„  /

               FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
The FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report was prepared by the Compliance
Evaluation Branch within the Office of Enforcement.  Information contained in the
report  was supplied by the EPA Regional Offices  and Headquarters program
                      Printed on recycled paper

                  FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                         Table  of Contents
                       Subject                                       page

I.    Message from William K. Reilly, Administrator, and                 1-1
     James M, Strock, Assistant Administrator

II.   FY 1990: Developing the "Blueprint" for Enhanced                  2-1

III.  Environmental Enforcement Activity                               3-1

     FY1990 levels of Federal civil and criminal judicial case referrals,
     administrative actions, penalty assessments, and State enforcement.

IV   Major Enforcement Litigation and Key Legal Precedents            4-1

     An alphabetized summary of important civil and criminal judicial
     case settlements, administrative actions, arid key court decisions on
     points of law that occurred during the year.                             v

V    Building and Maintaining a Strong National                       5-1
     Enforcement Program

     Summaries of major enforcement program strategies, initiatives,
     guidance, and management studies.

VI.  Media Specific Enforcement Performance and                      6-1
     Regional Accomplishments

     Brief summaries of the Strategic Targeted Activities for Results
     System definitions of Significant Noncompliance and highlights
     of Regional accomplishments.
Appendix: Historical Enforcement Data and List of EPA Headquarters
           and Regional Enforcement Information Contacts

                     FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
      A Message from the Administrator and Assistant Administrator

      1990 was the 20th  anniversary of both Earth Day and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.   It also  was a record year for the Agency's
enforcement  of environmental laws. We are pleased by the symbolism — but not
surprised by the  coincidence — of  these events.   It reflects the growth  and
maturation of  EPA's enforcement program and  the high  priority given to it by
President Bush, the Agency and the American people.

      By the  end of the • 1980's,  the enforcement  program had  received  a
comprehensive range of administrative, civil  and  criminal enforcement authorities.
As this Report illustrates in detail, the Programs and Regions employed them all
with  record  frequency in 1990 to ensure compliance with environmental laws.
During 1990, the Agency also developed a long-term strategy to make sure that
Federal, State, and local enforcement programs will have the capacity to identify and
resolve both media-specific  and multi-media violations  which present serious
risks  to the  environment and public health.   The Report  also highlights the
innovative enforcement activity in these new areas, such as geographic risk-based
targeting and  pollution prevention —  areas which will be hallmarks  of the
Agency's enforcement focus throughout the decade.

        We believe that this  Report will play a useful  role in  describing our
enforcement  program to the public.   We trust  it also  will serve an important
ancillary purpose  by sending the  appropriate  deterrent message to potential
violators.  That message is straightforward and demonstrable: This Administration
is committed  to a forceful and successful environmental enforcement program both
now and in the future.
William K. Reilly
James M, Strock
Assistant Administrator
  for Enforcement

                       FF1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
II.    FY1990: Developing the Blueprint for Enhanced Enforcement

       FY 1990 was another record year for enforcement, continuing the trend of the last three years.
All-time highs were set for the number of civil (375) and criminal (65) referrals, as well as for the total
level of assessed penalties. The foremost example of this record activity is the $15 million civil penalty
assessed in the Texas Eastern Pipeline case, the single largest penalty assessment in the Agency's history.

       But good "numbers" are not the only reason that FY 1990 was a watershed year for the Agency's
enforcement program. It also was the year the Agency defined and took the first steps to implement a
new approach in environmental enforcement by the federal, state and local governments.

       This  approach is  the result of two  separate, interrelated, EPA  FY 1990 initiatives:  the
Enforcement Four-Year Strategic  Plan and the Enforcement in the 1990s Project.  \J  The former  is a
comprehensive statement of the major goals and objectives of future-oriented enforcement program which
will drive the Agency's  enforcement efforts.  The latter  is a set  of analyses of, and  specific
recommendations to improve, six components of the enforcement process which will be integrated into the
Agency's long-term planning process. 2/  Together, the Strategic Plan and the 1990s Project represent the
Agency's blueprint for a successful enforcement program for the future.

       The assumption underlying both the Strategic Plan and the  1990s Project is that as the regulated
universe becomes larger and  more complex, more sophisticated approaches are needed to  obtain the
maximum effect from each enforcement action  to help meet the Agency's environmental  goals  and
objectives.  These approaches, which  include  more sophisticated  decision  making in developing
regulations, setting enforcement priorities, using enforcement tools, and settling enforcement actions,  will
be flexible and will heavily rely upon the EPA Regions and States for effective implementation.

       This enhanced enforcement approach envisions a greater emphasis over the next five years on
the explicit selection of cases based on health and ecological risk. It will have both  media-specific and
cross-media  components.  The  majority of  enforcement efforts  will continue  to consist  of  the
medium-specific priorities (i.e., air, water, toxics, etc.) which are identified annually and for which the
programs undertake "timely and appropriate" enforcement response  to resolve significant noncompliance.
However, these program-specific priorities will  also serve as the  foundation for the development of
targeted  "special initiatives"  to  resolve environmental problems caused by  specific pollutants or
industries, or to protect sensitive geographic areas and ecological systems.

        The enforcement approach arising out of the 4rYear Strategic Plan and the 1990s Project will be
fully implemented over the next several years.  However, a number of the specific elements either have
previously been undertaken on a  pilot basis (e.g., Regional multi-media enforcement pilots initiated in
FY 1989) or involve the expanded and more systematic use of existing tools (e.g., environmental auditing,
contractor listing).  Therefore, the following sections, which  summarize the  major elements of the
Agency's enhanced enforcement program, also  will include examples of their use by the programs  and
Regions during FY 1990.

A.  Strengthening the Institutional Voice

  1.  The Focal Point for Enforcement

       Specific enforcement  responsibilities will  continue to be located in  both the Regions and
Headquarters program offices.  However, the Office of Enforcement will  serve as the Agency's national
voice regarding the enforcement of environmental laws. Three specific management decisions were made
in FY 1990 in support of this approach.  First, the director of the criminal agent program of  EPA's
National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC), will move from  Denver to Washington, D.C. in order


                                ^990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
to coordinate more closely with EPA's other program offices. Second, the Offices of Federal Facilities
Enforcement and the Office of Federal Activities were integrated in the Office of Enforcement. Third, a
direct reporting relationship was established between the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
the Agency's Regional Counsels.

  2.   The Enforceability of Regulations         ,   ,

       Successful enforcement depends on regulations whose definitions, standards, and applicability to
particular violations are clear. Enforcement becomes much more difficult where a regulation is vague in
scope or content. The Office of Enforcement and the media compliance programs will play a greater role
in the regulatory development process so as to ensure that regulations are enforceable from both a legal
and practical  perspective.

       Enforceability assessments which describe how enforcement-related technical, logistical and
legal concerns should be addressed in a proposed regulation and its implementation, will be developed
for selected rules. The Agency also will identify a subset of proposed regulations for each program for
pilot "field tests" to  be conducted prior  to final promulgation in order to identify potential weaknesses
that could render the rule unenforceable if not corrected.  3/

B.  Targeting Enforcement for Maximum Environmental Benefits

       Targeted enforcement initiatives will  focus enforcement action  against specific areas with
environmental problems. Targeting may involve either single media cases or cross media cases which cut
across the traditional media-specific approach  driven by regulations and federal statutory authorities.
Some of  the targeting criteria identified in  the Strategic Plan include industries with poor compliance
histories, and specific pollutants or sensitive geographic areas of concern, including ones which cross more
than one  Region or State.                                .

       Under a geographic approach,  for example. Regions may identify all polluting facilities in a
specific geographic  area, inspect the facilities to determine their compliance with regulation  or permit
conditions, and take any necessary enforcement action to resolve noncompliance. In FY 1990, for example,
Region V simultaneously filed lawsuits against Inland Steel  Corp., Bethlehem Steel  Corp., and
Federated Metals Corp. in a coordinated effort to clean up pollution along the Grand Calumet River. The
three suits involve violations  of Federal water, hazardous waste, and clean air laws. Indeed, the Inland
Steel complaint alleged violations in all three media and is the largest multi-media enforcement action
ever undertaken by the Agency. 4/

       Targeted initiatives also can be used to combat the risk associated with particular pollutants or
categories of pollutants. In FY 1990, for example, five chlorofiorocarbon (CFO enforcement actions were
filed as part of the agency's ozone  layer protection initiative.  I/   Similarly, the Agency began to
develop a lead enforcement strategy which will be fully implemented during FY 1991.   Finally, the
RCRA Enforcement Program formed an enforcement targeting committee to advise  on enforcement
initiatives.  EPA announced  the first such  initiative on February 22, 1991; the filing  of 28 actions to
enforce the land disposal restrictions of RCRA.

       In order to  facilitate  targeting, the Agency began work in FY 1990 on a project  to establish
automated linkages among its various compliance and enforcement data bases.  When completed next
year, the  Agency will be able to associate compliance and enforcement data from these systems  according
to corporate structure, industrial sector, pollutants, and/or geographic areas. In addition to  the national
databases containing compliance and enforcement information, the Agency's Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) and other ambient databases, once integrated, will further aid risk assessment and  targeting.

                        FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
C.  Screening Violations and Potential Cases for
    Appropriate Enforcement Response                *

       In FY 1990, as in previous years, the large majority of enforcement actions were handled ad-
ministratively.  This trend will continue in the future.  However, the Agency must be able to consider the
best enforcement response to violations — administrative, civil judicial, or criminal — especially when
they pose significant health or environmental risk. This capability, which will facilitate more uniform
case-handling across the Regions, also  is  needed when violations require complex technical or
multi-media response, or involve potential precedents or large penalties.

       During the last quarter of FY 1990, the Agency developed guidance by which each Region will
develop a screening process to review violations for strategic  value and their multi-media, innovative
enforcement, and civil judicial and criminal enforcement potential.  Not every violation will warrant
scrutiny.  Each program will determine what classes of violations should be subject to a screening process
and each Region, working with the Office of Enforcement, will  have the flexibility to develop its own
specific screening mechanism.  The "bottom line" .for the use of these screening1 procedures is that the
decision on the nature of the response and whether and how multi-media enforcement can be brought to
bear on the nature of the injunctive relief should not rest solely with the program that conducted the
inspection and identified the violation.

D.  Creative Use of Enforcement Authorities

       Over the several years,  the Agency  has used  a number of techniques to expedite  or enhance
compliance.  The  1990s Project has identified opportunities to use a number of techniques  such as
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and environmental auditing to expedite or enhance compliance.
These techniques as well as other enforcement tools, will be used by the Regions and programs in order to
"leverage" the environmental and deterrent effect of individual enforcement actions. 6/ Two  approaches
received special attention in FY 1990:

  1.   Pollution  Prevention

       Pollution prevention/waste minimization is at the top  of the list of innovative approaches being
pursued by EPA, and enforcement will be a major tool to encourage efforts in this area. A strong
enforcement program in and of itself encourages pollution prevention by providing incentives for industry
to find ways to reduce its potential liabilities and response costs.  In addition to fostering an overall
climate, the enforcement process can be used directly against noncompliers to promote pollution

       In FY 1990, the Office of Enforcement developed a draft interim policy on including pollution
prevention conditions in Agency settlements (the final interim policy will be issued early in FY 1991).
When conducting negotiations, the Federal litigation team may  consider  whether there are
opportunities to correct the violation through single or multi-media source reduction activities (e.g.,
reducing the source of emissions through changes in the industrial process or by production process input
substitutions).  Settlements can also be used to encourage the respondent to undertake additional pollution
prevention activities not as directly related to the original violation (e.g., a commitment to phase out
the use of a specific pollutant over an agreed-upon period).
       A number of cases with cross-media pollution prevention conditions were negotiated in FY 1990.
Three  are illustrative as part of a TSCA consent order, Schering Berlin Polymers  (formerly  Sherex
Polymers, Inc.) agreed to install a new filter system to reduce by 500,000 Ibs. annually the amount of
RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste  that would otherwise have to  be disposed  of  offsite. The 3-V
Chemical Corp.. also as part of a TSCA consent order, agreed to install a solvent recycling system that is


                            FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
expected to reduce by 50 percent the point source emissions of 1,1,1-triehloroethane (an unregulated
ozone-depleting substance) and dichloromethane (a suspected carcinogen). The Seekonk Lace Company
agreed to a EPCEA consent order which included a provision to eliminate emissions by substituting a
mechanical-based separation system for an acetone-based solvent one.  7/  These cases were in the
vanguard of the Agency's strategy to use the enforcement process to enhance pollution prevention.

  2.   Contractor Listing

       Contractor Listing authorities under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act bar facilities
that  violate those statutes from  receiving federally-funded  contracts, loans  or  grants. Listing is
mandatory for criminal violations and discretionary for civil violations of either Act.  The Federal
Acquisition Rule provides procedures for barring contractors from participating in Federal procurement
based on offenses such as fraud or lack of performance integrity.  Both sanctions are powerful deterrent
tools to reinforce environmental compliance.

       In FY 1990, the Agency conducted a comprehensive review of, and developed an action plan-for,
the contractor listing program in order to make it one of the centerpieces of an effective deterrence and
enforcement program.. Particular emphasis was placed on screening of cases to identify candidates for
discretionary listing.  8/  The Agency also will make more use of suspension/debarment for violators of
all environmental statutes, repeat violators, and multi-media violators.

E. Improving Relationships With Other Units of Government

       The  Agency  must work more closely  with  all  governmental bodies in the federal and
international system  —  localities. States, other Federal regulatory agencies, and other nations — in
order to successfully carry out its environmental goals and mission. The Agency's future enforcement
program will include expanded joint planning and cooperation, both within the different levels of our
own Federal system and with foreign governments, to more efficiently tackle persistent environmental
problems.    "                                          '

  1.   Federal  Regulatory Agencies

       Other Federal regulatory agencies oversee many of the same types of industries and facilities as
EPA.  Working from the assumption that violations in one regulatory area may indicate the potential for
violations in others,  EPA will look for opportunities for cooperation with other federal agencies to
advance mutual compliance objectives.

       During FY 1990, EPA negotiated a  Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)  with the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) covering the periodic  exchange of information from each
Agency's national compliance docket, cross-notification about possible  violations discovered  during
either an OSHA or EPA facility inspection, and joint inspection activity in areas of mutual priority, e.g.,
petrochemical facilities and lead smelting operations. £/    ,             ~

       Also in  FY 1990, EPA began supplying compliance information to the Securities and :Exchange
Commission (SEC) including PRP lists, respondent/defendant program docket information, and civil
penalty data in  support of SEC's review of Material Liabilities Disclosure Forms (10K forms). The SEC
may, in turn, send EPA  disclosure information that may  help us focus on environmental liabilities
reported to the SEC.  The fact that EPA and the SEC are working in concert has been publicized
throughout the regulated community, and should help ensure complete and accurate descriptions of
environmental liabilities in the 10K submissions to the SEC.              • .

                       FK /990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
  2.  States

       The States play a fundamental role in the overall enforcement effort, and the necessity for dose
cooperation has never been more evident  EPA will involve the States even more fully in its strategy
development and priority setting efforts, and work with  them to enhance their own cross-media
targeting, case screening, and criminal enforcement capabilities. This will require additional technical
assistance, data sharing, and compliance training to States, EPA made its Basic Inspector Training
Manual available to States during FY 1990, and several Regions have invited State inspectors to
participate in the course. The Agency intends to do more information sharing with the States in the

       Also required are the joint development of more sophisticated mechanisms for Regional and
State oversight.   Better oversight  and evaluations  depend on better quantitative and qualitative
information  about State enforcement activities as  well  as  a stronger consensus on the appropriate
Federal/State roles.  During the  last half of FY 1990, the Office of Enforcement and the Environmental
Law Institute (ELI) conducted planning for a Federal/State  Enforcement Colloquium, which was held
November 29 - 30,1990.  The Colloquium brought together about 50 officials from EPA Congress, States,
and environmental/citizens groups.  The participants explored way to enhance enforcement activities
among the various interests, and to build consensus around the 1990s Project recommendations.

  3.   Other Nations

       As the world community comes to realize that pollution does not respect geographic boundaries,
work must be coordinated to resolve the problems posed by issues such as global warming and the illegal
importing and exporting of hazardous wastes and chemicals.

       In FY 1990, EPA  helped organize an International Enforcement Workshop, which was held in
Utrecht, the Netherlands. The workshop included representatives from 14 countries and international
organizations, and expanded on activities which the U.S. and Dutch environmental organizations have
been conducting since 1985.  The Workshop brought together government environmental enforcement
officials from around the world  to exchange ideas and strategies on improving domestic enforcement
programs and enforcement of trans-boundary environmental accords. 10/

F.  Effective Communications About the Enforcement Program

     EPA must communicate effectively with the Congress, the media, the public, and the regulated
community about our overall enforcement effort. This involves developing better ways  of explaining
environmental improvement and  publicizing individual enforcement actions to enhance deterrence.

  1.   Measuring  Enforcement Effectiveness

       No single  quantitative  and qualitative measure of program" performance  can  provide a
comprehensive assessment of the enforcement  program.   Accurate measurement and assessment will
require consideration of whether a suitable existing data  collection system exists with established
supportinng baseline data;  whether it is  feasible to quantify deterrence benefits resulting from each
discrete enforcement case; and whether it is practicable to capture the preventive impact of enforcement

       During FY 1990, EPA took  initial steps to quantify the impact of enforcement initiatives.
Working with the Office  of Water and the Office of Mobile Sources, the Office of Enforcement developed
final enforcement effectiveness case studies for the Clean Water Act National Municipal Policy  and the
Clean Air Act Lead Phasedown Program. The studies presented the environmental and economic benefits
related to enforcement activities and other measures of effectiveness. Jl/



                             FF 7990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
       This method  of effectiveness analysis,  while not  without  difficulties,  is  the  type of
results-oriented analysis envisioned by both the Strategy and the 1990s Project which, with refinement,
will produce useful information about the impact of the Agency's enforcement efforts. As next steps, the
Agency plans to develop useful indicators of compliance within targeted industries, the deterrent impact
of penalties, and the use of pollution prevention activities.

   2.   Publicizing Enforcement Actions  ,

       Publicizing enforcement actions taken  against  violators magnifies  the impact of the
environmental gains  achieved through  those actions, and  the  Agency will develop an overall
communications strategy to promote deterrence within the regulated community.   This  will involve
disseminating information about specific enforcement actions, including the environmental benefits
derived from that particular action. It will also involve communicating with both attentive publics and
the public at large about the Agency's total enforcement program, processes and procedures.

       During FY 1990, for example, The Agency produced and distributed two general descriptions of its
enforcement efforts: Environmental Enforcement: A  Citizen's Guide . and The  Public's  Role in
Environmental Enforcement.  The former provided  an overview of the enforcement  process, while the
latter  publication  encouraged citizen involvement  by giving examples and illustrations of potentially
non-compliant behavior which the general public  can report to State and/or Federal officials."  Both
represent the type of communications outreach activity which the Agency will emphasize in the future.

G.  Enforcement Training

       Effective enforcement of environmental laws requires highly qualified legal and technical
personnel, and the Agency's already substantial training effort, which includes the civil, criminal, and
appellate two-week courses presented by the Attorney General's Advocacy Institute, the two-week
criminal enforcement training program conducted at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in
Glynco, Georgia, and the general and program-specific basis and advanced inspector training program,
will continue to grow.  All enforcement personnel will receive appropriate training to increase their
effectiveness in the enforcement process.  Over the  next five years, the Agency will systematically train
inspectors, technical case development officers, investigators, and prosecutors in all  phases of enforce-
ment, including introductory training in overall multi-media, multi-disciplinary enforcement.

       During FY  1990, planning continued for the  creation and development of the National
Enforcement Training Institute as authorized by the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990.  The Agency began
developing implementation options for the Institute concept, including curriculum development, the
involvement of (and training opportunities afforded to) State and local government personnel, funding,
faculty, facilities, and management. 12/


       Vigorous environmental law enforcement is one of the nation's highest priorities.- In some aspects,
implementing the new approach will require establishing new mindsets and ways of conducting business,
not only on the part of EPA and the States, but on the part of Congress, regulated industries, and the
public as well.   The  result, however,  will be  a comprehensive risk-based  approach  to  both
media—specific and  cross-media enforcement which will serve the overall environmental goals of the
United States.
I/ For a discussion of these two initiatives, see James M. Strock, "EPA's Enforcement in the 1990s,"
Environmental Law Reporter, Volume XX, No 8, August 1990, pps. 10327 -10332. The final Strategic Plan

                                .  .   '        2-6

                        FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report  '
was issued on October 17,1990 and is available upon request. The 1990s Project is undergoing final review
and will be available in February, 1991.

2/ The six analyses of the 1990s Project are: Enhancing Enforceability Considerations in Environmental
Rulemaking: Compliance Incentives/Leverage: Innovative Enforcement: The Local Government's Role in
Environmental Enforcement: Environment Management and Measures: and Strengthening the State/EPA
Relationship for Environmental Enforcement.

3/ cf. the  1990s Project report on Enhancing Enforceability Considerations, inEnvironmental Rulemaking
for a complete analysis of this subject,

4/ cf. chapter IV for a summary of these cases and other FY 1990 cases.

5/ cf. chapter IV for a description of these cases

6/ cf. the individual reports on Innovative Enforcement, and Compliance Incentives/Leveraging for a
comprehensive discussion of constraints, opportunities and benefits in the use of innovative enforcement
tools, including: contractor listing, criminal enforcement, environmental auditing, pollution prevention,
field citations, alternative dispute  resolution, field  citations, cooperation with citizens' and other
non-governmental environmental organizations, environmental awards, and environmental education
and technology transfer.

7J cf. chapter IV for a more complete description of the original violations and the pollution prevention
settlement conditions of these three cases

g/ cf. chapter IV for a summary of key FY 1990 listing cases suspension/debarment for violators of ail
environmental statutes, repeat violators, and multi-media violators.

9/ The EPA/OSHA MOU was formally signed by Administrator Reilly and former Labor Secretary Dole
on November 26,1990. Cf. Chapter V for a detailed discussion of the substance of the MOU.

1Q/ Cf.  chapter V  for a complete account of the substantive issues discussed at the Workshop.  The
Workshop is a model of the kind of international dialogue and cooperation on world environmental issues
that will expand significantly in the future,

ll/ Cf.  Chapter  V for a  complete summary of the National Municipal Policy and Lead Phasedown
Effectiveness Studies.

12/ Cf. Chapter V for a discussion of Agency training efforts.

                      FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
III.   Environmental Enforcement Activity

Federal Judicial and Administrative Enforcement Activity

  Judicial Enforcement - Civil

       During FY 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a new all-time record
for civil judicial enforcement by referring 375 cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ), surpassing the
previous Agency record of 372 which was set in FY 1988, and the 364 cases that were referred to DOJ in FY
1989. Since FY 1988,1,111 cases have been referred to DOJ, nearly one third of all civil cases referred since
the Agency's creation (historical data are contained in the Appendix to this report).   The federal
Superfund program established a new high-water mark in FY 1990 with 157 civil judicial cases referred
to DOJ.
                             EPA Civil Referrals to  DOJ
                                   FY 1977  to FY 1990
           FY77  FY78  FY79  FY80  FY81  FY82   FY83  FY84  FY85  FY86  FY87  FY88  FY89   FY90
                                       Illustration 1
  Monitoring Judicial Consent Decrees

       At the end of FY 1990, the Agency reported that 646 judicial consent decrees were in place and
being monitored  to ensure compliance with the provisions of the decrees, more than three times the
number of five years ago. Where noncompliance with the terms and conditions of a decree is found, EPA
may initiate proceedings with the court to compel  the facility to live up to its agreement and seek
penalties for such noncompliance, EPA initiated 32 actions to enforce consent decrees during FY 1990,
twice the number that were initiated in FY 1989.

                            FF /990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 Judicial Enforcement - Criminal
       In FY 1990, EPA's criminal enforcement program established new records by referring 65 cases to
DOJ (the previous record was 60 in FY 1989), bringing charges against 100 defendants (the previous record
was 98 in FY 1986), and the number of months of jail time to which defendants were sentenced with 745
months (the previous record was 456 months in FY 1987). FY 1990 saw continued integration of the
criminal enforcement program into the Agency's regulatory programs, as well as greater recognition in
the regulated community of EPA's willingness to pursue violations utilizing criminal enforcement
authorities.  As the follwing illustration indicates, criminal case referrals, numbers of defendants
charged, and numbers of defendants convicted have increased over time. Since 1982, individuals have
received prison sentences for committing environmental  crimes  totaling 181 years, and 643 years  of
probation have been imposed. Imposition of probation is an extremely effective part of the criminal
program because in the event that an  individual commits another crime (not limited to environmental
crimes), the provisions of the probation normally call for the automatic imposition of a prison sentence
that was suspended in lieu of probation.

       During FY 1990, the President signed into law the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990. The Act
provides for a quadrupling by FY 1995 of the number of criminal  program Special Agents and support
personnel. The Act also authorized the creation of EPA's National Enforcement Training Institute which
will provide support to the growing criminal program. Also during FY 1990, a number of management
studies of the criminal  program were completed, and  work has begun to implement a  program
reorganization that calls for more centralized  supervision of investigatory personnel.
                         EPA Criminal Enforcement  Program
                                    FY 1982 to FY 1990
           Referrals to DO]
 Cases successfully
Defendants charged
 Defendant* convicted
& sentenced
                                       Illustration 2
  Administrative  Enforcement
       EPA posted its second highest annual total for administrative enforcement activities in FY 1990
with 3,804 actions,  The Agency record of 4,136 was set in FY 1989. The totals for FY 1990 demonstrate
that  although judicial actions (both civil and  criminal) are crucial to EPA's overall success, and are

                        FY J990 Erforcement Accomplishments Report
                                                                                             T.   ,«*
                                                                                             X «•»<•*
generally looked to as the chief indicator of the vitality of Agency enforcement efforts, other indicators
need to be evaluated to  assess EPA's effectiveness in enforcing environmental laws and regulations.
Congress has given  EPA expanded authority in recently enacted  or reauthorized statutes to use
administrative mechanisms to address violations and  compel regulated facilities to achieve compliance.
The FY 1990 figures indicate  that EPA programs continue to make greater use of these effective and less
resource intensive tools.
                               EPA  Administrative Actions
                                     FY  1977 to FY 1990
             FY77  FY78~  FY79  FYSO  FV81   FY82  FY83  FY84  FY85  FYS6  fYS7  FY88  FY89  FY90
                     • EPCRA      m  TSCA        0  FIFRA

                     O RCRA       H  CWA/S0WA  H  CAA
                                        Illustration 3
  Contractor Listing

       In FY  1990, a record number of facilities were added to the EPA's List of Violating  Facilities
under the authorities provided to EPA by Clean Air Act Section 306 and Clean Water Act Section 508 to
bar facilities that violate the clean air or clean water standards from receiving Federally funded
contracts, grants or loans.  Facilities owned or operated by persons who are convicted of violating Clean
Air Act Section 113(c) or Clean Water Act Section 309(c) (and involved in the violations) are subject to
automatic  listing effective  the  date of the conviction (this is  referred  to as  mandatory listing).
Facilities which  are mandatorily listed remain on the list until EPA determines that they have
corrected the conditions which led to the violations.  Twenty facilities were listed  in FY 1990 based on
criminal  convictions — twice as  many  facilities as in any previous year.  Four facilities were removed
from the list in FY 1990, one after a removal hearing before a Case Examiner.   Since FY 1986,55 facilities
have been placed on the mandatory  list.

       Facilities may also  be listed  at  EPA's discretion upon the recommendation of certain EPA
officials, a State Governor, or a member of the public based on continuing or recurring violations of the
Clean  Air Act or the Clean Water Act (this is referred to as  discretionary listing).   Facilities
recommended for discretionary listing have a right to an informal administrative proceeding.  Facilities
listed under discretionary listing are removed after one year; or earlier if the Assistant Administrator
determines that  the conditions which gave rise to the discretionary listing have been corrected, or that
the facility is on  a plan that will result in compliance.- In FY 1990, EPA proposed to list one facility

                              FF J990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
under its discretionary listing authority. Three pending discretionary listing actions were withdrawn by
EPA after consent agreements were entered in the underlying civil enforcement cases.

  Federal Penalty Assessments

       In  FY 1990, over $61.3 million in civil penalties were assessed, an all-time record ($38.5 million
in civil judicial penalties and $22.8 million in administrative penalties, both  all-time records).
Delaying or foregoing capital investment in pollution controls, as well as failure to provide resources for
annual pollution control operating expenditures, can allow undeserved economic benefits to accrue to a
regulated entity.  As part of the effort to deter  noncompliance, EPA's enforcement programs have
developed penalty policies designed to  assess penalties which recover any economic benefit that a
noncomplying facility has realized, and assess additional penalties commensurate with the gravity of
the violation(s). It should be noted that the FY 1990 record totals would  still set a record without
including the $15 million penalty in the Texas Eastern Pipeline consent decree, the largest environmental
penalty ever assessed. Since its creation, EPA has imposed over $247.3 million in civil  penalties ($167.3
million with civil judicial actions and $80 million with administrative actions).

       In  FY 1990,  over $8.8  million in Clean Air Act penalties were assessed ($5.9 million for
stationary source violations and $2.9 million for mobile source violations); $16.9 million in Clean Water
Act penalties were assessed ($12.4 million in civil judicial penalties and $4.5 million in  administrative
penalties); over $25.4 million in Toxic Substances Control Act penalties were assessed ($15 million in
civil judicial penalties and $10.4 million in administrative penalties); and $6.8 million  in Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act penalties were assessed ($3.9 million in civil  judicial penalties and $2.9
million in administrative penalties). In FY 1990 there were at least three multi-media cases with RCRA
counts for which penalties were assessed and credited to other media, and are not included in the RCRA
total.   The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and Safe Drinking Water Act programs
are largely delegated to the States; however, EPA assessed  over $587,000 and $578,000 respectively,
under these statutes. The Toxic Release Inventory program assessed nearly $1.6 million.  Over $441,000
in Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) sections 302-312 and CERCLA
Section 104 penalties were assessed.
                                  Federal Judicial and Administrative
                                           Penalty Assessments
                                            FY 1977 to FY 1990






                   FY77 FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81  FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90
                                 E3 ADMINISTRATIVE
                                          Illustration 4

                       FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
State Judicial and Administra tive.Enforcement Activity
       Several hundred thousand facilities are subject to environmental regulation, and  the job of
ensuring compliance and  taking action to correct instances of noncompliance with federal laws is
entrusted both to EPA and to the States through delegated or approved State programs. EPA and the
States must rely on a partnership to get the job done, with State environmental agencies shouldering a
significant share of the nation's environmental enforcement workload.  In FY 1990, the States referred
649 civil cases to State Attorneys General and issued 10,105 administrative actions to violating facilities
(in addition to the 4,145 adminstrative actions taken by States under FIFRA, 3,149 warning letters were
                                State Judicial Referrals
                                   FY 1985 to FY 1990
                    100    200    300     400    500     600,    700    800     900
                                    RCRA  Q AIR    O WATER
                             State  Administrative  Orders
                                   FY 1985 to FY 1990
                               RCRA   D AIR
                                    Illustrations 5&6

                     FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
IV.   Major Enforcement
Litigation and Key Legal
Precedents - Protecting Public
Health and the Environment
through Enforcement.

      During  FY 1990,  EPA's  strong base
enforcement  program continued  to  obtain
injunctive  relief  and  significant penalties  to
correct priority violations in  all media.   In
addition, the compliance programs undertook a
number of  targeted  actions  and  used the
settlement  process  to  obtain  additional
environmental relief.   The special initiatives
undertaken in FY 1990  are indicative of the type
of enforcement activity which will become the
hallmark of the Agency's enforcement program in
FY 1991 and  beyond.   This  chapter  provides
highlights  of major FY 1990 litigation which
support media  enforcement  priorities  and
demonstrate  innovative  approaches in the
enforcement process.

Clean Air Act Enforcement

      The Clean Air  Act program regulates the
emission of both toxic and criteria pollutants from
both  stationary (factories, plants, utilities) and
mobile (auto) sources. Stationary source air toxics
litigation  centered  upon violations of the
National Emissions Standards  for Hazardous Air
-Pollutants    (NESHAPS), especially  those
involving asbestos and benzene,  while  mobile
source air toxics litigation emphasized violations
of the lead  phasedown  rules, as  well those
involving   fuel  switching,  volatility,  and
additives requirements.  Enforcement  of the
National  Ambient  Air  Quality  Standards
(NAAQS)  for the criteria pollutants involved
violations  of regulations  for volatile organic
compounds  (VOCs),    sulfur dioxide  and

 Stationary Source Program

U.S.  v. J.Y. Arnold  and Associates,. Inc.:   On
December 22,1989, a  consent decree resolved this
Region  IV  Clean  Air  Act  ("CAA") civil
enforcement action  against  J.Y.  Arnold  and
Associates, Inc.  ("J.Y. Arnold") for  alleged
violations of the  National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants  for  asbestos
("Asbestos NESHAP") during  an  asbestos
renovation  project  at  the Adeth  Jeshurun
Synagogue in Louisville, Kentucky. In conjunction
with the civil enforcement action brought against
J.Y. Arnold,  Eegion IV initiated proceedings to
list J.Y. Arnold as a violating facility, pursuant to
§ 306 of the GAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 15.  A hearing
on the listing was held on May 2, 1989, which
resulted in the presiding officer recommending
listing J.Y. Arnold.

     The consent decree requires J.Y.  Arnold to
train all of its asbestos abatement personnel in
EPA-approved  training courses.  The consent
decree further requires J.Y. Arnold to pay, a civil
penalty  of $17,500 and stipulated penalties for
any violation of the consent decree.  In addition,
J.Y. Arnold must report directly to the Region on
all demolition/renovation projects the company
bids so the region can reference compliance by
other contractors in the area.

     As a result of J.Y. Arnold's performance of
the conditions specified in the decree,  Region IV
has   agreed   to  withdraw  the  listing
recommendation for J.Y. Arnold. This is believed
to be.the first case in which an asbestos contractor
was determined to be a  violating  facility
pursuant to a listing hearing. Furthermore, under
the terms of the Consent Decree, if J.Y. Arnold
should  violate  the Decree, EPA  can list J.Y.
Arnold as a  violating facility without needing to
pursue  any   additional   administrative

In the Matter of Bethenergy  Corporation: In
March, 1989, Region II issued a §120 Notice of
Non compliance against Bethenergy Corporation
(owner-Bethlehem  Steel  Corp.)  for  visible
emissions violations at the waste heat stacks of
its  coke oven  battery.   The  violations were
documented  using EPA's LIDAR system.  During
1990, the company requested an  accelerated
decision seeking dismissal of this administrative
case on the grounds that the  state coke oven
regulation   was not part  of  the  SIP.   The
Administrative Law Judge in a March, 1990 ruling
denied Bethenergy's motion and granted EPA's
cross-motion for accelerated  decision.   The
decision was based narrowly on the facts of EPA's
approval of  the  regulation in   question.
Bethenergy  appealed  the decision  to  the
Administrator,  who  issued  a  ruling in June
upholding EPA's interpretation, though with
different reasoning.  Bethenergy has appealed
the decision to  ask for reconsideration by the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

                             F7 1990s Enforcement:Acc0mplishtnents Report
•»'UIS? •• vJ B_M%swanger Management "Corpf/ et al.:
'' Defendants •iri'"this-GleahvAir>Act 'enforcement
^action''agreed tb'pay a-dvil7penalty'ofr$184;pOO,
* '-'one1 of-'the -largest -penalties*ever obtained iri a
"' case ^involving"the'1 National-Ernission Standard
yrf or ^Hazardous  -Air ^Pollutants  'for' Asbestos
''' (Asbestos NESHAP),1 'TKe 'consent' ;decree was
>";OTtereci:May'22pi990/resdIvmg this enforcement
  action alleging violations of the1 notice and'wbrk
  practice  standards of the  Asbestos NESHAP
^*durirfgVenbvatibh}of-'the'Widenerj Building in
•' PhilaaelphiapfiPehh'sylvania': >-JIn-  addition,
• ^defendants agreed to implement-several'measures
I J • desi gried '•- to tpre ventx' violations of '""the1' Asbestos
1 "-'NESHAPf in! tKe' future^'sucfi a₯*edueatibhal' and
•• rtraining-"p'rovisions arid 'designation bif an* Asbestos
f f-Pfbgram.Man'ager^fespbnsible'fbr ensuring the
WuHifp'rmSiprts)':^'!'-'1-''1 i.^ mjr-'n sri* tv ,'»3;u
  lengthy negotiations; ~thc_ case^.wa
  January 10, i99pjFpr,..$69,9?5!.civil -penalty.-,, A
  consent decree was' entered Mri"the" UiS; District
          .•v >r     - -~-*-   * ,. r      -'   "^ i«-»-> /*-^
  Court for the -Western- District- of-Oklahoma on
  August 9,1990, artd'the p"enalty,:arnount'.was,paid
  on September 7,1990,- ,-;,-, —"..;,:j, tl;>  :>rvcjri"i

  In the matter of Dakota Gasification Company:
*^With 'extensive assistance "and" oversight by
n'Region'yinrtte^iSepartmen'rbf EnergyJ(DOE),
^•Dakota'Gasiri cation- Company''(DGCy^fdfrnefly
'  known as Americanrr4atural Gas'(ANG)/and'the
'• State of 'Nbrth^Dakbta "reached '^a  settlement
"•* agreement stemming from violations 'of perrnitted
r"SO2j emissions' ^fonV'PSD :;and':iNSPSf>eri\iss5on
s "poiritsf The Consent Agreement, signed on August
'J'4/1990/sp«:ifieTtltat  DGC wiirpay5 $35^000'for
  U.S. v. Boise Cascade Corporalipn,:  Underscoring
 'EPA's'cbmmitmenf tb'-take enforcement measures
  'before "the rstart-up ^bf bperatioris/'a June*'28^ 1990,
 'consent decree resolved -EPA's case against Boise
 -Caisca'de for"Clean-"Air Act -violations"at' its pulp
 i^and* paper 'mill' in'Iriterhational^Falls,' Minnesota.
 ••: 'TKe 'decree 'requires Boise to pay a -$350^000' civil
  penalty/Hhe' largest 'ever for 'failing4 to: 'obtain a
 '•' PSD/NSR'permit/ The" case stemmed from Boise
 v/ 'Cascades' failure2 to ''obtain' a-;PSDf and" ribn-
 ^atfeinrrierif'New  Source ."Review (NSR)' permit
 ^ ^Before1 beginning construction on modifications' to
  its mill. The alleged violations wereHiacdvered
  by  a Region V  inspector  who observed  the
 ' exi sterice" of pilmgs-f6r-a%ew>pape'r.' machine and
 ' bleach" plant. *  ;-' '-•'•' " IT":-^ ': ."..t'> .;. -. -'
  failing r to  comply  with ''another';1 Consent
1  Agreement';signed **bn'April*51 27,' Ji989;^which
''/required' submittal of a PSD permit application
\  and a'J'compliance  schedule.  This-Consent
"'Agreement'also ^con tains stipulated1 penalties of
- r $1,000,000,"' whictf will' bersuspendedljilf" certain
  milestones are met.   Further,'' ifl/tKe'vcost "of
  specified  control  equipment  is less  than the
  original cost of $65,183,000 proposed irf'a.previous
  BACT analysis, DGC  agrees to pay  the State the
  difference in costs., i •
        TO  *
...'^(L-iV EPA issued •'a notice of : violation" to Boise
!i 'Cascade -'ori November 1/<'1988.!; 'Although"the
'-' company f stopped  construction 'activities: by the
rirend'Of-Novembef^EPA made1 if ;clear '-that- this
-"-would^not absolve -Boise Cascade' froriv liability.
-• EPA^demanded: that-Boise"JGascade!;obtairi; a
R construction ' permit^ 'before- continuing- '-the
'''modification 'and  pay, avcivil "penalty. > ''Boise
^rCasca3e obtained  a yalidtpefmit from :the> State
u U.S. -v.' Pehr  Brothers/->Inc.; ,.-,*. Thed liargest
  settlement yet- in^-enforcementfjof^-the nules to
...protect .stratospheric .ozone,!, jnvolying. i the
-: payment-%pi'ia,$101,935.civil<-penalty/llwas' filed
oiJune 29i'19907The pepartmentqf Justifce,lodged
•ifthe consent decree on behalf,of(EPA--with,Judge
, ,-Jphn-F. Keenan of the United4States District Court
,.fpr the Southern District of New-York.,!   . >;  ,.,
  UlS.%. Cnnncri Pipelin« Inc.; 'On behalf of -EPAton
•-February 28, 1989,ithe.Uhited"States sued Conoco
'••'Pipeline,' 'Inc. '"bl Oklahoma' City, Oklahoma' :f or
'-• viblatibns!;bf the- jNew 'Source 'Performance
'''Standards regardirig'lvblatile "organic 'compound
'  storage tahks::eThe facilitycKad'failed to'provide
: '' nbti ficatibn ' of ^cdnstructionl' startup-- and refill.
  The case was filed* on  February -28, '1989? -After
•j.-*.1 ".n The,defendant,  Fehr-Brothers,,-lnc.>icured
. • its -alleged < wrongful/importation  of, 153,600
i kilograms of ozonerdepleting Chjproflorocarbon
j.by  purchasing -.consumptionlallow.ances; from
t, .companieSj wjhich ?had (generatejd>, allowarices
  through proper exportation.       ^ -ju^rj-tvi

  U.S. v. Cpneral Dvnamifs: A COUrt for the first
  ^ tlrl	• »»>*»w*1^»rl"   /, v^  ••-"?? --'*,' *~-. * "f,n  e -',~"'
  time ruled that the contractor at a Government
  Owned - Contractor Operated ("GOCO") facility
< (General - Dynamics ,Corpi;i Fort Wpfth;_TX)-: is
<"•> considered^ the Operator -as^aT matter'f of '-law.
>« Because environmentaPstatute's' usually, provide
 - the' 'Administrator -with ;'authority !"to - pursue
" eitrler owners'dr opera tors'of viola ting" facilities,
 'General Dynamics and other contractors' making
"use of • government-owned ^facilities: often argiie
f fthat'^they'-are not operators'HmdjSthat: 'they

                       FY1990- En/or,cemenvAccompli$hmeiUs Report
                                              *  \
 exercise no independent judgment or responsibility
 (they  claim  they  can  only ; do  what  the
 government expressly Borders them to do -i-an
• argumenttusiially atsoddsawith their, contracts).
< Therefore,-the argument.goes, the'government is
 •both .the owner, and the operator, and EPA should
! seek=»: to.  .resolve •  the   violations  through
 administrative;processes because the'governmeht
 cannot sue-itselfV ?The .U.S. District'Court for the
 Northern  District  of Texas issued an order on
 February 6, 1990, stating that General Dynamics
 is the operator, of Air Force. Plant No. 4, the only
 facility" at  whichfthe  F-16 fighter plane is made.
 'Ihf'its one-page'opinion, the court held 'that/the
 U.S..was entitled tq.judgment as a.rriatter.df law
 regarding; the'defendant's status as operator  of
 the   facility, • and  entered partial  judgment
. holding that'General .Dynamics was the.operator
 of Plant No/*4..'The'General Dynamics order
 represents the first: time a court has specifically
 .ruled that the;contractor at a GOCO facility  is
 the operator and may-hold significance for cases
 involving GOCO facilities* where the contractor
 has  claimed that it is an  alter ego  of  the
L government exercising no independent judgment  or
• authority.  The. case, filed in: 1987, alleges  that
-:General .Dynamics violated:the Texas SIP. VOC
• standards, at three "coating lines at Air Force
 •Plant No.  4, where the-company-applies surface
 coatings to the F-16" fighter plane. '     i  .  •;.

 General Motors Cprp/y. U.S.: .The Supreme Court
' ruled that EPA can enforce air pollution control
 regulations even• •

"•'••i     This decision.arose out of, an enforcement
 action-brought by EPA against General Motors for
 emissions of volatile organic compounds;-'a
 precursor of ground-level ozone, at its automobile
 . assembly  plant in Framingham, Massachusetts.
 Justice • Blackmun  wrote" the opinion  for  a
• unanimous court. • *.         . ' .•  '     : •".  :••••
r In 'the matter of Hadson  Power "
 Review:. Regional! .filed a-Petition for Review
^requesting review of a -PSD permit issued,by'the
•• Commonwealth* of VirgihiaUo Hadson.Powerr 11,
 Southampton Plant, Ultrasystems development
'Corporation for the construction of a.cogeneration
 plant consisting of two spreader-stoker coal-firexi
•boilers. .Hadson Power; had. filed  three::other
^application's for1 cogeneration. plants r similarly
 designed and expected to emit- the !sarneJ level "of
 emissions in tons per year (TPY).  Region Ill's
 opinion was that.selective noncatalytic;reduction
. processes Involving,the injection .of.ammonia or
 urea were  economically "feasible-arid'that the
 technology (thermal (de-NOx) ha'd beeri applied
 .to other fuel types of stoker boilers '  .'•.;-. sat.'
                                         - •. i
      Agreement was reached in February, 1990
 between Hadson Power, the Commonwealth of
 Virginia and .EPA.*.The' agreement enabled- .the
;-Region to withdraw the appeal in February 1990
 and  resulted in-a. 276 TPY.  reduction;'in-SO2
; emissions,  which, over  the 30-year life of this
 plant, ';means* 8^280- tons; .less SO2.  in-.tthe
 atmosphere! .The agreement also required a1 more
'•complete BACT-analysis in future Hadson Power
 applications and at least a 50% reduction in NOx
 emissions from the proposed plants.   > t      i
,1 i . i  •' -. j  . ••.  . ". ' i  .<" j    .1  r  '»   /> i   '•!
 •In the matter of Instant Web Inc.: On February 8,
; 1990,'an'order .was issued to Instant Web,-Inc.'of
 Charthasseh, Minnesota, pursuant'to §  167 of the
 Clean Air Act.  This was the first such order to be
 issued in Region V and required that Instant Web
 .immediately  cease .construction  which  was
"•proceeding in'violation of  PSD  regulations.
 Again, this action underscores the Region's
 resolve to insist that new ormodified sources in
 attainment''areas be  equipped;with the best
 pollution controls.                      ••'•   x

. U.S.  v. tjyon and Associates:  On June 4,1990, Judge
 Ramirez • of the  Eastern District of California
 approved  a Consent Decree which imposed -a
 civil, penalty  on'three defendants  who ;had
. violated the asbestos NESHAP.' The defendants,
 Lyon and i Associates, Fred.B. Curtis, .Inc., and
 .George E.-King Construction, were responsible'for

                            FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 the improper removal of friable asbestos roofing
 material  from* a  building  in Sacramento
 California.  The violations had been discovered
 by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
 Management District ("the district"), but because
 the District was having  difficulty obtaining  a
 penalty from the defendants, it  asked EPA for
 assistance.  EPA and the District brought a joint
 enforcement action and shared the resulting
 $65,000 civil penalty.

 U.S. v. Louisiana-Pacific. Kremmling. CO and
 Louisiana-Pacific:   These cases involved  a
 national investigation into NSR/PSD Practices
, by Louisiana-Pacific Corporation for construction
 and operation without a PSD permit.  As a result
 of Region VIII initiatives, SSCD has initiated an
 investigation into the New Source Review (NSR)
 practices of Louisiana-Pacific Corporation (LP).
 LP's    Northern   Waferboard  Division,
 headquartered in  Hayward, Wisconsin, has been
 operating  two waferboard plants,  .both  major
 stationary sources for  CO and  VOC, without
 obtaining required PSD permits in Colorado since

      On June 26, 1990, Region VIII referred the
 two LP  plants to DOJ for the PSD violations. In
 March 1990, Georgia  reported  that  LP had
 recently constructed a waferboard plant that was
 permitted as a minor source by of Georgia, but
 was operating as a major source. This information,
 in light of the  similar way the Colorado plants
 were constructed  and permitted,  has raised the
 question of  the  existence  of a corporate
 NSR/PSD  permitting review for new LP  plants.
 Region VIII contacted SSCD and  suggested that
 SSCD coordinate and  conduct  a  nationwide
 investigation into LP's permitting practices at
 the company's other VIII submitted to SSCD  a
 memo which recommended a national strategy for
 evaluating LP's compliance  new  source review.
 The  strategy includes a recommendation to
 develop Control Technique Guidance (CTG) for
 waferboard plants, and for the development of  a
 standard multi-operational  parameter matrix
 stack test protocol to be used at  all  waferboard

 U.S.  v. Occidental Chemical  Corp.;  A consent
 decree was entered by the court on August 14,1990,
 under which Occidental Chemical Corp. agreed
 to pay $687,223 to resolve the firm's violations of
 the vinyl chloride NESHAP at their Pottstown,
 PA.,  facility, the  largest penalty to date in  a
 single vinyl chloride case. The decree, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania,   marks  the   first   federal
enforcement action in which a polyvinyl chloride
manufacturer has agreed to install an enhanced
recovery system and is also the first air case to
require  periodic  environmental  audits.   In
addition to the penalty, the decree specifies over
$3 million worth of injunctive relief including the
periodic audits,  the  additional  control
equipment, and training. .

Puerto Rican  Cement  Company. Inc..  v. EPA:
In early November, 1989, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the  First  Circuit  upheld  EPA's
method of determining applicability under  the
PSD regulations.   The case  was  the first to
.consider the netting  of emissions, and EPA's
requirement for comparison of actual emissions
prior to  modification with proposed allowable
emissions  after  modification,  for  PSD
applicability purposes.   Although this was a
defensive litigation, it has great significance for
EPA's enforcement program.

U.S. v. Sid Richardson Carbon, and Gasoline:  Sid
Richardson  Carbon and  Gasoline operates a
carbon black plant in Addis, Louisiana, which
manufactures carbon black by burning natural gas
or fuel  oil with  reduced oxygen.  Waste  gas
streams from the carbon black reactors contain
large amounts of acetylene, which is a volatile
organic compound (VOC). Studies have shown
VOCs contribute to the formation of ozone in the
lower  atmosphere.   Louisiana submitted a
revision  to the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
that would  exempt carbon black plants from
controlling  acetylene, which   was  finally
disapproved by EPA in  early 1990. Region VI
forwarded a litigation report to the Department
of Justice on December 31,1986. A consent decree
became effective  on September 1, 1990, which
ordered  Sid  Richardson to  control the VOC
emissions and pay a $77,000 penalty, which was
paid September 17,1990. Region VI also assisted
the State in issuing a PSD permit for construction
of a  flare system to destroy at least 90% of  the

U.S. v. Santa fe  Energy Company:  Santa  Fe
Energy Company (SFEC) owns and operates an oil
recovery facility near  Bakersfield  in Kern
County, California. On March 22,1990, EPA filed
a complaint in the U.S.  District Court for the
Eastern District of California alleging that SFEC
had violated the Clean Air Act and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations by

                     FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                                             * \
failing to install continuous emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS) for nitrogen oxides and oxygen on
its steam generators. The CEMS were required by
a PSD permit issued to the company by EPA. In a
consent decree entered July 10,1990, SPEC agreed
to pay a civil penalty of $201,000 and to comply
with certain injunctive provisions. The penalty is
among the largest EPA has collected nationwide
for violations of PSD permitting requirements.

U.S. v. Stone Southwest Corporation;  A Consent
Decree, filed  August 28,  1990, in the  United
States District Court for the District of Arizona,
resolved EPA's lawsuit citing Stone Container
Corporation  ("Stone") with  violations  of the
dean Air Act.  Stone manufactures newsprint and
kraft linerboard at its paper mill in Snowflake,
Arizona. A coal-fired boiler provides the milt's
power. In its action, EPA alleged that Stone had
violated New Source Performance Standards by
failing to send quarterly excess emission reports to
EPA over a 48 month period. Second, EPA  alleged
that Stone violated the sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emission limit contained  in  the Arizona  State
Implementation Plan.   To resolve the  matter,
Stone agreed to pay a civil penalty of $200,000,
Stone also  agreed to  a Consent Decree which
called for Stone to install a new scrubber for sulfur

U.S. v. Stauffer Chemical Company (a division*
of Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Company): On
August 1, 1990, the U.S. District Court  for the
District  of  Montana filed  a consent  decree
concluding EPA's civil enforcement action against
this  elemental phosphorus plant in Silver Bow,
Montana. EPA overfiled  a State action  which
would have allowed  the source  to obtain  a
variance because the Region believed additional
controls  were   necessary  to  protect  the
environment.  After prolonged negotiations with
the defendant, EPA  was able to achieve a consent
decree in accordance with which the defendant
paid a penalty of $100,000 and was required to
install extensive controls.

U.S. v. Tzavah Urban Renewal Corp. et al.: This
case resulted  in  the  imposition  of  a  total of
$555,000 in civil penalties, the largest  amount
ever assessed in a  Clean  Air Act  enforcement
action involving the National Emission Standard
for  Hazardous  Air  Pollutants for Asbestos
(Asbestos NESHAP), 40 C.F.R.  Part 61,Subpart M.
The  government alleged violations of both the
notice and work practice standards of the asbestos
NESHAP while defendants were renovating the
former Military Park Hotel  in  Newark,  New
-Jersey.  On July 25, 1990 a consent decree was
entered as to defendants Tzavah Urban Renewal
Corp., Harry  K.Hampel,  Datsun Investments,
Pinros & Gar, Henry Roth, and Sol Mayer. These
defendants  agreed to pay a civil penalty of
$330,000.  In addition, they agreed, with respect
to all future demolition or renovation operations
in which they are an owner or operator,  to have
an inspector with EPA-approved training do a
complete building inventory for asbestos. On June
21; 1990 Judge Alfred J. Lechner, Jr. awarded the
government $225,000, the maximum civil penalty
allowed under the Clean Air  Act, as to the two
remaining defendants, William Creer and Crecr
Industrial Corp., which had default judgments
entered against them.  In his Letter-Opinion,
Judge Lechner determined the statutory maximum
was appropriate because the defendants had
acted in bad faith by refusing to respond to any
actions filed  in the case and  their alleged
violations "provided an enormous potential for
danger and unknown injury to the public." The
opinion  was  published at 696 F.  Supp. 1013
(D.N.J. 1988), and  the consent decree also
received national recognition by being written up
in the Wall Street Journal as a warning to real
estate developers in dealing with  renovations
and demolitions, even when they contract out the
actual work.

UfS.  v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh  Steel Corporation:
EPA  brought an action  against  Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel  Corporation for emissions of
particulate matter at its steel galvanizing  plant
in Martins Ferry, Ohio.  Under the terms of a
consent decree entered on February 21,  1990,
resolving the case, Wheeling-Pittsburgh  must
replace scrubbers on three galvanizing lines with
one  or more  baghouses.  The company  must
demonstrate compliance with  the emission limits
by April 15, 1991. In addition, the company is
required to pay a civil.penalty of $220,000.

Clean Air Act Enforcement
Mobile Source Program

U.S.  v. Coastal Refining and Marketing:  This
case  involves illegal  lead rights.    Coastal
Refining and Marketing imported gasoline and
claimed 29 million grams of lead rights.  EPA
issued a Notice of Violation on February 3, 1987,
with a proposed penalty of $1,1 million, alleging
that the respondent could not make a claim for
lead rights-because the imported product was not

                             FY ]990l'Enforcemeht'Accomplishments Report*-- '*• ^
'•' finished '''gasoline','1 'rather,^ it" "was- gasoline
- bleridsterck 'used to make' gasoline. LSuit was filed
'iby-"EPA"-irii 'theC U.SC *' ! District' 'Gourt -for i > the
                                                  i, Glean Water^Act 'Enforcement'1 '>» sni.t;- •
                                                     r-.T-'.-.u Kit
<'-SoutKem*pistrict/of Texas 'oh!July;27,'i987: 'The
-' Gourt'agreed'with'EPAi that" the!prbduct was not
                                                              ,	%i:,,i"«"l J--T
                                                            --  .IWater  Act, .^
                                                  ^' supports' ';thel'National^ Pollutant' 'Discharge
     ,                      ,                 ,      Elimination* System .(NPDEST program', whicti is
''gasbliiferburHilW'thatthe'^lty^pi^aonpf  ^^hVpermitl'prograrrfr^lating;.botltJdirect'and
J'thV-Glean-1 Air-'Act;f§ri211»-was unconstitutional  aii'ndire^t 'discharges 'fo> the!'na'ftpn's''navigab'*le
-'•'because' it'Wolafed -the; separation 'df"powers  ^aters.i;fFY 1990 enforcement:ern£hasiz«i' three
- doctrine'andJrespondent's Fifth^amendrrient right   pfi6'TityJ areas:-!>! continued "compliahce'fby
          ...   -        ». -  , .              8ht
•  of due pfbcess.':EPA appealed to the U.S.-Gourt "of
"'Appeals-for'the Fifth- GircuitVandUtheJ Solicitor
y'General^'Kerineth'*Starr, arguedeon-rJehalf of EPA.
('TKexCburt' of ^Appeals'' over ruled''the«District
"Cburt-ahd-found- that § 211 of the Glean Air Act^s
f' constitutional,3 representing: "a- major ,'success for
i-1FPAl1<;Hnwiivp'r<1"thf»Br"r»iirt!nf AriniaalisJ Hp1fi>-tha
                                                   publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) under
                                                   the ' .Natibnai   ''-'
               r;'theSGourt-of Appeals^ held-that
 vJGEQ-PEEX :^EPA^nvestigated •GEO-PLEX
'Corporation for3  the* marketing'and "sale" "of
1 catalytic conveftefs'which'pYovided virtually no
'^emission'control'function andlwere'advertised and
^'labeled1 as •"EPAJrApproved"irrNo such approval,
u'however/was sought nor is ever provided by EPA,
"-> GEQiPtEX' also? claimedrthat 'after' installation
J-'of thedevice'leaded gasoline could Defused-in'the
?'Vehicle?'^ EPA" referred  the;'scase''tb! the: U.S.
'fAttorriey'sA'bffice:foV'prosecutibri; 'GEO^PLEX'was
  enjoined  from ever marketing  a nbhconforming
  catalytic  converter device and a judgment  was
 1 rentered5against '«the?def end ants' for' $iOQ;000; I 'In
-^December of 1989/the*Court found-the defendants,
"as 'Officers' of the 'corporation j to "be' persohally
HiabletorTany>rvibla'tions ;of"the(Clean"'"Air Act'
•' that- "occurred, representing -a -major ehfbrcement
J'success'for EPAC^" !  ^1 i-/r-»r,c  v, .-r.-,b Jr.vjn r.<

1 ^ In the matter of Golden?Gate 'Petroleum Cpnip'any:
)EIn:an'imjpbrtant fresolution'dfia; lead'Phasedown
^•case/EPA'-recoVereB'a' civil-pehalty of $rfrmllion
•"'plus'interest pursuant" to'a  Consent Judgment
  entered'ori''Septembep%l 4^ -1990.  In 'addition; to
  liability  being imposed against  the  corporate
  defendants, liabilityvwasrirhposed against-an
  individual who was, the '.president and -majority
  shareholder.     This    case   involves   an
^importer/refiner ,pf gasoline, who. manufactured
;(and, imported ^gasoline containing excess,,lead.
^Approximateiy-50l million "grams .of excessive
/lead wrere, introduced .into jthe environment  The
 rrespondjent^lspjillegallyfCreated leadycredits and
;j misrepresented its I^ead.usage;to4EPA.. -f. L (l>l. .
•i'l ''n'f>r"j r, '»-[r,r.! 1ufi, blur/j ti'-jL,r,,;"-.:i; -:i!  »i. >'
                                                  "cbritiniied enforcemeht against POTWs"' which
                                                  'f'-t.T  ,,\ •»«> !;r.-|.;'. I ' '.' T-' - !t -"' V/JU v
                                                 .meet  pretreatment   requirements;, .and r.3)
                                                 bfi". ;'>';'f.r ,"•'»• ,»",u.';- .-'JiJT^ri'?",'.!;-.^ .">/* > li ft. ••••I .",
                                                   enforcement, against violations  of .priority
                                                   pbiiutant permit' limitatibnsl ,'J""l  J '" "ll'l
                                                 •'.*''.•'  >fn  -""%'ViA  f".;ir;-i ^,i:1-(..ij! /-.  .GrfO-'l*.
                                                  ':.'•»  -'TViV 1'_'i  l ';t.«;li; /-^I'l fliVKt, ^i.'l  .I'.'.'JJ/"/ -
                                                   American Samoa THnaJ.,annenes: After years pt
                                                  ^ cKallcrieine water qualitv -based, effluent limits
                                                  - " . t -  i  O . *«J .  , . -( -i, ^1 , ^ , , J, , tff* • , -, ^ f,  * ,-j^ ?~ .^ . - . r- j
                                                  ' in their NPDES permits, two* American 'Samoa-
                                                  L,"'J"  , '• '-'" t"~,r',j',r .r "I'TX'/n  or.r H;- ?  ",  '."jAVi
                                                  .based tuna canneries rocently agreed to undertake
                                                  * "actions 'to achieve compliance" with {hose limits,
                                                  '...1C  i* H:«S I K -'.'.'• '••  >/ "'>'"" *i,'.'.l ,H'iu  fH-npc",;-! !
                                                   to pay penalties for. past violations of. those
                                                  ^limit's, and 'to''pa"y ^stipulated penalties if" they
                                                  "t fail  to  comply" witK ' deadlines 'and  interim
                                                   'effluent "'limit's" established" in'5 their "consent
                                                  •jjj-11.' •(,'• .]yvv •>
                                                   decrees.  The agreements are the  result or. .an
                                                   innovative cooperative arrangement between the
                                                   American Samoa Government (ASG), and.EPA
                                                   'Region ;•$: i ",", • r,» ,-•  ' •»! t  :.v'i,.. .-•;••../...
                                                   seeking penalties  for non-compliance  with
                                                  •i,,""    *•''• r f|j"  '  f)"!f'  * ""* It'''"'** t^i/ '£
                                                   American Samoa water quality .standards,, while
                                                  * i '* ' *   f» I "    f • , ,( • r ','• "f . '  T* , • C[ -^/-t r . ; „   ^" t|"-A, , j <-_ " ,
                                                  " EpA "issued' parallel  administrative 'compliance
                                                   •••"'•, •"•%'(!.'.  n r: i ••'; ^'.  . nri'-vi'i'"  ;• 'f-:-.'.''';1'.  r-ii.i
                                                   orders, mirroring the injunctive provisions of the
                                                  * ' JASG consent decrees. The' EPA! orclers were, issued
                                                  ~ on June 18, arid the ASG complaints and' consent
                                                  '"decrees were filed on'June 20^ 19|0.'Oh Xiigust^S,
                                                  ;','1990, 'the' American:Safnoa High' Court signed1 the
                                                  '>'  '  •• :.-; .'• Vt».-i •::-., ;. •-;»' *.•">;>  . .-< • j'f?>'j...'-;
                                                   consent decrees and'issued an opinion and order..
                                                  'jiv f-  J  r.')..,v *.   :.•:;   /-. ^  •  . -. t'.-;iy.-  ,.j

                                                         TKe canneries, began',' institu lion of , high-
                                                   strength'waste segregation^ and ocean disposarof
                                                   their fish processing wastes' which "are' high  in
                                                   .nitrogen and phosphorus in August, as required by
                                                   the compliance scheduled Intensive' monitoring
                                                  <>;  i£.1i)-  tf i(,'  .<;•• }< v»«.**f >: , *"''  i"i!  ...Ji'Jr.'Jl  ')«.-.;•
                                                   reports submitted to .date  by. the canneries
                                                 , 'i.'f.v. •• if.--' ,'.;•,•'.,. ^M.^'.'I '.'i'? »r-'i TV i.-;,",.- <••-.:«'-,
                                                   indicate a significant" decrease  of nutrients
                                                  !' dischargee! to' Pagb^Pag'o' Harbor and; in general,
                                                  "compliance with the, interim' effliierit limits^ '
                                                  >"-^»v:;\  IM.  ,"? .-I ini; !'•)')  'd'/t  ":„!'. .;ii,."f.?"   !•!!
                                                  " 'administrative qrdeVwas issued August 8, 1990,' to
                                                  '''trie City of Crbssvliie,' TN, 'wKkh"operated a'2.3
                                                  '..fl.' -,f!,ji-.''T,i •-*•--'*-/ -iatOf.'jl «3 li.il,. l/Mri; •'•''I

                       FF1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report  '.
 'MGD treatment plant that had a severe impact
 '.on aquatic organisms in the Obed River as well as
 causing discoloration, foam, and solids. The City
 improperly operated/maintained the plant and
 improperly handled/disposed  of sludge.'1 The
'City failed to enforce*its pretreatmerit permits,
 resulting to a severe impact from Toulerie, Zinc,
• Biological -Oxygen ''Demand/ Total-Suspended
 Solids,  Fecal! Coliform,  Chlorine, Ammonia,
 Settleable Solids,  Dissolved Oxygen, arid:pH.
'The Gity had bypassed raw "sewage," and'the
 plant' was hydraiilically"overloaded. ';The "Order
 required stream' remediation, collection system
 ' upgrade, and enforcement of the pretreatment
 program.  The Order assessed a civil penalty of
        '.»' '-!"•'. •  '"r~   I j '\  ' ' ."* *^' < O r * • C" >"*• *
" In the  'Matter- of 'CSX 'Transportation:    An
 administrative order was issued October-13,1989,
 to  CSX Railroad's''Radrior  Yard in  Tennessee
 which generated oily'wastewater from surface
 runoff and a subsurface drainage system.  <-TMis
- waste water  impacted  aquatic organisms in
 'Brown's -Creek;  and"1 c'aused  ground water
•" contamination; 'The Order required CSX-'to apply
 for  an • NPDES -permit- and  remediate the
 contamination.  The-Order assessed a  civil
•• penalty of $65,000.        '           '   '
          °,,Vr .   .  •  I*', , "  "  i« • ' ,. '. • ' ' V   ' - . '
 U.S. v.  Eagle-Ficher Industries;  'EPA and  the
- Department of Justice entered into the settlement
 of a Clean Water Act § 301 NPDES enforcement
 action against Eagle-Picher  Industries,' Inc., a
 battery  and-chemicals manufacturer located in
 Joplin,  Missouri.   Under  • the «terms  of the
 settlement, Eagle-Picher agreed to pay a civil
 penalty of $1.5 million for its past violations. In
 addition to the  penalty, "the settlement requires
 'Eagle-Picher  to meet stringent interinvdiscKarge
 limitations, and* to attain" full compliance with
 its  permit /limitations  and  pretreatment
 requirements by December 15, 1990, or- pay
 additional  significant  stipulated  penalties.
 Eagle-Picher  is also required to  conduct a
 comprehensive  environmental  audit  of the
 company's compliance \vith  federal,' state, and
 local  environmental 'laws, and  to'Correct-any
• violations  and  certify compliance : within »a
 specified time period.  The  complaint filedlin
 October'of 1987, alleged discharges'of heavy
 metals  and  other pollutants • in violation of
 NPDES permit  limits  and   violations  of
 pretreatment requirements for discharges into the
 municipal sewer system.   .*'•       '  .'•"•"••
  U.S. 'v. City of.El Paso: 'On August 21; 1990, a
  consent decree was entered by the U.S. "District
 'Court for the Western District of Texas resolving
  EPA's enforcement action against the City of El
  Paso, Texas. EPA's action'was brought under the
  Glean  Water'Act"'for  El'rPasofs failure  to
•  implement its approved'pretreatment program.
  It was one of four major actions filed in early FY
  1990 as part of the Pretreatment Enforcement
'Initiative.  That  Initiative : consisted   of
  approximately1' '61'-1 Federal ''and' r State,
  administrative' arid t judicial  •actions'-against
  municipalitiesn'fdr  failing'  to comply "with
  pretreatment-implementation requiremeritsr The
-  consent decree requires the'City'of El'Paso to
  identify its industrial users, issue permits" to all
  significant  and  categorical' industrial'''users,
• 'adequately' monitor and'inspect • significant
-industrial* users, modify the City's "pretreatment
-  program  to 'address  insufficiencies,  provide
  regular  reports to" EPA  oh  the' City's
  implementation  effo'rts  and1 enforce'''its
  pretreatment program.  In addition,  the decree
  required the  Gity'to1 pay a' civil-penalty'of
  $395^000 for its' past  pretreatment violations.
 •This  is  the  largest  penalty  paid" by  a
  municipality,  -to  date,  for" pretreatment
  Violations.    The* enforcement  'action  "and
 •compliance agreement with the" City of El Paso (a
'"  City of 480,000 people 'arid" numerous industrial
 . users, - which- discharges 50 million gallons of
'wastewater  to'the Rio River Basin per day) will
  result' in a significant reduction''of chemical
  discharges to the Rio Grande River Basin.
                       ..'":•   , -fO Ol •'.:"• <• .-'•
  Hoffman Group v. EPA: A federal appeals court
  for the first time  May 14 held  that EPA may not
  be sued to obtain  a court's opinion of the validity
  of a CWA Administrative Compliance Order or to
 'enjoin EPA's enforcement of such'an order. The
  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh'Circuit
  held  that  CWA Administrative Compliance
  Orders are not subject to pre-enforcement review.
  The appeals court concluded that Congress in the
  CWA intended that no judicial review of ACOs be
  available; •'  " '    ''•• -'-i!< •" -'   '• •<•• ••" '• '"r  '*
i!j •')!;.1,'  .;.,-.  •:.'-ii',   , -s.r'i^  „  :,:ti/-;.
  U.S.'«''V. Louisiana-Pacific*' Corporation' arid
.  Simpsonjaper Company:, ; Louisia'na^Pacific
  Corporation ("L-P")'and Simpson Paper Company
•("Simpson") own  and'operate two pulp mills'in
  northern California. On October 2,1989'and July
  3, 1990, the United States  filed complaints
  against L-P and Simpson,  respectively,  for
  discharging pollutants from their pulp'mills in
  violation of numerous  conditions1 in  their

                           FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 National  Pollutant  Discharge  Elimination
 System (NPDES) permits issued under the Clean
 Water Act, in particular those related to chronic
 toxicity limits.  These limits require that the
 mills' effluents have  no  toxic effect in a sea
 urchin fertilization test when the effluents are
 diluted  to   predicted   receiving  water

      L-P and Simpson's mills are unique in that
 they have no treatment for their effluents. Under
. EPA effluent guidelines, pulp mills are normally
 required to install biological treatment systems to
 meet Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)
 effluent limitations.  EPA issued waivers of this
 requirement to L-P and Simpson pursuant to
 §301(m) of the Clean Water Act.  EPA issued
 these waivers based on assurances from the mills
 that  they would  reduce  and control effluent
 toxicity without biological treatment.   EPA has
 filed  these actions, in part,  to remedy L-P and
 Simpson's failure to control effluent toxicity.

 U.S. v. Menominee Pap
                      FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
wastes into a 240-acre surface impoundment
without obtaining a RCRA permit or submitting
the reports related to these discharges.  The
consent decree requires Penntech to. pay an up
front penalty of $1,170,000 to the United States
and Pennsylvania for its past violations of the
CWA and RCRA.  Penntech is also required to
construct a wastewater treatment plant, to close
the surface impoundment, and to pay stipulated
penalties  for future violations of  its NPDES
permit. Finally, the United States has obtained
from  Willamette Industries,  Inc.,  the parent
corporation  of  Penntech,  a  guarantee  of
performance of the  consent decree.  This is the
first instance in which such a guarantee has been
obtained in a CWA or. RCRA enforcement action.

UjS. and Pennsylvania  v. City of Philadelphia:
Philadelphia   owns  and operates  a sewage
treatment  facility  located  in   southwest
Philadelphia  ("the Southwest Plant")  that
discharges pollutants,  pursuant to an NPDES
Permit, into the Delaware River. The Southwest
Plant treats approximately 200 million gallons of
sewage per day,  and  provides  service  to
approximately one million  people.    In its
complaint* the  United  States alleged  that
Philadelphia has  violated the Clean Water Act
(CWA), since  1984,  and in  particular  the
limitations established  in its NPDES permit for
the discharge of pollutants from the Southwest
Plant.  The water quality standards established
for the segment of the Delaware River into
which  the Southwest Plant discharges have not
been met, in part due  to the illegal discharges
from the Southwest Plant.  The consent decree
resolving   this enforcement  action  requires
Philadelphia to pay an up-front civil penalty of
$1.5  million.   This  is  the largest civil penalty
that  the United  States has  collected from  a
municipality for violations of  the CWA.  The
penalty is  to be paid over a period of two years,
67%  to  the   United  States  and  33%  to
Pennsylvania.   The consent decree also requires
Philadelphia  to  1) rehabilitate  five major
components of the Southwest Plant;  2) retain an
independent  consultant  to  review the City's
rehabilitation program and its operation and
maintenance practices, and  then  develop an
enforceable schedule of measures that the City
will implement to insure long term compliance
with its NPDES permit by January 1,1991.

U, S. v. Shell Oil Company:  On March 26,1990,
the United States-District Court for the Northern
District of California approved a consent decree
valued at over $20 million.  This consent decree
settled claims arising out of a 1988 oil spill into a
marsh and slough system and eventually into the
San Francisco Bay Delta (the northern end of the
San  Francisco  Bay system) from Shell's oil
refining complex in Martinez, California. The
settlement includes the largest recovery to date
for natural resource damages from an oil spill
(over $12 million) and the largest penalty ever
for violations of EPA's SPCC  regulations ($2
million).   The  settlement was the  result of
landmark cooperation between 16 public entities
including federal, state and local parties.
                             FY1990'Enforcement Accomplishments Report*
!)Calumet'"River.%iiThe!.July,T'1990 'consent', decree
icommits- USX. t6:aV$34.1^miIlionupackage :of
c, environmental: improvements and'dvil penal ties.
''It is.the.second'deeree in which=sediment cleanup
Mias:Beeri obtained (under the Qean: Water. Act and
•;iti" is;-already! influencing' negotiations nwith
 jsimilar«(industries^througnout£the,( Nation; i USX,
ULprain, OH, »was:the: first-decree; of this! type.c'It
^provides •] &>,*. ^framework t-f forimsignificaht
f environmental improvements and elean'up*at' the
\ USX plant and;in,the.river.L>  trip   ..-,,.,:;'
",'ji1h:'5'i DiKuq jf noD'/f-Vx! nt'rJD'.'sqoa';" ^frrf.nsi
       In .Octoberjl988; the .Government'filed -suit
 against  USX  Gary  Works-alleging numerous
Tviolations of dts,twastewater 'diseharge'lpermit.
oRegion tVnfurther Ialleged:>that-USX> illegally
udischarged .improperly,  treated'rwastewater
! directly.!intb-I'Lake'.Michigamrand r the; Grand
..-potential •if6f)tKeaGar"y:Works-,-torbei"listed'vfi If
, flistedjtiGa ry.T Works' would (be barmedjfrom, any
ogrants,' loans,;or contracts with ithe^Jnited States.
rlristead^ the company  negotiated ra'?precederit-
." setting! agreement with'the Government? ~The
' consent-decree:' o'i-."'r73fl :n'\  U* \'-'''-"-i ,; r/1   .•;tu-|t-r!
 ^  itt  •.Glearly,i*the:USX :settlement idemonstrates
';thaticorporations»must bear:responsibility for;the
irecological IdantageTcaused^by;  past :violations.
•iThis«message /was'.'communicated!!?through the
j'national, media; coverage theicase1 garnered, i The
•jsettlement'clalso j'sreeeivedv'pra'ise -j-from
 .environmentalists'concerned .about the much-
r abused Grand Calumet River. r'-:.>T.^ " ">''r.,  ,?• -r
    etbnds 'Enforcement (§ 404) •'»• •> 1-i"1  -
   jjo'flrrn i lijr ''•jv,) if; .hsrul ^•rjitTi' M;*' ;"<'.• :rJ •!*.'*<
       ,,  .S'j'jf'tcx'ji Ir.jt;!.-^i b'p5f!f. ii>b vrj; 'T"fxtrt;' .
       Section  404 of  the  Glean  Water Act
 reeulates ,the .discharee of dredge  and  fill
 . ",-**'_'; i...,') .rr, ij-.hi" .-"• ;f. . Ju -m-jjij-i?';, I '
 material, into  navigable waters., Enforcement
 ••.M i -.1, <;. -,.  .iiiy"'  'sir^iL '.ri-; ' n" •.;.  '^.  . -T .;
 emphasizes redress for unpermitted discharges in
 itiT T.UU.. , ,  r.-  <(  .  -">•;' -,.; H'."^^.^  51  ,i
 environmentally, sensitive, areas  and _  seeks
 restoration of or compeVsation'fo'r'envirdnrhental
- »y.S>.v.' A. B.! Charpiotif A civil tcomplainthwas
^filed'irisU.S.! District Gourt in ^Houston; Texas,»on
.^September 26/. 1990,i against,f'A.B.'vGharpiot,
-David \Charpi6t/Jand'";Charpiot Marina; seeking
k injuhetive relief r and.'civil\pehalties.i.riAIlegations
 jinclude-'Cdntinued, unautndrized/filling-rof'vsalt
o marsh;,, for,,!? road n construction,!1 parking^lot
*: expansion/".creationri of -^minnow,1 ponds,'irand
^disposal of 'excavated; materialrjTFourilseparate
Slocationsi wereninvolved:-in'^this^activity ^on
tBolivar Peninsula in:fill>of:,.wetlands!~adja'cent \.to .the
oEiscataqua' River"during construction.of .the Dover,
/New  Hampshire:Wastewater..Treatment Plant.'vA
ccomplianceBorder required removal oflfill.and
 •restoration of the wetland.': A Class /I- penalty
•icomplainti proposed rar$25;000; penalty,'for,.trie
^npermittedractivitiesHuThe'parties;; including
•ithe'CityiohDover, its consultants and-construction
 ' contractors;!, agreed* .;tor pay r: then full i '$25,000
! penalty and completed the.restoration...This.was
 'the first time the:Regiohi assessed;a penaltyan.a
 wetlands'case against :a consulting engineer.'and
 construction contractors intaddition'-tblthc ow'rier/
 developer of the project.                      >

                       FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report.
 • U.$;: v. Charles V. Hanson 111; A civil coinplaint
 •was filed  in U.S.'District Court in. Beaumont,
 !'Texas/on  September",26, 1990, against Charles
 •Hansen seeking 'injunctive relief  and-civil
. penalties.   Allegations  include  unauthorized
 'construction •ofi-a'and  repeated
 'unpermitted  filling,.activities  in  wetlands,
  failure to  comply  with  a Clean  Water., Act
  restoration order, and failure to pay penalties
 v'assessed in thati order:-  The ".wetlands involved
  were located near Keith  Lake, Jefferson County,
 -'Texas.'«This case'supports the regional .wetland
 'enforcement priorities'because it, involves high
 -quality,wetlands, current violations.by a repeat
 ., violator;.and  provides support  to the Corps ;of
 .Engineers'', wetland  enforcement effort. , The
  publicity !generated. ,by  this.. case  (a-.press
  conference was  heldstwith' the.iDepartment of
 '• Justice when  it • was filed) .will  serve  as  a
  deterrent to wetlands violations in an .area*with
  a high concentration ofvunauthorized activity, i.

  U.Sfv. Hobbs- Dor_chestei^MP; On January 26,
  .1990,* following-a two week liability trial, a jury
  found-S.  Paul  and '.Philip' Hobbs  liable on
  numerous counts of violating 
                           FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
and enforcing against violations at injection wells
for other than -hazardous waste, mining, or oil
and gas (Class V).

In the matter of Aerojet General Corp.; A Final
Administrative Order on Consent was negotiated
with Aerojet General Corp,, Rancho Cordova,
CA, and became effective on July 26,1990,  Under
the terms of this order, Aerojet paid a $30,000
penalty and will conduct an estimated $2,000,000
waste  migration  assessment  study.     The
negotiations were conducted in cooperation with
the California Department of  Health Services,
which also issued a parallel State order, without
penalty, to Aerojet. Aerojet operated two class IV
injection wells to dispose of  over  83  million
gallons of hazardous waste  and by-products
generated from the production of rocket fuels.
The wells were drilled to a depth of 1,564 feet
and 1,703 feet, about 500 feet beneath an aquifer
used for drinking water by some residents near the
facility.   The drinking water wells are being
monitored and there has not been any indication
of contamination.       •

U.S^ v. Pioneer Exploration Co.:  A record civil
penalty of $200,000 in an underground injection
control case will be paid by an independent oil
and gas production company under the terms of a
consent decree lodged June 8 in a federal district
court in Montana.

     The Agency agreed to settle the case, filed
in 1988 for violations of regulations governing
underground injection control under The Safe
Drinking Water Act. The case was  brought
against  Pioneer  Exploration Co. and the
corporation's  sole  officer,   director   and
shareholder, Younas Chaudhary.

     The violations of  the SDWA  involve oil
and  gas production  related activities in
northeastern Montana.  Under the terms of the
decree, Pioneer  agrees  to cease underground
injection  activity,  to  plug and abandon five
injection wells within two  years of the entry of
the decree, to plug and abandon four production
wells within two years of entry of  the  decree
unless the wells are returned to production, to pay
stipulated penalties for violations of the decree,
to report to EPA on a regular basis, as  required by
the applicable UIC regulations, and to pay a
civil penalty of $159,812 within 18 months of the
entry of the decree, or $200,000 plus-interest at
10% annually over five years.
     The settlement achieved in this case by the
United  States  is  based on  the  defendant's
consistent violations of the  SDWA over several
years, including the use of wells that had failed
to pass  mechanical  integrity  tests, thereby
potentially contaminating underground sources of
drinking water, and conducting unlawful injection

     Pioneer is a small, independent, privately
held  oil  and  gas  production  company
headquartered in Houston, Texas.  The United
States filed & civil complaint  on December 12,
1988 against Pioneer, Delta Petroleum and State
Energy for violations  of-the EPA administered
UIC program for Montana.  On January  29, the
United  States  filed  an amended  complaint
alleging additional claims against Pioneer and
adding the company's sole officer, director and
shareholder,  Mr.  Younas  Chaudhary,  as a
defendant on an alter ego theory.

In thgjnatter of Mobil Oib On August  27, the
Regional Administrator issued a final order on
consent against.Mobil Oil Corporation under the
SDWA's UIC program.  The  order assessed a
penalty of $35,000, and requires Mobil to properly
close and clean Class V wells at all service
stations Mobil  owns  and operates in Nassau
County,  Mew York.   The  case arose out of
violations documented at five such stations, but
the consent order covers some 35-50 stations.

Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA)
Enforcement  (Superfund)

     FY 1990 Superfund enforcement reflected
the strategy  laid  out in the 1989 Superfund
Management Review.   The  program   used
aggressive litigation and settlement negotiation
efforts to secure site response by potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) and to  recapture
previously expended Trust Fund revenues. As part
of this approach, the program also increased its
use  of  unilateral   administrative  orders,
particularly for  information and access, and for
remedial design and remedial action {RD/RA),

                        1990 Erforcemenl Accomplishments Report
U.S. v. ACC Chemical Company, Getty Chemical
Company, et al.. In the Matter of ACC Chemical
Company f Getty Chemical Company, et al..a.nd
Xn. The.Matter, o| Quantum Chemical Company,
Eastern District of Iowa (CERCLA and RCRAh
These administrative  cases and  the civil case
represent a  coordinated, multi-media effort to
address  the contamination  at  this Site. This
CERCLA settlement relates to the groundwater
operable unit at the Chemplex Site located in
Clinton, Iowa.  By the terms of the settlement,
the  settling defendants are required to remediate
groundwater  at the  Site  to  health-based
performance standards and to reimburse the
United States for all past costs associated with
the Site (approximately $600,000)  and  all
oversight costs  associated  with this Consent
Decree.  The  settling  defendants are  ACC
Chemical Company, Getty Chemical Company,
Getty Oil, Skelly Oil,  and Primerica Holdings,
Inc. The property owner defendants are Quantum
Chemical Company, the present lessor, and  the
city of Clinton, the present owner.. The property
owner defendants are included in the Decree for
purposes of access. In addition, in December 1989,
an Administrative Order on Consent pursuant to
§104 and §122 of CERCLA was issued to ACC
Chemical  Company  and  Getty  Chemical
Company for an RI/FS for a second operable unit
at the Site.   In addition, a  RCRA §3008(h)
Corrective Action Order on Consent was issued to
Quantum Chemical Company (the present lessor)
covering the operating portion of the Site.

In the matter of Agricultural  Supply, Inc.: This
case supports EPA's  efforts to take prompt
enforcement action to gain access and information
at Superfund sites. In June 1990, U.S. Magistrate
Ayers approved  EPA's warrant application to
perform  response actions at the Agricultural
Supply, Inc., site in Marsing, Idaho, The site was
formerly operated by an agricultural  supplier. As
a result  of this operation, several types of
agricultural products, including acids, fertilizers,
pesticides and other  hazardous substances, were
left  on site.  When an exhaustive search failed to
locate the site owner/operator, EPA obtained the
warrant   which  provided   for   further
investigation of the site and  performance of
required removal  action,,  including  spilled
product, contaminated soil and the  recycling of
agricultural product.
EPA to ALCOA on July  19, 1990.  The.Order
addressed  several  separate environmental
problems at and near ALCOA's Riverdale, Iowa,
facility.  The AOC calls for a sediment/soil
investigation  and feasibility study for on-site
drainage ways and for PCS contamination in
sediments in Mississippi River Pool #15. ALCOA
will also be required  to conduct fish sampling and
analysis  in  Mississippi  River Pool  #15 to
determine the need  to continue the current fish
advisories and to evaluate the risk  to public
health and the environment.  ALCOA will also
be required to cany out an investigation in regard
to the contamination by PCBs and other VOCs in
the  vicinity  of the 86"  CHT  line.    If EPA
determines  that response actions are  necessary
after such investigation, ALCOA is required to
submit a Removal Action  Work Plan and, upon
approval, implement such actions.   In addition,
for the purpose of identifying past releases of
hazardous  substances  at  the facility and the
extent of contamination by such releases, ALCOA
is required to  perform a Facility Site Assessment.
ALCOA  is  also  required  to perform  an
investigation  into  contamination caused  by
release from  a perchloroethylene  storage tank
and must submit a Work Plan to implement
removal actions relating to those releases.  The
dispute resolution section of the AOC includes an
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism
for specific issues,  if a  dispute arises which
cannot be resolved at the Superfund Branch Chief
level.  This  ADR  mechanism involves non-
binding mediation to attempt to resolve disputed
matters.    The  mediator is to   be  a  non-
EPA/ALCOA  employee whose sole purpose is to
facilitate negotiations between EPA and ALCOA,
Costs of mediation are to be shared equally by
EPA and ALCOA. • This AOC is an example of
EPA using its administrative enforcement power
to  strengthen  enforcement  and   increase
responsible party work at Superfund sites.

U.S. v. Allied-Signal Inc.;  On May 18, 1990,
Allied-Signal  agreed to  clean up the Bendix
Superfund  site  in  Bridgewater  Township,
Pennsylvania.The consent decree  requires the
responsible parties to undertake remedial actions
at the site, pay EPA its oversight costs, and uses
innovative technologies in the remedial action.
The settlement supports our preference for having
responsible parties initiate cleanup activities.
In the Matter of AluminmnCQmpany of America           Allied  will pay the EPA $750,000  in
CALCOA):  An Administrative Order on Consent   oversight costs and $92,000 in past response costs.
(AOC) pursuant to CERCLA § 106 was issued by   Bendix Flight Systems was a division of Allied

                           FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Repori\
 and had disposed of its industrial'wastes at the
 site from the 1950's to the late 1970's.  Volatile
 organic compounds had contaminated the soil'and
.ground  water  in  the area.   The  remedial
 activities at'the site'include soil extraction and
 aeration,'.on-site ground water pumping and
 treating,  and  treatment  .at; each  off-site
 residential wellhead.       • .- • •  .

 Alsco Anaconda;  In 1990, EPA issued.an order to
 ARCO;and:Harvard:Jndustries.to  remove soils
 and;'sludge from the Alsco,Anaconda site  in
 southern Ohio at an estimated cost of $4, million.
 The wastes;.contaminated with PGBs and FO19,
• are in surface impoundments,'ta sludge pit and
 lowland adjacent to the Tusearawas River.  The
 order is important because it-requires Harvard
 Industries, a company claiming immunity due to
 bankruptcy, to assist in the cleanup. •  :  -
  ,    ',     ,             *    M  i ** ~ ?         •
 In  the matter of American Crossarm & Conduit:
 On June 1, .1990, Region X issued its  first unilateral
 administrative  order pursuant to §104(e)  of
• CERCLA, requiring compliance with a request for
 entry in connection with the American Crossarm
 &  Conduit site in.Chehalis, Washington.  EPA
 was undertaking a 'remedial investigation and
 feasibility study under CERCLA.  When it was
 suspected that previous flooding at the site may
 have caused contaminants to migrate to adjacent
 property, EPA  planned'  tovperform  soil  and
 groundwater .sampling  on'approximately  90
 parcels of adjacent property. All-but one property
 owner agreed on consent to EPA access. One owner
 refused  to provide unconditional  access to his
 property, insisting  upon  compensation.   As a
 result, EPA issued the unilateral order,  with
 which the owner complied.  This case supports
 EPA efforts to take prompt enforcement action to
 gain access to conduct response activities.

 U.   S.  v. American Greetings Corp.:    Two
 settlements involving the Pristine Superfund Site
 in  Reading, OH, one involving 39  settling PRPs
•and the other involving 72 de minimis PRPs were
 proposed for federal court approval on  December
-18, 1989.,  The decision allowing entry  of the
 settlement is important because it:does not further
 delay cleanup of the Pristine Superfund>site. The
 39  PRPs would finance and complete a cleanup at
 the site  estimated to cost $13.5  million dollars
 while  the de minimis parties would pay  $3.048
 million dollars  into a trust fund  for past and
 future'cleanup costs.  The decrees would also
 require payment of  90% of EPA's  past costs,  or
 about $1.8 million dollars.     '".'•.
       The 39  PRPs-are required -to perform
 remedial activities that include fencing off the
 site,  decontaminating and  demolishing  site
 structures,  conducting , soil  excavation  and
 incineration, investigating the lower aquifer,
 .constructing a  protective; cap,  and  treating
 discharges  prior- to  off-site r, migration.
 Innovative technology is-being used to remove the
 volatile organics in the soil and groundwater.  >

  •,    The state of Ohio objected to the entry  of
• the Consent Decree  between the  .United States
 and the Pristine defendants.  Ohio claimed .the
 decree did not expressly memorialize its rights  as
,, expressed in CERCLA §121.; A hearing was held
 on September 9, .1990, at which-time.,the court
. i stated that CERCLA .clearly, provided for Ohio's
 rights in regard to the settlement between the
 United States and, Pristine; therefore the decree
 itself need not have, explicit language regarding
 the state's rights.         ,'i    .-. ,   .-.  , •

 In the Mattgr  of  Arkla  Pipeline Station,
 HunneweiL KN: . A Consent Order was signed
 with Arkla, Inc;, operator of ,a gas pipeline
 , system, providing for carrying out a removal
 action  at  a  former  pit  ati the. Hunnewell
 Compressor Station, site which was contaminated
; with volatile, organics and,!.to-a  lesser  degree,
• -PCBs (the latter in the range of 25-30 ppm).  The
 .'Order  also  provides .-for -investigation  and
 -> characterization of the  entire compressor station
 facility by Arkla  after  the removal.at the pit  is
 completed.  This case  is part of the Region VII
 pipeline. enforcement- initiative.,   !

 U.S. v. AVX:   A press conference  was held
 September 4,  1990, in Region I to announce a
 settlement in principle for $66 million between
 plaintiffs  EPAr  the  Commonwealth    of
 -Massachusetts, .and NOAA and defendant AVX
 Corp.,  one  of-the  five  defendants  in  the
 government's suit for natural resource damages
 and response costs at  the New Bedford  harbor
 Superfund site in New-Bedford,-Massachusetts.
...The settlement is one of the largest,by a single
 defendant  in the  history, of the. Superfund
 program.  .         •   ? t   -          n . -

       AVX Corp. owned and operated a capacitor
 manufacturing plant on the harbor for 26 years
 and is responsible for a  majority  of.the PCB
 contamination that the plaintiffs seek to remedy.
 EPA and DOJ hope to  make the settlement final
 in  the next month. ,  In  December  1990, the
 plaintiffs  lodged a settlement with two other

                   FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
defendants,  Aerovox  Inc.  and  Belleville
Industries Inc. for $12.6' million. The plaintiffs
continue to pursue negotiations with  the two
remaining   defendants,   Cornell-Dubilier
Electronics Gorp. and its former parent, Federal
Pacific Electric Co.

U.S.  v. Beazer  East.  Inc.f South Cavalcade
Superfund Site; This case is important because it
supports EPA's effort to increase responsible party
work at Superfund sites and uses innovative
technology to clean-up pollution at the site.  This
site was originally a wood preserving facility.
EPA and Beazer  East, Inc., sighed a  Consent
Decree, lodged in Federal District Court oh July
30,1990, to remediate contamination problems at
the South Cavalcade Site in Houston, Texas. The
agreement under Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA
requires remediation of  creosote contaminated
soil  through  the  use  of  soil  washing.
Additionally, the agreement restores ninety-six -
percent of the Superfund monies expended at the
Site to.the Fund with de rninimissettlements still
pending for the remainder.  Remediation of soil
contamination will reduce the risk of exposure by
contact to approximately 150 persons employed at
businesses operating at  the Site.

U.S. v. Bell Petroleum Services: This decision is
significant because it strengthens EPA's ability to
make remedial decisions that EPA deems  will
ensure the protection of human health and the
environment.  On March  8, 1990, the United
States District Court for  the Western District of
Texas granted the United  State's motion for
summary judgment for response costs incurred at
the Chromium I Superfund Site in Odessa, Texas.

      The  court found that alternative water
supplies were not inconsistent with the NCP nor
did it find EPA's indirect costs or legal fees were
inconsistent.  In doing so, the court stated EPA's
decision to use an alternative water supply was
not arbitrary or capricious. The court also rejected
the argument that EPA could not recover 'its
response costs because it  had not sufficiently
documented the costs. The court held that the cost
regulations required   only that  the  costs be
documented by activity (e.g., RI/FS) and not by.
specific tasks within each activity.

In the matter of Big D Campground: On March 27,
1990, a unilateral  order was issued  to  Olin
Chemical  Co. for the  Big D  Campground in
Ashtabula County, OH, which  will  cost the
company an  estimated $39 million. The order
 supports EPA's efforts under its UAO initiative
 issued in February 1990 to compel responsible
 party  action  at  Superfund sites.   The order
 requires that Olin, the only generator, clean up
 halogenated solvents, caustics, bulk toluene di-
 isocyanate  and   oily  substances that  were
 disposed of  in  a  gravel  quarry  near the
 campground 2.5 miles from Lake Erie.

      EPA estimates as many as 5,000 drums are
 buried  in the landfill.  The remedy involves
 incineration of the contents of a 1,2 acre landfill
• and a  groundwater  removal  system.   The
 unilateral order is significant because Olin was
 allowed to use a total contaminant, risk-based
 cleanup  level  instead   of the  traditional
 contaminant concentration  based cleanup levels.
 The order allows flexibility for cleanup to a total
 risk exposure of 10 to the minus 6 for any number of
 chemicals found at  a given sampling location
 within  the landfill,  and is specific enough to
 make the tasks enforceable.  The order is being
 complied with  and preliminary  field  work
 started in Fall of 1990.

 U.S. v. Bliss (Syntex), et. al.; This settlement is
 the largest mixed  work agreement in the Agency's
 history.   The. case involves 28  dioxin sites in
 eastern Missouri which became contaminated as a
 result of application of dioxin-contaminated
 waste oil  to parking lots, roads and  horse arenas
 in  the  early  1970's.  This  case  has been in
 litigation  for several years  and partial summary
 judgment was obtained  against  Independent
 Petrochemical Corporation, Russell Martin Bliss,
 Jerry-Russell   Bliss,  Inc.,  Northeastern
 Pharmaceutical Company,  Edwin Michaels and
 John Lee in 1985.  In 1988, the government filed  a
 motion for partial summary judgment against two
 of the Syntex defendants,  Syntex Agribusiness
 and Syntex (USA). Settlement negotiations with
 the Syntex defendants have been ongoing for quite
 some time on a dual track  with very aggressive

      A  Consent  Decree  with   the  Syntex
 defendants, the State of Missouri and the federal
 government  was entered  with  the  Court on
 December 31,1990. The Consent Decree calls for
 Syntex  to construct an incinerator capable of
 burning dioxin-contaminated soils  from all the
 sites in the litigation.  The incinerator will be
 located at the Times Beach Site.   In addition,
 Syntex  must  cleanup the  Times  Beach  Site.
 Syntex must  also accept and  burn all the
 contaminated  soil from the other 27 sites in the

                           FF J990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
litigation. Syntex must also pay the government
$10 million in past costs. The State of Missouri
will.provide access to Syntex since the state  will
be the property owner.   The  state will also
reimburse the United States for its cost share at
the four  NPL sites. The federal government is
required  to arrange for the transportation  of the
dioxin-contaminated soils from the other sites to
the Times Beach Site.  Region VII is presently in
the process  of  initiating, negotiations  with
several parties who are owners/operators of the
sites where soil and other dioxin-contaminated
material  have not been  previously excavated.
Agreements  will either require the  property
owner to excavate the materials themselves and
store it until such time as it can be burned in the
incinerator or to pay  the government for the
excavation and transportation to the Times Beach

     During the Public Comment Period on the
Consent Decree, many comments were received. In
addition, the  cities  of  Eureka  and  Fenton,
Missouri, attempted to prevent the execution of
the Consent  Decree  by filing a Motion for
Intervention  in the. six  year old case shortly
before the Decree was lodged with the Court.'
The Motion for Intervention was disposed of by
the Court in a timely manner  with the Court
stating that the cities of Eureka  and Fenton had
adequate opportunity to comment on the actions
required  by the Consent Decree and that their
Motion to Intervene was too late.  The cities of
Eureka and Fenton have also filed a Citizens'
Suit regarding the actions to be undertaken by all
parties to the Decree.   This Consent Decree
represents a  comprehensive  settlement to the
dioxin problem in eastern Missouri  using a
permanent destruction.technology, and it  is the .
largest mixed work agreement in the  Agency's
history.  The estimated costs of this cleanup are
$190-210  million.

U.S. v. Bourdeaudhui:  This case is significant in
being the first case brought by the United States
which .alleges that dental wastes are hazardous
substances under CERCLA.  It was brought in an
effort to ensure that-such substances are handled
properly in the future.  On July 12,1990, the court
entered  a consent decree in  United States v..
Bourdeaudhui. representing settlement with all
remaining defendants in the amount of $200,000.
Bourdeaudhui involved a removal action at two
related   sites  in , Willington, Connecticut,
contaminated by the improper handling of waste
dental amalgam.  The settling parties included
site owners/ opera tors and  generators (dental
supply companies).  In total, EPA  will -have
recovered $429,000 of its $710,000 in response costs
through  both  administrative  and   civil
In the matter of the Bunker HQI Site. Kellogg,
Maim: On May 3, 1990, EPA initiated a judicial
action -for penalties  and injunctive relief against
one of this site's Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs), Bunker Hill Limited  Partnership, for
that  company's failure  to  respond  to an
information request  pursuant  to  §104(e)  of
CERCLA. The Bunker Limited Partnership is a
potentially responsible party at the Bunker Hill
Superfund Site, one of the largest Superfund sites
in the country and  measuring 21 square miles
within the Silver Valley of northern Idaho. The
complaint seeks an  injunction  ordering Bunker
Limited to submit the information and documents
EPA requested.  It also seeks to have the court
impose civil  penalties  for  Bunker Limited's
failure to respond to the information request. On
June 1, 1990, EPA entered into an administrative
order on consent with eight of the Bunker Hill
PRPs,  whereby they agreed to pay EPA $3.18
million to conduct  a  residential area removal
action, involving removal and replacement of
lead contaminated soil from residential yards.
The  removal  is  required  to  limit  children's
exposure to  lead,  a  well-known neurotoxin
harmful to children.  The lead contamination was
caused by the  Bunker Hill mining and smelting
complex and covers some 21 square miles. EPA had
earlier issued a unilateral order to the PRPs
ordering  them to do  the work, with the option of
entering into a settlement agreement to pay EPA's
costs of performing the work.  The agreement was
the first Superfund "cashout" by Region X and is
significant because  it is  the first time  parties
have agreed to pay EPA for removal work before
it was performed. The final payment under the
agreement was received by EPA in August 1990.

U.S. v. Cannons Engineering!   The First Circuit
affirmed the District  Court's entry of two consent
decrees.  This  case sends a message to the PRP
community  that challenges  to Superfund
settlements will not be favored by the courts.  In
recent months, challenges to the entry of CERCLA
settlements by non-settlers have become more
numerous and have  resulted in the delayed
implementation of site cleanups. This significant
victory in the United States Court of Appeals
should help discourage future challenges at other
Superfund~sites. Prior to proposing these decrees,

                      FF1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
EPA had entered into administrative de minimis
settlements with 300 PRPs. EPA then entered into
the Major Party Decree (MP) and the De Minimis
Contribution Decree (DMC) at issue in this case.
Under the MP Decree, 47 major PRPs agreed to
perform the remedy at three of the four Cannons
Engineering Corporation Superfund Sites, and to
pay. approximately $16  million in past costs.
Under the DMC Decree, 12  de minirnis PRPs
agreed to settle their claims, plus pay a penalty
of  100% of their  volumetric shares that was
imposed: for  refusing  to  join the original
administrative de minimis settlements. Six non-
settling PRPs objected to entry of the Decrees,
These non-settlers had been eligible  to join the
administrative de minimis settlements and the
DMC Decree, but had rejected the government's

     In affirming the District Court's,decision
entering both decrees, the First Circuit held, inter
alia, that;   (1)  PRPs identified by  EPA as de
minimis  were  not entitled to participate in the
major party decree and thus could not "pick and
choose which  settlements they might prefer to
join;" (2) the  government's  use of  escalating
settlement  offers,  which rewarded PRPs who
settled sooner  rather than later, was fair  and
consistent  with CERCLA's goal of expediting
hazardous  waste cleanups; (3)  EPA could use
waste volume to determine comparative fault and
exercise  flexibility in allocating liability;  and
(4)  the decrees did not favor the major parties
over the de minirnis  parties because the major
parties  assumed  the   open-ended risk  of
performing the cleanup at three of the Sites.

U.S. v, Cflrolirta Transformer Co,: In this case the
defendants  failed  without sufficient cause to
comply with an EPA administrative order issued
under CERCLA § 106, The court held that the
defendants were responsible for three times EPA's
past and future, response costs.  As with the
Parsons  decision, the case  is  an  important
indicator of EPA's enforcement effort and its
willingness to  seek stiff  penalties  against
responsible parties who do not adequately
respond to an administrative order. On November
13,  1989, The U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina found  the defendants
liable  for   treble  damages  under  CERCLA
§107(c)(3) for failure to comply with the terms of
an Administrative Order issued to the defendants
pursuant to CERCLA §106.
The Carolina Transformer PCB site encompasses
about five acres of land in Cumberland County
near the headwaters of an unnamed tributary of
the Cape Fear River. The defendants, who were
in  the  business  of  repairing  electrical
transformers and selling rebuilt transformers from
about 1959 to 1984, caused PCB contamination at
the site.  EPA issued the §106 order in 1984, and
after  the defendants refused  to comply, EPA
initiated its  removal action. The Agency filed
later filed its complaint seeking recovery of costs
incurred by the United States in responding to the
site and treble damages for failure to comply
with  the  106 order.   The  court found the
defendants jointly and  severally  liable for  three
times EPA's response costs, including those costs
incurred and  those to be  incurred by the
government during dean up.

U.S.  v. ChromaUoy American Corp., et alv
Odessa TJ SuperfundSjte: This site was formerly
a tool manufacturing facility in  Odessa, Texas.
On June 28,  1990, a Consent Decree was signed
under § 106 of CERCLA requiring the responsible
parties to perform remedial design and remedial
action. Hexavalent chromium has been detected
in ground water used as a source of drinking water.
The   concentration  of  chromium  in  the
groundwater exceeds drinking water standards.
Remediation under the Consent Decree will result
in provision of an alternate water  supply  and
source remediation by electrochemical treatment.
The  Site is  characterized  by two plumes of
groundwater contamination. Divisible harm was
established and applied for liability  purposes.
Savings to the Fund as a result  of establishing
divisible liability  are  expected to total  $4.7

City Industries Site:  The City Industries site is
located on approximately one acre of land in
Winter Park, Florida. In 1977, City Industries,
Inc. developed into a  recycling and transfer
facility for hazardous wastes. Due to inadequate
plant practices and intentional.dumping, soil and
groundwater at the site became contaminated. In
May 1984, EPA" conducted  a removal action in
which it heat treated 1,670 tons of contaminated
soil and removed an additional 190 cubic yards
for contaminated soil.

     The selected remedy was to pump and treat
contaminated groundwater on-site  and  then
discharge the groundwater to a publicly-owned
treatment works (POTW). The ROD also selected
a contingency alternative in the event  that

                           FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 POTW does not agree to accept the discharge.
 The alternative would require on-site treatment
 of the groundwater and a surface discharge into a
 nearby drainage canal. Special Notice Letters for
 RD/RA were issued to approximately 200 PRPs
 for the purpose of negotiating a settlement for the
 PRPs to finance or perform the RD/RA at the
 City Industries site.  Because of the prior history
 of negotiations with these PRPs to reimburse EPA
 for past costs" from a removal action the site, the
 PRPs were readily "able  to organize a  steering
 committee that represents approximately 175 of
 the PRPs. EPA has manifests showing the volume
 of wastes disposed of at the site by each PRP.
 None of the PRPs are responsible for a substantial
 amount for the contamination.

      As a result of the number of PRPs, and the
 volumetric contribution breakdown, the strong
 consensus of the PRPs was that they were willing
 to finance rather than perform the RD/RA.'  The
 Region agreed that under the circumstances of
 this case it  would  be more cost effective  and
 efficient if EPA performed the RD/RA.   This is
• the first "RD/RA" Consent Decree in the country
 wherein the  Defendants will  fund  rather than
 perform the  cleanup of the site. The  consent
 Decree was structured so that  EPA was assured
 for 100% non-interrupted  funding of the RA.  Two
 of the vehicles for  accomplishing this  purpose
 were a private "Custody Account"  set up  and
 funded by the Defendants and an EPA  "Special
 Account" which  will be funded by the "Custody
 Account."  The Consent Decree also  contains
 provisions and formulas which allow over one
 hundred Defendants to elect to "cashout" as de
 minimis Defendants or to share  the continued
 liabilities and  obligations  of  the Non-De-
 Mimimis Defendants.

 U.S. v. Glean Harbors of Natick: This  decision
 reinforces EPA's ability to take swift enforcement
 action under CERCLA and precludes PRPs from
 delaying compliance with an EPA order. On July
 12, 1990, the  Defendants' Motion for Temporary
 Restraining Order  and Preliminary Injunction
 seeking  to  enjoin  enforcement  of  EPA's
 administrative order issued under §106(a) of
 CERCLA was denied  in the United States
 District  Court  for  the  District of New
 Hampshire.  The United States had previously
 filed a CERCLA §107 action against defendants
 Interex Corporation  and Ethan  Allen  for the
 Keefe Environmental Services Site in  Epping,
 New Hampshire.   Following  an unsuccessful
 negotiations period, the  U.S. issued the §106(a)
order on fune 12,1990. The Magistrate found that
granting the motion for injunctive relief would
result in pre-enforcement review, which is not
appropriate  in the  CERCLA  context.  The
Magistrate stated that the  rnovant can attack
the §106{a) order in a later judicial proceeding (if
brought to enforce the order) and if "the movants'
basis for attacking the §106(a) order are valid
now, they will be valid then."

Colorado v. Idarado Mining  Co.: The Superfund
law does not create an explicit right to injunctive
relief for  the States, a federal appeals court
ruled October 11,1990. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued an opinion
which  vacated  two injunctions granted to the.
State of Colorado for activities on  the Idarado
mining site, located between the  towns  of
Telluride and Ouray in southwestern Colorado.
These injunctions, granted by'Judge Carrigan in
the District Court for the District of Colorado on
Feb. 22,1989, imposed a modified State cleanup
plan oh the defendants and required them to pay
the permanent relocation costs of tenants on the

     The    United    States    filed   a
friend-of-the-court brief seeking to overturn the
District Court's ruling. The court agreed with the
United States' argument that the State was not
entitled to  injunctive relief under CERCLA
                      FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
the creek is within  2/10ths of a  mile  from a
residential area.  The operable unit will abate
some of the principal threats of contaminations
via contact with the contaminated surface water
and inhalation of volatile organics.

In the Matter of Custom Industrial Services, Inc.;
U.S. v. Alcan Foil Products, et al.; and U.S. v.
Robinson Industries. Inc.. et al.:   The Custom
Industrial Services Site in  Shelby County,
Kentucky is comprised of three distinct parcels of
property.  The now-defunct operator of the Site
used   the  three  properties in  its  solvent
reclamation business from 1974 until 1988, when
the Site was abandoned with approximately
2000 drums of hazardous waste. At the request of
the Commonwealth of Kentucky, EPA conducted
an  emergency removal  action  at  the  Site
beginning in January 1989. EPA identified 236
PRPs  at the Site from documentation recovered
from the operator, from state RCRA records, from
responses to EPA information request letters, and
from  interviews.    From such  records,  EPA
prepared  a volumetric ranking of hazardous
waste sent to the Site by generators since 1975. In
January 1990, EPA entered into an Administrative
order on  Consent with the  landowner of the
Simpsonville Warehouse  (one of  the three
parcels of property comprising the Site), the
landowner's lessee and one generator, for the
conduct of the  removal action at the portion of
the   Site,   thereby  saving  the  Agency
approximately $200,000.  The remaining case was
referred to the Department of Justice in March
1990  for collection of the 1.6 million in  costs
incurred by  the  United  States at the Site. In
January 1991,  EPA executed a  de minimis
Administrative Order on Consent  with  all 199
eligible de minimis generators at the Site. Under
this administrative  settlement,  the United
States will recover $418,945 or 26% of the total
costs.   Approval of the de minimis  settlement is
currently before the Department of Justice, as
required in CERCLA Section 122(q)(4). In January
1991, after several months of negotiation between
the remaining PRPs and EPA, EPA also executed a
Consent Decree with 34 parties, including large
generators, operators, landowners, a broker and a
transporter,  for  the  recovery  of  $821,550
(including interest) or approximately 50% of the
costs incurred at the Site.- EPA simultaneously
executed a Consent Decree with the three parties
associated  with the Simpsonville Warehouse
portion of the Site for the collection of $223,481
(including interest) or approximately 14% of the
total costs. The two Consent Decrees are currently
before the Department of Justice for review and
filing.  EPA and the Department of Justice intend
to pursue the only two recalcitrant PRPs for the
remaining 10% of the costs incurred at the Site.

In  the matter of  the Denver Toluene Site,:
Severely contaminated groundwater and soil
underlay the surface at the Unocal Petrochemical
Distribution Center facility in Denver, as well as
the land to the north and  west of the facility.  A
Unilateral Administrative Order was issued to
Unocal Corporation in December 1988, to install
recovery   wells  designed  to  recover  the
contaminated  groundwater  for  treatment, and
construct an on-site treatment plant designed to
treat and clean the ground  water to EPA Drinking
Water  Standards.  Unocal Corporation continues
to recover and  treat contaminated groundwater
from the Site under oversight of EPA.  Plans are
currently underway to address the contaminated
soils at the Unocal facility in the near future.  It
is  estimated   that  it will  cost the  PRPs
approximately $10 million  to complete cleanup of
the site. On June 12,1990, EPA issued a demand
for a portion of the past  costs incurred,  in the
amount of $265,687.18. On August 6, 1990, EPA
received full payment from the PRPs. August 22,
1990, EPA issued a second demand letter for the
remainder  of the past costs  in  the amount of
$98,007.69.   EPA has yet to hear from the PRPs
regarding the second demand for payment.

U.S.  v. Distler: * In  this  case, a successor
corporation that had  acquired substantially all
of its predecessor's assets was held liable for the
predecessor's improper disposal of  hazardous
substances. The case supports our overall strategy
to recover  our response costs from liable and
viable  parties.   Based on the decision, similarly
positioned responsible parties  may be more
inclined to  settle rather  than to litigate  their

     EPA brought a CERCLA §107 action against
the successor  corporation for  response  costs
incurred in cleaning up two hazardous waste sites
in Jefferson County and Hardin County, Kentucky.
The district court held that CERCLA's remedial
purpose required that responsible parties, not the
taxpayer, pay for hazardous waste cleanups. It
noted that CERCLA requires the development of
a federal common law to  supplement CERCLA
liability for  successor corporations. The case is
significant because the court found the successor
liable  under CERCLA based on the substantial
continuity  theory  which is a  less rigorous

                            FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 standard of corporate liability.  It is the second
 CERCLA case to use this theory.

      An important point is the way the court
 framed the issue of liability: "The issue is...one
 of [CERCLA law]:" does  a   manufacturer's
.responsibility for its [hazardous waste] survive a
 change in ownership, where the manufacturing
 business,  as  such, maintains its identity and
 continues  to operate as before...:"   Under this
.broad  liability  scheme,  the  court  had  no
 difficulty  in finding  the successor corporation
 liable in this instance because the successor had
 operated out of the same physical facilities as its
 predecessor, had produced the same product line,
 had held  itself out to "the  public as the same
 company, had retained the same  operating assets
 and had succeeded to all liabilities necessary for
 a smooth transition of ownership.:

 U.S. vs. Dupont, et.al. (Lorentz Barrel & Pruin):
 On July 6, 1990, the United  States District ;Court
 for  the. District of  California approved  a
 settlement valued at $6 million with eleven (11)
 companies for  the Lorentz Barrel  and Drum
 Superfund site.   The  settlement  was  jointly
 negotiated by EPA and the Department of Justice
 and requires the companies to design, construct
* and  operate  a ground water  extraction and
 r treatment system to clean up contaminated ground
 water at the site.  Lorentz Barrel and Drum was a
 drum  recycling facility   that  operated  for
 approximately forty years until 1987 when it was
 closed .permanently by the State of California.
 Drums containing chemical residues were sent to
 the site for refurbishing and resale.  Operations
 at the site resulted in the contamination of soil
 and  ground  water with  industrial solvents,
 pesticides, PCBs, and other hazardous substances.
 The potentially responsible, parties (PRPs) who
 participated in the settlement are generators of
 hazardous wastes who shipped drums to the site.

 U.S.v.  Fairchild Industries. Inc.:   Fairchild
 Industries and Cumberland Cement &: Supply Co.
 agreed to  pay $1.7 million under the terms of a
 consent decree for the Limestone Road Site in
 Cumberland,  Md. entered February 28,1990,  by
 the. U.S.  District Court  for  the District  of
 Maryland. The  decree settles  certain  of  the
 government's claims under ,§106 and  §107  of
 CERCLA.  The State of Maryland is also a party
 to this decree.  Maryland had successfully
 opposed entry of an earlier consent decree between
 the U.S. and Fairchild and Cumberland Cement
 on the grounds that the decree did not explicitly
provide the state with the review and: comment
authority provided in CERCLA  §121{f>.  The
United  States  and  the State  retain actions
against  Fairchild, Cumberland' and four other
PRPs for the recovery of costs incurred prior to the
entry of the consent decree.

U.S. v.  Fleet Factors: In this case, a secured
creditor was held liable under CERCLA because
it participated in the  financial and operational
management of the facility. The case supports
EPA's priority of recovering costs from responsible
parties and notifies lenders that they should act
prudently in the first instance when making loans
to third, parties  and also  upon  discovering
contamination of the collateral.

     In the case, a factoring arrangement was set
up   between  the  defendant  creditor   and
Swainsboro Print Works  (SPW), a print clothing
facility.  Fleet Factors  advanced  funds while
retaining a security interest in SPW's accounts
receivable.  It stopped the advances when SPWs
debt exceeded its  collateral, but continued to
collect funds under the accounts  and eventually
foreclosed  on some  of  SPWs inventory  and
equipment. Fleet required SPW to seek approval
before  shipping  goods,  determined when
employees  should be laid off, established prices
for excess inventory, received and processed tax
forms and  supervised the-activity  of the "office

     The court found Fleet liable under CERCLA
§107(a)(2) as an owner or operator of the facility
at the  time the  hazardous substances were
disposed. In doing so, the court stated a secured
creditor is liable  "if its involvement with the
management of the facility is sufficiently broad
to support the inference that it  could affect
hazardous waste disposal  decisions  if it so
chose." Although the courts holding was broad,
on the facts of the case it was clear that Fleet
Factors  was participating in the management of
the  facility.                      .

     The court's holding is significant because it
has   expanded   EPA's   ability  to  seek
reimbursement for response costs.  The  case
notifies secured creditors that  they must be
prudent and  responsible  in  their  lending
activities with third parties.

U.S. v. French Limited, French Limited Superfund
Site: This site was formerly a commercial waste
disposal facility.  A Consent Decree under §§106

                      FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
and  107 of CERCLA was entered  into Federal
Court on March 7, 1990.  However, so as not to
wait for the long term remedy to  alleviate the
primary threats posed by the site, actions were
taken under an Administrative Order on Consent
to  build  a  floodwall  and   move  offsite
contamination  back on site.   These actions
eliminated the threat of  exposure  to some 250
families living in the Riverdale subdivision  of
Crosby, Texas.

Fultonjerminals:  In September Region II and 59
PRPs for  this New York site signed a consent
decree  pursuant  to'  which  the  PRPs  will
implement EPA's selected  remedy for the Site and
reimburse EPA $500,000, a portion of EPA's past
costs. The settlors are also obliged to pay EPA's
oversight costs up to and including the first two
years of operation of the groundwater pump-and-
treat system specified in the ROD.  EPA may, in
the future, seek the unreimbursed portion of its
past costs from the non-settling PRPs, and may
also seek any RD/RA oversight costs not covered
by the consent decree from the  non-settlors or
certain  of the settling  defendants.   This is
another example of Region H's application of the
Agency's  Settlement Incentives/Disincentives
guidance.  This case is also noteworthy for the
speed  with  which  the consent  decree  was
negotiated. The decree was signed by the PRPs
only three months after  issuance of the notice
letter for the RD/RA, and only three weeks after
the broad terms of the settlement  were agreed

In the Matter of  General Electric (CERCLA/
EPCRAh In June 1990,  EPA issued an EPCRA/
CERCLA penalty policy.  The following case was
based on the policy and supports  our national
priority of ensuring that failure to report releases
of toxic or hazardous substances will result in
swift  and   harsh  penalties  against   the

     The  case  is significant for a number of
reasons. First, it is the first major case from our
June "coast to  coast" EPCRA-CERCLA filing
initiative to be settled.   Second, it  represents a
very modest reduction in the proposed $100,000
penalty.   Third, given  the small  quantity of
material  released, the  penalty helps  to
underscore the importance of timely reporting of
toxic or hazardous chemical releases and spills to
EPA and our state and local response agencies.
   .  On August 9,1990, the EPA signed a consent
agreement and final order with General Electric
Company. The company was cited for failure to
report to federal, state, and local agencies the
release  of  hazardous  substances  into  the
environment.  Under CERCLA §103 and EPCRA
§304,  facilities   that  accidentally  release
hazardous substances into the environment above
a  certain quantity  must  report the release.
General Electric had released between 5-8 pounds
of PCB-based cooling liquid and failed to  report
its occurrence.  This failure resulted in General
Electric paying a penalty of $90,000.

Gome Drum Dump Site Removal Cost Recovery
Ttial: This litigation demonstrated that Region I
will pursue removal cost recovery cases to closure
and will  pursue parties who fail to respond to
discovery in CERCLA  cases.  The Region also
obtained  a precedential ruling that a trustee of a
real estate trust may be personally liable for the
actions of  the trust if state law provides no
limitation on the liability of such trustees.  In
August, 1990, EPA and the Department of Justice
conducted  a  trial seeking recovery of costs
expended at the Gonic Drum Dump Site in Gonic,
New Hampshire.  Aggressive prosecution  of the
government's  liability claims had  previously
resulted  in findings  of  liability against all
defendants.   In June, 1990,  the government
obtained a default judgment against William
Burns, the operator of the Site, for his refusal to
cooperate with  discovery and  his  failure  to
appear at the hearing on the motion for default
judgment. In August, 1990, the government won a
motion for summary judgment establishing
liability for the remaining two PRPs, the  Gonic
Realty Trust and its trustee. The Region expects a
ruling on costs at any time.

U.S. v. Gurigy Refining Co^, Gurley Fits Superfund
Site:  This  was the site of a waste oil refining
facility. EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative
Order  under §106 of CERCLA to responsible
parties for the Gurley Pits Site in West Memphis,
Arkansas. The Order, effective January 5, 1990
requires the responsible parties to implement a
remedy  solidifying  refinery  wastes  and
redepositing it into a RCRA vault and treating
surface water.  Litigation is proceeding on a prior
complaint filed under §107 for cost recovery, and
the responsible parties have failed to comply
with the Order. Issuance of the Order follows
EPA policy for aggressive enforcement to expedite
action and  establish  liability.

                           FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Iron Mountain Mine:  On April 9, 1990, Rhone-
Poulenc Basic Chemicals agreed to comply with
Region  IV's  March  25,  1990  unilateral
Administrative order (UAO) to construct the $5
million Upper Spring Creek Diversion component
of the Iron Mountain  Mine interim remedial
action.  EPA issued the UAO to Rhone-Poulenc
and other PRPs at Iron Mountain after EPA failed
to receive a good faith offer to its January 26,1990
General Notice and draft consent decree.  ICI
Americas, Inc. under an agreement with Rhone-
Poulenc, commenced construction of the diversion
in July  of  this year, and  is expected to be
completed by December 31, 1990,   weather

On August 31,1990, EPA issued a letter to Rhone-
Poulenc  which activated provisions  of EPA's
order 89-18, issued on August 15,1989, requiring
treatment of acid mine drainage  releases from
portions of the Iron Mountain site during the
upcoming critical fishery conditions of the 1990-
91 wet season. ICI Americas, Inc., on behalf of
Rhone-Poulenc, agreed to comply with the order.
Reactivation  of  the  treatment  plant and
operation of the plant in compliance with the
order is expected  to cost  approximately  $1
million  this year.
U.S. ^Johns-Manville Sales Corporation: The
amount  of civil  penalty and  costs in this
settlement informs the regulated community that
the Agency  does not  ignore consent decree
violations, and will make the PRPs reimburse the
Government's for the costs incurred in prosecution.
On September 13,1990, a U.S. district court judge
signed a stipulation and order of dismissal that
resolved the United States' first lawsuit against
a PRP for violating  a consent decree  under
CERCLA §109(c). The United States alleged that
Manville was liable for a civil penalty because it
violated the RD/RA consent decree. The action
also  contained   a   CERCLA   claim  for
reimbursement of the costs of enforcing the consent
decree.  According to the terms of the settlement,
Manville was required to pay a $95,000 civil
penalty and $70,000 in response costs, totaling

In the matter of I. Jones Recycling Site;  On
October  25,  1989, EPA signed a de  minimis
administrative settlement under which 139 PRPs
at the I. Jones' Clinton Street site in Fort Wayne,
IN, paid more than $2.17 million into Superfund.
This is EPA's first settlement that recovers money
to resolve  potential  liability  for statutory
penalties for noncompliance with a unilateral
removal order.    Of the  total,  $1,888,326
reimbursed EPA for a  portion of its $3.3 million
response costs and $283,712 was the settlement of
potential  liability  for  penalties.  .EPA had
performed the first phases of removal activity at
the site in 1986 and 1987 while it analyzed site
records to  identify  generator PRPs  at the
abandoned RCRA facility.

     In July 1988, EPA issued a unilateral order
for completion of the removal to about 300 PRPs.
Among other things, this order required removal
of contaminated soil and  tank sludge and
decontamination of buildings and debris.  More
than 125 PRPs complied with the order and
completed the removal in August 1989 at a cost of
more than $5 million.  Some who settled had not
initially complied with  the unilateral order,
requiring them to resolve their potential penalty
liability before settlement.    EPA is  about to
propose another administrative settlement to
non-de minimis parties to try to recover more of
its response costs.  EPA  also  signed  an
administrative consent order  with 31 PRPs in
November 1989 for a smaller removal action at a
related I. Jones facility on Covington Road in Fort
Wayne. At that site,  EPA brought suit and won
access in December 1989.

U..S>-E-Kay.s.erdRpth .Corp..; In this case, a parent
corporation  that had exerted practical  total
influence and control over its subsidiary was held
liable as an operator for the subsidiary's release
of hazardous substances.  This case is important
not only because it supports our enforcement effort,
but because it requires parent corporations to
ensure that an actively controlled subsidiary is
operating in an environmentally responsible
manner.  Otherwise,  the  parent  will  also  be
responsible for the subsidiary's actions.

     In October, 1989, Region I won a judgment in
district court for all past and future  remedial
costs against Kayser-Roth based on its ownership
and control of Stamina Mills. The First Circuit on
August 2,  1990 affirmed the district  court's
decision that Kayser-Roth Corporation exercised
almost  total control  over its wholly  owned
subsidiary, and therefore was an "operator" under
§ CERCLA  107(a)(4) at the time of a 1979 spill of
trichloroethylene (TCE)  at the Stamina  Mills
textile plant in Forrestdale, Rhode Island.

     The court rejected Kayser-Roth's argument
that a parent corporation cannot be held liable as

                      FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
an  operator under  CERCLA, and  held that
Kayser-Roth was liable based on a  direct
liability  theory  under  CERCLA.   The  Court
stated that  mere  complete ownership and a
general authority or ability  to control  were
insufficient  to hold  a  parent  liable, requiring
instead active participation  in the activities of
the subsidiary.  Moreover, the  Court noted that
even though indicia of ability to control decisions
about hazardous waste are indicative  of the type
of control necessary to hold a parent liable, they
are not  essential  assuming other  indicia of
pervasive control are present.  The  court also
pointed out Kayser-Roth could not use a third
party defense because: (1) Kayser-Roth was an
operator at  the  time of the spill; and (2) the
third  party was in contractual relationship with
the corporation.  In addition, the court  stated
that CERCLA is a strict liability statute and
therefore   Kayser-Roth's   assertion   of
blamelessness in  causing  the TCE spill was

      The First Circuit's decision bolsters EPA's
enforcement effort by finding Kayser Corporation
directly liable as an operator under CERCLA in a
precedent setting case on parent liability.

Kellogg Peering  Sitg  Settlement:   Region  I
negotiated a consent decree for remedial design
and remedial action and the payment of past and
future oversight costs with  four potentially
responsible parties at the Kellogg Deering Well
Field  Site in  Norwalk,  Connecticut.  Under the
terms of the  agreement, the parties will
implement the second  operable  unit Record of
Decision for the Site which calls  for a source
control remedy consisting of soil vapor extraction
and a management  of  migration  remedy .that
requires pumping and treating groundwater until
it reaches drinking water standards.  The dollar,
value  of the agreement is estimated  to  be

U.S. v. Koppers:  In  this instance, a responsible
party was penalized for not complying in a
timely manner with an Administrative Order on
Consent issued in 1986. The consent decree was one
of the first CERCLA settlements incorporating
penalties for noncompliance with a §106 consent
order.   The  penalties  support  our  national
enforcement effort by showing EPA's diligence in
ensuring that responsible parties comply with
the terms of our agreements.   The  Koppers
Company, Inc.  agreed  to pay  $1,050,000 in
response  and oversight costs, and  $50,000 in
 stipulated penalties, in a CERCLA §106 and §107
 consent decree entered August 16,1990 in the U.S.
 District Court for  the Eastern  District  of

      The decree resolves costs incurred at the
 Koppers-Oroville, California NPL site through
 March 31,1988, but preserves EPA's right to seek
 response and oversight costs incurred after that
 date.   Koppers also agreed  to  pay $50,000
 stipulated  penalties  for  reports  not timely
 submitted under a §106 administrative order on

 U.S. v. Laskin: The United States filed its motion
 for entry of a consent decree in the second of three
•cases concerning the Laskin/Poplar Oil NPL site
 in  Jefferson, Ohio.   The  settlement  provides
 reimbursement of $1.38 million in past response
 costs, the first $350,000 in future oversight costs to
 be incurred by  EPA, and oversight costs that
 exceed $1.75 million. A complaint to recover
 amounts not included under the consent decree was
 filed October 19,1990 against about 50 PRPs.

      "Laskin II" was filed on March 19, with the
 lodging of a Consent Decree for RD/RA with 158
 settling PRPs. Public comment was noticed in the
 Federal Register on April  2. Twenty-seven of the
 settling parties agreed to  implement RD/RA and
 pay a portion of past and future response costs.

      The site remedy consists of construction of a
 ground water diversion trench, thermal treatment
 of  certain  materials, and consolidation and
 capping  of other contaminated soils.   Site
 maintenance costs estimated to be as much as $2.4
 million will also be the responsibility of the
 settling defendants.   129 of the settling parties
 are de minimis generators who are "cashing out"
 by paying a volumetric  share of cleanup  costs,
 plus  a premium to  the United States and to
 settling defendants.

      The site owners, Mr. and Mrs. Alvin Laskin,
 are settling by agreeing to provide access to the
 site and to place certain restrictions on alienation
 of  their property, the Laskin/Poplar Oil  NPL
 site.  The settling parties are funding relocation
 of  the  Laskins,  who  have  agreed to  the
 demolition of their home  located on the site.

 U.S. v. Liquid Disposal,.  Inc.: A December 1989
 consent decree required 41 settling defendants to
 carry out an estimated $22.4 million cleanup at
 the Liquid Disposal  Inc.  (LDI)  Site in Utica, MI

                           FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
(in the U.S. v. BASF civil action).  In addition,
the consent decree requires establishment of a
$1.5 million trust fund for future remedial work.
The defendants also must pay  EPA's oversight
costs, and reimburse the Government for a portion
of its past costs. The consent decree also includes a
settlement with 495 de minimis defendants.

     Under  the  terms of the BASF  consent
decree, the  United  States  recovered  $1,96
million, which is only part of the LDI site costs.
In December  1989, EPA offered  a  second  de
minimis  settlement  to eligible potentially
responsible parties (PRPs).  Approximately 115
PRPs signed this $1.1 million consent decree (Lj,§,
v. A N Reitzloff. et al.) to be applied to costs
incurred at the LDI Site. The Reitzloff consent
decree was entered by the court on August 30,1990.

     In U.S.  v.  Ivey.  the  United States took
further action to recover costs and filed  a
complaint against the former LDI president, a
Canadian resident; the vice president of LDI; two
Canadian corporations as owners and operators;
and   nine   corporations   who    were
generator/transporters of waste.  On September 9,
1990, a partial consent decree resolving  the
liability  of   three  de minimis  generator
defendants was lodged with about $600,000 to be
applied to past costs. '• The Canadian defendants
filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, which was  denied  by the court  on
August 13;" 1990.  The court held  that although
CERCLA does riot expressly provide for service of
process over defendants from a  foreign country,
the defendants had sufficient contacts with the
State of Michigan to confer jurisdiction under the
Michigan long-arm statute.

Lone Pine: On March 5, 1990,  the New  Jersey
District Court entered the $40 million Lone Pine
remedial consent decree which had been lodged
in August, 1989. Seventeen PRP  non-settlors had
opposed the settlement  when it was lodged  by
commenting,  then  by  moving the  court  for
intervention  (granted  over  the government's
opposition), and by briefs and  oral arguments
attempting to persuade  the  court  that  the
settlement  was "unfair"  to them and  should  be
rejected.   The  court  found  their claims
"meritless." Because they failed to settle, EPA
sued these 17 companies in October,  1989,  for
approximately $4.9 million in  response costs not
recovered  in- the settlement.  By the end of
FY1990,16 of those firms had concluded a second
round  settlement in principle; providing  for
. payment of $4.4 million.

 U.S. v. Mattiace  et  al. ;  This settlement has
 precedential  value since the insurers for one of
 the defendants agreed to pay.more in settlement
 costs  that  the stated  policy  limits  of  that
 defendant's general liability insurance coverage.
 On September 28, 1990, EPA referred a consent
 decree settling this case. The case arose out of a
 1982 spill of  methyl ethyl ketone (MEK).' "EPA
 had issued administrative removal orders to five
 PRPs, none of which  complied with them.  EPA
 performed the removal, incurring  nearly  $1
 million in costs. The  settlement, which followed
 some two years of extensive discovery and motion
 practice, provides that the PRPs- will pay $1.7
 million.  Of this, about $1.35  million is  cost
 recovery (the figure includes interest), and  a
 further $350,000 in penalties.

 1J..-S.._V» Sidney Mathis. et al.: In this instance,
 property owners  refused access to EPA or its
 designated representative and precluded the
 completion of planned response activities  at  a
 hazardous waste  site.   The court granted the
 EPA's request for access.  The decision supports our
 initiative to   take prompt enforcement action
 against recalcitrant  parties  and  provides an
 example of  EPA  taking immediate  action  to
 initiate response  activities.  On December 29,
 1989, the U.S. District  Court  for the Northern
 District of Georgia  granted  the government's
 Motion for an Immediate Order in Aid of Access,
 pursuant to CERCLA § 104(e)(5).

      The defendants are property owners of part
 of the South Marble  Top Road  Landfill Site  in
 Walker County,   Georgia.   They repeatedly
 refused  attempts  by  EPA's  designated
 representative to negotiate access agreements and
 refused to respond  to EPA's subsequent attempts to
 negotiate.    After  the attempts  failed,  the
 government filed its motion. The order gave EPA
 and its representative unimpeded access to the
 defendants'  property to conduct a  Remedial
 Investigation and Feasibility Study  and  any
 subsequent remedial  measures.  The order also
 enjoins the  defendants from  obstructing or
 interfering with EPA's activities  at the site.

 y.Sf v. R.W.  Meyer. Incj The case supports EPA's
 effort  to  recover  all  response  costs  from
 responsible   parties.   The  decision should
 encourage PRPs to undertake remedial activities
 at more Superfund sites because of EPA's success in
 recovering all its response costs from PRPs.

                      FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
     On November 20, 1989, the Sixth Circuit
affirmed the district court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of the United States on the
issue of costs in the  case of United  States v.
Northernaire Plating Company. The appellant,
R.W. Meyer,  challenged the decision on four
grounds: (1) indirect costs of the government are
not recoverable under CERCLA; (2) prejudgment
interest should not apply retroactively; (3) the
defendants were not jointly and severally liable
under  CERCLA; and (4) .numerous issues of
material fact remained.

     The appeals court stated that  "indirect
costs are part and parcel  of all costs  of the
removal action  [and]...are attributable  to  [a]
cleanup site in that they represent the portion of
EPA's overhead expenses  that supported the
government's  response action  on  Meyer's
property." The court also stated  that no manifest
injustice  would result by  applying  SARA
retroactively in this instance, that the harm was
indivisible and  therefore joint  and  several
liability  was  appropriate,   and  that  the
appellant had  failed to raise any genuine  issues
of material fact

     On March  3, 1990, the Supreme  Court
denied R.W.Meyer's petition for certiorari, and
stated it would not consider a dispute concerning
the federal government's right to recover the
"indirect costs" of running a Superfund site when
it sues responsible parties,

In the matter of Midwest Solvent Recovery, et  al.;
In December 1989 administrative orders were
issued to PRPs for the Midco I and the Midco II
sites in Gary, IN, mandating compliance with
RODs, which required groundwater and soil clean
up at the former solvent recycling and disposal
sites. Because the PRPs did not comply with the
orders,  EPA  filed an  amended complaint" in
January  1990.  An October 1990 court  ruling
enhances the likelihood that the orders will be
upheld.  If the case goes to trial as scheduled in
May 1991, it will be one of the Nation's first to
test EPA's interpretation of issues such as  record
review, liability and costs.

Mid-State Disposal. Inc.! A March 1990 consent
decree  required  PRPs to perform the Remedial
Design/Remedial Action, estimated  to cost $19
million,  and  to  pay EPA  and the  State  of
Wisconsin for oversight costs.  The cleanup work
will be  performed by generators Weyerhaeuser
Co., Felker Brothers Corp., Steel-King Industries,
•Inc., and owner/ operator Mid-State Disposal,
Inc. at the Mid-State Disposal NPL Site, A May
1990  court decision reaffirmed the decree by
denying Wick Building Systems, Inc., and  the
Central Wisconsin Communities motions  to
intervene, vacate, and reconsider the decree.  The
decision is favorable to EPA because it limits
challenges to negotiated consent decrees  and
postponement  of  cleanup.   The  4 settling
defendants will  install soil and clay caps over 3
waste disposal units, construct an alternate water
supply for residents surrounding the site, collect
leachate, monitor ground- and surface water, and
collect, vent,  monitor and flare landfill gas. Past
costs of $1.25 million were not resolved in this
decree; the Agency reserves the right  to seek
these past costs from non-settling parties.

In the matter of Monsanto, et al.. Motco Superfund
Site:    This  site was originally  a purported
recycling facility for styrene tars and where large
quantities of hazardous substances were placed in
impoundments.  After  negotiations with the
Potentially Responsible Parties stalled on issues
concerning apportionment  of  liability  for the
groundwater operable unit, the EPA issued a
Unilateral Administrative Order under §106(a)
of CERCLA  to  responsible  parties.  The order
required that an engineering design for the source-
control remedy  be  formulated. The responsible
parties are complying with  the order,  thereby
avoiding further  delays  to  implement  the
remedy. Implementation of the  remedy  will
result  in the  recovery  of  contaminated
groundwater and  treatment.  Contaminated
groundwater beneath the site poses a threat of
contamination  to  a  drinking water  source.
Contamination at this site near La Marque, Texas,
results from twenty years of recycling and storage
operations contributing  to  releases of  organic
pollutants, metals and PCBs,

U.S.  v. Harold Murtha;  The consent decree,,
which was lodged  with the U.S. District Court
for the District  of Connecticut on February 20,
1990, supports EPA's effort to have responsible
parties either perform or pay for response actions.
In this instance, EPA will be reimbursed for past
costs and the agreement, will also fund remedial
activities. This Consent Decree  requires the
defendants,   to   pay   $5,375   million   as
reimbursement for  past and future costs at the
Beacon Heights  Landfill Superfund Site, Beacon
Falls, Connecticut,  and Laurel Park,  Inc.
Superfund Site, Naugaruck, Connecticut.

                          FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
     The settlement involves a payment by the
Murtha entities of half their combined total net
worth, estimated to be  approximately $10,8
million. The settlement also includes a number of
non-monetary obligations on  the part of the
defendants,  including  providing  full  and
unrestricted access to both sites, cooperating in
obtaining  all  permits  necessary  for  the
performance of remedial actions, and a dismissal
of claims against the United States Government
entities.  The primary environmental problem at
the  sites are contamination of groundwater and
surface water by leachate  flow. The planned
remedial actions consist generally of constructing
an impermeable cap and collecting and treating
the  leachate.

In the matter of National Pin  Service:  On
September  14, 1990, EPA issued  a  Unilateral
Administrative Order under §106 (a) of CERCLA
to the former operators and the current owner of
the  National Pin Service Site in Wilson County,
North Carolina.    The  Order  requires  the
Respondents will conduct the emergency removal
action at the site. The removal action will entail
restricting  access to the site, conducting  an
inventory  and disposing of  all  drummed
hazardous  material,  and   sampling  and
excavating surrounding soils.

     National Pin Service was a business which
manufactured  blowing equipment on the site. The
facility closed in November 1989.   The site
contains two lagoons of unknown purpose and
numerous  drums  and  container  labeled  as
containing various chemicals, most of which are
believed  by the On-Scene  Coordinator to  be
solvents.   The North  Carolina Department of
Health and Natural Resources attempted over a
period of two years to have the operator and
owner of the property assess the contamination at
the  site  and  perform  drum disposal and soil
remediation.  After failure to obtain compliance
with  its Orders,  the State  requested  EPA
assistance in August 1990. EPA and  the State
conducted a site inspection on August 29,1990, and
observed that  the site was unsecured, abandoned,
and contained numerous potentially explosive,
highly flammable and otherwise dangerous
hazardous materials.      *>

In the Matter  
                      FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
remedial measures.  The settlement provides for
environmental benefits of the contaminated area
through the use of remedial technology. The new
drinking  water plant is an  example  of the
benefits the impact this decision will have on
the local community.

     The Stipulation implements the Judgment's
provisions for the selection of remedies using
Requisite Remedial Technology (RRT) to address
contamination from the S-area landfill.  The
S-area landfill site is approximately eight acres
in size and is located on the Occidental Chemical
.Corporation  (OCC) main plant property  in
Niagara Falls, New York.  The S-area is adjacent
to both  the  Niagara River  and  the City  of
Niagara  Falls  Drinking  Water Treatment Plant.
OCC disposed of approximately 63,000 tons of
hazardous chemical processing wastes into the
S-area  from  1947-1961; other  wastes were
disposed there by OCC until 1975.
     The RRT remedies in this Stipulation and
its Appendices  will  expand the  planned
Containment System for the  historic landfill,
institute Overburden and Bedrock RRT systems
using hydraulic controls and extraction wells that
will  contain and  collect non-aqueous phase
liquids and aqueous phase liquids (NAPL and
APL) for incineration and treatment, and construct
a new Drinking Water Plant.

     This settlement   will   result  in  the
remediation  of   the   dioxin  and  other
contamination in the vicinity of the S-area and
the City Drinking Water  Plant in Niagara Falls
to levels which satisfy the requirements of both
governmental entities.   The total cost  of the
entire  remediation  is  approximately  $117

O'Connor Cot Site Settlement:  In July of 1990,
Central Maine Power Company (CMP) entered
into  a settlement  valued   at  upwards  of
$16,000,000 involving   the  cleanup  of  the
O'Connor Co. Superfund Site in Augusta, Maine.
Pursuant to  the consent decree embodying the
settlement,  CMP,  one   of- four  potentially
responsible parties identified in connection with
the Site,  has agreed to conduct  the  entire
remedial design and remedial action at the Site
and to reimburse 100%  of  the United  States"
future oversight  costs.   The settlement  thus
provides  for recovery from a single party of
approximately 94% of the United States'  total
past and estimated future costs.  Moreover, under
 the terms of the consent decree, CMP has agreed
 to initiate remedial  design  activities upon
 lodging, rather than entry, of the decree.  The
 PCB-contaminated site had been operated since
 the early 1950's as a  salvage yard for irreparable
 transformers, capacitators and other electrical
 equipment. The selected remedy called for in the
 September 1989 Record of Decision involves the
 treatment of PCBs  by an innovative  solvent
 extraction technology.

 U.S. v Qttati & Goss: Federal courts may reject an
 EPA-chosen remedy  for cleaning up a Superfund
 site and can impose  their own choice of  remedy
 under some circumstances, the U.S. Court of
 .Appeals for the First Circuit held April  4, 1990,
 in a narrow ruling.  The court's holding applies
 where the United States seeks an injunction based
 on equitable standard to impose  the Agency's
 selection of a remedy without having first issued
 a formal Agency remedial decision or unilateral
 administrative order to  require responsible
 parties to clean up. Federal courts are not limited
 to the administrative  record in reviewing  the
 remedy selection under such circumstances,  the
 court held.  This ruling applies to only a few
 pending cases in the county and should not affect
 record review in most cases.

      The  court's opinion affirmed in  part,
 vacated in  part and  remanded for  further
 proceedings the  district court's. 1988 injunctive
 orders in U.S. v. Ottati &  Goss,  See, U.S. v.
 Ottati & Goss, 694 F. Supp. 977 (D.N.H. 1988).
 The court declined to change most  of  the
 components of the judicially-ordered remedy in
 Ottati because a review of the record in the court
 below  showed  the district  court-fashioned
 remedial action was not "clearly erroneous."

      The First Circuit  ruled for the first time
 that ordinarily EPA should be awarded  indirect
 costs. The court also  held that district courts may
 impose sanctions in instances of governmental
 misconduct.   The  appellate  court stated it
 "simply could not determine" in the Ottati record
 what  the  United States  may have done to
 warrant sanctions and remanded the sanctions
 matter for reconsideration.

 U.S. v. JamffS Persons' In this case, the defendants
 failed without sufficient cause to comply  with an
 EPA administrative order issued under CERCLA
 §106,   The  court upheld the imposition of
 punitive damages in  1989 and recently awarded a
-specific dollar amount.  The case is important

                           FF /990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
because of its impact on responsible  parties.
Parties will be much more willing to adequately
respond to an EPA administrative order rather
than face potential treble damages.

     On  March .6,  1990,  the United States
District Court in the Northern District of Georgia
granted 'plaintiff's motion for partial summary
judgment for response costs in the amount of
$753,391. The court also found seven of the eight
defendants jointly and severally liable for three
times that amount, or $2,260,173 for failing to
comply with & CERCLA §106 Administrative
Order.  This is the first case in which a court has
awarded the government a specific dollar amount
for treble damages.   .

     In a related case and the first jury trial of
its type,  the  purchaser of a building  holding
drums containing  hazardous  waste was held
liable May 15 for punitive treble damages under
the Superfund law by a federal district  court in
Georgia.   Judge Harold Murphy  of  the  U.S.
District Court  for the Northern  District of
Georgia directed a verdict against P. Douglas
Morrison,  holding that the  defendant  had
insufficient reason to fail to comply with an
administrative  cleanup order, issued  by the
Environmental Protection Agency under §106 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation,  and Liability  Act.  Morrison,
along with other defendants previously found
liable,  must  pay  three   times  what  the
government spent in cleanup costs. EPA and DOJ
have appealed the "judge's ruling in the matter of
what constitutes treble damages. The judge held
that  EPA's response costs .are included as one-
third of the total amount. The Government  's
position  is  that  the  treble  damages are in
addition to the response costs.

In the Matter of Peru Mining Qflpttpany!  This is a
cost  recovery case relating to the Cherokee
County, Kansas Mining Site which arose  as a
result of the dissolution of Peru Mining Company
in a Delaware Chancery Court.  EPA had filed a
proof of claim against  Peru Mining Company in
the  Chancery  Court  of  Newcastle County,
Delaware for its costs relating to the Galena sub-
site of the Cherokee County, Kansas Sites. On
September 6, 1990, EPA received  a check for
$242,410 which  was  the. payment to  EPA in
distribution of the remaining corporate assets of
Peru Mining Company.  This amount is in excess of
95%  of the company's assets.  No release was
given other than for the amount received.
       Site Smytmary Judgment (U.S. v. American
 Cyanamid Co. and Rohm & Haas Co.);  The
 United States won a motion for summary judgment
.establishing  liability, based  on  collateral
 estoppel  in the CERCLA cost recovery case
 regarding the Picillo  Superfund Site in Rhode
 Island.   On May 31,  1990,  the federal district
 court  in • Rhode Island held  that American
 Cyanamid Company and Rohm & Haas Company
 were liable for approximately $3,500,000 in past
 costs plus future cleanup costs.    •  •  '

     The Region  believes  this .was the first
 Superfund case establishing liability on a theory
 of  offensive collateral estoppel.   The  court
 accepted the  government's argument  that
 liability  could  be established without  trial
 based on the fact that defendants had been found
 liable in an earlier CERCLA  lawsuit filed fay the
 State of Rhode Island for its costs incurred at the
 Site.  The court noted that its ruling was not
 unfair to the defendants, as they had  every
 opportunity and incentive  to fully and  fairly
 defend their liability under CERCLA in the prior
 suit, and that precluding the U,S. from relying on
 collateral estoppel would  defeat the  public
 policies  EPA  serves  in allocating its limited
 resources to pursue Superfund cases.

     As Superfund litigation brought by states,
 PRPs,  and insurance  companies increases, the
 Picillo  decision  establishes  an important
 precedent for EPA to pursue judgments based on
 CERCLA cases filed by  states  and  private

 In  the matter of Priority Finishing;    This
 administrative settlement concerned the Putnam
 Fire  and Chemical   Spill  Site  in  Putnam,
 Connecticut.  The Region entered a CERCLA
 §122(h) agreement that required  the  Priority
 Finishing Corporation to pay $920,000 into the
 Fund.  Priority was an owner and operator of the
 Site at  the  time of  .disposal  of hazardous
 substances.  Coupled with an earlier payment of
 $30,000 from Dimension-Sailcloth,  Inc., another
 operator at the Site, EPA recovered 83% of the
 total response costs of approximately $1,100,000,
 including prejudgment interest.

 U.Sj. Providence Journal; The settlement in this
 case sends an important signal  to the regulated
 community   that  the  United   States  will
 compromise little if any of its recoverable costs
 where defendants  choose not to negotiate until
 the eleventh hour, thereby making it much more

                      FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
costly for PRPs to litigate than to settle.  On
March 26, 1990, the day trial was to begin, the
government  reached  a  settlement  with all
defendants in  United States v. The Providence
Journal.  The United States will receive $374,000
from the Providence Journal Company and $20,000
from two other defendants.  This represents an
aggregate recovery of 100% of actual response
costs, and represents recovery  of approximately
95% of total costs inclusive of interest ($415,000).
The original cost of performing  the removal
action was  approximately  $175,000.   The
remainder of  the  response  costs represent
enforcement and litigation costs.

U.S. v.  A.N. Reitzloff Co.. et al.:  This case
provides a good incentive to responsible parties to
enter into settlement early with EPA.  Parties
who waited  to settle this  case  received less
favorable  terms than those responsible parties
who came forward  early. The result supports
EPA's national  effort to recover response costs
from de minimis parties.

     -On August 30,1990, Judge Friedman of the
U.S. District  Court for the  Eastern District of
Michigan entered the second de minimis consent
decree addressing the liability of 115 additional
de  minimis  defendants  for   the  cleanup  of
contamination at the  Liquid Disposal Superfund
Site in Utica, Michigan.  In addition to the 200%
premium  payment required of all de minimis
settlors, an additional payment of 100% of their
volumetric share was required from those settlors
who elected not to join in first round settlement.

In  theLntatter jif Resource' Conservation and
Recovery of America, Inc.;  An administrative
settlement was signed April 3 at the Department
of Justice for the Davis Farm site, located in
Chatsworth, Georgia.  Under the settlement, the
Army, the Navy, the Department of Energy, and
the Tennessee Valley Authority will reimburse
the Superfund for a total of $164,605.92 in costs
incurred by EPA in conducting a removal action at
the Davis Farm site.  The  United States is
pursuing private parties for the balance of the
response  costs  and  has  already  settled with
several of the private parties. Under the  various
settlements,   EPA   will   have   recovered
approximately  82 per, cent  of  the $799,195
incurred in the removal action and associated
enforcement costs.
recommendations to encourage responsible parties
to enter into  settlements and allows EPA to
partially recover response costs.  The decision
provides a clear incentive to responsible parties
to enter into settlements because of the protection
against third party claims they can receive under

     On September 14, 1990 a the United States
District Judge of  the District of New Jersey
dismissed all  cross-claims and counter-claims
against  ten PRPs who entered into a $3 million
dollar  de minimis  consent decree with EPA
regarding the  Lipari  Landfill.  The judge ruled
that the ten settling  parties are protected from
further  third-party claims of contribution by §

     The Lipari Landfill, a six acre landfill in
Gloucester County, New Jersey, is the number one
site  on the National Priorities List.  The  de
minimis settlement required the settlors to pay
the United States  approximately $2,586,000 to
partially reimburse  the federal  government's
response costs.  Two nonsettlors requested that the
New Jersey District Court reject the dg minimis
settlement.  On September 29, 1989, the court
entered the decree, determining the settlement
was fair, adequate, and reasonable, and consistent
with the Constitution  and  the  mandate of
Congress. The court reasoned that the settlors
were protected from contribution claims for those
"covered matters" in the settlement.

U.S,,.v. Royal  Hard age, .et  al.,,_Hardage
Superfund Site:  This case involves  a former
commercial disposal  site in Oklahoma.  Phase II
of the  trial resulted in a ruling by the U.S.
District  Judge  reinforcing the Agency's authority
to hold transporters arranging for disposal of
waste liable under CERCLA.  Also affirmed by
the Judge's ruling was authority  to recover all
costs, including indirect costs, incurred by the EPA
for response actions.   Finally, the Judge ruled in
favor of  the  Potentially Responsible  Party
remedy requiring  partial removal followed  by
off-site incineration of the extracted wastes and
groundwater  remedial  action to prevent the
influx of contaminated groundwater to a nearby
stream.  The site, located  in Criner, Oklahoma is
contaminated by pesticides, chlorinated solvents,
metals and PCB oils as result of waste disposal at
the site.
U.S. vt Rohtrt  & Haa$_ Co., qj_ al.i   The case   Schal% v. Reilly:  Based on the decision in this
supports the Superfund Management Review   case, PRPs are more likely to enter into a consent

                           FY1990* Enforcement Accomplishments Report
decree  requiring  potentially  controversial
remedial measures.  The result in this case also
supports   SARA's •  codification  'of   no
pre-implementation judicial review for selected
remedial measures at Superfund sites..

  ^ Oh April 24, 1990,  the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the district court's  dismissal of two
citizen suits that challenged remedies selected
for six Superfund sites in Indiana,  The district
court had approved a. consent decree in August
1985 for the remedies, finding that  numerous
public meetings were held prior to the decree's
approval and that the decree was fair, adequate,
reasonable, and appropriate. The decree required
remedial measures be taken in two steps: (1) a
removal action involving surface excavation and
capping of abandoned  dump sites, and (2) the
burning of hazardous  wastes in a  trash-fired

     Schalk filed a lawsuit in December of 1987
and Frey filed a lawsuit in February 1988, Both
parties  sought judicial review of the decree
entered between the  U.S. and  Westinghouse,
specifically  the  proposed  remedial  action
involving  the incineration  of PCBs.  The
plaintiffs argued.that §113(h) of SARA was not
retroactive to a consent decree entered in 1985,
and that they were not challenging  the decree,
but merely asking for procedural requirements.

     In rejecting their arguments, the Seventh
Circuit stated that:  (1)  their lawsuits, were filed
after SARA's enactment; (2) SARA codified an
established  rule of  no  pre-implementation
review; and (3) the plaintiffs were challenging
the proposed remedy. The court pointed to
CERCLA 113(h) which  states  that "No  Federal
court shall  have jurisdiction...to review any
challenges   to    removal  or    remedial
action...except" in  certain  circumstances.  The
citizen suit exception allows an action alleging
that the removal or remedial action taken under
[§104]  or  secured under [§106]  violated a
requirement'of the chapter.

ILS. v. Sharon Steel: The settlement supports the
Superfund Management Review recommendation
to have responsible parties undertake remedial
activities at Superfund sites and-to  have EPA
recover its response costs from responsible parties.

     On August 21,1990, EPA and Sharon Steel
entered into the largest bankruptcy settlement
ever at a Superfund Site. Sharon Steel agreed to
pay at least $22 million toward the cleanup of
two sites near Salt Lake City. Sharon Steel is the
current owner of a milling facility at the Sharon
Steel Midvale Tailing Superfund site. EPA has
already expended about $5 million for cleanup of
the Tailings site. Under the agreement, EPA has
permanent access to the site.  Additionally,
Sharon Steel agreed to dismiss claims against
any government parties.

     The remedial action plan for the milling
facility is scheduled for.completion in October
1990,  and a final cleanup plan for- residential
areas  was due  by September  1990.  The soils
surrounding   the  residences  have   been
contaminated with arsenic, lead, and cadmium.
Arsenic has also contaminated the ground water
in the area.                   >

LI,S.  v.Jyheller-Globe  Corporation, et al..-   In
August 1990, the court  lodged  a consent decree
signed by 41 PRPs for the Auto Ion, Inc. Superfund
site in Kalamazoo, MI.  The decree requires  the
PRPs   to  carry  out soil remediation .at  an
estimated cost of $3.4 million. The,PRPs also must
pay for response and other costs in connection
with  the cleanup. The facility, formerly an
electrical power plant used  by the City  of
Kalamazoo and Consumers Power, Inc., was used
primarily by Auto Ion, Inc. to remove heavy
metals from chrome and cyanide plating waste.
About 120,000 gallons  of liquid plating wastes
and sludge, in addition to arsenic, were left there
when Auto Ion ceased operations.

U.S. v. E.H. Schilling 4 Son, ejal.:  This is  the
first Superfund  remedy- case in the country ever
nominated for ADR. An October 1990 consent
decree  outlined  an  estimated  $11 million
remedial action to be  performed  at the E.H.
Schilling Landfill near Ironton, OH.  The
agreement calls for PRPs Ashland Chemical Co.,
Aristech Chemical Corp., and Dow Chemical Co.
to install a slurry wall  around,the perimeter of
the landfill, place of a cap on  its surface,
reinforce the earthen dam and install an onsite
liquid  and leachate extraction and  treatment
system. The PRPs agreed to pay all past costs, all
costs  of implementing the clean  up, and all
oversight costs in excess of the first $236,000.

     Between  1969 and  1980, the landfill
accepted commercial  and  industrial solids,
liquids  and sludge,  including  polystyrene,
polyurethane, polyethylene, phenol, acetone,
ceramic  foam, oil  and  petroleum pitch, which

                     FF1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
eventually contaminated the soil. Contaminants
identified at the site include arsenic, benzene,
benzol (a) pyrene  and 1,2-dichlorethane.  The
case was nominated for alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) in 1989 after a cost allocation
controversy arose  between the PRPs.   A cost
recovery action against two nonsettling PRPs for
the initial oversight costs is being evaluated,

Solid State Circuits Site: On August 10,1990, EPA
referred to the Department of Justice for lodging a
Consent Decree for Remedial Design/Remedial
Action  at the Solid  State  Circuits Site  in
Republic, MO. The Site  consists of a former
printed  circuit board  plant where  waste
trichloroethylene  contaminates  groundwater
that is the source of the municipal  water supply.
The remedy  calls for pumping  and treating
contaminated groundwater, then discharging to a
publicly-owned  treatment works for  further
treatment and discharge pursuant to a NPDES
permit.   The State  of Missouri is a party to the
Consent Decree. Submittals from and oversight of
the PRP will be  handled  primarily  by the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, as the
lead agency. Also,  the Consent Decree provides a
unique  financing mechanism for  the estimated
$7.4 million remedy in which  the sole PRP, not
otherwise able to pay for the remedy, can arrange
.private  financing  to  meet its liabilities.  The
PRP, with a net worth estimated  at $3 million
with environmental  liabilities and $6 million
without, is  allowed  to sell  its  assets to an
unrelated third party with such purchaser not
becoming bound to the Consent Decree, provided a
trust for performance of the remedy is funded in
the amount of $8.8 million. The PRP does not own
any Site property.  The PRP's parent corporation,
not a parry to the Consent Decree, will fund the
trust with loans to be paid from proceeds from the
asset sale, and the PRP will cease all business
except  to perform its  obligations under the
Consent Decree.

Sullivan's Ledge Site  Settlement;  In September,
1990, the Region obtained agreement to a consent
decree from 14 PRPs for RD/RA performance and
reimbursement of past costs and oversight costs
regarding  the First Operable  Unit  at  the
Sullivan's Ledge Site  in  New  Bedford,
Massachusetts. Under the consent decree, the
settling PRPs are  required  to implement the
remedial design and remedial action, with the
limitation that the settling PRPs' obligations
will terminate after  thirty years of operation
and maintenance.  The present worth value of
these, activities is estimated at $10,500,000.  In
addition, the settling PRPs agreed to reimburse
100% .of the United States' oversight costs for the
first five years of the remedy and 50% thereafter,
up to a cap of $1,500,000, and to reimburse the
United States for $620,000 in past costs.  In total,
the package represents recovery of $12,370,000, or
77.8% of total site response costs.  The Region
anticipates filing a cost recovery action against
nine non-settlors for the remaining response costs.

U.S.  v, Rasmussen. et. alv Livingston County
Michigan;  This case filed in Federal District
court in January 1988 involved an action for cost
recovery for removal activities under CERCLA.
The defendants included site owners  Gloria F.
Rasmussen and Clara C. Rasmussen; Homer S.
Rasmussen, the operator during its period as  a
landfill;  Alfred  E.  Pearson, who disposed of
hazardous substances  at  the  site;  and  the
companies that arranged for hazardous waste
disposal, which  included Chrysler Corp., Ford
Motor  Co., and Hoover  Universal, Inc.   EPA
incurred the costs performing an  immediate

     Because of the environmental threat, the
Rasmussen site was placed on  the  National
Priorities List on September 8, 1983.  EPA began
removal at the  site on October  31, 1984, using
Superfund money. About 3,000 drums and 250 cubic
yards of contaminated soils from the Rasmussen
landfill were taken to an approved hazardous
waste landfill.  This response action  ended .in
January 1985. The 1990 consent  decree required
Ford and Chrysler to reimburse the United States
for $530,000;  Hoover  settled. for  $295,838
November 18, 1989. Other settlements should be
completed in the near future.

     In December 1988, EPA determined another
removal action would expedite site clean-up and
the development of options for the feasibility
study.  On July 12,1989,11 PRPs  signed a consent
order specifying the work to be done to  complete
the  cleanup.  The PRPs  removed waste,
contaminated soil, and about 650  drums from the
site from December 1989 through February 1990.
The  proposed  final remediation  plan  was
released for public comment August 31,1990.

In the  matter of Tennessee Chemical Company,
Prospective Purchaser Agreement: On September
20,, 1990, EPA  and  Boliden Intergrade,  A.G.,
signed  a prospective purchaser agreement for the
bankrupt Tennessee Chemical Company (TCC)

                            FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 facility in Copperhill, TN. 'Boliden Intergrade,
 A.G.; a Swedish company, will spend some $21
 million over the next 10'years on environmental
 and plant improvements; The company agreed to
 continue  operation • of  the two wastewater
 treatment plants protecting the Ocoee river from
 contaminated water  runoff.   The firm will
^implement  an environmental improvement
 program at an "estimated cost of $8;million, which
 would  include  reforestation,  wastewater
 treatment plant upgrades, installation  of new
 sedimentation traps,  and  remediation  of
 contaminated soil. In addition, the company will
 construct a new sulfur burner at the facility at an
 estimated'cost "of $13 million.       '     " '

      The September 20, agreement was required
 because a six'month interim agreement negotiated
 in March of  1990 was about to expire. The U.S.
 Bankruptcy  Court had  approved the  interim
 agreement,  which  was  in  the nature  of a
 prospective purchaser agreement.  Under that
 agreement, Boliden agreed, among other things,
 to operate all environmental control equipment;
 comply  with  all  environmental • statutes,
 regulations,  permits, • and orders; conduct  an
 abbreviated  environmental  site investigation;
 arid'to be liable for all violations of law, and for
 all "environmental harm it  causes during  its
 period of operations. Most notable was Boliden's
 agreement to operate the facility's wastewater
 treatment plant, thus avoiding some 4.5 million
 gallons per  day of  uncontrolled inactive mine
 runoff discharge if TCC were to  abandon the
 facility.  TCC was on the" verge  of shutdown in
 March 1990, and the interim agreement  averted
, an; expected  plant shutdown  by  the Bankruptcy
                           . •     "'.*.> -
      The September  1990 agreement also
 provides for:  reimbursement to EPA of $180,000 for
 past  response costs,  compliance  with  all
 applicable state  and  federal  environmental
 requirements, cleanup  of several existing
 chemical and fuel' oil. spills,-  and voluntary
 reforestation on unpurchased land. Boliden will
 not  be  held liable for contamination' at the
 Copperhill site that occurred before the company
 assumed operation of the facility on March  20,
 1990.  The  company  will  be  liable  for any
 contamination resulting from their operation of
 the  facility.
'     '     -        ,'   -   . - '              *
      Recent releases  of sulfur dioxide  by
 Tennessee   Chemical  Company' are  being
 addressed by EPA-in  separate  enforcement
'proceedings. One such release; which occurred on
 August 16,1990 during the negotiations period for
 the September 1990 agreement, necessitated the
 issuance  of  a  CERCLA', 106 ' Unilateral
 Administrative Order'in'response to significant
 off-site harm  caused  to human health1 and the
 environment by releases of sulfur dioxide and
 sulfur trioxide ;from the  plant.  This marks the
 first time that Region IV has used a CERCLA 106
 Unilateral  Administrative Order to  cease
' significant  releases of hazardous substances
 during Tennessee Chemical's  operations.' '•In
 response to the August 16,1990, release, within a
 very 'short timeframe, the  Region conducted a
"" Chemical Process Safety Audit arid a Clean -
 Air Act compliance inspection of the plant. The
 area  was  also  surveyed  for  vegetative and
 health effects  by the Environmental  Services
 Division- (BSD)  and  the' Agency 'for Toxic
.Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).  These
 produced recommendations that were jnvaiuable
 to the successful negotiation of'the prospective
' purchaser agreement. The  combined Audit and
 Inspection allowed the Agency to determine a
 complete   outline  of  plant  and  process
 improvements that are needed to minimize future
 releases of hazardous substances.

    ' ' The   Tennessee Chemical  prospective
 purchaser agreement is an example of EPA's
 ability  to  enter into agreements with private
 parties  for site remediation,  Without this
'agreement,' the' responsible-party would have
 potentially slipped into bankruptcy and EPA
 would have been required to remediate the site.

' U.S. v. Thomas Solvents: 'The case is supports our
 enforcement effort and is nationally significant
 for two  reasons. First; the court upheld 'EPA's
 request for recovery of all response costs. Second,
 the court found that EPA's'actions at  the''site
 would be reviewed based on'the administrative
 record using an arbitrary and capricious standard.

      On September 24,  1990, the U.S.'District
 Court for  the  Western District of Michigan
 granted the government's motion for partial
 summary judgment on response costs.- The case
 involves actions  by EPA  and  the state  of
 Michigan to clean up and contain the spread of
 hazardous substances discovered in the Verona
 Well Field and surrounding areas. The substances
 had allegedly'been-released by defendants on
 three nearby properties and had penetrated the
 soil, entered the ground water, and contaminated
 a number of wells at the Verona Well  Field.

                      FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
     "The  Well Field serves as a public water
• supply for about 35,000 residents and businesses of
 Battle Creek, Michigan.  EPA's costs at the time
 of trial exceeded $4,5 million dollars.  The court
 granted EPA's request for summary judgment on
 certain response costs valued at $877,704.78.

      In holding for the United States,-the court
 determined that the government does not have to
 prove the reasonableness of its response action.
 Instead, it  is up to the defendants to prove that
 the  action was arbitrary and  capricious.  The
 court  when on  to  say  that  the  fact that the
 selected response was not effective does not imply
 that its selection was arbitrary and capricious.
 The court  also held  that EPA could recover its
 indirect costs  at the site for  those expenses
 attributable to  overhead. -

      In a  related matter, the court granted the
 government's  motion for a  ruling  as  to the
 appropriate standard and scope of  review of
 agency action.  The court determined that §113 of
 CERCLA applies to response actions taken by the
 agency as opposed to the argument that it applies
 only to the selected response action. In addition,
 the court held that any response action should be
 reviewed  on the basis of the administrative
.record  under  an  arbitrary  and  capricious
 standard,  .and  absent a showing rof manifest
 injustice, §113 of SARA will apply retroactively.

 In the  Matter  of  3M Company, C,p|u.mb!af
 Missouri:   3M Company (3M) entered into  a
 §3008(h)  Administrative  Order on Consent
 (AOC) with EPA on September 26,1990. Pursuant
 to the AOC 3M has agreed to perform a RCRA
 Facility Investigation and a .Corrective Measures
 Study  for its  facility  located in  Columbia,
 Missouri.  In addition to traditional requirements
 in a §3008(h) Order, EPA negotiated to have 3M
 model VOC air  releases which emanated  from
 facility  manufacturing process units.   3M
 voluntarily agreed (outside of AOC) to  reduce
 VOC emissions  by  approximately 90%  by the
 summer of 1992. 3M also agreed to provide EPA
 with annual progress/status reports setting forth
 the progress it made during the reporting period,
 and what  steps  it intends to take during each
 following   reporting period  in  reducing air

 U.S. v. Tri-State Mjnt (CfiRCLA/EPCRA): The
 government pursued two separate Tri-State  Mint
 enforcement actions that involved the dumping,
 by the Tri-State Mint, of hazardous chemicals in
 an industrial park in Sioux Falls.  This posed an
 acute threat to the inhabitants of Sioux Falls due
 to  the potential  impact on the city's drinking
 water supply. This case was also pursued under

      Tri-State   Mint   A   Avenue  -  civil
 administrative order.   This site  involved  the
 dumping of cyanide solutions with heavy metals
 onto soils behind a facility  known as Tri-State
 Mint A Avenue, which  is located in Sioux Falls,
 South Dakota. The contamination posed a threat
 to  the  Big  Sioux aquifer, the drinking water
 source  for the City of  Sioux Falls.  The PRPs
 completed • clean-up of the site pursuant to  a
 Unilateral Order  issued on January 3, 1990.  The
 PRPs will be billed in the 1st quarter of FY 91 for
 costs incurred pursuant  to the Unilateral Order.

      Tri-State Mint, Fire - civil administrative
 order. This site involved plating solutions, acids,
 and oxidizers from the  Tri-State Mint A Avenue
 facility. The incident took place on September  2,
 1989. .The contamination'was contained within
 the  facility.    Clean-up   at  the  .site  was
 accomplished by the  PRP pursuant to an
 Administrative  Order  on Consent issued on
 November 7,1989. The  PRPs will be billed in the
 1st quarter of FY 91 for costs incurred pursuant to
, the Administrative Order.

 U. S. v. pinion Research Co.. Inc.:   The Union
 Research decision notifies PRPs that it is in their
 best interest to settle with EPA now rather than
 later withstand  a time consuming and costly
 judicial action.  On October 9, 1990 the United
 States District Court for the District of Maine
 affirmed  a  magistrate's  decision  limiting
 discovery in a CERCLA cost recovery action. In
 the case, EPA was seeking response costs from two
 non-settling defendants after settlements were
 reached with other defendants.

    .  The defendants, Union and Esposito, sought
 to  discover information  relating  to   the
 reasonableness of certain response costs that the
 government  received as the result of the prior
 consent decrees. On September 6, 1990, court
 denied  their  discovery request.  The court stated
 that the nonsettling parties should have brought
 to the court's attention any concerns about the
 consent decree's  fairness during the  thirty  day
 public  comment period.   In  forgoing  this
 opportunity,  the defendants lost their chance to
 contest the fairness of the decree.

  %. \
/990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
          The court also ruled that if a settlor pays
    less than  its fair share of liability, a non-settlor
    is  liable  for  the  difference.  Therefore,  the
    non-settlor's liability is reduced by the amount of
    settlement and not by the equitable shares. The
    court reasoned that to hold otherwise would
    require the government  to litigate with  the
    non-settlors matters the  government  thought
    resolved in the settlement process. The holding is
    significant because it highlights the benefits of a
    PRP/EPA  settlement and encourages recalcitrant
    PRPs to settle.

    In the matter of^U.S. Testing, Inc.: On April 24,
    1990, EPA suspended U.S. Testing Inc., a major
    participant  in   EPA's Contract  Laboratory
    Program with 22 branch laboratories nationwide,
    from receiving future federal contracts and EPA
    assistance awards.  The complaint initiated by
    Region  X's Suspension and Debarment team
    alleged  that  U3. Testing's  laboratories  in
    Richland, WA and Hoboken,  NJ  submitted
    unreliable and falsified  data to EPA. Some of the
    practices alleged to have taken place included:
    Analyzing samples after the  holding times were
    exceeded  and then back dating the  tests;  pH
    readings  and PCB/pesticide  standards and
    analyses were reported  as having been analyzed
    using automated equipment which the laboratory
    did not have; improper sample movement and
    chain of custody records resulting in the inability
    to  accurately trace samples;  and  improper
    calibration of equipment resulting in inaccurate
    data being reported as valid.

    In the matter of Vandale Junkyard:  On March 5,
    1990, an administrative subpoena under CERCLA
    was used for the first time to, determine if a PRPs
    remedial  investigation and feasibility  study
    (RI/FS) met the terms of  an administrative
    consent order or should  be  discontinued.
    Activities by the  PRPs and  their  contractor
    indicated  a pattern of failing to comply with
    substantive requirements of the 1987 order,  failing
    to  complete  tasks  on  time, and endangering
    workers and EPA representatives.  Although the
    PRPs objected, a deposition was taken on April 26,
    1990. Deposition  information supported EPA's
    determination to discontinue the PRPs' authority
    to conduct the RI/FS, effective August 16,1990.

    Wells G & H Site Seft|en\ftnt-. In September 1990,
    Region I finalized a settlement for the Wells G &
    H Superfund site in Woburn,  Massachusetts. The
    settlement requires four potentially responsible
    parties  identified  in   connection  with four
                 contaminated  properties  within the Site to
                 conduct the entire RD/RA at these properties for
                 the first operable unit and pay a large portion of
                 the government's past costs  at  the Site   and
                 reimburse all future oversight costs. A smaller set
                 of the settling parties has also agreed to perform
                 a remedial investigation/feasibility study for
                 the next  phase of the Site cleanup. The total
                 value  of this settlement is approximately

                      This complex settlement is  noteworthy in
                 several respects: it involved agreement  by a
                 small number of PRPs to a very large settlement,
                 utilized a Non-binding Preliminary Allocation of
                 Responsibility    (NBAR)    to   allocate
                 responsibilities among landowners, provides for
                 initiation of the remedy as well as the RI/FS at
                 the time of lodging of the Decree, and was
                 negotiated in a very short time frame given the
                 complexities of the case.

                      The settlement provides for the first phase
                 of cleanup of one of the most publicly visible sites
                 on the National Priorities  List.  This Site has
                 experienced intense public scrutiny over the last
                 decade because  of  the" high  incidence of
                 childhood leukemia in the  area surrounding
                 Wells G & H which involved the public drinking
                 water  supply  for  the  City  of  Woburn,
York Oil Mixed Fundin
                 September 1990, EPA forwarded to DOJ a signed
                 consent decree for RD/RA at the York Oil site in
                 New York. The decree is the Region's first mixed
                 funding settlement under §122(b)(l) of CERCLA,
                 It provides for the RD/RA work to be carried out
                 by the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa);
                 for reimbursement by Alcoa of $795,000 in EPA
                 past costs; and for payment by the U.S. Army and
                • Air Force of $1,875,000 towards the cost of future
                 work and $636,846 for past costs,  Alcoa has been
                 pre-authorized to apply for reimbursement  of
                 48%  of its RD/RA costs from EPA, among the
                 highest pre-authorization levels yet approved
                 by the Agency, EPA intends to seek recovery of its
                 share of the costs from other PRPs.

                 Superfund Information Request
                 Enforcement Initiative

                      Enforcement  of information requests,  to
                 ensure prompt and accurate reporting of essential
                 data, is  important to  the  integrity of  EPA's

                      FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
enforcement programs. Several cases were filed
as a  part  of  a national  CERCLA  §104(e)
information request  initiative.

U. S. v. Crown Roll Leaf (CERCLAfflCRA): In a
case  reported  in  FY  1989's  Enforcement
Accomplishments Report, a federal court in New
Jersey assessed  a penalty of $142,000 against
Crown Roll Leaf Co., Inc. for failing to respond to
an information  request.  The court awarded
$63,000 for the CERCLA §104(e) violation, and
$79,000 for the RCRA §3007 violation. The Third
Circuit affirmed without a written  opinion on
October 12,1989  and the U.S. Supreme Court on
January 22, 1990 denied the petitioner's request
for certiorari to overturn that judgment. The case
is important because it upholds EPA ability  to
seek stiff penalties  against responsible parties
who fail  to respond' or inadequately respond to
information requests.      •

U. S. v. Dcnzer & Schafer X-Ray Co.;  The
complaint seeks an injunction ordering Defendant
Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Co., Inc., to supply the
requested information, and civil penalties for the
company's failure to respond to EPA's request.
The defendant failed to comply with Region IPs
request for information at the Lone Pine Landfill
and at the Denzer & Schafer site, both of which
are on the NPL.

U. S. v.John Lesnfski: The complaint in this case
seeks to compel compliance with  Region  IPs
request for information and  seeks penalties for
noncompliance with the Request.   Lesofski is
believed  to have  handled, transported, and
disposed of hazardous substances at the Lang
property NPL site in New Jersey.

U. S. v.  Madispri Disposal Service. Inc.;  The
complaint in this case seeks an injunction ordering
Madison Disposal Service, Inc.  to  supply  the
requested information and civil penalties for the
Defendant's failure to respond to a §104(e) letter.
Madison Disposal  is a  garbage  hauler that is
believed  to have  information regarding the
transportation to and disposal of hazardous
substances at the Lone Pine Landfill  site in New

Access Litigation
Andor Chemical Site: On February 5, 1990, the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of
New York issued an Order granting EPA access to
the Andor Chemical site in Bradford, New York,
 to allow the Agency to carry out a removal action.
 The Order also excluded the owner and operator
 of the site from the property until EPA's response
 actions are finished.  The complaint was filed
 against the owner and operator of the chemical
 repackaging company, Roman Drey wood.  Mr.
 Dreywood also used the site as a residence.

 Wjiite Chemical Section I Site: On September 28,
 1990, EPA issued  a unilateral  order to the White
 Chemical Corp. of Newark, New Jersey, and its
 owner, James White, requiring them to provide
 access to the site, and cease work at and-vacate
 the premises immediately. This was a chemical
 manufacturing facility with some 9000 drums on
 site,  many containing hazardous  and reactive
 materials, and many of which were leaking or in
 unacceptable condition.  Anticipating  non-
 compliance,  EPA made a referral  to DOJ for a
 civil action seeking a temporary restraining order
 (TRO).  Before such an action could be filed,
 White, which  was in bankruptcy,  challenged
 EPA's order in  the  bankruptcy  court.   The
 bankruptcy judge issued an order, pending the
 district court's review, requiring White to comply
 with EPA's administrative order. The district
 court, on October 23,1990, ratified the bankruptcy
 court's action and issued a preliminary injunction.
 White has since  vacated the  premises, and the
 removal action is underway.   It is estimated to
 cost $18 million.

 Genazale Plating Site: On October 13, 1989, the
 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court
 of New York granted EPA a preliminary injunction
.in  the Genazale  Plating case directing the site
 owner to  grant  access to EPA  and  its
 representatives.  The decision, issued after a
 hearing, is very favorable regarding EPA's access

 Federal Facilities - Stiperfund/RCRA

 In  the matter of  Buck's War  Surplus Superfund
 SHe, U.S. Department of Defense:  On June 20,
 1990, EPA issued a Notice of Potential Liability
 to  the  Defense  Logistics Agency  (DLA)  and
 requested that the Department of Defense (DOD)
 assume responsibility  for  removal response
 actions at the Buck's War Surplus site.   The
 Buck's  War  Surplus  site is a privately-run
 military surplus operation located in Las Vegas,
 Nevada.  EPA  initiated a  removal action at the
 request of state and county agencies.  The site
 contained almost 4000 highly corroded containers
 of  military reagents.   Estimated cleanup costs

                             FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishmirits Report
  were $1 million.  On September 26; 1990, EPA
  successfully  negotiated  an  Administrative
  Consent Order with DLA.  As part of the order,
 - DLA transported and disposed of drums from the
  site.  In October 1990, DLA reimbursed EPA-for
 • over $600,000 in response  costs incurred at the
  site.  To date, Region IX  has had 11 CERCLA
  removal actions involving hazardous substances
  that originated as military  surplus items sold at
 ' Defense Department auctions.  OveV the past
  three and a half years. Region IX has responded
 -to nine hazardous military  surplus sites at a cost
  of over $1.6 million.            •' •   :      •

  In the matter of Dyess Aii farce Base (UST);  A
  Complaint and Notice of Non-Compliance under
  the Underground Storage Tank requirements was
  issued to Dyess Air Force  Base, Abilene, Texas.
  The  facility was discovering  failed (leaking)
  tanks,' but  it • was  not  conducting . further
  investigations of the extent  of contamination and
 • possible corrective  actions.  The contaminants
  consist primarily of used oils, fuels, solvents, and
  pesticides. Discussions are underway to attempt
  to obtain a  Federal  Facility Compliance

  In the matter of Iowa Army /^rnmunition Plant;
  On September 20, 1990; the Department of the
  Army and EPA completed  negotiations on  a
  Federal Facility  Compliance  Agreement for
  Removal  Actions,  Remedial  Investigation/
  Feasibility Studies  (RI/FS),. Remedial Action
. selection and Remedial'Design/Remedial Actions
  for all releases at the Iowa Army Ammunition
  Site, near Middleton, IA.: The 19,000 acre site has
  soil and groundwater contaminated  with.RDX,
  TNB, DNT, and TNT, among other hazardous
  substances. The project costs are to be fully funded
  by the Department of the Army, but.will not be
  known until completion of the RI/FS.
                  -.                  i.     <
  In the matter of NASA  - White  Sands Test
 . Facility: This facility,  located  near Las Graces,
  New Mexico, had releases  of hazardous wastes.
  A corrective action order under RCRA was
  successfully negotiated and issued to'this facility
, on December 12,1989, and was the first such order
  in the nation issued to  NASA.   The  action will
  require the-facility-to investigate the extent of
  contamination  at .the  facility,  with  special
,  emphasis on identifying the preferred pathways
 • of migration  and extent  of  groundwater
  contamination within the fractured bed rock
  beneath, acting as the uppermost saturated zone
  in the vicinity of the facility. Upon completion
 - of  the RCRA  Facility  Investigation  and
  Corrective  Measures Studies,  the  appropriate
  corrective measures will be implemented.

  In the matter of Tinlfpr Air  Force'Base:   A
  Complaint and Notice of Non-Compliance under
  the Underground Storage Tank requirements was
  issued to Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City,
  Oklahoma.  In the process of a joint-inspection
  with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, it
  was  learned that when  the  Base discovered a
  failed tank  through a tank tightness test, Tinker
  failed  to .conduct  further  investigations to
  determine the  extent of the contamination, and
  possible corrective actions.   Discussions are
 ' underway to attempt to obtain a Federal Facility
  Compliance Agreement.  •-irr/        -,

  In the -matter.of the U.S. Coast Guard. Kqdiak;
  EPA  negotiated  a comprehensive - §3008(h>
  corrective action order with this facility. This is
  the first such order signed by.,the Coast Guard in
  the nation and it has been used as a model by the
  Office  of  Federal Activities for  other Coast
  Guard facilities  across the  United  States.
  Contamination problems at this  large base
  involve numerous locations where hazardous
  waste constituents have been released from past
  waste  handling  practices.    These  releases
  threaten nearby salmon streams.

  Letterkenney Army Depot Region Ill's Federal
  Facility Superfund Program successfully assessed
  a $10,000 penalty against Letterkenney Army
-. depot  for  violations "of the .terms  of  their
  Superfund Interagency Agreement.. This fine for
  failure to submit certain primary documents under
  the agreement  is the first penalty ever  assessed
  against another federal agency by EPA.

  Marine Corps  Settlements: ..On September 28,
  1990, four  Marine  Corps bases in-Southern
  California, signed Federal Facility  Compliance
  Agreements (FFCAs) with EPA Region IX.  The
  four facilities  are. the Marine  Corps Logistics
  Base, Yermo and.Nebo Annexes, located in San
  Bernardino  County,.and the  Tustin  and El Toro
  Marine; Corps  Air Stations located ..in  Orange
  County.   The  actions were  taken  to remedy
  violations of the Resource  Conservation and
  Recovery Act  (RCRA) that  resulted from the
  facilities' long-standing failure to properly treat,
•  store and dispose of their hazardous  wastes. .The
  agreements resolved Notices of Noncompliance
.  (NONs) issued  during the spring and summer of
  1990 which listed multiple violations of RCRA

                     FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
noted during the 1990 inspections. Many were
repeat violations that had been  cited during
inspections in 1988 and 1989.

     In  accordance with  the  compliance
schedules established under the agreements, the
facilities  will correct all outstanding violations
of RCRA, conduct inventories to identify all the
hazardous wastes they generate, and develop a
waste  minimization  plan to [determine the
procedures needed  to reduce the volume and
toxicity of those wastes.  Since these  facilities
had a history of noncompliance with the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations, Region  9  was
pleased  to have the full cooperation  of the
Marine Corps in negotiating these FFCAs. When
fully  implemented,  they  will contribute
significantly to  the protection of the health and
environment of all who live and work on and in
the vicinity of the four bases.

SUBBASEBangor: On January 29,  1990, the U.S.
Navy, the  Washington State Department of
Ecology, and the EPA entered into a CERCLA §120
Agreement to perform comprehensive studies and
remedial actions to address public health and
environmental  threats  from  the  base, in
accordance with the procedures specified in the
National  Contingency Plan.  This is the first such
Agreement with the Department of Defense in
this region to include hazardous sites not listed on
the National Priorities List and is  the first such
Agreement with the U.S. Navy in Region X. In
keeping  with  EPA's "bias  for  action," the
Agreement calls  for  completing  10 Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies within 48
months after the January 29th effective date of
the Agreement.

Region IX Agreements:  In FY 1990, Region IX
negotiated an unprecedented 12 Federal Facility
Agreements  under CERCLA with various DOD
installations listed  on the National  Priorities
List.  Agreements were signed with Riverbank
Army Ammunition Depot, March. Air Force Base,
Edwards Air Force Base, Fort Ord (Army), George
Air Force Base, Travis Air Force Base, Treasure
Island Naval Station (Hunters  Point  Annex),
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base,  El Toro
Marine Corps Air Station, Luke Air Force Base,
Williams Air Force  Base, and Barstow Marine
Corps Base.  These agreements extend the reach
of EPA oversight, particularly in the  area of
removal response, and include as signatories the
California Department of Health  Services and
Regional  Water Quality Control Boards for
California  installations  and  the Arizona
Department of Environmental  Quality and the
Arizona  Department of Water  Resources for
Arizona installations.

In the matter of U.S. Department of the Army,
Cornhusker Aimy Ammunition Plant, Hall
County. Nebraska: In April 1990, the Department
of the Army, the State of Nebraska, and EPA
completed negotiation  of a CERCLA  §  120
Federal Facility Compliance. Agreement for the
Cornhusker Army 4snmuniti°n,r>larit (CAAP).
CAAP was constructed in 1942, and was used for
the production  of conventional munitions  and
ammonium nitrate fertilizer.   The  facility has
been in inactive status since 1973 and currently no
explosives are produced or stored at CAAP. In
1987  and 1988,  approximately 40,000 tons of
explosives-contaminated soils from site surface
impoundments were incinerated on-site, pursuant
to  an earlier  Federal Facility Compliance
Agreement.   Groundwater  contamination
originating on-site adversely affected residential
drinking water supply wells in  Grand Island,
Nebraska.  CAAP -was listed  on the National
Priorities List in 1987.  The  Federal Facility
Compliance Agreement requires the Army to
conduct a remedial investigation  and feasibility
study, including  possible  identification  of
operable  units, pertaining to soil, surface water
and ground water contamination, and to conduct
the remedial action(s) selected for the site.  The
project costs are currently estimated at $14.8

In.-the.matter of U.S. Department of the Army,
Weldon Springs Ordnance Workj$: On August 7,
1990, the  Missouri Department  of Natural
Resources, the Department of the Army, and EPA
completed  negotiation of  the  Federal Facility
Compliance Agreement for Removal Actions,
Remedial  Investigation/Feasibility Studies,
Remedial  Action  selection  and  Remedial
Design/Remedial Actions for all  releases at the
Weldon Springs Ordnance Works Site, St. Charles
County, MO.  The 17,000 acre site has soil  and .
groundwater contaminated with TNT, DNT and
lead,  among other hazardous substances.  The
project costs, currently estimated at $26.5 million,
are to be fully funded by Department of the Army.

In the matter of U.S. Department  of Energy.  St.
Louts Airport Sitesf St. Louis, Missouri; In June
1990,  the Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA
completed negotiation of a CERCLA §120 Federal
Facility Compliance Agreement  for various sites,

                          FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
which are collectively referred to as the St. Louis
Airport Sites.  These sites are generally  located
near Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, in
St. Louis, MO.  The sites are contaminated with
wastes  related  to uranium  ore  processing
activities conducted for the Manhattan Engineer
District, and  subsequently the Atomic  Energy
Commission.   The Federal Facility Compliance
Agreement requires DOE to conduct a Remedial
Investigation and feasibility study for these sites
and to conduct the 'selected remedial action(s).
The estimated project costs are $800 million.

In the gjattgf of U-S- Department of Energy.
Mound Plant:   In August 1990, EPA and DOE
entered  into a  two-party Federal  Facility
Agreement under CERCLA § 120 for DOE's Mound
Plant in Miamisburg, OH. The costs of cleaning
up  the Mound site may  reach $800 million.
Mound produced detonators  for the nuclear
weapons program.   Environmental hazards
discovered at the  site include a leaking  landfill
and the migration of plutonium wastes off-site.

     The terms of  the agreement specify that
DOE will conduct an RI/FS and will implement
the RD/RA following  the selection of a remedy.
As  in  other  Federal  facility  cases, EPA
successfully concluded a Superfund agreement at
Mound well before the statutory deadline of 180
days after the completion of an Rl/FS.

In the matter of U.S. Department of Energy. Feed
Materials Production Cente^. Fernald, OH;   An
interagency agreement with the  U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE) for  the cleanup of the Feed
Materials Production Center (FMPO in Fcrnald,
OH, became effective June 29, 1990.  DOE's five-
year  cleanup plan  projects  $2  billion  in
expenditures  through 1996.  DOE permanently
stopped production at FMPC October 1, 1990, but
750 production workers are  being retrained as
field technicians for the cleanup.  The 1,250-acre
FMPC is primarily a uranium metals processing
facility that makes products for the U.S.  nuclear
weapons program. The Hanford, WA, plant and
Femald will be models for the cleanup of 17 other
DOE nuclear installations and other government
and privately owned nuclear activity sites.

     The agreement requires DOE to conduct four
removal  actions more quickly address critical
areas before  a final comprehensive  cleanup is
performed. EPA  will oversee  removal  actions
that DOE must perform, specifically: removing
contaminated  ground water from under FMPC
                                                    buildings;  stabilizing  and  reducing  radon
                                                    emissions tanks containing radioactive residues
                                                    from  the  Manhattan  Project;  collecting
                                                    contaminated storm-water runoff from the waste
                                                    pit areas;  and intercepting the contaminated
                                                    ground-water plume in the off-site Paddy's Run
                                                    area before it reaches the Great Miami River.

                                                         To simplify this comprehensive cleanup,
                                                    the site has been divided into five separate units.
                                                    For  each  unit,  DOE  will  complete  the
                                                    investigation and the study of contamination and
                                                    implement the selected remedy according to the
                                                    schedule set  by  the  five separate  decision

                                                         The agreement ensures  that DOE will
                                                    quickly clean  up the facility in a way  that is
                                                    most  protective of human health  and  the

                                                    Resource Conservation and Recovery
                                                    Act (RCRA) Enforcement

                                                         The RCRA enforcement program supports a
                                                    comprehensive regulatory and corrective action
                                                    program to ensure the safe treatment, storage, and
                                                    disposal of hazardous  wastes.  In  FY 1990 the
                                                    program reflected the continued transition from
                                                    enforcing interim status requirements to enforcing
                                                    requirements  in permits  and closure  plans,
                                                    requiring and enforcing corrective action in
                                                    permits and orders, and enforcing the hazardous
                                                    waste export  and  land disposal restriction
                                                    regulations. In particular, the RCRA enforcement
                                                    program launched a major initiative to  enforce
                                                    the land disposal restrictions (LDR) provisions
                                                    under RCRA,  The  LDR initiative resulted in
                                                    eight  judicial  cases filed by EPA  and  the
                                                    Department of Justice.

                                                    American Mining Congress v. EPA: In a decision
                                                   .upholding EPA's jurisdiction under  the Resource
                                                    Conservation  and  Recovery  Act, a   federal
                                                    appeals court held July 10,1990, that EPA did not
                                                    exceed its  statutory authority in regulating
                                                    certain metal smelting residues as "solid  wastes"
                                                    under RCRA even where such residues "may at
                                                    some time in the future be reclaimed" via return
                                                    to the original process generating those residues.

                                                         The decision, by the U.S. Court of Appeals
                                                    for  the  D.C.  Circuit,  clearly  supports EPA's
                                                    position  that  recyclable  materials  may be
                                                    "discarded" and thus within RCRA's jurisdiction.

                     FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
The  Court  explicitly  stated  that "potential
reuse" of a material does not preclude Subtitle C
regulation as a "solid waste,"

     The decision extends the D.C. Circuit's June
26 decision in API v. EPA, which also upheld
EPA's authority to regulate recyclable material
under RCRA, signaling an important clarification
in the court's approach to recycling issues.

In the matter of AVCO Textron Lycoming: In one
of the first export cases  under  the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, Region I filed an
administrative complaint April 4, 1990, against
AVCO Corp. Textron Lycoming. The complaint,
involving  one of  the  larger  administrative
penalties sought under RCRA, alleged a  number
of violations of the RCRA export rules. EPA seeks
a penalty of $254,000.  The export regulations
require prior consent from the receiving country
before hazardous  wastes are  exported.  EPA
claims  that  AVCO failed to get consent  for
exports that exceeded quantities specified in an
original consent,  thereby exporting  several
hundred    shipments   without  consent.
Additionally, EPA  alleges that several  other
export and manifest requirements were violated.

U.S. and the State of Louisiana v. Browning-
Ferris Industries - Chemical Servicesjnc., and
CECOS International, Inc.: A consent decree was
entered in the U.S. District Court for the  Western
District of Louisiana, on August 16,1990 involving
these  Browning-Ferris  subsidiaries   which
operate a facility  in Lake Charles, Louisiana
that  handles hazardous wastes.   A number  of
violations and  environmental problems were
discovered   as   a  result   of .a   Joint
EPA/NEIC/LaDEQ  inspection  in 1987.    In
addition to paying $1.55 million  in civil
penalties  for the  violations, the settlement
included an environmental audit of the facility's
operating procedures and interim measures  to
address environmental releases at the  facility.
The civil penalties will  be equally divided with
the State  of Louisiana.   Also  included  was
withdrawal of the RCRA permit appeal, subject
to agreed modifications.'

U.S. v. Browning Ferris Industries: In September
1990, Region II  concluded a  settlement with
Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) providing for
payment of $600,000 in penalties and treble
damages, plus approximately $60,000  in past
costs, for its violation of an administrative order
requiring  it to  install stainless  steel cased
monitoring wells at the South Brunswick Landfill
site in New Jersey. BFI had challenged the order
in District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, claiming that EPA's choice
of stainless steel (as opposed to PVC plastic) was
arbitrary  and capricious, and  that EPA was
precluded from issuing the order at all since the
remedial  work  at  the site  was  carried out
pursuant to an earlier RCRA §7003 consent order.
BFI lost  that challenge, and will  comply with
EPA's CERCLA monitoring order in addition to
paying penalties, treble damages and past costs.
This will be one of the first  treble damage

In the matter of Cannon Craft Company: This
action addresses a  severe  violation of land
disposal ban and significant  deviation from the
regulations. Cannon Craft Company in Sulphur
Springs,  Texas, manufactures finished wooden
louver blinds. An administrative civil complaint
was filed on September 28,  1990,  under RCRA
with a proposed penalty of $818,700, demanding
compliance  with regulations.    Allegations
included disposal and storage of hazardous waste
without  a permit, land disposal  of restricted
hazardous waste, failure to  make  a hazardous
waste determination, no contingency plan, no
personnel  training,  and   poor container
management. EPA alleges that the facility was
generating hazardous wastes, including spent
solvents,  and was disposing of it by pouring it on
the ground.

Injhe ...matter of Cardell Cabinets. Inc.: Cardell
Cabinets in San Antonio, Texas, manufactures
wooden  cabinets.   An administrative civil
complaint was issued on September 28, 1990, under
RCRA with a proposed penalty of $774,065,
demanding  compliance with  regulations.
Allegations included violations of requirements
for generators of hazardous waste (including
spent solvents), storage of  hazardous  wastes
without  a permit, and  disposal of hazardous
wastes by allowing open drainage from  the
facility onto the ground in violation of the land
disposal restrictions.
U.S. v. Chemical Wast£
                                   ,. Inc.:  A
consent decree lodged in September, 1990 and
approved by the  Court in November,  1990,
provides that Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
(CWM) must pay a $750,000 penalty for RGRA
violations at its Vickery, OH, facility. EPA sued
CWM in 1988 for  failure to .either apply1 for a
permit or submit a closure plan for five surface

                           FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 impoundments by November 8,1985, the statutory
 loss of interim status (LOIS) deadline.  EPA's
 lawsuit also sought stipulated penalties for two
 failures'by CWM to submit timely and adequate
 ground water monitoring reports under a prior
 agreement. In, addition ,to  the penalty, the
 settlement dismisses CWM's counterclaim and.
 establishes deadlines for submitting closure plans
 for the surface impoundments. EPA and _CWM
 also agreed to a deadline by  which CWM must
 close an enormous sludge pile.             .    .

 U.S. v. Conservation Chemical of Illinois (CCCD:
 The United States obtained summary judgment on
 liability and  favorable  rulings in all other
 pending motions in this RCRA LOIS case, one of
•the  first such  cases  filed  (in 1986).   The
 Government named  the corporation and" the
 president/chief  stockholder  as defendants.
 Summary   judgment was previously, granted
 against the president, who was involved in the
 facility's  operations  and   a   90  percent
 shareholder. The court found that,the company
 president was also liable as the  "operator."

      The court reaffirmed EPA's  authority to
 enforce RCRA in authorized states and ruled that
 earlier activities may  be included. in  RCRA
 liability. Finally, the court ruled that CCCI had
 lost interim status   by  admittedly failing to
 certify compliance with groundwater monitoring
 and financial responsibility requirements.

 U.S. v. Clean Harbors of Cleveland:  In August,
 1990, an action was filed against Clean Harbors
 of Cleveland,  Inc. (formerly-Chem Clear/Inc.),
 which  owns  and operates  a  facility for the
 treatment of industrial wastewater and  sludge.
 The  complaint  filed  in this  matter  cited
 violations of interim status standards applicable
 to  hazardous  waste treatment,  storage  and
 disposal facilities, and  non-compliance, with a
 consent  decree and  final order issued  against
 Chem Clear on March 4, 1985  for violations of
 interim status standards.  The complaint also
 included a "claim for corrective action  at .the
 facility.                   .            • "

      As a result of this action, a consent decree
 was entered into by the parties.  The consent
 decree required payment of a civil penalty of
 $60,000 and corrective action regarding release of
 approximately 2, 500-3,000 gallons of chromic
 acid from  a tank on the facility.  The penalty
 agreed to in the consent decree is in addition to an
• earlier -administrative   penalty  of $45,000.
 Moreover, the consent decree.provides for conduct
 of environmentally beneficial projects, including
 a favorable injunctiye settlement .requiring
 remedial work  including a broad array  of
 sampling and  analysis activities ;at the entire
 facility. If these activities result in detection of
 certain levels of  contamination, cleanup of soil
 and groundwater  are  required.  Defendant's
 obligations to conduct investigations and, where
 necessary, perform remedial work, include areas
 of the site and  hazardous constituents unrelated
 to the chromic  acid spill.

 U.S. v. Copperweld Steel Co.: Copperweld Steel
 Co.Mtfill pay a  $110,000 RCRA civil  penalty and
 perform a  RCRA  closure of  its  surface
 impoundment, waste pile, and landfills under a
 consent decree entered May 14, 1990, in Federal
 District court in Ohio.  Copperweld's Warren,
 Ohio,  plant manufactures steel and steel alloys
 through the electric arc furnace (EAF) process.
 The consent'decree requires correction of RCRA
"violations  in Copperweld's treatment,  storage
 and disposal of EAF dust and other hazardous
 wastes.   The  government claims  that  these
 occurred in the Warren plant's container storage
 area, EAF baghouse, unpermitted waste pile, and
 land disposal facilities.  Copperweld further is
 required to establish financial assurance  for
 post-closure care.

 In the matter of  CP Chemicals: EPA issued an
 Administrative Order to CP Chemicals for the
 continued  use of its hazardous waste  surface
 impoundments (Lagoons 1-3) for a limited time
 beyond -the statutory date for Loss of  Interim
 Status. . The Administrative Order also cited
 numerous violations revealed during an EPA
 inspection. A Consent Agreement and'Final Order
 has been  agreed  to between EPA and  CP
 Chemicals that includes $242,500, in penalties,
 which is the largest administrative settlement to
 date in Region IV.   v
t         •     •          *              , v.
 y.S. 'V. Escaffltbia Treating Co. Inc. et aL;  On
 December  20,  1990, the United States-District
 Court for the Northern District of Florida entered
 a partial consent decree in the Escambia Treating
 Company case. This RCRA civil action initiated
 by Region"IV  concerns an alleged scheme to
 insulate the assets of a regional wood treating
 enterprise  from its  environmental liabilities,
 carried  out by  the controlling  shareholder
 through a corporate  reorganization  and
 leveraged  buy-out using an employee  stock
 ownership  plan.  •  The  complaint alleged

                      FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
violations at each of the four Escambia Treating
facilities related to closure, post-closure  care,
groundwater monitoring and assessment, and loss
of interim status, as well as claims for corrective
action and claims under the Florida Fraudulent
Conveyances Statute.  The defendants included
Escambia Treating Company, Inc. and its parent
and  successor corporations,  the  individual
shareholder who initiated the scheme (Soule Jr.)
and his  parents.    •

     The  consent decree  settles- all  claims
against the corporate defendants, now under new
management, and it requires them to undertake
corrective action and compliance with the
regulatory requirements.  The Soule Srs.  were
recently dismissed without  prejudice.   EPA is
pursuing its claims for penalties and other  relief
against Soule Jr. The authorized RCRA programs
of three non-party states will participate in the
review  and  approval of plans and  permit
applications submitted under the decree.  As part
of the consent decree  negotiations, EPA entered
into  Memoranda  of  Understanding with the
states of  Florida, Georgia  and Mississippi,
detailing  the  roles of the states and EPA in
review  of documents, dispute resolution and

     In s related action filed in -1987, the present
ESOP trustees sued Soule Jr.; alleging that he had
fraudulently  overvalued the stock sold to the
ESOP by  failing  to  factor  into  its price the
environmental cleanup liabilities of the business.
On September 7, 1990, after a four week trial, a
jury found that Soule Jr. had
committed fraud under the federal securities laws
and  state law and had breached his fiduciary
duties as a trustee of the ESOP. The jury ordered
Soule Jr. to pay $2.29 million in compensatory
damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. By
year-end, the  trial judge had not yet ruled on
pending opposing motions to enter and to set aside
the verdict. Under the EPA consent decree, any
funds recovered by the companies from Soule Jr.
will be placed in escrow accounts set aside for the
RCRA cleanups. Following an investigation in
which EPA cooperated, on September 21,  1990,
the Department of Labor filed suit against Soule
Jr. for violations  of the Employee  Retirement
Income  Security Act, based on  his actions as a
trustee  of the ESOP  in connection with the
leveraged buy-out and corporate reorganization.
It is alleged that Soule Jr. breached his fiduciary
duties and defrauded the ESOP  by failing to
disclose RCRA liabilities in the  buy-out and by
acting to insulate himself from environmental
liability at the expense of the ESOP.

\J-Sr VT Environmental Waste Control;  On October
31, 1990, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit affirmed in all respects  the
district court's* order assessing $2.778 million in
civil penalties, the highest RCRA civil judicial
penalty ever assessed by a court.  This case was
originally filed as part of the Agency's loss of
•interim   status   initiative  to  enforce   the
groundwater   monitoring  and  financial
responsibility provisions of RCRA. In affirming
the  district  court,  the Seventh  Circuit also
permanently enjoined  operation of the landfill
and ordered -corrective  action,  rejected  the
company's "good faith" defense, and rejected its
claim  of  reliance  on allegedly  erroneous
statements by the RCRA hotline.

In the matter of General Electric  Company;
General  Electric Company's West Burlington,
Iowa, operations include painting and degreasing
processes which generated halogenated and non-
halogenated spent solvents.  In September 1990,
EPA's  Region VII office  and  GE  entered  an
Administrative Order on Consent pursuant to §
3008(h) of RCRA requiring GE to conduct a RCRA
Facility  Investigation (RFI) and  Corrective
Measures Study  (CMS).   This  Order, is
particularly significant because it is one of  the
.first in the Nation to provide for third-party
mediation pursuant to EPA "Final Guidance on
Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques
in Enforcement Actions"  (August 14,  1987) to
resolve additional work disputes. Virgin solvents
were stored in 55-gallon drums and a 350-gallon
above-ground tank; spent solvents were stored in
55-gallon drums.  Operations at  the facility
resulted in  releases of hazardous  wastes or
hazardous waste  constituents to the soil and
groundwater at its former  West-Burlington, Iowa
switchboard and switch-gear manufacturing
facility.   Sampling and  soil excavation was
conducted during closure of the hazardous waste
container storage area in 1986.  Further soil and
hydrogeologic investigations were conducted in
late 1986 and in 1987. A phase III  hydrogeologic
investigation is currently in progress,

In ihe matter of Gilbert & Bennett Manufacturing
Company:    In July, 1990, Region  I  filed  an
administrative  enforcement action against  the
Gilbert and Bennett Manufacturing Company of
Georgetown, Connecticut. This administrative
action  includes one of the largest RCRA penalty

                          FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
assessments in the Region. The complaint seeks a
penalty  of  $587,114  for  the operation  of
hazardous waste surface impoundments between
November 1985 and August 1987 without a permit
or interim status, the operation of a hazardous
waste container storage facility from October
1989 until January 1990 without  a permit or
interim status,  the failure  to implement  a
groundwater monitoring program from November
1981 until January 1989, the failure to determine
the groundwater concentrations of all of the
required parameters for each quarter of required
groundwater monitoring during 1989, and several
additional base  RCRA program violations. The
Gilbert and Bennett Company manufactured
metal wire fence from November 1980 until July
1989 when the company ceased all manufacturing
operations and commenced a facility  wide
cleanup.  During operation, Gilbert  and Bennett
generated several  RCRA hazardous wastes,
including waste acids, waste alkalis, solvent
waste,  lead skimming waste/  and  metal
hydroxide sludge.

In the matter of IBM Corporation " M^yiassas, VA:
 On March 1, 1989,  EPA and IBM entered into a
Consent Order  pursuant to §3008(h) of RCRA.
Under the terms of this Consent Order, IBM was
required to complete an onsite  and offsite
investigation of the nature and extent of the
contamination emanating from its facility and to
conduct a study which evaluated various cleanup
alternatives.  IBM completed  this investigation
and submitted to EPA for approval a Corrective
Measure Study  (CMS) which evaluated four
Corrective  Measure Alternatives  (CMAs) for
contaminant remediation. Based on the final EPA
approved CMS, EPA prepared a RCRA Record of
Decision  (ROD),   signed, by  the  Regional
Administrator in July, 1990, that provides EPA's
rationale for the selection of the  CM A.  The
selected  CM A  addresses onsite  and offsite
groundwater contamination as well as onsite
source remediation. This is the first RCRA ROD
written'in the country.

In the matter of Walt DisneyJnc.: As part, of an
administrative enforcement initiative aimed at a
group of California generators who improperly
shipped  hazardous  wastes to  facilities  in
Wyoming and  Utah, Region  VIII  initiated  an
administrative enforcement action against the
Walt Disney Company for improper disposal of
spent solvents and other hazardous wastes. This
action resulted  in a settlement that included a
civil penalty of $550,000, plus  an environmental
audit of all domestic facilities of the corporation,
and  an  environmental training program.  The
penalty obtained as a result of this action is eight
times larger than any previous administrative
penalty collected by  Region VIII under  any

U,S. v. ILCQ, et aL: On December 10,1990, more
than two years after the case went to trial, the
U.S.  District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama issued its decision in United States v.
ILCO. et al. This action includes claims under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
the  Clean   Water  Act  (CWA),  and  the
Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
against ILCO (a,k.a. Interstate Lead Company) a
secondary lead  smelter  located in  Leeds,
Alabama.  The court found that ILCO  had
violated  numerous  provisions  of   RCRA.
Significantly, the court found that the furnace
blast slag generated by ILCO is EP toxic for lead,
and  therefore a hazardous waste under RCRA.
The court also found that the sampling method
employed by ILCO to test the slag is not
appropriate under the RCRA regulations.

     The court also  found that ILCO  had
discharged pollutants in violation of its NPDES
permit on at least 340 occasions, and that ILCO
had discharged pollutants without a permit on at
least 194 occasions. Accordingly, the court found
ILCO, as  well  as  its  president Diego  Maffei,
liable for civil  penalties and injunctive relief.
However,  the court has not yet ruled  on the
penalties.  The court also found ILCO and Maffei
liable under CERCLA for response costs incurred
by the United States in responding to an ILCO
disposal site.         ,

U.S. v. Lacks,. Industries,. Inc.! A federal court in
Michigan ordered an  electroplater  to  pay
$250,000 in  civil penalties  and  implement  a
closure plan under RCRA for the firm's seepage
lagoons. The June 22 decision by the U.S. District
Court for the  Western District of Michigan
involved Lacks Industries,  Inc., an electroplater
that  plated, plastic automobile  parts  at its
Saranac, Michigan, facility.

     Judge Gibson found that Lacks disposed of
metal hydroxides rinse water in unlined seepage
lagoons throughout the 1970s and 'continuing
through February 1982.  Lacks failed to notify
EPA as  a  hazardous waste handler in 1980 or
submit  a Part A permit application  for its

                      FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 facility under  the Resource Conservation and
 Recovery Act.  The firm never received interim
 status, failed to comply with the ground water
 monitoring  and   financial  responsibility
 requirements of RCRA, and did not submit a Part
 B application.  Finally, Lacks' discharges to the
 seepage lagoon, violated the terms of its NPDES
 permit,  which  prohibited  discharge of rinse
 water into ground water after February 1981.

 U.S. v.  LaClede  Steel:     In July, 1990,  the
 complaint was filed in this RCRA section 3008(a)
 action.  This action concerns the LaClede Steel
 facility in Alton, Illinois  which generates K061
 electric arc furnace (baghouse) dust from its steel
 production.  Although this case is the third civil
 judicial case seeking to enforce the land disposal
 restrictions requirements, it is the first  case to
 involve primarily LDR violations.  The  alleged
 LDR violations include failure  to perform
 adequate waste analysis,  failure to keep proper
 records, and unlawful land disposal.

 U.S. v. Marine Shale  Processors:   In June, 1990,
 the United States  filed a  multimedia  civil
 judicial action against Marine Shale Processors,
 Inc. (MSP)  of St. Mary's  Parish,  Louisiana
 pursuant to RCRA and the Clean Water Act.  In
 this action, the United States alleges that MSP
 is a "sham recycler"  that has been improperly
 operating without a RCRA permit.  In addition,
 the United  States alleges  that MSP violated the
 Land  Disposal Restrictions requirements  by
 placing waste that exceeded treatment standards
"on the ground  at its facility in Louisiana. MSP,
 the largest  burner of hazardous waste in the
 country, claims not to operate an incinerator but to
 run an exempt recycling operation that burns
 hazardous  waste in  order  to recover the fuel
 value in the waste and produce a product that it
 claims to market as "aggregate" or fill material.

 U.S. VL Master Metals, Inc.:   A consent decree
 requiring Master Metals,  Inc. to close specified
 treatment,  storage,  and disposal  units was
 entered in January 1990. EPA alleged  that Master
 Metals  had lost its interim status  (temporary
 authority) to legally operate all units except for
 certain  container storage areas  that were not
 subject  to loss-of-interim-status provisions. The
 settlement also required  Master  Metals  (which
 emerged  from bankruptcy in 1988) to  pay a
 $20,000 civil  penalty,  comply  with  RCRA
 operating and management requirements, prepare
 closure plans for the entire facility, maintain
 financial assurance and obtain financial liability
coverage. The decree also required Master Metals
to stop using all operating hazardous waste units,
to remove all waste from the units and to close
them if proper financial liability coverage was
not obtained within 180 days.

      On July 9, 1990, Master  Metals  filed a
motion requesting an additional six months to
comply, claiming it  was impossible  to obtain
coverage. On August 29,1990, EPA petitioned the
court to enforce the decree  and hold  Master
Metals in contempt. The Government supported
its   motion  with  affidavits  about  the
availability  of   liability   coverage   and
documentation of continuing violations of the
decree.  Master Metals opposed the Government's
motion on October 5,1990. Additional pleadings
were filed by  both parties.  Following a status
conference on February 4,1991, the Court agreed to
issue an order requiring the defendant to obtain
the  required  liability coverage  or  close.
Stipulated  penalties for the consent  decree
violations are  still being evaluated.

In  the  matter  of  Penberthy Electromelt
International. Inc.: On June 7,1990, EPA obtained
an  administrative warrant for  entry into  the
Penberthy Electromelt International, Inc. facility
in  Seattle,  Washington, for the .purpose of
determining the need for corrective action at the
facility. The  owner/operator had submitted a
RCRA Part B permit application for the storage
and  treatment of  hazardous  waste.   The
treatment involved thermal treatment units that
use electric current to raise temperatures to the
desired level, with  the  purported  effect of
destroying hazardous  wastes.  A warrant was
required because of the owner's refusal to allow
access  to the  building housing the thermal
treatment units during routine inspection,

U.S. v. Sanders Lead Company:  On October 18,
1989, a complaint was filed against Sanders Lead
Company, a  secondary lead smelter located in
Troy,  Alabama.   The Complaint  seeks civil
penalties and injunctive relief  for  numerous
violations of RCRA, as well as corrective action.
The alleged  violations include illegal operation
of at least seven land disposal units for up to two
years after the facility had lost interim status to
operate those units.   Alleged  violations  also
include discharge of acidic waste into a surface
impoundment in violation of the RCRA land
disposal restrictions, and other  miscellaneous
regulatory  violations.   The  action also seeks
corrective action to address the  release  of  lead

                            FY1990 Efforcement Accomplishments Report
 and other heavy metals  into the environment
 from  the facility.   The case is currently  in
 discovery, and:is set for  trial on September 3,
 1991.-    •        .              . .-' _

 U.S.v. Solvents Recovery Service pf New Ifogland
 et al. (RCRA/CERCLA):  In July, 1990,  a  civil
 judicial  action  was'filed, against  Solvents
 Recovery Service of New  England, Inc. (SRSNE)
 for.-.violations of SRSNE's- hazardous  waste
, permits, for violations of RGRA's Land Disposal
' Restrictions, and for cost recovery for EPA-funded
 cleanup  activities  being  performed  under
 CERGLA authority. .  At the  same time, the
..United States filed a motion to enforce a consent
 decree entered between SRSNE and the  United
•States  in. 1983.,: SRSNE  is a.RCRA-permitted
 hazardous waste  treatment! and storage  facility
 located in Southington, Connecticut.  Since 1955, it
• has i accepted waste'solvents  from numerous
 generators, at first distilling them and reselling
 them to generators, later blending them into a
 hazardous waste fuel for resale. The Complaint
 seeks civil penalties for  the RCRA violations;
 $777,000 in past response costs under CERCLA;
 the recovery of all future  costs to be incurred in
 cleaning  up. the site; .the revocation of SRSNE's  ,
 authority to operate •  a  hazardous  .waste
 management facility; and' the closure  of the   ;
• facility in accordance with an approved closure
 plan.  The motion to enforce the consent  decree
 seeks penalties for, violations of the decree and
 the rebuilding of a ground water recovery  system
 which SRSNE was required to build and operate.
. Discovery is presently underway.

 U. S. -v.  United Technologies Corporation:   -In
 September, 1990,  a civil -judicial  suit was filed
 against United .Technologies Corporation  (UTC),
 a  major  government,'contractor   which
 manufactures aircraft engines and  parts. The suit
 alleges over one hundred violations of RCRA at
 six different UTC facilities in Connecticut.  The
 government is seeking injunctive relief and a civil
 penalty.  Despite numerous EPA administrative
 actions in recent years, the government  alleges
 the company has failed to comply with RCRA's
 requirements for storage  and  handling  of
 hazardous wastes. The case is notable in that it
 combines RCRA violations at various facilities
 into a single lawsuit. The environmental  benefit
 to be achieved by proceeding in  this manner is
 that,   rather  than  simply  curing  isolated
 violations  at a particular  plant,  a  major  •
 corporation is being forced: to improve its  overall
'environmental management practices»across a
 wider spectrum of its facilities.  As part of any
 settlement, .the  government  will.be seeking-a
 multi-facility, multi-media audit.   The audit
 would  seek  to   detect"  .any  additional
 environmental compliance problems and suggest
 improvements in operating procedures to prevent
 future compliance problems.;,-     ,.    •     •
   •      '     '  '    .•-   •:..•'•     '    •  t., i
 U.S. v. Vjncland Chemical CQ,. Inc.* In the second
 largest penalty award of its  kind, a  federal
 district court in New Jersey April 30 ordered the
 •Vineland .Chemical Co. and  its owners to  pay
 $1,223,000. in civil penalties for  violating federal
 hazardous waste management.laws.  Criticizing
 the bad  faith of the defendants,  Judge John F.
 Gerry of the U.S. District Court for the District of
 New Jersey ordered ;penalties of. $1,000 per day
 for each of the;l,233 days of violations of the Loss
 of Interim Status provisions ,of the Resource
 Conservation and Recovery Act.           ; •

 Toxic Substances Control Act
 (TSCA) Enforcement

      TSCA enforcement responds to violations of
 regulations for .both new (pfe-manufacturing
 notification) and existing chemicals.1 In FY 1990,
 asbestos enforcement  emphasized - compliance
:with the recently enacted Asbestos Hazardous
 and Emergency Response Act (AHERA)'.  PCB
 enforcement centered upon violations involving
 permitted  disposal  sites  or  intermediate
 handlers and brokers.  Significant attention  also
 was devoted to" ensuring the proper cleanup of
 PCB-contaminated natural gas pipelines (e.g.,
 the landmark Texas Eastern case, see below).

 U.S. v. Boliden Metech:  A final decision of the
 Administrator affirmed convincingly the Initial
 Decision of the Administrative Law Judge  that
 Boliden had  a duty to assure that material  and
 oil  containing PCBs  did  not   enter  the
 environment. Significant defenses raised  by
 Boliden were  also  rejected, including  the
 contention that  government inspectors illegally
 searched the perimeter of the Boliden property
 in  violation  of vthe 29th Amendment to the
 Constitution  "right  to. privacy"  and that EPA
 needed to1'collect "statistically representative"
 samples in order to prove violations of the PCB
 storage  and  disposal  violations.   The' final
 decision  holds  that  EPA   evidence  of
 contamination in a number of scrap metal piles
 was sufficient evidence to prove that illegal PCB
 disposal had  taken place.  A $32,000 fine  was

FY1990 Eitforeemeni Accomplishments Report'
imposed.                            '

      To obtain full  site decontamination,  a
complaint was filed in Federal  District Court.
The Region aggressively pursued settlement of
the judicial action against Boliden Metech during
FY 1990, and by the end of the fiscal year reached
a settlement in principle.  This case is significant
because of its technical complexities concerning
shredder, fluff and  analytical  methodologies.
Successful settlement of  this complex case will
result in a comprehensive environmental cleanup
of PCB contamination at Boliden Metech's Rhode
Island site.  The terms of the settlement raise a
complicated international export  issue which
required coordination with foreign contacts and
the Agency's International Affairs Office.

In  the Matter of  Celotex Coip.;   In a strong
precedent  for increasing penalties  for  prior
knowledge of regulatory requirements arid bad
attitude, Administrative Law Judge Yost April 12
fined Celotex Corp. $31,900 for PCB violations at
their  Peoria, Illinois,  facility.   Region V
successfully  presented  a  prima  facia  case
concerning  the failure of Celotex to maintain
annual  inventory records, visual inspections of
transformers for leaks and improper marking and
storage of PCBs. A total penalty of $45,550 was
proposed.          •   ,           •     <

      While Judge  Yost rejected EPA's attempt to
-use a prior PCB  settlement as evidence of a
"history of prior  violations" to increase the
penalty by 50 percent, he did agree with Region
V to raise the  fine by  10 percent because Celotex
had knowledge of  the PCB regulations, failed to
provide certain documents the inspector requested ^
and failed to correct certain violations identified
by the inspector.
U.S. v. Chemical Waste Management:  Region V
and  Chemical Waste  Management (CWM)
Chemical  Services,  Inc. signed  a  consent
agreement and consent order calling for payment
of a $3.75  million  civil penalty for violating the
PCB disposal  requirements of TSCA.  The  $3.75
Million penalty is the  largest  administrative
penalty ever imposed on a single facility in EPA's
history.  The complaint was based on a review of
CWM's operating  records, the company's own
internal investigation, and inspections by NEIC
and Region V. This case  is significant because it
involves violations  of the  PCB disposal  and
permit  requirements  of   the regulations.
Violations of these requirements by commercial
storage or disposal  operators are the highest
              ^                            4-45
                         priority of the PCB enforcement program and
                         maximum penalties will be sought.

                         In the matter of DSM Resins. Inc.: Region II has
                         continued its active enforcement of TSCA Import
                         and PMN requirements.' In September the Region
                         issued an administrative complaint to  DSM
                         Resins, Inc., citing violations of §5 and §13, and
                         proposing a penalty of $2.3 million. DSM is a
                         subsidiary of  a  large  Dutch-based chemical
                         conglomerate.  After Region II  inspected the
                         firm's import operations, the company  "self-
                         confessed" to many violations including failure to
                         file" pre-manufacturing  notifications prior • to
                         importation and failure  to submit notices of
                         commencement of  import immediately  after
                         import.  The complaint  also cites instances of
                         failure to certify or improper certifications to the
                         Customs Service at the times of importation.

                         In the matter of General Electric;  Regions  III, V,
                         VI, and X issued five administrative complaints
                         against  General  Electric  for violating the
                         disposal requirements for PCBs under TSCA. EPA
                         proposed to  assess a  total  civil penalty of
                         $4,057,275 for  operating a solvent distillation
                         system without a  permit in the above regions.
                         These cases are significant because they involve
                         violations of  the  PCB  disposal and  permit
                         requirements  of  the regulations.   Settlement
                         discussions and motions are pending. Violations
                         of these requirements by commercial storage or
                         disposal operators are the highest priority of the
                         PCB  enforcement  program  and  maximum
                         penalties will be sought.

                         In the Matter of General Industrial Insulation,
                         Inc. CAMERA);  In July 1990, EPA and General
                         Industrial  Insulation, Inc. (GO), an asbestos
                         contractor in Benicia, California  agreed on an
                         $8500 settlement of  an enforcement  action that
                         was  brought  against  Gil  under  the  Toxic
                         Substances Control Act's asbestos-in-schools rule,
                         the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
                         (AHERA).  The  complaint charged Gil  with
                         failure to properly collect sufficient air clearance
                         samples after an asbestos removal project at a
                         school district.    Under AHERA, asbestos
                         contractors  are required to  follow  prescribed
                         abatement procedures designed to protect the
                         environment and  the health  and well-being of
                         school occupants and abatement workers.

                         In  the  matter   of P.  D.  George:    This
                         administrative  enforcement action was brought
                         pursuant  to  the Toxic Substances Control Act

                           FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
(TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 etseq. In March of 1989,
EPA filed an administrative complaint against
the P. D. George Company. The Complaint stated
that EPA had  reason to  believe that  PDG
violated TSCA by:  manufacturing nine chemical
substances prior  to submitting a premanufacture
notification (PMN) to  EPA, and by  failing  to
properly report a  Notice  of  Commencement
(NOC) for a chemical substance in accordance
with the applicable regulations.

     TSCA  §5 and ^ regulations promulgated
thereunder  require a  person  intending  to
manufacture a  new  chemical  substance  for
commercial  purposes to  submit  to EPA  a
premanufacture  notice (PMN) at least 90 days
prior to the first such manufacture. The failure to
comply with these requirements is a violation of
TSCA  §15(1)(B).

     The Respondent has filed the appropriate
TSCA §5 notices {premanufacture notices (PMNs),
polymer  exemption applications, etc.) for all 9
substances.  All chemicals .completed  the TSCA
review without imposition of a §5(e)  or 5(0 order.
Further, the Respondent has corrected all of the
notices of commencement for these 9 substances.
The March 16, 1989, administrative complaint
proposed a gravity  based penalty of $1,909,000
for these violations.   During the course  of
negotiations PDG was able to demonstrate  to
EPA's satisfaction that 8 of the 9 chemicals were
eligible for application of the polymer exemption
rule.  Therefore, the  proposed  gravity-based
penalty was revised to equal $1,261,000.

     On October  2,  1990  the Chief Judicial
Officer  ratified  a  Consent  Agreement  that
requires P.D, George to; pay a $527,850 penalty;
recover and incinerate buried .drums of paint
wastes and resins; and conduct a TSCA  5 and 8
Audit to identify and correct reporting violations
under these statutory provisions.  P.D. George
intends to spend more than $200,000 to recover
and incinerate the buried drums of paint wastes
and resins, and an additional $210,000 to conduct
the TSCA §5 and §8 Audit.  Stipulated penalties
will accrue for those violations identified,
reported, and corrected under the Audit

In the matter of  Hall-Kimbrel| (AHEl^A); This
administrative complaint was filed for over  $1
million. The company  failed to properly conduct
inspections and write asbestos management plans
for Local Education  Agencies. Since Hall-
Kimbrell  is one of the largest companies in this
 business, this action should send a clear message
 to other contractors that EPA is serious about
 enforcing  the  AHERA.   Hall-Kimbrell  has
 offered the Region a proposed settlement which
 would be  on a  global  basis for all ten regions.
 Region  ,VIII   is  currently  working -with
 headquarters and the other nine regions to reach
 an agreement for a national settlement.

 In the Matter of Halocarbon Products CQ,;  The
 first TSCA administrative complaint has been
 filed involving a known fatality from a chemical
 release subject  to the substantial  risk reporting
 provision  of the statute.  An administrative
 complaint was filed seeking a penalty, of $175,000
 against Halocarbon Pro ducts Corporation of
 Hackensack,  NJ.

      The  complaint charges  Halocarbon with
 violating the substantial risk reporting provision
 of §8(e) of TSCA.  Halocarbon failed to submit
 information to EPA regarding the  human health
 effects of  a  .chemical  mixture that  killed  one
 employee and seriously injured another as the
 result of an accidental release of the substance in
 February 1989.

      EPA  read  about  the  death and inspected
 the company in  March 1989 and discovered that
 Halocarbon  had never submitted the required
 §8(e)  substantial  risk information on  the
 chemical mixture to the Agency. EPA is seeking
 the statutory maximum of $25,000 per day for
 each business day that Halocarbon failed to file
 the §8(e) report.

 In the matter of Monsanto: This administrative
 enforcement  action was brought pursuant to the
 Toxic Substances Control -Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C.
 2601  e_t ggq.  On or about October 15, 1981,
 Monsanto obtained  a copy of a draft  report of a
 two-year chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity
 study of Santogard PVI in the rat (hereinafter
 referred to as  the  "study").  The information
 contained in  the draft  study  indicated  a
 dose-related increase in the number of female
 rats with benign liver tumors.  On July 1, 1986,
 Monsanto submitted the final report of the study
 to EPA as a "For Your Information" submission.

      On August 4,1989, the Office of Compliance
 Monitoring filed a  $ 253,200 complaint against
 the Monsanto Company alleging that Monsanto
 had failed  to  report  the  study  in a timely
 manner,  EPA alleged that the study  was TSCA
-8(e> toxkological data  and the Respondent was

                      FF 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
required to have submitted the study within 15
working days of its receipt. On January 3, 1990
the Chief  Judicial  Officer approved a Consent
Agreement in which Monsanto was required to
pay $196,230 and  conduct an extensive TSCA
§8(e) audit.  Studies submitted under the audit
were subject to stipulated penalties.  In August of
1990, Monsanto completed its TSCA  8(e) audit
and paid  an additional $648,000 in stipulated

Injhe Matter of Nippon Paint (America) Corp.
and PPG Industries. Inc.:   EPA issued a civil
administrative Complaint  charging  Nippon
Paint (America) Corporation and PPG Industries
with import and/or domestic manufacture of
seventeen chemicals not on the TSCA inventory of
existing chemical substances.  On July 24, 1990,
the Chief  Judicial  Officer approved a Consent
Agreement and Consent Order settling the TSCA
§5 and  §13  administrative enforcement action
against Nippon Paint. (America) Corporation and
PPG Industries.  Under terms of the settlement,
Nippon and PPG are jointly and severally liable
for a civil penalty of $360,000 for import and
domestic manufacture of 17 chemical substances
before completion of the PMN review period or
without timely submission  of a notice  of

In the matter of Rollins; In 1988, Region II issued
an  administrative  complaint  to   Rollins
Environmental Services, Inc., for violation of the
regulations governing  PCB  disposal.   The
complaint sought a penalty of $25,000 for Rollins'
failure to properly incinerate PCB-contaminated
rinsate.  Rollins declined to settle, and in 1989 the
Region filed a motion for accelerated decision on
the issue of liability, which was granted by  the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
     The  parties  were  ordered  to confer to
attempt a penalty settlement, but when this
proved  unsuccessful, the ALJ took briefs and
heard oral argument on the penalty issue. In July
the ALJ issued a decision awarding no penalty,
finding the  regulations and the  penalty policy
ambiguous.  The  Region appealed this decision,
and  the Agency's Judicial  Officer ruled  in
September essentially reversing the earlier ALJ
decision, and awarded  a $20,000 penalty, which
he  increased  to $25,000 in light  of  Rollins'
history of past violations.

In the matter of Sherex PoIymgySj. Inc.:   On
January 5,1990, EPA filed a civil  administrative
Complaint  against  Sherex  Polymers,  Inc.
(Sherex).  The Complaint charged Sherex with
failing to submit a premanufacture notice (PMN)
to EPA at least 90 days prior to manufacturing, on
84 separate occasions, a new chemical substance,
as required by TSCA §5(a)(l)(A) and 40 CFR Part
720.   EPA proposed, in the  Complaint,  a
Gravity-Based Penalty (GBP)  of $840,000.  On
January  30,  1990, the Chief Judicial  Officer
signed the Consent Order assessing  a civil
penalty of $252,000.              1

     The GBP was adjusted downward by 50% to
reflect Sherex's prompt self-confession of the
violations to EPA. This resulted in an adjusted
proposed penalty of $420,000.  For purposes of
settlement, consistent with other  similar TSCA
§5 settlements, EPA further reduced the adjusted
proposed penalty by 15% for taking all steps
reasonably expected by  EPA  to  mitigate the
violations.  EPA reduced the civil penalty in this
case by an additional 5% ($42,000), to $252,000,
in consideration of Respondent implementing a.
pollution prevention project  at  its Lakeland,
Florida  facility. Respondent agreed to complete
all design and construction work within 12 months
of receipt of the executed Consent Agreement, and
that it would replace the existing filtration and
recycling system by the end of this period.  The
pollution prevention project generally consists of
replacing an existing filter, system on a dimer
fatty acid production unit at the Sherex Polymers
Lakeland,  Florida facility.  The  project shall
result in waste reduction of at  least 500,000
pounds of  filter cake annually and increase the
recovery of reusable fatty acid material by over
250,000 pounds  annually (based on current
production volumes and laboratory studies of the
equipment).  Respondent stipulated that the
total cost of the pollution prevention  project
would exceed $525,000.  Respondent submitted to
EPA a written interim  status report  within six
months of its receipt of the executed Consent
Order. The latest cost estimate is that the project
would cost approximately $700,000. Respondent
shall  submit a  final status report within  one
month of the commencement of active operations
of the new  filtration system, that is, no more than
13 months  after receipt of the executed Consent

In the matter of Standard Scrap Mefol. Inc.: A
recent decision involving Region V's case against
Standard Scrap Metal, Inc. strengthens EPA's
enforcement capability concerning PCB  spills.
Prior to  February 17,  1978, PCBs spills were
considered*"in service,", and not regulated unless

                           FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
they were removed from the site. Based on this
interpretation, Region V lost  its case against
Standard Scrap Metal, who claimed that PCBs
found in soil on its property were spilled prior to
1978.  Region V appealed the case. On August 2,
1990,  the  Chief Judicial Officer ruled that  the
prior interpretation  of  the  regulations  was
applicable solely  to landfills or disposal sites,
and that  a facility does not become a disposal
site or landfill merely because  PCBs have been
spilled on it.  Thus, the disposal site exemption
for PCB spills which occurred prior to 1978 was
not available to Standard Scrap Metal,  Under
this ruling, respondents can no longer rely on the
occurrence date of PCB spills to avoid PCB
cleanup responsibility.

In the matter of Leonard Strandley. Purdy,
Washington:  Administrative Law Judge Greene
issued an Order  on October  31, 1989,  which
assessed  a  penalty  of $103,500 against the
respondent,  Leonard  Strandley.    The  Order
resulted from a Complaint dated November 15,
1984 - and amended January 19, 1988 -- which
had been before the ALJ for several years. This
case alleged PCB disposal, storage, marking, and
recordkeeping violations associated with Mr.
Strand ley's (now defunct) scrapping and  oil
recycling operations at the Purdy,  Washington
site.  The Order acknowledged EPA's desire to
structure the penalty assessment to support the
cleanup of the Purdy, Washington site, which is
currently being cleaned up under CERCLA, and
permanently remitted all  but $5,000 of the
assessed  penalty on the  condition  that the
Respondent document that an amount equaling at
least the  remitted amount  had been expended
towards cleanup of the site.
In the matter of 3-V Chemical Corporation: This
administrative enforcement action was brought
pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), 15 U.S.C.  2601 ej gsq.  Beginning in
August of 1987,  3-V  Chemical. voluntarily
self-disclosed  the violations which were-the
subject of the complaint. The Respondent had
discovered that they had: on.multiple occasions,
imported a chemical substance in violation of
TSCA §§5 and IS^failed to submit a letter of
intent to test a'substance as required  by two
separate §4
                      FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 civil penalty of $15,000,000 dollars. This is the
 largest fine ever collected by the United States
 for any environmental violation.  In addition,
 Texas Eastern agreed to decontaminate the
 spilled PCBs and chemicals at a cost estimated to
 exceed $500,000,000 dollars. Texas Eastern will
 also pay EPA more than $18,000,000 for oversight
 costs including the services of a contractor who
 will work for EPA to supervise site operations and
 and sampling data.  The cleanup program is
 expected to take more than 7 years.

      Following entry of the Consent Decree, the
 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appealed the
 settlement to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,
 charging that state interests in ensuring cleanup
 were not adequately considered and that they
 were entitled to intervene in the suit, as a matter
 of right.  This contention was rejected by the
 Court on February 13,1991.

 U.S. v. Transwcstern Pipeline Co.: This company
 operates a number of compressor stations on an
 interstate pipeline.  Region VI  has successfully
 negotiated with  the company  for the first
 regional consent decree under TSCA to address
 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination
 of a  natural gas  pipeline  and  associated
 compressor stations. The consent decree was filed
 June 13, 1990, in the U.S. District Court in New
 Mexico.   The consent decree  provides for
 assessment, of   the  extent   of  the  PCB
 contamination and cleanup standards for soil and
 equipment contamination. The cleanup costs are
 estimated  at $60 million.  The consent decree
 requires that the company provide an oversight
 contractor for use by EPA to determine compliance
 with the consent decree. Additionally, a penalty
 of $375,000 was collected.

      The consent decree was negotiated so that
 the interests of the State of New  Mexico were
 protected.   The New Mexico Environmental
. Improvement Division, the U.S. Bureau of Land
 Management, and the New Mexico State Land
 Office were involved in the negotiations as much
 as possible, and they were kept informed of all
 progress  toward  the  completion of the
 negotiations.  The Navajo and  Laguna Indians
 were informed of the results of  the negotiations.
 The consent decree reserves the rights of all other
 environmental statutes so that if violations of
 other laws are found during the cleanup, that
 program may take any action necessary. This has
 been important for the RCRA program, in that
 RCRA constituents have been found in the ground
water at one of the sites. The TSCA program has
been keeping the RCRA program informed of all
information concerning the contamination,

In the Matter of Union Camp Corporation; On
December 5,  1989,  EPA  filed  a   civil
administrative Complaint against Union Camp
Corporation alleging violations of the TSCA §5
premanufacture notification (PMN) regulations
and proposing a penalty of $285,000. The case
was  settled on May  29,  1990, by Consent
Agreement and Consent Order the terms of which
provided  for payment of a $106,000 penalty,
submission  of revised  company  policy and
procedures for PMN compliance, and development
and implementation of a five-year program of
annual  day-long  TSCA  New  Chemical
Compliance Meetings for  employees  having
responsibility  for compliance with the  PMN
requirements of TSCA.

In the matter of Union Electric Company:  This
case is  an example of how  Region VII used
administrative enforcement under TSCA to obtain
environmentally beneficial  expenditures to
dispose of PCBs.  In 1983, EPA Region VII issued
an approval to the Union Electric Company CUE),
St. Louis, Missouri, to dispose of its own PCB oils
in a high efficiency boiler.  -In 1988 and 1989,
Region  VII  inspected  the  boiler facility and
discovered violations of the UE approval.  Two
administrative complaints  were issued.   The
upfront civil penalty obtained was $79,500. In
the settlement, UE agrees to disposal of its 173
remaining askerol transformers containing 22,000
gallons of  askerol oil by  March  1992.   UE
provided financial assurance for the closure of its
Labadie PCB burn facility in accordance with a
closure plan submitted.

     In addition, the approval granted UE in
1983, which contained no expiration date was
modified  to include, among other things, an
expiration date of March  1995. By the time the
approval  expires,  UE will have  incinerated
750,000 gallons of PCB oil in addition to the
amounts already destroyed. This would include
oil from 25,000 PCB and  PCB-contaminated
transformers at an estimated cost of $45  million.
The deferred portion of the penalty was $150,000.

In the matter of Upjohn:  A complaint was issued
against the Upjohn Company  of  Kalamazoo,
Michigan on July 10, 1989, alleging one count of
submitting a chemical  to  the  original TSCA
inventory, even though, the company never

                               FF / 990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
     manufactured the chemical, and four counts of
     manufacturing new chemical substances without
     going through the PMN process. The proposed
     penalty was $771,000.   Upjohn voluntarily
     disclosed the alleged  violations in a meeting
     held at Upjohn's request. EPA and Upjohn agreed
     to settle the case with Upjohn paying a $400,000

     In the mattgr of Velsicoh   EPA  initiated  an
     administrative  enforcement  action  against
     Velsicol on July  17, 1990.  EPA  alleged  that
     Velsicol failed to maintain all of -the records
     required under 40 CFR Part 720.78 to support the
     PMN that  was  submitted  for one chemical,
     manufactured another chemical on  two separate
     occasions prior to the end of the PMN  review
     period, and  used and  distributed  the last
     chemical on one occasion prior to the end of the
     PMN review  period.   The complaint proposed
     $51,000 and collected the full amount. Although
     this  company is  headquartered in Region V,
     Velsicol's corporate officials contacted EPA's
     Headquarters directly  in order to  process their
     concerns about the manufacture of the chemicals.
     EPA's Headquarters conferred with the Regional
     staff  and  jointly processed  the  case which
     resulted in a collection of the full penalty.

     In the matter of WortheiLlndustries. Inc.:   On
     December 10, 1986, an  EPA/NEIC-inspector
     lawfully inspected Respondent's Nashua, New
     Hampshire  facility to  review Respondent's
     compliance with TSCA §5 and§ 8. On March 16,
     1989, EPA filed a civil  administrative complaint
     against Worthen Industries, Inc. seeking a civil
     penalty in the amount of $3,429,500 for failing to
     properly submit PMNs and NOCs  for  the
     chemical substances.   Based upon records and
     information submitted  by  Worthen subsequent to
     the issuance  of the Complaint, EPA concluded
     that  certain  chemical  substances  were
     manufactured, processed and distributed in
     .commerce as indirect food additives for the time
     period alleged in the  Complaint.  Thus, these
     chemical substances were not subject to the PMN
     requirements of TSCA  §5. The Agency amended
     the complaint and reduced the total proposed
     penalty  to  $175,000.   'During settlement
     negotiations EPA agreed to reduce  the proposed
     civil  penalty by  15% to $148,750.  The 15%
     reduction  reflected  the cooperation and good
     faith demonstrated by Worthen in addressing the
     alleged violations  and  in  negotiating  this
     Consent Agreement, and Worthen's good  faith
     willingness to conduct an  annual educational
   program on the TSCA §5 and §8 requirements. On
   May 14, 1990, the Chief Judicial Officer signed
   the Consent Order assessing the $148,750 civil
   penalty and providing for the TSCA educational

   Federal Facilities - TSCA

   In the  matter of U.S. Department of Energy,
   Bonneville  Power Administration;      A
   Memorandum of Agreement was signed on March
   22, 1990, between EPA Region  X and the U.S.
   Department of  Energy,  Bonneville  Power
   Administration, Portland, Oregon, to address
   extensive PCB contamination at four major
   substations along the Pacific Northwest/Pacific
   Southwest Electric Intertie in Oregon. All PCB
   equipment at the  substations will be disposed of
   and PCB contamination at the substations will be
   characterized and cleaned up.  The Agreement
   will result in the disposal of approximately one-
   fourth of all PCB Capacitors in the BPA system.

   In the matter of U.S. Navy, Naval Underwater
   Warfare Engineering  Station. Indian Island.
   Washington;   A Memorandum of Agreement
   (MOA) was signed on December 1,1989, between
   EPA Region X and the U.S. Department of the
   Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, to bring the
   Navy  into compliance at the Naval Undersea
   Warfare Engineering  Station, Indian  Island,
   Washington. The MOA arose from an enforcement
   action against the Navy concerning the illegal
   use of PCB-contaminated mine cable. (This cable
   is used to tether undersea mines; however, such
   use is not currently authorized under the PCB
   Regulations and provides direct introduction of
   PCBs into the environment.)   The Agreement
   provided  for the  elimination  of all PCB-
   contaminated mine cable at the Indian Island
   facility and documentation of the disposal of the
   mine cable. In addition, the Department of the
   Navy agreed to enter into discussions with EPA'
   Headquarters to  develop a program to identify
   all PCB-contaminated mine cable presently in use
   by the Navy throughout  the world and to bring
   the use of such cable into compliance with the
   PCB Regulations.

   In the  matter of U.S.  Pept of Transportation.
   Coast Guard Support Center. Kodtajy Alaska; A
   Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed on
   November 27, 1989, between EPA Region X and
   the U.S. Department of  Transportation, United
   States Coast Guard.  The MOA resolved two.
   enforcement  actions which alleged that the

                                                                                       /<•• "*»»,.
                     FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Coast  Guard  illegally distributed  PCBs in
commerce and improperly disposed of PCBs by
allowing PCBs to leak from in-service equipment.
The Agreement provides for total remediation of
extensive PCB contamination throughout the U.S.
Coast Guard Support Center Kodiak in Kodiak,
Alaska, The contamination occurred primarily as
a result of equipment leakage in the electrical
distribution system at the Support Center.  The
distribution system has been sold  to the local
electrical  utility, Kodiak Electric Association,
The Agreement provides for the proper disposal
of all electrical equipment regulated under TSCA.

Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)

     Under  EPCRA  §  313  (Toxic Release
Inventory), subject manufacturing facilities must
provide EPA with annual data on fetal emissions
of toxic chemicals by environmental media. FY
1990 Enforcement efforts were taken against
nonreporters,  as well as  late and incorrect
reporters.  Other provisions of EPCRA require the
reporting of accidental releases of toxic chemicals
to State and local emergency response offices.

Itythe Matter of All Regions Chemical Labs. Inc.:
The Administrative Law Judge's decision  in this
case supports EPA's prompt enforcement  for
violations of CERCLA §103 and EPCRA §304
reporting  requirements.  The case is significant
because it is the  first time a penalty has been
assessed for  failure to report a  release of a
chemical under both CERCLA and EPCRA.

     On December 1, 1989, Administrative Law
Judge  Henry B.  Frazier assessed  the first
CERCLA §103 and EPCRA 304 penalty for  failure
to report  the accidental release  of hazardous
substances into the environment. An Interlocutory
Order granting Complainant's Motion for Partial
Accelerated Decision was issued in  this case on
May 3, 1989. The ALJ stated that the notification
requirements of CERCLA § 103 and EPCRA § 304,
while similar in  their  purpose to  protect the
public and the  environment in the event of
hazardous chemical releases, are separate and
independent  requirements.  Therefore,  each
notification requirement  must be  met  by  the
responsible party.

     The  ALJ noted that the defendant had
failed to notify the National Response  Center
immediately upon the release  or the Local
Emergency Planning Committee and the State
Emergency Response Commission as soon as
practicable after the release and provide written
follow-up emergency notice..  The fact that the
local fire department was on the scene soon after
the release in no way diminished the requirement
that the person in charge at the  site  notify the
NRC.  The ALJ assessed the defendant $20,000
under CERCLA §103 and $69,840 under EPCRA
§304.  On July 2, 1990, Chief Judicial Officer
Ronald McCallum affirmed the decision of the
presiding officer assessing civil penalties of
$89,840 against All Regions Chemical Labs.

In theJ^fattpr of The Boeing Company,  Seattle,
Washington;   The Boeing Company Plant 2
facility in Seattle, Washington, was selected for
an EPCRA inspection based upon discrepancies in
Toxic Release Inventory reporting. The company
had reported to the local air pollution control
agency for releases of trichloroethylene but did
not apparently report that chemical to EPA. The
inspection revealed that the company had filed
a   corrected   Form  R   reporting  for
trichloroethylene, but that the company had not
reported for five other chemicals. The records
which  the company utilized  in  preparing the
reporting  were not sufficient or  comprehensive
enough to firmly establish that other chemicals
should have been reported. A Civil Complaint
proposing a penalty of $85,000 was issued to the
company on August 6,1990. The company did not
generally contest the facts of the  complaint and
proposed as part of the settlement three projects
as  Environmentally  Beneficial  Expenditures
(EBEs); solvent recovery,  de-ionization and
decontamination of chromium wastewater, and
reduction of paint booth  sludge and waste
disposal. The final assessed penalty was $72,250
with $29,750 of that amount to  be suspended
conditional on successful completion of the EBEs.

la foe. Matter of BP Oil Company: In April 1990,
Region II completed a consent order with the BP
Oil company for release notification violations at
its Paulsboro, New Jersey facility.  The agreement
provided for payment of $102,000 in penalties, a
record at that time.

In  the Matter  of Champion   International
Corporation: Through a coordinated effort of the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection,
the  Maine  State  Emergency   Response
Commission,  and  Region  I,  an  EPCRA
administrative complaint  was issued  against

F"Y 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
     Champion  International  Corporation  of
     Bucksport, Maine for failing to make timely
     notifications  following  a  chlorine  release.
     Information provided by the Maine agencies was
     used to establish the violations alleged in the
     complaint. In settlement of the action. Champion
     agreed to pay a $12,000  penalty and  provide
     $5,000 worth of computer hardware and software
     enhancements to the Hancock County Emergency
     Management Agency's computerized response and
     contingency planning capabilities.

     In the Matter of Citrus Hill Mfg. Co. Frost Proof,
     FL:    Region  IV issued an  administrative
     complaint in response to a spill which  was not
     properly reported and exceeded the  reportable
     quantity (RQ) for ammonia. The case was part of
     a  headquarters  initiative to  emphasize the
     importance of timely and accurate reporting under
     §103 of CERCLA and §§304(a), 
                     FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
and  Air violations and  represents another
example of the Region's multi-media enforcement

In the Matter of Seekonk Lace: Seekonk Lace was
the Region I's first .EPCRA settlement providing
for environmentally beneficial expenditures by a
company.  As part of the $15,000 settlement of
this $25,000 § 313 case, the respondent agreed to
spend approximately  $95,000  to  convert  an
acetone-based  solvent  system used in lace
production at its Rhode  Island  facility to a
mechanical system which used no solvents. The
use of the toxic chemical acetone was completely

In the Matter of Wyman-Gordon Company. Inc.:
On September 28, 1990, Region I initiated one of
the largest enforcement actions brought to date
under EPCRA. This action, which combined for
the first  time in the Region both the §313 and
302-312 components of the program, proposed
total penalties of $478,000 against the Wyman-
Gordon  Company   of   North   Grafton,
Massachusetts.     The Region  coordinated
inspections between the two EPCRA  programs,
resulting in the development of a joint complaint
which comprehensively addressed  all violations
of EPCRA  at  this  facility, including failure to
file Toxic Release Inventory forms and failure to
submit chemical inventory information to local
and state authorities.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, &
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Enforcement

     FIFRA establishes a  federal  registration
program for new and existing pesticides and gives
the States enforcement primacy for  violations
involving pesticide misuse. FY 1990 enforcement
efforts   centered   upon  violations   of
suspension/cancellation requirements; product
mislabeling; sale of unregistered pesticides; and
violations of import-export requirements.  The
pesticide program also  took enforcement action
against significant violations involving pesticide
misuse upon referral from States.

In the Matter of Gotham  Chemical:  Region I
issued a major administrative complaint in  FY
1990 against Gotham  Chemical of  Stamford,
Connecticut  for  sale  and  distribution   of
disinfectants  which  were misbranded and
adulterated and about which the company made
claims that  substantially  differed  from  those
accepted as part of the pesticides' registration.
This case was referred to  the Region from  the
State of Connecticut. Proposed penalties in this
action are $45,400.

In the Matter of Safer, Inc.;  Region I successfully
settled its case against Safer, Inc. of Wellesley,
MA  in FY  1990.  For several years.  Safer  has
made safety claims for its products in violation of
the FIFRA regulations,  despite a  notice  of
warning issued by EPA Headquarters.  The final
assessed penalty was $10,000.  The settlement
included  an  environmentally  beneficial
expenditure  of  $70,000  for production, and
distribution of a pamphlet about the safe use of
pesticides by homeowners.

Pesticide Export Enforcement Initiative:  EPA
issued complaints charging nine  companies with
unlawful export of pesticides. The charges
included export of pesticides labeled only in
English to foreign countries in which  English is
not an  official language, failure to obtain a
statement   from   the  foreign  purchaser
acknowledging  that the pesticide  was  not
registered  for use  in the United  States, and
failure to label pesticides "Not  Registered  for
Use in the United States of America".

     The companies charged in these complaints
are  Dow Chemical  Company, Shield-Brite
Corporation,  Mobay  Corporation,    Exxon
Chemical Americas, Rohm and  Haas Bayport,
Inc., Chevron  Chemical Company, NL Industries,
Inc., Sandoz  Crop  Protection,  and Monsanto
Chemical Corporation. Following is the outcome
for 5 of the 9 cases;

In the Matter of Chevron Chemical Company: On
July 16,1990, a Consent Agreement and Consent
Order was  issued settling the pesticide  export
case against  Chevron.   Based on  evidence
presented by EPA of violations not alleged in the
civil administrative  Complaint, Chevron  paid a
penalty of  $72,000, representing 100%  of  the
proposed penalty  for the original counts,  in
addition  to  counts discovered after the filing of
the Complaint. Chevron also revised its internal
operating procedures for pesticide exports after
review by its Label Task Force formed as a result
of this case.

In the Matter of Pow Chemical Company:  On
May 15, 1990,  a Consent Agreement and Consent
Order was issued by which Dow agreed  to pay
100% of the proposed penalty of $22,400.

                          FF1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
In the Matter of Exxon Chemical Americas:  On
May 14,1990, a Consent Agreement and Consent *
Order was issued by which Exxon agreed to pay
100% of the proposed penalty of $36,400.

In the Matter of Mobay Corporation:  On July 25,
1990, a Consent Agreement and Consent Order was
issued settling  the pesticide  export case filed
against Mobay Corporation. Mobay paid a civil
administrative penalty of $97,840 to settle  the

In the Matter of Rohm & Haas Company:  On
September 11, 1990, the Chief Judicial Officer
issued  a  Consent order  settling  the civil
administrative proceeding filed against Rohm &
Haas for  violations  of  the  pesticide  export
regulations.  Both Rohm & Haas Company and
BASF Corporation were parties to the settlement
agreement  as  a  result of  the contractual
arrangement between the companies. BASF was
the exporter of record  for most of the shipments
noted in the complaint, and so, took an active role
in the settlement negotiations.  The companies
agreed to pay $19,200 in settlement.

Criminal Enforcement - All Statutes

U.S. v. Auten (CWA):  The owner of a Florida
used tire business was sentenced July 25 to a three
year period of probation for unlawfully dumping
thousands.of tires into the  West Palm Beach
Canal.  John C. Auten of West  Palm  Beach,
Florida  was also  ordered to  pay  the South
Florida  Water Management District restitution in
the amount of $16,829.88 for the cost of removing
tires from the canal. In addition, as a consequence
of Auten's conviction for violating the CWA,
Auten's business, Caroline Tires, Inc., is on the List
of-'Violating Facilities  and  is ineligible  for
federally funded contracts, grants, or loans.

     As further punishment, Auten was ordered
to perform 300 hours of environmentally-related
community service. As part of his community
service, the court ordered Auten to assist  the
Water Management  District  in removing  the
illegally dumped tires from canal banks. This
was a joint FBI-EPA Criminal Investigation. The
Palm Beach County  Sheriffs Department also
assisted in the investigation.

U. S. Y. John Borowski and Borjohn  Optical
Technology. Inc. (CWA);  On May 23, 1990, a
federal  jury  convicted  Borjohn  Optical
Technology, Inc. and its president, John Borowski,
of  illegally  discharging  toxic  metals  and
dangerous chemicals into the sewer system and
endangering company employees in the process.
At the sentencing on October 7,1990, Mr. Borowski
received 26 months in prison, to be followed by
two years  of probation, and a $400,000 fine.
Borjohn Optical was fined $50,000 and  was
ordered to make a lump sum payment of $15,500
for medical bills for two  employees.   As a
consequence of the conviction, Borjohn Optical is
on  the List of  Violating Facilities  and  is
ineligible for federally funded contracts; grants,
or loans.  This is the first time that  an individual
or a corporation has been convicted of knowing
endangerment under the Clean Water Act.  The
defendants ordered workers to discharge nickel
plating and  nitric  acid  solutions  containing
illegal concentrations of nickel and illegally low
pH  into  the sewer system  in  Burlington,
Massachusetts  which . is  tied  into  the
Massachusetts  Water  Eesource   Authority's
treatment  plant, which in turn discharges into
Boston Harbor.

     During   the   illegal  disposals,  the
employees were exposed to toxic levels of nickel,
nitric acid, and nitrogen dioxide.  Exposure  to
nitric acid and  its fumes may result in serious
burns  and  life-threatening respiratory  tract
damage. Exposure to nickel  may result in severe
skin disease, asthma, and an  increased risk  of
cancer.  The illegal discharges  stemmed  from
Borjohn's metal  finishing operation, in which the
company plated, various metals, including nickel,
onto Bradley Fighting Vehicle elevation mirrors,
M-l tank  mirrors, and Cruise Missile folding
mirrors.   %

U.S. v. Robert Coble  and Raymond Brittain
(CWA1:   A former water  pollution  plant
supervisor was sentenced March  27, 1990 to a
5-year term of imprisonment,  with all but 4
months suspendedj  and was placed on 5  years
probation. Robert Coble pled guilty on January 24
to one felony false statement count for filing false
discharge  monitoring  reports  and   one
misdemeanor count under  the  Water Act  for
discharges in violation of a National  Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit.

     Coble, former Water Pollution Control
Plant Supervisor of the City of Enid, Oklahoma,
and Raymond T. Brittain, former Superintendent
of Public Utilities  (and Coble's supervisor) were
charged on December 12, 1989, by  a  48-count
indictment with falsifying discharge monitoring

                     FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
reports -and illegal bypassing  of  the  sewage
treatment plant. Brittain was convicted by a jury
on 18 counts of false statements and two counts of
CWA violations. He was sentenced on March 31,
1990 to one year imprisonment on each of the 20
counts, to be served concurrently, and ordered to
pay a special assessment on each count totaling

     The violations occurred before amendments
to the  Clean  Water Act made these violations
felonies, and prior to  the applicability of the
Federal Sentencing Guidelines for individuals.

U.S. v. Thomas Capozziello (QAAh On December
15, 1989, following a two-week trial, the jury
returned guilty verdicts against Capozziello and
his company, Bridgeport Wrecking,  for violating
federal  NESHAPs standards relating  to  the
removal and handling of asbestos from buildings
that are being demolished.  The case stemmed
from a citizen's complaint in connection with the
fall 1986 demolition of the Knudsen Dairy in
North Haven, Connecticut.

     On March 16, 1990, Thomas Capozziello,
president of Bridgeport Wrecking Company, Inc.,
was sentenced  to one year in prison, all but three
months suspended, three years probation, and a
$10,000 fine. His company was sentenced to pay a
$40,000 fine. The three months to be served  by
Capozziello represented the longest prison term
in New England for a violation of the Clean Air
Act,   As  a  consequence  of the conviction,
Bridgeport Wrecking Company of Bridgeport,
Connecticut, is on the List of Violating Facilities
and  is ineligible for federally funded contracts,
grants, or loans.                            \
US. v. Cjiemical Commodities. Inc. (RCRA): On
January 5, 1990,  Chemical Commodities, Inc.
(CCI),  a  Kansas  corporation which is in  the
chemical brokering business, entered a plea of
guilty to  unlawfully disposing of a hazardous
waste in violation of 42 U.S.C. S 6928(d)(2)(A)
(RCRA). On May 18,1990, the U.S. District Court
for the District of  Kansas  imposed a sentence of
five years probation and  special conditions,
including liquidation, cessation of business except
to the   extent  necessary to  liquidate,  and
completion of  clean-up operations at three CCI
locations in compliance with an approved closure
plan. Clean-up of the sites, including disposal of
all hazardous  and radioactive wastes, is to  be
performed under the direction and supervision of
an independent  supervising contractor to  be
selected by EPA. The company also was sentenced
to pay a $500,000 fine, which was suspended upon
condition  that . the  company  fulfills  its
obligations under the sentencing order.

      The conviction of the company was a result
of a criminal investigation which revealed that
in the fall of 1988, Jerald Gershon, President and
owner of Chemical Commodities, Inc., ordered
several employees  to destroy 40,000 ampules of
methyl bromide.  The employees destroyed the
ampules by grinding them in a small peanut
grinder.  The liquid methyl bromide volatilized
into gas and escaped into the air and the crushed
glass ampules were placed in a local landfill.

JJ.S.  v. Ciittendgn  Conversion  Corporation
       I: On March 20, 1990, an information and a1
plea agreement was filed in U.S. District Court,
Seattle,  Washington, charging the Crittenden
Conversion Corporation with a one-count RCRA
felony violation (transporting hazardous waste
without  a manifest).   As part of  the  plea
agreement, Crittenden agreed to .enter a guilty
plea to the charge and pay a fine of $25,000, plus
full  restitution  to  the  Washington  State
Department of Ecology for the clean-up, storage,
and disposal of 21 drums of material that had
been abandoned by the company in a wooded area
of Preston, Washington. This cost is estimated to
be  approximately $18,000.  On March 20, 1990,
Crittenden pled guilty to the one count and was
sentenced on May 3, 1990 to the agreed penalties
.under the plea agreement.

U.S.  v. Fisher RPM Electric Motors, Inc. and
Rodney R. Fisher (CWA): On February 8, 1990, in
Portland, Oregon, Rodney R. Fisher was sentenced
to 3 months of imprisonment, 3 years probation
and fined $2,500 by U.S. District Court Judge
Malcolm  F.  March.   Fisher pled guilty on
December 4, 1989, to  one count of  unlawful
disposal   of motor cleaning  solvents into an
adjacent stream, a misdemeanor under  the Clean
Water Act.  This plea was  the result  of a plea
bargain agreement which  stipulated  that all
remaining felony counts against Rodney R. Fisher
and Fisher RPM would  be dismissed after
sentencing.  As a consequence of the conviction,
Fisher RPM Electric Motors,  Inc., of  Portland,
Oregon, is on the List of Violating Facilities and
is  ineligible for federally funded  contracts,
grants, or loans.

U.S. v. ]&fl Investments CSDWA>:  In the first
criminal  case brought under the underground
injection  well provisions of the Safe  Drinking

                           FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Water Act, a  federal  court  Aug.  27,  1990,
sentenced a Michigan partnership to pay a fine of
$13,429. J & J Investments pled guilty to one count
of  submitting  false  information  to  the

U.S. v. Inman & Associates (TSCA):  U.S. District
Court Judge Hayden W. Head, in the Southern
District of Texas, fined a South Carolina firm and
a former employee for failure to report a spill of
polychlorinated biphenyls and  illegal disposal.
Inman & Associates, Inc., a South Carolina firm,
was sentenced to three years probation and fined
$80,000 for failure to report the spill, caused- by
its former employee, John McMichen. McMiehen,
the former Inman employee, received a $5,000

     The court  suspended $40,000 of  the fine
against the company, but said that  the firm's
failure  to   make any of  three - installment
payments could be grounds for revocation of
probation and execution of the entire fine. Inman
& Associates pleaded guilty January 25,1990 to a
violation of the  Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act for its
failure to notify the appropriate U.S. agency, of
the .spill. On  the same  date,  McMichen also
pleaded guilty to the 1987 disposal of  PCBs at
the Corpus Christi  Naval  Air Station  in
violation of the Toxics Substances Control Act.
The sentencing guidelines were inapplicable as
the violation occurred prior to November 1,1987.

U.S. y. Stephen L. JohnsQp and Country Estates
Investment Inc. (CWA):  In December 1988, the
Federal Grand  Jury  impaneled for the United
States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri indicted Stephen L.  Johnson, a local
Springfield, Missouri, developer, and Johnson's
companies, Country Estates Investment, Inc. doing
business  as Colony Cove Mobile Home  Park for
one felony count violation  of  the Clean Water
Act.  Johnson was charged with the knowing
discharge of pollutants from a point source into
navigable  waters  of the  United  States  in
violation of the National Pollution  Discharge
Elimination System as a result of a November 2,
1988,  incident in which the mobile home park
built and operated by Johnson and his companies
had a spill from the mobile home park's sewage
lagoon,  located  in  southeast  Springfield,
Missouri. The  spill, consisting of an> estimated
750,000 gallons of effluent from the sewage
lagoon, resulted when Johnson used a bulldozer to
cut a beam holding the lagoon  and allowing the
.sewage to flow into a stream,leading into Lake

      On April 11, 1989, following the January 3
 entry of a plea of guilty to the felony charge, a
 United States Magistrate applied the Sentencing
 Guidelines for the first time to a conviction under
 the Clean Water Act, and, sentenced Stephen L.
 Johnson to serve five months in prison and to pay
 a fine of $2,500; the corporation was sentenced to
 pay a fine of $35,000.  Johnson  subsequently
 appealed his conviction and  sentence under
 application of the Guidelines.  The United States
 Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 entered its order September 21, 1990, rejecting
 Johnson's appeal and sustaining the  sentence of
 the United States District .Court.  In  November,
 1991, Johnson began serving his sentence  of
 confinement at the Fort Scott, Kansas, Southeast
 Regional Correction Center.

 U.S. v. Jones (CWA):   A Wall--Street trader
 pleaded guilty on May 25, 1990 to'violating the
 CWA and was sentenced to pay $2 million, the
 largest monetary penalty ever assessed against
 an individual in an environmental case.  Paul
 Tudor Jones  II was charged  by a  one-count
 information  with   negligent discharge  of
 pollutants in a case that involved  the illegal
 filling of 86 acres of wetlands on the Eastern
 Shore of the Chesapeake  Bay. William B. Ellin,
 Jones's project manager for development of the
 site, also was  charged with six  counts  of
 knowingly violating  the CWA, and one count of
 violating the Rivers and Harbors Act. Mr. Ellin
 was convicted on January 5, 1991, of five felony
 charges (4 counts of filling without a permit and
 one count of violating  the Rivers and Harbors
. Act). He will be sentenced on April 15,1991.

      The size of the filled wetlands makes this
 the largest area  ever, involved in a  Federal
 criminal environmental enforcement case. Jones
 was sentenced to 18 months probation, to pay a
 $1,000,000 fine, to pay $1,000,000 in restitution, to
 completely restore the damage to his property,
 and to record a conservation easement to protect
 2,500 acres  of  his property  from  future
 development As a consequence of the conviction,
 Tudor Investment Corporation of New York, NY, is
 on  the  List of  violating  Facilities  and  is
 ineligible for federally funded  contracts, grants,
 or loans.

      The case  is also  notable because the
 Department of Justice  agreed with Mr. Jones to

                     FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
the payment of the $1 million for restitution to be
held in trust by the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, to  be  used in  the  acquisition,
restoration,  and  management  of  neighboring
wetlands and endangered species habitat in the
nearby Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is a
private conservation organization established by
Congress in  1984  to benefit the programs of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. v. Konstandt Labi? (FIfRA):  On April 10,
1990, Konstandt Laboratories, Inc., and its owner,
Felix Konstandt, were sentenced for knowingly
providing false  and fictitious test  results to
Sigma Coatings, Inc., which had been required by
EPA to provide data about its marine coating
jproducts.  The lab falsified 19 separate results-of-
analysis  reports.  The company was fined
$100,000  under the Alternative Fines Act, for  a
violation of 18 U.S.C § 1001.  Felix Konstadt was
fined $1,000,  sentenced to one year probation, and
given a 30-day prison term, to be served under
house  arrest or in  a  "halfway  house,"  for
violation of  FIFRA.

     In 1987, EPA  issued a "data call-in" to
Sigma  Coatings,  Inc., manufacturer  of  marine
coating products containing anti-foulants, which
are pesticides registered by EPA under FIFRA.
Sigma  entered into a contract  with Konstandt
Labs to perform the studies required by the data
call-in.  During September 1987, Konstandt Labs
and  its owner knowingly  provided false and
fictitious test results to  Sigma, which in turn
provided the false information to EPA.

U.S. v. John Mejghan andJJ.S. v. David Cohen
(RCRA1:  Two former  owners of a Baltimore.
precious metal recycler were sentenced February
28, 1990  to  prison terms of three years and 33
months, respectively, for violating  the Resource
Conservation and  Recovery Act.  The site also has
been subject  to a Superfund cleanup financed by a
potentially responsible party.

     John Meighan, who received a three-year
sentence, was former owner of Capitol  Assay
Laboratories, and pled guilty on December 11,
1989, to one count of illegal treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous waste.  David Cohen
was sentenced   to  33 months  for an identical
charge, to which he had pled guilty, on December
14, 1989.  Cohen had owned the facility prior to
selling it  to Meighan. Neither defendant was
sentenced under the Sentencing Guidelines, as the
violations to which they pled guilty occurred
prior to November 1,1987.

U.S. v.  Angelo Paccione and Anthony Vulpis
(RCRA): On Oct. 3,1990 two owners of private
carting companies were sentenced in the Southern
District of New York to 12 years and seven months
in prison for dumping thousands of tons of medical
waste, asbestos and other hazardous materials in
an  illegal  landfill  on  Staten  Island.  Judge
Constance Baker Motley, called the case "one of
the largest  and most serious  frauds  ever
prosecuted  in the  United  States  involving
environmental damage,"

     The defendants,  Angelo  Paccione and
Anthony Vulpis, were convicted on June 8,1989,
after a three-month trial, of RICO violations for
running an illegal landfill on more than 70 acres.
Evidence at the trial showed  that the  land was
used as a dump for 500,000 tons of waste materials
that included garbage, asbestos and medical and
infectious waste. The land fill bordered housing
and wetlands, including  a  state-designated
white  heron rookery.   Cleanup  has  been
estimated at $15 million.

     Judge  Motley  said  she increased  the
sentences because of the size of the fraud and
because Mr. Paccione and Mr. Vulpis  had not
fulfilled an agreement to pay $22 million in fines,
forfeitures and penalties within  90 days of their
convictions. A third defendant, John McDonald,
who was convicted with Mr. Paccione of having
unlawfully  collected,  transported and stored .
infectious medical waste, was sentenced to one
year in prison, These convictions resulted from a
joint investigation of the New York Office of
Criminal Investigations, New York Department
of Sanitation, and the FBI,

y.S.  v. Martha C.  Rose  Chemicals  Co.
(TSCA/CWA): In October of 1989, five corporate
officers  and/or employees  of the now defunct
Martha  C.  Rose Chemicals Co.  in Holden,
Missouri, entered pleas of guilty to conspiracy to
defraud the EPA and other  charges. They  were
sentenced in the District of Missouri in the spring
of 1990.  Sentencing ranged from probation to two
years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine for this
pre-sentencing guidelines case.

     These  five defendants joined  a  sixth
defendant who had  previously pled  guilty to
conspiracy and  to  falsifying records. The six
defendants  were indicted  after  a  lengthy

                             /990 Enforcemenl Accomplishments Report
investigation into the treatment, transportation,
handling and storage of PCBs at the Martha C.
Rose  Chemicals  Co.    The defendants  were
indicted  for conspiracy to defraud  the  EPA,
falsifying records required by TSCA, falsifying
NPDES records and improper storage of PCB
transformers.  The Martha C. Rose Chemicals Co.
went bankrupt and abandoned the site, requiring
a $20 to $30 million Superfund cleanup.  These
convictions were a result of an exhaustive EPA
and FBI criminal investigation,
              >            i*>
U.S. v. Sherman  Smith (R&HA):  On January 2,
1990, Sherman Smith was sentenced to 30 days
imprisonment, one year probation and a $2,000
fine as a consequence of his August 18,1989 guilty
plea to one misdemeanor count for violating the
Rivers and Harbor Act. Smith is the owner of
Seawall Construction Company of Seattle, The
case arose out of Smith's practice of engaging in
the unpermitted  pumping of oil contaminated
wastewaters into Puget Sound from the tow
tugboats and barges operated by his company.
Smith had been issued repeated warnings and
citations by the U.S. Coast Guard and State of
Washington Department of  Ecology concerning
this unlawful activity.  Smith's refusal to comply
prompted the U.S. Attorneys Office to file a
complaint and to obtain an arrest warrant, in lieu
of proceeding by way of a summons for Smith,
when he repeated the wrongdoing on March 31,

U.S. v. Speach (RCRA): On September 27, 1990
the former president of a California company
that operated mobile wastewater treatment units
was convicted by a federal jury in Los Angeles of
four  counts  of  illegal transportation  of  a
hazardous  waste and eleven counts of .illegal
storage of hazardous  wastes.  Michael Robert
Speach had been president of ENV, Inc., at
Rancho Dominguez, California from 1973 to 1988.
He operated mobile wastewater .treatment units
which generated F006 sludges at electroplating
shops in Southern California. 'In  1986, Speach
entered into an agreement with the operators of
Monarch Milling, an incomplete silver smelter at
Austin, Nevada to recover chromium from the

     The defendant began shipping drums of
F006  waste and  corrosive  waste to Monarch
Milling in September 1986,  thereby saving
himself the costs of disposal while violating
      Speach  and  his  vice  president  for
operations, Charles E.  Welch, were indicted on
June 21,1990. Welch pleaded guilty in July 1990
to one RCRA count of illegal storage and one
RCRA count of illegal transportation. Welch was
sentenced on October  15, 1990 to three years
probation  and  a'. $15,000 fine;  Speach was
sentenced on December 3,  1990  to  6 months
imprisonment, 3 years probation, a $28,000 fine,
and 300 hours of community service.

U.S. v. Wells Metal Finishing. In,ct (CWA): The
owner of a Lowell, MA, metal-finishing firm was
sentenced to 15 months in prison March 22, 1990
for dumping cyanide and zinc into Lowell's sewer
system. It was the longest jail term ever handed
out in for a pretreatment violation. John Wells, of
Dunstable, the owner of Wells  Metal  Finishing,
Inc., was found guilty  in December 1989 of 19
counts of violating the CWA, dumping wastes
between  1987 and February of 1989.  The city of
Lowell reportedly spent  $60,000 on cleanup. Judge
David Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the
• District of Massachusetts fined Wells  $60,000,
saying: "This is not just another white-collar
crime, but rather this is  an extremely serious case
which   could   have   had   devastating
environmental  consequences."  Assistant U.S.
.Attorney Richard  Welch tried the case.  As a
consequence of the conviction, Wells Metal
Finishing, Inc., of Lowell, MA, was placed on the
List of Violating Facilities and is  ineligible for
federally funded contracts, grants, or loans.

U.S. v. Bert Michael Willard (CERCLA): On July
31, 1990, Bert Willard entered a guilty plea to one
count  of violating  CERCLA  notification
requirements (42 U.S.C. 9603(b)) as a result of an
investigation into the  dumping of hazardous
waste,  asbestos,  and  electrical   devises
(capacitors)   containing   polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs),  at a site in Maple Valley,
Washington.  The dump site along a dirt road was
discovered on May 18, 1990 by an off-duty police
officer. Among the items found at the site were a
number  of large  capacitors containing  PCBs,
numerous bottles  of  flammable or corrosive
chemicals, and what has been estimated to be
over one thousand pounds of asbestos including
pipe  wrappings, ropes, gaskets, and  paper-like
sheets.  On January/16, 1991, Mr. Willard was
sentenced to 5 years probation, 6 months of "home
detention," 200  hours  community  service, and
$15,000 in restitution.


                      FF1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Contractor Listing

      Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 306 and
the  Clean  Water Act (CWA)  508, EPA  has
authority  to prevent facilities  that  violate
Federal  water  pollution  and  air  pollution
standards  from receiving  Federally  funded
contracts, grants or loans, by placing the facility
on the List of Violating  Facilities,  Facilities
owned or operated by persons who are convicted
of violating air standards under CAA 113(c) or
water standards under CWA 309(c) (and involved
in the violations) are "automatically"  listed,
effective  the date of the conviction (referred to as
mandatory  listing).   Facilities  which  are
mandatorily listed remain on the List until EPA
determines that  they  have  corrected  the
conditions which Jed to the violations.

      Facilities  may  also  be  listed,  at  the
discretion of the Assistant Administrator (OE),
upon the recommendation of certain EPA officials,
a State Governor, or  a member of the public
(referred to as discretionary listing).  A facility
may  be  recommended for listing  if there  are
continuing or recurring violations of the CAA or
the   Clean  Water  Act  after  one  or  more
enforcement actions have been brought against
the facility by EPA or a state enforcement agency.
Facilities recommended for discretionary listing
have a  right to  an  informal  administrative
proceeding.  Facilities listed under discretionary
listing  may be  removed from  the  List
automatically after one year, unless the basis for
listing was a criminal conviction in  a state court
or a court order in a  civil enforcement action.
They may be removed from the List at any time if
the Assistant Administrator determines that the
facility has corrected the conditions which gave
rise to the listing or that the facility is on a plan
that will  result in compliance.

      Two significant Contractor Listing cases in
FY 1990  were  Valmqnt Industries Inc. and Big
Apple Wrecking Corporation.   The  Assistant
Administrator's decision in the Valmont removal
case  established  the   principle  that  the
company's poor attitude toward compliance with
environmental standards  can be the  condition
which led to a criminal conviction and therefore
the condition which needs to be corrected before a
facility will be  removed from  the List.  Big
Apple Wrecking Corporation  was  the first
discretionary listing action brought  against a
construction and demolition company. In this case
the Agency  applied  its interpretation of the
definition of "facility", ie.  that the facility of a
construction company is the business address of
the company — not the building or demolition
site where the violation occurred.
Big  Apply  fVrecking Corporation:     In  a
discretionary  listing action against Big Apple
Wrecking Corporation of Bronx, New York, Big
Apple  filed a motion in the United States
District Court (D.Conn,) to enjoin the EPA from
introducing evidence in the listing proceeding of
alleged violations of the Asbestos NESHAP by
Big Apple at  Naugatuck, Connecticut in 1986.
The same violations had been alleged  in a civil
complaint filed in the  District Court and the
civil action had been settled by a consent decree
entered by Judge Bums.

      Big Apple argued that the consent decree
prohibits EPA from using the circumstances of the
Naugatuck demolition project as evidence of a
record of continuing or recurring noncornpliance in
the subsequent listing proceeding.  Judge Burns
denied Big Apple's motion on  two grounds: (1)
She found that Big Apple had  failed to establish
that introduction of evidence of the Naugatuck
violations in the listing proceeding would cause
irreparable harm or that Big Apple did not have
an adequate remedy at law for the alleged harm
that would occur if the case examiner were to rule
against Big Apple in the listing proceeding.  U.S_.
v.  Big   Apple  Wrecking  Corp..  Civ.No.
N-86218EBB, slip opinion at 4 (D.Conn., Oct. 20,
1989).  (2) Judge Burns further found that "Even if
Big Apple could demonstrate irreparable harm,
it has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on
the merits." Ibid^ She agreed with the findings
and logic of the case examiner's ruling on Big
Apple's motion to dismiss,  finding that the new
violations, alleged to have occurred in New York
following the lodging of the consent decree in the
District Court for Connecticut, gave EPA cause to
initiate a listing proceeding and that the alleged
violations underlying the earlier consent decree
are admissible in  the listing proceeding.  Slip
opinion at 6. Following a hearing on October 24 -
25, 1989, the case examiner issued a decision on
January 1, 1990, that Big Apple should be listed.
Big Apple has appealed this decision to the EPA
General Counsel.

Valmnnt In^Hstrif S- InCi:  When EPA did not issue
a determination on Valmont's request to remove it
from the EPA List of Violating  Facilities within
the forty-five day period  prescribed  by  the
regulations,  the company filed suit against EPA

FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
      in the U.S. District Court for Nebraska, seeking a
      temporary  restraining  order,  a   preliminary
      injunction and a permanent injunction. On January
      9,1990, the District Court ordered EPA to remove
      Valmont  from  the List  immediately, pending
      further  order  of  the   court  following  the
      completion of the removal proceeding and EPA's
      final order.   The  Agency issued the Assistant
      Administrator's initial decision in this matter on
      January  12, 1990,  The  Assistant Administrator
      determined   that   the   condition   requiring
      correction was both the company's noncompliance
      with  permit  requirements  and  the "corporate
      attitude,   culture   and   organization"   which
      supported concealment of  violations.  He further
      determined that Valmont  had not demonstrated
      that it had corrected the corporate attitude and
      therefore denied its removal request.

           The case examiner's decision, issued on June
      5, 1990,  adopted the principles set  forth in the
      Assistant  Administrator's  determination,   as

      "[T]he condition giving  rise  to the conviction in this
      matter    was   Valmont's   attitude   toward   its
      environmental   obligations,   which   elevated  the
      importance of the appearance of compliance over the
     .importance of accurate and  truthful environmental
      monitoring and reporting....   Valmont intentionally
      tampered  with pollutant monitoring  methods...  and-
      knowingly made a material false statement in at least
      one  Discharge  Monitoring  Report...   These  were
      crimes of deception.. Valmont's corporate attitude led
      to the tampering  and  falsification,  and was  the
      condition giving rise to the conviction."

      Case Examiner's Decision, at 15-16.  Thus, this
      case established the principle that the corporate
      attitude  toward environmental obligations may
      be  all or  part  of  the condition  which  led  .to
      violations and  therefore  the  condition which
      needs  to be corrected.  Nevertheless, the case
      examiner concluded, on the facts in this case, that
      the condition had been corrected.— that Valmont
      had demonstrated  by  the preponderance  of
      evidence introduced at the removal hearing that,
      since  its  criminal  conviction,  Valmont had
      changed   its  corporate  attitude   toward   its
      environmental obligations.
                         An update is necessary to' Page 30 of the EPA   •
                         Enforcement Accomplishments Report: FY 1989,
                         which references the settlement of a civil
                         judicial enforcement action filed in May 1909,
                         under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
                         Act against Envirite Corporation of Thomaston,
                         CT.  In a Magistrate's recommended ruling, sent
                         to the U.S. District Court for the District of
                         Connecticut on April 4,1991, the Magistrate
                         recommended vacating the consent decree
                         between the United'States and Envirite, ordering
                         the United States to reimburse the penalty
                         assessed under the agreement, and further
                         recommended directing EPA to correct the FY
                         1989 Accomplishments Report, At press time,
                         the Agency is planning to file objections to this

                      FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
₯   Building and Maintaining a Strong National Enforcement Program

Program Development

                        National Enforcement Training Institute

       On February 26,1990, Senate Bill 2176, the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990, was introduced in
Congress.  Section 204 of the Act mandates that the Administrator shall, as soon as practicable but no
later than September 30, 1991, establish  within the Office of Enforcement the National Enforcement
Training Institute to  train Federal, State,  and local personnel in the enforcement of the Nation's
environmental laws. The Act was signed into law by President Bush on November 16,1990, as Title II of
H.R.3338.               -

       The Program Development and Training Branch (PDTB) in the Office of Enforcement has begun
work to comply with the Act, and to that end has been working  with  the National Enforcement
Investigations Center (NEIC) concerning  major  aspects of the Institute including: curriculum
development; the relationship of this training to employees' career paths; the development of State and
local government training delivery systems; funding; faculty; and management,  (For further information
contact the Office of Enforcement's Office of Compliance Analysis and Program Operations)

                         Inspector Training and Development

       The Agency evaluated progress and developed two reports on implementation of the inspector
training requirements under EPA Order 3500.1, This assessment came midway in the phased, three-year
(FY 1989 to FY 1991) implementation plan for the Order.  The next deadline for training experienced
inspectors (those hired prior to June 1988) is October 1,1991.  The first report. Building the Enforcement
Infrastructure: Compliance Inspector Training,  analyzed accomplishments from  the perspective of the
Compliance Programs. A second report,  Report on Regional Status^of Compliance Inspector Training.
analyzed the data from a Regional perspective.  The reports revealed important accomplishments such
as the one-year national effort (4/89-4/90) by the Regions to deliver Basic Inspector Training to hundreds
of inspectors and supervisors. (For further information contact OCAPO)

                           Bask Negotiations Skills Training

       During FY 1990, the Basic Negotiations Skills course became mandatory for all new attorneys
within one year of their arrival  at EPA. Because of the new requirement, and a large number of new
program enforcement personnel, the course was offered 12 times and approximately 390 students were
trained. Negotiations training was also  provided to the  States of Oregon and Montana and will be
offered in early 1991 in Alaska and Connecticut. In an effort to expand the instructor base, the Program
Development and Training Branch (PDTB) developed and presented a "train the trainers" course which
will be offered at least once each year. (For further information contact OCAPO)

                  Penalty Calculation Model Training  (BEN and ABEL)

       The Program Development and Training Branch (PDTB) presented training on the BEN and
ABEL computer model for calculating penalties to six Regions and the State of Connecticut. The seven
courses trained a total of 204 enforcement  personnel from EPA, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and 14
States. In  addition to training, PDTB responded to  over 600 inquiries regarding the BEN and ABEL
models and penalty issues. Inquiries were received from enforcement personnel at EPA, DOJ, other
Federal agencies, 20 States, and the United Kingdom.  (For further information contact OCAPO)

                            FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
National Reports on FY 1990 EPA and State Performance

                    Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response

       The Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response concept seeks to establish  predictable
enforcement responses by both EPA and the States, with each media program defining target timeframes
for the timely escalation of enforcement responses.  Tracking of timeframes commences on the date the
violation is detected through to the date when formal enforcement action is initiated.  The programs
have also defined what constitutes an appropriate formal enforcement response based on the nature of
the violation, including defining when  the imposition of penalties or other sanctions is appropriate.
Each year OE compiles an end-of-year report which summarizes the performance by each of the media
programs.  The report for FY 1990 will be available in March 1991.        .

       Management improvements planned for each of the programs and new legislative authorities
(e.g.. the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990) should help the programs make further gains this year and
next. (For further information contact OCAPO)

                                 Federal Penalty Practices

        Each year, EPA produces a comprehensive analysis of the financial penalties EPA obtained from
violators of environmental laws.  The report contains an Agency-wide overview for each program and
compares annual performance with historical trends. The FY 1990 report will be available in March
1991.  (For further information contact OCAPO)                      l

        Summary of State-by-State Enforcement Activity for EPA and the States

       Each year, EPA assembles an end-of-year report which summarizes quantitative indicators of
EPA and State enforcement activities on a State-byrState basis.  The FY 1990 report is scheduled for
publication in March 1991. (For further information contact OCAPO)

                        Enforcement Effectiveness Case Studies

       The Office of  Enforcement, working with the Surface Water and Air Mobile Sources Programs,
developed a summary report of the health and environmental benefits of EPA and State enforcement
strategies overa 2-4 year period for; 1) the Mobile Source Lead Phasedown Program - a program to
reduce lead in gasoline; and 2) the National Municipal Policy (NMP) - an enforcement initiative to
improve compliance by publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants.  The NMP report reveals that a
strong enforcement program achieved significant environmental benefits, and the Lead Phasedown Study
suggests that a strong enforcement program created deterrence, reflected by  a sharp decline in  the
frequency of new violations, after EPA began carefully auditing company records.

       The Lead Phasedown study included as a measure of results the quantification of health effects
and monetary benefits associated with the reduction  in lead levels resulting from the Agency's
enforcement actions. Estimated benefits include the removal of 150 million grams of lead from gasoline
production in the form of lead rights retired by the end of 1987.  This reduction represents  $40 million
worth of direct health benefits (1983 dollars).

       In  the ease of the National Municipal Policy, measures included estimates of the reduction in
toxic and conventional pollutant loadings associated with the shift of facilities in the NMP  universe to
secondary and/or advanced wastewater, treatment.  Based on these shifts, EPA estimates removal of an
additional 2.325 million Ibs/day of conventional pollutants and removal of an additional 15,000 Ibs/day
of toxic pollutants. (For further information contact OCAPO,'the Office of Mobile Sources for Lead
Phasedown, and the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits for NMP)


                       FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report                            f  ffi 5f
Intergovernmental/International Enforcement Activities

      Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Memorandum of
                                 Understanding (MOU)

       During the last half of FY 1990, EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), negotiated  a  Memorandum of  Understanding (MOU) which was  formally signed by.
Administrator William Reilly and former Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole on November 23, 1990. The
purpose of the MOU was to enhance the protection of the public, workers, and the environment from
violations at facilities subject to both EPA and OSHA jurisdiction. The MOU provides for coordinated
action in three areas: detecting violations, exchanging compliance information, and enforcement training.
EPA and OSHA will develop an annual workplan to  implement the MOU and to identify specific areas
of coordinated activity for each  fiscal year.

       First, OSHA and EPA inspectors will cross-refer potential violations discovered during the
course of routine compliance inspections.  The two agencies will also look for opportunities to target for
joint inspections in mutual priority categories of facilities, such as petrochemical plants or secondary
lead smelters, which may be in violation of both workplace and environmental standards. Any resulting
enforcement actions may incorporate both EPA and OSHA counts.

       Second, EPA will provide OSHA with information from its national compliance/enforcement
data bases  (e.g.. past violations, enforcement actions, penalty assessments)  and the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) which may help OSHA with its own compliance targeting strategies.  In return, OSHA
will provide EPA with compliance and worker exposure data from its data base in support of specific EPA
enforcement actions or targeting strategies.

       Third, EPA and OSHA inspectors and other compliance personnel will be given the opportunity
to participate in relevant components of each Agency's enforcement training program. The personnel from
both agencies will benefit from receiving a general understanding of, and familiarity with, each others'
programs and also receive training in specific areas of mutual enforcement  activity.  (For further
information contact OCAPO)

     Securities and Exchange  Commission (SEO/EPA Cooperative Arrangement

       The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and EPA have enhanced cooperative efforts to
ensure accurate company disclosure of environmental liabilities to investors. In FY 1990, EPA expanded
the information exchanged and began to implement a system of quarterly reports to the SEC. The
quarterly reports now include: Potentially Responsible Parties at Superfund sites; pending and concluded
cases for RCRA and CERCLA enforcement; enforcement  penalties from civil judicial cases; concluded
criminal cases; and companies barred under contractor listing.  The SEC has been using  the data for
targeting their reviews. In addition, based upon this  information as well as selected  cooperative
reviews of disclosure statements with EPA, the SEC  has sent comment letters to companies requesting
that filings be amended.  (For further information contact OCAPO)

         The First International Enforcement Workshop on the Environment

       On May 8-10, 1990 the  first International Enforcement Workshop was  held in Utrecht, the
Netherlands, jointly sponsored by the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency and the Netherlands
Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment. It has heralded a new era of international
cooperation  in environmental  enforcement.  The  Workshop  participants, which included  senior
government environmental policy and enforcement officials from fourteen nations and two international
organizations, uniformly recommended that there be a follow up conference with broader  sponsorship
and participation.  Further, these leaders,  coming  from each region of the globe came away with a


                            /''I' /990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
commitment to strengthen local resolve to improve domestic and international enforcement programs in
regional as well as global exchanges.                                       .

       The Workshop was designed to share experiences in environmental enforcement, to gain new
insights into how current programs can be improved, to create an international network of experts who
can continue  to  share  and learn  from each  other's  experiences, to raise the level of interest in
environmental enforcement, both within and among  nations,  and to explore ways to enhance
international cooperation in enforcement.

       It addressed four themes:  1) domestic enforcement strategies and management, systems, 2)
intergovernmental relationships, 3) international transboundary enforcement concerns related to import
and export of hazardous wastes and pesticides, and 4) implementation of international accords such as
the Montreal Protocol and Ocean Dumping Conventions.

       Published  Workshop Proceedings include papers from over thirty distinguished authors, from
over ten nations on the elements of a successful enforcement program, both on domestic and international
issues.  Copies of the Proceedings were widely disseminated throughout the U.S. to State and local
environmental and law enforcement officials and also to other nations.  (For further Information contact

Clean Air Act

                 Clarification of EPA NESHAP Policy - Nonfriable ACM

       On February 23,1990, OE-Air, and the Stationary  Source Compliance Division (SSCD) issued a
reference memorandum clarifying the requirements of the Asbestos NESHAP regarding nonfriable
asbestos containing  material (ACM), such as floor tile, roofing materials,  packing and gaskets. The
memorandum states that these normally nonfriable ACM1 should be removed before demolition only if
they are in  poor condition and  are friable.  If these materials are subjected to sanding, grinding, or
abrading as part of demolition or renovation, then  they must be handled in accordance with NESHAP.
If a building is demolished by burning, all ACM  must be removed prior to demolition. (For further
information contact the Office of Air and Radiation's Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD))

              A Guide To the Asbestos NESHAP As Revised October 1990

       Revisions  to the Asbestos NESHAP  were promulgated in October 1990.  This document
incorporates the revisions to the existing  Asbestos NESHAP in an easy to read format which promotes
understanding of the regulation  by the  States and the regulated community.'  (For further information
contact SSCD)

      Field Guide:  Reporting And Recording Requirements For Waste Disposal

       This is a  guide to  help  the regulated  community  comply with the new  reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP).  The specific responsibilities of waste generators, transporters  and waste disposal site
operators are addressed, as well as detailed explanations of how to complete the new forms accurately
and efficiently. (For further information contact SSCD)

             Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program Compliance Actions

       The first enforcement actions for violations of the Stratospheric Ozone Rule were taken during
1990. The Stratospheric  Ozone Rule implements the provisions of the  Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Stratospheric Ozone Layer. Enforcement actions were completed in five cases involving
firms which imported chlorofluorocarbons without the required  allowances. In addition to paying


                       FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
penalties for the violations, all violators obtained allowances that they should have had prior to
making their illegal importations.  (For further information contact SSCD)

                             Asbestos NESHAP Compilation

       In September 1990, a compilation of all effective NESHAP applicability determinations  was
completed by SSCD. The draft "blue book" has been sent to all EPA Regional NESHAP coordinators for
their use in planning and enforcing the asbestos regulations at demolition and renovation sites. The final
computer diskettes containing the contents of each blue book is also being transmitted to each Regional
office, and will be used to update the compilation on a quarterly basis.  (For further information contact

              Compliance Monitoring Strategy for Radiomiclide NESHAPs

       On July 31,1990, SSCD issued this document which designed to introduce the Regional Offices to
these newNESHAPs, and to establish the roles of Headquarters and the Regions in implementing and
monitoring compliance with these standards.  The strategy also outlines the Agency's targets for
inspection.  (For further information contact SSCD)

                             Compliance Monitoring Strategy

       SSCD issued this guidance on March 31, 1988.  Based on Regional and  State concerns, the
Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) is being revised in FY 1990-1991 for implementation in FY 1992.
The revised CMS provides at  once  a more flexible and  systematic approach for determining State
inspection commitments. This strategy recommends the development of a comprehensive inspection plan
that identifies all sources committed  to be inspected by the State  agency during their fiscal year, and
the subsequent evaluation of the commitments by the Regional Office at the end of the year.

       The first year of CMS implementation has demonstrated that a closer coordination and exchange
between the Region and State is possible by encouraging flexibility in determining the Inspection Plan
for the following year. This and other lessons learned from the implementation of CMS have been  used
to revise and subsequently strengthen the  Strategy. This coordination and open negotiation is encouraged
and strengthened under the revised CMS.

       The revised CMS will require additional reporting activities and responsibilities. However it is
justified in the interest of developing  the most environmentally effective inspection program in a given
State, and as a basis for more open and informal planning and negotiation between the State and EPA.
This will in turn build a stronger State-Federal partnership. (For further Information contact SSCD)

                             Air Toxic Initiative  Status Report

       Administrator Reilly's meeting with the CEOs from nine companies in August 1989, marked the
beginning of the Air Toxic Initiative in which EPA worked with companies to reduce emissions from  toxic
air sources. On one level EPA has worked in cooperation with CEO companies to develop individual
voluntary emission reduction plans on which they will submit annual progress reports to EPA. In October
1990, the companies submitted their first annual progress report on  the voluntary reduction plans to

       On another level  of the Air Toxic Initiative, EPA contacted companies,  other than  CEO
companies to update their toxic emissions information. From these additional companies, two facilities
were visited by the National Enforcement Investigation Center for a multi-media investigation.

       Modeled after the National Air Toxic Initiative with CEO companies. Region II and Region VI
have begun air toxic reduction programs. The Regional program  targeted facilities other than those
addressed by the National Initiative.  Region VI, in cooperation with  the Texas Air Control Board, and


                            FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
the Texas Water Commission is working with five Texas facilities to develop voluntary toxic reduction
plans for their particular facilities. In addition, the Region is working with the Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality to develop voluntary toxic reduction plans for two companies in Louisiana.
(For further information contact SSCD)

                               CFC Enforcement Initiative

   On June 28 and 29, 1990, the United States filed five civil judicial enforcement actions under the
authority of the Rule to Protect the Stratospheric Ozone, 40 CF.R. Part 82 (the Rule). These actions, the
first to enforce provisions of the Rule, which went into effect on July 1, 1989, all alleged importation of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) by persons who did not hold the consumption allowances the Rule requires
importers to obtain prior to importing specified ozone-depleting chemicals. All five defendants were
able to obtain unexpended consumption allowances before June 30,1990, thereby averting any damage to
the stratospheric ozone layer that could have resulted from their actions, and insuring that the -United
States complied with its national annual CFC consumption limit as established by an international
agreement/the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. (For further information
contact SSCD)
                            Guidance on Non-friable Asbestos

       EPA's air enforcement and policy offices issued a guidance in February 1990 which clarified an
issue that had been dividing the regulated community and the enforcement staff across the nation. The
decision stated that asbestos fibers in four types of non-friable asbestos, floor tile, roofing felt, packings
and gaskets, are so well bound in the vinyl, bituminous or asphaltic binder, that, under normal conditions,
they need not be removed from buildings before demolition or renovation operations. This is not the case
with friable (crumbly)  and other forms of non-friable asbestos that readily become friable  during
demolition, like cement-asbestos.  The policy further stated that  occasionally these four types of
asbestos must be handled in accordance with, the asbestos NESHAP regulations when the  floor tile or
other material has become friable due to age or weathering, or when these materials are sanded, ground,
burned or  otherwise, abraded during removal.  It is asserted that these removal techniques will
definitely render friable the materials and will cause dangerous levels of asbestos fibers to become
airborne.  (For further information contact SSCD)

    Guidance on Inclusion of CERCLA §103(a) Counts in Asbestos NESHAP Cases

   On June 5,1990, the Air Enforcement Division and the Superfund Enforcement Division jointly issued
guidance on adding CERCLA counts to asbestos NESHAP cases. Regions are encouraged to scrutinize cases
alleging violations of the NESHAP disposal requirements for determination of whether CERCLA
reporting violations also exist. The guidance underscores the growing commitment  to cross-media
enforcement.  (For further information contact SSCD)

                         Stratospheric Ozone Civil Penalty Policy

       On November 24,1989, the Air Enforcement Division (AED) issued Appendix VIII to the Clean
Air Act. Stationary Source Civil Penalty  Policy, the Stratospheric Ozone Penalty Policy. AED amended
this policy on April 2, 1990, to insure the assessment of a significant penalty even against defendants
who manufacture or import small amounts in violation.

       Unique aspects of the Rule to Protect the Stratospheric Ozone, 40 C.F.R. Part 82 (the Rule),
prompted AED to adopt a unique approach to assessing penalties. The Rule allocated annual production
and consumption allowances to persons who manufactured or imported chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in 1986
in amounts equal to  the kilograms of their activities in that year. Allowance holders are free to trade
their allowances to  other persons,  but such transfers are valid only if  authorized by EPA. The
manufacture of each kilogram of CFC requires  the expenditure of one kilogram of production allowances


                       FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
and one kilogram of consumption allowances that the manufacturer must possess at the time of
manufacture. The importation of each kilogram of CFC requires the expenditure of one kilogram of
consumption allowances that the importer must have in his possession at the time of importation.
Allowances left unexpended at the end of each twelve-month control period do not carry over to the next
Each kilogram of CFCxmanufactured or imported in excess of allowances held is a separate violation,
exposing the violator to potential statutory maximum penalties of $25,000 for each kilogram.

       AED established a flexible economic benefit rule of thumb which the Agency linked to the
actual cost of an allowance on the open market. The gravity component reflects AED's desire both to
protect the integrity of the Rule and to  encourage violators to act quickly to  remove the  potential
environmental harm resulting from their violations.  (For further information contact OB-Air or SSCD)

 Documenting Penalty Calculations and Justifications in EPA Settlement Agreements

       On  August  9, 1990, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement  James M.  Strock  issued a
memorandum initiating a uniform system for documenting penalty calculations and explaining how they
are consistent with the applicable penalty policy in  all EPA enforcement actions. The memorandum
requires EPA attorneys to document how the proposed penalty is calculated and how it is consistent with
the applicable penalty policy in the document initiating the enforcement action, the memorandum
recommending EPA management concurrence in a proposed settlement, and any time during the course of
the enforcement action that the bottom line penalty changes due to new information or circumstances.
This required documentation must be kept in both the OE case file and the Office of Regional Counsel
case file. (For further information contact OE-Air)

               Use of Stipulated Penalties in EPA Settlement Agreements

       On  January 24, 1990, Assistant  Administrator for Enforcement James M,  Strock  issued a
memorandum on the use of stipulated penalties in EPA settlement agreements.  The memorandum
discusses the types of consent agreement requirements  which  should  have stipulated  penalties, the
appropriate level of those stipulated  penalties, and the enforcement and collection  of stipulated
penalties provisions.   Significant stipulated  penalties helps  to assure that  companies meet the
important environmental obligations which they assume in settlement of EPA enforcement actions. (For
further information contact OE-Air)

                              Wood-Fired Boiler Initiative

       During FY 1990, Region I completed a survey of wood-fired boilers used to generate electricity in
New Hampshire.  In total, seven facilities  were inspected.  Each facility was found to be in violation of
its Temporary Permit issued by the State of New Hampshire for  the purpose of limiting each facility to
minor source status. These violations led the Region to issue six Notices of Violation and a Notice of
Noncompliance. In addition, as a result  of this effort, the Region initiated and settled in principle a
civil judicial referral against one of the  facilities for a penalty of $99,999.

       This effort raised awareness in two areas.  One, both industry and the state agency will focus
more attention on emission limits contained in permits.  A minor source permit will not be issued to a
facility unless it can truly comply with the permit limits. Second, each facility has increased its efforts
towards controlling air emissions. One source spent nearly $700,000 to modify its small boilers in order to
lower carbon monoxide emissions. (For further information contact Kegion I-Air)

                          Connecticut Rule Effectiveness Study

       In FY 1990, Region I concluded its rule effectiveness study in the State of Connecticut on the
miscellaneous metal parts and products (MMP&P) source category.  The study evaluated the present
compliance of sources subject to the MMP&P regulation, identified specific implementation problems


  1                          FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
with the regulation, and addressed specific state agency program activities which affected how well
the MMP&P regulation was enforced.         .                  ;.

       The major features of the study included a preliminary review of 290 source files, the issuance of
235 EPA Section 114 Reporting Requirements, compliance inspections of 37 sources which revealed 22
violating sources, various EPA and state enforcement actions taken against the violators, and a post file

       Of the 22 sources found in violation, eight have been classified as "Significant Violators."  EPA
issued NOVs  to six of these "Significant Violators," while the State issued NOVs to the other two. Six
of the "Significant Violators" are now in compliance with the MMP&P regulation; the other two sources
are under review by the State for SIP Revisions.  The State issued NOVs to most of the other violating
sources as well.  In addition to the NOVs issued, EPA issued eight Administrative Orders to sources that
did not respond to EPA's Section 114 Reporting Requirements.

       EPA conducted a post file review at the State. The post file review revealed that there was a
difference  of  interpretation  between EPA and the State regarding applicability determinations. The
State's,less stringent interpretation resulted in the State determining several sources not to be subject to
the MMP&P  regulation which should have been. The post file review also indicated that the  State
inspectors were not getting maximum coating usage data from many sources, but rather average coating
usage data which resulted in erroneous applicability determinations.  Lastly, the post file review
revealed that  the State did not inspect minor (Class B) sources frequently enough to update compliance
statuses and classification changes.                                      .  "

       The adoption of a new MMP&P regulation by the State of Connecticut on November 1, 1989
corrected the applicability determination problems that the State was having.  In addition, the  State
promised to devise an inspection targeting program in FY 1991 to ensure frequent inspections of minor
(Class B) sources. These two corrective actions should improve the effectiveness of;the MMP&P
regulation appreciatively. (For further information contact Region I-Air)

       The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation Asbestos Cleanup Cooperative Effort
       This effort involved a unique cooperative effort for remediation resulting  from an innovative and
non-traditional approach to remediation problems on reservations where there are limited resources.  In
a meeting at  the Pine Ridge Reservation with EPA,. BIA, and the tribe regarding the Red Shirt Table
asbestos site,  it was decided that the tribe and BIA would put together a plan to collectively clean-up
the site. Actual BIA and tribal costs are well below standard contractor costs.  BIA agreed to provide the
cleanup personnel, on-site training for these personnel, and  equipment.  The tribe agreed to provide
additional cleanup personnel and equipment.  In addition, the tribal. environmental program will
provide trained personnel to supervise the project.  The Indian Health  Service (IHS) will  conduct
medical monitoring for the BIA and  tribal cleanup personnel. (For further information contact Region
VIII-Air)                                                              :       .

          California South Coast Air Quality Management District Settlement
                         ,. ...   with Lockheed Aerospace                  ,

       One of most newsworthy and significant state/local air enforcement actions was announced in
March 1990 by .the South Coast Air Quality  Management District.  This concerned a settlement with
Lockheed Aerospace which  involved a cash penalty of $1,000,000 plus a  commitment from the
corporation to spend additional large sums to upgrade their air pollution control program in order to
resolve numerous VOC emissions and permitting violations and to meet District requirements. Lockheed
was one of several companies which had been included in the cooperative aerospace rule effectiveness
study conducted jointly by local air pollution control agencies, the California Air Resources Board,, and by
Region IX. Most of the violations involved failures by the company to maintain required records as well
as utilize compliant coatings and solvents.  The amount of the penalty, however, was not  the only^

                        FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
significant feature of the settlement. Lockheed also agreed to consolidate and centralize all coating and
solvent dispensing functions into state-of-the-art central dispensing stations at each of their affected
plants in the South Coast.  Implementation of this agreement has resulted in a program to computerize
all recordkeeping functions, and to include bar-codes on each container of coating or solvents brought into
their  facilities.

    The Lockheed case provides a very visible example of progress being made in the assessment of
meaningful penalties by local agencies as a deterrent to violations as well as in the incorporation of
state-of-the-art requirements as settlement conditions. (For further information contact Region IX-Air)

Clean Air Act - Mobile Sources

                             Motor Vehicle Emissions Recalls                     —

       EPA's recall testing program continued effectively to enforce Federal emission requirements in FY
1990,  Since the beginning of recall activity, a total of 40 million vehicles have been recalled.  Thirty
million of those vehicles were recalled as a direct result of EPA investigations conducted at laboratories
in Springfield, VA, and Ann Arbor, MI. The motor vehicle emission recall program continues to play an
important role in EPA's enforcement efforts. During FY 1990, EPA investigations resulted in 12 recalls
involving four manufacturers and a total of 1.6 million recalled vehicles. In addition, 480,000 vehicles
were recalled voluntarily by manufacturers prior to EPA testing.

       For the first time, EPA conducted motor vehicle enforcement testing  in a high altitude area
(Denver, Colorado). This high-altitude program conducted by EPA, in coordination with the Colorado
Department of Health (CDH), was initiated to ensure vehicles in high altitude areas comply with
Federal emission  standards. Under EPA's direction, CDH  tested 22 engine families representing 3,6
million vehicles. The new testing program resulted in  1 of the above 12 recalls and we expect 5 more
recalls are expected as a result  of this program. (For further information contact the Office of Mobile

                     Mobile Source Selective Enforcement Auditing

       EPA's Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA) program consists of production-line emission testing
of new light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines.  Less than 200 individual vehicle tests conducted
during SEA's induced manufacturers to voluntarily perform over 20,000 vehicle emission tests in order to
assure that their product conformed with standards and avoid enforcement sanctions.

       EPA heavy-duty engine audits focused on engines that manufacturers claimed achieve family
emission limits (FELs) below the  standard, and as a result emission credits for future use under tighter
standards were generated. Also as a result of  these audits, the agency  revoked a manufacturer's
certificate of conformity for an engine family because the engine configuration would not meet emission
standards.  The certificate was re-issued when modifications to the engine were completed by the
manufacturer and the newly-configured engines demonstrated conformance with standards.' The
manufacturer agreed to recall all previously-produced engines of the configuration that failed the audit.
(For further information contact the Off ice of Mobile Sources)

                             Mobile Source Imports Program

       In FY 1990, EPA continued implementation and  enforcement of the new Imports program under
Title II of the Clean Air Act. This program, implemented on July 1, 1988, permits only independent
commercial importers that possess an  appropriate certificate of conformity from EPA to import
rionconforrning vehicles. The importers are responsible for meeting EPA emission requirements for all
nonconforming vehicles which are imported, and EPA's policy calls for will  pursue civil penalties
against importers found in violation.  (For further information contact the Office of Mobile Sources)


                            FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Clean Water Act

                            NPDES  Pretreataient Workshops

       The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP) developed and implemented two series of
workshops in FY 1990 for individuals  responsible for enforcing the requirements related to the
wastewater Pretreatment Program.  These workshops were designed to familiarize the pretreatment
personnel with existing statutory and regulatory requirements, as well as with current Agency policies
and guidance regarding the Pretreatment Program.  They include the City Attorney's and Enforcement
Response Plan workshops. The City Attorney's workshop is designed to encourage and facilitate the
participation by the local  municipal attorney  in enforcing the requirements mandated by the federal
regulations and State or local laws, by outlining attorney's role in the process. In addition, attorneys are •
briefed on effective enforcement  strategies and given examples of actual administrative and judicial
proceedings.  In FY 1990, City Attorney Workshops were conducted in Annapolis, MD, Mahwah, NJ,
Salem, MA, Madison, WI, Boulder, CO, and Park City UT, with over 200 participating city attorneys.

       The Enforcement Response Plan workshop was designed to familiarize pretreatment personnel
with the requirements established in  the Domestic Sewage Study regulation for developing  an
enforcement response plan. During the workshop, the current regulatory requirements are explained and
the Agency's guidance is discussed in detail. In FY 1990, Enforcement Response Plan workshops were
conducted in  Portland,  ME, Salt Lake City, UT, San Jose, CA, Nashville, TN, Parsippany, NJ,
Philadelphia,  PA, and Columbus, OH, with over 300 pretreatment officials participating. (For further
information contact OW1P)

         Initiation of Municipal Water Pollution Prevention (MWPP) Program

       EPA and the States are launching a new national program aimed at identifying potential
problems at POTWs and applying pollution prevention strategies.  The program applies the Agency's
pollution prevention "hierarchy" to municipalities. Thus, the focus of the program is to provide an early
warning system to prompt activities to reduce flow and loadings, ensure environmentally sensitive
treatment and the beneficial reuse of sludge, and to expand facilities if necessary.  The Office of Water
has involved EPA's  Regional office and States in developing a  fully cooperative program. (For further
information contact OWEP)

                            Coastal Texas Wetlands Initiative

       On September 26,1990, the Department of Justice filed, on behalf of EPA Region VI, three suits
against (1) Marinus Van Leuzen and Ronald Neal Hombeck of Galveston, Texas; (2) A. B. Charpiot and
David Charpiot of Crystal Beach, Texas,  and (3) Charles Hanson, III of Port Arthur, Texas, for violating
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The suits, filed in the Southern  and Eastern Districts of
Texas, allege  that each of the individuals filled or instructed employees to fill federally protected
wetlands without receiving a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) as required by the CWA.
In each case, the wetlands filled were coastal salt marsh wetlands which buffer coastlines during
storms, are among the most valuable wetland systems (serving as spawning areas for variety of fish and
wildlife), and are located in an area in which the potential for filling is substantial.  The filing of these
suit was announced by the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources as
indicative of the major environmental priority the United States placed on the protection of wetlands in
coastal Texas and nationwide. (For further information contact OE-Water)

               Publication of Final Rule for APA Administrative Penalties

       On June 12,1990, EPA published in the Federal Register the final rule for  assessing Class II
administrative penalties under the Clean Water Act. The final rule was developed  in response  to the
new administrative enforcement authorities under the 1987  Clean Water Act amendments.  The CWA
amendments provided for Class I administrative penalties not to exceed $25,000 and Class II penalties

                        FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 not to exceed $125,000. The Agency must follow the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) when assessing
 Class II civil penalties.  Promulgation of the final rule provides procedures1 to ensure effective use of
 Regional resources for administrative hearings on proposed Class II administrative penalties.  (For
 further information contact OE-Water)

                Chesapeake Bay Compliance and Enforcement Initiative

       In December 1989 EPA Administrator Reilly assumed the Chair of the Chesapeake Executive
 Council, a creation of the Chesapeake Bay agreement of 1987.  Administrator Reilly announced two goals
 on this occasion: 1) to reduce by half the number of Clean  Water Act significant non-^compliers that
 discharge to the Bay watershed by the end of 1990 and 2) to completely eliminate non-compliance by
 federal facilities that discharge in the Bay watershed.

       To  attain these goals,  EPA launched the  "Chesapeake Bay Compliance  and Enforcement
 Initiative". A major component of the Initiative has been increased enforcement against dischargers in
 the Bay watershed. Through September 1990, the Bay States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia
 and EPA Region III had taken fifty enforcement actions as part of the Initiative. Two of those actions
 were U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation. Sparrows Point, Maryland, and U.S. v. District of Columbia.
 In the suit against Bethlehem Steel the United States alleges that Bethlehem discharged reportable
 quantities  of hazardous substances  (sulfuric acid and  ferric chloride) to the Patapsco River on three
 occasions.  In its  enforcement action against D.C., the United States has alleged that  the District
 violated its NPDES permit on numerous occasions. These alleged violations include several instances of
 discharges of untreated sewage to the Potomac River.          •

       At the end of FY 1990, NPDES significant noncompliance was reduced from 8.3% at the start of
 the  initiative to 4.6%,  and the number of  federal  facilities in noncompliance with at least one
 environmental program was reduced from 37 to 13. (For further information contact Region Hi-Water)

               Development of Oil Pollution Act Enforcement Provisions

       The  Water Division of the Office of Enforcement was closely involved  with  advising
 congressional staff and other Agency offices on the enforcement provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of
 1990, which was signed into law on August 18,1990. The new bill revamps Section 311 of the Clean Water
 Act — the oil spill provision — by dramatically increasing  penalties, giving EPA new authority to assess
 civil  penalties  administratively, and broadening the Agency's authority to issue and enforce clean-up
 orders. Elsewhere the law establishes the government's  right to seek damages for harm occurring to
 natural resources, and significantly improves the United States' financial ability to clean up a spill
 itself. The Office of Enforcement is heading  an Agency  workgroup that is developing enforcement
 policies and procedures to implement the new law during FY 1991.  (For further information contact OE-

                       Outreach on Clean Water Act  Citizens Suits

       The Office of Enforcement, together with the Department of Justice, began meeting  with outside
 attorneys involved in citizen enforcement suits under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act in an effort to
 better communicate regarding our respective efforts against non-compliers. The CWA provides both EPA
 and DOJ with a role in reviewing proposed citizen settlements, and the  agencies have  actively
• participated in a number of citizen enforcement cases before the courts.

       As a result of this interaction, a number of significant legal and policy issues have arisen between
 the government and citizen litigants.  As a means of improving communication and cooperation between
 the agencies and the citizens suit bar, the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and the Assistant
 Attorney General for Environment and Natural Resources met with representatives of leading citizen
 plaintiff groups, such as the New Jersey Public Interest Research  Group and the Natural Resources
 Defense Council, as well as defense counsel.

                                             5-11  '  '

                            FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
       EPA and the Department will continue to meet with the citizen suit bar in FY 1991 to advance the
goals of the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws, such as the Community-Right-To-Know Act
(EPCRA), which have important citizen suit provisions.  (For further information contact OE-Water)

        Administrative Order Tracking Guidance for UIC and PWSS Program

       On August 23,1990, the Office of Drinking Water (ODW) and the Office of Enforcement (OE)
issued  guidance entitled ''Tracking Compliance-wvith Administrative Orders  in  the PWSS and  UIC
Programs." The Regional.Drinking Water/Ground water Protection Branches are responsible for tracking
compliance-with all Federal administrative orders. The guidance is designed  to supplement existing
PWSS and UIC guidance on administrative order tracking and follow up activities. Tracking active
orders. Regional response to violations of administrative orders, and closing out administrative orders
are the three issues addressed by the guidance. (For further information contact OE-Water)

                        Ocean Pollution Enforcement Conference

        The Office of Enforcement and the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) co-
sponsored a National Coastal Pollution Enforcement Conference on October 16-18 in Newport, Rhode
Island.  The conference brought together representatives from state environmental regulatory agencies,
twenty-nine attorneys general offices, EPA, the Department of Justice, the Coast Guard, the Federal
Bureau of  Investigation, and the National Oceanographic and  Atmospheric Administration.

       As a result of the conference, three specific needs'were identified and commitments made to
address those needs:- 1) the publication and distribution of a directory of federal, state, and local coastal
enforcement officials, 2} the sharing of information (including decisions, briefs, complaints, etc.), and 3)
the development of generic manuals 4o assist attorneys general and their key  staff and  federal
prosecutors in preparing for and in responding to oil  spill incidents iri a coastal environment. Each of
these projects  were completed during the fiscal year. (For further information contact OE-Water)

                                 Boston Harbor Cleanup

       EPA's six-year enforcement case effort to clean lip Boston Harbor continued during FY 1990 with a
focus on the two major portions of the cleanup  which remain to be fully addressed; long-term sludge
management and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). After.a four- year process of facilities planning and
environmental review, in November, 1989, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (Authority)
sited the various sludge management facilities needed  for the harbor  cleanup.  These facilities'are
needed to ensure that the current environmentally damaging practice of dumping sludge into Boston
Harbor is ended.  However,  in the face of local opposition to the proposed residuals landfill, political
obstacles have been placed in the Authority's path in  its attempts to acquire the landfill site. EPA has
sought the assistance of the federal court to help ensure that the Authority is able to acquire all sites
needed for its cleanup programs.

       With respect to  the CSOs, the  Authority's final facilities plan was issued in September, 1990. It
adopts the approach of eliminating most CSO overflows by constructing extensive deep tunnel and near
surface storage-systems. This plan will be a significant step in addressing the  raw sewage-discharges
now occurring whenever it rains in and around Boston Harbor.  (For further information contact Region I-
Water)     •   ..  -   •     •  _,   -•     . .         '-   .      :     '•...,•    .           ,.i

                               South Essex Sewerage District
                                   - • '' '              !              / -         ' * ' '
       Local  political efforts and leadership this past year avoided  the.need for a trial in EPA's Clean
Water Act enforcement case against the South Essex Sewerage District in Salem, Massachusetts.  A state
law limiting fees and taxes was preventing the District from constructing a federally required  secondary
treatment  plant.   Rather than try the issue whether the federal-court could order treatment plant
construction  notwithstanding the state law restrictions, local-officials  agreed to seek legislative


                       FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
overrides of the limitations. They were successful in doing so, and construction of the secondary
treatment plant now can move forward.  The plant will help to address the longstanding serious
pollution problems in Salem Harbor. (For further information contact Region I-Water)

                                     Casco Bay, Maine

       EPA and the State of Maine began joint enforcement efforts to restore Casco Bay. The State and
Region  I coordinated their resources and efforts  to bring both state and federal action against
communities discharging pollutants from combined sewer overflows (CSOs) into Casco Bay.  The State
took the lead against the City  of Portland, while EPA filed  a civil action against the City of South
Portland for discharging untreated contaminants from its CSO discharges.  Increased significance was
added to these enforcement actions as the President this  past spring designated Casco Bay to  the
National Estuary Program because of the importance of this ecological resource. The South Portland case
was the first case ever brought  by EPA against a community  where the relief sought is primarily  the
correction of combined sewer overflows. Portland and South Portland will be required to coordinate their
planning efforts to insure a geographic solution is recommended and implemented. The long term benefits
of these actions will be the  restoration and preservation of Casco Bay.  (For further information contact
Region I-Water)

                      Region II Enforcement Leveraging Initiative
       Region II has initiated  a pilot program to provide unidentified Categorical Users (CIUs) of
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) having flows of less than 5 MGD, with  a window of
opportunity to voluntarily report their noncompliance. The window closed on June 20,1990, after having
been open for 60 days. During the 60 day pilot period, many POTWs and industries contacted the Region
II office to determine whether they were subject to the leveraging, mechanism. Of those, 20 previously
unregulated industrial facilities identified themselves as being (or potentially being) subject to
categorical standards. File reviews and inspections of these 20 facilities are now in process.

       In return for their cooperation during the 60 day grace period, these newly identified CIUs will
be assessed only economic benefit penalties and a standard $2000 gravity penalty.. In addition to paving
such  penalties, they will  also commit to Consent Decrees specifying schedules and  reporting
requirements for reaching compliance with Categorical Standards. In addition, based on responses to the
letter informing  POTWs of the pilot period,  the Region is also issuing §308 letters to two POTWs
suspected of concealing the true status of the  industries in  their respective jurisdictions.  (For further
information contact Region n-Water)

          Eegion IX Innovative Pretreatment Performance Evaluation (PPEI)

       The Region has developed an innovative and expanded Pretreatment Compliance Inspection
(PCI) evaluation which the Region Calls Pretreatment Performance Evaluation Inspection (PPEI) which
may be more effective in determining the compliance status of industrial users and POTWs, facilitating
enforcement action.  The Region has already used the PPEI in  the City of Los Angels, Burbank, Orange
County, San Diego, Phoenix, Livermore, Milbrae, Central Marin, Burlingame, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale,
Watonssville, Monterey, Serra, Encina, Aliso, and Yuma., This  is a creative concept which may continue
to generate additional enforcement action from PPEIs conducted in FY 1990. (For further information
contact Region DC-Water)                                             ,

Wetlands Enforcement

                 Region III  Wetlands Program Interagency Agreements

        To address concerns about the large number of wetlands violators in Region III, the Region
entered into Interagency Agreements (lAGs) with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) field offices in

                           FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
State College, PA, Annapolis, MD and White  Marsh, VA. EPA funds each FWS field office with a
$50,000 allotment to provide an increased level of technical staffing and case development support.

       The staff assistance provided through the FWS lAGs has further enabled Region HI to enter into
Field Level Memoranda of Agreement (FLMOAs) with the Philadelphia and Baltimore Districts of the
Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Under the FLMOAs, which are burden sharing agreements, EPA and the
COE agree that one of the two agencies will serve as the lead,enforcement agency in certain specified
counties within their jointly administered jurisdictiqnal areas. The procedural framework established
by the FLMOAs strengthens existing wetland  enforcement capabilities by reducing each agency's
geographic coverage area and eliminating duplication of effort.  (For further information contact Region

Region X Wetlands Cooperative Enforcement Procedures with the Corps of Engineers

       In  FY 1990, the Region X Wetlands Protection Program developed cooperative enforcement
procedures with all Corps of Engineer District Offices. These procedures center on quarterly enforcement
meetings with each District to review progress toward resolution of cases and to select the lead agency
for newly  discovered  cases.  The Region has clearly communicated the types of cases for which EPA
would like to assume the lead, pursuant to the EPA/Army MOA on §404 Enforcement. The Districts have
been referring cases and sharing information on those cases. (For further information contact Region X-
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act           -

   State Hazardous Waste Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Requirements

       OWPE is revising the enforcement and compliance monitoring requirements States must meet in
order to maintain or become authorized under RCRA. At the end of FY 1989 EPA met with state
representatives to obtain  their  input into the development  of this rule.  During FY 1990, OWPE
considered state comments received during those meetings and internal comments received during Red
Border review and completed the preamble and proposed regulatory language. OWPE expects publish
the proposed rule in the near future.   (For further information contact the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement - RCRA Enforcement Division (OWPE-RED))
                                      t                             _

                     RCRA 3008(h) Case Development Workshop

       In February 1990, OWPE completed presentation of the RCRA 3008(h) Case Development
Workshop, (Administrative Records Course) in all Regions.  The workshop focused on the development of
the administrative record for consent and  unilateral 3008(h) orders.  This workshop will be presented
again upon request.  (For further information contact OWPE-R1D)

                   Land Disposal Restrictions Third-Third Training

       In the  summer of 1990, OWPE sponsored enforcement training in the LDR Third-third
requirements to all Regions.  This training initiative was a joint effort with the office of solid waste.
(For further information contact OWPE-RED)

                   Land Disposal Restrictions DOE Satellite Training

       In July 1990, OWPE co-sponsored a Satellite Teleconference with DOE on the LDR requirements
and implementation. Over 1000 people attended the teleconference. (For further information contact

                       FY1990 Erforcement Accomplishments Report
                                  LDR Interactive Video

       OWPE began the production of the first Interactive Video in the Agency. This Interactive Video
is designed to coverall LDR requirements and provides the audience an opportunity to interact with the
computer during the course.  This project is scheduled to be completed in early FY 1991. (For further
information contact OWPE-RED)

                  Hazardous Waste Incinerator Enforcement Strategy

       In April 1990, OWPE issued an Enforcement Strategy to the Regions and States on how to conduct
an inspection at an incinerator facility and how the violations should be classified.  (For further
information contact OWPE-RED)

                        Air Emission - Accelerate Rule Training

       On June 21,1990, EPA published the First Phase of the Air Emission Rule.  OWPE, OSW and
OAQPS started the training initiative on this rule in August 1990. This training covers the requirements
of the new RCRA rule and the Benzene rule. This training will be provided to  all Regions and it is
scheduled to be completed in March 1991.  (For further information contact OWPE-RED)

                           Mining Waste Guidance Document

       The Mining Waste Guidance was issued March 26,1990.  The purpose of the guidance was to assist
Regions in planning enforcement activity related to two final rules; September 1, 1989, and January 23,
1990. These rules subjected most mineral processing waste that was previously excluded pursuant to the
Bevill amendments to Subtitle C management. This guidance provides background material on mining
wastes under RCRA and a discussion of potential generators, and identifies enforcement activities in both
unauthorized  and authorized  States. (For further information contact OWPE-RED)

                              RCRA Implementation Study

       During FY 1990, OSWER, in conjunction with OE, formed a subcommittee as part of the RCRA
Implementation Study (RIS) to evaluate the RCRA Subtitle C Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Program. A primary recommendation in the RIS regarding compliance and enforcement emphasizes
undertaking more targeted enforcement and enhancing deterrence efforts. In order to achieve those goals
EPA (in conjunction with the States and DOJ) has begun or plans to initiate the following: (1) targeting
compliance monitoring and enforcement efforts; (2) greater emphasis on hazardous waste generators and
non-notifiers; (3) seeking  higher judicial and administrative penalties and strengthening criminal
enforcement; and (4) working with  the media to spotlight  enforcement actions in order to  strengthen
deterrence.  (For further information contact OWPE-RED or OE-RCRA)

                               Model Order Development

        An OWPE-led workgroup is in the process of revising the model order for Section 3008(h) and
developing a  model 3008(a) order to streamline  EPA and State initiated actions.  A workgroup for
developing the Section 3008(h) model order has been  established.  Suggested revisions  to the 3008(h)
order include the following  sections:   public involvement,  closure/post-closure,  stipulated
penalties,financial  responsibility, and dispute resolution, (For further information contact OWPE-RED

                     Enforcement Training for Regulation Writers

       OWPE has developed course materials for training for regulation writers. A pilot training course
will be offered in early 1991. The purpose of the training is to increase the regulation writers' awareness


                            FF1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
of the enforeeability and implementability of new regulations during the development process. (For
further information contact OWPE-RED)

                               Revised Civil Penalty Policy                        ,

       One of the primary recommendations in  the RIS is to seek higher penalties in enforcement
actions. During FY 1990, OWPE In conjunction with OE drafted a revised civil penalty policy. In October
1990, OSWER/OE  issued  the  revised civil penalty policy which .establishes a, multi-day penalty

       OWPE, in conjunction with OE, is developing a training course for the Regions on the revised
RCRA Civil Penalty Policy.  The training courses will begin being offered to the Regions by the end of
January 1991. (For further information contact OWPE-RED or OE-RCRA)
                                            *    ,   !
                                   RIP-Flex  Initiatives
                             »-*,-•            i-.,
       The RIP-Flex process was initiated in FY 1989. It is designed  to allow trade-offs from the
national RCRA priorities in order to address Region and State-specific environmental priorities. During
FY 1990, Regions I, III, VI, IX and X participated in the RIP-Hex process.  The types of Regional/State
investments and initiatives included a broad range of activities.  Some of the major initiatives included
increased corrective action; enforcement at generators and non-notifiers; land ban enforcement; hazardous
waste exports; pollution prevention and inspections at closed or non-regulated facilities. The areas of
disinvestments primarily focused on deletion of inspections at environmentally non-significant TSDFs.
In general the RIP-Flex process has been successfully implemented by the Regions. Benefits have been
gained  in the areas of compliance monitoring, enforcement and corrective,   (fox further information
contact OWPE-RED)    '          '•'".•

                          West Virginia Field Citations - RCRA

       The Field Citation Program implemented by the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
in cooperation with  EPA Region III resulted in the collection of $58,872 from 28 companies in FY 1990,
The Field Citation Program stems from a 1989 Region III Merit project which received seed money from
EPA Headquarters. The program is designed as follows: a RCRA inspector identifies a violation and
prepares a Notice of Violation which is  forwarded to the State Assessment Officer who reviews it and
sends a penalty assessment based on a  published  penalty matrix to the alleged violator.  The alleged
violator, has 30 days to pay the fine or request an  informal hearing.  (For further information contact
Region in-RCRA)        ''..,''     ' ,     ,  '      ,       .            ,      .     .
                                              t                                "            ,
           Region III UST Leak Detection Enforcement Compliance Initiative

       The Office of Underground Storage Tanks began a national initiative to build State enforcement
capabilities to provide state  and EPA  programs with increased enforcement- activities and visibility
among the regulated community. Region III provided the District of Columbia UST program  leak
detection enforcement compliance initiative.  The District has completed enforcement of EPA's leak
detection requirements for  the oldest tanks in D.C.'s regulated  community. . This initiative improved
D.C.'s UST enforcement process and provided EPA with enforcement referrals which were developed
into the first in the nation Federal lead actions  under RCRA Section  9006.. This initiative will be
expanded to all Region III  states for phase-in of leak detection requirements over the next four years.
(For further information contact Region III)

                     Region HI UST Corrective Action Pilot Project

        In FY 1990, Region III initiated a project to improve the state LUST corrective action process.
Under.this pilot project,  the  Region  worked with Maryland and Delaware to understand their
procedures  for  evaluating  and approving  corrective action proposals  and  overseeing their


                       FY 1990 Erforcement Accomplishments Report                             U32£ ?
                                                                                           f*l mf*
implementation.  Based on the information collected, a number of process improvements were proposed
and implemented in each state. Examples of these projects include:  file review to streamline the filing
process and accurately  assess the status of sites in the enforcement and corrective action process, and-
development of  a Consultant's Day to   provide all the state requirements for corrective action to
consultants working in their states. Because of the success of this pilot project, the Agency has decided to
implement  corrective action improvement projects in at least one state in each Region and to encourage as
many states as possible  to hold Consultant's Day during FY 1991.   (For further information contact
Region HI)
Superftmd                                                            "

       FY 1990 was a year of significant progress in the Superfund enforcement program. The Agency
built on the successes of previous years and the significant accomplishments of FY 1990 strengthened the
infrastructure of EPA's CERCLA enforcement program, EPA directed a strong enforcement effort by
maximizing private party response actions,  targeting efforts through enforcement initiatives, clearly
articulating program goals, and developing enforcement policy

       Much of EPA's direction in Superfund enforcement came from EPA Administrator William K.
Reilly's review of the Superfund  program.  The review, commonly referred to as the "90-Day Study"
emphasized an "enforcement first" strategy and makes 10 recommendations for Superfund enforcement.
The Superfund enforcement program has followed through on all recommendations and EPA's effort in '
this program has produced a large number of quality documents designed to establish and implement
Agency policy for Superfund enforcement. These documents focus on streamlining the enforcement process
and promoting national consistency.  The substantial output has resulted in a  more effective, fair, and
efficient Superfund enforcement program.

             Section 106 of CERCLA: Strategy/ Model Orders, and Guidance

       The 90-Day Study recommends that EPA increase its use of unilateral orders under §106 of
CERCLA.1 EPA has worked  hard to implement this recommendation. On February 14, 1990, EPA issued a
strategy for promoting the use of unilateral orders under §106 of CERCLA. The strategy encourages EPA's
Regional offices to use unilateral orders in the absence of a timely settlement. The strategy also
established the Agency's numerical and program goals for unilateral orders. The strategy promoted a
uniform and consistent use of unilateral orders and implemented the Administrators recommendation
that  EPA encourage the timely, routine, and predictable use of unilateral orders. (For more information
contact OWPE  CERCLA Enforcement Division (CED).)

       On March 30, 1990, EPA issued a model unilateral order for remedial design and remedial action
(RD/RA). The model assists EPA's Regional offices when they seek to compel private party response.
Unilateral administrative orders are  a powerful enforcement tool available to EPA. When settlement
negotiations break down, a unilateral order to compel the response action can expedite private party
cleanup. The model order of March 30, 1990 gives EPA's Regional office a standard order that encourages
swift response actions for RD/RA and promotes a uniform approach among the Regional offices.  (For
more information contact OE Superfund or OWPE - CED)

       On March 3, 1990, EPA issued a guidance on the^use of unilateral orders under §106 of CERCLA.
The guidance established EPA's policy on unilateral orders for RD/RA and encourages EPA's Regional
offices to issue UAOs in cases where EPA is unable to reach a timely settlement with PRPs. The guidance
answers many  technical questions about compelling PRPs to perform RD/DA and promotes a nationally
consistent approach for securing private party cleanups. (For more information contact OE Superfund or

                            FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies: Model Orders, Oversight Guidance,
                                and Program Evaluations

       The 90-Day Study encourages the enforcement program to strengthen its efforts to effectively
oversee PRP-lead RI/FS.  EPA has fully implemented this recommendation.  In FY 1989 EPA issued the
Model Statement of Work for  a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study and then  followed
through on this document with the Model Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial Investigation
and Feasibility  Study, issued on January 30, 1990. The model order assists the Regional offices, in
reaching settlements with PRPs for this phase of the remedial process and promotes national  consistency
in EPA's efforts to secure high quality, timely records of decision.

       EPA also compared PRP-lead and Fund-lead remedial investigations and feasibility studies,
EPA presented the findings of the comparative analysis to Congress in June of 1990., EPA is in the process
of implementing several steps that will strengthen the RI/FS program. (For more information contact OE
Superfund or OWPE - CED.)

        Searches for Potentially Responsible Parties, and Information Requests

       The 90-Day Study emphasizes  effective information collection and information exchange to
promote  PRP participation in  the CERCLA settlement process. ; EPA followed through on this
recommendation by training Regional personnel, contractor support staff and state enforcement personnel
in PRP search procedures.  •

       To encourage PRPs to respond to EPA's information requests under §104(e) of CERCLA in a timely
and thorough manner^EPA issued the model consent decree for information requests under §104(e) and also
issued guidance on March 1,1990 on releasing information to PRPs.. The model consent decree supports
EPA's §104(e) enforcement initiative and assists EPA's Regional offices  in enforcing requests for
information under §104(e). The guidance encourages the Regional offices to share information with
PRPs, where the exchange of information would promote settlement. (For more information contact OE
Superfund or OWPE - CED.)

                Specialized  Categories of Potentially Responsible Parties

       On December 12,1989, IPA published the 'Interim Municipal Settlement Policy."  The policy
establishes EPA's enforcement approach in cases where a city may have obligations under CERCLA.
During the process of developing the policy, EPA held three large public meetings and solicited the,
views of all interested groups.  The policy recognizes .the unique circumstances that  cities often face
while at the same time reinforcing the obligations of cities under Superfund.  The policy exemplifies the
substantial benefits of full coordination  and cooperation of all .interested parties in the development of
Agency policy.  •   ,

       On December 20, 1989,  EPA issued  "Methodologies  for Implementation of CERCLA Section
122(g)(l)(A) De-Minimis Waste  Contributor Settlements." This guidance explains how to develop and
evaluate deminimls settlement proposals and agreements. The guidance will assist the Agency as well.
as private parties in developing settlements for persons who have made only a minimal  contribution (by
amount and toxicity) of hazardous substances at a site.  (For more information contact OE Superfund or
OWPE-CED.)     . •         •  .. '_       '            .             ...-.':
       - * ,                      ," '          -                        '  ,      '
                                  Program Integration

       A major theme of the 90-Day Study is an aggressive, well planned and tightly coordinated
system for moving sites to completed remediation.  The integrated timeline, issued on June 11, 1990,
identifies the key decision points in the cleanup process and EPA's goal for the amount of time required
for each phase of a cleanup. The integrated timeline identifies potential points in the cleanup process

                                            5-18   '                               \

                       FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report                              -Jli-,
                                                                                         ^i- __.-«^

that are vulnerable to delays and encourages an aggressive use of deadline management for speeding the
cleanup process.

       On October 12, 1990, EPA issued the  "Pre-Referral Negotiation Procedures for Superfund-
Enforcement Cases." This guidance promotes a nationally consistent process for pre-referral settlement
negotiations under CERCLA. The purpose of the document is to quicken the pace of achieving settlements
and to establish a consistent  settlement decision-making process. (For more information contact OE

                 EPCRA/CERCLA §103 Enforcement Accomplishments

       OSWER has responsibility for enforcing the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know
§Act (EPCRA), and section 103 of CERCLA. In FY 1990, the CERCLA/EPCRA enforcement program made
many significant new  strides. In early FY 1990, EPA held the first  nationwide EPCRA enforcement
planning meeting in Denver. This meeting brought together staff from both the program offices and their
attorney counterparts to discuss the direction of the enforcement program.

       During FY 1990,  the Regions issued 31 administrative complaints with proposed penalties in
excess of $2.7 million.  The number of complaints issued in FY 1990 represents a 180% increase over the
output of the previous year. FY 1990 also saw the EPCRA/CERCLA 103 program conduct a nationwide
enforcement initiative  in which every  Region  participated.   Four  Regions  issued their, first
administrative complaints during this initiative.  During  the June 25-28th initiative, EPA issued
administrative complaints against 23 companies for penalties totaling $1,974,880.

       EPA finalized seven settlements under this program, including the first $100,000+ settlement and
another for $90,000. A number of other FY 1990 cases are settled in principle, but consent agreements and
final orders have not yet  been issued. Of the $351,550 collected during FY1990, $137,000 was deposited
into the Superfund and $214,550 into the U.S. Treasury.
                  t     r,
       The EPCRA/CERCLA §103 enforcement program received a number of favorable decisions from
Administrative Law Judges (ALJ).  In All Regions Labs. Inc. the ALJ levied a penalty of $89,840 for AH
Regions' failure to provide emergency notification as required under CERCLA §103 and EPCRA 304. The
company appealed to the U.S. District Court. This will be the program's first judicial action.

       In  FY 1990 EPA developed a number of  enforcement support documents including model
enforcement pleadings, a  penalty policy, inspection targeting data, and an enforcement reference manual.
(For further information contact OWFE - CED.)

                             Model Enforcement Pleadings

       The Agency developed this set of documents to aid the Regional enforcement efforts by supplying
a model administrative complaint for violations of CERCLA §103 and  EPCRA §§302-312.  Other models
included in the package were a model consent agreement and final order, a model subpoena, and a model
transmittal letter. (For further information contact OE Superfund or OWPE - CED.)

         Final Penalty Policy for §302,303,304,311, and 312 of the EPCRA and
                                   §103 of the CERCLA
           policy governs penalty calculations in administrative enforcement actions for violations of
EPCRA §§302-312 and CERCLA §103. (For further information contact OE Superfund or OWPE - CED.)

                           FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
        Enforcement Reference Manual for EPCRA §302-313 and CERCLA §103

       This document provides a consolidated source of information and previously issued guidance
materials to assist Agency enforcement personnel in their efforts to enforce the provisions of EPCRA and
CERCLA 103. (For more information contact OE Superfund or OWPB - CED.)

                         Interim Municipal Settlement Policy

       On December 6, 1989, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response issued this settlement
policy for municipalities or municipal wastes under §122 of CERCLA. The purpose of the policy is to
provide a consistent Agency-wide approach for addressing municipalities and municipal wastes in the
Superfund process. It also addresses how private parties and certain kinds of commercial, institutional,
or industrial wastes will be handled in the settlement process as well. (For more information contact OE
Superfund or OWPE- CED.)

             Methodologies for Implementation of CERCLA §122(g)(l)(A)
                     De-Minimis Waste Contributor  Settlements
  j                      '                  -
       This directive was finalized on December 20,1989 and is designed to provide practical assistance
in the evaluation and development of de minimis contributor settlements.  The purpose of the directive is
to increase the use and effectiveness of such settlements. The document reviews the definition of a d,er
minimis waste contributor, eligibility and characteristics, the objectives of a settlement, and evaluation
of the proposals. (For further information contact OE Superfund or OWPE - CED)
                       Model Administrative Order on Consent
                     for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
       In January 1990, EPA developed this model order to improve the quality of the RI/FS conducted
by potentially responsible parties by laving put in detail what is expected during the RI/FS process. The
model is intended to promote consistency among EPA Regions and cut down on the time involved in
preparing for settlement negotiations. (For further information contact OE Superfund or OWPE - CED.J

                  Multi-Media Settlements of Enforcement  Claims

       On February 6, 1990, EPA,distributed this guidance that supports EPA's policy disfavoring
judicial and administrative settlements of enforcement cases involving, multi-media releases.  The
guidance details the "diligent inquiry" which must be performed at the Regional level prior to a referral
of the proposed settlement to Headquarters. (For further information contact OE Superfund or OWPE -

                    Releasing Information to PRPs at CERCLA Sites

       On March 13, 1990, EPA provided guidance on the release of information to PRPs at CERCLA
sites. The goal of the directive was to facilitate settlements between EPA and PRPs. For PRPs to coalesce
into a negotiating group and to participate in settlement negotiations, they must have information about
the site and other PRPs. This can help the agency achieve goals of expediting cleanups, encourage PRPs
to undertake or finance cleanups, and avoid unnecessary litigation. (For further information contact OE
Superfund or OWPE- CED.)

           Guidance on CERCLA §106(a) Unilateral Administrative Orders
                        for Remedial Design/Remedial Actions

       On March 7, 1990 EPA set out in a memorandum general principles governing the Agency's
unilateral administrative order authority for remedial designs and remedial actions under Section 106 of


                      FF1990 Eirforcemeni Accomplishments Report
CERCLA. The guidance is a comprehensive document detailing among other things, the legal aspects of
an order, the potential recipients of an order, and the procedures for issuing an order. (For further
information contact OE Superfund or OWPI- C1D.)

                 Integrated Timeline for Super fund Site Management

       On June 11,1990, EPA developed a strategy to conduct an aggressive, well planned, and tightly
coordinated system for moving Superfund sites to completed remediation.  The timeline identifies the
critical decision points and sets goals for the amount of time it should take to get from one step to the
next.  This integrated site management framework should enhance EPA's ability to cleanup Superfund
sites. (For further information contact OE Superfund or OWPE - CED.)

        Pre-Referral Negotiation Procedures for Superfund Enforcement Cases

       On October 12,1990, EPA set  forth procedures governing the pre-referral settlement negotiation
process for CERCLA. The objectives of the developed procedures are to quicken the pace of achieving
settlements, improve the quality of settlements, and establish a regular settlement decision making
process nationwide. (For further information contact OE Superfund or OWPE - CED.)

                       Model Consent Decree for CERCLA §104(e)
                       Information Request Enforcement Actions

       To further support EPA's §104 enforcement initiative the Agency developed this model consent
decree on August 29,1990. The model should strengthen the Agency  priority of obtaining information
from responsible parties and help to streamline the enforcement process. (For further information contact
OE Superfund or OWPE- CED.)                                                  .

                        Superfund Federal Facilities Agreements
       In FY 1990 the Superfund Federal Facilities program  completed negotiations and signed
Interagency Agreements (lAGs) with the remainder of their federal facilities. Five lAGs were signed by
year's end.  The facilities were Aberdeen Proving Ground, Tobyhanna Army Depot, Defense General
Supply Center, and Naval Air Development Center. Region III is now the first Region in the nation to
have signed lAGs with all their federal facilities  on the NPL. This represents a significant first step in
the NPL clean- up process. These facilities now have the formal mechanism in place to move through
the federal clean-up process.  (For further information contact Region III-CERCLA)
Toxic Substances Control Act

                 Revised Enforcement Response Policy for the TSCA §6
                        Polychlorinated-Biphenyls (PCBs) Rule

       In 198U, EPA issued interim guidance for determining penalties for violating the PCB rules. In the
10 years that the Agency operated under that guidance, numerous rules were issued, and amendments,
interpretations, and revisions to the original guidance were developed. Enforcement policies were
updated. On April 9, the Agency issued a new penalty policy which substantially revised the old one.
The new policy (1) raises the circumstance levels for certain types of violations based on environmental
risk, (2) reduces the threshold levels of PCBs in the extent matrix for disposal violations, (3) assesses
penalties for each  violation of the 40 CFR part 761 instead of for the broader violation of its subparts,
and (4) defines "separate location" for purposes of determining separate violations.  The new policy
generally increases penalties to deter violations, but also includes a reduction for voluntary disclosure.
(For further information contact the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Office of Compliance
Monitoring (QCM))


                            FY 1990. Enforcement Accomplishments Report
 -.   Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the TSCA §6 Hexavalent,Chromium Rule

       EPA issued a compliance monitoring strategy to ensure compliance .with the TSGA S.6 rule
prohibiting the distribution and use of hexavalent chromium in comfort cooling towers. The rule also
specifies labeling and "recordkeeping* requirements for Cr+6-4>ased water treatment chemicals.  The
compliance monitoring strategy focuses EPA's enforcement efforts on identifying: 1)  distribution
violations; 2) labeling violations; 3) reporting failures; 4) recordkeeping violations 5) use violations and
6) export notification violations.  Additionally, the strategy instructs Regional Offices how4o identify
potential non-reporters and distributors. .(For further information contact OCM)

             Enforcement Response Policy for Asbestos Abatement Projects
                                 Worker Protection Rule
          !     .'              •  *      *    j,'      ,                      *
       EPA issued an enforcement response policy to establish the enforcement procedures and civil
penalty schedules that EPA will use in response to violations of the Asbestos Abatement Projects Worker
Protection Rule by public employees subject to it.  The policy addresses violations of the monitoring,
regulated  areas," work practices," personal  protection, communication of hazards,  and  notification
provisions of the Rule. In keeping  with the Agency's increasing-emphasis'on risk-based approaches to
enforcement, the policy is structured to encourage early disclosure. (For. further information contact
OCM)              '     •''    '•      •••.,..•-•  ••.'  .  .•.   .   "   •<;.'

                                  TSCA §8(e) Initiative

      .• In December, 1989, EPA launched the TSCA §8(e) Outreach and Enforcement Initiative consisting
of letters to individual companies emphasizing the importance EPA places on TSCA §8(e) substantial
risk information and urging the companies to review compliance with section 8(e)'s reporting provisions.
The Initiatives also involves field inspections  and TSCA §11 subpoenas issued to targeted companies to
investigate section 8(e) compliance, the issuance of Notices of Noncompliance to companies for certain
first-time section 8(e)  violations, and the filing of civil  administrative complaints for late reporting and
failure of  civil administrative complaints for late reporting and failure to report substantial risk
information under .TSCA §8(e). Many of the activities and investigations involved in  the Initiative are
still ongoing and will continue throughout the next Fiscal Year. (For further information contact OCM)

 ,          Region VIII State Coordination on the Toxics Release Inventory

       On September 27, 1990, EPA awarded Colorado a grant for $96,620 for FY 1991 to  improve the
quality of the Toxic  Release Inventory database for Colorado.  The State Health  Department will
develop a  multimedia workgroup  to review TRI submissions by county.  They will involve RCRA,
NPDES, UST and  Emergency Planning permit writers and inspectors.. The goal will be to identify
companies which failed to report  under TRI, as well as additional chemicals omitted by companies
which did report. -This  information will be shared with  EPA Region VIII and will be used to select
inspection  targets from among these potential non-reporters.  EPA and  the State will determine what
followup actions are appropriate for the remaining -potential non-reporters. (For further information
contact Region vni Air and Toxics Division)

     :.""-.     /         ,1            * '      '                       ""'"•'       "         '

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Roderiticide Act

                     .     .Compliance Monitoring Strategies

       EPA issued  compliance monitoring strategies to ensure compliance with pesticide cancellations
and conditional registrations that, became  effective in FY 1990.   These  included strategies  for the
cancellation of non-wood uses of inorganic arsenicals,  aldicarb, mercury, and EBDC.  In addition, EPA
also issued a compliance monitoring strategy to ensure compliance with pesticide cancellations due to the


                       FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report                             I $822
non-payment of fees. (For further information, contact OCM.)

                          FIFRA Enforcement Response Policy

       On July 24,1990, EPA published a notice of availability in. the Federal Register (55 FR 30032} for
the revised Enforcement Response Policy for the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA ERP), which was issued on July 2, 1990. The FIFRA ERP supersedes the previous FIFRA Civil
Penalty Assessment Guidelines published in the Federal Register on July 31,1974 (39 FR 27711); the 1983
Level of Action Policy published as section 2 of Chapter  5 of the FIFRA Compliance/Enforcement
Guidance Manual; the June 8, 1981 Guidance for the Enforcement of the Child-Resistant Packaging
Regulation; the June 11, 1981 FIFRA Enforcement Policy - Interim Penalty Guidelines; and the civil
assessment matrix of the February 10, 1986 FIFRA Section 7(c) Enforcement Response Policy (the rest of
this policy remains in effect). The FIFRA ERP sets forth the  procedures and criteria that will be used to
determine the appropriate enforcement response for violations of FIFRA.  It is designed to provide fair
and equitable treatment of the regulated community by ensuring that similar enforcement responses and
comparable  penalty assessments will be made for comparable  violations,  and to provide for swift
resolution of environmental problems by deterring future violations of FIFRA by the respondent, as well
as other members of the regulated community.  (For further information, contact OCM.)

                   FIFRA Compliance  Program Policy Compendium

       EPA issued two compliance program policies during FY 1990. FIFRA Compliance Program Policy
No. 12.6, entitled "Enclosed Cab Use for Pesticide Application", was issued on October 8, 1990, and the
expiration date for the FIFRA Compliance Program Policy No. 12.7, entitled "Interim Enforcement of the
Label Improvement  Program for Pesticides Applied Through Irrigation Systems (Chemigation)", was
extended on 06/20/90, (For further information, contact OCM.)

                            Laboratory Data Integrity Program

       During FY 1990; the Laboratory Data Integrity Assurance Division conducted 79 laboratory
inspections and 338 studies were audited for compliance  with the EPA's Good Laboratory  Practice
regulations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and Toxic Substances Control
Act. (For further information contact OCM)

                          FIFRA Export Enforcement Initiative

    During FY 1990 EPA initiated a compliance monitoring  program for the enforcement of the export
provisions of FIFRA and EPA's Export Policy.  Twenty-six establishments were targeted for inspection to
determine their compliance with FIFRA and the Export Policy.  The inspections revealed substantial
noncompliance with FIFRA and the Export Policy.  As a result, EPA  issued civil administrative
complaints against nine companies. The companies were charged with violating the provisions of
FIFRA, including the exportation of unregistered pesticides without first obtaining a statement from the
foreign purchaser acknowledging that the pesticide was not  registered for use in the United States, lack
of the required bilingual labeling when exporting products to a country whose principal language does not
include English, and lack of the statement "Not Registered for Use in the United States of America" on
the labels. (For further information contact OCM)

                       Pollution Prevention Settlement Initiative

   In recent years, the Agency has made a concerted effort to incorporate pollution prevention activities
into enforcement-related activities.  After a civil administrative action (complaint) has been issued
against a  company, a company  may be  able to mitigate the  proposed  penalty  through  the
implementation of pollution prevention projects, or "environmentally beneficial expenditures". For
example, a pollution prevention project could take one or more of the following forms:  (1) an  internal
environmental audit of the company's compliance status with TSCA, which includes  finding and

                                            5-23                   '  .    '

                                FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
    promptly correcting violations; (2) expenditures to reduce the emission of an EPCRA section 313 chemical
    and (3) TSCA training courses for company employees and/or TSCA compliance seminars for customers.

        Both Headquarters and the Regions believe that pollution prevention projects are an important
    approach in settlement of cases.  Companies are encouraged to explore and maximize innovative
    pollution prevention projects with EPA and to identify and'profit from opportunities for prevention. (Foi
    further information contact OCM)   '*                                        '    >

                       FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
VL    Media Specific Enforcement Performance and
       Regional Accomplishments

A.  The Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System (STARS)

       EPA uses the Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System (STARS), to ensure that EPA and
State managers identify the highest priority environmental problems and establish accountability for
resolving those problems.  For enforcement, EPA  and the States have identified a core group of
management  indicators  to track progress in each media including inspections, compliance rates,
identifying and resolving significant noncompliance (SNC), and numbers of civil and criminal case
referrals and  administrative orders. During the Agency's annual operating guidance development
process, media compliance and enforcement programs identify categories of violations determined to be
the most environmentally significant (i.e.. SNC), and at the beginning of each fiscal year,EPA and the
States establish joint commitments to  address the SNC's during the year.  The following program
summaries indicate EPA and state progress in resolving SNC over the past several years.

  Clean Air Act - Stationary Sources

       The air enforcement program has defined SNC as a violation of SIP requirements in areas  not
attaining primary ambient  air quality for the pollutant for which the source is in violation, violations
of NSPS regardless of location, and violations of NESHAPs. Also included are violations of PSD and
nonattainment new source review  requirements.  Beginning in FY 1990, the air enforcement program
implemented  a new method of tracking SNC's which puts greater focus on Timely and Appropriate
enforcement response and on resolving SNC's discovered throughout the year.

       At the start of FY1990, EPA and the States identified 458 violating facilities as SNC's, and
throughout the year an additional 537 SNCs were identified.  At years end, 584  SNC's were either
brought into compliance, subject to an enforceable compliance schedule, or were subject to a formal
enforcement action.

  Clean Air Act - Mobile Sources

       The Office of Mobile Sources (OMS) enforces the fuels, anti-tampering, emissions warranty and
related provisions of Title II of the Clean Air Act. OMS also enforces the provisions of the Clean Air Act
related to new and  in-use motor  vehicles to assure conformity with Federal emission requirements.  FY
1990 marked the implementation of innovative methods and equipment to streamline EPA's inspection
procedures for the fuel volatility program, further  establishing EPA's enforcement presence in this area.
In addition, enforcement against lead Phasedown violations continued to require significant attention by

       EPA enforcement also focused in a new area of tampering — high performance modifications to
vehicles.  EPA also concentrates its  enforcement efforts on testing new motor vehicles and engines on the
production line, testing and recall of in-use motor vehicles, and  monitoring the importation  and
modification of nonconforming motor vehicles.

       In FY 1990, EPA issued 276 Notices of Violation (NOV) with proposed penalties of over  $21
million. Of these, the largest number of NOV's were issued for aftermarket catalytic converter cases
where  129 NOV's were issued involving proposed  penalties of $1,584,000.  The largest proposed
penalties were generated by the issuance of 13 NOV's for lead Phasedown cases that proposed penalties
of over $17 million.  EPA  issued 87 NOV's for fuel volatility violations with $653,712 in proposed
penalties.  The fuel volatility program's impact is distributed  across all gasoline-powered vehicles,
including the  higher-emitting older vehicles.  While all of the data from the 1990 summer season have
not yet been  analyzed, it is likely the program has effected a 14% reduction in  the levels  of VOC


                             FY 1990 Erforcement Accomplishments Report
emissions from mobile sources, representing approximately 400,000 tons of hydrocarbons that would
otherwise have been emitted.                                               ,

       The motor vehicle emission recall program continues to play an important role in EPA's
enforcement efforts. During FY 1990, EPA investigations resulted in 12 recalls involving 4 manufacturers
and a total of 1.6 million recalled passenger cars and light-duty trucks.  In addition, 480,000 vehicles
were recalled voluntarily by manufacturers prior to EPA testing. Also in FY 1990, in cooperation with the
state of Colorado, EPA initiated vehicle compliance testing at high altitudes.' Approximately 200 tests
were conducted resulting in six engine families identified as recall candidates.

  Clean Water Act Enforcement - NPDES Exceptions Report

       The NPDES enforcement program  has defined SNC to include violations of effluent limits,
reporting requirements,  and/or violations  of formal enforcement actions. Unlike the other  Agency
enforcement programs, the NPDES program does not track SNC against a "fixed base" of SNC that is
established at the beginning of the year, rather, the program tracks SNCs on a quarterly "exceptions
list" that identifies those  facilities that have been in SNC for two or more quarters without returning to
compliance or being addressed by a formal enforcement action.

       During FY 1990,  448 facilities were reported on the SNC exceptions list including 201 facilities
that were unaddressed from the previous year and 247 facilities that appeared on the list .for the first
time during the year. Of the 448 facilities on the exceptions list, 256 returned to compliance by the end of
the year, 134 were subject to a formal enforcement action, and 58 facilities remained to be addressed
during the upcoming year.

  Safe Drinking Water Act Enforcement

       The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)  program identifies systems in significant
noncompliance for violations of the microbiological, turbidity, and total trihalomethane requirements on
a quarterly basis and  tracks the actions taken against them.  Those not returned  to compliance or
addressed within six months are placed on the headquarters-maintained exceptions list and State and
federal action against these is tracked. In FY 1990,472 new SNCs were identified of which 173 returned
to compliance, 97 had enforcement actions taken against them, and 186 became new exceptions. Of these
new exceptions and the 411 carried over from FY 1989, Regions and States addressed a total of 251.

       The Underground Injection Control  program tracks on an exceptions basis Class I, II, III, and V
wells that failed mechanical integrity, exceeded injection pressure, or received unpermitted injection
material.  The exceptions list tracks wells that have been in SNC for more than two consecutive quarters
without being addressed by a formal enforcement action.

  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Enforcement

       SNC's identified during FY 1990 were those TSD facilities that were classified as High  Priority
Violators according to .the revised  Enforcement Response Policy.  In FY 1990, the program tracked a •
"snapshot" of SNC's in STARS. This data may not  be directly comparable to previous years when the
significant noncompliance measure tracked the number of SNCs pending at the end-of-year, the number
with initial action, those  on acceptable schedules, and the number of SNC's returned to compliance.  In
FY 1990, the program identified 817 TSDFs as SNCs, and at the end of .the year. 677 had been addressed
by a formal enforcement action.      .           .   ,              , -       .

                        FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
  Superfund Enforcement

       FY 1990 was an exceptional year for the Superfund enforcement program.  The estimated work
value of the 283 settlements reached in FY 1990 for all types of response activities totaled $1.3  billion -
the largest dollar value of cleanup work in enforcement settlements since the passage of SARA in FY 1987
and more than double the value of settlements reached in FY 1988.  Furthermore, more than 50% of
remedial response actions initiated in FY 1990 were conducted by PRPs. The Agency increased the level
of Superfund judicial enforcement activity in FY  1990 with 157 civil cases referred to DOJ primarily
seeking injunctive relief for hazardous waste cleanup by responsible parties, recovery from responsible
parties of public money spent on site cleanup, or site access to perform investigation  or cleanup work.
Remedial Action Consent Decrees were completed for 60 sites with a total value of $730.6  million
compared to 49 sites valued at $620.5 million in FY 1989.  Under Section 107, the Agency referred 79 cases
seeking recovery of past costs valued at $184.5 million.  In  FY 1990, the program also substantially
increased the level  of administrative enforcement  activity by issuing 270 administrative orders
including 44 Remedial Unilateral Administrative Orders with which PRPs have complied valued at
$357 million, compared to 23 such actions for a total of $181.6 million in FY 1989.
                                 Value of PRP Response Settlements
                                           (All Activities)
           i  1200
           I  1000.
           j   800

           0   600
                           D Other Response Settlements  IS  RD/RA Settlements
                               Superfund Program Accomplishments
                                            (All Actions)
           FY87  FY88  FY89  FY00  FY87  FY88 FY89 FY90  FY87 FY88 JFY89 FY90 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90
                      EPA Selected Remedy  D  Fund-Lead Response   S3 PW-Lead Response
                                       Illustration  7 &8

                             FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
  Toxic Substances Control Act Enforcement

       Significant noncompliance under TSCA  is defined as any administrative civil complaint (or
equivalent) with a proposed penalty of at least $25,000 (new for FY 1990), The TSCA violations include
PCB disposal, manufacturing, processing, distribution, storage, record-keeping or marking;, Asbestos-in-
schools; AHERA; import certification and recordkeeping; testing and premanufacturing notification.

       Of the 960 potentially SNC cases in the Beginning of Year (BOY) inventory, 768 were pending
issuance and 192 were open.  Five hundred thirty-eight (70% of the 768 pending cases had enforcement
actions issued  during the fiscal year, with 147 (27%) meeting the new SMC criteria.  Of" the 339 SNC
cases on the inventory, 155 (46%) were closed by the end of the year. (Note:  The numbers in the BOY are
inflated in comparison to last year due to introduction of automated STARS reporting through the FTTS
system. The information that can rule out non-SNC violations is not available at the BOY for most cases
that have not been issued. Therefore, we choose to collect all possible SNCs at the BOY. The reporting
method for FY 1991 will eliminate the  BOY in favor of tracking all SNCs in current fiscal year and
previous fiscal year categories.)

       During FY 1990, the Regions identified 90 and issued 73 new SNC violations for the subset of
TSCA violations targeted for issuance within 180 days of inspection (PCB, AHERA and  Asbestos-in-
schools violations). Of these, 64% were issued within the 180-day timeframe, against a 75% target.

       For FY 1991 and beyond, all SNC administrative complaints, regardless of the inspection date
will be considered for the purposes of timeliness.  Prior to FY 1991, only SNCs from current year
inspections were considered.

  Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Enforcement

       Significant noncompliance under FIFRA  is defined to include pesticide misuse violations and
suspension/cancellation actions.  Enforcement of pesticide use violations of FIFRA is delegated to 48
States. Sections 26 and 27 of FIFRA establish  standard procedures  for giving States primacy and
authorize the Administrator to override or rescind a grant of primacy in certain situations.  Since EPA is
not in a position to monitor State responses to each allegation of pesticide misuse referred to the Agency,
the regional pesticides programs focus  oversight activities on evaluating the  overall success of State
pesticide enforcement actions.  The programs track, on a case by case basis, only those allegations
involving the most serious violation of uses. These categories of significant violations are agreed to in
advance by the Region and State. Categories vary among the States, based on patterns of pesticide use
characteristic to the State.

       Any allegation of misuse is formally referred to a State and tracked by the Region in two stages;
investigation and enforcement response. During investigation, the Region contacts the State regarding
planned enforcement action. The State has 30 days after completing the investigation, then, to taken an
appropriate response action.  (This timeframe can be extended by the Region if circumstances warrant.)
In FY 1990, EPA and the States addressed  157 SNCs, while 19 SNCs awaited action at the end of the

       For FY 1991 and beyond, a new  definition of SNC will be applied for FIFRA federal violations.
FIFRA federal SNCs will be any administrative complaint where a violation has an associated gravity
level of "1", according to the new FIFRA  enforcement Response Policy. The above set of SNCs will also,
for the first time, be tracked for adherence to  the 180-day case issuance standard applied to TSCA.and
EPCRA SNC cases.

                       FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
  Emergency Planning/Community Right to Know Act Enforcement

       Significant noncompliance for EPCRA is defined as violations for non-reporting/failure to report
or falsified reporting.  Of the 237 potentially SNC cases in the Beginning of Year inventory, 145 were
pending issuance and 92 were open. One hundred eleven (77%) of the 145 pending cases had enforcement
actions issued during the fiscal year, with 104(94%) meeting the SNC criteria.  Of the 196 SNC cases
identified from the BOY, 80 (41%) were closed by the end of the year. [Note: In FY 1991, the reporting
based upon the BOY will be eliminated in favor of tracking all SNCs in current fiscal year and previous
fiscal year categories.] During FY 1990, the Regions identified 145 and issued 75 new SNC violations.  O f
these, 47% were issued within 180 days of inspection.

       For FY 1991, all SNC administrative complaints,  regardless of the inspection date,will be
considered for the purposes of timeliness. Prior to FY 1991, only SNCs from current year inspections were

  Federal Facilities Enforcement

       During FY 1990, the Federal Government continued to make a substantial commitment to the
environment. In April, 1990, EPA created the Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE), a unique
multi-media enforcement office, to serve as the central  agency point of contact  for all Federal
environmental programs.  Developed in response to increasingly complex conditions at Federal facilities
nationwide, OFFE provides a centralized point of focus for Federal facility compliance  with all
environmental laws and requirements.

       The Federal Government manages a vast array of industrial activities at its 27,000 installations.
At nearly 5,000 of these facilities, the Government has budgeted  approximately $1.74 billion for
environmental  programs. This record amount was 19% higher than the previous record in FY 1989 of
$1.46 billion. In FY 1990, this amount included plans for the following program areas; $156 million for
the Clean Air, $517 million for CERCLA, $195 million  for Clean Water, $2 million  for Endangered
Species Act, $ 1 million for FIFRA, $593 million for RCRA, $38 million for TSCA, and  $234 million for
other projects.  These amounts are an indication of the Government's  ongoing commitment  to
environmental compliance.

       EPA has continued to encourage compliance at all Federal Facilities through a  vigorous
enforcement and outreach program. Nationwide,, over 930 inspections were conducted.  In spite of
significant interaction between EPA and  Federal agencies, overall compliance  rates for unaddressed
significant violations remained somewhat constant at 65%.  For Department of Defense (DOD) facilities,
overall compliance remained relatively constant at 50%, for DOE overall compliance also remained
constant at 80%. Within each media, the Government's compliance rate was: 90% for CAA, 41% RCRA,
91% for NPDES, 66% for TSCA, and 69% for multi-media inspections.

       Nationwide, a record number of enforcement agreements were executed to  respond to the complex
conditions at Government facilities.  For violations under RCRA, EPA issued notices or entered into
Federal Facility Compliance Agreements at 46 facilities. Within each final agreement, provisions were
made for citizen enforceability.  Considerable efforts were also made in each environmental statute to
address instances of noncompliance with an enforceable agreement.

       Beyond assuring compliance, EPA worked closely with other Federal agencies performing
environmental restoration at the 116 Federal  facilities  which are on the National Priorities  List.
Working closely with  state regulators a record 45 Interagency Agreements were developed to focus
Federal cleanup efforts at most significant threats through expedited response actions (ERA's) and
strategic targeting response priorities.

                             FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
       A common commitment at DOE's Hanford Facility, Washington, led to record funding of their
environmental restoration activities at $89 million.  EPA also worked closely with DOE to identify ERA
opportunities.  This culminated In the execution of an Agreement in Principle in October, 1990, to initiate
three ERA's at an FY 1991 cost of $10 million.
B. RegionalOfflceAccomplishmeiite

                                     Region I - Boston
           (Connecticut, Maine, Massachussetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont)

       Region Fs enforcement efforts during FY 1990 set several records and established new directions.
The Region issued an all-time record of 229 administrative orders to violators in New England during FY
1990 (not including actions taken at Superfund sites), and referred 32 civil and six criminal cases for
prosecution by  the Department of Justice.  By comparison, tin FY 1989 the Region  issued  177
administrative orders and referred 29 civil and eight criminal cases.

       Region I piloted a new approach to enforcement through use of cross-media procedures designed
to facilitate decision-making about  the potential for multi-media enforcement at violating facilities.
The Region made it standard practice to perform a multi-media compliance/enforcement status check for
a facility slated for enforcement action and to obtain a Toxics Release Inventory Report for the facility.
The results of the database searches for those facilities with some multi-media enforcement potential
were summarized on a Multi-Media Compliance Check form and  discussed at managers' enforcement
meetings in the Office of Regional Counsel, with program representation as appropriate.  Based on the
discussions at the enforcement  meetings, decisions were made to develop some actions as multi-media
enforcement cases, to plan for further cross-media coordination, or to take other follow-up action.

       The heightened emphasis in the Region on multi-media enforcement led the Region in FY 1990 to
make two major multi-media civil referrals and to coordinate issuance of administrative complaints
when developed against the same violating facility.

       In another new direction for  the enforcement program, the  Region made increased efforts in FY
1990 to encourage innovative forms of relief in settling enforcement actions. As examples, the Region
began to consider the potential for pollution prevention projects and  environmental audits as components
of settlements. In addition, during the latter part of the year, the Region made a major commitment to
developing a strategic plan for its enforcement program.

       The overall objective of these program directions is to maximize the environmental benefit from
enforcement actions through effective case screening and targeting and creative use of the tools available
to the Region  for case resolution. These initiatives begun in FY 1990  are certain to become cornerstones of
Region I's enforcement program in the future.

                                   Region II - New York
                        (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands)

       Region II's record for FY 1990 displays a continued strong commitment to an aggressive, targeted
enforcement enforcement program.

       Multi-Media Enforcement Pilot Project - A workgroup was created to identify candidates for
multi-media inspections, and plan a concerted enforcement response to documented violations. Two such
inspections were performed during FY 1990, and five or more are scheduled for FY 1991.  Both FY 1990
inspections resulted in multi-media enforcement actions. The major case concerns Caribbean Petroleum, a
Puerto Rico oil refinery, against which four concurrent administrative actions were filed (under RCRA,

                             FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
emissions from mobile sources, representing approximately 400,000 tons of hydrocarbons that would
otherwise have been emitted.

       The motor vehicle emission recall program continues to play an  important role in EPA's
enforcement efforts. During FY 1990, EPA investigations resulted in 12 recalls involving 4 manufacturers
and a total  of  1.6 million recalled passenger cars and light-duty trucks.  In addition, 480,000 vehicles
were recalled voluntarily by manufacturers prior to EPA testing. Also in FY 1990, in cooperation with the
state of Colorado, EPA initiated vehicle compliance testing at high altitudes.  Approximately 200 tests
were conducted resulting in six engine families identified as recall candidates.

  Clean Water Act Enforcement - NPDES Exceptions Report

       The NPDES enforcement program  has defined SNC to include violations of effluent limits,
reporting requirements, and/or violations  of formal enforcement actions.  Unlike the other  Agency
enforcement programs, the NPDES program does not track SNC against a "fixed base" of SNC that is
established  at  the beginning of the year, rather, the program tracks SNCs on a quarterly "exceptions
list" that identifies those facilities that have been in SNC for two or more quarters without returning to
compliance or being addressed by a formal enforcement action.

       During FY 1990, 448 facilities were reported on the SNC exceptions list including 201 facilities
that were unaddressed from the previous year and 247 facilities that appeared on the list,for the first
time during the year. Of the 448 facilities on the exceptions list, 256 returned to compliance by the end of
the year, 134 were subject to a formal enforcement action, and 58 facilities remained to be addressed
during the upcoming year.

  Safe Drinking Water Act Enforcement

       The Public Water System  Supervision (PWSS)  program identifies systems in  significant
noncompliance for violations of the microbiological, turbidity, and total trihalomethane requirements on
a quarterly basis and tracks the actions taken against them.  Those not returned  to compliance  or
addressed within six months are placed on the headquarters-maintained exceptions list and State and
federal action against these is tracked. In FY 1990, 472 new SNCs were identified of which 173 returned
to compliance,  97 had enforcement actions taken against them, and 186 became new exceptions. Of these
new exceptions and the 411 carried over from FY 1989, Regions and States addressed a total of 251.

       The Underground Injection Control program tracks on an exceptions basis Class I, II, III, and V
wells that  failed mechanical integrity, exceeded injection pressure, or received unpermitted injection
material.  The exceptions list tracks wells that have been in SNC for more than two consecutive quarters
without being addressed by a formal enforcement action.

  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Enforcement

       SNC's  identified during FY 1990 were those TSD facilities that were classified as High Priority
Violators according to the revised Enforcement Response Policy.  In FY 1990, the program tracked a ~
"snapshot" of SNC's in STARS.  This data may not be directly comparable to previous years when the
significant noncompliance measure tracked the number of SNCs pending at the end-of-year, the number
with initial action, those on acceptable schedules, and the number of SNC's returned to compliance.  In
FY 1990, the program identified 817 TSDFs as SNCs, and at the end of .the year 677 had been addressed
by a formal enforcement action.

  I                          FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
consent decree to settle CWA/RCRA violations at a pulp and paper mill (Penntech Papers, Johnsonburg,
PA), and the development of joint SDWA/CERCLA orders to remedy drinking water threats near non-
NPL sites.  In response to Administrator Reilly's goals for the Chesapeake Bay, the Region embarked on
a multi-media objective to reduce significant non-compliance (SNC).  NPDES-SNC was reduced from
8.3% at the start of the initiative to 4.6%, and the number of federal facilities in non-compliance with at
least one environmental program was reduced from 37 to 13.

     Review of the site assessments completed in FY 1990 by the RCRA contractor demonstrates the need
to address potentially significant risks posed by non-regulated and .regulated releases. In FY 1991, the
work group will develop a strategy for each facility and may include using a risk- based approach under
Superfund authorities or utilizing several different authorities in one enforcement action. The facilities
will be prioritized according to the risk they pose to human health and the environment.  The work
group and EPA upper management will then evaluate the implementation of the cross-media enforcement
project and determine its applicability on a wider scale.                       ^

       Negotiations were completed with federal facilities for the remaining Interagency Agreements
for Superfund clean-ups.  Region III is the  first Region  to have signed lAG's with all their  federal
facilities on the NPL.  .                                     "

       The Region  obtained a guilty plea in a criminal case involving illegal filling of wetlands that
resulted in the largest monetary penalty assessed  against an individual  in an environmental case - $1
million in fines and $1 million in restitution (US v, Paul Tudor Jones).

       Several  additional national/Regional firsts were also achieved:

       1. first national RCRA ROD (IBM Manassas, VA);
     .  2. first penalty assessed against another federal agency by EPA (Letterkenney Army Depot);
       3. first national SDWA Section 1431 order against a private company for remediation of a
         drinking water supply (Foote Mineral);
       4. attained the highest penalty in a vinyl chloride NESHAP case and reached agreement for a
          precedent-setting audit program to ensure compliance (Occidental Chemical Corp.),

                                    Region IV - Atlanta
    (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee)

       Region IVs programs achieved strong  levels of  performance and set national precedents in
several  cases.  In addition, as the Agency's lead region  for enforcement in FY 1990, Region IV was
instrumental in setting an agenda for a more integrated, effective enforcement program in the 1990s.

       Regional organizational changes were made in FY  1990 to facilitate enforcement efforts.  Region
IV began a pilot  reorganization of the Office  of Regional Counsel to add a branch that exclusively
focuses on multi-media, and the Policy, Planning and Evaluation Branch designated staff to ensure that
four-year strategic enforcement themes, including multi-media enforcement,  are institutionalized in
Region IV.                                                                  *    •

       Region IV began coordinating with the National  Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) to
identify multi-media noncompliers. This effort utilizes NEIC's Corporate Cross-Regional Identification
Program (CCRIP).  Based upon retrieval criteria defined by  Region IVs  Air, NPDES, and' RCRA
programs, a list is generated of facilities that have violations in at least two of the three programs. The
list also indicates  whether the facility is on the National Priorities tist, or if it reported emissions for
the Toxics Release Inventory. The list  is updated on a quarterly basis.  The multi-media noncomplier list
is useful for inspection targeting, identification of multi-media noncompliers, and case screening. Region
IV is also investigating the use of this list in enforcement negotiations.


                       FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report                              12SS- '
       A second product of NEICs Corporate Cross-Regional Identification Program is the corporate
profile retrieval. For each facility showing a violation in the Air, MPDES or RCRA programs, CCRIP
searches data bases in all EPA Regions to determine if the facility has corporate affiliates which also
have violations. This retrieval is an indication of corporate noneompliance patterns.  It is primarily
useful  for enforcement negotiations and case screening; however, it  may have utility in targeting
corporate affiliates with compliance problems. Region IV led the nation in the number of criminal
referrals. In addition, this year the Region criminal enforcement program tops the nation in number of
defendants charged and the total number of cases in which charges were filed. These successes are
largely due to the Region's specific emphasis on criminal enforcement.

       Traditional enforcement activities also continued to be a high priority in FY 1990.  EPA-lead
actions included 366 administrative  orders and 35 civil referrals to DOJ.  Region IV's Superfund Cost
Recovery program had the first and only treble damage award at the Naomi/Walker County site ($1
million) and was very successful in  de minimis settlements, including a case with over 200 PRPs.  In
RCRA, State penalty amounts  increased from $3.1 million in FY 1989  to $6.1 million in FY 1990. The
Water  Division emphasized Wetlands enforcement, resulting in 35 administrative actions. A highlight
for the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division was Hoechst Celanese, who was found in violation of the
NESHAP for equipment leaks of benzene based on a review of Title 313 emissions release data.  Region IV
responded with a civil referral.

                                     Region V - Chicago
                     (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin)

       During Fiscal 1990, Region  V entered into several multi-million dollar settlements with  an
emphasis on multimedia enforcement and enforcement at Federal facilities. The filing of a consent
decree with USX Gary Works is one of the nation's major environmental accomplishments for the year.
Under terms of the decree, USX will  undertake environmental improvements estimated at $32.5 million,
which  includes a $7.5 million sediment characterization and remediation and a $1.6 million penalty for
Clean Water Act (CWA) violations.

       Five criminal cases involving violations of the  Safe Drinking Water Act or CWA were filed. A
significant settlement of one of those cases involved Menominee Paper Co., where the company pleaded
guilty to falsifying 11 discharge monitoring reports and was fined  $100,000 in addition to a $2.1  million
civil penalty settlement. A notable part of the case was a judicial order that Menominee Paper take out a
full-page newspaper advertisement disclosing its offenses and the penalty.
       Region  V entered into an important consent agreement with  the  U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) involving cleanup of the Feed Materials Production Center at Fernald, OH. The result was a $2
billion, five-year plan  that, along with a similar facility at Hanford, WA, will serve as models for
cleanup of other government and privately owned nuclear sites. Contamination from the Fernald center
was affecting air, land, and water on site and in  the community adjacent to the plant. Hazard  studies
were scrutinized to assure DOE, the public, and the news media that cleanup would be carried out to
protect human health and  the environment. Major  impacts  of this agreement are  that  it firmly
established EPA's  authority to exercise its  authority at  facilities  operated by other Federal agencies
and that it made the U.S. EPA Administrator the final arbiter of disputes, moving that function from the
Office  of Management and Budget.  Other  Region V Federal facilities affected during the year were
DOE's  Mound Plant in Miamisburg, OH, and Hicks Air  Force Base at Minneapolis/St. Paul. The Mound
Plant cleanup is estimated at $800 million.

       Under Superfund, enforcement was outstanding with Region V accounting for almost one quarter of
the national referrals to the Department of Justice and 29 Records of Decision signed. A consent decree at
the Liquid Disposal Inc. site in Utica, MI, requires 41 settling defendants to carry out a $22.4 million
cleanup.  The Region also settled one of its oldest cases against Alvin Laskin and about 140 other
potentially responsible parties (PRPs). The PRPs agreed  to pay $1.47 million of a $5 million cleanup, the

                              FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report  '"*
first $350,000 in oversight costs, and any future oversight costs exceeding a $1.75 million estimate,

T!.' V,  Under-RGRA, :the Region set a precedent urthe Master. Metals; Inc consent "decreesThe decree(
required the company.to'close all its treatment; storage, and.disposal.uriits because'of-its loss of ;interimj
status (LOIS). Only certain specified container storage areas not subject to LOIS were exempted; Thisr
decree is.the first settlement providing a compliance schedule for non-LOIS container storage units while
requiring closure of LOIS units at the sarhe;facility. Another important consent decree required Chemical;
Waste'Management, Inc. to pay a $750,000 penaltyand close an enormous sludge pile at itsMckery,*OH;
facility.  Additionally,*the Region resolved -a sixKrount .Toxic Substahce!and"Gontrbl Act'(TSGA)"case'
with  Chemical Waste for operations :at its Chicago*incinerator. This action.resultedan'  i''v' sr-' :-. f , iflr  . "..'•'.  ••'. "' ':>'. ''^ •-'• 10 >.'• - f.,J :*  •'' '•• ^i-y^r* ~ut".,.v
 <4,,,,,vThe Region;,VI enforcement-program's goal is  to achieve compliance through-fully,considered,/
dedsive.and effective.enforcement  Enforcement efforts are directed, on-a priority, basis, at the most,
serious threats to human  health and the environment. Our enforcement program seeks these objectives:" -f

        1.  Emphasis on environmentally significant and precedent-setting cases.
        2.  Greater penalties aimed at removing economic benefits of non-compliance and at deterrence;
        3.  Use of leading-edge enforcement techniques to complement traditional activities; and
        4.  Leveraging environmental protection capability through state enforcement and capacity

 i,  .:j. (; During FY 1990,  the Region developed an enforcement pilot project which-focused on innovative.
techniques such as targeting, risk;based decision making, and screening. It included^meetings between the.
Regional. Administrator and~senior,-executives of corporations that.owned.Jargetedjfacilities. vjThe.
meetings focused the attention of these senior, executives on the serious interest of Regional management,
in reducing toxic releases from their facilities.                       -T<.;  '.->•_ t,   .-'Ju,'*  uK, ' ~r^ji "•

 ,>.  .>,.   The,pilot .project/the  Toxic.Release..Reduction Project,.isra ,twpiphasedjapproach/that will
attempt to obtain reduction of risk from toxic chemicals emitted from industrial sources.- Phase I-consists-.
of a, review of selected sources with a recalculated individual risk of 10-2 or greater--in-the  Air Toxic;
Exposure and Risk Information System (ATERIS) data. The purposes are .to explore the possibility "of;
reducing toxic emissions, to insure compliance with all regulatory provisions, and to conduct a complete
multi-media  risk  assessment.  A key  feature  of  this effort is meetings  between.'the  Regional
Administrator, State officials, and company .executive  officers, which have already, r occurred.
Enforcement, actions wilHollow as appropriate, .;,«•,.  -.  • ,- ••;.  . ?-;    --;-Ui   ci-> jt >'i,,rv! >'>.. ' i "• M
 V.'I. "l-;b','   ..  i "  ;:,L ,''.•    .     -,•!•?"•••,    -i  ^-ifi .. r •  .'.' t;  ,  •''(>. /jr-",;  ir.ili  "",'J.  -,.-,,:,  '..!. ,'.i;'Jl'v.
 -_•/.._  Phase II consists of a multi-media compliance investigation and-subsequent multi-media riskj
assessment of selected sourcesJn a target area to explore the potential for risk reduction., The target area
selectedi-was the heavily industrialized  area between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana,: on the
Mississippi River.  Risk screenings were performed on  facilities reporting under,the Emergency^Planning
and Community Right-tp-Know Act Section 313 (Toxic Release, Inventory, or TRI data) which considered  ,
the relative toxicities of the chemical emissions as well as the quantity of emissions.«,, -jtisr-t  i> >rr<> hi-
 'if. \ -..ys1.  ?:'.' •'."' .-.-  ,')f ...;. ; - ;•  "'  !,,t ;,.    ' i  i?v.  ;'  ':5-   >.•!••:  h  •  .,  ;.••.;•;-..-il-! I:   /••. .^O
 , . -n, ,Bqth phases.are focused on reductions.qf toxic emissions with demonstrable or predictable effects,
on  public health and the environment, and they will seek facility,alterations through the following!
mechanisms:  (1) formal enforcement actions, (2) review of existing permits, (3) non-traditional methods,
such as discussions between the Regional.Administrator:and-facility,executives to-obtain-,yoluntary
plant-wide emission reductions, (4) environmentaj awards for facilities  which are in compliance with
all regulations in an exemplary manner, (5) create incentives to encourage facilities to reporfand correct >
violations.  ,-J.  ;.. -"  ,._;._ ,. fJ:>.],,  ,_  .;>   _  -  ,_.  .,j,.  .  r.,   ._ . ..,./.,.-,  ,.;,-  ,,,:...-,"'• «,-.•• ,q,Jf,mh
                                   ' •  •• 7!   '  -.-• -•*. ,- •:\.,.'C  "H;.<.. . ,....  . .,

                        FY 1990..Enforcement'Accomplishments Report,
a.--.-ijr;," Through;'the 'Regidn!s™awards'prbgram/members of '.the regulated ecommuriity that 'achieve
exemplary ^compliance'in' airfnedia'-are Recognized by the Regional 'Administrator:^1 This1 program has
been well received in the regulated community'and recognized oh a'natioriaMevell '" •' -i"><:<   >w  '>•"•'("

       The Region collected over $1.3 million in-administrative penalties for  violations of the Clean
Water Act, more than any other Region^ while, issuing Tover 900 administrative, orders.  Under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Region collected over $l'.7 million  in penalties.  Under the
criminal enforcement program, about one third of the total national amount of  sentenced jail time was
assessed'against viqlatdrs-ln Regio'n VI/C Finally,:among'the administrative enforcement actions; Region
VI realized a civil penalty'of $375,000 and'a commitment of some $60 million in cleanup'cost outlays from*
TrahswestenvPipeline Company for remediation of PCB contaminated naturaTgas*compressor stations'ih'
New Mexico;*  • J *J>"  •  ''  •'• ;1|T"  '"'  '"''J^i.jji'v, '-'••*'•'. i'-t -*•-» •><*' *•'' ••*'• .»•: ••i.nfj'iVn-_> <"»• > >, ::>.',' '_••,  •••

'";i'fr" Region VI-has worked 'closely with Mexico's Secretariat of :Urban Development and'Ecology"
(SEDUE). EPA and SEDUE have institutionalized inspections of maquiladoras'in Mexico and their sister.
plants in the U.S.

JnJrnl-ioi'ri': -',!  .."nj'"  •"'    v ,  ^8ion Y11' .K^115?8 P*X   '   - S-r^.'^'* :\ ..'i'v '^r'j
ons >-ni-•"-,<}-.  •:/.: i o- ..-- •  i:Jjjoi^
                             FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
       Times Beach Settlement: The Region reached a settlement agreement with Syntax Agribusiness
and Syntex (USA) for clean-up a incineration of dioxin-contaminated soil and debris from 28 dioxin sites
in Eastern Missouri, with an estimated project cost of over $200 million.

                                   Region VIII - Denver
                (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming)

       In Region VIII, enforcement tools are used in appropriate and innovative  ways to correct
environmental and health problems,  to remove economic benefits accrued by polluters as a result of
noncompliance, to encourage environmental stewardship by all, and to help preserve the unique and
largely unspoiled environments in its States for future  generations to enjoy.  The States of Colorado,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming, and many county and local governments,
often have lead roles through delegated program responsibilities or their own individual environmental
program requirements.

        During 1990, the Region added focus to its enforcement efforts by providing a forum for its
enforcement branch chiefs to work closely with the Deputy Regional Administrator to  bring a cross-
program focus to environmental enforcement.  A rotational position was established  for enforcement
program branch chiefs to enhance their knowledge of both the individual enforcement  programs and
national environmental enforcement directions, and to help assure that implementation of new agency
initiatives  reflect the views of Regional enforcement staff.  Important first steps were taken to formalize
institutional relationships needed to support these new initiatives.

       During FY 1990, the Region emphasized its judicial enforcement program and increased the
numbers of new civil"cases referred to DOJ to 24 (up from 11 in FY 1989).  For this same period of time, the
number of administrative enforcement actions remained relatively stable at 230 actions  (versus 228 in
1989).  And, substantial resources were used for criminal investigations at the Department of Energy's
Rocky Flats Facility near metropolitan Denver.

       Specific noteworthy accomplishments included:.

       The Region began implementing  the national Enforcement 4-Year Strategic  Plan  with  a
comprehensive participatory approach to enforcement planning, multi-media targeting, strategic value
case review, and enforcement communications.  New activities during FY 1990 included a process for
screening  and  strategic value case review;  active work groups for developing a regional enforcement
strategic plan, for targeting  and screening, and for communications;  and a geographic enforcement
          Under the CWA 404 Program, the Region met its commitment for Class I penalty complaint
reviews by the Office of Wetlands Protection and the Office of Enforcement; thereby setting the stage for
assessment of penalties for wetlands enforcement. The Region is publicizing each enforcement action in a
planned and targeted manner to obtain the maximum deterrent value from each action. The UIC Program
settled the civil case against Pioneer Exploration, Inc. for the largest dollar penalty collected to date in
the UIC program nationally.  The case resulted  in substantial environmental benefit when the operator
agreed to properly plug and  abandon several injection wells that had failed mechanical integrity tests;
Region VIII led the Nation in having all of its major permittees in compliance with secondary treatment
standards.  A key case in  this program  was a civil  judicial referral against Western Sugar which
resulted in the largest environmental penalty ever collected in the State of Montana.

        Emphasis under the UST Program involved a leak detection enforcement initiative on  Indian
lands.  Several phases were completed including tank surveys, training of Indian environmental
coordinators, information request letters and follow-up enforcement In FY 1990, this initiative resulted
in two actions against the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

                       FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                                 Region IX - San Francisco
                     Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Trust Territories )

       Region DCs enforcement goals are to achieve and maintain compliance, enhance state capability,
establish deterrence, and prevent pollution.  The Region's approach balances these five goals in
determining  the  most effective and efficient means to achieve high  rates of compliance  in all
environmental programs. Throughout the year, the Region emphasized risk reduction, toxic loadings
reduction, pollution prevention and habitat protection.

       The Region prepared 38 new referrals during FY 1990, 21 of which  were forwarded  to the
Department of Justice during the year. Two criminal referrals were forwarded to DOJ for prosecution.
Sixteen referrals were concluded during the year, resulting in penalties of $2,733,000 and awarded cost
recoveries of $3,512,120. A total of 147 Administrative enforcement actions were issued.

       Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAO) under CERCLA were utilized at seven NPL sites. The
UAO at  Koppers  requires $70  million in remediation work.  The  total estimated  Remedial
Design/Remedial Action work being performed  by potentially responsible parties is  $133.2 million.
CERCLA Federal Facility Agreements were successfully negotiated with the Army, Air Force, Navy and
Marine Corps, at 12 NPL sites.

       An Enforcement Pilot Project was initiated in cooperation with the State of California Regional
Water Quality Control  Board and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to address pretreatment,  above
ground  oil storage facilities  and  wetlands preservation in the San Francisco Bay area.  The pilot has s
resulted in both  judicial and administrative enforcement  cases and  provided a focus for shared
environmental concerns in three regulatory areas that impact the vital resources of the bay.
       Supporting State and local  agency program development is a continuing priority.  The  South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in California successfully negotiated a $1,000,000
cash penalty in addition to a schedule to achieve compliance by Lockheed Aerospace Corporation. The
case was identified as part of the cooperative EPA, State Air Resources Board, and SCAQMD aerospace
rule effectiveness study.

       Establishing significant legal precedent is also a part of the Region's enforcement agenda.  With
the  Shell Oil  case, Region IX  established  Clean Water  Act Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure penalties on a PER DAY basis.  Shell agreed to  a $20 million settlement including
penalties and resource damage payments to the 16 federal, state and local agencies cooperating in this
enforcement action addressing a 1988 crude oil spill to San Francisco Bay.

                                     Region  X - Seattle
                              (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington)

       Region  X experienced several substantial changes during Fiscal Year 1990  which have
strengthened  emphasis on enforcement issues. The new management team in Region X is working to
implement Administrator Reilly's emphasis on  EPA's enforcement program.  Key to maintaining this

emphasis has been the Deputy Regional Administrator "s taking the lead in  focusing  Regional attention
on enforcement activities.

       One specific area of attention is multi-media enforcement.  Programs are now coordinating to
identify candidates for multi-media enforcement action; multi-media inspections have started and will
continue through FY91 as a step in this process.

       Within Region X, waste emissions from pulp and paper mills are proving to be one of the most


                                FY1990 ^Enforcement Accomplishments Report- ^
difficult environment problems faced  to date.  There are 23 mills scattered throughout  the Region;
however, 20 of the facilities are located ^inrJWashington"andjpregon.  Each of these plants represent a
potentially significant risk, to therenyironment.jind;human health. [Unlike, many of the industries EPA
regulates, pulp and paper mills tend to have emissions and industrial processes that cross several of
EPA's, single, media. programs.-,. JWrtually^all of rthe^ regulatory ,programs,haye_an.f interest- in  this
^»j.i«.,j«j._ji.o>.~t.j!i ,../«iM>i<.fp,/?i lU'iC^flu/./ nTu.*U«-iutP;u^!H-3>;Uii i5 a J\i  -.i'j'.irjft
R^rtfe^r«JJ\4uJlWj eo-j,i'i[(id  rbfiotqqB 3 nor;p5f 'Jill  .aotJiMlr.q inovoiq bns /xwrmofob  rfeikir.lea
lit; ni  the mulnVmedia. inspections conducted ,at , federal . facilities over., the past, several
BjTJ'nM/:  ^ir,:n ,J tl < = « .>"L- J I «•; i i  w'j->i«- ,,.. .Oin-r«'«.»r'- Mi - '• , -J^ f Jill JiJ •,'•*"" " * ' ' ',•  ->i>^oj.'(t/ U  J»,rI3Alf*,»nji-_, j.Mjt>*-^ "•?/," i~-'^ijL'i.u',i .iK.iu.ijyj r-fi
The inspection team will consist of EPA and State inspectors, and level-of-effort (LOE) contractors.  The
project , will , be ..closely coordinated-with(bothjthe regional Pollution Prevention initiative focusing on
>0i.in nj  !„ ,,.»,•.»  i • JKIIO**: c I •>:;, "«l v«~»> C" IM -' • J' 1-J • -J,  it\flifjf  -Jit'   D
pulp,mills,as,well as the»headquarters initiative aimed at.dioxin and.toxic reduetiohs.at pylp miiis.Kr>I.irT
**.-u«i tij jc t.^ >^  itji ^x^^-i vji l**^fcyj ijl j i» ;A  jt_i,-f ^tl>fc.-^i^i listiiiMl./ uvv i  t p«?^ ^fMj  ^iiiiijt-. VJ4J \o «isl6n«rt ni  uniJiusoi jsoy  'JfH snnub bshuljftfn OTTA' ^I'mfi
        A task force,has,been,commissioned,to. strengthen enforcement and,to identify waysito
                 ,ijjs,»«t, ( ->t, 1 1 ' t i -Ui   Jfi  OAU
  ,.,. ,„. 3. /! improving the interface between programs and the legaLprocess;, and ..I.J.
   ir /V< r/.i , 7 !:•»•* jjt3./f(i,,t ..... , . t , X- i^~Ti- 1 r'^-.f, •rifnirsjjjjf lOiffrrnfsiuS'jt^fr: V-'"
       4. demonstrating senior management s commitment to enforcement.  fc v fj jq
ff ,„,„„ FiscaLYearjl990 can behest described.as a transition, year for.Region-X,  Change.is,also expected
ifi'JQIp^i^^ III. xQ"t**-.X *** ^Ju'i,. Ji*1r Js*'-,,  *>:«j-t*J.9 t>v|M- -M *^- '- M- "JijI^C > •/- IJ.^^U1*3* n J U I 3' I'Ji i ! Jtt lOt^l -Jl li>**  *
to.be,the.hallniark,of Region X's enforcementprograms.over the next year as iniHativ^.areJrnpleinented
r- t \*^U . Mi^itaj **-* **-*> *'-| f-- ° ^ ' - w ' *- - J ^ ii*. • U«J. *»* «,* °.J,V  • I is "-' 1, .L,, V  « SJ' •/-.?>i!3 U kOM^-i  "^ M i * * Jw'" ^JiN'yi V" A-^** * 1
J^^J^^^ORiJ^^^^^S^Pl^^                   ibHBDow b;m ,-orJifbri ogciote i!
b^ii'dB TOI  tuoo^  6 b'jbivoT|  bus ?5?&'J Jnornyofo'irio  •j'/il.'Ji^uiiKTibc.  bnc  lch>tbi<{ rllod  ni
                   d) io eoD'iuf.'«;')f bliv ;?f!i Jr»&qr.if r»s!t r£.-ytf v^oluff-'j-ji 5 sail ni .'ni-j^noj [fij
     fi aiiT  .v_ihohq ^/tiuntjm-j .^ ei jfi'jmqobvab rr;^orr'f ^;rj''5B !G:>O) bnj-
I'f/J.OOn.iC s b^Etlngojf vlfu-V;'cr>-jt/5! om'.f^tlsJ) rr: ^rl^''•J/Or?) (jhteiO 1fiorn3
jril" .fiO'{37oq"iu^ 9aborif,Tj/. teaft'bo J -f-' o^rrGf/.-rrrfaj v'/iirt'j'J ol ^Iwfc'jr'M a of uoriitbc. nr
'j-j*.q.:oio£ C1MPAJ8 fane ,uiu','a t^i-jo^S! iiA -^'"12 .A^H ovhi.fjqt.cn ir!i Vi j-.tq gr,
r'.ii'.'l  .sbnagfi tnorfii-Oiol/'O ^'noi.'^H otfi to iir,q o uifb ?i Jmboioiq I £.30' Jficoi!/n^i« gfr:ri«Hd£J83
bifL ionlnuD  ,noilriovytri Iliqf*  J";A  vjJsW fn.o'"'")  b'jfi'^iU!i;j» iio.-'H  ,p-j«-sd YAO Jl:icl t> no c">f
aJ.'I) ni v.»7(j«7i,"50O3 aobn^fi ?6'X*' L«:> sJfiJrf Jaroi/v'l  af '»«'J {>; e*M:wn\/£q o^bfr-ftb ii/tuofeQi bus aaiJ
                                 .•«vfa (j^b-TiTi r.c? oi f!;c • fro ve^ro G?9f B  n
•jvtirf  ff-jtrFw  QP9f  itoY  l^-jai-I  ^nnbl; ^'jgusib  i:;Hfief.iiui  I&-W.)?
ol gpl-hov/ :jj  X rioigyV ni rit&i} Jri:»TTJ5snfcm-v."jn Lf.T  .rju^ei i.rTvTi?3io'in'j fro ^ic
     eiiiJ n»nuilni&m o<  '-'^ .nirr.oT  j'n.ofnvy;oVr.».:V\'I3 no iti'Sflrt'j Jyirio'i toli/JdmimbA
             oi^   nffeOjoJ ,?i bo'jl yrfj  /.'b'r»; asijJ.'^,'.ri/r;r^LA iBniMjfjA yji'cuU o/W /TJ'jtJ S6/I e^
                                                                <;'r nfin-jllB Io 5*Ji& aniq3. -jn
                 9'/srf enoiirAjerii c:?>'>.T(-JJ^in ;f.oilJ6 Jnomono^ny cifyjm-iKum iol ffDi'sbihow ylitmbi
                                                                  ^W; iri qjj;t G c-.j tVYM ri^uc
            FY 1990 'Erforcement Accomplishments Report i l
              tg ..y ^ £,

              cj i^ .,? i3
              f? '-3 "* f)
                  ~» -s <"**


                                       . »
                                      IT' • -
        |  fj ° '-
          .,'*• T:TTD p —. ou-'.-i-. v- •j'1 :;-. i£ W n.1 f-v-^i.
          r Historical Enforcement Data
 'H r  List of; Headquarters Enforcement^ Con tacts
 ». •     i  %       A   ,      «.- -  •-      ;-•  i     *
o £     - ••*                 -          i    j

List of Regional^Enfc(rcemen.t Information Contacts
- , -"     j  -^ *'- o ° ° — Iru     £* *r, ^ ^-' <•- ^jfr-  '
 1 CO
                txj O C3
          * H

                FY1972 TO FY1990


': 45*
. 0




0 "




               FY1972 TO FY1990


. 176

. 436

' 554
137 .







IQLVra 89-f
₯ . JOI
ryr r\0
* V J kiV
cry o
W • 331 • ill3
*\ 2DMV 33d 19J
Referrals to DOJ 5J ^ T
ir y, 0-^T, »y ~r Qj"i
Cases successfully^prbsecuted
Defendants charged
Defendants convicted -v, <
i? ' 0
v o Months sentenced
V I.' % \J
OP v ° Months served o
V o Months probation
o •
0 '

552 ,
"DfrfiL jn
\ wT"i*?T'
t^ X f 3
i* S.^/
3«'1ED (BA VCD





           t I

                          O C O < <
,-**  r~\ -*, V™"'
v.;.'_' i  . ..b
Q   O O   O
00   O
                                         o c

                          << c ^ ^
                                 ,-—1 rr~
                                 o  o
                                         D.Q  * y   STA^ ENVIRONMENTALAGENCY,   I/,  '•'    «

                                         -JUpiCIAE REFMRAES A^kDMINISTRATTVE AGTIONSi

                                         v4 ••:: 0 9 "£ r* -  £ ~   FY1985TO FY1990   £ \%    ''I   ? 1    #

                                                                                         o _

"jr. «;; -^ -i-»
' ^ < ^ ^

vj 6 .5 r-''
*~* ^ ,s 



f "^


r -
t -s

c — -- _r;
^^" c™ *^v r^
^1 x' .-y .Q
r*^: 742 "'




•i ? -1"1

O '•"' • -*
1 lY8i
^ .-56,055-
JL *
•j ^_; ^>
-'" ^ r "-1
in fu •"-'
-T i,^"
n 5,922
^ |,6;63
> !?907
I 1613
*[- 9,105
iT* rr^
i I J ^™\ i^
!~ -4
'£i oc V
j- li-.- » *
P 4» ui
EY138 f
5,078 B
|,887 fD
1^655 S
|743 r'J
9,363 o
.^^ . *





cr r'
FY88 i-'

687 >,
171 :'•


t , .— , .t>
*- ^-" • '•>
o o ^



156 ,


                         Prior,tpfFY 1990, the State^roA Administrative Action total included warning letters,

                       c indudirig 3>409^ih-FYil989, ^Tne EY1990 totatd^es not include 3,149 Stale warning letters.
                       uj ' • ti> W '-C i?, ro t-'. -'.. .--'. •.'' i.l'  -  'i (,'.         -'  •'- t.-;         .' .'-'        t,' t''     •   u}
                       CC «J CO CC CO f-'  - -- i;> - .;.; y ,  ;.' co         -~  c^ ij        . ^- ';         CO cj        ^C
                             r  i  s   ,  •"     ,  •   i
                       -4. x-.',  .-'• -i1- .,-t .O '*.'  •'-< *V  C1 -~  , ~  rC I'
                       t- —i .,  — jy   JJ  U. '•  " -  ".' f*..  r»'
                       U- LC M -V r-1 CO  ,  C, f-  ,' . . -i' I  "..  r.
                       .-  ,' ic o •_: r o  /"L" —.  r  c- '-c  -•  -  c
                                                                     - v, . 1
                                                                    '••' ,'U ^--
                                                                    t- i ' -i~"
                                                                    1 1 ~\  ".-'

                    FF /990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
                   EPA Headquarters Enforcement Offices
Office of Enforcement (OE)

Assistant Administrator
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Deputy Assistant Administrator-Federal Facilities
Director of Civil Enforcement
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air Enforcement
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Water Enforcement
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Superfund Enforcement
Associate Enforcement Counsel for RCRA Enforcement
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Office of Compliance Analysis and Program Operations (OCAPO)
Office of Federal Activities (OFA)
Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
Contractor Listing Program
National, Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC - Denver)

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)

Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD)
Field  Operations and Support Division (FOSD)
Manufacturers Operations Division (MOD)

Off ice of Water (OW)

Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP)
Office of Drinking Water (ODW)

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)

Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE - CERCLA)
Office of Waste. Programs Enforcement (OWPE - RCRA)

Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances

Office of Compliance Monitoring (OCM)

                       FY1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices
                      Enforcement Information Contacts
 Region I - Boston

 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
 New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont

 Region II - New York
 New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico,
 Virgin Islands
Region III - Philadelphia

Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia

Region IV - Atlanta

Alabama,' Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee

Region V- Chicago

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota
Ohio, Wisconsin

Region VI - Dallas

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
Region VII - Kansas City

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska

Region VIII -  Denver

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

Region IX - San Francisco

Arizona,  California, Hawaii, Nevada,
Trust Territories

Region X - Seattle

Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Office of Public Affairs
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA  Q22Q3
617-565-3424      FTS;  8-835-3417

Office of External Programs
Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY   10278
212-264-2515      FTS:  8-264-2515

Office of Public Affairs
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia,  PA  19107
215-597-9370      FTS:  8-597-9370

Office of Public Affairs
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA   30365
404-347-3004      FTS:  8-257-3004

Office of Public Affairs
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL  60604
312-353-2072      FTS:  8-353-2072

Office of External Affairs
First Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Ave.   12th Floor  Suite 1200
Dallas TX    75202
214-655-2200      FTS:  8-255-2200

Office of Public Affairs
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS  66101
913-551-7003      FTS:  8-276-7003

Office of External Affairs
999 18th Street Suite 500
Denver, CO  80202-2405
303-293-1692      FTS:  8-330-1692

Office of External Affairs
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA  94105
415-744-1020      FTS: 8-484-1585

Office of the Deputy Regional Administrator
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA  98101
206-442-5810      FTS: 8-399-5810