THE FIRST TWO YEARS
A Review ol EPA's Enforcement Program
n 0000000000
0000005^2
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Enfon and General Counsel
-------
PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF HEADQUARTERS ENFORCEMENT STAFF
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
General Counsel
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Enforcement
Director, Enforcement Proceedings Division,
Office of the Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Hater Enforcement
Director, Review & Coordination Division,
Office of the Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Enforcement
Director, Legal Support Division,
Office of the Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Enforcement
Deputy Assistant Administrator for General
Enforcement
Director, Mobile Source Enforcement Division,
Office of the Deputy Assistant Administrator
for General Enforcement
Directort Stationary Source Enforcement Division,
Office of the Deputy Assistant Administrator
for General Enforcement
Director, Pesticides Enforcement Division,
Office of Deputy Assistant Administrator
for General Enforcement
Director, Office of Technical Analysis
Director, Office of Permit Programs
Director, Office of Program and Management
Operations
John R. Queries, Jr.
Carl Eardley
Murray Stein
Thaddeus Rajda
Thomas H. Truitt
George V. Allen, Jr.
Norman D. Shutler
William H. Megonnell
Augustine E. Conroy, II
Gordon A. Everett
Albert Printz
Roger L. Williams
NATIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CENTERS
Director, Cincinnati, Ohio Angell D« Sidio
Director, Denver, Colorado Thomas P. Gallagher
REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND ANALYSIS OFFICERS
Enforcement Division Directors
I Herbert R. Pahren
Richard Johnson
II Gus J. Bennett
III Jacob P. Hart
IV John C. White
V James 0. McDonald
VI Thomas P. Harrison, II
VII Robert L. Markey
VIII Irwin L. Dickstein
IX Richard L. O'Connell
X Leonard Miller
John J. Vlastelicia
Surveillance & Analysis Directors
Edward V. Fitzpatrick
Richard T. Dewling
Albert Montague
John A. Little
Merle W. Tellekson
George J. Putnicki
Garry L. Fisk
Keith A. Schwab
David B. Clark
Gary L. O'Neal
-------
THE FIRST TWO YEARS
A Review of EPA's Enforcement Program
WILLIAM D. RICKELSHAUS
Administrator
JOHN R. QUARLES, JR.
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and General Counsel
February 1973
-------
THE FIRST TWO YEARS
A Review of EPA's Enforcement Program
Table of Contents
I Introduction 1
II Salient Enforcement Statistics 8
III WATER ENFORCEMENT REVIEW 17
1. Review and Authorities 17
2. Case Histories of Selected Individual Actions 21
a. Refuse Act of 1899 21
b. Refuse Act of 1899 Criminal Case 26
c. Mercury Pollution Abatement 2?
d. 180-Day Notices - FWPCA Section 10(c)(5) 29
e. Oil Pollution Cases 36
f. Enforcement Conferences 38
IV WATER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 49
1. Refuse Act Civil Actions Referred to Justice 50
2. Refuse Act Criminal Actions Referred to Justice 68
3. Refuse Act Cases Referred to Justice for Non-filing of
Application for Permit under Section 13 of 1899 Act 91
4* Abatement Letters of Commitment 106
5. Refuse Act Civil Actions Initiated by Justice-
Assistance of EPA 162
6. Refuse Act Criminal Actions Initiated by Justice-
Assistance of EPA 171
7. FWPCA Section 10(g) Civil Actions Referred to Justice 181
8. 180-Day Notices - FWPCA Section 10(c)(5) 182
9. Section 11 Provision of the FWPCA Actions 211
10» Enforcement Conference Actions 219
V AIR ENFORCEMENT REVIEW 22?
1. Review and Authorities 22?
a. Stationary Sources 22?
b. Mobile Sources 231
2. Case Histories of Selected Individual Actions 234
a. Emergency Episode Proceedings (Stationary Sources) 234
b. Implementation Plan Enforcement Proceedings 236
(Stationary Sources)
-------
c. Abatement Conference Proceedings (Stationary 238
Sources)
d. Civil Actions for Violations of Title II of the
Clean Air Act (Mobile Sources) 239
e. Application for 1 Year Suspension of Motor Vehicle
Emission Limitations (Mobile Sources) 240
f• Cases Referred to Justice Department (Mobile
Sources) 241
VI AIR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 242
1, Air Enforcement Actions 243
2. Abatement Conferences 246
VII PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT REVIEW 250
1. Review and Authorities 250
2. Case Histories of Selected Individual Actions 254
a. Prosections 254
b. Recalls 256
VIII PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 259
1. Pesticides Enforcement Actions 260
11
-------
INTRODUCTION
This is a report on the enforcement program conducted by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency from its formation on December 2,
1970, through December 31* 1972. During this period the activities of
the Federal Government in direct enforcement of environmental regulations
have increased enormously. It has been a time of rapid change, signifi-
cant accomplishment and endless challenge.
When the Environmental Protection Agency was established, a strong
policy directive from the President and from EPA Administrator William
Ruckelshaus was to strengthen enforcement. The need for a new tough
enforcement policy was clear. In case after case, from one end of the
country to the other, environmental regulations were not being met.
Deadlines for completion of abatement programs were perceived as only
targets, and "slippage" was commonplace. Few sanctions existed, or
were applied, to deter the foot-dragger.
The programs transferred into EPA under Reorganization Plan No. 3
of 1970 had placed only slight emphasis on enforcement. Their focus
had been chiefly on research and demonstration projects, field investi-
gations and other studies, approval of state standards, state program
grants, technical assistance, grants for construction of municipal
waste treatment facilities, and the pesticides registration program.
The principal involvement with enforcement had been the conduct of
public-hearing-type enforcement conferences focusing attention on a
large number of major water pollution problems and a lesser number of
air pollution problems. On only the rarest occasions did the Federal
environmental agencies ever resort to court action to compel compliance
with pollution control requirements. Enforcement was regarded as the
responsibility of state and local governments.
The policy of EPA has been to reverse the traditional orientation
of its predecessor agencies and to engage, directly and forcefully, in
a full range of enforcement actions. The vast majority of EPA enforce-
ment activities to date have dealt with problems of water pollution.
The development of regulatory programs concerning water pollution has
been considerably advanced historically over comparable programs con-
cerning air pollution, thereby providing innumerably more cases where
legal and technical factors warrant enforcement action. In addition,
the Refuse Act of 1899 has greatly facilitated litigation to abate
water pollution. As implementation of the Clean Air Act of 1970 has
-------
proceeded, however, EPA has brought a small number of highly ijnportant
enforcement cases under that Act. During the past year, EPA has also
markedly accelerated the tempo of enforcement of the Federal pesticides
laws. The radiation and solid waste programs of the Agency have not
included enforcement activities.
General Policy
Within the first few weeks after EPA was formed, we adopted a
phrase which has been used again and again to describe the objective of
the EPA enforcement policy. It is "Fair But Firm". Our program has
placed emphasis on thorough preparation and consideration of all facts
pertinent to a case, including mitigating circumstances and evidence
of good faith, combined with an unflinching readiness to take whatever
enforcement action might be required to deter recalcitrance or foot-
dragging and to compel needed abatement efforts.
In our efforts to obtain commitments from polluters to undertake
abatement programs, it is EPA policy to seek voluntary compliance before
resorting to formal enforcement proceedings. To assure adherence to
this policy, we early established an internal procedural requirement
that the responsible EPA officials meet with representatives of the dis-
charger before initiating any proceeding. As the aggressiveness of our
enforcement program has become widely recognized, these informal con-
ferences to obtain voluntary compliance have been increasingly productive.
A dominant aspect of the new enforcement program has been its
concentration on individual cases of environmental abuse, coupled with
a full readiness to take these cases to court. The Agency has continued
the practice of conducting water pollution enforcement conferences in
which the pollution problems of a large area are exposed to full public
scrutiny and recommendations adopted by a Federal-State hearing panel.
Because of the cumbersome statutory procedures for enforcement of such
recommendations, however, the focus of EPA efforts has shifted to zeroing
in on individual dischargers and establishing direct confrontation, either
through a 180-day notice administrative proceeding or by court action.
The Refuse Act has provided jurisdiction for immediate court action
against industrial dischargers, and EPA has freely utilized that juris-
diction rather than the restrictive procedures of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
The vast majority of EPA efforts (though not the majority of cases
by number) have been directed against major sources of pollution, typi-
cally involving large national corporations or big cities. For example,
-------
one out of every three civil injunctive actions initiated by EPA under
the Refuse Act involved plants owned by companies ranked among the "500
Largest Corporations in the United States", as identified in the May
1972 issue of FORTUNE Magazine. During the summer of 1971, a group of
roughly 2700 "major dischargers" were identified for priority efforts.
These individually targeted enforcement actions have given punch to the
entire framework of environmental regulations and have driven across
the message that deadlines for completion of abatement facilities must
be accorded the respect of law.
Regionalization
During its first two years, EPA has integrated the various program
units received through the Reorganization and has carried out a far-
reaching regionalization of personnel and responsibility. In enforce-
ment, this has required the creation of a fully self-sufficient enforce-
ment capability in each of the ten Regional organizations. To fill the
expanded EPA enforcement role, the Agency has hired and trained large
numbers of legal and technical staff, developing nearly from scratch
the techniques of preparing cases for litigation.
The total EPA enforcement program (including the water pollution
permit program) has a current staff of nearly 1500 persons. This is
roughly five times the level of staff for enforcement when EPA began
operations. The annual enforcement budget is in the range of $35
million. The overwhelming majority of staff are in the field, chiefly
in the Regional Enforcement Divisions (which handle legal and technical
case preparation, negotiations and public hearings) and in the Regional
Surveillance and Analysis Divisions (which provide essential services,
including source investigations, sample collection and laboratory
analysis).
In the early days of EPA, all important decisions on enforcement
cases or strategy were made by a small headquarters staff in Washington.
Over time, the bulk of this responsibility has been delegated out to
the Regional Administrators and their Enforcement Division Directors.
To facilitate this delegation, standard policy guidelines and procedures
have been established for handling enforcement actions. This transfer
has cut down the flow of paper work and placed operating control of
cases in Regional officers who, being closer to the facts, can respond
to them with greater sensitivity and speed. The Agency's expanded
enforcement program has now given those officers in every Region a back-
log of experience on which to rely in carrying out their enlarged
responsibilities.
-------
Relationships with States, U. S. Attorneys and Citizens
A highly sensitive facet of the enforcement program has been mainte-
nance of cooperative relationships with officials of state pollution
control agencies. Because enforcement had been widely regarded as a
State responsibility, the appearance of EPA on the firing line of direct
contact with polluters has caused some confusion and occasional friction.
Procedures of consultation on all cases have been established to meet
the obvious need for close coordination. The Agency's approach has been
that states should perform the majority of pollution control enforcement
work but that direct Federal action in selected cases is vital. The
Federal presence can productively supplement State efforts when the
manpower of State agencies is stretched thin. It can also strengthen
the effectiveness of State controls by visibly assuring that a uniform
stringency of enforcement will be maintained from State to State.
Another critical set of relationships has developed between the
EPA enforcement personnel and the Department of Justice, including local
U, S. Attorneys. In all court actions, EPA is formally represented by
Justice or a U. S. Attorney. During these two years, enormous headway
has been achieved in familiarizing these attorneys with the EPA programs
and in educating EPA staff in the details of preparation for trial.
In a great many instances, both EPA and the U. S. Attorneys have
received important data and other assistance from private citizens.
Citizen activity in enforcement cases is expected to grow as a result
of the citizen suit provisions of the new air and water pollution
Federal laws.
Perspective on Enforcement as a Tool
A review of EPA's enforcement activities reveals both the strengths
and the limitations of formal enforcement proceedings, particularly
litigation, as a tool for achievement of pollution control. It seems
apparent that the careful but determined aggressiveness of EPA's enforce-
ment program has been a major contributor to the heightened intensity
of the current national pollution control effort. Where schedules of
compliance have been established, tough enforcement is indispensable to
deter avoidable slippage. The same is true where careful operation and
maintenance of abatement facilities are required to meet established
standards of performance. It should be recognized, however, that the
effectiveness of enforcement in such cases depends heavily on the prior
existence of clearly defined obligations of abatement. When, as so
often has been true in EPA's cases, only vague or inadequate abatement
-------
requirements have been previously established, the job of individual case
enforcement is made immeasurably more difficult.
The establishment of requirements for pollution control and the
policing to assure that those requirements are lived up to are two funda-
mentally quite different functions. Individual case litigation is a
cumbersome process to use for setting the basic requirements in any
large number of cases. The technical complexities affecting establish-
ment of a stringent but feasible abatement program for a major industrial
plant are enormous. Presentation of evidence on these issues to a judge
in litigation entails long delays and voraciously consumes manpower.
Moreover, individual litigation can provide little assurance of fulfilling
the basic rule of fairness that comparable requirements are being imposed
on comparable dischargers. Nor can individual litigation assure that the
sum of abatement requirements in a given area will achieve a designed
overall reduction in the air or water pollution of that area.
In a number of landmark cases, court actions for civil injunctive
relief have achieved major breakthroughs in requiring adoption of strin-
gent abatement programs. Court actions have also achieved noteworthy
success in several instances where special environmental values or other
unusual factors have been involved. Reliance on litigation for these
special purposes will doubtless continue in the future. From the simple
arithmetic of caseloads and manhours, however, it is perfectly clear that
on a nationwide basis other systems allowing greater use of administra-
tive technical judgment must be utilized as the primary means to estab-
lish specific abatement requirements for the great majority of polluters.
The Chief role of enforcement must be to compel compliance with those
requirements rather than to establish them.
Evolution of the Enforcement Program
The enforcement program of EPA during the past two years has been
in a fluid and active state of evolution. Recent legislative develop-
ments make it clear that in the near future further evolution will
occur.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 enacted
on October 18 have transformed the basis for enforcement activities
concerning water pollution. The new law has eliminated the traditional
enforcement conference and has replaced the 180-day notice with a stream-
lined 30-day notice mechanism. The new law has also abolished the
Refuse Act as an independent basis for bringing court action against
industries. The 1972 Act establishes a new national permit program under
-------
which every discharger must obtain a permit setting forth in specific
effluent limitations the abatement requirements applicable to it.
Except for spills and a few other limited situations, the law forbids
initiation of new enforcement cases between now and December 31, 1974*
against any discharger until its application for a permit has been
acted on.
The enforcement program in water pollution will therefore be sub-
stantially curtailed for the immediate future. Virtually the full
efforts of the water enforcement staff will be channeled into the permit
program until sufficient permits have been issued to provide a basis for
renewed enforcement activities. Although this change will temporarily
suspend the pressure for effective control which springs from the threat
of enforcement action, the new permit program will provide a complete
and systematic review of existing abatement requirements for all dischargers
and will permit on an efficient basis a precise definition of their
obligations. This is badly needed.
With respect to air pollution, the big new law came two years
earlier, the Clean Air Act of 1970, enacted on December 31 of that year.
That law launched a comprehensive program to establish abatement require-
ments for sources of air pollution across the country. Implementation
plans to achieve national ambient air quality standards went into effect
in most cases in May or July of 1972, and the details of compliance
schedules should be finalized on or about February 15, 1973* A separate
program for abatement applies to mobile sources. The complex and in-
numerable requirements imposed under the Clean Air Act will present a
colossal challenge to the enforcement programs of EPA and the State
agencies. Several important actions have already been initated and
many more are in prospect.
A new law covering the Federal pesticides programs was also en-
acted at the end of the last session of Congress on October 21, 1972.
The law makes many major changes in the overall program, including
important new enforcement provisions such as increased penalties and
stop sale authority. Our program in that area should, therefore, continue
to improve in much the same accelerating manner as before the new
legislation. Important new legislation for EPA was also enacted last
session concerning ocean dumping and noise pollution. Both of these
programs are in their preliminary stages, however, and significant
enforcement activity is not expected in the immediate future.
Conclusion
The charts and tables which accompany this report reflect the
intensity of EPA's enforcement efforts during its first two years. The
-------
large numbers of cases listed require a cautionary note of explanation.
It is essential to emphasize that these listings by no means represent
a compilation of successful results;, In some cases, the impact of EPA
action has indeed caused new or accelerated pollution control efforts
to be undertaken. In others, EPA efforts have fallen through without
effect, and in a number of cases referrals to the Department of Justice
have been properly rejected for inadequate supporting evidence or other
reasons. A great many of the actions are still pending and their ultimate
resolution remains uncertain. Where success has been achieved, the re-
sults have often been at least partly due to State, local, or private
actions, and in all court proceedings a substantial share of credit for
any success belongs to the Department of Justice and the U. S. Attorneys.
Thus, the total listings comprise a wide assortment of cases and real
success can be safely presumed in only some indeterminant fraction of
the total.
Taken all in all, however, this report does clearly reflect the
new thrust and accelerated tempo of Federal environmental enforcement
efforts since the formation of EPA. This prodigious enforcement activity
has expressed with unmistakable clarity and force the new national com-
mitment to effective pollution control. It has spoken to all who might
be recalcitrant or sluggish in meeting their environmental obligations,
that whenever the facts so indicate the Environmental Protection Agency
stands ready and able to prosecute those who pollute.
John R. Quarles, Jr.
February 1973
-------
SALIENT ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS
Precise measurement of the results of an enforcement program
is virtually impossible. A few statistics can only suggest the
extent of its impact. Further insight may also be obtained by
examining results in significant individual cases.
The growth in enforcement proceedings initiated is shown in
the tables at the end of this chapter. These show during the
first two-year period:
a. in Water Pollution
- 106 civil actions referred to Justice under the
Refuse Act
169 criminal actions referred to Justice under
the Refuse Act
- 96 additional cases referred to Justice under
the Refuse Act for failure to apply for a
permit
- 143 water quality standards violation notices
(180-day notices)
- 8 new enforcement conferences
b. in Pesticides
- 148 criminal actions referred to Justice
Thus far, fines were collected in 107 of the water cases. The
total amount of these fines was $214,085, of which $28,500 was
suspended in 10 cases; another $10,000 fine levied in a single case
(the PICCO case) was appealed and is currently under Supreme Court
review. As many fines were based on multiple counts of a particu-
lar offense, it is not possible to compute a meaningful "average
fine;" it is worth noting, however, that the maximum fine under the
Refuse Act could not exceed $2,500 for any single offense.
Fines have been collected in 30 of the pesticide cases, for
a total amount of $54»550; in seven of these cases, fines totaling
$20,700 were suspended. Under the Clean Air Act, a fine of $10,000
was imposed on the Ford Motor Company as a consent decree was
entered enjoining it from introducing vehicles into commerce with-
out EPA certification.
8
-------
Important accomplishments in individual enforcement actions
include:
- Florida Power and Light Company, Turkey Point, Florida,
has undertaken a $35 million construction of cooling
ponds to cut thermal discharges into Biscayne Bay
(consent decree).
- ITT-Rayonier, Port Angeles, Washington, has begun a $20
million abatement program to treat sulfite pulp mill
wastes (consent decree).
— Armco Steel, Houston, Texas, has completely eliminated
«"n discharges from its coke plant and blast furnace into
Houston Ship Channel, thereby halting the discharge of
large quantities of cyanides, phenols and ammonia (consent
decree).
- United States Steel, Fairfield, Alabama, is committed to
an abatement program which will reduce discharges of
cyanides 93$, ammonia 92$, phenols 99.5$, and BOD£
(consent decree). '
DuPont, East Chicago, Indiana, is committed to an exten-
sive, 2-phase abatement program (consent decree).
- City of Atlanta adopted a rate increase to provide the
necessary local funds to proceed with a $64 million
municipal waste treatment program, following 180-day
notice.
- City of Detroit undertook an extensive construction
program approved by State of Michigan and EPA, following
180-day notice.
- City of Cleveland and suburbs entered into regional
management system under order of the County court and
adopted comprehensive abatement program, following 180-
day notice.
Ford Motor Co. paid $10,000 fine and agreed to EPA
interpretation of statute in first suit to enforce a
Clean Air Act prohibition against interstate shipment
of uncertified cars.
- 23 industries in Birmingham, Alabama, were ordered to
curtail operations in the first court suit to enforce
emergency provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Details on these and many other individual enforcement actions taken
by EPA are discussed in detail in the sections on Water Enforcement
Review, Air Enforcement Review and Pesticides Enforcement Review.
-------
In addition to these documented direct results of the EPA
enforcement program, our reputation for aggressive enforcement has
probably influenced the development of acceleration of air and
water pollution abatement programs.
10
-------
Number
of
Actions
1,200
1,000
800
TOTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS* 1956 - 1972 (Cumulative)
600
400
200
u
'Comprises Referrals to Justice Department for Prosecution,
as well as Other Pollution Abatement Actions Identified in
the Appendix.
1956
1968
1969
• i
1970
1971
1972
II
-------
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS* 1956 • 1972
EPA
20
40
80
100 200
Number of Actions
400
600
800
1,000
12
Comprises Referrals to Justice Department for Prosecution,
as well as Other Pollution Abatement Actions Identified in
the Appendix.
-------
Number
of
Actions
600
500
400
300
200
100
WATER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
DEC. 2, 1970
(Cumulative Total Number of Actions)
(By Month)
FWPCA*
180-DAY NOTICES
AND OIL SPILL
PROSECUTIONS
UNDER SECT. IJ
OF FWPCA.
REFUSE ACT ACTIONS
CIVIL CRIMINAL RELIEF
AND NON-FILING OF REFUSE
ACT PERMIT APPLICATION
I
I
I
I
NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT..NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT.
1970 1971 1972
* (Excludes Conference-Type Actions)
13
-------
Number
of
Actions
280
WATER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS* 1956 - 1972
240
<
o.
200
160
120
80
40
Comprises Referrals to Justice Department
for Prosecution, as well as other Pollution
Abatement Actions Identified in the Appendix.
<
Q.
Ill
IU
DC
Q.
2
in
IU
K
O.
<
a.
HI
I
cc
Q.
Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V Region VI Region VII Region VIII Region IX
14
-------
Number
of
Actions
350
300
250
200
150
100
WATER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS UNDER THE REFUSE ACT
PRE-EPA AND EPA*
3/1970 to 11/1972
(Cumulative Totals of Actions, by Month]
PRE-EPA
REFUSE ACT
CIVIL SUITS
AGAINST
10 MERCURY
DISCHARGERS
FIRST
•REFUSE ACT
CIVIL SUIT
FLORIDA
POWER LIGHT
EPA
•Includes EPA Initiated Cases Only;
Excludes Cases Initiated by Justice
Department with Assistance by EPA
Regional Offices.
Month
Year
15
-------
100
80
60
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT REFERRALS TO JUSTICE 1968 - 1972
40
20
2
LU
K
a.
I
a.
UJ
cc
a.
<
Q-
LU
I
a.
UJ
UJ
DC
<
Q.
* z
LU Ul
DC
fessssiSBar^r
UJ
K
UJ
I
UJ
1
2
LU
a.
UJ
UJ
DC
a.
a.
LU
LU
BE
2
LU
UJ
E
a.
Region 1 Region II
Region III Region IV Region V Region VI Region VII Region VIM Region IX
16
Region X
-------
Ill
1
O "J
>
QC
UJ
I
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT REVIEW
Review
The Federal water quality program is a major component of
the Environmental Protection Agency. Its activities for the
maintenance and protection of the quality of the Nation's waters
for all legitimate uses are basic to the framework of the Agency's
purposes and to its capabilities for the accomplishment of those
purposes.
The functions of the Federal Water Quality Administration
were transferred from the Department of the Interior, effective
December 2, 1970, pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970.
These functions provided the Agency's role in the administration
of the standards-setting and enforcement, research, and financial
and technical assistance aspects of the water pollution control
program. The program had previously been transferred to the
Department of the Interior from the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, effective May 10, 1966, pursuant to Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1966.
Through the vigorous application of all of the available
water enforcement mechanisms, which are described hereafter, EPA
built in its first two years an impressive enforcement record,
told only in part by these statistics: 8 new enforcement con-
ferences of a total of 59 held since 1957 under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, in addition to reconvenings and additional
conference sessions and progress evaluation meetings; 161 water
quality standards violation notices (180-day notices) to municipal
and industrial dischargers issued under that Act, 11 having been
issued by the Agency's predecessor; 97 civil actions, and 143
criminal actions, under the Refuse Act referred to the Department
of Justice, and 83 cases involving failure to apply for a permit
under that Act.
Authorities
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, in former section 10,
provided for (1) the abatement of pollution of interstate or
navigable waters endangering the health or welfare of persons, and
(2) for the abatement of pollution lowering the quality of inter-
state waters below the water quality standards established under
the Act.
17
-------
The first authority, provided in 1956 and expanded by subsequent
enactments, set out a three-step enforcement procedure — conference,
public hearing, and court action. The succeeding step was taken if
satisfactory progress toward abatement was not attained at the
preceding step. The conference could be called at State request
in a case of interstate or intrastate pollution. The conference
could be initiated by EPA in a case of interstate pollution. The
Administrator could also initiate a conference in certain cases of
pollution, resulting in economic injury to shellfish producers
whether or not the pollution of interstate or navigable waters was
interstate in effect. Under standard procedures the conferees,
representing EPA, the States, and any interstate water quality
agency, convened to review the existing situation and any progress
made, to lay a basis for future action for all parties concerned
and to give the States, localities, and industries an opportunity
to take any indicated remedial action under State and local law.
The second authority, provided in 1965, permitted court action
against a discharger alleged to be in violation of water quality
standards, after expiration of a 180-day notice period. The
legislative history of the 1965 enactment directed that an informal
hearing be held on request of a State, the alleged violator, or
other interested party, so that, if possible, voluntary agreement
could be reached during the 180-day period, thus eliminating the
necessity for suit. EPA regulations provided for an informal hearing
in any case of a water quality standards violation notice.
The Act was amended in 1970 to provide, in former section 11,
for the abatement of pollution by oil in navigable waters, on
adjoining shorelines, and in the Contiguous Zone. EPA has shared
responsibilities under section 11 with the Coast Guard and other
Federal agencies. These responsibilities were assigned by section 11;
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,
August 1971 (superseded Plan issued June 1970); and Executive Order
11548, July 1970, delegating functions of the President under the
1970 enactment. Federal enforcement may be taken in these cases;
(1) failure to notify of harmful discharge (criminal penalty);
(2) knowing harmful discharge (civil penalty); (3) vessel in
marine disaster (removal or destruction, cost recovery); (4)
imminent and substantial threat, onshore or offshore facility
(court relief); (5) recovery of cleanup cost; (6) violation of
removal and prevention regulations (civil penalty). EPA was made
responsible for enforcement in the case of an imminent and
substantial threat to the public health or welfare because of an
actual or threatened discharge of oil into or upon navigable waters
18
-------
from on onshore or offshore facility (former section 11(e)). EPA
was assigned responsibility in inland waters for the assessment
of civil penalties in cases of violations of removal and prevention
regulations, and the support of the Coast Guard in its enforcement
responsibilities. (This authority continues substantially unchanged
in the amended Act, section 311, and now covers as well pollution
by hazardous substances.)
The Refuse Act, section 13 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899,
prohibits the discharge of refuse (except that flowing from streets
and sewers and passing from them in a liquid state) into navigable
waters without a permit, or in violation of the conditions of a
permit. The Act was administered for many years by the Army Corps
of Engineers primarily in the interest of navigation. Although
court decisions had supported the Act's use in water pollution
abatement cases, it was not until 1970 that it became a viable
water pollution enforcement mechanism. The Act does not expressly
provide for injunctive relief, but the Supreme Court has ruled that
the Federal Government may obtain injunctions under the Act.
Generally, EPA has not recommended criminal prosecutions under
the Refuse Act other than in cases of isolated or instantaneous
discharges resulting in serious damage. A civil remedy has generally
been more effective in preventing future pollution.
The Refuse Act Permit Program, established under Executive Order
11574, December 1970, took effect July 1, 1971. The program required
that all discharges or deposits into navigable waters or their
tributaries, or into waste treatment systems other than municipal
from which the matter will flow into navigable waters or their
tributaries, should be made only in compliance with the conditions
of a permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. EPA was responsible
for determinations with respect to water quality aspects of the permit.
The failure to make timely application for a Refuse Act permit under
the program became cause for enforcement action.
A Federal court decision in the Kalur case December 21, 1971,
enjoined the granting of permits under the program until the Army
Corps of Engineers amended its permit regulations to require
environmental impact statements as specified by the National
Environmental Policy Act. The court also held that no permits
whatever could be issued for discharges into nonnavigable tributaries
of navigable waters. A further legal obstacle was created by the
decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the PICCO case,
May 30, 1972, that the company could not be held criminally responsible
for discharges under the Refuse Act until a permit system was in
operation. These legal difficulties were removed with respect to
future cases by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972.
19
-------
As a result of the Kalur decision, EPA established in April 1972
a voluntary abatement program, the abatement commitment letter program.
Its purpose was to enable EPA to move forward toward the permit program
goal of requiring dischargers to adopt comprehensive abatement programs
with greater speed and efficiency than would be possible if formal
litigation were instituted against every discharger. EPA would secure
letters of commitment from individual dischargers, setting forth their
agreement to undertake an abatement program satisfactory to EPA. These
commitment letters set out specifically what the discharger intended to do
to abate pollution caused by his discharges, and when it would be accom-
plished. Negotiation of commitment letters was backed up by the sanction
that if agreement could not be reached, EPA would request that suit be
filed. This program filled a temporary void until the new water law was
enacted, and during its operation over 180 commitment letters were signed
throughout the country.
The following pages present an overview of more significant water
enforcement actions the Agency has taken, as well as significant achieve-
ments. In addition, the section on water enforcement actions discusses the
salient facts on every water enforcement action taken by the Agency.
20
-------
CASE HISTORIES OF SELECTED INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS
Key water enforcement actions taken under the authorities
described in the preceding part are discussed in this section of
the review.
Refuse Act of 1899 Civil Cases
(1) United States v. Florida Power and Light Company,
1 ERG 1283 (D.C. Fla. 1970)
The Biscayne Bay Enforcement Conference was held in
February 1970 and recommended that Florida Power and Light abate its
thermal pollution so that there would be no discharge in excess of
90°F at any time. No action was taken by the Company and on
March 13, 1970, the Justice Department filed suit in U. S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.
In the lawsuit, the United States sought to protect
the Biscayne National Monument and to enjoin the defendant power
company under the Refuse Act from discharging heated water into
Biscayne Bay at Turkey Point. The Government alleged that the
heated water was causing harm to the marine life of the Bay. Since
the Court found only "minimal and retrievable" damage to the ecology
of the Bay, a preliminary injunction was not granted.
In September 1971, after lengthy and difficult nego-
tiations involving EPA, the Department of Justice, the Department
of the Interior, the State of Florida, and the company, the case
was resolved by consent decree. By the terms of the Decree, the
defendant agreed to build within five years a recirculation-cooling
system that would minimize thermal discharges to the Biscayne Bay
Estuary. The company is required to build an extensive system of
canals between Turkey Point and Card Sound. While the system is
being built, the company may use the canals to discharge cooling
water into Card Sound. Once the system is in operation, the canals
will allow discharges of water to prevent excessive concentration
of salts in the cooling system. The total cost of the project is
expected to be about 35 million dollars.
21
-------
(2) United States v. Armco Steel, 33 F. Supp. 1073
(D. C. Tex 1971)
The United States filed suit against Armco on
December 9, 1970, in the Federal District Court in Texas to enjoin
the daily discharge of approximately 1010 Ibs. of cyanides, 385 Ibs.
of phenols, and 6200 Ibs. of ammonia into the Houston Ship Channel
under the Refuse Act. Negotiations to settle the case followed but
no agreement could be reached. In June and July 1971, the case went
to trial with issues centered on whether the company should be
enjoined from discharging into the Ship Channel and from completing
an underground injection well system. On September 17, 1971> the
Court issued an order enjoining the defendant from disposing of
its toxic wastes into the Ship Channel.
On November 4, 1971, a consent decree was filed with
the Court by the parties. The decree permits limited discharges to
the Channel on the condition that the defendant complete construction
of an incineration system for the disposal of wastes. The decree
also requires the complete elimination of discharges from certain
outfalls presently discharging to the Channel. The Company has com-
plied with the requirements of the Consent Decree and has eliminated
its harmful discharge into the Houston Ship Channel.
(3) United States v. E. I. duPont de Nemours £• Co.
(East Chicago. Indiana), Civil No. 71H53 (N.D. Ind. 1972)
On February 19, 1971, suit was filed against duPont's
plant in East Chicago, Indiana, under the Refuse Act to halt the
discharge of approximately 137,000 pounds a day maximum of dissolved
solids and other pollutants into the Grand Calumet River. A consent
decree terminating the litigation was filed with the Court on
November 14, 1972. The Decree provides a two-phased resolution of
the Company's discharge problems. The first phase requires interim
treatment levels that can be achieved within the next two years.
This will result in a substantial reduction in discharge levels
consistent with currently available technology. By October 15,
1974, the Company is required to submit a plan for the further
treatment of its wastes consistent with the best practical control
technology available at that time. The implementation date for
these additional facilities is December 31, 1976. The Decree pro-
vides for liquidated damages of $5,000 per day for any violation of
either the effluent requirements or the deadlines.
22
-------
A civil suit has also been brought, and a criminal
conviction obtained, against U.S. Steel, Gary, Indiana, another
discharger into the Grand Calumet River. In addition, other dis-
chargers into the Grand Calumet undertook voluntary abatement plans
to reduce their discharges to a level acceptable to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. The Agency is seeking to secure the
reduction of many discharges into one waterway through its
enforcement actions.
(4) United States v. ITT Ravonier, Inc. (D.C. Wash. 1971)
In 1967, the Federal-State Puget Sound Enforcement
Conference recommended that ITT remove 80% of its sulfite waste
liquors discharging from its pulpmill by September 30, 1972.
Since the Company did not comply, the Administrator of EPA
requested the Justice Department on January 31, 1971, to take
legal action against the Company. At this time, the Company was
daily discharging approximately 10,450 tons of sulfite waste
liquors, 881 tons of solid materials, 255 tons of biochemical
oxygen consuming wastes, and 51 tons of sulfur from its Port
Angeles, Washington, plant.
A civil Refuse Act suit was filed on March 30, 1973, in
U.S. District Court in Washington. At the same time, a stipulation
was signed and entered into Court by the parties. The agreement re-
quires the Company to install waste treatment facilities to achieve
85% removal of wastes by June 30, 1974. In addition, the Company must
construct a pipeline into the Straits of Juan de Fuca to disseminate
the wastes away from the shore. The Company may be required to dredge
sludge beds in Port Angeles harbor in which solid wastes have been
deposited. The total cost to the Company for the entire project is
about $20,000,000.
(5) United States v. United States Steel Corp., (Fairfield,
Alabama) Civil No. 71-523 (D.C. Ala. 1972)
On June 14, 1971, the United States filed a civil
suit under the Refuse Act against the U. S. Steel Corp., at
Fairfield, Alabama for discharging daily over 40,000 pounds of
suspended solids, oil and grease, over 1,100 pounds of cyanide,
over 4,000 pounds of phenols, and other substances into Oppossum
Valley Creek. After extensive technical investigation and nego-
tiations, the parties entered a consent decree on October 18, 1972,
terminating the law suit. The Company agreed to complete within
17 months a deep well treatment system for the disposal of waste
pickle liquor, install within 27 months a recirculation system
-------
for its coke plant with ammonia stripping and activated sludge
treatment for the blowdown, operate within 12 months a hydro-
thickener for treatment of the tin mill wastes, and construct with-
in 17 months an effluent control pond. These treatment facilities
will achieve a reduction in phenols of 99.5%, in cyanide of 98%, in
ammonia of 92% and in 5-day BOD of 84%. The effluent requirements
are defined in terms of net daily loading for the critical param-
eters. Monitoring and reporting provisions are also contained in
the decree.
(6) United States v. Reserve Mining Company (D. C. Minn.)
Federal enforcement proceedings against the Reserve
Mining Company began in 1969 with the Lake Superior Enforcement
Conference. Approximately 67,000 tons of taconite tailings are
discharged daily into Lake Superior. The Conference involved
informal discussions with the States and polluters of Lake Superior
to determine the problems that existed and appropriate abatement
steps. Following the second session of the Conference, held in
April and August of 1970, the Administrator of EPA recommended that
Reserve submit its preliminary plans by December 1, 1970, and final
plans by July 1, 1971. At the January 1971 meeting of the second
session, Reserve proposed a disposal system which involved removal
of the heavier tailings by stripping and thickening and adding a
coagulant to the fine tailings so that the fines would settle.
The tailings would then be discharged to the Lake. The conferees
did not endorse any disposal method; an alternate method was on
land disposal. At the reconvened second session in April 1971,
the conferees recommended that further Federal enforcement measures
be initiated against the Company. Reserve failed to comply with
the Conference recommendations, and was served on April 28, 1971,
with a 180-day notice for violation of the Federally approved water
quality standards applicable to Lake Superior. After failing to
reach a voluntary solution in an informal hearing, EPA, on January 19,
1972, formally requested the Attorney General to institute
immediate legal action seeking abatement of the pollution caused
by Reserve's discharge of taconite tailings.
On February 18, 1972, suit was filed against Reserve
in the United States District Court in Minnesota under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, alleging a violation of water quality
standards, and the Refuse Act of 1899. The complaint was amended
to include a count under the Federal common law of nuisance. On
June 14, 1972, the Court permitted the States of Wisconsin and
Michigan and four environmental groups to intervene as plaintiffs,
and eleven local towns and business groups to intervene as defen-
-------
donts. In the summer and fall of 1972, the parties were involved
in the interrogatory and discovery stage of the litagation. On
November 9, 1972, the Court denied Reserve's motion to dismiss
pending completion of all pretrial discovery. Depositions of
the parties' expert witnesses are scheduled in the first quarter
of 1973. The case is expected to go to trial in the spring of
1973.
-------
Refuse Act of 1899 Criminal Case
(1) United States v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corp.
(PICCo) (3rd Cir. 1972)
In August 1970, private citizens took samples of PICCo's
discharge of industrial wastes into the Monongahela River. The
Company did not have a Section 13 Refuse Act permit. After the
citizens notified the United States Attorney of the situation,
a criminal information against PICCo was filed on April 6, 1971,
under the Refuse Act. Criminal charges were also made against
the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, Jones & Laughlin Steel
Corp., and the United States Steel Corp., all in the Pittsburgh
area. A jury returned a verdict of guilty on June 20, 1971.
On May 30, 1972,the Court of Appeals reversed the convic-
tion and granted a new trial. The Court held that a defendant
charged with violation of the Refuse Act based on evidence
obtained before December 1970, could both offer proof of the non-
existence of a permit program and state that the Corps misled
the defendant into believing that a permit was not necessary.
On December 18, 1972, the Supreme Court agreed to review
the Circuit Court of Appeals decision.
26
-------
Mercury Pollution Abatement
In the spring of 1970, mercury was recognized as a
critical situation in the pollution control field. In
Canada, fish taken from Lake St. Claire were found to contain
concentrations of mercury in excess of the limit of .5 parts
per million set by the Food and Drug Administration and
generally accepted by other scientists throughout the world.
At the same time the findings by scientists that mercury
or a chemical compound of mercury may be transformed in the
aquatic environment to methylmercury, a most toxic form,
became generally known. It was also known then that methyl-
mercury could be biologically accumulated. That is, as
higher forms of life consumed lower life forms, the mercury
concentrations increased. With this knowledge the potential
hazard to public health from increasing or unreduced discharges
of mercury became clear. The disastrous results of man's
consumption of fish containing excessive mercury levels was
too graphically illustrated by the Minimata Bay incident in
Japan, where over forty persons died as a result.
An intensive Federal water pollution control effort was
launched. A list of known or potential mercury users was
compiled, and teams of investigators from each of the nine
regions (then of the Federal Water Quality Administration,
Department of the Interior) covering the entire United States
began conducting on-site inspections of each of the potential
mercury users. From these inspections and an improved
knowledge of the sources and users of mercury and products
containing mercury, other potential dischargers were identi-
fied and inspections carried out.
When Federal agency inspectors believed mercury might
be discharged, effluent samples were taken and analyzed by
the national field investigatory unit in Cincinnati. This
national unit had the sophisticated equipment, expertise and
experience to provide the prompt and accurate results essential
to a serious regulatory effort. This group of experts passed
their knowledge and techniques to other laboratories through-
out the country and the efforts accelerated.
Within twelve months 884 on-site inspections to determine
potential mercury sources were completed. Through these
inspections and detailed analysis, 73 mercury dischargers were
identified. Court action under the Refuse Act was taken
against ten of those dischargers; and through meetings with
other identified dischargers, voluntary agreement to immediate
and substantial reductions was obtained.
27
-------
As of September 17, 1970, 50 industrial dischargers of
mercury had been identified and had achieved an 86% reduction
in the amount of mercury being discharged. By the spring of
1971, analyses of those same 50 industrial discharges showed
that a total reduction of 97 percent had been achieved. Among
those 50 industries were the discharges subject to the ten
mercury pollution suits. These ten dischargers were among
the first discovered, and a 98.4 percent reduction in the
mercury discharged had been achieved in those cases. The
entire group of dischargers known in the spring of 1971 had
achieved a 91 percent reduction in mercury discharges.
In the court cases, interim stipulations had been
entered in nine cases by the end of October 1970, while in
the tenth, the offending chlor-alkali plant had been volun-
tarily closed. The case against Oxford Paper Company was
dismissed in the latter part of 1971 by the Federal District
Court in Maine. Since 1970, EPA has been continuously
monitoring all of these companies' discharge levels. EPA
is presently conducting mercury sediment surveys and develop-
ing recommendations for the disposal or treatment of sedimen-
tary mercury in each case. It is anticipated that final
consent decrees will be entered in the remaining eight cases
that will permanently reduce the amount of mercury discharge.
By mid-1971, an awareness of mercury as a serious water
pollution problem was widespread, and special attention to
the potential of mercury discharges was routine. The
challenge of immediate and substantial reductions to remove
a serious threat had been met; and a persistent, long-term
effort was needed to assure that the gains made were not lost,
that there would be continuing attention to further reducing
the small remaining discharges and that new or heretofore
undetected sources would be found and brought under control.
The Refuse Act Permit Program provided the needed tool then,
and currently the new legislation provides the program of
control through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System. The occasional discovery of additional industries
discharging large quantities of mercury continues to be met
with the same requirement for vigorous action to achieve
immediate and substantial reductions, while the program of
effluent permits assures constant attention and continued
efforts to further reduce mercury discharges.
28
-------
180-Day Notices - FWPCA Section 10(c)(5)
(1) City of Atlanta, Georgia
On December 9, 1970, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency issued a 180-day notice to the City of Atlanta,
Georgia, for discharging effluent into Utoy Creek and the
Chattahoochee River in violation of established State and Federal
water quality standards.
The-informal-hearing-was held-January 12,-1971. At the informal
hearing, the Mayor of Atlanta agreed to propose a detailed plan to
the City's Board of Aldermen at the Board's January 18, 1971,
meeting, for funding the necessary treatment facilities so that a
detailed construction schedule could be developed. Action was
promptly initiated by the City to finance and schedule the con-
struction of remedial facilities.
This schedule calls for construction to be completed at the
R.M. Clayton plant by May 1973, and construction to be completed
at the Utoy Creek plant by April of 1973. On June 11, 1971, the
Administrator approved Atlanta's time schedule for construction
of the necessary facilities. Atlanta's new treatment facilities
are now well under construction. It is possible that the construction
deadlines may be missed by a few months. In a project of this
magnitude, such delays are not unusual, and compliance, therefore,
is considered to be satisfactory.
(2) City of Detroit. Michigan
On December 9, 1970, the Administrator of Environmental
Protection Agency issued his first 180-day notice.. One was
issued to the City of Detroit for violating the State and Federal
water quality standards established for the Detroit River and
Lake Erie. The standards being violated included those for
floating solids, residues, dissolved oxygen, taste and odor pro-
ducing substances, nutrients, and suspended, colloidal, and
settleable materials.
An informal hearing on the notice was held in Detroit on
February 1, 1971. As a result of the hearing and subsequent
meetings among EPA, Detroit, and the State of Michigan, agreement
was reached on an abatement program for the City. The specifics
of the agreement are embodied in a Final Order of Determination
issued to Detroit by the Michigan Water Resources Commission on
29
-------
May 21, 1971. The Final Order was adopted unanimously by the
State Commission with EPA's endorsement. While original recom-
mendations of the Lake Erie Federal-State Enforcement Conference
called for only 80 percent total phosphorus reduction, the
Detroit agreement calls for 90 percent removal of phosphorus by
the end of 1975. In addition, the agreement requires a 90 per-
cent reduction in biochemical oxygen consuming wastes by the
summer of 1976, when full secondary treatment is to be in opera-
tion.
The major problem being encountered by the City of Detroit
at this time is the removal of suspended solids. In cooperation
with the State of Michigan, an acceptable program of solids
disposal in a sludge cake landfill is being investigated. This
massive landfill project will handle up to 800 wet tons of
filtered out suspended solids per day. A site has been selected
by the contractor in nearby Macomb County, north of Detroit.
It should be noted that the State of Michigan has offered
consistent and active support to the City in its effort to
resolve its water pollution problems.
(3) Cleveland, Ohio and 30 Suburban Communities
City of Cleveland
On December 9, 1970, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency issued a 180-day notice to the City of Cleveland,
Ohio, for violation of Federal-State water quality standards for Lake
Erie. The violations cited concerned public water supply criteria
for bacteria, recreational criteria for bacteria, and the "four
freedoms." On January 28, 1971, an informal hearing was held pursuant
to the established 180-day notice procedures. After months of nego-
tiations between EPA, the City of Cleveland, and the State of Ohio,
an agreement was reached. This agreement was not fully implemented
principally as a result of:
1. The lack of approval by the Cleveland City
Council of an increase in the sewer rate
structure required to implement the plan; and,
2. The lack of an agreement between Cleveland and
the 31 suburban communities that are connected
to the Cleveland system.
On July 20, 1971, EPA called a meeting in Cleveland to assess the
necessity for further direct EPA abatement action in the Cleveland area
in order to fully implement the agreement between EPA and Cleveland.
It was clear that the plan agreed to by the City of Cleveland and EPA,
even though reasonable in terms of dates for compliance and facilities
to be built, could not be met unless the City of Cleveland and the
suburbs it serves reached an agreement on a plan to pay for the needed
improvements.
30
-------
Issuance of the 180-Day Notices to the Suburbs
On August 9, 1971, the Administrator issued 180-day notices to
the 30 suburban dischargers to the City of Cleveland sewerage system
for violation of Federal-State water quality standards;" these viola-
tions being public water supply criteria for bacteria, recreational
criteria for bacteria, and the "four freedoms." (The City of Euclid
discharges part of its waste to the Cleveland system. A separate
180-day notice was issued to Euclid on July 30, 1971.)
The Lake Erie water quality criteria compliance schedule viola-
tions result from the collective discharges by Cleveland and the
suburbs through Cleveland's three inadequate treatment plants. The
suburbs account for approximately 40 percent of the wastes discharged.
Prior to the issuance of the 180-day notices to the suburbs,
the responsibility and burden for control of pollution in the
Cleveland area had essentially been placed on the City of Cleveland
alone. The State of Ohio, in April of 1970, imposed a building ban
on the City of Cleveland to halt further connections to the sewer
system.
On September 24, 1971, an informal hearing was held, pursuant
to the 180-day notice, between EPA and the 30 suburban dischargers.
The State of Ohio and the City of Cleveland also participated. At
the hearing, all parties emphasized the need for the City and the
suburbs to reach an expeditious agreement as to financing and manage-
ment of the Cleveland Sewerage System.
Agreement was not reached on a specific program and EPA continued
its negotiations with the parties involved.
Actions in the Cuvahoqa County Court of Common Pleas
During this period of negotiation, a judicial hearing was held
in the on-going case of the Water Pollution Control Board of the
State of Ohio v. the City of Cleveland. This hearing was held on
December 1, 1971. The action had been initiated by the Ohio Water
Pollution Control Board in 1970 to enforce the building ban which
it had placed on Cleveland in April of 1970. At the December 1971
hearing, the court heard testimony from both parties as to the
violations by Cleveland of the Board's order and the pollution
problem in general in the Cleveland area. The court, at the con-
clusion of testimony, granted Cleveland's motion to implead the
suburban dischargers as third party defendants. A new hearing
date of January 18, 1972, was set for Cleveland's motion to extend
the building ban to the suburbs.
31
-------
On December 7', 1971, there was also a hearing in a separate
local case before the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas concerning
sewer rates being charged to certain suburbs by the City of Cleveland.
The court at this hearing merged the rate case with the Ohio Water
Pollution Control Board's building ban case and directed:
"On or before January 11, 1972, all parties
(Cleveland and the 31 suburbs) will formulate
and file with the court a plan, acceptable to
themselves, for a metropolitan sewer system."
At the January 18, 1972, hearing both Cleveland and the suburbs
submitted their respective metropolitan or regional treatment system
proposals. The plans, as submitted, were far apart and the court
ordered the parties to meet on January 26, 1972, to discuss the
differences in their proposals. The three main differences centered
around control of the system, plant operation, and rate structure.
On the issue of the building ban, the court granted Cleveland's
motion for a temporary restraining order extending the ban to the
suburbs for 14 days (until midnight February 2, 1972) without a
formal hearing on the merits.
On February 1, 1972, the three major areas of differences were
discussed in open court by the involved parties.
On February 15, 1972, the court heard testimony with reference
to the type and makeup of a possible metropolitan Cleveland sewer
district and the conditions that should be established in creating
such a district.
At the end of the testimony, the court modified its temporary
restraining order imposing its building ban by issuing a permanent
injunction against the City of Cleveland and 29 of the suburbs.
On February 23, the court held an informal hearing with the City
of Cleveland and the suburbs to discuss the buyout provision for
equitably reimbursing or crediting Cleveland for the existing
sewerage facilities.
On March 20, the parties involved presented evidence before the
court as to the value of the Cleveland system as it now exists.
EPA supported the court in its efforts toward establishing a
regional sewer district. Because of the continued forward movement
of the court, further EPA legal action was held in abeyance.
On June 15, 1972, the court issued a Judgment Entry creating the
Cleveland Regional Sewer District (CRSD.) (This objective was pursued
by EPA prior and subsequent to the issuance of the 180-day notices.)
The City of Cleveland will be paid $35 million by the CRSD for its
sewage treatment facilities. At first, the City of Cleveland will
have control of CRSD, but as the population continues to shift to
the suburbs so will the control of CRSD.
32
-------
On June 23, 1972, the court lifted the building ban, but retained
jurisdiction in the case.
With the establishment of the CRSD, the Cleveland area is now
set to launch an effective cleanup program.
Las Vegas Wash, Nevada
On December 23, 1971, the Administrator of Environmental Protection
Agency issued 180-day notices to fourteen dischargers to Las Vegas Wash,
an intrastate tributary of Lake Mead, an impoundment of the Colorado
River, in violation of the Federally approved water quality standards
for the State of Nevada.
The standards for the Colorado River require that such waters be
free from materials attributable to domestic or industrial waste in
amounts sufficient to affect color or odor, to create a public nuisance,
or to interfere with any beneficial uses. The discharges were increasing
the salinity of the Colorado River causing economic damage to municipal,
industrial, and agricultural users downstream. The discharges were
also contributing to the gross eutrophication of Las Vegas Bay, a
portion of Lake Mead which is an impoundment of the Colorado River. The
eutrophication was being caused by the addition of nutrients causing
excessive growth of algae affecting color and odor of water and leading
to the staining of boat hulls, a decline in recreational use, and a
decrease in aesthetic value.
Hearings were held on January 25, 1972; satisfactory commitments to
abate pollution have been made by all fourteen recipients. Region IX
continues to monitor progress.
Four of the dischargers, (#1) Clark County Sanitation District,
(#2) Las Vegas Valley Water District. (#3) City of Las Vegas, and
(#4) City of Henderson, are working together to abate pollution.
The Las Vegas Valley Water District, representing the four agencies,
met with EPA on March 1, 1972, and April 21, 1972. By letter in
June 1972, the District provided EPA with a report providing schedules
for the development of treatment and disposal facilities. The
schedule calls for the completion of facilities by September 30, 1975.
(#5) Nevada Power Company has pledged to tie into a regional
wastewater management system on which construction is to begin in the
fall of 1973 and which is to be completed by December 31, 1975. In
the event a service agreement cannot be negotiated by October 1973,
the firm has pledged to proceed with the design, construction, and
operation of its own facilities by October 1, 1973, with a completion
date of December 31, 1974.
(#6) Basic Management, Inc. is responsible for wastes discharged
by seven firms which enter Las Vegas Wash from unlined evaporation
ponds. Those firms constructing their own treatment facilities will
cease discharging to the ponds by December 31, 1974. Plants which are
joining the regional wastewater management system will cease discharging
to the ponds by December 31, 1975.
33
-------
By letter of May 26, 1972, (#7) Kerr-McGee Chemical Company
committed itself to a facilities modification and construction program
leading to decreased water use and to no discharge by December 31, 1974.
By letter of May 31, 1972, (#8) Stauffer Chemical Company
conditionally committed itself to a program which includes treatment of
wastes discharged by (#9) Montrose Chemical Corporation. This program
provides for in-plant modifications, treatment, and disposal to lined
evaporative ponds and approved disposal sites. Facilities are to be
completed by December 31, 1974.
(#10) U. S. Lime Division, Flintkote Company, has committed
itself to a facilities modification and construction program leading
to decreased water use and to no discharge by January 31, 1973.
Titanium Metals Corporation of America has pledged to tie
into a regional wastewater management system on which construction is
to begin in the fall of 1973 and which is to be completed by
December 31, 1975. In the event a service agreement cannot be negotiated
by October 1973, the firm has pledged to proceed with the design,
construction, and operation of its own facilities by October 1, 1973,
with a completion date of December 31, 1974.
Discharges from (#12) Jones Chemical Company, Inc. have been
permanently abated by evaporation of the effluent stream and disposal
of solid residue at an approved location.
By letter of June 8, 1972, (#13) State Stove and Manufacturing
Company committed itself to initiate construction of lined evaporation
ponds by June 1, 1973, and complete construction by June 1, 1974,
resulting in no discharge.
Discharges from (#14) Nevada Sand and Gravel Company have been
permanently abated through the use of lined holding evaporation ponds
and disposal of solid residue from the ponds at an approved location.
Holly Sugar Corporation
Holly Sugar Corporation, a sugar beet processing company at
Torrington, Wyoming, was issued a 180-day notice on June 15, 1971,
for discharging inadequately treated wastes to the North Platte
River, an interstate stream, approximately nine miles upstream
from the Wyoming-Nebraska State line. The bacterial pollution
resulting from the sugar beet processing waste violated Federally
approved coliform criteria in Nebraska.
At the informal hearing, held on July 21, 1971, Holly Sugar
agreed to make every effort to install interim systems prior to
the 1971-72 sugar beet campaign, and to complete its permanent
treatment system prior to the 1972-73 campaign.
34
-------
The Corporation has complied with all requirements and the
implementation schedule as agreed upon at the hearing.
A closed flume system is installed and Holly Sugar is in
compliance with water quality standards.
Ashland Oil & Refining Company
On June 22, 1971, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency issued a 180-day notice to Ashland Oil and Refining Company at
Ashland, Kentucky, for discharging effluent into the Big Sandy River,
an interstate waterway, in violation of established State and Federal
water quality standards.
The Kentucky water quality standards state that waters must be:
Free from materials attributable to municipal,
industrial or other discharges or agricultural
practices producing color, odor or other con-
ditions in such degree as to create a nuisance.
Free from substances attributable to municipal,
industrial or other discharges or agricultural
practices in concentrations or combinations
which are toxic or harmful to human, animal,
plant, or aquatic life.
Furthermore, the standards of West Virginia, which require that
phenols not exceed .001 mg/1, were also being violated.
The informal hearing was held on August 6, 1971. After negotiation,
an abatement program was developed. The Company's schedule calls for
completion of recommended waste treatment facilities by November 1,
1974. This schedule was submitted as part of Kentucky's amended water
quality standards which were approved by the Administrator on December 23,
1971.
There is still some question about the phenols discharged by the
company. Further limits on the phenol discharge may be set through
the new permit program.
35
-------
Oil Pollution Cases
(1) United States v. The Refinery Corporation
Criminal Case No. 72-CR-100
U.S. District Court - Colorado
On November 1, 1971, EPA's Denver, Colorado, office was notified
that Refinery Corporation, an oil refinery located at 5800 Brighton
Boulevard, Commerce City, Colorado, had discharged an undetermined
quantity of oil into Sand Creek, a tributary of the South Platte
River. Notification of the discharge was given by a newsman
affiliated with KROW, a Denver radio station. Following an inspection,
EPA officials determined that oil had reached the South Platte River.
At a meeting with EPA officials, Mr. Richard Rankin, plant manager
for the Corporation, admitted that the Company was responsible for
the discharge, and stated further that no notification had been
given to any U. S. Government Agency, despite the fact that Rankin
had previously been notified by the U. S. Attorney of his notification
obligations under Section ll(b)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
On March 13, 1972, a criminal information was filed in U. S. District
Court, charging Refinery Corporation with a violation of Section 11
(b)(4). This suit was instituted by the United States Attorney
following a recommendation by EPA.
Defendant filed a plea of Not Guilty, and on April 17, 1972, filed
a Motion to Dismiss the Information. The Motion contended, inter
alia, that the South Platte River was not a navigable stream, and
that the notice requirement of Section 11(b)(4) was unconstitutionally
vague. At a hearing held before Judge Winner on April 21, 1972,
defendant's motion was summarily denied, and the case set for trial.
Prior to the trial date, defendant amended its plea from Not Guilty
to Nolo Contendere. Defendant's amended plea was accepted by
Judge Winner, and at a hearing held on July 7, 1972, the defendant
was convicted of a violation of Section ll(b)(4) and was fined a
sum of $5000, of which $4000 was suspended, and the defendant was
placed on probation for a period of two years.
(2) United States of America v. Carolina Mills, Inc.
On February 7, 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency
received a report from the North Carolina Air and Water Resources
Commission that oil had entered South Fork Catawba River from an
unknown source -- a mystery spill. John C. White, Enforcement
Director of Region TV, dispatched an attorney to investigate, and
Al Smith, Chief of the Region's Emergency Branch, organized a
containment and clean-up operation. Investigation revealed that
-------
on February 7, 1972, a fuel oil storage tank overflowed, spilling
approximately 5,000 gallons at Carolina Mills, Inc., Newton,
North Carolina.
The Company failed to report the spill to either the U. S.
Coast Guard or the Environmental Protection Agency, as required
by Section ll(b)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
When confronted with statutory responsibility for clean-up, the
Company did extend full support to the EPA-directed removal effort
which resulted in recovery of almost 50% of the oil spilled. The
textile firm also reimbursed the Oil Pollution Contingency Fund
for exceptional expenses incurred by EPA in spill response.
On September 25, 1972, Carolina Mills offered a plea of
nolo contendere to a criminal charge for failure to report an
oil spill. United States District Court Judge Woodrow W. Jones
rejected the plea and entered a verdict of guilty. The fine was
set at a nominal $500.00 based on the judge's opinion that full
cooperation by the Company was a mitigating circumstance.
(3) U.S. v. Kennebec River Pulp £» Paper Company, Inc.
(Madison, Maine)
On March 10, 1972, a fitting fractured on a one and one-half inch pipe
leading from a heat exchanger at the company's facility at Madison, and
300 gallons of Bunker C fuel oil leaked • out and entered the Kennebec
River, where it was lost in the swift current. A citizen reported the
spill to the United States Attorney in Portland, Maine, on April 19.
The U.S. Attorney in turn asked the EPA regional office in Boston to
investigate. EPA attorney Charles Corkin II ascertained that proper
federal officials had not been notified of the spill by the company,
and located witnesses to the discharge through a local conservation
group and at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game. Corkin
transmitted his findings to the U.S. Attorney, who presented them to
the federal grand jury. An indictment was returned on June 22, 1972,
on two counts: one under the Refuse Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §407) for the
discharge itself, and one under the oil spill reporting provisions of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §1161(b)(4)). The
defendant corporation entered a guilty plea to both counts on September 29,
1972, and was sentenced on October 13 to pay a fine of $500 on the
Refuse Act violation, and $1000 on the failure to notify violation.
Because of the shaky financial position of the company, the $1000 fine
was remitted.
37
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCES
38
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
-------
WATER POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCES
The 59 enforcement actions taken under the authority first
provided in 1956 are listed below and may be located by number
on the accompanying map. The last eight conferences were convened
after EPA was established, and conferences were also reconvened
under EPA, additional conference sessions held, and progress
evaluation meetings held.
1. Corney Creek Drainage System
2. Big Blue River
3. Missouri River-St. Joseph, Missouri Area
4. Missouri River-Omaha, Nebraska Area
5. Potomac River-Washington Metropolitan Area
6. Missouri River-Kansas Cities Metropolitan Area
7. Mississippi River-St. Louis Metropolitan Area
8. Animas River
9. Missouri River-Sioux City
10. Lower Columbia River
11. Bear River
12. Colorado River and all Tributaries
13. North Fork of the Holston River
14. Raritan Bay
15. North Platte River
16. Puget Sound
17. Mississippi River-Clinton, Iowa Area
18. Detroit River
19. Androscoggin River
20. Escambia River
21. Coosa River
22. Pearl River
23. South Platte River
39
-------
24. Menominee River
25. Lower Connecticut River
26. Monongahela River
27. Snake River-Lewiston, Idaho-Clarkston, Washington Area
28. Upper Mississippi River
29. Merrimack & Nashua Rivers
30. Lower Mississippi River
31. Blackstone and Ten Mile Rivers
32. Lower Savannah River
33. Mahoning River
34. Grand Calumet River, Little Calumet River, Calumet River,
Wolf Lake, Lake Michigan, and Their Tributaries
35. Lake Erie
36. Red River of the North
37. Hudson River
38. Chattahoochee River and Its Tributaries
39. Lake Tahoe
40. Moriches Bay and Eastern Section of Great South Bay and
Their Tributaries
41. Penobscot River and Upper Penobscot Bay and Their Tributaries
42. Eastern New Jersey Shore-from Shark River to Cape May
43. Lake Michigan
44. Boston Harbor
45. Lake Champlain
46. Lake Superior and Its Tributary Basin
47. Escambia River Basin
40
-------
48. Perdido Bay
49. Mobile Bay
50. Biscayne Bay
51. Navigable Waters of Dade County
52. Long Island Sound
53. Galveston Bay
54. Western South Dakota
55. Pearl Harbor
56. Ohio River and Tributaries-Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Area
57. Ohio River and Tributaries-Wheeling, West Virginia Area
58. Mount Hope Bay and Tributaries
59. Savannah River, Middle Reach
-------
Enforcement Conferences
(1) Colorado River and All Tributaries (Colorado-Utah-Arizona-Nevada-
Calif ornia-New Mexico-Wyoming)
The first session of the conference was initiated at written
requests from the State water pollution control agencies of New Mexico,
Arizona, Colorado, California, Nevada, and Utah. Wyoming concurred.
Seven conference sessions have been held as follows: (Session 1)
January 13, I960, at Phoenix, Arizona; (Session 2) May 11, 1961, at
Las Vegas, Nevada; (Session 3) May 9-10, 1962, at Salt Lake City, Utah;
(Session 4) May 27-28, 1963, at San Diego, California; (Session 5)
May 26, 1964, at Las Vegas, Nevada; (Session 6) July 26, 1967, at
Denver, Colorado; (Session 7) February 15-17 and April 26-27, 1972,
at Las Vegas, Nevada. It is estimated that 279 industries and 96
municipalities are within the conference area.
The Colorado water quality project was established at the first
session to study water pollution problems of the Colorado Basin so
as to determine specific pollutants and their concentrations, and
methods of securing the best water quality for a multiplicity of uses.
Salinity, radioactive wastes and the control and disposition of
uranium mill tailings piles, and other pollution sources, have been
the focus of the abatement programs developed through the conference.
As a result of the conference sessions, radioactive pollution
is now well under control. The problem of discharges from uranium
mills into the waters of the basin has largely been corrected, but
the Environmental Protection Agency is still working with the States
to resolve the residual tailings pile problem. At the seventh
conference session in 1972, conferees representing the Environmental
Protection Agency and the seven basin States recommended that a
tailings pile regulation be adopted and implemented by the basin
States no later than July 1, 1973.
The Environmental Protection Agency submitted a report in 1971
on the mineral quality of the Colorado River. The report demonstrates
the present and projected mineral concentrations in the River. The
report has served as the basis for recommendations proposed to enhance
and protect the waters of the conference area.
A salinity control policy has been adopted for the Colorado
River system that has as its objective the maintenance of salinity
concentrations at or below levels presently found in the lower
main stem.
In addition, a salinity control program has been instituted in
the conference area under the direction of the Bureau of Reclamation.
42
-------
(2) Chattohoochee River (Georgia-Alabama)
The conference has been held in two sessions on July 14-15, 1966,
and February 17, 1970, at Atlanta, Georgia. Twenty-three municipalities,
12 industries, and two military installations are involved.
At the first session, the conferees agreed that the Chattahoochee
River in the conference area is polluted due to discharges of wastes
from municipalities, industries, and the discharge of oxygen-deficient
waters from impoundments.
Through the first session of the conference a remedial program was
established. The conference deadline for completion of all necessary
facilities was July 1, 1971, for Georgia. (In the case of Atlanta,
Georgia, the conferees, subsequent to the second session, extended the
deadline to December 1972.) In Alabama, completion of construction
was scheduled prior to July 1, 1971.
A major source of pollution to the Chattahoochee River is the City
of Atlanta. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
in one of his first official actions after EPA's establishment, issued
a 180-day notice of water quality standards violation to Atlanta on
December 9, 1970. EPA and the City reached agreement on stringent
abatement requirements and a tight schedule to implement the new
program. Atlanta now has these treatment facilities under construction.
It is possible that Atlanta may miss its final deadline by a few
months, but all in all progress is highly satisfactory.
Compliance for the other conference area waste sources is
generally good. Some of these sources missed the final deadline,
however; all sources that missed a final completion date have now
completed facilities or are well under construction. The one
recalcitrant source of pollution (Camp Creek STP) is under a
Georgia court order to complete construction of secondary treat-
ment facilities. The EPA regional office in Atlanta is continuing
to monitor progress in the area.
(3) Lake Michigan and Its Tributary Basin (Wisconsin-Illinois-
Indiana-Michigan)
The first session of the conference was held-in Chicago, Illinois,
January 31, February 1-2 and 5-7, 1968, and an Executive Session was
held March 7-8 and 12, 1968. The second session was held February 25,
1969. Approximately 166 municipalities and 65 industries are within the
conference area. At these sessions, the conferees agreed on many far-
reaching conclusions and recommendations, some of which were of a
preventive nature to protect the Lake's high water quality from future
degradation. Among the most important recommendations by the conferees
were those calling for 80 percent removal of phosphorus in municipal
effluent and a high level of waste treatment by municipalities and
industries by the end of 1972.
-------
The third session met March 31 and April 1, 1970; reconvened in
Executive Session on May 7, 1970; reconvened in workshop sessions on
September 28-30 and October 1-2, 1970; met again in Executive Session
on October 29, 1970; and concluded on March 23-25, 1971. These several
meetings were primarily concerned with the establishment of thermal re-
quirements for the Lake, although the conference also considered pollution
by pesticides, chlorides, phosphates, total dissolved solids, and the
status of compliance with conference abatement schedules for municipal,
industrial, and Federal waste sources. In light of the conference and
workshop discussions of the third session, the conferees reached conclusions
and recommendations. The detailed recommendations for control of waste
heat discharges were agreed to by the Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and
Federal conferees, with the Illinois conferee proposing an alternate
recommendation. Unanimous agreement was reached on recommendations
concerning pesticides, status of compliance, chlorides, and phosphates.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the four Lake Michigan States
met in a fourth conference session in Chicago, September 19, 1972.
The conference addressed itself primarily to the progress being made
in implementing conference recommendations, including requirements for
phosphorus removal, industrial waste control,continuous disinfection, and
the control of combined sewer overflows. (No formal recommendations were
made and no summary will be issued.) Subsequent to the fourth session
of the conference and the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, a Public Session of the Lake Michigan
States and the Environmental Protection Agency was held November 9,
1972. EPA and the States agreed on recommendations regarding pesticides,
phthalates, phosphorus, chlorides, PCB's, selected trace metals, storm
and combined sewer overflows, taste and odor problems in the Green Bay
area, and status of compliance with previous conference recommendations.
The Public Session also recommended the formation of a toxic substances
committee with representatives from each State, chaired by Dr. Donald Mount
of the Environmental Protection Agency.
An EPA thermal position paper was accepted at the Public Session.
As a result, two committees were formed: the Thermal Technical Committee,
which will deal with short-term thermal problems, and the Lake Michigan
Cooling Water Studies Panel, which will deal with long-term thermal
problems. Each committee will have a representative from each of the
four States and the Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA's Region V Enforcement Division reports that the December 31, 1972,
deadline for meeting phosphorus requirements has been met by a
majority of the dischargers. The few remaining dischargers not presently
in compliance are expected to comply in the near future. Of special
note is the City of Milwaukee, which has built a very efficient
phosphorus removal facility.
-------
(4) Boston Harbor and its Tributaries (Massachusetts)
The first session of the conference was held on May 20, 1968; at
Boston, under the shellfish provisions of the Federal Act. The
second session was held on April 30, 1969, and the third session
was held on October 27, 1971. Forty-two municipalities, four
Federal installations, and an undetermined number of industries
are involved. At the third session, the Environmental Protection
Agency urged adoption of stronger abatement measures and recommended
installation of secondary treatment facilities for the metropolitan
Boston waste load.
The pollution of Boston Harbor results from the"discharge of
untreated or inadequately treated wastes from municipalities,
industries, combined sewer overflows, tributary streams, debris
and refuse, watercraft wastes, and Federal installations, includ-
ing Boston Naval Shipyard, Navy ships berthed in Boston Harbor,
the Coast Guard's Base Boston, and Nike Ajax Site B-36 (Hull).
As a result, these waters are polluted by bacteria, suspended
solids, nutrients, and organic matter causing an oxygen demand.
As a result of the existing or potential pollution of.- these
waters, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, under the cooperative
agreements governing the National Shellfish Sanitation Program,
has restricted specific areas so that all shellfish must be
processed through a depuration plant prior to marketing.
In response to the recommendations of the Enforcement Conference
third session, the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Commonwealth signed an agreement July 19, 1972, whereby the
Commonwealth committed itself to eliminate the sludge discharged
from the Deer and Nut Island waste treatment plants and to provide
a minimum of secondary treatment for all wastes discharged into
the Boston Harbor area within a time period considered reasonable
by EPA's and the Commonwealth's technical people.
Under the agreement, the Commonwealth will complete a compre-
hensive engineering and management study to determine the most
feasible means of achieving a minimum of secondary treatment by
April 1, 1974, engineering design and construction plans and
specifications for the necessary facilities will be completed
by January 1, 1976, facilities to provide a minimum of secondary
treatment for all wastes discharged from the Deer and Nut Island
plants will be completed by May 1, 1979, and all other new or
expanded treatment plants will provide a minimum of secondary
treatment for all discharges from the Metropolitan District
Commission (MDC) plants by December 31, 1980. The Environmental
Protection Agency will have a representative on the technical
advisory committee which will monitor the required work.
-------
The elimination of sludge will be accomplished en-the following
timetable as set forth in the agreement:
1. Engineering firm is to complete a study consider-
ing alternate methods of sludge disposal (namely,
incineration, wet oxidation, and land disposal)
by March 1, 1973.
2. Engineering design plans and specifications for
construction of sludge facilities will be com-
pleted by July 1, 1974.
3. Sludge facilities are to be completed by May 1,
1976.
The New England River Basins Commission is proceeding in their
development of a water quality management plan for the Boston
Harbor drainage area, in cooperation with the State and
Federal agencies concerned, and hopes to have the plan completed
by the end of 1973.
(5) Lake Superior (Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan)
The Lake Superior enforcement conference has met in two sessions.
The first session was held May 13-15, 1969, and was reconvened in
Executive Session on September 30 and October 1, 1969. The second
session has met four times - April 29-30, 1970; August 12-13, 1970;
January 14-15, 1971; and April 22-23, 1971.
Significant pollution sources to the Lake include the discharge
of treated and untreated municipal and industrial wastes; taconite
tailings discharged directly to the Lake by the Reserve Mining
Company; wastes from watercraft; oil discharges from industrial plants,
commercial ships and careless loading and unloading of cargoes; and
land runoff resulting from poor land management practices.
Approximately 52 municipalities, 34 industries, and 14 Federal
installations are involved.
The first conference session recommended a remedial program.
This was approved and issued by the Secretary of the Interior with
supplemental recommendations for Reserve Mining Company. (Reserve
discharges approximately 67,000 tons of taconite tailings per day
to Lake Superior.)
Following the second session of the conference, held in April
and August of 1970, the Administrator-EPA recommended that Reserve
submit its preliminary plans as recommended by the conferees (i.e.,
by December 1, 1970) and submit final plans by July 1, 1971.
-------
At the January 14-15, 1971, meeting of the second session, Reserve
proposed a disposal system for its wastes. This system involved removal
of the heavier tailings by stripping and thickening and adding a coag-
ulant to the fine tailings so that the fines would settle. The tailings
would then be discharged to a deep gorge in the Lake just offshore from
Reserve Mining's operations. Technical questions were raised about
this method of disposal. The question of land disposal as a preferable
alternate to water disposal was raised. The conferees did not endorse
any disposal method, but established a technical committee to consider
Reserve's plan and land and other water disposal methods. The
Technical Committee was to report to the conferees in 45 days.
The second session reconvened on April 22-23, 1971, and the
conferees considered the report of the Technical Committee. The
conferees recommended that further Federal enforcement measures be
initiated against Reserve Mining Company. On April 28, 1971, the
180-day notice was issued to Reserve by EPA. On January 20, 1972,
this case was referred to the Justice Department for appropriate legal
action. A civil suit was filed on February 17, 1972, under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act and the Refuse Act. The complaint was
amended to include a count under Federal common law of nuisance. In
addition, EPA issued 180-day notices to three other problem waste
sources affecting Lake Superior. These are the City of Superior,
Wisconsin, Superior Fiber Products at Superior, Wisconsin, and the
City of Hurley, Wisconsin. These three actions have been resolved
satisfactorily. Treatment requirements and time schedules have been
established, and all three sources are well on their way toward
construction of the necessary facilities. Superior Fiber Products
will provide independent treatment facilities and has already done
in-plant work sharply reducing its waste load.
Except for the Reserve Mining problem, which has tremendous
importance and has not yet been resolved, abatement progress in
the conference area is generally satisfactory. Abatement, how-
ever, is not proceeding as quickly as originally anticipated in
the Duluth, Minnesota, area. This is in part due to the recent
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District which will handle the
wastes from Duluth. As the Sanitary District will provide a
better solution to the pollution problems of this area than small
independent facilities at a number of waste sources, the delays
that have been encountered in the establishment of the District
are not considered to be a significant problem at this point.
47
-------
(6) Galveston Bay and Its Tributaries (Texas)
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency called
the conference under the "shellfish provisions of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act." The conference was held on June 7-12 and
November 2-3, 1971, at Houston, Texas. There are approximately
141 municipal and domestic waste dischargers and 136 industrial
waste dischargers within the Galveston Bay conference area.
As a result of conference recommendations, effective disinfection
of all waste sources contributing bacteriological pollution to the
Bay system is being pursued by the Texas Water Quality Board (TWQB)
on a case-by-case basis.
TWQB has issued orders calling for the centralization of sewage
treatment plants and the elimination of small facilities. Compliance
is mandated in the orders before December 31, 1974.
A joint waste source survey is being conducted in the Bay area
by EPA and TWQB. This survey commenced during April 1972. Approximately
one-half of the waste effluent flow to the Houston Ship Channel has
now been analyzed.
In accordance with conference Recommendation No. 8, TWQB permits
are being amended to require oil and grease concentrations in waste
effluent to be not greater than 10 ppm.
In accordance with Recommendation No. 10, the organic sludge
problem in the Houston Ship Channel is currently under evaluation.
In addition, EPA and the Corps of Engineers have proposed the con-
struction of a ringed diked spoil area on Atkinson Island. Further
studies of the environmental impact of this proposal have been advised.
An assessment of feasible processes to accomplish color removal
from waste sources has been made by the conference technical committee.
It has been determined that the technology for color removal has not
been sufficiently developed to require color removal processes to be
installed at the present time.
In accordance with Recommendation No. 13, TWQB is conducting an
abatement program to attain a total BOD effluent level of approximately
60,000 pounds per day by December 1973.
Conference data being developed will be used in the permit program
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. In
particular, the waste source survey now being conducted will be
valuable in determining effluent limitations.
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS
-------
The following tables show key facts about water enforcement actions
initiated, or participated in, by EPA since the Agency's
establishment. The categories include:
Table 1. Refuse Act Civil Actions Referred to Justice
Table 2. Refuse Act Criminal Actions Referred to Justice
Table 3« Refuse Act Cases Referred to Justice for Non-
filing of Application for Permit under
Section 13 of 1899 Act
Table 4* Abatement Letters of Commitment
Table 5. Refuse Act Civil Actions Initiated by Justice—
Assistance of EPA
Table 6. Refuse Act Criminal Actions Initiated by
Justice—Assistance of EPA
Table ?. FWPCA Section 10(g) Civil Actions Referred
to Justice
Table 8. 180-Day Notices - FWPCA Section 10(c)(5)
Table 9. Section 11 Provision of the FWPCA Actions
Table 10. Enforcement Conference Actions
50
68
91
106
162
171
181
182
211
219
49
-------
REFUSE ACT CIVIL ACTIONS REFERRED TO JUSTICE
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Table 1
Pollution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
Alabama By-Products
Tarrant, Alabama
Five Mile Creek Coke waste
6/2/71
Latest draft of EPA's pro-
posed consent decree sent
to company's counsel on
12/8/72. Next meeting
with company scheduled for
late December or early
January 1973.Case filed
6/18/71.
Alaska Lumber & Pulp
Sitka, Alaska
Silver Bay at
Sawmill Cove
(coastal waters)
Sulfite pulp mill
discharges SWL and
settleable solids,
resulting in toxic
concentrations of
SWL, depressed DO
levels, and sludge
deposits. No pri-
mary or secondary
treatment is provided.
5/17/71
Issued state permit,5/17fo.
Administrator Ruckelshaus
asked Dept. of Justice to
institute criminal proceed-
ings under Refuse Act.
Justice requested change
to civil action; Head-
quarters concurred. U.S.
Atty declined to file
complaint due to language
in Alaska WQS stating
"compliance necessary by
1972" was permissive and
grounds for injunctive
action were weak.
American Can Co.
Rothschild, Wisconsin
Wisconsin River
Discharge of pulp and
paper mill wastes 9/29/72
EPA referred case for
civil suit but suit not
of
filed prior to passage of
FWPCA Amendments of 1972.
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Po1lution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
American Cyanamid Co.
Marietta, Ohio
City of Marietta
STP
Discharge of industrial
waste to city STP 9/25/72
EPA referred case for
civil suit but suit not
filed prior to passage of
FWPCA Amendments of 1972 .
American Cyanamid
Savannah, Georgia
Savannah River
Acid
6/16/72
Under review by U. S.
Attorney. U. S. Attorney
negotiating with company
concerning treatment
methods .
Amstar
Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania
Delaware River
Excessive BOD loadings 9/30/72
Pending•
Anaheim Citrus Products Colorado River
Co.
Yuma, Arizona
Citrus wastes
5/18/72
U. S. Attorney declined
to prosecute consent
decree in negotiation.
Armco Steel
Houston, Texas
Houston Ship
Channel
Cyan ide, pheno1s,
ammonia, sulfides
11/70(ref. Periodic survey for
from Hqs.) compliance with Court
Order of 11/4/71 ,
completed 7/72.
Bayonne Industries
Bayonne, N. J.
Kill van Kull
Oil
12/8/71
Case not yet filed.
51
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
Sam Beacham
Kitty Hawk, North
Carolina
Currituck Sound
Dredge & fill refuse
8/7/72
Case filed 8/25/72
Ninety-day injunction
issued 9/1/72, extended
to 2/5/73.
Beaunit Corp.
Elizabethton,
Tennessee
Watauga River
Textile wastes
9/18/72
Under review by U. S.
Attorney.
Bemberg,Inc.
Elizabethton,
Tennessee
Watauga River
Textile wastes
9/18/72
Under review by U.S.
Attorney.
Big Blue River Trash
Dump, Kansas Citv, Missouri
2/9/72
Not filed.
California Marine
Packing Co. (Div of
Westgate-California
Foods, Inc.)
Los Angeles, California
Outer Los Angeles Fish, processing wastes, 6/9/72
Harbor which lower oxygen in
which lower oxygc
water and have resulted
in fish kills
U. S. Attorney declined
to prosecute.
Carnation Milk
Mt. Vernon,
Missouri
Williams Creek
Milk processing waste 2/4/72
Company refused to enter
into consent decree
5/25/72. U.S. Attorney
declined to prosecution
6/26/72.
Caruthersville, Missouri Mississippi
River
Land fill
2/15/72
Not filed.
Casino Pier, Inc.
Lake Ozark, Missouri
Lake of the Ozarks Fuel oil
52
11/2/72
Pending.
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Central Railroad of
Receiving
Water
Raritan River,
Pollution Problem
Oil
Date
Referred
11/15/71
Results or
Status
Action filed 12/20/71.
N.J., Raritan, New
Jersey
Gaston Avenue
Brook
Central States Paper
and Bag, Palatka,Florida St. Johns River
Paper wastes
12/71
Filed 1/72 - dropped 11/72.
Chase Bag Company
Chagrin Falls, Ohio
Chagrin River
Discharge of BOD,
SS, and dyes
5/17/71.
i/6/
4/21/71 Civil suit filed
Consent decree 10/6/72-
established effluent
limitations to be met
effective 10/6/72.
Chicago &. Eastern
Illinois Railroad
DoIton, Illinois
Little Calumet
River
Discharge of oil
6/27/72 EPA referred criminal case
to U.S. Attorney. Motion for
preliminary injunction filed
6/29/72. Permanent injunc-
tion entered 10/30/72.
Clow Corp., Tarrant,
Alabama
File Mile Creek
Alk, pH, phenol,oil, 6/2/71
grease
Dropped.
Consolidated Papers, Inc. Wisconsin River
1. Biron Division
2. Kraft Division
3. Stevens Point Division
4. Wisconsin Rapids Div.
5. Wisconsin Plant
Discharge of pulp and 9/27/72
paper mill wastes
EPA referred case for civil
suit but suit not filed
prior to passage of FWPCA
Amendments of 1972.
Crown-Zellerback, St. Mississippi River
Francisville, Louisiana
Taste & odor compounds 8/28/72
53
No action to date, requested
U.S. Atty. to return our
files.
-------
Name and
Location
of Company
Custom Canners
Atlanta, Georgia
Receiving
Water Pollution Problem
Peachtree Creek Cannery wastes
Date
Referred
6/1/72
Results or
Status
Case filed 6/9/72 .
Consent Decree 8/25/72 .
Denver & Rio Grande
Western Railroad Co.,
Burnham Yards, Denver,
Colorado
South Platte River Discharge of refuse
10/17/71
Stipulation agreement .
Diamond Shamrock
Muscle Shoals,
Alabama
Tennessee River
Mercury
7/70
Stipulation 10/26/70,
Defendant agrees to
minimize mercury in
discharge. Monitoring
continues to date.
Borough of Edgewater
Edgewater, New Jersey
Hudson River
Refuse & scrap
material
11/24/71
Prosecution declined.
El Dorado Terminals
Corp., Bayonne,
New Jersey
Kill van Kull
Oil
10/13/71 Case not filed. Company
ceased discharge.
Florida Power &. Light
Co., Dade County,
Florida
Biscayne Bay
Heated effluent
3/70
Consent decree 9/10/71.
Defendant agreed to
cooling reservoir. Court
maintains jurisdiction.
FMC
Baltimore, Maryland
Baltimore Harbor BOD, oil &. grease
& phenol
54
7/21/72
Pending.
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
FMC
Marcus Hook,
Pennsylvania
Delaware River
Acid discharge
9/30/72
Pending*
Gambel Island Feeders,
Inc., Payette Co.,
Idaho
Snake River
Cattle waste discharged
from feedlot directly
to navigable water,
creating substantial
human health problem.
9/1/72
Consent Decree entered
9/12/72 provided for
complete abatement from
operation by 8/31/73.
Company is "phasing out"
its operation. Field
inspections scheduled for
3-73 and 9/1/73.
General American Trans-
portation Corp.
Carteret, New Jersey
Arthur Kill
Oil, mineral spirits
8/18/72
Information ziled
10/27/72.
Nick George
Brattleboro, Vermont
West River
Building materials
discharged
6/18/71
Filed 6/18/71 Court order
issued to remove building
materials from river.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.,
Bellingham, Washington
Whatcom Creek
Waterway—
Bellingham Bay,
also affects
Samish Bay and
Anacortes area
waters
Discharging without 7/29/70
permit. Chlor-
alkali plant discharg-
ing mercury to water
environment causing mercury
deposits and floating mercury
solids, potential for serious
human health problems.
Suit filed 7/29/70.
Company required to reduce
discharges to less than I
8 oz. per day; also submit!
monthly reports. Meetings
ongoing at present to
reach agreement on terms
of any permit we may
issue.
55
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
Georgia Pacific,
Port Hudson,
Louisiana
Mississippi
River
Taste &. odor compounds 9/13/72
U. S. Atty reluctant to
prosecute, negotiations
continuing. Requested
U. S. Atty to return our
files.
Georgia Pacific Corp.,
Tomahawk Tissue Div.
Tomahawk, Wisconsin
Wisconsin River
Discharge of pulp and 9/29/72
paper mill wastes
EPA referred case for
civil suit but suit not
filed prior to passage
of FWPCA Amendments of
1972.
Georgia Pacific Co.,
Woodland, Maine
St. Croix R*iver Logging and paper wastes 11/29/71
Filed 1/5/72 Case in
discovery stage.
Getty Oil Co.
Delaware City,
Delaware
A. Gross & Company,
Newark, New Jersey
Growers Citrus
Products Co. ,
Yuma, Arizona
Growers Co-op,
Westfield, New York
Delaware River
Newark Bay
Colorado River
Chatauqua Creek
Oil and grease,
lead and phenols
Solids, oils, grease
Citrus wastes
Color solids
9/30/72
12/6/71
5/18/72
5/6/71
Pending.
1/11/72 filed,
U. S. Attorney
to prosecute.
Filed on 8/9/71
decree 11/9/71.
pending .
declined
. Consent
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
Hamakua Sugar Mill Co.
(owned by Theo. H.
Davies and Co.)
Island of Hawaii
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash (leaves,
roots, & cane tops),
bagasse (crushed re-
mains of cane stalks),
& sediment
9/3/71
Filed 10/17/72. Consent
decree being sought.
Honokoa Sugar Co.
(owned by Theo H.
Davies & Co.)
Island of Hawaii
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash, bagasse, 9/3/71
&. sediment
Filed 10/17/72. Consent
decree being sought.
Hooker Chemical Corp.,
Industrial Chemicals
Div., Niagara Falls,
New York
Niagara River
Chlorine, mercury
3/10/72
Case not yet filed.
Hoover Ball Bearing
Beatrice, Nebraska
Big Blue River
Acid wastes
3/30/72
Consent order filed
10/4/72, $2,500 bond.
Inplant modifications and
city connection included.
Houston Lighting &.
Power Co., Houston,
Texas
Cedar Bayou-
Houston Ship
Channel
Thermal & transfer of
dirty water to clean
area
3/28/72 (civil suit filed)
HL&.P currently evaluating
settlement proposed by RA.
Trial currently scheduled
for 2/19/73. Filed by U.S.
Attorney.
Hutchinson Sugar Co.,
Hawaii
Sugar mill wastes
57
3/17/72
Pending.
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
International Industries Raritan River
Sayreville, New Jersey
Oil
2/4/72
Case not yet filed.
Islip, New York
Long Island
Domestic and industrial 4/20/72
wastes
Iron-Oxide Corp., Arthur Kill
Elizabeth, New Jersey
Lime filter cake
10/21/71 Case filed 1/7/72. Pleaded
guilty to one criminal
count 6/13/72.
ITT-Rayonier, Port
Angeles, Washington
Puget Sound
Sulphite waste,liquor 1/31/70
Case filed 3/30/71 and
stipulation entered.
Jones & Laughlin Steel
Corp., Cleveland, Ohio
Cuyahoga River
Discharge of cyanides, 12/17/70
phenols, etc.
Civil suit filed 12/18/70.
Consent decree 12/16/71
calls for recycling by 11/74
and blowdown to go to city
STP.
Jellico Industries,
Tennessee
Holbert Creek
Acid and salt
5/72
Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical, Baton Rouge
& Cramercy, Louisiana
Mississippi River Spent bauxite, COD
chromium, other toxic
metals
10/13/72 Consent decree signed and
filed in District Court
Filed by U.S. Atty. First
cost $4,000,000. Red mud
out by 7/74-Gramercy; 7/75-
Baton Rouge.
Kaiser Refactories Moss Landing Harbor ^articulate magnesium
Moss Landing, California hydroxide &. calcium
carbonate
58
4/17/72 Co. awarded facility con-
struction contract 7/20/72;
8/21/72, it was decided to
forego pros, in light of
contract award.
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
K & W Oil Corp., Casper, North Platte River Discharge of oil
Wyoming
Consent decree being
negotiated by U. S.
Attorney and defendant's
attorney. Case filed 10/72.
Kitchen-Quip, Inc.
Waterloo, Indiana
Cedar Creek
Discharge of chromium, 5/5/71
nickel and oil
Case filed and consent
decree entered JS>/24/72 .
Company to meet effluent
limits by 10/18/73.
Koppers Co., Inc.
Birmingham, Alabama
Tributary to
Opossum Creek
Coke waste
6/2/71
EPA unable to negotiate
with company. U. S. Atty.
is preparing interroga-
tories in this case.
Case filed 6/22/72.
Koppers Co., Follansbee, Ohio River
West Virginia
Phenols, cyanide
2/17/71
Case filed and consent
decree filed.
Laupahoehoe Sugar Co,
Island of Hawaii
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash, bagasse, 9/3/71
and sediment
Filed 10/17/72. Consent
decree being sought.
Marcal Paper Company
South Hadley, Mass-
achusetts
Stoney Brook
(Connecticut
River)
Dyes, cellulose fibers, 6/9/72
suspended solids, wastes
6/14/72-Complaint filed-
Consent decree filed
8/23/72 .Effluent limita-
tions to be met by 10/1/72.
Marietta, City of
Ohio
Ohio River
Discharge of BOD and
chlorine
59
9/25/72
EPA referred case for
civil suit but suit not
filed prior to passage
of FWPCA Amendments of
1972.
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
Marjorie White Big Blue
River Trash Dump,
Kansas City, Missouri
Big Blue River
Trash on river bank
2/9/72
U. S. Attorney declined
prosecution 6/20/72.
Mauna Kea Sugar Co.,
North Plant (owned by
Hilo Coast Processing
Co.) Island of Hawaii
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash, bagasse, 9/3/71
& sediment
Filed 10/17/72. Consent
decree being sought.
Mauna Kea Sugar Co.,
South Plant (owned by
Hilo Coast Processing
Co.) Island of Hawaii
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash, bagasse, 9/3/71
&. sediment
Filed 10/17/72. Consent
decree being sought.
McWane Cast Iron Co.
Birmingham, Alabama
Tributary to
Village Creek
Iron waste
6/2/71
Case filed 6/16/71.
Progress with company is
proceeding slowly.
Another meeting scheduled
around the Alabama By-
products meeting, since
same attorneys involved.
Mosinee Paper Corporation Wisconsin River
Mosinee, Wisconsin
Discharge of pulp
and paper mill
wastes
10/4/72
EPA referred case for
civil suit but suit not
filed prior to passage
of FWPCA Amendments of
1972.
60
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
Mountaineer Coal Co.,
Fairmont, West Virginia
Monongahela River Acid nine drainage
7/7/72 Hearings are in progress
now and requesting a
dismissal motion. Case
filed 7/21/72.
Nashville Bridge Co.,
Bessemer, Alabama
Tributary to Village Iron wastes
Creek
6/2/71Case filed 6/22/71 EPA
proposed "Stipulation for
Dismissal" sent to company
on 12/13/72. No response
from company as yet
National Farmers Org.
Omaha, Nebraska
National Molasses
Omaha, Nebraska
National Sugar
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
National Steel
Weirton, West Virginia
Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co.,
1. Nekoosa Division
2. Port Edwards Division
3. Whiting-Plover Div.
Missouri River
Missouri River
Delaware River
Ohio River
Wisconsin River
Excessive BOD
1 oadinqs
Cyanide
Discharge of pulp &
paper mill wastes
8/17/71
8/3/72
9/30
4/21/71
9/29/72
Not filed.
Case filed 8/10/72.
Pending .
Cased Filed. Consent
Decree being negotiated.
EPA referred case for
civil suit but suit not
filed prior to passage of
FWPCA Amendments of 1972.
Nick George
Brattleboro, Vermont
West River
Building materials
6/18/71 Filed 6/18/71. Court
order to remove.
Olin Corporation
Augusta, Georgia
Savannah River
Mercury
7/70
Stipulation 10/12/70
setting out schedule for
future reductions of
mercury. Monitoring
continues to date.
Osawatomie City Dump
Kansas City, Kansas
Marais Des Cygnes
River
Trash washed into
River
2/28/72 City closed dump 6/1/72.
New landfill opened.
61
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
Owen Fulford
Markers Island, North
Carolina
Core Sound
Dredge £» fill refuse
8/7/72
Case filed 8/25/72.
Defendant restrained
pending.
Ozark-Mahoning Co.,
Mine & Milling
Cowdrey, Colorado
Finkhaiii Creek, Intermittent discharges 8/72
tributary of the with high solids concen-
North Platte River trations
Cased filed 9/6/72.
Consent decree being
negotiated by the U.S.
Attorney.
Paauhau Sugar Co.,
(owned by C. Brewer
Co.) Island of Hawaii
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash, bagasse,
and sediment 9/3/71
Filed 10/17/72. Consent
decree being sought.
Pan-Pacific Fisheries,
Inc., Los Angeles,
California
Outer Los Angeles
Harbor
Fish processing wastes,
which lower oxygen in
water &. have resulted
in fish kills
6/9/72
U. S. Attorney declined
to prosecute*
Peabody Coal Company
Evansville, Indiana
North Coal Creek
to Wabash River
Discharge of coal fines 10/12/72
and yellow boy
Civil suit filed 10/18/72.
Pending.
Pennwalt Corporation
Calver City, Kentucky
Lower Tennessee
River
Mercury
7/27/70
Stipulation 10/23/70.
Defendant agrees to
minimize mercury in
discharge. Monitoring
continues to date.
62
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
Pepeekeo Sugar Co.,
North Plant (owned
by Hilo Coast
Processing Co.)
Island of Hawaii
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash, bagasse, 9/3/71
& sediment
Filed 10/17/72. Consent
decree being sought.
Pepeekeo Sugar Co.,
South Plant (owned
by Hilo Coast
Processing Co.)
Island of Hawaii
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash, bagasse, 9/3/71
& sediment
-Filed 10/17/72. Consent
decree being sought.
Phelps-Dodge
Maspeth, New York
Newton Creek
Cu, Zn, acidic
12/22/71
Pending.
Phillips Boatyard
& Lawrence Owens
Wanchese, N. C.
Croatan Sound
Dredge & fill refuse 8/7/72
Case filed 8/25/72.
Defendant restrained-
pending .
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCB's)
L.A. Co.,Sanitary
sewer system,
tributary Santa
Monica Bay
PCB's
3/6/72
EPA recommended "approp.
action" 3/6/72. Special
grand jury invest, begun
5/3/72; Monsanto Chemical
Co. subpoenaed to reveal
sales data it refused to
release on buyers in L.A.
area (believed to be
dischargers). Grand Jury
disbanded w/o returning
indictments.
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Powell E» Minnock Brick
Works (Subsidiary of
General Dynamics)
Coeymans, New York
Reserve Mining
Silver Rnv Minrn»Qr>1~n
Rohm &. Haas
Hous ton , Texas
Schenectady Chemicals,
Inc., Schenectady, New
Seneca Foods
Westfield, New York
Sobin Chlor Alkali, Inc
Orrington, Maine
Southwest City,
Missouri
Receiving
Water
Hudson River
Lake Superior
Houston Ship
Channel
Mohawk River
York
Lake Erie
. Penobscot River
Cave Springs
Branch
Pollution Problem
Oil
Solids
BOD, COD, ammonia,
cyanide , nickel
Oil
Solids
BOD, color
Mercury
Poultry waste
interstate stream
Date
Referred
2/4/72
1/20/72
5/4/71
12/11/72
5/6/71
8/5/70
6/12/72
Results or
Status
Information filed 2/25/72.
Fined $500 on 3/20/72.
Civil suit filed 7/19/71.
Trial held 11/13/72"
awaiting judgement. Filed
by U. S. Attorney.
Case not yet filed.
Case filed on 8/9/71.
Sold to Welch Foods.
8/5/70 Complaint filed.
5/11/72 Consent decree
requiring immediate
limitation of mercury
and salts discharged
and monitoring.
Pending.
St. Regis Paper Co.,
Atlanta, Georgia
Peachtree Creek
Paper wastes
6/1/72
Case filed 6/9/72.
Consent decree 7/27/72.
-------
Nome and
Location
of Comoanv
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
St. Regis Paper Co.,
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Wisconsin River
Discharge of pulp and 10/4/72
paper wastes
EPA referred case for
civil suit but suit not
filed prior to passage
of FWPCA Amendments of
1972.
Star-Kist Foods, Inc.
(Subsid. of H.J. Heinz
Co.), Plants #1 & #4
Los Angeles, California
Outer Los Angeles
Harbor
Fish processing wastes, 6/9/72
which lower oxygen in
water & have resulted
in fish kills
U.S. Attorney declined
to prosecute. ACL.
Sullivan's Island
South Carolina
Intracoastal
Waterway
Trash, solid
waste
6/14/72
Under review by U. S.
Attorney. EPA Enforcement
to meet with U. S. Atty.
1/73.
Toms River Chemical Corp. Atlantic Ocean
Toms River, New Jersey
Industrial wastes
7/13/72
Case filed 7/13/72,
U. S. Pipe &. Foundry
Birmingham, Alabama
Five-Mile Creek
Steel waste
6/2/71
Case filed 6/16/7 L,
The last version of EPA's
consent decree was sent
to company on 12/14/72.
Company has indicated
to U. S. Attorney they
will sign.
U. S. Steel
Fairfield, Alabama
Opossum Creek
Steel waste
6/2/71
Case filed 6/14/71.
Consent decree was signed
and filed in Clerk's
Office on 10/19/72.
65
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
U. S. Steel Corporation
Waukegan Works
Waukegan, Illinois
Lake Michigan
Discharge of heavy
metals, iron, SS and
phenol
10/3/72
Civil suit filed
10/6/72.
Universal Container
Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania
Stoney Creek
Oil and grease
2/1
Pending,
Van Camp Seafoods Co.,
(Div. of Ralston Purina
Co.) Los Angeles,
California
Outer Los Angeles
Harbor
Fish processing wastes,
which lower oxygen in
water & have resulted
in fish kills
6/9/72
U. S. Attorney declined
to prosecute ACL.
Welch Foods,
Westfield, New York
Chatauqua Creek
Bad color solids
5/6/71
Case filed 8/9/71.
Consent Ord. 11/9/71.
Weyerhaeuser Co.,
Longview, Washington
Columbia River
Discharging without 7/29/70
permit. Chlor-alkali
plant discharging
mercury to water environ-
ment causing mercury
deposits and floating
mercury solids, potential
for serious human health
problem.
Complaint filed 7/29/70
charging violation of
Refuse Act. Stipulation
entered 10/15/70 re-
quiring defendant to
reduce mercury discharges
to below 8 oz. per day
per chlor-alkali facility.
Company complied. Region
awaiting guideline to
govern further reduction
of discharges.
66
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Steel Corp.
S t eubenvilie, Ohio
Ohio River
Oil, cyanide
4/21/71
Case filed on 5/17/71
and pending.
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Steel Corp.
Follansbee, West Virginia
Ohio River
Phenols
5/7/71
Case filed 5/17/71.
Pending.
Whee1ing-Pi11sburgh
Steel Corp.
Monessen, Pennsylvania
Monongahela River Phenols, cyanides, SS. 5/7/71
Case filed 5/17/71.
Pending.
Whittaker Corp. &
City of Memphis
Memphis, Tennessee
Mississippi River Textile wastes
7/6/72
EPA and U. S. Attorney
have had five meetings
with company and city.
Consent decree in final
negotiation stages.
Answer due from company
Case filed 8/18/72.
Yankton, City of
South Dakota
Missouri River
Dumping municipal
solid waste
U. S. Attorney reviewing
case.
67
-------
REFUSE ACT CRIMINAL ACTIONS REFERRED TO JUSTICE
Table 2
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
A & M General Corp.
South Bend, Indiana
Bowman Creek to
St. Joseph River
Oil spill
8/14/72 U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution 11/1/72.
Alaska Lumber & Pulp
Sitka, Alaska
Silver Bay
Fish kill
5/17/71 Not filed.
Allied Chemical Corp.
Denver, Colorado
South Platte
River
Sulfuric
acid spill
4/13/72 Company pleaded nolo
contendere; was con-
victed and fined $1,500
on 8/11/72.
Allied Chemical Corp.
Richmond, California
Castro Creek, trib.
to San Francisco
Bay
Sulfuric
acid wastes
4/13/72 Poorly operating "neu-
tralization system;"
abatement commitment Itr
7/27/72; new equip, in-
stalled; EPA &. U.S.
Attorney decided to forego
prosecution 8/21/72.
68
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution Date
Problem Referred
Results or Status
Allied Chemical Co.
Semet-Solvay Division
Detroit, Michigan
Rouge River
Tar spill 3/10/72 U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution 4/5/72.
Alton Box Board
Company
Lafayette, Indiana
Wabash River
Fish kill 10/16/72
Under review in U.S.
Attorney's office.
Amalgamated Sugar Co.
Twin Falls, Idaho
Rock Creek—
tributary of
Snake River
No waste dis- 4/20/72
charge permit.
Impoundment dike
ruptured allow-
ing 60 acre/ft.
of refuse to enter
small stream con-
necting with
navigable water.
Alleged accidental spill
in Nov. 1971. Referred to
U.S. Attorney, Boise.
Based on subsequent field
survey by EPA, Denver, Colo.
and company's corrective
action; prosecution de-
clined.
American Oil Co.
Whiting, Indiana
Lake Michigan
Oil spill
10/15/71 U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution 1/20/72.
American Petrofina Co.
Natchez, Mississippi
Mississippi River
Oil and salt
water
6/6/72 Under review by U.S.
Attorney.
American Shipbuilding
Company
Lorain, Ohio
Black River
Blasting sand 12/15/71
Case filed 3/9/72;
fined $500 3/23/72.
69
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger Receiving Water
American Smelting Baltimore Harbor
and Refining
Baltimore, Maryland
American Sugar Baltimore Harbor
Refining Co .
Baltimore, Maryland
Amstar Baltimore Harbor
Baltimore, Maryland
Allied Chemical Baltimore Harbor
Baltimore, Maryland
Ashland Oil, Inc. Ohio River
Evans vi lie, Indiana
Atchison County Rock Creek to
Cooperative Missouri River
Rockpor t , Mi s s our i
Atlantic Wire Co. Branford River
Branford, Connecticut
Pollution
Problem
Arsenic,
copper, iron,
zinc
Sugar
Sugar
liquors
Chromium
Oil spill
Ammonia
spill
Sulfuric
acid spill
Date
Referred
4/27/72
4/27/72
4/27/72
4/27/72
10/25/72
9/14/71
10/27/72
58-count indictment on
July 11 and consent
decree in State of Mary-
land.
Dropped by U.S. Attorney.
50-count indictment on
July 12, 1972.
Case filed 10/17/72.
(On basis of telephone
information received
before receipt of letter.)
Declined 1/28/72.
Navigability problem.
Information filed with
U.S. Attorney 1/11/72.
Pleaded not guilty
11/27/72.
-------
Nome & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Automotive Disposal
Corporation
Jacksonville, Florida
Trout River
Shredded metal
8/25/72 Case filed 9/11/72.
Awaiting trial.
J. Burton Ayres,
Freighter
Lake St. Clair
Garbage spill
2/23/72 Under review by U.S.
Attorney's office.
B & O Railroad
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Monongahela
River
Oil spill
9/29/72
Case filed.
B & O Railroad
Willard, Ohio
Jacobs Creek to
Huron River
Oil spill
5/5/71 Case filed 7/30/71.
Pleaded nolo contendere
and fined $1,000 9/3/71,
Barrows Coal Co., Inc.
and Henry Merrill
Brattleboro, Vermont
Connecticut River
Oil spill
1/12/72 Refuse Act charges
dismissed but pleaded
guilty to sec. 11
failure to notify.
Basic Construction
Materials
Circleville, Ohio
Scioto River
Truck flush-
ing of concrete
6/28/72 Pleaded not guilty
7/21/72. Judge ruled
Scioto not navigable
and dismissed case
10/12/72.
J. E. Bauer Co.
Patoka, Indiana
Patoka River
Oil spill
12/6/71 Case filed 1/5/72. Fined
$500 4/28/72.
71
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger Receiving Water
Bay Cities Pacific Ocean
Excavation Co.
Montara, California
Bayonne Industries Kill van Kull
Bayonne, New Jersey
Pollution
Problem
Rock and
sediment
Oil spill
Date
Referred
7/29/72
12/8/71
Results or Status
U.S. Attorney declined to
prosecute.
Case not yet filed.
Bona Allen, Inc.
Buford, Georgia
Burks &. Co., Inc.
Denver, Colorado
Black Branch—
tributary of
Suwanee Creek
Tannery waste
6/21/71 Case filed 9/2/71. Motion
granted to delay hearing
pending outcome of appeal
of another case relating
to navigability of this
stretch of the river on
6/7/72.
Buckeye Pipeline Co. Tippecanoe River Oil spill
Rochester, Indiana
Buckeye Pipeline Co. Tippecanoe River Oil spill
Rochester , Indiana
Bulk Terminals Co. Lake Calumet Dark liquid
Chicago, Illinois
3/29/72
6/1/72
9/1/71
Case filed 5/16/72.
Pleaded guilty and fined
$1,500 9/1/72.
Case filed 6/19/72.
Fined $1,500 9/1/72.
U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution 4/72.
South Platte River
Oil discharge
to river
10/16/72 Defendant pleaded nolo
contendere; was convicted
and fined $2,500 on 11/17/72;
$2,250 suspended.
F. R. Buss &. Co.
Caroline/ Wisconsin
Embarras River
Dairy
wastes
5/31/72 Indictment 6/72. Fined
$1,500 9/72.
-------
Name & Location
of Discharqer
Receiving Water
Pollution Date
Problem Referred
Results or Status
Butler Aviation
Miami , Florida
Carolina Mills
Newton, North Carolina
Century Road Oiling
Co . , Flat Rock , Michigan
Champlin Oil Refinery
Enid, Oklahoma
Chem-Haulers/ Inc.
Sheffield, Alabama
Chemical Applications,
Inc./ Beverly,
Massachusetts
Chicago & Eastern
Illinois Railroad
Dolt on, Illinois
Chicago & North Western
Railway Co.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Chicago/ Rock Island &
Pacific Railroad
Kansas City, Kansas
Cities Service
Ft. Meade, Florida
Airport Canal to
Tamiami Canal
Thru city sewer
to Huron River
Skeleton Creek
Pickwick
Reservoir
Atlantic Ocean
Little Calumet
River
Bassetts Creek to
Mississippi River
Kansas River
Peace River
Oil spill
Oil spill
Oil spill
Fish kill
Chemical
wastes
Oil spill—
#2 & #5 fuel
Oil spill
Fuel oil
5/19/72
3/15/72
6/9/72
5/5/71
3/29/72
11/72
oil
6/27/72
6/28/72
Oil spill— 11/9/71
33 U.S.C.
sec. 407 & sec. 11
Phosphate
wastes
2/9/72
U.S. Attorney declined
to prosecute.
Under review by U.S.
Attorney's office.
Under review by U.S..
Attorney.
Information filed with
U.S. Attorney 12/8/72.
Case filed 6/28/72.
Pleaded guilty and fined
$3,000 10/30/72.
Under review by U.S.
Attorney.
Information filed
4/12/72. Case prepared
for trial 1/73.
Case filed 5/5/72. Con-
tinued, pending comple-
tion of several State
civil action.
73
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
City-Wide Asphalt, Inc.
Independence, Missouri
Collier Development Corp.
Naples , Florida
Colonial Pipeline
Beaumont , Texas
Colt Industries
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Crown Central Petrol Co.
Houston, Texas
Crystal Tissue Co.
Middle town, Ohio
Receiving Water
Mill Creek
Missouri River
Tributary to
Cocohatchee River
Neches River
Allegheny River
Great Miami
River
Pollution Date
Problem Referred
Oil spill--
33 U.S.C. sec. 407
£. sec. 1161(bK4)
Garbage spill
Oil spill
Oil spill
Oil
Red paper dye
4/17/72
7/26/72
12/71
9/27/72
2/29/72
4/20/71
Results or Status
Indicted by Grand Jury on
5/10/72. Pleaded guilty
6/1/72. Fined $500
9/7/72 — Probation.
Under review by U.S.
Attorney.
No action to date.
Filed.
Under review.
Case filed 8/3/71.
Pleaded nolo contendere
and fined in 1971.
Darling & Company
Cleveland, Ohio
Cuyahoga River
Tallow spill
4/12/72 Case filed 5/8/72. U.S.
Attorney dropped suit
5/1/72 as Coast Guard
fined company $500.
Dehaven Soil Service
Walton, Illinois
Wabash River
Spill and
fish kill
9/21/72 Under review by U.S.
Attorney.
Del Oil and Gas Corp,
Natchez, Mississippi
Mississippi
River
Salt water
6/6/72
Under review by U.S.
Attorney.
74
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Diamond Shamrock
Chemical Co.
Paine svi lie, Ohio
Donovan Construction Co.
St. Cloud, Minnesota
Duval Sulphur
Calves ton, Texas
Eastern Airlines
Miami, Florida
Borough of Edgewater
Edgewater, New Jersey
Receiving Water
Grand River
Lake Superior
Galveston
Harbor
Drainage canal
to Miami River
Hudson River
Pollution
Problem
Oil spill
Air emission re-
sulting in water
pollution
Sulphur spill
Oil and metals
Refuse and scrap
material
Date
Referred
12/7/71
1/11/72
1/2/72
3/29/72
11/24/71
Results or Status
U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution 5/72.
U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution 4/11/72.
No action to date.
U.S. Attorney declined
to prosecute.
Prosecution declined.
Harold Epps
d/b/a Hero-Hilso
Enterprises
Brans on, Missouri
Fall Creek Oil spill
Lake Taneycomo
White River
12/15/72 Pending.
Farmland Foods, Inc.
Garden City, Kansas
Arkansas River Fish kill
6/14/72 Declined 11/16/72.
Navigability problem.
Farm Stores, Inc.
Miami, Florida
58th Street
Canal
BOD & solids
5/19/72 U.S. Attorney declined
to prosecute.
75
-------
Nome & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
FMC
Baltimore/ Maryland
Baltimore Harbor
BOD, oil, grease 2/1/72
and phenol
9-count indictment.
General American Trans-
portation Corp.
Carteret, New Jersey
Arthur Kill
Oil and mineral 8/3/72
spirits
Information filed
10/27/72.
Georgia Power Co.
Rome, Georgia
B.F. Goodrich Co.
Woodburn, Indiana
Coosa River
Oil spill
8/26/71 Case filed 9/2/71. Fined
$1500 on nolo contendere
plea to Refuse Act
violation § 11(b)(4)
6/2/72. Action dismissed.
Getty Pipe Company
Haz 1 e ton , Pennsy 1 vani a
Dockwater Creek
Raritan River
Oil spill
12/8/71 Case not yet filed.
Maumee River
Chemical spill
10/16/72 Case filed 10/17/72.
Pleaded guilty and
fined $535 11/6/72.
George W. Greek
Oil Company
Jacksonville, Florida
McGirts Creek
Oil spill
4/16/71 U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution.
76
-------
Name and Location
of Discharger
Dr. William W. Green
USDA Employee
Elko, Nevada
Receiving Water
South Fork of
Huxnboldt River
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Toxaphene discharge 6/24/71
resulting in fish
kill
Results or Status
U.S. Attorney declined
to prosecute.
Gulf Oil Corp.
Houston, Texas
Houston Ship
Channel
Oil spill 1st 11/22/71 No action to date.
2nd 12/28/71
Halquist Stone Company
Sussex, Wisconsin
Sussex Creek
Dissolved solids,
suspended solids,
phenols
5/31/72 Indictment 6/72.
Hamilton Oil Corp.
Evansville, Indiana
Sanders Creek
Oil spill
10/8/71 Arraigned 12/17/71.
Pleaded nolo contendere
and fined $500 2/8/72.
Heck Fertilizer Company
Mound City, Missouri
Davis Creek to
Missouri River
Ammonia spill
9/14/71 Declined 1/28/72.
Navigability problem.
Henningsen Foods, Inc.
Malvern, Iowa
Silver Creek
Food wastes
5/16/72 Fined $1,000.
Humble Oil & Refining
Co. (Vessel Esso
Philadelphia)
Bayonne, New Jersey
Kill van Kull
Oil spill
12/4/72 Case not yet filed.
Hutchinson Utilities
Company
Hutchinson, Minnesota
South Fork,
Crow Creek
Oil spill 4/12/72
Pleaded nolo contendere
and fined $1,000 7/14/72.
Illinois Central Railroad
Star, Mississippi
Oil spill
77
4/20/71
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Infinger Transportation Co.
Charleston Heights, S. C.
Oil spill
6/29/72
Inland Corporation
Cleveland, Ohio
Chippewa Creek and
Vermillion River
Double oil
spill
4/10/72 Case filed 5/16/72.
First count dismissed;
nolo contendere pleaded
on second count, fined
$1,000 8/8/72.
Inland Oil & Transport
Company
St. Louis, Missouri
Mississippi River
(Spill near St.
Paul, Minnesota)
2 Oil spills
1/10/72 Pleaded guilty to indict-
ment and fined $500
5/5/72.
Inland Tugs Company
Jeffersonville, Indiana
Ohio River
Garbage
dumping
9/1/71 U.S. Attorney dismissed
information but collected
$500 penalty by threaten-
ing in rem proceedings
11/8771.
Interlake, Inc.
Toledo, Ohio
Maumee River
Industrial 10/16/72
waste discharge
Case filed.
Under review by U.S.
Attorney's office.
International
Industries
Sayreville, New Jersey
Raritan River
Oil spill
2/4/72
filed.
Iowa Beef Processors
Dakota City, Nebraska
Missouri River
BOD, coliforms, 3/3/72
solids, and
ammonia
Indicted 5/9/72; nolo
contendere plea 9/7/72;
$500 fine. Consent
Decree 9/18/72.
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Iron-Oxide Corp.
Elizabeth, New Jersey
Arthur Kill
Lime filter
Cake soap sludge
10/21/71 Case filed 6/8/72. Pleaded
guilty to one count
6/13/72.
Jefferson Beach
Marina Company
Oswego, New York
Lake Ontario
Oil spill
9/24/71 Prosecution declined
5/17/72.
Jones and Laughlin
Steel Corp.
Cleveland, Ohio
Cuyahoga River
Oil spill
12/17/70 Case filed 12/70.
Fined on 5 counts at
$1,000 apiece 2/12/71.
K &. W Oil Corp.
Casper, Wyoming
North Platte
River
Oil discharge
to river
7/7/72 Defendant pleaded no3o
contendere and was fined
$500.
Kaiser Aluminum &. Chemical Ohio River
Corporation
West Virginia
Oil spill
9/29/72
Case filed.
Kaiser Refractories
Mexico, Missouri
South Fork of
Salt River
Oil spill 33 U.S.C. 6/12/72
Sec. 407, Sec. 1161
_O»)C4)— fish kill
Pending—probable cost
recovery action only.
J. C. Keeter Realty
Co., Atlantic Beach
North Carolina
Bogue Sound
Dredge and fill 8/7/72
refuse
Under review by U.S.
Attorney.
Kennebec River Pulp &
Paper Co., Inc.
Madison, Maine
Kennebec River
300-gallon spill
Bunker C fuel oil
3/10/72
5/18/72 Pleaded guilty 9/29/72.
Fined $500 10/13/72.
79
-------
Nome & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Kerr-McGee
Gushing/ Oklahoma
Louisville and Nash-
ville Railroad
Evansvilie, Indiana
Cimarron River
Oil spill
Ohio River
2/17/72 Phase I complete. U.S.
Attorney investigating
civil action for Phase II
(Skull Creek).
Leader Cheese Co. Lau Creek
Reeseville, Wisconsin
Lihue Plantation Nawiliwili
Co., Ltd. and Harbor
Hawaii Board of Harbor
Commissioners
Island of Kauai
Wash waters 5/26/72 Indictment 6/72.
Molasses spill 11/15/71 Filed 11/26/71. Stipula-
tions of fact submitted
9/15/72. Decision
pending .
Oil spill
5/30/72 Pleaded nolo contendere
and fined $1,000
11/2/72.
Maplewood Poultry
Be1fast, Maine
Penobscot Bay
Blood, fat, and
feathers
Indicted 11/24/70;
nolo contendere; fined
total of $10,500 on
4 counts.
Marathon Pipeline Co.
Birds, Illinois
Embarass River
to Wabash River
Oil spill
12/6/71 Case filed 7/28/72.
Pleaded guilty and
fined $750 11/13/72.
80
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Mead Corporation
Chillicothe, Ohio
City System
Industrial waste 3/6/72
discharge
Indicted by Grand Jury
7/10/72.
Metropolitan Petroleum Lake Champlain Oil spill
Co., Flattsburgh, New York
4/28/72 Information filed 7/71.
Fined $500 and reimbursed
government $1,300.
'Midcontinent Pipeline
Gushing, Oklahoma
Cimarron River
Oil spill
2/17/72 Phase I complete. U.S.
Attorney investigating
civil action for Phase II
(Skull Creek).
Midland Co-op
Refining Company
Gushing, Oklahoma
Cimarron River
Oil spill
2/17/72 Phase I complete. U.S.
Attorney investigating
civil action for Phase II
(Skull Creek).
Millmaster Onyx
(A. Gross Company)
Newark, New Jersey
Newark Bay
Suspended solids, 12/6/71
oil, and grease
Case filed 1/7/72.
30-count indictment.
Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co.
St. Paul, Minnesota
3 Mile Creek
to Mississippi
River
Phenolic resin
spill
6/2/72 Indicted by Grand Jury
6/27/72. Pleaded guilty
and fined $500 10/2/72.
81
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
M-K-T Railroad
Gushing, Oklahoma
Cimarron River
Oil spill
2/17/72 Phase I complete. U.S.
Attorney investigating
civil action for Phase II
(Skull Creek).
Mobil Oil Corp.
Yazoo County
Mississippi
Yazoo River
Oil spill
10/8/71
U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution.
Monroe Auto
Corad, Nebraska
Platte River
Oil spill
11/9/71
Declined 4/3/72.
Abatement schedule
negotiated.
Montrose Chemical
Co., Santa Monica
California
L.A. County
Sanitary Sewer
Syst., trib. to
Santa Monica Bay
Particulate
DDT
10/1/71
Dept. of Justice declined
to prosecute.
National Transit Co.
Oil City, Pennsylvania
Allegheny River
Oil spill
8/15/72
New Departures Co.
Sandusky, Ohio
Mills Creek to
Sandusky Bay
Oil spill
9/28/71 U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution 12/8/71.
New England Power Co.
Somerset, Massachusetts
Mt. Hope Bay
Fish kill;
chlorine dis-
charge
5/21/71 Indicated 8/6/71. Trial
10/10/72; found not guilty
Company has stopped using
chlorine to clean boiler
tube.
North Shore Petro-
leum Company
lal Ma: "lus
Atlantic Ocean
Oil spill #2
& #5 fuel oil
11/72
Information filed with
U.S. Attorney 12/8/72.
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Norton Company
Watervliet, New York
Hudson River
Oil spill
5/1/72
Information filed with U.S.
Attorney 6/26/72.
Overland Investment
Rogers County
Oklahoma
Oolaga Reservoir Oil & brine
Original referral by Corps
of Engrs. U.S. Attorney
awaiting an order from
Okla. Corps Commission.
Ozark-Mahoning Company
Mine and Milling
Cowdrey, Colorado
North Platte
River
High solids
concentration
discharge
2/18/72
5/10/72
Dismissed— see civil suit.
Palatine Dyeing Co.
St. Johnsville, New York
Mohawk River
Oil spill
10/12/71
Information filed 5/22/72.
Pleaded guilty 7/28/72;
fined $500.
FBI, Gordon Co.
Kansas City, Kansas
Kansas River
Chemical wastes 5/4/72
Peabody Coal Co.
Columbia, Missouri
Hinksin Creek to Coal mine acid 9/14/71
Mississippi River wastes
Prosecution declined 1/28/72,
Navigability problem.
Pejepscot Paper Co.
Brunswick, Maine
Androscoggin River Oil spill
6/23/72
Pending action by U.S.
Attorney.
Pennsoil Producing Co.
Yazoo County, Mississippi
Yazoo River
Oil spill
10/8/71
U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution.
Petroleum Specialties,
Inc., Flat Rock
Michigan
Smith Creek to
Huron River
Oil spill
83
6/9/72
Under review by U.S,
Attorney's office.
-------
Nome & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Phillips Petroleum Co.
Sedalia, Missouri
Flat Creek to
Missouri River
Gasoline
spill
9/14/71 Prosecution declined
1/28/72. Navigability
problem.
Phillips Petroleum
Refinery
Kansas City, Kansas
Missouri River
Oil spill
7/20/72 Indictment returned
11/8/7 2. Navigabi1i ty
problem.
Plantation Pipeline Co.
Atlanta, Georgia
Oconee River
Oil spill
4/20/71 U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution 12/2/71.
Plymouth Agricultural
Supplies/ Morehead City/
North Carolina
Bogue Sound
Fertilizer
12/21/71 U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution.
Powell and Minnock
Brick Works (Subsidiary
of General Dynamics)
Coeymans, New York
Hudson River
Oil spill
2/4/72 Information filed with
U.S. Attorney 2/25/72.
Fined $500 on 3/20/72.
Republic Steel Corp.
Cleveland, Ohio
Cuyahoga River
Industrial
wastes
5/5/72 Case filed 5/8/72.
Pleaded nolo contenders
and fined $1,000 5/17/72.
-------
Name £• Location
of Discharaer
Receivina Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Republic Steel Corp,
Cleveland, Ohio
Cuyahoga River
Industrial
wastes
9/29/72
Case filed 10/6/72.
Republic Steel Corp.
Coke Plant
Youngstown, Ohio
Mahoning River
Coal tar
spill
9/28/72
Case filed 10/6/72.
R.H.S. Corp.
Ellsworth, Maine
Rock Island Railroad
Kansas City, Kansas
Union River
Kansas River
Oil spill
Oil spill
11/9/71
Action by U.S. Attorney
pending.
Trial postponed.
Rodgers Oil Company
Savanna, Illinois
Mississippi
River
Oil spill
12/15/71
Case filed 2/1/72. Matter
dropped in exchange for
guilty plea in 11(b)(4)
case 4/72.
Royal Manor House-
wares Co., Los Angeles
California
Ballona Creek,
trib. to Santa
Monica Bay
Cyanide
spill
6/24/71
Filed 12/8/71. Vice-Pres.
of firm found not guilty;
firm found guilty and fined
$2,000 on 3/6/72.
Sandacres, Inc.
Woodacres Farm
Seymour, Indiana
Muscatatuck
River
Oil spill &
fish kill
3/10/72
Case filed 5/1/72. Pleaded
not guilty 5/19/72.
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Schenectady Chemicals,
Inc . , Schenectady
New York
S.C.M. Corporation
Baltimore, Maryland
S.C.M. Corporation
Glidden-Durkee Div.
Jacksonville, Florida
Scofield Marine
Construction Co.
Naples , Florida
Pollution
Receiving Water Problem
Mohawk River Oil spill
Baltimore Harbor Cadmium
Moncrief Creek Industrial
wastes
Gulf of Mexico Muck & sludge
Date
Referred
12/11/72
4/27/72
10/15/71
7/26/72
Results or Status
Case not filed as yet.
U.S. Attorney advised no
action at this time.
U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution .
Case filed 8/14/72.
Fined $500 on 9/14/72.
Shell Chemical Co.
Ventura, California
Ventura River
Ammonia dis- 10/1/71
charge
Filed 12/8/71. Pleaded
"no contest" to 2 charges
and was fined $5,000 on
1/24/72.
Skil Corporation
Chicago, Illinois
North Branch
of Chicago River
Oil spill
5/25/72
Case filed 6/28/72.
Sohio Pipeline Co., Inc.
Carmi, Illinois
French Creek to
Wabash River
Oil spill
8/14/72
Under review by U.S.
Attorney's office.
Speedway Wrecking Co.
Chicago, Illinois
Montrose Harbor Dumped rubble 7/21/71
U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution 12/17/71.
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Spentonbush Fuel Trans-
port Service, Inc.
New York, New York
Long Island
Sound
80,000 gals.
fuel oil spill
by tanker off
New London,
Connecticut
4/10/72
Information filed with U.S.
Attorney 4/18/72. Pleaded
nolo contendere 5/22/72—
fined $2,500.
Stinson Hallow
Boat Yard
Muscle Shoals, Alabama
Wilson Lake
Oil spill
6/23/71
U.S. Coast Guard and U.S.
Attorney declined prosecu-
tion.
Tabor Company
LaSalle, Illinois
Illinois River
Dumping corn
hulls
9/1/71
U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution 2/3/72.
Tex-Gas Co.
Hayti, Missouri
Unnamed Creek
to Mississippi
River
Oil spill
33 U.S.C. 407
1/25/72
Declined prosecution 1/25/72.
Navigability problem.
Texaco Oil Co.
St. Louis, Missouri
Tinkey Farms, Inc.
Harrison Twp
Fulton County, Indiana
Mississippi
River
Tippecanoe
River
Fuel oil
spill
Fish kill
1/31/72
10/8/71
Declined prosecution
11/10/72. Insufficient
evidence .
Case filed 2/7/72. Pleaded
nolo contendere and fined
$1,000 5/25/72.
Toms River Chemical
Corp., Toms River
New Jersey
Atlantic Ocean
Mercury,
heavy metals,
BOD & COD
7/72
205-count indictment
obtained 7/72.
87
-------
Nome & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Tri-W Towing Co.
Greenville, Mississippi
(Near Hastings, Minnesota)
Mississippi River
Industrial
wastes
10/4/72
Under review in U.S.
Attorney's office.
Theodore Uland d/b/a
Cherokee Drilling Co.
Princeton, Indiana
Yellow River to
Wabash River
Oil-well brine
drainage
1/11/72
Pocatello, Idaho
into navigable
water. Caused
by alleged pump
malfunction at
company's treat-
ment plant.
Corp., Salix, Iowa
River
(near Red Wing,
Minnesota)
Case filed 3/2/72. Pleaded
nolo contendere and fined
$500 4/28/72.
Twin City Fuel, Inc.
Union Pacific Railroad
Winooski River
Portneuf River
Oil Spill
Oil discharged
5/17/72
5/15/72
Pending •
Pending in U.S.
Attorney ' s
office.
Union Oil Co. of Calif. New River
Nabscott, West Virginia
Uniroyal, Inc. Chicopee River
Chicopee, Massachusetts
Universal Container Corp.
Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania
Upper Missouri River Mississippi
Gasoline spill 9/27/72
Oil spill 9/24/72
2/1/72
Oil spill 1/10/72
Filed.
Action pending in U.S.
Attorney's office.
U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution 2/28/72.
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results of Status
U.S. Agri-Chemical Co.
Nashville, Tennessee
Cumberland
River
Acid
5/5/72
Case filed 6/29/72.
Fined $500 on nolo conten-
dere plea—$250 suspended.
U.S. Plywood-Champion
Paper Co., Inc.
Hamilton, Ohio
Great Miami
River
Fish kill
12/17/70
Case filed 12/70. Fined
$7f500 5/3/71.
U.S. Steel Corp.
Chicago, Illinois
Grand Calumet
River
Oil spill
2/24/72
U.S. Attorney closed file
9/7/72.
U.S. Steel Corp.
Gary Works
Gary, Indiana
Grand Calumet
River
Oil spill
12/21/71
Case filed 2/4/72. U.S.
Attorney voluntarily dis-
missed suit due to local
prosecution for same spill
8/28/72.
Valentine Fisheries, Inc.
Suamico, Wisconsin
Big Suamico
River
5/16/72
Valley Oil Co.
Hun tington,
Massachusetts
Westfield River
#2 fuel oil
5/9/72
Information filed with
U.S. Attorney 6/15/72.
Villa d'Oro
Olive Co.
Thermalito, California
Tributary to
Feather River
Runoff from
olive pit
pile
3/14/72
Flow redirected by diking
to not cause public nui-
sance or environmental
damage. EPA requested
case be terminated 8/16/72.
89
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger Receiving Water
Warren Brothers Co. Cumberland
Nashville, Tennessee River
Waumbec Mills, Inc. Merrimack River
Manchester, New Hampshire
Western Electric Co. Missouri River
Omaha, Nebraska
Wheeling Pittsburgh Ohio River
Steel Company
Martins Ferry, Ohio
Wheeling Pittsburgh Ohio River
Steel Company
Yorkville, Ohio
Pollution
Problem
Salts & silt
Oil spill
Oil spill
33 U.S.C. sec.
407 & sec. 11
2 -count indus-
tral waste
discharge
Industrial
waste dis-
charge
Date
Referred
5/5/72
9/24/72
12/7/71
10/4/72
10/4/72
Results of Status
Obtained commitment 7/5/72.
Case dismissed 7/17/72.
Information filed with U.S.
Attorney 10/30/72. Pleaded
not guilty 11/10/72.
Grand Jury indicted 1/27/72
Nolo-fined $500 2/23/72.
Stream cleanup accomplished
Case filed 10/17/72.
Case filed 10/17/72.
Wyandotte Industries
Corp.
Waterville, Maine
Kennebec River
Oil spill
9/20/72
Action pending in U.S.
Attorney's office.
Youngstown Sheet and
Tube Co.
East Chicago, Indiana
Indiana Harbor
Canal
Suspended
solids dis-
charge
4/12/72
U.S. Attorney brought matter
to Judge's attention while
a previous criminal matter
was before the court. Fine
of $1,000 reflected this
matter also.
90
-------
REFUSE ACT CASES REFERRED TO JUSTICE
NON-FILING OF APPLICATION FOR PERMIT UNDER SECTION 13 OF 1899 ACT
Table 3
Name E» Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
All-Brite Galvanizing Big Blue
Co., Inc.
Kansas City,
Missouri
Acid wastes
8/28/72
Discharge ceased 11/1/72,
declined.
Case
Amesbury Metal
Products Company,
Inc., Amesbury,
Massachusetts
Merrimack River
Chrome plating
waste water
11/30/71
Application for permit filed
12/13/72. Installed chrome
removal equipment.
Atlantic Sulfur
Terminal, Inc.,
Carteret, New
Jersey
Arthur Kill
Suspended
solids
9/24/71
Available evidence considered
inadequate for prosecution by
U.S. Attorney for New Jersey as
further investigation by EPA
showed negligible discharge.
U.S. Attorney's refusal to
prosecute concurred in by EPA
in letter of 2/14/72.
Armstrong Chemical Municipal Storm
Company, Janesville, Sewer
Wisconsin
Failure to
file
9/24/71
U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution 5/31/72 and case
closed.
Bancroft Dairy
Marquette, Michigan
Dead River to
Lake Superior
Failure to
file
U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution 11/9/71 and
case closed*
Basset Walker
Knitting
Basset, Virginia
9/24/71
Prosecution declined.
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Benton Harbor Ox Creek to
Malleable Industries St. Joseph River
Benton Harbor,
Michigan
Failure to
file
9/24/71
U.S. Attorney declined prosecution
1/12/72 and case closed.
Bevin Bros. Manu-
facturing Company
East Hampton,
Connecticut
Pocotopaug Creek
to Salmon River
Treated effluent 11/24/71
meets WQS
12/2/71 received application for
permit to discharge.
F. R. Buss and
Company, Caroline,
Wisconsin
Embarras River
Failure to
file
5/31/72
Indicted by Grand Jury 6/14/72.
Pleaded guilty and fined $500
8/7/72.
Cambridge Tool & Mfg.Concord River
North Billerica
Massachusetts
Cooling water 12/2/71
from compressor
&• diecasting equip,
Application for permit filed
12/7/71.
Carnation Mills
Mt. Vernon, Missouri
2/4/72
Prosecution declined.
E.M. Carter Packing New River
Company
Richland, North
Carolina
Slaughterhouse
waste 5/5/72
Permit applied for with conditions
satisfactory with U.S. Attorney
office. Case closed.
Central States Paper
& Bag Co.
Palatka, Florida
12/71
Pending in court.
Central Transport
Company
Charlotte, North
Carolina
Long Creek to
Catawba River
Chemical wastes 5/24/72
Case filed 6/15/72.
November 7, 1972 - nolo contendere
$2,500 fine suspended with
probation. Case closed.
92
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
C.F. Industries
Hannibal/ Missouri
South River to
Mississippi River
Ammonia
2/9/72
Declined 10/12/72.
application filed.
Complete
Champale, Inc. Delaware River
Trenton, New Jersey
BOD, solids
9/24/71
All discharge ceased; EPA
withdrew recommendation of
prosecution by letter of
12/31/71; file closed by USA
for NJ 6/14/72.
Chemical Leaman
Tank Lines
Charlotte, North
Carolina
Little Sugar to
Catawba
Chemical wastes 5/24/72
Case filed 6/15/72: Nov. 17, 1972-
nolo contendere $5,000 fine
suspended with probation. Case
closed.
Chrysler Corporation Meramec River
Fenton, Missouri
Paint waste
12/12/72
Pending.
Clear Creek Coal Co. Buck Branch
Monterey, Tennessee Obey River
Acid
5/16/72
Information from investigation
passed to U. S. Attorney who agrees
with EPA that independent inter-
vening acid sources cloud causal
element. Complete survey of area
would be necessary for Refuse
Act prosecution. 1972 Amend-
ments may provide better tool.
93
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Clermont Fruit
Packers, Hudson,
New York
Hudson River
BOD, solids
9/18/72
Criminal suit and civil complaint
filed 12/15/71, by USA for SD,
NY; Pled guilty to 25 counts and
was fined $12,500 on 11/14/72;
EPA still rendering assistance
on civil action.
Clinton Engines
Maquok e to, Iowa
Maquoketa River
Oily wastes
and metals
9/18/72
Pending.
Connecticut Hard
Rubber
New Haven, Conn.
Mill River to
Long Island Sound
Heated cooling
water and
boiler blow
down
12/29/71
Application for permit filed
6/12/72.
Cook Paint £• Varnish Missouri River
Co., Kansas City
Missouri
Paint wastes
12/17/71
Consent order under negotiation.
A. Leon Copel &• Sons Little River
Troy, North Carolina
Textile wastes 1/25/72
Case filed 4/11/72. Fined $500
on nolo contendere plea 9/12/72.
Crown Prince Foods,
North Platte,
Nebraska
North Platte
River
Food processing 8/24/71
wastes
Declined 10/31/72. Connected to
city system.
94
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
D &. B Products
Youngstown, Ohio
Mahoning River
Failure to
file
9/24/71
U.S. Attorney declined prosecution
10/18/71 and case closed.
Delmar Printing Co.
Mathews, North
Carolina
McAlpine Creek to
Catawba River Organic
5/24/72
Case filed 6/15/72. Abatement
accomplished and case dismissed.
Denton Sleeping Hog Creek to
Garment Mills, St. Joseph River
Centreville,
Michigan
Denver & Rio Grande Jordan River
Western Railroad
Company,
Roper , Utah
Failure to 9/24/71
file
Oil and 9/24/71
detergent
discharge
U.S. Attorney declined prosecution
1/12/72 and case closed.
No action per
U. S. Attorney.
Diventco, Inc.
New Milford,
Connecticut
Housatonic River Electroplating 9/24/71
rinse waters
Civil complaint filed 12/1/71.
Consent decree under negotiation.
East Brainerd Coin
Laundry & Car Wash
Chattanooga, Tenn.
3/1/72
Eastern Foundry
Boyertown, Pennsylvania
9/24/71
95
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Eldorado Terminal
Corporation,
Bayonne, New Jersey
Esmond Machine &
Tool Company,
Smithfield, Rhode
Island
FBI Gordon Corp. ,
Kansas City,
Kansas
Receiving Water
Kill Van Kull
Woonesqua tucket
River (Prov. River)
Kansas River
Pollution
Problem
Sodium sulfate
Industrial
wastes
Chemical
wastes
Date
Referred
9/24/71
3/13/72
12/10/71
Results or Status
Information received that
discharge has ceased; USA
proceed with prosecution.
/•
Company out of business.
Case declined. Abatement
negotiated.
may not
program
Foster-Wheeler
Corporation,
Dansvilie, New
York
Conoseraga Creek
(Tributary of
Genesee River)
Oil and grease, 9/24/71
solids, phosphorus
Question as to navigability of
Creek and River not yet resolved.
Forest Products,
Smelterville,
Idaho
Bear Creek
Bark and sawdust 9/24/71
discharged
directly to Bear
Creek with no
treatment
4/72 Dept. of Justice declined
prosecution.
GAF Corporation,
Kansas City,
Missouri
Big Blue River
Industrial and 12/71
solid wastes
U.S. Attorney plans to file
case 12/72.
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Green Valley
Chemical Co.,
Creston, Iowa
Twelve-Mile Creek-
Grand River
Ammonia
2/4/72
Declined 7/24/72.
Navigability problem.
Halquist Stone
Company, Inc.,
Sussex, Wisconsin
Sussex Creek
Failure to
file
5/31/72
Indicted by Grand Jury 9/8/72.
Pleaded guilty and fined $500 -'
fine suspended and Company placed
on 1 year probation 10/72.
Henningsen Foods,
Inc., Malvern,
Iowa
Silver Creek &
Missouri River
BOD, solids,
salmonella
9/16/72
Pleaded nolo 8/11/72,, $1,000 fine,
will connect to city 11/73.
Hope Valley Dyeing
Corp. , West Warwick,
Rhode Island
Inland Container,
Fenton, Missouri
South Branch &
Pawtuxet River
Meramec River
Untreated 9/24/71
dyeing and
finishing
wastes
Industrial 2/4/72
dye
11/23/71 Received firm's application
for permit to discharge.
Case declined 11/15/72. Complete
application filed.
Iowa Fund, Inc.,
Ankeny, Iowa
Hoifley Creek to
Des Moines River
Industrial
wastes (high
BOD)
2/4/72
Case declined 11/9/72.
Navigability problem.
97
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Kaiser Cement and
Gypsum Corporation,
Delanco, New Jersey
Delaware River
Sulphate,
calcium,
dissolved
solids
9/24/71
Further investigation showed- no
discharge to navigable waters.
EPA wrote to USA for NJ dropping
recommendation for prosecution
on 6/15/72.
Kay-Dee Foods,
Nutra-Flo Div.,
International
Molasses,
Sioux City, Iowa
Floyd River
Molasses
discharge
11/29/71
Consent decree filed 9/6/72.
Company enjoined from discharging.
$500/day fine for violation.
Kennebec River Pulp
& Paper, Madison,
Maine
Kennebec River
Pulp and
paper
wastes
9/24/71
Indicted 10/19/71; pleaded nolo
contendere $500 on 1/7/72.
Keokuk Steel Co.
Keokuk, Iowa
Mississippi River
Chemical
wastes
11/17/71
Declined 4/10/72. Complete
application filed.
Kuhlwon Chenille
Adiarsville
Georgia
Unnamed stream
Textile
waste
1/25/72
Company connected to municipal
system shortly after referral.
Therefore case not filed.
L & N Railroad,
Waukatchil Yard,
Chattanooga,
Tennessee
Black Creek to
Tennessee River
Oil
2/10/72
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Leader Cheese Lau Creek
Company, Reeseville,
Wisconsin
Failure to
file
5/26/72
Indicted by Grand Jury 6/14/72.
Pleaded not guilty 7/10/72.
Lefler Concrete
Block Company,
Charlotte, North
Carolina
Stewart Creek to
Catawba River
Arsenic
5/24/72
Case filed 6/15/72.
November 17, 1972 - pleaded
not guilty. Trial recessed
until later date..
The Leisure Group,
West Point,
Mississippi
Town Creek
Chromium, oil
and alkaline
wastes
5/19/72
Prosecution may not proceed for
lack of notice.
Lisbon Mills, Inc., Androscoggin River
Li sbon Fa11s, Maine
Suspended solids 9/24/71
& organic matter
from textile
processing
Information filed 10/19/71,
2/4/72 pleaded guilty,
3/3/72 action dismissed by U.S.
Attorney. Firm in bankruptcy.
Lutex Chemical Co.,
Chattanooga,
Tennessee
2/10/72
Connected to city sewerage
system 3/20/72 - prosecution
unnecessary. 8/72 - EPA
recommended solution to leeching
from old septic tank drain field.
McRae Packers,
Edi son, Washington
North Fork Samish
River which flows
into Puget Sound
Discharging 9/24/71
approx. 1,000 gpd
wastewater contain-
ing blood and
animal oil untreated
to water environment
Company filed application for
permit. Case dropped by U.S.
Attorney's office.
Meadowbrook Coal Co.
Lykens, Pennsylvania
9/24/71
99
Prosecution withdrawn.
-------
Name and Location
of Discharger
Meclenburg County
Abbatoir, Charlotte,
North Carolina
Menominee Enter-
prises/ Inc.,
Neopit, Wisconsin
Metals Applied, Inc.
Cleveland, Ohio
Mid-City industrial
Park, Kansas City,
Kansas
Midwest Cold Storage
Kansas City, Kansas
Midwest Interna-
tional, Kellogg,
Iowa
Receiving Water
Long Creek to
Catawba River
West Branch of
Wolf River
Cuyahoga River
Kansas River
North Skunk
River
Pollution
Problem
Failure to
file
Failure to
file
Rendering
wastes
Cyanide and
metals
Date
Referred
5/24/72
9/24/71
9/24/71
1/28/72
2/3/72
2/4/71
Results or Status
Case filed 6/14/72. November 16/
1972. Nolo contendere $2,500
fine suspended with probation -
case closed.
EPA requested withdrawal of
recommendation 3/1/72.
Filed on 10/2/71; case dismissed.
Indicted 4/72.
Indictment 4/14/72. Omnibus
hearing 4/26/72, pleaded nolo
contendere, fined $500 8/4/72.
Pled guilty 8/1/72
$500 fine.
Missouri Chemical
Corp., St. Joseph,
Missouri
Missouri River
Pesticides
2/2/72
Prosecution declined by U. S,
Attorney 6/7/72. Company
committed to connect to
Industrial Sewer District.
Moline Malleable Fox River
Iron Co., St. Charles,
Illinois
Failure to
file
9/24/71
U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution 5/12/72 and case
closed.
Monroe Auto
Cozad, Nebraska
11/9/71
100
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger Receivinq Water
National Beef Pack- Kansas River
ing, Kansas City,
Kansas
National Molasses, Missouri River
Omaha , Nebraska
Pollution
Problem
Rendering
wastes
Molasses
wastes
Date
Referred
1/21/72
8/3/72
Results or Status
Indicted 4/13/72.
Arraigned 4/25/72, plea - not
guilty. Trial 5/22/72, pleaded
nolo contendere, fined $500.
Information filed 8/10/72,
NG plea 9/5/72. Trial set 1/73.
North Carolina
Consolidated Hide
Goldsboro, North
Carolina
Little River to
Neuse River
Tannery wastes 5/5/72
Abatement accomplished and
prosecution no longer required.
Case closed.
Northwestern Steel Rock River
& Wire, Sterling,
Illinois
Failure to
file
9^24/71
U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution 5/12/72 and case
closed.
Oaks Sand & Gravel
Co., tear Reading,
California
Sacramento River
Fine sediment
from holding
ponds
9/17/71
Suit withdrawn after EPA on-site
visit 5/30/72 confirmed discharge
pipe removed & no leaching
occurring.
Pepsi Cola
Miami, Florida
1/72
Fined $6,750 on 3/4/72.
Ponce Asphalt Co.
Ponce, Puerto Rico
Cerrillo River
Heavy metals,
solids,
turbidity, color
9/24/71
Dept. of Justice determined that
Cerrillo River is not navigable
and determined to decline
prosecution in letter to EPA
of 9/29/72.
101
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
PPG Industries
Crystal City,
Missouri
Plattin Creek &.
Mississippi River
Polishing & 2/9/72
grinding waste
Consent decree filed 8/4/72.
Best practicable technology &
connection to city system by
12/1/72. Stream to be cleaned
up by company. $2500 fine paid.
Remington Produce
St. Anthony, Idaho
Henrys Fork River-
tributary of Snake
River
Effluent from
seasonal potato
processing plant
discharges un-
treated waste to
a swale flowing
into Henrys Fork
River.
9/24/71
4-72 Dept. of Justice declined
prosecution.
Safeway, Inc.
Kansas City,
Kansas
Kansas River
Food processing 2/4/72
waste
Negotiated settlement to connect
to city. Completed connections
8/9/72.
Schafer Manu-
facturing Co . ,
Union City,
Michigan
St. Joseph River Failure to 9/24/71
file
U.S. Attorney declined prosecution
1/12/72, and case closed.
Snowco
Omaha, Nebraska
Missouri River
Metals, COD
7/25/72
Information filed 8/10/72. Pleaded
guilty. Fined $500 - 9/26/72.
102
-------
Name and Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
South Coast Con- Lower Newport
struction Co. & Bay
Park Lido Development
Co., Newport, California
Hydrogen sulfide 3/23/72
and chlorine
Filed as civil action & temp.
restraining order granted,
4/3/72. Preliminary injunction
5/8/72; discharge confirmed
halted permanently 6/23/72.
8/24/72 case dismissed w/o
prejudice.
Southern Wood
Piedmont Co.,
Chat tanooga,
Tennessee
Chattanooga Creek Creosote
to Tennessee River phenols
2/10/72
Commitment obtained and prosecu-
tion declined.
Stockton Cheese Co.
Stockton, Missouri
Little Sac River
High BOD &.
solids
9/24/71
Consent decree entered 10/22/71,
All discharges ended 2/1/72.
Tampa Soap &
Chemical Co.,
Tampa, Florida
1/25/72
Criminal case filed 1/72.
Tennessee Finishing
& Dyeing Co.
Daisy, Tennessee
2/10/72
Applied for permit shortly
after referral - prosecution
unnecessary.
Texfi Industries
Mt. Gilead
North Carolina
Rock Creek to
Pee Dee River
Textile wastes 1/25/72
Case filed 4/11/72. Fined
$500 on nolo contendere plea
September 11, 1972.
Tremont Nail Co. Wareham River
Wareham, Massachusetts
Batch dumping
of neutralized
& diluted
sulfuric acid
11/29/71
12/7/71 received application for
permit to discharge.
103
-------
Name and Location
of Discharaer
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
Tri-City Industrial Kansas River
Kansas City
Chromium
1/27/72
Indictment 4/14/72. Negotiating
consent decree. Chromium discharge
ceased 6/72.
Tri County Growers Wenatehee River
Monitor, Washington
Wastewater 9/24/71
(includes defrost
water) discharged
untreated directly
to irrigation
ditch flowing into
Wenatchee River
U.S. Attorney declined
prosecution and will contact
company's attorney and negotiate
re their complying with Permit
Program.
Union Pacific Rail-
road Company,
Salt Lake City,
Utah
Oil Drain Canal,
tributary to the
Great Salt Lake
Oil and deter-
gent
discharge
9/24/71
Suit filed 10/12/71.
Dismissed; no action, U.S.
Attorney.
U.S. Steel, American
Bridge Division,
Trenton, New Jersey
Delaware River
Solids, TOC,
iron
9/24/71
Recommendation for prosecution
withdrawn by letter from LSD to
Dept. of Justice on 8/30/72 after
Regional determination of no
discharge.
U.S. Steel, Universal
Atlas Cement Division,
Cohoes, New York
Salt Kill Creek
(Tributary of
Hudson River)
Solids
9/24/71
EPA has not received any
indication as to action or
non-action from USA for NDNY.
104
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
U.S. Steel, Univ-
ersal Atlas
Cement Division
Hudson. New York
Hudson River
Solids, BOD
9/24/71
U.S. Steel filed RAPP application.
USA for the SONY declined
prosecution in letter to EPA of
2/1/72.
Valentine Fisheries, Big Saumico
Inc. Suamico, Wisconsin River
Vincennes Paper Mill Wabash River
Vincenne s , Indiana
Virginia Iron Coal
& Coke Co.
Wise County, Virginia
Wallace-Murray Corp. Laines Fork to
Rolla, Missouri Bourbeuse River
Warren Bros. Co.
Nashville, Tennessee
Wire Hope Corp. Missouri River
St. Joseph, Missouri
Failure to
file
Failure to
file
Failure to
file
High BOD,
ammonia/ oil
and grease
Metals
5/16/72
11/1/71
9/24/71
2/4/72
5/5/72
2/2/72
Indicted by Grand Jury 6/14/72.
Pleaded guilty and fined $500 -
fine suspended and Company placed
on 1 year probation 10/72.
Arraigned 1/20/72. Pleaded nolo
cjpntendere and fined $500 6/30/72.
Prosecution declined 4/3/72.
Navigability problem.
Consent judgment & stipulation
filed 7/19/72. Engineering report
submitted 11/1/72. Plans &. specs.
due 3/1/73. New judgment re
specific treatment of 6/1/73.
105
-------
ABATEMENT LETTERS OF COMMITMENT
Table 4
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Adolph Coors Co.
Golden, Colorado
Clear Creek
Discharging
organics, solids,
ammonia,and oil
and grease
10/16/72
Agreed to EPA's
effluent limits and
monitoring program.
All-Brite Galvanizing
Kansas City, Missouri
Big Blue River
15,000 gallon
batch discharge
containing
heavy metals and
low pH
10/2/72
Discharge eliminated
Nov. 1, 1972.
Allied Chemical Corp.,
Elizabeth, New Jersey
Newark Bay
TSS, COD, heavy
metals, ammonia,
fluoride
6/29/72
Company agreed to
effluent limitations
and implementation
schedule to begin
October 1, 1972.
Allied Chemical Corp.
Marrero, Louisiana
Mississippi River Low pH, high TDS
and TSS, sulfate,
aluminum
Impl. plan
2/9/72
Discharge eliminated
with settling ponds &.
water recovery system
by 10/2/72.
Allied Chemical Co.
Dye Plant
Buffalo, New York
Buffalo River
BOD, COD, TOC,
oil and grease,
ammonia, phenols,
and TSS
12/19/72
Company has agreed
to abatement program
proposed by EPA.
Allied Chemical Corp.
Richmond, Calif.
Castro Creek,
trib. to San
Francisco Bay
Acid wastes
106
7/27/72
See also Table 7.
EPA on-site visit
7/31/72 confirmed
required treat, faci-
lities installed to
neutralize discharge.
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Allied Chemical Corp.,
Solvay, New York
Lake Onondaga
Suspended solids 3/24/72
Monitoring of company's
program to remove sus-
pended solids from its
two outfalls.
Alton Box Board Company
Lafayette Mill
Lafayette, Indiana
Wabash River
Inadequate treat-
ment of industrial
wastes
7/25/72
Letter accepted 9/14/72.
Company connected to
City of Lafayette.
Amerace Esna Corporation
Butler, New Jersey
Kikeout Brook
(Passaic River)
Solids, sulfate, 11/6/72
oil and grease
Agreed to all conditions
except temperature
limitations. This
parameter is included
in water quality
standards.
Amerada Hess
Port Reading, New Jersey
Arthur Kill
BOD, phenols, TSS, 11/21/72
ammonia, oil and
grease
Abatement program will
meet the preliminary
petroleum refinery
effluent guidelines.
American Can Company
Green Bay Mill
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Fox River/
Green Bay
Pulp and paper 8/7/72
mill wastes
Letter accepted 9/28/72.
Company will connect
to Green Bay MSD
by 3/75.
American Crystal Sugar
Drayton, North Dakota
Red River of
the North
, solids and 8/8/72
ammonia
Agreed to monitoring
schedule and will
study effluent limits.
107
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
American Crystal Sugar
Mason City, Iowa
Winnebago River
Insufficient
treatment of
discharge, high
BOD and solids
8/7/72
More efficient process-
ing equipment to
reduce waste installed.
Complete retention
system by Oct. 1973.
American Crystal Sugar
Rocky Ford, Colorado
Arkansas River
BOD5, solids and 8/8/72
ammonia
Agreed to effluent
limitations and
monitoring program.
American Cyanamid Co.
Linden, New Jersey
Atlantic Ocean
Ocean dumping -
phosphates
6/24/71
8/18/72
Effluent disposal sys-
tem to go into operation
in April, 1975.
American Cyanamid Co.,
Organic Chemicals Division
Bound Brook, New Jersey
Cuckels Brook
Mercury
6/25/71
Monitoring. Agreed to
study methods of
further reducing
mercury in effluent.
Agreed to contract for
equipment to undertake
chemical co-precipita-
tion method.
American Metal Climax
Henderson Mine, Colorado
Clear Creek
Mine discharge
contains radio-
activity and
metals
9/19/72
Installed third treat-
ment lagoon. Will
meet State and Federal
limits. Continuing
monitoring.
108
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
American Metal Climax
Urad Mine, Colorado
Clear Creek
Mine discharge
containing toxic
metals
10/6/72
Operations will cease
in early 1974. Aquatic
biology survey is
being conducted.
American Oil Co.
Little Buffalo Basin,
Wyoming
Grass Creek
Salty water being
discharged being
used by cattle
9/20/72
Will reinject water
beginning 4/1/73.
American Oil Company
Salt Lake City, Utah
Jordan River
Refinery discharge 7/20/72
No deterioration of
present discharge.
Eliminate bypass.
Agreed to monitoring
program.
American Potato Co.
Blackfoot Plant
Blackfoot, Idaho
Snake River
Food processing 6/21/72
wastes
Discharge has been
abated.
American Smelting &
Refining Co., Globe Plant,
Denver, Colorado
South Platte
River
Excessive BODij,
solids and
toxic metals
9/11/72
Total containment.
American Smelting &
Refining Company
Leadville, Colorado
Ten Mile Creek
pH, solids and
toxic metals
7/28/72
Agreed to total
containment by 10/1/72.
109
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
American Smelting and
Refining Company,
Perth Amboy, New Jersey
Arthur Kill
Arsenic, copper,
zinc, nickel and
lead
8/23/72
Company agreed to
eliminate slag gran-
ulation process by
January, 1973, and
install cyclone sep-
arators by January,
1973.
Amnicola Highway Dump
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Tennessee River Trash and garbage 8/72
City agreed to clean
up dump.
Amoco Oil Co.
Mandan Refinery
North Dakota
Heart River
Sulfate, oil and
grease, ammonia
and solids
11/29/72
Presented a monitoring
program and effluent
limitations.
Anaconda Company (Inter-
national Smelting and
Refining Division),
Perth Amboy, New Jersey
Raritan
River
Heavy metals
9/22/72
Company agreed to meet
all effluent limita-
tions by June 1, 1974.
Anne Arundel County
Annapolis, Maryland
Chesapeake Bay
Solid waste leach- 8/11/72
ate problem
A joint wastewater
treatment plant for
the City of Annapolis
and part of Anne
Arundel County will be
constructed and in
operation by November
13, 1974.
110
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Armour and Co.
Sioux City, Iowa
Missouri River
High BOD and
solids
10/16/72
Connect to City early
1973.
Armour Dial
Fort Madison, Iowa
Mississippi River High BOD and
solids
9/5/72
Plant to be fully
operational by January
1973. Should meet
industry guidelines.
J. T. Baker Chemical
Company, Phillipsburg,
New Jersey
Delaware River
Mercury
7/29/71
Company agreed to con-
struct secondary treat-
ment facility by late
1972 to control residual
mercury discharge.
BASF Wyandotte
Geismar, Louisiana
Mississippi River Mercury
6/2/72
Complete mercury cell
shutdown 12/31/73.
Basic Management Inc.,
Henderson, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and
total dissolved
solids
5/26/72
8/1/72
See Table 3.
Basin Electric Power
Leland Olds Unit #1 £, #2
Stanton, North Dakota
Knife River
High flow and
possible thermal
effects
9/18/72
Agreed to EPA1s
monitoring program
and will study thermal
effects.
Berkley Springs
West Virginia
Warm Springs -
Potomac River
Raw sewage
discharges
7/14/72
111
Completion of pre-
liminary plans by
January 15, 1973,
completion of final
plans by June 15, 1973,
and construction to
begin by Nov. 15, 1973.
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Berwick Sewer District
Berwick, Maine
Salmon Falls
River
Needs upgraded
waste treatment
3/72
Satisfactory abatement
program under way.
Jack Bezona
unnamed waterway Feedlot wastes
5/19/72
Use of the area as a
cattle feedlot has
been discontinued.
Birdsall Sand and Gravel
Oral Plant
Rapid City, South Dakota
Rapid Creek
Suspended solids 11/30/72
Accepted effluent
limits and monitoring
program.
City of Bismarck
Bismarck, North Dakota
Missouri River Filter backwash 6/2/72
Agreed to eliminate
discharge by March 1975.
Will provide interim
reports.
Boston Edison Company
Boston, Massachusetts
Boston Harbor
Oil
8/17/72
Oil spill contingency
plan.
Boston Sausage &• Provision
Company
Boston, Massachusetts
Industrial wastes
(animal grease,
fats, and solids)
8/8/72
Pre-treatment facilities
under construction
for oil and grease
removal.
Brattleboro Kiln Drying
and Milling Company, Inc.
Brattleboro, Vermont
Chemical spill
4/11/72
Company promised to
take steps to prevent
reoccurrence of spill.
112
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Brown Paper Company,
Castleton-on-Hudson,
New York
Moordener Kill
(Tributary of
Hudson River)
BOD, TSS
5/23/72
Company has agreed to
start construction of
primary facility in
January, 1973, if
Village of Castleton
starts construction of
secondary treatment
facilities by January,
1973.
Calkraft Paper
Elizabeth, Louisiana
Calcasieu River
COD
10/27/72
SS & BOD by 4/74.
Cargill
Sioux City, Iowa
Flood River to
Missouri River
BOD, solids
10/11/72
Flotation device
installed. Effluent
to be connected to
city sewers by
June 1973.
Carter Waters Corp.
Tarkio, Missouri
Long Branch Creek
to Tarkio River
Oil and grease
7/12/72
1st stage treatment
to be installed by
Jan. 1973. 2nd
phase by July 1, 1973,
if needed.
CF&I Steel
Pueblo, Colorado
Arkansas River
Discharging BOD5
solids, ammonia,
oil & grease and
toxic metals in
large quantities.
9/25/72
Outline limits that
they would meet and
a monitoring schedule.
113
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Charmin Paper Products Company
Fox River Mill
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Receiving
Water
Fox River/
Green Bay
Pollution
Problem
Pulp and paper
mill wastes
Date ACL was
Received
7/17/72
Results or
Status
Letter accepted 7/26/7
Company will connect ti
Green Bay MSD by 3/75.
Chem-Hauler s, Inc.
Sheffield, Alabama
Tributary of
Tennessee River
Chemical waste
5/23/72
Engineering report
submitted to EPA as
requested sets forth
company's plan of
abatement.
Chevron Oil Company
Perth Amboy, New Jersey
Atlantic Ocean
Ocean dumping -
caustic akaline
soda
6/14/71
Monitoring. Company
has agreed to investi-
gate the economic
feasibility of three
alternative means of
disposal.
Chevron Oil Company
Salt Lake City, Utah
Great Salt Lake
Refinery discharge 7/28/72
oil & grease,
ammonia and phenols
Agreed to no deterior-
ation of discharge.
Will eliminate one
discharge by 6/1/73.
Accepted our monitoring
program.
Chicago & North Western
Railway Co.
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Fox River
BOD, SS, phenols, 6/12/72
oil, heavy metals
Letter accepted 6/23/72,
Maximum limits for
each contaminant will
be obtained by 6/30/73.
114
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharqer
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Chicago Bridge &• Iron
Birmingham, Alabama
Village Creek
Steel making
process wastes
9/15/72
Company committed to
maintain closed system.
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul
and Pacific Railraod
Nahant, Mason City,
Ottumwa,Sioux City,
Iowa
Mississippi River
Winnebago River,
Bear Creek, and
Missouri River
Oil and grease
9/9/72
Sioux City wastes to
city. Nahant, Mason
City and Ottumwa to
have oil separators
installed by Jan. 1973.
Cianbro Corp.
Pittsfield, Maine
Pi scataqua
Lead based paint
used to paint
bridges sprayed
into river
5/16/72
New bridge painting
specifications adapted
as of 5/16/72.
Cities Service
Lake Charles, Louisiana
Calcasieu River
Susp solids, phenols 6/15/72
oil, chromium, COD,
BOD, ammonium
12/73 - Ammonium, BOD,
COD, Chromium, oil,
phenols, susp solids.
Cities Service
St. Louis, Missouri
MSD Storm Sewer
to Mississippi
River
Ammonia, solids,
Engineering report due
by Dec. 30, 1972,
recommending connection
to St. Louis MSD or
to provide own treatment
facilities.
Clark County Sanitation
District
Las Vegas, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash Municipal wastes 5/26/72
See Table 3.
115
-------
Nome and Location Receiving Pollution
of Discharger Water Problem
W. A. Cleary
New Brunswick
Corp. , Raritan Mercury
, New Jersey River
Date ACL was Results or
Received Status
9/20/72 Product creating mer-
cury discharge will
be discontinued.
Clinton Corn Processing
Clinton, Iowa
Mississippi River BOD, solids
7/27/72
Secondary treatment
by Dec. 31, 1973, with
some re-use of
treated effluent.
Colonial Board Co.
Shufibre Div.
Covington, Tennessee
Town Creek
Textile wastes
10/25/72
Company agreed to meet
EPA special conditions
by 1/1/76.
Commonwealth Oil and
Refining Company
Ponce. Puerto Rico
Tallaboa Bay
BOD, ammonia, 8/18/72
phenols, oil and
grease and sulphur
Company has agreed to
meet all effluent
limitations by
August 1974.
Conoco Oil Co.
Yellowstone River Temperature,
solids, and oil
& grease
11/24/72
Agreed to EPA's
effluent limits and
monitoring schedule.
Conoco Oil Co.
Denver Refinery
Denver, Colorado
South Platte
River
BOD5, oil and 11/22/72
grease and ammonia
Submitted proposed
effluent limitations
and monitoring schedule.
116
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Conoco
Lake Charles, Louisiana
Calcasieu River
Chromium, TOC,
ammonia, susp.
solids, oil £•
grease
2/9/72 impl.
plan
To be completed by
12/31/72.
Consolidated Packaging
Corporation
Fort Madison, Iowa
Mississippi River BOD, SS, oil and 8/1/72
grease, phenols
Effluent to meet
schedule B of Pulp
and Paper Guidelines
by Dec. 31, 1973.
Anticipate meeting
Schedule A by 1976.
Cosan Chemical Corp.,
Clifton, New Jersey
Passaic Valley
Sewer Systems
Mercury
6/17/71
7/19/71
Monitoring. Company
has achieved discharge
level of .279 Ibs/year.
Cotter Corp.
Schwartzwalder Mine, Colorado
Clear Creek
Discharging metals
and radioactive
wastes
10/11/72
Agreed to meet our
effluent limits by
12/31/7 2. Treatment
system to be operational
by 10/31/72.
Crompton-Shenandoah
Company, Waynesboro,
Virginia
South River
Discharging ex-
cessive amounts
of chromium
and suspended
solids
9/28/72
Agreeing to construc-
tion of a wastewater
treatment facility
to treat BOD, chro-
mium, and pH.
117
-------
Name and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Crosby Chemical
DeRidder, Louisiana
Calcasieu River
COD, sulphides,
suspended solids,
color, dilution
Impl. plan -
2/11/72
ACL - 11/3/72
Essentially complete
as of 12/72.
Crystal Ice and Fuel Co.
Brattleboro, Vermont
Connecticut
River
Kerosene
8/8/72
Oil spill contingency
plan.
C.S.T., Inc.
Nitro, West Virginia
Kanawha River
High levels COP,
BOD and total
suspended solids
9/22/72
Agreed upon modifi-
cations to be opera-
tional by Sept. 1,
1973.
118
-------
Nome £• Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or Status
Dan River, Inc.
Anderson,
South Carolina
Rocky River
Textile wastes
12/4/72 Company agreed to connect
to city sewers by 3/1/73 •
Del Monte Corp.
Ogden, Utah
Great Salt Lake Process water
6/16/72 Will connect to the
Central Weber Sewer
District by 12/13/73.
Del Monte Corp.
Smithfield, Utah
Bear River
Processing water
6/16/72 Will dispose of process
wastewater on land by
12/31/72.
Denver and Rio Grande
Western RR
Salt Lake City, Utah
Jordan River
Car washing and
diesel fuel
8/24/72 They will present their
program in January 1973.
Dewey Blanton, Inc.,
West Collingswood,
New Jersey
Newton Creek
(Tributary of
Delaware River)
Refuse deposited
on property in
such a way that
the refuse could
fall or be washed
into creek
9/6/72 Company has agreed to
remove all deposited
refuse and install
barrier to prevent
further dumping of
refuse on property.
Diamond International Mississippi River
Natchez, Mississippi
Paper mill wastes
9/19/72 Company agreed to meet
EPA limits by 1/1/74.
119
-------
Name &. Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or Status
Doehler Jarvis
(Div. of NL Indus-
tries, Inc.),
Batavia, New York
Tonawanda
Creek
Cooling water
discharge
6/22/72 Company has agreed to
install abatement
facilities by November 30,
1972.
Dubuque Packing Co,
Dubuque, Iowa
Mississippi River Solids, BOD
9/1/72 Connection to city
10/11/72 sanitary sewers by
Aug. 1972.
Duffy-Mott Co.,
Hamlin, New York
West Creek
(Tributary of
Lake Ontario
BOD, solids,
oil and grease
4/14/72 Company has agreed to
enter Monroe Co. sewage
treatment plant.
Dunbar,
West Virginia
Kanawha River
Total project
cost $1,100,000
7/14/72 Completion of final
plans by September 15, 1972,
construction to begin
on February 15, 1973,
and operation of plant
by March 1, 1974.
E.I duPont de
Nemours
Clinton, Iowa
Mississippi River
BOD, SS, acidity,
sulfides
8/4/72 Plan to reduce BOD to
2300#/day by Jan. 1, 1974,
includes emergency re-
tention capability ties.
120
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or Status
E. I. DuPont
Deepwater
New Jersey
Delaware
River
BOD, COD, ammonia,
TSS, phosphorus,
heavy metals, oil
and grease
10/13/72 Company has agreed to
construct treatment
plant by June 1974,
and have achieved
secondary treatment by
June 1975, tertiary
by December 1975.
E.I. Du Pont de
Nemours and Co.,
Linden, New Jersey
Atlantic Ocean
Ocean dumping-
salts
6/29/71 Company agreed to study
7/13/72 alternative methods
of disposal. Study
to take approximately
3 years.
E. I. duPont de
Nemours
Louviers, Colorado
Plum Creek
low pH and high
nitrates
11/14/72 Will contain their
discharge by July 1, 1973.
E. I. duPont de
Nemours
Topeka, Kansas
Kansas River
BOD, SS
8/16/72 Plant under construction
to reduce BOD and SS to
800 #/day each. Completion
by May 1973. _____
Eastern Fine Paper
Brewer, Maine
Penobscot River
Paper wastes
9/25/72 Agreed to tie into
Brewer Municipal
Sewer District when
available.
121
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or Status
Eastern Products
Corp., Wicomico
Steel Plant
Baltimore, Maryland
Baltimore Harbor
Excessive dis-
chargers of
cyanide and zinc
10/30/72 Agreed to pretreatment
of plant wastes prior
to discharge into sewer.
Elkhorn-Jellico Coal
Co.
Whitesburg, Kentucky
Rockhouse Creek
Coal washing
5/18/72 On 6/10/72 company
installed facilities
to abate pollution.
Company, previously
a nonfiler, has recently
filed for a Refuse Act
permit.
El Paso Natural
Gas Co., Station #23
Big Piney, Wyoming
Piney Creek
Discharge from
evaporation pond
without permit
application
9/18/72 Removed discharge pipe
and installed evapora-
tors.
City of Fargo
Fargo, North Dakota
Red River of
the North
WTP discharge
7/5/72 No discharge by 11/1/73.
Will submit progress
reports.
Federal Yeast Corp.,
Baltimore, Maryland
Baltimore Harbor
Acidic materials 9/19/72
and suspended solids
Segregate its contaminated
wastewater by October 1,
1972, to construct an
additional sewer line
by December 1, 1972,
and to complete construc-
tion by March 1, 1973.
122
-------
Name £» Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or Status
Fibreboard Corp.
San Joaquin Div.
Antioch, California
San Joaquin River
Toxicity, SS,
biological
oxygen demand
and phenols
4/27/72 Equiv. of primary
9/25/72 treat, by 12/31/72;
equiv. of secondary
treat, by 7/1/74.
Fieldcrest Mills
Eden/ North Carolina
Dan River
Textile wastes
10/9/72 Company agreed to meet
EPA limits by 1/4/74.
Fieldcrest Mills
Laurel Hill
North Carolina
Gum Swamp
Textile wastes
10/9/72 Company agreed to meet
EPA limits by 1/4/74.
Fike Chemical Company Kanawha River
Nitro, West Virginia
High levels COD,
BOD and total SS
9/22/72 All necessary modifica-
tions will be completed
by September 1, 1973.
Flintkote, Co.,
U.S. Lime Division
Henderson. Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and total 5/26/72
dissolved solids
See Table 3.
FMC Corporation
American Viscose
Division, Nitro,
West Virginia
Kanawha River
Discharges excessive
zinc, BOD and suspended
solids
8/22/72 Zinc removal and activated
sludge units will be
constructed and in operation
by April 1, 1973, and an
acid reclaim cooling tower
system will be in operation
by July 1, 1973.
123
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or Status
Ford Motor Company
Mahwah, New Jersey
Ramapo River
BOD, cadmium,
chromium, nickel,
zinc, and oil
6/30/72 Company has agreed to
all conditions
prepared by the RAPP
staff.
City of Fort Collins
Power &• Light
Ft. Collins, Colorado
So. Platte River Cooling water
9/22/72 Plans call for termina-
tion of generation by
6/1/73.
City of Fort Collins
WTF, Ft. Collins
Colorado
Cache La Poudre
River
Filter backwash
8/10/72 Will construct treatment
facilities to meet
effluent limits by 7/1/73.
Four-D Cattle Co.
Asotin County,
Washington
Grande Ronde
River
Feedlot wastes
9/7/72 EPA investigation in
Oct. 1972, disclosed
no further cattle
feeding on river banks.
Freeport Chemical
Uncle Sam
Louisiana
Mississippi River Gypsum
9/25/72 Completion of plans
3/31/73. Construction
to begin 7/1/73. Total
impoundment 12/31/74.
GAF Corp.
Denver, Colorado
So. Platte River
SS and oil £,
grease
9/29/72 Will recycle some
cooling water. Contact
cooling water will be
treated by a new system,
124
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or Status
GAF Corporation
New Windsor, New York
Quassaick Creek
(Tributary of
Hudson River)
Phenols, chlorinated
hydrocarbons,
chromium
12/1/71
6/30/72
Company has agreed to
send its wastes to
New Windsor secondary
wastewater treatment
facility.
GAF Corp., Dyestuff
and Chemical Division,
Linden, New Jersey
Arthur Kill
Mercury
6/27/71 Company agreed to reduce
mercury discharge at
cost of $700,000 by
late 1971. Current
daily discharge of
mercury is averaging
about 0.1 Ibs.
Gambel Island Feeders, Snake River
Inc., Idaho
Feedlot cattle
wastes
6/6/72 Company is in compliance
with schedule outlined
in ACL. Company to
phase out operations
by 3/1/74.
Gates Rubber Co.
Denver, Colorado
So. Platte River
High solids concentre- 9/14/72
tions and toxic metals
Accepted our effluent
limits and adopted our
monitoring program.
General Mills, Inc.
Buffalo, New York
Buffalo Ship
Canal
BOD. pH, fecal
coliform, oil
and grease
3/16/72
4/7/72
6/30/72
Company has allotted
$144,900 to separate
process waters from
cooling waters. Process
waters to be sent to
Buffalo Sewer Authority.
125
-------
Name L Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or Status
Glidden-Durkee
Jacksonville
Florida
St. Johns
Organic chemicals
10/18/72 Company agreed to
connect to city sewers
and meet all limits
jprojposed by EPA.
Gould Inc., Filter
Division, Longmont,
Colorado
St. Vrain Creek
Process water
9/5/72 Only cooling water will
be discharged.
W. R. Grace &• Co.
Lake Charles
Louisiana
Calcasieu River
Ammonia,SS,
COD, high pH
Impl. plan -
1/11/72
ACL - 2/7/72
Ammonia down 2/3 by 1/73.
Remainder by 12/75. pH
controlled by 6/72.
Remainder by 12/72 with
further reductions by
12/73. ACL to HQ.
Great Lakes Carbon
St. Louis, Missouri
MSD Storm Sewer
to Mississippi
River
Phenols, N-NHs,
cyanide levels
11/14/72 Treatment facilities
to be completed by
Aug. 1, 1974 to provide
effluent to meet schedule
A of Steel Industry.
Great Western Sugar
Co., N. Platte River
Nebraska
N. Platte River
Industrial waste
4/27/72
See Table 3.
Green Bay Metropolitan
Sewerage District
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Fox River/
Green Bay
Inadequate secondary 8/28/72
treatment of wastes
Letter accepted 9/26/72
Company will start
operation of plant by
3/25/75.
126
-------
Name &. Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or Status
Great Western Sugar
Billings/ Montana
Yellowstone River Organic waste
9/6/72 Will meet EPA effluent
limits by 73-74 campaign,
Agreed on monitoring
program.
Great Western Sugar So. Platte River
Brighton, Colorado
Organic waste from 9/6/72
beet sugar processing
Will meet EPA effluent
limits during 72-73
campaign. Agreed to
monitoring program.
Great Western Sugar
Eaton, Colorado
Cache La Poudre
River
Beet sugar mill
discharge
9/6/72 Agreed to meet limitation
by 72-73 campaign. Agreed
to monitoring programs
Great Western Sugar
Fort Morgan, Colorado
So. Platte River
Organic wastes from 9/6/72
beet sugar processing
Will meet EPA limits by
73-74 campaign. Agreed
to monitoring program.
Great Western Sugar
Greeley, Colorado
So. Platte River
Organics from beet
sugar processing
9/6/72 Agreed to meet limits
during 73-74 campaign.
Agreed to monitoring
program.
Great Western Sugar Little Thompson
Johnstown, Colorado River
Beet sugar mill
discharge
9/6/72 Will meet EPA limits by
Oct. 1974. Agreed to
monitoring program.
127
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or Status
Great Western Sugar
Longmont, Colorado
St. Vrain Creek
Organic wastes from 9/6/72
beet sugar processing
Agreed to BPT limits
by 72-73 campaign.
Will eliminate surge
pond discharge. Agreed
to monitoring program.
Great Western Sugar
Loveland, Colorado
Big Thompson River Organic wastes from 9/6/72
beet sugar processing
Will meet EPA effluent
limits during 72-73
campaign. Agreed to
monitoring program.
Great Western Sugar
Lovell, Wyoming
Big Horn River
Beet sugar mill
organic waste
9/6/72 Will meet EPA limitations
by 74-75 campaign.
Agreed to monitoring
program.
Great Western Sugar
Ovid, Colorado
So. Platte River Organic wastes
9/6/72 Will meet EPA limits
by 73-74 campaign.
Accepted monitoring
program.
Great Western Sugar
Sterling, Colorado
So. Platte River Organics
9/6/72 Will meet EPA limits
by 73-74 campaign.
Agreed to monitoring
program.
128
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or Status
Grower-Shipper Potato
Monte Vista, Colorado
Rio Grande River
Organics from potato 11/24/72
washing
Agreed to meet effluent
limits and start monitoring
program.
Hawthorn Avenue Dump S. Chickamauga
Chattanooga, Tennessee Creek
Trash and garbage
8/72
City agreed to clean-up
dump.
129
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL
Received
Results or Status
Heinz Company, Chambers-
burg, Pennsylvania
Conocochegue
Creek
Contamination
in runoff from
this company's
irrigation sys-
tem
9/19/72 Construction of wastewater
treatment facility, to be
operational by 2/1/73.
City of Henderson
Henderson, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Municipal
wastes
6/6/72
See Table 3.
Henningsen Foods
Malvern, Iowa
Silver Creek
BOD, solids
and salmonella
10/3/72 In-plant waste reduction to
reduce BOD to 62# per day.
Connection to new city treat-
ment system by 11/73.
Hercules, Inc.
Car thage, Mi s s our i
Center Creek
Nitro-
glycerin
10/18/72 Study plan submitted 10/18/72.
Study to be completed by
10/73 and results submitted
by 1/74.
Hercules, Inc.
Imperial Color &.
Chemical Dept.
Glens Falls, New York
Hudson River
Mercury
7/13/71 Secondary treatment facility
10/31/72 to start up by 8/72; current
discharge of less than
.02 Ibs/day.
Hercules, Inc. Calcasieu
Lake Charles, Louisiana River
High TOC, COD, 5/30/72
suspended solids, 8/18/72
sulfides
Biological treatment con-
structed 3/1/72. Skimmer
pond to be inst. 2/1/73.
Changed point of discharge.
ACL to Hq disapproved.
130
-------
Name &• Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL
Received
Results or Status
Hercules, Inc.
Par1in, New Jersey
South River
BOD, TSS, COD,
nitrates, nit-
rites, chlorinated
hydrocarbons, oil
and grease
10/6/72 Agreed to install facilities
to tie into Middlesex County
Sewer Authority's secondary
plant by 1975.
Hidden Valley Landfill
Bucks County
PennsyIvania
Tributary to
Delaware River
Leachate from
landfill escap-
ing into Callow
Run
8/7/72 Construction of pollution
abatement facilities will
start in Nov. and will be
completed by 4/30/73.
Holly Sugar Corp.
Delta, Colorado
Uncompahgre
River
High organic
loading ammonia
& fecal coliform
bacteria
9/28/72 Agreed to meet EPA's efflu-
ent limits by 72-73 campaign.
Agreed to monitoring program.
Holly Sugar Corp.
Sidney, Montana
Yellowstone
River
High organic
loading solids
ammonia and fecal
coliform bacteria
9/28/72 Agreed to meet EPA's efflu-
ent limits by 72-73 campaign.
Agreed to monitoring program.
Holly Sugar Corp.
Torrington, Wyoming
North Platte
River
Beet sugar process- 9/28/72
ing discharge con-
taining high BODs
and coliform bacteria
Agreed to meet EPA's efflu-
ent limits by 72-73 campaign.
Agreed to monitoring program.
Holly Sugar Corp.
Worland, Wyoming
Big Horn River
Organics, solids
ammonia and coli-
form bacteria
9/28/72 Agreed to meet EPA's efflu-
ent limits by 72-73 campaign.
Agreed to monitoring program.
131
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL
Received
Results or Status
Humble Oil & Refin-
ing Co., Everett,
Massachusetts
Long Meadow
(tributary of
Merrimack)
Oil discharge
6/14/72 Embarked on an oil leak
prevention program.
Humko Products
Memphis, Tennessee
Wolf River Organic
chemicals
10/20/72
Company connected to
Memphis sewer system.
Husky Oil Company
Cheyenne, Wyoming
South Platte
River
Discharging
excess quanti-
ties of BOD5,
oil & grease &
phenols
5/1/72 Agreed to expand and modify
treatment facilities by
7/1/73. Agreed to our efflu-
ent limits and monitoring
schedule.
Husky Oil Company
Cody, Wyoming
Big Horn River
Suspended
solids, oil &
grease
7/^0/72 Agreed to our effluent
limits and monitoring
program.
Husky Oil Company
Salt Lake City, Utah
Jordan River
Refinery dis-
charge
7/20/72 No deterioration of present
discharge. Agreed to accept
our effluent limits and
monitoring program.
ICI America, Inc.
(Atlas Chemical)
Joplin, Missouri
Grove Creek
Nitroglycerin
10/21/72 Study plan sumbitted
10/17/72. Study to be com-
pleted by 10/73, with final
report by 1/1/74.
Idaho Potato Starch Co.
Blackfoot, Idaho
Snake River
Food process
wastes
3/8/72 Spray field is in use and
pollution has been abated.
132
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL
Received
Results or Status
Ideal Cement Co.
Portland, Colorado
Arkansas River
Cement plant
discharge
11/29/72 Total containment by the
summer of 1974.
Illini Beef Packers,
Inc., Geneseo,
Illinois
Rock River
Inadequate
treatment of
industrial
wastes
7/7/72 Letter accepted 7/17/72.
Company will provide
secondary treatment of
wastes by 8/72.
Imperial Paper Co.
Plattsburgh, New York
Saranac River
(Lake Champlain)
Mercury,
chromium, lead,
oil & grease
1/31/72 Company agreed to discontinue
use of all lead and chromium
pigments no later than
1/31/73. Will send waste-
water to Plattsburgh treat-
ment plant to be constructed
by late 1973.
Industrial Sugar
St. Louis, Missouri
MSD Storm sewer
to Mississippi
River
BOD
8/17/72 One discharge connected to
city sanitary sewer 7/19/72.
Other two by 3/31/73.
Islip Scavenger
Waste Plant
Islip, New York
Awixa Creek
(Great Cove)
BOD, coliform
4/7/72 Town has agreed to rehabil-
itate equipment, eliminate
toxic wastes and extend
process operation time.
ITT-Rayonier
Fernandina Beach
Florida
Amelia River
Pulp &> paper
mill wastes
2/8/72 Company adopted new abate-
ment program including
processing to effect 95%
BOD reduction.
J. &. C Dyeing Co.
Shelby, N.C.
First Broad River Textile dyes
8/72
Company has agreed to modify
discharge pipes so that wastes
will not be bypassed into the
river should their pumps fail.
133
-------
Name £• Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL
Received
Results or Status
Jones Chemical, Inc.
He nde r s on, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients &.
total dis-
solved solids
6/8/72 See Table 3. Elimination
of discharge confirmed
prior to receipt of letter.
Junior, West
Virginia
Tygart River
BOD & suspended 7/15/72
solids discharge
Start of construction in
4/1/73 and operation of
plant by 1/1/74.
Kaiser Gypsum
Company, Inc.
Long Beach, California
Long Beach
Inner Harbor
Gypsum dust
4/5/72 Discharge to hold 12/31/72.
Gypsum dust to be recycled
into mfg. process.
Kennecott Copper
Magna, Utah
Great Salt Lake
Large volume dis-
charge of BOD5,
solids, toxic
metals and others
4/27/72 Agreed to eliminate one
discharge and accepted EPA
effluent limits and monitor-
ing schedule.
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Ray Mines
Ray, Arizona
Mineral Creek
(tributary to
Gila River)
Heavy metals
9/20/72 Complete by 7/73 stream
diversion project around
mine to prevent leaching
of toxic heavy metals.
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Reduction Plant
Hayden, Arizona
Gila River
Heavy metals
9/20/72 Complete by 4/73 a recycling
system to catch tailings
pile water runoff for re-
cycle use in concentrator.
134
-------
Name & Locator
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL
Received
Results or Status
Kimberly Clark
Memphis, Tennessee
Wolf River
Paper mill
wastes
10/20/72 Company agreed to connect
to Memphis sewer by 9/73.
Kind and Knox Gelatin
Port Neal Complex
Sioux City, Iowa
Missouri River
BOD, solids,
clorides &
chromium
7/13/72
11/3/73
Project to achieve recom-
mended final effluent
levels to be completed by
1/73.
Kittredge WTP
Evergreen WTP(old)
Evergreen WTP(new)
Colorado
Bear Creek
Filter backwash
4/26/72 These three WTP's submitted
implementation schedule for
upgrading their effluents
to conform with WQS by
8/20/73.
Kopas Corp.
Denver, Colorado
Clear Creek
Suspended solids 10/10/72
Will install storm sewer
by 10/15/72, no discharge
into Clear Creek.
Koppers Co., Inc.
(formerly J.I. Wells
Company), Salisbury
Maryland
Wicomico River
Discharged
wastes to lands
adjacent to the
river from which
rain storms wash
such wastes into
waters
8/8/72 Operate a facility for
treating its discharge.
Agreed to install the system
Betz Environmental Engi-
neers submitted.
City of Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Municipal
wastes
6/7/72
See Table 3.
135
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL
Received
Results or Status
Las Vegas Valley
Water District
Las Vegas, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Municipal
wastes
6/1/72
See Table 3.
Lehigh Valley RR £.
Humble Oil Company
Bayonne, New Jersey
Kill van Kull
Oil deposited
on property
seeping into
drainage ditch
12/17/71 Companies have agreed to
clean up, cap tanker cars,
and construct weir to con-
tain oil.
Linden Chlorine
Products
Linden, New Jersey
Arthur Kill
Residual mercury 5/23/72
discharge
Company has assumed re-
sponsibility for its
mercury discharge into com-
mon waste stream servicing
LCP and GAF. Company also
committed itself to main-
taining maximum and average
mercury loads.
Lone Star Industries,
Inc., Cement and
Construction Material
Group
Richmond, Virginia
James River
Discharged
appreciable
amounts of
suspended
solids
9/26/72 Immediate treatment of
suspended solids dis-
charged into the river.
City of Longmont
Colorado
St. Vrain
Creek
Filter backwash 11/10/72
Outline of construction
schedule to be completed
by May 1973.
City of Loveland WTP
Loveland, Colorado
Big Thompson
River
Filter backwash
8/15/72 Will contain all discharge
by July 1973.
136
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL
Received
Results or Status
Lutex Chemical
Chat tanooga, Te nne s s ee
Tributary to
South Chickamauga
Creek
Dye
3/23/72 Company has connected to
city sewer.
M &. T Chemicals, Inc.
Baltimore, Maryland
Patapsco River
Discharged
phenols ond
suspended solids
9/28/72 Construction of treatment
facility to be operational
by 8/31/73.
Mallinckrodt Chemical
Jersey City, New Jersey
City sewer
Mercury
6/30/71 Neutralization facility
on line by Oct. 1972.
Mallory Battery Co.
Tarrytown. New York
Hudson River
Mercury
6/28/71 Monitoring. Company agreed
to construct weirs; average
discharge around .001
Ibs/day.
Mariani Air Products
Salt Lake City, Utah
Price River
Suspended
solids & some
metals
10/27/72 No degradation of current
water quality. Agreed to
monitoring program.
Martin Marietta
Waterton, Colorado
South Platte
River
BOD5, coli-
form from
sanitary wastes
& toxic metals
6/26/72 Agreed to our effluent
limits monitoring schedule
and will report other para-
meters for limited time.
Mattaponi Sand and
Gravel Co., Inc.
Aylett, Virginia
York River
Discharged 8005
& suspended
solids
9/19/72 Enlargement of settling
ponds to treat its dis-
charges to acceptable
levels.
137
-------
Name & Location
of Dischargers
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL
Received
Results or Status
MDC Boston Harbor
Boston, Massachusetts
Boston Harbor
Sludge £• munici-
pal industrial
wastes
6/19/72 1) Commonwealth will under-
take comprehensive study to
determine most feasible means
of achieving secondary treat-
ment for all wastes at Deer
and Nut Island by 5/1/79.
2) Elimination of Sludge
a) Study to be completed
by 3/1/73.
b) Engineering plans &
spec. 7/1/74.
c) Completion of sludge
facilities by 5/1/76.
Shall not alter or super-
sede any proceeding under
applicable State or Federal
law.
Memphis City Dump
Memphis, Tennessee
Wolf River
Trash and
garbage
8/23/72 City agreed to clean up
dump.
Merck &. Co.
South San Francisco
California
San Francisco
Bay
Particulate
magnesium
hydroxide
10/10/72 Formalized agreement from
meeting 11/16/71. Unifica-
tion of 7 outfalls com-
pleted 4/18/72 to reduce
toxicity of specific dis-
charges. Will tie into sub-
regional system c. 1/1/74.
Merck Chemical Co.
Hawthorne, New Jersey
Passaic Valley
Sewer System
Mercury
6/22/71 Monitoring. Company has
agreed to cease all wet
processing of inorganic
mercurials.
138
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL
Received
Results or Status
Merck Chemical Division
Rahway, New Jersey
Atlantic Ocean
Ocean dumping
of chemical
sludge
8/24/72 Company has agreed to study
alternative methods of dis-
posal.
Metals Processing, Inc.
Salt Lake City, Utah
Jordan River
Toxic metals
11/2/72 No deterioration of present
effluent quality. Will
meet effluent limits by
9/1/73. Agreed to moni-
toring program.
Midwest Solvents
Atchison, Kansas
Missouri River
BOD & SS
9/20/72 Several in-plant changes
completed to reduce flow
and pollutants. Complete
treatment to be provided
by April 1975. Total pro-
ject cost estimated at
$6,000,000.
Mill Creek
West Virginia
Mill Creek
Municipal
wastes
7/15/72 Completion of construction
of secondary treatment by
12/11/74.
Minnkota Power Co-
operative
Milton R. Young Plant
North Dakota
Missouri River
Flow is 158 MGD 8/14/72
Solids are high
Constructed a cooling pond,
Agreed to our effluent
limits and monitoring
schedule.
Missouri Beef
Packers, Phelps City
Missouri
Tributary to
Rock Creek
SS, N-NH3
and Cl levels
7/17/72 Installation of flotation
(Partial) clarifier Jan. 1973 and
elimination of wastes from
hide plant. Engineering
report to be made Mar. 1973,
139
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL
Received
Results or Status
Missouri Chemical Co.
St. Joseph, Missouri
Missouri River
through storm
sewer
Pesticide
residuals
9/28/72 Connection to South
St. Joseph Industrial Dis-
trict to be completed as
soon as monitoring equip-
ment is installed, 1/2/73.
Mobay Chemical Co.
New Martinsville
West Virginia
Kanawha River
Phenols, sus-
pended solids
and colors
9/13/72 Facilities should be in
operation by 12/31/75, as
stated in the executed com-
mitment letter of 8/18/72,
with a total of 5 million
dollars.
Mobil Oil Corp.
Paulsboro, New Jersey
Delaware River
BOD, COD, TOC, 2/1/72
oil & grease, 5/12/72
volatile solids, 5/16/72
anunon ia, phe no 1 s
£> turbidity
Company agreed to abatement
schedule to be completed
by Dec. 1975.
Mohawk Paper Co.
Cahoes, New York
Mohawk River
TSS
5/22/72 Company agreed to install
pretreatment facility by
late 1972.
Monsanto Company
Anniston, Alabama
Snow Creek
PCB's
1/19/72 Company has ceased PCB
production as of 4/28/72
and confirm same in writing.
Monsanto Company
Bridgeport, New Jersey
Delaware River
pH, tempera- 12/11/72
ture, BOD, TSS,
turbidity, oil
&> grease, phenols
Agreed to a two-phase
abatement schedule to be
completed by Aug. 1975.
Monsanto Compary
Muscatine, Iowa
Mississippi
River
Herbicides &.
acid
140
10/17/72 Several in-plant changes
(recovery) to be completed
by 1/1/74 to reduce pollu-
tants discharged.
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Monte Vista Potato
Growers Assn., Monte
Vista, Colorado
Rio Grande River
Organics from 9/13/72
potato processing
Will adopt monitoring
program.
Montpelier, City of
Idaho
Bear River to
Snake River
Municipal wastes 6/20/72
Resolution passed by City
to effect proper treatment.
Montrose Chemical Co.,
Henderson, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and 5/31/72
total dissolved
solids
See Table 3.
John Morrell and Co.,
Ottumwa, Iowa
Des Moines River BOD, solids, 10/20/72
coliform
Initiated 2^ year compre-
hensive waste reduction
program to increase treat-
ment efficiency and
eliminate certain sources.
John Morrell & Co., Big Sioux River Organics
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
11/17/72
Will meet EPA limits by
Jan. 1, 1974. Will adopt
monitoring program.
Mountain Aggregates, Inc. South Platte River Gravel washing 8/24/72
Empire, Colorado
Will contain their
wastewater in a pit.
-------
Name and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Nassau Smelting and
Refining Co., Staten
Island, New York
Kill Van Kull
BOD, pH, suspended 5/4/72
solids, zinc,copper 6/1/72
lead, oil E. grease
Company agreed to install
wastewater treatment
facilities by March 1, 1973,
National Beef Packers
Kansas City, Kansas
Kansas River
Solids, BOD
10/4/72
Discharge of process wastes
eliminated 4/23/72.
National By-Products
La Platte, Nebraska
Platte River
Rendering wastes
Plant burned down*
National Gypsum
Mobile, Alabama
Mobile Bay
Paper mill
9/15/72
Company committed to pre-
treat and discharge to
Mobile municipal sewer by
2/19/73.
National Lead, Co., Atlantic Ocean
Sayreville, New Jersey
Ocean dumping- 8/11/71
sulfuric acid 11/3/72
Monitoring. Company has
submitted detailed study
of "acid-iron" waste
disposal at sea.
Needham Hide Port Oxbox Lake to
Neal Complex, Sioux City, Missouri River
Iowa
Chromium, BOD, 8/23/72
TDS, SS,NH3, oil
and grease
Final plans-11/1/72.
Construction completion-
8/73.
142
-------
Name and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Needham Packing, Sioux Missouri River
By-Products, Sioux City,
Iowa
Rendering wastes 8/4/72
Connected to city sewer
10/1/72.
Nepera Chemical Co.,
Harriman, New York
Atlantic Ocean
Ocean dumping- 4/6/71
chemical wastes
Agreed to build incinerator
facility at cost of
$207,000,
Nestle Co., Freehold,
New Jersey
Debois Creek
BOD, thermal,
oil, &. grease
4/13/72
Agreed to discontinue use
of sludge field, and build
retention basin around
clarifier.
Nevada Power Co., Clark
Generating Station
Las Vegas, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Cooling tower 9/14/72
blowdown
See Table 3.
Nevada Power Co.,
Sunrise Generating
Station, Las Vegas,
Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and 9/14/72
total dissolved
solids
See Table 3.
Nevada Sand &. Gravel Co., Las Vegas Wash
Las Vegas, Nevada
Nutrients & total 5/23/72
dissolved solids
See Table 3. Elimination
of discharge confirmed
prior to receipt of letter.
143
-------
Name and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
NL Industries, Salt Lake
City, Utah
Great Salt Lake
High concentra-
tions of sulfate,
ammonia & chlorine
7/5/72
Will evaluate impounding
discharge. Process water
will not reach Great Salt
Lake.
Norfolk Coca-Cola and
Bottling Works, Inc.
Portsmouth,Virginia
Elizabeth River
7/5/72
Will evaluate impounding
discharge. Process water
will not reach Great Salt
Lake.
Northwestern Engineering Clear Creek
Company, Denver, Colorado
Asphalt plant
11/24/72
No discharge.
Olin Corporation, Ohio River
Brandenburg, Kentucky
Bis ether
5/25/72
Company reported to EPA on
5/25/72 that the recovery
unit for the Bis (2 chloro-
isopropyl) ether was placed
in operation on 5/12/72 &
company expects this
treatment will produce the
intended removal of wastes.
Region IV is attempting to
obtain an abatement
schedule for the wastes
from Olin's propylene oxide
plant.
144
-------
Name and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Olin Corporation, Lake
Char1e s, Loui s iana
Calcasieu River
Ammonia, susp. 3/15/72
solids, organic
nitrogen, TOC, high
pH, high temperature
ACL to Hq for approval.
Facilities to be completed
by 12/31/73.
Otter Tail Power Co.,
Kidder Steam Plant
Wahpeton, North Dakota
Red River of the
North
High pH,temperature 10/27/72
and solids loading
Plant will be closed no
later than 5/7/75. No
degradation of current
water goal.
Pacific Power &. Light
Dave Johnston Plant
Glenrock, Wyoming
N. P3atte River Cooling water
discharge
10/5/72
Agreed to EPA's effluent
limits and monitoring
program. Will conduct
thermal study by 10/1/73.
Pacific States Castiron Great Salt Lake
Pipe Co., Salt Lake City,
Utah
Toxic metals
11/8/72
Agreed to EPA's monitoring
schedule.
Packaging Corp. of America Iowa River
Tama, Iowa
BOD, SS.
9/19/72
11/29/72
Spray irrigation system for
treatment by June 1973.
Only discharge would be
cooling water.
Paul, City of Idaho
Snake River
Municipal wastes 6/14/72
Resolution passed by city
to effect proper treatment.
145
-------
Name and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
PBI-Gordon Kansas City,
Kansas
Kansas River
Pesticides
10/5/72
All wastes to be diverted
or recycled to eliminate
discharge by 1/1/73.
Petro Products, Inc.,
Athens, Alabama
Little Piney
Creek
Oil
6/9/72
Correspondence sets forth
ten-point abatement
timetable. Latest
correspondence (6/22/72)
from AWIC indicates
recommendations were being
followed and would be met
within prescribed period.
Pfizer and Company,
Groton, Connecticut
Long Island
Sound
Ocean dumping- 6/29/71
mycelium wastes 10/15/71
Company to dispose of
mycelium wastes via town
landfill. All offshore
disposal of mycelium was
ceased by 6/30/72.
Phillips Petroleum
Salt Lake City, Utah
Jordan River
BOD5, oil £, grease, 7/20/72
phenols & ammonia
Agreed to combine all
discharges. Will meet
EPA's effluent limits and
monitoring program.
J.S. Pickett & Sons, Inc.
Dubuque, Iowa
Mississippi
River
BOD, solids
7/28/72
8/30/72
Connected to city sewer,
4th quarter, FY 73.
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Piedmont Heat
Treating Co., Charlotte,
North Carolina
Charlotte Storm
Sewer
Metallic wastes
9/30/72
Company agreed to meet EPA
limits and cease discharge
to public streams.
Pipe Street Dump
Gulfport, Mississippi
Bernard Bayou
Trash & garbage
8/72
City has closed the dump
and conditions for cleanup
are being discussed.
Port Chester Sewage Treat- Westchester County Heavy metals, oil
merit Plant, Russel Secondary Treatment and grease
Burdsall Co., and Ward Plant
Bolt &. Nut Company, Port
Chester, New York
1/5/72
Companies will treat
effluent to bring them into
line with County sewage
ordinances by Aug. 1972.
County will have final plans
and specs for secondary
plant submitted to State of
New York by April 3,1972.
Village of Port Chester
will join County system.
PPG Industries, Lake
Charles, Louisiana
Calcasieu River Clor. Hydrocarbons 12/19/72
lead, Hg (Mercury)
12/76 - Hydrocarbon
12/72 - Lead attained
0.1/100 ton/day now (12/72).
Pratt &. Whitney Aircraft Atlantic Ocean
Co., East Hartford,
Connec t icut
Ocean dumping- 7/19/71
chemical wastes 10/2/72
Company has agreed to study
alternative methods of
disposal.
147
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Pratt Brothers Coal Co.,
Hazard, Kentucky
Rockhouse Creek Coal washing
5/3/72
Company agreed to install
settling basin.
Priest River, City of
Idaho
Fend Orielle Lake Municipal waste 6/26/72
Resolution passed by city
to effect proper treatment.
Prime Tanning Co.,
Berwickf Maine
Salmon Falls
River
Needs upgraded
waste treatment
tie to Berwick
3/72
Satisfactory abatement
program under way.
Public Service of
Colorado Arapahoe
Plant, Denver, Colorado
South Platte
River
Cooling water
11/6/72
Agreed to EPA's effluent
limits and monitoring
program.
Public Service Co. of
Colorado, Cherokee
Plant, Denver, Colorado
South Platte
River
High solids &
cooling water
discharge
9/18/72
Agreed to our effluent
limits and monitoring
program.
Public Service Co. of
Colorado, Ft. St. Vrain,
Colorado
South Platte
River
Cooling water and 7/17/72
ash pond discharge
Discontinue demineralizer
discharge. Accepted
effluent limits &• monitor-
ing schedule.
Public Service Co. of South Platte
Colorado, Valmont River
Station, Denver, Colorado
High solids
9/18/72
Agreed to our effluent
limits and monitoring
program.
148
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Public Service Co. of
Colorado, Zuni Plant
Denver, Colorado
South Platte
River
Cooling water
11/6/72
Agreed to EPA's effluent
limits and monitoring
program.
Ranchway Feed Mills, Ft. Cache La Poudre Suspended solids 10/3/72
Collins, Colorado River &. high pH
Boiler blowdown discharge
will be eliminated
by 1/73.
Reichhold Chemicals McAlpine Creek
Charlotte, North Carolina
Organic chemical 11/21/72
Company agreed to meet EPA
limits.
Reilly Tar &. Chemical Corp. Phenolic Waste
Fairmont, West Virginia Monongahela River emanating from
the facility
8/28/72
Interim treatment pending
closing of plant.
Reilly Tar &. Chemical
Provo, Utah
Utah Lake
Metals, high
temperature
phenols
11/20/72
Will maintain current
effluent quality. Agreed
to our effluent limits &
monitoring schedule.
Rio Grande Starch Co.,
Monte Vista, Colorado
Rio Grande River Process waste
8/1/72
Agreed to total containment
149
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Rohm &. Haas, Inc. ,
Whitmoyer Laboratories,
Myerstown, Pennsylvania
Atlantic Ocean
Ocean dumping-
chemical wastes
3/19/71
Monitoring. Company has
agreed to remove and clean
up arsenical waste disposal
sites, and startup of
arsenical production on a
no discharge basis.
Rolling Mills Tank Farm
South Portland, Maine
Oil
8/9/72
Oil companies constructed
an interceptor trench to
carry oil leakage to a
separator which would skim
oil off by 8/18/72.
150
-------
Name and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
St. Albans
West Virginia
Kanawha River
7/14/72
Completion of construc-
tion on March 15, 1974,
and operation of plant
on April 15, 1974.
Peter J. Schweitzer,
Division of Kimberly-
Clark Corporation,
Spottswood, New Jersey
Atlantic Ocean
Ocean dumping
pulp wastes
6/14/71
9/26/72
Monitoring. Company has
agreed to stop dumping
"Black Liquor" and now
sends its wastes to
Middlesex County Sewage
Authority's treatment
plant.
Scott Paper Company
Marinette, Wisconsin
Menominee River
Pulp &. paper
wastes
6/20/72
Letter accepted 7/17/72
Company will attain
specified effluent limits
for BOD £. SS by 1/1/76.
Seaboard Coastline
R.R, Co.
Hamlet, North Carolina
Marks Creek
Oil
3/24/72
Company has complied.
Refueling operation dis-
continued. Agreed to
put in oil treatment
facilities when refueling
operations resume.
Agreed to clean up oil
on ground. Pollution
abated.
151
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Sheboygan, City of
Wisconsin
Lake Michigan
Inadequate treat-
ment of municipal
wastes
8/21/72
Letter accepted 9/11/72,
City will complete 3-
phased construction
projects by 3/33/76.
The Singer Company,
Elizabeth, New Jersey
Newark Bay
BOD, COD, iron, 2/7/72
zinc , phosphorus , 5/8/72
suspended solids,
oil and grease
Company has agreed to
construct necessary
treatment facilities by
mid-1973.
Sioux City Dressed
Beef (Needham)
Sioux City, Iowa
Missouri River
Solids from
cattle holding
pens runoff
8/4/72
Provide pretreatment
and connection to city
sewers by 1/15/73.
Sioux City, Iowa
Old Floyd Channel
New Floyd Channel
Missouri River
Unidentified
sanitary and
industrial dis-
charges to storm
sewers.
9/14/72
Ongoing program to
identify sources and
eliminate discharges.
Will also require sewer
separation.
Sioux City Stockyards
Old Floyd Channel
New Floyd Channel
Missouri River
BOD, solids
10/11/72
Program to reduce
wastewater quantity,
collect all wastes and
discharge to City system
by 12/1/74. Cost
$3,500,000.
152
-------
Name and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Smith Meal Company,
Amagansett, New York
Long Island Sound
Fish wastes dis-
charged over the
side of fishing
vessels owned by
company
2/11/72
Company has committed
itself to spending
$1,200 to correct
operations.
Snowco
Omaha, Nebraska
Missouri River
Heavy metals
and COD
9/13/72
Program initiated to
achieve effluent limits
recommended by EPA.
Southern Wood Piedmont
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Chattanooga Creek Phenols
6/12/72
Received letter con-
firming dike in place,
also, lab analysis of
stream showing definite
improvement.
Spokane, City of
Washington
Spokane River
Municipal waste
9/29/72
Resolution passed by
city to effect proper
treatment.
Springfield Electro-
plating Company
Springfield, Vermont
Cyanide poisoning 4/16/72
Agreed to halt discharge
and install adequate
treatment system.
153
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Standard-Coosa-
Thatcher Co.
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Chattanooga Creek Dye and ammonia
3/1/72
Company has complied
and installed controls
to abate dye waste.
State Stove £. Mgf. Co.,
Henderson, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and
total dissolved
solids
6/8/72
See Table 3.
Stauffer Chemical
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Mississippi River
Alum muds, pH,
susp solids, oil
&. grease, sulfite
8/9/72
Removal of alum muds
8/1/73. All others by
12/31/75.
Stauffer Chemical Co.,
Henderson, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and
total dissolved
solids
5/31/72
See Table 3.
Stauffer Chemical Corp., Niagara River
Niagara Falls, New York
pH, suspended
solids, heavy
metals
5/24/72
Agreement reached on all
parameters except lead;
residual lead discharge
to be retested by
company in January.
Stauffer Chemical Company Great Salt Lake
Salt Lake City, Utah
High concentra-
tions BOD5, solids
phosphorus and
toxic metals
8/29/72
No deterioration in
current quality. Process
water recycle by 12/1/73.
Agreed to our monitoring
schedule.
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Stauffer Chemical Co. Silver Bow Creek
Silver Bow Plant, Montana
Sanitary and
industrial
wastes
10/30/72
Eliminated wastewater
discharge.
Swift &. Co.
Burley, Idaho
Snake River
Feedlot wastes
5/6/72
Use of the area as a
cattle feedlot has been
discontinued.
Swift Agricultural
Chemical Corp.
Chesapeake River
Elizabeth River
Discharged high
concentrations of
acid, suspended
solids and metals
7/28/72
Abated high levels of
agricultural chemical
discharges by 8/1/72.
Swim-Mor Pools, West
Collingswood Heights,
New Jersey
Newton Creek
(Tributary of
Delaware River)
Deposited refuse
matter that could
fall or be washed
into waterway
8/10/72
Company committed itself
to not deposit further
refuse and clean up
property and shoreline.
Tenneco Chemicals, Inc.
Elizabeth, New Jersey
Arthur Kill
Mercury
6/16/71
Monitoring. Company
agreed to collect
effluent in sump and
precipitate out mercury
as mercuric sulfide;
virtual elimination.
155
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Tennessee River
Pulp £• Paper
Counce, Tennessee
Tennessee River Paper mill wastes 10/17/72
Company agreed to meet
EPA limits by 7/2/72.
Texaco, Inc.,
Westville, New Jersey
Delaware River
Chromium,
phosphorus
and ammonia
2/10/72
4/24/72
Due to collapse of
Gloucester County
regional system, company
has agreed to provide
its own treatment
facilities.
Texas Gulf Sulphur Co.
Granger, Wyoming
Green River
Mine shaft dis-
charge. High pH
sodium compounds.
7/25/72
Will contain all shaft
flow solution by 10/31/72.
38 Street Dump
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Chattanooga Creek Trash and garbage
8/72
City agreed to clean up
dump.
Titanium Metals Corp.
of America
Henderson, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and
total dissolved
solids
8/7/72
See Table 3.
Toms River Chemical
Corp.,
Toms River, New Jersey
Atlantic Ocean
Mercury
156
6/13/71
Monitoring. Company
expended $273,000 to
study mercury removal.
Added removal/stripping
steps to its production
procedure.
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Triangle Conduit and
Cable Co., Inc.
Glen Dale, West Virginia
Ohio River
Discharged acids
cyanide, chromium
and copper
9/28/72
Construct a facility to
limit pollutants in the
segregated contaminated
flows, to be operational
by 12/31/72. Estimate
cost of the modifications
described in the commit-
ment section is $74,000.
USAEC Dow Chemical
Dow Chemical
Rocky Flats, Colorado
Clear Creek
Potential
radioactivity
11/24/72
Agreed to no deteriora-
tion of their discharge.
Union Carbide Corp.
Bennington, Vermont
Wallomsac River
Ammonia discharge 5/17/72
Adapted preventive
ammonia disposal
practices.
Union Pacific RR
Salt Lake City, Utah
Jordan River
and oil and 8/16/72
grease from washing
operations
Agreed to no deteriora-
tion of present discharge
United Power Association
Stanton Plant,
North Dakota
Knife River
Ash discharge
from scrubbers.
Temperature from
condensers.
7/14/72
Will build larger ash
pond for process wastes.
Agreed to EPA's effluent
limits and monitoring
schedule.
157
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollutaion
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
United States Metals
Refining Company,
Carteret, New Jersey
Arthur Kill
Suspended solids,
ammonia, nitrate,
phosphorus, heavy
metals, oil and
grease
4/13/72
Company has agreed to a
5—year-phased project for
abating its pollution.
U.S. Gypsum Company
Lisbon Falls, Maine
Androscoggin River Paper wastes
7/5/72
Agreed to tie into Lisbon
Sewer District; Also
committed to construct
pre-treatment facility
to reduce solids and flow
to be completed by 10/73.
U. S. Steel
Geneva Works
Provo, Utah
Utah Lake
Suspended solids, I]/3/72
oil &• grease and
metals
Presented their suggested
limits and monitoring
program.
Utah-Idaho Sugar Co.
Garland, Utah
Malad River
Organics from
beet sugar
processing
11/17/72
Will meet EPA limits by
Oct. 1973. Recirculation
of flume water.
Utah Wool Pulling
Salt Lake City, Utah
Great Salt Lake
High BODs and
solids
11/20/72
Waste discharges into
Salt Lake Surplus Canal
will terminate 4/30/73.
158
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Velsicol Chemical Corp.
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Chattanooga Creek Pesticides
2/4/72
Leaky pipes were causing
problem on property which
washed spilled chemicals
into creek. Company
replaced leaky pipes and
eliminated most of
problem.
Velsicol Chemical Corp.
Memphis, Tennessee
Mississippi River Endrin and
heptachlor
6/72
Commitment offer made in
segments to cease dis-
charge of heptachlor and
endrin.
Ventron Corporation,
Chemicals Division,
Wood-Ridge, New Jersey
Tributary of Mercury
Hackensack River
7/22/71
Monitoring. Program
cost of $62,000 to con-
struct holding pond and
improved treatment
system; company's dis-
charge reduced to about
.02 Ibs/day average.
Vermont Marble Company
Proctor, Vermont
Oil
7/20/72
Oil spill contingency
plan.
Virginia Chemical Co,
Norfolk, Virginia
Elizabeth River
COD, suspended
solids, heavy
metals
8/18/72
Construction and
operation of facilities
to reduce loadings of
COD and suspended solids,
as well as heavy metals.
159
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Virgin Islands Landfill,
Virgin Islands
Atlantic Ocean
VI Department of
Public Works bull-
dozes large quan-
tities of raw and
burning waste into
Atlantic Ocean
9/6/72
Government of Virgin
Islands has agreed to
halt the procedure
immediately and follow
EPA guidelines for
landfill operations.
Wampler Foods, Inc.
Hinton, Virginia
North Fork
Shenandoah River
BOD and suspended 9/13/72
solids
Construct treatment
facility to be
operational by 1974.
Warren Brothers Co.
Nashville, Tennessee
Cumberland River
Salts and silt
7/5/72
Company agreed to abate
discharge.
Weld County
Bi-Products
South Platte
River
Organics
10/11/72
Total containment and
recirculation. Solid
waste hauled to farm.
White Fuel Corp.
Boston, Massachusetts
Oil
9/29/72
Steps taken to prevent
future spills.
160
-------
Nome and Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Date ACL was
Received
Results or
Status
Wyckoff Company
Winslow, Washington
Eagle Harbor,
Wash.
Oil seepage from
creosoting
facility
4/ 26/72
Company taking remedial
steps to assure minimum
of seepage from their
plant.
Wyckoff Steel
Division of Amco
Pittsburgh Corp.
Ambridge, Pennsylvania
Ohio River
Excessive
amounts of
total dissolved
solids, aluminum
and chromium
9/ 18/ 72
Construction of
facilities to be
operational by 11/1/72.
Phillip Zinman £» Co.
Camden, New Jersey
Newton Creek
(Tributary of
Delaware River)
Refuse deposited
on property in
such a way that
it could fall or
be washed into
waterway
4/26/72
9/1/72
Company has committed
itself not to dump in
this area. Company has
spent $1,200 for cleanup.
161
-------
REFUSE ACT CIVIL ACTIONS INITIATED BY JUSTICE-ASSISTANCE OF EPA
Table 5
Name &. Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Case Filed
On
Results or
Status
Alcolac Chemical Co.
Ossining, New York
Hudson River
Chemical wastes
5/10/72 Consent order entered
5/10/72; EPA supplying
technical assistance to
the USA for the SONY
regarding compliance.
American Cyanamid
Marietta, Ohio
Tributary of Ohio
River
Acids
4/28/71 Stipulation entered
1/26/72.
Bayonne, New Jersey
Kill van Kull
Domestic sewage, 7/18/72
industrial wastes
Complaint filed by USA
for New Jersey on
7/18/72.
Beacon Piece Dyeing Co., Hudson River
Beacon, New York
Solids, BOD,COD
1/27/71 Consent decree entered
3/3/71; EPA supplying
technical assistance to
USA SONY regarding com-
pliance.
Burdette Oxygen Co.,
Cleveland, Ohio
Cuyahoga River
Lime slurry
12/17/71 Permanent injunction
granted 1/20/72.
162
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Case Filed
On
Results or
Status
Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. Lake Champlain
New York, New York
Oil-barge and tug 9/13/71
discharge
Motion to dismiss denied.
Camp Smith, Peekskill,
New York
Hudson River
Filling of marsh 6/21/71
area
Consent order entered to
cease marsh fill and
remove fill material
6/21/71,
City Fuel, Haverhill,
Massachusetts
Merrimack River
Oil
8/17/72 Filing of civil complaint
and consent decree being
considered.
Cowen &. Shain, Inc. Merrimack River
Haverhill, Massachusetts
Bleach and dye
wastes
12/3/71 A Consent decree is being
negotiated.
Croton Point Refuse
Landfill, Croton, New
York
Hudson River
Leachate from 5/10/72
landfill, garbage
Consent order signed
6/6/72.
E.I. DuPont de Nemours
and Company
East Chicago, Indiana
Grand Calumet River Sulfates, chlorides 2/19/71
Consent decree entered
11/14/72.
Elk Piece Dye Works,
Haverstraw, New York
Hudson River
BOD color
1/27/71 Consent order entered
1/27/71; amended 4/13/72;
EPA rendered technical
assistance to the USA for
SONY regarding compliance.
163
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Case Filed
On
Results or
Status
Galveston Wharves,
Texas
Galveston Ship
Channel
Sulphur
12/11/70
Consent Decree entered
Gambel Island Feeders
Payette Co., Idaho
Snake River
Cattle waste
discharged from
feedlot directly to
navigable water,
creating substantial
human health problem.
9/1/72
Consent decree filed
9/12/72 provides for
complete abatement from
operation by 8/31/73.
Company is "phasing out"
its operation. Field
inspections schedules for
3/73 and 9/1/73.
Gare, Inc. ,
Haverhill, Massachusetts
Merrimack River
Solids
12/3/71 A Consent decree is being
negotiated.
General Motors, Tarrytown, Hudson River
New York
Metals, COD
12/15/70 Consent decree entered
1/9/71; EPA supplying
technical assistance to
USA for the SONY regarding
compliance.
Gladieux Refinery, Inc.
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Maumee River
Fuel oils
1/12/71 Consent decree signed
2/4/72.
164
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Case Filed
On
Results or
Status
Hamel Tanning Corp.
Merrimack River
Tanning wastes
12/3/71 A Consent decree is being
negotiated.
City of Haverhill,
Massachusetts
Merrimack River
Solids and indus- 12/3/71
trial wastes
Consent decree signed
7/27/72 providing for
construction and operation
of secondary treatment
facilities by 9/15/76.
Haverhill Paperboard,
Inc., Haverhill,
Massachusetts
Merrimack River
Paperboard waste 12/3/71
A Consent decree is being
negotiated.
Hoboken, New Jersey Hudson River Domestic sewage,
dustrial wastes
in- 7/18/72
Complaint filed by USA
for New Jersey on 7/18/72.
Hoyt &. Worthern Tanning Merrimack River
Company, Haverhill,
Massachusetts
Tanning wastes
12/3/71 A Consent decree is being
negotiated.
C.F. Jameson Co.,Inc. Merrimack River
Haverhill, Massachusetts
Shoe finish wastes 12/3/71
A Consent decree is being
negotiated.
Jersey City, New Jersey New York Harbor,
Newark Bay
Domestic sewage,
industrial wastes
165
7/18/72 Complaint filed by USA
for New Jersey on 7/18/72.
-------
Nome £• Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Case Filed
On
Results or
Status
Kay Fries Chemical Inc. ,
Stoney Point, New York
Minisceongo Creek
(Tributary of Hudson
River)
Solids, BOD, COD
1/22/71 Consent decree entered
1/22/71; EPA rendering
technical assistance to
USA for the SONY regard-
ing c omplianc e.
Kennebec Log-Driving Co., Kennebec River
Winslow, Maine
Bark and logs
3/19/71 Ruling on summary
judgment pending*
King Industries, Inc.
Norwalk, Connecticut
Norwalk Harbor
Chemical wastes
8/5/71
Action withdrawn 11/15/72
Industrial waste treatment
facility built in
accordance with Connecti-
cut DEP plans and specifi-
cations.
Krabow Cheese, Wisconsin
11/71
Leader Cheese Factory
Reeseville, Wisconsin
Lau Creek
Cheese wastes
11/71
Maplewood Poultry
Maine
Penobscot Bay
Blood, fat and
feathers
4/27/71 Consent decree entered
4/19/72 completed treat-
ment 6/1/72 currently
testing.
166
-------
Nome £>. Location
Of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Case Filed
On
Results or
Status
Marcal Paper Company
Mechanic Falls, Maine
Little Androscoggin
Pulp and paper
wastes
6/7/71
Consent decree entered
7/7/72. Providing for
construction &. operation
of complete industrial
waste treatment facility
by 3/31/74.
Marcal Paper Mills
South Hadley,
Massachusetts
Connecticut River
Pulp and paper
wastes
6/14/72
Consent Decree 10/2/72.
Marathon Battery Co.,
Inc., Cold Springs,
New York
Hudson River
Cadmium, nickel 9/25/70
deposits
Consent final judgment
entered 1/20/71 enjoining
further discharge.
Consent final judgment
signed 6/8/72 requiring
defendants to remove most
of cadmium-containing
sediments in river.
Micro Fab Inc.,
Amesbury, Massachusetts
Merrimack River
Electroplating, £, 3/28/72
chemical wastes
A Consent decree is
being negotiated.
National Rivit
Waupun, Wisconsin
11/71
167
-------
Name & Location
Of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Case Filed
On
Results or
Status
New York City, New York
Hudson River,
New York Harbor,
East River, Kill
Van Kull, Jamaica
Bay, Long Island
Sound
Domestic sewage, 7/18/72
industrial wastes
Case in pleading stage;
City has filed answer.
North Bergen, New Jersey Hudson River
Domestic sewage, 7/18/72
industrial wastes
Complaint filed by USA
for New Jersey on 7/18/72.
Oceana Terminal Corp.,
Bronx, New York
East River
Oil
4/24/70 Consent order entered to
force company to clean up
continuous oil discharge;
EPA supplying technical
assistance to USA SONY
regarding compliance of
company.
Passaic Valley Sewerage New York Harbor
Commissioners, Newark
New Jersey
Domestic sewage, 7/18/72
industrial wastes
Case in pleading stage;
defendant has filed
answers and counterclaim.
Republic Steel Corp.,
Cleveland, Ohio
Cuyahoga River
Cyanide, sulfates 4/27/71
Negotiations continuing.
Standard Brands, Inc., Hudson River
Peekskill, New York
BOD
168
10/23/70 Consent order entered
1970. EPA technical
assistance supplied USA
for SONY on several
occasions regarding
compliance of company.
-------
Name &. Location
Of Dischc
irqer
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Case Filed
On
Results or
Status
Tanker Tamano USDC
Maine
Casco Bay
#6 fuel oil
7/24/72
Action pending.
U.S. Steel Corporation Cuyahoga River
Cleveland, Ohio
Phenols and SS
4/28/71
Negotiations continuing*
U. S. Steel Corporation
Gary, Indiana
Grand Calumet River Phenols, cyanide 2/19/71
Negotiations continuing.
U.S. Steel Corporation
Lorain, Ohio
Black River
Phenols and SS
4/28/71
Negotiations continuing.
United Transportation Co., Padilla Bay
Anacortes, Washington Guemes Channel-
Pug et Sound
Negligent discharge
of 200,000 gals.
diesel oil 4/26/71
Civil action filed to
enjoin negligent oil
transfer operations at
refinery and to recover
cost of government
response to spill.
Criminal action filed to
recover penalty for
violation of Refuse Act.
Injunctive action was
dismissed. On 12/18/72
refinery paid $16,000 to
settle civil action and
paid $2,500 penalty.
Ward Paper Company, Inc.,
Merrill, Wisconsin
Wisconsin River
Pulp E> paper mill
wastes 4/14/71
Negotiations continuing.
169
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving
Water
Pollution
Problem
Case Filed
On
Results or
Status
Washburn Wire Co.,
New York, New York
East River
Acids, iron
oxides
1/21/71 Consent decree entered
limiting company's dis-
charge 1/21/71; revised
3/14/72. EPA supplying
technical assistance to
USA SONY regarding
compliance.
Wausau Paper Mills
Brokaw, Wisconsin
Wisconsin River
Pulp &. paper mill 4/14/71
wastes
Negotiations continuing.
West New York, New
Jersey
Hudson River
Domestic sewage, 7/18/72
industrial wastes
Complaint filed by USA
for New Jersey on 7/18/72.
White Fuel Corp.,
Boston, Massachusetts
Boston Harbor
#2 fuel oil leaking 6/72
from oil terminal and
leaching from surround-
ing ground
7/6/72 filed civil action
for injunctive relief:
Company took corrective
action and EPA received
ACL 9/29/72.
170
-------
REFUSE ACT CRIMINAL ACTIONS INITIATED BY JUSTICE _
Nome and
Location
of Company
Acme Petroleum Co.
Illinois
Allied Aviation Fueling
Co., Minneapolis,
Minnesota
Allied Chemical Corp.
Garfield Heights, Ohio
Ashland Oil
HQ - Ashland, Kentucky
Atlantic Richfield Co.
East Chicago, Indiana
Receiving
Water
Unknown
Storm sewer to
Minnesota River
Cuyahoga River
Lake Erie
Monongahela
River
Indiana Harbor
Canal
ASSISTANCE OF EPA
Table 6
Date
Pollution Problem Filed
Oil spill Not available
Oil spill 4/15/71
Industrial wastes 5/13/71
(Indictment)
Oil 7/13/71
2 oil spills 6/22/71
Results or
Status
Fined $500
10/14/71.
Fined $1,000 as of
12/28/71.
Fined $750
11/22/71.
Company pleaded nolo;
fined $1,000.
Fined on 2 counts
at $2,500 apiece
12/1/71.
Atlantic Richfield Co. Chicago Sanitary Oil spill
Forest View, Illinois and Ship Canal
5/18/71
Probation for 6
months 2/3/72.
171
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Bettinger Corp.
Milford, Massachusetts
Blue River Dump,
Receiving
Water Pollution Problem
Blackstone River Industrial wastes
Blue River
Date
Filed
4/24/71
2/9/72
Results or
Status
2/24/72 Pleaded
guilty; fined $500,
Case dropped.
U.S. v. Boyd
USDC, WD, Washington
#94-7102
Salmon Bay
Waterway -- Lake
Washington Ship
Canal -- tributary
to Puget Sound
M/V MERCATOR discharged
30 gals, of diesel fuel
into navigable water
Criminal action
brought against
Mr. Boyd for failure
to report oil spill.
Found guilty and sen-
tenced to one year
probation. Case
under appeal in U.S.
9th Circuit Court,
San Francisco.
Blaw-Knox Foundry &. Mill, East Chicago, Indiana
Not available
Buckley Bros., Inc. Johnson Creek
Bridgeport, Connecticut
Oil
Information filed
6/31/71. Pleaded
nolo and fined $500,
7/15/71.
Builard Company
Bridgeport, Connecticut
Ash Creek
Oil
5/14/71
Indicted 5/14/71.
Dismissed 12/12/71.
Cabot Titania, Inc.
Ashtabula, Ohio
Field's Brook to
Ashtabula River
Industrial wastes
5/13/71
(Indictment)
Pleaded nolo
contendere and
placed on probation
for 1 year 4/24/72.
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Filed
Results or
Status
Ciba Geigy Chemical
Corporation
Cranston, Rhode Island
Pawtuxet River
Chemicals
7/13/72
Case continued for
one year pending
elimination of
waste by-pass.
Cleveland Electric
Illuminating Company
Avon Lake, Lakeshore,
Eastlake and Ashtabula,
Ohio
Field's Brook to Fly ash
Ashtabula River
5/13/71
(Indictment)
Pieaded nolo
contendere and fined
$10,000 - fine
suspended*
Connecticut Light &.
Power Company
Hartford, Connecticut
Housatonic River
Oil
5/14/71
Information filed
5/14/71, 6/30/71
indicted; pleaded
not guilty, found
guilty; fined $500,
court fees $267.00.
Consolidated Papers, Inc.
Stevens Point, Wisconsin
Wisconsin River
SS discharge
4/14/71
Fined $1,000
10/21/71.
Consolidation Coal
Mountaineer Division
#93 mine
Pharoah Run
(trib. Monongahela
River)
Acid mine
drainage
8/21/72
We filed brief
against company's
motion to dismiss
on 12/1/72.
173
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Filed
Results or
Status
Cornell Paper Products,
Co., Cornell, Wisconsin
(now St. Regis Paper
Company)
Chippewa River
Paper mill wastes
8/5/70
Fined $2,000
12/7/70.
Demert and Dougherty
Stickney, Illinois
Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal
Oil spill
4/5/71
Fined $500 4/20/71.
Diamond Rendering Co.
Maspeth, New York
Newtown Creek
BOD
4/28/72
25-count indictment
filed by USA for
EDNY on 4/28/72.
Diamond-Shamrock
Chemical Co.
Ashtabula, Ohio
Field's Brook to
Ashtabula River
Industrial wastes
5/13/71
(Indictment)
U.S. Attorney
continuing
negotiations.
Diamond-Shamrock
Chemical Co.
Painesville, Ohio
Lake Erie
Industrial wastes
5/13/71
(Indictment)
U.S. Attorney
continuing
negotiations.
Edmier, Inc.
Cicero, Illinois
Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal
Oil spill
5/18/71
Fined court costs
and probation for
6 months 6/25/71,
174
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Falls Dairy Co., Inc.
Jim Falls, Wisconsin
Galveston Wharves
Galveston, Texas
General American
Transportation Corp.
Summit, Illinois
Genoa Coop Creamery Co.
Genoa, Wisconsin
Georgia Pacific a/k/a
Will County Printing
Office, Illinois
Receiving
Water Pollution Problem
Chippewa River Milk wastes
Galveston Ship Sulphur
Channel
Chicago Sanitary Oil spill
and Ship Canal
Mississippi River Raw milk wastes
Des Plaines River Oil spill
Date
Filed
8/5/70
12/11/70
5/18/71
4/14/71
5/18/71
Results or
Status
Fined $1,500
12/19/70.
Consent Decree
entered 1971.
Fined $1,000
9/30/71.
Fined $1,000 2/2/72.
Fined $2,500 5/28/71.
Granite State Packing Municipal sewer to Blood, feces
Manchester, New Hampshire Mernwack River
2/72
Found guilty
6/14/72; fined
$1,500; Appeal was
denied.
Handy £. Harmon, Inc. Turney Creek
Fairfield, Connecticut
Oil
Pleaded nolo; fined
$750 9/20/71.
175
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Hannah Inland Waterways
Corp. , Illinois
Hercules, Inc.
Desoto, Kansas
Indiana Harbor Belt
Railroad
Chicago, Illinois
Industrial Rayon Corp.
Painesville, Ohio
Ingram Corporation
Illinois
Inland Steel Company
East Chicago, Indiana
Johns-Manville Co.,
Los Angeles, California
Receiving
Water Pollution Problem
Unknown Oil spill
Kill Creek, Ammonia spill
Kansas River
Chicago Sanitary Oil spill
and Ship Canal
Lake Erie/ Industrial wastes
Grand River
Unknown Oil spill
Indiana Harbor Industrial wastes
Canal
Dorainquez Industrial solids
Channel
Date
Filed
Not available
Information
filed 7/1/71
4/5/71
5/13/71
(Indictment)
Not available
6/7/71
2/2/72
Results or
Status
Fined $500 7/27/71.
Arraignment and nolo
plea- 12/1 5/71.
$2 , 500 fine same day
Fined $500 4/21/71.
U.S. Attorney
continuing
negotiations.
Fined $1,000
7/12/71.
Pi eaded nolo
contendere and
fined 2/72.
Guilty plea on 2
counts; fined
$1,000 on 3/6/72.
Jones kj- Laughlin - 2 Plants
Industrial Wastes
176
4/6/71
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Kennebec River Pulp
and Paper
Madison, Maine
Koppers Co.
Follansbee, West
Virginia
Receiving
Water
Kennebec River
Ohio River
Pollution Problem Date
Filed
Pulp and paper wastes 6/72
Phenols 5/7/71
Results or
Status
Indicted 6/72.
Still in negotiatioi
stage; working on
consent decree.
Lake River Terminals,
Inc., Berwyn, Illinois
Chicago Sanitary Oil spill
and Ship Canal
5/18/71
Fined court costs
and probation for
6 months 6/24/71.
Metropolitan Airports
Commission
Minneapo 1 i s , Minne so ta
Midland Glass Co.
Shakopee, Minnesota
National Marine Services,
Inc., Hartford, Illinois
Storm sewer to Oil spill
Minnesota River
Minnesota 'Hiver Industrial wastes
Mississippi River Oil spill
4/15/71
11/16/71
not available
Fined $1,000 as of
12/28/71.
Fined $500 12/13/71.
Fined $500 7/9/71.
National Steel Co. Ohio River
Weirton, West Virginia
Phenols
5/7/71
Still in negotiation
stage; working on
consent decree.
177
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Filed
Results or
Status
J. J. O'Donnell
Grafton, Massachusetts
Blackstone River Soaps and dyes
4/24/71
Industrial waste
corporation and its
President fined
$2500 - 11/71.
Olin Corp.
Ashtabula, Ohio
Field's Brook to
Ashtabula River
Industrial wastes
5/13/71
(Indictment)
U.S. Attorney
continuing
neaotiations.
Picco Allegheny River
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Industrial wastes
4/6/71
Under Supreme
Court review
Pinkas-Fisher
Maspeth, New York
Newtown Creek
BOD
4/28/72
25-count indictment
filed by USA for
EDNY on 4/28/72.
Poultry Processing, Inc. Penobscot Bay
Belfast, Maine
Offal
12/70
Pleaded no contest
3/28/71; Fined
$2500; New treat-
ment system
installed.
Raybestos-Manhattan,
Inc.
Stratford, Connecticut
Ferry Creek
Oil
Pleaded nolo;
fined $750 9/28/71.
Rencoa
Maspeth, New York
Newtown Creek
BOD
4/28/72
25—count indictment
filed by USA for
EDNY on 4/28/72.
178
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Seven-Up Bottling Co.
St. Cloud, Minnesota
Tilo Company
Stratford, Connecticut
Receiving Pollution Problem
Water
Mississippi River Industrial wastes
Tanners Creek Oil
Date
Filed
11/16/71
Results or
Status
Fined $500 1/3/72.
Pleaded nolo;
fined $500 10/21/71.
Tobin Packing Co.,
Albany, New York
Hudson River
BOD, oil and grease, 8/29/72
salmonella bacteria
50-count indictment
filed by USA for
the NDNY 8/29/72.
Uni royal, Inc.
Painesville, Ohio
Grand River
Industrial wastes
5/13/71
(Indictment)
U.S. Attorney
continuing
negotiations.
U.S. Steel
Clairton, Pennsylvania Monongahela
6 Plants in Pittsburgh Area.
Coal, tar
4/6/71
Company pleaded
nolo; fined $2500.
U.S. v. Weyerhaeuser Co. Snohomish River
Discharge of oil into 4/6/72
water environment
2 counts of unlaw-
ful discharge and
2 counts of failure
to notify, result-
ing in conviction
and fine of $7,000.
179
-------
Name and
Location
of Company
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
Follansbee, West Virginia
Receiving
Water Pollution Problem
Ohio River Phenols
Date
Filed
5/7/71
Results or
Status
Still in negotiation
stage; working on
consent decree.
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
Monessen Plant, Pennsylvania
4/6/71
Wisconsin Dairies Coop., Inc. Baraboo River Raw milk wastes
Union Center, Wisconsin
4/14/71
Fined $750 7/29/71.
Youngstown Sheet &. Tube Co.
East Chicago, Indiana
Not available
180
-------
FWPCA SECTION 10(g) CIVIL ACTIONS REFERRED TO JUSTICE
7
Name and Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution Problem
Date
Referred
Results or Status
City of Kansas City,
Kansas
Kansas and Missouri Municipal wastes
Rivers
6/1/72
Civil suit filed
10/6/72; decision
pending.
Kingsbury General Improve-
ment District
Tahoe-Douglas County,
Nevada
Lake Tahoe
Municipal wastes
6/21/72
Civil suit filed
9/12/72; decision
pending.
Reserve Mining Company
Silver Bay, Minnesota
Lake Superior
Taconite tailings
1/20/72
Civil suit filed
2/17/72 - includes
counts under Refuse
Act and Federal
common law nuisance.
Whiting, City of, et.al.
Indiana
Lake Michigan
Municipal wastes
9/1/72
Civil suit filed
9/11/72 - filed
jointly with State-
Federal counts
under section 10(g)
and Federal common
law nuisance.
181
-------
180-DAY NOTICES - FWPCA SECTION 10(c)(5)
Table 8
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Alaska Ice & Storage,
Inc., Alaska (Kodiak
Harbor)
St. Paul Harbor
Raw industrial wastes 8/2/72
(seafood leavings)
Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment received to date.
Situation to be handled by
issuance of permits as soon
as possible.
Alaska Packers Assn.,
Alaska (Kodiak Harbor)
St. Paul Harbor
Raw industrial wastes 8/2/72
(seafood leavings)
Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment received to date,
Situation to be handled by
issuance of permits as soon
as possible.
Alton Box Board Company
Lafayette Mill
Lafayette, Indiana
Wabash River
Pulp and paper
wastes
1/28/72 Informal hearing 3/1/72.
Notice expired 7/26/72.
Agreement reached - Company
connected to city
American Can Company
Green Bay Mill
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Fox River to
Green Bay/Lake
Michigan
Pulp and paper
wastes
5/9/72
Informal hearing 6/20/72.
Notice expired 11/5/72.
Agreement reached - Company
to connect to Green Bay
Metropolitan Sewerage Dis-
trict by 3/75.
182
-------
Nome & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Amstar
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Delaware River
BOD
2/1/72 9/28 it was recommended to HQ
that this case be referred
to U.S. Attorney for civil
relief under Refuse Act.
Appleton, City of
Wisconsin
Fox River
Municipal wastes
10/5/72 Informal hearing 11/28/72.
Notice expires 4/3/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
Ashland Oil &
Refining Company
Ashland/ Kentucky
Big Sandy River Phenols
6/22/71 Informal hearings 8/6 and
9/22/71. Although agreement
reached on a construction
schedule calling for comple-
tion by 11/74, no agreement
yet on effluent limitation
for phenols awaiting perform.
ance of new treatment plant.
City of Atlanta,
Georgia
Chattahoochee
River
Municipal wastes
12/9/70 Informal hearing 1/2/71 -
three plants ordered to
complete construction by
4/73. On schedule.
Avalon Sewerage Author- Great Sound Municipal wastes
ity, Borough of Avalon, (Atlantic Ocean)
New Jersey
9/12/72
Informal hearing pending.
Borough of Avon-by-the Atlantic Ocean Municipal wastes
Sea, New Jersey
9/12/72
Informal hearing pending.
183
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
B & B Fisheries, Inc.
Alaska (Kodiak Harbor)
St. Paul Harbor
Raw industrial wastes 8/2/72
(seafood leavings)
Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment received to date.
Situation to be handled by
issuance of permits as soon
as possible.
Basic Management, Inc.
Henderson, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and total 12/23/71
dissolved solids
Informal hearing, 1/25/72.
Abate, commit. 5/25/72 to
treat municipal wastes and
8/01/72 to curtail influent
to seeping ponds by 12/31/74
halt it by 12/31/75.
City of Bayonne, New
Jersey
Kill Van Kull
Municipal wastes
8/11/72
Informal hearing - 9/12/72.
Bemis Co., Inc.
East Pepperell,
Massachusetts
Nashua River
(Merrimack)
Ink and glue waste
discharged
4/6/71 6/3/71 informal hearing.
Will connect to municipal
facility 10/20/71 - Hearing
Bergstrom Paper Company
Neenah, Wisconsin
Fox River
Pulp and paper
wastes
10/5/72 Informal hearing 11/29/72.
Notice expires 4/3/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
184
-------
Home & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Bogalusa, Louisiana
Pearl River
Discharge of inade-
quately treated
sewage.
7/21/71 Bond Election Passed 4/25/72.
Project Schedule:
Plans & Specs. 5/16/72 -
1/31/73
EPA Review - 2/1/73-2/14/73
Advertise, Receive &
Analyze Bids - 2/15/73 -
3/31/73
Award Contract - 4/1/73
Construction - 4/1/73 -
12/31/74
Est. Cost - $7,600,000
All interim dates are being
met; grants have been re-
ceived.
Borough of Bradley Beach,
New Jersey (Evergreen
Avenue Plant)
Atlantic Ocean
Municipal wastes
9/12/72
Informal hearing pending•
Borough of Bradley Beach,
New Jersey (Ocean Park
Avenue Plant)
Atlantic Ocean
Municipal wastes
9/12/72
Informal hearing pending.
Brown Paper Company
Castleton-on-Hudson,
New York
Moordener Kill
(tributary of
Hudson River)
Industrial wastes
12/23/71 Informal hearing - 2/17/72.
Abatement schedule calls
for initiation of construc-
tion by January 1, 1973.
Charmin Paper Products
Company, Fox River Mill,
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Fox River to
Green Bay/Lake
Michigan
Pulp and paper
wastes
185
5/9/72 Informal hearing 6/20/72.
Notice expired 11/5/72.
Agreement reached!- Company
^cont'd)
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
(cont'd)
Charmin Paper Products
Company, Fox River Mill,
Green Bay, Wisconsin
to connect to Green Bay
Metropolitan Sewerage
District by 3/75.
Cities Service Corp.
Copperhill, Tennessee
Ocoee River
Acid mine drainage
& silt
9/29/72 Informal hearing 11/15/72,
Next scheduled compliance
date - 6 months hence.
City of Chicopee
Chicopee, Massachusetts
Connecticut River Discharge untreated 4/6/71
sewage
Unsatisfactory progress-but
is in compliance with State
Order; completion of all
facilities by 12/19/74
Clark County Sanitation
District, Las Vegas,
Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Municipal wastes
12/23/71 Informal hearing, 1/25/72.
Abate, commit, letter
5/26/72; completion of treat
and disposal facilities by
12/31/75.
Cleveland, City of
Ohio
Cuyahoga River
Municipal wastes
12/9/70 Informal hearing 1/28/71.
Notice expired 6/7/71.
Agreement reached -
resulting in creation of
Cleveland Regional Sewer
District as a regional
solution.
30 Cleveland Suburbs
Ohio
Cuyahoga River
and Lake Erie
Municipal wastes to
City of Cleveland
System
8/9/71 Informal hearing 9/24/71.
Agreement reached -
resulting in creation of
186
-------
Nome & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
(cont'd)
30 Cleveland Suburbs
Ohio
Cleveland Regional Sewer
District as a regional
solution.
Columbia Ward Fisheries
Alaska (Kodiak Harbor)
St. Paul Harbor
Raw industrial wastes 8/2/72
(seafood leavings)
Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment received to date,
Situation to be handled by
issuance of permits as soon
as possible.
Consolidated Papers, Inc,
Appleton, Wisconsin
Fox River
Pulp and paper
wastes
10/5/72 Informal hearing 11/28/72.
Notice expires 4/3/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
Covington, City of
Indiana
Wabash River
Municipal wastes
11/3/71 Informal hearing 1/5/72.
Notice expired 4/9/72. No
agreement reached. Sta^re filed
civil suit-EPA supporting..
Crucible Steel Corpora- Lake Onondaga
tion, Geddes, New York
Industrial wastes
6/26/72 Informal hearing - 8/22/72.
Abatement schedule currently
calls for completion of con-
struction of facilities by
December 31, 1974.
187
-------
Nome & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Cuyahoga County Sewer
District #6
Rocky River, Ohio
Lake Erie
Municipal wastes
9/18/73 Informal hearing 10/31/72.
Notice expires 3/17/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held and construction
underway.
Detroit, City of
Michigan
Detroit River
Municipal wastes
12/9/70 Informal hearing 2/1/71.
Notice expired 6/7/71.
Agreement reached -
necessary treatment to be
provided in stages by 1976.
City of Dunkirk,
New York
Lake Erie
Municipal wastes
10/22/71 Informal hearing - 12/1/71.
Abatement schedule currently
calls for completion of con-
struction by September 1974.
Eastlake, City of
Ohio
Lake Erie
Municipal wastes
7/30/71 Informal hearing 9/9/71.
Notice expired I/-7/72.
Agreement reached -
secondary treatment to be
completed by 8/3/73.
Eastpoint Seafood Co.,
Alaska (Kodiak Harbor)
St. Paul Harbor
Raw industrial wastes 8/2/72
(seafood leavings)
Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment received to date.
Situation to be handled by
issuance of permits as soon
as possible.
188
-------
Name & Location
of Discharqer
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
East Side Levee and
Sanitary District
East St. Louis/ Illinois
Mississippi River
Municipal wastes and 10/13/72
heavy industrial wastes
Informal hearing 12/6/72.
Notice expires 4/11/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
East St. Louis/
City of Illinois
Mississippi River
Municipal wastes and
industrial packing
house wastes.
10/13/72 Informal hearing 12/7/72.
Notice expires 4/11/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
E. Cummings Leather
Co./ Inc./ Lebanon/
New Hampshire
Mascona River Tanning wastes
(Connecticut River)
6/2/72 Informal hearing held
6/29/72.
Borough of Edgewater/
New Jersev
Hudson River
Municipal wastes
8/11/72 Informal hearing - 9/6/72,
Euclid, City of Ohio
Lake Erie
Municipal wastes
7/30/71 Informal hearing 9/9/71.
Notice expired 1/27/72.
Agreement reached -
clean-up program underway
with 8/31/73 completion
date.
189
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Flintkote Co., U.S. Lime
Div., Henderson, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and
total dissolved
solids
12/23/71 Informal hearing, 1/25/72.
Abate, commit. Itr., 5/26/72
discharge to halt by 1/31/73
FMC Delaware River COD
Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania pH
2/1/72 9/28/72 recommended to U.S.
Attorney civil relief under
the Refuse Act.
Franklin, New Hampshire
Winnipe saukee
River
Inadequately treated 8/20/71
sewage
10/19/71 hearing.
City to tie-in to regional
facility.
GAF Corporation
Linden, New Jersey
Arthur Kill
Industrial wastes
5/19/70 Informal hearing - 6/23/70.
Complete agreement reached
at informal hearing. Mer-
cury discharge has been re-
duced and is being main-
tained at satisfactory level.
GAF Corporation,
Paper Mill, Gloucester
City, New Jersey
Delaware River
Industrial wastes
2/9/72 Informal hearing - 3/22/72.
By letter of April 10, 1972,
GAF has agreed to close
waste water system by
August 1, 1973.
Garland, City of
Utah
Malad River
Organic and bac-
terial violations of
stream standards
2/4/72 Issued 2/4/72; hearing
3/7/72; preliminary planning
completed.
190
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Gary Sanitary District
Gary, Indiana
Grand Calumet and
Little Calumet
Municipal wastes
7/27/72 Informal hearing 9/7/72.
Notice expires 1/24/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
W. R. Grace Co.
Owensboro, Kentucky
Ohio River
Paper and chemical
waste
6/29/72 Informal hearing 8/1/72.
Treatability study sub-
mitted 10/1/72. On
schedule.
Granite City
Illinois
Mississippi River Municipal wastes and 10/13/72
heavy industrial steel
wastes
Informal hearing 12/7/72.
Notice expires 4/11/72.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
Great Western Sugar Co.
Greeley, Colorado
South Platte River
Organic and bacterial
violations of stream
standards
2/14/72 Issued 2/14/72; hearing
3/28/72; closed flume
system in operation.
Great Western Sugar Co.
Ovid, Colorado
South Platte River
Organic and bacterial
violations of stream
standards
2/14/72 Issued 2/14/72; hearing
3/29/72; closed flume
system in operation.
Great Western Sugar Co. North Platte River
Nebraska - 4 company plants
at Gering, Scottsbluff, Bayard,
and Mitchell, Nebraska
Industrial waste s
4/27/72 Completed treatment facili-
ties Oct. 1972 at Gering
and Scottsbluff plants.
Bayard and Mitchell to be
completed 10/73.
191
-------
Nome £• Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or
Status
Green Bay Metropolitan
Sewerage District
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Fox River to Green
Bay/Lake Michigan
Municipal wastes
5/9/72 Informal hearing 6/20/72.
Agreement reached-clean-up
program to be completed
by 3/75.
Hammond, City of Hammond
Sanitary District,
Indiana
Grand Calumet and Municipal wastes
Little Calumet River
10/12/71 Informal hearing 12/1/71.
Agreement reached-necessary
treatment facilities to be
completed by 2/75.
Henderson, Kentucky
Ohio River
Municipal wastes
6/26/72 Informal hearing 8/1/72.
Preliminary plans and
specifications submitted
to State 11/1/72. On
schedule.
Henderson, City of
Hende r son, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Municipal wastes
12/23/71 Informal hearing, 1/25/72.
Abate, commit. Itr. 6/6/72;
completion of treatment and
disposal facilities by
12/31/75.
City of Hoboken, New
Jersey
Hudson River
Muncipal wastes
8/11/72
Informal hearing - 9/12/72.
192
-------
Nome & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Holly Sugar Co.
Torrington, Wyoming
North Platte River Industrial waste
6/15/71 Completed treatment facili-
ties October 1971.
Hudson, City of
South Dakota
Big Sioux River
Organic and bacterial
violations of stream
standards
3/17/72 Issued 3/17/72; hearing
4/18/72; applied for a
construction grant•
Hurley, City of
Wisconsin
Lake Superior
Municipal wastes
9/30/71 Informal hearing 11/18/71.
Notice expired 3/28/72.
Agreement reached - secon-
dary treatment facilities
to be completed by 6/15/74.
Interlake Steel Corpora-
tion, Toledo, Ohio
Maumee River
Steel wastes
8/30/69 Informal hearing 10/9/69.
Notice expired 2/26/70.
Agreement reached -
satisfactory clean-up
Jersey City Sewerage Hudson River Municipal wastes
Authority, New Jersey
(East Side Plant)
Jersey City Sewerage Newark Bay Municipal wastes
Authority, New Jersey
(West Side Plant)
8/11/72
8/11/72
Informal hearing 9/7/72.
Informal hearing - 9/7/72.
193
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Jones and Laughlin
Steel Corporation
Cleveland, Ohio
Cuyahoga River
Steel wastes
8/30/69 Informal hearing 10/8/69.
Notice expired 2/26/70.
Refuse Act Civil suit filed
12/17/70.
Consent decree 12/16/71,
Jones Chemical, Inc.,
Henderson, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and
total dissolved
solids
12/23/71 Informal hearing, 1/25/72 -
EPA on-site visit 4/27/72
confirmed discharge elimin-
ated.
Town of Kearny,
New Jersey
Newark Bay
Municipal waste s
8/11/72
Informal hearing - 9/7/72.
Kerr-McGee Chemical
Co., Henderson, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and
total dissolved
solids
12/23/71 Informal hearing, 1/25/72.
Abate, commit. Itr. 5/26/72;
no discharge by 12/21/74.
Kimberly-Clark Corpora-
tion, Badger Globe Mill
Neenah, Wisconsin
Fox River
Pulp and paper
wastes
10/5/72
Informal hearing 11/29/72.
Notice expires 4/3/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
Kimberly-Clark Corpora-
tion, Lakeview Mill
Neenah, Wisconsin
Fox River
Pulp and paper
wastes
10/5/72
Informal hearing 11/29/72.
Notice expires 4/3/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
194
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Kimberly-Clark Corporation Fox River
Neenah Paper Mill Division
Neenah, Wisconsin
Pulp and paper
wastes
10/5/72 Informal hearing 11/29/72.
Notice expires 4/3/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
King Crab, Inc.
Alaska (Kodiak Harbor)
St. Paul Harbor
Raw industrial wastes 8/2/72
(Seafood leavings)
Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment received to
date. Situation to be
handled by issuance of
permits as soon as possible.
Kingsbury General
Improvement District,
Nevada
Lake Tahoe
Municipal wastes
11/09/71 Informal hearing, 1/06/72.
To U.S. Attorney for pros.
under Sec. 10(g) of FWPCA,
6/21/72. Suit filed 9/12/72
against District & Douglas
County seeking building
moratorium; decision pending.
Kinnear and Wendt, Inc,
(Kodiak Harbor)
St. Paul Harbor
Raw industrial wastes 8/2/72
(seafood leavings)
Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment received to date.
Situation to be handled by
issuance of permits as soon
as possible.
Knoxville, Tennessee
Tennessee River
Municipal wastes
8/10/72 Informal hearing 9/7/72.
Preliminary plans and speci-
fications due 2/1/73.
195
-------
Nome & Location
of Discharger
Las Vegas, City of
Las Vegas, Nevada
Las Vegas Valley
Water District,
Las Vegas, Nevada
Lebanon,
New Hampshire
Logansport, City of
Indiana
Mead Corporation
Gilbert Paper Company
Menasha, Wisconsin
Menasha, City of
Wisconsin
Receiving Water Pollution
Problem
Las Vegas Wash Municipal wastes
Las Vegas Wash Cooling Tower
Slowdown
Mascona River Untreated sewage
(St. Croix)
Wabash River Municipal wastes
Fox River Pulp and paper
wastes
Fox River Municipal wastes
Date of
Letter
12/23/71
12/23/71
6/1/72
11/3/71
10/5/72
10/5/72
Results or Status
Informal hearing, 1/25/72.
Abate, commit. Itr. 6/07/72;
completion of treat, and
disposal facilities by
12/31/75.
Informal hearing, 1/25/72.
Abate, commit. Itr. 6/01/72;
completion of treat, and
disposal facilities by
12/31/75.
Informal hearing held 6/29/72
Abatement program approved.
Informal hearing 12/14/71.
Notice expired 4/9/72.
No agreement reached -
State filed Civil suit -
EPA supporting.
Informal hearing 11/29/72.
Notice expires 4/3/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
Informal hearing 11/29/72.
Notice expires 4/3/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
196
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Menasha Corporation
John Strange Paper Co.
Menasha, Wisconsin
Middle Township
Sewerage District #1
Cape May Court House
New Jersey
Montezuma/ Town of
Indiana
Receiving Water
Fox River
Crooked Brook
(a tributary of
Hereford Inlet)
Wabash River
Pollution
Problem
Pulp and
paper wastes
Municipal
wastes
Municipal
wastes
Date of
Letter
10/5/72
9/12/72
11/3/71
Results or Status
Informal hearing 11/29/72.
Notice expires 4/3/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
Informal hearing pending.
Informal hearing 1/5/72.
Notice expired 4/9/72.
Agreement reached- -Town
ceased discharges causing
violation.
City of Montpelier
Idaho
Bear River
Municipal
waste treatment
facility has
primary treatment
only; needs secon-
dary
5/17/72 Notice given. Public
meeting held. Compliance
letter received.
Montrose Chemical Co.
Henderson, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and
total dissolved
solids
12/23/71 Informal hearing 1/25/72.
Abate, commit. Itr. 5/31/72;
plant modifications, treat.,
disposal by 12/31/74.
Natchez, Mississippi
Mississippi
River
Municipal wastes 6/12/72
Informal hearing 7/26/72.
Plans and spec, due 9/1/72.
Constr. to begin 10/30/72;
begin operation by 3/14/72.
Two months behind schedule.
197
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
National Sugar
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Neenah, City of
Wisconsin
Neenah-Menasha Sewerage
Commission
Menasha, Wisconsin
Borough of Neptune
City, New Jersey
Receiving Water Pollution
Problem
Delaware River Filter backwash
and boiler blow-
down - BOD
Fox River Municipal wastes
Fox River Municipal wastes
Atlantic Ocean Municipal wastes
Date of
Letter
2/1/72
10/5/72
10/5/72
9/12/72
Results or Status
9/28/72 recommended to HQ
that this case be referred
to U.S. Attorney for civil
relief under Refuse Act.
Informal hearing 11/29/72.
Notice expires 4/3/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
Informal hearing 11/29/72.
Notice expires 4/3/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
Informal hearing pending.
Borough of Neptune Town-
ship, New Jersey (Old
Arlies Avenue #1 Plant)
Atlantic Ocean
Municipal wastes
9/12/72
Informal hearing pending.
Borough of Neptune Town-
ship, New Jersey
CPennsylvaniq Avenuej__Plant_)_
Atlantic Ocean
Municipal waste s
9/12/72
Informal hearing pending.
198
-------
Nome & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Nevada Power Co.,
Las Vegas, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Cooling Tower
Slowdown
12/23/71 Informal hearing, 1/25/72.
Abate, commit. ltr.7 9/14/72
tie-in to require treat, and
disposal system by 12/31/75
or construct own by 12/31/74.
Nevada Sand and Gravel
Co., Las Vegas, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and
total dissolved
solids
12/23/71 Informal hearing, 1/25/72.
EPA on-site visit 4/27/72
confirmed discharge elimina-
ted.
New England Fish Co.
(Gibson Grove Plant)
(Kodiak Harbor)
St. Paul Harbor
Raw industrial wastes 8/2/72
(Seafood leavings)
Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment received to
date. Situation to be
handled by issuance of
permits as soon as possible
New England Fish Co,
Marine Way Plant
(Kodiak Harbor)
St. Paul Harbor
Raw industrial wastes 8/2/72
(seafood leavings)
Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment received to date.
Situation to be handled by
issuance of permits as soon
as possible.
199
-------
Nome & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
New Orleans/ Louisiana
Mississippi River
Discharge of raw
and untreated
sewage
5/19/72 City Council passed resolu-
tion assuring local funding
necessary for improvements.
Project schedule:
Contract for test piles
before 12/31/72.
Contract for Pile Driving
before 2/20/73.
Contract for remaining
construction work before
7/30/73.
Completion of project be-
fore 12/31/75.
Est. cost test piles and
pile driving - $3,050,000.
Construction is underway.
Satisfactory progress is
being made, and all interim
dates have been met.
New York City
New York
New York Bay,
Hudson River,
East River, Atlantic
Ocean, Jamaica Bay,
Kill Van Kull, Harlem
River. Arthur Kill
Municipal wastes
7/17/72
Informal hearing - 8/29/72.
Township of North
Berqen, New Jersey
Hudson River
Municipal wastes
8/11/72
Informal hearing - 9/13/72.
200
-------
Nome &• Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Pan Alaska Fisheries
(Kodiak Harbor)
St. Paul Harbor
Raw industrial wastes 8/2/72
(seafood leavings)
Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment received to date
Situation to be handled by
issuance of permits as soon
as possible. __
Passaic Valley
Sewerage Commissioners
New York Bay
Municipal waste s
7/17/72
Informal hearing - 8/14/72
Patrician Paper Company
South Glens Falls
New York
Hudson River
Industrial wastes
12/23/71 Informal hearing - 2/15/72
Construction of treatment
facility to be completed
by January 1, 1973. Three-
month delay caused by
Hurricane Agnes.
City of Paul, Idaho
Snake River
Municipal waste
treatment facility
has primary treatment
only; needs secondary
5/17/72 Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. Compliance
letter received.
Penn Central Trans-
portation Corporation
Harmon, New York
Hudson River
Industrial wastes
5/19/70 Informal hearing - 6/23/70.
Complete agreement reached
at hearing. The oil losses
to the Hudson River have
ceased. Surveillance being
maintained.
201
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Northern Processors
(Kodiak Harbor)
St. Paul Harbor
Raw industrial wastes 8/2/72
(seafood leavings)
Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment received to date
Situation to be handled by
issuance of permits as soon
as possible.
North Pacific
Processors
(Kodiak Harbor)
St. Paul Harbor
Raw industrial wastes 8/2/72
(seafood leavings)
Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment received to date,
Situation to be handled by
issuance of permits as soon
as possible.
City of North Wildwood
New Jersey
Hereford Inlet
Municipal waste s
9/12/72
Informal hearing pending.
Ocean City, New Jersey
Great Egg
Harbor Bay
Municipal waste s
9/12/72
Informal hearing pending.
Ocean Grove Camp,
Meeting Association
of the Methodist Church,
Ocean Grove, New Jersey
Atlantic Ocean
Municipal wastes
9/12/72
Informal hearing pending.
202
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Pepperell Paper Co.
Pepperell, Massachusetts
Nashua River
(Merrimack)
Pulp and paper
wastes
4/6/71 6/3/71 informal hearing;
10/20/71 hearing. Final
plans 12/1/71; completion
2/73. Proceeding with
construction of treatment
facility.
Town of Pepperell,
Massachusetts
Nashua River
Discharge untreated 4/6/71
sewage
Unsatisfactory progress -
1/5/72 - Federal Court
action approved by Head-
quarters no action pending,
reviewed state court action
6/3/71 informal hearing;
10/20/71 formal hearing;
proceeding with construe- .
tion of treatment facili-
ties.
Piels Brothers, Inc.
Chicopee, Massachusetts
Connecticut River Discharge untreated 4/6/71
sewage
7/21/71 signed tie-in agree-
ment with city, installed
pre-treatment facilities.
PPG Industries, Incor-
porated, Poncef
Puerto Rico
Guayanilla River Industrial wastes
10/16/72 Informal hearing pending.
City of Priest River
Idaho
Pond Creille River
Municipal waste
treatment facility
has primary treat-
ment only: needs
secondary.
5/17/72 Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment letter received.
Recommended action to
Headquarters negated by
passage of new Water Bxll.
203
-------
Name &• Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Republic Steel Corpora-
tion, Cleveland, Ohio
Cuyahoga River
Steel wastes
8/30/69 Informal hearing 10/7/69.
Notice expired 2/26/70.
Refuse Act Civil suit filed
12/70- now negotiating for
consent decree.
Reserve Mining Company
Silver Bay, Minnesota
Lake Superior
Taconite Mining
wastes
4/28/71 Informal hearing - 6/31/71.
Notice expired 10/15/71.
Civil suit filed 2/17/72.
Riegel Paper Company
Milford, New Jersey
Delaware River
Industrial wastes
3/6/72 Informal hearing - 5/31/72.
By letter of June 23, 1972,
company has committed it-
self to completion of
secondary treatment facili-
ty by December 31, 1973.
Riverside Paper Company
Appleton, Wisconsin
Fox River
Pulp and paper
wastes
10/5/72 Informal hearing 11/28/72.
Notice expires 4/3/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
Riverview, City of
Michigan
Trenton Channel
of Detroit River
Municipal wastes
8/29/72 Informal hearing 10/17/72.
Notice expires 2/26/73.
Follow-up meetings being helc
204
-------
Name E» Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Roxanne Fisheries, Inc.
(Kodiak Harbor)
St. Paul Harbor
Raw industrial wastes 8/2/72
(seafood leavings)
Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment received to date
Situation to be handled by
issuance of permits as soon
as possible.
City of Sandpoint,
Idaho
Pond Creille
River
Municipal waste
treatment facility
has primary treat-
ment only; needs
secondary
5/17/72 Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. Compliance
letter received.
Santa Fe Land
Improvement Co.
Kansas City, Kansas
Kansas River
Industrial wastes
6/1/71 Connected to Kansas City,
Kansas system 6/27/72.
Sauget, Village of
Illinois
Mississippi River Heavy concentration 10/13/72
of chemical wastes
Informal hearing 12/6/72.
Notice expires 4/11/72.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
Sea Isle City
New Jersey
Ludlam1s Thorofare Municipal wastes
9/12/72
Informal hearing pending.
Sheboygan, City of
Wisconsin
Lake Michigan
Municipal wastes
6/21/72.
L/5/72.
5/9/72 Informal hearing
Notice expired ll/
Agreement reached -
City to provide necessary
treatment by 3/31/76.
205
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Stamford &. Darien, Cities
of, Cgnnecticut
Long Island Sound Inadequate! y
treated sewage
7/16/71
9/3/71 - hearing.
State Stove &. Manu-
facturing Co.,
Henderson, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and
total dissolved
solids
12/23/71 Informal hearing, 1/25/72.
Abate. Itr., 6/8/72; no
discharge by 6/1/74.
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Henderson, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and
total dissolved
solids
12/23/71 Informal hearing, 1/25/72.
Abate, commit. Itr., 5/31/72
plant modifications, treat.,
disposal by 12/31/74.
Borough of Stone Harbor Great Channel
New Jersey
Municipal wastes
9/12/72
Informal hearing pending.
Sun Oil - SunOlin
Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania
Delaware River
Heavy metals,
phenols,
oil and grease
2/1/72 Sun Oil and SunOlin have
reaffirmed their decision
to participate in the
DELCORA facility - mean-
while companies are pro-
ceeding with interim plans
which we have approved.
Superior, City of
Wisconsin
Lake Superior
Municipal wastes
9/30/71 Informal hearing J1/17/71.
Notice expired 3/28/72.
Agreement reached -
City to provide adequate
treatment facility by 3/74.
206
-------
Nome & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Superior Fiber Products,
Inc.,, Superior, Wisconsin
Lake Superior
Pulp and paper
wastes
9/30/71 Informal hearing 11/17/71.
Notice expired 3/28/72.
Agreement reached - Company
to provide necessary treat-
ment by 12/74.
Tahoe-Douglas District
Nevada
LateTahoe
Municipal wastes
11/9/71 Informal hearing, 1/6/72.
To U.S. Attorney for pros.
under Sec. 10(g) of FWPCA,
6/21/72. Suit filed 9/12/75
against District and Douglas
County seeking building
moratorium; decision pend-
ing.
Titanium Metals Corp.
of America
Henderson, Nevada
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and
total dissolved
solids
12/23/71 Informal hearing, 1/25/72.
Abate, commit. Itr., 8/7/72;
tie-in to reg. treat, and
disposal system by 12/31/75
or construct own by 12/31/74.
Toledo, City of
Ohio
Maumee River
Municipal wastes
8/30/69 Informal hearing 10/9/69.
Notice expired 2/26/70.
Agreement reached -
treatment facilities sub-
stantially completed 6/72.
Tremonton, City of
Utah
Malad River
Organic and bacterial
violations of stream
standards
2/4/72 Issued 2/4/72; hearing
3/7/72; implementation plan-
have new facility in opera-
tion by 12/31/73; prelimin-
ary planning completed.
207
-------
Nome & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Ursin Seafoods
(Kodiak Harbor)
St. Paul Harbor
Raw industrial wastes 8/2/72
(seafood leavings)
Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment received to
date. Situation to be
handled by issuance of
permits as soon as possible
U.S. Steel Corpora-
tion
Cleveland, Ohio
Cuyahoga River
Steel wastes
8/30/69 Informal hearing 10/7/69.
Notice expired 2/26/70.
Refuse Act Civil suit filed
5/14/71 - now negotiating
for consent decree.
Vincennes, City of
Indiana
Wabash River
Municipal wastes
9/3/71 Informal hearing 12/1/71.
Notice expired 4/9/72.
Agreement reached--
completion of secondary
treatment facilities by
7/30/73 - dependent on
financing.
Wayne County -
Wyandotte Plant
Michigan
Trenton Channel
of Detroit River
Municipal wastes
8/29/72 Informal hearing 10/17/72.
Notice expires 2/26/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
West Point
Kentucky
Ohio River
Municipal wastes
6/26/72 Informal hearing 8/2/72.
Preliminary engineering
report submitted to State
11/15/72. On schedule.
208
-------
Name & Location
of Discharger
West New York, Town of
New Jersey
Whiting, City of
Indiana
Whiting Paper Company,
George A.
Menasha, Wisconsin
Receiving Water Pollution
Problem
Hudson River Municipal wastes
Lake Michigan Municipal wastes
Fox River Pulp and paper
wastes
Date of
Letter
8/11/72
10/12/71
10/5/72
Results or Status
Informal hearing - 9/6/72.
Informal hearing 12/1/71.
Notice expired 4/9/72.
Civil suit filed 9/11/72.
Informal hearing 11/29/72.
Notice expires 4/3/73.
Follow-up meetings being
held.
Whitney Fidalgo
Seafoods
(Kodiak Harbor)
St. Paul Harbor
Raw industrial wastes
(seafood leavings) 8/2/72
Notice given. Public meet-
ing held. No acceptable
commitment received to
date. Situation to be
handled by issuance of
permits as soon as
possible.
Wildwood, City of
New Jersey
Grassy Sound
Municipal wastes
9/12/72 Informal hearing pending.
Wildwood Crest, Borough of Richardson Sound Municipal wastes
New Jersey
9/12/72 Informal hearing pending,
209
-------
Nome & Location
of Discharger
Receiving Water
Pollution
Problem
Date of
Letter
Results or Status
Willoughby, City of
Ohio
Lake Erie
Municipal wastes
7/30/71 Informal hearing 9/9/71.
Notice expired 1/27/72.
Agreement reached -
secondary treatment to be
completed by 8/3/73.
Wisconsin Tissue Mills
Menasha, Wisconsin
Fox River
Pulp and paper
wastes
10/5/72 Informal hearing 11/29/72.
Notice expires 4/3/73,
Follow-up meetings being
held.
Yazoo City,
Mississippi
Yazoo River
Municipal wastes
6/12/72 Informal hearing 7/27/72.
Plans and specifications
due 9/1/72t construction
to begin 11/15/72, begin
operation 11/15/73. Plans
approved,construction due
to begin.
210
-------
SECTION 11 of the FWPCA ACTIONS 12/3/70 to PHRSRNT
Table 9
Nome and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Waters
Pollution
Problem
(Type of Spill)
Referred
To
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
Allied Chemical
Baton Rouge, La.
Bayou Braud to
Mississippi
River
Oil spill
USCG
3/15/72 CG referred to U.S.
Atty for Refuse
Act. No action to
date.
Otis Ainsworth
Yazoo County,
Mississippi
H. E. Applegate
Supt. for Tri-State
District, Sohio
Pipeline Company, Inc.
Cormi, Illinois
Baltimore & Ohio RR
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Barrows Coal, Inc.
6. Henry Merrill
Brattleboro, Vermont
Big Black
River
French Creek
to Wabash
River
Monongahela
River
Connecticut
River
Oil
Failure to
notify of an
oil spill
Diesel fuel
Oil
USCG
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
3/15/72
8/14/72
9/29/72
1/12/72
Civil penalty
assessed.
Under review in
U.S. Attorney's
office.
Case filed 10/4/72.
Pleaded guilty
3/13/72; fined
$250.
NOTE: Oil liability provisions now found in section 311 of Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended by PL 92-500.
211
-------
Name and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Waters
Pollution
Problem
(Type of Spill)
Referred
To
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
Berks Associates, Inc.
Douglassville, Pa.
Schuylkill
River
Oil spill -
test case on
oil spill due
to erosion
U.S. 12/71 11/18/70 Civil
Attorney complaint 12/3/70
Court decree -
immediate inJune-
tive relief.
11/71 complaint
filed for recovery
of clean-up costs
$200,000 pending.
C. E. Bell, Plant Mgr.
Marathon Pipeline Co.
Birds, Illinois
Enbanos River
Crude oil
U.S.
Attorney
12/71
Case filed.
B &. R Transport Company Broad River Oil
Rutherfordton, N. C.
USCG
U.S.
Attorney
9/29/72
9/29/72
Under review by
U.S. Atty; CG
has requested
further informa-
tion.
Wayne Bannister, Foreman
Sandac res, Inc.
Woodacres Farm
Seymour, Indiana
Muscatatuck
River
Failure to
notify of an
oil spill
U.S. 3/10/72 Case filed 5/1/72,
Attorney Dismissed from
court 5/19/72.
Carolina Mill #4
Newton, N. C.
South Fork
Catawba River
Oil
U.S. 3/15/72 Case filed 4/5/72.
Attorney Fined $500 or plea
of nolo contendere
and finding of
guilty 9/25/72.
212
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
City Fuel, Inc.
Manchester, N. H.
Colonial Pipeline Co.
Beaumont , Texas
Colt Industries
Crucible, Inc.
Spring Division
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Crispin Company
Houston, Texas
Crispin Company
George Farenthold
Houston, Texas
Crown Central
Petroleum
Fenner, Stewart D.
Executive V.P.,
Petroleum Specialties,
Flat Rock, Michigan
Receiving
Waters
Merrimack
River
Allegheny
River
Mississippi
River
Mississippi
River
Houston Ship
Channel
Smith Creek to
Huron River
Inc.
Pollution
Problem
(Type of Spill)
Oil spill
Oil
Quenching
oil
Oil
Crude oil
Crude oil
Failure to
notify of an
oil spill
Referred
To
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
USCG
U.S.
Attorney
Date
Referred
8/17/72
12/9/71
9/27/72
1/31/72
1/31/72
2/29/72
6/9/72
Results or
Status
Pending action.
Case filed.
U.S. Atty declined
to institute
criminal prosecu-
tion.
Case filed.
Lost, reref erred
on 9/25/72.
No action taken
to date.
Under review by
U.S. Attorney's
office.
Greenville Oil Spill
(Towboat)
Mississippi
River (near
Clarksville, Mo.)
Oil spill
USCG
11/2/72 $2,000 fine
assessed 11/14/72.
213
-------
Name and
Location
of Company
Receiving
Waters
Pollution
Problem
(Type of Spill)
Referred
To
Date
Referred
Results or
Status
Gulf Pipeline Company
Liberty, Texas
Trinity River
Crude oil
U.S. 5/9/72 No action taken
Attorney to date.
R. A. Hartselle,
District Engineer
Chicago & Eastern
Illinois Railroad
DoIton, Illinois
Little Calumet
River
Failure to
notify of an
oil spill
U.S. 6/26/72 Case filed 6/28/72.
Attorney Pleaded nolo con-
tendere and fined
$2,000 10/30/72.
Hess Oil Company
Perry County, Miss,
Jumping Creek
Black Creek
Beaverdam Creek
Oil
USCG
12/7/71 Awaiting decision
of CG concerning
their jurisdiction
over spill.
Illinois Central RR Pearl River Oil
Starr, Mississippi
Infinger Transportation Boon's Creek Oil
Company
Charleston Heights, S.C.
U.S.
Attorney
USCG
U.S.
Attorney
4/20/71
9/22/72
11/27/72
U.S. Atty declined
prosecution.
Civil penalty of
$5,800 assessed,
but defendant found
not liable on hear-
ing. U.S. Atty
declined prosecu-
tion on 12/1/72.
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
Corporation
Ravenswood, W. Va.
Ohio River
Oil
U.S. 9/29/72 Case filed 11/22/72;
Attorney fined $500 on
11/29/72.
214
-------
Nome and Pollution
Location Receiving Problem
of Company Waters (Type of Spill)
Kennebec River Pulp & Kennebec River Oil
Paper Company, Inc.
Madison/ Maine
Liberty Materials Co. Trinity River Diesel fuel
Liberty, Texas
Marathon Pipeline Co. Embarass River Oil
Birds, Illinois
Metropolitan Petroleum Oil spill
Plattsburgh, N. Y.
Mid Continent Pipeline
Cushing, Oklahoma Cimarron River Crude oil
National Transit Co. Allegheny River Oil spill
Oil City, Pennsylvania
Referred
To
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
Date
Referred
5/18/72
5/9/72
12/6/71
4/28/71
1/11/72
8/15/72
Results or
Status
Indicted 6/22/72;
9/29/72 pleaded
guilty fined $1000
- remitted due to
poor financial con-
dition of company.
No action taken
to date.
Pending. Case
filed.
Fined $500.
Case filed.
Case filed by
Justice. Company
pleaded nolo con-
tendere and fined
$500.
Palatine Dyeing Company Mohawk River
St. Johnsville, N. Y.
Oil spill
10/12/71 Fined $500 7/72.
215
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Patrick Petroleum Co.
Choctaw Bluff, Alabama
Plantation Pipeline Co.
Athens, Georgia
R. Powell
Plant Manager
New Departures Company
Powell & Minnock Brick
Works
Coeymans, N. Y.
Refinery Corporation
Commerce City, Colo.
Revelo Corporation
Sanford, Florida
Pollution
Receiving Problem
Waters (Type of Spill)
Alabama River Oil
Oil
Mills Creek to Failure to
Sandusky Bay notify of an
oil spill
Hudson River Oil discharge
South Platte Oil
River
St. Johns River Oil
Referred
To
USCG
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
USCG
Date
Referred
9/29/72
11/21/72
4/20/71
9/28/71
2/4/72
11/17/71
10/19/71
Results or
Status
CG declined to
proceed 11/6/72.
U.S. Atty will
file under 11 (b) (4)
in near future.
U.S. Atty declined
prosecution 12/8/71.
Fined $500 3/72.
Case filed 3/14/72;
fined $5,000 7/72
&. two years proba-
tion. ($4,000
suspended. )
CG declined to
proceed under sec.
ll(b)(5) 1/9/72.
R. H. S. Corporation
Ellsworth, Maine
Union River
#2 fuel oil
USCG
5/10/72 Pending action.
216
-------
Nome and
Location
of Company
Rogers Oil Company
Savanna, Illinois
Sandacres , Inc .
Seymour , Indiana
Receiving
Waters
Mississippi
River
Vernon Fork
Pollution
Problem
(Type of Spill)
Oil
Oil
Referred
To
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
Date
Referred
12/15/71
3/10/72
Results or
Status
Fined $1,000.
Pending action.
Texaco-Cities Service
Pipeline
Collinsville, Oklahoma
Coney River
Verdigris River
Arkansas River
Crude oil
USCG
11/21/72
No action taken
to date.
Captain, "Tri-W"
Tri-W Towing Company
Greenville, Miss.
Union Oil Company of
California
Mabscott, W. Va.
Uniroyal Inc.
Chicopee, Mass.
Mississippi
River
Whitestick
River
Chicopee River
Failure to
notify of an
oil spill
Gasoline and
kerosene
Oil spill - a
petroleum based
plasticizer
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
10/4/72
9/29/72
10/24/72
Under review.
Case filed 11/22/72.
Trial date 12/23/72.
Pending action.
Volunteer Asphalt Co.
Knoxville, Tennessee
Ft. Loudon
Reservoir and
Tennessee River
Oil
USCG
9/22/72 Civil penalty of
$10,000 assessed
by USCG, hearing
pending. Will re-
fer to U.S. Atty
under 11(b)(4)
after USCG matter
is closed.
21?
-------
Name and
Location
of Company
Waumbec Mills, Inc.
Manchester, N. H.
Wyandotte Industries
Corporation
Waterville, Maine
H. P. Lukehart, Div.
Mechanical Officer
Chicago &• North
Western Railway Co.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Receiving
Waters
Merrimack
River
Kennebec
River
Bassetts Creek
to Mississippi
River
Pollution
Problem
(Type of Spill)
#6 fuel oil -
repeated dis-
charges
Bunker C fuel
oil — 3
spills
Failure to
notify of an
oil spill
Referred
To
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
U.S.
Attorney
Date
Referred
10/24/72
9/20/72
6/28/72
Results or
Status
Information filed
10/30/72. Pleaded
not guilty 11/10/72.
Information filed
10/6/72. Pleaded
not guilty 11/3/72.
Under review in
U.S. Attorney's
office.
218
-------
ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE ACTIONS
(Dec. 3, 1970 to Present)
Table 10
Name of
Conference
Alabama Water
Quality Standards
Setting Conference
Androscoggin
River Basin
Participants
EPA - Alabama
Maine and New
Hampshire
10 Municipalities
11 Industries
Dates
4/71
9/24/62
2/5/63
10/21/69
Receiving
Waters
Alabama
Interstate
Streams
Androscoggin River
and Its Tribu-
taries
Pollution
Problems
Untreated
sewage and
industrial
wastes
Results or
Status
Alabama adopted on
7/17/72 standards
proposed by EPA .
5/26/71 Approved
clean-up program
for the River;
proceeding satis-
factorily.
Biscayne Bay
Florida
2/24-26/70 Biscayne Bay
Heated power
plant effluent
Conference effective-
ly superseded by
actions initiated
by Justice and
FP&L Co., as result
of which a method
of cooling by means
of a reservoir has
been approved and
company proceeding
on schedule..
Boston Harbor and
Its Tributaries
Massachusetts
Communities
8 Municipalities
1 Industry
5/20/68
4/30/69
10/27/71
Atlantic Ocean
Untreated
sewage; sludge
11/17/71 Approved
clean-up program
for Boston Harbor;
7/19/72 Agreement
signed between EPA
and Commonwealth of
Mas sachuse 11 s; Mas s.
committed to elimin-
ate sludge dischargee
by Deer Island and
Nut Island waste
219
(more}
-------
Nome of
Conference
Participants
Dates
Receiving
Waters
Pollution
Problems
Results or
Status
Boston Harbor
and Its
Tributaries
(Continued from
previous page.)
treatment plant;
minimum of
secondary treatment
for all wastes dis-
charged into Boston
Harbor within
reasonable time.
5/1/76 Sludge
5/1/79 MDC (Deer and
Nut Islands.)
12/31/80 Secondary
treatment.
Lake Champlain
New York
Vermont
2nd session
6/25/70
Lake
Champlain
Industrial
waste
The old IPC Plant
has been phased out.
At the present time
litigation is in
progress; Vermont
vs New York & Inter-
national Paper Co.
The U.S. Government
has filed a motion
for leave to Inter-
vene/ Memorandum in
Support of Motion,
Petition for Inter-
vention-
Colorado River
& its tributaries
Colorado, Utah, 2/15-17/72 Colorado River
Wyoming, California
Nevada, Arizona, 4/16/72
New Mexico
220
Salinity &
uranium mill
tailings
erosion
Agreement reached to
maintain TDS (salinitj
at or below present
levels. States to
regulate tailing
piles by 7-1-73.
-------
Name of
Conf e re nc e
Participants
Dates
Receiving
Waters
Pollution
Problems
Results or
Status
Dade County
Florida
10/20-22/70
(1st)
2/18-19/71
(2nd)
7/2-3/71 (3rd)
11/19/71(progress
meeting)
Navigable
waters of
Dade County
Municipal and
industrial
wastes
EPA has approved
interim plan,
received environ-
mental assessment
and is proceeding
with EIS on North,
Central and South
Dade County projects.
Completion scheduled
for '76.
Escambia River
Basin
Florida,
Alabama
1/20-21/70 Escambia Bay
(1st)
2/23-24/71 (2nd)
1/24- 25/72 (3rd)
Municipal and
industrial
wastes
A Bay recovery
study has been
initiated by EPA's
Region IV, S&A
Division.
Cyanamid & Air
Products have not
complied with
conference recommend-1
ations. Monsanto
and others in sub-
stantial compliance.
Galveston Bay
136 industries
141 municipalities
population approx-
imately 2,125,000
12/7/72
Houston Ship
Channel,
Galveston Bay
Inadequately
treated
industrial &
municipal
discharges
Approved publi-
cation of progress
report.
Kansas and
Missouri River
(Kansas City
Metro Area)
Missouri and
Kansas
12/3/57
Missouri and
Kansas Rivers
221
Municipal and
industrial
waste
Kansas City, Kansas
referred to U.S.
Attorney 4/14/72
Case filed 10/6/72.
-------
Name of
Conference
Participants
Dates
Receiving
Waters
Pollution
Problems
Results or
Status
Long Island Sound
Connecticut/
New York/ Inter-
state Sanitation
Commission, New
England Inter-
state Water
Pollution Control
Commission
4/13-19/71
Long Island
Sound and Its
Tributaries
Untreated
sewage and
industrial
wastes
Reviewed existing
State Implementation
Schedules and
Federally-approved
Water Quality
Standards; point
sources subject to
conference recommend-
ations :
Industrial: 159
Municipal : 53
Final compliance
dates range from
June 30, 1973 -
January 1, 1975.
Merrimack River
Basin
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Municipalities 331
Industries 79
2/11/64
2/18/68
10/20/70
10/21/70
Merrimack and
Nashua Rivers and
tributaries
Untreated
sewage and
industrial
waste
7/12/71 approved
clean-up program.
Satisfactory
progress being made.
Lake Michigan and
Tributaries
Michigan,
Illinois,
Indiana,
Wisconsin
1/31,2/1-2/5-7 Lake Michigan
3/7-8, 12/68 Basin
Addi tional
Sessions:
2/25/69
3/31 -
4/1/70
5/7/70
9/28-10/2/70
10/29/70
3/23-26/71
9/19-21/72
Public Session:
11/9/72
Industrial and
municipal
wastes resulting
in accelerated
aging and
bacterial
contamination
with particular
problems of
combined sewer
overflows,
thermal dis-4
charges and
taste and odor
222
Clean-up program
established and
currently underway-
substantial compli-
ance although
slippage occurring
for phosphorus
removal and some
municipal and
industrial delin-
quenc i e s-180-Day
Notices, 1899 Civil
and Criminal cases
initiated against
a number of
delinquents.
-------
Name of
Conference
Participants
Dates
Receiving
Waters
Pollution
Problems
Results or
Status
Mobile Bay
Alabama
7/27-28/70 Mobile Bay
Bacterial
pollution
EPA wants to see
shellfish dredging
phased out if
suitable altern-
atives can be
found. There is
some slippage on
compliance with
conference recommend-
ations on the part
of two sources, but
substantial
compliance otherwise.
Monongahela
Conference
West Virginia
Dept. of Natural
Pennsylvania
Dept. of Environ-
mental Resources
Maryland Dept. of
Natural Resources
Maryland Dept. of
Health £. Mental
Hygiene
Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation
Commission.
Resources
Monongahela
River
8/24-25/71
Abandoned
mine
drainage
problem
Approved on Dec. 15,
1971 all active
mine discharges in
the Monongahela
Basin in compliance
with water quality
effluent standards.
Mount Hope Bay
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
8 Municipalities
40 Industries
12/7/
1/6/7
71
72
Narragansett Bay
.222.
Untreated
sewage and
industrial
wastes
Abatement program
approved for
construction
12/31/74.
-------
Name of
Conference
Participants
Dates
Receiving
Waters
Pollution
Problems
Results or
Status
New Jersey At-
lantic Coastal
Area - Water
Quality Stand-
ards Setting/
Review Confer-
ence
State of New Jersey, 6/27-2B./72
EPA- - and inter-
ested members of
the public
Atlantic Ocean
(Cape May to
Sandy Hook)
Extensive
closing of
shellfish
harvest
areas
Recommended re-
vision of Water
Quality Standards
for New Jersey
Coastal Area;
point sources sub-
ject to conference
recommendations:
Industrial: 17
Municipal: 154
Final dates range
from July 1, 1975-
Dec. 1, 1976.
Ohio River
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Conference
Session
1. Ohio Dept. of 10/71
area Natural
Resources
2. Ohio Dept. of
Health
3. West Virginia
Dept. of
Natural
Resources
4. Pennsylvania
Dept. of Environ-
mental Resources
5. Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation
Commission
Ohio,
Allegheny,
Monongahela
Rivers
Pollution is so All waste treat-
extensive that
fishing and
recreational
use have been
restricted
merit sources in
operation by
December 1973.
Ohio River
Wheeling, West
Virginia area
West Virginia
and Ohio
10/13/71
Ohio River
West Virginia Municipalities and
224
and Ohio have
submitted in-
complete,
interim sched-
ules on
municipalities
and on industries
industries are to
provide the
equivalent of
secondary treat-
ment by Jan. 1975.
-------
Nome of
Conference
Participants
Dates
Receiving
Waters
Pollution
Problems
Results or
Status
Savannah River-
Middle Reach
Georgia,
South Carolina
3/22/72
Savannah
River
Municipal and
industrial
wastes
State preparing a
regional planning
concept for the
Horse Creek Valley,
due 12/72. Monitor-
ing compliance with
conference recommendo
tions.
Western South
Dakota
South Dakota,
EPA
11/19-21/71
Oahe Reservoir
(Cheyenne Arm)
Toxics
Final engineering
plans for the Lead-
Deadwood Sanitation
District lagoon are
being prepared.
Fish and bottom
surveys of Cheyenne
River Basin
completed.
Lake Superior
and Tributaries
Wisconsin,
Michigan,
Minnesota
5/13-15/69
Additional
Sessions:
9/30-10/1/69
4/29-30/70
8/12-13/70
1/14-15/71
4/22-23/71
Lake Superior
Basin
Industrial pulp
and paper mill
wastes, major
taconite
mining wastes,
municipal wastes
from Duluth-
Superior area
Clean-up program
approved-180-Day
Notices and major
civil action
initiated against
deli nquents.
225
-------
Nome of
Conference
Participants
Dates
Receiving
Waters
Pollution
Problems
Results or
Status
Pearl Harbor
Hawaii
9/21-23/71;
Tech. Prog-
ress Mtg.:
6/5-6/72
Pearl Harbor
Inadequately
treated sewage,
agricult.
runoff, indust.
wastes, oil
spills, con-
struction
runoff.
Honolulu (pop 500M),
State agencies,
agri. & indust.
firms & DOD agencies
to comply with
abatement require-
ments by 12/31/74.
Perdido Bay
Florida,
Alabama
l/22/70(lst) Perdido Bay
2/25-26/70(2nd)
l/26/72(progress
meeting)
Municipal and
industrial
Monitoring of
progress on con-
ference recommenda-
tions continues.
Sources in sub-
stantial compliance*
Florida has
proceeded against
St. Regis for
further reduction
of BOD and color.
Potomac River
District of Columbia, 4/2-4/69- Potomac River
Maryland, Virginia, 5/8/69(3rd)
Interstate Commission
on the Potomac River 4/2-4 & 5/8/69-
Basin, EPA Reconvened 3rd.
11/6-7/69-Progress Mtg.
5/21-22 E. 10/13/70-
Reconvened 3rd.
12/8-9/70,
10/5/71 & 11/11/71-
6/20-21/72 Progress
Mtgs. &. 1/16/73.
Inadequately
treated
municipal
wastes
Construction of
required advanced
waste treatment
plants proceeding.
22S
-------
£
LU
o >
u. in
z cc
HI
C
-------
AIR ENFORCEMENT REVIEW
Review
The initial Federal attention to air pollution sharpened as a
consequence of the air pollution episode at Donora, Pa. in October
1948. The Public Health Service, Department of Health Education and
Welfare, conducted a study and investigation of the Donora incident in
1949 under authority of the provisions of the Public Health Service
Act. Further Federal concern was evidenced in 1952 when the President
called the U.S. Technical Conference on Air Pollution "for the purpose
of summarizing our knowledge of this difficult subject and...preparing
recommendations for cooperative effort of public and private interests
to minimize atmospheric pollution and its ill effects.-."
Authorities
1. Stationary Sources
The earliest Federal air pollution control legislation was adopted
in July 1955. The law recognized the primary responsibility of the
States and local governments in controlling air pollution and authorized
Federal technical assistance and grants-in-aid to State and local air
pollution control agencies.
With the adoption of the Clean Air Act in December 1963, Federal
policy in the field of air pollution control underwent significant
evolution. Although there was no change in the view that responsibility
for the control of air pollution rests primarily with State and local
governments, the Act included for the first time a limited regulatory
authority on the Federal level for abatement of specific air pollution
problems. This limited regulatory power was intended to supplement the
abatement powers of State and local governments in two types of situations:
(1) with respect to an interstate problem in which pollution arising in
one State may be endangering the health or welfare of persons in another
State, the Federal government, on its own initiative or on official
request as specified in the Act, could initiate formal proceedings for
the abatement of the pollution as found to be necessary; and (2) with
respect to a similar air pollution problem, but purely intrastate in
nature, the Federal government could invoke such formal abatement pro-
ceedings only on official request from designated officials in the
State involved.
The most recent amendments to the Clean Air Act were adopted in 1970
to authorize establishment of air quality standards and strengthen
Federal enforcement authority. The principle enforcement-related-
provisions are currently as follows:
22?
-------
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Section 109 provides that the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall adopt air quality standards for air pollutants
which have an adverse effect on public health and welfare and for which
there are numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources. There are
two standards for each pollutant, a "primary" standard which is designed
(with an adequate margin of safety) to protect the public health, and a
"secondary" standard which is designed to protect the public welfare
from any known or anticipated adverse effects. Such standards have been
set for six air pollutants: hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide,
photochemical oxidants, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter. (36 F R
8186, April 30, 1971)
Implementation Plans
States are required by Section 110 to submit implementation plans to
the Administrator which provide for meeting and maintaining the primary
and secondary ambient air quality standards. The deadline for submission
of plans to meet the primary standard is January 31, 1972. The deadline
for submission of plans to meet the secondary standard is also January
31, 1972, except that an extension of up to 18 months may be granted by
the Administrator.
The Administrator is required to either approve or disapprove the
plan within four months, i.e. by May 1972. If a plan is not submitted
or is disapproved (in whole or in part), the Administrator is required
to propose regulations setting forth an implementation plan (or such
aspects of the plan as are needed to make the State plan approvable).
If the State still has not submitted an approvable plan after six months
from the date required for submission, the Administrator is required to
promulgate the regulations setting forth the plan which he proposed
(with any revisions he deems appropriate).
New Source Performance Standards
Under Section 111, the Administrator is empowered to set national
standards of performance for categories of stationary sources that con-
tribute significantly to air pollution which causes or contributes to
the endangerment of public health or welfare. The standard would be
applicable to sources the construction or modification of which was com-
menced after the date the applicable standards were proposed. The standard
of performance reflects "the degree of emission limitation achievable
through the application of the best system of emission reduction which
(taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.
It is expected that standards of performance under this section will
be set for approximately 30 major categories of sources. Standards for
five categories were set on December 23, 1971 (36 F.R. 24876). These
categories are fossil fuel-fired steam generators, incinerators, portland
cement plants, nitric acid plants and sulfuric acid plants.
228
-------
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
The Administrator is directed by Section 112 to set national standards
for "hazardous air pollutants.11 A hazardous air pollutant is one to which
no ambient air quality standard is applicable and which may cause, or
contribute to, "an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irre-
versible, or incapacitating reversible, illness." The initial list of
hazardous air pollutants consists of asbestos, mercury and beryllium*
Federal Enforcement
Section 113 provides for Federal enforcement in cases of violation
of a Federal standard or any requirement of a Federally approved imple-
mentation plan.
In the case of a violation of a provision of a Federally approved
implementation plan, the Administrator must first issue a notice of
violation, unless the Administrator has declared that State in which
the violation occurred to be in a "period of Federally assumed enforcement."
(Federally assumed enforcement, under which Federal enforcement procedures
are more expeditious, is appropriate whenever a State fails generally
to enforce an implementation plan effectively.) Thirty days after the
issuance of a notice of violation, the Administrator may issue an order
or bring a civil action.
He may also issue an order or bring a civil action in the case of a
violation of new source performance standard or an emission standard for
a hazardous air pollutant. No notice of violation is required in such
cases.
In addition, Section 113 makes it a criminal offense for any person
to knowingly violate any requirement of an applicable implementation
plan more than 30 days after issuance of the notice of violation (or at
any time during a period of Federally assumed enforcement). Criminal
penalties are also provided for knowingly failing to comply with any
order of the Administrator, or for knowingly violating a new source
performance standard or an emission standard for a hazardous air pollutant.
Abatement Conferences
Another procedure for the abatement of air pollution is the conference
procedure under Section 115. This procedure has been utilized since 1965
to deal with many different types of problems. However, future conferences
may be called only with respect to an air pollutant for which there is no
national ambient air quality standard in effect, although this does not
affect the validity of ongoing conferences instituted orior to adoption
of such ambient air quality standards. (Tab on Air Enforcement Actions.)
Many of the Conferences we discuss originated before EPA's foundation,
nevertheless, EPA has continued to follow up the status of compliance
with each Conference^ recommendations.
2,29
-------
Based on the statements, testimony, and evidence presented at the
conference, the Administrator must prepare and forward to the conference
participants a summary of discussions including: (1) occurrence of air
pollution subject to abatement under the Act, (2) adequacy of measures
taken toward abatement of the pollution, and (3) nature of delays, if
any, being encountered in abating the pollution. If the Administrator
believes that effective progress toward abatement of such pollution is
not being made and that the health or welfare of any persons is being
endangered, he must recommend to the appropriate air pollution control
agency that the necessary remedial action be taken.
If the necessary remedial action is not taken in the time provided
(at least six months), Section 115 contains procedures for a public
hearing and ultimately for a civil action by the Attorney General.
Emergency Powers
In any instance where a pollution source or combination of sources
is presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to health, and
State or local authorities have not acted to abate such sources, the
Administrator is empowered to bring suit to restrain any person causing
or contributing to the pollution.
230
-------
2. Mobile Sources
The 1970 Clean Air Amendments require EPA to set emission standards
for any class of new motor vehicle emitting air pollutants dangerous to
public health or welfare. Congress itself established such standards
for the three most prevalent auto pollutants: carbon monoxide, hydro-
carbons, and oxides of nitrogen. Section 202 of the Clean Air Act requires
that 1975 light-duty vehicles (foreign and domestic except those sold in
California) reduce emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide by 90%
of 1970 levels, and that 1976 models reduce oxide of nitrogen emission
by 90% from 1971 levels. These standards must be met during the "useful
life" of the vehicle, that is, 5 years or 50,000 miles, whichever comes
first.
Section 202 also provides for a 1-year extension to meet these standards
if automobile manufacturers can prove: that effective control technology
processes or operating methods are not available; that granting such
suspension is essential to the public interest; that a good faith effort
has been made to meet the technology; and that a National Academy of
Science study has indicated that technology, processes, or other alter-
natives are not available to meet such standards.
Section 206 requires the Administrator to test new vehicles (prototypes)
and engines, and to issue a certificate of conformity if such vehicles meet
the applicable standards. To insure conformance with applicable standards
the Administrator is authorized to test assembly-line vehicles. If, based
upon the assembly-line tests, the Administrator determines that vehicles
or engines do not comply with applicable certificate conditions, the
Administrator may suspend or revoke the certification.
If a non-certified vehicle is sold, offered for sale, introduced or
delivered for introduction into commerce or imported into the United
States, the manufacturer or person responsible for importation is subject
to a civil penalty up to $10,000 under Sections 203 and 205. Each
vehicle sold, etc., constitutes a separate offense. The courts also
have the jurisdiction under Section 204 to restrain such activity by
issuing injunctions.
Section 207(a) calls for manufacturers to include in their new-car
warranty, a guarantee that the vehicle complies with applicable emission
regulations, and that it is free of defects in materials or workmanship
that would cause any noncompliance during its useful life.
Section 207(b) states that after workable tests are developed to
check on the performance of emission control devices, EPA must require
manufacturers to revise warranties so that the manufacturer is required
to replace at its own expense any faulty control device if: (1) the
vehicle was maintained and operated in accordance with manufacturer's
instructions; (2) the vehicle fails to conform to regulations under Section
202 any time during its useful life; or (3) the failure of any device
results in the owner being penalized under state or federal law.
231
-------
If a substantial number of any class of vehicle or engine, although
properly maintained and used, do not conform to regulations prescribed
under Section 202, the Administrator is empowered by Section 207(c) to
notify the manufacturer and require it to submit a plan for remedying
the nonconformity. Any affected vehicle which is properly used and
maintained shall be brought into compliance at the manufacturer's
expense. Public hearings are provided if a manufacturer disagrees with
the Administrator's initial determination.
Section 207 (c) also provides that each vehicle or engine must have a
permanent label or tag affixed to it shoving that the vehicle or engine
is covered by a certificate of conformity.
A manufacturer is prohibited from selling or leasing any vehicle or
engine which does not comply with the provisions of Section 207, due to
the provisions of Section 203(a)(4), and is liable for fines or restraining
orders under Sections 205 and 204.
Pursuant to Section 208, manufacturers must establish and maintain
records, make reports, and provide information that the Administrator
may require to determine whether the manufacturer is acting or has
acted in compliance with the applicable standards.
If any manufacturer fails or refuses to permit access to or copying
of records or fails to make reports or provide information, it is liable
for civil penalties of up to $10,000, due to provisions in Sections 203
and 205. Further, if any person knowingly makes any false statement,
representation or certification in any document required to be maintained
under this Act or who falsifies or tampers with any monitoring device
required to be maintained under this Act, he shall, upon conviction, be
punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment of not
more than 6 months, pursuant to Section 113(c)(2).
Section 203(a)(3) sets out a prohibition against removal or rendering
inoperable any emission control device by any person prior to sate or
delivery to the ultimate purchaser; or for any manufacturer or dealer
(Note: not any person) to knowingly remove or render inoperative any such
device after sale and delivery to the purchaser.
Any person found violating this provision is subject to civil penalty
of not more than $10,000 or to actions restraining such activity pursuant
to Sections 205 and 204.
The Administrator is empowered to register fuels and fuel additives,
and to obtain information concerning these additives pursuant to Section
211(a) and (b). Subsection (c) of Section 211 empowers the Administrator
to control or prohibit any fuel or additive which he believes will endanger
public health or welfare, or will significantly impair the performance of
emission control devices.
232
-------
Any person who violates Subsection (a) or the restrictions pre-
scribed by regulation under Subsection (c), or who fails to furnish
any information required by the Administrator under Subsection (c),
shall be subject to a civil penalty of $10,000 per day for each day
such violation continues pursuant to Section 21l(d).
The following pages present an overview of the more significant
air enforcement actions, involving both stationary and mobile sources,
the Agency has taken, as well as significant achievements. In addi-
tion, the section on air enforcement actions discusses the salient
facts on every air enforcement action taken by the Agency.
233
-------
CASE HISTORIES OF SELECTED INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS
Key air enforcement actions taken under the authorities described
in the preceding part are discussed in this section of the review.
Stationary Source Enforcement Actions
Emergency Episode Proceedings
1. Birmingham, Alabama (see pictures on the Tab entitled Air Enforcement
Actions.)
The Federal Government intervened for the first time in an air pollution
emergency when it obtained,on November 18, 1971, a temporary restraining
order from the United States District Court in Birmingham, Alabama to
curtail the emission of particulate matter into the ambient air by U. S.
Steel and 22 other industries. The episode stands as the only court case
under the emergency episode powers (Section 303 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended), which authorize EPA to enter an area during an episode and
effectively shut down the major polluters where an imminent and substantial
endangerment to the health of persons exists.
On Friday, November 12, 1971, a high pressure system with warm air
aloft, that had been enveloping Birmingham's Jones Valley, became an
inversion. On Monday, November 15, 1971, an Air Stagnation Advisory was
issued for Birmingham, predicting that the inversion would remain for at
least another 24 hours.
On Tuesday, November 16, 1971, the Director of the Jefferson County
Health Department announced that particulate matter concentrations of
397 ug/m and 771 ug/m (North Birmingham) had been recorded. Accordingly,
an air pollution "Alert" (particulate matter concentration at or above
375 ug/m3) was declared. Later that afternoon, it was announced that the
particulate matter concentration in North Birmingham had decreased to 722
ug/m3. Nevertheless, the episode was moved up a notch by formally declaring
an air pollution "Warning" (particulate matter concentration at or above
625 ug/m3).
On Wednesday, November 17, 1971, the particulate matter concentration
in North Birmingham was reported at 758 ug/m3 and the Air Stagnation
Advisory was forecast to last another day. Accordingly, the air pollution
"Warning" for Birmingham was continued.
As a result of these excessively high particulate matter concentrations,
the Health Department on Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning, in an attempt
to decrease the particulate matter concentration, telephoned the 23 major
companies in Birmingham requesting a 60% voluntary curtailment of emissions.
Only four industries did not assure any reduction (including U.S. Steel,
the largest Birmingham steel mill). Subsequently, only a 15% reduction in
particulate matter emissions was achieved.
234
-------
EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus sent his own representatives to Birmingham
after learning that the voluntary compliance efforts had failed. Upon
arrival in Birmingham and after reviewing the latest meteorological fore-
casts (which predicted the inversion might clear by Thursday afternoon)
and the latest available air quality data, a determination was made by the
EPA representatives to exercise the emergency episode powers to prevent
the 23 plants from operating at full capacity effective Thursday morning.
The local United States Attorney presented to the United States
District Judge, shortly before midnight Wednesday evening, a formal
complaint requesting a temporary restraining order against the 23 major
companies in Birmingham to curtail their particulate matter emissions
into the ambient air. Part of the request was a list of specific steps
the firms would have to take to limit particulate matter emissions. The
temporary restraining order was granted at 2 a.m. Thursday, November 18,
1971, and a hearing on the order was scheduled for 9 a.m. Friday,
November 19, 1971.
On Thursday, November 18, 1971, after the 23 industries had been
served and substantially complied with the temporary restraining order,
the particulate matter concentration dropped to 410 ug/rP in the morning
and 461 ug/nr* in the afternoon. In addition, the inversion was definitely
in the process of breaking up by Thursday afternoon.
On Friday, November 19, 1971, the United States Attorney requested
that the temporary restraining order be vacated since the atmospheric
conditions had improved and EPA's medical and pollution experts believed,
since the particulate matter concentration had decreased to 216 ug/m^,
that the previous imminent and substantial endangerment to health no
longer existed.
235
-------
Implementation Plan Enforcement Proceedings
1. Delmarva Power and Light Company
By a contractual arrangement, the Delmarva Power and Light Company
provides electricity to the Getty Oil Company in exchange for petroleum
coke which serves as fuel for Delmarva's boilers. Since this fuel contains
up to 7 percent sulfur, it does not conform to the provisions of the
Federally approved implementation plan for the State of Delaware which
requires that the Delmarva Power and Light Company use fuel containing no
more than 3.5 percent sulfur after January 1, 1972, as part of the control
strategy to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard for
sulfur oxides.
In September 1971, Getty Oil Company applied to Delaware authorities
for a variance from the January 1, 1972, effective date of the regulation.
The variance application was denied by the Secretary of the Delaware
Natural Resources Commission, and Getty appealed to the Delaware Water and
Air Resources Commission. Before the Commission could act, Delaware
obtained a State court order against enforcement of the regulation by
the State of Delaware pending disposition of the appeal on Getty's variance
application.
After obtaining a report from Delmarva (pursuant to Section 114 of
the Clean Air Act) that it was burning fuel with a sulfur content in excess
of 3.5 percent, the Administrator issued a notice of violation on March
6, 1972, pursuant to Section 113(a) of the Act. This was the first use
of these enforcement authorities in the new Clean Air Act. Subsequently,
as required by the Act, a conference was held with Getty and Delmarva.
Upon determining that the violation had continued beyond the 30th day of
the notice, the Administrator, on April 17, issued an order to comply by
May 1, 1972. Getty Oil Company brought suit in the Federal District Court
for the District of Delaware on April 21, 1972, seeking to restrain the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing the
Delaware State implementation plan. A hearing was held on April 27, 1972,
by the U. S. District Court for Delaware at which time the Administrator
agreed to suspend the compliance date until May 10, 1972.
Although by decision of May 10, 1972, the Federal District Court denied
Getty's motion for preliminary injunction, the Court ruled that Getty had
standing to sue, and that the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction
under the Declaratory Judgement Act and the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), except to the extent that Section 307 of the Clean Air Act precludes
judicial review. The court further held that Section 307 of the Act only
precludes District Court pre-enforcement review of any claim which could
have been raised at the time of approval of the State plan in a Section
307(b) proceeding. The court rejected Getty's contention that the regulation
is unnecessary because the national primary ambient air quality standard
for sulfur oxides has already been achieved, and that the economic costs
236
-------
imposed by the regulation outweigh environmental benefits, holding that
such contentions could have been considered in a proceeding for judicial
review, under Section 307 of the Clean Air Act. However, the Court held
that it had subject matter jurisdiction to consider such due process
arguments as, (1) whether the May 1st compliance date specified in the
Administrator's order was reasonable, and (2) whether the Administrator
was required to file an environmental impact statement under the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) prior to issuing a compliance order.
On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to
the District Court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Appeals
Court reversed the District Court's holding that it had subject matter
jurisdiction in a pre-enforcement review proceeding to consider due process
arguments concerning the reasonableness of the compliance date, or whether
an impact statement was required by NEPA. The Court of Appeals found
that Getty was posing a direct challenge to the regulation, and that
issues sought to be raised by Getty could have been raised in a proceeding
for judicial review under Section 307 of the Clean Air Act. The Court
of Appeals further held that neither the Declaratory Judgment Act, nor
the APA could afford a basis for jurisdiction of the District Court.
This case has extremely great importance as a precedent indicating
that the necessity of abatement requirements specified in a duly promul-
gated implementation plan will not be open to challenge in suits to enforce
compliance with those requirements. Getty Oil Company filed a petition
for a writ of certiorari from the U. S. Supreme Court on November 1, 1972,
which the court denied on January 15, 1973.
2. Allied Chemical Corporation
On May 24, 1972, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency issued a notice of violation against the Allied Chemical Corporation
pursuant to Section 113(a)(l) of the Clean Air Act. Allied's sulfuric
acid manufacturing plant in Claymont, Delaware, produced sulfur dioxide ^
concentrations and mass emission rates in excess of those permitted by
Regulation IX of the Federally approved implementation plan for the State
of Delaware. Following the notice of violation, a conference was held
on June 12, 1972, with Allied pursuant to Section 113(a)(4) of the Act.
An order was issued by the Administrator on July 20, 1972, requiring
Allied's Claymont facility to reduce its sulfur dioxide emissions to com-
ply with the levels specified in the State implementation plan by September
15, 1973. Bimonthly progress reports, beginning October 10, 1972, were
required as well as provisions for continuous monitoring of emissions of
sulfur dioxide from the plant. In addition, Allied was ordered to submit
sufficient information on construction of the emission control facility
to assist the Environmental Protection Agency in establishing a compliance
schedule with suitable increments of progress.
237
-------
Abatement Conference Proceedings
1. Parkersburg, West Virginia - Marietta, Ohio,Abatement Conference
In response to citizens' complaints, the Federal government initiated
a field investigation of interstate air pollution in the Parkersburg,
West Virginia - Marietta, Ohio, area in October 1965. The field investi-
gation, which included the gathering of air quality and meteorological
data and an emission source inventory, showed clearly that the primary
source of air pollution in the area was the Marietta, Ohio, metallurgical
plant of Union Carbide Corporation although excessive emissions from
other industrial plants in the area were found to contribute to the problem.
As a result of this conference, control recommendations were issued
covering both particulate and sulfur oxide emissions. On November 13, 1970,
(shortly before EPA was established) a public consultation with State
officials was held in Vienna, West Virginia. All of the cited plants had
taken some positive steps to abate particulate and odorous emissions, but
no progress had been made by Union Carbide with respect to sulfur dioxide
control. A Union Carbide spokesman appeared at this session and promised
that a revised control plan and schedule would be submitted around
December 1.
Union Carbide's revised plan and schedule were submitted on December
8, 1970. Due to the inadequacy of such plan, the Administrator of EPA
responded on January 8, 1971, to require from Union Carbide an immediate
commitment to fulfill all of the conference recommendations and to signify
such commitment by written communication not later than January 19, 1971.
By reply of January 18, 1971, Union Carbide stated its commitment to meet
the conference recommendations but raised the prospect that in order to do
so the company saw no alternative to partial shutdown of certain facilities
which would result in a layoff of approximately 125 employees in September
1971 and 500 further employees in April 1972.
Although initially the company publicly voiced concern relative to
being able to locate sufficient quantities of low-sulfur fuel to meet
conference recommendations and permit continued operation of the Marietta
plant at full employment level, it was able to meet the 40-percent reduc-
tion in sulfur oxide emissions on time by blending its higher-sulfur,
Ohio-mined coal with previously unavailable lower-sulfur coal from a
company-owned West Virginia coal mine. Later engineering studies made by
the company on cost of flue gas desulfurization compared with switching
to low-sulfur coal prompted the company to develop a new mine and coal
preparation facility on West Virginia property owned by the company. The
new mine provided sufficient low-sulfur coal to operate the plant at full
capacity and meet the final 70-percent reduction by the specified deadline.
Union Carbide completed construction in January 1972 of an approved
362-foot single stack at the power station which was designed to eliminate
severe plume downwash previously contributing to high, short-term ground
sulfur concentration found in the vicinity of the plant.
238
-------
Civil Actions for Violations of Title II of the Clean Air Act
1. Suit against Ford for Shipment of Uncertified Vehicles
EPA sued Ford Motor Company for violating the Clean Air Act by ship-
ping uncertified vehicles to dealers on consignment. The case was decided
in favor of EPA in a consent decree. Due to a delay in completion of
durability testing, Ford shipped the vehicles before they were certified.
Ford claimed that the delay was caused by EPA's failure to promulgate
a new test procedure sufficiently in advance of certification. Ford
however, was the only domestic manufacturer to fail to obtain certification
on time.
In early summer 1971, EPA discussed the problem of potential delay with
Ford and other manufacturers. Ford was advised by letter that some form
of qualified certification might be granted if Ford could provide suffi-
cient test data to support the judgment of substantial certainty that
certification of the vehicles would be achieved. Ford chose not to
apply for qualified certification, and shipped the uncertified vehicles.
Ford claims to have thought that shipment of the vehicles on consignment
was lawful, but this point was settled in EPA's favor in the consent
decree.
239
-------
Application for 1-Year Suspension of Motor Vehicle Emission Limitations
On Friday, May 12, 1972, William D. Ruckelshaus denied the request
of five motor vehicle manufacturers, Volvo, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler,
and International Harvester, for a one-year suspension of the 1975
vehicle emission standards. The decision of the Administrator to deny
the requests was made on the basis of four determinations specified by
law in Section 202(b)(5)(d) of the Clean Air Act. The Act states that
the Administrator has the authority to suspend the effective date of
the 1975 hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide standards only if he determined
that:(i) such suspension is essential to the public interest or the
public health and welfare of the United States, (ii) all good faith efforts
have been made to meet the standards, (iii) the applicant has established
that effective control technology, processes, operating methods, or other
alternatives are not available or have not been available for a sufficient
period of time to achieve compliance prior to the effective date of such
standards, and (iv) the study and investigation of the National Academy
of Sciences conducted pursuant to the Act and other information available
to him has not indicated that technology, processes, or other alternatives
are available to meet the standards." On the basis of these guidelines.
and the information submitted by the applicants and other witnesses
during the hearings held by EPA concerning the suspension of the 1975
emission standards, the Administrator determined that he was unable to
grant the suspension.
Following the May 12 decision, several manufacturers commenced an
action in the United States Court of Appeals seeking a review of the
Administrator's decision.
240
-------
Cases Referred to Justice Department
1. Unauthorized Maintenance on 1973 Certification Vehicles by Ford
Motor Company
EPA was notified by the Ford Motor Company on May 16, 1972, of
irregularities in Ford's maintenance-reporting procedures for 1973 certi-
fication vehicles. On May 23, 1972, EPA personnel from the MSED began
an in-depth investigation of this matter at the World Headquarters of
the Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan. It was disclosed that Ford
had performed unscheduled maintenance on 1973 durability certification
vehicles without the required prior approval of EPA. In addition, two
certification-maintenance computer reports were prepared and used by
Ford regarding 1973 certification maintenance—-one listed the mainte-
nance reported to EPA, the other listed all maintenance, some of which
had not been reported to EPA. This matter was referred to the Justice
Department on September 20, 1972, for final resolution.
2. Alleged Tampering Violation by Haney Chevrolet, Orlando, Florida
In response to a consumer complaint that a Chevrolet dealer had
removed the emission control system from his 1972 vehicle, the EPA
Regional Office and MSED Washington conducted an investigation. The
investigation revealed that Haney Chevrolet, of Orlando Florida, had,
in fact, removed certain components of the emission control system of
a 1972 Corvette, thereby rendering the system inoperative. The Regional
Office, based on the facts discovered during the investigation, recom-
mended that suit be filed against Haney Chevrolet for violating Section
203(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act. EPA Washington concurred with the
Regional Office's recommendation and the case has been forwarded to the
U. S. Attorney's Office in Orlando, Florida, for appropriate action.
241
-------
AIR ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS
-------
The following tables show key facts on air enforcement actions
taken since the establishment of EPA, and air pollution abate-
ment conferences initiated prior to the establishment of EPA;
Page
Table 1. Air Enforcement Actions 243
Table 2. Abatement Conferences 246
242
-------
AIR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Table 1
NAME AND LOCATION
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION
PROBLEM
TYPE OF
ACTION
TYPE OF
SOURCE
DATE
REFERRED
RESULTS OR STATUS
Allied Chemical Corporation
Claymont, Delaware
Delmarva Power & Light Co.
Delaware City, New Castle
County, Delaware
To secure compliance with
Federally approved Delaware
State Implementation Plan
limiting sulfur dioxide
concentrations and mass
emission rates by a sulfuric
acid manufacturing plant of
Allied Chemical Corporation.
To secure compliance with
Federally approved Delaware
State implementation plan
requiring use of fuel not in
excess of 3.5% sulfur by
Delmarva Power & Light Company
which burns fuel in its
boilers containing up to 7%
sulfur.
Notice of violation issued Stationary
pursuant to Section 113(a)
of the Clean Air Act by the
Administrator of the
Environmental Protection
Agency on May 24, 1972.
Order to comply issued pur-
suant to Section 113(a) of
the Clean Air Act by the
Administrator on July 20,
1972.
Notice of violation issued Stationary
pursuant to Section 113(a)
of the Clean Air Act by the
Administrator of the
Environmental Protection
Agency on March 6, 1972,
against Delmarva Power &
Light Company. Order to
comply Issued pursuant to
section 113(a) of the Clean
Air Act by the Adminis-
trator on April 17, 1972,
against Delmarva Power &
Light Company.
Bimonthly progress reports
to commence October 10, 1972,
are being received. Infor-
mation was submitted to
Environmental Protection
Agency on construction of an
emission control facility
to comply with the plan for
which a construction schedule
with increments of progress
will be established by
Environmental Protection
Agency.
At the conclusion of liti-
gation instituted by Getty
Oil Company for a court order
restraining enforcement of
the fuel sulfur content
regulation, the order to
comply was upheld. (The
interest of Getty Oil Co.
in this matter arises from
a contractual arrangement
between Delmarva Power &
Light Co. and Getty Oil
Company under which Getty
provides Delmarva petroleum
coke for fuel in exchange
for electricity.) Getty Oil
Co. (Eastern Operations) v.
Ruckelshaus (342 F. Supp.
1006; 467 F. 2d. 349; cert.
den., U.S. , Jan 15,
1973)
243
-------
AIR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
NAME AND LOCATION
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION
PROBLEM
TYPE OF
ACTION
TYPE OF
SOURCE
DATE
REFERRED
RESULTS OR STATUS
Ford Motor Company
Washington, D. C.
Ford Motor Company
Haney Chevrolet
Orlando, Florida
Middletown, R.I.
Shipment of uncertified
1972 vehicles to dealers.
Irregularities in Ford's
reporting procedures for
1973 certification vehicles.
Records disclosed that Ford
allegedly had performed
unscheduled maintenance on
1973 certification vehicles
which were in the process of
being certified under the
Clean Air Act.
Dealer allegedly removed the
emission control system from
a 1972 vehicle, rendering
the system inoperative.
To secure compliance with
that portion of the Federally
approved Rhode Island State
Implementation Plan which
specifically prohibits open
burning of materials at public
refuse disposal facilities,
and to secure compliance with
that portion of the plan which
prohibits generally the emission
of harmful contaminants, by the
City of Middletown, Rhode
Island, at its refuse disposal
site.
Civil action under Mobile
§203(a)(l) of the
Clean Air Act re-
questing monitary
and injunctive relief.
Violation of civil Mobile
provisions of §203(a)2.
Violation of criminal
provisions of §113(c)(2),
and violation of criminal
provisions of 18 USC
§1001.
Civil action under §203 Mobile
(a)(3) of the Clean Air
Act.
October 4, 1971
September 20, 1972
December 22, 1972
A notice of violation
was issued pursuant to
Section 113(a)(1) of the
Clean Air Act on October
13, 1972. A conference
between EPA and Middletown
Officials was held pursuant
to Section 113(a)(4)
on November 6, 1972.
244
Stationary
Consent decree entered December 1,
1972 whereby Ford agreed to pay a
fine of $10,000 and was enjoined
from introducing or delivering
for introduction into commerce any
vehicle unless such vehicle is
certified by EPA.
Currently under investigation
by the Department of Justice.
Currently under investigation by
the United States Attorney for
the Middle District of Florida.
The Middletown refuse disposal site
is under surveillance, and pursuant
to Section 113(a)(l) an order to
comply is authorized if there are
further violations of the State
implementation plan.
-------
AIR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
NAME AND LOCATION
OF SOURCE
POLLUTION
PROBLEM
TYPE OF
ACTION
TYPE OF
SOURCE
DATE
REFERRED
RESULTS OR STATUS
Newport, R. I.
To secure compliance with
that portion of the Federally
approved Rhode Island State
Implementation Plan which
specifically prohibits open
burning of materials at public
refuse disposal facilities, and
with that portion of the plan
which prohibits generally the
emission of harmful contaminants,
by the City of Newport, Rhode
Island, at its refuse disposal
site.
A notice of violation
was issued pursuant to
Section 113(a)(1) of
the Clean Air Act, on
October 13, 1972. Order
to comply issued pursuant
to Section 113(a) of the
Clean Air Act by the
Administrator on
January 11, 1973.
Stationary
The Newport refuse
disposal site is under
surveillance, and
pursuant to Section 113,
judicial proceedings are
authorized if further
violations of the State
implementation plan
occur.
U. S. Steel
et al.
Birmingham, Ala.
Imminent & substantial endanger-
raent to health.
Civil proceeding for a
temporary restraining
order pursuant to
Section 303, Clean Air
Act.
Stationary
November 18, 1971
November 18, 1971 Court
issued temporary re-
straining order against
23 firms requiring
significant reductions
in partlculate emissions
until ambient air quality
became satisfactory to
relieve endangerment to
health. TRO dissolved
November 19, 1971, at
the request of EPA.
245
-------
ABATEMENT CONFERENCES*
Table 2
INITIATED 3Y
COXFCRCXCE
HELD
RECONM:\'-
DAT-ONS
ISSUED
BACKGROUND AND STATUS
Clarkston, Washington
Lewis ton, Idaho
Secretary, HEW
3/1/67
6/9/67
Malodorous sulfide gases and particulate emissions from pulp
mill in Lewis ton affected health and welfare of residents in
interstate valley area. Initial control measures instituted
by company following conference only partially alleviated
problem. The company later embarked on more extensive control
program involving installation of high efficiency particulate
collectors and modern chemical recovery system which is
nearing completion and will result in appreciable emission
reduction.
Garrison, Montana
Local Gov1t.
w/concurrence of
Governor
8/16/67
10/4/67
Fluoride emissions from small phosphate rock processing plant
severely affected vegetation and livestock in a wide area
around Garrison. Over period of time emissions have been
gradually reduced to near acceptable levels by better opera-
ting procedures and installed controls. Constant surveillance
of plant operation is necessary to assure fluoride controls
are fully utilized and emissions held to a minimum.
Ironton, Ohio -
Huntington, W. Va.
Ashland, Kentucky
Secretary, HEW
7/23/68
3/14/69
Particulate emissions from heavy industrial complex in tri-
State region affected health and welfare of area residents.
Majority of 19 Industrial sources have abated emissions in
conformance with conference recommendations. Firm control
plans have been submitted to EPA by other companies to install
controls fully meeting recommendations on various time schedules
extending into early 1974.
246
* Initiated prior to establishment of EPA
-------
AREA
INITIATED BY
CONFERENCE
HELD
RECOMMEN-
DATIONS
ISSUED
BACKGROUND AND STATUS
Kansas City, Kansas -
Kansas City, Missouri
Phase I
Phase II
Secretary, HEW
1/23/67
4/30/68
4/12/67
10/17/68
Excessive smoke emissions from nearby industrial sources
and burning dumps interfered with aircraft operations at
municipal airports causing unsafe conditions. A few of
the 21 sources named in conference recommendations have
not fully conformed with visible emission requirement.
Special control technology problems faced by fiberglass and
grain processing plants have contributed to delay of these
sources in abating visible emissions to acceptable levels.
Further action to obtain necessary abatement measures is
being carried out in conjunction with Federal review and
approval of State implementation plan compliance schedules
submitted by individual sources in area.
Mt. Storm, West Virginia -
Gorman, Maryland, and
Luke, Md. - Keyser, W. Va.
Governors
of
Maryland &
West Virginia
5/11/71
10/14/71
The conference concerned (1) sulfur and particulate emissions
from power plant near Mr. Storm which affected growing of
Christmas trees in Maryland and (2) sulfur oxide, malodorous
sulfide gases, and particulate emissions from pulp mill near
Luke which affected health and welfare of West Virginia resi-
dents. High efficiency electrostatic particulate collectors
are being installed at both plants. Construction delays have
moved completion dates to June and July 1973. Control programs
for meeting respective State implementation plan sulfur oxide
emission regulations have been submitted by both companies.
New Cumberland, W. Va. -
Knox Township, Ohio
Local Gov't.
w/concurrence of
Governor W. Va.
7/8/69
8/22/69
247
Excessive smoke and dust emissions from poorly controlled older
power plant in Ohio affected health and welfare of West Virginia
residents. The company permanently removed eight low pressure
boilers from service in September 1971 and installed high
efficiency electrostatic particulate collectors on three re-
maining high pressure boilers in accordance with conference
recommendations. In addition, emissions are being vented to
the atmosphere through a newly constructed 650-foot stack to
improve dispersion.
-------
ABATEMENT CONFERENCES
INITIATED BY
CONFERENCE
HELD
RECOMT'IIN-
DATIONS
ISS1 ED
BACKGROUND AND STATUS
New York - New Jersey
Phase I
Phase II
Secretary, HEW
1/3/67
1/30/68
3/17/67
4/9/69
Federal studies showed interstate transport of sulfur oxide,
carbon monoxide, and particulate matter caused concentration
harmful to health and welfare of residents of this heavily
populated metropolitan area. States adopted regulations
restricting sulfur in fuels and particulate emissions, which
have resulted in appreciable reduction in emissions, and for
sulfur oxides, an equivalent reduction in ambient levels.
Major sources of particulate emissions remain and accordingly
there has not been as noticeable an improvement in ambient
particulate levels. State implementation plans will bring
about effective control of remaining sources.
Parkersburg, W. Va. -
Marietta, Ohio
Session I
Session II
Secretary, HEW
3/22/67
10/30/69
3/19/70
4/20/70
Selbyville, Delaware
Bishop, Maryland
Governor
of Delaware
11/9/65
1/12/66
Smoke and dust emissions from large ferroalloy plant near
Marietta as well as eight other industrial sources in inter-
state area caused particulate pollution levels harmful to
health and welfare of area residents. In addition to area-
wide particulate emissions limitations, requirements for
restricting sulfur oxide and irritant pollutants from
specific sources causing localized problems were included
in the recommendations. Industrial sources named in
recommendations, and in particular the ferroalloy plant,
have progressed well in installing needed abatement controls
and are expected to be in full conformance by mid-1973.
Malodors from small rendering plant in Maryland affected well-
being of Delaware residents. Legal action invoked against
company after failure to conform to conference and hearing
recommendations eventually resulted in a Court Order,
implemented in June 1970, to cease all rendering at the plant.
EPA initiated judicial proceedings which resulted in the
company being cited for contempt of Court in July 1971 for
resuming oil processing without Court approval. Approval was
given for oil processing after company installed prescribed
odor emission safeguards. Constant surveillance of plant
operations is necessary to assure devices are fully utilized.
2*8
-------
AREA
INITIATED BY
CONFERENCE
HELD
RECO>D1EN-
DATIONS
ISSUED
Shoreham, Vermont -
Ticonderoga, New York
Governor
of Vermont
U/30/65
3/1/66
Washington, D. C. -
Maryland - Virginia
Secretary, HEW
12/11/67
A/29/68
BACKGROUND AND STATUS
Malodorous sulfide gases from pulp mill near Ticonderoga
affected health and welfare of Vermont residents. Odor condi-
tions persisted after controls were installed at plant because
of over-capacity production and suspected odorous releases
from accumulated pulp mill wastes discharged in lake in past
years. The old plant was shut down in April 1971 when a
newly constructed, larger capacity, modern pulp mill commenced
operation nearby. Best control technology incorporated into
the new facility has largely abated malodorous emissions.
contr.r»HKh *lr Poll«"°n Problem
contributed by heavy population concentration; trans-
portation requirements, and waste disposal practices in
""" ad°Pted -°™-^ c'ontrol
i <* accomplished appreciable reductions
sources ThT[ Pfrt,icula^ ""tssions fron, area-wide
in thl I 1«86.t single source of particulate pollution
Fur^ a> 3? °Pen-burnl"8 dump, was closed in 1968.
Further reductions will result from stringent reflation.
recently adopted as part of state implenJtation^ Uns
Z49
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT
REVIEW
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT REVIEW
Review
The creation of EPA brought together in one Agency a variety of research,
monitoring, standard-setting and enforcement activities formerly scattered
through several departments and agencies. This was brought about by the
Reorganization Plan No. 3 which took effect on December 2, 1970. In brief,
these are the principal pesticide functions that were transferred to EPA:
(1) PESTICIDES REGISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM OF THE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE. The Department of Agriculture
was responsible for several distinct functions related to
pesticides regulations. It conducted research on the efficacy
of various pesticides, as related to other pest control methods,
and on the effects of pesticides on non-target plants, live-
stock, and poultry. It registered pesticides, enforced
violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-
cide Act, monitored their persistence and carried out an
educational program on pesticide use through its extension
service. It conducted pest control programs in which
pesticides were utilized extensively.
By transferring the Department of Agriculture's pesticides
registration, enforcement and monitoring function to EPA,
and merging it with the pesticides program transferred from
HEW and Interior, the new Agency was given a broad capability
for control over the introduction of pesticides into the
environment.
The Department of Agriculture continues to conduct research
on the effectiveness of pestic'ides. It furnishes this
information to EPA, which has the responsibility for
actually licensing pesticides for use, after considering
environmental and health effects.
(2) CERTAIN PESTICIDES RESEARCH AUTHORITY FROM THE DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR. Authority for research on the effects of
pesticides on fish and wildlife has been provided to EPA
through transfer of the specialized research authority of
the pesticides act enacted in 1958. Interior retains its
responsibility to do research on all factors affecting
fish and wildlife. Under this provision, only one
laboratory was transferred to EPA-the Gulf Breeze
Biological Laboratory of the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries. EPA works closely with the fish and wildlife
laboratories remaining with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and wildlife.
(3) PESTICIDES RESEARCH AND STANDARD-SETTING PROGRAM OF THE
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. FDA's pesticides program
consisted of setting and enforcing standards which limit
250
-------
pesticide residues in food. EPA now has the authority to
set pesticide standards and monitor compliance with them,
as well as to conduct related research. However, as an
integral part of its food protection activities, FDA
retains its authority to remove food with excess pesticide
residues from the market.
EPA, as a new Federal force in the environment, presents substantial
opportunity to accomplish positive environmental improvement. It is
an independent regulatory Agency reporting directly to the Office of
the President. EPA's sole charge is to see that the standards it
sets and enforces adequately protect the total environment.
On October 21, 1972, the President of the United States signed into law
Public Law 92-516, the "Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of
1972". The new Act completely revises the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) which has been the basic authority for Federal
pesticide regulation since 1947.
The law prior to the new legislation prohibited interstate commerce of
unregistered pesticides, and permitted registration only when, if used
as directed or in accordance with commonly recognized practice, the
pesticide would not be injurious to man, vertebrate animals, or
desirable vegetation. It did not prohibit the misuse of any registered
pesticide, nor did it regulate pesticides that moved only in intrastate
commerce.
The new Act regulates the use of pesticides to protect man and the
environment and extends Federal pesticide regulation to all pesticides
including those distributed or used within a single state.
Authorities
Federal regulation of pesticides began with the enactment of the Federal
Insecticide Act of 1910, although State regulation was undertaken in some
states at an even earlier date. The Federal Insecticide Act of 1910,
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, prevented the
manufacture, sale or transportation of adulterated or misbranded
insecticides and fungicides and authorized regulation of sales of
insecticides and fungicides.
Until the post-World War II era, there was no apparent need for pesticide
legislation other than the limited coverage of the 1910 Act. However,
because of the rapid development in the field of synthetic pesticide
manufacture after World War II, it became apparent that the 1910 Act
was inadequate for the protection of users, consumers and the general
public.
On June 25, 1947, the Insecticide Act of 1910 was repealed and replaced
by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The
1947 Act required the registration of economic poisons or chemical
251
-------
pesticides prior to their sale or movement in interstate or foreign
commerce. The Act also required prominent display of poison warnings
on labels of highly toxic pesticides and the coloring or discoloring
of dangerous white powdered insecticides to prevent their being
mistaken for foodstuffs. Other provisions of the Act provided for the
inclusion of warning statements on the label to prevent injury to
people, animals and plants and the inclusion of instructions for use
to provide adequate protection for the public. Pesticide manufacturers,
dealers, and carriers were also required to furnish information with
respect to the delivery, movement, or holding of pesticides.
In 1959, the FIFRA was amended to include new types of agricultural
chemicals such as nematocides, defoliants, dessicants and plant
regulators under the general regulatory provisions for economic
poisons or chemical pesticides.
In 1964, further amendments were made to the Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
cide, and Rodenticide Act which made mandatory the requirement that
pesticide labels bear the registration number and expedited procedures
for cancelling or suspending previously registered pesticides which
were found to be unsafe.
On December 2, 1970, all the functions of regulating pesticides under
FIFRA, previously granted to USDA, were transferred to the newly formed
Environmental Protection Agency.
On October 21, 1972, the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act
(Public Law 92-516) was enacted. This Act completely revised the
FIFRA which had been the basic authority for Federal pesticide regu-
lation since 1947. The new Act prohibits the use of any pesticide
inconsistent with its labeling and covers all pesticides whether
intrastate or interstate. For the first time, misuse of a pesticide
has been made a prohibited act. The Act also provides for the classi-
fication of pesticides for general or restricted use, payment of
indemnities, establishment of pesticide packaging standards and
regulation of pesticide and container disposal.
The new Act strengthens enforcement by providing for the registration
of all pesticide producing establishments, for increased record keeping
and reporting, and for establishment inspection. In addition, the new
amendments provide for increased enforcement authority. Warrants can
be obtained when necessary and stop sale, use and removal orders as
well as seizure orders can now be issued once a violation has been
found. Fines for both civil and criminal penalties have also been
increased under the new Act.
This far-reaching new Act established a series of effective dates for
various provisions of the Act. The existing law will remain in effect
until the new provisions become effective. However, all provisions
of the new Act must be effective within four years after the enactment
of the Act.
252
-------
The following pages present an overview of the more significant
pesticides enforcement actions the Agency has taken, and signifi-
cant achievements. In addition, Chapter 8, the section entitled
"Pesticides Enforcement Actions," discusses the salient facts on
every pesticides enforcement action taken by the Agency.
253
-------
CASE HISTORIES OF SELECTED INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS
Selected examples of pesticides enforcement actions taken under
the authorities described in the preceding part are discussed in
this section of the review.
Prosecutions
Section 6.c. of the FIFRA requires the Administrator, if it appears that
a product is in violation of the Act, to "cause notice to be given to
the person against whom criminal proceedings are contemplated." From
1960 through 1969 over 4000 notices of contemplated criminal proceedings
were issued to alleged violators of the law, however, during that time
not one of these cases was referred to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution.
It was obvious that citations and warnings alone were not sufficient and
that increased emphasis had to be placed on criminal prosecutions in
order to obtain acceptable compliance levels.
On December 2, 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency assumed all the
functions of regulating pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
cide, and Rodenticide Act, previously granted to USDA. Under EPA a
major effort was made to enforce the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act and to bring violative companies to trial through
criminal prosecutions. Since December 2, 1970, 155 cases have been
referred to the U.S. Attorney for criminal prosecution. The following
are examples of some of the completed prosecutions:
1. During 1972, Regional EPA Inspectors visited pesticides
warehouses around the country and collected a number of
pesticide products for investigation. Three of these
products, MILLER'S CHLORDANE 10% DUST, MILLER'S GARDEN
CAPTAN and MILLER'S SYSTEMIC ROSE, SHRUB AND FLOWER CARE
were produced by W. R. Grace and Company, Miller Products
Division, Portland, Oregon.
EPA Regional Laboratories chemically analyzed these products
and found them to be deficient in their active ingredients
and were therefore illegal (misbranded). Deficiencies of
this nature may be caused by poor quality control procedures
on the part of the producer.
EPA referred the evidence to the U.S. Attorney and recommended
prosecution of W. R. Grace and Company. The firm pleaded
guilty to four of the charges and on November 22, 1972, was
fined $500 on each charge. The judge suspended $1000 of the
fine and placed W. R. Grace and Company on probation for
three years.
While there is no affirmative authority in the Act requiring
a producer to maintain good quality control procedures, a
probation period imposed by the court goes a long way in
convincing a firm to establish adequate quality control.
254
-------
2. On September 5, 1972, National Chemical Laboratories of
Pennsylvania, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was
fined $3000, after pleading guilty to 7 counts of violating
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
Judge Huyett of the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia
imposed a fine of $500 each on 5 of the counts and $250
each on the other two and placed the firm on probation
for a period of one year. The criminal complaint, which
was filed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Victor Schwartz on
behalf of EPA, charged the firm with interstate shipment
of adulterated and misbranded hospital disinfectants. The
adulteration charges were brought because the disinfectants
were seriously deficient in active ingredients.
The verdict in this case was critical since the products
involved were hospital disinfectants. Since the company
has been placed on probation, they will be under court
order to maintain an adequate quality control program.
3. In 1972, EPA Regional Inspectors sampled interstate ship-
ments of the products BEST PHOSDRIN 4 EC, BEST DIELDRIN
1.5 EC, and BEST MULTI-PURPOSE INSECT SPRAY, manufactured
by Occidental Chemical Company, Lathrop, California.
A labeling review of the products conducted by the Regis-
tration Division of EPA disclosed that the products were
not registered and that a sample of BEST DIELDRIN 1.5 EC
also bore a label without adequate directions for use. A
suit against Occidental Chemical Company, a subsidiary of
Occidental Petroleum Corporation of Los Angeles was
brought by the U.S. Attorney's office in Sacramento at
the request of EPA.
On October 12, 1972, Occidental pleaded no contest to all
four counts of violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act and U.S. District Judge Philip C. Wilkins
fined the company $2200. In assessing the fine, Judge Wilkins
said, "Companies in the position of Occidental Petroleum
Corporation cannot treat matters such as this in a cavalier
fashion. Corporate leaders in the position of Occidental
Petroleum should set an example for the rest of the industry
to follow." This was the first fine levied in California in
EPA's drive to enforce the provisions of the Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
4. On May 26, 1972, a judgment was filed against the Green Light
Company, San Antonio, Texas, for violations of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The criminal
complaint filed January 20, 1972, charged the company with
255
-------
shipping ten "misbranded" and "adulterated" insecticides
and other garden products from its San Antonio plants to
points in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Colorado resulting
in a total of twenty violations of the Federal law. U.S.
District Judge Adrian A. Spears, Western District of Texas,
found the firm guilty on three counts. The remaining counts
were dismissed upon motion of the United States Attorney.
The convictions were based upon the unlawful interstate
shipments of two products which were economic poisons under
the Act. Both products were adulterated with an undeclared
pesticide, namely, technical chlordane. One of the products
was also deficient in one of the declared active ingredients.
Judge Spears fined the firm $500 on each of the three counts.
The total fine of $1500 was suspended for up to six months to
enable the company to formulate a Quality Control Program
acceptable to EPA. If an acceptable program is developed
within the allotted time period, the total fine will be
remitted.
Recent visits by personnel from EPA Headquarters to the
Green Light Company indicated that the firm is actively
engaged in developing and implementing a Quality Control
Program and was on its way to meeting the court decree.
The firm has spent in the neighborhood ot $85,000 to
$100,000 to implement this program.
Recal1s
The recall of a defective product by the manufacturer or shipper is the
most effective and efficient means of removing such product from the
market.
The Act contains no authority for the recall of products. The effective
recall of a product depends upon the cooperation of the company to which
the recall request is made. A recall action is viewed as a serious and
extraordinary matter, and a request for the recall of a product cannot
be arbitrarily or capriciously made. The effectiveness of a recall
program depends upon (a) knowledge on the part of industry that a
recall request will be made by Pesticides Enforcement Division only in
those cases where there is a likelihood of injury—physical or economic--
from the use of the product as directed,(b) knowledge on the part of
industry that Pesticides Enforcement Division will use all legal means
available to it under the statute to support any recall request,and (c)
knowledge on the part of industry that State officials are cooperating
with Pesticides Enforcement Division in the removal of such products.
The following are some recall cases completed by the Pesticides
Enforcement Division:
256
-------
1. An EPA Regional Pesticide Inspector collected a sample of
MASTER BRAND 5% MALATHION DUST during a surveillance visit
to a distributor of agricultural pesticides. Laboratory
test of this product showed it to be contaminated with
dieldrin, lindane, and technical chlordane. If this
product were used on poultry and vegetable crops, as shown
on the container's 1abel, illegal residues of dieldrin,
lindane or chlordane would be likely to show up. As a
result of this contamination, the Pesticides Enforcement
Division requested Stevens Industries, Incorporated,
Dawson, Georgia, to recall all remaining stock of the
product in channels of trade. The firm's records showed
that only 1500 Ibs. of the material had been distributed
to 31 consignees. The firm notified all 31 consignees of
the defective product and requested that they immediately
remove it from sale and return it to the company. Stevens
Industries, Inc. was able to recover 976 Ibs. of the
contaminated and potentially hazardous material from the
public market.
2. Samples of SECURITY 25% MALATHION WETTABLE were collected
by a Regional Pesticide Inspector. Chemical analysis of
these samples revealed that this product was contaminated
with 0.25% chlordane. Repeated use of this product as
recommended on the products label would likely result in
illegal residues of chlordane in fruits, vegetables, and
in the meat of animals and poultry. On August 29, 1972,
Pesticides Enforcement Division requested the Woolfolk
Chemical Works, Ltd, Fort Valley, Georgia, to recall all
of the contaminated material that remained in the channels
of trade. The firm's records showed that 2000 Ibs. of
this contaminated material had been distributed to twelve
customers. The firm sent each of these customers a letter
requesting them to immediately remove the affected material
from sale and to return it to the company. One hundred four
4-1b. bags of the contaminated SECURITY 25% MALATHION WETTABLE
were returned to the company for disposal in a sanitary landfill.
3. On February 15, 1972, the Pesticides Enforcement Division
requested that the Vita Plus Corporation of Madison, Wisconsin,
recall all outstanding stock of the insecticide product, VITA
PLUS FLY DI DRY BAIT GRANULES, because EPA regional laboratory
tests of the uncoded sample showed the product to be seriously
deficient in the active ingredient DDVP. The product with this
deficiency, when used as directed, would be ineffective for the
purpose of fly control as set forth on the label.
On February 22, 1972, visiting EPA and State officials confirmed
that the firm was recalling the product as requested. The total
amount recalled from six consignees was 58 one-pound containers
of the material.
257
-------
4. On March 1, 1972, the Pesticides Enforcement Division requested
the firm of Huntington Laboratories of Huntington, Indiana, to
recall all stock in channels of trade of the product HUNTINGTON
GERMICIDE AND DEODORANT COMPASS because of ineffectiveness as a
disinfectant.
The firm cooperated with EPA by identifying the locations of all
consignees. In addition, the firm sent a "stop sale" letter to
the consignees. The result of the recall was that 567 fourteen-
ounce cans of the material were returned to the company for
destruction.
5. The Hyde Oil Company was requested to recall all stock in
channels of trade of the insecticide product HYDE BACK RUBBER
OIL CONCENTRATE (KORLAN) on March 24, 1972. Chemical analysis
of the product showed the product to be seriously deficient in
its active ingredient and when used as directed, would not act
as an insecticide as specified on the labeling. The company
issued a "stop sale" notice to the consignees and had the
consignees return the stock to the firm. The result of the
recall was that 53 fifteen-gallon containers of the material
were returned to the company for reformulation.
6. The Industrial Chemical Laboratories, Inc. of Omaha, Nebraska,
was requested to recall all stock in channels of trade of a
product called INDUSTRIAL INDO-SOL SUPER ACTIVE DISINFECTANT
TOILET BOWL AND URINAL CLEANER on May 24, 1972. A review of
samples of the product label showed it lacked the required
warning statements on the labels and could be hazardous to
the public. The company sent "stop-sale" letters to all
of the company's warehouses resulting in the return of
108 one-gallon jugs and 1,741 one-quart bottles to the
company. The returned material was repackaged into new
containers bearing labels with the required precautionary
statements.
7. The PBI-Gordon Corporation of Kansas City, Missouri, was
requested to recall all stock in channels of trade of a
herbicide product called GORDON'S BRUSH KILLER on June 26,
1972. The label for the product bore a cancelled use for
2,4,5-T.
The Company contacted 36 consignees of the product and had
89 one-quart bottles of the product returned to the company.
The material was repacked into new containers with labels
showing adequate directions for use.
258
-------
Ill
o
§«
z 2
01 |_
CO O
Q
o
.
-------
This table shows key facts about each pesticides enforcement case
referred for legal action since the establishment of EPA.
259
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company
Aquaness Chemical Co.
Houston, TX
Aquatrol , Inc.
Anaheim, CA
ArChem Corporation
Portsmouth, OH
Atlas Agricultural Chemicals
Inc.
Waynes boro, GA
Baird and McGuire, Inc.
Hoi brook, MA
Baroid
Div. N.L. Industries
Houston, TX
Beaver Chemical Co.
Idaho Falls, ID
Beaver Chemical Co.
Stockton, CA
: Violation
*
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
Misbranded and Adulterated
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Date
Referred
8/10/72
8/11/72
1/25/72
6/1/71
11/2/72
11/2/72
3/28/72
8/9/72
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Section of Result or Status
Applicable Law)
Seizure
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Seizure
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
135a(a)(5)
135g
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135q
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Complaint In Rem filed
8/29/72. Seized 9/5/72
sixteen 54 0# units.
Grand Jury Indictment
1/3/73.
Fined $1,500 on 2 counts -
placed on 3 years proba-
tion 7/24/72.
U.S. Attorney declined to
prosecute 9/20/71.
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
Seized seventy-eight 1 -gal Ion
units 4/4/72. Default Decree
5/8/72
Fined $100 on 2 counts 1/3/73.
260
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company:
Violation
Date
Referred
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Section of
Applicable Law)
Result or Status
Bicknell, Inc.
Framingham, MA
Marketing Nonregistered 3/27/72
Pesticide
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
1/27/72 Citation Issued
2/1/72 Citation Answered
2/23/72 - Conference held
5/9/72 Information filed
6/2/72 Pleaded nolo con-
tendere; fined $100
Biolab Corporation
Norborne, MO
Birko Chemical Corp.
Denver, CO
Black Leaf Products Co.
Chicago, Illinois
Blue Chemical Co., Inc.
Garner, NC
Blue Spruce Company
Basking Ridge, NJ
Burroughs-Well come & Co.
Greenville, NC
Butcher Polish Co.
Maiden, MA
Marketing Nonregistered 10/16/72
and Mi stranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Misbranded and 7/16/70
Adulterated Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered 2/24/71
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 9/1/72
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered 12/29/72
and Misbranded Pesticide
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Seizure
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135g
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Information filed 10/27/72
Guilty plea to 3 counts.
Total fine $400 11/14/72.
Under joint U.S. Attorney -
EPA review of legal issues.
Fined $2850 on 15 counts
10/4/71.
U.S. Attorney declined to
prosecute 12/16/71.
9/12/72 Complaint filed by
U.S. Attorney
9/13/72 Seized fourteen
5-gallon units.
12/4/72 Decree of forfeiture
entered.
Case withdrawn - product not
subject to FIFRA.
Under review by Office of the
General Counsel .
261
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company:
Violation
Date
Referred
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Section of
Applicable Law)
Result or Status
Camel Mfg. Co.
Knoxville, TN
Marketing Nonregistered 6/29/72
and Misbranded Pesticide
Criminal
U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)5)
Under review by U.S.
Attorney.
Cannon Mfg. Co.
Springfield, MA
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Criminal
U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
11/21/72 Citation Issued
Citation answered.
Conference held for
information gathering.
Carolina Chemicals, Inc.
West Columbia, SC
Marketing Nonregistered 10/17/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Criminal
U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Under review by Office of
the General Counsel
12/1/72.
Carpenter Morton Co.
Everett, MA
Marketing Nonregistered 3/11/72
and Misbranded Pesticide
Seizure
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l
135a(a)(5
135g
3/28/72 Complaint in rem
filed.
3/28/72 Seized by U.S.
Marshal
8/14/72 Decree entered
for forfeiture.
Carpenter Morton
Everett, MA
Marketing Nonregistered 10/11/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Criminal
U.S.C. 135a(a
135a(a)(5
iiii
Information filed in U.S.
District Court.
Central Chemical Corp.
Hagerstown, MD
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Criminal
U.S.C. 135a(a)(5)
Citation issued 12/19/72.
Central Chemical Corp.
Hagerstown, MD
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Criminal
U.S.C. 135a(a)(5)
Citation Issued 12/19/72
Central Chemical Corp.
Hagerstown, MD
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Criminal
U.S.C. 135a(a)(5)
Citation Issued 12/19/72
262
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
: Date
Name and Location of Company: Violation Referred
Century Labs, Inc.
Kansas City, KC
Champion Chemicals
Odessa, TX
Champion Chemicals
Odessa, TX
Champion Industries, Inc.
Phi la. PA
Marketing Misbranded Pesti- 7/12/72
cide
Marketing Nonregistered 8/15/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 8/15/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Section of Result or status
Applicable Law)
Seizure
7 U.S.C.
Seizure
7 U.S.C.
Seizure
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
135a(a)(2)
135a(a)(5)
135g
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135g
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135g
135a(a){5)
Complaint in Rem filed 7/17/72.
Defendant labeled product with
accepted label. Released
8/16/72.
Filed 8/29/72
Seized 9/5/72 nineteen 5-
gallon units.
Decree 11/20/72.
Filed 8/29/72
Seized 9/5/72 four 55-gallon
units.
Decree 11/20/72.
Citation Issued 12/19/72.
Chase Products Co.
Broadview, IL
Marketing Misbranded and
Adulterated Pesticides
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(5)
Fined $2250 on 13 counts. $1200
suspended. Placed on 18 months
probation 1/9/73.
Chemical Associates, Inc.
Houston, TX
Marketing Nonregistered 7/10/72
and Misbranded Pesticide
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
Chemical Formulators, Inc.
Nitro, WV
Marketing Misbranded and 2/22/72
Adulterated Pesticides
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(5)
Sent to U.S. Attorney 2/22/72.
Trial scheduled for 2/1/73.
Chevron Chemical Co.
Richmond, CA
Marketing of Nonregistered
Adulterated and Misbranded
Pesticides
5/22/72
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l
135a(a)(5
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
Clarence Boord & Sons, Inc. Marketing Nonregistered 7/18/72
Leon, IA and Misbranded Pesticides
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
263
Indicted 8/4/72. Guilty plea
to 8 counts 9/11/72.
Sentencing postponed.
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company
Cypress Supply Company
Kansas City, MO
Dairy Association, Inc.
Lyndonvllle, VT
David H. Laub Co.
Allentown, PA
Dexol Industries, Inc.
Torrance, CA
Docktor's Pet Centers, Inc.
Cornwells Heights, PA
Double M & J, Inc.
Wichita, KS
Douglas Chemical Co.
Liberty, MO
Douglas Chemical Co.
Liberty, MO
Dragon Chemical Corp.
Roanoke, VA
Violation
Marketing Nonregistered and
Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered and
Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Marketing Misbranded and
Adulterated Pesticides
and Claims Differ
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Date
Referred
9/21/72
12/4/72
6/15/72
12/29/72
10/30/72
9/22/72
9/29/72
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Section of Result or Status
Applicable Law)
Seizure
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135g
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(5)
Complaint In Rem filed
10/31/72.
Seized 980 five-lb. units.
Labeling corrected. Product
returned to claimant.
11/10/72 Citation Issued.
11/14/72 Citation Answered.
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
U.S. Attorney declined to
prosecute 9/28/72.
U.S. Attorney declined to
prosecute 10/3/72.
Citation Issued 6/28/72
Case to be returned to D.C.
264
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company:
Dyna-Mist Chemical Co., Inc.
Coatesville, PA
Dysart Chemical Corp.
Canal -Winchester, OH
Earl May Seed & Nursery Co.
Shenandoah, IA
Economy Products Co., Inc.
Shenandoah, IA
Encap Products Co.
Mount Prospect, IL
FMC Corporation
Greenville, MS
Fleming & Co. , Inc.
St. Louis, MO
Flo-Kern Products, Inc.
Compton, CA
Floyd Pine Products Co.
Andalusia, AL
Violation
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered and
Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Date
Referred
12/4/72
5/31/72
6/2/72
11/24/71
6/6/72
8/28/72
5/24/72
6/16/72
6/18/72
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Section of
Applicable Law)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(5)
Seizure
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135g
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Result or Status
Under review by U.S. Attorney
Complaint in Rem filed 6/2/7Z
Product reformulated, released
to consignee 11/16/72.
Indictment 8/4/72. Guilty
plea to all counts. 9/21/72
Sentencing postponed.
Guilty plea to all counts.
Entered 9/21/72. Sentencing
postponed.
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
Found guilty on 2 counts,
fined $750 11/30/72.
U.S. Attorney declined to
prosecute 1/18/73 Chicago,
Illinois.
Grand Jury Indictment 1/3/73.
Information filed in U.S.
District Court 9/6/72.
265
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company
Fox Pool Corporation
York, PA
G. S. Robbins & Company
St. Louis, MO
G. W. Park Seed Co.
Greenwood, SC
George B. Robbins Co., Inc.
Medford, MA
Gift Sales Company
Wichita, KS
Global Associates
Green Light Co.
San Antonio, TX
Griffin Brothers, Inc.
Portland, OR
Violation
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Date Type of Action Recommended
Referred jw«sa[.s««« "
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
12/6/72 Seizure
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
4/11/72 Criminal
7 U.S.C.
12/12/72 Criminal
7 U.S.C.
10/6/71 Criminal
7 U.S.C.
11/10/72 Criminal
7 U.S.C.
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135g
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Citation Issued 11/27/72.
12/14/72 Complaint in Rem
filed by U.S. Attorney.
Seized fourteen 125# units
12/27/72.
Warning letter 8/18/72.
Citation Issued 12/8/72.
Indictment 5/24/72. Guilty
plea to one count 7/10/72.
Total fine $50.
U.S. Attorney filed complaint
on 12/12/72.
$1500 fine - suspended
pending Co. improvement
program 5/26/72.
Under review by U.S. Attorney
266
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company;
Violation
Date : Type of Action Recommended
Referred : (Identify Section of
: Annlirahlp I auO
Result or Status
Hydraprise Corp.
San Diego, CA
Marketing Nonregistered 10/31/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
U.S. Attorney declined to
prosecute 11/9/72.
Hysan Products Co.
Chicago, IL
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
10/25/68 Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(2)(d)
135(z)(2)(d)
Grand Jury Indictment
3/27/69 arraignment 4/2/69;
fined $10,500 on 14 counts;
officers fined $1600
2/27/70 (first time officers
have been prosecuted along
with company).
I. Schneid, Inc.
Atlanta, GA
Marketing Nonregistered 11/9/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
IAP Medical Gas & Equipment Marketing Nonregistered
Co., Div. of Industrial Air Pesticides
Products.
Portland, OR
9/29/72
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Region X investigation
Hi lex Div. Hunt Chems.
St. Paul, MN
Marketing Nonregistered 8/18/72
Pesticides
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Declined for prosecution
9/1/72 - being asked to
reconsider.
Hogan-Hayes Finance Co.
Ypsilanti, MI
Marketing Nonregistered 1/21/70
Pesticide
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(1)
Justice declined prosecution
3/19/70
Hooker Glass & Paint Mfg. Co.Marketing Nonregistered
Chicago, IL and Misbranded Pesticide
10/25/72 Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Fined $3000 - $2500 suspended
3 years on probation 12/14/72
267
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company: Violation
Gro Chemical Co.
Miami, FL
Harleco
Phila., PA
Harper Brush Works
Falrfield, IA
Harris Products Co., Inc.
Miami, FL
Helena Chemical Co.
Dexter, NM
Helena Chemical
Lubbock, TX
Helena Chemical
West Helena, AR
Humane Coyote Getter, Inc.
Pueblo, CO
Humane Coyote Getter, Inc.
Pueblo, CO
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Date
Referred
11/18/71
12/4/72
5/24/72
7/11/72
9/19/72
11/21/72
4/18/72
4/18/72
4/18/72
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Section of Result or Status
ADD! i cable Law)
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Seizure
7 U.S.C.
Seizure
7 U.S.C.
Seizure
7 U.S.C.
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135g
135a(a)(l)
135g
135a(a)(l)
135g
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
Under review by U.S. Attorney
Indictment 8/4/72. Pled guilty,
sentencing postponed 9/11/72.
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
Filed 10/18/72; judgment
11/29/72
Under review by U.S. Attorney
Decree of condemnation
3/27/72
Filed 5/18/72; Seized 48
units 6/3/72. Decree
6/23/72. Units in possession
of U.S. Marshal.
Filed 5/19/72. Seized 31 unts
5/25/72. Seized units in
possession of U.S. Marshal
1/15/73.
268
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company:
Violation
Date
Referred
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Section of
Applicable Law)
Result or Status
Humane Coyote Getter, Inc. Marketing Nonregistered 3/29/72
Pueblo, CO Pesticide
Seizure
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135g
Complaint filed 4/6/72.
Decree of Condemnation filed
6/7/72. Destroyed 155 units
6/7/72.
Humane Coyote Getter, Inc.
Pueblo, CO
Marketing Nonregistered 3/29/72
Pesticide
Sei zure
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135g
Complaint filed 4/6/72.
Decree of Condemnation filed
6/7/72. Destroyed 92 units
6/7/72.
Humane Coyote Getter, Inc.
Pueblo, CO
Marketing Nonregistered 3/29/72
Pesticide
Sei zure
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135g
J. Hubbard Co., INC.
Nashua, NH
Marketing Nonregistered 11/17/72
and Misbranded Pesticide
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l
135a(a)(5
Complaint filed 4/6/72.
Consent Decree of Condemna-
tion filed 6/23/72.
Destroyed 193 units 6/29/72.
Humane Coyote Getter, Inc.
Pueblo, CO
Imoco-Gateway Corporation
Baltimore, MD
Imperial Deodorizing &
Manufacturing Co.
El Centre, CA
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
3/29/72
10/17/72
8/9/72
Seizure
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
135a(a)(l)
135q
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Complaint filed 4/6/72.
Complaint dismissed 6/6/72.
Fined $1500 on 3 counts
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
7/11/72 Citation Issued
7/28/72 Citation Answered
8/25/72 Conference held
11/28/72 19-count informa-
tipn filed. 12/21/72 fined
$8000 on 19 counts $7500
suspended.
269
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company
Johnson Chemical Ind., Inc.
Baltimore, MD
Johnson Chemical Ind., Inc.
Baltimore, MD
Jungle Labs. , Inc.
Sanford, FL
Kern Manufacturing Corp.
Tucker, GA
Kenco Chem. & Mfg. Co., Inc.
Jacksonville, FL
King-Kratz Corp.
St. Louis, MO
Lebanon Chemical Corp.
Lebanon, PA
Lebanon Chemical Corp.
Lebanon, PA.
Lincoln Supply Co., Inc.
Burbank, CA
• „•-,*• : Date :
• Violation Deferred ;
• • •
Marketing Misbranded 12/4/72
Pesticides
Marketing Misbranded 12/4/72
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 8/4/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 5/19/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 11/30/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 11/15/72
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 10/17/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Section of Result or Status
Aoolicable Law)
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Information filed 1/10/73.
Information filed 1/10/73.
Fined $2000 on 3 counts $1000
suspended. Placed on 1 year
probation 10/26/72. Warning
letter 8/18/72.
Nolo contendere plea under
consideration by Judge 8/30/7Z
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
Citation Issued 6/15/72.
Case to be reviewed with PED,
Wash., D.C. to coordinate
action.
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
270
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company
Lorenz Chemical Company
Omaha, NB
Los Angeles Chemical Co.
South Gate, CA
Mallinckrodt Chemical Works
St. Louis, MO
Mark Chemical Co. Inc.
Orange, CA
Marsh Wholesale Food Co.
Sturgis, SD
Maryland Plastics, Inc.
Federal sburg, MD.
McKesson Chemical Co.
Wichita, KS
Miller Chemical &
Fertilizer Co.
Hanover, PA
Mission Kleensweep Products
Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
; Violation
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticides
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Date
Referred
9/20/72
8/9/72
11/10/72
8/30/72
10/11/72
12/29/72
9/22/72
10/31/72
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Section of
Appl icable Law)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(5)
Seizure
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135g
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Result or Status
Found guilty on 1 count.
Ordered to pay court costs
11/11/72
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
Grand Jury Indictment 1/3/73.
Proposed prosecution forwarded
to OGC for comment and
coordination.
Under review by U.S. Attorney
Complaint in Rem filed
9/27/72. Seized seventy-nine
5-gallon units 10/12/72.
Default Decree 11/21/72.
Destroyed 11/27/72
Citation Issued 11/27/72
Grand Jury Indictment 1/3/73.
271
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company
Mobile Oil Corp.
Mt. Pleasant, TN
Murphy Furn. Mfg. Co.
Jasper, AL
N. Jonas & Co. , Inc.
Phila.,PA
National Chelating Corp.
West Covina, CA
National Chemical Labora-
tories of Pa.
Phila., PA
New Holland Supply Co., Inc.
New Holland, PA
Occidental Petroleum Corp.
Lathrop, CA
Date
Violation Referred
Marketing Misbranded 10/25/72
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 6/9/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Misbranded 10/10/72
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 12/4/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 8/11/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Section of Result or Status
Applicable Law)
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Fined $250 on 1 count 1/5/73.
U.S. Attorney declined to
prosecute 11/22/72.
Case forwarded to OGC 12/29/72
for review.
Under review by U.S. Attorney
12/18/72.
Recommend closing of case.
Warning letter sent 12/72.
Filed 8/25/72. Plea of nolo
contendere 10/12/72. Fined
$2200 on 4 counts 12/5/72.
272
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company
Poolmaster, Inc.
San Carlos, CA
Porter-Walton Co.
Salt Lake City, UT
Promotion Service Co., Inc.
Madison, TN
Purex Corp. , Ltd.
Wilmington, CA
Quality Plus Products Co.,
Inc.
Fort Dodge, IA
Quinn Drug & Chemical Co.
Greenwood, MS
Red Cap Industries, Inc.
Dedham, MA
Reese Chemical Co.
Cleveland, OH
: Violation
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Date
Referred
12/7/72
8/18/72
7/25/72
8/14/72
5/19/72
8/18/72
6/2/72
9/25/72
12/12/72
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Action of
Applicable Law)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Result or Status
Under review by Office of the
General Counsel. 12/15/72
Under review by U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney declined to
prosecute 9/7/72.
Grand Jury Indictment 1/3/73.
Fined $25 on 1 count 6/14/72.
Information filed in U.S.
District Court 10/2/72.
3/28/72 Citation
8/28/72 Commitment letter
obtained.
Citation Issued
273
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company
Rhodes Chemical Co.
Kansas City, KS
Safeway Farm Products
Austin, TX
Sampson Paint Mfg. Co., Inc.
Richmond, VA
So. Agric. Chem. Corp.
Kingstree & Campobello, SC
So. Agricultural Insecticides
Inc.
Hendersonville, NC
Southern Mill Creek Products
Co., Inc.
Tampa, FL
Southern Products Co., Inc.
Chattanooga, TN
Stalfort Chemical Speciali-
ties Co.
Baltimore, MD
1 Vi°lat1on 1 Referred
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered 12/11/72
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 6/28/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
.Marketing Nonregistered 8/18/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 10/19/71
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 8/18/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Action of
Applicable Law)
Seizure
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135g
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Result or Status
Seized one 16-l/2# unit
11/30/72.
Information filed in U.S.
District Court 12/22/72.
Citation Issued 12/1/72
Under review by U.S. Attorney
Fined $1000 on 3 counts.
$500 suspended. Placed on
1 year probation 10/25/72.
Fined $1200 on 3 counts.
11/1/72
Fined $500 on 8 counts.
9/5/72
Citation Issued 11/27/72
274
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company
Violation
Date
Referred
Type of Action Recommended :
(Identify Action of ;
Applicable Law) •
Result or Status
Aceto Chemical Co.
Flushing, NY
Marketing Nonregistered 12/1/72
Pesticide
Seizure
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135g
Filed 12/1/72
Seized 12/8/72 four 60
kilogram units
Samuel Cabot, Inc.
Boston, MA
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l
135a(a)(5
12/8/72 Citation Issued
12/12/72 Citation Answered
12/15/72 Conference held for
information gathering.
Schall Chemical, Inc.
Monte Vista, CO
Marketing Nonregistered 12/5/72
Pesticide
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Under review by U.S.
Attorney.
Seaworthy Marine Products
Div. of Eastern Products,
Inc.
Meriden, CT
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
12/8/72 Citation Issued
Sherwin-Williams
Indianapolis, IN
Marketing Nonregistered 3/21/72
Pesticide
Seizure
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135g
Complaint in rem filed but
dismissed. Product-shipped
back to shipper before
seizure.
Shur-A Chemical Manufac-
turing Co.
Pawtucket, R.I.
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
8/31/72 Citation Issued
9/12/72 Answered by firm.
Star Dental Mfg. Co. Inc.
West Conshohocken, PA
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Citation Issued 11/27/72.
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Portland, OR
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticide
11/2/72 Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(5)
Under review by U.S. Attorney
275
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company
Stern Chemical Corp.
Monroe, LA
Sudbury Laboratory, Inc.
Sudbury, MA
Swift Agric. Chem. Corp.
East St. Louis, IL
Swift Agricultural Chemicals
Corp.
Los Angeles, CA
Tesco Chemicals
Atlanta, GA
Tesco Chemicals
Atlanta, GA
Tesco Chemicals
Atlanta, GA
The Carroll Chemical Co.
Baltimore, MO
The Jade Company
Indio, CA
: Violation
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
! Date !
! Referred \
12/29/72
11/2/72
5/22/72
5/22/72
7/26/72
7/26/72
7/26/72
10/31/72
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Action of
Applicable Law)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Result or Status
Under review by U.S. Attorney
Information filed in U.S.
District Court 12/5/72
Fined $1000 on 2 counts
9/26/72.
U.S. Dept. of Justice declined
to prosecute, 5/30/72.
Prosecution recommended.
Product unavailable for
seizure as it had been
returned to Atlanta.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Citation Issued 12/1/72.
Under review by U.S. Attorney
2?6
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company
Tom's Sanitary Supply
Scottsbluff, NB
A. H. Hoffman, Inc.
Landisville, PA.
ABC Compounding Co., Inc.
Atlanta GA
Aeroseal Corporation
Newberrytown , PA
Aidex Corporation
Omaha, Nebraska
Amerace-Esna Corp.
(Chem. Specialties Div.)
Los Angeles, CA
Anderson-Stol z Corp.
Kansas City, MO
Ansul Company
Marinette, WI
Aquaness Chemical Co.
Houston, TX
Aquaness Chemical Co.
Houston, TX
• Violation
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticide
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Misbranded
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide with no
Ingredient Statement
Marketing Nonregistered
Pesticide
Date
Referred
10/20/72
3/6/72
5/30/72
10/31/72
10/19/72
10/10/72
7/6/72
8/10/72
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Action of
Applicable Law)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Seizure
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135g
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(2)
Seizure
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135g
Result or Status
Under review by U.S. Attorney
File Administratively Closed
12/7/72.
Fined $1700 on 8 counts
10/20/72.
Holding pending receipt of
supplemental case 12/29/72.
Nolo contendere accepted.
Sentence suspended 9/13/72.
Under review by U.S. Attorney
Information filed 11/29/72.
Guilty plea to two counts.
Total fine $400.
Complaint In Rem filed
11/1/72. Seized 276 units
11/7/72.
Under review by U.S. Attorney.
Complaint In Rem filed
8/29/72. Seized 9/5/72 two
435# units. Decree 11/20/72.
277
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company
Triple "F" Feeds
Des Moines, IA
Triple-X Chem. Lab. Inc.
Mundelein, IL
U.S. Continental Labs.
Houston, TX
Uddo Company
New Orleans, LA
Unichem, Inc.
Greenville, NC
Universal Chemicals Corp.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Universal Oil Products Co.,
Inc. (Water Services Div.)
Burbank, CA
Violation n °*te .
Referred
Marketing Nonregistered 7/31/72
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered, 6/7/72
Mis branded and Adultera-
ted Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 11/1/72
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered 6/29/72
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 6/7/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 10/31/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Action of
Applicable Law)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Result or Status
Indicted 8/4/72
Jury Trial - Guilty to all
3 counts. Fined $500
10/6/72
Fined $7,000 on 9 counts -
suspended $6500. Placed on
3 years probation 10/11/72
Under review by U.S.
Attorney.
Under review by U.S.
Attorney.
Citation issued 5/17/72
Guilty on 1 count. Placed
on 1 year probation 10/24/72
Grand jury indictment
1/3/73
278
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company
Utility Chemical Co.
Paterson, NJ
Virginia Chemicals
Houston, TX
W. R. Grace Co.
Miller Products
Portland, OR
Walters Chemical Co.
Stockton, CA
Weaver's Rodent Control
Lewiston, UT
Weco Products, Inc.
Long Beach, CA
White Laboratories
Orlando, FL
World Garden Products
Division of World Art Group
Norwalk, CT
Violation D •[ *•
Marketing Nonregistered 11/2/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 7/7/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Misbranded 4/4/72
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 11/6/72
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered 11/15/72
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered 10/17/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 7/10/72
Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Action of Result or Status
Applicable Law)
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Seizure
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
Criminal
7 U.S.C.
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135q
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Under review by U.S.
Attorney.
Under review by U.S.
_Attorney
Fined $2000 on 4 counts.
Placed on 3 years probation
11/22/72
Seized thirteen 300# units,
sixty-three 25# units and
thirteen 25# cases 11/10/72
Under review by U.S.
Attorney.
Under review by U.S.
Attorney.
U.S. Attorney declined to
prosecute, 10/4/72.
11/21/72 Citation Issued
12/13/72 Citation Answered
279
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT CASES REFERRED
Name and Location of Company
World Garden Products
Division of World Art Group
Norwalk, CT
Parramore & Griffin, Inc.
Valdosta, GA
PBI-Gordon Corp.
Kansas City, Kansas
Pennex Products Inc.
Verona, PA
Pettit Paint Co., Inc.
San Leandro, CA
Pharmacal Research Labs.
Greenwich, CT
Pol yc hem Corp.
New Haven, CT
{ Violation ; Re°f»°ed
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered 7/7/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Adulterated and 4/17/72
Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 12/4/72
Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered 5/25/72
and Misbranded Pesticides
Marketing Nonregistered
and Misbranded Pesticide
Marketing Nonregistered 10/5/72
and Misbranded Pesticide
Type of Action Recommended
(Identify Action of Result or Status
Applicable Law)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
Criminal
7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l)
135a(a)(5)
8/16/72 Citation Issued
9/12/72 Citation Answered
Fined $200 on 7 counts.
9/28/72
Indictment 5/22/72.
Fined $300 on 3 counts
6/22/72
U.S. Attorney declined to
prosecute. 12/20/72
Under review by U.S.
Attorney.
8/2/72 Citation Issued.
9/18/72 Letter confirming
product not in violation
of FIFRA after review by
Pesticides Regulation
Division.
Pleaded nolo contendere on
3 counts. Fined $175.
280
------- |