EPA ENFORCEMENT
A PROGRESS REPORT
1979
AIR
NOISE
WATER
PESTICIDES
-------
NOTE
The initial report on the Environmental Protection Agency's
Enforcement Program was published in February, 1973, covering EPA
enforcement actions in the areas of air, water, and pesticide pol-
lution from December 1970 the date of the Agency's formation, to
November 1972. Copies of that volume are obtainable from the
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE, 5825 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22150 under Order #PB-227 158/HP: "THE FIRST TWO
YEARS — A REVIEW OF EPA'S ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM".
The Second report on EPA's Enforcement Program entitled,
"EPA ENFORCEMENT — TWO YEARS OF PROGRESS", .covered air, water,
and pesticide enforcement actions in the succeeding two-year period,
December 1972 to November 1974 and was published in 1975. A limited
supply is still on hand at EPA, and single copies may be requested
by writing to EPA PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTER, PM-215, Washington, D.C.
20460.
The third report on EPA's Enforcement Program, entitled, "EPA
ENFORCEMENT, A PROGRESS REPORT", covered air, water, noise, and
pesticides enforcement actions from December 1974 through December
1975 and was published in June, 1976.
The present document covers the period January 1976 through
September 1976. Copies of both the third and present reports may
be obtained by writing to the EPA INFORMATION CENTER. When the
initial supplies are exhausted inquiry should be made of the
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE.
Requests for information concerning individual enforcement
actions listed in any of the above reports should be directed to the
Regional Enforcement Director of the EPA Regional Office shown as
the initiating office. Addresses appear on the rear inside cover.
-------
EPA ENFORCEMENT
A PROGRESS REPORT
1976
AIR
NOISE
WATER
PESTICIDES
RUSSELL E. TRAIN
ADMINISTRATOR STANLEY W. LEGRO
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR ENFORCEMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20460
JANUARY 1977
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD
CHAPTER I -- INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS
CHAPTER 1 1 -A — AIR POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT
STATIONARY SOURCES- ............ — 6
CHAPTER II-B -- AIR POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT
MOBILE SOURCES ............ -------- 22
CHAPTER III -- NOISE POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT- ........ 31
CHAPTER IV -- PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT ........... -— 34
CHAPTER V -- N.P.D.E.S. PERMIT PROGRAM— ........ 52
CHAPTER VI — WATER POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT ......... 57
CHAPTER VII - NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION
CENTER, DENVER, COLORADO ----------- 87
APPENDICES
See separate Table of Contents following CHAPTER VII
-------
EPA PROGRESS REPORT
FOREWORD
This report, the fourth in a series of EPA Enforcement
Progress Reports, covers the period January 1, 1976, through
September 30, 1976. This time span was chosen to allow this
report to begin the publication of the Progress Reports on
the new Federal fiscal cycle. The reporting period is
thereby synchronized with both the Federal fiscal planning
cycle and with the EPA Management-By-Objective System, EPA's
official management and reporting tool. This report documents
enforcement activities carried out directly by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency. As such, it enumerates
only a portion of the environmental enforcement activities in
this country. The enforcement of our nation's environmental
laws is a task shared by the Federal, State and local govern-
ments. A continuation of that strong, partnership of governments
remains one of the Agency's highest priorities in accomplishing
the task of improving the quality of our Nation's environment.
The decentralized structure of EPA as well as the
substantial authorities exercised by States and local govern-
ments under our environmental laws place a premium on
coordination and effective management at all levels. During
1976, the Office of Enforcement has made significant strides
in improving the systems and processes which are necessary
for improving management, coordination and effective
application of resources. A review of enforcement systems
and processes used in various offices was conducted to develop
model systems that can be used to heighten efficiency and
eliminate wasted resources. A similar review of automated
data processing systems in use and future data needs was
effected. A review of the NPDES permit program with a view
towards its effective performance in the 1977-1983 time
frame is well underway, relying heavily upon participation
by State and EPA field personnel. This review is examining
such areas as the appropriate role of public participation,
EPA/State communication mechanisms, and administrative
management processes.
Management systems and procedures within Headquarters
of the Office of Enforcement were significantly strengthened
to enhance the ability to provide effective national program
leadership and management. Effective communications were
further strengthened through periodic meetings with EPA
Regional Office personnel and State and local representatives.
-------
Steps were taken to improve State,', local and public
participation in development of policy planning and regu-
latory planning processes. An Enforcement Policy Index was
developed, based on current EPA enforcement policy documents,
and given to Regional EPA and State offices. All of these
initiatives have contributed to an ever more streamlined and
effective nationwide environmental enforcement effort.
A number of major enforcement actions have occurred in
the interval since the end of fiscal year 1976. For example,
criminal action against the Semet-Solvay coke plant at
Ashland, Kentucky, for air pollution regulation violations
led to a fine of $925,000. U.S. Steel and EPA signed a
consent order to control particulate pollution from the
Clairton Coke Works in Pennsylvania (the largest coke oven
plant in the world), which will result in a particulate
emission reduction to less than half of present levels.
One recent action against General Motors will result in
the recall of 530,000 automobiles; another recall order
recently issued to Chrysler Corporation involves 208,000
vehicles. On October 5, 1976, Allied Chemical Corporation
was fined $13.28 million (the largest fine ever imposed
for violation of environmental regulations) for violations
of .the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by discharging
the pesticide Kepone into Virginia's James River.
Despite the importance of these and the many other
actions reflected in this Progress Report, we must not
pause more than momentarily in our satisfaction with progress
achieved, for many major tasks remain to be accomplished.
I am confident that through the coordinated efforts of
Federal, State and local governments we can reach our goal.
Satisfactory environmental quality can become a reality
throughout our Nation.
Washington, D.C. Stanley W. Legro
Assistant Administrator
January 1977 for Enforcement
m
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
AND
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS AND RESULTS
The report on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's air,
noise, pesticides, and water enforcement activities presented here is
the fourth in a series of volumes seeking to inform all interested
segments of the American Public on the problems encountered, and the
progress achieved, in enforcing the Nation's environmental protection
laws.
The time span covered here is a period of nine months, extending
from January 1, 1976 through September 30, 1976. The first two of the
three volumes each covered a two year span, beginning with December 2,
1970, the day on which EPA first came into existence. The third covered
thirteen months, from December 1974 through December 1975. A nine month
period was chosen to allow this report, and succeeding reports, to
coincide with the recently modified Federal fiscal year.
Over the January 1976 - September 1976 period, EPA initiated a
total of 6613 formal enforcement actions in the air, pesticides, and
water pollution program areas, bringing the total number of such actions
taken in EPA's six years of existence to nearly 19,600. The types of
actions involved in the individual program areas are discussed in detail
in the several relevant chapters following in the text of this report.
Name-by-name listings of the entities against whom EPA initiated enforcement
actions, as well as other key information concerning each action, are
presented in the Appendix section of this report, to the extent that
such information had been reported by EPA's Regional Offices.
Pollution was abated, or compliance was obtained or underway
without resorting to formal civil or criminal court proceedings or
agency civil proceedings, in 3178 actions, or 48 percent. For 2502
actions, or 38 percent, administrative and formal court or agency
proceedings were pending or results were not reported by the Regional
Offices.
In 925 cases, or 14 percent, institution of formal civil or criminal
court proceedings or agency civil proceedings was necessary, with
resulting penalties/fines of $1,651,966 being imposed to date. This
brings the total fines and penalties imposed in 3367 EPA-inititated
actions reported as concluded in the first six years of EPA's existence
to $11,797,953 not including the $1+ million assessed on May 4, 1976
against the Reserve Mining Company. ((See Chapter VI). The total does
include $213,146 in 140 cases initially reported in the previous volume
for which the Regional Offices provided information in the present
reporting period. (See Tabulation)
-------
20,0001
TOTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
1956 to SEPTEMBER 1976
(cumulative)
12/70
TO
11/72
(1,187
ACTIONS)'
I 12/72 112/74 | 1/76 J 19.676
TO TO TOf!
11/74 12/75 9/76
(5,068 |(6,702 (6613]
ACTIONSKACTIONS)) ACTIONS)
10,000
5,000'
1,000
13,063
1956! 57
58
59' 1960! 61
62 j
63
64
65 66
67
68
69 1970) 71
72 73
74
75 1976
-------
SUMMARY OF DISPOSITION AND RESULTS
OF AIR, PESTICIDES, AND WATER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
(As of September 1976)
A. ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS INITIATED BY EPA JANUARY 1, 1976 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976
ITEM AIR
Total Actions Initiated
STATIONARY
SOURCES
719
MOBILE
SOURCES
1833
PESTICIDES
1614
WATER
2447
TOTAL
6613
RESULTS/STATUS:
Pollution Abated or compliance
Obtained or Underway via
Administrative Action:
Formal Civil/Criminal Court or
Agency Civil Proceedings Concluded:
Fines/Penalties Resulting:
Administrative and Formal Court
or Agency Proceedings Pending or
Disposition not Reported by the
Regions:
270 I/
I/
449 I/
1287
276
$946,675
270
1345
134 2J
$166,621
135
276
515
$538,670
1648
3178
925
$1,651,966
2502
UPDATE ON DISPOSITION OF ACTIONS
Total Actions Reported as
Pending - December 31, 1975
Number of Actions Concluded in
Subsequent 9 -months Period:
Fines/Penalties Resulting
REPORTED PENDING IN PREVIOUS EPA REPORT
Not Reported 3
Not Reported
II II
231
140
$213,146
Not Reported 234
140
$213,146
The total number of actions initiated includes successive enforcement steps against any single
source or violator not in compliance following EPA's initial action; the results are therefore
reported in terms of actual sources/violations only.
]_/ EPA Regional Offices no longer report on status/results of individual actions: The 270 actions
cited are Administrative Orders issued during the period. 2] Includes all actions under the EPA
administered Civil Penalty Program. 3/ Includes Coast Guard-administered Civil Penalty Program for Oil Spills,
and EPA-administered Spill Prevention Control and"Counter-measures (SPCC) Civil Penalty Program, both under
Section 311 of FPWCA.
-------
EPA's various,enforcement,,activities are highlighted.below. The..
full range of efforts 'is addressed in detail in the chapters which'
follow. . -
ENFORCEMENT MILESTONES AND HIGHLIGHTS
FROM JANUARY 1976 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976
AIR---WITH THE STATES IDENTIFIED MORE THAN 21,731 MAJOR AIR POLLUTANT
EMISSION SOURCES, MORE THAN 20,010 MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCE
EMITTERS, REPRESENTING 92%, ARE NOW IN COMPLIANCE OR HAVE BEEN
PLACED ON CLEAN-UP SCHEDULES
---COMPLIANCE WITH AIR POLLUTION REGULATIONS BY STATIONARY SOURCES
NOW ESTIMATED TO KEEP 22.4 MILLION TONS OF PARTICULATE MATTER AND
7.4 MILLION TONS OF SULFUR OXIDES OUT OF THE AIR YEARLY.
— -COMPLETED ACTION ON 62 OF THE 74' UNITS ISSUED PROHIBITION ORDERS
UNDER ESECA PROVISIONS
—-CONDUCTED 23,400 INSPECTIONS OF SFRVICE STATIONS TO ENSURE
COMPLIANCE WITH UNLEADED FUEL REGULATIONS
---SECURED THE VOLUNTARY RECALL BY AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS OF 620,000
VEHICLES TO CORRECT EMISSION RELATED DEFECTS
NOISE—-PROMULGATED ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS FOR NEW PRODUCT EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS AND PORTABLE AIR
COMPRESSORS
---OPENED A STANDARD TEST FACILITY IN SUPPORT OF MEW PRODUCT NOISE
ENFORCEMENT
-------
PESTICIDES—INITIATED OVER 1600 ACTIONS AGAINST VIOLATORS
---DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED PILOT PESTICIDES USE OBSERVATION
PROGRAM
-—DEVELOPED ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE CONTROL OF TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
— INTRODUCED COOPERATIVE STATE ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM
WATER—NPDES PROGRAM APPROVAL WAS GRANTED TO THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
---AN INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF SECTION 404
WAS SIGNED BY EPA AND THE U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
---INITIATED OVER 2400 ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
-------
CHAPTER II - A
STATIONARY SOURCE ENFORCEMENT
CLEAN AIR ACT (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.)
SECTIONS no. m. 112. 119
SECTION 110 - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP'S)
The Clean Air Act establishes a stringent timetable for the States
and EPA to abate air pollution. With a few notable exceptions (e.g.
sulfur oxide emission limitations for Indiana and Illinois), all States
now have fully enforceable emission limitations for stationary instal-
lations which are the source of the large majority of particulate and
sulfur oxide emissions. Particulate and SOx control is a key element
of plans adopted to protect the public health and welfare.
The Act generally provided three years from the date of State plan
approval by EPA to enforce SIP emission limitations and achieve health-
related air quality standards. Except for portions of sixteen States,
where an extension of up to two years has been granted for one or more
pollutants, these ambient air quality standards were required to be met
by May 31, 1975.
To reach the target levels of air quality, State, local and Federal
enforcement programs have the responsibility for ensuring that stationary
sources attain and maintain compliance with the SIP emission limitations.
Enforcement responsibilities for State-developed, EPA-approved, emission
limitations are shared by the States and EPA. The Clean Air Act recog-
nizes that States have primary responsibility for achieving clean air
within their jurisdictions. When States do not enforce air pollution
standards, however, the Act requires EPA to take action. In accordance
with the intent of the Act, EPA's air enforcement program is designed to
ensure that all sources achieve compliance with applicable standards.
EPA bolsters State air enforcement efforts by supporting State agencies
through control agency grants, by providing specialized skill and exper-
tise or special contractual efforts, and by taking enforcement actions
against selected sources when the States cannot or will not enforce.
Source Compliance Status
Enforcement of standards for stationary sources is an immense task,
viewing the fact that more than 200,000 stationary sources are now sub-
ject to the SIP emission limitations. Nearly 22,000 of these are Class A
emitters, a category defined as facilities individually capable of emit-
ting more than 100 tons of a pollutant each year. As a class, these
-------
major sources produce about 85 percent of all air pollution from stationary
sources. Enforcement programs have thus focused on ensuring compliance
by Class A sources in order to achieve the greatest possible emission re-
ductions in the shortest possible time frame, consistent with the purposes
of the Clean Air Act.
Concentrated efforts expended in this area have resulted in a highly
successful program. By September 1976, the States and EPA had identified
21,731 Class A sources and had brought 20,010 (92%) of these into final
compliance, or had placed them on firm schedules leading to compliance in
the very near future. Of these, 18,466 major emitters were in final
compliance, and 1,544 were complying with cleanup schedules. The compliance
level is expected to climb to about 95 percent by the end of Fiscal Year
1977.
In the 9-month period, January 1976 through September 1976, EPA con-
ducted some 5269 investigations, including plant inspections, opacity
observations, emission tests, and compliance reports and initiated nearly
700 formal enforcement actions. At the same time, the States undertook
clearly the largest portion of the compliance program, conducting the
bulk of the total nationwide field investigation effort and initiating
many thousands of enforcement actions to bring sources into compliance
with SIP emission limitations.
Overall Reduction in Pollutant Emissions
A 1976 study for EPA shows that industry compliance with local, State,
and Federal air pollution control requirements over the period 1970 through
1975 resulted in 22.4 million tons per year of particulates and 7.4 million
tons of SOx being controlled that were not controlled when the Clean Air
Act amendments passed in 1970. These reductions in emissions from station-
ary sources represent achievement of about three-quarters of the reduction
goal to be reached under full compliance with existing SIP's for particu-
lates, and about one-half of the goal for sulfur oxides.
The Task Ahead
The 1,450 Class A sources (7 percent) which still violate emission
standards or compliance schedules and the 271 Class A sources whose opera-
tions must yet be inspected to determine their compliance status, consti-
tuted the highest priority task outstanding at year's end. These sources
rank among the most difficult to bring into compliance because they are,
for the most part, large sources such as power plants and steel mills
which have to date demonstrated considerable reluctance to make the
necessary commitments to curb their emissions to the atmosphere. Thus,
despite decided progress in SIP enforcement, State and Federal tasks with
respect to large-source compliance are not yet completed.
-------
STATIONARY SOURCE AIR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
INITIATED BY EPA REGIONS
JANUARY 1, 1976 - SEPTEMBER 30, 1976
146
EPA REGIONS
58
II
247
37
III
79
16
43
IV
V
VI
VII
27
VEII
39
27
IX
8
-------
300
200
100
433
CO
CO
I
b
TOTAL FORMAL
ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS OVER
9 MONTHS: 719
STATIONARY SOURCE AIR POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT
JANUARY 1976 - SEPTEMBER 1976
(BY CATEGORY)
270
16
CONDUCTED
5,269 INVESTIGATIONS
INCLUDING
PLANT INSPECTIONS
OPACITY OBSERVATIONS
EMISSION TESTS
COMPLIANCE REPORTS
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP)
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAPS)
695
17
7
-------
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF CLASS A EMITTERS BY REGION
September 30, 1976
EPA
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
Total Class
A Sources
Identified
1156
1822
2750
4571
4095
1916
1793
641
2178
809
21,731
Compjiance Status
Sources Complying
With Standards
Or Schedules
1034
1662
2521
4104
3690
1828
1660
601
2121
789
20,010
Sources Violating
Standards
or Schedules
82
123
226
452
351
68
35
37
56
20
1450
Sources of Unknown
Compliance Status
40
37
3
15
54
20
98
3
1
0
i
271
10
-------
Most of the remaining major violators and most of the major sources
of unknown compliance status are located in Air Quality Control Regions
(AQCR's) which are not expected to attain the primary (health-related)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in a timely way, making en-
forcement against such sources a priority of paramount importance.
In addition, it is estimated that about 130,000 smaller emitters
(each having potential emissions of between 10 and 100 tons per year) are
located in these areas where standards are not expected to be met.
States and EPA are now conducting extensive analyses to determine the
reasons for poor air quality in each of the non-attainment areas of the
country and will specifically identify for each AQCR those major and minor
sources which are contributing to non-attainment problems. Preliminary
analysis indicates that the minor sources making the largest contributions
to air quality problems include such stationary sources as small industrial,
commercial, and residential boilers; small incinerators, such as apartment
house incinerators; dry-cleaning operations; bulk storage tanks; cement
handling equipment; cotton gins; feed and grain mills; and chemical plants.
As the causes of non-attainment are identified in these complex analyses,
and as the problem categories of sources are pinpointed, strategies will be
devised and followed to bring violating sources into compliance and SIPs
will be revised to ensure that appropriate emission limitations are in
effect such that ambient levels can be attained.
PROBLEM MAJOR SOURCE CATEGORIES REGULATED UNDER SECTION 110
Several categories of major sources are still posing substantial prob-
lems across the Nation in not achieving compliance with emission standards
within the time limits prescribed by the Act. Notable among these sources
are coal- and oil-fired power plants, integrated iron and steel manufactur-
ing plants and coking facilities, and primary smelters. EPA has undertaken
special efforts to achieve compliance by these sources, and continues to
bring pressure to bear on the owners and operators of these plants to reduce
their pollutant emissions to levels specified in the relevant emission
limitations.
In general, these three source categories have the most difficult air
compliance problem because of the amount of control required and the
associated costs of the control techniques needing application. For power
plants, control of sulfur dioxide emissions is the major concern. Flue gas
desulfurization systems (scrubbers) and low-sulfur fuels are two major
approaches to the reduction of power plant emissions. On the other hand,
control of fugitive particulate emissions is the most difficult problem
for iron and steel mills and coke plants. This problem is underscored by
the large degree of non-compliance at coking facilities. For primary
copper, lead, and zinc smelters, control of sulfur dioxide emissions is a
major difficulty; plants producing sulfuric acid are commonly required to
11
-------
remove the sulfur dioxide from stack gases. These industries accounted
for about one-third of the total emissions of participates and over
two-thirds of the total emissions of sulfur dioxide in 1975. For this
reason, compliance by all of these sources is crucial to the attainment
of the ambient air quality standards in many AQCR's.
Power Plants
Control of emissions from power plants is essential to the attainment
and maintenance of the health-related ambient air quality standards for
sulfur oxides and particulate matter. As a class, the 688 large coal- and
oil-fired plants in the U.S. emit nearly 60% of the total national emis-
sions of sulfur oxides and are heavy contributors to-ambient particulate
loadings.
In the fall of 1973, it became increasingly apparent to EPA that
progress to meet applicable State SOx emission limitations by this sector
of industry was lagging severely. At that time more than 70% of the
coal- and oil-fired capacity in the nation was being operated in violation
of applicable SIP emission limitations, supplies of low-sulfur coal appeared
insufficient to assure nationwide compliance with SOx regulations, and
utilities were extremely reluctant to use flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
to remove SOx from stack emissions while burning high-sulfur fuels. Nation-
al public hearings were held to investigate the utilities' compliance
problems, and the hearing panel concluded that the basic technological
problems associated with FGD had been solved pr were within the scope of
current engineering and that FGD could be applied at a reasonable cost.
At that time 44 such systems were installed, under construction, or planned
around the country. In less than 3 years, Federal and State enforcement
pressure has brought this total to 116 plants, 30 of which are operational,
21 of which are under construction, and 65 of which are in various stages
of planning. These units total nearly 44,000 megawatts of generating
capacity, representing about 50% of the estimated FGD-controlled capacity
needed to achieve full compliance with SOx regulations by 1980.
This increase in applications of FGD systems and a concurrent increase
in the use of low-sulfur coal has considerably improved compliance levels
for SOx. About 59% of the nation's coal- and oil-fired capacity is now
operating in full compliance with SIP SOx limitations or is meeting
Federally enforceable schedules. About 13% is operating in violation, and
the compliance status of the remaining 28% is now being reviewed. Many of
these violators and those of unknown status are located in Ohio where a
new SIP for SOx was recently promulgated and where a suit was immediately
filed under §307 of the Clean Air Act. In addition, a generating capacity
of 64,700 megawatts is not currently regulated due to pending SIP revisions
for SOx in Indiana and for both SOx and particulate matter in Illinois.
-------
The compliance picture is better for partfxulate matter. A total of
82% of the coal- and oil-fired capacity is meeting emission limitations
or complying with schedules to meet these regulations, 16% is out of com-
pliance or violating compliance schedules, and another 2% is of unknown
compliance status. However, 8% of the capacity listed as in compliance is
not now subject to applicable emission limitations. These plants may soon
be subject to control requirements and will then require considerable
compliance efforts.
Despite the positive accomplishments which have been made in obtaining
compliance from the utility industry, several problems still exist. SIP
revisions have yet to be finalized in Illinois and Indiana, and the
plan recently promulgated in Ohio is still under challenge. This affects
enforcement against 98 plants in these,three States alone.
It is expected that court actions will be necessary to resolve some
of the outstanding issues surrounding power plant compliance, but the
fundamental problems of low-sulfur coal shortages and a lack of confi-
dence in applying FGD technology are now resolved. The utility industrys1
attitude toward compliance is much improved over that existing three
years ago and EPA and States are now actively involved in developing
solutions to those remaining problems posed by a number of recalcitrant
power plants.
Primary Non-Ferrous Smelters
Though small in number, the nation's 27 primary copper, lead, and
zinc smelters account for about 10 percent of the total sulfur oxides
emitted by stationary sources. About one-half of these smelters are
located in States where the attainment dates have been extended to
mid-1977. Eight smelters are now in compliance with applicable regula-
tions or are on schedules to achieve compliance. Four smelters are now
operating in violation of SIP emission limitations for SOx or are of
unknown compliance status. These sources are currently subject to en-
forcement actions. Of the remaining sources, 13 are located in States
having inadequate SOx plans and two are in areas where no SOx regulation
is needed. Enforcement efforts are now centering on developing adequate
plans where needed and on pursuing compliance plans with violators.
SIP regulations require application of reasonably available retrofit
control technology and, if necessary, allow the interim use of Supple-
mentary Control Systems (SCS) and tall stacks until adequate constant
emission control techniques become reasonably available. Each smelter
using SCS is further required to conduct a research and development pro-
gram to hasten the development of such technology.
13
-------
Iron and Steel Mills/Coke Plants
There are 214 steel- and coke-producing facilities in the United States,
most of which are located in areas of the country where the primary health-
related ambient air quality standards for particulate matter have yet to be
attained. The major air pollution sources within these 214 installations
consist of 1,005 processes which convert raw materials into steel (by-product
coke batteries, blast furnaces, sinter lines, open hearth furnaces, basic
oxygen furnaces, and electric arc furnaces). During the past 18 months,
EPA's enforcement program has devoted special emphasis to these major pollut-
ing processes. As of July 1976, EPA had taken 99 enforcement actions against
these sources (58 formal notices of violation and 41 administrative orders
and referrals to the Department of Justice for prosecution).
Compliance in the steel industry still lags far behind most other
stationary sources. In October 1976, 489 (49%) of the major steel air
pollution sources had yet to achieve full compliance with emission limits
established under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act compared to a level of
14% for the nearly 22,000 total Class A sources. To date, State and EPA
enforcement efforts have placed 298 (61%) of the 489 violating steel pro-
cesses on schedule to achieve compliance, a level comparable to all Class
A sources where schedules for 1,845 (60%) of the 3,071 Class A violators
have been established. However, major progress has occurred, especially
in the last year. As an example, control of pushing operations (a major
source of fugitive emissions at coke batteries) has increased steadily
such that the number of plants with at least one battery equipped with a
pushing emission control device has risen from less than 3 in 1972 to
nearly 20 at the present time. Acceptance of pushing control technology
as well as widespread adoption of stage charging and other control
practices has given the control program substantial momentum.
Although reasons for continued violations at any major steel mill
are complex and related to unique local conditions, the steel industry
has regularly raised a number of issues to argue for more time or for
relaxation of air pollution requirements:
Impact of Fugitive Process Emissions
Fugitive process emissions are pollutants formed during an industrial
process and which escape to the air without having been ducted to a smoke
stack. Characteristically, fugitive process emissions are emitted from
portions of the steel making operations which are difficult to seal or en-
close. The steel industry regularly argues that fugitive process emissions
are insignificant in terms of air quality impact. However, evidence from
a number of completed and in-process studies shows that, while difficult to
measure because not confined, fugitive process emissions have a major en-
vironmental impact and can be large in terms of mass emissions.
14
-------
"STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH HUSSION LIMITATIONS
MAJOR POLLUTION STEEL PROCESSES VS ALL MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCE INSTALLATIONS
SEPTEMBER 1976
Major Steel
Processes
Coke batteries
Sinter lines
Blast furnaces
Open hearth furnaces
Basic oxygen furnaces
Electric arc furnaces
Totals
All Class A Installations3
Total
Number
230
57
195
143
68
312
1,005
21,731
Status of Compliance with SIP Emission Limits
In Compliance
36
23
127
48
30
194
458 (46%)
18,466 (85%)
In Violation
183
33
65
84
33
85
483 (48%)
2,994 (14%)
Unknown Status
11
1
3
11
5
33
64 (6%)
271 (1%)
This comparison shows the compliance status of the steel industry in the most favorable light, since
the compliance status of individual processes within steel facilities is being compared to the status of
total installations with major potential air pollution problems (the source of the stationary source
compliance figures is the EPA formal reporting system; under this system a facility having several
processes, only one of which is in violation or of unknown status, must be classified as in violation
or unknown as a whole).
15
-------
Economic Impact
In general, the steel industry has made a variety of arguments that
the cost of controlling air pollution (especially control of fugitive emis-
sions) far exceeds any benefits. However, it must be recognized that
nearly all major U. S. steel mills were established prior to World War
II and many continue to operate older, less profitable equipment.
Therefore, irrespective of pollution control costs, profits for the
steel industry are among the lowest for principal U. S. manufacturing
industries (typically 5% to 10% of net worth). In many instances, a
better alternative to the controlling of old, less efficient existing
facilities is the construction of new, better controlled and more
productive replacement facilities.
Energy Issues
The steel industry contends that the large amount of energy needed
to abate air pollution conflicts with national energy policy and the
American Iron and Steel Institute has argued this issue in many forums.
In general, EPA has found that the industry estimates of energy needs
are exaggerated, being based on the application of the most energy-
intensive control techniques and not considering the recycling of energy.
Control Feasibility
The steel industry contends that technology for control of air pollu-
tion (especially fugitive emissions) is not available to meet many emission
limitations. Pressure by State and EPA enforcement programs over the past
five years, however, has shown that institution of improved management
procedures and application of existing control technologies can achieve
compliance. In addition, research by both EPA and the industry into new
pollution control technologies has been greatly stimulated and a number
of new, less expensive control techniques are under development.
United States v. Allied Chemical Corporation (Semet-Solvay Division)
On October 29, 1976, sentence was imposed in a major criminal
action brought pursuant to Section 113 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
1857c-8) for violations of an EPA order requiring source compliance
with a State implementation plan. The criminal information initiating
United States v. Allied Chemical Corporation (Semet-Solvay Division).
Criminal No. 76-14 (E.D. Ky., filed June 10, 1976), alleged 88 viola-
tions, which occurred on 37 separate days, of an administrative order
issued on February 12, 1975, by EPA's Region IV Office under Section 113
of the Clean Air Act. The EPA order included compliance schedules for
the defendant's two coke batteries at Ashland, Kentucy, designed to
bring these facilities into compliance with the requirements of the
State of Kentucky's Section 110 implementation plan.
16
-------
Allied entered a plea of nolo contendere to the criminal informa-
tion on September 9, 1976. A1Tied" was fined $925,000 for the 37 days
its Ashland plant was cited for violations of the order. All but
$125,000 of the sentence, plus court costs, was conditionally suspended
by the court, and is to be paid by Allied within 30 days of the sen-
tencing hearing. If, during any subsequent 60-day period, the plant
is in substantial non-compliance with the terms of the administrative
order, it is liable for an additional sum of $100,000. This probationary
requirement remains in effect for five years, or until the sum of
$925,000 has been paid, whichever occurs first. Refusal by Allied to
make timely payments on any additional fine which may be imposed will
result in the entire balance of the original fine becoming immediately
due. EPA's Region IV office is required to report Allied's compliance
status to the court during each 60-day period.
Thus while numerous violations from various processes are still
occurring at most steel mills, many of these violations are currently
the subject of EPA and State enforcement actions. Compliance by 31 of
the largest integrated mills and major coke plants is of particular
importance due to their large actual and potential impact on air
quality. Enforcement of SIP requirements at 31 major plants has
resulted in two successful civil/criminal prosecutions to obtain
compliance and nine federally enforceable consent agreements or
administrative orders; in addition, source owners for 18 of these plants
are now negotiating compliance programs with EPA and State agencies, and
two plants are the principal subjects of SIP revisions. EPA is also
conducting several in-house and contractual studies on control tech-
nologies and cost factors as aids in resolving some of the areas of
conflict with this industry when negotiating compliance plans.
New Source Review
Also under §110 of the Act is EPA's responsibility for ensuring
that new construction and expansion of industrial sources neither
causes nor contributes to non-attainment nor causes significant deteri-
oration of air quality. Many States do not yet have adequate new source
review programs laid out and some of those that do are not able to
implement them to the extent needed to ensure later attainment and
maintenance of ambient standards. EPA is now in the process of
assisting States in evaluating current procedures and in developing and
implementing effective strategies to assess the impact on the ambient
standards in permitting potential new sources.
Uncontrolled industrial growth in areas barely attaining standards
would seriously jeopardize air quality gains made to date, and create diffi
cult, if not impossible, re-attainment problems. EPA's policy in this re-
gard is not to limit growth but to act as a catalyst in ensuring that the
17
-------
goals of industrial expansion and environmental protection, are accomplished
together. Inherent in the review program for new construction is EPA's
ability to assist industry in locating environmentally sound alternative
construction sites. Control of HC emissions from stationary sources in
order to attain the ambient standards for qxidants is an excellent
example of the problems facing the stationary enforcement program with
regard to new source review. Postponement of automobile standards
designed to reduce photochemical oxidant levels makes control of
stationary sources, both new and existing, imperative. In many non-
attainment areas for oxidants, such as Los Angeles and Houston-
Galveston, very difficult judgments must be made as to control levels to
be met by existing and potential sources before new construction can
proceed.
SECTION 111 — NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)
The first group of standards covering new stationary sources of air
pollution were promulgated in December 1971, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. This initial group included steam elec-
tric power plants, municipal incinerators, nitric and sulfuric acid plants,
and asphalt cement plants.
By September 1976, the NSPS program had grown to cover 493 new
sources in 24 industrial categories and a national compliance level of
about 92 percent had been achieved. In accomplishing this objective,
EPA initiated 17 enforcement actions in 1976.
As additional new source categories receive regulatory coverage, and
as additional sources now under construction commence operations, the NSPS
program will assume increasing relative importance within the framework of
attaining, and maintaining, ambient air quality standards.
To expand resources available for enforcement and consistent
with the mandate of the Clean Air Act, EPA is undertaking efforts to
delegate enforcement authority to State and local air pollution control
agencies. By September 1976, authority to carry out the NSPS program
had been officially delegated to 20 State and 18 local agencies, and
proposals for delegation were being discussed with many others.
SECTION 112 — NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAPS)
On October 14, 1975, EPA promulgated amendments to NESHAPS regu-
lations for asbestos and mercury. These regulations establish asbestos
emission standards for the manufacturing of shotgun shells and asphalt
concrete, the fabrication of various asbestos products including cement
-------
building products and friction products, the disposal of asbestos wastes,
as well as standards for mercury emissions for sewage sludge incineration
and drying operations.
On October 21, 1976, EPA also promulgated standards for the control
of vinyl chloride emission from ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and
polyvinyl chloride plants.
By September 1976, EPA had determined that 899 industrial sources
are subject to promulgated asbestos, mercury, and beryllium requirements.
Ninety-four percent of these sources are in compliance with the standards.
About 60 additional sources are subject to the new vinyl chloride regu-
lations and work is now underway to establish compliance plans for
these sources. By September 1976, 14 states and 20 local agencies had
requested and were delegated enforcement authority for NESHAPS.
SECTION 119 — ENERGY RELATED AUTHORITY
In reaction to the oil embargo of 1973-74, Congress enacted the
Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act (ESECA). ESECA, which
became law on June 22, 1974, mandated the implementation of a national
program to conserve petroleum products and natural gas and increase the
use of coal by major fuel consumers. The Office of Coal Utilization of
the Federal Energy Administration (FEA) is primarily responsible for
implementation of Section 2 of ESECA which directs FEA to prohibit
certain powerplants and authorizes FEA to prohibit certain major fuel
burning installations from burning natural gas or petroleum products as
a primary energy source. Such prohibitions effectively mandate the use
of coal.
Section 111 of ESECA amended the Clean Air Act by adding a new
Section 119 which provides EPA with new authorities intended to assure that
air quality requirements will not interfere with the coal conversion pro-
gram so long as public health is adequately protected. Under ESECA, FEA
cannot make a prohibition order effective until the date EPA certifies that
the plant or installation in question will be able to comply with all appli-
cable air pollution requirements. Once a plant or installation receives a
prohibition order, it may become eligible for a Compliance Date Extension
(CDE), but only if it meets the rather severe eligibility tests of Section
119 (including a showing of need for an extension and ability to comply by
1/1/79).
For any plant which has received an FEA prohibition order, Section 119
of the Clean Air Act, as amended, requires EPA to: (1) notify FEA that the
source will be able to burn coal and comply with all applicable air pollu-
tion requirements without a CDE, or (2) in the absence of such a notifica-
tion, certify to FEA the earliest date by which the source will be able to
burn coal and comply with air pollution requirements. (If a source is
ineligible for a CDE, EPA must still certify to FEA the earliest date such
19
-------
source can comply with air pollution requirements.) FEA cannot make its
prohibition order effective any earlier than the date certified by EPA.
On June 30, 1975, FEA issued prohibition orders to 74 generating
units at 32 utilities. As of November 30, 1976, EPA has (1) notified FEA
that 11 units could burn coal and comply with all applicable air pollution
requirements without a CDE, (2) certified to FEA that 35 units require up-
grading of existing air pollution control equipment or installation of new
equipment before burning coal, (3) proposed CDE's for 4 units in the
Federal Register, and (4) issued CDE's to 16 units. Action on 4 units has
been postponed pending revision of the applicable state implementation
plan and action on 4 additional units cannot be completed pending the out-
come of EPA enforcement proceedings to obtain necessary information from
the affected utilities. Thus, EPA has completed action on 62 of the 74
units issued prohibition orders.
-------
STATUS OF ESECA ACTIONS
December 1, 1976
A. NOTIFICATIONS COMPLETED (Source can burn coal TOTAL
and comply with all applicable air pollution
requirements immediately without a CDE) 11 units
McWilliams #3 Quindaro 3, #1,2
Weston #2 Des Moines #10,11
Ames #7 Maynard #14
Sheldon #1 Sutton #1,2
B. CERTIFICATIONS COMPLETED (Source requires some
upgrading/new control equipment before burning
coal in compliance) 35 units
Kaw River #2 Hawthorne #4,5
Edge Moor #1,2,3,4 Sheldon #2
Crane #1,2 Chesterfield #3,4,5,6
Wagner #1,2 McManus #1,2
Riverside #4,5 Morgantown #1,2
Winnetka #5,6,7,8 Portsmouth #1,2,3,4
St. Clair #5 Albany #1,2,3,4
C. COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS PROPOSED IN F.R. 4 units
Sutton #3
Port Wentworth #1,2,3
D. COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS PROMULGATED 16 units
Sutherland Station #1,2,3 James River #3,4
Neal Station #1 Hawthorne #3
Lawrence Station #3,4,5 Shiller #4,5
Tecumseh Station #9,10 Kaw River #1,3
E. DRAFTING NOTIFICATION/CERTIFICATION LETTERS 2 units
Crystal River #1,2
F. POSTPONEMENT SIP REVISION 4 units
B. L. England #1,2
Danskammer #3,4
G. NO SUBMITTAL UNDER PART 55 2 units
Yorktown #1,2
Zl
-------
CHAPTER II - B
MOBILE SOURCE ENFORCEMENT
The Mobile Source Enforcement program is directed primarily toward
achieving compliance with vehicle emission standards, fuel regulations,
and mobile source related aspects of state implementation plans promul-
gated by EPA under the Clean Air Act. The activities of the program
include preventing introduction of uncertified new domestic and imported
vehicles into commerce; auditing certification procedures of domestic
and foreign automobile manufacturers; enforcing vehicle assembly line
emission test activity and the recall, warranty, anti-tampering, and
imports provisions of the Act; developing and enforcing Federal regula-
tions for the removal of lead from gasoline; and ensuring compliance
with transportation control plans, mobile source related vapor recovery
regulations, and inspection and maintenance programs.
Inspection/Investigation Program - Section 206(c) of the Clean Air
Act authorizes the enforcement activities related to emission requirements
for "new" motor vehicles or engines - i.e., motor vehicles or engines
which have not yet been sold to the ultimate purchaser. This authority
includes right of entry for the purpose of conducting tests of vehicles
in the hands of the manufacturer and for inspecting records and facilities
used by the manufacturer in complying with the Act and regulations there-
under. Section 208 of the Act authorizes written inquiries by the Agency
in order to determine whether a manufacturer is or has been acting in
accordance with the Act and regulations thereunder.
Since January 1, 1976, mobile source enforcement personnel have
conducted 62 inspections of domestic and foreign motor vehicle manufac-
turers. Such inspections include detailed audits of procedures and
records, and visual inspection of facilities and vehicles in order to
determine whether manufacturers are and have been acting in compliance
with the Clean Air Act and its regulations.
A total of seven vehicle manufacturer investigations have been
conducted since January 1, 1976, some of which arose from inspections.
These investigations consist of a search of vehicle manufacturer records
and documents and interrogation of individuals to determine whether
violations of the Clean Air Act-and its regulations have occurred.
Issuance of requests for production of information pursuant to section
208 of the Act frequently accompany such investigations, and such requests
include requiring the manufacturer to develop emission test data where
violations may be accompanied by effects on emission performance.
Since January 1, 1976, twelve section 208 letters have been issued.
Out of the seven investigations, one case was referred to the
Department of Justice for legal action. That referral dealt with
Chrysler Corporation's introduction into commerce of 9,185 vehicles
which were not covered by a certificate of conformity.
zz
-------
Selective Enforcement Audit Program - On July 28, 1976, regulations
were published establishing a program for" .testing new production vehicles
at the assembly line in order to assure that they comply with emission
standards. The program is called Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA)
and involves the testing, pursuant to an administrative order and in
accordance with the Federal Test Procedure, of a statistically representa-
tive sample of production vehicles from a specified configuration. If
nonconformity is established, EPA may suspend or revoke the certificate
of conformity.
The SEA program is being run on a trial basis until December 31,
1976. Test orders are being issued but no enforcement sanctions will be
imposed as the result of vehicles failing to meet emission standards.
One trial audit each will be run for American Motors, Chrysler, Ford, and
General Motors.
Starting January 1, 1977, the SEA regulations become fully effective.
Two audit teams wil.l be utilized to conduct a total of twenty audits for
model year 1977.
Recall Program - Section 207(c) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA J
to order recall of vehicles if they do not conform to emission standards.
Since January 1, 1976, EPA has initiated 28 recall investigations. Thus
far in 1976, as a result of EPA investigations, manufacturers have
initiated recalls on approximately 620,000 vehicles. These recalls are
being monitored by EPA.
Warranties and Aftermarkets Parts Program - The warranty provisions
of the Clean Air Act are designed to help assure that manufacturers
develop and produce vehicles that meet emission standards throughout
their useful lives. The production warranty provision in section 207(a)
of the Clean Air Act requires that the manufacturers warrant that the
vehicle or engine meets applicable emission standards at the time of
sale, and is free from defects which, during the useful life, may cause
the vehicle or engine to fail to comply with the emission standards.
Although this provision has been in effect since the 1972 model
year, it has proved of little utility to consumers experiencing
difficulties with their vehicle's emission control system. The Agency
believes that this is because consumers do not know with any precision
what components arid failures are covered by the section 207(a) warranty
and, when they do make claims, are unable to sustain the burden of
establishing that the failure is indeed a defect causing the emissions
to exceed Federal standards, as section 207(a) is generally interpreted
to require. To overcome these difficulties and to make section 207(a)
useful to consumers with legitimate claims, the Agency intends ultimately
to promulgate regulations defining the coverage of this provision. Major
activities since December 1974, in support of this long-range goal, include
23
-------
the completion of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. To provide
technical support for this program, the relationship of defective vehicle
components to emissions is being investigated under contract. EPA also has
continued to review owner's manuals to see that the section 207(a) warranty
is provided to consumers in language which adequately reflects the
statutory intent.
The performance warranty provision in section 207(b) of the Clean
Air Act, when implemented, will require that a manufacturer warrant that
properly maintained and used vehicles and engines comply throughout their
useful lives with emission standards when in actual use. This provision
has not been implemented because of the technical difficulty of identifying
relatively quick and inexpensive emission tests which "are reasonably
capable of being correlated" with the sophisticated test used on prototype
vehicles, as section 207(b) requires. Major activities in this area since
January 1, 1976, include the drafting of proposed test procedures and
warranty regulations for publication in the Federal Register early in 1977.
Anti-tampering Program - Section 203(a)(3) makes it a prohibited
act for any manufacturer or dealer to knowingly remove or render inoperative
a vehicle's emission control system after sale of the vehicle to the
ultimate purchaser. From January 1, 1976, approximately 25/tampering
inspections and interviews have been conducted. Six cases were referred
to the Department of Justice for action. At least eight other cases are
being processed for referral to the Department of Justice. To date, nine
tampering cases have been successfully prosecuted, resulting in civil
penalties totaling $9,000.
Imports Program - Section 203(a)(l) and 203(b)(2) give EPA responsi-
bility for enforcing compliance of imported motor vehicles with emission
standards. In conjunction with the Bureau of Customs, EPA has monitored
importation of an estimated 2-1/2 million commercial and privately owned
vehicles since January 1, 1976. Through that program, 1,200 noncomplying
vehicles imported under bond have been modified pursuant to administrative
orders. In addition, 75 nonconforming vehicles have been exported
pursuant to administrative orders. Penalties totaling $760,000 have been
assessed through Customs for noncompliance with the regulations.
EPA has conducted 33 investigations of alleged illegal importations.
One case was referred to the Justice Department for prosecution.
Fuels Enforcement Program - EPA has responsibility for enforcing
section 211(c)(l) of the Clean Air Act relating to the regulation of
fuels and fuel additives. On January 10, 1974, EPA promulgated regulations
requiring the general availability of unleaded gasoline by July 1, 1974,
for use in 1975 and later model cars equipped with catalytic emission
control systems.
-------
EPA has established a nationwide Fuels Enforcement Program for
ensuring that affected retail outlets are in compliance with these
regulations. This program includes sampling of the fuel at retail outlets
by Regional EPA Field Inspectors and State Inspectors under EPA contract
and the analysis of the samples for lead content.
From January 1, 1976 to September 30, 1976, EPA has conducted
approximately 23,400 inspections of service stations to ensure compliance
with the unleaded fuel regulations. At the stations, 20,800 gasoline _
samples were taken, of which about 1.35% were found to be contaminated
with lead. Approximately 3,500 minor violations were also found during
this period. Enforcement has issued approximately 3,125 warnings and 536
complaints, and has collected $186,325 in penalties during this period.
Generally, warnings are issued for minor violations, and complaints
are issued for contaminations, other major violations, deliberate
violations, repeated violations, and failure to respond to warnings. The
warning generally allows the violator to come into compliance in a reasonable
time. A complaint is usually issued against the retailer, the distributor,
and the branded refiner with each given an opportunity to establish an
affirmative defense. In many of these cases, penalties are imposed.
Lead Phasedown Program - On December 6, 1973 (38 FR 33734), the EPA
issued regulations pursuant to section 211 of the Clean Air Act controlling
the amount of lead additives used in gasoline. The original lead reduction
schedule limited the average amount of lead in gasoline to a maximum of
1.4 grams per gallon (gpg) in 1976, 1.0 gpg in 1977, 0.8 gpg in 1978, and
finally to 0.5 gpg by January 1, 1979. These regulations were challenged
in court and, in 1974, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
set aside the regulations. Subsequently, the EPA suspended enforcement
of the regulations. In March 1975 the Court granted the Agency's petition
for a rehearing en bane. The full Court issued its opinion upholding the
regulations in March 1976. Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court on
June 14, 1976.
On September 24, 1976, based on studies indicating that gasoline
shortages would result if the original schedule were enforced, EPA amended
the regulations. The amended regulations retain the 0.5 gram per gallon
standard, but extend the period for compliance with that standard from
January 1 to October 1, 1979, in order to permit sufficient time for
refiners to install the equipment necessary to meet the reduced lead level
without causing a gasoline shortage. The January 1, 1978, standard of
0.8 gram per gallon also remains in effect but will be suspended if a
refiner can show that he has taken, and is continuing to take, sufficient
actions in procuring and installing equipment to insure the achievement
of the 0.5 gram per gallon standard by October 1979 or before. Separate
treatment of small refiners (30,000 barrels per calendar day or less crude
oil capacity) with regard to the final lead level requirement is under
active consideration.
25
-------
Inspection/Maintenance and Transportation Control Plans - During the
past year, EPA has made efforts to assure the implementation of State
Inspection/Maintenance programs and transportation control measures.
Establishment of these programs will reduce emissions from vehicles in-use
and will help assure that National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidants are achieved in certain Air
Quality Control Regions.
While Title I gives EPA the authority to ensure enforcement of
Inspection/Maintenance and of Transportation Control Plans, recent Circuit
Court decisions relating to enforcement of these measures have taken
differing views on the issue of whether EPA has the authority to take
enforcement actions directed at governmental bodies. This issue is now
before the Supreme Court for final resolution. The courts have, however,
unanimously upheld EPA's authority to take enforcement actions against
individual sources.
Stage I Vapor Recovery - Regulations requiring the control of vapors
emitted during transfer operations in the gasoline marketing chain have
been promulgated under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. EPA has
promulgated Stage I vapor recovery regulations in 13 air quality control
regions. Stage I involves the recovering of vapor emitted during the
filling of delivery trucks and the subsequent filling of underground
storage tanks.
The final compliance date in most areas was March 1, 1976. In some
cases, this date has been extended until May 31, 1977. EPA Regional Offices,
and States and local offices are now beginning a field compliance monitoring
program.
Stage II Vapor Recovery - Regulations to control gasoline vapors
during vehicle refueling, Stage II vapor recovery regulations, were
promulgated in the original State Implementation Plans, under section 110
of the Clean Air Act, in late 1973 and early 1974. These regulations
specified that 90% of gasoline vapors emitted during vehicle refueling
must be recovered but did not include a test procedure for evaluating a
system's performance. In October 1975, revisions were proposed to the
regulations. The revisions included establishing a mass emission standard
rather than the 90% recovery requirement and proposed several test
procedures to determine whether a system complies with the standard.
Under this proposal, EPA would have conducted a certification program
during which systems would be tested prior to installation. If the
system achieved the standard, it would be certified by EPA as being
acceptable for installation. The test procedures were very complex and
expensive and were not suitable for use as a field test after the system
was installed. The lack of a viable means to test system performance
after installation was a major shortcoming since the performance of
Stage II equipment is particularly sensitive to the manner in which it
is installed, maintained, and operated.
-------
During the past year, the Office of Enforcement developed a short
test that could be used to test the performance of Stage II equipment in
the field. Based on the development of this test, the Stage II vapor
recovery regulations were reproposed in November 1976. The new proposal
abandons the earlier system certification approach and adopts in-use field
enforcement as the primary means for assuring compliance with the regulatory
requirements. The new proposal also allows small marketers more time than
the major oil companies to meet the regulatory requirements.
-------
MOBILE SOURCE ENFORCEMENT
CASES REFERRED BY EPA TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
January 1, 1976 - September 30, 1976
A. CERTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS/INVESTIGATIONS
Name: CHRYSLER CORPORATION
Offense: Alleged violation of section 203(a)(l) of CLEAN AIR ACT-
introducing vehicles into commerce not covered by
"Certificate of Conformity" due to incorrect emission
components being installed on certification test.
vehicles
Date Referred: August 3, 1976
Status: Pre-trial discovery in progress
B. TAMPERING
Name: MANZI DODGE, Laurence, Massachusetts
CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Detroit, Michigan
Offense: Alleged violation of anti-tampering prohibition under
section 203(a)(3) of CLEAN AIR ACT
Date Referred: January 26, 1976
Status: Pre-trial discovery in progress
Name: LALLAS BUICK INC., Lowell, Massachusetts
Offense: Alleged violation of anti-tampering prohibition under
section 203[a)(3) of CLEAN AIR ACT
Date Referred: April 1, 1976
Status: Complaint filed July 1976. Settlement discussions in
progress.
Name: STANLEY MOTORS INC., Irvington, New Jersey
Offense: Alleged violation of anti-tampering prohibition under
section 203(a)(3) of CLEAN AIR ACT
Date Referred: May 26, 1976
Status: Referred to Assistant U.S. Attorney, July 1976
Name: BLOOM MOTORS LTD., Hazelwood, Missouri
Offense: Alleged violation of anti-tampering prohibition under
section 203(a)(3) of CLEAN AIR ACT
Date Referred: June 1, 1976
Status: No complaint has been filed.
28
-------
Name: MARTIN CENTERS (d/b/a Sprung Buggworks), Kansas City, Missouri
Offense: Alleged violation of anti-tampering prohibition under
section 203(a)(3) of CLEAN AIR ACT
Date Referred: September 16, 1976
Status: Complaint filed November 1, 1976
C. IMPORTS
Name: WOOD § MOORE, Houston, Texas
Offense: Alleged violations of 18 USC 371, 18 USC 1001, 42 USC
1857c-8(c) (2), 42 USC 1857f-2(a)(1) -- conspiracy to
illegally import and sell four nonconforming vehicles
by means of false statement
Date Referred: March 3, 1976
Status: Parties are participating in pretrial discussions
-------
MOBILE SOURCE ENFORCEMENT
January 1, 1976 through September 30, 1976
(By Category)
PROGRAM AREA
ACTIVITIES/ACTIONS/RESULTS
Inspection/Invest!gation
of Auto Manufacturers
62 Inspections
20 Foreign
42 Domestic
7 Investigations
1 Prosecution Referral
12 Section 208 Letters
Tampering
25 Investigations
5 Prosecution Referrals
$350 Civil Penalties
Recall
28 Investigations
12 Manufacturer Initiated
Recalls
620,000 Vehicles
Imports
33 Investigations
1 Prosecution Referral
1,200 Vehicles Modified
75 Vehicles Exported
$760,000 Civil Penalties
Assessed
Fuels
23,400 Service Station
Inspections
20,800 Gasoline Samples
Analyzed
3,125 Warnings Issued
536 Complaints Filed
$186,325 Civil Penalties
TCP/ I/M
6 On-going I/M Programs
46 Section 114 Letters
Sent to Employers
1 Prosecution Referral
2 Orders Issued
-------
CHAPTER III
NOISE ENFORCEMENT
The Noise Control Act of 1972, October 21, 1972
Public Law 92-574 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq. 1972)
The Noise Enforcement Program is designed to implement
the noise enforcement strategies developed pursuant to the
Noise Control Act of 1972. EPA's Noise Enforcement Division
is responsible for the development and subsequent implementa-
tion of the enforcement regulations that are necessary to
ensure compliance with the new product standards and the.
labeling requirements. Furthermore, the Noise Enforcement
Division will monitor the U.S. DOT's enforcement of interstate
motor carrier and railroad noise regulations, will review the
noise enforcement actions of other Federal agencies, and will
provide assistance to States and localities to develop and
implement noise enforcement programs.
Enforcement of New Product Noise Emission Standards
On January 14, 1976, new product noise emission standards
were promulgated for portable air compressors; on April 13,
1976 standards were promulgated for medium and heavy duty
trucks. Additional standards are presently being developed
for motorcycles, buses, wheel and crawler tractors, truck
refrigeration units, and truck-mounted solid waste compactors.
These products were identified as major noise sources on May
28, ly75.
The first level of the truck noise emission standard
becomes effective on January 1, 1978. The compressor noise
emission standard becomes effective on January 1, 1978 for
compressors whose capacity is 250 cfm or less and on July 1,
1978 for compressors with capacities greater than 250 cfm.
The enforcement strategy for compressors and trucks
consists of three parts:
(1) Production verification
(2) Selective enforcement auditing
(3) In-use compliance
-------
Production verification is the testing by a manufacturer
of early production units to demonstrate that the manufacturer
has the necessary noise control technology in hand ana is capable
of applying it to his production process to produce complying
products. Production verification is required each year before
distribution in commerce, when a new model is introduced, or
when a significant change occurs to a previously verified
product. EPA will monitor or conduct a percentage of the
production verification tests that will be required each year.
Selective enforcement auditing is testing pursuant to
an administrative request of a statistical sample of products
to determine that subsequent to the initial verification the
manufacturers are producing on a continuing basis products
that comply with the applicable noise emission standard. Under
selective enforcement auditing, EPA selects the manufacturer
and products to be audited, issues the test request, monitors
or conducts .the test, and analyzes the resulting data. This
strategy will provide the basis for further enforcement
action in the case of noncompliance.
In-use requirements include anti-tampering provisions,
maintenance instructions, a product label, and a time-of-sale
warranty which a manufacturer must provide to the purchaser.
Product Labeling
NED is presently developing a strategy for the enforce-
ment of product labeling requirements that will be promulgated
pursuant to Section 8 of the Noise Control Act of 1972. The
first product that will be regulated under this section of the
Act is hearing protectors.
Noise Enforcement Facility
On October 14, 1976, EPA dedicated its Noise Enforcement
Facility (NEF). The Facility is located at NASA's Plum
Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio.
The test facilities comprise the Government's standard
enforcement test site and will be used by EPA to conduct
enforcement testing, to monitor and correlate with a manu-
facturer's compliance testing, to train regional, State, and
local enforcement personnel, and to monitor the effectiveness
of Federal noise enforcement programs.
Additionally, EPA has one Mobile Noise Enforcement
Facility (MoNEF) and has contracted for a second to support
the Sandusky facility.
-------
The NEF and MoNEF's provide the acoustical testing
capability necessary for the successful enforcement of new
product noise emission standards and labeling requirements
promulgated under the Noise Control Act.
Enforcement provisions of the truck ana air compressor
regulations place the burden of noise testing on the manufac-
turer of such products. The regulations also provide the
Environmental Protection Agency with authority to request
products from a manufacturer for independent testing in
addition to that testing conducted by the manufacturer.
These procedures were designed to allow the manufacturer to
be in control of his production process, including compliance
noise testing, while at the same time satisfying EPA's
responsibility to maintain effective oversight and enforcement
as necessary.
The NEF and MoNEF's will be used to conduct and monitor
both production verification and selective enforcement
audit testing, to monitor and to correlate with a manufacturer's
test facility, to train regional, State and local enforcement
programs, and to monitor the effectiveness of other Federal
noise enforcement programs.
Presently, EPA is using both the NEF and MoNEF's to
conduct a comparison testing program with the manufacturers
of portable air compressor and medium and heavy duty trucks
prior to the effective date of the noise emission standards
for these products.
State and Local Assistance
The Noise Control Act places the major responsibility
for noise control with State and local governments. Therefore,
the Noise Enforcement Division, in cooperation with the office
of Noise Abatement ana Control and EPA Regional personnel will
provide assistance to State and local governments. State and
local jurisdictions may adopt and enforce regulations: identical
to the interstate motor carrier and railroad regulations, more
stringent than the truck and railroad regulations if the
Agency grants a preemtion waiver, identical to the new product
regulations, regulating new products which EPA has not
regulated, and traditional community regulations including
property line limits and nuisance provisions. The Agency has
published a Model Community Noise Ordinance. The Agency is
also developing a Community Noise Ordinance workbook and
revisions to the existing Model State Noise Act.
33
-------
CHAPTER IV
EPA ENFORCEMENT OF THE PESTICIDE LAW
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
As Amended (7 U.S.C. 135-135k, 136-136y -1972)
With the 1972 passage of an amendment to the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947 (FIFRA), the Environmental
Protection Agency was given broad new responsibilities and authorities
to protect man and his environment from the adverse effects of pesticides.
The new FIFRA prohibits any person from holding for sale or dis-
tribution into intrastate or interstate commerce any pesticide which is
not registered in compliance with the Act; prohibits any person from
using any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its
labeling; provides for classification of pesticides into "general" and
"restricted" use categories; requires that "restricted" pesticides be
used only by State-certified applicators meeting Federal certification
standards; authorized EPA to issue stop sale, use or removal orders,
or to initiate seizure actions; requires pesticide manufacturers to
register producing establishments with EPA; empowers EPA to initiate
civil or criminal proceedings against violators of any provisions of
the law; and provides for Federal assistance to States to enforce
the provisions of the law.
In the years following enactment, the Agency has implemented the
provisions of this Act, by issuing regulations among others providing 1)
for registration of products and establishments, 2) for administrative
hearings resulting from cancellation, suspension or civil action
by the Agency, 3) for the maintenance and inspection of books and records,
and 4) for the certification of applicators. Enforcement policy and
compliance strategies have been developed to carry out the total
regulatory scheme.
Enforcement strategy generally focuses on (1) ensuring industry
compliance with product registration requirements, and (2) ensuring user
compliance with label directions. To attain these goals, the Agency
engages in the following broad activities: producer establishment
inspections, pesticide sampling, pesticide analysis, use surveillance,
and application of legal sanction for violation.
34
-------
EPA PESTICIDE ENFORCEMENT
JANUARY 1, 1976 - SEPTEMBER 30, 1976
(BY CATEGORY)
717
TOTAL FORMAL ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS TAKEN:
300
1,614
ALSO:
269
200
100
co
01
2
CJ
_l
>
CJ
257
01 o
oT<
co
,
01 D
-IN
3s
li
225
RECAL
90
IMPORT
DETENTIONS
co
01
u
I
o
ac
<
1,540 PESTICIDE-PRODUCING
ESTABLISHMENTS INSPECTED
2,068 MARKET PLACE INSPECTIONS
927 USE AND RE-ENTRY
INVESTIGATIONS
380 IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
3,140 SAMPLES COLLECTED^ FOR
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
56
(O
$ 380,017 PENALTIES/FINES ASSESSED
IN 275 CASES CONCLUDED TO DATE
35
-------
PESTICIDE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
INITIATED BY EPA BY CATEGORY,
BY EPA REGION 1-1-76 - 9-30-76
Number of actions initiated during 9 month period
Region
Category
Civil cases
Criminal cases
Stop sale and
Seizure actions
Recalls
Import
Detentions
Warning
Notices
Civil Penalty
Warnings
1
11
0
5
3
8
61
0
2
39
0
17
10
60
157
0
3
27
0
3
0
7
31
0
4
34
0
77
1
3
29
14
5
26
•0
37
20
3
112
9
6
21
0
49
73
3
59
8
7
49
0
43
55
0
108
18
8
6
0
19
8
1
2
1
9
51
0
6
48
5
64
3
10
5
0
1
7
0
94
3
Total
269
0
257
225
90
717
56
Total
88 283 68 158 207 213 273 37 177
110
1614
-------
PESTICIDE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
INITIATED BY EPA REGIONS
JANUARY 1, 1976 - SEPTEMBER 30, 1976
EPA REGIONS
88
283
II
68
158
207
273
213
37
III IV V VI
VII VIII
177
IX
110
-------
Pesticide Enforcement Actions Initiated
By EPA Regions By Category, 1-1-76
Through 9-30-76, by Quarter
Civil Criminal Stop Sale and Recalls Import Warning Civil Penalty Total
Cases Cases Seizure Actions Detentions Notices Warnings Actions
Jan. -Mar. 1976 95 0 76 16 31 269 20 507
Apr. - June 1976 77 0 55 194 28 278 23 655
July - Sept. 1976 97 0 126 15 31 170 13 452
Total Actions 269 0 257 225 90 717 56 1614
-------
In performing its establishment inspection and sampling activities,
the Agency seeks to ensure that all pesticides are registered with the
Agency and are sold and distributed in accordance with the terms of the
registration. In the past 9 months, the EPA inspected 1540 producing
establishments, conducted 380 import investigations and collected 3140
samples for chemical analysis. These activities revealed violations
which resulted in the issuance of 269 civil complaints, 257 stop sale
use or removal orders, 225 recall requests and 717 notices of warning.
During the period, 1/1/76 - 9/30/76, the Agency did not recommend
any cases for criminal prosecution. The only pending criminal case
listed in the publication I:EPA Enforcement A Progress Report December
1974 to December 1975' was concluded on 7/29/76 by a" fine of $250 on
1 count against James D. Rice, Nixon, Texas.
The violations involved in these enforcement actions have included
nonregistration; false registration; misbranding, including absence of
or inadequate use directions, absence of or inadequate statement of
ingredients, absence of adequate warning or caution statement, unwarranted
safety claims; adulteration or contamination of contents; false claims
as to effectiveness; contents differing from those represented at the
time of registration; or any combination of these.
In use surveillance, EPA focuses on those areas where the opportunity
for adverse effects from misuse are greatest. During this period, 927
use and re-entry investigations were conducted. As a result of violations
found, 56 civil penalty warnings and 19 stop sale, use or removal orders
were issued. As use surveillance is a relatively new program in the
Agency, a Pesticide Misuse Review Committee has been established in
Washington to review cases involving misuse and to develop enforcement
policy on misuse.
Finally, the Agency has initiated efforts to strengthen federal- .
state cooperation in the enforcement of the Act. With the help of
federal grants and training, states are provided the opportunity to
improve the effectiveness of their own regulatory activities, thereby
raising the quality of the national pesticides enforcement program.
CIVIL PENALTY HEARINGS
In all civil actions taken under the Act, the respondent is given
the opportunity for a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge. Most of
the civil actions are settled in an informal settlement conference with
the regional pesticides enforcement staff; however, during the nine
month period 14 public hearings were held before an Administrative Law
Judge.
33
-------
The following is a summary of three civil penalty hearings in which
decisions made by the Administrative Law Judge will have a significant
impact on the pesticides enforcement program:
1. In re Cardiff Pest Control, Inc., Region IX
On June 22, 1976, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Edward B. Finch
issued an Initial Decision in the first penalty proceeding under
section 14(a)(2) of the FIFRA involving the misuse of a pesticide,
In the Matter of Cardiff Pest Control, Inc. formerly doing business
as George's Pest Control, I. F. & R. Docket No. IX-100C. Judge
Finch's decision held that the Respondent had in -fact violated
section 12(a)(2)(G) of the amended FIFRA by using a registered
pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling and ordered
the assessment of a $1000.00 penalty against the Respondent.
This civil proceeding was initiated on June 30, 1975, by the
issuance of a Complaint and Notice of Opportunity charging Cardiff
Pest Control, Inc., doing business as George's Pest Control Service,
with a violation of section 12(a)(2)(G) of the FIFRA, as amended.
Specifically, Region IX alleged that Respondent had used either
the pesticide Diazinon 4E or the pesticide Diazinon 4S in the
Orland Meat Market, Orland, California by spraying it along the
walls and floors in food areas at a distance of 8 to 12 inches
from the floor. Further, it was alleged that it was sprayed in
areas where there were no cracks and crevices into which it
could have been confined. The label of both products directed
that the application of the product be limited to crack and crevice
treatment in food handling establishments.
The Respondent filed an Answer to Complainant's Amended Com-
plaint of August 6, 1975, and requested a hearing which was held
in Chico, California on April 6, 1976. The Respondent's defense
was that there were in fact cracks and crevices in the treated
areas and the proper application method was followed.
The primary dispute in this proceeding was whether or not the
applicator (Respondent's employee) was applying the Diazinon in
accordance with the label instructions. As evidence of their
charges, Complainant relied upon the testimony of Mr. Ernest
Simpson, an employee of the Glenn County Department of Agriculture
who was present at the time of the application. Mr. Simpson
testified that the applicator was using a fan spray nozzle which
was kept about 8-12 inches away from the floor. He further noticed
that his eyes were burning. Mr. Simpson also collected two sawdust
samples from the floor and floor sweepings in the trash at the
Orland Meat Market. Upon analysis, these samples indicated the
presence of Diazinon.
40
-------
The Respondent's evidence consisted mainly of the testimony
of its employee, the applicator whom Mr. Simpson observed misusing
the Diazinon. The applicator's testimony of the events in
question differed substantially from that of Mr. Simpson. For
example, the applicator asserted that he was using a pin stream
nozzle which was kept only two or three inches from the floor.
Additionally, he explained that there were cracks and crevices
"pretty near everywhere" he sprayed. The applicator demonstrated
his application during the course of his testimony. It was
observed that he walked about twenty-five feet in less than
ten seconds. According to Complainant, this demonstration was
indicative of a lack of care required for a proper crack and
crevice treatment as required by the product label, even if the
applicator was using a pin stream spray.
In finding that the Respondent did not exercise the care
required to avoid depositing the pesticide onto exposed surfaces,
to avoid introducing the material into the air, or to avoid
the contamination of food or processing surfaces, ALJ Finch
found that the testimony of Complainant's witness, Mr. Simpson,
was entitled to great weight since he was a totally disinterested
witness.
The ALJ did not in fact accept the testimony of Mr. Simpson
over that of the applicator. Instead his finding was that even
the applicator's statement on how he applied the pesticide was
inconsistent with the label statements "apply a small amount
of material ... directly into cracks and crevices" and "care
should be taken to avoid depositing the product onto exposed
surfaces or introducing the material into the air." As
evidence that Diazinon was not directed carefully into cracks
and crevices, the ALJ noted the presence of Diazinon in the
pesticide swept from the floor and the fact that Mr. Simpson's
eyes began to burn as the pesticide was being applied.
With respect to the appropriateness of the penalty,
neither the Respondent's size of business nor his ability to
continue in business were at issue. The remaining factor to
be considered, the gravity of the violation, was anlayzed
from two aspects gravity of harm and gravity of misconduct.
Judge Finch found that the potential harm from the misuse
of this product was apparent and that proof of actual harm
or injury was not required. As to gravity of misconduct,
the ALJ noted that Respondent was aware of the need to follow
label instructions accurately. Furthermore, Respondent had
been issued a Notice of Warning in 1974 for a prior misuse
of a pesticide. Taking into account all of the factors required
to be considered, Judge Finch found that the $1000 penalty
proposed by the Complaint was appropriate.
41
-------
2. In re Fleming & Company, Region VII
On May 10, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Bernard D. Levinson
issued an Initial Decision in the Region VII civil penalty
proceeding In re Fleming & Company, I. F. & R. Docket Nos. VII-92C
and VII-135C. The Initial Decision assessed penalties of $9,675
against the Respondent. . ,
By a complaint issued on January 24, 1975, Region VII had
alleged that Respondent had violated the FIFRA by shipping in
interstate commerce the pesticide Impregon Diaper Disinfectant
Concentrate (herein-after Impregon) which was not registered.
A second complaint was issued on July 25, 1975, charging
Respondent with a violation of section 12(a)(2)(I) of the
FIFRA, as amended, by shipping. Impregon in violation of a
"Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order" issued on April 10, 1975.
The Respondent filed an answer to each complaint and in
each instance requested a hearing. By order of the Admini-
strative Law Judge (ALJ), the two proceedings were consoli-
dated. An oral hearing was waived by both parties and the
arguments were submitted on brief to ALJ Levinson.
With respect to the non-registration charge, the Respondent
contended that the civil penalty action was barred by the
doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel. The basis for
the defendant's claim was that its sucessful defense against
criminal prosecution in 1970 for interstate shipment of
Impregon and again in 1973 should bar any subsequent proceedings
on the issue of non-registration. According to Respondent,
since the Government had its day in court and lost, it could
not collaterally attack the decree entered in the earlier cases.
In rejecting this defense, ALJ Levinson relied upon a
firmly established rule that when a first suit is a criminal
prosecution resulting in an acquittal, no preclusive effect is
to be attributed to the judgment in a subsequent civil
proceeding involving the same or similar conduct. The Fleming
proceeding fell within this rule: the initial action was a
criminal prosecution; the instant action has been characterized
by Congress as a civil action. When Congress characterizes
a remedy as civil and the only consequence of a judgment for
the Government is a money penalty, the courts generally defer
to the intent of Congress.
-------
Because the Respondent admitted that Impregon was not registered
with EPA, further proof of non-registration was found to be unnecessary.
Hence, it was concluded that Respondent had shipped in interstate
commerce an unregistered product.-
With respect to the charge of violating a "Stop Sale, Use or
Removal Order,: the Respondent raised the defense it did not violate
the order, that the violation of such an order requires an intentional
act, and that at no time did it intentionally violate the order.
At issue were four units of Impregon which had been returned to
Fleming from one customer and which were subsquently sold to another
customer. The ALJ found that irrespective of the source of the
Impregon at issue, it was in the custody and control of the
Respondent. By snipping and selling the Impregon to another
customer, Respondent removed the Impregon from its control. This
removal constituted a violation of the ''Stop Sale, Use or Removal
Order" of April 10, 1975.
Hith respect to appropriateness of the penalties for each
violation, the only issue was the gravity of the violations. The
gravity of harm apparent in the non-registration charge was deemed
to be high in that serious injury could result from a product
such as this which could be irritating to skin and which was used
for treating diapers which come into contact with the tender skin
of infants. The gravity of misconduct was considered to be high
since Respondent's actions indicated that it knew its product was
and should have been registered. The Respondent had previously
sought registration on several occasions and in each instance
had been denied registration since the product was considered
to be unsafe. The gravity of misconduct associated with Respon-
dent's violation of the Stop Sale, Use and Removal Order was found
to be of the highest degree in that the Respondent's actions evidence
a contemptuous disregard for the terms of the order. Accordingly,
the $9,675 proposed civil penalty assessment was upheld by the ALJ.
3. In re.Industrial Chemical Laboratories, Inc.. Region VII
On June 16, 1976, Administrative Law Judge ^arvin E. Jones
issued an Initial Decision in the Region VII civil penalty
proceeding In re Industrial Chemical Laboratories; Inc., I. F.
& R. Docket No. VII - 181C. ALJ Jones' decision held that the
failure to file an establishment registration report under section
7 of the FIFRA was an independent and assessible penalty under
the Act, that the Respondent had violated this provision, and
that a $1500 civil penalty was an appropriate penalty for
Respondent's violation.
43
-------
This proceeding was initiated by a Complaint dated
February 26, 1976, in which'Region VII charged Industrial
Chemical Laboratories, Inc. (hereinafter Respondent) with
a violation of section 12(a)(2)(L) of the Act in that it
failed to file with the Agency information required by
section 7(c) of the Act. The Respondent filed an Answer
in which it admitted failing to file the report on time,
but denied that the failure to file a section 7(c) report
constituted an independent violation of the Act.
Although an adjudicatory hearing was requested, it was
later cancelled when both parties stipulated to the facts
and requested an accelerated decision. The issues set
forth on brief were: (1) whether or not the failure to
file a section 7(c) report on time as required by 40 CFR
Part 167 constituted a substantive and assessible penalty;
and (2) whether the proposed penalty of $3200 was excessive.
Respondent contended that section 7 was a "registration1
rather then a "regulatory" provision; that it had met the
registration requirements of section 7; and that annual
reporting called for was only a procedural or technical
requirement. Judge Jones, however, fcund that the language
and intent of section 7 was clear, namely that the annual
reporting requirement was intended as an important part
of the Agency's regulatory scheme to protect public
health. A departure from the letter of the law would
only be justified if a literal application of section
7(c) would "be so gross as to shock the general moral
or common sense" and if there is "something to make
plain the intent of Congress that the letter of the
statute is not to prevail." Judge Jones found both of
these elements lacking in this case.
With respect to the appropriateness of the penalty,
the only issue was the gravity of the violation. On this
issue, the ALJ noted that the report was filed three days
after the issuance of the complaint and that the failure to
report on time was due to negilgence, rather than a
deliberate flouting of the law. Accordingly, he reduced
the penalty from $3200 to $1500.
44
-------
U?
RESULTS OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ACTIONS
INITIATED OR CLOSED DURING 9 MONTH PERIOD
January 1, 1976 - September 30, 1976
Civil Criminal
Cases closed during 9 month period
that were initiated prior to 1-1-76
Civil cases closed
Civil penalties assessed
Criminal cases closed
Fines levied
Cases initiated during 9 month period
Civil cases initiated
Civil cases closed
Civil penalties assessed
Criminal cases initiated
Criminal cases closed
Fines levied
Total cases closed
Total penalties/fines imposed
140
$213,146
1
$250
263
134
$166,621
0
0
0
274 1
$379,767 ' $250
-------
The following is a short summary of several selected significant enforcement
and government actions taken under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act:
Chevron Chemical Company - On June 8, 1976, EPA Region IV assessed
Chevron Chemical Company, Orlando, Florida, $6000 for using the registered
pesticides ORTHO PARAQUAT CL CONCENTRATE and ORTHO DIQUAT in a manner
inconsistent with their labeling. The civil complaint had charged that
the labels of both products bore the statements "Wash and destroy
container when empty. Never reuse" and that despite these label decla-
rations the respondent resealed used drums and shipped these drums for
reuse. The drums were being sold to a local chemical formulator for
storage of other chemical compounds including hand soap.
Jalnes D. Rice - On July 29, 1976, the U.S. District court for the
Western District of Texas levied a fine of $250 against Mr. James D.
Rice of Nixon, Texas. Mr. Rice had been charged with using the registered
pesticide PARATHION 2% DUST in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.
The misuse had resulted in the death of one teenage youth and injury to
another. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,
Mr. Rice could have received a maximum fine of $1000 and one year in
jail. This is only the second criminal case to be brought under the
amended provisions of the federal pesticide law. Several other misuse
cases have been pursued under the civil penalty provisions of the law.
Aerial Applicator Warning Citations - In Late February and early March,
1976, an area in southern Kansas was intensively sprayed with ENDRIN and
METHYL PARATHION by numerous aerial applicators. These pesticides were
used to stem a heavy infestation of green bugs and army cutworms on
wheat. Following the spraying, many complaints of misuse were received
by the regional office in Kansas City, Missouri.
A thorough investigation of the incidents was initiated by Region
VII. At the present time, three civil penalty warning citations have
been issued to aerial application service companies and additional
actions are expected.
DDT Stop Sale Disposition - Thirteen tons of DDT were turned over to
Region II for disposal following a stop sale action. The Region gave
the pesticide as a gift to the government of Guatemala through the Pan
American Health Organization. The pesticide was used to avert a Typhus
epidemic following the earthquakes in that country. The President of the
United States acknowledged this action by sending a letter of commen-
dation to the regional participants in'this effort.
46
-------
PESTICIDE MISUSE REVIEW COMMITTEE
GENERAL BACKGROUND
The pesticide enforcement responsibilities of the Federal government
have increased significantly since the consolidation within EPA of all
Federal pesticide regulatory functions. Recently a great deal of public
attention has been given to the post-registration effects of pesticides,
including their effects upon man, domestic animals, wildlife, and the
environment. EPA has the regulatory responsibility to protect human
health and the environment from any unreasonable adverse effects asso-
ciated with pesticide production and use. An accurate assessment of the
nature and scope of pesticide misuse and the institution of an effective
mechanism to enforce against such misuse will enable the Agency to
discharge these responsibilities.
Section 12(a)(2)(G) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, as amended (FIFRA), prohibits the use of any registered
pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. The authority to
regulate pesticide use was established by Congress in the 1972 amend-
ments to FIFRA. The widespread and diverse nature of pesticide use
makes the design of a program to detect and enforce against pesticide
misuse extremely difficult. The use enforcement program will be concerned
with those products and use patterns which are likely to create imminent
hazards to human health and the environment.
The Agency's pesticide use enforcement program is designed to
promote safe pesticide use and to respond to reports of pesticide misuse.
Incidents of pesticide misuse may come to the attention of the Pesticides
and Toxic Substances Enforcement Division from the Agency's pesticide
use surveillance program, or reports to EPA by such sources as FDA
residue reports, USDA meat and poultry residue reports, citizen and
trade complaints, EPA Pesticide Episode Reporting System (PERS), water
samples, USDA pest control surveys, public interest groups, the EPA
National Monitoring Plan, and the general public.
Initiation of the Pesticide Misuse Review Committee
The Agency established the Pesticide Misuse Review Committee (PMRC)
for the purpose of reviewing each case of alleged pesticide misuse. The
•PMRC is comprised of personnel from the Agency's Office of Enforcement,
Office of General Counsel, and Office of Pesticide Programs. It is the
function of the PMRC to determine 1) whether a registered pesticide has
been misused, 2) what level of enforcement action is warranted, 3)
whether the FIFRA is being uniformly applied in misuse cases, 4) whether
patterns of pesticide misuse are identifiable, and 5) whether label or
registration amendments are needed for specific pesticides or classes of
pesticide products.
47
-------
Where questions involving pesticide use arise which require a
generalized statement of enforcement policy, the PMRC may issue advisory
opinions regarding such uses. If the issue has wide-spread significance
the central elements of the PMRC advisory opinion may be published as a
Pesticide Enforcement Policy Statement (PEPS). Subject to the publi-
cation of a PEPS, the Agency will narrowly construe section 12(a)(2)(6).
In areas where the statute permits administrative discretion, the Agency
recognizes the need to make workable interpretations and to develop
enforcement policies which reasonably and equitably implement the will
of Congress. Toward this end, the Agency has instituted the PMRC case-
by-case review and will pursue with all dispatch the development of
interpretive guidelines for Section 12(a)(2)(G).
As of November, 1976, the PMRC has reviewed and made recommenda-
tions on 175 cases, and has written six advisory opinions. In addition,
the PMRC has recommended labeling modifications on 21 of the cases to
the Registration Division, OPP.
The following are three examples of advisory opinions that have
been issued by the committee.
Advisory Opinion #1
Question: Will the use on cotton for boll weevil control of certain
brands (see list) of 4 Ib. methyl parathion products at dosage rates
specified by pest control management consultants subject the user to
enforcement liability as a violation of FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G) if the
dosage rate recommended falls within the range of dosage rates registered
by EPA for various 4 Ib. methyl parathion products.
Background: The State of Mississippi has requested EPA approval to use
certain brands of 4 Ib. methyl parathion products at various dosage
rates specified by pest control management consultants (scouts). I/
The dosage rate which is recommended may vary from that which appears on
the label of the particular product used, each dosage rate specified
falls within the range of dosage rates which has been approved by EPA in
registering various 4 Ib. methyl parathion products.
V.
Mississippi recognizes two types of pest management consultants:
(1) Independent consultants (who work for themselves), and (2) Public
consultants (who work for the Federal extension service). To become a
consultant, one must have a BS degree in agriculture, two years actual
experience in agriculture, and must have passed a State examination.
Once he is hired, the consultant determines the type and amount of
pesticides used, and the time of application.
48
-------
It is the practice of farmers to purchase the least expensive brand of 4
Ib. methyl parathion without regard to the dosage rate provided on the
label. The consultant's recommendation may involve the use of the
particular product purchased by the farmer at a lower (or in some cases
greater) dosage rate than included on the label, but still within the
range of dosage rates of approved 4 Ib. methyl parathion products. The
state is requesting this opinion for only these registered products
which appear on the attached list.
Answer: PMRC recommends that the use on cotton for boll weevil control
of certain brands of 4 Ib. methyl parathion products at dosage rates
specified by pest control management consultants should not subject the
user to enforcement liability as a violation of FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G)
where the dosage rate recommended falls within the range of dosage rates
registered by EPA for various 4 Ib. methyl parathion products.
Discussion: Any use of a registered pesticide which does not conform
with the product's label constitutes a violation of FIFRA section
12(a)(2)(G). In this case, however, the product is applied at a regis-
tered dosage rate even though it is in variance with the particular
product label. The PMRC in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion
recommends that no enforcement action be taken in regard to the proposed
use in Mississippi of 4 Ib. methyl parathion products listed below at
various registered dosage rates.
The PMRC finds that such applications will be conducted with adequate
regulatory control in that (1) The application will be recommended in
writing by a consultant licensed by the State of Mississippi; (2) The
application will be done at a registered dosage rate; (3) The application
will be performed in accordance with all other label instructions
and precautions. The PMRC also finds that pesticide applications which
are performed pursuant to this policy within the State of Mississippi
will not result in harm to man or the environment.
This advisory opinion applies only to the State of Mississippi and
specifically to the use of methyl parathion for the control of boll
weevil on cotton. Failure to meet any one of the controlling elements
noted above will subject the user to enforcement liability under FIFRA
section 12(a)(2)(G). Separate advisory opinions must be specifically
requested for problems involving other states and other crop-pest
situations.
-------
This advisory opinion applies only to the following 4 Ib. methyl
products:
Thompson - Hayward Company EPA Reg. No. 148-373
Valley Chemical Company EPA Reg. No. 1063-104
Olin Corporation EPA Reg. No. 1258-833
Cotton States EPA Reg. No. 1339-140
Kerr McGee EPA Reg. No. 2342-471
Helena Chemical Company EPA Reg. No. 5905-240
Staple Cotton Service EPA Reg. No. 8648-12
Cleveland Chemical Company EPA Reg. No. 8867-3
Ring Around Products Inc. EPA Reg. No. 8934-29.
Riverside Chemical Company EPA Reg. No. 9779-34
Apollo Enterprises Inc. EPA Reg. No. 13166-11
Advisory Opinion #2
Question: Region II requested an advisory opinion as to the legality of
section 4-05 METHOD OF APPLICATION,in the Department of the Army,
Office of the Facilities Engineer, Headquarters and Installation Support
Activity, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, booklet entitled "Specifications
For Termite Control of Miscellaneous Buildings, For Monmouth, New Jersey.
Answer: The Department of the Army's recommendation in section 4-05,
to double the concentration (from 1% to 2%) and then to half the appli-
cation rate, is considered a "current control practice" by the pro-
fessional pest control industry when wet or mucky soils will not accept
the normal application rate. The Administrator's 7-21-75 Federal Reg-
ister notice of clarification, regarding uses for chlordane exempted
from the Notice of Intent to cancel, include "current control practices"
as part of the exempted use for subterranean termite control.
The other recommendation in this section to double the rate where
heavy termite infestations are found is not valid treatment procedure.
This extra dosage is not a necessity for this type of infestation as the
normal rate (4 gallons of 1% chlordane per 10 linear feet of depth) will
be efficacious at any infestation level. Also, we do not consider this
to be a "current control practice". The PMRC recommends that this
recommendation in the booklet be deleted.
Advisory Opinion #3
Question: Can malathion be used as a crack and crevice treatment for
control of pests in railroad cars used for the storage and transport of
food products?
-------
Source Of Question: Region IX, prompted by inquiries from outside the
Agency, requested an opinion regarding the use of malathion in railroad
cars.
Background: On August 10, 1973, the Agency published a statement,
entitled "Insecticides in Food Handling Establishments" which allowed
the use of a number of residual insecticides, including malathion, for
crack and crevice treatment in food handling establishments. At this
time the Agency stated that registrants of these products could register
the products for crack and crevice treatment without submitting additional
data for a period of six months. After this time any use of the named
products in a mannner inconsistent with label provisions would constitute
a violation of the Act.
PMRC Recommendation: The Registration Division, following review of the
Agency's policy on crack and crevice treatments and of labels approved
subsequent to that policy statement, determined that railroads cars used
for the storage of processed or packaged food products would fall within
the definition of a "food handling establishment" as provided in 38 FR
21685. The Registration Division provided several product labels which
reflect the implementation of the policy regarding crack and crevice
applications.
On the basis of this labeling interpretation by the Registration
Division, the PMRC is of the opinion that malathion, which is registered
and labeled for crack and crevice treatment in food handling establish-
ments may be used in railroad cars transporting stored or packaged food
products.
51
-------
CHAPTER V
PERMIT PROGRAM UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (FWPCA),
AS AMENDED (33 USC 1251 et seq. - 1972)
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit Program, created under the 1972 Amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), is the
cornerstone of the Nation's water cleanup effort. Under the
Act's provisions, discharges by point sources to the waters of
the United States are prohibited except as provided in an
NPDES permit setting forth allowable conditions and cleanup
terms with specified deadlines.
The NPDES Permit Program is of pivotal importance to the
enforcement programs of the States and EPA. As defined by law
and by subsequent judicial interpretations, point sources of
wastewater discharges embrace all waste-producing sectors of
the economy, - whether industrial, municipal, or agricultural
in character.
NPDES Permits specify effluent limitations on the
concentrations and amounts of wastes which may be discharged
by point sources reflecting technology-based effluent
guidelines, water quality standards, and any other relevant
State/Federal requirements. NPDES Permits further specify
implementation schedules for attaining the pollution reduction
required to meet the effluent limitations.
One of EPA's most important activities is to encourage
State participation in the NPDES program. The States play a
very important role in the implementation of the FWPCA and
participate to differing degrees in all aspects of the NPDES
program, focusing on permit issuance, compliance inspections,
sampling inspections, and enforcement of permit conditions.
Maximum participation is by those States which wish to
administer the NPDES program with regard to dischargers within
their jurisdiction and whose programs have been approved by
EPA as meeting pertinent requirements of the FWPCA. Those
States which have not received full program approval often
develop working agreements with the Regions after which the
States actively participate in various permit writing and
effluent monitoring activities in partnership with EPA.
As of September 30, 1976, the States and EPA had
identified 64,877 municipal and non-municipal dischargers or
52
-------
sources as being subject to the NPDES Program. Some 9,012 of
these are classified as "Major" dischargers which, by virtue
of their pollutional significance, receive priority attention.
Of the total number of NPDES permits, 52,723 had been issued
as of September 30, 1976. Virtually all of the majors have
been issued.
As one of the highest priorities of the enforcement
program, the basic thrust of the compliance monitoring
activities is to insure the completion of treatment facilities
by major industrial and municipal facilities to meet the
requirements of the FWPCA.
EPA's NPDES compliance monitoring program covers all
aspects of EPA activity utilized in determining compliance
with permit conditions and actions initiated in instances of
non-compliance. Compliance review includes the review of all
written material related to the status of compliance with an
NPDES permit, including Compliance Schedule Reports, Discharge
Monitoring Reports, and Compliance Inspection Reports.
Compliance inspection refers to all field related activities
conducted to determine the status of compliance with permit
requirements, including reconnaissance inspections, sampling
inspections, production facility inspections, and remote
sensing (aerial photography).
As violations become apparent through compliance
monitoring, they receive a response from the Regional Office
(call, letter, request for a conference, inspection, adminis-
trative order, NOV or judicial action). Voluntary compliance
is sought first as the easiest and most economical way in
which to obtain compliance. However, EPA's response to
identified violations reflects the seriousness of the violation
and involves taking formal civil or criminal action following
a significant violation of permit conditions or where efforts
to achieve voluntary compliance are unsuccessful. The 1972
FWPCA Amendments also established substantial fines for
non-compliance with the conditions of NPDES Permits, or for
illegal discharges without an NPDES Permit, ranging up to
$10,000 per day. Willful or negligent violations can bring
fines up to $25,000 a day and one year in prison for the first
offense. NPDES Enforcement activity has increased substantially
in the past year or two. Enforcement activity can be expected
to continue to increase as more schedules and deadlines fall
due.
53
-------
MUNICIPAL & NON-MUNICIPAL PERMITS ISSUED BY REGION
Septl 30, 1976
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major,
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Total
PERMITS
ISSUED
374
322
536
1,173
410
2,001
1,369
844
553
4,545
370
1,602
411
2,545
228
833
234
267
156
586
4,641
14,718
19,359
MUNICIPAL
IDENTIFIED
DISCHARGERS
385
412
568
1,163
413
2,963
1,415
1,409
567
6,238
357
1,603.
301
1,862
227
863
217
261
155
606
4,605
17,380
21,985
NON-MUNICIPAL
PERMITS
ISSUED*
442
1,417
567
990
545
2,467
1,170
5,955
696
5,795
443
2,535
244
4,324
166
1,653
241
1,768
• 111
1,835
4,625
28,739
33,364
IDENTIFIED
DISCHARGERS
444
1,709
585
1,738
534
4,880
1,020
5,559
750
7,082
370
7,847
206
4,127
168
1,819
217
1,698
113
2,026
4,407
38,485
42,892
*The number of permits issued to Federal Facilities are
included in this column.
Note: The number of permits issued exceeds the number of
sources identified in some cases. The primary reason
for this is because reissued permits are included in
the number of permits issued. Another factor is
that certain large plants having several outfall pipes
are reported as a single discharge even though more
than one permit may be issued.
The numbers used in this table are taken directly from FY 76
Regional Program Operating Plans End of Year Report.
54
-------
OVERALL STATUS REPORT
PERMITS ISSUED
Sept. 30, 1976
TOTAL
ISSUED EPA & STATES
IDENTIFIED DISCHARGERS
MAJOR
9,266
9,012
MINOR
43,457
55,865
TOTAL
52,723
64,877
ISSUED EPA & STATES
IDENTIFIED DISCHARGERS
MUNICIPAL
4,641
4,605
14,718
17,380
19,359
21,985
NGN-MUNICIPAL*
ISSUED EPA & STATES 4,625 28,739
IDENTIFIED DISCHARGERS 4,407 38,485
33,364
42,892
Note: The number of permits issued exceeds the number of
sources identified in some cases. The primary reason
for this is because reissued permits are included in
the number of permits issued. Another factor is
that certain large plants having several outfall pipes
are reported as a single discharge even though more
than one permit may be issued.
*This includes Industrial anc) Agricultural Sources.
The numbers in this table are based on the table entitled,
"Municipal and Non-Municipal Permits Issued by Region."
55
-------
STATE-BY-STATE BREAKDOWN OF NPDES PERMITS ISSUED
BY STATES AND EPA AND TOTAL NUMBER OF DISCHARGERS
IDENTIFIED — AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1976
(MAJOR/MINOR NON-MUNICIPAL & MUNICIPAL SOURCES)
NON-MUNICIPAL
MAJOR SOURCES
EPA
REG S
ION ST ISSUED
1 CT*
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT*
Total
2 NJ
NY*
PR
VI*
Total
3 DE*
DC
HD*
PA
VA*
WV
Total
4 AL
FL
CA*
KY
MS*
NC*
SC*
TN
Total
5 IL
IN*
MI*
•«[!*
OH*
WI*
Total
6 AR
LA
NM
OK
TX
Total
7 IA
KS*
MO*
NE*
Total
8 CO*
MT*
ND*
SD
UT
WY*
Total
9 AZ
CA*
HI*
NV*
AS
CU
TT
Total
10 AK
ID
OR*
WA*
Total
GRAND
TOTAL
176
52
139
39
20
16
442
187
313
61
6
567
28
4
58
159
98
198
545
185
149
116
134
116
147
178
145
1170
127
92
283
59
63
72
696
45
128
16
56
198
443
45
62
85
52
244
61
36
17
10
28
14
166
19
142
58
12
4
6
0
241
30
13
31
37
111
4625
t IDEN
TIFIED
177
52
140
39
20
16
, 444
189
333
55
8
585
28
4
43
159
99
201
534
196
155
98
138
97
181
5
150
1020
127
92
290
62
106
73
750
39
105
20
48
158
370
46
62
68
30
206
62
36
18
10
28
14
168
19
143
39
8
2
6
0
217
30
13
31
39
113
4407
DISCHARGERS
MINOR SOURCES
1
ISSUED
334
325
411
140
142
65
1417
359
569
59
3
990
135
2
521
592
780
437
2467
363
764
363
1318
695
922
815
715
5955
1011
738
625
646
1835
940
5795
543
351
111
451
1079
2535
558
538
2411
817
4324
561
173
62
122
93
642
1653
105
1479
130
33
1
7
13
1768
480
253
497
605
1835
28739
S IDEN
TIFIED
341
351
628
151
173
65
1709
626
991
115
6
1738
77
2
652
1623
923
1603
4880
370
802
454
1320
629
767
500
717
5559
1120
738
640
674
2890
1020
7082
552
2957
258
914
3166
7847
624
537
2157
809
4127
668
210
90
133
101
617
1819
111
1409
106
45
1
10
16
1698
559
348
520
599
2026
38485
T 0
t
ISSUED
510
377
550
179
162
81
1859
546
882
120
9
1557
163
6
579
751
878
635
3012
548
913
479
1452
811
1069
993
860
7125
1138
830
908
705
1898
1012
6491
588
479
127
508
1277
2978
603
600
2496
869
4568
622
209
79
132
121
656
1819
124
1621
188
45
5
13
13
2009
510
266
510
642
1946
33364
T A L
1 IDEN
TIFIED
518
403
768
190
193
81
2153
815
1324
170
14
2323
105
6
695
1782
1022
1804
5414
566
957
552
1458
726
948
505
865
6579
1247
830
930
736
2996
1093
7832
591
3062
278
962
3324
8217
670
599
2225
839
4333
730
246
108
143
129
631
1987
130
1552
145
53
3
16
16
1915
589.
361
551
638
2139
42U92
MUNICIPAL
MAJOR
ISSUED
82
59
114
62
16
41
374
163
353
18
2
536
14
1
52
229
66
48
410
175
246
142
183
154
116
179
174
1369
128
125
55
31
165
49
553
57
67
12
' 54
180
370
165
55
121
411
92
26
16
27
48
19
'228
30
150
30
20
1
0
L 3
234
7
25
56
| 68
156
4o4l
SOURCES
} IDEN
TIFIED
82
59
122
63
18
41
385
184
350
32
2
568
16
1
51
228
66
51
413
175
250
98
184
150
190
193
175
1415
128
125
55
31
179
49
567
56
65
10
52
174
357
139
40
82
40
301
91
26
16
27
48
19
227
28
149
18
18
1
0
3
217
7
24
56
68
155
46U5
MINOR
t
ISSUED
43
118
47
38
16
60
322
252
856
65
0
1173
49
0
284
661
760
247
2001
90
74
120
37
211
65
147
100
844
1145
887
464
583
976
490
4545
202
234
42
359
765
1602
708
454
903
480
2545
164
109
233
212
36
79
833
21
222
13
1
0
6
4
267
39
87
236
224
586
1*710
DISCHARGERS
SOURCES
t IDEN
TIFIED
59
139
90
41
23
60
412
344
717
98
4
1163
63
0
370
1152
782
596
2963
96
85
454
44
232
182
214
102
1409
1462
1148
830
636
1569
593
6238
202
286
42
325
748
1603
616
368
516
362
1862
180
108
247
213
37
78
863
21
220
6
2
1
7
4
261
47
94
236
229
606
17380
T 0
S
ISSUED
125
177
161
100
32
101
696
415
1209
83
2
1709
63
1
336
890
826
295
2411
265
320
262
220
365
181
326
274
2213
1273
1012
519
614
1141
539
5098
259
301
54
413
945
1972
873
509
1024
550
2956
256
135
249
239
84
98
1061
51
372
43
21
1
6
7
501
46
112
292
292
742
19359
T A L
-------
CHAPTER VI
WATER ENFORCEMENT
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CPNTROL ACT (FWPCA),
AS AMENDED (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. - 1972)
RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1899 (REFUSE ACT)
(33 U.S.C. 403, 407, 411 - 1899)
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT
(OCEAN DUMPING (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. - 1972)
STATE PROGRAM APPROVALS
One of EPA's most important activities is to encourage
State participation in the NPDES program. The States play
a very important role in the implementation of the FWPCA and
participate to differing extents in all aspects of the NPDES
program, focusing on permit issuance, compliance inspections,
sampling inspections, and enforcement of permit conditions.
Maximum participation is by those States which administer
the NPDES program with regard to dischargers within this
jurisdiction and whose programs have been approved by EPA
as meeting the requirements of the FWPCA. Those States
which have not received full program approval often develop
working agreements with EPA to actively participate in
various permit writing and effluent monitoring activities in
partnership with EPA.
During 1975, the Virgin Islands has received
program approval for a total of 28 approved States.
(See tabulation.) Agency personnel are presently working
closely with State officials in the remaining States in an
effort to approve additional programs in FY 1977.
-------
Once,program approval has been granted by EPA,
the State has full responsibility for administering the
NPDES program within its borders. EPA maintains an overview
role consistent with the legislative mandate. In most
approved States, EPA continues to administer and enforce
those permits originally issued by EPA. In many States this
amounts to most, if not all the major permits. Several
States, however, have the authority and desire to enforce
EPA-issued permits. In those States, EPA's role is the same
backup, overview, and coordination role that it has with
respect to approved State enforcement of State-issued NPDES
permits.
In addition, enforcement cases may arise in
which a State may need the assistance of EPA. An
example is the enforcement case brought against
Reserve Mining Company and its discharge of iron ore
tailings into Lake Superior near Silver Bay, Minnesota.
(See more detailed discussion of the Reserve Mining
case later in this report).
In several States (e.g., Maine and Massachusetts)
cooperative agreements with EPA allow State environmental
agencies to assist in elements of the NPDES program short of
full program approval.
In summary, EPA and the individual States have
relationships which are not identical but which are
responsive to the constant interaction and adaptation that
is required of a program of Federal/State partnership.
58
-------
STATUS OF STATES APPROVED TO ADMINISTER
THEIR OWN NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT PROGRAM UNDER THE FEDERAL
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
APPROVED AS OF OCTOBER 1976
1. California
2. Colorado
3. Connecticut
4. Delaware
5. Georgia
6. Hawaii
7. Indiana
8. Kansas
9. Maryland
10. Michigan
11. Minnesota
12. Mississippi
13. Missouri
14. Montana
15. Nebraska
16. Nevada
17. New York
18. North Carolina
19. North Dakota
20. Ohio
21. Oregon
22. South Carolina
23. Vermont
24. Virgin Islands
25. Virginia
26. Washington
27.' Wisconsin
28. Wyoming
NOT APPROVED AS OF OCTOBER 1976
1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. American Samoa
4. Arizona
5. Arkansas
6. District of Columbia
7. Florida
8. Guam
9. Idaho
10. Illinois
11. Iowa
12. Kentucky
13. Louisana
14. Maine
15. Massachusetts
16. New Hampshire
17. - New Jersey
18. New Mexico
19. Oklahoma
20. Pennsylvania
21. Puerto Rico
22. Rhode Island
23. South Dakota
24. Tennessee
25. Texas
26. Trust Territories
27. Utah
28. West Virginia
59
-------
Adjudicatory Hearings
The NPDES Permit Program provides an affected discharger,
as well as interested persons and groups, an opportunity
to raise factual and legal issues relating to the conditions
and limitations contained in the permit. In most cases
these issues can properly be resolved by a modification or
adjustment of the contested provisions of the permit.
Whenever EPA and the other parties cannot agree on the
changes which can appropriately be made in the permit,
the factual issues are resolved through an evidentiary
hearing conducted before an administrative law judge.
Legal issues are referred to EPA's Office of General
Counsel for a formal opinion. The determination of the
legal and factual issues are incorporated together in an
Initial Decision rendered by the administrative law judge
or by the Regional Administrator in and for the region
where the facility or plant is located. Any party who
is dissatisfied with the decision may appeal it to the
Administrator. No judicial appeal is allowed unless these
administrative channels have been fully utilized.
As of September 30, 1976, a total of 2328 requests
for hearings and/or legal opinions were received by the
EPA Regional offices. Nearly one-half of these requests
have been either settled or dismissed without further
proceedings. Of the remaining hearings, only one-third
involve "major" industrial dischargers, and it has been
estimated that 90% or more of these major facilities
will achieve compliance with final effluent limitations
by the July 1, 1977, statutory deadline.
The most prominent factual issues raised in the
hearing requests relate to the determination of effluent
limitations in the absence of promulgated guidelines.
In addition, EPA conducted several important hearings
involving power plants during 1976, and in these cases
the key questions concerned thermal limitations and the
impact of cooling water intake structures. One of the
60
-------
largest cases completed by the Agency in 1976 concerned
United States Steel Corporation's Monongahela River Valley
complex located in Pittsburgh. This facility is the largest
integrated steel-making plant in the country, and represents
about 25% of USSC's domestic steel-making capacity. Nearly
eighteen months of investigations, studies, negotiations
and pre-hearing conferences culminated in USSC's agreement
to substantially reduce its wastewater discharges in
accordance with a reasonable compliance timetable.
61
-------
NPDES Compliance Monitoring
EPA1s NPDES compliance monitoring program covers all
aspects of EPA activity utilized in determining compliance
with permit conditions and actions initiated in instances of
noncompliance. It includes Compliance Review and Compliance
Inspections. Compliance Review is the review of all written
material relating to the status of compliance of an NPDES
permit, including Compliance Schedule Reports, Discharge
Monitoring Reports, Compliance Inspection Reports, etc.
Compliance Inspection refers to all field related activities
conducted to' determine the status of compliance with permit
requirements, including sampling inspections, non-sampling
inspections, production facility inspections, and remote
sensing (aerial photography).
The highest priorities of the enforcement program and
the basic thrust of the compliance monitoring activities are
to ensure the completion and the effective operation of
treatment facilities by major industrial and municipal
permittees to meet the requirements of the FWPCA.
In FY 1976 (July 1, 1975 - September 30, 1976), EPA
and the States have reviewed approximately 200,000 self-
monitoring reports and have conducted 8,300 sampling and
27,200 non-sampling inspections. EPA has also assisted in
the development and provided an overview of State compliance
monitoring programs. As a result of these and our other
enforcement activities, compliance of major industrial and
municipal facilities has been substantial. Statistical
information available for EPA Regional programs show that as
of September 1976, 87% of major nonmunicipal permittees were
in compliance with permit schedules, 82% of the major
municipal permittees were in compliance with permit schedules,
and 75% of major municipal permittees were in compliance
with effluent limitations.
-------
Compliance Evaluation Inspection Manual
During FY 1976 the Office of Water Enforcement
completed and mailed to all EPA Regions and States, copies
of the NPDES Compliance Evaluation Inspection Manual (CEI).
The CEI Manual contains a compilation of procedures to be
followed by inspectors in conducting non-sampling inspections
of facilities with NPDES permits. The areas covered are
records maintenance, operation and maintenance, compliance
schedule, self-monitoring, and reporting. Special emphasis
is placed on assuring that the permittee is collecting
representative samples of his discharge and that the samples
are analyzed using proper laboratory techniques and approved
methods.
A standardized inspection report form was also
developed and issued concurrently with the CEI Manual.
A companion manual dealing with sampling procedures
and techniques is presently being developed by a Work Group
of EPA and State representatives and is expected to be
completed in late FY 1977.
-------
NPDES Enforcement
The FWPCA provides for various enforcement mechanisms
to assure compliance with the requirements of the NPDES
program. These primarily consist of (1) the issuance of
section 309(a)(1) Notices of Violations (NOVs) to dischargers
with NPDES permits issued by approved States (2) the issuance
of section 309(a) (3) orders to dischargers with EPA-issued
permits and to dischargers with State-issued permits who
fail to comply with NOVs, and (3) referral of cases to the
U.S. Attorneys to bring civil or criminal actions against
violators of NPDES permits and the FWPCA. Section 309
provides for the imposition of civil penalties of up to
$10,000 per day. Section 309 also provides for criminal
fines of not less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day
for each violation or not more than one year imprisonment
for first offenders and fines of up to $50,000 and two years
imprisonment for second offenders. Also, in emergency
situations where there is an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health and welfare the Administrator
may seek immediate injunctive relief in Federal district
court.
As violations are detected through various compliance
monitoring activities EPA Regional Offices can draw from
a number of informal and formal enforcement responses (e.g.,
telephone call, letter, request for a conference, inspection,
administrative order, NOV or judicial action). Generally,
voluntary compliance is sought first as the easiest, most
cost-effective way in which to obtain compliance. The more
formal enforcement responses are utilized for the most
serious violations with resort to civil or criminal action
where efforts to achieve voluntary compliance are unsuccessful
During the first nine months of 1976, 653 administrative
orders and 91 Notices of Violation were issued, and 83
cases were referred to the Justice Department for civil or
criminal relief. Enforcement activity can be expected to
continue at present levels and perhaps increase as more
schedules and deadlines fall due during 1977.
-------
Non-NPDES Enforcement
The non-NPDES enforcement program is responsible for
providing technical and legal support to achieve compliance
with section 311 and section 404 of the FWPCA, and with the
Refuse Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act.
65
-------
FWPCA - Section 311
Under section 311, designed to eliminate unauthorized
discharges of oil and hazardous materials, EPA shares
administrative and enforcement responsibilities with the
Coast Guard and other Federal agencies. In response to oil
spills, EPA staff members investigate the incidents and make
recommendations for the assessment of civil penalties up to
$5,000 under section 311(b) (6). If a discharger fails to
notify immediately the proper authorities of a spill, EPA
staff assist the U.S. Attorneys in the preparation of cases
under section 311(b)(5) which provides for criminal fines up
to $10,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.
EPA has promulgated Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations which require the development
and implementation of plans to prevent oil spills. Routine
inspections are conducted to assure compliance with the SPCC
regulations. Where noncompliance is detected, the violator
is issued a Notice of Violation under section 311 (j) (2) in
which a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per day is proposed to
be assessed. The recipient of the Notice is advised that he
may request an informal hearing at which he may contest the
finding of a violation or the size of the penalty. If after
the final penalty has been assessed the violator refuses to
pay an SPCC civil penalty, EPA refers the case to the U.S..
Attorney for collection.
Since January 1976, 734 oil spill cases have been
referred to the Coast Guard for section 311(b)(6) civil
relief and 9 cases have been referred to the U.S. Attorney
for criminal relief under section 311 (b) (5) for failure to
notify of an oil spill. In addition, over 866 SPCC Notices
of Violation have been issued. The SPCC program appears to
be a significant factor in reducing oil spills. Recent
statistics indicate that from 1974 to 1975 there has been a
23% reduction of non-transportation-related oil spills.
-------
EPA WATER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS BY REGION
January 1976 - September 1976
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X TOTAL
SECTION 309 - FWPCA
Administrative 30
Order
Notice of 0
Violation
Referrals 4
SECTION 311 - FWPCA
Oil Spills 35
USCG
Spill Referrals 0.
US Atty
Spill Prevention 151
Control Counter-
measure viol.
Miscellaneous 0
NON-NPDES
Violations
TOTAL 220
83
0
10
29
0
54
0
176
137
18
8
180
0
67
0
410
90
2
22
148
4
124
0
390
69
24
7
145
0
106
0
351
125
0
5
111
0
77
1
319
5
0
10
45
5
97
1
163
21
35
6
16
0
16
0
94
33
11
4
18
0
112
0
178
60
1
7
7
0
62
0
137
653
91
83
734
9
866
2
2438
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS INITIATED BY EPA
1 JAN 76 - 30 SEP 76
BY CATEGORY, BY MONTH
1976
JAN
FEE
MAR
APR
MAY
cn
00 JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
Admin-
istrative
Order
56
68
78
59
41
162
63
65
61
Section 309
Notice
of
Violation
5
9
13
16
5
14
6
13
10
Referrals
13
9
11
11
6
15
4
6
8
Oil Spills
USCG
79
58
113
68
80
132
61
79
64
Section 311
Spill
Referrals
US ATTY
2
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
2
Spill Prevention
Control Counter-
measure
45
91
101
93
72
136
115
148
65
Miscellaneous TOTAL
NON-NPDES ACTIONS
Violations
0
0
0
0
0
*1
*1
0
0
200
235
317
247
206
461
250
312
210
TOTAL
653
91
83
734
866
*2
2438
*Represents Referrals to US Attorney for refusing to pay assessed SPCC Penalties.
-------
OVERALL SUMMARY OF EPA WATER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS — RESULTS AND STATUS, BY REGION
ALL ACTIONS INITIATED IN THE NINE MONTH PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1976 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1976
Actions Initiated
and Results Reported
through 9/76.
Total # of Actions
EPA REGION EPA
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X TOTAL
220 176 410 390 351 319 163 94 178 137 2438
Initiated in Period:
*Pollution Abated or
Compliance Obtained or
in Progress via Admin-
istrative Action.
13
49
75
27
40
27
UNK
15
28
276
*# of Cases for which
Civil/Criminal Court
Proceedings or US Coast
Guard Civil Proceedings
have been concluded.
24
23
49
139
*# of Spill Prevention
Control Countermeasure
Plans (Civil) Proceedings
have been concluded.
32
26
34
27
31
46
63
29
12
309
*Total Civil Penalties
or Criminal Fines
collected.
38 21 59 49 72 46 59 17 34 16 411
$14,700 $82,550 $44,525- $83,125 $38,125 $32,100 $20,195 $78,300 $42,225 $102,825 $538,670
*# of Cases Prosecution
was dismissed, withdrawn
or declined.
18
10
15
67
# of Actions Pending or
outcome unknown as of
9/30/76.
160
71
272
291
229
239
117
52
The current disposition of the majority of these actions has not yet been reported by the Regions.
128
80
1639
-------
FWPCA - Section 404
The year 1976 saw a great deal of activity surrounding
the controversial dredge and fill permit program under
section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Important cases were decided, interagency agreements were
finalized, and significant amendments to section 404 came
close to passage through Congress.
In the case of U.S. v. Byrd, the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Indiana granted a preliminary
injunction to restrain the defendants from conducting a fill
operation in Lake Wawasee, Indiana. Significantly, the
Court held that in order to qualify as wetlands, the land
must be (1) contiguous or adjacent to navigable waters; (2)
periodically inundated; and (3) supportive of aquatic
vegetation. The court found all three elements existed,
stating that "water levels, although a part of the definition
of wetlands, are not necessarily determinative of whether or
not a certain area can be defined as "wetlands.1"
In another case, a developer pleaded nolo contendere
to charges of illegal dredge and fill activities near Ocean
City, Maryland. Under the terms of an agreement following
the entering of the plea, the developer undertook restoration
activities estimated to cost in excess of $60,000, and paid
a criminal penalty.
On June 1, 1976, an interagency agreement on enforcement
policy was signed by leading representatives of EPA, the
UiS. Corps of Engineers and the Department of Justice.
Although the Corps retains primary responsibility for
administrative enforcement of section 404 violations, EPA
may issue section 309 administrative orders in emergency
situations and at the request of the Corps. More serious
actions warranting civil or criminal proceedings may be .
referred to the Department of Justice by either the Corps or
EPA, or may be initiated by the Department of Justice itself.
In any such case, EPA enforcement personnel must be apprised
of all significant developments and may participate directly
in the proceedings. Both the Corps and the Department of
Justice have followed this agreement with further guidelines
and instructions to their regional offices.
70
-------
Update On Reserve Mining Company Case
The previous EPA Enforcement Report contained a
capsule review of major events transpiring through
May 1976 in this most costly and protracted water
pollution litigation. A number of significant develop-
ments have occurred since that time. In response to
numerous public inquiries, a chronological account-of
events to date appears below.
To recap briefly, the Reserve Mining Company, an
equally-owned subsidiary of ARMCO and Republic Steel
Companies, is dumping 67,000+ tons per day of taconite
iron ore processing wastes into Lake Superior at Silver
Bay, Minnesota. Because State-initiated litigation and
Federal administrative enforcement actions -- both begun
as long ago as 1969 -- failed to produce abatement of the
pollution caused by this discharge, the Federal government,
joined by the States of Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin,
and various environmental interest groups, filed suit
in Federal court, alleging violations of the Refuse
Act of 1899, the pre-1972 Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, and the Federal common law of public nuisance. Trial
began on August 1, 1973, before Federal District Court Judge
Miles W. Lord, District of Minnesota. I/
Until June 8, 1973, the case was essentially^
water pollution abatement case, but with the disccffrery
by EPA researchers that asbestos fibers traceable
to the Reserve Mining operations were present in the
air at Silver Bay and in the drinking water supplies of
various cities and communities on Lake Superior's western
shore, the public health hazard posed by these asbestos
fibers became a signal focus of the trial proceedings.
On April 20, 1974, after hearing extensive testimony
by plaintiffs, defendants, and independent court-appointed
experts, Judge Lord entered an order closing Reserve
Mining's Silver Bay facilities on the grounds that
Reserve's water discharge violated Federal water pollution
laws, that its air emissions violated State air pollution
regulations, and that both the air emissions and water
discharges constituted common law nuisances. The
core findings basic to the decision were that the discharge
71
-------
into the air substantially endangered the health of the
people of Silver Bay and surrounding communities as
far away as the eastern shore in Wisconsin, and that
the discharge into the water substantially endangered
the health of people procuring their drinking water
from the western part of Lake Superior, including the
communities of Beaver Bay, Two Harbors, Cloquet, Duluth,
as well as Superior, Wisconsin. 2_/
Reserve Mining immediately appealed Judge Lord's
injunction, and a panel comprised of Circuit Judges
Bright, Ross, and Webster of the U.S. Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit, granted a short stay of the injunction
on the evening of April 22, 1974, following an informal
hearing conducted at Springfield, Missouri, to hear
counsel for the opposing parties. On June 4, 1974,
the same three-judge panel issued a 70-day stay of
the injunction, conditioned "... upon Reserve taking
prompt steps to abate its discharges into air and water
. . . ." V
The June 4, 1974, Appeals Court Order granting a
70-day continuation of the stay also remanded the case
to the District Court and set out a procedure by which
Reserve was to submit plans for abating its discharges
into the air and water, with plaintiffs accorded an
opportunity to comment on such plans. The District
Court then was to make its recommendations to the
Court of Appeals on whether the stay of the injunction
should be continued pending the appeal on the merits. Such
recommendation should rest on "whether Reserve and its
parent companies have evidenced good faith efforts and a
reasonable plan in the public's interest to abate the
pollution of air and water ..." In an August 3, 1974,
opinion, Judge Lord found that the plan advanced by
Reserve was ". . . conceptual at best . . . ," and that
he recommended its rejection, as well as the non-continuance
of the stay order. 4_/
In October 1974, Minnesota and the United States
applied to the United States Supreme Court for relief from
the further stay order. The Supreme Court denied the
petition, indicating it would reconsider if the Appeals
Court did not resolve the case by January 31, 1975. 5/
72
-------
On October 18, 1974, Judge Lord issued an unpublished
memorandum opinion, ruling that Reserve's discharge to
water violated the Refuse Act of 1899, and that its water
discharges and air emissions violated various Minnesota
statutes and regulations; noting no just reason for
delay, he directed the entry of final judgment on all
claims decided, save the question of fines and penalties,
the question of sanctions for failure to make discovery,
and the question of liability of defendants for the water
filtration systems that may be installed in Duluth,
Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin. 6/
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its
opinion on the merits of the case on March 14, 1975,
affirming the injunction but directing modification of
its terms. The key rulings by Circuit Judges Lay,
Bright, Ross, Stephenson, and Webster, sitting En Bane,
are quoted below:
". . . 1) The United States and the other
plaintiffs have established that Reserve's
discharges into the air and water give rise
to a potential threat to the public health.
The risk to public health is of sufficient
gravity to be legally cognizable and calls
for an abatement order on reasonable terms.
2) The United States and Minnesota have shown
that Reserve's discharges violate federal and
state laws and state pollution control
regulations, also justifying injunctive relief
on equitable terms.
3) No harm to the public health has been shown
to have occurred to this date, and the danger to
health is not imminent. The evidence calls
for preventive and precautionary steps. No
reason exists which requires that Reserve
terminate its operations at once.
4) Reserve, with its parent companies, Armco
Steel and Republic Steel, is entitled to a
reasonable opportunity and a reasonable time
period to convert its Minnesota taconite
operations to on-land disposal of taconite
tailings and to restrict air emissions at
its Silver Bay plant, or to close its- existing
Minnesota taconite-pelletizing operations.
73
-------
The parties are required to expedite consideration
and resolution of these alternatives.
5) The evidence suggests that the threat to
public health from the air emissions is more
significant than that from the water discharge.
Consequently, Reserve must take reasonable
immediate steps to reduce its air emissions
. . . . " 7/
In remanding the case to the District Court, the Court
of Appeals addressed additional issues, among them the
following:
a. Only Reserve Mining and the State of
Minnesota are to resolve the dispute over an on-land
disposal site for the taconite tailings wastes. The
Federal government, Michigan,.Wisconsin, and the Federal
courts have no rights of participation in the decision-
making process, except as. provided by Minnesota law,
although the United States may petition the District
Court for relief to protect its interest if either
Minnesota or Reserve Mining do not act expeditiously.
(The Appeals Court envisioned one year after final
appellate decision to be a reasonable time for Minnesota
to act on Reserve Mining's application for an on-land
disposal site, including time for the two parties to
agree on another site; after these administrative
steps, Reserve is to be given reasonable turnaround
time to construct the facility.)
b. Until Reserve'.s. discharges are eliminated,
filtered water is to be provided to the people of Duluth
and other communities on Lake Superior.
On January 6, 1976, the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals ordered that the case be remanded to the Chief
Judge of the District Court for reassignment to another
District Judge. 8/
Following the January 6 decision for remand,
District Court Chief Judge'Edward J. Devitt took over
the case. In a statement issued on January 23, 1976,
he summarized the issues remaining within the province
of the Federal Court, as follows:
74
-------
"1) To continue ready availability of safe
filtered water to all persons in the area
until completion of permanent filtration
facilities.
2) To give expeditious hearing to claimed new
evidence on the health hazard.
3) To determine reimbursement for filtration
expense.
4) To consider assessment of fines, penalties
and costs.
5) To afford court supervision over, and
enforcement of, time schedules and abatement
orders. 'The court will be watchful, as
charged, that Minnesota and Reserve move on
schedule with "deliberate speed to facilitate
Reserve's determination of its water discharge
and air pollution."1" 9_/
On February 21, 1976, Judge Devitt ruled that liability
rested on Reserve Mining, Armco, and Republic for interim
filtration and water supply expense reasonably incurred
by the United States pursuant to the Court-ordered program.
He denied a motion by the United States to require advance
payment of anticipated expenses because the need for
such was not shown in view of the adequacy of funds
allocated to the Corps of Engineers to carry out the
Court-ordered program. In discussing Reserve's urging
that the government, rather than Reserve, should foot
the bill for clean water costs -- given Reserve's
anticipated changeover-to-land-disposal expenses and
its historical contribution to Northern Minnesota's
economy -- Judge Devitt observed as follows:
"... The history of the beginnings of the
taconite industry in Northern Minnesota and
its successful operation for many years may
well reflect just what is represented by
defendants, but this does not minimize the
obligation of defendants to shoulder the
legal liabilities incident to the operation
of a profit-making corporation in the free
enterprise system. This was exactly the kind
75
-------
of business risk assumed by Reserve when it
sought, and was granted, the necessary permits
to discharge its tailings in Lake Superior . . .
Then Minnesota Conservation Commissioner
Chester S. Wilson warned Reserve of this risk
at a public hearing on June 17, 1974, in an
exchange with H. S. Taylor, representing Reserve.
The colloquy:
Chairman Wilson: "And you understand
that if the permit should be granted and the
discharge from the water from this plant should
result in damaging consequences not contemplated,
that the responsibility would be on your
company or on the applicant company to take
whatever action might be necessary to remedy
those conditions.1
Mr. Taylor: 'Why yes, we can stand that
risk in any event we have to take certain risks.'
Late at the hearing, Mr. Taylor said: 'This
company will be a responsible company and we
will recognize our legal liabilities.1
The Court finds legal liability upon Reserve
and hopes it will be a responsible company and
recognize it . . . ." 10/
On May 4, 1976, Judge Devitt fined Reserve Minning
Company more than $1 million for violations of its Minnesota
water discharge permit and for violation of Court rules
on discovery. In addition, Judge Devitt ordered Reserve to
pay $22,920 to Duluth, Minnesota for reimbursement of costs
incurred in supplying filtered water to the City. In
the language of the Order:
"SUMMARY"
"We determine that:
1. Defendants violated the terms of the
state granted water discharge permits daily
between May 20, 1973, and April 20, 1974, -
a period of 335 days - and are assessed
penalties of $2,500.00 per day for a total of
$837,500.00.
76
-------
2. Reserve violated court rules and orders
as to discovery and is assessed sanctions of
$200,000.00.
3. The city of Duluth is entitled to be
reimbursed in the approximate sum of $22,920.00 for
furnishing interim clean water facilities and
supplies to its residents."
The Chief Judge then observed:
"The court has now determined all pending issues
properly within its province. Remaining for
resolution is agreement between the State of
Minnesota and Reserve Mining Company as to
an appropriate on-land taconite waste disposal
site. Prompt accord on this issue hopefully
will signal the end of this long pending, and
often acrimonious, controversy so that Minnesota
and its people can return to a normal and productive
society with the environment preserved and public
health protected." ll/
Reserve Mining Company immediately appealed Judge
Devitt's Order.
Following the Court of Appeals decision of March 14,
1975, (supra) Reserve filed an application with the
State of Minnesota for an on-land disposal permit at
"Mile Post 7." Minnesota thereupon conducted an environ-
mental impact study of this and possible alternative sites
and held public hearings on the findings which were con-
cluded in May 1976. The State hearing examiner determined
that Mile Post 7 was unacceptable and recommended an
on-land disposal site at Midway, a point further inland
from the Lake. On motion of the United States (at the
request of EPA) Judge Devitt in the Federal court action
on June 10, 1976, ordered all parties to appear on July 7,
1976, prepared either to agree to an acceptable on-land
disposal site or to accept an immediate court order
directing Reserve to phase out its operation within one
77
-------
year in keeping with the Court of Appeals instructions.
Prior to the July 7 hearing Minnesota adopted the
hearing examiner's decision whereupon Reserve announced
its intention to appeal the State decision. At the July 7
hearing Judge Devitt gave Reserve Mining until midnight,
July 7, 1977, to terminate its discharge into Lake
Superior. Reserve immediately announced that it would
also appeal this order.
Through its Reserve Mining Task Force, EPA and
other concerned Federal agencies are continuing to work
with the State of Minnesota, offering expert advice
and assistance to aid in permanently resolving the
problem in an expeditious and environmentally-sound
fashion.
I/ The Federal/State enforcement steps pursued prior to
August 1, 1973, to abate the pollution caused by Reserve
Mining Company's discharge to Lake Superior included
the following actions:
1/16/1969 --
5/13/1969 —
Feb. 1970 —
4/28/71 --
1/19/1972 --
2/14/1972 --
Secretary of the Interior called
Enforcement Conference for Lake Superior
under sect. 10(d) of pre-1972 FWPCA
Lake Superior Enforcement Conference
commenced
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
files suit in State Court, charging
violation by Reserve Mining Company
of State anti-pollution law and of
State's interstate water quality
standards. See Reserve Mining Co. v.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(4 ERG 1513)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
issues 180-Day Notice under sect. 10 (c) (5)
of pre-1972 FWPCA (thereby discontinuing
sect. 10(d) procedure)
EPA requests Attorney General of the
U.S. to file suit in Federal court under
sections 10(c)(5) & 10(g)(l)
EPA requests Atty. General to file
additional claim under sect. 10 (g) (2),
based on Minnesota Governor's consent.
78
-------
2/ U.S. 'v. Reserve Mining Co., 380 F.Supp. 11,16,17,20,21
(6 ERC 1449) D. Minn. 1974, and Supplemental Memorandum
Opinion of May 11, 1974, 380 F.Supp. 11,21 (6 ERC 1657)
D. Minn. 1974
3/ Reserve Mining Co. v. U.S., 498 F.2d 1073 (6 ERC 1609),
8th Cir. 1974
4_/ Reserve Mining Co. v. U.S., 498 F.2d. 1073 (6 ERC 1609),
8th Cir. 1974
5_/ Minnesota v. Reserve Mining Co., 95 S.Ct. 287 (7 ERC
1113) 1974
6/ (7 ERC 1096)
7/ Reserve Mining Co. v. U.S., 514 F.2d 492, 499-500
(7 ERC 1618) 8th Cir. 1975
8/ (8 ERC 1511)
9/ Statement of Chief Judge Edward J. Devitt, January 23, 1976
!£/ (8 ERC 1689)
ll/ (8_ ERC 1978) 7 (5-72-Civil-19) Order filed May 4, 1976,
DC, Minn, Fifth Div.
-------
City of Camden, New Jersey (Region II)
On June 28, 1976, an order was issued by Judge Stanley
Brotraan in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey requiring the City of Camden, New Jersey, to
repair and maintain the City's Main and Baldwin's Run sewage
treatment plants.
The City of Camden is located within an area designated
for area-wide waste treatment management and its wastewater
ultimately will receive treatment in a regional facility.
Until such time, however, the City is responsible for its
wastewater disposal.
An NPDES permit was issued for each plant, requiring
the City to maintain and operate the facilities as efficiently
as possible. EPA contended that this imposed an obligation
on the City to repair existing treatment equipment and to
maintain the facilities during their useful life in a manner
that will yield treatment levels commensurate with the
plants' original design capabilities.
The plants were inspected by the EPA and found to be in
a badly deteriorated condition. Up to 40,000,000 gallons of
raw and poorly-treated sewage were being discharged daily to
the Delaware River. Pursuant to section 309, EPA issued
two administrative orders, requiring the City to repair and
place into operation all non-functioning waste treatment
equipment and to submit a schedule for the completion of
the work within the shortest practicable period of time.
The City failed to comply, claiming it lacked the.necessary
funds. EPA referred the violations to the United States
Attorney for civil action.
Judge Brotman ordered the City to restore the Main
treatment plant within sixteen months and Baldwin's Run
plant within thirteen months. He further ordered the City to
take all necessary actions to ensure that funds are available
for repairs and maintenance including dedication of s.ewer
revenues, rentals and receipts.
EPA suggested that a penalty of $3,000,000.00 be imposed,
against which the City would be allowed to deduct the cost
of repairs. Judge Brotman refused to impose the penalty
80
-------
since he believed that the City was making good faith efforts
to comply with the permits and orders. However, he expressly
retained jurisdiction over the case so that, if necessary,
enforcement of the terms and conditions of the court order
could be undertaken through the exercise of his contempt
powers.
81
-------
EXXON Corporation and Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc.
On September 1, 1976, the EXXON Corporation paid a
civil penalty of $100,000/ the largest civil penalty ever
assessed, for violation of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972. EXXON was penalized for having discharged
544,000 gallons of polluted wastewater into the Beaufort Sea
some 60 miles east of Prudhoe Bay. The discharge occurred
on Flaxman Island, on the Alaskan North Slope where EXXON
had been drilling an exploratory well. A reserve mud pit
near the oil rig was partly drained, dumping water containing
pollutants including oil for a period from June 25 to
July 7, 1975. EXXON had not applied for or been issued an
EPA permit to discharge wastes at the time of the discharge.
In addition to the penalty, the settlement agreed to by
EXXON requires the company to obtain permits from the
Environmental Protection Agency for any future discharges
into U.S. navigable waters, and also to report to the Agency
any exploratory drilling operations that the company intends
to undertake.
-------
Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA)
This statute, enacted in December 1974, provides two
principal means of protecting currently used or potentially
available sources of drinking water.
Control of Public Water Supplies
The first, comprising parts B & D of SDWA, sets maximum
allowable levels of contaminants in drinking water furnished
by public water systems, and a regulatory scheme to assure
compliance with the allowable levels of contaminants in the
water furnished by such systems, and to assure compliance
with related sampling, analysis, and reporting requirements.
The regulatory scheme also provides for exercise by the
Administrator or the Federal courts of emergency powers
relating to the control of contaminants in or likely to
enter public water supplies which may present an imminent
and substantial endangerment to the health of persons.
Through December 31, 1976, the emergency authority has
not been exercised.
The statute provides a means of granting States the
authority to operate the regulatory program (primacy) if it
meets with program requirements set by the Administrator,
with EPA, acting through its Regions, exercising an overview
role. In States which do not have primacy, the Regional
office of EPA will operate this portion of the regulatory
program after the first set of regulations setting contaminant
levels become effective in June 1977. Two novel features of
this program should be noted:
(1) Any public system which has a
violation, in addition to facing
fines or court actions brought
by the States and/or EPA, must
also report the violations to
its customers.
(2) Under the SDWA, as distinguished
from NPDES, all laboratories fur-
nishing test results must, by
regulation, be certified by the
State or by the Region as surrogate
State.
83
-------
Protection of Underground Sources of Drinking Water
The second means of protection of present or potential
water supplies is set forth in Part C of SDWA, and relates
to the protection of underground sources of drinking water
by preventing the underground injection of fluids which
endanger drinking water sources. This portion of the
statute likewise provides for primary enforcement responsi-
bility entrusted to States which comply with EPA requirements,
and provides for EPA to act in those States which do not
assume enforcement responsibility. This program is to
become operational in December 1977.
Also included as a part of Part C is a provision for
the protection, on an interim basis, until the permanent
program becomes effective, of aquifers in areas where those
aquifers are the sole or principal source of drinking water
for that area. The only aquifer designated to date is the
Edwards Aquifer, San Antonio, Texas. Thus far, there have
been no known violations of the requirements of the Edwards
aquifer regulations and therefore no enforcement actions
have been taken under the enforcement portion of the interim
program.
84
-------
Marine Protection
Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act provides for the United States Coast Guard
to conduct surveillance and enforcement activities to prevent
unlawful ocean dumping. EPA has the authority to assess civil
penalties for violation of ocean dumping permit conditions,
and to seek criminal prosecution against persons who knowingly
violate the Act.
In the 3 years of the program's existence EPA has brought
26 enforcement actions against permittees who have violated
permit conditions. In 14 of these actions penalties have
been imposed amounting to $79,900. Preliminary reports
indicate that $3,200 in penalties have been collected in
1976. Nine enforcement actions are still pending with
no penalties assessed as of yet.
Since 1972, EPA has brought all ocean dumping activity
under full regulatory control and has required many dumpers
either to stop dumping immediately or to phase out these
activities within the next few years. In exercising its
regulatory responsibilities, EPA has followed a highly
restrictive approach, requiring that dumpers seek environ-
mentally acceptable alternatives to ocean dumping even when
the wastes involved met the published criteria for issuing
permits. While these criteria are judged adequate to permit
a short-range determination of the impacts of waste material
on marine ecosystems, a restrictive approach is necessary
because of the present lack of specific knowledge regarding
the long-term damage to the marine environment which could
result from continuation of ocean waste disposal practices.
EPA's ultimate goal thus aims toward eventual phasing
out of all ocean dumping.
The enforcement effort is carried out primarily by
EPA's Regional Offices which have broad discretion to
resolve issues and assess penalties in individual cases.
States may have an advisory role where their individual
interests are affected. Table A lists the entities
involved in enforcement actions from the inception of
EPA's efforts through the date of publication of this Report.
8-5
-------
Appreciation and gratitude are due to the United
States Coast Guard whose diligence and continuing
cooperation have contributed greatly to the successes
achieved to date.
86
-------
CHAPTER VII
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER (NEIC)
To aid in carrying out the Agency's varied enforcement
responsibilities, EPA operates the National Enforcement Investigations
Center, located at Denver, Colorado.
NEIC's major function is to provide technical information and
evidence in support of EPA enforcement actions. Emphasis is placed
on NEIC's quick response in emergencies, often requiring field
investigations on short notice, such as for spills of hazardous
materials or emissions potentially endangering the public health or
welfare. Another important function of the Center is to provide
large-scale technical support for short-term studies beyond the
resource capacity of other EPA units.
With a staff of highly specialized professionals, NEIC is
frequently called upon by other Federal and State agencies to
provide expert advice and consultation for pollution control in
municipal, industrial, and agricultural categories. NEIC has gained
recognition through its participation in a number of major enforcement
proceedings and cases of national interest. The Center has also
provided technical expertise in the development of effluent and
emission guidelines for major industries nationwide.
The National Enforcement Investigations Center has access to
large-scale computerized data bases and other environmental information
services, and uses the latest information retrieval techniques in
its case preparation activities. These resources facilitate the
Center's quick and efficient response to major environmental problems -
such as nitrosamines, PCB's, etc.
NEIC also maintains various specialty field crews who can be
deployed nationwide for case preparation activities. A modern
laboratory enploying advanced chemical, biological and microbiological
techniques completes the technical support capabilities.
During 1976, the National Enforcement Investigations Center has
provided technical support in more than 75 enforcement actions and has
responded to requests for information in several other program areas.
Major cases involved assistance to Region III for the U.S. Steel .
adjudicatory hearings and expert testimony in the Kepone cases;
technical support to Region X for preparation of the Bunker Hill
action; and initiation and development of a program of pesticide use
investigations for the assessment of mass application practices.
NEIC's stack sampling teams have completed examination of 11 sources
involving smelters, chemical, fertilizer and cement manufacturing
facilities.
87
-------
The United States Steel investigations, at Pittsburgh, involved
complete process evaluation, effluent characterization and treatment
technology assessment for the four major Works with included nine
plants. More than 100 individual waste streams were located and
pollutant concentrations identified. This project required more
than 24 man-years of effort and, at times, up to 30 people were
stationed in Pittsburgh for periods of more than a month. The
reports prepared as a result of this effort serve as the basic
technical documents supporting EPA's position. U..S. Steel did not
question any of the data or interpretations made by NEIC.
With respect to the Allied Chemical Company and Life Science
Products Company cases relating to Kepone contamination, NEIC was
requested by the Justice Department to provide three expert witnesses
and to conduct pilot laboratory testing. Although the Kepone process
was not operating at the time of the trials and historical data were
confusing, NEIC witnesses were able to demonstrate the probable
amounts of Kepone that were discharged during the manufacturing period
and the effect that this discharge would have on available treatment
systems.
At the request of Region IX, NEIC conducted a major evaluation
of available technology for control of emissions from copper smelters
in Arizona and Nevada. This effort involved not only process
inspection, but also performance data accumulation through stack
sampling. The reports prepared for this continuing project serve as
the basis for assessing probable performance of alternate technologies
at sources not now in compliance.
A pilot program to monitor mass application of pesticides to
determine proper measurement procedures in areas of concern was
initiated during 1976. Extensive observations and sampling of air,
water and soil were made during the five major phases of mass
application. These include: 1) formulation; 2) aircraft loading;
3) .spraying; 4) field reentry; and 5) disposal of product residue and
containers. Fvaluat.innt; wpre made ln four geographical areas located
in Delaware, Mississippi, Texas and California. An overview report
recommending suitable monitoring procedures is in preparation.
In cooperation with the Mobile Source Enforcement Division, NEIC
has developed and demonstrated a simplified testing procedure for
measuring vapor emissions during vehicle refueling. This test has
been incorporated into proposed regulations for Stage II Vapor Recovery
and is presently being evaluted on a large-scale basis.
NEIC has provided the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Regional Administrators with the ability to concentrate highly
qualified technical resources on problems of national concern and/or
significant Regional impact.
88
-------
APPENDICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPENDIX A -- Summary of EPA Enforcement Actions,
Section 110 - CLEAN AIR ACT:
(Name list of Stationary Sources
Involved)-
APPENDIX B — EPA Enforcement Actions under the
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE. FUNGICIDE. AND
RODENTICIDE ACT:
TABLE 1 — Civil Actions Initiated by EPA, ............... 129
TABLE 2 -- Update of Results for Civil Actions,
December 1974 Through December 1975 ............ 150
APPENDIX C -- EPA Enforcement Actions under the Water
Pollution Control Statutes:
TABLE 1 -- NPDES Civil and Criminal Enforcement
Actions under Section 309 of FUPCA 161
TABLE 2 -- Oil & Hazardous Substance Liability -
Sect. 311 (b)(5) of FHPCA " 206
TABLE 3 -- Actions under the MARINE PROTECTION
RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT 207
APPENDIX D -- Comparison of Enforcement Actions Included in.-209
Statistical Tabulations Presented in EPA
Enforcement Reports Published through
September 1976
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
SECTION 110 - STATE IMPLEMENTATION ELANS
JANUARY - SEPTEMBER 30, 1976
90
-------
STATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Alabama
Butler
Alabana
Tuscaloosa
Alabama
Selma
Alabana
Decator
Alabama
Mobile
Alabama
Mobile
American Can Company
pulp and paper mill
Gulf States Paper Corp.
pulp and paper mill
Hammermill Paper Co.
pulpand paper mill
Monsanto Textiles Co.
textile mill
Scott Paper Co.
pulp and paper mill
Citmoco.Services, Inc
petroleum storage
Alabama
Gadsden
Alabama
Mobile
Alaska
Ilaines
Alaska
tfranqell
Alaska
Fairbanks
Republic steel
Corporation
Coke Battery
Alabama State Docks Depart.
Alaska Forest Products
Teepee burner
Alaska wood Products
Teepee burner
Municipal utilities System
Fossil fuel fired boilers
Arizona
Yuma
Lou-Don Milling Co./alfalfa
dehydrating 6 jellet mfg.
Pit
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF;ACTION
Particulate
Particulite
Partriculate
Particulite
parbiculate
HC
Part, matter
PM
VE
VE
VE, SIP violation
Failure to comply
with 9ll« request
1/6/76 NOV
1/6/76 NOV
1/6/76 NOV
1/6/76 NOV
3/2/76 NOV
3/2/76 NOV
NOV 7/9/76
NOV 9/1/76
MOV 5/19/76
NOV 5/19/76
NDV 5/19/76
Order 5/10/76
-------
STATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF/ACTION
Arizona
Hayden
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Ray Mines Div.
sulfuric acid pit. stack 6
reverbatory furnace ESP
violation of
SHU (refusal to
install sampling
facilitiea)
Order issued 7/22/76;
order revised 7/30/76
Arizona
Hayden
Arizona
California
Fontana
California
Sin Diego
California
Compton
California
Los Anqeles
California
El Central
California
w«st End
California
n.iratow
California
Fontana
California
Kern County
Asarco, Inc.
copper smelter
Davis-Monthan AFB
fuel storage tanks
Kaiser Stnel Corp.
integrated steel mill
Industrial Metals C
Salvage Co./wire reclamation.
incinerator
Lloyd Fry Roofinq Co.
City of Los Angeles/
Dept. of Water 6 Power
Vallry Nitrogen Producers
Inc./area prill tower
Kerr-McGee chemical Corp./
West End Pit-Grade 80 facility
Calico Rock Milling Inc./
rock crusher
Rockwool Industries, Inc./
Daghouse stack, cupolas
boiler, incinerator
Standard Oil of Calif./
Kern River oil Field/Steam
violation of
Sll« (refusal to
install sampling
facilities and
conduct performance tests)
HC
Violation Df VE
Particulite Matter, and
J>o2 and EPA Drder
VE and CO Std
VE
Violation of Federally
promulgated NSR
Particulite Matter Std
V?, Particulate Matter,
and fugitive dust Std
VE Std
VE
Violation 3f Federally
promulgated SSR reg.
Order issued 7/26/7C;
order revised 9/15/75
Consent
agreement
issued
Civil Action
H/26/76
consent Order
2/10/76
NOV 2/2/76
Administrative
Order 3/12/76
Order 3/12/76
Consont Order
NOV tt/30/76
NOV 5/20/76
KOV 6/U/76
-------
STATE/CITX
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF/ACTION
California
Tracy
Owens-Illinois Inc./
Glass Container Div.
Participate Matter Std
KOV 6/28/76
Connecticut
Cos Cob
Connecticut
Willinford
Connecticut
• Plainfield
Connecticut
Ansonia
Penn Central/
Electric Generating Plant
Wallingford Dept. of Public
Utilites/Electric Generating.
Plant
Pervel Industries
Parrel Co.
Particul^e/VE and
Mass Emissions; SOx
Sulfur c^
Particulatre/VE and
Mass Emissions; SOx
Sulfur content
HC
Order 1/7/76
NQi' 3/23/26
Order 4/2/7
Order 1/22/76
NOV 3/23/76
Delaware
Delaware City
Getty Oil Company
Coker
ParKiculate
NlV 6/30/76
Florida
Birtow
Florida
Tampa
Florida
Jiinenville
Florida
Gainesville
Florida
Winter Garden
Florida
Pensacola
Flori da
St. Petersburg
Florida
Lowell
Florida .
Oca la
Florida
Miami
Farmland Industries
Sulfuric Acid Plants
Nit ram. Inc.
Nitric Acid Plant
Alachua County Regional Util. Bd.
Power Plant
Alachua County Regional Util. Bd.
bDeer haven power plant
Winter Gardnn Citrus Products Coop
Citrus Peel Dryer
Monsanto
Nitric Acid Plant&Boilers
Florida Powor Corp.
power plant
Mid Florida Mining
Fullers Earth Dryer
Asphalt Pavers, Inc.
Aspahlt Plant
City of Miami
Municipal Incinerator
S02 Emissions
NOx
l>articulate
ParKiculite
Particul»te
NOx, 502
Particulate
Particulste
Particul-ite
Particulate
93
3/76/76 Admin.
Order
Ott/27/76 NOW
OB/27/76 NOV
OU/27/76 NOV
OU/27/76 NCV
Oa/27/76 NOV
•01/27/76 NOV
-------
STATE/CITY
1
Flordia
Key West
Florida
Key west
Flordia
Winter Garden
Florida
Jacksonville
Flordia
Moore Haven
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
City Electric Corp.
power plant
(Stock Island)
City Electric System
power plant
(Trumbo Road)
Winter Garden Citrus
Products Cooperative
dryers
Jacksonville
Electric Authority
power plant-north
side plant
Glades County sugar
Growers Cooperative boiler
POLLUTION PROBLEM
part, matter
VE
part, matter
VE
part, matter
TYP_E OF/ACT ION
NOV 9/22/76
NOV 9/22/76
NOV 9/22/76
NOV 9/22/76
NOV 9/22/76
Flordia
Port St. Joe
Flordia
Brooksville
Flordia
Tampa
Florida
Ft. Lauderdale
Florida
Foley
Florida
Red Level
Georgia
M-icon
Georgia
Gainesville
Trion
Georgia
St. Joe Paper Co.
power boilers
Dairy service Copr.
peel dryer
Reynolds Metals Co.
Can Plant
Broward Co. Incinerator
Buckeye Cellulose
Bark Boiler I Lime Kilns
Florida Power Corp. Power Pit.
(Crystal River)
The Bibb Co.
textile mill
Trotman Asphalt
asphalt plant
Ripqel Textile Corp.
textile mill
West Point Pepperell-Lindale
Part. matter/VE
part, matter
hydrocarbons
PM
PM
PM/VE
Particulite
Part-icul^te
Particulite
Particulate
NOV 9/22/76
NOV 9/22/76
NOV 9/22/76
NOV 9/22/76
NOV 7/2U/76
NOV 9/2U/76
5/21/76 NOV
5/21/76 NOV
5/21/76 NOV
5/21/7o NOV
Cedar. Springs
textile mill
-------
BTATFyCITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF/ACTION
Georgia
Columbus
Georgia
Chatsvorth
Georgia
Cartersville
Georgia
Savannah
West Point Pepperell-Columbus
textile mill
Southern Tale company
Chemical Products
Corporation
Rotary Kilns .
Union Camp Corp.
bark boilers
Parti culite
Particulate
Part. Matter
part, matter
5/21/76 NOV
5/21/76 NOV
Amended
Administrative
order 7/19/76
$113 amended
order 9/2/76
Hawaii
Oolcala
.Hawaii
Honolulu
Hawaii
Puunene
Hawaii
Paia
Laupauhoehoe Sugar Co./
bagasse and oil fired
boilers
City 6 County of Honolulu/
Kapalama, Kewalo, and
Walupahu municipal incinerators
Hawaiian Commerical G Sugar
Co./bagasse G oil fired boilers
Hawaiian Commerical G Sugar
co./baga-se G oil fired boilers
Violation of Federally
promulgated
compliance schedule
VE/nariculate Matter St3
VE Part.iculate Matter
Violation 3f Federally
approved compliance
schedule opacity and
rarticulate Matter Std
Violation of Federally
approved compliance
schedule, opacity and
Particul»te Matter std.
Civil Action
2/13/76
Revision of
administrative
Ortler 2/">/7
NDV 3/26/76
NOV 3/26/76
Hawaii
Kahului, Haul
Hawaii
Ewa Beach
Maui Asphalt
Hookano Paving Co.
asphalt batch pit.
Cyprus Hawaiian
cement Corp.
VE
NSPS
violation
NOV 7/2/76
7/12/76
order issued
Idaho
Mccall
IdahD
Kellogg
Idaho
Kellogg.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Wiqwam Burner
Bunker Hill Co.
zinc/lead smelter
Bunker Hill Co.
zinc/lead smelter
failure to sjbmit data
requested &11U
S02-SIP violation
Coirpliance
rrhPdnlo 3/9/76
NOV 6/2P/76
NOV 5/19/76
-------
STATE/CITY
1
Idaho
Kellogg
Idaho
Nampa
Idaho
Idaho Falls
Idaho
Kellogg
IllinDis
xt. carmel
Illinois
Joppa
Illinois
Chicaqo
(South works)
Illinois
Kincaid
Illinois
South Chicaqo
Indiana
E. Chicago
.Indiana
Gary
Indiana
Chicago
Indiana
Burns Harbor
Indiana
Indianapolis
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Bunker Hill Co.
lead smelter
Amalgamated Sugar Co.
dryers
H-K Contractors, Inc.
mobile asphalt
concrete pit.
Bunker Hill Co.
lead smelter
Public Service Co., Indiana
Gibson 13 boilers
Electric Energy, Inc.
boiler
H.s. steel
BOP-roof monitor
Commonwealth Edison Co.
boilers
Republic Steel
Inland Steel
«1 CO Battery
17 Blast furnace
15 Boiler House
U.S. Steel
coke battery »3
Inland Steel
coke battery »1
Bethlehem Steel
Citizens Gas 6 Coke
POLttlTION PROBLEM
fugitive
part, matter
fugitive
NSP3
SO2
TSP
SO 2
TSF
96
MSR
TSP
TSP
TSP
TYPE OF .'ACTION
§111 request
for info.
8/11/76
Amend to a
compliance
order 8/16/76
Complia nee
order issued
8/31/76
referred for
civil or
criminal
litigation
7/12/76
rpf«rrnd on
(Civil action
KOV 5/17/76
NOV U/l/76
NOV 3/12/76
Pri»r 3/2U/76
NDV 6/23/76
(NSR)
MOV 5/13/76
NOV tt/9/76
ryv 2/9/76
NOV tt/28/76
-------
STATE/CITY
1
Indiana
Chesterson
Indiana
Indianapolis
Indiana
Terre Haute
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Northern Indiana Public Service Co. PT
Marathon Oil Co, HC
bulk terminals
Ind. Gas 6 Chem. Co. PT
Coke Batteries
TYPE OF/ACTION
NOV 8/10/76
NOV 8/27/76
NOV 7/20/76
Iowa
Denison
Tow*
Des Monie
Iowa
Ft. Dorlqe
Iowa
Terril
Iowa
Perry
Iowa
West Bend
Iowa
Creston
lows
Sanborn
I ovn
Durant
Iowa
Mu ska tine
Iowa
Mta
Iowa
Clinton
Launderville Construction Co.
(Asphalt plant)
University Avenue Coal Co.
Croft Ready Mix (Concrete
batch plant)
Terminal cooperative
(grain elevator)
Perry Farmer's Grain Co.
West Bend Processing Co.
(grain elevator)
Farmer's Cooperative
(qrain elevator)
Sanborn cooperative Grain Co.
(arain elevator)
Russelloy Foundry
(cupola)
Grain Processinq Co.
Aqland Cooperative Co.
(grain handling and
processing plant)
Hawkeye Chemical
(Prill Tower)
TSP
TSP (Fviqitiv* duct)
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TKP
TSP
VF
113 tracking
Order issue
1/12/7&
111 n-.ieklng
Tder issue
?/? V76
113 '•ricking
Order issu"?
2/1 7/76
11 ' Ticking
Or ier issue
2/10/7K
11 3 tracking
Or.ler issue
11.? tracking
Order issue
u/?«,/76
113 Ticking
113 Or.ler
issiicc' 5/1V76
113 orrler
issued U/l.1/76
111 order
isr.uo-1 5/6/76
113 Tcicking
Order issue
11 J Order
ir?p.ui-r1 2/2S/76
-------
STATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Iowa
Oaksale
Iowa
Bloomfield
Iowa
Charles city
University of Iowa
(boilers l-«)
Bloomfield Foundry
(qupola)
White Farm Equipment Co.
(foundry)
Iowa
Nevada
Dowson Elevator co.
(grain elevator)
Iowa
Durant
Iowa
Boone
Iowa
OaXdale
Iowa
Sioux City
Iowa
Clinton
Iowa
Keokuk
Russelloy Foundry
cupolas
DeKalb Ag. Research
inc. Grain handling-
processing pit.
Iowa State
Board of Regents
Univ. Of Iowa
boilers
Murphy Products Co.
grain handling-
processing pit.
Clinton Corn Processing
Feed dryers
Foote Mineral Co.
industrial boilers
Iowa
Iowa
Dubuque
3
Eagle Grove
Iowa
Keokuk
Iowa
Ames
Iowa
Council Bluffs
Conticarriers 6 Terminals
targe load-out system
Boone Valley Co-op
Hubinger Co.
Iowa State Board of Regents
Univ. of Iowa
Pillsbury Co.
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF/ACTION
TSP f, VS
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP/VE
in Ord
ist-urrl 1/25/76
11.1 Or.-lf-r
isrued 1/21/76
113 tracking
Order i.K
ll.t (racking
7/29/76 2nd
rev.
7/29/76
order issued
7/28/76
order issued
TSP
TSP
TSP
Fugitive dust
TSP
SO 2
.TSP/S02
DCS
VE
8/16/76
order issued
9/2/76
rev. order
9/29/76
second
amend to
order issued.
9/28/76
order issued
7/1U/76
order issued
7/114/76
order issued
8/214/76
order issued
8/26/76
order issued
-------
STATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF,'ACTION
Kansas
Tecumseh
Kansas
Kansas city
Kansas
coffeyville
Kansas
Kansas City
Kansas
Fort Riley
Kentucky
Louisville
Kentucky
Louisville
Kentucky
Ownesboro
Kentucky
Barbourville
Kentucky
Drift
Kentuck y
Haddix
Kentucky
Covinqton
Kentucky
Cdlvert City
Kentucky
Florence
Kentucky
Owensboro
Kentucky
Owensboro
Kansas Power & Lifjht Co.
Tecumseh Station
Boilers »9 E »10
Certain-Teed Products Corp.
Acme Foundry, Inc.
Certain-Teed Products,
Corp. Furnaces
Fort Riley
General Electric Co.
Appliance Manufacturing
LGCE Mill Creek *1
Power Plant
WP Grace C Co.
Battery Separation Mfj.
Mashall Lumber Co.
Wood products
Left Beaver Coal Co.
Coal Mine
Siqmon Bros
Coal Mine
Ashland Petroleum
Petroleum products
Airco Alloys
Electrometallurical Products
Natico Inc.
Metal Barrels
Owensboro Municipal Utility
Elmer Smith Plant
Electric Services
Owensboro Municipal Utility
Plant »1
Electric and other Services
combined
VF
TSP
opacity
TSP
HC *. Particulates
SIP HO2 Emissions
Particul*te
1M or-ler
Particulate
Parti cul-ite
HC
Particulite
Part iculste
articulste
ParHculite
93
I'.QV U/6/76
8/16/76
order issued
9/29/76
order issued
NOV 7/1/76
.1/76/76 Admin.
Order
0?/26/7f, Admin.
Order
mi/26/76 NOV
OU/26/76 NDV
01/26/76 NOV
P'4/?6/7
-------
STATE/CITX
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Kentucky
Pikeville
Kentucky
Bowling Green
Kentucky
r.rpensburg
Kentucky
Klkhorn CrceJc
Kentucky
Yellow Rock
Adamn construction Co.
paving Mixtures and Blocks
L F Strassheim
Wood Products
Greensburg Mfg., Co.
wood products
Conglfiton Bros. Coal Co.
Coal Mine
Kentucky Stone Co,
Crushed Limestone
Kentucky
whitesburg
Kentucky
Mayklng
Kentucky
EmmonS
Kentucky
Bulan
BOB Coal Sales
coal mine
Maykinq Coal Sales
Coal Mine
Kodak Mining Co.
Coal Mine
Tarheel coals. Inc.
Coal Mine
truck dump area
RH load out
Kentucky
Bnl an
Kentucky
Burnside
Kentucky
Mnnticello
Kentucky
Whitley County
Kentucky
Bonham
Kentucky
Catlet-tsburgh
Kentucky
Midway .
Tarheel coals. Inc.
Coal Mine
Crushing Screwing
Hammer Hardwood
Hardwood Flooring
Christian wood Products
Sawmill
Ryans Creek Coal Co.
Coal Mine
Wisconsin Steel coal Mines
Coal Mine
Repoca Resources, Inc.
Coal Mine
weiscnberger Flour Mills
Flour Mill
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF/ACTION
Parti ctil»i-e
Partioul^t-e
Particular
Part.iculate
Particulste
Particulites
Part iculates
Particulite
Particulate
OU/76/76 «JV
•S/13/76 NOV
5/1.1/76 NOV
5/1V76 NOV
5/1 V76 MOV
5/1J/76 t:OV
5/13/76 HOV
5/U/76 NOV
5/1 V76 NOV
Particul^te
Particul^te
Particulnte
Particulites
Particulites
Particulites
Particulates
5/1.1/76 NOV
5/1V76 NOV
5/1.1/76 NOV
5/28/76 HOV
5/28/76 NOV
5/78/76 NOV
5/20/76 NOV
-------
STATE/CITY
1
Kentucky
Pike
Kentucky
Partidge
Kentucky
Steams
Kentucky
Perry County
Kentucky
Owensboro
Kentucky
Boll County
Kentucky
Col son
Kentucky
McAndres
Kentucky
Whitesburq
Kentucky
Slkhorn City
Kentucky
Pikeville
Kentucky
London
Kentucky
Pike County
Kentucky
Pine Knot
Kentucky
Batvtr Dara
Kentucky
Ivel
Kentucky
Liverwore
Kentucky
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Caney Branch Coal Co.
Coal wholesaler
Scotia Coal Co.
Coal Mine
Stearns Mining Co.
Coal Mine
Green Drook Coal Co., Inc.
Coal Mine
Farmers Elevator Inc.
Wholesale Grain
Mountain Drive Coal Co.
Coal Mine
Johnson Elkhorn coal Co. .
Ccal Mine
Eastern coal Corp.
Coal Mine
Elkhorn Processing Co., inc.
Coal Mine
Hawkins Coal Co.
Coal Mine
Hall and Adkins Coal Co.
Coal Mine
Moss coal co.
Coal Mine
Hawkins Coal Co.
Coal Mine
Ryans Creek Coal Co.
(North Tipple) Coal Mine
Lake City coal Co., Inc.
Coal Mine
Diamond Coal Co.
Coal Mine
Green River Chair Co. ^
Wood Furniture j
Blue Diamond Coal Co.
POLLUTIOH PROBLEM
Particulites
Particulites
Particulites
Particulites
Part iculat.es
Part iculites
Part iculites
Particulites
Particulit.es
Particulites
Particulites
Part.iculstes
Particulates
Particuistes
Particul%tes
Particulates
m n* Particulites
Parti cull tea
TYPE OF /ACT TON
V28/76 NOV
5/28/76 NOV
5/2B/76 NOV
5/7P/76 NOV
8/76 NOV
5/2P/76 NOV
5/<>8/76 NOV
5/28/76 NOV
5/28/76 NOV
5/2R/76 NOV
5/28/76 NOV
5/28/76 NOV
5/28/76 NOV
5/28/76 NOV
5/2fl/7ft NOV
5/28/76 NOV
5/28/76 NOV
5/28/76 NOV
coal Mine
-------
STATg/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF/ACTION
Kentucky
Grays Knob
Kentucky
Bromley
Kentucky
Henderson
Kentucky
Kirlan
Kentucky
E:lmonson County
Kentucky
Cawood
Kentucky
Manchester
Kentucky-
Ashland
Kentucky
Jiatfield
Kentucky
Perry County
Kentucky
Ownesboro
Kentucky
Hopkins Creek
Kentucky
McAndrews
Kentucky
Utica
Kentucky
whiteburq
Dixif Fuel Co.
Coal Mine
Standard Oil Co.
Petroleum Products
James C. Ellis Grain Co.
Wholesale Grain
Harlan Fuel Co.
Coal Mine
Cardinal Stone Co., Inc.
Crushed 6 Broken Stone
Mill Ridge Inc.
Coal Mine
Joe Coal Co.
Coal Mine
Armco Steel Corp.
Steel Mill
Lizann Mining Corp.
Coal Mine
Starfire-Coals, Inc.
Coal Mine
Green uivor steel
Steel Mill
TCH Coal Co.
Coal Mine
Apache Mining Co.
Coal Mine
Aluminum Service
Secondary Non-Ferrous Metals
Green C Webb Lumber Co.
Sawmill
Particul*tes
HC
Particulites
Participates
Particnlites
Parti oil* te
Particulates
Particulate
Particul-ite
Part.iculite
Particulite
Part.iculit.e
Participate
Particulate
Part icul=ite
5/28/76
V28/76
5/28/76
5/29/7S
5/20/76
5/78/76
S/28/76
6/2S/76
6/25/76
6/25/76
6/25/76
6/?5/76
6/25/76
6/25/76
6/25/76
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
NttV
NOV
r;ov
NOV
MOV
NOV
NOV
NOV
rov
-------
STATE/CITY
1
Kentucky
Hawesville
Kentucky
Ownesboro
Kentucky
Frankfort
Kentucky
Etlrtyville
Kentucky
Owensboro
Kent-jcky
Saylersville
Kentucky
Frankfort
. Kentucky
Murray
Kent icky
Flkhorn City
Kentjcky
Hazard
. Kentucky
Pike County
Kentucky
Florence
Kentucky
Dardstovn
Kentucky
Liggett
Kentucky
Hancock Co.
Kentucky
Webster Co.
Kentucky
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
wescor Corp.
Paperboard Mill
Medley Distilling Co.
Distilled Liquor
Double Spring Co.
Distillery
Kentucky State Penitentiary
Correctional Institution
Murphy Miller Inc.
wood Office Furnit'ire
Ivy ton Coal Co., Inc.
Coal Mine
Kentucky State University
College
Murray State University
Colleqe
Potter Mining Co.
Coal Mine
River Processing Co., Inc.
Coal Mine
Unit Coal Co. 11
Coal Mine
Arrow-Hart Inc.,
Electric Switchgear Equipment
Mfg.
Willett Distilling Co.
Distilled Liquor
Golden Glow coals. Inc.
Coal Mine
Big Rivers Elec Corp.
Coleman Facilty
Big Rivers Elec Corp.
Reid, Unit I
Big Rivers Elec Corp.
POLLUTION PROBLEM
^articulates
Par*- iculites
Particnlit.es
Particul»te
Partieulate
Particulite
Particulste
Particulite
Particulate
Particulate
Particulars
Particulate
Particulate
Harticulate
S02
S02
SO2
Webster Co.
TYPE OF/ACTTOW
fc/25/76 NOV
6/75/76 NOV
6/25/76 NOV
KW 6/25/76
NOV 6/25/76
NOV 6/25/76
NOV 6/25/76
NOV 6/25/76
NOV 6/25/76
NOV 6/25/76
NOV 6/2^/76
NOV 6/25/76
NOV 6/25/76
NDV 6/25/76
NOV 8/25/76
NOV 8/25/76
NOV 8/25/76
Henderson Units I6II
-------
STATE/CITY
1
Kentucky
Berea
Kentucky
Perry Co.
Kentucky
Calvert City
Kentucky
Ashland
Kentucky
Florence
Kentucky
Rockfield
Kentucky
Hazard
Kentucky
Williamsburg
Kentucky
Richmond
Kentucky
Hawesville
Louisiana
Tallulah
Louisiana
Zachary
Louisiana
finite
Louisiana
Sterlington
Louisiana
Sterlinqton
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Berea College
Jerry Lynn Coal Co.
GAF Corp.
Mansbach Metal Co. , Inc.
Lingo Mfg. Co.
Tri county Paving Co.
Lee Mike Coal
Savoy Coals
Eastern Kentucky Univ.
National Southaire Alum.
Chicago Mill and
Lumber Co. (wood
waste boiler)
Georgia Pacific
Simmesport Chip Mill
Dibert, Bancroft-, and
Ross (electric arc furnaces)
IMC Chemical Group,
Inc., (formerly Commercial
Solvents Corp.), Pace Lake
Plant (U nitric acid pit)
IKC Chemical Group,
Inc., (formerly
POLLUTION PROBLEM
PT
PT
PT
PT
HC
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
Particul»tes
Open burning
Part-iculat-es
Nitrogen
OxMes
Nitrogen
Oxi 3 es
TYPE OF. 'ACT
NOV 9/27/76
NOV 9/27/76
NOV 9/27/76
NOV 9/27/76
NOV 9/27/76
NOV 9/27/76
NOV 9/27/76
NOV 9/27/76
NOV 9/27/76
NOV 9/27/76
f'OV 2/12/76
MOV K/2C/76
*113 consent
isr.u«H 1/22/76
411.1 consent
issuer! «/12/76
'«113 consent
jssupd 2/2/76
COmmerical Solvents
Corp.) Dixi* Chemical
Plant (2 nitric acid plants)
-------
STATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF;ACTION
Louisiana -
Baton Rouge
Louisiana
West Monroe
Louisiana
Holden
Louisiana
Joyce
Stauffer Chemical
(sulfuric acid plant)
Olinkratt, Inc.
(pulp and paper mill)
U.S. Plywood Div.
of Champion Inter-
national (conical
wood waste burner)
Crown zellerback Corp.
(2 wood waste boilers)
Sulfur Oxides
Particulites
and smoke
Smoke
Part-iculates
<113 ronsont
issued 3/30/76
4113 consent
issued 3/30/76
$113 consent
issued u/21/76
«113 consent
isnued 6/16/76
Louisiana
Hodge
Maine
Old Town
Maine
Vestbrook
Maine
Portland
Maine
Bangor
Maine
Brunswick
Maine
Woodland
Maine
Kittery
Maine
Lewieton
Maine
Old Town
Maine
Winslow
Continental Can Co.
Smelt dissolver and
combination boiler
Penobscot/Power Boiler
Blue Rock Industries/
Asphalt Batching Plant
Portland Franklin Stove
Foundry/Grey iron cupola
Bangor Dump
City of Brunswick
Solid Haste Disposal site
Georgia Pacific
Kraft Recovery Boilers
Kittery Dump
Lewiston Dump
Old Town Dump
Scott Paper
Bark Burner or Hood Burning Boiler
PM
Particulate/Hasa
Emissions
Particulate/Mass
Emissions
Particul.ite/Mass
Emissions
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
NOV 8/2/76
NOV 3/9/76
Amendment to
Consent Order
1/13/76
order u/20/76
NOV 8/19/76
NOV 8/27/76
NOV 8/19/76
NOV 8/19/76
NOV 8/19/76
NOV 8/19/76
NOV 8/27/76
-------
STATE/CITy
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF/ACTION
Maryland
Baltimore
Maryland
Aquasco
J.J. Lacey Foundry
Iron Cupola
PEPCO - Chalk Point
Boilers
Particul.ito
Tarticulite
Order
6/U/76
^*»-e:vnt- order
1/12/76
Maryland
Cumberland
Maryland
Baltimore
Massachusetts
Fitchber
Massachusetts
West Sprinfa.ield
Massachusetts
Worchester
Massachusetts
ttolyoke
Massachusetts
Boston
Massachusetts
Plymouth
Massachusetts
Boston
Massachusetts
Boston
Massachusetts
Boston
Massachusetts
Boston
Massachusetts
Boston
Massachuset ts
Boston
Nassachusetts
Draintree
Kelly-Springfield
Plynn 6 Emrich
Fitchborg Foundry/cupola
furnace
Lincoln Pulp C Paper Co.
Lime Kiln
Wyman-Gordon Company/
Boilers
City of Holyoke/
Municipal incinerator
Gulf Oil
Plymouth Rubber
Brolen Service Center
Coney's ARCO Station
Massachusetts DPW
Hatoff
MDC
Rose's Oil Service
Braintree Incinerator
Particulates/Boilers
Particulates/Grey Iron
Cupola
Emissions
Part- iculate/Mass
Fmissions
ParticUlate/VE
Particulate/flasB
remissions
lie
Part-.icul ites
Vapir Recovery
Vapor Recovery
Vapro PosDvery
vapor Recovery
Vapor Recovery
Vapor Recovery
jTJjQ'ar t icul it.es
NOV 9/16/76
Order 9/9/76
NOV 1/29/76
Or-1er 3/3/76
NOV tt/1.6/76
Drier 1/26/76
OrOer 1/29/76
Order 2/10/76
Orler 5^17/76
NOV 5/12/76
Drier S/17/76
MOV 5/1 2/7*
6/11/76
NOV 14/28/76
Order 6/11/76 '
NOV 6/1U/76
OMer 6/15/76
Nnv 6/15/76
OHer 6/25/76
NOV 6/25/76
Order 3/31/76
NOV 3/31/76
-------
STATE/CITY
1
Massachusetts
Shrewsbury
Massachusetts
Boston
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Cambridge
Massachusetts
Boston
Massachusetts
Boston
Massachusetts
Westboro
Massachusetts
Ashland
Massachusetts
Boston
Minnesota
Rehville
Minnesota
Minneapolis
Minnesota
Stillwater
Minnesota
Minneapolis
Minnesota
Duluth
Minnesota
sleepy Eye
Minnesota
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
.Henley Lundqren
MBTA
Maiden Mills
Andrew Jr. Fosetti
Boston Ed/New Boston
Boston Ed/Mystic
Hew England Power Company
Salem Harbor
Burke' a ESSO Service
Mass. Dept. of Public Works
Southern Minnesota Beat
Cooperative
ADM, Nokomis Mill
"Stillwater State Prison
University of Minnesota
University of Minnesota
Sleepy Eye Public Utilities
ADM, Milling
POLLUTION PROBLEM
rarticul.itos
Particulites
ParMculites
Vapor Recovery
HC
VE
VE
VE
Vapor Recovery
HC
HC
Vapor Recovery
MS PS
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TRP
TSP
TYPE OF/AC-
NOV 1/2V76
NOV 5/12/76
MOV 10/1/75
NOV 8/10/76
Order 8/10/76
NOV 7/26/76
NOV 7/26/76
NOV 7/28/76
NOV 7/25/76
Order 7/25/76
Order 7/28/76
consent Order
6/U/76
MOV K/16/76
«OV 6/11/76
NOV 6/25/76
MOV 6/25/76
r:ov 6/29/76
oMor 6/25/76
Minneapolis
-------
STATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLOTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF; ACTION
Minnesota
Minneapolis
Minnesota
St. Paul
Univ. of Minn. (Minn. Campus)
toilers
North Star Steel
meltshop roof monitor
PT
PT
NOV 7/1/76
NOV 8/26/76
Mississippi
Ridgeland
Mississippi
Mississippi
Hazelhurst
Mississippi
Jackson
Mississippi
Meridian
Mississippi
Waynesboro
Mississippi
Meridian
Mississippi
Indianola
Mississippi
Host Point
Mississippi
Mattson
Mississippi
3rPnada
Mississippi
Waynesboro
Mississippi
Taylorsville
Mississippi
Gloster
Mississippi
Royster
Cooke Construction Co.
Asphalt Plant
Delta Pine Plywood
Plywood Mfg.
Copial County Mfg. Co.
Woodworkinq
Harpter Foundry and Machine Co.
Foundry
. J.R. Savage and Co.
Woodworkinq
Day Co. Inc.,
Woodworking
Soule Steam Fee, Inc.
Foundry
East Sunflower County Gin Co.
Inc. Cotton Gin
Phillips Contracting Co., Inc.
Asphalt Plant
Flowers Gin Co.
Cotton Gin
Mrmphis Hardwood Flooring
Wood Working
Scotch Plywood Co.
(Plywood 6 Wood Prod)
Georgia Pacific
(particleboard)
Georgia Pacific
(wood products)
Royster Co.
(Fcrtinere)
^ *>O
A"X9
Part-ioulito V/E
part icul=ite
Particulate
ParticulatR
Tarticulate
rarticulare
Particulste
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
VE
PT
PT
PT
order
NOV S/t/76
NOV 5/U/76
•IDV S/u/76
-1OV S/u/76
NOV 5/0/76
HOV 5/1/76
MOV 5/U/76
NOV 5/U/76
NOV 9/1/76
NOV 9/2U/76
NOV 9/2«/76
NOV 8/16/76
-------
STATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF BOUNCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF/ACTION
Mississippi
Greenwood
Mississippi
Greenwood
Mississippi
Flowood
Mississippi
Ethel
Mississippi
Walnut Grove
Mississippi
Olive Branch
Mississippi
Picayune
Mississippi
Picayune
Mississippi
Grenada
Missouri
Kansas City
Missouri
New
Missouri
Kansas City
Missouri
St. Louis
Missouri
St. Louis
Missouri
North Kansas City
Greenwood Utilities
Henderson Generating Station
(Electric Generating)
Greenwood Utilities
Wright Generating Station
(Electric Generation)
Mississippi steel
(Secondard Steel - 3 EAF'8)
Attara Lunder
(Sawmill)
W.C. Croft Lunder
(Sawmill)
Continental Foundry
(Gray Iron Foundry)
Wood Treating Inc.
(Sawmill 6 Treating Operation)
General Box Division
(Wood Products)
Hawkins Lunder
(Sawmill)
Kansas City Power E Light
Hawthorne Station (units 3,4,5)
Noranda Aluminum Inc.
Fry Poof ing (asphalt
roofing process)
Young Sales Corp.
Missouri Portland
Cement
Fry Roofing Co.
PT/VE
PT
PT
VE
VE
PT/VE
VE
VE
VE
TSP
TSP
VE
VE
VE
VE
NOV 8/16/76
NOV 8/16/76
NOV 8/16/76
NOV 8/16/76
NOV 8/16/76
NOV 9/1/76
NOV 9/1/76
NOV 9/1/76
NOV 9/l/7f
in Or'lor
issued V.V76
NOV U/6/76
113 Order
-issued 3/9/76
113 or^er
js-.upl 3/11/76
7/1U/76
amend order
issued
9/l«/76
order issued
-------
STATE/CITY.
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLOTION PROBLEM
TYPE OP/ACTION
Montana
Laurel
Montana
Laurel
Montana
SiIverbow
Montana
Billings
Montana
Butte
Montana
Helena
Farmers Union Central
Exchange, Inc.
-Oil refinery (Fluid
Catalytic Cracking System)
Farmers Union Central
Exchange, Inc.
-oil refinery
-boiler 13
-crude oil heater
-platformer charge heater
Sauffer Chemical Division
-nodulizing kiln
-furnace II
Montana Power Co.
-furnace C boiler system
Anaconda
U.S. Air Force
pathological incinerator
TSP, S02
TSP
TSP
TSP
(Failure to respond
to U14 request)
TSP
NOV 5/21/76
NO\' wit-hdraw
1/23/76
-('he 2nd NOV
susnerse'ded
first)
NOV 1/23/76
MOV 1/21/76
N3V 1/23/76
Drier 5/7/7
Consent
•'Ooclaratio
3/11/76
Nebraska
Columbus
Nebraska Public Power District
Sheldon Generating Station
Unit II
TSP
111 Order
issued 5/6/76
Nebraska
Omaha
Nebraska
Bellevue
Nevada
Soarks
Neva'la
Yerington
•Nevada
Fernley
Nevada
Empire
Quaker Oats Co.
Omaha Chemical Pit
boiler
Nebraska Public Power Dist.
Kramer Gen. Sta.
Sierra Pacific Pownr Co./
Tracy Power Station
Sierra Pacific Power Co./
Fort. Churchill Power sta.
Cyprus Mines Corp./
United Sierra Div.
United states Gypsum/
Gypsum Kettle
110
TSP/VE
S02
Sulfur Content in fuel
standard
Sulfur Content in fuel
standard
Violation of VE
and fugitive dust Std
VE, Particulate Matter,
and fugitive dust Std
8/11/76
order issued
9/29/76
second
amend to
order issued
NOV 3/16/76
NOV 3/16/76
NOV 3/31/76
Consent Order
3/25/76
-------
STATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF/ACTION
Nevada
Fernley
Nevada
Fernley
Nevada
Las Vegas
New Hampshire
Berlin
New Jersey
Jersey City
New Jersey
Newark
New Jersey
Poqota
New Jersey
Salem
New Jersey
Bridqton
Nevada Cement Co.
Cyprus Mines Corp./
United sierra Div./
mining operation
Nevada Power Co.
Peid Gardner
Unit 13
Brown Company/
Recovery Boilers
Woodward Metal Processing
Corporation
Flockhart Foundry Company
Winston Mills
Mannington Mills
Vinyl Coating
Bridqeton Dyeing C Finishing
Corporation
VK srd
VE, fugitive dust Std.
NSPS
violation
Particulate/4ass
Emissions
Part-.J culate
Particulite/apacity
Part-.icnlatp/opacity
Particulate/opacity
Part-.iculate/opacity
NOV tt/20/76
Administrative
Order 6/21/76
8/31/76
order issued
to conduct
performance
tests e eval.
NOV 1/21/76
ULt Letter
6/8/76
Consent. Order
Consent- Or.ler
3/S/7f.
NOV 3/11/76
NOV 6/18/76
NOV 6/18/76
New Jersey
Florence
New Jersey
Barrington
New Jersey
Salem
Hew Jersey
Millville
Griffin Pipes Products Co.
Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp.
Star City Glass
(Tank Stack)
Hheaton Glass Co.
(Tank Stacks)
TSP
Opacity
Opacity
Opacity
NOV 7/16/76
NOV 8/20/76
NOV 8/20/76
NOV 8/20/76
-------
STATE/CITY
1
New Jersey
Newark
New Jersey
Salem
New Jersey
Berlin
New Jersey
Millville
New Jersey
Bridgeton
New Jersey
Vineland
New Jersey
Bridgetown
New York
utica
New York
Lawrence
UA.« VnrV
ri™<» x or R
Fulton
New York
Brooklyn
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
American Smelting 6
Refining Co.
Anchor Hocking Corp.
Certain Teed
Kerr Glass Mfg., Inc.
Owens-Illinois, Inc.
Owens-Illinois, Inc.
The Joseph Toye Co.
Dunlop Tire C Rubber
Corporation
City of Lawrence Municipal
Incinerator
Armstrong Cork Company
American Can Company
POLLUTION PROBLEM
part, matter/
opacity
opacity
opacity
opacity
opacity
opacity
part, matter
Particnlate/apacity
Mass standards
Particulate
till denial af access
to plant property
TYPE OF /AC
NOV 8/25/76
NOV 7/9/76
NOV 7/9/76
NOV 7/9/76
NOV 7/9/76
NOV 7/9/76
NOV 8/25/76
02/U/76
Amende-! Order
Ou/0/7'.
Order 4/19/76]
proceedings tern,
CLOSED FACILITY
New York
Northport
New York
Port Jeffers
New York
Albany
Long Inland Lighting Company
Power Plant
Long Island Lighting Company
Power Plant
Niagara Mohawk power company
Power Plant
sulfur in Fusl
sulfur in Fusl
Participate
sulfur in Fuel
112
NOV U/10/7R
OMer 5/18/76
Amendorl 8/5/76
to rrflect
r-'-'vir.ior.
N'OV u/iO/76
5/1B/76
8/5/76
t.n reflect
rpvisions
Crdf»r isrue
u/29/76 amenied
»-o include con-
t.inons ^opacity
•monltorinq
6/10/76
-------
STATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OTiACTION
New York
Osweqo
New York
New York
New Yt>rk
New York
New York
Buffalo
New York
Buffalo
New York
Tonawand*
New York
Oswego
New York
New York
New York
Beacon
New York
Buffalo
New York
Yonkers
New York
Scarsdale
New York
Whit* Plain*
Niagara Mohawk Power Company
Power Plant
City of New York (South
Shore, Hamilton Avenue, Betts
Avenue, and Gansevoort facilities)
municipal incinerators
New England Petroleum Corp.
fuel supplier
Buffalo Municipal incinerator
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
coke ovens
Niagara Mohawk Power Co.
(lluntly station) power plant
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
(boilers)
New England Petroleum Corp.
(fuel supplier)
Beacon Municipal Incinerator
(Municipal Incinerator)
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Yonkers Municipal Incinerator
Scarsdale Municipal Incinerator
White Plains Municipal Incinerator
Sulfur in Fuel
Particulate VE
sulfur in Fuel
Particulite VE
Particulate VE
Sulfur in Fuel
SO 2
SO2
Failure to submit
SI19 information;
VB
smoke emissions
TSP/VE
I8P/VB
VE
K3V U/30/76
6/15/76
fl/5/76
SIP
revisions
MOV 5/1U/76
COV U/5/76
OMer 6/15/76
P/5/76 amend.
6/18/76
request t-.o
Attorney to
initiate civil
action against
cit-y
NOV tt/5/76
1/2 0/76
NOV U/3/76
S113 amended
order 8/5/76
SI13 amended
order 8/5/76
$113 order
8/19/76
NOV 9/23/76
NOV 7/20/76
NOV 9/29/76
NOV 9/26/76
NOV 9/29/76
113
-------
STATE/CITY
1
New York
Eastchester
New York
Rye
New York
New Rochelle
New York
Rome
New York
Northport
Port Jefferson
North Carolina
Bilttnor«?
•North Carolina
G-jldhill
North Carolina
Morqanton
North Carolina
High Point
North Carolina
Salisbury
North Carolina
Plymouth
North Carolina
Lagrange
North Carolina
Roanoke Rapids
North Carolina
Wallace
North Carolina
Halnut Cove
North Carolina
Soldsboro
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Eastchester Municipal Incinerator
Rye Municipal Incinerator
New Rochelle Municioal Incinerator
Griffiss Air Force Base
Long Island Lighting Co.
generating facilities
Sayles Biltmore Bleacheries
Textile Plant
Carolina Perlite Co.
Lt. Wt. Aqgreqate
Morganton Dyeing 6 Finish
Textile Plant
High Point Wood Working
Dimensions Plant
N.C. Finishing Co.
Textile Plant
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Pulp 6 Paper Ind.
Hardy-Newson
Gray Iron Foundry
Hoerner Waldorf Co.
Pulp C Paper Inc.
J.P. Stevens
Textile Plant
Duke Power Co.
Untility (Power Co.)
Dewey Brothers
Gray Iron Foundry
POLLUTION PROBLEM
VE
VE
VE
part, matter
SO2
Particul-tte
Particulite
VE
Particulate
Participate
Particulate
Vart-.icul*te
Particul*te
VE
ParHculite
Particular
TYPE OF/ACTION
NOV 9/29/76
NOV 9/29/76
NOV 9/29/76
consent agree-
ment 8/19/76
amend order
8/5/76
d/u/76 Admin.
Order
NOV 2/17/76
NOV 2/17/76
NOV 2/17/76
NOV 2/17/76
MOV 7/17/76
SOV 2/17/76
MOV 2/17/76
NOV 2/17/76
NOV 2/17/76
NOV 2/17/76
114
-------
STATE/CITY
1
North Carolina
New Bern
North Carolina
Butner
North Carolina
Turrell
North Carolina
Walnut Cov«
Ohio
Painsville
Ohio
Now Boston
Ohio
Cleveland
Ohia
Sidney
OhiD
Ashtabuta
Eastlake
Avon Lake
Lake Shore
Ohio
Cleveland
OhlD
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
M
-------
STATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF/ACTION
North Carolina
Black Mountain
North Carolina
Lexington
North Carolina
Pocky Mount .
North Carolina
Burlimton
North Carolina
Forest City
North Carolina
N. Wilkeshoro
North Carolina
N«w Bern
North Carolina
Chapel Hill
North Carolina
Scotland Neck
North Carolina
Durham
North Carolina
Concord
North Carolina
Greensboro
North Carolina
Rutherfordton
North Carolina
Salisbury
North Carolina
Wake Forest
Dtexel Heritage Furnishings
Black Mt. Pit t10-Dimension Pit.
Link-Taylor
Furniture Manuf.
Burlington Ind. Rocky Mt Pit.
Textile Plant
Burlington Ind. Mayfair Pit
Textile Plant
Burlington Ind. J.C. Cowan Pit.
Textile Plant
Lineberry Foundry C Machine Co.
Gray Iron Foundry
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Pulp £ Paper Pit.
Univ. of N. Carolina
University Inst.
Beasley Lumber Product
Lumber Co. (Sawmill)
Duke Univ.
University Insit.
Kerr Industries
Textile Plant
Industrial Foundry
Gray Iron Foundry
Reeves Brothers, Inc.
Carolina Stalite Co.
Burlington Industries, Inc.
Particulate
Particulate
VE
VE
VE
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
Hydrocarbons
part, matter
VE
NOV U/8/76
MOV U/8/76
NOV U/R/76
KOV U/8/76
MOV O/B/76
NOV U/8/76
MOV U/8/76
MOV U/8/76
NOV U/R/76
*!OV U/9/76
NOV U/9/76
NOV U/9/76
NOV 7/23/76
NOV 7/23/76
NOV 7/23/76
116
-------
STATE/CITY
1
North Carolina
North Carolina
Roxboro
North Carolina
Pisanh Forest
North Carolina
Oxford
North Carolina
Butner
North Carolina
Durham
North Carolina
BiItmore
North Carolina
Liberty
North Carolina
Monroe
North Carolina
Wilmington
North Carolina
Lincolnton
North Carolina
Greensboro
North Carolina
Wilmington
North Carolina
P.iegelwood
North Carolina
Morganton
North Caro.lina
Henderson
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOUECB
E.I. Dupont De Nemour
Synthetic Fibers
Crown Aluminum Ind.
Aluminum Manufacture
Olin corporation
Pulp C- Paper Ind.
General Processors
Tobacco Stemmery
Mt. Hope Finishing
Textile Plant
Liagett e Myers
Tobacco Manufacture
Sayles Biltmore Bleach
Textile Plant.
Liberty Furniture CO.
Furniture Manuf.
Spring Mills, Inc.
Textile Plant
Co'rbett Lumber Co.
Lumber Co. (Sawmill)
Mohican Kills
Textile Plant
Guilford Foundry
Gray Iron Foundry
Carolina Power G Light
Sutton Pit - Electric
Federal Paper Board, Inc.
Pulp 6 Paper Ind.
Great Lakes Carbon
Carbon 6 Graphite Products
Burkhart/Bandall
Jute Manuf.
POLLDTION PROBLEM
Particulate
Particnlite
Particulate
Particulate
VE
Particulate
Particul»te
Particulate
VE
Particulate
VE
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
VE
Particulate
TYPE OTiACTION
NOV J/17/76
NO'.' 2/17/76
NOV 2/17/76
NOV 2/17/76
MOV 2/17/76
KOV 2/17/76
VOV 2/17/76
VOV 2/17/76
NOV 2/17/76
NOV 2/17/76
VDV 2/17/76
VOV 2/17/76
NOV 2/17/76
NOV 2/17/76
\nv u/8/76
NOV U/8/76
117
-------
STATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLaTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF/ACTION
Ohio
Martins Ferry
Steuhenville South
Steubenville North
Yorkville
OhiD
Ohio
Ohio
Cleveland
Ohio
Youngstown
Ohio
Orient
Ohio
Dayton
Ohio
Apple Creek
Ohio
London
Ohio
Fairfield
Ohio
Marion
Ohio
Sturthere
Ohio
North Bend
Ohio
New Richmond
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Ohio Dept. Hwy Safety
Hamilton County
City of Cleveland
Lake Bd Gen. Station
U.S. Steel
Boilerhouse
Sintering Plant
Open Hearth Shop
Orient State Institute
boiler
Dayton Mental Health Center
3 boilers
Apple Creek State Inst.
toilers
London Correctional Inst.
boilers
Fairfield School for Boys
boilers
Marion Correctional Inst.
boilers
Younstown Sheet 6 Tube Co.
Integ. Steel Facility
Cin. Gas 6 Elec. Co.
boiler
Cin. Gas 6 Elec. Co.
boiler
TSP
TCP (CO)
TCP (CO)
TSP
PT
6/11/76
Order 6/22/76
order 6/22/76
Order C/22/76
NOV 7/30/76
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
NOV 8/2/76
NOV 8/3/76
NOV 8/3/76
NOV 8/3/76
NOV 8/9/76
NOV 8/10/76
NOV 7/15/76
NOV 8/10/76
NOV 8/10/76
IIS
-------
STATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OFSpURCB
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF,-ACTION
Ohio
Athens
Ohio
Brilliant
Ohio
Mt. Vernon
Ohio
McDonald
Ohio
Columbus
Ohio
Tiffin
Ohio
Stratton
Ohio
Youngstown
Ohio
Lima
Ohio
Bowling Green
Ohio
Cambridge
Ohio
Powell
Ohio
Athens
Ohio
Hamilton
Ohio University
boilers
Ohio Power Co.
Brilliant Gen. Sta.
boilers
Mt. Vernon state. Inst.
toilers
U.S. Steel Corp.
McDonald Works
Correctional Medical Center
toilers
Riffin Mental Health 6 . .
Retardation Center
Ohio Edison
Stratton Power Plant
boilers •
Youngstown Sheet 6 Tube
Coke Batteries
Lima State Hospital
boilers
Bowling Green St. Univ.
toilers
Cambridge Mental Health
6 Retardation Center
toilers
Scioto Village
boilers
Athens Mental Health 6
Mental Rehabilitation Center
boilers
Armco steel Corp.
coke ovens
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PM
NOV 9/2/76
NOV 9/2/76
NOV 9/2/76
NOV 7/30/76
NOV 9/2/76
NOV 9/8/76
NOV 9/22/76
NOV 9/23/76
NOV 9/30/76
NOV 9/27/76
NOV 9/28/76
NOV 9/10/76
NOV 9/13/76
Consent order
7/12/76
-------
STATE/CrrY
1.
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF/ACTION
Ohio
Lancaster
Ohio
Jefferson Co.
Anchor .Hocking
boroslicate blast furnace
Satralloy, Inc.
VE/PM
part, matter
amended order
8/16/76
amended order
9/28/76
iklaho.-na
Broken Bow
Oklahoma .
Nowata
Weyerhaeuser
Leco Materials, Inc.
(rock crushing)
Open burning
Part.iculates
NOV 3/2U/76.
NOV 3/.10/76
Oregon
Toledo
Oregon
Medford
Oregon
Valsetz
Oregon
Tillamook
Oregon
Glide
Oregon
Myssa
Oregon
PPndleton
Oregon
OLlland
'Oregon
Priest River
Oregon
Troutdale
Georgia Pacific Co.
Hoq fuel boilers
Basic Cascade Corp.
hog fuel boiler
Boisie Cascade Corp.
Publishers Paper Co.
hog fuel boiler
Little Fivor Box Co.
hog fule boiler
The Amalgamated Sugar Co.
BGW boilers;pulp dryers
Harris Pine Mills
hog fuel bliler
Permaneer Corp.
laminating plant s
-------
BTATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
- OF SOURCE
POLLOTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF/ACTION
Oregon
North Bend
Oreqon
Elqin
Oregon
Hinea
Mena^sha Corporation
Hog Fuel toilers
Boise Cascade Corporation
Hog Fuel boiler
Edward Hines Lumber Co.
Stack
Boi 1 er
Particulate Matter
SIP violation
Particular Matter
VE. Particulate
Matter SIP violation
rOV 6/29/76
NOV 6/29/76
Compliance
Or lor 5/19/76
Oregon
Heppner
Oregon
North Bend
Oregon
Lebanon
Oregon
Coos Bay.
Oregon
Banks
Oregon
Tillamook
Oregon
Glide
Pennsylvania
Johnstown
Pennsylvania
Bethlehem
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
Palmertown
Pennsylvania
Erie
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia
Kinzua Corp.
fuel burning equip.
Weyerhaeuser
boiler
U.S. Plywood
driers
Georgia Pacific Corp.
boiler
Lite Rock Co.
shale expansion kiln
Publishers Paper Co
boiler
Little River BOX Co.
boiler
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Steel Mill
East Pa. Psychiatric Institute
Boiler
New Jersey Zinc Co.
Zinc processes
Penelec - Front Street
Boiler
Phi la State Hospital
Boiler
PM
PM
VE
PM/VE
VE
PM
PM
SO2-C03
Particulate t SD2
Particulate
Particulite
Particulite 6 S02
Particulate
NOV 8/16/76
NOV 9/2/76
NOV 9/2/76
S113 Consent
order issued
9/2/76
NOV 9/20/76
SI13 compliance
order issued
9/16/76
S113 compliance
order issued
9/15/76
. Order
NO" 1/27/76
Abatement Order
Ah'**: rmont Order
5/10/76
AbaTment Order
1/12/76
Order
2/1/76
-------
STATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF,'ACTION
Pennsylvania
Phi lips burg
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Morgantown
Pennsylvania
New Castle
Pennsylvania
Saxonburg
Pennsylvania
Midland
Pennsylvania
Penn Valley
Pennsylvania
Bethlehem
Pennsylvania
Mitchell
Puerto Rico
3u«?navista
Puerto Rico
Ponce
Puerto Rico
Dorado
Philipsburg Hospital (State)
Boiler
State correctional Institute
Boiler
Bethlehem Mines Corp.
Pellet plant
Penn Power - New Castle
USS-Saxonburg
Crucible, Inc.
Lower Merlon Incinerator
N.L. Morell
wool cupola
west Penn Power-Mitchell
Municipality of Carolina
open burninq dump
Puerto Rico Cement
San Juan Cement Co., Inc.
Particulate
Particul?itf»
SO2, Part, matter
Particulates/Boilers
Particulates/sintering Pit.
Particulate, S02, and
VE/Integrated Steel pt.
Particulate/TOC Shop
Particulate/VE/Incinerator
Particulate/Mineral
SO2/Boiler8
Particulate/opacity
open burning
Particulite
NSPS
NOV 2/11/76
••3V 2/11/76
NOV 9/30/76
NOV 7/13/76
NOV 7/16/76
NOV 7/22/76
NOV 9/10/76
NOV 9/30/76
order 8/17/76
order 8/30/76
NOV 1/29/76
Amended consent
amended order
7/28/76
Shod" Inland
Providence
Island
Ashton
City of Providence/
Sewage Sludg« Incinerator
Owens-corning Fiberglass/
Marble Melting Furnace
Particulate/Mass
Emissions
Particulate/Mass
Emissions
Amendment to
Order 3/23/76
Amendment fo
Order U/22/76
122
-------
STATE/CITY
1
Rhode Island
Cranston
South Dakota
Custer
South Dakota
Pringle
Tennessee
Memphis
Tennessee
Memphis
, Tennessee
M">nphl8
Tenness
-------
STATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Tennessee
Crockett Mills
Tennessee
Coving ton
Tennessee
Gates
Tennessee
Gadaden
Tennessee
Dyer
Tennessee
Toone
Tennessee
Henning
Tennessee
Greenfield
Tennessee
Middleton
Tennessee
Oneida
Tennessee
Livingston
Tennessee
Henning
Tennessee
Jackson
Tennessee
Halls
Tennessee
Crump
Slayton Gin Co.
Cotton gin
Gift Gin Co.
cotton gin
Future Farmer's Gin Co.
cotton gin
Gadaden Gin Co
cotton gin
Dyer Gin Co.
cotton gin
»
Cloverport Gin Co.
cotton gin
Gus Hargett and Sons, Inc.
Higwam burner
K.T. 6 L. Timber Co.
Wigwam burner
Cornelias Lumber Co., Inc.
Wigwam burner
Hartco Flouring Co.
Wigwam burner
Simcox 6 Copeland
Lumber Co.
Wigwam burner
Reel foot Lumber Co.
Wigwam burner
Joseph E. Seagram
6 Sons, Inc.
wigwam burner
Huey Bros. Lumber
Co., Inc.
Wigwam burner
River Heights
Lumber Co., Inc.
Higwam burner
POLLUTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF/ACTION
part, matter
part, matter
part, matter
part, matter
part, matter
part, matter
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
part, matter /VF
part. matter/VE
VE/part matter
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
order 7/23/76
NOV 7/23/76
NOV 7/23/76
NOV 7/23/76
NOV 7/23/76
NOV 7/23/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
part. matter/VE
NOV 7/29/76
-------
STATE/CITY
1
Tennessee
Sweetwater
Tennessee
Troy
Tennessee
Troy
Tennessee
Sparta
Tennessee
Lexington
Tennessee
Lafayette
Tennessee
Newport
Tennessee
McMinnville
Tennessee
Milan
Tennessee
Johnson City
Tennessee
Ridgely
Tennessee
Tullohoma
Tennessee
Sparta
Tennessee
Tullohoma
Tennessee
Lewisburg
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Tellico Lumber Co., Inc.
Wigwam burner
Hanafee Brothers
Sawmill Co., Inc.
Wigwam burner
Storey Sawmill 6
Lumber Co., Inc.
Wigwam burner
Volunteer Specialty Co., Inc.
Wigwam burner
Bailey's Sawmill, Inc.
Wigwam burner
Lafayette Manufacturing Co.
Wigwam burner
Rhyne Lumber Co.
boiler
BurroughB-Ross-Colville Co.
wood waste boiler
Milan Box Corporation
Wood waste toiler
Gordon's Inc.
boiler
Ridgely Sawmill Co.
wood waste burner
Campbell and Darn Mfg. Co.
wood waste boiler
Cumberland Mfg. Co.
wood waste boiler
Worth Bat Co.
wood waste boiler
Faben - Castell Corp.
wood C Cool fired boiler
POLLDTION PROBLEM
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
VE
part. matter/VE
part, matter/VE
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
TYPE OF/ACTION
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
-------
STATE/CITY
1
Tennessee
Johnson City
Tennessee
Dyer
Tennessee
Pulaski
Tennessee
Morristown
Tennessee
Newport
Tennessee
Calhoun
Tennessee
Mt. Pleasant
Tennessee
Kingsport
Tennessee
Lenoir
Tennessee
McMinnville
Tennessee
Charleston
Tennessee
Centerville
Tennessee
crossville
Tennessee
Celina
Tennessee
Liberty
Tennessee
McMinnville
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Maganvox Co. of Tenn.
boiler
Dyer Fruit Box mfg. Co.
wood waste boiler
Fibreboard Corp.
boilers
Lea Industries, Inc.
wood waste boiler
Wood products Co., Inc.
Auxiliary boiler
Bowaters southern Paper Corp.
bark boilers
American Recycle Company
rotary furnace
Hunt's Gap Sand and Clay Pit.
•f; ASG Industries
rotary sand dryer
Lenoir Car Works
electric induction furnace
Grundy Limestone
Conveyor
Caldwell and Caldwell Asphalt Co.
Screen 6 hot elevator
Fivers Casting Corp.
foundry cupola
Crossville Limestone, Inc.
crushing
Dixie Limestone Co., Inc.
crushing
BCB Stone Co.
lime Mfg. operation
McMinnville Stone Co.
lime mill
POLLUTION PROBLEM
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
part, matter
VE
VE
VE
VE/part. matter
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
VE
VE
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
part. matter/VE
part, matter
part. matter/VE
TYPE OF/ACTION
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/2S/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 7/29/76
NOV 8/31/76
NOV 8/31/76
NOV 8/31/76
NOV 9/2U/76
NOV 9/20/76
NOV 9/2V/76
NOV 9/21/76
NOV 9/2H/76
NOV 9/2K/76
NOV 9/2D/76
-------
STATE/CITY
1
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLUJTION PROBLEM
TYPE OF,ACTION
Tennessee
Jefferson City
Tennessee
Margville
Tennessee
Chattanooga
Tennessee
Knoxville
Tennessee
Knoxville
Port Nechcs
Texas
Houston
Pavco, Inc. VE
Asphalt batch pit.
Rockford Rock Products, Inc. VE
crushing
E.I. du pont PT
Synthetic resins
Eastern State Psychiatric Hospital PT/VE
Tennessee School for the Deaf PT/VE
Jefferson Ch
-------
STATE/CITX
1
Virginia
Amherst Co.
Virginia
Norfolk
Virginia
Damascus
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Virginia Fibre Corp.
Riverville Mill
Bark Boiler
Richard Foundry
Foundry Cupola
American Cyanimid
Coal boilers
POLLUTION PROBLEM
VE/Part. matter
mass emissions
Part, matter
process weight
part, matter
TYPE OP/ACTION
NOV 9/30/76
NO" 7/1U/76
order 9/30/76
NOV 7/1U/76
order 9/30/76
Washington
Tacoma
United states Gyps-jm
Par«-.iculite Matter
Visible SIP
Compliance
Order 3/2/76
West Virginia
Haywood
West Virginia
Follansbee
Wisconsin
Mosinee
Wisconsin
Superior
Wisconsin
Kenosha-Lakcfront
Kenosha-Main
Milwaukee-Body Pit
Monongahela Power/Harrison
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Kosir.ee Paper Corp.
boilers, spent liquor recovery
furnaces, smelt disolving tank
fcark boiler, lime kiln
Peavey company
grain elevator
AMC
Particulates/Boilers
Particulates, S02/coke Oven
Batteries Boilers Sintering
Plant
TSP
TSP
V.C.
NOV 7/7/76
Referral to
Justice
8/23/76
Consent Order
3/5/76
Order
1/19/76
Orler 5/17/76
Wyoning
Green River
Wy owing
Green River
Allied Chiemical
Calciner
boiler
Allied chemical
boiler 'D1
Tr.P
TSP, NOx
TSP, NOx NSPS
WW's 3/30/76
Or-Jer 3/30/76
138
-------
APPENDIX B
Table 1
Civil Actions Initiated By EPA
Under Section 14(a) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
i
January 1976 Through September 1976
Note: If no entry appears in last two columns, case was pending as of press time.
NAME
CITY
STATE REGION
A-l Pest Control II
Service
Brooklyn, NY
A-l Pest Control II
Service
Brooklyn, NY
Adroit Pest Control VII
St. Louis, MO
Ag. Product's Co.,
Inc.
Mesquite, MN
VI
Akin/Alisonia Int'l V
Corp.
Hinsdale, IL
Alcatraz Co., Inc. Ill
Richmond, VA
Alcor Products IX
City of Industry, CA
Amchem Products III
Ambler, PA
Amchem Products VII
Inc.
St. Joseph, MO
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
1/30/76
2/11/76
3/12/76
7/27/76
1/22/76
2/20/76
3/18/76
6/9/76
8/16/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
4/9/76
4/9/76
4/15/76
5/21/76
6/9/76
6/11/76
9/3/76
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$575
$200
$100
$180
$3000
$140
withdrawn
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
American Fluoride
New Rochelle, NY
American Salt Co.
Lyons, KS
American Water
Purification, Inc.
Pleasant Hill, CA
Animal Repellent
Buffalo, NY
Apollo Enterprises
Inc.
Altheimer, AR
Applied Biochemists
Mequon, WI
Atco Manufacturing
Co.
Marietta, GA
ATI, Inc.
Danville, IL
Autochlor Systems
REGION
II
VII
IX
II
VI
V
IV
V
IX
COMPLAINT DATE OF AMOUNT OF
ISSUE FINAL PENALTY OR
DATE ORDER STATUS
4/19/76 6/18/76 $1530
2/26/76 3/29/76 $1728
2/18/76 9/15/76 $5000
3/25/76
4/5/76 9/22/76 $1000
3/23/76
9/8/76
8/25/76
3/24/76 7/20/76 $270
of Phoenix
Phoenix, AZ
Bartels & Shores VII
Chemical Co.
Kansas City, MO
Barton Chemical V
Corp.
Chicago, IL
Bay State Pool I
Supplies
Cambridge, MA
Beaver Sales & IV
Service
Gadsden, AL
7/14/76
9/27/76
8/19/76
4/19/76
8/31/76
5/17/76
$50
$4000
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
REGION
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
Bel-Air Surgical
Supply
Los Angeles, CA
IX
Bes Tex Insec- VI
ticides Co., Inc.
San An gelo, TX
Better Living Labs, IV
Inc.
Memphis, TN
Corp.
Lima, OH
Bonewitz Chemicals, IX
Inc.
Turlock, CA
Bonide II
Yorkville, NY
Buzz Off Products II
Inc.
NY, NY
Cadco Inc. VII
Des Moines, IA
7/16/76
4/28/76
8/5/76
2/24/76
4/27/76
9/3/76
6/8/76
11/2/76
1/13/76
$1320
Bio Technics Inc.
Omaha, NB
Blakely Wellgro
Wellington, CO
Blue Cross Labs.
North Hollywood, CA
Blue Magic
Wilson, NC
Bonded Chemical
VII
VIII
IX
IV
V
1/22/76
4/19/76
1/16/76
6/16/76
1/30/76
2/19/76
3/23/76
8/11/76
6/3/76
$297
$2200
$3000
$500
4/14/76
7/13/76
9/9/76
$1680
$3660
$100
131
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
C&D Warehouse
Billings, MT
Central Garden
REGION
VIII
IX
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
4/19/76
6/16/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
4/29/76
8/16/76
AMOUNT
PENALTY OR
STATUS
withdrawn
$1680
Supply
S. San Francisco, CA
Champion Intl. V
Corp.
Kalamazoo, MI
Chapman Chemical IV
Co.
Memphis, TN
Chemco Products VI
Inc.
Tulsa, OK
Chemia Corp.
St. Louis, MO
Chemical Packaging IV
Corp.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Chemithon Corp.
Seattle, WA
Chemstat, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
Chem Mark Of King
County
Seattle, WA
Chem-Tab Co.
Compton, CA
Chem-Trix Corp.
Houston, TX
5/7/76
2/10/76
6/2/76
8/26/76
9/27/76
$2400
$1800
VII
IV
X
IX
X
IX
VI
3/3/76
6/8/76
6/28/76
^^9/16/76
1/19/76
3/24/76
9/27/76
4/19/76
8/13/76
11/2/76
2/26/76
5/7/76
withdrawn
$4000
$1320
$180
$200
132
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE REGION
Chevron Chemical VII
Co.
Maryland Heights, MO
Churchill Chemi- V
cal Co.
Galesburg, IL
Ciba Geigy II
Bayonne, NJ
Clean Best Corp. IX
Los Angeles, CA
Clean Brite II
NY, NY
Coastal Chemical IV
Corp.
Greenville, NC
Cole Chemical Co. VII
St. Louis, MO
Colonial Products IV
Lake Worth, FL
Consan Pacific IX
Whittier, CA
Continental Prod- V
ucts Co.
Euclid, OH
Contract Main- V
tenance Chemicals,
Inc.
Indianapolis, IN
Contract Packaging VII
Inc.
Norwalk, IA
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
5/20/76
9/27/76
9/27/76
5/10/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
7/30/76
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$1800
7/1/76
9/3/76
6/29/76
2/4/76
3/3/76
7/6/76
1/27/76
9/13/76
10/1/76
10/14/76
4/1/76
4/27/76
10/5/76
4/28/76
$2400
$1400
$3000
$300
$300
$2100
5/8/76
withdrawn
133
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE REGION
Conwood Corp.
Memphis, TN
Crown Chemicals
St. Louis, MO
Cumberland Mfg. Co.
Nashville, TN
Dakoline Chemi-
cal Co.
Brooklyn, NY
Danlo, Inc.
Largo, FL
Decorator Special-
ties Co.
Allston, MA
Del Chemical Co.
Sparks, NV
Delta Chemical
IV
VII
IV
II
IV
I
IX
III
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
8/6/76
4/21/76
1/12/76
6/23/76
6/16/76
2/26/76
1/23/76
5/4/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
10/5/76
8/5/76
4/1/76
9/28/76
7/19/76
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$2268
-$1458
$1100
$108
$200
Mfg. Co.
Baltimore, MD
Demert and
Dougherty
St. Louis, MO
Derrick Soap
Products, Inc.
St. Louis, MO
VII
VII
Dixie Agricultural IV
Sales
Custis, FL
Do It Yourself IX
Insecticide Co.
Compton, CA
7/14/76
2/26/76
4/26/76
6/7/76
8/23/76
3/23/76
6/16/76
8/4/76
$1960
$172
$1235
$522
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE REGION
Do-It-Yourself IV
Pest Control Co.
Birmingham, AL
Dorex, Inc. V
Frankfort, IL
/*.
Dover Chemical - V
Corp.
Dover, OH
Drew Chemical Corp. VI
Houston, TX
Dr. MacDonald VII
Vitalized Feed Co.
Fort Dodge, IA
Edfred Chemical Co. IX
San Jose, CA
Edward Leeds d/b/a IV
Cougar Chemical Co.
Miami, FL
E. I. DuPont III
Wilmington, DE
Emge A- ' .tfon III
Marine
Long'fidine, PA
Emu!so Corp. II
Buffalo, NY
Engler Chemical Co IX
Los Angeles, CA
E & P Supply Co. VII
Lester, IA
Evergreen Pest IX
Control
Campbel1, CA
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
8/20/76
9/27/76
1/30/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
9/27/76
3/8/76
AMOUNT OF'
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$225
withdrawn
7/27/76
1/9/76
5/19/76
4/22/76
1/4/76
1/27/76
4/9/76
6/8/76
6/8/76
9/13/76 '"
2/19/76
6/21/76
8/9/76
3/10/76
6/2/76
9/2/76
8/4/76
9/24/76
$648
$330
withdrawn
withdrawn
$4320
$150
$320
$5
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE REGION
E. W. Smith Chemi- IX
cal Co. •
City of Industry, CA
Exterminator Prod- II
ucts
Jersey City, NO
Farnam Companies, VII
Inc.
Omaha, NB
Fields Point Mfg. I
Corp.
Providence, RI
Floralife, Inc.
Chicago, IL
Frank Miller & Sons V
Chicago, IL
Frontiers Unlimited VIII
Salt Lake City, UT
GAF Industries
Grasselli, NJ
General Blending
Co., Inc.
Jacksonville, FL
General Drug & VII
Chemical
Kansas City, KS
General Pest IX
Service Co.
Los Angeles, CA
George Kirby Jr. I
New Bedford, MA
Good-Life Chemicals, V
Effingham, IL
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
3/18/76
4/22/76
8/23/76
3/1/76
2/26/76
6/15/76
5/4/76
4/27/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
5/19/76
7/27/76
7/5/76
3/15/76
9/14/76
9/14/76
8/15/76
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$40U
$0
withdrawn
V
V
VIII
II
IV
8/25/76
9/27/76
4/19/76
1/30/76
7/6/76
5/26/76 withdrawn
5/13/76 $5000
withdrawn
$160
$430
$2500
1
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
Gordon C. Dampier
Santa Ana, CA
Gowan Co.
Calipatria, CA
Gulf Chemicals Co.
Houston, TX
Hart Hardware Co.
Nashville, TN
Harvest Brand
REGION
IX
IX
VI
IV
VII
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
2/13/76
1/16/76
7/27/76
3/15/76
3/3/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
4/14/76
4/29/76
5/17/76
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$500
$2100
$300
Industries
Pittsburg, KS
Hawk Industries,
Inc.
Fairfield, NJ
II
Hill Manufacturing IV
Atlanta, 6A
H-J Chemicals Inc. IX
Pomona, CA
Holder Corp
Huntington, WV
Holder Corp.
Huntington, WV
Hopewell Chemical
Mfg. Co.
Richmond, VA
Hopkins Ag. Chemicals V
Madison, WI
I. D. Russell Co.
Kansas City, MO
Industrial Chemical VII
Labs.
Omaha, NB
1/30/76
IV
IX
III
III
III
s V
VII
VII
8/16/76
8/3/76
6/12/76
6/23/76
6/2/76
9/27/76
3/3/76
2/26/76
9/27/76
6/16/76
$1260
$1500
i-:
'j> f
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
REGION
Industrial Chemical VII
Labs, Inc.
Omaha, NB
Intermountain Chemi- X
cals, Inc.
Mars ing, ID
International Paint IX
Co.
S. San Francisco, CA
Jac-Son Company
Burbank, CA
IX
Jaguar Chemical Co. II
Brooklyn, NY
Jayro Products IX
Santa Monica, CA
J. E. Flannigan VII
Chemical Co.
Southerland, NB
Jersey Chemicals II
Paterson, NJ
Jet Aer Corp. II
Paterson, NJ
Jones Chemical Co. II
Caledonia, NY
Keystone Scent III
Conditioner Co.
Philadelphia, PA
Kirsto Company V
Lansing, MI
Kiwi Polish Co. Ill
Pottstown, PA
Knud's Pool Service, I
Inc.
Pitts field, MA
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
7/14/76
; 7/6/76
4/26/76
4/14/76
7/28/76
9/3/76
3/3/76
6/9/76
3/15/76
7/1/76
1/27/76
3/22/76
3/30/76
7/26/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
6/25/76
6/15/76
4/16/76
7/28/76
6/25/76
AMOUNT
PENALTY OR
'.STATUS
$1000
$870
$172
$4780
$1350
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
Laundry Aids
Lodi, NJ
Lawn And Garden
Supply Co., Inc.
Phoenix, AZ
Levenson Chemical
Omaha, NB
Lincoln Industrial
Chemical
Reading, PA
Ling Fuang
Industries
Gardnerville, NV
REGION
II
IX
VII
III
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
2/18/76
7/27/76
2/26/76
3/30/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
7/8/76
11/12/76
3/25/76
6/14/76
AMOUNT
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$1220
$1500
$588
$2100
IX
Lite-Weight Products VII
Kansas City, KS
Louis Marchi Candle II
Newark, NJ
Lunar Industries VI
Inc.
Dickinson, TX
Maatz Engineering IX
Oakland, CA
Magna Corp. VI
Houston, TX
Maintex Inc. IX
El Monte, CA
Mammal Survey and X
Control Service
Portland, OR
Mar-Pak Midwest VII
Inc.
St. Louis, MO
3/11/76
1/16/76
4/26/76
6/15/76
2/23/76
3/3/76
7/27/76
2/24/76
6/24/76
4/15/76
$0
4/12/76
7/29/76
4/5/76
5/27/76
11/2/76
$270
$1500
dismissed
withdrawn
$100
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE REGION
Master Laboratorie III
Beaver Falls, PA
Masury-Columbia Co. IX
Glendale, CA
Midland Labs VII
Dubuque, IA
Midland Research VII
Labs., Inc.
Lenexa, KS
Midline Extermina- V
ting
Chicago, IL
Midwest Chemical VII
Co.
Harlan, IA
Mission Kleensweep IX
Products, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
Mission Kleensweep IX
Products Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
Montco Research IV
Products
Hollister, FL
Montgomery Termite VII
and Pest Control
Bridgeport, KS
MUCC Stewart Co. II
NY, NY
Mueller Chemical V
Prairie du Sac, WI
Muralo Paint II
Bayonne, NJ
National Purity V
Soap
Minneapolis, MN
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
2/5/76
1/27/76
1/6/76
3/3/76
1/2/76
a/26/76
6/11/76
8/26/76
6/25/76
9/3/76
6/21/76
6/7/76
7/20/76
6/1/76
140
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
AMOUNT
PENALTY OR
STATUS
4/14/76
3/24/76
4/21/76
3/25/76
3/12/76
7/12/76
8/6/76
10/28/76
10/5/76
11/3/76
$4000
withdrawn
$622
$480
withdrawn
dismissed
$355
withdrawn
$385
$3825
9/7/76
$1000
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
REGION
Nelson Torelli, IV
Pres. Astor-Scott,
Inc.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
New England Ind. I
Chem., Corp.
Plainville, MA
Nicolet Products
Phoenix, AZ
Norris & Company,
Inc.
Salt Lake City, UT
Nova Products, Inc. VII
Kansas City, KS
O'Brien Industries II
Livingston, NJ
0. K. Pool Service IV
Miami, FL
Old Scratch Inc.
Amarillo, TX
01 in Water Services VII
Kansas City, KS
Olson Chemical Co. V
Indianapolis, IN
Ortho Industries
New Rochelle, NY
Pacific-Agro
Renton, WA
Pactra, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
Parawax Company
Council Bluffs, IA
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
9/24/76
9/27/76
IX
VIII
VII
II
IV
VI
VII
V
II
X
IX
VII
1/23/76
8/16/76
7/14/76
7/13/76
8/16/76
9/27/76
9/2/76
1/27/76
6/21/76
9/29/76
7/12/76
2/26/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
2/24/76
9/21/76
AMOUNT
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$132
$600
6/30/76
$640
6/25/76
$350
141
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE REGION
Parker Engineered IV
Chemicals
High Point, NC
Parkway Research IV
Corp.
Miami, FL
Peavey Company VIII
Belgrane, MT
Pecks Products Co. VII
St. Louis, MO
Petrolite Corp. IX
Brea, CA
Pharmasol Corp. 1
Randolph, MA
Phostoxin Sales IX
Inc.
Alhambra, CA
Pioneer Chemical IX
Co.
Los Angeles, CA
Pioneer Chemical VI
Co.
Ppnca City, OK
Plunkett Chemical V
Co.
Chicago, IL
Poly Chem Inc. VI
New Orleans, LA
Professional Pest IX
Control Supply
Phoenix, AZ
Progress Chemical IV
Canton, GA
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
8/16/76
8/17/76
4/19/76
9/2/76
6/17/76
8/30/76
2/13/76
6/30/76
9/27/76
9/27/76
4/5/76
8/17/76
6/8/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
9/27/76
4/29/76
9/13/76
3/31/76
8/4/76
6/3/76
AMOUNT.
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$740
withdrawn
$2160
$1680
$630
$490
8/20/76
$1260
14°
'±
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
Progressive
Electronics
Dallas, TX
Pure All Paint Co.
Carlstadt, NJ
Pueblo Chemical &
Supply Co.
Garden City, KS
Puregro Co.
Casa Grande, AZ
Q Pak
Newark, NJ
Radar Paint Co. ,
Inc.
Bronx, NY
Ragland Mills, Inc.
Neosho, MO
Red Wing Chemical
REGION
VI
II
VII
IX
II
II
VII
IV
COMPLAINT DATE OF AMOUNT
ISSUE FINAL PENALTY OR
DATE ORDER STATUS
4/26/76 5/10/76 withdrawn
7/8/76
8/25/76
1/21/76 3/18/76 $6318
9/14/76
6/3/76
2/26/76 4/9/76 $500
6/4/76 8/3/76 $320
Co.
Chattanooga, TN
Reliable Chem. II
Corp.
Passaic, NJ
Reliable Chem. II
Corp.
Passaic, NJ
Reliance Chemical III
Charlottesville, VA
R. H. Shumway V
Seedman
Rockford, IL
Ridd Mfg., Co. IV
Graham, NC
Rigo Company IV
Buckner, KY
1/26/76
1/26/76
5/28/76
3/23/76
6/4/76
5/21/76
5/3/76
9/27/76
10/18/76
$1650
$140
$3000
14-
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
Ritter Chemical
Co.
Houston, TX
REGION
VI
Riverside Chemical VI
Co.
Blytheville, AR
Riverside Chemical VI
Co.
Pine Bluff, AR
Robarb, Inc.
Atlanta, GA
Rockwin Products
Hapaugue, NY
Rush-Hampton
Industries
Longwood, FL
Sani-Kem Corp. VII
Kansas City, MO
Sanitized, Inc. I
New Preston, CT
San Jose Surgical IX
Supply, Inc.
San Jose, CA
Scope Janitorial IX
Supplies and
Rentals
Canoga Park, CA
Scranton Chemical III
Scran ton, PA
Selig Chem. IV
Industries
Atlanta, GA
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
4/5/76
4/5/76
4/5/76
IV
II
IV
7/6/76
7/8/76
2/11/76
7/14/76
9/16/76
7/16/76
6/11/76
4/16/176
7/6/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
8/5/76
8/5/76
5/3/76
8/18/76
8/16/76
9/21/76
AMOUNT
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$1764
$3528
$952
$3400
$600
$2240
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
Shell Chemical Co.
Denver, CO
Shepard Labs.
Omaha, NB
Sidmar Enterprises
Medway, MA
Skaggs Drug Centers
Salt Lake City, UT
Skasol , Inc.
San Francisco, CA
Sko Chemical Corp.
Lakewood, NJ
Smith Distributing
Bel If lower, CA
Smith Douglas Div.
REGION
VIII
VII
I
VIII
IX
II
IX
IV
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
4/19/76
2/26/76
2/26/76
4/19/76
2/2/76
7/29/76
3/5/76
8/25/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
10/7/76
3/22/76
10/27/76
2/27/76
9/30/76
AMOUNT
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$4000
$432
$1920
$480
$1600
Borden Inc.
Kinston, NC
Southwest Grease & VII
Oil Co.
Omaha, NB
Sparkle Chemical IX
And Cleantenance
Corp.
Phoenix, AZ
Specialty Chemical VI
El Reno, OK
Specialty Chemical VI
Mfg. Co., Inc.
Yukon, OK
Standard Oil of IX
California
San Diego, CA
Standard Sales II
Insecticide Co.
Brooklyn, NY
3/12/76
8/4/76
6/18/76
7/27/76
2/24/76
7/28/76
4/12/76
5/24/76
9/22/76
$1500
$1700
$180
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
Stauffer Chemical
Co.
St. Louis, MO
Steri-Kem, Inc.
Santa Fe Springs, CA
St. Louis Paint Mfr.
REGION
VII
IX
VII
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
9/23/76
7/16/76
2/26/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
10/29/76
3/11/76
AMOUNT
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$850
withdrawn
Co.
St. Louis, MO
Sullivan Chemical
Co.
Long Beach, CA
IX
8/19/76
$200
Surpass Chemical
Albany, NY
Swift Chemical Co.
Los Angles, CA
Swift, Inc.
Houston, TX
Take Along Co. , Inc.
West Seneca, NY
Tax Corporation of
America D/B/A Ameri
can Dish Co.
Kansas City, MO
Techne Corp.
St. Joseph, MO
Tecumseh Animal
Tecumseh, .NB
Terminal Packaging
Corp.
Council Bluffs, IA
Tex-Ag Company, Inc.
Mission, TX
The Broadway Supply
II
IX
VI
II
VII
VII
VII
VII
VI
V
7/20/76
1/29/76
4/5/76
7/13/76
3/3/76
1/23/76
8/5/76
8/23/76
7/27/76
1/27/76
4/23/76
7/30/76
11/11/76
3/24/76
3/30/76
8/31/76
3/30/76
$11,500
$6880
$0
$653
$3720
$300
$3456
Co.
Cleveland, OH
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
The Uddo Company
New Orleans, LA
Thompson-Hayward
REGION
VI
IX
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
7/27/76
3/19/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
6/6/76
AMOUNT
PENALTY OR
STATUS
11890
Chemical Company
Fresno, CA
Thompson-Hayward VIII
Chemical Co.
Denver, CO
Thompson-Hayward VII
Chemical Co.
Kansas City, KS
301 Exterminating IV
Co.
Wilson, NC
3 M Company IV
Decatur, AL
Tifton Chemical Co. IV
Tifton, GA
Tim Hennigan Eng.
Co., Inc.
Mansfield, MA
Tretolite Company
St. Louis, MO
Tunis Brothers Co.
Kennett Square, PA
Twi Laq Chem. Co.
Brooklyn, NY
Uni-Chem Corp. of
Florida
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
U.S. Yacht Paint
Montville, NJ
Velsicol Chemical
Chicago, IL
I
4/19/76
7/12/76
9/1/76
VII
III
II
IV
II
V
9/3/76
6/9/76
7/8/76
6/25/76
8/23/76
3/3/76
4/29/76
10/8/76
4/23/76
withdrawn
6/8/76
2/12/76
3/1/76
8/25/76
10/5/76
$3120
$8400
withdrawn
$1600
147
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
W. A. Cleary Corp.
Somerset, NJ
W. P Grace & Co.
Bait, more, MD
Wasco Product, Inc.
Anaheim, CA
Water! ox Chemical
Cleveland, OH
Wei co Manufacturing
Company, Inc.
North Kansas City,
White Laboratories
Orlando, FL
Willard Products,
Co.
Redwood City, CA
Wise Chemical Co.
Pittsburgh, PA
Woods Industries,
Inc.
Yakima, WA
Woolsey Marine
Brooklyn, NY
Woolsey Marine
Brooklyn, NY
World's Best
REGION
II
III
IX
V
VII
MO
IV
IX
III
X
II
II
V
COMPLAINT DATE OF AMOUNT
ISSUE FINAL PENALTY OR
DATE ORDER STATUS
8/30/76
5/12/76 8/26/76 $900
4/5/76 6/15/76 $1518
8/5/76
6/14/76
3/15/76 6/16/76 $990
8/17/76 11/12/76 $600
6/21/76
6/28/76
6/21/76
6/22/76
3/30/76
Products
Union Mills, IN
World Wide II
Exterminating Corp.
Brooklyn, NY
X-L Laboratories VII
Des Moines, IA
6/30/76
2/23/76
9/3/76
7/8/76
$300
$250
143
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE REGION
Yankee Chemical I
Corp.
Taunton, MA
Zep Manufacturing IX
Co.
Santa Clara, CA
Zing Products Inc. VII
St. Louis, MO
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
8/6/76
3/11/76
2/13/76
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
AMOUNT
PENALTY OR
STATUS
5/3/76
3/15/76
$1440
$118
143
-------
APPENDIX B
Table 2
UPDATE OF RESULTS FOR
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED BY EPA UNDER SECTION
14(a) OF THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE,
AND RODENTICIDE ACT, AS AMENDED*
DECEMBER 1974 THROUGH DECEMBER 1975
NOTE: If no entry appears in last two columns,
case was in pending status as of press time.
NAME
CITY
STATE REGION
Aero Mist, Inc. IV
Marietta, GA
Air Shield, Inc. IV
Moncks Corner, SC
Alden Leeds II
Kearny, NJ
Alden Leeds II
Kearny, NJ
Ambix Laboratories II
North Bergen, NJ
Amvac Chemical Corp. IX
Los Angeles, CA
Applegates Drug Stores VI
Inc.
Bentonville, AR
Aquashade, Inc. II
Dobbs Ferry, NJ
Arcal Chemicals III
Seat Pleasant, MD
ArChem Corp. V
Portsmouth, OH
Atlantic Fertilizer & IV
Chem. Co.
Homestead, FL
COMPLAINT DATE OF
ISSUE FINAL
DATE ORDER
4/30/75 3/3/76
4/29/75 8/25/75
11/26/75
11/26/75
12/11/75 9/8/76
6/30/75
10/3/75 7/6/76
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
withdrawn
$2800
$1401
$ 420
11/19/75
11/24/75
12/29/75
6/19/75
1/9//76
2/13/76
$ 250
$3000
#The actions for which results are reported on in this table were first listed in
Appendix B of the EPA Report, entitled, EPA ENFORCEMENT A PROGRESS
REPORT DECEMBER 1974 TO DECEMBER 1975", and were shown as "Pending"
in that volume if dispositive action had not been taken at press time.
150
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
Auto-Chlor System of
La. and S. Miss.
Bossier City, LA
Auto Chlor, Inc.
Denver, CO
Away Chemical Corp.
Houston, TX
Big D Chemical Co.
Oklahoma City, OK
Bighorn Coop
Basin, WY
Bixon Chem.
Queens, NY
Bixon Chem.
Queens, NY
Blue Grass Chemi Spec.
Co.
New Albany, IN
Blumberg Co.
Peabody, MA
Bower Industries
Phoenix, AZ
Browman Me 11 Co.
Harrisburg, PA
Calgon Corp.
St. Louis, MO
Cantol Co.
Philadelphia, PA
Cantor Brothers Inc.
Farmingdale, NY
Carolina Chemicals Inc.
W. Columbia, SC
REGION
VI
VIII
VI
VI
VIII
II
II
V
I
EX
III
VII
III
II
IV
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE .
8/18/75
8/20/75
8/18/75
7/31/75
5/16/75
7/4/75
7/11/75
7/24/75
10/14/75
6/30/75
10/31/75
4/1/75
10/28/75
10/16/75
12/16/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
7/30/76
11/1/76
1/13/76
1/16/76
1/16/76
9/7/76
5/12/76
2/13/76
9/26/75
3/8/76
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$ 750
$ 264
$ 220
$4045
$3350
withdrawn
$ 500
$2400
$ 500
dismissed
5/4/76 Issued
Notice of Warni
$1260
151
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE ' REGION
Cealin Chemicals IV
Jacksonville, FL
Champion Int'l X
Vacouver, WA
Chem Fab Co. VII
Mission, KS
Chemifax Chemical Co. IX
Lamirada, CA
Chevron Chemical Co. IV
Orlando, FL
Chevron Chem. Co. VII
Maryland Heights, MO
C. H. Lilly Co. X
Portland, OR
Clorben Chem. II
Kearny, NJ
Common Market Inc. II
N.Y., NY
Conn. Aerosols Co. I
Milford, CT
Continental Research VII
Corp.
St. Louis, MO
Contra Costa Maintenance IX
Supply Co.
Concord, CA
Continental Chemical Corp. V
Chicago, IL
Cook & Dunn Co. II
Newark, NJ
Cougar Chemical Co. IV
Miami, FL
Crown Tar & Chemical VIII
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
9/25/75
8/22/75
12/3/75
4/16/75
11/7/75
12/4/75
12/23/75
7/14/75
3/3/75
10/22/75
12/3/75
6/30/75
6/30/75
12/31/75
12/16/75
8/8/75
PATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
1/19/76
1/30/76
2/18/76
6/8/76
2/19/76
10/27/76
5/24/76
2/27/76
3/10/76
5/10/76
8/11//76
1/13/76
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$ 980
$ 118
$1800
$6000
$3200
withdrawn
$4500
dismissed
$1750
. - .$4760
$4100
$ 270
Denver, CO
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
Cutting Division
Harvest Industries
Sacramento, CA
Daly's, Inc.
Seattle, WA
Deisch-Benham, Inc.
Nappanee, IN
Dow Chemical Co.
Kansas City, MO
Eastern Laboratories
Vineland, NJ
Earl May Seed &
Nursery Co.
Shenandoah, LA
Euclid Chemical Co.
Cleveland, OH
Famco, Inc.
Medina, OH
F & H Chemicals
Visalia, CA
Fleming & Co.
St. Louis, MO
Fleming & Co.
St. Louis, MO
Fords Chem & Service,
Inc.
Pasadena, TX
Fuller-O'Brien
S. San Francisco, CA
Fuller Systems Co.
Woburn, MA
George's Pest Control
Service
Chico, CA
REGION
IX
X
V
VII
II
VII
V
V
IX
VII
VII
VI
IX
I
IX
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
4/30/75
8/22/75
12/29/75
7/16/75
8/20/75
12/23/75
10/1/75
12/16/75
5/16/75
1/25/75
7/25/75
6/12/75
6/30/75
11/7/75
6/30/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
4/19/76
2/24/76
4/20/76
10/18/76
2/5/76
2/11/76
2/24/76
2/20/76
2/27/76
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$ 440
$1400
$1800
0
$2400
$1320
$1155
$ 500
dismissed
153
-------
NAME
'CITY
- STATE REGION
Gib son -Romans X
Portland, OR
Good-Way Insecticide, V
Inc.
Arlington Heights, IL
Grace-Lee Products, Inc. V
Minneapolis, MN
Grant Laboratories IX
Oakland, CA
Gulf Engineering VI
New Orleans, LA
Hercules, Inc. VI
Houston, TX
H-O-H Chemicals, Inc. V
Palatine, IL
Hooker Chemical Co. II
Niagara Falls, NY
Hub States Corp. V
Indianapolis, IN
Int'l Multifoods, Ag. V
Chem.
Madison, WI
Ionics Inc. Ill
Bridgeville, PA
Jaguar Chem. II
New York, NY
J & B Enterprise IV
Helena, AL
James Varley & Sons VII
St. Louis, MO
James Varley & Sons VII
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
6/17/75
12/19/75
10/1/75
6/30/75
4/30/75
9/26/75
4/3/75
5/19/75
1/31/75
10/1/75
9/8/75
7/3/75
6/30/75
4/30/75
11/25/75
DATE OF AMOUNT OF
FINAL PENALTY OR
ORDER STATUS
4/12/76
9/7/76
1/21/76
3/11/76
2/24/76
2/19/76
3/25/76
1/21/76
3/24/76
8/26/75
6/26/75
1/7/76
$ 750
$ 200
$1000
$3432
$3247
$9300
$3000
$2100
withdrawn
$4600
$ 972
$1000
St. Louis, MO
154
-------
NAME . .
CITY
STATE
Javo-Mex Corp.
South Holland, IL
Kerr-McGee Chemical
Corp.
Jacksonville, FL
Kill It All Insecticide
Co.
Montebello, CA
KH1 Rat Corp.
Phoenix, AZ
Krest Products Co.
Leominister, MA
Laboratory Automated
Chemicals
Gardena, CA
Land & Sky
Lincoln, «NB
Lebanon Chem.
Lebanon, PA
Levenson Chemical Co.
Omaha, NB
Lift Products Inc.
Cedar Rapids, LA
Luseaux Labs.
Gardena, CA
Madison Bionics
Gardena, CA
March Chem. Co
Denham Springs, LA
Mclnnis Labs.
Meridan, MS
Mid-America
Formulators
Arlington, TN
REGION
V .
IV
IX
IX
I
IX
VII
HI
VII
VII
IX
IX
VI
IV
IV
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
12/24/75
6/30/75
6/30/75
6/30/75
5/7/75
6/30/75
12/5/75
9/30/75
12/23/75
8/26/75
6/30/75
6/30/75
7/31/75
10/29/75
10/31/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
3/25/76
8/10/76
9/2/76
2/26/76
4/26/76
3/4/76 •
1/26/76
2/24/76
1/23/76
1/9/76
2/13/76
3/4/76
7/7/76
AMOUNT OF. .
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$ 432
^withdrawn
dismissed
withdrawn
$1750
$ 250
$ 297
withdrawn
$864
$ 324
$2695
$2250
$ 450 '
155
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
Miller-Morton Co.
Richmond, VA
Monsey Products
Kimberton, PA
Moyer Chemical Co.
San Jose, CA
National Purity Water
Inc.
Deerfield, FL
Nationwide Chem.
Brooklyn, NY
Nationwide Chem.
Brooklyn, NY
N. Jonas Company
Philadelphia, PA
Nova Products Inc.
Kansas City, KS
NuTone Products
Denver, CO
Omaha Compound Co.
Omaha, NB
Ommnican Medical Inc. VI
Dallas, TX
Pace National
Magnolia Feed & Fert.
Kirkland, WA
Park Hill Chemical
Mt. Vernon, NY
Park Hill Chemical
Mt. Vernon, NY
Parramore & Griffin
Seed
Valdosta, GA
REGION
III
III
IX
IV
II
II
III
VII
VIII
VII
VI
X
II
II
IV
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
12/4/75
10/26/75
4/16/75
9/12/75
6/26/75
11/26/75
4/3/75
7/15/75
8/8/75
11/21/75
9/25/75
6/20/75
3/19/75
3/28/75
1/30/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
3/1/76
2/13/76
2/4/76
2/19/76
2/19/76
6/8/76
2/2/76
11/29/76
1/6/76
3/24/76
5/24/76
3/29/76
3/29/76
3/16/76
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$1700
$2200
$1000
$3700
$3700
$5000
$ 400
withdrawn
$2900
$ 500
$1400
0
0
$6960
15S
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
Plaz. Inc.
St. Louis, MO
Pollution Control
Products, Inc.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Pride Laboratories
Farmingdale, NY
Property Chemical
Products
Div. Chemirust
Industries
Gardena, CA
Pro-Serve, Inc.
Memphis, TN
Puritan Chemical Co.
Atlanta, GA
REGION
VII
IV
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
12/5/75
6/6/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
1/9/76
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
withdrawn
II
IX
IV
IV
Redwood Chemical Corp. VI
Houston, TX
Red Star Poison Co. X
Woodburn, OR
Rigo Chemical Co. IV
Buckner, KY
Sanitary Supply Co. VI
Beaumont, TX
Sentinel Pest Control V
Springfield, IL
Sheff Chem. & Supply Co. IV
Bradenton, FL
Shell Chemical
Princeton, NJ
Simchem Minerals
& Chemicals
Mountain Home, ID
II
X
10/17/75
6/17/75
3/4/76
9/9/76 included
with TMS Labs.
Farmingdale, NY
0
6/30/75
9/4/75
10/22/75
6/5/75
11/7/75
12/21/75
12/24/75
11/7/75
12/11/75
12/31/75
12/15/75 withdrawn
2/21/76 $168
4/26/76 $550
3/10/76 $500
4/1/76 $365
1/30/76 withdrawn
157
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
Singletary &
Company
Rocky Mount, NC
Southern Mill Creek
Products Co.
Tampa, FL
State Enterprises
Farmingdale, NY
Stearns Chemical
Corp.
Madison, WI
Stewart Hall Petroleum
Mt. Vernon, NY
Stewart Hall Petroleum
Mt. Vernon, NY
Sunny side Products,
Inc.
Chicago, IL
Tenneco Chemicals
Elizabeth, NJ
Texmo
Lewisville, TX
The Brite House Company
Chicago, IL
The Candleworks Inc.
St. Louis, MO
Thomas Proestler
Davenport, LA
Time Chemical, Inc.
Atlanta, GA
Thompson-Hay ward
Chem. Co.
New Orleans, LA
COMPLAINT DATE OF AMOUNT OF
ISSUE FINAL PENALTY OR
REGION DATE ORDER STATUS
IV
IV
II
V
II
II
V
II
VI
ay V
VII
VII
IV
VI
7/28/75
8/18/75
9/17/75
12/16/75
9/16/75
9/17/75
10/1/75
9/17/75
10/3/75
10/1/75
12/1/75
9/26/75
11/7/75
9/26/75
8/9/76
2/6/76
9/13/76
4/27/76
4/27/76
1/21/76
1/9/76
4/26/76
2/3/76
1/28/76
2/17/76
1/6/76
withdrawn
$1800
$1188
$4450
$2600
$1320
$4960
withdrawn
$ 500
$1188
$2240
$2400
153
-------
NAME
CITY
STATE
Thompson-Hayward
Chem. Co.
Fayetteville, SC
Thompson-Hayward
Chem. Co.
Muscle Shoals, AL
TMS Laboratories
Farmingdale, NY
United Lace & Brade Co.
Great Neck, NY
Utility Chemical
Pater son, NJ
Valley Chemical Co.
Imperial, CA
Venus Laboratories, Inc.
Bensenville, IL
Vineland Labs.
Vineland, NJ
Water Purification
Technology, Inc.
Miami, FL
Water Services, Inc.
Knoxville, TN
Weil Chemical Co. Inc.
Memphis, TN
Western Tar Products
Terre Haute, IN
Wichita Brush & Chemi-
cal Co.
Wichita, KS
REGION
IV
IV
II
II
II
IX
V
II
IV
IV
IV
V
VII
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
12/16/75
12/18/75
9/29/75
10/29/75
11/26/75
4/16/75
7/11/75
9/23/75
7/28/75
12/24/75
9/30/75
12/24/75
12/3/75
DATE OF AMOUNT OF
FINAL PENALTY O
ORDER STATUS
4/22/76
4/22/76
9/9/76 includes
Pride Labs.
Farmingdale, NY
10/22/76
1/15/76
2/6/76
8/24/76
8/9/76
11/17/75
2/12/76
1/12/76
$3200
$1260
$3267
withdrawn
$4800
$ 300
$1260
$3500
$ 360
withdrawn
$1560
-------
NAME COMPLAINT DATE OF AMOUNT OF
CITY ISSUE FINAL PENALTY OR
STATE REGION DATE ORDER STATUS
Wilson Aerosol Company IV 8/21/75 2/17/76 $510
Spring Hope, NC
W.R. Sweeney Mfg. Co. VII 11/25/75 1/6/76 $654
Salisbury, MO
Zoe Chem. II 7/14/75 1/2/76 $720
New Hyde Parks, NY
160
-------
Civil 5 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
APPENDIX C
table 1
Region
Type
Permittee
Permit Number (Kajor/Minor)
Location
Receiving Waters
*• Referral Date
Filing Date
Status (Disposition)
* Alleged Violation
ACTIVE CASES: REFERRED AND FILEO (57) - THIS LISTING REFLECTS ONLY THOSE CASES THAT HAVE BEE'N'FlLED
I
CIVIL
BARNES WORSTEDS, INC.
MA 00317H MINOR
MA, KINGSTON
JONES RIVER
I
CIVIL
HAVERHILL GAS COMPANY
N/A
MA, HAVERHILL
Unnamed brook 6 LITTLE RIVER
I
CIVIL
HOLLAND CO., INC.
N/A
MA, ADAMS
HOOSIC RIVER
I
CIVIL
LYNN (MUN)
MA 0100552 MAJOE
MA, LYNN
BOSTON BAY
I
CIVIL
MILTON LEATHER BOARC CO.
NH 0000213 MAJOF
NH, MILTON
SALMON FALLS RIVEF
9-17-75
OCT 75
12-17-71*
3-3-75
Pending - US ATTY has
filed complaint.
11-1U-75
2-11-76
2/19/76
6/2/76
12-16-75
2-25-76
Failure to meet compliance schedule
dates. Noncompliance with permit.
Non-filer.
Approx. 6 mil. gals, of water
containing phenol, iron 6 con-
taminants.
Unautri. disch., 5/21/75,
tank rupture, 20,000 gals, of
aluminum sulfate (alum) entered
river resulting in fish kill.
Failure to submit final plans £
specifications for proposed treat-
ment facility, failure to submit
progress reports, failure to retain
consultant for such plans 6 specifi-
cations.
Failure to comply with permit,
exceeding eff. limits £ failure
to construct treatment works.
161
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SKP 1976
I
CIVIL 6 CRIMINAL
POTATO SERVICE, IKC.
ME 0000566 MAJOR
ME, PRESQUE ISLE
AROOSTOOK RIVER
I
CIVIL
TIVIAN LABORATORIES, INC.
N/A
RI, PROVIDENCE
N/A
5/26/76
Criminal information
Filed 7-21-76
3/23/76
5/6/76
Violated effluent limits, not utilizing
all treatment facilities to insure
maximum efficiency, operating while
not in compliance with permit
conditions, willful violation of
permit for economic reasons.
Failure to comply w/EPA Order
concerning info requested in the use
and handling of PCBs. •
162
-------
Civil G Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As Of 30 SEP 1976
II
CIVIL
GERARD ALLEYNE
N/A
NY, HASTINGS-ON-TKE-HUDSON
HUDSON RIVER
II
CRIMINAL
BEACON PIECE DYEING 6
FINISHING COMPANY
N/A
NY, BEACON
FISH KILL CREEK
II
CIVIL
DEL MONTE
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
III
CRIMINAL
ALLIED CHEMICAL CCRP. (Plastics
Div) 6 Responsible Officials
VA 0005291 MAJOF
VA, Hopewell
Gravelly Hun
III
CRIMINAL
LIFE SCIENCE PRODUCTS CO.
e Responsible Officials
N/A
VA, Hopewell
Gravelly Run
12/2/75
May 76
12/2/75
May 76
Unlawful discharge (9UO counts) of
industrial wastes from the production
of "KEPONE".
Unlawful discharges of industrial wastes
from the production of "KEPONE".
164
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 & 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
IV
CIVIL
ALTON BOX BOARD COMPANY
FL 0000892 MA.TOF
FL, JACKSONVILLE
ST. JCHN RIVER
IV
CIVIL
ARLINGTON BLENDING 6
PACKAGING CO., INC.
N/A, MAJOP
TN, ARLINGTON
LOOSAHATCHIE RIVER
• IV
CIVIL
AUSTELL BOX BOARD CORP.
GA 0001911 MAJOK
(JA, AUSTELL
SWEETWATER CREEK
IV
CIVIL
E'lTTE KNITTING MILLS (A Div.
of Jonathan Logan, Inc.)
SC 0000957 MINOF
SC, SPARTANBURG
NORTH TYGF.K RIVER
IV
CIVIL
CARO-KNIT, INC.
SC 0002500 MAJOP
SC, JEFFERSON
SOUTH FORK CREEK
IV
CIVIL
THE CAR;-, co.
(A Unite 1 Div. cf TRW, Inc.
TN 0002127 KlNOt
TN, KNOXVILLE
FHhNCH BOAUU KIVER
2-19-75
5-22-75
Under negotiations
10-24-7S
1-5-76
9-17-75
1-7-76
11-12-75
12-5-75
6/18/76
Filed July 76
1/7/76
7/28/76
Failed to completeoonstruction
of waste treatment system by
12-31-74.
Disch. w/o permit, non-filer,
unauth. disch of pesticides on
9 different dates.
Unauth. disch. of 2.5 mil. gals.
of untreated process wastewater,
due to dam break. Disch. not
covered in permit, 6/29/75.
Violation of Interim F.ff. Limits
b railure to submit noncompliance
reports.
Continuous violations of effluent.
limits, failure to submit required
preliminary engineering report,
discharging while not in compliance
with permit.
Violation ot eft. limits, failed
t.o comply w/oompliance schedule,
rtir.cn. while not in compliance w/permit
165-
-------
Civil & Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 5 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEF 1976
rv
CIVIL
FEDERAL PAPER EOAFC CO., INC.
NC 0003298 KAJOh
NC, RIEGELWOOD
CAPE FEAR RIVKR
IV
CIVIL
HERMITAGE COTTON MLLS
SC 0002518 MAJOfr
SC, CAMDEN
BIG PINF THEE CREEF
1-7-76
2-10-76
2-20-76
U-7-7G
Approx. 500,000 qals. of "Black
Liquor" escaped to river resulting
in fish kill, small lagoon broke,
6/19/75, uisch. not atitii. by permit.
Did not complete final plans for
achieving compliance w/final effl.
limits oy 6/30/7M, did not complete
construction of WTP hy 9/30/7«, did
not attain operational lev°l by
6/30/75, discti. while not in
compliance w/pprmit.
IV
CIVIL
PRESTOLITE ELECTHICAL CIV.
of Eltra Corp.
AL 0000086 MAJOH
AL, DECATUR
BAKERS CREEK
IV
CIVIL
SANTEE PRINT WORKS
SC 0001309 MAJOR
SC, SUMTER
Unnamed Trib. of
TURKEY CREEK
IV
CIVIL
STATE INDUSTRIES, INC.
TN 0002«88 MAJOf
TN, ASHLAND
CUMBERLAND RIVER
IV
CIVIL
SWIFT AGKICULTURAI CHEM CORP.
FL 0001180 MAJOF
FL, BARTOW
WHIDDEN CREEK E PEACE RIVER
8/6/76
8/20/76
7-10-75
8-27-75
Pending
3/31/76
6/23/76
6/13/76
7/27/78
bid riot achieve effluent limitations ar,
of 12/26/73 F, has not achieved such as of
8/b/7b, did not achieve final effluent.
limitations as of U/1/75. Discharging
while not in compliance with permit.
Failed to meet 'eff. limits.
Violated eftl. limits disch. while
not in compliance w/p'?rmit conditions.
bypassed and diverted untreated waste-
water 12/2/75, violation of permit.
condit ions.
-------
Civil & Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
IV
CIVIL
WNNESSEE ELECTROfLATING
CO. , INC.
TH ;0001180 MAJOE
TN, RIPLEY
HYDE CREEK
IV
CIVIL
VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORF.
TO 0000051 MAJOF
fN, MEMPHIS
CtPRESS CREEK
11/17/75
6/25/76
Disch. while not in compliance
w/permit. Exceeding effl. limits.
7-3-75
10-10-75
Pending
Failed to meet eff. limits.
157
-------
Civil G Criminal Enforcement Actions
ion ?09 6 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As o£ 30 SEP 1976
V
CIVIL
AMOCO OIL CO. (Whitinq
Refinery)
N/A
IN, WHITING
LAKE MICHIGAN
V
CIVIL
DANA CORP., Midwest Frainri Div.
MI 0005891* KAJOF
MI, ECORSE
Navigable USA
V
CIVIL
STEAMER GEORGE HlhCKAN
N/A
MI
ST. CLAIR RIVER
V
CIVIL
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER,
WISCONSIN STEEL CIV.
IL 0001660 MAJOf
IL, CHICAGO
CALUMET RIVER
V
CIVIL
MOSS-AMERICAN, INC.
N/A
HI, MILWAUKEE
LITTLE MENOMONEF. FIVEF<
V
CIVIL
PAN AMERICAN CHEMICAL COKP.
N/A
OH, TOLEDO
Navigable USA
U/2U/75
5/11/76
Phenol api11, 12/13/7U
7-24-75
12-23-75
Answer Filed
12-22-75
10-15-75
Indictment Returned.
10-6-75
12-17-75
Answer Filed
2-15-75
5-19-75
Interrogatories Filed
7-1 1-75
11-1 1-75
Complaint Filed.
Soap Spill - U/16/75, Disch. of
soap not auth. in permit.
Oil disch into St. Clair River,
unk. arot. 9/17/75.
Violated effl. limits, continuing
noncotnpliance.
Unauth. disch.
Sodium Hydroxide Spill - a/15/75.
Approx. 1700 gals, disch.
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 E 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
CIVIL
PETERSON/PURITAN, INC.
IL OOOH162 MINOB
IL, DANVILLE
N/A'
2/U/76
7/12/76
Paint Spill, 11/23 6 21/74
V
CIVIL
RESEARCH OIL CO.
N/A
OH, CLEVELAND
BIG CREEK
V
CIVIL
SELYM UTILITY CO.
N/A
IL, WILL COUNTY
PLUM CREEK
V
CIVIL
WILLIAMS PIPE LINE CO.
N/A
IL, FAYETTE COUNTY 6
JASPER COUNTY
Unnamed Trib. to LONE GROVE
Branch, Trib. to East Fork
Of KASKASKIA RIVEF
6/29/76
8/9/76
2-27-76
3-10-76
Complaint Filed - Pending
9-23-75 6 10-20-75
12-10-75
Spill, waste oil E PCB's.
Non-filer.
Spills approx. 6,000 gals. £
27,000 gals, of liquid fertilizer
(URAN), due to corrosion leak in
10" pipelines. U/7/75 6 5/6/75.
169
-------
Civil S Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 REP 1976
VI
CIVIL
AMERICAN CYANAMID CO.
LA OOOH367 MAJO1-
LA, WESTWSGO
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
VI
CIVIL
COMMERCIAL SOLVENTS CORP.
LA 00078514 MAJOF
LA, STEKLINGTON
OUACHITA KIVER
VI
CIVIL
DOW CHEMICAL CO.
TX 0006U83 MAJOR
TX, FREEPORT
BRAZOS RIVER
VI
CIVIL
U.S. Pollution Control, Inc.
N/A
OK, TULSA
ARKANSAS RIVER
10-2-76 6 2-6-76
10-9-75
2-3-76
2-3-76
6/25/76
N/A
Referred to US ATTY for
Collection of $10,000 Penalty
as agreed to in Settlement
Agreement.
6/10/76
N/A
Referred to US ATTY tor
collection of $6,000 Penalty
Assessment.
Violated etfl. limitations, 3/11/75,
3/18/75 £ 3/19/75, exceeded "Amonia
as N" by U5.000 Ibs., 69,000 Ibs.
t, 32,000 Ib.s., Disch. 537 Ibs. of
"Chromium" on 7/16 6 7/17/75, max.
is 100 Ibs. per/day.
Bypassed deep well waste injection
system on 28 different dates in '75,
violation of permit, condition.
Failure to assure meetinq a compliance
schedule date.
Discharging without a permit-..
1VO
-------
Civil £ Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 e 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
.VII 1-12-76 Failure to submit plans of existing
CIVII. 2-20-76 holding pond for approval, failure to
9-6 R FARM CO. submit revised plans for waste control
IA OOU8283 MINOF facilities, failure to submit manage-
IA, MERRILL raent plan for disposal of liquid 6
Navigable USA solid wastes, failure to achieve
operational level of waste control
facilities so as to meet disch. limits.
171
-------
Civil 8 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 & 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
VIII
CIVIL
COLORADO TANK LINES
N/A
CO, ARVADA
PINE CREEK 6 MONUMENT CREEK
VIII
CIVIL
EARTH SCIENCES. INC.
N/A
CO, SAN LUIS
RITO SECO
VIII
CIVIL
KEYSTONE LODGE, RALSTON
PURINA COMPANY
B/A
CO, DILLON
Drainage ditch to SNAKE KIYEP
to Dillon Reservoir
VIII
CIVIL
RICO ARGENTINE MI KING CO.
N/A
CO, RICO
DBLORES RIVER
VIII
CIVIL
SILVER BOW COUNTY
Iff 0022012 MAJOF
MT, BDTTE
SILVER BOM CREEK
i (Trib. of Clark Fcrk
VIII
CIVIL
THATCHER CHEMICAL CO.
a/A
OT, SALT LAKE CITY
•ORPLUS CANAL, A Irib. to
GREAT SALT LAKE
B-27-75
1 1-18-75
3-2-76
3/25/76
5-15-75
2-20-76
Approx. 3,000 - t,000 gals, heating
oil spill, 10-1-73 uriauth. disch.
Disch. w/o a permit on U/6/75
a/16/75 6 10/19/75 resulting in
fish kill.
Disch. w/o permit.
10-1 1-74
7-2-75
Pendinq
11-TO-7U
2-26-75
Pending
8-21-75
2-6-76
Non-filer.
Violated permit conditions K
compliance Order.
Uriauth. disch. , no permit.
172
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As Of 30 SEP 1976
VIII 12-10-75 Disch. w/o permit, a/26/75,
CIVIL 3-2-76 H/29/75, 5/1/75, 6 5/2/75.
U.S. ENERGY CORP.
(Keystone Mine)
N/A
CO, CRESTED BUTTE
COAL CREEK
173
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
IX
CIVIL
LAUPAHOEHOE SUGAR CO
HI 000159 MAJOR
HI. HONOLULU
PACIFIC OCEAN
IX
CIVIL
SIMPSON TIMBER CO
N/A
CA, FAIRHAVEN
HUMBOLDT BAY
IX
CIVIL
STAR-KIST FOODS, INC.
AS 0000019 MAJOF
AS, PAGO PAGO
PAGO PAGO HARBOR
8/19/76
8/19/76
10/28/75
8/3/76
12-15-75
2-2U-76
Pending - settlement
Discussions in progress.
Ordered to show cause why it should
not be adjudged to be in contempt of
court (Violation of Consent Decree).
Disch. w/o permit, u/V75.
Unlawful disch. outfall not
covered in permit.
174
-------
civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 £ 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
X
CIVIL
ARMOUR 6 CO
ID 0000787 MINOR
ID, NAMPA
INDIAN CREEK
X
CIVIL
HORSESHOE BEND & TUDOR
ENGINEERING CO. (Mun)
ID 0021024 MINOR
ID, HORSESHOE BENC
PAYETTE RIVER
X
CIVIL
BUNKER HILL COMPAKY
ID 0000078 MAJOR
ID, KELLOGG
SOUTH FORK COEUR
D'ALENE SILVER KlfG CREEK
X
CIVIL
URSIN SEAFOODS, INC.
AK 0000591 MAJOR
AK, KODIAK
ST. PAUL HARBOR
6/25/76
7/14/76
2/5/76
5/14/76
Violated effluent limits (violated
specific permit conditions).
Unlawful disch. of raw sewerage -
bypassing treatment lagoons.
4-15-75
9-2-75
Pending
8/9/74 6 12/24/75
3/16/76
Permit exceeded eff. limits
6 certain special conditions.
Diverted seafood wastes 6 bypassed
required screening treatment 'facilities
on 9/30/75, 10/1/75, 6 10/2/75, in
violation of a permit.
175
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
Region
Type
Permittee
Permit Number (Kajor/Ninor)
Location
Receiving Waters
Referral Date
Filing Date
Status (Disposition)
* Alleged Violation
CLOSED CASES: (145)
I
CIVIL
A.E. STALKY MFG.
HE 0002216 MINOR
ME, HOOLTON
MEDOXNEKEAG RIVER
a-28-75 FY 75
N/A
Closed - $8,000 settlement -
June '75.
Effl. limits violated.
Failure to report daily analyses.
I
CIVIL
ANDREW WORSTED MIIIS, INC.
RI 0000809 MINOR
RI, PASCOAG
PASCOAG RIVER
1,-24-74 FY 75 Appro*. 30,000 gals, of untreated
T4/A process wastewaters & sanitary
Closed - Consent Decree - sewage.
$ 1,500 settlement - April '75,
I
CIVIL
BALDWINVILLE PRODUCTS, INC.
MA 0000175 MAJOR
MA, TEMPLETON
OTTER RIVER
12-19-74 FY 75
2-19-75
Closed - $20,000 settlement -
Sept. «75.
Failed to monitor effluent.
Reports based on estimates.
I
CIVIL
BRINDIS LEATHER CO.
ME 0001317 MINOR
ME, CANTON
WHITNEY BROOK
4-28-75 FY 75
5-19-75
Closed - Judgment, $1,000
penalty - 12/11/75.
Violated reporting requirements.
(Late DMRs 6 progress reports)
176
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
I
CIVIL
ERVING PAPER MILLS
MA 0000621 MAJOF
MA, ERVING
MILLERS RIVER
12-19-7«
2-19-75
Closed - $10,000 settlement
Sept. '75.
Failed to monitor effluent.
Reports based on estimates.
I
CIVIL
LEFLAR 6 MALMROSE, INC.
(Vessel "Gimleland")
N/A
NEW YORK, NY (Boston, MA)
BOSTON HAKBOR
9/17/75
N/A
CLOSED - Prosecution
declined - Aug 76
Unauth. dumping of garbage, 7/12/75.
I
CIVIL
SCOTT 6 WILLIAMS, INC.
NH 0000787 MAJOF
NH, LACONIA
LAKE CPECHEE
2/23/76
N/A
CLOSED - Prosecution
declined - 3/18/76
Failure to prepare, by 12/1/75,
Engineering Report 6 final plans,
as required by existing permit.
Failure to comply w/permit conditions.
I
CIVIL
STAMINA MILLS
RT 000008U MAJOF
RI, FORESTDALE
BRANCH RIVER
I
CIVIL
VAIILSING, INC.
ME 0002551 MAJOF*
ME, EASTON
PRESTILE STREAM
•Permit not issuec. Denied
hy ME.
2-13-74
7-1-7U
Closed - Consent decree -
$5,000 settlement - July '
7/28/75
N/A
CLOSED - Plant closed-
U.S. ATTY Closed File -
9/16/76
75.
Unreasonable delay in complying
w/permit conditions.
No Permit, Unauth. Disch., 19 disch,
from FEB - MAY '75 (also several
seasonal discharges over past years)
177
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 5 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
II
CIVIL
CAMDEN (MIJN)
NJ 0024491 C NJ 0026182
MAJOR
NJ, CAMDEN
DELAWAKE RIVER
II
CIVIL
CHARLES HAAG, INC.
NJ 0003930 MAJOF
NJ, SECAUCUS
PENHORN CREEK to
HACKENSACK FIVER
2/12/76
3/8/76
Closed - Consent order to
restore fi maintain waste
treatment facilities - No
Penalty - 6/28/76. Estimated
repair costs $2,500,000.
10-24-75
N/A
Closed - Pros, declined -
4/6/76
Poor Operation 6 Maintenance of
Waste Treatment Facilities 6 Equip-
ment, Violation of conditions of permits.
Failure to construct treatment
plant, self monitor, to report an
unauth. disch. C disch. from an
unreported outfall.
II
CIVIL
LINDEN CHLORINE PFCDUCTS, INC.
N/A
NJ, LINDEN
ARTHUR KILL
4-30-74
N/A
Closed - US ATTY declined
to file - OTuly '75.
Non-filer. Disch. w/o permit or
pending application on 10/30/72,
2/7/74, 6 3/22/74.
II
CRIMINAL
LINDEN CHLORINE PRODUCTS, INC.
N/A
NJ, LINDEN
ARTHUR KILL
1-30-7'* FY 74
3-24-75
Closed - $10,000 fine -
11/10/75.
Non-filer. Disch. w/o permit or
pending application on 10/30/72,
2/7/74 6 3/22/74.
II
CIVIL
NEPTUNE PACKING CORP.
PR 0000094 MAJOF
PR, MAYAGUEZ
MAYAGUEX BAY
3/16/76
5/26/76
CLOSED - consent
decree 6 $25,000
Penalty - 8/19/76
Failure to submit complete final
plans 6 specifications for treatment
facilities by 7/31/75 E failure to
commence construction by 1 1/30/75, no
report of noncompliance, exceeded
eff. limits.
II
CIVIL
NICK BROTHERS FUEI CORP.
N/A
NY, HUNTINGTON
HUNTINGTON HARBOR
9-20-74 FY 75
2-4-75
Closed - $3,500 penalty
12/29/75.
Placed backfill material in
bulkhead - no permit.
178
-------
Civil 6 Criminal .Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 S 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
II 2-14-75 Non-filer. Point sources not
CIVIL 6-5-75 covered in permit application.
TUCK INDUSTRIES, INC. Closed - 2-17-76
NY 008338 MINOR (See criminal case)
NY, BEACON
FISH KILL CREEK
II 2-13-75 FY 75 Disch. w/o permit. Point sources
CRIMINAL 6-5-75 not covered in permit application:
TUCK INDUSTRIES, INC. Closed - $43,500 fine -
NY 008338 MINOR 2/17/76.
NY, BEACON
FISH KILL
179
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
III
CIVIL
BORG-WARNEK CORP.
(Woodmar Plant)
WV 0000801 MAJOF
fcV, WASHINGTON
OHIO RIVER
12/31/75
N/A
CLOSED - Consent
decree 6 $10,000 Penalty -
9/8/76
Violation of Eff. limits, 65
violations of Total Suspended Solids.
Ill
CIVIL
EASTERN ASSOCIATEC COAL CORP.
kV OOOU537 NAJOF
WV, Grant Town
Paw Paw Creek
3/16/76
N/A
CLOSED -
Withdrawn at request of EPA -
6/29/76
Violation of effluent limits, failure
to eliminate unauth. disch., failure
to attain operational level.
Ill
CRIMINAL
HOPEWELL (Mun)
VA 0025011 MAJOR
VA, Hopewell
Bailey's Creek
12/2/75 FY 76 156 counts, willful, negligent, 6
May 76 unlawful failure to notify EPA of a
Closed - Pleaded "No Contest" significant and unreported discharge of
(GUILTY) - $10,000 Fine 6 industrial pollutant (KEPONE) to its WTP.
5 years probation. 6/28/76
III
CIVIL
WHITMOYER LABS, INC.
(Subsidiary of Rchm & Haas)
PA 0012785 MAJOF
PA, MYERSTOWN
TrjLPEHOCKEN CREEK
8-15-75 FY 76
10-9-75
Closed - Consent Decree -
6 $5,000 penalty - 12/75.
Violated effl.
Failed to file
Failed to file
limits.
5 day letters.
DMR.
180
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
{Section 309 6 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
IV
CIVIL
AMERICAN CYANAMID CO.
(Santa Rosa Plant)
FL 0002593 MAJOF
FL, MILTON
ESCAMBIA BAY
1-7-76 FY 76
3-3-76
Closed - $10,000 penalty 6
Consent Decree 3/16/76.
Violation of effl. limits.
Failure to attain effl. limits.
Disch. while not in compliance
w/permit.
IV
CIVIL
AMERICAN SYNTHETIC RUBEER
KY 0001589 MAJOF
KY, LOUISVILLE
OHIO RIVER
10-7-75
DEC 75
CLOSED - $7,500 Penalty
& Consent decree -
7/29/76
Violated eff. limits from
7/7U thru 5/75, allowed "bypass"
on 5 different dates.
IV
CIVIL
ANDREWS WIRE (A Div. of
Georgetown Steel Corp.)
SC 002691 MAJOR
SC, ANDREWS
LESTER CREEK
9/8/75 FY 76
1/15/76
CLOSED - $2,500 Penalty
£ Consent Decree -
5/27/76
Failure to tie in w/municipal
system by 1/31/75, failure to
submit report of noncompliance
disch. while not in compliance
w/permit.
IV
CRIMINAL
BLACK DIAMOND COAL MINING CO.
N/A
AL, WEST BLOCKTON
CAFFEE CREEK
3-19-74
N/A
Closed - Pros, declined -
5/U/76.
Disch. of approx. 4,000 tons
of coal tines or dust into
Caffee Creek.
181
-------
Civil & Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 & 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
IV
CIVIL
CAROLINA PAPER MIILS
NC 00063U3 MAJOR
NC, ROCKINGHAM
HITCHCOCK CREEK
4-10-75 FY 75
5-7-75
CLOSED - $6,500
PENALTY - tt-30-76
Disch. continued after
permit expiration. Failure to
submit info required to auth.
further discharge.
IV
CRIMINAL
CHAPMAN, ROBERT
N/A
KY, TOMPKINSVILLE
BELCHER CREEK
6/18/76
N/A
Withdrawn due to insufficient
evidence 7/19/76
Unlawful discharge (Non-filter) ,
IV
CIVIL
CHARLESTON OIL CO.
N/A
SC, CHARLESTON
An intertidal marsh of
ASHLEY RIVER
8-21-75
N/A
Closed - Prosecution
Declined r Voluntary Compliance
U-29-76
No permit. Disch. debris from truck.
IV
CIVIL
CHATTANOOGA COKE 6
CHEMICALS CO.
(Formerly Mead Corp.)
TN 0001635 MAJOR
TN, CHATTA NOOGA
Unnamed Trib. of
CHATTANOOGA CREEK
9-16-75 FY 76
9-26-75
Closed - Consent Decree -
6 $5,000 penalty - 11/75.
Not in compliance w/permit
(Exceeding eff1. limits).
IV
CIVIL
CUTTER LABORATORIES, INC.
TN 0001U81 MAJOR
TN, CHATTANOOGA
Tannery Branch to
CITICO CREEK
12/19/75 FY 76
1/12/76
CLOSED - $10,000 PENALTY -
CONSENT ORDER - 6/10/76
Disch. while not in compliance
w/permit, has not attained
operational level, has not
reported changes in discharge
relative to quantity of flow
and/or chemical' composition.
182
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
IV
CIVIL
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
NC 0000507 MAJOF
NC. EAST FLAT ROCK
BAT FORK CREEK
10-21-75
N/A
Closed - US ATTY declined
1/9/76 - State of NC took
action.
Exceeded effl. limits for pH
4/28/75, resulting in Major
fish kill.
IV
CIVIL
W.R. GRACE C CO.
Davison Chemical Co.
TN 0001678 MAJOR
TN, CHATTANOOGA
S. CHECKAMAUGA CREEK
8-28-75 FY 76
9-18-75
Closed - Consent Decree -
8 $4,000 penalty - 11/75.
Violation of effl. limits.
IV
CIVIL
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL
INDUSTRIES, INC.
(Formerly Jervis Corp.)
TN 0000779 MAJOB
TN, BOLIVAR
HATCHIE RIVER
8-19-75 Exceeded effl. limits. (Disch.
N/A 350 Ibs. of cyanide on 6/23/75,
Closed - Declined pros. - limit is 0.016 Ibs. per/day).
State of TN negotiated settle-
mei)t of $87,807.36 - 3/16/76.
IV
CIVIL
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO.
AL 0000647 MAJOB
AL, MOBILE
CHICKASAW CREEK
9/4/75 6 9/25/75
1/8/76
CLOSED - Consent Decree
$6,000 Penalty - 3/29/76
Unauth. disch. 4/21/75, 5/7/75, 6
5/8/75. Power failures causing over-
flows. 3 additional unauth. disch. on
20, 21 and 28 AUG 75.
IV
CIVIL
KOPPERS CO., INC.
SC 0003018 MAJOK
SC, FLORENCE
TWO MILE CREEK
4/6/76
N/A
CLOSED -• DECLINED TO
PROSECUTE AT REQUEST OF EPA -
COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED - 6/7/76
Did not submit preliminary
engineering report of final plans,
did not achieve effl. limits, disch.
while not in compliance w/permit.
IV
CIVIL
LOUISVILLE &
TN 0002999
TN, RADNOR
BROWNS CREEK
NASHVILLE RR CO.
MINOR
2/19/75 6 2/28/75 FY 75
3-7-75
Closed - Consent Decree -
6 $7,500 Civil penalty -
9/3/75.
Failed to furnish DMRs 6
schedule compliance report.
Did not submit final plans to
achieve effl. limits. Also, no
notice of compliance or noncom-
pliance.
183
-------
Civil S Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 & 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
IV
CRIMINAL
MECKLENBURG ABATTOIR 6
LOCKER PLANT, INC.
N/A
NC, CHARLOTTE
Unnamed Trib. to LONG CREEK
6-10-75
12-8-75
Closed - Motion to dismiss
granted - 1/76.
Disch. w/o permit.
IV
CRIMINAL
MILLER, ISAAC A.
N/A
KY, TOMPKINSVILLE
BELCHER CREEK
6/18/76
N/A
Withdrawn due tc insufficient
evidence. 7/19/76
Unlawful discharge (Non-filer).
IV
CIVIL
MINERAL RESEARCH 6
DEVELOPMENT CORE.
NC 0006351 MAJOB
NC, CONCORD
ROCKY RIVER
10/21/75
11/6/75
CLOSED - Consent Decree,
$5,000 Penalty - 8/19/76
Failed to meet interim eff. limits
by 6/14/75, failed to provide non-
compliance reports.
IV
CIVIL
MOUNT PLEASANT BOAT CO.
N/A
SC, MT PLEASANT
SHEM CREEK
5-30-75
Withdrawn
Closed - 12/75.
Unpermitteed disch. of dredged
material.
IV
CIVIL
PARA-CHEM SOUTHERN, INC.
SC 00012«<» MINOF
SC, SIMPSONVILLE
DURBIN CREEK
4-25-75 FY 75
5-6-75
Closed - 12/18/75 - Consent
Decree - 6 $3,000 penalty.
Effluent limits violated.
184
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
IV
CIVIL
STEEL MEDDLE MFG. CO.
SC 0002526 MAJOP
SC, GREENVILLE
MOUNTAIN CREEK
9-8-75 FY 76
10-3-75
Closed - $10,000 penalty
Consent Order - 3/11/76.
Exceeded effl. limits., failure
to submit noncompliance reports,
failing to monitor pH, G report same.
IV
CIVIL
UNION CARBIDE CO.
SC 0001U73 MAJOF
SC, FLORENCE
JEFFRIES CREEK
2-19-75 FY 75
3-1U-75
Closed - $2,000 fine -
ft/2/75.
Failed to meet effl. limit's 6
submit final plans for attainment
of same. Final plans not submitted
as of 2/19/75.
IV
CRIMINAL
WEBB COAL CO., INC.
Mine No. 5C
N/A
KY, LICK CREEK
SCHOOLHOUSE BRANCH
2-15-7ft FY 74
6-30-7U
Closed - $2,500 fine
($2,000 of the fine suspended
if no violations in next 2
years.) - 7/7U-
Non-filer. Disch. of polluted waste-
water w/o permit section 301 (a),
FWPCA.
IV
CIVIL
WHITECLIFF CORP.
TN 0001961 MAJOR
TN, NIOTA
LITTLE NORTH MOUSE CREEK
2/25/76 FY 76
3/8/76
CLOSED - consent decree 6
$12,000 Penalty - 6/29/76.
Failure to connect all waste-
water disch. to Niota Sewer System
by 3/31/75 & failure to provide
accurate info concerninq number of
disch. points.
IV
CIVIL
WINSTON-SALEM 6 STATE OF NC.
(municipal)
NC 002U198 MAJOF
NC, WINSTON-SALEM
MIDDLE FOKK CREEK to
SALEM CREEK
11/18/75
12/31/75
CLOSED - Consent Decree -
$1,000 Penalty - 9/7/76
Allowed approx. U1 cubic yds. of
sludge material to enter creek
resulting in fish kill.
185
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
IV
CIVIL
W. LANGSTON HOLLAND.
Robert D. Mr ay et. al
N/A
FL, ST. PETERSBURG
PAPK'S BAYOU
12-13-73
6-14-74
'CloSed - -injunction granted -
June '74.
Non-filer. Disch. w/o permit.
186
-------
Civil 6 criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976 ;. "
V
CIVIL
AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO.
MN 0001929 MAJOF
'MN, CROOKSTONE
KED LAKE RIVER
l»-26-7H FY 74
5-21-7U
Closed - 7/75 - $7,000 fine.
Disch. of 6,600 gals, of
condenser pond wastewater containing
high levels of BOD, SS G Coliform
bacteria.
v
CIVIL
ASHLAND CHEMICAL CO.
N/A
IL, CHICAGO
CHICAGO SANITARY SHIP CANAL
2/27/75
N/A
CLOSED - prosecution
declined - Aug 76
Spill - Clean up oprs. collected
est. 2UO gals, mixed chemicals
from sunken dry cargo barge.
V
CIVIL
ASHLAND OIL, INC.
N/A
IL, CHICAGO
CHICAGO SANITARY £ SHIP CANAL
5-30-75
N/A
Closed - Pros.
9/25/75.
declined -
Discharge of Toluene.
V
CIVIL
AMOCO CHEMICAL CO.
N/A
IL, JOLIET
ILLINOIS RIVER
2-13-75
N/A
Declined - 6/12/75.
Spill - Est. 25 gals, metaxylene -
ruptured cargo hose while unloading
tank barge.
V
CIVIL
BORDEN, INC.
SMITH-DOUGLAS DIV.
N/A
Ml, GREENVILLE
FLAT RIVER
12-3-75
N/A
Closed - Pros.
2/2/76
On 3/7/75, an est. 11,800 gals.
(59 tons) of 28% nitrogen solution
declined escaped trom holding tank. Pipe
Plug failure.
V
CTVIf,
BORG WAKNER CHEMICALS
IL-- 0003883 MINOF
IL, OTTOWA
ILLINC'IS- RIVER ' "'
2-5-75
N/A
Closed - Pros, declined -
10/20/75.
Spill - Est. 900 gals, sulfole oil
coupling on connecting hose came
loose 6 spilled undetermined amt.
187
-------
Civil S Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
V
CIVIL
BRANDENBURG OILS SERVICES CO.
N/A
MI, OAKLAND COUNTY
Trib. to PICKEREL LAKE
5-19-75
N/A
Closed - Pros.
1/9/76.
declined -
Disch. of crankcase oil fi other
pollutants w/o permits.
v
CIVIL
CENTERVILLE NPK FERTILIZER
N/A
IN, CENTERVILLE
CENTER RUN
6-18-75
N/A
Closed - Pros, declined -
Deferred to State of IN
7/28/75. .
Fertilizer spill.
v
CIVIL
CLARK EQUIPMENT CC.
N/A
1L, AURORA
INDIAN CREEK
1-6-76
2-19-76
Closed - Dismissed 3/16/76.
Unauth. disch. - Naphthalene
V
CIVIL
COASTAL TANK LINES
N/A
IN, EVANSVILLE
PIGEON CREEK
1-29-76
Not Filed
Deferred to State of IN -
2/11/76.
Unauth.- disch.'- Anhydrous Amonia
V
CIVIL
STEAMER COLUMBIA
N/A
N/A
DETROIT RIVER
8-6-75
N/A
Closed - Pros.
5/1/76.
Unauth. dumping of garbage.
6/13/75.
declined -
V
CIVIL
DEMERT 6 DOUGHERTY
N/A
IL, CHICAGO
CHICAGO SANITARY 6 SHIP CANAL
2-21-75
N/A
Closed - Pros.
9/25/75.
Spill - approx. 30 - 50 gals.
Ethyle - acetate - gasket blown
declined - from shore pump during priming
operation.
188
-------
Civil S Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 £ 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
V
CIVIL
DEMERT 6 DOUGHERTY
N/A
IL, STICKNEY
CHICAGO SANITARY 6 SHIP CANAL
2-2U-75
N/A
Closed - Pros.
9/25/75.
declined -
Spill - approx. 500 - 1,000 gals.
Isopropanol 6 Methanol overflow
during transfer operation.
v
CIVIL
DETREX CHEMICAL IUD., INC.
OH 0000752 MAJOF
OH, ASHTABULA
LAKE ERIE
11-14-70 FY 75
12-3-74
Closed - Consent Decree -
$55,000 settlement - 9/75.
Effluent limits violated.
V
CIVIL
E.I. DU PONT de NEWOURS 6
OH 0000990 MAJOK
OH, CLEVELAND
CUYAHOGA RIVER
CO.
7-29-75
N/A
Closed -.Pros.
9/18/75.
Sulfur spill - 2/1/75, approx.
50 tons of molton sulfur reached
declined -
v
CIVIL
E.I. DU PONT de NEMOURS, INC.
OH 000253V MINOF
OH, TOLEDO
HOMF.VILLE Ditch
8-5-75
N/A
Closed - Pros, declined -
8/26/75.
Styrene spill, 50 gals. 4/30/75,
ruptured gasket on transfer line.
V
CIVIL
EMGE PACKING CO.
IN 0001686 MINOF
IN. FT. BRANCH
W. FORK PIGEON CREEK
5/7/7H 6 1 1/20/7V FY 75
3-2U-75
Closed - 7/75. $1,750 fine.
Blood spill.
V
CIVIL
INLAND STEEL
IN 000009i* MAJOR
IN, E. CHICAGO
LAKE MICHIGAN
4/10/75
N/A
CLOSED - Prosecution
Declined at request of EPA -
Aug 76
Disch. containing metals in violation
of 301(a) .
-------
Civil S Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 £ 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
V • -
CRIMINAL
TNMONT 'COR'?.
N/A
MI, GRAND RAPIDS
PLASTEK CHEEK
6-25-7U
N/A •:"••:
Closed - US ATTY declined
pros. - 6/75.
Spill - 11.000 gals, of Naptha.
V
CIVIL
•INTERLAKE, INC.
OH 0002976 MAJOP
OH, TOLEDO
MAUMEE RIVER
1-8-75
H-11-75
Closed - Motion to vacate
summary judgment for defendant''
was denied - U/1/76.
"Coke Breeze" di'sch. in violation
of 301 (a).
V '
CIVIL
JOLIET MARINE SUPELY
6' REPAIR SERVICES, INC.
N/A
IL, JOLIET
DES PLAINES RIVER
2-27-75
N/A
Closed - Pros.
10/20/75...
declined -
Spill - est. 60 qals. coal 6 water
pumped into river during cleanup
operations.
V
'CIVIL' '
'•KNOX HI RONS
N/A
IL, WALTONVILLE
Unnamed trib. to EIG KUDDY
RVER to REND LAKE
5-6-7U
N/A
Closed - Permanent injunction -
granted 6/21/74.
Animal carcasses
V
CRIMINAL
LIBBEY-OWENS FORD
N/A
OH, TOLEDO
'OTTER CREEK
9-12-73
N/A
Closed - Pros, declined -
resubmitted as civil action
10-21-7U.
Spill - Disch. w/o permit.
v -• • • . •• • •••
CIV-IL- ' •
LIBBEY-OWENS FORD
N/A
OH, TOLEDO
OTTER CREEK
10/21/7« 6 2/6/75 FY 75
3-21-75
Closed - $1,000 fine 8/5/75.
Spill - Sodium Chromate solution
unnamed amount.
190
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 & 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
V
CIVIL
MIDLINE ENTERPRISES
CHOTIN TRANSPORTATION
N/A
IL
DBS PLAINES RIVER
2-25-75
N/A
Declined - 6/12/75.
Spill - est. 200 gals. Orthoxylene
leaked from tanX barge.
V
CIVIL
MIDLAND ENTERPRISES, INC.
N/A
IL. LEMONT
CHICAGO SANITARY 6 SHIP.CANAL
2-5-75
N/A
Closed - Pros.
6-12-75.
declined -
Spill - est. 1,000 gals. Toluene
Spill - leak in barge.
V
CIVIL
POST BULLETIN CO
N/A
MN, ROCHESTER-
BEAVER CREEK
1/1/75
2/23/75
CLOSED - $750 Penalty -
8/2/76
Unauth. disch. - Degreaser 'Agent
V
CIVIL
SOBIN CHEMICALS, INC.
OH 0000752 MAJOF
OH, ASHTABULA
LAKE EKIE
11-1U-7U FY 75
12-3-7U
Closed - $25,000 penalty 6
Consent Decree - 10/3/75.
Effluent limits violated.
v
CIVIL
STEELCO CHEMICAL CCHP..
II. 002293H MINOS
IL, LEMONT
CHICAGO SANITARY 6 SHIP CANAL
U-21-75
N/A
Closed - Pros.
12/18/75.
declined -
Hydrochloric acid diseh. in
violation of 301 (a)..
V
CIVIL
SOCREST CORP.
IL 0002780 MINOF
IL, CHICAGO
OGDEN SLIP
2-13-75
N/A
Closed - Pros.
10/20/75.
declined -•
Spill - est. 100.- 300'gals.liquid
sugar spill inadvertently disch.
191
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
V
CRIMINAL
E.C. SWEEP f, SON (Schilling
Fish Co.)
N/A
WI, OCONTO
PENSAOKEE HIVKR
9-30-7U
N/A
Closed - No true
returned 8/15/75.
Bored hole 30' dia. into holding
pond of fish waste to allow entrance
of barge. Waste escaped.
V
CRIMINAL
TRI COUNTY LOGGING CO.
N/A
MI
EEAK CREEK
12-7-73 FY 7i»
N/A
Closed - 3-3-75 -
$2,500 fine.
Disch. w/o permit.
v
CIVIL
UNION CARBIDE CORF.
N/A
IN, EAoT CHICAGO
LAKE MICHIGAN
1-3-75
N/A
Closed - PROS.
2/12/75
CECLINED -
Spill - Malfunctioning pump disch.
chemical (lime sludge) unk. volume.
V
CIVIL
UNION MECHLING COFF.
N/A
IL
CHICAGO SANITARY 6 SHIP CANAL'
2-19-75
N/A
Declined 6/12/75.
Spill - Est. 10 gals, methanol leaked
from packing glands on priming pump.
V
CIVIL
WEKLIN, INC.
N/A
OH, CINCINNATI
OHIO RIVER
12-19-74
N/A
Closed - US ATTY declined
pros. 3/75.
Spill - approx. 200 gals, wood
molasses overflowed tank truck.
V
CIVIL
YATES MFG. CO.
N/A
IL. CHICAGO
N/A
10-31-75
11-19-75
Closed - Settle 6 Dismissed
3/15/76.
Failure to provide response to
308 Inquiry.
192
-------
Civil & Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
VI
CIVIL
BATON ROUGE 6 STATE OF LA.
(Mun)
LA 0036U21 MAJOF
LA, BATON ROUGE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
11/28/75
N/A
CLOSED - voluntarily dismissed
with concurrence of EPA -
Compliance achieved - Aug 76
Failure to comply w/compliance
schedule.
VI
CIVIL
BOISE SOUTHERN CO.
(Calcasieu Paper Co.
LA 0003379 MAJOF
LA, ELIZABETH
MILL CREEK
11/21/75
12/U/75
CLOSED - Consent
Judgement 6 $8,000 Penalty
1/27/76
Unauth. "bypass" due to equipment
malfunction which was uncorrected
over a period of months.
VI
CIVIL
DOW CHEMICAL CO.
LA 0003301 MAJOF
LA, PLAQUEMINE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
12/29/75
N/A
CLOSED - Consent decree
6 $8,000 Penalty - U/26/76
Disch. 1,100,000 Ibs. of waste
sodium hydroxide on or about 6/27/75.
disch. not covered by permit.
VI
CIVIL
GAP CORPORATION
N/A
TX, TEXAS CITY
SUB SURFACE WELLS
9-6-7U
N/A
Closed - Motion to dismiss
granted 2/5/75.
Non-filer.
193
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
VII
CIVIL
ALBION (Mun)
IA 003U321 MINOR
IA, ALBION
CHICKEN CREEK
1-27-76 Failure to submit report of compliance
N/A w/final effl. limits, no report of
Closed - Pros, declined - progress, failure to comply w/A.O.
Voluntary compliance achieved -
5/4/76.
VII
CIVIL
ALEXANDRIA (Mun)
NE 0029238 MINOR
NE, ALEXANDRIA
LITTLE BLUE RIVER
8-22-75
N/A
Closed - Pros, declined
Deferred to State of NE
5/4/76.
Failure to submit DMRs G Report of
analysis of actual sampling. Also
failed to comply w/A.O.
VII
CRIMINAL
AMERICAN BEEF PACKERS, INC.
N/A
NF, MINATARE
Moffat Drainq to KINE MILE
CREEK to N. PLA1TE PIVER
2-6-7U
4-26-74
Closed - Verdict - not quilty.
6/75.
Non-filer. Disch. w/o permit.
VII
CIVIL
AMERICAN OIL CO.
MO 0004774 MAJOF
MO, SUGAR CREEK
SUGAR CREEK
2-12-75
N/A
Closed - Withdrawn 1/6/76.
VII1s largest disch. 6.47 mill. gals.
day «• 2 disch. DMRs revealed effl.
violation, schedule of compliance,
etc.. Permit issued by Missouri
Clean water Comm., 3/29/73. Missouri
received approved NPDES program
10/30/74. Permittee 6 State notified
of violation. State did not take appro-
priate action.
VII
CRIMINAL
CENTRAL NEB. PACKING CO.
N/A
NE
N. PLATTE RIVER
10-12-73
N/A
US ATTY declined pros.
6/20/74.
Non-filer.
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
VII
CRIMINAL
CONTINENTAL CHEESE, INC.
N/A
HE
CROOKED CREEK
10-9-73
N/A
US ATTY declined pros.
6/20/7U.
Non-filer.
VII
CRIMINAL
ELMER DUERFELDT CC.
N/A
NE
HALF BREED CREEK
6-30-73
N/A
US ATTY declined pros.
6/20/74.
Non-filer.
VII
CIVIL
ESSEX (Mun)
IA 0026603 MINOF
IA, ESSEX
EAST NISHNABOTNA FIVER
1-28-76
N/A
Closed - Pros, declined
Voluntary compliance
achieved 5/4/76.
Violation of A.O., did not achieve
final effl. limits, no report of
progress for achieving compliance.
VII
CIVIL
A.P. GREEN REFRACTORIES CO.
N/A
MO, MEXICO
SALT RIVER
6-17-75
N/A
Declined - 6/24/75.
Unlawful disch. of pollutants
over limitations.
VII
CRIMINAL
BARKER PAINT 6 VAFNISH CO.
N/A
MO, SPRINGFIELD
S. JORDAN CREEK
(Trib. to James River)
4-9-74
N/A
Closed - US ATTY declined
pros. 8/30/74.
Spill - Non-filer.
VII
CIVIL
HERRICK'S FERTILIZER 6
SUPPLY CO.
N/A
MO, TARKIO
TARKIO RIVER
8-29-75
N/A
Closed - US ATTY declined
12/3/75.
No permit. Unauth. disch. of
Anhydrous Amonia - 7/29/75. resulting
in fish kill.
195
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
VII
CIVIL
JANESVILLE (Mun)
IA 0026506 MINOR
IA, JANESVILI.F,
CEDAR RIVER
1-26-76 No notice oi compliance or noncom-
N/A pliance w/contract award requirement.
Closed - Pros, declined - did not meet compliance schedule.
Voluntary compliance achieved violation of A.O.
5/4/76.
VII
CIVIL
LUDHIGSON CATTLE COMPANY
N/A
IA, HOLSTEIN
Drainage Ditch to
ASTON CREEK
12/17/7U
N/A
CLOSED - Consent decree
6 $5,000 Penalty - 7/21/76
Non-tiler. No permit. Runoff
from cattle property 5,000 gals.
in light rainfall.
VII
CRIMINAL
MAHASKA BOTTLING CC.
N/A
IA, OSKALOOSA
Trib. LITTLE
MOCHAKINOCK CREEK
10-14-74 FY 75
N/A
Closed - $600 fine 7/2/75
Non-filor. Untreated process wastewater.
VII
CRIMINAL
MAPES INDUSTRIES
MO
SALT CREEK
4-26-73 Non-filer.
N/A
Closed - US ATTY declined pros.
7/73.
VII
CIVIL
MASSENA (Mun)
IA 0048348 MINOF.
IA, MASSENA
WEST NODAWAY KIVEF
1-27-76 Did not submit DMR by 7/28/75, no
N/A report of disinfection facilities
Closed - pros, declined - plans, no notice of noncompliance.
Voluntary compliance achieved failure to comply w/A.O.
5/4/76.
VII
CIVIL
MIDDLETOWN (Mun)
IA 0025381 MINOF
IA, MIDDLETOWN
FLINT CREEK
1-28-76
N/A
Closed - pros, declined -
Voluntary compliance achieved
5/4/76.
Did not submit preliminary engineering
report, no notice of compliance or
noncompliance, failure to comply w/A.O.
196
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
VII
CIVIL
NEHAWKA (Mun)
NE 0025399 MINOF
NE, NEHAWKA
WEEPING WATER CREEK
8-22-75 Failure to submit report of progress
N/A for disinfection facilities. Also
Closed - Pros, declined - failed to comply w/A.O.
Deferred to State of NE 5/1/76.
VII
CIVIL
NORTH ENGLISH (Mun)
IA 0034282 MINOF
IA, NORTH ENGLISH
ENGLISH RIVER
1-27-76
N/A
Closed - Declined
to Prosecute 3-25-76
Did not submit Disch. Monitoring
Report by 4/28/75, no notice of
compliance or noncompliance, no
report of progress, failure to
comply w/Notice of Violation.
VII
CIVIL
RAMSEY CORP.
MO 0000434 MINOF
MO, SULLIVAN
WENZEL CREEK
3-17-75
5-2-75
Closed - declined pros. 5/2/75.
Effl. limits violated.
VII
CIVIL
ROGER RUST
IA 0038164 MINOR
IA, SHEFFIELD
Navigable USA
1-26-76
N/A
Closed - Pros, declined -
4/6/76 - deferred to State of
Did not achieve operation level
by 10/11/75 as required by permit.
IA
VII
CRIMINAL
RUNNYMEADE ESTATES INC.
N/A
MO
BELLEAU CREEK
4-26-73
N/A
Closed - Pros.
Discharge of pollutants.
declined - 2/2/74.
VIT
CIVIL
SOUTHWEST BY-PRODUCTS, INC.
N/A
MO, SPRINGFIELD
JAMES RIVER via JORDAN RIVER
1-2-75
N/A
Declined 7/75
Spill - approx. 5,000 Ibs. animal
fat from bulk storage plant.
-------
Civil G Criminal Enforcement. Actions
(Section 30y 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
VII
CIVIL
SPRINGVILLE (Mun)
IA 0046663 MINOF
1A, SPRINGVILLE
Naviqable USA
1-23-76
N/A
Closed - Pros, declined at
request of EPA - U/6/76.
Failure to meet compliance schedule,
regarding submission of preliminary
engineering report for construction
VII
CIVIL
STANDARD OIL CO.
(Chem. 6 Fert. Bulk Plant)
N/A
IA, CENTER POINT
APPLE CREEK
9-30-75
N/A
Closed - US ATTY declined
pros. 7/28/76.
No permit, spill of liquid fertilizer
& rain water mixture, resulted in fish
kill, 7/7/75.
VII
CIVIL
UNION PACIFIC RR CO.
NE 0000515 MINOF
NE, OMAHA
MISSOURI RIVER
7-22-75
N/A
Closed - US ATTY declined -
8/28/75.
Violation of effl. limits.
193
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
VIII
CIVIL
AMAX, INC. formerly AMERICAN
METAL CLIMAX, INC.
CO 00002<»8 MAJOF
CO, CLIMAX
EAST FORK OF EAGLE RIVER
1/19/76 FY 76
7/21/76
CLOSED - Consent decree 6
$3,000 Penalty - 7/26/76.
Disch. untreated process tailings,
disch. point not covered by permit,
violation of effl. limits 7/31/75 6
8/2/75.
VIII
CIVIL
ANACONDA COMPANY
MT 0000191 MAJOR
MT, BUTTE
Clearwater Ditch to
SILVER BOW CREEF
7/21/75 FY 76
11/7/75
CLOSED -Stipulation, 6
$15,000 Penalty - 5/3/76.
Disch. not auth. by permit. 3 cases
of "bypass" on 1/14/75, 5/28/75 6
6/3/75.
VIII
CIVIL
GREAT WESTERN SUGAR CO.
CO 0001007 MAJOR
CO, EATON HILL
CACHE la PONDRE FIVER
11-28-73 FY 74
N/A
Closed - negotiated settlement
of 13,500 - 5/75.
Violation of bypass condition in permit.
VIII
CIVIL
HOLLY SUGAR CGMPAKY
MT 00002U8 MAJOP
MT, SIDNEY
Ditch to YELLOWSTONE RIVER
3-7-75 FY 75
3-28-75
Closed - St.ip. 6 $47,500
penalty - 12/75.
Effluent limits violated.
VIII
CIVIL
HUSKY OIL
WY 0000442 MAJOF
WY, CHEYENNE
CROW CREEK
(Trib.to S. Platte Ri.)
3-6-74
N/A
US ATTY declined pros. 5/75.
Violation of effluent limits.
VIII
CIVIL
HUSKY OIL
WY 0000451 MAJOF
WY, CODY
SHOSHONE RIVER
11-13-74 FY 75
1-20-75
Closed - Order, judgment.
6 $2,500 penalty - 12/75.
Effl. limits violated.
-------
Civil & Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
VIII
CIVIL
KAISER CEMENT 6 GYFSUK CORP.
MT OOOOK51 MINOF
MT, MONTANA CITY
Unnamed draw to PFICKLEY
PEAR CPEEK
12-1 1-7U
N/A
US ATTY declined - 1/16/75
Runoff of waste from dumpsite.
VIII
CIVIL
MINN-DAK FARMERS COOP.
N/A
ND, WAHPETON
Unnamed ditch, a trib. to
RED RIVER
5-20-75 FY 75
N/A
Closed - Consent agreement 6
$5,000 penalty - 1/76.
Disch. w/o permit.
VIII
CIVIL
NEW JERSEY ZINC CC.
CO 0000035 MAJOP
CO, OILMAN
Open ditch 6 storir drain
to EAGLE RIVER
8-16-74 FY 75
1-24-75
Closed - $4,500 fine to US/
$3,000 to State - 4/75.
Violated bypass prohibition.
VIII
CIVIL
PARK CITY VENTURES
DT 0022403 MINOF
UT, KEETLEY STATION
Drain Tunnel Creek, A Trih.
to PROVO RIVER
7/18/75 FY 76
2/6/76
CLOSED - stipulation &
$46,000 Penalty - 5/3/76.
Unauth. disch., 14 different
days in May of 75.
VIII
CIVIL
BOARD OF WATEF WOFKS
OF PUEBLO
CO 0000787 MAJOF
CO, PUEBLO
ARKANSAS RIVER
12/23/7U FY 75
12/29/75
CLOSED - Consent decree &
$2,000 Penalty - 12/29/75.
Effl. violations - Violation A.O.
requiring compliance.
209
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
VIII
CIVIL
RED RIVER VALLEY COOP.
N/A
ND, HILLSBORO
Unnamed ditch, 6 coulee to
GOOSE CREEK
5-20-75 FY 75
10-1U-75
Closed - Consent agreement £
$50,000 penalty, 10/75.
Disch. w/o permit.
VIII
CIVIL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO.
N/A
WY, LEEFE
TWIN CREEK to BEAF FIVER,
Trih. to Great Salt Lake
1-23-75 FY 75
6/16/75
Fined $5,500 (Paid)
Closed - 8/75.
Disch. w/o permit.
VIII
CIVIL
WESTERN DAIRYMEN'S COOP. &
WESTERN GENERAL CAIRIES, INC.
UT 0000469 MAJOF
UT, RICHMOND
POBINSON CREEK (Trib. to
CUB CREEK)
1-10-75 FY 75
5-1-75
Closed - Consent Decree 6
$15,000 penalty - 12/75.
Effluent limits violated.
201
-------
Civil G Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
IX
CIVIL
ALLIED CHEMICAL CCRP.
CA 0004979 MAJOF
CA, PITTSBURG
SUISON BAY
3-28-74 FY 74
7-8-74
Closed - Court settlement.
Consent decree 6 $500
Penalty - 6/25/75.
Spill - Unauth.
Disch. ot Chemical Pollutant
IX
CIVIL
ALLIED CHEMICAL CCRP.
(Bay Point)
CA 0004979 MAJOR
CA, PITTSBURG
SUISUN BAY
7/31/75 FY 75
1 1/21/75
CLOSED - Court settlement
Consent decree £
$25,000 Penalty - 4/27/76
Violated eff. limits contin-
uously from 1/1/75 to 4/30/75.
IX
CIVIL
GENERAL AMERICAN TRANS. CORP.
N/A
CA, OAKLAND
SAN FRANCISCO
3-28-74 FY 74
7-8-74
Closed - Court settlement
Consent decree - $500
Penalty - 4/8/75.
Spill - Unauth.
Disch. of chemical Pollutant
IX
CIVIL
H 6 H SHIP SERVICE CO.
N/A
CA, SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO
3-28-74
N/A
Closed - US ATTY declined
5/7/74.
Spill - Unauth.
Disch. of Chemical Pollutant
IX
CIVIL
IMPERIAL WEST CHEMICAL CORP.
N/A
CA, ANTIOCH
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
3-28-74
7/8/74
Closed - Court settlement
consent decree
(No Penalty) 6/26/75.
Spill - Unauth.
Disch. of Chemical Pollutant
IX
CIVIL
JONES HAMILTON CO.
N/A
CA, NEWAKK
PLUMMER CREEK
3-28-74
N/A
Closed - US ATTY declined
5/7/74.
Spill - Unauth.
Disch. of Chemical Pollutant
202
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
IX
CIVIL
Laupahoehoe Sugar Co.
HI 0000159 MAJOF
HI. HONOLULU
PACIFIC OCEAN
11/1U/75 FY 76
2-13-76
Closed - $25,000 penalty 6
consent Decree - 2/17/76.
Violation of final compliance dates,
disch. cane trash & bagasse in
violation of permit.
IX
CRIMINAL
PHELPS - DODGE
N/A
AZ, DOUGLAS
WHITEWATER DRAW
5-15-7U
12-13-7U
Closed - Dist. Ct. Judge
dismissed U/22/75.
Non-filer.
IX
CIVIL
VAN CAMP SEAFOOD CO.
AS 0000027 MAJOF
AS
PAGA PAGO HARBOR
5-8-7l» FY 71»
6-21-7U
Closed - court settlement -
Consent decree 6
$20,000 Penalty - 8/5/75
Failed to achieve final compliance with
best practicable treatment by 3/7U.
Failure to comply w/A.0.
IX
CIVIL
WILLARD SCHOENFELD, INC.
N/A
CA, REDWOOD CITY
REDWOOD CREEK
3-28-74
7-8-71*
Closed - Court settlement
Consent decree (No Penalty)
6/27/75.
Spill - Unauth.
Disch. of Chemical Pollutant
203
-------
Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
X
CIVIL
ALASKA LUM8EK £, PULP CO, Inc.
AK 0000531 MAJOF
AK, Sitka
Silver Bay
5/18/76
5/18/76
Closed - Consent Decree,
Penalty - 5/18/76
Failure to comply with implementation
Schedule.
NO
X
CIVIL
ALASKA PACIFIC SEAFOODS,
AK OOOOU3« KA.TOF
AK, KODIAK
KODIAK HARBOK
INC.
12-23-7<*
Not Filed.
Closed - US ATTY declined -
10/17/75.
Disch. untreated fish processing
wastewater.
X
CIVIL
EAGLE WATER £ SEW IK DI:>T.
(Mun)
ID 0022021 MINOF
ID, EAGLE
Lagoon to BOISE RIVER
9-22-75 FY 76
10-3-75
Closed - Consent Decree 6
$250 penalty - 2/76.
Noncompliance w/permit special
condition "Allowed bypass", 6/20/75.
X
CIVIL
EXXON CORP. 6
NABORS ALASKA DFILLING INC.
N/A
AK, FLAXMAN ISLANC
BEAUFORT SKA
9/29/75
9/1/76
CLOSED - consent Order,
1100,000 Penalty - 9/1/76
Non-filer, disch. w/o permit.
X
CIVIL
PAN-ALASKA FISHERIES,
AK 0000281 MAJOF
AK, KODIAK
ST. PAUL HARBOR
INC.
U-10-74
N/A
Closed - Negotiated settlement
7/74.
Failure to screen wastes.
X
CIVIL
SUNSHINE MINING CC.
ID 000060 MINOR
ID, KELLOGG
BIG CREEK
2/ii/76
N/A
CLOSED - U.S. Atty. declined
to prosecute - 3/17/76
Disch. not covered by permit,
unlawful disch. of pollutant.
204
-------
Civil & Criminal Enforcement Actions
(Section 309 6 301 Referrals tc U.S. Attorney)
As of 30 SEP 1976
X (»-10-7« Failure to screen wastes.
CIVIL Not Filed
WHITNEY-FIDALGO Closed - negotiated settlement
AK 0001309 MAJOF 7/74.
AK, KODIAK
KODIAK HARBOR
ST. PAUL HARBOk
X 12-23-7U Non-filer.
CIVIL Not Filed.
GARY WILSON Closed - US ATTY declined -
N/A 10/17/75.
AK, KODIAK
ST. PAUL HAKBOR
205
-------
Name of Discharger
Region
IV
IV
IV
IV
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
Lutex Chemical
Corp. , Inc.
Winfield Cotton
Mill
Crown Zellerbach
Corp.
Warrior Asphalt
Co. of AL
Chicago, Rock Island
Pacific RR
Koch Industries,
Inc.
Burlington Northern
Inc.
G s A Marketing
Co.
Hugh Dennis Oil S
Grease Co.
Location
Chattanooga,
TN
Winfield
AL
Doraville
GA
Doraville
GA
Manly
GA
Wichita
KS
Lincoln
NE
Omaha
NE
Springfield
MO
OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
Failure to Notify of
Receiving
Waters
S. Chickamauga
Creek
Luxapallila
Creek
Peach Tree
Creek
N. Fk. Peachtree
Creek
Rose Creek
Spring Creek
Salt Creek
Missouri River
Jordan Creek
LIABILITY - SECTION 311 (b) (5)
Discharge - Criminal Fine
Description of
Problem/Incident
Lutex Waste Discharge
5/24/76 Resultant Fish
Kill
Approx. 2,000 gals.
#2 fuel oil. 1/10 or
1/11/76 Equip. Failure
Est. 5,000 gals #2
fuel oil. 9/23/75
Equip. Failure
Approx 400 gals.
' Heavy heating oil
10/21/76 Equip. Failure
Oil discharge
from tile drain
Pipeline Leak
12/20/75
Approx. 1,000 gals.
Diesel fuel on
or about 3/24/76
Unk. quantity of oil
12/3/75
Approx. 500 gals.
Re-Refined oil
APPENDIX
Table 2
EPA Action:
Referral to
and Date -
US Atty 9/2/76
Pending
US Atty 4/30/76
Declined 5/17/76
US Atty 5/10/76
Pending
US Atty 3/11/76
Pending
US Atty 9/10/76
to be referred as
309 Civil Action
US Atty 8/23/76
Pending
US Atty 6/29/76
Pending
US Atty 1/15/76
Declined - 11/12/76
US Atty 1/26/76
Declined - first offense
C
Results or Status
CG 9/2/76
Pending
CG
Proposed SI 500
6/11/76
USCG 5/10/76
Pending
CG 3/11/76
Pending
CG 9/10/76
CG 8/23/76
Pending
Pending
CG 5/27/76
CG 1/15/76
Pending
CG 1/26/76
Pending
12/5/75 valve broke
4/1/76
-------
Appendix C
Table 3
OCEAN DUMPING ENFORCEMENT
RESPONDENT'S
NAME
REFERRAL
FROM
TYPE OF
VIOLATION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
DISPOSITION
International EPA
Wire Products Co.
Spentonbusg USCG
Transport
Service, Inc.
General Marine USCG
Transport Corp.
Whippany Paper- EPA
board Co., Inc.
REGION II
Failure to submit 7/23/76
reports of progress
concerning dumping
phase-out
Copy of permit not 7/22/76
on board towing
vessel.
•Failure to notify 7/22/76
Captain-of-the
Port 24 hours prior
to departure.
Failure to submit 9/14/76
timely permit
reapplication
$1,000 civil
penalty 9/20/76
$200 penalty
9/30/76
Pending
Pending
REGION IV
West Indies
Transport &
Oceanic
Operations
Corp.
USCG
Dumping of wood
without a permit.
1/30/76
Consent Decree
5/27/76 -
$1,000 civil
penalty
207
-------
Appendix C
Table 3
OCEAN DUMPING ENFORCEMENT
RESPONDENT'S
NAME
REFERRAL
FROM
TYPE OF
VIOLATION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
DISPOSITION
Modern Trans-
portation Co.
EPA
Chemical Re-
covery, EPL
Ind.
EPA
Schering Corp. EPA
Fritsche EPA
Dodge & Olcott
Inc.
Whippany Paper- EPA
board Co., Inc.
S.B. Thomas, Inc. EPA
REGION II
Higher concen- 3/5/75
tration of several
parameters than •
that reported in
the permit appli-
cation
Higher concen- 3/5/75
tration of several
parameters than
that reported in
the permit appli-
cation
Failure to submit 6/29/76
reports of progress
concerning dumping
phase-out
Failure to submit 7/14/76
reports of progress
concerning dumping
phase-out
Failure to submit 7/23/76
reports of progress
concerning dumping
phase-out
Failure to submit 8/19/76
reports of progress
concerning dumping
phase-out
Pending
Pending
Pending
Assessed
$500,
9/1/76
Pending
$500 - civil
penalty - 9/76
208
-------
APPENDIX D
COMPARISON OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS INCLUDED IN STATISTICAL TABULATIONS
PRESENTED IN EPA ENFORCEMENT REPORTS PUBLISHED THROUGH SEPTEMBER, 1976
ITEM
24 Months
First EPA Report*
Dec. '70 - Nov. '72
(No. of Actions)
AIR ENFORCEMENT:
StatTJjnarv Sources
SIP Notices of Violation V.
SKP Administrative Orders
SIP Consent Orders
SIP Referrals to U.S. Attorney
SIP Subtotal 4/_
NESHAP I/ Notices of Violation
NESHAP AcTministrative Order
NESHAP Referrals to U.S. Attorney
NESHAP Subtotal 4/_
NSPS \J_ Notices of Violation
NSPS Administrative Order
NSPS Referral
NSPS Subtotal
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT:
Civil Cases
Criminal
Recalls
SSURO 5/ incl. Seizures
Citations
Warning Notices
Import Detentions
Civil Penalty Warnings
159
23
24 Months
Second EPA Report**
Dec. '72 - Nov. '74
(No. of Actions)
270
92
34
3
399
19
7
26
Total Pesticides Enforcement 182
569
235
64
160
576
1206
198
7
3015
13 Months
Third EPA Report***
Dec. '74 - Dec. '75
(No. of Actions)
318
217
118
2
655
13
22
13
9 Months
Current Report
Jan. '76 - Sept. '76
INo. of Actions)
355
8
81
214
1001
189
57
1905
695
17
rals to U.S. Attorney
tal 4/
TntaT" Stationary Sources 28 21
rces 2/
Total Air Enforcement 28
425
15
440
35
703
774 2/_
1477
7
719
1833 3/_
2552
269
225
257
717
90
56
1614
WATER ENFORCEMENT:
309 Notices of Violation
309 Administrative Orders
309 Civil/Criminal
FWPCA, Sect.
FWPCA, Sect.
FWPCA, Sect.
Referrals 4
FWPCA, Sect. 311 Oil Spill Referrals
to U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Attorney 30
FWPCA, Sect. 311 Actions for
SPCC IL Violations
Miscellaneous Non-NPDES Violations 9/_
Pre-FWPCA Actions 8/ 508
Total FWPCA Actions 542
REFUSE ACT OF 1899 — Civil/Criminal
Referrals 435
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH,
AND SANCTUARIES ACT (Ocean Dumping
All Actions Enumerated
1,187
455
37
995
18
1,505
100
5068
101
829
123
1,146
1114
3,313
6702
91
653
83
743
866
2
2438
Act) -- All actions reported
Total Water Enforcement
977
8
1613
3
3320
9
2447
6613
* "THE FIRST TWO YEARS: A REVIEW OF EPA'S ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM". February 1973, EPA, Wash., D.C.
** "EPA ENFORCEMENT: TWO YEARS OF PROGRESS -- AIR, WATER, PESTICIDES". 1975, EPA, Wash., D.C.
*** "EPA ENFORCEMENT: A PROGRESS REPORT". December 1974 to December 1975, June 1976, EPA, Wash., D.C.
]_/ SIP=State Implementation Plans; NESHAP=National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants;
NSPS=New Source Performance Standards. 2/ Air Enforcement Actions discussed in narrative form in
text of these reports. 3/ Actions Enumerated include 12 Sect. 208 letters and 1 prosecution
referral (auto manufacturers); 5 prosection referrals (tampering); 1 prosection referral, 1200
vehicles modified, 75 vehicles exported (Imports); 536 compliant filings (fuels); 1 prosecution
referral, 2 Orders issued (TcP/IM). 4/Actions under SIP, NESHAP, NSPS are no longer reported by type
of Action by. Regional Offices. 5_/ SSURO=Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Orders. &/_ Pre-RWPCA Sect. 10(g) actions.
TJ SPCC=Spill Prevention Control~and Countermeasures plans. 8/ Includes Enforcement Conferences, 180-Day Notices.
9/ Represents Referrals to US Attorney for refusing to pay assessed SPCC Penalties
209
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977- V20-117/M2S
-------
EPA REGIONAL OFFICES
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
ADDRESS
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2202
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1009
New York, New York 10007
Curtis Building
6th and Walnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19106
345 South Dearborn Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
First International Building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
1735 Baltimore Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
100 California Street
San Francisco, California
94111
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
STATES
Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Vermont.
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands.
Delaware, District of
Columbia, Virginia, West
Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania.
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee.
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin.
Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
Iowa, Kansas Missouri,
Nebraska,
Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming.
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Guam,
Trust Territories of Pacific
Islands, Wake Islands
Alaska, Idaho,
Oregon, Washington
------- |