United States Pesticides And 22T-1002
Environmental Protection Toxic Substances January 1992
Agency (En-342)
Pollution Prevention Through
Compliance And Enforcement
A Review Of
OPTS Accomplishments
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Prepared by the
Office of Compliance Monitoring
Katherine A. Dawes, Project Manager
t$s&/
-------
Foreword
This report outlines the accomplishments that the Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances (OPTS) compliance program has had in expanding its pollution prevention
activities through settlement agreements. Over the past two to three years, the OPTS
compliance program has been pioneering the settlement of cases which have provisions that
require the use of pollution prevention and other innovative environmental management
techniques. These settlements allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to gain
environmental benefits which go beyond federal, state and local requirements, and to
promote a "pollution prevention ethic" among members of the regulated community. The
OPTS compliance program has accomplished this particularly through the enforcement of
cases under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as well as under other statutes such as the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This report represents the first
overview in what will be an ongoing effort of the OPTS program to collect and evaluate
these innovative settlement provisions.
As the national program office for the OPTS compliance program, the Office of
Compliance Monitoring (OCM) in OPTS has developed this report to: (1) identify the
accomplishments of the OPTS program in incorporating pollution prevention into actual
cases; (2) share information with all parties (including EPA Regions and Headquarters,
States, and the regulated community) about incorporating pollution prevention into settlement
agreements; and (3) discuss issues and next steps which need to be addressed to facilitate
greater use of pollution prevention methods in case settlements.
Section I presents a brief background of the relationship between the Agency's
pollution prevention initiative and the OPTS compliance program. Then Section n gives an
overview of OPTS actions through case descriptions of pollution prevention supplemental
environmental projects (SEPs) in cases settled during fiscal years 1990 and 1991. Section III
summarizes the issues facing the OPTS compliance program in expanding its pollution
prevention activities as identified by OPTS/Regional compliance staff. Finally, Section IV
outlines the potential next steps for the program to continue to advance pollution prevention.
This report was compiled by Katherine A. Dawes, an EPA Management Intern on
assignment in the OCM Immediate Office. Regional and Headquarters staff and managers
contributed the case descriptions.
Michael M. StahVDirector
Office of Compliance Monitoring
-i-
-------
Acronyms
AHERA Asbestos Hazard and Emergency Response Act
CAFO Consent Agreement and Final Order
DOJ Department of Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System
OCM Office of Compliance Monitoring
OE Office of Enforcement
OPTS Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PMN Premanufacture Notice
POTW Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
PPA Pollution Prevention Act
PPO Pollution Prevention Office
RUPs Restricted Use Pesticides
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
STARS Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
§ Section
-11-
-------
Table of Contents
Title Page
Section I
Background 1
Section n
OPTS Pollution Prevention Accomplishments: Advancing Pollution Prevention in Settlement
Agreements 5
Pollution Prevention SEPs: Case Descriptions by Regions
Region I 6
Region H 7
Region m 9
Region IV 11
Region V 11
Region VI 13
Region VH 14
Region VIII 14
Region IX 16
Region X 18
Headquarters 20
Section m
Advancing Pollution Prevention in the OPTS Compliance Program 23
Section IV
Next Steps- What Are They? 31
Appendix A
OPTS Accomplishments: Non-Pollution Prevention SEPs (Case Descriptions)
Pollution Reduction 1
Environmental Restoration 5
Environmental Auditing 9
Public Awareness 12
Other 15
Appendix B
Region I Multi-Media Checklist Pollution Prevention Survey
Appendix C
Region DC Supplemental Environmental Project Policy Summary and Matrix
-111-
-------
Section I
Background
In 1990, Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). This Act calls pollution
prevention a "national objective" and establishes a hierarchy of environmental management
priorities as national policy ."whereby (a) pollution should tie •prevented or reduced at the
source whenever feasible; (b) where pollution cannot be prevented it should be recycled in an
environmentally safe manner; (c) in the absence of feasible prevention and recycling
opportunities, pollution should be treated; and (d) disposal should be used only as a last
resort. The EPA, through the Pollution Prevention Office (PPO), formally announced EPA's
Pollution Prevention Strategy in February 1991. The strategy outlines the Agency's goals
for how pollution prevention will be incorporated into EPA's ongoing environmental
protection efforts. The overall goal of the strategy is to institutionalize a "pollution
prevention ethic" which will ensure that prevention becomes the preferred Agency approach
in confronting any environmental problem.
To promote the evolution of a greater pollution prevention ethic, the Office of
Enforcement (OE) has issued a policy statement which encourages compliance and
enforcement programs to use the settlement process to identify and implement pollution
prevention activities consistent with the Agency's overall enforcement approach. The
Agency recognizes that a continued strong regulatory and enforcement program is critical to
supporting its overall pollution prevention goals by preventing unreasonable risk through
compliance assistance, enforcement and outreach activities. Incorporating a pollution
prevention ethic within a compliance and enforcement program gives the Agency a powerful
tool to help regulated communities in their approach to voluntary compliance.
During the settlement process, the Agency's compliance and enforcement programs
have two basic avenues for promoting the pollution prevention ethic within the regulated
community. The first avenue is to use settlement conditions to require the
respondent/defendant to use pollution prevention methods to redress the original violation and
to achieve compliance. In the absence of statutory, regulatory, or permit language, members
of the regulated community are free to choose how they will comply. However, once a civil
or administrative action has been initiated, the specific means of returning to compliance are
subject to mutual agreement between the Agency and the respondent. Therefore, under the
mutual agreement process, the Agency can establish pollution prevention compliance methods
in place of more traditional end-of-pipe compliance methods used by industries.
-------
The second important avenue available is to include supplemental environmental
projects (SEPs), previously termed environmentally beneficial expenditures1, in settlement
agreements. As part of a settlement agreement, a respondent/defendant will agree to conduct
a project (or projects) which reduces risks posed to human health and the environment
beyond which would be required by law (federal, State, or local). Unlike the settlement
conditions described above, SEPs would not be designed to redress the original violations.
Successful implementation of the SEP serves to mitigate the size or gravity component of an
assessed penalty. -The voluntary and flexible nature of SEPs allow companies to explore any
number of options to both mitigate their penalties and benefit the environment- these options
may include traditional, or new and innovative pollution prevention methods.
OE recognizes the unique opportunities SEPs represent in promoting the pollution
prevention ethic. In February 1991, OE outlined the Agency SEP guidelines .in the
memorandum "Policy on the Use of Supplemental Enforcement Projects in EPA
Settlements."2 The memorandum outlines the types of projects which are appropriate for
SEPs. These categories reflect the hierarchy of environmental management priorities
outlined in the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act, and include pollution prevention projects, as
•well as what are considered pollution prevention-related projects (such as pollution reduction,
environmental restoration, environmental auditing, and public awareness). A summary of
SEP categories follows below:
Pollution Prevention Projects
Pollution prevention projects which substantially reduce or prevent the generation
or creation of pollutants through use reduction, or through the application of closed-loop
processes. For example, projects may change industrial processes, or substitute
different fuels or materials. Projects may also be considered pollution prevention when
they substantially reduce the discharge of generated pollutants through innovative
recycling technologies, but only if pollutants are kept out the environment in perpetuity.
1 In the past, the Agency has used several terms to describe substantive settlement conditions (i.e.
projects or activities) such as "alternative payments,* "mitigation projects,* and "environmentally beneficial
expenditures." The latest official term in this evolution is supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), although
environmentally beneficial expenditures or (EBEs), is still a term widely used throughout the Agency.
"Policy on the Use of Supplemental Enforcement Projects in EPA Settlements* (issued February 12,
1991), amends GM-22, "A Framework for Statute-Specific Approaches to Penalty Assessments: Implementing
EPA's Policy on Civil Penalties" (issued February 16, 1984), by replacing and superseding the section on
"Alternative Payments.*
-------
Pollution Reduction Projects
Pollution reduction projects go substantially beyond compliance with discharge
limitations to further reduce the amount of pollution that would otherwise be discharged
into the environment. For example, projects that reduce the discharge of pollutants
through more effective end-of-pipe or stack removal technologies; through improved
operation and maintenance; and through recycling of residuals at the end of the pipe.
Pollution reduction projects may also encompass an "accelerated compliance project."
Environmental Restoration Projects
Environmental restoration projects not only repair the damage done to the
environment because of the violation, but go beyond repair to enhance the environment
in the vicinity of the violating facility.
Environmental Auditing Projects
Environmental auditing projects require the defendant/respondent to undertake
additional auditing practices designed to correct deficiencies in existing management
and/or environmental practices. The audits would target practices that appear to be
contributing to recurring or potential violations at the violating facility or other facilities
owned and operated by the defendant/respondent.
Enforcement-Related Environmental Public Awareness Projects
Enforcement-related environmental public awareness projects include developing
publications, broadcasts, or seminars which underscore, for the regulated community,
the importance of complying with environmental laws to disseminate technical
information about the means of complying with environmental laws. For example,
projects which sponsor industry-wide seminars directly related to correcting widespread
or prevalent violations within an industry.
The OPTS compliance program has had a tradition of actions which have had a
significant impact in promoting the pollution prevention ethic- including actions prior to the
formal Agency pollution prevention initiative. For example, enforcement of TSCA,
particularly in the PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) program, has been successful in having
violators agree to undertake SEPs to reduce penalties. Projects have included a spectrum of
SEPs, including cleanup to higher standards than required under the regulations (i.e.
-------
environmental restoration), and expedited retirement and disposal of PCBs in use (i.e.
pollution reduction).
As in other Agency programs, the OPTS compliance program has actively pursued
integrating SEPs into its settlement agreements subsequent to the pollution prevention
initiative. These cases come under EPCRA, the FIFRA, and TSCA. In fiscal year 1991,
OPTS settled a total of 776 cases (332 under TSCA, 179 under EPCRA, and 265 under
FIFRA); and of these cases,- OPTS closed 168 cases with SEPs representing the full
hierarchy of environmental management (87 under TSCA, 65 under EPCRA, and 16 under
FIFRA). This report focuses mainly on the SEPs to which the definition of pollution
prevention, as established by the PPA and the pollution prevention strategy, can be applied.
Section n features examples of the pollution prevention SEPs which OPTS/Regional
compliance staff have developed and implemented in fiscal years 1990 and 1991. This report
also describes SEPs which represent the non-pollution prevention categories. Appendix A
features descriptions of cases with non-pollution prevention SEPs.
-------
Section II
OPTS Pollution Prevention Accomplishments: Advancing Pollution
Prevention in Settlement Agreements
This section features summaries of cases with pollution prevention SEPs. The
following case descriptions are based on information submitted by OCM and Regional
Toxics/Pesticides Enforcement staff. These SEPs represent "highlights" from cases settled in
fiscal years 1990 and 1991, and should not be considered a statistically representative sample
of the pollution prevention SEPs. The size and scope of these SEP agreements have a wide
range, such as project costs of $25,000 to the company to costs of over $500,000.
Certainly, these projects represent the OPTS program's ability to leverage enforcement
actions into significant environmental benefits. These benefits are both direct- (i.e., pounds
of toxic materials not generated as waste), and indirect (i.e., encouraging companies to
"think pollution prevention" in place of thinking end-of-pipe controls).
In addition to these projects, Regions and Headquarters have negotiated SEPs which fit
the non-pollution prevention categories in the environmental management hierarchy. These
projects, like the pollution prevention projects, also represent significant environmental
benefits. These benefits include: getting out information to the rest of industry related to
compliance and pollution prevention; increasing and improving assessments of chemical use
and disposal; bringing environmental benefits to communities which need technical
assistance. These SEPs have come under TSCA (especially for PCBs), the Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act (AHERA), EPCRA and FIFRA. The OPTS program continues to
recognize and embrace the contributions these SEPs make to the Agency's goal of reducing
risks to the environment and human health. [A description of cases with non-pollution
prevention SEPs is provided in Appendix A.]
-------
Pollution Prevention SEPs: Case Descriptions by EPA Region
Region I
Bakers
Balzers, Inc. of Hudson, New Hampshire agreed to pay a final penalty of $8,500 for
violation of EPCRA §313. The company manufactures high technology vacuum
equipment for film processing and cryogenic equipment of laboratory applications at
its Hudson facility. EPA's complaint alleged that the company failed to report its
emissions of freon-113 to EPA and the state of New Hampshire in calendar year
1987; it proposed a $17,000 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
prevention project which requires a process change and material substitution in
multiple facilities. It will replace freon-based cleaning systems in its Hudson, New
Hampshire and Fremont, California, facilities with a water-based system that will not
result in emissions of toxic chemicals into the environment. The project will cost
Balzers an estimated $56,000.
Seekonk Lace
Seekonk Lace Company of Harrington, Rhode Island agreed to pay a final penalty of
$15,000 for violation of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged that the company
failed to report is emissions of acetone to EPA and to the State of Rhode Island in
calendar year 1987; it proposed a $25,000 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company, which manufacturers lace, agreed
to undertake a pollution prevention project which requires a change in its industrial
process. It will eliminate its use of more than 250,000 pounds of acetone per year by
instituting a mechanical method to separate nylon and acetate threads. The project
cost Seekonk an estimated $95,000.
Madico, Inc.
Madico, Inc., of Woburn, Massachusetts agreed to pay a final penalty of $30,000 for
violation of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged that the company failed to report
its emissions of toluene and methyl ethyl ketone in calendar year 1987; it proposed a
penalty of $50,000.
-------
In addition to paying the penalty, the company, which primarily manufacturers
solar control window film, agreed to undertake a pollution prevention project
requiring a change in industrial process and material substitution. The project will
reduce Madico's use of toluene by 90% and methyl ethyl ketone by 50% by using
ultraviolet and infrared radiation to aid in the application of scratch-resistant coatings
to polyester film. The project will cost the company an estimated $49,000.
Markham
Markham Corp. of Keene, New Hampshire agreed to pay a final penalty of $33,000
for violations of PCB regulations. EPA's complaint alleged an unauthorized use of a
PCB transformer and failure to maintain adequate records; it proposed a penalty of
$76,000.
In addition to paying the penalty, Markham agreed to undertake a series of
environmental projects. The company agreed to remove a PCB transformer from its
facility (an environmental remediation project). It also agreed to conduct pollution
prevention projects which require closed-loop recycling and material substitution. It
planned to institute a cleaning solvent recovery system and to eliminate the use of
heavy metals in the pigments found in the ink used to label components that the
company manufactures. This company disposes of 20,000 gallons of methyl ethyl
ketone yearly, and the projects will reduce this by 75%. The company also uses
3,000 pounds of lead/cadmium pigment yearly which will be replaced with a non-
heavy metal substitute. These projects were estimated to have capital costs of
$175,000.
Region II
Fairfield Textiles Corporation
Fairfield Textiles Corporation of Fairfield, New Jersey, agreed to pay a final penalty
of $13,000 for violation of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged failure to report
for use of tetrachloroethylene in 1987 and 1988; it proposed a penalty of $34,000.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
prevention project which required a change in industrial process. The company
-------
purchased special washers and "tumblers" to be used in lieu of dry cleaning. This
equipment uses the tetrachloroethylene much more efficiently. For example, although
the facility's 1990 production is almost double that of 1985, the facility used 141,440
pounds of tetrachloroethylene, which is less than half the amount of
tetrachloroethylene it used in 1985 (332,000 pounds). The cost to the company for
the project was approximately $12,450,000. The SEP allowed the penalty to be
reduced by $6,500.
Northern Plastics
Northern Plastics Corporation agreed to pay a final penalty of $2,500 for violations of
EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged failure to report for acetone use during the
1987 reporting year. The proposed penalty was $17,000; however, Northern
demonstrated financial hardship, which allowed the penalty to be mitigated $5,000.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
prevention project which required a change in industrial process. The company
agreed to install an acetone recovery system which will substantially reduce its acetone
usage. It will also result in reducing emissions (pollution reduction). The cost to the
company for the project was $26,500. The SEP allowed the penalty to be reduced by
$1,250.
C. H. Thompson, Inc.
C.H. Thompson, Inc. agreed to pay a final penalty of $2,500 for violation of EPCRA
§313. EPA's complaint proposed a penalty of $5,000.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
prevention project requiring closed-looped recycling. It agreed to install a thinner
recycling unit to recapture toluene and methyl ethyl ketone. The installation of the
unit reduces the amount of thinner disposed of by approximately 80 gallons per
month. The cost of the SEP to the company was $4,995, and added to the cost of the
SEP there is a monthly maintenance fee of $259 bringing the total cost to $6,220 spent
in maintenance over the past two years. This is an on-going SEP with no specific
date of completion. The SEP allowed the penalty to be reduced by $1,250.
-------
Itran Corporation
Itran Corporation, agreed to pay a final penalty of $2,500 for violation of EPCRA
§313. EPA's complaint proposed a penalty of $5,000.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
prevention project which required material substitution. The company installed a
liquid rubber removal system which allowed partially substituted liquid nitrogen for
methylene chloride in their process. The cost of the project to the company was
$5,171. The SEP allowed the penalty to be mitigated by $2,500.
Region III
Murata Erie North America
Murata Erie North America of State College, Pennsylvania, agreed to pay a final
penalty of $30,500 for violations of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged a failure
to report during the reporting year of 1988; it proposed a penalty of $85,000.
In addition to paying a final penalty, Murata agreed to undertake two
environmental projects- a pollution reduction project which will reduce the discharge
of pollutants through more effective stack removal technologies, and a prevention
project which will reduce and replace pollutants through a change in industrial
processes and material substitution. The pollution reduction project is to install an
exhaust scrubber system on the facilities breakout ovens; this project will cost the
company $124,000 for a penalty reduction of $31,000. The pollution prevention
project will eliminate the use of freon as a drying agent in the plating of ceramic
capacitors by replacing it with water, and will replace the 1,1,1-trichloroethane, freon,
toluene and xylene used in the vapor degreasers and dip tanks for washing and
cleaning soldered parts with a water based solvent. This project will cost the
company $74,000 for a penalty reduction of $14,800.
-------
Johnson Matthey
Johnson Matthey of West Chester, Pennsylvania, agreed to pay a final penalty of
$11,000 for a violation of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged failure to report
during the reporting year of 1987; it proposed a penalty of $34,000.
In addition .to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a series of
pollution prevention projects which required material substitution and a change in
industrial process. The first project required replacing the degreaser in the fabricated
gauze production area, to reduce 1,1,1-trichloroethylene by 1200 pounds a year, a
10% reduction (cost to the company— $52,000). The second project required
upgrading cooling medium in still room to reduce 1,1,1,-trichloroethylene by 1200
pounds per year, a 10% reduction (cost to the company-- $8,000). The third project
required replacing acid stripping lines in the depleting operation, to reduce nitric acid
by 4000 pounds per year, 70% reduction (cost to the company- $14,000). Finally,
the fourth project required upgrading the wet scrubber in the acid room, to reduce
hydrochloric acid by 250 pounds per year, a 50% reduction (cost to the company-
$27,000).
Falls Manufacturing Company
Falls Manufacturing Company agreed to pay a final penalty of $12,000 for 3 counts
EPCRA §313 violations. EPA's complaint alleged failure to report during the
reporting year 1988; it proposed a penalty of $51,000.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
prevention project which required a change in industrial process. The company
modified of the washing and priming process, which would eliminate the use, and
therefore discharge, of xylene in the process of priming fabricated parts. The cost of
this modification to the company was $384,610. The SEP allowed the proposed
penalty to be mitigated by $39,000.
10
-------
Region IV
Note: At the time of print, Region IV had two major cases pending with settlement
agreements which included pollution prevention SEPs. One case was related
to a series of TSCA violations; the other case was related to a violation of
EPCRA §313. The settlement agreements had been agreed to in principle by
both EPA and the respondent/defendants.
The company responding to the TSCA violations has submitted a
proposal to conduct several environmental projects including pollution
prevention and pollution reduction. These projects would involve solvent
recycling (pollution prevention), and emission reductions of organic
materials (pollution reduction).
The company responding to the EPCRA §313 violation has agreed in
principle to undertake a series of environmental projects which would
include pollution reduction, environmental remediation and pollution
prevention. The environmental remediation project includes removal of a
underground tank and the construction of two above-ground waste storage
tanks with catch basins. The proposal also had projects which would involve
emission reductions (pollution reduction), and a change in industrial process
(pollution prevention).
Region V
Magnetec National Electric Coil
Magnetec National Electric Coil of Columbus, Ohio agreed to pay a final penalty
$9,500 penalty for a violation of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged failure to
report for three chemicals for one year during the reporting year 1988; it proposed a
penalty of $51,000 with a 15% reduction for attitude ($7,560).
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
prevention project which will eliminate the use of 12,000 pounds of 1,1,1-
trichloroethane per year. The project is to be completed within 200 days of signing
the CAFO. The cost to the company will be $95,850. The SEP allowed the proposed
penalty to be reduced by $34,350.
11
-------
Display Pack
Display Pack of Grand Rapids, Michigan agreed to pay a final penalty of $1,500 for a
violation of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged a reporting violation for one
chemical, for one year during the reporting year 1988; the proposed penalty was
$17,000 with a 15% reduction for attitude ($2,550).
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
prevention project which requires a change in industrial process and material
substitution. The project will eliminate the use of 56,000 pounds of methyl ethyl
ketone by replacing the methyl ethyl ketone-containing material with a water-based
coating. The project is required to be complete six months from the date of
settlement. The equipment cost to the company will be $313,500. The SEP allowed
the proposed penalty to be reduced by $12,950.
Andrew Corp.
Andrew Corp. of Orland Park, Illinois agreed to pay a final penalty of $15,000
for violations of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged a reporting violation for
four chemicals, for one year during the reporting year 1988; the proposed penalty was
$84,000, with a 10% reduction ($1,700) on one count because of circumstances of
use.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
prevention project which requires a material substitution. It will eliminate the annual
use of 52,000 pounds of 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 15,000 pounds of phosphoric acid,
by replacing the current cleaning fluids with water-based cleaners. The cost to the
company will be $190,693. The SEP allowed the proposed penalty to be mitigated by
$67,300.
12
-------
Region VI
International Extrusion
International extrusion of Waxahachie, Texas agreed to pay a final penalty of $10,000
for violations of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint proposed a penalty of $101,000.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a series of
environmental projects (pollution prevention and pollution reduction) which require a
changes in industrial process. The projects will lower the emissions of toxic
chemicals, reduce emissions to Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and
disposal to sanitary landfills. The company agreed to install and operate a caustic
regeneration unit to reduce the disposal of impure material (pollution reduction), the
facility will also be able to withdraw aluminum trihydrate as a saleable product
(pollution reduction—recycling) and reduce the consumption of sulfuric acid (pollution
-prevention). The equipment cost to the company exceeded $543,951 and will include
a reporting requirement on emissions for six months of operation and report on the
costs and progress on that time period. EPA allowed a penalty reduction of 90%
because the company is expending in excess of $303,000 on the SEP.
This case has provided the Region with a "guidance case" for structuring SEPs.
Xetel Corporation
Xetel Corporation of Austin, Texas agreed to pay a final penalty of $1,700 penalty for
violations of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint proposed a $17,000 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake an pollution
prevention project which requires a change in industrial process and material
substitution. The project will replace freon degreasers with a semi-aqueous system
that will greatly reduce the use of freon-113 at the facility. The company will install
the equipment within six months of the effective date of the CAFO, and will measure
and report on the effectiveness of the equipment and the consumption of freon for one
year after that. The cost to the company will be in excess of $45,900. EPA reduced
the proposed penalty by 90% because the company will expend in excess of $45,900
on the SEP.
13
-------
Region VII
Dico Inc.
Dico Inc. of Des Moines, Iowa agreed to pay a $12,000 for violations under EPCRA
§313. EPA's complaint alleged a failure to report the use of xylene during the
reporting year 1988; the proposed penalty was $18,300 with a 15% reduction for good
faith efforts to comply.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a series of
pollution prevention and pollution reduction projects as part of a company-wide effort
to reduce use of EPCRA §313 chemicals which will effect its four facilities located in
Iowa, Wisconsin, Georgia and Tennessee. The company agreed to reduce its use of
EPCRA chemicals by 50% by 12/31/90 and to continue to reformulate its paints until
it reached an additional 25% reduction in EPCRA chemicals by 3/1/91. The cost to
the company will be $76,000 and is to be completed within one year of the CAFO,
and reduce its annual EPCRA §313 chemical usage by at least 65,000 pounds. The
SEP will offset the proposed penalty by $6,300.
Region
EIMCO Process Equipment Co., Inc.
EIMCO Process Equipment Co., Inc. of the Great Salt Lake Region agreed to pay a
final penalty of $51,000 for violations of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged five
counts of failure to report as required during reporting years 1988 and 1989. The
proposed penalty was $85,000; the penalty was reduced because of good attitude on
the part of the respondent. One count has been tentatively dropped pending
experimental verification.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
prevention project which requires a change in industrial processes and material
substitution. It will purchase equipment which will reduce the need for volatile
solvents in painting operations. The company will completely remove the wet paint
spray booth and replace it with a dry paint spray booth. This will significantly reduce
the amount of toluene, xylene and other paint related solvents. The cost to the
company will be $52,600.
14
-------
This is a subsidiary of a large national company and there is the potential for
national impact in other subsidiary facilities. This particular case could be given
national attention to raise the awareness of metal processing and fabricating
companies of a technique to rescue the use of the above chemicals.
Fashion Cabinet Manufacturing Inc.
Fashion Cabinet Manufacturing Inc., located in the Great Salt Lake Region, agreed to
pay a final penalty of $89,250. EPA's complaint alleged six counts of failure to
report during the calendar years 1988 and 1989. The proposed penalty was $119,000;
the penalty was reduced because of good attitude on the part of the respondent. One
count has been tentatively dropped pending experimental verification.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
prevention project which required a change in industrial process. The company
agreed to purchase equipment which will reduce the need for volatile solvents in their
operations. The cost to the company will be $69,300 and is to be completed within
one year of the CAFO. This SEP will significantly reduce the amount of toluene,
methyl ethyl ketone and methyl isobutyl ketone purchased by the company.
This particular case could be given national attention which would make wood
finishing companies aware of a technique to reduce the use of the above chemicals.
Frontier Oil and Refining Company
Frontier Oil and Refining Company of Cheyenne, Wyoming agreed to pay a final
penalty of $15,000 for violation of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged one
count of failure to report during reporting year 1988. The proposed penalty was
$25,000; the penalty was reduced because of good attitude on the part of the
respondent. The chemical (aluminum oxide) was to be delisted which further reduced
the penalty by $6,250.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
prevention project which required closed-loop recycling. The company agreed to use
coker source reduction method to do internal recycling to minimize sulfur dioxide
emissions. This reduction is to be achieved by the recycling of part of the emission
gases. The cost to the company will be $30,000 and is to be completed in one year.
15
-------
Region IX
Crown Cork and Seal Corp.
Crown Cork and Seal Corp. agreed to pay a final penalty of $22,500 for violation of
EPCRA §313.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
prevention project which requires a change in industrial process. The company agreed
to install a regenerative thermal oxidizer system for incineration of volatile organic
compounds emitted from the facility, which is located in the Los Angeles basin.
The system will eliminate the facility's use of natural gas for volatile organic
compound combustion, thereby reducing NOx emission by an estimated ten tons per
year and reducing carbon monoxide emissions by an estimated six tons per year. The
estimated cost of this system is $810,000. On the basis of the facility's good faith in
negotiations and the project described above, the proposed penalty was reduced
approximately 70%.
Sun Land Beef Company
Sun Land Beef Company agreed to pay a final penalty of $32,000 for violations of
EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint proposed a penalty of $58,900.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a series of
environmental projects. One of these projects was a pollution prevention project,
which required the company to install an Evaporative Condenser and Ammonia
Compressor at a cost of approximately $88,952. This will reduce its ammonia usage
through use of the Evaporative Condenser and Ammonia Compressor. The proposed
penalty reduced by $26,900 because the company agreed to spend approximately
$230,000 on a series of SEPs.
Cypress Semiconductor Corp
Cypress Semiconductor Corp. agreed to pay a final penalty of $30,000 for violations
EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged failure report use of sodium sulfate for
calendar year 1987, and sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid for
calendar years 1987 and 1988; it proposed a $151,000 penalty.
16
-------
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to a series of pollution
prevention projects. Cypress has agreed to (a) reduce its use of acetone and isopropyl
alcohol by 30%, (b) reduce its use of sulfuric and nitric acids by 10%, (c) reduce its
wastewater discharge by 30%, (d) reduce its demand on the San Jose city water
supply by 30%, and (e) reduce its use of freon by 30%. The percentage reductions
are to be based in 1990 consumption and production levels. These projects will cost
Cypress an estimated $985,000. The SEP mitigated the proposed penalty from
$100,900 to $30,000.
Survival Systems International, Inc. (SSI)
Survival Systems International, Inc. (SSI) agreed to pay a final penalty of $59,500 for
violations of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged failure to report use of acetone
for calendar year 1987, 1988 and 1989; and for styrene for calendar years 1988 and
1989. The proposed penalty was $85,000.
In addition to paying the penalty, SSI agreed to undertake a pollution prevention
project requiring material substitution. First, SSI ran a 90-day pilot of the project as
its facility in Valley Center, California and was able to achieve a substantial reduction
in its acetone usage. Now, SSI uses a water-based emulsifier, containing no volatile
organic compounds, for cleaning, instead of acetone. Acetone is still used at the
facility for certain tasks, but in much smaller quantities. SSI has reduced its use of
acetone from over 20,000 Ibs per year to around 1,000 Ibs per year. In recognition of
SSI's successful efforts to substantially reduce its use of acetone, the proposed penalty
was mitigated by $25,500.
SSI has also agreed to maintain its present level of acetone usage (a 98%
reduction in its historic rate of use) at the Valley Center facility, for the next three
years. At its present rate of acetone use, SSI is not required to report under EPCRA
§313, therefore, the CAFO also requires SSI to submit annual reports on its acetone
usage to EPA, Region DC.
17
-------
Region X
Barmon Door
Barmon Door of Lake Stevens, Washington agreed to pay a final penalty of $6,375
for violation of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged three counts of failure to
report during reporting year 1990. The proposed penalty was $15,000; per
headquarters guidance, the counts in-the complaint were treated in settlement as "late
reporting" instead of Circumstance Level 1 "non reporting." This action reduced the
proposed penalty to $7,500. There was a 15% penalty reduction for cooperativeness
and prompt response to the inspection and complaint.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a series of
environmental projects. The company agreed to install a sophisticated dust control
system to reduce ambient levels of dust (pollution reduction); to install "high
output/low pressure" spray equipment which increases paint transfer efficiency and, in
• turn, reduces chemical use (pollution prevention). The cost to the company will be
$33,643. Reporting requirements include documentation of pollution prevention and
reductions of chemical use and release one year after the CAFO. The SEP allowed
for a 35% reduction in the penalty.
Tiz's Door Sales
Tiz's Door Sales of Everett, Washington agreed to pay a final penalty of $6,000 for
violation of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged nine counts of failure to report
during the calendar year 1990. The proposed penalty was $45,000; the penalty was
reduced because, with headquarters guidance, the counts in the complaint were treated
.in settlement as "late reporting" instead of Circumstance Level 1 "non reporting".
This action reduced the proposed penalty to $17,000. The respondent was given a
reduction of 15% for cooperativeness and prompt response to the inspection and
complaint.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake an
environmental project by installing doors and control systems for paint shop to contain
emissions; installation of new high volume/low pressure spray guns and pumps to
reduce chemical use. The cost to the company was $34,150 and was completed at the
time the CAFO was signed. These SEPs allowed deferral of 40% of the assessed
penalty.
18
-------
Coastal Manufacturing
Coastal manufacturing of Everett, Washington agreed to pay a final penalty of $3,825
penalty violation of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged two counts of failure to
report during the reporting year 1990. The proposed penalty was $10,000; the penalty
was reduced because, with headquarters guidance, the counts in the complaint were
treated in settlement as "late reporting" instead of Circumstance Level 1 "non
reporting". This action reduced the proposed penalty to $4,500. The penalty was
further reduced 15% for cooperativeness and prompt response to the inspection and
complaint.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake- a pollution
prevention project requiring a change in industrial processes. It will install a paint
bake oven and spray booth which allows the use of power coat and water based paints
which, in turn, reduces amount of solvent used. This company will report on
effectiveness of the installed project to be submitted four months following the CAFO.
The cost to the company will be $33,150. The SEP allowed a 35% reduction in the
penalty.
Micron Technology
Micron Technology located in the Boise, Idaho agreed to pay a final penalty of
$107,950 for violations of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged seven counts of
failure to report during the reporting year 1990. The proposed penalty was $35,000;
the penalty was reduced because, with headquarters guidance, the counts in the
complaint were treated in settlement as "late reporting" instead of Circumstance Level
J "non.reporting." This action reduced the proposed penalty to $21,000.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a series of
environmental projects including a pollution prevention project requiring closed-loop
recycling and a pollution reduction project. The project includes an acid recovery
system which reduces the use of sulfuric acid by at least 20,000 gallons/year and
reduces ammonium sulfate in waste water by at least 30%. Also a distillation system
will be installed to recover waste solvents that were previously discarded, reducing the
waste disposed by at least 6,000 gallons/year. For the pollution reduction project the
company will install a system to collect air emissions for destruction by incineration,
thereby reducing solvent emissions by at least 10,000 pounds/year. The cost to the
company will be $21,000. The respondent will complete the projects in exchange for
a 35% mitigation of the assessed penalty.
19
-------
Travis Pattern & Foundry
Travis Pattern & Foundry of Spokane, Washington agreed to pay a final penalty of
$55,250 violation of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged seven counts of failure
to report during the reporting year 1990. The proposed penalty was $119,000; the
penalty was reduced because, with headquarters guidance, the counts in the complaint
were treated in settlement as "late reporting'1 instead of Circumstance Level 1 "non
reporting." Two counts were withdrawn because of new information. This action
reduced the proposed penalty to $65,000. There was also a 15% penalty reduction for
cooperativeness and prompt response to the inspection and complaint.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake an
environmental project which will reduce use of solvents and paints, and related
emissions and reduce the quantity of waste generated. The company will install a
circulating water system to conserve water; install a compactor to reclaim cardboard;
convert a trichloroethylene vapor degreaser to a hot caustic tank, thereby eliminating
the use of a hazardous solvent. In addition to the above pollution prevention projects,
the company will create a full time position of Environmental Compliance Manager to
ensure compliance with all environmental regulations. The company is required to
report and document costs, and to give a description and evaluation of the completed
project within one year of the CAFO. The cost to the company will be $76,000.
Headquarters
Sherex Polymers, Inc.
Sherex Polymers Inc., of Lakeland, Florida agreed to pay a final penalty of $252,000
for violation of TSCA §5. EPA's complaint alleged failure to submit 83 PMNs to
EPA at least 90 days prior to manufacturing new chemical substances. The proposed
penalty was $840,000. The penalty was reduced by %0% and 15%, respectively, due
to the company's prompt self-confession and prompt response in mitigating the
violations.
In addition to paying the penalty, Sherex agreed to undertake a pollution
prevention project at its lakeland, Florida facility which requires a change in the
industrial process, and of which a result is closed-looped recycling. The project
20
-------
includes replacing the existing filtration and recycling system. Replacing the existing
filter system on a dimer fatty acid production unit results in waste reduction of at least
500,000 pounds of filter cake annually. It will also increase the recovery of reusable
fatty acid material by over 250,000 pounds annually (based on current production
volumes and laboratory studies of equipment). The cost to the company will exceed
$525,000. The SEP allowed a mitigation of the penalty by $42,000.
3-V Chemical Corporation
3-V Chemical Corp. agreed to pay a final penalty of $30,000 for a series of TSCA
violations. EPA's complaint alleged multiple occasions of importing a-chemical
substance in violation of TSCA §5 and §13, failure to submit a letter of intent to test a
substance as required by two separate §4 regulations; failure to supply a notice of
export under TSCA §12(b) for an export of a substance that was the subject of a
TSCA §4 rule. TSCA §5 and regulations promulgated thereunder require a person
intending to manufacture (includes import) a new chemical substance for commercial
purposes to submit to EPA a premanufacture notice (PMN) at least 90 days prior to
the first such manufacture. After self-disclosing these violations to EPA, the
respondent took all steps reasonably expected to mitigate and correct the violations.
EPA calculated a gravity based penalty of $150,000.
In addition to paying the penalty, 3-V has agreed to undertake a series of
environmental projects, including a pollution prevention and a pollution reduction
project. For the pollution prevention project, the company agreed to purchase and
install a closed-loop solvent recycling system that is intended to reduce by more than
50 percent its point-source emissions of an unregulated ozone depleting substance
(1,1,1-trichloroethane) and a probable human carcinogen (dichloromethane). For the
pollution reduction project, 3-V has agreed to implement a leak and detection program
for fugitive emissions of these two solvents, and will report annually on their pollution
prevention efforts.
General Electric Company
General Electric Company agreed to pay a $75,000 penalty for TSCA violations.
EPA's complaint proposed a $397,800 penalty.
In addition paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a series of
pollution prevention and pollution reduction projects. These projects are described
below.
21
-------
GEC agreed to install a Phenol Recovery System at its Burkville, Alabama
facility Bis-phenol A manufacturing plant in order to recover phenol from wastewater
and channel it back into the manufacturing process for reuse (closed-loop recycling).
Also, GEC agreed to use its best efforts to phase out the use of solvents containing
chlorinated materials (e.g, 1,1,1-trichloroethane) in the maintenance parts washers at
its Burkville, Alabama facility. Within 30 days after signing the Consent Agreement
and Final Order, and monthly thereafter until the phase out is complete, GEC report
to EPA on the phase out (material substitution). Also, GEC agreed to install at its
Burkville, Alabama facility, a Methylene Chloride Containment System on the rupture
discs which prevent over pressurization of the methylene chloride concentrator in
order to collect methylene chloride gas and channel it into a containment vessel for
recovery and reuse (closed-loop recycling). Finally, GEC agreed to install a vent
condenser cooler at its vent gas recovery rate by substituting chilled water for cooling
tower water used by the methylene chloride vent gas condenser (material substitution).
GEC agreed to install a wastewater effluent cooling system in the A Building
Resin Production facility at GEC's Washington, West Virginia facility, in order to
reduce acrylonitrile fugitive emissions from the wastewater treatment plan. GEC also
agreed to install and begin operating Latex Seal Water Strippers in Latex Buildings A
and B at GEC's Washington, West Virginia facility in order to reduce fugitive
emissions of 1,3-butadiene. Finally, GEC agreed to install a seal-less pump to
eliminate seal leaks of methylene chloride at its Burkville, Alabama facility. If the
seal less pump is effective in the judgment of GEC in eliminating seal leaks of
methylene chloride, the company will install and begin operating two additional seal-
less pumps. If the seal-less pump is not effective in the judgment of GEC in
eliminating seal leaks of methylene chloride, GEC agreed to evaluate the use of other
alternative seal-less pumps, and agreed that if none of the seal-less pumps evaluated
are effective, GEC will continue to use cartridge pumps.
22
-------
Section UI
Advancing Pollution Prevention in the OPTS Compliance Program:
A Discussion
This section is based on a series of brief interviews conducted by OCM Immediate
Office staff with OPTS/Regional compliance staff in Headquarters and"in the Regions. The
interviews explored issues that the OPTS compliance program faces when dealing with
pollution prevention. These issues include the definition of pollution prevention; the different
options available for pollution prevention allowed under the application of EPCRA, TSCA,
or FIFRA; the potential pollution prevention activities in settlements for multi-media or
cross-program cases; and the future strategic options available to the compliance program for
continuing or expanding its pollution prevention activities. These issues will eventually
become the focus of OPTS-specific policy and SEP guidance (this guidance is discussed in
more detail in Issue 2, below). The summary of issues below are based on analysis of these
interviews.
ISSUE 1
OPTS/Regional compliance staff use a relatively broad definition of pollution
prevention.
At this time, OPTS/Regional compliance staff use a relatively broad definition of
pollution prevention. In particular, compliance staff do not often draw distinctions between
what the Agency (through PPO and OE) defines as a pollution prevention project versus
other type of SEPs. Compliance staff feel that most projects of an environmental nature can
contribute directly or indirectly to pollution prevention, and therefore they label SEPs which
fit the definitions of pollution prevention-related projects (i.e. pollution reduction,
environmental restoration, environmental auditing, and public awareness) as "pollution
prevention projects."
The tendency of the compliance staff to use a broad definition of pollution prevention
projects can be traced to the following:
o compliance staff have not yet internalized the hierarchy of environmental management
projects which distinguishes pollution prevention from pollution prevention-related
projects, and they are inexperienced in applying strictly the SEP definitions as outlined
by OE;
23
-------
o many compliance staff perceive that definitions of pollution prevention vary greatly
throughout the Agency, from program to program, and from person to person.
OPTS needs to explore potential steps to promote understanding and acceptance of the
environmental management hierarchy among the OPTS/Regional compliance staff. For
example, future reporting of SEPs to the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) database3
can help familiarize staff with the distinctions between pollution prevention and other types
of SEP project*.—Another-reporting-venue will be the future use of-the-enforcement mini-
exchange of the Pollution Prevention Information Exchange System (PIES) pollution
prevention case/settlement worksheet developed by OE and PPO staff, in which Headquarters
and Regional offices will be asked to prepare for cases negotiated with a pollution prevention
settlement credits.
ISSUE 2
Compliance staff are concerned about issues related to the application of
appropriate "nexus" as outlined in the OE guidelines, and how this effects
the flexibility of the OPTS compliance program in developing SEPs.
OPTS/Regional compliance staff express a general concern that the OE guidelines as
outlined by OE in the memorandum, "Policy on the Use of Supplemental Enforcement
Projects in EPA Settlements," can limit their flexibility to include SEPs in settlements. The
question of appropriate "nexus" or the relationship between the nature of the violation and
the environmental benefits to be derived from the supplemental projects, lies at the center of
concern. The OE "nexus" policy states that "all supplemental projects must improve the
injured environment or reduce the total risk burden posed to public health or the environment
by the identified violations."
Compliance Staff identified several different levels of problems associated with the OE
guideline application of nexus. Firstly, they feel the guidelines do not fully reflect the
flexibility that the statutes of TSCA and EPCRA specifically provide. Secondly, Regional
compliance staff feel that the above restriction undermines their flexibility in taking
advantage of opportunities to develop creative and innovative SEPs which may not have a
direct relationship with the violations in question. They feel that the "nexus" requirement
reduces the Agency's potential for gaining environmental benefits outside of current
regulations. Thirdly, staff cite concerns with the OE requirement that SEPs have a link to
the facility involved in the violations, thus possibly eliminating potential pollution prevention
3 A Draft of FTTS Category Codes for Reporting SEPs (or EBEs) will soon be distributed for comment.
24
-------
projects which involve other facilities owned and operated by the respondents4.
The generic OE policy calls for the individual programs to develop media-specific
policies, and OPTS plans to take advantage of this directive. Earlier this year, the Assistant
Administrator of OPTS sent a memorandum to the Acting Assistant Administrator for OE,
expressing concern that the Agency-wide guidance needed to be tailored to fit the
enforcement programs in OPTS. She specifically expressed concern that the policy
unnecessarily restricts the use of SEPs in some instances and that the program's compliance
flexibility could be compromised by potentially excessive OE concurrence requirements. In
light of these concerns, OPTS is assembling a small advisory group with representatives from
OPTS, the Regions, and OE, which will develop new guidelines by the second quarter of
fiscal year 1992 that specifically reflect the mandates and pollution prevention goals of the
OPTS compliance program. These steps will serve to alleviate the concerns and uncertainties
expressed by Regional staff. However, under the current status of the OPTS policy on
SEPs, compliance staff in the field perceive that the relationship of the OPTS compliance
program to the OE guidelines remains largely unresolved, and that this has had an unintended
chilling effect on their SEP activity. Regional staff, in particular, feel strongly that OPTS
needs to respond as soon as possible to the OE guidelines with an official policy of its own.
ISSUE 3
Compliance Staff feel that the three statutory authorities ofFIFRA, TSCA
and EPCRA represent different potentials and strategic options for promoting
the pollution prevention ethic in an enforcement context, including
implementing SEPs.
FIFRA
OPTS/Regional compliance staff identify several issues particular to FIFRA, which limit
the potential for implementing pollution prevention SEPs, including:
4 This specifically reflects concerns surrounding the 'horizontal nexus" requirement when the SEP involves
either (a) relief for different media at a given facility or (b) relief for die same medium at different facilities.
The restrictions as outlined in the OE SEP policy memorandum raised concerns in OPTS about allowing SEPs
at multiple facilities outside of the geographic regions cited in the subject violation. Horizontal nexus does
allow for the same SEP to be conducted at multiple facilities. For clarification of the horizontal nexus policy
see the OE memorandum "Implementation of Policy on Supplemental Environmental Projects," (issued July
1991). Material belongs to:
Office of Toxic Substances Library ":rl
25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. TS-793
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-3944
-------
(1) the delegation of enforcement authority to the States5;
(2) the low fines under the current statue; and
(3) the small size of the operations which commit the violations.
For the OPTS compliance program, delegation of enforcement authority to the States
under FIFRA is the-major barrier to OPTS ability to advance a national agenda for
promoting pollution prevention in settlement cases under FIFRA. Compliance staff feel that
the main option for addressing this barrier lies in integrating pollution prevention goals into
the cooperative enforcement agreements the Agency has with States. This issue should be
considered in more depth by the OPTS and Regional senior managers in the upcoming OPTS
strategic dialogue.
Under those FIFRA cases settled by EPA, the traditional types of SEPs arranged have
been outreach, auditing, and training projects, as well as "accelerated compliance projects"
for which violators implement a statutory or regulatory requirement (federal, State or local)
•ahead of schedule. (The accelerated compliance projects sometimes encompass pollution
prevention when they include a pollution phase-out or require a change in process, etc.)
However, compliance staff feel that the small fines under FIFRA limits the leverage of the
Agency, since pollution prevention SEPs costs are often greater than the penalty. There has
been a recent clarification of the FIFRA penalty policy with regard to what constitutes each
violation (e.g. each shipment), which has increased the fines under the FIFRA penalty
policy. Therefore, under the new penalty policy, compliance staff may be able to increase
the inclusion of SEPs in FIFRA settlement agreements. The OPTS compliance program will
need to evaluate progress in this area after the new policy has been in place for an
appropriate time.
5 The FIFRA compliance/ enforcement program is a State and Federal partnership. Under FIFRA, States
have primary use enforcement responsibility; and States generally enforce violations as violations of State law.
Through enforcement cooperative agreements, EPA helps fund the State activities necessary to support the
enforcement of FIFRA and the State pesticide laws. EPA Headquarters issues national guidance which
establishes national enforcement priorities and specifies the activities which the States must complete in
exchange for cooperative agreement funds. Regions negotiate the cooperative agreements and are responsible
for ensuring that national guidance is followed by the States and Indian Tribes and Territories. Additionally,
the States also set their own priorities in cooperation with the Regions and in accordance with priority-setting
guidance issued by EPA (Enforcement Four-Year Strategic Plan. OE, February 1991).
26
-------
Compliance staff also identify the small size of the businesses which often commit
FEFRA violations as a barrier to expanding SEP agreements. They explain that small
owner/operators often will not, or cannot, spend the extra money required when SEPs are in
settlement agreements6: instead they opt to pay the fine.
TSCA/EPCRA
Overall, compliance staff feel that both TSCA and EPCRA represent a great potential
for developing settlements with both pollution prevention projects to redress violations and
achieving compliance, and SEPs to mitigate penalties. For TSCA, they cite the history of
such settlements under the PCB and AHERA programs, and in association with cases under
the §5 and §8 reporting requirements. For EPCRA, they cite the recently demonstrated
potential under the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Program (EPCRA §313).
Compliance staff consider the potential for cross-program initiatives under EPCRA, and
to some degree TSCA, to be high. In particular, EPCRA leads to cross-program cases
because the TRI reporting system covers pollutants that can effect different media covered by
the programs of Air, Water, Solid Waste, etc. Compliance staff suggest that OPTS should
further explore the potential options for targeting specific pollutants, industrial sectors, and
geographic regions for cross-program SEP initiatives.
Particularly in comparison to FIFRA, with TSCA and EPCRA the Agency does not face
the barriers of low fines or delegation of authority. However, compliance staff identified
barriers to developing and implementing SEPs under these statutes which are generic to the
settlement process. The section Issue 4 below describes these barriers in more detail.
ISSUE 4
The complexity of multi-media initiatives challenges the capacity of the
compliance program to promote pollution prevention, and pollution prevention
SEPs in multi-media case settlements. p
A few multi-media case settlements involving OPTS have successfully included
pollution prevention SEPs. However, although the Agency has clearly designated both multi-
media initiatives and pollution prevention as key goals, compliance staff did not identify
6 Regional and Headquarters policies require more than $1 in project dollars spent for every $1 in penalty
dollars mitigated. Often the ratio policy is 2:1 or 3:1, however the actual ratio used can vary greatly from case
to case.
27
-------
formal Agency guidelines for including pollution prevention in multi-media cases. Many
OPTS/Regional compliance staff consider the general informality of including pollution
prevention SEPs in multi-media cases to be the best approach in light of what is already an
overwhelmingly complex and bureaucratic process. Still, they feel that OPTS, and the
Agency, must consider ways to enhance the use of SEPs in multi-media cases without giving
the multi-media process another layer of formality. One possibility is to explore how the
Regional Case Screening process can be used to assess prospects for pollution prevention
SEPs in multi-media ^ases.- Some Regions-have taken steps in-this direction: for example,
Region I multi-media teams have a brief pollution prevention questionnaire for companies as
part of its multi-media case checklist [see Appendix B].
ISSUE 5
To successfully develop and implement SEPs, OPTS/Regional compliance
staff must address multiple administrative, resource, and process barriers
-which face both the Agency and the violators involved.
OPTS/Regional compliance staff identified several barriers they face within the Agency
in developing SEPs for settlements. These include the following:
* lack of expertise in identifying good project proposals;
* limited resources for developing SEPs (such as review of project proposals, which
can be time consuming and also complicated by lack of expertise);
* limited resources for tracking a SEPs progress (which may require negotiators to
opt to not accept a SEP proposal because of associated costs to the Agency7).
Compliance staff want more guidance to help them identify and develop SEP proposals.
They suggest some of the following as the type of guidance they would like to see:
o regular exchanges of information about innovative approaches to developing and
tracking projects among the Regions and between the Regions and Headquarters;
7 For example, Region 6 recently declined a SEP proposal to eliminate a source of waste water within the
violating facility. Region 6 staff determined that the expenditure required for EPA to successfully track the
progress of the proposal outweighed the value of the project.
28
-------
o the distribution of a "list" of high-priority SEPs to be targeted to certain pollutants and
industries; this could help Regional staff to focus their efforts and resources and could
help OPTS make a national impact in particular areas. (OE and PPO staff expect that
the enforcement mini-exchange for pollution prevention case/settlements in the PIES
database will help in this area.)
For Agency compliance programs, SEPs: (1) reduce the total penalty dollars; (2) reduce
the average final penalty per case;-(3) and restrict the number of total cases. This occurs
because the resources needed to produce SEPs take resources away from the pursuit of other
potential cases. Staff cite this as a major concern particularly because the Agency has no
system to account for the resources required for SEP review and tracking. At this time, the
Agency's means of measuring enforcement lies in cases issued or referred, and in penalty
dollars. Compliance staff, especially in the Regions, call this "bean-counting* problematic
when combined with the lack of accounting for SEPs; they find this to be a barrier or
disincentive to doing SEPs. Compliance staff recommend that OPTS institutionalize an
accounting/tracking system which would allow Regions credit, at least internal if not external
to the program, for producing SEPs. However, they also recommend that the system also
•assist the -compliance program in establishing the "value-added" of SEPs to the Agency
mission, including assessing trade-offs between environmental benefit and deterrence. For
example, when the Agency reports enforcement accomplishments, Congress focuses on
EPA's penalty dollars as the litmus test for progress in enforcing legislation, and does not
focus on the benefits of SEPs and their effects on penalty dollars. OE plans to discuss with
the regional programs how to best establish a process for Regions to document the cost and
expected environmental benefits of SEPs, so that this information can be reported on a
national basis annually for this program.
Some staff pointed out that they experience a personal benefit when producing SEPs--
through applying creative problem-solving and by having a hand in making environmental
gains in areas that are normally outside of the regulatory jurisdiction. However, they feel
that acknowledging individual staff efforts would further encourage staff to do settlement
cases with SEPs. In this regard, staff recommend some of the following: OPTS awards of
recognition, or, letters or notes of acknowledgement from OPTS senior management.
Compliance staff also identified barriers they face in encouraging industry violators to
participate in SEPs, including:
* the lack of expertise of facility operators in the area of pollution prevention,
especially among small and mid-sized owner/operators;
* the reluctance of owner/operators to be involved with EPA through monitoring
requirements;
29
-------
* the sometimes limited resources of owner-operators, such that they will opt to pay
the fine because they do not feel that they can afford the 2:1 or 3:1 ratios required
for project cost versus penalty dollars mitigated.
To deal with the lack of expertise and reluctance of owner/operators, compliance staff
recommend that OPTS consider the distribution of the OPTS SEP policy during the
negotiation process, and the distribution of matrices which describe past SEPs to help
respondent/defendants focus on potential pollution prevention-activities. •• For example,
Region IX currently uses a package which includes both a stated SEP policy and matrix of
past SEPs [see Appendix C]. Finally, in reference to the ratios of project cost to penalty
dollars, staff have divided opinions: some think that these ratios are appropriate for all
circumstances, citing deterrence considerations; other staff feel that under certain
circumstances these ratios should not have to apply, particularly if the environmental benefits
are significant. OPTS needs to establish a consistent policy in this area.
Although the above: focuses on the negotiation process, the inspection process also plays
a role in pollution prevention in SEPs. For example, OPTS/Regional staff suggest that
•inspections could potentially be targeted to reflect identified national OPTS pollution
prevention goals. They also suggested that steps could be taken to increase awareness of
pollution prevention facility inspections: for example, inspectors could give a pollution
prevention questionnaire after inspections to get facility owner/operators to "think pollution
prevention." One model for this could be the Region I pollution prevention questionnaire
[see Appendix B]. Also, the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) recently
developed a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) policy governing the role of
inspectors in promoting waste minimization, which could potentially provide helpful
analogies. At this time, the PPO is beginning to promote pollution prevention in inspections
through its new course "Pollution Prevention for Inspectors."
30
-------
Section IV
Next Steps- What Are They?
As seen by the case descriptions, OPTS compliance staff in Headquarters and the
Regions have established a solid record of accomplishment in incorporating a pollution
prevention ethic in its activities. The OPTS compliance program has actively used pollution
prevention settlement conditions both as part of the requirements to redress a violation and
through SEPs. SEPs in particular have a vital part to play within the OPTS "arsenal" of
pollution prevention activities by enhancing the potential of traditional compliance and
enforcement activities to measurably benefit the environment. In light of OPTS's record, the
transfer of PPO (now the Pollution Prevention Division or PPD) to OPTS constitutes a
significant opportunity for the OPTS compliance program to expand its leadership in using
compliance to advance pollution prevention.
OPTS needs to take some next steps to facilitate and further expand the capabilities of
the OPTS compliance program to promote pollution prevention. OPTS/Regional compliance
staff identified a series of potential next steps to assist the compliance program to
aggressively pursue pollution prevention in settlement agreements. These steps are outlined
below:
Potential Next Steps
o Finalize the OPTS policy and guidelines for SEPs in response to the OE guidelines
o Develop a system of tracking SEPs for accounting/reporting purpose;
track the SEPs for environmental benefit, as well as for cost to the
respondent/defendant and the Agency so this can be analyzed on an annual basis
o Facilitate regular exchanges of information about innovative approaches producing SEPs
among the Regions and between the Regions and Headquarters;
provide examples of specific success stories, with names and contacts
o Explore in more depth the different opportunities for gaining pollution prevention within
the different OPTS statutes as well as other Agency statutes;
31
-------
explore options for targeting specific pollutants, industrial sectors, and geographic
regions to focus staff on a national agenda
explore options for targeting specific pollutants, industrial sectors for cross-
program initiatives
consider ways to enhance the use of SEPs in multi-media cases
o Provide guidance and technical assistance to staff for producing pollution prevention
projects;
training/checklists for inspectors
training/checklists for negotiators and caseworkers
model orders or agreements
a list of sources for information on effective prevention approaches
32
-------
APPENDIX A
OPTS Accomplishments:
Non-Pollution Prevention SEPs (Case Descriptions)
Pollution Reduction
Region n
Dunkirk Ice Cream
Dunkirk Ice Cream agreed to pay final penalty of $12,750 for violation TSCA PCB
regulations. EPA's complaint proposed a $34,000 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
reduction project which will reduce the discharge of a pollution beyond the requires of
federal State or local law or permit. The company will install a wastewater
pretreatment system which will reduce the biological oxygen demand/total solid
suspension loading on the Dunkirk POTW. The cost of this project to the company
will be $1,855,000. The SEP allowed the proposed penalty to be mitigated by $8500.
Region III
Viz Manufacturing Company
Viz Manufacturing Company, of Philadelphia, PA, agreed to pay final penalty of
$10,000 for EPCRA §313 violations. EPA's complaint alleged failure to report and
late reporting during the reporting years of 1988 and 1989; it proposed a $18,300
penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
reduction project. The project required replacing the dust collector with a Day High
Performance Jet Baghouse, which would eliminate particles of cuprous chloride, sulfur
and graphite from the workplace and will eliminate these substance escape into the
environment outside the workplace. The cost of this system to the company was
$32,000. The SEP allowed the proposed penalty to be mitigated by $4,000.
1
-------
Region IV
Foam Design, Inc.
Foam Design, Inc. of Lexington, Kentucky agreed to pay a final penalty of $14,450
for violation of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint proposed a $17,000 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to conduct a pollution
reduction project. It will recycle foam rubber waste which would otherwise be
disposed of at the local landfill. The cost to the company will be $53,000.
Southern Filter, Inc.
Southern Filter, Inc. of Birmingham, Alabama agreed to pay final penalty of $4,250
for violation of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint proposed a $10,000 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to conduct a pollution
reduction project through recycling. It plans to construct a carbon absorption system
for the capture of, and significant elimination of, releases of volatile organics
(including acetone and styrene). The carbon absorption system shall include a carbon
bed scrubber, an exhaust fan, duct and dampers. The cost to the company will be
$41,725.
Region V
Southern Indiana Gas
Southern Indiana Gas of Evansville, Indiana agreed to pay a final penalty of $53,000
for violations of TSCA PCB regulations. EPA's complaint alleged the improper use
of PCB's in a natural gas distribution system in violation of 40 C.F.R. §761.20(a),
during calendar year 1989 and 1990. The proposed penalty was $429,000. The
penalty was mitigated to $161,000 because of good faith efforts to comply and prompt
response.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to a series of
environmental projects. The pollution reduction projects included: to install filters at
three regulatory stations; to install of meter filters at affected residences; to implement
a five year monitoring program that includes statistical meter sampling and a drip
-------
servicing program; and to remove a PCB transformer from its facility. The total
estimated cost to the company was $175,000. The SEP allowed the proposed penalty
to be mitigated by $212,000.
Region VII
Riverside Fertilizer and Propane, Inc.
Riverside Fertilizer and Propane, Inc. of Nebraska agreed to pay a final penalty of
$5,000 for violations of FTFRA. EPA's complaint alleged 3 counts of making
available for use restricted use pesticides (RUPs) to uncertified persons; it proposed a
penalty of $15,000.
In addition to paying a final penalty, Riverside Fertilizer and Propane, Inc.
•agreed to do a series of environmental projects, including a pollution reduction project
and a public awareness project. For the pollution reduction project the company will
construct and put into operation new storage, mixing and rinsate pad facilities. Such
facilities will be constructed with secondary containment for all storage areas. The
construction of the rinsate pad will reduce the risk of runoff and possible pollution of
soil and water in the surrounding area. The estimated cost to the company is
$80,193. For the public awareness project, the company will train its employees at all
of its facilities regarding certification requirements for sale of restricted use pesticides.
Also, signs have been posted and will remain in place at all of its sales counters
stating the certification requirements for sale of RUPs. This training will decrease the
use of RUPs by uncertified persons in the company's Ord, Nebraska trade area, and
will reduce misuse of RUPs and thus aid in pollution prevention.
Leavenworth County Cooperative Association
Leavenworth County Cooperative Association of Oskaloosa, Kansas agreed to pay a
final penalty of $750 for violations of FIFRA. EPA's complaint alleged one count of
making available for use restricted use pesticides (RUPs) to uncertified persons; it
proposed a penalty of $5,000.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
reduction project which resulted in accelerated compliance with Kansas State
requirements. The company built a secondary containment structure and rinsate pad
for the handling of bulk liquid fertilizer and agrichemical products before the Kansas
-------
requirements became effective. This will reduce and/or eliminate potential soil and
groundwater contamination. The cost of the project to the company was $37,240.
Circle B Agri Services, Inc.
Circle B.Agri Services, Inc., of Ansley, Nebraska agreed to pay a final penalty
of $2,000 violation of FIFRA §3. EPA's complaint alleged four counts of making
available for use restricted use pesticides (RUPs) to uncertified persons; it proposed a
penalty of $20,000.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a pollution
reduction project. The agreed to install a diked pesticide rinsate system at the
loading/mixing facility. This will reduce the risk of pesticide runoff during pesticide
mixing and loading, and during equipment mixing. The estimated cost to the
company for this project is $20,000-$30,000.
Region VIII
American Gourmet Company
American Gourmet Company of the Great Salt Lake Region agreed to pay a final
penalty of $25,740 for violations of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged four
counts of failure to report during the reporting years of 1988 and 1989; it proposed a
penalty of $64,350.
In addition to paying the penalty, company agreed to undertake a pollution
reduction project. The company agreed to financially participate in the installation of
the sewer system which services their facility. The company's participation in the
sewer project was substantiated by a statement from the City of Clearfield, Utah. The
new sewer system will significantly reduce the formation of hydrogen sulfide in the
area. The cost to the company was $77,211. This SEP allowed the proposed penalty
to be mitigated by $38,610.
-------
Region IX
Trojan Battery Company
Trojan Battery Company to pay a final penalty of $26,137 for violations of EPCRA
§313. EPA's complaint proposed a penalty of $235,000. Based on promptness in
taking corrective action and the company's cooperation during negotiations, there was
a penalty adjustment down to $196,137.
In addition to paying the final penalty, Trojan agreed to do a series of pollution
reduction projects. One project requires installing equipment at its Clark Street
facility to eliminate waste water discharges from the production process. The
company also agreed to construct and operate, for two years, a lead-acid battery
recycling center targeted to serving households in the greater Los Angeles area. The
SEP allowed the proposed penalty to be reduced by $170,000.
Environmental Restoration
Region III
Johnstown Corporation
Johnstown Corporation of Pennsylvania agreed to pay final penalty of $15,000 for
TSCA PCB regulations. EPA's complaint proposed a $31,200 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake an
environmental restoration project. The company will remove PCB contaminated waste
beyond the facility. The cost to the company was $39,000.
University of Pennsylvania
The University of Pennsylvania agreed to pay a final penalty of $68,025 for violations
of TSCA PCB regulations. EPA's complaint proposed a $136,050 penalty.
-------
In addition to paying the penalty, the University agreed to an environmental
restoration project which required removing PCB transformers from the campus
grounds. The cost to the University was $500,000.
Howard University
Howard University of the District of Columbia agreed to pay final penalty of $60,000
for violations of TSCA PCB regulations. EPA's complaint proposed a $312,000
penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the University agreed to undertake and
environmental restoration project which required removing PCB transformers for the
campus grounds. The cost to the University for the project was $900,000.
Region IV
Shadow Ridge Associates, Limited Partnership
Shadow Ridge Associates, Limited Partnership of Asheville, North Carolina, agreed to
pay a final penalty of $4,000 for violations of TSCA PCB requirements. EPA's
complaint proposed a $17,500 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to an environmental
restoration project which required clean-up of PCBs in the soil surrounding the
facility. This remediation project included a sampling plan and analyses, and was to
be complete within 90 days of the date the Consent Agreement and Final Order was
signed.
Region VI
Southwestern Portland Cement
Southwestern Portland Cement of Odessa, TX, agreed to a pay final penalty of $2,000
for violation of TSCA PCB regulations. EPA's complaint proposed a penalty of
$22,000.
-------
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake an
environmental restoration project. It removed and disposed of the PCB transformers
used at the facility, and replaced these units with non-PCB transformers, thereby
eliminating the need for PCB spill oversight by EPA and the Texas Water
Commission. This project cost the company $88,000.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Goodyear Tire & Rubber of Houston, TX, agreed to pay a final penalty of $13,500
for 5 violations of TSCA PCB regulations. EPA's complaint proposed a penalty of
$135,000.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake an
environmental restoration project. It removed and disposed of 8 PCB transformers at
the facility and replace these units with non-PCB transformers. This project cost the
company $405,000.
Region VII
Arapahoe Cooperative Association
Arapahoe Cooperative Association of Arapahoe Nebraska, agreed to pay a final
penalty of $3,000 for violations of FIFRA. EPA's complaint alleged use of registered
pesticides inconsistent with label directions such that through storage, mixing, loading,
application, or disposal of wastes, pesticides entered a nearby creek; it proposed a
penalty of $5,000.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake an
environmental restoration project. The company conducted an Initial Site Assessment
of the property where its business was located, and submitted copies of the results to
Region VH and the State of Nebraska Department of Environmental Control. As a
result ongoing remediation activities are continuing at the site. Although the
respondent was going out of business and was working with its subsequent property
owner during the site assessment process.
-------
Iowa Electric Light and Power Company
Iowa Electric Light and Power Company, of Marshalltown, Iowa, agreed to pay final
penalty of $25,000 for violations of TSCA PCB regulations. EPA's complaint
proposed a $87,300 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, ihe company agreed to undertake a series of
environmental projects, including environmental restoration and public awareness
project. The company agreed to commit at least $200,000 annually until the year of
1994, for the testing, proper removal and disposal of retrofilling for the purpose of
rectification of all PCB transformers and PCB-contaminated transformers located at
the company substations. As part of its public awareness activities, the company
agreed to conduct safety tours of all its facilities with PCB transformers wit the
appropriate local fire departments, and to offer PCB regulation training to its primary
metered customers. The estimated cost to the company is $5,000.
Region X
Oregon Steel Mills
Oregon Steel Mills, of Portland, OR agreed to pay final penalty of $143,000 for
violations of TSCA PCB regulations. EPA's complaint proposed a $370,000 penalty;
a 15% reduction in the penalty was made due to the respondents good faith efforts to
comply and cooperative attitude in reaching settlement.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake an
environmental restoration project. The company will start the early disposal of PCB
transformers at the facility, which is scheduled for completion by 1993. This project
will include the disposal of ten PCB or PCB-contaminated transformers, and three
transformers will be retro-filled and reclassified to non-PCB status. The projected
cost to the company is at least $286,000. The SEP allowed for a $143,000 mitigation
in the penalty.
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation of Spokane, WA agreed to pay final
penalty of $15,300 for violation of TSCA PCB regulations. EPA's complaint
proposed a $62,000 penalty; a 15% reduction in the penalty was made due to the
8
-------
respondents good faith efforts to comply and cooperative attitude in reaching
settlement.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake an
environmental restoration project. The company will start early disposal activity for
PCB Transformers at the facility. The projected cost to the company is at least
$30,600. The SEP allowed for a $15,300 mitigation in the penalty.
Headquarters
Eastman Kodak
Eastman Kodak agreed to pay final penalty of $125,000 for violations of TSCA §5.
EPA's complaint alleged the manufacture of four chemicals prior to chemicals being
listed on the TSCA Inventory; it proposed a $2,520,000 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company to agreed to undertake an
environmental restoration project. The company's Eastman Chemical Division agreed
to remove and destroy 36 PCB-filled transformers and 11 capacitors, which will result
in the destruction of more that 14,000 gallons of PCB fluid. The cost to the company
for this project was $1,188,000.
Environmental Auditing
Region II
PR Electric Power Authority
PR Electric Power Authority, agreed to pay a final penalty of $32,850 for PCB
violations. EPA's complaint proposed a $73,000 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake an
environmental auditing/environmental restoration project. The project requires testing
all the distribution transformers in its system to determine which of the transformers
are PCB, PCB-contaminated or non-PCB. The company expects the testing and
analysis of the distribution transformers to be completed by January 2000. The
-------
company estimates that approximately 10% of the distribution transformers will be
tested each year until completion of die program. Eventually, the data will be used to
initiate removal/disposal or ^classification of transformers.
Village ofFreeport
The Village of Freeport agreed to pay final penalty of $18,000 for TSCA PCB
violations. EPA's complaint proposed a $15,750 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to an environmental
auditing. The company will perform testing over the next three years of all its
transformers (1700) to determine which contain PCB's above 50 part per million.
Region V
Wehner Construction
Wehner Construction agreed to pay final penalty of $3,600 for violations of AHERA.
EPA's complaint alleged a failure to inspect school building for suspected asbestos
containing materials; it proposed a $25,000 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake an
environmental auditing/public awareness project. The company agreed do $6,000
dollars worth of free asbestos inspections for needy families thorough the "Habitat"
for Humanity Project". This program allows for needy families who otherwise would
be unable to conduct inspections for asbestos in their homes to become aware of any
risk to asbestos exposure.
Region VII
Farmers Cooperative Association
Farmers Cooperative Association of South Sioux City, Nebraska, agreed to pay a final
penalty of $3,000 for a violation of FIFRA §12. EPA's complaint proposed a penalty
of $5,000.
10
-------
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a series of
environmental projects including an auditing project and enforcement-related
environmental public awareness projects. The company audited its facility, which
resulted in the upgrade and modification of the recordkeeping system to include a
provision for current information on certified pesticide applicators. For its public
awareness projects the company agreed to have published in the local newspaper an
advertisement or article dealing with proper purchasing, handling and use of restricted
use pesticides, and to circulate literature to its customers. The company also agreed
to implement a training program for its employees involving proper safe handling of
pesticides.
Region IX
Montgomery Ward Company
Montgomery Ward Company agreed to pay final penalty of $10,000 for four counts of
violations of TSCA PCB regulations. EPA's complaint proposed a $50,000 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake an
environmental auditing/environmental restoration project. The company agreed to
conduct an audits at the 400 nationwide locations for the presence of PCB
transformers, and then to remove and dispose of all company owned PCB and PCB
contaminated electrical equipment within one year, by October 1991. The estimated
cost of these activities to the company was $900,000.
Headquarters
P.D. George
P.D. George Settlement agreed to pay a final penalty of $527,850 for violations of
TSCA §5 PMN requirements. EPA's complaint proposed a penalty was $1.9 million.
In addition to paying a final penalty, P.D. George agreed to undertake an
environmental auditing and environmental restoration. The company agreed to
conduct §5 and §8 compliance audit, and to excavate and incinerate of buried drums
of paint wastes and resins.
11
-------
H.B. Fuller
H.B. Fuller agreed to pay a final penalty of $225,000 for a violation of TSCA §5.
EPA's complaint proposed a $1,427,000 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a series of
environmental projects, including environmental auditing and enforcement related
public awareness projects. The environmental auditing activities include conducting
environmental audits of 57 facilities, and developing a TSCA Compliance Plan and
developing computer software related to TSCA compliance and retrieval of
information from the TSCA public inventory database. The public awareness
activities include producing a TSCA compliance Manual and video; conducting TSCA
training for 205 employees; and hosting EPCRA Compliance Seminarsifor customers
in at least 8 of the 10 EPA Regions. The cost to the company will be $800,000.
Public Awareness
Region III
Electroplate-Rite, Inc.
Electroplate-Rite, Inc., of Dublin, VA, agreed to pay a final penalty of $23,000 for
violations of EPCRA §313. EPA's complaint alleged six counts of non-reporting
-during the reporting years of 1987 and 1988; it proposed a penalty of $30,000.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake an
enforcement -related public awareness project. The project was a one-half day
seminar for the electroplating industry on the subject of complying with the
requirements of EPCRA. Total cost of the seminar to the company was $6,505. The
SEP allowed for a $3,200 mitigation in the penalty.
12
-------
Region V
Morehead State University
Morehead State University, of Morehead, Kentucky, agreed to a pay a final penalty of
$45,000 for violation of TSCA PCB requirements. EPA's complaint proposed a
$169,000 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to an environmental public
awareness project specifically directed to other organizations in its industry (higher
education). The project was an outreach PCB program to educate and train physical
plant directors at universities and colleges located in Kentucky.
Region VII
Prairie Vu Enterprises, Inc.
Prairie Vu Enterprises Inc. of Bethany, Missouri, agreed to pay final penalty of
$4,427 for violations of FIFRA. EPA's complaint alleged six counts of making
available for use restricted use pesticides (RUPs) to uncertified persons; it proposed a
penalty of $30,000. The respondent submitted reliable financial data which revealed
respondent was almost insolvent and had negative returned earnings and was thus
unable to pay the proposed penalty in full.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake an
•enforcement-related environmental public awareness project. The company agreed to
sponsor a seven hour educational seminar on the necessity of complying with FIFRA
and the proper use, management, and disposal of household hazardous products. All
costs for the teams travel, lodging and materials for the seminar presentation will be
paid for by the respondent.
13
-------
Region IX
ChUdrens Hospital (Los Angeles)
Childrens Hospital of Los Angeles, California agreed to pay final penalty of $20,000
for 31 counts of violations of TSCA PCB regulations. EPA's complaint proposed a
$82,000 penalty.
In addition to paying the penalty, the hospital agreed to undertake an enforcement
related environmental public awareness project. The hospital agreed to publish an
article about PCB regulations in a magazine called Health Facilities Management.
The hospital also agreed to distribute a 12 to 15 page bulletin to hospital
administrators across the country.
Headquarters
Bedoukian Research Inc.
Bedoukian Research Inc., agreed to pay a final penalty of $62,000 for a violation of
TSCA.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake a public
awareness project. The company agreed to publish in a widely-circulated trade
journal for the fragrance industry an article on TSCA compliance, particularly with
regard to TSCA §5 and §8. Bedoukian agreed to submit a draft of the article for EPA
review and comment, and then to submit the article to a trade publication.
14
-------
Other
Region V1H
Longmont Foods, Inc.
Longmont Foods, Inc., located in the Colorado Rocky Mountain Front Range Region,
agreed to pay a final penalty of $44,625 for violation of EPCRA §313. EPA's
complaint alleged four counts of failure to report during reporting years of 1988 and
1989. The proposed penalty was $68,000; the penalty was reduced because of good
attitude on the part of the respondent. Sodium hydroxide has been delisted which
resulted in a penalty reduction; the penalty was also reduced because the company
may have miscalculated the quantity of ammonia used.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company agreed to undertake an
experimental environmental project for which the respondent is to become an active
participant in an experimental biogas project. Rather than send the solid waste from
the slaughter house to the landfill, Longmont will to use the solid waste and
financially participate in the biogas project. The cost to the company will be $53,550
over a two year period.
15
-------
APPENDIX B
Note: The following questionnaire is used in Region I by inspectors as part of the
multi-media enforcement checklist. These questions are used to get
owner/operators of the facilities "thinking pollution prevention." Also, this
questionnaire is to be used by "Region I staff as part of new outreach
initiative beginning in fiscal year 1992. The initiative will target mainly
small- and medium-sized companies which have been identified on a
Regional list that outlines the companies by size, type and industrial sector.
Region I staff will set aside one to two hours a month to call these
companies to quickly review the questionnaire.
Region I
Multi-media Checklist
Pollution Prevention Survey
1. Has the facility ever made process changes specifically to reduce waste generation, or
emissions to any media?
2. Has the facility considered substituting non-toxic materials as inputs for products that
are currently made with hazardous substances?
3. Has the facility ever determined how much it costs to manage its wastes?
4. Does the facility or company have a formal pollution prevention policy or waste
minimization policy?
-------
APPENDIX C
Note: The following is the SEP policy summary and the SEP matrix
distributed by Region IX to respondent/defendants, as part of
its activities to encourage companies to propose SEPs.
-------
Appendix C
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION K
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
LIST OF-POTENTIAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENFORCEMENT PROJECTS
General Considerations
1. The project merit will be judged with respect to the relative
benefit to the Respondent v.s. the benefit to the environment in
general. A project that helps to improve or protect human health
and the environment but has no direct benefit to the Respondent
would be preferable to a project that would have some positive
environmental effect but would also result in a fiscal benefit for
the Respondent, i.e. a project which represents "sound business
practice".
2. In all cases, projects that would simply achieve compliance with
existing environmental statutes would not be acceptable.
3. The project should have an accurate cost estimate, measurable
output or products, and firm commitments on delivery schedule.
Specific Projects
1. Accelerated PCB transformer removal or retrofill to non-PCB
level for transformers not prohibited by the regulations.
2. Reduction of emissions of a chemical listed on the TRI data base
beyond the levels mandated by statute. Projects can include
installation of more efficient process equipment, substitution of
TRI chemical with a less toxic chemical, etc.
3. Compliance audit of all corporate facilities for a single
statute or for multiple statues. Refer to the July 9, 1986 EPA
Policy Statement on Environmental Auditing (51 FR 25004). The
audits can be designed to do any or all of the following: verify
compliance with environmental requirements, evaluate the
effectiveness of environmental management systems already in place,
or access risk from regulated or unregulated materials and
practices.
4. Projects remediating adverse public health or environmental
consequences (Environmental Restoration Projects). An
environmental restoration project is defined as a project that not
only repairs the damage done to the environment because of a
violation, but which goes beyond repair to enhance the environment
-------
Appendix C
in the vicinity of the violating facility.
5. Regulatory outreach within the corporate structure or elsewhere
in the regulated community. Outreach can take the form of
developing a training program, training materials or presentation,
or publishing an article in an industry trade journal that
specifically deals with helping the targeted audience comply with
environmental requirements.
5. Purchase of emergency response equipment for the community.
6. Recycling - Initiating recycling of solid or hazardous wastes at
a facility. Operating a recycling center for hazardous materials
in the community.
7. Performing abatement of a toxic or hazardous situation at a non
owned or related facility. An example of this is: a large
corporation volunteers to dispose of a PCB transformer owned by a
small business that can't afford disposal costs.
8. Volunteering to sponsor chemical testing for one or more of the
chemicals on the Office of Toxic Substances "Master Testing List".
Several hundred chemicals are expected to be on the final 1991 MTL.
About one-third of these will be prioritized for testing to begin
within the next year. Approximately 150 of the priority chemicals
on the MTL will be tested through a voluntary international effort
under the aegis of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). EPA is encouraging the chemical industry to
develop specific proposals for voluntary testing of the remaining
chemicals; however, the Agency is committed to using the full
authorities of TSCA as necessary to obtain the needed information
on MTL chemicals, including the use of consent orders and test
rules.
9. Perform community outreach for special EPA initiatives such as
the "Lead Initiative". Because lead contamination is one of the
most highly toxic chemicals and because the potential for exposure
exists in low income and or non-English speaking neighborhoods,
there is a clear need for outreach efforts that target these
groups.
10. Perform outreach to the community on the potential health
risks from exposure to various chemicals commonly encountered at
home and in the workplace.
-------
List of Environmentally BenefidMr Expenditures
in TSCA Settlements in Region 9.
10-15-
RESPONDENT
DOCKET * CAFO PROPOSED FINAL PENALTY X
DATE PENALTY PENALTY REDUCT- REDUCT-
TION TIOH
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT REDUCTION
COST TO EBE
RATIO
Reno Salvage
11-08-90 $25,000 $12,500 S12.500 SOX Accelerated removal of PCS transform-*
$2.500 0.20
Montgomery Wards 90-000810-05-90 SSO.OOO $10,000 $40,000 BOX PCB Audit of all Properties Nationwide
Accelerated removal of PCB equipment owned nationwide
$900,000 22.50
Vons Companies. Inc. 90-0021 01-25-91 $65,668 $20,000 $45,668
70X Replace PCB transformers and retrefill
six PCB-contnnilnated units ($100,134)
Outreach Program at Fire Dept. ($3,500)
Purchase Spill Response Trailer for
the fire Dept. (S5K)
Safeway Company 90-0021 12-17-90 $54,332.00 $20,000 $34,332
Total Projection's Co.)
63X Accelerated removal of PCB transformers nationwide and
retrefill of six PCB-contamtnated transformers
Preparation of PCB training manual
Preparation of PCB video
Total Project (Safeway Co.)
$108.634 2.38
$250,000 7.28
Pioneer Chlor
Alkalal/Stauffer 89-0018 02-27-91 $282.000.00 $87.900 $194.100
Marquardt
69X Removal and retrofill of PCB transformers
at Henderson, NV Facility ($267,226)
Preparation of PCB training manual
at cost of approximately ($10,000)
87-0058 08-02-90 $40,000.00 $10,000 $30,000 75X Removal and replacement of 9 PCB transformers
$277,226 1.43
$328,000 10.93
t
Syar IrxJust., Inc. 90-0020 02-26-91 $34,000.00 $3,300 $30,700 90* Removal, replacement, or retrofill
-------
of 15 PCS transformer* ($96,518)
HazHat Course for 65 truck driver* ($4.100)
PCB Regulation training for 3 transformer
testing companies ($500)
•
Calaveras Cement 91-0004 04-16-91 S38.000.00 $13,000 $25.000 66X Removal or reclassiflcatlon of PCB transformer* ($100K)
$101,118 3.29
$100.000 4.00
Children* Hosp. L.A.90-0031 07-08-91 $82,000.00 $20.000 $62,000
Asareo. Inc. 90-0060 09-30-91 $65,000.00 $6,500 $58.500
I.A. Co* Col DUt 90-0030 10-08-91 $82.000.00 $4,100 $77.900
76X Hailing outreach to 40,000 hospital* on PCB reg*
90X Removal and/or retrofill of 13 PCB transformer* ttOOK)
95X Test transformers^,366)
Conduct audit, remove or retrofill transformr*($738.7K)
Establish recycling program at all campuse*($SOOO)
$400.000 6.84
$792.000 10.17
TOTALS
$818,000 $207.300 $610,700 75X
$3,259,478 5.34
t
-------
Y OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENFORCEMENT PROJECTS
THE REGION 9 TRI PROGRAM
RESPONDENT
DOCKET * CAFO PROPOSED FINAL PENALTY X
DATE PENALTY PENALTY REDUCT- REDUCT-
TION TION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sunlend lt«f 90-0018 07-08-91 $84,000 $32,000 $52,000
Ptrktn I Etimr 89-0013 08*07-90 $17,000 $5,000 $12,000
Ntw Port CorporatI on89-0009 01-29-91 $34,000 $25.000 $9,000
Hemet Casting 89-0011 03-12-91 $17.000.00 $2,000 $15.000
Natchmsater 89-0004 05-07-90 $42,000.00 $11,000 $31,000
VLSI
90-0017 07-19-91 $210,000.00 $28.000 $182.000
Cork Crow ft Seal 89-0003 08-28-90 $76,000.00 $22,500 $53,500
Buck Knlvea 91-0010 07-31-91 $42,000.00 $24.000 $18,000
Berlnger Vlnyards 89-0014 01-23-90 $17,000.00 $11,000 $6,000
Arizona Plating 91-0005 02-28-91 $68,000.00 $57,000 $11.000
Trojan Battery 90-0007 05-01-91 $277,000.00 $26,137 $250,863
62X Inatall Evaporative and Armenia Condanaara($88,952)
Inatall Blood Dryer Syatem($150,000)
Publish EPCRA Article In Trade Journal($1,000)
71X Replace Three Degreaeera With New Design Equip.($30,800)
Implement Procedures to Conserve TCE and TFE($1,000)
26X Install a Non-Toxic Degreaalng Systen($82,000)
Establish Recycling for Stainless Steel $hav1ngs($75,252)
88X Replace 1,1,2 TCE end 1,2,2 TFE with leaa toxic tolvent
74X Automatic Dispensing Units to Reduce Sp1lls($3S,700)
Purchase Software for Chemical Track1ng($17,200)
87X Upgrade acid neutralization SystenK$42,500)
Varloua Projects and Additional Env. Staff($752,500)
70X Inatall Regenerative Oxldlzer System
43X Install Water Wash System($4,500)
Istall Recycling Still for 1,1,1 TCA($2,500)
35X Publication Notice to Wineries on EPCRA Regs.
16X Perform 313 Outreach
91X Install Closed Cycle Water Systeffl($171,400)
Construct and Operate (2 yrs), lead-acid Battery Recycling
Center for Comnunfty(S170,000)
PROJECT REDUCTION
COST TO EBE
RATIO
$239,952 4.61
$31.800 2.65
$157,252 17.47
$17,000.00 1.13
$52,900.00
$795,500 4.37
$810,000.00 15.14
$7,000 0.39
$3,500.00 0.58
$2,500.00 0.23
$341,400.00 1.36
TOTALS
$884,000 $243,637 $640,363 60X
$2,458,804 3.84
-------
SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENFORCEMENT PROJECTS FOR THE REGION 9 TRI PROGRAM
RESPONDENT
DOCKET f CAFO PROPOSED FINAL PENALTY X
DATE PENALTY PENALTY REDUCT- REOUCT-
TION TION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT REDUCTION
COST TO EBE
RATIO
Sunland Beef
90-0018 07-08-91 $84,000 $32,000 $52,000 62X
Perkln 1 Elmer 89-0013 08-07-90 $17,000 $5,000 $12,000 71X
New Port Corporatlon89-0009 01-29-91 $34.000 $25.000 $9,000 26X
Install Evaporative and Anmonla Condensers($88,952)
Install Blood Dryer SystenK$150,000)
Publish EPCRA Article In Trade Journal($1.000)
Replace Three Degreasera With New Design Equip.($30,800)
Implement Procedures to Conserve TCE and TFE($1.000)
Install a Non-Toxic Decreasing $ystenK$82,000)
Establish Recycling for Stainless Steel Shavlngs($7S.252>
Hamet Casting 89-0011 03-12-91 $17,000.00 $2.000 $15,000 88X Replace 1.1,2 TCE and 1,2.2 TFE with less toxic Solvent
Natchmaster 89-0004 05-07-90 $42,000.00 $11,000 $31.000 74X
VLSI
90-0017 07-19-91 $210,000.00 $28,000 $182,000 an
Cork Crown t Seal 89-0003 08-28-90 $76,000.00 $22.500 $53.500 70X
Buck Knives 91-0010 07-31-91 $42,000.00 $24,000 $18,000 43X
Berlnger Vlnyards 89-0014 01-23-90 $17.000.00 $11,000 $6.000 3SX
Arizona Plating 91-0005 02-28-91 $68,000.00 $57.000 $11,000 16X
Trojan Battery 90-0007 05-01-91 $277,000.00 $26,137 (250.863 91X
Automatic Dispensing Units to Reduce Spllls($35,700)
Purchase Software for Chemical Track1ng($17,200)
Upgrade acid neutralization SysteaK$42,500)
Various Projects and Additional Env. $taff($7S2,500)
Install Regenerative Oxldlier System
Install Water Wash System($4,500)
Istall Recycling Still for 1,1,1 TCA($2,500)
Publication Notice to Wineries on EPCRA Regs.
Perform 313 Outreach
Install Closed Cycle Water Syste«n($171,400)
Construct 'and Operate (2 yrs), lead-acid Battery Recycling
Center for Cortnunity(*170,000)
$239.952 4.61
$31.800 2.65
$157.252 17.47
$17.000.00 1.13
$52.900.00
$795.500 4.37
$810.000.00 15.14
$7,000 0.39
$3,500.00 0.58
$2,500.00 0.23
$341,400.00 1.36
t
TOTALS
$884.000 $243.637 $640.363 60X
$2.458.804 3.84
------- |