UNITED STATES        EPA REGION 1       EPA 901/1-91-001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION   JFK FEDERAL BUILDING    FEBRUARY 1991
AGENCY           BOSTON. MA 02203
FY90 ENFORCEMENT
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
REPORT

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii
CRIMINAL ACTIONS 1
SUPERFUND 4
WATER 8
DRINKING WATER 12
AIR 13
PESTICIDES 17
TOXIC SUBSTANCES 18
HAZARDOUS WASTE 20
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW 25
I

-------
INTRODUCTION
During fiscal year 1990, Region 1 of the Environmental Protection Agency continued to give the
highest priority to an aggressive enforcement program. Our accomplishments across all the
programs we administer reflect this commitment. The Region’s enforcement efforts also moved
in some exciting new directions. We began to place much greater emphasis on the strategic value
of the enforcement actions by working to ensure that the violations we respond to with formal
enforcement actions are the ones posing the greatest risks to the environment and that the most
environmental benefit is obtained from each enforcement action. Consequently, the Region in
1990 stressed new enforcement initiatives, such as multi-media enforcement (whereby we may
address all violations at a facility at once) and pollution prevention (whereby we attempt to have
a violator eliminate a source of pollution).
Ourachievements last yearwere notable. In several areas, we hadthe strongest enforcementyear
in our history. Forexample, as a result of settlements and orders in the Superfund program, private
parties will be performing cleanup work at Superfund sites in New England with a value of $ 173
million. Penalties assessed in settlements of both judicial and administrative cases under the
Clean Water Act reached all-time highs, as did the penalty amounts proposed in new adminis-
trative actions under the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. The numberof administrative orders issued underthe Clean AirAct also seta record.
This report describes Region 1 ‘s enforcement efforts in the six New England states during fiscal
year 1990 (October 1, 1989 through September 30, 1990). It contains separate chapters focusing
on each of our major enforcement programs. The report contains narrative summaries of our
enforcement achievements and highlights significant cases. The report also provides statistical
indicators of enforcement activity in each area and compares the level of enforcement activity in
fiscal year 1990 (FY 90) with the levels in earlier years. In addition, out of recognition that the New
England states are our partners in enforcement, in many instances, we present data reflecting the
states’ enforcement accomplishments as well as our own.
We are proud of our enforcement achievements. We thank the many dedicated individuals in the
regional office and our colleagues in the states for a very successful enforcement year in FY 90.
For the future we will continue our firm commitment to an enforcement program that vigorously
furthers EPA’s mission of protecting public health and improving the quality of our environment.
t? aO
Paul G. Keough
Deputy Regional Administrator
Be lag a
Regional Administrator
II

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Office of Regional Counsel wrote this report and coordinated the data gathering from Region
l ’s various program offices. Special thanks to EPA Information Center staff member Nina
Antonakes for her invaluable assistance in publication layout and support.
III

-------
CRIMINAL ACTIONS
The strongest enforcement response that EPA can take to a violation of environmental law is a
criminal enforcement action. Only in a criminal enforcement action does the violator face the
possibility of impnsonment. Region 1 has for several years pursued an active cnminal enforcement
program. Criminal enforcement is usually reserved for the following types of violations of
environmental laws: conduct that indicates a history of repeated violations of the law, knowing or
willful misconduct, falsification of required records, tampering with pollution control equipment, or
discharges of pollution without required permits.
Region 1 continued its role as a national leader in criminal enforcement during FY 90. The Region
referred eight new criminal cases to the Department of Justice for prosecution. Moreover, five
criminal cases went to trial during the past fiscal year, all ending in convictions.
NUMBER
10
6
5
4
2
0
REFERRALS TO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR CRIMINAL ACTION
FISCAL YEAR
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
1

-------
CASE HIGHLIGHTS
1. United States v. lohn Borowski and Borjohn Optical Technology , Inc . (D. Mass.)
On May 23,1990, afed era! jury convicted Borjohn Optical Technology, Inc. and its president,
John Borowski, of illegally discharging toxic metals and dangerous chemicals into the sewer
system in Burlington, MA and endangering compony employees as a result. This is the first
time that an individual or a corporation has been convicted of knowing endangerment under
the Clean Water Act. Borowski was sentenced on November 7, 1990 to 26 months in prison
and a $400,000 fine. Borjohn was ordered topaya $50,000 fine and, in addition, poy $15,500
for health insurance premiums for the workers whose lives were endangered. The case is
currently on appeal to the First Circuit.
Thedefendants ordered workers to discharge nickel platingand nitric acid solutions containing
illegal concentrations of nickel and illegally low pH into the sewer system in Burlington, which
is tied into the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority’s treatment plant which in turn
discharges into Boston Harlvr. During the illegal disposals, the employees were expos ’4 to
toxic levels of nickel, nitric acid, and nitrogen dioxide. Exposure to nitric acid and its fumes
may result in serious burns and life -threatening respiratory tract damage. Exposure to nickel
may result in severe skin disease, asthma, and an increased risk of cancer.
The illegal discharges stemmed from Borjohn’s metal finishing operation, in which the
com xiny plated various metals, including nickel, onto Bradley Fighting Vehicle elevation
mirrors, M-1 tank mirrors, and Cruise Missile folding mirrors.
2. United States v. lohn Wells (D. Mass.)
On March22, 1990, John Wells, president of Wells Metal Finishing, Inc., was sentenced to 75
months in prison for criminal violations of the pretreatment standards under the Clean Water
Act. This is the longest term of imprisonment for a pretreatment violation in the country and
the first trial in the country for a pretreatment violation. The conviction and sentence were
upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals on January 4, 1991.
Wells had been convicted of 19 counts of discharging md ustria! wast ewater containing illegally
high concentrations of cyanide and zinc into the Lowell, MA sewer system. Wastewater
entering the Lowell sewer system is treated at the city’s sewage treatment plant and is then
discharged to the Merrimack River, a drinking water source for several downstream commu-
nit ies. The Merrimack River has been targeted as an enforcement priority by Region 1.
2

-------
3. United States v. Thomas Capozziello (D. Conn.)
On March 15, 1990, after having been convicted of violating the Clean Air Act, Thomas
Capo7ziello, president of Bridgeport Wrecking Company, Inc., was sentenced to one year in
prison,allbut three monthssuspended, three years probation, and a $1 ODOO fine. His corn pany
was fined $40,000. The three months to be served represents the longest prison tenn in New
England for a violation of the Clean Air Act. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the conviction on February 15, 1991.
On December15, 1989,followinga two-week jury trial, guilty verdicts were returned against
Capozziello and his company for violating federal laws relating to the removal and handling
of asbestos from buildings that are being demolished. The case stemmed from a citizen’s
complaint in connection with the Fall, 1986 demolition of the Knudsen Dairy in North Haven,
CT. Bridgeport Wrecking Company was a defendant in a civil lawsuit brought by the United
States for similar Clean Air Act violations just one year prior to the commencement of the
Knudsen Dairy demolition.
4. United States v. MacDonald & Watson Waste Oil Company (D. R.I.)
On December 22, 7989, in Providence, RI, two corporations, MacDonald & Watson Oil
Company and the Narragansett Improvement Company, and three employees of MacDonald
and Watson were sentenced in connection with criminal violations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. Eugene D’Allesandro (the President of MacDonald and
Watson), Fran Slade (a Division Manager), and Faust Ritarossi (a sales representative), all
were convicted on two counts of knowing transportation of hazardous waste to an unpermitted
facility. They received sentences of; respectively, 18 months and a $50,000 fine, with half as
restitution; one year (11 months suspended) and afine of$1 0,000; and 6 months (suspended),
150 hours of community service, and a fine of $20,000, with half as restitution.
The MacDonald & Watson Company of Johnston, RI was convicted ofi two counts of knowing
transportation of hazardous waste to an unperm itted facility; one count of treatment, storage
and disposal of such waste without a permit; ten counts of making a false statement under 18
U.S.C. §1001; three mail fraud counts; and one Superfund violation for failing to report a
release of a hazardous substance to the environment. The company was fined $175,000, which
included $25,000 in restitution to thestate. In addition, the company subsequently pled guilty
to one count of mail fraud, and was sentenced to pay $10,000 as restitution to the City of
Warwick, RI.
The Narragansett Improvement Company of Providence, RI was convicted of one count of
treatment, storage and disposal of hazardoi s waste without a permit and one count of failing
to report a release under Superfund. The company was sentenced to pay a fine of $50,000.
At present, the case is on appeal before the First Circuit.
3

-------
SUPERFUND
Heeding Administrator William Reilly’s call to make Superfund an “enforcement first” program,
dunng FY90 Region l’s enforcement program produced extremely successful results. The Region
continued its practice of using the many enforcement tools available under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as
Superfund, to encourage private parties to clean up hazardous substance disposal sites.
Enforcement is especially important to the Superfund program. Superfund enforcement not only
prevents further degradation of the environment, but also improves the environment by encour-
aging site cleanups. Superfund enforcement ensures that parties responsible for hazardous
substance pollution pay for cleanups. In addition, vigorous Superfund enforcement serves to
prevent the creation of new sites, by creating a strong incentive for parties to dispose of hazardous
substances properly, orto reduce or eliminate the generation of hazardous substances in the first
instance.
Private party cleanup of Superfund sites has historically been a primary aim of Region 1 ‘S
enforcement program. FY 90 was no different. In FY 90, the Region reached five judicial
settlements and five administrative settlements, and issued fourteen unilateral administrative
orders, under which private parties will perform cleanup work at Superfund sites. The total value
of the cleanup work to be performed as a result of these enforcement efforts is in excess of $173
million. This is an increase of almost 170% over the previous year’s enforcement achievements.
VALUE OF CLEANUP WORK PERFORMED
BY PRIVATE PARTIES AS A RESULT OF ENFORCEMENT
DOLLARS
(MILLIONS)
200
1987
1988
1989
FISCAL YEAR
1990
4

-------
The Region’s judicial settlements will result in the cleanup of five Superfund remedial sites, typically
the largest and most complex hazardous substance cleanups. Private parties will conduct
cleanups underjudicial consent decrees at the Iron Horse Park, Wells G & H, and Sullivan’s Ledge
sites in Massachusetts, the Kellogg-Deenng Welifield site in Connecticut, and the F. O’Connor site
in Maine. Under these settlements, the responsible parties, under EPA supervision, will conduct
work valued at $104.6 million, and, in addition, will reimburse the government for a total of $7.8
million in past costs expended.
HIGHLIGHT WELLS G & H SE1TLEMENT
In FY 1990, Region I reached a settlement for prizxite rty cleanup at the Wells G & H
Superfund Site in Woburn, MA. Wells G & H were once the drinking water supply for
Woburn, and have been linked toa high incidence of childh xi leukemia in thearea. Under the
settlement, worth approximately $69.45 million, property owners will perform the first phase
of the Site cleanup and fiirther investigations regarding the second cleanup phase, and will
reimburse a substantial portion of EPA’s costs expended at the Site.
Unilateral administrative orders are a powerful enforcement tool being used more and more
frequently by EPA, with great success. EPA may issue unilateral administrative ordersfora number
of purposes, including requinng parties to perform cleanup work, provide site access, ortake other
actions in response to releases of hazardous substances. In FY 90, Region 1 issued seventeen
unilateral administrative orders, an increase of 140% over FY 89. Six of these orders required
cleanups of large, complex remedial sites, and eight required immediate removal actions. The
seventeen orders required private parties to perform work valued at $65 million, an increase of
forty-fold over the previous year.
UNILATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
FISCAL YEAR .
20
NUMBER
1990
1989
1 8s
-I
7
ieee -i
5
10
16
5

-------
HIGHLIGHT:AGGRESSJVE USE OF UNILATERAL ADMiNISTRATIVE
ORDERS
Region I madeaggressive use of unilateral administrative orders in connection with settlement
negotiations at Superfund remedial sites in FY90. In accordance with current EPA policy,
the Region issued orders in cases where negotiations were not successfvl in bringing al ut
voluntary site cleanups. The Region issued six orders requiring private parties to conduct
remedial design and remedial action activities at the following sites: Landfill and Resource
Recovery in Rhode Island; Keefe Environmental Services, South Municipal Water Supply
Well, and Auburn Road in New Hampshire; Norwocd PCB Site in Massachusetts; and
Kellogg-Deering Weilfield in Connecticut.
Infourof those cases, the recipients of the orders have indicated their intent of seeking to comply
with them. In the remaining cases, the Region has the option of initiating cleanup design
activities with Superfund money, then pursuing the recipients for triple damages or court
orders to compel compliance with the administrative orders.
In FY 90 the Region also issued eight unilateral administrative orders requiring parties to
conduct immediate removal actions. This strategy recognizes the time-critical nature of the
environmental problems to which the removal action will respond, by minimizing delays that
could result from prolonged negotiations.
Civil judicial referrals allow EPA to obtain court orders requiring parties to perform work at
Superfund sites or reimburse the government for money it has expended to clean up hazardous
substance sites. Referrals are usually made to obtain court approval for judicial settlements orto
sue parties that have refused to settle their liability for cleanups. The government typically sues
non-settlers to ensure that all responsible parties pay their share of the cost of site cleanup. This
year Region 1 referred a total of thirteen civil cases, eight of which were accompanied by
settlements. Although the number of judicial referrals decreased by two from the previous year,
the amount of money sought under these referrals increased by 43% to $134.9 million.
6

-------
REFERRALS FOR CIVIL U11GATION
NUMBER
FISCAL YEAR
I- 1 O also saw a number of precedent-setting decisions in Superfund court cases involving Region
1 enforcement matters. The Picillo case in Rhode Island ratified the use of the judicial procedure
known as collateral estoppel to establish federal liability based on a former judgment in a case
brought by the State of Rhode Island. In U.S. v. Burns in New Hampshire, EPA obtained a very
favorable decision interpreting the liability of trustees and beneficiaries of real estate trusts for
contamination on their property.
HIGffLIGHT: SIGNIFICANT COURT DECISIONS
in FY 19 9, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court ruling that a parent
corporation can beh ddirectlyliableunderSuperfundas an “operator.” In U.S. v. Kayser-Roth 1
the circuit held that the parent corporation, Kayser-Roth, exercised “practical total influence
and control” over theoperat ions of ifssubsidiary, StaminaMills,and was thereforean operator
within the meaningof the law. Stamina Mills was the operat or of the StaminaMills Superfund
Site, which was contaminated through a spill of trichioroethylene. EPA performed an action
to construct a water line to affected residences, then sued Kayser-Roth to recover EPA’s costs.
Under the court decisions, Kayser-Roth is responsible for all EPA costs spent, and to be spent
in the future, to clean up the Stamina Mills Site.
The First Circu it also issued a highly favorable decision affirming thedistrict court’s approval
of the Cannons Engineering mega-settlement. The 1 988 settlement, which involved four sites
in Mas9achu sets and NewHampshire, had been challenged byagroupof non-settling parties.
The cou rt decisions held that EPA had wideauthority to enter into settlements at Superfund
sits. Sign flcantly, t hecourt approvedascheme that rewarded PRPs who settled sctoner rat her
than later with more favorable settlement terms, eaying it was “completely consonant with
CERCLA’s makeup.”
1987
1088 1989 1990
7

-------
WATER
Underthe Clean WaterAct in FY90 the Region referred twelve new cases forcivil actions in federal
disthct court. This continued a strong effort in which a total of thirty-five civil cases have been
referred during the last three years.
FISCAL YEAR
1990
1989
1988
1987 -J
1986 -
REFERRALS FOR CIVIL U11GATION
NUMBER
In the ongoing water cases in litigation, the Region in FY90 obtained $1,433,500 in civil pena ies,
a record amount.
0 2 4 0 8 10 12 14 10
PENALTIES ASSESSED IN CIVIL JUDICI/ L CONSENT DECREES
$1400
$1200
$1000
$800
$000
$400
$200
$0
1985
1987
1988
FISCAL YEAR
8

-------
As in past years, a principal focus of enforcement under the Clean Water Act is bringing Publicly
Owned Sewage Treatment Works (PO1Ws) into compliance. Because of high levels of federal
and state activity, Region I and the New England states have taken court actions against virtually
all major municipalities which did not complete construction of their PO1Ws by the July 1, 1988
deadline. During FY 90, the Region focused on such major municipal cases in Massachusetts as
those invoMng Boston Harbor, New Bedford, and the South Essex Sewerage District.
HIGHLIGHT BOSTON HARBOR CLEANUP
Region I ’s six-year enf orcement effort to clean up Boston Harbor continued during FY90 with
afocus on the two major portions of the cleanup which remain to be fully addressed, long-term
sludge management and combined sewer oveifiows (CSOs). After a four-year process of
facilities planning and environmental review, in November, 1989, the Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority (MWRA) sited the various sludge ma nagement facilities need edfor the
harbor cleanup. These facilities are needed to ensure that the current environmentally
dainagingpracticeofdumpingsludgeinto Boston Harbor isended. However, in theface of local
opposition to the proposed residuals landfill, political obstacles have been placed in the
MWRA’s path in its attem pts toac quiTe the landfill site. The Massachusetts Legislature voted
down the M WR.A’s selected site for a landfill and failed to approve an alternative site. In
response to the Legislature ‘sfailure to act , EPA sought the assistance of the fed eral court to help
ensure that the MWRA is able to acquire all sites necessary for its cleanup programs. On
February 25,1 991, the District Court issued an order imposing a sewer ban in the MWRA ‘s
service area of 43 communities. The ban is to remain in effect until the MWRA has a landfill
site to ensure compliance with the Court’s cleanup schedule.
With respect to the CSOs, the M WRA’s final facilities plan was issued in September, 1990. It
adopts theapprcrach of eliminating most CSOove fiows by cons tructingextensivedeep tunnel
and near surface storage systems. This plan will be a significant step in addressing the raw
sewage discharges now occurring whenever it rains in and around Boston Harbor.
HIGHLIGHT: SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT
Lccal political efforts and leadership this past year avoided the ne a l for a trial in EPA’s Clean
Water Act enforcement caseagainst the South Essex Sewerage District in Salem, MA. A state
law limiting fees and taxes was preventing the District from constructingafe4erally required
secondary treatment plant. Rather than going to trial over the issue of whether the federal court
could order treatment plant construction notwithstanding the state law restrictions, local
officials agreed to seek overrides of the limitations. They were successful in doing so, and
construction of the se ondary treatment phint now can move forward. The secondary plant will
help to address the longstanding serious pollution problems in Salem Harbor.
9

-------
Another continuing focus of the Water Program is enforcement against industrial noncompliers.
While industrial compliance rates under the Clean Water Act generally are higher than those of
municipalities, there are exceptions. During FY 90, Region 1 concentrated on enforcement cases
against several majorcorporations with poorcompliance records. For example, EPA and the State
of Connecticut continued to prosecute their jointly filed suit against the Dexter Corporation for
violations of the Clean Water Act at its paper plant in Windsor Locks, CT. In addition, the Region
referred new cases to the Department of Justice for litigation against two other major corporations
with violating facilities in New England.
A critical component of EPA’s efforts to ensure high levels of compliance with water standards in
the Region is maintaining a strong field presence. In FY 90 Region I conducted water inspections
at 185 facilities throughout New England, as compared to 142 water inspections in FY 89.
Another critical component of the water enforcement program is the enforcement activity by the
six New England states. During FY 90, the six states conducted a total of 425 water inspections,
issued a total of 53 administrative orders, and referred 24 cases to their Attorneys General for civil
litigation.
STATE ENFORCEMENTTOTALS
TYPEOF
ACTION
FISCAL YEAR

1986
,
1987
1988
1989
1990
‘I RRALS
29
-
33
75
43
24
-V
ADMINISTRATiVE
ORDERS
76
74
90
80
53
10

-------
Also during FY 90, Region 1 maintained an aggressive administrative enforcement program. The
Region issued administrative compliance orders to 49 violators of the Clean Water Act. In addition,
in the three-year-old program enabling EPA to assess administrative penalties against violators,
Region 1 dunng FY 90 issued a total of thirteen new administrative penalty orders. Proposed
penalties in these cases ranged up to $125,000. Sixteen cases were resolved dunng the year,
fifteen by voluntary settlement and the one against the Town of Rochester, NH by the award of
penalties to EPA by an administrative judge following a hearing. In cases like Rochester where
a violator does not agree to a voluntary settlement, EPA prosecutes the matter and ensures that
any penalties awarded are collected. The administrative penalties obtained by Region 1 dunng
FY 90 totaled $351 ,750, a record amount.
PENALTIES ASSESSED IN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY ACTIONS
AMOUNT (ThOUSANDS)
$400
Included in Region l’s Clean Water Act enforcement program is an active enforcement effort
against those who unlawfully fill wetlands. During FY 90, the Region referred five new civil cases
for litigation to the Department of Justice and initiated one administrative penalty action against
violators of the wetlands laws.
fflGHLIGff1’ r TOWN OFMANCHESTER , CT
In the Town of Manchester case, the government had filed a civil action to address the
unperm itted flulingof approximat ely4.5 acres of wetlands toconstructasecondarywastewater
treatment facility. Under the terms of the consentdecree negotiated in FY90, the Town agreed
to ya $3W ,000 penaltyand restoreapproximately 1 3 acres of forested wetland. This is one
of the highest penalties ever obtained by EPA in a wetlands case.
FISCAL YEAR
11

-------
DRINKING WATER
EPA is ultimately responsible for enforcement of the standards protecting public drinking water
supplies underthe Safe Drinking Water Act, although the primary focus for enforcement underthis
statute resides with the states. In FY 90 the Region issued 19 Notices of Violation, five proposed
administrative orders, and eight final administrative orders under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Also, the Region continued to prosecute its case against the City of North Adams, MA for violations
of maximum contaminant levels and other Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. The City’s
attempt to stay the enforcement action was rejected by the federal district court judge.
The states in Region 1 both conduct sanitary surveys of public drinking water systems and take
enforcement actions against systems violating drinking water standards. In FY 90 the six states
togetherconducted 1,138 sanitary surveys, issued 20 administrative orders, and referred one new
civil case for litigation.
..,:.....•.
STATE ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE OF ACTION FISCAL YEAR
1986
1987
1988 1989 1990
REFERRALSTO
ATTORNEY GENERAL
6
2
1
2
1
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS ISSUED
0
1
30
37
20
12

-------
AIR
Region 1 in FY 90 initiated a record level of enforcement actions under the Clean Air Act. EPA
issued thirty-eight administrative orders, the highest number ever. Twenty-eightorderedcontractors
to comply with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulating the
reporting and/or workpractice standards for handling asbestos in renovation and demolition
projects. These reporting and workpractice standards are designed to avoid exposing the public
to airborne asbestos from such projects. Ten ordered stationary sources to comply with various
provisions underthe Act, including the New Source Performance Standards, state implementation
plans, and prevention of significant detenoration requirements.
1988
1987
HIGHLIGHT: ASBESTOS CONTRACTOR LISTING
On January12, 1990,an EPA Case Examiner issued an opinion finding itappropriateto place
BigApple Wrecking Corporation on the list of violating facilities under section 306 of theClean
AirAct. Listing undersection 306 bars thefacilityfrompartic4 tingin projects involvingany
federal government contracts, subcontracts, grants, or loans. Listing is an enforcement t l
that is appropriately used against a facility with a record of continuing or recurring
noncompliance with clean air standards. This case represents the first discretionary listing
action EPA initiated against an owner or operator jbr violations of the National Emission
StandardsforHazardousAir Polluta ntscont rolling the handlingof asbestos in renovation and
demolition operations. It is also the firstdiscret ionarylistinghearingever ca rried out by Region
I. Big Apple is appealing the finding.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS ISSUED
FISCAL YEAR
1990
1989
1986
0 10 20
30 40 50
NUMBER
13

-------
The Region also issued seventeen Notices of Violation (NOVs) in FY 90. This represents the
highest number that the Region has issued since at least 1985. These NOVs are issued to notify
stationary sourceS that they are violating regulations EPA has approved in a state implementation
plan. These regulations are designed to protect the public and environment from the wide-spread
effects of industrial air pollution.
I
In addition, dunng FY 90 the Air Program continued to issue Notices of Deficiency (NODs) to
address notifications of asbestos demolition or renovation operations which lack all the required
information. The Region issued 90 such NODs. Owners or operators responsible for the
notifications who receive multiple NODs become likely candidates for receipt of administrative
orders. Without accurate notices, it is difficult for EPA and the states to determine compliance with
the work practice standards for handling asbestos in demolition and renovation projects.
In the field, the Air Program conducted 183 inspections. Forty-one were inspections at renovation
or demolition projects invoMng potential asbestos removal, and 142 were inspections of stationary
sources of air pollution.
FISCAL YEAR
NUMBER
NUMBER
20
NOTICES OF VIOLATION ISSUED
I
1 9S7 i e e e
FISCAL YEAR
1989 1990
INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED
0
50
21
150
*00
260
14

-------
Region 1 also made a record high number of nine referrals to the Department of Justice for civil
litigation and initiated one administrative penalty action. The administrative penalty action was a
Notice of Noncompliance under section 120 of the Act, designed to recoup the economic benefit
of the noncompliance from the violator. The referrals for civil litigation included three cases to
enforce the asbestos demolition and renovation standards; five casesto enforce state implementation
plan limits on emissions from stationary sources, of which three were cases addressing volatile
organic compound emissions that contribute to urban smog; and one case to enforce New Source
Performance Standards.
NUMBER
10
S
6
4
2
0
REFERRALS FOR CIVIL UTIGATION
HIGHL1GHT SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS EPA ENFORCEMENT
On June14, 1990, the United States Supreme Cou rt hand ed down its opinion in theClean Air
Act enforcement case General Motors Coip. V. United States . EPA Region .1 filed a civil
enforcement case against General Motors (GM) under the Act alleging violations of limits on
emissionsofvolatileorganiccomPOundsfrOlfl GM’sautomobileossemblyplantin Framingham,
MA. Those emission limits are contained in the federally-approved state implementation plan
for Ma ssathusetts,designed to retluceground-levelozoneorsmog in the Commonwealth. The
Court upheld EPA’s authority to enforce state implementation plans where EPA has not yet
finally denied a state’s proposal to relax the regulations in the plan.
1986 1987 1988
FISCAL YEAR
15

-------
In FY 90 Region 1 resolved five cases already in litigation. The consent decrees entered in these
cases provide that EPA will collect a total of $400,342 in civil penalties and that the owners or
operators of the facilities subject to the consent decrees must comply with the air pollution control
regulations that were the subject of the litigation.
PENALTIES ASSESSED IN JUDICIAL CONSENT
AMOUNT (THOUSANDS) /
$800, .
$600 /
$400-
DECREES
Below are statistics for FY 90 from the air enforcement programs run by the New England states.
‘— .
a::::::’::. iI!:i!i i::’;:.::.::...il.. .I.I:I. .i..i ):I .: 1..I ‘...
TYPE OF ACTION

YEAR
1986
1987
1988
1989
-
1990
CIVIL REFERRALS
2
0
3
0
3
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS
68
31
42
26
43
NOTICES OF
VIOLATION
(NON-ASBESTOS)
194
148
298
142
106
INSPECTiONS
2026
goi
1862
1580
1384
$200-
I
$0
FISCAL YEAR
STATE ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
16

-------
PESTiCIDES
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA has an active
enforcement program for unregistered or mislabeled pesticide products. This program resulted in
the issuance of five administrative complaints with a total of $64,400 in proposed penalties in FY
90.
HIGHLIGHT: PREVENTING UNDOCUMENTED SAFElY CLAIMS
In FY90 the Region and Safer, Inc. of Wellesley, MA entered into a consentagreement to settle
an administrative complaint EPA had issued under FIFRA. The complaint alleged that Safer
had made safety claims for its consumer pesticide products in flagrant violation of FIFRA. As
part of the settlement, Saferagreed todiscontinue its use of ad vertisingcontainingsaf etyclaims
and wit hd rawacommercial which had beenairedon national network tel evision,paya$ 10,000
penalty, and make an environmentally beneficial expenditure of at least $ 70,000 to educate
pesticide consumers on the proper use of pesticides.
Forthe most part, however, pesticides enforcement under FIFRA has been delegated to the states
and supported by EPA through Cooperative Enforcement Grant Agreements and technical
assistance. In addition to actions under FIFRA, the states also conduct enforcement activities
undertheir own statutes, related to applicator licensing, pesticide registration and distribution, and
additional use investigations. The chart below lists state accomplishments.
STATE ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
FISCAL YEAR
TYPE OF _____ ______ ______ ______
ACTION 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
CIVIL
COMPLAINTS
116*
9
19
13
125**
CRIMINAL
COMPLAINTS
8
1
8
2

0
INSPECTIONS
1921
2468
2248
2496
2573
* Includes 108 clvii complaints Issued by the State of MaIne for use of an unregistered pestIcide
(Fusilode).
Includes eight referrals to the ConnectIcut Attorney General, sixty -three cMl complaInts Issued
by MaIne for Diquat misuse, and two referrals to the Massachusetts Attorney General.
17

-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
In FY 90 Region I continued an active and aggressive administrative enforcement program under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA issued administrative complaints assessing
penalties under two different TSCA programs, one regulating PCBs (polychlonnated biphenyls)
and one regulating asbestos found in public schools. In the PCB penalty program alone,the Region
proposed more than $2.6 million in penalties in FY 90, the largest amount in the history of the
Region 1 TSCA program.
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS ISSUED
TYPE OF CASE
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
PÔEs
15
31
20
18
19
ASBESTOS
;::
16
18
-.
4
-
3
14
The Region also settled eighteen administrative complaints and collected total assessed penalties
of $255,200. As part of seven of those settlements, the violators agreed to make environmentally
beneficial expenditures with a combined value of over $267,100. These expenditures paid for
removal, disposal, and/or replacement of equipment containing or contaminated by PCBs.
HIGHLIGHT: PCB VIOLATIONS AT UNiTED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION
On December29, 1989, Region I issued an administrative complaint under TSCA assessing
apenaltyof$ 1,167,OC%)against United Technologies Corporation (UTC). The complaint cites
UTC for thirteen different violations of EPA’s PCB regulations at three UTC facilities. This
is the largest penalty the Region has proposed under TSCA. Among other violations, the
complaint alleges that UTC improperly delayed the cleanup of a PCB spill, presenting a risk
of PCB exposure to employees and the environment. Since 1985, Lilt has poid EPA penalties
totalling $123,107 to settle administrative complaints alleging PCB ViOlatiOnS.
18

-------
PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
PROPOSED IN
$418,900
$1,333,600
$622,900
$1,186,800
$Z611,000
PCB
ASSESSED
$
98,300
$
309,600
$ 503,600
$
231,600
$
242,800
PROPOSED IN $ 332100 $ 244,600 $ 24,000 $ 32,000 $ 136,500
ASBESTOS
ASSESSED
$170,800
$ 44,300
$ 18,300
$ 0
$ 12,400
Note: There is no direct correlation between penalties proposed in complaints and penalties
assessed in any given year. The penalties assessed are often achieved in settlements of cases
commenced in prior years.
DOLLAR AMOUNT
1986
1987
1988 1989 1990
19

-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE
One focus of Region 1 ‘s enforcement program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) is the issuance of administrative complaints assessing penalties against violators of
the Agency’s hazardous waste management regulations. In FY 90, the Region issued fourteen
such complaints which proposed to assess a total of $1,560,600 in penalties. As compared with
the previous year, this represented almost a doubling of the number of administrative complaints
issued and almost a six-fold increase in the proposed penalty amounts. Also, the Region issued
three initial orders commencing the corrective action process at hazardous waste facilities.
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS ISSUED
FISCAL YEAR
1990
1989
1988
1981
1986
12 14 16
During FY90, Region 1 achieved settlements in six RCRA penalty cases. Underthe terms of these
six consent agreements, the Agency will collect $207,650. This represents more than twice the
amount collected in FY 89.
_I _______________ I I
14
12
I I
0
2 4 6 8 10
NUMBER
20

-------
FISCAL YEAR
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
-1
-1
CONSENT AGREEMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS ISSUED
For the first time, during FY90, Region 1 devoted a portion of its enforcement efforts to the illegal
export of hazardous waste. The Region issued three administrative enforcement actions against
exporters of hazardous waste. The Agency’s hazardous waste export regulations require the
reporting of any transport of hazardous waste outside the United States. If a generator plans to
export hazardous waste, EPA requests consent from the importing country. All exports are
prohibited without this consent. Hazardous waste export enforcement has been closely coordi-
nated with U.S. Customs officials.
HIGHLIGHT: AVCO CORPORATION
One of the export actions taken by Region I in FY 90 was against AVCO Corporation of
Stratford, CT, one of this country’s largest hazardous waste exporters (based on 1988 export
data). This facility, a large Deportment of Defense contractor, accou nt ed for ten percent of the
totalamount of waste exported to Canada in 1988. Canada has been the primary recipient of
hazardous waste exports from the U.S., receiving approximately eighty percent of the total
exports. The proposed penalty in this case was in excess of $200,000. Documented violations
included unauthorized exports, as well as manifest and annual reporting requirements.
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
NUMBER
21

-------
PENALTIES ASSESSED IN CONSENT AGREEMENTS
AMOUNT
.(TFOUSANDS)
I
In FY 90, Region 1 also continued its efforts which were begun in FY 89 to implement an active
program to enforce the land disposal restriction requirements established under the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA. These requirements are designed to ensure that
hazardous wastes in significant concentrations are not disposed in or on the land. Dunng the fiscal
year, Region 1 initiated seven cases based on violations of the land disposal restrictions, proposing
penafties of over $230,000. The Region settled four land disposal cases, collecting approximately
$115,000 in penalties. The Region also continued to work with the New England states in
developing inspection and enforcement procedures related to this program.
HIGHLIGHT: GILBERT & BENNE7T MANUFACTURING COMPANY
In July, 19 ), Region Ifile4 an administrative enforcement action alleging numerous RCR.A
violations by the Gilbert and Bennett Manufacturing Company of Georgetown, CT. The
complaint seeks a penalty of$587,114, one of the largest administrative penalty assessments
in the Region’s history. The violations cited include the operation of hazardous waste surface
impoundments and a hazardous waste container storage facility without a permit or interim
status, the failure to implement a groundwater monitoring program, the failure to determine
the groundwater concentrations of all of the required parameters for each quarter of required
groundwatermonitoringduring 1989,and several additional base RCRA program violations.
The Gilbert and Ben nett Company manufactured metal wirefence from November, 7980 until
July, 1989 when the company ceased all manufacturing operations and commenced a facility
wide clean-up.
FISCAL YEAR
22

-------
In addition to maintaining an active administrative enforcement agenda in FY 90, Region 1 also
pursued a number of cases through the federal courts with the assistance of the U.S. Department
of Justice. Two majoractionswere filed in federal court during the past year. In addition ,the Region
referred three new RCRA cases to DOJ for litigation during the past year. These cases targeted
egregious and recalcitrant violators; they seek both pena ies and injunctive relief. Noteworthy is
that two of the three referrals combined claims under RCRA and the Clean Water Act, further
demonstrating the Region’s commitment to a multi-media approach to enforcement. A fourth
RC RA referral to DOJ during FY90 expanded an existing case to address violations at a new facility
owned by the same company.
HIGHLIGHT: LThT1TED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
In September, 1990, a civil judicial suit was filed against United Technologies Corporation, a
major government contractor which manufactures aircraft engines and parts. The suit alleges
over one hundred violations of RCRA at six different UTC facilities in Con necticut The
government is seeking injunctive relief and a multi-million dollar penalty. Despite numerous
EPA administrative actions in recent years, the company has failed to comply with RCRA’s
requirements for storage and handling of hazardous wastes. The case is notable in that it
combines RCRA violations at various facilities intoa singlelawsuit. The en vi ronmental benefit
to beachieved by proceeding in this manner is that, rather than simplycuring isolated violations
at a particular plant, a major corporation is being forced to improve its overall environmental
management practices across a wider spectrum of its facilities. In the lawsuit, the govern ment
is seeking a multi-facility, multi-media environmental audit. The audit would detect any
additional environmental compliance problems and suggest improvements in operating
procedures to prevent future compliance problems.
HIGHLIGHT SOLVENTS RECOVERY SERVICE OF NEW ENGA.ND
In July, 1990, the government filed a civil judicial action against Solvents Recovery Service of
New England, Inc. (SRSNE) for violations of SRSNE’s hazardous waste permits and for
violations of RCRA’s Land Disposal Restrictions, and for cost recovery for EPA-funded
clean-upactivities being perf ormed under Superfund authority. At the same time, the United
States filed a motion to enforce a consent decree entered between SRSNE and the U.S. in 1983.
SRSNE is a RCRA-permitted hazardous waste treatment and storage facility located in
Southington, CT. Since 1955, it has accept ed wastesol vents from numerous gen erat ors,at first
distilling them and reselling them to generators, later blending them into a hazardous waste
fuel for resale. The complaint seeks millions of dollars in penalties for the RCRA violations;
$777,000 in past response costs under Supe rfu r id; the recovery of alifuture costs to be incurred
in cleaning up the site; the revocation of SRSNE’s authority to operate a hazardous waste
management facility;and theclosureofthefacility in accordancewith an approved closure plan
The motion to enforce the consent decree seeks nearly nine million dollars in penalties for
violations of thedecreeand the rebuildingofagroundwaterrecoverysystem which SRSNE was
required to build and operate.
23

-------
The New England states, under their hazardous waste enforcement programs in FY 90, also
brought a large number of administrative and judicial actions.
STATE ENFORCEMENT TOTALS
TYPE OF
ACTION
FISCAL YEAR
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
NOTICES OF
()5
519
457
398
488
ORDERS
146
144
100
108
102
CIVIL
A T1ONS 21 17 10 18 18
CRIMINAL
ACTIONS 2 1 2 0 2
24

-------
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
FY 90 was the second full year of enforcement activity under the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),also known as Title lii of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986. Region l’s enforcement efforts zeroed in on three areas of the
program: 1) facilities that failed to provide timely and proper notification to government authorities
after accidental releases of hazardous chemicals, 2) facilities that failed to submit material safety
data sheets and inventories of hazardous chemicals to the state emergency response commis-
sion, local emergency planning committee, and local fire department for emergency planning
purposes, and 3) facilities that failed to submit required annual toxic chemical inventory forms to
the appropriate authorities by the July 1 St annual deadline.
All of Region l’s enforcement actions arose under the strong administrative penalty provisions in
EPCRA. In FY90, the Region issued 25 administrative complaints, proposing a total assessment
of $1,599,040 in penalties. Those figures greatly exceed the 15 complaints issued in the previous
year which proposed penalties of $515,000. Also, Region 1 settled or obtained judgments in 14
cases during FY 90 resulting in total penalties of $368,940.
HIGHLIGHT: WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY, iNC.
On September 28, 1990, Region I initiated one of the largest enforcement actions brought to
date under EPCRA. This action, which combined for the first time all of the major components
of the program, proposed total penalties of $478,000 against the Wyman-Gordon Company of
North G rafton , MA. Inspections were coordinated between the two Region I offices responsible
for implementation of the EPCRA program, resulting in thedevelopment of a joint complaint
which comprehensively add ressed all violations of EPCRA at this facility, including failure to
file toxic release inventory forms and failure to submit chemical inventory information to local
and state authorities.
HIGHLIGHT SEEKONK LACE
Seekonk Lace of Barrington, RI was the Region’s first EPCRA settlement providing for
environmentally beneficial expenditures by a company. As part of the $15,000 settlement of
this $25,000 case, the company agreed to spend approximately $95,000 to convert an
acetone-based solvent system used in lace preduction to a mechanical system which used no
solvents. The use of the toxic chemical acetone was completely eliminated.
25

-------
REGION I ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN ATED
FY 1986 TO FY 1990
FYi 986
FY1987
FYi 988
FYi 989
FYI 990
24
23
29
31
38
CLEAN AIR ACT
CLEAN WATER ACT
30
53
47
51
62
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
0
0
5
4
5
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT
9
17
9
13
17
COMPREHENSiVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE,
::C0MP!...1S h101 AND LIABIUTY ACT
6
15
13
18
22
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
31
50
27
21
33
::FED ..EcTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND
RODEN11CIDE ACT
7
9
9
4
5
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT
0
0
1
15
25
TOTALS
107
167
140
157
207
26

-------
REGION I CIVIL REFERRALS FOR LITIGATION
Ff1986 TOFY199O
FY 1986
FY 1987
FY 1988
FY1989 FY
1990
8 7 3
CLEAN WATER ACT
6
6
13 10 12
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
0
0
2
0
0
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
3
1
0
4
4
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE,
COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT
2
7
14
15
13
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
0
0
1
0
0
TOTALS
19
22
37
32
38
CLEAN AIR ACT
8
9
27

-------
REGION I CRIMINAL REFERRALS TO ThE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FY 1986 TO FY 1990
FY86
FY87
FY88
FY89
FY90
2
2
7
8
8
+
/
28

-------