Innovations in Compliance and Enforcement:
Supplemental Environmental Projects in
EPAfs Toxics and Pesticides Program
Final Accomplishments Report
Fiscal Years 1991/1992 on SEPs in the EPCRA Section 313,
TSCA, and FIFRA Enforcement Programs
oEPA
Prepared by:
Office of Compliance Monitoring
Office of Prevention, Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances
March 1993
-------
Foreword
The purpose of this report is to highlight some of the achievements of the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) in successfully incorporating a high number of
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) into our settlement negotiations during Fiscal Year 1991
(FY 91) and Fiscal Year 1992 (FY 92).
The Regional Offices should be extremely pleased with their progress in this important area. Just a
few of the interesting findings include the following:
• During FY 92, a total of 160 civil administrative complaints under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act (EPCRA), and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) were settled with SEPs.
• Pollution prevention SEPs under EPCRA Section 313 of constituted the largest number of
pollution prevention SEPs settled by the Agency as a whole during FY 92 (83 percent as
of July 1992).
• Non-pollution prevention SEPs under TSCA constituted the largest number of non-pollu-
tion prevention SEPs settled by the Agency as a whole (46 percent as of July 1992).
• During FY 92, the ratio of average cost to respondent for completing an SEP versus aver-
age penalty reduction received for the SEP was approximately 6:1 for TSCA, 6:1 for
EPCRA, and 4:1 for FIFRA.
These findings and the rest of the data in the report indicate that the efforts of the Regional OPPTS
program to promote the use of SEPs have been successful. Work remains to be done in specific areas,
but with this experience behind us, we should be optimistic about achieving our future goals in relation
to SEPs. We appreciate the comments received from the Regions on the draft version of this report and
look forward to working with the Regions and our colleagues at Headquarters on SEP issues in the
future. If you need additional copies of this report, or have related questions, please contact OCM’s
Compliance Branch.
Office of Compliance Monitoring’
March 1993
Final
-------
BACKGROUND
This report outlines some of the Fiscal Year (FY)
1991 and 1992 accomplishments of the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS)
program in incorporating pollution prevention methods
and other Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
into enforcement cases pursued under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and Section
313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right
to Know Act (EPCRA). OPPTS continues to be a pio-
neer in the settlement of cases that have provisions that
require the use of pollution prevention and other innova-
tive environmental management techniques, leading the
Agency in numbers of both pollution prevention and
non-pollution prevention SEPs.
OPPTS Regional compliance staff have established
a solid record of incorporating the pollution prevention
ethic into program activities. This is completely in line
with a major goal of the Agency to integrate pollution
prevention throughout its activities, and also in accor-
dance with the national policy expressed in the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990.
This document provides the following information:
• The SEP category codes for the FIFRA and TSCA
Tracking System (FTTS)/National Compliance Data
Base (NCDB), SEP Data Category Definitions, and
Data Collected Per Case With SEPs. FTTS is the
Regional data base for tracking compliance/enforce-
ment activities (e.g., inspection cases, enforcement
actions) performed in a Region. NCDB is the
national version of FTTS. NCDB contains the core
data collected by each Regional FTTS, and is used
for national program analysis and evaluation.
• Significant SEP data in chart and narrative form,
regarding FY 91 and 92 SEP information extracted
from FTTS/NCDB.
• A summary of three examples of SEPs that have
been incorporated into consent agreements.
• A description of how to access OPPTS SEP data
from OPPTS, from other offices within EPA, and
from outside EPA.
SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME
TRACK
To ensure that SEPs are correctly categorized and
accurately incorporated into the FTTS/NCDB, we have
provided the SEP category codes and code values in
FTTS/NCDB, the SEP data category definitions, and the
data elements that are collected for each case with SEPs.
SEP category codes and the code values in FTTS/NCDB
FTTS/NCDB Description
CLN Cleanup/Restoration Projects
DSP Disposal
EAU Environmental Audit
EST
OUT
OTR
RDI
SRP
SRR
SRT
TRN
WMP
WMR
WMT
Environmental Study*
Outreach/Enforcement-Related
Environmental Public
Awareness Projects
Other*
Remedial Inspections*
Source Reduction/Pollution
Prevention - Process
Modification
Source Reduction/Pollution
Prevention - Recycling
Source Reduction/Pollution
Prevention - Technological
Improvement
Training
Waste Minimization/Pollution
Reduction - Process
Modification
Waste Minimization/Pollution
Reduction - Recycling
Waste Minimization/Pollution
Reduction - Technological
Improvement
Notes: (1) For reporting in the Strategic Targeted Activities for
Results System (STARS) and other general high level reporting
purposes, in FY 92 the Source Reduction codes (SRP, SRR, and
SRT) and the Waste Minimization codes (WMP, WMR, WMT)
will be reported together under Source Reduction and Waste
Minimization, respectively. (2) Remedial Inspections (RDI) will
be reported in the "Other" category in STARS.
* Effective in FY 93, these are no longer considered SEPs.
Final
March 1993
-------
SEP DATA CATEGORY
DEFP’IITION
These definitions were developed by the Office of
Compliance Monitoring (0CM). They are consistent
with (though not identical to) the categories used by the
Office of Pollution Prevention. In order to be consistent
with the Policy on the Use of SEPs in EPA Settlements,
developed by the Office of Enforcement (OE), the cate-
gories of Environmental Studies, Remedial
Inspections, and Other, will no longer be considered
SEPs effective in FY 93. The other categories were
developed from the five categories of projects considered
as potential SEPs in the OE policy.
Cleanup/Restoration Project - Projects that not only
repair the damage done to the environment because of
the violation, but that also go beyond repair to enhance
the environment in the vicinity of the violating facility.
Disposal - An initiative that requires the
defendant/respondent to properly dispose of or treat
toxic chemicals that would not otherwise be required to
be treated or disposed by other regulations.
Environmental Audit - A project in which the defen-
dantlrespondent undertakes additional auditing practices
designed to seek corrections to existing environmental
practices whose deficiencies appear to be contributing tO
recurring or potential violations at the violating facility or
other facilities owned and operated by the
defendant/respondent.
Environmental Study - A project in which the respon-
dent/defendant commissions a study of one or more
innovative technologies in the area of pollution preven-
tion and/or reduction that are relevant to the particular
industry of concern and/or can be applied industry-wide.
Outreach/Enforcement-Related Environmental
Public Awareness Projects - Projects including publica-
tions, broadcasts, or seminars that underscore for the reg-
ulated community the importance of complying with
environmental laws and disseminate technical information
about the means of complying with environmental laws.
Remedial Inspections - Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act (Al-IERA) inspections of Local Education
Agencies/schools previously inspected by the respondent in
order to address any possible deficiencies in the original
inspection report or management plan, not including the
correction of violations cited in the original civil complaint.
Source Reduction/Pollution Prevention - Process
Modification - Projects that employ change in industrial
processes to substantially reduce or prevent the genera-
tion or creation of pollutants through use reduction, or
through the application of closed-loop processes.
Source Reduction/Pollution Prevention - Recycling -
Projects that substantially reduce the discharge of gener-
ated pollutants through innovative recycling technolo-
gies or through the application of closed-loop processes,
but only if pollutants are kept out of the environment in
perpetuity.
Source Reduction/Pollution Prevention -
Techno1og ca% Improvement - Projects that substitute
different fuels or raw/processed materials in the industri-
al process to substantially reduce or prevent the genera-
tion or creation of pollutants.
Training - Projects in which the defendant/respondent
sponsors industry-wide seminars and training courses
directly related to identifying and correcting widespread
or prevalent violations within an industry.
Waste Minimization/Pollution Reduction - Recycling-
Projects that recycle residuals at the end-of-the-pipe in
the industrial process to go substantially beyond compli-
ance with discharge limitations to further reduce the
amount of pollution that would otherwise be discharged
into the environment.
Waste Minimization/Pollution Reduction - Process
Modification - Projects that use more effective end-of-
pipe methods in the industrial process to go substantially
beyond compliance with discharge limitations to further
reduce the amount of pollution that would otherwise be
discharged into the environment.
Waste Minimization/Pollution Reduction -
Technological Improvement - Projects that use
improved operation and maintenance methodologies
and/or proven innovative technologies to go substantial-
ly beyond compliance with discharge limitations to fur-
ther reduce the amount of pollution that would otherwise
be discharged into the environment.
Other - Any other projects that do not fit into the cate-
gories above but that go beyond compliance with cur-
rent, applicable EPA regulations and would have signifi-
cant pollution prevention and/or reduction impact.
March 1993
2
Final
-------
The t llowing is a list of the data elements collected in FTTS/NCDB for each ease that is settled with SEP terms:
• \‘iolat ion TYpe
• (‘ost To Respondent (to implement SEP termisl)
• Case Closed Date
• Settlement Terms with SEPs
• Penaib Reduction (associated with SEP termlsi)
• Docket Number
• Proposed Penalty
• Responsible Party
• Final Penalty
Note: Date elements in bold are tracked by OPPTS only for cases with one or more SEP settlement terms. The other fields (except for the two
dates a ociated with settlement term collection) appear in FTTSINCDB for all program violations resulting in. at a minimum, a civil complaint.
L)A i 1 S L T 1 L%Lt RIES
A. 1”} 92 ACHIL%E%IL.VTS - %.‘s’ O%LRVIEI%
Sections \-D below provide data extracted from the
FTTS/NCDB system. The data illustrate our SEP
accomplishments for FY 91 and FY 92. as ell as our
overall commitment to using this significant enforce-
ment and environmentally beneficial tool.
EPCRA-31 3
62 43%)
TSCA
74 (47%)
The following exhibits (1. 2. and 3) represent SEPs for
EPCR\ Section 313. TSCA. and FIFR.\ cases settled in
Fl 91 and FY 92. In Fl 91. a total of 1-44 cases were set-
tled with SEPs. TSCA comprised 46 percent of the total.
EPCRA 43 percent. and FIFRA II percent of the total.
EPCRA-31 3
133 (44%)
March 1993
DATA COLLECTED PER (VASE WITH SEP(s)
• Region
• Date Settlement Term is Due (from Respondent)
• Date Settlement Term is Received (from Respondent).
30(10%)
TSCA
140 (46
Evhihit 1.
\ U )f I.1t t ’I( )fltl/ (1(1(1 I-jo ( (LS(
settled in F} 91 wit/s om’ or iiiorc
SEP terms pu’).,’otlated
Ethihit 2.
. ‘,i,nhe, o, Ret ’ional (111(1 HQ
eultil in I ’)’ 12 )tiI/i O?J(’ 0? ? ?lOit’ .SLI’
teHfl.S flt’t,’OtI(lt(I —
Exhibit 3.
\u,Pl/’er (If Ret,’ional and HQ
eitled in F) 91( 0 k/I } 92 with one
or r:ore SEP terms isegotuited
Final
-------
In FY 92, a total of 159 cases were settled with
SEPs. TSCA comprised 47 percent of the total, EPCRA
Section 313 comprised 45 percent of the total, and
FIFRA comprised 8 percent of the total. For both years,
these totals represent both pollution prevention and non-
pollution prevention SEPs. Given below are break-
downs by Region of cases settled with SEPs for FY 91
and FY 92. (See exhibits 4 and 5.)
Exhibit 4.
FY92 Cases Settled With SEPs By Region: EP RA -313, FIFRA, and TS A
Exhibit 5.
FY 91 Cases Settled With SEPs By Region: EPCRA -313, FIFRA, and TSCA
Regions
National
I II ifi IV V VI VII VIII IX X HQ Totals
EPCRA 1 26 4 0 6 0 8 0 3 14 0 62
FIFRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 2 16
TSCA 10 5 3 0 0 0 29 0 1 12 6 66
Totals 11 31 7 0 6 0 51 0 4 26 8 144
L_ amount inmgffled ximpenaky, cnst to u sPOOdent._J
Region
I
LI
III
IV
V
Vi
Va
VIII
Ix
x
Legislation
FIFRA
TSCA
EPCRA
Total Cases Closed
With SEP
0
6
4
Average Cost to
Respondent/Case
(in dollars)
0
57,586
52,369
Average Penalty
Reduction/Case
(in dollars)
0
8,255
6,566
FIFRA
TSCA
EPCRA
0
7
18
0
91,793
100,222
0
16,246
5,877
FIFRA
TSCA
EPCRA
0
I I
5
0
522,677
373,410
0
47,724
44,964
FIFRA
TSCA
EPCRA
0
1
0
0
1,200,000
0
0
0
0
FIFRA
TSCA
EPCRA
I
15
11
18,000
244,236
80,450
3,600
96,080
25,354
FIFRA
TSCA
EPCRA
0
1
5
0
94,200
92,264
0
28,260
31,021
FIFRA
TSCA
EPCRA
13
9
3
8,277
49.914
87,500
2,375
10,531
32,000
FIFRA
TSCA
EPCRA
0
2
3
0
210,000
190,333
0
42,930
32,047
FIFRA
TSCA
EPCRA
0
II
II
0
796,441
153.780
0
109,529
27.479
FIFRA
TSCA
EPCRA
0
11
11
0
33,271
53,998
0
16,636
7,732
Totals
FIFRA
14
5,974
2,491
1’SCA
74
293,126
‘ 50,353
EPCRA
71
115,384
18,812
March 1993
4
Final
-------
In a briefing for EP Vs Deputy Administrator in July
1992. data were presented regarding the number of SEP
settlements successfully negotiated as of that date. In
the category of pollution prevention SEPs, EPCR\
Section 313 was in the lead with 83 percent of the total
pollution prevention SEPs settled h the Agenc . In the
category of non-pollution prevention SEPs. 46 percent
of the total SEPs settled by the Agency were under
TSCA. IPCRA non-pollution prevention SEPs consti-
tuted the second hi zhest number. with 22 pci-cent of the
total non-pollution prevention SEPs settled by EPA.
See exhibits 6 and 7.)
Within the OPPTS program itself, the categories of
SEPs on which \ e have focused during actual settle-
merits are outlined below. (See exhibit 8.)
TSC.-\ CA;\
I (; 4 C\\ A
Lviithn’ 6.
Pollution Pre’ ention
SEPS b Program Pere,:i,le
LTvIziI;ii 7.
‘son-Pollution Preve,ztio,i
SIPS by Pro ’ra,n I’eueiiiile (c .)
Exl,il’ii S.
Percent of SEP •\ ytiaud in Each ( ltei orv
I)urini,’ i - )• i .’ t()r EPCRA-3J . TSC.- . and 1-/FR A
Categol )
Source Reduction
1)ispo ..aI
\\aste \liiìirnization
Other
Audits
Outreach
Training
Cleanup
I nvironmenta1 Studies
B. OPPTS: .4 LE.IDER %%Ii’JII .\ THE ;IGEV(T
C\;\
TSC.\
46
EPCRA-3 13
83 %
OTHER
7 (
RCRA
6
EPCRA-3I
22 R
Percent
32
25c
I I
lO
I -
I -
Final
March 1993
-------
C. ACCOMPLISHMENTS WITHIN SEP
CATEGORIES
FTTS/NCDB tracks 14 categories of SEPs, as dis-
cussed on pages 1 and 2. During FY 92, the greatest num-
ber of SEPs occurred in the source reduction/pollution pre-
vention category, which includes Process Modifications,
Recycling, and Technological Improvements. The next
highest number of SEPs was in the disposal category.
Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 provide additional data.
An example of a source reduction/pollution preven-
tion process modification project is one in which a com-
pany replaced a freon-based cleaning system with a
water-based system that will eliminate emissions of
toxic chemicals into the environment.
Exhibit 9.
FY92 Regional Cases Settled With SEP Provisions (By Category); EPCRA -313, TSCA, and FIFRA
Total Waste
SEP Environmental Source Miniml
Region Tenns Cleanup Disposal Studies Audits Outreach Reduction Training zation Other
I II 0 6 0 0 1 4 0 0 0
II 25 0 4 I 0 0 16 0 4 0
m 27 0 9 0 7 0 6 0 5 0
IV I 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
V 39 I 9 0 3 1 13 0 6 6
V I 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0
VII 39 0 9 0 4 0 6 3 6 II
Vifi 5 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0
I X 52 2 10 0 6 8 9 2 6 5
X 25 0 Il 0 I 0 9 0 2 2
Totals 230 3 58 2 22 10 73 5 29 24
Exhibit 10.
FY92 Regional EPCRA-313 Cases Settled With SEP Provisions
(By Category)
Region
Total
SEP
Terms
Cleanup Disposal
Environmental
Studies Audits
Outreach
Source
Reduction
Training
Waste
Minimi-
zation
Other
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
II
18
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
4
0
ifi
10
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
4
0
I V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V
19
0
I
0
1
0
12
0
5
0
V I
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
VII
10
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
2
2
Vifi
3
0
-0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
IX
20
0
0
0
1
5
6
0
5
1
X
14
0
0
0
1
0
9
0
2
2
Totals 103 0 1 0 6 5 62 0 22 5
March 1993
6
Final
-------
Exhibit 11.
FY92 Regional TSCA Cases Settled With SEPs Provisions
(By Category)
Environmental Source
Studies Audits Outreach Reduction
0 0 1 0
Waste
Minimi-
ration Other
0 0 0
II 7 0 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 0
o o 0 1 0
o o 0 0 0
V 19 1 8 0 2 1 1 0 0 6
VI 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
VII 13 0 9 0 1 0 0 0 2 1
VIII 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
IX 31 2 10 0 4 3 3 2 1 4
X 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 109
3 57 2 15 5 8 2 4 11
D. AVERAGE AND TOTAL COSTS TO
IMPLEMENT SEPs
In FY 92, the ratio of average cost to respondent per
case to average penalty reduction per case for EPCRA
Section 313 SEPs was approximately 6:1. For TSCA
SEPs, the ratio was approximately 6:1, and for FIFRA
SEPs, the ratio was approximately 4:1. (See exhibits 12,
13, and 14.)
The difference in total FY 92 costs for implementa-
tion of SEP settlement terms can be attributed to the
type of projects typically performed under each statute.
The most expensive projects by far in FY 92 were dis-
posal SEPs under TSCA. The next highest total FY 92
cost to respondent can be found in the TSCA
Environmental Audits category. (See exhibit 15.)
TSCA SEPs involving process modification had a
similar total cost to the respondent as EPCRA SEPs of
the same category. (See exhibit 16.) However,
Technological Improvements and Recycling under
EPCRA have a much higher total cost to the respondent
than the same categories under TSCA. Exhibit 17 pro-
vides cost data for HERA SEPs.
Exhibit 12.
Average Cost/Average Penalty of FY92 TSCA, EPCRA -313, and FIFRA Cases
Total Regional & HQ
Legislation Cases Closed with SEPs
TSCA
EPCRA
FIFRA
74
71
14
Average Cost to
Respondent/Case
(in dollars)
293.126
117,547
5,974
Average Penalty
Reduction/Case
(in dollars)
50,840
19,300
2,49 1
Total
SEP
Region Terms Cleanup Disposal
I 7 0 6
ifi 17 0 9 0 7
IV 1 0 0 0
Training
Final
7
March 1993
-------
Exhibit 13. -
Average Cost/Average Penalty of FY92 EPCRA -313 Cases
Total Cases Average Cost to Average Penalty Total Cost Total Penalty
Closed Respondent/Case Reduction/Case to Respondent Reduction
Region with SEP (in dollars) (in dollars) (in dollars) (in dollars)
1 4 52,369 6,566 209,476 26,264
11 18 100,222 5,877 1,803,996 105,786
ifi 5 373,410 44,964 1,867,050 224,820
IV 0 0 0 0 0
V Ii 80,450 25,354 884,950 278,894
VI 5 92,264 31,021 461,320 155,105
V I I 3 87,500 32,000 262,500 96,000
VIII 3 190,333 32,047 570,999 96,141
IX Ii 153,780 27,479 1,691,580 302,269
X 11 53,998 7,732 593,987 85,052
Total 71 117,547 19,300 8,345,858 1,370,331
Exhibit 14.
Average Cost/Average Penalty ofFY92 TSCA Cases
Average Cost to AveragePenalty Total Cost Total Penalty
Total Cases Closed Respondent/Case Reduction/Case to Respondent Reduction
Region with SEP (in dollars) (in dollars) (in dollars) (in dollars)
1 6 57,586 8,255 345,516 49,530
II 7 91,793 16,246 642,551 113,722
ifi 11 522,677 47,724 5,749,447 524,964
LV 1 1.200,000 0 1,200,000 0
V 15 244,236 96,080 3,663,541) 1,441,200
VI 1 94,200 28,260 94,200 28,260
VII 9 49,914 10,531 449,226 94,779
VIII 2 210,000 42,930 420,000 85,860
IX 11 7%,441 109,529 8,760,851 - 1,204,819
X 11 33,271 16,636 365,981 182,996
Total 74 293,126 50,840 21,691,312 3,726,130
Maith 1993 8 Final
-------
Exhibit 15.
Total Costs to Companies for Implementation of SEP
Settlement Terms Negotiated for Individual
SEP Categories
TSCA
Category
Total Cost To
Respondent
(in dollars)
Total Penalty
Reduction
(in dollars)
Cleanup/
Restoration
$26,500
$3,25ft
Disposal
6,260,727
211,667
Environmental
Audit
3,249,287
107,000
Environmental
Study
38,488
13,750
Other
Outreach
2,900 2,900
5,000
Remedial
Inspections 2,348,285
* 5R/fl) Process
Modification 364,000
SR/PP -
Technological
Improvements 462,375
WM/PP -
Technological
Improvements 177,000
Exhibit 17.
Total Costs to Companies for Implementation of SEP
Settlement Terms Negotiated for individual
SEP Categories
FIFRA
SR/PP - Process
Modification 1,500
SR/PP - Technological
Improvements 13,831
Training 4,540
WM/PP - Process
Modification 34,288
WM/PP -
Technological
Improvements 7,191
* SR = Sousce Reduction
PP = Pollution Prevention
WM = Waste Minimization
Note: This exhibit includes data from nine of the ten regions.
Exhibit 16.
Total Costs to Companies for implementation of SEP
Settlement Terms Negotiated for Individual
SEP Categories
EPCRA -313
Category
Total Cost To
Respondent
(in dollars)
Total Penalty
Reduction
(in dollars)
Disposal
175,000
26,200
Environmental
Audit
111,849
Other
Outreach
8,500
85,300
SR/PP - Process
Modification 1,284,676
SR/PP -
Technological
Improvements 2,466,888
1,136,511
WM/PP -
Technological
Improvement 428,930
WM/PP - Process
Modification 1,009,134
FIFRA SEPs
As of the end of FY 92, there were not many
Regions that had incorporated SEPs into FIFRA settle-
ment agreements. However, as Region 7 has demon-
strated, there is considerable potential for incorporating
pollution prevention into the FIFRA enforcement pro-
gram. During FY 92, the largest number of FIFRA
SEPs occurred in the Other category. This category
includes such activities as the removal of underground
storage tanks, annual employee training on the proper
mixing and use of pesticides, construction of a pesticide
rinsate pad, and construction of a containment site and
loading dike for fertilizer. There were equal numbers of
FIFRA SEPs in the categories of Source Reduction,
Training, and Waste Minimization. It is expected that
the number of FIFRA SEPs will increase as more
Regions gain experience in this area.
Category
Other
Total Cost To
Respondent
(in dollars)
35,616
Total Penalty
Reduction
(in dollars)
6,400
900
5.100
600
8.600
2,000
1,000
1,240,166
41,750
94,160
15,000
SRJPP- Recycling
39,902
3,796
3,000
330,828
432,017
51,314
84,317
136,841
167,500
WM/PP - Recycling
1,303,300
Final
9
March 1993
-------
SAMPLE SEPs FROM AROUND THE
EPCRA: Region H Example
REGIONS
In addition to the data on SEPs contained in
FTTS/NCDB, the Regional Pesticides and Toxics
Branches maintain comprehensive information on file
for each of the SEPs negotiated in their EPCRA, TSCA,
and FIFRA cases.
This section features a narrative summary of an
EPCRA Section 313, TSCA, and FIFRA case settled in
FY 92 with both pollution prevention and non-pollution
prevention SEPs. The first paragraph of each case
description is based on information from FTTSINCDB.
The rest of the case description was provided by
Regional ToxicslPesticides Enforcement staff. These
cases represent examples of the types of environmental
and human health benefits that can be gained by inte-
grating SEPs into settlement agreements. At the end of
each summary is the name and number of a person who
may be contacted for more detailed information about
the case.
As described in the Office of Enforcement ‘Policy on
the Use of Supplemental Enforcement Projects in EPA
Settlements” and the draft 0CM SEP Guidance, every
project must have a demonstrable nexus, or relationship
between the SEP and violation that led to the enforce-
ment action. There are two types of nexUs that a sup-
plemental environmental project may meet: vertical or
horizontal.
Supplemental environmental projects exhibit vertical
nexus when there is a close relationship between the
underlying violation and the supplemental environmen-
tal project. A supplemental environmental project will
meet the criteria for vertical nexus if the project address-
es the same pollutant/medium at the same facility
responsible for the underlying violation.
Supplemental environmental projects exhibit horizontal
nexus if they reduce the overall environmental risk
posed by the regulated entity responsible for the violation,
but not nesessarily for the same pollutant/medium at the
same facility responsible for the underlying violation.
All 10 Regions negotiated SEPs during FY 92. The
following SEPs are examples of the types of SEPs
negotiated. The type of nexus demonstrated is also noted.
On March 16, 1992, Region II issued an EPCRA
civil complaint to Philadelphia Sign Company located in
Elmira, New Jersey, docket number EPCRA-92-01 14.
The proposed penalty in this case was $15,000.
However, because of the fact that the revised EPCRA
Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) was issued before
the case was closed, the proposed penalty was reduced
to $7,500. Region II negotiated a source reduction/pol-
lution prevention-closed ioop recycling SEP at a cost to
the company of $10,100. Philadelphia Sign Company
received a penalty reduction of $1,875 for the SEP and a
penalty reduction of $1,875 for good faith. The final
penalty negotiated was $3,750.
The company was charged with failure to submit
Form R’s on Toluene for the years 1988. 1989, and
1990. A Form R contains an estimate of the amount of
emissions and offsite transfer of a particular substance
from a facility in a given year. The data on a Form R are
entered into the TRI Data Base.
In settlement of the civil complaint, Philadelphia
Sign Company installed a S1VA S-b Solvent Recovery
Unit. This self-contained unit will allow the onsite recy-
cling of about 80 percent of the toluene previously sent
offsite for recycling. In addition, Philadelphia Sign
Company estimates that they will be able to reduce their
use of toluene by 4,700 pounds per year through the use
of the Solvent Recovery Unit, as well as alternative
painting processes. This is an example of an SEP with a
vertical nexus to the violation.
Program Contact:
Dan Kraft, 908/321-6669
(Environmental Services Division issued the case.)
TSCA: Region V Example
On October 14, 1990, Region V issued a TSCA civil
complaint to AAA Machinery and Equipment Company
(AAA) located in Cleveland, Ohio, docket number V-C-
06-91. The proposed penalty in this case was $163,000,
and the final penalty negotiated was $15,000 (based on
an inability to pay claim made by the company). Region
V negotiated two SEPs at a cost to the respondent of
$78,697. AAA received a penalty reduction of $19,424
for agreeing to complete the two SEPs. The case was
closed on November 21, 1991.
AAA was charged with 12 counts for failure to
develop and maintain annual PCB records, failure to reg-
ister its PCB transformers with the local fire department,
March 1993
10
Final
-------
failure to develop a maintenance history on its PCB trans-
formers, failure to properly dispose of PCB- containing
liquid, failure to properly mark PCB capacitors, and fail-
ure to mark the PCB storage area.
As part of the settlement agreement, AAA disposed
of all PCB items at its facility, including four PCB-con-
taminated transformers and 52 PCB capacitors, at a cost
of $73,697. AAA also sent letters to members of the
Machinery Dealers National Association offering a 1-hour
presentation on PCB regulations and their impact on the
industry, at a cost of $5,000. By properly disposing of
PCBs, AAA has reduced the risk of potential PCB expo-
sure to humans and/or the release of PCBs into the envi-
ronment. By conducting outreach, AAA may have pre-
vented or corrected violations within the industry. This is
an example of a SEP with an vertical nexus to the viola-
tion.
FIFRA: Region VII Example
On February 7, 1992, Region VII issued a civil com-
plaint to Jirdon Agri Chemicals, Inc. (Jirdon), located in
Morrill, Nebraska, docket number 07-1 106C-92P. The
proposed penalty was $5,000, and the final penalty nego-
tiated was $2,000. Region VII negotiated two source
reduction/pollution prevention SEPs (technological
improvements) at a cost to the respondent of $7,496. The
respondent received a $1,000 penalty reduction (20 per-
cent) for good faith, and a $2,000 penalty reduction for
thetwoSEPs.
Jirdon sells, custom-applies, and repackages in bulk
restricted use pesticides (RUPs). Region VII issued a
civil complaint to Jirdon for making two and a half gal-
ions of Tordon 22k, a RUP, available to an uncertified
applicator for his unsupervised use. A followup inspec-
tion of the uncertified applicator found that no adverse
environmental or human health effects resulted from his
unsupervised RUP application. AU instances of providing
RUPs for unsupervised use by uncertified applicators
involve significant risk due to the high potential for mis-
use that may result in harm to human health and the envi-
ronment.
As part of the settlement agreement, Jirdon complet-
ed two SEPs. Jirdon constructed concrete containment
diking around its bulk pesticide storage tanks at a cost of
$5,930, and the company installed an emergency show-
er/eye wash at its facility at a cost of $1,566. These SEPs
provide for increased environmental protection by
decreasing the possibility of soil and groundwater conta-
mination from handling bulk pesticides and enhanced
employee safety (the eye wash is particularly appropri-
ate since the facility handles anhydrous ammonia). This
is an example of an SEP with a horizontal nexus to the
violation.
HOW TO ACCESS THE OPPTS SEP
DATA BASE
OPPTS SEP data are contained in three different data
systems at this time: FF15 (in the Regional Pesticides &
Toxic Branches); NCDB (in 0CM at Headquarters); and
the Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA)
system, which is managed by the Office of Enforcement
(OE) at Headquarters and available to any EPA user who
requests and is approved for access.
IDEA, a multimedia tool supporting case screening
and inspection targeting, is being pilot tested in State
enforcement agencies and will become widely available
to the States and general public during FY 93. Though
OPPTS SEP is contained in IDEA, it is not as easily
accessible to the IDEA user as it is to FTT S and NCDB
users. For specific information regarding obtaining
access to IDEA, contact Jerry Lappan, OE, at 202/260-
6123. Note: Cost to Respondent and penalty reduction
data associated with individual SEP settlement terms
are treated as enforcement sensitive in IDEA and, there-
fore, will not be disclosed to States or the public.
OPPTS Access - Since the NCDB is currently on a
single Personal Computer (PC) and accessing iDEA
requires training and approval in advance, the occasional
requestor should ask for data through OCM’s Compliance
Branch. Direct written requests to Maureen Lydon, Chief
of the Compliance Branch (mail code EN-342).
Telephone requests may be directed to either of the con-
tacts for this document (Beth Crowley at 202/260-8464 or
David Meredith at 202/260-7864).
EPA HQ Access - See OPPTS Access.
EPA Regional Access - EPA Regional personnel
requesting information on SEPs that relates to their
Region only should seek the data through FTTS in the
Regional Pesticide and Toxic Substances Branch. If
national data are needed, a request for such data should be
made to OCM’s Compliance Branch (see OPPTS access).
Program Contact:
Jim Mulligan. 913/551-7516
- Regional Counsel Contact:
Julie Murray, 913/551-7448
Program Contact:
John Connell, 312/886-6832
Regional Counsel Contact:
Suzanne Glade. 312/886-0555
Final
11
March 1993
-------
Outside EPA - SEP data are subject to the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA requests should be
directed to the FOIA office within EPA. The telephone
number for information on constructing and submitting a
FOLA request is (202) 260-4048.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
In FY 92, 0CM chaired an Agency-wide SEP work-
group. The workgroup’s immediate priorities are to
overcome bathers to incorporating SEPs by identifying
and making available technical information resources to
Regional enforcement personnel and by conducting a
training needs survey. In FY 93, the SEP workgroup
will be chaired by the Office of Enforcement, with over-
sight capacity provided by the Enforcement
Management Council.
In FY 92, 0CM completed a report, “Investigation
of Environmentally Beneficial Expenditures for
Settlement Agreements,” which evaluated the effective-
ness of SEPs in achieving their intended goal and identi-
fying the types that may prove especially beneficial to
the environment. This report was recently distributed to
the Regions and may prove to be helpful in future nego-
tiations of SEPs.
ADDITIONAL COPIES OF REPORT
For additional copies of this report, please contact
Beth Crowley at 202/260-8464 or David Meredith at
202/260-7864 of the Compliance Branch, Office of
Compliance Monitoring.
March 1993
12
Final
------- |