EPA910/R-93-003
oEFA
Jnited States
Environmental Protection
Agency
on 1C
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Office of Enforcement
February 1993
FY 1992
Region 10 Enforcement
Accomplishments Report
»*_
i«ft>rce \ iji-fofe)r8 A ^l [ME
»:" 1.
. : f.
ST&EPrCT HBN£2? to urge
*'" -:"-;;:i"::-;" rtllt ^**^»*-"-*-lv ,..!.::::,,:-., ... ^«. im-<^
-x,,, ;-v---:
:.;- : . ' -:..
CONSTRAP, COMPEL f
;.
: .,.:. j ' .
f
x, 'f.K-
\r:.|/// -
en»force«ment ci
^
-------
Introduction
Federal Fiscal Year 1992 (FY92) was a very signifi-
cant year for enforcement in Region 10, at the federal
as well as the state level. At the federal level, we saw
an increase in the total number of civil judicial referrals
and an increase in the number of notices of violation
(NOVs) and notices of non compliance (NONCs).
[See Table 6.] In addition, our criminal prosecution
record continued to be very strong. [See Table 16.]
Our state enforcement activities also showed
significant gains. For example, the State of Oregon
more than doubled the number of actions taken and
increased penalties collected from $459,112 in FY91 to
$573,876 in FY92. Alaska also substantially increased
the total number of actions taken. We are pleased
with this level of formal enforcement, and firmly believe
that these actions, and the penalties derived there-
from, provided substantial benefit to our federal and
state regulatory efforts.
We are also proud of our accomplishments in other
areas which complement our traditional enforcement
program. We have streamlined our enforcement case
screening process and have piloted, in conjunction
with EPA's Office of Research and Development and
the State of Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, an innovative targeting program which utilizes
existing computerized databases to aid us in identify-
ing those facilities which pose the greatest risk to
human health and the environment.
Region 10 multi-media targeting and inspection
processes were further refined this fiscal year. In
conjunction with our computer-assisted targeting pilot,
we were able to better target facilities for multi-media
inspections, and subsequently complete more multi-
media inspections than in prior years. We look forward
to continuing to improve these processes in FY93.
Building state enforcement capability has been and
continues to be a priority for Region 10, as does
coordinating with our four regional states (Alaska,
Idaho, Oregon and Washington) during targeting,
inspection and enforcement activity. This year we
executed a precedential Joint Operating Agreement for
Multi Media Inspections with the State of Washington
Department of Ecology. Region 10 is committed to the
belief that our states are integral to successful enforce-
ment of environmental laws, and that our resources
must be coordinated to ensure the best possible return
for your taxpayer dollars.
Region 10 also participated in two national enforce-
ment initiatives. The first national initiative involved the
simultaneous filing of enforcement cases in groups, or
"clusters." Region 10 contributed to four of the seven
clusters: Industry Specific, Pulp and Paper, Lead/
Benzene and Primary Metals. The second national
initiative in which Region 10 participated was thatof
including "Supplemental Environmental Projects" or
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 Rodenticide 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 Right-to-Know Act
MULTI-MEDIA (or CROSS MEDIA) - An action involving more than one of the above statutes (listedby "media")
Notice of Violation (NOV) or Notice of Noncompliance (NONC) - Fora less serious violation, an NOV or NONC is
sentto the owner or managers of the facility. (Note: For certain violations the CAA requires an NOV as the initial
enforcement action.)
Administrative Order, Administrative Complaint (AO, CACO, CAFO) - 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 compliance
with the law or regulation. An administrative complaint is issued to collect penalties forviolating environmental laws.
Referral, Consent Decree, Judicial Penalty- Forthe most egregious violations, including cases where administrative
action was not effective in achieving compliance and in cases where there is no authority to bring administrative actions, a
civil or criminal referral of the 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 which must be taken, under court order, to solve the problem and/or
assess penalties. A criminal case can result in a jail sentence as well.
-------
SEPS, in settlement agreements. A SEP is an
agreement which will have one or more of the following
effects: pollution prevention at the source, pollution
reduction, environmental restoration, increased public
awareness and increased use of voluntary environ-
mental auditing.
We believe we have monitored our overall enforce-
ment efforts to achieve the most effective and bal-
anced possible enforcement program, using all tools
-administrative, civil judicial and criminal-consistent
with the Administrator's goals, to achieve a fair and
effective enforcement program.
This document is prepared by the Region 10 Office
of Enforcement, and is the Regional supplementto the
national report of the same title, prepared by EPA's
Office of Enforcement in Washington, D.C.
-------
State Summary
The four states in Region 10 - Alaska, Idaho,
Oregon and Washington - have very different environ-
mental enforcement concerns and problems. Differ-
ences 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
so.
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 1992. The inclusion of only
six years of data reflects an attempt to use uniform
definitions of actions. Each of the states and EPA
have different authorities for enforcement actions.
As can be seen, the data for FY92 show consider-
able increases in numbers of actions taken by most
Figure 1
Region 10 States' Enforcement Actions
Administrative Orders Only
600
state programs. The adoption and implementation of
new enforcement and penalty policies by these states
have gone a long way toward improving overall state
enforcement performance. The State of Idaho contin-
ues to implement a major reorganization this past year
which may have had some effect on enforcement
statistics.
The following graphs and tables 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 environmental regulations outside the scope
of this report.
Table 1
Region 10 States' Enforcement Actions
Administrative Orders
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
Alaska 19 31 23 14 34 58
Idaho 23 14 54 57 77 37
Oregon 29 34 98 138 212 514
Washington 131 144 217 215 237 227
Civil Referrals
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
Alaska 0 1 8 0 3 26
Idaho 3 0 5 7 4 11
'Oregon 1 00000
Washington 11 8 11 4 0 1
* Enforces by administrative civil penalties
500
400
300
200
100
FY87
FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington
FY92
-------
State Summary
State of Alaska
Alaska Deoartment of Environmental Conservation
Alaska's environmental and law enforcement
agencies joined forces during FY92 to form an Envi-
ronmental Crimes Unit, with a full-time prosecutor,
state trooper investigator, legal assistant, and coordi-
nated support from within the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (DEC). In the first months of
operation the unit participated in several investigations,
ranging from "phantom dumping" of hazardous waste
to tracking those responsible for releases of dangerous
chlorine gas. The office is expected to concentrate on
hazardous waste and water violations and to seek
restitution which can assist in pollution prevention
objectives. Indictments were brought against two
individuals for dumping hazardous waste and other
indictments are pending.
Alaska has upgraded its enforcement capability in
several other ways during the year. For example,
concerned federal and state agencies have formed a
Resource Protection Subcommittee to the Law En-
forcement Coordinating Committee; DEC staff have
undertaken increased enforcement training and
additional classes have been scheduled.
Table 2
Alaska Enforcement Actions
Administrative Orders
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
2 2 2 4 17 41
15 21 12 8 12 14
*Air & Toxics
Water
Haz-Mtls/Solid
Waste 2892
* Starting in FY92, includes Pesticides & Toxics
Air & Toxics
Water
Haz,Mtls/Solid
Waste
Air & Toxics
Water
Haz.Mtls/Solid
Waste
Civil Referrals
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
01 0021
0 0 2 2 0 15
1
10
12
8
1
10
Criminal Complaints
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
"00000
16
* Criminal Complaint authority did not exist prior to FY88.
Figure 2
Alaska Enforcement Actions
Orders Only
50
40
30
20
10
0
FY87
FY88
Air
FY89
Water
FY90
Hazardous Mat'ls/
Solid Waste
FY91
FY92
-------
State of Alaska
Case Summary
Alaska settles largest criminal and civil environ-
mental violation in American history. During FY92,
the largest criminal and civil settlement for an environ-
mental infraction in American history was made
between the State and Federal governments and
Exxon Corporation for the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
The settlement, totalling over $1 billion, provided $112
million in criminal fines and restitution. The civil
settlement, to be paid over a period of ten years, will
be managed by six federal and state trustees to
prpyide for restoration and enhancements to Prince
William Sound.
StateSummary
State of Idaho
The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
has reorganized into functional units (i.e., permits,
enforcement, etc.), from its previous media-based
units. In addition, significant autonomy has been
extended to the five regional offices throughout the
state. Considerable time and effort went into this
restructuring.
The number of consent orders issued in 1992 is
compatible with the 1991 total. The number of pro-
gram orders increased significantly as work focused on
the inspection report backlog. The decrease in the
number of orders under the water program was due in
part to the former Water Quality Bureau's experiencing
the most fragmentation during DEQ's reorganization.
DEQ does not issue administrative orders; when
parties fail to enter into consent orders, enforcement
moves quickly to judicial referrals.
Table 3
Idaho Enforcement Actions
Administrative Orders
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
Air 7 1 4 5 6 9
Water 14 11 23 44 52 19
Hazardous Waste 2 2 27 8 19 9
Civil Referrals
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
Air 1 0 4 3 0 2
Water 001201
Hazardous Waste 200248
State of Idaho
Case Summaries
Inland Aquatech, Wallace, Idaho. This facility was
cited for 22 violations including illegal storage of 600
drums and containers. An $80,700 penalty was
assessed, one of the largest penalties ever as-
sessed in Idaho.
H & H Technologies (Mountain States Plating),
Garden City, Idaho. Inspection revealed storage
of incompatible reactive wastes. As a result of the
inspection an emergency removal was initiated.
Larsen Farms, Pocatello, Idaho. This facility was
the site of one of Idaho DEQ's first multi-media
notices of violation. Larsen Farms was assessed
$20,000 for water quality violations and $5,000 for
hazardous waste violations.
Robertson's Auto Body, Boise, Idaho. This State-
committed site has been assessed $12,000 in
penalties. DEQ has been unwavering in the attempt
to recover the penalties in the wake of two bank-
ruptcy proceedings and has recovered $5,000 so
far.
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL),
Idaho Falls, Idaho. An agreement was reached
with this federal facility to bring it into compliance
with state regulations for land application of waste-
water.
Nelson-Ricks Creamery, Rexburg, Idaho. This
facility was cited by DEQ for failure to submit
monitoring results as required in their permit for land
application of wastewater. The facility has signed a
consent order which provides stipulated penalties
for any future failure to provide monitoring data.
Amalgamated Sugar, Nampa, Idaho. After extensive
negotiations, an agreement was forged between
DEQ and this sugar beet processor to conduct
extensive testing of their air emissions for a variety
of toxic air pollutants.
Lignetics of Idaho, Sand Point, Idaho. This wood
pellet manufacturing facility has agreed to pay a
penalty of $23,400 for willfully violating its air permit.
-------
State Summary
State of Oregon
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) continues to significantly increase the number
of formal enforcement actions initiated under its
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 have recently undergone
further refinement to improve their enforceability and
consistency. Greater emphasis is given to offsetting
economic gain, and some violations result in manda-
tory penalties.
The tremendous increase in enforcement activities
by the Oregon State Health Division (from 42 in FY91
to 273 in FY93) reflects major new program initiatives
involving implementation of new regulations and public
water systems that no longer meet new drinking water
standards or new treatment requirements.
ODEQ, the Oregon Attorney General's Office and
the Oregon State Police are co-sponsoring environ-
mental crimes legislation to present to the 1993
Oregon Legislature. In September 1992, ODEQ's
Director and the Attorney General appointed a five-
member task force to review existing criminal authority
for violations of the environmental laws, and create
legislation to address any inadequacies in that author-
ity. The task force drafted the Environmental Crimes
Act of 1993 which contains felony authority for inten-
Figure 3
State Summary
Oregon
500
tional or knowing violations of certain air, water and
hazardous waste laws. ODEQ is committed to work-
ing with legislators, law enforcement agencies, district
attorneys, cities and counties and other affected
parties to create appropriate and effective environmen-
tal crimes laws and a program to enforce the criminal
authority in Oregon.
ODEQ is developing a methodology for incorporat-
ing cross-media risk assessment considerations into
agency programs which traditionally have focused on
single-media concerns in air pollution, water pollution,
or waste management. The methodology is a com-
parative risk model which calculates a Human Risk
Index and an Ecological Risk Index based on chemical
discharge data from a facility. One application of the
methodology will be multi-media enforcement target-
ing, where overall risks posed by discharges from
facilities in a geographic area will be ranked. Other
applications include the evaluation of pollution preven-
tion alternatives, and the evaluation of potential cross-
media transfers of pollutants from permitted facilities.
ODEQ will use the methodology to foster a more
holistic, cross-media approach to enforcement.
Table 4
Oregon Enforcement Actions
Administrative Orders Only
Program FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
Air 3 5 43 60 64 70
*Water 21 17 40 57 113 383
Hazardous Waste 5 12 15 21 35 61
* Includes Drinking Water Program operated by the Oregon State
Health Division
400
300
200
100
FY87
FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
Air Water* Hazardous Waste
FY92
* Includes Public Water Supply System program
in Oregon Department of Health
6
-------
State of Oregon
Case Summary
State of Oregon v Mark Keister. In the first case in
which the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality has obtained a criminal search warrant,
investigated possible criminal activity and referred
hazardous waste violations to a District Attorney for
criminal prosecution, Mark Keister was tried in
Clackamas County District Court on May 26,1992,
found guilty of four environmental crimes, and
sentenced to spend 72 hours in jail, 36 months on
probation, and to pay a total of $15,000 in fines.
State Summary
State of Washington
Since the creation of the Washington State Depart-
ment of Ecology (Ecology) in 1970 the number and
types of industries in the state, and the population as a
whole, have grown significantly. During this same
period the number and complexity of environmental
impacts has increased. As a result the number and
complexity of environmental regulations has also
increased.
Ecology stresses both in policy and practice the
importance of providing an opportunity for the regu-
lated community to voluntarily comply with environ-
mental laws, and has dedicated resources to environ-
mental education for the regulated community. Never-
theless, when voluntary compliance can not be
achieved, the agency can use formal enforcement to
"generate compliance."
Figure 4
State of Washington Enforcement Actions
Orders Only
180
Tables
Washington Enforcement Actions
Administrative Orders
Program FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
Air 25 35 59 43 47 35
Water* 81 80 139 131 144 161
Hazardous
Waste 25 29 19 41 46 31
Civil Referrals
Program FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
Air 0 0 4 0 0 0
Water* 11 8 6 4 0 0
Hazardous
Waste 001001
* Includes Public Water Supply System program in Washington
Department of Health
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FY87
FY88 FY89 FY90
Air Water Haz. Waste
FY91
FY92
-------
State ofWashington
Case Summary
Weyerhaeuser Company, Cosmopoiis,
Washington. In response to odor complaints from
local residents, Ecology conducted several inspec-
tions at Weyerhaeuser's Cosmopoiis, Washington,
pulp and paper facility over the five-month period
beginning in May 1991. Ecology's inspections
determined that the odor was caused by the release
of hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans resulting from
Weyerhaeuser's dredging of sludges from its
wastewater treatment ponds and depositing the
sludges on a dredge spoils area. Weyerhaeuser
and the State of Washington Department of Ecology
reached a settlement wherein it was agreed that
Weyerhaeuser would reinstall aerators at the
wastewater treatment ponds to prevent develop-
ment of the odors and submit an operating and
closure plan for the ponds. It was also agreed that
payments and donations made under the settlement
will not be treated as ordinary business expenses or
charitable contributions for tax purposes.
-------
RegionalSummary
Enforcement Actions in All Programs
In Fiscal Year 1992 (FY92) Region 10 referred a
record number of civil cases to the Department of
Justice and conducted a record number of multi-media
inspections. The Region also actively participated in the
various enforcement activities which together form a
major agency initiative.
Region 10's multi-media targeting process was
further refined. In particular, states' involvement in the
targeting process became stronger. Region 10
remains thoroughly committed to ongoing improvement
in state/EPA relations and coordination in enforcement
decision-making.
Regulations implementing the 1990 amendments to
the Clean Air Act (CAA) gave EPA authority to issue
administrative penalty complaints in March 1992. The
Region 10 air program distinguished itself by leading
the nation in the number of complaints issued this first
year (17).
Pollution prevention is another EPA national initia-
tive in which Region 10 is actively involved. We
believe that including Supplemental Environmental
Projects in enforcement settlement agreements fulfills
the aim of pollution prevention by requiring facilities to
install equipment or adopt procedures which prevent
pollution before it occurs, rather than continuously
Figure 5
All Programs Enforcement Actions
EPA Region 10
250
trying to clean up damage caused by pollution after the
fact.
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 com-
promise the environment. These actions include a
substantial number of orders requiring corrective action
(the initiation of site cleanup or remediation) by facili-
ties, or requiring Supplemental Environmental Projects
which provide for benefits beyond what is required by
the regulations.
Additional highlights of EPA Region 10 enforcement
programs and actions, grouped according to underly-
ing federal legislation, are presented in the following
pages.
Table 6
EPA Region 10
All Programs' Enforcement Actions
Action Type FYM FYSS FY86 FY»? FYM FY89 FYSO FY9i
NOVs/NONCs 178 175 136 146 124 225 90 199 223
108 135 238 160 171 196 199 188 134
12 18 22 14 14 12 15 21 25
567568768
Admin. Orders
Civil Referrals
Criminal Referrals
200
150
100
50
A
A
/..A
"V
/ N
*«
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87
NOVs/NONCs
FY88 FY89 FY90
Admin. Orders
FY91
FY92
Civil Referrals Criminal Referrals
-------
RegionalSummary
Clean Air Act (CAA)
Fiscal Year 1992 was the most active year for air
programs enforcement Region 10 has had to date.
EPA had authority to issue administrative penalty
complaints beginning in March 1992. Region 10
issued the first three administrative penalty complaints
in the nation on March 19,1992, and led all other
Regions in number of cases filed (14) in the national
administrative case initiative on May 20,1992. Region
10 issued a total of 17 administrative penalty com-
plaints in FY92. The Region also settled six of these
administrative cases in FY92, one of which was the
first national settlement to contain a Supplemental
Environmental Project, worth over $1,000,000.
Six of the administrative cases cited oil refineries for
failing to install and calibrate continuous emission
monitors for hydrogen sulfide. Six more cases in-
volved opacity violations at sawmills in northern Idaho.
These cases were developed as part of an on-going
project Region 10 undertook in FY91 to evaluate the
effectiveness of the state's rules in controlling emis-
sions of inhalable particulate matter, which focused on
the wood products industry in the Idaho Panhandle.
The remaining five cases involved violations of the
asbestos regulations in Alaska and Idaho. (These two
states are not delegated authority to implement and
enforce the Asbestos NESHAP Program.)
Region 10's air program also referred four cases to
the Department of Justice for civil enforcement in
1992. In keeping with the priority to develop multi-
media cases, two of the judicial cases referred con-
tained violations in more than one medium. Region 10
also settled a number of cases involving asbestos
NESHAP violations, including three cases in Idaho,
two cases in Alaska, and one case in Washington.
Table?
CAA Enforcement Actions
Action Type FYM FYSS FYSS FYS? FYSB FYSS FYSO FY91 FY92
NOVs 7 9 3 10 2 2 2 11 11
Orders 5 12 11 3 4 23 5 10 14
Administrative
Complaints* »***« * * ^
Referrals 143337664
* Not issued prior to FY92
Figure 6
Clean Air Act Enforcement Actions
NOVs, Orders, Complaints and Referrals
25
20
15
10
FYM FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90
NOVs Orders 'Complaints Referrals
FY91
FY92
* Not issued prior to FY92
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
12 administrative orders, of which two were unilateral
orders, amended two existing orders, referred five
cases to Headquarters and/or the Department of
Justice, and negotiated Interagency Agreements for
cleanup of four federal facility Superfund sites during
fiscal year 1992.
EPA Region 10 was the first in the nation to negoti-
ate and sign a CERCLA 120 (e)(6) RI/FS consent
order for a federally-owned facility.
Tabled
CERCLA Orders and Referrals
Action Type FYM FYBS FYSS nn FYSS pvas FYSO FYSI FY92
Orders 8 9 6 7 20 6 12 14 12
Referrals 0 1 2 1 7 4 8 10 9
Figure 7
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Orders and Referrals
25
20
15
10
FY84
FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89
Orders Referrals
FY90
FY91
FY92
11
-------
Regionalbummary
Clean Water Act (CWA)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
is expected to increase, and there will be continued
geographic targeting for inspections and enforcement
as well as increased pretreatment oversight and
enforcement.
Section 309(g) Administrative Penalty Actions,
issued in conjunction with Section 309(a) Compliance
orders, continued to be the primary enforcement tools
used by NPDES. FY92 also saw one noteworthy
settlement in a previously-referred civil case:
Tillamook County Creamery. The Supplemental
Environmental Project required as a term of settlement
in Tillamook was significant (see case summary).
In FY93 the branch will be embarking on implemen-
tation of the Watershed Permitting approach, the use
of Supplemental Environmental Projects in settlements
Table 9
NPDES Enforcement Actions
Action Type
Orders
Administrative
Penalties
Referrals
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
18 22 60 14 43 35 38 42 15
0
8
0
12
0
14
0
3
14 21
3 0
14 42 20
1 3 3
Figure 8
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Orders, Administrative Penalties and Referrals
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
FY84
FY85
FY86
FY87
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
FY92
_. . Admin. Penalties
Orders (Complaints) Referrals
12
-------
RegionalSummary
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 404, Wetlands Enforcement
The EPA Region 10 Wetlands enforcement program
maintained a steady presence in 1992, in spite of
reductions in staff. The Region continued its emphasis
on voluntary compliance wherever appropriate, as the
most efficient and environmentally beneficial way of
resolving enforcement cases.
The Department of Justice filed a consent decree
with the U.S. District Court in western Oregon to settle
a contentious Wetland case in the Tualatin River
basin. Regional staff continue to meet with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers on a regular basis to deter-
mine the most effective way to handle the universe of
cases (several hundred unauthorized fills in the
Region).
Figure 9
Clean Water Act Section 404 Wetlands
Orders and Referrals
20
In the coming year the Region will strive to focus its
limited resources on those cases which will produce
the most environmental benefit for the effort.
Table 10
Wetlands Enforcement Actions
Action Type FYM FYSS pvse FY87 FYBS FYSS FYOO FY91 FYSZ
Orders 0 4 14 7 7 8 16 10 7
Referrals 21 1401000
15
10
0
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
Orders Referrals
13
-------
RegionalSummaiy
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
In FY92 Region 10 took 67 FIFRA enforcement
actions: 18 civil complaints for penalty; five stop sale,
use, or removal orders; and 44 warning letters.
In FY92 the program made a special effort to
enforce pesticide requirements for grain and hay
fumigation. Grain and hay fumigation have been a
major source of pesticide complaints in Region 10 for a
number of years. Failure to carefully follow label
directions can result in severe injury and death to
fumigators, grain inspectors and other workers. Four
civil complaints were issued, with penalties ranging
from $90,000 to $2,395,000, alleging illegal use of the
fumigant aluminum phosphide, a restricted use pesti-
cide. In addition a joint field operation was conducted
with the Oregon Department of Agriculture and the
U.S. Department of Transportation, in which grain
trucks were stopped and inspected as they arrived at
the Portland, Oregon, rail terminal.
Figure 10
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
NONCs and Administrative Complaints
100
The Region 10 FIFRA program was very active in
providing training to state inspectors, and in conducting
EPA inspections. We conducted a three-day course
for inspectors, and a number of training inspections.
Over 30 EPA inspections were conducted by EPA
inspectors.
Table 11
FIFRA Enforcement Actions
Action Type FYM FYSS FYBS FYS? FYSS FYSS FY90 FY91 FY92
NONCs 38 87 16 30 47 17 21 23 44
Complaints 22 10 24 14 8 8 10 7 18
'Orders ******** 15
* Office of Enforcement did not count Orders prior to FY92.
80
60
40
20
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
NONCs Administrative Complaints 'Orders
* Not counted prior to FY92
14
-------
RegionalSummary
Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA)
During FY92 the Region 10 RCRA enforcement
program continued to implement the new RCRA
penalty policy which became effective in November
1990. In FY92, the average penalty per administrative
complaint was $552,540 based on seven penalty
actions, compared to an average of $207,000 in FY91
and $53,000 in FY90. The Region is seeking one
penalty of over $1.8 million, its highest administrative
RCRA penalty to date. It also collected a $334,325
penalty during FY92, one of the largest RCRA penal-
ties ever collected in the Region.
The Region 10 RCRA compliance program and the
State of Washington were major participants in the
RCRA hazardous waste "illegal operators" enforce-
ment initiative. Nationwide, on February 4,1992, EPA
and the states together issued more than 45 civil
enforcement actions, seeking over $20 million in
penalties, against handlers who illegally stored,
treated, or disposed of hazardous waste. As part of
the nationwide initiative, the Region 10 RCRA enforce-
ment program issued three administrative complaints
and referred one case to the Department of Justice
(DOJ).
In addition to the civil actions, the Region included
two criminal enforcement actions as part of the initia-
tive. On January 21,1992, the Panama Machinery
Company and three company officers pled guilty to the
illegal storage, transportation and disposal of hundreds
of drums of paint waste. On January 17,1992, Ronald
William Meyers, President and Chief Executive Officer
of Sutherlin Industries, Inc., pled guilty to charges of
illegal storage of ignitable waste at an unpermitted
facility in Sutherlin, Oregon.
Figure 11
Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA)
NOVs, Complaints, 'Orders and Referrals
These civil and criminal actions received extensive
press coverage in Alaska, Oregon and Washington,
highlighting the need for hazardous waste operators to
comply with hazardous waste disposal and permit
requirements.
In addition to participating in the RCRA "illegal
operators" initiative, the RCRA compliance program
continued to participate in the many different national
multi-media enforcement initiatives. The RCRA
program referred two cases this year to DOJ under the
nationwide initiatives and issued administrative actions
under the primary metals and pulp & paper initiatives.
Administrative complaints were issued against
Reynolds Metals in Longview, Washington for
$295,625 and Port Townsend Paper Company for
$42,000. The RCRA enforcement program continued
to pursue settlement on two actions filed last fiscal
year in Federal District Court under the national lead
initiative (Environmental Pacific Corporation in Amity,
Oregon and Alaska Pulp Corporation, Rowan Bay,
Alaska) and continued work on two administrative
actions issued the previous year under the national
pulp and paper initiative (Weyerhaeuser, Longview,
Washington, and Alaska Pulp Corporation, Sitka,
Alaska).
Table 12
RCRA Enforcement Actions
Action Type FYM FYSS FYBS FYB? FYBS FYSS FYM
FY92
NOVs 26 36 5 12 26 17 3 7 6
Complaints 7 14 10 11 14 12 16 10 9
*Orders 20 14 20 21 29 22 7 16 7
Referrals 000210034
* Includes Corrective Actions
FY91
FY84 FYSS FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
NOVs Complaints *Admin. Orders Referrals
Includes Corrective Actions
15
-------
Regional Summary
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
The Drinking Water Programs Branch in Region 10
continued to progress in its compliance and enforce-
ment program in FY92. The Region and states met or
surpassed the commitments made for the year regard-
ing the number of noncomplying public water systems
addressed either through issuance of appropriate
enforcement actions and agreements, or by the
systems' returning to compliance. Region 10 issued a
total of 159 federal enforcement actions (including
notices of violation, and proposed and final administra-
tive orders), up from 134 in FY91 and 64 in FY90.
Table 13
SDWA Enforcement Actions
Action Type
NOVs
'Final Orders
Administrative
Penalties
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
4 6 0 6 11 19 24 89 93
12 5 1 2 5 6 13 24 36
1
1
* Orders lor FY84 and FY85 are Compliance Agreements; no
Administrative Order authority existed prior to FY86.
** Administrative Penalties are issued under SDWA only when
the conditions of an Administrative Order are violated. Prior to
FY89 there were no violations which triggered the issuance of
Administrative Penalties.
Figure 12
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
NOVs, Final Orders and Administrative Penalties
100
80
60
40
20
FY84
FY85
FY86
FY87
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
NOVs Final Orders Admin. Penalties
O
16
-------
RegionalSummary
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Regional TSCA enforcement consists primarily of
activities under the PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyl)
Program and the AH ERA (Asbestos Hazard Emer-
gency Response Act) Program. Violation of the PCB
regulations typically involve recordkeeping, marking,
notification, improper disposal, failure to manifest
shipments, failure to inspect equipment, etc. Viola-
tions of the AHERA regulations typically focus on
failure by school districts to follow and update plans for
in-place management of asbestos.
The PCB program under TSCA currently accounts
for almost all of the TSCA enforcement activity involv-
ing complaints and penalties. During FY92, proposed
penalty amounts for individual PCB complaints ranged
from $13,000 to over $200,000. In settlement discus-
sions, Region 10 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 by EPA as beneficial
and are agreed to by the facility, a partial credit is
provided by EPA in mitigation of a portion of the
assessed penalty.
Table 14
TSCA Enforcement Actions
Action Type
NONCs
Administrative
Complaints
*CAFOs
Referrals 002
* Includes Settlement Agreements
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
103 37 112 94 38 170 40 71 69
16 45 92 81
41
41
0
59
48
0
49 27 11
51 48 15
0 1 1
Figure 13
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Enforcement Actions
200
150
100
50
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
*CAFOs
NONCs Admin. Complaints *Not counted prior to FY88
FY92
17
-------
RegionalSummaiy
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA):
Toxic Release Inventory Program
ment 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. The Region 10 EPCRA program entered into
12 settlement agreements with such terms in FY92.
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 releases-routine and acciden-
tal-of certain chemicals. Such facilities are inspected
to see if they are reporting as required and doing so
correctly and accurately.
Penalty amounts in the EPCRA-TRI program are
proportional to number of chemicals and years of
failure to report. Thus, as the program goes into its
fifth 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, EPA also utilizes the settle-
Table 15
EPCRA Enforcement Actions
(Program began in FY89)
Action Type FY89 FY90 FY91
Administrative
Complaints 17 30
*CAFOs 8 24
Referrals 0 0
* Includes Settlement Agreements
22
18
0
FY92
11
20
0
Figure 14
Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
Enforcement Actions
35
30
25
20
15
10
FY89
FY90 FY91
Admin.Orders (CAFOs)
FY92
Complaints
Settlement Agreements
(Program began in FY89)
18
-------
RegionalSummary
Underground Storage Tanks (UST)
FY 92 was a landmark year for Region 10 EPA UST
enforcement. The Region issued its first civil complaint,
with multiple alleged violations ranging from failure to
provide leak detection for, and notification of, existing
tanks, to inadequate followup of a suspected release,
for which the proposed penalty totalled $368,244.
Fourteen requests for information were sent to facilities
in FY92 after state, local governments, or citizen
involvement made EPA aware that a potential problem
existed. The responses to eight of these requests for
information have been used to help determine where
to expend further EPA resources to identify the extent
of a known contaminant plume in the source-rich
environment of Toppenish, Washington.
In addition to initiating formal enforcement mea-
sures within the Region, FY92 also increased informal
enforcement in the form of expedited compliance
orders and settlement agreements with penalties.
These "citations" have a fast environmental compli-
ance turnaround time, a top agency priority, while
providing an owner/operator with a method of solving
problems without expensive litigation. Over 150
inspections were conducted by EPA inspectors from
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington in FY92.
RegionalSummary
Criminal Investigation Division
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 imposition of substan-
tial fines. In addition, it carries the social stigma and
corporate embarrassment appropriate for environmen-
tal 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 FY92, Region 10 Criminal Investigation
Division exceeded all previous years in the categories
of indictments and convictions. Even though this CID
office 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 increased publicity efforts there
can be little doubt that criminal cases provide enlight-
enment for some and education for others, both of
which increase Regional compliance rates.
Figure 15
Criminal Investigation Division
Enforcement Activity
30
25
20
15
10
The Region 1 0 CID is in the fourth year of an investi-
gative task force with the State of Washington, which
benefits both state and federal programs. Thetaskforce
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 surveil-
lance, while both the state and EPA benefit from the
cooperative relations. During FY92, the FBI also joined
the environmental crimes taskforce.
Table 16
Criminal Investigation Division
Action Type FYM FYBS FYSS FYST FYSS pm FY90 FY91 FY92
Investigations 9 9 9 7 11 15 7 7 12
Subpoenas 121 184 130 113 158 192 76 100 181
Search Warrants 7 10 10 484536
Criminal Referrals 567
Indictments 16 4 22 4
Corporate 4171
68
19 7
Individual 123153134
Pleas or Verdicts 13 2 13 7 8 11 4
768
12 5 26
424
8 322
6 17
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92
Investigations Criminal Referrals Indictments Pleas/Verdicts
-------
Regional Summary
Criminal Case Highlights
United States vs. Northwest Etch Technology Inc.,
Tacoma, Washington. On September 23,1992 a
federal grand jury for the Western District of Washing-
ton returned a true bill against Northwest Etch Tech-
nology Inc. (NET), the corporation president, Carl
Leroy Whinery and the corporation chemist, Samuel
Edward Emery. The 13 count indictment charges the
corporation, Whinery, and Emery with one count of
conspiracy to violate the Clean Water Act in violation
of 18 USC § 371. The indictment further charges the
corporation, Whinery and Emery with 12 counts in
violation of the Clean Water Act, 33 USC § 1251, §§
1311(a),1319(c)(1)and1319(c)(2)(A). Carl Whinery
alone is charged with making false statements in the
course of obtaining federally guaranteed business
loans in violation of 18 USC § 1001.
This case was initiated when the EPA Region 10 CID
office received information that N ET, a photo chemi-
cal milling concern, was surreptitiously dumping
approximately 2500 gallons a day of heavy metal
laden wastewater into a storm drain located on their
premises. The allegation suggested the corporation
was conducting this activity in the very early morning
to avoid detection. The corporation was denied an
NPDES permit to discharge treated wastewaterto the
sanitary sewer system by the City of Tacoma prior to
moving to this facility in approximately October 1990.
The corporation later made false representations to
the City of Tacoma that NET would be utilizing a new
technology "closed loop wastewater recycling sys-
tenY'that would generate no wastewater, thereby
needing no permit.
Surveillance in this investigation established a
corporation employee discharging wastewaterfrom
the facility to a parking lot storm drain before day-
break using a PVC pipe apparatus. This storm drain
discharged directly into Puget Sound. The use of
nightvision photographic equipment led to obtaining a
search warrant in October 1991. The apparatus used
to facilitate the Clean Water Act violations was
located, as well as documents and interviews which
substantiated that approximately 1/2 million gallons of
wastewater monthly had been illegally discharged for
at least the last year.
United States vs. Pacific Aqua Tech Ltd.,
Toppenish, Washington. On September 15,1992,
a federal grand jury for the Judicial District of Eastern
Washington, returned a true bill relative to the indict-
ment of Gerhard Herman Zimm, Sr., his daughter
BrigitteZimm Punch, and Pacific Aqua Tech, Ltd. In
count one of the indictment Zimm, the president of the
corporation, Punch, and the corporation were each
charged with a conspiracy (18 USC § 371) to violate
the reporting requirements under CERCLA (42 USC §
9603(b)) and the work practices and operation
standards of the Clean Air Act, 42 USC §§ 7412(h)
and 7413(c). In count two the same three defendants
were charged with violation of applicable work
practice and operation standards as prescribed by the
Clean Air Act in violation of 42 USC §§ 7412 and
7413(c)(1). In count four Zimm, Punch, andthe
corporation were charged with the failure to report the
release of a hazardous substance in a reportable
quantity in violation of 42 USC § 9603. In count three
Zimm and the corporation were charged with a
knowing endangerment violation of the Clean Air Act
(42 USC §§ 7412 and 7413(c)(5)).
This case started in 1991 when EPA/CID received
information relative to the illegal removal and burial of
asbestos from an old U & I Sugar factory. The
activities were directed by Zimm and Punch acting on
behalf of Pacific Aqua Tech Ltd. In the course of the
investigation, it was discovered that Zimm and Punch
both participated in and directed the removal of
asbestos from Pacific Aqua Tech Limited's building
by unskilled laborers who were not certified asbestos
workers. In addition they both participated in and
directed the burial of large amounts of asbestos
insulation which were removed from the Pacific Aqua
Tech building in the course of scrap metal removal
operations from 1987 through spring of 1991. In
October1991, emergency response contractors
directed by the Superf und Branch of Region 10
supervised a cleanup operation at the facility which
resulted in the removal of approximately 110 tons of
asbestos contaminated material from a dry lagoon
behind the business.
20
-------
Regional Summary
Criminal Case Highlights
United States vs. Panama Machinery & Equipment
Co., Inc., Klickitat, Washington. On June 16,1992,
Panama Machinery & Equipment Co., Inc., Manney
Berman, Leonard Berman and Leon Berman were
sentenced in U.S. District Courtforthe Western
District of Washington pursuant to a plea bargain.
Each of the defendants had earlier pled guilty to three
counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 371 for conspiracy to
violate RCRA.
The charges were that they: 1) stored and disposed of
identified hazardous waste without a permit; 2)
transported, listed or identified hazardous waste
without a manifest; and 3) generated, stored, trans-
ported or disposed of hazardous waste and knowingly
failed to file an application or other document required
to be filed for purposes of compliance with RCRA.
Panama Machinery & Equipment Co. Inc. was
sentenced to five years' probation and ordered to pay
restitution to the government for emergency response
and cleanup expenses in the amount of approximately
$500,000. Manney Berman, corporate president and
primary owner, was sentenced to a one-yearterm of
imprisonment. Leonard Berman and Leon Berman,
corporate vice-presidents, were each sentenced to a
one-yearterm of imprisonment.
On January 16,1992, a federal grand jury in Seattle
returned a 10-count indictment against Merlin D.
Long, Terry D. Lingle, and David R. Riemanfor
violation of RCRA. The indictment alleged that
approximately 320 55-gallon drums and approxi-
mately 400 additional containers of hazardous waste
(ignitable paint and solvent wastes) were illegally
disposed of by the defendants at separate locations in
Washington and Oregon. On August 18,1992, the
three men were sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain.
Each of the defendants had earlier pleaded guilty to a
single count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 371 for conspir-
ing to transport and dispose of hazardous waste in
violation of RCRA. Long was sentenced to six
months incarceration and three years of supervised
release. Lingle and Rieman were each sentenced to
two months of incarceration, four months of work
release, and three years of supervised release. Each
defendant was assessed a $2,000 fine. Long and
Rieman were also ordered to obtain drug and alcohol
counseling during the period of supervised release.
The investigation began in mid-May 1991, when the
Washington State Department of Ecology discovered
approximately 292 55-gallon drums of hazardous
waste illegally disposed of in a rural pasture in
southeastern Washington. The EPA Region 10
Emergency Response Branch took responsibility for
the site cleanup.
Subsequent investigation by the Seattle CID office
identified the hazardous waste generator as Panama
Machinery & Equipment Co., Inc. (Panama), which
did business approximately 400 miles from the dump
site. Panama had never notified EPA or the State of
Washington as to its hazardous waste activity as
required by RCRA.
On June 20,1991, CID Special Agents served a
criminal search warrant at Panama. Evidence seized
during the warrant revealed that the president and two
vice-presidents of the corporation had received
advice and bids forthe legal disposal of the hazard-
ous wastef rom three different hazardous waste
consulting firms overthe years. These consultants
also advised the same corporate officials regarding
the RCRA regulations regarding notification, storage,
transportation, manifesting and disposal. Additional
evidence was seized showing that the corporation had
instead paid Terry Lingle and Merlin Long a combined
total of $38,660 to illegally dispose of the drums.
Payment was disguised as a capital expenditure
which could have provided the corporation with an
income tax advantage. The search warrant also
revealed that Mollala Transport Systems, Inc., of
Mollala, Oregon, had been used to transport the
drums from Everett, Washington, to the dump site.
Terry Lingle had leased vehicles from Mollala forthe
purpose of transporting the hazardous waste. David
Rieman had assisted Lingle and Long in the loading,
transportation and disposal of the drums.
On June 26,1991, CID Special Agents served a
criminal search warrant at Mollala Transport Sys-
tems, Inc. During the search a semi-truck-trailer with
an additional 28 55-gallon drums and approximately
400 other containers of hazardous waste were
discovered hidden at the facility. That trailer was
seized with the concurrence of the Region 10
Superf und Emergency Response team.
United States vs. John Hoyt Curtis, Adak, Alaska.
On May 26,1992, John Hoyt Curtis was sentenced in
U.S. District Court, Anchorage, Alaska, to ten months
in prison for violating the Clean Water Act by contami-
nating an inlet of the Bering Sea with jet-propulsion
fuel. Curtis was convicted on March 18,1992, in the
U.S. District Court of Anchorage, Alaska, of both
knowing and negligent violations of the Clean Water
Act.
Curtis, a civilian employee, was the Fuels Division
Directorforthe Naval Air Station, Adak, Alaska, in
late 1988 and early 1989. During that time Curtis
repeatedly ordered the pumping of jet fuel through a
pipeline he knew to be leaking. As a direct conse-
quence of his actions, hundreds of thousands of
gallons of fuel flowed into Sweeper Cove, an inlet of
the Bering Sea.
21
-------
RegionalSummaiy
Civil Case Highlights
In the Matter of Idaho Forest Industries, Inc. (CAA).
Idaho Forest Industries, Inc., operates several lumber
mills, one of which is located in downtown Coeur
d'Alene, Idaho. EPA issued an administrative com-
plaint which alleged that emissions from the hogged
fuel boiler at this facility exceeded the opacity stan-
dard in March and September 1991 and alleged
continuing violations underthe presumption of
continuing noncompliance of Section 113(e)(2) of the
Clean Air Act from September 1992 through August
1992.
I n a consent ag reement and consent order entered on
September 1,1992, the company agreed to an
assessed penalty of $67,752. One half of this amount
was deferred and ultimately suspended based on the
company's agreement to a Supplemental Environ-
mental Project involving installation of wet electro-
static precipitators on its facility in downtown Coeur
d'Alene and another of its facilities at a cost of
$500,000 each. Installation of the control equipment
is expected to bring the Coeur d'Alene facility into
compliance with the opacity standard and to reduce
particulate emissions from both facilities well below
state and federal standards.
United States vs. Washington State Department of
Transportation; McDonald's Corporation; and
James M. Pirie Construction, Inc. (CAA). On
August 26,1992, the United States filed a complaint
and partial consent decree in the District Court of the
Western District of Washington. EPA alleged that
defendants committed violations of the Clean Air Act
New Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollut-
ants (NESHAP) asbestos regulations during a 1987
demolition/renovation of afacility at the downtown
Seattle ferry dock prior to converting it to a
McDonald's fast food restaurant. The partial consent
decree requires McDonald's to pay a civil penalty of
$150,000. It also requires that McDonald's imple-
ment, at all applicable McDonald's franchises in
Region 10, an extensive internal asbestos control
program which includes inspection, sampling,
notification, and training requirements if its facilities
are renovated or demolished in the future.
McDonald's has indicated it will undertake the
asbestos control program on a national basis.
United States vs. Martech USA, Inc., Hobbs Indus-
tries, Inc., and Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
(CAA). A consent decree with Hobbs Industries, Inc.
and Chugach Electric Association, Inc., two of three
defendants, was entered in November 1991 by the
U.S. District Court in Anchorage, Alaska. The
complaint alleging Clean Air Act asbestos NESHAP
violations against Martech USA, Inc., Hobbs, and
Chugach Electric, all located in Anchorage, was filed
on June 26,1991. The complaint was based on EPA
inspections of an asbestos removal project in the Knik
Arm Power Plant located in Anchorage. The consent
decree required payment of a $50,000 dollar penalty
and adherencetodetailed procedures if either
Chugach Electric or Hobbs does additional asbestos
removal projects. The consent decree also provides
stipulated penalties for any violations of the consent
Q t?cr o u >
United States vs. James Walsh (CAA). On November
20,1991, after a full trial on the issues, Judge Zilly of
the U.S. District Court forthe Western District of
Washington held that James Walsh, the project
superintendentfor an asbestos abatement company,
was liable for asbestos NESHAP violations during
renovations at the Seattle-Tacoma Airport and Pier 52
on the Seattle waterfront. This decision is significant
because it is the first time a court has clearly stated
that an asbestos worker who has no ownership
interest in an asbestos abatement company is
personally liable for asbestos violations that he or she
causes. The violations alleged were discovered by
inspectors from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency. A complaint was filed in 1989 against
Savage Enterprises, James Walsh and James J.
Savage, owner of thefirm.forfailureto keep asbestos
wet until collected for disposal during the renovation
activities. Savage Enterprises and James Savage
had previously entered into a consent decree with the
United States in which Savage agreed to pay a
penalty of $5,000. The court assessed a penalty of
$3,500 against Walsh after finding that he had no
assets. Walsh has appealed this decision to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
United States vs. Jerry Goicoechea and W/W, Inc.
(CAA). On June 26,1992, a consent decree was
entered in which the District Court of Idaho ordered
the defendants, Jerry Goicoechea and W/W, Inc., to
pay a penalty of $ 10,000 for violations of the asbestos
NESHAP during a renovation in Boise, Idaho in 1987.
In the decree, the contractor, W/W Inc., was also
ordered to notify Region 10 of all future asbestos
NESHAP work, to assure that an asbestos survey of a
facility is done before work begins, and to provide for
asbestos training for its workers.
22
-------
RegionalSummary
Civil Case Highlights
United States vs. John Hepworth, John Lezamiz,
and Gaius Cunningham, dba C&C Salvage and
Demolition (CAA). On September 13,1992, the
District Court of Idaho entered a partial consent
decree in this case, in which defendant Cunningham
was ordered to pay a penalty of $5,000 for violations
of the asbestos NESHAPs during a demolition in Twin
Falls, Idaho, in 1988. In the decree Cunningham, the
contractor, was also ordered to notify Region 10 of all
future asbestos NESHAP work, to assure that an
asbestos survey of a facility is done before work
begins, and to provide for asbestos training for his
workers.
United States vs. Farm Bureau Insurance (CAA). In
a third case in the District Court of Idaho, the defen-
dant paid a penalty of $75,000 for asbestos N ESH AP
violations during renovation of a building in Pocatello,
Idaho, in May 1989. The complaint and consent
decree were filed simultaneously in February 1992.
United States vs. Wards Cove Packing Company
(CAA). The case against Wards Cove Packing
Company involved asbestos NESHAP violations
during the renovation of a seafood cannery and the
removal of asbestos insulation from retort cookers in
Excursion Inlet, Alaska in August 1987. In a consent
decree entered in December 1991, the defendant
agreed to pay a civil penalty of $60,000 and establish
an internal asbestos control program which requires
the inspection and sampling of facilities with asbestos
priorto demolition or renovation, designation of an
Asbestos Program Manager and asbestos training.
United States vs. Farwest Fisheries and Nelbro
Packing Company (CAA). Action involved asbestos
NESHAP violations during the renovation of a seafood
cannery in Egegik, Alaska and outside storage of the
retort cookers at Naknek, Alaska, and the subsequent
removal of asbestos insulation from the retorts from
July 1987 through April 1988. This case was re-
solved by entry of a consent decree with each of the
defendants in January 1992. The consent decree with
defendant Farwest provided for the payment of a
penalty of $28,000 and an internal asbestos control
program. The consent decree with defendant Nelbro
provided for payment of a penalty of $7,500 and an
internal asbestos control program. The required
internal asbestos control program parallels the
program undertaken by Wards Cove Packing Com-
pany described above.
In the Matter of Alaska Battery Enterprises
(CERCLA). On July 14,1992, EPA signed Region
10's first Administrative Order on Consent for a de
minimis settlement. At this Fairbanks, Alaska, site it
was decided that de minimis parties should have a
chance to settle with the government priorto selection
of the remedy. The 27 parties include both local
small businesses and large corporations, all of whom
sent batteries to the site when a recycling company
was operating there. EPA did a removal action at the
Alaska Battery site in 1988-89, and the money
recovered ($179,447) will be applied to costs. EPA is
continuing negotiations with the major parties at this
site for the balance of the costs; future cleanup
actions are yet to be determined.
United States vs. Bunker Limited Partnership
(CERCLA). When the Bunker Hill Mining Company,
an owner/operator at the Bunker Hill Superfund site in
Shoshone County, Idaho, filed for bankruptcy in
January 1991, EPA realized its rights to the
company's assets were in danger, and moved quickly
to prevent a similar situation with a related entity, the
Bunker Limited Partnership (BLP). First, the agency
filed CERCLA liens on BLP and all of its subsidiaries'
property within the boundaries of the 21 -mile site.
This not only prevented the company from selling its
assets, but also provided EPA with priority over BLP's
unsecured creditors once BLP filed for bankruptcy
(which it did that June). Second, EPA issued a
CERCLA Section 106 Unilateral Orderto BLP in
September 1991, specifying cleanup actions which
BLP was now required to undertake. As a result, EPA
now had a priority claim which BLP was required to
fund, andthe Bankruptcy Court ordered thetransferof
$2 million into an EPA Remediation Account.
After obtaining the $2 million, EPA continued to seek
administrative priority for the majority of BLP's
remaining assets, valued at over $10 million. Despite
the claims of other parties, EPA prevailed and on July
13,1992, the Bankruptcy Court ordered that at least
$13 million of BLP's assets be set aside for cleanup.
This action is unprecedented in the Region both for its
strategy and forthe amount recovered, and moves the
CERCLA cleanup strategy several steps closer to the
success contemplated by the Region's Coeur d'Alene
Initiative.
In the Matter of U.S. Defense Logistics Agency
(CERCLA). OnJuly24,1992, the U.S. Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA) signed a consent order with
EPA under which it agreed to conduct a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study forthe Arctic Surplus
site near Fairbanks, Alaska. DLA is the parent
agency of the Defense Reutilization and Marketing
Service, which arranged fortransport of contaminated
materials to the site, where they were salvaged. DLA
also conducted a removal action at Arctic Surplus in
1990 and financed a further removal in 1991. This is
one of the few sites in the country where a federal
agency has agreed to conduct response actions at a
privately-owned site.
23
-------
RegionalSummaiy
Civil Case Highlights
In the Matter of Tillamook County Creamery Asso-
ciation (NPDES). Tillamook County Creamery
Association (TCCA) is a cheese and dairy products
cooperative with approximately 200 members which
owns and operates a creamery near Tillamook,
Oregon. TCCA operates a wastewatertreatment
plant which treats process wastes from the creamery
and the cheese factory as well as sanitary wastes
from the visitors' center.
EPA conducted an inspection of TCCA, took waste-
water samples, observed TCCA's sampling proce-
dures and equipment, reviewed TCCA's wastewater
sampling records, and as a result of additional
information reported by TCCA, it found that TCCA
had violated numerous conditions of its permit.
The final settlement included a penalty of $240,000,
the largest Clean Water Act civil penalty ever as-
sessed in the state of Oregon; a Supplemental
Environmental Project (SEP) of $100,000, and
treatment plant improvements of $1.3 million. The
SEP has substantial environmental benefits: installa-
tion of fencing to keep dairy herds out of streams;
installing culverts under and cattle paths over water-
ways; and providing water tanks for livestock; all of
which will improve the integrity of the waters of
Tillamook Bay.
In the Matter of Donald G. Holsinger (Clean Water
Act, Wetlands). On September 28,1992 a final
order was issued to Donald G. Holsinger. The order
was the culmination of an enforcement action result-
ing from a violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, the unauthorized discharge of fill material to
waters of the United States (wetlands), following a
citizen complaintto the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers. The cleared and filled shrub-scrub wetlands
(18 acres) were part of a 20-acre parcel proposed for
development as an apartment complex in Clark
County, Washington.
Underthe terms of the order, the Respondent was
required to restore one half of the property (about 10
acres) and restore and enhance one half. The
restoration/enhancementworkinvolvedfill removal,
recontouring,reestablishment of drainage channels,
replanting with wetlands vegetation, and installation of
water-level control structures. Prompt enforcement
action in this case resulted in commencement of
restoration in the same growing season as the
violation occurred. As a result, the final order in-
cluded midcourse adjustments based on early
monitoring of results. These adjustments included
raising the water level and control of the invasive
Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass). Additional
monitoring is required over the next four years.
In the Matter of P. J. Taggares Co., Inc. (FIFRA). The
P. J. Taggares Co., Inc., of Othello, Washington, has
agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty to settle an adminis-
trative complaint issued underthe Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The
company has also agreed to develop an internal
pesticide safety and training plan for its employees.
P. J. Taggares Company owns a hay cubing facility in
Othello, Washington. During 1990, it was the practice
of this facility to have its truck drivers apply the
f umigant Phostoxin to truckloads of alfalfa cubes,
which were then hauled to the Ports of Seattle and
Tacoma. From May to October 1990, at least 368 of
these fumigant applications took place.
Phostoxin is a restricted use pesticide and must be
applied only by a certified applicators, or by trained
workers in the physical presence of a certified
applicator. At the time of these incidents, neither of
these requirements was met by Taggares employees.
The EPA complaint alleged 479 violations of FIFRA.
Additional violations included failure to placard
fumigated sites, failure to aerate containers before
moving them over public roads, and failure to aerate
fumigated areas priorto reentry by unprotected
workers. This case was referred to EPA by the
Washington State Department of Agriculture, which
had received a complaint from a Taggares employee
that he had become ill after handling the fumigant.
EPA believes that this case will emphasize the
seriousness with which it views worker protection
issues.
In the Matter of Washington Chemical, Inc. (RCRA).
A complaint was filed on February 4,1992, for the
corporation's alleged operation of an illegal hazardous
waste storage area adjacent to its permitted facility in
Spokane, Washington. Hazardous wastes, including
toxic characteristics, were stored for more than 90
days in this area, which should have had a permit or
interim status. A penalty of $626,425 is being sought.
In the Matter of Alaska Railroad Corporation
(RCRA). A complaint was filed on February 4,1992,
against the corporation for alleged storage of hazard-
ous wastes for greaterthan 619 days without a permit
or interim status. Twenty-five violations were docu-
mented and a penalty in the amount of $1.8 million
dollars is sought.
United States vs. Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Com-
pany (RCRA). The Alaska Department of Environ-
mental Conservation and EPA both inspected this
petroleum processing facility at Kenai, Alaska. A
complaint was filed alleging, among otherthings,
failure to inform authorities of a surface impoundment
used to manage hazardous waste petroleum sludqes
and failure to notify authorities of wastes containing
toxic levels of benzene entering the surface impound-
ments. A penalty of $980,794 is being sought along
with mjunctive relief requiring closure of its surface
impoundments.
24
-------
RegionalSummaiy
Civil Case Highlights
In the Matter of Boeing Commercial Airplane Com-
pany (RCRA). Settlement of a complaint alleging
failure to correctly manage and store hazardous
waste containers at its Everett, Washington, facility
was negotiated and a penalty paid in the amount of
$334,325, one of the largest RCRA penalties col-
lected in Region 10.
In the Matter of Sol-Pro-Alexander, Northwest
Processing, and Burlington Environmental
(RCRA). EPA executed three separate, interrelated
RCRA corrective action consent orders for four
properties with common groundwater problems
known as TSD Alley" in the Tacpma, Washington,
tidef lats. Each facility is sharing information from its
performance of RFI/CMS studies with the goal of
common groundwater remediation.
In the Matter of East Pioneer Water System (SOWA).
East Pioneer Water System, Puyallup, Washington,
had used an untreated and unprotected surface water
source for its drinking water since the turn of the
century, had historically failed to monitorfor water
quality, and the few times that it was sampled,
showedf ecal bacteria contamination. Repeated
efforts by the state to bring the unorganized water
users and operators into compliance were unsuc-
cessful. EPA issued an administrative order to all the
system's users in July 1992 requiring certain monitor-
ing and corrective action. Through a combined effort
by the community, Pierce County Community Assis-
tance, the City of Puyallup, the Washington Depart-
ment of Health and EPA, a water line from the City of
Puyallup has been extended to this rural area provid-
ing the majority of users of the East Pioneer system
access to safe drinking water.
In the Matter of City of St. Paul (SDWA). The Alaska
city had failed to properly sample for coliform bacte-
ria, inorganic chemicals, and radiological contami-
nants, and failed to notify persons served by the water
system of the violations. In February 1992 EPA
proposed to issue an administrative order. When
EPA issued the order in May 1992, the city had
already taken the inorganic sample and initiated
bacteria and radiological sampling. By June the city
had completed the public notice and the bacteria
sample siting plan. This plan is now used as an
example for other systems to follow. The city is
consistently taking bacteria samples and in October
1992 returned to compliance by taking its last radio-
logical sample.
25
In the Matter of Frank Nichols (Successor in Interest
to Washington Liquidators, Inc., a dissolved
corporation) (TSCA). The EPA Region 10 motion
fordefault against Frank Nichols, dba Washington
Liquidators, was granted by an Administrative Law
Judge on August 13,1992. Mr. Nichols operated a
scrap and salvage operation in Seattle, Washington.
An inspection in December 1988 documented numer-
ous violations of the PCB regulations involving
salvage of many types of electrical equipment. EPA
had proposed a penalty of $20,500 in the administra-
tive complaint. Mr. Nichols failed to file an answer to
the complaint, resulting in EPA's filing a motion for
default. A final order imposing civil penalties (the full
$20,500 sought) was issued on September2,1992,
subsequent to the granting of the default motion. The
penalty has been paid.
In the Matter of University of Washington (TSCA).
On January 6,1992, the University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington, wasf ined $52,488 forstorage,
marking, disposal, and use violations of the PCB
regulations. A portion of the penalty had been
reduced because the University had voluntarily
disclosed several of the violations priprto the inspec-
tion. In settling the complaint by the signing of a
consent agreement and consent order, the University
agreed to a cash penalty of $26,244, and, as a
Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP), received
mitigation of the remaining balance of $26,244 by
agreeing to spend at least $52,488 on the disposal of
PCB equipment not required by regulation.
In the Matter of Gunderson, Inc. (TSCA). Gunderson,
Inc., Portland, Oregon, is a large industrial facility
which produces stackable railcars. During an EPA
inspection, numerous violations of the PCB regula-
tions were documented involving use, marking,
recordkeeping, and disposal (i.e., leaking). Following
issuance of an administrative complaint, a consent
agreement and consent order was signed on October
10,1991, in which Gunderson, Inc., was fined
$72,377. The cash portion of the penalty was
$36,189; the remainderwas mitigated basedon
agreement by Gunderson, Inc., to dispose of all PCB
equipment still at its facility, and to spend at least
$72,377 in actual disposal costs as a Supplemental
Environmental Project (SEP). This settlement
should make Gunderson, Inc., PCB-free.
In the Matter of Ace Galvanizing (EPCRA). Ace
Galvanizing, Seattle, Washington, is a hotdipgalva-
nizer which was inspected and found to be in violation
of the Toxics Release Inventory for failure to report
(six counts). The facility was assessed a penalty of
$32,300, of which $19,000 was payable in cash, with
the remaining $13,300 mitigated in consideration of
the respondent's expenditure of more than $168,000
fora Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP).
This project involved installation of a new sulfuric acid
recovery system which reclaims and treats the acid
used at the facility, thereby reducing the amount of
acid required in the galvanizing process and reducing
acid wastes.
-------
Acknowledgements
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.
------- |