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
------- |