EPA   ENFORCEMENT
 A  PROGRESS REPORT DECEM,V"
DECEMBER 1975
   • AIR • NOISE*
   * PESTICIDES* WATER*
           1976

-------
                                 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 lim-
ited supply is  still on hand at EPA, and  single copies may be re-
quested  by writing to EPA  PUBLIC  INFORMATION  CENTER,  PM-215,
Washington,  D.C. 20460.


      The present document  covers  the period,  December 1974 through
December 1975,  and single  copies  may be  obtained by  writing to  the
EPA address immediately above. When the  initial supply is  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  below:
                       Region    Address          States
                       I	John F. Kennedy   Connecticut, Maine,
                              Federal Bldg.,     Massachusetts, New
                              Room 2303, Boston,  Hampshire, Rhode
                              Mass. 02203.       Island, Vermont.
                       H	26 Federal Plaza,    New Jersey, New
                              Room 908, New   York, Puerto Rico,
                              York, N.Y. 10007.   Virgin Islands.
                       Ill .  6th and Walnut,    Delaware, District of
                              Curtis Bldg., Phils-  Columbia, Mary-
                              delphia, Fa. 19106.   land, Pennsylvania,
                                           Virginia, West
                                           Virginia.
                       IV	 Suite 300,1421 Peach- Alabama, Florida,
                              tree St. NE.,      Oeorgla, Kentucky,
                              Atlanta, OA 30309.   Mississippi, North
                                           Carolina, South
                                           Carolina, Tennessee.
                       V	230 South 0«arbom Sirwt Illinois, Indiana,
                             Chicago, tllinoii 60604   Michigan, Minne-
                                           sota, Ohio,
                                           Wisconsin.
                       VI	 1600 Patterson St.,   Arkansas, Louisiana,
                              llth Floor, Dallas,   New Mexico, Okla-
                              TX 75201.       homa, Texas.
                       VII	 Room 249,       Iowa, Kansas, Mis-
                             1735 Baltimore Ave., souri, Nebraska.
                             Kansas City, Mo.
                             64108.
                       Vin.... Room 900, Lincoln  .Colorado, Montana,
                              Tower, 1860 Lincoln  North Dakota,
                              St., Denver, CO    South Dakota,
                              80203.          Utah, Wyoming.
                       IX	100 California St., San Arlwna, California,
                              Francisco, CA     Hawaii, Nevada,
                              Mill.          American Samoa,
                                           Guam, Trust Terri-
                                           tories of Pacific
                                           Islands, Wake
                                           Islands.
                       X	1200 6th Ave.,      Alaska, Idaho,
                              Seattle, WA 98101.   Oregon, Washington.

-------
EPA   ENFORCEMENT
                              DECEMBER 1974
 A  PROGRESS  REPORT
       AIR •NOISE •
       PESTICIDES4WATER*
    RUSSELL E.TRAIN
       ADMINISTRATOR     STANLEY W. LEGRO
                      ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
                       FOR ENFORCEMENT
     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
               1976

-------
                      FOREWORD


     The need to foster and maintain respect for our
natural environment on a truly lasting basis requires
the best efforts of all citizens and the mutual coopera-
tion of all levels of government.  This is a report of
enforcement activities carried out directly by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency during 1975 to
enforce Federal environmental statutes and regulations.
It is important to note that these Federal enforcement
activities represent only a portion of the environmental
enforcement activities in this country.  The task for
enforcing our Nation's environmental laws is shared with
State and local governments.  In many instances, the
primary environmental regulation is accomplished by them,
often with personnel and resources of the Office of Enforcement
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency playing
a major supporting role.  While those enforcement support
activities are generally not reflected in this report,
cooperation with and support of environmental enforcement
activities by State and local government remains a high
priority item in carrying out the overall task of improving
the quality of our Nation's environment.

     EPA is perhaps the most decentralized of the Federal
agencies and remains dedicated to achieving increasingly
effective local-State-Federal cooperation in partnership.
In discharging its enforcement responsibilities at the
Federal level, and in exercising leadership and helping to
set a tone for enforcement responsibilities at all levels
of government, the Office of Enforcement follows a fair yet
firm policy.

     There are increasing indications that air and water
quality is improving.  We are making substantial progress as
documented by this report.  However, we can by no means
become complacent or feel more than a brief sense of
satisfaction at our accomplishments to date, because major
tasks lie ahead before environmental quality has been
achieved .throughout our country.
Washington, D.C.                   Stanley ^ Legror
                                Assistant Administrator
June 1976                          for Enforcement

-------
              TABLE  OF  CONTENTS
                                                       Page
FOREWORD	     i

CHAPTER I — INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
              OF ACTIONS	     1

CHAPTER II-A — AIR POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT
                 STATIONARY SOURCES	     5

CHAPTER II-B — AIR POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT
                 MOBILE SOURCES	    23

CHAPTER III  — NOISE POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT	    31

CHAPTER IV   ~ PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT	    35

CHAPTER V    ~ WATER POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT	    56

CHAPTER VI   — N.P.D.E.S. PERMIT PROGRAM	    89

CHAPTER VII  — NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION
                 CENTER, DENVER,  COLORADO	    98


APPENDICES
  See separate Table of Contents following CHAPTER VII (begin.  P.101)

INSIDE BACK COVER:  ERRATUM IN PREVIOUS EPA ENFORCEMENT
                    REPORT, "EPA ENFORCEMENT — TWO YEARS
                    OF PROGRESS, DECEMBER 1972 - NOVEMBER 1974"
                    (1975)
                           11

-------
                            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 third in a series of volumes seeking to inform all inter-
ested 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 thirteen months,  ex-
tending from December 1, 1974 through December 31,  1975.  The two
previous volumes each covered a two-year span, beginning with December
2, 1970, the day on which EPA first came into existence.  By including
an extra month in this report, it is possible to put succeeding volumes
on a calendar year basis and, hopefully, make such an accounting each
year.

      Over the December 1974 - December 1975 period, EPA initiated a
total of 6,702 formal enforcement actions in the air, pesticides, and
water pollution program areas, bringing the total number of such actions
taken in EPA's five years of existence to nearly 13,000.  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 enforce-
ment 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.

      The 6,702 formal enforcement actions involve a total of 6,579
actual pollution sources or separate violations, the difference being
an indication of the extent to which successive enforcement actions were
pursued prior to obtaining compliance or cleanup action.  Pollution was
abated, or compliance was obtained or underway without resorting to for-
mal civil or criminal court proceedings or agency civil proceedings, in
2,398 actions, or 36 percent. For 2,360 actions, or 36 percent, adminis-
trative and formal court or agency proceedings were pending or results
were not reported byf the Regional Offices.

      In 1,821 cases, or 28 percent, institution of formal civil or
criminal court proceedings or agency civil proceedings was necessary,
with resulting penalties/fines of $1,382,608 being imposed to date.
This brings the total fines and penalties imposed in 2,472 EPA-initiated
actions reported as concluded in the first five years of EPA's existence
to $9,932,841\ not including the $1+ million assessed on May 4, 1976
against the Reserve Mining Company. (See Chapter V).  The total does in-
clude $194,331 in 154 cases initially reported in the previous volume for
which the Regional Offices provided information in the present reporting
period. (See Tabulation)

-------
                                      TOTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
                                         1956 to DECEMBER 1975
                                               (cumulative)
                                                                   12/70
                                                                    TO
                                                                   11/72
                                                                  (1,187
                                                                  ACTIONS)
                                                  12/72
                                                    TO
                                                  11/74
                                                (5,C6S
                                                ACTIONS)
                                                     12/74 ,
                                                      TO  ' 13,063
                                                     12/75 IV [
                                                     <6,702f, Nt
                                                     ACTIONS)
10,000
 5,000
 1,000
                                                                          1956 TO
                                                                          11/1970
                                                                           106 ACTIONS
1956    57    58
59   1960    61
                                       62    63
64
65
66    67    68    69   1970  71
                                                                                                                             
-------
                                  SUMJWRY OF DISPOSITION AND RESULTS
                          OF AIR, PESTICIDES, AND WATCH ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

                                         (As of December 1975)
A.  ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS  INITIATED BY EPA DECEMBER 1. 1974 THROUGH DECEMBER 31. 1975

         ITEM	      	AIR	   PESTICIDES       WATER        TOTAL
    Total Actions Initiated

    Number of Actual Pollution
    Sources, or Violations
    Involved: *
                                STATIONARY
                                SOURCES

                                    703
580
          MOBILE
          SOURCES

             774
             774
   1.905
                       1,905
3,320
                 3,320
                                                   6.702
              6.579
    RESULTS/STATUS:

      Pollution Abated or
      Compliance Obtained  or
      Underway via Adminis-
      trative Action                118 I/       336       1,542           402         2,398

      Formal Civil/Criminal
      Court or Agency Civil
      Proceedings Concluded:          I/         331         228 2/

        Fines/Penalties
        Resulting                     I/     $78,450    $362,818

      Administrative and Formal
      Court 'or Agency Proceedings
      Pending or Disposition  not
      Reported by the Regions      462 I/       107         135         1.656         2,360
                                     1,262 3/      1,821


                                  $941,340    $1,382.606
B.  UPDATE ON DISPOSITION  OF ACTIONS REPORTED PENDING IN PREVIOUS EPA REPORT
    Total Actions Reported  as
    Pending - November 30,  1974    159

    Number of Actions Concluded
    in Subsequent 13-months        Not
    Period:                       Rept'd

      Fines/Penalties
      Resulting
               3


          $2,450
                         247
                         151
$191,881
                                       892
                   Not
                Rept'd
              1.304



                154


           $194,331
      * 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.
     ** Derived from name lists cited  in the Appendix portion of this report.  •
      I/ EPA Regional Offices no longer report on status/results of individual actions; the 118
         actions cited are Consent Orders issued during the period.  2J 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.

-------
         Turning  from  the  "book-keeping"  aspect,  EPA's  various enforcement
  activities  -- pursued  in  cooperation  with  the States  and  local  enforce-
  ment  authorities --  are highlighted  below,  and  the  full  range  of  efforts
  is  addressed  in  detail  in the  chapters which  follow.
                               ENFORCEMENT MILESTONES AND HIGHLIGHTS

                                        FROM DECEMBER 1974


   AIR	WITH TIE STATES,  IDENTIFIED MORE THAN 21,000 MAJOR AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION SOURCES.
           BRINGING MORE THAN 18,300 MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCE EMITTERS WTO COMPLIANCE OR  PLACING
           THEM ON CLEANUP  SCHEDULES
       	COMPLIANCE WITH AIR POLLUTION  REGULATIONS BY STATIONARY SOURCES NOW ESTIMATED TO KEEP
           2fr» MILLION TONS OF ['ARTICULATE MATTER AND 7.6 MILLION TONS OF SULFUR OXIDES OUT OF THE
           AIR YEARLY.  TARGET REDUCTIONS UPON FULL SIP COMPLIANCE .WILL BE 97+ MILLION TONS AND 21
           MILLION TONS PER YEAR FOR THESE RESPECTIVE POLLUTANTS
       	SECURED FIRST CRIMINAL CONVICTION UNDER THE CLEAN A1K ACT  (U.S. VS. WABASH ALLOYS)
       	BET WITH SIGNIFICANT SUCCESS IN PLACING INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL MAKING FACILITIES ON
           ENFORCEABLE COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES (KAISL-R SWJX-tWiTANA.CA WORKS); US STEEL-ENSLEY, AL.
           WORKS AGREED TO  ENTER INTO CONSENT DECREES IN SETTLEMENT  OF PENDING CIVIL LITIGATION.
           ALSO NEGOTIATED  CONSENT ORDERS WITH SEVERAL OTHER MAJOR IRON AND STEEL FACILITIES (JONES
           6 LADGHLIN-PITTSBURGH, PA. WORKS; INLAND STEEL-INDIANA HARBOR WORKS; REPUBLIC  STEELrCHI-
           CAGO, IL. WORKS)
       	CONDUCTED 18,500  INSPECTIONS OF SERVICE STATIONS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH UNLEADED FUEL
           REGULATIONS
       	SECURED THE VOLUNTARY RECALL BY AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS OF 1,185,768 VEHICLES  TO CORRECT
           EMISSION-RELATED DEFECTS

 NOISE	DEVELOPED ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES FOR NEW PRODUCT EMISSION  STANDARDS FOR MEDIUM  AND HEAVY
           DUTY TRUCKS AND  PORTABLE AIR  COMPRESSORS
       	ESTABLISHED A STANDARD TEST FACILITY IN SUPPORT OF NEW PRODUCT NOISE ENFORCEMENT
       	 PROVIDED DIRECTION TO STATE AND LOCAL IN-USE NOISE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS THROUGH DEVELOP-
           MENT OF A MODEL  STATE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

PESTI	DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED PESTICIDE USE COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
CIDES   	PUBLISHED SERIES  OF PESTICIDE  ENFORCEMENT POLICY STATEMENTS AND ESTABLISHED PESTICIDE
           ENFORCEMENT MISUSE REVIEW COMMITTEE TO REVIEW CASES AND DEVELOP RELEVANT POLICY
       	IMPLEMENTED MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING WITH OTHER FEDERAL  AGENCIES TO IMPROVE EXCHANGE
           OF INFORMATION
       	INITIATED 1,900+  ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGAINST VIOLATORS; CONTINUED TO ASSIST THE STATES

WATER  	WITH THE STATES,  ACHIEVED IMPROVED COMPLIANCE OF MAJOR INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES WITH NPDES
           PERMIT SCHEDULES (82% AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1975)

       	INITIATED 3,300+  ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS; SECURED PENALTIES/FINES OF $941,340 IN 1,052 FOR-
           MAL ACTIONS CONCLUDED THUS FAR
       —- APPROVED STATE ADMINISTRATION  OF NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FOR  NINE ADDITIONAL STATES;
           27 STATES NOW ADMINISTER THEIR OWN NPDES PERMIT PROGRAMS
       	WORKED WITH CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO ACHIEVE EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO SAFE-
           GUARD OUR PRECIOUS WETLANDS AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES AGAINST POLLUTION FROM DREDGE
           AND FILL ACTIVITIES

-------
                       CHAPTER  II - A


            STATIONARY SOURCE AIR POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT
CLEAN AIR ACT (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.)
 SECTIONS 110. 111.  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 ex-
ceptions (e.g. sulfur oxide emission limitations for Ohio, Indiana,
and Illinois), all States now have fully enforceable emission limi-
tations at levels protective of health and welfare for stationary
installations which are the source of the large majority of parti-
culate and sulfur oxide emissions.

        The Act provides 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 six-
teen 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-devel-
oped, EPA-approved, emission limitations are shared by the States and
EPA.  The Clean Air Act recognizes that States have primary responsi-
bility 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 enforce-
ment efforts by supporting State agencies through control agency grants,
by providing specialized skill and expertise 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
                                 5

-------
                   STATIONARY SOURCE AIR POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT
                         DECEMBER 1974 •• DECEMBER 1975
                                 (BY CATEGORY)
      300  -
      200  -
      100  -
1
•





„






-












"™"*"1
344







O
UJ
i

V)
z
g
g
>
u.
O
CO
UJ
g
H-
o

^H




CONDUCTED
8,500 INVESTIGATU
INCLUDING
PLANT INSPECTION!
OPACITY OBSERVA1






















239


CO
oc
UJ
Q

O
UJ
K
OC
H
co
Z
o
^





EMISSION TESTS
COMPLIANCE REPOF






118

CO -9
QC ^ 
-------
now subject to the SIP emission limitations.  Nearly 22,000 of
these are major emitters, a category defined as facilities indi-
vidually capable of emitting more than 100 tons of pollutants 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 the major sources in
order to achieve the greatest possible emission reductions 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 December 1975. the States and
EPA had identified 21,670 major sources and had brought 18,327
(85 percent) of these into final compliance, or had placed them on
firm schedules leading to compliance in the very near future. At
year's end, 16,969 major emitters were in final compliance, and
1,358 were complying with cleanup schedules.  The compliance level
is expected to climb to about 90 percent by the end of Fiscal Year
1976.  (See tabulation).

         In the 13-months period, December 1974 through December
1975, EPA conducted some 8,500 investigations, including plant in-
spections, opacity observations, emission tests, and compliance re-
ports, and initiated more than 650 formal enforcement actions in-
volving approximately 550+actual sources or violations.  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 February 1976 study for EPA * shows that industry compli-
ance with local, State, and Federal air pollution control requirements
over the period 1970 through 1974 had kept more than 26 million tons
of particulate matter and 7.6 million tons of oxides of sulfur from
being emitted into the air we breathe.  These reductions in emissions
from stationary sources represent achievement of abouth three-quarters
of the reduction goal to be reached under full SIP compliance for
particulates, and about one-half of the goal for sulfur oxides.

         The Task Ahead
         The 2,464 major sources (11 percent) which still violate
emission standards or compliance schedules and the 879 major sources
whose operations must yet be inspected to determine their compliance
status, constituted the highest priority task outstanding at year's
end.  It is expected that 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 demon-
strated considerable reluctance to make the necessary commitments to
curb their emissions to the atmosphere. Thus, despite decided progress

       *"Particulate and Sulfur Oxide Reduction Achieved Nationwide for
         Selected Industrial Source Categories, 1970-1974, Feb. 1976
         EPA Report No.  EPA-340/1-76-001"

-------
                                STATIONARY SOURCE AIR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
                                         INITIATED BY EPA REGIONS
                                   DECEMBER 1, 1974 - DECEMBER 31, 1975
                61
EPA REGIONS
                         92
                                 70
                                         127
                                                  110
                                                          57
                                                                   64
                                                                           23
III
IV
                                                          VI
VII
VIII
                                                                                    44
IX
                                                                                            55
                                                                  CD

-------
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF MAJOR EMITTERS BY REGION
        DECEMBER 31, 1975
EPA
Region
I
II
III
IV
. V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
Total
point sources
Identified
1240
1791
2921
4718
3758
1755
1716
644
2348
779
21,670
Compliance status
sources complying
with standards
or schedules
946
1472
2436
4270
2827
1339
1589
561
2187
700
18,327
sources violating
standards
or schedules
244
214
430
391
708
181
60
78
104.
54
2,464
Sources of unknown
compliance status
50
105
55
57
223
235
67
5
57
25.
879

-------
in SIP enforcement, State and Federal tasks with respect to large-
source compliance are not yet completed.

         Most of the remaining major violators and most of the major
sources of unknown compliance status are located in Air Quality Con-
trol Regions (AQCR's) which are not expected to attain the primary
(health-related) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in a
timely way, making enforcement 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 deter-
mine the reasons for poor air quality in each of the non-attainment
areas of the country.  These analyses  are expected to be largely
completed by July 1976. and will specifically identify for each AQCR
those major and minor sources which are contributing to non-attain-
ment 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 equip-
ment; 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 compli-
ance.

         PROBLEM MAJOR SOURCE CATEGORIES REGULATED UNDER SECTION 110

         Several categories of major sources are still posing sub-
stantial problems across the Nation in not achieving compliance with
emission standards within the time limits prescribed by the Act.  Notable
among these sources are coal-fired power plants, integrated iron and
steel manufacturing 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 dif-
ficult air compliance problem because of the amount of control required
and the associated costs of the control techniques needing application.
For coal-fired 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


                                    10

-------
of sulfur dioxide emissions is a major difficulty; plants producing
sulfuric acid are commonly required to remove the sulfur dioxide from
stack gases.  These industries accounted for about one-third of the
total emissions of particulates and about two-thirds of the total
emissions of sulfur dioxide in 1974.  For this reason, compliance by
all of these sources is crucial to the attainment of the ambient
air quality standards in many AQCR's.

         Coal-Fired Power Plants

         Control of emissions from power plants is essential to the
attainment of the health-related air quality standards for sulfur oxides
in many areas of the Nation.  As a class, coal-fired steam electric plants
emit about 60 percent of the total SOX produced by all sources. During
the summer of 1973, it became increasingly apparent to EPA that progress
to meet applicable State SOX limitations by this sector of industry was
lagging severely.  New supplies of low-sulfur coal, the favored approach
to reducing sulfur oxide emissions, were becoming increasingly scarce,
and utilities were extremely reluctant to use flue gas desulfurization
equipment to remove SOX from the stack after burning high-sulfur coals.

         National public hearings were held in the fall of 1973 to de-
termine the validity of the utilities' contentions regarding optional
means of compliance.  After hearing testimony from a variety of expert
witnesses and other interested parties, the 1973 Hearing Panel concluded
that the basic technological problems associated with flue gas desulfuri-
zation (FGD) had been solved or were within the scope of current engi-
neering capability and, further, that FGD could be applied at reasonable
cost.  A special EPA enforcement program was then initiated for power
plants on the basis of these findings.

         At that time, it was estimated that approximately 50 percent
of some 394 coal-fired power plants in the Nation were violating appli-
cable SIP emission limitations.  Significant progress has been made in
improving compliance levels since these hearings.  Of the total 394
coal-fired power plants, 261 plants now comply with final emission lim-
itations or abatement schedules, up from an estimated 200 in the fall
of 1973.  Forty-seven of the 394 plants are located in Ohio, where no
SOX control plan is now in effect.  In November 1975, EPA proposed emis-
sion limitations for SOX applicable to Ohio power plants, and these
regulations are expected to be promulgated in final form in mid-1976.

         Another 29 plants are located in Indiana, where the State
Circuit Court recently vacated the SOX plan.  The State of Indiana is
currently appealing this decision, but it is possible that EPA may
yet have to promulgate a new SIP requirement to cover these plants.
An additional 26 of the 394 plants sre in Illinois where the SOX plan
was also vacated recently.  EPA and the State of Illinois are now
gathering data in support of a new SOX plan.

         The remaining 31 plants are known to be out of compliance,
and action is being taken where possible.  SIP revisions are underway
for 7 of these plants; standards for 6 plants are being challenged


                               11

-------
under Section 307 of the Clean Air Act; a legal stay of enforcement
is in effect for one plant pending outcome of litigation; ten plants
are part of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) system with which
EPA is currently negotiating for a consent agreement;  three plants
are subject to conversion -to-coal orders by the Federal Energy Adminis-
tration and will require compliance date extensions;  two plants have
received Notices of Violation; one source is in the process of negoti-
ating a consent agreement with EPA; and action is now being planned
respecting the final remaining source.  In all, the primary compli-
ance problems remaining with respect to power plants center on resolv-
ing the Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois situations.

         Another indicator of EPA's effectiveness in cleaning up SOX
emissions from power plants is the increased commitment to FGD systems
since the 1973 public hearings.  At that time, some 44 units were in-
stalled, under, construction, or planned nationwide.  By December 1975,
this figure had more than doubled to a total of 115 plants, of which
28 are operational, 18 under construction, and 69 in some stages of
planning.  These units total nearly 45,000 megawatts of generating
capacity — about one-half the estimated need to achieve 100 percent
compliance with SOX regulations by 1980.  The number of units now on
line has nearly tripled, from 10 to 28, and the bulk of the 115 units
will have started up before 1980.  Some are scheduled for startup be-
yond 1980, and others have unknown on line dates because their instal-
lation must await the startup of new plants.

         Primary Non-Ferrous Smelters

         Though small in number, the Nation's 25 non-ferrous smelters
account for about 10 percent of the total sulfur oxides emitted by
stationary sources.  Most of the Agency's problems in assuring com-
pliance by non-ferrous smelters have centered in the western United
States, where six State Implementation Plans for SOX, affecting 13
smelters, were disapproved in 1972 as inadequate to meet the NAAQS
unless the smelters were controlled.  Another smelter was affected
when EPA disapproved the entire Ohio SIP for S02 in April 1974.
Regulations have been promulgated for 4 of these smelters and pro-
posed for the remaining ten.  These regulations require application
of reasonably available retrofit control technology and, if necessary,
allow the interim use of Supplementary 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 program to hasten the development
of such technology.  One regulation recently promulgated by EPA was
upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but is under appeal to
the U.S. Supreme Court.  Two other challenges under Section 307 of the
Clean Air Act are still outstanding.

         All five smelters in the eastern United States are now in
compliance with applicable regulations or are on appropriate schedules.
In one case, EPA issued an Administrative Order to enfore the regu-
                                     12

-------
lations; in another case, EPA issued a Notice of Violation.
Generally, however, State control agencies are responding adequately
to the situation, and Federal action is not required.

           About one-half of the primary non-ferrous smelters are
located in AQCR's where statutory attainment dates have been extended
to July 1977.  No major obstacles are anticipated that might prevent
achievement of primary ambient standards in the vicinity of these
sources by the mid-1977 deadlines by using SCS; however, installation
of some constant control devices may not be completed before the attain-
ment date.  Those smelters subject to mid-1975 deadlines are, for the
most part, now nearing compliance.
           Iron and Steel Mills/Coke Plants
           The iron and steel industry presents one of the most difficult
compliance problems for State and Federal air pollution enforcement pro-
grams.  There are 246 steel and coke-making installations in the United
States, of which 218 produce iron and steel (and may or may not produce
coke), while the remainder produce solely coke for use in metallurgical
and other industries.  Nearly all of these installations are located in
areas where the health-related ambient air quality standards are not ex-
pected to be attained.

           Within steel facilities, a number of basic processes are
encountered, each presenting difficult technical problems from the
standpoint of pollution abatement.  The processes which are the largest
sources of air pollution in the industry are by-product coke batteries,
blast furnaces, sintering lines, open hearth furnaces, basic oxygen
furnaces, and electric arc furnaces.  There are nearly 1,200 of these
major emission-producing steel processes; they characterize the basic
means of producing iron and steel and are the subject of intensifying
State and EPA enforcement attention.

           As indicated in the tabulation (see separate page), the
steel industry lags far behind other stationary sources in complying
with SIP requirements.  Fully 50 percent, or 589 of the industry's
1,178  major polluting processes have yet to comply with SIP emission
limitations.

           To date, local, State and Federal enforcement programs have
placed 367 of the 589 steel processes in violation on schedules for
achieving final compliance.  As of December 31, 1975, EPA had initiated
79 enforcement actions, comprised of 43 Notices of Violation and 36
Enforcement Orders or prosecution referrals, at nearly 50 steel instal-
lations.  Reflecting the increased emphasis EPA has given to steel in-
dustry compliance, 46 of these actions were taken in 1975, compared to
25 such actions in 1974, and 8 in 1973.
                                13

-------
                               STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH  EMISSION LIMITATIONS
          MAJOR POLLUTING STEEL PROCESSES VS ALL MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCE  INSTALLATIONS
                                       '  FEBRUARY  1976
Major steel
processes
Coke batteries
Sinter lines
Blast furnaces
Open hearth furnaces
Basic oxygen furnaces
Electric arc furnaces
Totals
All major stationary,
source installations
Total
number
252
71
190
211
92
362
1,178
21,670
Status of com
In compliance
22
13
110
39
20
173
377 (32%)
18,327 (85%)
Dliance with SIP emission limits
In violation
209
45-
63
107
54
111
589 (50%)
2,464 (11%)
Unknown status
21
13
17
65
18
78
212 (18%)
879 (4%)
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 1s 1n violation or of unknown status, must be
.  classified as in violation or unknown as a whole).

-------
        While the reasons for continued violations by any of  the major
polluting steel processes are complex and related to unique conditions
at each facility, the steel industry has regularly raised a number of
issues to argue for more time or for relaxation of air pollution control
requirements.  A summary of these issues and of EPA's position is out-
lined here:

            1. Impact of Fugitive Process Emissions — Fugitive process
emissions are pollutants formed during industrial processes which es-
cape to the air without having been ducted to a smoke stack. Character-
istically, fugitive process emissions are emitted from parts of the
steel making operations that are difficult to seal or enclose.  The
heart of the steel industry's complaints about abating air pollution
is its contention that fugitive process emissions are either harmless
or inconsequential.  Over the past year, however, EPA and State efforts
have documented that fugitive particulate emissions are large in terms
of mass, and that fugitive particulate emissions have a large impact on
ambient air quality.

            2. Conflicts with proposed OSHA Requirements — In June 1975,
the Coke Oven Standards Advisory Committee (composed of representatives
of the steel companies and unions) within the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) made a number of recommendations to the U.S.
Department of Labor regarding new occupational safety standards for coke
oven workers.  One of these, Resolution #7, called for a complete ban on
the construction of coke oven sheds (one method of collecting a portion
of coke oven fugitive emissions by enclosing part of the battery with a
shed-like structure).  EPA testified to the Committee that the NIOSH
(National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) test data used to
support Resolution #7 were improperly construed — that the data in fact
showed that the addition of a coke oven shed caused no statistically sig-
nificant increase in worker exposure to air pollutants.  Data  from EPA
tests of coke oven sheds also support this position.  After reviewing the
record of the Committee, the Department of Labor agreed with EPA's posi-
tion and proposed regulations on July 31, 1975, stating that "...it is
OSHA's opinion that the application of well designed emission control
technology will not necessarily preclude the attainment of the level of
worker health protection provided by this proposal...."  \J

            3. Economic Problems — In general, the steel industry has
made a variety of arguments to the end that the costs of controlling air
pollution (especially fugitive emissions) far.exceed any benefits.  Nearly
all steel mills in the U.S. were established prior to World War II, and
many continue to operate older equipment.  Much of the problem in air pol-
lution control at existing steel installations therefore centers on con-
trolling fugitive air pollutants from equipment, such as coke ovens, which
was designed prior to the emergence of a nationwide concern for air quality.

   I/ FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 40, p.32273, July 31, 1975
                                  15

-------
AIR-POLLUTING EMISSIONS FROM OPEN HEARTH STEELMAKING FURNACES —
(Overflight in April 1975;  Photo courtesy of NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT
INVESTIGATIONS CENTER (NEIC),  REMOTE SENSING OPERATIONS,  Office  of
Enforcement,  USEPA
                                   16

-------
        The industry's complaints about costs of air pollution abatement
were summarized in a report prepared for the American Iron and Steel In-
stitute, 2/ which concluded that about twice as much money would be needed
to comply with clean air requirements as had been previously estimated.
EPA has reviewed its cost studies and has concluded that the industry's
cost figures are much too high.  The complexity of the industry makes
accuracy in estimation very difficult; nevertheless, a comparison of EPA
and industry abatement cost estimates through 1983 is presented below:

     COSTS FOR ABATING:             EPA         INDUSTRY
                                (In Billions of Dollars)
Stack emissions
Fugitive emissions
Total
2.66
1.61
4.27
3.18
3.70
6.88
  2/  "STEEL AND THE ENVIRONMENT: A COST IMPACT ANALYSIS", May 1975
      Report prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc. for the American Iron
      and Steel Institute
        4. Energy Issues — The steel industry contends that the large
amounts of energy needed to abate air pollution conflict with national
energy policy. The American Iron and Steel Institute has argued this
issue in eight case studies prepared for the Federal Energy Adminis-
tration and in the study it commissioned Arthur D. Little, Inc. to
conduct.  For each case, EPA has shown that the industry's estimates
of energy needs for air pollution abatement are greatly exaggerated
because they are based on application of the most energy-intensive
control techniques and do not consider the recycling of energy now
wasted in heat and combustible gases.
                                   17

-------
     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 electric power plants,  municipal incinerators, nitric
and sulfuric acid plants, and asphalt  cement plants.

     By the end of 1975, the NSPS program had grown to cover new
sources in 24 industrial categories.  As of December 1975, some 300
new sources had received regulatory coverage, and a national compli-
ance level of about 90 percent,had been achieved.

     In accomplishing this objective,   EPA conducted more than 100
field inspections in 1975, and initiated 36 enforcement actions.

     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.

     In view of this, as well as in view of the expected growth in the
associated workload, EPA is undertaking efforts to delegate enforcement
authority to State and local air pollution control agencies for maximum
effective coverage.  By December 1975, authority to carry out the NSPS
program had been officially delegated  to 15 State and 12 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
regulations 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 dis-
posal of asbestos wastes, as well as standards for mercury emissions
for sewage sludge incineration and drying operations.

     On December 24, 1975,  EPA also proposed standards for the control
of vinyl chloride emission  from ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride,
and polyvinyl chloride plants.

     By December 1975, EPA had determined that 770 industrial sources
are subject to promulgated  NESHAPS requirements.  Ninety-six percent of
                                  18

-------
these sources are in compliance either with the standards or
with increments of progress specified in EPA approved schedules.
Also by the end of 1975, twelve States and twelve local agencies
had requested and were delegated enforcement authority for NESHAPS.

     First Criminal Conviction for NESHAPS violation —  In April of
1976, a Florida demolition company and its superintendent were found
guilty by the U.S. District Court in New Orleans,.of criminally viol-
ating NESHAPS regulations for the safe removal of hazardous asbestos
insulation from a building being demolished.  Big Chief Wrecking
Company of Fort Lauderdale, Flofida, and its foreman in charge of
the demolition leading to the enforcement action thus became the
first violators to be criminally convicted under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act.

     The complaint leading to conviction of Big Chief Wrecking
Company was filed at EPA's request on January 6, 1975, by U.S.
Attorney Gerald J. Gallinghouse's office in New Orleans.  The
EPA procedures, issued in 1973, require the wetting of asbestos
materials and their removal in dust-tight containers prior to
the general destruction of a building.  Numerous studies by medi-
cal researchers had shown an association between occupational ex-
posure to asbestos in the air, and a higher-than-expected incidence
of bronchial cancer.  Asbestos is also considered a causal factor in
cancers occurring in the membranes lining the chest and abdomen.

     Some of the demolition workers at the site at the time the
violation occurred — the destruction of the Old Hotel Dieu Hos-
pital in New Orleans — testified during the trial that they were
never warned of the asbestos hazards by the foreman, despite a visit
by EPA inspectors.  Under the Clean Air Act, the maximum allowable
penalties are one year imprisonment and a $25,000 fine per day of
violation.

     It is estimated that some 3,300 major demolition operations
occur nationwide each year.  EPA will continue to press for com-
pliance with these important public health protection measures.
                              i q

-------
        SECTION 119 — ENERGY RELATED AUTHORITY

        The Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act (ESECA)
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1857, Supp. 1975) amended the Clean Air Act, adding
Section 119 to "....provide a means to assist in meeting the essential
needs of the United States for fuels, in a manner which is consistent,
to the fullest extent practicable, with existing national commitments
to protect and improve the environment	"

        Under ESECA1s provisions, the Federal Energy Administration is
empowered to prohibit the use of petroleum products and natural gas at
power plants and other major fuel-burning installations in order to
further the primary goal of fuel savings.  In recognition of the increase
in emissions which result from conversions to coal, EPA is provided an
integral role to insure that primary standards are not exceeded while
FEA prohibition orders are in effect and to insure expeditious compli-
ance with applicable SIP requirements.

        Whenever the FEA Administrator issues an order to a fuel burning
source under Section 2(a) of ESECA which will apply after June 30,  1975,
the Administrator of EPA is required to notify FEA if the source can burn
coal and comply immediately with all applicable air pollution require-
ments without compliance date extension.  If such notification is not
given, then the EPA Administrator must certify to FEA: (1) when a source
which is receiving a compliance date extension can comply with primary
standard conditions and/or regional limitations; or (2) when a source
not receiving a compliance date extension can comply with all air pol-
lution control requirements.

        As of January 1, 1976, the Administrator of EPA, has notified FEA
that four plants can burn coal and comply immediately with all air pol-
lution control requirements without a compliance date extension. The plants
are: (1) Ames Station, Unit 7, Ames Electric Utility,  Ames, Iowa; (2) May-
nard Station, Unit 14, Iowa Public Service Company, Waterloo, Iowa; (3) Des
Moines Station, Unit 11, Iowa Power Light Company, Des Moines,  Iowa; and
(4) Weston Station, Unit 2, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Roth-
child, Wisconsin.

        In January of 1975, temporary suspensions of applicable stationary
source fuel and emissions limitations became effective for three facilities
in Massachusetts; these included the New England Power Company's Brayton
Point and Salem Harbor stations and Montaup Electric Company's Somerset
Station.  Each of these suspensions expired,  as Section 119(b) directs, on
June 30, 1975.  No other temporary suspensions were sought or granted.
                                     20

-------
                      STATIONARY SOURCE AIR POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT
                             ACTIONS  INITIATED BY EPA
                       DECEMBER 1, 1974 -  DECEMBER  31,  1975

                               By Category,  By EPA Region
EPA Region
CATEGORY 123456789 10
A. Standard
Implemen-
tation
Plans (SIP):
Notices of
Violation 18 39 17 83 58 41 4 18 21 19
Adminis-
trative
Orders 31 23 28 28 14 13 54 3 16 7
Consent
Orders 7 12 20 16 34 3 5 - 1 20
Ref'ls for
Prosecution i---------
TOTAL SIP
ACTIONS: 57 74 65 127 106 57 63 21 38 46
B. NSPS:*
Notices of
Violation -8--4--136
Orders -71----122
Ref'ls for
Prosecution --------1-
TOTAL NSPS
ACTIONS: -151-4--268
C. NESHAPS**
Notices of
Violation 3_---__-_i
Orders 134---1---
TOTAL
NESHAPS: 434---1--1
TOTAL ENFORCE-
MENT ACTIONS: 61 92 70 127 110 57 64 23 44 55
10-REGION
TOTAL
318
217
118
1
654

22
13
1
36

4
9
13
703 I/
 *NSPS = New Source Performance Standards  (per Sect.  Ill  of Clean  Air Act)
**NESHAPS = National Emissi9n  Standards  for  Hazardous  Air Pollutants  (S.  112 of  CAA)
 !_/  Includes  successive  actions taken  against  individual  sources;  a  total of
    582 separate entities/violations are involved.
                                      21

-------
            STATIONARY SOURCE AIR POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT
                    ACTIONS INITIATED BY EPA
                  12/1/1974 Through 12/31/1975

                         BY MONTH
                             TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTIONS INITIATED
 Month/Year                      (SIP.  NSPS. NESHAPS)*	

Dec 1974                                   50

Jan 1975                                   39
Feb 1975                                   30
Mar 1975                                   69
Apr 1975                                   36
May 1975                                   39
Jun 1975                                   76
Jul 1975                                   77
Aug 1975                                   78
Sep 1975                                   43
Oct 1975                                   44
Nov 1975                                   64
Dec 1975                                   54
   10-Region Total
   for 13-Months Period	^	         703 !/
  * Includes formal enforcement actions only (Notices of Violation,
     Administrative Orders,  Consent Orders,  and Referrals for
     Prosecution to the U.S. Attorney)  under the following Sections
     of the Clean Air Act,  as amended:

      Section 110 — State  Implementation Plans (SIP's)
      Section 111 — New Source Performance  Standards (NSPS)
      Section 112 — National Emission  Standards for Hazardous
                      Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)

     I/ Includes 4 actions for which the date of initiation
         was not reported by the Regional Offices and thus could
         not be reflected in the monthly totals.  A total of 582
         actual sources or  violations are involved overall.
                                  22

-------
                           CHAPTER  II  - B

                      MOBILE SOURCE ENFORCEMENT
     The Mobile Source Enforcement program is directed primarily
toward achieving compliance with vehicle emission standards and fuel
regulations promulgated by EPA under provisions of 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 and tampering provisions of the Act;
developing and enforcing Federal regulations on the availability
of regulated fuels; and ensuring compliance with mobile source aspects
of State implementation plans.

     Inspection/Investigation Program  - Under Section 206(c) of
the Clean Air Act, EPA is entrusted with enforcement of requirements
for "new" motor vehicles or engines - i.e., motor vehicles or engines
which have not yet been sold to the ultimate purchaser.

     Since December 1, 1974, mobile source enforcement personnel
have conducted 56 inspections of domestic and foreign motor vehicle
manufacturers.  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 eight vehicle manufacturer investigations have
also been conducted since December 1974, some of these arose from
the 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 have recently been
expanded to include requiring the manufacturer to develop emission
test data where violations may be accompanied by effects
on emission performance.  Since December 1974, five Section 208
letters have been issued.

     Out of the eight investigations, one case was referred
to the Department of Justice for enforcement action.   That
referral dealt with Chrysler Corporation's introduction into
commerce of vehicles with incorrect emission  components.
                                   23

-------
                               MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT
                                    DECEMBER 1974 THROUGH DECEMBER 1975
                                                (BY CATEGORY)
   PROGRAM AREA
      ACTIVITIES/ACTIONS/RESULTS
INSPECTION/INVESTIGATION
         OF
AUTO MANUFACTURERS
56 INSPECTIONS
  12 FOREIGN
  44 DOMESTIC
 9 INVESTIGATIONS
      1 PROSECUTION
       REFERRAL
                                                                  5 SECT. 208 LETTERS
TAMPERING
15 INVESTIGATIONS
      3 PROSECUTION
       REFERRALS
                                                                       $4,950 CIVIL PENALTIES
                                                                                                       CNJ
RECALL
22 INVESTIGATIONS
11 VOLUNTARY RECALLS
185,768 VEHICLES
     VOLUNTARILY RECALLED
IMPORTS
26 INVESTIGATIONS
      2 PROSECUTION REFERRALS
      259 VEHICLES MODIFIED
      71 EXPORTED    $42,500 BONDS FORFEITED
      173 BOND FORFEITURES
FUELS
18,500 SERVICE STATIONS
     INSPECTIONS
15,000 GASOLINE SAMPLES
     ANALYZED
 3,500 WARNINGS ISSUED
                                                                  260 COMPLAINTS FILED

                                                                  $31,000 CIVIL PENALTIES

-------
     Selective  Enforcement  Audit  Program -  EPA's  Mobile Source
Enforcement  program has  developed an  enforcement  strategy for
ensuring  that new production  vehicles conform to  emission
•standards  on the  assembly  line.   Called  the selective  Enforcement
Audit  (SEA)  program the  effort  involves  the testing  -  pursuant
to  an  administrative order  and  in accordance with the  Federal  Test
Procedure  -  of  a  statistically  representative sample of production
vehicles  from a specified  configuration.   If nonconformity is
established, EPA  may revoke the certificate of conformity.

     In December  1974,  EPA  proposed  regulations concerning the
implementation  of the Selective Enforcement Audit program and
conducted a  public hearing  on the proposed  regulations in July.
Final  regulations are scheduled to be published in the Federal
 Register  in  1976. During the  coming year, EPA will operate
 the Selective  Enforcement Audit program on  a trial basis,
 with full implementation of the program scheduled for  Fiscal
 Year 1977.

     Provisions for In-Use  Motor  Vehicles
      Anti-tampering Program  - Section  203 (a)(3)  makes  it  a
 prohibited act for any manufacturer or  dealer knowingly  to  remove
 or render  inoperative a vehicle's emission control  system after
 sale of the vehicle to the ultimate purchaser.   From December 1974,i
 approximately 15 investigations have been conducted.   Further, the
 Regional Offices responded to many alleged violations of the
 tampering  prohibition during the same period.   Three cases  were
 referred to the Department of Justice for action.   Since December
 1974, four tampering cases have been successfully  prosecuted,
 resulting  in civil penalties totaling $4,950.   Recall Program  -
 Section 207(c) of the Clean Air Act authorizes  EPA to order recall
 of vehicles if they do not conform to emission  standards.
 Approximately 185,768 vehicles have been voluntarily recalled  by
 manufacturers for correction of emission-related problems.  EPA
 is monitoring these recalls in addition to two  recall campaigns
 begun in 1974 involving approximately 1 million vehicles.

      Since December 1974,  EPA has conducted 22  investigations  of
 possible recalls and is currently conducting investigations
 involving  both domestic and foreign manufacturers.

      Warranties and Aftermarket 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.
                                      25

-------
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 and 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 the clearing
of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking through interagency
review for imminent publication.  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 reasonable capable of
being correlated" with the sophisticated test used on prototype
vehicles, as  Section 207(b) requires.   Major activities
in this area  since December 1974  include the continued analysis
of correlation data to attempt to identify correlatable short
tests and the response to a Congressional report which recommended
that Section  207(b) be substantially repealed.  This response was
provided to the House Small Business Subcommittee on June 26, 1975,
and  ireiterated EPA's general support for Section 207(b) as it is
presently written.

      In support of the warranty programs, and to protect
against anticompetitive effects in the automobile after-
market, EPA has endorsed an industry-led voluntary self-
certification program for certain automotive aftermarket parts.
The potential anticompetitive problems were the reason for the
House Report recommending substantial  repeal of Section 207(b),
discussed above.  Major efforts in this area since December 1974
include continued supervision of the industry's efforts to develop
performance standards for emmision -related parts; an Agency
report summarizing the comments on the Federal Register  Notice of
November 14, 1974, outlining the self-certification program;
and the letting of a contract intended to investigate the
relationship between parts and vehicle emissions.


                                     26

-------
     Imports Program - Section 203 (a)(l) and 203 (b)(2) give
EPA responsibility 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 million
commercial and privately owned vehicles since December 1974.
Through that program, 259 noncomplying vehicles imported under
bond have been modified pursuant to administrative orders.  In
addition, 71 nonconforming vehicles have been exported pursuant to
administrative orders.  A total of 173  bond forfeitures have been
assessed through Customs for noncompliance with the regulations.

     EPA has conducted 26 investigations of alleged illegal
importations.  Two cases were referred to 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, through the use of a
mobile van test facility.

     From December 1974,  EPA has conducted approximately 18,500
inspections of service stations to ensure compliance with the
unleaded fuel regulations.  Approximately 15,000 gasoline samples
were taken, of which about 160 were found to be contaminated with
lead.  Approximately 6,900 minor violations were also found during
this period.  Because many of the stations contained multiple
violations, the number of stations out of compliance is estimated
at '3,000.  Enforcement has issued approximately 3,500 warnings and
260 complaints, and has collected $31,000 in penalties during
this period.

     Generally, warnings are issued for minor violations, and
penalties are assessed for contamination,deliberate violations,
repeated violations, and failure to respond to warnings.  The
warning generally allows the violator to come into compliance in
a  reasonable time.  When contamination  is found, a complaint is
usually issued against both the retailer and his supplier, with
each given an opportunity to show that he is not responsible.
                                    27

-------
     Inspection/Maintenance and Transportation Control  Plans-

     During the past year, EPA has made efforts to assure the
implementation of State Inspection/Maintenance programs.
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 potochemical  oxidants
are achieved in certain Air Quality Control  Regions.   During
the past year, EPA has issued eight Notices of Violation  under
Section 113 for failing to implement Inspection/Maintenance
programs.  Included in these eight orders were orders issued to
New York and Chicago.

     In relation to Transportation Control  Measures,  EPA  has issued
two Notices of Violation and two Section 113 orders to  Chicago,
13 Notices of Violation and seven Section 113 orders  to the City
of New York, and 90 Notices of Violation to employers in  New
Jersey for failure to implement employer carpool  control  measures.

     While Title I gives EPA the authority to ensure  enforcement
of Transportation Control  Plans, recent Circuit Court decisions
relating to enforcement of Transportation Control  Plans and
Inspection/Maintenance have taken differing views  on  the  issue of
whether EPA has the authority to take enforcement  actions directed
at governmental bodies.  The courts have, however, unanimously
upheld EPA's authority to take enforcement actions against individual
sources.
                                    28

-------
                            MOBILE SOURCE ENFORCEMENT


                CASES REFERRED BY EPA TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                       December 1, 1974 -- December 31, 1975


A. CERTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS/INVESTIGATIONS

     Name: CHRYSLER CORPORATION   (Hamtramck Plant Misbuilds)
     Offense:  Alleged violation of Section 203(a)(l) of CLEAN AIR ACT—
                introducing vehicles into commerce not covered by "Certi-
                ficate of Conformity" due to incorrect emission components.
     Date Referred:  June 23, 1975
     Status:   Pre-trial discovery in progress

B. TAMPERING

     Name:  Paddock Chrysler-Plymouth, Florissant, Missouri
     Offense:  Alleged violation of tampering regulations under Section
                203(a)(3) of CLEAN AIR ACT
     Date Referred:  January 10,  1975
     Status:   Consent Decree signed June 1975; $500 Penalty secured.
     Name:  Downtown Volkswagen,  Kansas City,  Kansas
     Offense:  Alleged violation of tampering regulations
     Date Referred:  January 10, 1975
     Status:   Case dropped due to bankruptcy of firm
     Name:  Dick Spraker Volkswagen, Wichita, Kansas
     Offense:  Alleged violation of tampering regulations
     Date Referred:  July 24, 1975
     Status:    Pre-trial discovery in progress
C. IMPORTS
     Name:  Yair Holtzman, Los Angeles, California
     Offense:  Alleged violation of Section 203(a)(l) and 203(b)(2)
                import regulations — illegal importation and sale
                of 18 vehicles
     Date Referred:  July 1975
     Status:    Pre-trial conference  set  for 7/12/1976
     Name;  Robert Boston, Columbus, Ohio
     Offense:  Alleged violation of Section 203(a)(l) and 203(b)(2)
                import regulations — illegal importation, sale, false
                statements, and conspiracy involving 13 vehicles
     Date Referred:  December 5, 1975
     Status:    Pending
                                         29

-------
                 MOBILE SOURCE ENFORCEMENT

DISPOSITION AND RESULTS OF TAMPERING CASES LISTED AS "PENDING"
IN PREVIOUS EPA ENFORCEMENT REPORT,  ENTITLED "EPA ENFORCEMENT--
TWO YEARS OF PROGRESS— DECEMBER 1972 TO NOVEMBER 1974" (1975):
       European Motors,  Olympia,  Washington
           Consent Decree - $750 Penalty — 9/26/1975

       Motion Performance Products,  Baldwin,  New York
       "Consent Decree — $500 Penalty — 7/21/1975

       Scuncio Chevrolet. Greenville,  Rhode Island
           Consent Decree — $1,200  Penalty — 10/9/1975
                                   30

-------
                         CHAPTER III
                      NOISE ENFORCEMENT

     THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972. OCTOBER 27. 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
has the responsibility for developing enforcement strategies
associated with new products identified for regulation and for
providing Federal enforcement of new product noise emission
standards.  This responsibility includes assuring that regu-
lated products meet standards when new, enforcing regulations
on labeling of new products, reviewing enforcement actions of
other Federal agencies, and providing assistance to States and
localities to develop enforcement programs.
     New Product Noise Enforcement

     On January 21, 1974, EPA identified portable air compres-
sors and medium and heavy duty trucks as major sources of noise.
On January 14, 1976, final regulations were promulgated for
portable air compressors.  The final regulations for medium and
heavy duty trucks were promulgated on April 13, 1976.  On May 28,
1975, additional noise emission products were identified for
regulation, including motorcycles, buses, wheel and track loaders
and dozers, truck refrigeration units, and truck-mounted solid
waste compactors.

     The truck noise standards take effect on January 1, 1978.
The compressor noise standards take effect January 1, 1978, for
compressors whose capacity is 250 cfm or less, and July 1, 1978,
for compressors with capacities greater than 250 cfm.

     The enforcement strategy for medium and heavy duty trucks
and portable air compressors consists of two parts:

            (1)  Production verification

            (2)  Auditing noise emission performance of
                 new products on the assembly line.
                                   31

-------
*


-------
     The production verification strategy requires a manufacturer
to test the noise emissions from the first production units repre-
senting his product line to demonstrate that he possesses the required
technology, assembly process, and quality control, to ensure such
products can meet noise standards.  Production verification is required
at the beginning of the production year, when a new model is introduced
during the year, or when a significant change occurs to a previously
verified product.  Production verification testing is generally con-
ducted by the manufacturers, with EPA monitoring.  EPA will occasionally
require that production verification testing be conducted at its facility.
Followup inspections and investigations of a manufacturer's production
verification activities will be conducted as necessary.

     An audit of noise emission performance of new products on
a manufacturer's assembly line is conducted pursuant to a test request
issued by EPA.  Under this strategy, EPA selects the manufacturer and
products to be tested, issues the test order, monitors testing under
the order, performs such confirmatory testing as may be required, and
reviews the results for appropriate action.  Followup investigations
would be conducted as necessary.

     Enforcement regulations are being developed for motorcycles,
buses, wheel and track loaders and dozers, truck mounted refrigeration
units, and truck mounted garbage compactors.
     Noise Enforcement Facility

     EPA has established the Noise Enforcement Facility to provide an
acoustical testing capability to support new product enforcement under
the Noise Control Act.

     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 manufacturer's compliance testing, to train
regional, State, and local enforcement personnel, and to monitor the
effectiveness of Federal noise enforcement programs.

     Following  signing of an agreement with the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration on May 16, 1975, the Noise Enforcement Facility
was established on NASA's Plum Brook Station property at Sandusky, Ohio.

     The Agency expects to complete construction of test sites at the
facility by late summer 1976 — in time to assure effective enforcement
of portable air compressor and medium and heavy duty truck noise regu-
lations.
                                  33

-------
     The Ohio site for the Noise Enforcement Facility was
selected because of its close proximity to the manufacturers
of products regulated, reasonable weather conditions for out-
door testing, and relatively low ambient noise levels at the
Plum Brook Station.

     Enforcement provisions of the truck and air compressor
regulations place the burden of noise testing on the manufacturer
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 over-
sight and enforcement as necessary.

     Recognizing that not all manufacturers will be financially
able to construct test facilities and that such testing is vital
to compliance under the regulations, the Government test facili-
ties at the Noise Enforcement Facility may be made available on
request for industry use in special circumstances.  To preclude
the possibility of government test facilities' competing with
private testing organizations in providing test sites for acous-
tical product testing, the manufacturer will be expected to demon-
strate that a private facility satisfactory to his needs is not
reasonably available. A fee will be charged in these cases to
cover the administration of the tests.
     In-Use Noise Enforcement
     Under the Noise Control Act,  any State and,  in some respects,
the Federal Government,  can exercise the authority to regulate
noise from products in use.  Federal responsibility in this area
extends to enforcement through recall requirements,  enforcement
of the Federal tampering prohibition, and assistance to States in
establishing enforcement programs.   A Model State Enforcement Pro-
gram, including model legislation  and model enforcement procedures,
is being developed by EPA,  and EPA noise enforcement personnel
are establishing contact with EPA  Regional Offices,  States, and
local jurisdictions to determine how best to assist in the estab-
lishment of such programs.

-------
                             CHAPTER  IV


                 EPA ENFORCEMENT OF THE  PESTICIDE LAW

       Federal  Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticlde 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  Rodenticlde 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 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;
authorizes EPA to issue stop sale, use or removal orders, or to
initiate seizure actions;  requires pesticide manufacturers to regis-
ter 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 been implementing
the provisions of this Act, with special emphasis on issuing regulations
and guidance setting forth policy and procedures for obtaining compliance
and on developing an enforcement program to ensure that the requirements
of the Act are met.

    The enforcement strategy 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,
 pesticidesampling,  pesticide  analysis, and use  surveillance.

    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 13 months, the EPA inspected approximately
2500  producing establishments,  conducted approximately  500 import
investigations and  collected over  5600 samples for chemical analysis.
These activities revealed  violations which resulted  in  the issuance
of  approximately 350  civil complaints, 200 stop  sale use or removal
orders, 80 recall requests and  1000 notices of warning.
                                       35

-------
EPA INSPECTOR READIES PESTICIDE SAMPLE FOR
DELIVERY TO EPA LABORATORY; ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ENSUES IF ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS AND EXAMINATION
OF LABEL SHOWS PRODUCT VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS
OF THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND
RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA)

-------
                        EPA PESTICIDE ENFORCEMENT
                   DECEMBER 1, 1974 • DECEMBER 31, 1975
                            (BY CATEGORY)
1,000 r»
                                         1,001
  300
  200
  100  —
"*




*Sw -X*1^- .X^. .X"V. -X*»w.
'^SX^S.XV^x^XX^sx
^^^'XX'Xx'Xx

363*
''


-

mm





^







1


00
1
00
HI
0
z
5
oc
o
£
u?
CO
1
1
V)
UJ
8
o
_J
>
o

I

214
^^^f^m

















J
>
§o
OC H
aT<
•^ ^J
oc
UJD
li
CO ^








I











.X*"^ -X
•^^sx^
^xx
^^^












81
n™"^


CO
J
g
UJ
OC







^. J>^_ ^s
p"""«




^K.
Xx^XXX.x' ^4
Xx'^sXV-^^
-^^- -^^





189






i










Z
o
z
UJ
1-
UJ
a
h-
OC
2
2














^r^










1/5
LLJ
O
0
2

a
z
oc
<


1
TOTAL FORMAL ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS TAKEN:
1,905
ALSO:
2,500 PESTICIDE-PRODUCING
ESTABLISHMENTS INSPECTED
1,000+ USE AND RE-ENTRY
INVESTIGATIONS
500 IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
5,600 SAMPLES COLLECTED FOR
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS












57
M
'>2^
UCL^
       '$362,818 PENALTIES/FINES ASSESSED
        IN 228 CASES CONCLUDED TO DATE
                                            37

-------
                                           PESTICIDE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
                                             INITIATED BY EPA REGIONS

                                       DECEMBER 1, 1974 • DECEMBER 31, 1975
                  86
EPA REGIONS
                          403
II
                                   97
                                           235
                                                    362
III
IV
                                                                     314
                                                            105
                                                                              40
VI
VII
VIII
                                                                                      183
                                                                                               80
IX

-------
CO
CD
                                          RESULTS  OF  CIVIL AND  CRIMINAL. ACTIONS
                                       INITIATED OR CLOSED DURING  13  MONTH  PERIOD

                                         December  1,  1974 -  December  31,  1975


                                                                        Civil                    Criminal
Cases closed during 13 month period
that were initiated prior to 12/1/74
Civil cases closed
Civil penalties assessed
Criminal cases closed
Fines levied
Cases initiated during 13 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

124
$169,381
27
$22,500

355
221
$362,418
8
7
$400
345 34
$531,799 $22,900

-------
    The violations involved in these enforcement actions included
nonregistration; tnisbranding; false registration; lack of use
directions on the label; inadequate use directions; lack of statement
of ingredients; inadequate statement of ingredients; adulteration of
contents; contamination of contents; false claims as to effectiveness;
contents differing from those represented at the time of registration;
lack of warning or caution statement; lack of adequate warning or
caution statement; unwarranted safety claims; 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, more
than 1000 use and re-entry investigations were conducted.  As a result of
violations found, approximately 60 civil penalty warnings, 12 stop sale,
use or removal orders, 4 civil complaints and 8 criminal prosecutions were
issued.  As use surveillance is a relatively new program in the Agency, a
Pesticide Misuse Review Committee has been established to review cases
involving misuse and to develop enforcement policy on misuse.
                        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 13 month period
12 public hearings were held before an Administrative Law Judge.

     The following is a summary of four 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 Chapman Chemical Co..  Region IV

This was the first civil penalty decision to be appealed to the
Regional Administrator.  The Regional Administrator's Final Order
was  appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals (decision pending as of
12/31/75).

The  case 1s significant in that 1t allowed the use of circumstantial
evidence to prove a violative Interstate shipment.  The case further
upheld the principle that multiple misbranding charges may be brought
against a single product, if the facts underlying each charge differ
in some respect.  Here a label was missing from the container which
the  respondent urged was a single violation.  However, the Regional
Administrator's decision in the Final Order noted that there was a
separate violation for each individual required component of the
label to be missing, such as directions for use, precautionary
statements, Ingredient statement, etc.
                                        1*0

-------
Civil  Penalty Decision

     On February 21,  1975,  the Administrative Law Judge Marvin E.  Jones
rendered  an  initial  decision in favor of Region IV in the civil  penalty
proceeding  In Re Chapman Chemical  Company.   The proceeding was initiated
upon the  issuance of a  complaint dated February 5, 1974, by the  Director
of the Enforcement Division, EPA Region IV.   The respondent filed a timely
answer and  requested a  hearing which was held in Memphis, Tennessee, on
November  22, 1974.

     Region  IV alleged that the respondent violated the Act in that it had
 shipped in  interstate commerce a misbranded pesticide "BHC-1".  The
 allegation  of misbranding arose from an Inspection wherein a regional
 consumer  safety officer discovered an unlabeled 55-gallon drum of "BHC-1"
 being used  by a customer of the respondent.   The inspector noted that the
 drum had  been shipped only 10 weeks earlier and bore no vestige  or remnant
 of a label.   Nearby was also found another drum of "BHC-1" which was
 properly  labelled and which had been at the user's premises for  a much longer
 period of time.

     Because EPA could Introduce no evidence that any one personally observed
 whether or  not the 55-gallon drum of "BHC-1" bore a registered label at the
 time of shipment, the respondent contended the EPA had failed to establish
 a prlma facie case of interstate shipment without a label.  The  respondent
 based his case on three theories:  first, that the drum of "BHC-1" at issue
 was shipped from an independent warehouse and was not under the  control of
 the respondent; secondly, that the conditions to which the drum  was exposed
 by the user suggested that a label had been affixed but had been obliterated;
 and thirdly, that the respondent exercised great care 1n its labeling and
 shipment  procedures, such that an unlabeled container of "BHC-T" could not
 have been shipped without a label.

     Judge Jones found that EPA had established a prlma facie case based on
.circumstantial evidence and that respondent's evidence fell short of
 effectively rebutting complainant's prlma facie case.  Relying on U.S. v.
 Parfait Powder Co., the ALJ found that it was Inconsequential whether the
 failure to  affix a label occurred at Chapman's facility or at the shipper's
 warehouse.   Since Chapman had entrusted the shipper with the storage and
 shipment  of respondent's products, 1t was clear that the shipment was still
 the respondent's responsibility.  Secondly,  as to whether the label was
 obliterated by rough handling and exposure to the elements, the  judge found
 that 1n considering all of the evidence, the record as a whole showed that
 the absence of a proper label was not attributable to handling after
 delivery, but to the fact that a proper registered label was not affixed to
 the drum  when said commodity was shipped in  interstate commerce.   Finally,
 in regard to the respondent's quality control procedures, Judge  Jones noted
 that It did not follow from the fact that respondent ordinarily  exercised
 great care,  that departures from the usual  practice were never made.
 Accordingly, the judge found that the respondent was subject to  an assessment
 of an appropriate civil penalty.

-------
     In determining the appropriateness of the penalty. Judge Jones followed
the precedent established 1n a prior civil penalty action, -- In The Matter oji
Amyac Chemical Corporation, which held that the ALJ must make an independent
judgment as to the appropriateness of the penalty to be assessed.  After
reviewing the respondent's size of business and his ability to continue 1n
business, the ALJ analyzed the gravity of the violation In terms of the
Amvac precedent, namely the gravity of harm and the gravity of misconduct.
As to the gravity of harm, 1t was held that the shipment of "BHC-1" without
the applicable warnings and precautionary statements posed a definite hazard
to those who might come Into contact with it.  However, the apparent gravity
of harm was counterbalanced by a finding of minimal gravity of misconduct,
because the violation was not Intentional and there was only a remote likeli-
hood of recurrence of the violation.  Accordingly, a penalty of $1800.00 was
imposed.

Final Order Issued In the Appeal of In re Chapman Chemical Company

     On May 19, 1975, the Regional Administrator of Region IV, Jack E. Ravan,
issued a final order 1n the civil penalty proceeding In re Chapman Chemical
Company, I.D. No. 104559.  The review of this case by the Regional
Administrator was prompted by Respondent's timely appeal from the Initial
Decision of Administrative Law Judge Marvin E. Jones.  The final  order in this
case was based on a review of the hearing transcript, the Initial Decision,
the Respondent's Exceptions and Brief in support of Respondent's  Exceptions,
and the Complainant's Reply Brief to the Respondent's Exceptions.

     In substance, the final  order adopted the findings of fact and conclusions
of law contained in the Initial Decision with two exceptions:  the Regional
Administrator did not take into consideration Respondent's pleas  of nolo
contendere for prior violations In 1970 and 1972 and Respondent's Exception V
was sustained.  Accordingly,  a penalty of $1500.00 was imposed.

2.   EPA v. Chemola.  Region  VI

This case held that, although an EPA inspector should personally  sample
the products he collects for  analysis, he is  not under an absolute  duty to
do so.   In Chemola, respondent's employees drew the sample for the  EPA
inspector.

-------
When chemical analysis later showed the product  to  be  chemically deficient,  the
respondent contended that the sample was not  being  "held  for sale" within  the
meaning of the Act and that the EPA inspector was under a legal  obligation to
personally draw samples from products he knew were  being  held for sale.  The
Administrative Law Judge rejected both of  these  arguments and held that an
inspector was entitled to rely on the statements of Respondent's employees
with respect to the representativeness of  a sample.

Civil Penalty Decision

    On February 27, 1975, Administrative Law  Judge  Frederick W.  Denniston
returned an initial decision in the Agency's  favor  in  the civil  penalty action
EPA v. Chemola Corporation.  The proceeding was  initiated by the issuance
of a complaint filed March 14, 1974, by the Director of the  Enforcement
Division, EPA Region VI.  The respondent filed a timely answer in which it
denied the a-llegations and requested a hearing,  subsequently held in Houston,
Texas, on October 11, 1974.

    Region VI alleged that respondent had  held for  sale the  product "DESCO
WEED KILLER," which upon chemical analysis was shown to be chemically defi-
cient.  By way of denial, the respondent contended  that it had inadvertently
supplied to the EPA inspector a sample of  its product  in  a dilution form
ready for application, although it is ordinarily sold  in  concentrated form.
Chemola stated that dilutions were frequently found  around the establishment
since their salesmen used them for demonstrations.   As such,  Chemola further
argued that the dilutions and EPA's sample were  not  held  for sale.  Judge
Denniston, however, was unimpressed by the respondent's argument and found
that the record did not support its contention.  Chemola  also contended that
the EPA inspector himself should have taken the  sample from  what he knew was
a previously unopened drum, rather than accepting a  sample taken by one of the
respondent's employees.  Judge Denniston noted that  although it  would have been
preferable for the EPA inspector to have drawn the  sample himself, he was  not
under an absolute duty to do so.  The inspector  was  entitled to  believe that
the sample furnished by the respondent was "packaged,  labeled, and ready for
shipment" by virtue of representations made by the  respondent's  employee that
it was a sample of the material that was actually sold.

    The Judge also found that some of the  issues raised by the respondent  were
irrelevant, namely, whether EPA had a duty to test  the product for efficacy,
whether EPA should have verified the label results  by obtaining  further samples
from the respondent's customers, and whether  EPA should have alerted its
analytical chemist as to the product's directions for  use.   Accordingly, it
was concluded that Chemola had held for sale  the product  "DESCO  WEED KILLER,"
which was adulterated.

-------
    As to the appropriateness of the penalty, Judge Denniston upheld the
proposed assessment of $1500 on the ground that the respondent had not
challenged the size of the proposed assessment.  There was no question that
Chemola or its successor could continue in business after the payment of the
assessment.  As to the gravity of the violation, it was found that no health
harm was created, but that the economic harm was apparent.

3.  In re Chemscope Corporation,  Region VI

This case is significant in that the theory that an innocent mistake
should bar a penalty assessment was rejected by the Administrative Law
Judge, who held that to accept such a theory would be to destroy the
possibility of effective enforcement.

Civil Penalty Decision

    On June 20, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Frederick W. Denniston issued
an Initial Decision in the Region VI civil penalty proceeding In Re Chemscope
Corporation. I.F. & R. Docket No VI-13C, in which a civil penalty of $2,300
was assessed against the respondent Chemscope Corporation.  The case was
initiated by the issuance of a complaint dated November 26, 1973, in which
the Enforcement Division Director of Region VI (complainant) alleged that
Chemscope Corporation violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended.  Specifically,  it was alleged that
respondent had shipped in interstate commerce the unregistered pesticide,
"Garbage Can Spray & Deodorizer" from Dallas, Texas to Fayetteville, North
Carolina, on or about July 6, 1973.

    The respondent filed a timely answer in which it contended that the
product in question was indeed registered but that it had been inadvertently
mislabeled.  An adjudicatory hearing was subsequently held on October 8 and
11, 1974, in Dallas, Texas.

    In addressing the issues raised at the hearing, Judge Denniston concluded
that the shipment was clearly in violation of the FIFRA registration provisions.
The only remaining questions were whether the mistake claimed by respondent
should operate to bar a penalty and, if not,  the appropriate amount of the
penalty.  On the first issue, the ALJ noted that to accept respondent's theory
of "mistake" would be virtually to destroy the possibility of effective
enforcement.  In this case,  the respondent was fully knowledgeable as to FIFR£
and EPA procedures for registrations and supplemental  registrations. Judge
Denniston concluded that "[t]he attempts to put the blame on an unsupervlsed,
inexperienced employee therefore merits neither condonation nor mitigation..."

-------
     With respect to the size of penalty, Judge Denniston rejected several of
the respondent's contentions and made an independent determination of the size
of the penalty based on a change of the size of business category and a finding
of substantial gravity of misconduct.  In particular, the claim that the
company was insolvent and thus that the penalty would have an adverse impact on
business was rejected as unfounded.

     In determining the size of respondent's business, Judge Denniston found
complainant's use of Dun and Bradstreet reports to be acceptable evidence,
but found that where, as in the instant case, independently audited data are
available, that data should take precedence since it provides greater relia-
bility,  the import of the reliance upon the independent audit was to move
respondent from Category III into Category II, with a penalty range of $1,900-
$2,300 on the Assessment Schedule for a charge of nonregistration with
"knowledge/no application submitted."

     Although the complainant had selected the lower end of the range in its
proposed assessment, the ALJ found that the gravity of violation, as analyzed
from the gravity of harm/gravity of misconduct criteria, warranted a penalty
from the top end of the scale.  Despite a finding of no potential for harm in
the violation, respondent's contention that the violation was of a relatively
minor nature was found to bespeak a callous attitude toward the Act and to
justify a substantial penalty.  Of great importance was the fact that res-
pondent was a substantial organization, long experienced and knowledgeable
in registration procedures, yet it placed full responsibility for ensuring
proper labeling in the hands of an inexperienced employee, without super-
vision.  Accordingly a penalty of $2,300 was deemed to be appropriate for the
violation.

4.   In re Waltham Chemical Company,  Region I

This case is significant in that it upheld EPA's authority to assess civil
penalties for violations which have had adverse effects upon the environment.
The Administrative Law Judge found irrelevant Respondent's defense that a
showing of unreasonable adverse effects upon man or the environment is a
prerequisite for taking enforcement action against a violator of the FIFRA
(This case was on appeal to The Regional Administrator as of December 31,
1975.)

-------
Civil Penalty Decision

     On July 28, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Frederick Denniston issued an
Initial Decision in the Region I civil penalty proceedings, In re Waltham
Chemical Company. I.F. & R. Docket No. 1-14C, in which he assessed a civil
penalty of $2,000 for violations of the F1FRA.  This proceeding was initiated
by the issuance of a complaint, dated June 28, 1974, in which the Enforcement
Division Director of Region I contended that Respondent had violated the
FIFRA by holding for sale the misbranded pesticide, MARTIN'S ROTOL RESIDUAL
SPRAY.  Specifically, it was alleged that the product was misbranded in that
its strength or purity fell below the professed standard of quality under which
it was sold and registered.

     By way of denial, the Respondent objected to the assessment and requested
a hearing which was held in Waltham, Mass., on February 6, 1975.  As a
defense, Respondent contended that a showing of unreasonable adverse effects
is a prerequisite to the assessment of a civil penalty.

     Prior to stating his findings of fact and conclusions of law, Judge
Denniston made two preliminary rulings on documents filed by the parties.
With respect to a document entitled "Stipulation Between Parties", Judge
Denniston found a portion of the stipulation unacceptable on the grounds that
it would limit, rather than simplify, issues.  The ALJ noted that ordinarily
the use of stipulations is encouraged, but that efforts to restrict or limit
issues are not to be encouraged.  The stipulation which was rejected read as
follows:

     "4.  The only issues in dispute between the parties in this matter are:

          A.   whether or not the Respondent committed an act which
               caused (or potentially caused) unreasonable adverse
               effects on man and the environment, as defined at 7
               U.S.C. 136(bb).

          B.   whether the proposed civil  penalty is appropriate."

     Secondly, Judge Denniston  ruled on Waltham Exhibit No.  5, a bound booklet
of material, to which Complainant objected on the ground that the exhibit
would be received into evidence.  The ALJ  ruled that the exhibit would be
received Into evidence,  but that only matters of fact were considered in his
decision; the remainder was considered as  part of Respondent's brief.

-------
    As to the Respondent13 argument that no penalty be assessed on the ground
that 1t had not been shown that the violations had an unreasonable adverse
effect on man or the environment, Judge Denntston concluded that such
argument was wholly Irrelevant.  In response to Respondent's second argument
that no harm was documented by the chemical deficiency and that 1n any event
the label contained the Instruction, "repeat as necessary", Judge Dennlston
commented that such an argument was frivolous.  He noted that the product was
clearly adulterated within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act and that
such adulteration was prohibited under 12(a)(T)(E).

    With respect to the amount of the penalty, clear support under the
assessment schedule was found for the penalty proposed by the Complainant.
Conversely, 1t was not found, as Respondent contended, that adverse effects
on the Respondent's and the company's reputation, or on the Respondent's
health and convenience were matters to be Included 1n determining the amount
of the penalty.  Despite finding support for the proposed penalty, Judge
Dennlston was of the view that due to the circumstances of this case, the
minimum range of penalty would be appropriate.  Accordingly, the penalty was
fixed at $2000.

-------
The following is a short summary of several selected civil actions
taken under Section 14(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act:

    Ciba-Geigy Corporation - On April  14, 1975, EPA Region IV
    assessed Ciba-Geigy Corporation a  civil penalty of $12,000.00.
    The civil complaint charged the firm with shipping the mis-
    branded product, STABILIZED DIAZINON MG-8 INSECTICIDE, from
    Mclntosh, Alabama, to Omaha, Nebraska, on August 3, September 13
    and December 28, 1973.  The labels on the misbranded product
    lacked the necessary warning statements, ingredient statement,
    assigned registration number and name, brand or trademark.

    Farmland Industries - On February  12, 1975 Region VII assessed
    Farmland Industries, North Kansas  City, Missouri, $18,000 for
    violations of the FIFRA as amended.   The firm shipped or held
    for sale the products, COOP MALATHION DUST 4%, 5% SEVIN DUST,
    COOP BEEF CATTLE SPRAY EMULSIABLE  CONCENTRATE, TOXAPHENE
    EMULSION CONCENTRATE, COOP LINDANE EMULSION CONTAINING 5%
    LINDANE, COOP WEED-OUT 2,4-D AMINE 4 POUND and COOP METHOXYCHLOR
    "50" WETTABLE POWDER AND DUST BASE.   The violations included
    misbranding, adulteration, nonregistration, and claims differed
 '   from those represented during registration.

    Kare Chemical Company - On December 5, 1975, EPA Region IV
    assessed Kare Chemical Company, Opa Locka, Florida, $15,000.
    The civil complaint charged the firm with shipping nonregis-
    tered and adulterated products from Opa Locka, to Newman,
    Georgia, and Oxford, Alabama, on May 20, 1974, and January 3,
    12 and 27 and February 18, 1975.  The pesticides involved were
    70% GRANULAR CHLORINE, EAGLE ALGICIDE, EAGLE 5% CHLORDANE
    INSECTICIDE, EAGLE STABILIZED POOL CHLORINE, EAGLE 10%
    CHLORDANE INSECTICIDE and SUPER CHINCH ETHION LAWN SPRAY.

    Thompson-Hayward Chemical  Company  - On September 30, 1975,
    Region VII assessed Thompson Hayward Chemical Company,
    Kansas City, Kansas, a civil penalty of $12,108.00.  The
    firm was charged with shipping or  holding for sale or
    distribution the misbranded pesticides, DED-WEED LV-69,
    MERGE 823, DED-WEED FOR LAWNS, SUPER FUMIGAS and DED-WEED
    LV-9 BRUSH KIL.  The labels on the misbranded products
    lacked adequate warning or caution statements and adequate
    directions for use.

    Union Oil Company of California -  On May 16, 1975, Region V
    assessed Union_0il  Company of California, Amsco Division,
    Minneapolis, Minnesota, a civil penalty of $7,800.00.  The
    civil complaint charged the firm with holding for sale at
    Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 3, 1975, the unregistered
    and misbranded product, UNION AMSCO BARCOSOTE CREOSOTE - PENTA
    WOOD PRESERVER.  The labels on the misbranded product bore a
    false registration number, lacked  adequate directions for use
    and lacked adequate precautionary  statements.

                                      1*8

-------
HOW LONG MUST WE WAIT BEFORE IT IS SAFE FOR
WORKERS TO RETURN TO THE FIELDS AND VINEYARDS?
Proper Use and Application of Pesticides and
Safety of "Re-entry" are Priority Concerns for
the States and EPA's Enforcement Program.
 CREDIT:  EPA-DOCUMERICA-GENE DANIELS

-------
                     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
regula'te 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 Enforcement Division from the Agency's pesticide use sur-
veillance program, or reports to EPA by such sources as FDA residue re-
ports, USDA meat and poultry residue reports, citizen and trade com-
plaints, 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.
                                     50

-------
     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)(G).
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 devel-
opment  of interpretive guidelines for Section 12(a)(2)(6).

      The  following  are two examples of pesticide  misuse cases reviewed
 by the  Committee:
Summary of PMRC Case #20.

     PMRC Case #20 involved the illegal use of the herbicide SENCOR on
potato crops in the State of Idaho in 1974.  These applications followed
a history of illegal importation of the herbicide from Canada into the
United States in 1972.

     The pesticides used by potato farmers were identified during the
investigation as either Chemagro SENCOR, EPA Registration Number 3125-
227, or LEXONE, EPA Registration Number 352-375.   Both the SENCOR and
LEXONE herbicides were registered for control of grasses and broadleaf
weeds in soybeans.  Explicit cautions against use on food crops other
than soybeans appeared on the product labeling.  An experimental  use
permit was granted by EPA to the Chemagro Division, Baychem Corporation,
Kansas City, Missouri, in 1972, for use of SENCOR on potatoes in the
U.S.  This permit, issued in order to gather registration information,
expired without renewal in February 1973.

     In 1972, attempts were made to import SENCOR from Canada into Idaho
for use on potatoes.  On two occasions SENCOR, registered for use in
Canada, was imported and used before U.S. Customs could take action on
the shipments involved.  U.S. Customs revoked the importers' bonds for
failure to redeliver the lot for return to Canada.

     In May 1974, the potato growers and processors were warned in a de-
tailed press release issued by the Idaho Department of Agriculture of
the illegality of using SENCOR on potatoes.  An investigation, initiated
after the appearance of SENCOR residues on potato crop in August 1974,
confirmed the sale and transfer of the herbicide  into Idaho.  Evidence
in the case file includes analyses of crop samples, FAA aerial appli-
cator records indicating that a "weed killer" had been used on potatoes,
and interviews with potato processors and growers.
                                     51

-------
      In  a  hearing conducted by the Idaho Department of Agriculture on
 October  3,  1975, a  major  pesticide applicator  admitted using  SENCOR  on
 potatoes after he had  been informed  that such  use was illegal.

      In  determining the appropriate  level of action in these  cases,  the
 Pesticide  Misuse Review Committee considered the following  points: (1)
 the evidence  indicated that the  users of the herbicide understood that
 SENCOR was  not registered for use on potatoes  and that they were fami-
 liar with  the use provisions of  the  FIFRA;  (2) widespread publicity  by
 the Idaho  Department of Agriculture  and Chemagro was given  to the
 potential misuse of SENCOR (3) one major grower clearly had knowledge of
 the status  of the herbicide as a result of their difficulties  in im-
 porting  the Canadian registered SENCOR in 1972; and (4) another major
 applicator  admitted to knowing the use of SENCOR on potatoes  was illegal.

      For these reasons the Committee determined that the misuse warranted
 criminal action under  section 14(b)(2), which states that "Any private
 applicator  or other person... who knowingly violates any provision of
 this Act shall  be guilty  of a misdemeanor and shall  on conviction be
 fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or
 both."  The Committee  agreed that strong action by the Agency would
 discourage  further  violations by growers in that area.   The Committee
 also noted  that misuse of the pesticide was widespread and resulted in
 the contamination of a major food crop, potatoes.

      The Pesticide  Misuse Review Committee determined that seven appli-
 cators and  growers  were in violation of FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G) for
 the use  of  SENCOR on potatoes in June 1974.  Region X issued civil
 penalty  warning citations on July 10, 1975, to the seven growers and
 applicators pursuant to Section 14(a)(2) of the FIFRA for using a
 registered  pesticide for  a use not recommended on its labeling.
SUMMARY OF PMRC CASE #18

     This misuse case involved the use of the insecticide OLIN PARATHION
2% DUST on a watermelon crop near Nixon,  Texas,  on  June  22,  1974.   Three
teen-agers were instructed by the property owner to apply the insecti-
cide (by shaking a burlap bag) containing the pesticide  over the water-
melon plants.  The boys were equipped only with  respirators  and were
dressed in light weight shirts and trousers.   They  did not wear gloves,
goggles or other clothing to protect exposed  skin and  eyes as required
by the products labeling.   The owner supervised  the dusting  operation
for one hour before leaving.  Later, the  boys began removing their
respirators while continuing to work.   An hour later one of  the three
boys became seriously ill  and was taken to a  doctor's  office where he
was pronounced dead from acute pesticide  poisoning.  The second boy
recovered from the exposure after hospital  treatment,  while  the third
boy, the last to remove his equipment,  showed no symptoms of poisoning
                                        52

-------
     The labeling of the pesticide (a) contained signal words "Danger"
and "Poison" with skull and cross bones insignia, warnings of the pro-
duct's toxicity, its danger to humans upon inhalation and swallowing,
and absorption through exposed skin or eyes; and (b) prescribed the use
of rubber gloves, protective clothing, goggles, and mask or respirator;
and (c) listed antidote and treatment instructions in the event of
poisoning symptoms.

     The manager of the local feed store, where the pesticide was
purchased, stated that he had reviewed the labeling thoroughly with the
crop owner. The crop owner also reviewed the labeling and instructions
with the hired boys.  The owner was clearly knowledgeable of the pro-
duct's labeling prohibitions regarding human exposure and the require-
ments for protective clothing.

     The Pesticide Misuse Review Committee determined that the owner
knowingly instructed the use of the parathion in a manner inconsistent
with warnings and cautions on the product labeling.  Further, the owner,
in his capacity as supervisor of the three boys, failed to insure that
proper precautions were maintained throughout the pesticides appli-
cation.  The committee recommended that criminal prosecution of the crop
owner should be pursued under FIFRA section 14(b)(2) for the use of a
registered pesticide in violation of section 12(a)(2)(G).  On March 12,
1975, the EPA office in Region VI referred the case to the U.S. Attorney
recommending criminal prosecution of the crop owner.
                                        53

-------
                              PESTICIDE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
                              INITIATED BY EPA BY CATEGORY,
                            BY EPA REGION 12/1/74 - 12/31/75

                   Number of actions initiated during 13 month period
Region
Category
Civil cases
1

6
2

58
3

19
4

66
5

48
6

30
7

81
8

4
9

22
1 0 Total

21 355
Criminal cases
0     0
  8
Stop sale and
Seizure actions
     13    64    62    27    24     8    11
214
                                                                                                      LO
Recalls
                 45     0
 81
Import
Detentions
Warning
Notices
Civil Penalty
Warnings
Total

1

68

1
86

132

200

2
403

1

63

1
97

8

83

9
235

10

189

8
362

6

39

2
105

7

183

15
314

8

19

1
40

14

121

11
183

2

36

7
80

189

1001

57
1905

-------
   Dec. 1974

   Jan. - Mar. 1975

   Apr. - June 1975

   July - Sept. 1975
en'
en Oct. - Dec. 1975

   Total Actions
                                      Pesticide Enforcement Actions Initiated
                                        By EPA Regions By Category, 12/1/74
                                Through 12/31/75, By Quarter, Except For December 1974

                         Civil  Criminal   Stop Sale and   Recalls    Import    Warning  Civil  Penalty   Total
Cases
28
66
112
85
64
355
Cases
0
0
8
0
0
8
Seizure Actions
9
67
58
49
31
214

4
30
18
16
13
81
Detentions
17
47
49
45
31
189
Notices
54
*
447
281
219
1001
Warnings
0
12
15
13
17
57
Actions
112
222
707
489
375
1905
       *Warning notices issued were only reported semiannually during FY 1975.
        Number included in Apr. - June amount.

-------
                         CHAPTER  V

                      WATER  ENFORCEMENT

 FEDERAL WATER  POLLUTION  CONTROL 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 involves the approval
of  State NPDES* programs that are qualified and willing to receive
program responsibility.  The States play a very important role in
the implementation of EPA's water programs and participate to differing
extents in all aspects of the NPDES program, focusing on reconnaissance
inspections, sampling inspections, and enforcement of permit conditions.
Those States which have not received full program approval often
develop working agreements with the Regions after which the States
actively participate in monitoring activities in partnership with
EPA.

      Since December of 1974, nine additional States have received
program approval for a total of 27.  They are:  Colorado, Nevada,
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia,
and Wyoming.  (See tabulation)

      Once program approval has been granted by EPA, the State has
full  responsibility for running the NPDES program.  The Federal
presence is maintained, however, to provide an overview role
consistent with the legislative mandate.  EPA also 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 have indicated a
desire to enforce EPA-issued permits.   In such states, EPA's role
will  be the same backup, overview, and coordination role that it
has with respect to approved State enforcement of State-issued NPDES
permits.


*  National  Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
                                     56

-------
         STATUS OF EPA APPROVAL TO STATES TO ADMINISTER THEIR
    OWN NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
    PERMIT PROGRAM UNDER THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
   APPROVED AS OF APRIL 1976

1.   California
2.   Colorado
3.   Connecticut
4.   Delaware
5.   Georgia
6.   Hawaii
7.   Indiana
8.   Indiana
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.  Virginia
25.  Washington
26.  Wisconsin
27.  Wyoming
NOT APPROVED AS OF APRIL 1976

1.  Alabama
2.  Alaska
3.  Arizona
4.  Arkansas
5.  District of Columbia
6.  Florida
7.  Guam
8.  Idaho
9.  Illinois
10. Iowa
11. Kentucky
12. Louisiana
13. Maine
14. Massachusetts
15. New Hampshire
16. New Jersey
17. New Mexico
18. Oklahoma
19. Pennsylvania
20. Puerto  Rico
21. Rhode Island
22. South Dakota
23. Tennessee
24. Texas
25. Utah
26. Virgin  Islands
27. West Virginia
28. Trust Territories
                                      57

-------
     In addition, cases arise in which a State may need the
assistance of EPA.  An example  is the case against Reserve
Mining Company and its discharge of iron ore tailings into
Lake Superior near Silver Bay, Minnesota.

     Cooperating with the State of Minnesota, EPA has pro-
vided $20,000 contract assistance and formed a 15-man Federal
task force to assist resolution of State and Federal  lawsuits
and abate the pollution of Lake Superior.

     In summary, EPA's relationship with the States is not
static but responsive to the constant interaction and adap-
tation that is required as a program of Federal/State partner-
ship.
     Adjudicatory Hearings --

     FWPCA accords all  dischargers subject to the NPDES Permit
Program the right to request an Adjudicatory Hearing in the
event of objections to  effluent requirements and other cleanup
provisions contained in the permits.

     As of February 29, 1976, a total  of 1,830 requests for
Adjudicatory Hearings has been received by the EPA Regions.
Of these, 491 have been settled, and  an additional  900 are
expected to be settled  by July 1977.

     EPA's basic goal is to resolve the outstanding requests
for Adjudicatory Hearings as expeditiously as possible in
order that the dischargers involved are placed on enforce-
able compliance schedules and achieve compliance with the
permit requirements.
                                 58

-------
           EPA WATER ENFORCEMENT
     DECEMBER 1,1974 • DECEMBER 31,1975
               (BY CATEGORY)
                   TOTAL ENFORCEMENT
                   ACTIONS TAKEN IN

                            3,320-
                                1,116
                   ALSO:

                   130,000 SELFrMONITORING
                   "~~~~~~ REPORTS REVIEWED
                          BY STATES & EPA

                     3,289 SAMPLING INSPECTIONS
              1.114        CONDUCTED
1,000'f—

—

3«
0
829 t;

*

•


•


""*

•

A


•

""*











00
oc
UJ
0
cc
0
UJ
CZ
5
cc
1-
w
z
<
o
LU
8
CC
Q.
_J
<
2

i
E
cj
z J
2 >
< 5
-i f=
2 2
£ 3
0 <
to oc
LU OC
U UJ
M II
te S
O oc
123
nn



z
o
§
^
_l
>
o
OC
O
II
hbi
Q
OC
§
a
H
^
0
U
g
S3
<
oc
oc
LU
u_
LU
OC
_l
i
_l
O
z
o
{Z
^
u
^
i
E
u
oc
0
LL.
>
LU
z
oc
o
<
CO
1
3
o
K-
13
<
oc
oc
LU
LU
OC
_J
J
fl_
%
_J
O
30


_i
o
oc

8
z
o
p
z
LU CO
>Z
LU O
gcp
<
-i2
dD
&S
u-oc
O —*
^z ^«
O a.
< uj
2§
>^
«og
"-1
gUJ
oz
go
^1
*i
UJ <
9,712 RECONNAISSANCE IN-
SPECTIONS CONDUCTED
491 ADJUDICATORY HEARING
REQUESTS SETTLED




















7
 500 H-
 100 h-
           SECTION 309 NPDES
               ENFORCEMENT
SECTION 311 OIL & HAZ-
ARDOUS MATERIAL
 SPILLS ENFORCEMENT
REFUSE ACT
AND OCEAN
DUMPING ACT
ENFORCEMENT
 •PENALTIES/FINES TO DATE:
  $141,341 - 1,052 CASES CONCLUDED THUS FAR

-------
                             OVERALL SUMMARY OF EPA WATER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS	RESULTS AND STATUS, BY REGION





                       ALL ACTIONS INITIATED IN THE THIRTEEN MONTH PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 1974 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1975
Actions Initiated
                                                                 EPA REGION
                                                                                                                                       EPA
through 12/75.
Total # of Actions
Initiated in Period:
pollution Abated or
Compliance Obtained or
in Progress via Admin-
istrative Action
# of Cases for which
Civil/Criminal Court
Proceedings or US Coast
Guard Civil Proceedings
have been concluded.
» of Spill Prevention
Control Countermeasure
Plans (Civil) Proceedings
have b-3cn concluded.
Total Civil Penalties
or Criminal Fines.

t of Cases Prosecution
was dismissed, withdrawn
or declined.
# of Actions Pending or
outcome unknown as of
12/31/75.
I

177

22



42




37


79

$71,580

0


71

II

176

25



8




69


75

$2oa,iso

i


74

III

243

UNK



1




27


28

• $20,150

UNK


215

'IV

869

110



142




399


507

$192,629

3Q


222

V

470

55



107




29


135

* 1*1,4*1

7


75

VI

530
•» •
60



. 74




10


81

$62,050

6


382

VII

332

75



44




94


36

$21,150

10


106

VIII

198

16



54




17


66

»1*V»«0

5


111

IX

190

15



8




25


33

$37,000

2


150

X

135

24



3




11


12

$5,550

0


97

TOTAL

3,320

402


o
483 .<•*>




718


1,052

»*41,*4«

61


1,503


-------
                                               WATER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
                                                 INITIATED BY EPA REGIONS
                                          DECEMBER 1, 1974 - DECEMBER 31, 1975
                                  243
                  177
176
                                           869
                                                            530
                                                    470
                                                                    332
                                                                             198
EPA REGIONS
II
IV
                                                            VI
VII
VIII
                                                           190
                                                                                             135
IX

-------
NPDES Compliance Monitoring

     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 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 reconnaissance inspections,
sampling inspections, production facility inspections, and
remote sensing (aerial photography).

     As one of the highest priorities of the enforcement program,
the basis 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.

     To further this end, EPA and the States have reviewed
approximately 130,000 self monitoring reports and have conducted
3289 sampling inspections and 9712 reconnaissance inspections since
December 1974.  EPA has also assisted 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.
As of December 31, 1975, 82% of major nonmunicipal  permittees
were in compliance with permit schedules, 70% of major municipal
permittees were in compliance with permit schedules,  and 74% of
major municipal permittees were in compliance with effluent
limitations.

NPDES Enforcement

     The FWPCA provides for various enforcement  irechanisms to assure
compliance with the requirements of the NPDES program.   These
primarily consist of the issuance of Section 309 (a)(l)  Notices
of Violations (NOVs) to dischargers with NPDES permits issued by
approved States;  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 referrals to  U.S.  Attorneys for
civil  or criminal  relief to remedy violations of NPDES permits and
the FWPCA.   The law provides for $10,000 civil penalties and $25,000
criminal  fines per day of violation.
                                     62

-------
                                                                   WATER EHrOBCEMENT ACTIONS INITIATED BY EPA
                                                                          DECEMBER 1974 - DECEMBER 1975
                                                                              BY CATEGORY, BY MONTH
CD
CO


Section 309
Admin- Notice
istrative of
Order Violation
1974
Be"c
19 7S
Jan
Fob
Mar
Apr
Kay
Jun
Jul
Rug
Sep
Oct
NOW
Dec
78

42
27
70
67
38
82
BO
44
101
71
64
65
1

0
0
3
8
8
6
11
' 15
10
9
7
23

Referrals
10

2
19
2
11
7
e
-9
12
13
12
5
13

Section 311
Oil Spills Spill
USCC Referrals
US ATTY
53

72
67
65
88
113
110
64
165
72
120
71
56
0
Si '
a
3
1
2
0
1
; t
4
5
2
0
2

Spill Prevention
Control Counter-
measure
55

43
46
49
83
49
170
33
25
136
116
162
148

Refuse Act
c
Ocean Dumping
0

1
0
. 3
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

TOTAL
ACTIONS
197

166
162
193
260
215
378
199
265
337
330
309
307
               TOTAL
                         829
                                       101
                                                        123
                                                                         1116
                                                                                           30
                                                                                                          1114
                                                                                                                                                    3320

-------
EPA WATER ENFORCEMENT ACTION BY REGION
DECEMBER 1974 - DECEMBER 1975
: I II
btCTlUN 3U9 - FWPCA
Administrative 49
Order
.- Notice of 2
Violation
Referrals n
SECT IOW 311 - FWPCA
Oil Spills 47
USC6
Spill Referrals 0
US Atty
Spill Prevention 69
Control Counter-
measure viol.
Refuse Act &
Ocean Dumping Act 0
TOTAL 177
54
0
8

12
0
99
3
176
III IV V VI VII VIII IX X TOTAL
135
0
3

60
3
42
0
243
190
0
27

128
4
520
0
869
81
20
34

273
8
53
1
470
93
0
4

399
2
32
0
530
101
5
10

74
13
126
3
332
41
40
14

76
0
27
0
198
26
30
4

7
0
123
0
190
59
4
^

40
0
24
0

829
101
123

1116
30
1114
7
3320
-J-

-------
     As violations become apparent through compliance monitoring,
they receive a response from the Regional Office  (e.g., telephone
call, letter, request for a conference,  inspection, administrative
order, NOV or judicial action).  Voluntary compliance is sought
first as the easiest most cost-effective 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.

     NPDES Enforcement activity has increased substantially in the
past year: 829 administrative  orders and 101 Notices of Violation
were issued, and 123 cases were referred to Justice for civil or
criminal relief, as opposed to a total of 388 Administrative Orders
and Notices of Violation and 22 case referrals to Justice for civil.
or criminal relief  in 1974.  Enforcement activity can be expected
to continue to increase as more schedules and deadlines fall due.

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,  the Refuse Act, Safe Drinking Water
Act, and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act.

FWPCA  - Section 311
      EPA shares responsibility under Section  311 with the Coast
 Guard and other Federal  Agencies.   EPA's  enforcement activities are
 aimed at the elimination of spills  through  the  investigation and
 referral  of spill  cases  to the Coast Guard  for  the assessment of
 civil  penalties of up to $5,000 per violation under Section 311 (b)
 (6),  and the investigation and legal  assistance provided in the
 referral  of spill  cases  to the U.S. Attorneys for assessing criminal
 penalties of up to $10,000 or imprisonment  for  not more than one
 year  per violation under section 311  (b)(5).

      To achieve compliance with Spill  Prevention, Control, and
 Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations,  inspections  are conducted to
 confirm the implementation of SPCC  plans, followed by the issuance
 of Notices of Violation  where appropriate and the scheduling of
 informal  hearings  for the imposition of civil penalties of up
 to $5,000 per violation.  EPA refers cases  to U.S. Attorneys
 for the collection of these penalties where there is refusal
 to pay.
                                     65

-------
     Since December 1974, more than 1100 oil spill cases were
referred to the U.S. Coast Guard for dvll relief, 30+ oil spill
cases were referred to the U.S. Attorneys for criminal penalties;
penalty  proceedings were thusfar concluded by EPA in 718 of the
1,114 SPCC violations pursued to December 1975.

FWPCA - Section 404

     The year 1975 was a landmark in the development of the Section
404 dredge and fill permit program.  On March 27, 1975, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia in the case NRDC v
Galloway, et. al., issued an order to the Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to promulgate Section 404 (c) guidelines providing for the
issuance of permits for the discharge of dredge or fill materials
into all the "waters of the U.S."  The traditional definition of
"navigable" waters as used by the Corps was expanded to include
all the waters of the U.S., not merely those technically "navigable."

     On July 25, 1975, the Corps proposed in interim final form
its 404(a) permit issuance regulations.

     Pursuant to Section 404 (b), EPA, on September 5, 1975,
issued guidelines to assist the Corps in determining which disposal
sites would be appropriate to receive dredge or fill  material dis-
charges.

     From September through the present, the Corps and EPA, in
conjunction with the Department of Justice, have developed a
procedure for administrative and judicial enforcement arising from
dischargers' failure to comply with Section 404.  The procedure,
which should be finalized by September 1976, would make the Corps
primarily responsible for administrative enforcement and civil  and
criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, but specifies that
EPA may act independently of the Corps where appropriate (e.g.,
emergencies).

     In any cases referred to the Department of Justice or instituted
by the Department of Justice arising out of Section 404 noncompliance,
EPA will be afforded the right to function as Co-Counsel, aiding the
Department of Justice in all aspects of case preparation.  This
will enable the Agency to aid 1n the vigorous protection of our
nation's valuable water resources, particularly our wetlands.  To
date several penalties have been collected for 404 violations.
                                      66

-------
                        Polluting Spills Reported In U.S. Waters,  1971-74
en
Spills, by category '
-*
Type of location
Inland waters
Coestal water*
Open waters (Great Lake* or territorial
seas)
Contiguous tone (from 3 to 12 mile* from
coastline)
High seas
Typo of pollutant
Light oil >
Heavy oil >
Solvent
Waste oil
Other oil
Other materials (Including sewage, refuse,
etc.)
Unknown
Source
Vessels .
Dry cargo vessel*
Tanlt ships ' .
TanH barge* •
•Combatant vessel* ,
Other vessel* •
Land vehicles
Nontransportatlon-releted facilities, re-
fineries
Pipelines . •
Other land transportation facilities
All other onshore and offshore laclllles <
Miscellaneous and unknown
Cause V..
Casualty (Includes collision, (rounding.
and blowouts)
Rupturo, leak, or structural failure ,
Equipment failure (valves, pump*)
Personnel failure '.''.""
Deliberate discharge*
•Natural phenomenon . ' '/
Unknown
Total spill* reported
Number ol Incident*
1971

631
. 7,201

315

39S
193

4,320
1,603
(<)
930
669
269
945


271
386
828
261
388
17
188
"22
3,723
2,592


214
2,747
947
829
359
94
3,536
8,736
1972

6«:
7.442

423

801
583

4.290
2.049
(0
890
1,151
428
1,123


402
453
830
294
494
149
185
218
68
3,804
3.040


360
2,201
1,542
1.287
457
257
3.827
9,931
1973

1,722
9.871

571

483
681

4,104
2,851
49
1,003
2,996
774
1,551


353
825
718
246
1,408
305
214
559
162
3.904
4.634


• 2,793
1.872
2,204
599
354
5.506
13,328
1974

2.815
9,503

251

164
1,233

2.657
5,084
44
1,094
• 2,774
470
1,843


377
973
833
27S
1,265
373
155
557
3,489
799
4,867'


952
2.352
2,103
2,707
318
380
5,156
13,966
Total volumes In gallons
1971

1,409,867
6.720.259

37.736

651,177
20,484

2,822,463
2,934.181
TO
164,352
2,714.399
115.042
89,085


418.206
1,665.264
1,197,819
440.849
180.127
101.225
2.206.781
(•)
159.961
2.158.718
' 310,573


3.045.719
3,715.067
274,049
1,035,950
50,652
5.805
712.281
8,839.523
1972

2,270.771
14.277.675

24.681

34.793
2.197,812

6,578,653
1,761,301
W
8,067,043
357,724
2,025.897
15.114


42.771
2.583.952
3,739.144
40,923
:, 96,508
172,519
42,027
1,237,227
13,331
10.483.247
• 354.083


4.082.094
4.823.322
293.755
940.316
68.515
6,045.972
551.758
18,805,732
1973

'7.117,239
15.490,447

419,428

1,218,860
68,944

6.415.242
4.538.127
32,469
1.211,131
2,650.169
8,339,714
1,128,066


650,409
4.494,524
1.572,059
17,963
1,184,764
741,588
166,403
1,847.498
151.285
6,479.453
• 7,009.2 52


• 116.068.447
' 800,540
1,127,851
2,176,509
2,051,364
2,090,207
24,314,918
1974

: 9,585,437
8,361.932

108.21*

24,706
52.347

3.181,561
12.734,816
13.114
1 1 1.900
820.694
1.193.737
56,816


90.987
1.434,168
2,468,724
39,552
253,007
785,548
772,634
• 6,205,372
. 2,695,472
1.567.531
1.819.623


4.861.431 •
7,234.937
1,100.005
3.544.576
292.193
241.410
858.086
18.132.638
                          i The U.S. Coast Guard has no reason to believe that the number oJ discharges In 1973 was any greater than In 1971 or 1972. The Increase In the number
                       reported probably reflected public awareness of the legal requirement to report discharge*.
                          > Data tor 1971 and 1972 Include gasoline, light fuel oil. Kerosene, and light crude; 1973 data Include crude oil, gasoline, and other distillate fuel all
                          i Data for 1971 and 1972 Include dlesel oil, heating oil, heavy fuel oil, heavy crude, and asphalt; 1973 data Include uleaal ell. asphalt, and residual fuel
                       Oil.                 ,  .                 v                                 '                      '          '       -   •
                          «Data lor 1973 added the category of solvents, previously Included under severallather categories,     '                         '
                          > Pipeline data for 1971 are Included under other categories.
                          «Changes In 1973 "source*" eategarle* make It necessary to combine some onshore and offihor* production, storage, and transfer facilities |n order to
                       compare data to those (or 1971 an* 1972,                                      •             .     • •   •  .  •
                          > Includes one 6-mllllon-gollon sewage (pill.                                                                               •
                          > Changes In 1973 "cause" categories make It neceasary to combine the categories of "casualty" and "rupture, leak, ar structural failure."

                          Source: U.S. Department of Transportation. U.S. Coast Ouard, "Polluting Incident* In and Around U.S. Water*,-' annual (Washington, 1971.1972.1973):
                       U.S. Coast Guard, unpublished data.


          Note:  Above  tabulation  reproduced  from  "Sixth Annual  Report  of  the  Council  on

                    Environmental   Quality", December  1975

-------
           DISCUSSION OF SELECTED WATER ENFORCEMENT CASES
     The follow-on discussion in the next several pages is intended
to present key facts and circumstances surrounding selected individual
cases pursued by EPA under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and to
acquaint the interested reader with some of the results obtained to date.

     A newly-reported collection of gains and successes in improving the
quality of the Nation's waters is also included in the latter part of
CHAPTER VI  — N.P.D.E.S.  PERMIT PROGRAM, immediately following this Chapter.

     The following enforcement actions are discussed here:

       	 UPDATE ON RESERVE MINING CASE (LAKE SUPERIOR,  MINNESOTA)

       	 AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY (GOOSE RIVER, NORTH DAKOTA)

       	 HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATION (YELLOWSTONE RIVER, MONTANA)

       	 SOBIN CHEMICALS,  INC.  (LAKE ERIE,  OHIO)

       	 DETREX CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES,  INC.  (LAKE ERIE,  OHIO)

     In order to update the reader on the outcome of an important case
initiated by the State of Illinois against  a steel company, in which EPA
was requested and did furnish documentary evidence using remote sensing
technology playing an important  role in the ruling on the case, a separate
discussion  is included on

       	 REMOTE SENSING UPDATE  (INLAND STEEL COMPANY,  LAKE MICHIGAN)
                                      68

-------
UPDATE ON RESERVE MINING COMPANY CASE

      The previous EPA Enforcement Report  contained  a  capsule  review
of major events transpiring through October  1974  in  this most  costly
and protracted water pollution  litigation.   A  number of significant
developments 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 Fed-
eral administrative enforcement actions — both begun  as long  ago as
1969 — failed to produce abatement of  the pollution caused by this dis-
charge, the Federal Government, joined  by  the  States of Minnesota, Michi-
gan, 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, held  by  Federal District Court
Judge Miles W. Lord, District of Minnesota.  I/

      Until June 8, 1973, the case was  essentially a water  pollution
abatement case, but with the discovery  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 pro-
ceedings.

      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 facility  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 into the air
substantially endangered the health of  the people of Silver Bay and sur-
rounding 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 Sup-
erior, 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 in-
junction, conditioned "...upon  Reserve  taking  prompt steps  to  abate its
discharges into air and water	"  3_/


                                    69

-------
      The June 4, 1974 Appeals Court Order granting a 70-day continu-
ation 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 oppor-
tunity 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_/

      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, Min-
nesota, 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:

         "...D The United States and the other plaintiffs have estab-
ished 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 re-
gulations, also justifying injunctive relief on equitable terms.

             3) No harm to the public health has been shown to have occured
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


                                   70

-------
tailings and to restrict air emissions at  its  Silver  Bay plant,  or  to
close its existing Minnesota taconite-pelletizing  operations.  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  that  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 pro-
vided 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 adminis-
trative steps, Reserve is to be given reasonable turnaround time to con-
struct 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.  «/

      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:

           " 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.
                                          71

-------
            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
                pollution1."  9/


     On February 21, 1976,  Judge Devitt ruled that liability rested on
Reserve Mining, Armco,  and Republic for interim filtration and water sup-
ply expense reasonably incurred by the United States pursuant to the Court-
ordered program. He denied a motion by the United States to require ad-
vance 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 ex-
penses 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 re-
        flect just what is represented by defendants, but this does not mini-
        mize 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 of business risk as-
        sumed by Reserve when it sought, and was granted, the necessary per-
        mits 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,  1947 in an ex-
        change 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.'
           Mr. Taylor:  'Why yes, we can stand that risk in any event we have
            to take certain risks.'

           Later 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/
                                   72

-------
     On May 4, 1976, Judge Devitt fined Reserve  Mining 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 in-
curred 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.

              2. Reserve violated court rules and orders  as to dis-
           covery 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."   ,, /

     As this  report went to press, Reserve Mining Company had appealed
 Judge  Devitt's Order.

     Through  its Reserve Mining Task Force, EPA  and other concerned
 Federal agencies are continuing to cooperate with the State of Minnesota,
 offering expert advice and assistance to aid in  achieving the long-
 awaited permanent resolution of the problem in an expeditious and en-
 vironmentally-sound fashion.
                                     73

-------
 FOOTNOTES/REFERENCES TO RESERVE MINING CASE UPDATE

 !_/ 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  -- Secretary of the Interior called Enforcement Conference
                      for Lake Superior under Sect. 10(d) of pre-1972 FWPCA
       5/13/1969  — Lake Superior Enforcement Conference commences
       Feb. 1970  — 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. Min-
                      nesota  Pollution Control Agency (4 ERC 1513)
       4/28/71    — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issues 180-Day
                      Notice  under Sect. 10(c)(5) of pre-1972 FWPCA (thereby
                      discontinuing Sect.  10(d) procedure
       1/19/1972  — EPA requests Attorney General of the U.S. to file suit
                      in Federal Court under Sections 10(c)(5) & 10(g)(l)
       2/14/1972  — EPA requests Atty. General to file additional claim
                      under Sect. 10(g)(2),  based on Minnesota Governor's
                      consent.
 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
 I/ 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)
 !/ 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
10/ (8 ERC 1689)
1J./ (8 ERC 1978_);(5-72-Civil-19)Order  filed May  4,  1976,  DC,Minn,Fifth Div.

-------
AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY, HILLSBORO. NORTH  DAKOTA   (EPA REGION VIII)

      On October 14, 1975, judgment was entered in  the United  States
District Court for the District of North Dakota in  accordance  with a
consent agreement between the American Crystal Sugar  Company and  the
Environmental Protection Agency.  The judgment imposed a $50,000  civil
penalty and required the Company  to develop  an effective system to
control the accidental discharge  of pollutants from its sugar  refining
facility.

      American Crystal Sugar Company, the  successor in interest of the
Red River Valley Cooperative, operates a sugar beet processing facility
at Hillsboro, North Dakota.  The  Company produces and uses  large  quanti-
ties of molasses in the course of its operations.   The Red  River  Valley
Cooperative did not apply for a NPDES Permit  at the inception  of  its
operations.

      On November 26, 1974, an EPA inspector discovered 20  to  30  tons of
molasses in a drainage ditch adjacent to the Company's Plant.  The molas-
ses had apparently been discharged from the  plant into the  ditch.  Sub-
sequently, a substantial quantity of molasses flowed  from the  drainage
ditch into the Goose River, a tributary of the Red  River.

      In its legal action, EPA charged the Red River  Valley Cooperative
with discharging waste into the Goose River  on at least five separate oc-
casions, asserting that the discharges definitely were not  the result of
one isolated incident.  EPA further charged  that  the  Cooperative  could
easily have avoided the discharges through forceful and expeditious re-
covery actions.

      The discharges of molasses  into the  Goose River caused an immediate
and serious reduction in dissolved oxygen  levels, reaching  a zero level
for several days.  Without adequate supplies of dissolved oxygen, most
fish and other aquatic life cannot survive.   The  waste flowed  from the
Goose River into the Red River, occasioning  an international incident of
some significance as dissolved oxygen levels of the Red River  at  Emerson,
Manitoba, were reduced to zero for several days.  Canadian  officials pro-
tested, requesting EPA to take immediate abatement  action.

      Since entry of the consent  decree, the American Crystal  Sugar co.
has applied for a discharge permit and has also developed and  instituted
a  spill prevention program.  A pond system to trap  accidental  discharge
has been constructed, and numerous internal  physical  modifications were
made at the plant.  No further discharges  have occurred, and none are ex-
pected as long as the spill prevention system is  properly maintained.
                                       75

-------
HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATION, SIDNEY, MONTANA      (EPA REGION VIII)
     On December 15, 1975, a judgment was entered in the United
States District Court for the District of Montana, pursuant to an
agreement entered into between Holly Sugar Corporation and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

     The judgment imposed a $47,500 civil penalty on Holly Sugar
Corporation in connection with alleged discharge permit effluent
limitation violations.  The consent decree incorporated a forfeiture
provision under which the Corporation will automatically forfeit to
the United States $10,000 for each calendar month during its 1975-76
processing season in which pollutant levels in the discharge exceed
the monthly maximum effluent limitations imposed by the permit.

     Holly Sugar Corporation operates a sugar beet processing
facility located at Sidney, Montana.  The facility discharges its
wastewater through a series of treatment ponds connected to a drain-
age ditch which empties into the Yellowstone River.

     The Corporation operated under a discharge permit issued by
EPA on July 31, 1973.  In bringing its enforcement action,  EPA
charged that the Corporation discharged organic waste material
during the 1974 beet processing season into the Yellowstone River
at levels far in excess of the amount allowed under the permit.

     Since entry of the consent decree, no organic materials have
been discharged into the Yellowstone River by the Holly Sugar
Corporation.  This accomplishment resulted from a significant
improvement of the Corporation's pollution control facilities.

     It is apparent that provisions for the automatic forfeiture
of significant sums of money in the event a discharger exceeds the
specified permit effluent limitations can serve as effective in-
centives for the development of efficient pollution control systems.

     In view of the fact that forfeiture clauses provide a
relatively stream-lined approach to the imposition of meaningful
penalties,  the success in the instant case also demonstrates that
this enforcement mechanism can be highly effective as a deterrent
to post-settlement permit violations.
                                 76

-------
SOBIN CHEMICALS, INC., ASHTABULA, OHIO    (EPA REGION  V)


      On October 3,  1975,  a  consent  decree was entered in  the  United
States District Court for  the Northern  District of  Ohio  in accordance
with an agreement reached  between Sobin Chemicals,  Inc., and the  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  The judgment imposed a $25,000  civil
penalty upon Sobin Chemicals for permit violations  and provided for
the immediate institution  of an effective pollution abatement  program
by the Company pursuant to provisions of a modified discharge  permit
issued by the State  of Ohio.

      EPA had instituted suit in December 1974, charging Sobin with
significant violations of  the effluent  limits imposed by the discharge
permit covering the  Company's chlorine-alkali production facility in
Ashtabula, Ohio.  EPA asserted that  substantial and excessive  quantities
of chlorine, mercury, and  suspended  solids were being continually dis-
charged from the plant into  Lake Erie,  in violation of permit  effluent
limitations.

      In accordance  with the consent decree,  Sobin  has established
a pollution abatement program, has  constructed improved  pollution
control facilities,  and  is now considered to  be in  compliance  with
the provisions  of  its modified discharge permit.  Sobin's  discharges
of chlorine, mercury and  suspended  solids have been reduced between
95 and 99 percent  since  entry of the consent  decree.


DETREX CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES,  INC., ASHTABULA,  OHIO   (EPA REGION V)
       In a companion case,  a consent decree was entered in an
 action against Detrex Chemical Industries,  Inc.,  Ashtabula,  Ohio,  on
 September 30,  1975.   Detrex was the predecessor in interest  of
 Sobin Chemicals,  Inc.

       The consent decree provided for the payment by Detrex Chemical
 Industries,  Inc.  of  a $55,000 penalty.   The EPA suit charged Detrex
 with numerous  violations of permit effluent violations which were  al-
 leged to have  occurred prior to the sale of the plant at Ashtabula to
 Sobin Chemicals,  Inc.  The permit for the chlorine-alkali plant had
 been issued initially to Detrex, on October 23, 1973.  Detrex operated
 the plant under the  permit until May 31, 1974,  on which date it sold
 the facility to Sobin Chemicals, Inc.
                                     77

-------
REMOTE SENSING UPDATE
     The predecessor volume of this report briefly mentioned EPA's
intention to look to the newer technologies, such as remote sensing
from aircraft and spacecraft platforms, to help in discharging its
responsibilities in air and water pollution control, surveillance,
and case preparation monitoring.

     The following is an update of a State case, made possible because
Court proceedings have now been concluded.  Highlights are cited here
because of their significance as legal precedents.

          PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex rel. WILLIAM J. SCOTT
           Attorney General of the State of Illinois,  AND
          THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
           A Municipal Corporation
                  v.                   (CONSOLIDATED CASES 72-CH-259
          INLAND STEEL COMPANY                             76-CH-5682
           A Delaware Corporation

     On September 8, 1975, Judge Nathan M. Cohen of the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois,  issued a ruling which found that discharges
from Inland Steel Company's East Chicago, Indiana, steel mill were
polluting Lake Michigan in violation of applicable laws.

     Judge Cohen imposed a fine of $1.9 million, plus $1,000 per day
for each additional day of violation following the date of his ruling,
until "....the defendant embarks upon a program of action in compliance
with this Court's decree	"

     The ruling came after an extensive trial period, commencing on
April 10, 1974, and many months of negotiations.  The State's action
was initially filed by the Attorney General of Illinois in 1972,  and
was consolidated with a similar action filed in 1967 by the Metro-
politan Sanitary District  of Greater Chicago.  *


         * Under Section 1043 of the Illinois Environmental Protection
           Act, the Attorney General is empowered to institute a civil
           action on his own motion to halt any discharge or other ac-
           tivity causing  or contributing to substantial danger to the
           environment or  to public health.  In ruling on the issue of
           jurisdiction, Judge Cohen rejected the assertion that  Illi-
           nois law could  not be applied to abate pollution from an
           Indiana defendant.  An action brought to abate the pollution
           of interstate water "is clearly a proper one under the pro-
           visions of the  Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 USC
           1151,et seq...".   Moreover,  "..it is clear that pollution of
           interstate waters can constitute a public nuisance under the
           federal common  law	"
                                   78

-------
     At Illinois' request, personnel of EPA's National Environmental
Research Center at Las Vegas, Nevada (since  re-named  "Environmental
Monitoring and Support Lab") and  its associated remote sensing facility
at Vint Hill, Virginia, conducted an aerial  survey  in 1974,  The mis-
sion yielded aerial photos and thermal infrared imagery clearly de-
fining the path and extent of the discharge  of pollutants into Lake
Michigan.  In combination with water sampling and on-ground physical
measurements obtained by personnel of the  Metropolitan Sanitary Dis-
trict of Greater Chicago, the imagery findings were confirmed and
compiled into displays with map overlays as  visual  evidence validating
the plaintiffs' allegations.  (See Photo)

     The remote sensing evidence  and confirmatory support materials
were accepted as valid evidence during the trial.

     From the language contained  in Judge  Cohen's memorandum ruling
of September 8, 1975,  it is apparent that this remote sensing evi-
dence played an influential, and  possibly  decisive, role in the out-
come of the litigation.  In discussing the merits of defendant's
arguments, testimony, and evidence, Judge  Cohen observed as follows:
(Pages 11-12 of Memorandum Ruling)

             "	It will suffice to say that despite the
              extraordinary ability and dedicated efforts
              of counsel for defendant Inland, the  experts
              called by the defense and the  evidence offered
              by the defense eradicate neither the  facts es-
              tablished by defendant's own company memoranda
              and reports, nor the convincing testimony of
              plaintiffs' expert  witnesses	"

              "...In no instance  did defendant overcome the
              visual evidence presented by the plaintiffs
              in these consolidated actions	"
                (Underlining supplied)

     In January 1976, the Inland  Steel Company agreed to install a
wastewater recycling and filtration system at its plant at East Chicago,
Indiana, at a cost estimated at $90 million.  The agreement to install
this cleanup equipment released the Company  from paying the fines im-
posed by the Court.
                                   79

-------
        THERMAL
   INFRARED IMAGERY
 (U8HTER TONES INDICATE WARMER WATER)
 DATE: 10 MAY 1174
 TIME: 1817-1120 COT
 WIND: ME. 10 KNOTS
    U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NOAA-NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY, LAKE SURVEY CENTER
                                  THERMAL  INFRARED IMAGERY BY EPA
                                  REMOTE SENSING PROGRAM - ACCEPTED
                                  AS VALID EVIDENCE IN COURT -  SHOWS
                                  WASTEWATER  PLUME FROM INLAND  STEEL
                                  COMPANY  AT  EAST CHICAGO, INDIANA,
                                  MOVING NORTH TOWARD ILLINOIS.
                                  ARROW SHOWS "68TH STREET CRIB",
                                  INTAKE STRUCTURE FOR A PORTION OF
                                  THE CITY OF CHICAGO DRINKING  WATER
                                  SUPPLY.   (See Text)

-------
            MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH. AND SANCTUARIES ACT


     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 2% years of the program's existence, the Coast Guard
has referred more than 150 violations to EPA.  Most of the violations,
(approximately 75%) were minor in that the permittee failed to
notify the Captain of the Port of a dump.  Most of the remaining
violations which have resulted in enforcement actions were resolved
without the imposition of a penalty.  Civil penalties were imposed
in seven cases, amounting to $80,000 of which $55,000 has been
collected.  In one case, the defendant is pursuing court appeal
of a $25,000 penalty.

     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 environmentally 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 tbe 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.  Table A shows summary information on the
types of wastes and quantities involved nationwide and by minor
dumping sites, for the years 1973, 1974, and 1975.  Table B
shows a listing of industrial dumpers to whom dumping permits
were not granted or whose dumping activities were phased out
through October 1975.  Table C lists permittees who are on
implementation plans to phase out ocean dumping by the dates
indicated.

     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 D lists the entities involved in enforcement actions from
the inception of EPA's efforts.

     Appreciation and gratitude are due the United States Coast
Guard whose diligence and continuing cooperation have contributed
greatly to the successes achieved to date.

                                     81

-------
                                          TABLE A

                       OCEAN DISPOSAL!   TYPES AND AMOUNTS,  1976*.  1974**, and  1973***

                                         (IN TONS, APPROX.)
WASTE TYPE

Industrial Waste
Sewage Sludge
Construction &
Demolition Debris
Solid Waste
Explosives

1975
3,322,300
5,039,600
395,900
0
0
ATLANTIC
1974
3,642,000
5,010,000
770,400
0
0
GULF PACIFIC
1973 1975 1974 1973 1975 1974
3,642,800
4,898,900
973,700
0
0
-

8,757,800
9,422,400
9,515,400

«
123,700 950,000 1,408,000
000
0 0 0
000
00 0

123,700 950,000 1,408,000

0 0
0 0
0 00
0 200
0 0
TOTAL
1973 1975
0
0
0
240
0

0 ' 200
240

3,446,000 4
5,039, 600 5
395,900
0
0

1974
,'592,000
,010,000
776.400
200
0

1973
5,050,800
4,898,900
973,700
240


8,881.500 10
.372,600
10,923,640

                                                                                                                                                CM
                                                                                                                                                CO
  *  1975 Source - EPA Regional  Offices.   Preliminary Figures  from
                   unpublished Reports, 1975 (12 months  of dumping
                   activity).

 **  1974 Source - EPA Regional  Offices.   Unpublished Reports, up-
                   dated information, 1974 (12 months of dumping
     *             activity).

***  1973 Source -EPA Regional  Offices.,   Unpublished Reports, 1973
                   (8 months of dumping activity, May to December
                   1973 under permits issued by Ocean Disposal Pro-
                   gram extrapolated for 12 months to provide  an
                   annual  rate).
                                      NOTE:    The information  above was presented to the Subcommittee on
                                              Oceans  and  the Atmosphere of the Committee on Commerce, U.S.
                                              Senate, at  its April 12, 1976 Hearings, by Or. Andrew W.
                                              Breldenbach.  EPA Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous
                                              Materials.

-------
                                   TABLE   B

           OCEAN DUMPING PERMITS NOT  GRANTED OR BEING PHASED OUT
               Company
1.   n   Benjamin Moore & Co.
2.   n   Chester Packing Co.,  Inc.
3.   n   Childers Products Co.
4.   n   Clairol, Inc.
5.   II   Debell & Richardson
6.   n   Dow Chemical Service
7.   n   Drake Bakeries
8.   n   Drew Chemical
9.   n   Electro-Nucleonics. Inc.
10.  n   Engelhard Industries
11. n   Fedders Corp.
12. II   Ford Motor Co.
13. n   Gamlen Chemical Co.
14. II   Heinzelmen & Sons     *•
15. n   B.  Horstrnann Co.
16. n   I.C.I. America, Inc.
17. n   International Paper
18. n   Ivers-Lee Co.
19. n  ' Koppers Co., Inc.
20. n   Lehn & Fink, Co.
21. n   L & M Trucking Corp.
22. n   Makar Trucking Co.
23. n   National Can Corp.
24. n   NL Industries, Inc.
25. n   Norton & Sons, Inc.
26. n   New York Twist Drill
          Mfg. Corp.
27. n   The Parker Co.
28. n   G.  Redner, Inc.
29. n   Sandoz-Wander, Inc.
30. n   Three Star Anodizing  Corp.
31. n   Universal Oil Products
32. VI E. I.  duPont de Nemours
33. I   Pratt & Whitney
34. II  Biocraft Corp.
35. n   Alcholac, Inc.
36. n  Everlon Fabrics Corp.
37. n  The Ansul Co.
38. n  Consolidated Edison Co.
39. H  BASF Wyandotte Corp.
40. II  The Clorox Co.
41. n  Gaess Environmental
           Services Corp.
42. H  Bell Telephone Laboratories
43. n  Amerada Hess Corp.
44. n  Riegel Products Corp.
   Location

Newark,  N.J.  07105
Chester, N.y.  10918
Bristol,  Penn.  19007
Stamford, Conn.  06904
Enfield,  Conn.  06802
Stoneham, Mass.   02180
Wayne,  N.J. 07470
Boonton, N.J.  07005
Fairfield, N.J.  07006
Newark,  N.J.  07015
Edison, N.J.  08817
Mahwah, N.J.  07430
Elm wood Park, N. J.  07407
Carlstadt, N.J. 07072
East Hanover,  N.J.  07936
Bayonne, N.J.  07002
Whippany, N.J. 07981
W.  Caldwell, N.J.  07008
Kearny,  N.J.  07032
Belle Mead.  N. J.  08502
Kenilworth,  N.J.   07033
Mendham, N.J. 07945
Piscataway,  N.J.  08854
Pedricktown, N.J.  08067
Bayonne, N.J.  07002

Ramsey, N.J.  07446
Wayne, N.J.  07470
Wanaque, N.J. 07465
East Hanover,  N. J.  07936
Beacon,  N.Y.  12508
East Rutherford,  N.J.
La Place, La.  70068
East Hartford,  Conn.  06108
Waldwick, N.J. 07463
Ossing,  N.Y.  10562
Closter, N.J.  07624
Marinette, Wise.  54143
New York, N. Y.  10003
So. Kearny,  N.J.  07032
Jersey City, N. J.  07305

Passaic, N.J.  07055
Whippany, N.J. 07981
Woodbridge, N.J.  07095
Milford, N.J.  08848
Date Phased Out
   or Denied
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973'
April 1973
Apr.il 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
April 1973
before April 1973
before April 1973
before April 1973
before April 1973
before April 1973
before April 1973
Nov.  1973
      1973
      1973
      1973
      1973.
Jan. 1974
     1974
     1974
     1974

     1974
     1974
    . 1974
     1974
                                             83

-------
                                 TABLE  B (Cont'd)

                           OCEAN  DUMPING PERMITS
                 NOT GRANTED OR BEING PHASED OUT (CONT)
           Company

45.  n   General Color Co.
46.  n   J.M. Huber Corp.
47.  n   Lily -Tulip
48.  n   The National Lockwasher Co.
49.  n   Howmedica, Inc.
50.  n   Celanese Coatings Co.
51.  n   American Cyanarnid Co.
52.  n   Green Village Packing Co.
53.  Et   The Mennen Co.
54.  H   Weyerhaeuser Co.
55.  n   Wilson Products Co.
56.  n   American Cyanamid Co.~
57.  n   Kimberly-Clark Corp.
58.  n   St. Regis Paper Co.
59.  n   Hercules, Inc.
60.  n   Dow Chemical
61.  IX  H-10 Water Taxi
62.  VI  E. I.  duPont de Nemours
63.  n   A&S Transport Co.
64.  VI  GAF Corporation
65.  I   Pine State By-Products, Inc.
66.  VI  E. I.  du Pont de Nemours
67.  VI  E. I.  du Pont de Nemours
68.  n   Blue Ridge-Winkler Textiles
69.  n   The Nestle  Co.,  Inc.
70.  H   U. S. Radium Corp.
71.  n   Tenco Division of the
          Coca-Cola Co.
72.  II   Warner-Lambert Co.
73.  n   Mycalex Corp.
74.  n   Worthington Biochemical
          Corporation
75.  n   Howmet Corp.
76.  n   Sherwin Williams Co.
77.  H   William Schaeffer Septic
78.  HI  Sun Oil Company
79.  n   Solvents  Recovery Services
80.  n   Eagle Extrusion Corp.
81.  n   Chevron Oil Co.
   Location

Newark. N.J.  07114
Edison,  N.J. 08817
Holmdel, N.J.  07733
North Branch,  N.J.  08876
Rutherford, N.J.  07070
Belvidere,  N.J.  07823
Pearl River, N.Y.  1CD65
Green Village, N.J.  07960
Morristown, N.J.  07960
Closter, N.J.  07624
Neshanic,  N.J.   08853
Bound Brook, N. J.  08805
Spotswood, N.J.  08804
West Nyack, N.Y.  10994
Kenvil. N.J.  07847
Mt. Holly,  N.J.  08060
San Pedro, Calif.  90733   '
Belle, W.Va.  25015
So. Kearny, N.J.  07032
Texas City, Texas  77590
S. Portland, Maine  04106
LaPorte, Texas  77571
Beaumont,  Texas 77704
Bangor, Penn.  18102
Freehold,  N.J.   07728
Hackettstown, N.J.  07840

Morris Plains, N. J.  07950
Morris Plains, N.J.  07950
Clifton,  N.J. 07011

Freehold,  N.J.   07728
Dover, N.J.  07801
Newark, N.J.  07101
Pequannock, N.J.  07101
Marcus Hook, Penn.  19061
Linden,  N.J. 07036
Dover, N.J.  07801
Perth Amboy; N. J.  08861
Date Phased Out
   or Denied

 April  1974
 April  1974
 April  1974
 April  1974
 April 1974
 April  1974
 April  1974
 April  1974
 April  1974
 April  1974
 April  1974
 April  1974
 April  1974
 April  1974
 April  1974
 April  1974
 Sept.  1974
 Oct. 1974
 Dec. 1974
 Dec. 1974
 Jan. 1975
 Jan. 1975
 Feb. 1975
' June 1975
 June 1975
 June 1975

 June 1975
 June 1'975
 June 1975

 June 1975
 June 1975
 June 1975
 June 1975
 July 1975
 July 1975
 July 1975
 Oct.  1975
           Note:   The information above was  presented to the  Subcommittee  on
                   Oceans and  the Atmosphere  of the Committee  on Commerce,  U.S.
                   Senate, at  its April 12, 1976 Hearings,  by  Dr. Andrew  W.
                   Breidenbach,  EPA Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazard-
                   ous Materials

-------
                               TABLE  C

    PERMITTEES ON IMPLEMENTATION PLANS TO PHASE OUT OCEAN DUMPING
Region           Company

  II       American Cyanamid Co.
           Middletown Sewer Authority
           Passaic Valley Sew.  Conun.
           Allied Chemical Corp.
           The Upjohn Manuf. Co.
           E.I. duPont de Nenours
           City of Long Beach
           Middlesex Co. Sew. Auth,
           New York City
           Merck & Co., inc.
           Abbott Chemicals, Inc.
           NL Industries, Inc.
           Modern Transportation Co.
           Bergen Co.  Sew. Authority
           Linden Roselie Sew.  Auth.
           Elizabeth Joint Meeting
           Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
           Merck Sharp & Dohme
           County of Nassau
           County of Westchester
           West Long Beach  Sew. Dist.
           Oxochem Enterprises
           Puerto Rico Olefins  Co.
           Whippany Paper Board Co.
           Sobin Chemicals  Co.
           International Wire Products
           City of Glenn Cove
           Arrow Group Industries
           Reheis Chemical  Company
           Bristol Alpha Corporation
           M/M Mars
           The Coca-Cola Company
           Curtiss-Wright Corp.
           Norda, Inc.
           S.B. Penick & CO.
           Pfizer,  Inc.
           J.T. Baker  Chemical  Co.
           Fritzsche Dodge  & Olcott
           Keuffel  & Esser
           Caldwell Trucking Co.,  Inc.
           Schering Corp.
           American Cyanamid Co.
           S.B. Thomas, Inc.
           General  Marine
           Crompton Knowles
   III     City of  Camden
           City of  Philadelphia
           E.I. duPont de Nemours
Location
Phase Out Date
Linden, NJ             1979
Belford, NJ            1981
Newark, NJ             1981
Morristown, NJ         1981
Baeceloneta, PR        1978
Linden, NJ             1981
Long Beach, NY         1981
Sayreville, NJ         1981
New York, NY           1981
Rahway, NJ             1981
Barceloneta, PR        1978
So. Amboy, NJ          1981
So. Kearny, NJ         1981
Little Ferry, NJ       1981
Linden, NJ             1981
Irvington, NJ          1981
Barceloneta, PR        1978
Barceloneta, PR        1978
Mineola, NY            1981
White Plains, NY       1981
Atlantic Beach, NY     1981
Ponce, PR              1978
Ponce, PR              1978
Whippany, NJ           1977
Newark, NJ             1977
Wyekoff, NJ            1977
Glen Cove, NY          1981
Haskell, NJ            1976
Berkeley Hts., NJ      1977
Barceloneta, PR        1978
Hackettstown, NJ       1977
Highstown, NJ          1976
Fairfield, NJ          1976
East Hanover, NJ       1976
Montville, NJ          1977
Parsippany, NJ         1977
Phillipsburg, NJ       1977
Clifton, NJ            1976
Morristown, NJ         1977
Fairfield, NJ          1981
Manati, PR             1978
Wayne, NJ              1976
Totawa, NJ             1976
Bayonne, NJ            1981
Reading, PA*        "  1981
Camden, NJ             1981
Philadelphia, PA       1981
Edge Moor, DE          1978
        Note:  The  information above was presented to the Subcommittee  oh
               Oceans  and the Atmosphere of the Committee on Commerce,  U.S.
               Senate,  at its April 12, 1976 Hearings, by Dr. Andrew W.
               Breidenbach, EPA Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazard-
               ous  Materials
                                        85

-------
                                              TABLE  D

                                        ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ORDER
NO.
-
RESPONDENT'S
NAME
Safety Pro-
jects & Eng. ,
REFERRAL
FROM
EPA
TYPE OF
VIOLATION
REGION I
Failed to con-
tainarize wastes
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
02/20/75
DISPOSITION
$1,500 penalty paid
agreed to meet
DISPOSAL
SITE
Region Ind.
Dump Site
       Co.
73-1   General Marine   EPA
       Trans.  Corp.
74-1   Moran Towing &   USCG
       Trans.  Co.
74-2   Modern Trans-    USCG
       portation Co.
74-3   Pollution        USCG
  &    Control Ind.
74-5
74-4   Spentonbush      USCG
       Transport
       Service, Inc.
as specified in
permit

          REGION II

Permit condition.
Dumping without
a permit
Dumped outside
authorized dump
site
Dumped outside
authorized dump
site

Dumped outside
authorized dump
site
Dumped outside
authorized dump
site
                                                                   specs.
11/21/73    Final Order-5/15/74
            Hearing Officer up-
            held General Marine
            on both counts

1/23/74     Final Order-5/27/75
            $25,000 penalty pay-
            ment. Appealed U.S.
            District Court

04/02/74    Final Order-1/22/75
            Charges withdrawn
04/16/74    Final Order-9/13/74
            $40,000 penalty and
            install additional
            equipment on towing
            vessel and barges

06/06/75    Pending
Sewage sludge
                                                                                                     UD
                                                                                                     OO
Acid wastes
Sewage sludge
Chemical
wastes - P.R.
Chemical
wastes
75-1   Clerical Error - No investigation necessary

-------
                                           TABLE D  (Cont'd) "
        ORDER
         NO.

         75-2
         75-3
CO
RESPONDENT'S
   NAME

Modern Trans-
portation Co.
REFERRAL
  FROM

EPA
Chemical Re-
covery , EPL
Ind.
EPA
         75-4   Nassau County
         75-5   Moran Towing &
                Trans. Co.
         75-6   Pfizer Pharm-
                aceutical, Inc.
         75-7   PCI Inter-
                national, Inc.
         75-8   P.R. Olefins
                Company
                 EPA
                 NASA-
                  EPA
                 EPA
                 EPA
                 EPA
   TYPE OF
 VIOLATION	

Higher concen-
tration of several
parameters than
that reported in
the permit appli-
cation

Higher concen-
tration of several
parameters than
that reported in
the permit appli-
cation

Failed to segre-
gate waste
           Dumped outside
           authorized dump
           site

           Exceeded volume
           limit
           Exceeded volume
           limit
           Exceeded volume
           limit
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
DISPOSITION
03/05/75    Pending
DISPOSAL
 SITE

Chemical
wastes
03/05/75    Pending
                   Chemical
                   wastes
05/06/75    Final Order-6/16/75
            No penalty; ordered
            to terminate dumping
            of industrial wastes

08/14/75    Pending
                    08/14/75    Final Order-8/28/75
                                $5,000 penalty
                                payment

                    08/14/75    Final Order-12/3/75
                                $3,000 penalty
                                payment

                    09/04/75    Final Order-9/19/75
                                $4,000 penalty
                                payment
                                                                 Sewage sludge
                                                      Acid wastes
                                                                                  Chemical
                                                                                  wastes - P.R.
                                                                                  Chemical
                                                                                  wastes - P.R.
                                                                                  Chemical
                                                                                  wastes - P.R.

-------
                                      TABLE  D  (Cont'd)
ORDER
 NO.

 75-9
VI-OD-
  01
RESPONDENT'S
   NAME	

PCI &
McAllister
Bros.
Ethyl Corp.
        H-10 Water
        Taxi Service
REFERRAL
  FROM

USCG
USCG
                  EPA
   TYPE OF
 VIOLATION	

Dumped outside
authorized dump
site
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
                                               REGION VI
Violated reporting   12/09/75
& dumping conditions
DISPOSITION
12/11/75    Pending
                                               REGION IX
           Dumping outside
           authorized dump
           site
                     10/74
            $1,500 penalty
            payment
            Permit not re-
            viewed, $1,500
            penalty payment
DISPOSAL
 SITE

Chemical
wastes - P.R.
                   Mississippi
                   River Site
                                                                                    Garbage Site
                                                                                               GO
                                                                                               OO
                     Note-  The information above was presented  to the Subcommittee on
                            Oceans and  the Atmosphere of the Committee on Commerce, U.S.
                            Senate  at  its April 12, 1976 Hearings, by Dr. Andrew W.
                            Breidenbach,  EPA Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazard-
                            ous Materials

-------
                                CHAPTER VI


                         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
a lawful 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 judi-
cial interpretations,  point sources of waste water discharges embrace all
waste-producing sectors of the economy,  - whether industrial, municipal,
or agricultural in  character.

     NPDES  Permits  specify what  types  of wastes may be discharged  in
such concentrations and  amounts  as required  to  meet specific  effluent
guidelines,  water  quality standards, and any other relevant State/Federal
requirements.  NPDES Permits further specify  implementation  schedules for
attaining  the  required reduction of pollutants  in the wastewater streams.

     The 1972  FWPCA Amendments also established substantial fines  for non-
compliance with the conditions of  NPDES  Permits, or for illegal discharges
without a NPDES Permit,  ranging  up to  $10,000 per day.  Willful or negli-
gent violations can bring fines  up to  $25,000 a day and one year in prison
for the first  offense, and up  to $50,000 a day  and two years  imprisonment
for subsequent violations.  EPA  can require  compliance with permit condi-
tions  by issuing administrative  orders enforceable in Federal court, or by
seeking court  action.

     STATUS  OF NPDES PERMIT ISSUANCES

     At the  end of  1975,  the  States and  EPA  had identified 62,118  munici-
pal and non-municipal  discharges or sources  as  being subject  to the NPDES
Program. Some  9,259 of these  are classed as  "Major" discharges which, by
virtue of their pollutional significance, receive priority attention; the
remaining 52,859 comprise the  "Minor"  discharges.  It should  be kept in
mind that these respective designations  are  necessarily relative in chara-
cter,  since  the discovery of  new facts respecting any individual source
may dictate  a  change in  the designation. In  general, however, the  entities
comprising  the  "Major" discharges  at any point  in time constitute  the
overwhelming portion of  the  "pollution universe" of point sources.
                                       89

-------
                                     MUNICIPAL AND NON-MUNICIPAL
                                      NPDES PERMITS ISSUED BY
                                           STATES AND EPA
                                         DECEMBER 31, 1975


                                   MAJOR DISCHARGES        MINOR DISCHARGES           TOTAL ALL DISCHARGES




TO MUNICIPAL DISCHARGERS  	         4,375                    12,470             	16,845


TO NON-MUNICIPAL DISCHARGERS I/         4,213                    22,745                     26,958



  TOTAL ALL DISCHARGERS                 8,588                    35,215                     43,803
  TOTAL DISCHARGERS IDENTIFIED
  AS SUBJECT TO NPDES PROGRAM                  o/                       o/
  THROUGH DECEMBER 31,  1975              9,259-'                52,859 -'                  62,118-'

  PERMITS REMAINING TO  BE  ISSUED               „,
  AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1975                  671  5/                17,644                     18,315
        \j  Includes  Industrial  and  Agricultural Sources, and Discharges from Federal Facilities
        2/  Excludes Federal Facilities
        3_/  Permits remaining  to be  issued to 671 Major Discharges at the .end of 1975 comprised
           229  Municipal  and  442 Non-municipal Discharges in two major categories:  (1) Permits
           issued by some States for which  conditions have been challenged are not considered issued
           until  the challenges are resolved, and  (2) Additional discharges considered to be significant
           sources of pollution by  the  States and EPA have been newly included on the "Major" list.
O
cn

-------
                                   MUNICIPAL AND NON-MUNICIPAL NPDES PERMITS    ^

                              ISSUED BY STATES AND EPA, AND NUMBER OF DISCHARGERS
                                          IDENTIFIED — DECEMBER 31, 1975 I/
 EPA REGION
MUNICIPAL
NON-MUNICIPAL
PERMITS ISSUED- IDENTIFIED DISCHARGERS
1 I
II
in
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
GRAND
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
. Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
TOTAL
372
288
476
632
389
1,437
1,258
745 .
543
4,330 :
356
1,532
377
1 ,880 -• ;
226
807
223
250
155 '
569
4,375
12,470
16,845
372
353
517
1,537
416
2,785
1,412
1,343
567
5,039
359
1,531
1
364
1,784
227
840
214
250
156
598
4,604
16,060
20,664
PERMITS ISSUED
436
1,129
508
710
392
1,610 -N
1,110
4,206
663
5,334
384
. 1,975
215
3,275
166
1,384
228
1,561
111
1,561
4,213
22,745
26,958
IDENTIFIED DISCHARGERS
437
1,568
644
1,809
545
4,156
1,199
6,004
748
6,699
370
7,350
215
3,807
166
1,622
217
1,608
114
2,176
4,655
36,799
41 ,454
J/  In some, instances, the number of permits shown as issued exceeds the number of sources  identified;  this may occur  because
    certain large plants have numerous outfall pipes in different areas or in certain cases the  type of discharge may
    vary greatly.  Thus, more than one permit may have been issued.

-------
      As of December 31,  1975, the States and EPA had issued a
total of 43,803 NPDES Permits.  This included 8,588 issued to
major sources, which account for the bulk of the pollutants dis-
charged by point sources  to the Nation's waters, and 35,215 to
minor sources.

      A total of 18,315 NPDES Permits remained to be issued by the
States and EPA on December 31, 1975, including 671 major sources and
17,644 minor  sources.  As explained in the footnotes to the detailed
statistical tables appearing at the end of this chapter, the 671 out-
standing permits to major sources fall primarily into two categories:
1) Permits issued by some States for which legal or administrative chal-
lenges have been raised are not considered issued until the challenges
are resolved, and  2) Additional discharges considered to be significant
sources of pollution by the States and EPA have been newly included on
the "Major" list.  The issuance of all outstanding permits is a priority
goal for the  States and EPA in the early months of 1976.

      FEDERAL FACILITIES

      The Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires all agencies
of the United States Government to comply with Federal, State, inter-
state and local water pollution control laws and regulations in the
same manner as is expected of any non-governmental pollution source.
Additionally, Executive Order 11752 of December 17, 1973, assures that
the Federal Government, in the design, construction, management.oper-
ation and maintenance of its facilities, will provide leadership in the
nationwide effort to protect and enhance the quality of the environment.

      While all Federal installations discharging pollutants into water
bodies are covered by the NPDES provisions, such permits are issued only
by EPA regardless of whether a State has an EPA-approved NPDES Permit
Program.  All Federal facilities considered to be major sources already
were covered  by NPDES Permits at the end of 1974.  As of December 31, 1975,
2,062 of the  2,564 Federal facilities involved had been issued a NPDES
Permit, leaving 502 minor sources remaining to be issued in early 1976.

      NON-FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM

      Early on, EPA concentrated on encouraging the maximum partici-
pation by the States and the Public in carrying out the purposes of the
NPDES Permit  Program.  EPA has agreements with many States for joint
drafting of permits, joint public notice and public hearing procedures,
and joint compliance monitoring visits and surveys. EPA personnel has
been assigned to assist States in developing and improving their pro-
grams. In some States, EPA has established offices where State and EPA
staffs work side by side.
                                  92

-------
•Denotes F.PA-approved
 NPDES Permit Program
 (As of 12/31/1975)
STATE-BY-STATK BREAKDOWN OF NPDKS PERMITS ISSIJKD
BY STATES AND EI'A AND TOTAL NimfUI.R Of DISCHARGERS
       IDENTIFlKtl — AS OF OKCEHHKR 31. 1975
  (MAJOR/MINOR NUN-MUNICIPAL C MUNICIPAL SOURCES)
EPA
REG
lOM STATE
1 •Conn.
MB.
Mass
N.R.
R.I.
•Vt.
TOTAL
2 N.J.
•N.Y.
P.H.
V.I.
TOTAL
3 *Dela.
D.C.
*Md.
Pa.
*V«.
W.Va.
TOTAL
4 Ala.
Fla.
*Ga.
Ky.
•Miss.
•N.C.
•S.C.
Tenn.
TOTAL
5 111.
•Ind.
•Mich.
•Minn.
•Ohio
•His.
TOTAL
6 Ark.
La.
N.M.
Okla.
Texas
TOTAL
7 Iowa
"Kans.
•Mo.
•Nebr.
TOTAL
8 *Colo.
•Mont.
*N.D.
• S.D.
Utah
•Wyo.
TOTAL
NON-HUM CII'AI
HAJOK SOURCES
B « IUEN
ISSUED TII'IED
176 177
SO 50
138 138
39 39
17 17
16 16
436
157
293
54
4
506
29
0
38
117
89
119
392
182
167
82
• 131
105
147
158
138
1.110
124
85
278
51
53
72
663
38
110
15
46
175
384
46
64
63
42
215
61
36
17
1Q
28
14
166
9 Ariz. 19
•Calif. 131
•Hawaii 56
*Nev. 12
Samoa 4
Guam 6
Tr.Territ. 0
TOTAL
10 Alaska
Idaho
«0re.
•Wash.
TOTAL
GRAND
TOTAL. . . .
228
30
13
31
37
111
4,213
437
208
348
78
10
644
32
4
44
167
100
198
545
195
177
98
136
97
156
187
153
1.199
125
92
290
62
106
73
748
38
106
17
47
162
370
53
66
60
36
215
62
36
16
10
28
14
166
19
143
39
8
- 2
6
0
217
30
13
31
40
114
4,655
, DISCHARGERS
«1N(»R SOIJRIIKS
K
ISStlEI)
248
260
312
118
142
49
1,129
277
387
44
2
710
46
I
285
569
350
358
1.610
-330
702
41
954
560
818-
136
665
4.206
853
737
617
601
1.650
876
5.334
294
263
97
409
912
1.975
503
394
1,732
646
3,275
483
140
53
94
86
528
1,384
. 97
1,289
125
30
0
7
13
1,561
299
246
479
• 537
I.Sol
22.7J5
* I DEN
TIFIED
337
357
539
139
147
49
1.568
661
950
187
11
1,809
67
2
479
1.569
698
1.341
4.156
408
739
454
1,540
629
903
553
778
6,004
990
750
648
663
2,636
1,012
6,699
519
2.816
239
871
2.905
7.350
603
499
1,926
779
3.807
581
- 161
60
123
91
606
1.622
13
1.419
103
45
1
10
17
1,608
499
344
678
655
2.176
36.799
T 0
tf
ISSUED
424
310
450
157
159
65
1.565
434
660
98
6
1,218
75
1
323
686
439
477
2,002
512
869
123
1.085
665
965
294
803
5.316
977
822
895
652
1,703
948
5,997
332
373
112
455
1,087
2,359
549
458
1,795
688
3,490
544
176
70
104
114
542
1.550
116
1.420
181
42
4
13
13
1,789
329
259
510
574
1.672
26,958
T A 1,
* I0f.fi
I1FIED
514
407
677
178
164
' 65
2.005
869
1.298
265
21
2,453
99
6
523
1,736
798
1.539
4,701
603
916
552
1,676
726
1,059
740
931
7.203
1,115
842
938
725
2.742
1.085
7.447
557
2.922
256
918
3.067
7,720
656
565
1,986
815
4.022
643
197
76
133
119
620
1.788
32
1,562
142
53
3
16
17
1.825
529
357
709
695
2.290
41,454
MUNICIPAL.
HA.10R SOURCES
8
ISSUED
80
60
112
62
17
41
372
153
312
9
2
476
16
1
50
216
61
45
389
168
202
119
164
151
107
176
171
1.258
128
125
55
31
155
49
543
52
65
"11
54
174
356
136
54
91
96
377
92
26
16
26
48
18
226
28
144
30
18
0
0
3
223
7
24
56
68
155
4,375
* IDKN
TIFIF.D
60
60
112
62
17
41
372
156
350
10
1
517
16
1
61
219
69
50
416
163
222
168
179
150
170
193
167
1.412
128
125
55
31
179
49
567
54
64
11
53
177
359
151
40
80
. 93
364
92
26
16
26
48
19
227
28
146
18
18
1
0
3
214
7
24
56
69
156
4,604
DISCHARGERS
MINI* SOCKCKS
a
ISSUED
20
116
42
35
17
58
208
239
329
64
0
632
48
0
177
661
370
181
1.437
79
94
90
24
200
21
140
97
745
1.051
881
448
541
891
518
4.330
198
220
37
344
733
1.532
544
424
601
311
1.880
146
109
232
207
36
. 77
807
17
214
13
1
0
1
4
250
38
85
226
220
569
12,470
* 1DEN
T1FIKO
22
127
83
45
18
58
353
495
956
86
0
1.537
60
0
362
1,112
699
552
2.785
106
103
289
47
232
249
214
103
1.343
1.158
685
448
561
1.466
521
5.039
203
231
35
332
730
1.531
602
359
516
307
1,784
167
108
239
209
36
81
840
17
213
6
2
1
7
4
250
44
95
231
228
598
16,060
T 0
a
ISSUED
100
176
154
97
34
99
660
392
641
73
2
1.108
64
1
227
877
431
226
1.826
247
2%
209
188
351
128
316
268
2.003
1,179
1.006
503
572
1.046
567
4.873
250
285
48
398
907
1.688
680
478
692
407
2.257
238
135
248
233
84
95
1,033
45
358
43
19
0
1
7
473
45
109
282
288
724
16,845
T A 1.
* IOEN
TIFIED
102
187
195
107
35
99
725
651
1,306
%
1
2,054
76
1
423
1.331
768
602
3.201
269
325
457
226
382
419
407
270
2.755
1.286
1,010
503
592
1,645
570
5.606
257
295
46
385
907
1,890
753
399
596
400
2.148
259
134
255
235
84
100
1.067
45
359
24
20
2
7
7
464
51
119
287
297
754
20,664
     Note:  In some  instances,  the number of permits shown as issued exceeds the number of sources
            idcnlificd.   According lo Ihe Program Reporting Divi&iun at EI'A Headquarters,  this may
            occur because certain large plants have numerous outfall pipes in different areas, or in
            certain  cases the  typo of discharge may vary greatly;  thus, more than one permit  may have
            been issued.                              Q O

-------
      EPA Regions have also made a concerted effort to involve
the Public in the range of processes leading to decision-making
under the NPDES Permit Program, particularly by working with public
interest groups and environmental organizations.  The effort has
resulted in a gratifying degree of more and better informed public
involvement in the total permit issuance process, in pre-hearing
meetings and hearings leading to EPA approval of State-administered
NPDES Permit Programs, and in Adjudicatory Hearings leading to re-
solution of challenges of cleanup conditions imposed in NPDES Permits.
Not least, EPA cooperated with the Conservation Foundation in holding
seminars around the country to explain the NPDES Program and to seek
and encourage more active and informed participation by all segments
of the Public.
      SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS TOWARD IMPROVED WATER QUALITY

      The signs are mounting that the Nation's effort to combat water
pollution is producing results.  Because the NPDES Permit Program is
the key instrument of this effort, imposing, as it does, enforceable
deadlines and specific conditions as to the effluent quality judged
acceptable for discharge by point sources,  a collection of success
stories newly reported by EPA's Regional Offices is presented in this
Chapter, It is a growing collection — one which the States and EPA
can share with justifiable pride.

LAKE MICHIGAN - INDIANA TRIBUTARIES: (EPA REGION v)

      "....Coho and Chinook salmon, steelhead, pike, and bass are now
being caught by thousands of fishermen on the Little Calumet River, Salt
Creek and Trail Creek.  These urban streams which are major Indiana tribu-
taries to Lake Michigan have for many years suffered like the more fam-
ous Grand Calumet River from gross water pollution.  Several years ago,
the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board started a systematic upgrading
program, working with Valparaiso, Michigan City, and the numerous small
treatment plant operators to maximize waste treatment with existing physi-
cal facilities.  Through altered treatment techniques and the use of
chemical additives, the equivalent of single stage nitrification has been
obtained.  Additional construction of normal treatment and storm and com-
bined sewer control works is underway which will make these improvements
permanent. The 1975 run of sport fish and their establishment are the
positive result of the State's effort to rehabilitate these waterways and
return them to usefulness	"

-------
LAKE MICHIGAN - CHICAGO LAKEFRONT:   (EPA REGION  V)

     ".....For the first  time  in  many  years,  twenty-five miles of bathing
beaches have been opened  this  year  (1975)  in  the northern  suburbs of Chica-
go.  This area, combined  with  the presently opened  City of Chicago beaches,
makes available some 45 miles  of  swimmable water to Chicago area residents.
These water quality improvements  are the result  of  construction by the North-
shore Sanitary District of  extensive treatment and  diversion facilities.
Previously normal treatment was at  best inadequate,  and often raw sewage
overflows occurred on  these northside  beaches, making  them unsafe for swim-
ming use and endangering  northshore (drinking) water supplies....."


TITTABAWASSEE RIVER. MICHIGAN;  (EPA REGION V)

     "	Installation of  its tertiary polishing pond at  the Dow Chemical
Company's Midland Plant in  late 1974 marked a major milestone in the Michi-
gan Water Resources Commission's  program to return  the quality of the Titta-
bawassee River to useable levels.  The effect of the waste control program
has been dramatic.  Recent  surveys  have shown that  healthy gamefish popu-
lations have returned  to  the previously severely polluted  river, and even
occasional runs of trout  and salmon have been observed...."
 FOX  RIVER,  WISCONSIN:   (EPA REGION V)

      "	Significant  improvements have  been  measured  in  the Fox River,
 Lake Michigan's  largest tributary and  one of the  most polluted.  In the
 past five years,  municipal  and  papermill  discharges  of  oxygen-demanding
 materials have been  reduced from approximately 400,000  Ibs/day  to 84,000
 Ibs/day, and  dissolved  oxygen  in both  the Fox  River  and Green Bay definitely
 increased as  a result.   Aesthetic appeal  of the River is also improved because
 of new  or improved waste treatment facilities  installed in  the  past two to
 three years.  In  1974,  the  portion of  Green Bay suffering  oxygen depletion
 under winter  ice  had declined  from 150 square  miles  to  50  square miles.
 Completion  of "Best  Practicable" treatment technology by the River's in-
 dustries and  achievement of municipal  secondary treatment  will  essentially
 eliminate the dissolved oxygen  problems in Green  Bay	"


 WISCONSIN RIVER,  WISCONSIN:  (EPA REGION  V)

      "	The Wisconsin River,  historically another major problem area,
 is showing  significant  improvement, although not  all construction has been
 completed.  Installation of  a clarifier at St.  Regis  Paper  Company's Rhine-
 lander  Mill has virtually eliminated floating  scum and  fiber mats which for-
 merly covered the River for one-half mile upstream from the Hat Rapids Dam.
 Consolidated  Paper Company  and  Nekoosa Edwards have  also made significant
 wasteload reductions.   Though  oxygen depletions still occurred  in 1975 on
 the  Wisconsin River, their  severity and time of occurrence were greatly re-
 duced.  Numerous  major  waste treatment plants  are under construction, and
 the  impact  should be dramatic  by 1977	"

                                     95

-------
ESCATAWBA RIVER, ALABAMA/MISSISSIPPI:  (EPA REGION IV)

      "	The Escatawba River flows almost totally free from pollution
from Southwest Alabama into the lower Mississippi Gulf Coast Region. This
stream is considered to have water quality comparable to that necessary for
swimming and public water supply purposes.  At Moss Point, the first pol-
lution source enters the River in the form of effluent from International
Paper Company's Moss Point Pulp and Paper Mill.  Within a one-two mile
stretch of the River, this effluent is joined with effluent from Thiokol
Chemical Company's Synthetic Rubber Plant and the effluents from three
Menhaden Fish Mill Plants, as well as with sewage from the City of Moss
Point.  Prior to a year ago, septic conditions existed in the River during
most of the year, with little or no fish and wildlife activity in the pol-
luted stretch.

      Through State/EPA efforts, NPDES permits were issued to all of the
facilities except International Paper. The latter's permit was issued but
is currently being adjudicated.  The State permit for International Paper
required that an aerated lagoon be installed and that 85 percent removal
of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) be attained.  An abatement facility was
constructed and began operating approximately two years ago.   An NPDES permit
was issued to Thiokol Chemical Company which required that all process
waste be injected into a deep-well system.  The wells have been installed.
Thiokol is currently working under an implementation schedule to achieve
total compliance with the permit by getting all contaminated waste streams
into the deep-well system.  There will be some cooling water remaining.
The three fish mill plants have made extensive in-plant changes such that
they are now achieving effluents which are of a higher quality than BAT
(Best Available Technology) as identified in promulgated (effluent) guide-
lines for this industry.

      In the past, there were numerous complaints about the poor quality of
the lower Escatawba River.  These ranged from "no fish" to extremely corro-
sive conditions affecting boats and equipment in the water due to the dis-
charge of chemicals.  The complaints have now ceased, and the fish are re-
turning to the River.  It is once again a productive fish and wildlife
area	"
BLACK WARRIOR RIVER, ALABAMA: (EPA REGION IV)


     "The Gulf States Paper Corporation,  discharging to waters of the
Black Warrior River at Tuscaloosa, Alabama,  completed an oxygen-activated
sludge treatment system.  The performance of this facility far exceeds the
requirements of the NPDES Permit,  and Gulf States Paper has been awarded
the National Wildlife Federation's award  for innovation in pollution control."
                                    98

-------
MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA:   (EPA REGION IV)

    "Waste discharges from numerous small  "private/municipal"
facilities were polluting the nearshore waters of Manatee County
on the western coastline of Florida.  After a new regional municipal
sewage treatment plant was completed, NPDES permits were issued with
conditions which directed connections to the regional system by ap-
propriate deadlines.  Presently, all sewage outfalls have been elimin-
ated from Anna Maria Island and Longboat Key."
FIBREBOARD PAPER COMPANY, ANTIOCH, CALIFORNIA;  (EPA REGION IX)

    "Fibreboard installed a pure  oxygen  secondary treatment system
to treat 25 million gallons per day of pulp mill wastewater.  The
cost of this project was nearly $7 million.  In bioassay tests of
the effluent, fish survival increased from 0 percent to 90 percent.
The facility's discharge is to the Sacramento River just above
San Francisco Bay."(NPDES Permit  is #CA0004847)
HICKMONT, ANTIOCH,  CALIFORNIA:  (EPA REGION IX)
     "Hickmont  installed an extended aeration  secondary treatment
 system to  treat  1.3 million gallons per day of  tomato processing
 wastes.  The discharge now meets permit requirements.  Approximate
 cost of  the project was $1.2 million."  (NPDES Permit #CA0004987)
 SIMPSON LEE PAPER  CO.,  RIPON,  CALIFORNIA:   (EPA REGION IX)

     "  In  July  of 1975,  Simpson Lee  coverted from discharge to the
 Stanislaus River to  a  land disposal  system.  The treated paper mill
 effluent  is now disposed  of either  by  spray irrigation of corn and
 alfalfa,  or by flood irrigation of walnut  orchards."
 (NPDES Permit  #CA0004006)
LOS ANGELES  COUNTY  JOINT  PLANT,  CALIFORNIA:   (EPA  REGION IX)

    "During  1975, the  Los  Angeles  County  Sanitation Districts
reduced  the  PCB  concentration  in the  effluent from the 340 million
gallons  per  day  Joint  Plant  from 11.4 micrograms/liter to less than
0.02 micrograms  per liter.   This reduction was  achieved by reducing
the PCB  concentration  in  the effluent from four transformer re-builders
to non-detectable levels."  (NPDES Permit &CA0053813)

-------
                     CHAPTER VII
       NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION CENTER (NEIC)
       To aid in carrying out  the Agency's varied enforcement
 responsibilities,  EPA operates the National Enforcement Investi-
 gations Center, located at  Denver, Colorado.   Founded in 1970,
 NEIC was originally known as  the National Field Investigations
 Center at Denver,  operating as a field unit of the enforcement
 program of the Federal Water  Quality Administration,  then a
 component of the Department of the Interior.   In late 1970,
 the Center was transferred  to the Environmental Protection
 Agency, reporting to the Office of Enforcement at  EPA head-
 quarters.  In July 1975,  the  Center was re-named the  National
 Enforcement Investigations  Center.

       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 ef-
 fluent guidelines  for major industries nationwide.

       Specialty Expertise —  NEIC has  a  wide variety  of pollution
 control  expertise.  Its  staff  participated in the development  and
 evaluation  of  effluent  guidelines  for  numerous industries,  making
 major  contributions  in  the  preparation  of guidelines  for  the  Petro-
 leum,  Petrochemical, Textile,   Sugar Beet, Cane Sugar,  and  Pharma-
 ceutical  industry  groups.   Assistance  is provided  in  collecting
 data and  analyzing  treatment  technology  for air pollution  control
 at  stationary  sources,  and  for efficient recovery  systems  for mobile
 air pollution  sources.

      Discharge permits under  the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System  (NPDES) were drafted for more than  1,600 major
                                  98

-------
and minor industrial plants.  Permit Limitations for many of
the major industries were based on in-plant evaluations and ef-
fluent sampling conducted by NEIC.  Plant visits to verify process
descriptions, followed by waste source surveys, are conducted
regularly by NEIC to monitor compliance with permit requirements.
     Wastewater Treatment Evaluations — Expertise is available
to evaluate the performance of wastewater treatment facilities,
including advanced treatment  units and plants receiving major
industrial wastewater flows.  Performance evaluations are con-
ducted to provide data for establishing effluent limitations
and to identify and help correct  operational problems.
     Technical  Information  Services  — The National Enforcement
 Investigations  Center  uses  the  latest information retrieval tech-
 niques  to  assemble  data,  literature, and  research results which
 provide background  information  in  evaluating  complex environ-
 mental  problems.  NEIC has  access  to large-scale, computerized
 data bases,  governmental  and  commercial information retrieval
 systems, environmental information services,  and the EPA library
 system. These  resources, enabling the latest  environmental in-
 formation  to be rapidly compiled,  facilitate  the Center's quick
 response to  major environmental problems.

-------
A METAL "SHOCKER" BOAT IS USED BY INVESTIGATORS FROM EPA'S NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT
INVESTIGATION CENTER AT DENVER, COLORADO.  THE FISH, STUNNED BY AN ELECTRICAL CHARGE
PASSING FROM THE GENERATOR CARRIED IN THE BOAT THROUGH A METAL ROD, CAN BE QUICKLY
CAUGHT FOR EXAMINATION.  IN MANY WATER POLLUTION SITUATIONS AND CRISES, TIME IS CRUCIAL,
AND SPEED IN DETERMINING THE CAUSE OF POLLUTION IS ESSENTIAL„

-------
                  APPENDICES
             TABLE   OF   CONTENTS
                                                             Page

APPENDIX A — Summary of EPA Enforcement Actions,
               Section 110 - CLEAN AIR ACT:
               (Name list of Stationary Sources
                Involved)- July to December 1975 	 102

APPENDIX B — EPA Enforcement Actions under the
               FEDERAL INSECTICIDE. FUNGICIDE. AND
               RODENTICIDE ACT:

   Table 1 ~  Civil Actions Initiated by EPA,
                December 1974 - December 1975	 129

   Table 2 —  Criminal Actions Initiated by EPA,
                December 1974 - December 1975	 158

   Table 3 —  Update of Results for Civil Actions,
                December 1972 through November 1974	 159

   Table 4 —  Update of Results for Criminal Actions,
                December 1972 through November 1974	 181

APPENDIX C —  EPA Enforcement Actions under the Water
                Pollution Control Statutes:

   Table 1 —  NPDES Civil and Criminal Enforcement
                Actions under Section 309 of FWPCA	 187

   Table 2 —  Oil & Hazardous Substance Liability -
                Sect. 311 (b)(5) of FWPCA	 217

   Table 3 ~  Civil/Criminal Actions under REFUSE ACT 	 220

   Table 4 —  Actions under the MARINE PROTECTION. RE-
                SEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT	 222

APPENDIX D — Comparison of Enforcement Actions Included in
               Statistical Tabulations Presented in EPA En-
               forcement Reports Published through Dec. 1975..223
                               101

-------
                                        SUMMARY OF EPA  ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS


                                    SECTION 110 - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS *


                                             JULY - DECEMBER 31. 1975* *
                                                              SYMBOLS IEGEND
    STATE/CITY
COMPANY/TYPE
OF  SOURCE
                                                              a.
                                                              b.
                                                              c.
                                                              d.
               NOV
               VE
               MOO-
               NS PS
               NESHAPs
                                                                                        S02
                                                                        POLLUTION PROBLEM
                  APPENDIX  A
Notice of violation.
Visible emissions.
Memorandum of understanding.
New Source Performance Standards.
National Emission Standards
  for Hazardous Pollutants.
Sulfur dioxide.
Nitrogen oxides.
                                                                                                   TYPE OF ACTION
    Alabama,
        Birminqhant

    Alabama,
        Demopolls
    Alabama,
        Parish
    Alabama,
       Wilsonville
*~~^ Alabama,
O     sucks
ro

    Alabama,
        Gadsden
    Alabama,
       Bridgeport
    Alabama,
       Eufanla
    Alabama,
       Scottsboro
U.S.  Gypsum


Alabama Power Co.

•Power Plant

Alabama Power Co.-Gorgas

Power Plant

Alabama Power Co.-E.C.  Gaston

Power Plant

Alabama Power Co.-Barry

Power Plant

Alabama Power Co.-Gadsden
                 X  ,
Power Plant

Tennessee Alloys/Perro-Alloys Corp.

Power Plant

A.P.  Green Refineries

Bauxite Mininq

Revere copper 6 Brass.  Inc.

Primary aluminum plant
Partieulate  matter
Particulate
Partieulate
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
 Consent order issued
 8/9/75

 NOV 11/5/75
  NOV 11/5/75
  NOV 11/5/75
  NOV 11/5/75
                           NOV 11/5/75
                           NOV 11/21/75
                           NOV 12/8/75
  NOV 1/12/75
     * Includes some NESHAPs and NSPS enforcement actions.
                                     ** NOTE:  A name-by-name listing of entitles against whom EPA initiated wrforceoent
                                              actions through .lime 30,  1975 is contained in the EPA September 1975 Publi-
                                              cation, entitled,  "STATE AIR POLLUTION IMPUE!lffKTAT10N PUS) PROGRESS RKi-OKT,
                                              JANUARY 1 TO JUNE  30, 1975"; for individual copies, direct requests to the
                                              Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, Research Triangle Park.
                                              North Carolina 27711. The Report Number is EPA-450/2-75-008.

-------
     STATE/CITY
     2
COMPANY/TYPE1
OF SOURCE
O
GO
     Alabama,
        Sheffield
     Alabama,
        Alexander
        City
     Alabama,
        Holt
     Alabama,
        Talladega
     Alabama,
        Sheffield
     Alabama,
        Axis
     Alabama,
        Woodward
     Alabama,
        Fairfield
     Alabama,
        Tarrant
     Alabama,
        Bessemer
      Alabama,
        Leeds
Reynolds Metals Co.
Listerhill Reduction Plant
Primary Aluminum Plant
Russell corp./Textile Mill
Industrial boilers
The Central Foundry
Gray Iron Foundry
Newbury Mfq. Co.
Grey Iron Foundry
Martin Industries
Gray Iron Foundry
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Sulfuric Acid Plant
Alabama Alloy, Inc.
Ferro-alloy furnace
W.J. Bullock, Inc.
tton-ferros secondary smelting
 (zinc, aluminum, etc.)
Clow Corp.
Gray Iron Foundry (Pipes)
Jones Foundry Co.
Gray Iron Foundry
Universal Atlas Cement, Div.
U.S.S.C./Portland Cement Plant
     Alabama,
AMOCO Chemicals Corp./Chem.  Plant
POLLUTION PRQBLEM
Particulate
                                                                                             TYPE OF ACTION
NOV 12/8/75
               APPENDIX  A
               •9NTINUED
Particulata
NOV 11/21/75
Particulate
NOV 11/21/75
Particulate
NOV 11/21/75
Particulate
NOV 11/21/75
S02
NOV 11/21/75
Particulate
NOV 12/17/75
Particulate
NOV 12/17/75
Particulate

Particulate

Particulate

Particulate
NOV 12/17/75

NOV 12/17/75

NOV 12/17/75

NOV 12/17/75

-------
  STATE/CITY
  3
     Decater
  Alabama,
     Raqland
  Alabama,
     Eufanla
  Alabama,
     Mobile
  Alaska
     Ketchinken

  Arizona
     Kinqman  •

     Aurora
  Arizona
     Sahuarita

  Arizona
     Scottsdale
  Arizona
«    Benson
  California
     Crockett

  California
     Visalia

  California
     Fresno

  California
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE.
 Industrial incinerators

 National Cement Co.

 Portland cement plant

 Harbison-Walker Refractories

 Refract, bricks

 International Paper Co.

 Pulp & paper mill

 Herring Bay Lumber Co.
 Teepee burner

 Duval Corp.
 Mineral Park molybdenum
 concentrate roaster
Duval' Sierrita Corp.
molybdenum concentrate roaster

Industrial Asphalt
hot mix plant

Apache Power Company
nitric acid plant
California and Hawaii Sugar Co.
char dust collection stacks

Staufffir Chemical Co.
whey drier

Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
reverbatory furnace stack

Atlantic Richfield Co.
                                              POLLUTION PROBLEM
                                                                       TYPE OF ACTION
                                                                                        APPENDIX  A

                                                                                         CONTINUED
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
particulate matter
NOV 12/17/75
NOV 12/17/75
NOV 12/31/75
order 9/21/75
violation opacity,
particulate matter  and
sulfur compounds

compounds emission
stds.

Violation of particulate
matter std

violation of NSPS
test procedure

violation opacity,
open burning, and NOx
emission stds.

violation opacity std.
Admin, order 8/12/75
violation of particulate
matter std.

violation of visible
emission std

violation of sulfur
Admin, order 8/11/75


Admin, order 10/23/75


modification of order



NOV 8/12/75
Admin, order 9/30/75

Admin, order 9/3/75
NOV 10/2/75
Admin, order

Admin, order
12/16/75

10/28/75

-------
   STATK/CITY
   (I
      Carson


   California
      Long Beach
   California
      Wilmington
   California
     ~ Los Angeles
   Connecticut,
       Naugatuck

   Connecticut,
       Middletown
I—*  Connecticut,
CD    'Waterbury
cn

    Connecticut,
       C rot on

    Connecticut,  '
       Plainfield
    Delaware
       Wilmington

    District of
       Columbia

    Florida,
       Piney Point
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Watson Refinery
Edgington Oil Co.
oil storage tanks
Wilmington Liquid Bulk
Terminals, Inc.
oil storage tanks

City of Los Angeles Dept.
of Water and Power Haynes
steam plant and the Fuel
Oil Operations Marine Tank
Farm
Oil storage tanks

Uniroyal Chemical/Rubber
Reclaim Facility

Feldspar Corp.

Feldspar kiln

Waterbury Rolling Mills, Inc.

Metal casting facility

General Dynamics/solvent spray
operation

Pervei Industries

Casting ovens, rotary
process & screen printers

Delmarva PSL
utility boilers

GSA-West Heating plant/boilers
 Borden Chemical
POLLUTION PROBLEM
                         TYPE OF ACTION
                                                                                                                             A
                                                                                                                CONTINUED
dioxide and particulate
matter std*

violation Federally
promulgated State new
source review regulation

violation of Federally
promulgated State new
source review regulation

violation of Federally
promulgated State new
source review regulation
NOV 11/21/75
NOV 12/12/75
NOV 12/30/75
Hydrocarbon mass
emission

Particulate mass
emission
Particulate mass
emission
Photochemical solvents
mass emission

Organic compounds
particulate matter
mass emission

particulate mass
emission

SOx emissions
Order 7/7/75
Amendment to order 8/27/75

Order 8/27/75
NOV 8/8/75
Amendment to 2/11/7U
order 8/20/75

Order 12/30/75
NOV 11/17/75
                                                                                            order 9/15/75
consent agreement 8/15/75
Consent order issued
8/28/75

-------
   STATE/CITY
   5
   Florida.
      Tampa

   Florida,
      Ba rtow

   Florida,
      Pace
  . Florida,
      S.  Pierce
   Florida,
      Jacksonville
    Florida,
      Titusville
    Florida,
      Mulberry
CD
Florida,
   Tampa
                 COMPANY/TYPE
                 OF SOURCE
Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals


C.F. Industries, Inc.


Air Products 6 Chen.

Nitric Acid Plants

Agrico Chemical Co.

Sulfuric Acid Plants

C.I. capps Co.

Gray Iron Cupola

Orlando Utilities Commission

Power Plant

Royster company

Sulfuric Acid Plant

Tampa Municipal Incinerator

Incincerator
    Florida,         City of Ft. Lauderdale
       Ft.  Lauderdale
                    Incinerator
    Florida
       Plant City
   Georgia,
      Jessuo
   Georgia,
      Riceboro
                 Borden chemical

                 Defluronation Plant

                 ITT Rayonier



                 Interstate Paper
                       Particulate
                       3-power boilers
                       (back fired)
                                                               POLLUTION PROBLEM
                                                               NOx emissions
                                                               SOx emissions
                                                               NOx
                                                               SO2
                                                               Particulate
                                                               Particulate
                                                               S02
                                                                   Particulate
                                                               Particulate
NOV 12/11/75
                                              Particulate
                                               Particulates
                                               recovery boiler
                                                                       TYPE OF ACTION    APPENDIX   A

                                                                                           CONTINUED
                        Consent order issued
                        9/8/75

                        Consent order issued
                        11/14/75

                        NOV  12/11/75
                        NOV 12/11/75
                         NOV 12/11/75
                         NOV 12/11/75
                         NOV 12/11/75
                         TJOV 12/11/75
                                                                       NOV 12/11/75
                         NOV 12/10/75
                         NOV 12/10/75

-------
  STATE/CITY
  6
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
                                                                                          TYPE OF ACTION
                  APPENDIX  A
                     CONTINUED
  Georgia*
     St. Marys
  Georgia,
     Carrollton
  Georgia,
     Savannah
  Georgia,
     Sandersville
  Guam
     Agana
  Hawaii
     Haipabu

  Hawaii
     Honolulu
O
  'Hawaii
     Ewa

   Hawaii
     Wainaku
Gilman Paper
1-power boiler
(back fired)

Southwire copper
an ode furnace and  '
copper connector

National Gypsum

7 Kettles, rotary dryer

Thiele Kaolin

Spray 'dryer

Guam Power Authority
Cabras Station power plant


Oaha Sugar Co., Ltd.
bagasse and oil-fired boiler

Standard Oil Co. of California
 (Western Operations, Inc.)
Hawaiian Refinery Fluid Catalytic
Cracker Unit.

Hawaiian Western Steel Ltd
electric arc furnace

Hilo Coast Processing Co.
bagasse and oil firde boilers
   Idaho            Hearitt  Brothers
      Priest River  Lumber Co.
                    Wigwam burner
   Idaho
      McCall

   Idaho
 Boise Cascade
 Wigwam  burner

 Tack River Co.
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
NOV 12/10/75
NOV 12/10/75
NOV 12/10/75
NOV 12/10/75
violation NSPS for power Admin, order  9/15/75
plant                    Civil complaint filed
                         1/21/76

violation of particulate NOV 7/11/75
matter and V/E std       Admin, order  12/23/75

violation of particulate'NOV 8/25/75
matter std.
violation of sulfur
emission std
Admin, order 10/30/75
violation of Federally  Admin, order 12/18/75
promulgated compliance
schedule and visible
emission standards
V/E



V/E


V/E
consent order 8/7/75



NOV 9/11/75


order 9/15/75

-------
°°
 STATE/CITY
 7
    Osburn

 Idaho
    Pocatello

 Idaho
    Dun

 Idaho
    Post Falls

 Idaho
    Twin Falls

 Idaho
    Kellogg

 Illinois
    Chicago

 Illinois
    Cahokia

, Illinois
    Stickney

 Illinois
    Sterling

 Illinois
    Mascoutah

 Illinois
    Chicago

 Illinois
    Pekin

 Illinois
    Peoria

 Illinois
    Springfield
                    COMPANY/TYPE
                    OF SOURCE
Wigwam•Burner

FMC Corporation
Ore crusher

J.R. simplot Co.
Nitric Acid Plant

Louisiana Pacific
Wigwam burner

Protein Processors
Animal Feed Mfg.

Bunker Hill Co.
lead G zinc smelter

Abitibi Corporation
painting process

Union.Electric Co./Cahokia
Plant - power plant

Incinerator, Inc.
incinerator

Northwestern Steel C Wire Co.
electric arc furnaces

City of Mascoutah
municipal power plant

Abitibi Corp.
painting process

Commonwealth Edison
Powerton station 15

CILCO
Duck Creek Power Stn.

City Water, Light 6 Power Dept.
City Generating Stn. (boilers)
                                                                  POLLUTION PROBLEM
                                                                  particulate matter
                                                                  Failure to complete
                                                                  NSPS Testing
                                                                       TYPE OF ACTION    /APPENDIX  A


                                                                                           CONTINUED
                         NOV 12/24/75
                         consent order 10/1/75
                         NOV 10/1/75
                                                                  particulate matter V/E   NOV 10/28/75
                                                                  particulate matter
                                                                  particulate matter
                                                                  (fugitive emission)

                                                                  hydrocarbon
SOx


particulate


particulate


particulate £ SOx


hydrocarbon


SOx


NSPS for SOx


NSPS for SOx
NOV 10/29/75


order 9/22/75


NOV 8/1/75


consent order 8/15/75


consent order 10/3/75


consent order 10/6/75


NOV 10/20/75


Consent order 10/22/75


NOV 10/28/75


NOV 10/30/75


NOV 11/13/7*
 Illinois
                    Commonwealth Edison
                                                                SOx
                                                                       NOV 11/26/75

-------
   STATE/CITY
   8
      Chicago
      (Pekin)

   Illinois
      Rochelle

   Illinois
      Peoria

   Illinois
      East Peoria,
      Morton,
      Vansant

   Indiana
      Terre  Haute

   Indiana
      East Chicago

   . Indiana
      Richmond

   Indiana
      Crawfords-
*—*    villa
O
CD Indiana
      Plainfield
       (Mt. Carmel)

   Indiana
      East Chicago

   Indiana
      East Chicago

   Iowa
      Middletown
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Powerton Gen.  Stn.  *6
City of Rochelle/Rochelle
Steam Plant - Coal fired boilers

Celotex
coal fired boilers

Caterpillar
Tractor
C.F. Industries
ammonium nitrate mfg.

Inland Steel/Indiana Harbor
Works

Johns-Mansville Corp.
melting furnaces

Crawfordsville Electric
Light & Power Company
Public Service Co. of Indiana
Gibson Generating Stn.
Inland Steel Co.
BOF Shop

Inland Steel
coke batteries

Iowa Army Ammunition
Plant  (Dept. of Army)
POLLUTION PROBLEM
                                                                                           TYPE OF ACTION
                   APPENDIX  A

                     QONFINUED
    Iowa             Wilson  & Co. Inc.
       Cdear Rapids
    Iowa
                     Gra-Iron  Foundry Corp.
particulate


particulate & SOx


SOx




particulate


particulate G V/E


particulate


particulate



NSPS for SOx



partculate 6 V/E


particulate


particulate



'particulate


particulate
NOV 12/10/75


NOV 12/22/75


NOV 10/7/75




consent order S/t/75


consent order 9/12/75


consent order 10/22/75


NOV 10/28/75



NOV 11/19/75



NOV 12/12/75


NOV 12/22/75
Memorandum of
understanding 
-------
    STATE/CITY
    9
       Marshalltown

    Iowa
       Clinton

    Iowa
       Cedar Rapids

    Iowa
       Keokuk

    Iowa
       Davenport

    Iowa
       Marion

    Iowa
       Des Moines

    Iowa
       Charles City

f~*  Iowa
^—:     Cedar Rapids
O
    Iowa
       Newton

    .Iowa
       centerville

    Iowa
       Centerville

    Iowa
       Dubuque

    Iowa
       Salix

    Iowa
       Sioux City

    Iowa
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Hawkeye Chemical Co.
Penick 6 Ford, Ltd.
Midwest Carbide Corp.
Kelsey-Hayes, French
& Hect Division

Central Iowa Power Cooperative
Mid-American Dairymen, Inc.
- spray dryer

White Farm Equipment Co.
Carqill, Inc. Blast Plant
.Newton Foundry Co.
The Carter-Waters Corp.
L. Benac S Sons, Inc.
Interstate Power Co.
Iowa public service Co.
(George Neal .Station)

Launderville Construction Co.
McKee Buttons
                                               POLLUTION PROBLEM
V/E
particulate
particulate 8 V/E
particulate
particulate
                         TYPE QF ACTION  APPENDIX  A

                                           CONTINUED
                         order  8/22/75
order 8/1H/75 - »/l/75
order 8/18/75
order 8/15/75
order 7/29/75
particulate/process wt.   order 7/29/75
                         amended 7/30/75

particulate/process wt.   order 8/7/75
V/E
particulate


particulate


particulate


particulate


particulate


particulate


particulate


particulate
order 8/7/75


order 8/1/75


order 8/1/75


order 7/31/75


order 8/1/75


Revised order 8/5/75
draft order 12/10/75
issued 1/76

order 12/23/75

-------
STATE/CITY.
10
   Miscati

Iowa
   Mason City

Iowa
   Independence

Iowa
   Waterloo

Iowa
   Muscatine

Iowa
   Arlington

Iowa
   Des Monies

Iowa
   Ourant

Iowa
   Superior

Iowa          • „
   Maquoketa

Kansas
   Lawrence

Kansas
   Fort  Scott

Kansas
   Independence

Kansas
   Riverton

Kansas
   Pittsburgh

Kentucky,
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Farmers Grain Dealers Asso.
Wapsie Valley"Creamery Inc.
Rath Packing Co.
Grain Processing Corp.
Associated Milk
Producers, Inc.

Inland Mills Company
Russelloy Foundry
Superior Cooperative
Elevator Company

Clinton Engines Corp.
Cooperative Farm
Chemicals Assoc.

Tower Metals Products
 Universal Atlas Cement
 Empire-District Elec. Co.
 Gulf  Oil Chemicals Co.
 American  Standard
POLLUTION PROBLEM



          »

particulate


particulate


particulate


particulate


particulate


particulate


particulate


particulate


particulate
particulate
opacity

opacity
opacity


particulate


particulate


Particulate matter
                         TYPE OF ACTION
order 12/23/75


order 12/22/75


order 12/27/75


order 12/23/75


order 9/9/75


order 8/6/75


Revised order 11/17/75


order 8/1W/75


order 8/13/75


order 10/15/75


order 8/13/75


order 9/12/75
NOV 7/22/75
order 12/23/75

order 8/1/75
Consent order issued
                  APPENDIX   A
                                                   04

-------
STATE/CITY
11
   Louisville

Kentucky,
   Louisville.

Kentucky,
   Louisville

Kentucky,
   Louisville

Kentucky,
   Louisville

Kentucky,
   Louisville

Kentucky,
   Louisville

Kentucky,
   Louisville

Kentucky,
   Louisville

Kentucky,
   Louisville

Kentucky,
   Louisville
Kentucky,
   Louisville

Loui siana
   Bastrop
Louisiana
   Cotton
   Valley
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Anderson Wood Products


B.F. Goodrich


Falls City Brewing .Co.


Fawcett Printing Corp.


City of Louisville


International Harvester


Henry Vogt Machine Co.


Louisville Gas & Electric Co.
Cane Rune 4,566

Louisville Gas & Elec. Co.
Cane Run H, 5 & 6

General Electric Co.

Appliance Park

Louisville Gas £ Elec. Co.
Mill Creek Units 1 & 2

International Paper Co.
{Louisiana Mill)
wood pulping mill

Cotton Valley Solvents Co.
Truck loading facility
                                               POLLUTION PROBLEM
Particulate matter
Particulate matter
Particulate matter
Hydrocarbon emissions
Particulate matter
Hydrocarbon emissions
Particulate Matter
Sulfur oxide emissions   Consent order issued
11/5/75

Sulfur oxide emissions   NOV 9/29/75
TYPE OF ACTION   "•• tlllJIA   f\

                  CONTINUED

7/23/75

Consent order issued
8/29/75

Consent order issued
7/11/75

Consent order issued
8/29/75

Consent order issued
8/29/75

Consent order issued
8/29/75

Consent order issued
1/23/75

Consent order issued
Particulate Matter/
Hydrocarbons


S02


Particulate, V/E
Hydrocarbons
NOV 12/9/75
NOV 12/19/75
                         Order 12/12/75
NOV 7/21/75
order  10/30/75
Louisiana
Commercial Solvents Co,,
particulate
 NOV  7/31/75

-------
STATE/CITY
12
   Sterlington
Louisiana
   Shreveport
Louisiana
   Belle Chasse
Louisiana
   Burnside

Louisiana
   Franklin
Louisiana
   Holden
Louisiana
   Lake Charles
Louisiana
   Belle Chasse

Louisiana
   Shreveport

Louisiana
   Baton Rouge
 Louisiana
    Joyce

 Louisiana
    Fisher
 Louisiana
    Bogalusa
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Thermatomic Carbon, Co.
carbon black recovery dryers

Bird & Son, Inc.
asphalt roofing process
Gulf Oil Co. - U.S.,
Alliance Refinery- sulfur
recovery unit incinerator

Ormet Corp.-
calcining kilns

Cities Services Oil Co.
Columbian Div.
landfill

U.S. Plywood Co., Division
of Champion International -
conical wood waste burner

Cities Services Oil Co.
 (refinery) fluid catalytic cracking
unit regenerator-sulfuric acid

Chevron Chemical Co.
incinerators

Kroehler Mfg. Co.
•wood waste boilefe, .

Allied Chemical Corp.
Baton Rouge Polyolefins Plant
Specialty Chemicals Division

Crown Zellerbach-Joyce Wood
Products Plant - wood waste boiler

Vancover Plywpod Co.
Inc., Softwood Lumber Div.
wood waste boiler

Crown Zellerbach Corp.
 (Bogalusa Mill)
POLLUTtON PROBLEM
TYPE OF ACTION    APPENDIX  A
particulate,
fugitive dust
S02
particulate (open
burning)
particulate V/E



particulate, SO2



particulate, SO2


particulate V/E


hydrocarbons



particulate, V/E


particulate, V/E



particulate, V/E
Termination of  NOV
12/10/75

NOV 7/31/75
Termination of  NOV
12/3/75

NOV 8/29/75
particulate, process     NOV 8/29/75
wt.
NOV 8/29/75



NOV 9/5/75



NOV 9/26/75



NOV 9/30/75


NOV 9/30/75


NOV 11/19/75



NOV 11/21/75


order 7/9/75



order 11/4/75

-------
 STATE/CITY
 13
 Louisiana
    Springhill
 Ixjuisiana
    Bastrop


 Louisiana
    Larose

 Louisiana
    Florien
 Louisiana
    OeRider.

 Louisiana
    Roanoke

'Louisiana
[    Winnfield

 Maine,
    Winslow '
 Maine*
    Jay
 Maine,
    Auburn
 Maine,
   Auburn
Maine, .
 COMPANY/TYPE
 OF SOURCE
 wood pulping mill

 International Paper Co.
 {Sprinqhill Mill)
 wood pulping mill

 International Paper Co.
 {Bastrop Mill)
 wood pulpinq mill

 Lafourche Parish Police
 Jury-solid waste dump

 Vancouver Plywood Co.,
 Inc., Florien Plywood
 Plant - conical wood waste
 burner E sander dust burner

 International Paper Co., wood treating
 plant - conical wood waste burner

 Roanoke Rice Coop
 incinerator

 Winnfield Veneer Co.
 conical wood waste burner

 Scott Paper Co.

 Sulfite pulp mill

 International Paper Co.
 Androscoqgin Mill/kraft

 Recovery boiler

Androscoggin Foundry/Grey

 iron cupola

G.A. Peterson Co.

Asphalt batching operation

Premoid Corp.
                                               POLLUTION PROBLEM
particulate, V/E
particulate, V/E
particulate (open
burning)

particulate V/E
particulate V/E
particulate V/E
particulate V/E
SO2 mass emission
Particulate matter
mass emission
                         TYPE OF ACTION
order 12/12/75
order 12/12/75
Termination of NOV
9/19/75

Termination of NOV
11/12/75
Termination of NOV
12/3/75

Termination of NOV
12/3/75

Termination of NOV
12/3/75

Order
NOV 3/13/75
Order 1I/5/75
                  APPENDIX   A
                   CONTINUED
Particulate matter mass  Order 11/17/75
emission
Particulate matter       NOV 12/15/75
mass emission 6 opacity
                                                                Particulate-mass
                         NOV-12/30/75

-------
    STATE/CITY
    14
       Lincoln
    Maine,
       Woodland
    Maine,
       Millinocket
    Maine,
       Rumford
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
lime kiln

Georgia-Pacific Corp.

Woodland Div./boiler

Great Northern Paper Co.

Sludge incinerator 6 dryer

Oxford Paper Co.

Kraft Pulp Mill
                                               POLLUTION  PROBLEM
                                                                   emission
Particulate mass
emission
Particulate mass
emission
Particulate emissions
                                                                                            TYPE OF ACTION
NOV 10/3X75
Order 12/16/75
NOV 9/5/75
Order 11/5/75
NOV 7/7/75
                                                                                                            CONTINUED
    Maryland
       Baltimore

    Maryland
       Dickerson

    Massachusetts,
       Chelsea
h-*  Massachusetts,
CTl     Canton

    Massachusetts,
       Mattapan
    Massachusetts,
       Newton
    Mas s a chusetts,
       Lowell
    Massachusetts,
        Danvers
J.J. Lacey Foundry


PEPCO-Dickerson Station


Texaco

Gas loading terminal   recovery system

Plymouth Rubber Co.


Stedfast Rubber Co.    Organic material mass

Spray operation

City of Newton

Municipal incinerator

City of Lowell

Municipal Incinerator

GTE Sylvania

Spray paint operation
particulate matter mass  NOV 8/11/75
emission
particulate mass
emission

Organic material
installation of vapor
Order 8/7/75
emission
emission

Particulate mass
emission
Particulate mass
emission
Organic material
mass emission
order 11/11/75


consent order 7/9/75
Organic material mass     Order  8/7/75
01
NOV 7/21/75
Order 8/29/75
                                                                                            Order 7/28/75
NOV 6/26/75
Order 9/8/75

-------
STATE/CITY
15
Massachusetts,
   Lynn
Massachusetts,
   Framingham
Massachusetts,
   Lawrence
Massachusetts,
   Winchester
Massachusetts
  •Quincy
Massachusetts,
   Weymouth
Massachusetts,.
   Revere
Massachusetts,
   Chelsea
Michigan
   Detroit

Mississippi,
   Laural

Mississippi,
   Louisville
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
North American Philips Lighting

Corp./spray paint operation

Dennison Mfg. Co.

Spray Operation

Maiden Mills

Textiles

City of Winchester

Municipal incinerator

General Dynamics

Boiler

Town of Weymouth


Municipal incinerator


Sun Oil Co.

Gas loading terminal

Gulf Oil Co.,

Gas loading terminal

Detroit Public Lighting Dept.
Mistersky stn.

Masonite, Corp.


Louisville Asphalt Co.
                                              POLLUTION PROBLEM
Organic material  mass
emission
emission
Particulate mass
emission
Particulate mass
emission
Particulate mass
emission
Particulate emissions
Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons
particulate
Particulate matter
Failed to respond to
SHU request for
process 6 emission
information.
                                                                      TYPE OP ACTION
NOV 6/26/75
Order 8/29/75
APPENDIX  A

   CONTINUED
        material  mass    Consent order 7/7/75
Order 9/26/75
NOV 10/2/75
Order 12/5/75
NOV 7/31/75
Order 10/30/75
Order 7/7/75 civil action
instituted;  consent
decree lodged

with court on 1/9/7

Consent order 6/18/75
NOV 6/27/75
NOV 9/16/75
Consent order issued
12/12/75

Consent order issued
9/9/75

-------
STATE/CITY
"16
Mississippi,
   Gulfport
Mississippi,
   Laurel

Missouri
   Knob Noster

Missouri
   Grandview

Missouri
   North Kansas
   City

Montana
   Bonner
Montana
   Missoula

Montana
   Great Falls,

Nevada
   McGill
COMPAN Y/TYP E
OF SOURCE
Capital Asphalt Co.
Masonite Corp.
whiteman Air Force Base
(Dept of Air Fojrce)

Richards - Gebaur A.F. Base
Fry Roofing Co.
U.S. Plywood—Main Boiler
3 Dutch oven boilers, veneer
dryer

Intermountain Company
Hoq fueled burner

Superlite Products
Rotary Kiln

Kennecott Copper Corp., Nevada
Mines Division copper smelter
 New  Jersey,       Barnett Foundry 6 Machine Co.
   Irvinqton

 New  Jersey,       North Jersey  Foundry Co. Inc.
   Little Falls
 New Jersey,
    Medford

 New Jersey,
    Linden

 New Jer.sey,
 Lafferty Asphalt Co., Inc.


 Public  Service Elec. 6 Gas Co.


 Winston Mills
POLLUTION PROBLEM
Failed to respond to
311<» request for
process, and emis-
sion information

Particulate matter
particulate
opacity
particulate V/E
violation of both
particulate emission
std and visible emission
TYPE OF ACTION    APPENDIX  A


                      CONTINUED
Consent order issued
11/2U/75
NOV  6/19/75
MOU 8/29/75
MOU 8/1U/75
NOV 9/25/75
NOV 8/5/75
violation of particulate NOV 8/5/75
emission std

violation of particulate NOV 9/12/75
emission std

violation of Federally   NOV 9/23/75
promulqated sulfur oxides
and particulate matter std.
Particulate


Particulate


NS PS -no ti f ic ati on
performance tests

Opacity


Opacity
                                                                       NOV 7/8/75
                                                                       Consent order 8/28/75

                                                                       Consent order 8/22/75
                                                                                         NOV  6 order 12/9/75
Consent order 7/18/75
NOV 10/31/75

-------
    _STATE/CITY
    17
       Bogota

    New Jersey,
       Jersey City

    New Jersey,
       Newark
    New York,
       Garden City

    New York,
       Lawrence
    New York,
       Long Beach

    New York,
       Valley Stream

    New York, .
       Green Island
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Woodward Metal Processing Corp.


Flockhart Foundry Co.

Garden City Incinerator


Sanitary District

II incincerator

Long Beach Incinerator


Valley Stream Incinerator
Bendix Corp.
Friction Mat'l Div.
                                              POLLUTION PROBLEM
Particulate


Particulate V/E

Particulate


Particulate



Particulate


Particulate


NESHAPS-AsbestOS
                        TYPE OF ACTION    APPENDIX  A

                                         ©ONflNUED
                         NOV  11/11/75
NOV 11/17/75

Order 7/28/75
Amended 10/14/75

Order 7/28/75
Order 7/28/75
Order 7/28/75
NOV 6 order 7/28/75
    New York,         Plum Island Animal Disease
*~~^     Plum Island   Center (Dept.  of Agriculture)

OO  New York,
       Buffalo
    New York,
       Brooklyn

    New York,
       Buffalo
    New York,
       Freeport

    New York,
       Otica

    New York,
       Syracuse
Buffalo Municipal Incinerator


Oetecto Scales, Inc.


Dqnner Hanna Coke Corp.



Freeport Incinerator


Dunlop Tire 6 Rubber


Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
Particulate


Particulate


Hydrocarbons
                                                                       Consent agreement 11/19/75
Order 8/20/75
Order 7/30/75
Failure to respond to    Order 8/20/75
Section lit request for
information
                                                                   Particulate
                         Order 7/28/75
Particulate emissions    NOV 9/2/75
Sulfur content in fuel   NOV 7/31/75
particulate emissions

-------
   STATEXCITY
   18
   North Carolina,
      Lenoir

   North Carolina,
      Roxboro

   North Carolina,
      Goldsboro

   North Carolina,
      Koncure

   North Carolina
      Glen Raven
   North Carolina,
      Rockingham
    North Carolina,
       Statesville
H-V North Carolina,
CD     Walnut Cove
    North Carolina,
       Whiteville
    North Carolina
       Aulander
    North Carolina,
       Aquadale
    Ohio
       Cleveland
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Bernhardt Industries,  Inc.


Carolina Power £ Light Co.
Roxboro Plant Unit i3

Carolina Power 6 Light Co.
H.F. Lee Plant Unit *3

Carolina Power & Light Co.
Cape Fear Plant Units  364

Glen Raven Mills

Tenterframe

Standard Coundry

Cupola

Troutman Foundry

Cupola

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Tobacco Processing Line "A"

Georgia-Pacific "torp.

Bark Boiler

Planters Peanuts

Conical Burner

Carolina Solite Corp.

.8 Rotary Kilns
 Highland View Hospital
 boilers
POLLUTION PROBLEM



visible emissions

Particulate matter


Particulate


Particulate


Particulate


Visible emission



Particulate.



Particulate



Particulate



Particulate



Visible Emissions



Particulate 6 S02




particulate
                                                                                           TYPE OF ACTION
                                                                                       APPENDIX   A
Consent order issued
8/28/75

NOV 11/21/75
NOV 11/21/75


NOV 11/21/75


NOV 11/21/75




NOV 11/21/75




NOV 11/21/75



NOV 11/21/75



NOV 11/21/75



NOV 11/21/75



NOV 11/21/75





consent order 7/10/75
                                                                                                                CONTINUED

-------









H*
PO
o






STATE/CITY
19
Ohio
Youngs town
Ohio
Struthers
Ohio
Hillsboro
Ohio
Quincy
Ohio
Philo
Ohio
Painesville
Ohio
Gypsum
Ohio
Warren
Ohio .
Iron ton
Ohio
Mansfield
Ohio
Portsmouth
Ohio
Hamilton
Ohio
Middlebranch
Ohio
woodville
Ohio
Lancaster
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Younqstown Sheet 6 Tube
Briar Hill Steel Works
Younqstown Sheet 6 Tube
Campbell Steel Works
Emerson Electric
Bell and Quincy Foundry
Ohio Ferro Alloys
Corporation, submerged arc furnace
Uni royal. Inc.
U.S. Gypsum Co.
Copperweld Spec. Steel
Allied Chem/Semet-Solvay Div,
coke batteries
Ohio Brass Co.
Cupolas
Detroit Steel Cor p/Empi re-Detroit steel Div.
open hearth furnaces
Gray Iron Foundry Corporation
cupolas
Flintkote Co. /Diamond Kosmos Cement Div.
cement kilns
Ohio Lime Co.
Loroco Industries
POLLUTION PROBLEM
particulate and V/E
particulate and V/E
particulate and V/E
particulate and V/E
particulate and V/E
particulate
particulate
particulate
particulate & V/E
particulate
particulate S V/E
particulate
particulate & V/E
particulate
particulate
TYPE OF ACTION "' '
GO
w
consent order 7/25/75
consent order 7/25/75
consent order 7/23/75
consent order 7/23/75
consent order 7/31/75
order 7/7/75
order 7/7/75
order 7/7/75
NOV 8/6/75
consent order 8/6/75
order 8/11/75
consent order 8/11/75
consent order 8/11/75
order 7/8/75
order. 10/9/75
APPENDIX A
GONHNl/ED

-------
STATE/CITY
20
Ohio
   Steubenville

Ohio
   Middlehranch

Ohio
   Parma

Ohio
   Cuyahoga
   Heights .
    (Cleveland)

Ohio
   Lima
    (Shawnee
   township)

Ohio
   Oakhill

Ohio
   Cuyahoga

Ohio
    Gypsum

Ohio
    Warren

Ohio
    Cleveland

Ohio
    Painesville

Ohio
    Cleveland

Ohio
    Hillsboro
    6  Quincy
COMP AN Y/TYP E
OF SOURCE
Federal Paperboard
Flintkote Co./Diamond Kosmos
cement kilns

City of Parma
refuse incinerator

Chemetron.Corp./Ohio Chemical
Plant - boliers
Vistron Corp,/subs Of SOHIO
urea prill tower
Victory Charcoal Inc.
beehive kilns

McGean Chemical Co.
boilers

U. S. Gypsum
Copperweld
 Highland View Hospital
City of Painesville
Municipal Light Plant (boilers)

City of Cleveland/Lake Road
Gen. Stn. Coal fired boilers

Emerson Electric
POLLUTION PROBLEM



          «
particulate


particulate 6 V/E


particulate


particulate




particulate




particulate


particulate


particulate


particulate


particulate


NSPS for SOx


particulate


particulate
TYPE OF ACTION  APPENDIX  A


                   CONTINUED
order 10/15/75


consent order 9/5/75


order 9/5/75


consent order 9/8/75




consent order 9/16/75




NOV 9/25/75


NOV 9/25/75


NOV 7/7/75


NOV 7/7/75


NOV 7/10/75


NOV 11/21/75  *


NOV 12/10/75


NOV 7/23/75

-------
IN2
STATE/CITY
21
Ohio
   Struthers
   Youngtown

Oregon
   Toledo

Oregon
   Roseburq

Oregon
   Springfield

Oregon
   Portland

Oregon
   Tillmook
Oregon
   Portland

Oregon
   Troutdale

Oregon
   Portland

Oregon
   Portland

Oregon
   Dillard

Oregon
   Buker

Oregon
   Hines

Oregon
   Tillamook
                     COMPANY/TYPE
                     OF SOURCE
                     Youngston Sheet 6  Tube Co.
                     Brien Hills 6 Campbell works
                     Georgia Pacific
                     Corporation pulp mill

                     S.D. Spencer &  Sons
                     Asphalt plant

                     Weyerhauser Co.
                     Lime Kilns

                     Nicolai co.
                     Cyclones

                     Louisiana Pacific
                     Corp
                     Wiqwam Burner

                     Cargill Inc.
                     grain elevator

                     Reynold, Aluminum Co.
                     Louis Dreyfus  Co.
                     grain elevator

                     Bunge Corporatiqn
                     grain elevator

                     Permaneer Corporation
                     Particle board plant

                     Bllingson Lumber Co.
                     Wigwam Waste Burner

                     Edward Hines Lumber
                     Hog Fuel boilers

                     Louisiana Pacific
                     wigwam burner
                                                                   POLLUTION PROBLEM
particulatg
v/r.


violation of NSPS
reporting

particulate matter


particulate matter


V/E
V/E
Opacity
Particulate matter
Particulate matter
Particulate matter
and opacity

particulate matter
V/E

particulate matter
V/E
                        TYPE OF ACTION
NOV 7/25/75
APPENDIX   A

 COMHNUED
NOV 10/7/75


NOV 10/8/75


consent order 8/1/75


consent order 8/1/75


order 12/18/75



Consent order 11/17/75


NOV 10/1/75


Consent order 11/26/75


order 9/26/75


NOV ll/U/75


order ll/U/75


NOV 9/22/75


NOV 11/10/75
Oregon.
                 Nicolus Co.
                                                                   particulate matter
                         consent order 8/1/75

-------
STATE/CITY
22
                      COMPANY/TYPE
                      OF SOUKCE
OO
   Portland

Oregon
   Springfieid

Oregon
   Valsetz

Oregon
   Tigard

Pennsylvania
   Templeton

Pennsylvania
   Lebanon

Pennsylvania
   Media

Pennsylvania
   Marietta

Pennsylvania
   Pittsburgh

Pennsylvania
   Youngwood

Pennsylvania
   Pittsburgh

Pennsylvaina
   Monessen

Pennsylvania
   Philadelphia

Pennsylvania
   Avonmore

Pennsylvania
   Newell
                      door manufacturing plant

                      Weyerhauser  Co.
                      Draft Pulp Mill

                      Boise Cascade
                      hog fuel boilers

                      western Foundry  Co.
                      Iron 6 steel Foundry

                      Sharon Steel Corp.
                      Lebanon Chemical Corp.


                      Delaware County Dept.  of Public
                      Works/municipal incinerator

                      U.S.  Aluminum Corp.
Shenango Inc.
Steel facility

Swank/Dickerson/road construction
                      J.S L. Steel Corp
                      wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Co.
                      Phila Board of Education
                      toilers

                      General Steel Ind.
                      Allied Chemical Corp.
                      Industrial Chemical Plant
 Pennsylvania
                      Metro Edison Co.
                                                                     POLLUTION PBOBLEM
                                                                        TYPE OF ACTION  APPENDIX   A
                                               particulate matter
                         consent order  8/1/75
                                               particulate matter
                         consent order  8/1/75
                                               particulate matter
                         consent order 8/1/75
                                               failure to respond to    order 8/5/75
                                               Section lit request

                                               Failure to respond to    order 8/1/75
                                               Section lit reguest

                                               particulate matter mass  order 10/16/75
                                               emission

                                               particulate matter mass  NOV 7/7/75
                                               emission                 order 12/75
                                                                     particulate 6 SO2
                         NOV 7/3/75
particulate fugitive
dust

Particulate visible 6
SOx emission

Particulate visible 6
SOx emission

SOx sulfur content
NOV 7/22/75
order 9/19/75

order 10/8/75
                                                                        NOV 10/17/75
                                                                       consent order 7/23/75
                                               particulate  matter
                                               mass emission  "

                                               NSPS
                         order 7/31/75
                         order 7/21/75
                                               particulate  matter
                         order 7/9/75

-------
    STATE/CITY
    23
 COMPANY/TYPE
 OF SOURCE
       Middletown

    Pennsylvania
       Meadvilie

    Pennsylvania
       Potter
       Township

    Pennsylvania
       Kennett
       Square

    Pennsylvania
       Farrell
    Pennsylvania
       Youngstown

    Pennsylvania
       Palmerton
Crawford Station

Abex  Corp.
Engineering products

ARCO  Polymers
plastic production
 NVF. Co.
Sharon Steel Corp.
 Youngstown
 Pneumatic Concrete
New Jersey Zinc
pv-j  Pennsylvania
-F-
    Pennsylvania
       Butler Co.

    Pennsylvania
       Meadville

    Pennsylvania
       Chambers-
       burg

    Pennsylvania
       Sinking
       Spring

    Pennsylvania
       Elrama
Penn DOT  (1-95)
Armco Steel
electric arc furnace

Dayton MalleableVInc.
boiler

Borough of Chambersburg
Electric power plant utility boiler
Sinking Spring Foundry Co.
grey iron cupola
Duguesne Light Co.
Elrama Station/utility boiler
    Pennsylvania
Aluminum Co. of America
                                               POLLUTION PROBLEM
mass emission

particulate matter
mass emission

SOx mass emission
                         TYPE OF ACTION APPENDIX  A

                                        CONTINUED
order 7/25/75
order 7/25/75
                                               Failure  to  respond to    order  8/5/75
                                               Section  11U reguest
Failure to respond to    order 8/5/75
Section ll
-------
cn
    STATE/CITY
    24
       Pittsburgh

    Pennsylvania
       Washington
       Co.

    Puerto Rico,
       Bayamon

    Puerto Rico,
       Catano

    Puerto Rico,
       Guayanilla

    Puerto Rico,
       San Juan

    Puerto Rico,
       Catano

    Puerto Rico,
       San Juan

    Rhode Island,
       Providence
    Rhode  Island,
       Providence
South Carolina,
   Hartsville

South Dakota
   Rapid City

South Dakota
   Sturgis

South Dakota
   Rapid City
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
boilers

Climax Molybdenum Co.
Herreschoff roaster
Betteroads Asphalt
Corp. plant f3

Molinos de Puerto Rico, Inc.
Puerto Rico Water Resources
Authority

San Juan Cement
Puerto Rico Glass


Carribean Gulf
Refining Corp.

Tivian Labs.

Chemical Lab

City  of Providence

Sludge incinerator.

Sonoco Products Co.
                      Division of Highways
                      portable asphalt batch plant

                      Division of Highways
                      portable asphalt batch plant

                      Pete  Lien and Sons, Inc.
                      Rotary  Kiln and Vertical Kiln
POLLUTION PROBLEM



emission

SOx mass emisssion
NESHAPS-notifica-
tion testing

Particulate
                                                                                        TYPE OF ACTION  APPENDIX  A

                                                                                                         GONHNUED
                                                                                        consent order 10/21/75
                                                                                        NOV order 8/15/75
                                                                                        Consent order 7/3/75
SOx sulfur fuel content  Consent order 10/20/75
NSPS-Portland
Cement plant

opacity


Visible emission and
organic compounds

PCB's mass emission
Particulate V/E
                                                                    Particulate matter
                                                                                        NOV 9/22/75


                                                                                        Order  12/31/75


                                                                                        Order  9/12/75
                                                                                       Order to  comply with
                                                                                       «lli» letter 12/18/75
                                                                                        NOV 11/3/75
                                                                                        Order  12/29/T5
                         Consent order issued
                         6/30/75
                                               violation of particulate NOV 7/9/75
                                               emission std

                                               violation of particulate NOV 7/9/75
                                               emission std

                                               violation of particulate NOV 7/16/75
     South Dakota
 Light Aggregates,  Inc.
                                                                    violation of particulate NOV 7/16/75

-------
 STATE/CITY
 25
   Rapid City

Utah
   Magna

Utah
   Rowley

Utah
   Lehi

Utah
   Lehi

Utah
   Lehi

Utah
   Lehi

Utah
   Ogden

Utah
   Ogden

Utah
   Geneva

Vermont,
   Burlington
Vermont,
   Hyde Park

Virgin Islands,
   St. Croix

Virgin Islands,
   St. Thomas
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
Hercules, Inc.
coal-Fired Industrial Boiler

NL Industries, Magnesium Div.
Spray Dryer Exhaust Systems

Mountain States Lime, Inc.
* vertical lime kilns

Mountain States Lime, Inc.
Hydrator Stack

Mountain States Lime, Inc.
Secondary Crusher £ Screening  System

Mountain States Lime, Inc.
Rock Pulverizer Stack

Weber County Corp. Municipal
Incinerator Unit #2

Weber County Corp. Municipal
Incinerators *2 and *3

U.S. Steel
Power Plant

City of Burlington

Boiler

Vermont Asbestos,
Inc.

Martin Marietta Corp.
{St. Croix Facility)

St. Thomas Paving Co., Ltd.
                                              POLLUTION PROBLEM
                        TYPE OF ACTION
violation of particulate  NOV 11/17/75
emission std

violation of particulate  order 10/21/75
emission std

violation of particulate  NOV 7/17/75
emission std

violation of particulate  NOV 7/L7/75
emission std

violation of particulate  NOV 7/17/75
emission std

violation of particulate  NOV 7/17/75
emission std

violation of particulate  NOV 7/lit/75
emission std

violation of particulate  Order  10/22/75
emission std

violation of particulate  Order  9/29/75
emission std
Particulate mass
emission V/E
                         Order 7/7/75
Asbestos visible
emissions
                         Order 10/10/75


SOx sulfur fuel content  NOV 10/23/75
Operating w/o complying  NOV 9/26/75
w/ new source review
reguirements HO CFR
52. 2775 (b)
                                                                                        APPENDIX   A

                                                                                         OOwriNUED
Virginia
PEPCO-Potamac River Station
Particulate matter mass  order 8/27/75

-------
    STATE/CITY
    26
       Alexandria

    Virginia
       Vansant

    Virginia
       Danville

    Washington
       Hoguiam

    Washington
       Port Angeles
    Washington
       Port Tounsend
    Washington
       Shelton

    Washington
       Rock Island

t—*  Washington
f'O     Vancouver
-vl
    Washington
       Seattle

    Washington
       Peshastin

    Washington
       Hoguiam

    Washington
       Shelton

    Washington
       Pasco

    West Virginia
       Weirton
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
utility boiler

Jewell coal 6 Coke Company


Dan River, Inc.


City of Hoguiam
Crown zellerback
Corporation
Hog fuel boilers

Crown1 Zellerback
Corporation
Hog fuel boilers

Simpson Timber Co.
Hog Fuel boilers

Hanna Mining Co.
Ferro Alloy Plant

Carbonundum Co.
Center Dozing, Inc.
 Peshastin Forest Products
 ITT  Rayonier
 Hog  Fuel  boilers

 Simpson Timber Co,
 Hog  Fuel  Boilers

 L.W.  Vail,  Inc.
 Asphalt plant

 National  Steel/Steel facility
                                                                    POLLUTION  PROBLEM
emission • k

Particulate 6 visible
emission

participates
open burning
particulate matter
particulate matter
particulate matter
TYPE OF ACTION    APPENDIX   A

                  CONTINUED

                         *
NOV 11/2W/75


consent order 10/3/75


NOV 10/7/75


consent order 8/15/75



consent order 8/27/75



consent order 8/1/75
visible and particulate  consent order 9/30/75
matter
particulate matter
V/E

NESHAPS violation
Opacity
particulate matter
particulate matter
NOV 12/18/75


NOV 11/25/75


NOV 11/25/75


Consent order 8/1/75


consent order 8/1/75
opacity violation of     NOV 7/28/75
NSPS

particulate 6 SOx mass    NOV 8/25/75
emission 6 opacity

-------
  STATE/CITY
  27
COMPANY/TYPE
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
                         TYPE  OF ACTION
                                                                                                            APPENDIX   A
  West Virgina
     Foilanbee

  Wisconsin
     Milwaukee

  Wisconsin
     Kenosha

  Wisconsin
     Kenosha

  Wisconsin
     Mosinee

  Wisconsin
     Milwaukee.

  Wisconsin
     Milwaukee
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Co.
Amercian Motors corporation
auto mfg.

American Motors Corporation
auto mfg. {main plant)

American Motors Corporation
auto mfg. (main front plant)

Mosinee Papper Co.
Kraft Pulp/paper mill

Inryco Inc.
coil coating operation

Inryco., Inc.
Coil coating operation
Particulate 6 visible     order 10/7/75
SOx emission
hydrocarbon and
particulate

hydrocarbon
hydrocarbon


particulate


hydrocarbon


hydrocarbon
NOV 7/16/75


NOV 7/16/75


NOV 7/28/75


NOV 9/23/75


consent order 9/23/75


NOV 7/2/75
00

-------
                              APPENDIX   B

                               TABLE   1

                       Civil  Actions Initiated By EPA
Under Section  14(a) of the Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act


                     December 1974 Through December  1975

Note:   If no entry appears in  last two columns,  case was pending as of 12/31/75
NAME
CITY
STATE
ABC Compounding
Atlanta, GA
ADCO, Inc.
Sedalia, MO
A.H. Hoffman Inc.
Landsville, PA
Action Athletic
Equip. Co.
Zion, 111.
Adams Engineering,
Inc.
Minneapolis, MN
Adelphia Ind.
Carlstadt, it)
Aero Mist, Ind.
Marietta, GA
Air Shield, Inc.
Moncks Corner, SC
Airosol Co.
Neo Desha, KS
Airwick Industries
Carlstadt, NJ
Alden Leeds
Kearny, NJ
Alden Leeds
Kearny, NJ
REGION
IV
VII
III
V
V
II
IV
IV
VII
II
II
II
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
6/19/75
12/2/74
4/4/75
4/30/75
4/21/75

4/30/75
4/29/75
9/5/75
2/7/75
11/26/75
11/26/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
8/8/75
1/9/75
7/3/75
10/31/75
11/1/75
11/24/75


10/8/75
7/2/75


AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$1800
$5160
$1700
$ 925
wi thdrawn
0


$800
$4500


                                      129

-------
                                             APPENDIX  B
                                               TABLE  1
NAME
CITY
STATE
Allied Chem. Corp.
Aberdeen, MS
Amaza Laboratories,
Inc.
Cleveland, OH
Ambix Laboratories
North Bergen, NJ
American Cyamid
Linden, NJ
American Cyanimide
Charlotte, NC
American Riverside Inc.
St. Louis, MO
Amvac Chemical Corp.
Los Angeles, CA
Anderson Stolz Corp.
Kansas City, MO
Antech Chemical
Middletown, MA
Appl egate? Brag Stores;,
Inc.
Bentenville, AR
Aquashade, Inc.
Dobbs Ferry, NJ
Area! Chemicals
REGION
IV
V
II
II
IV
VII
IX
VII
I
VI
II
III
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
12/2/74
5/7/75
12/11/75
4/22/75
6/30/75
5/12/75
6/30/75
1/16/75
4/22/75
10/3/75
11/19/75
11/24/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
2/28/75
8/18/75

9/16/75
9/16/75
6/17/75

3/13/75
7/5/75



AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
withdrawn
$ 968

$3080
$3600
$ 125

$1300
$ 250



Seat Pleasant, MD
                                130

-------
APPENDIX B
 TABLE  1
NAME
CITY
STATE REGION
ArChem Corp. V
Portsmouth, OH
Arlenge Labs II
Brooklyn, NY
Arnott Exterm, ,Inc. V
Indianapolis, IN
Ashworth Chem. IV
Memphis, TN
Aspen Industries IX
Tucson, AZ
Assocaited Chemists X
Portland, OR
Atlantic Fertilizer & IV
Chem. CO.
Homestead, FL
Athea Labs, Inc. V
Milwaukee, WI
Auto Chlor of Jackson IV
Jackson, MS
Auto-Chlor System of IV
La, and S. M1ss.
Bossier City, LA
Auto Chlor, Inc. VIII
Denver, CO
Auto-Chlor System VII
St. Louis, MO
Auto Chlor Systems, Inc. VII
St. Louis, MO
,
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
12/29/75
1/17/75
12/27/74
6/30/75
5/16/75
1/3/75
6/19/75
12/16/74
3/25/75
8/18/75
8/20/75
9/17/75
7/14/75
131
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER

5/16/75
9/5/75
8/29/75
1/6/76
11/10/75

7/2/75
4/25/75


11/7/75
Included with
above Case

AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS

$ 150
$ 462
$ 450
Dismissed
$ 1960

$ 3432
$ 685


$ 216



-------
                                             APPENDIX  B
                                               TABLE.  1
NAME
CITY
STATE REGION
Away Chemical Corp.
Houston, TX
B & K Company
Des Moines, IA
Babson Brothers Co.
Oak Brook, IL
Barry Martin Pharm, Inc.
Miami, FL
Basic Chemicals
Des Moines, IA
Beatrice Foods Co.
Blue Ash, OH
Bell Laboratories
Madison, WI
Berman Chemical Co.
Toledo, OH
Berri en Products Co., Inc.
Nashville, GA
Berry Water Gardens, Inc.
Kerns ville, NC
Better Living Labs
Memphis, TN
Big D Chemical Co.
Oklahoma City, OK
Bighorn Coop
VI
VII
V
IV
VII
V
V
V
IV
IV
IV
VI
VIII
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
8/18/75
8/4/75
5/16/75
2/21/75
6/11/75
9/17/75
5/23/75
4/29/75
1/10/75
7/28/75
4/16/75
7/31/75
5/16/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER

9/4/75
8/12/75
4/8/75
10/14/75
10/1/75
9/15/75
8/12/75
3/6/75
9/15/75
6/13/75


AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$



100
12156
1120
350
1680
300
480
5300
1920
220
Default


Basin, WY
                                132

-------
                                               APPENDIX  B
                                                TABLE   1
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

Bio Chem Laboratories
 Minneapolis, MN

Bio-Lab, Inc.
 Decatur, GA

Bixon Chem.
 Queens, NY

Bixon Chem.
 Queens, NY

Black Leaf
 Elgin, IL

Blue Grass Chem. Spec.
 Co.
  New Albany, IN

Blue Grass Chem. Spec.
 Co.
  New Albany, IN

Blumberg Co.
 Peabody, MA

Bower Industries
 Phoenix, AZ

Bowman Mell Co.
 Harrisburg, PA

Brennan Chemical Co.
 St. Louis, MO.

Brewer Chem. Co.
 Trenton, NJ

Brilco Laboratories
 Brooklyn, NY
REGION
V
IV
II
II
V
V
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
2/18/75
4/16/75
7/4/75
7/11/75
7/28/75
6/30/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
10/15/75
5/19/75


11/13/75
10/22/75
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
Dismissed
$ 900


$ 4400
$ 1250
  I

 IX

III

VII

 II


 II
7/24/75



10/14/75


6/30/75


10/31/75


5/12/75


8/20/75


6/12/75
6/26/75
9/26/75
7/17/75
$  480


$  200


$210
                                           133

-------
                                                                 APPENDIX
                                                                   TABLE   1
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

Brite House Company,
 The
  Chicago,  IL

Burgess Vibrocrafters,
 Inc.
  Libertyville,  IL

Butchers Polish  Co.
 Marlboro,  MA

C. D. Terhune Co.
 Cedar Town, 6A

C. H. Lilly Co.
 Portland,  OR

Calgon Corp.
 St. Louis, MO

Candleworks, Inc.,  The
 St. Louis, MO

Canto! Co.
 Philadelphia, PA

Canton Chemical  Co.
 Canton, NC

Cantor Brothers, Inc.
 Farmingdale, NT

Carolina Chemicals, Inc.
 W. Columbia, SC

Cealin Chemicals
 Jacksonville, FL

Center Garden Supply
 Bellvue, WA
REGION
V
V
I
IV
X
VII
VII
III
IV
II
IV
IV
X
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
10/1/75
2/18/75
1/10/75
12/1&/74
12/23/75
4/1/75
12/1/75
10/28/75
1/22/75
10/16/75
12/16/75
9/25/75
12/20/74
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER

10/28/75
10/3/75
1/29/75




8/11/75



5/19/75
$  3552



$  5000


$   150
$   595
$   480
                                           13**

-------
                                                                APPENDIX  B
                                                                  TABLE   1
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

Central Solvents &
 Chemicals
  Santa Fe Springs, CA

Champion Int'l
 Vacouver, WA

Chaska Chemical Co.
 Savage, MN

Chem Fab Co.
 Mission, KS

Chem Pro Corp.
 Houston, TX

Chemagro
 Kansas City, MO

Chemical Processors, Inc.
 St. Petersburg, FL

Chemical Specialties,
 Inc.
  Memphis, TN

Chemifax Chemical Co.
 Lamirada, CA

Chemix Corp.
 Arlington, TX

Chemscope Corp
 Houston, TX

Cemtech Industries, Inc.
 Dallas, TX
REGION
IX
X
V
VII
VI
VII
IV
IV
IX
VI
VI
VI
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
6/30/75
8/22/75
12/27/74
12/3/75
6/20/75
7/11/75
8/8/75
8/8/75
4/16/75
7/21/75
3/17/75
3/28/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER


5/15/75

9/9/75
8/18/75
10/23/75
9/11/75

12/15/75
•12/9/75
8/6/75
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
Dismissed

$ 5725

$ 420
$ 3080
$ 350
$ 335

$ 350
$ 1200
$ 2484
                                            135

-------
                                                                 APPENDIX   B
                                                                   TABLE   1
NAME                                 COMPLAINT     DATE OF
 CITY                                 ISSUE         FINAL
  STATE                   REGION        DATE          ORDER

Chevron Chemical  Co.        VII        12/4/75
 Maryland Heights,  MO

Chevron Chemical  Co.         IV        11/7/75
 Orlando, FL

Christy Company Inc.        VII        2/10/75       3/21/75
 Maryland Heights,  MO

Ciba-Geigy Corp.             IV        1/13/75       4/14/75
 Mclntosh, AL

Clarben Chem.               II        7/14/75
 Kearny, NJ

Clark Lumber Co.              X        8/26/75       12/1/75
 Tualatin, OR

Common Market, Inc.         II        3/3/75
 New York, NY

Conn. Aerosol Co.           I         10/22/75
 Mil ford, CT

Contact Industries           II        7/18/75        12/29/75
 Hicksville, NY

Continental Chemical          V        6/30/75
 Corp.
  Chicago, IL

Continental Research        VII        12/3/75
 Corp.
  St. Louis, MO

Contra Costa Maintenance     IX        6/30/75
 Supply Co.
  Concord, CA
AMOUNT QF
 PENALTY OR
  STATUS
$   500


$ 12000
    420
$  2400
                                             136

-------
                                                                    APPENDIX  B
                                                                     TABLE   1
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

Control Products
 Assoc.
  Moultrie, FL

Conway Soap Products Co.
 Chicago, IL

Cook & Dunn Co.
 Newark, NJ

Cosan Chemical Corp.
 Clifton, NJ

Costello Manufacturing
 Co.
  St. Louis, MO

Cotey Chem. Corp.
 Lubbock, TX

Cougar Chemical Co.
 Miami, FL

Crown Tar & Chemical
 Denver, CO

Custom Labs.
 Spokane, WA

 Cutting Division
 Harvest Industries
  Sacramento,  CA

 Dairy Chemical Co.
  Fort Dodge,  IA

 Daly's, Inc.
 Seattle, WA
REGION
IV
V
II
II
VII
VI
IV
VIII
X
IX
VII
X
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
6/19/75
2/11/75
12/31/75
3/21/75
5/12/75
2/4/75
12/16/75
8/8/75
8/26/75
4/30/75
7/17/75
8/22/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
11/17/7E
8/4/75

5/21/75
6/26/75
6/30/75




8/14/75

AMOUNT OF
 PENALTY OR
  STATUS

$    120
(Default)
$    500
$   2500


$    480



$    270
Withdrawn
 $   1940
                                              137

-------
                                                                 APPENDIX  B
                                                                  TABLE  1
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

Davles-Young Co.
 Maryland Heights,  MO

Deisch-Benham.,  Inc.
 Nappanee, IN

Delta Chem.  Co.
 Marks, MS

Diamond Shamrock  Chem.
 Co.
  Houston, TX

Dorea International
 Newark, NJ

Dorex, Inc.
 Frankfort,  IL

Dow Chemical Co.
 North Kansas Ctty, MO

Dymon, Inc.
 Kansas City, KS

Earl May Seed &
 Nusery Co.
  Shenandoaft, IA

Eastern Laboratories
 Vineland, NJ

Ebony Paint Manufactur-.
 ing
  Mission, KS

Ecological & Specialty
 Paterson, NY
REGION
VII
V
IV
VI
II
V
VII
VII
VII
II
VII
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
4/3/75
12/29/75
6/19/75
7/21/75
7/18/75
1/23/75
7/16/75
8/26/75
12/23/75
8/20/75
5/1/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
6/6/75

7/23/75
11/26/75
1/2/76
9/5/75

12/3/75


6/26/75
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$ 1200

withdrawn
$ 4300
$ 850
$ 1560

$ 700


$ 132
II
8/21/75
9/18/75
withdrawn
                                            138

-------
                                                APPENDIX  B
                                                 TABLE  1
NAME
CITY
STATE
8 in 1 Pet Products
Brentwood, NY
8 in 1 Pet Products
Brentwood, NY
El am Chemical Co.
St. Louis, MO
Emerson Chemical Prod.
Norristown, PA
Ernesto Barboza
Passaic, NJ
Erny Supply Co.
Tampa, FL
Euclid Chemical Co.
Cleveland, OH
F&H Chemicals
Visalia, CA
FHW Tox & Biol. Lab.
Cassel berry, FL
Famco, Inc.
Medina, OH
Farmland Industries
Kansas City, MO
Farnam Companies
Omaha, NB
Federal Chemical Co.
REGION
II
II
II
III
II
IV
V
IX
IV
V
VII
VII
II
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
3/75
8/29/75
5/9/75
2/26/75
3/19/75
12/2/74
10/1/75
5/16/75
3/20/75
12/16/75
12/2/74
1/16/75
2/7/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
5/29/75

7/15/75
6/6/75
12/8/75
1/6/75


8/5/75

2/12/75
4/2/75
4/29/75
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$ 4200
withdrawn
$ 180
$ 1000
$ 0
$ 1850


$ 500

$ 18000
withdrawn
$ 1743
Cranberry, NJ
                                 139

-------
                                                                  APPENDIX  B
                                                                    TABLE  1
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

Ferguson Fumigants
 Hazlewood, MO

Fields Of California
 Long Beach, CA

Flavor Corp. Of America
 Northbrook, IL

Fleming & Co.
 St. Louis, MO

Fleming & Co.
 St. Louis, MO

Fords Chem & Service,
 Inc.
  Pasadena, TX

Fraesweier Labs
 St. Louis, MO

Fuller Systems Co.
 Woburn, MA

Fuller-O'Brien
 South San Francisco,
  CA

Fuld Stalfort, Inc.
 Los Angeles, CA

Garman Co., Inc.
 St. Louis, MO

Garner-Asphalt
 Tampa,  FL
REGION
VII
IX
V
VII
VII
VI
VII
II
IX
IX
VII
IV
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
5/12/75
4/16/75
4/10/75
1/24/75
7/25/75
6/12/75
11/25/75
11/7/75
6/30/75
6/30/75
4/1/75
4/29/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
7/14/75
2/2/76
7/25/75



12/16/75


11/25/75
5/6/75
7/17/75
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$ 200
$ 250
Dismissed



$ 594


$ 9850
$ 400
$ 3000

-------
                                                  APPENDIX  B
                                                   TABLE  1
NAME
CITY
_STATE
George's Pest Control
Service
Chi co, CA
Gibson-Horaans, Inc.
Des Moines, IA
Gibson-Homans
Des Moines, I A
Gibson-Homans, Inc.
Portland, OR
Gift Sales
Wichita, KA
Gold Kist, Inc.
Atlanta, GA
Golden Star Polish Mfg.
North Kansas City, MO
Good-Way Insecticide,
Inc.
Arlington Heights, IL
Gould's Dell Products
Williamsport, PA
Grace-Lee Products, Inc.
Minneapolis, MN
Grant Laboratories
Oakland, CA
Gulf Engineer! nq
REGION
IX
VII
VII
X
VII
IV
VII
V
III
V
IX
VI
COMPLAINT DATE OF AMOUNT OF
ISSUE FINAL PENALTY OR
PATF ORDER STATUS
6/30/75
3/14/75 4/30/75 $ 3000
5/14/75 7/14/75 $ 750
6/17/75
5/12/75 6/18/75 $ 250
12/2/74 3/7/75 $ 3220
3/14/75 5/22/75 $ 2244
12/19/75
7/16/75 9/26/75 $ 320
10/1/75
6/30/75
4/30/75
New Orleans, LA

-------
              APPENDIX  B
                TABLE 1
NAME
CITY
STATE
Gulf States Chem Co.
Hattiesburg, MS
H-O-H Chemicals, Inc.
Palatine, IL
Harris Serum
McCook, NB
Hart Delta, Inc.
Baton Rouge, LA
Haviland Ag. Chem. Co.
Grand Rapids, MI
Hawkins Chemical, Inc.
Minneapolis, MN
Helena Chem. Co.
Memphis, TN
Helena Chem. Co.
W. Helena, AR
Helena Chemical Co.
Des Moines, IA
Hercules, Inc.
Houston, TX
Hi Brett Chemical
Rahway, NO
Holder Corp.
Huntington, WV
REGION
IV
V
VII
VI
V
V
IV
VI
VII
VI
II
. Ill
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
2/6/75
4/3/75
10/6/75
4/30/75
1/24/75
1/24/75
12/2/74
3/17/75
5/12/75
9/26/75
2/6/75
7/11/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
4/8/75

11/19/75
9/23/75
9/15/75
12/5/75
1/29/75
5/28/75
6/3/75

4/22/75
9/26/75
Default
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
880

1320
650
4320
4600
4640
1800
2700

900
800
1.42

-------
                                                                   APPENDIX  B
                                                                     TABLE  1
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

Hpllowick Inc.
 Manleuis, NY

Honey Bee
 Manufacturing Co.
  Battleground, WA

Hooker Chemical Co.
 Niagara Falls, NY

Howerton Gowen Chem-
 icals, Inc.
  Roanoke Rapids, NC

Hub States Corp.
 Indianapolis, IN

Hunt & Co., Inc.
 Greensboro, NC

Hygienic Sanitation
 Landsdale, PA

Indiana Naval Stores Co.
 Indianapolis, IN

Industrial Chemical
 & Supply Co.
  Tampa, FL

Industrial Chemical
 Laboratories
  Omaha, NB

Int'l Multifoods,
 Ag. Chem.
  Madison, WI
REGION
II
X
II
IV
V
IV
III
V
IV
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
4/1 6/75
5/27/75
5/19/75
8/8/75
1/31/75
6/5/75
12/18/74
10/1/75
6/30/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
11/24/75
9/11/75
Default

10/23/75

7/17/75

12/3/75
Default order
8/25/75
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$ 950
$ 280

$ 2800

$ 1428
$ 1200
$ 2800
$ 1820
VII
1/24/75
           10/1/75
4/11/75
$   1848

-------
                                                                  APPENDIX  B
                                                                    TABLE   1
NAME
 CITY
  STATF

Interchem,  Inc.
 St.  Louis,  MO

Ionics, Inc.
 Bridgeville, PA

J.  Sperry Co.
 Kingsley,  IA

J&B Enterprise
 Helena, AL

J.M.  Sales  Co.,  Inc.
 Overland,  MO

Jacqaor Cham.
 New York,  NY

James Varley & Sons
 St.  Louis,  MO

James Varley & Sons
 St.  Louis,  MO

Jancyn Mfg.  Corp.
 Central Islip,  NY

Javo-Mex Corp
 South Holland,  IL

Jones Chemical Inc.
 Festus, MO

Kare  Chemical Co.
 Opa  Locka,  FL

Kemin Industries
 Des  Moines, IA

Kemin Industries
 Des  Moines, IA
REGION
VII
III
VII
IV
VII
II
VII
VII
II
V
VII
IV
VII
VII
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
4/14/75
9/8/75
4/1/75
6/30/75
4/28/75
7/3/75
4/30/75
11/25/75
6/5/75
12/24/75
7/30/75
9/25/75
3/11/75
5/12/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
7/18/75

5/22/75

6/5/75

6/29/75

7/22/75

12/3/75
12/5/75
12/24/75

AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$ 400

$ 300

$ 750
$ 4600
$ 972

$ 1125

$ 800
$ 15,000
$ 3000
Included in
above case

-------
                                                                  APPENDIX  B
                                                                    TABLE   1
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

Kerr-McGee Chemical
 Corp.
  Jacksonville, FL

Kesco Sales Fairway
 Inc.
  Shawnee Mission, KS

Kill It All Insecticide
 Co.
  Montebello, CA

Kill Rat Corp.
 Phoenix, AZ

Klix Chemical Co.
 Portland, OR

Koboy Ammonia Products
 Skokie, IL

Korinex Remedy Co.
 Stayton, OR

Krest Products Co.
 Leominister, MA

 Kyanize Paints, Inc.
 Springfield, IL

Laboratory Automated
 Chemicals
  Gardena, CA

Land  & Sky
 Lincoln, NB

Lebanon Chem
 Lebanon, PA
REGION
IV
VII
IX
IX
X
V
X
I
V
IX
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
6/30/75
1/22/75
6/30/75
6/30/75
9/16/75
4/14/75
1/15/75
5/7/75
4/22/75 •
6/30/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER

2/13/75


11/13/75
7/22/75
5/12/75

10/22/75

                                        AMOUNT  OF
                                         PENALTY OR
                                          STATUS
vn

in
12/5/75


9/30/75
                                        $    500
                                        $    990


                                        $    270


                                        $    168
                                        $   1920

-------
                                                                  APPENDIX   B
                                                                    TABLE   1
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

Lethe!rn Products
 Mt. Vernon, NY

Levenson Chemical Co.
 Omaha, NB

Lift Products Inc.
 Cedar Rapids, IA

Long Island Paint
 Glen Cove, NY

Luseaux Labs
 Gardena, CA

M.A. Bruder & Sons
 Broomall, PA

M&T Chemicals
 Carroll ton, KY

Madison Bionics
 Gardena, CA

March Chem. Co.
 Denham Springs,  LA

Master Labs
 Beaver Falls, PA
REGION
II
VII
VII
II
IX
III
IV
IX
VI
III
COMPLAINT DATE OF
ISSUE FINAL
DATE ORDER
6/10/75 11/26/75
12/23/75
8/26/75
6/9/75 8/14/75
6/30/75
4/24/75 9/2/75
5/15/75 8/5/75
6/30/75
7/31/75
12/11/74
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$ 400


$ 720

withdrawn
$ 3640


Combined wi
                                        Civil Complaint
                                         Issued 7/19/74
Mayo Chem.  Co.
 Smyrna, GA

Me Innis Labs.
 Meridan, MS
IV
IV
12/2/74
10/29/75
1/27/75
$   1480

-------
                                                   APPEND fX  B
                                                    TABLE  1
NAME
CITY
STATE
REGION
Mid-America Formulators IV
Arlington, TN
Mid State Chemical &
Sup.
Indianapolis, IN
Midwest Solvents
Company, Inc.
Atchinson, KS
Mi If red Company
Pittsburgh, PA
Miller-Morton Co.
Richmond, VA
Missouri -Kansas Chem.
Co.
Kansas City, MO
Mobil Chemical
Edison, NJ
Mogul Corp.
Portland, OR
Monsey Products Co.
Rock Hill, SC
Monsey Products Co.
Kimberton, PA
Moyer Chemical Co.
San Jose, CA
N. B. Purdy, Inc.
Wauconda, IL
N. Jonas Company
V-
VII
III
III
VII
II
X
IV
III
- IX
V
III
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
10/31/75
4/22/75
3/10/75
3/21/75
12/4/75
5/23/75
3/21/75
6/18/75
12/2/74.
10/26/75
4/16/75
4/24/75
4/3/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER

10/22/75
4/25/75
5/6/75

8/14/75
7/7/75
9/11/75
2/13/75


8/20/75

AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS

$ 726
$ 1200
$ 270

$ 250
$ 8400
$ 2160
$ 480


$ 765

Philadelphia, PA
                                   1<*7

-------
                                                                     APPENDIX
                                                                       TABLE  i
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

National Purity
 Water, Inc.
  Deerffeld, FL

Nationwide Chem.
 Brooklyn, NY

Nationwide Chem.
 Brooklyn, NY

Navy Brand Mfg. Co.
 St. Louis, MO

Nova Products Inc.
 Kansas City, KS

Nulife Fertilizer
 Tacoma, WA

NuTone Products
 Denver, CO

O.E. Linck Co.
 Los Angeles, CA

Old South Sales Co.
 Andalusia, AL

Omaha Compound Co.
 Omaha, KB

Ommnican Medical,,inc.
 Dallas, TX

Ortex Products
 Newark, NJ

Oxford Chem.  Co.
 Chamblee, GA
REGION
IV
II
II
VII
VII
X
VIII
IX
IV
VII
VI
II
IV
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
9/12/75
6/26/75
11/26/75
8/26/75
7/15/75
3/14/75
8/8/75
4/16/75
12/13/74
11/21/75
9/25/75
4/21/75
5/1/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER



10/14/75

6/3/75


3/6/75


8/25/75
7/2/75
AMOUNT OF
 PENALTY OR
  STATUS
$  1500
$  2240
Dismissed


$   120
$  7500


$  2700

-------
                                                                APPENDIX  B
                                                                  TABLE  1
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

Ozark Chem., Co.
 N. Little,Rock * AR

FBI Gordon Corp.
 Kansas City, MO

PPG Industries, Inc.
 Barberton, OH

Pace National
 Magnolia Feed & Pert.
   Kirkland, WA

Panda Victory Paints
 St. Louis, MO

Park Hill Chemical
 Mt. Vernon, NY

Park Hill Chemical
 Mt. Vernon, NY

Parramore & Griffin
 Seed
   Valdosta, GA

Parrawax Co., The
 Council Bluffs, IA

Patel Co.
 K.C., MO

Patterson Chem. Co.
 Kansas City, MO

Paxton Enterprises
 Palacios, TX
REGION
VI
VII
V
X
VII
II
II
IV
VII
VII
VII
VI
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
2/18/75
1/3/75
1/3/75
6/20/75
9/25/75
3/19/75
3/28/75
1/30/75
6/3/75
5/13/75
12/6/74
2/18/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
8/1/75
1/28/75
3/6/75

11/14/75



7/11/75

2/11/75
7/8/75
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$ 918
$ 1680
withdrawn

$ 1000



$ 300
wi thdrawn
$ 950
$ 280

-------
                                                                  APPENDIX   B
                                                                    TABLE   1
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

Pennyfeather Co.
 Greenville, DE

Perfection Beauty Prod.
 Pearl River, NY

Pioneer Bldg. Special-
 ties Co.
  Portland, OR

Pioneer Chem., Inc.
 Ponca City, OK

Pioneer Mfg. Co.
 Cleveland, OH

Piper Co., The
 St. Louis, MO

Pittsburgh Sanitary
 Chem
  Pittsburgh, PA

Plainsmen Ag. Chems.
 Plainview, TX

Plaz. Inc.
 St. Louis, MO

Pollution Control
 Products, Inc.
  Ft. Lauderdale,  FL

Precision Products Corp.
 Kansas City, MO

Pride Laboratories
 Farmingdale, NY
REGION
III
II
X
COMPLAINT DATE OF
ISSUE FINAL
DATE ORDER
12/31/74 7/6/75
6/16/75 8/5/75
12/30/74
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$
$
250
330
wi thdrawn
VI
V
VII
III
VI
VII
IV
VII
II
1/21/75
12/18/74
1/22/75
6/12/75
3/17/75
12/5/75
6/6/75
5/12/75
10/17/75
5/28/75
4/23/75
3/14/75
10/28/75
4/29/75
6/16/75
$    350


$   1080


$    280


$    700



$   1000
withdrawn
                                            150

-------
                                                                  APPENDIX  B
                                                                    TABLE  1
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

Promico, Inc.
 Eagle Grove, IA

Property Chemical
 Products Div.
  Chemirust Industries
   Gardena, CA

Pro-Serve, Inc.
 Memphis, TN

Puritan Chemical Co.
 Atlanta, GA

R & M Exterminators
 Tyler, WA

Red-Star Poison Co.
 Woodburn, OR

Redwood Chemical Corp.
 Houston, TX

Research Products
 Salina, KS

Rice Chemical, Co.
 Sioux City,  IA

Richard Rover,,Inc.
 Bellville, NY

Rigo Chemical Co.
 Buckner, KY

Rite Chemical Co.
 New Orleans, LA
REGION
VII
IX
IV
IV
X
X
VI
VII
VII
II
IV
VI
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
12/31/74
6/17/75
6/30/75
9/4/75
12/10/74
6/5/75
10/22/75
12/19/74
12/31/74
9/9/75
11/7/75
6/13/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
2/12/75



1/28/75


1/20/75
6/16/75
12/24/75

9/19/75
$   700
withdrawn


$   100


$   750
$   550
                                            151

-------
                                                                   APPENDIX  B
                                                                    TABLE   1
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

Royal Bond, Inc.
 St. Louis, MO

Russell Co., The
 St. Louis, MO

S.V. Chemicals
 Universal Industries
  Tacoma, WA

Saginaw Feed Co.
 Saginaw, TX

Sani-Kem Corp.
 Kansas City, MO

Sanitary Supply Co.
 Beaumont, TX

Scott Chem. Co.
 San Antenfo» TX

Select Values, Inc.
 Long Island, NY

Sentinel Pest Control
 Springfield, IL

Shawnee Mission Plumb-
 ing, Inc.
  Shawnee Mission,  KS

Sheff Chem. & Supply Co.
 Bradenton, FL

Shell Chemical
 Princeton, NJ

Shepard Chem. Works, Inc.
 Wilmington,  NC
REGION
VII
VII
X
VI
VII
VI
VI
II
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
1/31/75
8/19/75
6/18/75
1/30/75
5/12/75
12/21/75
2/25/75 *
4/22/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER
3/12/75
9/4/75
10/25/75
4/24/75
6/13/75

11/7/75
6/24/75
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
1080
100
1530
2520
100

540
220
VII
 IV
 II
 IV
          12/24/75
1/17/75
11/7/75
12/11/75
3/31/75
3/11/75
$    300
5/19/75
$    425
                                             152

-------
                                                                  APPENDIX  B
                                                                   TABLE   1
NAME                                  COMPLAINT     DATE OF
 CITY                                  ISSUE         FINAL
  STATE                   REGION        DATE          ORDER

Sifers Chemicals Inc.       VII       5/12/75       10/15/75
 lola, KS

Simchem Minerals           VIII       12/31/75
 & Chemicals
  Mountain Home, ID

Singletary & Company         IV       7/28/75
 Rocky Mount, NC

Southeastern Chemical        IV       4/29/75       8/26/75
 Corp.
  Fairfax, SC

Southern Mill Creek          IV       8/18/75
 Products Co.
  Tampa, FL

Stat Enterprises             II       9/17/75
 Farrningdale, NY

Stearns Chemical Corp         V       12/16/75
 Madison, WI

Stewart Hall Petroleum       II       9/16/75
 Mt. Vernon, NY

Stewart Hall Petroleum       II       9/17/75
 Mt. .Vernon, NY

Sunnyside Products, Inc.      V       10/1/75
 Chicago, IL

Swift Chemical & Supplies   VII       5/14/75       6/19/75
 Kansas City, MO

IMS Laboratories             II       9/29/75
 Farmingdale, NY
AMOUNT OF
 PENALTY OR
  STATUS

$    480
$    690
$  1056
                                             153

-------
                                                 APPENDIX  B
                                                  TABLE  1
NAME
CITY
STATE
Tenneco Chemicals
Elizabeth, NJ
Texize Chem. Co.
Greenville, SC
Texmo
Lewi svi lie, TX
Theochem Labs, Inc.
Tampa, FL
Thomas Proestler
Davenport, IA
Thompson-Hayward
Kansas City, MO
Thompson Hayward Chem
New Orleans, LA
Thompson-Hayward Chem.
Fayetteville, SC
Thompson Hayward Chem.
Muscle Shoals, AL
Time Chemical , Inc.
Chicago, IL
Time Chemical , Inc.
Atlanta, GA
Tobacco States Chem.
Lexington, KY
TomBby, Inc.
REGION
II
IV
VI
IV
VII
VII
Co. VI
Co. IV
Co. IV
V
IV
IV
VII
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
9/17/75
5/15/75
10/3/75
2/24/75
9/26/75
7/2/75
9/26/75
12/16/75
12/18/75
4/14/75
11/7/75
6/5/75
2/10/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER

7/16/75

5/19/75

9/30/75



11/28/75

8/5/75
3/13/75
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS

$ 1680

$ 1350

$ 12,108



$ 3200

$ 1820
$ 1680
St. Louis, MO
                                ISk

-------
                                                   APPENDIX  B
                                                     TABLE  1
NAME
CITY
STATE
Triangle Chem.
Macon, GA
Trio Chemical Works
Brooklyn, NY
Trio Chemical Works
Brooklyn, NY
Troy Chemical Co.
Newark, NJ
Troy Chemical Co.
Newark, NJ
Troy Chemical Co.
Newark, NJ
Troy Chemical Co.
Newark, NJ
United Lace & Brade Co.
Great Neck, NY
United Textile
Janesville, WI
Utility Chemical
Paterson, NJ
Valley Chemical Co.
Imperial , CA
Venus Laboratories, Inc.
Bensenville, IL
Vet-Aid Industries, Inc.
REGION
IV
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
V
II
IX
V
V
COMPLAINT DATE OF
ISSUE FINAL
DATE ORDER
6/30/75 9/11/75
3/21/75 11/19/75
4/30/75 11/19/75
12/9/74 6/9/75
12/9/74 6/9/75
12/9/74 6/9/75
12/9/74
10/29/75
8/8/75 11/14/75
11/26/75
4/16/75
7/11/75
7/7/75 10/22/75
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$ 1680
$ 1100
$ 2400
$ 4250
$ 4000
$ 4000
withdrawn

$ 500



$ 1188
Minneapolis, MN
                                 155

-------
                                                                 APPENDIX  B
                                                                "  TABLE   1
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

Vine!and Labs
 Vine!and, NJ

Virginia Chemicals
 Portsmouth, VA

Voluntary Purchasing
 Groups
  Bonham, TX

Vulcan Materials Co.
 Wichita, KS

W.R. Sweeney Mfg. Co.
 Salisbury, MO

Warren Douglas
 Chemical Co.
  Omaha, NB

Water Purification
 Technology, Inc.
  Miami, .FL

Water Services, Inc.
 Knoxville, TN

Weil Chemical Co., Inc.
 Memphis TN

Western Chemical Co.
 St. Joseph, MO

Western Tar Products
 Terre Haute,  IN

Whitley Ind.
 Combes, TX

Whitmire Research
 Laboratories
  St. Louis, MO
REGION
II
III
VI
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
9/23/75
2/14/75
3/24/75
DATE OF
FINAL
ORDER

6/6/75
12/1/75
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS

$ 1000
$ 4675
VII


VII


VII



 IV



 IV


 IV


VII


  V


 VI


VII
10/7/75
11/25/75
10/17/75
7/28/75
12/24/75
9/30/75
8/26/75
12/24/75
2/25/75
2/20/75
10/22/75
1/6/76
9/30/75
7/8/75
5/6/75
withdrawn
$   2400
$   1848
$    100
    1680
                                             156

-------
                                                                APPENDIX  B
                                                                  TABLE  1
NAME
 CITY
  STATE

Wichita  Brush &
 Chemical  Co.
  Wichita, KS

Wilson Aerosol Company
 Spring  Hope, NC

Worldwide  Distributors,
 Inc.
  Seattle, WA

Wykoff Co.
 Seattle,  WA

Zep Manufacturing Co.
 Atlanta,  6A

Zeo Chem.
 New Hyde  Parks, NY

Zimmite  Corporation
 West Lake, OH
REGION
VII
IV
X
X
IV
II
V
COMPLAINT DATE OF
ISSUE FINAL OR
DATE ORDER
12/3/75
8/21/75
3/26/75
8/15/75 10/8/75
2/12/75 4/23/75
7/14/75
7/18/75 12/5/75
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS


Dismissed
$ 1200
$ 4000

$ 2550
                                         157

-------
                     CHminal Actions  Initiated By
                      EPA Under Section 14(5) of
        The Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

                  December 1974 Through December 1975
                                    APPENDIX  B
                                      TABLE  2
NAME
 CITY
  STATE
REGION
DATE REF-
 FERRED TO
  U.S. ATTORNEY
      RESULTS/
       STATUS
Anderson Brothers
Farm
 Oakley,
   ID

Christensen, Paul
 Grace
   ID

Grigg & Anderson
 Burley
   ID

Gunning, Francis F.
 Jerome
   ID

Hill Valley Farm
 Kimberly
   ID

Lloyd, Merrill
 Grace
   ID

Paulsboro Products,
 Inc.
  Bridgeport
   CT

Rice, James D.
  VI
            4/16/75
            4/16/75
            4/16/75
            4/16/75
            4/16/75
            4/16/75
            1/6/75
3/18/75
                    U.S. Attorney declined
                    to prosecute 5/30/75
                    U.S.  Attorney declined
                    to prosecute 5/30/75
                    U.S.  Attorney declined
                    to prosecute 5/30/75
                    U.S.  Attorney declined
                    to prosecute  5/30/75
                    U.S.  Attorney declined
                    to prosecute  5/30/75
                    U.S.  Attorney declined
                    to prosecute  5/30/75
                    Fined $400 on  2  counts
                    11/3/75
Under review by U.S.
Attorney
                                     158

-------
                                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  1972 THROUGH NOVEMBER 1974
NOTE: If no entry appears in last two columns, case was
      in pending status as of December 31, 1975
                                        APPENDIX   B
                                          TABLE  3
    NAME
     CITY
      REGION

  ABCO,  INC.
   Irwin,
   Region  III

  Admiral  Paint
   Co.,  Inc.
    Lake Charles
     Region VI

  Agro-Chem
   Chicago,
    Region V

  Alcolac
   Baltimore,
    Region III
  Alden-Leeds
   Co.
    (Kierny, N. Jersey)
     Ontario
       Region  IX
STATE

PA
LA
IL
MD
CA
  Amchem  Procducts
   Amber,
    Region  III
PA
COMPLAINT
 ISSUE
  DATE

10-21-74
3-14-74
11-19-74
8-8-74
11-8-73
10-1-74
DATE OF
 FINAL
EPA ORDER
11-7-74
4-26-74
1-10-75
1-28-75
DATE OF
 PENALTY OR
   STATUS
6-16-75     $2,103
$1,400
$550
11-26-74    $1,200
$300
1,000
 *The actions for which results  are  reported on in this table were
  first listed in Appendix E  of  the  EPA Report, entitled, "EPA EN-
  FORCEMENT—TWO YEARS OF PROGRESS,  DECEMBER 1972 TO NOVEMBER 1974",
  and were shown as  "Pending" in that  volume if the Regional Offices
  had not reported the results or dispositive action had not  been
  taken at press time.
                                          159

-------
                                                               APPENDIX  B
                                                                TABLE  3
NAME                    COMPLAINT      DATE OF
 CITY                      ISSUE         FINAL
  REGION       STATE        DATE        EPA ORDER

American          IN        1-22-74       8-19-74
 Home Chem.
  Indianapolic,
   Region V

Amway Corp.        MI        9-18-75       12-31-74
 Ada,
  Region V

The Anderson      MN        5-2-74        6-27-74
 Chem. Co.
  Litchfield,
   Region V

Amway Corp.        MI        5-2-74        8-16-74
 Ada,
  Region V
Applied           WI
 Biochemist
  Mequon,
  Region V

The Aquarium      MD
 Baltimore,
  Region III
10-10-74      10-7-75
Astro Exter-      MA       6-28-74
 minating Co.
  Charlestown,
   Region I
Astro Exter-      CT       6-28-74       1-28-75
 minating Co.
  Charlestown,
   Region I

Balcom            CO       11-1-74       12-5-74
 Chemicals,  Inc.
  Greeley,
   Region VIII

Balcom            CO       5-30-74       12-5-74
 Chemical, Inc.
  Greeley,
   Region VIII
                           AMOUNT OF
                           PENALTY OR
                             STATUS

                           $500
                           $500
                           $4,500
                           Dismissed
$400
10-21-74      10-8-75       $1,200
              1-28-75       $1,950
                           Included in
                           above case
                           $2,200
                           Combined with
                           above case
                                          ISO

-------
                                                             APPENDIX  B
                                                              TABLE  3
NAME                     COMPLAINT
 CITY                      ISSUE
  REGION       STATE        DATE

G,Gt Bean,        ME       11-5-74
 Inc.
  Brunswick,
   Region I

Bio Certa         NY       8-28-74
 New York,
  Region II

Bio Certa         NY       8-7-74
 New York
  Region II

Bio Certa         NY       8-30-74
 New York,
  Region II

B & G Products    MN       4-22-74
 Co.
  St. Paul
    Region V
Borden  Chemical    GA
 Co.
 'Marietta,
   Region  IV
W.T Boyles         OK       4-10-74
 Cincinnati,
  Region  V

Bros,  Century     OH       3-21-74
 21, Inc.
  New Waterford,
   Region V

Brulin &           IN       3-6-74
 Co.,  Inc,
  Indianapolis,
   Region V
                                       DATE OF
                                        FINAL
                                       EPA ORDER

                                        5-21-75
                                        1-31-75
                                        1-31-75
                                        1-31-75
                           10-23-74      1-6-75
                                         7-18-74
                                         8-13-74
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
  STATUS

$400
 -0-
 -0-
                                        10-29-74      Withdrawn
$1,940
                                         12-30-74      Withdrawn
Dismissed
 $3,000
                                            161

-------
                                                               APPENDIX  B
                                                                 TABLE   3
NAME
 CITY
  REGION       STATE
BSAF              MI
 Wyandotte
  Detroit,
   Region V

Buckingham Wax    NY
 New York,
  Region II

Burris Chem.      SC
 Inc.
  Charleston,
   Region IV

The Bushnell      MN
 Co.
  St. Paul
   Region V

Campbell          MO
 Chemicals, Inc.
  St. Louis,
   Region VII

Carajon           MI
 Chemical Co.
  Fremont,
   Region V

Carp Chemical     NY
 Brooklyn,
  Region II

Carpenter Morton   MA
 Co.
  Everett,
   Region V

Century           OH
 Industries,
  New Waterford,
   Region V
COMPLAINT
  ISSUE
   DATE

  6-3-74
  9-1-74
  4-10-74
  4-14-74
  5-10-74
  6-22-73
  3-28-74
DATE OF
 FINAL
EPA ORDER

 8-27-74
  11-21-73      11-5-75
 12-23-74
 8-27-74
 8-7-74
 2-5-74
 1-13-75
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
  STATUS

$500
               Wi thdrawn
 11-12-74      $1,800
Wi thdrawn
  11-15-74      10-27-74      $1,470
$1,000
$800
$750
$2,000
                                           162

-------
             APPENDIX B
               TABLE  3
NAME
CITY
REGION STATE
Champion MI
International
Kalamazoo
Region V
Chapman MS
Chemical Co.
Jackson
Region IV
Cheesbrough IL
- Ponds
Chicago
Region V
Chemagro MO
Chemical Co.
Kansas City,
Region VII
Chemed Corpi OH
Sharonville,
Region V
Chemscope TX
Chemical Co.
Dallas,
Region VI
Chemola Corp. TX
Houston,
Region IX
Cincinnati OH
Milcacron
Cincinnati,
Region V
Claire Mfg. IL
Co.
Chicago,
Region V
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
11-1-74
2-5-74
7-26-74
9-20-74
10-18-74
11-26-73
3-14-74
9-27-74
5-21-74
DATE OF
FINAL
EPA ORDER
4-11-75
5-19-75
12-31-74
11-11-74
1-13-75
6-20-75
5-14-75
8-20-75
11-7-74
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$7,560
$1,500
$1,875
$1,512
$720
$2,300
$1,500
$1,512
$1,500
163

-------
                                                                APPENDIX  B
                                                                  TABLE  3
NAME                     COMPLAINT      DATE OF
 CITY                      ISSUE         'FINAL
  REGION       STATE         DATE        EPA ORDER

H. A. Cole                 8-7-74    .    7-16-75
 Products Co.
  Region IV

Commerical &      PA        7-12-74        1-24-75
 Industrial
  Chi Ids,
   Region III

Continental       MO        6-28-74
 Pacific Corp.
  Whittier,
   Region IX

Copesan           WI        8-2-74        12-31-74
 Services, Inc.
  Milwaukee,
   Region V

C. T. Cops.       MN        10-29-74       10-6-75
 System (Univar)
  Minneapolis,
   Region III

Cotter & Co.      IL        6-11-74        4-29-75
 Chicago,
  Region V

Crosby Forest      MS        8-9-74        9-23-74
 Prod. Co.
  Picayune,
   Region IV

Cumberland        TN        7-5-74        2-12-75
 Mfg. Co.
  Nashville,
   Region IV

Frank J.          IL        2-21-74        12-6-74
 Curran Co.
  Downers Grove,
   Region V
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
  STATUS

$1,575
$500
$250
$1,800
$500
$1,200
$1,800
$500
                                         16**

-------
NAME
 CITY
  REGION       STATE

M.  J. Daly,       KY
  Inc.
  Ludlow,
    Region  IV

Detroit Vet       MI
  Supply
  Detroit,
    Region  V

 Diamond Shamrock  CA
  Industriez
  Torrance,
    Region  IX

 Diamond Shamrock  CA
  Corp.
   Brawl ey,
    Region  IX

 J.J.  Dill  Co.     MI
  Ka lamazoo
   Region V

 Dolphin Paint     OH
  & Chem.
   Toledo,
    Region  V

 Dymon,  Inc.       KS
  Shawnee Mission,
   Region VII

 Eagle            PA
  Exterminating
   Philadelphia,
    Region  III
 Eastern Labs
  Vineland,
   Region II
NJ
      COMPLAINT
        ISSUE
         DATE
         5-21-74
         3-19-74
         1-3-74
         7-1-74
         3-11-74
         11-20-74
6-17-74
            DATE OF
             FINAL
            EPA ORDER
         10-23-74      3-6-75
              10-2-74
              6-10-75
              4-25-75
              5-20-74
              2-13-75
         10-21-74      2-6-75
                                          12-16-75
                                                                APPENDIX  B
                                                                  TABLE  3
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
  STATUS

$2,000
 Wi thdrawn
 Dismissed




 $1,500



 $1,500




 $2,000



 $50





  -0-
                                            1(55

-------
Franklin
 Labs
  Denver,
   Region VIII
CO
9-18-74
12-4-74
                                           APPEND IX  B
                                             TABLE  3
NAME
CITY
REGION STATE
Eastern Shore DE
Labs.
Laurel,
Region III
J. T. Eaton OH
& Co.
Cleveland,
Region V
Economy IA
Products Co.
Shenandoah,
Region VII
El co Mfg. Co. PA
Sharpsburg,
Region III
Enterprise IL
Paint
Chicago,
Region V
Farmcraft Inc. OR
Tigard,
Region X
Farmers Union MN
Central Exchange
S. St. Paul,
Region V
Charles IL
Fin ley
Chicago,
Region V
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
4-19-74
6-28-74
9-20-74
2-26-74
5-21-74
7-10-74
4-17-74
6-11.74
DATE OF
FINAL
EPA ORDER
1-2-75
12-6-74
1-29-75
8-1-75
9-26-75
1-2-75
8-27-74
3-7-75
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$3,500
$700
$500
$1,860
$500
$1,200
$500
$500
$2,000

-------
                                                                APPENDIX  B
                                                                  TABLE  3
NAME
 CITY
  REGION
              STATE
 General
  Packaging  and
   Chemicals Co.
    Union  City,
     Region  IX

 Givaudan  Corp.
  Clifton,
   Region  II

 Globe Chemicals
  Toledo,
   Region  V
                 CA
                  NJ
                  OH
                   IL
H.  Clay Glover
 Toms River
  Arlington Heights,
   Region V

R.  L Gould        MN
 Co.
  St. Paul
   Region V

Great Lakes       MI
 Biochemical
  Milwaukee,
   Region V

Gulf Oil          FL
 Corp.
  Jackson,
  Region IV

Haag Labo-        IL
 ratories
  Blue Island,
   Region V

Harrison Oil      WI
 Co., Inc.
  Milwaukee,
   Region V
COMPLAINT
  ISSUE
   DATE

   11-8-73
   8-5-74
   5-9-74
   11-25-74
                            11-16-73
                            3-6-74
                            7-8-74
                            6-5-74
                            4*10-74
DATE OF
 FINAL
EPA ORDER

  5-6-75
  7-24-75
  5-9-75
  9-7-75
                 10-5-74
                 1-17-75
                 10-21-75
                 1-13-75
                 11-7-74
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
  STATUS

 Withdrawn
 $1,500



 $1,900



 $270




 Wi thdrawn




 $500




 $5,400




 Wi thdrawn




 $500
                                            167

-------
NAME
 CITY
  REGION       STATE
Hi lex Div.         MN
 Hunt Chemical  Co.
  St. Paul,
   Region V

Holder Corp.      WV
 Huntington,
  Region III

H. S Equip. &     IN
 Supply,
  Shilbyville,
   Region V

Hub States        IN
 Corp.
  Indianapolis,
   Region V

Huge Company      MO
 St. Louis,
  Region VII

Hunt Chemicals,   MN
 Inc.
  St. Paul,
   Region V

Imoco-Gateway     MD
 Corp.
  Baltimore,
   Region III

Jac Son           CA
 Company
  Anaheim,
   Region IX

S.C.  Johnson      WI
 Racine,
  Region V
COMPLAINT
  ISSUE
   DATE
  6-4-74
  2-5-74
  8-27-74
  4-26-74
  6-25-74
DATE OF
 FINAL
EPA ORDER
  12-16-73      2-21-74
 12-11-74
  11-18-74      2-26-75
 11-21-74
 4-29-75
  10-23-74      5-19-75
  11-21-73       3-11-75
 2-18-75
                                                               APPENDIX  B
                                                                 TABLE  3
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
  STATUS

Dismissed
$1,500
               $924
 11-13-74      $3,500
Withdrawn
$500
               $1,700
               Dismissed
$750
                                         168

-------
NAME
 CITY
  REGION       STATE
                  IA
Kemin
 Industries
  Des Monies,
   Region VII
Kenco Che.        TN
 Mfg. Co., Inc.
  Jacksonville,
   Region IV

Kirsto Co.        MI
 Lansing,
  Region V

Koos, Inc         WI
 Kensosha,
  Region V

Lawn House        WI
 Products
  Milwaukee,
   Region V

Lenter            MI
 Enterprises
  Bloomfield Hills,
   Region V

Leonard Co.       MO
 St. Louis,
  Region VII

Lewis Marchi      NJ
 Chandle
  Newark,
   Region II

Los Angles        CA
 Chemical Co.
  Los Angeles,
   Region IX

Lowman Co.,       IN
 Waterloo,
  Region V
COMPLAINT
  ISSUE
   DATE

  8-30-74
                           7-5-74
                           4-29-74
                           6-28-74
                           5-14-74
                           9-5-74
                           6-17-74
                           6-28-74
                           4-10-74
DATE OF
 FINAL
EPA ORDER

 12-3-74
                3-11-75
                10-24-74
                           11-18-74      7-22-75
                12-6-74
                2-10-75
                11-14-74
                11-26-74
                6-20-75
                8-16-74
                                                               APPENDIX  B
                                                                 TABLE  3
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
  STATUS

$3,500
               $1,700
               $500
                             $2,408
               $500
               $300
               $580
               $250
               $4,500
               $750
                                       '  169

-------
                                       APPENDIX  B
                                        TABLE   3
                           AMOUNT OF
                           PENALTY OR
                             STATUS
2-H-74       10-2-74       $1,200
NAME                    COMPLAINT      DATE OF
 CITY                      ISSUE         FINAL
  REGION       STATE        DATE        EPA ORDER

Lystads,          ND
 Inc.
  Grand Forks,
   Region VIII

M. R. McClelland  WA       5-7-73        7-2-73        $100
 & Sons
  Tacoma,
   Region X

McConnon          MN       6-20-74       8-2-74        Dismissed
 & Co.
  Winona,
   Region V

Kerr-McGee        FL       7-8-74        8-20-74       $900
 Chem. Corp.
  Orlando,
   Region IV

McGraw-           MI        9-18-73       4-18-75       $425
 Edison
  Albion,
   Region V

Madison           IN       6-4-74        11-15-74      $500
 Chemical
  Madison,
   Region V

Magnolia Chem.    TX       8-27-74       6-10-75      , $3,456
 Co., Inc,
  Dallas,
   Region VI

Mallinckrodt      MO        9-20-74       9-24-74       Withdrawn
 Chemicals Works
  St. Louis,
   Region VII
               170

-------
                                                                 APPENDIX  B
                                                                  TABLE   3
NAME
 CITY
  REGION
STATE
 Master             PA
  Philadelphia,
   Beaver  Falls,
    Region III

 Metallic  Coating   IL
  Co.
   Carpentersville,
    Region V

 Mid State         IN
  Chemical &  Supply
   Corp.
    Indianapolis,
     Region V

 Middle  State      OH
  Oil  Co.
   Cleveland,
    Region V

 Mihelich           MI
  Nurseries
   Warren,
    Region V

 Montgomery        MN
  Ward
   St. Paul
    Region V

 Mortemoth         WI
  Chem.  Labs
   Milwaukee,
    Region V

 Morton             TN
  Pharmaceuticals
   Inc.
    Memphis,
     Region IV

 National  Bird      IL
  Control  Labs
   Skokie,
    Region V
COMPLAINT
  ISSUE
   DATE

  7-19-74
             1-29-73
             3-13-74
            8-23-73
             3-5-74
            7-5-74
DATE OF
 FINAL
EPA ORDER

 6-6-75
             10-23-74      4-18-75
             10-23-74      9-17-74
                9-19-74
                3-7-75
                8-16-74
                8-19-74
                11-11-74
            12-17-73      5-22-75
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
  STATUS

 $1,200
                              $500
                              $726
               $500
               $630
               Withdrawn
               $500
               $800
                              $2,000
                                          171

-------
                                                                APPENDIX   B
                                                                  TABLE  3
NAME
 CITY
  REGION

Nicole Dorea,
 Inc.
  Gordonville,
   Region III

Noma-World
 Wide
  Chicago,
   Region V

Nordon
 Laboratories
  Lincoln,
   Region VII

Northern
 Instruments
  St. Paul,
   Region V

Northrup, King
 & Co.
  Helena,
   Region VIII

Nottingham
 Co.
  Atlanta,
   Region IV

Oil  Kraft,
 Inc.
  Cincinnati,
   Region V

Oil  Speciality
 Brooklyn,
  Region II
STATE
   MT
COMPLAINT
  ISSUE
   DATE
DATE OF
 FINAL
EPA ORDER
   VA       3-20-74       2-7-75
   IL       6-20-74       6-6-75
   NE       11-25-74       1-7-75
  7-31-73       6-17-73
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
  STATUS

$400
                              $500
                             $5,500
            11-18-74      9-23-75       $500
               $300
   GA       9-19-74       12-23-74      $1,200
   OH       5-29-74       9-20-74       $500
   NY        5-9-74        5-8-75        $1,500
                                          172

-------
                          APPENDIX  B
                           TABLE   3
NAME
 CITY
  REGION       STATE
Pacific           OR
 Supply Corp.
  Portland,
   Region X

Packaging         CA
 Unlimited
  Los Angeles,
   Region IX

Pantry Pride, Inc. PA
 Philadelphia,
  Region III

Patio Products    PA
 Co.
  'Corwells Heights,
   Region III

Pearson & Co.     AL
 Mobile,
  Region IV

Pearson & Co.     AL
 Mobile,
  Region IV

 Pearson & Co.     AL
 Mobile,
  Region iv
Michel &
 Pel ton
  Emeryville,
   Region IX
                  CA
COMPLAINT
  ISSUE
   DATE

  9-10-74
  3-19-74
  4-23-74
  9-3-74
  11-2-73
  11-2-73
  11-2-73
  3-12-74
DATE OF
 FINAL
EPA ORDER

 12-4-74
 6-16-75
 11-27-74
 12-30-74
 7-2-75
 7-2-75
 7-2-75
 10-31-74
                                                      AMOUNT OF
                                                      PENALTY OR
                                                        STATUS

                                                      $1,800
                                                      $2,500
                                                      Withdrawn
                                                      Withdrawn
                                                      $1,000
                                                      Combined with
                                                      above case
                                                      Combined with
                                                       above case
-0-

-------
                                                                APPENDIX  B
                                                                 TABLE  3
NAME                    COMPLAINT      DATE OF
 CITY                      ISSUE         FINAL
  REGION       STATE        DATE        EPA ORDER

 Pennyfeather      DE       6-20-74       7-15-75
  Corp.
   Greenville,
    Region III

 Perk  Products     TN       7-8-74        6-5-75
  Co.
   Nashville,
    Region IV

 Physicians &      MN       4-29-74       1-20-75
  Hospitals Supply
   Co.
    Minneapolis,
     Region V

 Plunkett          IL       5-9-74        4-11-75
  Chemical Co.
   Chicago,
    Region V

 Potomac Rose      DC       2-2-74        7-2-74
  Society
   Wash., D.C.
   Region III

 RMC Products      IA       10-16-74      4-30-75
  Co.
   Fort  Dodge,
    Region VII

 G.S.  Robbins      MO       10-16-74      5-5-75
  & Co.
   St. Louis,
    Region VII

 Jay Rodgers       MI       11-25-74      7-22-75
  Co.
   Detroit,
   Region V
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
  STATUS

 $250
 $120
 $2,500
 $500
 Transferr  to
 Miller  (Guaranty)
 $200
 $500
 $750
                                          17**

-------
NAME
 CITY
  REGION
          COMPLAINT      DATE OF
            ISSUE         FINAL
STATE        DATE        EPA ORDER
                                                                 APPENDIX   B
                                                                   TABLE   3
                            AMOUNT OF
                            PENALTY OR
                              STATUS
Ropac Mfg.  Co.     NY       4-17-74       1-20-75         -0-
 Syracuse,
  Region II

Rose Exter-       OH       5-28-74       9-12-74       $2,000
 minator
  Cincinnati,
   Region V

R & R Enter-      CA       1-7-74        12-5-74       $3,500
 prises
  La Canada,
   Region IX

Salisbury Labs     AK       1-21-74       5-2-74        $800
 Little Rock,
  Re§ioo VI
 Sanco Prod.        GA
 Co.
  Macon,
   Region IV

 Sanford           OK
 Chemical Co.
  Oklahoma City,
   Region VI

 S.C.D. Chemical    AZ
 Co.
  Phoenix,
   Region IX
 Science
  Products Co.
  Region V
   IL
            7-16-74
            9-12-74
            9-7-73
5-9-74
              7-16-75
              12-15-75
              $1,650
                $0
                   $4,000
1-13-75
$1,000
                                            175

-------
                                                                APPENDIX  B
                                                                 TABLE   3
NAME                     COMPLAINT
 CITY                      ISSUE
  REGION       STATE        DATE

Scientific        OK       4-11-74
 Research Corp.
  Alva,
   Region VI

0. M. Scott       OH       7-18-74
 & Sons Co.
  Marysvilie,
   Region V

Senoret           MO       9-20-74
 Chemical Co.,
  Kirkwood,
   Region VII

Sharp             AK       7-17-73
 Products Co.
  Pea Ridge,
   Region VI

Shap & Vejar      CA       6-28-74
 Co.
  Los Angeles,
   Region IX

SKRK Manu-        CA       5-28-74
 facturing Co.
  Torrance,
   Region IX
                  4_17_74  8-27-74
H.  V.  Smith
 Co.
  St.  Paul,
   Region V
Southern Mill      FL        11-2-73
 Creek Prods.  Co.
  Tampa,
   Region IV

Southern Mill      FL        11-2-73
 Creek Prods.  Co.
  Tampa,
   Region IV
                                       DATE OF
                                        FINAL
                                       EPA ORDER

                                        10-16-74
                                        11-3-74
                                        11-15-74
                                        8-24-73
                                        6-23-75
                                        12-31-74
$500
                                        7-22-74
              AMOUNT OF
              PENALTY OR
                STATUS

              $2,100
              $1,250
              $630
              Withdrawn
              $1,800
                -0-
              $2,500
                                        Combined with
                                        above case

-------
NAME
 CITY
  REGION
STATE
Sports Alliance,  CA
 Inc.
  Los Angeles,
   Region  IX

Springfield       MO
 Water Conditioning
  Co.
   Springfield,
     Region VII

 Standard          DE
 Chlorine
  Delaware Cith,
   Region  III

 Standard T       IL
 Chicago,
  Region V

 Stan Sax          MI
 Corp.
  Detroit,
    Region  V

 M.  D.  Stetson     MA
  Co.
   Boston,
    Region  I

 Stevens           GA
  Industries,  Inc.
   Dawson,
    Region  IV
COMPLAINT
  ISSUE
   DATE
            8-14-73
             8-9-74
DATE OF
 FINAL
EPA ORDER
            11-21-73      5-5-75
            11-15-74      3-12-75
                9-23-74
             H-14-74      11-10-75
                 11-19-7
                                                                 APPENDIX  B
                                                                   TABLE  3
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
  STATUS

  -0-
                              $280
            9-30-74       3-21-75       $1,400
               $1,000



               $3,000
             H-5-74       10-14-75      $4,350
               $3,800
                                            77

-------
 NAME
  CITY
   REGION
STATE
Stoner's Inc.    PA
 Quarysvilie,
  Region III

Terminix         WI
 Inter., Inc.
  Milwaukee,
   Region V

Terminix         OH
 Int'l Inc.
  Cincinnati,
   Region V

Thatcher         UT
 Chemical
  Salt Lake City,
   Region VIII

Thompson-        TN
 Hayward Chemical
  CO.
   Memphis
    Region IV

Twinoak          IL
 Products, Inc.
  Batavia,
   Region V

Union Carbide    GA
 Corp.
  Atlanta,
   Region IV

Union Oil        MN
 Co.  of Calf.
  Minneapolis,
   Region V
COMPLAINT
  ISSUE
   DATE

8-22-74
          3-21-74
          4-17-74
          2-11-74
          9-27-74
          9-19-74
 DATE OF
 FINAL
 EPA ORDER

4-2-75
              1-16-75
              9-12-74
              4-8-75
          10-23-74      1-9-75
              1-17-75
              1-22-75
          11-18-74      5-16-75
                                                             APPENDIX  B
                                                               TABLE   3
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
  STATUS

$3,060
               Dismissed
               $1,000
               $3,540
                             $3,000
               $1,800
               $8,000
                             $7,800
                                            78

-------
                                                               APPENDIX   B
                                                                 TABLE  3
NAME
 CITY
  REGION
STATE
Uniroyal         LA
 Chemical Co.
  Div. of Uniroyal
   Barton Rouge,
    Region VI

United Chemical  MO
 Co.
  Kansas City,
   Region VII

Velsicol Chem.   IL
 Corp.
  Chicago,
   Region V

Ventron  Corp.    IL
 Chicago,
   Region V

Veterinary       KS
 Labs
   Lenexa,
    Region VII

Vita-Plus        WI
  Corp.
   Madison,
    Region V

 Diamond Vogel     IA
  Paint  Co.
   Burlington,
    Region VII

 Water Services   FL
  Inc.
   Knoxville,
    Region  IV
COMPLAINT
  ISSUE
   DATE

 12-21-73
           11-25-74
           11-20-74
           10-18-74
           9-20-74
           8-12-74
           8-27-74
           7-8-74
DATE OF
 FINAL
EPA ORDER

5-2-74
               12-31-74
               2-26-75
               12-31-74
               12-5-74
               9-18-75
               11-20-74
               11-4-74
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
  STATUS

$800
               $378
               $4,800
               $2,500
               Withdrawn
               $792
               $2,244
               $420
                                              179

-------
                                                             APPENDIX  B
                                                               TABLE  3
NAME
CITY
REGION STATE
Watkins MN
Products
Winona,
Region V
COMPLAINT
ISSUE
DATE
5-10-74
DATE OF
FINAL
EPA ORDER
9-16-74
AMOUNT OF
PENALTY OR
STATUS
$1,400
Waxman          OH       4-17-74       3-28-75
 Industries,  Inc.
  Bedford Heights,
   Region V

Wine Art        MN       5-14-74       8-19-74
 of Minnesota
  Minneapolis,
   Region V

Wool folk Chem.   GA       7-8-74        8-30-74
 Works Ltd.
  Ft.  Valley,
   Region IV

F.W. Woolworth   IL       2-21-74       4-29-74
 Co.
  Chicago,
   Region V
$1,500
$600
$3,000
$700
                                          180

-------
                              UPDATE OF RESULTS  FOR
                       CRIMINAL  ACTIONS INITIATED BY  EPA
                       UNDER SECTION 14(b)  OF  THE FEDERAL
                   INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE,  AND RODENTICIDE ACT
                                  AS AMENDED*
                                              APPENDIX   B
                                                TABLE  4
NAME
 CITY
  REGION
                     DECEMBER 1972 THROUGH NOVEMBER 1974
State
DATE REF-
FERRED TO
  U.S. ATT.
                                   RESULTS/
                                    STATUS
Ace Hardware Co.   CA      4-18-73
 Benicia
 Region IX

Aero Mist, Inc.    GA      6-29-73
 Marietta
 Region IV

Alden Leeds, Inc.  NJ      7-18-73
 Region II

Apex Services     GA      7-27-73
 Atlanta
 Region IV

Aspen Indus-      NY      1-31-73
 tries, Inc.
 Tully
 Region II

Brulin & Co. Inc.  CA      7-27-73
 Richmond
 Region IX

Chemical Special   TN      12-7-73
 ties, Inc.
 Memphis
 Region IV
                                  U.S. Attorney
                                   declined to
                                   prosecute.  10-11-73

                                  U.S. Attorney
                                   declined to
                                   prosecute.  4-23-75

                                  Region II retracted case
                                  U.S. Attorney
                                   declined to
                                   prosecute.  3-18-75

                                  U.S. Attorney
                                   declined to
                                   prosecute.  7-1-75
                                   U.S. Attorney
                                    declined to
                                    prosecute.  5-16-74

                                   U.S. Attorney
                                    declined to
                                    prosecute.  4-8-74
   *The actions for which results are reported on in thisltable were
    first listed in Appendix E of the EPA Report, entitle^'EPA EN-
    FORCEMENT— TWO YEARS OF PROGRESS, DECEMBER 1972 TO1NOVEMBER 1974",,
    and were shown as "Pending" in that volume if the Regional; Offices
    had not reported the results or dispositive action;had; hot  been
    taken at press time.

                                         181

-------
                                                              APPENDIX  B
                                                               TABLE  4
NAME
 CITY
  REGION
State
Chevron Chem Co  CA
 San Francisco
 Region IX

Custom Chem., Inc 6A
 Atlanta
 Region IV

Delro Indus-     MA
 tries, Inc.
 Springfield
 Region I

Dettleback Chem. GA
 Corp.
 Region IV

Dettleback Pest- GA
 icide Corp.
 Region IV

Diversey Corp    IL
 Chicago
 Region V

Donlen Co. Inc   GA
 Lithonia
 Region IV

Drew Chemical    NY
 Corp.
 New York
 Region II

Franklin Labs.,  CA
 Inc.
 Imperial
 Region IX

Fuld-Stalfort,   CA
 Los Angeles
 Region IX

Gabriel Chemicals,  NJ
 Ltd.
 Region II
DATE REF-
FERRED TO
  U.S. ATT.

 12-27-72
           3-22-73
           5-9-73
           2-21-73
           2-21-73
           3-11-73
           6-29-73
           8-13-74
           12-3-73
           12-4-73
           12-14-73
                                   RESULTS/
                                    STATUS
                                   Fined  $1,500 on 2
                                    counts.   5-25-73
                         Fined  $400 on 4
                          counts.  5-9-75
                         Fined  $2,300 on 5
                          counts.   12-6-74
                        U.S. Attorney
                         declined to
                         prosecute.  4-8-75

                        U.S. Attorney
                         declined to
                         prosecute.  4-29-75

                        Fined $1,500 and costs
                         on 3 counts.  3-4-75
                        U.S. Attorney
                         declined to
                         prosecute.  4-3-75

                        U.S. Attorney
                         declined to
                         prosecute.  11-12-75
                        U.S. Attorney
                         declined to
                         prosecute.  12-31-74
                        U.S. Attorney
                         declined to
                         prosecute.  3-4-74

                        U.S. Attorney
                         declined to
                         prosecute.  11-12-75
                                          182

-------
NAME                     DATE REF-
 CITY                    FERRED TO
  REGION       State       U.S. ATT.

Hill Manufac-    GA        6-29-73
 ting Co.
 Atlanta
 Region IV

J.L. Hoi comb     GA        1-9-73
 Mfg. Co.
 Chamblee
 Region IV

Hopkins Agric.   IL        12-14-73
 Rockford
 Region V

Hopkins Agric.   IL        12-14-73
 Chem Co
 Region V

Hysan Products   IL        10-23-73
 Co.
 Chicago
 Region V

 Klix Chemical    CA        2-28-73
 Co., Inc.
 So. San Francisco
 Region IX

 Mayo Chemical    GA        12-3-73
 Co., Inc.
 Smyrna
 Region IV

 National Chelating CA     12-4-72
  Corp.
 West Covina
  Region IX

 New South Mfg    GA        4-16-73
  Co.
 Atlanta
  Region IV
                                                                APPENDIX  B
                                                                  TABLE  4
RESULTS/
 STATUS
U.S. Attorney
 declined to
 prosecute.  2-12-75
U.S. Attorney
 declined to
 prosecute.  2-28-75
 Fined $2,500 on 6
 counts.  12-19-74
Combined with above
 Fined $15,000 on 15
 counts.  12-4-74
 Fined $200 on 1
 count.  12-11-73
 Fined $800 on 8
  counts.  3-14-75
 U.S. Attorney
  declined to
  prosecute.  12-21-72
 U.S. Attorney
 declined to
 prosecute.  3-12-75
                                          183

-------
NAME                     DATE REF-
 CITY                    FERRED TO
  REGION       State       U.S. ATT.

O'Neal, Jones    MO       12-7-72
 & Feldman
 Olivette
 Region VII

O'Neal  Jones,    MO       1-24-73
 & Feldman
 Olivette
 Region VII

Patterson Chem-  MO       2-13-73
 ical Co.
 Kansas City
 Region VII

Patterson Chem-  MO       2-13-73
 ical Co.
 Kansas City
 Region VII

Patterson Chem-  MO       2-13-73
 ical Co.
 Kansas City
 Region VII

Patterson Chem-  MO       2-13-73
 ical Co.
 Kansas City
 Region VII

Patterson Chem-  MO       2-13-73
 ical Co.
 Kansas City
 Region VII

Patterson Chem-  MO       2-13-73
 ical Co.
 Kansas City
 Region VII

Patterson Chem-  MO       2-13-73
 ical Co.
 Kansas City
 Region VII
RESULTS/
 STATUS
APPENDIX  B
  TABLE  4
Fined $2,400 on 4
 counts.  5-18-73
Merged into above case
Fined $600 on 6
 counts.  4-11-73
Merged into above
 case
Merged into above
 case.
Merged into above
 case.
Merged into above
 case.
Merged into above
 case.
Merged into above
 case.
                                         184

-------
NAME
 CITY
  REGION       State

Perfecto Dental  6A
 Mfg. Co.
 Atlanta
 Region IV

Poly Chem.       LA
 Inc.
 New Orleans
 Region VI

Professional     AZ
 Chem. Inc.
 Phoenix
 Region IX

Professional     AZ
 Chem. Inc.
 Phoenix
 Region IX

I.D. Russell     MO
 Co., Labs
 Kansas City
 Region VII

I.D. Russell     MO
 Co. Labs.
 Kansas City
 Region VII

I.D. Russell     MO
 Co., Labs.
 Kansas  City
 Region VII

I.D. Russell     MO
 Co. Labs.
 Kansas  City
 Region  VII

Seacoast  Lab.    NJ
 Inc.
 East Brunswick
 Region  II
DATE REF-
FERRED TO
  U.S. ATT.

 7-27-73
 12-29-72
 1-31-73
 12-27-72
 1-12-73
 1-12-73
 1-12-73
 1-12-73
 12-3-73
RESULTS/
 STATUS
           APPENDIX  B
             TABLE  4
U.S. Attorney
 declined to
 prosecute.   3-19-75
Fined $250 on  1
 count.   10-10-73
Merged into case
 below.
Fined $200 on 2
 counts.   8-6-73
Fined $1,900 on  4
 counts.   3-19.73
Merged into above
 case.
Merged into above
 case.
Merged into above
 case.
U.S. Attorney
 declined to
 prosecute.
                                            185

-------
NAME                     DATE REF-
 CITY                    FERRED TO
  REGION       State       U.S. ATT.

Singletary &     NC       12-14-73
 Co., Inc.
 Rocky Mount
 Region IV

Southern Druggist  GA     1-15-73
 Inc.
 Atlanta
 Region IV

John Stumpfs     LO      1-9-73
 Son
 Gretna
 Region VI

Tesco Chem, Inc.   GA      4-16-73
 Atlanta
 Region IV

U.S.S. Agri-      GA      7-12-73
 Chemicals
 Div of U.S.
 Steel Corp.
 Columbus
 Region IV

Valley Chemical    MS      7-3-73
 Co., Inc.
 Greenville
 Region IV

Wood Treating    MO       1-31-73
 St. Louis
 Region VII

Wood Treating    MO       1-31-73
 Chemical Co.
 St. Louis
 Region VII

Wright Laundry TX       12-3-73
 Supply, Inc.
 Fort Worth
 Region VI
RESULTS/
 STATUS
APPENDIX  B
  TABLE  4
U.S. Attorney
 declined to
 prosecute.  7-15-75
U.S. Attorney
 declined to
 prosecute.  3-3-75
U.S. Attorney
 declined to
 prosecute.  2-1-74
U.S. Attorney
 declined to
 prosecute.  3.-31-75

U.S. Attorney
 declined to
 prosecute.  4-9-75
U.S. Attorney
 declined to
 prosecute.  11-5-73
Fined $375 on 3
 counts.  5-25-73
Merged into above
 case.
U.S. Attorney
 declined to
 prosecute.  6-26-75
                                          86

-------
    Type
    Permittee
    Perait Nvatoer  (Major/Minor)
    LocatiOB
                                                                      Civil  t CrlBinal Enfbrcttwnt Action*
                                                                  (Motion *» Referrals to «.*. Attorney)
                                                                            As of 31 Dec 1975

                                                                          •  Referral Date
                                                                            riling Date
                                                                            Status (Disposition)
                                                                                              • Alleged Violation
                                                                                                                                     APPENDIX  C
                                                                                                                                       TABLE 1
             SBCnOM OHIi  ACTIVE CUBS  28    Only thOM tef*ml* th*t turn • filing datft «r« li»t«d  in this Motion.

             SECTION WOi  CLOSED CASB8  78 .
00
I
CIVIL
BARNES WORSTEDS,  IHC.
m  003174  tamat
HA. KINGSTON
JONES RIVER

I
CIVIL
HAVERHILL GAS COHPMR
HA, HAVERHILL
N/A
IMNAHED BROOK «
 LITTLE RIVER
                                                                            9-17-75
                                                                            Oet 75
                                                                            Pending
                                                                            12-17-74
                                                                            3-3-75
                                                                            Pmding
Failiur* to OMt compliance ichedul*
dates.  Noncosplisnce with paxait.
Non-Filer.
Appnw. « Billion gallons of
water containing phenol,
iron c contaminants.

-------
             tl
             CIVIL
             TUCK INDUSTRIES, IMC.
             ta  008338  MINOR   .
             NY. BEACON
             FISHKILL CREEK

             II
             CRIMINAL
             TUCK INDUSTRIES. ISC.
             NY  008338  MINOR
             NY, BEACON
             FISHKILL CREEK
2-14-75
6-5-75
Pleaded not guilty,
6/16/75 - Pending
2-14-75
U.S. ATTY announced
outline of Info.  Tuck
pleaded not guilty,
6/16/75.  Case won't go
to  trial before 9/75.
Fending
Non-Filer.
Point sources not covered
in permit application.
 Discharging without a permit.
 Point sources not covered in
 permit application.
                                                                                                                                                 APPENDIX   C
                                                                                                                                                   TABLE  1
OO
00

-------
                                                                                                                                                    APPENDIX  C
                                                                                                                                                      TABLE  1
do
CD
             IV
             CIVIL
             ALTON BOX BOARD COMPANY
             FL 0000892  MAJOR
             FL. JACKSONVILLE
             ST. JOHN  RIVER

             IV
             CIVIL
             AMERICAN  SYNTHETIC  RUBBER
             KX  0001589    MAJOR
             KY, LOUISVILLE
             OHIO RIVER
CIVIL
BUTTE KNITTING HILLS (A DiV.
 of Jonathan Logan, Inc.)
SC  0000957  MINOR
SC SPARTANBURG
NORTH TYGER RIVER

IV
CIVIL
CAROLINA PAPER MILLS
HC  0006343  MAJOR
NC, ROCKINGHAM
HITCHCOCK CREEK
                                                              2-19-75
                                                              S-22-7S
                                                              Under negotiations.
                                                              10-7-75
                                                              Dec 75
                                                              Pending
                                                                            11-12-75
                                                                            12-5-75
                                                                            Pending
                                                                            4-10-75
                                                                            5-7-75
                                                                            Pending
Failed to complete construction
of waste treatment system by
12/31/74.
Violated Effluent Limits from
7/74 thru 5/75, allowed "bypass"
on 5 different dates.
Violation of Interim Effluent Limits
£ failure to submit noncompliance
reports
Discharge continued after
permit expiration.   Failure
to submit info required to
authorize further discharge.

-------
                                                                                                                                                  APPENDIX   C
                                                                                                                                                    TABLE  1
CO
O
           IV
           CIVIL
           MINERAL RESEARCH «
            DEVELOPMENT CORP.
           HC  000(351  MAJOR
           MC, CONCORD
           ROCKY RIVER

           IV
           CIVIL
           SAUTES PRINT NORKD
           SC  0001309  MAJOR
           S'C. SUHTER
           Unneaed Trib. of TORICEY

           IV
           CIVIL
           VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORP.
           TH  OOOOOS1   MAJOR
           TO, MEMPHIS
           CYPRESS CREEK
IV
CIVIL
UINSTON-SALEM I STATE OP MC.
  <«unicip«l)
MC  0024198  MAJOR
HC, WNSTOH-SALEM
MIDDLE PORK CREEK to
                                                               10-21-75
                                                               11-6-75
                                                               Pending
                                                               7-1O-75
                                                               8-27-75
                                                               Pending
                                                               7-3-75
                                                               10-10-75
                                                               Pending
11-18-75
12-31-75
Pending
                                  Miled to aeet  interia effluent limits
                                  by 6/14/75,  failed-to provide non-
                                  coipliwice reports.
                                  P*ilure to Beet effluent  limits.
                                                                                                 Failed to nest effluent limit*.
Allowed approx.  41 cubic yds. of
sludge material  to enter creek
resulting in fish kill.

-------
 CCVtL
 DANA CORP., tamest FRAME uv.
 MI  0005894  MAJOR
 MI. EODRSE
 Navigable BSA

 V
 CIVII.
 STEAMER GEORGE HIHDMAN
 S/A
 MI
 ST. CLAIR RIVER

 V
 CIVIL
 IHTERNATIOtOU. HARVESTER,
  WISCONSIN STEEL DIV.
• IL  0001660  MAJOR
 'lL. CHICAGO
 CALIMBT RIVER •

 V
 CIVII.
 BOSS-AMERICAN, IMC.
 «/*
 HI.  MILWAUKEE
 LITTLE MENOMOHBB {OVER

 V
 CIVIL
 PAD AMERICAN CHEMICAL CORP.
 H/A
 OB, TOLEDO
            USA
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
7-11-75
11-11-75
Conplaint Filed.
                                                                                                 Soap Spill - 4/16/75,  Disch. .of
                                                                                                 soap not auth. in permit.
Oil disch. 'Oto St. Clair River,
unknown amount.  9/17/75.
Violated effluent limits,  continuing
nonconpliance.
                                  Unauth. disch.
Sodium Hydroxide Spill  - 4/15/75.
Approx. 1700 gals,  disch.
                                      APPENDIX   C
                                        TABLE  1

-------
                                                                                                                                                 APPENDIX  C
                                                                                                                                                  TABLE  1
            w
            CIVIL
            POST BULLETIN CO.
            N/A
            MH, ROCHESTER
            BEAVER CREEK

            V
            CIVIL
            WILLIAMS PIPE LINE CO.
            M/A
            IL, FAYETTE COUNTY ft
             JASPER COUNTY
            Onnaned Trib.  to LOME GSOVE
           . Branch, Trib. to But Fork
             Of KASKASKEA RTVBR
1-1-75
2-23-75
Complaint Filed - Pending
9-23-75 c 10-2O-75
12-10-75
Pending
                                                                                                           Onauth.  disch. - Degreaser Agent
 Spills  approx. 6,000 gals. &
-27,000  gals, of liquid fertilizer
 ((IRAN), due to corrosion leak in
 10" pipelines.  '4/7/75 £ 5/6/75.
CO

-------
 -i
CO
                                                                                                                                                 APPEND/X   C
                                                                                                                                                   TABLE  1
           VI
           CIVIL        .
           AMERICAN CYANAMID CO.
           LA  OOQ4367  MAJOR
           LA, WESTMEGO
           HISSISSIPPI RIVER

           •VI
           CIVIl
           BOISE SOUTHERN CO.
             tCalcasieu Paper Co.-)
           LA  0003379  MAJOR
           LA, ELIZABETH
           MIU, CREEK
1O-2-75 « 2-6-76
10-9-75
Pending
11-21-75
12-4-7S
Pending
Violated effl.  limitations,  3/11/75,
3/18/75 s 3/19/75,  exceeded  'Ammonia
as N" by 45,000 Ibs.,  69,000 Ibs.
£ 32,000 Ibs.,  Disch.   537 Ibs. of
"Chromium" on 7/16  & 7/17/75, max. •
is 100 Ibs. per/day

Unauth.  "bypass" due  to equipment
aalfunetion which was  uncorrected
over a period of months.

-------
           VIII
           civil.
           ANACONDA COMPANY
           MT  0000191  MAJOR
           MT,  BOTTE
           Cleaniater Ditch to
            SILVER BOH CREEK
 7-21-75
 11-7-7S
 Pending
                                                                                                  Disch.  not auth. by permit.   3 cases
                                                                                                  of "bypass" on 1/14/75,  5/28/75 £
                                                                                                  6/3/75
                                                                                                                                                     APPENDIX  C
                                                                                                                                                       TABLE  1
           VIII
           CIVIL
           COLORADO TANK LINES
           N/A
           CO.  ARVADA
           PINE CHEEK 6 HOHOMST CREEK
 8-27-75
 11-18-75.
. Pending
                                                                                                  Approx.  3,000 - 4,000  gals, heating
                                                                                                  oil spill,  10-1-73  unauth. disch.
UD
VIII
CIVIL
RICO ARGENTINE MINING CO.
N/A
CO, RICO
DELORES RIVER

VIII
CIVIL
SILVER BOH COUNTY
NT  0022012  MAJOR
Iff, BUTTB
SILVER BOW CREEK'
                                                                          10-11-74
                                                                          7-2-75
                                                                          Pending
                                                                          11-20-75
                                                                          2-26-7S
                                                                          Pending
                                                                                                            Non-Filer.
                                   Violated permit conditions
                                   C compliance order.

-------
              IX
              CIVIL
              ALLIED CKEMICM, COWAOT
                {BAY POINT)
              CA  0004979  MAJOR
              Ok,  PITTSBDRG
             • SUISUN BAY
7-31-75
llr-21-75
Pending
Violated effluent limitations,
continuously  from 1-1-75  to
4-30-75.
                                                                                                                                                 APPENDIX   C
                                                                                                                                                  TABLE  1
CO
cn

-------
CD
CD
                                                                                                                                                APPENDIX   C
                                                                                                                                                 TABLE  1
             x
             CIVIL
             BUNKER HILL COMPANY
             ID  0000078  MAJOR
             10,  KELMXW
             SOUTH FORK COBUR
              D'ALENE SILVER KING CREEK
4-15-75
9-2-75
Pending
Permit exceeded  affluent limits
& certain special conditions.
             X
             CIVIL
             EAGLE WATER & SEWER DIST.
             (HUN.)
             10  0022021  MINOR
             ID, EAGLE
             LAGOON TO BOISE RIVER
9-22-75
10-3-75
Pending
Noncompliance with permit special
condition,  "Allowed bypass",
6/20/75.

-------
            SECTION IHOl   CLOSED CASES 78

            I
            CIVIL
            A.B. STALE* MFG.
            ME   0002216  MINOR
            KB, hOULTON
            HEDUXNEKBAG RIVER
                                                             NPDES Civil C Criminal Enforcement Actions
                                                              (Section 309 Referrals to U.S.  Attorney)
                                                                          As of 31 Dec 1975
                                                                4-28-75
                                                                N/A
                                                                Closed - $8,000 settlement-
                                                                June 75
                                                                                                                                                  APPENDIX  C
                                                                                                                                                    TABLE  1
Effluent limitations violations.
Failure to report daily analyses.
            I
            CIVIL
            ANDREW WORSTED HILLS,  IMC.
            HI   0000809   MINOR
            RI, PASCOAG
            PASCOAG RIVER

            I
            CIVIL
            BALDWINVILLE  PRODUCTS, IMC.
            HA  0000175   MAJOR
            MA. TEMPLfcTON
            OTTER RIVER
                                                                12-24-74
                                                                N/A
                                                                Closed/Consent
                                                                Decree - $1,500 Settlement-
                                                                April 75


                                                                12-19-74
                                                                2-19-75
                                                                Closed - $20,000 Settlement-
                                                                Sept 75
Approx. 30,000 gals, of untreated
process wastewaters and sanitary
sewage.
Failed to monitor effluent.
Reports, based on estimates.
CO
I
CIVIL
BRINDIS LEATHER CO.
ME   0001317  MINOR
MB, CANTON
WHITNEY BROOK
                                                                             4-28-75
                                                                             5-19-75
                                                                             Closed - Judgement,
                                                                             $1,000 penalty, 12-11-75
Violated reporting requirements
(Late DMRs & progress reports)
             I
             CIVIL
             ERVING PAPER MILLS
             MA   0000621  MAJOR
             MILLERS RIVER
                                                                12-19-74
                                                                2-19-75
                                                                Closed - $10,000 Settleaent-
                                                                Sept. 75
Failed to monitor effluent.
Reports based on estimates.
             I
             CIVIL-
             STAMINA MILLS
             RI   0000084  MAJOR
             RI, FORESTDALB
             BRANCH RIVER
                                                                2-13-74
                                                                7-1-74
                                                                Closed -Consent decree
                                                                $5,000 Settlement-
                                                                July 75
Unreasonable delay in complying
with permit conditions.

-------
           XI
           cmt           _______
           LINDEN CBLOMNB PRODUCTS, INC.
           H/»
           HJ, UHDBN
           ARTHUR Kill.

           II
           CRIMINAL
           LINDEN CHLORINE PRODUCTS, IMC
           M/A.
           «J. LIKEN
           ARTHUR KILL

           II
           CIVIL          .       •
           NICK BROTHERS FUEL CORP.
           S/A
           •?, BONTINSTOH
           HDMTIMGTCH HARBOR
4-30-74
H/A
Closed - OS Atty declined
to file -July 75
4-30-74
3-24-75
Closed - $10,000 fine -
11/10/75
9-20-74
2-4-75
Closed - $3,500 penalty -
12/29/75.
Non-filer
Discharging without a permit or
pending application on OCT 30, 1972,
FEB 7, 1974, and MAR 22,  1974
Non-filer.  Disch.  w/o permit or
pending application on 10/30/72,
2/7/74 t 3/22/74.
Placed backfill material in
bulkhead - no permit.
APPENDIX
  TABLE  1
CD
CD

-------
               Ill
               CIVIL
               WHITMOVER UBS, INC..
                 (Subsidary of Roha & Haas)
               PA   0012785 MAJOR
               PA, MYERSTOWN
               TULPEHOCKEH CREEK
8-15-7S
10-9-75
Closed - Consent decree
£ 55,000 penalty - 12/75
Violated effluent limits.
Failed to file 5 day letters.
Failure to file a DMR.
APPENDIX  C
  TABLE  1
CD
CO

-------
              IV
              CIVIL
              CHATTANOOGA COKE &
                CHEMICALS COMPANY
                {formerly Head Corp.)
              TO   0001635  MAJOR
              TO, CHATTANOOGA
              UNNAMED TRIE. Of
                CHATTANOOGA CREEK

              IV
              CIVIL
              W.R. GRACE 6 COMPANY
                DAVIS ION CHEMICAL DIV.
              TH   0001678  MAJOR
              TO, CHATTANOOGA
              S. CHECKAMAUGA CREEK
                                                                9-16-75
                                                                9-26-75
                                                                Closed.- Consent Decree  &
                                                                $5,000 Penalty - NOV '75
                                                                8-28-75
                                                                9-18-75
                                                                Closed - Consent Decree
                                                                E $4,000 Penalty - NOV '75.
                                  Not in compliance with permit
                                  (Exceeding effluent limitations)
                                                                     APPENDIX  C
                                                                      TABLE  1
                                                                                                  Violation of Effluent Limits.
CD
o
              IV
              CIVIL
              LOUISVILLE t NASHVILLE RR CO.
              TO   0002999  MINOR
              TO, RADNOR
              BBDWNS CREEK
IV
CIVIL
MOUNT PLEASANT BOAT CO.
H/A
sc. -MT. PLEASANT
SHEH CREEK
                                                                2-19-75 & 2-28-75
                                                                3-7-75
                                                                Closed-Consent Decree
                                                                $7,500 Civil Penalty
                                                                9-3-75
5-30-75
Withdrawn
Closed  DEC 75
                                  Failed to furnish DHRs and
                                  schedule compliance report.
                                  Did not submit final plans
                                  to achieve effluent limits.
                                  Also,  no notice of compliance
                                  or nonconpliance.
Unpernitted discharge of
dredged material.
              IV
              CIVIL
              PARA-CHEK SOUTHERN, INC.
              SC   0001244  MINOR
              SC, SIMPSCHVILLE
              DURBIN CREEK
                                                                4-25-75
                                                                5-6-75
                                                                Closed - 12-18-75 Consent
                                                                Decree £ $3,000 penalty
                                                                                                   Effluent limitations violations.

-------
                    IV
                    CIVII,
                    UNION CARBIDE CO.
                    EC   0001473  MAJOR
                    SC, FLORENCE.
                    JEFFRIES CREEK

                    IV
                    CRIMINAL
                    WEBB 'COAL CO. , INC.
                    MINE ISC
                    H/A
                    KV, LICK CREEK
                    SCHOOLHOUSE BRANCH

                    IV
                    CIVIL
                    W. LAHGSTON HOLLAND,
                      ROBERT D. HRAY at. Hi
                    N/A
                    FL, ST. PETERSBURG
                    PAPY'S BAYOU
2-19-75
3-14-75
Closed - $2,000 Fine-
4/2/75
2-15-74
6-30-74
Closed - $2,500 Fine
($2,000 of the fine
suspended if no violations
in next 2 years). » JULY 74
12-13-73
6-14-74
Closed - injunction
granted-JONE 74
Failed to meet effluent
limits and submit final
plans for attainment of
sane.  Final plans not
submitted as of 2/19/7S.
APPENDIX   C
  TABLE  1
Non-filer
Discharge of polluted wastewater
without permit Section 301(a),  FHPCA
Non-filer
Discharge without permit.
o

-------
                V
                CIVII.
                AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO.
                MN   0001929  MAJOR
                HN,  CROOKSTONE
                RtO  LAKE RIVER
                                                                4-26-74
                                                                S-21-74
                                                                Closed - 7/75
                                                                $7,000 Fine
                    Discharge of 6,600 gals,  of
                    condenser pond wastewater containing
                    high levels of BOD, SS and coliform
                    bacteria.
APPENDIX
  TABLE  1
               .v
               ' CIVIL
               AMOCO CHEMICAL CO.
               N/A
               IL, JOLIET
               ILLINOIS RIVER
                                                                2-13-75
                                                                N/A
                                                                Declined 6/12/75
                    Spill - Est.  25 gals netaxylene  -
                    ruptured cargo hose while unloading
                    tank barge.•
               V
               CIVIL
               AShLAMD OIL, INC.
               W/A
               IL, CHICAGO
               CHICAGO SANITARY & SHIP CANAL
                                                                5-30-75
                                                                N/A
                                                                Closed - Pros,  declined
                                                                9/25/75
                    Discharge of Toluene.
o
V
CIVIL
BORG WARNER CHEMICALS
IL   0003883  MINOR
IL, OTTOWA
ILLINOIS RIVER
                                                                               2-5-75
                                                                               N/A
                                                                               Closed - Pros,  declined
                                                                               10/20/75
                    Spill - Est.  900  gals.  Sulfole. Oil
                    coupling on connecting hose came
                    loose & spilled undetermined amt.
               V
               CIVIL
               DfcMERT 6 DOUGHERTY
               v&
               IL, CHICAGO
               CHICAGO SANITARY t 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.

-------
                 v
                 civil,
                 DEHERT t DOUGHERTY
                 H/A
                 XL, STICKKEY
                 CHICAGO SANITARY C SHIP CANAL

                 V
                 CIVIL
                 DKTREX CHEMICAL IND., UK.
                 OH   0000752  MAJOR
                 OH, ASHTABULA
                 LUCE ERIE  '
                                                                2-24-75
                                                                H/A
                                                                Closed - Pros, declined
                                                                9/25/75
                                                                11-14-74
                                                                12-3-74
                                                                Closed - Consent Decree -
                                                                $55,000 settlement  SEP 75
                              Spill  -  approx.  500 - 1,000 gals.
                              Isopropanol 6 Hethanol overflow
                              from shore pump  during priming
                              during transfer  operation.
                                                                                              Effluent limitations violations.
APPENDIX   C
  TABLE  1
ro
o
OJ
V
CIVIL
B.I. DD PONT de NEHDURS C CO.
OH   0000990  MAJOR
OH, CLEVELAND
CUYAHOGA RIVER

V
CIVII,
E.I. DD PONT de NEMOURS, INC.
OH   0002534  MINOR
OK, TOLEDO
HOKEVILLE DITCH
7-29-75
H/A
Closed - Pros,
9/18/75
                                                                                                declined -
8-5-75
H/A
Closed - Pros,  declined -
8/26/75
                                                                                                              Sulfur spill - 2/1/75, approx.
                                                                                                              50 tons of molten sulfur reached
                                                                                                              river.
                                                                                                              Styrene spill, 50 gals  4/30/75,
                                                                                                              ruptured gasket on transfer line.
                 V
                 CIVIL
                 EHGB PACKING CO.
                 IN   0001686  MINOR
                 IN, FT. BRANCH
                 N. FORK PIGEON CREEK

                 V
                 CRIMINAL
                 INHONT CORP.
                 HA
                 MI, GRAND RAPIDS
                 PLASTER CREEK
                                                                5-7-74 £ 11-20-74
                                                                3-24-75
                                                                Closed - 7/75
                                                                51,750 Fine
                                                                6-25-74
                                                                N/A
                                                                Closed - US ATT* declined
                                                                prosecution - JUNE 75
                             Blood Spill
                             Spill - 11,000 gals,  of Naptha

-------
fo
CD
-r-
                     V
                     CIVIL
                     JOLIET MARINE SUPPLY
                       « REPAIR SERVICES, INC.
                     N/A
                     IL, JOLIET
                     DES PLAIHES RIVER

                     V
                     CIVIL
                     KNOX HIROHS
                     IL, WALTONVILLE
                     UNNAMED Trib.  of  Big Muddy
                     River to Rend Lake
2-27-75
H/A .
Closed - Pros,  declined -
10/20/75
5-6-74
N/A
Closed - Permanent
injunction granted -
6/2V74
Spill - est.  60 gals, coal S water
pumped into river during cleanup
operations.
                                  Animal carcasses
APPENDIX  C
  TABLE  1
                     v
                     CIVIL
                     CENTERVILLE NPK FERTILIZER
                     H/A
                     IN, CENTERVILLE
                     CENTER >RUN
6-18-75
N/A
Closed - Pros.' declined -
Deferred to State of IN -
7/28/75
Fertilizer spill.

-------
•CD
 cn
V
CRIMINAL
L1BBEY-CHENS FORD
N/A
OH, TOLEDO
OTTER CREEK
V
CIV1I.
UBBEy-OHENS FORD
H/A
OH, TOLEDO
OTTER CREEK

V
CIVIL
HIDLINE ENTERPRISES
CHOTIS TRANSPORTATION
N/A
IL
DES PLAINES RIVER

V
CIVIL
MIDLAND ENTERPRISES, INC.
N/A
IL, LEMONT
CHICAGO SANITARY "s SHIP CANAL

V
CIVIL
SOBIN CHEMICALS, INC.
OH    0000752   MAJOR
OH, AEHTABUIA
LAKE ERIE
                                                                   NPDES Civil s Criminal Enforcement Actions
                                                                    (Section 309 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
                                                                               As of 31  Dec  1975

                                                                     9-12-73
                                                                     N/A
                                                                     Closed - Prosecution declined
                                                                     resubmitted as civil action  -
                                                                     10-21-74.

                                                                     10-21-74 C 2-6-75
                                                                     3-21-75
                                                                     Closed - $1,000 Fine.
                                                                     8-5-75
                                                                     2-25-75
                                                                     N/A
                                                                     Declined 6/12/75
2-5-75
N/A
Closed - Pros,  declined
6-12-75.
                                                                     11-14-74
                                                                     12-3-74
                                                                     Closed - $25,000 penalty
                                                                     Consent Decree - 10/3/75.
                                                                                                                                          APPENDIX  C
                                                                                                                                            TABLE  1
                                                 Spill - Discharging without a permit.
                                                 Spill - Sodium Chromate solution
                                                 unknown amount.
                                                 Spill tst. . iuQ gals.
                                                 Orthoxylene leaked from
                                                 tank barge
Spill - Est.  1,000 gals. Tolune
Spill - leak  in barge
                                                                                                                      Effluent limits violated.

-------
ro
O
v
CIVIL
STEELCO CHEMICAL CORP.
IL  0022934  MINOR
IL, LEMONT
CHICAGO SANITARY C SHIP CANAL

V
CIVIL
SUCREST CORP.
IL  0002780  MINOR
IL, CHICAGO
OGDEN SLIP

V
CRIMINAL
E.G. SHEER s, SON (Schilling
 Fish Co.)
N/A
HI, OCONTO
PBNSAUKEE RIVER

V
CRIMINAL
TBI COUNTY LOGGING CO.
H/A
HI
BEAR CREEK

V
CIVIL
UNION CARBIDE CORP.
N/A  •  -
IK, BAST CHICAGO
LUCE. MICHIGAN
                                                                       4-21-75
                                                                       N/A
                                                                       Closed, - Pros, declined
                                                                       12/18/75
                                                                       2-13-75
                                                                       H/A
                                                                       Closed -Pros, declined
                                                                       10/20/75
                                                                       9-30-74
                                                                       N/A
                                                                       Closed - No true bill
                                                                       returned 8/15/75
                                                                       12-7-73
                                                                       N/A
                                                                       Closed - 3-3-75
                                                                       $2,500 fine
                                                                       1-3-75
                                                                       N/A
                                                                       Closed - 2-12-75
                                                                       Declined
Hydrochloric acid cisch.  in
violation of 301(a)
Spill -"est.  100 - 300  gals,  liquid
sugar spill inadvertently disch.
Bored hole 30*  dia.  Into holding
pond of fish waste to allow entrance
of barge.  Waste escaped.
                                                                                                                        Discharging tithout a permit
                                                                                                                                                            APPENDIX  C
                                                                                                                                                              TABLE  1
Spill - Malfunctioning pump
discharged chemical (lime sludge)
unknown volume.

-------
               V
               CIVIL
               UNION HECKLING CORP.
               M/A
               IL
               CHICAGO SANranr t SHI? CANAL
2-19-75
N/A
Declined 6-12-75
Spill - Est.  10. gals,  nethanol .leaked
from .packing glar.us on priming pump.
                                      APPENDIX
                                        TABLE  1
               y
               CIVIL
               MERLIN, IKC.
               1U
               OH, CINCINNATI
               OHIO RIVER
12-19-74
MA
Cloud - US Km declined
prosecution - 3/75
Spill - Appiox.  200 gals, wood
molasses overflowed tank truck.
o

-------
                  VI
                  CIVIL
                  GAF CORPORATION
                  H/A
                  TX, TEXAS CITY
                  SOB SURFACE WELLS
9-6-74
N/A
Closed - motion to dismiss
granted 2/5/75.
Non-filer.
                                APPENDIX  C
                                 TABLE  1
. '"O
 -O
 oo

-------
                VII
                CRIMINAL
                AMERICAN BEEF PACKERS, IMC.
                H/A
                HE, MINATARE
                MDFFAT DRAIN TO NINE HI.
                 CREEK TO N. PtATTE RIVER

                VII
                CRIMINAL
                CENTRAL HEB. PACKIHG CO.
                H/A
                HE
                N. PIATTE RIVER
                                                    2-6-74
                                                    4-26-74
                                                    Closed - Verdict -
                                                    Hot guilty. June 75
                                                    10-12-73
                                                    H/A
                                                    O.S. ATTY declined
                                                    prosecution  6/20/74.
                                                Non-filer.
                                                Discharge without a permit.
                                                Non-filer.
APPENDIX   C
  TABLE.l
O
CD
VII
CRIMINAL
CONTINENTAL CHEESE, IHC.
H/A
HE
CROOKED CREEK

VII
CRIMINAL  .
ELMER DUERFELDT CO.
H/A
NB
HALF BREED CREEK

VII
CIVIL
A. P. GREEN REFRACTORIES CO.
H/A
HO, MEXICO
SALT RIVER
10-9-73
N/A
U.S. ATTY declined
prosecution 6/20/74.
                                                                                                                    Non-filer.
                                                                    6-3O-73
                                                                    N/A
                                                                    O.S.  ATTY declined
                                                                    6/20/73
                                                                    6-17-75
                                                                    H/A
                                                                    Declined 6/24/75
                                                Non-filer.
                   prosecution.
                                                Unlawful discharge of pollutants,
                                                over limitations.

-------
r\:
CD
mi
CRIMINAL
BARKER PAINT t VARNISH GO.
H/A
HO, SPRINGFIELD
S. JORDAN CREEK
  (Trib. to-Janes River)

VII
CIVII.
HERWCK'S FERTILIZER «
  SUPPLY 00.
H/A
MO, TARKIO
TARKIO RIVER

VII
CRIMINAL
HAHASKA BOTTLING CO.
H/A
IA. OSKALOOSA
 Trib. LITTLE
  HUCllAKIHOCK CREEK

VII
CRIMINAL
NAPES INDUSTRIES
H/A
NO
SALT CREEK
                                                                    4-9-74
                                                                    S/A
                                                                    Closed - U.S. ATTY declined
                                                                    prosecution - 8/30/74
                                                                    8-29-75
                                                                    »/A
                                                                    Closed - OS ATTY declined
                                                                    12/3/75
                                                                    10-14-74
                                                                    N/A
                                                                    Closed - $600 fine -
                                                                    7/2/75
                                                                    4-36-73
                                                                    H/A
                                                                    Closed - U.S. ATTY declined
                                                                    prosecution 7/73
Spill - Non-filer.
APPENDIX   C
  TABLE  1
No penult.  Unauthorized discharge
of Anhydrous Ammonia - 7/29/75.
Resulting in fish kill.
Non-filer. •
Untreated process vastewater.
                                                                                                                     Non-filer.

-------
                                                                                                                                        APPENDIX   C
                                                                                                     Effluent limitations violations       TABLE  1
VII
CIVII.
RAMSEY CORP.
NO  0000434  HIMOK
MO, SULLIVAN
WENZEL CREEK

VII
CIVIL
SOUTHWEST BY-PRODUCTS, INC.
H/A
 MO,  SPRIHGMELD
JAMES  RIVBR Via JOKDKH RIVER

 VII
 CIVIL
 UNION PACIFIC RR CO
 HE  0000515  MINOR
 HE, OMAHA
 MISSOURI RIVER
3-17-75
5-2-7S
ClOMd -
S/Z/75
1-2-75
B/A
Declined 7/75
 7-22-75
 N/A
 Closed -0.3.
                                  Spill - Approx. 5,000 Ibs. animal fat
                                  from bulk storage plant.
                                                 Violation of effluent  limits.
ATTY declined

-------
                                                                         NPDES Civil 6 Criminal Enforcement Actions
                                                                          (Section  309 Deferrals to U.S. Attorney)
                                                                                    As of 31 Dec 1975
                                                                                                                                   APPENDIX  C
                                                                                                                                     TABLE  1
ro
VIII
CIVII.
GREAT WESTESN SUGAR CO.
CO  0001007
CO, EATON HILL
CACHE la PONDRE RIVER

VIII
CIVIL
HOLLY SUGAR COMPANY
MT  0000248  MAJOR
NT, SIDNEY
Ditch to YELLOWSTONE RIVER

VIII
CIVIL
HUSKY OIL
WY  0000442  MAJOR
MY, CHEYENNE
CROW CREEK
(Trib. to S. Platte R.)
                                                                                    11-28-7-3
                                                                                    H/A
                                                                                    Closed - negotiated
                                                                                    settlement of $3500 -
                                                                                    May 75
                                                                                    3-7-75
                                                                                    3-28-75
                                                                                    Closed -  stipulation 5
                                                                                    ¥47,500 penalty -
                                                                                    12/75
                                                                                    3-6-74
                                                                                    N/A
                                                                                    US ATTY declined to
                                                                                    prosecute.
                                                                                    Hay 75
Violation of By-pass condition
in permit.
                                                                                                                       Effluent limits  violated.
                                                                                                                       Violation of effluent limitation
                     VIII
                     CIVIL
                     HUSKY OIL
                     MY  0000451  MAJOR
                     WY, CODY
                     SHOSHONE RIVER
                                                               11-13-74
                                                               1-20-75
                                                               Closed - Order, judgment
                                                               C $2,500 penalty - 12/75
Effluent limits violated.
                     VIII
                     CIVIL
                     XAISER CEMENT C GYPSUM CORP.
                     MT, MONTANA CITY
                     Unnamed draw to
                       PRICKLEY PEAR CREEK
                                                               12-11-74
                                                               N/A
                                                               US ATTY declined
                                                               to prosecute.
                                                               1/16/76
Runoff of waste from dunpsite.

-------
                    VXII
                    CIVII.
                    HEW JERSEY ZINC CO.
                    CO  0000035  MAJOR
                    CO. GILHAN
                    Open ditch & storm drain
                      to EAGLE -RIVER

                    VIII
                    CIVIL
                    RED RIVER VALLEY COOP.
                    H/A
                    Mb, HILLSBORO
                    Unnamed ditch, s Coulee to
                      GOOSE CREEK
                                                                                                                                                      APPENDIX   C
                                                                                                                                                        TABLE  1
                                                               8-16-74
                                                               1-24-75
                                                               Closed - $4500 fine to
                                                               US/S3000 to State
                                                               April 75
                                                               5-20-75
                                                               10-14-75
                                                               Closed - Consent agreement &
                                                               $50,000 penalty, 10/75
                                                                                                 Violated By-Pass Prohibition
                                                                                                 Discharge without a permit.
oo
VIII
CIVIL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO.
M/A
NY, LEEFE
  TWIN CHEEK TO BEAR RIVER,
  Trib. to GREAT SAL? LAKE

VIII
CIVIL
WESTERN DAIRYMEN'S COOP &
  WESTERN GENERAL DAIRIES,  INC.
OT   0000469  MAJOR
NT, RICHMOND
ROBINSON CHl&K (Tib. to
  CUB CREEK)
4-23-75
N/A
Fined $5,500 (Paid)
Closed
August 75
                                                                                    1-10-75
                                                                                    5-1-75
                                                                                    Closed - Consent Decree s
                                                                                    $15,000 penalty - 12/75
                                                                                                                     Discharging without a permit.
                                                                                                                     Effluent limits violated.

-------
 IX
 CIVIL  •
 ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP.
 CA 0004979  MAJOR
 CA, PITTSBURG
 SUISON BAY
                                                    NPDES Civil & Criminal Enforcement Actions
                                                     (Section  309 Referrals to U.S. Attorney)
                                                               As of 31 Dec 1975
3-28-74
7-8-74
Closed - $500 settlement
March 75
                                                                 APPENDIX
                                                                   TABLE 1
Discharge not covered by
existing permit.
 IX
 CIVIL
 GENERAL AMERICAN TRANS. CORP.
 N/A
 CA, OAKLAND
 SAN FRANCISCO
3-28-74
7-8-74
Closed - $500 settlement
March 75
                                  Non-filer.
IX
CIVIL
H 6 H SHIP SERVICE CO.
N/A
CA, SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO
3-28-74
N/A
Closed -US ATTY declined.
March 75
Discharge of Chemical Pollutant.
IX
CIVIL
IMPERIAL WEST CHEMICAL CORP.
M/A
CA, ANTIOCH
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

IX
CIVIL
JONES HAMILTON CO.
«/*
CAt NEWARK
PLUKMER CREEK
3-28-74
N/A
Closed - Negotiated
Settlement (No fine).
March 75
3-28-74
N/A
Closed - US ATTY declined.
March 75
                                  Non-filer.
Discharge of • Chemical Pollutant

-------
                     IX
                     CRIMINAL
                     PHELPS - DODGE
                     H/A  .
                     AZ, DOUGLAS
                     WHITEWATER DRAW
5-15-74
12-13-74
Closed - Dist. Ct. Judge
dismissed 4/22/75
                                  Non-filer.
                                                                APPENDIX  C
                                                                 TABLE  1
                     CIVIL
                     VAN CAMP SEAFOOD CO.
                     AS 0000027  MAJOR
                     AS
                     PAGA  PAGO HARBOR
5-8-74
6-21-74
Closed - $20,000 settlement-
JUne 75
Failed to provide secondary
treatment by 3/74.  Failure
to comply with Admin. Order.
                     IX
                     CIVIL
                     HILURD SCHOEHFELD. INC.
                     IVA
                     CA, REDWOOD COT
                            CMKBIL
3-28-74
7-8-74
Closed - settlement for
improvement-
June 75
                                  Don-filer.
en

-------
                                                                        NPDBS Civil t Criminal  Enforcement Actions
                                                                          (Section '309 Referral* to U.S. Attorney)
                                                                                     As of 31 Dec 1975
                                                                                                                                  APPENDIX
                                                                                                                                    TABLE  1
                     i
                     CIVIL
                     ALASKA PACIFIC SEAFOOD,  INC.
                     AK  0000434  MAJOR
                     AK.  KODIAK
                     KODIAK HARBOR

                     X
                     CIVIL
                     PAN  - ALASKA FISHERIES,  INC.
                     AK  0000281  MAJOR
                     AK,  KODIAK
                     ST.  PAUL HARBOR
                                                               12-23-74
                                                               Hot Filed.
                                                               Closed - US Am declined -
                                                               10/17/75
                                                               4-10-74
                                                               N/A
                                                               Closed - negotiated
                                                               settlement
Disch. untreated fish processing
wastewater.
                                                                                                 Failure to screen wastes.
CD
x
CIVIL
WHITNEY - FIDALGO
AK  0001309  MAJOR
AK, KODIAK
KODIAK HARBOR

X
CIVIL
GARY WILSON
N/*
AX,  KODIAK
ST. PAUL HARBOR •
                                                                                    4-10-74
                                                                                    Not Filed
                                                                                    Closed -  negotiated settlement
                                                                                    12-23-74
                                                                                    Not Filed.
                                                                                    Closed - us ATTY declined -
                                                                                    10/17/75
                                                                                                                      Failure to screen wastes.
                                                                                                                      Non-filer.

-------
re
'Failure to Notify of Discharge - Criminal Fine
Beg ion
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
V
V
V
V
V
Mute of Discharger
Acne Wire Machine Co.
Coastal Tank Lines, Inc.
Pennzoil
Fleet Transport Co.
Ken Mfg. Corp.
Liberty Life Ins. Co.
Owens-Illinois Glass
Container Div.
Amoco Chemicals
Brandenburg Oils
Service Co.
Brown Paper Co.
Crystal Oil Refinery
Gladieux Refinery
Location
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Daisy, TO
Tucker, GA
Greenville, SC
Atlanta, GA
Joliet, IL
Highland, HI
Parchment, HI
4
Princeton, IN
Indiana
Receiving
Waters •
Schuylkill River
w n
Falling Rock Creek
Chick Creek
Stone Mountain
Creek
Lake Fairfield
South River
Illinois River
Pickeral Lake
Kalamazoo River
Brown Ditch
Navigable USA
Desctiption of
Problem/Incident
Waste oil (2 or 3
drums) spilled.
*6 fuel oil overflow.
Spill
Approx. 1500 gals.
gas
Solvent, unk. amt.
7/27/75. Cause unk.
Est. 250 gals. §5 oil'
22,000 gals. #2 fuel
oil
Metaxylene spill
Approx. 1300 gals.
oil
Approx. 500 gals.
fuel oil
210 gals, crude oil
valve left on
Oil spill 5/19-28/75
EPA Action:
Referral to
and Date
US Atty 1/6/75 .'
US Atty 1/20/75
US Atty 12/30/75
US Atty 1/30/75 •
US Atty 8/4/75
US Atty 1/30/75
US Atty 1/10/75
US Atty 2/13/75
US Atty 2/3/75
US Atty 3/26/75
US Atty 6/10/75
US Atty 8/28/75
AFKtNDIX C
TABLE 2
Results or Status
$100 Fine

Referred to CG
Pending

CG collected $500 5/14/75
CG assessed
CG collected
CG collected
309 Referral
309 Referral
$5,000 12/12/75
$500 4/28/75
$5,000 6/9/75
declined 6/12/75
pending
US Atty declined 8/20/75
tJA Atty declined 11/1-2/75
Pending

                                                                                    Failed to report it.

-------
                 Page 2 cont'd
                                                                                                                                                          APPENDIX  C
oo
Region
V
V
V
vi
VI
VII
Name of Discharger
Joliet Industrial Dist.
Mario Sinacola
Excavating, Inc.
Midland Enterprises, Inc.
Scurlock Oil Co.
Western Oil Trans. Co.
Alma (Hun)
Location
Joliet, IL.
Drayton Plains,
HI
Lemon t, IL
Gregg Co., TX
Witchita Co, TX
Alma, HE
Receiving
Waters
Des Plaines R.
Navigable USA
Chicago Sanitary
s Ship Canal
Hells Branch
Turkey Creek
Storm sewer to
Description of
Problem/Incident
Refuse Discharge
Oil spill 12/29/75
Failed to report it.
Unk. amt. of fuel oil.
55 brls oil - leaking
pipeline.
Leaking pipeline 49O
brls. crude oil.
Approx. 300-500 gals.
EPA Action:
Referral to
and Date
OS Atty 2/12/75
US Atty 8/29/75
US Atty 2/5/75
OS Atty 2/26/75
US Atty 1/24/75
US Atty 9/25/75
Results or Status TABLE 2
Pending 309 Referral
Pending


309 Referral - Declined
6/12/75
Pending

Closed - Refused by US Atty
CG collected $250. US
Atty
                VII          Cabool Oil  Co.
                VII         Cairo Wood Treating
                             (Wise Wood Treating Co.)
                 VII         Clinton Engines Corp.


                 VII         Columbia (Mun Pwr Plant)



                 VII         Hueffner Oil Co.
                 Harbor Cty.  Res.


Seymour, HO      Finley Creek


Cairo, MO        Wood Creek
Maquoketa, IA    s.  fork of
                 Haquoketa River

Columbia, MO     Bear Creek
                                                       Grinnell, IA     Nyanza. Lake
diesel spill, 8/7/75,
fuel tank overflow.

3000 gals, kerosene  fm  US Atty
bulk storage plant
Spill - unk. amt of
pentachlorophenol,
overflowed storage tank.
        1/15/75


US Atty 9/10/75
Unk qty. of oil &       US Atty
grease disch. 8/12-17/75
                                    200-300 gals, fuel oil
                                    on  7/30/75, storage
                                    tank overflow.

                                    Disch. #2 fuel oil
                                    5/9/75, storage tank
                                    leak.
        10/7/75


US Atty 9/9/75
                                                                                                                  OS Atty  10/28/75
                                                                                                                                        declined pros. 12/23/75.
                                                                                                                                        US Atty - Declined 4/23/75
                                                                                 CG collected $250."
                                                                                 US Atty Declined 3/5/75
CG collected $500.
US Atty declined

CG collected $500 penalty
11/20/75. US Atty declined
prosecution.

Closed because of insufficient
evidence

-------
               P*g« 3 cont'd

               Region      MOM of Discharger
co
               VII
               VII
               VII
               VII
               VII
               VII
               VII
                          ' Location
                                            Receiving
                                             Waters
                   Description of
                   Problem/Incident
                        EPA Action:
                        Referral to
                         and Date
                                                                                   APPENDIX   C
                                                                 Results or Status   TABLE 2
                           Jerry L. Phillips Oil t    Chanute, KS
                            Industrial Supply Co.
                                            Big Cedar CV.
Lincoln University         Jefferson City,  Weira Creek
 Building (Utilities &     MO
 Grounds)

National Oil s Supply CO.  Springfield, MO  Robinson Cr.


Phillips Pipe Line Co.     Coffey Co., KS   Long Creek
                           Ruan Transport Co.
                           Amoco Oil Co.
                                                      Scottsbluff, ME  North Platte
                           St. Louis-San Francisco    Springfield. MO  N. Fork of
                            Railroad Co.                               Wilcon Creek
                           Upper Iowa University
                           Fayette, IA
Volga River
                   Spill, approx. 2 brls.   OS Atty 7/28/75
                   crude, dresser union
                   in oil lead line pulled
                   apart. 3/6/75.

                   Unk.  amt.  #2 fuel oil  US Atty 4/18/75-
                   Approx.  20 gals,  oil     US Atty  2/24/75
                   storage tank overflowed.

                   Approx.  1700 brls of     US Atty  8/13/75
                   crude, leak in 8" pipe
                   line,  7/1/75.
                                                               Approx.  35-50 gals.
                                                               gasoline.

                                                               Spill, unk. qty. of
                                                               oil,  lagoon overflowed
                                          US Atty 12/19/75


                                          US Atty 7/10/75
200-400 gals.'Of fuel  US Atty 8/14/75
oil 2/11/75, overflowed
storage tank.
                                              CG collected $500 penalty
                                              9/2/75.  US Atty declined
                                              pros. 12/3/75.
                                                                                                                                       OS Atty - Declined
                                                                                                                                       prosecution  5/7/75
                                              CG collected $100 penalty
                                              3/25/75

                                             Closed because of
                                             insufficient evidence
 US  Atty  declined pros.
 12/19/75.

CG collected $250
 9/23/75.

 Previously referred to CG-
 assessed $150 civil penalty
 CG  collected $150 penalty
 8/15/75. OS Atty declined pros.
 8/22/75.

-------
          Civil Actions  initiated By EPA

                          Act
                                                                                            APPENDIX  C
                                                                                              TABLE   3
Region    Dane of Dischargee
             '
Location
Receiving Waters  ' Problem
                                                    Date of Referral
                                                     to U.S. Atty
                                                                         Action in CY 1975     Results or Status
Moss-American Co.
Subsidiary of Kerr-
McGee Industries
                                   Milwaukee, WI  Little MenOr
                                                 monee River
                  Residual creosote   3/17/75
                  &  oil                  '
                                                                          309 Referral
                                                                          Filed 5/19/75

-------
M9ion
VII
VII
VII
Dane of Discharger
Chicago, Milwaukee .
St. Paul t Pacific
RR Co. , Inc.
Standard Oil Co.
Khodia, Inc.
Location
Sabula, 1A
(Jackson Cty)
Denison, IA
St. Joseph,
Ho.
Criminal Actions Initiated By EPA
Refuse Act
Deceiving Haters Problem Date of Referral
to B.S. Atty.
Mississippi R. Deposited refuse Filed 4/4/75
natter - debris Northern Iowa
from railroad
derailment.
Boyer River Approx. 115,000 4/23/75
gals . ammonium
phosphate fert.
Missouri R. Deposited refute - 1/8/75
pesticide 2,4-D anine.
Action in CV 1975
Judgement & Probation
Commit. Order filed
4/21/75; S500 fine.
Closed, OS ATTY
Declined 2/17/76
Closed, OS Atty
Declined 6/18/75
APPENDIX C
TABLE 3
Results or Status



                                                                                 16,650 gals, froa
                                                                                 storage tank.
ro

-------
                                                      Marine Protection,  Research, and Sanctuaries Act (Ocean Dumping)
                                                                                                                                              APPENDIX  C
                                                                                                                                                TABLE   4
           REGION
                         of Discharger
                                            Location
 Receiving Waters
. (Mater body S
 general water area)
Alleged Violation
Enforcement Action
       Date
                                                                                                                                           Results or Status
           II
           It
                             Recovery
                                            South Anboy, tu
                    Modern Transportation   a. Kearney, NJ
                    Nassau County, Dept.
                    of Public Works
 South Amboy loading
 fac. s dumped to ocean.
                                                              Ocean Haters
Trans. 6 delivered
Hod. Trans.  Co.  waste
mat'Is for purpose or
dumping in ocean.

Accepted waste nat'l
from EPL Ind.  s  trans.
same dumping in  ocean.

Failed to case accept—
tance of ind.  waste
mat'l for disposal into
ocean waters by  Gen.
Marine Trans.  &  Ocean
Disposal Co.
                                                                                                                         3/5/75
                                                                                                                         3/5/75
                                                                                                                         6/16/75
                                                                                                                                           Co. made settlement,
                                                                                                                                           it was rejected.  Co.
                                                                                                                                           reconsidering offer.
                                                                              Depends on outcome
                                                                              w/Chem. Recovery Corp.
                                                                              Consent order issued
                                                                              6/6/75, signed by
                                                                              Nassau Cty, Closed.
ro
N>
ro

-------
COMPARISON OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS INCLUDED IN STATISTICAL TABULATIONS
PRESENTED IN EPA ENFORCEMENT RETORTS PUBLISHED THROUGH DECEMBER 1975:
                                                                              APPENDIX   D
    Item
AIR ENFORCEMENT:

  Stationary Sources
   24 Months
First EPA Report*
Dee.'70 - Nov.'72
 (No. of Actions)
   24 Months          13 Months
Second EPA Report**Current Report
Dec.'72 - Nov.'74  Dec.'74 - Dec.'75
 (No. of Actions)   (No.  of Actions)
SIP Notices of Violation I/
" Administrative Orders
" Consent Orders
" Referrals to U.S. Attorney
NESHAP y Notices of Violation
" Administrative Orders
" Referrals to U.S. Attorney
NSPS \l Notices of Violation
" Administrative Orders
" Referrals to U.S. Attorney
Total Stationary Sources
Mobile Sources 2/
TOTAL AIR ENFORCEMENT 	
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT:
270
92
34
3
—
19
-- 7
—
—
—
28 2/ 425
— 2/ 15 2/
28 440

318
217
118
2
4
9
—
22
13
— •
703
774 3/
1.477

   Civil  Cases
   Criminal Cases
   Recalls
   SSURO 5/,  incl.  Seizures
   Citations
   Warning Notices
   Import Detentions
   Civil  Penalty Warnings
      159

       23
                TOTAL PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT.
                                                                182
 WATER ENFORCEMENT:
   REFUSE ACT OF 1899 — Civil/Criminal Referrals

   MARINE PROTECTION,  RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT
     (Ocean Dumping Act) —  All actions reported
      435
                TOTAL WATER  ENFORCEMENT.
                                                                977
                      ALL ACTIONS ENUMERATED ABOVE	  1,187
       569
       235
        64
       160
       576
     1.206
       198
    	7
                                                                                 3.015
                          100
                                                                                  1.613
                        5.068
  3S5
    8
   81
  214

1.001
  189
   57
                                         1.905
FWPCA, Sect. 309 Notices of Violation
" , Sect. 309 Administrative Orders
" , Sect. 309 Civil/Criminal Referrals
" , Sect. 311 Oil Spill Referrals to U.S. Coast
Guard and U.S. Attorney
" . Sect. 311 Actions for SPCC 7/ Violations
Pre-FWPCA Actions 8/
Total FWPCA Actions
__
__
46y

30
_.
508
542
__
. 455
37

995
__
18
1.505
101
829
123

1,146
1,114

3.313
                                                                                                   3.320
                      6.702
   •"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.
   I/ 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/Act ions enumerated include 5 Sect. 208 Letters and 1 prosecution referral
      (Auto Manufacturers; 3 prosecution referrals (Tampering); 2 prosecution referrals,  259 vehicle modi-
      fications,  71 vehicle exportations, and 173 bond forfeitures (Imports); 260 complaint filings (Fuels)
      i/ May include some  Informal Recall actions; prior to this report only Formal  Recalls were enumerated.
      5/ SSURO=Stop Sale,  Use,  or  Removal Orders.  6/Pre-FWPCA Sect. 10(g) actions.  7/SPCC=Spill Prevention
      Control and Countermeasures  Plans.  8/ Includes Enforcement Conferences,  180-Day Notices,  etc.
                                                                      ft U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1976 625-990/814

-------
                 ERRATUM
APPENDIX B, TABLE 3, of the previous report, "EPA
ENFORCEMENT — TWO YEARS OF PROGRESS:  DECEMBER 1972
to November 1974" (EPA 1975) listed EPA Enforcement
Actions under Section 311 of the FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (Oil and Hazardous Substances
Liability) against individually named entities.
Through inadvertent error, a number of entries on
the "EUREKA PIPELINE CO." EPA Region III — show the
Commonwealth of Virginia as that entity's geographic
location.  In all of these instances, the geographic
location SHOULD HAVE READ
               " WEST VIRGINIA"  (W.  Va.)

The error is regretted,  and special  appreciation is
expressed to Mr. Eugene  T.  Jensen,  Executive Secretary
of the State Water Control  Board, Commonwealth  of
Virginia, without whose  visual acuity the error might
have escaped notice.

-------
Not hf.y c^o municipal c.rA i%Jusirit*t p
  lutt^.i ucs ihe «co'^?5e o/ !•-.« Si. j'olinj
  ^n-r jt/aiem. Bui tovny thi.v^s arc /»?*•
  ing u,'.,

  Tie Si.  Johas Rive.- is neither as pollut-
ed as -i'. was two years, st-u nor as cleaa as
it is goiiig to be two  vears from now, at>
cording  to  city poHutioo ensicscr D">a Bay-
ly.
                                     Fa. Children,
                                     'Being Teslsd
                          .1  P..
                                                  ,'•
                                                    si v
                                                             Traces of Kapone  '

                                                             Fnund in l'rcu--;t Milk

                                                             InSoutlicrn Slates
                                                                       *   »   *
                                                             EPA Says I-'miiin^s May Be
                                                                Lit'.'Knl  ta Use ol  Mirex
                                                                As T:«it to KIU J'ire Anls
                                                                     f '
                                                                       -
                            ttction A^s.icy y?.!d It hA« foun
                            amcunta of tlie cti^tr(>v*r3iii chaoii    i
                            pon« In I re,tat milh of women In SouUiern'
                            states.                   *
                              Kepon« trans* nlso have b**n found Ny "* ^. _
                            X'tr^l.-ua nCici^lj in £Uh In Cilesapea
                            tbe 3,1-f.TCy BA'.d.
                              r.*j4J«U TrAlri. £r*A adnUnlitratoc. man* -*•
                                                             AUTOS 77xer  F
                                                      y       Grcsptng Jcr Ciacn Air
                                                                £vcr siiuc t^eth were pul into the
Once almost extinct, bird that symbolizes U.S.  gSS^liSSS,11™.^..™-
     is increasing in protected nesting areas      eit^^«^=
        Stair corresp
     The Cnrisci
the nation's UOOth birthd;
 Tallies of new-bcm
from *^*j?le watchers aa
improving future for
lalion — r.Dw estimated ^
in the contiguous 48 s
50,000 in/
Inland  Waters  Are  Cleaner I
       Not  Wit  for
        »|/vai,sr;- Sled Sued
V

o u
-t o-
|g5,
l^r?
i t/> o

', -*•
r* «i
D n>
p o*

3
5.
rr o>
*•£ n

/S-3
i C" r*
!.a?
n* ro

' _,
, ra o
3 C
< o*
g-f.
%
S
c a
* "^
•*»
': I

** o
T
T**



o>
=1

Of
3
0
c
o

13
to
c*
O
a.
Q*
»
3
j.,


n
Q

•o
5**
rf-
O
1


9



ESS
(/* tn (-»
n: t/> ?*
•— i m CT
=rr- »
CTi f~* O
— H C

i- • O
P||
• IE m

5rn
-**
CO

70
m nr
*/i z

8§
*T1 ?
m r*i

E2 ^
or-
T3
og
—1
SQ
O* ^3
• sr
gs
r= fn

i- rS
•< -<


O
8
•3
o

0.
o'
0
3
0























,9
S
ro

J— '
g
K

H"
3
(U

rt
O

in
fT.
o
*o

rf
a-
o
m
V
M
a
T
C
(a
0
0
«

H
lt>



k-
a
H*
>-"

O
*H-

H-
Cl

B"
n
O

a
o
(D
O.

f
H-
m
0
en
o
H-
0)
s

•a

o

c
o



„

•7
r"
01
r^
r>
o -a
p£


tl
s
$.

§
3
O
a
tr
o>
t-s

•3
O


*vi
^
Q
C


O
w
a

^
5
(T
a
o
rr
1

!
3

»^
i
5

E3
o
P3

r ,
E5-


B

S
7


„
J^
-.
5
0
ij
^>

o

U1
K
B
                                                                                                ea a
                                                                                                m 3:.
                                                                                                S5
                                                                    gulaloiy clin-jte hoatiie. That :-^,
                                                                    liy true in California, where £
                                                                              iog cimirul QA a .:
                                              ti> cor-i^y with an onUr to clean i:p" i-.— ~ ^ Z^ = r **. 2 — n±
                                              Hloa problems at its lar^e foQ'.a.na— i.-Sc'™5S5l::b"5''^i:
                                                                                                             O   us
                                                                                                             O   H-
                                                                                                             3   O
                                                                                                             >0   D
                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                            O   Ml
                                                                                                            Hi   Mi
                                                                                                            GO
                                                                                                            tf
                                                                                                            fD
                                                                                                       O
                                                                            O)
                                                                               >»
                                                                            CO
                                                                                                      p
                                                                                                      O)
                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                      CO
                                                                                                      CO
                                                                                                      SJ.
                                                                                                             &:
                                                                                                             00

                                                                                                             p'
                                                                                                             CO

                                                                                                      hr^
                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                      GO
                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                             t-~>
                                                                                                             (D
                                                                                                             r-1-
             i oi air poUutico cca-.trol three
            jo-
         	. U5*,6J> f«wer Ions ot particu-
. fi'S'S liUi«r«Bowb«injjpc*edannuaU7
' J"  i o l=u the Alabama atmosphere than
                                     ; whin tfc« progriun first s
                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                      o
                                                                              Arfv S«rf~ 33
 KSLLOCG.
0^^—Clwlif
s*^i  to hiv
:iv;U ot iei
:'.av-' a ht^ln
prevalence of raild aneniu vul
                                                                                                «=-*•
                                                                                                o
                                                                                found
                                                                               e*tr*iry»!/
                                                                                    blocd
                                                                                           n
                                                                                          *">•
                                                                                          to
                                                                      o
                                                                      DJ
                                                                      C/J
                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                            CD

-------