One Year of Enforcement in
Region X
October 1976 to October 1977
sx
$ \
ISIS;
\ PR0^0
-------
Prepared by: J. Crosson
C. Drotts
P. Mi 1 lam
-------
Dear Concerned Citizen:
The creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the adoption of a
number of strong State and Federal laws to set equitable ground rules for cleanup have
provided this Nation with tools to protect the public health and create an environment in which
economic growth can occur with due regard to the needs of present and future generations.
The EPA and the States have provided technical assistance and encouragement to those who
have sought to comply voluntarily with these rules, and to a large extent this effort has been
successful. The Nation's environment is cleaner and safer now than it was in 1970, when the
EPA was formed.
But these achievements would have been impossible if the States and Federal government had
been unwilling to act reasonably in regard to minor, technical violations and to be vigorous in
seeking to correct that small minority of polluters who sought to evade the rules.
This report tells about Federal enforcement of environmental laws in EPA's Region X, which
includes the States of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington, between October 1976, and
September 30, 1977, Fiscal year 1977. It does not cover enforcement taken by State agencies
having primary responsibility for the protection of the environment. To have included State
actions would have required a much larger publication, for the region's reputation for
environmental cleanliness rests largely upon the diligence and effectiveness of the States in
enforcing their own laws.
EPA enforcement actions in Federal District Courts are by law prosecuted by the Attorney
General of the United States and the Department of Justice. EPA's success in these cases
would not have been possible without the skilled and professional assistance of various United
States Attorneys, and we are most appreciative.
-------
Finally, no such report as this would be complete without acknowledging the role of concerned
citizens in helping to devise sound State and Federal regulatory programs and to ensure that
they are fairly carried out. We recognize that the EPA and the laws it administers were shaped
by people interested in establishing a sound balance among economic, social, and environ-nental
values. Slate and Federal efforts to restore and protect the environment in a reasonable
fanlher'ninqe on the continuation of that active interest and concern.
)onald(/P. Dubois
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
-------
ONE YEAR OF ENFORCEMENT IN REGION X
Table of Contents
Page
I. Air Pollution
A. Stationary Source 1
B. Mobile Source
1. Unleaded Fuels 13
2. Tampering 19
II. Pesticides 22
III. Water Pollution
A. Waste Discharge Permits 32
B. Oil Spill Prevention and Enforcement
1. Oil Spill Prevention 51
2. Oil Spill Enforcement 66
IV. EPA Region X Enforcement Cases Summary 71
-------
AIR POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT
Stationary Source Enforcement
The Federal Government vastly increased its role in air pollution enforcement with the passage
of the Clean Air Act in 1970. The new Act required the States to develop plans to meet
National clean-air quality goals. These plans (called State Implementation Plans or SIP's)
described the laws, regulations, permit programs, studies, etc., that would be implemented by
the state or local air pollution control agencies. By the terms of the Clean Air Act, the EPA
may enforce State and local regulations if they such help or fail to take appropriate
enforcement action themselves.
The term "stationary source" refers to a fixed facility that emits air pollution, usually through
a smoke stack. Other examples of stationary sources are open burning garbage dumps and field
burning. (Stationary sources are distinguished from mobile sources such as automobiles.) The
variety of possible violations is as wide as the variety of State and local regulations. Typical
examples:
-Violations of emission limitation
-Emission of hazardous pollutants
-Failure to meet increments of compliance schedule
-Failure to monitor pollutants
1
-------
Most of EPA's air pollution enforcement is against stationary sources, violations of emission
limitations such as sulfur dioxide (SO~) or particulate matter (dust, smoke, fumes, mist, etc.).
Four enforcement options are available to EPA in such cases:
-Notice of Violation (must precede any of the actions below)
-Administrative Order/Consent Order
-Federal Facility Consent Agreement
-Referral to the United States Attorney
2
-------
Notice of Violation:
This is a notice authorized by Section 113 of the Clean Air Act sent to both the source and the
State indicating that EPA has information that a violation has occurred. The Notice officially
gives the State and the violating source 30 days to take corrective action. If the State or local
agency with jurisdiction over the air polluter takes appropriate action, EPA does not pursue
the matter. If action to prevent future violations is not taken, EPA has the authority to
proceed to the next steps in the Administrative enforcement process. The Notice of Violation
is nondiscretionary if EPA has knowledge of a violation.
FISCAL YEAR 1977
STATIONARY SOURCE AIR POLLUTION - NOTICE OF VIOLATION
ALASKA:
Source Name City
Alaska Lumber Sitka
and Pulp
Nature of Violation
Failure to comply with State
issued compliance schedule
for the chemical recovery
boilers.
Type of Action
Date of
Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
Notice of Violation 77/07/11
Cook Inlet Anchorage Failure to comply with Federal Notice of Violation 77/03/03
Asphalt new source performance notifi-
cation and source testing require-
ments.
3
-------
Louisiana Ketchikan
Pacific
IDAHO
Source Name City
Acme Mfg. Filer
U & I Sugar Idaho
Falls
OREGON:
Source Name City
Duraflake Co.
Albany
Failure to comply with State
issued compliance schedule for
the chemical recovery boilers
and wood waste power boilers.
Notice of Violation 77/07/11
Nature of Violation
Exceeded 40% opacity limitation
from roof cyclone and modified
the facility without obtaining
a permit to construct.
Exceeded the 42.8 lbs. of par-
ticulate per hour standard
from coal fired boiler #2.
Date of
Type of Action Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
Notice of Violation 77/07/01
Notice of Violation 76/10/28
Nature of Violation
Exceed 20% opacity limitation
from the two particle driers at
their particle board plant.
Date of
Type of Action Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
Notice of Violation 77/02/07
-------
Georgia Pacific White
Corporation City
Hudspeth
Lumber Co.
Milwaukie
Plywood
John Day
Milwaukie
Exceed 20% opacity limitation
from charcoal furnace. Fugitive
emissions emanating from ash con
veyor system also exceeded 20%.
Exceeded ^0% opacity limitation
from hogged fuel boilers.
Exceeded 20% opacity limitation
and 0.2 grains/sdcf* particulate
matter limitation from hogged
fuel burner.
Weyerhauser
Company
Woodex, Inc.
Spring-
field
Browns-
ville
Exceeded 0.2 grains/sdcf*
particulate matter limitation
and process weight limitation.
Exceeded 20% opacity limitation
from the rotary drier.
********************
~grains per standard dry cubic foot
Notice of Violation 77/09/30
Notice of Violation 77/02/17
Notice of Violation 76/12/30
Notice of Violation 77/06/24
Notice of Violation 77/06/01
-------
FISCAL YEAR 1977
STATIONARY SOURCE POLLUTION - NOTICE OF VIOLATION
WASHINGTON:
Source Name City
ASARCO
Pacific Solid
Waste
Scott Paper
Company
Weyerhauser
Company
Long
Beach
Everett
Everett
Nature of Violation
Type of Action
Date of
Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
Tacoma Exceeded 20% opacity limitations Notice of Violation 77/04/05
and SO- emissions limitations
from the main stack.
Open burning of garbage in
violation of applicable regu-
lations.
Notice of Violation 77/06/23
Exceeded 20% opacity limitations Notice of Violation 77/09/30
from hogged fuel boilers.
Exceeded 20% opacity limitations Notice of Violation 77/08/24
and 0.2 grains/sdcf* particulate
matter limitation from hogged
fuel boilers.
6
-------
Administrative Order/Consent Order;
Section 113 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to administratively order violators to comply
with the laws, regulations, or emission limitations as set forth in the State Implementation
Plan. An Administrative Order may not be issued unless a Notice of Violation has been in
effect for 30 days. If the State or local agency with jurisdiction takes appropriate action after
receiving a Notice of Violation, EPA will not issue an order. If both EPA and the violator sign
the order, it is termed a Consent Order. If EPA takes the action unilaterally, it is an
Administrative Order.
FISCAL YEAR 1977
STATIONARY SOURCE AIR POLLUTION - ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER/CONSENT ORDER
IDAHO:
Source Name City
Nature of Violation
Type of Action
Date of
Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
Lite Rock
Company
Banks Order was issued to insure
Order
76/12/09
compliance with applicable
visible air contaminant standards
from the shale expansion kiln.
7
-------
FISCAL YEAR 1977
STATIONARY SOURCE AIR POLLUTION - ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER/CONSENT ORDER
OREGON:
Source Name City
Champion Lebanon
International
Louisiana Tillamook
Pacific Co.
Western
Foundry
Tigard
WASHINGTON:
Source Name City
Baleville
Dump
South
Bend
Nature of Violation
Type of Action
Order was issued to establish a
compliance schedule which in
eluded a final compliance date.
Order was issued to insure that
final compliance is achieved
through a compliance schedule.
Consent order was issued to
insure that the company comply
with applicable opacity and parti-
culate matter regulations from the
cupola furnace and electric arc
furnace.
Order
Order
Consent Order
Nature of Violation
Order was issued to insure
that the company comply with
applicable open burning limitations.
Consent Order
Date of
Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
771021^
77/03/29
76/11/30
Date of
Type of Action Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
77/06/13
8
-------
Eastern Grays
Harbor
McCleary
Elma
Disposal
Elma
Georgia- Bellingham
Pacific Corp.
Order was issued to insure Order
that the company comply with
open burning limitations contained
in the Washington State air quality
implementation plan.
Order was issued to insure Order
that the company comply with
open burning limitations contained
in the Washington State air quality
implementation plan.
Exceeded 20% opacity limitation Order
and 0.2 grains/sdcf* particulate
matter limitation from hogged fuel
boilers.
7710512k
77105113
77/08/17
Hoquiam, Hoquiam Order was issued to insure that
City of the city comply with applicable
open burning limitations.
Order
76/12/27
Manson
Construction
Seattle Order issued to insure that Order
adequate precautions were taken
during demolition operations in-
volving removal of asbestos materials
to prevent dust emissions.
77/03/09
9
-------
Pacific
County
South
Bend
PadilJa Seattle
Bros. Co.
R. W. Rhine, Tacoma
Incorporated
10
Order was issued to insure
that the county comply with
open burning limitations contained
in the Washington State air quality
implementation plan.
Order issued to insure that
adequate precautions were
taken during demolition
operations involving the re-
moval of asbestos materials to
prevent dust emissions.
Order 77/05/05
77/03/09
Order 77/03/09
Order was issued to insure that Order
adequate precautions were taken
during demolition operations in-
volving the removal of asbestos
materials to prevent dust emissions.
-------
Federal Facility Consent Agreement
Prior to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Presidential Executive Order 11752 required
that Federal facilities comply with the substantive requirements of State and local air
pollution regulations. Consent agreements were negotiated between EPA and non-complying
Federal facilities (with State and local concurrence, when possible) to establish that facility is
not in compliance with the applicable regulations. Because the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 require Federal facilities to comply with all State and local air pollution regulations, the
Consent Agreement process will probably not be used in the future.
FISCAL YEAR 1977
STATIONARY SOURCE AIR POLLUTION - FEDERAL FACILITY CONSENT AGREEMENT
WASHINGTON:
Source Name City Nature of Violation
Type of
Action
Date of
Action
yr/mo/day
Fairchild Spokane
Air Force
Base
Incinerator exceeded emission
limitations
Consent
Agreement
76/10/01
Energy Richland
Research and
Development
Administration
Nine coal fired boilers ex-
ceeded emission limitations
Consent
Agreement
77/09/07
-------
Referrai to the United States Attorney:
For especially serious violations, EPA can refer a case to the U. S. Attorney who acts as EPA's
lawyer in filing suit against the violator. (EPA cannot administratively assess a fine or penalty
against a stationary source violator, only a Federal Court can). EPA, through the U. S.
Attorney, can ask a court to provide civil monetary penalties (fines) and/or an injuction (a
temporary or permanent order to do or stop doing something). The U. S. Attorney may also
negotiate a consent decree (a court-approved agreement signed by both parties) instead of
going through a trial. A consent decree must be published in the Federal Register for public
comment before being submitted to the Federal Court for approval.
FISCAL YEAR 1977
STATIONARY SOURCE AIR.POLLUTION - REFERRAL TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
OREGON:
Source Name City
Ellingson
Lumber Co.
Baker
Nature of Violation
Type of Action
Judicial intervention necessary
to resolve violations of 20%
opacity and 0.2 grains/sdcf*
particulate matter limitations from
hogged fuel boiler and wigwam waste
burner.
Referral to U. S.
Attorney
Date of
Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
76/10/28
12
-------
MOBILE SOURCE (AUTOMOBILE) ENFORCEMENT
Unleaded Fuels Program
One of the most serious air pollution problems is caused by automobile emissions. In high
population urban areas the concentrations of these pollutants can be harmful to human health.
Congress established progressively more stringent standards applicable to new cars for carbon
monoxide nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons coming out of automobile exhaust pipes. In order
to comply with the new standards, the automobile industry chose to use a device called the
"catalytic converter" in most American cars manufactured since September 1974.
The lead contained in regular and premium gasoline would "poison" the catalytic converter,
making it useless in reducing pollution. Therefore, EPA agreed to use its regulatory authority
to establish regulations to ensure that unleaded gasoline was widely available, and that leaded
gasoline was not pumped into cars designed for unleaded gasoline.
Violations of the unleaded fuels regulations can include:
-Failure to offer unleaded gasoline
-Contamination of unleaded gasoline with lead
-Putting leaded gasoline into cars designed for unleaded gasoline
-------
-Not having the proper pump nozzle*
-Not having the proper signs and labels on the pumps
Section 211 of the Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to assess penalties up to $10,000
for violators of the Unleaded Fuels Program.
* Cars designed to use unleaded gasoline have smaller gasoline filler inlets/intake openings.
Unleaded gasoline pumps must have a smaller nozzle to fit into the car. This prevents
the larger nozzles required on leaded gasoline pumps from entering unleaded gasoline
intake.
14
-------
Civil Penalty Complaint;
A Civil Penalty Complaint informs the gasoline station owner or lessee that EPA believes a violation
of the Unleaded Fuels regulations has occurred and proposes a monetary penalty for the violation.
At the same time, the station owner is given the opportunity to ask for an informal settlement
conference to explain the circumstances of the violation and what has been done to correct it and to
settle on the penalty amount. If the informal conference does not satisfy both parties, a more
formal hearing is held to decide upon a penalty and corrective action.
FISCAL YEAR 1977
MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION - CIVIL PENALTY COMPLAINT
IDAHO:
Source Name City
Nature of Violation
Gas N Save Blackfoot No unleaded offered
Red Barn Mountain No unleaded offered
Market Home
V-l Oil Co. Idaho Falls No unleaded offered
Type of
Action
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Action
Date
yr/mo/day
77/02/15
77/03/22
77/01/05
Penalty
Collected
$ 500.00
$ 1,800.00
$ 3,000.00
-------
V-l Oil Co. Caldwell
No unleaded offered
V-l Oil Co. Pocatello No unleaded offered
OREGON:
Source Name City
Nature of Violation
Leathers Oil
Company
Albany No unleaded offered
Wallace Road Salem No unleaded offered
Hencoop
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
77/01/05
76/09/28
$ 3,000.00
$ 3,000.00
Type of
Action
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Action
Date
yr/mo/day
77/02/04
77/06/08
Penalty
Collected
$ 1,800.00
$ 1,800.00
-------
FISCAL YEAR 1977
MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION - CIVIL PENALTY COMPLAINT
WASHINGTON:
Source Name City
Gasamat
Gasamat
Gasamat
Gasamat
Gasamat
John's
Texaco
Port
Angeles
Nature of Violation
Tumwater No unleaded offered
No unleaded offered
Yakima No unleaded offered
Tacoma No unleaded offered
Bremerton No unleaded offered
Omak
Contaminated unleaded
Type of
Action
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Action
Date
yr/mo/day
77/03/24
77/03/24
77/03/24
77/03/24
77/03/24
77/03/31
Penalty
Collected
$ 1,000.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 3,900.00
-------
Truck Village Federal Introduction of leaded Civil Penalty 77/08/26 pending
Incorporated Way Complaint
18
-------
Tampering Program
A second aspect of the Mobile Source enforcement program is the Tampering Program. A
Federal anti-tampering law prohibits automobile manufacturers, new car dealers, repair shops,
leasing agencies, and fleet operators from removing or rendering inoperative any emission
control device or element of design that is installed on a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine. New car dealers who violate the tampering laws are subject to civil penalties up to
$10,000 for each car tampered with. Repair shops, commercial mechanics and fleet operators
are subject to a $2,500 fine for each tampering incident.
Examples of tampering include:
-removing or rendering inoperative such devices as the catalytic
converter, air pump, and EGR valve.
-disconnecting vacuum lines and electrical or mechanical portions
of the pollution control system such as electrical solenoids or
vacuum-activated valves.
-adjusting an element of a car's emission control design out
of line with manufacturer's specification.
-tune-ups by a mechanic which are not in conformance with
manufacturer's specifications.
-------
-knowingly installing a replacement part that is not equivalent
in design and function to the part that was originally on the car.
(This, however, does not mean that you have to use replacement
parts sold by the motor vehicle manufacturer or its franchised
dealers.)
If EPA is aware of violators of the anti-tampering law, the case is referred to the Department
of Justice. Although several incidents were investigated during Fiscal Year 1977, no charges
were filed.
-------
AIR POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT SUMMARY
Number
of Cases
Penalties
Assessed
Notice of Violation
15
N/A
Administrative Order/Consent Order
13
N/A
Federal Facility Consent Agreement
2
N/A
Referral to the United States Attorney
1
N/A
Civil Penalty Complaint (Mobile Source)
li
$ 26,800
Totals:
$ 26,800
-------
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT
Responsibility for regulation of pesticides was assumed by the Environmental Protection
Agency in 1970. The pesticides program has three main components: product registration,
manufacturer registration, and misuse enforcement. All pesticides sold in the United States or
imported into this country must be registered with EPA. In order for the product to be
registered, the manufacturer must provide information verifying that the pesticide (1) is
effective against the pests listed on the label, (2) will not injure people, animals, crops, or the
environment when label directions are followed and, (3) will not result in illegal residues on
food or feed. Registered products must meet strict labeling requirements which include
statement of ingredients, name and address of manufacturer, and directions for use.
Manufacturers of pesticides must also register their establishments with EPA. Annual reports
and certain records must be submitted to EPA for use in keeping track of the amounts and
types of pesticides produced.
Violation of the pesticide laws and regulations fall into five major categories:
-Failure to register pesticide product or manufacturer
-Failure of manufacturer to submit required reports
-Improper label on pesticide product (misbranding)
-Chemical defects in the pesticide product (adulterated)
-Failure of a pesticide applicator to use the product in
accordance with label instructions (misuse)
-------
Enforcement actions against violators vary with the severity of the violation. Minor violations
- those which are not likely to influence a product's safe and effective use — may be handled
with a written Notice of Warning. Other enforcement actions are:
-Civil penalty warning citation
-Civil penalty complaint
-Criminal complaint
EPA can also take any of the following actions to remove from the market place products that
are unregistered, misbranded, or adulterated:
-Recall (a request that the company voluntarily recall a defective
product from its customers)
-Stop sale, use, or removal order
-Seizure (violative products are seized by a Federal Court Order)
-Injuction (a court order to prevent a manufacturer from continuing
to break the law)
Fortunately, most pesticide manufacturers and users comply voluntarily. In Region X, there
has been a steady increase in the percentage of compliance and a decrease in violations.
Region X has issued 195 Notices of Warning for minor infractions of the pesticide laws since
1973.
-------
Civil Penalty Warning Citation
This enforcement action is sued against private (as opposed to commercial) certified
applicators and general non-commercial pesticide users to warn the violator that a second
violation will result in a civil penalty. This citation is considered stronger than the Notice of
Warning.
FISCAL YEAR 1977
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS - CIVIL PENALTY WARNING CITATION
IDAHO:
Source Name
Twin Falls
Canal Co.
City
Twin Falls
Nature of Violation
Pesticides misuse
Type of
Action
Civil Penalty
Warning Citation
Date of
Action
yr/mo/day
77/11/17
OREGON:
Source Name
City
Nature of Violation
Bernie Calcagno Portland Pesticides misuse
Farms
Type of
Action
Civil Penalty
Warning Citation
Date of
Action
yr/mo/day
77/01/19
-------
FISCAL YEAR 1977
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS - CIVIL PENALTY WARNING CITATION
WASHINGTON:
Source Name
Earl Nordberg
King County
Road Dist.
Skinner, Dr.
Henry L.
Wally Kinne
City
Yakima
Redmond
Nature of Violation
Pesticide misuse
Pesticide Misuse
Battleground Pesticide misuse
Wenatchee Pesticide misuse
Type of
Action
Civil Penalty
Warning Citation
Civil Penalty
Warning Citation
Civil Penalty
Warning Citation
Civil Penalty
Warning Citation
Date of
Action
yr/mo/day
77/own
77/08/26
77/03/30
77/12/19
-------
Civil Penalty Complaint
Any pesticide manufacturer, commercial user, wholesaler, dealer, retailer, or other distributor
may be administratively fined up to $5,000 for each offense of the pesticide law. A private
pesticide user cannot be fined for misuse unless a Notice of Warning or Civil Penalty Warning
Citation has first been issued. For commercial applicators, the maximum penalty is $5,000 for
each offense. Private pesticide users may not be penalized more than $1,000 for each offense.
Before a penalty can be finally assessed, the violator must be offered an opportunity for a
hearing to explain mitigating circumstances. (Even more stringent penalties are authorized for
criminal violations i.e. knowingly violating the provisions of the law). No criminal penalties
were filed in Fiscal Year 1977 in Region X.)
FISCAL YEAR 1977
PESTICIDES ACTION - CIVIL PENALTY COMPLAINT
IDAHO:
Source Name City
Type of
Nature of Violation Action
Date of Penalty
Action Collected
yr/mo/day
77/5/2 $ 280.00
Crop King
Chemical
Marsing Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Crop King
Company
Marsing Delinquent report of
annual production
Civil Penalty 77/05/02 $ 280.00
Complaint
26
-------
Globe Feed
and Seed
Twin Falls Product not registered
Simplot Soil Wilder
Builder
Simplot Soil Weiser
Builder
Simplot Soil Caldwell
Builder
Western
Stockman's
Western
Stockman's
OREGON:
Source Name
Twin Falls
Nampa
Cit*
Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Nature of Violation
Chris-Brooke
Company
Portland Faulty labeling claims
Hatch Brothers Rockaway
Chemical
Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
77/08/03 $ 250.00
77/04/28 $ 1,600.00
77/04/28 $ 1,600.00
77/04/28 $ 1,600.00
77/04/28 $ 1,000.00
77/04/28 $ 1,000.00
Type of
Action
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Date of
Action
yr/mo/day
77/09/23
Penalty
Collected
$ 140.00
Civil Penalty
Complaint
77/04/28
firm insolvent
-------
Korinek Stayton
Remedy Co.
Simplot Soil Nyssa
Builders
Simplot Soil Vale
Builders
United States Stayton
Rodent Destroyer
Company
Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Delinquent reporting of
annual production
WASHINGTON:
Source Name
City
Nature of Violation
American Tar
Company
Atomic
Chemical Co.
Seattle Product chemically
deficient
Spokane 2 products chemically
deficient
28
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
77/04/28 $ 280.00
77/04/28 $ 1,600.00
77/04/28 $ 1,600.00
77/04/28 $ 280.00
Type of
Action
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Date of
Action
yr/mo/day
76/12/16
76/12/22
Penalty
Collected
$ 1,848.00
$ 215.00
-------
Chem Mark
Chemical
Crop King
Chemical
Crop King
Company
Spokane
Yakima
Yakima
Custom Ellensburg
Chemical Corp.
Eastside
Spraying
Services
Kirkland
2 products were chemically Civil Penalty
deficient Complaint
Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Pesticide misuse
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
77/08/09 not
finalized
77/05/02 $ 280.00
77/05/02 $ 280.00
77/04/28
Consolidated
with Florason
Seattle
77/06/22 $ 490.00
Farwest
Paint Mfg. Co.
Florason
Helena
Chemical Co.
Seattle Product not registered
Seattle Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Yakima Faulty labeling claims
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
77/02/04 $ 240.00
77/04/28 $ 160.00
77/03/10 $ 800.00
29
-------
Kem-Rite
North Coast
Chemical
Pacific
Agro Co.
R.H. Bowles
Company, Inc.
Auburn
Seattle
Renton
S.V. Chemicals Tacoma
Western
Farmers Assn.
Seattle
Selling unregistered
product
Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
2 products were chemically Civil Penalty
deficient Complaint
Toppenish Product not registered
Delinquent reporting of
annual production
Unregistered, misbranded
and adulterated pesticide
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
Civil Penalty
Complaint
77/11/18 $ 420.00
77/04/28 not
finalized
77/01/11 $ 3,200.00
77/08/02 $ 1,680.00
77/04/28 $ 500.00
77/09/27 $ 3,600.00
30
-------
Civil Penalty Warning Citation
Civil Penalty Complaint
PESTICIDES ENFORCEMENT
Number
of Cases
6
30
Totals:
36
Penalties
Assessed
N/A
$ 25,223
$ 25,223
-------
WATER POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT
Waste Discharge Permits
In amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1972, Congress gave the states
authority to require industry and municipalities to obtain a permit to discharge pollutants into
the Nation's waterways. Where states fail to do so, the EPA must manage the permit program.
The permits require dischargers to meet certain effluent limitations (restrictions on the
amount and composition of discharges) which were set nationally for each industry by EPA.
These restrictions are uniform throughout the country for each category of industry. As a
general rule, industry was to have installed and be operating the best practicable pollution
control technology by 3uly 1, 1977. Municipalities were to be using secondary (biological)
treatment by July 1, 1977, to clean up their discharges. In short, the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was designed to clean up water
pollution from industries and municipalities by setting tough restrictions in the permits. In the
Northwest, the states of Oregon and Washington issue and enforce NPDES permits. EPA runs
the program in Idaho, Alaska, and on Federal installations.
Permits issued under the NPDES program set specific limitations on certain pollutants, such as
temperature, oxygen depleting materials, and acidity or alkalinity, not meeting the pollutant
limitations. The permit contains a timetable of dates and events which is called a compliance
schedule. A typical compliance schedule would have dates by which the permittee must submit
a pollution control plan, contract to build the treatment works, begin contruction, complete
construction, etc., leading up to meeting the final pollution limitations. Additionally, the
permit may require the discharger to submit reports on the quality of its wastes, progress on
their schedule to attain compliance, or on any permit violations.
32
-------
Permit violations fall into 4 main categories:
-Failure to apply for a permit
-Exceeding the pollution limits
-Failure to meet the compliance schedule
-Failure to submit reports
EPA has three formal enforcement actions available to bring violators into compliance. They
are:
-Notice of Violation
-Administrative Order
-Referral to the U. S. Attorney
These enforcement actions are described in greater detail prior to listing the recipients of
these actions. The states of Oregon and Washington have similar enforcement options under
State laws and regulations.
-------
Notice of Violation
A written notice to a discharger and a state that EPA has information that a violation has
occurred. This enforcement action is taken only in those states in Region X that have
authority to issue and enforce permits - Oregon and Washington. The Notice of Violation tells
that state that EPA feels a violation has occurred that the state has not sufficiently acted
upon. If the state does not take appropriate action within 30 days, EPA can go one step
further and issue an Order.
FISCAL YEAR 1977
WATER POLLUTION - NOTICE OF VIOLATION
WASHINGTON:
Source Name
Boise Cascade
Corporation
City
Steilacoom
Crown
Zellerbach
Port Townsend
Nature of Violation
Failure to meet permit
compliance dates and
failure to meet stat-
utory compliance dates
filed April 25,1977.
Failure to meet permit
compliance dates and
failure to meet stat-
utory compliance dates
filed April 25, 1977.
Type of
Action
Notice of
Violation
Notice of
Violation
Date of
Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
77/03/03
77/03/03
-------
Crown Port Angeles
ZelJerbach
Georgia- Bellingham
Pacific
ITT Rayonier Port Angeles
Scott Paper Everett
Failure to meet permit Notice of
compliance dates and Violation
failure to meet stat-
utory compliance dates
filed April 25, 1977.
Failure to meet permit Notice of
compliance dates and Violation
failure to meet stat-
utory compliance dates
filed April 25, 1977.
Failure to meet permit Notice of
compliance dates and Violation
failure to meet stat-
utory compliance dates
filed April 25,1977.
Failure to meet permit Notice of
compliance dates and Violation
failure to meet stat-
utory compliance dates
filed April 25, 1977.
77/03/03
77/03/03
77/03/03
77/03/03
-------
OREGON:
Source Name City
Georgia- Toledo
Pacific
Nature of Violation
Failure to comply with
permit compliance
schedule.
Type of
Action
Notice of
Violation
Date of
Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
77/01/03
-------
Administrative Order:
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act authorizes EPA to order dischargers to comply with
their permits. For example, EPA could order a violator to: apply for a permit, cease
discharging without a permit, comply with a compliance schedule, meet effluent limitations or
send in a report, etc.
FISCAL YEAR 1977
WATER POLLUTION - ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
ALASKA:
Source Name
Alaska Lumber
and Pulp
Alaskan Glacier
Seafoods
Anchorage, Mun-
icipal, City of
Campbell Creek
£itI
Sitka
Petersburg
Anchorage
Nature of Violation
Type of
Action
Failure to comply with Order
the implementation
schedule
Failure to submit re- Order
ports required by NPDES
Permit.
Effluent violation
Order
Date of
Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
76/11/15 *
77/02/02
76/11/15
* This facility is assessed penalties at a rate of $200.00 per day when discharging.
37
-------
Anchorage, Mun- Anchorage
icipality of
Eagle River
Anchorage, Anchorage
Municipality of
Eagle River
Atlantic Yakutat
Richfield
BP Alaska
Cordova, City
of
Dutch Harbor
Seafood
Dutch Harbor
Seafood
Prudhoe Bay
Cordova
Unalaska
Unalaska
38
Effluent violation
Order
77/05/05
Failure to submit re- Order
ports and plans to meet
effluent limits required
by NPDES Permit.
Failure to comply Order
with established ef-
fluent limits in NPDES
Permit
Discharging without Order
valid NPDES Permit
Failure to submit re- Order
ports required by NPDES
Permit
Order allowed discharge Order
for 90 day period while
new permit issued
Order allowed discharge Order
for temporary 30 day
period
77/01/10
76/10/19
77/01/14
76/11/30
77/03/25
76/12/22
-------
Kenai Packing
Queen Fisheries
Queen Fisheries
Morpac Inc.
New England
Fish Co.
North Pacific
Processors
Pacific Pearl
Seafood
Kenai
Kodiak
Unalaska
Cordova
Cordova
Cordova
Unalaska
Ordered to eliminate Order
discharge of untreated
sanitary waste
Illegal discharge of Order
process waste
Allow discharge of Order
process waste after
fine mesh screening
Failure to install sere- Order
ening required by
NPDES permit
Failure to install sere- Order
ening required by
NPDES permit
Failure to install sere- Order
ening required by
NPDES Permit.
Ordered to collect all Order
process waste and dis-
charge in accordance
with NPDES Permit
77/05/05
76/10/27
76/11/30
76/12/09
76/12/09
76/12/09
76/11/30
39
-------
Pan Alaska
Fisheries
Unalaska
Phillips Petrol- Kenai
eum
Sea Alaska Dutch Harbor
Products
Sedco Maritime Lease #9
Sheffield Kotzebue
Enterprise
St. Elias Ocean
Products
Cordova
Company failed to Order 76/10/22
achieve secondary
treatment
Failure to submit re- Order 77/06-01
ports required by
NPDES permit and
ordered to submit
procedures to prevent
reoccurrance of further
non-compliance.
Issue order for permit Order 77/01/24
compliance corrective
action within 30 days and
submittal of delinquent
reports
Operating without Order 76/12/23
NPDES Permit
Company ordered to Order 77/01/27
monitor and submit
reports
Company failed to
achieve secondary
treatment
Order
76/12/09
-------
VaJdez, City of
Valdez
Whitney-Fidalgo Dutch Harbor
Seafood
Whitney-Fidalgo Petersburg
Seafood
Yakutat, City of
Yakutat
Yukon Delta Fish Emmonak
Marketing Cooperative
Failure to submit
reports required by
NPDES Permit
Failure to submit
reports required by
NPDES Permit
Failure to submit
notice that waste
treatment equipment
installed
Failure to submit
reports required
by NPDES Permit.
Failure to submit re-
ports required by
NPDES Permit
Order
Order
Order
Order
Order
77/03/29
77/06/22
77/03/30
77/08/31
76/11/30
-------
FISCAL YEAR 1977
WATER POLLUTION - ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
IDAHO:
Source Name
Aquaculture
Industries
Ashton, City of
Bunker HiJJ Co.
City
Amalgamated Twin Falls
Sugar Company
Hagerman
Ashton
Kellogg
Emkay Development Boise
Nature of Violation
Failure to submit pro-
gram for preventing
effluent violations
Failed to submit plan
for compliance
Type of
Action
Order
Order
Requires city to repair/ Order
install acceptable flow
measuring equipment and
plan to resolve problem
Failed to satisfy pre- Order
vious order referred
to U. S. Attorney for
this effluent violation
Failure to submit re- Order
ports required by
NPDES Permit
Date of
Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
77/02/02
77/04/18
77/08/24
76/10/22
77/09/02
42
-------
Fish Breeders of
Idaho
General Foods
Hecla Mining
Company
Heyburn, City of
Mayes, Aileen
Morrision-Knudsen
Morrison-Knudsen
Buhl
Nampa
Wallace
Heyburn
Warren
American
Falls
Brownlee
Failure to submit re-
ports required by
NPDES Permit
Order
77/04/18
Illegal Discharge Order 76/12/23
Company ordered to Order 77/08/26
maintain compliance
with expired permit
until new permit
issued
Failure to submit plans Order 77.03/03
and schedule for meeting
treatment requirements
Failure to submit re- Order 77/03/09
ports required by NPDES
Permit
Order to maintain com- Order 77/01/12
pliance with current
permit until new permit
issued
Failure to submit Order 77/02/07
reports required by
NPDES Permit
43
-------
Ore-Ida Foods,
Incorporated
Bur ley
Payette, City of Payette
Rogers Brothers Idaho Falls
Food
Rowland Brothers Pocatello
Dairy
Rupert, City of Rupert
Sandpoint, City of Sandpoint
Silver King Mines Cuprum
Violated effluent con- Order
ditions set for in NPDES
Permit
Order required sub- Order
mittal of personnel
training plan and O & M
corrections plan
Order issued to cease Order
the discharge
Order issued to cease Order
discharge and give rea-
sons why it occured
Failure to submit plans Order
as required by NPDES
Permit
76/12/14
77/04/22
77/08/03
77/08/04
76/10/04
Failure to comply with Order 76/10/04
effluent limits estab-
lished in NPDES Permit
and operations
requirements
Order issued for failure Order
to submit notice of com-
pliance/ non-com pliance
76/10/12
-------
St. Anthony,
City of
St. Anthony
Twin Fails, Twin Fails
City of
Twin Fails, Twin Falls
City of
Western Idaho Boise
Fair
OREGON:
Source Name
Warm Springs
Forest
City
Warm Springs
Submittal of a plan to Order 77/08/24
control discharge and
maintain compliance
Effluent violation from Order 77/04/11
sewage treatment plant
and inadequate operations
and maintenance
Effluent violations at Order 76/11/16
sewage treatment plant
addition a cease and desist
order was issued on rock
creek pump station for
illegal discharge
Submit past reports Order 76/12/29
and eliminate dis-
charge.
Nature of Violation
Type of
Action
Failure to submit re- Order
ports required by NPDES
Permit.
Date of
Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
77/05/09
-------
Referral to the United States Attorney:
For especially serious violations, EPA can refer a case to the U.S. Attorney who acts as EPA's
lawyer in filing suit against violators (EPA cannot administratively assess a fine or penalty
against an NPDES Permittee --only a Federal Court can.) EPA can ask the court to provide
civil monetary penalties and/or injunctive relief (a temporary or permanent order to do or stop
doing something). The U. S. Attorney may negotiate a consent decree (a court approved
agreement signed by both parties) instead of going through a trial. A consent decree must be
published in the Federal Register for public comment before being submitted to the Federal
Court for approval.
FISCAL YEAR 1977
WATER POLLUTION - REFERRAL TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
ALASKA:
Source Name
City
Nature of Violation
Type of Date of
Action Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
A.W. Logging
Incorporated
Tenakee Failure to comply with NPDES Referral to 77/08/17
Permit regarding secondary U.S. Attorney
treatment
Campbell
Construction
Ketchikan Failure to comply with NPDES Referral to 77/08/17
Permit regarding secondary U.S. Attorney
treatment
46
-------
Clear Creek
Logging
Sitka
Failure to comply with NPDES
Permit regarding secondary
treatment
Clear Creek
Logging
El Capitan
Logging
J.R. Gildersleeve
Company
Kenai, City of
Louisiana Pacific
Louisiana Pacific
Kake Failure to comply with NPDES
Permit regarding secondary
treatment
Ketchikan Failure to comply with NPDES
Permit regarding secondary
treatment
Ketchikan Failure to comply with NPDES
Permit regarding secondary
treatment
Kenai Violations of effluent limits
prescribed by NPDES Permit
Ketchikan Failure to comply with NPDES
Permit regarding secondary
treatment
Ketchikan Failure to install treatment
facilities required by NPDES
Permit.
* This facility is assessed penalties at a rate of $250.00
Referral to 77/08/17
U.S. Attorney
Referral to 77/08/17
U.S. Attorney
Referral to 77/08/17
U.S. Attorney
Referral to 77/08/17
U.S. Attorney
Referral to 76/12/30
U.S. Attorney
Referral to 77/08/17
U.S. Attorney
Referral to 76/11/05
day when discharging
-------
Mud Bay Logging Sitka
Company
R. L. Nelson
Logging
Reid Timber,
Incorporated
South Coast
Incorporated
St. Elias Ocean
Products
Ketchikan
Ketchikan
Ketchikan
Cordova
Valentine Logging Ketchikan
Company
Failure to comply with NPDES
Permit regarding secondary
treatment
Failure to comply with NPDES
Permit regarding secondary
treatment
Failure to comply with NPDES
Permit regarding secondary
treatment
Failure to comply with NPDES
Permit regarding secondary
treatment
Failure to install screening re-
quired by NPDES Permit
Failure to comply with NPDES
Permit regarding secondary
treatment
Referral to 77/08/17
U.S. Attorney
Referral to 77/08/17
U.S. Attorney
Referral to 77/08/17
U.S. Attorney
Referral to 77/08/17
U.S. Attorney
Referral to 77/05/11
U.S. Attorney
Referral to 77/08/17
U.S. Attorney
-------
FISCAL YEAR 1977
WATER POLLUTION - REFERRAL TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
IDAHO:
Source Name
Golden Vally
Packer
J.R. Simplott
Company
Twin Falls, City
of
City Nature of Violation
Roberts Failure to comply with ef-
fluent limits established in
NPDES Permit
Aberdeen Has not applied for and does
not possess a valid NPDES
Permit
Twin Falls Treatment Plant effluent
violations
Type of
Action
Date of
Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
Referral to 77/09/1^
U.S. Attorney
Referral to 77/08/19
U.S. Attorney
Referral to 77/09/29
U.S. Attorney
WASHINGTON:
Source Name
Boise Cascade
Corporation
City Nature of Violation
Steilacoom Failure to meet permit com-
pliance dates and failure to
meet statutory compliance
dates filed April 25, 1977.
Type of
Action
Date of
Enf. Action
yr/mo/day
Referral to 77/01/17
U.S. Attorney
-------
Crown Port Townsend
Zellerbach
ITT Rayonier Port Angeles
Crown Port Angeles
Zellerbach
Scott Paper Everett
Failure to meet permit com-
pliance dates and failure to
meet statutory compliance
dates filed April 25, 1977.
Failure to meet permit com-
pliance dates and failure to
meet statutory compliance
dates filed April 25, 1977.
Failure to meet permit com-
pliance dates and failure to
meet statutory compliance
dates filed April 25, 1977.
Failure to meet permit com-
pliance dates and failure to
meet statutory compliance
dates filed April 25, 1977.
76/12/22
76/12/23
77/01/17
77/02/11
U. S. Attorney
Referral to
U.S. Attorney
Referral to
U.S. Attorney
Referral to
U.S. Attorney
Referral to
-------
OIL SPILL PREVENTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Oil Spill Prevention:
EPA would rather prevent oil spills than clean them up. Congress gave EPA the authority to establish
regulations governing the storage and handling of oily substances in certain minimum amounts. This program
is called Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC). Any facility which has storage capacity of
more than 600 gallons above ground or 42,000 gallons below ground must have a plan describing the methods
and operations that will be used to prevent and clean up spills. This plan must be certified by a registered
professional engineer and be available for EPA inspection and review on request. EPA does not have
authority to take enforcement action for causing an oil spill (defined as causing a "sheen" on navigatable
waters.) This authority is vested in the Coast Guard. EPA can, however, take enforcement action if the
spill resulted from a failure to possess or implement and SPCC plan. Typical violations of SPCC regulations
include:
-Failure to have an SPCC plan available for inspection
-Failure to implement the plan
-Failure to have the plan certified by a registered
professional engineer
-Failure to submit the plan to EPA after spilling
(a) 1000 gallons of oil or
(b) two smaller spills in one year
-------
When EPA is aware of such violations, a Notice of Violation is issued which indicates the amount of
any proposed civil penalty. The action necessary to correct the deficiency and mitigating
circumstances are considered and a settlement is usually reached. Violators may appeal the penalty
amount at a special hearing. No hearings were held in Region X during the Fiscal Year 1977.
-------
Notice of Violation / Order on Civil Penalty:
When EPA is aware of violations of the SPCC regulations, a Notice of Violation is issued which puts
the facility manager on notice that corrective action is required and proposes a civil penalty (fine)
for the violation. After the Notice of Violation is issued mitigating circumstances are considered
and a settlement is usually reached on corrective measures and a civil penalty. The assessed civil
penalty is set forth in an Order on Civil Penalty to the facility manager. Fines collected are put
into a Coast Guard revolving fund for clean-up of oil spills from unknown sources.
FISCAL YEAR 1977
SPCC ACTIONS - NOTICE OF VIOLATION /ORDER ON CIVIL PENALTY
ALASKA:
Source Name
City
Alaska Railroad Anchorage
Boyer Towing
Incorporated
Cordova Public
Utility
Ketchikan
Cordova
Type of
Nature of Violation Action
Failure to have an Notice/
SPCC plan available Order
for inspection.
Failure to have an Notice/
SPCC plan available Order
for inspection.
Failure to have an Notice/
SPCC plan available Order
for inspection
Date of
Action
yr/mo/day
77/06/17
76/10/28
77/02/11
Penalty
Collection
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 600.00
-------
Eskimos Inc.
John B. Coghill
Company
Ketchikan Public
Utilities
Nome, City of
Pacific 6c Artie
Pipeline
IDAHO:
Barrow Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Tanana Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Ketchikan Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Nome Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Skagway Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Source Name
City
Nature of Violation
Atlantic
Richfield
Moscow
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Type of
Action
Notice/
Order
77/08/04
77/08/04
77/01/20
77/05/19
77/03/23
Date of
Action
yr/mo/day
77/06/17
$ 1,500.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 500.00
$ 0.00
$ 1,200.00
Penalty
Collected
$ 50.00
-------
Chevron
U.S.A.
Fruitland
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Fred Kroetch
Oil Company
Northwest
Company
Northwest
Company
Northwest
Company
Reid Brothers
Incorporated
Stoddard,
Jim
Coeur d'
Alene
Sandpoint
Sandpoint
Sandpoint
Coeur d'
Alene
Salmon
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
77/05/11
76/11/22
77/02/22
76/11/17
77/02/22
77/01/25
76/12/17
$ 750.00
$ 00.00
$ 200.00
$ 00.00
$ 200.00
$ 100.00
$ 50.00
-------
Troyer,
Robert
Parma
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
OREGON:
Source Name
Atlantic
Richfield
City
Brookings
Nature of Violation
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Atlantic
Richfield
Atlantic
Richfeild
Atlantic
Richfield
Caveman Oil
Company
Grants Pass
Klamath
Falls
Roseburg
Grants Pass
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Notice/ 77/06/17
Order
Type of Date of
Action Action
yr/mo/day
Notice/ 77/01/14
Order
Notice/ 77/01/14
Order
Notice/ 77/01/14
Order
Notice/ 77/01/14
Order
Notice/ 76/11/02
Order
Pending
Penalty
Collected
$ 125.00
$ 125.00
$ 125.00
$ 125.00
$ 250.00
-------
Charles
Russell
Christenson
Oil Company
Jackson,
County of
Diamond Lake
Douglas
Eby Oil 4:
Heating Co.
Coos Bay
Portland
White City
Roseburg
Redmond
Eugene Farmers Eugene
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan Available
for inspection
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Eureka Fish- Coos Bay
eries Co.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
76/10/19
77/07/19
76/11/17
77/08/04
76/11/18
76/11/08
76/10/01
$ 100.00
$ 750.00
$ 0.00
$ 750.00
$ 0.00
$ 100.00
$ 200.00
-------
Fields &
Endsley
Roseburg
Four Under,
Incorporated
Bend
Fraedrick-
Skillern
Eugene
Portland
General
Electric
Tigard
R.L. Angst
and Son
Eugene
Reichhold White City
Chemicals
Simmons Fuel Salem
Oil
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection
Notice
Order
76/10/14 $ 350.00
Notice/ 76/11/18
Order
$ 0.00
Notice/ 76/11/18
Order
$ 0.00
Notice/ 77/04/20
Order
$ 300.00
Notice/
Order
76/10/14 $ 400.00
Notice/
Order
76/l0/0[ $ 400.00
Notice/ 76/11/10
Order
$ 00.00
-------
Standard Oil CorvaJlis
of California
Standard Oil
of California
Albany
Standard Oil
of California
Klamath
Falls
Standard Oil
of California
Eugene
Standard Oil
of California
Roseburg
Standard Oil Grants Pass
of California
Standard Oil Gold Beach
of California
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
76/11/02
76/11/02
76/11/02
76/11/02
76/11/02
76/11/02
76/11/02
$ 250.00
$ 250.00
$ 250.00
$ 250.00
$ 250.00
$ 250.00
$ 250.00
-------
George May Klamath Falls Failure to have an
Oil Co. SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Gil more
Petroleum
Grimes
Pumice
Hallmark
Fisheries
Harbor Tug
and Barge
Howard's
Shell Service
Johnson Rock
Product
Junction
City
Bend
Coos Bay
Coos Bay
Gold Beach
North Bend
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for in psection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Notice/ 76/10/14
Order
Notice/ 76/11/09
Order
Notice/ 76/11/18
Order
Notice/ 76/11/01
Order
Notice/ 76/10/14
Order
Notice/ 77/07/14
Order
Notice/ 77/07/15
Order
$ 300.00
$ 200.00
$ 0.00
$ 200.00
$ 400.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 300.00
-------
Marshall's Oil
Company
McCall Oil
Company of
Beaverton
McFarland
Pole Co.
Mennis Oil
Company
Nichols Cash
System
Nordby and
Raper
Peterson
Seafood
Springfield
Beaverton
Eugene
Salem
Eugene
Bend
Charleston
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
76/11/18
77/03/22
76/11/01
76/11/01
76/10/14
76/12/09
76/11/24
$ 0.00
$ 1,100.00
$ 400.00
$ 400.00
$ 250.00
$ 300.00
$ 200.00
-------
Steinbaugh Roseburg
Oil
T & R Truck
Service
The Jerry
Brown Co.
Traux Oil,
Inc.
Trumbull
Asphalt Co.
Western
Helicopter
Albany
Junctions
Bend
Portland
Newberg
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Western Oil Klamath Falls Failure to have an
and Burner SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
76/11/12
76/10/14
77/02/08
76/11/17
76/10/01
76/11/09
76/10/14
$ 200.00
$ 500.00
$ 200.00
$ 0.00
$ 300.00
$ 50.00
$ 300.00
-------
Westinghouse
Electric
Portland
Portland Failure to have an Notice/
SPCC plan available Order
for inspection.
WASHINGTON:
Source Name
City
Nature of Violation
Type of
Action
American Tar Seattle
Atlantic
Richfield
Ellensburg
B. L. Trucking Tacoma
and Construction
Bardahl Mfg. Seattle
Failure to have an Notice/
SPCC plan available Order
for inspection.
Failure to have an Notice/
SPCC plan available Order
for inpection.
Failure to have an Notice/
SPCC plan available Order
for inspection.
Failure to have an Notice/
SPCC plan available Order
for inspection.
77/03/31
$ 200.00
Date of Penalty
Action Collected
yr/mo/day
76/11/09 $ 200.00
77/05/19 $ 0.00
76/10/1^ $ 200.00
77/03/23 $ 250.00
-------
Bonneville Arlington
Power Admin.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Burlington
Northern
Railroad
Burlington
Northern
Railroad
Chemical
Processors
Johnson Rock
Products
Milwaukee
Railroad
Krenik Oil
Service
Seattle,
Auburn
Seattle
North Bend
Tacoma
Puyallup
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
Failure to have an
SPCC plan available
for inspection.
64
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
Notice/
Order
77/08/05
77/05/11
77/06/24
76/10/13
77/03/29
77/03/07
76/12/09
$ 0.00
$ 500.00
N/A
$ 750.00
$ 0.00
$ 50.00
$ 250.00
-------
Philadelphia
Quartz
South Coast
Lumber
Western
Processing
Wyckoff
Company
Tacoma Failure to have an Notice/
SPCC plan available Order
for inspection.
Brookings Failure to have an Notice/
SPCC plan available Order
for inspection.
Auburn Failure to have an Notice/
SPCC plan available Order
for inspection.
Seattle Failure to have an Notice/
SPCC plan available Order
for inspection.
76/11/12
77/01/31
77/07/18
77/01/10
$ 100.00
$ 0.00
$ 500.00
pending
-------
Oil Spill Enforcement:
When oil is spilled onto fresh waters of the United States, EPA has the responsibility to respond as
on-scene coordinators to take charge of clean-up as necessary. (The U.S. Coast Guard has
jurisdiction on marine waters.) Whenever EPA can determine who is responsible for significant
spills, the facts of the case are compiled and sent to the U. S. Coast Guard as the agency with
enforcement penalty authority. These EPA reports are called Referrals to the U. S. Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard then advises EPA of the action they took on the referral.
FISCAL YEAR 1977
OIL SPILL ENFORCEMENT - EPA REFERRALS TO THE U.S. COAST GUARD
ALASKA:
Source Name City
Type of Date of
Nature of Violation Action Action
yr/mo/day
Penalty
Collected
Alyeska Tvolik Oil spill, 6300 gallons Referral 77/05/05
Pipeline diesel from power to U. S.
plant storage tank Coast Guard
Nome, City of Nome Oil spill, 4000 gallons Referral 77/10/13
trailer separated from to U. S.
truck tractor. Coast Guard.
$
$
1,000.00
1,000.00
-------
FISCAL YEAR 1977
OIL SPILL ENFORCEMENT - EPA REFERRALS TO THE U. S. COAST GUARD
IDAHO*
Type of Date of Penalty
Source Name City Nature of violation Action Action Collected
yr/mo/day
Chevron Buhl Oil spill, 1500 gallons Referral 77/02/09 $ 3,000.00
Pipeline U.S. Coast
Guard
Rice Truck Kamiah Oil spill, 1000 gallons Referral 77/11/16 $ 250.00*
Lines U.S. Coast
Guard
*******************.*###########^
* Penalties assessed
6 7
-------
FISCAL YEAR 1977
OIL SPILL ENFORCEMENT - EPA REFERRALS TO THE U. S. COAST GUARD
OREGON:
Source Name
Type of
City Nature of Violation Action
Date of
Action
yr/mo/day
Penalty
Collected
Boise Cascade
Salem Oil spill, 100 gallons Referral 76/10/21
of bunker "C" oil U. S. Coast
Guard
$ 500.00
McKinnon
Enterprises
T. C. Drain
Company
Salem
Gladstone
Oil spill, 100 gallons Referral
U. S. Coast
Guard
77/11/8
Oil spill, 150 gallons Referral 77/9/12
waste oil from truck U. S. Coast
Guard
Pending
Hearing
$ 1,058.00*
*********************
* Penalties assessed
**********
-------
FISCAL YEAR 1977
OIL SPILLS ENFORCEMENT - EPA REFERRALS TO U. S. COAST GUARD
WASHINGTON;
Type of Date of Penalty
Source Name City Nature of Violation Action Action Collected
yr/mo/day
Peterson's Concrete Oil spill, 1500 gallons Referral 77/07/12 $ 200.00
Texaco diesel oil u. S. Coast
Guard
69
-------
WATER POLLUTION ENFORCEMENT
Number Penalties
of Cases Assessed
Notice of Violation 7 N/A
Administrative Order 52 $18,400*
Referral to the United States Attorney 23 $15,250**
Oil Spill Prevention 80 $ 24,600
Oil Spill Enforcement _8 $ 5,700
Totals: 170 $ 30,300
* This figure represents per day assessments for Alaska Lumber and Pulp.
** This figure represents per day assessments for Louisianna Pacific
Ketchikan Division.
-------
EPA REGION X ENFORCEMENT CASES
FISCAL YEAR 1977
SUMMARY
Type of Violation
Air Pollution
Stationary Source
Mobile Source
Pesticides
Water Pollution
Waste Discharge Permits
Violations
Spill Prevention, Control and
Counter Measures
Spill Enforcement
Number
of Cases
32
15
34
82
80
8
Total
Penalties
Assessed
N/A
$ 26,800
$ 24,700
$ 33,650
$ 24,600
$ 5,700
Total Number of Enforcement Cases
for Region X
251
$ 135,450
-------
The Enforcement Division in Region X solicits your comments on the first Enforcement Report.
General comments should be addressed to:
Director, Enforcement Division
Mail Stop 517
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Specific questions on particular types of enforcement should be directed to:
Air - Air Compliance Branch (206)442-1387
Water - Water Permits <5c Compliance Branch (206) 442-1213
Pesticides - Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch (206) 442-1090
Oil - Environmental Emergency Branch (206) 442-1263
Lloyd A. Reed
Director, Enforcement Division
Region X
72
GPO 985-680
-------