and some violations result in
mandatory penalties.
In addition, ODEQ enforcement was enhanced by
1991 legislation which increased the maximum civil
penalty from $500 to $10,000 for solid waste and
noise violations. A $100,000 civil penalty was
authorized for intentional or reckless violations which
result in or create the imminent likelihood of an
extreme hazard to public health, or which cause
extensive damage to the environment.
ODEQ is working toward developing a stronger
criminal enforcement program and will be seeking
legislation in 1993 to implement enhanced criminal
enforcement.
Tablo4
Oregon Enforcement Actions
Administrative Orders Only
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90
Air
Water*
Haz. Waste
3
21
5
5
17
12
43
40
15
60
57
21
FY91
64
113
35
Includes Public Water Supply System program in Oregon
Department of Health
Figures
State Summary
Oregon
120
100 -
80 -
60 -
40
20 -
FY87 FY88 FY89
Air H Water*
FY90 FY91
Hazardous Waste
-------
Sta teSummary
State of Washington
The mission of the Department of Ecology
(Ecology) is to protect, preserve and enhance
Washington's environment and promote the wise
management of its air, land and water for the benefit
of current and future generations.
One of the ways to accomplish this goal is to
assure that both the private and public sectors are in
compliance with environmental laws. The
enforcement policy of Ecology stresses the
importance of allowing the regulated community an
opportunity to voluntarily comply with environmental
laws. Ecology strongly supports, and has dedicated
considerable resources to, environmental education.
Nevertheless, the ultimate responsibility for complying
with environmental statutes and regulations lies with
those individuals and facilities engaging in regulated
activity. Therefore, enforcement by Ecology is
pursued whenever voluntary compliance has not been
achieved.
TaWe5
Washington Enforcement Actions
Administrative Orders
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90
Air
Water*
Haz. Waste
Air
Water*
Haz. Waste
25
81
25
FY87
0
11
0
35
80
29
59
139
19
43
131
41
FY91
47
144
46
Civil Referrals
FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
4
6
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
* Includes Public Water Supply System program In Washington
Department of Health
Enforcement of all of the major environmental
statutes has been formally delegated to Ecology.
County health departments and other local
governmental bodies also have authority to enforce
state environmental laws; this report covers only
actions taken by the state Department of Ecology.
Figure 4
Washington Enforcement Actions
Orders Only
160
FY87
FY88
Air
FY89 FY90
Water fl Hazardous Waste
FY91
-------
Stateof Washington
Case Summaries
Lilyblad Petroleum, Inc. Lilyblad Petroleum, a facility
located in Tacoma, recycles, blends and markets
petroleum products. In November 1990 Lilyblad was
penalized $903,000 for more than 40 different
hazardous waste violations, including
misrepresenting dangerous wastes as fuel oil,
failing to report 2,600 tons of dangerous waste
received from generators, releasing hazardous
waste to the environment, illegally mixing waste
with fuels and exposing the public to toxic
chemicals.
Comet Trailer Manufacturing Corp. Comet Trailer
was penalized $94,000 for 15 different violations of
the state's hazardous waste regulations. Comet
Trailer operates a truck trailer manufacturing facility
in Selah, Yakima County, and was inspected by
Ecology staff at different times in September, October
and December 1990 and again in March 1991.
Through these inspections, Ecology inspectors
documented violations which included operating a
dangerous waste facility without a permit, exceeding
the 90-day storage limit, failure to properly label
hazardous waste containers, and failure to develop
required inspection, training and safety plans.
Reynolds Metals Co. Reynolds Metals Longview
Reduction Plant was penalized $55,200 for
exceeding the state's particulate limit for aluminum
emission for the months of July, August and
September. This is the largest penalty issued by
Ecology for air quality violations.
ITT Rayonier, Inc. ITT Rayonier of Hoquiam,
Washington, was penalized $80,000 for exceeding
eight daily limits for total suspended solids,
biochemical oxygen demand and pH in December
1990. These excursions were caused by the
overflow of a sodium hydroxide (caustic) storage
tank which spilled into ITT's wastewater sewer
system. ITT had no overflow alarms on the caustic
storage tanks, no pH monitor or alarm system for
the wastewater sewer system near the storage
tanks and they djd not have someone watching for
problems.
Ross Electric of Washington, Inc. Ross Electric,
Chehalis, operates an incinerator used for
incinerating dangerous waste. For nearly a month in
August 1990, Ross operated their incinerator without
a temperature recorder or any other combustion or
emission monitoring devices as required by state
regulation. Ross Electric also failed to follow proper
startup and shutdown procedures for a hazardous
waste incinerator; they failed to conduct proper
equipment inspections; and they were found in
violation of several dangerous waste handling
practices such as waste identification, record
keeping, labeling and storage.
Northwest Processing, Inc., vs. Ecology. In June
1991 a $114,000 penalty issued to Northwest
Processing was upheld in full by the Washington
State Pollution Control Hearings Board. Northwest
Processing (NWP) is an industrial facility located in
Tacoma which in part recycles petroleum fuels and
waste oils. The Notice of Penalty, issued
September 22,1989, lists 19 separate violations.
Although not all violations were upheld, the entire
penalty was still upheld. This is the largest penalty
Ecology has ever argued before the Board.
-------
RegionalSummary
Enforcement Actions in All Programs
In Rscal Year 1991 (FY91) the total number of civil
and administrative enforcement actions taken by EPA
Region 10 increased 34% over Fiscal Year 1990
(FY90). The increase from 311 to 418 was due to an
increase in Notices of Violation issued and to the
number of civil referrals sent to Headquarters and the
Department of Justice (up from 15 in FY90 to 27 in
FY91). The general trend has been upward since
1984, the first year such statistics were kept, when a
total of 303 enforcement actions were taken.
Efforts were made during FY90 to establish
targeting procedures for multi-media inspections. As a
result, five multi-media inspections were conducted in
FY91; two with NEIC in the lead. In followup
enforcement actions, one civil multi-media case and
four criminal multi-media cases were referred to
Headquarters or to the Department of Justice. One
administrative multi-media case was sent to the
Department of Justice for consultation on the best
course to take with this precedent-setting matter.
The region will continue vigorous enforcement
against federal facilities found to be in violation of
environmental statutes, and will continue to pursue
contractor listing/debarment wherever appropriate.
Figures
All Programs Enforcement Actions
EPA Region 10
250
200 -
150
100 -
50 -
Table
EPA Region 10
All Programs Enforcement Actions
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
NOVs/NONCs 178 175 136 146 124 225 90 199
Orders 108 135 238 160 171 196 199 188
Civil Referrals 12 18 22 14 14 12 15 27
Criminal Referrals 56756876
* Includes eight referrals to Headquarters
The statistics presented in this report are indicative
of environmental results. Not only do enforcement and
penalty assessments create deterrence, but the
enforcement actions reported here represent
cessation of violations which would otherwise continue
to compromise the environment. These actions include
a substantial number of orders requiring corrective
action (the initiation of site cleanup or remediation) by
facilities.
Additional highlights of EPA Region 10 enforcement
programs and actions, grouped according to underlying
federal legislation, are presented in the following pages.
FY84
I NOVs/NONCs
FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88
Administrative Orders*
I Include RCRA Complaints
FY89 FY90
Civil Referrals
FY91
Criminal Referrals
-------
R
Clean Air Act (CAA)
The Air Compliance and Permitting Section and
Office of Regional Counsel referred six cases to the
Department of Justice and Headquarters in FY91,
including five asbestos cases and one Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit violation case.
The Air Program also issued eleven Notices of
Violation (NOVs) and ten administrative orders, and
settled eight asbestos cases (not all the Consent
Decrees have been filed, however).
The increase in administrative orders over FY90
reflected the Air Program's increased activity in non-
delegated programs in the states of Idaho and Alaska.
A majority of the NOVs were issued as a result of an
initiative in the Idaho panhandle designed to evaluate
the effectiveness of the state's rules in controlling
emissions of inhalable paniculate matter (PM10). The
Air Program participated in three rounds of inspections
which focused on the wood products industry. The
program is continuing in FY92 to work with various
facilities to resolve their compliance problems.
Table
CAA Enforcement Actions
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
NOVs
Orders
Referrals
7
5
1
9
12
4
3
11
3
10
3
3
2
4
3
2
23
7
2
5
6
11
10
6
Figure 4
Clean Air Act Enforcement Actions
NOVs, Orders and Referrals
Alaska Permitting Issues: EPA staff provided
information to the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) on a variety of
permitting issues involving seafood processors.
With the Region's support (including issuance of
information requests) ADEC brought enforcement
actions against three seafood processors operating
without having acquired the appropriate PSD
permits. As a result, the facilities paid penalties for
past violations and committed to schedules for
obtaining the required permits.
Training Provided for ADEC inspectors: The Air
Program used its contractor funds to provide
training in inspection methods for kraft and sulfite
mills in June 1991, and a course in baseline
inspection techniques, both for Alaska state
inspectors, in October 1991. These courses were
well attended and the techniques learned will be
used by state inspectors to assess the compliance
of stationary sources.
Improvement in Enforcement Response in
Oregon: The Air Program worked with Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (DEO) to
negotiate an inspection frequency matrix whereby
sources with a history of compliance problems or
that emit potentially toxic compounds will be
inspected more frequently, or substituted for
sources of lesser significance, according to the
matrix. The Air Program also initiated more
frequent discussions of the state's enforcement
activities, conducted file audits, and examined the
State's enforcement program in depth. A report
with the findings will be sent to the state shortly.
These activities provide a picture of the state's
enforcement presence and are critical in identifying
shortcomings so that EPA can direct resources at
helping the state become more efficient and
effective in its air enforcement program.
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
| NOVs H Orders Q Referrals
10
-------
RegionalSummaiy
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Superfund
The Region 10 Superfund program continues to
emphasize enforcement actions to compel responsible
party cleanups at Superfund sites. The Region issued
14 administrative orders and made amendments to
four existing orders, referred 10 cases to
Headquarters and/or the Department of Justice. The
value of Superfund work done (past, ongoing and
future commitments) by Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) in Region 10 is over $275 million
(excluding federal facilities).
Significant enforcement efforts continued at the
region's largest NPL site at Bunker Hill, with two
administrative orders on consent providing for
revegetation of the hillsides and PRP takeover of the
residential soils removal. Administrative orders were
also issued for an expedited response action at
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor and six additional removal
actions, including a cashout by a federal agency at the
Arctic Surplus site (see case description). The region
also used administrative orders for remedial design
and/or remedial action (RD/RA) at several sites. RD/
RA work at the Teledyne Wah Chang site in Albany,
Oregon, is being conducted under a unilateral
administrative order. Remedial design work at both
the CB/NT/Sitcum and Gould sites is being completed
under administrative orders on consent.
Administrative orders on consent were signed for Rl/
FS work at the Tacoma Field operable unit of the
Commencement Bay/South Tacoma Channel site in
Tacoma, Washington, and the Monsanto and Eastern
Michaud Rat sites in eastern Idaho.
EPA Region 10 completed negotiations for
responsible party cleanups at five sites: CB/NT/Tar
Pits, CB/NT/ASARCO Demolition, FMC Yakima,
Northwest Transformer and Coal Creek (a/k/a Ross
Electric), in which there were separate de maximis and
de minimis consent decrees involving 86 potentially
responsible parties. These negotiations resulted in the
referral of eight signed consent decrees to
Headquarters. Region 10 successfully negotiated a
consent decree for removal costs at the Arrcom site.
A small administrative Cost Recovery Settlement was
achieved covering past costs at eight Northwest
Pipeline sites.
EPA Region 10 negotiated and signed Federal
Interagency Agreements (lAGs) covering four federal
facility sites, including the first two in Alaska. These
three-party agreements (EPA, state and federal
facility) provide the framework, including the schedule,
for the cleanup of these federal installations.
Table
CERCLA Enforcement Actions
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
Orders
Referrals
9
1
7
1
20
7
6
4
12
8
14
10
Figure?
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Orders & Referrals
-------
RegionalSummaiy
Clean Water Act (CWA)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
The Region 10 NPDES program issued a total of 87
enforcement actions in FY91, most of which were in
Alaska and Idaho. This number includes a significant
increase in the number of Administrative Penalties
issued in FY91. There were 42 Administrative Penalty
Orders (APOs) issued during the year, compared with
14 APOs in FY90. Through November 1991 the
Region has settled nine of these cases with final
assessed penalties of $121,250. The total proposed
penalty amount for the remaining cases is $405,100.
The greatest number of actions were taken in the
state of Alaska for placer mining activities and seafood
processors. In Idaho 12 actions were taken against
Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and
trout hatcheries.
Two Administrative Orders were issued for
violations in Washington state and an Administrative
Penalty was issued for violations in Oregon.
The NPDES Program was significantly involved in
the region's multi-media inspection program with lead
responsibility for inspections at two facilities. Special
enforcement initiatives included commissioning a dive
team survey of seafood processors in Ketchikan,
Sitka, Valdez, and Cordova, Alaska. In addition, an
extensive field survey was conducted in Alaska to
determine whether placer mining operations were in
compliance. Most operators were making good faith
efforts to comply; however, there were several
permittees found to be in violation. The violations will
be addressed through compliance action.
Table
NPDES Enforcement Actions
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
Orders
Admin. Penalties
Referrals
18 22 60 14 43 35 38 42
0 0 0 0 14 21 14 42
8 12 14 3 3 0 1 3
FIgunS
Clean Water Act (CWA) & National Pollution Discharge System (NPDES)
Orders, Complaints and Referrals
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
Orders HJ Complaints (Penalties) Q Judicial Referrals
12
-------
RegionalSummaiy
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 404 Wetlands Enforcement
The Region 10 Wetlands program continues to
stress voluntary compliance by violators and working
cooperatively with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and the states. Quarterly enforcement
meetings are held with the states of Oregon and
Washington, and the program works with all the states
and with the Corps to conduct enforcement activities
in the most efficient manner possible. An outreach
program has been developed, and an enforcement
strategy tailored to each state is being planned.
The Region 10 Wetlands program issued ten orders
in FY91, and resolved 28 cases. The result of CWA
Section 404 resolutions is the restoration of wetlands,
which is one of the major goals of the program.
Table
Wetlands Enforcement Actions
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
Orders
Referrals
14
1
7
4
8
1
16
0
10
0
Figured
Clean Water Act Section 404 Wetlands Enforcement
Orders and Referrals
20
15 -
10 -
5 -
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
Orders Referrals
13
-------
RegionalSummaiy
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
In FY91 Region 10 took 35 FIFRA enforcement
actions; the Region issued 23 notices of
noncompliance, seven civil complaints for penalty,
three consent agreements/final orders and two stop
sale, use or removal orders. The program eliminated
its backlog of unaddressed cases at the end of the
fiscal year, which had fluctuated between 20 and 33
cases for the last few years.
In FY90 approximately 20 notices of noncompliance
and 7 civil complaints were issued for late reporting.
However, in FY91, the program achieved 100%
compliance with annual reporting requirements, due in
part to the use of reminder letters. As a result, in
FY91 no attorney or staff resources were used on
enforcing reporting requirements. All of the actions
reported for FY91 were for use, label, or product
violations.
In FY91 resources were used to supplement state
inspection capabilities. Specifically, the FIFRA
program was much more active in conducting federal
inspections; previously only about eight oversight
inspections were conducted annually.
The program was very active in providing training to
state inspectors. A three-day course for new
inspectors was conducted in Seattle which included
taking the trainees on two actual inspections. A day-
long training session was held in Alaska which
included taking Alaska inspectors on an inspection,
and staff took two Idaho inspectors on training
inspections.
Table
FIFRA Enforcement Actions
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
NONCs 38 87 16 30 47 17 21 23
Complaints 22 10 24 14 8 8 10 7
Figure 10
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
NONCs and Administrative Complaints
100
80 -
60 -
40
20 -
FY84 FY85 FY86
NONCs
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
Administrative Complaints
14
-------
RegionalSummaiy
Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA)
During FY91 the RCRA program began using the
new RCRA penalty policy which became effective in
November 1990. This new policy provides for multi-
day penalties where such violations can be
documented. As a result of this policy the average
penalty per administrative complaint assessed in FY91
was $207,000, compared to $53,000 in FY90. The
Region also assessed one penalty of over $600,000,
its highest administrative RCRA penalty to date.
The RCRA program played a major role in
targeting, in the inspection process, and in
enforcement followup for five multi-media inspections
done in FY91. These inspections resulted in the
program's filing two administrative complaints, and
additional enforcement being pursued at the other
facilities. One of the actions filed was in conjunction
with TSCA and EPCRA, the first-ever multi-media
administrative complaint issued by the Region.
Strong emphasis was placed on federal facility
enforcement this past fiscal year. The RCRA program
issued ten formal enforcement actions against federal
facilities. Three of the Federal Facility Consent
Agreements incorporated extensive pollution
prevention requirements.
The RCRA program provided technical advice and
assistance to the State of Alaska in developing and
negotiating consent agreements with facilities which
had violated RCRA requirements. Alaska is not yet
authorized for RCRA but is developing its enforcement
qualifications. This enforcement experience, with EPA
direction, will help demonstrate the state's readiness
for authorization in the future.
Table
RCRA Enforcement Actions
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
NOVs
Complaints
Orders
Referrals
26
7
20
0
36
14
14
0
5
10
20
0
12
11
21
2
26
14
29
1
17
12
22
0
3
16
7
0
7
9
12
3
Figure 11
Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA)
NOVs, Complaints, Orders and Referrals
40
30 -
20 -
10 -
FY84 FY85 FY86
NOVs 9 Complaints
FY87 FY88 FY89
I Administrative Orders
FY90 FY91
Judicial Referrals
15
-------
RegionalSummary
Safe
ater Act (SDWA)
The Drinking Water Programs Branch in Region 10
made significant progress in its compliance and
enforcement program in FY91. The total number of
federal enforcement actions (including notices of
violation and proposed and final administrative orders)
increased from 64 total actions in FY90 to 134 total
actions in FY91. This improvement can be attributed
to a reorganization of the Drinking Water Branch to
include a separate Drinking Water Compliance Section
and the positive effects of the Total Quality
Management (TQM) program.
The states continue to refer a large number of
enforcement cases (particularly small system
violations) to Region 10 for action. The revised and
more stringent definition of significant noncompliance
(SNC) is making it even more challenging to address
all enforcement candidates.
The Region 10 Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program recently sent letters to about 45 owners and
operators of Class V wells in Alaska which had lost
rule authorization. The letters notified the owners and
operators that they either must apply for a permit or
close their wells in accordance with an EPA-approved
plugging and abandonment plan. About half of the
respondents to date have indicated that they will apply
for permits.
The UIC program conducted inspections and
witnessed mechanical integrity tests (MITs) for Class I
injection wells in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. The program
also identified nearly 700 Class V wells as the
universe of regulated wells on Indian lands within the
Region. One such well was inspected under a search
warrant.
Table
SDWA Enforcement Actions
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
NOVs 4 6 0 6 11 19 24 89
Final Orders 12* 5* 1 256 13 24
Admin. Penalties ««««! 2 1
* Orders for FY84andFY85areCompllance Agreements; no
AdmlnlstrativeOrderauthorttyexIstedpriortoFYBe.
** Administrative Penalties an Issued under SDWA onlywhon
the conditions of an Administrative Order an violated. Prior
to FY89, there were no violations which triggered the
Issuance of Administrative Penalties.
Figure 12
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
NOVs, Administrative Orders and Civil Referrals
100
80
60 -
40 -
20 -
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89
NOVs Administrative Orders
FY90 FY91
Civil Referrals
16
-------
RegLonalSummary
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
The FY91 TSCA enforcement program consisted of
two main components: the PCB (Polychlorinated
Biphenyl) program, and the AHERA (Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act) program. While the level
of PCB inspections and enforcement actions has
remained relatively constant over the last several
years, a number of developments in the asbestos
program have historically caused substantial variability
in the total numbers of enforcement actions, both
Notices of Noncompliance (NONCs) and
Administrative Complaints. These developments have
arisen because the asbestos program has built into it a
number of legislative and regulatory deadlines or
timeframes for schools to take certain actions. For
example, the FY86-87 peak corresponds to a
heightened level of inspection activity as schools were
first implementing a predecessor program to AHERA,
while the FY89 peak represents an emphasis on
compliance with a one-time requirement for schools to
have asbestos management plans in place. For
FY91, the NONC peak is primarily representative of an
increased focus on how well schools are now
implementing their management plans.
The PCB program currently accounts for almost all
of the enforcement activity involving complaints and
penalties. During FY91, proposed penalty amounts for
individual PCB complaints ranged from $13,000 to
$370,000. In settlement discussions, the Agency
typically explores the possibility of environmentally
beneficial expenditures (such as early disposal of PCB
equipment) by the facility in violation. If such
expenditures are seen as useful by EPA and are
agreed to by the facility, a partial credit is provided by
EPA in mitigation of a portion of the assessed penalty.
For example, in the case of the complaint issued for
$370,000, the final settlement was $143,000 in cash
with mitigation of the balance of the assessed penalty
depending on an additional expenditure by the facility
of $286,000 by 1993 to dispose of PCBs and PCB
equipment remaining in use at the plant..
Tabte
TSCA Enforcement Actions
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
NONCs 103 37 112 94 38 170 40 71
Admln-Complaints 16 45 92 81 41 59 49 27
Referrals
81
1
41
0
59
0
1
Figure 13
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
NONCs, Administrative Complaints, CAFOs, Referrals
200
150 -
100 -
50 -
FY84 FY85
NONCS
FY86 FY87
FY88
FY89 FY90
FY91
CAFOs
(Not counted prior to FY88)
*Admin.Complaints
(Incl.Fed.Facility Notices)
Civil Referrals
17
-------
RegionalSummary
Ememenc **
Know Act (EPCRA):
Toxic Release Inventory Program
The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Program is
implemented under the authority of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
It requires that many industrial and manufacturing
facilities which meet certain size criteria are required
to report their total annual releasesroutine and
accidentalof certain chemicals. Such facilities are
inspected to see if they are reporting as required and/
or doing so correctly and accurately.
The first deadline for chemical reporting was July 1,
1988; compliance inspections began shortly thereafter.
Despite substantial and continuing publicity about the
TRI requirements to regulated industries, many
instances of nonreporting or incomplete reporting are
still being encountered, and a significant number of
civil administrative complaints have resulted, as shown
in the chart below. (No Notices of Noncompliance are
shown because the Agency's TRI Enforcement
Response Policy prescribes civil complaints in all
cases of non-reporting.) The chart exhibits a peak in
numbers of complaints in the second year of
enforcement (FY90). Since the annual rate of TRI
inspections has held fairly constant since the initiation
of the program, the fact that there has been a peak in
enforcement probably means the following: 1) facilities
are becoming more knowledgeable about TRI
requirements, and the overall compliance rate by the
regulated community continues to grow; and 2) once a
facility is found to be out of compliance and pays the
substantial penalties associated with such violations,
the likelihood of being out of compliance in the future
is quite small.
As regards complaint amounts, penalties are
proportional to number of chemicals and years of
failure to report. Thus, as the program goes into its
fourth enforcement year,, penalties for facilities which
have never complied can easily be in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Although a substantial portion of
this is collected in cash, the Agency also utilizes the
settlement process as an opportunity to convince
facilities to make environmentally beneficial
expenditures which reduce emissions. When this
occurs, the facility receives a partial credit for the
capital expenditures and this mitigates a portion of the
total assessed penalty.
Table
EPCRA Enforcement Actions
(Program Began In FY89)
FY89 FY90 FY91
Complaints 17 30 22
Administrative Orders 0 0 18
Referrals 000
Figure 12
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
Toxic Release Inventory Program
Complaints and Referrals
FY89
| Complaints
(Program began In FY89)
FY90
Final Admin. Orders
18
FY91
Referrals
-------
jRi
Office of Criminal Investigation
Criminal prosecution of individuals and businesses
by EPA is reserved for the most flagrant violators.
Criminal conviction under environmental laws can
result in incarceration as well as substantial monetary
penalties. In addition, it carries the social stigma and
corporate embarrassment appropriate for
environmental crimes which endanger the public
health. Under newly-adopted sentencing guidelines,
those recently convicted can look forward to harsher
sentences than those handed down by the courts in
the past, including substantially-increased prison
terms.
During FY91, Region 10 Criminal Investigations
Division (CID) continued to maintain a level of activity
consistent with previous years. Even though this CID
is one of the smallest of the regional CIDs, the number
of criminal referrals generated by Region 10 CID was
comparable to other CID offices across the nation.
The deterrent effect of these cases is difficult to
measure but with our increased publicity efforts there
can be little doubt that criminal cases provide
enlightenment for some and education for others, both
of which increase regional compliance rates.
Region 10's CID is in the third year of an
investigative task force with the state of Washington,
which benefits both state and federal programs. The
task force involves the combined residence of state
and federal investigators in the regional EPA office.
The state and federal investigators work together on
criminal cases within the state of Washington. By
doing so, more resources can be brought to bear on
cases where they are needed, such as those requiring
extensive surveillance, while both the state and EPA
benefit from the cooperative relationship.
Of the six criminal referrals to the Department of
Justice generated in FY91, four involved charges of
violations in more than one medium, making them
"multi-media" cases.
Table
Office of Criminal Investigations
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FYSO FY91
Investigations 9 9 9 7 11 15 7 7
Subpoenas 121 184 130 113 158 192 76 100
Search Warrants 7 10 10 4 8 4 5 3
Criminal Referrals 56756876
Indictments (total) 16 4 22 4 19 7 12 5
Corporate 41716342
Individual 12 3 15 3 13 4 8 3
PleasorVerdlcts 13 2 13
Figure 15
Office of Criminal Investigations
Investigations, Criminal Referrals, Indictments, Pleas/Verdicts
25
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
8 11
FY84 FY85
Investigations I
FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 R90 FY91
Criminal Referrals H Indictments [] Pleas/Verdicts
19
-------
Criminal Case Highlights
Criminal enforcement in Region 10 produced three landmark actions in FY91.
United States vs. Exxon Corporation and U.S. vs.
Exxon Shipping Corporation
In U.S. v Exxon Corporation and U.S. v Exxon
Shipping Corporation, as part of a global settlement of
federal enforcement actions arising from the discharge
of over 10 million gallons of crude oil from the tanker
"Exxon Valdez" in Prince William Sound on March 23,
1989, the two corporate defendants entered into a new
plea agreement with the government on September
30,1991. In the new agreement, Exxon Shipping
agreed to plead guilty to three counts and Exxon
Corporation agreed to plead to one count of the
indictment returned against them in Anchorage, on
February 27,1990. Exxon Shipping will plead to a
misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. § 1311 (a) and 1319(c)( 1 )(a), for the negligent
discharge of oil without a permit; a misdemeanor
violation of the Refuse Act for the illegal discharge of
refuse (oil) from a ship, 33 U.S.C. § 407 and 411; and
a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C.
§ 703 and 707(a) for the unpermrtted killing of over
36,000 migratory birds; and pay a fine of $20 million.
The Exxon Corporation will plead guilty to the one
Migratory Bird Act count and pay a fine of $5 million.
Both defendants also agreed to make a remedial
payment of $50 million to the State of Alaska and $50
million to the federal government for restoration
projects relating to the oil spill. The plea agreement
was accepted in Federal District Court on Octobers,
1991.
United States vs. Rogue Valley Circuits, Inc.
The second case was a RCRA guilty plea in U.S. v
Rogue Valley Circuits, Inc. On March 25,1991 Henry
Broughton, on behalf of his corporation, Rogue Valley
Circuits, Inc. of Medford, Oregon, pled guilty to both
felony counts of the indictment that had been issued
on March 20,1991. Rogue Valley had been charged
with violation of RCRA as a result of its illegal
transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes. The
company manufactures circuit boards and had
disposed of its electroplating wastes on Broughton's
rural ranch in southwestern Oregon. On April 24,
1990, agents executed a federal search warrant
authorizing the excavation of buried sludge by EPA's
Superfuno contractors at the ranch. Based on the
analysis of this sludge, EPA and Broughton signed a
consent order under CERCLA which holds Broughton
liable for the clean-up costs amounting to about
$800,000.
In pleading guilty, Rogue Valley Circuits, Inc. also
entered into a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney's
Office. Under the agreement, the company will bear
all cleanup costs, which have been estimated to range
between $500,000 and $800,000. On May 28,1991,
Rogue Valley Circuits was sentenced to pay a $1
million fine.
United States vs. Weyerhaeuser Company
In a third criminal case, U.S. v Weyerhaeuser
Company, Weyerhaeuser agreed to enter a plea of
guilty to five misdemeanor counts for violations of the
federal Clean Water Act. The criminal charges stem
from the unpermrtted discharge of paint wastes,
solvents and wash water into Shannon Slough, a
tributary of the Chehalis River, from the end seal and
stencil painting operation at the company's Aberdeen,
Washington, sawmill.
As a result of an inspection and a subsequent
search warrant executed on October 6,1989, the
agents learned that Weyerhaeuser had discharged
these wastewaters directly into the Shannon Slough
for almost nine years. As part of the plea agreement,
Weyerhaeuser paid a total of $500,000 in a
combination of fines and restitution. Of this half million
dollar amount, $125,000 was paid by Weyerhaeuser
as a criminal fine. This represented a fine of $25,000
per count, the maximum possible fine under the Clean
Water Act. The remaining $375,000 was placed in a
trust fund controlled by public officials as a form of
restitution to the citizens of Grays Harbor County. The
money from the fund was used for cleaning up and
eradicating all pollution sources along the Shannon
Slough. Since the federal involvement commenced in
July 1989, Weyerhaeuser has spent almost $1.4
million to clean up the property adjacent to the
Shannon Slough, and to remedy historic pollution
problems at the plant. The $375,000 for the trust fund
was in addition to this amount.
As a result of their criminal convictions, both Exxon
and Weyerhaeuser were mandatorily listed for
violation of the Clean Water Act under provisions of
the EPA's contractor listing process pursuant to 40
CFR15.10efseg.
20
-------
RegionalSummary
Civil Case Highlights
Alaska Pulp Corporation, Sitka (Multi-Media)
The region issued a single multi-media
administrative complaint against Alaska Pulp
Company (APC) alleging TSCA, EPCRA, and RCRA
violations. (This is the first multi-media administrative
complaint issued in the region, and may be the first
one in the country.) This matter is pending before an
administrative law judge. To correct air violations at
APC, DEC issued a Compliance Order by Consent
(COBC) and a permit to APC to correct deficiencies
with the power and recovery boilers.
George Fox College, Newberg, Oregon (CAA)
In the Asbestos Program, George Fox College paid
the highest penalty ever assessed in Region 10 for
asbestos NESHAP violations ($131,250). This was
the first asbestos case EPA brought in Oregon in
many years. The consent decree requires the college
to maintain an asbestos management plan and to
comply with the terms of the decree for a period of
three years.
Ketchikan Pulp Corporation, Alaska (CAA)
Based on the findings of a multi-media inspection at
Ketchikan Pulp Corporation (KPC) in Ketchikan,
Alaska, the regional air program issued a compliance
order to this source during the second quarter of
FY91. KPC shut down its boiler in response to the
order. The Air Program estimates that KPC's failure
to install sulfur dioxide emissipn controls resulted in an
extra 910 tons per year of emissions to the Ketchikan
airshed when this source was in operation.
Commencement Bay/Tacoma Tar Pits,
Washington (CERCLA)
Following a FY90 complaint filed by the U.S. in
Federal Court, six consent decrees were entered in
FY91 settling all government claims under CERCLA
(Superfund) Chapters 106 and 107 resulting in over
100% recovery of costs to the government. EPA
obtained recovery of all costs, implementation of all
response actions and recovery of penalties in this
matter.
Commencement Bay Nearshore/TIdeflats, Tacoma,
Washington (CERCLA)
The natural resource settlement for this Superfund
site is the first time EPA and trustees have reached a
comprehensive settlement at a Superfund site. On
June 24,1991, EPA had lodged with the federal court
in Tacoma, Washington the St. Paul Waterway
consent decree, concerning cleanup of the St. Paul
Waterway Problem Area of the Commencement Bay
site, and settlement of claims for natural resource
damages. The proposed settlement is between EPA,
nine federal, state, and tribal natural resource
trustees, and three potentially responsible parties:
Simpson Tacoma Kraft Co, Champion International,
21
and the Washington Department of Natural
Resources. The consent decree requires the
defendants to pay EPA over $400,000 in past costs
and all future oversight costs, and to implement a
revised monitoring and contingency plan for the St.
Paul cap placed by Simpson over contaminated
sediments in 1988. The decree is expected to be
approved by the Court in the near future, as the public
comment period (which included nearly all favorable
responses) has now closed.
BankAmerica/Fick Foundry, Tacoma, Washington
(CERCLA)
BankAmerica/Fick Foundry prospective purchaser
agreement: This is the first prospective purchaser
agreement with a bank which provides a covenant not
to sue regarding past sediment contamination at the
Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Superfund
site. In exchange for EPA's covenant not to sue,
BankAmerica and its subsidiary, SeaFirst Bank,
agreed to pay EPA $350,000 and further agreed to
perform a cleanup of upland contamination at the Pick
Foundry property, for which they held a mortgage
interest.
Arctic Surplus, Fairbanks, Alaska (CERCLA)
EPA Region 10 was the first region to successfully
negotiate and execute an administrative order on
consent for a removal action at a privately-owned site
with the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). Two
such administrative orders on consent have been
negotiated and executed with DLA with respect to the
Arctic Surplus site. These orders were entered into in
accordance with United States Department of Justice
Memorandum on Administrative Orders to Federal
Agencies, dated December 27,1988.
Arctic Surplus is a 22-acre site located in a mixed
commercial/residential area near Fairbanks, Alaska.
Past activities at the site involved the disposal and
treatment of military surplus, including the salvaging of
batteries and the incineration of transformer casings
and transformer oil containing PCBs. Much of this
military property was surplused by the U.S. Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA). Asbestos, PCB, and lead
contamination are prevalent, and pose a direct threat
to the area's drinking water supply. The first
administrative order (1990) required DLA to conduct
specific removal activities at the Arctic Surplus site. In
1991, DLA entered into a second order with EPA
Region 10 which provided that DLA would finance
EPA removal activities at the site for the summer of
1991, including an extent of contamination survey and
necessary removal/containment activities. Pursuant to
this order, DLA agreed to pay $500,000 into an EPA
site-specific account and agreed to pay an additional
$500,000 if necessary. These costs included the
payment of oversight costs: In addition, DLA agreed
to pay directly for lab work, to continue groundwater
monitoring and to continue investigating long-term
treatment/disposal options for dioxin. Stipulated
penalties were included in the order.
-------
Civil Case Highlights
Judicial order in aid of access: EPA Region 10
referred a complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory
relief for access pursuant to §104 of CERCLA to the
Department of Justice in April 1991. An administrative
order for access was issued to the property owner on
May 31,1991. The property owner refused to comply
with this administrative order and a complaint seeking
unrestricted access was filed with the United States
District Court for the District of Alaska. On June 13,
1991, the Court signed an Order granting EPA and its
representatives full and unrestricted access to the site
for the purpose of conducting response actions. The
Order further enjoined the property owner and any
representatives from interfering in any way with the
response activities, including entry onto restricted
study areas, removal sites or remedial sites.
Cominco-Red Dog, Kotzebue, Alaska (NPDES)
An enforcement action against Cominco-Red Dog
was taken for violations of the effluent limits and
reporting requirements of the NPDES permit.
Because of late Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR),
Cominco's effluent violations during the early part of
their 1990 discharge season (May through October)
were not discovered until the season was over and
subsequent violations had occurred. The bulk of their
violations were non-reporting violations, both untimely
DMRs and failure to report according to the
requirements of their permit. The settlement amount
was $75,000.
J.R. Simplot Co., owner of Simplot Land and
Cattle Company, Grandview, Idaho (NPDES)
On May 30,1990 an inspection was conducted at
the respondent's Grandview, Idaho facility. The
inspection confirmed that a discharge in violation of
the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)
General Permit had occurred. On December 31,1990
EPA Region 10 issued J. R. Simplot Company an
Administrative Complaint, Notice of Proposed
Assessment of a Civil Penalty and Notice of
Opportunity to Request a Hearing. The Complaint
alleged five violations of the CAFO General Permit.
Subsequent to settlement discussions between
Region 10 and the Respondent, Simplot agreed to the
assessment of a $42,000.00 Administrative penalty.
The penalty was paid and the case closed in March
1991.
City of Portland, Oregon (NPDES)
On February 19,1991, EPA entered into a consent
agreement and order with the City of Portland,
Oregon, whereby the city agreed to pay $64,130 for
raw sewage bypasses from a downtown lift station to
the Willamette River. The lift station did not have
necessary backups for system failures of computers
and pumps. The largest of the bypasses-over five
million gallons-occurred in June 1988 during the city's
Rose Festival.
Seafood Processing Activities, Alaska (NPDES)
Seafood processing is one of the largest industry
groups in Alaska. Discharges of seafood wastes to
Alaska and U.S. waters are regulated under NPDES
permits. In 1991, five companies were penalized for
discharging seafood wastes in violation of permit
requirements. A civil complaint was filed by the
Department of Justice on April 22,1991, against Arctic
Fisheries, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Arctic Alaska,
Inc., the largest seafood processing company in the
U.S. Alleged violations found during several
inspections could result in high statutory penalties.
This case is pending in federal district court.
Concentrated Animal Feedlot Operations (CAFO),
General Permit, Idaho (NPDES)
EPA initiated eight administrative enforcement
actions of the Idaho Concentrated Animal Feedlot
Operations (CAFO) General Permit this past year.
EPA's actions were a result of the continued diligent
inspection efforts by the Idaho Division of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) Twin Falls Field Office.
All eight of these actions alleged unauthorized
discharges of process wastewater into waters of the
United States. In addition, a compliance order was
issued to one of the facilities ordering them to prevent
cattle from having access to Billingsley Creek.
The Idaho CAFO permit was promulgated in 1987.
Feedlot and dairy operators in the Jerome and
Gooding County areas have slowly begun installing
process wastewater management systems and
fencing off cattle access to nearby creeks. The
majority of the canals, streams and creeks in Jerome
and Gooding Counties ultimately flow into the Middle
Snake River, an area of the Snake River with
increasing water quality concerns.
Alaska Pulp Corporation, Rowan Bay, Alaska
(RCRA)
As part of the national lead cluster filing Region 10
took an enforcement action against Alaska Pulp
Corporation (APC), for improper handling of lead-
contaminated hazardous wastes at its logging camp in
Rowan Bay, Alaska. A complaint was filed charging
that APC improperly disposed of lead-acid batteries in
a landfill which was not permitted under RCRA. In
addition, the logging camp is alleged to be engaged in
the generation and treatment of hazardous wastes
without a permit. The complaint seeks civil penalties
and an injunction against further violations at this
facility. This case is pending in federal district court.
22
-------
RegionalSummaiy
Civil Case Highlights
United States vs. Environmental Pacific
Corporation, Amity, Oregon (RCRA)
Region 10 took an enforcement action against the
Environmental Pacific Corporation (EPC) hazardous
waste management facility in Amity, Oregon as part of
the national lead cluster filing. As part of its
operations EPC received lead acid and alkaline
batteries, which it allegedly drained prior to shipment
to recyclers or sent undrained to recyclers. During an
inspection conducted by EPA Region 10 and the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
hazardous constituents, including lead, cadmium,
chromium, barium, mercury and silver, were found in
soil and surface waters off-site. The action seeks an
injunction requiring EPC to clean up the lead and other
hazardous constituents contaminating its facility and to
study all areas where releases might have occurred.
This case is pending in federal district court.
Oregon Steel Mills, Portland, Oregon (TSCA)
This facility was issued an Administrative Complaint
in May 1991, proposing a penalty of $370,000. The
Complaint alleged violations of the federal Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) PCB Regulations,
including improper disposal, storage, marking,
recordkeeping, and failure to register PCB
Transformers. A Consent Agreement was signed on
August 1,1991, assessing a penalty of $286,000, the
largest TSCA PCB penalty ever assessed in EPA
Region 10. In addition to $143,000 in cash penalties,
Oregon Steel Mills agreed to spend at least $286,000
by 1993 to dispose of PCBs remaining in use at their
facility, in exchange for a credit toward the remaining
$143,000 of the assessed penalty.
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation,
Trentwood Works, Spokane, Washington (TSCA)
The facility was issued an Administrative Complaint
in November 1990, proposing a penalty of $62,000.
The complaint alleged that Kaiser Aluminum and
Chemical Corporation, Trentwood Works, Spokane,
Washington, violated the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) PCB Regulations. The complaint alleged
disposal, recordkeeping, and inspection violations. A
Consent Agreement was signed in February 1991,
assessing a penalty of $30,600. The company paid
$15,300 in cash penalties and agreed to spend
$30,600 to dispose of PCBs remaining in use at their
facility, in exchange for a credit toward the remaining
$15,300 of the assessed penalty.
Port of Portland, Portland, Oregon (TSCA)
The Port of Portland, in Portland, Oregon, was
issued an Administrative Complaint in March 1991.
The Complaint alleged that the Port of Portland
violated the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
PCB Regulations. The Complaint alleged disposal,
recordkeeping, and registration violations. A Consent
Agreement was signed in August 1991, assessing a
penalty of $55,208. The Port of Portland documented,
as part of the agreement, that it had spent $43,506 to
dispose of PCBs in use at the facility, disposal of
which would not otherwise have been required.
Rohr Industries, Auburn, Washington (EPCRA)
On August 21,1991, Administrative Law Judge
Vanderheyden issued an accelerated decision in
response to an EPCRA administrative complaint which
had been issued on June 19,1989 to Rohr for failure
to report to the Toxics Release Inventory the toxic
chemical 1,1,1-trichloroethane which it "otherwise
used" at its Auburn facility in 1987. The decision
granted EPA's motion for accelerated decision on
liability and penalty, and assessed the full proposed
penalty of $17,000, stating that EPA's nine-page
supporting memo was "clear, complete and
persuasive" and that the penalty required no
adjustment.
Tiz's Door Sales, Everett, Washington (EPCRA)
EPA filed an EPCRA administrative complaint
against Tiz's Door Sales alleging it failed to report
three toxic chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) for the years 1987,1988 and 1989. The final
assessed penalty was $14,450. A portion of the
penalty was deferred pending implementation of
supplemental environmental projects (SEPs)
consisting of the purchase of high efficiency spray
equipment and improvements to the paint spray booth
at the facility; this portion of the penalty will be waived
if the SEPs are installed. The SEPs are expected to
significantly reduce the releases of TRI chemicals
from this facility as well as reduce the amount of
chemicals used at the facility.
23
-------
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared by the Region 10 Office of
Enforcement with information obtained through our program
offices, the operations offices, and our colleagues in the
States.
------- |