UNITED STATES EPA REGION 1 EPA 90171-92-001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION JFK FEDERAL BUILDING MARCH 1992
AGENCY BOSTON, MA 02203
FY 91 ENFORCEMENT
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
REPORT
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION y
ACKNOWLEDGMENT. jjj
MULTI-MEDIA ENFORCEMENT 1
CRIMINAL ACTIONS v 5
AIR 7
DRINKING WATER 13
SUPERFUND 14
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW 20
HAZARDOUS WASTE 23
PESTICIDES 29
WATER 31
TOXIC SUBSTANCES..., 35
FEDERAL FACILITIES 39
SUMMARY ENFORCEMENT
TABLES - FY 87 - FY 91 43
-------
INTRODUCTION
Major new directions tookfirm hold in the enforcement programs in Region 1 of the Environmental
Protection Agency during fiscal year 1991. We accelerated our efforts to build a multi-media
perspective into all phases of our enforcement programs. In pursuit of this goal, we made
significant adjustments to many aspects of the enforcement process. The Region pioneered use
of a multi-media checklist for inspectors. The Region implemented sophisticated screening
procedures to help us develop enforcement case strategies. The Region encouraged innovative
settlement provisions incorporating pollution prevention projects.
Other new directions included the Region's participation in national enforcement initiatives. Under
this concept, EPA nationally identified specific pollutants or regulatory requirements of special
concern that merited coordinated enforcement efforts among all ten EPA regional offices. Another
thrust for enforcement in 1991 was conducting multi-media inspections at federal facilities and
pursuing follow-up enforcement action.
These new directions represented refinements to our ongoing enforcement programs that reflect
the Agency's emphasis on enhancing the strategic value of our actions. This report describes the
notable results of Region 1 's enforcement efforts in the six New England states during fiscal year
1991 (October 1,1990 through September 30,1991). In addition to containing separate chapters
focusing on each of our major enforcement programs, for the first time, this annual report includes
chapters devoted to multi-media enforcement and federal facilities. The report contains narrative
summaries of our enforcement accomplishments and highlights significant cases. The report also
provides enforcement statistics for fiscal year 1991 (FY 91), with comparisons to the levels of
enforcement activity in past years. In addition, out of recognition that the New England states are
our partners in enforcement, for many programs, we present data reflecting the states' enforce-
ment achievements as well as our own.
Again this year we have good reason to be proud of our enforcement accomplishments. Wethank
all the dedicated individuals in the regional office and in the states who contributed to the successes
of the past year.
For the future we remain committed to a vigorous enforcement program that targets the most
environmentally-significant violators for enforcement. In this way we will further as much as
possible our vital mission of protecting public health and improving the quality of our natural
environment.
(JuHe Belaga Paul Keough
Sgional Administrator Deputy Regional Administrator
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Office of Regional Counsel coordinated the writing of this report with the Region's Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Environmental Services Division, Waste
Management Division, and Water Management Division. Special thanks to Judy Lau,
CSC Information Center Coordinator, for her invaluable assistance in the publication of this
report.
111
-------
MULTI-MEDIA ENFORCEMENT
Background
During the past eighteen months, Region 1 has made substantial progress in fundamentally
altering its approach to enforcement, moving away from the traditional single-medium approach
and aggressively toward building a multi-media perspective into all phases of its enforcement
programs. This focus on a multi-media perspective is indicative of EPA's efforts to approach facility
compliance comprehensively. Multi-media enforcement also reflects EPA's strategic objective of
better integrating consideration of health and ecological risks into inspection targeting and case
selection.
To accomplish this reorientation, the Region made significant changes in every step of the
enforcement process during FY 91. For example,
-------
Case Screening
Throughout FY 91, Region 1 followed multi-media case screening procedures before initiating
enforcement actions. U nderthese procedures, the Region's case team investigates whetherthere
is a history of enforcement, other current violations, or the existence of a TRl (Toxics Release
Inventory) report for the violating facility. If there is, then the planned action must be presented for
discussion of enforcement strategy by the Region's enforcement managers. The case team and
managers decide whether multi-media enforcement is appropriate in the circumstances.
By the end of FY 91, Region 1 was further refining the screening process to take advantage of new
computerized enforcement databases. The Region began relying heavily on use of IDEA
(Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis) in case screening; IDEA is a powerful computer system
developed by EPA Headquarters that links the data from nearly all of the Agency's national
enforcement program databases. IDEA provides comprehensive enforcement data about
individual violating facilities, as well as for corporate facilities nation-wide. The Region also
commenced use of MMETS (the regionally-designed Multi-media Enforcement Tickler System).
MMETS is a user friendly computer program that has been designed to allow easy access to up-
to-date information about planned or completed inspections and about ongoing, concluded, or
planned enforcement actions at Region 1 facilities, starting with data from FY 91.
Multi-Media Enforcement Actions
The Region's experience so far with multi-media enforcement indicates that a core of programs
offers the best opportunities for multi-media approaches. For administrative cases, the programs
most commonly involved in multi-media activity have been those under Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Sections 304, 311, 312, and 313 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), and the PCB program under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). All of the Region's multi-media judicial cases have thus far arisen
under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and RCRA.
HIGHLIGHT: MULTI-MEDIA COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST
MTD PRODUCTS, INC. AND COLUMBIA MANUFACTURING CO., INC.
OnFebruary22,1991, the United States filed in federal court amulti-media civil action under RCRA and the
Clean Water Act for penalties and injunctive relief against Columbia Manufacturing Co., Inc., the present
facility owner and operator, and MTD Products Inc., the facility's prior owner and operator. Columbia
manufactures bicycles and school furniture at its factory in Westfield, MA. EPA multi-media inspections of
the Columbiafadlitydisctosed29violationsoffederalandMassachusetts RCRA regri
site, as well as sign^lcantvhlations oftheCWAbyColumbiaandMTD Products. Among other matters, the
complaint focuses on two unlined surface impoundments at the facility which were used as part of its
wastewater treatment facilities. Metal hydroxide sludge (waste from its electroplating operations) was
routinelypumpedinto these impoiindmentsforpermanent disposaluntilMay, 1983. Analysesofgroundwater
samples in the vicinity of these impoundments indicate significant levels of several hazardous wastes.
-------
HIGHLIGHT: MULTI-MEDIA ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
AGAINST COASTAL METAL FINISHING, INC.
In one of its largest administrative multi-media enforcement actions, Region 1, in September, 1991,proposed
penalties against Coastal Metal Finishing, Inc. ofMerrimac, MA totaling $806,600. The Region's action
alleges that Coastal Metal Finishing violated provisions of both RCRA and EPCRA. Two complaints were
issued concurrently on September 26,1991, citing numerous violations under each statute, including the
improper storage of hazardous waste, violationofhazardous waste export requirements, and failure to notify
local authorities of the facility's chemical inventory.
HIGHLIGHT: MULTI-MEDIA ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
AGAINST RIBCO MANUFACTURING, INC.
In another large multi-media enforcement action initiated in September, 1991, Region 1 proposed a penalty
of$658,665againstRIBCOMfg.,Inc.ofProvidence,Rl.EPA'sacthndlegesthatRlBCOviolatedprovisiom
of both RCRA and EPCRA. Two complaints were issued together on September 25,1991, alleging several
violations under each statute, including failure to comply with the RCRA land disposal restrictions and the
EPCRA toxic chemical release reporting requirements.
National Enforcement Initiatives
During FY 91 EPA planned several enforcement initiatives that reflected multi-media strategies
directed at pollutants and industries which posed national problems from the perspective of both
risk and compliance. Under such initiatives, EPA Headquarters nationally coordinates efforts to
announce at one time the filing or settlement of several administrative and judicial cases
concerning atargeted pollutant, industry, or program. For example, on July 31,1991, cross-media
enforcement actions were filed in all ten EPA regions against major sources of lead emissions.
This lead enforcement initiative was part of the Agency's strategy to reduce lead exposures to the
public significantly and particularly to reduce the riskof high blood levels of lead in children. Region
1 participated in the lead initiative with the filing of a judicial complaint against Raymark Industries,
Inc. which seeks corrective actions at its facility in Stratford, CT. In addition, the September 26,
1991, nation-wide filing of actions to address violations of the hazardous waste export require-
ments under RCRA included five Region 1 administrative actions.
Innovative Settlements
EPA's integration of a multi-media perspective into its enforcement programs was also reflected
in new approaches to settling enforcement actions in FY 91. Traditionally EPA settles an
-------
enforcement action with an agreement by the violatorto attain compliance expedftiously andto pay
a penalty. The penalty typically has two components: recovery of the economic benefit of the
violation that accrued to the violator and assessment of an additional dollar amount that reflects
the seriousness, or gravity, of the violation. Under more innovative approaches to settlement, the
Region is trying to use its statutory authorities more creatively to correct underlying pollution
problems and to achieve environmental benefits that go beyond compliance with the law. For
example, Region 1 during negotiations in FY91 actively encouraged violatorsto consider agreeing
to additional relief in the form of projects remediating the adverse public health or environmental
consequences of the violations. As part of the settlement, the size of the final assessed penalty
could be reduced somewhat to reflect the violator's commitment to undertake such supplemental
environmental projects, or SEPs.
HIGHLIGHT: GREAT NORTHERN NEKOOSA CORPORATION
SETTLEMENT
In its first joint settlement under TSCA and the Superfund removal program to address violations of TSCA
and subsequent remedial work relating to the clean-up ofPCB spills, Region 1 entered into an administrative
agreement on September 30,1991, with Great Northern Nekoosa Corp. Under this settlement, Great
Northern agreed to pay a penalty and reimburse EPA for investigative and oversight costs of remedial work
conducted at the company''sfacility in EastMillinocket, ME. In addition to spending in excess of$7,000,000
for the remediation of historic PCB spills which threatened the Androscoggin River, the company agreed to
pay an administrative penalty of $20,800 and to reimburse EPA for investigative and oversight costs in the
amount of $210,000. In 1987, the Region filed an administrative complaint against Great Northern for
violationofthe federal regulations controlling therecordkeeping, storage for disposal, and marking ofPCBs
at the company's facilities in Millinocket and East Millinocket, ME. In addition, spills of PCBs were
discovered on the ground outside the East Millinocket facility. The cleanup performed by Great Northern
Nekoosa Corp. was completed in January, 1991. This settlement was one of the first cases in the nation to
use Superjund provisions to supplement a PCB cleanup under TSCA.
HIGHLIGHT: MASKEM CORPORATION SETTLEMENT
On June 6,1991, Markem Corp. ofKeene, NH, agreed to pay a penalty of $33,000 and undertake three
supplemental environmental projects in a multi-media settlement of an administrative complaint filed by
Region Ifor the company's violations of the TSCA/PCB regulations. This settlement is noteworthy in that
the three SEPs each involve reduction or elimination of a different pollutant. The projects are the following:
1) removal andproper disposal ofaPCB transformer; 2) installation of a cleaning-solvents recovery system;
and 3) a project designed to eliminate the use of heavy-metal pigments in the company's ink products. The
total estimated cost of the three projects is $210^00. This settlement is the culmination of an action begun
by EPA in June 1990 when the agency filed an administrative complaint againstMarkem Corp.forviolations
oftheTSCA/PCBregulations.MarkemCorp.prodiu:esindustrialp^
supplies.
-------
CRIMINAL ACTIONS
Region 1 prides itself in having an aggressive criminal program to punish the most egregious
violations of environmental law. Long a national leader, Region 1 's criminal enforcement program
continued to build on its successes in FY 91. Particularly noteworthy were the sentences handed
down inthreemajorprosecutions, totaling $5,600,000 in criminal fines. FY 91 was also a good year
for new cases as the Region referred seven cases to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
REFERRALS TO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR CRIMINAL ACTION
NUMBER
10
8
6
4
2
1987 1988 1989 1990
FISCAL YEAR
1991
CASE HIGHLIGHTS
1. United States v. United Technologies Corporation (D. Conn,)
On May 14,1991, United Technologies Corporation pleaded guilty to six felony violations of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act and was sentenced to pay a $3,000,000 fine, the largest criminal fine for a
hazardous waste violation in the country. The case related to the use and disposal of an industrial solvent at
the company's Sikorsky Aircraft Division in Stratford, CT. Workers at the facility sprayed the solvent on
helicopter transmissions after the transmissions were tested. The resulting waste fell to the floor and was
-------
routinely hosed and squeegeed out the door onto the ground or disposed of into floor drains leading to a
tributary of the Housatonic River. An area of approximately 4,000 square feet was contaminated and
eventually removed by Sikorsky under EPA supervision. The case was developed as a multi-media one
addressing both the RCRA and Clean Water Act violations. During the relevant period of time, Sikorsky,
whichemploysl4,000people,hadowpersonresponsibleforenvironmentalcom^
nationwide.
2.United States v. International Paper Company (D. Maine)
On July 31,1991, International Paper Company pleaded guilty to five felony charges and was sentenced to
pay a fine of$2 200,000. This was the first environmental criminal case in the State of Maine and the second
largest criminal hazardous waste fine in the country. Three of the felony counts charged violations of the
Resource Conservation andRecoveryActforthe knowing storage and treatment of hazardous waste without
a permit. Count Four charged a knowing submission of false information under RCRA in a Notification of
Hazardous Waste Activity, in which the company claimed that it did not generate any hazardous waste. The
last count charged a violation of 18 US.C. §1001 and concerned a false representation made in an NPDES
permit application, in which the company claimed that it only had one discharge to the Androscoggin River,
when in fact it had two.
The case concerned International Paper's mill in Jay, ME, which is the largest paper mill in the state,
producing approximately 1,500 tons of paper a day. The violations were the direct result of the failure of the
company's management to institute a comprehensive environmental program at the operational level.
3.United States v. John Borowsld and Borfohn Optical Technology. Inc. (D. Mass.)
On November 7,1990, U. S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock sentenced John Borowsld to 26 months in
prison, followed by two years of supervised release, and a $400,000fine in the first knowing endangerment
criminal case under the Clean Water Act in the country. This is the longest prison term in New England for
an environmental violation to date. The case concerned the illegal discharge of toxic metals and dangerous
chemicahintothesewersystemandtheendangermentofhisemployeesasaresult^
of Ear John Optical Technology, Inc. of Burlington, MA. The company was also fined $50,000 and ordered
to make a lump sum payment of $15,000 for medical insurance for two of its former employees.
The illegal discharges stemmed from Borjohn's metal finishing operations, in which the company plated
various metals, including nickel, onto Bradley Fighting Vehicle elevation mirrors, M-l Tank mirrors, and
cruisemissilefoldingmirrors.Thedefendantsorderedemphyeestodum^
plastic buckets. During the illegal disposals, the employees were exposed to toxic levels of nickel, nitric add,
and nitrogen dioxide. The discharges to the sewer eventually led to the Massachusetts Water Resource
Authority's sewage treatment plant, which in turn discharges to Boston Harbor.
-------
AIR
Region 1 continuedto have astrong presence in Clean Air Act enforcement in New England during
FY 91. The Region had six referrals to the Department of Justice for civil litigation. These six
referrals included three to enforce past consent decrees. The other three referrals involved
violations of the asbestos demolition and renovation standards under the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).
REFERRALS FOR CIVIL LITIGATION
NUMBER
12
10
8
6
4
2
1987 1988 1989 1990
FISCAL YEAR
1991
In FY 91, Region 1 settled two cases already in litigation. Under the consent decrees entered in
these cases, the defendants agreedto pay atotal of $453,000 in civil penalties and to spend several
million dollars to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act. Court orders resolved two other
judicial actions, both involving the asbestos NESHAP standards. In an action to enforce an earlier
consent decree, the district court ordered the defendant to pay a civil penalty of $25,000 and
stipulated penalties of $110,000. In the other case, the court ordered payment of a $50,000 civil
penalty.
-------
HIGHLIGHT: J. M. HVBER CORPORATION
In a settlement with both the United States and the State of Maine, J. M. Huber Corporation paid a $328,000
civil penalty and installed costly control equipment to ensure future compliance with the Clean Air Act. The
federal and state governments had concurrently filed actions against the company for excess paniculate
matter emissions from its waferboard facility in Boston, ME. As pan of the settlement, the company also
agreed to meet a more stringent paniculate emission limit than required by its permit and the state
implementation plan. The consent decree was entered by the U. S. District Counfor the District of Maine in
July 1991.
PENALTIES ASSESSED IN JUDICIAL ACTIONS
AMOUNT (THOUSANDS)
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200 +
$0-
$1,216.741
$353.
$638
1987 1988 1989
FISCAL YEAR
1990
1991
HIGHLIGHT: EPA ENFORCEMENT AGAINST
MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR
In response to a lawsuit filed by the federal government, three towns in nonhern Maine have agreed to close
down a municipal solid waste incinerator which was operating in serious violation of paniculate matter
emission limits. Under a consent decree entered in September 1991, the three towns ofMadawaska, Fon Kent
andFrenchville must close the incinerator and switch over to a new solid waste disposal program involving
a combination of recycling and landfill disposal. In addition, the towns will pay a total civil penalty of
$125,000,
8
-------
Region 1 also issued 47 administrative orders, a record number in New England. Forty ordered
contractors to comply with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
regulating the reporting and/or workpractice standards for handling asbestos in renovation and
demolition projects. These reporting and workpractice standards are designed to avoid exposing
the public to airborne asbestos from such projects. Seven ordered stationary sources to comply
with various provisions underthe Act, including the New Source Performance Standards and state
implementation plans.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS ISSUED
FISCAL YEAR
10
20 30
NUMBER
The Region also issued seven Notices of Violation (NOVs) in FY 91. These NOVs are issued to
notify stationary sources that they are in violation of either permit requirements or regulations EPA
has approved in a state implementation plan. These permits and regulations are designed to
ensure that the states attain and maintain compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards issued for certain pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide, paniculate matter,
nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide.
9
-------
NOTICES OF VIOLATION ISSUED
NUMBER
20
15
10
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
FISCAL YEAR
In addition, Region 1 issued 172 Notices of Deficiency (NODs) to address notifications of asbestos
demolition or renovation operations which lack all the required information. Recipients of multiple
NODs become likely candidates for receipt of administrative orders. Without accurate notices,
EPA and the states are hampered in their efforts to determine compliance with the work practice
standards for handling asbestos in demolition and renovation projects.
In the field, the Air Program conducted 168 inspections. Sixty-four were inspections at renovation
ordemolition projects involving potential asbestos removal, and 104 were inspections of stationary
sources of air pollution.
10
-------
INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED
FY1988- 187
FY1989- 171
FY1987- 159
FY1990- 183
FY1991 - 171
The New England states also have the authority to enforce their state implementation plans and
various delegated New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants. The statistics in the State Enforcement Totals chart reflect the actions
taken by the six Region 1 states in FY 91.
11
-------
STATE ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE
OF ACTION
CIVIL
REFERRALS
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS
NOTICES OF
VIOLATION
(NON-ASBESTOS)
INSPECTIONS
FISCAL YEAR
1987
0
31
148
901
1988
3
42
298
1,862
1989
0
26
142
1,580
1990
3
43
106
1,384
1991
3
13*
68
1,768
* Note: Because of a problem in reporting, the number of administrative orders issued by
Connecticut and Massachusetts in 1991 is under-reported here.
12
-------
DRINKING WATER
Underthe Safe Drinking Water Act, the primary focus for enforcement resides with the states. EPA,
however, is ultimately responsibleforenforcement of thestandards protecting publicdrinking water
supplies. In FY 91 the Region issued 53 Notices of Violation, 11 proposed administrative orders,
and 3 final administrative orders under the Safe Drinking Water Act. In addition, the Region
continued to prosecute its case against the City of North Adams, MA, for violations of maximum
contaminant levels and other Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. A trial was held in federal
district court in November, 1991, to determine the amount of penalty and other relief to be entered
against the City.
The states in Region 1 conduct sanitary surveys of public drinking water systems and take
enforcement actions against systems violating drinking water standards. In FY 91 the six states
together conducted 1,153 sanitary surveys and issued 13 administrative orders.
STATE ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE
OF ACTION
REFERRALS TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS ISSUED
FISCAL YEAR
1987
2
1
1988
1
30
1989
2
37
1990
1
20
1991
0
13
13
-------
SUPERFUND
FY 91 marked another successful year for Region 1 's enforcement program under the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known
asSuperfund. Over the years Region 1 has maintained an approach consistent with Administrator
Reilly's "enforcement first" philosophy. In FY 91 Region 1 continued to focus on enforcement
resulting in significant progress toward site cleanup. The goal of the Region's enforcement effort
is to achieve settlements with potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for site response actions and
reimbursement of prior fund expenditures. In pursuit of its enforcement objectives, the Region has
taken advantage of many of the enforcement tools available under the statute.
In FY91 ,the Region reached five judicial settlements for RD/RA (remedial design/remedial action)
work, four administrative settlements for RI/FS (remedial investigation/feasibility study) work, and
one administrative settlement for remedial design work. Where settlements were not achieved, the
Region used its unilateral authority to order private parties to perform response actions. Thirteen
unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) were issued in FY 91. The count includes UAOs for
remedial and removal actions as well as site access.
The total value of work to be performed by PRPs as a result of these enforcement actions is
approximately $81,000,000. The value of FY 91 settlements is 4.4 times that of FY 88 and 1.25
times the FY 89 settlement values. The $81,000,000 in FY 91 is less than the $173,400,000 value
of the FY 90 settlements. The extraordinary value of the FY 90 settlements was influenced
significantly by the Wells G & H site in Woburn, MA, which accounted for approximately
$70,000,000 of the $173,400,000 FY 90 total.
VALUE OF CLEANUP WORK PERFORMED BY
PRIVATE PARTIES AS A RESULT OF ENFORCEMENT
1989-$64.6 1988.$18.3
1987- $49.4
\"-:-'^BBMtliHlUlltSft» \ ^^H ^V<
1990- $173.4 ^
1991 - $80.8
$$ (MILLIONS)
14
-------
The Region's five FY 91 referrals with settlement for site cleanup will result in the performance of
remedial work and payment of past costs by private parties valued at a total of $69,300,000.
Settling parties will fund and conduct RD/RA work under consent decrees at the following sites:
Laurel Park Landfill (CT), Old Springfield Landfill (VT), Union Chemical (ME), Coakley Landfill
(NH), and Western Sand & Gravel (Rl). Consistent with the terms and conditions of these
settlements, private parties will conduct response actions valued at $64,300,000. The parties will
also reimburse the government for past expenditures from the Fund totaling $4,400,000. In
addition, the parties will repay the government $600,000 to be incurred as agency oversight costs
during the cleanups.
HIGHLIGHT: LAUREL PARK LANDFILL SETTLEMENT
In FY 91, EPA entered into a $21,000,000 settlement whereby 19 PRPs will perform cleanup at the Laurel
Park Landfill site in Naugatuck, CT, and reimburse EPA and the State of Connecticut for past and future
response costs. In addition, to expedite cleanup, EPA negotiated an administrative agreement by which the
PRPs begin remedial design activities prior to the consent decree being lodged with the court. Moreover,
concurrent with the settlement referral, the United States filed a CERCLA cost recovery action for
unreimbursed costs against four non-settling PRPs. This action sends a clear message to PRPs that
recalcitrance in settlement negotiations has a high price.
HIGHLIGHT: UNION CHEMICAL COMPANY SITE SETTLEMENT
Union Chemical, Inc. operated a chemical waste treatment and recyclingfacility which was the cause of soil
and groundwater contamination at this Superfund site in South Hope, ME. InFY91, the Region reached a
judicial settlement with a group of sixty major PRPs for the performance and funding of cleanup at the Union
Chemical site. The settlement covers cleanup action valued at $10,700,000 with an additional payment of
$1300,000 for past costs. Under the settlement, the major PRPs will implement remedial action on the soil
consisting of excavation and on-site treatment and on the ground water consisting of vacuum extraction and
treatment of hazardous solvents. CoraaminatedbuildingsonsitewiU.be decontaminated and demolished. In
addition to the major settlement, the Region reached a de minimis settlement with approximately 2 70 parties
who contributed smaller amounts of waste to the site. The de minimis parties have agreed to contribute
$3,100,000 toward the costs of past and future response actions at the site including government oversight
costs.
In another judicial settlement in FY 91 regarding the Union Chemical site, EPA recovered significant
penalties against three defendants who failed to make timely responses to EPA information requests issued
under Section 104 of CERCLA and Section 3007ofRCRA. The three defendants, Ethan Allen, Inc., Spencer
Press,Inc.,andIMCMagneti(^Corp.(NewHampsMreDivision)agreedtopaypenaltiescf$21,000,$15tOOO,
and$7'£00, respectively, for failing to respond in a timely manner to information requests issued in 1987
concerning their shipments of hazardous substances to the Union Chemical site.
15
-------
HIGHLIGHT: COAKLEY LANDFILL SETTLEMENT
On September 30,1991, Region 1 referred to the Department of Justice a proposed consent decree for
implementation by 32 PRPs of a $22,000,000 cleanup for the first operable unit at the Coakky Landfill site
in North Hampton, NH. The settling parties include three municipal operators and two branches of the armed
services, the Air Force and the Navy. Lodging of the consent decree is contingent on voter approval in all
three municipalities.
The remedy consists of capping the landfill and instituting a ground water extraction and treatment system.
Simultaneously with their submittals ofpre-design studies, the PRPs have the opportunity to submit an
alternative ground water pre-design study, along with supporting documentation. Should this study reveal
that the ground water treatment component of the remedy is not necessary, the non-federal PRPs are required
to refund $2,750jOOO, plus interest accrued beginning three years after deposit, to the United States.
Of the thirteen Superfund unilateral administrative orders the Region issued in FY 91, one was for
RD/RA (at the Groveland Wells Site in MA), seven were for removal actions, and five were for site
access. The use of unilateral order authority continues to be an effective enforcement tool. The
total of thirteen UAOs in FY 91 was less than the seventeen issued in FY 90, but demonstrates a
continuing upward trend over earlier years; two UAOs were issued in FY 88 and seven in FY 89.
The value of private party work performed under the FY 91 UAOs totaled $9,100,000.
UNILATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
FISCAL YEAR
10
NUMBER
16
-------
HIGHLIGHT: UNILATERAL ORDER FOR RD/RA
AT THE GROVELAND WELLS SITE
After settlement negotiations failed, Region 1 in February 1991 issued a unilateral administrative order to
two PRPs at the Groveland Wells site in Groveland, MA. The order requires the private parties to design and
implementrernedialactionstocleanupsoilandgroundwateratthesourcelocation. Private parties willfiind
andconductactfanstoremediatecontaminatedgroundwaterbeneaththeirpropertyandtrea
contaminantlevels. The value of work to be performed is $1,600,000. Implementation of the actions required
under this order will result in substantial improvements to the environment.
Under the Region's CERCLA removal program for addressing emergencies at hazardous waste
sites, Region 1 in FY 91 issued seven unilateral administrative orders for completion of removal
actions. The removal program successfully ordered PRPs to conduct full or substantial portions
of cleanups at the following sites: Garabedian Landfill in Methuen, MA; Mercury Anodizing in
Newburyport, MA; Haverhill Salvage in Haverhill, MA; Wells Metal Rnishing in Lowell, MA; Watkins
Machinery in Beacon Falls, CT; Spacetec in West Haven, CT; and Plywood Ranch in Nashua, NH.
In a number of these cases, the Region acted quickly using Fund resources to stabilize the threat.
At an appropriate transition point, PRPs were ordered to perform the remaining work, thus
conserving the Fund while maximizing PRP participation. The Region estimates that the value of
work to be performed by private parties under these orders is in excess of $5,000,000.
These FY 91 achievements demonstrate the Region's strong preference for issuing unilateral
orders rather than consent orders for removal actions, consistent with the regional enforcement
strategy employed over the past few years. This strategy recognizes the time-critical nature of the
threats posed at removal sites and the need to minimize delays in starting cleanups which often
result from prolonged consent order negotiations. In appropriate circumstances, the Region has
addressed fairness and due process concerns by affording unilateral order recipients the
opportunity to review and comment on draft orders prior to their issuance.
In circumstances where PRPs demonstrate that they cannot afford to conduct a full cleanup at a
removal site, the Region strives to carve out work which PRPs can successfully complete. This
approach promotes PRP participation and conserves the Fund.
17
-------
HIGHLIGHT: HOOPER SANDS ROAD SITE AGREEMENT
RegionlinFY91 entered into an Administrative AgreementwiththeUS.Navyforrecovery ofcosts related
to aFund-leadremovcdactionat the Hooper Sands RoadSiteinSouihBerwick,ME. TheAgreementprovides
thattheNavywillreimburseEPAforthe$l,091J77incurredasofSeptember 18,1990. EPAwillenterinto
further negotiations with the Navy inFY92.
The removal program in FY 91 also initiated enforcement activities related to EPA's access and
information gathering authority. For example, atthe PSC Resourcessite in Palmer, MA, the Region
exercised its statutory authority by ordering property owners to provide EPA with access to perform
a removal action. At the Rolfite Canal Street Site in Shelton, CT, untimely and incomplete
responses to an EPA information request interfered with the Agency's cost recovery efforts and
the referral of the case to the Department of Justice. In response, the removal program issued its
first order directing compliance with an information request, and the PRP came into compliance
within a very short period of time.
HIGHLIGHT: GONIC DRUM DUMPS SITE TRIAL
InFY90, the United States pursued cost recovery litigation related to a Fund-lead removal action at the two
Conic Drum Dumps sites in Gome, NH. Successful prosecution on liability resulted in a default judgment
against the operator of both sites, William Burns, and summary judgment on liability against the owners of
one of the two sites, Gonic Realty Trust and Trustee Raymond Crowley. During FY91,the case went to trial
to determine EPA's costs. AMarchl2,1991 order againstGonic RealtyTrustand RaymondCrowley holds
them liable for $137,142 in response costs, $10359 inprejudgment interest, and $28 per day thereafter in
prejudgment interest until the date of judgment (August1,1991). Continued aggressive prosecution resulted
in a judgment against Mr. Burns on August 22,1991, for $287,977 in response costs and $59230 in
prejudgment interest.
Civil judicial actions to recover past costs and seek funds for future response actions also
contributed significantly to the total value of the Region's enforcement action in FY 91. Two
settlements under the ongoing judicial action relating to the New Bedford Harbor site in
Massachusetts and a new referral with a settlement concerning the Norwood, MA PCB (Grant
Gear) site were valued at a total of $78,400,000.
18
-------
HIGHLIGHT: NEW BEDFORD HARBOR SETTLEMENT
In FY 91 Region 1 completed negotiation of two consent decrees for the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site
in Massachusetts which settle long-standing litigation with three of the five defendants. The first settlement,
with the defendants Aerovox, Inc. and Belleville Industries, will realize a total of $12,600,000 plus interest.
The second settlement, with AVX Corporation, will realize $65,650,000 plus interest.
The funds from the $65,650,000 settlement to be paid by AVX Corporation to the United States and the
Commonwealth ofMassachusetts will be usedto conductthefollowing activities: 1) clean up widespreadPCB
contamination inNew Bedford Harbor; 2) restore injured natural resources of the Harbor; and 3) reimburse
the respective governments for prior expenditures for Superfund response actions and natural resource
damage assessment costs. At nearly $66,000,000, this settlement is one of the largest by a single defendant
in the history of the Superfund program.
The $12,600,000 settlement with Aerovox and Belleville was also divided into funds for natural resource
damages andfiindsforresponsecosts.Jiutunder$7,(X)0,000 oftheresponsecos^
actions, and the remainder will pay past costs of the state and federal governments.
Given the complexity of the case and the coordination and cooperation of the various federal and state
environmental agencies and natural resource trustees, this settlement is a major accomplishment, reflecting
the governments' willingness to pursue litigation to achieve fair settlements.
The Region also made three referrals seeking recovery of past government costs without prior
settlement. These referrals, which concern the Tibbetts Road (NH), Laurel Park (CT), and Salem
Acres (MA) Superfund sites, seek cost recovery of funds totaling $5,100,000. In addition, Region
1 made one bankruptcy referral seeking the filing of a proof of claim against a PRP at the Union
Chemical site in Maine.
REFERRALS FOR CIVIL LITIGATION
NUMBER
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
FISCAL YEAR
19
-------
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
In the third full year of enforcement activity under the Emergency Planning 'and Community Right-
to-Know Act (EPCRA), Region 1 maintained in FY 91 the same strong enforcement presence as
in the previous year. Region 1 's enforcement activities continued to focus on facilities that failed
to submit required annual toxic chemical release inventory forms to EPA and the appropriate state
authorities by the annual July 1st reporting deadline. The Region also continued to direct its
enforcement attention to facilities that failed to provide timely notification to government authorities
of accidental releases of hazardous chemicals and that failed to submit annual inventon'es of
hazardous chemicals to state and local authorities.
All of Region 1 's enforcement actions arose underthe administrative penalty provisions in EPCRA.
In FY 91, the Region issued 24 administrative complaints, proposing a total assessment of
$1,541,040 in penalties. Those figures are approximately equivalent to the figures for FY 90 when
the Region issued 25 complaints proposing $1,599,040 in penalties.
HIGHLIGHT: DELTA SURPRENANT AND CABLE, INC. COMPLAINT
I none of the largest EPCRA enforcement actions to date, onDecember29,1990,Region 1 proposed penalties
totaling $309320 against Delta Surprenant Wire and Cable, Inc. of Clinton, MA for failure to comply with
emergency planning reporting requirements concerning hazardous chemicals and toxic release reporting
requirements under EPCRA. The company did not submit requiredmaterial safety data sheets for hazardous
chemicals in excess of statutory thresholds or chemical inventoryforms before the statutory deadlines. Failure
to provide this information to state and local authorities and fire department hinders the development of
regionally coordinated and local emergency planning, thereby increasing the risk of ineffective response in
the event of an accidental release. In addition, the company failed to report the amounts of toxic chemicals
released into the environment during 1987 and 1988 by the reporting deadlines. Failure to report these
emissions in a timely manner frustrates the community's right to know about chemicals present in the
neighborhood, compromises the validity of health studies based on consequently inaccurate data bases, and
prevents comprehensive planning by federal, state, and local authorities to clean up industrial pollution.
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS
ISSUED
SETTLED
FY89
15
0
FY90
25
14
FY91
24
23
20
-------
HIGHLIGHT: L.S. STARRETT CO. COMPLAINT
LS. Slarrett Company of Athol, MA, received an 18 count administrative complaint onSeptember 27,1991,
proposing apenalty of$306,000forviolations of Section 313ofEPCRA. In both 1987 and 1988, the company
used aluminum oxide, dichloromethane, freon 113, methanol, sulfuric acid, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and toluene. In 1988, the facility also processed chromium and manganese. The company
failed to notify EPA or the state of the amount of such chemicals released into the environment by the required
reporting deadlines. The facility manufactures precision measuring tools, gauges, machine vises, handsaws,
and other miscellaneous products.
Also, Region 1 resolved 23 cases during FY 91 resulting in total penalties of $424,638, with
expenditures on supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) of approximately $128,000. This
compares favorably to the 14 cases which were resolved in FY 90 with total penalties of $368,940
and SEPs worth $95,000.
HIGHLIGHT: GARY CHEMICAL CORP. SETTLEMENT
On December 14,1990, in the largest EPCRA settlement to date, Region I resolved an administrative action
against Gary Chemical Corporation, a plastics and rubber manufacturing facility in Leominster, MA, for
failure to submit estimates of its emissions of four toxic chemicals as required by EPCRA. The complaint
against the company proposed a penalty of $168,000 for failure to notify EPA and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts of its emissions of lead compounds, antimony compounds, barium compounds, and di-(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalatein calendaryears 1987 and 1988. In settlement of the case, the company submitted the
required information and agreed to pay a penalty of $142,800.
PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
PROPOSED
ASSESSED
SEP
FY89
$515,000
0
0
FY90
$1,599,040
$368,940
$95,000
FY91
$1,541,040
$424,638
$127,800
21
-------
HIGHLIGHT: GRANITE STATE PACKING CO. SETTLEMENT
On August 15,1991,insettlementofanEPCRA administrative actionagainstGraniieStatePacking Company
ofManchester,NH,thecornpanyagreedtopcya$35,190penaltyanddonate$35,400wonhofcornputerand
otheremergencyresponseeq^menttotheStateEmergen(yResponseConmissionandtheMcmchesterFire
and Police Departments. The computer equipment will assist the SERC in tracking hazardous materials
within the state and will enhance fire and police hazardous material response capabilities. The company was
cited for failing to make timely notifications of a release of anhydrous ammonia and for failing to provide
chemical inventory data to local and state emergency planning groups.
HIGHLIGHT: BRISTOL COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY SETTLEMENT
On May 14,1991, Region 1 settled an administrative enforcement action against the Bristol County Water
Authority of Bristol, Rl, with an agreement which required both the payment of a penalty and a commitment
by the Water Authority to cease its use of a hazardous chemical. The Water Authority was cited inDecember,
1990, for its failure to make an immediate notification of a chlorine release at one of its pumping stations and
for its failure to submit chemical inventory data for 1988 and 1989. A penalty of $33,000 was proposed at
the time. The administrative action was settled by payment of a $7,000 penalty and expenditure of over
$70,000 to replace existing gaseowchlorinationequipmentwithless hazardous sodium
at pumping stations throughout the Water Authority's jurisdiction.
22
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Regionf' runs an enforcement
program consisting of both administrative and judicial components. Administratively, the program
focuses on the issuance of administrative complaints assessing penalties against violators of the
Agency's hazardous waste management regulations. In FY 91, the Region issued seventeen such
complaints which proposed to assess a total of $3,253,398 in penalties. This represents a two-
fold increase in the proposed penalty amounts as compared with FY 90. In addition, the Region
issued two consentorders commencing thecorrective action processat hazardous waste facilities.
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS ISSUED
FISCAL YEAR
1987
10
NUMBER
15
During FY 91, Region 1 achieved settlements in nine administrative RCRA penalty cases. Under
the terms of these consent agreements, which encompass sixteen separate facilities, the Agency
will collect $530,953. This represents more than twice the amount collected in the previous fiscal
year.
23
-------
CONSENT AGREEMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS ISSUED
FISCAL YEAR
8 10 12 14
HIGHLIGHT: SAFETY-KLEEN CORPORATION SETTLEMENT
InamiquesealementagreementfinalizedinJunel991,Safety-KleenCorporationagreedtopaya$100,000
adminisrrative penalty and produce an instructional videotape on EPA's Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
program. The RCRA consent agreement resolved the Region's issuance in September 1990 of a complaint
against Safety-Kleen's Bridgewater, MA facility whichproposed a penalty of $19,000 for violations of the
LDR. During settlement negotiations, information on similar violations at the corporation s seven other New
England facilities was discovered. EPA and Safety-Kleen agreed to expand the scope of the agreement to
include all eight New England facilities. The video production was proposed as a supplemental project to
mitigate the penalty amount. Under the agreement, Safety-Kleen will produce, with approval from EPA, an
instructional video on compliance with the LDR and distribute 150 copies to EPA and prominent trade
associations and industry groups.
24
-------
PENALTIES ASSESSED IN CONSENT AGREEMENTS
$600
AMOUNT (THOUSANDS)
.953
1987
1988
1989
FISCAL YEAR
1990
1991
For the first time, the Agency devoted a portion of its enforcement efforts to national enforcement
initiatives. Region 1 was an active participant in these national initiatives. During FY 91 .the RCRA
program participated in three such initiatives which focused on enforcement involving: 1) the land
disposal restrictions regulations; 2) the pollutant lead; and 3) hazardous waste exports. A brief
summary of each national initiative follows.
On February 22,1990, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed eight judicial enforcement actions in
U.S.districtcourts, while EPAtookdirect administrative actions against 20 facilities, assessing over
$3,500,000 in penalties for violations of the land disposal restrictions (LDR) regulations of RCRA.
The LDR regulations require treatment of most hazardous wastes, allowing only treated wastes
and residues from treatment to be disposed of on land. EPA's concern is that certain wastes, if not
treated prior to land disposal, could contaminate ground water, surface water, or soil. In Region
1, these actions included the filing of a lawsuit by DOJ against MTD Products, Inc. and Columbia
Manufacturing Company, Inc. for numerous violations at a facility in Westtleld, MA and adminis-
trative actions by the Region against three New England companies proposing penalties totaling
nearly $500,000.
25
-------
On July 31,1991, DOJ and EPA filed 36 judicial and administrative actions in a coordinated effort
to enforce lead regulations. Lead is a highly toxic metal that produces a range of adverse health
effects, particularly in children and fetuses. In Region 1, this included the filing of a lawsuit by DOJ
against Raymark Industries, Inc. of Stratford, CT.
HIGHLIGHT: RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. COMPLAINT
As acomponent of EPA'sleadenforcement initiative, the United Statesfileda civil complaint on July 31,1991
in the District Conn of 'Connecticut against Raymark Industries, Inc. The complaint requests that the Court
order Raymark to study and perform corrective action at its facility in Stratford, CT. Raymark had
manufactured automobile brakes and friction products at this 34-acrefacility from 1919 through 1989, and
disposedofits hazardous wastes (principally lead-asbestos wastes and dust) on-site. In some areas, this lead-
asbestos fill is up to 17 feet deep. There is also extensive ground water contamination on-site. Thecomplaint
requests that the Court order Raymark to comply with an administrative order issued by EPA on March 31,
1987, pursuant to Section 3013(a) ofRCRA, which instructs the company to study its site in order to ascertain
the nature and extent of the hazard created by the presence and release of hazardous waste. Raymark has
failed to comply withthe terms of the order. Based onthe results of this study, the complaints second claim
requests that Raymark be ordered by the Court to carry out a corrective action plan as approved by EPA,
pursuant to Section 3008(h) ofRCRA.
On September 26,1991, EPA took direct administrative actions against 16 facilities, proposing
over $3,000,000 in penalties in complaints including allegations of violations of the hazardous
waste exports requirements. The export provisions of RCRA prohibit the foreign shipment of
hazardous waste without the consent of both the United States and the receiving country. Under
RCRA, exporters of hazardous waste are required to obtain EPA's consent priorto shipping wastes
out of the country. A Notification of Intent to Export hazardous waste must be submitted to EPA
priorto export, the receiving country's consent must be obtained, and annual reports summarizing
the previous year's exports must be submitted. Region 1 issued administrative complaints against
four New England companies proposing penalties of $1,100,000.
Judicially, Region 1 also had a strong enforcement presence in FY 91. The Region made five
RCRA referrals for civil litigation. In addition to the already existing caseload, three new lawsuits
were filed in court during the fiscal year. All three cases seek large penalties and injunctive relief.
In addition, one of the Region's ongoing actions - that against United Technologies Corporation
- was significantly expanded during the last year with the addition of new claims and additional
facilities to the action.
26
-------
HIGHLIGHT: THE HANLIN GROUP, INC. COMPLAINT
In one of the Agency'sfirst efforts to enforce the terms of an interim status corrective action order, a complaint
wasfiledonJufySl, 1991 inthe District Court of Maine againstTheHanlinGroup, Inc. The consent order,
issued pursuant to Section 3008(h) ofRCRA required the company to conduct a site assessment with respect
to mercury, carbon tetrachloride, and chloroform releases to the ground water and mercury contamination
of soil at the company's Orrington, ME site and to submit an interim RCRA Facility Investigation report, all
ofwhichthecompanyisattegedtohavefailedtodoinaccordcmcewiththeorder.Theco
of penalties of up to $25,000per day for violations of the consent order and completion of the site assessment,
subject to EPA approval, as expeditiousfy as possible. Hanlin filed for protection from creditors under
Chapter 11 of the US. Bankruptcy Code three weeks prior to the filing of the complaint.
HIGHLIGHT: UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
AMENDED COMPLAINT
On April 1,1991, the United States amended the complaint filed in September, 1990 in the District Court of
Connecticut against the United Technologies Corp., significantly expanding the case to include additional
violatingfacilities, as well as violations at previously includedfacilities. The original complaint alleged over
100 violations of RCRA's requirements at six UTC facilities in Connecticut. These violations included
improperhazardouswastecontainermanagement,storageofhazardouswasteswithomape
personnel training andrecordkeeping, incomplete contingencyplanning, inadequate groundwater monitor-
ing, non-compliance with land disposal restriction notification requirements and export regulations, and
violations of 'a prior consent agreement with EPA. The amended complaint adds over 50 RCRA violations
at five of the original six facilities, at a Pratt & Whitney facility on Colt St. in East Hartford, andaSikorsky
Aircraft facility in Stratford, CT.
While Region 1 has its own enforcement program, the majority of the enforcement in the RCRA
program is carried out by the New England states' environmental agencies. In FY 91, there was
a significant decrease inthe number of formal administrative actions taken by the Region 1 states.
However, this decrease was somewhat offset by a doubling of the number of civil referrals made
to the State Attorneys General and a small increase in the number of informal actions. This
decrease in activity can be largely attributed to the fact that a numberof the state agencies incurred
staff furloughs and layoffs during FY 91. Region 1 has placed a greater emphasis on enforcement
to help offset some of the state reductions.
27
-------
STATE ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE OF
ACTION
NOTICES OF
VIOLATION
ORDERS
REFERRALS
FOR CIVIL
ACTIONS
CRIMINAL
ACTIONS
FISCAL YEAR
1987
519
144
17
1
1988
457
100
10
2
1989
398
108
18
0
1990
488
102
18
2
1991
508
59 |
37
1
28
-------
PESTICIDES
In cooperation with the states, EPA Region 1 continued its strong pesticide enforcement program
during FY 91. Region 1 initiated a total of 29 enforcement actions for violations of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) during FY 91. These actions included 24
Notices of Warning (NOWs), four administrative civil complaints, and one termination of the
registration of a pesticide-producing establishment.
The majority of the Region's enforcement actions arose from the annual reporting obligations
placed on producers pursuant to Section 7 of FIFRA. Under this provision, establishments which
produce pesticides or pesticidal devices must submit a report on or before March 1 of each year,
reporting the amount of pesticides produced and sold/distributed during the previous year. Of the
Region's 29 actions issued during FY 91, 24 were for violations of FIFRA Section 7. Of the
remaining enforcement actions, the region issued four NOWs and one administrative civil
complaint for $7,000 alleging violations of the pesticide registration requirements of FIFRA.
Region 1 also settled or obtained final decisions in five FIFRA administrative complaint actions.
EPA collected a total of $33,450 in civil penalties in these five actions.
HIGHLIGHT: REGION 1 COLLECTS LARGEST FIFRA PENALTY EVER
In a September, 1991, settlement between EPA and Gotham Chemical Co., Inc. of Stamford, CT, Gotham
agreed to pay a $21250 civil penalty for violations of FIFRA. EPA had brought an administrative action
against Gotham for its misbranding and adulteration of pesticide products used for controlling algae and
bacteria in water. Gotham sold these misbranded and adulterated products to four Connecticut hospitals in
1988 and 1989 for use in the water cooling towers of the hospitals. The penalty obtained in this settlement
is the largest ever obtained by Region If or violations of FIFRA and one of the largest ever obtained by the
Agency. The investigation into the violations was conducted jointly by EPA and Connecticut staff.
HIGHLIGHT: IN THE MATTER OF IMPEX INDUSTRIES, INC.
In a decision that has broad implications for the producers of ultrasound pesticide devices, Administrative
Law Judge Jf. Greene held that Impex Industries, Inc.'s ultrasound units were misbranded within the
meaning of FIFRA. Based on testing datapresented by EPA, Judge Greene found that Impels ultrasound
unitsdidnotcontrolorrepelrodents to thedegreeorwith the consistency stated on the labeling. EPA brought
theactionagainstImpexIndustriesofBillericafMAinIatel984. Judge Greene's June, 1991, dedsionalso
assessed a $1,000 penalty.
29
-------
During FY 91, the Region's pesticide staff, in cooperation with state inspectors, also conducted 11
inspections pursuant to FIFRA.
For the most part, however, Region 1 has delegated pesticides enforcement under FIFRA to the
states and supports this workthrough Cooperative Enforcement Grant Agreements and technical
assistance. Overall, the six New England states conducted 2,203 pesticide-related inspections,
well in excess of theircooperative agreement grant projections. The states initiated 438 pesticide-
related enforcement actions. While most of these actions were Notices of Warning, the states did
issue complaints proposing total penalties of $391,300. In addition, the states collected total
penalties of $237,850 in FY 91 .
STATE ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE OF
ACTION
CIVIL
COMPLAINTS
REFERRALS
FOR CRIMINAL
ACTION
INSPECTIONS
FISCAL YEAR
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
9
1
2,468
19
8
2,248
12
2
2,496
125*
0
2,573
14
1
2,203
* Includes eight referrals to the Connecticut Attorney General, sixty-three civil
complaints issued by Maine for Diquat misuse, and two referrals to the Massachu-
setts Attorney General.
HIGHLIGHT: CONNECTICUT LEVIES $150,000 CIVIL PENALTY
In a 1991 settlement with the State of Connecticut, Orldn Lawn Care Co.,Inc., headquartered in Atlanta, GA,
agreed to pay a $150,000 civilpenaltyandchange its methodofoperation within Connecticut. Orldn hadbeen
charged with numerous violations of state pesticide and water pollution laws arising from its contamination
of brooks and streams, disposal of pesticides into storm drains, illegal storage of pesticides, allowing
untrained employees to apply pesticides, and application of pesticides at incorrect addresses. The penalty was
the largest ever against a lawn care and pesticide company in Connecticut.
30
-------
WATER
Under the Clean Water Act in FY 91, the Region referred nine new cases for civil actions in federal
district court. This continued a strong effort in which a total of fifty civil cases have been referred
during the last five years.
REFERRALS FOR CIVIL LITIGATION
NUMBER
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
1987 1988 1989 1990
FISCAL YEAR
1991
In the ongoing water cases in litigation, the Region in FY 91 obtained $1,637,500 in civil penalties,
a record amount.
PENALTIES ASSESSED IN CIVIL JUDICIAL CONSENT DECREES
AMOUNT (THOUSANDS)
$2,000
$1.500--
$1,637.5
$1,000--
1987
1988 .1989 1990
FISCAL YEAR
1991
31
-------
Again in FY 91, a major priority for enforcement under the Clean Water Act was bringing Publicly
Owned Sewage Treatment Works (POTWs) into compliance. Because of high levels of federal
and state activity, Region 1 and the New England states have taken court actions against virtually
all major municipalities which did not complete construction of the POTWs by July 1,1988. During
FY 91 the Region focused on such major municipal cases as those involving Boston Harbor, New
Bedford, and the South Essex Sewerage District.
HIGHLIGHT: BOSTON HARBOR CLEANUP
Region 1's seven-year enforcement effort to clean up Boston Harbor paid off this past year as significant
compliance steps were undertaken. First, construction was initiated on the new treatment plant at Deer
Island, implementing years of planning and design work. Second, much ofFY 91 was spent planning to
terminate the discharges of sewage sludge into Boston Harbor, with the termination of that unlawful
practice occurring on December 24,1991. Finally, a major obstacle to the successful implementation of
the project was removed when the Massachusetts Legislature approved the transfer of land needed to
construct the Walpole landfill site. That landfill will be utilized to safefy dispose of grit and screenings
(sticks, rags, and the like) collected in the Boston area sewage system and to safefy dispose of treated
sludge if the sludge is not successfully marketed as fertilizer. At the request of EPA, the United States
District Court in February 1991 had imposed a sewer connection moratorium on new development in the
Boston area until the sensitive but critical issue of landfill siting was resolved.
EPA plans to continue to play an active role in this court enforcement case to ensure that the new treat-
ment plant is fully constructed, that the sludge discharges are permanently terminated, and that the raw
sewage overflows still occurring at various locations around Boston are addressed. The major effort
required will take a number of additional years in light of technical constraints and ratepayer (financial)
concerns. But this long overdue project needs to continue until the numerous violations of law are
corrected and the major threats to the harbor's beaches and fishing areas are fully addressed.
HIGHLIGHT: SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT SETTLEMENT
In September, 1991, EPA and Massachusetts settled a judicial action against the South Essex Sewerage
District which addressed the discharge of pollutants into Massachusetts Bay in violation of the Clean
Water Act. Under the consent decree entered by the US. District Court on September 16,1991, SESD
agreed to pay a fine of $225,000, comply with a schedule to construct a secondary wastewater treatment
plant, and meet interim effluent limits. SESD is a sewer authority that represents the communities of
Beverly, Marblehead, Peabody, and Salem, MA. It operates a 41,000,000 gallon a day primary
wastewater treatment facility in Salem. SESD had applied for and been denied a Section 301 (h) waiver
under the Clean Water Act, but had not proceeded to construct a secondary wastewater treatment plant.
The secondary plant will help to address the longstanding pollution problems in Salem Harbor.
32
-------
Another continuing priority 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. During FY 91, Region 1 concentrated on enforcement cases
against several major corporations. For example, EPA and the State of Connecticut continued to
prosecute their jointly filed suit against the Dexter Corporation for violations of the Clean Water Act
at its paper plant in Windsor Locks, CT.
HIGHLIGHT: ALLENS MANUFACTURING CO. SETTLEMENT
On May 21, 1991, the federal district court in Rhode Island entered a consent decree requiring Aliens
Manufacturing Co., Inc. of Providence, RI, to pay a $210,000 civil penalty and comply withfederaland local
pretreatment standards. Aliens specializes in the production of belt and shoe buckles and other metal
stampings. As a result of its metal plating operations, Aliens discharges process wastewater containing heavy
metals to the Narragansett Bay Water Quality Management District Commission publicly owned treatment
works. This discharge is governed by EPA's pretreatment standards. As alleged in the government's
complaint, Aliens repeatedly violated federal electroplating and metal finishing pretreatment limitations as
well as local pretreatment limits. In addition, Aliens violated various monitoring and reporting requirements.
A critical component of EPA's efforts to ensure high levels of compliance with water standards in
the Region is maintaining a strong field presence. In FY91, Region 1 conducted water inspections
at 150 facilities throughout New England.
Anothersignificant component of the water enforcement program is the enforcement activity by the
six New England states. During FY 91, the six states conducted a total of 421 water inspections,
issued atotal of 26 administrative orders, and referred four cases to their Attorneys General forcivil
litigation.
STATE ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE
OF ACTION
CIVIL
REFERRALS
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS
FISCAL YEAR
1987
33
74
1988
75
90
1989
43
80
1990
24
53
1991
4
26
33
-------
During FY 91, Region 1 maintained an aggressive administrative enforcement program. The
Region issued administrative compliance orders to 98 violators of the Clean Water Act. In addition,
in the four-year-old program enabling EPA to assess administrative penalties against violators,
Region 1 during FY 91 issued a total of sixteen new administrative penalty orders. Proposed
penalties in these cases ranged up to $125,000. The Region resolved thirteen administrative
cases during the year. The administrative penalties obtained by Region 1 during FY91 totaled
$401,500, a record amount.
PENALTIES ASSESSED IN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY ACTIONS
AMOUNT (THOUSANDS)
$500
$400 - -
$300 - -
$200 - -
$100--
$0-
$311
1.5
1988
1989
FISCAL YEAR
1990
1991
Also included in Region 1 's Clean Water Act enforcement program is an active enforcement effort
against those who unlawfully fill wetlands. During FY 91, the Region referred two new civil cases
for litigation to the Department of Justice, initiated one administrative penalty action, and issued
one administrative compliance order against violators of the wetlands laws.
HIGHLIGHT: WINDING BROOK TURF FARM SETTLEMENT
EPA brought suit against the Winding BrookTurfFarmin Suffield, CT after discovering that seventeen acres
of wetlands had been filled in connection with its operations. This case was resolved with the entry of a consent
decree on July 18,1991. The defendant agreed to restore the filled wetlands and pay a civil penalty of$35,000,
relief which EPA typically seeks in its wetlands enforcement program. In addition, the settlement contains
an innovative feature. In return for some consideration regarding the size of the penalty, the defendant agreed
to establish a conservation easement covering both the wetlands and land immediately surrounding the
wetlands. In this way, the wetlands will best get long-term protection.
34
-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
In FY 91 Region! continued an active and aggressive administrative enforcement program under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA issued administrative complaints assessing
penalties underthree different TSCA programs, one regulating PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls),
one regulating the manufacture and import of chemicals (Core TSCA), and one regulating
asbestos found in public schools (AHERA). The TSCA program issued complaints proposing a
total of over $2,749,000 in penalties in 1991, which was just shy of the $2,807,000 record amount
proposed in 1990.
Region 1 was the first region to issue Core TSCA complaints of any of the regions which received
the authority for this program from EPA Headquarters in 1990. Each of Regionl's two cases
proposed fines in excess of $600,000 for violation of the TSCA rules governing the manufacturing
or import of new or existing chemicals.
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS ISSUED
TYPE OF CASE
PCBs
ASBESTOS
CORE TSCA
1987
31
18
N/A
1988
20
4
N/A
1989
18
3
N/A
1990
19
14
N/A
1991
24
4
2
In addition to very aggressive case issuance, the TSCA program settled 26 administrative actions
in FY 91 fora record $1,257,000 in penalties, nearly $1,000,000 more than in each of the previous
two years. As part of these settlements, violators also agreed to over $1,841,000 in environmen-
tally beneficial expenditures for supplemental enforcement projects (SEPs). This also is a record
amount, exceeding last year's SEP expenditures by almost $1,600,000. SEP projects included
environmental audit provisions, early retirement of PCB equipment, and unique cross-media
projects such as a system to recover cleaning solvents and process changes to remove heavy
metals from ink pigments.
35
-------
PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
CATEGORY
PROPOSED IN
COMPLAINT
PCB
ASSESSED
PROPOSED IN
COMPLAINT
ASBESTOS
ASSESSED
PROPOSED IN
COMPLAINT
CORE TSCA
ASSESSED
1987
$1,333,600
$309,600
$244,600
$44,300
-
-
1988
$622,900
$503,600
$24,000
$18,300
m
-
1989
$1,186,800
$231,600
$32,000
$0
.
-
1990
$2,671,000
$242,800
$136,500
$12,400
.
-
,1991
$1,386,800
$1,226,300
$28,400
$31,100
$1,333,900
-
NOTE: There is not direct correlation between penalties proposed in complaints and penalties
assessed in any given year. The penalties assessed are often achieved in settlements of cases
commenced in prior years.
HIGHLIGHT: GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
In March, 1991, General Electric Co. agreed to pay a $150,000 penalty to settle Region 1' s complaint for
violations of the PCB rides. EPA charged GE with widespread violations at its Pittsfield, MA facility: failing
to mark PCB transformer locations properly, storing combustible materials near PCB transformers,
improper PCB storage, inadequate recordkeeping, and failing to follow required PCB spill response
procedures. GE also violated its approval for PCB incineration through improper operating and
recordkeeping procedures.
36
-------
HIGHLIGHT: PRECEDENTIAL SETTLEMENT OF PCB ACTION
AGAINST UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
To settle an action for widespread PCB violations at five of its Connecticut facilities, United Technologies
Corporation (UTC) agreed to pay $730,000 in penalties, a recordfor the regional program. The severity of
the violations and UTC's history of prior violations in New England prompted the assessment of the largest
TSCA penalty ever by Region 1.
The settlement also incorporates a unique commitment by UTC to submit to a PCB testing program and
compliance audit by an independent consulting firm, at four of its facilities. The audit firm will monitor
compliance with all PCB regulatory requirements, including proper marking, storage, and recordkeeping,
and will analyze UTC's management systems as they relate to PCB compliance. The audit is expected to be
completedin 1992. The settlement includes an additional supplemental environmentalproject in which UTC
will remove and properly dispose ofPCBsfrom PCB electrical equipment at three facilities at a cost of.
$150,000. The audit and the removal ofPCBsfrom equipment are expected to reduce the risks of spills,
improper disposal, PCB fires, and other human and environmental exposure at the facilities.
State Activities Under TSCA
During FY 91, Region 1 expanded its program of cooperative TSCA grants to the New England
states for both PCB and asbestos. The goals of the grants are to provide additional inspection
coverage for EPA enforcement efforts and to build the states' capability to undertake their own
enforcement programs.
TSCA PCB: Region 1 added Maine as athird stateto its PCB compliance program to conduct PCB
inspections under a new cooperative agreement. New Hampshire received a first-in-the-nation
EPA grant to develop state PCB waste regulations. New Hampshire is also being funded by a
second grant to perform case reviews and case development for issuance by EPA. Connecticut
is conducting case reviews and forwarding violative cases for development by EPA, as well as
pursuing enforcement of its own PCB disposal regulations. For example, the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection issued a Notice of Violation to Northeast Utilitiesforaspill
of 375 gallons of PCBs from a transformer which contaminated the French River. In response, the
company incurred cleanup costs of over $200,000.
37
-------
AHERA: The Region 1 AHERA program added Massachusetts to its asbestos compliance
program in FY 91. Massachusetts is conducting AHERA inspections under a cooperative
agreement and is the sixth New England state to accept an AHERA compliance grant. The
remaining New England states are conducting compliance inspections and have begun issuing
Notices of Noncompliance when appropriate for violations found during AHERA inspections
conducted under their continuing cooperative agreements.
Fourof the six AHERA grant states are also developing state enforcement legislation which, when
passed, will allow EPA to waive its enforcement authority in favor of the state programs. The other
two states, Connecticut and Rhode Island, already have AHERA waivers (the first in the nation)
which are supported by EPA grant assistance.
38
-------
FEDERAL FACILITIES
Federal statutes mandate thalfederal agencies comply with federal, state, ahd local environmental
pollution control requirements in the same manner and degree as other regulated entities.
Reflecting EPA'scommitment in this area, the Agency established the program goal that EPA shall
help ensure that federal facilities achieve compliance rates in each media program which meet or
exceed those of major industrial and major municipal facilities. EPA believes federal agencies are
obligated to demonstrate leadership in compliance activities and thereby act as examples to the
rest of the regulated community. In addition, Section 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly referred to as Super-fund,
requires that the federal government comply with the hazardous waste cleanup requirements of
the statute and regulations to the same extent as private entities.
While federal agencies are subject to the same requirements as private parties for environmental
compliance, there are complexities associated with the Agency taking traditional enforcement
actions. For example, EPA generally cannot bring civil judicial suits orassess civil penalties against
federal agencies (although EPA can bring such actions against contractors at government-owned
contractor-operated facilities). In recognition of these and other restrictions, Executive Order
12088 was issued.
Executive Order 12088 established a three tier approach for EPA to follow in ensuring that federal
agencies comply with environmental requirements by providing that EPA:
o Enforce environmental regulations using typical enforcement methods and/or
interagency dispute resolution procedures;
o Provide technical assistance and information to federal facilities concerning their
environmental compliance responsibilities; and
o Participate inthe budget review processes of otherfederal agencies to ensurethat
they direct adequate resources to environmental pollution control. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) A-106 Circular specifically addresses pollution
abatement planning and budget review.
Also, in November 1988, EPA published its Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy. The Strategy
provides a framework for all EPA media programs to ensure federal facilities are fully integrated
in state and federal compliance monitoring and enforcement efforts.
Nationally, the Federal Facility Program is managed by the Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
within the Office of Enforcement. In Region 1, there are two focal points for the federal facility
program: the Multi-Media Federal Facility Program and the Superfund Federal Facility Program.
39
-------
I. Multi-Media Federal Facility Program
In the past, the Regional Multi-Media Federal Facility Program focused on site-specific activities
such as review and assistance on pre-National Priorities List Superfund federal facilities and
administrative responsibilities. With additional staff assistance and the issuance of the National
Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy, the regional program's goals and activities have expanded
to include the following:
1. In coordination with the Region 1 media programs, ensure compliance with federal and state
environmental laws at federal facilities in the Region.
An internal Federal Facility Workgroup with representatives from all media areas was
established, potentially environmentally significant federal facilities were identified, and
these facilities were targeted for multi-media inspections. In FY 91, Region 1 emphasized
a multi-media enforcement approach under which the regional and state staffs conducted
comprehensive facility-wide inspections to determine whether the facilities were in com-
pliance with environmental laws.
The Region conducted four multi-media federal facility inspections in FY 91 which
uncovered numerous serious violations. The Region in concert with the states is currently
in the process of requiring thefacilitiesto come into compliance. The inspections conducted
at New England Navy facilities in FY 91 resulted in national focus on Navy base compliance
across the country.
2. Manage and utilize the Federal Facility Tracking System in Region 1.
The Federal Facility data base is a compliance record of the EPA/State inspections,
violations, enforcement actions, permits, and compliance rates for the 350 federal facilities
the Region is currently tracking. Region 1 chaired the National Federal Facility Tracking
System User Task Force and played a major role in developing and revising the Tracking
System. The Region has updated and incorporated five years worth of enforcement data
in the Tracking System. This data is provided to EPA enforcement managers and federal
facilities.
3. Act as the regional point of contact for federal facilities in Region 1 and provide active outreach
and technical assistance to facilities.
The Region regularly provides statutory, regulatory, and policy updates, information on
EPA training programs, and pollution prevention initiatives to federal facility environmental
managers through regional conferences, mailings, and EPA briefings. Bi-annual meetings
between the Air Force and Navy regional operations offices and the Region are held to
discuss compliance issues. All site-specific technical assistance is provided by the media
program staff.
40
-------
HIGHLIGHT: FOUR MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
CONDUCTED AT FEDERAL FACILITIES
InFY91,Region 1 conducted multi-media inspections atLoring AirForce Base, ME; Naval Submarine Base
New London, CT; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, ME; and Naval Education and Training Center, RI. The
inspections included reviews for compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource
Conservation andRecovery Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. The number of multi-media federal
facility inspections will increase in FY 92.
HIGHLIGHT: NEW ENGLAND FEDERAL FACILITIES
ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
Region 1 conducteda multi-media enforcement conferenceforfederalfacilities inNewEnglandinNovember
1990. Representatives from more than two hundred federal facilities and state officials attended, including
base commanders, environmentalmanagers, andattorneys. This two-day conferenceprovideda comprehen-
sive review of federal environmental requirements. The second Federal Facilities Conference will be held
in May, 1992, and the focus will be pollution prevention.
II. Super-fund Federal Facility Program
Under Super-fund, EPA is required to establish a Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket and to evaluate the facilities on the docket for inclusion on the National Priorities List.
Region 1 has over 40 federal facilities on the docket. Because of the size and complexity of the
facilities, and the need to obtain information on the nature of contamination from the facilities, the
evaluation process is time-consuming. The Region completed the evaluation of sixteen facilities
in FY 90 and 91.
As a result of the evaluations completed to date, nine federal facilities in Region 1 have been listed
on the National Priorities List. Section 120 of CERCLA requires EPA to enter into an Interagency
Agreement (IAG) with these facilities and to afford state and local officials the opportunity to
participate in the planning and selection of cleanup actions.
Because of the size of the federal facilities, the large number of contaminated sites on the facilities,
and the number of parties involved in the negotiations, the lAGs are complex documents. They
provide for the dean-up of the facility by the federal entity that owns the facility, with oversight by
EPA and, in cases where the state is a formal party, by the state. The lAGs contain schedules for
the cleanup process at the facility, with stipulated penalties against the federal entity for failure to
41
-------
meet the schedules. They also contain dispute resolution provisions with the EPA Administrator
as the final authority, and can be enforced by citizens under the CERCLA citizen suit provisions.
In FY 91, Region 1 completed negotiations and signed lAGs at six federal facilities. Negotiations
have been ongoing with the three remaining facilities on the NPL in the Region (Naval Construction
Battalion Center, Rl, Newport Education and Training Center, Rl, and Naval Submarine Base,
New London, CT.) Substantive investigation and cleanup activities are underway at all nine
facilities.
HIGHLIGHT: SIX INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS SIGNED
InFY91, Region 1 completed negotiations and signed JAGs
at the following federal facilities:
Brunswick Naval Air Station, ME (parties: EPA, Navy, and Maine)
(amended October 1990 to include Maine)
Pease Air Force Base, NH (parties: EPA, Air Force, and New Hampshire)
Loring Air Force Base, ME (parties: EPA, Air Force, and Maine)
FortDevens,MA (parties: EPA and Army)
Army Sudbury Training Annex, MA (parties: EPA and Army)
Otis Air National Guard Base/Massachusetts Military Reservation, MA
(parties: EPA, National Guard Bureau, and Coast Guard)
HIGHLIGHT: PEASE AIR FORCE BASE INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
InApril, 1991,Region 1, theAirForce,andNewHampshiresignedanIAGforthecleanupofPeaseAirForce
Base, the first base in the nation to close under the Base Closure and Realignment Act. The Pease agreement
is a national model for provisions relating to land transfer and access in connection with base closure issues.
Four other Region 1 federal facilities on theNationalPrioritiesListare either closedorscheduledfor closure,
placing emphasis on expediting cleanup.
42
-------
REGION 1 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS INITIATED
FY1987TOFY1991
CLEAN AIR ACT
CLEAN WATER ACT
SAFE WATER DRINKING 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
FY 1987
23
53
0
17
15
50
9
0
167
FY1988
29
47
0
9
13
27
9
1
135
FY 1989
31
lit
1
13
18
21
4
15
154
FY1990
38
62
8
17
22
33
5
;'.:::25;iii;i
210
FY1991
47
114
3
17
13
30
ill
I'SiSiSS
254
-------
REGION 1 CIVIL REFERRALS FOR LITIGATION
FY1987TOFY1991
CLEAN AIR ACT
CLEAN WATER ACT
SAFE WATER DRINKING ACT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT
COMPREHENSIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSE, COMPENSATION,
AND LIABILITY ACT
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL ACT
TOTALS
FY 1987
8
6
0
1
7
0
22
FY1988
7
13
2
0
14
1
37
FY1989
1
10
0
4
15
0
30
FY1990
10
12
0
4
13
0
39
F VI 99.1
6
9
o
5
10
2
32
-------
REGION 1 CRIMINAL REFERRALS TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FY1987TOFY1991
FY 1987
2
FY1988
7
FY1989
8
FY1990
8
FY1991
7
45
-------
COMPARISON OF EPA REGION 1 AND THE
NEW ENGLAND STATES1
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
IN FY 1991*
AIR
DRINKING
WATER
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
WATER
PESTICIDES
TOTAL NUMBER
OF ACTIONS INITIATED BY
THE SIX NEW ENGLAND STATES
ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPLAINTS/
ORDERS
13**
13
59
26
CIVIL
REFERRALS
3
0
37
4
14
NUMBER OF EPA
REGION 1 ACTIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPLAINTS/
ORDERS
47
3
26
98
4
CIVIL ;
REFERRALS
6
0
5
9
0
*Note: Because of differences in the enforcement mechanisms used by the six Region 1
states, the data presented in this chart may not reflect all state activity. The chart contains the
numbers reported to Region 1 by the states.
** Note: Because of a problem in reporting, the number of Air administrative orders issued by
Connecticut and Massachusetts in FY 1991 is under-reported here. By comparison, Region
1's FY 90 Enforcement Accomplishments Report reported that the six states issued a total of
43 administrative orders that year.
46
------- |