United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Mail Code 2201A
E PA-300-N94-005
October-November 1996
&EPA OECA Echo
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance for a Cleaner Environment
In this issue:
. Environmental
crimes bill... 1
. BROS $221.5
million settle-
ment...1
. Superfund
administrative
reforms.. .3
. Record
number of
cases to
DOJ...3
. E$web
site use
rises...3
. Region 6
compliance
initiative...4
. Georgia-Pac-
ific settlement...
5
. GM begins
recall...6
. TSCA CAP
program ends...
7
. Owner's assets
frozen...7
. NETI
begins
satellite
tralnlng...8
From the Assistant Administrator
Steven A. Herman
Legislation Has New Tools To Protect
Public Against Environmental Crimes
It was my pleasure to represent EPA when
Attorney General Janet Reno transmitted the
Environmental Crimes and Enforcement Act
of 1996 legislation to Congress in September.
It is legislation that will strengthen our ability
to protect communities by giving federal, state
and local governments new tools to investigate
and prosecute environmental crimes, and will
help foster a new level of cooperation between
the federal government and state and local law
enforcement officials on the front lines of com-
munity-based law enforcement efforts.
Criminal enforcement has been the fast-
est growing component of EPA's enforcement
program over the last several years, reflecting
the agency's stepped-up targeting of the worst
polluters and the most significant threats to
public health and the environment. In fiscal
1995, for example, EPA initiated 562 criminal
cases and referred 256 to DOJ, both one-year
records.
In the course of expanding criminal
enforcement efforts, EPA and DOJ have iden-
tified several areas where new or more ex-
plicit legislative authority will enable us to
fight environmental crimes more effectively.
The Administration's environmental crimes
bill responds to the repeated concerns of fed-
eral, state, and local law enforcement officials
to recurring obstacles to the safe and effective
investigation and prosecution of environmen-
tal crimes. It includes new resources for train-
ing state, local and tribal governments in
safely investigating crimes involving hazard-
ous wastes and other dangerous substances.
Here is a summary of some of the bill's
major provisions:
. Reimbursement for State, Local and
TMbal Governments. During the last several
years, EPA and DOJ have developed system-
continued on Page 2)
New Jersey Superfund Site Cleanup Settlement
Is One of Largest in History of CERCLA
More than 90 companies, federal and state
agencies have agreed to contribute at least $221.5
million to help cover the cost of cleaning up the
Bridgeport Rental and Oil Services (BROS)
Superfund site in Logan Township, NJ, under an
agreement reached on the last day of fiscal 1996
with EPA, DOJ, and the state of New Jersey.
One of the largest Superfund settlements ever,
it will cover about 70 percent of the cost of com-
pleted and anticipatedclean-up actions. The pri-
vate companies will complete and pay up to $95
million for the remaining remedial work of clean-
ing up groundwater ana wetlands affected by site
contamination.
The site has long been considered one of the
most technically challenging under Superfund.
It had been used for waste oil collection and
chemical waste storage for almost three decades.
When it was closed in the late 1970s, millions
of gallons of waste oil and other pollutanants
were left behind, mostly in a 13-acre lagoon.
Spills and leaks had also contaminated ground-
water and adjacent wetlands.
Negotiations leading to the settlement in-
volved EPA, DOJ, the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), the New
Jersey Attorney General's office, and the settling
parties. A unique "risk-sharing" provision that
addresses unforeseen cleanup needs is included
in the settlement.
'The risk-sharing and related features of the
BROS consent decree respond to concerns sub-
sequently addressed in a policy announced by
Administrator Carol Browner last June, " said
Steve Herman, OECA assistant administrator.
(Continued on Page 6)

-------
OECA Echo/October-November 1996
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency:
Carol M. Browner
Administrator
Enforcement and Com-
pliance Assurance:
Steven A. Herman
Assistant Administrator
Enforcement Capacity
and Outreach:
Anne Lassitar
Director •
Associate Director
Editorial Staff:
Roger Allan
Robert Banks .
Art Horowitz
Julie Klaas
Sherry-Milan
Ruth MiJler
Jonathan Packman
Lou Pafoy
United States EPA
401M Street, SW(2201 A)
Washington, DC 20460

New Tools To Deal With Environmental Crimes
(Continued from Page 1)
atic relationships with state and local law en-
forcement agencies to more effectively combat
environmental crimes. EPA criminal investiga-
tors now participate in over 70 federal/state/
local task forces and Law Enforcement Coordi-
nating Committees throughout the country.
The bill authorizes federal courts to order those
convicted of environmental crimes to reim-
burse state and local governments for costs
incurred in supporting federal investigations
and prosecutions. Only funds expended by a
state or local government in support of a fed-
eral investigation and prosecution of a case are
reimbursable, and can be used only for envi-
ronmental law enforcement.
. Extension of the Statute of Limitation
for Environmental Crimes. Many environ-
mental crimes, especially those involving ille-
gal disposal or dumping of hazardous
materials, are hard to detect. The bill extends
the statute of limitations where a violator has
affirmatively concealed the environmental
crime. The traditional five-year statute of limi-
tations can be extended up to three additional
years, providing a maximum of eight years to
prosecute the case from the time the violation
is committed.
. Enhanced Sanctions for Violations
Causing Injury or Death. One of the most
tragic environmental crimes occurred in 1992,
when two nine-year-old boys died after being
overcome by solvent fumes illegally put in a
dumpster where they had been playing. A
criminal investigation revealed that the com-
pany — despite warnings from county officials
— had routinely disposed of waste toluene in
the dumpster and treated and disposed of haz-
ardous waste on site without a permit. In ex-
ceptional circumstances like this, greater
sanctions are appropriate. The bill provides for
enhanced punishment when a criminal viola-
tion of specified environmental law "directly
or proximately" causes serious bodily injury or
death to any person. It applies to death or in-
jury suffered by public officials — police, fire-
men, or any other public safety officers — who
may arrive at the scene of an environmental
crime, or members of the general public.
. Ability to Prosecute "Attempts" to
Commit Environmental Crimes. Law enforce-
ment officials engaged in surveillance opera-
tions are often faced with a difficult choice —
whether to protect human health and the envi-
ronment at the risk of subverting the case
against a violator literally "caught in the act."
That is because, under current federal law, the
government cannot prosecute where investiga-
tors are able to stop a crime in progress before
the environment is harmed. The bill would
eliminate this loophole by providing an "at-
tempt" provision for environmental statutes,
similar to those found in many other criminal
laws. The government could still prosecute
where investigators are able to stop a violation
in progress, when it is able to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant was at-
tempting to commit an environmental crime.
. Restitution/Securing Assets for
Cleanup. One of the basic principles of federal
environmental enforcement efforts is that vio-
lators should pay for and correct the damage
they cause. The federal government seeks such
restitution in its criminal enforcement efforts,
where feasible. The bill would amend federal
restitution statutes to clarify that courts may
order convicted defendants to pay restitution
of the damage caused by their environmental
crimes, including the costs of removal and
remediation of the environmental pollution
and restoration of the environment, if the pol-
lution or damage results from the violation.
For the "polluter pays" principle to be
implemented, the government must be able to
make sure that a defendant charged with an
environmental crime cannot evade this respon-
sibility by shielding his assets. The bill pre-
vents a defendant from "concealing, disposing
of, or otherwise dealing with his assets" so that
if he is convicted and ordered to pay the cost of
the harm he caused, his assets will be available.
. Enhanced Training of State and Local Law
Enforcement Personnel. The bill provides ad-
ditional resources for EPA's National Enforce-
ment Training Institute to help train state, local
and tribal law enforcement officials in the in-
vestigation and prosecution of environmental
crimes. It establishes a program dedicated to
training state, local and tribal law enforcement
officials in investigating environmental crimes.
The public is right to expect government to
take swift, effective action to protect against
environmental crimes and against those who
willfully ignore environmental standards and
pollute the public's air and water. The new en-
vironmental crimes bill will help ensure that
every community can be protected from toxic
pollution. This Administration looks forward
to working with Congress to enact it.
Page 2

-------
OECA Echo/October-November 1996
Superfund Administrative Reform Policies In Place
Steps to implement three Superfund
Administrative Reforms have been taken by
EPA to accelerate the Administration's efforts
to shift from litigation to prompt cleanup of
the worst toxic waste dumps. Two are new
policies, the third the appointment of regional
ombudsmen.
Under a new "orphan share compen-
sation" policy, EPA will help cover a portion
of the cleanup costs attributable to parties who
are now insolvent or defunct at Superfund sites
where viable responsible parties agree to per-
form the cleanup. Under CERCLA, liable sol-
vent parties are responsible for the total costs
of cleaning up a site, including that share of
costs attributable to companies that no longer
exist or have no financial assets. EPA offered
over $57 million in fiscal 1996 nationwide to-
wards covering the orphan share at sites where
cleanup agreeements are being negotiated.
A second policy revises and expands
EPA's 1993 "de micromis" policy which stated
the agency's intention to protect very small
volume waste contributors. The revised policy
doubles earlier cutoffs to provide that a party
could have sent up to .2 percent of municipal
solid waste or up to .002 percent or the equiva-
lent of two drums of materials containing haz-
ardous substances without being held liable
by the federal government for a portion of
cleanup costs. The policy also protects them
from "third party" suits from larger waste con-
tributors by settling with them for zero dol-
lars.
In a third action, EPA announced that
a Superfund ombudsman has been appointed
in each of the 10 regional offices. The ombuds-
men constitute an outreach effort by the agency
to improve understanding of the hazardous
waste cleanup program. The ombudsmen are
charged with facilitating the resolution of con-
cerns and questions raised by the public. They
have direct access to top-level management to
help resolve cleanup site issues.
E$ Web Site Use f
	To End
ewer* 25,712 web s>**
Ngrrfi—
¦ siiiSSS
111!
Hons to OECA's Earth 1/Envw:
World Wide Web site in August,
5,000 from the previous month. C
ber, 22,215 documents on the $it$ y
The Earth l/Er.virc»Sen$e
dudes about 10,000 files, including
from OECA (mostly policies) a lone
merits include regulations, poiicie
ance, case studies, technical
regulatory and vendor points of a
Because of the success of th
platform, and growing funding lira
network's electronic bulletin bo.
(BBS) platform will be discontinue
of the year. All of OECA's doour
BB$ will be transferred to the work
The web address for
neciton to the OECA portion I
Enviro$en$e is made using the ex
dress of http://es.inel.gov/oeca. t
fonnjtion about Earthl /Enviro$er
Louis Paley (202/564-2613, or
Packman (202/546-2617).
, ',y-
¦ : ,


mlla


EPA Refers Record Number Of Criminal Cases to DOJ
EPA referred a record 256 criminal cases to the Department of Justice in
fiscal 1995. The agency started 562 new criminal investigations and obtained
$23 million in penalties for environmental crimes.
As a result of targeted civil enforcement, EPA secured almost $1.65 billion
which will directly benefit the environment by funding pollution control equip-
ment and other environmental projects.
EPA collected more than $70 million in civil penalties and took over 3,200
civil enforcement actions. Collections for Superfund private party cleanups
amounted to $851 million.
The figures are part of EPA's "1995 Enforcement Accomplishments Re-
port", released in July.
Page 3

-------
The
American
Foundry
Society
h e I p
bring fa-
cilities
gether
discuss
sues
concerns
OECA Echo/October-November 1996
Government, Industry Learn From Each Other
In Foundry Compliance Assistance Program
Region 6 Program
Succeeds in Oklahoma
To be effective, federal government policy
initiatives require innovative thinking at the local
level and industry cooperation. That's what it took
in Oklahoma last year when EPA's Region 6 set out
to implement national policy guidance related to
various federal initiatives, chief among them being
the Administration's government-reinvention of
regulations program.
From that strategy several EPA programs
were initiated such as the Environmental Leader-
ship Program and Project XL. These programs are
designed to help industry comply with environmen-
tal laws and provide environmental protection that
moves away from the one size fits all approach. Re-
gion 6 tested the concept with a hands-on program
involving the foundry industry in Oklahoma.
"We were encouraged to form partnerships
with state environmental agencies, to find new ways
to measure industry compliance, and to think of
ways to develop industry compliance outside the
usual parameters," says Mark W. Potts, Region 6's
hazardous waste enforcement section chief. Potts
set up a working arrangement with the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality. Together, the
agencies developed a voluntary compliance pilot
project for foundries in the state which had a his-
tory of air and hazardous waste disposal problems.
The plan was to provide training to foundry fa-
cility personnel on environmental regulations affect-
ing their operations and to encourage facilities to
find ways to meet the regulatory requirements. The
state negotiated a six-month period during which
the foundry facilities would not be inspected for vio-
lations but would learn about and voluntarily do
what was necessary to come into compliance.
The key to granting this six-month grace
period was found in a Clean Air Act provision, Sec-
tion 507, which establishes programs to help small
businesses comply with the Clean Air Act. This was
the basis for establishment of the Interim Policy on
Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses. The
pilot modeled the small business incentives policy
by providing either on-site compliance assistance
upon request or the facility could volunteer to per-
form a self-audit of its operations and disclose its
audit findings to the state. If the facility self-cor-
rected and self-reported its violations to the state in
a specified period of time, no penalty was required.
In the Oklahoma project, about 50 percent of the fa-
cilities participating on the pilot audited their envi-
ronmental operations and the state helped the
foundries come into compliance with the applicable
environmental regulations.
To make the program work, industry coop-
eration was essential. A first step was to invite facil-
ity representatives to discuss the plan. Of the 47
foundries located in Oklahoma, representatives of 23
attended the initial meeting and ultimately agreed to
participate in the program.
A self-audit checklist,developed by the state
environmental agency, was key to the program's suc-
cess. The checklist contained questions about the
facility's process operations and about pollution pre-
vention procedures. Thestate encouraged facility per-
sonnel to look for new and better ways to make their
product through the use of less toxic raw materials.
The checklist suggested pollution prevention meth-
ods and urged plant personnel to find ways to apply
them to their facility and their production procedures.
The effort helped change mindsets on both
sides. When the program began, it was thought most
foundry environmental problems would relate to
RCRA issues because of suspected lead-contamina-
tion problems. Instead, the state found that many
foundry problems stemmed from failure to meet per-
mit requirements. Landfill disposal, for example, re-
quires state landfill approval letters which facilities
often did not have. Facilities that had RCRA-related
waste, mostly from paint, coating, and cleaning op-
erations and graphic arts materials, were encouraged
to improve their storage and handling procedures.
An air quality permit was another require-
ment that was sometimes lacking. Few foundry fa-
cilities generated enough emissions to qualify as a
major air pollution source, but many emitted enough
pollution to require a state minor air permit. Found-
ries with storm water permits worked to improve their
pollution prevention plans. The pilot also succeeded
in increasing the awareness of facility personnel on
SARA Title III reporting requirements.
After initial reluctance, foundry personnel
fully committed themselves to the compliance assis-
tance pilot program. The American Foundry Society
(AFS) helped bring the facilities together for frequent
discussions on specific issues and concerns. A spokes-
man was appointed to work with the state and EPA.
The AFS was instrumental in simplifying the self-au-
dit forms developed by the state and helped educate
the government representatives about the foundry
business.
Government also gained a number of in-
sights from the program. It learned, among other
things, that education and customer satisfaction can
go a long way in preventing pollution. It learned
that mutual respect and trust can help win an ally
without compromising environmental integrity.
(Contact: Bonnie Romo, (214) 665-8323)
Page 4

-------
OECA Echo/ October-November 1996
Case Closed
Georgia-Pacific Settlement Shows Benefits
Of Federal Initiatives Against Large Corporations
The EPA/DOJ settlement with the Georgia-
Pacific Corporation covered more facili-
ties and alleged violations than any other
case brought under Clean Air Act provisions that
ensure that air quality does not deteriorate in ar-
eas that currently have clean air.
Under the consent decree, which was
lodged on July 18, Georgia-Pacific will spend
$35.25 million to settle charges that it failed to
report complete information about pollution
emissions, obtain required permits, and control
the amount of pollution-causing volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) it poured into the environ-
ment at 26 of its wood panel manufacturing fa-
cilities, mostly located in the southeast.
Part of EPA's initiative to bring the wood
products industry into compliance with CAA
regulations, the action reflects the agency's em-
phasis on comprehensive multi-state, multi-fa-
cility settlements that will significantly protect
public health and environment.
Background of Settlement
Since the late 1970s, the CAA's New
Source Review Program has required major
sources of air pollution to control emissions of
certain pollutants and use best available control
technology to prevent significant deterioration
in areas that meet ambient air quality standards.
These regulations require a source, before it con-
structs or modifies its plant, to accurately esti-
mate and report pollutant emissions so the state
or EPA can determine air pollution levels and
issue appropriate permits.
VOCs are the main pollutants at wood
processing facilities. They are created during
production of "engineered" wood products such
as particle board and plywood.
Wood Products Situation
The wood products industry has known
at least since the late 1970s that wood panel
manufacturing facilities emit VOCs. They are
emitted from glues during the production pro-
cess and from wood as it is dried before being
processed.
Facilities already emitting VOCs when
CAA regulations were enacted were
grandfathered in at existing levels. But large
facilities whose modification could potentially
lead to large increases in VOCs above certain
thresholds are required to go through a com-
plex permitting process.
EPA's regulations concerning permitting
and control of major sources have been in effect
since the late 1970s and responsible companies
have obtained proper permits and installed pol-
lution control equipment to lower their VOC
emissions. When EPA found widespread non-
compliance in the engineered wood products
industry in 1991, it initiated a sector-wide com-
pliance assessment.
EPA found that Georgia-Pacific had
modified many engineered wood product plants
since 1980. EPA estimates that during this pe-
riod, G-P plants were annually emitting over
5,000 excess tons of VOCs into the environment.
Although the company could have determined
the extent of the emissions at the time these modi-
fications were made or plants constructed, it of-
ten ignored its legal responsibility to report the
changes — and the resulting increase in VOCs
— or to apply for the proper permits.
Georgia-Pacific Notified
After months of negotiations, EPA and
Georgia-Pacific agreed on a consent decree filed
in federal District Court in Atlanta on July 18,
1996. Georgia-Pacific will pay a $6 million pen-
alty and apply for appropriate state air pollution
control permits at 19 of its facilities. It also will
take major steps to reduce air pollution at the
facilities and across the southeast.
The company will install state-of-the-
art pollution control equipment designed to re-
duce VOC emissions at 11 of the 26 plants that
still require controls, at an estimated cost of $25
million. It will spend $4.25 million on several in-
novative supplemental environmental projects
that will be of particular benefit environmentally
in southeastern U.S., including development of
ozone-control strategies to figure out where the
problems are coming from and addressing them
at the source. The company is required to con-
duct comprehensive clean air audits at 26 of its
wood product facilities nationwide and to moni-
tor compliance with emission limits on a daily
basis.
What It Means
The settlement highlights the federal
government's unique role in a nationwide en-
forcement action. States were involved in pros-
ecuting the case, but because Georgia-Pacific had
similar facilities and violations in a number of
states, no single state had the resources to ad-
dress them in a systematic and coordinated way
and to fashion a comprehensive settlement com-
bining injunctive relief, penalties, and extra ben-
eficial environmental projects.
Georgia-Pacific
case inv
more facil
and alleged
violations
any other
brought
these Clean
Air Act
conditions
Page 5

-------
Settlement
lets
government
recover
most of
its costs,
frees up
funds for
other s
work
OECA Echo/October-November 1996
$221.5 Million Cleanup Payment Makes
BROS One of Superfund's Largest Settlements
(Continued from Page 1)
"Under that policy, EPA will, in appropriate
cases, share in cleanup costs when some of the
responsible private parties are defunct or fi-
nancially insolvent. This reflects the
government's common sense efforts to sub-
stitute action for litigation."
Lois Schiffer, assistant attorney general for
environment and natural resources, noted the
settlement assures cleanup of one of the
country's messiest Superfund sites and was
the result of "effective mediation led by an ex-
perienced third-party neutral, along with a siz-
able financial contribution by the federal
government."
Under terms of the agreement, the respon-
sible parties will pay $115.5 million to EPA
and NJDEP as reimbursement for past gov-
ernment cleanup costs. The sum includes
monies to be paid by the United States on be-
half of the departments of Defense and Trans-
portation, each of which allegedly sent waste
to the site.
Jeanne M. Fox, EPA region 2 administra-
tor, said, "this settlement means that we have
been able to recover a significant part of our
federal cleanup costs. It also provides a
mechanism for financing the remaining
cleanup work, and frees up funds for use at
other Superfund sites.
The private companies will complete a
study of the groundwater and wetlands con-
tamination. EPA will select the remedy to ad-
dress those areas, and the private companies
will carry out the work with partial reim-
bursement from the settling federal agencies.
EPA and NJDEP will share groundwater
cleanup costs with the settling parties if those
costs exceed an amount set by a formula in
the agreement. If the groundwater work costs
less than that amount, most of the balance will
be paid to EPA and NJDEP in further reim-
bursement of the governments' past costs.
The private companies also will be required
to design and implement the selected wet-
lands remedy. With funding from the settling
federal agencies, the private parties will per-
form that work until they have spent $10 mil-
lion, plus interest. Costs beyond that amount
will be borne by EPA and NJDEP. If the ac-
tual cost of the wetlands work is less than that
amount, the balance will be paid to EPA and
NJDEP.
Cleanup of the site has been carried out
by EPA working with NJDEP, and is now
nearly complete. From 1992 to 1996, more than
172,000 tons of hazardous waste from the
former toxic lagoon were safely incinerated.
The lagoon cleanup also included treatment
of more than 190 million gallons of contami-
nated water and the off-site disposal of 10,000
tons of contaminated debris.
Other actions included the dismantling of
a waste oil recycling facility and tank farm
including 100 abandoned tanks containing a
total of 400,000 gallons of waste. EPA and
NJDEP also installed individual carbon fil-
tration units for more than 30 families whose
private wells had been contaminated by the
site, and later constructed an alternate drink-
ing water supply system for the public.
GM Recall Underway
Of Cadillacs That
Violated Clean Air Act
General Motors Corporation began no-
tifying Cadillac owners in early September that
it is recalling most Cadillacs with 4.9 liter engines
manufactured between 1991 and 1995, EPA and
DOJ announced.
The recall, which will potentially affect
587,000 vehicles, will enable GM to replacea com-
puter chip in the emission control system that
causes carbon monoxide emissions up to three
times the legal limit when the climate control sys-
temisused. The new engine computer chip will
reduce by more than 50 percent the carbon mon-
oxide emitted by the Cadillacs when the climate
control system is operated. GM has tested the
new computer chip and determined that it will
not affect the cars' driveability.
GM agreed last November to recall the
vehicles to settle the government's claims that the
cars were violating the Clean Air Act. Approved
by the U.S. District Court for the District of Co-
lumbia in April the settlement also required GM
to pay $11 million in civil penalties and to spend
an additional $7.05 million on projects that reduce
air pollution from automobiles.
The chip to be replaced was installed in
4.9 liter Cadillacs after customers complained of
stalling and other driveability problems. While
the chip addressed the driveability problems, it
led to so much extra fuel being burned that the
cars' catalytic converter could not clean up the
excess pollutants created by the engines.
GM will notify owners of affected
Cadillacs by letter to bring the car into their local
Cadillac dealership to have the fix performed free
of charge. The time needed to perform the fix
should be less than 40 minutes.
Page 6

-------
OECA Echo/October-November 1996
TSCA Compliance Initiative Closes
After Assessing $19 Million in Penalties
EPA reached a milestone in its efforts to
gather reports of substantial risk from toxic
chemicals with closure of one of its first in-
dustry compliance incentive initiatives. The
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section
8(e) Compliance Audit Program (CAP) offered
companies reduced penalties for submitting
previously unreported risk information. The
agency assessed $19,032,000 in civil penalties
against 73 companies that participated in CAP.
TSCA section 8(e) requires companies that
manufacture, process or distribute chemicals
to inform EPA of any information that reason-
ably supports the conclusion that a mixture or
substance presents a "substantial risk of injury
to health or the environment." Under CAP ,
EPA has received more than 11,000 previously
unreported studies or reports from 89 compa-
nies on chemicals that present a substantial
risk of injury to health or the environment. The
73 companies will pay penalties as provided
in CAP. The remaining 16 companies are un-
der review for appropriate enforcement action.
Congress enacted the reporting require-
ment so government would have information
about potential dangers of certain chemicals.
EPA uses information about chemical hazards
and risks to guide regulatory action which
could prohibit manufacture and distribution
of a particular chemical, limit its use, or the
amount used, or require warning labels or
record- keeping requirements.
To participate in CAP, companies agreed
to conduct an audit to determine their com-
pliance status and to pay stipulated penalties
for previously unreported studies. Penal-
ties were limited to $15,000 per study involv-
ing human health effects, and $6,000 for
animal studies. The maximum penalty that
would be assessed against any individual
company was $1 million.
One hundred and twenty three companies,
including those engaged in chemical produc-
tion and importation, petroleum refining,
aerospace and electronic manufacturing,
signed up to conduct internal chemical data
audits. Of them, 34 had no outstanding 8(e)
information due. The 11,000 studies submit-
ted account for about 80 percent of all sub-
missions received throughout the 8(e)
program's history. The agency is reviewing
the information to determine whether particu-
lar chemicals or mixtures of chemicals war-
rant further assessment and regulation. Much
of the data also has been made available to
the public.
Under C
123 com-
panies
to conduct
audits
to determine
compliance
status and
to pay
stipulated
penalties
Mine Owner's Assets Frozen
EPA and the Department of Justice, us-
ing orders issued by the U.S. District Court in Den-
ver and two Canadian courts, in August stopped
a Colorado mine operator from taking S152 mil-
lion in stock so that it will be available to pay for
the clean-up of a hazardous waste site.
The mine operator, Robert M. Fried land,
had obtained the money through a merger of Dia-
mond Fields Resources, Inc., in which he was a
shareholder, with Inco, Ltd, a large Canadian min-
eral exploration firm. The federal and state gov-
ernments claimed Friedland operated a mine as
an individual The governments sued Friedland
to recover sufficient funds to clean up the
Summitville Mine Superfund site, located about
25 miles south of Del Norte, Colorado.
The site had been a heap leach gold min-
ing opeation run by Friedland through Galactic
Resources, Ltd., a Canadian-based mining com-
pany, and two of its subsidiaries. The Galactic
companies abandoned the site in December 1992,
leaving the facility in imminent danger of releas-
ing catastrophic amounts of metal and cyanide
contaminants into the Alamosa River. EPA has
been cleaning up the site since thattimc.
Orders were served on Friedland while
he was in the process of trading shares he owns
in Diamond Fields, a company owning claims
to significant mineral deposits, for shares of lnco,
Ltd, a Canadian minora! exploration firm. DOJ
took the unusual stop of filing its actions under
seal in both the U.S. and Canadian courts to pre-
vent Friedland from discovering the plan and
aborting the stock trade.
Friedland, who is believed to hold dual
U.S and Canadian citizenship, now lives either
in Singapore or Australia. Had he succeeded in
completing the stock trade, he could have moved
his assets to frustrate the ability of federal and
state government to satisfy anticipated judg-
ments.
The next step in the litigation process
is to determine Friedland's liability under U.S.
Superfund clea nup statutes.
Page 7

-------
OECA Echo/ October-November 1996
NETI's First Venture Into Satellite Training
Reaches 103 Sites, More than 3000 Participants
Program
will be
packaged
into stand-
alone
video
course,
available in
March.
Page 8
EPA's National Enforcement Training
Institute took a first step into the world of satel-
lite technology with a highly successful train-
ing program down-linked to 103 sites
throughout the country on November 13-14.
The broadcast, which reached an esti-
mated 3,000 federal, state, local, and tribal envi-
ronmental enforcement personnel in nine of
EPA's regional offices and in 46 states, provided
a course intended to help employees improve
their ability to manage the negotiations process
individually and as a team. Running four and a
half hours each day, the program featured live
discussion by a panel of experts, pre-recorded
video clips of simulated negotiating situations
which were followed by critiques by the panel,
and on-the-spot answers to questions tele-
phoned or faxed in by viewers. More than 250
questions were faxed in and about 20 calls were
received. Questions came in from sites in small
as well as large cities, an indication of the range
of interest in the program.
"The broadcast proved we can greatly
increase the number of people we can reach
through a single training session," said Gerald
A. Bryan, NET1 director. "It greatly enhances
the agency's goal of building partnerships with
states and others. Satellite broadcasts are a cost-
effective means of delivering training to large
numbers of environmental field personnel."
A year in development, the course is one
of NETI's most ambitious attempts to spread the
environmental message through distance-learn-
ing technology. In addition to the live broadcast,
a tape of the program will be packaged into a
stand-alone video course, available in March.
NETI used facilities of the Food and
Drug Administration in Gaithersburg, MD to
stage the live broadcast, which was interspersed
by 16 pre-recorded segments of simulated situ-
ations. On-site facilitors conducted mock nego-
tiation sessions following the first day's
broadcast. The exercises covered various tools
and tactics used to reach settlement, ways to pre-
pare, focus, and influence the negotiation pro-
cess, and how to manage time wisely.
The panel of recognized experts on ne-
gotiation techniques consisted of Martha R.
Steincamp, regional counsel for Region 7; David
Janik, senior enforcement attorney and manager
of Region 8's legal enforcement program; Barrett
E. Benson, principal environmental engineer at
EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Cen-
ter in Denver; Janice Whitney, indigenous policy
officer in Region 2; and Arthur W. Ray, deputy
secretary of environment for Maryland.
A tape of the program will be re-broad-
cast December 12-13 at 12 noon to 4:30 pm EST
to digital downlink sites serviced by AT&T.
In addition to NETI, other sponsors of
the program were the Northeast Environmen-
tal Enforcement Project, the Midwest Environ-
mental Enforcement Association, the Southern
Environmental Enforcement Network, and the
Western States Project.
For specific information, contact Pro-
duction Manager Lisa Nelson (202/564-2637),
or Alice Mims (202/564-6069).
&EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency- 2201A
Washington, DC 2Q460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
FIRST CLASS MAIL
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
G-35

-------