UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
EPA REGION 1
JFK FEDERAL BUILDING
BOSTON. MA 02203
EPA 901/1-90-001
FEBRUARY 1990
FY89 ENFORCEMENT
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
REPORT
PRO1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION /'/
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ///
SUPERFUND
HAZARDOUS WASTE
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW 12
AIR 13
PESTICIDES 17
TOXIC SUBSTANCES 18
WATER 20
DRINKING WATER 24
CRIMINAL ACTIONS 25
i
-------
INTRODUCTION
Central to the Environmental Protection Agency's mission to protect public health and welfare
is our ability to bring about compliance with our nation's many environmental laws. Spurred on
by Administrator Reilly's renewed commitment to a strong enforcement program, EPA Region
I realized significant achievements in enforcing our environmental statutes and regulations in
fiscal year 1989. We in Region I are fully committed to a vigorous enforcement program. To
meet this mandate, we devote substantial resources to ensuring that violators come back into
compliance and pay appropriate penalties for their transgressions of the law.
Our enforcement efforts take many forms. Enforcement actions range from notices of violation
and administrative orders and complaints to court actions. The most serious violators are
addressed by our active criminal enforcement program. In each area Region I had notable
accomplishments last year. We achieved record numbers in 1989 in several programs. In other
areas, we continued work on enforcement actions commenced in prior years. The emphasis
on enforcement in the Superfund program produced the highest number of settlements for
clean up of hazardous waste sites in the Region's history. Reflecting our commitment to
following through on cases, our Air Program collected a record amount of penalties in its judicial
enforcement actions, although the numberof new court casesdropped off in FY 89. Our Water
Program assessed a record amount of penalties in its administrative penalty actions, while
experiencing a decline in the number of new cases prepared for judicial action. Several of our
criminal cases established national program and legal precedents.
This report highlights Region I's enforcement efforts in the six New England states during fiscal
year 1989 (October 1, 1988 through September 30, 1989). It contains separate sections
focusing on each of our major enforcement programs. The report provides statistical indicators
of enforcement activity in each area and compares the level of enforcement activity in fiscal year
1989 (FY 89) with the levels in earlier years. The report also includes narrative summaries of
some of our most significant enforcement cases. In addition, in the report we recognize that
the New England states are our partners in running effective environmental enforcement
programs. In many instances, we present data reflecting the states' enforcement efforts as well
as our own.
We take pride in our enforcement accomplishments of last year. We thank those many
dedicated individuals in the regional office and our colleagues in the states for a very successful
year in enforcement.
Julie D. Belaga Paul G. Keough
Regional Administrator Deputy Regional Administrator
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Office of Regional Counsel wrote this report and coordinated the data
gathering from Region I's various program offices. Special thanks to EPA
Information Center staff members Nina Antonakes and Judy Lau for their
invaluable assistance in publication layout and support.
-------
SUPERFUND
During FY 89, Region I produced a record level of actions in the enforcement program under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
more commonly known as Superfund. This program addresses the threats to public health and
the environment posed by hazardous substances at abandoned or uncontrolled sites. In 1989,
there were significant clean-up settlements reached in the Region's judicial and administrative
Superfund enforcement efforts.
The Region referred a record number of civil cases under CERCLA this year, a total of fifteen.
Particularly noteworthy is the unprecedented number of referrals accompanied by consent
decrees requiring responsible parties to conduct major remedial actions: Industri-plex in MA,
Yaworski Lagoon in CT, Old Springfield Landfill in VT, Rose Disposal Pit in MA, and Resolve
in MA.
REFERRALS FOR CIVIL LITIGATION
NUMBER
1985
1986 1987
FISCAL YEAR
1988
1989
-------
HIGHLIGHT: YAWORSKI LAGOON SETTLEMENT
In August 1989, the Region obtained agreement to a consent decree from eleven PRPs
(potentially responsible parties) for complete RD/RA (remedial design/remedial
action) performance, payment of past costs, and reimbursement of oversight costs
regarding the Yaworski Lagoon Site in Canterbury, CT. Under the consent decree,
the PRPs are required to implement the remedial design and remedial action selected
by EPA in its ROD (record of decision) worth $3.4 million and reimburse $2.225
million in past EPA costs.
The Region also enjoyed a number of very favorable significant judicial opinions that have
further broadened the scope of CERCLA liability and supported the Region's settlement
strategies. In the Stamina Mills case, the Rhode Island federal district court cut new contours
in the area of parent corporate liability, and in the Cannons decision, the Massachusetts federal
court blessed the Region's settlement strategies that reward early settlers. Finally, in the Crown
Roll Leaf litigation, the New Jersey District Court awarded the Region a $142,000 penalty
against a company which had failed to respond to an information request; it was the first penalty
imposed in the nation under the Section 104(e) information-gathering authority in Superfund.
HIGHLIGHT: OLD SPRINGFIELD LANDFILL SETTLEMENT
In September 1989, Region I achieved a settlemen t for complete RD/RA performance
and recovery of a high percentage of recoverable costs from four PRPs regarding the
Old Springfield Landfill Site in Springfield, VT. Under the consent decree, the
settling PRPs are required to do the following: implement the remedial design and
remedial action selected in EPA's ROD (worth $5374 million);pay $1.75 million in
EPA's past Site costs; and reimburse all EPA oversight costs (estimated at $680,000
in present value). Moreover, in a side agreement obtained during negotiations, the
PRPs agreed to initiate remedial design activities by a certain date regardless of
whether the consent decree has been lodged with the district court. In addition to
expediting Site cleanup, the agreement is particularly significant in that it demon-
strates that the Agency, even when faced with a very small group of viable PRPs, does
not have to forego complete PRP cleanup or substantial cost recovery. j
-------
From the cases which Region I referred in 1989 with pre-negotiated settlements, the Agency
will recover more than $14,649,000 in past government costs spent at the sites, and the
settling responsible parties will perform work at the sites valued in excess of $62,224,000. In
the cases referred for litigation without prior settlements, the Agency is seeking to recover
more than $6,000,000 in past government costs at the sites.
HIGHLIGHT: STAMINA MILLS TRIAL AND SETTLEMENT
In United States v. Kayser-Roth Corporation and Hydro-Manufacturing. Inc.. the
Region filed suit in May 1988 against two parties seeking recovery of approximately
$700,000 in removal costs and a declaratory judgment that the defendants are liable
for all future costs at the Stamina Mills Superfund Site in Forestdale, RI. In June
1989, the Region entered into an agreement with defendant Hydro-Manufacturing,
a defunct corporation which is the current owner of the site. Under the agreement,
after the construction phase of the cleanup is completed in the next several years, the
Region will obtain the proceeds from the sale of the site property.
In July 1989, the Region's case against defendant Kayser-Roth went to trial. Kayser-
Roth was the parent corporation of the former owner'/operator of the site, Stamina
Mills, Inc.,which dissolved in 1977. On October 11,1989, the Court held that Kayser-
Roth exercised pervasive control over Stamina Mills and is therefore liable both as an
operator of the site and under the theory of piercing the corporate veil. The Court's
decision expands the law on piercing the corporate veil under CERCLA based on its
conclusion that CERCLA should be "viewed expansively" and with "no special
importance [placed] upon the corporate structure."
Another important component of the Superfund program is administrative enforcement.
Region I issues administrative orders both on consent, that is, after successful negotiations
with the PRPs, and unilaterally, that is, without consenting PRPs. In FY 89 the Region
negotiated eleven administrative settlements representing $10,011,847 in past costs and
more than $3,750,000 in work to be performed by responsible parties. The settling
responsible parties will perform work valued at more than $3,750,000 under these consent
orders. In addition, during FY 89, the Region issued seven unilateral Superfund orders.
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS ON CONSENT
NUMBE
14
1985
1986 1987
FISCAL YEAR
1988
1989
HIGHLIGHT: CANNONS ENGINEERING OPINION
In United States v. Cannons Engineering Corporation, the District Court of Massa-
chusetts on August 14,1989 issued its opinion entering two partial consent decrees
as final judgments. The complaint and partial settlements were filed on August 3,
1988. The Cannons case sites include four separate National Priorities List (NPL)
sites. The partial settlements include a de minimis consent decree providing for a
cashout of $792,000, and a consent decree with the major parties for performance of
the cleanup at three of the four sites, with expected costs of $16.1 million, and payment
of $17 million in past costs. Given the favorable court decision, site remediation will
now proceed.
Entry of the two partial settlements was vigorously opposed by seven of the 25
nonsettling parties, against whom Region I has filed suit for the remaining cleanup
costsat thesesites. The Court's decision entering the settlements strongly upholds the
Region's use of settlement policies that favor settling parties over those who reject
settlement offers. For example, the Court expressly approved a 100 percent penalty
imposed on settling parties who had rejected an earlier settlement offer made by the
Region, but later decided to settle. The decision provides a strong precedent that
parties who decline government settlement offers may face dramatically increased
liability exposure in subsequent settlements and litigation.
-------
HIGHLIGHT: RESOLVE II AND III
On September 18,1989, Region I referred to the Department of Justice (DO]) two ad-
ministrative settlements involving the Resolve NPL site in North Dartmouth, MA.
The two settlements included 170 generators as participants who reimbursed EPA
$5.5 million. The two settlements are in addition to a settlement last year in which
56 parties agreed to undertake a remedy worth approximately $30 million and 168
de minimis parties who agreed to cash out for $8.1 million.
UNILATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
FISCAL YEAR
1989
1988
19ST
1986
1985
3 A.
NUMBER
HIGHLIGHT: UNION CHEMICAL SETTLEMENT
On April 29,1989, Region I settled litigation against nine defendants at the Union
Chemical NPL site in Hope, ME, collecting $601,853.81, which represents 200% of
the remainder of past costs incurred through May 22, 1987, interest, and EPA's
litigation costs. Previously, the Region had entered into two administrative settle-
ments: in September 1987, 263 parties agreed to undertake the RI/FS (remedial
investigation/feasibility study), pay oversight costs, and approximately 80% of past
costs; and in November 1987, an additional 25 parties agreed to pay their volumetric
share and a 20% premium on RI/FS and oversight costs.
-------
HIGHLIGHT: INDUSTRI-PLEX SETTLEMENT
A comprehensive settlement for the remediation of the Industri-plex Superfund Site
inWoburn,MAwasenteredinAprill989. The 34 defendants who joined the consent
decree will perform the remedial action, consisting of a cap over contaminated soils,
an impermeable cap and gas collection and treatment system for the "East Hide Pile"
portion of the site, an interim "hot spot" groundwater extraction and treatment
system, and further groundwater studies. The cost of the remedy is estimated at $24
million, exclusive ofEPA's past costs and the costs expended by PRPs in performance
of the RIIFS. The defendants will pay the United States $377000 in past costs. The
total value of the settlement is approximately $28 million. The settlement provides
for a comprehensive cleanup of one of the most publicly visible sites on the original
National Priorities List.
A noteworthy element of the settlement is thedisposition of real estate at thesiteowned
by the Mark-Phillip Trust, a major landowner at the site with no other assets. In
consideration of the settlement, the Mark-Phillip Trust conveyed its land, worth $8
to 10 million, to a custodial trust which will manage, subdivide, and attempt to sell
the land. When the custodial trust sells the land, the United States will receive a
percentage of the sale proceeds to reimburse any remaining past costs at the site and
to be applied against any future response costs.
Final settlement of the case was prompted by the Region's issuance of a unilateral
administrative order against all PRPs with a delayed effective date. Issuance of the
order forced rapid coalescence of previously disorganized PRPs and established a
definite termination date for negotiations.
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Region I runs an enforcement
program which in part focuses on the issuance of administrative complaints assessing
penalties against violators of the Agency's hazardous waste management regulations. In FY
89, the Region issued eight such complaints which proposed to assess a total of $265,600. In
addition, the Region issued five initial orders commencing the corrective action process at
hazardous waste facilities.
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS ISSUED
1985
1986 1987
FISCAL YEAR
1988
1989
During FY 89, Region I achieved settlements in six RCRA penalty cases. Under the terms of
these six consent agreements, the Agency will collect $98,211 in penalties.
-------
CONSENT AGREEMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS ISSUED
FISCAL YEAR
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
A significant portion of the RCRA program during FY 89 was devoted to enforcing the Land
Disposal Restrictions Rule (commonly known as the land ban). In September of 1989, Region
I brought its first administrative actions to enforce the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA. The LDR are designed to ensure
that hazardous wastes in significant concentrations are not disposed of in or on the land. The
actions were brought against seven facilities - four in MA, two in CT, and one in NH - and were
based on inspections by the respective state agencies. The proposed penalties ranged from
a low of $22,500 to a high of $58,500, and were for violations which most frequently related to
the companies' failure to properly notify facilities receiving their waste that such waste was
subject to the LDR. These actions were part of a larger initiative by the Region to develop and
implement a regional policy to enforce the LDR. This initiative focused in FY89 on instituting
a cooperative arrangement between the States and EPA for LDR enforcement, developing a
violation classification guide on the LDR for State and EPA inspectors, and taking enforcement
actions as warranted against facilities found to be in violation of the LDR.
8
-------
PENALTIES ASSESSED IN CONSENT AGREEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
$98.211
$4 56.177
$107
$137
$ 74.75
.612
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400
AMOUNT (THOUSANDS)
$500 $600
Also in FY 89, Region I stepped up the pace of corrective action activity through issuance of
corrective action orders and corrective action permits. Region I issued a combination of eight
RCRA corrective action orders/permits in FY 89 at active hazardous waste management
facilities, requiring site characterizations and corrective measures studies that substantially
broadened the reach of corrective action in the Region and which will ultimately lead to the clean
up of these facilities. In two instances, the Region required ongoing river studies characterizing
heavy metals, dioxin, and dibenzofuran migration/contamination. In one instance, the Region
required air modelling studies incident to air releases not covered underthe state air authorities.
Among the recipients of these orders/permits were a number of major corporations, including
Ciba-Geigy, Remington Arms, United Technologies, Upjohn, and W.R. Grace. The first
unilateral order issued by Region I in FY 88 was settled by consent.
-------
HIGHLIGHT: ENVIRTTE CORPORATION
In May, 1989, a civil judicial enforcement action was filed against the Envirite
Corporation of Thomaston, CTfor the disposal of hazardous waste without a permit
in violation ofRCRA. Envirite Corporation is a commercial hazardous waste treat-
ment,storageanddisposal facility whichhandlesapproximately35% of thehazardous
wastes generated in the Region. On November 14,1986, the company obtained an
exclusion from hazardous waste listing for the wastes treated and disposed by the
facility conditioned upon those wastes meeting certain specified concentration levels.
Envirite's disposal practices consisted ofon-site landfilling and shipping off-site to
commercial disposal facilities in several states and Canada. The case was brought after
Region I determined that certain of Envirite's wastes exceeded the exclusion levels.
Within weeks of filing, the company signed a stipulation, which was entered as an
order of the Court, requiring that all waste generated be managed as hazardous waste
unless a laboratory independent of Envirite verified that the waste was not hazardous.
In addition to pursuing an active administrative enforcement agenda during FY 89, the Region
also referred four cases to the U.S. Department of Justice, seeking penalties and injunctive
relief. These cases targeted some of the most egregious violators in the Region, and in some
instances were referred to assure compliance with earlier consent agreements that the com-
panies had failed to honor. These judicial referrals were generally highly complex, involving
multiple facilities, issues of first impression, and major corporations. They also represented a
significant escalation of enforcement response toward major repeat violators.
The New England states, under their hazardous waste enforcement programs in FY 89, also
brought a large number of administrative and judicial actions.
10
-------
STATE ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE OF ACTION
NOTICES OF
VIOLATION
INITIAL ORDERS
FINAL ORDER
CIVIL ACTIONS
CRIMINAL
ACTIONS
FISCAL YEAR
1985
706
0
124
32
6
1986
605
1
145
21
2
1987
519
30
114
17
1
1988
457
22
78
10
2
1989
398
16
92
18
0
11
-------
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
FY 89 was the first full year of enforcement activity under the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986. Region I's efforts focused on two aspects of this programj_
enforcement against facilities which failed to provide timely and proper notification to govern-
ment authorities after accidental releases of hazardous chemicals and enforcement against
facilities which failed to submit required annual toxic chemical inventory forms to the appropri-
ate authorities by the July 1 st deadline. All of Region I's enforcement actions during FY 89 took
advantage of the strong administrative penalty provisions in EPCRA. The Region issued 15
administrative complaints, which proposed assessment of a total of $515,000 in penalties.
HIGHLIGHT: ALL REGIONS CHEMICAL LAB, INC.
Beginning on May 30,1959, Region I had the first administrative hearing in the
country under EPCRA. The hearing was held to determine whether the penalty
proposed by EPA against All Regions Chemical Lab, Inc. of Springfield, MA for
violations of EPCRA and CERCLA was appropriate. EPA's underlying complaint
issued in 1988 alleged that All Regions violated CERCLA by failing to notify the
National Response Center of a major chlorine release and EPCRA by failing to provide
written follow-up emergency notice to the local community emergency planning co-
ordinator. The Region proposed assessment of a $25,000 civil penalty for the
CERCLA violation and a $25,000 penalty for the first day of the EPCRA violation and
$500 for each day thereafter until the required notice was filed. The Region is now
awaiting the administrative law judge's decision on thismatter.
12
-------
AIR
Region I in FY 89 maintained a high level of activity under the Clean Air Act. EPA issued 31
administrative orders, the highest number ever. Twenty-four ordered contractors to comply
with the asbestos NESHAP (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
reporting and/or work practice requirements, two were for sources subject to the beryllium
NESHAP, two were for sources subject to NSPS (New Source Performance Standards), two
were for sources subject to PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) requirements, and
one was for state implementation plan (SIP) violations.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS ISSUED
NUMBER
1885
1986 188T
FISCAL YEAR
1888
1888
The Region also issued eleven Notices of Violation in FY 89. Six of these were for sources
of volatile organic compounds, four were for sources of particulates, and one was for a
source of carbon monoxide.
NOTICES OF VIOLATION ISSUED
NUMBER
neee
-------
In FY 89 the Air Program continued to issue Notices of Deficiency (NODs) to address notifica-
tions of asbestos demolition or renovation operations which lack all the required information.
The Region issued 75 such NODs. Owners or operators responsible for the notifications who
receive multiple NODs become likely candidates for receipt of administrative orders.
In its fieldwork, the Air Program conducted 171 inspections.
INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED
ioes
loee near
FISCAL YEAR
toaa
1889
In addition, in FY 89 the Region prepared three referrals for civil litigation. These were one each
for asbestos NESHAP work practice violations, PSD violations, and NSPS violations.
FISCAL YEAR
REFERRALS FOR CIVIL LITIGATION
1986
1987
1Q86
19 OS
10
NUMBER
14
-------
HIGHLIGHT: ASBESTOS NESHAP ENFORCEMENT
On June 22,1989, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island entered a
consent decree in the case of United States v. Huqo Kev & Son, Inc. Hugo Key signed
the consent decree to resolve a Clean Air Act civil enforcement action alleging
violations of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
asbestos (asbestos NESHAP). The action arose out of a demolition carried out by the
company at the Newport, Rhode Island Naval Base between December 1985 and
February 1986.
By the terms of the consent decree, Hugo Key has agreed to pay $25,000 to the federal
government, comply with the asbestos NESHAP on all future operations, and
implement extensive compliance provisions involving inspection, notification, train-
ing, personnel, education, outreach, reporting, and recordkeeping. This decree is one
of the most stringent ever entered into by EPA in an asbestos case.
Region I settled several air cases already in litigation in FY 89. Under these settlements
EPA will collect $ 766,741, the highest total for one year in the Region's history.
PENALTIES ASSESSED IN JUDICIAL CONSENT DECREES
AMOUNT (THOUSANDS)
$1OOO
1985
1986 1987
FISCAL YEAR
15
1988
1989
-------
HIGHLIGHT: INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY SETTLEMENT
On September 29,1989, the Judge signed a consent decree filed by the United States,
the State of Maine, and International Paper Company (IPC) settling enforcement
actions against IPC. The settling of this case is noteworthy for several reasons. First,
the $990,000 penalty is the largest single penalty ever assessed by Region I under the
Clean Air Act. Second, this was a joint action with the State of Maine, and EPA was
able to divide the penalty equally between the two agencies. Third, this is the first case
ofaderateofamulti-fuelboilerthroughfederallyenforceablerestrictions. Fourth, the
settlement requires substantial reductions beyond regulation emission levels for
paniculate matter (an additional 500 tons per year) and SOi (an additional 1000 tons
per year). Finally, the consent decree requires the source to submit to the State a SIP
revision making these lower limits federally enforceable.
Below are statistics from the air enforcement programs run by the New England states.
STATE ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE OF ACTION
CIVIL REFERRALS
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS
NOTICES OF
VIOLATION
(NON-ASBESTOS)
INSPECTIONS
FISCAL YEAR
1985
0
52
163
1103
1986
2
68
194
2026
1987
0
31
148
901
1988
3
42
298 i
1862
1989
0
26
142
1580
16
-------
PESTICIDES
Pesticides enforcement underthe Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
has been delegated for the most part to the states and supported by EPA through Cooperative
Enforcement Grant Agreements and technical assistance. In addition to actions under FIFRA,
the states also conduct enforcement activities under their own statutes, related to applicator
licensing, pesticide registration and distribution, and additional use investigations. The chart
below lists state accomplishments.
STATE ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE OF ACTION
CIVIL COMPLAINTS
CRIMINAL
COMPLAINTS
INSPECTIONS
FISCAL YEAR
1985
5
8
1398
1986
116*
8
1921
1987
9
1
2468
1988
19
8
2248
1989
13
2
2496
* Includes 108 civil complaints issued by the State of Maine for use of an
unregistered pesticide (Fusilode).
EPA can also issue enforcement actions under FIFRA. The Region in FY 89 continued its reac-
tivation of the FIFRA enforcement program for unregistered or mislabeled products, culminat-
ing with issuance of an administrative complaint proposing assessment of an $54,560 penalty
against Safer, Inc. of Newton, MA. For several years, Safer, Inc. has made safety claims for
its products in flagrant violation of the FIFRA regulations, despite a notice of warning issued by
EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. In coordination with EPA Headquarters, Region I de-
veloped and issued its action against Safer, Inc. in July of 1989. The pesticide industry and
trade press has expressed substantial interest in the outcome of this case. The Region also
issued three other FIFRA complaints, with total proposed penalties of $27,000. In addition, for
the first time in four years, Region I did not take any enforcement actions against pesticide
producers for failure to report their production totals because of a 100% compliance rate this
year.
17
-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
In FY 89 Region I continued an active and varied administrative enforcement program under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA issued administrative complaints assessing
penalties under two different TSCA programs, one regulating PCBs (polychlorinated biphen-
yls) and one regulating asbestos found in public schools. In the PCB penalty program alone,
the Region assessed more than $230,000 in penalties in FY 89. The Region proposed tq_
assess $32,000 in penalties in three complaints issued under the new Asbestos Hazard Emer-
gency Response Act (AHERA), which is part of TSCA. These were the first AHERA cases
issued as follow-up to the Region's major effort of issuing 462 Notices of Non-compliance,
which resulted in a 96% compliance rate.
HIGHLIGHT: BOLIDEN METECH, INC. LITIGATION
In United States v. Boliden Metech, Inc. etal.. filed on April 4,1989, Region I initiated
the first case EPA has taken against a metal recovery company for violations of the
PCB regulations promulgated under TSCA. Boliden Metech maintains a computer
shredding operation and a shredded metal storage yard in Providence, RI. Analysis
of samples EPA collected from the yard has shown the presence ofPCB's in quantities..
ranging from 10 parts per million (ppm) to 690 ppm. The shredded metal is stored
outdoors in large, exposed piles located on the banks of the Providence River. In the
complaint Region I proposes injunctive relief which would seek compliance by the
company with the PCB regulations. The Region is asking the court to order the
company to contain the PCB's at the site, with EPA oversight, to determine the full
extent of the PCB contamination, and dispose of PCB contaminated waste in
accordance with EPA's regulations.
18
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS ISSUED
TYPE OF CASE
PCBs
ASBESTOS
1985
20
30
1986
15
16
1987
31
18
1988
20
4
1989
18
3
PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
DOLLAR AMOUNT
PROPOSED IN COMPLAINT
PCB
ASSESSED
PROPOSED IN COMPLAINT
ASBESTOS
ASSESSED
1985
$ 250,500
$114,200
$ 485,900
$ 31,900
1986
$418,900
$ 98.300
$332,100
$ 170,800
1987
$1,333,600
$ 309,600
$ 244,600
$ 44,300
1988
$ 622,900
$ 503,600
$ 24,000
I
$ 18,300
1989
$1,186.800
$ 231.60G
$ 32,000
$ 0
19
-------
WATER
Under the Clean Water Act in FY 89 the Region referred ten new cases for civil actions in federal
district court. This number of water referrals is the second highest in Region I's history, FY 88
being the peak year.
REFERRALS FOR CIVIL LITIGATION
NUMBER
1986
1986 1987
FISCAL YEAR
1988
1989
In the ongoing water cases in litigation, the Region in FY 89 obtained $529,875 in civil
penalties.
PENALTIES ASSESSED IN CIVIL JUDICIAL
CONSENT DECREES
AMOUNT (THOUSANDS)
S120O -f
1985
1986 1987
FISCAL YEAR
20
1988
1989
-------
A principal focus of enforcement under the Clean Water Act has been to bring POTW's
(Publicly Owned Sewage Treatment Works) into compliance with deadlines under the
Agency's National Municipal Policy. As a result of high levels of federal and state activity,
Region I and the New England States have brought court actions against virtually all major
municipalities which did not complete construction of their POTW's by the July 1, 1988
deadline. During FY 89, the Region focused on such major municipal cases as those involv-
ing Boston Harbor, New Bedford, MA, and the South Essex Sewerage District in MA, and
finalized settlements with Webster and Dudley, MA ($63,000 in total penalties) and Lowell, MA
($180,000 in total penalties).
HIGHLIGHT: BOSTON HARBOR CLEANUP
The Region's largest ongoing water enforcement caseconcerns the cleanup of Boston
Harbor. In FY 89, Region I addressed a variety of potential delays. Among the
obstacles to compliance with court-ordered schedules which were overcome were a
permit denial for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority's interim sludge
facilities by the Quincy, MA Conservation Commission, a holdup of the power cable
needed for the new treatment plant by the State Coastal Zone Management Agency,
the State Department of Environmental Protection's delay in approving construction
procedures for the Quincy Shipyard staging area work, and the State historical
officer's declaration that the Quincy Shipyard is an "historical district." A major
milestone was crossed in December, 1988, with the Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority's preliminary selection of an extensive storage system as a combined sewer
overflow control remedy. Another major milestone occurred in August, 1989, when
the Authority and EPA reached agreement on backup landfilling measures for the
Authority's long-term sludge management program. One of the first physical
improvements in the harbor occurred when scum discharges were terminated in
December, 1988. Finally, a revised treatment plant construction schedule was agreed
to which tightened several construction dates.
21
-------
Another focus of the Water Program is enforcement against industrial noncompliers. While
industrial compliance rates under the Clean Water Act generally are higher than those of
municipalities, there are exceptions. For example, on June 26,1989, EPA and the State of
Connecticut jointly filed suit against the Dexter Corporation forviolations of the Clean Water Act
at its paper plant at Windsor Locks, CT. The filing of this civil suit followed years of problems
at the plant andthe failure of the company to respond to administrative enforcement efforts. The
complaint charges numerous permit limit violations, discharges without a permit, and unlawful
bypasses. EPA is seeking a multi-million dollar penalty against this major national corporation.
A critical component of EPA's efforts to ensure high levels of compliance with water standards
in New England is maintaining a strong field presence. Often the Agency first gathers evidence
of violations during inspections. In FY 89 Region I conducted water inspections at 142 facilities
throughout New England. Reflecting the high priority that the six Region I states also give to
inspections, the states conducted a total of 422 water inspections.
During FY 89 Region I continued an aggressive administrative enforcement program. EPA
issued administrative compliance orders to 34 violators of NPDES (National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System) permits. In addition, in the program which began in September,
1987 of assessing administrative penalties against violators, Region I during FY 89 issued a
total of 16 administrative penalty orders. Proposed penalties in these cases ranged up to
$125,000. Eighteen cases were settled during the year; the total to be collected under these
settlements is $311,000.
The New England states, too, run water enforcement programs. During FY 89 the six states
issued a total of 80 administrative orders and referred 43 cases to their Attorneys General for
civil litigation.
STATE ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE OF ACTION
CIVIL REFERRALS
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS
FISCAL YEAR
1985
9
37
1986
29
76
1987
33
74
1988
75
!
90
1989
43
80
22
-------
Also during FY 89 the Region's wetland enforcement program continued. This activity included
the referral during the fiscal year of two new civil cases, the issuance of two administrative
penalty orders, and the issuance of a compliance order. To maximize limited resources and
avoid duplicative efforts, the Region has an agreement with the New England Division of the
Army Corps of Engineers to coordinate informally all wetlands enforcement activities.
HIGHLIGHT: WETLANDS ENFORCEMENT
An example of the Region's wetlands enforcement effort is the case of United States
v. Construction Industries, Inc. et al. which involves the unpermitted filling of
wetlands in Salem,NH. The defendants had filled approximately 6.7 acres of wetlands
between 3976 and 1985 in the course of preparing five lots for commercial develop-
ment. They had failed to obtain the required federal permit from the Army Corps of
Engineers. EPA negotiated a consent decree with the defendants which required
payment of a $50,000 civil penalty and wetland restoration and creation. The cost of
the remediation plan is estimated to be between $400,000 and $500,000. The
complaint and consent decree were filed simultaneously in the U.S. District Court for
New Hampshire on September 1,3989.
23
-------
DRINKING WATER
The past three years has seen Region I implement an enforcement program under the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986. The primary focus for enforcement continues to
reside with the states. The Region supplements the states' activities. In FY 89 the Region
issued twelve Notices of Violation, four proposed administrative orders, and one final admin-
istrative order to violating public drinking water systems. Also, as described below, the civiL
case against the City of North Adams, MA was filed.
The states in Region I both conduct sanitary surveys of public drinking water systems and take
enforcement actions against systems violating drinking water standards. In FY 89 the six states
together conducted 1,047 sanitary surveys, issued 37 administrative orders, assessed
penalties in three cases, and referred two new cases for litigation.
HIGHLIGHT: THE NORTH ADAMS CASE
On March 6, 2989, EPA filed suit against the City of North Adams, MA for
violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The City's drinking water supply has
violated maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and other Safe Drinking Water Act
requirements. The City's drinking water system serves a population of over 16,000,
an unusually large population to be exposed to such a problem. The filing of the federal
suit followed many years of delay by the City in building the required filtration plant
and the failure by the City to agree to a binding consent decree in a previously filed'
action by the State.
STATE ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE OF ACTION
REFERRALS TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS ISSUED
CASES WITH
PENALTIES ASSESSED
FISCAL YEAR
1985
27
0
0
1986
6
0
0
1987
2
1
0
1988
1
30
9
1989
2
37
3
24
-------
CRIMINAL ACTIONS
Region I has for years been a national leader in criminal enforcement. During FY 89, Region
I referred eight new cases to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, more than any
other region in the country.
FISCAL YEAR
1O80
1088
1088
1 O
NUMBER
REFERRALS TO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR CRIMINAL ACTION
Also in FY 89, three corporations and six individuals were sentenced for criminal violations
in Region I, totalling over $2.4 million in penalties, and nineteen months of incarceration.
CASE HIGHLIGHTS
1. United States v. Vanderbilt Chemical Corp. and Henry Baer (D. Conn.)
On May 31, 3989, Vanderbilt Chemical Corp. and Henry Baer were sentenced as a
result of guilty pleas entered on March 8,1989 relating to hazardous waste disposal
at its plant in Bethel CT. The company was sentenced to pay $1 million in fines for
illegally disposing of hazardous waste and lying to the EPA and the State of
Connecticut about its historic hazardous waste disposal practices. One-half of the fine
will be paid into the state's Emergency Spill Response Fund. Henry Baer,jthe plant's
general manager, received a three year suspended sentence, three years probation, a
$10,000 fine, and 300 hours of community service. The prosecution was theresult of
a joint effort by the EPA, U.S. Attorney's Office and the State of Connecticut.
25
-------
2. United States v. Arcangelo et al. (D. Conn)
On April 14,1989, James and Charles Arcangelo were sentenced as a result of guilty
pleas entered on charges of violations of the RICO statute (Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act) and RCRA concerning the disposal of mercury at a
demolition and salvage operation in North Haven, CT. Charles Arcangelo received
a 10-year prison term, and James Arcangelo was sentenced to five years in prison on
the RICO charge. Both men were ordered to pay 5500,000 in restitution and
forfeiture. Thiscase represents the first EPA joint investigation with the Department
of Justice Organized Crime Strike Force.
3. United States v. McKiel et al. (D. Mass.)
On June 29,1989, Robert and Scott McKiel were sentenced to a year and nine months
in prison, respectively, for their discharge of electroplating waste into the Merrimack
River and the City of Lowell's publicly owned treatment plant in violation of the Clean
Water Act. Robert McKiel's sentence also was the result of his guilty plea for illegal
storage of hazardous waste. This is the first time that anyone has been sent to prison
in Massachusetts for environmental violations, and the first time in the country for
pretreatment violations. On May 4,1989, theMcKiels' environmental consultant
was sentenced to a six month suspended sentence and six months probation for his in-
volvement in the offenses. This marks the first time that an environmental consultant
has been charged criminally in the country.
4. United States V. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. (D. Mass.)
On December 20, 1989, Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. pled guilty to numerous
criminal charges that the company illegally discharged process waste, over a five-year
period, into the public sewer system of Middleborough, MA. The company was
ordered to pay a fine of $400,000 and to buy a sludge press for the town's sewage
treatment plant.
5. United States v. Bridgeport Wrecking Co. Inc. and Thomas Capozziello (D. Conn.)
On March 1,1989, a federal grand jury indicted Bridgeport Wrecking Co., Inc. and
its president, Thomas Capozziello, on four counts of violating the asbestos NESHAP
standards of the Clean Air Act during their demolition of the Knudsen Dairy in North
Haven, CT. Bridgeport Wrecking Co., Inc. had previously been one of the defendants
in a civil suit for similar violations at a housing project in Bridgeport.
26
-------
6. United States v. Bollard Shipping Co. Ltd, and lakovos Georgudis (D. RJ.)
On September 29,1989, Ballard Shipping Co Ltd., owners of the MIT World Prodigy,
and the ship captain, lakovos Georgudis, were sentenced as a result of the oil spill in
June caused when the ship grounded on Breton Reef off the coast of Newport, RI. The
company was ordered to pay a fine of$l million, of which one-half would be paid to
two State of Rhode Island environmental funds. Georgudis was ordered to pay a fine
of $10,000. The two had previously pleaded guilty to a one-count information
charging a violation of the Clean Water Act.
27
-------
REGION I ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS INITIATED
FY1985TOFY1989
CLEAN AIR ACT
CLEAN WATER ACT
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE.
COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND
RODENTICIDE ACT
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT
TOTALS
FY1985
22
42
0
14
6
50
0
0
134
FY1986
24
30
0
9
6
31
7
0
107
FY1987
23
53
0
17
15
50
9
0
167
FY1988
29
47
5
9
13
27
9
1
140
FY1 989
31
51
4
13
18
21
4
15
157
28
-------
REGION I CIVIL REFERRALS FOR LITIGATION
FY1985TOFY1989
CLEAN AIR ACT
CLEAN WATER ACT
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND
LIABILITY ACT
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
TOTALS
FY1985
8
5
0
0
3
0
16
FY 1986
8
6
0
3
2
0
19
F Y 1 987
8
6
0
1
7
0
22
FY1988
7
13
2
0
14
1
37
FY1989
3
10
0
4
15
0
32
29
-------
REGION I CRIMINAL REFERRALS TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FY1986TOFY1989
FY86
2
FY87
2
FY88
7
FY89
8
30
------- |