RCRA Return to Compliance Study
Prepared by:
The Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
1991
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACI NOW1,EDGEMEN’TS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
SELECTED DEFINITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . ii.
LIST OF ACRONY}IS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES.. ,... vii
PREFACE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—1
EXECUTIVE StJr (A.RY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1—1
ME’I’HODOLOCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I l l—i
A. Conducting the Study 111-1
B. Quality Assurance & Quality Control of the
Data. . 111—5
C. Timelines 111—6
D. Penal-ty Data 1 11-8
E. LeadAgency 111—8
F. FederalFacilities 111—8
C. Return to Conipliance Status 111—9
H. Statistical Methodology... 111—9
A1’IALYZ ING THE DATA Ill—i
A. Categorical Data. . IS1—4
B. Penalty Data . IV16
C. EnforcementTiinelineData. .. IV—17
D . J i 01 at ion Data I V— 18
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS V—i
APPENDIX-I (Statistical Analysis)
APPENDIX-I l (Case Histories)
-------
AC OWLEDGEMENTS
The RCRA Return to Compliance (RTC) Study was prepared
by the U.S. EPA Office of Waste Programs Enforceinent,
RCRA Enforcement Division. Assistance was provided by
Ms. Jennifer Aliano, Mount Holyoke College.
1
-------
SELECTED DEFINITIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION A non-judicial action taken by EPA or a
State under its own authority. It may take
several forms, ranging from informal notices
of noncompliance to issuance of an
Administrative Order accompanied by a formal
public hearing. (b)
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER An order issued directly under the authority
of RCRA when a severe violation is detected
or the owner or operator does not respond
to an informal action. This Order imposes
enforceable legal duties to force a facility
to comply with specific regulations, to take
corrective action, to perform monitoring,
testing, and analysis, or to address a
threat of harm to human health and the
environment. Four types of Orders can be
issued under RCRA: a) Compliance Orders,
b) Corrective Action Orders, C) Section 3013
Orders, and d) Section -7003 Orders. (b)
CLASS I VIOLATION Deviations from regulations, or provisions
of compliance orders, consent agreements,
consent decrees, or permit conditions which
could result in a failure to: a) Assure
that hazardous waste is destined for and
delivered to authorized treatment, storage,
or disposal facilities (TSDFs); or b)
Prevent releases of hazardous waste or
constituents, both during the active and any
applicable post-closure periods of the
facility operation where appropriate; or c)
Assure early detection of such releases; or
d) Perform emergency clean—up operation or
other corrective action for releases. (a)
CLASS II VIOLATION Any violation of a RCRA requirement that
does not meet the criteria listed above for
Class I violations. (a)
CLEAN CLOSURE The closure of a surface impoundment or
waste pile once all contaminants have been
removed from the unit by the owner or
operator, so that a post-closure care is not
required. (b)
CLOSURE The process of an owner or operator closing
a facility in a manner that: a) minimizes
ii
-------
the need for further maintenance, and b)
controls, minimizes, or eliminates, to the
extent necessary to protect human health and
the environment, post-closure escape of
hazardous waste, hazardous constituents,
leachate, contaminated run—off, or hazardous
waste decomposition products to the ground
or surface waters or to the atmosphere, and
complies with the closure requirements of
40 CFR 265. (d)
CONSENT AGREEMENT The settlement terms agreed to by the Agency
and a violator. (C)
CONSENT DECREE An order containing the decision of an out-
of-court settlement between the Agency and
a responsible party which has a judge’s
concurrence. (c)
CONSENT ORDER An administrative order agreed to by the
regulatory agency and the violator,
incorporating the terms of agreement between
both parties. (C)
CORRECTIVE ACTION
ORDER A court order requiring a facility which has
released hazardous waste into the
environment to correct the problem and take
any necessary response measures under
Section 3008(h). (b)
FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY The financial assurances for the closure of
the faciLity established by the owner or
operator of that facility, in the form of
a closure trust fund, surety bond
guaranteeing payment into a closure trust
fund, closure letter of credit, closure
insurance, or financial test and corporate
guarantee for closure, as specified in 40
CFR 265.143. (d)
FORMAL ACTION An enforcement action taken by EPA or a
State under its own authority, usually in
response to a severe violation, that imposes
enforceable legal duties. (b)
GROUND WATER
MONITORING Steps taken to determine the potential for
migration of hazardous waste or hazardous
waste constituents from the facility to the
uppermost aquifer, by various means of
iii
-------
groundwater monitoring and geological and
hydrological surveying. (d)
INFORMAL ACTION Any communication from an agency that
notifies the handler of a problem. It can
take many forms, e.g., a letter or a phone
call. (b)
INTERIM STATUS TSDFs in existence on November 19, 1980,
without RCRA permits may operate under
interim status as if permitted until their
permit applications are issued or denied. (b)
JUDICIAL REFERRAL A civil or criminal action referred to the
Department of Justice, ultimately resulting
in a judicial order that is legally binding
and enforceable by the courts. (c)
LAND DISPOSAL
FACILITY Any land and appurtenances thereto used for
the disposal of solid wastes. (d)
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY An informal action which is commonly issued
during the permitting process to identify
missing or deficient items in the facility’s
application for a RCRA permit. (b)
NOTICE OF VIOLATION An informal action taken by EPA or the State
which notifies handlers that they are not
in compliance with some provision of the
regulations. This type of action is
particularly appropriate where the violation
is minor. (b)
PART A Part of the RCRA permit application that
collects general information about a
facility. (b)
PART B Part of the RCRA permit application that
requires the owner or operator to supply
detailed and highly technical information,
as indicated by 40 CFR Parts 264 and 270. (b)
POST CLOSURE The maintenance required for each hazardous
waste management unit subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR Parts 265.117 through
265.120, beginning after completion of
closure of the unit and continuing for 30
years after that date, consisting of
monitoring and reporting of the state of the
environment around the unit and maintenance
and monitoring of the waste containment
systems used at the unit. (d)
iv
-------
RCRA FACILITY
ASSESSMENT A process designed to identify solid waste
management units (SWMIJs) and to identify
releases of hazardous constituents needing
further investigation. (b)
REGULATED UNIT A waste management unit subject to
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.
RETURN TO COMPLIANCE For the purposes of the RTC Study, a
facility’s status once all SNC violations
have been returned to full physical
compliance.
RETURN TO COMPLIANCE
STUDY UNIVERSE Facilities within the subset of LDFs which
were in SNC for three or more years on
August 11, 1989, the date of the HWDMS data
pull. These facilities were listed as being
in a continuous state of SNC and were not
listed as being involved in a judiciary
action on this date.
SIGNIFICANT
NONCOMPLIANCE (SNC) The status of an LDF with a Class I
violation for ground water monitoring,
financial assurance, closure or post—
closure, or compliance schedule violations.
a RCRA Enforcement Response Policy
b RCRA Orientation Manual 1990 Edition
c Standard Operating Procedures for the Regional
Coordination Section, OWPE, US EPA, February 1989
d 40 CFR 265
V
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AU
CAFO
CAP
CERCLA
CME
CMS
C/Pc
CFR
DOJ
EP toxicity
FFCA
FR
GW
GWM
HQ
HSWA
HWDMS
LDF
LDR
LOIS
NEIC
NOV
NPL
ORC
OWPE
POTW
PRP
QA/QC
RAATS
RCRA
RFA
RFI
RI/FS
RTC
SNC
SWMU
TEGD
Administrative Law Judge
Consent Agreement Final Order
corrective Action Plan
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring
Evaluation
Corrective Measures Study
Closure/Post Closure
Code of Federal Regulations
Department of Justice
Extraction Procedure toxicity
Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement
Financial Responsibility
Ground Water
Ground Water Monitoring
EPA Headquarters
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
Hazardous Waste Data Management System
Land Disposal Facility
Land Disposal Restrictions
Loss of Interim Status
National Enforcement Investigation Center
Notice of Violation
National Priorities List
Office of Regiànal Counsel
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Potentially Responsible Party
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA Facility Assessment
RCRA Facility Investigation
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Return to Compliance
Significant Non-Compliance
Solid Waste Management Unit
Technical Enforcement Guidance Document
vi
-------
LIST OP TABLES
TABLE 1 - The frequency of each category and the
category count as a percentage of Regional
total RTC Study faci]ities................... IV—3
TABLE 2 — Multiple category breakdown.. ....... IV—4
TABLE 3 — Combinations of two categories IV—4
TABLE 4 — Violations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV—19
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 -The Land Disposal Facility (LDF) Universe.... 111—2
FIGURE 2 —categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV—7
FIGURE 3 -Distribution of Processing Delays IV—8
vii
-------
I. PREFACE
In the years since Congress passed the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, much has been learned by both the regulators-—EPA and State
environmental agencies——and the regulated community about the
problems associated with managing hazardous waste. In 1976,
Congress greatly broadened the scope of the original Act by
enacting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which
in turn was amended in 1980 and again in 1984 by the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA).
The intent of this Congressional activity was to establish a
means of encouraging the regulated community to manage its
hazardous wastes more efficiently. The goal of reducing the vast
quantities of hazardous waste produced each year-—an amount
currently estimated to be between 240 and 270 million metric tons-
-was set. While it is currently unclear whether RCRA has
significantly reduced the amount of hazardous waste produced, it
is clear that the regulated community is managing its hazardous
wastes differently than it had been prior to RCRA. The greatest
change has been the move from land disposal of hazardous wastes to
the treatment of these wastes prior to disposal of treatment
residuals.
However, the problems of past land disposal practices are
still being corrected, and will continue to demand much of the
attention and resources of the regulated community and of EPA and
the States. While the competitive atmosphere of the free market
can effectively encourage better wastestream management, it seems
that the task of ensuring adequate cleanup of past disposal
practices falls largely on the oversight and enforcement
capabilities of the regulators.
At the inception of the RCRA enforcement and compliance
monitoring programs in the early l980s, the challenge was to bring
the regulated community into compliance with the regulations
affecting the generation, disposal, treatment and storage of
hazardous wastes. For land disposal facilities (LDFs), this
required meeting “interim status” standards. Among other things,
interim status standards required LDFs to put an adequate
groundwater monitoring system into place, to n aintain sufficient
liability insurance, and to submit a complete application for an
operating permit (Part B). Facilities which did not or could not
obtain an operating permit were required to implement a plan for
closure, and possibly post—closure maintenance, of the LDF.
It has become apparent that a great majority of the LDFs in
existence when RCRA came into effect will never receive an
operating permit. However, these LDFs must still meet the interim
status requirements for groundwater monitoring and closure, either
I—i
-------
by complete removal of hazardous materials (clean closure) or with
a long—term groundwater monitoring program, vector control, and
financial assurance mechanism in place.
In recent years, EPA and the States have taken numerous
enforcement actions in an effort to bring the regulated community
into full compliance with RCRA interim status standards. In many
instances, these actions resulted in a relatively prompt return to
compliance with the regulations. However, several hundred LDFs
have remained in a state of continuous noncompliance for one
violation or another for three or more years.
The RTC Study team, comprised of personnel from the EPA
Headquarters Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE), have been
working with the Regional RCRA Enforcement Programs and several
State programs to isolate and analyze the major contributing
factors behind the lengthy tiineframes involved in bringing LDF5
into full compliance with significant non-compliance guidelines.
It should be mentioned that LDFs were chosen because, unlike the
treatment, storage, or generator universes, EPA’s database for the
LDF universe is relatively complete. Furthermore, LDFs have been
the subject of the greatest scrutiny by both EPA and Congress due
to the belief that, among RCRA—regulated facilities, groundwater
contamination from LDFs poses the greatest threat to human health
and the environment.
1—2
-------
II. EXECUTIVE SUXMARY
BACKGROUND
o EPA conducted an analysis of the major factors that
account for the delays in returning RCPA land disposal
facilities (LDFs) to full physical compliance.
o This study, the Return to Compliance (RTC) Study,
focused on LDF significant noncompliance (SNC) violators
that were three or more years in SNC and not currently
involved in a judicial action, as of 8—11—89.
o An 8-11-89 data pull from HWDMS showed that of the 1481
RCRA-regulated LDFs, 639 were SNCs and 259 of those SNCs
met the RTC Study criteria. These 259 LDF SNC5 comprise
the RTC Study universe.
o The RTC Study team collected data on these 259 LDF SNCs
from HWDMS, from written narratives provided by State
and Regional staff, and from direct staff interviews.
FINDINGS
o The delays in returning the RTC Study facilities to full
compliance were analyzed from four perspectives:
- categorical or nominal descriptions of delay
- penalty data
- enforcement timeline data
— violation data
o The seven categories of delay are as follows:
- Processing delays (PROC)
- Facility resistance (FACIL)
- Inability to meet financial requirements (NOFIN)
- Technical complexity (TECH)
- Case delayed in hearing process (HEAR)
- Facility bankrupt/referred to CERCLA (BK/CER)
- Facility erroneously listed as SNC in HWDMS (HWDI4S)
o Seven combinations of one or more categories accounted
for 71.8% of the delays in RTC.
o PROC, either alone or in combination with one or more
categories, was the major factor in the RTC delays.
o Although PROC was the most frequent factor in the RTC
delays, it was usually the result of NOPIN, FACIL and
TECH when combined with these categories.
h-i
-------
o The average assessed and collected penalties for the RTC
Study universe were $41,123 and $15,201, respectively.
o 23% of the RTC Study facilities (excluding Federal
facilities) had $0 assessed” penalties. 47% had $0
collected penalties.
o Because only a limited number of LDF SNCs that had RTCed
were analyzed (primarily HWDMS data errors that should
not have been part of the RTC Study universe), the data
do not support the theory that penalties influence the
length of time an LDF remains in SNC.
o It took an average 1.3 and an additional 1.5 years,
respectively, to issue initial and final formal
enforcement actions to the RTC Study facilities.
o Of the RTC Study facilities that have RTCed, the average
time in SNC was 3.9 years. Of those facilities that
have yet to RTC, the average time in SNC is 5.2 years.
o Groundwater monitoring (GWM) violations were incurred
more frequently than closure (C/PC) or financial
responsibility (FR) violations, though the differences
are not statistically significant.
o 79.5% of the RTC Study facilities incurred more than one
type of violation; in 32.8% of the cases, all three
violations were incurred.
o Evidence suggests that GWM violations were resolved more
quickly than C/PC or FR violations.
CONCLUS IONS
o In general, Regions, States, and many facilities are
expending significant resources addressing compliance
problems at RTC Study facilities.
o Many RTC Study facilities have been out of compliance,
and will remain so, due to their tenuous financial
situation.
o A number of RTC Study facilities are putting their
resources into contesting compliance orders rather than
returning to compliance.
o Regulators indicate that negotiations with financially
indigent facilities and facilities inclined to contest
the terms of their compliance orders are often more
difficult and resource—intensive than most negotiations.
11—2
-------
o In all probability, a significant number of RTC Study
facilities could be RTCed if States had resources to
review the necessary technical documents.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Short-Term
o Determine which RTC Study facilities are likely to
respond to increased enforcement effort, rank them
according to their environmental significance, and
address them accordingly.
o Recognize that because of legal, technical, or financial
problems, many RTC Study facilities will not RTC in the
near future despite an increase by States and EPA in the
rate of resources expended at those facilities.
Consider other options* :
- CERCLA
— Civil Referrals
Long-Term
o Issue final Orders unilaterally (recognizing that this
could mean a significant increase in administrative
appeals) rather than spending years negotiating Consent
Orders with recalcitrant facilities, and refer cases for
judicial actions where appropriate.
o Explore ways of streamlining the Administrative Hearing
process so that cases are resolved more quickly.
o Re—evaluate State programs to determine whether staff
levels have kept up with program responsibilities.
* Note -Neither CERCLA or taking more civil referrals is
likely to reduce the time any one facility is in SNC.
These options are offered in the spirit of seeking
alternate means of addressing egregious environmental
concerns (via CERCLA), and advocating tougher
enforcement responses (civil referrals) as part of an
overall strategy to take away the incentive for
resisting compliance with RCRA requirements.
11—3
-------
III. METHODOLOGY
On August 11, 1989, the RTC Study team pulled data from HWDMS
which listed all LDF5 in significant noncompliance (SNc) 1 on that
date. This list was divided into LDFs in SNC for three or more
years and those in SNC for less than three years. The RTC Study
team decided that only those LDF SNCs three years or older would
be targeted for study. The three—year cut of f date was based on
the judgeinent of Headquarters staff that three years should be
sufficient to resolve most compliance problems.
The universe of LDFs in SNC for three years or longer was
further segregated into facilities currently involved in State or
Federal judicial proceedings and those not involved in judicial
proceedings according to HWDMS (FIGURE 1]. The LDF5 in judicial
proceedings were removed from the Study because the RTC Study team
assumed that cases involved in litigation typically require
substantial time to be resolved. In most instances, EPA and States
have little control over the pace of judicial proceedings.
Additionally, the RTC Study team decided that excluding these
judicial cases would leave a manageable, yet sufficient and
representative number of facilities in the Study universe upon
which to draw meaningful conclusions about the RTC problem. The
259 facilities that remained comprise what is hereafter referred
to as the RTC Study universe.
It should be noted that due to time and resource constraints,
the RTC Study team did not compare the 259 RTC Study facilities
with a “normalized” universe of facilities with no unresolved
compliance problems. Such an inferential statistical analysis is
considered standard practice; the lack of such methodology should
be recognized as one of the limitations of the RTC Study.
A. CONDUCTING THE STUDY
The gathering of data on the facilities followed a seven—step
process:
1. A data pull form HWDMS (August 11, 1989) identifying
the RTC Study universe;
1 The term significant noncompliance, or SNC, is defined in
the historic sense as it applies to the LDF universe.
Specifically, LDF SNCs are those LDFs with one or more Class I
violations of the groundwater monitoring, closure/post—closure,
and/or financial responsibility regulations. In 1989 the
definition of SNC changed to include only high priority violators.
However, since the RTC Study looks only at the SNCs which have been
out of compliance for three or more years, the change in the SNC
definition does not affect this Study.
hI—i
-------
fIGuRE 1
TOTAL LDFs
1481
The Land Disposal Facility (LDF) Universe
RCRA RTC Study
RTC
. a —
Facilities 4
(259)
Judicial -
(159)
SNCs
<3’:
TOTAL SNCs
(639)
I-I
NOTE: RTC Facilities Include HWDMS Data Errors.
-------
2. Request for Regional input (facility histories) on
each RTC Study facility;
3. Staff interviews at selected Regions;
4. Information gathering and QA of Regional data from
Agency databases;
5. Development of facility profiles;
6. Review and revision of facility profiles;
7. Selection of representative case studies.
In addition, the RTC Study team used HWDMS to supplement the
background information collected on each of the facilities and data
from interviews with Regional and State personnel. In developing
the facility profiles and the RTC Study database (the data set used
to perform statistical analysis on the RTC universe) HWDMS supplied
categorical and quantifiable data on violations, enforcement
history, facility types, location (Region and State), and
penalties. HWDMS was also used to confirm dates, violations, and
penalty information submitted and reviewed by the Regions. If the
information from HWDMS and the Regional contact conflicted,
historical information on the facility was reviewed, and the most
consistent data were used. In some cases, however, sources
provided contradictory information, so HWDMS was the default data
source.
Once the RTC Study universe was defined, each Region was sent
a list of their RTC Study facilities. Regions were asked to
provide detailed narrative accounts of the compliance history of
each facility as well as to provide any insight into the cause of
delays in returning these LDFs to compliance.
The RTC Study team followed up on these narratives by
conducting interviews at facilities in seven of the ten Regions
(I, III, IV, V, VI, VIII, X). The seven Regions were selected
primarily on the basis of their share of the RTC Study universe.
Together they accounted for 86% of the 259 RTC Study facilities.
(It should be mentioned that only 46 of the 86 Region V facilities
were reviewed during the interviewing, since Region V had more than
twice the number of RTC Study facilities than any other Region, and
the RTC Study team believed 46 facilities were the maximum number
that could be reviewed during each two-day Regional visit.)
In Regions II, VII, and IX, which were not interviewed, the
RTC Study team used the information provided in the narratives,
and in several instances, phone calls to Regional and State staff
to determine the compliance histories of RTC Study facilities in
those Regions.
111—3
-------
The Regional interviews were conducted between December 1989,
and April 1990. Regional contacts were asked prior to each HQ
visit to re—familiarize themselves with the compliance history of
each RTC Study facility, and when necessary, to confer with their
State counterparts, who work with many of the facilities on a more
frequent basis. Each interview consisted of approximately one-half
hour of informal questioning. The RTC Study team asked each
Regional staff member interviewed to verify the dates of the first
formal action, the final formal action, and any other relevant
dates in the compliance history of each RTC Study facility. Staff
members were also questioned about penalties assessed and
collected, and about the projected RTC dates of each facility.
In every case, the RTC Study team asked the Regional and State
staff interviewed to provide reasons for the significant length of
time which had elapsed since the facilities were discovered to be
in SNC. In every Region, the cases fit into one or more of the
following seven categories:
o Processing delays;
o Facility resistance;
o Inability to meet financial requirements;
o Technical complexity;
o Case delayed in a hearing process;
o Facility bankrupt and/or referred to CERCLA;
o HWDMS data error.
These categories, and the abbreviations used to denote them,
are defined as follows:
Processing delays (PROC) are delays attributed to staff turnover,
priority setting, disagreement among staff on the adequacy of
workplans and other submissions, reluctance to escalate actions
against facilities exhibiting inadequate financial resources, etc.
Facility resistance (FACIL) indicates an inordinate reluctance on
the facility’s part to sign a compliance agreement or complete work
previously agreed upon. In many instances, a facility’s resistance
stems from its attempts to use every legal means available to
negotiate decreased penalties and/or more relaxed compliance
time frames.
Inability to meet financial requirements (NOFIN) means delays or
inaction on a case due to a facility’s inability to satisfy Subpart
H requirements, or a facility’s inability to satisfy Subparts F,
G, or H requirements due to limited financial resources.
Technical complexity (TECH) involves the inability of the facility
or the regulating agency to agree on or proceed with the technical
remedy at a site due to uncertainties about groundwater flow, rate
and extent of contamination, site hydrogeology, etc.
111—4
-------
Hearing process (HEAR) means that at some point between the
violation discovery and the present, the regulatory agency and
facility became involved in administrative hearings that delayed
compliance for significant periods of time.
Bankruptcy/CERCLA (BK/CER) indicates that the case has been stalled
due to the financial collapse of the facility and/or while the
facility is being ranked for action under CERCL authorities.
HWDMS data error (HWDMS) a number of facilities had RTCed in less
than three years, but the Region or State had neglected to update
the database, or, in several instances, where a facility was
discovered to be non-regulated by RCRA but was never erased from
HWDMS.
Between January and March 1990, a common format was developed
to present a profile of each RTC Study facility based on the data
gathered in the initial Regional summaries, the interviews, and
supplementary Agency data from HWDMS and RAATS. For Regions not
visited, profiles were developed from the initial summaries and
HWDMS data reports. These profiles identify the following:
o Facility name
o EPA identification (ID) number
o EPA Region
o State
o Facility type(s)
o Lead enforcement agency (EPA, State, or both)
o RTC category(s)
o RCRA violations(s)
o Enforcement dates (timeline)
o Detailed enforcement history
o Current enforcement status
o Penalties assessed and collected
o Regional EPA contact
These summaries provide all pertinent details on the RTC Study
facilities in a concise, consistent format.
B. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL OF THE DATA
After draft profiles were prepared, they were sent to each of
the Regions to be reviewed, revised, and updated. This process
began in March 1990. Regional comments were provided to EPA
Headquarters through June 1990. The Regions were given this
opportunity for review to ensure the quality of the profiles, allow
the Regions to confirm the interpretation and presentation of the
facts, and provide the most up—to—date and accurate information
possible for the analytic efforts of the RTC Study. Incorporating
the comments provided by the Regions into the facility profiles
served as the final step in the data gathering stage of the Study.
111—5
-------
Data summarized in the final facility profiles were used as the
basis for the RTC database and statistical analyses of the RTC
facilities. The profiles are included as APPENDIX—I l of this
report.
A database was developed for the RTC Study facilities based
on pertinent data from the facility profiles and the Agency
databases described above. Unless other information was available,
HWDMS was considered the definitive source of information where
conflicting information existed. The database tracks types of
hazardous waste facilities as indicated by the EPA Regions. Often
a facility has multiple regulated units and these are noted in the
facility profile, as are the number of each type of unit present.
The database contains the facility type information provided by the
Region for the profiles; a list of facility types is included in
APPENDIX—I of this report. Specifically, for each facility the RTC
Study database contains information on facility types, categories
characterizing noncompliance, violations, numbers of days until and
between enforcement actions, penalty amounts assessed and
collected, Federal facility identification, indicators of RTC
status, and lead agency specification. The following sections
describe the variables contained in the RTC Study database. These
variables provided the basis for the analysis.
C. TIMELINES
A portion of the analysis of the RTC Study facilities focuses
on measuring the time elapsed during three periods: from the
discovery of a RCRA violation until the first formal enforcement
action was taken (Enforcement Time); from the first formal
enforcement action until the final formal enforcement action
(Negotiation Time); and the total time elapsed between violation
discovery and RTC (Noncompliance Time). For each RTC Study
facility, the RTC Study database refers to the following dates:
START Discovery--Date of first Violation
INITIAL Date of First Formal Enforcement Action
FINAL Date of Final Formal Enforcement Action
END Date Profiles Forwarded for Revision (March
13, 1990) RTC Date
In some cases, only the year (or month and year) was available from
the Regions and/or HWDMS. Therefore, efforts were made to input
missing dates consistently as the last day of the month, and
missing months as December, to track the event as occurring by the
end of the year. For those cases in which enforcement actions or
other significant events occurred in the same month or year, the
first of the month or year (January 1) was used for the first
action. Efforts were made to obtain actual data; only when these
efforts failed were artificial data used. Although there were very
few cases .in which the use of such data was necessary, the
111—6
-------
interpretation of the interval data must be couched with a margin
of error.
The analysis uses the above dates to calculate the following.
enforcement history intervals, expressed in the number of days or
years, as appropriate:
ETII4E Enforcement Time (INITIAL - START)
NTII1E Negotiation Time (FINAL - INITIAL)
PTINE Final Action Time (FINAL - START)
NCTINE Noncompliance Time to Date (END - START)
The tracking of enforcement dates for RCRA facilities is
complicated by the fact that there are several types of violations
and enforcement actions. For example, a State inspection may
identify a C/PC violation and a GWM violation. The State may issue
an informal enforcement action, such as a Notice of Violation
(NOV), to inform the facility that it is out of compliance. The
State may follow this up by issuing an initial complaint-—a formal
enforcement action—-for the C/PC violation, and referring the
facility to EPA for the GWM violation because of unique or
particularly complex conditions. Eventually, a Consent Agreement
and Final Order (CAFO) may be entered, once the facility and the
lead agency(s) have agreed to a specific course of action to return
the facility to compliance. In this scenario, the inspection date
would be START, the complaint date would be INITIAL, the CAFO date
would be FINAL, and the standard END date would be used.
For the purpose of this analysis, enforcement intervals are
calculated based on formal enforcement actions. Therefore, the NOV
date is not included, and the complaint is considered the first
formal enforcement action. In some cases, the first formal and
final enforcement actions are the same and are recorded as such in
the database. For these cases, NTIME is zero. In other cases, the
first formal enforcement action has taken place but a final
enforcement action has not yet been issued, so the variable FINAL
remains blank in the database and NTIME cannot be calculated.
Enforcement tiinelines are also complicated when there are
multiple enforcement actions in response to multiple violations.
The analysis is calculated on the discovery of the first violation,
the initial formal enforcement action, the earliest final
enforcement action (if more than one occur), and the RTC date or
standard end date (the profile revision date—-March 13, 1990--was
used for the majority of facilities that remain out of compliance).
Some of the RTC Study facilities have actually returned to
compliance. In these cases, the RTC date is entered into the
database as END. In several instances, facilities have RTCed for
the original SNC violation(s) cited in HWDMS, but they incurred
subsequent SNC violations before resolving all original SNC
111—7
-------
violations. These facilities are considered RTC Study facilities
based on their continuous state of SNC for three or more years.
When there are multiple violations at a facility, one
violation, perhaps the original violation, may be resolved while
subsequent violations remain outstanding. A facility is not
considered fully returned to compliance until all of its violations
are resolved. Most of the facilities have not fully returned to
compliance, so an artificial cut—off date was developed to measure
Lag Time to Date (LTIME) and Noncompliance Time to Date (NCTIME).
LDF5 meeting the RTC Study universe selection criteria as of August
11, 1989, were identified for this Study. However, this date is
not an appropriate cut-off date since additional enforcement
actions and changes in compliance status have occurred since the
initial HWDMS data pull. The cut-off date provides the most
accurate timeline statistics if it is as current as possible.
Therefore, since the latest round of profiles was mailed for
updating on March 13, 1990, this date was selected as the end date
for the RTC Study facilities that are currently out of compliance.
All Regional comments on the RTC Study facility profiles were made
subsequent to this date. It is noted that LTIME and NCTIME are Lag
and Noncompliance Times to date . Therefore, inferential measures
for actual LTIME and NCTIME must be developed using only facilities
that have returned to compliance, i.e., where the RTC date is used
as the END date.
D. PENALTY DATA
Penalties may be assessed for a facility as part of formal
enforcement actions. Aggregate penalties assessed and collected
are recorded in the RTC Study database for each facility based on
information tracked in HWDMS and confirmed by the Regional contacts
and RAATS. The variables are included in the database as follows:
ASSESSED Total Dollar Value of Penalties Assessed to Date
PAID Total Dollar Value of Penalties Collected to Date.
E. LEAD AGENCY
EPA, the State, or in certain instances, both agencies, take
the lead responsibility for enforcement at RCRA facilities.
Enforcement options available include administrative actions, civil
actions, and criminal actions. The lead agency for every RTC Study
facility is tracked in the RTC database as EPA, State, or both--
when responsibility is shared or transferred between agencies.
F. FEDERAL FACILITIES
Federal facilities are required to comply with environmental
statutes to the same extent as non-Federal facilities. The major
difference between Federal and other facilities lies in penalty
assessment and collection. Penalties cannot be assessed or
111—8
-------
collected from Federal facilities under EPA leads. However, States
are free to assess and collect penalties in Federal facility cases
as necessary. Because of this difference in enforcement of RCRA
at Federal facilities, a Federal facility indicator has been
incorporated into the RTC Study database.
G. RETURN TO COMPLIANCE STATUS
Some of the RTC Study facilities have returned to compliance
since the Study began. These facilities include those categorized
as HWDMS data errors and those that have been out of compliance for
three years or longer but are currently in compliance. In order
to identify and track the RTC Study facilities accurately, the RTC
Study database includes a variable to indicate compliance status
(RTC: Yes/No).
H. STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY
Breakdown By Regional Populations
This statistical analysis describes the Regional distribution
of the LDF, SNC and RTC Study universes. These universes are
presented as both whole numbers and percentages of each set. These
statistics enable us to weigh each Region’s share of each universe
separately and collectively. For example, certain Regions contain
a greater proportion of SNC and RTC Study facilities than their
share of the LDF universe, from which the SNC and RTC Study
universes are subsets.
Breakdown By Lead Agency For Compliance
This Study compares enforcement history intervals and
penalty information for EPA versus State as lead agency on RTC
Study facility cases. It is useful to note the breakdown of
EPA, State, and shared enforcement leads in the RTC Study
universe, as well as by Region. Enforcement lead information
helps provide insight into the effectiveness of enforcement
tactics employed by the Regions and States. However, many
cases are referred to EPA by the States for enforcement action.
Regions have inferred that these cases tend to be more complex
and require more resources than those that remain State—lead.
This analysis does not analyze the complexity of cases pursued
by the alternative enforcement authorities, but looks at the
relative proportion of EPA- and State—lead RTC Study
facilities.
Breakdown By Federal Facilities
There are a significant number of Federal facilities in the
RTC Study universe. If the analysis indicates that a large
proportion of the RTC Study universe consists of Federal
facilities, then further investigation into the enforcement
111—9
-------
procedures unique to these facilities could be useful. If
Federal facilities are not found to be a large proportion of
the RTC universe, then lengthy noncompliance time is
explainable by other factors. Since EPA—lead Federal
facilities are not subject to penalty assessment, the penalty
statistics are calculated only on RTC Study facilities that are
not EPA-lead Federal facilities.
Federal facilities are included in the enforcement history
interval statistical analysis. These conditional tests help
to evaluate the effect of enforcement options, such as penalty
assessments, on compliance efforts. Tests include the
comparison of mean enforcement history intervals for Federal
and non—Federal facilities.
Breakdown By Return To Compliance Status
Some of the RTC Study facilities were out of compliance for
longer than three years, but are currently in compliance. In
the analysis, an indicator variable was used to identify
current RTC status. The tables provide a breakdown for
Regional and National frequencies and percents of RTC Study
facilities that have RTCed. Interpretation of the percent of
RTC Study facilities that have actually RTCed is one measure
of the effectiveness of EPA and State compliance efforts.
A portion of the analysis looks at enforcement history
intervals and penalty information on those RTC Study facilities
that have RTCed, in order to isolate the use of penalty
assessments and collections as an incentive to RTC. The Study
does not address questions of recidivism, such as “Do high
penalties assessed or collected correlate with reduced
violations?” However, if a significant number of RTC Study
facilities have RTCed (sample size should be significant for
comparative purposes), a comparative timeline analysis can help
differentiate the impacts of lengthy Enforcement Times and
Negotiation Times between RTC Study facilities that are
currently out of compliance and those that have RTCed.
Breakdown By Violations
Next, the Study focuses on the analyses of RCRA violations
and combinations thereof that are most prevalent in the entire
RTC Study universe and by Region. This analysis focuses on
major violation repositories; later it will be used in
assessing major factors impacting noncompliance time.
The RTC Study facilities may have multiple violations, some
(or all) of which may have been resolved. However, this Study
focuses on time out of compliance, which is measured from
discovery of the first violation until the last violation has
been RTCed. The Study then looks at the frequencies of the
111—10
-------
various RCRA violations (particularly C/PC, GWM and FR). All
other violations are aggregated. That is, if violations other
than C/PC, GWM, or FR, are cited, then the RTC Study facility
is identified as having “other” violations. These “other”
violations are not identified specifically since they are
fairly uncommon relative to C/PC, GWM and FR violations.
Frequencies and percents are given for the entire RTC Study
universe and by Region for the following:
o All occurrences of each violation
o Occurrences of exactly one, two, three, or four
violations
o Occurrences of exactly one violation, by the violation
o Occurrences of exactly two violation, by the violations
o Occurrences of exactly three violations, by the
violations
o Occurrences of exactly four violations, by the
violations
o Occurrences of all combinations of two violations, by
the violations
These breakdowns identify the most common violations and
combinations of violations occurring in the RTC Study universe.
Correlations among violations are analyzed by observing the
proportions of RTC Study facilities with the various
combinations of multiple violations. Timeline and penalty
analyses, conditioned upon violation history, provide
additional statistical information about the RTC Study
universe.
Breakdown By Categories Of Delay In RTC
The Study next focuses on categorical analyses to determine
which categories and combinations thereof are most prevalent
in the RTC Study universe overall, and by Region. This
analysis focuses on occurrences of the most common categories;
later it will be used in describing the key characteristics
influencing the length of time out of compliance.
Each category provides an explanation for the time that a
facility has been out of compliance. Frequently there are
multiple reasons explaining noncompliance and, consequently,
a facility fits into more than one category. The Study focuses
on frequencies of the various categories and combinations
thereof.
Frequencies and percents are given for the RTC Study
universe by Region for the following:
111—11
-------
o All occurrences of each category
o Occurrences of exactly one, two, three, or four
categories
o Occurrences of exactly one category, by the category
o Occurrences of exactly two categories, by the
categories
o Occurrences of exactly three categories, by the
categories
o Occurrences of exactly four categories, by the
categories
o Occurrences of all combinations of two categories, by
the categories
These breakdowns provide the identification and frequencies
of the most common categories and combinations of categories
represented in the RTC Study universe. Timeline and penalty
analyses, conditioned upon the assigned categories and
combinations thereof, provide statistical information about the
RTC Study universe.
Breakdown BY Penalty Information
Univariate measures—-mean, median, and standard deviation—
—are calculated for penalties assessed and collected. These
distributional statistics are calculated for the RTC Study
universe, excluding EPA-lead Federal facilities (since they are
not subject to penalty assessment). Conditional statistics are
also calculated for a variety of subsets of the population.
Initially, the Study focuses on the RTC Study universe as
a whole, as well as the individual Regions; the mean, median,
and standard deviation of penalties assessed and collected are
calculated. Then, the same analysis is performed on those RTC
Study facilities with known, non-zero penalties. This analysis
provides measures of central tendency——mean and median——for
those RTC Study facilities with greater-than—zero penalties
assessed, and for those with greater—than—zero penalties
collected.
In keeping with the RCRA Enforcement Division’s “Timely and
Appropriate Analysis”, conditional penalty analyses-—for
Regions, combinations of violations and categories, lead
agency, and RTC status--were performed on the data, including
RTC Study facilities with zero penalties assessed and
collected. This additional analysis enables the pairwise
comparison of the use of penalties as an enforcement tool for
specific combinations of violations, categories, and lead
agency.
The next stage of the penalty analysis includes testing of
the average penalties assessed and paid between the given
subsets. That is, for example, at what level of confidence can
111—12
-------
it be said that the distribution of penalty assessments is
identical for RTC Study facilities with processing delays
(PROC) versus those with facility resistance (FACIL)? The
significance of these tests lies in their ability to
differentiate penalties among the various subsets of the RTC
Study universe.
Analyzing the penalty data helps determine whether or not
penalties are effective enforcement tools. For example, do
penalties assessed or collected act as reliable predictors of
enforcement time intervals? That is, do penalties provide an
incentive to accelerate Negotiation Time, or to return LDFs to
full compliance?
Breakdown BY Enforcement Tiineline Intervals
Similar univariate analyses——mean and standard deviation——
are performed on enforcement timeline intervals. Compliance
timelines are compared for the following various subsets of the
RTC Study universe:
o All RTC Study facilities
o RTC Study facilities by Region
o RTC Study facilities with surface impoundments
o RTC Study facilities by lead enforcement agency
o RTC Study facilities that are Federal facilities
o RTC Study facilities by RTC status
o RTC Study facilities with various combinations of
violations
o RTC Study facilities with various combinations of
categories
o RTC Study facilities with penalties assessed greater
than the median
o RTC Study facilities with penalties paid greater than
the median
The timeline analysis looks at the average Enforcement Time,
Negotiation Time, Final Action Time, Lag Time to Date, and
Noncompliance Time to Date. Comparing the trends globally,
and for the various subsets of the RTC Study universe,
highlights the differences in compliance ti.inelines across
Regions, facility types, lead agencies, Federal versus non-
Federal facilities, violation, categories, and penalty
information. (Note that the absence of absolute dates, e.g.
month or year only for enforcement dates, for some facilities
can slightly skew the interval estimates.)
With time interval statistics calculated from the various
subsets of the RTC Study universe, hypothesis testing may then
proceed. Hypothesis testing measures the confidence of a
statement such as: The average Enforceme it Time for EPA-lead
111—13
-------
RTC Study facilities is similar to the average Enforcement Time
for State—lead RTC Study facilities. In other words, are the
Enforcement Time statistics similar for the two subsets?
A variety of tests were employed to compare various
estimators of the time intervals. However, to ensure the
validity of inferential measures, it would have been necessary
to analyze all SNCs, or a representative subset of LDFs.
111—14
-------
IV. ANALYZING TEE DATA
The RTC Study universe is comprised of the LDFs that have been
in a continuous state of SNC for a minimum of three years and were
not reported to be involved in judicial proceedings at a given
point in time: 8/11/89, the date of the HWDMS data pull. As such,
the RTC Study universe is a “population”; a specific subset of the
LDF universe. One must be careful in drawing inferences about all
LDFs or all SNCs based solely on the experience of analyzing the
RTC Study universe. Analysis, for the purposes of this Study, is
the tool we utilize to describe and illustrate the characteristics
and dynamics of the RTC Study universe.
In conducting this Study, the RTC Study team proceeded from
the quesElon: What are the major causes (assuming multiple causes)
behind the lengthy tiineframes between violation discovery and the
point where a facility returns to full physical compliance?
Recognizing the limitations our data imposed on us as a predictor
of the LDF universe as a whole, the RTC Study team nevertheless
attempted to make reasonable assumptions that may permit
qualitative generalizations of the larger LDF universe. For
example, 15 RTC facilities or 5.8 percent of the RTC Study universe
did not meet the selection criteria, and were solely the result of
erroneous data in HWDMS. Based upon this it is possible that for
the LDF universe as a whole at least a portion of the perceived
delays in RTC can be attributed to human error rather than real
problems in bringing facilities back into full physical compliance.
The RTC Study looks at the RTC delays from four perspectives:
1) discernible categories such as PROC and FACIL or combinations
of categories that explain the delays in RTC; 2) the influence
penalties assessed and collected may have on RTC; 3) the role
enforcement tiinelines (time from violation discovery to formal
actions) may play in RTC; and 4) the impact certain violations
(GWM, FR or C/PC) or combinations of those violations have on the
time it takes a facility to RTC.
Proceeding from our original assumption, that the facilities
in the 8/11/89 HWDMS pull to some extent represent the larger RCRA
LDF universe, it should be recognized that changes over time in the
RCRA enforcement program as a whole may deter us from using the
results of the RTC Study as a predictor of future continuing
noncompliance. An example of this is penalty data.
Data indicates that the trend in the number of facilities
receiving penalties and the amounts of those penalties has been
steadily rising. A portion of this trend can be attributed to
changes in EPA policy over the years that emphasize the deterrent
effect of penalties on noncompliant facilities. Many of RCRA’s
early enforcement actions were designed to bring facilities into
compliance with a new and unfamiliar set of regulations. Large
Iv- 1
-------
penalties were not always conducive to this process. Over the
years, however, facilities have become more knowledgeable with
regard to what is expected of them under the regulations. Among
other things, this is one of the justifications for larger
penalties. Of course, the deterrent value of assessing and
collecting penalties is negated if a facility does not have the
financial wherewithal to pay significant penalties. For almost
half of the RTC Study universe; those facilities with an allegedly
poor financial status, this appears to be the case.
It should be noted that with few exceptions, the RTC Study
does not statistically compare the facilities in the RTC Study
universe with facilities that are not in SNC or that do not
otherwise meet the RTC Study criteria. The exceptions to this are
the 15 RTC facilities that are solely the result of HWDMS data
errors. Where it is possible we have compared the compliance
histories of these 15 facilities to the rest of the RTC Study
universe. However, due to the limited size of the sample, it would
not be prudent to portray the HWDMS errors as representative of
the non-SNC, or non-RTC Study universes.
Another factor that should be noted is that with few
exceptions, the RTC Study is looking at a universe that is and will
continue to be out of full physical compliance for the foreseeable
future. Because we did not compare the RTC Study universe with an
equal number of LDFs that had returned to full physical compliance,
it is impossible to use the RTC Study facilities as predictors of
future compliance status. For example, several RTC facilities have
been in a continuous state of SNC since the early 1980’s, while
many others have been in SNC only since 1986. Statistically,
however, it is impossible to adjudge the earlier violations as more
egregious than the later violations, since it is impossible to
predict whether the facilities in SNC five years or less shall
ultimately RTC in less time than the LDFs already seven or more
years in SNC.
A. Categorical Data
Overview
The RTC Study team, in consultation with Regional and State
staff, assigned each RTC facility to one or more of the seven
categories of delay in RTC based on the narratives on each facility
provided by the Regions and information gathered during staff
interviews. TABLE 1 indicates the number and percent of facilities
falling into each category. Note that the facility count adds up
to more than the 259 facilities in the RTC Study universe. This
is due to the fact that in all but 99 cases, as depicted in TABLE
2, facilities fell into more than one category of delay in RTC.
The specific combinations of categories are presented in TABLE 3.
-------
TS 1e _ i The frequency of each category and the category count as a
percentage of Regional total RTC Study facilities
Category Frequency
Category Region RTC Study
1 I I HI IV V VI VII VIII IX X facilities
PROC 24 4 9 24 64 25 6 6 8 15 186
TECH 6 0 0 14 5 7 2 2 5 6 47
HEAR 3 1 2 6 8 4 1 0 1 1 27
FACIL Li 3 2 18 32 14 4 4 6 5 99
BK/CER 1 2 1 5 7 1. 1 0 0 1 19
NOFIN 10 0 2 6 32 15 3 1 5 11 85
HWDMS 2 1 0 5 2 0 3 0 0 2 15
Total
Categories 57 11 16 78 150 66 20 13 25 41 4 7
Total RTC Study
facilities 28 7 12 43 86 32 11 7 11 22 259
Category Count as a Percentage of Regional Total ETC Study Facilities
Category Region ETC Study
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X facilities
PROC 85.7% 57.1% 15.0% 55.8% 74 4% 78 1% 545% 85.7% 72.7% 68.2% 71.S
TECH 21 4% 0.0% 0.0% 32.6% 5 8% 21 9% 182% 28.6% 455% 27 3% 18.1%
HEAR 10 7% 14.3% 16.7% 14 0% 9 3% 12.5% 9 1% 0.0% 9 1% 4.5% 10 4%
FACIL 39.3% 42.9% 16.7% 41.9% 37 2% 438% 364% 57 1% 54 5% 2 2.7% 382%
BKICER 3.6% 28.6% 8.3% 11.6% 8 1% 3 1% 9 1% 0 0% 0.0% 4.5% 7 ,3%
NOFIN 35.7% 0.0% 16.7% 14.0% 37 2% 46 9% 27 3% 14.3% 45.5% 50.0% 32.8%
HWDMS 7.1% 243% 0.0% 11.6% 2.3% 00% 2 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 5.8%
Note: Under Categories RTC Study facilities may have multiple categones and, thus, total categones
i.eceed the number of RTC Study facilities. Percents are given as a percentage of Total RTC Study facilit ies
ler Category Count, the pntentage of Regional RTC Study facilities with the given category are
oescnbed. Percentages are calculated by dividing each cell by Regional Total RTC Study facilities.
f l ’. )
-------
I .able2 — Multiple Category Breakdown
Region RTC Study
I II HI IV V Vt Vu V1II DC X facilities
facilities in
exactly 1
category 9 4 9 16 34 9 4 3 2 8 98
facilities in
exactly 2
categories 11 2 2 20 41 12 5 2 6 9 110
facilities in
exactly 3
categories 6 1 1 6 10 11 2 2 1 5 45
facilities in
exactly 4
categories 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 6
total
RTC Study
facilities 28 7 12 43 86 32 11 7 11 22 259
Note: Each RTC Study facility has at least one category. This tablenot.es the number of RTC Study facihties
that have multiple categories (1 to 4). No facility had more than four categories assigned to it.
Table 3 -- Combinations of Two Categories
TECH HEAR FACIL BK/CER NOFIN N = 259
32 11 65 4 68 PROC
4 17 1 9 TECH
15 3 8 HEAR
7 28 FACIL
9 BK/CER
Note: Thia table gives not only the combinations of categones appearing in pairs, but counts the triple and
quadriple category RTC Study facilities as well. HWDMS data errors are not represented in this table
IV—4
-------
It is important to understand that there is an element of
subjectivity in several of these designated categories. For
example, while PROC describes delays resulting from a definitive
event (i.e., staff turnover), it also includes more ambiguous
parameters. “Priority setting”, one of several contributing
factors to PROC, is a good example of this. All regulatory
activities are, of necessity, subject to agency priority setting.
Regiona] staff have indicated that, in many cases, the decision is
made at some point in the enforcement process to decrease the level
of effort expended on a particular RTC facility. This is often the
case when a facility’s ability to meet financial responsibility
requirements and/or afford the expense of meeting other Part 265
regulations is seriously in question. The Region or State is faced
with the prospect of investing a lot of resources into forcing a
facility to comply with regulations that, in all probability, will
drive it out of existence and preclude any facility—sponsored
remediation.
Subjectivity also enters into the RTC Study classification
scheme in other ways. In a number of cases, Regional staff were
unable to point to delays caused by facility resistance, the
technical complexities of a site, or any other clear cause, yet
were reluctant to admit to scenarios that were clearly
administrative or PROC. Some of this reluctance, it should be
mentioned, can be attributed to the fact that, due to staff
turnover and the periods of time that have elapsed since the
facilities first became SNCs, the staff originally assigned to a
case are not necessarily the staff currently following the case.
In those instances, HQ assumed that PROC were the cause of the
lengthy periods of• noncompliance, in lieu of any other
manifestation. Similarly, Regional and State staff sometimes
described scenarios that indicated certain facilities were making
little effort to work with the regulatory agency and come back into
compliance. Such facilities were classified under FACIL even
though staff were hesitant to confirm such a categorization when
the question was put to them directly.
Interpreting the Categories
In 61.8% of the RTC facilities, the delays can be attributed
to a combination of more than one of the seven categories. The
most frequent combinations and the percent of the RTC Study
universe they comprise are: PROC-NOFIN (14.7), PROC-FACIL (11.2%),
PROC-NOFIN—FACIL (6.9%), and PROC—TECH (5.8%). In 38.2% of the
cases, only one category accounted for the RTC delay. Of these,
PROC comprised 22.0%, HWDMS 5.8%, and FACIL 5.4% of the RTC Study
universe.
These seven combinations of one or more categories account for
71.8% of the RTC Study universe. The remaining 28.2% of the RTC
facilities are divided among 36 combinations of one or more
categories, each containing 3.1% or less of the RTC Study universe.
IV-5
-------
A complete breakdown of the categories and combinations of
categories can be found in APPENDIX-I. From hereafter, the RTC
Study will focus on the seven combinations of one or more
categories that involve 71.8% of the RTC Study facilities.
FIGURE 2 and FIGURE 3 illustrate the predominance of the
category PROC on the RTC Study universe. By itself and in
combination with other categories, PROC factors into 71.8% of the
continued noncompliance in the RTC Study universe, suggesting that
it is the major factor affecting the lengthy delays in returning
facilities to full compliance. In fact, in 22.0% of the cases
where PROC was the sole category, this seems indisputable.
However, two factors indicate that this may not necessarily be the
case. First we must recognize that PROC was used as a default
category where Regional and State staff were unable or unwilling
to point to any other causes for the delays in RTC. As such, the
analytical power of that category is reduced. Secondly, Regional
and State staff revealed during interviews that where PROC was
present in combination with NOFIN, FACIL, and TECH, PROC was
usually the result of these latter three categories. In other
words, Regional or State administrative delays were often
influenced, or aggravated, by forces outside the actions of the
regulatory agencies.
On the other hand, it is difficult to judge how PROC
contributed to the delays imposed by the other categories.
Regional staff seemed to concur that where technical or legal
uncertainties were at the root of disagreement between regulatory
agency staff on how to proceed with a case, facilities that were
inclined to resist would often resist that much harder. Implicit
here is the concept that facilities react to how they perceive they
are being handled by the regulatory agency, particularly during the
period between the discovery of the violation(s) and the
negotiation of the CAFO. Conversely, where TECH and NOPIN are at
the root of the processing delays, it is difficult to conceive of
enforcement strategies that could have dramatically changed the
outcome of those cases. Unlike PROC and FACIL, TECH and NOFIN are
not affected by unilateral action on the part of a regulator, even
a most diligent one. Diligence cannot indicate whether a facility
has designed an adequate GWM plan at a site located in a complex
hydrogeologic regime, just as it cannot provide the financial
wherewithal to a facility struggling to complete its closure
operations while avoiding bankruptcy proceedings.
Case Studies
In order of prevalence: PROC, PROC-NOFIN, PROC-FACIL, PROC-
NOFIN-FACIL, HWDI4S, PROC-TECH, and FACIL account for 71.8% of the
delays in RTC. The RTC Study team has selected the case histories
of a number of RTC facilities representing each of the above
combinations of one or more categories in an attempt to describe
IV-6
-------
FIG.. 2
250
200
150
100
50
0
NOTE: Facilities may have multiple Categories;
i.e., Categories are NOT mutually exdusive.
N=259
(1)
a)
C-)
ctl
LL
0
I-
0
a)
-o
E
z
Categories
RCRA RTC Study
-------
FIGURE 3
U)
a)
0
(0
LL15O
C)
I-
1100
0
Distribution of Processing Delays
RCRA RTC Study
250
200 186
, V V V V V,•’
.•.w
57
C)
cf
NOTE: Category combinatkns are NOT mutually
65
32
68
4
exdusive. N = 259
-------
the most typical problems encountered in returning facilities to
full physical compliance.
1. PROC
FLD 080 677 347 Refined Metals Corp.
IND 072 039 001 Navistar International
IND 000 806 877 GMC/Delco Remy
ILD 001 833 714 PVS Chemicals
WAD 120 513 957 U.S. Agricultural Station-Yakima
An EPA record review discovered closure (C/PC) and financial
responsibility (FR) violations at the Refined Metals Corp . Florida
facility. Massive lead contamination at the site meant clean-up
and closure would be a long—term proposition. Region IV was able
to issue a section 3008(a) complaint within 4.5 months of
discovering the violations, and issue a final formal action within
4 months of the initial complaint, but staff turnover since 1984
has delayed the review of the numerous technical documents
necessary to verify that the facility has returned to full
compliance.
Similarly, the State of Indiana was able to issue a formal
complaint against Navistar International in less than six months
of discovering C/PC and FR violations. However, it took the State
another 2.5 years to negotiate and issue the final formal action.
In that timeperiod, the State issued several informal actions in
an attempt to bring the facility into full compliance. In fact,
since signing the CAFO, the State has issued several other informal
actions in further attempts to bring Navistar into compliance with
the terms of the CAFO.
Another Indiana facility, GMC/Delco-Remy , was plagued by
lengthy timeperiods between violation discovery and taking both
initial and final formal actions. It took the State 2 years to
issue the complaint and over 2 more years to issue the final formal
action. Much of the delay is attributed to staff turnover and
resource constraints. GMC has installed a groundwater monitoring
(GWM) system in conformance with the terms of its CAFO. GMC
submitted analyses for the new GWM system in January of 1990. The
State has recently determined that the GWM system is adequate and
has returned the facility to compliance.
PVS Chemicals is a case that Illinois referred to EPA for
formal action for violations of GWM and FR requirements. However,
more than a year elapsed between the date the State first cited PVS
for its violations and the date it was referred to EPA for action.
Consequently, it took more than 1.5 years to issue the initial
complaint to PVS . During that time questions were raised about the
need for GWM at the facility’s surface impoundment since it ceased
treating corrosive wastes in 1981. The Region consequently
negotiated a CAFO which waived GWM requirements upon verification
Iv-9
-------
that the facility’s wastestreain was non-corrosive. The State is
responsible for reviewing the necessary technical data. EPA is
awaiting that review.
Finally, U.S Agricultural Station—Yakiina is an EPA-lead
Federal facility that was cited for GWM in 1986. EPA discovered
that washwater from U.S. Agricultural’s washtanks contained
pesticides that were potentially leaching into nearby residential
wells. EPA first addressed this site in 1982 by placing it on the
National Priorities List (NPL), although it reportedly ranked low
on the NPL. The facility appears anxious to address EPA’s concerns
and be delisted from the NPL. However, early versions of GWN and
closure plans were deemed inadequate by EPA. EPA will continue to
work with the facility to produce adequate GWM and closure plans.
2. PROC — NOFIN
DED 000 796 300 Atlantic Coast Environmental
IND 006 375 885 Craddock Furniture Corp.
lAD 022 096 028 R.V. Hopkins, Inc.
WAD 081 482 457 Frontier Machinery Inc.
Atlantic Coast Environmental operated a storage area and
wastepile in the early 1980’s. On 3—18—86 Atlantic was cited for
GWN, C/PC and FR violations by the State. It took the State nearly
two years to issue an initial formal complaint against the
facility, and another two years to sign a final formal Order with
the facility. These actions required Atlantic to meet all Part 265
requirements. The facility, however, was unable to obtain the.
necessary liability insurance or provide adequate financial
assurances during the closure period. Since there is no chance
that Atlantic will meet the FR requirements until it has closed,
the State is not elevating the case, choosing instead to wait until
the facility has closed, thereby decreasing its FR requirements.
Similarly, Craddock Furniture was found to be in violation of
C/PC and FR requirements by the State of Indiana. The State issued
a formal complaint within three months of discovering the
violations, but it took another 2.5 years to sign a CAFO. Craddock
submitted an adequate closure plan within a year of signing the
CAFO, but is allegedly financially unable to obtain liability
insurance or demonstrate financial assurance for closure. The
State has chosen to allow the FR violations at Craddock to lapse
until closure is complete in the hope that it will then be able to
meet its much-decreased FR obligations.
Under different circumstances, an EPA-lead facility, R.V.
Hopkins. Inc. , was unable to obtain liability insurance, provide
financial assurances during the closure period, or meet any other
FR requirement. Unlike the previous two cases, however, Hopkins
received initial and final formal enforcement within (relatively)
‘v-b
-------
short timeframes. The case was complicated by two factors. First,
the Iowa RCBA program was returned to EPA in 1985. At that point,
the case switched hands and EPA became responsible for bringing the
facility into full compliance. Secondly, although EPA signed a
second CAFO with Hopkins in 1987 to resolve the unresolved
violations in the previous Order, Hopkins was still unable to meet
any FR requirements due to alleged insolvency. The facility will
therefore remain out of compliance with FR until closure activities
are complete.
The delay in returning Frontier Machinery. Inc . to full
compliance can be attributed to the alleged unstable financial
condition of the company, and a disagreement between the State and
EPA over the adequacy of the closure operations conducted by
Frontier . The facility has been unable to secure liability
insurance, and has ceased all metal plating operations. The
State’s strategy in handling this case has been to prod Frontier
to clean close so that it no longer has to contend with FR or GWM
requirements. The State is presently prepared to certify the
facility closed, although EPA does not agree with this assessment
and wishes to withhold certification until the results of the
latest CME have been analyzed.
3. PROC - FACIL
KYD 981 469 349 Midway Fabricating
ILD 062 338 694 General Electric Co., Morris Operation
TXD 007 323 397 Lone Star Steel Co.
Midway Fabricating was found to be in violation of GWN and FR
requirements on the basis of a listed hazardous waste discovered
in its unlined surface impoundment. The company has never
acknowledged that its surface impoundment is subject to RCRA, and
has filed a petition with EPA to delist the F006 waste found in the
surface impoundment. The processing delays in the case of Midway
stem from indecision on the part of the State as to how to proceed
in light of the delisting petition, and its inability to issue a
final formal Order. EPA Headquarters has been reviewing the
delisting petition for the past year.
In a case very similar to Midway, General Electric — Morris
has long asserted that it is not regulated under RCRA. The State
and EPA, conversely, hold that is in fact subject to all Part
265 regulations since the facility placed corrosive waste in its
surface impoundment. Ironically, had treated this waste and
applied for an exemption as permitted under the regulations, its
surface impoundment probably would not have been regulated. It is
believed, however, that the facility did not apply for the
exemption in the time allotted under the regulations because doing
so would have been an admittance that it was managing a regulated
wastestreain. The processing delays relate to the fact that it took
IV— 11
-------
the State two years to turn the case over to EPA for action, and
another year to issue a formal complaint against the facility. For
its part, the Region used informal enforcement first because of it
was involved in CERCL negotiations at other facilities which
it considered to be more environmentally significant. The facility
shall RTC once it completes its clean closure of the surface
impoundment.
Another case involving both PROC and PACIL is Lone Star Steel
Co. , a State—lead facility. The facility resistance at Lone Star
stems from its decision to discontinue GWM, although ordered to do
so under a State CAFO. This decision has forced the State to issue
a second complaint and CAFO to the facility. In addition, Lone
Star is incrementally shutting down its business operations at its
site, further complicating the State’s job of getting the facility
to implement a successful GWT4 plan. For its part, the State has
signed a CAFO that allows Lone Star to delay the implementation of
its GWM plan until the State reviews and approves the facility’s
request for alternate GWM parameters. Because of this provision,
Lone Star will not RTC until sometime in 1992.
4. PROC - NOPIN - PACIL
IND 005 105 408 Landis & Gyr Inc.
TXD 008 012 148 Aztec Manufacturing
WAD 009 036 906 Ridgefield Brick & Tile
Landis & Gyr. Inc . is a state—lead facility cited in 1984 for
having no GWM plan, no closure plan, arid no financial assurance or
insurance in place. The State issued the initial and final formal
enforcement actions in relatively short periods of time (three and
nine months, respectively), but took over two years to review L&G s
closure plan. For its part, the facility has spent the past 25
years appealing the modifications to its closure plan called for
by the State. Throughout this period, L&G has never secured
adequate financial assurance or met insurance requirements. The
facility and the State are currently negotiating the terms of a
second Order designed to resolve most of the outstanding
violations.
The Aztec Manufacturing case provides clear examples of the
types of processing delays that can occur when a facility resists
ef forts to bring it under regulation. Aztec was cited for GWN,
C/PC and FR violations in 1985. Sixteen months later EPA filed the
first of two complaints against the facility. The second complaint
was issued to incorporate State violations incurred during a period
of a year in which the State’s RCRA authority lapsed. Complicating
matters was a lengthy disagreement between the Region and State as
to the regulatory status of the facility. By 1987, however, EPA
did manage to file its second complaint against Aztec , but the
counsel for the company has reportedly advised against signing the
IV-12
-------
negotiated language. During this period of confusion, turnover of
EPA legal and technical staff has further impeded a final
settlement. In fact, no final action has ever been signed although
this facility has been in SNC for more than five years. Finally,
like so many RCRA facilities, Aztec has been unable to meet the FR
requirements and will continue to be remiss for the foreseeable
future.
Ridgefield Brick & Pile is a small facility that ceased
managing hazardous waste prior to being cited for GWN, C/PC, and
FR violations in 1984. The processing delays at this facility stem
from disagreement between EPA and the State over the adequacy of
RBT’s GWM and closure operations. In fact, at one point, the State
was allowing the facility to sample the tapwater of households a
mile from the site in lieu of proper GWM. Fifteen months after the
State cited RBT for its violations, the Region stepped in and
issued a complaint. Fourteen months later EPA and the facility
signed a final Order, but only after an AL] ruled that EPA could
expect no penalties since the State had initially given its
approval to RBT’s GWM and closure plans, as deficient as they were.
For its part, the facility refuses to complete its closure
operations, although the Region has twice recalled their post—
closure permit. Due to the seasonally saturated perch zone and
need for expensive well construction, the facility’s progress in
completing its GWM plan is impeded. This is compounded by the
allegedly poor financial position of the facility which also
complicates its efforts to provide adequate financial assurances
for closure or to secure liability insurance as required.
5. HWDNS
NJ’D 001 519 107 Interlaken Inc./Hoeganaes
ORD 052 225 596 Sheldon Manufacturing
Like the majority of the facilities defined as RTC facilities
solely on the basis of HWDMS data errors, Interlaken Inc . was a
State—lead facility that was found to have violated Subpart H (FR)
requirements in August of 1986. The facility received a formal
complaint less than a year later, although it has never received
a final formal Order. By January of 1988, it submitted a letter
of credit for closure and post—closure assurance, and used the
financial test to satisfy its liability coverage requirements.
Thus Interlaken RTCed in less than three years and would not have
been in the RTC Study universe had the State corrected their HWDMS
data entry.
An inspector observed what he believed was the contamination
of soil with listed solvents by spray painters at the Sheldon
Manufacturing plant. In fact, it was later discovered that the
painters were only spraying non-hazardous paint onto the dirt
embankments that served as drip fields. The facility, in response
IV- 13
-------
to the accusations of environmental damage, excavated the
contaminated soils and placed them in enclosed pits. Groundwater
sampling and soil sampling never found evidence of hazardous
wastes, and it was decided that Sheldon Manufacturing should be
removed from the RCRA universe, although the Region has yet to
update the data base.
6. PROC - TECH
CTD 001 181 502 Textron Lycoming
OKD 053 128 492 Huffman Wood Preserving Co.
IDD 000 773 952 Envirosafe Site A
Textron LycomincT is a State-lead Federal facility that was
found to have an inadequate GWM system in June of 1986. The State
issued a final Order in a little more than three months after an
EPA inspector discovered the violation. However, the complex
hydrogeology at the site made it difficult for the State staff to
provide quick turnaround of the technical data submitted by
Textron . In addition, the facility undertook the work at the site
in a different manner than was ordered by the State, and proceeded
with the work faster than the State could review it. It is
anticipated that once the State catches up with the backlog of work
it must review on this case, the facility will RTC.
Under very similar circumstances, Huffman Wood Preserving Co .
and the State have been involved in putting an adequate GWM system
in place under rather complex hydrogeologic conditions. Upon
discovering the GWM, C/PC and FR violations in 1986, the State
ordered HWP to submit a hydrogeologic investigation report, as well
as sampling and analysis, GW monitoring, and GW assessment plans.
Within a year of receiving the final Order from the State, the
facility had installed new monitoring wells, and shortly thereafter
submitted its hydrogeologic investigation report for approval. The
State and HWP have been negotiating exactly what HWP must do before
it can proceed with its GWM work. To date, the facility seems
willing to do what the State has ordered. Eventually the State may
require HWP to apply for a post-closure permit.
Both the Region and State have been involved in overseeing the
closure of Envirosafe Site A . Work has proceeded slowly at ESSI-
A due to two factors. First, the facility sits on top of fractured
basalt rock that makes it nearly impossible to model the uppermost
aquifer, which lies 950 feet below the surface. Secondly, the
Region and State do not believe that removing all hazardous waste
from the site is practical or desirable. ESSI—A is located near
ESSI-B , which is owned by the same operator and is a permitted
commercial disposal facility. The company was allowed to purchase
ESSI-B , which is a defunct nuclear missile silo, from the Air Force
only under the condition that it also purchase ESSI-A . Site A was
also a defunct missile silo, but had the disadvantages of being
IV-14
-------
unsuited for the disposal of hazardous waste while containing
significant amounts of various hazardous wastes. The Region and
State have only two options in dealing with the noncompliance at
ESSI-A . The first is to order the facility to remove all hazardous
waste from the site and place it in the commercial facility at
ESSI-B . Besides being technically difficult, this might jeopardize
the commercial viability of ESSI-B . The second option is to
proceed as they now are.
7. PACIL
KID 096 544 234 RAD Chemicals Inc.
FLD 690 308 338 US Coast Guard, Miami Beach
WAD 010 745 917 International Paper Company
Rad Chemicals was found to be in violation of FR requirements
in 1981. Although it took the State, then EPA, several years to
issue the initial and final formal actions to Rad (two and five
years, respectively), the RTC Study team decided that processing
delays were not an influential component of this case. The
facility is currently abandoned. Neither the former nor current
owner/operators of the site can be located. The owners of Pad have
long claimed insolvency as the primary cause of their inability to
meet RCRA FR requirements, but have never filed for bankruptcy.
At one point, Rad was under criminal investigation for wrongfully
storing hazardous wastes. One of the previous owners was
convicted. The Region is currently investigating the possibility
of using CERCLA authorities to remediate the site.
USCG- Miami Beach , like a number of RTC Study Federal
facilities, has proven to be a difficult facility for EPA to bring
into compliance. There are several reasons for this, not the least
of which being the inability of one Federal agency to levy monetary
penalties against another. Both the Region and State have been
trying to negotiate terms that would bring USCG into compliance
with all regulations, but to date the facility has refused to sign
a Federal facility compliance agreement. USCG’s concern is that
signing the FFCA would give EPA jurisdiction on their site, and
that doing so may interfere with USCG’s primary mission. From an
environmental perspective, clean up of this site is important
considering its proximity to a major swimming/fishing area. The
Region has currently elevated the case to Headquarters in hopes of
resolving the impasse.
International Paper Co . has been in SNC for GWN and C/PC since
1984. Since that time the Region has received numerous deficient
GWM plans and reports. Concurrently, IPCO has made several
unsuccessful appeals to Regional officials to get EPA to relax the
GWN requirements at its site. The Region has expended a
considerable amount of effort, including several rounds of
negotiations with an ALl, trying to bring this facility into
IV- 15
-------
compliance, since its proximity to the Columbia River poses a
potential threat to downriver drinking water supplies. Currently,
IPCO has abandoned all operations at this site, leaving the Region
nothing to inspect and without a means of assessing potential
environmental damage from its unlined surface impoundments.
B. Penalty Data
As previously mentioned, the historical trend in the RCRA
enforcement program has been larger penalties assessed and
collected from a greater proportion of the SNC universe. In fact,
when the new ERP took effect in FY 1989, penalties against all SNC
violators became mandatory. However, for a number of reasons many
RTC Study facilities will never receive large assessed and
collected penalties.
First, it is important to keep in mind that many states do not
have administrative penalty authority. On the other hand, several
states have the statutory authority to collect administrative
penalties, but only if the facility will agree to pay under the
terms of a Consent Order. In other words, these states are unable
to issue or threaten to issue unilateral administrative penalties.
For such states, the only means of unilaterally assessing and
collecting penalties is through judicial referral; often a long,
resource—intensive process. It should not be surprising then that
23 percent of the RTC Study facilities had $0 assessed penalties,
and 47 percent had $0 collected penalties; most of these State—lead
cases. Note that these percentages do not include Federal
facilities which are not subject to EPA penalty authority.
Secondly, we must consider that the primary concern of many
regulators is to issue a timely action, and ultimately to sign an
enforceable Order. Penalties, as a bargaining tool, have only
limited value if a large penalty is what stands in the way of
getting a facility to sign a compliance agreement and commencing
closure operations. Furthermore, regulators do not expect
significant penalties from facilities that are alleging limited
financial resources. -
The average assessed and collected penalties for 228 RTC Study
facilities (excluding Federal facilities and HWDMS data errors)
were $41,123 and $15,201, respectively. The specific breakdown of
these numbers can be found in APPENDIX-I. Statistically, there is
little correlation between the amount of penalties assessed and
collected and the problems Regions have had bringing facilities
into full physical compliance. Much of this ambiguity is related
to the fact that the RTC Study team did not attempt to compare the
compliance histories of the RTC Study universe to an equal number
of LDFs that had RTCed in less than three years.
IV—16
-------
The exception to this, of course, are the 15 facilities that
were, in fact, RTCed in under three years: the 15 RWDZ4S
facilities. These 15 SNCs had penalties assessed and collected
averaging $24,218 and $7,292, respectively. An argument can be
made that the compliance problems at these facilities were less
severe than those at the remainder of the RTC Study universe, thus
smaller penalties. Conversely, the data do not support the reverse
argument; that the smaller penalties of the HWDMS facilities made
it easier to negotiate and issue Orders that resulted in quicker
RTC. This can be stated with some certainty based on the penalty
data of facilities exhibiting other categories and combinations of
categories. For example, the 11 facilities where PROC-TECH-FACIL
accounted for the delay in RTC averaged assessed and collected
penalties of $19,258 and $2,013, respectively. These 11 facilities
are among the oldest in the RTC Study universe.
Irrespective of these arguments, it must be kept in mind that
the large standard deviations of most of the data on penalties
assessed and collected makes it nearly impossible to justify solid
conclusions one way or the other about the effect penalties may
have on RTC.
C. Enforcement Timeline Data
With the exception of a comparative analysis between the 15
HWDZ4S facilities and the remainder of the RTC Study universe, it
is difficult to make conclusive statements about the predictive
powers of enforcement timeline data and the RTC Study universe as
a whole. Once again, this is due to the fact that the vast
majority (230 facilities) of the RTC Study universe have not yet
RTCed. However, in the cases of 14 non-HWDMS data error RTC Study
facilities that have RTCed since 8-11—89, we do know that the
average total time out of compliance was 4.0 years, as compared to
5.2 years for the RTC Study universe as a whole. Interestingly,
there is no significant difference between these 14 facilities and
the remaining 230 facilities so far as the time it took to issue
initial formal enforcement actions, or for that matter, the amount
of penalties assessed or collected.
With the exception of the HWDMS facilities, it took an average
1.3 years to issue the initial formal actions, and another 1.5
years to negotiate and issue the final formal actions against the
RTC Study facilities. This compares with 0.9 years and 0.3 years,
respectively, for the HWDMS facilities. Ultimately, the HWDMS
facilities RTCed in an average 2.7 years compared to 5.2 years--
and still counting-—for the remainder of the RTC Study universe.
It is tempting to assume that these 15 HWDMS facilities represent
“reasonable” enforcement and RTC timelines for the LDF SNC universe
as a whole. The limited size of this sample, however, necessitates
that this is one temptation that must be resisted.
IV- 17
-------
We do know, however, that according to the FY 1986 “Timely and
Appropriate (T&A) Analysis”, the average amount of time to issue
initial formal actions to the FY 1986 LDF SNC universe as a whole
was 0.8 years. By comparison, the RTC Study team extracted the 72
LDFs with FY 1986 violation discovery dates from the RTC Study
universe and found that it took an average 1.2 years to issue
initial formal actions to those 72 facilities. Keep in mind, the
T&A Analysis numbers are based on the average of the entire FY 1986
LDF SNC universe, including the 72 RTC Study facilities and the
remainder of the FY 1986 LDF SNCs that have Riced. It is therefore
possible that the compliance problems at the RTC Study facilities
are somehow more difficult to resolve than the problems of the LDF
SNC universe as a whole. On the other hand, it is also possible
that regulators are quicker to issue actions against LDFs with the
most serious environmental problems, and that the environmental
problems at the RTC Study facilities are less significant than the
problems of the remaining FY 1986 LDF SNCs. This is unlikely,
however, since the most serious environmental problems generally
take the longest to resolve. In addition, we know from our
interviews with Regional and State personnel that many RTC Study
facilities do indeed exhibit significant environmental problems.
D. Violation Data
Since the inception of the RCRA enforcement program, much
attention has been focused on the groundwater monitoring component
of LDF noncompliance. The basis of this focus has been the
perception that GW problems at LDFs pose a grave threat to human
and environmental health. Perhaps this focused attention on GW
accounts for the statistically slight predominance of GWM, as
opposed to C/PC and FR violations, in the RTC Study universe.
However, when considered solely from the perspective of explaining
the lengthy delays in returning the RTC Study facilities to full
physical compliance, the slight predominance of GWM violations
appears to be insignificant.
TABLE indicates that nearly 80% of the RTC Study facilities
had more than one type of violation, and that 33.2% of the RTC
facilities had GWN, C/PC and FR violations. These data suggest
that the SNC violations in the RTC Study universe are not
specifically attributable to any one violation type. In fact, it
is only on a Region—specific basis that any particular violation
or combinations of violations stand out. For example, TABLE 5
indicates that 50% or more of the violations in Regions II and VIII
were solely attributable to GWM deficiencies at those facilities.
However, the RTC Study team was unable to discern whether this was
the result of a Region-specific emphasis on addressing GWM
violations, a reluctance to cite LDFs for violations other than
GWM, or an indication of greater-than-average GWN problems at LDFs
in those Regions.
IV—18
-------
Table 4 -- Violations
Single Violation Facilities by Region
Violation Region RTC Study
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X facilities
C/PC 3.8% 0 0% 25.0% 2.6% 3 6%
0 0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0% 3.7%
GW 11.5% 50.0% 33.3% 7.9% 7.1%
9.4%
25.0%
57.1%
27.3%
15.0% 13.9%
FR 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 2.4%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 1.6%
Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.8%
15.4% 50.0% 58.3% 15.8% 14.3%
9 4%
37.5%
57.1%
27.3%
20.0% 20.1%
Dual Violation Facilities by Region
Violations Region
RTC Study
I II III IV V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X facilities
C/PC & GW 23.1% 33.3% 25.0% 7.9% 9.5%
15.6%
25.0%
0.0%
18.2%
20.0% 14.3%
CIPC & FR 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 8.3%
6.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 4.9%
C/PC & other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0%
3.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 2.5%
GW & FR 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 15 8% 9.5%
3.1%
12.5%
0.0%
9.1%
0.0% 7.4%
GW & other 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 105% 3.6%
3.1%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0% 4.1%
FR & other 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0% 0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.4%
38.5% 33.3% 25 0% 39 5% 36.9%
3 1.3%
37.5%
14.3%
27.3%
20.0% 33.6%
Three Violation Facilities by Region
Violations Region
RTC Study
I II III IV V
VI
VII
VIII
1X
X facilities
C/PC,GW,FR 30.8% 16.7% 16.7% 21.1% 34.5%
43.8%
25.0%
28.6%
27.3%
60.0% 33.2%
C/PC, GW, other 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 10.5% 3.6%
3.1%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
0.0% 4.1%
C/PC,FR, other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.4%
GW, FR, other 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 3.6%
6.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 3.7%
42.3% 16.7% 16.7% 36 8% 42.9%
53.1%
25.0%
28.6%
36.4%
60.0% 4 1.4%
Four Violation Facilities by Region
Vio1ation Region
RTC Study
I II III IV V
V I
VII
VIII
IX
X facilities
C /PC, GW, FR
and other 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 7.9% 6.0% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 4.9%
te: Table 4 gives dual, tnple. and quadnple violation RTC Study facilities as a percentage of Regional
otal RTC Study facilities.
C.
-------
Perhaps more conclusive than the violations that originally
classified these LDF SNC5 would be an analysis of the violations
that are currently outstanding. The RTC Study team discovered
during the course of the Regional interviews that facilities would
RTC for one or more of the original SNC violations in less than
three years, yet remain in noncompliance for other SNC violations
incurred either at the time of the original violation date, or
subsequent to that date and before the original violation(s) had
RTCed. Unfortunately, HWDMS does not provide us with a means of
sorting out which violations have RTCed and which are still
outstanding. More often than not, Regions do not clear a facility
from the SNC universe until all SNC violations have RTCed.
However, implicit in the case narratives in APPENDIX-Il is a trend
indicating that for whatever reason, GWM violations at the RTC
Study facilities are the most quickly resolved, compared to C/PC
and FR violations.
One explanation of this is that many LDF5 cannot begin to
identify the extent of their closure activities, and consequently
the extent of their FR requirements, until an adequate GWM system
is in place. From a different perspective, GWM involves technical
or logistical remedies, such as incrementally increasing the number
of monitoring wells at a site until GW has been adequately
characterized. Closure and FR requirements, on the other hand,
require a long—term financial commitment to a site, and are
generally not amenable to a quick technical fix.
The RTC Study team is currently collecting more up-to-date
information from the Regions on which violations have RTCed.
Preliminary data support the theory that GWM violations are the
most readily resolved relative to C/PC and FR violations.
IV-20
-------
V. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
When the RTC Study team set out to investigate why 259 LDFs
have been out of compliance for three or more years, it was faced
with the dilemma of selecting an analytical approach that would
best answer its question. Its choices were: 1) collect all
available descriptive statistics and conduct an empirical analysis,
2) interview the Regional and State staff who were familiar with
the compliance problems at a number of RTC Study facilities, using
their experiences to make broad assumptions about LDF noncompliance
in general, and 3) conduct a study using elements of both
approaches.
In retrospect, it is fortunate that the third approach was
chosen. The statistical analysis compiled in APPENDIX—I generally
failed to provide conclusive evidence of a correlation between
regulator—regulatee behavior and total time out of compliance. The
outcome of this statistical analysis may have been different had
the RTC Study team collected data on the non-SNC LDF universe as
well as a larger sample of the LDF SNC universe that had RTCed in
less than three years. Regardless of these limitations, however,
the statistical analysis that was conducted does provide a useful
description of the quantifiable aspects of the RTC Study universe.
For example, we do know that it took longer to issue initial
formal actions to the 72 RTC Study facilities with Fl 1986
violation discovery dates than it did to issue initial formal
actions to the Fl 1986 LDF SNC universe in general. Furthermore,
of the LDF SNCs we know of that have RTCed, the average total time
out of compliance was significantly less than the average total
time out of compliance of the RTC Study universe.
On the other hand, the narrative descriptions formulated by
Regional and State personnel provide more conclusive evidence of
a correlation between regulator-regu].atee behavior and the problems
that have contributed to the delays in RTC. The major limitation
of this analysis, however, is that it provides no means of testing
the strength of that correlation. For instance, Regional staff
contend that facilities seem to resist longer and harder in the
face of agency indecisiveness over the technical or legal merits
of a case. Although this contention was corroborated by a number
of Regional staff, it offers nothing that would allow us to measure
the relationship between agency indecisiveness and total time out
of compliance.
Perhaps the real value of the RTC Study is that it brings
together a major body of information on the compliance problems of
the LDF SNC universe that have confronted Regions and States since
the early 1980’s. Irrespective of the limitations of the data, we
have learned several things: 1) the compliance problems of the RTC
Study facilities are real; 2) in general, Regional and State
v-i
-------
agencies are expending significant resources addressing these
compliance problems; and 3) based on the number of monitoring wells
in place and closure plans submitted, many facilities are expending
significant resources attempting to comply with EPA and State
regulations.
Of course, in a number of cases exactly the opposite is true.
A number of facilities are expending little or no resources trying
to come into full compliance with Part 265 regulations. Primarily
these are LDFs that do not currently generate RCRA-regulated
hazardous wastes, but do contain non—operating regulated units.
These LDF5 came under RCRA regulations in 1980 and have never been
serious candidates for receiving operating permits. For these
facilities, the only option is closure. In several cases, even
minimal compliance with RCRA has put severe strains on the
financial viability of these companies. Many others cannot afford
expensive contractors to put in GWM wells or to formulate and
implement their closure plans, so that the work they do perform is
often deficient. Liability insurance is generally unavailable to
these facilities. Clean closure is no longer a realistic option,
as market forces and the RCRA land disposal restrictions make the
cost of incineration and land disposal prohibitive.
Other facilities do possess the financial resources to fulfill
their closure responsibilities, but choose to spend their money
hiring technical and legal expertise in order to challenge EPA and
State compliance orders. Often their resistance is motivated by
the refusal to accept a penalty. For these facilities, paying a
penalty is tantamount to an admission of guilt, even if the penalty
is agreed to under the terms of a Consent Order. Consequently,
these facilities would rather fight with the State or EPA than
incur the negative publicity of paying a penalty.
Regions and States charged with bringing these two types of
facilities into compliance often have little choice but to proceed
as they are; on the slow road to closure. Regional and State staff
characterize these cases as “bad” cases. “Bad” cases demand as
many resources to compile and process as “good” cases, but rarely
result in satisfactory compliance or significant penalties. These
are the cases where processing delays attributable to “priority
setting” are most likely to occur. In the case of indigent
facilities, the result of that pressure may be bankruptcy and no
chance of a facility—sponsored closure. Against well—heeled,
recalcitrant facilities such pressure could result in round after
round of expensive, time-consuming administrative hearings,
possibly at the expense of addressing other environmental
priorities.
This is not to suggest that certain cases do not merit
additional State and Regional attention. A number of facilities
were reportedly out of compliance for long perio.ds of time because
turnover at EPA and State agencies had so reduced staff levels that
V- 2
-------
there literally was no one available to review the necessary
technical documents to verify RTC. However, the number of
resources a Region or State is able or willing to expend on a
facility does not necessarily translate into RTC.
At the inception of the RTC Study, the RTC Study team searched
for statistical indicators that would lend an insight into the
number of resources Regions and States were expending at LDF SNCS.
As a result, one of the earliest analyses conducted was a
comparison of the number of inspections conducted at LDF SNCs that
had been out of compliance the longest against the LDF SNCs out of
compliance the least amount of time. Although the idea of using
inspections as indicators of overall resource expenditure was later
rejected, the analysis did indicate that Regions and States had
conducted a disproportionate number of inspections at the LDF5 with
the most persistent compliance problems. In other words, there was
no evidence to support the notion that regulators were purposely
neglecting the facilities with the most intransigent and
longstanding compliance problems.
However, even if we accept the proposition that Regions and
States, in general, are expending significant resources trying to
bring the RTC Study facilities back into full compliance, we must
still question whether those resources are being utilized most
effectively. When asked whether a unilateral administrative final
Order or judicial action had ever been contemplated against any of
the RTC Study facilities,, the near unanimous Regional and State
response was “no”. Although in and of themselves, unilateral final
actions do not ensure rapid RTC, many in the enforcement community
believe that the very threat of a unilateral final action can
persuade certain facilities to sign stronger and more easily
enforceable Consent Orders.
If that is true, then it is worth considering whether any of
the RTC Study facilities are suitable candidates for unilateral
administrative final Orders or judicial actions. Of course,
unilateral final actions are clearly not appropriate for many of
the RTC Study facilities. Even cases that do not involve indigent
or recalcitrant facilities have often been compromised by errors
in judgement made long ago by State or EPA staff. However, the RTC
Study team recommends the selective use of unilateral final actions
against a number of both RTC Study facilities and newly discovered
SNC violators. It is hoped that a regime of unilateral
administrative final Orders and judicial actions will put RCRA-
regulated facilities on notice that States and EPA will not engage
in gratuitous negotiations that do not result in timely RTC.
Other recommendations include:
V- 3
-------
o Exploring ways of streamlining the Administrative Hearing
process -—Currently there are no constraints on the number of
days in which Federal AWs may rule on an action. Regions are
concerned that negotiating tough compliance orders will result
in lengthy, resource-intensive administrative hearings. EPA
should consider creating additional ALl positions, as well as
other strategies that will move cases more quickly through
the hearing process. The RTC Study team recognizes that
reforming the Federal Administrative Hearing process will not
affect State actions. However, States have the option of
turning cases over to EPA, should the Region and State decide
that this is the most effective means of bringing the most
recalcitrant facilities back into full compliance.
o Reassessing the resource levels of State enforcement programs
——The number of RTC facilities awaiting State review of
technical documents is unsettling. States that have applied
for and received RCRA base program authorization commit to
maintaining sufficient resources to fulfill all program
responsibilities. Headquarters and Regions should scrutinize
whether States are replacing staff lost through attrition,
particularly when States petition for HSWA authorization.
Identifyina which RTC facilities would respond to the
expenditure of additional resources --Although many facilities
would not RTC as a result of additional Regional or State
attention, there are others that clearly would. Primarily,
these are facilities awaiting State or EPA review of one or
more technical documents. Regions should work with States to
identify which facilities are likely candidates for RTC, and
establish a schedule for bringing these facilities back into
full physical compliance. This effort may require the
redirection of resources from other program areas.
o Concentrating on the most environmentally significant
facilities ——Inevitably, a number of cases will not RTC in the
near future regardless of what Regions or States do to bring
about full physical compliance. Agency decision makers must
recognize that accelerating activities at facilities that do
not represent substantial environmental risks may not
constitute a prudent use of resources. In fact, such a
strategy may prove counterproductive. Regions and States
should concentrate their efforts on facilities presenting the
greatest environmental risk.
V-4
-------
RCRA RTC Study
Appendbc’ I
Statistical Analyses
&
Graphics
-------
Appendix I
Statisti cal Analyses & Graphics
Table of Contents
Breakdown of the LDF Universe
TABLE 1. Facility Counts by Region
TABLES 1A, B & C. Facilities as a Percent of LDFs, SNCs, etc.
FIGURE: The LDF Universe -- SNCs & RTC Facilities
FIGURE: The LDF Universe by Region -- LDF5, SYC5, and RTC Facilities
FIGURE: The LDF Universe -- Percent of Facilities by Region
Breakdown of the RTC Universe: Niacellaneoua
TABLE 2. Lead Agency for Compliance
TABLE 3. Federal Facilities
TABLE 4. Return to Compliance Status
TABLES 2A-4A. Percentages of Regional Total RTC Facilities
FIGURE: Leads, Federal Facilities & RTC Status (Pie Charts)
Breakdown of the RTC Universe: Violations
TABLES 5—6. Violations and Multiple Violations
TABLE 7. Facilities with Exactly One Violation
TABLES 8—10. Facilities with Exactly 2, 3, or 4 Violations
TABLES 5A-1OA. Percentage of Regional Total RTC Facilities
TABLE 11. Combinations of Exactly Two Violations
TABLE 12. All Combinations of Two Violations
TABLE 13. All Combinations of Two Violations by Region
FIGURE: Venn Diagram of Major Viola tLons
Breakdown of the RTC Universe: Categories
TABLES 14—15. Categories and Multiple Categories
TABLE 16. Facilities with Exactly One Category
TABLES 17—19. Facilities with Exactly 2, 3, or 4 Categories
TABLES 14A—19A. Percentage of Regional Total RTC Facilities
TABLE 20. Combinations of Exactly Two Categories
TABLE 21. All Combinations of Two Categories
TABLE 22. All Combinations of Two Categories by Region
FIGURE: Distribution of Categories
FIGURE: Major Combinations of One or More Categories (Pie Chart)
FIGURE: Distribution of Processing Delays
Breakdown of the RTC Universe: Penalty Information
TABLE 23. Penalties Assessed and Paid
FIGURE: Mean Penalty Statistics by Region
FIGURE: Mean Penalty Statistics by Region (Excluding Zeroes & Unknowns)
FIGURE: Mean Penalty Statistics by Enforcement Lead
FIGURE: Mean Penalty Statistics by Lead (Excluding Zeroes & Unknowns)
FIGURE: Mean Penalty Statistics by Major Categories
Breakdown of the RTC Universe: Timeline Horizons
TABLE 24. Time Horizons (Intervals) - - In Years
TABLE 24A. Time Horizons (Intervals) -— In Days
FIGURE: Mean Timeline Horizons by Region
FIGURE: Mean Timeline Horizons by Enforcement Lead
FIGURE: Mean Timeline Horizons by Major Categories
The RTC Universe: Data Set
-------
RCRA RTC Study -— Summary Points December 1990
Breakdown of the
Land Disposal Facility (LDF) Universe
General Information :
• 43.1% of the LDF Universe are SNC5.
• 65.4% of all SNCa have been out of compliance for three (3) or more years.
• 40.5% of all SNCs have been out of compliance for three (3) or more years,
and are not pursuing judicial action. These facilities make up the RTC
Universe, and include HWDZ4S Data Errors.
Region—S ecif ic In format ion :
• One—third of RTC Facilities are in Region 5.
• Facilities in Regions 1, 5, and 10 compose a larger relative proportion of
the RTC Universe than of the LDF universe.
• Facilities in Regions 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 compose a smaller relative
proportion of the RTC Universe than of the LDF universe.
-------
RCRA RTC Study -- Regional LDF Breakdown: RTCA.WK1; 10-Dec-90
1. FACILITY COUNTS
+
1 124 61 20 41 28 26
2 81 19 8 11 7 5
3 137 21 5 16 12 12
4 290 100 46 54 43 38
5 306 191 52 139 86 84
6 244 101 39 62 32 32
7 92 43 30 13 11 9
8 58 13 5 8 7 7
9 91 55 9 46 11 11
10 58 35 7 28 22 20
TOTAL 1481 639 221 418 259 244
* EPA/0%JPE DATA Request D03608 (6/16/89 15:15)
** HWDMS Data Pull (FY90: 8/11/89)
• HWDMS are Data Errors (incorrectly classified)
1A. FACILITIES AS A PERCENT OF LDFs & SNCs
1 49.2% 33.1% 67.2% 22.6% 45.9%
2 23.3% 13.6% 57.9% 8.6% 36.8%
3 15.3% 11.7% 76.2% 8.8% 57.1%
4 34.5% 18.6% 54.0% 14.8% 43.0%
5 62.4% 45.4% 72.8% 28.1% 45.0%
6 41.4% 25.4% 61.4% 13.1% 31.7%
7 46.7% 14.1% 30.2% 12.0% 25.6%
8 22.4% 13.8% 61.5% 12.1% 53.8%
9 60.4% 50.3% 83.6% 12.1% 20.0%
10 60.3% 48.3% 80.0% 37.9% 62.9%
43.1% 28.2% 65.4% 17.5% 40.5%
NOTE: These percents are calculated by dividing
each Total SNCs , SNCs ‘ 3 Years, and RTC
Facilities by Total LDFs arid Total SNCs.
RTC Facilities are SNCs out-of -conVliarice ‘ 3 Years, NOT in judicial action, including HWDMS Data Errors.
lB. FACILITIES AS A PERCENT OF CATEGORY (COLUMN) TOTALS
.* * * *
TOTAL TOTAL SNCs SNCs RTC % Change
REGION LDFs SNCs 3 YRS >=3 YRS FACILITIES (RTC/LDF)
1C. FACILITIES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL LDFs (1481)
** * * *
TOTAL TOTAL SNCs SNCs RTC
REGION LDFs SNCs <3 YRS ‘=3 YRS FACILITIES
SNCs
SNCs
RTC
RTC
.*
.
*
*
***
RTC
SNCs
>= 3 Yrs
>= 3 Yrs
FACILS.
FACILITIES
TOTAL
TOTAL
SNCs
SNCs
RTC
UNIVERSE
as % of
as
% of
as
% of
as
Z of
as
% of
REGION LDFs
SNCs <3 YRS >=3 YRS
FACILITIES
- HUOMS REGION LDFs
LDFs
SNCs
LDFs
SNCs
1 8.4% 9.5% 9.0% 9.8%
10.8% 29.1%
1
8.6% 4.1% 1.4% 2.8% 1.9%
2 5.5% 3.0% 3.6% 2.6%
2.7% -50.6%
2
5.5% 1.3% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5%
3 9.3% 3.3% 2.3% 3.8%
4.6% -49.9%
3
9.3% 1.4% 0.3% 1.1% 0.8%
4 19.6% 15.6% 20.8% 12.9%
16.6% -15.2%
4
19.6% 6.8% 3.1% 3.6% 2.9%
5 20.7% 29.9% 23.5% 33.3%
33.2% 60.7%
5
20.7% 12.9% 3.5% 9.4% 5.8%
6 16.5% 15.8% 17.6% 14.8%
12.4% -25.0%
6
16.5% 6.8% 2.6% 4.2% 2.2%
7 6.2% 6.7% 13.6% 3.1%
4.2% -31.6%
7
6.2% 2.9% 2.0% 0.9% 0.7%
8 3.9% 2.0% 2.3% 1.9%
2.7% -31.0%
8
3.9% 0.9% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5%
9 6.1% 8.6% 4.1% 11.0%
4.2% -30.9%
9
6.1% 3.7% 0.6% 3.1% 0.7%
10 3.9% 5.5% 3.2% 6.7%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
8.5% 116.9%
100%
10
3.9% 2.4% 0.5% 1.9% 1.5%
100.0% 43.1% 14.9% 28.2% 17.5%
NOTE: The percentages here (other than
% Change] are
NOTE:
These percents are calculated by dividing
calculated by dividing each celL
by the totals
each cell by total LDFs (1481). These
in each coluiri from the FaciLity
counts (Chart 1).
percentages give the relative percent of
the total LDF universe for each celL.
# The Percent Change of ((RTC/LDF) - 1]
gives the percent
difference between RTC FaciLities
attibutabLe to the
jiven Region and the percent of total LDFs in the Region.
-------
The Land Disposal Facility (LDF) Universe
RCRA RTC Study
TOTAL LDFs
1481
RTC :
- . . U
Facilities 4
(259) :
Judicial ‘
(159)
• SNCs
<3;;
TOTAL SNCs
(639)
NOTE: RTC Facilities Include HWDMS Data Errors.
-------
The Land Disposal Facility (LDF) Universe
by Region
RCRA RTC Study
Region
NOTE: RTC Facilities include HWDMS Data Errors;
RTC
WFs ] SNCs Facilities
(1)
1-a
0
0
C)
c 1
LL
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
REG 1 REG 2 REG 3 REG 4 REG 5 REG 6 REG 7 REG 8 REG 9 REG 10
SNCs include RTC Facilities; LDFs include SNCS.
-------
The Land Disposal Facility (LDF) Universe
Percent of Facilities by Region
RCRA RTC Study
40%
. . .
2
) . J7% I7%
2%
0 11%
10% -
0%h1 - _______
REG 1 REG 2 REG 3 REG 4 REG 5 REG 6 REG 7 REG 8 REG 9 REG 10
Region
1 0 0F %SNCs .
Universe ..
%RTC
Universe
NOTE: RTC Facilities include HWDMS Data Errors.
-------
RCRA RTC Study -- Summary Points December 1990
Breakdown of the RTC Universe;
Lead Enforcement Agency, Federal Facilities, and Compliance Status
Lead Agency for Enforcement :
• The lead agency for enforcement may be the State, EPA, or both —— where
the State may have the lead for one violation and EPA for another, or
where the lead responsibility changed hands.
• 38.5% of the RTC Facilities* are Stat?—Lead, 50.0% are EPA—Lead, and the
remaining 11.5% of the RTC Facilities are both —— Dual Lead.
• Regions 2, 3, 7, 9, and 10 have a significantly higher proportion of EPA
enforcement leads —— 60.0%, 58.3%, 100.0%, 72.7%, and 75.0%, respectively.
• Regions 1 and 8 have a significantly higher proportion of State
enforcement leads —— 61.5% and 57.1%, respectively.
Federal Facilities :
• Federal Facilities account for only 6.6% of the RTC Universe.
• Regions 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 have 10.5%, 3.6%, 27.3%, and 15.0%
Federal Facilities in their respective RTC Facilities
• Regions 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 have no Federal Facilities among their RTC
Facilities
ComDliance Status :
• 5.7% of the RTC Facilities* have returned to compliance, including those
LDF5 that were Out of compliance for three or more years, but are
currently in compliance.
NOTE: * = These analyses exclude HWDMS Data Errors from the statistical
computations.
-------
RCRA RTC Study -- FREQUENCIES & STATISTICS: RTCB.WK1; 10-Dec-90
2. LEAD AGENCY FOR COMPLIANCE
RTC
REG1 REG2 Facilities
State-Lead 16 1 94
EPA-Lead 8 3 122
DuaL-Lead 2 1 28
TOTAL RTC UNIVERSE - HWDMS 26 5 244
RTC
REd REG2 REG3 REG4 REG5 REG6 REd? REG8 REG9 REdO Facilities
0 0 0 4 3 3 0 0 3 3 16
4. FACILITIES THAT HAVE RETURNED TO COMPLIANCE CRTCed)
RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REG5 REG6 REd? REG8 REG9 REG1O Fac:L;ties
3 0 0 2 4 3 1 1 0 0 14
REG3
REG4
REG5
REG6
REG7
REG8
REG9
REG1O
5
16
35
10
0
4
3
4
7
17
35
17
9
3
8
15
0 5 14 5 0 0 0 1
12 38 84 32 9 7 11 20
3. FEDERAL FACILITIES
-------
RCRA RTC Study FREQUENCIES & STATISTICS: RTCB.WK1; 10-Dec-90
3A. FEDERAL FACILITIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF REGIONAL TOTAL RTC FACILITIES (EXCLUDING HUDNS)
RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REG5 REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O FaciLities
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.5% 3.6% 9.4% 0.0% 0.0% 27.3% 15.0% 6.6%
4A. FACILITIES THAT HAVE RTCed AS A PERCENTAGE OF REGIONAL TOTAL RTC FACILTIES (EXCLUDING HWDMS)
RTC
REGI REG2 REG3 REG4 REGS REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O FaciLities
11.5% 0.0% 00% 5.3% 4.8% 9.4% 11.1% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7%
2A. LEAD AGENCY FOR CCIPLIANCE AS A PERCENTAGE OF REGIONAL
TOTAL
RTC FACILITIES
(EXCLUDING HWDMS)
RTC
REG1
REG2
REG3
REG4
REG5
REG6 REG7
REG8
REG9
REG1O
Facilities
State-Lead
61.5%
20.0%
41.7%
42.1%
41.7%
31.3% 0.0%
57.1%
27.3%
20.0%
38.5%
EPA-Lead
30.8%
60.0%
58.3%
44.7%
41.7%
53.1% 100.0%
42.9%
727%
75.0%
50.0%
Dual-Lead
7.7%
20O%
0.0%
13.2%
16.7%
156% 0.0%
0.0%
00%
5.0%
115Z
-------
Leads, Federal Facilities & RTC Status
RCRA RTC Study
EPA-Lead 122 Cases
(50.0%)
State-Lead 94 Cases
(38.5%)
Dual Lead
28 Cases (11.5%)
6 Federal Facilities
(6.6%)
Returned to Compliance (94.3%)
NOTE: Facility counts do not include
HWDMS Data Errors.
N = 244
• Federal Facilities
14 Facilities Returned
to Compliance (5.7%)
Lead Agency
228 Other Facilities
(93.4%)
230 Facilities
Returned to Compliance
-------
RCRA RTC Study -- Summary Points
December 1990
General Information :
Breakdown of the RTC Universes
Violations
• Closure/Post-Closure (CP), Groundwater (CW), and Financial (FR) violations
occur individually and in all combinations with great frequency.
*
• 79.5% of all RTC Facilities have mu1ti ple violations.
• The remaining 20.5% of the RTC Facilities have exactly one violation.
Specific Information :
• 67.6%
• 85.7%
• 56.1%
• 21.3%
• 56.1%
• 43.0%
• 48.8%
• 37.7%
of the RTC Facilities have CP violations.
of the RTC Facilitiea have GW violations.
of the RTC Facilities have FR violations.
of the RTC Facilities* have other violations.
(137) of the RTC Facilities have both CF and GW violations.
(105) of the RTC Facilities have both CF and FR violations.
(119) of the RTC Facilities* have both GW and FR violations.
(92) of the RTC Facilities have CF and GW and FR violations.
NOTE: * = These analyses exclude HWDMS Data Errors from the statistical
computations.
-------
RCRA RTC Study -. VIOLATIONS: RTCC.WK1; 10-Dec-90
5. VIOLATIONS
(Multiple Violations) RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REG5 REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O Facilities
CP: Closure/Post-Closure 18 2 8 21 61 25 4 2 7 17 165
OW: Groundwater 23 5 9 3 65 29 a 7 11 19 209
FR: Financial 14 0 2 22 55 21 4 2 5 12 137
OTHER: Other Violations 6 0 0 15 21 7 0 1 2 0 52
TOTAL Violations 61 7 19 91 202 82 16 12 25 48 563
TOTAL RTC UNIVERSE - HUDMS 26 5 12 38 84 32 9 7 11 20 244
NOTE: RTC Facilities may have nLlltiple Violations and, thus, total violations exceed
the nui er of RTC Facilities (excluding HWDMS).
6. MULTIPLE VIOLATION BREAKDOWN
RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REG5 REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O FaciLities
Exactly 1 Violation Type 4 3 7 6 12 3 4 4 3 4 50
Exactly 2 Violation Type 10 2 3 14 31 10 3 1 3 4 81
Exactly3ViolationType 11 0 2 15 36 17 2 2 4 12 101
Exactly 4 Violation Type 1 0 0 3 5 2 0 0 1 0 12
TOTAL RTC UNIVERSE HWDNS 26 5 12 38 84 32 9 7 11 20 244
NOTE: Each RTC Facility has at least one violation. Chart 6 notes the nwter of RTC
Facilities (excluding MUONS) that have riultiple violations.
7 FACILITIES WITH EXACTLY 1 VIOLATION
RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REG5 REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O Facilities
CP: Closure/Post-Closure 1 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 9
CU: Groundwater 3 3 4 3 6 3 3 4 3 3 35
FR: Financial 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 4
OTHER: Other Violations 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
TOTAL 1-Violation Facilities 4 3 7 6 12 3 4 4 3 4 50
TOTAL RTC UNIVERSE MUONS 26 5 12 38 84 32 9 7 11 20 244
NOTE: For all those RTC faciLities (excluding HWDMS) with exacly one Violation, the
distribution of Violations is given in Chart 7.
-------
RCRA RTC Study •- VIOLATIONS: RTCC.WK1; 10-Dec-90
8. FACILITIES WITH EXACTLY 2 VIOLATIONS
CP & Cu
CP & FR
CP & OTHER
Cu & FR
CV & OTHER
FR & OTHER
RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REG5 REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O Facilities
34
12
6
18
10
TOTAL 2-Violation Facilities
TOTAL RTC UNIVERSE - HWDMS
10 2 3 14 31 10 3 1 3
26 5 12 38 84 32 9 7 11
4 81
20 244
CP&GW&FR
8
0
2
8
29
14
2
2
3
12
80
CP&GW&OTHER
1
0
0
5
3
1
0
0
1
0
11
CP&FR&OTHER
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
GW&FR&OTHER
2
0
0
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
9
TOTAL 3-Violation FaciLities
11 0 2
15
36
17
2
2
4
12
101
TOTAL RTC UNIVERSE - HWDMS
26 5 12
38
84
32
9
7
11
20
244
10. FACILITIES WITH EXACTLY 4 VIOLATIONS
•
REd REG2 REG3
REG4
REG5
REG6
REG7
REG8
REG9
REG1O
RTC
Facilities
CP & Cu & FR & OTHER
1 0 0
3
5
2
0
0
1
0
12
TOTAL RTC UNIVERSE - MUONS 26 5 12 38 84 32 9 7 11 20 246
NOTE: For all those RTC Facilities (excLuding HWDMS) with exactly two, three, or four
6 2 3 2 8 5 2 0 2 4
1 0 0 2 7 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 6 8 1 1 0 1 0
1 0 0 4 3 1 0 1 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9. FACILITIES WITH EXACTLY 3 VIOLATIONS
RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REG5 REG6 REd? REG8 REG9 REG1O Facilities
vio(ations, the distribution of violations is given in Charts 8-10, above.
-------
RCRA RTC Study - VIOLATIONS: RTCC.WK1; 10-Dec-90
5A. VIOLATION COUNT AS A PERCENTAGE OF REGIONAL TOTAL RTC FACILITIES (EXCLUDING HWDMS)
(Multiple Violations)
CP:
Gil:
FR:
OTHER:
RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REG5 REG6 REd REG8 REG9 REdO Facilities
67.4%
85.7%
561%
2L3%
NOTE: Chart 5A describes the percentage of Regional RTC Facilities (excluding HWDMS) with the
given violations. Percentages are calculated by dividing each cell by Regional TOTAL RTC
Facilities (excluding HWDMS).
6A. MULTIPLE VIOLATION BREAKDOWN
RTC
REG1
REG2
REG3
REG4
REG5
REG6
REG7
REG8
REG9 REdO
Facilities
Exactly 1 Violation
Type
15.4%
60.0%
58.3%
15.8%
14.3%
9.4%
44.4%
57.1%
27.3%
20.0%
20.5%
Exactly 2 Violation
Type
38.5%
40.0%
25.0%
36.8%
36.9%
31J7.
33.3%
14.3%
27.3%
20.0%
33.2%
Exactly 3 Violation
Type
42.3%
0.0%
16.7%
39.5%
42.9%
53.1%
22.2%
28.6%
36.4%
60.0%
41.4%
Exactly 4 Violation Type
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
7.9%
6.0%
6.3%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
0.0%
4.9%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100V. 100% 100% 100% 100%
100.0%
NOTE: Chart 6A decribes the percentage of Regional RTC Facilities (excluding HUDMS) with the given
violation count. Percentages are calculated by dividing each cell by Regional TOTAL RTC
Facilities (excluding HUOMS).
TA. SINGLE VIOLATION FACILITIES BY REGION
RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REdS REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O Facilities
CP: CLosure/Post-Closure 3.8% 0.0% 250% 2.4% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50% 37%
Gil: Groundwater 11.5% 60.0% 33.3% 79% 71% 94X 33.3% 571% 27.3% 150% 14.3%
FR: Financial 0.0% OO% O0% 2.6% 2.4% 00% 11.1% 0.0% 00% 0.0% 1.6%
OTHER: Other Violations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%
15.4% 600% 58.3% 158% 14.3% 9.4% 44.4% 571% 27.3% 20.0% 20.5%
NOTE: Chart 7A gives single violation RTC Facilities (excluding HWDMS) as a percentage of Regional
TOTAL RTC Facilities (excluding HWDMS).
Closure/Post-Closure
Groundwater
Financial
Other Violations
692% 40.0% 66.7% 55.3% 72.6% 78.1% 44.4% 28.6% 63.6% 850%
88.5%100O% 75.0% 86.8% 77.4% 90.6% 889%100O%100.O% 950%
538% 0.0% 16.1% 57.9% 655% 65.6% 44.4% 28.6% 45.5% 60.0%
23.1% 0.0% 0.0% 395% 25.0% 21.9% 0.0% 14.3% 182% 0.0%
-------
RCRA RTC Study -. VIOLATIONS: RTCC.WK1; 10-Dec-90
38.5% 40.0% 25.0% 36.8% 36.9% 31.3% 33.3% 14.3% 27.3% 20.0% 33.2%
RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REGS REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O Fac tities
NOTE: Charts BA-bA give (duaL, tr :pLe, and quadripte) vioLation RTC FaciLities (excLuding HWDMS),
as a percentage of RegionaL TOTAL RTC FaciLities (excLuding HWDMS).
8A. DUAL VIOLATION FACILITIES BY REGION
RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REG5 REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O FaciLities
CP & CU
23.1%
40.0%
25.0% 5.3%
9.5%
15.6% 22.2% 0.0%
18.2%
20.0%
13.9%
CP & FR
3.8%
0.0%
0.0% 5.3%
8.3%
6.3% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.9%
CP & OTHER
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
6.0%
3.1% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
CU & FR
3.8%
0.0%
0.0% 15.8%
9.5%
3.1% 11.1% 0.0%
9.1%
0.0%
74%
CU & OTHER
3.8%
0.0%
0.0% 10.5%
3.6%
3.1% 0.0% 14.3%
0.0%
0.0%
4.1%
FR & OTHER
3.8%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
9A. THREE VIOLATION FACILITIES BY REGION
CP
& CU & FR
30.8%
0.0%
16.7%
21.1%
34.5%
43.8%
22.2%
28.6%
27.3%
60.0%
32.8%
CP & CU & OTHER
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
13.2%
3.6%
3.1%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
0.0%
4.5%
CP &
FR & OTHER
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
CU &
FR & OTHER
7.7%
0.0%
0.0%
5.3%
3.6%
6.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.7%
42.3% 0.0%
16.7%
39.5%
42.9%
53.1%
22.2%
28.6%
36.4% 60.0%
41.4%
1OA.
FOUR
VIOLATION
FACILITIES
BY REGION
RTC
REd REG2
REG3
REG4
REG5
REG6
REG7
REG8
REG9 REG1O
FaciLities
CP
& GU & FR
& OTHER
3.8% 0.0%
0.0%
7.9%
6.0%
6.3%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1% 0.0%
4.9%
-------
RCRA RTC Study -- COMBINATIONS OF 2 VIOLATIONS MATRICES: RTCD.WK1; 10-Dec-90
11. COMBINATIONS OF EXACTLY 2 VIOLATIONS
OW FR OTHER
34 12 6 CP NOTE: Chart 11 describes the dual continations of
18 10 GW violations that are uniquely present in the set
1 FR of RIC Facilities (excluding K JDMS).
N 244
12. ALL COMBINATIONS OF 2 VIOLATIONS
OW FR OTHER
137 105 30 CP NOTE: Chart 12 gives not only the continations of
119 42 CU violations appearing in pairs, but counts the
23 FR triple and quadriple violation RTC Facilities
(excluding HIJOMS), as weLl. That is, imiltiple
N 264 vioLation RTC Facilities appear more than once
in this matrix.
-------
RCRA RTC Study -- REGIONAL COMBINATIONS OF 2 VIOLATIONS MATRICES: RTCE.MK1; 10-Dec-90
13. ALL COMBINATIONS OF 2 VIOLATIONS - - BY REGION
REGION 1 GM FR OTHER REGION 6 GM FR OTHER
16 10 2 CP 22 18 4 CP
12 5 GM 19 6 GM
4 FR 4 FR
N= 26 N: 32
REGION 2 GM FR OTHER REGION 7 GM FR OTHER
2 0 0 CP 4 2 0 CP
0 0 GM 3 0 GM
O FR 0 FR
N= 5 N: 9
REGION 3 GM FR OTHER REGION 8 GM FR OTHER
5 2 0 CP 2 2 0 CP
2 0 GM 2 1 GM
O FR 0 FR
N: 12 N: 7
REGION 4 GM FR OTHER REGION 9 GM FR OTHER
18 13 8 CP 7 4 2 CP
19 14 GM 5 2 GM
S FR 1 FR
N: 38 N: 11
REGION 5 GM FR OTHER REGION 10 GM FR OTHER
45 42 14 CP 16 12 0 CP
45 14 GM 12 0 GM
9 FR 0 FR
N: 84 N: 20
NOTE: Chart 13 gives not only the continations of
violations appearing in pairs, but counts the
tripLe and quadriple violation RTC FaciLities
(excluding HWDMS) by Region as well. MuLtipLe
violation RTC Facilities appear more than once
in these matrices.
-------
Violations
RCRA RTC Study
137 . H
(561%) :.:. .••
• . • 77%). .
11
(137 — 56.1%)
Financial
Q
number of facilities with the given violations;
they are not mutually exdusive. N = 244
NOTE: NOT to Scale. Counts indicate the total
-------
RCRA RTC Study -- Summary Points December 1990
Breakdown of the RTC Universe:
Categories
General Information :
• Every RTC Facility falls into at least one Category.
• 61.8% of all RTC Facilities fall into multiple Categories.
• No RTC Facility Falls into more than 4 Categories.
• 71.8% of the RTC Facilities have Processing Delays (PROC).
• 38.2% of the RTC Facilities have Facility Resistance (FACIL).
• 32.4% of the RTC Facilities have Financial Problems (NOFIN).
• Technical Complexity (TECH), Hearing Process (HEAR), and CERCLA Referral
or Bankruptcy (BK/CER) are represented by 18.1%, 10.0%, and 7.3% of the
RTC Facilities, respectively.
• The HWDMS Data Errors (HWDMS) Category accounts for 5.8% of the RTC
Universe.
• RTC Facilities with HWDMS Data Errors are not identified with other
Categories.
_ .. ___ on on Major Category Combinations :
• The top 7 Categories and combinations of Categories —- representing 71.8%
of the RTC Universe —— are:
— 22.0% (57) Processing Delays (PROC) only.
— 14.7% (38) PROC & NOFIN only.
— 11.2% (29) PROC & FACIL only.
— 6.9% (18) PROC & FACIL & NOFIN only.
— 5.8% (15) HWDMS Data Errors (HWDMS) only.
— 5.8% (15) PROC & TECH only.
— 5.4% (14) Facility Resistance (FACIL) only.
Note: These combinations of Categories are mutually exclusive.
-------
RCRA RTC Study -- CATEGORIES: RTCF.WK1; 10-Dec-90
14. CATEGORIES
(Multiple Categories)
RTC
Faci titles
186
47
26
99
19
84
15
TOTAL Categories
TOTAL RTC Facilities
NOTE: RTC Facilities may have nultiple
niarter of RTC Facilities.
15. MULTIPLE CATEGORY BREAKDOWN
57 9 16 78 150 67 20 13 25 41 476
28 7 12 43 86 32 11 7 11 22 259
Categories and, thus, total Categories exceed the
RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REG5 REG6 REG? REG8 REG9 REG1O Facitities
Facilities in Exactly 1 Category
Facitties in Exactly 2 Categories
Facilties in Exactly 3 Categories
Facilties in Exactly 4 Categories
9 5 9 16 34 9 4 3 2 8
11 2 2 20 41 12 5 2 6 9
6 0 1 6 10 10 2 2 1 5
2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0
99
110
43
7
TOTAL RTC Facilities 28
7 12 43 86 32 11
7 11 22 259
NOTE: Each RTC Faclility has at least one Category. Chart 15 notes the ni.ai er
of RTC Facilities that have mjltiple categories Cl to 4). No facility had more
than four Categories assigned it.
16. FACILITIES IN EXACTLY 1 CATEGORY
5 9 16 34 9 4 3 2
7 12 43 86 32 11 7 11
NOTE: For alL those RTC Facilities with exactly one Category, the distribution
of Categories is given in Chart 16.
8 99
22 259
REG1
REG2
REG3
REG4
REG5
REG6
REG7
REG8
REG9
REG1O
PROC:
Processing Delays
24
4
9
24
64
25
7
6
8
15
TECH:
TechnicaL Ccn lexity
6
0
0
14
5
7
2
2
5
6
HEAR:
Hearing Process
3
0
2
6
8
4
1
0
1
1
FACIL:
Facility Resistance
11
2
2
18
33
14
6
4
6
5
BK/CER:
CERCLA Referral or Bankruptcy
1
1
1
5
7
2
1
0
0
1
NOFIN:
Financial Problema
10
0
2
6
31
15
3
1
5
11
HWDMS:
HWDMS Data Errors
2
2
0
5
2
0
2
0
0
2
RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REG5 REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O FaciLities
PROC:
Processing Delays
6
3
7
3
24
7
2
2
0
3
57
TECH:
TechnicaL CoapLexity
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
2
6
HEAR:
Hearing Process
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
FACIL:
Facility Resistance
1
0
0
3
6
1
0
1
1
1
14
BK/CER:
CERCLA Referral or Bankruptcy
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
NOFIN:
FinanciaL Problems
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
HWDMS:
HWDMS Data Errors
2
2
0
5
2
0
2
0
0
2
15
TOTAL 1-Category FaciLities
TOTAL RTC Facilities
9
28
-------
RCRA RTC Study - - CATEGORIES: RTCF.WK1; 10-Dec-90
17. FACILITIES IN EXACTLY 2 CATEGORIES RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 RE REGS REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG 1O Facilities
TOTAL 2-Category FaciLities 2 6 9 110
TOTAL RTC FaciLities 7 11 22 259
18. FACILITIES IN EXACTLY 3 CATEGORIES RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REGS REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG 1O Facilities
PROC&TECH&HEAR 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
PROC&TECH&FACIL 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 8
PROC&TECH&NOFIN 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
PROC&IiEAR&FACIL 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
PROC&IIEAR&NOFIN 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3
PROC&FACIL&BK/CER 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
PROC&FACIL&NOFIN 1 0 0 0 6 6 1 1 1 2 18
TECH&FACIL&SK/CER 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
HEAR&FACIL&NOFIN 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
HEAR&SK/CER&NOFIN 0 0 0 0 0 1 00 0 0 1
FACIL&BK/CER&NOFIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
TOTAL 3-Category FaciLities 6 0 1 6 10 10 2 2 1 5 43
TOTAL RTC Facilities 28 7 12 43 86 32 11 7 11 22 259
19. FACILITIES IN EXACTLY 4 CATEGORIES RTC
REG 1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REGS REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG 1O Facilities
PROC&TECH&HEAR&FACIL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
PROC&TECH&FACIL&NOFIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
PROC&HEAR&FACIL&NOFIN 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
PROC&FACIL&BK/CER&NOFIN 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
TECH&KEAR&BK/CER&NOFIN 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
TOTAL 4-Category FaciLities 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 7
TOTAL RTC Facilities 28 7 12 43 86 32 11 7 11 22 259
PROC&TECH
2
0
0
5
1
2
1
1
2
1
15
PROC&HEAR
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
PROC&FACIL
3
1
0
6
12
3
1
1
2
0
29
PROC&BK/CER
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
PROC&NOFIN
5
0
1
3
16
6
1
0
1
7
38
TECII&FACIL
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
5
TECH&NOFIN
1
0
•O
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
HEAR&FAC1L
0
0
0
4
3
0
1
0
0
0
8
NEAR&BK/CER
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
HEAR&NOFIN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
FACIL&BK/CER
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
FACIL&NOFIN
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
BK/CER&NOFIN
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
5
11 2 2 20 41
28 7 12 43 86
12 5
32 11
NOTE: Charts 18-20 give distributions for RTC Facilities with exactLy 2, 3, or 4 Categories.
-------
RCRA RTC Study -. CATEGORIES: RTCF.WK1; 10-Dec-90
14A. CATEGORY COUNT AS A PERCENTAGE OF REGIONAL TOTAL RTC FACILITIES
(Multiple Categories) RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REG5 REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O Facilities
PROC: Processing Delays 85.7% 57.1% 75.0% 55.8% 74.4% 78.1% 63.6% 85.7% 72.7% 68.2% 71.8%
TECH: Technical Coiiplexity 21.4% 0.0% 0.0% 32.6% 5.8% 21.9% 18.2% 28.6% 45.5% 27.3% 18.1%
HEAR: Hearing Process 10.7% 0.0% 16.7% 14.0% 9.3% 12.5% 9.1% 0.0% 9.1% 4.5% 10.0%
FACIL: FaciLity Resistance 39.3% 28.6% 16.7% 41.9% 38.4% 43.8% 36.4% 57.1% 54.5% 22.7% 38.2%
BK/CER: CERCLA ReferraL or Bankruptcy 3.6% 14.3% 8.3% 11.6% 8.1% 6.3% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 7.3%
NOFIN: Financial Problems 35.7% 0.0% 16.7% 14.0% 36.0% 46.9% 27.3% 14.3% 45.5% 50.0% 32.4%
HWDMS: HWDMS Data Errors 7.1% 28.6% 0.0% 11.6% 2.3% 0.0% 18.2% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 5.8%
NOTE: Chart 14A describes the percentage of Regional RTC Facilities with the given Category. Percentages are
calculated by dividing each celL by Regional TOTAL RTC Facilities.
15A. MULTIPLE CATEGORY BREAKDOWN
R IC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REGS REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O Facilities
Facilities in ExactLy 1 Category 32.1% 71.4% 75.0% 37.2% 39.5% 28.1% 36.4% 42.9% 18.2% 36.4% 38.2%
Facilties in Exactly 2 Categories 39.3% 28.6% 16.7% 66.5% 47.7% 37.5% 45.5% 28.6% 54.5% 40.9% 42.57.
Facilties in Exactly 3 Categories 21.4% 0.0% 8.3% 14.0% 11.6% 31.3% 18.2% 28.6% 9.1% 22.7% 16.6%
Facilties in Exactly 4 Categories 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1.2% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 0.0% 2.7%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1007. 100.0%
NOTE: Chart iSA describes the percentage of Regional TOTAL RTC Facilities with the given Category count.
Percentages are calculated by dividing each celL by Regional TOTAL RTC Facilities.
16A. SINGLE CATEGORY FACILITIES BY REGION
RTC
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REG5 REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O FaciLities
PROC: Processing Delays 21.4% 42.9% 58.3% 7.0% 27.9% 21.9% 18.2% 28.6% 0.0% 13.67. 22.0%
TECH: Technical CompLexity 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 9.1% 2.3%
HEAR: Hearing Process 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.87.
FACIL: FaciLity Resistance 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% 7.0% 3.1% 0.0% 14.3% 9.1% 4.5% 5.4%
BK/CER: CERCLA Referral or Bankruptcy 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 4.7% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5%
NOFIN: Financial ProbLems 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.07. 0.0% 0.07. 0.0% 0.07. 0.0% 0.47.
HWDMS: HWDMS Data Errors 7.1% 28.6% 0.07. 11.6% 2.3% 0.0% 18.2% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 5.8%
32.1% 71.4% 75.0% 37.2% 39.5% 28.1% 36.4% 42.9% 18.2% 36.4% 38.27.
NOTE: Chart 16A gives single Category RIC Facilities as a percentage of Regional TOTAL RIC Facilities.
-------
RCRA RTC Study •- CATEGORIES: RTCF.WK1; 10-Dec-90
18A. THREE CATEGORY FACILITIES BY REGION
39.3% 28.6% 16.7% 46.5% 47.7% 37.5% 45.5% 28.6% 54.5% 40.9%
42.5%
RTC
PROC & TECH & HEAR & FACIL 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
PROC & TECH & FACIL & IIOFIN 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 0.0% 0.8%
PROC & HEAR & FACIL & NOFIN 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
PROC & FACIL & BK/CER & WOFIN 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%
PROC & FACIL & BK/CER & NOFIN 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1.2% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 0.0% 2.7%
17A. DUAL CATEGORY FACILITIES BY REGION
RTC
REal
REG2
REG3 REG4
REG5
REG6
REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O
FaciLities
PROC & TECH
7.1%
0.0%
0.0% 11.6%
1.2%
6.3%
9.1% 14.3% 18.2% 4.5%
5.8%
PROC & HEAR
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.4%
PROC & FACIL
10.7%
14.3%
0.0% 14.0%
14.0%
9.4%
9.1% 14.3% 18.2% 0.0%
11.2%
PROC & BK/CER
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.4%
PROC & NOFIN
17.9%
0.0%
8.3% 7.0%
18.6%
12.5%
9.1% 0.0% 9.1% 31.8%
14.7%
TECH & FACIL
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 2.3%
1.2%
6.3%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5%
1.9%
TECH & NOFIN
3.6%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.8%
HEAR & FACIL
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 9.3%
3.5%
0.0%
9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3.1%
HEAR & BK/CER
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.4%
HEAR & NOFIN
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0%
0.4%
FACIL & BK/CER
0.0%
14.3%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.4%
FACIL & NOFIN
0.0%
0.0%
8.3% 0.0%
1.2%
3.1%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1.2%
BK/CER & NOFIN
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
4.7%
0.0%
9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1.9%
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REGS REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O Facilities
PROC & TECH & HEAR 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 0.8%
PROC & TECH & FACIL 10.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1.2% 3.1% 9.1% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1%
PROC & TECH & NOFIN 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 1.5%
PROC & HEAR & FACIL 3.6% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%
PROC & HEAR & NOFIN 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.27.
PROC & FACII. & BK/CER 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
PROC & FACIL & NOFIN 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% 18.8% 9.1% 14.3% 9.1% 9.1% 6.97.
TECH & FACIL & BK/CER 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
HEAR & FACIL & NOFIN 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
HEAR & BK/CER & NOFIN 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
FACIL & BK/CER & NOFIN 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 0.4%
=
21.4% 0.0% 8.3% 14.0% 11.6% 31.3% 18.2% 28.6% 9.1% 22.7% 16.6%
19A. FOUR CATEGORY FACILITIES BY REGION
REG1 REG2 REG3 REG4 REG5 REG6 REG7 REG8 REG9 REG1O Facilities
RTC
NOTE: Charts 17A-19A give multiple-Category facilities as a percentage of Regional TOTAL RTC Facilities.
-------
RCRA RTC Study -- CATEGORY COMBINATIONS OF 2 MATRICES: RTCG.WKI; 10-Dec-90
20. COMBINATIONS OF EXACTLY 2 CATEGORIES
TECH HEAR FACIL BE/CER NOFIN
21. ALL COMBINATIONS OF 2 CATEGORIES
TECH HEAR FACIL BK/CER NOFIN
PROC
TECH
HEAR
FAC IL
5 BK/CER
NOTE: Chart 21 gives not only the con inat ions of
Categories appearing in pairs, but counts the
triple and quadriple Category RTC FaciLities
as well. That is, nuttiple Category RTC
Facilities appear more than once in this matrix.
15 1 29 1 38
0 5 0 2
8 1 1
1 3
N 259
NOTE: Chart 20 describes the dual co,rbinations of
Categories that are uniquely present in the set
of RTC Facilities.
32 11 65 6 68 PROC
4 17 2 9 TECH
14 3 8 HEAR
6 28 FACIL
10 BK/CER
N 259
-------
RCRA RTC Study -- REGIONAL CATEGORY COMBINATIONS OF 2 MATRICES: RTCH.WK1; 10-Dec-90
22. ALL COMBINATIONS OF 2.CATEGORIES -- BY REGION
REGION 1 TECH HEAR FACIL BK/CER NOFIN
REGION 6 TECH HEAR FACIL BK/CER NOFIN
5 3 10
0 3
2
N 28
1 9 PROC
O 1 TECH
O 2 HEAR
1 3 FACIL
1 BK/CER
4 1 10
1 3
0
N 32
0 12 PROC
1 2 TECH
2 3 HEAR
0 7 FACIL.
2 BK/CER
REGION 3 TECH HEAR FACIL BK/CER NOFIN
0 1 1 0
0 0 0
1 0
0
2 5 PROC
1 2 TECH
0 0 HEAR
2 0 FACIL
0 BK/CER
REGION 8 TECH HEAR FACIL BK/CER NOFIN
2 0 3 0 1 PROC
0 1 0 0 TECH
0 0 0 HEAR
0 1 FACIL
0 BKICER
7
REGION 9 TECH HEAR FACII. BKICER NOFIN
4 0 5 0
0 2 0
0 0
0
N 11
1 24 PROC
0 1 TECH
1 2 HEAR
1 9 FACIL
5 BK/CER
3 1 2 0 10 PROC
1 1 0 1 TECH
0 0 0 HEAR
1 3 FACIL
1 BK/CER
N 22
NOTE: Chart 22 gives not on(y the combinations of Categories appearing in pairs, but counts the
tripLe and quadnpLe Category RTC FaciLities by Region as weLt. MuLtipLe Category RTC
FaciLities appear more than once in these matrices.
REGION 2 TECH HEAR FACIL BK/CER NOFIN
0 0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0
7
REGION 7 TECH HEAR FACIL BK/CER NOFIN
2 0 3
0
N 11
O 2 PROC
O 0 TECH
O 0 HEAR
O 1 FACIL
1 BK/CER
O PROC
O TECH
O HEAR
O FACIL
O BK/CER
I PROC
O TECH
0 HEAR
1 FACIL
O BK/CER
N 12
REGION 4 TECH HEAR FACIL 6K/CER NOFIN
10 2 9
2 4
5
N 43
REGION 5 TECH HEAR FACIL BK/CER NOFIN
4 PROC
2 TECH
I HEAR
3 FACIL
0 BK/CER
2 3 21
0 2
5
N 86
REGION 10 TECH HEAR FACIL BK/CER NOFIN
-------
250
200
150
100
50
0
Cl)
a)
4 -a
0
LL
0
F—
Er
9-
0
I -
a)
-o
E
z
NOTE: Facilities may have multiple Categories;
i.e., Categories are NOT mutually exdusive.
N=259
Categories
RCRA RTC Study
-------
Major Combinations of One or More Categories
RCRA RTC Study
HWDMS Data Errors
(15) 58%
PROC & TECH only
FACIL only
(14) 54%
PROC & FACIL only
PROC & NOFIN only
(‘?8) 14.7%
PROC & FACIL & NOFIN oni
(18) &9%
NOTE: Others include 29 mutually exclusive
combinations of Categories, each representing
less than 5.0% of the RTC Universe. N = 259
PROC only
07) 22 0%
Other Combinations
(73) 2&2%
11 2% :
-------
Distribution of Processing Delays
NOTE: Category corn binatkrns are NOT mutually
RCRA RTC Study
00
exdusive. N = 259
-------
RCRA RTC Study -- Summary Points December 1990
Breakdown of the RTC Universe 1 :
Penalty Information
General Information :
• The mean and median Penalties Assessed in the RTC Universe# are $41,123 and
$15,250, respectively ($53,040 and $25,000, respectively, without zeroes
and unknowns J.
• The mean and median Penalties Collected in the RTC Universe# are $15,201
and $1,150, respectively ($28,409 and $15,125, respectively, without
zeroes and unknowns].
Specific Information :
• There is no statistically significant differentiation, for Penalties
Assessed or Collected, among Regions.
• Regions 8 and 5 have the highest average Penalties Assessed (with and
without zeroes and unknowns).
• Regions 1, 7, and 10 have the lowest Penalties Assessed (with and without
zeroes and unknowns).
• There is no statistically significant differentiation, for mean Penalties
Assessed or Collected, between EPA and State Lead enforcement actions,
though EPA assesses and collects more on average.
• RTC Facilities# with PROC & FACIL & NOFIN only have the highest average
Penalties Assessed ($76,602).
• RTC Facilities# with PROC & TECH & FACIL only have the lowest average
Penalties Assessed ($19,258) (NOTE: This computation excludes Formosa
from the analysis).
NOTE: = These analyses exclude HWDMS Data Errors Federal Facilities from
the statistical computations.
-------
RCRA RTC Study -- PENALTY STATISTICS: RTCIJE1; 14-Dec-90
23. PENALTIES ASSESSED & PAID (EXCLUDING FEDERAL FACILITIES & NUDMS)
PENALTIES ASSESSED I PENALTIES PAID
I I
N MEAN MEDIAN STO I N MEAN MEDIAN STO
EXCLL ING K MS & FEDS: I I
I I
RTC FACILITIES -- UN ONDITIOMAL I 227 141,123 * $15,250 $95,733 I 228 115,201 $1,150 $31,396
I I
REGION I I 26 120,081 $315 $27,362 I 26 $13,316 $0 $23,430
REGION 2 I 5 $49,100 $28,500 $57,117 I 5 $29,800 $10,000 $53,058
REGION 3 12 $44,142 $14,500 $68,049 I 12 121,683 $100 $63,872
REGION 4 34 $40,859 $20,625 $67,434 34 113,598 $1,239 $25,312
REGION 5 81 $55,392 $23,695 $142,107 81 $19,205 $7,500 $33,721
REGION 6 28 137,853 * 18,700 149,728 29 $15,041 $1,200 $29,465
REGION 7 9 123,840 $12,000 $34,031 9 $15,907 $0 $32,739
REGION 8 7 $56,429 112,000 1114,654 7 $7,057 $5,000 17,263
REGION 9 8 139,037 $20,500 $49,132 8 15,125 $0 $10,521
REGION 10 I 17 $10,588 $10,000 $11,686 17 11,338 $0 $3,630
I I
P-VALUE (Means by Region) 0.8099 I 0.5697
I I
State-Lead 91 $34,525 $8,500 $101,235 I 91 19,504 A SO $24,100
EPA-Lead I 109 $50,829 * $27,250 $101,006 I 110 120,763 A $5,000 537,665
Dual Lead I 27 124,179 $9,500 $31,074 27 $11,742 A $2,000 $19,775
I I
P-VALUE (Means by Lead) 0.3027 I 0.0331
NOTE: These Penalty data (Assessments and Payments) provide statistics (Population Size, Mean, Median,
and Standard Deviation) for selected subsets (Regions and Leads). All statistics exclude Federal
Facilities, since EPA-Lead Federal Facilities are NOT subject to Federal penaLties. HUOMS data
errors are also excluded from these conditionaL statistics. so as not to skew the results.
* NOTE: Formosa Plastics has been excluded from the Penalties Assessed analysis, as indicated.
NOTE: TheNuLl Hypothesis is that alt means (by Region or Lead) are not significantly different. The alternative
hypothesis is that at least two means (Regions or Leads) are significantly different. If the P-Value is less
than .05, then we reject the null hypothesis, in (ying that at Least two means have significant disparity.
For those groups (Regions or Lead) with disparate means, those means with the same letter (A, B, or C) are
NOT significantLy different. (In some cases, non-parametric tests cannot determine which means are disparate.]
-------
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Mean Penalty Statistics by Enforcement Lead
Excluding FEDs, HWDMS, Zeroes & Unknowns
RCRA RTC Study
NOTE: Formosa PIastk s has been exduded from
Penalties
Assessed
IXxXN
Penalties
Collected
Cl)
a)
a)
0
All RTC Facilities State-Lead
EPA-Lead Dual Lead
the Penatties Assessed analysis (EPA-Lead).
-------
RCRA RTC Study PENALTY STATISTICS: RTCI.WKI; 14-Dec-90
23 (Continued). PENALTIES ASSESSED & PAID (EXCLUDING FEDERAL FACILITIES & HWDMS)
C $001 LAR S )
PENALTIES ASSESSED I PENALTIES PAID
I I
N MEAN MEDIAN STD N MEAN MEDIAN STD
EXCLUDING HWDMS , FEDS. I I
ZEROES & UNKNOWNS: I
I I
ALL RTC FACILITIES (PENALTIES > 0) I 176 $53,060 * $25,000 $105,831 I 122 $28,409 $15,125 $38,352
I I
REGION 1 (PENALTIES ‘ 0) I 13 $40,162 $44,464 $26,192 I 10 534,623 $24,992 $26,556
REGION 2 (PENALTIES > 0) I 5 $49,100 $28,500 $57,117 3 $49,667 $15,000 $64,423
REGION 3 (PENALTIES > 0) I 10 $52,970 $29,500 $71,694 6 $43,367 $7,500 $88,583
REGION 4 (PENALTIES ‘ 0) I 27 $51,452 $29,500 $72,150 20 $23,117 $16,000 $29,684
REGION 5 (PENALTIES > 0) I 69 $65,026 $30,000 $152,061 I 50 $31,113 $18,750 $38,451
REGION 6 (PENALTIES ‘ 0) I 22 $48,176 * $26,758 $51,560 I 16 $27,261 $10,500 $35,570
REGION 7 (PENALTIES ‘ 0) 6 $35,760 $20,955 $36,626 4 $35,790 $19,830 $43,698
REGION 8 (PENALTIES >0) 6 $65,833 $13,500 $122,606 5 $9,880 $5,400 $6,654
REGION 9 (PENALTIES > 0) I 6 $52,069 $28,800 $50,664 I 3 $13,667 $9,000 $14,572
REGION 10 (PENALTIES > 0) I 12 $15,000 $14,500 $11,244 5 $4,550 $2,250 $5,869
I I
P-VALUE (Means by Region) I 0.9693 I 0.7087
State-Lead 59 $53,251 $17,000 $122,019 40 $21,622 $11,471 $32,735
EPA-Lead I 97 $57,117 * $30,500 $105,424 66 $34,606 $20,040 $43,504
Dual Lead I 20 $32,642 $20,875 $32,102 16 $19,814 $9,975 $22,521
I I
P-VALUE (Means by Lead) 0.6443 I 0.1514
NOTE: These Penalty data (Assessments and Payments) provide statistics (Population Size, Mean, Median,
and Standard Deviation) for selected subsets (Regions arid Leads). All statistics exclude
Federal Facilities, since EPA-Lead Federal Facilities are NOT subject to Federal penalties.
are aLso excluded from these conditional statistics, so as not to skew the resuLts. Here,
Regional and Lead statistics are provided for RTC Facilities with known, positive penalties
only, in order to conpare penalties assessed and paid, while disregarding those RTC Facilities
without Penalties.
* NOTE: Formosa Plastics has been excluded from the Penalties Assessed analysis, as indicated.
NOTE: The Null Hypothesis is that all means (by Region or Lead) are not significantLy different. The aLternative
hypothesis is that at Least two means (Regions or Leads) are significantLy different. If the P-Value is Less
than .05, then we reject the null hypothesis, :nçlying that at Least two means have significant disparity.
For those groups (Regions or Lead) with disparate means, those means with the same letter (A, B, or C) are
NOT significantly different. (In some cases, non-parametric tests cannot determine which means are disparate.]
-------
RCRA RTC Study -- PENALTY STATISTICS: RTCI.WK1; 14-Dec-90
23 (Continued). PENALTIES ASSESSED & PAID (EXCLUDING FEDERAL FACILITIES)
C IDOL LAR S )
NOTE: These Penalty data (Assessments and Payments) provide statistics (Population Size, Mean, Median,
and Standard Deviation) by Categories and conbinations of Categories. ALL statistics excLude
Federal Facilities, since EPA-Lead Federal FaciLities are NOT subject to FederaL penalties.
PENALTIES ASSESSED
PENALTIES PAID
N
MEAN MEDIAN
STD N
MEAN
MEDIAN STD
CATEGORIES EXCLUDING FEDS:
I
I
I
PROC I 180
$36,650 * $16,500
$76,434 181
$14,081
$1,377 $26,719
TECH I 38
159,680 * $19,200
$159,196 39
$17,660
$0 $40,424
HEAR 25
143,097 $24,000
$71,749 I 25
$2,466
SO $6,645
FACIL I 90
157,852 * $23,848
$138,806 I 91
$17,673
$2,440 $36,369
BK/CER I 18
123,926 13,750
$40,001 I 18
17,602
10 $19,129
NOFIN 83
142,428 $13,500
$103,289 I 83
$16,302
$0 $37,418
HWDMS I 15
124,218 10
$70,663 I 15
17,292
$0 $14,409
I
I
PROC ONLY 56
133,065 $18,750
$41,281 I 56
114,979
14,875 $26,657
FACIL ONLY 9
132,944 $12,750
154,092 9
117,167
$12,750 $16,510
HWDMS ONLY 15
124,218 $0
$70,663 15
17,292
10 $14,409
I
I
PROC & TECH I 29
$38,166 * $18,400
$64,514 I 30
$9,657
$0 $26,187
PROC & FACIL 62
546,793 * 125,000
1110,976 I 63
113,225
11,000 122,801
PROC & NOFIN I 68
$42,197 112,750
1110,151 I 68
$15,279
$800 $31,503
HEAR & FACIL 14
158,656 132,675
$85,776 I 16
53,619
50 18,627
I
I
PROC & TECH ONLY 13
140,797 113,665
185,017 I 13
17,388
50 111,658
PROC & FACIL ONLY 27
136,366 125,000
138,633 I 27
520,473
110,000 125,159
PROC & NOFIN ONLY 38
127,555 17,025
548,390 I 38
115,870
12,375 131,820
HEAR & FACIL ONLY 8
173,023 129,750
1110,957 8
55,583
10 111,120
I
I
PROC & TECH & FACIL 10
135,250 * $19,172
$43,319 I 11
12,009
SO $4,667
PROC & FACIL & NOFIN 1 23
170,628 $25,000
$176,259 I 23
111,232
$0 $23,659
I
I
PROC & TECH & FACIL ONLY 7
519,258 * 515,000
520,966 8
12,013
SO 15,262
PROC & FACIL & NOFIN ONLY 1 18
176,602 520,858
5198,163 I 18
111,500
SO $24,495
I
I
ONE CATEGORY ONLY (EXCLUDING HWDMS)I 74
130,985 $15,500
$41,045 I 74
114,457
$5,000 $24,724
TWO CATEGORIES ONLY I 105
143,958 $15,000
1107,145 I 105
118,267
12,250 137,380
THREE CATEGORIES ONLY 42
$50,688 * 116,172
5133,313 43
59,783
50 $26,371
FOUR CATEGORIES ONLY I 6
149,601 138,500
$50,912 6
19,556
50 120,608
* NOTE: Formosa Plastics has been excluded from the PenaLties Assessed analysis, as indicated.
-------
RCRA RTC Study -- PENALTY STATISTICS: RTCI.WK1; 14-Dec-90
3 (Contiraied). PENALTIES ASSESSED & PAID (EXCLUDING FEDERAL FACILITIES & HWDMS)
(SOOLLARS)
PENALTIES ASSESSED I PENALTIES PAID
I I
N MEAN MEDIAN STD I N MEAN MEDIAN STD
VIOLATIONS EXCLUDING HICMS & FEDS: I
I I
Closure/Post-Closure Violations I 151 $39,661 * $15,000 $87,042 152 $12,623 $0 $27,702
NO Closure/Post-Closure Violations 75 $44,655 $22,500 $112,216 I 75 $20,629 $5,000 $37,565
Grou,dwater Violations 194 $40,124 * $15,625 $83,847 I 195 $16,635 $1,100 $33,299
NO Grouidwater Violations I 32 548,465 $15,500 $151,423 I 32 $8,160 $1,600 $14,515
Financial Violations 135 $42,712 • $16,000 $87,795 I 136 $15,365 $2,000 $31,512
NO Financial Violations I 91 $39,218 $15,000 $107,292 I 91 $15,123 $630 $31,529
Other Violations 46 $67,852 $30,250 $147,316 46 $26,554 $4,625 $41,574
I I
CP & OW 124 536,358* $15,000 $58,814 125 $13,511 $0 $29,684
CP & FR I 104 $44,379 * $15,000 $97873 105 $14,172 $0 $31,251
CV & FR I 117 $39,400 a $19,500 $54,045 118 $17,033 $1,689 $33,428
I I
CP & GW & FR 91 $38,820 * $15,000 $57,469 92 $15,667 SO $33,081
I I
OTHER EXCLUDING HWDMS & FEDS: I
I I
RTC 14 $15,301 $11,375 $14,809 14 $11,377 $6,300 $11,374
Non-RTC I 213 $42,821 * $16,000 $98,538 214 $15,451 $615 $32,273
I I
Surface Iir otu ói ents I 128 545,645 * $20,540 $95,756 129 $17,340 $2,440 $33,352
Excluding Surface In ounónents I 99 $35,278 $14,660 $95,873 I 99 $12,415 $250 $28,575
I I
FY86 Discovery Date I 66 $33,376 • $11,375 $55,993 I 67 $17,732 $0 $36,921.
Discovery NOT in FY86 161 $44,299 $17,343 $107,874 161 $14,148 $2,000 $28,851
NOTE: These Penalty data (Assessments and Payments) provide statistics (Population Size, Mean, Median,
and Standard Deviation) for selected subsets (Violations, RTC, Surface Inpoundnents, and FY86
discoveries). All statistics excLude Federal Facilities, since EPA-Lead Federal Facilities are
NOT subject to Federal penalties.
-------
Mean Penalty Statistics by Region
Excluding Federal Facilities & HWDMS Data Errors
RCRA RTC Study
D$70
$6O $55 $56
$44
jE$4o- —
ft ‘t’ A
$24
$20 119 —
14 15 116
: ] [ Ii 1 ;
I Penalties Penalties
Assessed 88 Collected
NOTE: Formosa Plastics has been exduded from
the Penalties Assessed analysis (Region 6).
N = 228
-------
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
Mean Penalty Statistics by Region
Excluding FEDs, HWDMS, Zeroes & Unknowns
RCRA RTC Study
çØ ç & _;1 —
NOTE: Formosa Plastics has been excluded from
I
Penalties
Assessed
gg
Penalties
Collected
Cl)
-o
C l)
0
r
.1—
Cl)
0)
0)
0
the Penalties Assessed analysis (Regkrn 6).
-------
Mean Penalty Statistics by Enforcement Lead
Excluding Federal Facilities & HWDMS Data Errors
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
RCRA RTC Study
NOTE: Formosa Plastics has been excluded from
the Penalties Assessed analysts (EPA-Lead).
L•
•:.
Penalties
Assessed
88
Penalties
Colleded
U)
0)
a)
0
All RTC Facilities State-Lead EPA-Lead Dual Lead
N = 228
-------
RCRA RTC Study -— Summary Points December 1990
Breakdown of the RTC Universe:
Timeline Horizons
General Informat ion :
• RCRA [ Enforc nent Response POliCY] allows 135 days from discovery of
first violation for an enforcement action to be issued, unless the case is
referred for judicial action.
• The average Enforcement Time for the entire RCRA universe (including the
RTC Universe) was 0.90 years in 1986.
• The average enforcement Time for the RTC Universe is 1.34 years.
• Regions 3 and 8 required an average of 1.80 years and 1.89 years,
respectively, to issue the initial enforcement action.
• Enforcement Time at Federal Facilities, 1.50 years, tends to be longer
than for the RTC Universe
• Average Final Action Time —— Discovery, to Final Formal Enforcement Action
—— is 2.88 years for the RTC Universe
• Regions 2 and 9 have the longest —— 4. .6 and 4.03 years, respectively ——
Final Action Times in the RTC Universe
• Seventeen (17) RTC Facilities t have yet to receive a Final Enforcement
Action.
• Average Non-Compliance Time to Date -— Discovery of First Violation to the
date of the draft study profile updates (3/13/90) (or RTC Date] —— is 5.15
years.
• Region 2 has an average Non—Compliance Time to Date of 6.75 years.
NOTE: = These analyses exclude HWDZ4S Data Errors from the statistical
computations.
-------
RCRA RTC STudy CONDITIONAL TIMELINE STATISTICS: RTCJ.UK1; 10-Dec-90
24. TIME HORIZONS (INTERVALS): CONDITIONAL & UNCONDITIONAL -- IN YEARS
Enforcement Time (Discovery of First Violation to First Format Enforcement Action)
Negotiation Time (First Formal Enforcement Action to Final Format Action)
Final Action Time (Discovery of First Violation to Final Formal Action)
Non-Compliance Time to Date (Time from Discovery of First Violation to Profile Updates (3/13/90) or RTC)
FTIME I PICTIME
STD N MEAN STD N MEAN STD
NOTE: These Time Interval (Horizon) data provide statistics (Populations Size, Mean, and Standard
Deviation) for selected subsets (Regions, Lead, and Federal Facilities). HWDMS data errors are
excluded from these conditional statistics, so as not to skew the results.
NOTE: The Null Hypothesis is that all means (by Region, Lead, or Fed) are not significantly different. The
alternative hypothesis is that at least two means are significantly different. If the P-Value is less
than .05, then we reject the null hypothesis, implying that at least two means have significant disparity
For those groups with disparate means, those means with the same Letter (A, B, or C) are not significantly
different. (In some cases, non-parametric tests cannot determine which means are disparate.3
ETIME:
NTIME:
FTIME:
NCTIME:
EXCLUDING HWDMS:
(YEARS)
ETIME
NTIME
N MEAN
STD N MEAN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RTC FACILITIES - UNCONDITIONAL I 243 1.34
I
1.00 227 1.56
I
1.51 I 227 2.88
I
1.62 244 5.15 1.19
I
REGION 1 26 1.02 A
0.59 I 25 1.04
BC
0.99 I 25 2.06 B 1.08 I 26 4.45 B 1.04
REGION 2 5 0.90 A
0.65 5 3.26
A
1.11 5 4.16 A
1.13 I 5 6.75 A 1.49
REGION 3 12 1.80 A
1.33 11 1.06
BC
1.65 I 11 2.65 AB 1.50 12 4.57 B 1.00
REGION 4 38 0.87 A
0.76 I 34 2.09
ABC
1.82 I 34 2.86 AB 1.92 I 38 5.19 B 1.16
REGION 5 84 1.64 A
1.18 I 80 1.61
ABC
1.39 I 80 3.29 AB 1.55 84 5.37 B 1.15
REGION 6 32 1.22 A
0.67 I 32 1.67
ABC
1.52 I 32 2.89 AB 1.62 I 32 4.67 B 0.82
REGION 7 9 1.33 A
0.87 8 0.91
BC
0.77 8 2.36 AB 0.95 9 5.29 B 1.63
REGION 8 7 1.89 A
1.03
6 0.94
BC
1.58 6 2.85 AB 1.78 7 5.57 B 1.83
REGION 9 10 1.43 A
1.00
9 2.66
AB
2.14 9 4.03 A
1.50 I 11 5.41 B 1.08
REGION 10 20 1.18 A
I
P-VALUE (Means by Region) I .0015
I
I
I
0.80 17 0.50
I
.0002
I
I
I
C
0.69 J 17 1.59 B 1.14 I 20 5.46 B 1.08
I I
.0001 .0001
I I
I I
I I
State Lead 94 1.19
0.92 88 1.45
166 I 88 2.63
1.69
96 4.95 B 1.07
EPA-Lead I 121 1.43
1.05 111 1.56
1.34 I 111 2.98
1.53 I 122 5.22 AB 1.21
Dual Lead I 28 1.64
I
0.96 I 28 1.84
I
1.68 I 283.28
I
1.64 28 5.56 A 1.40
I
P-VALUE (Means by Lead) I .1620
I
I
I
.5057
I
I
I
.1163
I
I
I
.0458
I
I
I
Federal Facilities I 15 1.50
1.35 I 12 1.51
2.03 I 12 2.96
2.02 I
16 4.83 0.98
Non-Federal Facilities I 228 1.33
I
0.97 215 1.56
I
1.49 215 2.87
I
1.60 I 228 5.17 1.20
I
P-VALUE (Means by FED) I 5253
I .9076
I .8578
.2671
LEAD AGENCY:
FEDERAL FACILITIES:
-------
RCRA RTC STudy -- CONDITIONAL TIMELINE STATISTICS: RTCJ.WK1; 10-Dec-90
24 (Continued). TIME HORIZONS (INTERVALS): CONDITIONAL & UNCONDITIONAL -- IN YEARS
Enforcement Time (Discovery of First Violation to First Format Enforcement Action)
Negotiation Time (First Formal Enforcement Action to Final Format Action)
Final Action Time (Discovery of First Violation to FinaL Formal Action)
Won-Coo Liance Time to Date (Time from Discovery of First Violation to Profile Updates (3/13/90) or RTC)
C YEARS)
NOTE: These Time Interval (Horizon) data provide statistics (Populations Sizes Mean, and Standard
ETIME
NMEAN STDI
NTINE FTIME I NCTIME
N MEAN STD N MEAN STD N MEAN STD
ET I ME:
NTIME:
FTIME:
NCTIHE:
CATEGORIES:
ONE CATEGORY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROC
185 1.40
0.94
176 1.44
1.34
176 2.84
1.49 I
186 5.03
1.15
TECH
47 1.15
0.78
44 1.79
1.85
44 2.91
1.86 I
47 5.24
1.18
HEAR
26 1.50
1.26 I
22 2.41
2.01 I
22 3.79
1.81 I
26 5.59
1.15
FACIL I
98 1.31
1.01
87 1.83
1.66 I
873.11
1.75
99 5.24
1.20
BK/CER
19 1.23
1.17
15 2.27
2.03
15 3.52
1.99 I
19 5.98
1.23
NOFIN
84 1.25
0.91 I
80 1.49
1.40 I
80 2.77
1.58
84 5.33
1.18
HWDMS I
14 0.93
0.45
13 0.34
0.73
13 1.29
0.96
15 2.69
1.61
I
I
I
I
PROC ONLY
186 1.32
1.02
171 1.68
1.59 I
171 2.98
1.66
187 5.28
1.19
FACIL ONLY I
14 1.37
1.45 I
12 1.86
1.78
12 3.24
1.99
14 5.30
1.51
HWDMS ONLY
14 0.93
0.45
13 0.34
0.73 I
13 1.29
0.96
15 2.69
1.61
I
I
I
I
PROC & TECH I
32 1.15
0.69 I
30 2.07
1.82 I
30 3.21
1.76 I
32 5.19
1.21
PROC & FACIL
64 1.43
0.96
58 1.77
1.56 I
58 3.20
1.65 I
65 5.11
1.13
PROC & NOFIN I
68 1.30
0.86 I
66 1.48
1.36 I
66 2.81
1.50 I
68 5.31
1.16
HEAR & FACIL
14 1.23
0.73 I
12 2.16
1.83 I
12 3.33
1.68
14 5.45
0.87
I
I
I
I
PROC & TECH ONLY
15 1.14
0.76 I
15 1.23
0.94 I
15 2.37
0.98
15 5.13
1.02
PROC & FACIL ONLY I
28 1.57
1.03
26 1.51
1.05
26 3.07
1.30
29 4.79
0.83
PROC & NOFIN ONLY I
38 1.39
0.80 I
38 1.36
1.11
38 2.75
1.25 I
38 5.20
1.18
HEAR & FACIL ONLY
8 0.89
0.71
7 2.58
1.94
7 3.36
1.98
8 5.59
0.64
I
I
I
I
PROC & TECH & FACIL
11 1.33
0.60
10 3.23
2.23
10 4.59
1.90 I
11 5.39
1.56
PROC & FACIL & NOFIN I
23 1.12
0.93
21 1.74
1.75 I
21 2.93
1.88 I
23 5.57
1.15
I
I
I
I
PROC & TECH & FACIL ONLY
8 1.44
0.48
2.72
2.37
4.22
2.16
8 5.11
1.75
PROC & FACIL & NOFIN ONLY
18 1.16
0.98
17 1.56
1.48
17 2.75
1.84
18 5.37
1.20
I
I
I
I
ONLY (EXCLUDING HWDMS)I
84 1.37
1.08 I
80 1.42
1.58 I
80 2.76
1.69
84 4.99
1.24
TWO CATEGORIES ONLY
109 1.33
0.99
103 1.44
1.25
103 2.77
1.38
110 5.17
1.11
THREE CATEGORIES ONLY I
43 1.36
0.90
38 1.99
1.80 I
38 3.32
1.93 I
3 5.31
1.29
FOUR CATEGORIES ONLY
7 1.02
0.73
6 2.47
2.37
6 3.62
2.07
7 5.94
0.91
Deviation) by Categories and combinations of Categories.
-------
RCRA RTC STudy -- CONDITIONAL TIMELINE STATISTICS: RTCJ.WK1; 10-Dec-90
24 (Continued). TIME HORIZONS (INTERVALS): CONDITIONAL & UNCONDITIONAL -- IN YEARS
ETIME: Enforcement Time (Discovery of First Violation to First Formal Enforcement Action)
NTIME: Negotiation Time (First Formal Enforcement Action to Final Format Action)
FTIME: Final Action Time (Discovery of First Violation to Final Format Action)
NCTIME: Non-Con liance Time to Date (Time from Discovery of First Violation to Profile
(YEARS)
Updates (3/13/90) or RTC)
NOTE: These Time IntervaL (Horizon) data provide statistics (Populations Size, Mean, and Standard
Deviation) for selected subsets (Violations, RTC, Surface Irr oundments, and FY86 discoveries).
HWDMS data errors are excluded from these conditionaL statistics, so as not to skew the results.
NOTE: Some faciLity profiles have been updated, beyond the 3/13/90 review. The statistics presented in
Charts 23-24 are based upon the data provided in the facility profiles, including the most recent
enforcement action dates.
NTIME
FTIME
I
NCTIME
N MEAN
STD
N MEAN STD
N MEAN STD
ETIME
-
I NIIEAN
STD I
VIOLATIONS EXCLUDING HWDMS:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CLosure/Post-Closure Violations 164 1.39
1.05 I 151 1.53
1.56 151 2.90
1.64 165 5.22
1.15
NO Closure/Post-Closure Violations 79 1.24
0.87 76 1.60
1.44 I 76 2.84
1.58 79 5.01
1.27
Groundwater Violations 208 1.34
O. 9 195 1.64
1.58 195 2.95
1.65 I 209 5.14
1.17
NO Groundwater Violations 35 1.31
1.01 I 32 1.06
0.93 I 32 2.43
1.38 I 35 5.20
1.34
Financial Violations I 137 1.29
0.94 I 132 1.61
1.56 I 132 2.91
1.66 137 5.27
1.18
NO Financial Violations 106 1.40
1.06 I 95 1.43
1.45 I 95 2.84
1.56 I 107 5.00
1.20
Other Violations I 52 1.32
I
0.85 I 48 1.75
I
1.65 48 3.01
I
1.61 I 52 5.05
I
1.22
CP & GU 136 1.42
1.05 125 1.63
1.63 125 3.02
1.67 137 5.23
1.17
CP & FR 105 1.34
0.98 I 100 1.56
1.56 I 100 2.91
1.65 105 5.39
1.11
GU & FR 119 1.30
I
0.95 115 1.68
I
1.63 I 115 2.99
I
1.69
119 5.27
I
1.14
CP & CU & FR
92 1.39
I
0.99 I 88 1.63
I
1.60 I 88 3.03
I
1.66
I 92 5.43
I
1.14
OTHER EXCLUDING HWDMS: I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RTC 14 1.35
1.04 14 1.03
0.95 I 14 2.38
1.35
14 3.99
0.75
Non-RTC
229 1.34
I
0.99 213 1.59
I
1.54 213 2.91
I
1.63
230 5.22
I
1.18
Surface I,t oundments
I 138 1.37
0.99 I 130 1.62
1.50 I 130 2.97
1.52
139 5.10
1.11
Excluding Surface Impoun iients
105 1.29
I
1.00 I 97 1.47
I
1.54 I 97 2.76
I
1.75
I 105 5.22
I
1.30
FY86 Discovery Dates
I 72 1.15
0.66 I 67 0.98
0.95 J 67 2.12
1.13
73 3.94
0.27
Discovery NOT in FY86
171 1.42
1.10
160 1.80
1.64 I 160 3.20
1.69
171 5.67
1.05
-------
RCRA RTC STudy -- CONDITIONAL TIMELINE STATISTICS: RTCJ.WK1; 10-Dec-90
24A. TIME HORIZONS (INTERVALS): CONDITIONAL & UNCONDITIONAL -- IN DAYS
Enforcement Time (Discovery of First Violation to First Formal Enforcement Action)
Negotiation Time (First Format Enforcement Action to Final Format Action)
Final Action Time (Discovery of First VioLation to Final Formal Action)
Non-Compliance Time to Date (Time from Discovery of First Violation to Profile Updates (3/13/90) or RTC)
(DAYS)
NCTIME
N MEAN STD
I I
I I
553 I 227 1052 591 I 244 1882 436
I I
I 25 751 B 395 26 1624 B 381
5 .1518 A 413 5 2466 A 543
11 969 AB 547 12 1671 B 366
34 1044 AS 701 38 1894 B 415
I ao 1203 AS 567 84 1961 B 420
32 1056 AS 592 32 1707 B 301
8 861 AS 348 9 1933 B 594
6 1041 AS 650 I 7 2035 B 670
9 1472 A 548 11 1976 B 393
I 17 581 B 418 I 20 1994 B 395
.0001 .0001
I I
I I
608 I 88 959 618 94 1809 B 390
489 111 1089 560 I 122 1905 AS 443
615 28 1198 599 I 28 2029 A 511
.1163 .0458
I I
741 I 12 1082 736 I 16 1765 357
I 215 1050 584 I 228 1890 440
8578 2671
NOTE: These Time Interval (Horizon) data provide statistics (PopuLations Size, Mean, and Standard
Deviation) for selected subsets (Regions, Lead, and Federal Facilities). HWDMS data errors are
excluded from these conditional statistics, so as not to skew the results.
NOTE: The NuLl Hypothesis is that all means (by Region, Lead, or Fed) are not significantly different. The
alternative hypothesis is that at least two means are significantly different. If the P-Value is less
than .05. then we reject the nuLl hypothesis, implying that at least two means have significant disparity.
For those groups with disparate means, those means with the same letter CA, B, or C) are not significantly
different. (In some cases, non-parametric tests cannot determine which means are disparate.]
El IME:
NTIME:
FT IME:
NCTIME:
EXCLUDING HWDMS:
ETIME NTIME I FTIME
N MEAN STD N MEAN STD N MEAN STD
BC 361
A 404
BC 602
ABC 663
ABC 508
ABC 554
BC 281
BC 578
AS 780
C 251
I
I
RTC FACILITIES -- UNCONDITIONAL I 243
I
REGION 1 26
REGION 2 5
REGION 3 12
REGION 4 I 38
REGION 5 84
REGION 6 32
REGION 7 9
REGION 8 7
REGION 9 10
REGION 10 20
489
371 A
329 A
656 A
316 A
600 A
445 A
487 A
690 A
523 A
431 A
I
I
364 I 227
I
214 I 25
239 I 5
484
277 34
431 I 80
243 32
317 I 8
378 6
364 9
296 f 17
568
380
1189
388
762
589
611
336
343
971
182
P-VALUE (Means by Region) I
I
LEAD AGENCY: I
.0015
I
I
I
.0002
State-Lead ‘
EPA-Lead I 121
Dual Lead I 28
524
527
I 88
384 I 111
352 I 28
531
571
671
P-VALUE (Means by Lead) I
.1620
I
5057
FEDERAL FACILITIES: I
I
Federal Facilities
Non-Federal Facilities
15
228
547
485
492
355
I 12
I 215
550
569
P-VALUE (Means by FED)
.5253
I
9076
-------
RCRA RTC STudy CONDITIONAL TIMELINE STATISTICS: RTCJ.WK1; 10-Dec-90
24A (Continued). TIME HORIZONS (INTERVALS): CONDITIONAL & UNCONDITIONAL -- IN DAYS
Enforcement Time (Discovery of First Violation to First Format Enforcement Action)
Negotiation Time (First Formal Enforcement Action to FinaL Formal Action)
Final Action Time (Discovery of First Violation to Final Formal Action)
Non-Compliance Time to Date (Time f rem Discovery of First VioLation to Profile Updates (3/13/90) or RTC)
ETIME:
NTIME:
FTIME:
NCTIME:
ETIME
N MEAN
STO
NTIME
N MEAN
STD
FTIME
N MEAN
STD
NCTIME
11 MEAN
STD
CATEGORIES: I
I
PROC I
TECH
HEAR I
FACIL I
BK/CER I
NOFIN I
HUOMS
I
PROC ONLY I
FACIL ONLY I
HWDMS ONLY
I
PROC & TECH I
PROC & FACIL
PROC & NOFIN I
HEAR & FACIL
I
PROC & TECH ONLY
PROC 8 FACIL ONLY I
PROC & NOFIN ONLY I
HEAR & FACIL ONLY
I
PROC & TECH & FACIL
PROC & FACIL & NOFIN I
I
PROC & TECH & FACIL ONLY
PROC & FACIL & NOFIN ONLY I
I
ONE CATEGORY ONLY (EXCLUDING HWDMS)I
TWO CATEGORIES ONLY
THREE CATEGORIES ONLY I
FOUR CATEGORIES ONLY
185 510
47 420
26 549
98 479
19 449
84 457
14 338
186 483
14 502
14 338
32 419
64 523
68 473
14 448
15 416
28 574
38 506
8 325
11 687
23 409
8 526
18 422
84 500
109 486
43 495
7 371
I
I
342 I
284
59 I
369 I
426
331
164
I
372 I
529 I
164
I
251
350 I
313
266 I
I
279 I
377
293
261
I
219
341
I
177 I
35 I
I
396 I
360 I
327 I
266 I
176 525
44 655
22 879
87 668
15 830
80 544
13 124
171 614
12 678
13 124
30 755
58 647
66 542
12 788
15 451
26 553
38 498
7 942
10 1179
21 635
7 995
17 569
80 520
103 527
38 727
6 902
I
I
491
675
733 I
605 I
742 I
512 I
265
I
579 I
651
265
I
665 I
569
496 I
668 I
I
344 I
383 I
405
710
I
816 I
638 I
I
866 I
539 I
I
577
456 I
657 I
864
176 1036
44 1066
22 1386
87 1137
15 1286
80 1012
13 670
171 1090
12 1182
13 470
30 1173
58 1169
66 1026
12 1218
15 867
26 1121
38 1004
7 1226
10 1677
21 1071
7 1543
17 1006
80 1008
103 1011
38 1213
6 1322
I
I
544 I
679 I
661 I
639
726
577
351
I
607
728
351 I
I
644 I
604 I
568 I
613
I
357 I
475 I
456
723
I
693
687 I
I
790 I
673
I
616
504
705
756
186 1836
47 1913
26 2043
99 1915
19 2186
84 1947
15 982
187 1929
14 1935
15 982
32 1895
65 1867
68 1940
14 1990
15 1874
29 1749
38 1899
8 2042
11 1967
23 2033
8 1866
18 1961
84 1822
110 1887
43 1939
7 2170
420
430
420
439
450
432
588
435
552
588
443
412
423
318
374
302
431
232
569
419
640
438
456
607
470
332
NOTE: These Time Interval (Horizon) data provide statistics (Populations Size, Mean, and Standard
CDAYS)
Deviation) by Categories and combinations of Categories.
-------
RCRA RTC STudy -- CONDITIONAL TIMELINE STATISTICS: RTCJ.WKlf 10-Dec-90
24A (Continued). TIME HORIZONS (INTERVALS): CONDITIONAL & UNCONDITIONAL -- IN DAYS
Enforcement Time (Discovery of First Violation to First Format Enforcement Action)
Negotiation Time (First FormaL Enforcement Action to FinaL Format Action)
Final Action Time (Discovery of First Violation to Final Format Action)
Non-CofnpL iance Time to Date (Time from Discovery of First VioLation to Profile Updates (3/13/90) or RTC)
(DAYS)
NOTE: These Time Interval (Horizon) data provide statistics (Populations Size, Mean, and Standard
Deviation) for selected subsets (Violations, RTC, Surface Impoundments, and FY86 discoveries).
HWDMS data errors are excluded from these conditional statistics, so as not to skew the resuLts.
NOTE: Some facility profiles have been updated, beyond the 3/13/90 review. The statistics presented in
Charts 23-24 are based upon the data provided in the faciLity profiles, incLuding the most recent
enforcement action dates.
ETIME:
NTIME:
FTIME:
NCTINE:
ETIME
STD I
NTIME FTIME 1ICTIME
N MEAN STD I N MEAN STD N MEAN STD
N
MEAN
VIOLATIONS EXCLUDING Hl MS:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Closure/Post-Closure Violations I 164
506
383 151
559
568 151
1059
599 165
1907
421
NO Closure/Post-Closure Violations 79
454
319 76
585
526 I 76
1038
577 79
1831
464
Groundwater VioLations 208
491
363 I 195
598
576 195
1079
601 I 209
1879
428
NO Groundwater Violations 35
477
370 I 32
386
339 I 32
883
505 I 35
1900
488
Financial VioLations 137
472
344 132
588
571 132
1063
608 137
1925
430
NO Financial Violations I 106
512
387 95
540
529 I 95
1036
569 107
1826
438
Other Violations 52
I
681
309 48
I
641
602 I 48
I
1101
588 I 52
I
1845
444
CP & 6W 136
518
384 I 125
596
597 125
1102
611 I 137
1911
429
CP & FR 105
488
359 100
571
568 I 100
1064
602 105
1967
607
CU & FR 119
I
676
346 115
I
613
594 I 115
I
1091
617 119
I
1924
416
CP & CU & FR 92
I
508
363 I 88
I
595
585 I 88
I
1107
605 I 92
I
1984
417
OTHER EXCLUDING HWDMS: I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RTC 14
494
381 16
376
348 I 14
870
494 14
1458
273
Non-RTC 229
I
489
363 I 213
I
580
562 I 213
I
1064
596 I 230
I
1908
431
Surface Impoundments I 138
502
363 I 130
590
548 130
1084
554 I 139
1864
405
Excluding Surface Impoundments 105
I
472
365 97
I
538
562 I 97
I
1009
638 I 105
I
1906
474
FY86 Discovery Dates 72
420
241 67
357
348 I 67
773
613 I 73
1439
97
Discovery NOT in FY86 171
519
401 I 160
656
598 I 160
1169
616 171
2071
384
-------
8
6
4
5.2
4.5
Excluding HWDMS Data Errors
RCRA RTC Study
6.8
4.6
1.8
5.2
I
5.4
1.8,.8
F ’
Mean Timeline Horizons by Region
_ !L1:
[ ] Non-Compliance Time Negotiation Time Enforcement Time
I I NCTime K &1 NTime ____ ETime
NOTE: NClime to Date (time since Discovery);
NTime (First to Final Formal Enforcement Actk)n);
(5
Di
1.01.0
5 -5
Cl)
ctl
a)
C
0
N
0
I
a)
a)
E
I—
2
0
5.3
4.7
a
Ii
I’
ETime (Discovery to First Formal Action).
-------
Mean Timeline Horizons by Enforcement Lead
Excluding HWDMS Data Errors
RCRA RTC Study
7
(1) -
I-
c 6 . 5.6
5.2 5.2
,- , 5.0
— I
— .
c - .
k
U) - 1.8
1.6 1.5 14 .: 14
i i1 13O 112__±irn_:ITJ_
All RTC Facilities State-Lead EPA-Lead Dual Lead
Non-Compliance Time Negotiation Time Enforcement Time
__________ f l( TFiriie F 1 Fl1iruie Elirrie
NOTE: NClime to Date (time since Discovery);
NTime (First to Final Formal Enforcement Action);
Elime (Discovery to First Formal Action).
-------
Mean Timeline Horizons by Categories
Excluding HWDMS Data Errors
RCRA RTC Study
— 5.2
- —
.
52
— 4.8
-.
...
!•
2.7
.
.
—
1.3
1.7
13
.
1.9
14
to
‘=i
LI
‘
12
w
rn
,
1.41.4
ro
.
1.7
t
Non-Compliance Time Negotiation Time r Enforcement Time
___ NGTIme K *1 NTime I ETime
NOTE: NClime to Date (time since Discovery);
NTime (First to Final Formal Enforcement Action);
ETime (Discovery to First Formal Action).
Cl)
I-
0
-------
RCRA RTC Study -— Summary Points December 1990
The RTC Universe:
Data Set
General Information —— KEY :
• The RCRA RTC Facilities (universe) are identified by the appropriate RCRA
Facility Name and twelve—digit EPA number (as identified in HWDMS).
• These RTC Facilities (SNCB greater than 3 years, not in udicja]. action,
or HWDMS Data Errors) are alphabetically sorted by Region, where the first
two digits of the EPA ID gives the state of the given facility.
• Enforcement Action Dates are included for:
— Date of the Discovery of the First Violation
— First/Initial Formal Enforcement Action Date
— Final Formal Enforcement Action Date
— Return to Compliance ( ) Date .
• Enforcement Action Lead is identified as EPA, STATE, or BOTH.
• eral Facilities and BI Status are identified as (Y)es or (N)o.
• Violations are identified as (Y)es or (N)o for , , , or Q er.
• Categories are identified as (Y)es or (N)o for PROC, Tech, HEAR , f gI ,
BK/CER, NOFIN , or HWDMS.
• Penalty Assessed and Penalty Collected are given in dollars.
-------
RCRA RETL II TO ( I1PLIAJICE (RTC) STIDY
DATA SET (as of 12/12/90)
** REGION = 1
AMERICAN CHEMICAL AND REFINING
ATHOL SANITARY LANDFILL
AUTO-SWAGE PRODUCTS 1 INC.
BASS PLATING CO.
COLUMBIA MANUFACTURING CO/MTD NANUFAC.
ELECTRONIC CONTROLS CORP.
GALILEO ELECTRO OPTICS
HANDY AND HARMON ELECTRONIC MATERIALS
HONEYWELL -VALVE
IDEAL MANUFACTURING CO.
LCP CHEMICALS
LEAVENS AWARDS CO., INC.
NATIONAL CHROMIUM
NEW ENGLAND POWER CO- -SALEM
PLAINVILLE LANDFILL
POLOROID CORP.
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
RELIABLE ELECTRO PLATING INC.
SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT
TECH SYSTEMS CORPORATION
TEXTRON LYCONING
THOMPSON
UTILITY MANUFACTURING CO., INC.
WALLINGFORD LANDFILL
WHITING AND DAVIS CO.
WHYCO CHROMIUM
WILLIAM PRYM, INC.
WYMAN GORDON CO.
CTD001184894 06/25/86 06/26/87
MAD063844159 06/11/86 03/31/87
CTD064832611 07/11/85 11/25/85
CTD001145671 07/17/86 09/23/86
MA0001115609 08/12/83 06/05/85
MADOO1 138726 08/15/85 09/28/87
MAD065781 197 11/04/85 09/27/87
MAD048974349 08/21/86 09/29/87
CTDOO1 149582 09/25/85 06/02/87
CTDOO1 168137 07/30/86 02/25/87
ME0000242701 07/17/84 02/21/86
** REGION = 2
BUFFALO COLOR CORPORATION
COMMONWEALTH OIL REFINING COMPANY, INC.
WYD080335052 01/16/85 09/30/85 02/08/89
PRDO91017228 02/18/84 07/01/85 03/03/86
/ / EPA MN WYNN YNNNN N N
/ / EPA MN YYYN NNNNN N Y
NAME
ID
DISCOVER
FIRST
VIOL.
FIRST
FORMAL
ENFORCE.
ACT ION
FINAL
FORMAL
ENFORCE. RTC
ACTION DATE
L
E
A
D
VIOLa
FR 0
ET CGFT
DC PWRH
PENALTY PENALTY
ASSESSED COLLECT
HAR8OR STAT.
06/26/87
09/08/88
12/22/86
06/24/87
06/05/85
09/28/87
08/22/88
09/29/87
0 1/14/88
09/19/88
12/11/88
MAD063913909 06/04/86 09/30/87 01/31/90
CTDOO116O811 10/17/85 09/29/86 09/29/86
MADO3O821631 03/27/84 04/11/84 12/16/86
CTD081296758 07/30/85 11/14/85 04/01/87
MAD000846493 12/11/85 06/12/86 10/28/87
CTDOOI 186618 06/08/83 09/30/84 06/30/85
MAD001290121 06/19/85 08/01/86 03/06/87
CTD001449784 07/01/86 07/10/87 / /
CTD058865072 05/03/84 12/02/85 09/29/88
CT0001 181502 06/10/86 09/25/86 01/31/88
CTD000769729 06/24/83 05/04/84 01/09/87
NAD001116078 10/25/85 07/28/86 07/28/86
CT0991288960 07/02/86 12/15/86 12/15/86
NADOO1 195700 06/24/86 09/28/87 09/28/87
CTDOO14SO154 12/19/85 09/14/87 07/19/88
CT0001 140920 11/25/85 08/27/86 08/27/86
MADOO1 128032 07/24/86 09/29/87 09/29/87
09/12/88
/1
/1
//
/1
/1
//
/1
‘I
II
/ /
II
/ /
04/02/87
I,
09/15/89
//
//
//
//
/-
1/
/1
//
/ /
/ /
06/30/89
06/30/89
CATE RIES
P T H F BK NO H
REEAC F W
OCACE I D
CHRIR N N
NNNNN N Y 0
YNNNN V N 21984
YNNYM V N 50000
MYNNN Y N 630
YNTYN V N 0
YNYNN V N 0
YNNYN N N 58254
YNNNN N N 0
YYNNN N N 0
YMNNN N N 56348
YYNYN N N 17343
YNYYN N N 0
YNNYN N N 0
YMNIIN N N 0
YNNNN N N 0
NUNYN N N 12750
YNNYY V N 54910
YNNNN N N 20000
YTNYN N N 44464
YNNNN Y N 96295
YYNNN N N 28000
YNNNN Y N 0
YNNYN N N 0
YNNIIN N N 0
YYNYN N N 0
YNNNN Y N 61127
YNNNN Y N 0
NNNNN N Y 0
STATE N V
EPA MN
EPA NM
STATE N N
BOTH N N
STATE N N
EPA NN
STATE N N
STATE N N
EPA NM
EPA NM
STATE N N
STATE N N
STATE N Y
STATE N N
STATE N V
EPA MN
STATE N N
EPA MN
STATE N N
STATE N N
BOTH N N
STATE N N
STATE N N
STATE N N
EPA NW
STATE N V
STATE N V
YNNY
YVY N
YVYN
NVNN
YYYN
YVY N
NYYY
YYNN
YYNN
NVYN
YYNN
YYNN
NYY V
YYNN
YNNN
WYNN
YTYN
HWY V
YYN N
VT TN
NYNY
YYYN
WYNN
YYNY
YYTN
YTYT
YN TN
NYNN
0
21984
20000
630
0
0
40400
0
0
20000
0
0
0
0
0
12750
51335
0
0
90000
28000
0
0
0
0
61127
0
0
28500 15000
0 0
-------
RC&A RETI N TO CUII’LIAJICE (RTC) STI Y
DATA SET (as of 12/12/90)
FRONTIER CHEMICAL
INTERLAKEN INC./HOEGANAES
MERCK SHARP AND DOHME QUIMICA (HSDO)
M000NA CREEK (MAJESTIC WEAVING)
PVS CHEMICAL
NYD043815703 08/06182
NJDOOI5191O7 08/11/86
PRD090028101 01/31/85
NYD001701382 02/18/82
NYD980534390 05/16182
03/13/83 02/28/86 / I
04/03/87 / / 01/02/88
01/27/86 09/30/87 / /
05/18/82 02/12/87 I /
05/04/84 11/20/87 / /
DISCOVER
FIRST
NAME ID VIOL.
F I RST
FORMAL
ENFORCE.
ACTION
F I HAL
FORMAL
ENFORCE. RTC
ACTION DATE
VIOLa
FR 0
ET CGFT
DC PWRH
CATEGORIES
P T H F BK NO H
REEAC F V
OCACE I D
CHRLR N N
L
E
A
0
STATE
STATE
EPA
BOTH
EPA
PENALTY PENALTY
ASSESSED COLLECT
NN NYIIN YNNNN N N
NY YNYN NNNHH N Y
NH YYNN YNNYN N N
NH YYNN NNNYY N H
Nil HYNN YNNNN N N
** REGION = 3
ATLANTIC COAST ENVIRONMENTAL
ATLAS POWDERS CO.
BALDWIN HARDWARE
FMC CORPORATION
HOPEWELL PLT AQUALON
KENNAMETAL, INC.
KEYSTONE CHEMICAL
KOPPERS CO. FALLANSBEE
NATIONAL FORGE CO.
SECHAN LIMESTONE INDUSTRIES, INC.
SHARON STEEL CORPORATION
SPANG AND COMPANY
** REGION = 4
ALABAMA PLATING CO., INC.
BROWN WOOD PRESERVING
C.P. CHEMICALS
COASTAL PLAINS TREATING CO., INC.
COLLIS, INC.
DANA CORPORATION
DURABLE WOOD PRESERVERS, INC.
DYNATECH INDUSTRIES
EDWIN B. STIMPSON CO., INC.
FAIRCHILD WESTON
FLORIDA TILE
FLORIDA TILE
GENERAL SMELTING AND REFINING
DE0000796300 03/18/86
PAD0712O3046 04/18/84
PAD002350833 03/28/86
WVDOOSOO5O79 06/30/83
VAD0O3121928 06/12/86
PA0004397683 06/27/85
PAD000647735 08/08/86
WvD0O4336749 01/21/86
PADOO2IO14I8 02/04/86
PAD0O2860377 05/21/86
PAD001933175 06/14/84
PAD980715742 09/09/85
AL0004O22448 06/18/85
ALDO82O66192 10/19/83
SCD070371885 02/01/85
GAD981015449 12/20/83
KYD057591 133 02/23/82
TND0O4045605 03/07/84
NC0003173358 12/17/85
NCD981O14517 06/24/85
FLD0O1647015 09/30/85
FLD083200998 07/31/85
F10004091583 01/16/86
KYD0457353O5 06/29/83
TND004O48690 08/28/86
YIIHNN Y N
YNNNN N H
YNNNN N H
YNNNN N H
YNNNN H H
YIINNN N N
NHNYN Y H
YIIYYN N N
YNHNH N N
YIINNN N N
NHHHY N N
NNYNN N H
03/02/88 12/31/89
12/17/87 12/17/87
04/13/87 04/13/87
12/29/86 12/29/86
09/18/87 02/09/88
05/14/87 05/14/87
08/08/86 10/14/86
07/02/87 01/14/89
03/27/87 09/28/89
12/16/87 12/16/87
06/28/84 09/21/89
09/28/89 / /
09/25/85 03/27/87
03/31/84 05/31/89
04/01/85 05/10/89
05/16/85 01/13/89
09/01/82 07/11/89
06/24/85 04/09/87
06/01/87 06/01/87
01/08/86 / /
09/29/86 12/12/87
/ / STATE
/ I EPA
/ / EPA
/ I EPA
/ / STATE
/ I STATE
I / EPA
/ I EPA
/ / EPA
/ / STATE
/ / STATE
I / EPA
/ / EPA
I / EPA
I / EPA
/ / STATE
I I STATE
/ / STATE
/ / STATE
/ I STATE
10/15/89 EPA
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
HN
Nil
NH
NH
NH
NH
NN
NH
NH
NY
NY
NH
NH
NH
149000
4650
40000
7000
21000
0
8000
0
60000
21000
130000
223500
38000
43500
200
500
5000
171000
24000
333675
0
6100
13665
0
21250
33000.
50000
10000
34000
33992
YYYH
YHNN
NYNN
NYNH
YNHH
YNNN
YYYH
NYNN
YYNN
YYNN
NYNN
YYHN
YYYY
YYYN
YYNY
YYYN
YYYY
HYHH
YYYN
YNHN
NYYN
YYYN
NYYN
YYYN
NYNN
124000
0
10000
0
0
0
0
0
0
21000
0
223500
0
10000
200
500
5000
30000
0
0
0
1100
10941
0
0
33000
25400
7500
10000
33992
NNHYN
YYYNH
NHYYN
NNNNY
YYNYN
YYNHN
YNN NH
YHHHY
YNHNN
YYNNN
YNNNH
NHHNN
YYNNN
07/10/86 01/20/88 04/30/90 EPA
05/30/86 10/19/87 / / EPA
06/29/83 10/19/87 / / BOTH
07/31/85 06/15/87 / I STATE
Nil
NH
NH
Nil
NH
NH
YN
NH
NH
NH
YN
YN
YN
-------
RCNA RETURN TO C0IN L lANCE (RTC) SuET
DATA SET (as of 12/12/90)
DISCOVER
FIRST
VIOL.
F I RST
FORMAL
ENFORCE.
ACTION
VIOLa
FR 0
ET CGFT
DC PWRH
CATE RIES
P T H F BK NO H
REEAC F U
OCACE I 0
CNRLR N N
PENALTY PENALTY
ASSESSED COLLECT
NAME
GNB INC. (PACIFIC CHLORIDE)
GRUMMAN ST. AUGUSTINE CORP.
ILCO UNICAN CORP.
JOHNSTON COUNTY SCHOOLBOARD
KAISER ALUMINUM
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.
LANDFILL INC.
LCP CHEMICAL
LEE BRASS COMPANY
MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
MARTIN MARIETTA AEROSPACE
MARTIN SCRAP RECYCLING
HAYFIELD PRINTING
MIDWAY FABRICATING
NAT IONAL STANDARD/COLUMBIANA PLANT
NEPTUNE WATER METER CO.
RAD CHEMICALS INC.
RAIL SERVICES, INC.
REFINED METALS CORP.
SANITARY DASH
SOUTHERN WOOD PIEDMONT COMPANY
STALLWORTH TIMBER
TRAK MICROWAVE
U.S. DOE - SRS
UNION FOUNDRY CORP.
UNION TIMBER CO.
UNITED PLATING, INC.
USCG - MIAMI BEACH
USCG SUPPORT CENTER
WEST KENTUCKY BATTERY
** REGION = 5
ALLEGHENY LUDLUN STEEL CORP.
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA (ALCOA)
FINAL
FORMAL
ENFORCE. RTC
ID ACTION DATE
FL0000608083 11/30/84 08/28/85 05/26/87 / I
FL0O45771952 02/19/86 05/23/86 03/10/89 I /
NCDO45646924 09/09/85 09/09/85 10/11/85 / I
N10981476955 10/15/85 11/08/85 09/28/87 / /
FLDOO41O6811 07/02/86 08/04/86 08/04/86 03/26/88
ALD000771949 08/07/85 11/30/85 06/29/87 / I
SCD98O500292 09/05/85 09/30/85 09/16/86 / /
NCD991278631 09/03/85 09/29/86 09/29/86 / /
ALD057213811 02/22/84 08/21/85 08/01/89 / /
AL1800013863 03/05/85 09/23/86 09/23/86 / /
FLD06024O207 09/20/84 06/25/85 06/25/85 12/01/85
NCD044440303 01/03/85 05/08/85 05/08/85 / /
KYD006376537 03/03/86 03/09/87 03/09/87 / /
KYD981469349 06/04/86 03/30/88 / / I I
ALDO54571278 12/17/84 01/31/86 06/14/89 / /
ALD981931876 04/29/86 10/10/86 10/10/86 03/10/87
KYD096544236 05/19/81 12/01/83 03/07/86 / /
KYD991276833 09/02/83 04/24/84 10/21/89 / /
F1D08O677347 04/09/84 08/22/84 08/22/84 / /
FLD01O826519 12/12/84 03/28/86 03/28/86 07/30/86
SCD049650001 05/22/84 05/31/85 11/02/87 / /
ALD058223371 03/22/84 08/14/85 09/29/89 / /
FLD004093621 02/05/85 04/18/86 04/18/86 10/18/86
SC1890008989 05/13/85 11/07/85 11/07/85 1 /
ALD047158266 09/26/85 11/16/85 01/30/89 I /
GAD094075553 01/15/86 03/27/86 07/23/87 / /
ALDO6711I4SO 1O/18/84 03/31/85 06/30/85 / /
FL5690308338 04/17/86 01/12/87 / / / /
NC269O308232 07/01/86 08/30/88 10/17/90 / /
KY0053351557 07/19/84 01/14/88 / / / I
L
E
A
D
STATE
EPA
STATE
STATE
STATE
STATE
EPA
STATE
STATE
EPA
STATE
STATE
STATE
STATE
EPA
STATE
BOTH
BOTH
EPA
STATE
EPA
EPA
STATE
BOTH
EPA
BOTH
EPA
EPA
EPA
STATE
MM
MN
MM
MM
MY
MM
NM
NM
MN
TM
NY
NM
MN
NM
MN
MY
MM
MM
MM
NY
NM
NM
NT
YM
MN
MN
NM
TN
YM
NM
YYYN
MYMY
MYYN
YMTN
HYMN
MYNT
MYTH
NYYM
NYTY
NYMY
YYMM
TYYN
YYMY
YYMY
NYNY
NUNY
MNYN
MYTH
YNYN
TYYN
NYNN
NYYY
YYNN
YYNT
YYY T
YYNN
YYTN
NMNT
TYNIJ
YYNY
TYNMN
TTNMN
TMMMN
YNMMN
MUM N N
NYNYII
MNY TN
YNNYN
YYYYN
NYNNU
MNN NM
NNNNY
YMN TM
YMN TM
TYNNN
MNNNN
NNN TN
NYNYT
YNNNM
NNNNN
YNNYM
UNY TN
NMN NM
NYNNN
THU Y U
YYNNM
NNT TM
NUN YM
YMNYN
YMN TY
MM
TM
NM
TN
NT
MU
MM
MN
MM
NM
MT
MN
MN
MM
MM
MY
MM
NM
MN
NY
MN
NM
MY
MM
NM
NM
NM
NM
MN
MN
0
137571
5000
6000
1000
34200
29500
73000
52000
0
0
0
1000
0
68000
0
1250
20000
15000
4875
10000
24000
61000
0
152000
0
30000
0
63500
0
0
137571
0
0
1000
34200
0
1377
6000
0
0
0
1000
0
28000
0
250
20000
12000
4875
10000
0
41000
0
30000
0
30000
0
0
0
1NDO72036114 08/03/84 01/25/85 01/31/90
1ND006366819 03/27/84 02/11/87 08/02/88
/ / STATENN TYTY NNYTN MN 0 0
I I STATENN YYNN YNNYM N N 0 0
-------
RC&A RETI N TO IIQLIANC (RTC) ST1 Y
DATA SET (as of 12/12/90)
CATE RIES
_VIOLs_ P T H F BK NO H
FR 0 REEAC F N
ET CGFT OCACE I D
DC PWRH CHRLR N N
PENALTY PENALTY
ASSESSED cOLLECT
DISCOVER FIRST
FINAL
I.
FORMAL
FORMAL
E
FIRST
ENFORCE.
ENFORCE.
RTC
A
NAME ID VIOL.
ACTION
ACTION
DATE
0
AM GENERAL CORP.
IND051217776
11/01/84
09/30/87
04/20/88
I
I
BOTH N N N Y Y N Y N N N N N
N
30800
0
ANDERSON CO.
1ND016520017
05/05/86
09/30/87
10/17/88
I
I
EPA N N N Y Y Y Y N N N N N
N
30500
4750
ARISTECH CHEMICAL CORP.
0H0005108477
04/24/85
09/09/86
12/27/88
I
I
EPA N N N Y Y Y Y N N N N N
N
121561
121561
ARVIN INDUSTRIES
1N0000810903
05/10/83
08/07/84
09/26/89
I
I
STATE N N Y Y Y N Y N N N N N
N
12000
12000
AUBURN FOUNDRY. INC.
IND005070685
08/24/84
10/18/84
10/07/86
I
I
STATE N N Y Y Y N Y N N Y N N
N
25000
25000
BLUE LAKE
IN0046107157
02/15/85
08/08/85
/ /
I
I
STATE N N Y N Y U Y N N Y N Y
N
860000
0
BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF OHIO
0H0980795264
06/05/84
05/27/86
04/13/88
I
I
EPA N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y N N
N
91500
62500
BRUSH WELLMAN
0H0004212999
08/13/86
07/23/87
07/23/87
I
I
STATE N N N Y Y N N N N Y N N
U
9000
9000
CARRIAGE, INC.
IND046398780
03/08/85
07/05/85
12/22/86
I
I
STATE N N Y N Y N Y N N N N Y
N
16000
2000
CECO CORPORATION
ILD990785453
07/28/83
07/15/86
03/28/89
I
I
STATE N N Y N Y N N N N Y N N
N
18000
18000
CECOS INTERNATIONAL/BFI (ROCKFORD)
1LD980700751
05/15/84
07/18/86
09/27/89
I
I
EPA N N N Y Y N Y N N N N N
N
30675
26150
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
0HD020271819
03/29/83
04/05/85
04/05/85
I
I
EPA N N N Y U Y N Y N Y N N
N
950000
200000
CHRYSLER CORP. -- INDIANAPOLIS FOUNDRY
INDO87032611
02/12/85
05/31/85
04/19/88
I
I
STATE N N Y Y Y U Y N N N N Y
N
0
0
CHRYSLER CORPORATION -- INTROL DIVISION
M1D990760100
01/10/85
06/28/85
12/17/85
I
I
STATE N N Y Y U N Y N N N N N
N
8500
8500
CRADDOCK FURNITURE CORP.
IN0006375885
09/06/85
12/19/85
06/16/88
I
I
STATE N N Y N V N Y N N N N V
N
5000
5000
CYCLOPS CORPORATION
OHD058842501
09/01/83
10/16/84
10/31/88
/
I
BOTH N N V Y V Y V N N N N V
N
94700
7500
DANA CORP. ENGINE PRODUCTS DIVISION
IND005416508
08/01/83
09/11/87
08/03/89
I
I
EPA N N N Y N N V N N V N N
N
27500
27500
DANA CORPORATION
0HD99O747859
06/26/84
05/01/86
02/25/87
/
/
EPA N N Y N N N Y N N N N N
N
17500
17500
DEFIANCE COUNTY LANDFILL
OHD00072I34O
11/25/82
09/27/85
06/01/87
I
I
EPA N N Y Y U N Y N N N N V
N
5000
5000
DETREX CHEMICAL
0HD004165924
05/25/85
12/31/86
05/22/87
/
/
EPA N N V N V Y Y N N N N V
N
4000
4000
DUPONT E.I. NEMOURS AND COMPANY
OHDO04287322
11/06/85
03/30/88
05/12/89
I
I
EPA N N N Y N Y V N N N N N
N
39711
39711
ECKO HOUSEWARES COMPANY
OHD0452O5424
02/28/86
11/06/86
11/09/87
I
I
EPA N N V Y Y N Y N N N N N
N
55479
55479
EGBERT CORPORATION
0HD055829022
06/26/86
09/22/87
05/11/88
I
I
EPA N N N Y N V V N N N N V
N
30000
30000
FEDERATED METALS CORPORATION
IND005444104
02/25/83
09/30/85
02/01/89
I
I
BOTH N N Y V Y N V N V N N V
N
7500
6000
FORT RECOVERY INDUSTRIES INC.
OHD005O46149
11/01/85
08/19/87
02/22/89
/
/ .
EPA N N V Y V N V N N N N V
N
32000
32000
FOSTER WOOD PRODUCTS
1NDO79651436
05/10/84
09/30/86
04/27/89
I
I
BOTH N N V Y Y N Y N N N N V
N
80000
80000
GARY DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.
IN0077005916
09/19/84
05/30/86
/ /
I
I
EPA U N V V Y N N N V V N N
N
117000
0
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (NORRIS OPERAT)
ILD062338694
09/19/85
09/26/88
02/21/89
I
I
BOTH N N Y V Y N Y N N Y N N
N
15250
15250
GILBERT AND BENNETT MANUFACTURING CO.
IL00051O9525
09/04/85
07/29/86
12/15/87
1
I
EPA N N Y Y N N Y N N N N N
N
20080
20080
GMC ALLISON GAS TURBINE
IN00008O6836
06/21/84
03/03/85
03/03/87
I
/
STATE N N V V Y N Y N N V N N
N
36050
36050
GMC CENTRAL FOUNDRY
0HD0O5O50273
01/29/86
06/30/88
06/30/88
I
I
STATE N N V Y N Y V N N N N N
N
114000
6500
GMC/DELCO REMY
1ND000806877
08/02/85
08/03/87
09/29/89
I
I
STATE N N N Y N N Y N N N N N
N
17000
0
GRADY McCAULEY
OHD0044686O9
02/09/84
06/28/85
12/04/86
I
/
STATE N N V V Y V V N N N N N
N
9500
7500
GRANT COUNTY LANDFILL
IND0O5fl5O94
01/01/83
03/26/86
02/27/88
I
I
STATE N H V Y Y N Y N N V N Y
N
0
0
-------
RCRA RETI N TO COMPLIAJICE (RTC SU Y
DATA SET (as of 12/12/90)
DISCOVER
FIRST
FINAL
FORMAL
FORMAL’
FIRST
ENFORCE.
ENFORCE.
RTC
ID VIOL.
ACTION
ACTION
DATE
L
E
A
0
VIOLa
FR 0
E T CGF T
DC PWRH
CATEGORIES
P T H F BK NO H
REEAC F W
OCACE I D
CHRLR N N
PENALTY PENALTY
ASSESSED COLLECT
NAME
HAMMOND VALVE CORPORATION
1NDO05069851
10/15/85
09/30/88
09/20/89
10/28/89
STATE N Y N N Y N
Y N N Y N N
N
23695
2500
HAYNES INTERNATIONAL 1 INC.
IND984867481
03/01/86
09/30/88
09/30/88
/ I
STATE N N Y Y Y N
Y N N N N Y
N
15000
0
HOUSEHOLD MFG, INC ELJER PLUNINGWARE DIV
0H0004495545
08/26/85
11/18/86
11/18/86
/ /
STATE N N Y N Y N
Y N N Y N Y
N
0
0
INDIANA FARM BUREAU
IN0O44908663
01/16/86
09/30/87
10/22/88
/ I
STATE N N N Y N N
Y N N N N N
N
14500
0
INDIANA WASTE SYSTEMS/WHEELER LANDFILL
IN0000TO8446
12/24/84
03/27/86
03/27/86
I /
STATE N N Y Y N Y
Y N N N N N
N
0
0
INGRAM-RICHARDSON COMPANY
IN0082287632
06/26/84
09/11/84
/ /
I /
STATE N N Y V Y N
Y N N Y Y Y
N
25000
0
INLAND METALS REFINING CORP.
ILD980503213
08/28/84
09/30/85
09/27/88
I /
EPA N N Y V Y N
N N N N Y Y
N
67000
0
IRONTON COKE CORPORATION
0HDO82739632
01/05/82
04/26/84
04/26/84
/ /
EPA N N Y N N Y
N N N N Y N
N
0
0
JONES CHEMICALS, INC.
IN0006058556
11/10/83
01/26/84
01/04/89
/ /
STATE N N Y V Y N
Y N N Y N Y
N
12000
0
LAKE STATES WOOD PRESERVING
M 10990687964
09/22/83
09/10/84
11/18/87
/ /
BOTH N N Y Y Y Y
Y N N N N Y
N
79100
0
LANDIS AND GYR, INC./DUNCAN ELECTRIC
INDOO51OS4O8
08/06/84
11/05/84
05/17/85
I /
STATE N N V V Y N
Y N N Y N Y
N
15000
15000
LIV STEEL COMPANY -. CANTON WORKS
0HDO04228003
01/28/83
05/30/86
12/06/88
/ I
EPA N N
Y N N Y
Y N N N N N
N
40750
0
LTV STEEL COMPANY - - WARREN WORKS
0HD060409521
05/28/86
05/12/87
05/12/87
I /
STATE N N N N N Y
N N N N Y Y
N
0
0
MASON METALS CO., INC.
IN00054602O9
08/02/84
11/07/84
06/05/89
I /
BOTH N N N Y Y N
V N N Y N N
N
36000
36000
MDNR ROSCOMMON
MI0980825632
03/17/86
02/12/87
02/12/87
/ /
EPA N N Y Y N N
N N N Y N N
N
9500
9500
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL, INC.
MID000T24831
03/29/84
05/30/86
11/27/87
12/27/87
EPA N V N N Y N
Y N N N N N
N
25000
25000
NATIONAL MARINE SERVICE, INC.
IL0042659672
02/15/84
06/28/85
/ /
/ /
EPA N N Y Y Y N
N N Y Y N V
N
77000
0
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL
1MD072039001
06/03/85
11/12/85
06/22/88
/ /
STATE N N
V N Y N
Y N N N N N
N
31375
0
NORTHSIDE SANITARY LANDFILL
1N0O5O53O872
05/04/83
09/23/83
01/31/87
/ /
STATE N N V V Y N
N N Y N Y N
N
0
0
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
0H099O747859
02/15/83
09/27/85
02/12/86
11/24/87
EPA N Y Y Y Y N
V N N N N N
N
15000
15000
PVS CHEMICALS
1LDO01833714
11/02/84
06/30/86
01/11/89
/ /
EPA N N N Y V N
Y N N N N N
N
9000
9000
RANCO INC. -- DELAWARE
0HD004288288
04/25/85
05/30/86
06/01/87
/ /
EPA N N Y V V N
Y N N N N Y
N
19500
19500
RANCO INC. -- PLAIN CITY
OHDO04288270
04/25/85
05/30/86
06/01/87
/ I
EPA N N Y V V N
Y N N N N V
N
30500
30500
ROCK ISLAND REFINING CORPORATION
IN0006417430
04/29/86
09/26/88
10/03/89
/ /
EPA N N Y V Y N
Y N N N N N
N
140350
0
ROUGE STEEL CO.
MID087738431
03/14/86
07/22/86
12/24/87
03/31/88
EPA N V N N N Y N N N N N N
Y
36750
26500
SCIO POTTERY
OH0004465084
06/27/85
01/31/86
08/13/87
/ /
EPA N N V V Y N
V N N V N N
N
25000
10000
SLATER STEELS CORP.
1N000544753?
01/15/87
12/11/87
08/11/88
/ /
BOTH N N N V Y N
Y N N N N Y
N
0
0
ST. LOUIS LEAD RECYCLERS
110000667097
07/01/86
06/15/87
12/23/88
/ /
BOTH N N Y N N Y
Y N N Y N N
N
56500
56500
STANDARD OIL COMPANY
0H0005057542
08/31/83
10/04/84
07/10/85
/ /
EPA N N N Y N N
Y N N N N N
N
50750
30000
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OHIO -- LIMA
OHD005O51826
12/15/82
09/27/86
09/30/88
/ /
STATE N N Y V N N N Y N N N N
N
59000
59000
TARACORP INDUSTRIES, INC.
ILDO96731468
07/28/83
03/11/85
03/11/85
I I
BOTH N N Y N Y N N N N N Y V
N
0
0
TELEDYNE MONARCH RUBBER -- PLANT #1
0HDO68901610
11/21/85
09/18/87
01/31/90
I I
EPA N N N V Y V Y Y N V N N
N
51900
0
TEXACO, INC.
110041518861
07/11/86
08/20/87
05/23/88
/ /
BOTH N N Y V V N V N N Y N N
N
21750
21750
THOMAS STEEL STRIP CORP. (TSSC)
OHD077755213
07/11/84
12/26/84
06/20/86
/ /
STATE N N Y V Y N Y N N N N Y
N
261000
154614
-------
RCRA RETL N TO Q NPLIANCE (RTC) SUDY
DATA SET (as of 12/12/90)
TRIANGLE METALLURGICAL
TROJAN CORPORAl ION/IMC TROJAN DIVISION
U.S. INDIANA ARMY AMMO PLANT (IAAP)
U.S. JOLIET ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT (JAAP)
U.S. NAVAL WEAPONS SUPPORT CENTER(CRANE)
UNION OIL CO., CHICAGO REFINERY
UNITED MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
US ECOLOGY, INC.
USS GARY WORKS AND TUBING SPEC. (U.S.X.)
USS LEAD REFINERY
UVONICS COMPANY, INC.
VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORP.
VULCAN MATERIALS
WILLCUT LANDFILL
WITCO ALLIED KELITE
WOODLAND MEADOWS LANDFILL NORTH
** REGION 6
AZTEC MANUFACTURING
BASIN REFINING, INC. (OKMULGEE REFINERY)
BLOOMFIELD REFINERY (PLATEAU INC.)
BRUNSWICK MERCURY MARINE PLANT
CAL WEST METALS
CLIMAX CHEMICAL CO.
COASTAL REFINING AND MARKETING
EAGLE PITCHER - - EOM
FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER
FORMOSA PLASTICS, POINT COMFORT
FRIT INDUSTRIES
GARY AEROSPACE CORP.
HALE DUSTING SERVICE, INC.
HUFFMAN WOOD PRESERVING CO., INC.
LONE STAR STEEL CO.
MIXON BROTHERS WOOD PRESERVING, INC.
11DO21514211 04/17/86 11/20/86 10/11/88 / / EPA N N
1LD980700710 07/26/83 03/29/85 07/20/87 06/29/89 STATE N Y
1149210020443 04/27/83 06/01/83 10/30/89 / / STATE Y N
IL7213820460 12/08/83 05/19/89 05/19/89 / / EPA Y N
1N5170023498 09/10/84 12/26/84 12/30/86 / I STATE Y N
1LD041550567 05/16/86 12/17/86 10/23/87 04/30/90 BOTH N Y
0HD004153854 06/17/83 09/12/86 05/04/87 / / EPA N N
ILD045063450 02/15/84 09/30/85 09/30/85 / / BOTH N N
1ND005444062 04/17/85 11/30/87 11/30/87 / / STATE N N
1140047030226 07/10/84 05/06/87 04/30/90 / / STATE N N
0HD081313744 11/07/84 06/26/85 03/05/86 / / STATE N N
1L0000814673 07/18/84 09/23/88 09/29/89 / / EPA N N
W1D046536231 05/07/85 03/30/88 11/22/89 / / BOTH N N
IND000772707 11/19/81 03/24/87 04/02/87 / / EPA N N
NIDO81601122 02/07/85 09/19/85 06/22/87 / / STATE N N
MI000081O4O8 07/29/83 07/06/84 06/25/87 / / EPA N N
TXD008012148 05/20/85 09/18/86 10/01/90
0K0004998225 01/04/84 09/30/86 07/31/90
NMD089416416 03/29/84 03/27/85 11/26/85
0K0074294612 05/17/84 06/29/84 07/31/90
NM2730099999 01/16/86 08/28/86 07/15/87
NMD990753931 08/23/85 09/30/86 01/31/90
TXD008132268 03/04/86 09/30/87 05/26/89
OKD007158454 11/08/85 07/17/86 02/17/89
01 (0000803205 08/23/85 02/10/87 05/26/88
TXT490011293 02/25/86 09/11/87 10/03/90
ARD059636456 05/31/84 03/25/86 06/23/87
TXDOO81IO637 05/30/85 04/04/86 06/17/86
TXD057573438 04/16/86 11/24/86 01/28/87
0KD053128492 04/17/86 03/30/87 05/21/87
TXD007323397 11/20/85 08/22/86 02/24/89
01(0007336258 09/04/84 03/28/86 09/30/86
DISCOVER
FIRST
NAME ID VIOL.
FIRST
FORMAL
ENFORCE.
ACTION
F I NAL
FORMAL
ENFORCE. RTC
ACTION DATE
L
£
A
D
VI .s
FR 0
ET CGFT
DC PWRH
PENALTY PENALTY
ASSESSED COLLECT
CATE RIES
P T H F BK NO H
REEAC F Ii
OCACE I D
CHRLR N N
NNNYN N N
NNNNN N Y
NNNYN N N
NNNYN N N
YYNNN N N
YNNNN N N
YNNNN Y N
NYNNN Y N
YNYYN N N
YNNYN Y N
NNNYN Y N
NNNNY V N
YNNYN N N
VNYNN N N
YNNNN N N
NNYYN N N
YNt4YN Y N
NNYNY Y N
NYNYN N N
NNYNN N N
NYYNY V N
YNNYN Y N
YNNYN V N
VNNNM N N
YNNNN N N
YYNYN N N
YNNYN N N
YNNNM N N
UNNYN Y N
YYNNN N N
YNNYN N N
YYNNN N N
YNNY
YNYN
YYNN
YYNN
YNNN
NYYN
YYYY
YYYN
NYNN
YY YN
NYYN
YYYN
YNNN
YYYN
YNNY
NYNN
YYYN
YYYN
YYYN
YYNN
WYYY
YYHN
YYNN
NYNY
YYYN
YYYN
YYYN
NYYY
YYYN
YYYN
NYNN
YNNY
55000
275000
0
0
16000
9500
6450
0
70000
39874
15000
65000
9950
5250
33410
35350
74250
155000
80700
32285
25500
26800
102000
137500
65000
8331500
57750
3399
0
0
2440
1200
55000
36000
0
0
0
7600
6450
0
0
0
15000
65000
9950
0
20230
0
18000
0
80700
0
0
0
39000
91666
33000
0
25950
3399
0
0
2440
1200
II
//
//
//
II
//
//
I-
/I
//
/I
12/08/88
//
II
//
//
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
BOTH
EPA
EPA
EPA
STATE
STATE
BOTH
STATE
STATE
EPA
MN
MN
NM
NM
YN
NN
NM
NM
MN
NM
MN
NY
NM
MN
NM
MN
-------
ICRA RET1 N TO a)IPL lANCE (RTC) SlID!
DATA SET (as of 12/12/90)
REGION = 8
BROWNING MANUFACTURING Co.
EAGLE PICHER INDUSTRIES INC.
HERCULES INC. BACCHUS WORKS
UTD041310558 05/02/85 07/05/88 07/05/88 04/24/89 STATE
C00048126726 09/28/84 08/08/85 12/29/86 / I EPA
U10001705029 06/06/86 08/16/88 08/16/88 / I STATE
CATE RIE$
L _VIOLS_ P 1 N F Bk NO N
E FR 0 RESAC F U
A El CGFT OCACE I 0 PENALTY
0 DC PURN CHILI N N ASSESSED
DISCOVER
FIRST
ID VIOL.
FIRST
FORMAL
ENFORCE.
ACT ION
FINAL
FORMAL
ENFORCE. RTC
ACTION DATE
1XD981055486 03/14/84 04/15/87 07/14/87
ARD047335O96 09/23/85 05/02/86 10/06/86
I XD067285973 04/02/86 03/31/87 08/06/87
1x0010527679 03/12/85 08/22/86 10/01/86
1X0980879076 01/30/86 09/30/87 02/27/89
1XD9816O5850 03/10/86 09/12/86 12/01/89
0K0091991968 04/22/86 04/30/87 06/22/88
1X0980626O22 05/29/85 06/10/86 06/27/88
TX0041468836 06/06/85 02/28/87 06/30/87
0KD007335524 11/15/84 11/13/85 12/31/86
TX0980626048 12/16/85 04/25/86 06/10/86
0KD0137202?1 04/10/85 09/06/85 08/15/86
HM6572124422 07/24/84 08/23/85 12/20/88
1X8571524091 03/19/86 06/12/87 09/30/90
1XD026042168 04/10/84 06/22/86 07/12/89
1X0981605868 10/02/85 09/01/87 10/30/87
NAME
ROGERS COTTONSEED CO.
SENTINEL WOOD TREATING CO.
SHELL CHEMICAL CO.
SHORES AG - AIR (FORMER: RABB DUSTING)
SOUTH TEXAS REDI STRIP
SOUTHWEST AERIAL APPLICATION
SOUTHWEST PICKLING 1 INC.
TEXACO IIIC(STAR INTERPRISES) 1 PORI NECHES
TEXAS ELECTRIC COOP
THOMASON LUMBER
TRINITY VALLEY IRON AND STEEL CO.
TULSA CHROME
U.S. AIR FORCE HOLLOHAN MB
U.S. AIR FORCE REESE AFB
WALKER WOOD PRESERVERS
WRIGHT-WAY SPRAYING SERVICE
REGION 7
ARMSTRONG RUBBER CO.
BLACK HAWK COUNTY LANDFILL
COLLIS 1 INC.
FOOTE MINERAL COMPANY
KERR-NcG ( CHEMICAL CORP.
K RP-McGEE CHEMICAL CORP.
PESTER REFINING
R.V. HOPKINS 1 INC.
TWA INC. TECHNICAL SERVICE CENTER
U.S. NAMEPLATE
VIKING PUMP (UNIT OF IDEX CORP.)
I,
II
,,
II
,,
I,
/,
I,
//
‘I
12/16/88
‘I
Il
/I
03/02/90
//
BOTH N N
STATE N N
STATE N N
STATE N N
EPA MN
STATE N N
EPA NM
EPA MN
[ PA MN
BOTH N N
STATE N V
EPA MN
EPA YN
EPA YN
BOTH N Y
STATE N N
YYYY
NYNN
YTYN
YYYN
YYYY
YYYN
YYNM
NYYN
YNYN
YYYN
NYNN
YNYN
YYNN
TYNY
YYYN
Y YYN
YYYN
NYNN
Y YNN
YYYN
MYNN
NYNN
YYNN
NNYN
NYYN
NYNN
YYYN
YNNYN Y N
NYNYN N N
YNNNN N N
YNNNN Y N
YYNNN Y N
YNNNN V N
YNNYN Y N
YNNYN N N
YNNNN Y N
YNNYN Y N
YNNNN N N
YNNNN N N
NNNYN N N
YNNNN N N
YNMNN Y N
YNYNN Y N
NNNNN N V
NNYYN N N
YYNYN N N
YNNNN N N
YNNNN N N
NNNNN N Y
NNNNY Y N
YNNNN Y N
YNNYN Y N
YYNNN N N
YNNYN N N
1*0005292750 04/02/86 06/30/87 06/30/87 / I
1*0075848085 03/04/84 02/10/86 09/30/86 I /
1*0047303771 03/31/86 12/31/87 12/31/87 / /
1*0041391772 01/15/86 07/01/87 07/01/87 / /
M000071294O6 06/14/86 03/31/87 10/16/87 04/09/90
1100007128978 07/10/86 02/13/87 02/13/87 03/31/89
KSD981708084 09/15/85 02/28/86 / / I /
1AD022096028 10/31/81 08/31/82 11/30/83 / /
M0004393 5O48 02/24/86 07/25/86 05/31/88 I /
IAD054755958 12/31/82 03/17/84 03/31/86 / /
IAD000829929 08/08/84 09/30/87 09/30/88 I I
PENALTY
COLLECT
599
2500
16000
0
0
0
0
109600
2500
0
0
5000
0
0
4624
0
0
14660
0
0
25000
0
0
3500
100000
0
0
5000
5000
0
8599
2500
16000
0
0
2720
0
124100
2500
26715
0
125000
0
0
4624
8800
0
14660
0
0
27250
0
0
3500
100000
12000
57150
10000
5000
315000
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
STATE
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
NM
NM
MN
MN
NY
NY
MN
NM
MN
NM
MN
NY NYNN YNMNN N N
tIN HYMN NNNYN N N
N N Y V VII Y YNNN N N
-------
ICU IEUU TO 1X1* LIANCE (RTC) SIWY
DATA SET (as of 12/12/90)
JIM’S WATER SERVICE INC.
KOPPERS COMPANY 1 INC.
NCR HICROELECTRONICS
PENZOIL (FORMERLY SEAGULL)
WY0990829673 07/07/81
C00007O7T17S 09/29/82
C00059113142 07/08/85
UT0073093874 03/20/85
10/26/81 02/03/82
09/28/84 09/19/88
06/13/88 06/13/88
12/23/86 / /
5400
15000
0
19000
** REGION = 9
BEAN AND COMPANY
BKK SANITARY LANDFILL
CASMALIA RESOURCES
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT -- BAKERSFIELD
CHEVRON CHEMICAL CO.
JOHN SMITH SOLID WASTE SITE
NORTH ISLAND NAVAL AIR STATION
U.S. AIR FORCE BEALE AFB
U.S. ARMY NATIONAL TRAINING CTR FT IRWIN
WHITTAKER CORP. BERMITE DIVISION
WILLOWS GLENN COUNTY AIRPORT
*20000819565 02/28/83
CAD067786749 07/17/84
CAD020748125 12/14/83
CAT 000624056 06/25/85
CA0043237486 10/31/83
CA0990665432 07/13/83
CA71 70090016 03/29/85
CA7S 70024508 09/25/86
CAS2 13790038 07/09/85
CAD064573108 06/25/85
CAT000625525 03/08/85
04/18/83 07/07/87
03/11/86 03/31/89
05/10/84 05/30/89
07/24/87 02/24/89
08/08/85 04/01/87
07/18/83 09/27/89
12/22/87 12/22/87
1/ /-
06/30/87 / /
06/03/86 08/26/86
10/19/87 09/25/89
/ / EPA MN TYTY NNYMN Y N 0 0
/ / EPA MN MYNN TYNYN Y N 21000 0
/ / EPA N N Y Y Y N N Y N N N N U 14000 2000
/ I STATENN UYMN TNUYU N U 0 0
I / EPA NM NYNU YYNUN N N 20000 0
/ / STATENU NYYN YTNYN Y N 144693 0
/ / EPA TN YYNN YYNNN N N 0 0
/ / EPA TN YYNN YNNYN N U 0 0
/ / EPA YN YTNY UNNYM N N 0 0
/ / EPA N N Y Y Y N Y N N Y U Y N 36600 9000
/ / STATE N N Y Y Y N Y N U N N Y N 76000 30000
NAME
ID
CATE RIES
DISCOVER
FIRST
FINAL
I
P T H F
BK NO N
FORMAL
FORMAL
E
F 1
0 1 E E A
C
FIRST
ENFORCE.
ENFORCE.
RTC
A
C T C G F T 0£ A C
C
VIOL.
ACTION
ACTION
DATE
D
DC P N 1 N C N I L
B
I 0 PENALTY
N N ASSESSED
PENALTY
COLLECT
/ / EPA MN YYYN TUNYM Y N 12000
/ / EPA NM UYNT YYUYN N N 15000
/ / STATENN NYNN YNNNN N N 0
/ / STATENN MYUU YNNYN NM 38000
** REGION = 10
ARNAV SYSTEMS INC.
ORDIO6O72O1O
08/06/85
09/30/87
12/31/87
I
I
BOTH N N
Y Y Y N Y N N N N
Y
N
7600
2000
BOEING OF PORTLAND
ORD054964481
06/25/86
07/21/86
07/21/86
I
/
EPA N N
N V U N V N N N N
N
N
0
0
DEWILS INDUSTRIES
WAD009422692
05/02/84
07/27/84
07/27/84
I
I
EPA N N
Y V Y N Y V N N N
Y
N
10000
0
DREXIER ENTERPRISES INC.
100000800961
07/20/82
04/27/83
06/20/85
I
I
EPA U N
Y V Y N N N N V V
Y
N
15000
0
ENVIROSAFE SERVICES SITE A
100000773952
02/10/84
03/23/84
08/31/84
I
I
EPA N N
N V N N V Y N N N
N
N
22500
2500
FRONTIER MACHINERY INC. -PROCOAT
DIVISION
11*0081482457
04/16/84
08/22/85
08/22/85
I
I
STATE N U
Y Y V N V N N N N
Y
U
14000
0
HYTEK FINISHES CO.
WA0076655182
05/23/84
09/30/86
09/30/86
I
I
EPA N N
Y V Y N Y N N N N
N
N
0
0
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. - WOOD
PRODUCTS
wAD010745917
03/30/84
08/01/84
12/31/85
I
I
EPA N N
Y Y N N N N N Y N
N
N
15000
15000
KALAMA CHEMICAL INC.
WAD092899574
05/02/86
09/30/87
/ /
/
/
EPA N N
V V V N Y V V N N
N
N
18400
0
MASCO PRODUCTS INC.
WAD009250424
06/19/84
12/13/85
12/13/85
I
I
STATE N N
V Y Y N Y N N N N
Y
N
0
0
PACIFIC WOOD TREATING CORP.
WA0009422411
06/04/84
07/18/84
07/18/84
/
/
EPA N N
Y N N N V N N Y N
Y
N
0
0
PENDLETON WOOLEN MILLS
WAD009035502
04/17/85
09/30/87
12/14/88
I
/
EPA N N
Y Y Y N Y N N N N
Y
N
13500
0
PERMAPOST PRODUCTS CO. 1 INC.
ORD009041187
04/09/84
06/15/85
06/15/85
I
I
STATE N N
Y V Y N Y N N N N
V
N
1000
1000
PRESSURE TREATED TIMBER CO.
1DD047111018
04/28/83
12/23/83
06/27/84
/
/
EPA N N
V V Y N V N N N N
V
N
3000
2250
REICHHOLD CHEMICAL INC.
WAD009252891
05/21/85
06/30/8.6
06/30/86
06/12/87
EPA N Y
.Y V Y N N N N N N
N
Y
0
0
-------
ICRA IET%*N TO £XIIN’L lANCE (tIC) SUET
DATA SET (as of ¶2/12/90)
I I AME
DISCOVER
FIRST
FINAL
L
P 1 N F BK NO II
FORMAL
FORMAL
E
FR
0
REEAC
F U
FIRST
ENFORCE.
ENFORCE.
RTC
A
I T C G F T 0 C
A C £
I D PENALTY
PENALTY
ID VIOL.
ACTION
ACTION
DATE
0
DC P UI H C H
IL S
N II ASSESSED
COLLECT
RIDGEFIELD BRICK A TILE
11*0009036906
06/12/84
09/30/85
11/21/86
I
/
EPA N N Y V V N Y N N V N Y
8
15000
0
SEATTLE STEEL INC.
1dAD009265851
07/21/83
09/28/85
02/12/87
I
I
EPA N H V V V N V N N N N V
N
45000
0
SHELDON MANUFACTURING
0RD052225596
04/14/86
I /
/ /
I
I
STATE N N V V V N N N N N N N
V
0
0
U.S. AGRICULTURAL STATION -
VAKIMA
11AD1205%3957
05/22/86
09/30/87
/ /
I
/
EPA N N N Y N N V N N N N N
N
0
0
USCO - KODIAK SUPPORT CENTER
AK9690330742
06/19/85
09/29/87
/ /
1
1
EPA V N V V K N N V H V N N
N
0
0
USDOE - HANFORD SITE
11*7890008967
06/14/84
12/26/84
12/26/86
I
I
STATE V N V V N N N V N N N N
N
0
0
USDOE IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LAB ID4890008952
04/28/86
07/27/87
07/27/8?
I
I
EPA V N V V N N N V N N N N
N
0
0
-------
RCRA RTC Study
App endfr II
Case Histories
(Facility Profiles)
December 1990
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
AMERICAN CHEMICAL AND
REFINING
Connecticut
TD 001 184894
Landfill
.
State
RTC CATEGORY • HWDMS data enor
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
6125/86
6126/87
10/29/87
2i28/88
9/12/88
STATUS
Violations were identified.
State issued Administrative Order.
EPA decided the facility was exempt from RCRA requirements
during the period of activity in question (1980- 1983), being
identified as a Protective Filer and not a land disposal facility.
AMERICAN CHEMICAL AND REFINING was expected to
return to compliance.
Return to compliance for the Class H waste management
violations was noted.
Since AMERICAN CHEMICAL AND REFINING was a
Protective Filer and not a land disposal facility, the Class I
violation was no longer relevant and the case should be taken
out of the system. Return to compliance for the Class II
violations was noted on 9/12/88.
to ColnplLsne.
WI 21$I
VIOLATIONS • CP: Class I
• Other: Class H waste management (resolved).
12/14j90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 1
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ATHOL SANITARY LANDFILL
Massachusetts
MADO63 844 159
Landfill
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays, Financial
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
‘FR.
Assessed: $21,984
Collected: $21,984
HISTORY
fill 1/86
11/86
3/31/87
1987
9/8/88
STATUS
Violations were identified.
State referred case to EPA.
EPA issued §3008(a) and §3013 Orders.
State approved closure plans for the entire sanitary landfill and
for the hazardous waste cell within the landfill. ATHOL
SANITARY LANDFILL was unable to implement the
approved closure plan because it could not locate the cell
containing hazardous waste.
Section 3008 Final Order issued.
ATHOL SANITARY LANDFILL implemented some of the
requirements of the Orders, including the installation of GW
monitoring wells and the completion of a hydrogeologic
investigation for the part of the site containing the hazardous
waste cell. Installation of additional monitoring wells and.
further hydrogeologic assessment of the entire sanitary landfill
area will be required. The post closure plan has not been
submitted. ATHOL SANITARY LANDFILL remains out of
compliance for the 1986 GW monitoring, closure/post closure,
and financial violations, pending completion of the GW
investigation and submittal and approval of a post closure plan
and post closure financial assurances. Another complicating
factor has been the difficulty of appropriating taxes to provide
financial assurance for post-closure of this municipal landfill.
O ds V
‘“Is.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 2
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
AUTO-SWAGE PRODUCTS, INC.
Connecticut
CTD 064 832 611
Land disposal
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
VIOLATIONS • CP (resolved)
• OW: no monitoring (resolved)
• FR: Class II.
Assessed: $50,000
Collected: $20,000
HISTORY
7/11/85
STATUS
11125/85
12122186
3/6/87
3/ 14/8 8
3/17/89
1013/89
EPA and the State conducted a joint inspection noting
violations of Subparts F, 0, and H.
EPA filed a Complaint pursuant to §3008(a).
EPA and AUTO-S WAGE PRODUCTS entered into a Consent
Order.
AUTO-S WAGE.PRODUCTS obtained financial assurance for
closure and submitted inadequate OW plans.
EPA approved AUTO-S WAGE PRODUCTS’ OW Detection
Monitoring Plan.
AUTO-S WAGE PRODUCTS implemented the OW
monitoring plan.
EPA and the State approved the closure/post closure plans.
AUTO-SwAGE PRODUCTS has returned to compliance with
all 7/11/85 violations except for violations of the fmancial
insurance requirements. The facility has documented
unsuccessful attempts to obtain insurance and has commenced
closure activities. The financial violation has been declassified
from Class Ito Class II in accordance with EPA guidance, as
the impoundments are undergoing closure. Closure/post
closure and OW monitoring plans were approved after
extended review and comment on submittals, lengthening the
time for return to compliance.
PENALTY
l2/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 3
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
BASS PLATING Co.
Connecticut
C’lDOO l 145671
Land disposal
State
RTC CATEGORY • Technical complexity, Financial
/ rg T. 4 wj t tjj I _ , .
C / 4 .#CCt 4 W W. +t.% 4 CV*V? W •“C CC t*W ’ *CC .% w sW.w V %% )
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
VIOLATIONS • OW: inadequate system.
PENALTY Assessed: $630 Collected: $630
HISTORY
7/17/86 EPA inspection identified original OW violations.
8/8/86 EPA referred violations to the State.
9/23/86 State issued Enforcement Order addressing OW violations,
which . BASS PLATING Co. appealed.
3/27/87 The facility submitted a revised assessment monitoring plan.
6 (24/87 Consent Agreement entered.
9/30/87 OW work completed.
2128/88 . Facility scheduled to return.to compliance, a deadline which
was not met partially due tolengthy State and EPA review and
comment on the OW monitoring plan.
8/89 BASS PLATING Co. completed a very extensive OW
assessment report. State has a few additional requirements
and has consequently not yet approved it.
STATUS Phases of the 6(24/87 Consent Agreement have been
implemented, but progress has been slow due to concerns
about financial stability. The Consent Agreement required
BASS PLATING Co. to complete rate and extent studies.
Until those are completed, no return to compliance will be
logged. A new Consent Agreement may be prepared by the
State due to a change in ownership. Another complicating
factor is that off-site drilling is required, which is difficult to
do under State law (the off-site property owner assumes
responsibility for any environmental problems found on the
property regardless of the source of contamination).
12/14 ,90 - Final Report RCRA RTC Study Page 4
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
COLUMBIA MANUFACTURING
COJMTD MANUFACTURING
Massachusetts
MAD 001 1158609
Surface
impoundment
State, EPA
HISTORY
8/12/83
1984
6/5/85
Spring 1986
Fall 1987
10/89
• Processing delays, Hearing process, Facility resistance, Financial
Assessed: None
GW violations were identified.
Violations were identified and a Notice of Non-compliance
was issued.
State issued Consent Order addressing GW violations cited in
1983 and 1984.
State disapproved GW monitoring plan based on sampling
inconsistencies. The facility appealed the disapproval.
Case was referred to State Attorney General’s Office for
prosecution, halting all progress on the Consent Order pending
the outcome of the referral.
State Attorney General’s Office dropped the case and State
referred the case to EPA.
EPA is conducting inspections in preparation for additional
activities at the facility.
RTC CATEGORY
VIOLATIONS • CP
‘ow
‘FR.
PENALTY
STATUS
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 5
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ELECTRONIC CONTROLS CORP.
Massachusetts
MAD 001138726
Surface
impoundment
State
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Hearing process, Financial
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
8/15/85
85-87
9128/87
1988
1989
1990
STATUS
Violations were identified.
State and facility negotiated Consent Order while the facility
worked toward compliance with regulations.
State issued Administrative Order when progress toward a
Consent Order halted (due to illness of the facility’s
consultant, who had been leading efforts on the Consent
Order). The facility appealed the Administrative Order and the
case is yet to be scheduled for an AU hearing.
ELECTRONIC CONTROLS CORP. agreed to proceed with
GW assessment work without signing a Consent Order and
the State reviewed and approved their GW assessment plan.
Field work was completed and an inspection was performed
during installation of additional GW monitoring wells.
OW assessment report is expected to be submitted to the State.
Post closure plan with financial assurances is yet to be
prepared.
State anticipates that closure certification can be made once an
approvable post closure plan is submitted. The Administrative
Order is expected to be resolved by either hearing the appeal or
developing a Consent Order with the facility. Until the post
closure plan and post closure financial assurances are
approved, the facility remains out of compliance for the above
violations.
I
ftIaI and Fb Fwvnd Erdon
9I2 I$7 Mm. O,d.r
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
‘FR.
l2/l4 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 6
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
GALILEO ELECTRO OPTICS
Massachusetts
MAD065781 197
Landfill
.
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays, Facility resistance
Assessed: $58,254
Collected: $40,400
HISTORY
11/4/85
9 /30/86
Spring 1987
9/27/87
8i22/88
9/25/89
12/89
STATUS
OW violations identified.
Additional violations discovered.
State referred case to EPA.
EPA issued Administrative Compliance Order.
EPA issued Consent Order.
Letter of Credit confirmed resolution of financial violations.
OW sampling is scheduled to be completed.
The facility iscurrently complying with the Consent Order and
is in the sampling phase of their investigation. A dispute over
the results of EPA sampling resulted in a time lag during
which split samples were taken. Results were again
inconsistent; but the need for OW assessment was clear, so the
facility entered the assessment track. At present, GALILEO
ELECTRO OPTIcs remains out of compliance with the 1985
GW monitoring violations, pending completion of the OW
monitoring program and formal acknowledgement of complete
return to compliance by State or EPA inspectors. The final
deliverable was recently received by EPA so full return to
compliance is expected in the near future.
VIOLATIONS • OW
• FR (resolved)
• Other.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 7
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
GALILEO ELECTRO OPTICS
Massachusetts
MAD 065 781 197
Landfill
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Facility resistance
I : r j p ___________
, 5 ‘.4 ‘ . 4 w 4 4 w w ’ . .4* Qw
1980 1981 1982 1983 1983 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
VIOLATIONS
•GW
• FR (resolved)
• Other.
PENALTY
Assessed: $58,254
Collected: $40,400
HISTORY
11/4/85
9130/86
Spring 1987
9/27/87
8/22/88
9125/89
12/89
STATUS
(3W violations identified.
Additional violations discovered.
State referred case to EPA.
EPA issued Administrative Compliance Order.
EPA issued Consent Order.
Letter of Credit confirmed resolution of financial violations.
OW sampling is scheduled to be completed.
The facility is currently complying with the Consent Order and
is in the sampling phase of their investigation. A dispute over
the results of EPA sampling resulted in a time lag during
which split samples were taken. Results were again
inconsistenq but the need for OW assessment was clear, so the
facility entered the assessment track. At present, GALILEO
ELECTRO OVnCS remains out of compliance with the 1985
OW monitoring violations, pending completion of the OW
monitoring program and formal acknowledgement of complete
return to compliance by State or EPA inspectors. The final
deliverable was recently received by EPA so full return to
compliance is expected in the near future.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 8
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
HONEYWELL-VALVE
Connecticut
CIDOO 1 149582
Wastepile
State
.
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
9 125/85
6/16/86
7128/86
6/2/87
1/14/88
3/15/88
9 /22/89
STATUS
EPA inspection noted Class I GW reporting violations.
State noted Class I GW reporting violations.
OW and closure violations cited.
Administrative Order issued, requiring an upgrade of the OW
monitoring system and submission of a closure/post closure
plan.
Administrative Order withdrawn and Consent Order issued,
requiring closure of the wastepile and GW monitoring.
Closure/post closure plan submitted.
Closure/post closure plan approved, with certification of
closure expected in Spring 1990.
At issue during the time the violations were identified was
HONEYWELL-VALVE’S delisting petition for its layout and
wastepiles. Following intercession by the Region I project
manager, HONEYWELL-VALVE was denied its request for
delisting. Until 3,90, the local sewer district would not allow
HONEYWELL-VALVE to have off-site wells on their
property. Now the facility is expanding its OW monitoring
system and will submit a closure/post closure plan addressing
closure and GW requirements.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Technical complexity
VIOLATIONS • CP
• OW: Class I.
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 9
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
IDEAL MANUFACTURING Co.
Connecticut
CTD001168137
Surface
impoundment
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays
.4 Enf v.m.nt
Adm O’d.,
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • OW: inadequate assessment monitoiing
‘FR.
Assessed: $56,348
Collected: $20,000
HISTORY
7130/86
2125/87
9/19/88
10120/88
4/4/89
STATUS
Violations identified.
EPA issued Administrative Order.
Consent Order signed after extensive negotiations.
IDEAL MANUFACTURING paid the penalty and a copy of
the check was sent to the Regional Hearing Clerk’s office.
IDEAL MANUFACTURING submitted financial
docümentadon satisfying requirements for adequate liability
insurance.
According to the State, the material submitted by IDEAL
MANUFACTURING satisfied the financial requirements. The
original GW violation was for inadequate assessment
monitoring. Since the Consent Order was signed, IDEAL
MANUFACTURING made submittals addressing their GW
assessment program. EPA’s review of the GW monitoring
plan was delayed due to lack of available staff and limited
resources. The State reviewed the documents and determined
that they were deficient and needed revising prior to
implementation. The OW plan is still being assessed.
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 10
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
LCP CHEMICALS
Maine
MED 000242 701
Landfill
.
EPA
PENALTY
HISTORY
7/17/84
5/14/85
2,21/86
212/88
8/88
12/11/88
9/89
4i90
STATUS
Processing delays, Technical complexity, Facility resistance
Assessed: $17,343 Collected: None
Violations were identified.
Violations were again identified.
EPA issued a §3008(a) Order.
EPA and LCP CHEMICALS entered into a Consent
Agreement for 2(21/86 order.
The third submittal of work plans to meet requirements of the
§ 3008(a) Order was approved.
EPA issued §3008(h) Corrective Action Order.
Phase I of the corrective action plan was to have been
complete. LCP CHEMICALS was significantly off schedule.
Compliance schedule violations resulted in consideration of a
new penalty ($910,000).
LCP CHEMICALS bought the facility from the previous
owner in 1982 under a contract containing language that could
absolve the previous owner of any and all responsibility for
environmental damage. LCP CHEMICALS claims that it is
responsible for only 5% of the contamination addressed in the
Corrective Action Order and that the previous owner should
help finance the cleanup. LCP CHEMICALS is seeking legal
remedy to this issue. The scope of §3008(h) work to be done
is significant, as the geology of the site is complex.
RTC CATEGORY
VIOLATIONS • .CP
sow.
l2/l4, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 11
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
LEAVENS AWARDS Co., INC.
Massachusetts
MAD063913909
Surface
State
.
impoundment
.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Hearing process, Facility resistance
—n v — — — W> *.% #.% ##. %)
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
VIOLATIONS •• CP
•GW.
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
1984 Surface impoundment was closed.
l4/86 Violations were identified.
9/30/87 State issued Administrative Order. LEAVENS AWARDS
appealed the Order.
7/88 LEAvENS AWARDS hired a OW consultant and performed a
soil vapor study at the site.
10/89 State received proposal for further site investigation.
lfl)0 Consent Agreement issued pursuant to complicated
negotiations involving the current and previous owners, the
State, and EPA.
STATUS Complicated negotiations slowed resolution of this case, as did
the facility’s repeated refusals to sign the Consent Agreement
after indicating that it was acceptable. The facility claims but
has not proven that there are numerous sources of off-site
contamination. OW monitoring began in late 1989.
According to the Consent Agreement, the facility will perform
additional GW site characterization work and/or a risk
assessment if GW contamination is demonstrated to be related
to the former surface impoundment and the facility. The
facility has contested the requirement for a post closure plan.
LEAVENS AWARDS remains out of compliance for the 1986
OW monitoring violation and the 1987 closure/post closure
violation, pending completion of the GW assessment and
submittal of an adequate post closure plan.
12/14i90 - Final Report RCRA RTC Study Page 12
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD•
NATIONAL. CHROMIUM
Connecticut
CTD 001 160811
Land disposal
State
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Facility resistance
VIOLATIONS • OW: Class I and II
‘FR: ClassIl
Other improper waste management.
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
• 10/17/85
9129/86
12123/86
3/31/87
8/87
6122188
1/4/89
STATUS
Inspection noted Class I OW violations, which were
addressed via informal actions.
State issued §3008 Final Order, the facility appealed.
State referred the case to the Attorney General.
Scheduled compliance date.
NATIONAL CHROMIUM was referred to State Attorney
General for late GW monitoring reporting.
State conducted inspection and noted the same violations as
well as some new violations, which were addressed via a
warning letter.
NATIONAL CHROMIUM submitted a report that addressed
all unresolved issues in the 9/29/86 Order.
The State Order issued on 9/29/86 required NATIONAL
CHROMIUM to conduct GW monitoring. The facility
appealed the Order based on potential adverse economic impact
of the ordered cleanup. NATIONAL CHROMIUM conducted
a OW assessment, including an assessment report, that was
approved by the State. Since the appeal is pending, no formal
approval has been given. Presently, NATIONAL
CHROMIUM and the State are still negotiating, pursuant to the
Attorney General’s referral. A complicating factor in this case
is that a multi-media approach was used, including attention to
waste management, water compliance, air compliance, etc.
bi1l 1 id F I Fonnl En$a, i,
S 3O p • d
12/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 13
-------
Region I
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays
_ 1 Ft — s — —
II
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
• HISTORY
3,27/84
4/11/84
12I1 ’86
12 , 22186
STATUS
412/87
1988
• CP (resolved)
• OW (resolved).
Assessed: None
Closure violations were identified.
Complaint issued.
Final Order issued.
The facility returned to full compliance with regard to the GW
monitoring violations.
The facility returned to full compliance regarding the 1984
closure/post closure violations following submittal and State
approval of a closure plan.
State certified surface impoundments at the facility clean
closed.
The waste in question at NEW ENGLAND POWER CO. --
SALEM HARBOR STATION was corrosive-only, hence
there was question as to the applicability of GW monitoring
requirements. The facility explained that a device treated the
waste water before it entered the lagoon, hence the lagoon was
not a RCRA regulated facility. In spite of the lack of
consensus on regulatory status, the facility has taken the
necessary steps to return to compliance with the closure
requirements. There are no outstanding violations.
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
NEW ENGLAND POWER Co. --
SALEM HARBOR STATION
Massachusetts
MAD030821631
Surface
impoundments
State
•
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 14
-------
Region I
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
LANDFILL Landfill
State
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays
/ ‘ . : :
L t/ , , - / , < w S
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
VP
r
VIOLATIONS
•CP.
PENALTY
HISTORY
7/30/85
11/14/85
627/86
7/17/86
11/5/86
4/1/87
STATUS
9/30/87
7/1/8 8
6 i9/89
629/89
10/12/89
Assessed: None
EPA inspection noted violations of Subpart 0.
State issued Administrative Order, which the facility appealed.
Closure plan submitted.
EPA inspection again noted violations of Subpart 0.
EPA referred 7/17/86 violation to the State.
State withdrew, Administrative Order and issued Consent
Order addressing 7/17/86 violation.
EPA and the State approved closure/post closure plans.
Closure construction completed.
PLAINVILLE LANDFILL submitted closure certification.
EPA inspection noted compliance with Subpart 0.
HWDMS incorrectly reflected PLAIN VILLE LANDFILL’S
status regarding closure violations as returned to compliance.
Closure certification had not yet been reviewed.
HWDMS incorrectly indicated that PLAINVILLE LANDFILL
returned to compliance with closure requirements as of
10/12/89. This was incorrect because closure certification had
not yet been reviewed.
12/14,90 . Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 15
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
POLAROID CORP.
Massachusetts
MAD 000 846 493
Surface
State
impoundments
RTC CATEGORY
Facility resistance
Assessed: $12,750
Collected: $12,750
HISTORY
12/11/85
6/12/86
10128/87
9/15189
STATUS
Violations discovered.
State issued Administrative Order.
State issued Final Order.
POLAROID CORP. was confirmed by the State to be in full
compliance.
POLAROID CORP. contested the violations, arguing that the
wastes were not listed wastes and that the facility used state-
of-the-art environmental protection processes. POLAROID
CORP. returned to compliance as of 9/15/89.
I
I Wi:
Fln.I Foni l EsWa,osn nS
10 128187 F1,1 Ovd.r
I R.tum to Coniplianc.
I
VIOLATIONS • OW (resolved).
PENALTY
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 16
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
Connecticut
CTD OOI 186618
Landfill
Lagoons
EPA
• Processing delays, Financial, Bankruptcy/CERCLA, Facility
resistance
Assessed: $36,750
18,160
Collected: $51,335
HISTORY
6 (8/83
9/30/84
10122184
6/85
3/87
8/87
10/87
12/87
3/88
9/3/88
10/88
12/88&3/89
STATUS
Violations identified.
EPA issued §3008(a) Order.
EPA amended the §3008(a) Order.
EPA issued Consent Order and referred the case to the State.
EPA issued a second §3008(a) Order and a §3013 Order to
study the site.
Section 3013 proposal approved, but the facility decided to
submit a fourth plan.
EPA issued Consent Order for the violations addressed in
3/87.
EPA inspection indicated ongoing violations.
EPA amended complaint for additional penalties.
Consent Agreement signed for the §3008(a) Order.
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES did its last GW sample.
EPA inspection indicated non-compliance with Consent
Agreement and numerous RCRA violations.
In addition to this RCRA case, the facility faces a significant
number of asbestos suits in civil court. Most of the 33 acre
complex is a landfill with open lagoons. Further enforcement
action is pending.
RTC CATEGORY
Fcrnl Enf..... ........L
913om4 *3 (’) d
Fb FonnI Enfo.c......t
&6 COnM
VIOLATIONS • CP
ow
FR.
PENALTY
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 17
-------
Regiun I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
RELIABLE ELECTRO PLATING
INC.
Massachusetts
MAD 001 290 121
Surface
impoundment
Stale
.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays
VIOLATIONS • OW
• FR (resolved)
• Other: loss of interim status.
Assessed: $20,000
Collected: None
HISTORY
&1 9/85
12/85
8/1/86
316/87
STATUS
7-9/87
1987
1988
11/88
3/89
3,90
Financial responsibility violations were identified.
RELIABLE ELECTRO PLATING submitted sampling plan.
Section 3008 Complaint issued.
EPA issued LOIS Consent Order, for which the State was the
lead agency for oversight of field activities associated with
implementing the Order.
Closure Plan was submitted and approved by the State.
Facility resolved financial violation.
Metal sludge and contaminated soil were removed.
EPA approved sampling analysis plan with some changes.
The facility initiated quarterly sampling and analysis.
The facility submitted sampling and analysis report.
The closure plan has been partially implemented. After the
State approved the closure plan, it.found that additional
sampling would be appropriate. The State has been
encouraging the facility to do additional sampling before they
backfill the lagoon. EPA is awaiting submittal of the revised
Sampling and Analysis plan before sampling can begin. Until
the GW monitoring program is completed, the facility will
remain out of compliance for the 1985 OW monitoring
violations.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 18
-------
Region I
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT
Connecticut
CTD 001 449 784
Surface
impoundments
EPA
Collected: None yet since no final
enforcement action has becn taken.
Inspection identified violations.
Follow-u p inspection was conducted because of a delay in the
case development due to restrictions in ORC support levels.
Section 3008(a) Administrative Order addressing GW
violations was issued.
Settlement conference held.
EPA issued §3008(h) Order, SIKORSKY AIRCRAFr
appealed this order and entered negotiations for a §3008(h)
Consent Order.
The 7/10/87 Administrative Order addressed the GW
violations but the Order has not been settled due to other
extensive enforcement actions. (Among other things,
SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT was part of the OW Task Force.)
SIKORSKY AIRCRAFF and Region I are negotiating to
resolve the outstanding § 3008(a) Administrative Order.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Technical complexity, Facility resistance
• VIOLATIONS • CP
‘Ow.
Assessed: $44,464
PENALTY
HISTORY
7/1/86
1/15/87
7/10/87
9/87
9/89
STATUS
12/14, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 19
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
TECH SYSTEMS CORPORATION
Connecticut
C l i) 058 865 072
Surface
impoundments (2)
Wastewater
treatment
State
.
Processing delays, Financial
VIOLATIONS • CP (resolved)
•GW
• FR: no liability insurance (resolved).
PENALTY
HISTORY
12/17/82
513/84
9128/84
1212/85
1987
7/87
12121/87
7/88
9129/88
Summer 1989
STATUS
Assessed: $96,295 Collected: $90,000
TECH SYSTEMS changed from generator/transporter to
generator/treatment and storage/disposal facility.
Violations identified.
Notice of Violation issued.
State Order addressed OW violations.
TECH SYSTEMS lost interim status.
EPA issued a LOIS order and proposed a Consent Agreement,
including stipulations that attempts be documented to obtain
liability insurance and that a letter of credit be obtained for
$1,000,000 for liability coverage.
State approved TECH SYSTEMS’ assessment plan.
TECH SYSTEMS changed ownership.
Consent Agreement signed, addressing financial requirements
and OW monitoring violations. Closure/post closure plan
approved by State and EPA; financial violations resolved.
Closure completed; OW assessment plan not approved.
EPA does not approve of TECH SYSTEMS’ GW assessment
plans because they have not fully characterized the 3-
dimensional contaminant distribution. The OW violation will
remain open until the facility is able to return to post-closure
detection monitoring. Wells have been replaced. An interim
measure (pumping well) is addressing OW contamination tank
leak while assessment is completed.
RTC CATEGORY
- ,.o sr
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 20
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
TEXTRON LYCOMING
Connecticut
CTD001181502
Surface
impoundments
State
RTC CATEGORY •‘ Processing delays, Technical complexity
..•.. ______
.
I ‘
r ; jr—._.._ C,I ?V <‘! ‘\ _ “ ( “
jg: g ‘ - s - w sS z -’
1980 1981 1982 1983 1983 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
i ”
VIOLATIONS • OW: Class I (resolved)
Other Class! (resolved).
PENALTY Assessed: $28,000 Collected: $28,000
HISTORY
6/10/86 EPA inspection noted Class I OW and Class I other violations.
9125/86 Administrative Order addressing OW violation was issued.
2 /28/87 Facility scheduled to return to compliance, according to
9/25/86 Order.
3/87 OW plan submitted. Though State approval was withheld,
TEXTRON LYCOMING began implementing it..
1/88 Enforcement Order addressing other violation was issued.
11/20/89 TEXTRON LYCOMING was found to be in compliance with
the enforcement orders.
STATUS TEXTRON LYCOMING, a federal (DOD) facility, has
implemented a OW monitoring program and the State received
analytical data on 2 quarters’ sampling. Approval will be
issued once the data has been evaluated. The case has been
complicated by the closure of the surface impoundments,
which was necessary but resulted in the destruction of some of
the OW monitoring wells.
1 2 /14i90 - Final Report RCRA RTC Study Page 21
-------
Region I
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
Landfill
EPA, State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HISTORY
6/24/83
5/4/84
7/84
9/17/85
9120/85
10/10/85
3/5/8 6
5/29/86
1i9/87
STATUS
3/17/87
12/11/87
1012/89
Assessed: None
State and EPA inspection identified violations.
State issued §3008 Order.
THOMPSON submitted closure plan.
State and EPA inspection identified violations.
State and EPA inspection identified violations.
State approved closure cover design, but not the closure plan.
State amended enforcement Order issued on 5/4/84.
EPA inspection noted violations and referred them to the State.
State issued final enforcement Order addressing Subparts G
and H violations noted in 5/29/86 EPA inspection.
EPA inspection noted no new violations and referred to State.
THOMPSON was required to revise the closure plan.
THOMPSON obtained financial assurance for $450,000.
THOMPSON is out of compliance with Subpart F. Extensive
review by the State led to an approved GW monitoring plan.
The State delayed referring the case to their Attorney General
because of significant efforts to comply. THOMPSON feels
that each time it takes a step toward compliance the
environmental standards increase. The closure plan review is
a FY90 State commitment. THOMPSON remains out of
compliance with financial insurance requirements. State
anticipates reclassifying the violation as Class H pursuant to
OSWER directive 9901.2, dated 4/20/87.
Processing delays, Fmancial
aI
Ens. dur
VIOLATIONS
•CP
• OW: no monitoring system
•FR.
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 22
-------
Region I
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
MANUFACTURING CO., Surface
impoundment
.
State
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Facility resistance
PENALTY
HISTORY
10125/85
7128/86
1987
STATUS
1987-88
Assessed: None
GW violations were identified.
State issued §3008 Final Order to the facility.
State issued Superfund Notice of Noncompliance to enforce
GW assessment work.
State negotiated with legal counsel for a new Consent Order
instead of a hearing on the outstanding Administrative Order.
State has been awaiting a hearing with State legal counsel for
over 2 years. Progress on GW assessment has been slow due
to the facility’s reluctance to commit substantial resources to
the study. The facility is responding to the Administrative
Order by performing the assessment in a phased approach,
performing small increments each year. The State hopes to
simplify the new Consent Order by addressing hydrogeologic
assessment tasks and eliminating the remediation requirements
included in the Administrative Order. Rather than signing a
new Consent Order, the State is considering referring the case
to EPA. The facility remains out of compliance for the 1985
GW monitoring violations until the GW assessment
monitoring program is completed and State inspectors
acknowledge compliance.
I Fon Enfo.v.m,nt
- Fk O,d.r
VIOLATIONS • GW
12/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 23
-------
Region I
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
LANDFILL Landfill
.
Stare
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
7/2/86
11/18/86
12/15/86
Spring 1987
11/9/88
11/25/88
9/30/89
STATUS
• CP: Class I
• GW: Class!
• Other: Class I and H waste management (resolved).
EPA inspection identified Class I GW violations.
Violations were referred to the State.
State issued §3008 Final Order.
EPA defined an acceptable OW monitoring program, requiring
it to address the entire landfill instead of just the area where
hazardous waste was disposed.
EPA inspection identified Class I GW and closure violations,
and Class I and LI waste management violations, though the
inspection was conducted while wells were beingreplaced.
EPA referred additional violations to State.
Expected compliance date required in the 12115/86
Administrative Order.
Compliance with the 12/15/86 Administrative Order was
expected by 9/30/89, when WALLINGFORD LANDFILL
was to submit their OW assessment report. Again according
to the State, the report was received and is being reviewed.
According to the State, WALLINGFORD LANDFILL
developed, improved, and updated its OW monitoring system
and had addressed the Class I violation when the State
returned to the facility after EPA ’s 11/25/88 referral.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays
VIOLATIONS
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 24
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
WHITING AND DAVIS Co.
Massachusetts
MAD 001 195700
Surface
impoundment
State
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Technical complexity, Facility resistance
VIOLATIONS • CP (resolved)
• GW: failure to move into assessment monitoring
• FR (resolved).
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
6 ,24/86
9t28/87
11/87
12/88
3/89
7/89
STATUS
GW violations were identified after which WHITING AND
DAVIS closed its surface impoundment.
Consent Order issued.
WHITING AND DAVIS submitted a post closure plan.
Continuing Phase I of the OW assessment program,
WHITING AND DAVIS installed 18 monitoring well clusters
and submitted 2 interim reports, one of which indicated a need
to include off-site areas in the OW assessment to define the
limits of the contaminant plume and investigate additional
potential sources of the volatile contaminants.
The facility submitted a revised OW assessment work plan.
The facility submitted third interim report on OW assessment.
WHITING AND DAVIS closed its surface impoundment as
per State guidance soon after the 1986 violation. The facility
is awaiting State final certificationfor closure. WHITING
AND DAVIS is seeking permission to conduct assessment
activities on other properties, one adjacent property owner
agreed to jointly investigate the possible commingling of GW
plumes beneath their properties. WHITING AND DAVIS
plans to complete OW assessment during FY91. The facility
remains out of compliance with the 1986GW monitoring
violations, pending completion of the GW assessment.
I Foimsi (s orci
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 25
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
WHYCO CHROMIUM
Connecticut
CFD 001 450 154
Surface
impoundment
EPA
VIOLATIONS • CP: Class I
• OW: Class land II
• FR: Classlandli
• Other Class I and II waste management.
PENALTY
Assessed: $61,127
Collected: $61,127
HISTORY
12/19/85
STATUS
3/11/87
9/14/87
7/19/88
5/89
1/30 90
EPA inspection identified Class I and 11GW and financial
responsibility violations.
EPA inspection identified Class I closure violations, Class I
and II waste management violations, and confirmed the earlier
violations.
Complaint issued.
EPA and WHYCO CHROMIUM entered a Consent
Agreement.
State reported Class I financial responsibility violation.
WHYCO CHROMIUM certified closed except for one unit.
The sludge beds await closure certification.
The 5/89 financial responsibility violation probably resulted
from WHYCO CHROMIUM’S inability to obtain liability
insurance. The facility is certified closed and there will be
post-closure monitoring. The Region deems that WHYCO
CHROMIUM no longer needs assurance and insurance.
Negotiations were slowed because the town requested an
RCRA Facilities Assessment.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Financial
12 1 0185
• F E o n
0114/17 irv44M
Fln& Foem Enforcsmsnt
7110188 Con nt A r mnt
l2/l4 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 26
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
WILLIAM PRYM, INC.
Connecticut
CTDOO1 140920
Land disposal
State
.
PENALTY
HISTORY
1 1i25/85
8127/86
3131/87
8/88
6/89
STATUS
Assessed: None
State inspection identified violations at WILLIAM PRYM.
State took enforcement action.
WILLIAM PRYM scheduled to return to compliance.
State approved closure plan.
WILLIAM PRYM certified closure.
The only violation outstanding at WILLIAM PRYM was the
Class I closure violation scheduled for return to compliance on
3/31/87. The facility certified closure on 6/89. The State,
satisfied that violations were resolved, released the facility and
returned it to compliance in HWDMS.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Financial
VIOLATIONS • CP: Class I (resolved)
FR (resolved).
12/14 ,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 27
-------
Region I
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
WYMAN GORDON Co.
Massachusetts
MAD 001 128032
Surface
impoundment
State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
STATUS
• HWDMS data CuOf
Assessed: None
OW violations identified.
State issued §3008 Final Order for GW violations and
WYMAN GORDON appealed the Order, though it proceeded
to follow the Order as if the appeal were not being pursued.
WYMAN GORDON conducted GW assessment and closed its
surface impoundments in accordance with State guidance and
submitted GW assessment report to the State.
State reviewed OW assessment report and determined that
WYMAN GORDON had returned to full compliance with
regard to the 1986 OW monitoring violations.
HWDMS will be updated to reflect the change in compliance
status of WYMAN GORDON upon receipt of a revised
compliance assessment monitoring log from the State
inspector.
V$o t n
7/2444
aid Fbid n.id EIWOICU iSId
SI *7 3O FI Oid.r
VIOLATIONS • OW (resolved).
HISTORY
7/24/86
9/29/87
6/30/89
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 28
-------
Region II
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
BUFFALO COLOR
CORPORATION
New York
NYD 080 335 052
Surface
impoundments
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays
PENALTY Assessed:
$6,000
Collected:
$6,000
16,000
6,500
6,000
3,000
HISTORY
8/5/80
11/19/80
11/14/83
5/15184
1/16/85
3/8/85
9/30/85
6127/86
STATUS
7/30/86
10123/86
11/3/86
2/8/89
3/5/89
4/18/89
7/6/90
BUFFALO COLOR submitted notification.
BUFFALO COLOR submitted Part A Application.
EPA requested submittal of Part B by 5/18/84.
BUFFALO COLOR submitted Part B.
Violations identified; Notice of Deficiency issued.
BUFFALO COLOR submitted revised Part B.
EPA issued Complaint Order.
EPA issued a second Notice of Deficiency for Part B due to
insufficiencies in the GW monitoring requirements.
BUFFALO COLOR reported intent to close surface
impoundments.
BUFFALO COLOR reiterated its intention to close its surface
impoundments and withdraw its Part B.
BUFFALO COLOR formally notified EPA and the State that it
was withdrawing its Part B and Part 373 permit applications.
Consent Agreement signed addressing outstanding issues.
BUFFALO COLOR submitted a workplan addressing deficiencies
in the GW monitoring requirements.
State submitted workplan to EPA, finding it deficient.
EPA sent letter of deficiency to BUFFALO COLOR.
A BUFFALO COLOR response to the letter of deficiency is due
to EPA by 11/1/90. EPA expects the facility to return to
compliance in early 1991.
Okiesi Vlo4aIlon 1118/85
Notice 0 q Deficiency
Ir tlaI Formal Enforcemerl
9/30/85 ComplaIn Order
AnalFoefEnforcemerl i
2/8/89 Consera Agneemenl
VIOLATIONS • GW.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 1
-------
Region II
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
COMMONWEALTH OIL
REFINING COMPANY, INC.
(CORCO)
Puerto Rico
PRD091017228
Surface
impoundments
EPA
S
PENALTY
HISTORY
11/80
11/8 1
3/82
2/18/84
4/84
• Facility resistance, Hearing process, Bankruptcy/CERCLA
Assessed: None
Facility submitted Part A as a preventive procedure.
Facility suspended petrochemical operations; reduced staff.
Facility suspended refining operations; began storage operation.
Violations identified.
EPA called in the Part B permit application without knowing that
the Part A application had been a potential protective filing.
EPA called for Part B application or closure plan by 12/84.
CORCO filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.
Complaint issued for failure to submit Part B application or
closure plan.
Section 3008 (a) final order transmitted to CORCO.
Facility contended that it was not subject to interim status
termination provisions.
Court of Appeals found the facility subject to RCRA requirements.
AU ruled in favor of EPA; CORCO appealed.
AU ruled in favor of EPA; CORCO filed motions with EPA to
reconsider.
EPA Region II filed motion to deny both of the facility t s motions.
Region II met with the facility.
Judicial consent decree signed.
The facility is no longer in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and has
submitted closure plans, which are now under EPA review.
RTC CATEGORY
1
Okissi V Iallon
V18i 4
Iritlal Formal Enforcement
7 1/85 Mm. Compfawtt
Fb ai Formal Enforcement
3p3
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
•FR.
11/84
12/84
7/1/85.
3/3/86
5/86
11/86
8/87
9/89
11/89
3/15 / 90
6/15/90
STATUS
l2/l4j O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 2
-------
Region II
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
FRONTIER CHEMICAL
New York
NYD 043 815 703
Surface
impoundments
State
PENALTY.
Assessed:
$5,000
Collected:
116,000
.
$116,000
.
201000
.
8,000
8,000
HISTORY
8/6/82
1982
STATUS
3/13/83
4/1/83
9/23/83
11/30/84
2,22/85
2/28/86
3/16/88
12/31/88
Violationsdiscovered.
Surface impoundments closed; OW requirements needed
addressing.
Complaint issued for violations including manifest.
Part A received.
State signed Consent Order for non-subpart F violations.
Part A received.
Notice of Deficiency on Part B application from State issued.
Consent Order issued, citing GW violations and requirements to
conduct a site-wide investigation for GW contamination; surface
impoundments were inactive but not certified closed.
Consent Order signed.
Additional Consent Order issued addressing violations of
compliance deadlines included in the 1986 Consent Order.
The State has a full-time inspector on-site at this commercial
facility. Pursuant to the Consent Order signed 2128/86,
FRONTIER CHEMICAL has finished 3 phases of a site-wide
investigation, which includes assessing contamination from
inactive surface impoundments. FRONTIER CHEMICAL has
submitted an interim report on the latest phase after the deadline
dictated in the Order. Violations of submittal dates and other
requirements have been put in another Consent Order, which is
being negotiated.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays
Oldest Vldtarnn
W8 2
i-ocmaj Enfo ,w ..a
13/B3 C0ITEI.JM
VIOLATIONS • GW (resolved).
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 3
-------
Region II
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
INTERLAKEN
INC./HOEGANAES
New Jersey
NJD 001 519 107
Landfill
State
• HWDMS data error
Assessed: $4,650
Collected: None
HISTORY
8/1 1/86
4/3/87
1/2188
STATUS
Violations identified.
Complaint issued.
INTERLAKEN INC./HOEGANAES was found to be in compliance.
After INTERLAKEN INC./HOEGANAES submitted letter of credit
for C/PC assurance and used the financial test to meet their
sudden/non-sudden liability coverage requirements, it returned to
compliance on 1/2/88.
RTC CATEGORY
O ut Violation
8/11/88
otmal Enforcem
1/87 Como4ainf
to Comphanc.
1/2/88
VIOLATIONS • CP (resolved)
FR (resolved).
PENALTY
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 4
-------
Region II
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
MERCK SHARP AND DOHME
QUIMICA (MSDQ)
Puerto Rico
PRD 090 028 101
Landfiil
Surface
impoundments
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
Assessed: $15,000
$25,000
Collected: $10,000
HISTORY
1/31/85
2127/85
9/4/8 5
11/8/85
STATUS
1/27/86
4-f ’86
10/9/86
3/3/87
8/87
9/30/87
5/3/89
10/16/89
9/10/90
GW monitoring violations discovered.
Notice of Deficiency issued.
Notice of Deficiency issued.
Interim status terminated because of failure to respond; EPA
notified MSDQ that equalization basin must be closed.
EPA issued Complaint for inadequate Part B application and GW
and closure violations.
Terms of the Complaint/Compliance Order were negotiated.
EPA requested that AU separate the 2 major issues of the case.
EPA and MSDQ discussed landfill issues.
MSDQ notified EPA of intent to clean close by removing all
hazardous wastes, the liner, and contaminated soil, and proposed
3 years of GW monitoring.
Consent Order signed for inadequate Part B Application.
An overruling in a precedent-setting case led to expectations that
this case would also be found in EPA’s favor.
Cross-motion for accelerated decision was filed with ALT.
MSDQ proposed an Administrative Order on Consent for GW
investigation and closure plan.
This case has been contingent upon the precedent case referred to
above. Because of a decision favorable to EPA, the consent
decree for GW and closure requirements is expected to be
executed and signed in second quarter FY91.
F
OId Violation
1 31f85
N
xm En orcem. 1
B Complaini
iw.aI Eztlor m.i1
7 Conseni Order
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW.
PENALTY
12/14, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 5
-------
Region II
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
MOODNA CREEK (MAJESTIC
WEAVING)
New York
NYDOO1 701 382
Surface
impoundments
(2)
EPA, State
.
RTC CATEGORY
• Bankruptcy/CERCLA, Facility resistance
Assessed: $7,000
Collected: None
HISTORY
3/27/81
2/18/82
5/12/82
12/82
217/83
3/83
7/2/83
10/29/85
1/24/86
STATUS
6/86
2/12/87
3/87
1/13/88
10/88
MAJESTIC WEAVING submitted Part A.
GW monitoring violations discovered.
Complaint issued addressing GW monitoring violations.
MAJESTIC WEAVING installed GW monitoring wells.
Draft Compliance Order sent to MAJESTIC WEAVING.
EPA noted 14 GW deficiencies.
Facility declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy; ceased operations.
MOODNA CREEK purchased MAJESTIC WEAVING.
EPA notified new owners of liability for violations; MAJESTIC
WEAVING asserted that it is not a treatment/storage/disposal
facility; EPA rejected that position.
EPA issued a §3007 letter requesting information.
EPA issued new Consent Order for execution with remedial action
forthe entire facility, including closure.
EPA aerial photographic analysis indicated other areas of concern.
EPA referred the case to the State.
The State referred the case to its CERCLA program (rated a Phase
LI-A, contamination suspected but not confirmed).
MAJESTIC WEAVING is still bankrupt and has not complied
with the draft Order. Case progresses under CERCLA.
I Oldeel Vlc4atlon
2/18/82
lnttlai Fennel Enforcement
&18/82Corr laI t
Formal Enforcement
2/87 Consent Order
VIOLATIONS • CP
GW: inadequate monitoring.
PENALTY
l2/l4i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 6
-------
Region H
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
PVS CHEMICAL
New York
NYD 980 534 390
Surface
impoundments
EPA
• Processing delays
Assessed: $21,000
OW violations identified.
PVS CHEMICAL submitted Part A.
EPA issued a Complaint Order addressing OW and other
violations.
PVS CHEMICAL installed 2 wells which did not meet RCRA
standards.
State Superfund Phase I Evaluation was completed. The surface
impoundments were removed from service and certified closed by
PVS CHEMICAL, even though the closure plan had not been
approved.
EPA sent a Notice of Deficiency regarding the closure plan, and
upgrading the well system.
A contractor submitted to EPA a report denoting one other
unregulated SWMU. State completed a RCRA Facility
Assessment.
EPA issued a Consent Agreement which was never signed.
EPA sent draft Consent Agreement to PVS CHEMICAL
requiring a groundwater monitoring assessment and information
on closure of its surface impoundment.
A revised Consent Order is being drafted requiring ground-water
monitoring and a penalty of $17,850. This revised Consent Order
is much more specific than the original draft Consent Order
(issued 12/8 8) and it references the work already accomplished
that was found to be acceptable. EPA anticipates that new
negotiations toward settlement will commence by the end of the
first quarter FY91.
RTC CATEGORY
I Oldest Vb4 1o i
5/10/82
In IaJ Fom i En1o m.nt
5 (4 1 84 Ca 4aI1
Flnai Fo n En1oq ment
I 1/20/87 Conw,t Order
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
.0W.
Collected: None
HISTORY
5/16/82
8/8/83
5/4/84
11/19/84
1985
6/6/8 6
9/30/87
11120/87
12/88
STATUS
12/14, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 7
-------
Region Ill
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ATLANTIC COAST
ENVIRONMENTAL
Delaware
DED 000 796 300
Wastepile
State
• Processing delays, Financial
PENALTY
HISTORY
3/18/86
312188
12/31/89
STATUS
Assessed; None
Violations were identified.
Secretary’s Order issued requiring closure and post closure.
State issued another Order addressing outstanding violations,
including requirements for certification of closure, zoning and deed
requirements, GW monitoring, and financial mechanisms for C/PC.
The 3/2188 Secretary’s Order required OW monitoring, financial
mechanisms, C/PC, and quarterly reporting. The facility attempted to
comply with the Order, but information submitted failed to fulfill all its
requirements.
RTC CATEGORY
iti rowi.i
u o
An Fo.ma Enforc.m.nt
12/31/sa Am.nd.d Ord.r
VIOLATIONS • CP
• GW
• FR: no insurance.
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 1
-------
Region Ill
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
,
LEAD
ATLAS POWDERS Co.
Pennsylvania
PAD071203046
Land disposal
EPA
.
Assessed: $8,000
Violations identified.
EPA issued a Final Administrative Order to resolve RCRA violations
and require that ATLAS POWDERS discontinue its thermal treatment
activities and submit C/PC plans to the State.
State completed its review and issued its Order for closure.
ATLAS POWDERS manufactures TNT and the residues were being
burned on open ground. EPA requested that ATLAS POWDERS
burn on large metal trays instead, and the facility complied. ATLAS
POWDERS has appled for a special Subpart X permit to continue this
residue disposal/treatment method. The permit may require special
closure activities. The permit has not been issued. The process is
slow since no similar permit exists. EPA will continue to monitor the
State and ATLAS POWDERS’ compliance with the enforcement
orders.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays
VIOLATIONS • CP.
PENALTY
HISTORY
4/18/84
12/17/87
6/19/89
STATUS
Collected: None
12/14,90 . Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 2
-------
Region III
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
BALDWIN HARDWARE
Pennsylvania
PAD 002 350 833
Lagoons (2)
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays
I
‘.\
i ’V r r B]r4 4iIYY1LJ ::‘> :
VIOLATIONS • GW: inadequate monitoring system.
PENALTY Assessed: NoneS
HISTORY
3 ,28/86 OW violations identified.
4/13/87 Corrective Action Order issued.
5i92 . Scheduled date for compliance..
STATUS BALDWIN HARDWARE uses solvents to reproduce brass antiques
and stored spent solvents in 2 unlined lagoons. State issued a closure
permit and certified closure, though EPA and State have disagreed
regarding certified closure. BALDWIN HARDWARE is on schedule
for compliance but installed a OW monitoring system and performed
other OW work prior to issuance of CAP guidance; therefore, the
work was not reported in a RCRA Facilities Investigations (RFI)
format. BALDWIN HARDWARE completed the technical equivalent
of an RH, is pumping OW, and has demonstrated that the plume is
contained and possibly retreating.
12/14 /90 . Final Report RCRA RTC Study Page 3
-------
Region III
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
FMC CORPORATION
West Virginia
WVD 005 005 079
Surface
impoundment
EPA
PENALTY
HISTORY
6/30/83
7/83
1/31/85
STATUS
Assessed: $60,000
Violations discovered.
State issued Notice of Violation.
Prior to this date, rapid neutralization units were exempt from RCRA
requirements.
Record review completed.
EPA issued §30 13 Final Order for sampling and monitoring, requiring
installation of a GW monitoring system, characterization of a fly ash
basin and closed industrial landfill, and determination of the source of
potential contamination on or near the site.
The §30 13 Order was issued to accomplish the following: installation
of a OW monitoring system that would exceed base RCRA
requirements; determination of any source of release rather than just
releases from the unit and whether any source found was on or off-
site. Even though no actual release had been determined, the §3013
served as a RCRA facility assessment and investigation with
sampling, as would occur under corrective action. The §30 13 study is
lengthy because of slow review by EPA hydrogeologists due to
resource limitations in the regional office. No RCRA OW monitoring
violation occurred at FMC CORPORATION. The GW monitoring
violation was originally marked in HWDMS as a way to indicate the
basis for the §3013 Order. The OW monitoring violation designation
has been removed from HWDMS. Phase I of the §3013 is completed;
Phase II is awaiting EPA approval. A two-year delay has resulted
from the reassignment of the original hydrogeologist and a heavy case
load on the part of the second hydrogeologist.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays
V a o
6/30/83
Initial and Final Fa,,n.l Enlorcsmant
12/28/OS p3013 Ordsr
VIOLATiONS • OW.
Collected: None
6123/86
12129/86
12/14 90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 4
-------
Region Ill
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
HOPEWELL PLT AQUALON
Virginia
VAD 003 121 928
Surface
impoundment
Wastepile
State
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays
PENALTY
HISTORY
6/12/86
9/18/87
10/15/87
2/9/88
STATUS
Collected: $21,000
Violation identified.
State issued complaint.
Closure Plan violation was detected.
State issued a Final Order and collected a $21,000 penalty.
HOPEWELL PLT AQUALON is on schedule to return to
compliance. The surface impoundment was emptied; GW monitoring
is being done to demonstrate clean closure. If clean closure cannot be
demonstrated, the impoundment will be capped and further GW
monitoring will ensue.
I
1112 11S
I En o,c.m.q
—
VIOLATIONS • CP.
Assessed: $21,000
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 5
-------
Region III
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
INC. Surface
impoundments (3)
State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
STATUS
• Processing delays
Assessed: $130,000
Violations identified.
KENNAMETAL submitted a requestfor the State to delist the sludge
remaining in the lagoon where the violations were detected.
State issued an Enforcement Order for the closure violations and
requested that KENNAMETAL develop a GW assessment and
abatement plan.
Scheduled compliance date for the closure violations.
During an inspection, it was discovered that the closure violations
were still outstanding.
The delisting requested by KENNAMETAL was denied.
KENNAMETAL makes drilling equipment for mining operations.
State enforcement was short-staffed and KENNAMETAL was not
considered a priority case. EPA was preparing to issue a §3008(h)
order in the fall of 1989 when a State hydrogeologist discovered
conflicting data. State is preparing to schedule an evidentiary hearing;
it could be 2 years before hearing date. EPA prefers to take
enforcement action against KENNAMETAL for failing to comply with
the State order over waiting 2 years; the State does not object. It took
nearly 3 years to finalize the closure plan for KENNAMETAL due to
negotiations over the technical issues involved in closure.
ki1I wd Rn Fonn EsWorum.m
5 11447 Fk O,d.r
VIOLATIONS • CP: Class I.
HISTORY
6127/85
3/87
Collected: None
5/14/87
7/28/87
3/89
11/89
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 6
-------
Region III
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
KEYSTONE CHEMICAL
Pennsylvania
PAD 000 647 735
Lagoon
S
EPA
.
PENALTY
HISTORY
• 8/8/86
10/14/86
12/15/86
11/1/88
STATUS
• Facility resistance, Financial
Assessed: $223,500 Collected: $223,500
Violations identified and EPA issued complaint
Signed Consent Order and Agreement issued addressing OW
violations.
KEYSTONE CHEMICAL returned to compliance with GW
requirements.
A Consent Order and Agreement between the State and KEYSTONE
CHEMICAL issued assessing $122,000 relative to closure and
bonding requirement violations.
The 10/14/86 EPA action lead to return to compliance on GW
violations on 12/15/86. KEYSTONE CHEMICAL is presently in the
sampling stage of closure which will be followed by certification. The
schedule required the facility to return to compliance on all violations
in 5/89, but KEYSTONE CHEMICAL requested an extension
because they underestimated the volume of sludge to be removed and
the volume of liquid to drain. There was a 2 year legal battle over the
closure plans, followed by a full year of work. KEYSTONE
CHEMICAL was on a compliance schedule; however, they were not
complying with it. The facility requested an extension.
RTC CATEGORY
VIOLATIONS
nforc.m.
I.nt Ord.r
•CP
• OW (resolved)
•FR.
12/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 7
-------
Region III
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
KOPPERS COMPANY --
FALLANSBEE
West Virginia
WVD 004 336 749
Surface
impoundments
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays, Hearing process, Facility resistance
PENALTY
HISTORY
1i21/86
712/87
917/88
10/14/8 8
11/8/88
1/14/89
STATUS
Violations identified.
EPA issued §3008(a) Complaint for failure to install and implement a
GW monitoring system for the regulated surface impoundments.
Hearing held.
KOPPERS -- FALLANSBEE ceased operation of the units and
commenced closure.
Scheduled retrofit date.
AU ruled in favor of EPA. KOPPERS -- FALLANSBEE
immediately appealed the decision to the Administrator.
Prior to the 917/88 hearing, the facility agreed that they lacked an
adequate GW monitoring system if the units were RCRA regulated.
The Status of the units as tanks or surface impoundments was the
issue argued before the AL!. Both KOPPERS -- FALLANSBEE
and EPA requested an expeditious decision. To date, the
Administrator has not ruled on the appeal. KOPPERS --
FALLANSBEE has not installed the GW monitoring system and
would not undertake post closure activities until the appeals process
was completed. This remains an open enforcement action. An
Administratofs decision would not preclude further appeal through
the Federal courts but would greatly assist in resolving the outcome of
this action and, perhaps, in returning the facility to compliance.
VIOLATIONS • GW.
Assessed: $38,000
Collected: None
12/14 9O . Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 8
-------
Region Ifl
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
SECHAN LIMESTONE
INDUSTRIES, INC.
Pennsylvania
PAD002860377
Landfill
.
State
PENALTY
Assessed: $200
Collected: $200
HISTORY
1985
5/21/86
12/14/87
11/89
STATUS
Hazardous waste areas of concern were closed and capped.
Violations discovered.
Consent Order and Agreement issued addressing GW violations.
OW violations were addressed and the compliance information was to
be entered into HWDMS.
Technical difficulties at SECHAN LIMESTONE INDUSTRIES with
the OW monitoring system centered on sampling plan deficiencies.
SECHAN LIMESTONE INDUSTRIES provided no updated, written
sampling plan, showed a lack of awareness of proper sampling
techniques, and showed a lack of concern for comparability of
analysis results from different laboratories. The case has also suffered
from staff turnover including hydrogeologists and project officers.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays
mEal id Fb al Foimal Enfo c.insnt
P . 1 1 1 / 17C c
VIOLATIONS • CP
OW: poor abatement/assessment plan, insufficient number of wells.
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 9
-------
Region Ill
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
SHARON STEEL CORPORATION
Pennsylvania
PADOO1 933 175
Landfill
State
RTC CATEGORY • Bankruptcy/CERcLA
PENALTY Assessed: $500
HISTORY
6/14/84
6128/84
1987
8/89
9121/89
1990
STATUS
OW violations identified.
EPA filed Complaint and Compliance Order.
SHARON STEEL CORPORATION filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection and negotiations were stalled.
EPA, State, and the facility agreed upon the OW monitoring outline
and the assessment and abatement plan which will be implemented by
the facility under the settlement of a 1984 RCRA §3008(a) Complaint
and Compliance Order.
Consent Agreement and Compliance Order signed.
Site inspection has been scheduled for the .second quarter of 1990.
The facility operated a landfill in which steel manufacturing slag was
deposited in Sharon, PA from 1949 until 12/89. In 1979, under a
State Consent Order for violations of the Qean Streams Act, the
facility deposited waste oils and acids onto its landfill until an acid
regeneration plant could be constructed onsite. After RCRA was
promulgated, this activity was prohibited and the State began
negotiating for closure of the landfill. EPA filed its Complaint and
Compliance Order to resolve the GW violations, but negotiations
stalled when SHARON STEEL filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection. SHARON STEEL was to be evaluated in the second
quarter of FY90, after completion of the first review of the Hazardous
Ranking Model. Inadequate guidance for installing a GW monitoring
system lead to technical difficulties early in the process. The wells
were poor and there were lengthy delays in getting an assessment and
abatement plan approved because of technical disagreements and
confusion. It is likely that the site will be turned over to CERCLA
authorities. The OW monitoring plan was recently approved.
II
MII I C1
Con.snt A ..m..W
VIOLATIONS • OW.
Collected: $500
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 10
-------
Region HI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
SPANG AND COMPANY
Pennsylvania
PAD 980 715 742
Surface
impoundments (3)
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Assessed: $5,000
Collected: $5,000
HISTORY
9 ,9/85
1985
12/85
STATUS
1/87
2/87
3/89
9128/89
GW violations identified.
Facility submitted closure plan; State declared it inadequate.
SPANG AND COMPANY installed a GW monitoring system and
commenced a detection monitoring program.
State presented facility with closure plan which did not include certain
OW monitoring requirements. EPA later reviewed hydrogeologic
information and concluded that the monitoring system was inadequate.
SPANG AND COMPANY appealed the closure plan to the State
Hearing Board.
Appeal ongoing with State; testimony heard.
Section 3008(a) Complaint issued, proposing compliance schedule
and penalty.
The facility operated 3 surface impoundments to handle solid waste
from process operations. In the past, the facility placed plating waste
from an electroplating process at a Tools Division in the
impoundments. The impoundments were subject to RCRA
regulations. The Tools Division has been closed and the
impoundments are no longer used to handle hazardous waste. No
GW quality assessment and abatement plan outline was developed and
no closure or post closure bonds were obtained, both of which
constitute additional violations of RCRA regulations. The EPA Order
will require implementation of OW monitoring requirements which are
not included in the State ordered closure plan.
Hearing process
2S1O 33OO ) CompIah
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
• CP: Class I
• GW: Class I.
l2/14, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 11
-------
Region IV
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ALABAMA PLATING Co;, INC.
Alabama
ALD004022448
Surface
impoundment
.
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY • Facility resistance
__ I ll it I I LU ’
__ ao3
198C 1981 1982 1983 1983 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
VIOLATIONS • CPt no plan
• OW: no monitoring system
• FR: no insurance, inability to demonstrate assurance for closure
• Other operating requirements, late and deficient Part B.
PENALTY Assessed: $171,000 Collected: $30,000 due to
inability to pay assessed amount.
HISTORY
6/18/85 Violations identified.
9125185 EPA issued Complaint and Compliance Order.
11/8185 Facility ceased operation of the surface impoundments in question.
12/85 ALABAMA PLATING installed OW monitoring system.
3127/87 CAFO was finalized.
8/87 Closure plan was approved.
10/87 ALABAMA PLATING began implementing closure plan.
3/88 State inspection revealed that facility was not following the closure
plan.
4/88 Closure was completed.
8/89 State issued Administrative Order addressing outstanding closure,
OW and PaEt B violations since 1988.
STATUS In the 3/27/87 CAFO, ALABAMA PLATING agreed to close the
surface impoundments and provide post closure care. After twice
being cited for not correctly following the closure plan, ALABAMA
PLATING completed closure in 4/88; due in part to a financial
dispute, closure was not certified. In addition, ALABAMA
PLATING’S OW monitoring system identified a release of
contaminants. As of 8/89, the State has ALABAMA PLATING under
order to complete the assessment work. OW assessment work was
implemented but a final report has not been submitted. There is some
question surrounding the company’s claims of inability to pay
penalties or pay for further cleanup/monitoring activities, as EPA
investigators seem to have identified sufficient assets among owning
interests.
12/ 14,90 - Final Report RCRA RTC Study Page 1
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
BROWN WOOD PRESERVING
Alabama
ALD 082 066 192
Sprayfield
Surface
impoundment
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HISTORY
10/19/83
3/31/84
1/86
5/30/86.
6/86
5/31/89
STATUS
Processing delays, Technical complexity, Hearing process
Assessed: $24,000 Collected: None because EPA lost on
appeal.
Violations identified.
EPA issued a Complaint and Compliance Order.
Hearing was held.
ALT ruled that the complaint be dismissed.
Region appealed AL! ruling.
Original ALT ruling on definition of a tank was overturned; original
decision regarding proving the formation of a sludge was upheld.
Ruling on 5/30/86 dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the
settling ponds in question constituted a wastewater treatment tank, and
EPA could not rely on internal memoranda to conclude that the
facility’s spray irrigation field generated KOOl. On appeal, the tank
was ruled to be a regulated facility, overturning part of the 5/86
decision; however, the requirement that EPA prove that the sludge
was hazardous was upheld. Currently, EPA and the State are
gathering information to demonstrate the presence of KOOl sludge at
BROWN WOOD PRESERVING in 1985. This effort has been
complicated by the facility’s burial of the units in question. Further
enforcement action will not be taken until adequate information can be
obtained.
Oldisi Violation
1 19I$3
Rn.I Fo m.l Enfo,v.m.nt
5131/0 ALl Ruang
VIOLATIONS • CP: inadequate, plan
• OW: no monitoring system
• FR: no insurance, failure to demonstrate assurance for closure.
12f 4i9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 2
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
0
LEAD
C.P. CHEMICALS
South Carolina
SCD070371 885
Land disposal
EPA
PENALTY Assessed: $333,675
HISTORY
2/1/85
4/1/85
2 ,9/89
5/10/89
2 /2 6 190
8/17,90
Collected: None yet
Violations identified.
State issued §3008 Order.
EPA and State inspection found RCRA violations.
EPA issued a RCRA §3008(a)(1) Order ordering C.P. CHEMICALS
to stop receiving hazardous waste until facilities are closed. C.P.
CHEMICALS requested a formal hearing to contest the Order and the•
assessed penalty.
Scheduled date for hearing; hearing postponed pursuant to settlement
conference. Another conference is scheduled to settle the case before
mid-year.
Settlement conference was held with C.P. CHEMICALS and a
settlement was reached for $242,500 in penalties. Draft Settlement
Agreement has been sent to source for comment. Signature is
expected by 11/30/90.
STATUS Numerous violations have been identified at C.P. CHEMICALS over
the last 6 years. The State took enforcement actions resulting in 5
Administrative Consent Orders which included penalties. The facility
is currently being tracked as in compliance.
RTC CATEGORY • Hearing process, Facility resistance
tItI.I Fom l Enforosn nt
4114*5 33001 Ord.r
FIn.I Entorc.m.nt
Sf10 150 33008(aXl) Ordsr
VIOLATIONS
.cP
•GW
• Other Loss of Interim Status.
12/l4 O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 3
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
COASTAL PLAINS TREATING CO.,
INC.
• Georgia
GAD981015449
Surface
impoundment
State CERCLA
.
..
.
RTC CATEGORY • Bankruptcy/CERCA
// / >
1 , / / — 1 Wii iisithi icwjw # m
a a
198C 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
‘FR.
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
1983 Violations discovered.
1/10/84 Notice of Violation issued.
5/16/85 Initial formal enforcement action issued.
11/4/88 State requested that COASTAL PLAINS TREATING be considered
for transfer to CERCLA jurisdiction.
1/13/89 COASTAL PLAINS TREATING was transferred from RCRA to
CERCLA.
STATUS • COASTAL PLAINS TREATING is no longer a RCRA facility.
Based on the “Unwilling and Unable” Policy, EPA formally
transferred remedial activities from RCRA to CERCLA.
12 /14 /90 - Final Report RCRA RTC Study Page 4
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
COLLIS, INC.
Kentucky
KYD 057 591 133
Landfill
State
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Technical complexity, Facility resistance
PENALTY
HISTORY
2123/82
9/1/82
8123/83
12/12185
STATUS
2/4/87
7130/87
12/88
1/6/89
1124/89
2/3/89
4/3/89
7/11/89
8/31/89
Assessed: $6,100 Collected: $1,100 due to inability to
pay.
Closure and OW violations discovered.
Agreed Order issued calling for closure.
New case opened for closure, OW, and operating violations.
Second Agreed Order issued, which was never fulfilled because
COLLIS indicated that it could not achieve clean closure.
Third Agreed Order issued to resolve ownership and OW issues.
Deadline to complete closure was not fulfilled.
Case was split into 2 cases, the GW violations ascribed to COLLIS
and closure ascribed to the previous owner.
OW violation noted for inadequate evacuation method and monitoring
wells due to a damaged well and inappropriate placement of the up-
gradient well.
Notice of Violation issued for the GW violations.
Newly installed wells were found inadequate.
Financial violations discovered.
Fourth AgreedOrder issued addressing closure violations.
Fifth Agreed Order drafted and sent to all current and previous
owners.
There has been some confusion over responsibility for the damaged
well. The past owners are responsible for well maintenance and
closure. High technology fixes have not resolved the OW monitoring
system problem, and the State and facility are negotiating the
replacement of 1 or 2 wells. COLLJS revised their closure plan by
clean closing half the facility and closing the other half in-place.
O V1o .tIoii
2/22/$2
:om ,aI L QIow*n
W1?82 Aqr..d O,dsr
VIOLATIONS • CF
• GW: inadequate evacuation method and monitoring well system
•FR
• Othec operating violations.
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 5
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
DANA CORPORATION
Tennessee
TND 004 045 605
Surface
impoundment
State
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Technical complexity
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
VIOLATIONS • OW.
PENALTY Assessed: $13,665 Collected: $10,941
HISTORY
3 17/84 Inspection identified violations.
6124/85 State issued enforcement order requiring DANA tO implement (3W
monitoring program as required by 40 CFR 265 Subpart F, DANA appealed
the Order.
7/85 DANA installed the GW monitoring system.
4,9/87 State issued Agreed Order.
4129/88 DANA closed the surface impoundment and submitted clean closure
certification to the State.
9128/88 EPA recommended the State not to approve the clean closure certification due
to the levels of lead in the soil.
9/89 State inspection determined that DANA needed to repeat the statistical analysis
for the GW data.
I 1/89 State expected inspection report.
5 ,9 ,90 State notified EPA of intent to request OW assessment plan.
11,90 Meeting between State and DANA scheduled to discuss inadequacies in
closure plan and OW assessment.
STATUS DANA initially planned to clean close. The contaminant (lead and
potentially trichloroethylene) rendered this impossible so the facility
changed its closure plan, deciding to cap or remove the soil and begin
post-closure activities. DANA did not want to enter OW assessment.
The State expects that requiring DANA to repeat the statistical analysis
for the GW data will trigger the facility into assessment At this point,
the State feels that DANA needs to change theft statistical analysis and
add new detection wells.
12/14 ,90 - Final Report RCRA RTC Study Page 6
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
DURABLE WOOD PRESERVERS,
INC.
North Carolina
NCDOO3 173358
Surface
impoundment
State
• Processing delays, Financial
PENALTY
HISTORY
12/17/85
6/1/8 7
2/1,90
STATUS
Assessed: None
Violations identified.
CAFO entered allowing trust fund to be funded over 30-year period.
Compliance date for CAFO.
The surface impoundment has been certified closed for a number of
years, though clean closure cannot be achieved. The OW assessment
is now considered complete. The case revolves around the fact that
the State allowed the facility to landfaim a lagoon with KOOl
hazardous waste. Now there is some question as to its regulatory
status, as the waste is biodegradable on a landfarm but landfarming a
lagoon is against regulations. Financial violations are to be addressed
by a Trust Fund funded over 30 years. To return to compliance, the
facility must obtain a post-closure permit and take corrective action
according to the closure/post closure plan. The post-closure permit is
about to be public noticed and incorporates the trust fund payment
requirement from the CAFO.
RTC CATEGORY
OId•et VIo Ion
12117/85
In* al and Ana’ Fonn Enfw m.n.ri
S I /$7 CAFO
VIOLATIONS • CP: no post-closure permit
• OW: no OW assessment
‘FR.
1 2 1l 4 i 9 0 - Final Report
RCRA RTC SLudy
Page 7
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
DYNATECH INDUSTRIES
North Carolina
NCD981 014517
Landfill
State
PENALTY
HISTORY
6/24/85
1/8/8 6
STATUS
3/27/8 6
5,9/88
Assessed: $21,250
Sample results submitted by facility showed contamination.
Order requiring sampling to assess the extent of soil and GW
contamination issued.
Order issued to all three parties involved citing closure, (3W
monitoring, and other 265 violations.
Order to three parties revised, requiring all three to conduct closure
activities.
In September 1990, a preliminary decision was made by the ALL that
the facility was not subject to RCRA. The case is now being
considered by the State Health Director for a final decision. The
facility is contemplating bankruptcy but has not officially filed yet.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing Delays, Bankruptcy/CERCLA
In1tI FomiJ E,d .wiinS
1l$IS Est Ofdr
VIOLATIONS
•CP
Collected: None
- Final Report
RCRA RTC Scudy
Page 8
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
FAIRCHILD WESTON
Florida
FLD 083 200 998
Sprayfield
Surface
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays, Technical complexity
Assessed: $50,000
Collected: $25,400
HISTORY
7131/85
STATUS
7125/85
7/10/86
1/20/88
4i90
State inspection identified violations which were cited because
FAIRCHILD WESTON placed waste water from electroplating
operations in a sprayfield on-site.
EPA confirmed that wastewaters were regulated.
EPA issued Complaint and Compliance Order.
EPA and FAIRCHILD WESTON entered Consent Agreement
requiring the facility to perform OW monitoring and closure as
directed by the State.
FAIRCHILD WESTON returned to compliance.
Prior to 7131/85, State inspections at FAIRCHILD WESTON did not
find violations of 40 CFR Part 265 GW monitoring and closure
requirements because no visible sludge was present in the sprayfield.
However, on 7/31/85 the inspector cited violations based on sludge
seen but not photographed. Memorandum from EPA Director of
Solid Waste to Chief of the Region IV Branch confirmed that waste
waters from electroplating operations disposed of into unlined surface
impoundments or sand filters after pretreatment were regulated
hazardous waste units containing F006 listed hazardous waste.
Because the sludge had not been photographed and a year had passed,
EPA could not conclusively prove existence of the sludge. Therefore,
EPA settled with FAIRCHILD WESTON and reached an agreement
that the company would pay the penalty, perform OW monitoring,
and submit a closure plan. At this time, the facility seems to have
returned to compliance.
I
Fbi Fo.m.l Ei or .moiw
VIOLATIONS • CP
• OW: monitoring
•FR.
PENALTY
12/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 9
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
FLORIDA TILE
Kentucky
KYDO45 735 305
Surface
impoundments (3)
EPA-FR
State - CP, OW
Financial
PENALTY
Assessed: $34,000
Collected: $10,000, because the facility
claimed to be near bankruptcy.
HISTORY
6129/83
12/1 Of 84
10/3/85
8126/86
9/30/86
10/19/87
6 /28/88
1989
STATUS
312 1/89
9,29/89
State issued complaint for closure and financial violations.
Agreed Order issued; FLORIDA TILE never fulfilled terms.
Second Agreed Order issued and never fulfilled.
EPA conducted financial review after State referred the case.
EPA issued. Administrative complaint.
Agreed Order issued; post closure HSWA permit later issued.
State certified closure of surface impoundments.
Record review identified OW violations and FLORIDA TILE was
contacted to perform required resampling.
State issued Notice of Violation, requiring resanipling of anomalous
well, which revealed no statistically significant increase in
contamination.
Court ruled that the post closure permit was void and FLORIDA
TILE was released from financial requirements.
FLORIDA TILE never obtained financial insurance but met partial
financial responsibilities with closure. The facility was not released
from financial requirements until 9/29/89 because the State wanted to
hold it to post-closure financial assurance requirements. The State
required a HSWA permit addressing closure, GW, and financial
responsibility for the whole site. Neither the State nor the facility felt
confident that clean closure could be accomplished. After the permit
was issued, the facility changed the closure method and clean closed.
The OW violation, remains outstanding. A new Final Order may be
issued.
RTC CATEGORY
haItI Fcrvv l EMo.wv M
wu c
1O11 $7 A
d Ord.r
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
• FR: no non-sudden liability insurance (resolved).
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 10
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
FLORIDA TILE
Florida
FLD 004 091 583
Surface
impoundments (3)
EPA
:
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Financial
PENALTY
Assessed: $10,000
Collected: $7,500
HISTORY
1/16/86
STATUS
5130/86
10/19/87
1988
EPA conducted financial review of FLORIDA TILE and discovered
that the facility did not have nonsudden liability insurance.
Complaint issued for financial violations.
EPA and FLORIDA TILE entered Consent Order requiring payment
of $10,000 civil penalty within 30 days, and closure of the hazardous
waste impoundments in accordance with State requirements.
State cited OW violations.
The 10/19/87 Consent Order required FLORIDA TILE to pay a civil
penalty of $10,000 to EPA within 30 days, and to close the hazardous
waste impoundments in accOrdance with the State closure
requirements. Closure was not completed by that deadline, but has
since been completed. The company claims it has been unable to
obtain insurance. This case is closely related to the FLORIDA TILE
case in Kentucky.
Foim Enforcan.,
W3W81 Complaint
P . 1 .1 Foni I Eno.c.m.nt
iWi91 7 Con..nt OrdH
VIOLATIONS • OW
FR: no nonsudden liability insurance.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 11
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
GENERAL SMELTING AND
REFINING
Tennessee
TND 004 048 690
Wastepile(3)
Surface
impoundments (2)
State
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Technical complexity, Financial
PENALTY Assessed: $33,992
HISTORY
8/28/84
7/31/85
6/15/87
6/16/89
7/11/89
8f28/89
STATUS
Violations identified.
Initial formal action taken by State.
Agreed Order issued.
Closure plan was submitted.
Post-closure plan was submitted.
Closure plan approved.
GENERAL SMELTING AND REFINING closed regulated units
pursuant to the approved closure plan. Three contiguous units with
the same hazardous waste code were closed as one big unit. This unit
has been capped and will have GW monitoring for 30 years. There is
no trace of contaminants in the river. The violation is still outstanding
because the closure activities called for extensive soil and waste
movement which could affect integrity of the wells. The post-closure
plan for GENERAL SMELTING AND REFINING has not yet been
approved and the cost estimate has not been finalized. GENERAL
SMELTING AND REFINING has tried and failed to obtain financial
insurance. The State is preparing to issue a Notice of Violation for
OW and recordkeeping violations, requiring submission of an
assessment plan and new detection wells.
$128184
k ft Foin Enlorosmsd
7/21/85 Est Ord.r
VIOLATIONS • OW: inadequately located wells.
Collected: $33,992
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 12
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
GNB INC. (PACIFIC CHLORIDE)
Florida
FLD 000 608 083
Surface
impoundments
State
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Technical complexity
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
11130/84
8/28/85
5,26/87
7/27/87
6/29/89
7/19/89
Violations discovered at the already inoperative site.
Initial enforcement action taken.
State and GNB entered into a final enforcement order.
GNB submitted closure plan for hazardous waste surface
impoundments.
Deadline for closure passed.
Facility certified closed.
• STATUS This site is subject to CERCLA action as well as RCRA action and has
not returned to compliance. State and EPA have been discussing roles
of closure.
b Iti.I Fci
W 1 6 E
I.
Fb aI Fo m Enlorcn.i*
2 /87 E . r
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
•FR.
12/I4 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 13
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
GRUMMAN ST. AUGUSTINE
CORP.
Florida
FLD045771952
Surface
impoundments
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays, Technical complexity, Financial
Assessed: $137,571
Collected: $137,571
HISTORY
2/19/86
STATUS
5/23/86
11/12/86
12/86
5/4/87
12/31/87
Fail 1988
3/10/89
EPA inspection revealed that GRUMMAN ST. AUGUSTINE had
stored and disposed of, and was presently storing and disposing of,
hazardous waste listed as F002 in 40 CFR 261.31 in a surface
impoundment.
Complaint issued for GW violations.
Final §3008(a) Order became effective.
GW monitoring system was installed.
EPA inspection revealed the continued use of the surface
impoundment beyond the statutory requirements of §3005(e) (LOIS
provision); EPA took the lead.
EPA issued a §3008(a) Order citing LOIS provisions; GRUMMAN
ST. AUGUSTINE brought the case to court.
AU hearing held.
AU ruled that the facility would pay EPA the $137,571 penalty.
The 11/12/86 §3008(a) Order required the facility to install a GW
monitoring system, fulfilling 40 CFR 265.91, within 30 days of the
Order, and to fulfill 40 CFR §254 Subpart G requirements within 60
days of the Order. The facility did not close or submit certification of
compliance with LOIS requirements, so EPA issued the 12/31/87
Order. At present,the impoundments are closed. GRuMMAN ST.
AUGUSTINE did not appeal the ALJs 3/10/89 ruling.
r
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • OW: inadequate monitoring system
• Other LOIS; various other violations.
12/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 14
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
ILCO UNICAN CORP.
North Carolina
NCD045646924
Land disposal
State
.
.
STATUS
• Processing delays
Assessed: $5,000 Collected: None (penalty dropped)
Violations identified. State issued Compliance Order requiring ILCO
UNICAN CORP. to conduct GW assessment in 3 phases.
Complaint issued.
ILCO UNICAN CORP. submitted the results of Phase I.
ILCO UNICAN CORP. submitted the results of Phase II.
Compliance Order of 9/9/85 signed.
ILCO UNICAN CORP. submitted the results of Phase III.
Certification of closure submitted.
Post-closure permit effective.
At this facility, the land unit stopped receiving waste prior to 7126/82,
but was not closed in 1983. GW assessment did not have to be
completed prior to permit issuance. The OW assessment is being
completed according to a schedule incorporated in the post-closure
permit, which was effective 6/15/90. The 919/85 Compliance Order
assessed a $5,000 penalty for failure to obtain liability insurance and
required ILCO UNICAN CORP. to conduct OW assessment in 3
phases. The facility is now in compliance with post-closure assurance
requirements.
RTC CATEGORY
In It ial Foimal Enforooinami
gig /u WlI.noi oi r
Final Fonv EiWoro.n nt
10111 1*5 ConiplalnI
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
.0W
• FR: no liability insurance.
HISTORY
9i9/85
10/11/85
11/15/85
9126/86
5/87
1/5/88
11/1/89
6/15,90
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 15
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
JOHNSTON COUNTY
SCHOOLBOARD
North Carolina
NCD981 476955
Landfill
State
Assessed: $6,000
hearing.
Collected: None, the State
was unable to issue penalties
at the time the order went to
HISTORY
10/8/85
STATUS
10/15/85
11/8/85
9/28/87
1/1/89
5125/89
8/8/89
State received citizen’s complaint that waste had been disposed of on
site in 1982.
Samples taken by State showed evidence of disposal activities.
Order issued calling for closure and GW monitoring.
Order issued for additional closure, (3W monitoring, and post-closure
violations. (3W contamination was discovered.
Landfill was certified closed.
Court ruled that case be dismissed on grounds that the Office of
Administrative Hearings lacked subject matter jurisdiction because a
penalty was not imposed.
EPA conducted CME and found OW violations.
Now that the State regained the right to issue penalties, it is
considering filing another case. EPA is considering an overfile action.
The State has been reluctant to move forward on this case because the
facility is small and has a limited ability to pay.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Financial
o V n
1 0 /1 5/85
Rn Fonn Enforc.in.nt
0 /21/Si EM. Ocd.r
VIOLATIONS
.CP
‘OW.
PENALTY
12/14 &O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 16
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
KAISER ALuMiNUM
Florida
FLDOO4 106811
Surface
impoundment
State
RTC CATEGORY
HWDMS data error
PENALTY Assessed: $1,000
HISTORY
712/86
8/4/86
3/8/88
3126/8 8
STATUS
Violation identified.
KAISER ALUMINUM and State entered Consent Order.
Review process ended
KAISER ALUMINUM implemented the approved GW monitoring
plan in compliance with the Order and returned to compliance.
The 8/4/86 Consent Order required KAISER ALUMINUM to submit
additional information to complete a permit application for closing its
hazardous waste surface impoundment to submit information needed
to implement RCRA GW monitoring plan pending State review; and
upon completion of State review, to implement the GW monitoring
plan within 60 days. KMsER ALUMINUM submitted the necessary
information and implemented the approved OW monitoring plan in
compliance with the Order on 3/26/88, and the facility returned to
compliance, although the State did not submit a CMEL to verify this.
• FonT I EMOIOInSId
onsui Ord.c
Nu um to CoinpU.nc.
3126 /88
VIOLATIONS • OW: monitoring.
Coflected: $1,000
12/14 ,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 17
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.
Alabama
ALD000771 949
Wastepiles (3)
State
RTC CATEGORY • Technical complexity, Facility resistance
Ih _ • ; .:rj pt!, k4)i,.iJ& IS : It ,
/ /
d w maJ’ a
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 199C
P P
VIOLATIONS • OW: no monitoring system
Other: operating requirements; lacking interim status or permit.
PENALTY Assessed: $34,200 Collected: $34,200
HISTORY
8 1 1/85 Violations identified.
11130/85 EPA issued Complaint and Compliance Order.
6 ,29/87 CAFO signed after lengthy negotiations.
8/87 KOPPERS closed all units in question and installed OW monitoring
system.
Late 1987 Quarterly monitoring completed, indicating that facility was impacting
OW quality.
1988-89 Over half the monitoring wells on-site were determined to be damaged
or destroyed because of their location in “high traffic” areas.
2/90 Administrative Order addressing OW monitoring system and OW
assessment scheduled to be issued.
STATUS KOPPERS initially argued that the cited facilities were not regulated,
based on the American Mining decision. However, settlement was
finally reached a year and a half later with full penalty and KOPPERS
agreement to close all 3 wastepiles and install a OW monitoring
system. Location of wells in “high traffic areas” resulted in damage or
destruction of half the wells in 1988 and 1989, and OW contamination
has been identified. The State filed an Administrative Order to address
the failure to maintain the integrity of the OW monitoring system and
the failure to complete a GW assessment in 2/90. The case will
probably be resolved with a HSWA permit in 1990 or 1991 and an
EPA issued §3008(a). A 3008(h) order was scheduled to be issued in
10/90.
12/14 /90 - Final Report RCRA RtC Study Page 18
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
LANDFILL INC.
South Carolina
SCD980500292
Landfill
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
STATUS
Hearing process, Facility resistance
Assessed: $29,500
at $250)
Collected: None since the
case is still in court.
Above violations were discovered.
EPA issued complaint.
Hearing was held; initial decision ruled in favor of EPA. LANDFILL
INC. appealed the decision to the Chief Judicial Officer.
Chief Judicial Officer ordered EPA to show cause why its’ complaint
should not be dismissed on the ground that EPA failed to prove that it
gave prior notice to the State of its intent to file a complaint.
EPA filed its response to the Chief Judicial Officer’s Order to Show
Cause.
EPA issued complaint for an inadequate GW monitoring system and
for inadequate financial assurance for closure/post closure care. While
the case has been tied up in court, LANDFILL INC. covered the
landfill but has not taken any additional samples.
(Settled
OId..t Y1c at1on
9 /5 185
Fom Enloro.msri
O*5 Conçl.Int
Rn Fonn Entoie. ,v.,
9fl 8186 AU Ruling
VIOLATIONS • OW: no monitoring system
FR: no financial assurance for closure/post closure care.
HISTORY
‘9/5/85
9/30/85
9/16/86
11124/89
2/1,90
12/14j90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 19
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
LCP CHEMICAL
North Carolina
NCD 991 278631
Surface
impoundments (4)
State
Assessed: $73,000
($67,800 for financial)
Collected: $1,377 ($67,800 of the
penalty dmpped remainder settled at
this sum)
HISTORY
913/85
9129/86
7121/89
2/1 ,90
STATUS
Above violations were identified.
State issued Compliance Order.
State received closure certification for the surface impoundment at
LCP CHEMICAL.
Post-closure permit became effective; under appeal by LCP
CHEMICAL.
For the order issued in 1986, $67,800 of the $73,000 penalty was for
financial violations only. In August 1989, the State agreed to drop the
financial portion of the penalty since the units were certified closed,
and the facility would be able to fund post-closure assurance
requirements. The remaining portion of the penalty was settled at
$1,377 and has been paid by the facility. The facility is now in
compliance with post-closure assurance requirements. LCP
CHEMICAL contested the regulatory status of the lagoons. A
complicating factor in this case is that the cited facilities are
surrounded by pulp and paper plant lagoons with the same
contaminant (mercury), but the latter are not regulated under RCRA.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Facility resistance
Fonvisl Ent 0
— Qq
VIOLATIONS
.0W
‘FR.
PENALTY
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 20
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
LEE BRASS COMPANY
Alabama
ALD057213811
Landfill
Wastepile
State
.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Technical complexity, Hearing process, Facility
resistance
STATUS
Assessed: $52,000 Collected: $6,000 (as ruled by AL.!)
Violations identified.
EPAissued RCRA §3008(a) Complaint and Compliance Order, LEE
BRASS appealed and petitioned for variance from listing as hazardous
waste.
AU hearing held.
AL! ruled in favor of EPA on the GW and financial violations but
against EPA on the “sand reclamation pile.” The AU ruled that it did
not contain a solid waste because it would eventually be reclajmed.
LEE BRASS petitioned for a variance from the classification as a
solid waste pursuant to 40 CFR 260.30 which was granted
conditionally by the State, based on the rate of reclamation of the sand
pile. EPA appealed the ruling.
LEE BRASS upgraded its (3W monitoring system.
Compliance with GW monitoring and financial requirements was
verified.
AL! ruled in favor of EPA on the sand pile, and EPA notified the State
that unless compliance was obtained, the variance should be revoked
and enforcement action taken.
The main complicating factor in this case has been the litigation.
Financial requirements are being met with a trust fund.
And Fo.md Enfo w
Sf11 10 AU Ruling
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • OW: inadequate monitoring system (resolved)
FR: inability to obtain insurance, no assurance (resolved)
• Othec operation of wastepile without interim status.
HISTORY
2/22184
8/21/85
10/86
6/87
Summer 1987
12/87
8/1/89
12/14j90 -Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 21
-------
Region IV
COMPANY’
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT
CENTER
Alabama
ALl 800013863
Container.Storage
Surface
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Technical complexity
PENALTY Assessed: None since this is a Federal facility.
HISTORY
3/5/8 5
9123/86
10/86-12/87
• 6/88
9/88, 5/89
3/89
7/30 190
STATUS
Violations identified.
Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement was entered.
MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER installed 3 upgradient
wells. After sampling, the well proved to be affected by SWMUs on-
site and contaminants were found. New upgradient well was installed
but proved unsatisfactorily located.
Another upgradient well installed; its effectiveness is being evaluated.
State inspection noted that the facility stopped taking specific
conductance measurements. Damage to a downgraflient well was
identified.
Warning letter concerning sampling and analysis was sent.
State issued order addressing above violations.
The facility met the compliance schedule set forth in the 9123/8 6
Agreement in a satisfactoiy fashion. EPA and State inspections in
1987, 1988, and 1989 found the facility in compliance with drum
storage requirements. The facility also showed statistically significant
increases in OW sampling for specific conductance twice but
confirmational sampling showed no site-specific contamination from
the 200 generating areas at the facility and the facility ceased taking
specific conductance measurements. The issue of what sampling is
needed at the facility is unresolved and EPA is not yet satisfied that an
adequate upgradient well has been installed.
‘ipilincu Agr,.lIRl
VIOLATIONS
• GW: .upgradient well needed
• Other container storage (resolved).
l2/l4 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 22
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
MARTIN MARIETTA AEROSPACE
Florida
FLD060240207
Surface
impoundment
State
•
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HWDMS data error
Assessed: None
State identified and documented the above violations.
State signed Consent Order.
MARTIN MARIETTA AEROSPACE returned to compliance.
MARTIN MARIETTA AEROSPACE fully returned to compliance
with regard to its OW and closure/post closure violations by 1211/85.
HWDMS was not updated to indicate return to compliance (error
corrected at present time);
i Fonn En1OrC.n.n
Con..i Ord.r
I RMurn to Conçllanc.
12/1/85
VIOLATIONS • CP: (resolved)
• OW: (resolved).
HISTORY
9120/84
6125/85
12/1/85
STATUS
12/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 23
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
MARTIN SCRAP RECYCLING
North Carolina
NCD 044 440 303
Land disposal
State
PENALTY
HISTORY
1/3/85
5/8/85
STATUS
6/86
8i9/88
5/16/89
Assessed: None
State identified violations at MARTIN SCRAP RECYCLING.
State issued Compliance Order. Subsequently, MARTIN SCRAP
RECYCLING filed for bankruptcy; State appeared in bankruptcy court
to file claims and to request to proceed against the company outside of
bankruptcy.
MARTIN SCRAP RECYCLING is on the CERCLA National•
Priorities List under the site name “Highway 601 Bypass.’
The “Unwillingness Policy” was outlined by EPA in the Federal
Register.
The Region IV formally transferred responsibility for MARTIN
SCRAP RECYCLING to CERCLA.
The 5/8/85 Compliance Order led MARTIN SCRAP RECYCLING to
file for bankruptcy. The State’s request to proceed against the
company outside of bankruptcy was denied. CERCLA is now
responsible for MARTIN SCRAP RECYCLING.
.RTC CATEGORY • Bankruptcy/CERCLA
Fonv.4
,i lI.no. Ordur
VIOLATIONS
.cP
‘ow
‘FR.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 24
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
MAYFIELD PRINTING
Kentucky
KYD 006 376 537
Surface
impoundment
.
State
VIOLATIONS • CP
. Gw
• Other: Non-notifier of hazardous waste surface impoundment.
Assessed: $1,000
Collected: $1,000
HISTORY
313/86
3/9/87
1987-88
STATUS
Violations discovered.
State issued Agreed Order requiring OW monitonng and closure of a
land disposal unit.
Some removal of the 2 foot deep ink stained soil occurred.
Subsequent to the 1987-88 soil removal, MAYFIELD PRINTING
submitted GW monitoring and closure plans for State review; required
wells have not yet been installed.
The State is currently reviewing these plans, which seem inadequate
and will require modifications before State approval is granted. The
case now seems to be on track, having been broken free from a
stalemate by a letter from EPA Region P / advising that continued lack
of progress would result in an overhung.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Facility resistance
Initial and Final Fonnil Enlorcsmsi*
3/9 /81 Ai raid Ord.r
PENALTY
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 25
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
MIDWAY FABRICATING
Kentucky
KYD 981 469349
Surface
impoundment
State
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
6 /2/86
6/12/86
3/24/88
3/30/88
6/3/88
6/2/89
STATUS
State inspection identified violations.
State issued Notice of Violation.
S tate referred case to S tate Department of Law.
State. issued complaint.
Hearing held.
Scope of Work Delist Petition for the F006 waste was forwarded to
EPA Headquarters (previously, MIDWAY FABRICATING submitted
a Delist Petition without admitting that the waste was ever a listed
waste).
According to the State, this case has stalled at the State Department of
Law. MIDWAY FABRICATING would not acknowledge that the
surface impoundment is a regulated unit. The State is in a quandary as
to what steps to take while EPA reviews the delist petition. The
State’s attorney will be checking corporate records to determine
MIDWAY FABRICATING’S financial status. In addition, the State
will be pushing for the installation of OW monitoring wells. EPA is
soon to issue a letter to the State advising that it will take the lead on
the case unless positive steps are taken promptly (15 days from date of
letter).
RTC CATEGORY
01d.$ VIo4 Ion
I4/88
kdU. Fo,maI Enfw miu
VIOLATIONS • CP
.0W
• Other: non-notifier of hazardous waste surface impoundment,
operating violations.
12/l4, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 26
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
NATIONAL STANDARD/
COLUMBIANA PLANT
Alabama
ALD054571 278
Surface
impoundment (3)
EPA -
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Technical complexity
Assessed: $68,000
Collected: $28,000
HISTORY
12/84
1131/86
STATUS
1986
12/88
6/14/89.
9/89
Violations identified.
EPA issued Complaint and Compliance Order. NATIONAL
STANDARD/ COLUMBIANA PLANT claimed it did not generate
hazardous waste.
NATIONAL STANDARD/ COLUMBIANA PLANT began to
upgrade its OW monitoring system.
Closure of surface impoundments was completed.
Consent Agreement resolved outstanding Administrative Order.
Record review and inspection found a statistically significant increase
in GW quality indicator parameters (contamination) in the area of the
closed impoundments.
The issues in this case were heavily contested. The State had
apparently provided guidance to NATIONAL STANDARD/
COLUMBIANA PLANT to construct the 2 new surface
impoundments. The company failed to apply for a permit to operate
the 2 new facilities and consequently lost interim status. Also, EPA
was redefining the scope of the F006 listing, one of the main
wastestreams generated by NATIONAL STANDARD/
COLUMBIANA PLANT. Therefore, EPA did not press for a
hearing. Currently, the State is taldng steps to compel the completion
of a OW assessment in accordance with 40 CFR 265.93. The 9/89
review requires the facility to obtain a permit and enter corrective
action. Financial violations are outstanding, with application being
made for variance of oldest facility and post-closure permits being
submitted.
Oldau* Vio *Ion
12117184
Fon,i& En$wwn.M
1 131186 Conç k
Final Formal Enlorcm.nt
811480 Conasn Agrs.m.n
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • OW
.‘ Other: construction of surface impoundments without permit, loss of
interim status, container storage.
12/14, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 27
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
NEPTUNE WATER METER Co.
Alabama
ALD981931876
Surface
impoundment
State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HISTORY
4129/86
10/10/86
3/10/87
STATUS
• HWDMS data error
• Other: no identification number, improper transport operation without
a permit or interim status; improper container management.
Assessed: None
Violations identified.
State issued Administrative Order.
State inspection indicated that NEPTUNE WATER METER complied
with 10/10/86 Administrative Order.
State conducted compliance inspection which identified 4 generator
violations.
State issued Notice of Violation addressing generator violations.
State conducted compliance inspection which also identified generator.
violations.
The State’s second compliance inspection conducted 8/89 identified
generator violations which are not applicable to return to compliance
status. The State is preparing enforcement actions.
I Enlorc.nwfl
Win. Ovds
VIOLATIONS
6121/88
8/15/88
8/89
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 28
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
RAD CHEMICALS INC.
Kentucky
KYD096544234
Land disposal
State, then EPA
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HISTORY
5/19/81
12/1/83
1/10/84
3/7/86
6t26/86
12/11/87
STATUS
Collected: $250 due to company’s
claim of near-insolvency.
Violations discovered.
Agreed Onier issued.
State referred the case to court (State Department of Law).
State Department of Law issued Administrative complaint
Pre-trial motions began.
Negotiations between RAD CHEMICALS and State occurred.
RAD CHEMICALS ceasedoperations shortly after the 1981 violation
discovery; it remains an abandoned, unfenced site. Neither the
previous owner/operator nor the current owner, reportedly in the
Pittsburgh area, can be located. There is a criminal component in the
history of this case, with one previous owner/operator convicted of
wrongfully storing hazardous waste. According to the State, RAD
CHEMICALS claimed near insolvency but bankruptcy was never
filed. State does not believe its enforcement action will be successful
due to jurisdiction concerns. EPA will now pursue enforcement at
RAD CHEMICALS and CERCLA is examining the site for action as
well.
• Facility resistance
-_ d V
5 11 1 11
i Foimal Esdwcn*
2 1IS3 Aqrsd O,ö.r
Fbal Fort , I Enforosms,W
Y71$S Adm. Coirplaint
VIOLATIONS • FR.
Assessed: $1,250
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 29
-------
Region IV
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
Surface
impoundments (3)
EPA-CorrectiveAction
State - (3W, CP
Technical complexity, Facility resistance, Bankruptcy/CERCLA
Assessed: $20,000
Collected: $20,000
HISTORY
9/2/83
9/23/83
4/24/84
3/11/85
STATUS
10/3/85
10127/86
10121/89
State discovered violations.
Violations reported.
Agreed Order issued but never fulfilled.
State referred case to court for failure to fulfill requirements of 4124/84
Agreed Order.
State Department of Law issued Administrative Complaint.
State Department of Law issued second Agreed Order which was not
fulfilled; shortly afterwards, RAIL SERVICES entered Chapter 11
bankruptcy.
Section 3008(h) Consent Order issued. Subsequently, State signed
Agreed Order requiring a new OW monitoring system, plans for
which have been submitted for State review.
Historically, RAIL SERVICES generated hazardous waste faster than
it was removed, and it was not properly stored. Pursuant to State
requirements, RAIL SERVICES initially sunk insufficient wells and,
when ordered to replace them, requested a year to study placement of
new wells. Neither closure or OW remedies address trichioride
contamination, which became the subject of EPA ’s 10/21/89
corrective action requirements. The 1012 1/89 Consent Order required
a RCRA Facility Investigation and a Corrective Measures Study to be
conducted. Currently, the State is reviewing RAIL SERVICES’ OW
monitoring plan and RAIL SERVICES is going through closure of 3
surface impoundments.
RTC CATEGORY
Initial Formal Enlor ms
V24/U Agr..d Ordsr
VIOLATIONS • OW
•FR.
PENALTY
l2/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 30
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
REFINED METALS CORP.
Florida
FLD 080 677 347
Landfill
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays
Assessed: $15,000
Collected: $12,000
HISTORY
4i9/84
STATUS
8/22/84
5/85
9/85
1,90
EPA record review documented closure and financial records
violations.
EPA issued §3008(a) Final Order.
Closure plan submitted.
Closure plan rejected. Closure plan resubmitted.
Closure plan approved and provided for public notice.
The site is full of lead contamination. The new owner, INCO, is
implementing a multi-million dollar effort to close the facility. Against
EPA advice, INCO is venturing to build a slurry wall 50 feet deep
around the entire facility, anchoring down in bedrock. Numerous
times, additional wells have been requested and installed at the facility.
Ongoing meetings serve to monitor progress toward closure and
eventual post-closure activities. Currently, REFINED METALS’
closure plan has been public noticed after negotiations with the facility
and the State, and closure certification is expected by 11,90.
O4 s V1o4M n
4 1U
Enfoi mm
VIOLATIONS • CP
•FR.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 31
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
SANITARY DASH
Florida
FLD 010 826 519
Surface
impoundment
Staic
.
HWDMS data error
VIOLATIONS • CP: (resolved)
• (3W: (resolved)
• FR: (resolved).
Assessed: $4,875
Collected: $4,875
HISTORY
12/12/84
STATUS
7125/85
3128/86
7130/86
9f28/86
State inspection found violations, which were cited because of
SANITARY DASH’S disposal of waste water from electroplating
operations into a surface impoundment on-site.
Memorandum from EPA Director of Solid Waste to Chief of the
Region IV Branch confirmed that wastewaters from electroplating
operations disposed of into unlined surface impoundments or sand
filters after pretreatment were regulated hazardous waste units
containing F006 listed hazardous waste.
State entered Consent Order.
Compliance with the Consent Order schedule was reached.
Scheduled date of compliance with the Consent Order.
Prior to 12/12/84, State inspections at SANITARY DASH did not
find violations of 40 CFR Part 265 (3W monitoring and closure
requirements. The 3/28/86 Consent Order required SANITARY
DASH to come into compliance by 9/28/86 and compliance seems to
have been reached 7/30/86.
RTC CATEGORY
VIoiMIc
12 12/U
U Initial and Final Enlor m.n
31211$6 Con Ordsr
PENALTY
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 32
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
SOUTHERN WOOD PIEDMONT
COMPANY
South Carolina
SCD 049 650 001
Sprayfleld
Lagoons
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, facility resistance
PENALTIES
Assessed: $10,000
Collected: $10,000.
HISTORY
5122/84
5131/85
11/2/87
9/1 5M
STATUS
State inspection discovered above violations.
EPA issued RCRA §3008(a)(1),Order.
CAFO entered.
Scheduled date for final compliance.
SOUTHERN WOOD PIEDMONT operated a spray irrigation field
and a surface water runoff pond which received KOOl waste without
interim status. In addition, SOUTHERN WOOD PIEDMONT lacked
an adequate OW monitoring system and has not implemented a OW
assessment program. The 11/2/87 CAFO included a $10,000 penalty
and a schedule for the facility to close the sprayfleld and the surface
runoff pond. A complicating factor has been whether or not the
sprayfield is RCRA regulated. However, SOUTHERN WOOD
PIEDMONT has now clean closed the spray field and currently has a
monitoring well system. Lagoons have been capped and closed under
post-closure permit. Assessment of OW is 95% complete.
SOUTHERN WOOD PIEDMONT has received a post-closure permit
with provisions to remediate contamination. At present, the case is
resolved but for meeting the compliance date.
O d..t Violation
5 122 1U
iltisi Fo.m En o mi
5/31/U 1300(1X1)O!dsr
rwI Enfo.vi
1 1 / 2/ s i C ? FO
VIOLATIONS • GW: inadequate monitoring system, no asses ment program.
12/14 190 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 33
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
STALLWORTH TIMBER
Alabama
ALD 058 223 371
Surface
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Hearing process, Facility resistance
PENALTY
Assessed: $24,000
Collected: None, since case is being
appealed.
HISTORY
1984
8/14/85
Spring 1986
9/86
STATU.S
9/2-3/87
9/87
3/88
3/31/89
8/16/89
9/29/89
Violations identified.
EPA issued Complaint and Compliance Order.
STALL WORTH TIMBER installed OW monitoring system.
STALLWORTH TIMBER notified EPA and the State that the facility
had adversely affected OW quality and began a OW assessment.
Hearing was held.
STALLwORTH TIMBER closed the surface impoundment.
State issued Administrative Order directing STALLWORTH TIMBER
to complete the OW assessment.
Consent Agreement finalized.
EPA issued RCRA §3008(h) Corrective Action Order.
AU decision ruled in favor of EPA; STALLWORTH TIMBER
appealed.
STALL WORTH TIMBER took the case to court arguing that the
waste was not regulated. After two years, the decision was handed
down, finding that the waste was regulated. The company appealed
(still pending), but had already begun closure and GW monitoring
activities. Even after the 3/31/89 Consent Agreement,
STALL WORTH TIMBER was recalcitrant in completing the OW
assessment. Because of this and other ongoing releases at the facility,
EPA issued a §3008(h) Corrective Action Order on 8/16/89. At this
time, the company is complying with the §3008(h) order but refuses
to pay the penalty.
En.n
Final Fom l Eniovsm.i
9Th0 AU Ruling
VIOLATIONS
• OW: no monitoring system
• FR: no insuranëe; failure to demonstrate assurance for closure (resolved)
• Other inadequate freeboard.
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 34
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
EDWIN B. STIMPSON CO., INC.
Florida
FLD 001647015
Surface
impoundments (2)
EPA
Processing delays
PENALTIES
Assessed: $33,000
Collected: $33,000
HISTORY
9130/85
9 /29/86
STATUS
3/17/87
12/12/87
12/88
10/15/89
FR violations discovered.
Initial enforcement action taken by State to address financial
violations.
EPA and State inspection revealed inadequate OW monitoring system.
EPA overfiled on State by issuing RCRA §3008(a) action to address
all GW violations.
Wells were installed.
Facility returned to compliance.
STIMPSON is an electroplating operation which discharges waste
water into 2 surface impoundments generating and depositing sludge
into the impoundments from 1961 to 1984. The deposited sludges are
defined as EPA Hazardous Waste Number F006 in 40 CFR 261.31.
Though the State file indicated OW violations, no formal actions were
taken so EPA overfiled in 12/87. All violations are now resolved and
the facility has returned to compliance.
RTC CATEGORY
I En c.m.nt
Eni. Oidsr
R.tum to Camp Manc.
1o11
•- . I t ! _ t Ii
VIOLATIONS • OW: monitoring (resolved)
FR: (resolved).
12/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 35
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
TRAK MICROWAVE
florida
FLD004093621
Surface
impoundment
.
State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HWDMS data error
Assessed: $41,000
Collected: $41,000
HISTORY
2/5/85
STATUS
7125/85
4/18/86
10/18/86
State inspection identified the above violations, which were cited
because of TRAK MICROWAVE’S disposal of waste water from
electroplating operations into a surface impoundment on-site.
Memorandum from EPA Director of Solid Waste to Chief of the
Region IV Branch confirmed that wastewaters from electroplating
operations disposed of into unlined surface impoundments or sand
filters after pretreatment were regulated hazardous waste units
containing F006 listed hazardous waste.
State entered Consent Order.
Scheduled compliance date was reached.
TRAK MICROWAVE returned to compliance by 10/18/86, the
compliance date required in the 4/18/86 Consent Decree. HWDMS
was not updated to reflect return to compliance.
I
k sitI and Find Foin i
Enforc.in.M
Con IIano.
10115186
VIOLATIONS • CP: (resolved)
• OW: monitoring (resolved).
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Swdy
Page 36
-------
Regon IV
:
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
U.S. DOE - SRS
South Carolina
Sc! 890 008 989
Surface
impoundments
Storage areas
State
EPA - 1125/90 violations
RTC CATEGORY
• Technical complexity
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
Other: Land ban, Part B.
PENALTY
HISTORY
5/13/85
1117/85
12/87
STATUS
11 /2/89
1125/90
3/14 ,90
5 /21/90
8/14/90
9/5,90
Assessed: None since it is a Federal facility.
Closure and GW violations identified.
State issued Enforcement Order.
Several units became subject to permitting under RCRA as a result of
the Mixed Waste Rule, after which the State issued a LOIS Order
regarding submittal of the Part B permit application.
State identified other violations.
EPA site visit found additional violations.
State determined that U.S. DOE - SRS disposed of solvent rags in
its sanitary landfill and low level burial grounds.
EPA issued Notice of Noncompliance to for 1 /25/90 violations.
Region IV referred case to EPA Headquarters to resolve 1,25/90
violations.
State Consent Order issued, resolving 1 1/2,90 violations.
U.S. DOE - SRS, a 300 square mile facility with 18,000 employees, is
now shut down. Over the years, an increasing number of its operations and
units have come under RCRA control as regulatory interpretations have
changed. The State issued a number of orders and collected fees in lieu of
penalties. Currently, U.S. DOE - SRS is in compliance with the 9/5/90
Consent Order. After Region IV reached an impasse, EPA Headquarters took
responsibility for negotiating a Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement for
1/25/90 violations. The State is negotiating for resolution of the 3/14/90
violations.
I
O4dsst V oiatIon
5 13f85
m d Final Formal En or smsM
111T185 3OO8 Final Ord r
12/14j90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 37
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
‘
LEAD
UNION FOUNDRY CO.
Alabama
ALDO47 158266
Landfill
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
• CP: noplan
• GW: ‘no monitoring system
• FR: no insurance, failure to demonstrate assurance for closure
• Other operating standards, operating without interim status or a permit.
Assessed: $152,000
Collected: $30,000
HISTORY
9(26/85
1 1/1Q85
1988
1/30/89
5/89
7-8/89
STATUS
Violations identified.
EPA issued Complaint and Compliance Order.
Closure of.landfihl was begun and a GW monitoring system installed.
CAFO finalized..
State inspection indicated need for additional monitoring wells.
Additional wells installed at UNION FOUNDRY.
The negotiation period between the 11/85 Order and 1988 closure
activities was lengthy due to several complicating factors. UNION
FOUNDRY in Alabama is part of a very large company with foundries
in several States. Each facility was issued the same order on
11/16/85. The company unsuccessfully argued for exemption from
the regulation under the Bevil exclusion and the fossil fuel exemption,
partially based on the fact that the State of Tennessee wrongly told
UNION FOUNDRY in Tenessee that its baghouse dust was exempt
from regulation, when in fact it was EP toxic and being disposed of in
a non-hazardous waste landfill on site. UNION FOUNDRY also
changed the process of storing/disposing of the waste during this
time, which was also a lengthy process because only one
manufacturer of the necessary machinery could be found. At this
point, closure plans were submitted to the State. To bring the facility
into compliance, a GW monitoring system must be in place, closure
plans must be implemented, and financial requirements must be met.
InNI.I Fo!m I
11/1
n$ rcsmunt
Flna Form Enfoicinisnt
VIOLATIONS
12/14 O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 38
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
UNION TIMBER CORP.
Georgia
GAl) 094 075 553
Surface
impoundment
EPA - §3013
State - CP, GW
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays, Technical complexity
Assessed: $26,000
Collected: None
HISTORY
1986
3127/86
STATUS
6,9/87
7123/87
3129/88
6!7i90
GW violation was identified.
EPA issued RCRA §3008(a) Compliance Order for violations and
deficiencies in their GW monitoring system.
EPA Headquarters responded to Region IV’s request regarding the
adequacy of a statistical analysis procedure used by UNION
TIMBER, rendering moot the OW issues of the §3008(a) Order.
EPA issued a RCRA §3013 Administrative Order to UNION
TIMBER, requiring submission of a proposal for sampling analysis,
monitoring, and reporting.
State issued post-closure permit to UNION TIMBER.
§3008(a) Final Order signed for $9000 civil penalty.
Currently, the basis of the 7/23/87 §30 13 Order is the subject of
litigation by UNiON TIMBER. The basis of the §3008(a) was the
facility’s use of a different statistical test, one considered inadequate
by the Regional Office. However, EPA Headquarters decided that the
test was acceptable, so the State could not use the §3008(a) to require
OW assessment. The State has tried to require testing through a
§3013, but has had difficulty enforcing this action due to inability to
locate owners or secure cooperation of surrounding landowners
whose property interests will be affected as wells are sunk to perform
the §3013 assessment At present, the §3008(a) order has been
resolved with UNION TIMBER required to pay a $9,000 civil
penalty. Efforts to complete the §3013 study are ongoing.
O4dst V o aIcn
115/86
I -
nnsi Enforcw nI
— Ord
i Formal EnfOrcement
/87 3O13 Mm. Orders
VIOLATIONS • CP
• OW: monitoring.
PENALTY
12/ 14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 39
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
UNITED PLATING, INC.
Alabama
ALDO67 111450
Surface
impoundments
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Hearing process, Facility resistance
• CP: no plan
• GW: no monitoring system
• FR: no insurance, failure to demonstrate assurance for closure.
Assessed: $30,000
Collected: $30,000
HISTORY
10/18/84
3/18/85
6120/85
8/85
STATUS
5/86
6/87
1988
7/88
8/88
11/88
5/8/89
Violations identified.
EPA issued Complaint and Compliance Order.
CAFO negotiated and signed.
OW monitoring system was installed; closure plans were submitted to
EPA and the State.
UNITED PLATING implemented the approved closure plan.
UNITED PLATING conducted proper OW monitoring through mid
1987.
In early 1988, it was apparent that UNITED PLATING had
abandoned its OW monitoring program and that clean closure could
not be certified.
State issued Administrative Order addressing a new set of OW
violations; the case was referred to court.
Hearing held.
Amended Order issued.
CAFO issued.
Clean closure could not be certified in 1988 because the facility had
run out of funds to pay the engineer for the closure work or to
continue OW monitoring. No inspections have been conducted since
the 5/8/89 order. A CERCLA review has been conducted. At
present, the facility has completed a OW assessment and has
submitted a OW assessment report. It is currently under review.
I
4ahd
I ii Enfc c.m.M
I i I5CAi
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
12/14, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 40
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
USCG - MIAMI BEACH
Florida
FL5690308338
Land disposal
.
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY
HISTORY
4/17/86
11/86, 9/88
8/8/86
912/86
11/86
1/12/87
2190
5,90
9190
STATUS
Facility resistance
EPA inspection discovered that the facility was operating a land
disposal unit and that generator regulations were not complied with at
any level.
Inspections confirmed violations.
State referred case to EPA.
EPA issued Notice of Noncompliance and the facility responded that
all areas of noncompliance had been addressed.
EPA inspection showed no progress toward compliance.
EPA issued a Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement (FFCA) in
accordance with the Enforcement Response Policy for a High Priority
Violation and to better monitor and direct the facility towards
compliance.
Region IV EPA office elevated the case to Headquarters for
enforcement, having exhausted other enforcement options.
Headquarters referred the case back to Region IV after unsuccessful
negotiations with USCO.
Region IV EPA sent revised FFCA to USCG.
The FFCA would not require a capital expenditure by USCG - MIAMI
BEACH, but would allow for EPA to better enforce the Federal and State
requirements. USCG - MIAMI BEACH refused to sign the documents
because of fundamental problems with certain sections in the Agreement,
basically arguing that EPA jurisdiction would interfere with the USCG’s
primary mission and set a national precedent, despite the fact that numerous
other federal agencies have already signed FFCAs.
VIOLATIONS • Other: generator violations.
PENALTY Assessed: None, since it is a Federal facility.
12/1 4, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 41
-------
Region IV
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
USCG SUPPORT CENTER
North Carolina
NC2690 308 232
Surface
impoundment
EPA
Assessed: $63,500
Collected: None
HISTORY
7/1/8 6
3123/88
8/30/88
813/89
10131/89
STATUS
2128190
10/17/90
Violations discovered.
State and EPA identified GW and closure violations.
State issued order assessing $63,500 penalty.
EPA inspection found OW and closure schedule violations.
EPA issued a Notice of Non-compliance and Federal Facilities
Compliance Agreement (FFCA).
FFCA elevated from EPA Region IV to EPA Hewiquarters.
FFCA signed by USCG and EPA.
The USCO is completing.GW assessment, closure activities, and the
post-closure application under the FFCA.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing Delays, Facility Resistance
VIOLATIONS • CP.
.•Gw.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 42
-------
Region IV
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
BATTERY Surface
impoundment
State
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance, Bankruptcy/CERCLA
r
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
• Other: non-notifier of hazardous waste LDF.
PENALTY
HISTORY
4/18/84
7/19/84
4/16/85
STATUS
11120/87
1/14/88
5/16/88
7126/88
10/4/88
1/89
2/89
Assessed: None yet since no Agreed Order.
WEST KENTUCKY BATTERY registered as a generator.
Violations identified.
Notice of Violation required facility to register as a generator (resolved
after violation and discovered) and obtain a permit for storage.
State referred the case to State Department of Law. -
Section 3008 Complaint issued.
WEST KENTUCKY BATTERY performed interim remedial
measures of waste removal for recycling.
Hearing scheduled; it was continued but never rescheduled.
Inspection indicated continued violations.
WEST KENTUCKY BATTERY submitted revised closure and GW
monitoring plans.
State met with WEST KENTUCKY BATTERY to discuss the closure
and GW monitoring plans and later amended its Administrative
Complaint to include the property owners.
WEST KENTUCKY BATTERY had site-wide violations. There
were no wells on the site or adjacent property, so the extent of
contamination of the lead acid waste dumped in a field could not be
determined. According to the State, the only issue remaining is the
penalty. EPA determined (using the ABLE program) that the facility’s
ability to pay was unclear. The State recently indicated that WEST
KENTUCKY BATTERY filed for bankruptcy.
Oldist Violation
7/19 1 04
Initial and Final Enforcmnt
1/14/88 §3008 Complaint
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 43
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL
CORP.
Indiana
1ND072036114
Surface
impoundment
State
.
RTC CATEGORY • Hearing process, Facility resistance
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
813/84
8/4/8 4
1/25/85
1/4/8 8
117/88
5/89
1/90
Violations discovered.
GW monitoring violations discovered.
State issued complaint.
OW violations returned to compliance.
New OW violations discovered.
Hearing held.
AU ruled in favor of ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL.
STATUS Alleged violations were dismissed. AU ruled that the facility is not
subject to RCRA.
O4dut VI lon
Inftlal and Final Forn I Enforcsmsnt
11251*5 Cclv 1aiM
VIOLATIONS
Iorcsm.n*
uI ln
•CP:’nop lan
• OW: no monitoring
• FR: failure to demonstrate financial assurance for closure; no
liability insurance
• Othec interim status.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 1
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ALUMINIUM COMPANY OF
AMERICA (ALCOA)
Indiana
IND 006 366 819
Surface
impoundments
Landfill
State
PENALTY
HISTORY
3/27/84
2111/87
3/17/87
9/30/87
10/27/87
812/8 8
12189
STATUS
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
Assessed: None
ALCOA was cited for above violations.
Consent Decree adopted, State required ALCOA to submit closure
plan.
Closure plan submitted.
State modified closure plan to require more extensive GW monitoring.
ALCOA appealed.
An Agreed Order constituting final resolution of the Consent Decree
resolved the appeal and required ALCOA to implement the revised
closure plan.
ALCOA submitted information on their GW monitoring system.
ALCOA is moving toward closure. While reaching compliance on the
closure plan violation, ALCOA continues to submit information on
their OW monitoring system. The facility can be fully returned to
compliance once ALCOA submits all necessary data concerning its
GW monitoring system, and the State is satisfied that the system is
sufficient and that a comprehensive solution has been developed. The
State is expected to determine the adequacy of ALCOA’s closure plan
soon.
RTC CATEGORY
ri l Enfo.t.m.nt
.m D
...iI Enforcmnt
I Agr..d Ord.r
VIOLATIONS • CP: no plan (resolved)
• OW: inadequate monitoring system.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 2
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
AM GENERAL CORP.
Indiana
IND 051 217776
Surface
impoundments
EPA -- GW monitoring
State -- Closure plan
RTC CATEGORY
Assessed: $30,800
Court)
Collected: none yet
(to be paid as ordered
by U.S. Bankruptcy
HISTORY
• 11/1/84
9/30/87
4/20/8 8
10/88
10/16/88
5/15/89
STATUS
Violations identified.
EPA issued Administrative Order addressing all violations.
CAFO signed, requiring placement of additional wells, completion of
two quarters of GW monitoring for specified parameters, and full
compliance with financial requirements.
AM GENERAL initiated two quarters of GW monitoring. Results
indicated small amounts (low ppb) of contamination from the previous
surface impoundment.
State accepted closure certification (released company from requirement
to obtain non-sudden liability coverage).
AM GENERAL submitted results of two quarters of GW quality assessment,
and resolved the assessment issue.
CAFO required two quarters of GW monitoring in the new and old wells after
implementation of the closure plan in order to determine the impact of the
surface impoundments on GW. Monitoring revealed that small amounts of
contamination still exist. The State released AM GENERAL from financial
assurance obligations. AM GENERAL completed all requirements of the
CAFO with the exception of payment of the assessed penalty. The penalty is
to be paid as ordered by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. State is not requiring
post-closure monitoring.
Processing delays
FkIaI Formal E
4d20/88
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • OW: inadequate assessment (resolved)
FR: no liability coverage; failure to demonstrate financial assurance for
closure (both resolved).
12/14/90- Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 3
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ANDERSON Co.
Indiana
INDO16 520017
Surface
impoundment
EPA
Processing delays
VIOLATIONS • GW: inadequate monitoring system
• FR: financial update (resolved)
• Other reporting.
HISTORY
5/5/86
5/27/86
9/30/87
10/17/88
11/5/88
4 0
STATUS
Assessed: $9,500
21,000
Collected: $4,750
ANDERSON failed to submit financial update and failed to submit
required reports by an independent accountant.
OW violations identified.
EPA issued complaint requiring ANDERSON to submit financial
update and reports.. State filed complaint addressing GW violations.
Agreed Order was finalized.
CAFO issued.
ANDERSON returned to compliance with regard to the financial
violations.
ANDERSON submitted report of its well system installation.
The facility has not returned to compliance with regard to OW
monitoring violations. ANDERSON needs to revise the sampling
plans and the assessment plan before it can fully return to compliance.
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 4
-------
Region V
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ARISTECH CHEMICAL CORP.
Ohio
OFIDOO5 108477
Drum storage units
EPA
Processing delays
Assessed: $121,561
Collected: $121,561
HISTORY
4/24/85
9/9/86
12i27/88
STATUS
Violations discovered.
Section 3008(a) complaint issued.
CAFO issued addressing drum storage and handling, contaminated
soil, completing GW assessment, and financial assurance.
ARISTECH CHEMICAL is conducting GW assessment, has financial
assurance, and has submitted plans for the cleanup of ditch
contamination from process spills. The facility is currently conductizig
ditch cleanup.
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • (3W: inadequate quality assessment program
• FR: failure to demonstrate financial assurance for closure
• Other: drum storage, spills, inspections.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 5
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
ARVIN INDUSTRIES
Indiana
IND 000 810 903
Surface
impoundments (2)
Landfill
State
PENALTY
HISTORY
5/10/83
8/7/84
10/3/86
4/89
9/26/89
3/14/89
12/89
1/90
STATUS
Assessed: $12,000 Collected: $12,000
Inspection revealed closure and GW monitoring violations.
Consent Decree became effective.
Financial violations were discovered concerning insurance and
assurance requirements.
ARVIN INDUSTRIES submitted a financial test showing that financial
violations were resolved and that insurance was secured.
Agreed Order resolved the financial and closure issues.
Facilities certified closed.
Some GW issues remain to be resolved for the post-closure care
program.
Paperwork on the OW monitoring issues was due to State.
The two surface impoundments and the landfill are certified closed, but
OW monitoring issues remain. ARVIN INDUSTRIES sunk a number
of wells but the State did not agree with the placement of those wells.
Through the Agreed Order, the State required ARVIN INDUSTRIES
to submit information regarding these violations. Based on paperwork
due in 1/90, State must decide whether the facility has addressed all
GW monitoring concerns and can be returned to compliance.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays
ki1tl Fomi Es o,c.mint
$ 17/U Conss D.cr.u
VIOLATIONS • CP: no plan (resolved)
• OW: no monitoring system
• FR: no financial assurance for closure (resolved).
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 6
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
AUBURN FOUNDRY, INC.
Indiana
1ND005070685
Landfill
.
State
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
Assessed: $25,000
Collected: $25,000
HISTORY
8/24/84
10/18/84
1017/86
1987
1988.
1989
6/26,90
STATUS
State inspection identified violations.
State issued complaint addressing above violations.
State and AUBURN FOUNDRY negotiated and signed Consent
Decree.
AUBURN FOUNDRY resubmitted closure plan.
State approved closure plan with modifications..
AUBURN FOUNDRY appealed the closure plan proposed by the
State.
Appeal decided in favor of State.
AUBURN FOUNDRY claimed to operate a non-hazardous waste
landfill. However, the State contended it was a hazardous waste
landfill. Lead is the main contaminant involved. After the Consent
Decree was finalized, AUBURN FOUNDRY provided additional data
to the State, reasserting that the facility in question was not a hazardous
waste landfill, and appealed the closure plan on this premise. On June
26, 1990, the Indiana Solid Waste Management Board ruled that the
landfill was a hazardous waste landfill. AUBURN FOUNDRY is
presently pursuing closure and OW monitoring requirements but has
not returned to compliance at this point. Financial violations are still
unresolved.
Enforo.m.id
C-
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
• CP: no plan
• OW: no monitoring
• FR: no liability insurance; failure to demonstrate financial assurance
for closure.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 7
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
BLUE LAKE
Indiana
IND 046 107 157
Landfill
.
State
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
PENALTY Assessed: $860,000 Collected: None
HISTORY
2/15/85
8/8/85
8/87
912/87
3/88
12/89
STATUS
State inspection identified closure violations.
State issued complaint addressing closure violations.
BLUE LAKE submitted a closure plan.
State identified financial violations in record review.
State rejected the closure plan as inadequate.
Efforts to negotiate an Agreed Order continued to be unsuccessful.
BLUE LAKE operated a non-hazardous landfill but disposed of
hazardous waste without obtaining interim status and complying with
interim status, regulations. BLUE LAKE may still be accepting non-
hazardous waste at this facility. Efforts to negotiate an Agreed Order
have not been successful and the case is likely to proceed to a hearing.
All violations must be addressed for BLUE LAKE to return to
compliance.
,i.1 Es o,c.msM
5 Comp1 M
VIOLATIONS • CP: no plan
FR: inadequate liability coverage; no financial assurance for closure.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 8
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES
OF OHIO
Ohio
OHD 980 795 264
Surface
impoundment
EPA
.
Processing delays, Facility resistance
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
• Other: reporting, inspections.
PENALTY
Assessed: $91,500
Collected: $62,500
HISTORY
6/5/84
5/27/86
4/13/88
STATUS
Violations discovered.
Section 3008(a) complaint issued.
CAFO issued addressing closure and OW violations.
The violations discovered specifically included: exceedences of
drinicing water standards not reported, four replicates of indicator
parameters not conducted in the first quarter, failure to determine the
rate and extent of contamination, failure to submit a closure plan,
inavailability of the operating record, and inadequate facility
inspections. BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF OHIO
submitted a closure plan and a OW assessment plan to EPA. EPA
approved the OW assessment plan and conditionally approved the
closure plan. BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF OHIO is
implementing closure plan.
RTC CATEGORY
1 Fc,ual Enlorcsm.nt
&2V$4 Complaint
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 9
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
BRUSH WELLMAN
Ohio
OHD 004 212 999
Surface
impoundments (3)
State
Collected: $9,000
HISTORY
8/13/86
7/23/87
10/31/87
7/24/89
12/89
STATUS
Violations identified.
State issued Findings & Orders addressing above violations with a
$9000 penalty.
State inspections indicated ongoing GW violations.
Most recent inspection found GW violations similar to those cited in the
1987 Findings and Orders.
State considering whether to issue a new order or. refer the case to EPA.
BRUSH WELLMAN has applied for de-listing of the waste in
the impoundments. If de-listing is approved, no GW monitoring would
be required. During the time required to apply for de-listing, while the
State has reviewed closure plans, BRUSH WELLMAN has not
conducted (3W monitoring since 1987. The State is reviewing the case
to see if new actions or referral to EPA is necessary.
RTC CATEGORY • Facility resistance
.1 En orc.m.nt
I Ord.rs
VIOLATIONS • (3W: inadequate monitoring system
• FR: financial.recordkeeping.
PENALTY Assessed: $9,000
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 10
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
CARRIAGE,INC.
Indiana
IND 046 398 780
Openpit
State
.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Financial
Assessed: $16,000
Collected: $2,000
HISTORY
3/8/85
7/5185
11121/86
12122/86
9/30/88
12/89
STATUS
State inspection identified improper closure.
State issued complaint for closure violations.
State recordreview identified financial violations.
State and CARRIAGE, INC. negotiated and signed an Agreed Order
addressing closure violations.
CARRIAGE, INC. submitted a closure plan which was accepted by
the State.
CARRIAGE, INC. had not yet obtained adequate liability insurance.
CARRIAGE, INC. used an open pit for disposing hazardous waste
solvent. CARRIAGE, INC. is conducting five years of OW
monitoring, as required by the Agreed Order, in order to demonstrate
clean closure. The facility has thus far been unable to obtain insurance
to resolve the financial violation. However, if clean closure is certified
insurance will no longer be required.
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • CP: improper closure
FR: failure to demonstrate financial assurance for closure; no liability
insurance.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 11
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
,
LEAD
CECO CORPORATION
illinois
ILD 990 785 453
Wastepile.
State
Assessed: $18,000
Collected: $18,000
HISTORY
7/28/83
9/18/85
9/27/8 5
3/3/86
3/12/86
6/12/86
7/15/86
8/14/86
10/17/86
8/4/87
10/18/88
3/28/89
5/89
STATUS
Financial violations cited.
Closure plan violations cited.
State addressed closure violations in Notice of Violation.
Closure plan and financial violations cited.
Financial violations were addressed in Notice of Violation.
Closure violations returned to compliance.
EPA issued complaint addressing closure and financial violations.
Additional violations cited in inspection.
Financial violations returned to compliance.
EPA complaint of 7/15/86 was amended to include violations cited in
8/14/86 inspection.
Violations cited.
CAFO issued.
Appealof closure plan modifications was heard by State Pollution
Control Board.
Older violations were resolved. Outstanding violations were found in
8/14/86 inspection. State contended that entire facility is not closed,
but CECO contended that only the wastepile is a RCRA regulated unit
and it is closed. CECO appealed the State’s closure plan modifications,
and enforcement of violations cited in 10/18/88 inspection awaits a
decision.
RTC CATEGORY • Facility resistance
k L Foin En1orc.n M
7 115 /SI Con lakd
VIOLATIONS • CP: (resolved)
FR: failure to update closure cost estimates.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 12
-------
Region V
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
INTERNATIONAL/BFI Landfill
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays
VIOLATIONS • (3W: monitoring system and assessment plan (resolved)
FR: inadequate demonstration of closure assurance (resolved).
PENALTY
Assessed: $18,000
12,675
Collected: $15,300
10,850
HISTORY
5/15/84
9/17/84
7/18/86
1987
5/18/88
6/17/88
9/27/89
6/5,90
STATUS
State cited (3W monitoring and financial violations.
1984 violations returned to compliance.
EPA filed complaint for the 1984 violations.
State cited additional GW monitoring violations.
CAFO for 1984 violations finalized.
EPA filed complaint for 1987 violations.
CAFO for 1987 violations finalized.
CECOS INTERNATIONAL/BFI returned to compliance.
The 1984 violations returned to compliance by the end of 1984 but additional
GW monitoring violations were found in 1987. These violations pertained to
an inadequate monitoring system and an inadequate OW assessment plan.
Facility returned to compliance for all 1987 GW violations on June 5, 1990.
Oldi Vlo4 lon
511 SM
ln lil Forn*I Enforo,y
711$l$ Complaint
Formal Enforcsmant
W27189 CAFO
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 13
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
CHEMICAL WASTE
MANAGEMENT, INC.
Ohio
0HD020271 819
Wastepile
Surface
impoundments
S
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Technical complexity, Facility resistance
PENALTY
HISTORY
3/29/8 3
1/24/85
4/5/8 5
4/6/87
6/18/87
1017/87
9/16/88
12/89
9/26,90
STATUS
Collected: $200,000
Assessed: $200,000
$750,000
Violations identified.
Complaint issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
EPA issued §3008(a) complaint. EPA negotiated and signed Consent
Agreement addressing OW violations and closure of several surface
impoundments.
EPA inspection identified violations concerning overdue submittal of OW
reports.
EPA sent Notice of Violation.
EPA decided to submit the case to DOJ. CHEMICAL WASTE
MANAGEMENT responded with a counter-suit.
EPA issued complaint for non-compliance with the Consent Agreement.
Settlement conferences held to bring about resolution.
Consent Decree lodged with ALl settled 9/16/88 complaint.
Consent Decree required CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT to pay the
$750,000 fine and submit a compliance schedule, and it redefined the
requirements for submittal of GW monitoring reports. CHEMICAL WASTE
MANAGEMENT dropped its countersuit and EPA is now allowing the facility
to dispose of the large but inoperative wastepile in an on-site landfill.
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT did not meet its compliance schedule
due to lengthy data analysis and delays in submitting OW reports. Litigation
concerned LOIS violations and stipulated penalties for nonsubmission of
reports.
VIOLATIONS • OW: inadequate monitoring system, inadequate reporting
• Other failure to list wastepile in Part A, improper wastepile management,
inadequate training, inadequate fencing.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 14
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
CHRYSLER CORPORATION.
INDIANAPOLIS FOUNDRY
Indiana
IND 087 032 611
Surface
impoundments
Wastepiles
State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HISTORY
1/13/85
2112/85
5/31/85
4/ 19/8 8
1/89
12/89
STATUS
Processing delays, Financial
Assessed: None
CHRYSLER reclassified the impoundments as wastepiles.
State inspection identified violations.
State filed a complaint addressing all violations.
State and CHRYSLER negotiated and signed an Agreed Order
pursuant to the complaint.
CHRYSLER submitted a closure plan.
State had not yet ruled on the adequacy of the closure plan.
CHRYSLER reclassified the impoundments in question as wastepiles
and is closing them as such. Since OW monitoring is not required for
wastepiles at interim status facilities, the OW monitoring violation was
returned to compliance. However State must still approve
CHRYSLER’S closure plan. CHRYSLER has not yet provided
proper demonstration of financial assurance or liability insurance.
nforc.n
nt
VIOLATIONS • CP: no closure plan
• OW: inadequate monitoring (resolved)
• FR: failure to demonstrate financial assurance for closure; no
liability insurance.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 15
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
CRADDOCK FURNITURE CORP.
Indiana
IND 006 375 885
Wastepile (6’ by
6’)
State
.
RTC CATEGORY.
• Processing delays, Financial
Assessed: $5,000
Collected: $5,000
HISTORY
9/6/8 5
12/19/85
&3/88
W16/88
9M88
5/18/89
8/14/89
12/89
STATUS
State inspection discovered closure and financial violations.
Initial formal enforcement action issued.
CRADDOCK submitted a closure plan that was modified and approved
by State.
CAFO signed.
State record review identified ongoing financial violations.
Closure violations returned to compliance and reflected in HWDMS.
State record review again identified financial violations.
Financial violations ongoing and expected to continue until the facility
completes closure.
CRADDOCK has begun to implement closure plan. CRADDOCK
must complete it to return to compliance for the closure violation.
Financial violations are ongoing and no resolution strategy has been
established, although complete closure will negate the need to
demonstrate financial assurance or to have liability insurance.
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • CP: no closure plan (resolved)
FR: no liability insurance; failure to demonstrate financial assurance
for closure.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 16
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
CYCLOPS CORPORATION
Ohio
OHD 058 842 501
Surface
impoundments (2)
State - closure plan
EPA - OW
PENALTY Assessed: $94,700
HISTORY
9/1/83
10/16/84
7/23/85
9/18/85
9/24/8 5
6/26/86
10120/86
10131/88
4/89
12/89
STATUS
Collected: $7,500
State inspector discovered violations but did not conduct studies to
prove violations.
EPA issued §3008(a) Complaint addressing above violations at the
drum storage area.
CYCLOPS protested EPA action and took the case to court.
State lost authorization for RCRA and referred the case to EPA.
Hearing resulted in ALL ruling to deny dismissing the complaint.
Initial decision ruled in favor of EPA.
EPA issued a second §3008(a) Complaint addressing violations at
surface impoundments.
CAFO signed, addressing installation of OW monitoring system and
submission of a closure plan.
Pursuant to CAFO, CYCLOPS submitted closure plan to the State and
OW monitoring plan to EPA.
State and EPA reviewing plans.
The impoundments no longer receive hazardous waste. It is not clear if
they are regulated under RCRA. Therefore, the 10/31/88 CAFO settled
the case for $7,500. CYCLOPS needed to obtain approval of closure
plan (from the State) and of OW monitoring plan (from EPA) to return
to compliance for these violations. The CYCLOPS closure plan was
disapproved by the State and the recent OW monitoring system is out
of compliance. There are violations of the CAFO.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Fmancial
VIOLATIONS
• CP: no plan
• OW: no monitoring system
•FR
• Other: training, container storage, aisle space, proper operating
records, and freeboard requirements.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 17
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
DANA CORP. ENGINE PRODUCTS
DIVISION
Indiana
1ND005416508
Surface
EPA
:
impoundment
Assessed: $27,500
HISTORY
8/1/83
1984
1/24/84
10/19/84
1/8/87
9/11/87
8/3/89
9/8/89
12/89
STATUS
State cited (3W monitoring violations.
DANA CORP. submitted data to the State to establish that its wastes
were not hazardous and therefore not subject to regulation.
DANA CORP. submitted closure plan for clean closure.
State approved closure plan without checking to see if it called for (3W
monitoring (it did not). DANA CORP. closed according to this plan.
State discovered outstanding GW violations and referred case to EPA.
EPA issued a §3008(a) Order for OW monitoring violations.
EPA negotiated and signed CAFO with DANA CORP.
DANA CORP. submitted an acceptable OW monitoring plan to EPA.
DANA CORP. began installing wells for assessment.
DANA CORP. submitted closure plan for clean closure of the surface
impoundment. It was approved, but the State did not check to see if it
called for OW monitoring. The facility closed its hazardous waste
management unit without conducting a OW monitoring assessment in
accordance with RCRA. Upon realization that OW monitoring was not
being conducted, EPA issued a §3008(a) Order. DANA CORP. is
now required to install GW monitoring wells. State must determine
that the (3W monitoring results comply with the CAFO and then the
facility can be returned to compliance.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
VIOLATIONS • OW: no monitoring.
PENALTY
Collected: $27,500
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 18
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
DEFIANCE COUNTY LANDFILL
Ohio
OHD 000721 340
Land disposal
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Financial
Assessed: $5,000
Collected: $5,000
HISTORY
11125/82
9/27/85
6/1/87
10/12/89
STATUS
Violations discovered.
Complaint’ issued.
CAFO issued requiring payment of $5,000 civil penalty, cessation of
all hazardous waste storage, implementation of closure in accordance
with approved closure plan, and EPA and State approval of GW
monitoring program.
EPA approved GW monitoring program to be implemented. within 30
days.
DEFIANCE COUNTY LANDFILL will return to compliance upon
State approval of the OW monitoring program.
: i - n
11 125 12
InitI FormI EN0,o.m.n*
2715
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 19
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
DETREX CHEMICAL
Ohio
OHD 004 165924
Surface
impoundments (6)
Wastepile
EPA
• Processing delays, Financial
Assessed: $4,000
Collected: $4,000
HISTORY
5/25/85
2/19/87
12131/86
5/22/87
6/5/87
8/13/87
213/88
2/25/88
11/89
12/89
STATUS
State inspection identified clOsure violations.
Second State inspection identified the same closure violations.
EPA issued complaint.
CAFO signed, requiring complete closure within 180 days of closure
plan approval and $4000 penalty.
State record review, identified financial assurance violations.
DETREX was sent a revised closure plan.
DETREX submitted adequate financial assurance.
Land ban violations discovered.
DETREX submitted revised closure plan.
State had not yet approved the revised closure plan.
The hazardous waste was removed from five of the six surface impoundments.
The sixth can be stabilized in place with lime. DETREX has not adhered to its
compliance schedule. All 25 soil samples indicated very high levels of
contamination. The facility is located in the general area of the Fieldbrook
CERCLA site and it may be a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP). EPA
decided that if DETREX acknowledged being a PRP, the case could be handed
over to CERCLA. DETREX did sign up as a PRP at the Fieldbrook site.
Financial and land ban violations are ongoing and not addressed in the CAFO.
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • CP: no plan
• FR: failure to demonstrate financial assurance for closure
• Other: land ban.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 20
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
DUPONT E.I. NEMOURS AND
COMPANY
Ohio
OFIDO O4 287 322
Surface
impoundment
Sludge pit
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays
Assessed: $39,711
Collected: $39,711
HISTORY
11/6/85
3/30/88
5/12/89
8,9/89
9/27,90
STATUS
Violations discovered.
Complaint issued.
CAFO issued.
Closure plans submitted.
Closure plans approved.
DUPONT is seeking to clean close both units. The GW monitoring
requirements are satisfied, sampling is continuing, closure plans have
been approved, and DUPONT is complying with the CAFO.
DUPONT is expected to return to compliance once clean closure is
approved.
list VIol Ion
1115115
lnlU Fwm EIdOI’OSIflSI
313515$ CosTd
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
•GW
• Other: interim status.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 21
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
EGBERT CORPORATION
Ohio
OHD 055 829 022
Land disposal
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
Collected: $30,000
HISTORY
6/26/86
9/22/87
5/11/88
8/23,90
STATUS
Violations discovered.
Complaint issued.
CAFO issued requiring payment of penalty, implementation of the
approved GW assessment plan and submittal of quarterly reports,
commencement of monthly, inspections, and maintenance of written
operating records.
EGBERT certified clean closure.
EGBERT has complied with all CAFO requirements and continues to
submit quarterly reports. EGBERT certified clean closure via its Risk
Assessment.
• Processing delays, Financial
o .s1 VIoiM
IMlal Foimal Enlorc.ma,d
flhI7 Con 4akd
Formal Entorc.
5111 188 CAFO
VIOLATIONS • GW: monitoring .
• Othec manifest, recordkeeping, inspection, operating records.
Assessed: $30,000
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 22
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
EKCO HOUSEWARES COMPANY
Ohio
OHD 045 205 424
Surface
impoundments
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY Assessed: $55,479
HISTORY
2/28/86
11/6/86
11 19/87
1/8/88
4/29/88
8/15/88
11/15/88
2/6/89
4/14/89
12/89
Collected: $55,479
State inspection identified GW, closure and financial responsibility
violations.
EPA issued complaint.
EPA negotiated and signed CAFO with EKCO, requiring EKCO to
submit a closure plan within 90 days; complete closure upon State
approval of plan; submit OW quality assessment plan within 56 days;
implement plan upon approval; comply with financial assurance
requirements for closure until closure certified; pay $55,478.50 in
penalties; and enter into good faith negotiation for Corrective Action
Order.
EKCO submitted OWQAP.
GWQAP approved by EPA.
EKCO submitted closure plan to State and EPA.
GWQAP implemented.
Closure Plan disapproved (EKCO is appealing closure disapproval).
EPA issued Corrective Action Order to address releases of hazardous
waste from the facility.
Corrective Action Order prepared.
STATUS Corrective Action Order is being implemented for the facilities. EKcO
must address all violations adequately to return to compliance.
• Processing delays
VIOLATIONS • CP
.0W
•FR.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 23
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
FEDERATED METALS
CORPORATION
Indiana
1ND005444104
Landfill
.
State — CP and GW violations
EPA -- State referred financial
violations to EPA
.
• Processing delays, Hearing process, Financial
coverage.
PENALTY
Collected: $6,000
Assessed: $7,500
HISTORY
5/19/8 1 FEDERATED METALS submitted closure plan, which the State did
not approve.
State inspection discovered violations.
State amended the closure plan.
State amended the closure plan.
State issued order addressing GW and closure violations.
CAFO signed, addressing financial violations.
FEDERATED METALS and State were still negotiating the closure plan.
EPA referred to DOJ for CAFO violations and corrective action.
DOJ complaint filed on CAFO violations and need for corrective action.
STATUS FEDERATED METALS and the State are currently negotiating the
closure plan. The current plan involves a cap design for the landfill
which extends into Lake George. Case is currently in litigation with
EPA and DOJ.
2/25/83
8/23/84
9/20/85
9/30/85
2/1/89
12/89
3/27,90
10/16,90
RTC CATEGORY
I Mo(o.m
£sW. Ordst
VIOLATIONS • CP: inadequate plan
• OW: inadequate monitoring program
• FR: failure to have current C/PC cost estimates; lack of liability
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 24
-------
Region V
• COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
FORT RECOVERY INDUSTRIES
INC.
Ohio
OHD 005 046 149
Surface
impoundment
EPA
• Processing delays, Financial
Assessed: $32,000
Collected: $32,000
HISTORY
11/1/85
8/19/87
917/87
2/22/89
10/4/8 8
2189
5/30,90
9/30 ,90
STATUS
Violations discovered.
Complaint issued.
GW monitoring wells installed.
CAFO issued, requiring payment of $32,000 petialty, submittal of
revised closure plans, completion of final closure within 180 days of
final approval, submittal of GW monitoring plan and implementation
upon its approval.
Closure plans approved with conditions.
State approval received.
Closure plan extension granted by EPA.
Closure plan extended by State until 11/30/90.
Closure has not yet been certified. FORT RECOVERY
INDUSTRIES will return to compliance when closure is certified.
RTC CATEGORY
VIOLATIONS
•CP
‘ow
‘FR.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 25
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
FOSTER WOOD PRODUCTS
Indiana
IND 079 651 436
Surface
impoundment
Statereferred to EPA
Assessed: $80,000
Collected: $80,000
HISTORY
5/10/84
5/14/85
6/28/85
7/23/85
9/30/86
4/27/89
7/8/89
10i28/89
12/89
12/11/89
STATUS
State inspection identified violations.
FOSTER WOOD PRODUCTS was returned to compliance for
financial violations (although later violation cited).
FOSTER WOOD PRODUCTS submitted a closure plan.
State referred case to EPA.
EPA issued complaint.
CAFO signed, requiring GW monitoring for thirty years. State
approved closure plan and FOSTER WOOD PRODUCTS began to
implement it.
Record review identified failure to demonstrate financial assurance.
FOSTER WOOD PRODUCTS submitted hydrogeologic report and
analytical data from its OW monitoring system.
FOSTER WOOD PRODUCTS still has soil sampling to do.
FOSTER WOOD PRODUCTS submitted required financial
demonstration for closure assurance and liability insurance.
Pursuant to CAFO, the facility installed wells for OW monitonng. CAFO
calls for 30 years of OW monitoring. The facility initially did not meet its
compliance schedule but has met it since then. FOSTER WOOD
PRODUCTS is required to submit additional soil samples before it can certify
completion of the approved closure plan. State is considering revising the
approved closure plan.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Financial
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • CP: no plan (resolved)
• OW: no monitoring system (resolved)
• FR: failure to demonstrate financial assurance for closure; no liability
insurance (resolved).
12/14/90- Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 26
-------
Region V
T FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
GARY DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.
Indiana
1N0077005916
Landfill
EPA — referred by State before it
had authorization
to demonstrate financial assurance for
Assessed: $117,000
Collected: None
HISTORY
5/30/86
9/87
12/88
12/89
10/90
STATUS
EPA issued Administrative Order addressing all violations.
Hearing began before ALl in Gary, Indiana; ruling not yet issued
because hearing has not been completed.
Hearing reconvened, but GARY DEVELOPMENT’S attorney could
not attend.
Hearing reconvened, but GARY DEVELOPMENT’S attorney still
could not attend and indicated that he would have to postpone until
1990.
Hearing scheduled to be reconvened 12/17-21/90.
No hazardous waste disposal has occurred since January 1983. The
facility accepted hazardous waste after obtaining interim status. All
violations are still being addressed and the case is in litigation.
RTC CATEGORY
Hearing process, Facility resistance
VIOLATIONS
• CP: no plan
• OW: no monitoring
• FR: no liability coverage; failure
closure.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 27
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY -
MORRIS OPERATION
illinois
1LD062338694
Surface
impoundment
EPA - OW and C/PC violations
State - approval of C/PC plan,
financial violations
.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
Assessed: $15,250
Collected: $15,250
HISTORY
9/19/85
W24/87
9/26/88
2/21/89
3/20/89
12/89
STATUS
Violations discovered.
State sent request to EPA to issue Administrative Order, handing over an
ongoing dispute between the State and the facility that began in 1982.
EPA filed a Complaint and Compliance Order.
CAFO issued.
The facility sent closure plan to the State and EPA.
Negotiations are ongoing.
The surface impoundment at the facility received corrosive hazardous waste at
one time and no longer does. It probably could have qualified for a OW
monitoring waiver. The company asserted that it was not regulated. This
assertion was based on the fact that the hazardous waste stored in the surface
impoundment was waste water (30 gallons per day) produced as a byproduct
of the facility’s main function, the storage of nuclear spent fuel rods.
GENERAL ELECTRIC maintained that the waste neutralized itself in the
long pipe that connected the storage facility for the nuclear spent fuel rods and
the surface impoundment, but there were no studies to prove this assertion.
Up until September 1988, EPA had pursued this case on an informal basis
because GENERAL ELECTRIC was involved in several more
environmentally severe cases at other locations under CERCLA. Successful
implementation of a clean closure plan will terminate GENERAL
ELECTRIC’S compliance duties .under RCRA.
V n
9l 946
tI FW T1 I
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • CP: no closure plan
• OW: no monitoring
• FR: failure to demonstrate financial assurance for closure; no liability
insurance (resolved).
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 28
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
GILBERT AND BENNETT
MANUFACTURING Co.
illinois
1LD005109525
Surface
impoundment
EPA
VIOLATIONS • CP: failure to update closure cost estimate and demonstrate
financial assurance for closure
GW: monitoring (resolved).
Assessed: $20,080
Collected: $20,080
HISTORY
9/4/85
1/86.
3/86
W86
7/29/8 6
12/15/87
9,9/87
STATUS
State cited OW monitoring violations.
State cited GW monitoring violations.
State cited OW monitoring violations.
State cited OW and closure violations.
EPA issued complaint.
CAFO signed.
GILBERT AND BENNETT MANUFACTURING certified closure.
The facility is required to conduct OW monitoring for 30 years.
GILBERT AND BENNETT MANUFACTURING is on schedule with
their annual OW reports. The facility closed as a landfill and is subject
to post-closure care requirements.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays
b JtI Fonn.l Enfotc.n*nI
1/2W16 Complaint
lnai lormal Enforcvn.nt
12)15/87 CAFO
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 29
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
GMC ALLISON GAS TURBINE
Indiana
IND 000 806 836
Surface
impoundment
State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HISTORY
6/21/84
3f3/85
1986
3/3/87
3/30/88
11/88
1/19/89
5/89
10/89
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
Collected: $36,050
Assessed: $36,050
State inspection identified violations.
State filed a complaint to address these violations.
OW monitoring system installed.
State and GMC ALLISON GAS TURBINE negotiated and signed an
Agreed Order.
State reviewed GMC ALLISON GAS TURBINE’s submittals
regarding installed wells and initial sampling and’analysis, resolving
the OW violation.
Surface impoundment ceased operations.
Closure plan proposing closure as a landfill submitted.
State rejected closure plan, requesting modifications.
Second closure plan submitted, proposing clean closure.
4/90 State is reviewing GMC ALLISON GAS TURBINE’S most recent
submittal of the closure plan.
STATUS State is currently reviewing closure plan to determine if the facility can be
closed as a landfill.
FTTI Enf rc•n nt
Agr..d Ord.r
VIOLATIONS • CP: no plan
• OW: no monitoring system (resolved)
• FR: failure to demonstrate financial assurance for closure (resolved).
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 30
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
GMC CENTRAL FOUNDRY
Ohio
OFID 005 050 273
Landfill
Surface
impoundment
State
• Processing delays
VIOLATIONS • CP
• GW: hydrogeologic analysis plan (resolved)
• Other interim status (resolved).
HISTORY
1/29/86
6/30/88
STATUS
Assessed: $100,000
14,000
Collected: $4,500
Violations discovered.
State issued Final Findings and Orders requiring submittal of closure
plan for the surface impoundment and landfill; implementation of
hydrogeologic workplan upon approval; submittal of documentation of
compliance with financial requirements; and payment of penalty.
GMC C1 NTRAL FOUNDRY has not yet certified closure. All other
requirements have been met.
RTC CATEGORY
Initial and Final Fo,n I Erdorcemant
613W88 FIndln .
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 31
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
GMC/DELCO REMY
Indiana
IND 000 806 877
Surface
impoundments
State
RTC CATEGORY
Assessed: $17,000
ollecttd: None
HISTORY
812/85
8/3/87
9/29/89
1/90
1/31,90
STATUS
State inspection identified violations.
State filed complaint.
State and GMCIDELCO REMY negotiated and signed a Consent
Decree, requiring a prescribed monitoring system.
GMC/DELc0 REMY plans to implement closure of the surface
impoundments in 4/90.
Returned to compliance for GW violation.
GMC/DELCO REMY installed wells to upgrade its GW monitoring
system and is closing the surface impoundments.pursuant to an
approved closure plan.
• Processing delays
Final Form.h En orc.m.,
Con
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
OW: inadequate monitoring system (resolved).
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 32
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
GRADY MCCAULEY
Ohio
OHD 004 468 609
Landdisposal
State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
• Processing delays
Assessed: $9,500
Collected: $7,500
HISTORY
2iW84
6/28/8.5
12/4/86
STATUS
Violations discovered including failure to submit annual report; failure
to po OW information; failure to establish financial assurance for
closure/post closure; and failure to obtain an EPA identification
number.
Section 3008(a) Complaint issued.
CAFO issued.
Closure plan was submitted and is being reviewed by the State. OW
monitoring system was installed and assessment is complete. The
extent of soil contamination is currently being defined to support a
feasibility study for soil cleanup activities.
Oldist Violation
2A 4
Inhlat Fwml Enlorc.m.rd
6/2S/$5 $3001(.) Con lalnt
VIOLATIONS
•CP
• OW: monitoring, reporting
•FR
• Other reporting, identification.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 33
-------
Region V
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
GRANT COUNTY LANDFILL
Indiana
IND 005 715 094
Landfill
State
• CP: no approved closure plan
• OW: no monitoring program for the portion of the landfill that
received hazardous waste
• FR: never complied with State financial responsibilities.
PENALTY
HISTORY
1/1/83
4/15/84
8/30/84
12/20/84
3/20/85
3/26/86
6/13/86
6/23/86
1111/86
7 / 2/87
2 127/88
11/13/89
STATUS
Assessed: None
State cited OW monitoring violations.
Settlement conference conducted.
State cited closure/post closure violations.
State issued Notice of Violation for closure/post closure violations.
State cited financial violations.
State issued complaint for financial violations.
State issued Administrative Complaint for OW violations.
State referred OW violations to civil court because of the facility’s lack
of responsiveness to informal actions.
Facility submitted closure plan.
GRANT COUNTY LANDFILL submitted revised closure plan for the
portion of the site that dealt with hazardous waste; closure plan was
approved by the State.
Consent Decree signed, requiring installation of RCRA monitoring
wells.
Facility submitted satisfactory letter of credit to the State, meeting the
financial assurance requirement.
The facility (private, not county-level government) is inactive. State is
evaluating the adequacy of wells installed by GRANT COUNTY LANDFILL.
Facility can be returned to compliance once State is satisfied that wells are
adequate.
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
V > >X >. ->. V X XO.V
S . ?J ’ (T : ” i Ci
V
1980 1981 1982 1983 1983 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
VIOLATIONS
r
12/I4, 0 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 34
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
HAMMOND VALVE CORPORATION
Indiana
IND 005 069 851
Land disposal
State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
I
FR: failure to demonstrate financial assurance for closure; no
liability coverage for sudden and non-sudden occurrences
(resolved).
Assessed: $23,695
Collected: $2,500
HISTORY
10/15/85
9/30/88
9/20/89
10(28/89
STATUS
Violations cited.
Proposed order issued, addressing all financial violations.
Agreed Order issued, requiring civil penalty.
Closure was complete and certification was submitted.
The State considers the financial issues to be resolved.
I V oIW
1011545
InMI Fe.miI En1oro.n i
W3018$ Eid. Ocd.r
Fom Enfo c.m.
aoiaa Aar d O,d.r
VIOLATIONS
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 35
-------
Region V
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
S
LEAD
INTERNATIONAL, INC. Landfills (2)
State
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays, Financial
• GW: insufficient monitoring wells (resolved)
.‘ FR: no liability coverage for sudden and non-sudden occurrences;
failure to demonstrate financial assurance for closure (resolved).
Assessed: $15,000
Collected: None
HISTORY
3/1/86
7/28/88
9/30/88
3/31//89
9/15/89
STATUS
State discovered GW violations.
Notice of Violation issued.
State issued Agreed Order for all violations and requested construction
details and other OW monitoring information from HAYNES.
State issued HAYNES a post closure permit.
State record review indicated continuing financial violations for sudden
and non-sudden liability coverage.
HAYNES’ OW monitoring system was found to be insufficient
because wells were not properly located around both landfill areas. At
least 7 new wells have to be installed. Nested wells were deemed
necessary to fully monitor uppermost aquifer in accordance with the
State issued permit. HAYNES asserts that it has been unable to obtain
liability insurance. Financial assurance has been resolved and the GW
violations are being addressed on a compliance schedule.
ntorc.tnont
rdir
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 36
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
HOUSEHOLD MFG, INC.-
ELJER PLUMBINGWARE DIVISION
Ohio
01-ID 004 495 545
Wastepile
Underground tank
Container storage
Baghouse area
State
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
8126/85
11/18/86
1/16/87
12/16/87
12/89
12128/89
Violations discovered.
State issued Findings & Orders addressing above violations.
HOUSEHOLD MFG. submitted closure plan.
Tank closure plan approved.
State drafted letter to resolve financial violations.
State reviewed and rejected closure plan for insufficient detail.
STATUS The facility is inoperative and underground tanks are closed.
HOUSEHOLD MFG. must resubmit a closure plan and obtain State
approval. Closure plan problems are expected to be resolved in early
1991.
VIOLATIONS • CP: inadequate plan
•FR.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 37
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
INDIANA FARM BUREAU
Indiana
IND044908663
Surface
impoundments
State
:
Processing delays
Assessed: $14,500
Collected: None
HISTORY
1./i 6/86
4/22/86
9/22/86
9/30/87
10122/88
1/89
7/31/89
12/89
STATUS
State record review identified GW monitoring violations regarding
1984 and 1985 annual GW reports.
State sampling inspection identified violations regarding the facility’s
GW sampling and analysis procedures.
State sampling inspection identified the same violations.
Complaint issued.
State negotiated and signed an Agreed Order.
INDIANA FARM BUREAU submitted a OW quality assessment plan,
which the State reviewed and found inadequate because the statistical
calculations and sampling and analysis procedures were not what the
State called for.
State approved sampling and analysis procedures being used by
INDIANA FARM BUREAU.
State awaiting INDIANA FARM BUREAU’S resubmission of a
revised OW quality assessment plan.
State negotiated and signed an Agreed Order addressing all of the
above violations. The 10/22/88 order required INDIANA FARM
BUREAU to establish new background OW concentrations and
immediately implement a OW quality assessment program. INDIANA
FARM BUREAU must resubmit a OW monitoring plan. State must
review and approve the plan for the facility to return to compliance.
RTC STATUS
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • GW: failure to submit a 1984 annual OW monitozii g report and
correctly evaluate sampling data for statistical differences between up-
and down-gradient wells in the 1985 report.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 38
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
INDIANA WASTE
SYSTEMS/WHEELER LANDFILL
Indiana
IND 000 708 446
Landfill
State
PENALTY
HISTORY
12/24/84
3/27/86
5/20188
8/88
STATUS
Assessed: None
Violations discovered.
Agreed Order issued.
GW monitoring and closure/post closure violations were returned to
compliance.
State issued violation letters regarding (3W reporting problems.
Facility is in compliance with GW and closure requirements, but the
(3W reporting problems have not been resolved.
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays
rid FIna Fom E. orci
3P27I 6 Agr..d Ord.r
VIOLATIONS • CP (resolved)
• (3W: monitoring (resolved)
• Other: reporting.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 39
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
INGRAM-RICHARDSON COMPANY
Indiana
IND 082 287 632
Surface
impoundments (2)
Landfill
State
.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, CERCLA/Bankruptcy, Facility resistance, Financial
Assessed: $25,000
Collected: None
HISTORY
11,21/80
3/17/81
W26/84
Wi 4/84
9/11/84
1985-1988
9/26/89
11/89
12/89
10/90
STATUS
INGRAM-RICHARDSON ceased operations.
INGRAM-RICHARDSON filed bankruptcy petition; leading to a
proliferation in owning interests.
Violations discovered.
The property was sold to FRANKFORT MARKET PLACE
CORPORATION.
State issued complaint to both companies.
Annual State inspection indicated ongoing violations.
Most recent State inspection indicated that the status of this facility was
unchanged from all previous inspections since the complaint was
issued.
State Attorney General received necessary documents from Bankruptcy
Court to identify all owning interests.
State planned to reissue the complaint in 2i90, citing all owning
interests and superseding the original 1984 complaint.
State has been unable to identify the responsible parties to reissue a
complaint; therefore, a referral to the State CERCLA office is being
prepared.
The entire INGRAM-RICHARDSON site is cluttered with debris and
scrap material from porcelain enamel grit manufacturing operations.
Barium, nickel, cobalt, lead, arsenic, selenium, and cadmium are
believed to have been in the waste streams entering the surface
impoundments. No progress has been made toward closing the
facility. State is preparing CERCLA referral, although no assessment
has been performed to determine whether site would rank.
Bankruptcy proceedings have complicated this case.
VIOLATIONS • CP: no plan
• GW: no monitoring system
•FR.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 40
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
INLAND METALS REFINING CORP.
illinois
1LD980503213
Sw-face
impoundment
Wastepile
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Bankruptcy/CERCLA, Financial
Assessed: $67,000
Collected: None
HISTORY
8/28/84
8119185
9/30/85
1985-88
4/23/87
11/87
9/27/8 8
3/89
9/89
STATUS
State cited closure and financial violations.
State cited (3W monitoring violations.
EPA filed §3008(a) complaint.
(3W monitoring and financial violations cited again.
EPA amended the 9/30/85 order to include additional violations.
AU hearing was held.
AU filed final decision.
INLAND METALS REFINING went bankrupt.
INLAND METALS REFINING was referred to CERCLA.
The 9/30/85 complaint addressed the GW. closure, and financial
violations. Due to bankruptcy, INLAND METALS REFINING has
not complied with the final order. The facility is currently awaiting
scoring under CERCLA.
O dsa VIo1 1o
il*I r ....J EnSor maw
9i301$5 1300(a) wT 4
FV Fonv Er ocsmsat
W271U AU RuUng
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
•FR.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 4!
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
IRONTON COKE CORPORATION
Ohio
OHD 082 739 632
Surface
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Bankruptcy/CER LA
PENALTY
HISTORY
1/5/82
4/26/84
8/11/86
8/17/87
7/5/84
STATUS
Closure and other violations cited.
EPA CERCLA program issued § 106 Administrative Order requiring
closure of the surface impoundments under RCRA and submittal of
closure plan.
Violations again cited.
Inspection conducted; found no violations.
Closure plans submitted and approved.
ALLIED CHEMICAL now owns IRONTON COKE and is following
the Administrative Onler.
ki*I and Rn Fo m Enføro.m.M
4d2$I$4 ER LA 1OS Qidur
VIOLATIONS • CP (resolved)
•Other.
Assessed: None
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 42
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
JONES CHEMICALS, INC.
Indiana
IND 006 058 556
Surface
impoundments (3)
State
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
PENALTY Assessed: $12,000
HISTORY
11/10/83
1126/84
1984-1989
1/4/89
3/89
12/89
STATUS
Collected: None
State inspection indicated violations.
State issued complaint for violations at all three surface impoundments,
which JONES CHEMICALS claimed were not regulated facilities.
Discussions took place between JONES CHEMICALS and the State
as to whether the facilities were subject to EPA regulations.
Discussions were accompanied by significant data submissions by
JONES CHEMICALS to the State. Data eventually confirmed the
presence of hazardous waste, leading to further enforcement action.
Agreed Order issued. After several years of examining data submitted
by JONES CHEMICALS, negotiations resulted in an agreement chat
one of the surface impoundments is a hazardous waste unit. JONES
CHEMICALS agreed to conduct C/PC activities (including OW
monitoring) and to provide liability coverage. Closure plan was
submitted and State denied approval.
Penalty of $12,000 due.
Closure plan under appeal and JONES CHEMICALS has not yet
submitted the required financial information.
JONES CHEMICALS must finalize the closure plan and obtain State
approval. JONES CHEMICALS has yet to meet financial
requirements. The surface impoundment remains open.
Rn Fom E.J..a uIh,*
IM/89 AW,.d O r
ViOLATiONS • CP: no plan
• OW: monitoring
• FR: no liability insurance.
12 /14/90 . Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 43
-------
Region V
• COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
LAKESTATES WOOD
PRESERVING
Michigan
MID 990 687 964
Surface
impoundment
EPA
State - closure plan
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Financial
/ A . cr’’ pr i i
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
VIOLATIONS • CP: inadequate plan
GW: inadequate monitoring system
‘FR
Other general record keeping violations.
PENALTY Assessed: $79,100 Collected: None
HISTORY
9122183 Violations discovered.
9/10/84 EPA issued a §3008(a) Order, which was followed by lengthy
negotiations.
11/18/87 Consent Agreement and Interim Order signed, allowing the facility to
conduct a one-year feasibility study for the use of bio-remediation
techniques for the contamination present at the site.
3 /15/89 LAKE STATES submitted the feasibility study to EPA.
12/89 Results of the feasibility study are being evaluated by an EPA lab.
State, EPA, and LAKE STATES personnel will meet upon
completion of the evaluation to determine appropriate remecliation.
STATUS The LAKE STATES facility is located in the upper peninsula of
Michigan, which is very sandy and subject to seepage. There was
some difficulty in locating an independent lab to evaluate the study
results, due to the rare ecological characteristics of the peninsula on
which the facility is located. LAKE STATES excavated the
impoundment, but contamination is present The company has a
history of non-compliance with interim status requirements. The State
has another action against the facility as well for site-wide generalized
violations. Negotiations between EPA, the State, and the facility
indicate that LAKE STATES may become a CERCLA site. The State
plans to sink wells for a hydrogeological study under the State’s
CERCLA auspices. EPA is evaluating a feasibility study to determine
necessary closure proceedings. Financial violations are on-going.
12/14/90 - Final Report RCRA RTC Study • Page 44
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
LANDIS AND GYR, INC./DUNCAN
ELECTRIC
Indiana
1ND005105408
Surface
impoundment
Staxe
.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance, Fmancial
Assessed: $15,000
Collected: $15,000
HISTORY
8/6/84
11/5/84
5/17/85
&28/85
9/30/87
10/19/87
1/23/88
7/31/89
STATUS
State inspection discovered violations.
Proposed order issued.
State Consent Decree issued, requiring LANDIS AND GYR to submit
a closure plan with OW monitoring implementation and meet financial
requirements.
LANDIS AND GYR submitted’a closure plan.
State approved closure plan with modifications.
LANDIS AND GYR appealed the modified closure plan.
Ongoing financial violations identified.
State proposed an Agreed Order to resolve the financial violations and
closure plan appeal.
The surface impoundment remains open but is not receiving hazardous
waste. LANDIS AND GYR is reviewing the State’s proposal to
resolve the closure plan appeal and financial violations.
Issi V on
L II4
k J Fom aI Ento.oasil I
1115m4 Eruf. Ordir
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • CP: no plan
• GW: no monitoring
• FR: failure to demonstrate financial assurance for closure; no liability
insurance.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 45
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
LTV STEEL CO. - CANTON
WORKS (now REPUBLIC
ENGINEERED STEEL PRODUCTS
INC.)
Ohio
0F1D004228003
Container storage
Wastepile
Storage tank
.
EPA
:
.
PENALTY
.cp
• Other contingency plan, pile-wind protection, leachate control,
signs, container management, inspections.
Assessed: $40,750
Collected: None
HISTORY
1128/83
5/30/86
7/17/86
12/6/88
STATUS
Violations discovered, including contingency plan distribution and
inadequacies; pile-wind protection; leachate control astepile; 24-hour
surveillance and signs; labels and dates on containers; inspection of
loading areas; weekly inspections; and decontamination of loading
area.
Complaint issued.
LTV STEEL Co. filed bankruptcy.
CAFO issued, requiring implementation of approved closure plans for
pickle liquor storage tank and a container storage area, run-on and run-
off controls for electric arc furnace dust wastepile, closure of the
wastepile, and payment of the penalty.
LTV STEEL Co. filed for bankruptcy; employees bought and
consolidated facility into REPUBLIC ENGINEERED STEEL
PRODUCTS INC. Closure plans for the storage tank and container
storage area have been approved. The closure plan for the wastepile
has not yet been approved. There is an informal proposal from the
facility to close the unit as a landfill. No response to this proposal has
been formulated by the State or EPA. Recent financial assurance
provided to the State from the facility provided estimates for clean
closure of the wastepile..
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays
VIOLATIONS
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 46
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
LTV STEEL COMPANY - WARREN
WORKS (AKA WARREN
CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES)
Ohio
OHD 060 409 521
Wastepile
State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HISTORY
5/28186
5/12187
STATUS
• BankruptcylCERCLA, Financial
I
Other no permit for storage and.treatment of hazardous waste.
Violations discovered, including unpermitted storage and treatment of
hazardous waste in a wastepile.
State and LTV STEEL COMPANY - WARREN WORKS entered
Findings and Orders requiring submittal of a closuie plan.
LTV STEEL COMPANY - WARREN WORKS appealed conditions
imposed by the State in the wastepile closure, plan approval. As of
10i90, the appeal is still ax the State review board.
W M1 d fln&$ Forirsi EMo. .n.M
SflV$7 13001 FIn& Ord.r
VIOLATIONS
Assessed: None
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 47
-------
Region V
• COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
MASON METALS CO., INC.
Indiana
IND 005 460 209
Surface
impoundments
State - OW and C/PC violations
EPA - financial violations
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
Assessed: $36,000
Collected: $36,000
HISTORY
8 /2/84
11/7/84
1985
3/85
7124/85
4/12/88
512/89
6/5/89
11/89
5123/90
STATUS
State cited OW monitoring violations.
State issued complaint for OW violations.
MASON METALS ceased using the impoundments.
State cited same OW violations a second time.
State cited financial and closure violations.
EPA issued an order for financial violations.
State negotiated and signed an Agreed Order with MASON METALS
to resolve OW violations.
EPA negotiated and signed CAFO with MASON METALS.
MASON METALS was to certify closure or comply with financial
requirements by 11/89. MASON METALS asked for and received a
150.-day extension to certify closure because of State delays in
approving the plan.
MASON METALS was granted another extension up to 1/1/91 to
certify closure of the surface impoundments.
MASON METALS, a recycling business, ceased using the
impoundments in 1985 and stated that “something else” was being
done with hazardous wastes produced. The company provided no
documentation of what they were doing with the waste, and physically
barred State inspectors from the facility on thirteen occasions. The
company has also consistently argued that the waste produced is not
hazardous. MASON METALS is currently undergoing closure of
their hazardous waste management units and is installing monitoring
wells in accordance with the Agreed Order.
i Fo,ui Enfo,o.nw
WSIS CAFO
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • OW: no monitoring
• FR: failure to submit proof of liability insurance and demonstrate
financial assurance for closure.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 48
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
MDNR ROSCOMMON
Michigan
MID 980 825 632
Disposal pit
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
HISTORY
3/17/86
2/12/87
2i2 / 90
8/23/90
STATUS
• Facility resistance
Assessed: $9,500
Collected: $9,500
Violations discovered.
CAFO issued.
MDNR ROSCOMMON closed storage facility but clean closure was
not achieved.
EPA issued MDNR ROSCOMMON a Notice of Violation for failing
to close disposal pit..
MDNR RoscoMMoN agreed to close disposal pit as a landfill and
implement post-closure plan.
MDNR ROSCOMMON complied with the CAFO but closure of
disposal pit is not complete. Most waste was removed, the pit was
back-filled, and OW monitoring wells were installed. Clean closure is
not possible. Post-closure plan is under development.
Rn Fom Es or
V121$7CAFO
VIOLATIONS • CF
• OW: monitoring (resolved).
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 49
-------
Region V
:
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL, INC.
Michigan
M1D000724831
Wastepile
EPA
.
• Processing delays
Assessed: $25,000
Financial violations discovered.
Administrative Complaint issued pursuant to §3008(a).
CAFO issued.
Penalty was paid and MICHIGAN DISPOSAL returned to compliance.
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL failed to maintain liability insurance coverage
for sudden accidental occurrences, as required by 40 CFR 265.147(c).
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL and another firm were named as respondents
in 5/30/86 Administrative Complaint. In 1987, MICHIGAN
DISPOSAL returned t. compliance.
RTC CATEGORY
O suS VIo tk
I Fc,mI Enfwc i
I Como
Fa,m. Enlorc.ur
1v271$7 CAFO
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • FR: no liability coverage (resolved).
Collected: $25,000
HISTORY
3/29/84
5/30/8 6
11/27/87
12i27/87
STATUS
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 50
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
NATIONAL MARINE SERVICE,
INC.
illinois
ILD 042 659 672
Surface
impoundments (4)
EPA
• CP: no plan (resolved)
• OW: inadequate monitoring system, assessment, and data
gathering (resolved)
• FR: failure to demonsu-ate financial assurance for closure; no liability
coverage.
Assessed: $77,000
Collected: None
HISTORY
2115/84
6/28/85
7/85
11/85
9 /23/88
2/89
10/31/89
12/89
STATUS
Violations discovered.
Administrative Order issued.
NATIONAL MARINE SERVICE contended that the materials handled
were not RCRA hazardous wastes. Case referred to court.
Closure plan submitted.
Closure plan approved.
GW tests for Priority Pollutants were conducted, results were negative.
Settlement conference was held after AL! ruled that empty container
exemption did not apply.
Hearing was scheduled with AU but has been postponed while
settlement discussions continue regarding CAFO language.
Administrative Order required a new OW monitoring system to be
installed; an outline of an assessment plan; proper use of statistical
comparisons; financial assurance for closure; liability coverage to be
obtained; and submittal of a closure plan with projected dates and
costs. NATIONAL MARINE SERVICE believes that clean closure
may be possible. The GW monitoring system has been installed
according to the approved closure plan. CAFO negotiations to resolve
all the old violations in the Administrative Order and to collect a penalty
are continuing.
RTC CATEGORY • Hearing process, Financial, Facility resistance
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 51
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL
Indiana
1ND072039001
Wastepile storage
area with containers
State
RTC CATEGORY
Assessed: $31,375
Collected: None
HISTORY
613/85
11/12/85
3/12/87
8/27/87
10i9/87
1/12/88
2 /25/88
3/31/88
Q22/88
9/6/8 8
7/29/88
5/5/89
5/30i90
STATUS
State inspection discovered violations.
State issued complaint.
EPA issued information request regarding wastes generated at the facility.
State inspection indicated ongoing violations.
Violation Letter issued.
State record review indicated compliance.
Notice of Compliance indicated compliance with 10/87 violation letter.
State approved NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL’S closure plan for the
wastepile, with modifications.
CAFO entered by State and NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL.
Notice of Inadequacy addressed documents submitted pursuant to the CAFO.
State inspection indicated ongoing violations.
State inspection indicated violations.
State released NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL from financial responsibility.
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL has certified completion of its State-approved
closure plan for the wastepile. State has released NAVISTAR
INTERNATIONAL from closure assurance obligations.
• Processing delays
s or9.Iu.Ia
0
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • CP: no closure plan (resolved)
FR: failure to demonstrate financial assurance for closure (resolved).
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 52
-------
Region V
:
COMPANY
FACILiTY
TYPE
LEAD
NORTHSIDE SANITARY LANDFILL
Indiana
1ND050530872
Landfill
State
.
.
RTC CATEGORY • Hearing process, Bankruptcy/CERCLA
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
5/4/83
9/23/83
1/84
9/84
1217/84
6/12/85
11/85
11/86
1/87
1987
GW monitoring violations cited.
State issued complaint.
Hearing was held.
Site placed on the CERCLA National Priorities List.
Closure and financial violations cited.
Closure and financial violations cited again.
EPA denied Part B application.
Hearing officers made final ruling.
CAFO issued.
CERCLA issued Record of Decision.
STATUS NORTHSIDE SAN1TARY LANDFILL ceased accepting hazardous
waste in 1983 and since then has accepted only solid waste. Site
operated only as sanitary landfill since 1984. CERCLA is currently
negotiating Consent Decree with Potentially Responsible Parties.
O 4.st V 4 n
p443
InIlal FQn 1
—
Fini Formal Enfororm.nI
lIP? CAFO
VIOLATIONS • CF
‘ow
•FR.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 53
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL
CORPORATION
Ohio
OHD 990 747 859
Land disposal
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
• CP: (resolved)
• GW: monitoring (resolved)
• Other contingency plan, waste analysis plan (resolved).
Assessed: $15,000
Collected: $15,000
HISTORY
2115/83
4/12/84
3/27/84
9/27/85
12/85
2/12/86
11124/87
STATUS
Violations cited regarding the content of the contingency plan, the GW
monitoring system, and the closure plan.
Violations cited regarding the OW monitoring system.
Violations cited regarding waste analysis, and OW monitoring,
sampling, and analysis.
Complaint issued.
Closure plan and waste analysis plan submitted.
CAFO issued, requiring payment of $15,000 civil penalty, submission
of final revised closure plan, submission of revised waste analysis
plan, and EPA and State approval of a OW monitoring plan.
EPA approved OW monitoring plan.
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL returned to compliance on 11/24/87
when EPA approved its GW monitoring plan. The State was not
authorized for RCRA enforcement. Working through the reviews with.
the State was a lengthy process.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 54
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
PVS CHEMICALS
Illinois
ILDOO1 833714
Surface
impoundment
EPA—referredbyStatefor
formal action
• Processing delays
Assessed: $9,000
Collected: $9,000
HISTORY
1112/84
2/85
8/85
6/30/86
9/6/88
STATUS
1/1 1/89
2123/89
10/1/90
State cited GW monitoring violations.
State cited GW and financial violations.
State cited GW violations.
EPA issued complaint based on above violations.
Hearing scheduled; PVS CHEMICALS negotiated a settlement and
agreed to pay $9000.
CAFO signed.
PVS CHEMICALS tried to waive the OW monitoring requirements.
State released PVS CHEMICALS from financial responsibility (per
265.143(h)).
PVS CHEMICALS changed the manufacturing process in 1981 such
that corrosive waste was no longer placed in the impoundment. As a
result, the facility did not install a GW monitoring system on-site,
contending that the surface impoundment was not regulated. The
violations occurred before the State was authorized for RCRA and
were violations of Federal regulations, which raised questions as to
proper jurisdiction. The State referred the case to EPA. PVS
CHEMICALS demonstrated clean closure and obtained a GW
monitoring waiver.
RTC CATEGORY
I —
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
• OW: monitoring (resolved)
• FR: no liability coverage; failure to demonstrate financial assurance for
closure (resolved).
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
P ige55
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
RANCO INC. - DELAWARE
Ohio
01-ID 004 288 288
Surface
impoundment
EPA
.
Assessed: $19,500
Collected: $19,500
HISTORY
4125/85
5/30/86
6/1/87
6/17/87
5/6/88
9/88
• 5/16/88
12/89
STATUS
• State inspection identified violations.
EPA issued complaint
• CAFO signed.
RANCO INC.- DELAWARE submitted closure plan.
State approved closure plans.
RANCO INC. - DELAWARE installed GW monitoring system.
Closure plans implemented.
RANCO INC. - DELAWARE began working toward completing
post—closure plan implementation.
The 6/1/87 CAFO required RANCO INC. - DELAWARE to
demonstrate good faith effort to obtain liability insurance; submit
closure/post closure plans within 15 days of signing CAFO; revise
closure/post closure plans within 30 days of notice of any deficiency;
implement closure/post closure plans; submit OW monitoring plan;
install monitoring wells within 60 days of approval; sample within 45
days of installation; pay $19,500 penalty. Closure has been completed
and (3W monitoring continues. RANCO INC. - DELAWARE must
meet post closure requirements since residual contamination persists.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Financial
VIOLATIONS • CP (resolved)
• • SOW
•FR.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 56
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
RANCO INC. - PLAIN CITY
Ohio
OFIDOO4 288 270
Surface
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Financial
PENALTY Assessed: $30,500
HISTORY
4125/85
5/30/86
6/1/87
6/17/87
5/6/88
9/88
5/16/88
12/89
STATUS
Collected: $30,500
State inspection identified violations.
EPA issued complaint.
CAFO signed.
RANCO INC.. PLAIN CITY submitted closure plan.
State approved closure plans.
RANCO INC.. PLAIN CITY installed GW monitoring system.
Closure plans implemented.
RANCO INC. - PLAIN CITY worked toward completing post-
closure plan implementation.
The 6/1/87 CAFO required RANCO INC. - PLAIN CITY to
demonstrate good faith effort to obtain liability insurance; submit
closure/post closure plans Within 15 days of signing CAFO; revise
closure/post closure plans within 30 days of notice of any deficiency;
implement closure/post closure plans; submit GW monitoring plan;
install monitoring wells within 60 days of approval; sample within 45
days of installation; pay $19,500 penalty. Closure has been completed
and OW monitoring continues. RANCO INC. - PLAIN CITY must
meet post closure requirements since residual contamination persists.
VIOLATIONS
• CP (resolved)
•GW
•FR.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 57
-------
Region V
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
REFINING Surface
impoundment
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays
PENALTY
HISTORY
4/29/86
2110/87
7/88
9/26/88
10/3/89
5/14,90
STATUS
• C?: no closure plan (resolved)
• OW: monitoring (resolved)
• ER: closure cost estimates, liability coverage for sudden and
nonsudden accidental occurrences (resolved).
Assessed: $140,350
OW violations cited.
Closure and financial violations cited.
State referred violations to EPA.
EPA issued §3008(a) Administrative Complaint.
EPA negotiated Consent Decree and amended 9126/88 complaint. Draft
CAFO sent to ROCK ISLAND REFINING.
CAFO effective. Amended Complaint removed GW violations.
State delayed the referral of ROCK ISLAND REFINING because of a
temporary exclusion of the facility’s waste and confusion on its regulatory
status. ROCK ISLAND REFINING is complying with the CAFO, including
the submittal of its closure plan and financial responsibility demonstrations.
Collected: None
Oldi VIcIaUon
IflItI( Formal Enforvsmsni
sPaIU 3OO8(.) Compi&nt
Final Enforc.rnant Action
1o13/8a CAFO
VIOLATIONS
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 58
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ROUGE STEEL Co.
Michigan
MID 087 738 431
Surface
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HISTORY
• 3/14/86
7/22/86
3/30/87
4/2/87
12124/87
3/31/88
9/21/88
9/29/88
2/22/89
STATUS
• HWDMSdataerror
Assessed: $36,750
Collected: $26,500
Violations discovered.
EPA issued complaint
Inspection discovered violations.
State issued Notice of Violation.
CAFO issued.
ROUGE STEEL complied with CAFO and fully returned to
compliance (surface impoundment certified closed).
Inspection discovered violations.
State issued Notice of Violation.
ROUGE STEEL returned to compliance.
Violations indicated since the CAFO have been resolved.
Ea oro.4w4
R.turn to CoinpUanc.
3/31 1U
VIOLATIONS • Other 1988 violations included unaddressed container management,
signs notposted, spillage/improper disposal, inadequate training
reconis, incomplete Part A, insufficient manifest retention (resolved)
1987 CAFO addressed closure of surface impoundment
pursuant to LOIS.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 59
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
Sc m POTTERY
Ohio
OHD 004 465 084
Surface
EPA
impoundments
PENALTY
HISTORY
6127/85
1131/86
8/13/87
11/10/87
1989
12/89
Assessed: $25,000 Collected: $10,000 (on a
payment plan)
Violations identified.
EPA issued Complaint, Findings of Violation and Compliance Order
requiring SCm POTTERY to submit closure plans for the surface
impoundments; implement plans; develop and submit GW monitoring
program; comply with financial assurance requirements;. and pay
$53,900 penalty.
CAFO signed. SCI0 POTTERY was required to submit a closure
plan within 90 days of signing CAFO , initiate and complete activities in
accordance with the approved compliance schedule; submit liability
insurance information within 30 days; and pay $25,000 penalty.
SCio POTTERY submitted closure plan to EPA. State never received
an official copy from SCIO POTTERY. EPA agreed that this was
acceptable, but the State objected, leading to EPA-State negotiations to
refer the case back to the State.
SCIo POTTERY submitted closure plan to State.
State reviewed the closure plans. Based on initial review, EPA has
recommended not approving the plans.
STATUS The facility is abandoned and gutted. Nothing has been done to close
the surface impoundment. Scio POTTERY does not have an
approved closure plan from the State. The facility indicates that it is
unable to obtain liability insurance.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Facility resistance
VIOLATIONS • C?
•GW
‘FR.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 60
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
SLATER STEELS CORP.
Indiana
IND 005 447 537
Surface
impoundment
Wastepile
EPA
State - approval of GW study
plans
HISTORY
1/15/87
7/20/87
12/11/87
5(26/87
2125/88
8/11/88
8/25/88
10 /27/89
3/13,90
917,90
STATUS
Assessed: None
State discovered financial violations.
State referred financial violations to EPA.
EPA issued Administrative Order addressing financial violations.
EPA discovered GW violations.
State referred case to EPA to address new GW violations.
CAFO entered, requiring hydrogeologic study; submittal and
fulfillment of a report and plan for installing GW monitoring wells;
revised sampling and analysis plan; demonstration that GW is not
contaminated or closure as a landfill; demonstration of liability
coverage.
Hydrogeologic study plan submitted; State rejected it as inadequate.
SLATER STEELS resubmitted hydrogeologic study plan.
State approved study plan.
SLATER STEELS submitted hydrogeologic report and a proposed
plan for a GW monitoring well system.
The unit in violation has not been used since 9/80. The surface
impoundment and wastepile are both regulated units due to “significant
management activities” conducted in regard to closure activities (per
EPA Headquarters’ guidance memo). SLATER STEELS will close
the surface impoundment as a landfill because closure-by-removal
could not be achieved. State approved the hydrogeologic investigation
plan. After SLATER STEELS implements it, the facility will return to
compliance for GW monitoring. SLATER STEELS has been unable
to obtain non-sudden liability coverage but submits demonstration of
good faith efforts every 90 days. On 3/15/90, SLATER STEELS
submitted to the State a letter to demonstrate liability coverage for
sudden accidental occurrences using the financial test. That submittal
is under review by the State.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Financial
VIOLATIONS • GW: insufficient monitoring
FR no liability coverage for sudden and non-sudden occurrences.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 61
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OHIO -
LIMA
Ohio
OHD 005 051 826
Surface
impoundments (3)
State
RTC CATEGORY
• Technical complexity
Assessed: 1988 - $34,000
1986 - $25,000
Collected: $34,000
$25,000
HISTORY
12/15/82
9 /27/86
10/22 /86
3/8/84
4/21/87
9/30/88
1f24i 0
STATUS
Violations discovered.
EPA issued order.
• CAFO issued, requiring implementation of a GW monitoring plan,
closure documentation, and penalty of $25,000.
• STANDARD OIL submitted first closure plan, which was rejected by
the State.
STANDARD OIL submitted second set of closure plans, which were
also rejected by the State.
State issued Findings & Orders addressing above violations with a
$34,000 penalty.
Closure plan approved.
STANDARD OIL is pursuing closure of the three surface
impoundments. No new hazardous waste is being designated for these
units. Facility is performing GW assessment. If sampling data are
acceptable, the State expects STANDARD OIL to be able to return to
detection monitoring status soon, and the facility will be returned to
compliance with OW requirements.
.st Vlo1et on
1211 5 2
1 Fo,n EMor mi
27 4 EaW. du,
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
• CP: inadequate plans
• GW: inadequate monitoring system.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 62
-------
Region V
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
COMPANY Surface
impoundments (3)
Landfarms (5)
EPA
.
• Processing delays
Assessed: $50,750
Collected: $30,000
HISTORY
8/31/83
1014184
7/10/85
STATUS
Violations discovered.
EPA issued complaint.
CAFO issued, requiring STANDARD OIL to implement GW
monioring program and continue its assessment monitoring.
Surface impoundment closure plans approved.
No GW monitoring violations are outstanding against STANDARD
OIL. The State expects that several of the units will return to detection
monitoring soon. Two of the landfarrns will continue assessment
monitoring. Closure plans for landfarms are not yet approved.
RTC CATEGORY
ln*I& For I Enfoicsm.,
1O 4/U Coin MU
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • GW: monitoring system.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 63
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ST. LOUIS LEAD RECYCLERS
illinois
1LD000667097
Wastepile
Multi-jurisdiction:
State, EPA (RCRA & CERCLA)
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
Assessed: $56,500
Collected: $56,500
HISTORY
7/1/86
STATUS
10/2/86
6/15/87
12/23/88
10/26/89
ST. LOUIS LEAD RECYCLERS filed a Part A application, but it did
not address the wastepile in question.
State sent request for issuance of Administrative Order.
EPA filed Complaint and Compliance Order.
CAFO signed.
The facility resubmitted a closure plan.
Violations pertain to a wastepile for which a Part A was never
submitted; consequently, the facility failed to meet interim status
standards applicable to the wastepile, which is composed mainly of
broken hard rubber. battery cases. Analytical results from a sample of
the wastepile exhibit an EP toxicity concentration of 42 mg/kg of lead
(D008). The wastepile, which is still open but inoperative, is located
near the NL Industries (Taracorp Granite City) CERCLA clean-up site.
There is an ongoing dispute as to who owns the wastepile in question
and who should be responsible for cleaning it up. The record indicates
that the wastepile was supposed to be covered under an earlier
CERCLA clean up, but was not, leading to the RCRA enforcement
actions to close the wastepile. Currently, the State, CERCLA, and
RCRA are considering whether the wastepile can be covered under
CERCLA. ST. LOUIS LEAD RECYCLERS has resubmitted a
revised closure plan to comply with CAFO.
RTC CATEGORY
dss* VloLgion
7fl 1 16
Fki FvnnI Enlorc.m.nt
12/234$ CAFO
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • CP: no plan (resolved)
• Other: annual reports not filed, wastepile not protected from wind
dispersal and precipitation run-on or run-off.
12/ 14 O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 64
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
TARACORP INDUSTRIES, INC.
illinois
ILD 096731 468
Wastepile(l)
Multi-jurisdiction:
State, EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Financial, CERCLA/Bankruptcy
HISTORY
7/28/83
3/11/85
‘25/87
9 ,9/87
2/29/88
11/6/89
1/1 0i90
3/31,90
STATUS
Violations discovered. State issued informal letter of citation.
EPA issued CERCLA §106 Order addressing large wastepile/drums on site,
requiring TARACORP to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility
study; remediation to be decided upon completion.
TARACORP submitted closure plan to State in response to letter.
State approved closure plan.
Two wastepiles verified closed in accordance with closure plan; only one acid
tank not yet certified closed per approved closure plan.
Upon completion of remedial investigation, final feasibility study was due to
Region V CERCLA office.
CERCLA Proposed Plan for site remediation released for comment.
Record of Decision signed; now negotiating remedial design/action.
Two wastepiles closed. One wastepile inoperative and subject of CERCLA
Proposed Plan. TARACORP completed CERCLA feasibility study. Closure
will be accomplished when CERCLA determines appropriate remediation.
Bankruptcy in early 1980s complicated normal RCRA course for return to
compliance, so case was referred to CERCLA. TARACORP is attempting to
procure insurance but insurance companies refuse to insure this facility. The
CERCLA actions will address removal of the wastepile, including the cost;
liability insurance remains unresolved. The Record of Decision announcing
CERCLA’s selected remedial alternative has been signed (3/31/90).
I ErIor .nsi
1106 Ord.,
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY Assessed: None
• CP: no plan (resolved)
• FR: assurance and insurance requirements.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 65
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
TELEDYNE MONARCH RUBBER -
PLANT # 1
Ohio
0HD068901610
Surface
impoundments
EPA
HISTORY
11/21/85
9/18/87
3124/89
4/14/89
6/30/89
i’ o
9/27 190
STATUS
Assessed: $51,900
Collected: None
Violations discovered.
EPA issued Complaint, Findings of Violation, and Compliance Order
requiring submittal of closure and post-closure plans; (3W monitoring
plans; implementation of closure; establishment .of financial assurance;
and payment of penalties.
EPA notified State of intention to issue amended Complaint and
Compliance Order under §3008(a).
Amended Complaint and Compliance Order issued due to additional
violations regarding contingency plan and failure-to comply with
surface impoundment standards.
EPA notified State of intention to issue Corrective Action Order under
RCRA §3008(h).
EPA issued proposed Corrective Action Order.
TELEDYNE MONARCH RUBBER signed Corrective Action Order.
This case is very close to settlement of the amended complaint.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Technical complexity, Facility resistance
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • (3W: monitoring and certification of compliance
• FR: failure to demonstrate financial assurance for closure and post-
closure
• Other Part A, interim status, Part B.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 66
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
TEXACO, INC.
flhinois
ILD 041 518 861
Landfill
Land trean nent
units (4)
State - closure/post closure
EPA - Compliance Order and
CAFO
RTC STATUS • Processing delays, Facility resistance
HISTORY
7/11/86
4/87
8/20/87
5/23/88
5/25/89
Q 16/89
9/25/89
10 (29/89
STATUS.
Collected: $21,750
State record reviews discovered GW and closure violations.
TEXACO implemented closure plan for the landfill that included
removing soil to bedrock from 4 land treatment units for placement in
new landfill.
EPA issued Administrative Order.
CAFO signed with EPA addressing GW and closure violations.
State record review identified financial assurance violation. TEXACO
submitted post-closure plan for the landfill.
TExACO scheduled to return to compliance for financial violations.
State approved the post-closure plan. The approved plan includes the
landfill and the 4 land treatment units.
TEXACO demonstrated compliance with financial requirements.
TEXACO’S GW monitoring system was deficient in well placement. The
company also removed some downgradient indicator evaluation and assessment
wells during closure activities but did not install replacement wells to meet
minimum numbers required. TEXACO is seeking to demonstrate clean closure
for the 4 land treatment units. Quarterly OW assessment monitoring is
continuing. State thinks extent of contamination in the southwest part of the
facility is not fully determined under assessment monitoring.
os .s vIo at
in 116
VIOLATIONS • CP: inadequate plan (resolved)
• OW: inadequate monitoring system
• FR: improper demonstration of financial assurance for closure
(resolved).
PENALTY Assessed: $21,750
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 67
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
THOMAS STEEL STRIP CORP.
(TSSC)
Ohio
0HD077755213
Surface
impoundments (3)
State
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Financial
Enforc.n nt
14 ColT Mlnt
, Er o.v.m.nt Action
6 /20186 CAFO
VIOLATIONS • CP
• GW: monitoring
•FR.
Assessed: $261,000
PENALTY
HISTORY
7/11/84
12126/84
4’20/86
10 (25/88
STATUS
Collected: $154,614
Violations discovered.
Complaint issued.
CAFO issued, requiring TSSC to implement GW monitoring system;
submit closure plans; meet financial requirements; pay penalty; and
continue correction action.
Closure plans approved.
TSSC remediated the solvent spill area. Soils were removed and a
risk assessment was submitted and then approved by EPA. All
financial requirements are satisfied. Closure plans have been approved
by the State, but additional items need to be submitted, as required
under the closure plan. The State is reviewing and revising the GW
monitoring plan.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 68
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
TRIANGLE METALLURGICAL
illinois
ILD 021 514211
Landfill
Wastepile
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY
• Facility resistance
Assessed: $55,000
Collected: $55,000
HISTORY
4/17/86
8/26/86
11i20/86
8/10/88
10/11/88
12/1,90
STATUS
Violations identified.
State requested that EPA issue Administrative Order for TRIANGLE
METALLURGICAL.
EPA filed Complaint and Compliance Order.
Closure plan approved, requiring one year of GW monitoring.
CAFO issued.
Deadline for certification of closure due pursuant to CAFO based on 4
quarters of OW monitoring.
Violations pertained to an unauthorized landfill used for hazardous
waste disposal. The landfihl/wastepile was generated after a fire at the
facility in 1984, after which a warehouse of drummed material was
“bulldozed” to create space. The State took the position that this
disposal of hazardous waste fell under RCRA regulations.
4 17l8
kUtI& Fan .I EnSo.o.n nt
11 C
VIOLATIONS
FiII Enloic.m.nt Action
1011118$ CAFO
PENALTY
• CP: no closure plan (resolved)
• Othec interim status.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 69
-------
Region V
• COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
TROJAN CORPORATI0N/IMC
TROJAN DIVISION
Illinois
ILD 980 700 710
Surface
impoundment
State
RTC CATEGORY
• FIWDMS data error
Assessed: $275,000
Collected: $36,000
HISTORY
7/26/83
1983
1984
4/11/84
3/29/85
6/6/86
7/20/87
6/29/89
STATUS
Financial violations discovered.
TROJAN CORPORATION classified as a land disposal facility.
State persuaded TROJAN CORPORATION to implement a GW
monitoring program and establish a closure plan.
Closure violations discovered.
Initial formal enforcement action taken to address financial violations
Initial.formal enforcement action taken to address closure violations.
Final enforcement action taken.
State changed position; concurred with EPA that TROJAN
CORPORATION was not a RCRA regulated land disposal facility.
State notified TROJAN CORPORATION of its decision.
The violations shown in HWDMS for closure and financial
requirements at this facility are incorrect because of a change in its
regulatory classification. HWDMS has been updated to show
TROJAN CORPORATION to be in compliance.
•i MMM
7/211$$
III FO,TTa Enfoiv.qv
2/ /85 EM. OMir
al Form.I Enfogosm
7/2OI 7 EM. O.d.v
VIOLATIONS • CP (resolved)
• FR (resolved).
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 70
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
UNION OIL Co., CHICAGO
REFINERY
illinois
ILDO41 550 567
Landtreatment
State
EPA - Formal enforcement and
CAFO
HISTORY
5/16/86
12/17/86
10i23/87
518/89
5/17189
7/14/89
4/90
STATUS
Collected: $7,600
GW monitoring violations identified. S
Administrative Order issued, required hydrogeologic study and new
system of GW monitoring wells.
CAFO issued.
Financial violations identified.
State issued Notice of Violation to address financial violations.
Financial violations resolved.
Facility returned to compliance.
Facility returned to compliance for financial requirements on 7/14/89.
New GW monitoring wells were installed and four quarters of
background data collected. Full compliance with CAFO has been
achieved. Existing background data were used for statistical purposes
while new data were developed.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays
VIOLATIONS • GW: inadequate monitoring system
FR: inadequate submittal of information (resolved).
PENALTY Assessed: $9,500
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 71
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
UNITED MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
Ohio
OHD 004 153 854
Surface
impoundments (2)
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Financial
V i on
5 1171 13
Fon I Ec.m.nt
Sil VU C.
Action
“7CAFO
VIOLATIONS • CP
• GW: monitoring
• FR: RCRA financial requirements (resolved)
• Other interim status, storage.
PENALTY
Assessed: $6,450
HISTORY
Q17/83
4/14/86
9/12/86
Collected: $6,450
5/4/87
9/26, 0
STATUS
Violations discovered.
State referred case to EPA.
EPA issued complaint for storage violations and operating without
interim status.
CAFO issued, requiring OW monitoring system installation and
closure.
Corrective Action Consent Order issued to address release to soil and
ground water from solvent product storage tanks.
Closure is being monitored by the State. State review of OW
monitoring results showed that additional GW sampling is required for
clean closure. Once clean closure is allowed, all violations will be
resolved and UNITED MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS will return to
compliance. UNITED MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS has been
cooperative; compliance is expected soon. One more round of GW
sampling is required to certify clean closure; final sampling expected in
December 1990.
12fl4/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 72
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
US ECOLOGY, INC.
Illinois
ILD 045 063 450
Landfill
EPA-- Corrective Action
State — Closure Plan
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HISTORY
10/5/83
2/15/84
2128/85
9/30/85
STATUS
8/31/88
1/19/89
5/90
10/19/90
Assessed: None
Letter of Inadequacy for closure deficiencies issued by State.
Violations discovered; closure plan resubmitted to State.
A second Letter of Inadequacy issued.
EPA issued §3008(h) Corrective Action Order to address hazardous
waste releases to soil: and GW; State review of closure plan shelved,
pending outcome of EPA decision on the final remedy/corrective action
required.
Inspection showed no GW violation.
Record review indicated (3W violations.
Proposed plan for corrective action released for public comment.
Response to Comments scheduled to be released (selected remedy).
No disposal has occurred since 1983. The corrective action compliance
schedule has been twice amended. Other amendment requests have been
denied and US ECOLOGY has performed satisfactorily as ordered. US
ECOLOGY has conducted studies and completed the RCRA Facilities
Investigation (RH) and draft Corrective Measures Study (CMS). US
ECOLOGY was required to set aside $2.5 million in a letter of credit to
guarantee performance of or payment for both the RFI/CMS activities and the
implementation of the selected corrective action remedy (i.e., a combination of
source control and (3W remediation). The financial violations remain
unresolved.
• Technical complexity, Financial
VIOLATIONS
• CP: inadequate plan
• (3W: assessment evaluation and response
• FR: no liability coverage for sudden/non-sudden occurrences; no
adjustment for closure/post closure costs in 1989 and 1990 (although
estimates of costs were submitted in Annual Reports).
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 73
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
U.S. INDIANA ARMY AMMO
PLANT (IAAP)
Indiana
1N9210020443
Landfill
State
._____________________
PENALTY
HISTORY
4/27/83
(il 1/83
4/12/85
1/26/87
(il30/87
1/19/90
STATUS
• Facility resistance
Assessed: None
Inspection cited GW monitoring violations.
State filed complaint addressing GW violations.
Closure violations identified.
State filed complaint addressing closure violations.
Returned to compliance for closure violation.
Agreed Order finalized.
The site geologic conditions are not particularly suitable for GW
monitoring. The facility has installed several generations of monitoring
systems but none have consistently yielded water. U.S. INDIANA
ARMY AMMO PLANT is in the process of installing additional
monitoring wells and a report is due in 12/90. State needs to evaluate
this report before returning the facility to compliance.
RTC CATEGORY
Old.s* Violation
4127i13
InIIa l V o....J E, o.m.ct
Ill $3 n .Md
FIn E,doruam.nt Action
1 S A ,,.d Ovd.r
VIOLATIONS • CP: inadequate closure plan (resolved)
• GW: inadequate (3W monitoring system.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 74
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
U.S. JOLIET ARMY AMMUNITION
PLANT U.S. ARMY (JAAP)
Illinois
L7 213 820 460
Surface
thipoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Facility resistance
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
12/8/83
2/2/84
12 /21/84
1985-88
9/21/88
5/19/89
State identified GW monitoring violations.
State cited same GW violations and closure violations.
EPA issued Notice of Noncompliance.
Same violations cited again.
EPA issued another Notice of Noncompliance.
CERCLA § 120 Compliance Agreement signed.
STATUS Since the Agreement was signed, JAAP has been in compliance with
the CERCLA § 120 Order. Also JAAP submitted a schedule for the
RCRA Facility Study and the remedial design/remedial action to EPA
for comments and for final remediation of the site.
. d FInN J oiina Ei .,osm.qi*
siiaeaa .RcLA 1120 Co.n 4 ou A rssir
VIOLATIONS
• CP: no approved plan
• GW: inadequate GW monitoring program.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 75
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
U.S. NAVAL WEAPONS SUPPORT
CENTER (CRANE)
Indiana
1N5 170023498
Wastepile
Surface
impoundments
S
State
.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Technical complexity
PENALTY
HISTORY
9/10/84
12126/84
1986
12/30/86
STATUS
Inspection cited closure violations for wastepile.
State issued complaint requiring submittal of a closure plan.
State approved closure plan. U.S. NAVAL WEAPONS SUPPORT
CENTER initiated closure.
State issued CAFO.
Waste and soil were removed from U.S. NAVAL WEAPONS SUPPORT
CENTER. Facility is working to demonstrate clean closure for the wastepile.
The facility’s closure plan for the surface impoundments is being reviewed by
the State.
O4dsu Violatic
In tI Form Es oivs .
1
VIOLATIONS • C?.
Assessed: $16,000
Collected: None
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 76
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
USS GARY WORKS & TUBING
SPEC. (U.S.X.)
Indiana
IND 005 4-44 062
Surface
impoundments (3)
State
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Hearing process, Facility resistance
VIOLATIONS • GW: inadequate monitoring system.
PENALTY
Assessed: $70,000
Collected: None yet since final
settlement is being negotiated.
HISTORY
4/17/85
9/3/87
11130187
12/87
1989
12/89
i 0
STATUS
Inspection cited violations.
State issued Notice of Violation to U.S.X.
Because a consent Decree could not be negotiated within the statutory
time frame, a Commissioners’ Order was issued.
U.S.X. has filed an answer to the order and negotiations again failed.
U.S.X. has filed monthly status reports in conjunction with the three
closures ever since.
U.S.X. conducted an extensive hydrogeólogic study to determine
what kind of monitoring system will be required.
State completed initial review of the study and returned it.
U.S.X. is revising the study for final submission. If the State agrees
with the proposed monitoring system, further litigation and
administrative hearings will not be pursued.
U.S.X. is very large (7 miles by 1 mile, one of the largest steel mills
in the US). The site sits between two rivers and on a lake and is
hydrogeologically complex because GW flows in different and variable
directions, requiring separate monitoring systems. The complex
technical issues associated with this case resulted in a lengthy process
to issue the Notice of Violation. Three closures have been
accomplished separately. U.S.X. must submit the final version of the
required hydrogeologic study. State must review and approve the GW
system for the facility to return to compliance. Penalties of $70,000
were assessed by the State. A final settlement is yet to be negotiated.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 77
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
USS LEAD REFINERY
Indiana
!ND047030226
Wastepiles
Landfill
State -- closure, OW
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
Assessed: $39,874
Collected: None
HISTORY
7/10/84
1986
5/6/87
12/11/89
12/89
12/89
4/90
STATUS
Violations cited.
Complaint issued.
Amended complaint issued.
Scheduled hearing canceled when presiding judge decided not to hear
the cases against USS LEAD and its parent company together (after
first deciding to hear them together).
Agreed Order under negotiation between the State and USS LEAD’S
parent company.
Bankruptcy proceedings led EPA to consider use of CERCLA
authority.
Agreed Order effective.
The facility is deserted but remains in violation of most RCRA
regulations. While EPA considers use of CERCLA authority due to
bankruptcy proceedings, State’s Agreed Order of April 1990 requires
implementation of the closure plan for the hazardous wastepile.
VIo Io , ,7I1O14
Fo E,Wor,.m *
&S47 Co. NW
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • CP: no plan
• OW: no monitoring
• FR: failure to demonstrate financial assurance for closure.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 78
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
U VONICS COMPANY, INC.
Ohio
OHDO81 313744
Drum storage unit
.
State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
• Facility resistance, Financial
Assessed: $15,000
Collected: $15,000
State inspector discovered violations.
EPA issued §3008(a) Complaint for above violations. UVONICS
claimed that the facility was not EPA regulated and that violations were
unproven.
UvONICS began soil sampling; submitted closure plan.
State issued §3008(a) Final Order.
UvONICS submitted revised closure plan for State review.
The facility is a small yard behind the UVONICS factory. Cited
violations are based on the inspector’s observation of a drainage pipe
dripping into the yard, which the inspector judged to be in violation of
EPA regulations. Arguing that it was not EPAregulated, UVONICS
decided to call the unit a drum storage unit. UVONICS hoped this
would absolve them from not filing a Part A. UVONICS agreed to do
soil sampling as a drum storage unit and samples are being submitted
to the State. State is reviewing closure plan..
Id.s* ViolsUon
11 (71 4
Fonn&
2L 5 Q s) Comp4U
FN M FCnfl& E ......t
3f5 9$ 1IO (a FbI d.r
VIOLATIONS • OW: insufficient monitoring
FR: failure to provide assurance for closure.
HISTORY
1117/84
6126/85
9/16/85
3/5/86
6/89
STATUS
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 79
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORP.
Illinois
ILD 000 814 673
Surface
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Bankruptcy/CERCLA, Financial
Assessed: $65,000
Collected: $65,000
HISTORY
7/18/84
1985-88
2/19/86
‘15/88
9/23/88
9/15189
9129/89
STATUS
GW monitoring violations discovered.
State identified additional GW violations.
Financial violations identified.
Financial and closure violations identified.
EPA issued complaint addressing all violations.
Facility previously placed on the CERCLA National Priorities List;
CERCLA Consent Decree signed to remediate and close site.
CAFO signed requiring closure, post-closure monitoring and
maintenance, and GW monitoring.
VELSICOL CHEMICAL is currently complying with the CAFO and
CERCLA Consent Decree but will not be returned to compliance until
closure is completed. Closure is expected to take approximately three
years.
Old..t V1o atIon
7r1 1/$4
ktftlsi Forn l Enfoqv. m
I23 U ConM
VIOLATIONS • CP
• GW: monitoring
•FR.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 80
-------
Region V
‘
COMPANY
FACILiTY
TYPE
-
LEAD
VULCAN MATERIALS
Wisconsin
W1D046536231
Wastepile/container
storage area
Tanks(2)
EPA-- State referral
State — CP
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Facility resistance
PENALTY Assessed: $9,950 Collected: $9,950
HISTORY
511/85
3/30/88
5/89
11122/89
1 1 22i90
1/30,90
217/90
STATUS
Violations cited. State referred the wastepile/container storage
violations to RCRA.
EPA issued an order for the wastepile/container storage area,
requesting State to refer the two tanks to EPA as well.
EPA amended the 3/88 order to include all three facilities.
Difficult negotiations led to a signed CAFO.
Revised closure plan due to State.
VULCAN submitted closure plan and $600 review fee to State.
VULCAN submitted revised closure plan; still owes $1,300 in review
fees.
The company initially considered the removal of the two additional
tanks not subject to EPA regulations. VULCAN knocked in the walls
of one tank, buried it, and built another unit on top of it, maldng it very
difficult to access or evaluate the original tank. The other tank was
replaced as part of “routine” equipment replacement activities.
Environmental concern persists because the two tanks are on pads that
are cracked and mercury has leaked into surrounding soil. VULCAN
must implement closure plan as approved by the State to return to
compliance. EPA is negotiating a Corrective Action Order.
.* V1oi ion
Sf7185
I InlU Fon , I
I S f 3 11 [ j . Ordir
VIOLATIONS • CP: Class I.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 81
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
WILLCUT LANDFILL
Indiana
IND 000 772 707
Landfill
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Hearing process
VIOLATIONS • CP: no approved closure plan
• GW: no monitoring program
• FR: failure to provide assurance and insurance since 1983.
PENALTY
Assessed: $5,250
Collected: None
HISTORY
11/19/81
1982
1983
1986
3/24/87
4/2/87
5/19/87
12/89
STATUS
GW violations cited.
State, under the authority of the Indiana Solid Waste Act, and
WILLCUT LANDFILL entered into an Agreed Order. The State
approved closure plan that was acceptable for a municipal waste dump
but left Out all RCRA requirements. WILLCUT LANDFILL has
complied with this order.
WILLCUT LANDFILL closed down all disposal operations.
State referred the case . to EPA because it was bound by the 1982
Agreed Order and had no other recourse.
EPA overfiled and issued complaint requiring compliance with RCRA
requirements (install GW monitoring wells, implement a RCRA
closure plan, and satisfy financial requirements).
AU dismissed EPA’s case for lack of jurisdiction.
EPA filed an appeal.
No decision yet rendered on the appeal.
WILLCUT LANDFILL is a solid waste landfill that accepted a few
loads of hazardous waste after the effective date of RCRA regulations.
It subsequently closed and its owner claims to not have enough
finances to implement a RCRA closure plan. AU dismissed the case.
Case is the subject of ongoing litigation and a decision on appeal by
EPA has not yet been rendered.
O4du VIoIat on
iliwal
I k KIml Foin EnS
3/2417 Con
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 82
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
WITCO ALLIED KELITE
Michigan
MID 081 601 122
Landfill
State
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays
Assessed: $26,910
6,500
Collected: $20,230
HISTORY
211/85
9/19/85
&22/87
7/13/89
10125/89
12/5/89
1/12190
STATUS
Violations discovered.
Administrative Order issued.
CAFO issued.
Final certification of closure completion was submitted and is under
review.
Review of closure certification completed, comments sent to facility.
Revised closure plan submitted.
Closure plan approved.
Completion and certification of closure was not complete as of 6/22/87.
Certification was submitted 7/13/89 and is currently under review.
Other violations were returned to compliance by f ’22/87. Facility was
scheduled to be certified closed by end of FY90.
Old * Vio4 ian
21uS$
i Fonn.i E, .m&d
Sf1 ’U Adin. Ordr
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
•CP
• Other generator requirements (resolved).
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 83
-------
Region V
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
WOODLAND MEADOWS LANDFILL
NORTH .
Michigan
M1D000810408
Landfill
EPA
.
.
RTC CATEGORY
HISTORY
7/29/83
• 7/6/84
12/86
fd87
‘25/87
STATUS
• Hearing process, Facility resistance
Assessed: $35,350.
Collected: None
Violations discovered.
EPA issued. §3008(a) Complaint.
Attempts at informal settlement continued until AU hearing was held.
Settlement could not be reached prior to hearing.
Final briefs were submitted to AU.
§3008 Final Order issued.
To date, no decision has been returned by the AU.
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
F
• GW: monitoring system, assessment plan, well installation.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 84
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
AZTEC MANUFACTURING
Texas
TXD 008 012 148
Surface
impoundments
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
Assessed: $74,250
Collected: $18,000
HISTORY
5120/85
9/18/86
10/5/87
9/86
5/88
4/89
l 90
4i90
6190
9 /90
10,90
STATUS
Violations identified.
EPA issued LOIS Complaint.
EPA tiled amended complaint.
AZTEC MANUFACTURING submitted GW Investigation Plan.
Investigation Plan, requiring monitoring well installation, was
approved.
State report indicated that AZTEC MANUFACTURING has not fully
implemented GW Investigation Plan.
Re-negotiation of Consent Agreement delayed. Regional attorney to
be assigned.
New Regional attorney assigned.
AZTEC MANUFACTURING submitted evidence that closure was
completed.
CAFO sent to AZTEC MANUFACTURING.
CAFO approved.
EPA and the State disagreed as to whether AZTEC
MANUFACTURING’S electroplate coating facility was regulated,
which delayed EPA enforcement action. EPA did an extensive review
prior to.issuing the complaint. The length of time necessary to file an
amended complaint incorporating the State referred violations was due
to a lapse in State authorization and the need for analytical data.
Signing the CAFO was delayed due to the reluctance of the
Respondent’s new legal representation to sign a previously negotiated
document. The case was complicated by turnover of ORC personnel
and technical staff.
‘—A— ———
W1I4S L $ Co , gM,1
VIOLATIONS . • CP
.0W
•FR.
PENALTY
12/l4 9Q - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 1
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
BASIN REFINING, INC.
(OKMULGEE REFINERY)
Oklahoma
OKD 004 998 225
Landfill
Surface
impoundment
Land treatment
EPA
:
RTC CATEGORY
STATUS
• Hearing process, Bankruptcy/CERCLA, Financial
Assessed: $155,000
Collected: None yet due to
bankruptcy proceedings.
Violations identified.
EPA filed a Complaint, Compliance Order, and Notice of. Opportunity
for Hearing pursuant to RCRA §3008.
Case referred to AU.
BASIN REFINING was released from bankruptcy with assets
including the refinery and approximately $1,000.
The parties entered into a Stipulation of Fact disposing of all the
factual issues in the administrative action.
Due date issued by the ALl for submission of brief on all legal issues.
EPA awaiting the ALl ruling.
AU decision rendered, requiring closure.
Presently, BASIN REFINING cannot afford to perform closure of the
facility and preliminary assessment by EPA (CERCLA) indicates that
it probably will not be eligible for Federal funding. Unless solvent
parties are identified, it is unlikely that the regulated unit will be
closed. The AU decision requires BASIN REFINING to close units
under RCRA. EPA has not opposed BASIN REFINING’S request
for a 180 day extension to pursue financial assistance from previous
owners.
o n
I I4
UI Fom
I - - —
An Fo,n Enfo,osm
I
VIOLATIONS • CF
•GW
‘FR.
PENALTY
HISTORY
1/4/84
9/30/86
1(7/87
319/88
2/16/89
4 /28/89
2190
7/31 190
12/l4, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 2
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
BLOOMFIELD REFINERY
(PLATEAU INC.)
New Mexico
NMD089416416
Landfill
Landfill pond
Oily water ponds
(2)
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY
• Technical complexity, Facility resistance
PENALTY
HISTORY
3129/84
1984
3127/85
9125/85
11123/85
11f2fil85
1 212f ’88
9/89
12/30/89
STATUS
Assessed (1st order):
Assessed (2nd order):
$75,000
$5,700
O d.s$ VbI4 n
3 -—4
In iai Form E, ,fo4w*m. 1 F i FormaJ Enfo ae
3/27/85 Cor ØU4 H 11/28/85 CAFO
VIOLATIONS • CP
.0W
• FR: no assurance for closure.
Collected: $75,000
Collected: $5,700
EPA inspection identified violations.
NEIC conducted criminal investigation for alleged transport of
hazardous waste without manifest to unpermitted storage facility.
Complaint issued.
CAFO issued, incorporating the 3/27/85 Compliance Order and a
§3013 Order.
GARY ENERGY, which purchased BLOOMFIELD REFINERY
from PLATEAU INC., submitted a closure plan to State calling for
clean closure. Plan was denied; 2 subsequent submissions have also
been denied.
GARY ENERGY signed CAFO; paid $5,700 penalty.
Compliance date for final closure under the 1 1/26/85 CAFO.
EPA conducted inspections indicating additional violations.
EPA’s inspection report was due forcompletion.
The closure plan has been submitted, rejected, and revised several
times because of the proposal of clean closure when OW
contamination is present. Initial review of the 9/12/89 inspection
indicated OW violations. EPA is providing the State technical
assistance to develop an approvable closure plan. Proper closure will
alleviate OW violations.
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 3
-------
Region VI
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
MERCURY MARINE Land disposal
EPA.
.
RTC CATEGORY
• Hearing process
PENALTY
Assessed: $32,285
Collected: None yet since a Final
Order has not been issued.
HISTORY
5/17/84
2i23/84
5/17/84
6129/84
9/17/85
12120/85
11123/87
STATUS
11/21/89
7/31i90
Violations discovered.
State referred case to EPA.
EPA conducted inspection.
EPA issued Compliance Order with penalties.
A hearing on the case was held and new evidence was submitted.
A second hearing was held.
Regional counsel contacted AU to check on the case and was advised
that a decision was imminent.
EPA attorney contacted the AU’s office and was advised that a
decision was expected by early 12/89.
AU decision rendered, requiring closure and closure-related activities.
AU decision was initially expected in 12/89. It was finally rendered
in 7/90 and requires closure and closure-related activities.
I
ds Y o4ilcn
1 ( 17 1 14
IIU Foiu
I E otcsm.n
I 113110 AU O.c on
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW.
l2/l4 90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 4
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
CAL WEST METALS
New Mexico
N1v12 730 099 999
Surface
impoundment
Wastepiles (24)
EPA
• Technical complexity, Hearing process, Financial,
Bankruptcy/CERCLA
PENALTY
HISTORY
1/16/86
8/28/86
7/15/87
7121/87
5/15-17/89
6/26/89
9/29/89
12/89
STATUS
Assessed: $25,500 Collected: None yet due to
owner/operator’s demonstration of
inability to pay.
Inspection identified violations.
EPA issued Administrative Order to former owners and Notice of
Noncompliance to Small Business Administration (S BA), owners
through foreclosure.
Final Order was issued to former owners.
CAL WEST METALS conditionally sold back to original owners.
EPA performed a sampling inspection of the site.
Sampling results indicated the presence of lead above EP-toxicity limits.
Civil Referral submitted to DOJ for noncompliance with CAFO.
CAL WEST METALS ranked for CERCLA; placed on the CERCLA
National Priorities List (NPL).
CAL WEST METALS was an abandoned site including 1 surface
impoundment and 24 wastepiles, which were combined according to
plans not submitted to or approved by EPA. SBA became the owner of
CAL WEST METALS through foreclosure proceedings after the
original owners defaulted on a SBA loan, making it a Federal facility.
SBA sold CAL WEST METALS back to the original owners with
conditions for compliance with State and Federal requirements.
Currently, the original owners are in violation of the 7/15/87 Consent
Agreement; have failed to submit sufficient information; and have failed
to correct deficiencies in a timely manner. This case is now being
handled under CERCLA. HWDMS will reflect facility is on the NPL.
RTC CATEGORY
Oldest VIolaflon
1/16/88
II fn IaI Formal Enfor emeni J Arii FO Tr emerfl
S Adm Order II der
VIOLATIONS • GW
•FR
• Other: failure to submit Part A.
l2/l4, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 5
-------
Region VI
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
CLIMAX CHEMICAL Co.
New Mexico
NMD 990 753 931
Surface
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
PENALTY Assessed: $26,800
HISTORY
8/23/85
5122/86
9/ 3 0/8 6
10/23/86
1117/86
1,9/87
2/20/87
3/16/87
3/25/87
6123/87
7/10/87
6/20/88
917/8 9
• 12/1/89
1/90
5/8/9 0
• 6/15/90
STATUS
Collected: None, case under appeal.
Violations identified.
Case referred to EPA.
EPA issued complaint with a proposed penalty of $26,800.
Settiement- conference held.
The facility submitted amended closure plans.
Status report filed; case referred to AU.
Prehearing exchange filed.
Respondent’s contingency plan received.
Notice of Hearing received from the AU.
Original hearing date.
Hearing postponed at EPA’s request and never rescheduled by AU.
CLIMAX CHEMICAL submitted pre-closure plan to EPA.
EPA reviewed pre-closure plan and transmitted comments.
Settlement Agreement about GW monitoring system should be signed.
Compliance Agreement issued; facility required to install new wells.
EPA sent draft CAFO to CLIMAX CHEMICAL.
EPA filed status report with AU, indicating that CLIMAX
CHEMICAL’S response to the draft CAFO had not yet been received.
EPA is awaiting the revised pre-closure plan. State is negotiating
resolution of GW violations. The 1/90 Compliance Agreement
requires the facility to characterize the uppermost aquifer, install all
new monitoring wells; and initiate compliance monitoring. The
facility has no closure plan (the pre-closure plan only addressed GW
violations). This case is complicated by facility’s antagonism
(warrants were required to complete some inspections); dispute
between State and EPA (State wants the case referred back from
EPA); physical characteristics of the site preventing clean closure.
VIOLATIONS
•CP
• GW: inadequate monitoring system.
- Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 6
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
COASTAL REFINING AND
MARKETING
Texas
TXDOO8 132268
Landfill
EPA - 1986 Order
State - 1989 Order
• Processing delays, Facility resistance, Fmancial
Assessed: $102,000
Amended: $71 ,000
Collected: $39,000
HISTORY
3/418 6
2/17/87
STATUS
9130/87
12/3/87
12/87
11/8/88
5126/89
6/27/89
8/89
2i90
Violations identified.
State authorization lapsed, Regional Council cleared the way for the
case to
continue.
EPA issued Complaint, Compliance Order, and Notice of Opportunity
for Hearing.
COASTAL REFINING AND MARKETING filed answer.
Complicated negotiations conducted.
State pursued separate enforcement action; facility changed proposed
closure plan
due to changes in land disposal restriction requirements.
EPA issued CAFO containing compliance schedule.
Final Order issued for inadequate OW assessment, no OW monitoring
of landfill, and no closure cost estimates.
COASTAL REFINING AND MARKETING submitted closure plan.
State reviewing closure plan; facility is working toward closure.
Case affected by the temporary loss of State authorization; a separate
enforcement action of 11/88; changes in the proposed closure plan
pursuant to changes in land disposal restriction requirements (effective
11/8/88); and careful case development because it was one of the early
petroleum refinery wastewater flow return cases. The company
asserted that previously submitted closure plans were never reviewed
by State. Subsequently, EPA dropped 2 1/2 counts due to insufficient
evidence, leaving 7 outstanding violations.
RTC CATEGORY
iii Enforc.m.rI
:7 ConçIa vl
flv J F ny J Er cr
2S’89 CAF
VIOLATIONS • CP
• OW: inadequate monitoring (dropped).
PENALTY
l2/14, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 7
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
EAGLE PITCHER• EOM
Oklahoma
OKD 007 158 454
Surface
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays
PENALTY
HISTORY
11/8/85
7/17/86
10/29/87
2/17/89
10/23/89
2/90
2/17/90
STATUS
Assessed: $137,500 Collected: $91,666
EAGLE PITCHER - EOM lost its interim status because it was not
in compliance with all GW monitoring requirements.
EPA issued complaint for operating without a permit or interim status.
Discharges into the impoundment ceased.
CAFO issued, requiring EAGLE PITCHER - EOM to cease
discharge into the impoundment; submit a sampling and analysis plan
and a revised closure plan; and amend the facility contingency plan.
EAGLE PITCHER - EOM fulfilled all the requirements of the
CAFO; submission was received by EPA.
EPA reviewed the final submission, found it inadequate, and planned
to issue a letter to EAGLE PITCHER - EOM to amend the plan.
Final penalty payment due.
EAGLE PITCHER - EOM lost its interim status because it was not
in physical compliance with all GW monitoring requirements. The
violation period was 11/8/85 to 10129/87. In a complex negotiating
process, the complaint was amended three times between 1986 and
1989. At this time, EAGLE PITCHER - EOM has fulfilled all the
requirements of the CAFO. However, the final submission was
found to be inadequate, so EPA will require plan amendments.
I Ir U FO4TnaJ ioic.m.i*
7/17/86 Cotr lalrl
I
Anal Fonn Erlorc.ma.1
2 17/8G CAFO
VIOLATIONS • GW: monitoring
Other: loss of interim status.
12/l4i O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 8
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER
Oklahoma
OKD 000 803 205
Landfill
.
.
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays
PENALTY
HISTORY
8123/85
6/13/86
2/10/87
7/28/87
5126/88
11/88
12127/88
4/16/89
10/89
3i9/90
STATUS
Assessed: $65,000 Collected: $33,000
Inspection identified violations.
EPA inspection identified LOIS violations.
EPA issued LOIS Compliance Order.
EPA issued amended Compliance Order.
CAFO issued.
FIRESTONE submitted a closure plan.
EPA approved FIRESTONE’S GW monitoring plan and sampling
and analysis plan; implementation began on time.
EPA reviewed FIRESTONE’S closure plan, found deficiencies, and
itemized them in a letter to the State.
State issued Notice of Deficiency requiring revised closure plan,
which was submitted shortly thereafter.
Closure plan approved. facility is in compliance.
The Compliance Order following EPA’s inspection was delayed
because of regulations which stated that one-upgradient and three-
downgraclient wells are required to monitor a waste management area.
EPA performed a lengthy analysis and determined that spacing
between the downgradient wells at FIRESTONE made them incapable
of yielding representative OW samples. FIRESTONE began
implementing the GW monitoring plan and a sampling and analysis
plan on schedule. EPA recently approved FIRESTONE’S revised
closure plan. FIRESTONE fulfilled CAFO requirements and case has
been closed.
- ‘ o mai Er fcrc. ,y.rl F r ’..i Forr.i & *ov m.r
I vlomlccm os
VIOLATIONS
• CP (resolved)
• OW (resolved)
• FR (resolved).
12/ I 4,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 9
-------
Region VI
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
FORMOSA PLASTICS, POINT
COMFORT
Texas
TXT49O 011 293
Surface
impoundment or
tank
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Technical complexity, Facility resistance
Assessed: $8,331,5000
Collected: None yet
HISTORY
2125/86
4/20/87
5123/87
9/11/87
STATUS
10/88
2/28/89
8/89
2 190
10/3i90
• Violations identified.
Case development inspection and regulatory study conducted.
State referred FORMOSA PLASTICS to EPA for enforcement action.
EPA issued 2 Administrative Orders: a §3008(a) for RCRA violations
and an order to identify potential subsurface releases.
EPA commented on the Hydrogeological Investigation Plan.
EPA withdrew §3008(a) Order without prejudice pursuant to AU
pressure.
Facility required to conduct a hydrogeologic study, sampling and
analyses.
FORMOSA PLASTICS was implementing hydrogeological
investigation but scheduled completion date had expired.
EPA filed §3008(a) Order against FORMOSA PLASTICS, with a
$8,331,500 calculated penalty.
Several issues have complicated this case: case reassignment at EPA;
FORMOSA PLASTICS’s assertions that the releases identified 4
times between 1983 and 1988 are “de minimus losses,” i.e., operating
losses normally encountered even with well maintained equipment;
and the issue of tank versus surface impoundment definition
(FORMOSA PLASTICS argued that its facility should be regulated as
tank unit and not a surface impoundment subject to GW monitoring
requirements). EPA is currently negotiating a 3008(h) Order and
Corrective Action Plan with the facility.
F
OSde.t ‘Ao4sdon
IiIt d Fo n J o canw ,
1V*7 Ad , . ‘dsv
1 Fonnl Enforc.m.n* L
31/90 AU O.c on
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
•FR.
PENALTY
12/14 90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 10
-------
Region VI
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
FRIr INDUSTRIES
Arkansas
ARD 059 636 456
Surge pond
Wastepile
State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY Assessed: $21,750
26,000
10,000
HISTORY
5/31/84
3125/86
6123/87
STATUS
8/1/88
512/89
9/7/89
1217/89
10130/90
Collected: $7,950 (1st Order)
8,000 (2nd Order)
10,000 (3rd Order)
EPA and State inspection identified violations.
State issued formal enforcement Order.
Consent Administrative Order was finalized and issued for closure of
regulated units, GW monitoring, and non-sudden liability insurance
requirements.
State conducted record review and found FRIT INDUSTRIES
noncompliant.
Financial assurance for closure demonstrated but closure plans found
deficient.
State issued a second Consent Administrative Order for
noncompliance with the 6123/87 Order.
Scheduled date for compliance with the 917/89 Order.
FRIT INDUSTRIES appealed State-modified closure plan.
FRIT INDUSTRIES is still out of compliance with the Final Order,
issued 917/89. The Order stipulated penalties for failure to adhere to
scheduled compliance dates, as outlined in the initial 6/23/87 Order.
The enforcement course is being determined by balancing efforts to
enforce both orders and avoid forcing FRn’ INDUSTRIES out of
business. The financial solvency of the firm is being questioned, and
EPA has made the preliminary judgement that the site would not rank
for CERCLA cleanup. FRIT INDUSTRIES is appealing the closure
plan as modified by State.
I
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
O d.* VloIa1Ion
S’31 184
IrguaJ Fcnn J Es ocm.i W Final Form.J Er aow
3 25 8S Est sr U 6 23fa7 Cor*.1 Or r
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
• FR: non-sudden liability insurance.
12/14i O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 11
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
GARY AEROSPACE CORP.
Texas
TXD 008 110637
Surface
impoundments (2)
State
PENALTY
• Processing delays
Assessed: $3,399
Collected: $3,399
HISTORY
5130/85
4/4/8 6
6/17/86
12/8/88
STATUS
S tate inspection discovered violations.
State issued Administrative Complaint.
CAFO negotiated and signed.
Facility returned to compliance.
The compliance date was not entered into HWDMS in a timely
manner, thus indicating the facility was out of compliance when, in
fact, compliance was achieved in 1988. Compliance has now been
entered into HWDMS.
RTC CATEGORY
Okis.i VIo at on
Inlial Fouyna Erdcrcsm.il
4/4/86 Comp4W
Ac i Foiyn& Edo cm.r
6/17/86 CAFO
Ri,n to Conp ancs
12/8/88
VIOLATIONS
• GW: Class I (resolved)
• FR (resolved)
• Other (resolved).
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 12
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
HALE DUSTING SERVICE, INC.
Texas
TXD057573438
Surface
impoundment
.
State
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY
• Facility resistance, Financial
PENALTY
HISTORY
STATUS
4/16/86
11/24/86
1 /28/87
1 19j90
Assessed: None because of conflicting regulatory requirements.
State inspection identified Class I violations.
State issued Administrative Complaint.
State issued Final Order.
State referred to EPA for failure to return to compliance by CAFO
deadline.
This case was complicated by conflicting regulatory requirements.
HALE DUSTING SERVICE was following the guidance of the State
Agricultural Agency prior to the 3/12/85 inspection. It was not in
violation of any Agricultural Agency regulations at the time. When the
jurisdiction over HALE DUSTING SERVICE was passed on to the
State RCRA Program, the facility was found to be in violation of
RCRA regulations. Because of this regulatory conflict, no penalties
were deemed appropriate. The State referred the case to EPA for all
violations. The facility does not have sufficient capii a1 to complete
closure. EPA and State will work together to determine the best
procedure to achieve closure of the facility.
Ok V1o ation
4’l 6/ 6
1i Enfo4 msnt F r ,aj Formal Er orcern.r1
Cornp a ru U 1t28187 Fr al Order
VIOLATIONS • CP: Class I
• OW: Class I (resolved)
• FR: Class I.
l2/l4 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 13
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
HuFFMAN WOOD PRESERVING
Co., INC.
Oklahoma
OKD 053 128 492
Surface
impoundments
State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HISTORY
4/17/86
10/1/86
3/30/87
5(21/87
STATUS
7/1/8 8
12/8/88
3129/89
4/13,90
8i90
• Processing delays, Technical complexity
Assessed: None since State law prohibits penalties unless the
compliance schedule has been violated.
S tate inspection identified violations.
Inspection report finalized.
Formal enforcement action taken by State.
Final Order issued, after which new monitoring wells were installed to
gather data for hydrogeologic investigation report.
State received hydrogeologic investigation report.
State reviewed facility report and requested additional information.
The facility requested and received an extension to respond.
Additional inspections discovered no new violations.
Facility’s attorney met with State. Facility will respond in 45 days.
Scheduled compliance date.
The 3/30/87 order required the facility to submit a hydrogeologic
investigation report; a GW monitoring system plan; a sampling and
analysis plan; and develop a GW assessment plan. After this order,
HUFFMAN WOOD PRESERVING did install new monitoring wells
to gather data for a hydrogeologic investigation report. Currently, the
facility is awaiting approval of this report before proceeding. The
order also requires the facility to develop a GW monitoring system
and submit a GW monitoring pian for approval. The facility may be
required to apply for a post-closure permit after the hydrogeologic
study is completed.
V1OW
4/17/88
fr Fa &do me
‘ ‘ T Erd. Acuon__J
I
I F1naJFormaJEr orc.merl
VIOLATIONS • CP: inadequate plan
• GW: monitoring
• FR: no assurance for closure (resolved).
12/14 O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 14
-------
Region VI
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
Co. Surface
impoundment (1)
Landfills (2)
State
.
:
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
PENALTY
HISTORY
11120/85
8122/86
11125/86
1120/88
9120/88
2(24/89
STATUS
3124/89
2f24, 2
:Asses : $2,440
State inspection discovered violations.
State issued Administrative Complaint.
CAFO issued.
State inspection discovered that LONE STAR STEEL CO. had
discontinued OW assessment monitoring as required by the CAFO.
State issued Administrative Complaint for new OW violations.
State issued Final Order addressing 9/20/88 Complaint and closing out
the original 11125/86 CAFO.
LONE STAR STEEL Co. submitted GW monitoring plan.
LONE STAR STEEL Co. scheduled for compliance.
The facility was required to implement assessment monitoring.
Sampling results indicated the need to implement assessment
monitoring at the end of each monitoring period, suggesting that the
facility would never get out of assessment monitoring. The company
argued that pH values fluctuate because of the natural conditions of the
area. The State has placed the burden of proof on the facility to
demonstrate that the fluctuating pH values do not indicate
contamination. GW monitoring was discontinued, thereby violating
CAFO requirements. Consequently, a second Final Order was issued
2/24/89 to resolve outstanding GW violations of the 11/25/86 Order.
Currently, the State is reviewing the OW assessment plan submitted
pursuant to the 2/24/89 Final Order. This case is complicated by an
incremental shut down of the business.
O dsl VIoIa on
1/2OI85
In t1 Fomiai Etfott.m.r(
8 22I8t A&,t Corn p ab1
I
Rr i Formal Er orcsm
214189 CAFO
VIOLATIONS • OW: Class I.
Collected: $2,440
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 15
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
MIXON BROTHERS WOOD
PRESERVING, INC.
Oklahoma
OKD 007 336 258
Surface
impoundments (3)
Wastepile (1)
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Technical complexity
Assessed: $1,200
Collected: $1,200
HISTORY
9/4/8 4
3/28/86
9/86
9/30/86
3/31/87
9/87
6-12/88
12/88
5125/89
6/24190
STATUS
Violations identified.
EPA issued LOIS Complaint.
State referred case to EPA.
EPA issued Administrative Order.
The facility submitted the technical investigation outline.
MIxON BROTHERS submitted closure plan, which was denied.
EPA investigated alternative means of closure.
MIxON BROTHERS submitted a second closure plan.
Settlement conference held.
Draft CAFO sent to MIXON BROThERS.
MIXON BROTHERS’ original closure plan indicated that they
intended to close their 3 surface impoundments by incorporating waste
and any contaminated soil into the largest and cleanest unit, which is
prohibited under the LDR rules unless the waste meets treatment
standards. Therefore, EPA investigated alternative means of closure.
Currently, EPA is considering the issues presented at the settlement
conference at which MIxON BROTHERS argued that EPA’s lack of
prompt closure plan review meant that the proposed plan could not be
pursued because Land Ban kicked in. EPA reviewed the closure plan,
found it quite inadequate, and informed MIXON BROTHERS that the
original closure scenario did not meet land disposal requirements. At
present, MIXON BROTHERS is reviewing the draft CAFO.
O desa V o4ahon
9/4184
lnftial Fomal Enomement
3128188 LOIS Complain
Final Formal Enforcement
1Mm. Order
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • CP
Other failure to meet interim status requirements.
12/I4, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 16
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ROGERS COTTONSEED Co.
Texas
TXD 981 055486
Surface
impoundment
EPA
State
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
Assessed: $8,599
Collected: $599
HISTORY
3/14/84
4/15/87
7/14/87
9120/88
STATUS
11/30/88
12/89
5i90
6/cO
8i90
State inspection discovered violations.
State issued Administrative Complaint.
Final Order issued by State.
ROGERS COTTONSEED was not in compliance with scheduled
terms of State Order.
State referred case to EPA.
Administrative Complaint issued by EPA. Complaint was mailed
three times and returned as undeliverable. Regional EPA office has
requested assistance from the ORC to locate the registered agent,
president, and/or owner/operator.
EPA located president, owner, and registered agent.
Administrative complaint issued by EPA.
Motion for default issued by EPA.
When ROGERS COTTONSEED failed to comply with the State
Order, the case was referred to EPA. This course of action was
determined to be a more expeditious option than referring the case to
the State Attorney General’s Office for civil action under the State
program. Staff turnover and heavy case load in the Region VI office
has contributed to delays in resolving this case. At this time, the
facility has failed to respond to the 6/cO complaint. EPA is seeking a
default judgement.
U ln IaJ Siat. En1o, sm.rd Fr aJ sal. Erlorcmsnl
• 4/i 5/87 Aóyi. Con Ialr1 if 7/14/87 Final Ord
Enforcem.ni
m. Complail
VIOLATIONS • CP: Class I
• GW: Class I
• FR: Class I for no assurance for closure
• Other: compliance schedule violation.
PENALTY
12/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 17
-------
Region VI
• COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ROGERS COTTONSEED Co.
Texas
TXD 981 055 486
Surface
impoundment
EPA
State
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
Assessed: $8,599
Collected: $599
HISTORY
3/14/84
4/15187
7/14187
9120/88
STATUS
11/30/88
12/89
5 190
6/90
8/90
S tate inspection discovered violations.
State issued Administrative Complaint.
Final Order issued by State.
ROGERS COTTONSEED was not in compliance with scheduled
terms of State Order.
State refeEred case to EPA.
Administrative Complaint issued by EPA. Complaint was mailed
three times and returned as undeliverable. Regional EPA office has
requested assistance from the ORC to locate the registered agent,
president, and/or owner/operator.
EPA located president, owner, and registered agent.
Administrative complaint issued by EPA.
Motion for default issued by EPA.
When ROGERS COTTONSEED failed to comply with the State
Order, the case was referred to EPA. This course of action was
determined to be a more expeditious option than referring the case to
the State Attorney General’s Office for civil action under the State
program. Staff turnover and heavy case load in the Region VI office
has contributed to delays in resolving this case. At this time, the
facility has failed to respond to the 6/90 complaint. EPA is seeking a
default judgement.
O .st VCt an
3/14/84
m l Iii S1a2. r o4 msI*
4/15/87 A&n. CcfrClaltl
fl& Stat. Erlorc.m.
7/14/87 F n.l Order
nrflal EPA Entorc.m.nt
12i Q Aó,i. Coqrplajrl
VIOLATIONS • CP: Class I
• OW: Class I
• FR: Class I for no assurance for closure
• Other compliance schedule violation.
PENALTY
12/14j90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 18
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
SENTINEL WOOD TREATING CO.
Arkansas
ARD 047 335 096
Surface
impoundments (2)
State
.
HISTORY
9123/85
5/2186
10/6/86
9128/89
12189
12/22/89
ST AT US
• Technical complexity, Facility resistance
Assessed: $2,500
State inspection discovered violations.
State issued SENTINEL an initial formal enforcement order.
Initial order resulted in a final Consent Administrative Order, requiring a
corrective action plan, which the State found deficient.
State issued facility post closure permit and incorporated modifications
to SENTINEL’S proposed corrective action plan.
SENTINEL appealed corrective action aspect of the post-closure permit.
State inspections indicated that facility is in compliance with the 10/6/86
order.
• SENTINEL is in compliance with all the submission requirements of the
10/6/86 order and subsequent inspections indicate no continuing
violations. Though the facility has been cooperating with the State to
comply with the order, the proposed corrective action plan submitted by
the facility had some deficiencies, so the State incorporated corrections
into the facility post closure permit issued 9128/89. SENTINEL
objected to the inclusion of the corrections in the permit, so the facility
appealed issuance of the pennit. The order remained open while
SENTINEL was appealing the permit. SENTINEL has decided to
retract the appeal.
RTC CATEGORY
I
O Vio4atlon
Ir 1La1 Forvnai Entot m
11 5—
j F IFoqmaIEr m. ,1
I ¶O/G 86 Cor .ri Ord.,
VIOLATIONS • GW.
PENALTY
Collected: $2,500
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 19
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
SHELL CHEMICAL CO.
Texas
TXD 067 285 973
Surface
impoundment
State
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays
Assessed: $16,000
Collected: $16,000
HISTORY
4/2/86
7/31/86
3/31/87
8/6/87
7/6,91
STATUS
State inspection identified violations.
State issued Notice of Violation.
SHELL CHEMICAL Co. scheduled for but did not achieve
compliance; State issued Administrative Complaint.
Final Order issued.
SHELL CHEMICAL Co. scheduled for compliance with Final
Order.
SHELL CHEMICAL Co. returned to compliance for closure plan
and financial responsibility violations and is in the middle of GW
monitoring.
O V V oLat n
2m8
InEai Format E orc*ner
O1/87A n. Comp4Hil
I
Fk i Fotm 1o, em.nt
ii Order
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
• CP: Class I (resolved)
• GW: Class!
• FR: Class I (resolved).
12/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 20
-------
Region VI
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
SHORES AG - AIR formerly RABB
DUSTING INC.
Texas
TXD 010 527 679
Surface
impoundment
State
• Processing delays, Financial
Assessed: None because of conflicting regulatory requirements.
State inspection identified violations.
State issued Administrative Complaint.
CAFO issued.
SnORES AG - AIR scheduled for return to compliance.
Follow-up inspection indicated that SHORES AG - AIR was not
meeting requirements of the 10/1/86 CAFO for GW and financial
responsibility violations. SHORES AG - AIR had returned to
compliance on closure plan violation.
State referred case to State Attorney General’s Office.
This case was complicated by conflicting regulatory requirements.
SHORES AG - AIR was following the guidance of the State
Agricultural Agency prior to the 3/12/85 inspection. It was not in
violation of any Agricultural Agency regulations at the time. When the
jurisdiction over SHORES AG - AIR was passed on to the State
RCRA Program, the facility was found to be in violation of RCRA
regulations. Because of this regulatory conflict, no penalties were
deemed appropriate. The State Attorney General has not yet reviewed
the case to determine the appropriate course of action.
RTC CATEGORY
O t Vct&tk
3/12i85
Inlial Fom ErEocsmsrl
et22’se Athi. Con p aV t
VIOLATIONS • CP: Class I
• GW: Class I
• FR: Class I.
PENALTY
HISTORY
3/12/85
8122/86
10/1/86
10/1/88
5/19/89
10/12189
STATUS
12/14 0 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 21
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
SOUTH TEXAS REDI STRIP
Texas
TXD 980 879 076
Land disposal
EPA
PENALTY
• Processing delays, Technical complexity, Financial
Assessed: None due to demonstrated inability to pay.
State inspection identified violations.
State referred case to EPA.
EPA requested information from the facility.
The facility, under new ownership, submitted the closure plan.
EPA conducted inspection with sampling.
Results of EPA inspection available.
EPA issued Administrative Orders to previous and current owners.
New information presented in negotiations resulted in amended Order.
State approved closure plan.
Settlement negotiations commenced.
Settlement reached and Consent Agreement issued.
The facility submitted a no-migration demonstration.
SOUTH TEXAS REDI STRIP submitted copy of soil test results.
A backlog of cases and changes in the Texas State regulations caused
delay. Negotiations proceeded slowly because of the number of
parties involved, all of which claimed inability to pay. During the
negotiations, however, the respondents prepared a closure plan,
initiated a soil sampling plan, and prepared a “no-migration
demonstration.” State feels the facility is compliant with the Consent
Agreement, but the current owner/operator cannot be located and no
one seems to be conducting GW monitoring.
RTC CATEGORY
•O d Violation
1/30 (86
lsItIaI Formil ErWo ,t.ment
if / 30/87Amn.Ord.r
Anal Formal Er orcm.qf
2 ,27/89 Con..rl A reement
• VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
• FR: no assurance for closure
• Other: non-notifier of hazardous waste storage; no interim status
permit.
I IISTORY
1/30/86
7/86
2/19/87
5/14/87
7,23/87
8/30/87
9/30/87
12M87
6/16/88
8iW88
2/27/89
5/5/89
8/3 0/8 9
STATUS
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 22
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
SOUTHWEST AERIAL
APPLICATION
Texas
TXD 981 605 850
Surface
impoundments (3)
State
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Financial
PENALTY
Assessed: $2,720
Collected: None since assessed
penalty was dropped in Final Order.
HISTORY
3/10/86
9/12/86
10/15/86
1128/87
1/17/89
8/18/89
STATUS
12/1/89
State inspection discovered violations.
State issued Administrative Complaint.
Final Order issued and closure plan submitted.
State inspection again noted GW and financial violations.
State conducted inspection.
State issued petition because SOUTHWEST AERIAL
APPLICATION had not completed closure within 180 days.
State issued Final Order for all violations, including a compliance
schedule for implementing the approvable closure plan called for in the
10/15/86 Final Order.
The 10/15/86 Final Order required SOUTHWEST AERIAL
APPLICATION to submit a closure plan. The scheduled compliance
date was changed to reflect a more accurate time frame for GW and
financial violations because SOUTHWEST AERIAL APPLICATION
must clean close before it can comply with the 10/15/86 Order.
Okios* VIo4atIan
3/1 88
N InftI FonnaJ En c c.rner1 N naJ ormaJ
H W1296 A&n. CorrCLair 9 iVii8O Anal doq
VIOLATIONS
• CP: Class I
• GW: Class I
• FR: Class I.
12R4,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 23
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
SOUTHWEST PICKLING, INC.
Oklahoma
0KD091991968
Surface
impoundment
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
PENALTY
hISTORY
4/22/86
10/86
4/31/87
6/22/88
8/ 17/8 8
10/24/88
1 112/88
STATUS
1/26/89
11/20/89
Assessed: None
State inspection identified violations.
State referred GW violation to EPA.
EPA issued complaint.
Final Order issued.
The facility submitted waiver from GW monitoring and closure plan.
SOUTHWEST PICKLING submitted delisting petition.
EPA reviewed the closure plan and waiver and submitted the results to
the State, recommending denial of waiver and revision of closure plan
to include GW monitoring.
State denied waiver and informed SOUTHWEST PICKLING by letter
that GW monitoring was required in the closure plan.
Record review indicated that the company is still out of compliance.
SOUTHWEST PICKLING, a steel pickling facility, continues to
operate its facility as in the past. Currently, however, the hazardous
waste produced (K062) is being discharged into the city sewage
system in accordance with a city permit. SOUTII%VEST PICKLING
tried to have its waste delisted, arguing that the K062 was no longer
hazardous. The company initially used the wrong form to apply for
delisting, then applied for a waiver. Both attempts were denied by
EPA and the State, although the company is proceeding as though the
waste has been delisted. The case is complicated by the facility’s poor
financial status.
C--.---
Ir tIai Fom,ai Enfo ,v.n er* F ai Forma’
4130 ,87 CompIaiil F J 6’fl/ Pnà Ord.,
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW.
12/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 24
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
TEXACO INC. (STAR
ENTERPRISES), PORT NECHES
Texas
TXD 980 626 022
Landfill
Surface
impoundment
EPA
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
Assessed: $124,100
Collected: $109,600
EPA inspection revealed Class I GW violations.
EPA issued complaint.
EPA issued amended complaint.
Final Order issued.
TEXACO INC. submitted a 1-page closure plan.
EPA returned comments on closure plan and hydrogeologic plan, after
which TEXACO INC. submitted new plans..
Hydrogeologic study, sampling plan, and schedule were approved.
Facility submitted second revised closure plan.
EPA will split samples with facility.
Enforcement action was delayed due to the complexity of the case,
alleged uncertainty over TEXACO INC.’S financial stability, and
temporary loss of State authority. Another complicating factor is
EPA’s caution in issuing an order due to the possibility of massive
contamination on the site. The fv’IO/86 Order was a hybrid of a
§3008(h), including requirements such as the hydrogeologic study.
EPA decided not to hand comments back to TEXACO INC. in a
piecemeal fashion and instead returned all comments on 1/1/90. EPA
staff turnover and case reassignment also contributed to slow progress
on this case. Currently, TEXACO INC. is on schedule in meeting the
requirements of the Compliance Order. EPA approved their
hydrogeological characterization, sampling plans, and associated
schedules. Currently, the revised closure plan is being reviewed.
RTC CATEGORY
O d V atbn
5 29I85
Irdlal Form.J Enfor msn* j Fb .I Fom J Es o mr1
8 /I ‘88 CO T ta • E 8 FInal Order
VIOLATIONS • GW: Class I
FR: (resolved).
PENALTY
HISTORY
5129/85
6/10/86
8/28/87
6127/88
9/88
1i 9, 90
4123i90
4/30i90
5/17,90
STATUS
12/l4 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 25
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
TEXAS ELECTRIC COOP
Texas
TXD041468836
Surface
impoundment
.
EPA
Assessed: $2500
Collected: $2500
HISTORY
6/6/8 5
11/85
2/86
7/86
2/87
6/87
10/89
1 2, 0
STATUS
State inspection identified violations.
TEXAS ELECTRIC CooP submitted closure plan.
State determined that closure plan was not acceptable.
State referred case to EPA.
EPA issued initial complaint.
CAFO signed by Regional Administrator for LOIS violations.
TEXAS ELECTRIC COOP submitted revised closure plan.
Clean closure scheduled to be completed.
Because TEXAS ELECTRIC COOP, a pole treating facility, has
failed in its efforts to acquire insurance coverage, the CAFO required
TEXAS ELECTRIC CooP to submit quarterly reports of good faith
efforts to acquire coverage until the surface impoundment is certified
closed. Currently, a newly amended closure plan is under review by
the State and closure is expected to be completed by 12i 0.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Financial
In iii FOrmal Er orc
2187 CompIa t
iI Fo rmai ErIorce
&87 CAFO
VIOLATIONS • CP
‘FR.
PENALTY
l2/l4 O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 26
-------
Region VI
• COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
THOMASON LUMBER
Oklahoma
OKD 007 335 524
Wastepile(2)
Surface
impoundments (2)
State
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
I
O es1 Violallon
11/1
H lr 1 l Formal Er forcem.r1 I Final Formal Er oiv.msr1
I 1 ,13185 ComPlain 12/31/88 CAFO
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
•FR.
PENALTY
Assessed: $26,715
HISTORY
11/15/84
11/13/85
2124/86
12/31/86
Collected: None due to bankruptcy.
2/87
7/87
8/87
12/87
2/88
2/89
6/89
9/89
10/89
2/90
6/90
State inspection identified violations.
EPA pursued LOIS violations; State referred GW violation to EPA.
EPA formally addressed OW violation.
CAFO signed, requiring hydrogeologic study 30 days from approved
closure plan.
The facility submitted a hydrogeologic investigation plan.
Hydrogeologic investigation plan approved and should have been
implemented. TIJOMAsON LUMBER argued that an agreement with
the State enabled the company to delay the implementation until 10/89,
but State records do not reflect this agreement.
The first stage of the soil borings investigation began.
Soil borings were completed.
Report from soil borings investigation submitted.
The State approved the first stage report and continuation into the
second stage of the investigation.
EPA approved bid packages for second stage (piezometer installation).
Piezometer installation began.
Piezometer installation was completed; hydrogeologic study was
begun.
The piezometer study and OW measurements scheduled to be
completed.
A report with proposed monitoring well locations scheduled to be
submitted.
Change in lead agency complicated this case, which is currently on
track with a report on OW assessment due 4/9 1. Closure plan
submittal and approval is expected’to follow.
STATUS
12/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 27
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
TRINITY VALLEY IRON AND
STEEL Co.
Texas
TXD 980 626 048
Landfill
State
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays
PENALTY
HISTORY
12/16/85
4125/86
6/10/86
12/16/88
STATUS
Assessed: None.
State inspection discovered violations.
State issued Administrative Complaint.
State issued Final Order.
TRINITY VALLEY IRON AND STEEL returned to compliance.
The compliance date was not entered into HWDMS in a timely
manner, thus indicating the facility was out of compliance when, in
fact, compliance was achieved 12116/88. Compliance has now been
entered into HwDMs:
dForm& Erito,cenv
I
I 12/
r,aj Formal Erdorcmanl
S’1 6 RnaIOr e
VIOLATIONS • OW: Class I.
12/14 O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 28
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
TULSA CHROME
Oklahoma
OKD 013 720 271
Surface
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays
PENALTY
HISTORY
4/10/85
9/6/8 5
8/15/86
1 1/1/8 8
3120/89
11/20/89
12127/89
8/30i 0
STATUS
Assessed (1st Order): $119,000
Assessed (2nd Order): $6,000
Collected: $5,000
Collected:. None
Inspection identified violations.
EPA took initial enforcement action.
EPA issued Final Order for closure violations.
EPA discovered that TULSA CHROME had not performed required
GW monitoring, so it opened a new case to require the facility to do
more in the area of GW monitoring. CAFO is expected soon.
EPA discovered that the only outstanding violation (financial
responsibility) was said to be addressed in TULSA CHROME
submittals that could not be lOcated in EPA or State files.
EPA requested additional copy of the financial data.
EPA received requested financial documents and is reviewing them.
CAFO issued.
Case review in 3/89 indicated that the only outstanding violation was
addressed in documents submitted to EPA by TULSA CIIRONIE.
The Region VI enforcement log shows EPA receipt of said
documents; however, they could not be located in the case file in
Region VI or State offices. EPA requested and received another copy
of this documentation and is reviewing them at present. If its review
indicates that the facility is in compliance, HWDMS will be revised to
reflect the correct status.
04&isZ V.oIa1 on
S
Inutiai Fomt.i Enorcm.rl F ,n Fi aJ Enfor , .r1
H 5FnaiO ,dsf
VIOLATIONS • CP
• FR: no assurance for closure.
2/14,9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 29
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
U.S. AIR FORCE - HOLLOMAN
AFB
New Mexico
NM6 572 124 422
Surface
impoundments (7)
EPA
.
PENALTY
STATUS
• Facility resistance
Assessed: None since HOLLOMAN AFB is a Federal facility.
Inspection identified violations.
EPA issued complaint.
EPA issued complaint; subsequently, HOLLOMAN AFB submitted
closure plan.
Complaints were resolved by a Federal Facilities Compliance
Agreement.
The State and HOLLOMAN AFB are currently negotiating closure
plan requirements for the sewage lagoons. The Air Force disputed
EPA’s jurisdiction and the application of RCRA §7002 to a defense
related organization, but these problems were resolved in negotiations.
Due to delisting efforts, the State was also a signatory to the Federal
Facilities Compliance Agreement. HOLLOMAN AFB is on schedule
for installing a GW monitoring system, submitting samples, and
implementing a plan for hot-spot clean ups. As the latter is a ‘deviation
from normal procedures, the State has submitted the hot spot
compromise to EPA for review. EPA concluded that HOLLOMAN
AFB must clean close in place. This has been communicated to
HOLLOr IAN AFB.
RTC CATEGORY
Od.
712444
For Ento c.m
W2 S CGm M
Fom £nfo cw .n*
I2J /U FFCA
VIOLATIONS • CP
• GW: inadequate monitoring system.
HISTORY
7/24/84
8/23/85
2/4/87
12120/88
12/14 90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 30
-------
Region VI
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
U.S. AIR FORCE - REESE AFB
Texas
TX8 571 524 091
Surface
impoundment
EPA
• Processing delays
Assessed: None since REESE AFB is a Federal facility.
State inspection discovered violations.
State referred case to EPA. -
EPA issued complaint.
REESE AFB installed wells.
REESE AFB submitted detection GW monitoring plan and sampling
and analysis plan for State and EPA approval.
Final plans submitted and under review.
Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement approved.
Enforcement action was delayed because of changes in State
regulations which did not receive immediate authorization. Also
complicating this case was disagreement over whether Federal and
State RCRA programs had authority to regulate the Federal facility.
Currently, EPA and the State are reviewing the GW monitoring plan
and sampling and analysis plan for the unlined surface impoundments,
which will be implemented by REESE AFB upon approval. At this
time, REESE AFB is in compliance with the complaint.
RTC CATEGORY
OIdst V oIaUon
3/i9IB5
flU Foma E,So cmsi
S I21 7 CorçIk
AnN FonnN
go
VIOLATIONS
• CP: Class I
• GW: Class I
• Other: manifest violations.
PENALTY
HISTORY
3/19/86
5/16/86
6/12/87
9,29/87
1/88-1/90
11/89
9 ,90
STATUS
- Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 31
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
WALKER WOOD PRESERVERS
Texas
TXD 026042 168
Surface
impoundment
EPA - Financial responsibility
State - OW, closure plan
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Financial
Assessed: $4,624
Collected: $4,624
HISTORY
4/10/84
6122/86
10/13/86
2/4/87
8/5/8 8
STATUS
lOt 1 9/88
11/14/88
1/27/89
7/12/89
712 1/89
11/6/89
2/14/90
312/90
State inspection discovered violations.
Administrative Complaint issued.
Final Order issued.
WALKER WOOD returned to compliance for GW violations.
State referred case to EPA (instead of DOJ) for enforcement action to
address financial violations.
EPA issued RCRA §3007 information request.
WALKER WOOD responded to information request and financial
violations.
EPA issued Complaint, Compliance Order, and Notice of Opportunity
for Hearing for the 2 financial violations.
CAFO issued, requiring either closure of the surface impoundment or
liability coverage by 3/18/90.
State approved closure plan.
Facility began closing surface impoundment.
Facility submitted closure certification to State.
State approved closure certification and notified facility it was no
longer required tomaintain financial assurance or liability coverage.
CAFO required surface impoundment to be closed within 240 days of
State approval of the closure plan or to obtain liability assurance.
WALKER WOOD returned to compliance.
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
• CP: Class I (resolved)
• GW: Class I (resolved)
• FR: no assurance for closure (resolved).
12/l4, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 32
-------
Region VI
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
WRIGHT-WAY SPRAYING
SERVICE
Texas
TXD 981 605 868
Surface
impoundment
State
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Hearing process, Financial
Assessed: S ,SO()
Collected: None
II ISTO R Y
10/2/85
7/1/86
1/30/87
STATUS
9/1/87
10/30/87
3/10/88
9/30/88
State inspection discovered violations.
State referred case to EPA because of possible LOIS violations.
EPA conducted record review and referred violations back to State for
enforcement.
State issued Administrative Complaint.
Final Order issued.
State referred case to t\ttorney Generals Office because of failure to
comply with G\V requirements.
Attorney General’s Office filed petition.
Change in lead agency complicated this cisc. Currently, the State has
updated HWDNIS to reflect enforcement action taken by the Attorney
General’s Office.
VIOLATIONS
• CP: Class I
• GW: Class!
• FR: Class I.
PENALTY
12/14, 0 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 33
-------
Region VII
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ARMSTRONG RUBBER Co.
Iowa
lAD 005 292 750
Surface
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • HWDMS data error
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
4 2/86
6/87
11/87
12/87-1/88
3/88
9/88
11/88
4/89
STATUS
Violations identified.
Section 3013 Order issued, requiring monitoring and sampling.
EPA approved ARMSTRONG RUBBER’S monitoring plan.
Field work conducted.
ARMSTRONG RUBBER submitted report on field work.
EPA conducted inspection.
Results of inspection received from laboratory.
EPA requested information and ARMSTRONG RUBBER responded
that the facility was not used for the treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste.
Based on the information provided by ARMSTRONG RUBBER,
EPA determined that the facility was not used for the treatment or
disposal of hazardous waste. The facility’s status was changed to
generator only. The above violations did not actually occur since the
facility was never subject to the requirements.
VIOLATIONS
• CP (resolved)
• GW: monitoring (resolved)
• FR (resolved).
12/14 O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 1
-------
Region VII
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
BLACK HAWK COUNTY LANDFILL
Iowa
lAD 075 848 085
Landfill
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Hearing process, Facility resistance
Assessed: $14,660
Collected: $14,660
• HISTORY
3/4/84
2/4/8 5
STATUS
2/10/86
9/30/86
10/86
3/3/87
8126/87
11/5/87
6/30/88
2/5/89
9121/89
Violations identified.
Black Hawk County Solid Waste Management Commission
purchased facility from Landfill Services Corporation.
EPA issued RCRA § 3008(a) Complaint, Compliance Order, and
Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to Landfill Services Corporation.
Black Hawk County Solid Waste Management Commission entered
§3013 Consent Agreement with EPA, requiring GW monitoring
program to be installed in 2 phases.
Monitoring wells were installed but indications of contamination were
found.
AU issued Interlocutory Order finding the BLACK HAWK
COUNTY LANDFILL in violation of 40 CFR § 265.93(c)(2), (d)(1)
and (d)(2).
Hearing held.
AU issued initial decision with Landfill Services Corporation, which
remains on appeal.
Consent Agreement and Consent Order signed.
EPA approved assessment plan and GW monitoring plan.
EPA accepted closure certification.
On-site monitoring wells were to be installed by 12/89 so monitoring
was to begin 1/90. The approved Phase II plan called for a 6 month
accelerated schedule and the results of the assessment monitoring were
scheduled to be available by 6/90 for potential incorporation into the
post-closure permit. At present, the only outstanding issue is the
penalty for the previous owner operator.
h ftLal Formal Enforcmen*
2 /10/86 §3008 a) Complaint
Final Form.l Eidoro.m.nt
/30f 88 Conw Agr..m.r
VIOLATIONS • GW.
PENALTY
12/l4 90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 2
-------
Region VII
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
COLLIS, INC.
Iowa
1AD047303771
Surface
impoundments (6)
.
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
HISTORY
3/31/86
3/31/87
9/4/87
10/1/87
10,W87
12/5/87
12/31/87
STATUS
6/13/88
7/11/88
8/11/88
11/88
3/15, 0
• Processing delays, Technical complexity, Facility resistance
EPA inspection identified violations.
EPA approved closure plan.
COLLIS submitted GW monitoring plan.
COLLIS requested extension to closure time period.
Comments on GW monitoring plan provided to COLLIS.
COLLIS submitted revised GW monitoring plan.
EPA and COLLIS entered Consent Agreement and Consent Order,
requiring compliance with closure and GW monitoring requirements.
EPA approved GW monitoring plan.
COLLIS submitted revised closure timetable, estimating completion of
closure by 9/30/88.
EPA approved revised closure schedule.
EPA inspection identified GW deficiencies.
COLLIS submitted closure certification.
Contamination noted in 11/88 inspection will delay the completion of
closure because it may have resulted from a release from the
impoundments. Further GW assessment activities are necessary.
Corrective action may be needed.
OId.st VIotat on
3 /31/86
InL*tai nd Final Formal Enfoio.mIM
12/21 /87 Con..u Agr..m.nt
VIOLATIONS • CP(resolved)
• GW: inadequate monitoring (resolved).
PENALTY Assessed: None
l2/l4 O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 3
-------
Region VII
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
FOOTE MINERAL COMPANY
Iowa
LADO41 391772
Landfill
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
IIISTORY
2/81
11/21/83
11128/83
1/15/86
7/1/87
8/5/87
8120/87
9/87
9/3/87
9/8/87
12/3/87
12/20/87
1129/88
STATUS
4128/88
4/88
7/88
9/88
8189
1989
• Processing delays
Assessed: None
Facility requested status change to non-regulated facility.
State required FOOTE MINERAL to test furnace emissions.
FOOTE MINERAL submitted test results to State.
Violations identified.
Consent Agreement and Consent Order entered.
GW monitoring plan submitted.
Outline of GW quality assessment program submitted.
Closure and post-closure plans submitted.
Trust Agreement for financial assurance for C/PC care submitted.
FOOTE MINERAL obtained financial assurance for C/PC.
Facility could not obtain guarantee for non-sudden liability insurance.
Facility was sold but retained liabilities.
Facility established coverage for non-sudden occurrences through
cash deposit into an escrow account, deemed unacceptable by EPA.
Facility submitted adequate document of financial assurance.
Cyprus Metals Specialty Co. acquired FOOTE MINERAL.
Inspection showed inadequate GW monitoring wells and improper
sampling.
EPA approved closure and post-closure plans.
Facility submitted revised GW monitoring plan.
Closure completed.
Closure and financial requirements have been resolved. The Order
resolving GW violations and requiring compliance with post-closure
permit requirements will be enforced. The facility will return to
compliance when the new GW monitoring plan is in effect.
Oldest Violation
1115/86
Initial and Final Formal Enforcement
711187 Consent Agreement
VIOLATIONS
• CP (resolved)
• GW (resolved)
• FR (resolved).
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 4
-------
Region VII
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.
Missouri
MOD 007 129406
Land disposal
EPA
• Processing delays
Assessed: $27,250
GW violations identified.
Initial Order issued under §3008(a)
Final Order issued under §3008(a).
GW assessment plan submitted to EPA.
EPA approved GW assessment plan.
Corrective Action Order signed.
Facility returned to compliance after well installation.
The history of this case closely parallels the other KERR-MCGEE
case (007-128-978). The facility actually returned to compliance
4/9 0, which rendered it out of compliance for over 3 years. Hence,
it remains part of the RTC universe considered in this study (the other
KERR-McGEE case in less than 3 years and was thus categorized as
a returned to compliance HWDMS data error).
RTC CATEGORY
r J Format EnIor meniil Ani Foimal Es ot nS R. zn to Complianc.
3131181 13008(a) dor 10114187 13008(a) O. 4 /9/90
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
• GW: Class I monitoring (resolved).
HISTORY
6/4/8 6
3/31/87
10/14/87
12/17/87
10/4/88
11/10/88
4i I90
STATUS
Collected: $25,000
12/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 5
-------
Region VII
0
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP.
Missouri
MOD 007 128 978
Land
disposal
State
RTC CATEGORY
STATUS
4/83
7/10/86
11/7/86
2/13/87
5129/87
7/16/87
2/10/88
1/17/89
3/31/89
• HWDMS data error
Assessed: None
KERR-MCGEE. submitted its Part A Hazardous Waste Permit
Application and achieved interim status.
KERR-Mc(;CE facility ceased operation.
State investigation identified GW monitoring violation.
State issued Notice of Deficiency.
State issued Administrative Order.
KERR-McGEE submitted Phase I report, addressing GW
monitoring program deficiencies.
KERR-MCGEE submitted closure plan.
State and KERR-MCGEE agreed that additional investigation was
necessary.
KERR-MCGEE submitted closure certification.
State investigation determined that the GW monitoring system was
adequate and the facility returned to compliance.
KERR-MCGEE generated hazardous waste KOOl from its wood
treatment operations. The wastewater was treated through an oil/water
separator and discharged to a clay lined impoundment. The facility is
presently not in operation and is certified closed. State investigation
conducted 3/31/89 determined that KERR-MCGEE was in
compliance with G\V monitoring requirements. A penalty was not
issued in this case because KERR-MCGEE implemented a GW
assessment plan under the State’s direction. This plan did not achieve
compliance, but since the State directed it no penalty was warranted.
O t Vlotat Initial & Final Formal Enfort.m.nt
7 110 /86 2113187 Adm. Ord .,
VIOLATIONS
urn to Complianc.
3131/80
PENALTY
HISTORY
11/18/80
• GW: inadequate monitoring (resolved).
I2/14 O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 6
-------
Region VII
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
PESTER REFINING
Kansas
KSD 981 708084
Surface
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
HISTORY
2125/85
9/15/85
2/28/86
STATUS
3/86
4/10/86
• Bankruptcy/CERCLA, Financial
PESTER REFINING filed for Chapter II Bankruptcy.
State and EPA identified violations.
State issued Administrative Order requiring submittal of closure plan
and GW monitoring.
State filed in bankruptcy court to gain standing in bankruptcy
proceedings.
PESTER REFINING sold most of its assets to Derby/Coastal Corp.,
excluding the hazardous waste surface impoundment for gasoline
retail outlets to generate a monthly income.
PESTER REFINING is on the CERCLA National Priorities List.
Region Vii’s Superfund program closely monitors PESTER
REFINING’S outstanding closure and GW monitoring issues.
PESTER REFINING cannot meet the financial requirements of
closure and GW monitoring. PESTER REFINING is working with
the State and the responsible parties to develop an enforceable
mechanism that will bring the facility into compliance through an
RI/FS study and subsequent remedial action. If negotiations are not
successful soon, EPA will issue a unilateral Administrative Order to
the viable responsible parties pursuant to CERCLA § 104 and
I 22(d)(3).
InftIai Formai Enforcement
V28188 Adm. Order
VIOLATIONS • CP
• GW: monitoring.
PENALTY Assessed: None
2/14 O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 7
-------
Region VII
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
R.V. HOPKINS, INC.
Iowa
LAD 022 096 028
Wastepile
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
• Processing delays, Financial
I
FR: failure to maintain financial assurance for closure; no liability
coverage; failure to update closure cost estimates.
Assessed: $3,500
Collected: $3,500
HISTORY
10/81
8/82
11/83
6/85
STATUS
7/1/85
7/85
5/23/86
12 /28/87
3/88
Violations identified.
Complaint and Compliance Order issued.
Consent Agreement and Consent Order entered.
State inspection revealed failure to maintain financial assurance for
closure, failure to maintain liability coverage, and failure to update
closure cost estimates.
State returned RCRA program to EPA.
EPA inspection revealed same violations as 6/85 State inspection.
Complaint, Compliance Order, and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing
issued.
Consent Agreement and Consent Order issued. Facility demonstrated
inability to pay proposed penalty.
Closure plan approved.
R.V. HOPKINS, INC. claimed and demonstrated poor financial
status. Therefore, closure has not progressed according to the
schedule in the approved closure plan. R.V. HOPKINS, INC.
submitted monthly progress reports addressing financial assurance,
liability insurance, and closure activities. R.V. HOPKINS, INC.
remains out of compliance until closure is completed.
Fo.in& EnSo,c.
1a2 Co M
F na FOrmal Enlorcsmsnt
11/83 Cons.n* Aar nw1
VIOLATIONS
l2/l4, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 8
-------
Region VII
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
TWA INC. TECHNICAL SERVICE
CENTER
Missouri
MOD 043 935 048
Surface
impoundments (2)
Landfill (1)
.
EPA
8/86
8/86, 9/87
7/1/87
9123/87
10/1/87
10/10/87
5/31/88
9/30/88
11/17/88
6/9/89
7/5/89
8(7/89
9/1/89
• Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
Collected: $100,000
EPA inspection discovered violations.
State entered settlement agreement, requiring submission of a revised
closure plan and an amended GW monitoring plan and implementation
of the GW monitoring plan upon approval.
GW detection monitoring system installed.
GW samples taken.
EPA determined that the State would not require compliance with GW
monitoring, closure, and financial assurance requirements. DOJ
requested that EPA delay civil enforcement action to avoid possible
conflicts with an ongoing criminal investigation.
State investigation found GW monitoring violations.
DOJ notified EPA to proceed with civil investigation and enforcement.
State documented failure to develop C/PC plans and financial
assurance.
EPA issued Complaint and a Compliance Order and Consent
Agreement.
State required study of closure alternatives.
Facility established financial assurance for closure.
Facility failed to maintain liability coverage and State referred to EPA.
EPA issued Letter of \Varning requiring compliance by 8(7/8 9.
Facility notified EPA that it could not obtain liability insurance or the
corporate guarantee and could not meet the financial test requirements.
State notified the facility C/PC plans must be submitted by 2/28/90.
EPA continues to require that the facility pursue alternative
mechanisms to comply with the 40 CFR Part 265 liability coverage
requirements.
RTC CATEGORY
ftIaI FormaJ Ento,com.
7 25/86 S.tflement A9r m.nt1
na Ez orc.ment
— nc. Ordr
VIOLATIONS • GW: monitoring
•FR.
PENALTY Assessed: $100,000
ILISTORY
2 /24/86
7/25/86
STATUS
l2/14 O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 9
-------
Region VII
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
U.S. NAMEPLATE
Iowa
lAD 054 758 958
Surface
impoundment
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY
12/31/82
1983
1/84
3/17/84
12/84
3/31/86
8/89
9/89
4 190
STATUS
• Processing delays, Technical complexity
Assessed: $12,000
Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity and Part A of the Permit
Application submitted.
State inspection identifled leak in impoundment.
State required closure of the impoundment or submittal of Part B
permit application with plan for corrective action.
State referred case to EPA.
EPA issued Complaint, Compliance Order, and Notice of Opportunity
for Hearing.
U.S. NAMEPLATE petitioned EPA to delist its waste.
Final enforcement action taken.
EPA entered access agreement allowing EPA to conduct site
investigation.
EPA had 4 GW monitoring wells installed, and granted a one-time
final exclusion for the sludge contained in the surface impoundment
but denied an exclusion to the residual wastes. U.S.
NAMEPLATE’S surface impoundment continued to be defined as a
hazardous waste management unit.
EPA provided facility with a draft RCRA §7003 order.
U.S. NAMEPLATE was removed from the CERCLA National
Priorities List because RCRA had jurisdiction. EPA contractors found
elevated contamination levels at the site in 9/89. EPA is drafting a
workplan for a RCRA Facility Investigation to determine the extent of
contamination. EPA provided U.S. NAMEPLATE a draft RCRA
§7003 order in 4/90.
O do*l V oIt1on
12/31/*2
In U.i F04m11 Enlorcement
3/17/84 CompIa nt
F naI Fomial Enlorcm.nt
3/31/8$ Final Order
VIOLATIONS
•GW.
PENALTY
IJISTORY
2/81
Collected: None
2/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 10
-------
Region VII
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
of IDEX Surface
impoundment
Slurry ponds
Landfill
EPA
.
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
Assessed: $57,150
Collected: None
• IIISTORY
2/84
8/8/ 84
4/85
7/1/85
6/87
STATUS
9/30/87
9/88
12/88
5/89
6/89
Facility submitted delisting petition.
Violations identified.
Facility submitted Part B application.
State returned RCRA program to EPA.
EPA determined that the slurry ponds were occasionally dredged and
the sludge was disposed of in an on-site landfill.
EPA issued Administrative Order.
Settlement was reached.with the facility.
Facility installed acceptable GW monitoring system.
Facility’s closure plan was placed on public notice.
Facility conducted multi-media audit.
When EPA’s workload for implementing RCRA in State increased,
this facility was given a lower priority for enforcement action because
of repeated assurances regarding delisting. Settlement reached 9/88
required compliance with GW monitoring, closure and financial
requirements, sampling, and a multi-media audit. VIKING PUMP is
in compliance with GW monitoring requirements. The facility’s
closure plan is scheduled for approval in FY 90.
RTC CATEGORY
O d..t VIolatI
8/8/84
Initial Fom *I Enlorc.m.ni
9/30/87 Adm. Ord.r
VIOLATIONS • CP
• GW (resolved)
•FR.
PENALTY
I2/I4 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 11
-------
Region VIII
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
BROWNING MANUFACTURING CO.
Utah
UTD 041 310558
Land disposal
State
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays
Assessed: $10,000 Collected: $5,000
Violations identified and Order for Compliance issued.
Notice of Violation issued.
Consent Order issued.
State approved closure plan.
BROWNING MANUFACTURING achieved clean closure and
returned to compliance.
Closure Certification received.
BROWNING MANUFACTURING did not install a OW monitoring
system. As a result of the State approved closure plan, the facility
achieved clean closure and returned to compliance.
Oldst Violation
5/2185
ii FOrTT I EnS orc.m.nt
onsont Ordr
R.tum to Compliance
4/24 /89
VIOLATIONS • OW (resolved).
PENALTY
HISTORY
5 ,2/85
8/85
7/5/8 8
9/30/88
4/24/89
611 5 , 0
STATUS
12/l4 O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 1
-------
Region VIII
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
EAGLE PICHER INDUSTRIES INC.
Colorado
COD 048 126 726
Surface
impoundments (4)
EPA (will transfer to State)
•
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
• Facility resistance
Assessed: $5,000
Violations identified.
Closure plan submitted.
EPA filed a §3008(a) Order.
Consent Agreement entered.
EAGLE PICHER INDUSTRIES is on schedule to return to
compliance. The initial order was delayed due to criminal action.
i En$orosmsf
OO$(a) Otd.r
Fbial Fortv l EiWo,c.m.nt
12/29/U Cøn. Ag, .m.nt
VIOLATIONS • OW.
HISTORY
9128/84
4125/85
8/8/85
12129/86
STAT.US
Collected: $5,000
l2/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 2
-------
Region VIII
• COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
HERCULES INC. BACCHUS
WORKS
Utah
UTD 001 705 029
Surface
impoundment
Landfill
State
.
Assessed: $315,000
Collected: None
Violations identified.
State entered Stipulation and
BACCHUS WORKS.
Consent Order with HERCULES INC.
STATUS
HERCULES INC. BACCHUS WORKS is on schedule to return to
compliance. State resources have been stretched, however, because
this is a complex facility.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Technical complexity
VIOLATIONS • CF (resolved)
• GW (resolved)
• FR (resolved).
PENALTY
HISTORY
6/6/86
8/16/88
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 3
-------
Region VIII
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
SERVICE INC. Land disposal
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
Assessed: $12,000
Collected: $5,400
HISTORY
717/81
10126/81
2/3/82
1985
1986
3130/87
1989
10/12/90
Violations identified.
Complaint issued.
• Administrative Consent Order issued.
Delisting petition submitted.
JIM’S WATER SERVICE sued EPA.
EPA approved closure plan.
Delisting petition denied.
Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing received and being investigated.
The case was dismissed.
STATUS
The facility has complied with most of the closure plan but has not yet
certified that it has done so. The GW monitoring violations should be
resolved when JIM’S WATER SERVICE implements the GW
monitoring provisions of the post-closure plan. JIM’S WATER
SERVICE is not in compliance with financial requirements but
financial assurance may no longer be needed. Technical compliance
may suffice to determine that the facility has returned to compliance.
-_ - E , orcsm. d
A . Consint Qrd.r
VIOLATIONS • CP
• OW: monitoring
• ‘FR.
PENALTY
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 4
-------
Region VIII
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
KOPPERS COMPANY, INc.
Colorado
C0D007077 175
Land disposal
.
EPA (will transfer to State)
Collected: $15,000
Violations identified.
Complaint issued.
EPA issued §3008(a) Order.
State inspection noted GW monitoring violations.
State issued enforcement order.
Consent Order issued.
KOPPERS COMPANY is a technically complicated facility and has
been the subject of significant interaction between the State and the
EPA. The GW prnblems are difficult, there is disagreement about
well location, and off-site access is a problem. KOPPERS
COMPANY needs to be inspected by EPA and the State to deteimine
whether the facility has complied with the 1988 Orders. The facility is
strong financially.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Technical complexity, Facility resistance
VIOLATIONS
• GW: monitoring
• Other.
PENALTY Assessed: $15,000
HISTORY
9129/82
9128/84
6/17/86
10127/86
4/20/88
9/19/88
STATUS
12/14,cO - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 5
-------
Region VIII
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
NCR MICROELECTRONICS
Colorado
C0D059 113 142
Land disposal
State
.
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HISTORY
7/8/85
6/13/88
STATUS
Assessed: None
Violations identified.
Consent Agreement signed.
NCR MICROELECTRONICS implemented a GW corrective action
program and has nearly achieved final closure. The facility is on
schedule to return to compliance.
Processing delays
. .P’ . d
13/8$ Cc
oin I Enforc.m.nt
Agr..m.nt
VIOLATIONS • OW (resolved).
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 6
-------
Region VIII
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
PENZOIL (formerly SEAGULL)
Utah
UTD 073 093 874
Surface
impoundments
State
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Facility resistance
PENALTY Assessed: $38,000
HISTORY
3120/85 Violations identified.
12123/86 State issued an Order requiring that PENZOIL install a new OW
monitoring system.
PENZOIL is on schedule to return to compliance.
STATUS PENzOIL is on schedule to return to compliance with OW monitoring
requirements. The lag time has increased because the company’s
headquarters is in Houston. The remaining $19,000 of the penalty
was to be applied to implementing the new GW monitoring system.
8/18/86
list VloI ion
3120/85
kitUal Foni I Enlo,o.msnS
12123186 £i . Oidsr
VIOLATIONS • OW: monitoring (resolved).
Collected: $19,000
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 7
-------
Region IX
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
BEAN AND COMPANY
Arizona S
AZD 000 819 565
Surface
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Hearing process, Financial
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
2/28/83
4/18/83
1/31/84
7/7/87.
9/89
STATUS
Violations identified.
Original complaints filed.
Pre-hearing discussion held. ALT unsupporrive of EPA.
CAFO signed, providing that facility would not be required to spend
more than $25,000 per year toward meeting conditions of Order.
EPA authorized facility to use remainder of the $25,000 per year to
remove used contaminant drums from site and to initiate sampling in
1990.
BEAN AND COMPANY’S financial resources are very limited and
the cost of site characterization and cleanup are expected to be high.
The CAFO included a provision limiting the company’s expense
toward the Order to $25,000 per year. Because of the variety of
substances handled at the facility and the extent of contamination, the
cost of site characterization and cleanup is expected to exceed
$400,000. Given the $25,000 per year limit, site characterization and
cleanup will take several years to complete.
Enforcsm.nt
Omplaint
VIOLATIONS
.cP.
• OW: monitoring system
• FR: failure to obtain financial assurance for C/PC; no liability
insurance
• Other: failure to conduct inspections, failure to maintain personnel
training records, poor container management, on-site releases.
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 1
-------
Region IX
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
LANDFILL Landfills (2)
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Assessed: $21,000
Collected: None
HISTORY
11/19/80
7/17/84
9124/84
11/30/84
12/84
3/11/86
12123/86
1986-87
6,24/87
7/1/87
11/87
9/88
3/89
3/31/89
STATUS
Part A application submitted.
Monitoring detected elevated levels of methane in adjacent residences.
BKK SANITARY LANDFILL withdrew Part B application.
The facility stopped accepting hazardous waste.
Closure plan submitted.
Administrative Orders issued under §7003 and §30 13.
Closure plan approved.
Leachate treatment plant built at the facility.
RCRA operating permit issued.
Hazardous waste landfill was closed.
Leachate treatment plant began full operation.
Approximately 130 GW monitoring wells had been installed.
Final closure completed.
Consent Corrective Action Order signed, requiring implementation of
the Site Assessment and Mitigation Workplan and a Corrective
Measures Study.
The facility accepted hazardous wastes for disposal since about 1972
and expanded 100 acres in 1975. Since 5/87, the facility has been in
compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management Control
District Rule 1150.1, which stipulates a maximum surface emissions
level of 50 ppm for landfill gas. BKK SANiTARY LANDFILL
consultants are revising the closure plan. The Site Assessment Report
for the GW monitoring issues should be completed by 1, 1. Remedy
selection will be part of the Corrective Measures Study.
• Processing delays, Technical complexity, Facility resistance, Financial
F
VIOLATIONS • GW: monitoring.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 2
-------
Region IX
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
CASMALIA RESOURCES
California
CAD 020 748 .125
Landfill
.
EPA
VIOLATIONS • CP (resolved)
• GW: monitoring
• FR (resolved).
PENALTY
HISTORY
12/14/83
5/10/84
9 /21/84
5/87
1/22/88
2/88
3/15/88
6/27/88
12/88
4/89
5/30/89
7/31/89
9/27/89
STATUS
Assessed: $14,000 Collected: $2,000
Violations -identified.
Administrative Complaint issued.
CAFO signed.
Inspection conducted.
Part B Application submitted.
Report on inspection issued.
CASMALIA RESOURCES responded to the report claiming that
many deficiencies noted had been corrected.
Administrative Complaint issued.
CASMALIA RESOURCES submitted Remedial Action Plan to EPA
in response to cleanup and abatement order.
Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report submitted.
CAFO signed addressing financial responsibility and C/PC violations.
CASMALIA RESOURCES returned to compliance with regard to the
fmancial and closure violations.
EPA issued a 3008(a) complaint for exceeding the design capacity of
the landfill. Proposed penalty is over $6.2 million.
As of 7/31/89, CASMALIA RESOURCES had returned to
compliance with regard to financial and closure violations. GW
violations remain outstanding. Extensive data collection and
assessment activities have been conducted. Closure and remedial
action activities continue at CASMALIA RESOURCES.
RTC CATEGORY
• Technical complexity
ii Formal Enlorc.msnt
5/30/89 CAFO
12/14i O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 3
-------
Region IX
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.
LEAD
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
-- BAKERSFIELD
California
CAT 000 624 056
Land disposal
•
State
•RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Facility resistance
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
6/25/85
7/85
11/85
6/87
7/24/87
11/88
5/31/88
3/17/89
2/24/89
8i9, 0
Violations identified.
OW monitoring wells installed; hydrogeologic investigation begun.
Closure and post-closure plans submitted.
Closure plan approved, stipulating that CHEMICAL WASTE
MANAGEMENT -. BAKERSFIELD must comply with Part 265
Subpart F requirements.
Compliance Agreement issued. Facility began closure and a detailed
hydrogeologic investigation.
Efforts to characterize hydrogeology ceased.
State inspection found same GW violations observed in 1985.
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT -- BAKERSFIELD
presented sufficient hydrogeologic characterization of the site.
EPA issued Corrective Action Order.
EPA and the facility signed a Stipulation of Resolution on Consent,
which indicated that all aspects of the Corrective Action Order have
been resolved and satisfied.
STATUS The facility returned to compliance with Part 265 Subpart F
requirements on 3/17/89.
j WII Fo & Io.,..r
71241S7 Con U Agr.sm.
Ccnip .nc. 8,9/go
VIOLATIONS • GW (resolved).
12/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 4
-------
Region IX
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
••
LEAD
CHEVRON CHEMICAL Co.
California
CAD 043 237 486
Land disposal
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Technical complexity
HISTORY
10/31/83
8/8/85
1/1/8 6
2/1/8 6
3/3/86
6/15/86
8129/86
1/30/87
3/12/87
4/1/87
5/13/87
6/1/87
7/2/87
1/88
4122/88
1012 1/88
2/24/89
3/1/89
7/14/89
STATUS
Assessed: $20,000
Violations identified.
Compliance Order and Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing issued.
Hydrogeologic Assessment Report prepared.
GW quality assessment plan submitted.
State prepared report on GW monitoring evaluation.
Revised GW quality assessment plan submitted.
Addendum to GW quality assessment plan submitted.
Results of (3W quality assessment program submitted.
Site characterization plan prepared.
CAFO issued.
First year quarterly GW monitoring program submitted.
Report of Waste Discharge prepared.
State prepared report on (3W monitoring evaluation.
Pond and dike characterization study conducted.
Second semi-annual GW monitoring program submitted.
Site characterization program and pond facility reports prepared.
EPA issued a §3008(h) unilateral Corrective Action Order.
Third and fourth quarters of GW assessment monitoring program
submitted.
State prepared report on GW monitoring evaluation.
CHEVRON CHEMICAL has made an extensive and apparently good-
faith effort to investigate, characterize, and develop a hydrogeologic
assessment program. A great deal of information has been collected
pertaining to the site geology, including description and
characterization of the uppermost aquifer, justification for placement
of wells, and a general understanding of potential contaminant
pathways and general contamination impact. Ongoing work is being
performed on CHEVRON CHEMICAL’S initiative.
Enforo.m.nt
paI.nc. Ord.,
VIOLATIONS • (3W.
PENALTY
Collected: None
12/14 O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 5
-------
Region IX
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
.•
LEAD
JOHN SMITH SOLID WASTE SITE
California
CAD 990 665 432
Surface
impoundment
State
RTC CATEGORY
HISTORY
7/13/83
7/18/83
8/4/8 3
1/3/84
11/8/85
1986
1987
3129/88
5/88
717/88
9/88 and 9/89
1/12/89
8/89
STATUS
9/89
9127/89
• Processing delays, Technical complexity, Facility resistance, Financial
Assessed: $84,193 Collected: None
60,500
Violations identified.
EPA issued complaint for failure to submit Part A application.
Part A application submitted.
City and county decided to close facility.
Facility lost interim status. CAFO was signed by year end.
Field investigation and hydrogeological characterization conducted.
Hydrogeological report prepared; closure plan,. winterization plan,
report on Potentially Responsible Parties, and hydrogeological
assessment report submitted; closure plan approved; soil sampling
conducted.
EPA issued complaint; State considered pursuing closure under
CERCLA.
Phase ifi Characterization Report submitted. City and county claimed
inability-to-pay for closure, financial assurance, and penalties.
Counsel tried to get Potentially Responsible Parties to share cost.
EPA modified complaint to include the county as a respondent
Analysis showed that city and county had ability-to-pay.
Closure Alternatives Analysis submitted.
Downgradient monitoring well installed; draft current conditions
report, closure plan, and GW sampling and analysis plans submitted.
Quarterly OW sampling conducted; post closure plan submitted.
Corrective Action Order issued.
City and county requested to delay work on closure plan until the
Corrective Action Compliance Agreement was finalized. EPA agreed.
EPA addressed immediate concerns of protecting health and the
environment. Delays resulted from public notice of the Closure
Alternatives Analysis and the closure/post closure plans.
Initial Formal Enforc•msnt
7/18183 ComplaInt
Final Form
8121/89 Corr.
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
•GW
• FR: assurance.
12/14, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 6
-------
Region IX
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ISLAND NAVAL AIR
STATION
California
CA7 170090016
Surface
impoundments
EPA
.
PENALTY
HISTORY
3/29/85
7127/87
12122/87
2/1/8 8
STATUS
6/24/88
1988-89
Assessed: None
Violations identified.
Notice of Noncompliance issued.
CAFO signed.
NORTH ISLAND NAVAL AIR STATION submitted hydrogeologic
report, revised GW monitoring plan, and interim status post-closure
plan.
Closure plan approved by EPA and State.
NORTH ISLAND NAVAL AIR STATION constructed additional
OW monitoring wells.
Enforcement action focused on closure of the surface impoundments
and implementation of a better GW monitoring program. The facility
is implementing the approved closure plan which requires further
characterization of the contamination before capping. The facility has
complied with the tasks required. It has not been determined if the
current GW monitoring program fully complies with the detection
monitoring requirements. The facility is working with the State to
address these concerns.
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Technical complexity
Enforc.m.ntt
VIOLATIONS
• CP (resolved)
• OW: monitoring.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 7
-------
Region IX
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
US AIR FORCE - BEALE AFB
California
CAl 570 024 508
Surface
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
HISTORY
11/12180
8/85
10/85
11/5/85
11/8/85
9125/86
6/3/87
6/29/87
7/15/87
11/23/87
12/8/87
1/13/88
5/88
STATUS
9/30/88
11/30/88
3/6/89
11/17/89
Part A application submitted.
Sampling and analysis conducted.
Report determined need for further GW monitoring.
Sampling and analysis results submitted.
Facility lost interim status.
Inspection conducted.
Revised sampling and analysis plan submitted.
State inspection found elevated levels of silver in the impoundment.
Inspection conducted.
Warning letter issued.
BEALE AFB cited lower levels of silver based on their sampling.
EPA and State met to discuss the facility’s sampling and analysis plan.
State did not provide comments on sampling and analysis plan due to
staff turnover.
Notice of Noncompliance issued.
Interim response to the Notice of Noncompliance provided to EPA.
EPA conducted sampling and analysis.
BEALE AFB suggested pursuing closure under RCRA.
The facility has returned to compliance in many areas. The remaining
violations and closure are to be addressed in a Federal Facilities
Compliance Order. It has been difficult to return the facility to
compliance because the Status of the sludge drying ponds of the
BEALE AFB photowaste treatment plant has not been confirmed.
The Air Force maintains that the ponds have not contained RCRA
regulated wastes.
• Processing delays, Facility resistance
OId.st VIo adon
VIOLATIONS
•CP
• GW: monitoring.
PENALTY Assessed: None
12/14, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 8
-------
Region IX
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
U.S. ARMY NATIONAL TRAINING
CENTER -- FORT IRWIN
California
CA5 213 790 038
Landdisposal
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Facility resistance
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
7/9/85
3/20/86
3124/86
9/5/86
6/30/87
3/15/88
9/88
3/89
5/89
10/13/89
STATUS
Violations identified.
State issued Notice of Violation.
EPA referred case to State.
Violations identified.
Compliance Order issued.
Inspection identified continuing violations.
EPA learned that the State was not actively overseeing compliance.
EPA conducted sampling.
EPA received sampling results.
Notice of Noncompliance issued.
Many inspections noted multiple RCRA violations but enforcement
actions were delayed by difficulties in assessing the regulatory status
at several of the units. Additional information was collected during a
sampling visit. Negotiations on the compliance schedule were delayed
by the earthquake and rescheduled for 11/89.
CSd.. VIo$ on
7,945
Ir duI FomiaI En o,c.uin
6130/si ConipU c. Ordsr
VIOLATIONS
.CP
• GW: monitoring
• Other failure to have waste analysis plan.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 9
-------
Region IX
,
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
WHITTAKER CORP. -- BERMITE
DIVISION
California
CAD064573 108
Surface
impoundments
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Assessed: $36,600
Collected: $9,000
HISTORY
1985
6/3/86
8/26/86
1987
9/87
4/89
STATUS
Violations identified.
Administrative Order issued.
Consent Agreement signed.
Additional monitoring data gathered, showing that soil contamination
remained.
Closure plan approved but required additional characterization and
remediation of the soil contamination as well as installation of a GW
monitoring system.
Organic solvents detected in monitoring well.
The facility addressed many of the deficiencies addressed in
enforcement orders in 1986. It has not yet returned to full compliance
but the facility continues efforts to achieve clean closure by
remediation of residual contamination. The facility is implementing a
GW quality assessment program pursuant to 40 CFR 265.93. More
work remains in order to remediate the residual contamination.
• Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
VIOLATIONS • CP
.43W
• FR.
PENALTY
12/14, )O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 10
-------
Region IX
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
WILLOWS GLEr r’ COUNTY
AIRPORT
California
CAT 000 625 525
Land disposal
:
State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HISTORY
3/8/85
10/19/87
9125/89
11/6/89
• Processing delays, Financial
Assessed: $76,000 Collected: $30,000
Violations identified.
EPA issued Administrative Order.
Consent Agreement signed, requiring implementation of a OW
monitoring program; implementation of a soil sampling program;
submittal of a closure plan; implementation of the closure plan once
approved; and compliance with post-closure and financial
responsibility requirements.
Closure plan submitted.
STATUS WILLOWS GLENN COUNTY AIRPORT stopped treating, storing,
or disposing of hazardous waste. The entire compliance schedule will
take well over a year, if not longer, to fully implement.
InhlIal Formal Enforc.m.
ioii iei Adyn. Ord.r
VIOLATIONS
FIn.l Formal Enlorc.m.nt
9 25189 Con.nt Agr .m.nl I
•CP
• GW: monitoring
•FR.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 11
-------
Region X
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ARNAV SYSTEMS INC.
Oregon
ORD 106072010
Surface
impoundment
EPA
State
PENALTY
• Processing delays, Financial
Assessed: $7,600
Collected: $2,000
Violations discovered.
Complaint issued.
Final Order issued.
EPA enforcement action was an overfihing of State action. EPA
deemed ARNAV SYSTEMS’ closure plans inadequate. A GW
system is in place and minimal environmental threat is perceived. A
closure plan which anticipated removal to health-based levels is being
public-noticed.
RTC CATEGORY
IM P0 , j Ent ini. ,1
W3 7C
Final Fa ,yv l
I 12 131/87 F iaI d.t
VIOLATIONS
• CP (resolved)
.0W
• FR (resolved).
HISTORY
8/6/85
9/30/87
12131/87
STATUS
12/ 4/9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 1
-------
Region X
‘COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
BOEING OF PORTLAND
Oregon ‘
ORD 054 964 481
Surface ,
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
HISTORY
1984
6125/86
7121/86
9/12/86
5 120/88
STATUS
1/18,90
Processing delays
BOEING OF PORTLAND ceased adding waste to the surface
impoundment.
Violations identified.
EPA issued §3008(h) Order.
Notice of Violation issued.
State accepted BOEING OF PORTLAND’S closure certification for
surface impoundment.
EPA inspection revealed no interim status violations.
Soil gas surveys revealed sources of contamination in several areas of
the facility, including the surface impoundment. GW monitoring.
wells revealed off-site GW contamination. BOEING OF
PORTLAND has installed numerous monitoring wells in two aquifers
and is extracting and treating contaminated GW from the uppemiost
aquifer. BOEING OF PORTLAND is currently in compliance with
the §3008(h) Order.
VIOLATIONS • GW.
PENALTY Assessed: None
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 2
-------
Region X
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
DEWILS INDUSTRIES
Washington
WAD 009 422 692
Land disposal
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Technical complexity, Financial
Assessed: $10,000
Collected: None
HISTORY
1/82
512/84
7/13/84
7127/84
3/89
STATUS
State requested closure plan and subsequently approved the plan.
Violations discovered.
Notice of Violation issued.
Final Order issued.
DEwILS INDUSTRIES submitted a §3013 Investigation Report.
EPA repeatedly found DEWILS INDUSTRIES’ §3013 investigation
plans inadequate. EPA also deemed documentation of financial
assurance inadequate. DEWILS INDUSTRIES ceased hazardous
waste activities and EPA is waiting for successful clean closure in
order to return DEWILS INDUSTRIES to compliance. Specific
complications include difficulties in analyzing the upper aquifer and
gaining off-site access. The §3013 investigation found no
environmentally significant contamination; EPA can not certify clean
closure until a RCRA Facilities Assessment is done.
o v
I InI wd Fk Fom EdQ ., 1’
7127184 Fb i ds
PENALTY
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
• FR: inadequate documentation of financial assurance.
I2/14 O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 3
-------
Region X
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
DRExLER ENTERPRISES INC.
Idaho
IDD 0 00 800961
Land disposal
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Facility resistance, CERCLA/bankruptcy, Financial
7/2O 2
IL Fcn E o
I - Coi, M1
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
•FR.
PENALTY
Assessed: $15,000
HISTORY
7/20/82
4127/83
6120/85
10/18/85
STATUS
Collected: None
Violations discovered.
Complaint issued.
Final Order issued.
Scheduled compliance date.
DREXLER ENTERPRISES brought hazardous waste on-site for
recycling but did not teat the waste or comply with requirements.
Repeated legal actions against DREXLER ENTERPRISES have been
ineffective. DREXLER ENTERPRISES is unable to obtain liability
insurance. The case was turned over to CERCLA and a OW
monitoring system installed; $1.5 million in Fund money was spent
for cleanup.
l2/I4 90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 4
-------
Region X
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
ENVIROSAFE SERVICES - SITE A
Idaho
IDD 000 773 952
Landfill
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays, Technical complexity
Assessed: $22,500
Collected: $2,500
HISTORY
2/10/84
3i23/84
8/31/84
STATUS
Violation discovered.
Complaint issued.
Final Order issued.
ENVIROSAFE SERVICES - SITE A, formerly a Federal facility, is
an inoperative missile silo that never operated as a hazardous waste
facility but did receive hazardous waste for a significant period of
time. Currently, the facility is operating under a post-closure permit.
The OW at ENVIROSAFE SERVICES - SITE A is nearly 1,000
feet deep through fractured basalt and therefore is difficult to model.
Given the depth, however, the environmental threat is probably not
great.
o
v1
niti. Formal Er or mwi II Final Formaá Er orcam. 4
3 23(84 Con ái U 8t3 1184 Fi a l Oid.i
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
.0W.
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 5
-------
Region X
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
FRONTIER MACHINERY INC. -
PROCOAT DIVISION•
Washington
WAD 081.482457
Drain field
Stale
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays, Financial
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW
• FR: inability to obtain insurance or provide assurances for closure.
PENALTY
Assessed: $14,000
Collected: None
HISTORY
STATUS
4/16/84
8122/85
Violations discovered after facility ceased operations.
Final Order issued.
FRONTIER. MACHINERY INC. - PROCOAT DIVISION, a small,
financially unstable facility, placed plating wastes in a drain field for
years. The facility has been unable to obtain insurance or provide
assurances for closure. Facility has completed closure plan
implementation. State is awaiting OW data before determining clean
closure status.
411&84
U SIVIB6 Fb
12/14 ,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 6
-------
Region X
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
HYTEK FINISHES CO.
Washington
WAD 076 655 182
Surface
impoundment
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY
STATUS
Processing delays
Assessed: None
Violations discovered.
Final Order issued.
Section 3013 Order returned facility to compliance with OW
requirements.
Violations resolved.
Part B permit issued with corrective action requirements.
HYTEK FINISHES placed plating wastes in impoundments and
ceased operations in the early 1980s. The facility was unable to clean
close but is conducting soil and OW remediation pursuant to its post-
closure permit.
o s v
un t1i aid Finil F vnaI Erdmaiul
r9 Finid Ordw
VIOLATIONS • CP (resolved)
• OW (resolved)
• FR (resolved).
PENALTY
HISTORY
5123/84
9130/86
4/23/87
5127/88
11/8/88
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 7
-------
Region X
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
INTERNATIONAL PAPER Co. -
WOOD PROD UCTS
Washington
WAD010745 917
Surface
EPA -
.
impoundments
RTC CATEGORY
• Facility resistance
Assessed: $15,000
Collected: $15,000
HISTORY
1981
STATUS
3/30/84
8/1/84
1985
3124/89
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. - WOOD PRODUCTS was
subject to alternate GW monitoring requirements.
Violations identified.
Section 3008 Final Order issued.
Order issued calling for closure and GW monitoring.
EPA issued a §3008(a) Order, requiring compliance with GW
monitoring requirements.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER Co. - WOOD PRODUCTS operated a
creosote/pentachiorophenol pond since the 1950s. The facility never
did GW monitoring and still has no wells in place. An AU was
involved in negotiations, as requested by INTERNATIONAL PAPER
Co. - WOOD PRODUCTS. Corrective action is likely to be needed.
InI al Forvv I E.S . iw*
W1/34 33008 Fbia Ord.v
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW.
PENALTY
12/14j90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 8
-------
Region X
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
INC. Land disposal
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays, Technical complexity, Hearing process
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
HISTORY
512/86
9/30/87
STATUS
Assessed: $18,400
i FO ,TT ,aJ Enfo osni
W30(87 CQfTDal
.CP
‘OW
‘FR.
Collected: None
Violations discovered.
Complaint issued.
Confusion over the regulatory status of KALAMA CHEMICAL
occurred and prompted EPA to use §3008(h) authority to obtain a
remedy. Region 10 waited for EPA Headquarters to rule on
KALAMA CHEMICAL’S regulatory status. The facility spilled
materials over a period of time and at one point was not regulated.
12/14 9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 9
-------
Region X
FACILITY
COMPANY TYPE
LEAD
INC. Surface
impoundment
State
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Financial
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
HISTORY
6/19/84
12/13/85
STATUS
Assessed: None
Violations discovered.
Final Order issued.
State issued enforcement orders to bring about closure but closure was
initially unsuccessful. There are drinking wells at the property
boundary and chrome was found in the (3W. The company is small --
a 10 person staff -- and financially unstable. It is unlikely that
MASCO PRODUCTS will be able to obtain insurance or demonstrate
financial assurances. Facility has petitioned EPA for release from post
closure permit requirements. EPA is awaiting data from 8/90 GW
monitoring before making determining whether the facility has
achieved clean closure.
OIdssl V1o 1
w1 le4
vid FkI Fon , I Etd
1211 3’$6 F1n Ordw
•CP
•GW
•FR.
12/14,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 10
-------
Region X
COMPANY S
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
PACIFIC WOOD TREATING CORP.
Washington
WAD 009 422 411
Land disposal
EPA
RTC CATEGORY • Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
PENALTY Assessed: None
HISTORY
1980
6/4/84
7/18/84
EPA terminated PACIFIC WOOD TREATING’S interim status in
order to encourage the facility to close its hazardous waste units.
Violations discovered.
Final Order issued.
STATUS PACIFIC WOOD TREATING did not close; EPA could not enforce
interim status requirements, and the facility is not subject to a Part B
call-in. Environmental problems are significant and EPA is
developing a §3008(h) Order.
mdFk Fom jEr oi
ill W 4 Fb U dsr
VIOLATIONS • CP.
12/14 ,90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 11
-------
Region X
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
PENDLETON WOOLEN MILLS
Washington
WAD 009 035 502
Land disposal
EPA
.
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Financial
Assessed: $13,500
Collected: None
HISTORY
4/17/85
9/30/87
12/14/88
STATUS
Violations discovered.
Complaint issued addressing OW monitoring violations.
EPA issued § 3008(h) Order.
The facility has been operating since the I 890s. Release from acid
vats flows under the facility and river overflow washes acid into
surface water. EPA and the State have disagreed on the regulatory
status of the facility. Currently; PENDLETON WOOLEN MILLS is
putting in wells. Financial violations will not be resolved until closure
but the facility is too important to the local economy to close
immediately. PENDLETON WOOLEN MILLS may now constitute a
decreased environmental threat. The RCRA Facilities Investigation is
complete and a Corrective Measures Study is commencing at this time.
U& Fo E, orcsni
W30187 ConUaiM
Fom E orc. ne
12/14 /88 3OO6(h) Ordsr
VIOLATIONS • CP
.0W
•FR.
PENALTY
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 12
-------
•Region X
..
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
PERMAPOST PRODUCTS Co.,
INC.
Oregon
ORD 009 041 187
Land disposal
State
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays, Financial
VIOLATIONS • CP(resolved)
GW (resolved)
•FR.
PENALTY
HISTORY
4 19/84
6/15/85
6122/89
11/17/89
12/15/88
Collected: $1,000
STATUS
PERMAPOST PRODUCTS is highly contaminated. Financial
violations cannot be resolved since no insurance is available to the
facility. GW remediation is on-going.
nd Fini Fom nfocsmwl
6lI&86Fb , Ord.r
Assessed: $1,000
Violations identified.
Final Order issued.
Permit issued.
Closure violation in compliance.
GW violation in compliance.
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 13
-------
Region X.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
PRESSURE TREATED TIMBER Co.
Idaho
1DD047111018
Surface
impoundment
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
Processing delays, Financial
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
HISTORY
4128/83
12123/83
6127/84
6/1/87
9/17/87
1117/88
STATUS
Assessed: $2,000
1,000
o v- -.
I InhlS Foc,n E,Woivsmcl FI .1 FO,Tn Enfcr m.i
I 1V23 83Compiád 8 B4FW I <
• CP (resolved)
• OW (resolved)
•FR.
Collected: $2,000
250
Violations identified.
Complaint issued.
Final Order issued.
Closure violation in compliance.
GW monitoring in compliance.
Post-closure permit issued addressing closure and GW monitoring.
PRESSURE TREATED TIMBER is a small operation.. Remedial
actions were incorporated into the permit and will be ongoing.
PRESSURE TREATED TIMBER is unable to get insurance.
12/14i90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 14
-------
Region X
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
REICHHOLD CHEMICAL INC.
Washington
WAD 009 252 891
Land disposal
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HISTORY
5121/85
4/30/84
6130/86
6/12/87
STATUS
11/4/88
HWDMS data error
Assessed: None
Violations discovered.
Notice of Violation issued.
Final Order issued, calling for significant closure activities.
REICHHOLD CHEMICAL returned to compliance with GW and
financial requirements.
Permit issued with corrective action requirements.
Extensive remediation is underway at REICHHOLD CHEMICAL.
The data indicates that all major fields have returned to compliance.
I — Fk .l Fom a En o cw.nt
• &30 198 F1n
PdluIn o Con Ian
6 /12187
VIOLATIONS • CP (resolved)
• GW (resolved)
• FR (resolved)
12/14 90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 15
-------
Region X
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
RIDGEFIELD BRICK & TILE
Washington
WAD 009 036 906
Land disposal
EPA
RTC CATEGORY
• Processing delays, Facility resistance, Financial
Assessed: $15,000
Collected: None
HISTORY
6/12/84
9/30/85
11/21/86
1987
9/27/89
STATUS
Violations discovered.
Complaint issued.
Final Order issued.
AU hearing held.
Complaint issued for noncompliance with previous order
RIDGEFIELD BRICK & TILE is a small landfill facility. The
facility never went through formal closure; the State allowed
monitoring of tapwater of nearby houses to serve as OW monitoring.
EPA called the post closure permit twice but the facility refused to
submit an application. Because of a seasonally saturated perch zone
on site, expensive wells may be needed. The facility is looking into
the possibility of clean closure based on health-based levels.
ii ErWoicemoni
F C’—
VIOLATIONS • CP
.0W
•FR.
PENALTY
12/14fl0 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 16
-------
Region X
FACILITY
.
COMPANY
TYPE
LEAD
INC.
Wastepile
Surface
EPA
.
.
impoundment
RTC CATEGORY
VIOLATIONS • CP (resolved)
• (3W (resolved)
•FR.
Assessed: $45,000
Collected: None
HISTORY
7121/83
9128/85
2/12/87
6 19/87
1989
STATUS
Violations discovered.
Complaint issued.
Final Order issued.
SEATTLE STEEL returned to compliance with (3W and closure
requirements.
Facility certified that surface impoundment was clean-closed.
SEATTLE STEEL is now a generator only. Correctivç action may be
required pursuant to a §3008(h) Order.
Processing delays, Financial
In i Fcn, i E,do. 4T.s Ana’ Foin i Entoicm..1
28/85 Cor IaIi1 N 2/12/87
PENALTY
12/14 90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC SLudy
Page 17
-------
Region X
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
,
LEAD
SHELDON MANUFACTURING
Oregon
ORD 052 225 596
Land disposal
State
.
RTC CATEGORY
VIOLATIONS
PENALTY
HISTORY
4/14/86
STATUS
HWDMS data error
Assessed: None
State erroneously cited SHELDON MANUFACTURING for spraying
paint on soils.
EPA decided that SHELDON MANUFACTURING is not a regulated
land disposal facility. No contamination exists and the facility is not
subject to regulation under RCRA. HWDMS has been updated to
reflect this.
I
4l4
TIMELINE Oldest Violation - 4/14/86
.CP
‘ow
‘FR.
l 2 /I 4 9 O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 18
-------
Region X
.
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
U.S. AGRICULTURAL STATION -
YAKIMA
Washington
WAD 120 513 957
Leach field
EPA
State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HISTORY
1982
1986
5122/86
9/30/87
1988
U.S. AGRICULTURAL STATION ranked low on
National Priorities List.
EPA overfiled State and issued Notice of Violation.
Violations identified.
Complaint issued.
Inspection showed OW monitoring system to be inadequate.
the CERCLA
STATUS
After the 1982 CERCLA evaluation, U.S. AGRICULTURAL
STATION submitted a closure plan which was rejected by the EPA as
too generic but approved of by the State. At present, the facility is
cooperating but Federal facility procurement procedures have inhibited
its ability to get conuactors to do the work. Season changes in
watertable complicate OW monitoring. It is anticipated that U.S.
AGRICULTURAL STATION will not return to compliance for 2
years. Soil and OW sampling have been conducted as part of the
approved closure plan.
• Processing delays
W30/S7 C0nVIM
VIOLATIONS • OW: inadequate monitoring system.
Assessed: None.
12/14, O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 19
-------
Region X
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
USCG - KODIAK SUPPORT
CENTER
Alaska
AK9 690 330 742
Land disposal
EPA
PENALTY
HISTORY
6/19/85
1128/87
9129/87
5123,90
STATUS
Technical complexity, Facility resistance
Assessed: None
Violations discovered.
EPA issued Notice of Violation.
Complaint issued.
Section 3008(h) Order signed.
Studies show that large scale problems exist at the facility. A long-
term solution is necessary.
RTC CATEGORY
i Foimal Enl ...,. .
W2 ’87 Co v1ó1
VIOLATIONS • CP
‘ow.
12/14 90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 20
-------
Region X
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
USDOE - IDAHO NATIONAL
ENGINEERING LAB
Idaho
1D4890008952
Land disposal
EPA
.
.
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
Technical complexity
Assessed: None
Violations discovered.
CAFO issued.
The facility is 890 square miles and has hundreds of hazardous waste
units. Hundreds of closures are needed and years of characterization
will be necessary.
O es$ VIoL
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW.
HISTORY
4t28/86
7127/87
STATUS
I2/ 4/9O - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 21
-------
Region X
COMPANY
FACILITY
TYPE
LEAD
USDOE - HANFORD SITE
Washington
WA7 890 008 967
Land disposal
State
RTC CATEGORY
PENALTY
HISTORY
6/14/84
12,2fil84
STATUS
Technical complexity
Assessed: None
Violations discovered.
Final Order issued.
EPA, the State, and DOE signed a three-party agreement to direct
remedial and compliance activities at the facility.Work is underway at
USDOE, HANFORD SITE, but the scope of the project is
immense. It will take years to complete site characterization and
remediation.
I
Ods V
l14/B4
oii , Enk .n.ni
l Ords,
VIOLATIONS • CP
•GW.
12/14/90 - Final Report
RCRA RTC Study
Page 22
------- |