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 ------- |