TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 REINVENTING A STRONG NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE PROGRAM 2-1
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 2-1
2.2 MULTIMEDIA ENFORCEMENT 2-4
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 2-7
2.4 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS 2-10
2.5 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS 2-12
2.6 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION 2-15
2.7 FEDERAL FACILITY ENFORCEMENT AND FEDERAL ACTIVITIES 2-16
2.8 OTHER ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES 2-18
2.8.1 Redelegation 2-18
2.8.2 Task Forces and Work Groups 2-19
2.8.3 Training and Guidance 2-19
2.8.4 Initiatives 2-20
2.8.5 Regulations, Rulemaking, Policy, and Interpretive Guidance 2-21
2.8.6 Native American Affairs 2-22
2.8.7 International Activities 2-23
3.0 REGIONAL AND STATE COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE AND
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 3-1
3.1 MULTIMEDIA ENFORCEMENT 3-1
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 3-4
3.3 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS 3-6
3.4 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS 3-10
3.5 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS 3-12
3.6 FEDERAL FACILITIES 3-13
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AND PENALTIES 4-1
4.1 CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT 4-2
4.2 CIVIL ENFORCEMENT 4-4
4.3 CIVIL/REFERRALS. 4-8
4.4 CERCLA ENFORCEMENT 4-8
4.4.1 Alternative Dispute Resolution 4-9
4.5 EPA CONTRACTOR LISTING 4-10
Draft
i
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Types of Supplemental Environmental Projects in Case Settlements 3-11
Table 4-1. Number of New Investigations Opened and Referrals to DOJ by EPA's
Criminal Enforcement Program in FY 94 4-4
Table 4-2. Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area 4-5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1. EPA Civil Penalties and Criminal Fines 4-2
Figure 4-2. Office of Criminal Enforcement 4-3
Figure 4-3. Number of Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area 4-6
Figure 4-4. Total Penalties Assessed in Administrative Penalty Orders
(by Statute/Program Area). 4-6
Figure 4-5. Number of Civil Judicial Penalties by Statute/Program Area. 4-7
Figure 4-6. Total Amount of Civil Judicial Penalties (by Statute/Program Area) 4-7
ii Draft
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
REGION I A-l
CLEAN AIR ACT A-l
U.S. v. D'Addario Industries, Inc., et al(D. Conn.) A-l
In re Syncor International Corporation A-l
CLEAN WATER ACT A-l
U.S. v. L.S. Starrett Compan\(D. Mass.) A-l
RCRA A-l
Allegro Microsystems, Inc A-l
In re Massachusetts Highway Department A-l
U.S. v. Hanlin Group, Inc.{D. Maine) A-l
In re Hamilton-Standard A-2
In re Upjohn Company A-2
TSCA A-2
U.S. v. New Waterbury, Ltd.(D. Conn.) A-2
In re City of Boston, Boston City Hospital A-2
EPCRA A-2
In re Wyman-Gordon, Inc A-2
CERCLA A-3
U.S. v. O.K. Tool Company, et al(D. N.H.) A-3
U.S. v. Conductron Corporation, et al.(D. N.H.) A-3
U.S. v. William Davis, et al(D. R.I.) A-3
U.S. v. DiBiase Salem Realty Trust, et al{D. Mass.) A-3
REGION II A-4
CLEAN AIR ACT A-4
In re Ronzoni Foods Corporation A-4
U.S. v. Amelia Associates and Joey's Excavating, Inc(D. N.J.) A-4
U.S. v. 179 South Street(D. N.J.) A-4
CLEAN WATER ACT A-4
U.S. v. PRASA A-4
U.S. v. City ofHoboken(D. N.J.) A-4
In re Cheeseborough Ponds Manufacturing Corp A-4
SDWA A-5
U.S. v. Kennemuth (d/b/a Moose 0/7/W.D. N.Y.) A-5
U.S. v. Wasson & Regis(W.D., N.Y.). A-5
In re PRASA A-5
U.S. v. Melvin Blum A-5
RCRA A-5
U.S. v. Eastman Kodak{N.D. N.Y.) A-5
In the Matter of Redound Industries, Inc. d/b/a Interflo Technologies and Liqui-Mark, et M-G
U.S. v. BCF Corp.{E.D. N.Y.) A-6
In the Matter of Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company A-6
In the Matter of PPG Industries, Inc A-6
In re Westchester County, New York, Sportsmen's Center. A-6
In the Matter of Gaseteria Oil Corp A-6
A-i
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement aneComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
TSCA A-7
In the Matter ofDIC Americas, Inc A-7
In the Matter ofSUNY-New Paltz A-7
In the Matter of Cray Valley Products, Inc A-7
In the Matter of Eastman Kodak Co A-7
In the Matter of Sharp Electronics Corporation A-7
In the Matter of General Electric Company A-8
In the Matter of Presbyterian Homes of New Jersey Foundation A-8
U.S. v. State of New York Department ofTransportation .D. N.Y.) A-8
In the Matter of New York State Department of Mental Health A-8
In re Corporacion Azucarera de Puerto Rico A-8
In re Edgewater Associates A-8
TSCA §8 Inventory Update Enforcement Initiative. A-9
In the Matter of Ciba-Geigy Corporation A-9
In the Matter of OCG Microelectronics Materials, Inc A-9
EPCRA A-9
In the Matter of Mobil Oil Corp A-9
In the Matter of Agway Petroleum Corporation A-9
In the Matter of Rich Products Corp A-9
In the Matter of NTU Circuits, Inc A-9
In the Matter of R&F Alloy Wires, Inc A-10
In the Matter of Silverton Marine Corporation A-10
In re Rexon Technology Corp A-10
In re Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co A-10
Catano EPCRA Enforcement Settlements A-10
In the Matter of National Can Puerto Rico, Inc A-10
In the Matter of Petroleum Chemical Corp A-11
In re Hess Oil Virgin Islands A-l 1
In re Statewide Refrigerated Services, Inc A-l 1
In the Matter of Freeman Industries, Inc A-l 1
In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co A-l 1
CERCLA A-12
The Lipari Site A-12
U.S. v. CDMG Realty Co., el al{D. N.J.) A-12
U.S. v. Vineland Chemical Company, et al(D. N.J.) A-12
U.S. v. The Carborundum Company, etal(D. N.J.) A-12
In the Matter of the Frontier Chemical Superfund Site A-12
U.S. v. Ciba-Geigy Corp(D. N.Y.) A-13
In the Matter of Diamond Alkali Superfund Site. A-13
In the Matter of Liberty Industrial Finishing Site A-13
In re ENRX and Buffalo Warehousing Superfund Sites A-13
In re York Oil Company Superfund Site. A-13
In re A&YRealty Corp A-13
In re PVO International, Inc A-14
Quanta/New Jersey Non-Complier Case Settlements A-14
A-ii
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement aniC omplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
In re Niagara County Refuse Superfund Site A-14
In re Muratti Environmental Site A-14
U.S. v. Signo Trading International, Ltd., et al A-14
U.S. v. Zaklama{D. N.J.) A-15
U.S. v. Thiokol Corp.(D. N.J.) A-15
U.S. v. Town of North HempsteadE.D. N.Y.) A-15
In the Matter of Aero Haven Airport Site A-15
U.S. v. Wheaton Industries, Inc.{D. N.J.) A-15
MULTIMEDIA CASES A-15
In the Matter of Brookhaven National Laboratories and Associated Universities, Inc.. . A-15
In re American Cyanamid Company A-16
In re Broomer Research, Inc A-16
In re Abbott Laboratories A-16
In re Picatinny Arsenal A-17
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey A-17
Safety Kleen A-17
REGION III A-18
CLEAN AIR ACT A-18
Ohio Power Company (N.D. W.Va.) A-18
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (E.D. Penn..) A-18
U.S. v. Coors(D. Va.) A-18
Florida Marina and Boat Sales A-18
Hussey Copper A-18
Manny, Moe, and Jack, Inc.- The Pep Boys A-18
U.S. v. Sun Oil, Philadelphia(E.D. Penn.) A-19
U.S. v. Sun Oil, Marcus Hool(E.D. Penn.) A-19
LTV (W. D. Pa) A-19
U.S. v. Sun Company, Inc.(E.D. Penn.) A-19
CLEAN WATER ACT A-19
U.S. v. Sun Oil, Marcus Hool{E.D. Penn.) A-19
Sun Oil, Philadelphia (E.D. Penn.) A-20
Sun Company (Pennsylvania). A-20
Ocean Builders Supply A-20
DELCORA (E.D. Pa) A-20
City of Philadelphia (E.D. Pa.) A-20
Eastern Energy Investments A-21
SDWA A-21
Consolidated Gas Transmission Corporation (1311.) A-21
Jiffy Lube (7538) A-21
RCRA A-21
Bethlehem Steel Corporation Steelton Plant. A-21
Medusa Cement A-21
U.S. v. National Rolling Mills(E.D. Penn.) A-21
Osram Sylvania Glass, Wellsboro, Pennsylvania A-22
A-iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Action Manufacturing Company, Atglen, Pennsylvania A-22
Quaker State Corporation, Newell, West Virginia A-22
Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation, Ravenswood, West Virginia A-22
AT&T, Richmond, Virginia A-22
Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc., Middletown, Delaware A-22
ITT Corporation, Roanoke, Virginia A-22
TSCA A-22
Allied Colloids A-22
Bethlehem Steel Corporation A-23
Reading Tube Corporation A-23
Anzon, Inc A-23
Columbia Gas A-23
VA Dept of Emergency Services A-23
EPCRA A-23
T.L. Diamond, Spelter, West Virginia A-23
Premium Beverage Packers, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania A-23
Steel Processing, Inc., Pottstown, Pennsylvania A-24
Messer Greisheim Industries, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania A-24
Diversey Corporation, East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania A-24
Homer Laughlin China A-24
Action Manufacturing A-24
FIFRA A-24
DuPont A-24
CERCLA A-24
Columbia Gas A-24
Greenwood Chemical A-25
Recticon/Allied Steel Site A-25
Sackville Mills Company A-25
United Chemical Technologies A-25
U.S. v. Lord Corporation^.D. Penn.) A-25
U.S. v. Chromatex(3rd Cir.) A-25
REGION IV A-26
CLEAN AIR ACT A-26
U.S. v. Rohm and Haas, Inc(W.D. Ky.) A-26
U.S. v. Olin Corporation(E.D. Tenn.) A-26
U.S .v. Crown, Cork & Seal, /«c(N.D. Miss.) A-26
CLEAN WATER ACT/SDWA A-26
U.S. v. Metro-Dade County, et al A-26
United States v. IMC-Agrico CompanyiM.D. Florida) A-27
U.S. v. Perdue-Davidson Oil CompanjfcE.D. Kentucky) A-27
In the Matter of Manatee County, FL: A-27
In the Matter of IMC-Fertilizer, Bartow FL A-27
In the Matter of Jacksonville Beach, FL A-27
Oil Pollution Act Enforcement Initiative A-28
A-iv
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement aniC omplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency v. Polk County. A-28
United States v. City of Port St. Joe, Florida; et al A-28
RCRA A-29
Holnam, Inc A-29
Arizona Chemical Company. A-29
Giant Cement Company A-29
Todhunter International, Inc., d/b/a Florida Distillers A-29
U.S. v. Gulf States Steel, /«c.(N.D. Ala.) A-29
Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc A-29
Florida Department of Transportation A-30
TSCA A-30
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company/Tenneco, Inc A-30
General Electric Company A-30
EPCRA A-30
Gro-Tec, Inc A-30
Everwood Treatment Company, Inc A-31
North American Royalties, Inc., d/b/a Wheland Foundry A-31
Ashland Petroleum Company A-31
FIFRA A-31
Courtaulds Coatings, Inc A-31
CERCLA A-31
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation A-31
Parramore Fertilizer Site in Tifton, Georgia A-32
Distler Farm and Distler Brickyard Superfund Sites in Kentucky A-32
Jadco/Hughes Site, Gaston County, North Carolina A-32
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. Site in Albany, Georgia A-32
Helena Chemical Company for Fairfax, South Carolina Site A-32
Rochester Property Site in Travelers Rest, South Carolina A-32
Jones Tire and Battery Site in Birmingham, Alabama A-33
Townsend Saw Chain Superfund Site in Pontiac, Richland County, North Carolina . . . A-33
Yellow Water Road Superfund Site, Baldwin, Duval County, Florida A-33
Smith's Farm Site in Bullitt County, Kentucky. A-33
Cedartown Battery Superfund Site in Polk County, Georgia A-33
Enterprise Recovery Systems Site in Byhalia, Mississippi A-33
The City of Cedartown, Polk County, Georgia A-34
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site, Cabarrus County, Concord, North Carolirift-34
Stoller Chemical Company Site in Jericho, South Carolina A-34
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Site in Albany, Dougherty County, Georgia A-34
Woolfolk Chemical Works NPL Site, Fort Valley, Georgia A-35
Hercules 009 Landfill Site, Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia A-35
U.S. v. Otto Skipper(E.D., N.C.) A-35
National Southwire Aluminum Superfund Site in Kentucky A-35
Prairie Metals and Chemical Company Site (Prairie, Mississippi) A-35
REGION V A-36
A-v
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement aneComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
REGION V's CONTEMPT INITIATIVE A-36
Anthony Chambers (Midland, MI) A-36
Big D Campground/Rodebaughs (Ashtabula, OH) A-36
Petoskey Site (Petoskey, MI) A-36
Copperweld Steel (Mahoning, OH.) A-36
Midwestern Drum Services (Venice, IL) A-36
Silvertone Plating Company (Ypsilanti, MI) A-37
GTE North (Belvedere, IL) A-37
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Burns Harbor, IN) A-37
ILLINOIS CASES A-37
OHIO CASE A-37
CLEAN AIR ACT A-37
B&W Investment Properties, Inc., and Louis Wolf A-37
New Boston Coke Corp. (S.D. Ohio) A-38
U.S. v. Consolidated Papers, /«c.(Wisconsin Rapids, WI) A-38
Monitor Sugar Co. (E.D. Mich.) A-38
Stern Enterprises, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio/Eastern
Division) A-38
CLEAN WATER ACT A-39
LTV Steel (East Chicago, IN) A-39
JMB Urban Development Company (Columbus, OH) A-39
City of Middletown (OH) A-39
Wayne County-Wyandotte (MI) Wastewater Treatment Plant A-39
IBP, Inc. (Joslin, IL) A-39
Appleton Papers (Appleton, WI) A-40
Commonwealth Edison Company, Inc. (Chicago, IL) A-40
MULTIMEDIA CASES A-40
Taracorp Industries (Granite City, IL). A-40
Glidden Company (Strongsville, OH.) A-40
EPCRA A-40
Vie De France (Bensenville, IL) A-40
HRR Enterprises, Inc. (Chicago, IL.) A-41
Shell Oil Company's Wood River Manufacturing Complex (Roxana, IL) A-41
Consumers Power Co. (West Olive, MI) A-41
Karmazin Products Corp. (Wyandotte, MI) A-41
TSCA A-42
University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana, IL) A-42
Wayne State University (Detroit, MI) A-42
U.S. Graphite, Inc. (Saginaw, MI) A-42
RCRA/UST A-42
BASF Corp. North Works (Wyandotte, MI) A-42
Hilton Davis Co. (Cincinnati, OH) A-42
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (Cleveland, OH) A-43
Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Saint Paul, MN) A-43
U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp(lih Cir. 1994) A-43
A-vi
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement aniC omplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
U.S. v. Ekco Housewares, /«c(Massillon, Ohio) A-43
U.S. v. Laclede Steel Company. A-43
City of Columbus, Ohio and the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio A-43
SDWA A-44
Total Petroleum (Alma, MI) A-44
George Perry (Oceana County, MI) A-44
JPT Petroleum Production Corp. (Gibson County, IN.) A-44
Gahanna Water Department (Gahanna, OH) A-44
CERCLA A-44
Circle Smelting (Beckmeyer, IL) A-44
Core Craft (Northern Township, MN) A-45
Kerr-McGee Site (Chicago, IL.) A-45
Lockhart Construction (Akron, OH) A-45
National Presto (Eau Claire, WI) A-45
Olin Corporation (Ashtabula, OH) A-45
Wedzeb (Lebanon, IN) A-46
Jackson Drop Forge (Jackson, MI) A-46
Spickler Landfill Site (Marathon County, WI) A-46
REGION VI A-47
CLEAN AIR ACT A-47
U.S. v. Enpro Contractors, Inc.; Train Property, Inc.; and Jimmy Patton Contractor, Inc. (E.D.
Ark.) A-4 7
In the Matter of Herd Enterprises, d/b/a Broward Factory Service A-47
CLEAN WATER ACT A-47
U.S. v. City ofKenner and the State ofLouisiandE.T). La.) A-47
U.S. v. City of Bossier City, and the State of'LouisiandfW .D. La.) A-47
U.S. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Compan^E.D. Tex.) A-47
Vulcan Chemical A-47
In the Matter of Albert Kramer III d/b/a Kramer Development Corporation A-48
Citgo Pipeline Company A-48
Hamner Inc A-48
Jayhawk Pipeline Corporation A-48
Petrolite Corporation A-48
Red River Entertainment Group A-48
RCRA A-48
In the Matter of Micro Chemical Company. A-48
In the Matter of Dow Chemical A-49
In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management. A-49
In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management. A-49
In the Matter of Texas Industries A-49
In the Matter of Aristech A-49
In the Matter of Rexene A-49
In the Matter of Chapparal Steel A-49
In the Matter of Hydrocarbon Recyclers, Inc A-50
A-vii
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement aneComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
In the Matter of REM TEX A-50
In the Matter of Jeep Collins A-50
In the Matter of Ranco A-50
In the Matter of Citgo Refining A-50
In the Matter of Aquaness Chemical A-50
In the Matter of Helena Chemical A-50
In the Matter of Helena Chemical A-51
U.S. v. Marine Shale Processors, Inc(W.D. La.) A-51
TSCA A-51
In the Matter of Asarco, Amarillo, Texas A-51
Central Power and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Texas A-51
CERCLA A-51
U.S. v. DavidBowen Wallace, etal. (N.D. Tex.) Bio-Ecology Systems Superfund Site, Dallas
County, Texas A-51
U.S. v.AmericanNationalPetroleum Company, etal. (W.D. La.) Gulf Coast Vacuum SuperfundSite,
Abbeville, Louisiana, and Gulf Coast Vacuum Services Superfund Site, Vermillion Parish,
Louisiana A-52
U.S. v. City of Jacksonville, Arkansas (E.D. Ark.) Jacksonville Municipal Landfill, Lonoke
County, Arkansas, and Rogers Road Municipal Landfill, Pulaski County, ArkansasA-52
U.S. v. Gulf States Utilities Company (S.D Tex.) Industrial Transformer/Sol Lynn Site, Harris
County, Texas A-52
U.S. v. Vertac Chemical Corporation, etal., Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecologyv. Vertac Chemical Corporation, etal. (E.D. Ark.). In theMatter of Hercules Inc.,
UniroyalChemicalLtd., and Vertac Chemical Corporation (Administrative) Vertac Superfund
Site, Jacksonville, Arkansas A-53
In theMatter ofAmeradaHess Corporation, etal., PAB Oil Superfund Site, Abbeville, Louisiana
A-5 3
In theMatter of Waste Management of Oklahoma, Inc., Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill Superfund
Site, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma A-53
In theMatterofiAluminum Company of America, Alcoa/Lavaca Bay SuperfundSite, PointComfort,
Texas A-53
In the Matter ofNational Zinc Site, Bartlesville, Oklahoma; Salomon, Inc., Cyprus Amax Minerals
Company, and Kerramerican, Inc., National Zinc Company Superfund Site, Bartlesville,
Oklahoma A-54
Marco of Iota A-54
Pab Oil A-54
South 8th Street A-54
B.P. Chemical A-54
Miles Inc A-54
REGION VII A-56
CLEAN AIR ACT A-56
U.S. v. Archer Daniels Midland^.D. Ia.) A-56
U.S. v. Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc( W.D. Mo.) A-56
In the Matter of Holnam, Inc A-56
A-viii
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement aniC omplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
CLEAN WATER ACT A-56
In the Matter of the Boeing Company A-56
U.S. v. Beech Aircraft CorporatioriD. Kan.) A-56
RCRA A-5 7
In the Matter of Burlington Northern Railroad A-57
In the Matter of The Dexter Company. A-57
In the Matter of Missouri Highway Transportation Department A-57
In the Matter of Iowa Army Ammunition Plant A-57
In the Matter of G.E. Company A-57
In the Matter of Cuba Paint Company A-58
EPCRA A-58
In the Matter of Kaw Valley, Inc A-58
In the Matter of The Iowa Packing Company A-58
CERCLA A-58
U.S. v. Chemical Waste Management of Kansas, Inc.( D. Kan.) A-58
U.S. v. TIC Investment Corp., et al(N.D. Ia.) A-58
In the Matter of the Big River Mine Tailings Site A-59
In the Matter of Lee Chemical Co. Superfund Site, Liberty, Missouri A-59
U.S. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health, Ind.D. Neb.) A-59
In the Matter of Renner Road Shooting Park A-59
U.S. v. City of Clinton, Iowc{ S.D. Ia.) A-59
U.S. v. Midwest Asbestos Control, Inc., et al(D. Kan.) A-60
REGION VIII A-61
CLEAN AIR ACT A-61
Sinclair Oil Corporation A-61
CLEAN WATER ACT A-61
Dirt Merchant Construction/Sandra Tarr A-61
Lucas Western (Jamestown, North Dakota) A-61
Farmers Union Central Exchange COOP (CENEMfiSiMmgs, Montana) A-61
Burlington Northern Railroad(W.D., Wise.) A-61
Hub City, South Dakota A-62
City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota: A-62
Star Circuits A-62
SDWA A-62
Town ofMeeteetse, Wyoming A-62
City Oil Corporation A-62
RCRA A-63
Reclaim Barrel A-63
EPCRA A-63
Advanced Forming Technology A-63
Accurate Plastics (now SPM/Denver) A-63
Denver Metal Finishing Company A-63
Nephi Rubber Products A-63
Thatcher Chemical Company A-63
A-ix
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement aneComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
MI-RA A-63
Biotrol International, Inc A-63
CERCLA A-64
Apache Energy and Minerals Co.( D. Colo.) A-64
Smuggler-DurantMining Corporation^. Colo.) A-64
Clear Creek/Central City Superfund Site, Western Diversified Builders A-64
Whitewood Creek A-64
Petrochem/Ekotek Site A-65
Petrochem/Ekotek A-65
Colorado School of Mines Research Institute A-65
North American Environmental, Inc A-65
REGION IX A-67
CLEAN AIR ACT A-67
U.S. v. Shell Western E&P, Inc(E.D. Calif.) A-67
U.S. v. TABC, Inc .{CD. Calif.) A-67
U.S. v. Minerec, Inc.(D. Ariz.) A-67
U.S. v. All American Pipeline CompanjiC.D. Calif.) A-67
CLEAN WATER ACT A-67
U.S. v. American Global Line, /«c(N.D. Calif.) A-67
U.S. v. Magma Copper Co.(D. Ariz.) A-67
U.S. v. City and County ofHonolulu(D. Haw.) A-68
U.S. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Corp.(E.D. Calif.) A-68
U.S. v. Teledyne, Inc.(S.D. Calif.) A-68
U.S. v. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles Count^S. D. Calif.) A-68
RCRA A-69
U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel, Ltd., Estate of James Campbell, Ipscolnc. and ComincoLtd.
(D. Hawaii) A-69
In the Matter of U.S. Naval Air Facility, El Centro, California A-69
U.Sv. City of Los Angeles and U.S. v. Lockheed Corporation.I). Calif.) A-69
U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel, et al(D. Haw.) A-69
CERCLA A-69
U.S. v. Peter Gull andNL Industries, Inc{C.D. Calif.) A-69
Pearl Harbor Naval Complex Federal Facilities Agreement A-69
U.S. v. Montana Refining Co.(9th Cir.) A-70
In the Matter of Iron Mountain Mine A-70
U.S. v. Alcatel Information Systems, Inc(D. Arizona) A-70
REGION X A-71
CLEAN AIR ACT A-71
Alyeska Pipeline Services Company and ARCO Products A-71
Norma and Frank Echevarria, d/b/a Echeco Environmental Services A-71
Phillips Petroleum Company and AGI, Inc A-71
Trans-AKEnvironmentalServices&ConslructionCorp.,GiddingsMortgageandInveslmentCompany,
and Neeser Construction A-71
A-x
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement aniC omplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
U.S. v. Global Travel, Jordan-Wilcomb Construction, and Allied Construction. Id.). • A-71
U.S. v. Zemlicka and Davis A-71
U.S. v. Martech USA, Hobbs Industries, Chugach Electric Association, Inc A-72
U.S. v. Hagadone Hospitality Co A-72
CLEAN WATER ACT A-72
Wesley M. Sherer A-72
U.S. v. Steve Burnett and Dean Schradei(W.D. Wash.) A-72
Kenco Marine A-72
City of Ocean Shores, Washington A-72
Rodger Forni A-72
Martin Nygaard A-73
Rogge Mills A-73
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) A-73
Northlake Shipyards A-73
City of Tacoma A-73
Arctic Fisheries A-73
U.S. v. Stanley C. Rybachek A-73
RCRA A-73
U.S. v. Robert and Geneva StobaugHW.D. Wash.) A-73
U.S. v. R.H. Bowles, Inc. and Central Marketing, In<{E.D. Wash.) A-74
Alaska Railroad Company A-74
Boeing Company A-74
U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright, Alaska A-74
U.S. Army, Fort Richardson A-74
CERCLA A-75
Commencement Bay - South Tacoma Channel A-75
Bunker Hill A-75
FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE A-76
RCRA/FFCA A-76
RCRA/FFCA Penalty Order-Coast Guar^Kodiak, Alaska Facility A-76
Presidio of San Francisco A-76
Schofield Barracks A-76
Norfolk Naval Shipyard A-76
Yorktown Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia A-76
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Dahlgren, Virginia A-76
Fort Dix, New Jersey A-77
U.S. Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba, Puerto Rico A-77
OFFICE OF REGULATORY ENFORCMENT A-78
CLEAN AIR ACT A-78
U.S. v. Atlantic Richfield Company and Snyder Oil Corporation. Wyo.) A-78
U.S. v. W.R. Grace Companj(D. Mont.) A-78
U.S. v. ICIInternational, Inc A-78
U.S. v. JBA Motorcars, Inc. and Dr. Jacob Ben-AfS.D. Fla.) A-78
A-xi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
U.S. v. Daniel Rosendahl(S.D. Tex.) A-78
U.S. v. Ken Ball and Phil McCreerfW.D. Mo.) A-78
TSCA A-78
Town of Wallingford, Connecticut A-78
Cressona Aluminum Company PCB Cleanup A-79
USS Cabot/Dedalo A-79
Port of New Orleans A-79
Sunshine Mining Company A-79
Imperial Holly Corporation A-79
EPCRA A-79
General Chemical Corporation A-79
Alaska Pulp Corporation A-80
Trail Wagons A-80
Northwest Castings A-80
MI-RA A-80
Pinnacle Agricultural Technologies A-80
Accuventure, Inc.: Criminal and Civil Enforcement Coordination A-80
Argent Chemical Laboratories, Inc A-80
MULTIMEDIA CASES A-81
Allied Tube & Conduit A-81
U.S. v. Columbus Solid Waste Reduction Plant A-81
U.S. v. Southern Pacific A-81
U.S. v. Texas Eastern^S.D., Tex.) A-81
OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT A-82
U.S. v. Hartford Associates^. Md.) A-82
U.S. v. Penn HillsQND. Penn.) A-82
U.S. v. Rally A-82
U.S. v. Wietzenhoff A-82
U.S. v. Laughlin, 10 F.3rd 961 (2d Cir. 1993)fert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1649 (1994) A-82
U.S. v. Advance Plating Works, Inc., et aK.S.D. Ind.) A-83
U.S. v. Carlo Arco and Automatic Plating Company, Ind.D. Conn.) A-83
U.S. v. AT&T and Harry J. Krin£E.D. Penn.) A-83
U.S. v. Richard Vernon Bates, et al(C.D. Calif.) A-83
U.S. v. Giacomo Catucci(T>. R.I.) A-83
U.S. v. Larry A. Christopherson(E.D. Wise.) A-84
U.S. v. Craven Laboratories, Inc., et al(W.D. Texas) A-84
U.S. v. Dean Foods Company and Winfred Smitl{W.D. Ky.) A-84
U.S. v. Doyle Crew$(N.D. Tex.) A-84
U.S. v. Charles A. Eidson and Sandra A. Eidsoi{M.D. Fla.) A-84
U.S. v. Cherokee Resources, Inc., et al(W.D. N.C.) A-85
U.S. v. GarlickHelicopter, Inc(D. Mont.) A-85
U.S. v. Gaston(D. Kan.) A-85
U.S. v. Hedge, (S.D. Ohio); State ofOhio v. Hedge and City Bumper Exchange, Inc., (Hamilton
County Court of Common Pleas) A-85
A-xii
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement aniC omplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
U.S. v. Hofele (W.D. Mo.) A-85
U.S. v. Robert H. Hopkin^D. Conn.) A-85
U.S. v. George FrederickHeidgerkei(W.D. Wash.) A-85
U.S. v. Gomer's Diesel and Electric CompanftD. Mont.) A-86
U.S. v. Jay Jurek(W.D. Wash.) A-86
U.S. v. MOR, Inc.(S.D. Fla.) A-86
U.S. v. Francis Morgan, etal.(D. Haw.) A-86
U.S. v.M. Tyronne Morgan andMeydenbauer Development Cor$E. D. Wash.) A-86
U.S. v. Bob Murphy, etal.(D. Nev.) A-87
U.S. v. Norwood Industries, Inc., et al{E.D. Penn.) A-87
U.S. v. OEA, Inc.(D. Colo.) A-87
U.S. v. Palm Beach Cruise^S.D. Fla.) A-87
U.S. v. Pacific Aqua Tech, Ltd(E.D. Wash.) A-87
U.S. v. RobertPardi(S.D. N.Y.) A-88
U.S. v. Nicholas Pasquariello(S.D. Fla.) A-88
U.S. v. Norma Phillips, et al.{W.D. Mo.) A-88
U.S. v. Pioneer Chemical, Inc. and GeraldButlelfD. Ky.) A-88
U.S. v. John Pizzuto(S.D. Ohio) A-89
U.S. v. Nobert Efren PohKD. N.M.) A-89
U.S. v. R&D Chemical Company, /«c(N.D. Ga.) A-89
U.S. v. Recticel Foam Corporation, et al(E.D. Tenn.) A-89
U.S. v. William C. Reichle andReichle, IndD. Ore.) A-90
U.S. v. Reilly and DowcfD. Del.) A-90
U.S. v. Sentco Paint Manufacturing, Inc., et. a/(N.D. Ohio) A-90
U.S. v. Mark Steven Stewart, et al(D. Ariz.) A-90
U.S. v. Thermocell S. E. Inc., Douglas Kirchofer and Sherwin T. Haskcl/E.D. Tenn.). . . A-90
U.S. v. Weaver Electric(D. Colo.) A-91
U.S. v. Safety Kleen A-91
U.S. v. Steve Weinsier(S.D. Fla.) A-91
U.S. v. Larry Kenneth West(W.D. Mich.) A-92
U.S. v. William C. Whitman and Duane C. WhitmafyM.D. Fla.) A-92
Harry Zucker (W. D. Pa) A-92
U.S. v. Dale Valentine et al.(D. WY) A-92
A-xiii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPENDDSBATE CASES B-l
ALASKA B-l
Anchor Forest Products B-l
CH2M-Hill Engineering B-l
City of Angoon, Alaska B-l
Construction Rigging, Inc. (CRI) B-l
Echo Bay Alaska, Inc B-l
Enstar Natural Gas Company B-l
Kake Tribal & Kake Tribal Logging B-2
Northland Fisheries, Inc B-2
Ronnie C. Fisheries B-2
William A. Wood B-2
COLORADO B-2
State of Colorado v Colorado Refining B-2
State of Colorado v Conoco B-2
State of Colorado v The City of Ft. Morgan B-3
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA B-3
Concerned Citizens of Brentwood, et al., v. The District of Columbia, et al B-3
D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. Coastline Purchasing Corporation
B-3
D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. Kayfirst Corporation B-3
D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. The U.S. General Services
Administration B-4
District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), Environmental
Regulation Administration (ERA) v. Respondent Mr. Jerry Schaeffer B-4
FLORIDA B-4
Boston Chicken B-4
Department of Environmental Protection v. Lake County B-5
Department of Environmental Protection v. Pinellas County Board of County CommissioBeis
Department of Environmental Regulation v. Cabot Corporation B-5
DepartmentofEnvironmentalRegulationv. Pilot Properties Co. and Durham Utility Service, Inc.
B-5
Florida Department of Corrections B-5
FloridaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionv.NRG/Recovery Group,Inc.,akaOgdenMartin
Systems of Lake, Inc B-6
Florida Gas Transmission B-6
Florida Gas Transmission B-6
Hazardous Waste Consultants, Inc. and Hazardous Waste Services, Inc B-6
Kissimmee Utilities B-7
Master Packaging B-7
Mur-Shel, Inc B-7
Ogden Martin B-7
Pinellas County Department of Solid Waste Management B-7
Polyplastex International B-8
R.P. Scherer Corp B-8
A-i
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
South West Florida Water Management District B-8
State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection v. United States Naval Air
Station—Jacksonville B-8
State of Florida v. Urbano Diaz-Devillegas; Romulo Juan Delgado; German Delgado; Darwin Mesa
and Errol Woon B-8
Tampa Bay Center B-8
Trend Management B-8
Venture Properties B-9
Waste Management B-9
GEORGIA B-9
Oxford Industries, Greenville, Georgia B-9
U.S. Navy Submarine Base, Kings Bay, Georgia B-9
Young Refining Corp., Douglasville, Georgia B-9
IDAHO B-9
Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc B-9
Stibnite Mining Company B-10
St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, Boise, Idaho B-10
ILLINOIS B-10
Pork King Packing Company B-10
INDIANA B-ll
Confined Feed Lot Facilities B-ll
JPT Petroleum Production Corp B-ll
State of Indiana v. James E. Nichols, State of Indiana v. Custom Finishing Corp B-ll
IOWA B-ll
In the Matter of the City of Winterset, IA B-ll
KANSAS B-12
In the Matter of Dawson Brothers, Inc., Wichita, KS: B-12
In the Matter of Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, Kansas City, KS B-12
In the Matter of Sunflower Manufacturing Company, Inc., Beloit and Cawker City,.KS B-12
MICHIGAN B-12
Ace Finishing, Inc B-12
MINNESOTA B-13
LTV Steel Mining Co B-13
MISSOURI B-13
In the Matter of Barton Nelson, Inc B-13
In the Matter of International Paper Company, Joplin, M.0 B-13
Norfolk and Western Railway Co B-14
MONTANA B-14
State of Montana v Continental Lime B-14
NEBRASKA B-14
Ash Grove Cement Company B-14
NEW JERSEY B-14
State of New Jersey v. Patricia Nazzaro, John Martinez, Augustine Scalzitti & Frank Scalzitti
B-14
NORTH CAROLINA B-15
Carolina Mirror Company (North Wilkesboro, NC) B-15
Duke University (Durham, NC.) B-15
Fawn Industries (Middlesex, NC) B-15
Greer L aboratorie s B -16
A-ii
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Midway Body Shop (Winston-Salem, NC) B-16
NC DOT—Ferry Division (Manns Harbor, NC) B-16
Phillips Plating Company (Bridgeton, NC) B-17
Watts Regulator Co./Regtrol (Spindale, NC) B-17
OHIO B-17
Andersons Management Corp B-17
PENNSYLVANIA B-17
ARCO Chemical Company. B-17
Graphic Controls B-18
Keystone Cement Company B-19
Mays Properties, Inc B-19
Performax Engine Works, Inc B-19
U.S. Steel-Carnegie Natural Gas B-19
SOUTH CAROLINA B-19
Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation B-19
Green Oasis Environmental, Inc B-20
Holnam, Inc B-20
Shakespeare Products Group B-20
Spartanburg Steel B-20
ThermalKEM, Incorporated B-20
TENNESSEE B-20
Department of Energy K-25 B-20
Gabriel Ride Control Products, Inc B-21
State of Tennessee v. Flavil Ray & Robert Wallace Bradford B-21
State of Tennessee v. Gabriel Ride Control Products, Inc. B-21
U.S. v. Recticel Foam Corporation & State of Tennessee v. Recticel Foam CorporationB-22
Wheland Foundry Division of North American Royalties, Inc B-22
TEXAS B-23
State of Texas v. Gary Giles Cocke, et al B-23
WASHINGTON B-23
Fiberglass Technologies Inc B-23
Perfection & Letz Paint Company B-23
United States Army Base Fort Lewis, Washington B-23
WISCONSIN B-24
Dean Foods Vegetable Company B-24
A-iii
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In Fiscal Year 1994, under the direction of Administrator Carol Browner, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) reorganized its enforcement and compliance operations to further strengthen enforcement capability and
place increased emphasis on compliance assurance. The result of this reorganization was the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA). This newly created office now provides a single voice for national enforcement and
compliance assurance policy and direction.
OECA's national policy integrates enforcement and compliance assurance into an approach that targets
noncomplyingsectors of the regulated community, as well as sensitive ecosystems and populations. This new
enforcement and compliance approach fully supports the Federal initiative of "reinventing government," which, from
the Agency's standpoint, translates into improving environmental compliance and encouraging innovative solutions to
compliance problems.
Thisl-'Y1994lui/orcemen[and(bmplianceAssiuriiice Accomplishments Repoildocm~icn{s\l\cslcpsEPAhas\£kcn
in the past year to improve environmental compliance and incorporate innovative solutions into its enforcement cases.
This document reports on EPA efforts on the national and regional levels and provides information on some of the
enforcement and compliance assurance activities undertaken by some States. It also provides national, regional, and
State enforcement highlights and includes information on the cases taken, developed, and settled by EPA and the States.
The report is structured around six Agency themes:
• Multimedia approaches to environmental problems
• Environmental justice
• Industry-specific sectors
• Supplemental environmental projects
• Sensitive ecosystem protection
• Federal facility environmental management.
Definitions and general information on each of these themes is presented in Section 2. As expected, not all
FY 94 enforcement and compliance assurance accomplishments can be categorized under the six themes. Significant
accomplishments outside the themes are also addressed throughout the document.
Specifically, Section 2 of the report discusses reinvention efforts underway in EPA's national enforcement
program and the role EPA (Headquarters and Regions) and the States play in that reinvention. It defines national
enforcement initiatives and highlights some of specific enforcement activities conducted throughout the year. In
addition, it provides information on enforcement and compliance assurance efforts led by the primary offices within
OECA.
Section 3 focuses on regional enforcement accomplishments and region-specific initiatives. It also discusses
the relationship between the EPA Regions and the States and highlights some of the coordinated efforts between the two
partners. It also contains State-specific activities, including initiatives, penalties, and cases.
Section 4 of the report provides overview information on the enforcement activities (e.g., civil and judicial
enforcement, referrals) and penalties sought and assessed by EPA, at both Headquarters and the regional level. This
section includes graphics and tables that display the specific numbers and amounts of actions initiated and closed
by EPA. (Note: State-specific information on these topics is included in Section 3.)
1-1
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Finally, Appendix A to this report contains significant judicial, administrative, and criminal cases settled
in FY 94 by EPA. The cases are presented by statute (multimedia cases are first, however) in alphabetical order.
Appendix B presents the cases reported by individual States. These cases are ordered by EPA Region, that is, States
from Region I are presented first, and so on.
1-2
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
1-i
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
2.0 REINVENTING A STRONG NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE PROGRAM
When Ihe Agency reorganized its enforcement and compliance program and created the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, it realized that the changes would affect all levels of its national enforcement program,
including Headquarters, the Regions, and the States. EPA knew that the national program itself would need to undergo
"reinvention." An integral part of reinventing the national program was recognizing that EPA's traditional
enforcement tools—monitoring, administrative actions, criminal sanctions, and monetary penalties—could not, in
isolation, lead to sustained compliance in the regulated community. After detailed analysis, Agency officials
determined that EPA needed to combine compliance assistance and promotion programs with the traditional aspects of
compliancemonitoringandenforcement. The heartofEPA'snationalenforcementprogramnowcomprisesthe following
components:
• Compliance assistance: Activities designed to assist the regulated community and encourage voluntary
compliance with regulations
• Compliance monitoring: Activities designed to provide information on the compliance status of the
regulated community
• Enforcement actions: Powerful sanctions designed to compel compliance by the regulated community.
These three components, together with enhanced coordination of EPA and State actions, will lead to improved
compliance with national environmental laws. When EPA Headquarters and Regional personnel join forces with individual
States, the result is a far-reaching national program fully capable of using all available compliance tools within
each of the three components.
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
One new tool in the area of compliance assistance is recognizing and rewarding facilities that exhibit
leadership in environmental management and compliance. To this end, EPA developed the Environmental Leadership
Program (ELP). The ELP is a national pilot program with a two-fold purpose:
• To recognize facilities that develop and implement innovative environmental management systems and
"beyond compliance" programs
• To work with these facilities and understand their systems and programs, and then share the information
gathered with the regulated community to improve environmental management and increase compliance
Forty proposals were submitted for the ELP volunteering to demonstrate innovative approaches to environmental
management and compliance. In April 1995, EPA selected 12 facilities to participate in the pilot program.
In exchange for participants' commitment to demonstrate their innovative approaches, EPA offers the
facilities several benefits, including:
• Public recognition by EPA as an environmental leader
• A limited period to correct any violations identified during the pilot program
• An absence of routine inspections by EPA or the State.
2-1
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
r.J
Criminal Referrals
FY 1994
11,334
Civil Judicial Referrals
FY 1994 (inclMss conss ntdsc ks s nioicsms ntac tiocti)
Administrative Penalty Actions
FY 1994 (a subset of total admmista tivs activiy)
State Enforcement Actions
FY 1994
Figure 2-1. FY 1994 Enforcement Actions
By offering these benefits, EPA has attracted the environmental leaders from all industrial sectors,
including Federal facilities. The Agency will use the ELP pilot projects to explore ways that it and the States can
encourage facilities to develop innovative auditing, compliance, and pollution prevention programs and to establish
public accountability for compliance with existing standards in environmental laws. The pilots also will help EPA
develop the elements of a full-scale Environmental Leadership Program, which will be open to all facilities willing
and able to meet the program criteria. The pilot phase of this project will run approximately 12 months.
The second component, compliance monitoring, is being reshaped to provide a holistic, facility-wide
perspective instead of the more traditional programmatic one. This multimedia concept continues to mature into a
significantmethod of accomplishing EPA's goals. During the pastyear, EPA inspectors conducted approximately 2,000
multimedia inspections at facilities nationwide. Multimedia inspections not only provide EPA and State personnel with
a comprehensive view of a facility, but also result in a more efficient allocation of resources and effective use of
personnel. In addition, these inspections are usually less time consuming and burdensome to the inspected facility.
Compliancemonitoring activities are also being refocused to support specific Agency initiatives. For
example, facilities are now being targeted for inspection based on their location or specific industry type.
Environmental justice concerns are playing an increasingly more important role in targeting facilities for inspection,
as are concerns about sensitive ecosystems.
EPA's increased emphasis on compliance assistance did not signal weakening of traditional enforcement, the
third component. The Agency combined quality cases thatprotected the public and the environment in substantial ways
with a record level of cases to promote deterrence. As shown in Figure 2-1, the Agency brought a record 2,246
enforcement actions with sanctions, including 220 criminal cases, 1,596 administrative penalty actions, 403 new civil
referralsto the Department of Justice, and 27 additional civil referrals to enforce existing consent decrees. In
2-2
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
addition, the States took 11,334 enforcement actions. These administrative and judicial sanctions, which surpassed
those taken last year, are the primary enforcement tools to correct violations, establish deterrence, and create
incentives for future compliance.
As shown in Figure 2-2, EPA assessed penalties for FY 94 totaling approximately $ 151 million combined for
civil penalties and criminal fines and another $206 million was returned to the Treasury through Superfund cost
recovery. Injunctive relief and supplemental environmental projects in non-Superfund cases exceeded $740 million.
The number of consent orders, decrees, and penalties and the vigor with which they were pursued illustrated that EPA
is serious about its enforcement commitments. The following high-profile examples illustrate EPA efforts under the
new enforcement and compliance assurance approach:
• A corporation will spend more than $3 million to eliminate the generation of hundreds of pounds of
hazardous wastes it currently disposes of through underground injection.
• Another corporation will pay for an independent audit covering TSCA compliance at all of its facilities,
not just the one facility in violation. It will also disclose and correct all violations discovered as
a result of the audit.
• A company will spend $ 1 million to develop an innovative cooling system that will reduce the amount of
water it has to withdraw from an aquifer by 259 million gallons annually.
• A State highway department will conduct lead paint abatement on bridges, targeting those located in
minority and low income residential areas.
These types of settlements both significantly expand the environmental and health protection achieved through
800
700
600
500
400
c> 300
G
200
100
$740 Million
$206 Million
$151MMjo
Cw&Glimiiftl Kihs
S upafund Cost Eacway
wrt-u:
Hon-Supiifurd
Inj unit's KalirfandSEE;
Figure 3-1. FY 1994 Monetary Breakout
2-3
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
individual enforcementactionsandenhancetheprospectsforlong-term compliance. Similarly, EPA enforcement actions
are sending a clear deterrence message to would-be violators, as illustrated by the following examples:
• The manager and shop foreman of a facility whose illegal disposal of toluene in a dumpster resulted in the
death of two 9 year-old boys were sentenced to 27 months in prison.
• The owner of a now-defunct electroplating facility who illegally abandoned more than 27,000 gallons of
hazardous substances within 500 feet of an elementary school received a sentence of 2 years in prison.
• A laboratory that falsified pesticide residue data used by EPA to ensure the safety of the American food
supply received a $15 million fine and its owner was sentenced to 5 years in prison.
When EPA prosecutes violations and publicizes the results, it sends an unmistakable message to violators:
"If you threaten the health and safety of the public, you will be caught and you will be prosecuted." This combination
of strong, fair, and effective enforcement and compliance promotion will continue to characterize future Agency
efforts.
The remainder of this section highlights selected enforcement and compliance assurance activities
accomplished at the national level. Several of the activities involved extensive coordination among EPA Headquarters
and regional personnel and States. Sections 2.2 through 2.7 discuss national efforts in each of the six themes
identified Section 1. Section 2.8 presents information on national enforcement and compliance assurance activities
that cannot be categorized according to the themes.
2.2 MULTIMEDIA APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Multimedia enforcement is a unique and effective tool for addressing environmental problems in a
comprehensive way. It encompasses a range of enforcement activities, including inspections, notices of violations,
administrativeorders, and judicial actions, using a wide-range approach to evaluate the violations, risks, and
problems and to develop remedies across multiple environmental programs and statutes in a deliberate and coordinated
manner.
Multimedia enforcement is integral to EPA's mandate to protect human health and the Nation's environment.
Because it is comprehensive, multimedia enforcement provides EPA with the opportunity to further the Agency's most
important goals, including:
• Improving ecosystem health
• Creating incentives for business to adopt pollution prevention and environmental auditing as a corporate
commitment
• Attacking the complex problems posed by environmental justice
• Creating partnerships among States, Regions, tribes, and EPA Headquarters.
Multimedia enforcement is effective and appropriate in almost any situation, from small companies to major
corporate entities. Moreover, it can be implemented on a local, regional, or State, level. Multimedia approaches also
benefit industry. Facility-wide multimedia assessments can assist corporate planners in achieving production goals,
while complying with environmental laws, in a cost-effective fashion.
2-4
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
The consolidated multimedia design utilizes trained and experienced teams of experts to develop cases from
inspection through litigation or settlement. Potential multimedia cases are identified through multimedia
Inspection Types
Consolidated Inspections: Comprehensive facility evaluations not only addressing compliance in targeted program-specific
regulations, but also identifying environmental problems that might otherwise be overlooked. When regulated activities or
waste streams are identified, a compliance evaluation is made with respect to applicable requirements.
Coordinated Inspections: Concurrent and coordinated program-specific compliance investigations conducted by a team
of investigators representing two or more program offices, Regions, or States. The team conducts a detailed compliance
evaluation for each target program.
Single Media Inspections with a Multimedia Checklist: Program-specific compliance inspections that are conducted by one
or more inspectors. The inspector(s) screens for and reports on obvious key indicators of possible noncompliance with
other environmental statutes, usually using a multimedia checklist.
inspections, integrated targeting,coordinatedcase screening, andimproved communication amongregulatory programs.
To prepare personnel for these multimedia activities, a national multimedia enforcement workshop was held at NETI-
West. Nearly 100 people attended, representing legal and program offices from OECA, nine Regions, the National
Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC), Department of Justice, and four States. Panel discussions focused on key
multimedia issues, including the use of geographic initiatives; targeting multimedia enforcement for risk reduction,
ecosystem protection, environmental justice, or other factors; multimedia inspections; case development and
management; use of supplemental environmental projects andpollutionpreventioninmultimediacases; and State, local,
and community involvement. A primary purpose ofthe workshop was to provide training on the challenges presented by
multimedia enforcement and to discuss solutions developed by various Regions.
Usingthis training as the springboard, EPA inspectors conducted approximately 2,000 multimedia inspections
in FY 94. It should be noted that there are at least three different types of multimedia inspections: 1) consolidated,
2) coordinated, and 3) single media with multimedia checklists. Ofthe 2,000 inspections, 113 were consolidated, 42
were coordinated, and 1,917 were single media using multimedia checklists.
These inspections resulted in the following enforcement actions:
• Nineteen multimedia civil judicial referrals to DOJ
• Thirty-two multimedia administrative actions
• Four multimedia administrative/judicial actions
• Twenty-two single media actions with multimedia settlements.
The following list highlights some examples of these enforcement actions and the coordination among HQ,
regional, and State enforcement personnel:
2-5
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
• U.S. v. Marine Shale. In the 1994
multimedia trial against Marine Shale
Processors (MSP), the complaint alleged
violations ofRCRA, CAA, and CWA and sought
costrecoveryunderCERCLA. Theoriginal
complaint, filed in 1990, alleged that the
company violated RCRA by operating an
incinerator and hazardous waste storage
units without a permit or interim status,
placing on the ground incinerator ash that
exceeded land disposal restriction (LDR)
treatment standards and storing the
incinerator ash in unpermitted waste
piles. The company claimed that it
operated a RCRA-cxcmptrecycling facility
that produced an aggregate product from
hazardous waste. The complaint was amended
in 1993 to allege violations of the CAA,
including failure to obtain a Prevention of
SignificantDeterioration (PSD) permit,
violations of the company's State minor
source air pollution permit and operating
29 unpermitted air pollution emission
sources; violations of the CWA, including
discharging water pollution without a
permit; and demanding the recovery of the
government's costs in a cleanup action
under CERCLA. Information on the
violations was obtained from citizen
complaints and through a number of EPA and State inspections and requests for information. The results
of the trial are provided on the next page.
• Allied Tube & Conduit. Region V issued a landmark multimedia administrative complaint against Allied
Tube & Conduit for alleged violations of EPCRA and RCRA. This action arose from multiple inspections to
determine the company's compliance under both statutes. As a result of the EPCRA inspection, EPA
determined that the company failed to report toxic chemical releases to the air in 1989. The RCRA
inspection revealed numerous violations, including failure to 1) properly mark containers, 2) record
weekly inspections, 3) conduct personnel training, 4) adequately maintain fire protection equipment,
aisle space, and closure of hazardous waste containers, and 5) properly prepare several hazardous waste
manifests. Corrections of these multiple statutory violations will provide benefits to the public health
and environment.
• U.S. v.Burlington Northern Railroad Company . DOJ filed a civil multimedia action against the Burlington
Northern Railroad Company on behalf of Regions V and VIII. The complaint alleges that the company
discharged hazardous substances into the Nemadji River near Superior, Wisconsin, discharged oil into the
North Platte River in Guernsey, Wyoming, and discharged oil into navigable waters near the Bighorn River
in Worland, Wyoming. DOJ also sought acostrecovery claim under CERCLA for costs incurred by EPA in
response to the Nemadji River spill.
In the Marine Shale multimedia trial, the District Court
divided the trial into 5 phases; the results were as
follows:
• In the RCRA sham recycling issues, the jury was not
able to determine whether MSP was a legitimate
recycler or an incinerator. The jury was dismissed,
and no date was set for the retrial.
• The court ruled MSP was liable for failure to obtain a
PSD permit and for failure to obtain a State
Implementation Plan permit for 29 miscellaneous
emission sources. The court assessed civil penalties
of $2.5 million and $1 million, respectively.
• The court ruled that MSP had operated four water
outfalls without an NPDES permit and that it had
discharged large volumes of heated water into the
adjacent bayou in violation of its NPDES permit. A
civil penalty of $3 million was assessed.
• The judge ruled in favor of the United States on a
summary judgment motion claiming that MSP was
storing certain hazardous wastes without a permit
and without meeting LDR treatment standards. The
court assessed civil penalties of $1 million for
storage violations and $500,000 for land disposal
restricted waste violations.
• The Court also entered an injunction prohibiting
further violations of the CAA, CWA, and RCRA;
however, the effectiveness of the injunction was
stayed pending appeal.
2-6
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
• U.S. v. Tenneco Settlement Finalized. Afteralmost3yearsofnegotiations, Tenneco reached a settlement
with EPA for cleanup of PCB contamination along its natural gas pipelines and payment of a TSCA civil
administrative penalty. Tenneco and the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. will pay a $6.4 million
administrative TSCA penalty andcleanupunder aCERCLA Removal Administrative Order on Consent(AOC).
Region IV is the lead region on this case, which covers contaminated sites in five Regions. In the AOC,
Tenneco has agreed to reimburse EPA for past costs of $357,087. Long-term cleanup costs covered by the
AOC may exceed $240 million.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Many minority, low-income communities have raised concerns about the disproportionate burden of health
consequences they suffer from the siting of industrial plants and waste dumps, as well as from exposures to pesticides
or other toxic chemicals at home and on the job. Their primary concerns are that environmental programs do not
adequately address these disproportionate exposures.
In accordance with President Clinton's Executive Order 12898, EPA is addressing these concerns by assuming
a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives and developing an environmental justice strategy to enhance
environmental quality for all U.S. residents. The Agency looks to assure, through its policies, programs, and
activities, that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, bears
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects.
To achieve the objectives of its environmental justice strategy, EPA is:
• Ensuring that environmental justice is part of all Agency programs, policies, and activities
• Identifying methodologies, research, and data needed to identify and evaluate populations at
disproportionately high environmental or human health risks,as well as ensuring that these needs are
considered in developing the overall Federal research program
• Promoting outreach, communication, and partnerships with stakeholders to ensure sufficient stakeholder
access to training, information, and education.
Because implementation of the Agency's environmental justice policy is ongoing, the majority of its efforts
to date have been in outreach and education for both Agency employees and the public. The Agency is refining its
strategies and analyzing data to direct its compliance assurance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities
more effectively in support of this principle.
Of primary concern to OECA is the lack of capacity of some low-income and minority populations to become
involved in permit decisions and enforcement and compliance monitoring activities. To address this issue, the
EnforcementCapacity and Outreach Office (ECOO) of OECA is leading apilotprogram to provide education on avariety
of environmental justice topics, including:
• Citizens' rights and regulatory processes
• Opportunities for community involvement in permitting decisions
• Training in interpreting data and enforcement/compliance monitoring activities.
In addition to these outreach efforts, the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) developed an
approach for heightening environmental justice awareness among OECA employees and for enhancing citizen participation
in environmental compliance monitoring and enforcement functions. Several of the individual HQ and regional offices
have also developed and sponsored environmental justice training for their employees. In addition, the Office of
2-7
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
Compliance sponsored the Environmental Justice Bike Tour, which educated students and communities about environmental
awareness and environmental justice issues.
At the national policy level, OECA established a process for assuring environmental justice in all OECA
programs,policies, and activities. It named a full-time Environmental Justice Coordinator and established an
Environmental JusticcCoordinatingCouncil(EJCC). The EJCCcompriscsrcprcscntatives from each majoroflice within
OECA and assists in developing the agency-wide strategic plan. It also provides recommendations to promote
environmental justice through enforcement activities at all levels—regional, State, and national.
To date, the EJCC has produced three major draft documents for use within the Agency:
• OECA draft strategy outline, which describes the office's goals and objectives
• Potential projects list, which provides a matrix of current and future activities
• Draft OECA workplans, which include project descriptions, descriptions of project relationships to goals
set forth in the strategy outline, anticipated time frames for the projects, and key efforts for
completing the projects.
These documents are currently being circulated throughoutthe Agency for review and comment and will be the
Agency's road map for all environmental justice activities.
Several of the primary offices in OECA are developing their own strategies for including environmental justice
concepts into enforcement and compliance assurance activities. In conjunction with the Regions, ORE is developing
enforcement guidance documents concerning identification of environmental justice cases and emphasizing the need for
discussion of environmental justice concerns in litigation packages and consent decrees. It is also coordinating a
national enforcement initiative to ensure that pesticide registrants adhere to the pesticide product labeling
requirements of the agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS). In October 1994, the first civil administrative
cases under the WPS were filed against two of the Nation's largest pesticide manufacturers for misbranding or
incorrectly labeling pesticides and posing a risk to workers' health. EPA is seeking a total of $2.1 million in
penalties.
EPA is undertaking other activities to incorporate environmental justice into its enforcement and compliance
monitoring activities. For example, OC provided access to an extract of the 1990 Census data in the Integrated Data
for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) information retrieval system that allows IDEA users to identify regulated facilities
based on Census data, such as race and/or income, and then gather compliance/enforcement information about the
facilities. Environmental justice efforts under the Superfund program have involved conducting a comparative analysis
ofSuperfundenforcementprocessdataforallNPL sites. OSREalsocontinuestocoordinatewithOSWERonidentifying
site characteristics and environmental justice
indicators to ensure that information relevant to
environmental justice issues are incorporated with
enhancementsto the Superfund information system
(CERCLIS).
In addition, EPA is meeting the White House's
call for making the Federal sector a national leader in
environmentaljustice efforts. For example, OFA
assisted with the development of an executive order on
environmentaljustice, analyzed environmentaljustice
The Office of Criminal Enforcement has implemented an
aggressive, multimedia, cross regional enforcement
initiative that strategically targets businesses and other
violators in minority communities. In partnership with
the FBI, ATF, U.S. customs, and other Federal and State
law enforcement and regulatory officials, OCE special
agents will investigate business enterprises in these
communities using confidential informants, undercover
sting operations, aerial-infrared and electronic
surveillance, and covert sampling and monitoring. The
overall effect of this combined effort will have direct and
positive impact on the health and safety of community
residents.
2-8
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
issues and socioeconomic impacts under NEPA, and drafted preliminary guidance for assessing environmental justice
in CAA Section 309 reviews of other agency NEPA documents. EPA's Federal facilities offices also completed projects
related to environmental justice, including an extensive geographical information system (GIS) analysis at 25 Federal
facilities nationwide. This analysis was based on environmental justice parameters, as designated in Executive Order
12898. These 25 surveys will be senttothe 10 EPA Regions as models for conducting GIS analysis at the regional level.
In FY 94, the Criminal Investigations Division of OCE dedicated 27 percent of its resources to conducting
investigations in minority communities. OCE's other accomplishments in achieving environmental justice include:
• Special agents in charge from all 10 Regions have submitted innovative plans for proactive strategic
targeting initiatives on environmental criminal violations in communities with environmental justice
concerns. These plans include joint investigations with other Federal and State agencies and tribal
governmentsto prosecute violators in environmental justice communities, as well as geographical
initiatives that target environmental criminal violations in such communities.
• OCE modified its agent training course and other law enforcement personnel training to include an
environmental justice segment.
• Low income and minority areas of Dallas,
Texas, received $6 million in remediation
projects as the result of EPA's criminal
prosecution in United States v. Robert M.
Brittingham and John J. LoMonaco (N.D.
Tex.). The former board chairman and the
former president of a large ceramic tile
manufacturer were convicted for dumping
lead-contaminated hazardous waste into a
sand and gravel pit in a Dallas suburb.
Although somewhat limited, high profile
situations have involved environmental justice and
enforcement and compliance monitoring activities. In
these situations, EPA Headquarters, Regions, States,
and municipalities have worked together to forge a
solution beneficial to all involved. The Tift County
Georgia (Region IV) Environmental Justice Geographic
Initiative is an example of this coordination. Under
this initiative, Region IV developed and is in the
process of implementing a pilot project in Tift County,
Georgia, to address waste sites located within the city
of Tifton and throughout Tift County.
Another environmental justice case involves a
major utility company with four electric power plants in
the Catano, Puerto Rico, area. Catano is a community in
which the majority of the people are below the poverty
level and suffer from poor air and water quality. The
major thrust of the action is to improve the regional
Tifton is a small Georgia town of approximately 15,000
residents. A total of 19 CERCLA potential hazardous
waste sites are located in Tifton. Of these, one is already
on the National Priorities List (NPL) (Tifton Drums), one
is being evaluated for inclusion on the NPL, and six have
undergone waste removal or are currently undergoing
waste removal.
EPA, in conjunction with CLOUT (a citizen's group in
Tifton), the Georgia Environmental Protection Division,
and the Tift County Board of Commissioners, is
implementing the Tift County, Georgia, Environmental
Justice Geographic Initiative to address the
environmental harm from the multiple sites in Tift
County. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) has also been active through existing
agreements with EPA, which provide for public health
assessments in communities surrounding NPL sites. To
highlight the activities in Tift County, Region IV's senior
management officials attended several community/public
meetings to maintain open communication with local
community leaders and residents.
EPA provided a $200,000 Clean Water Act grant to the
Texas Attorney General to fund a Strike Force that
enforces State and local laws against developers of
colonias. The purpose of the money is to remedy the
colonias' current environmental situation. Colonias are
Hispanic communities concentrated near the Mexican
border in Texas and New Mexico; they usually lack
adequate infrastructure. OFA also worked with ORE,
Region VI, DOJ, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the Texas and New Mexico Attorneys'
General Offices to explore additional responses to the
colonias' problem. This initial groundwork will form the
basis of an enhanced Federal and State effort in 1995.
2-9
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
water and air quality. Section 3 provides more detail on this case.
2.4 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS
The new frameworkfor EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance programs reorients the Agency's focus to
compliance problems that pervade certain sectors ofthe regulated community. This "sector approach" enables the
Agency to 1) address noncomplying sectors more effectively, 2) allow for "whole facility" approaches to enforcement
and compliance, 3) measure more specifically rates of compliance and the effectiveness of enforcement strategies,
4) augment enforcement strategies with appropriate compliance enhancement activities, and 5) develop sector
expertise, which should improve performance in all aspects ofthe Agency's enforcementprogram. During the pastyear,
EPA made great strides in developing sector expertise, which will allow the Agency to begin making sector-based
enforcement and compliance assurance an integral part of everyday activities.
The agency-wide Common Sense Initiative is a prime example of EPA's sector-based initiatives and effort to
extend its expertise. This program is considered the Agency's cornerstone sector-based initiative. The purpose of
this initiative is to develop and implement strategies for making environmental regulation more efficient and more
effective. Six industrial sectors were selected to participate:
• Iron and steel
• Electronics and computers
• Metal plating and finishing
• Auto assembly
• Petroleum refining
• Printing.
For each sector, EPA is convening a high-level team comprising industry executives, environmental leaders,
government officials, and labor and environmental justice representatives. OECA is represented on every sector team
and is the Agency lead for the printing sector. The teams will be looking at six key elements that affect the specific
sector:
• Promoting pollution prevention opportunities
• Conducting regulatory reviews
• Undertaking innovative compliance assistance and enforcement initiatives
• Simplifying and improving reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Implementing permit streamlining opportunities
• Promoting innovative environmental technologies.
To further enhance the Agency's knowledge of
specific sectors, the Office of Compliance is conducting
an extensive analysis to develop a comprehensive profile
of 18 major industrial sectors. The completed profiles
will contain a variety of information, including
industrial process descriptions, multimedia regulatory
requirements, historical enforcement performance data,
pollutant release information, current public and
private sector initiatives, and an assessment of
potential pollution prevention opportunities for the
sector. These profiles will be the basis for
development of sector compliance strategies, which will
The Common Sense Initiative, one of EPA's primary
sector-based efforts, comprises 18 industries:
a
Printing
¦
Ship/Rail/Car/Truck
Cleaning
¦
Pulp and Paper
¦
Dry Cleaning
¦
Inorganic Chemicals
¦
Metal Mining
¦
Organic Chemicals
¦
Non-Metallic Mining
¦
Petroleum Refining
¦
Lumber/Wood
a
Iron and Steel
¦
Furniture and Fixtures
a
Rubber and Plastics
¦
Stone/Glass/Concrete
¦
Non-Ferrous Metals
¦
Metal Fabrication
¦
Auto Assembly
•
Electronics and
Computers.
2-10
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
address the appropriate mix of compliance and enforcement activities, inspection priorities, regional/State roles,
and the use of enforcement actions and targeted initiatives.
In addition to these sector-based programs, several other projects focus on industrial sectors. Some of the
programs specifically target compliance assistance; others are primarily enforcement-based programs. Some of the
specific sectors and descriptions of the initiatives are described below.
Compliance assistance initiatives included:
• Dry cleaning: To assist the perchloroethylene (perc) dry cleaners in complying with the various
environmental regulations, OC is developing an easy-to-read version of the environmental requirements
for dry cleaners, including a Korean language translation of the brochure. This document explains the
environmental requirements under CAA, RCRA, CWA, and SDWA and includes commonly asked questions
concerning the regulations and a quick reference checklist of activities that an owner/operator must
perform to comply with the regulations.
• Auto body shops: OC is also working with auto body shops and the Department of Education to develop a new
national curriculum for auto technicians that includes environmental requirements.
• Animal feeding operations: The Water Enforcement Division of ORE participated in the development of an
initiative targeting animal feeding operations. The goal is to increase protection of water resources
by promoting, encouraging, and requiring sound environmental management and practices in the animal
feeding operation community.
• Pulp andpaper mills: The T oxics and Pesticides Division of ORE helped develop a voluntary program to
restrict the land application of sludges containing dioxin. The American Forest and Paper Association,
as well as two pulp and paper mills, signed agreements implementing the program.
The following examples were all enforcement-based initiatives:
• Municipal waste combustion facilities: The RCRA Enforcement Division of ORE, in conjunction with OC,
developed and wrote a strategy for implementing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the City of Chicago
v. Environmental Defense Fund concerning municipal waste combustion (MWC) ash. The decision held that
RCRA Section 300l(i) exempts MWC facilities from RCRA hazardous waste regulations but that M WC ash is not
exempt from RCRA's hazardous waste definition. The strategy provided the Regions with guidance in
bringing waste-to-energy facilities affected by the decision into compliance with RCRA Subtitle C as
quickly as possible.
• Incinerators and boilers and industrialfurnaces (BIFs): EPA and DOJ announced the second Hazardous
Waste Combustion Initiative, which included filing 13 settlement agreements and 10 complaints against
owners and operators of incinerators and BIFs. The settled cases recovered $1.5 million in penalties from
4 incinerators and 9 BIFs. The 10 complaints included the first civil judicial BIF complaint; the 9
remaining administrative complaints sought $4.8 million in penalties from 7 BIFs and 2 incinerators.
AlsoinFY94,OFA updated its Environmental Assessment (EA) guidance for reviewers of new source NPDE S
permits. This EA guidance was completed for the following industrial sectors: mining, fossil-fueled electric steam
generating stations, pulp and paper mills, timber processing, and coal gasification facilities.
2-11
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
These strategies and other compliance assurance projects will eventually lead the Agency to sector-based
compliance monitoring and enforcement. All of this preliminary work, however, will only make those activities more
effective and efficient when they are undertaken.
2.5 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
Historically, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took a civil administrative action against a
violating facility, it sought only monetary penalties. In the 1990s, however, EPA changed its enforcement approach
to seek not only monetary penalties but also an improvement in environmental quality. Environmental improvement is
expected to occur as a result of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). A SEP is a project that a
respondent/defendant in a case agrees to conduct as a term of settlement sometimes in exchange for partial mitigation
of a civil penalty. The purpose of these projects is to expand protection of human health and the environment beyond
that required by the specific Federal, State, or local law directly related to an enforcement action.
SEPs are an important tool in promoting the
Agency goals of pollution prevention, pollution
reduction, and environmental justice. In addition to
the continued use of SEPs in enforcement cases, the
Revised Supplemental Environmental Project Policy is
being prepared which will make it easier to incorporate
SEPs into settlement negotiations. The policy has been
revised to allow maximum flexibility to achieve
settlements that enhance environmental protection while
maintaining a strong penalty policy to promote
deterrence. As part of an enforcement settlement, the
amount of the agreed-upon penalty may be reduced to
reflect the commitment made by an alleged violator to
undertake a SEP. Two critical factors must be
considered in negotiating SEPs: 1) the assessed penalty
must reflect the gravity of the violation and the
economic benefit achieved and 2) the enforcement settlement must foster a deterrent effect. In addition, projects
undertaken in SEPs must go beyond compliance requirements with applicable laws and regulations.
DuringFY 94, EPA incorporated SEPs in settlements forviolations under a broad range ofprograms. As in the
past, SEPswereappliedinEPCRA,TSCA,andFIFRA cases. InFY 94, for example, 190 cases with S EP terms were negotiated
underTSCA(55),EPCRASection313(49)andFIFRA(8),withanadditional78 SEPsnegotiatedunder other sectionsof
EPCRA. EPA also applied SEPs in cases brought under CAA, CWA, RCRA, and CERCLA.
Many of the SEP cases in FY 94 represented landmark cases in terms of the scope of the action, the nature of
the violation, the type of environmental benefits achieved, or for other reasons. For example, the State-Federal
agreement resolving a case against the Massachusetts Highway Department represents the largest ever commitment of
public resources to address RCRA violations at State facilities anywhere in the country. In a consent agreement
resolvingaRCRAadmimstrativeaction,EPA-NewEngland,1heMADEP,andtheMassachusettsHighwayDepartment(MHD)
agreed that MHD will spend $20 million to investigate and remediate environmental problems at all 13 8 of its facilities
and will dedicate $5 million to several SEPs, including projects that will benefit environmental justice areas. The
138 State facilities are the most facilities to be addressed by a single RCRA-related agreement.
Another record setting component of this SEP is MHD's $5 million commitment, a significant portion of which
is designated for training approximately 350 local and municipal transportation and public works agency personnel and
Types of SEPs Used In Enforcement Cases
¦
Cleanup/restoration projects
¦
Disposal
•
Environmental audit
¦
Outreach/public awareness projects
a
Training
¦
Source reduction/pollution prevention—process
modification
¦
Source reduction/pollution prevention—recycling
¦
Source reduction/pollution
prevention—technological improvement
¦
Waste minimization/pollution reduction—process
modification
¦
Waste minimization/pollution reduction—recycling
•
Waste minimization/pollution
reduction—technological improvement
2-12
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
forprox idingcmcrgcncy rcs|X3nsccquipmcntto Local Emergency PlanningCommittccs(LEPCs)ancctcdby MHDo|xrations,
with particular focus on low-income and minority neighborhoods.
Region IV's case against Ashland Petroleum is another notable example. EPA filed a consent agreement and
consentorder (CACO) that settled allegedreportingviolations under Section 304 ofEPCRA. The CACO provided for a
$1.56 million penalty, for which Ashland agreed to pay $312,000 in cash to EPA, with the remainder of the penalty to
be put toward SEPs valued at more than $1,248,000. The total $1.56 million value of the settlement made this the
Agency's largest EPCRA penalty ever. This is also the first multi-State EPCRA action in Region IV's history.
The following list provides additional examples of SEP agreements and the specific activities conducted under
the SEP terms:
• U.S. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (W.I).N. Y.): EPA andDOJannouncedIhesetllementofaRCRA case againstEastman
Kodak in Rochester, New York. The consent decree included a cash penalty of $5 million, a $ 12 million
investmentin six SEPs to reduce hazardous wastes in its 2,200 acre Kodak Park, and a compliance schedule.
The aggregate reduction in hazardous wastes as a result of the SEPs is expected to exceed 2.3 million
pounds of pollutants by the year 2001.
The major violations addressed in the complaint and consent decree involved Kodak's failure to properly
characterize waste streams, the leakage of hazardous wastes from a massive (31 -mile long) industrial
sewer, and operation of an unpermitted incinerator. An NEIC-led team that conducted a 9-week,
comprehensive multimedia investigation of the Kodak facility discovered these violations.
In a separate TSCA administrative enforcement action against Kodak, the company agreed to spend $3.6
million to remove 17 PCB transformers located at the Rochester facility. Based on this very valuable SEP,
a $17,000 penalty reduction was allowed; the final cash penalty provided for in the October 1993
settlement was $42,000.
• United States v. Beech Aircraft Corporation (D. Kansas): The U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas entered a consent decree resolving civil violations of the CWA at Beech Aircraft Corporation's
Wichita, Kansas, facility. Beech was required to pay a civil penalty of $521,000 for its violations of
Federal categorical pretreatment standards for metal finishers, failure to meet the reporting
requirements of the general pretreatment regulations, and failure to comply in a timely manner with an
administrative order issued by Region VII.
In addition to paying the civil penalty, Beech agreed to perform a supplemental environmental project
valued at approximately $200,000 that consists of installing centrifuges or equivalent systems to remove
sludge from the Wichita facility's existing water wash paint spray booths. The purpose of this pollution
prevention project is to reduce the total volume and toxicity of hazardous waste sludge generated and to
allow the recycling of paint spray booth wastewater, thereby reducing the volume and concentration of
pollutants in the wastewater ultimately discharged to the city of Wichita's POTW.
• United States v. City and County ofHonolulu (D. Hawaii): A consent decree was lodged resolving a CWA
enforcement action brought by the United States and the State of Hawaii against the City and County of
Honolulu. This action arose as a result of the city and county of Honolulu's poor maintenance of its sewer
system, which resulted in more than 300 spills of raw or partially treated sewage into Hawaiian waters
(including a spill of 50 million gallons of raw sewage into Pearl Harbor in 1991 that attracted national
attention). The city and county of Honolulu also failed to implement an adequate pretreatment program
to regulate the discharge of toxics from industries discharging into its sewer system.
2-13
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Under the consent agreement, the city and county of Honolulu will pay a civil penalty of $ 1.2 million and
committed to improving the operation and maintenance of its sewer system, including the renovation of
1,900 miles of sewer lines during the next 20 years, and to developing and implementing a pretreatment
program to regulate the discharge of industrial toxic wastewater. Under the decree, the city and county
also committed to spending $3 0 million on SEPs for treating and reusing wastewater and sludge. Honolulu
will recycle 10 tons of sewage sludge per day by 1998 and 10 million gallons of wastewater per day by the
year 2001.
2.6 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION
The United States and other parts of the world are experiencing a serious loss of essential natural resources.
If this continues, this loss will result in a long-term threat to the Nation's economic prosperity, security, and the
sustainability of remaining ecological systems. The value of ecosystems can be measured in many different ways.
Living things and the ecosystems upon which they depend provide communities with food, clean air, clean water, and a
multitude of other goods and services. Native American tribes and many others believe that all life is
interconnected—that the health of one depends directly on the health of another. Consequently, the high rates of
species endangerment, loss of natural resources (e.g., timber), habitat fragmentation, and losses of recreational
opportunities pose a potential threat to the health, cultural values, lifestyle, and economic future of virtually
every American.
Many EPA activities have helped protectecosystems. The Agency has implemented laws to control many of the
major sources that pollute the Nation's air, water, and land. Yet, even as the more obvious problems are resolved,
scientists discover other environmental stresses that threaten ecological resources and general well-being. Evidence
of these problems can be seen in the decline of the salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest and the oyster stock
in the Chesapeake Bay, the decrease in migratory bird populations, and degraded coral reef systems.
Although many Federal, State, tribal, and local regulations address these problems, past efforts have been
as fragmented as the laws enacted to solve the problems. Because EPA concentrated on issuing permits, establishing
pollutant limits, and setting national standards, as required by environmental laws, the Agency did not pay enough
attention to the overall environmental health of specific ecosystems. In short, EPA has been "program-driven" rather
than "place-driven."
As the Agency moves increasingly to a place-driven approach, existing barriers to progress must be identified
and addressed. EPA must collaborate with other Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, as well as private
partners, to remove the barriers and achieve the ultimate goal of healthy, sustainable ecosystems. The Agency,
therefore, will act to solve integrated environmental problems through a framework of ecosystem protection in close
partnership with others. This approach will integrate environmental management with human needs, consider long-term
ecosystem health, and highlight the positive correlation between economic prosperity and environmental well-being.
EPAiscurrentlyplacinghighpriority on developingcompliance assurance andenforcementprogramsthatfocus
on sensitive ecosystem protection. However, it is still a relatively new emphasis in the Agency, and, therefore,
applicable projects are developing. To date, EPA has promoted this initiative and mandated that it become an integral
part of all Agency decision making, as well as an integral part of the compliance assurance and enforcement programs
in particular.
OEC A's Office of Federal Activities (OF A) has been active in sensitive ecosystem protection and has taken the
lead in a number of important ecosystem management and protection initiatives during FY 94:
• Midwest floods: OFA served as EPA's representative to the White House Task Force on levee repair and
long-term recovery and ensured a focus on the opportunities for significant long-term transformation of
2-14
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
floodplain management practices in the region. OFA established an overall principle for the Task Force:
the need to capitalize upon the lessons learned from this event to trigger reinvention of current Federal
programs affectingfloodplainmanagement. OFA, in conjunction with the White House, pursued a strategic
assessment of Federal activities in floodplains and issued the report entitled Sharing the Challenge:
Floodplain Management Into the 21st Century
• Everglades: OFA represented EPA at the final negotiations and signing of the multiagency agreement on
restoration of the Everglades. OFA continues to coordinate with Region IV, the Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds, and other EPA offices to build a team of experts to participate in the technical
and scientific studies of this complex ecosystem necessary to create a plan for environmentally
sustainable development in the region.
• Endangered species activities: OFA has been alead for the Endangered Species Coordinating Committee,
which was established to describe current activities and obligations, set priorities, and establish
appropriate training, support, and liaison functions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service. OFA also coordinated the Deputy Administrator's agency wide Taskforce on
Endangered Species Management within EPA.
• Forest conference: The forest conference was designed to break the impasse developed over the use and
protection of the Northwest forest resources. From the beginning, OFA has been an active member of the
President'sForestTeam,providinginputto ecosystem protection andwatershedmanagementin particular.
OFA staff have been involved in both the review and preparation of the Draft Forest Conference
Supplemental EIS.
2.7 FEDERAL FACILITY ENFORCEMENT AND FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
EPA's newly reorganized enforcement and compliance program has provided the Federal facilities offices with
improved opportunities to assure compliance with environmental requirements across the Federal sector. The 1992
F ederal F acility Compliance Act boosted enforcement capability by clearly establishing RCRA penalty authority against
Federal facilities. The act authorizes EPA to levy fines against other Federal agencies.
In addition to traditional enforcement measures, the Federal facilities program includes compliance
assistance activities designed to ensure full compliance without exacting severe penalties. Executive Order 12856,
Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements, committed Federal agencies to
implementpollution prevention practices across all missions and activities. EPA is taking a leadership role in
implementing the Executive Order and has issued a guide for agency-wide pollution prevention strategies, interpretive
guidance for all of the Executive Order's requirements, guidance for developing facility-specific plans, a guide for
meeting pollution reduction goals, and a user's guide to environmental cost accounting.
To further educate its employees and exchange and develop ideas, EPA held the annual Federal Facilities
Coordinator's Meeting. The meeting included Headquarters and regional personnel and covered a range of topics,
including regional impacts from the HQ reorganization, revision of the Federal compliance strategy, Federal Facility
ComplianceActimplementation,implementationofExecutive Order 12856, OMB A-106revisions,andcurrentstatusof
the multimedia initiative.
To help Agency personnel monitor compliance at Federal facilities, the Federal facilities office developed
anew version of the Federal Facility Tracking System (FFTS), a pilot computer system that tracks compliance activities
at Federal facility sites. The new system provides a multimedia view of activities to assist with planning, targeting
inspections, and reporting.
2-15
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
In FY 94, EPA and the States issued 40 administrative
orders totaling more than $6.5 million in penalties. The Federal
facilities compliance strategy will continue to include joint
EPA and State multimedia inspections at targeted Federal
facilities. EPA and participating States recently completed
first year activities associated with the FY 93/94 Federal
Facilities MultiMedia Enforcement/Compliance Initiative
(FMECI). In FY 94, EPA evaluated 31 Federal facilities using a
multimedia approach; the FY 93 inspections resulted in 75 FY 94
enforcement actions under nine statutes. Federal facilities in seven Regions were assessed a total of $2.1 million
in penalties.
EPA continued its FY 93 enforcement efforts in cleanup and environmental restoration. At the end of FY 94,
EPA had crafted 111 Interagency Agreements with Federal agencies defining the cleanup process at 121NPL Federal
facilities. These agreements are backed by stipulated penalties, which are used to ensure compliance with the terms
of the cleanup activities.
In July 1994, for example, the Department of Energy settled a CERCLA penalty action with EPA and the State of
Colorado for $2.8 million for violations of several cleanup deadlines for the Rocky Flats facility. These violations
are resulting in the delay of the overall cleanup at this facility.
The following list highlights selected examples of the enforcement actions taken against Federal facilities
in FY 94:
• Coast Guard, Kodiak, Alaska Facility: EPARegion lOissuedacomplaintagainsttheU.S. CoastGuard
Kodiak SupportCenter, Kodiak, Alaska, seeking $ 1,018,552 in penalties. The complaintresulted from two
majorviolations of RCRA: 1) failure to properly monitor ground water in an area where cleaning solvents
had been dumped and 2) the illegal storage of hazardous waste without a proper permit from EPA. The
complaintwas the first action brought against a civilian Federal agency under the Federal Facility
Compliance Act of 1992.
• The Presidio: Region IX filed a complaint and citations against the U. S. Army Garrison, Presidio of San
Francisco, for violating RCRA and assessed a penalty of $556,500 for the hazardous waste violations.
Region IX inspectors identified a number of violations at the Presidio, including failure to transport
hazardous waste offsite within 90 days, failure to label properly approximately 200 drums of hazardous
wastes, failure to keep 15 containers of hazardous wastes closed, and failure to make weekly inspections
of three hazardous waste storage areas.
• SchofieldBarracks: RegionIXassessed$543,900inpenaltiesunderRCRAagainstSchofieldBarracks,a
U.S. Army facility located in Wahiawa, Hawaii. The facility operates numerous motorpools and maintenance
shops that generate various wastes, including waste paint, waste solvents, and contaminated waste oils,
which are listed as hazardous waste under RCRA. Region IX inspections determined that the facility was
illegally operating as a RCRA storage facility. Violations included failure to transport RCRA-regulated
waste offsite within the allowed 90-day accumulation period, failure to label waste properly, and failure
to make adequate hazardous waste determinations. In addition, the facility failed to comply with
requirements pertaining to the hazardous waste training program, the contingency plan, and preparedness
and prevention measures.
In FY 94. EPA and participating States issued:
¦ 15 Warning Letters
¦ 27 Notices of Violation
¦ 8 Notices of Noncompliance
¦ 18 Administrative Orders
• 3 Field Citations
¦ 4 Federal Facility Compliance Agreements.
2-16
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
EPA's Federal facility offices are also responsible for reviewing all Federal facility documentation prepared
under NEPA. In FY 94, for example, 515 environmental impact statements (EISs) were filed with OFA under its delegation
from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (278 draftand237final). EPAcommentedon210draftEISsand 172
final EISs. Of these, EPA rated 2 draft EISs EU (environmentally unsatisfactory), 30 draft EISs EO (environmental
objections), and the remaining draft EISs either EC (environmental concerns) or LO (lack of objections). Also during
theyear, OFA approved eightEnvironmental Policy Agreements betweenEPA and otherFederal agencies, includingthe
Department of Justice, Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Department of Defense, Small Business
Administration, Department of Commerce, and Department of Transportation.
2.8 OTHER ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES
In FY 94, enforcement and compliance assurance accomplishments occurred in arenas beyond the six theme areas.
Significant achievements were accomplished across all program areas and under each environmental statute. The
following sections document some of the more significant accomplishments throughout the year.
2.8.1 Redelegation
As an adjunct to the reorganizational changes that occurred in FY 94, OECA eliminated unnecessary or
duplicative layers of review by assessing and revising existing delegation of authority and concurrence procedures
by redelegating a substantial portion of the authority to manage and settle civil judicial and administrative
enforcement cases to the Regional Counsel. The redelegation authorizes the Regions to settle a substantial number
of enforcement cases without the formal involvement of OECA, thus eliminating a potentially redundant and time-
consuming level of review and freeing OECA to focus with the Regions on enforcement cases that present nationally
significant issues.
The Assistant Administrator redelegated to the Regional Counsel the authority to settle enforcement cases
with bottom-line penalties of less than $500,000 without formal OECA involvement, provided that the cases present no
nationally significant issues. With the agreement of OECA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement, the Regional Counsel
may also settle non-nationally significant cases with penalties higher than $500,000. OECA's continued formal
involvement in nationally significant cases, regional audits, the regional Counsels' reporting relationship to the
Assistant Administrator, and numerous informal contacts between OECA and the regions will all ensure that national
policy goals will continue to be met.
Redelegation marks a real turning-point in the Headquarters/regional relationship in the enforcement and
compliance assurance arena. The new approach preserves and enhances OECA's leadership role of setting national
directions and policies on enforcement issues, while providing regional managers the flexibility to implement their
compliance andenforcementprograms in amore efficientmanner. To help implement the redelegation, OECA's Office
of Regulatory Enforcement produced a uniform, cross-media set of procedures that further emphasize trust, flexibility,
and common sense as the fundamental principles of the Headquarters/regional relationship.
2.8.2 Task Forces and Work Groups
In FY 94, Headquarters and regional personnel represented OECA on numerous task forces and work groups. The
AirEnforcementDivisionofORE worked onanintergovernmentaltaskforcedesignedtocoordinatethegovernment-wide
response to the illegalimportation ofozone depleting chemicals. OFA chairedaworkgroupthatexaminedEPA programs
and NEPA. The work group conducted a comprehensive study of EPA activities with respect to the key NEPA
criteria—environmental analysis, consideration of alternatives, and public participation. The work group also look
at program office compliance with other environmental requirements, such as the Endangered Species Act.
2-17
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
OFA also represented EPA on the Technical Advisory Group to develop international standards for environmental
auditing by coordinating EPA comments and working on this draft report to reflect EPA's preferred positions. In
addition, OFA chaired a new group designated to develop U.S. proposed standards for environmental audits of
Environmental Management Systems.
The Enforcement Capacity and Outreach Office's Constituent Outreach Team (COT) established a framework that
assists OECA in consulting with State, local, and tribal governments on broad policy and specific issues associated
with enforcement and compliance assurance. As aresult, OECA has designed an intergovernmental relations framework
thatincorporatesthreecomponents: aForumofsenior-levelpolicymakerstofocusonbroadenforcementandcompliance
policies; a network of federal, State, local, and tribal enforcement and compliance practitioners; and specific
strategies for strengthening regional and State interaction.
When fully implemented, the network will consist of 30 to 40 environmental enforcement practitioners from
EPA (Headquarters and regions) and State, local, and tribal governments. The main objectives of the network are to
enhance State/EPA communications and to develop a network of environmental enforcement and compliance assurance
managers to provide expertise on planning and priority setting process.
2.8.3 Training and Guidance
As a result of the OECA reorganization, the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) experienced
significant growth in FY 94. NETI made progress in the area of training technology by using the computer and satellite
transmission to disseminate training materials, information, and courses. NETI also emphasized its role serving as
a clearinghouse for training information, in assessing constituent needs, in continuing international training, and
developingplans forthe state-of-the-artNETI Headquarters Training Center in Washington, DC. In FY 94, NETI trained
more than 7,000 enforcement professionals. NETI provided training through 180 courses conducted in all lOregional
offices, the N ETI-Wcst facility at Lakcwood. Colorado, various State locations, and Mexico. Through funding by grants
and cooperative agreements, NETI assisted the four Regional Environmental Enforcement Associations. This year, the
associationsjointlysponsoredtheEnvironmentalCrimeAwarenessTrainingforLawEnforcement,whichwastransmitted
via satellite to 2,200 local law enforcement officers.
Moreover, NETI redesigned and delivered the Basic Environmental Enforcement Course, which focuses on the
entire enforcement process, including a walk-through inspection, writing inspection reports, and a mock negotiation
simulation. NETI ofiferedseveralnew courses, includingtheAdvancedRCRA Inspector Institute. Experienced EPA and
State RCRA inspectors applied their experiences in RCRA enforcement through an exchange of information, concepts, and
skills.
EPA also conducted several inspector training courses in FY 94, including the following FIFRA and EPCRA
courses: FIFRA Worker ProtectionInspectorTraining,PesticideUse Inspector Training,Pesticide ProductEnforcement
Course, and EPCRA Section 313 Inspector Training and EPCRA Health and Safety Training.
EPA also developed and distributed several guidance documents, including:
• Acid Rain Compliance/Enforcement Guidance
• Waste Analysis Plan Guidance
• Final guidance on ways to incorporate pollution prevention into NEPA and Clean Air Act Section 309
environmental review processes.
2.8.4 Initiatives
2-18
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
In addition to the accomplishments discussed according to the six themes, EPA began several other national
initiatives, as demonstrated by the examples in the following list:
• Oil Pollution Act Initiative: EPA, in conjunction with DOJ and the U.S. Coast Guard, announced the
coordinated filing of 28 cases against commercial polluters who unlawfully discharged oil or other
hazardous substances into waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines and, in some cases, who
violated oil spill prevention regulations. The initiative included two judicial cases filed by DOJ on
behalf of EPA and the Coast Guard— 1 civil and 1 criminal—as well as 26 EPA administrative penalty actions
in 13 States. The administrative cases collectively sought civil penalties of approximately $1 million.
One DOJ case involved the discharge ofbilge water and waste oil from the cruise ship Viking Princess that
left a 2.5-mile oil slick off the Florida coast. This case resulted in a plea agreement and the payment
of a $500,000 fine. Among the administrative cases, one involved Tosco Refinery, a refiner and marketer
of wholesale petroleum products in Martinez, California, for spilling more than 2,500 gallons of oil into
a drainage ditch that emptied into U.S. waters. Another involved Burlington Asphalt Corporation in Mt.
Holly, New Jersey, which spilled more than 7,500 gallons of fuel oil onto county property and a storm
drain that emptied into a creek.
• Diesel Enforcement Initiative: EPA's Mobile Source Program executed a joint initiative with the State
of Maryland and the Internal Revenue Service for enforcement of the diesel desulfurization regulations.
Upon receiving a tip from a Maryland State trooper about possible diesel misfueling, including the use
of untaxed, high-sulfur diesel in motor vehicles in violation not only of EPA's diesel desulfurization
regulations but of both Federal and State tax laws, a series of joint inspections were conducted,
resulting in both State and Federal enforcement actions. Eight notices of violations with proposed
penalties of $46,500 were issued. Three of the cases have been settled for penalties of $8,400.
• TSCAInventory Update Rule (IUB) Case Initiative: IhelURseeksinformationtDupdateEPA'sTSCA Chemical
Substance Inventory, which is EPA's baseline of information on toxic substances. T o target violators and
highlight the importance of compliance with the IUR, EPA Headquarters and regional offices filed
complaints seeking approximately $2.9 million in penalties against 39 U.S. chemical manufacturers and
importers for failing to report specific chemical production and site information in a timely and
accurate manner. EPA launched the IUR case initiative to increase industry awareness of IUR reporting
requirements and of the IUR reporting cycle.
• FIFRA Good laboratory Practice Standards Case Initiative: EPA issued 12 civil complaints against
pesticide registrants proposing $183,000 in penalties for violations of the Agency's GLP standards and
FIFRA. Citing the GLP violations, the Agency also issued five warning letters to the testing facilities
that had conducted studies supporting pesticide registrations and issued one warning letter to another
registrant for less serious violations. These enforcement actions reaffirm EPA's commitment to vigorous
enforcement of FIFRA's data quality provisions.
2.8.5 Regulations, Rulemaking, Policy, and Interpretive Guidance
In FY 94, EPA proposed and promulgated several rules and regulations that focused on various aspects of the
Clean Air Act. For instance, AED worked with the Office of Air and Radiation on numerous T itle Vl-related rules and
regulations, including:
• A rule on the phase out of ozone depleting chemicals
• A rule on the sale of nonessential products
• A proposed rule concerning the labeling of products containing ozone depleting chemicals
2-19
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
• Regulations addressing certification of individuals to service motor vehicle air conditioners.
In addition, AED contributed to a proposed rule for the Clean Air Act Field Citations Program and a proposed
rule for the Clean Air Act Citizens Awards. The Mobile Source Enforcement Branch (MSEB) of AED completed the
reformulated gasoline (RFG) and anti-dumping standards and requirements.
EPA also completed its first year of compliance monitoring and enforcement of the diesel desulfurization
regulations. These regulations, which require the removal of approximately 80 percent of the sulfur content from
unregulated diesel fuel, are a companion to other agency regulations that require substantial reductions in
particulate emissions from diesel motor vehicle engines beginning with the 1994 model year. Program office and
enforcement staff conducted extensive public outreach targeting all levels of the diesel fuel industry, including
diesel fuel users, to ensure a smooth industry transition into this new requirement and to maximize compliance. EPA
inspectors were in the field monitoring compliance on the first effective date of the regulations and completed more
than 4,000 inspections during the first year.
EPA also undertook the following regulatory and rulemaking efforts in FY 94:
• Published a proposal to create a new EPCRA Section 313 reporting threshold of 1 million pounds for
facilities that release and/or transfer offsite less than 100 pounds of a regulated toxic chemical per
year.
• Published in the Federal Register a final rule adding 21 chemicals and proposed another rule to add more
than 300 chemicals to the list.
• Published in the Federal Register a final rule amending EPA's hexavalent chromium rule. The amendment
resulted from a petition filed by the Chrome Coalition in the DC Circuit Courtof Appeals. EPA negotiated
a settlement agreementunder which it would propose an amendmentto narrow the scope of the hexavalent
chromium rule.
• Proposed several amendments to its new chemical review process under TSCA Section 5. These amendments
included anexpandedexemptionforpolymers,anexpandedlowvolumeexemption,increasedopportunities
to use the expedited process for issuing significant new use rules, and various procedural changes.
• Completed the interim final amendments to the Agency's asbestos Model Accreditation Plan. This
regulation now extends the training and accreditation requirements of AHERA to asbestos inspectors and
abatement personnel in all public and commercial buildings. The new regulation also contains criteria
and standards for revoking the accreditation of persons and the approval of training courses and state
programs.
• Proposed requirements for lead-based paint activities. These regulations establish a training and
accreditation program for lead abatement workers that resembles the asbestos Model Accreditation Plan.
The regulations also prescribe standards for conducting lead-based paint inspections, hazard
assessments, and abatements in target housing (housing built prior to 1978), public and commercial
buildings, and superstructures, such as bridges.
In addition to the rules and regulations, EPA issued some major policies and strategies. For example, the
Agency published the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy, which addresses pollution thatoccurs as aresult
of combined sewer overflows. CSOs are overflows that occur when the capacity of sewer systems or treatment facilities
is exceeded due to a precipitation event. The policy is both a permitting and enforcement strategy and clarifies how
2-20
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
CSOs should be permitted in the future. EPA also issued its Storm Water Enforcement Strategy. The enforcement
priorities for the storm water program were designed to address covered municipalities that have not applied for a
storm water permit and to identify and enforce against covered facilities with industrial activity that have failed
to apply for a storm water permit. EPA also revised the UIC Class I Wells Significant Noncompliance (SNC) definition
in FY 94. Under the revised definition, violations with the potential to affect underground sources of drinking water
are maintained as SNC violations; minor infractions would not necessarily require SNC reporting.
2.8.6 Native American Affairs
Throughout FY 94, the Agency, specifically OFA, was involved extensively in Native American affairs and
programs. OFAheldInteragencyIndianWorkGroupmeetingswithnumerousFederalagencies,chairedthe Headquarters
Indian work groupmonthly meetings, and sponsored the annual national conference. In addition, OFA completed the FY
93 report entitled, Environmental Activities on Indian Lands and assisted many of the 545 tribes and Alaska Native
villages that are preparing to environmentally manage to their lands. Selected accomplishments in this area include
the following:
• (ieneralAssistance Program: The MultimediaAssistance Program beganinFY90with$151,000fortwopilot
projects. In FY 94, $8.5 million was appropriated for the program, bringing the total to $22.9 million
with 133 new and continuation grants serving more than 350 tribes under individual tribal and intertribal
consortia grants.
• Treatment as a State Regulations: An intra-agency work group, chaired by OFA, drafted regulations
simplifying the procedure and making it less burdensome and offensive to tribes to apply and become
eligible for grants and program authorization.
• Tribal Enforcement Report: OFA prepared the first annual report to Congress on the number of tribes
approved by the Administrator to enforce environmental laws and the effectiveness of that enforcement.
Although the Administrator had not approved any Native American tribes to enforce environmental laws,
the Agency did enter into pesticide enforcement agreements with 23 tribes and certified a number of tribal
pesticides inspectors.
2.8.7 International Activities
EPA is becoming more involved in international environmental affairs, especially with our North American
neighbors. In FY 94, EPA designed and delivered several programs to an international audience. For example, NETI
trained 56 Mexican inspectors at a 5-day Multimedia Inspection Course. This course is part of ongoing cooperative
training activities between EPA and Mexico's environmental protection agency, the Secretaria de Desarrollo Social
(Ministry of Social Development) (SEDESOL). NETI also designed and presented a 4-day Train-the-Trainers workshop in
Mexico City for 17 SEDESOL officials, who were selected as future trainers in Mexico.
OFA developed a training course for U.S. and Mexican customs and environmental officials in detecting and
inspecting hazardous waste shipments. The course will be delivered at key border crossings throughout 1995. OFA also
performed the following activities:
• Trained andprovided technical assistance to Mexican environmental inspectors and enforcementpersonnel
• Promoted interagency cooperation among agencies on both sides of the border through grants to border
enforcement programs implemented by State environmental agencies
2-21
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
• Initiated efforts to promote voluntary compliance with applicable environmental laws among U.S.
operations in Mexico through environmental auditing and pollution prevention
• Helped prepare subpoenas issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act to U.S. parent companies of
Maquiladoras operating in Mexicali, Mexico.
In conjunction with Regions VI and IX, OFA led EPA efforts with the U. S ./Mexico Cooperative Enforcement
Strategy Work Group. EPA initiated cooperative training efforts with U.S./Mexican customs officials in compliance
monitoring for transboundary shipments ofhazardous waste and began activities to encourage U.S. parent companies to
take leadership roles in promoting compliance and pollution prevention among their Mexican operations through
participation in Mexico's environmental audit program.
In addition, through cooperative activity with Federal and provincial officials, EPA worked with the Province
of Manitoba, Canada, to require pollution control for a major new facility that is equally stringent to the control
on U.S. plants. The Canadian precedent will help maintain competitiveness of U.S. industry by requiring comparable
levels of pollution control for facilities in both countries. OFA also supervised management of an environmental
project in Nizhnii Tagil, Russia, designed to target low-cost efforts to address the most serious problems in a highly
polluted provincial region. Compliance and enforcement are key elements in the institution building project
component, which also includes training and technical assistance in monitoring, risk assessment, standards, and
regulations.
2-22
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.0 REINVENTING A STRONG NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE PROGRAM 2-1
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 2-1
2.2 MULTIMEDIA APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS 2-4
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 2-7
2.4 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS 2-10
2.5 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS 2-12
2.6 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION 2-15
2.7 FEDERAL FACILITY ENFORCEMENT AND FEDERAL ACTIVITIES 2-16
2.8 OTHER ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES 2-18
2.8.1 Redelegation 2-18
2.8.2 Task Forces and Work Groups 2-19
2.8.3 Training and Guidance 2-19
2.8.4 Initiatives 2-20
2.8.5 Regulations, Rulemaking, Policy, and Interpretive Guidance 2-21
2.8.6 Native American Affairs 2-22
2.8.7 International Activities 2-23
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. FY 1994 Enforcement Actions 2-3
Figure 2-2. FY 1994 Monetary Breakout 2-3
2-i
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
3.0 REGIONAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES
As discussed in Section 2, EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance program involves coordinated efforts
among EPA Headquarters and regional and State offices. This section focuses primarily on the accomplishments of the
regions and on partnerships that exist between the regions and States in monitoring and ensuring compliance throughout
the regulated community.
Authority to implement the wide variety of environmental regulations is sometimes widely distributed across
several regional and State programs. Accordingly, several situations involving disparate program offices require
cooperation and coordination between those offices. To achieve this coordination, many of the regions have actively
promoted region/State partnerships, and FY 94 provided numerous examples of the beneficial results, including:
• EPA-NewEnglandandMassachusettshavebegunpilotingacoordinatedcaseinitiativeforCAA violations;
the region is also working with Connecticut to directpilot efforts at CWA violations. EPA-New England
also undertook an initiative to coordinate CAA Stage I bulk terminal vapor recovery activities with the
States. The region provided inspector training for the States, issued information requests and emission
testing requirements to subject sources, and conducted emission tests in Massachusetts, Maine, and
Connecticut.
• Region II conducted consolidated inspections that were performed jointly with the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, the first such joint Federal/State multimedia inspections in
Region II.
• Region V and the States in the region have entered into cooperative agreements with EPA for pesticide
enforcement. TheStatesnowworkcloselywithRegionVoninspectionsandtakemanyenforcementactions
for pesticide misuse violation. The States still refer most of the product violations to Region V for
enforcement. Therefore, most of Region V's FIFRA enforcement actions are based on the findings of State
inspections.
• Region VIII Multimedia Field Inspection Team performed several cooperative inspections that included
State and city agency personnel.
These are a few examples of the coordination that is currently occurring between regions and States. The
following sections provide more examples of these partnerships, as well as further describing regional and State
enforcement and compliance assurance accomplishments.
3.1 MULTIMEDIA APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
AsdescribedinSection2,multimediacompliancemonitoringandenforcementrepresentincreasingly important
tools in EPA's efforts to enforce environmental regulations. Multimedia inspections provide a cost-efficient approach
for directing compliance monitoring resources and also increase the environmental return on enforcement investments.
DuringFY94,EPAregionscontinuedtoexpandtheirmultimediaenforcementactivities. Positive developments
havetakenplace in areas ofmultimediaprogram coordination, inspections conducted, andmultimediaenforcementcases
brought and settled. Joint efforts have included: increasing the focus on multimedia issues and methods through
implementation of oversight committees, participation in multimedia enforcement training, and incorporation of
national and region-specific priorities in enforcement targeting strategies. As a result, more multimedia inspections
3-1
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
were conducted, with a corresponding increase in case referrals, administrative actions, criminal actions, and case
settlements.
Overall, regional multimedia activity for the year increased. Region II reported 12 consolidated multimedia
inspections, involving essentially all of the program offices. Region III also placed increasing importance on the
role of multimedia enforcement. DuringFY 94,the region undertooksixmajormultimediainspections. The inspections
focused on several major regional objectives, including environmental justice, State-Federal relations, and Federal
facility compliance. Region VII conducted eight consolidated multimedia inspections. These inspections, resulting
from the regional targeting mechanism, included State and local participation, and evaluated environmental justice
factors.
Region IV multimedia activities for FY 94 included 19 consolidated multimedia inspections with two or more
programs sending inspectors simultaneously. Two of the inspections were undertaken as part of the Federal Facility
MultimediaEnforcement/Compliance Initiative (atFort Stewart, Georgia, andtheNaval Complex, Pensacola, Florida).
In addition to the 19 multimedia inspections, all of Region IV's Federal facility inspections were multimedia in
nature. The Region IV Federal Facilities Coordination (FFC) program conducted seven Federal facilities multimedia
inspections in FY 94. These FFC program inspections resulted in at least seven State or EPA Region IV enforcement
actions.
Region IV settled six cases in FY 94 resulting
from these multimedia activities. The total penalties
amounted to more than $10.3 million with several
penalties yet to be determined. The RCRA program
settled its multimedia case against Gulf States Steel
for $ 1.1 million. The RCRA program and the Underground
Storage Tank (UST) program participated in a major
multimedia case against Somerset Refinery and reached
settlement in principle with penalties of $2.75 million.
The TSCA/CERCLA multimedia case handled by Region IV
against Tennessee Gas Pipeline for violations in several
regions was settled for $6.4 million.
Region X multimedia efforts continued to integrate and strengthen a cross-program/multimedia perspective
and capacity into all stages of the compliance assurance and enforcement planning and decision-making process. The
region targets multimedia inspections using risk factors, including the toxicity and amounts of the pollutant(s)
emitted, the proximity to sensitive/disadvantaged populations, the sensitivity of the environment and history of
noncompliance. The region also continued to invest in the National Multimedia Federal Facilities Initiative, which
resulted in enhanced compliance at the Federal facilities that have been inspected. Two facilities received
comprehensive multimedia compliance inspections.
These examples reflect the increasing emphasis the regions have placed on multimedia enforcement activities
during FY 94. For some regions, the emphasis is maintained and leveraged through the development of multimedia
oversight committees responsible for coordinating multimedia enforcement activities. In Region VIII, for example,
themultimediaprogramiscarriedoutbyanumberofofficesandthroughseveralmechanisms. The Regional Enforcement
Officer and the Regional Enforcement Coordinator are responsible for coordinating the multimedia activities of the
15 separate Regionalenforcementprograms. The RegionalEnforcementForumrepresents all enforcementprograms and
coordinates the review and implementation of regional, cross-program, and multimedia inspection and enforcement
activities including inspection coordination and review of selected enforcement actions.
Kciiioii \ III ildlm-il mi <>rn:il plmi ik-oi^m-il l>
iiiiiiv rllrili\rh iiililivo rin»» Hilling, iiiiilliiiu-ilin Kmii">
I hr uiinl (il'lhio iviirmiiii/niiiin « ;i« In |il;ur pi"<••^rmii» mill
I'lini'liuno in oriMiii/nlioiio llinl will riilunir imihiiiu-ilii
ii|i|iiirliiiiilir« mill in niii luin I In- Imur in;iji>rii\ ol »in<>U>.
iiKilin iVN|ii>ii«iliiliiK-<.. In 1^ '>4. I In- ivuinii imiilikU-il III
InrurUil nnilliiik'iliii iiiN|H-i'iii>ii«. Ii\ im ludin^ i i-iimi- ilnln
I'Miliinliiiii mill llir lliivr "lilr-H lr rlu»lrr»" Minnr-u-il
<)l < \ inlu liulli I;iriii-lillu mill Mirriiiim nrlh ilir-. ji
rn\ iriuiiiu'iiliil jiMii i- prolHc w no |iiv|imvil fur nu ll «iu-.
3-2
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
In addition to providing a management structure supportive of multimedia enforcement, some regions have
increased awareness of the potential for multimedia actions through training. Training has been directed at both
regional program office staff and State agency personnel. During FY 94, Region VII provided multimedia training to
the N ebraska Department ofEnvironmental Quality (NDEQ). This training was a result of dialogues between the region
andNDEQ managementin whichNDEQ identified several specific training needs. Region VII then designed, developed,
and provided training that met NDEQ's needs.
Another example of the region-State partnership at work in multimedia enforcement is provided by the
multimedia inspection ofKBP Coil Coaters (Denver, Colorado) conducted in Region VIII. Six environmental programs
were interested in this facility and inspectors participated from four entities, including EPA, the State, the Denver
County Air Program, andthe Denver MetroWastewater Reclamation District. Variousviolations were discovered during
the inspection, including unidentified waste streams, unknown process modifications, abandoned underground storage
tanks and drums, potential PCB leaks, fire code violations, and potential OSHA violations.
Based on the coordinated inspections, Region VIII and Colorado began a coordinated enforcement response to
bring this facility into compliance and seek penalties for past violations. The response includes coordination of
additional information requested from the facility, financial status research, prioritization of compliance
activities, tracking and timed issuance of two NOVs, and two administrative complaints. A team approach involving
EPA and State personnel was taken in all these activities.
The regions have improved implementation of multimedia enforcement through oversight, training, and
State/region coordination. Equally important, however, are changes in the application of enforcement efforts. The
Regions have expanded the use of multimedia enforcement as one of many tools in support of broad regional and national
enforcement initiatives. For example, an inspection of the New Jersey Transit Bus Operations supported the national
transportation facilities initiative and South Dakota and Region VIII conducted a multimedia inspection at Merrilat
Industries in support of the National Wood Products Initiative.
Regional targeting strategies directly address national priorities. A primary example is the incorporation
of environmental justice considerations in prioritizing and targeting multimedia inspections. Regions III, IV, VIII,
and X reported consideration of environmental justice in multimedia targeting strategies. Region VIII, for example,
prepares an "environmental justice profile" for each site included in its inspection targeting and screening process,
so that environmental justice is evaluated with other criteria in determining the need for action at particular sites.
(For more information on environmental justice activities, see Sections 2.2 and 3.2.)
Multimedia enforcement in the regions has also benefitted from the consideration of priorities particular
to the individual regions. For example, Region II actively pursued several regional geographic enforcement
initiatives. The region's initiative in the Catano region of Puerto Rico generated a number of enforcement cases in
addition to its major multimedia cases againstPREPA andthe Caribbean Petroleum Company. The region also pursued
geographic initiatives in the Corning, Chemung, and Cortland aquifer regions ofNew York, the Camden Aquifer region
of New Jersey, and the Niagara Frontier region ofNew Y ork. Similarly, as part of the Puget Sound Initiative, Region
X participated in inspections in the Duwamish River watershed, an environmental justice area identified by a GIS
mapping system used for multimedia targeting. In conjunction with these inspections, RegionXworked with contractors
to create a multimedia checklist designed to obtain readily available information relating to potential violations
of CWA, EPCRA, CAA, and TSCA.
Region X's experience illustrates another development in multimedia enforcement activities in the regions,
the use of multimedia checklists. Several of the regions have increased their use of this tool to broaden the scope
of program-specific investigations. Region II leads the Nation in single-media inspections performed using multimedia
checklists.
3-3
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
FY 94 efforts to include environmental justice in enforcement activities vary widely among regions, with some
regions explicitly including environmental justice as a criterion in targeting and others creating specific geographic
initiatives to address enforcement and compliance issues in environmental justice areas. Some regions have
incorporated environmental justice-oriented projects in SEP terms of case settlements or included equity
considerations as part of larger geographic initiatives. This section summarizes select environmental justice
activities in the regions, focusing first on compliance monitoring efforts and second on enforcement. Taken together,
these examples indicate that consideration of environmental justice is becoming a standard operating procedure in the
regions, with environmental justice activities being combined with other ongoing enforcement and compliance assurance
activities.
Region III developed two geographic initiatives
aimed at areas with environmental justice concerns. One
of these initiatives focuses on Chester, Pennsylvania,
an area in which more than 68 percent of the residents
are African-American, more than60percent are onpublic
assistance, and the average per-capita income is less
than $9,200. This area has a concentration of
industrial sources contributing to pollution, as well as
traffic and noise, which are of great concern to the
residents. The region's enforcement strategy in Chester
has two components: toxic emission reductions and
compliance.
Region III ranked facilities in Chester using
the chronic index, a system ofweighing TRI emissions by their toxicity. The 10 highest scoring facilities were then
reviewedforenforcementpotentialandanumberofmultimediaandsingle-mediainspections scheduled. Fourmultimedia
inspections and numerous single-media inspections are planned in FY 95. The goal of these actions is to reduce, either
directly through injunctions or indirectly through SEPs, emissions of toxic pollutants. A second aspect of the toxic
emission reduction strategy will grow out of a long-term risk assessment for Chester that is targeted for completion
in FY 95. Emissions estimates will be used to model exposures in order to determine which areas of the city are at the
greatest risk. Facilities with the highest emission levels will then become candidates for increased enforcement
surveillance. Region III also plans to improve compliance with environmental regulations in Chester by increasing
oversight in a number of programs.
Theregion'ssecondgeographicinitiativefocusesontheAnacostiaRiver, Washington,DC. TheAnacostiaRiver
is among the most contaminated in the country. Fish tissue contamination is a public health concern. Economically
disadvantaged residents of the surrounding communities are exposed to risks that EPA and others are seeking to
eliminate. Recent studies of the Anacostia identified "hot spots" of sediment contamination that appear to be
associatedwith particular storm sewers. The sources of these contaminants, and their potential as continuing
sources, are not fully understood.
Region Ill's enforcement strategy is to identify the major sources of the contamination isolated in the
sediment/storm sewer studies and commence enforcement for ongoing discharges. The region will separately evaluate
the contribution of spills (especially of PCBs) in the storm drain area to the observed contamination of sediments and
fish in the Anacostia and evaluate enforcement as a means of preventing future spills. In addition, the region will
evaluate nearby Federal facilities and assess their present or historic contribution to the problem and responsibility
for participating in its solution.
Ki-uiiiii l\ liii- niiiilr rmirumimiliil ju-lirr ;i I'm-ii* nf iK
riifiimnu'iil iKlmlK-o williin il« M'DI'S piii^ijui Ik
tlnilril\
hi' lower iiKMinr iimi* In i-iimmv iMiii|>li;inir. Ml <>1" llr
iniijiir iniliMrinl liirililK". iiIihih I In- l.imrr N li»»i»»i|i|i
( mriiliir. In nil liiilun Kiniy In \i-w Orlcim-. I .<>iii»i:iii:i
hit iiiuiiiluml i'Iiim-I\ In riiMMT i<>iii|>li;iiiir. I lu-x-
liuililii^ 1-1 >iii pl\ willi llirii NIDI'S rill mill liiiiiliilioiio inuiv
lliiin ')') |K'iiriil ill' I In- I i in ( iiiii|ili;imr r:iU-« if
iiiiMik'i|i;ililk-« in llir rurriiliir hit ;iI«i> i iiiuiiiluml ;i-
il Ihtiiiiu- iirrr»»iii-\ in I1U- h <. <>iii |>I:iin I iiuiiiii-l llir ( il\ of
\rw (>i'U-;iiin in 1^ l'W4. fur loniHi-i'iii ini|irn|Kr
Mv;iliiu'iil ul'ilo M-wiiiii-.
3-4
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
In atleasttwo cases in FY 94, EPA-New England
incorporated environmental justice projects in SEP
terms of case settlements. One such case, involving the
MassachusettsHighway Department(MHD),includes SEP
conditions for provision of hazardous materials
emergency response equipment to the local emergency
planningcommittccs(LEPCs)incommuniticsalTcctcdby
MHD operations, with particular focus on low-income and
minority neighborhoods. The equipment will assist the
local committees in tracking and storing information on
the identity and location of hazardous chemicals in
their districts and enhance their response action
information systems. Efforts will also be made to
remediate lots in inner city communities affected by MHD's hazardous waste practices; the plan is then to convert the
lots into beneficial areas, such as parks, green spaces, or economic development projects in the neighborhoods.
Similarly, EPA entered a consent agreement and final order in which the city of Boston agreed to pay $ 117,3 00
in civil penalties for violation of the TSCA PCB requirements at Boston City Hospital. The city also agreed to perform
a SEP as part of the settlement, which involves removal of 10 underground storage tanks located throughout the city
at a cost of more than $80,000. Boston City Hospital serves mostly a low income, minority population. The settlement
will bring this inner city hospital into compliance with environmental regulations and reduce the risk of harm to
public health and the environment in the Boston minority community.
During FY 94, Region VI developed a civil judicial enforcement action that was filled on October 27,1994, in
the Middle District of Louisiana, against Borden Chemicals and Plastics and two related Borden entities. The case
involves alleged hazardous contaminant releases at Borden's Geismar, Louisiana facility, which is located in a highly
industrialized area on the Mississippi River with a predominantly African-American population. In addition, the case
alleges other violations, including illegal export of hazardous wastes to South Africa. In a press release issued on
October27,1994,EPAAdministratorCarolBrownersaid,"TheClintonAdministrationiscommittedtomakingsure that
no company will realize unfair profits from pollution anywhere in the U. S., but particularly in minority and low-income
communities that already face disproportionate risks." The Administrator also noted that "environmental pollution
does not stop at U.S. borders, and we will use all of our enforcement authorities against those who engage in the
illegal international hazardous waste trade."
3.3 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS
FY 94 witnessed significant enforcement activities aimed at specific industrial sectors in the regions. Some
of the initiatives represented regional efforts to implement larger national programs, as described in Section 2;
others developed from region-specific priorities. This section highlights selected industry-specific initiatives
by region.
Severaloftheregionsaccomplishedindustry-specificcompliancemonitoringactivitiesduringFY94. EPA-New
England, for example, developed and implemented an initiative underthe CAA amendments of 1990. Under the CAA Stage
II initiative, the State of Connecticut conducted approximately 970 inspections at gasoline stations and other
facilities subject to the vapor recovery requirements and issued approximately 800 notices of violation. Also, as
part of the National Administrative Order with Automotive Service Stations project, Region III confirmed the closure
of all facilities inventoried by the major oil corporations within this region. More than 200 wells were closed as part
of the compliance and outreach effort specified in this order. The region also issued proposed orders for noncompliant
facilities that required the violators to inventory all facilities operated in this Region for additional injection
wells and to implement pollution prevention measures at all facilities.
kr^iuii \ i- iiH'iii'|»H':iliii
iiililivoo riiliimiiU'iil mill 1' I In- I'unrl Siniiil
lnili;ili\r. Kr^inii \ n\n\i« SI'< (' iiiN|KTiiiiii« in llr
l)ii\\:iiiii«li |{in-r\\;iUTo|ii-il. mi rm irnmiiriiliil jiMii r ;ur;i
idrnlilird In llir (ilS in;i|i|>iiiu <.\<.u-iii iim-iI liir iiiulliinrdu
liiriii-liiiU- In I'liiijiiiH'iiiiii "ill 111 I'm- iiiN|H-i'ii<>ii«. llir irnimi
iriMlrd ;i in ill I i in <.-(1 i:i iliriklM tli-i^in-il I" nliliiiii iv;nlik
iiMiiluliU- inform jiion ivlulinu I" |nilriiliiil ^ i<>LiIi<>n» rnili\ rl\ willi llu-SluU-ill'W :i<.hin<>|iiii mill :i Irdrnil
ii;ilur;il i v-uurir Irii-U-r.
3-5
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
Region VIprovidesanexampleofcompliancemonitoringundertheNationalCombustionlnitiatives.Theregion
and the States annually inspect 100 percent of the combustion facilities actually burning waste. During FY 94, Region
VI issued consent agreement and final orders (CAFOs) for five combustion cases. In addition, through the course of
3 0 inspections, Region VI discovered wide-spreadnoncompliance among foundries. Based on pervasive noncompliance
and the concerns over impacts to the environment and worker safety, the region targeted the foundry sector for
compliance assistance. The Region conducted inspections, gathered data, and met with industry and State agencies to
lay the groundwork for a meaningful State/EPA compliance outreach to the industry in FY 95.
Region VI's EPCRA enforcement activities included targeted compliance sweeps of facilities in a number of
industrial sectors. EPA conducted these sweeps in San Antonio and Fort Worth, Texas, targeting manufacturers, plating
shops, refineries, and warehouses. Of the 120 facilities inspected, 11 complaints were issued under EPCRA Section
312, for non-filing of inventory reports with State and local emergency response agencies.
Region VII also focused much of its efforts on
industry-specific compliance assistance activities.
For example, the region conducted the following
activities:
• Conducted extensive outreach for two new
air toxics rules that were promulgated
under the CAA during FY 94. Two massive
mailings were sent to the dry cleaning
industry and the region set up a hot-line
number to allow people quick access for
answers.
kr^iuii \ I iniiinu-il ;iii rlTml InriiMii r llnil i|ii;ilil\ ihiln i»
iK'Niu-iiliiiiilIcil In liiliiii'iilui iro. I hr ivijoii dr\ rl(>|H'(l mi
iniliuliM- williin I In- M'DI'S Infom-mrnl I'im^uiii t>
iii«|H-i'l mill riifniir. :i» nrrr—>;in. ;i»:iin<.| inii1i;u1
l:iliiir:iliirk"> llinl h;i\r lirrn pim iilinu ;in;il\licnl mt\ iii- In
:i iiimiiIht <>1'in;i j<>r iliM'li;ir ili-M-lup i ;im-n m^iiiM imli\iiliiiil-
lor riiloilK iiliiin <>1"ili^i liiiint.- iiniiiiliiriiiu ivpuri il:il;i.
• Conducted outreach efforts in the chemical manufacturing industry for the new Hazardous Organic NESHAPs
regulation. A mail-out was sent to 300 potential sources subject to the new requirements. The region
emphasized education and outreach to facilities subject to new toxics rules promulgated under Section
112 of the CAA.
• Implemented the Missouri Voluntary Compliance Program, which was aimed at non-metallic mineral
processing plants. This program offered a time-limited opportunity to a specific industrial sector to
disclose violations of the CAA NSPS testing/reporting requirements in exchange for reduced
administrative penalties and compliance assistance. This program brought 45 facilities into compliance,
most of which would nothave been reached via traditional enforcement methods. Region VII is continuing
with the second phase of this program, which is to follow up with non-participating facilities in this
sector with strong traditional inspection and enforcement activities.
• Conducted outreach meetings with the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition to assist that industry sector in
complying with the RCRA Boilers and Industrial Furnaces Rule.
• Conducted extensive outreach/compliance assistance activities in the four States to alert and inform
members of the agricultural sector, Congress, State legislatures, and the public of the requirements of
the FIFRA Worker Protection Standards (WPS).
In FY 94, Region VIII conducted three major compliance and enforcement initiatives:
3-6
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
• Mining Initiative. The goal of the Mining Initiative was to obtain compliance with the CWA at
approximately 300 active metal mines and metal mining exploration facilities. In South Dakota, EPA
identified and inspected all metal mines prior to delegation to the State. EPA has issued NPDES permits
to two ofthe mines and is pursuing an administrative enforcement action for discharge without an NPDES
permit for one of the mines. It is expected that the State will issue permits to the remaining South
Dakota mines by the end of 1994. The knowledge gained during the initiative will help identify and
develop optimum approaches for regulating mining activities. Previous RCRA inspections at about a dozen
mining facilities (including two trona mines) in Wyoming led to 8 RCRA § 3008(a) orders with FY 94
settlements totalling $506,267 and SEPs totalling $675,794.
• Refinery Initiative. Under this initiative, Region VIII reviewed the issues surrounding the RCRA/CWA
interface pertaining to contaminated ground water seeps to surface water from petroleum refineries.
(This issue gained attention due to recent citizen suits against CRC and Texaco in the Region.) The
region identified approximately 40 operating and closed refineries. Of these, six have a "high" RCRA
corrective action ranking for surface water under NCAPS. In FY 94, the Court entered a consent decree
between the United States and Defendants known as the Powder River Crude Processors (Texaco Refining and
Marketing, Conoco Pipeline Company, Phillips Petroleum Company, Eighty-eight Oil Company, and True Oil
Company) which requires, among other things, payment of $300,000 in penalties and performance of work at
the Site, estimated to cost several million dollars, which addresses conditions posing imminent and
substantial endangermentto the environment. The Regional Refinery Workgroup is now completing a
comprehensive evaluation of and strategy for all the refineries in the Region.
• Trona Initiative. Wyoming holds the largest deposits of soda ash in the U. S., in the form of an ore known
as "trona." As a result, five trona mines and processing plants have been built and are currently in
operation. The region of southwestern Wyoming in which these plants are congregated often has a visible
layer of air pollution hanging over it, which has prompted several citizen complaints over the past few
years. EPA and the States believe that the five trona plants are contributing significantly to this
pollution. Region VIII decided that, due to exceedances of mass particulate limits, as determined by
stack tests, condensable organic matter is being emitted and is likely a major contributor to the
pollution. Due to the grandfathering of these sources to the test methods for measuring condensable
organics,none of these "violations" has been able to go forward. The goals of the initiative are to
determine an approach for documenting the opacity violations at these plants and a strategy for
correcting this deficiency, such as a Finding of Violation pursuant to CAA Section 113(a)(2), which may
also lead to additional controls for volatile condensable organics. In FY 94, the RCRA program settled
two RCRA § 3008(a) orders with two trona mines for a total of $239,000. Additionally, the RCRA program
identified a need for training in the management of hazardous waste at several of the plants. The Region
is also addressing acid rain and visibility issues affecting the Wind River Reservation (9,000 Arapahoe
and Shoshone) in the Rock Springs area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is looking into issues
affecting how the evaporation ponds affect migratory birds and effects on the Bridger and Fitzpatrick
Wilderness Area. Other programs participating in this initiative include: RCRA, NPDES, EPCRA §§
311/312/313, TSCA/PCB, andTSCA §§5 and 8. The Region is now completing a comprehensive multimedia
compliance evaluation of all trona mines and auxiliary industries in the Region.
Region VIII also contributed to other industry-specific initiatives. In response to the Data Quality
Initiative,the Region undertook targeted inspections of injection well operators' data gathering and reporting
procedures. As a result of the initiative, the region reinforced its belief that clearer UIC reporting requirements
in the UIC regulations are needed and that continued outreach is needed for operators to ensure that permit/regulatory
requirements are thoroughly understood and expectations for compliance are consistent.
3-7
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
As part of the Federal enforcement program in Colorado and Wyoming, Region VIII specifically targeted
pesticide-producing establishments potentially subject to the WPS, including bulk repackagers and users of aluminum
phosphide type pesticides for prairie dog control. Both initiatives documented compliance issues (i.e., bulk
repackagers are not complying with worker protection relabeling requirements and users of aluminum phosphide type
pesticides continue to violate endangered species labeling).
Region X participated in industry-specific initiatives in FY 94. One Region X air program initiative involved
rock crushing operations subject to Federal NSPS under the CAA. Region X conducted an intensive training effort to
inform the regulated community about the Federal requirements, including giving operators copies of the checklists
used by compliance inspectors, to help facilities voluntarily comply. Region X conducted several inspections in
northern Idaho, met with concerned citizens, and assisted the State of Idaho in its enforcement against several
facilities that were out of compliance. In addition, Region X reviewed more than 100 pest control advertisements that
allegedly made false or misleading safety claims. A citizen's group submitted the advertisements to EPA for review.
As a result of the review, the region issued 25 warning letters for clear violations of FIFRA and 16 letters advising
companies to make changes to their advertisements for less obvious violations.
Region X also funded an initiative by the Idaho Department of Agriculture to conduct a compliance audit of
every commercial and public pesticide applicator in the State during a 2-year period. The State inspector uses a
checklist during the site visit to evaluate recordkeeping, pesticide use, mixing/loading, storage, and disposal. The
inspector signs the checklist, which serves as a warning letter if violations were noted, and the applicator is given
time to make corrections. The initiative gives the department a chance to make contact with every applicator. More
than 400 audits were conducted in FY 94, and the program has been well received in the State.
Several regional industry-specific enforcement
actions also took place in FY 94. Region II initiated
industry-specific enforcement activities under the CAA.
The Region issued administrative penalty complaints
against the owners of six boating supply stores for
violating the ban on the sale of "non-essential"
products containing CFCs. The region issued these
penalty actions after inspections of the stores revealed
that each store was selling CFC-based propellants for marine safety horns. Region II also initiated the first
administrative penalty actions to secure compliance with the Sewage Sludge Use/Disposal Regulations (Part 503
Regulations) recently promulgated under Section 405 of the Clean Water Act. In August 1994, the Region filed five
administrative complaints against municipal wastewater treatment works under Section 309(g) of the CWA.
Region IV's RCRA program continued to lead the Nation in providing cases for the National Combustion
Initiative. Region IV and its States had 12 of the 22 cases settled and 2 of the 10 new actions announced under this
national initiative. Special emphasis was also given to the CFC initiative in the region. Region IV announced the
filing of nine administrative enforcement actions seeking $256,989 in penalties for violations of Sections 608 and
609 of the CAA. The cases involving Section 608 allege violations of disposal regulations for appliances containing
refrigerant capable of damaging the ozone layer and/or violations of prohibitions of venting refrigerant directly into
the atmosphere. The cases involving Section 609 allege failure to have certified equipment and technicians servicing
motor vehicle air conditioners.
During FY 94, Region VII issued 26 administrative complaints for violations of Section 609(c) of the CAA.
Respondents were charged with servicing or repairing motor vehicle air conditioners without proper training and
certification by an approved technician certification program and/or without proper use of approved equipment. The
complaints addressed violators in each of the States located in Region VII and the proposed penalties totaled $ 170,000.
I mli-i" Inn M-|i;ir:iU- inili;ili\iiinu-il ill pulilii w;ilir
«\<.u-iiin. Kr^ion III ioMK-il -11'' \<)\ - l<> Mini fmk-tl
In imiii|>I\ willi »;iiii|iliiK> mill iT|n>rliii!! ivi|iiimnriil» <>l' llir
l.r;nl mill ( <>|i|ht Kulr. SOW mill 22(> \(>\ » In n\<.U'Iii«
lliiil I'mk-il In imii|il\ willi »miiplinu mill ivpurliiu
ivi|iiimiu'iil« fur nilrnU- iinilrr llir I'Ii;im- II kulr. SOW \.
3-8
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
Eleven of the 28 FIFRA administrative complaints issued by Region VII in FY 94 involved cross-contamination of bulk
repackaged pesticides. These cases, which are highly complex and controversial and have no precedent, have consumed
a significant amount of regional resources to develop and litigate. They have also focused national attention on the
regulatedcommunityandtheAgencyonpesticideproductcross-contaminationandhaveencouraged coordination among
the members of the regulated community, States, and the Agency to try and resolve the difficult regulatory and
potential risk and food safety issues posed by cross-contamination of pesticides.
3.4 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
EPA uses SEPs to gain significant environmental benefits in conjunction with the settlement of enforcement
cases. Nominally, SEPs are projects voluntarily undertaken by members of the regulated community in conjunction with
case settlements to provide some level of environmental benefit usually unrelated to the nature of the violations
committed. In exchange for SEP performance, the facility is granted penalty relief equaling some fraction of the total
value of the stipulated penalty. Historically applied predominantly in reporting violation cases, SEPs are maturing
into a more versatile tool, with SEPs now included in CAA, CWA, RCRA, and other program area settlements.
In FY 94,EPA-New England negotiated 21 SEPs worth approximately $7.3 million. Region II included SEPs in 28
settlements underthe CAA, EPCRA, TSCA, RCRA, and CWA programs with atotal dollar value of more than $ 18.5 million.
In most cases, the value of these SEPs substantially exceeded the value of the civil penalties that they were used to
offset; overall, penalty offsets totaled less than $4 million. Region III negotiated 10 SEPs, at a total dollar value
of approximately $10.2 million. Region VII incorporated SEPs into settlements at a value of more than $7 million.
Region V also settled several cases using SEPs with a total value of the SEPs being approximately $5.4 million.
Thirteen SEPs were worth more than $100,000. Region X negotiated 25 SEPs in FY 94. The dollar value of the SEPs was
nearly $1.3 million. Of the 25 SEPs, 20 were in the pollution reduction and pollution prevention categories.
3-9
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
Table 3-1. Types of Supplemental Environmental Projects in Case Settlements
SI".I' ('iiii-i>iin
l;.\iiiii|)lc ill'IVnji-i l T\ pi- 1 nrliiik-d in l"N I'J'M M l'
Cleanup/Restoration Projects
UST removal
• Abandoned oil production well plugging and site restoration
• Abandoned mine land reclamation (partial)
Disposal
• PCB testing and removal
• Asbestos abatement
Environmental Audit
• Facility environmental and chemical usage a
Outreach/Enforcement-Related Environmental
Public Awareness Projects
• Resource commitments (e.g., computers, other equipment, personi
LEPCs
Source Reduction/Pollution Prevention—Proc
Modification
:s# Solvent substitution and other toxics reduction through product
substitution
Source Reduction/Pollution Prevention—
Technological Improvement
• Installation of alternative cooling system to reduce fresh water
withdrawals
Training
• Compliance awareness publications in trade
• Training for LEPCs
Waste Minimization/Pollution Reduction—Pr<
Modification
ictss Installation of high-efficiency lighting
• Wastewater treatment facility improvements
Waste Minimization/Pollution Reduction—
Recycling
• Utilization of wastewater treatment sludge as fertilizer
Waste Minimization/Pollution Reduction—
Technological Improvement
• Improved scrubber performance for air toxics reduction
• Demonstration project for air toxics reduction
dits
;1) to
3urnals
In FY 94, SEPs included diverse projects such as resource commitments to local emergency planning councils,
an air toxics reduction technology demonstration study, source reduction and pollution reduction programs and process
changes, energy conservation, land reclamation, and recycling. Pollution prevention projects received particular
attention, in keeping with current regional and national priorities. Table 3-1 lists some of the types of projects
included as SEPs in case settlements.
Some of the SEPs incorporated into settlements require substantial process modifications at manufacturing
facilities resulting in significant source reduction gains benefitting the environment. Region III executed a CACO,
with an associated Settlement Conditions Document, settling an EPCRA administrative action filed against the Homer
Laughlin China Company for violations ofEPCRA Section 313. The settlementincluded asubstantial SEP, exceeding $9
million, in which Laughlin converted its entire china dinner-ware production system to a lead free process.
A consent decree filed in settlement of claims against I.E. DuPont de Nemours for violations of its NPDES
permit and Section 301 of the CWA contained a pollution prevention SEP. This SEP will prevent the generation of between
60 million and 145 million pounds of RCRA hazardous waste per year currently being deep well injected in onsite
disposal wells. The information on the violations was received from self-reporting and from an EPA inspection. Under
the consent decree, DuPont agreed to pay a civil penalty of $516,430 and to perform a SEP costing an estimated $3.2
million.
The process modifications required in some SEPs may also involve the application of developing innovative
technologies, thereby serving a valuable technology demonstration function with possible attendant environmental
benefits at future sites. For example, Region IV filed a CACO against Everwood Treatment Company, Inc., resolving
Everwood's violations of Section 103 ofCERCLA and Section 304 ofEPCRA. The CACO settled this action for $54,500 and
required the respondentto pay $32,000. In addition, the CACO calls for Everwood to implement a SEP to construct anew
wood treatment plant
3-10
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
built specifically for the use of a wood preservative that is not a hazardous waste. This SEP will cost approximately
$225,000. If successful, Everwood's SEP could set a precedent for other wood treaters and, thus encourage the
reduction in one the Nation's most toxic hazardous wastes.
Several FY 94 SEPs required violators to
perform environmental projects at locations other than
where violations occurred. This approach directed
effort toward achieving a greater environmental benefit
than may otherwise have been practicable. In one such
case, the U.S. District Court entered a consent decree
resolving a suit brought by EPA and the State of Arizona
against Magma Copper Company in response to violations
of the CWA and related State law at three copper mining
and processing facilities operated in southeastern Arizona. The decree requires Magma to pay penalties of $385,000
to the United States and $240,000 to the State of Arizona. The decree also requires Magma to undertake compliance
measures and to complete a SEP designed to control contamination at an abandoned mine. The cost to Magma is estimated
to be $1.5 million. In addition, the decree further requires Magma to pay $50,000 to fund three additional SEPs that
the U.S. Forest Service will complete to benefit the affected watersheds.
In another multisite SEP, Region III and Anzon, Inc., a manufacturer of lead products, settled a TSCA
administrative complaint involving violations of the Inventory Update Rule (IUR) requirements of the TSCA. Anzon
failed to submit IUR reports on four chemicals manufactured at its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, plant. Anzon agreed
to pay a $57,000 civil penalty, $43,620 of which may be remitted by EPA upon completion of SEPs in Anzon's Philadelphia
and Laredo, Texas, facilities. The Philadelphia project involves the early removal and disposal of four PCB
transformers. The Laredo project requires increased controls for the capture of antimony oxide emissions from the
facility. These projects have a combined estimated costof $ 198,800. The Laredo project represents a TSCA settlement
in Region III with an "inter-regional" SEP.
In Region V, two noteworthy SEPs were negotiated in FY 94. In the first, Ohio Power agreed to remove 600 PCB
capacitors at a cost of $61,547. The second SEP, for EPCRA Section 313 violations, requires Welded Tube in Chicago,
Illinois, to replace its solvent paint with water-based paint to reduce the release of toluene and xylene by 298,610
pounds per year. The SEP is estimated at $300,000.
3.5 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS
Unlike other initiative areas discussed in this document, consideration of sensitive ecosystems in regional
enforcement activities does not relate to discrete program activities. Whereas SEPs and multimedia activities relate
to the specific category of enforcement activity conducted, and industry-specific or Federal facility initiatives
relate to identifiable sub-populations of the regulated community, sensitive ecosystem activities can include a wide
range of enforcement or compliance assurance tactics and can be aimed at any specific or mixed population of the
regulated community. As shown in Section 3.2, several environmental justice initiatives could also be categorized
as sensitive ecosystem or sensitive environment initiatives. This section presents regional efforts to protect
identified sensitive ecosystems and environments, other than those with environmental justice concerns.
During FY 94, anumber of regions conducted geographic initiatives targeting identifiable ecosystems. Region
II, for example, brought a case against Broomer Research, Inc., which is located in a mixed industrial and residential
area of Islip, Long Island, New York, and is situated directly over a ground water aquifer, a source of drinking water
for the community. The plant manufactures optical lenses and uses thorium fluoride and organic solvents in the coating
and cleaning process. The Suffolk County DepartmentofHealth(SCDOH) identified organic solvents in the wastewater
sludges generated and then discharged by Broomer into its sanitary septic system. EPA, SCDOH, the U. S. Attorney for
In Kruiiui l\. I In- I .S. Di-lnci < "Mil cnU-ml n khim-H
ili'irri1 llnil M'lllril ( nmn. ( in k & Srnl Inr.'* (( ( &S
iilU-uril \ iiiliiliiiiio ill' llu- ( \ |)ir\ union uf ->i»iiilk';iii
ilrU'riiiriiliiiii (I'SD) rn|iiiiviiu'iil« mill NSI'S. I Ik.- < \< ()
linil :i ii\il |H'II;|||\ uf S.54.5.IHIII ;inil ivi|iiiml ( ( &S t>
|K-rfiirm llnvr SI'I'-. miIik-iI :il nnuv llimi S2 inilliuii. I lr
|H'||;|||\ i vpi vm-iiI- Mill' uf llic huur-l ( \ \m-IIU-iiii-iiI- li\
3-11
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
the Eastern District ofNew Y ork, and several other Department of Defense offices executed a search warrant to inspect
this facility. Samples taken during this inspection contained appreciable amounts of organic solvents in the
wastewater and appreciable levels of radionuclides, assumed to be thorium, in the sludge discharged to the septic
system. On June 24, 1994, Region II issued an administrative order on consent to Broomer Research, Inc. under the
"emergency" authorities of Section 7003 of RCRA and Section 1431 of SDWA. This is the firsttime the Regionhas used
its emergency authority under Section 1431 of SDWA.
The Mid-Snake River area (near Twin F alls, Idaho) has and continues to be ahigh-priority watershed for Region
X. The region conducted a workshop in Boise, Idaho, for State and EPA inspectors in preparation for the upcoming
inspections of feedlots and dairies in the Twin Falls and Boise areas. The workshop covered items to look for at these
operations and information required for the inspection reports. Region X and the State inspected 74 facilities,
several of which were identified as having violated the CWA. EPA is preparing these cases for formal enforcement
actions. The inspections also identified 24 facilities with potential problems. These facilities were sent letters
notifying them of the potential problems.
Another example of ecosystem protection is Region V's new effort to protect the ecosystem of the Mississippi
River basin. In addition to its Cleveland office, the region's Criminal Investigation Division has recently announced
the opening of new offices in Minneapolis and Detroit. These offices ensure that a local workforce is available to
investigate and support prosecutions in these areas. Region V has also taken steps to protect other sensitive
ecosystems in the region, including:
• 21 SEPs negotiated in the Great Lakes Basin of Region V in hopes of providing added protection for that
sensitive environment
• 6 SEPs negotiated in the geographic region of the SEMI Initiative
• SEPs in other geographic initiatives as well, including 2 under the Gateway Initiative.
3.6 FEDERAL FACILITIES
In FY 94, the regions continued to focus their enforcement and compliance assistance activities on Federal
facilities. Using the Federal Facilities Compliance Act as its basis, Regional enforcement personnel continued to
target, inspect, and take enforcement actions against Federal facilities. In several of the activities, the region
and the applicable State worked closely to ensure that the action taken would benefit both public health and the
environment. EPA-New England initiated a specific compliance assistance program in FY 94—the MultimediaFederal
F acility Program environmental managementreview (EMR) effort The purpose of conducting an EMR is to review a Federal
facility's overall environmental management program (structure, staffing, training program) and assist the facility
with compliance issues. After an EMR is conducted, a brief report is prepared and provided to the facility. In FY 94,
two EMRs were conducted, and six are planned for FY 95.
Several regions also conducted compliance monitoring activities at Federal facilities. During FY 94, for
example, Region III continued its vigorous oversight of environmental regulations/statutes at Federal facilities.
This included multimedia inspections at Ft. Belvoir, Maryland, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head,
Maryland. Regions II and IV also targeted Federal facilities for multimedia inspections. Region II conducted three
Federal facility multimedia inspections in FY 94; Region IV conducted seven Federal facility multimedia inspections.
While the majority of such actions are typically taken against military installations (i.e., Army bases, Navy
bases), some are taken against other types of Federal facilities. For example, Region III issued an emergency
administrative order under Section 1431 of the SDWA to the District of Columbia. The Government of the District of
Columbiaowns andoperatesapublicwater system forthestorageanddistributionofpipedwaterforhuman consumption
3-12
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
to the residents of the District and surrounding areas. The Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, provides the
water. In late 1993, water samples collected by the District and analyzed were total coliform positive, a violation
of the Total Coliform Rule. One repeat sample was fecal coliform positive, an acute violation that may pose a risk to
human health. The District issued a boil water advisory to the people in the vicinity of the fecal coliform positive
sample location, issued public notice of the violations, and increased its distribution system flushing program.
In response to the imminent and substantial endangerment created by the unusually high percentage of total
coliform-positive samples within the District of Columbia's public water system, EPA Region III issued an Emergency
Administrative Order to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, to determine whether the Corps
contributed to or could have helped prevent the District's violation. EPA staff from Region III, Headquarters, and
Cincinnati, inspected the treatment plants and made recommendations for further action by the Corps of Engineers.
Before the Corps had the opportunity to implement EPA's recommendations, an exceedance of the turbidity
maximum contaminant level (MCL) occurred at the Dalecarlia watertreatmentplant. In response to this turbidity MCL
exceedance, EPA issued a boil water notice to all users of the distribution system in Falls Church and Arlington,
Virginia, as well as in the District. EPA established a command center and hotline in the offices of the Metropolitan
Washington Council ofGovernments and directed the Corpstoconductextensive water quality monitoring. Testingwas
negative, and the boil water advisory was lifted. Following inspections of the Dalecarlia plant by EPA Headquarters,
Cincinnati, andregional personnel and a subsequentinvestigationby EPA'sNEIC, Region III issued an Emergency Order
to the Corps that incorporated the recommendations from the inspections. In addition, the order incorporated the
recommendations from EPA's previous investigation of the coliform problem. EPA subsequently participated in two
congressional hearings on the matter conducted by the District's Representative to Congress.
EPA and the States initiated the following enforcement actions against military installations in FY 94:
• NavalConstructionBattalion Center(NCBC): EPA-NcwEnglandrcachcdaprcccdcnL-scLtingscLtlcmcnLwith
the Navy under RCRA. The Navy agreed to pay a penalty of $57,223 for RCRA violations at the Naval
Construction Battalion Center in Davisville, Rhode Island. The penalty was the first RCRA penalty
collected by the region against a Federal facility and the first collected nationally from the Navy under
the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. The action resulted from a multimedia inspection of the
facility conducted by EPA-New England with State participation. The complaint alleged numerous
hazardous waste management and disposal violations by the Navy.
• Natick Army Laboratory: EPA-New England issued its first complaint against the Army pursuant to EPA's
authority under the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. Based on an inspection at the Natick
facility, the region proposed a civil penalty of $ 117,000. The respondent violated a variety of RCRA base
program requirements, including failure to properly conduct hazardous waste determinations, failure to
clearly label and mark satellite accumulation containers, failure to keep containers of hazardous waste
closed during storage, and failure to label properly containers stored at the less than 90 day storage
area.
• WestVirginiaOrdnanceWorks: AdisputewiththeU.S.Armyresultedinpaymentofstipulatedpenalties
to Region III in the amount of $500,000 for violations occurring at the West Virginia Ordnance Works
Superfund Site. EPA assessed stipulated penalties in the amount of $2 million for the Army's failure to
submit documents within the established deadlines of the second IAG. The Army invoked the dispute
resolution provisions of the IAGs; the disputes were eventually elevated to the Senior Executive
Committee,whichsettledona$500,000penalty with requirements to implementan improved reporting and
tracking system.
3-13
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
• RCRA -A berileen Proving Ground Facility: EPA Region EI issued a RCRA Section 3008(a) administrative
complaint to the U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) facility in Aberdeen, Maryland, citing APG for
storing for more than 1 year 171 containers of hazardous waste restricted from land disposal. The
complaint also cited APG for manifest violations concerning the shipment of land disposal restricted
hazardouswaste. The penalty was $115,546. Thisadministrativecomplaintwasthefirstissued by Region
III to a Federal facility pursuant to the newly enacted Federal Facility Compliance Act. In addition to
this RCRA action, the SDWA-UIC program is undertaking an inventory and remediation action at Aberdeen in
response to the identification of numerous injection wells at the facility.
• IntheMatterofU.S. NavalAir Facility, ElCentro, California: RegionIX signed aCACOresolving an
administrative complaint against the U.S. Naval Air Facility in El Centra, California, involving various
RCRA violations. Under the terms of the settlement, the Navy will pay a penalty of $100,000 and will
implement two SEPs relating to pollution prevention. The first SEP involves the installation of six jet
parts washers that will use high-velocity water and biodegradable detergent in lieu of the solvents
currently used to achieve a 90-percent reduction in the volume of hazardous wastes used in degreasing
operations. The second SEP involves the construction of a hazardous waste minimization center, which
will achieve a 25-percent reduction in hazardous waste generation through centralized ordering and
distribution of hazardous materials. The total cost of the two supplemental environmental projects is
approximately $250,000.
The case is significant because it was Region IX's first enforcement action under the Federal Facility
Compliance Act of 1992. In addition, the consent agreement is significant because, for the first time
in an agreement with a Federal facility, EPA was able to limit the dispute resolution process to the
regional level. Any disputes under this consent agreement will not go beyond the Deputy Director of
Region IX's Hazardous Waste Management Division.
3-14
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.0 REGIONAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIWIIES
3.1 MULTIMEDIA APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS 3-1
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 3-4
3.3 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS 3-6
3.4 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS 3-9
3.5 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS 3-12
3.6 FEDERAL FACILITIES 3-13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Types of Supplemental Environmental Projects in Case Settlements 3-11
LIST OF FIGURES
3-i
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AND PENALTIES
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) mandate to protect public health and safety depends on
effectiveenforcement. The costs of violating environmental laws, both direct litigation costs, as well as costs
resulting from remediation and the assessment of civil penalties or criminal fines and incarceration, are great.
Strong, deterrence-based enforcement—as reflected, for example, in the rapid growth of EPA's criminal enforcement
program—createsa climate that forcefully motivates innovation, prevention, and compliance by the regulated
community.
EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance program operates at its peak when strong enforcement is used in
tandem with the compliance assistance programs. The tools and methods are familiar:
• Criminal sanctions
• Administrative actions/injunctive relief that force violators to correct their violations
• Civil/Judicial referrals
• Monetary penalties that are designed to punish violators and assure the recovery of the economic benefit
of noncompliance.
These tools, used in conjunction with the compliance assurance activities identified and discussed throughout
this document, will continue to play a pivotal role in increasing compliance with environmental laws and regulations,
and thus protecting human health and the environment.
During FY 94, the Agency brought arecord 2,246 enforcement actions with sanctions, surpassing the previous
mark established in FY 93. This record includes 220 criminal cases, 1,596 administrative penalty actions, 403 new
civil referrals to the Department of Justice, and 27 additional civil referrals to enforce existing consent decrees.
These administrative, judicial, and criminal sanctions are the primary enforcement tools used to correct violations,
establish deterrence, and create incentives for future compliance.
The FY 94 figures also indicate that the States were active in their enforcement efforts against noncomplying
entities. These figures indicate that States took 11,334 enforcement actions. The States take the majority of
environmental enforcement actions and are primary partners with EPA in assuring national compliance with the
environmental laws and regulations.
Penalties for FY 94 totaled a record $151 million combined for civil penalties and criminal fines and another
$206 million was returned to the Treasury through Superfund cost recovery. Figure 4-1
4-1
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Figure 4-1. EPA Civil Penalties and Criminal Fines
$22 Exxon
ValdezFine
eoe-td.
presents the FY 94 penalty totals compared to the totals for the last 5 years.
The Agency's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) greatly expanded the scope of its activities. In
October 1992, Congress, through the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA), clarified that EPA has RCRA order and
penalty authority againstFederal agencies. Since passage ofthe FFCA, EPA has issued 20 compliance orders to Federal
agencies. In FY 94, it issued 10 RCRA administrative penalty orders to military facilities with proposed penalties
exceeding $5.7 million. In addition, the program negotiated 5 federal facility compliance agreements and 2 CERCLA
cleanup agreements. OFFE also continued to implement its Federal Facilities Multimedia Enforcement/Compliance
Initiative by taking follow-up enforcement actions after conducting 41 multimedia investigations at federal
facilities across the country in FY 93.
The following sections discuss some ofthe specific environmental enforcement activities, including criminal
enforcement, administrative enforcement, referrals, and CERCLA enforcement. There is also a general discussion of
penalties. This section concludes with several tables that contain regional-specific information pertaining to
environmental enforcement activities and penalties.
4.1 CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT
EPA's criminal enforcement program set new records in several categories, including 220 referrals to the
Department of Justice (36 percent more than the record of 140 set in FY 93), criminal charges brought against 25 0
individual and corporate defendants (40 percentmore than the record of 161 set in FY 93), and 99 years worth of jail
sentences imposed (25 percentmore than the 74.3 years ofincarceration imposed in FY 93). The program also assessed
$36.8 million in criminal fines (19 percent more than the $29.7 million assessed in FY 93). Figure 4-2 provides a
statistical comparison of criminal enforcement activities over the last 5 years.
4-2
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
The Pollution Prosecution Act (PPA) of1990 authorized anumber of enhancements to EPA's enforcement program.
Most significantly, the Act mandated an increase in criminal investigators to 200 by FY 96. In addition, the PPA
required "increasing numbers of additional support staff (i.e., technical, legal, and administrative) to the Office
of Criminal Enforcement." BytheendofFY 94, EPAhadincreasedthenumberof criminal agents to 123 compared to47
in FY 89. As shown in Figure 4-1, this
4-3
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
S 3 3 £ 3
K K K K K
1
s
~-
o
"3
~-
u
I
~-
3
.SP
E
o
Oh
a
o
O
*3
o
c3
00
S-H
c3
>H
9
=
K
S
*
£
1
B
S
3
in
9%
r-
09
IA
r-
n
Fl
n
pi
n
¦4
n
9%
in
o
I-.
«
h.
O ^ O i-H
¦A GO
none
W O ^
i-H i-H « ^
i—i ri n
(A 4
¦A
M
M
M
¦A
M
¦A
PI
M
O ^ M « ^
O^i C^i C^i
vH gM hH uH uH
b b b b b
A
e
•8
H
s
£
*
¦¦ ¦ ¦ * i
4-4
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
additional investment in agents has yielded significant increases in most key areas of the criminal program including
525 new investigations in FY 94.
As mentioned, OCE referred220 criminal cases to DO J in FY 94 and opened 525 new investigations. T able 4-1
presents information on the number of referrals and new investigations by statute.
Table 4-1. Number of New Investigations Opened and Referrals to DOJ
by EPA's Criminal Enforcement Program in FY 94
MuluU- Program AiVii
\rn liiM'vliiiiiliiuiv Oprnril
KrlVrruh In DO.I
Clean Air Act
89
39
Clean Water Act
174
66
Wetlands
14
3
Safe Drinking Water Act
7
2
RCRA
173
74
CERCLA
21
12
TSCA
11
6
FIFRA
22
15
Other
14
3
Total
525
220
Also contributingto the increase in criminal enforcement activity is a document issued by OCE—"Guidance on
the Exercise of Investigative Discretion." This guidance was the first comprehensive guidance issued by EPA that
established discrete criteria for Agency investigators when considering whether or not to proceed with a criminal
investigation. The guidance was designed to promote consistent, but flexible application of the criminal
environmental statutes.
4.2 CIVIL ENFORCEMENT
In FY 94, the Agency took nearly 3,600 administrative enforcement actions. This number emphasizes the
importance EPA is placing on administrative enforcement mechanisms to address violations, compel regulated facilities
to achieve compliance, and assess penalties. EPA's expanded authority with administrative actions now allows the
Agency to impose injunctive relief and penalties that are comparable to those that could be imposed through civil
judicial enforcement. In FY 94, EPA issued 1,596 administrative penalty orders for more than $48 million. Table 4-2
provides information on administrative penalty orders by statute/program area.
4-5
-------
! FY l"4 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Table 4-2. Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area
MuluU- l*r<>iii;iill
Nil. "I' C iiM">
IVnullk-N
(in (liillaiN)
Clean Air Act
171
3,882,550
Clean Water Act
272
5,154,892
Safe Drinking Water Act
70
393,402
RCRA
103
9,824,031
UST
102
3,760,190
TSCA
288
14,236,483
EPCRA
242
8,266,020
FIFRA
150
1,779,448
CERCLA
35
723,925
Total
1,433'
48,021,941'
1 These numbers do not include the 163 administrative penalty actions taken by EPA Headquarters under tllSlean Air
Act. Penalty amounts were not available at the time of publication.
In addition to the administrative penalty orders, EPA issued a total of 166 civil judicial penalties totalling
more than $65 million. Table 4-3 presents a breakout of those penalties by statute/program area.
Figures 4-3 through 4-6 on the following pages are graphical representations of the administrative and civil
judicial statistics.
4-6
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
Figure 6-1. Number of Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area
Clan Air Clan Safe RCRA U-JT TXA HOA HERA CERCIA
Ad Viatel DmJ-anj
Act WauAct
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Figure 8-1. Number of Civil Judicial Penalties by Statute/Program Area
J£
J L
17
I I
Clean Clean Safe RCRA T-SCA EPCRA FIFRA CERCIA Mulunedia
Aii Act Watei Dunking'
Ad Wala Act
Figure 7-1. Total Penalties Assessed in Administrative Penalty Orders
(by Statute/Program Area)
SL5JOODJODO
SlijOOOjOOO
£
£
¦8
rt
s
$3 jCCOjOOO
Clean Cfean -Safe RCRA U3T TSCA EPCEA EIFRA CERCIA
AiiAct Wtoi Dunkj^
Act Wats Act
4-8
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
Table 4-3. Civil Judicial Penalties by Statute/Program Area
Malulr I'nniiuin
Nil. nl' C 'iisrs
IVnullk'N
(in (liilliMN)
Clean Air Act
67
13,490,486
Clean Water Act
51
20,006,225
Safe Drinking Water Act
2
20,000
RCRA
24
12,342,760
TSCA
2
1,121,100
EPCRA
0
0
FIFRA
1
500
CERCLA
17
4,999,859
Multimedia
2
13,655,000
Total
166
65,635,930
Figure 9-1. Total Amount of Civil Judicial Penalties (by Statute/Program Area)
$24JOOOJOOO
$22,300(000
$21JOOOJQOO
$15,300)000
$1BJOOOJOOO
$L6.30OJOOO
$L5JOOOJOOO
¦S $0,300(000
as
"J $L2JOOOJQOO
a $10,300)000
^ JPpOOjOOO
$7 ^OOJOOO
®/B0|000
St^OOjOOO
S3JOOOJOOO
Jl^OOJQOO
$0
8S5B-M
Cl&an Clean Sife RC'EA T-jCA EPCEA HTOA CER.CIA Mjlunedia
Aii Walsi DiLrikii^
Aa Ast A^t
$30)006,225
$13 £53,000
$13,490,486
$12 ;M 2,760
$1,121,100
4-9
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
4-10
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
Several regions reported information on injunctive relief. In Region II, for example, there was approximately
$350 million in non-CERCLA injunctive relief (largely driven by the Kodak settlement) and approximately $ 112 million
in CERCLA injunctive relief. In Region III, preliminary estimates indicate an injunctive relief/cost recovery total
of nearly $412 million. The large dollar value reported is largely attributable to the region's Superfiind Enforcement
Program, especially the Removal Enforcement Program, which had a $267 million multi-regional settlement in FY 94.
In Region V, there were 63 injunctive relief cases. The value of the injunctive relief in FY 94 was $ 141 million.
However, there are still several cases pending that could change this number. Region VIII reported five cases with
injunctive relief.
4.3 CIVIL REFERRALS
The 430 civil referrals brought in FY 94 by the regions and the regulatory enforcement office—both new and to
enforce existing consent decrees—are the highest 1-year total in EPA's history. In addition to the 403 civil
referrals,the Agency also referred 27 cases to DOJ to enforce existing consent decrees. Table 4-4 presents
information on the statute/program area of the 430 FY 94 civil referrals.
Table 4-4. Number of Civil Referrals by Statute
Sliilulc
Number ol'C'n il Url'rinilv
Clean Air Act
139
Clean Water Act
86
Safe Drinking Water Act
11
RCRA
35
TSCA
6
EPCRA
6
FIFRA
1
CERCLA
144
Total
4281
1 This number does not include 2 civil referrals made by EPA Headquarters.
4.4 CERCLA ENFORCEMENT
The Supcrrundprogram secured more than $ 1,4billion in private party remedial cleanup commitments in FY 94.
This was the fifth consecutive year in which private party cleanup commitments exceeded $ 1 billion, bringing the total
value of private party cleanups to $10 billion since the program's inception. Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
conducted approximately 80 percent of the remedial work at N ational Priority List sites during FY 94, the largest
percentage to date.
Ofthistotal amount, approximately $959million was forremedial design andremedial action (RD/RA)response
work. The three types of RD/RA settlements and their associated values were:
4-11
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
• 35 consent decrees referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for cleanup response estimated at $5 85
million
• 35 unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) issued to PRPs and with which they have agreed to comply, for
response worth over $295 million
• 18 administrative orders on consent (AOCs) for remedial design estimated at close to $79 million.
The Superfiind program also concluded "de minimis" settlements with over 4,000 PRPs, by far Ihe most negotiated
in any single year since the inception of the program. The Superfiind enforcement program has expanded the use of these
settlements to make negotiations more efficient and to reduce the transaction costs to parties that had been only minor
contributors of wastes to superfund sites.
In FY 94 the Agency issued a total of 110 unilateral administrative orders (versus 126 in FY-93), and signed
154 administrative orders on consent (versus 108 in FY-93) with PRPs. The Agency addressed 186 past costs cases,
including statute of limitations cases, for amounts greater than or equal to $200,000. Of these actions:
• 42 were cases referred to DOJ for cost recovery
• 34 were administrative settlements
• 74weredecisiondocumentsinwhichEPAformallydecidednottopursue any further costrecovery actions.
The program achieved total cost recovery settlements worth over $205 million (compared to $ 199 million
achieved in FY 93).
In FY 94 approximately 75 percent of the total RD/RA starts at non-federal facility sites were initiated by
PRPs. In FY 93, the percentage of PRP initiated RD starts was 65 percent, and the percentage of PRP initiated RA starts
was 79 percent.
Since the inception of the Superfund Program in 1980, PRPs have committed to response actions estimated at
over $10 billion, and the program has achieved cost recovery settlements for over $1.4 billion.
4.4.1 Alternative Dispute Resolution
During FY 94, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Regional Offices of Regional Counsel
made substantial progress toward the Agency's stated goals of making the consideration and appropriate use of
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms standard operating procedure for all enforcement actions and
implementing the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and Executive Order on Civil Justice Reform. Significant
strides were made in every aspect of the ADR Program including case use of ADR, case support systems, training and
internal ADR services, and outreach to the regulated community.
The use of ADRmechanisms to assistresolution of enforcementnegotiations were initiated by Regional offices
in 13 civil actions during FY 94. These results substantially surpassed the figures for FY 1993. In addition, at 29
sites regional offices supported PRP allocation settlement efforts through encouraging and providing ADR services
in coordination with OSRE. Regional support for the use of ADR grew substantially, with all regional offices using
or supporting PRP use of ADR to assist settlement efforts. FY 94 also heralded an increased awareness of ADR as a tool
for increasing the efficiency of resolution of future disputes, with mediation included in the dispute resolution
provisions of several judicial and administrative settlement documents.
4-12
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
The scope of ADR use also expanded during FY 94, with the first significant uses of ADR beyond traditional
Superfund cost recovery and RD/RA cases. For the first time in actions of this magnitude, Region II and Region III
utilized ADR professionals to obtain agreement on major c/e minimis settlements involving over 1,000 parties. In
addition, a pilot in the use of arbitration to resolve Superfund cost recovery cases, conducted with the assistance
of private arbitration experts, resulted in the drafting of proposed case selection criteria and hearing procedures.
4.5 EPA CONTRACTOR LISTING
In June of 1994, the responsibility for administering the contractor listing program shifted from OECA to the
Office of Administration and Resources Management. Prior to the reorganization, 18 facilities were added to EPA's
List of Violating Facilities (List) under the authorities provided to EPA by the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 306 and
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 508. Under these sections ofthe CAA and CWA, Federal agencies are prohibited by
statutory mandate from entering into contracts, grants, or loans (including subcontracts, subgrants, or subloans)
to be performed at facilities owned or operated by persons who are convicted of violating air standards under CAA
113(c) or water standards under CWA 309(c), effective automatically on the date of the conviction. Facilities that
are mandatorily listed remain on the List until EPA determines they have corrected the conditions that resulted in the
violations. As of June 1994,133 total facilities were on the List. Eighteen of these were added in FY 94. Seven
facilities were removed from the List in FY 94 and an additional 13 removal requests were pending.
4-13
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AND PENALTIES 4-1
4.1 CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT 4-2
4.2 CIVIL ENFORCEMENT 4-4
4.3 CIVIL REFERRALS. 4-8
4.4 CERCLA ENFORCEMENT 4-8
4.4.1 Alternative Dispute Resolution 4-9
4.5 EPA CONTRACTOR LISTING 4-10
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1. NumberofNewInvestigationsOpenedandReferralstoDOJbyEPAsCriminalEnforcementProgram
in FY 94 4-4
Table 4-2. Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area 4-5
Table 4-3. Civil Judicial Penalties by Statute/Program Area 4-5
Table 4-4. Number of Civil Referrals by Statute 4-8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1. EPA Civil Penalties and Criminal Fines 4-2
Figure 4-2. Office of Criminal Enforcement 4-3
Figure 4-3. Number of Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area 4-6
Figure 4-4. Total Penalties Assessed in Administrative Penalty Orders
(by Statute/Program Area). 4-6
Figure 4-5. Number of Civil Judicial Penalties by Statute/Program Area. 4-7
Figure 4-6. Total Amount of Civil Judicial Penalties (by Statute/Program Area) 4-7
4-i
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
REGION I
CLEAN AIR ACT
U.S. v. DAddarioIndustries. Inc.. et al. (D. Conn.)
On July 5, 1994, the court approved a Stipulated
Settlement Agreement (S S A) resolving a consent decree
enforcement action in this CAA asbestos case. The SSA
requires defendants to pay the full amount of stipulated
penalties owed, plus interest, for a total payment to the
United States of over $ 109,000. EPA took this action for
stipulated penalties after defendants paid a portion of
the underlying penalty more than 6 months late. The
decree required payment of stipulated penalties of $500
per day for each day the penalty payment was late.
InreSvncorlnternationalCorporation: On September
26,1994, EPA issued an administrative order to Syncor
International Corporation of Woburn, MA, for failure to
comply wilhlheradionuclideNESHAP (SubpartI) emission
standard. The order required Syncor to comply with the
emission standard and to begin submitting monthly
reports to EPA and a compliance plan as required by
SubpartI for those facilities that report exceedances
of the radionuclide emission standard.
CLEAN WATER ACT
U.S. v. I.S. Starrett Company (D. Mass.): On May 12,
1994, the court entered a consent decree resolving
violations of CWA pretreatmentrequirements by the L. S.
Starrett Company, ametal finisher located in Athol, MA.
EPAhadalleged thatStarretthad violated §§ 307 and308
of the Act by (1) exceeding effluent limitations, (2)
violating the pH standard, and (3) failing to comply with
reporting requirements. The consent decree requires
Starrett to maintain compliance with pretreatment
requirements and to pay a civil penalty of $325,000 for
its past violations.
RCRA
Allegro Microsystems. Ina: On April 5,1994,EPA-New
England issued a RCRA complaint against Allegro
Microsystems, Inc. of Worcester, MA. The complaint
alleges that since August 21, 1991, Allegro has been
burning hazardous waste in two industrial boilers
without a permit or interim status. In addition, the
complaint alleges that Allegro failed to comply with the
operating conditions for boilers contained in the boiler
and industrial furnace (BIF) regulations. These
regulations require emissions monitoring and set
emissions standards for a number of pollutants. The
complaint proposes a penalty of $102,194 and orders
Allegro to cease burning hazardous waste. This was the
first action brought by EPA pursuant to the BIF
regulations.
In re Massachusetts Highway Department. In a consent
agreementresolvingaRCRA administrative actionissued
on September 30, 1994, EPA, the MA DEP, and the
Massachusetts H ighway Department(MH D)agrcedlliatMH D
will spend $20 million to investigate and remediate
environmental problems at all 138 of its facilities and
will dedicate $5 million to several SEPs, including
projects that will benefit environmental justice areas.
In addition, MHD will pay a civil penalty of $ 100,000 to
settle this action brought by EPA for the state agency's
violations of hazardous waste laws.
U.S. v. Hanlin Group. Ina (D. MaineV On December 22,
1993, a consent decree was entered by the court against
the Hanlin Group, Inc. of Linden, NJ. Hanlin agreed to
pay a $1,152,000 penalty for violations of RCRA at its
Orrington, Maine, facility. Hanlin also agreed to
complete a site investigation and corrective measures
study prior to undertaking any necessary corrective
action at the facility. EPA determined that Hanlin had
allowed releases of mercury, carbon tetrachloride,
l,l,2-trichloroethane,and trichloroethylene into the
groundwaterflowingunder the facility and the Penobscot
River. A1986 administrative consent agreement entered
into by Hanlin and EPA had required Hanlin to undertake
an RCRA facility investigation, including sampling,
analysis, monitoring, and reporting of hazardous wastes,
at the facility. The December 23, 1994 settlement
addressed the violations of the 1986 consent agreement.
In re Hamilton-Standard. On April 18,1994, EPA and
Hamilton-StandardenteredintoEPA'sfirstRCRA§3008(h)
corrective action order to contain Alternate Dispute
Resolution (ADR) provisions. EPA determined that a
plume of contaminated groundwater migrating from the
facility might present an imminent and substantial
A-l
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
endangermentto human health or the environment,
specifically to groundwater used by residents. Further,
the contaminated plume released hazardous levels of
volatileorganiccompounds(VOCs)intothebasementsof
some residences. The consent order abates known and
potential threats through implementation of four
separate interim corrective measures, including: (1)
groundwater containment, (2) monitoring ofVOC levels in
indoor air of residences above the plume, followed by any
necessary corrective measures, (3) monitoring of
residential drinking water, followed by any necessary
provision of alternate water supplies, and (4)
containmentofcontaminatedwaterflowingtothewetland
area to minimize ecological impacts.
InivUpiohnCompany. OnJune 12,1994,EPAsignedaRCRA
corrective actionconsentorderwiththe UpJohn Company
for the remediation (including immediate control of the
release of hazardous wastes to groundwater) of its North
Haven, CT, facility. Upjohn's plant is now inactive, but
in the past produced more than 20 different specialty and
industrial chemicals. In 1989,EPAissuedanRCRA §3013
administrative orderto Upjohn, requiring the company to
conduct a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) at the
facility. Based on reports generated by that order, EPA
determined that the facility poses a threat to human
health and the environment.
TSCA
U.S. v.New Waterburv. TM (D.Conn.Y OnMay23,1994,
the U.S. District Court entered a civil consent decree
settlingPCBviolationsunderTSCA. Theconsentdecree
requiresdefendantsNewWaterburyLtd.,Vanta,Inc.,and
WinstonManagementandlnvestment, Inc. to remove and
properly dispose of approximately 91 tons of abandoned,
illegally stored PCBs from equipment at the former
Century Brass Products, Inc. facility in Waterbury, CT.
Pursuantto this settlement, defendants have removed and
properly disposed of all PCB equipment and PCB waste at
an estimated cost of $450,000.
In re Citv of Boston. Boston Citv Hospital. On September
30,1994, EPA entered a consent agreement and final order
in which the City of Boston agreed to pay $117,300 in
civil penalties for violation of the TSCA PCB
requirements at Boston City Hospital. The City also
agreed to perform an SEP as part of the settlement which
involves removal of ten underground storage tanks
located throughout the city at a cost of over $80,000.
This civil administrative case arose as a result of EPA's
PCB inspection of the hospital. The complaint alleged
that the City violated the PCB regulations by failing to
complywiththemarkingandrecordkeepingrequirements
pertaining to PCB transformers.
EPCRA
In re Wvman-Gordon. Ina: In a consent agreement issued
on May 18,1994, Wyman-Gordon, Inc., ofNorth Grafton,
MA, agreed to pay a $137,955 penalty and implement a SEP
to reduce its use of two dangerous acids to settle a
complaint alleging that the company violated § 103 of
CERCLAand§§312and313ofEPCRA. WymanGorclon,a
forged metal components manufacturing facility, failed
to immediately notify the National Response Center of a
release of hydrofluoric acid during a fire at the
facility on September 24,1988. The company also failed
to submit emergency and hazardous chemical inventory
forms and report various emissions of chemicals during
1987 and 1988. The company has agreed to construct a
$474,000 acid purification and recovery system to
recover 80 percent of the hydrofluoric and nitric acid
from its waste acid stream.
CERCLA
US. v. O.K. Too!Company, et al, (D. N.H.) On December
5,1994, the court entered this consent decree settling
all remaining CERCLA and fraud claims in connection with
the Savage Municipal Water Supply Well Superfund Site in
Milford,NH. The cashout settlement represents the
final agreement in a global resolution of the legal
issues arising out of the contamination of a groundwater
aquifer which supplied Milford with 45 percent of its
drinking water prior to 1983. A mixed work consent
decree with two other corporate PRPs at the Site, as
further described below, was entered by the Courton June
27,1994. The work being performed by the government is
valued at $ 10 million. Under the cashout consent decree,
22 settling defendants whose liability arises out of a
relationship toO.K. Tool Company haveagreed to pay the
federal government approximately $2.1 million.
U.S. v. Conductron Corporation, et aL (D. N.H.) On
June 27,1994, the court entered a civil consent decree
in which two corporate PRPs agreed to perform the
remedial action for part of the Savage Municipal Water
Supply Well Superfund Site in Milford, NH. The consent
decree resolves claims under CERCLA for releases of
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
hazardous substances into the environment. Under the
terms of the decree, Conductron, d/b/a Hendrix Wire &
Cable and Hitchiner Manufacturing Company, will
undertake response actions including extraction and
treatment of contaminated groundwater, long-term
monitoring, and institutional controls to protect human
health. It is estimated that the cost of the response
action to be performed by the settling parties will be
$ 15 million. The settling defendants have also agreed to
pay approximately $ 1 million in past costs and oversight
costs subject to a ceiling of $3 million or 15 percent of
the cost of the work, whichever is greater.
U.S. v. William Davis. etaL (D. R.I.) On January 18,
1995, the court entered a consent
decree that resolves the liability of Clairol, Inc. and
Ciba-Geigy Corporation, defendants in the Davis Liquid
Superfund Site cost recovery litigation. Under the
settlement, Clairol will pay $3 million plus interest
and Ciba-Geigy will pay $475,000 plus interest. In
exchange, both settling parties will receive a covenant
notto sue under CERCLA § 107(a) with standardreopeners.
The decree also contains a "cost reopener" that allows
the government to institute new proceedings against
Clairol and Ciba-Geigy in the event that the total
response costs at the site exceed $68 million.
On October 31,1994, the court entered a civil consent
decreeproviding that Providence Journal Co., also a
defendant in the Davis cost recovery litigation, will
pay $650,000 plus interest. In exchange, Providence
Journal obtained a covenant not to sue with standard
reopeners. Also on October 31, the District Court
entered a third consent decree providing that Pfizer,
Inc., another defendant in this cost recovery
litigation, will pay $1.5 million plus interest. The
decree also contains a cost reopener that allows the
government to institute new proceedings against Pfizer
in the event that total response costs exceed $68
million. In exchange, Pfizer received a covenant not to
sue with standard reopeners.
U.S. v. DiBiase Salem Realty Trust, et aL (D. Mass.)
On December 5, 1994, the court entered this consent
decree in connection with the Salem Acres Superfund Site
in Salem, MA. Under the terms ofthe settlement, DiBiase
Salem Realty Trust andUgo DiBiase agreed to pay $80,329
in past costs, to perform remedial activities valued at
approximately $650,000 on a portion ofthe Site, and to
pay the future oversight costs incurred in connection
with those remedial activities, valued at approximately
$110,000. The DiBiases agreed to these terms to settle
a civil action brought under CERCLA.
A-3
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
REGION II
CLEAN AIR ACT
In reRonzoni Foods Corporation: On January 25,1994,
EPA entered into a consent agreement with Hershey Foods,
the parent of Ronzoni Foods, resolving an administrative
enforcement action brought under the Clean Air Act to
address opacity violations at Ronzoni's facility located
in Queens, NY. Hershey Foods elected to close the
violating facility because it felt it could not ensure
long-term compliance, but volunteered to undertake a
supplemental environmental project (SEP) involving
another facility, its San Georgio plant located in
Philadelphia, PA (within EPA Region III). The consent
agreement included a $30,000 penalty.
U.S. v. Amelia Associates and Joev's Excavating. Inc.
(D.N..D: On November 3, 1993, the court entered a
consent decree that settled CAA claims against a real
estate partnership and demolition contractor regarding
the defendants' demolition of a 5-story hotel building
in Atlantic City, NJ, in 1990. The complaint in the case
charged defendants with violations of the NESHAPs
pertaining to asbestos removal in demolition operations.
The settlement provides for payment of a civil penalty of
$ 112,000, and includes broad injunctive relief. The
consent decree requires both defendants to implement an
asbestos control program, with the goal of ensuring that
the companies' future operations are in compliance.
U.S. v. 179South Street (Y). N-l.) On July 29,1994, the
court entered a consent decree that enjoins the
defendants from further violations of the asbestos
NESHAP. The decree also requires the defendants to
institute an Asbestos Control Program, and obligates
them to pay $74,000 in civil penalties. The case
involved several violations, including failure to notify
EPA of asbestos removal, failure to ensure that the
asbestos remained wet prior to disposal, failure to
properly dispose of the asbestos and failure to comply
with previously issued compliance orders.
CLEAN WATER ACT
U.S. v. PRASA During FY94, EPA filed four more
quarterly Motions to Enforce in this enforcement action
against the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority
(PRASA). In these motions, EPA sought a total of
$284,000 in penalties from PRASA based on violations of
provisions of the 1985 and 1988 consent decrees entered
in the action. Substantial penalties result from
PRASA's noncompliance with the "alternate power" and
"sludge handling" provisions ofthe 1985 Court Order.
EPA has been filing quarterly Motions to Enforce the
requirements ofthe consentdecrees againstPRAS A since
January 1989, pursuant to a "preclusion order" from the
Court that violations be promptly identified. The
motions allege violations based on the Court-appointed
Monitor's quarterly compliance reports. In the 24
Motions filed to date, EPA has soughtnearly $3.3 million
innoncompliancepenaltiesfromPRASA. InFY 94, PRASA
paid close to $1.5 million in judicial and
administrative penalties for CWA and consent decree
violations at its various facilities.
U.S. v. Citv ofHoboken (D. N.J.) On September 13,
1994, the Court entered a stipulation and order in this
case. Under the stipulation, the Hoboken, Union City,
WeehawkenSewerage Authority (HUCWSA) agreedtopay
stipulated penalties in the amount of $2.8 million for
its violations of a January 1991 consent decree entered
in this action. Of this amount, $1,152,000 will be paid
to the EPA; $850,000 will be paid to the New Jersey
DepartmentofEnvironmental Protection, andthebalance
will be paid to the Interstate Sanitation Commission.
bt re Cheeseborough Ponds Manufacturing Corp.: On March
31,1994, EPA issued an administrative order on consent
against Cheeseborough Ponds, which assessed a penalty of
$ 105,000 in administrative penalties under CWA §309(g).
The company owns and operates a wastewater treatment
plant at its manufacturing facility in Las Piedras,
Puerto Rico, which has effluent discharges into Los
Muertos Creek. In March 1993, EPA issued an
administrative complaint alleging violations of
Respondent'sNPDESpermitbetween 1989and 1993 and
proposing the assessment of $ 125,000 in administrative
penalties.
SDWA
U.S. v. Kennemut/i (d/b/a Moose Oil) (W J). N.Y.Y On June
1,1994, the court entered a Default Judgment requiring
A-4
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
the defendant to plug 75 injection wells in Allegheny
County, NY, in accordance with a previously approved
plugging and abandonment plan, and the payment of
$138,095 in civil penalties.
U.S. v. Wcisson & Reels (W D-N Y ) OnApril26,1994,
a complaint was filed in the court alleging that Wasson
& Regis was in violation of an administrative order
issued by EPA. The order was to enforce the financial
responsibility, casing and cementing and closure
requirements of the underground injection control (UIC)
program ofthe Safe Drinking Water Act against Class II
enhanced recovery injection wells owned and operated by
defendants in Allegheny County, NY, The judicial
complaint seeks to compel defendants' compliance with
the administrative order and seeks penalties for past
violations of the substantive requirements of the UIC
program and the administrative order.
In re PRASA : On September30,1994 the EPAissuedfour
CACOs thatresolved four administrative penalty actions
against PRASA under §1414(g)(3) ofthe Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) for violations of the Surface Water
Treatment Rule (SWTR). The four CACOs assessed a
collective administrative penalty of $15,000 and
establishednew compliance datesbywhichPRASAmust
install filtration. PRASA had failed to comply with
previous administrative compliance orders requiring
that it initiate filtration pursuant to the SWTR at four
of its public water supplies.
U.S. v. MelvinBlum: The President of Burlington Bio-
Medical Corporation was found guilty on August8,1994 on
two counts of conspiring to obstruct an EPA
investigationand three counts of falsifying pesticide
records subm i tied to EP A under FIFR A. A codelcndant pled
guilty on May 19,1994to FIFRA violations. On October
31, 1994, Melvin Blum was sentenced to 5 months
imprisonment, to be followed by 5 months of home
confinement and 2 years of probation, and fined $ 10,000.
His codefendant, Charles Monteleone, was given 1 year of
probation and a $25 fine.
RCRA
U.S. v. Eastman Kodak (N.D. N.Y.V On October 7,1994,
EPA lodged a consent decree with the court to resolve
various RCRA violations concerning Eastman Kodak
Corporation's Rochester, NY, facility. Under the
settlement, Kodak agreed to upgrade miles of industrial
sewers and reduce the discharge of hazardous wastes.
Kodak agreed to an $8 million civil penalty, and will
spend millions of dollars more to inspect, repair and
upgrade an estimated 31 miles of industrial sewers at the
facility, and will correct a series of other violations.
Kodak violated RCRA by failing to identify hazardous
wastes generated at the Kodak Park facility, and by
allowingthe unlawful disposal of various hazardous
wastes through leaks in the facility's industrial sewer.
Kodak will be permitted to reduce the penalty by up to $3
millionbyimplementingsixenvironmentalprojectsworth
at least $12 million to reduce hazardous wastes in its
2,200 acre Kodak Park. The aggregate reduction is
expected to exceed 2.3 million pounds of pollutants by
the year2001, which should improve the water quality of
the Genessee River and air quality in northwestern New
York.
In addition to its other RCRA violations, Kodak failed to
obtain a permit for an incinerator used to treat its
industrial wastewater sludge, and failed to disclose
both hazardous and solid waste management units that
shouldhavebeenincludedinKodakPark'sRCRA permit.
Kodak also failed to comply with several of its RCRA
permit conditions, and additionally committed
violations of regulations covering the import and export
of hazardous wastes and the proper closure of certain
underground storage tanks.
IntheMatterofRedoundIndustries.Inc.d/b/aInterflo
Technologies and Liqui-Mark. et aL: On June 24,1994,
EPA issued a unilateral administrative order pursuant to
RCRA §7003 to Rcdoiuid.itsPrcsidentlningWolbrom.and
Fil Realty Ltd. This order directs the Respondents to
perform numerous tasks at various facilities owned or
operated by them to abate an imminent and substantial
hazard to the environment, their employees and
surrounding areas. Respondents are engaged in the
manufacture of water-based and alcohol-based marking
pens, ballpoint pens and a variety of porous plastic
products. They conduct their business at several
facilities in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, and Westbury, Long
Island. All of these facilities generate hazardous
wastes. Nevertheless, none ofthe Respondents had ever
notified EPA or the State of New York, pursuant to the
requirements of RCRA §3010, of their hazardous waste
activities.
U.S. v. BCFCorp. (E.D. N.Y.V On May 4,1994, the court
entered a consent decree executed by the United States
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
andBCF, a used oil refiner located in Brooklyn. NY. The
decree addresses violations of RCRA requirements at the
facility, which handled waste oil contaminated with
hazardous waste although it was not authorized to do so.
The settlement includes detailed provisions for
operation of the facility so as to ensure that no
contaminated waste oil will be received in the future.
The decree also provides for payment of $100,000 civil
penalty to resolve the past violations.
In the Matter of Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company OnJune 14,
1994, EPA issued an administrative order on consent
pursuantto RCRA §3008(h)to Puerto Rico Sun Oil. The
order requires PRSO to investigate 17 solid waste
management units/areas at its facility to determine the
nature and extent of any possible contamination from
these units/areas. The PRSO refinery, formerly known as
Yabucoa Sun Oil, was the subject of a Corrective Action
order issued unilaterally by EPA in 1992.
In the Matter of PPG Industries. Ina: On May 27,1994,
EPA issued an administrative Modification/Amendmenton
consent to a 1990 RCRA §3008(h) corrective action
consent order to PPG Industries, Inc. As a result of the
developmentof groundwatermonitoring wells, purging and
sampling of groundwater monitoring wells and aquifer
testing at its Guayanilla, Puerto Rico facility, PPG
generated wastewater for which it needed storage. The
company requested approval of a temporary storage unit
for 1 year. Approval of the unit was published for
public notice and comment; no comments were received.
The Amendment/Modification specifies the conditions
under which the temporary storage unit is required to
operate and the contingency plan which will be
implemented in the event of a spill or discharge from the
unit.
In re WestchesterCountw New York. Sportsmen'sCenter:
On January 28,1994, EPA issued an administrative order
on consent to the County of Westchester. The order was
issuedpursuantto RCRA §7003, andrequires the County to
assess the nature and extent of the contamination
(predominantlylead) from shooting activities at the
Sportsmen's Center located in the Blue Mountain
Reservation, inthetownofCortlandt,NY. The County is
further required to design and implement a plan for the
remediation of the contamination, and to design and
implement a plan to prevent the re-contamination of the
facility in the future.
In the Matter of Gaseteria Oil Corp.: On April 28,1994,
EPA settled an administrative enforcement action against
Gaseteria Oil Corporation. The 1992 complaint which
initiated the action alleged that Gaseteria violated
RCRA Subtitle I requirements concerning underground
storage tanks (USTs). Underthe settlementthe company
agreed to the assessment of a civil penalty of $3
million; the parties further agreed to a $339,000
settlement of this assessed penalty in the context of the
company's reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code.
TSCA
In the Matter of DIC Americas. Ina: In December 1993,
an EPA administrative law judge issued a Decision and
order assessing the full $85,000 civil penalty sought by
EPA in an EPCRA enforcement action against DIC Americas,
Inc. DIC imports chemical substances for commercial
purposes. Based on an inspection of its Fort Lee, NJ,
facility EPA issued an administrative complaint citing
the companyforfailuresto submit, by the December 1986
deadline, the required Inventory Update reports for five
chemical substancesimportedduringthe company's 1985
fiscal year. The judge had, in December 1991, issued an
order finding in favor of EPA on the issue of DIC's
liability. A hearing on the question of the amount of
the civil penalty to be paid was held in March 1992. This
case is now before the Environmental Appeals Board
awaiting a decision on Respondent's appeal.
In theMatterofSUNY-NewPahz. In October 1993, EPA
entered into an administrative consent agreement and
orderwith the State University ofNew York atNew Paltz.
The order required the University to pay a civil penalty
of $90,750 forvarious TSCA violations, and replace all
PCB transformers atthe campus. The action arose out of
an incident in December 1991: an electrical surge
resultedinPCBtransformerexplosionsanddamagetosix
separatebuildings. BasedonsubsequentinspectionsEPA
determined SUNY had failed to comply with TSCA PCB
regulations; an administrative complaint was issued in
June of 1992. In addition to the penalty, the settlement
provided for the removal and proper disposal of 10 PCB
transformers from the campus by November 31, 1994.
In the Matter of Cray Vallev Products. Inc.: On
September 1,1994, EPA entered into a C ACO with Cray
Valley Products, Inc. The 1992 administrative complaint
which initiated the case charged the company with eight
A-6
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
counts of TSCA violations concerning its failure to
comply with premanufacturing notice and chemical
importationrequirements. Underthe CACOthe company
will pay a civil penalty of $175,000.
In the Matter of Eastman Kodak Co.: On October25,1993,
EPA finalized settlement of an administrative case
against Kodak. The complaint, filed in 1992, charged the
company with ten violations ofthc TSCA PCB regulations.
Under the settlement, Kodak paid a penalty of $42,000
and, in addition, undertook an environmentally
beneficial expenditure by removing and properly
disposing of 17 PCB Transformers at a cost of
approximately $4 million. The removal work was
completedbySeptember30,1994. OnMarchl8,1994,EPA
entered into another administrative consent order with
Kodak, which required the company topay$13,750. The
complaintin that case, issued on December 9, 1993,
charged the company with one count of unauthorized
disposal of PCBs, based on a voluntary disclosure made by
Kodak on July 1, 1993. In addition to emphasizing the
importance of pollution prevention, the settlement,
which was negotiated during FY94, emphasizes the federal
government's commitmentto cleaningup aging industrial
facilities, the strong deterrent effect of a large
penalty, the efficiencies resulting from prefiline
negotiations, the ability of multimedia inspections to
serve as a catalyst for changing the ways that companies
do business, and the outstanding cooperative partnership
with New York State throughout the entire process.
In the Matter of Sharp Electronics Corporation: On
December 10,1993, EPA issued aconsent agreement and
order to Sharp Electronics Corporation resolving an
administrative TSCA enforcement action broughtpursuant
to TSCA §§5 and 13. The complaint in this action cited
Sharp for importing chemicals which were noton the TSCA
Inventory without prior notification to EPA of its
intent to import, and for inaccurately certifying to
U.S. Customs officials that it was importing the
chemicals in compliance with TSCA. Under the settlement
agreement, the company will pay a $685,000 penalty.
Sharp also agreed to carry out several environmentally
benefical projects at a cost in excess of $800,000.
Sharp agreed to develop and implement TSCA training
programs for its company and for the electronic trade, to
upgrade its internal compliance program, to produce a
compliance manual and a video presentation on TSCA and
Sharp's complianceprograms and to undertake an internal
TSCA audit of its last 5 years of operation.
IntheMatterofGeneralElectricCompanv. OnDecember
30,1993, EPA issued an administrative complaint to the
General Electric Company (GE) charging multiple
violations of TSCA, and seeking a penalty of $139,875.
GE operates a research and development facility in
Niskayuna,NY, where for many years it conducted
research on PCBs without an approval from EPA. Since
research on PCBs is deemed to be a form of disposal, the
complaint charges GE with unpermitted disposal. The
complaintalsochargesthatGEmanufactured, processed,
and distributed PCBs without the requisite EPA permits,
and failed to prepare annual documents concerning the
disposition of its PCB materials. The matter was settled
in June 1994, with GE's agreement to pay a penalty of
$70,000 and maintain compliance with the TSCA
requirements.
In the Matter of Presbyterian Homes of New Jersey
Foundation: On March 31,1994, EPA issued a two count
complaint to Presbyterian Homes of New Jersey for its
failure to maintain records of quarterly inspections of
its PCB Transformer, and its failure to compile and
maintain annual documents on the disposition of PCBs and
PCB-items. The complaint proposed a penalty of
$197,000. The violations were detected during an
inspection in 1993 at the Foundation's Hightstown, NJ
facility. EPA discovered that Respondent had not
compiled any of the requisite documents for any of its
several PCB transformers.
U.S. v. StateofNew York Department of Transportation
(N.D. N.V.) On March 23, 1994, the court entered a
consent decree settling an action brought by EPA under
TSCA against the New York State Department of
Transportation. The Transportation Department had
sought andreceived atemporary EPA approval to dispose
of the dredged material. The approval was granted, but
the Department failed to live up to its terms, as well as
the terms of a later administrative consent order
reached with EPA. The complaint filed in this case cited
the Department for violations of EPA's PCB regulations
as well as of the TSCA approval and the administrative
consent order. An injunctive order will ensure that the
Department properly maintains two disposal sites for
PCB-contaminatedmaterialdredgedfromtheHudsonRiver.
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
In theMatterofNew YorkStateDepartment ofMental
Health . On June 29,1994, EPA issued an administrative
complaintto the New York State Office of Mental Health
citing violations of the TSCA PCB regulations and
proposing acivil penalty of $215,000. The Mental Health
Department owns and operates the Bronx Psychiatric
Center in New York City. During an inspection of the
Center EPA found that the Department had failed to
compile and maintain required records and logs
concerning inspections and the disposition of PCBs and
had failed to dispose of PCBs in an authorized mannerNovember 24, 1993.
submission of forms to EPA for chemicals these companies
manufactured or imported.
In the Matter ofCiba-Geigy Corporation: On December 17,
1993, EPA entered into an administrative consent order
with Ciba-Geigy Corporation of Ardsley, NY. The order
required the company to pay a civil penalty of $ 182,550
for violations of TSCA §§ 5, 8, and 13. The complaint,
which was the consequence of a voluntary disclosure of
the TSCA violations by Ciba-Geigy, was issued on
In re Corporacion A mcarera de Puerto Rico On September
27,1994, EPA issued an administrative complaint under
TSCA againstthe Corporacion Azucarerade Puerto Rico
(Sugar Corporation of Puerto Rico). The complaint cited
nineteen violations of TSCA §6(e) and proposed a civil
penalty of $798,000. The violations occurred at four
different facilities owned and operated by the
Respondentin Aguada, Arecibo, Guanica and Mercedita,
Puerto Rico. Inspections of these facilities revealed
that Respondent had numerous violations of inspection,
record keeping, disposal, marking and registration
requirements concerning PCB Transformers.
InreEdgewaterAssociates. On September30,1994, EPA
issued an administrative complaint under TSCA against
Edgewater Associates for 8 violations of PCB regulations
at its facility in Edgewater, NJ. The complaint proposes
acivilpenaltyof$222,000. EPA conducted an inspection
of the facility in December 1993, to determine whether
Respondentwas in compliance. The inspection was
conducted because EPAhadbecome aware that Respondent
had been engaged in PCB waste handling activities and
storing PCB contaminated oil at its facility.
TSCA §8 Inventory T Ipdate Enforcement Initiative: In
June 1994, EP Aissuedeightadministrative complaints as
part of a nationwide initiative targeting TSCA §8
Inventory Update Rule violators. The cases were filed
against: Alnor Chemical, Inc., Valley Stream, NY, with
a proposed penalty of $85,000; Browning Chemical Corp.,
White Plains, NY, $136,000; Capelle, Inc., Scarsdale,
NY, $ 12,000; Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co., Westville, NJ,
$374,000; KyowaHakko USA, Inc., New Yak, NY, $6,000;
Magna-Kron Corp., Jackson,NJ, $ 17,000; Nippon Paint
(America) Corp.,New York,NY, $ 18,000; and White Cross
Corp., Rye, NY, $51,000. The violations alleged involve
either failure to submit inventory update forms or late
IntheMatterofOCGMicroelectronicsMaterials.Inc.:
On December 30,1993, EPA entered into an administrative
consentorderwithOCGMicroelectronics Materials, Inc.
of West Paterson, NJ. The order required OCG to pay a
civil penalty of $162,900 forviolations of TSCA §§ 5 and
13. The complaint, resulting from a voluntary
disclosure ofthe TSCA violations by OCG, was issued on
September 29, 1993.
EPCRA
In th e Matter of Mobil Oil Corp.: On September29,1994,
EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) rejected an
appeal by Mobil Oil from decisions by two EPA
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). In December 1993,
Senior ALJ Gerald Harwood ruled for EPA in this EPCRA
action. Judge Harwood determined that Mobil had
unreasonably delayed in notifying the Local Emergency
Planning Commission (LEPC) of a reportable release of
sulfur dioxide; that Mobil could have notified the LEPC
at least 3 days earlier than it did; and, accordingly,
that Mobil should pay a penalty for each of the 3 days
duringwhichnoncompliance continued. This was the first
time EPA had sought and been awarded a multiple-day
penalty assessment in an EPCRA case.
In the Matter of A gway Petroleum Corporation: OnAugust
4,1994, EPA issued an administrative complaint against
Agway Petroleum Corporation for violations of the
regulations promulgated pursuantto §312 of EPCRA. The
complaint cited violations of EPCRA and assessed a
proposed civil penalty of $ 1,926,600. Agway Petroleum
owns and operates numerous facilities throughout New
York andNew Jersey. The complaint cites Agway for its
failure to submit Tier One or Tier Two Forms for at least
one of five possible petroleum-related hazardous
chemicals found at each of 164 of the company's
A-8
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
facilities. The violations were with respect to the 1990
and 1991 reporting years.
In the Matter of Rich Products Corp.: On November 12,
1993,EPAexecutedanadministrativeconsentagreement
andconsentorder(CACO)withRichProductsCorp. The
settlement resolved an action commenced in July 1992
citing the company for five violations of the EPCRA
reporting requirements relating to the chemicals
phosphoric acid and sodium hydroxide "otherwise used" at
the company's Buffalo, NY, facility for the 1987 through
1989 reporting years. Pursuant to the settlement, Rich
Products will pay a penalty of $34,425 and, in addition,
will undertake an SEP in the form of the design,
installation and startup of a Modified Clean-In-Place
system. This system, which will cost the company about
$64,000, will serve to reduce phosphoric acid usage at
the facility; the project was required to be completed by
November 30, 1994.
In the Matter of NTU Circuits. Ina: In February 1994,
EPA issued an administrative consent order to NTU
Circuits, Inc. requiring the company to pay a civil
penalty of $97,500 for its violations of EPCRA §§311,
312, and 313. NTU had stored and "otherwise used"
sulfuric acid and ammonia in quantities exceeding the
reporting thresholds at its facility in Bayshore, NY,
since 1986. NTUhadMedtosubmitMSDSsand emergency
and hazardous chemical inventory forms (Tier I or Tier II
forms) to the appropriate local and state agencies. NTU
also had failed to submit toxic chemical release forms
(Form R) to EPA and the State of New Yoik for four out of
5 years from 1988 to 1992.
IntheMatterof R&FAIlov Wires.Inc: InMarch 1994,an
EPA Administrative Law Judge issued an order granting
EPA's Motion for Partial Accelerated Decision on the
question of liability in an EPCRA enforcement action
against R&F Alloy Wires, Inc. The company was held
liable for eleven violations of EPCRA. The complaint,
filed in 1993, assessed a civil penalty of $79,000. The
violations at R&F involved its failure to file a Form R
inatimelymannerforchemicalsmanufactured,processed
or otherwise used in amounts exceeding the threshold
reportingrequirements. R&F failed to submitFormsRin
a timely manner for ammonia, copper, and 1,1,1-
trichloroethane in 1988,1989,1990 and 1991. The case
was settled in September 1994 for a cash penalty of
$25,000 plus a commitment by R&F to implement a
substantial SEP, valued at over $55,000.
In the Matter ofSilverton Marine Corporation: On June
20,1994 EPA issued an administrative complaint against
Silverton Marine Corporation for violations of the
regulations promulgated pursuantto §313 of EPCRA. The
complaint cited six violations of EPCRA and assessed a
proposed civil penalty of $ 129,441. Silverton Marine
owns and operates a facility in Millvile, NJ. The
complaintcites Silverton for failure to submit Toxic
ChemicalRelease Inventory ReportingForms to EPA and
the State of New Jersey for styrene and acetone which
were manufactured, imported, processed, or otherwise
used at the facility in quantities exceeding the
applicable thresholds. The violations were with respect
to the 1989, 1990, and 1991 reporting years.
InreRexon TechnologyCorp.: OnSeptemberl5,1994,EPA
issued a complaint proposing a penalty of $102,000
Dollars againstRexon Technology Corp., Wayne,NJ, for
violations of EPCRA §313. Specifically, the complaint
alleged that the corporation had failed to submit to EPA,
as required by EPCRA, Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
Reporting Forms (Forms R) for Methyl Chloroform and
Freon 113 for the 1990 through 1992 reporting years.
In re Goodyear lire <£ Rubber Co.: On September 30,1994,
EPA II issued an administrative complaint to The
GoodyearTire&Rubber Company forviolationsofCERCLA
§ 103(a) andEPCRA §304. Goodyearfailed to immediately
notify the appropriate officials after releases of vinyl
chloride on three occasions from its facility in Niagara
Falls, NY. EPA is seeking $165,900 in penalties for
these violations. The company did not notify the NRC,
SERC, andLEPC ofvinyl chloride releases on August 17,
1992, July 26,1993, and August 2,1993 until about 7-31
hours after the releases occurred. Further, the
releases contained from 2-19 times the reportable
quantities for vinyl chloride.
Catano EPC RA Enforcement Settlements On September 30,
1994, EPA executed a settlement resolving five
administrative enforcement actions brought against
facilities operating in the Catano region of Puerto
Rico. These cases were part of EPA's Catano geographic
initiative carried out over the previous 2 years. The
complaints in those five cases alleged violations of
EPCRA §§311,312, and313. The settlementprovides for
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
the five companies to jointly pay a civil penalty of
$90,000. Under the settlement they will also implement
SEPs valued at $210,000 in the form of training and
education programs for both the regulated and the local
community; and provide $100,000 worth of emergency
response equipment to the Catano Health Center. The five
companies are: American Chemical, Inc.; Easton, Inc.;
Goya de Puerto Rico, Inc.; Island Can Corp.; and Water
Treatment Specialists, Inc.
In the Matter of National Can Puerto Rico. Inc.. In
August 1994, EPA issued an administrative complaint
against National Can for violations of the regulations
promulgatedpursuantto§312ofEPCRA. Thecomplaint
cited twelve violations of EPCRA and assessed a proposed
penalty of $300,000. National Can owns and operates a
can manufacturing plant in the Catano area of Puerto
Rico. The complaint cites National Can for failure to
submit Tier I or Tier II forms to the fire department,
LEPC and SERC for the extremely hazardous substance,
sulfuric acid, which was present at the facility in
amounts equal to or greater than the reporting threshold
in the years 1990 through 1993.
In th e Matter of Petroleum Chemical Corp.: InJune 1994,
EPA issued an administrative complaint against Petroleum
Chemical Corporation for violations of the regulations
promulgated pursuant to EPCRA §§ 312 and 313. The
complaint cited nine violations of EPCRA §312, four
violations of §313 of EPCRA and assessed a total proposed
penalty of $245,000. Petroleum Chemical owns and
operates a facility in the Catano area of Puerto Rico.
The complaint cites Petroleum Chemical for failure to
submit Tier I or Tier II forms to the local fire
department, LEPC and SERC for the extremely hazardous
substance, phosphorus pentoxide, and the hazardous
chemicalsasbestos,keroseneasphaltandaluminumpaste,
which were present at the facility in amounts equal to or
greater than the reporting thresholds in the years 1987
through 1992. In addition, the complaint cites
Petroleum Chemicalforfailure to submitToxic Chemical
Release Inventoiy Forms to EPA and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico for friable asbestos which was processed at
the facility in quantities exceeding applicable
thresholds for the years 1988 through 1992.
In re Hess Oil Virgin Islands . On June 21,1994, EPA
issued an eleven-count administrative complaint against
Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation citing EPCRA
violations. The complaint alleges that Hess failed to
submitin atimely manner the required Form Rfor each of
five chemicals; and alleges that Hess failed to report a
reasonable estimate of its fugitive air emissions for
another. The complaint alleges these violations for
calendar years 1988 through 1990 and seeks a civil
penalty of $252,000. This complaint arose out of an
earlier consolidated multimedia: inspection at the
facility.
In re Statewide Refrigerated Services. Inc.: On
September 30, 1994, EPA issued an administrative
complaintto Statewide Refrigerated Services, Inc. for
violationsofCERCLA §103(a)andEPCRA §§ 304,311, and
312. Statewide failed to immediately notify the
appropriate officials of a release that occurred at its
Rochester, NY, facility. EPA is seeking $147,120 in
penalties for these violations. The company did not
notify the NRC, SERC, and LEPC of an ammonia release that
occurredonNovember 12,1993 until about94hours after
the release occurred. Further, the company had failed to
submit a MSDS and annual Tier I/II forms as required by
EPCRA §§311 and 312.
In the Matter of Freeman Industries. Inc: On September
29, 1994, EPA issued an administrative complaint
proposing a penalty of $108,900 against Freeman
Industries, Inc. of Tuckahoe, NY, for violations of
EPCRA §§311 and 312. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that Freeman failed to submit the MSOSs, for
bromine, an extremely hazardous substance, to the SERC
for New York, the LEPC for W estehester County, and the
Fire Department for the Town of Eastchester, as it was
required to do by January of 1991. In addition Freeman
failed to submit the Emergency and Hazardous Chemical
Inventory Forms to these agencies from 1991 through
1994.
In reE.I. DuPontdeNemours and Co.: OnMay 17,1994,
EPA issued a seven-count civil administrative complaint
against DuPont's Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ,
facility, alleging violations of EPCRA §313. The
complaintwastheresultofanEPCRA §313 Data Quality
Assurance inspection conducted at the facility on July
21, 1993 as part of a Regional multi-media
investigation. It alleged that DuPont failed to submit
inatimelymannerFormsRfornitrobenzeneforthe years
1988,1989,1990,1991,and 1992, and for formaldehyde
for 1991. The complaint sought penalties of $142,000.
A-10
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
CERCLA
The Lipari Site: On March 16,1994, the U.S. lodged a
proposed consent decree in partial resolution d!7. S.,
etal. v. Rohm & Haas, et al, an injunctive relief and
cost recovery case arising out of EPA's work at the
Lipari Landfill site, which is the number one site on the
NPL. Under the decree, Rohm & Haas, one of the primary
responsible parties at the site, which is located in
Mantua Township, NJ, agreed to perform the ROD IE remedy
at the Site. The site received hazardous industrial
wastesfroml958throughearly 1971. Rohm & Haas was the
largest contributor of wastes to the Site.
On April 15,1994, the court entered a separate consent
decree in this case, which resolved the liability of Rohm
&HaasandtwootherPRPs, Owens-Illinois andManorCare,
for ROD I, ROD n, and two additional components ofROD
III at the Lipari site. Because the portion of the
remedy settled in this decree had been essentially
completed by EPA, the three defendants agreed to cash-
outpayments to EPA and the State of New Jersey valued at
$52,939,375. In September 1994, EPA signed a settlement
with Mr. Nick Lipari, the owner of the Lipari Site,
resolving his liability. Under this proposed
settlement, Mr. Lipari, through his insurers, has agreed
to pay to the United States and the State a total of $ 1.3
million.
U.S. v. CDMG Realty Co.. etal (D.N..T.V On December 2,
1994, the court entered a consent decree, in partial
resolution of this CERCLA action concerning the
Sharkey's Landfill Superfund site, located in the
Townships of Parsipanny-Troy Hills andEastHanover,NJ.
The decree involves various settling parties, including
two owner parties, twenty-nine non-owner parties and
twelve de minimis parties. The decree requires that the
settling parties design and construct the remedy and
perform the necessary operation and maintenance. This
workhasanestimatedpresentvalueofapproximately$42
million. The settlement also provides that parties
reimburse EPA $1.75 million of its past costs and up to
$250,000 of its Supervisory Costs and reimburse the
State of New Jersey $300,000 of its past costs. The de
minimis Settling Parties have agreed to pay $1,390,034
to the other settling parties towards the cost of
implementing the remedial action.
U.S. v. VinelandChemicalCompanv.etal (D.N.J.) In
March 1994,theU.S. enteredaconsentdecreepursuantto
CERCLAandRCRAjcsolvinglitigationbctwecntheUnitcd
States and Vineland Chemical Company and its owners/
operators, Miriam Schwerdtle and the Estate of Arthur
Schwerdtle. In the consent decree the defendants
confessed liability for $76 million under CERCLA and
agreed to surrender all but certain specified assets to
the United States for paymentof an earlier RCRA penalty
judgment and for costs incurred and to be incurred by the
United States in performing all response actions
pursuant to CERCLA. The settlement included agreement
by the defendants to bring money back from two overseas
trusts which the United States alleged had been
established to preventEPA from recovering its CERCLA
costs.
U.S. v. The Carborundum Company, etal (D.N.J.V On
March 30,1994, a consent decree was lodged in the court
which partially settles EPA's cost recovery claims
relating to the Caldwell Trucking Company Superfund Site
in Fairfield Township, NJ. The nine settling defendants
agreed to pay $2.46 million for EPA's past and future
costs and also agreed to perform all scheduled remedial
and natural resource restoration work at the site,
valued at an additional $32 million. Under the decree,
the State of New Jersey will also receive its first
natural resource damage payment under CERCLA and the
U.S. Department of the Interior will receive
compensation for its assessment and monitoring costs.
IntheMatteroftheFrontierChemicalSuperfundSite:
On July 5,1994, EPA issued an administrative consent
order for the removal of all wastes contained in tanks at
the Frontier Chemical Superfund site located in Niagara
Falls, NY. There are approximately 45 tanks at the Site
containing over 360,000 gallons of waste. The order was
issued to 31 PRPs; the work is expected to cost about
$3.6 million.
U.S. v. Ciha-Geiov Corp (D. N.Y.V On April 21,1994,
the court entered a consent decree settling EPA's CERCLA
claims against Ciba-Geigy Corporation. The settlement
provides for the performance, by Ciba-Geigy, of the
remedial design, the remedial action, operation &
maintenance and post-remediation monitoring for the
first operable unit (groundwater) at the Ciba-Geigy
Superfund Site in Toms River, NJ. The estimated cost of
the work is approximately $60 million. In addition to
providing that Ciba-Geigy undertake the response work,
the decree calls for the company to reimburse the United
A-ll
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
States for $8.4 million in past response costs incurred transporting and off-site disposal of approximately 66
by the U. S. with respect to the Site, and future response drums and containers. The settling PRPs are parties who
costs, including costs to be incurred by EPA withrespect generated waste which was disposed of at the two sites,
to overseeing the work to be performed by Ciba-Geigy.
In theMatter of Diamond Alkali Superfund Site. OnApril
20, 1994, EPA issued an administrative consent order
pursuantto which Occidental Chemical Company agrees to
undertake the RI/FS for the Passaic River Study Area
portion ofthe Diamond Alkali Superfund Site inNewark,
NJ. Remedial action on the property where the facility
was located has been undertaken by Occidental pursuant
to a judicial consent decree. Because of the presence of
dioxin in the sediments of the Passaic River, EPA
determined that a RI/FS should be undertaken for areas in
the River adjacent to the site. The Passaic River Study
Area identified in the RI/FS is a six-mile area up-River
from the confluence of the Passaic and Hackensack
Rivers. The study is expected to cost $10 million.
In the Matter of Liberty Industrial Finishing Site. On
August 30,1994, EPA issued an administrative consent
order to 9 PRPs for the removal of, inter alia, soils
contaminated with PCBs at the Liberty Industrial
Finishing Site, Village ofFarmingdale,NY. Atthe same
time, a second administrative order was issued
unilaterally to six non-settling PRPs requiring them to
perform the same removal action and participate and
coordinate with the recipients of the consent order. The
recipients of the consent order include two federal
agencies, the Department of Defense and the General
Services Administration. All the PRPs are current or
former owners or operators ofthe facility. The work is
expected to cost about $500,000.
In re York Oil Company Superfiind Site. On September 30,
1994, EPA issued a unilateral administrative order in
connection with the York Oil Company Superfiind Site in
the Town of Moira, NY. The order requires respondent
Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa), a generator PRP, to
undertake certain removal activities there. Because of
the deteriorated and/or unstable condition of the tanks
and drums at this site, EPA issued the order to Alcoa
requiring the company to undertake a removal action at
the Site pursuant to CERCLA. This removal action
includes the characterization, removal, disposal and/or
treatment of on-Site tanks and drums and their contents,
and is expected to cost about $200,000.
In reA& YRealty Corp.: On September 29,1994, EPA
reachedanadministrativesettlementwiththeA&YRealty
Corporationmandating the sale of real property that
constitutespartofthe Radium Chemical Company (RCC)
Superfund Site located inNew York City. The proceeds of
the sale (after satisfaction of prior tax obligations
and the expenses of sale) will be reimbursed to the
Superfund. The settlement agreement specifies the terms
upon which the real property is to be sold.
Contemporaneously with the administrative settlement,
the Site is being noticed in the Federal Register for
intended deletion from the National Priorities List,
since Site remediation has been completed. In December
1994 the property was sold under the agreement,
realizing some $250,000 for the Superfund, and resulting
in the return of the property to full commercial use.
InreENRXandBuffab WarehousingSupaiimdSites On
September 30,1994, EPA entered into an administrative
settlement to recover over $ 1 million from more than 90
PRPs atthese two sites, pursuantto § 122(h) of CERCLA.
Beginning in September 1989 and concluding in March
1992, EPA performed a removal action atthe ENRX Site
which included such activities as the securing,
segregating, sampling, transporting and off-site
disposal of400 drums and containers, and the treatment
and disposal of materials found in various tanks.
Starting in July 1991 and concluding in April 1992, EPA
also performed a removal action at the Buffalo
Warehousing Site. The removal action at this site
consisted of the securing, segregating, sampling,
In rePVOInternational. Inc.: On September 30,1994,
EPA issued an administrative order on consent to P V O
International Inc. requiring performance of a removal
action at its site in Boonton Township, NJ. Under the
order PVO has agreed to sample and dispose of several
thousand containers, drums, vats and tanks off-site.
The estimated costofthe work is $350,000. PVO also has
agreed to pay EPA approximately $63,000 in past response
costs, plus interest. PVO's payment obligation will be
secured by an EPA lien on the Site, which will continue
until the payment obligation is fully satisfied.
Quanta/New Jersey Non-Complier Case Settlements: On
March 24, 1994, the U.S. District Court for the District
A-12
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
%
of New Jersey entered seven consent decrees settling
EPA's claims against 8 PRPs at the Quanta Resources Site
in Edgewater, NJ. The settlements provide for
reimbursement of past response costs totaling $940,000,
civil penalties and punitive damages in an amount of
$800,000, and placement of $785,000 into an escrow
account to finance future removal activities at the
Site, resulting in a total settlement value of
$2,525,000. The Settling Defendants are: Estate of
James Frola, co-owner ofthe property; Albert V onDohln,
co-ownerofthe property; Republic Environmental Systems
(New York), Inc. (formerly Chemical Management, Inc.);
Petroleum Tank Cleaners; Snyder Enterprises; Texaco,
Inc.; and Total Recovery, Inc.
InreMagaraCountvRefuseSuperfundSite: On September
23,1994, EPA signed an administrative order on consent
with 11 de minimis parties to settle their liability with
respect to the Niagara County Refuse Superfund in New
York pursuant to § 122(g)orCERCLA. A ROD was signed in
September 1993 selecting a cap and related measures as
the remedy for the Site, with a cost presently estimated
at about $20 million. Thede minimis settling parties
each contributed less than one percent of the total
wastes disposed of at the Site. These de minimis parties
have agreed to pay $793,866 to the Superfund. This
settlement was reached in conjunction with a major party
consentdecree,whichhas been signed by the PRPsand by
EPA, and is awaiting lodging with the court. Taken
together, the de minimis settlement and the major party
settlement would require the settling parties to
undertake the full performance ofthe RD/RA; the payment
of EPA's future response costs; and the payment of
$866,280 of EPA's past response costs (out of total past
response costs of $1,030,000).
InreMurattiEnvironmentalSite: On September30,1994,
EPA entered into an administrative cost recovery
agreement with 12 PRPs pureuantto § 122(hXl) of CERCLA,
regarding the Muratti Environmental Site (Site), located
in Penuelas, Puerto Rico. Under the agreement the
settling PRPs will pay EPA $525,000 in reimbursement of
95 percent of EPA's unreimbursed past costs for a removal
action at the site. The settling PRPs are the generators
of hazardous substances that were disposed of at the
site, which consists of an abandoned, approximately 2-
acre former industrial waste disposal facility.
U.S. v. Signo Trading International. Ltd.. et al.: On
December 10,1993, the court signed two partial consent
decrees and a default judgment in connection with the
Signo Trading Superfund Site in Mt. Vernon, NY. These
court orders resolve an action brought in 1987 on behalf
of EPA, seeking recovery of response costs incurred by
EPA in the performance of a removal action at the Site,
and seeking treble damages against certain defendants
for noncompliance with an EPA administrative cleanup
order issued in 1984. Under the decrees, defendants Jack
and Charles Colbert and the "Colbert Companies" (Signo
Trading International, Ltd., SCI Equipment and
Technology,Ltd., Mount Vernon Trade Group, Ltd.,
Northeast By-Products Recycling Corp.) agreed to pay
$22,500 as a penalty for failure to comply with the
order. Defendants Arnold Schwartz, Arnold Fader, New
Island Investors and Lynric Associates, Inc., agreed to
pay $71,000 in past response costs. Finally, a default
judgment was entered by the court against defendant 11
Hartford Avenue, Inc. in the amount of $311,658.54, for
costs incurred by EPA in connection with the Site.
U.S. v. Zaklama (D. N.J.) On April 25, 1994, the
District Court of New Jersey ordered the owner of a
residential property within the Montclair/West Orange
Superfund Site to grant access to EPA for the purpose of
conducting additional sampling and performing remedial
construction on the property. Esmat Zaklama, the
absentee owner of a residential property at the site,
refused to grant EPA access to remediate his property
because the government had refused his demand that it buy
theproperty or compensate him becausehecouldnotlease
out the contaminated property.
U.S. v. Thiokol Corp. (D. N.J.) On October 26,1994,
the court entered a judicial consent decree between the
United States and Thiokol Corp. Under the settlement,
which had earlier been lodged with the court, Thiokol
agreed to conduct remedial action, operation and
maintenanceand post-remediation monitoring for a
portion ofthe Rockaway Borough Site inNew Jersey, and
reimburse the U.S. for all associated oversight costs.
Thiokol also agreed to fund the future operation and
maintenance of Rockaway Borough's water treatment
system, which treats contaminated groundwater from the
site. The decree also provides for recovery of
approximately half of the $2 million in total costs
incurredby the United States at the Site, resulting in
a total settlement value of approximately $ 13 million.
A-13
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
U.S. v. Town of North HempsteacH E. D. N.V.) On
September 18,1994, a consent decree in this case was
lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The decree would settle ongoing
litigation against the Town of North Hempstead for
recovery of some $2.64 million in past EPA cleanup costs
incurred at the Port Washington Landfill. The Town is
already undertaking the remedial work at the landfill,
at an estimated cost of $45 million.
In the Matter of Aero Haven Airport Site. During FY94,
EPA entered into two administrative orders on consent
pursuant to which Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. will
perform and fund private removal actions to permanently
close an asbestos containing material (ACM) landfill at
the Aero Haven Airport Site. The first order was signed
on June 27, 1994, and the second order was signed on
September 30,1994. In the first order Owens-Corning
agreed to fund and perform an emergency removal action to
stabilize the Site by: (1) installing high visibility
fencing around portions of the Site, (2) covering
exposed areas of ACM with clean fill or soil, and (3)
posting warning signs. The second order was signed on
September30,1994,pursuantto which Owens-Corninghas
agreed to properly and permanently close the site by:
(1) consolidating the current 18.5 acres of ACM and
satellite piles of ACM into a fill area (or approximately
122,000 cubic yards of ACM), (2) placing a cover over the
ACM, and (3) installing vegetation and erosion and run-
off system. The total cost of the work required under
both orders is in excess of $1.2 million.
U.S. v. Wheaton Industries. Inc. (D. N.J.) The court
entered a consent decree settling EPA's complaint
broughtunder§ 107ofCERCLAagainstWheatonIndustries,
Inc. The consent decree requires Wheaton to pay $4
million in full settlement of the litigation. The
complaint sought recovery of past and future response
costs incurred by the United States at the Williams
Property Superfiindsite, locatedinCape May County,NJ.
The State ofNew Jersey joined in this lawsuit to recover
state funds expended on this Site.
MULTIMEDIA CASES
IntheMatterofBrookhavenNationalLahoratoriesand
Associated Universities. Inc.: During 1994 Region II
settled a number of actions involving this Federal
research facility on Long Island, New York, and the
private contractor which operates it for the U.S.
Department of Energy. On March 29, 1994, Region II
executedanadministrativeconsentorderwithAssociated
Universities which resolved the TSCA enforcement action.
The TSCA settlementprovided for a penalty of $31,875,
and included injunctive provisions to insure compliance
with applicable TSCA requirements. On May 10,1994
Region II and the U. S. DOE also signed a Federal Facility
Compliance Agreement which resolved a Notice of
Noncompliance issued under TSCA, relating to some of the
same violations as those for which Associated
Universities was penalized.
On April 23,1994 Region II entered a consent order with
DOE and Associated Universities resolving alleged RCRA
violations set forth in a Notice of Violation issued to
DOE and an administrative complaint issued to
Associated. These actions were merged into a single
settlement document due to the enactment of the Federal
Facilities Compliance Act and because of DOE's
indemnification agreement. Subsequent Federal
violations referred to EPA by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, were also
merged into this action. The settlement included a
penalty of $63,250 andrequires compliance with the RCRA
provisions, violations of which were cited in the
action. In addition, DOE and Associated Universities
agreed to implement two supplemental environmental
projects jointly valued at $170,000. The Respondents
will perform a wildlife management survey and, if
necessary, implementasubsequentmanagementplanfor
the wetland and forested areas at the Long Island, New
York facility. Should these projects not be timely
completed, Associated Universities will be required to
pay an additional penalty of $85,000.
Tn re AmericanCvanamid Company: InApril, 1994Region
II issued two administrative complaints to the American
Cyanamid Company ofW ayne, New Jersey for violations of
the EPCRA and TSCA. The complaints seek to assess a
combined civil penalty of $27,000 for violations at the
Lederle Laboratories facility in Bound Brook, New
Jersey. The EPCRA violations include the failure to file
aForm Rin atimely manner for Ammonia otherwise used in
amounts exceeding the threshold reportingrequirements;
and TSCA violations include failure to compile and
maintain annual documents concerning the disposition of
PCBs andPCB Items. The complaints cover violations at
the facility for the years 1989 through 1992. The TSCA
matter was settled in May, 1994, with a penalty payment
A-14
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
of $ 10,000. The EPCRA matter resulted in a consent order
issued in September, and assessment of a $9,000 penalty.
In re Broomer Research. Inc.: On June 24.1994, Region
II issued an administrative order on consent to Broomer
Research, Inc. and 3 Beech Realty under the "emergency"
authorities of §7003 ofRCRA and §1431 ofSDWA. EPA
found that these companies' handling of hazardous and
radioactive wastes at their facility in Islip, New York
maypresentan "imminentand substantial endangerment"
to the health and environment. This is the first time
the Regionhas used its emergency authority under § 1431
of SWDA. The order requires Broomer immediately to post
signs and restrict unauthorized access to the facility
and prohibits it from treating, disposing or removing
hazardouswaste from the facility without prior EPA
approval ofsuchaction. Broomerwas required to submit,
within 20 days after the order, a workplan for the
Investigation of Releases at the facility, including the
implementation of a sampling plan and medical monitoring
program. After Broomer completes the Investigation, it
is required by this order to submit its findings to EPA,
and submit a workplan for the Remediation of Releases,
which it must then implement starting within ten days
after EPA approval.
In re Abbott Laboratories: On May 18,1994 EPA initiated
a multi-media action against Abbott Laboratories'
facility located in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico. The
action consisted of the filing of two administrative
complaints. The first complaint was issued under the
Clean Air Act, and alleged that Abbott violated the
Puerto Rico SIP by failing to operate its air pollution
controlequipmentatall times. The CAA complaint seeks
a proposed civil penalty of $50,000. The second
complaint alleged that Abbott violated §313 of EPCRA by
failing to timely submit a required Toxic Chemical and
Release Inventory Reporting form. This complaint
included a proposed penalty of $34,000. The violations
were documented as the result of a consolidated multi-
media inspection in March of 1994.
In re Picatinnv Arsenal In August, 1994 Region II
initiated enforcement actions against the U.S. Army's
Picatinny Arsenal, citing violations under RCRA, the
Clean Air Act, TSCA and the Clean Water Act. On
September 13,1994 the Region sent to the Arsenal four
enforcement actions, and a proposed Federal Facility
Compliance Agreement (FFCA)to address these violations.
The enforcement actions were: 1) an administrative
complaint citing RCRA storage and disposal violations,
proposing a penalty of $60,150, 2) a RCRA Notice of
Violation citing certain additional storage and land
disposal violations, 3) a compliance order under the
Clean Air Act arising out of violations of New Source
Performance Standards for steam generating units, and 4)
a Notice of Violation under the Clean Air Act for
constructing equipment and control devices without first
obtaining the necessary State permit to construct.
A-15
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey: In April,
1992 Region II conducted a major consolidated multi-
mediainspectionofKennedylnternationalAirportinNew
Y ork City, whichis operatedby the Port Authority ofNew
York and New Jersey. A number of violations were
documented, both at facilities operated by the Port
Authority itself, as well as at some facilities operated
by airline or service companies. In Fiscal Year 1993 a
complaint was issued to the Port Authority citing it for
TSCA violations and proposing a penalty of $289,000. On
June 28, 1994, Region II issued three additional
administrative complaints to Ogden Aviation Services,
Inc., citing that company for violations of the Federal
underground storage tank regulations, and proposing
penalties totalling $109,125.
Safety Kleen: In Fiscal Year 1994 Region II carried out
inspections at a number of facilities operated by Safety
Kleen, Inc., a waste oil and chemical recycling and
disposal firm. Region II documented violations at
several Safety Kleen facilities. An administrative
complaintunder §309(g) ofthe Clean Water Actwas issued
on June 30 in connection with the company's Manati,
Puerto Rico facility, seeking $125,000 in penalties for
NPDESviolations. AnothercomplaintwasissuedonMarch
31, 1994, citing RCRA violations at the company's
Linden, New Jersey facility. That case was settled in
Septemberwiththecompany'sagreementtopayapenalty
of $35,075.
A-16
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
REGION III
CLEAN AIR ACT
Ohio Power Companv(N.D.W.Va-) OnNovemberl5,1994,
the U.S. Department of Justice filed a CAA complaint with
the court alleging that Ohio Power Company violated
federal sulfur dioxide emission limitations at the
KammerPowerPlantinMoundsville,WV. On the same date,
the Department lodged a partial consent decree resolving
the United States' civil claims for injunctive relief
relating to these violations. The partial decree
requires the Defendant to operate the Kammer plant in
compliancewith applicable provisions of the CAA,
including a 2.7 lbs/mm BTU hourly S02 emission standard.
Ohio Power is also required to install and maintain a
Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS), which will
enable EPA to monitor Defendant's compliance with the
interim and final emission limitations, and to submit
quarterly reports documenting Defendant's compliance
status.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (E.D. Penn.) On July 5,
1994, the court entered a consent decree which resolved
the United State's claims in U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel
Corporation (Civil Action No. 92-5213, a civil action
filed against Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC), for
violations of CAA andNESHAP regulating benzene emission
from coke by-productrecovery plants, 40 C.F.R. Part 61,
Subpart L, at the company's coke works facilities in
Bethlehem, PA, and Sparrows Point, MD. BSC failed to
meet compliance deadlines set forth in the NESHAP, as a
result of which BSC continued to operate sources of
benzene in violation ofthe NESHAP. BSC also failed to
submitinterimandfinalreports required by theNESHAP.
The decree required BSC to pay a civil penalty of
$650,000 and to comply with the requirements of the
NESHAP with respect to any and all operations at these
two facilities.
U.S. v. Coors (D. Va.) On January 31,1994, the court
entered a consent decree with the Coors Brewing Company
(Coors) which required Coors to pay a civil penalty of
$245,000 and to not construct a brewery at its facility
in the Shenandoah Valley in Elkton, VA (Facility)
without a permit authorizing such construction. The
consent decree resolved violations of the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations. Coors had
initiated the construction of the facility without
undergoingnewBACT andmodelingreview, and without
obtaining a revised PSD permit to include the new
emissions sources, in violation of §165(a) of the Clean
Air Act and the Commonwealth of Virginia's State
Implementation Plan.
Florida Marina and Boat Sales: On January 26,1994, EPA
issued an administrative complaint against Florida
Marina and Boat Sales, Inc. (Respondent) for violations
of §610(b) ofthe CAA and the Nonessential Products Rule.
Respondent, a retailer of new and used boats and marine
supplies, is alleged to have sold at least six (6) noise
horns propelled by a CFC, in violation of the Rule and
the CAA. Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of
$3,000.
Hussev Copper: On April 28, 1994, EPA settled an
administrative CAA complaint with Hussey Copper for
violations of the Pennsylvania SIP. Hussey Copper
engages in the smelting and production of secondary
copper. Specifically, EPA's complaint alleged that
Hussey violated Article XX of the Pennsylvania SIP
which established mass and visible emissions limitations
for fugitive particulate matter (PM-10). In settlement,
Hussey agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of
$135,000.
Mannv.Moe. and Jack. Inc.- The Pep Boys: On March 15,
1994, EPA filed an administrative penalty action against
the Pep Boys - Manny, Moe, and Jack, Inc. for violations
of §609 ofthe CAA and the regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part
82. Those provisions, among other things, prohibit the
sale of small containers of CFC-12 unless the sale is to
a certified technician or to a person intending to resell
the containers. The complaintallegedthatPEP Boys sold
such containers in violation of the regulations on
numerous occasions, and sought a penalty of $8,726.
U.S. v. Sun Oil. Philadelphia (E.D. Penn.) On July 27,
1994, the court entered a consent decree between EPA, Sun
Company,Inc. (R&M),andAtlanticRefiningandMarketing
Corporation resolving many violations of the CAA at
Defendants' refinery located in South Philadelphia. The
violations included the expansion of the fluid catalytic
A-17
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
cracking unit at the refinery, resulting in increased
emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. This
expansion triggered the permitting and technology review
requirements of the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) rule, which protects air quality in
areas where the air is cleaner than mandated by national
air standards for certain pollutants. Defendants also
violated limits on visible emissions and failed to meet
the deadline for conducting a performance evaluation on
acontinuousemissionmonitor. Additionally, Defendants
committed many violations of work practice rules
designed to minimize emissions ofVOCs atthe Refinery.
In addition to injunctive relief that will reduce
emissions and prevent future violations, Defendants paid
a civil penalty of $1.4 million plus interest.
U.S. v. Sun Oil. Marcus Hook (E.D.Penn.V DuringFY94,
EPA and Sun Oil negotiated a consent decree requiring Sun
Company, Inc. (R&M) ("Sun") to pay a civil penalty of
$ 160,230 and to operate its petroleum refinery in Marcus
Hook, PA ("Facility") in compliance with EPA's Benzene
Transfer NESHAP. EPA alleged that Sun violated the
Benzene Transfer NESHAP when it failed to meet the
requirementsof40C.F.R. §§61.302,61.304,and61.305
by the February 28,1992 deadline that was imposed under
the waiver of compliance that was granted to Sun and in
that it failed to meet certain deadlines required by the
waiver.
LTVfW.D.PaV On April 11,1994, the United States
lodged a consent decree between the United States,
Allegheny County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Plaintiffs, andLTV Steel Company (LTV), Defendant, in
response to violations of the Clean Air Act by LTV at its
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania coke production facility. The
violations alleged in the initial complaint pertained to
the doors, lids, charging, offtakes, pushing and
combustion stacks emission standards. The decree
requires LTV to pay a civil penalty of nine hundred
thousand dollars ($ 900,000). The amount to be paid in
settlementtakes into accountpayments of over $ 150,000
previously made to Allegheny County for violations
alleged in the complaints. The decree requires LTV to
make significant improvements, at a cost of over $3
million, and implement, and make available to the
Plaintiffs and the public, the results of two studies of
coke oven door back pressure.
U.S. v. Sun Company. Tna (E.D. Penn.Y On May 26,1994,
EPA, lodged a consent decree in the court resolving many
violations of the CAA at the Sun Company refinery in
South Philadelphia. The most environmentally
significant violations were for increased emissions of
nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. As part of the
settlement, the defendants will restrict their emissions
at the cracking unit and will apply advanced control
technology to reduce their emissions, thereby
contributing a benefit to the environment.
CLEAN WATER ACT
U.S. v. Sun Oil. Marcus Hook (F..V). Penn.) On June 6,
1994 Defendant Sun Oil (R&M) signed aproposed consent
decree that resolves a civil judicial action for Sun's
pretreatment violations of the CWA occurring at Sun's
Marcus Hook, PA, Refinery. EPA broughtthe case against
Sun for incidents of "pass through" by which the Marcus
Hook Refinery discharged oil and grease to the receiving
POTW. DELCORA inClieslcr.PAxaisingDELCORA to\lolalc
its NPDES limits for oil and grease. The case also
focused on Sun's numerous violations of national and
local pretreatment standards applicable to the Refinery
discharge, including oil and grease, ammonia, phenols,
pH, benzene and other pollutants. Under the proposed
settlement, Sun would pay the United States a penalty of
$1,058 million plus interest. For injunctive relief,
Sun would upgrade its wastewater treatment, conveyance
and operational practices to prevent further violations
of pretreatment standards and incidents of pass through.
Sun Oil. Philadelphia (E.D. Penn.) On June 6, 1994
Defendants Sun Oil (R&M) and Atlantic Refining &
Marketing Corp. signed a proposed consent decree that
settles a civil judicial action to resolve violations of
the CWA and NPDES permit occurring at Defendants'
Philadelphia, PA, oil refinery. On numerous occasions
Defendants' Philadelphia Refinery discharged pollutants
(including oil and grease, total suspended solids, BOD,
ammonia, pH and phenols) into the Schuylkill River in
amounts exceeding the limitations set in their NPDES
permit. Defendants also violated NPDES requirements for
monitoring, sampling, reporting and bypassing. Under
the proposed settlement, Sun would pay the United States
a penalty of $1.25 million with interest. For injunctive
relief, Defendants would upgrade their Philadelphia
Refinery wastewater treatment, stormwater conveyance
and operational practices to prevent further violations
of the NPDES permit.
A-18
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Sun Company (Pennsylvania) On September7,1994, EPA
and the Department of Justice announced the settlement
of two CWA lawsuits against Sun Company, Inc., at its
Marcus Hook and Passyunk Avenue Refineries,
respectively. The settlement levied penalties exceeding
$2.3 million, and will also require the improvement of
poor environmental practices at both facilities. Sun
was alleged to have violated numerous parameters of its
NPDES permit at the Passyunk Avenue Refinery, including
illegal discharges of oil and grease, chromium, ammonia-
nitrogen, and zinc. In addition, the refinery illegally
dischargeduntreatedwastewateron 14 separate occasions
to the Schuykill River between 1991 and 1994. The Marcus
Hook facility illegally discharged excessive amounts of
oil and grease, which caused the Delaware County
Regional Water Authority's (DELCORA) sewer system to
violate its NPDES permit. The improper discharges from
both of these refineries added to the overall
degradation of the Schuykill and Delaware Rivers.
Ocean Builders Supply: On July 6,1994, EPA issued a
proposed $125,000 administrative penalty to Ocean
Builders Supply and Mr. Leonard Jester for filling a high
quality wetland on Chincoteague Island, VA, despite the
fact that a permit for the action had previously been
denied.
Despite being denied a permit, Mr. Jester acquired a
local building permit in June 1992 and subsequently
builtthe structures on land owned by his company, Ocean
Builders Supply. Similar unauthorized activities have
taken place on two adjacent lots to Mr. Jester's but have
not yet resulted in irreversible impacts.
DELCORA (E.D. PaV OnJuly28,1994. a consent decree
was entered in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the case oUnited
States and Commonwealth ofPennsylvaniav. Delaware
County Regional Water Quality Control Authority
(DELCORA). The consent decree required DELCORA to
construct an additional secondary clarifier at its
wastewater treatment plant at a cost of approximately
$3.5 million dollars to be completed by May 1,1997, and
to pay a civil penalty of $350,000 plus interest. The
decree also provided for stipulated penalties for NPDES
effluent violations and failure to meet construction
milestone deadlines. This facility is located in
Chester, Pa., a community of mostly poor and minority
residents.
City of Philadelphia (E.D. Pa.): On January, 27,1994,
the Court entered a consent decree requiring the City of
Philadelphia to pay $225,000 in civil penalties to the
U.S. and Pennsylvania, and perform injunctive relief
necessary to prevent future violations. The complaint
filed May 21,1992, charged that on 19 occasions, the
City responded to backups of sewage at the House of
Corrections and the Detention Center by intentionally
pumping raw sewage into the Pennypack Creek, a tributary
of the Delaware River. The U. S. and the Commonwealth
each received 50% of the civil penalty. The City has
completed the projects necessary to prevent further
violations at an expenditure of over $ 1 million.
Eastern Energy Investments: On March 24,1994, the
Office of Surface Mining (OSM) listed the first EPA case,
Eastern Energy Investments, Inc., of Pinch, West
Virginia, onto its Applicant Violator System (AVS).
Section 510(c) of SMCRA requires OSM to deny new mining
permits to an entity or its "owners or controllers" when
any Federal agency notifies OSM of an unresolved air or
water violation resulting from surface mining by that
entity. OSM will not issue a new mining permit until the
violator demonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that the
violation has been or is being corrected. This "permit
block," through OSM's ownership and control rules,
reaches not only Eastern Energy Investments, Inc., but
other mining entities with which Eastern's corporate
officers, board members, and stockholders with greater
than a 10% interest are associated. On January 12,1994,
EPA, Region III, issued an administrative order (AO) to
Eastern Energy for outstandingpH and metals violations,
including discharges in violation of a permit and, after
the NPDES permit had expired, discharges without a
permit. This AO formed the basis for the AVS listing.
SDWA
ConsolidatedGasT ransmissionCoiporation(1311 ):On
September26,1994, EPA issued an administrative penalty
action against Consolidated for violating the conditions
of its permit for the operation of a brine disposal well
in Potter County, PA. Specifically, EPA found that they
had operated the well without mechanical integrity, and
numerous other provisions of the permit, in violation of
40 CFR Part 144. The action required Consolidated to pay
a penalty of $10,000 and perform corrective action to
ensure the integrity of the well.
A-19
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Jiffy Lube (7538) On October 4,1993, Region EI issued
an administrative penalty action against Jiffy Lube for
the operation of a shallow injection well which could
cause the migration of petroleum and other harmful
chemicals into underground sources of drinking water.
The settlement required Jiffy Lube to inventory all of
the faciliies operated in the region and determine if
there were additional wells in operation. Jiffy Lube
identified a total of eight facilities operating similar
disposal wells. Jiffy Lube was required to remediate
each of the locations and institute recycling and best
management practices at each facility, and pay a penalty
of $3,200. This administrative action was coordinated
with the State of Maryland where several wells were
located. Maryland issued its own administrative action,
modeled after the regional action.
RCRA
Bethlehem Steel Corporation Steelton Plant: OnJanuary
21,1994, EPA and Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC)
signed an Addendum to a March 2,1992, RCRA §3008(h)
Corrective Measures Study consent order for the
implementation of final corrective measures at BSC's
Steelton, PA, facility. BSC will install a concrete cap
inside its steel manufacturing building, modify
manufacturing procedures to limit worker exposure to
lead contaminated electric arc furnace dust and use
institutional controls to further limit possible
exposure.
Medusa Cement: On February 23,1994, EPA signed a
consent order resolving an administrative penalty action
against Medusa Cement Company for violations of
regulations regarding the burning of hazardous wastes in
boilers and industrial furnaces. The complaint alleged
that Medusa failed to submit a revised certification of
precompliance and failed to reduce feed rates as
required under 40 C.F.R §266.103. Medusa agreed to pay
a civil penalty of $200,000 in settlement of the action.
U.S. v. Nation a! Rollin y Mills (E.D.Penn.V On July 11,
1994, National Rolling Mills (NRM) agreed to pay a civil
penalty of $300,000 for RCRA violations. The civil
charges included the storage of land disposal restricted
(LDR) waste for over a year, shipment of LDR waste for
disposal to off-site facilities without notifying those
facilities whether the waste met applicable treatment
standards, and various other violations of RCRA.
Osram SvlvaniaGlass.WeMsboro.Painsylvania: OSRAM
Sylvania signed a 3008(h) consent order on October 22,
1993. OSRAMsubmittedtheRFIWorkplanonJanuary25,
1994. EPA approved the RFI Workplan for a Phase I
investigationof the Osram facility on September 29,
1994. The Workplan outlines the schedule and activities
for the investigation of soils and groundwater at the
facility. The RFI will focus on the chromium
contamination of the groundwater and the identification
of potential human and ecological receptors.
ActionManufacturingCompanyAtglen .Pennsylvania: On
September 23,1994, Action signed an RCRA §3008(h)
consent order. The order was effective September 29,
1994. It requires Action to conduct an RCRA Facility
Investigation (RFI) to define the extent of
environmental contamination, and a Corrective Measure
Study to evaluate clean-up alternatives. Action is an
explosives manufacturing facility with a history of
land-based disposal activities.
Quaker State Corporation. Newell. West Virginia: On
December 30,1993 a unilateral order was issued to the
Quaker State Congo Plant in Newell, WV. This order
required Quaker State to perform Interim Measures (IM),
an RCRA RFI. and a Corrective Measures Study (CMS). EPA
has approved Quaker State's IM Work Plan. The IM Work
Plan requires Quaker State to recover free floating
petroleum product from a series of wells installed in a
portion of their facility.
RavenswoodAluminumCorporation.Ravenswood.West
Virginia: OnSeptember30,1994anRCRA §3008(h) consent
orderwasissuedto Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation.
ThisorderrequiredRavenswood to perform IM, an RFI, and
aCMS. EPAhasreceivedRavenswood'sIMWorkPlanandis
reviewing it for technical adequacy and completeness.
The IM Work Plan requires Ravenswood to install and
operate a network of recovery wells to recover petroleum
contaminated groundwater.
AT&T.Richmond. Virginia: On June20,1994, EPA issued
an Initial RCRA §3008(h) unilateral order to AT&T to
implement corrective measures at its Richmond, VA,
Facility. The unilateral order was issued after AT&T
failed to negotiate a consent order in good faith. The
unilateral order required AT&T to submit a work plan
within 30 days to pump and treat chlorinated organic
contamination in the groundwater. AT&T appealed EPA's
issuance of the order. As a result of the appeal, EPA and
A-20
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
AT&T resumed negotiations to resolve the appeal. A
settlement was reached between the parties and a joint
stipulation was submitted to the presiding officer for
approval.
Johnson Controls Battery Group. Inc.. Middletown.
Delaware: OnMarch8,1994,anRCRA §3013consentorder
was issued to the Johnson Controls Battery Group. The
order required Johnson Controls to conduct an RFI to
determine the extent of contamination that has resulted
from activities at the facility. Johnson Controls
submitted its RFI Work Plan in a timely manner.
Il l Corporation.Roanoke. Virginia: On May 19,1994, EPA
issued an RCRA §3008(h) administrative order on consent
to the ITT Corporation. This order required ITT to
perform an RFI to determine the extent of contamination
and to conduct a CMS to evaluate potential remedial
alternatives that might be used to mitigate releases of
hazardous wastes or constituents from their Roanoke, VA
facility.
TSCA
Allied Colloids: Allied Colloids, Inc. paid $398,000 in
stipulated penalties as a result of an audit of its
operations. The auditrevealed violations of TSCA §§ 5
and 13 involving a variety of chemicals. This audit
payment is in addition to payments totalling $900,000,
plus interest, made by Allied Colloids in settlement of
TSCA violations alleged by EPA in an underlying
enforcement proceeding.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation: EPA issued a complaint
against Bethlehem Steel Corporation for violations of
the PCB Rule at its facility in Sparrows Point, Maryland.
The complaint alleged that Bethlehem Steel: (1)
improperly disposed of PCBs by allowing spills onto the
ground, (2) failed to maintain adequate records of
inspection and maintenance history for leaking PCB
Transformers, (3) failed to conduct daily inspections
after a leak was discovered in numerous PCB
transformers, and (4) failed to repair the source of the
leak and to remediate the contaminated area within 48
hours. EPA sought a total penalty of $ 145,500 for these
violations.
ReadingTuheCorporation: OnJanuary21,1994,EPAand
Reading Tube Corporation (RTC) settled an administrative
penalty action for alleged violations of the PCB Rule at
RTC's Leesport, PA, facility. RTC, a manufacturer of
copper tubing, agreed to pay a cash penalty of $75,000
and to undertake an SEP involving the replacement of 7
PCB Transformers and 74 PCB Capacitors with new non-PCB
Equipment, at an estimated cost of $313,500.
Anzon. Inc.: On June 1, 1994, EPA and Anzon, Inc, a
manufacturer of lead products, settled a TSCA
administrativecomplaint involving violations of the
Inventory Update Rule (IUR). Anzon failed to submit IUR
reports on four chemicals manufactured at its
Philadelphia, PA, plant. Anzon agreed to pay a $57,000
civil penalty, $43,620 of which may be remitted by EPA
upon completion of SEPs to be performed in Anzon's
Philadelphia, PA, and Laredo, TX, facilities. The
Philadelphia project involves the early removal and
disposal of four PCB transformers. The Laredo project
requires increased controls for the capture of antimony
oxide emissions from the facility. These projects have
a combined estimated cost of $198,800.
Columbia Gas: On September 23,1994, Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation agreed to pay a civil penalty
of $4,916,472 in settlement of violations of the TSCA
datingto 1989. ThesettlementinvolvedTSCA violations
in Regions III, IV, and V. Following issuance of a 1992
subpoena, Columbia offered to enter into an expedited
process to cleanup the pipeline and settle TSCA civil
penalties. This settlement, along with a CERCLA
administrative order on consent, resulted from that
process. The administrative complaint alleged three
broad classes of violations: unauthorized use of PCBs in
air compressors at 29 compressor stations spread over
much of the 19,000-mile length of the pipeline system;
regular improper disposal of PCBs to the environment as
a result of liquid blowdowns from these air compressors;
and additional improper disposals (that are not the
resultofaircompressorblowdown)ofPCB-contaminated
liquids from pipeline and air compressors to soils and
sediments at these stations.
VA DeptofFmeiyncvServices OnDecember27,1993,EPA
filed a consent order settling a TSCA administrative
penalty complaint against the Virginia Department of
Emergency Services. Under the terms of the settlement,
the Commonwealth of Virginia agreed to pay a civil
penalty and to perform underground storage tankupgrade
(UST) projects, at an estimated cost of $100,000. The
UST upgrades will significantly reduce the risk of
A-21
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
underground storage tank contamination at Commonwealth
facilities, which was the major focus of EPA's concern
about the Cheatham Annex site.
EPCRA
T.L. Diamond. Spelter. West Virginia: On June 3,1994,
EPAsettledanadministrativeenforcementactionbrought
against T.L. Diamond & Company for violation of §313 of
the EPCRA. T.L. Diamond and Company violated §313 by
failing to file a toxic chemical inventory release form
for zinc dust and zinc oxide in calendar years 1990
though 1992 for its operations at its Spelter, WV, plant.
Response Commission, the Local Emergency Planning
Committee, and the Local Fire Department for reporting
years 1991 and 1992, in violation of EPCRA §§311 and
312. M.G. Industries agreed to pay a $100,000 civil
penalty. At the time, this penalty was the fifth largest
ever obtained for EPCRA §§311/312 violations.
DiversevCoiporation.EastStroudshurg.Pennsvlvania
A Pennsylvania Corp with 63 employees, Diversey is a
manufacturerofindustrialcleaningcompounds. OnApril
27,1992 there was anon-permittedrelease of chorine and
the facility failed to notify the NRC, the Pennsylvania
SERC, or the Monroe County LEPC. EPA and Diversey
Corporation settled the case with an assessed penalty of
The settlement provided for a cash penalty payment of
$41,477, the penalty amount proposed in the complain$43,750,andanagreementthatDiverseywouldundertake
a SEP with a projected cost of $10,974. The SEP involved
Premium Beverage Packers. Wvomissing. Pennsylvania On
August 1,1994. EPA cxecutcdaconscntordcrwith Premium
Beverage Packers, Inc. settling violations of EPCRA §§
311 and 312. The violations involved the presence of two
hazardous chemicals at the facility in excess of
threshold reporting levels (ammonia and carbon dioxide)
for the years 1988 and 1989. Under the terms of the
consent order, Premium Beverage Packers, Inc. agreed to
pay a penalty of $73,011.
Steel Processing. Inc.. Pottstown. Pennsylvania: On
August 14, 1994 EPA signed a CACO settling an
administrative enforcement action brought against Steel
Processing, Inc., located in Pottstown, PA, for
violations of EPCRA §§311 and312. Steel Processing, a
carbon steel sheet manufacturer, failed to submit an
MSDS or listfor hydrochloric acid to the LEPC, SERC, and
the local fire department, in violation of §311 of EPCRA
andfailedto submit an Emergency andHazardous Chemical
Inventory Form for the calendar years 1988, 1989, and
1990, in violation of §312 of EPCRA. An inspection of
the Steel Processing facility revealed that Steel
Processing utilized as much as 617,000 pounds of
hydrochloric acid during those years. The settlement
provided for the payment of a $7,500 penalty.
Messer Greisheim Industries. Inc.. Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania: OnSeptember6,1994EPA signedaCACO
negotiated in settlement of a nine count administrative
complaint issued against Messer Griesheim Industries,
Inc., d/b/a M.G. Industries, Inc., a Philadelphia
welding supply business, for violating the Emergency
Planning andCommiuiiLyRight LoKno\Y Act (EPCRA). M.G.
Industries failed to report to the State Emergency
the donation of computer, software, and other equipment
to the LEPC.
HomerLanghlin China: OnDecember9,1993EPAexecuted
a CACO, with an associated Settlement Conditions
Document, settling an EPCRA administrative action filed
against the Homer Laughlin China Company for violations
of §313 of that Act. The settlement included a
substantial SEP, exceeding $9 million in cost, in which
Laughlin converted their entire china dinner-ware
production system to a lead free process.
Action Manufacturing: On September 28,1994, EPA
settled apenalty complaintagainst Action Manufacturing
in which the company agreed to pay an administrative
penalty of $37,658. The settlement also included a SEP
which required the company to spend at least $93,000 to
replace its current 1,1,1-TCA parts-washing system with
an aqueous-based parts washing system. The new parts
washing system will allow Action to significantly reduce
its use of 1,1,1-TCA and Trichloroethylene (TCE) at its
Philadelphia facility.
FIFRA
DuPont: On September29,1994, EPA andELDuPontde
Nemours (DuPont), Platte Chemical Company (Platte) and
Lesco, Inc. (Lesco) settled an administrative FIFRA
penalty action involving the distribution of Benlate, a
fungicide, whichhadbeen contaminated with atrazine, an
herbicide. The consent order required DuPont and Platte
to pay a total of $1 million in civil penalties.
A-22
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
CERCLA
ColumbiaGas: On September23,1994,EPAenteredintoa
multi-regional CERCLA consent orderwith Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation under which the company will
characterize contamination and perform CERCLA removal
actions selected by EPA at compressor stations and other
locations alongthe Columbia pipeline system. Columbia
estimates that this project will require expenditures of
between $ 15 to 20 million a year for approximately 12
years.
GreenwoodChemical OnJune30,1994EPAissuedanorder
pursuantto § 106 of CERCLA to the Greenwood Chemical
Company and the High Point Chemical Corporation to
implement EPA's Remedial Design for the excavation,
treatment (where necessary), and offsite disposal of
contaminatedsoils at the Greenwood Chemical Site,
locatedapproximately20milesfrom Charlottesville, VA.
Recticon/Allied Steel Site: On March 24, 1994, EPA
issued an order pursuant to § 106 of CERCLA to Highview
Gardens, Inc.; Allied Steel Products Corporation; Allied
Steel Products Corporation of Pennsylvania; and Rockwell
International Corporation for the Recticon Allied Steel
Site, located in Parker Ford, Chester County, PA. This
order requires the performance of Remedial Design and
Remedial Action as called for in EPA's June 30, 1993
Record of Decision for the Site.
Sackville Mills Company: On June 17,1994, Sackville
Mills Company,thepresentandformerowner/operatorof
a closed textile mill in Wallingford, PA, entered into an
administrative order by consent (Order) with EPA to
conduct removal response activities at the former
textile mills facility. The order also prohibited the
PRP from disturbing or excavating areas on the Site which
are suspected to contain anthrax bacteria allegedly
disposed of during the textile operations; required
measures to be taken to identify potential anthrax
contamination in soils; and required removal of anthrax
from a part of an on-Site building.
United Chemical Technologies: On June 27,1994, EPA
issuedaunilateralremovalCERCLA§106orderdirecting
United Chemical Technologies, Inc. ("United"), the
operator of a chemical manufacturing facility in
Bristol, PA, to stabilize and clean up hazardous
substances at a site which was the scene of a massive
explosion and fire on June 21. The order provided a
comprehensive framework for establishing site security,
site stabilization, and identification and proper
handling and disposal of hazardous substances on site.
U.S. v. Lord Corporation fW.D. Penn.V On March 15,
1994, the court entered a consent decree, settling the
United States'claims under CERCLA §§ 106 and 107 for
injunctive relief and reimbursement of costs related to
the Lord Corporation Property portion of the Saegertown
Industrial Area Superfund Site ("Site"). The consent
decree required Lord Corporation to implement the
selected remedy for the Lord Corporation Property
portion of the Site, a remedy estimated to cost $3.4
million. The consent decree also required Lord
Corporation to pay $21,928 in past response costs
incurred by the United States, and to pay certain
categories of the United States' future response costs
associated with the consent decree and Site.
U.S. v. Chromatex (3rd Ci r.): On September29,1994, the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the
United States' interpretation of the statute of
limitationsprovisionofCERCLA. The courtaffirmedthe
district court's February 9, 1994, summary judgment
rulingunder § 107(a) of CERCLA findingthe defendant's
liable for $682,002 in Agency response costs incurred
during a removal action at the site. On appeal, the
defendants argued that EPA had let more than 3 years pass
since completion of the removal action, at the Valmont
Superfund Site and consequently was barred by the
statute of limitations. The Third Circuit rejected this
argument, applying a broad standard to determine when a
removal action was completed. As a result, the court
found that the United States had brought suit for removal
costs within the 3 years of completing the removal
action.
A-23
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
REGION IV
CLEAN AIR ACT
U.S. v. Rohm and Haas. Inc. (W.D. Kv.) On August 2,
1994, a stipulation, settlement agreement and order
(Stipulation) was entered by the court concluding a 1992
CAA Pre-Referral judicial enforcement action against
Rohm & Haas Kentucky, Inc. and provided for the payment
of a $32,500 civil penalty to the United States. Rohm
and Haas operates a specialty chemical CAA processing
plantin Louisville, KY. Rohm and Haas violated § 111(e)
of the act and its implementing regulations codified at
40 C.F.R. Part 60 Subparts A and D when it failed to
monitor andmeasure emissions of nitrogen oxides from a
natural gas boiler located at its plant from July 1989 to
June 1991.
U.S. v. Olin Corporation (E.D. Tenn.V On June 9,1994,
the court entered a consent decree to resolve violations
ofthe mercury standards under the CAA NESHAP by Olin's
Chattanooga facility. The penalty amount was $1
million.
EPA filed a civil complaint alleging violations of the
workpracticestandardsformercury NESHAP,andissued
an agreed order for decontamination of the workers'
homesunder§106ofCERCLA. Asecondamendedcomplaint
in January 1992 alleged additional NESHAP mercury
violations, and added a count for failing to notify the
NRC of the mercury release, a violation of CERCLA
US.v. Crown. Cork & Seal. Inc.(N.D. Miss.) On
January 3,1994, the court entered a consent decree which
settled Crown, Cork & Seal Inc.'s (CC&S's) alleged
violations of (he CAA's PSD requirements andNew Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). The CACO required the
payment ofacivil penalty of$343,000 and required CC&S
to perform three SEPs valued at more than $2 million
aftertax. During June 1987, Crown commenced operations
of a new two-piece can coating facility in Batesville,
MS, without first obtaining a PSD permit, or testing and
reportingcommencementpursuantto requirements under
NSPS.
CLEAN WATER ACT/SDWA
U.S. v. Metro-Dade County, et aL: Concerns regarding
the structural integrity of a sewage pipeline (cross-bay
line) under Biscayne Bay prompted Region IV to initiate
a civil enforcement action in June 1993. Rupture of the
cross-bay line would have caused catastrophic
environmental damage to Biscayne Bay and surrounding
waterbodies. In December, 1993, the government and
Metro-Dade County entered into a partial consent decree
addressing the emergency claim, contingency plans and
shortterm measures. Under this First Partial consent
decree, the County has completed construction ofthe new
cross-bay line (a year ahead of schedule) and the line is
now operational.
In an action filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on June 10, 1993,
the Region sought emergency relief from the court based
on the deteriorated condition of the cross-bay line.
Metro-Dade had experienced some very large sewer spills
due to breaks in lines that were of a similar age and type
as the line under the bay and it was therefore feared
that the cross-bay line could break at any time. Janet
Reno, then the State Attorney, convened a special grand
jury to investigate pollution in the Miami River and the
grand jury concluded that the aged and corroded sewer
system, and the cross-bay line in particular, presented
$10greatest threat to the health of the river.
The action also contains four claims addressing system-
wide unpermitted discharges, improper operation and
maintenance, and reporting violations. The Second and
Final Partial consent decree, which addresses all other
injunctive relief and penalty, is in the last stages of
finalization.
United States v. IMC-Aqrico Company (MJ). Florida) On
April 1, 1994, Region IV submitted a referral to the
Department of Justice asking that a civil judicial
action be filed against IMC-Agrico (IMC) for the
company's alleged violations of Section 301(a) of the
CWA. EPA alleged IMC exceeded its permit effluent limits
for a variety of parameters as well as non-reporting and
stormwaterviolations. IMCownsandoperatesphosphate
A-24
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
rock mines and associated processing facilities in
Florida and Louisiana. Eight of its mineral extraction
operations and its Port Sutton Phosphate Terminal were
the subject of this referral action. The subject IMC
facilities had over 1,500 permit violations since 1988.
On October 17,1994, IMC submitted a signed consent
decree resolving this multi-facility civil referral.
The settlement provides for an up-front payment of
$835,000 and a $265,000 Supplemental Environmental
Project (SEP). The SEP will involve conversion IMC's
scrubber discharge and intake water systems into a
closed loop system (greatly reducing pollution loading
at the Port Sutton facility).
U.S. v. Perdue-Davidson OUCompanv (E.D. Kentucky) On
May 6, 1994, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky required Perdue-Davidson and
Charles Perdue to pay EPA stipulated penalties,
calculated at $3.8 million, and compliance with all
requested injunctive relief. Perdue-Davidson is an oil
production company which produces crude oil from two
stripper-well fields in eastern Kentucky. As a result of
Perdue-Davidson's repeated violations of a prior UIC
administrativeorder on consent, as well as statutory
and regulatory environmental requirements, EPA filed
this multi-media civil referral pursuant to § 301 of the
CWA, § 311 ofthe CWA, § 1423 ofthe SDWA PC) and § 311
of the EPCRA.
On March 10,1994, the government filed a motion for
partial summary judgement on five of the ten claims for
relief in the complaint. In addition, the government
requested injunctive relief and that the Defendants pay
stipulated penalties due to violations of a UIC AOC.
This represents an important court decision requiring
payment of stipulated penalties for violation of a UIC
administrative order on consent, as well as for
corporate officer civil liability for company and
corporate officer violations of § § 3 01 and 311(SPCC)of
the CWA.
In the Matter of Manatee County. FL:: On February 1,
1994, the Regional Administrator ratified the negotiated
settlement in this action, which provided for payment of
a $60,000 penalty. In September 27,1993, EPA initiated
a CWA Class II administrative penalty action against
Manatee CountyunderSection309(g)allegingviolations
of Section 301(a) of the CWA by exceeding the no-
dischargerequirementsofitsNPDES permit. The County
had periodically discharging from its wastewater
treatmentplant into the receiving stream during the
period of June through October 1992. Based on
consideration of the factors identified at Section
309(g)(3), EPA, and following settlement discussions,
the parties reached a negotiated settlement of $60,000.
In the Matter of IMC-Fertilizer. Bartow FL: OnFebruaiy
17, 994, the Regional Administrator ratified the
negotiated settlement in this action, which provided for
a$40,000penalty. InMarch 1993, EPA initiated a CWA
Class II Administrative Penalty Action against IMC
Fertilizer under Section 309(g) alleging violations of
Section301(a) ofthe CWA by exceeding the permit
effluent limits for Dissolved Oxygen, Total Suspended
Solids, Fixed Suspended Solids, Unionized Ammonia, and
pHduringtheperiod of March 1988throughFebruary 1991
at its Haynsworth mining facility. Based on
consideration of the factors identified at Section
309(g)(3), and following settlement discussions, the
parties reached a negotiated settlement with penalty of
$40,000.
In the Matter of Jacksonville Beach. FT / On May 6,1994,
the signed consent agreement was ratified by the
Regional Administrator. This case was the first
regional action against a facility for failure to comply
withthenewstormwaterpermitapplicationrequirements.
In December 1993, EPA initiated a Class I administrative
penalty action against the City of Jacksonville Beach
under Section 309(g) ofthe CWA alleging violations of
Sections 301(a) and 308 ofthe CWA through failure to
submit a timely and complete stormwater permit
application for the City's municipal stormwater system.
Based on consideration of the factors identified at
Section 309(g)(3), and following settlement
discussions, EPA and the Jacksonville Beach reached a
negotiated settlement with a penalty of $3,500.
Oil Pollution Act Enforcement Initiative: In a
concerted drive against contamination ofthe nation's
waters, Region IV participated in a government
enforcement action announced on May 26,1994. This
action was filed against 28 commercial polluters who
discharged oil and other hazardous substances into water
and adjoining shorelines. These actions reinforce the
clear Congressional intent to punish violators of Clean
Water Act provisions prohibiting of oil and hazardous
A-25
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
substance spills and requiring preventative measure
against such spills.
Region IV filed five administrative cases against two
individuals and three corporate commercial entities:
Alamco Inc., (Complaint seeks penalty of $123,942)
located in Clairfield, TN, is an oil and gas exploration
and producing company. It spilled at least 7,300 gallons
of crude oil affecting the Clearfork and the Hickory
Creeks and failed to prepare an SPCC plan.
CumberlandLake Shell, Inc., (Complaintseekspenalty of
$92,387) located in Somerset, Kentucky, is a distributor
of gasoline and petroleum products to service stations;
it spilled at least 200 gallons of diesel affecting
Sinking Creek. Cumberland also failed to prepare an SPCC
plan.
Texfi Industries, Inc., (Complaint seeks penalty of
$24,672) located in Jefferson, Georgia, is a fabric
manufacturer. It spilled at least 1,900 gallons of
diesel affecting an unnamed tributary of the Oconee
River and failed to prepare an SPCC plan.
Wesley Griffith, (Complaintseekspenalty of$78,287) an
independent oil producer, spilled at least 11,130
gallons of oil affecting South Fork of Coles Creek and
failed to prepare an SPCC plan.
JohnD. Herlihy, (Complaintseekspenalty of $37,425) an
independent oil producer, spilled at least 2,100 gallons
of oil affecting Cameron and Middle Fork Creeks.
Herlihy also failed to implement an SPCC plan.
U.S. Environmental Protection A !>enty v. PolkCountv. A
consent agreement and order assessing administrative
penalties was signed by the Regional Administrator on
February 24, 1994, settling this case for a penalty of
$100,000. Region IV issued a Class II administrative
penalty order complaint against Polk County, Florida, on
September301991. The complaint assessed penalties in
the amount of $ 125,000 for alleged discharged without a
valid NPDES permit from the Wilson Acres waste water
treatment plant since at least September 30,1986. EPA
alleged the facility had been continuously discharging
since at least March 20,1983. The agreement provided
that up to $15,000 in penalties to be paid the State of
Florida would be credited toward the penalty in this
case, conditioned on the connection of the Wilson Acres
WWTP to the City ofAuburndale collection system. That
connection has been completed and all discharges from
Wilson Acres WWTP have stopped.
United States v. Citv o f Port St. Joe. Florida: et al.
On August 13, 1994, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida entered a consent decree
settling litigation between the United States and the
City of Port St. Joe, Florida; the St. Joe Forest
Products Company; and the State ofFlorida. The consent
decree provides for the payment of a $25,000 civil
penalty by the City and a $325,000 civil penalty by the
Company, for a total civil penalty of $350,000. This
case, filed as part of the National Pulp and Papermill
Enforcementlnitiative, alleged that the City and the
County violated the federal Clean Water Act. The City
operates a municipal wastewater treatment facility which
discharges treated wastewater into the waters of the
United States, under a permit issued pursuant to the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. EPA alleged that, sinceNovember 1988, the City
repeatedly violated the discharge parameters set in its
NPDES permit. EPA alleged the Company violated the
pretreatmentprohibitions of the Clean Water Act by
contributing pollutants in excessive quantities, which
caused interference and pass through of the City
facility and caused the City to violate its NPDES permit.
RCRA
Holnam.Inc.: A CACO was entered on September30,1994,
resolving an RCRA action filed against Holnam, Inc.
addressing violations of the BIF Rule found in routine
EPA inspections in 1992 and 1993 at two cement kilns
operated in Holly Hill, SC. The company had failed to
make a hazardous waste/Bevill determination on its
cement kiln dust, failed to submit a complete and
accurate Certificate of Compliance for one kiln, and
failed to submit an adequate Waste Analysis Plan. In the
CACO, Holnam agreed to pay apenalty of $670,000, to make
required submissions, and to conduct additional
groundwater monitoring.
ArizonaOiemicalCompanv OnSeptember28,1994,aCACO
was entered settling an RCRA action filed against
Arizona Chemical Company for violations of the BIF Rule.
The violations were identified by a joint EPA and state
inspection at the facility located in Panama City, FL.
The facility had failed to operate within limits
contained in its Certification of Pre-compliance and
A-26
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Certification of Compliance; failed to develop an
inspection schedule, an adequate waste analysis plan,
and a closure plan for one boiler; and failed to conduct
required air emissions monitoring. In settlement, the
company agreed to pay a civil penalty of $79,000 and to
make required submissions.
Giant Cement Com pan v OnFebtuaty 15,1994,aCACOwas
entered settling an RCRA administrative action filed
against Giant Cement Company. The complaint was based on
violations found during an EPA inspection of Giant's
Harleyville, SC, Portland Cement manufacturing
facility. The violations included BIF Rule violations,
as well the facility's failure to make a Hazardous Waste/
Bevill determination for cement kiln dust. The CACO
required Giant to pay a civil penalty of $520,000 and to
implementa cement kiln dust sampling and analysis
protocol approved by the Agency.
Todhunter International. Inc.. d/h/a Florida
Distillers: ACACOwas entered on September30,1994,
settling an action filed in 1993 that found numerous RCRA
violations at facilities in Lake Alfred and Auburndale,
FL, where the Respondentmanufacturesbeverage alcohol
products. The CACO settles this case for $400,000,
$100,000in cash, with up to a $300,000 reduction in the
penalty for implementation of a specified SEP. The SEP,
which will cost more than $1 million, involves
installation of cooling tower equipment, significantly
reducing cooling water withdrawal from the Floridan
aquifer, and the upgrade of a waste water treatment plant
to significantly reduce the loading of nutrients and
BOD.
U.S. v. Gulf States Steel. Inc. (N.D. Ala.) On
September 27,1994, the U.S. District Court entered a
civil consent decree that requires Gulf States Steel
Corporation to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $ 1.1
million. The consent decree also provides for a possible
reduction in the penalty of up to $300,000 for SEPs to be
proposed for EPA approval, as well as extensive
injunctive relief, including corrective action. This
settlement was reached in pre-filing negotiations
pursuant to Exec. Order No. 12778, which requires that
the government make reasonable efforts to settle prior
to litigation.
Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOO. Inc. On
September30,1994, EPA entered into anRCRA §3013 order
on consent with Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC),
Inc., addressing TOC's commercial hazardous waste
incinerator in Roebuck, SC. The order requires TOC to
conduct a systems design and quality control evaluation
of the computer control system which monitors and
controls the incinerator's emissions; and to gather
informationto enable EPA to conduct a site-specific
multi-pathway risk assessment. In addition to agreeing
to perform the work required under the consent order, TOC
has agreed to pay penalties in the amount of $500,000.
Florida Department of T ransportation: ACACOwas
entered on September 20, 1994, settling an
administrative action filed against the Florida
Departmentof Transportation for violations of RCRA at
the Fairbanks Disposal Pit Site in Fairbanks, FL. Under
the CACO, FDOT has agreed to pay a civil penalty of
$2,407,550, of which $170,000 will be paid in cash and
the remainder of which may be satisfied through
performance of 3 SEPs. Under the SEPs, FDOT will
discontinue the application of lead and high VOC content
(or solvent-borne) pavement marking paints and
thermoplastics on all roads constructed and maintained
by FDOT throughoutthe State. The CACO also requires
FDOTtosubmitandimplementanadequateclosure/post-
closure plan.
TSCA
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company/Tenneco.Inc.: InFY 94,
Region 4 negotiated two separate settlement agreements
relating to the Tenneco natural gas pipeline system that
stretches 16,000 miles from Texas and Louisiana to
different parts of the Northeast. On August 10, 1994,
1994, EPA executed a consent agreement and consent order
(CACO) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
with respondents Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and
Tenneco, Inc. The CACO settled an administrative
penalty action that alleged TSCA violations at 42
compressor stations along the pipeline, the multi-
Regional, multi-state settlement required the two
companies to pay a civil penalty of $6.4 million for
violations relating to use and disposal of
poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) dating back to 1979.
The $6.4 million penalty is the largest administrative
penalty ever recovered by the Agency for TSCA
violations.
On the same day, the Region also executed an
administrativeorderonconsent(AOC)underCERCLAwith
the two companies for study and cleanup of PCB
A-27
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
contamination along most of the pipeline. (State
agenciesinNewYorkandPennsylvaniaare independently
addressing contamination at compressor stations within
their respective borders, although the stations in
Pennsylvaniamay be added to the AOC if the respondents
do not conduct the work appropriately.) The value of
this settlement is not certain since it will ultimately
depend on the amount of contamination that is
identified. EPA expects, however, that the response
action will likely cost more than $240 million, thus
making this the largest administrative settlement in
CERCLA history.
The multi-media settlements reflect the Agency's first
coordinated use of CERCLA authority for cleanup with
TSCa authority for administrative penalties. Shortly
after the announcement of these two settlements, Region
3 announced the successful negotiation of two similar
settlements for the Columbia Natural Gas Pipeline.
General Electric Company: OnNovember 1,1993,the
Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) issued its Final
DecisioninEPA's 1989 TSCA PCB case against General
Electric Company (GE). The Final Decision upheld EPA's
position that PCB solvent distillation systems used in
disposing of PCB transformers are subject to PCB
disposal regulations. The decision also clarified that
once PCBs are in a state of disposal, those PCBs are
governedonlyby thePCB disposalregulations andcannot
be simultaneously subjectto PCB use regulations. Based
upon its findings, the EAB assessed a $25,000 penalty
against GE for its PCB disposal violations. The EAB's
Final Decision was appealed by GE and is currently
pending in U.S. District Court.
EPCRA
Gro-Tec.Inc.: On April 1,1994, a CACO was filed for the
payment by Gro-Tec, Inc. of a $12,750 penalty and the
performance of two SEPs. The SEP calls for Gro-Tec,
Inc., to donate at least $21,000 worth of equipment to
IheEatorfon-PutnamCountyEmergencyManagementAgency.
Additionally, it requires the company to undertake
certain construction activities at its facility,
designed to accomplish pollution reduction. The
projected costs of these activities will equal or exceed
$60,000. The complaint, filed April 1,1994 alleged that
Gro-Tec, Inc., a producer of agricultural products, was
in violation of EPCRA §§311 and 312 and charged the
company with failure to submit an MSDS, and complete
emergency andhazardous chemical inventory forms. The
complaint proposed an $85,000 penalty.
EverwoodTreatmentCompany.Inc.: OnAugust29,1994,a
CACO was filed resolving Everwood Treatment Company,
Inc.'s (Everwood's) violations of § 103 of CERCLA and
§304 ofEPCRA. The CACO settled this action for $54,500
and required the Respondent to pay $32,000 (plus
interest) in cash in four installments within 1 year of
the effective date of the CACO. In addition, the CACO
calls for Everwood to implement a SEP which requires it
to expend approximately $225,000 to construct anew wood
treatment plant that is built specifically for the use of
a wood preservative that is not a hazardous waste.
A complaint was filed against Everwood on January 5,
1994, pursuant to §103 of CERCLA and §304 ofEPCRA
alleging that Everwood failed to immediately notify the
NRC of a release of arsenic acid, failed to immediately
notify the SERC of a release of arsenic acid, and failed
to provide a written follow-up emergency notice of the
release to the SERC and the LEPC. Everwood is located in
Irvington, AL, and is in the business of treating wood
with a copper, chromate, arsenate solution.
North American Royalties. Inc- d/h/a Wheland Foundry:
On December20,1993, a CACO was filed which settled an
EPCRA administrative enforcementactionagainstNorth
American Royalties, Inc. d/b/a Wheland Foundry
(Wheland). The CACO required that Wheland pay acivil
penalty of $25,724. In addition, the CACO provided that
Whelandundertake, as a SEP, Ihe purchase of an emergency
response vehicle to be donated to the Hamilton County
(Tennessee) LEPC. The SEP expenditure was estimated at
$102,880.
Ashland Petroleum Company OnMay 10,1994,aCACOwas
filed which settled alleged reporting violations under
§304 ofthe EPCRA. The CACO provided for a $1.56 million
penalty, for which Ashland agreed to pay $312,000 in cash
to EPA, with the remainder of the penalty to be provided
in SEPs valued at over $ 1,248,000 in after tax value. In
addition to the $312,000 cash penalty to the government,
Ashlandwillpay $45,000tothe Cabell-Wayne (WV)LEPC
for its use, and will pay $48,500 to the Kentucky SERC
for computer hardware for the SERC and for various
projects benefitting the Boyd (KY) LEPC. The SEPs
performed in-house at Ashland's Catlettsburg refinery
will total $2,382,500 in actual cost, and include
A-28
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
reducinghydrocarbon emissions from storage tanks,
routing relief valve discharges to a flare, and
performing asbestos abatement projects on site.
FIFRA
Courtaulds Coatings. Inc.: OnNovember 11,1993, EPA
filed a CACO in settlement of FIFRA violations alleged
against Courtaulds Coatings Inc. (Courtaulds), located
in Louisville, KY. The settlement required Courtaulds
to pay a $38,640 penalty and comply with FIFRA and the
pesticidal regulations.
InNovember 1992, EPA filed an administrative complaint
against Courtauld's for selling unregistered pesticidal
products. Eight Porter Paint products in the PorterSept
product line were cited for making pesticidal claims.
PorterSept products contain Intersept, an
antimicrobial. The labels and advertising on this
product inferred that PorterSept products had
antimicrobialproperties. As part of the settlement,
Courtaulds agreed to disconcontinue the violative
advertising, correct the labels, and pay a penalty of
$38,640.
CERCLA
Kerr-McGeeChemical Corporation OnMarch 14,1994, a
CACO was filed to settle an administrative enforcement
action againstKerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (Kerr-
McGee) for violations of CERCLA 103(a). The CACO
required the payment of a $32,940 penalty and the
performance of a SEP. Under the SEP, Kerr-McGee is
required to undertake certain environmental
improvements at its Hamilton, MS, facility which will
reduce the potential for titanium tetrachloride
emissions from its control equipment. The project will
be performed at an estimated cost of $280,000.
ParramoreFertilizer Site in Tifton. Georgia On
December 16,1993, EPA issued aUAO for removal response
activities to Atlantic Steel Industries, Inc., Florida
Steel Corporation, Georgetown Steel Corporation, Owen
Electric Steel Company of South Carolina, Inc., and U.S.
Foundry & Manufacturing Corporation. The UAO requires
these steel companies to take over clean up of the
Parramore Fertilizer Site in Tifton, GA. The Site is
contaminated with emissions control dust (EC Dust)from
electric arc furnaces, a RCRA listed hazardous waste
(K061), which was generated by the steel companies.
Distler Farm and Distler Brickyard Superfiind Sites in
Kentucky: On January 3,1994, EPA forwarded a signed
consent decree to the Department of Justice for lodging,
reflecting the settlement of cost recovery actions
arising out of the Distler Brickyard and Distler Farm
Superfund Sites in Hardin and Jefferson Counties, KY.
Under the terms of the consent decree, four groups of
defendants and the owner of the Brickyard Site will pay
$6,355,000 for past costs incurred by the United States
and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, as well as all
additional costswhichEPA and the Commonwealth incur in
performing remedial actions at the Sites. A core group
of generator defendants will be responsible for paying
the costs of the remedial action as they are incurred.
The three other groups and the owner of the Brickyard
will contribute fixed sums in varying amounts.
.Tadco/HughesSite. Gaston County.North Carolina: On
November 1,1993, EPA executed two consent decrees, one
of which was previously executed by each member of the
Jadco/Hughes Site Steering Committee, the other being
previously signed by AKZO Coatings, Inc., (AKZO) and
Jadco, Inc., (Jadco), both of which are late-settling
parties. The Steering Committee's decree provides that
its members will reimburse EPA past costs in the amount
of $555,000, and the AKZO and Jadco decree provides for
reimbursementof$75,534.04(byAKZO)and$151,919.16
(by Jadco).
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. Site in Albany.
Georgia: On October22,1993,four PRPswhichwerenamed
as Respondents in aUAO for Remedial Action/Remedial
Design (RD/RA) for Operable Unit 1 at the T.H.
Agriculture & Nutrition Co., Site (the Site) provided
notice to EPA that they intended to comply with the UAO.
UAOs were issued to five PRPs at the Site after no PRP
submitted a good faith offer in response to a special
notice letter. One of the PRPs, T.H. Agriculture &
Nutrition Co., Inc., (THAN) has indicated that it will
comply with the UAO and will undertake the work required
to implement the Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1
atthe Site. Three other PRPs which received UAOs have
indicated that they will propose a level of
participation to THAN and enter into negotiations with
THAN to reach agreement about an appropriate level of
participation in the RD/RA, as required by participate
and cooperative provisions of the UAO. A fourth PRP,
Phillips Electronics North America Corporation, the
A-29
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
parentcompany ofTHAN whichexercisespervasive control
over THAN, has indicated that it will not comply with the
UAO because it does not believe that it is liable under
CERCLA.
Helena Chemical Company for Fairfax. South Carolina
Site: On Thursday, May 26,1994, EPA issued a unilateral
order for the performance of Remedial Design and
Remedial Action to Helena Chemical Company ordering
Helenato begin remediation at the above-referenced
Site.
Rochester Property Site in Travelers Rest. South
Carolina: On May 17, 1994, EPA issued a unilateral
administrative order for Remedial design/remedial
action to Colonial Heights Packaging, Incorporated, to
conduct groundwater remediation at the Rochester
Property Superfund Site located in Travelers Rest,
Greenville County, SC. Accordingtothemostrecentcost
documentation,EPAhasexpendedatotalof$303,446.50
through September30,1993. EPA will seektorecoverall
past response costs and will seek a commitment from
Colonial Heights to pay all future response costs.
Jones Tire and Battery Site in Birmingham. Alabama: On
May 3,1994, EPA formally requested DO J to concur in a de
miminis Settlement with 79 small quantity generators at
the Jones Tire & Battery Site in Birmingham. AL. Cleanup
is underway at the Site and is being conducted by large
quantity generators under a UAO. The de miminis
Settlementoffer was initially made to 219 PRPs, ofwhich
79 indicated their desire to accept the settlement.
T own send Saw Chain Superfund Site in Pontiac. Richland
County. North Carolina: EPA issued a unilateral
administrative order to Textron, Inc., to conduct an
Interim Action Remedial Action to contain and control
chromium contaminated groundwater atthe Site. The UAO
was signed on May 4,1994, and was issued to Textron,
Inc., the owner of the Homelite-Textron chainsaw chain
manufacturing facility at the Site.
Because unrestricted migration of the contaminated
groundwater at the Site may pose a possible threat to
private water-well users living near the Site, EPA
determined that an Interim Action Remedial Action was
necessary to control and contain the contaminated
groundwater plume. Due to the time-critical nature of
the proposed action, EPA and Textron, Inc., determined
that a unilateral administrative order, instead of a
traditional consent decree, would be more appropriate as
the enforcementdocumentusedto implementthe Interim
Action Remedial Action.
Yellow Water Road Superfiind Site. Baldwin. Duval County.
Florida: On April 21,1994, EPA notified 102desettlors
thatthe de minimis settlement for the Yellow Water Road
Site was finalized. The public comment period for this
administrative settlement expired on April 11,1994, and
nopubliccommcntsv\crcrccci\cdv\hichcauscdEPAtoscck
modification of or to withdraw from the settlement. The
settlementwill recover approximately $300,000in EPA's
response costs, which currently total over $1,897,000.
In addition, the settlement will recover approximately
$1.3 millionin future response costs andpremium money.
Smith'sFarm Site in BiillittCounty.Kentuckv: OnApril
22, 1994, EPA issued unilateral administrative orders,
requiring 10 PRPs for the Smith's F arm Superfund Site to
conducttheRemedialDesign/RemedialActionfor Operable
Unit Two. On October 28,1993, special notice letters
were sent to 41 PRPs for Operable Unit Two Remedial
Design/Remedial Action atthe Smith's Farm Superfund
Site. These letters envisioned a global settlement
including the remediation of both operable units at the
Site and the payment of past costs, which are currently
the subject of ongoing cost recovery litigation. Based
upon the PRPs failure to present an acceptable final
offer for settlement of the case, unilateral
administrative orders were issued to all PRPs who did not
qualify for ade minimis settlement at the Site.
Cedartown Battery Superfund Site in Polk County.
Georgia: On March 31, 1994, EPA referred to the
Department of Justice an action against nine (9)
potential owner/operator/generator Defendants to
recover approximately $1.5 million in removal response
costs for a Fund-lead removal action at the Cedartown
Battery Superfund Site (Site).
The referral requests that DOJ file suit against AmSouth
Bank, N.A., the current owner and operator at the time
the disposal occurred, together with one (1) operator
and seven (7) generators who supplied batteries to the
Site.
Enterprise Recovery Systems Site in Bvhalia.
Mississippi On March 23, 1994, EPA executed an
administrative order on consent for de miminis
settlement with 275 small quantity generators, regarding
A-30
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
liability for an ongoing removal action at the
Enterprise Recovery Systems Site in Byhalia, Marshall
County, MS. The settling parties included 271 private
Respondents and 4 settling Federal Agencies. The
proposed settlement provides a release from liability
and contribution protection for the settling parties
while raising over $500,000 to assist major generators
in performing the removal action projected to cost
approximately $1.3 million.
The City of Cedartown. Polk County. Georgia: On March
25, 1994, EPA issued a unilateral administrative order
to the City of Cedartown, Polk County, and 12 private
companies for remedial response activities at the
CedartownMunicipal Landfill Site in Cedartown, GA, some
60 miles northwest of Atlanta. The UAO requires the
Respondents to maintain the existing landfill cover,
repair seeps, maintain institutional controls including
a ban on new drinking water wells in the area, and
monitor groundwater quality through sampling and
analysis.
Bypass601GroundwaterContaminationSite.Caharrus
County. Concord. North Carolina: Inaccordance with the
recent Superfund Administrative Improvements
Initiatives, EPA has signed a consent decree at the
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site, Cabarrus
County, Concord, NC. Entering into a precedent setting
settlement which embodies $10.1 million of
Preauthorization Mixed Funding, a separate tie minimis
settlement, and aunique de micromis settlementincluded
within the consent decree.
Through detailed records and ledgers, approximately
4,000 PRPs were identified at the Site, including
approximately 2,400 de micromis Parties. Of the non-de
micromis parties, only approximately 500 PRPs were
located, approximately 150 of which will be treated as de
minimis, and each of these parties received Special
Notice Letters in August 1993. The remedy selected for
the Site includes soil solidification and stabilization,
as well as an aggressive pump-and-treat system. The
remedy is expected to cost approximately $40 million,
but could escalate to as much as $ 100 million, depending
on the soil quantities to be treated. Additionally, past
costs at the Site currently total approximately $4
million.
EPA has entered into a consent decree with the Steering
Committee at the Site which provides for
PreauthorizationMixedFunding of approximately $ 10.1
million under the newly promulgated regulations at 40
C.F.R. Part 307, because of the large orphan share at the
Site. As part of the settlement, EPA will recover 100
percent of its outstanding past costs. Additionally,
EPA has negotiated auniquetfe micromis settlement
within the consent decree, which provides for a covenant
by the Settling Defendants notto sue de micromis parties
at the Site. This approach achieves the policy goal of
protecting small parties from contribution suits and
unnecessarytransactional costs with a relatively low
administrative burden on the Agency.
This settlement also includes a separate traditional
/«/7«w2/.sscLtlcmcnt. The de miminis settlement will be
embodied in a separate AOC, and will follow the new HQ
guidance and matrix approach. The de miminis settlement
will also include the same covenant language in the
consent decree regarding de micromis parties, thus
affording these parties greater protection.
Stoller Chemical Company Site in Jericho. South
Carolina: On January 21, 1994, UAOs were sent to
approximately 60 PRPs atthe Stoller Chemical Company
Site in Jericho, SC, requiring the implementation of a
removal action. EPA documented the release of hazardous
substances from the facility during a Site Assessment in
June 1992 and determined that a removal action was
necessary.
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Site in Albany. Dougherty
County.Georgia: TheU.S.DistrictCourtfortheMiddle
District of Georgia, Albany Division, entered the
RemedialDesign(RD)/RemedialAction(RA)consentdecree
for the above-referenced Site on August 10, 1994.
Pursuant to the consent decree, Defendant Bridgestone/
Firestone, Inc., will perform soil and groundwater
remediation estimated to cost $2 million. In addition,
the Defendant agrees to reimburse EPA for all of its past
costs totalling $348,333 and for all of its future
oversight costs.
WootfolkChemicalWorks]NPLSite.FortValley.Georgia:
OnMay23,1994,EPAissuedaCERCLA §106UAOto three
PRPs atthe Woolfolk Chemical Works Site. The order
requires the PRPs to implement the RD/RA for Operable
Unit 1, which will address groundwater contamination at
the Site.
A-31
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
One PRP, Canadyne-Georgia Corporation (CGC), is the
former owner/operator of a pesticide formulation plant
at the Site and current owner of a portion of the Site.
The other two PRPs are the first and second-level parent
corporations of CGC.
CGC has submitted a notice of its intent to comply with
the UAO, which will cost approximately $4 million.
Canadyne Corporation and Reichold, Limited have
indicated that they will not comply with the UAO.
Hercules009LandfillSite.Brunswick.GlynnCounty.
Georgia: OnNovember29,1993,theU.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia entered a consent
decree executed by Hercules, Incorporated, (Hercules),
the EPA, and the Department of Justice. Under the terms
of the consent decree, Hercules will conduct the final
remedial design and remedial action, and reimburse the
government for all past and future costs associated with
the Site. Under the terms of the consent decree entered
by the Court onNovember 29,1993, Hercules will perform
the remedial action enumerated in the Record of Decision
designated OU#l. The remedial action will consist of a
removal action to consolidate soils, and a treatability
study followed by in-situ stabilization of toxaphene-
contaminated soil. The remedy is expected to cost about
$ 10 million; the
settlement also requires Hercules to reimburse the
government for all past costs ($544,199) as well as 100
percent of all future response and oversight costs.
U.S. v. Otto Skipper (E.D.. N.C.): On October 21,1993,
the courtentered a CERCLA consentdecreeresolvingthe
liability of the McLambs and Investors Management
Corporation (IMC) with respect to the Potter's Pits
Site. EPA's past costs total $1,822,477, while
projected future costs total $ 10 million. Within 30 days
of entry of the decree, the McLambs, who are also the
sole representatives of the now defunct IMC, will pay a
lump sum of $230,000 to resolve their liability and the
liability of IMC.
NationalSouthwireAluminumSuperfundSitein Kentucky
On April 19, 1994, the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky entered a consent decree
for performance of an interim remedial action at the
National Southwire Aluminum (NS A) site in Hawesville,
KY. Underthe terms of the settlement, NSA will perform
interim cleanup actions and reimburse EPA $407,544 in
past response costs.
Prairie Metals and Chemical Company Site (Prairie.
Mississippi): On September28,1994, EPA referred to the
Department of Justice an action against two potential
owner Defendants to recover approximately $1.4 million
in costs for a Fund-lead removal action conducted at the
Prairie Metals and Chemical Company Site (Site) in
Prairie, MS. Beginning in 1973 and continuing until
February 1977, the Site was operated as a chromium metal
production facility. Operations at the Site resulted in
serious levels of chromium in the Site soils and surface
water. Between 1989and 1991, EPA conductedaFund-lead
removal action at the Site expanding approximately $ 1.4
million.
A-32
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
REGION V
REGION V's CONTEMPT INITIATIVE
As part of an effort to crack down on violators of
Federal consent decrees and orders, Region V and DOJ took
eightenforcementactionsintheMidwestduringFY94. In
addition, Illinois EPA, the Illinois Office of the
Attorney General, Ohio EPA, and the Ohio Office of the
Attorney General also recently took separate actions to
enforce State decrees and orders. The following are
summaries of the FY94 Regional cases.
Anthony Chambers (Midland. MP: Anthony Chambers
operated two underground-injection wells in Midland
County without the permits required under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. He failed to comply with an
administrative order requiring that he pay a 48,650
civil penalty and either demonstrate the mechanical
integrity of his wells or plug and abandon them. The
United States filed an enforcement action on June 7,1994
against Mr. Chambers in U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Michigan. Through this action, EPA seeks to
enforce the terms of the order and to collect penalties
for noncompliance with the order and the Act.
BigDCanipground/Rodehaughs(Ashtahula.OH) Josephand
Glenna Rodebaugh failed to comply with a March 1994
access agreement at the Big D Campground Superfund site.
The Rodebaughs refused to allow EPA access to their 170-
acre property, where EPA plans to install four
groundwater-extraction wells to intercept contaminated
groundwater leaching from the campground. After EPA
referred this matter to DOJ, the Rodebaughs agreed to
provide access to their property at the campground site.
No penalties were sought in the agreement.
Petoskev Site (Petoskey. MP: The PRP at this Superfund
site, Petoskey Manufacturing Co. (PMC), filed for
protection under bankruptcy laws. PMC agreed in
bankruptcy court to reimburse EPA for some of the costs
the Agency incurred at the Petoskey Superfund site, but
was delinquent in its payments. On May 19, 1994, the
United States filed a motion for conversion or dismissal
in the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Michigan.
Copperweld Steel (Mahoning. OHV Copperweld Steel Co.
uses an electric arc furnace process to manufacture
steel and steel alloys. This process generates furnace
dust (a hazardous waste). This waste is disposed of in
a landfill at the site. In 1986, a complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio,
against Copperweld for failing to obtain either interim
status or apermitunderRCRA as well as for other RCRA
violations. A May 1990 consentdecree with Copperweld
required numerous compliance activities including
closure and post-closure care of the landfill. On
November22, 1993, Copperweld filed a Chapter 11
petition for bankruptcy. In a proof of claim filed on
April20,1994, with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court,Northern
District of Ohio, the United States is seeking to enforce
the terms of the 1990 decree. Specifically, EPA is
seeking the payments lhat Copperweld committed to make
to the site's post-closure trust fund.
Midwestern Drum Services(Venice.IIA InNovember
1989, EPA filed an administrative complaint against
MidwesternDrum Services,Inc.,forRCRA violations. A
December 1990 administrative agreement resolved the
complaint and required that $112,125 in civil penalties
be paid in six installments. Midwestern Drum failed to
make full, timely payments for the last four
installments. It now owes approximately $74,000 (not
including interest and late payment charges). On
September 13,1993, the company filed for Chapter 11
reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the
Southern District of Illinois. On February 4,1994, DOJ,
on behalf of EPA, filed a proof-of-claim with the
bankruptcy court seeking payment of the amount owed
under the administrative agreement and additional
penalties for noncompliance.
Silvertone Plating Company (Ypsilanti. MP: Silvertone
generates spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions
containing chromic acid and cyanide, along with other
hazardous wastes. On October 15,1992, the United States
filed a complaint against the company for its repeated
failure to fulfill its obligations under an April 1988
administrative agreement with EPA. Specifically,
Silvertone failed to submit and carry out a closure plan
for its facility, remove all hazardous waste in 90 days,
and comply with applicable hazardous waste regulations.
A-33
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Silvertone had agreed in a May 1993 consent decree to
comply with these obligations, to submit and carry out a
closure plan and to pay a $1,000 civil penalty.
GTE North (Belvedere. TT .V Under a March 19,1993
consent decree, GTE Norlh was required to reimburse EPA
for $575,000 in costs related to cleanup activities at
the Belvedere Municipal Landfill Superfund site.
Although the decree required GTE North to pay by April
1993, EPA did not receive payments until late July 1993.
The decree carried a proviso that GTE North would pay
stipulated penalties of $1,000 a day for each day of
violation. In response to EPA's demand, GTE North has
tentatively agreed to pay $30,000 in stipulated
penalties, in addition to another $10,500 in interest
payments.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Burns Harbor. IN): This
matter arose from U.S. EPA's discovery that Bethlehem
Steel Corp. was in violation of a May 1991 partial
consent decree. The violations involved visible
emissions from a coke oven battery. On December 3 0,
1993, EPA advised Bethlehem of the violations and
assessed stipulated penalties of $255,750. Bethlehem
quickly responded by paying in full the entire
stipulated penalty, and the matter was resolved without
litigation.
ILLINOIS CASES
Illinois EPA took action against two violators for
contempt: Robert Krilich d/b/a Lakemoor Building
Associates(Lakemoor,IL)andEnamelors&Japannersof
Chicago.
OHIO CASE
The State of Ohio took a contempt action against Union
Cheese Co. of Holmes County.
CLEAN AIR ACT
FY94 was a highly successful year for Region V's air
enforcement program, marked by record levels of
initiated actions and administrative resolutions.
Increasingly, these accomplishments flow from efforts to
target Federal enforcement activity. In 1994, the
Region targeted sources located in specific geographic
areas that have high concentrations of industry, a
history of environmental insults, and are often
significant for environmental justice reasons. Also
targeted were sources that are subject to the many new
regulatory requirements of the Clean Air Act, and
industrial categories which are technically complex.
B&W Investment Properties. Inc.. and Louis Wolf: On
October 24, 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit upheld a February 17, 1994, District
Court's decision that B&W Investment Properties Inc.,
(B&W), Chicago, and Louis Wolf should pay acivil penalty
of $ 1.675 million. The Appellate Court also upheld the
District Court's September 30,1992, decision to grant
the Government's motion for summary judgment on
liability.
The case involved an improper asbestos removal project
which took place in August 1990, at a former factory
complex in Cicero, Illinois. The property was owned by
Mr. Louis Wolf and managed by B&W. Asbestos removal
operations began at the site without the prior notice
required by U.S. EPA's asbestosNESHAP regulations. The
work practices used in the removal also violated the
NESHAP regulations. In late August 1990, EPA issued an
administrative order requiring compliance with the
NESHAP regulations at the site. The buildings, at that
time, were unsecured and located adjacent to the
terminal of a Chicago Transit Authority commuter rail
line. Transients occasionally used the buildings in the
complex for shelter.
LouisWolfandB&Wargued that they werenevergivena
notice of violation prior to the filing of the complaint.
B&W andLouis Wolf also argued thatthey were not owners
or operators as those terms are defined in the
regulations. They also argued that they had no prior
knowledge of the renovation project. Both the District
Court and the Court of Appeals found the arguments
irrelevant or unpersuasive. B&W and Louis Wolf
challenged the size of the penalty awarded by the
District Court after a trial on the penalty.
The Court assessed fines of $1,675,000 against both
defendants, but reduced Mr. Wolfs liability to
$1,500,000 based on his inability to pay a higher
penalty. The penalties were assessed only for the work
practice violations of the asbestos regulations. No
penalty was assessed for failing to provide EPA prior
notice of the project because, in part, Mr. Wolf was in
the hospital at the time of the violation and the penalty
A-34
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
already imposed for the work practice violations had
exhausted his ability to pay additional penalties.
(SIC/N/A)
New Boston Coke Corp. (S.D. Ohio) In October 1993,more
than 3 years after the government filed a motion in
Federal Court (S.D. Ohio) to compel New Boston Coke Corp.
(New Boston) to comply with a 1986 consent order at its
New Boston, OH, a major modification to the consent
decreewas entered with the court. In the settlement,
New Boston agreed to maintain compliance at its coke oven
battery, rebuild a major portion of the rest of the
plant, and install equipment to control the emission of
hazardous benzene. As a result of the rebuild, numerous
leakingprocess vessels and storage tanks were to be
replaced, eliminating wastewater discharges to the Ohio
River. In addition, wastewater treatment equipment is
to be installed to treat other coke plant wastewater,
which had been discharged to the atmosphere as steam.
The agreement also assesses a $250,000 civil penalty.
(SIC/3312)
U.S. v. Consolidated Papers. Inc. (Wisconsin Rapids.
WD: An October 19,1993, consentdecree (U.S. District
Court, Western District of Wisconsin) settles the Clean
Air Act case against Consolidated Papers, Inc. (CPI).
CPI must achieve, demonstrate and maintain compliance
with the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) regulations andpay a $510,000 civil penalty. The
case arose from CPI's violation of the particulate
limits contained in the PSD permit for its lime kiln.
The case was filed in September 1992 (after a notice of
violation) as part of the Agency's pulp and paper
industry initiative. (SIC/2611)
Monitor Sugar Co. (E.D. Mich.V Monitor Sugar Co. has
agreed to pay $ 1.06 million to the State of Michigan and
the Federal Government after reaching a settlement with
the DOJ. The agreement ends the court case against
Monitor Sugar brought by EPA for violations of a 1987
consent judgment. Specifically, on January 7,1993, the
District Court for the Eastern District for Michigan
heldMonitorSugar in contemptforfailingto comply with
thejudgmentandordered the company to pay $478,500 in
stipulated penalties. Following the court decision,
Monitor agreed to settle two outstanding issues for
$581,500 and forego appealing the decision. In the past
year, Monitor Sugar replaced its three coal-fired
boilers with three new natural gas-fired boilers. This
change alone is expected to eliminate the ongoing
opacity violations of the old boilers. (SIC/2063)
Stern Enterprises. Inc.. et al. (U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio/Eastern Division): Under
this July 18, 1994, consent decree with Stern
Enterprises, Inc., Elie Wrecking Co., Obie Elie, Herbert
Sugarman and the executors of the Estate of Ernest Stern
must pay a $205,000 civil penalty for asbestos
violations at a Cleveland facility. Additionally, the
consent decree requires the owners to do what citizens,
city officials and local judges unsuccessfully demanded
for years-abate all the asbestos at the facility. The
settlement was especially significant because it
obtained relief for minority and low-income persons who
are disproportionately affected by the environmental
hazards posed by asbestos.
This case was unique because it was the first time the
Governmenthas alleged in a Clean Air Act judicial
complaint that the stripping activities conducted by
vandals in a vacant building constitute a "renovation,"
as defined in the regulations thus subjecting the owners
of the facility to a civil judicial penalty. After
vigorous opposition, the defendant finally agreed to pay
the Region's second largest civil penalty for an
asbestos NESHAP case for a judicial case. Furthermore,
the defendants have agreed to remove all remaining
asbestos in the facility at a cost of $1 million.
(SIC/N/A)
CLEAN WATER ACT
LTV Steel (East Chicago. IN) OnFebruary 1,1994, EPA
approvedLTV'scourt-ordered,sedimentremediationand
disposal plan. It outlines the removal of all of the
oil-contaminatedsediment(approximately 110,000cubic
yards) from LTV's No. 2 intake flume, located off Lake
Michigan. The remediation project which began in July
1994 consists of removing sediment (via diver-assisted
vacuuming of the sediment) and de-oiling/de-watering it
(via coagulation/flocculation in conjunction with final
sand-filtering of the discharge and belt filter pressing
of the sludges). The de-oiled/de-watered solids are
being disposed of in a special-waste landfill in Wyatt,
IN. Oils from the sediment are being recycled back into
the facility's waste oil reclamation system. The final
discharge of any waters from the remediation project are
sent through an NPDES-permitted outfall. LTV's
estimated $3 million remediation is part of the Region's
A-35
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Northwest Indiana initiative. (SIC/3312/blast furnace/
steel works/rolling.)
.1MB! Jrhan DevdopmentCompanv(C]olumb»s.OH) AJanuav
1994 consent decree (U.S. District Court in Columbus,
OH) resolved all Clean Water Act allegations against JMB
Urban Development Co., Chicago. EPA alleged thatthe JMB
violated Sections 301 and 404 of the Act by discharging
dredge and fill materials into approximately 37 acres of
wetlands adjacent to Olentangy River during the initial
development of a shopping mall. JMB must mitigate the
violation by constructing an 80-acre wetland to be
donated as an educational facility to the local school
district. The total injunctive relief in excess of $ 1
million, includes a civil penalty of $200,000 also paid
by the defendant. (SIC/1542/general contractor, non-
residential buildings.)
CityofMiddletownfOHV AFebruary 1994conscntdccrcc
(U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio/
Eastern Division) resolves the combined NPDES,
pretreatment,and wetlands case against the City of
Middletown. The City's wastewater treatment plant was
cited for past NPDES effluent limit violations (total
suspended solids, fecal coliform, and ammonia), failure
to adequately carry out its approved pretreatment
program, and filling in a river channel of the Great
Miami River to expand a City park. The City contracted
for professional services to administer its pretreatment
program andmadeplantimprovementscosting$209,000.
A total civil penalty of $288,000 was assessed—$188,000
for CWA §402 violations, and $ 100,000 for CWA §404
violations. (SIC/4952/ sewerage systems).
WaynfCounty-WyandattefMTlWastewaterTregtmaifPlant
A May 1994 consent decree (U.S. District Court, Eastern
DistrictofMichigan/SouthernDivision)resolvedWayne
County's water violations at the Wyandotte wastewater
treatment plant and tributary sewer systems. In 1987,
the Government filed suit against Wayne County and 13
tributary communities for illegally discharging
untreated wastewater into the Detroit River and Lake
Erie. The defendants paid a $413,000 civil penalty
(equally divided between the United States and the State
of Michigan). Injunctive relief will consist of sewer
system rehabilitation, plant improvements, and
construction of a tunnel storage system for overflows.
The estimated $230 million project will take about 6
years to complete. This case is located within the
SoutheastMichiganlnitiative area. (SIC/4952/sewerage
systems).
IBP. Inc. (.Toslin. IL) A July 26,1994, consent decree
(U.S. District Court in Rock Island, IL) resolved all
outstanding violations alleged by U.S. EPA and Illinois
EPA in their respective complaints against IBP, Inc. of
Joslin, IL. The Agencies alleged that IBP had repeatedly
violated the effluent limits of its NPDES permit for
ammonia-nitrogen,total suspended solids, and fecal
coliform. IBP must pay civil penalties of $250,000 to
the United States and $30,000 to the State, expand its
current wastewater treatment system and install
equipment to treat ammonia-nitrogen. The case is
significant because IBP was unsuccessful in its attempt
shielditselffrom enforcement by adjudicating its NPDES
permitlimits. (SIC/2011/meatpackingplants and 3111/
leather tanning & finishing.)
Appleton Papers (Appleton. WD: A July 1994 consent
decree with Appleton Papers, Inc. (U.S. District Court
in the Eastern District of Wisconsin) resolved this 1992
pretreatment case. EPA had cited the facility for
violating bypass provisions and local limits for
aluminum, copper, zinc andpH. Injunctive reliefwas not
required because the company has maintained consistent
compliancesince it installed the necessary treatment
plant and pretreatment equipment. The civil penalty
assessed was $670,000, plus interest from the date of
lodging. (SIC/2671/coated and laminated packaging.)
Commonwealth Edison Company. Inc. (Chicago. IL) EPA's
August 1994consentorderto Commonwealth Edison Co.
(ComEd), Chicago, resolved this case involving Section
301 and404 violations. ComEd had discharged dredge and
fill materials into 2 acres of wetlands in South Chicago.
The consent agreementrequires ComEd to pay a $ 10,000
civil penalty and to contribute a minimum of $90,000 to
theNatureConservancyforthepurchaseandpreservation
of the Indian Boundary Prairie in Markham, IL.
(SIC/4911/electrical services).
MULTIMEDIA CASES
Taracorp IndustriesfGi-aniteCitv. IL) On September
19, 1994, the U.S. Southern District Court of Illinois'
decision resolved a multimedia civil action filed
against Taracorp Industries, Inc., of Granite City, IL.
EPA had alleged that Taracorp violated the Clean Water
Act (excessive discharges of lead and antimony to
A-36
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
Granite City's wastewater treatment plant) and RCRA
(financial assurance violation). The Court awarded a
cash civil penalty of $201,850 and $199,500 forthe RCRA
and CWA violations, respectively. No injunctive relief
was necessary since Taracorp completed installing the
required pretreatment system before the trial.
Importantly, the Court rejected Taracorp's argument that
its delay in installing the treatment system caused
economic detriment (rather than benefit) due to
inflation, higher fees and equipment costs. As the Court
ruled these higher costs resulted directly from
defendant's noncompliance and deemed it "inappropriate
to view as mitigation a cost that the defendant incurred
only because itdidnotcomply with the Clean Water Act."
On September 30,1994, Taracorp filed a motion to amend
the conclusions of law and judgment on the CWA count.
Region V filed a motion in opposition in October 1994.
To date, the Court has not ruled on EPA's motion. This
case is located within the Gateway (East St. Louis)
Initiative area. (SIC/3356/roll, draw & extruded
nonferrous).
Gl idden Com pan v( St ion gsvi I le.O H) InDecember1993,
Region V settled enforcement actions under TSCA and
FIFRAagainstGliddenCo.forimportinganddistributing
an unregistered pesticide. Glidden had made a series of
self disclosures to EPA regarding violations of TSCA §§
5, 8, 12, and 13. This case marks the first time that
Region V has taken simultaneous actions for violations
of both TSCA and FIFRA. Glidden paid a total penalty of
$290,100. (SIC/2851)
EPCRA
Vie De France (Bensenville. IL) On February 14,1994,
The Region filed an administrative complaint seeking a
$247,140penalty againstVie De France, Bensenville, IL,
for failing to report to authorities both its release of
anhydrous ammonia and its storage of ammonia. The
complaintaddresses Vie De France's May 1991 release of
about4,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia due to a broken
pipe in the refrigeration system. Employees were
evacuated and the doors of the plant were opened to vent
the ammonia. Vie De France notified the National
Response Center and the State Emergency Response
Commission (SERC) 26 days after the release but never
notified the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC).
The company submitted a written follow-up report to the
SERC 43 days after the release, but never a written
follow-up report to the LEPC.
The maximum quantity of ammonia stored at the facility
during each of the calendaryears 1989-1991 was 5,000
pounds. Ammonia is an extremely hazardous substance
with a threshold planning quantity of 500 pounds. The
facility has never submitted Material Safety Data Sheets
under Section 311 of EPCRA and has never filed a Tier
report under Section 312 of EPCRA to the SERC, LEPC, or
local fire department. (SIC/2051)
HRR Enterp rises. Inc. (Chicago. IL) OnMarch28,1994,
the Region filed an administrative complaint seeking a
$186,450 penalty against HRR Enterprises, Inc. (a
division of Kane-Miller Corp. Chicago) for failing to
immediately report a toxic release. In July 1992, HRR
Enterprises had released 200to 300 pounds of anhydrous
ammonia but failed to notify Federal, State and Local
emergency-response officials for more than 24 hours.
EPA further alleges that HRR Enterprises failed to file
aMaterial Safety Data Sheetfor anhydrous ammonia. HRR
Enterprises did not file an Emergency and Hazardous
Chemical Inventory Form from 1987-1990 and filed late
reports 1991. (SIC/2079)
ShdlQjlCompany'sWoodRiverManufacturingComplex
(Roxana. IL): The $431,312 penalty required by this
September 1994 consent agreement with Shell Oil Co.'s
Wood River Manufacturing Complex, Roxana, IL, is the
highest to date for violations of CERCLA 103(a) and EPCRA
304. In a 1992 compliant, EPA had alleged that 57
separate violations arose from Shell's failure to
immediately notify the proper Federal, State and local
emergency authorities about a number of separate
releases at various locations. EPA cited Shell for air
releases of benzene, hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan
and sulfur dioxide, and a sulfuric acid release to the
ground. The Region also cited Shell for failing to
provide emergency follow-up notices after each release.
Shell Oil's answer to EPA's complaint claimed that many
of the releases were Federally permitted. The company
interpreted CERCLA 101 (10)H to meanthathaving apermit
or being subject to a control regulation exempted it from
CERCLA 103(a)cmcrgcncv notification requirements. The
company also claimed that the hazardous substances
released were fractions of petroleum and thus exempt
under CERCLA. EPA contended that individual chemicals
A-37
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
were released. (SIC/2911,4612,5541,1311,2821, and
1221)
ConsumersPower Co. (West Olive.MD: A September 1994
consent agreement resolved EPA's administrative
complaintagainstConsumersPowerCo.,West01ive,MI,
for EPCRA violations. The company agreed to carry out
three supplemental environmental projects (SEP's) at a
total estimated cost of $247,741.50. The projects are:
(1) convert heat exchangers from ethylene glycol to
propylene glycol which is 300 times less toxic; (2) send
information on EPCRA requirements (via mail) to an
estimated 3,000 facilities in Ingham, Kalamazoo, and
Ottawa Counties; and (3) conduct an outreachprogram on
the EPCRA 302 notification requirement to the rural
community in Ingham and Ottawa Counties. The company
must also certify its compliance with EPCRA. In its
complaint, EPA alleged that the company failed to notify
Federal, State and local authorities about an accidental
release of 1,400 pounds of sodium hypochlorite. The
total cash penalty and estimated cost of the SEPs equals
$255,769.50 or 2.5 times EPA's proposed penalty of
$ 100,000. The settlementrequires a $7,828 cash penalty
to be paid to a Superfund account. (SIC/4911)
Karmazin ProductsCorp.(Wvandotte.MI) EPA's Mav 1994
consent agreement with Karmazin Products, Corp.,
Wyandotte, MI, required a $ 195,560 penalty to resolve a
1993 complaint alleging that Karmazin failed to notify
the proper authorities that it stored large quantities
of hazardous chemicals. This violation contributed to
the injury of 3 Karmazin employees, 12 firefighters, and
8 police officers who responded when an employee was
overcomebyvaporswhenusingtrichloroethylenetoclean
an underground, sludge-filled pit. That employee later
died from exposure to trichloroethylene. (SIC/3443/
3585/3531)
TSCA
University of Illinois (Champaign-lJrban a. IL) A
January 1994 consent agreement with the University of
Illinois called for a $74,500 supplemental environmental
project and a $ 1,000 fine to resolve PCB violations. EPA
cited the university improperly storing six 5 5-gallon
drumsofPCB's and 524large PCB capacitors. These drums
and capacitors were moved from one building to another
for storage, awaiting disposal. During the move, PCB's
were spilled or leaked at several places between the
buildings. Under Federal regulations, leaks and spills
constitute illegal disposal. The stringent agreement
calls for the university to remove and dispose of the PCB
items from the Environmental Engineering Research
Laboratory and the Aeronomy Field as partial settlement.
WavneStatel Jn iversitvfDetroit. Ml) EPA'sMarch 1994
consent agreementwithWayne State University included
a$631,000 supplemental environmentalprojectaswell as
a $7,150 fine. The university was cited for violating
Federal rules on PCB use and recordkeeping. As part of
the agreement, the university did asbestos abatement
work at several buildings on campus. Removing friable
asbestos from Wayne State's buildings prevents its
potential release into the environment.
IJ.S.Graphite.Inc.(Saginaw.MP: EPA'sMarch 1994
consent agreement with U.S. Graphite, Inc., to resolve
PCB includes a $10,000 fine and removal of more than 500
PCB-contaminatedtransformers and capacitors at an
estimated cost of $195,000. Earlier the company had
spent $32,025 to remove two PCB-contaminated
transformers and 16 PCB capacitors. EPA had cited U.S.
Graphite for improper use, disposal, marking, storage,
and recordkeeping of PCB equipment. This outstanding
settlement moves Region V closer to the goal of totally
eliminating all PCB's.
RCRA/UST
BASF Corp. North Works (Wvandotle. Ml) EPAkMatch 1994
consent order with BASF Corp. called for an
investigation into hazardous waste at its Wyandotte
site. BASF agreed to evaluate the effectiveness of a
groundwater cleanup project already proceeding under
State consent orders and to investigate the nature and
extent of present soil and groundwater contamination at
the facility. In its order, EPA specified that the
company must perform appropriate cleanup if the
investigation shows additional dangerous contamination.
BASF's North Works facility is a 230-acre site on the
Trenton Channel of the Detroit River. The facility has
been a source of hazardous waste releases to the river in
the past. EPA is concerned that hazardous wastes from
the facility may still be migrating into the river.
While owned and operated by BASF, the North Works has
been used as a manufacturing, research, and pilot
projects site for industrial organic chemicals,
polyether polyol resins, polyurethane plastics and
A-38
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
castings, vitamins A and E. The site was used for the
manufacture of soda and coke in the late 1800s.
Hilton Davis Co. (Cincinnati. OH) EPA's July 1994
administrative order to Hilton Davis Co. proposed a $ 1.6
million penalty for hazardous waste violations at its
Cincinnati, OH, plant. EPA alleges that the company
failed to: conduct adequate waste analysis; properly
monitor and record operating parameters; develop a
closure plan; establish financial assurance for closure;
monitorequipmentleaks;submitaccurateprecompliance
certification, and comply with emissions standards for
ash, chlorine, arsenic, chromium and lead.
TheHiltonDavisplantmakesorganicchemicalsincluding
dyes, food colors, organic pigments, and optical
brighteners. It also generates, treats, stores, and
deposes of hazardous wastes. Until August 1992, the
plant operated a boiler using hazardous waste from as
many as 60 different processes as fuel. As a result, it
had to comply with EPA regulations for boilers and
industrial furnaces, known as the BIF rule which became
effective in August 1991.
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
(Cleveland. OH): In August 1993, Region V filed an
administrative complaint against the Greater Cleveland
Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) for alleged
violations of underground storage tank (US T) regulations
at three of its facilities. EPA alleged that GCRTA
failed to meet construction, notification, release
detection, and closure requirements at its Brooklyn,
Triskett, and Hagden facilities. Violations were
uncovered during an April 1992 inspection, and a
complaint was issued when a March 1993 follow-up
inspection revealed repeated and uncorrected
violations.
On August 12, 1994, after less than a year of
negotiations, the Region and GCTRA reached a verbal
agrccmcntthatwas lormalizcdin a ScptcmbcrC A FO. GCRTA
corrected all past violations and paid $174,718 in
penalties.
Northwest Airlines.Inc.rSaintPaul.MN>: In February
1993, Region V filed an administrative complaint against
Northwest Airlines for alleged violations of UST
regulations at its Minneapolis/St. Paul airport
facility. The complaintproposed a $ 115,710 penalty and
alleged that Northwest failed to meet tank notification
and release detection requirements. A February C AFO
requiring a $54,989 and compliance resolved this case.
U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.Clth Cir. 1994) On
September 26, 1994, the court affirmed in part and
vacated in part the district court's grant of summary
judgment in this action. The Seventh Circuit upheld the
district court's rejection of impossibility as a defense
to allegations that Bethlehem Steel failed to comply
with the corrective action requirements of its IUC
permit. The corrective action claim accounted for $4.2
million of the district court's 1993 $6 million judgment
in this case. The vacated portions of the decision
involved the government's claims that Bethlehem Steel
had illegally disposed of F006 waste (wastewater
treatment sludge from electroplating operations, which
can contain such hazardous constituents as hexavalent
chromium and cyanide).
U.S. v. Ekco Housewares. Inc. (Massillon. OhioV On
January 28, 1994, the court issued a $4.6 million
judgment for the government based on Ekco's failure to
maintain financial assurance for closure, financial
assurance for post-closure, and liability coverage.
This case arose because Ekco generated waste products at
its Massillon, OH, facility which it discharged to an on-
site surface impoundment. In its complaint, the United
States cited violations of both a 1987 Partial Content
Agreement and Order (PCAO), and RCRA rules (including
financial assurance and liability insurance provisions.
Ekco appealed the penalty assessmentto the U. S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
U.S. v. Laclede Steel Company . Laclede Steel entered
into a consent decree settling this civil judicial
action for violation of RCRA's land disposal
restrictions (LDR) rules. In the complaint, the United
States alleged, among other things, that Laclede had
illegally land disposed of tons of lead-bearing K061
electric arc furnace baghouse dust. The consent decree
requires Laclede to pay a $300,000 civil penalty,
complete an environmental audit, and remediate its
illegal waste piles, in accordance with the State of
Illinois-approved closure plan, using a new, $25 million
High Temperature Metals Recovery (HTMR) unit.
CityofColumhus.OhioandtheSolidWasteAuthorityof
Central Ohio: AnRCRA §7003 administrative orderwas
issued on September 9, 1994, by EPA to the City of
Columbus (owner) and the Solid Waste Authority of
A-39
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Central Ohio (SWACO) (operator). The order required the
respondents to conduct measures to abate the potentially
imminent threat to public health and the environment
posed by the past and present emissions of dioxins. The
incinerator, which burns approximately 1,700 tons of
trash daily, was determined by a stack test in 1992 to
have amongthehighestMWC dioxin emissions in the nation
(/. e., an average concentrations of 13,000 ng/dscm, with
highest concentrations at nearly 18,000 ng/dscm).
SDWA
Total Petroleum (Alma. MTV A May 1994consentorder
resolved EPA's case against Total Petroleum for failing
to: maintain the annulus pressure differential in an on-
site injection well, report the violation and, sign the
monitoring report. Class I wells are the most likely to
endanger drinking water. The pressure differential is
a safeguard necessary to ensure even leaks will not stop
the waste from flowing to its intended zone, not to an
underground source of drinking water.
(SIC/2911/petroleum refining).
George Perrv (Ocean a Cou n tv. 1Y11) EPA'sDecember 1993
consent order resolved the case against Perry for
failing to plug and abandon a Class II injection well
that was in disuse for more than 2 years. Not only did
Perry plug the injection well, he agreed to a SEP to plug
three oil production wells also in disuse. EPA does not
regulate oil production wells. Perry's actions will
eliminate four potential sources of contamination to
underground sources of drinking water. (SIC/1311.)
JPT Petroleum Production Corp.(Gibson County.IN) On
February 1, 1994, the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources and JPT signed an administrative agreement
regardingmisseddeadlinesfordemonstratingmechanical
integrity of three Class II wells. The agreement also
addressed minor violations associated with nine oil and
gas wells in Gibson County. These violations were
discovered through file reviews and routine inspections
conducted in 1992. JPT agreed to pay a $3,000 penalty.
This action will prevent contamination of underground
sourcesofdrinkingwater. (SIC/1311/crude petroleum &
natural gas.)
GahannaWaterDepartment(Gahanna.OH) A June 1994
consent order resolved EPA's case against the Gahanna
Water Department for violating public notice
requirements. Gahanna has agreed to notify the public of
its failure to complete monitoring on time. In addition,
Gahanna completed a second round of lead and copper
monitoring in June 1994, sampling twice the number of
homes as required by S D W A regulations. Gahannaalsosent
an educational notice on how to avoid the hazards of lead
in drinking water to selected residences. The
additional monitoring and educational notice were
considered a SEP and thus the final penalty was reduced
by $2,300. Gahanna paid a $1,000 penalty.
CERCLA
Circle Smelting (Beckmeyer. TLV OnMarch22,1994the
Region issued a unilateral administrative order for a
time critical removal to potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) ASARCO, Inc., Federated Metals Corporation, and
Circle Smelting Corporation at the Circle Smelting Site
inBeckmeyer, Illinois. The UAO directs the PRPs to
perform an estimated $710,000 time critical removal of
lead-contaminated materials along a water main route in
residential areas of the Village of Beckmeyer.
Since the operation of the secondary zinc smelter began
in the early 1900's lead-contaminated material from the
smelt operations was used extensively as fill throughout
the Village of Beckmeyer. On March 17,1994 the Region
issued an action memorandum for the time critical
removal of lead-contaminated material in the path of a
water main replacement project in the residential areas
of the village. There was concern that trenching through
the contaminated material (lead concentrations ranged as
high as 3 l,000ppm) might expose residents to the lead-
contaminatedmaterial. ASARCO, Inc. agreed to comply
with the UAO and the removal action was completed in
August 1994. This case demonstrated that an expediated
cleanup can be achieved at an NPL-caliber S ACM site by
using accelerated investigations and coordination
techniques.
CoreCraft(Northem T ownship.MNY OnMarch 1,1994, a
consent decree was entered with the U.S. District Court
of Minnesota between the U.S. and Core Craft, Inc. The
consent decree provides for payments by the defendants
of a total amount of approximately $5 million as
reimbursementfor response costs incurred and to be
incurredby theU.S. EPA attheKummer Sanitary Landfill
Superfund Site. Additionally, the decree provides for
the payment by the defendants of $22,000 to the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service as reimbursement for damages to
natural resources at the site.
A-40
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Kummer Sanitary Landfill was licensed to accept "mixed
municipal waste" from 1971-1984, at which time
groundwater contamination was detected in private wells
downgradient from the facility. The site was placed on
the NPL in 1986. Because the largest contributor of
waste at the site was a municipality which demonstrated
an inability to pay, and because the evidence against the
other defendants presented difficult liability issues,
the Agency agreed to this mixed-funding cash-out
settlement despite the lack of other viable PRPs from
whom to seek full recovery.
Kerr-McGee Site (Chicago.ILV RegionV,withDOJ and
OECAconsultation,negotiatedfortheconductofremoval
actions at the West Chicago Residential Areas NPL site,
which involves radioactive contamination of possibly
hundreds of residential properties at a potential cost
of $100,000,000. On October 31, Kerr-McGee refused
EPA's final offer. EPA issued a unilateral order to
Kerr-McGeeon November 18, 1994.
LockhartConstruction (Akron.OH) OnFebruary24,
1994, Region V executed an administrative order on
consent with Lockhart Construction for a removal at its
facility. In the order, Lockhart agreed to complete a
removal at the site and pay $8.6 million for costs.
The Lockhart Construction site is located in Akron,
Ohio. In May of 1992, during an inspection by the Army
Corp of Engineers, it was discovered that illegal fill
activities had taken place at the facility, and that
wetlands along the Ohio Canal had been filled in. A
subsequent delineation of the wetland indicated that
approximately five acres of wetlands had been filled in
by Lockhart. Later inspections discovered that several
leachate seeps were flowing toward the Ohio Canal and
these leachate seeps had pH levels greater than 13 as
well as phenol contamination.
National Presto (Eau Claire. WD: On October 14,1993
U.S. EPA issued an administrative order on consent
pursuant to which National Presto Industries, Inc. (NPI)
agreed to conduct a removal action at the NPI Superfund
Site in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. NPI will spend
approximately $2.2 millionpumping V OC contaminated
sludges from a large lagoon on the NPI property. The
sludges will be transported off-site and burned as a
secondary fuel at a RCRA permitted cement kiln.
The NPI site was listed on the NPL in 1986. Until 1980,
the NPI facility produced 8-inch and 105-mm shells for
the Departmentofthe Army. The fogging operation atthe
facility pumped into on-site lagoons. Lagoon No. l,the
subject of this removal action, contains approximately
13,000 gallons of floating oil and over one million
gallons of sludge. U.S. EPA has determined that the oil
and sludge present a potential imminent and substantial
endangermentto groundwater as well as to migratory
birds and fowl.
Olin Corporation (Ashtabula.OH): OnMarch3,1994, a
consent decree was lodged in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio. Under the terms of this
consent decree, Olin Corporation, the sole PRP in this
action, has agreed to pay $ 1,542,540.82 to the U.S. EPA
for past response costs incurred plus interest through
September 1992, atthe Big D Campground F acility. Asa
result of the consent decree, U.S. EPA will be recovering
approximately 98% of its past costs. Olin is also
agreeing to pay the Agency's future oversight costs,
which are anticipated to be between $500,000 and
$600,000. The total consent decree is worth over $2
million.
The Big D Campground Superfund site is located in
Kingsville, Ohio, and consists of a former 1.5 acre
quarry used as a landfill. The facility was a sand and
gravel quarry from 1964 to 1976. Olin delivered and
disposed of hazardous materials at the quarry during its
operations. U.S. EPA placed the facility on the National
Priorities List in early 1983. Olin is currently
complying with a unilateral administrative order for the
Remedial Design/Remedial Action work.
Wedzeh (Lebanon. IN): During May through July 1994, the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division,
entered five separate consent decrees resolving
outstanding claims by the U.S. EPA against Wedzeb, its
owner, William Daniels, its successor, USA
Manufacturing, and various manufacturer defendants. The
United States recovered a total of $2.14 million to
offset the costs of the removal action. In addition, a
penalty of $100,000 was assessed against William Daniels
and Wedzeb for violation of a Section 106 CERCLA order
and a penalty of $50,000 was assessed against USA
Manufacturing for violations of Section 104(e) of
CERCLA.
A-41
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
. lackson D rop Fo rge (. lackson. MI) TheRegion'sJanuary
1994, administrative consentorderrequiredtwo Jackson/
Innova Corp. and Mercer Forge Corp. to remove several
thousand drums ofhazardous substances and contaminants
from the Jackson Drop Forge Site and reimburse EPA for
the Agency's past costs. This site, located in a mixed
industrial and residential area, was used as both a forge
and a dump for several years. Adjacent to the Grand
River, the site is in a flood plain. The Region's
December removal actionmemorandum approved spending
about $2 million to address conditions at the Site.
Spickler Landfill Site (Marathon County. WD: The
Region's January 1994 unilateral order directs all the
PRP's to carry out an estimated $4.9 million remedy for
the first operable unit at the Spickler landfill in
Marathon County, WI, The remedy involves constructing an
impermeable cap over the mercury brine pit and a solid
waste cap over the rest of the landfill. In addition,
the PRP's must pump and treat contaminated leachate,
install a system to collect landfill gases, and monitor
groundwater.
A-42
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
REGION VI
CLEAN AIR ACT
U.S. v. Enpro Contractors. Inc.: Train Property. Inc.:
and Jimmv Patton Contractor. Inc. (E.D. Ark.t On
October 3,1994, a civil consent decree was entered by
the court in which the above defendants agreed to pay
$20,000, $12,270, and $10,000, respectively. The
Governmenthad settled inFY93witha fourth Defendant,
Missouri Pacific Employees' Hospital Association
(MPEHA) for $62,000, bringing the total settlement
amount to $ 104,270. These actions arose from violation
of the CAA and the NESHAP promulgated thereunder. In
particular, the Defendants failed to keep friable
asbestos materials adequately wetted until collected for
disposal as required by theNESHAP during demolition of
the Missouri Pacific Hospital in Little Rock, AR.
IntheMatterofHerd Enterprises. il/b/aI$rowardFacton>
Service. EPA issued an administrative penalty order
(APO) on December 28,1993, to Herd Enterprises for a
violation which occurredinRichardson, TX. Technicians
for the company were observed (one case was video taped)
venting refrigerant during service/repair of
residential air conditioning units. The source of the
information came from the people at whose homes the
violations occurred; in both cases the home owners
themselves were knowledgeable about both the regulations
and air conditioning work. In one instance a video tape
was provided of the actions of the technician. The
penalty assessed in the final order was $20,650.
CLEAN WATER ACT
U.S. v. CitvofKennerandtheStateofIouisiana(E.O.
La.): On January 4,1994, a consent decree was entered
by the court settling the Government's claim that the
City of Kenner, LA, had violated the CWA and assessing a
civil penalty of $215,000. The complaint alleged that
the City had violated certain conditions of its NPDES
permit, including failure to adequately implement its
approved pretreatment program and causing the
unpermitteddischarge of pollutants to waters of the
United States.
U.S. v. Citv of Bossier Citv. and the State oflouisiana
fW.D.La.V A SEP which had been included in a consent
decree under the CWA with Bossier City, LA, filed on
February 4,1993, was substantially completed in 1994.
InlieuofEPA'sproposedsettlementamountof$325,000,
Bossier City agreed to pay a civil penalty of $200,000
and to conduct the SEP. Theprojectcostofthe SEP was
approximately $375,000. The complaint filed in U.S.
District Court alleged that Bossier City had violated
the CWA by failing to properly operate and maintain its
POTW, failing to comply with effluent limitations in its
NPDES permit, and failing to fully implement its
industrial pretreatment program.
U.S. v. EI DuPontDeNemours and Company (E.D. Tex.)
A pollution prevention SEP was contained in the consent
decree filed on August 15,1994, in U.S. District Court
in settlement of claims against DuPont for violations of
its NPDES Permitand §301 ofthe CWA. Underthe consent
decree, DuPont agreed to pay a civil penalty in the
amount of $516,430 and to perform a SEP costing an
estimated $3.2 million. The SEP requires replacement of
existing steam-powered vacuum jets in their adiponitrile
process units with mechanical vacuum pumps. The steam,
contaminated with waste materials from the adiponitrile
process, was condensed as water and became a waste
stream.
Vulcan Chemical: EPA received information in
correspondence from Vulcan regarding NPDES permit
violations involving zinc and issued an administrative
orderunderthe CWA to Vulcan establishing a schedule to
reduce zinc from the company's wastewater discharges.
In response, Vulcan devised and implemented an
alternative treatment technology which resulted in a
reduction of pollution created at the facility with only
a minimal delay in the compliance schedule.
In the Matter of Albert Kramer III d/b/a Kramer
DevelopmentCorporation: OnJanuary21,1994,aconsent
agreement/final order was issued in which Mr. Kramer
agreed to pay $6,005 to resolve an administrative
penalty action. Development of the case, which was
referred to EPA from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
included an original proposed penalty of $10,000.
Kramer had initiated construction of a series of roads in
wetlands as part of an unspecified future development
A-43
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
project. No permithad been obtained under CWA §404, for
the discharge of fill material into wetlands.
Citgo Pipeline Company: An administrative Class II
complaint was issued to Citgo Pipeline Company, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, on March 4,1994, with a proposed penalty of
$124,900forviolationsof§311(b)(6)(B)(ii)oftheCWA.
The corporation's facility discharged 200 barrels of
crude oil from its onshore pipeline in Claiborne Parish,
LA, and 250 barrels of crude oil from an onshore pipeline
in Gregg County, TX. Information on the discharge was
received from the report made by Citgo to the NRC. The
discharged oil entered navigable waters of the United
States in quantities determined to be harmful under 40
C.F.R. §110.3.
Hamnerlnc.: An administrative Class I complaint was
issued to Hamner, Inc., Corpus Christi, TX, on May 24,
1994, with a proposed penalty of $9,108 for violations of
§31 l(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the CWA. The corporation's tanker
truck overturned, discharging approximately 24 barrels
of petroleum naphtha. The petroleum naphtha entered
navigable waters of the United States in quantities
determined to be harmful under 40 C.F.R. §110.3.
JavhawkPipelineCorporation: Aconsentagreementand
final orderwas signed July 11,1994, concerning Jayhawk
Pipeline Corporation's discharge of 20 barrels of crude
oil from an onshore pipeline in Kay County, Oklahoma.
The spill was reported to the NRC by the responsible
party and EPA responded to the spill. Jayhawk paid a
penalty of $3,825 to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Petrolite Corporation: A consent agreement and final
order was signed July 11, 1994, concerning the
corporation's violation of §311 (b)(6)(B)(ii) of the CWA.
Petrolite Polymer Division discharged 200barrels ofwax
from its facility located in Kilgore, Gregg County, TX.
The oil entered the stormwater drainage and migrated
off-site into drainage areas and Rabbit Creek. The
discharge was reported to the NRC and EPA responded to
the spill. Petrolite paid a penalty of $5,500 to the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Red River Entertainment Group: OnMay 19,1994, a
consent agreement/final order was issued in which Red
River Entertainment agreed to pay $3,000 to resolve an
administrative penalty action. Development of the case,
which was referred to EPA from the Corps of Engineers,
included an original proposed penalty of $5,000. Red
River had applied for a CWA, §404, permit to build a
bulkhead associated with casino development on the Red
River in Shreveport, LA, but initiated construction work
in waters of the U.S. prior to issuance of the permit.
The impacts of the violation were corrected, and the
permit was eventually issued by the Corps of Engineers.
RCRA
In th e Matter of Micro Chemical Company. An RCRA
administrativeCAO on consent was issued to Micro
Chemical Co. on September 30,1994. The order followed
from a citizen's complaint of releases from the
facility. The order first requires the facility to
stabilize a ground water plume of pesticides, located
3,000 feet upgradient from the city's drinking water
wells. The order then requires clean up of the soil on
the remainder of the site. Thus, the site requires
ground water and soil remediation measures. The study
phase for both media may cost $1.4 million. The ground
water remediation will be carried out over a great deal
of time (10 to 20 years) which will involve substantial
yearly costs. The soil remediation will require a much
shorter period of time to reach a conclusion but will
require a greater amount of money. A rough estimate of
the total cost of remediation of the site would be in the
area of $4 to 10 million.
In theMatterofDow Chemical. Violations found atthis
facility in Plaquemine, LA, related to RCRA BIF
requirements. They included failure to maintain the
prescribed scrubber blow down rate and liquid-to-gas
ratio and failure to maintain the operating controls and
end points for automatic waste feed cut off established
in the Certification of Compliance. The case was settled
with a consent agreement and final order, filed
September 9,1994, in which the assessed penalty was
$26,000.
In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management. This
facility operates a hazardous waste incinerator in Port
Arthur, TX, permitted under both the RCRA (for hazardous
waste) and the TSCA (for polychlorinated biphenyls,
PCBs). The facility commingled the listed hazardous
waste F039 (leachate from landfills) with PCB's from
capacitors and transformers during incineration. The
resulting ash failed to meet the RCRA land disposal
restriction (LDR) treatment standards for PCBs in F039.
A-44
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
%
Although the PCB concentrations in the ash were probably
derived from the PCBs in the electrical equipment, not
the F039, the Mixture Rule requires that the ash meet LDR
standards for F039. The facility failed to make an
adequate waste determination and shipped the ash to a
disposal facility without notifying the disposal
facility that the ash did not meet LDR treatment
standards. The ash was subsequently placed on the land
withouthavingmetLDRtreatmentstandardsforPCB'sin
F039. (The receiving facility, Chemical Waste
Management,Carlyss, LA, also received a penalty.)
Shipments occurred on several occasions during 1993.
The company self-reported the violations. An order
assessing a civil penalty of $ 15,000 was issued on April
8, 1994.
In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management. This
facility is a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facility in Carlyss, LA. Violations found at
this facility related to disposal on the land of
hazardouswasteswhichmay be land disposed only ifthey
meet LDR treatment standards. The facility in Port
Arthur, TX, commingled the listed hazardouswaste F039
(le achate from landfills) with poly chlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) from capacitors and transformers during
incineration and failed to notify the receiving facility
that the resulting ash failed to meet the RCRA land
disposal restriction (LDR) treatment standards for PCBs
in F039. (The Port Arthur facility also received a
penalty.)
In the Matter o f Texas Industries. This facility is a
cement plant in Midlothian, TX, which burns hazardous
waste as a part of its fuel. Violations found at this
facility related to RCRA BIF requirements. The facility
violated these requirements by its failure to operate
the kiln within feed rate limits established in the
Certification of Precompliance, failure to make an
adequate Bevil exclusion determination, and failure to
maintain unit inspection records. An order assessing a
civil penalty of $26,000 was issued on June 23, 1994.
In the Matter of Aristech: Violations found at this
chemical plant in Pasadena, TX, related to RCRA BIF
requirements. They included exceedances of waste
storage accumulation times, failure to conduct unit
integrity testing, failure to label waste storage tank,
failure to maintain unit inspection records, failure to
update waste analysis and contingency plan, and failure
to prepare unit closure plan. A civil penalty of $21,500
was assessed in an order issued on August 8, 1994.
In the Matter of Rexene. Violations found at this
chemicalplant in Odessa, TX, related to RCRA BIF
requirements. They included failure to establish
appropriate Certification of Compliance operating
limits, failure to comply with prescribed feed rates,
failure to amend waste analysis plan, inspection
schedule and contingency plan, and failure to prepare
unitclosure plan. A penalty of $33,750 was assessed in
an order issued September 15, 1994.
In the Matter of Chapparal Steel. This steel
manufacturingcompany in Midlothian, TX, exports
emission control dust and sludge from the primary
production of steel in its electric arc furnaces, listed
hazardous waste K061, for recovery of other metals. It
failed to provide annual reports of its hazardous waste
exporting activities for 1991 and 1992 and failed to
properly manifest shipments during that period. On
December23,1993, an order was issued assessing a civil
penalty of $5,000.
In the Matter of Hydrocarbon Recvclers. Inc.: This
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma, receives hazardous waste
which has been imported from another country. The case
involved violations of the RCRA requirement that
treatment, storage and disposal facilities submit
advance notice to EPA or the authorized State agency of
anticipated receipt of foreign waste. An order
assessing a civil penalty of $35,000 was issued on May 4,
1994.
In the Matter of REM TEX This case involved violations
of the RCRA hazardous waste importing requirements by a
manufacturer of electrical and electronic equipment in
Del Rio, TX. Violations included failure to notify EPA
or the authorized State agency of hazardous waste
activity and failure to provide foreign generator's name
onmanifest. REM-TEXactsasU.S. importer of hazardous
waste for its foreign maquiladora facility, located in
T amaulipas, Mexico. REM-TEX operates aU. S. facility,
located in Del Rio, TX, which serves as a warehouse or
transfer point for waste imported from REM-TEX's
maquiladora facility destined for TSD facilities in the
United States. A civil penalty of $9,000 was assessed in
an order issued on May 31, 1994.
A-45
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
In the Matter of Jeep Collins. This case involved
violations of the RCRA hazardous waste importing
requirements by a jewelry manufacturer in
Fredericksburg, TX. Violations included failure to
notify EPA or the authorized State agency of hazardous
waste activity and failure to provide foreign
generator's name on manifest. Jeep Collins acts as U.S.
importer of hazardous waste for its foreign maquiladora
facility, located in Coahuila, Mexico. Jeep Collins
operates a U.S. facility, located in Fredericksburg, TX,
which serves as a warehouse or transfer point for waste
imported from Jeep Collins' maquiladora facility
destined for TSD facilities in the United States. A
civil penalty of $6,300 was assessed in an order issued
on May 31, 1994.
In theMatterofRanco. The case involved violations by
a manufacturer in Brownsville, TX, of plastic and metal
parts for heating and air conditioning units of
requirements for storage and manifesting of hazardous
waste. The facility imports hazardous waste from its
maquiladora operation in Mexico, and it used an
incorrect RCRA ID number on its manifests. An order was
issued on August 3,1994, assessing a civil penalty of
$19,520.
IntheMatterofCitgoRefining. Thispetroleumrefinery
in Lake Charles, LA, failed to meet the regulatory
deadline for retrofitting impoundments, which receive
toxicity characteristic hazardous wastes, with liners
and leak detection systems. Even after the statutory
deadline for retrofitting impoundments or ceasing to use
them, Citgo continued to place hazardous wastes in the
impoundments. The violations were self reported. The
facility was assessed a civil penalty of $47,500 in an
order issued September 30, 1994.
IntheMatterofAquaness Chemical: Aquaness Chemical,
formerly an oil field chemical blending operation in
LaFayette, LA, was converting its facility to a
warehouse and distribution center for oil field
chemicals. The facility failed to notify EPA or the
authorized State agency of its hazardous waste activity
andhazardous waste storage. The company was involved in
generating large quantities of various hazardous wastes
(thousands of gallons a year) without notifying the
authorized State or EPA about their activity. In
addition, wastes were being managed in a manner that
presented a potential for release to the environment
because of mislabeling the waste containers and not
inspecting the areas where the waste was stored on a
regular basis. The facility also failed to adequately
train its personnel in the management of hazardous
waste. A civil penalty of $105,350 was assessed in an
order issued on October 1, 1993.
In the Matter of Helena Chemical. Helena Chemical in
Delhi, LA, is a pesticide distribution warehouse for
northeast Louisiana. This facility failed to notify the
regulatory agency of hazardous waste activity and to
comply with hazardous waste storage requirements. The
facility had been storing hazardous wastes in one of its
warehouses since it ceased its pesticide blending
operation in 1986, without following the requirements
for storing hazardous waste. A civil penalty of $71,482
was assessed in an order issued on October 1, 1993.
In the Matter of Helena Chemical. Helena Chemical in
West Helena, AR, blends technical grade pesticides and
herbicides for distribution to warehouse facilities in
the mid-west and southern United States. The facility
also does contract blending and packaging of pesticides
for other companies. The facility failed to notify the
regulatory agency of hazardous waste activity and failed
to follow hazardous waste storage and manifesting
requirements. The facility was storing 15,000 gallons
of a mixed hazardous waste in a tank at the facility. The
company had failed to characterize this waste as
hazardous andhad actually manifested similarwaste from
the site as non-hazardous. The company was assessed a
civil penalty of $98,125 in an order issued on December
29, 1993.
U.S. v. Marine Shale Processors. Inc. (W.D. La.): On
August 30, 1994, the court issued an opinion requiring
Marine Shale Processors (MSP) to pay the United States
and the State of Louisiana an $8 million civil penalty
forviolatingthe RCRA, the CAA, and the CWA. The court
also ordered Southern Wood Piedmont (SWP), a company
that sent hazardous waste to the MSP, to pay a $25,000
civil penalty for sending hazardous waste to MSP was in
violation of the RCRA storage permit regulations.
Finally, the court prohibited MSP from disbursing
dividends, royalties, loans, debentures and other funds
to company shareholders and officers, except amounts to
pay their normal current salaries and MSP's local, state
andfederal taxes. The MSP, SWP and the governmenthave
A-46
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
appealed portions of these decisions to the U. S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
TSCA
In the Matter of Asarco. Amarillo. Texas. An
administrative complaint under the TSCA was issued to
Asarco, Inc., Amarillo, TX, on September 29, 1993 for
failure to comply with the PCB regulations. Violations
included improper disposal of PCBs, inadequate records
of PCBs, and failure to notify EPA of PCB waste handling
activity. The proposed penalty in this complaint was
$51,500. This complaintwas settled on February 8,1994,
through the issuance of a CACO with a final penalty of
$51,500. In addition, the CACO required that the company
conduct post-verification sampling of a PCB spill that
was the subject of a count contained in the complaint.
CentralPowerandLightCompany.CorpusChristi.Texas:
An administrative complaintunder the TSCA was issued to
Central Power and Light on September 30,1994, with a
proposed penalty of $90,750. Among the violations found
were failure to properly mark PCB containers, improper
storage and disposal of PCBs, and inadequate
recordkeeping. The facility failed to cleanup three
spills for 82 days, 69 days, and 58 days respectively.
CERCLA
U.S. v. DavidBowen Wallace. etaL (N.D. Tex.) Bio-
Ecologv Systems Superfiind Site. Dallas County. Texas:
On August 1,1994, the United States filed a Notice of
Lodging of a consent decree for recovery of past and
future costs, as well as operation and maintenance
costs. This consent decree, if entered by the Court,
would provide for recovery of $8.34 million in U.S.
response costs and $1.14 million in State of Texas
response costs associated with implementation of a
Superfund remedy atthe Bio-Ecology National Priorities
List (NPL) Site. The settlement resolves the liability
of 73 defendants, including 59 de minimis generators of
hazardous substances disposed at the site.
A-47
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
U.S. v. American National Petroleum Company, et aL
(W.D. La) Gulf Coast VacuumSuperfundSite. Abbeville.
Louisiana, and Gulf Coast Vacuum Services Superfund
Site. Vermillion Parish. Louisiana. InFY94, both an
administrative order on consent and a consent decree
were signed for this site where both the soil and a
shallow perched aquifer are contaminated with oil field
wastes containing barium, arsenic, mercury, cadmium,
lead, benzene, and numerous other organic compounds.
About 15,000 cubic yards of sludge and 19,500 cubic yards
of site soils will be remediated. On September 28,1994,
an administrative order on consent became effective
after a 30-day public comment period. The order, between
EPA and 54 de minimis parties, allowed the parties to
"cash out" their liability at the site by paying a
settlement based on their volumetric percentage of waste
at the site. The de minimis settlement raised $ 3.1
million for EPA expenses and contractor oversight of
clean-up activities for Operable Unit 1 at the site.
On June 14, 1994, EPA completed negotiations for a
proposed consent decree with 15 major Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs), including many large oil
companies. The parties signed the proposed consent
decree which calls for a change in the remedy for organic
contamination specified in the 1992 Record of Decision
from incineration to biological treatment to the same
treatment standards as incineration. The proposed
consent decree will become effective after it is lodged
and entered and after an Amended Record of Decision is
issued. On January 26, 1994, EPA received the final
close-outreportfrom the 15 major PRPs for their work on
Operable Unit 2 (the Interim Source Action) under a
December 1992 unilateral administrative order. All
activities under the order were certified complete
except for Operation and Maintenance prior to the
initiation of Operable Unit 1 construction; therefore,
the PRPs have fulfilled their obligations under the
unilateral order.
U.S. v. Citv of Jacksonville. Arkansas (E.D. Ark.)
Jacksonville Municipal Landfill. Lonoke County.
Arkansas. andRogersRoadMunicipalLandfill.Pulaski
County. Arkansas: On April 6,1994, the U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, lodged two consent
decrees for the Jacksonville and Rogers Road Municipal
LandfillSuperfundSiteswhichwere subsequently entered
onJune20,1994. Approximately 800 cubicyards of soil
in the two landfills are contaminated with dioxin that
wasproducedby alocalherbicide manufacturer. The City
agreed to pay $100,000 in past costs.
U.S. v. Gulf States Utilities Company (S.D Tex.)
IndustrialTransformer/SolLynnSite.HarrisCounty.
Texas: The first EPA Prospective Purchaser Agreement
was lodged with the courtonNovember 18,1993,forthe
Industrial Transformer/Sol Lynn Site (the Site) in
Houston, TX. The Site was the location of an electrical
transformer salvage andrecyclingoperationconductedby
the property owner, Sol Lynn, from approximately 1965 to
1975. Contamination at the Site resulted from the
transformer salvage operations and from a chemical
manufacturingandsupplycompanywhichleasedproperty
fromSolLynn. Theprincipalcontaminantsofconcernare
PCBs and TCE. Both of these substances were released
onto the ground at the Site. TCE migrated into the
ground water and PCBs remained in the first two feet of
soil. The Site was placed on the NPL in March 1989.
On April 9,1991, the United States filed a complaint
against the Estate of Sol Lynn seeking past and future
cleanupcostspursuantto § 107 of CERCLA. The settlement
was achieved through two documents. First, the consent
decree settled the civil liability of the defendants for
cleanup costs and injunctive relief while retaining
certain "reopener" rights for previously unknown site
conditions. The United States received an up-front
payment from sale of site property, and will receive a
percentage of a future sale of other real property owned
by the Estate.
Second, the Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue, requiring
Department of Justice approval, between EPA and the
purchaser of the Estate's interest in the site required
the purchaser to establish an escrow for the purchase.
The Estate's paymentunderthe consentdecree was funded
through this escrow. In consideration for funding the
Estate's payment, the purchaser received a covenant not
to sue for civil liability and injunctive relief related
to existing contamination at the Estate property and an
adjacent tract. The agreement imposes certain use
restrictions on current and future owners of the Site and
will give EPA, the Texas Water Commission, and their
cleanup contractors irrevocable access to the property
for future remediation.
U.S. v. Vertac Chemical Corporation. etaL. Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology v. Vertac
Chemical Corporation. etaL (E.D. Ark.). Ln the Matter
A-48
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
of Hercules Inc.. Uniroval Chemical Ltd.. and Vertac
Chemical Corporation (AdministrativeWertacSuperfund
Site. Jacksonville. Arkansas: Hercules, Inc., the
principal viable PRP agreed to comply with aUAO issued
in March 1994 to perform site cleanup. Under the order,
Herculeswill implement a $28.5 million remedy to
dismantle the old manufacturing process plant, and treat
residual liquids and sludges left in old tanks and
vessels. The combined costs to clean up all six operable
units is expected to exceed $100 million.
Additionally, in the civil enforcement action associated
with this site, on October 12, 1993, the U.S. District
Court granted summary judgment to the United States on
the issue of Hercules' joint and several liability for
past and future costs related to remediation of the
Vertac Site. That summary judgment was an interim ruling
as partof ongoing CERCLA cost recovery actionbroughtby
the EPA against multiple parties.
In the Matter of Amerada Hess Corporation, et al. PAB
Oil Superfund Site. Abbeville. Louisiana: In September
1994, EPA issued aUAO to approximately 3 0 potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) requiring them to clean up
the abandoned site. Most PRPs subsequently agreed to
comply with the order. Under the order, PRPs will
undertake a $ 13 million effort to bioremediate hazardous
organic wastes left in pits and lagoons at this site in
southern Louisiana. Surface water will also be treated
and discharged. In addition to the UAO, EPA offered de
minimis settlement to a large number of small volume
contributors. Most of the de minimis parties have signed
the settlement which is now being finalized. All non-
settling PRPs have been offered an opportunity for
Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR). The ADR will not
interrupt the ongoing site remediation being performed
under the UAO, but will afford the PRPs an opportunity to
resolve allocation issues that could not be resolved
prior to the deadline for a "good faith offer" to settle.
In the Matter of Waste Management of Oklahoma. Inc.
Moslev Road Sanitary LandfUl Superfund Site. Oklahoma
Citv.Oklahoma. AUAOwasissuedtoWasteManagementof
Oklahcma(WMO)crJanuary28,1994. IheUAOrequiresWMO
to conduct the Remedial Design and Remedial Action at the
site. The site was contaminated with liquid industrial
wastes which were hazardous substances and which had
been disposed of in a solid waste landfill under state
permit. The remedy selected in the Record of Decision
was the capping of the landfill, construction of a gas
recovery system, and remediation of the contaminated
ground water. A settlement in the form of an
administrative order on consent was reached with 19 de
minimis parties on March 24, 1994, for $1.2 million.
This settlement was included in the national de minimis
initiative. The de minimis settling parties included 18
generators and a transporter.
In theMatter of Aluminum Company of America. Alcoa/
Lavaca Bav Superfund Site. Point Comfort. Texas . The
site includes the Aluminum Company of America's (ALCOA)
Point Comfort Operations Plant which covers
approximately3,500 acres and Lavaca Bay which is
approximately 68 square miles in size.
In May 1993 EPA proposed the Site for listing on the
National Priorities List (NPL), and the listing became
final on April 23, 1994. In January of 1994, EPA's site
negotiation team set a goal of 45 days to reach agreement
with ALCOA on a scope of work for a comprehensive
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS).
This deadline was established so as to try and meet
NOAA's and the State's statute of limitations. The
result was an administrative order on consent.
In the Matter of National Zinc Site. Bartlesville.
Oklahoma: Salomon. Inc. CyprusAmaxMinercds Company.
andKerramencan.Inc.NadonalZincCompanvSuperfund
Site. Bartlesville. Oklahoma. On February 2,1994, EPA
issued aUAO forremoval action atthe National Zinc Site
in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. During operation of the
National Zinc smelter, lead and cadmium were deposited
through air releases on surface soils within three miles
of the facility. The UAO required PRPs, Salomon,
Incorporated, and Cyprus-Amax, to remove lead
contaminatedsoil from residential properties in the
area contaminated by the smelter. In addition, this two-
pronged process provided for state oversight in a
separate agreement by the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) with the PRPs to perform a
RI/FS to address a long term remedy for the site. The
RI/FS was carried out by the PRPs with a state Record of
Decision targeted for late in calendar 1994.
Marco of Iota: An Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
process has been initiated to assist in reaching a cost
recovery agreement atthe Marco oflota Superfund site in
Iota, LA. Marco of Iota was a fuels blending and
recyclingfacility located in Iota, LA. The Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality had repeatedly cited
A-49
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
the facility operators for operational violations. In
January 1992, the Louisiana State Police in conjunction
with LDEQ closed down the facility and initiated a
criminal investigation. At closure the operators
abandoned a large volume ofhazardous substances on the
site. WPA identified over 600 potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) and offered them the opportunity to
conduct the cleanup. The PRPs declined the opportunity
and EPA began a Fund removal action in July 1992. The
removal was completed in June 1994, at a cost of $4.5
million.
Pab Oil: In 1994, EPA initiated an Alternative Dispute
Re solution (ADR) process to help resolve allocation
issues among Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) at
the PAB OilNPL site in Abbeville, LA. The site includes
impoundmentswhich were used to hold hazardous
substances from oil field truck discharges. EPA has
identified in excess of 30 PRPs. While the ADR process
is not complete, most PRPs agreed to participate in the
process and early signs are encouraging. The offer of
ADRappcare tohavcconvinccdPRPs to comply with the UAO
for RD/RA and will hopefully lead to a cost recovery
agreement based on the final allocation of liability.
South 8th Street: In 1994, EPA also initiated an ADR
process to help resolve allocation issues among PRPs at
the South 8th Street NPL site in West Memphis, AR. EPA
has identified in excess of 30 PRPs. While the ADR
process is not complete, most PRPs agreed to participate
in the process and early signs are encouraging and EPA is
hopeful that the effort will lead to an allocation which
will facilitate a settlement agreement.
B.P. Chemical: ThispetrochemicalplantinPortLavaca,
TX, had a release to the environment of ammonia in an
amount just above the reportable quantity. A consent
agreement and final order was signed October 6, 1993,
concerning B.P. Chemical's late reporting of the release
to theNRC under CERCLA §103. B.P., located in Port
Lavaca, TX, agreed to perform certain SEPs to mitigate
the penalty, which was reduced to zero because of
uncertaintyregarding the amount released. In return
for the penalty reduction, B.P. provided the LEPC in
Calhoun County with fundingto purchase aweather radar
for environmental determination. Additionally, B.P.
purchased andinstalledapump on the ammoniablow down
stream to reduce pressure problems on the production
unit. TheprojectedcostofthetwoSEPsis$49,000. SIC
code 2869.
Miles Inc: A consent agreement and final order was
signedAugust 29, 1994, concerning Miles Inc.'s late
reporting to the NRC of a release of
dichlorodifluoromethane. This petrochemical plant
should have reported the release immediately, as
required by CERCLA § 103. A penalty of$l,000wasagreed
to by both parties. Miles, located in Baytown, TX,
agreed to perform certain SEPs to mitigate the penalty.
The projected cost of the SEPs is $13,000.
A-50
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
REGION VII
CLEAN AIR ACT
U.S. v. Archer Daniels Midland (S.D. Ia.V In 1989, EPA
began documentation of CAA violations at the Archer
Daniels Midland(ADM) Cedar Rapids and DesMoines,Iowa,
facilities resulting in establishment of 88 violations
of PSD permit conditions, state-issued PSD permit
conditions, andN SPS violations. The case was concluded
with a consent decree, which required ADM to hire a
contractor to conduct a company-wide environmental
managementaudit,todocumentandrecommendpractices
and procedures to ensure compliance with federal, state,
and local environmental laws. The consent decree also
requires payment of a civil penalty of $700,000.
U.S. v. Hunt Midwest Mining. Inc. (W.D.Mo.V A consent
decree was entered on June 30, 1994, resolving
notification, testing, and emission violations ofNSPS
Subpart OOO at two Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc. facilities.
Huntwill pay acivil penalty of $134,800. Huntownstwo
plants in Missouri, one in Kansas City and one in
Randolph. HuntMidwestMininginstalled anew primary
crusher and a new bin with loadout at the Kansas City,
MO, plant, and replaced the Randolph, MO, plant in its
entirety after the Subpart OOO applicability date of
August 31, 1983. Hunt failed to give the required
notifications, failed to conduct the required
performance tests at the Kansas City plant, and was 30
months late performing these same requirements at the
Randolph plant. There were also emissions violations at
the Randolph plant.
In the Matter of Holnam. Inc.: EPA issued a 3008(a)
complaint in July 1993, as part of the BIF regulations
initiative against Holnam, Inc., which owns and operates
a cement kiln in Clarksville, MO, manufactures Portland
cement, and burns hazardous waste as fuel. The facility
was unable to certify compliance with certain emissions
standards by August 21,1992, as required under the BIF
regulations. The violations alleged in the complaint
included failure to obtain a detailed analysis of
hazardous waste before burning, inadequate waste
analysis plan, and failure to minimize releases of
hazardous waste. The consent agreement/consent order
has been executed by all parties resolving the
violations contained in the July 1993 BIF complaint.
Holnam is to pay $ 100,874 in penalties, and must adjust
their closure cost estimates and financial assurance for
closure.
CLEAN WATER ACT
IntheMatteroftheBodngCompanv. TheBoemgCompany
filled approximately 1.4 acres of the Arkansas River
channel with broken concrete, dirt, reinforcing bar,
conduits (metal and plastic) and miscellaneous
demolitiondebris. The administrative consent order
requires the Respondents to develop, obtain approval
from EPA, and implement a plan for removing the fill
material and restoring the area to its full condition.
The penalty paid was $30,000. EPA simultaneously filed
a complaint and consent agreement against Boeing for
violations of EPCRA §313 reporting requirements,
conducted pre-filing negotiations, and reached
settlement by which Boeing agreed to pay full penalty of
$58,500.
U.S. v. BeechAircrafiCorporation (D. Kan.) OnMay27,
1994, the court entered a consent decree resolving civil
violations of the CWA at Beech Aircraft Corporation's
Wichita, KS, facility. Under the consent decree, Beech
was required to pay a civil penalty of $521,000 for its
violations of federal categorical pretreatment
standards for metal finishers, failure to meet the
reporting requirements of the general pretreatment
regulations, and failure to timely comply with an
administrative order issued by EPA. In addition to
paying a civil penalty of $521,000, Beech also agreed
underthe consent decree to perform a SEP valued at
approximately $200,000 that consists of installing
centrifuges or equivalent systems to remove sludge from
its Wichita facility's existing water wash paint spray
booths.
RCRA
In the Matter of Burlington Northern Railroad. AnRCRA
§7003 consent order was issued on July 8, 1994,
addressing chlorinated solvent contamination in the
groundwater in the northeastportion of the Hobson Y ard,
believed to have resulted from a leaking
perchloroethylene(PCE) tank and from historical
A-51
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
discharges of wastewater into unlined lagoons.
BurlingtonNorthern's Hobson Yard in Lincoln, NE, has a
history of environmental problems. A multi-media
inspection of the northeast portion of the Yard was done
in the summer of 1992, and based on findings from the
inspection, a UAO was issued to Burlington Northern in
the spring of 1993 citing RCRA, CERCLA, CWA, and OPA
authorities. The UAO required Burlington Northern to
cease the discharge of oil and chlorinated solvents to
surface waters, including a rare inland saline wetland
located on Burlington Northern's property. The consent
order requires Burlington Northern to characterize the
extent of contamination, define the source(s), and
develop remedial alternatives to address the same.
In the Matter of The Dexter Company: EPA Region VII
issued an administrative complaintto The Dexter Company
(SIC 2851) for RCRA violations at its storage facility in
Fairfield, LA The complaintcharged The Dexter Company
with the following RCRA violations: violation of a May
15,1991 consent agreement/consent order Respondent
previously entered into with EPA; storing hazardous
wastes at its facility without having achieved interim
status or having a permit for storage in violation of
Section 3005 of RCRA; and failure to label or date
hazardous waste containers. The total penalty proposed
underthis complaintwas $280,537. Under the terms of
the consent agreement, Respondent is to carry out a
pollution prevention SEP valued at $776,131, pay a
$32,125 penalty, and conduct closure at the Site. The
SEP involves the Respondent changing the nature of its
currentpainting operation to one which does not use
solvents, thus ceasing its generation of this waste
stream.
In the Matter of Missouri Highway Transportation
Department: OnSeptember30,1994,RegionVllissueda
consent agreement/consent order requiring sampling,
further clean-up if needed, and development of a plan for
future handling of sandblast residue. The case involved
RCRA violations resulting from sandblasting lead based
paint from the Chariton River bridge and the subsequent
handling of the sandblast residue. Missouri Highway
Transportation Department (SIC 9621) willpay an initial
penalty of $70,000. An additional $ 115,398 penalty will
be deferred and subjectto offsetupon completion of SEPs
estimated to cost more than $350,423.
In the Matteroflowa Arm v Ammunition Plant On March 8,
1994, EPA Region VII filed a consent agreement/consent
order (CA/CO) settling a RCRA Section 3008(a)
administrative enforcement case with the Iowa Army
Ammunition Plant, Middletown, IA (IAAP) (SIC 9711).
This was the first time the Army entered into a RCRA
CA/CO that included penalties since the enactment of the
FederalFacilityComplianceActonOctober6,1992. The
twelve count complaint alleged violations of the
groundwatermonitoring requirements and of IAAP's
operating permit conditions for storage and incineration
of hazardous wastes. The complaint assessed an initial
penalty of $201,640. During the negotiations the
penalty was reduced to the amountof$138,921.75. The
IAAP will initially pay $75,704 and the balance of the
penalty, $63,217.75, will be deferred to allow for
implementation of a SEP which is estimated to cost in
excess of $300,000. If IAAP completes the SEP in two
years, the deferred amount will be waived. The planned
SEP will eliminate one of IAAP's NPDES permitted
discharges of explosive contaminated wastewater.
In theMatter of G.E. Company: On June 30,1993,aspart
of EPA's illegal operator initiative, a civil
administrative action was filed against G.E. Company
(SIC 3469) for its violations of RCRA at its facility in
West Burlington, IA, for a proposed total penalty of
$38,250. Thesettlementreachedincludedthepaymentof
$10,500, plus the obligation to conduct a SEP, which
involves the consolidation of two metal plating lines,
with an estimated 35% reduction in the amount of
hazardous wastes generated, and an estimated 80%
reduction in the generation of plating rinse waters. The
cost of the SEP totals an estimated $225,000.
In theMatter of CuhaPaint Company: On September 30.
1992, EPA issued acomplaintto Cuba Paint Company, Inc.
(SIC 2851), for violations of RCRA at its facility in
Cuba, MO. The complaint proposed a total penalty of
$257,335. On May 11, 1994, the parties reached a
settlementwhereby Cuba agreed to pay a mitigated
penalty of $87,000, and to perform two SEP. The value of
the SEPs total an estimated $417,000.
EPCRA
In theMatter ofKaw Vallev. Inc.: This case arose out of
an administrative complaint issued to Kaw Valley of
Leavenworth, KS, by EPA allegingthree counts of failure
to file reporting forms as required under EPCRA §313. An
Administrative Law Judge found Kaw Valley liable for
failure to report. Kay Valley, however, argued that
A-52
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
EPA'sproposedpenalty of$15,000 shouldbe reduced. Kaw
Valley, relying on information presented in a 1987 EPA
seminar, believed itwas exemptfrom reporting. The ALJ
reduced the penalty to $12,750 on the grounds that the
seminar presented a definition of "full-time employee"
that differed significantly from the definition later
adopted in EPA's final rule. The ALJ found that only a
small reduction was warranted because, although it was
informed in January 1989, by EPA officially that it was
required to file, Kaw Valley submitted its Form Rs at
least 6 months later, only after the EPA filed a
complaint. Kaw Valley sought judicial review in the
federal District of Kansas ofthe EPCRA §313 definition
of "full-time employee" at 40 CFR §327.3, arguing that
EPA lacked authority to issue the definition, and that
EPA'srulemaking defining "full-time employee" failed to
comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. Kaw
Valley also appealed the penalty assessment. The
federal district court found that EPA had authority to
interpret the term "full-time employee," that EPA's
interpretation was reasonable, that the rulemaking was
procedurally adequate, and, alternately, that issuing
such an interpretation was within the Agency's inherent
authority and exempt from notice and comment
requirements.
IntheMatterofThelowaPackingCompany. ACACOwas
cntcrcdAugustS, 1994. whereby die [o\vaPackingCompany
of Des Moines, Iowa, agreed to pay $28,000 for failing to
submitEPCRA §312 Tier II reports for ammonia to SERC and
LEPCfor 1988 and 1989, and for failing to report EPCRA
§313 useofammoniaforcalendaryears 1987through 1989.
In addition, Respondent agreed to construct and
implement a wastewater pretreatment facility for a cost
of $850,000, which will significantly reduce pollutants
discharged into the City ofDes Moines, IA sanitary sewer
system. Respondent also spent $11,500 for the
installation and implementation of an ammonia diftusion
system for its Des Moines, IA facility.
CERCLA
U.S. v. Chemical Waste Management of Kansas. Inc. (D.
Kan.): On July 21,1994, a cost recovery consent decree
in this matter was entered with the court. The N ational
Industrial Environmental Services Site (the Site) is a
contaminated hazardous waste facility located near
Furley, KS. The Site has been stabilized through
remediation by Chcm ical Waste M anagementofK ansas. Inc.
(CWMK) with EPA oversight. EPA continues its oversight
with regular sampling and related activities. In this
consent decree, CWMK has agreed to pay 90 percent of
EPA's past costs ($l,561,594.24)plus 100 percent of all
of EPA's oversight costs after the date of entry. In
return, EPA is granting CWMK acovenantnotto sue and
contribution protection regarding the Site.
U.S. v. TIC Investment Corp.. et a//N.D. Ia.) On
September 18,1994, the court issued an opinion and order
holding two parent corporations and a corporate officer/
shareholderdirectly liable on summary judgment for
costs ofresponse atthe White Farm EquipmentDumpsite in
Charles City, Iowa. The opinion is significant for two
reasons. The decision held a parent corporation and a
corporate officer directly liable under § 107(a)(3) as
arrangers for disposal. It also held the parent company
liable on summary judgment. The court held that there
must be some actual parent/officer involvement in the
operations of the subsidiary, but that it is not
necessary to show involvement in waste disposal
activities or daily operations of the subsidiary. The
opinion also contains a discussion of the policy
considerations which support extending use of parent
"owner/operator" liability case law to "arranger" cases.
In the Matter of the Big River Mine Tailings Site. On
July 7, 1994, EPA issued an AOC requiring Doe Run
Resources Corporation and St. Francis County
Environmental Corporation to perform anon-time critical
removal action designed to prevent any further releases
of lead from the 600-acre tailings pile. The estimated
cost of the work to be performed is $ 12 million. Under
the termsoflheAOC,Doe Run Resources agreed to perform
extensive slope stabilization, regrading, and
revegetation of the entire pile. The objective of the
removal action is to prevent any further releases of
lead-contaminated tailings from the site.
In the Matter of lee Chemical Co. Superfund Site.
liberty. Missouri: A CERCLA § 122(h) Agreement for
Recovery of Costs filed on May 23, 1994, recovered
$389,522 from the Department of Energy and Allied
Signal, Inc., which was 100 percent of EPA's past
response costs for the site located in Liberty, MO. The
settlement was initiated as part of a cooperative EPA/
state enforcement effort in which the State of Missouri
took the lead for ensuring completion of the remedial
action via an AOC with the site owner, a municipality,
while the EPA pursued its past costs against the federal
A-53
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
agency and government contractor parties who were the
site's waste generators.
U.S. v. Boehringerlngelheim Animal Health. Inc. (D.
Neb.): This consent decree settled EPA's Superfund cost
recovery case against Boehringer Ingelheim Animal
Health, Inc. (BIAH) as a de minimis waste contributor
settlement. BIAH contributed about 0.495 percent of the
1,354,801 pounds of hazardous substances processed at
the Site. The total EPA costs incurred for the EPA
clean-up of the Economy Products facility amounted to
$3,812,461. BIAH's pro rata share of the response costs
is calculated at $18,872. The $100,000 settlement
includes a 400-percent premium.
IntheMatterofRennerRoad Shooting Park. TheRenner
Road Shooting Range Site is located in Shawnee, KS. It
contains serious lead contamination from years of
operation as a shooting park. EPA issued an Action
Memorandum on March 18,1993, for conducting a time-
critical removal, which was completed in 1994. EPA
incurred approximately $1 million in clean-up costs.
In September 1994, EPA issued two AOCs to the two de
minimis parties pursuant to the authority under thde
minimis waste contributor provisions of CERCLA
§ 122(g)(1)(A). The de minimis settlements provide that
theparties will pay atotalof$41,250. The settlement
amounts were $30,000 for one party and $ 11,250 for the
other, based on the amount of waste each party
contributed to the site (5 percent and 1.7 percent,
respectively).
U.S. v. Citv of Clinton. Iowa (S.D. la.): In September
1994, EPA referred to the Department of Justice de
minimis landowner RD/RA consent decree that it is
proposing to enter into with the City of Clinton, Iowa,
pursuantto CERCLA § 122(g)(1)(b). The City of Clinton
has held title to the Chemplex Superfund Site since 1967
as part of an industrial development bond sale-leaseback
arrangement. There is no evidence that the City has had
any involvement with the Site other than as a nominal
title holder who holds indicia of ownership to protect a
security interest. Thus, the EPA is entering intoafe
minimis landowner settlement with the City of Clinton,
Iowa. The de minimis settlement requires the City to
provide site access to EPA and the other PRPs, and to
comply with deed restrictions. In exchange, the City
received a covenant not to sue and contribution
protection.
U.S. v. Midwest Asbestos Control.Inc..etaL (D. Kan.):
On July 25, 1994, Philip Buch, a former supervisor for
Midwest Asbestos Control, Inc., and the company itself
were sentenced in the District Court of Kansas after
their respective guilty pleas. The pleas stemmed from
the unlawful disposal of asbestos at the site of a
related company, Midwest Metals, Inc.
Buch pled guilty to the CERCLA misdemeanor of failing to
notify EPA of the existence of a facility at which
hazardous substances had been disposed,
A-54
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
a violation of 42 U.S.C. §9603(c). He was sentenced to
3 years probation and 100 hours of community service, and
was fined $25 in Special Assessments. Midwest Asbestos
Control pled guilty to the CERCLA felony charge of
failing to notify the appropriate government agency of
the release into the environment of a reportable
quantity of a hazardous substance, a violation of 42
U.S.C. §9603(b). Midwest Asbestos was sentenced to a
fine of $2,500 and a $200 special assessment.
A-55
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
REGION VIII
CLEAN AIR ACT
Sinclair Oil Corporation: On October 15,1993, EPA filed
a fully executed CACO for Payment of Civil Penalties,
settling a § 113(d) administrative penalty order issued
May20,1992. The violations cited involvedNSPS Subpart
"J" CEM requirements, specifically the failure to
install continuous emission monitors for all affected
fuel gas combustion devices by October 2, 1991. The
original administrative action sought a penalty of
$ 105,187. The settlementreducedthe penalty to $35,000
and gave credit of$70,187in exchange for a SEP valued
at about $270,000, resulting in a 3.85:1 offset ratio.
The SEP required the upgrade of the existing sulfur
recovery unit.
CLEAN WATER ACT
Dirt Merchant Construction/Sandra Tarr. On April 14,
1994, EPA issued an AO against Dirt Merchant
Construction Company, Inc. and Sandra Tarr, a Delta, CO,
landowner for violations of §404 of the CWA. The
violations occurred when the company built two illegal
dikes in the Gunnison River near Delta, CO, in endangered
fish species habitat. The enforcement action
successfully abated an imminent threat to river
stability and endangered fish species. The owner of the
property is now cooperating with the Corps of Engineers
by seeking authorization for bank protection measures
Lucas Western (Jamestown. North Dakota) On June 26,
1991, EPA referred the Department of Justice a case
citing Lucas Western for violations of federal
pretreatment regulations. Lucas Western discharges its
wastewater to the Jamestown wastewater treatmentplant.
Lucas Western violated reporting requirements and
pretreatment discharge limitations forpH and chromium
and NPDES proceeded to refer the case independently. On
May 4,1992, the complaint was filed in Federal Court.
In FY95, the Court entered a consent decree settling the
case for $250,000, plus an environmental audit.
Farmers Union CentralExdiangeCOOPfCENEX) (Billinps.
Montana): EPAissuedanNOVtotheStateofMontanaon
November 11,1990, forviolation by CENEX ofitsNPDES
permit limits for Oil and Grease dating back to December
1986. The State replied on January 29,1991, that due to
a lack of resources, the State would not pursue
enforcement against CENEX. On June 26, 1991, EPA
referred the CENEX case to the Department of Justice.
EPA agreed to settle this action with the Company for a
penalty of $316,000.
Burlington NorthernRailroadiW .D.JNisc.Y The case
against Burlington Northern, a registered corporation,
is being jointly pursued by Regions V and VIII. It
involves three incidents: [1] On June 30,1992, several
cars of a freight train operated by Burlington Northern
derailed on or near a trestle over the Nemadji River in
Wisconsin. Three of the cars fell from the trestle. One
car, which contained a product called "aromatic
concentrates," ruptured and discharged approximately
21,000 gallons ofits contents into the Nemadji River.
[2] On January 9, 1993, 25 cars of a freight train
operated by Burlington Northern derailed on or near a
track in the Wendover Canyon, adjacent to the North
Platte River in Guernsey, WY. Eleven cars fell from the
track. Several of these cars, which contained decant
oil, ruptured and discharged at least 100,000 gallons or
2,3 80 barrels of oil into the North Platte River. [3 ] On
May 6, 1993, nine cars of a freight train operated by
BurlingtonNorthernderailed from atracknearWorland,
Wyoming. Three of these cars, which contained clarified
oil, ruptured and discharged at least 40,000 gallons or
.953 barrels of oil into drainage ditches which empty into
and are tributaries of the Bighorn River.
The spill into the Nemadji River released benzene,
toluene, isoprene, naphthalene, and styrene in excess of
their reportable quantities. The two Wyoming releases
caused a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the
surface of the North Platte River, the drainage ditches
of the Bighorn river or their adjoining shorelines, or
caused a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the
surface of those bodies of water or upon their adjoining
shoreline. Burlington Northern made proper
notifications to EPA about the Wyoming spills.
In this civil action, brought under the CWA as amended by
the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), EPA also sought $279,078 to
recover costs incurred consistent with the National
Contingency Plan under CERCL A and OPA, and natural
A-56
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
resource damages totalling $250,000. The CWA penalties
totaled $2.5 million.
Hub City. South Dakota: EPAissuedacomplaintdated
December2,1992 charging Hub City with violations of the
Clean Water Act and the General Pretreatment Regulations
Reporting Requirements for failing to timely submit a
BMR,a90-dayComplianceReportandPeriodicCompliance
Reports. EPARegion VIII andHub City,Inc. have signed
a consent agreement settling this administrative case.
Hub City has agreed to pay acivil penalty of $12,500 and
to undertake a SEP requiring the installation of a
coolant recycling system, to recycle spent coolant from
Hub City's machining process. The SEP will reduce
loadings of biological oxygen demand to the City of
Aberdeen, South Dakota's sewer. It is estimated that the
cost of the SEP will be at least $68,000. The project
willbecompletedbyHubCitybyDecember31,1994. The
cash penalty amount of $ 12,500 recovers economic benefit
and the cost of the SEP ($68,000) is more than two times
the gravity which was calculated at $27,000.
City of Sioux Falls. South Dakota:: EPA Region VIE and
the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota have agreed to
settle this Clean Water Act administrative case for a
civil penalty of $26,250 and the undertaking by the City
of a SEP. The SEP is a household hazardous waste
recycling program which cost will be in the $ 15 0,000 -
$200,000 range. EPA initiated this action by issuing a
complaintto the City datedNovember 19,1992 alleging
violations of the Clean Water Act, itsNPDES permit and
the General Pretreatment regulations codified at 40 CFR
Part 403. Most of the violations relate to the City's
failure to properly implement the Industrial
Pretreatment requirements of 40 CFR Part 403.
Star Circuits: EPA Region VIII and Star Circuits, Inc.
have agreed to settle this Clean Water Act
administrative case for a civil penalty of $17,500 and
the undertaking by Star Circuits of two SEPs requiring
environmental audits of both the Star Circuits facility,
as well as Star Circuit's parent, Daktronics' facility,
both located in Brookings, South Dakota. The second SEP
is a waste minimization project for the Star Circuits
facility. It is estimated that the costs of the SEPs
will total approximately $30,000.
SDWA
Town ofMeeteetse. Wyoming: On September 1,1994, EPA
issued an emergency administrative order to the Town of
Meeteetse, Wyoming. The order was issued when tests
indicated the presence of Giardia in the finished
drinking water. Additional testing, performed
immediatelyafter the emergency order was issued,
drinking water.
The emergency order required the Town to provide an
alternate source of potable water; provide public notice
of the presence of microbiological contaminants in the
public water supply; issue a boil water notice to those
served by the system; perform an evaluation ofthe system
to determine changes necessary to bring the system into
compliance with the filtration requirements for a system
that uses a surface water source; and submit quarterly
reports onprogressmade towardbringingthe system into
compliance with requirements for a system that uses a
surface water source.
Citv Oil Corporation . A default judgment was entered
against Christopher Martin Pedersen requiring
compliance and assessing a penalty of $ 1.8 million. The
case against City Oil Corporation resulted in the same
j udgment, including the $ 1.8 million penalty. There
were numerous violations of the UIC program for 19
injection wells located on or near the Blackfeet Indian
Reservation in Northwestern Montana. Violations
included: unauthorized injection, failure to maintain
gauges, monitor, report perform mechanical integrity
tests, plug and abandon, etc. City Oil Corporation filed
for bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court ordered that the
wells could be abandoned from the company's liabilities.
RCRA
Reclaim Barrel. This facility is a former barrel
reconditioner located in West Jordan, Utah. Following
an inspection in FY94, it was identified as an illegal
storage and disposal facility. Three Regional programs
(RCRA,CERCLA,andNPDES)coordinatedtheirinformation
requests and sampling. An initial RCRA §3008(a)
complaint and order was issued on September 14,1994.
The proposed penalty is $488,749.
A-57
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
EPCRA
Advanced Forming Technology. MFY94, an administrative
complaintwas issued to Advanced Forming Technology for
failure to report under EPCRA § 313 for the use of 1,1,1 -
Trichloroethane (TCA). As a result, EPA and Advanced
Forming Technology settled in FY94 for a penalty of
$8,110 and a SEP costing approximately $20,000. The SEP
required the facility to purchase and install Vapor Trap
Freeboard Chillers and Mylar Rolling Covers on each of
the two solvent degreaser baths in order to reduce the
amount of TCA released to the environment. The outcome
of the project resulted in a 3 5-percent usage reduction
of TC A, while production output increased by 45 percent.
A ecu rate Plastics (nowSPM/Denver): OnMarch2,1992, an
administrative complaintwas issued to Accurate Plastics
for failure to report under EPCRA §313 for the use of
Ethyl Ketone and Toluene in 1989. EPA and Accurate
Plastics settled the case in FY94 for a penalty of $2,060
and a SEP costing approximately $89,742. The facility
purchased and installed a Graco-Assisted Airless Paint
Spray Unit and a Fanuc Robotics Spray Unit to reduce
total VOCs releases to the atmosphere by as much as 10
percent.
Denver Metal Finishing Company. InDecember 1991, EPA
issued an administrative complaint against Denver Metal
Finishing Company lor failure to report under EPCRA §313
chemicals that were otherwise used. In FY94, the case
was settled requiring the facility to pay a monetary
penalty of $8,900 and to undertake a SEP requiring the
purchasing and installation of a DSF 12 DynaSand Filter.
The DynaSand Filter is a continuous backwash, upflow,
deepbed granular media filter. The filter media is
continuously cleaned by recycling the sand internally
through an airlift pipe and sand washer. The purpose of
the filter is to remove any heavy metals from waste
generated during the process conducted by the facility.
NephiRubberProducts AnEPCRA §311/312compliance
inspection was conducted at the facility in Nephi, Utah,
and $49,920 in proposed penalties were assessed as a
result of the inspection findings. In addition to the
EPCRA violations, the State ofUtah issued aNOV and CO
for RCRA violations. Prior to the issuance of the
complaints, the company filed a petition for bankruptcy.
The company has little, if any, ability to pay a
penalty. The State ofUtah and EPA will negotiate with the
Respondent on which the P2 project is to be undertaken by
the facility as a SEP.
Thatcher Chemical Company. Over lOOpoundsof sulfur
dioxide was released into the environment when a hose
connection failed during a transfer from rail car to
fixed tank. Notification to the proper authorities was
delayed—a violation of EPCRA §304. Proposed penalties
in this complaint were $33,250. Negotiations with the
Respondent on a SEP as partial settlement to this
complaint were successful. The SEP included the
construction of a building with scrubbing equipment for
enclosure of vehicles while loading products to prevent
future releases into the environment of hazardous
chemicals.
FIFRA
BiotrolInternational Inc.: EPA settled administrative
actions against Biotrol and Stepan Company
(subregistrant and registrant) for making unsupported
claims for the disinfectant vacusal. EPA also finalized
settlement of two previous cases against Biotrol for a
$21,000 penalty.
CERCLA
Apache Energy and Minerals Co. (D. Colo.): On December
15,1993, the district court entered a consent decree in
whichtheDenverandRioGrandeWestemRai]road(D&RGW)
agreed to reimburse EPA over $1,125,000 in past response
costs at the site. D&RGW also agreed to conduct a
feasibility study and implement remedies to be selected
by EPA in the future for certain portions of the site. On
August 17, 1994, the district court entered a consent
decree in which Hecla Mining Company agreed to pay
$516,000 for past and future response costs. The United
States as defendant agreed to pay EPA $172,000 for
response costs to resolve claims for its potential
liability at the site. On August 26, 1994 the U.S.
District Court entered a consent decree in which Asarco,
Inc., Resurrection Mining Company, Newmont Mining
Company and the Res-Asarco Joint Venture agreed to
reimburse EPA for $7.4 million in past response costs at
the site. The Settling Defendants also agreed to
complete feasibility studies and perform remedial
actions at a majority of the site. It is estimated that
Settling Defendants commitment to perform work at the
site is in excess of $60 million.
A-58
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
Smuggler-DurantMining Corporation (D. Colo.): On July
6, 1994, the court entered a civil consent decree in
whichtheAtlanticRichfieldCorporation(ARCO)andthe
United States Department of Interior both agreed to pay
$1.6 million each for past response costs incurred at the
Smuggler Mountain Superfund site in Aspen, CO. The
Department of Interior paid their portion of the
settlement from the newly established DO J judgment fund.
In addition, EPA concluded very difficult and lengthy
negotiationswilhbothPitkinCountyandMAXXAM. Two
civil consent decrees were completed in late FY94. The
Canity dccrcc was lodged in December 1994 and tlie M AXXA M
decreeshouldbelodgedinJanuary 1995. The conclusion
of negotiations with these parties in FY94 means that
only one party of the original eleven parties that were
sued by the United States in 1989 now remains in the
CERCLA§107 litigation.
Clear Creek/Central Citv Superfund Site. Western
Diversified Builders: EPA assessed stipulated penalties
in the amount of $44,000 for violations of an AOC for
Removal Action at the Clear Creek/Central City Superfund
site. Under the order, Respondent was obligated to
perform a removal action at the National Tunnel portion
of the site. The action included piping of discharge
from a mine and the removal and proper disposal of
contaminated soils. Despite repeated notices and
warnings, Respondent failed to submit status reports and
was substantially behind schedule. EPA imposed
penalties to ensure a return to compliance for reporting
violations and to push completion of the removal action.
After issuance of the penalties, Respondent returned to
compliance and agreed to complete the project according
to a revised schedule. EPA agreed to settle payment of
the penalties for $22,000, if Respondent completed the
project on schedule. Respondent completed the proj ect
on schedule and made payment of $22,000 as final
resolution of the penalty action.
Whitewood Creek. EPA's Cost Recovery Program sent its
annual bill for oversight costs in the amount of $681,164
LoHomcstakcMiningCompany(Homcstakc)onIVIay 14,1992,
pursuantto a consent decree with Homestake. On June 9,
1992, Homestake invoked the dispute resolution and
placed the $681,164 in an interest-bearing escrow
account. Several letters and phone conversations
occurred during the following year with no resolution.
On March 2,1993, EPA sent its second annual billing to
Homestake in the amountof $238,966.23. Homestake,
again, disputed this bill and placed the amount in
another interest- bearing escrow account. In FY95 EPA
received a check lor $992,204 from Homestake Mining, the
total amount in dispute. In addition to collecting
$63,604 in interest that had accumulated in the Escrow
Account, EPA during this period, discovered an
additional $8,471 in expenditures that were omitted from
original billings.
Petrochem/Ekotek Site. EPA's Cost Recovery Program
billedtheEkoteksiteRemediation Committee (ESRC)PRPs
foroversightcostspursuanttoAOC(CERCLA-VIII-92-21)
for a RI/FS in the amount of $416,636.39 in August of
1994. The ESRC objected to many of EPA's oversight
costs, EPA's cost accounting procedures, and the level
of documentation that was provided. In FY95 the ESRC
paid EPA the total amount in dispute.
Petrochem/Ekotek. During FY94. EPA conducted a de
minimis settlement project resulting in settlement
proposals being offered to over 1,000 Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) who were believed to have
sent waste materials to this Superfund site. Early
projections for cleanup costs at the site had been
projected at approximately $69 million. In an effort to
be fair to these smaller waste contributors, EPA moved
quickly, sending out hundreds of CERCLA 104(e)
Information Request letters, proposing settlement
offers and reviewing eligibility for de minimis
settlement. In July, 1994, the Hazardous Waste
ManagementDivisionDirectorsigned363administrative
orders on consent, including 16 federal entities. This
expedited de minimis settlement is anticipated to
generate$7.8 million. The funds will be placed in a
special account to be used for site cleanup and EPA
oversight of the selected remedial action, which is
projected to occur in the Spring of 1995. EPA has also
initiated proposed de minimis settlements with two
additional groups at the site totaling 38 parties. One
of these groups include parties who have successfully
demonstrated to EPA their inability to pay the full
settlement. EPA has offered these parties reduced
settlement payments in an effort to ensure significant
but fair PRP participation in the cleanup of the site.
It is anticipated that when these additional settlement
are finalized, total de minimis settlements for the site
will total $8.3 million.
Colorado School of Mines Research Institute. Waste
matcrialswhich resulted from work |xrfonnedby CSMRI at
A-59
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
the facility include low-level radioactive waste, lead,
arsenic, and other heavy metals. Removal actions began
at the Site on January 25, 1992, in response to a water
main break. Negotiation for a removal AOC started almost
immediately; however, these negotiations were not
successful. A de minimis settlement was offered to 56
PRPsonJune 10,1994. Theofferwasacceptedby47PRPs.
The de minimis AO was finalized in FY95, for a total of
$ 1,340,5 84. One de minimis PRP was a federal facility,
the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the remaining PRPs
were private companies or corporations.
North American Environmental Ina: The North American
Environmental, Inc. (NAE) Site engaged in the business
of collecting, packaging, transporting, and disposing of
waste oils and debris (transformers, capacitors, light
ballasts, etc.) containing PCBs. Other contaminants
found at the Site included solvents and cyanide. NAE
began receiving wastes at the Site in September of 1986.
In Augustof 1990, NAE submitted an application to EPA
for a commercial storage permit for PCB-contaminated
wastes for the Site. EPA denied NAE's application for a
permit due to the failure of NAE to provide sufficient
and/or complete information regarding a financial
assurancemechanismrequiredforclosure. OnOctober5,
1990, EPA notified NAE that it should not accept any more
waste at the Site, and that it should dispose of the
remaining inventory wilhin 30 days. OnDecember3,1990,
EPA notified NAE that it was denied final storage
approval and that it should close the facility. NAE
claimed financial inability to do so, and abandoned the
Site.
On February 28, 1992, EPA allowed the landowner
(Freeport Center Associates), to provide an opportunity
for the generators of the waste stored at the Site to
retrieve and dispose of their own wastes, according to
EPAprotocol, from March 1,1992, through September 1,
1992. OnSeptember2,1992, approximately 700drumsand
26 transformers remained at the Site. In addition, four
railroad tanker cars, containing varying volumes of
liquid waste and one railroad boxcar containing
approximately 15 drums of waste remained at the Site.
EPA negotiated a removal AOC with Freeport Center
Associates, the current owner of the Site, and the U.S.
Defense Logistics Agency, a generator of wastes at the
Site. The AOC was issued to the two above-mentioned
Respondents on October 5,1993. The AOC required that a
site inventory be completed prior to the start of the
removal action.
Respondents were found to be in violation of the AOC for
failure to notify EPA in writing seven days before
beginning the site inventory of
A-60
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
hazardous substances and for failure to submit daily,
weekly,andmonlhlyreportsasrequiredbythe AOC. EPA
assessed stipulated penalties for these violations and
sent a demand letter for $ 12,000 to the Respondents on
March23,1994. Payment was received on April 4,1994.
The PRP-lead removal action began on August 1,1994 and
is scheduled to be complete by the 3rd quarter of FY95.
A-61
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
REGION IX
CLEAN AIR ACT
U.S. v. Shell Western E&P. Inc. (E.D. Calif.V On August
11,1994, the court entered a stipulation and order of
dismissal in which Shell Western agreed to pay $337,000
in civil penalties in order to settle a civil action
brought under the CAA. This action arose from Shell
Western's violations of California SIP requirements
applicable to oil recovery at the company's Belridge Oil
Field in Kern County, CA. The civil complaint alleged
violations relating to emissions of VOCs and breakdown
reporting violations. AnNOV was issued to Shell Western
after EPA reviewed the company's responses to
information requests under § 114 of the CAA.
U.S. v. TABC. Tna (CD. Calif.) On May 26,1994, the
court entered a consent decree in which TABC agreed to
pay $485,000 in civil penalties and to install and
operate pollution control equipment in order to settle
a civil action brought under the CAA. This action arose
from TABC's violations of California SIP rule that
limits the VOC content of coatings applied to automobile
parts at TABC's facility in Long Beach, CA. The civil
complaint alleged that TABC violated the SIP at its
facility by using coatings with VOC contents that
exceeded the limits imposed by the SIP rule.
U.S. v. Minerec. Inc. (D. Ariz.): On August 26,1994,
EPA issued an emergency order to Minerec Mining
Chemicals, a chemical manufacturing plant located in the
San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation in
Arizona. EPA made a finding that operations at the
Minerec facility presented an imminent and substantial
endangermentto the public health or welfare or the
environment and issued an order requiring that Minerec
shutdown its manufacturing operations. That order was
subsequently amended to allow limited production at the
facility, and to require that Minerec install monitoring
devices. This case involves the precedent setting use of
a CAA §303 order to close down a facility based on the
risk of uncontrolled releases of hazardous chemicals.
U.S. v. All American Pipeline Company (C.D. Calif.V On
September 19,1994, the court entered a civil consent
decree in which All American Pipeline Company (AAP)
agreed to pay $714,000 in civil penalties. AAP also
agreed to perform an SEP and injunctive relief. For the
SEP, AAP agreed to remove three internal combustion (IC)
engines, thereby eliminating substantial NOx emissions.
CLEAN WATER ACT
U.S. v. American Global Line. Inc. (N.D. Calif.V On
September 20,1994, the captain of an 800-passenger
luxury liner and two shipping company executives pled
guilty in federal court in San Francisco to illegally
dumping several tons of debris into the ocean. The firm,
American Global Inc., pleaded guilty to a felony
violation and was fined $100,000. Lloyd R. Haugh,
captain of the Independence, pleaded guilty to a
misdemeanor offense for instructing his crew to
illegally dump about five tons of debris into the ocean
in May 1992. He was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and
placed on probation for a year. The incidents involved
the dumping of renovation debris from the cruise ships
Independence and Constitution during trips from Honolulu
to Portland and Honolulu to San Francisco.
Two corporate officers of American Global Line, Peter
Bianchi Jr., senior vice-president for operations, and
Robert Elder White III, vice president of marine
operations also pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. They
were each fined $5,000 and placed on probation for a
year.
U.S. v. Magma Copper Co. (D. Ariz.V On November 8,
1994, the court entered a consent decree resolving a suit
brought by EPA and the State of Arizona against Magma
Copper Co. The suit was brought in response to
violationsof the CWA and related State law at three
copper mining and processing facilities operated by
Magma in southeastern Arizona. The decree requires
Magma to pay penalties of $3 85,000 to the United States
and $240,000 to Arizona The decree also requires Magma
to undertake compliance measures and to complete a SEP
designed to control contamination at an abandoned mine.
The costtoMagmaofimplementingthe SEP is difficultto
predict prior to completion of the project planning
phase, but is estimated to be $ 1.5 million. The decree
further requires Magma to pay $50,000 to fund three
A-62
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
additional SEPs which the U.S. Forest Service will
complete to benefit the affected watersheds.
U.S. v. Citv and County of Honolulu (D. Haw.) On
October 3,1994, aconsentdecree was lodged resolving a
CWA enforcement action brought by the United States and
the State of Hawaii against the City and County of
Honolulu. This action arose as a result of the City and
County of Honolulu's poor maintenance of its sewer
system, which resulted in over 300 spills of raw or
partially-treated sewage into Hawaiian waters
(including a spill of 50 million gallons of raw sewage
into Pearl Harbor in 1991 that attracted national
attention). The City and County of Honolulu also failed
to implement an adequate pretreatment program to
regulate the discharge of toxics from industries
discharging into its sewer system.
Under the consent agreement, the City and County of
Honolulu will pay a civil penalty of $ 1.2 million and has
committed to improve the operation and maintenance of
its sewer system—includingthe renovation of 1900miles
of sewer lines over the next 20 years and to develop and
implement a pretreatment program to regulate the
discharge of industrial toxic wastewater. Under the
decree, the City and County of Honolulu has also
committed to spend $3 0 million on SEPs for treating and
reusing wastewater and sludge. Honolulu will recycle 10
tons of sewage sludge per day by 1998 and 10 million
gallons of wastewater per day by the year 2001.
U.S. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Corp. (E.D.
Calif.): OnMarch 14,1994, aconsentdecree was lodged
in court resolving the remaining claims of the United
States arising from the 1991 spill ofmetam sodium into
the Sacramento River caused by a Southern Pacific train
derailment on July 14, 1991.
The settlement resolves the causes of action against
SouthernPacificTransportation Company,itsparents and
subsidiaries, against the General American
TransportationCorporationandGATXCorporation(owners
of the tank car), as well as against the companies that
were lessors/lessees of the tank car. The settlement
provides for recovery of $36 million in response costs,
which provides for full payment of all EPA response
costs. The decree also requires payment of a $500,000
CWA civil penalty, equivalentto the statutory maximum
for the violations in question. In addition, the consent
decree requires that the Settling Defendants establish
a $14 million fund to be administered by the natural
resource trustees, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, for use in restoration/mitigation of natural
resource damages.
U.S. v. Teledvne. Inc. (S.D. Calif.): On April 12,1994
a consent decree was entered resolving the CWA
enforcement action against Teledyne, Inc. for violations
at its Ryan Aeronautical facility in San Diego, CA. The
decree requires Teledyne to pay a civil penalty of
$500,000 in settlement of the United States claims. This
action was brought as a result of Teledyne's repeated
violation of the federal categorical pretreatment
standards governing metal finishing point sources.
Teledyne had also violated the prohibition against
dilution as a substitute for treatment by adding
unnecessary quantities of water to its process
wastewater prior to discharge into the City sewer
system.
U.S. v. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County (S.D. Calif.): On June 6,1994, a consent decree
was entered resolving the CWA enforcement action against
the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
(CSDLAC). TheUnitedStatesandthe State of California
sued in January 1992 to compel CSDLAC to achieve
secondary treatment at the Joint Water Pollution Control
Plant located in Carson, CA, and to address additional
intermittent violations of other permit conditions.
Under the terms of the consent decree, CSDLAC was
required to pay a civil penalty of $300,000 to the United
States and a penalty of $200,000 to the State of
California. The decree further requires CSDLAC to
complete a program to promote the beneficial reuse of its
wastewater, andrequiresCSDLACtoimplementahousehold
hazardous waste collection program costing at least $1.2
million.
RCRA
U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel. Ltd. Estate of James
CampbeHLpscoLnc. andComincoLtd. (D. Hawaii) On
August 2, 1994, the court entered the consent decree
signed by three of the four defendants in this case. The
decree provides for payment of $700,000 in penalties by
all settling defendants jointly. The decree also
provides that HWS will implement corrective action and
closure at the facilities at issue and the Estate will
annually survey its tenants concerning their compliance
withenvironmentallawsandorganizeprogramseducating
A-63
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
its tenants concerning hazardous waste laws and
pollution prevention.
In the Matter of U.S. Naval Air Facility. El Centro.
California. On August 29,1994, EPA signed a CACO
resolving an administrative complaint against the U.S.
Naval Air Facility in El Centro, CA, involving various
violations of the RCRA. Under the terms of the
settlement, the Navy will pay a penalty of $ 100,000 and
in addition will perform at the facility two SEPs
relating to pollution prevention. The total cost of the
two SEPs is approximately $250,000.
U.S v. Citv of Los Angeles and U.S. v. Lockheed
Corporation (C.D. Calif.): On September 14,1994, the
United States filed settlements in five industrial
pretreatment civil cases. The settlements totaled
$750,000 in civil penalties. The defendants were
LockheedCorporation (an aerospace manufacturer),
Chevron, U.S.A. (an oil refiner), Teledyne Industries (a
computer chip manufacturer), Stainless Steel Products,
Inc. (an aerospace manufacturer), and Zero Corporation
(an aerospace manufacturer). All of the defendants
operate facilities in the greater Los Angeles area and
discharge into the City of Los Angeles sewer system. The
defendants hadnumerous violations ofEPA's categorical
pretreatment standards, mostly for toxic metals, which
contributed to the City of Los Angeles' discharge of
toxics into Santa Monica Bay from its Hyperion Treatment
Plant.
U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel, et al. (D. Haw.)
Hawaiian Western Steel operated a secondary steel
production plant in the Campbell Industrial Park in Ewa
Beach, Oahu, HI. The plant's emission control system
collected particulate matter from the furnace, thereby
generating "baghouse dust" whichis anRCRA hazardous
waste due to high concentrations of lead and cadmium.
Approximately 43,500 tons of HWS' waste filled a 4.5-
acre on-site landfill. Three of the four named
defendants, including Hawaiian Western Steel signed a
consent decree which required them to pay $700,000 in
penalties for violating RCRA's permitting requirements
for storing and treating hazardous waste, and complete
closure of the landfill and on-site and off-site
corrective action at an estimated cost of over $5
million.
CERCLA
U.S. v.PeterGullandNLLndustries.Lnc. (C.D.Calif.)
On April 12,1994, the court signed ajudgment approving
$2,687,982 in response costs and $3,670,274 in punitive
damages for NL Industries' failure to comply with a
CERCLA § 106 order to clean up lead contamination at the
B&H Battery site in Norco, CA. The only other defendant,
property owner Peter Gull, had previously entered a
settlement with the United States. In imposing the
penalty, the court found that NL did not have a
sufficient cause defense to the order because it "did not
have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that
EPA's order was either invalid or that EPA's order was
arbitrary and capricious."
PearlHarhorNavalComplexFederalFarilitiesAgreement:
On March 17,1994, EPA, the State ofHawaii, and the U.S.
Navy signed the Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) for
the Pearl HarborNaval Complex CERCLA site. This
agreement contains several changes over prior FFAs,
including strengthened language on splitting stipulated
penalties with the State and a modified dispute
resolution process. Under the modified dispute
resolution process, only the Secretary of the Navy may
elevate disputes to the Administrator, and the parties
state their intention that such disputes will be limited
to issues of national significance.
U.S. v. Montana Refining Co. (9th Cir.V On August 17,
1994, the Ninth Circuit granted the United States'
appeal of the district court decision in this CERCLA cost
recovery case brought against C. Michael Wilwerding,
Poly-Carb, Inc., and Montana Refining Company in
connection with a removal action conducted at the
Poly-Carb facility in Wells, NV. Montana Refining sent
two shipments of toxic spent phenolic caustic to the
Poly-Carb facility, operated by Michael Wilwerding,
allegedly as "feedstock" for an untested recycling
operation. Montana Refining paid the costs of shipment
and did nothave any arrangement wilh Mr. Wilwerding for
payment for the feedstock. The phenolic caustic
subsequently spilled. EPA incurred response costs of
$482,410 in cleaning up the spill after Montana Refining
failed to comply with an EPA order. The United States
subsequently brought a cost recovery case, the first
such action in Nevada.
Ln the Matter ofLron Mountain Mine. On April 22,1994,
EPA issued a CERCLA §106 order to the current and
A-64
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
operators of the Iron Mountain Mine Superfiind Site, T.W.
ArmanandIronMountainMinesInc.,andthe former owners
and operators Rhone-Poulenc Inc., requiring that they
construct new facilities and operate facilities
currently under construction to treat the three largest
sources of acid mine drainage. This acid mine drainage
eventually enters the Sacramento River where it has been
responsible for fish kills and chronic adverse impacts
on an important fishery population, including a
commercial run and the winter run chinook salmon, an
endangered species. Iron Mountain Mine was identified
as the largest uncontrolled toxic point source in the
nation underthe CWA §304(1) program and was one of the
first sites placed on the Superfund National Priorities
List.
U.S. v. Alcatelln formation Systems. Ina (D. Arizona)
On September 2, 1994, a civil consent decree for the
remedial design and remedial action at the Hassayampa
Landfill Superfund site ("Site") was lodged in the
court. The settlement requires 12 major settling
defendants to design, construct, and operate the remedy
selected in EPA's Record of Decision for the Site and to
reimburse EPA for all of its past and future response
costs at the Site. The twelve major settling defendants
are: Honeywell Inc.; Bull HN Information Systems, Inc.;
AlcatelNetwork Systems; Digital Equipment Corp.;
GenerallnstrumentCorp. ;AT&T Corp.; ShellOilCompany;
Arizona Public Service Company; American National Can
Company; Intel Corporation; Reynolds Metals Company; and
Maricopa County, AZ (all of the major settling
defendants are generators except for Maricopa County,
which owned and operated the Site). The settlement also
provides for 74 de minimis corporate generators and 3
settling federal agencies (the U.S. Air Force, the
Veterans Administration and the U.S. Forest Service) to
resolve their generator liability at the Site by cashing
out to the twelve major settling defendants.
A-65
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
REGION X
CLEAN AIR ACT
AlveskaPipelineServicesCompanvandARCQProducts On
November4,1993, the Regional Administrator entered a
CACO resolving the three administrative complaints
issued to Alyeska. The CACO assessed a final penalty of
$135,000 and incorporated the requirements of an
alternative monitoringplan (AMP) to be used atthe pump
stations in lieu of the CEMS. Under the alternative
monitoringplan, Alyeska installed H2S treatmentprocess
to remove H2S from the fuel gas atthe pump stations. The
treatment, a dry chemical bed produced by SulfaTreat
Company, will reduce S02 emissions to virtually zero
(from the existing approximately 120ppm). On September
30,1994, the CACO was modified to allow until October 8,
1994 for the SulfaTreat systems to be installed and to
require that the topping unit at Pump Station 8 be
permanently shut down no later than March 31, 1995.
NonnaandFrankEchevairiaxl/h/aEchecoEnvironmental
Services: On December 27, 1993, EPA held that
respondents were strictly liable for violations of the
CAA and asbestos NESHAP, EPA neednot prove that visible
emissions of asbestos occurred to prove violation of the
wettingrequirements, EPA couldrely on the observations
of inspectors to establish that asbestos is inadequately
wetted and that once the asbestos material has been
collectedand contained, the wetting requirements of
61.145 no longer apply. EPA ordered Echeco to pay a
penalty of $9,500.
Phillips Petroleum Company andAGLInc.: EPAfiledan
administrative case against these two companies alleging
they had violated the asbestos NESHAP wetting
requirements. After obtaining affidavits from Phillips
documentingthat it had hired and paid a qualified
contractor (AGI) to perform the asbestos removal
properly and an independent third party to monitor the
contractor's work, EPA entered into a settlement
ordering AGI to pay a penalty of $16,500, and a
stipulation of dismissal of the claim against Phillips
(at Phillips' and AGI's request).
Trans-AKEnvironmentalServices& Construction Corp..
GiddingsMortgageandInvestmentCompany.andNeeser
Construction: InFY94, EPA issued and resolved an
administrative complaintagainstGiddings Mortgage and
InvestmentCompany,NeeserConstruction,andTrans-Ak
EnvironmentalServices & Construction Corp. The
complaint alleged violations of the asbestos NESHAP
regulations during renovation of the city hall in
downtown Anchorage, Alaska. The consent agreement
assesses a penalty of $40,000. In addition, Trans-Ak
agreed to develop and implement an internal asbestos
control program.
U.S. v. GlobalTraveLJordan-WUcombConstruction. and
Allied Construction (D. Id.): On October 18, 1993, a
consent decree was entered in by the court resolving a
complaint filed against Global Travel, the building
owner, Jordon-Wilcomb Construction, the general
contractor; and Allied Construction, the demolition
contractor, in October 1992 for violations of the
asbestos NESHAP. The complainthad alleged violations
ofthenotice provision oftheasbestosNESHAP and three
work practice requirements during renovation of a
building in Boise, Idaho. In the consent decree, the
Defendants agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty and to
injunctive relief.
U.S. v. Zemlicka and Davis. On October 20,1993, two
consent decrees were entered which resolved an asbestos
NESHAP case in Idaho. The defendants were the owner of
a building and the demolition contractor that he hired to
demolish the building. A preliminary environmental
assessment prepared for the owner showed the likelihood
of asbestos-containing material in the building, yet he
failed to point this out to the demolition contractor.
The contractor hired more than a dozen itinerant workers
who had no respiratory protection while working. The
penaltiespaid were $25,000 (building owner) and $ 1,000
(contractor),which reflect reductions for inability to
pay. The injunctive relief is valued at $4,000 to
$6,000.
U.S. v.Martech USA.HobbsIndustries. Chuqach Electric
Association. Inc.: In late 1993, the United States filed
a partial consent decree resolving its claims against
MartechUSAinthisasbestosNESHAP case. Martechhad
previously escrowed the $85,000 penalty, which the court
then released to the United States after Martech filed
forChapter 11 bankrupteyprotectioninNovember 1993.
A-66
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
The consent decree settled claims arising out of
asbestos removal work performed by Martech USA, Inc. at
a decommissioned power plant in Anchorage, Alaska in
1990. The first consent decree, entered in November
1991, resolved claims against Martech's co-defendants,
Hobbs Industries and Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
U.S. v. Hagadone Hospitality Co.: On August 13,1993,
the United States filed a complaint against the Hagadone
Hospitality Company of Coeur DAlene, Idaho, alleging
asbestos NESHAP violations under the CAA. At the same
time the US lodged a consent decree in which Hagadone
agreed to a penalty of $48,000 and injunctive relief.
The violations occurred during the summer of 1990 when
Hagadone was demolishing buildings to build a large
resort. The consent decree was entered onNovember 30,
1993.
CLEAN WATER ACT
Wesley M. Sherer: An order was issued requiring removal
of fill and bulkhead from the Stehekin River at Stehekin,
WA. Fill had been put in by an individual for bank
protection of private property within the boundary of
the Stehekin National Recreation Area and in a
designated National Scenic River. This settlement
agreementprovided for complete removal of the fill,
restoration of the site, provision of a buffer,
continuing negotiations for acquisition of a
conservation easement on the property, and an
understanding by the county to require future compliance
with state shoreline protection measures. Fill removal
was begun in the spring of 1994 and completed in
November.
U.S. v. Steve Burnett and Dean Schroder fW.D. Wash.V In
September 1994 a Plea Agreement and Judgmentwas entered
which provided for establishment of a Trust Agreement.
A Trustee was established to receive, hold, administer,
and distribute more than $150,000 "to preserve, protect
and restore wetlands in the Battle Ground area for the
benefit of the community's citizens." The plea to the
misdemeanor charge resulted from investigation of a
citizen complaint of filling of wetlands adjacent to the
Salmon River near Battle Ground, WA. Compliance was
initially established with a fill removal order. The
Defendants subsequently refilled the same area, again
without benefit of a Corps of Engineers permit.
Additional investigation by the Corps and EPA resulted
in the bringing of criminal charges which were resolved
by the Plea Agreement.
Kenco Marine: An order was issued for removal of fill
material placed in the Duwamish River at Seattle, WA.
The violator, Tom Kent (d/b/a Kenco Marine), placed
fill, including concrete rubble, in an anadromous fish-
bearing river which is currently the focus of watershed
restoration efforts. EPA assumed the lead for
enforcement from the Corps of Engineers and, following
negotiations and issuance of a removal order,
established compliance by fill removal and site
restoration including revegetation. Significantly, the
site is adjacent to a coastal America restoration
project which was occurring simultaneously.
City of Ocean Shores. Washington: Attherequestofthe
Corps of Engineers, the EPA assumed the lead for
enforcement against the City of Ocean Shores for placing
fill in interdunal wetlands adjacent to the Pacific
Ocean. Following difficult negotiations, the city
removed the unauthorized fill, replanted the site, and
restored an adj acent site which had long been degraded by
vehicle traffic. The compliance action resulted in a net
gain of wetlands functions and values.
RodgerForni: Individual (d/b/aLighthouse Inn) entered
a settlement agreement which provided for creation and
restoration of interdunal wetlands adjacent to the
Pacific Ocean atOcean Shores, WA. EPA assumed the lead
for enforcement atthe request of the Corps of Engineers.
Negotiations coordinated with the State of Washington
resulted in wetlands creation, restoration (at a 2:1
ratio) and the deeding to the state of dunal wetlands and
beach adjacent to a public access and state park in an
accreting coastal reach. Educational signs indicating
the significance of the wetlands were also erected by the
violator.
Martin Nvgaard: Repeat violator attempted to drain
approximately 15 acres of freshwater marsh near
Warrenton, OR, by ditching. EPA entered into a joint
enforcement action with the State of Oregon Division of
State Lands resulting in the complete restoration of the
wetlands as well as a state fine.
RoggeMills: The mill in eastern Oregon was responsible
for unauthorized placementofwoodwaste in approximately
five acres of wetland in violation of the CWA and two
A-67
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
state statutes. EPA assumed the Federal lead and in
conjunction with the State of Oregon obtained fill
removal from most of the wetlands as well as mitigation
for remaining fill.
Washington State Department ofTransportation (WSDOT)
Unauthorized filling of several acres of wetland in
conjunctionwith a major highway project in western
Washington led to the halting of construction (at a cost
of several million dollars) and an agreement by WSDOT to
have middle anduppermanagementundergo404 training
sponsored by the Corps of Engineers, EPA and the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
Northlake Shipyards: EPA, DOJ and the state negotiated
acomplexsettlementarrangementwithNorthlakeandthe
bankruptcy trustee for Unimar for cleanup of the
contaminated site. Under that arrangement, Northlake
entered into a prospective purchaser agreement with the
state that creates a trust fund to pay for remediation of
existing sediment contamination and resolves
Northlake'sliability under the state's Superfund law.
EPA agreed to terminate the existing CWA consent decree.
Northlake will pay up to $1.1 million into the trust
fund. This will pay for the cleanup contemplated by the
original CWA decree.
CitvofTacoma: The United States settled a CWA judicial
action against the City of Tacoma, WA, for secondary
treatment violations. Settlement includes payment of a
$525,000 penalty and a SEP valued at $100,000 for the
sewage treatment plant hookup of low income housing
which currently discharges untreated wastewater
directly to Commencement Bay.
Arctic Fisheries: The United States settled this CWA
lawsuit (part of a Region X enforcement initiative)
against the Alaska seafood processor for $725,000 for
the unlawful discharge of fish wastes.
U.S. v. Stanley C. Rvbachek: The United States settled
the government's long-standing case against two Alaska
placer miners, for a $15,000 penalty and dismissal of
outstanding litigation the Rybacheks had filed against
the government and individual employees in the Court of
Claims and Alaska District Court, requesting millions of
dollars in damages.
RCRA
U.S. v. Robert and Geneva Stobaugh fW.D. Wash.V The
State of Alaska notified EPA of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
action filed by the Washington State owners of two
Anchorage service stations with documented petroleum
releases. The State requested EPA assistance in
obtaining funds from the bankruptcy estate to clean up
the sites. After receiving the Region's expedited
referral on December 10,1993, DOJ filed a protective
proof of claim with the bankruptcy court for the
estimated cost of investigating and cleaning up the
contamination at the two sites ($427,000 to $779,000).
In March 1994 an agreed order was entered by the
bankruptcy court placing about $39,477, the funds
remainingafter payment of taxes and administration
fees, into an environmental cleanup trust account to be
used to remove the leaking tanks and begin investigation
of the extent of contamination and cleanup.
U.S. v. R.H. Bowles. Inc. and Central Marketing. Inc.
(E.D.Wash.) : Case involved two closed service stations
on the Yakima Indian Reservation in Toppenish and
Wapato,WA. OnMay27,1994. EPA senta referral to DOJ
to file an objection to the trustee's intent to abandon
these two properties as a part of the liquidation of
these two corporations because petroleum contamination
had been identified at the Toppenish site and the tanks
had not been properly closed at either facility. As a
result of the objection filed, the trustee withdrew his
notice of abandonment and is currently in the process of
selling the properties to a third party who has agreed to
remove the abandoned tanks, conduct site assessments,
and undertake remedial action at both properties as
needed.
Alaska Railroad Company: In a settlement reached
betweenEPA andthe AlaskaRailroad Company (ARRC) in
April 1994 ARRC agreed to three Supplemental
Environmental Projects (SEPs), which included the
following: 1) installation of three state-of-the-art
hazardous waste accumulation buildings to temporarily
store the hazardous waste andused oil ARRC generates at
its Anchorage, Alaska, repair and maintenance facility;
2) conducting an audit of ARRC's waste generation and
management practices and implementing the findings of
the audit; and 3) funding and sponsoring a series of used
oil management and compliance seminars in Alaska for the
benefit of similarly-regulated industries and the
general public. These seminars will assist the public
A-68
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
and the regulated community in Alaska to comply with
EPA'snewly-promulgatedusedoilregulationscodifiedat
40CFRPart279. Tliese SEPswerc proposed by ARRC during
settlement negotiations. Implementation of the SEPs
will allow ARRC to discover and implement changes in its
waste managementpractices in order to prevent improper
managementofthose wastes. It was improper management
which led to the violations alleged in EPA's complaint.
When the complaint was originally issued in 1992, EPA
proposed penalties of $1,829,574. The case was settled
for a civil penalty of $685,999, with $274,400 of the
penalty being suspended and deferred pending ARRC's
successful completionofthethreeSEPsmentionedabove.
The settlement also requires ARRC to pay a $411,599 cash
penalty, with quarterly payments over two years, plus
interest. This case was one of the cases filed
nationally by EPA as part of the 1992 RCRCA "Illegal
operations Initiative."
Boeing Company: Seattle, Washington and Portland,
Oregon: In January of 1994, the Boeing Company entered
into two separate, very similar administrative orders on
consent, pursuant to Section 3008(h) of RCRA, to take
corrective action at its aircraft
manufacturing/assembly facilities in Seattle and
Portland. The orders obligate Boeing to implement
specified interim measures and to evaluate and assess
opportunities for additional interim measures while
implementing the orders. Boeing will also perform RCRA
Facility Investigations and Corrective Measures Studies
for the facilities, and following Final EPA Corrective
Action Decision(s), Boeing will implement the selected
corrective measures, subject to a right to withdraw
consent for the implementation of any specific final
corrective measure(s).
significance of the violations and to force Fort
Wainwright to come into compliance with RCRA
requirements.
1J.S. Army. Fort Richardson: On April 29,1994, Region X
issued an administrative complaint and compliance order
against the U.S. Army, Fort Richardson, Alaska, for
$1,337,332. In the order, EPA alleges twelve violations
of the RCRA requirements, including illegal storage of
hazardous waste; failure to make hazardous waste
determinations;inadequate closure, contingency and
waste analysis plans; and failure to obtain detailed
physical and chemical analysis. As with Fort
Wainwright,Region X and the State of Alaska have
addressedFortRichardson'snoncomplianceoverthepast
four years with notices of noncompliance, informal and
formal outbriefings and through a Federal Facility
Compliance Agreement. Because these past efforts have
not been successful, Region X is taking this enforcement
action to force Fort Richardson to come into compliance
with RCRA.
CERCLA
CommencementBav-SouthTacomaChannel Well 12A,a
municipal well in Tacoma, WA, was contaminated by
organic chemicals from property presently owned by the
Time Oil company.
Evidence uncovered in the Time Oil case indicated that
the Boeing Company andthemilitary (Army and Air Force)
were potential generators at the site. DOJ filcdf/. S. v.
BoeingCompanym 1992;Boeingthencountersuedbasedon
the possible
I J.S. Armv.F ort W ainwripht. Alaska: OnApril29,1994,
Region X issued an administrative complaint and
compliance order against the Department of the Army,
Fort Wainwright, Alaska. The order alleges six
violations of RCRA requirements, including illegal
storage ofhazardous waste and failure to make hazardous
waste determinations. Region X and the state of Alaska
have tried through both informal outbriefings and
through a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement to
address Fort Wainwright's failure to achieve compliance.
The Region decided to use the enhanced enforcement
authority ofthe Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992
to assess a penalty of $659,450 both to underscore the
A-69
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
military contribution. The parties settled in spring
1994 and a consent decree was lodged in December with the
following terms. The Boeing Company will pay EPA $2.3
million to settle claims related to its alleged
liability. Boeing has agreed to drop its claim against
the United States for reimbursement of past and future
cleanup costs which Boeing is required to pay EPA. The
military has agreed to pay EPA $7.7 million to settle
claims related to their alleged liability.
Bunker Hill: In a consent decree referred in March 1994
and entered by the court in November, EPA settled with
six companies who owned or operated mines upstream from
this 21-square-mile site in Shoshone County, Idaho. The
site, which includes five communities, was contaminated
by past mining and smelting activities. The respondents
will continue the residential soil cleanups that were
begun several years ago under an Agreement on consent
using removal authorities. The estimated value of the
work to be done by the respondents is $40 million. EPA
has more recently settled with other PRPs for this site,
and has undertaken Fund-lead cleanup actions at the
Bunker Hill smelter complex, for which the owner-
operators are bankrupt.
A-70
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE
RCRA/FFCA
RCRA/FFCAPenalh'Onler-CMistCiuanLKadiak.Afafka
Facility On July 14, 1994, EPA Region X issued a
complaint against the U. S. Coast Guard Kodiak Support
Center, Kodiak, Alaska, seeking $1,018,552 in penalties.
The complaint resulted from two major violations of the
RCRA: failure to properly monitor groundwater in an area
where cleaning solvents had been dumped on the ground,
and the illegal storage of hazardous waste without a
proper permit from EPA. The complaint was the first
action brought against a civilian Federal agency under
the F ederal F acility Compliance Actofl992(FF C A), an
amendment to RCRA which allows EPA to assess civil
penalties against federal agencies in the same way that
it does against private companies.
Presidio of San Francisco: Region IX filed a complaint
and citations May 9, 1994, against the U.S. Army
Garrison, Presidio of San Francisco for violating
federal environmental laws and proposed a penalty of
$556,500 for the hazardous waste violations.
Besides paying the penalty, the complain charging
hazardous waste violations required the Army to inspect
each building on the Presidio for hazardous wastes and to
remove all such wastes currently stored there by July 1,
1994.
Schofield Barracks: Region IX assessed $543,900 in
penalties under the RCRA §3008(a), April 21, 1994,
against Schofield Barracks, a U.S. Army facility located
in Wahiawa, HI. Schofield Barracks is headquarters for
the 25th Infantry Division and 45th Support Group. The
facility operates numerous motorpools and maintenance
shops that generate wastes such as waste paint, waste
solvents, and contaminated waste oils which are listed
as hazardous waste under RCRA.
NorfolkNavalShipvard: EPARegionHIissuedRCRA §7003
emergency orders March 25,1994 (traditionally used in
the hazardous/solid waste area) requiringthe Department
of the Navy and the private operator of the municipal
waste incinerator at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard to
address air emissions. The order is designed to address
the dioxin emissions in the short term.
As a result of the Navy's efforts following the order, a
June 1994 stack test indicated that dioxin emissions
have been reduced by 95 percent from one of the four
units at the municipal waste incinerator. Region III and
the Navy are moving to the other three units and hope to
accomplish similar results.
Y orktownNaval WeaponsStation.Y orktown. Virginia:
EPA, theNavy, and the Commonwealth ofVirginiareached
settlement on an interagency agreement (IAG) for the
Naval Weapons Station at Yorktown,VA. TheYorktown
Naval Weapons Station is a 10,624 acre installation
located in York and James City Counties and the City of
Newport News. Hazardous substances and other
contaminants of concern detected among 14 sites at
WPNSTA-Yorktownincludedarsenic,cadmium,chlordane,
ethylbenzene, explosives, heptachlor, hexavalent
chromium, lead, mercury. PAHS, PCBS, phenols, TCE, TCA,
1,2-DCE, thallium, toluene, and zinc. EPA conducted an
RCRA Solid Waste ManagementUnitlnvestigationatthe
WPNSTA,andissuedafinalreportinDecember 1992. The
final report identified 94 areas at the WPNSTA that
require additional investigation under RCRA. Of the 94
identified areas, 10 areas will be deferred to the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program. The agreement
requires the Navy to determine the nature and extent of
contamination attheYorktownNaval Weapons Station. In
addition, should any remedial action be necessary, the
Navy will perform it.
Naval Surface Warfare Center. Dahlgren Division.
Dahlgren. Virginia : EPA Region III, the Navy, and the
Commonwealth of Virginia reached settlement on an
interagency agreement (IAG) for the Naval Surface
Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Dahlgren, VA. The
agreement requires the Navy to determine the nature and
extentof contamination atNSWC-Dahlgren. In addition,
should any remedial action be necessary, the Navy will
perform it.
Fort Dix. New Jersey Region II issued a Notice of
Violation July 15, 1994, to Fort Dix, NJ, for a CWA
violation. The Army violated the interim limits on
biological oxygen demand contained in the order on
consent EPA-CWA-II-91-95 and the final limits of the
A-71
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
facility's NJPDES permit. Under the order, the Army will IJ.S.NavalStationRooseveltRoads.Ceiha.PuertoRico:
be responsible for the completion of an environmentally EPA settled a dispute with the Navy atUSNS-Roosevelt
beneficial project (EBP) to offset the effects of the Roads in Puerto Rico. The dispute was over a revised
violation. The sum of the EBP due for the period in consentorderundertheNPDESprogramforviolationsof
question, January 1994 through March 1994, is $4,000an existing Federal Facility Compliance Agreement
(FFCA). The CWA matter in dispute covered violations of
the effluent parameters of the facility's NPDES permit
and interim limits of an existing FFCA, as well as for
overflows of the sewage collection system. A proposed
order was originally issued on February 12,1993. EPA
has issued approximately three NOVs to the facility
since 1990 under the CAA and the CWA (SPCC), and a
Warning Letterpursuantto Subtitle I of RCRA (UST, all
of which have been resolved or are on track to be
resolved.
A-72
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
OFFICE OF REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
CLEAN AIR ACT
U.S. v. Atlantic Rich field Company and Snvder Oil
Corporation (D. Wvo.) EPA settled violations of the
provisions of Part C-PSD of Air Quality PSD of the CAA,
attheARCORiverton (Wyoming) Dome Gas Plant. This
consent decree provides that the defendants pay a civil
penalty of $875,000, the largest CAA settlement in
Region VIII's history.
U.S. v. W.R (irace Company (D. Mont.): EPA resolved an
action against WR Grace for alleged violations of the
work practice standards for demolition and renovation
activities where the building contains asbestos. The
alleged violations took place during demolition
activities at Grace's vermiculite mill in Libby, MT. The
$510,000 penalty paid by Grace in settlement of this
action is the largest paid in settlement of an Asbestos
NESHAP case in the Region and second nationally. In
addition to the penalty, Grace also agreed to engage in
a specific compliance program at 29 of its facilities
across the nation as part of the settlement.
U.S. v. ICIInternational. Inc. . An administrative
settlement agreement was executed by EPA on April 26,
1994 with the respondent, resolving numerous violations
of the CAA committed over the past several years. The
respondent is an importer of motor vehicles, who was
licensed by EPA to convert motor vehicles that do not
meet Federal emission requirements into complying
vehicles. The settlement agreement required that the
respondent lose its EPA import license for a year, hire
an EPA compliance manager, and pay $10,000 in civil
penalties. This case was the first time that an importer
lost its license to import cars under EPA's motor vehicle
imports program.
U.S. v. JBA Motorcars. Inc and Dr. Jacob Ben-Ari (S.D.
Fla-V On December 15, 1993, judgment was entered
against the defendant by the court, resolving numerous
violations committed over the past several years. The
defendant was an importer of motor vehicles, who was
licensed by EPA to convert motor vehicles that do not
meet Federal emission requirements into complying
vehicles. The court ordered the defendant to pay
$196,000 in civil penalties. This was the largest
penalty ever assessed under EPA's motor vehicle imports
program.
U.S. v. DanielRosendahUS.D. Tex.): On July 13,1994,
judgment was entered against the defendant by the court
for $120,000. The district court found the defendant
liable for importing 12 disassembled Citroen 2CVs that
did meet Federal motor vehicle emission standards in
violation of Ihe CAA. Because the defendanthad imported
the cars as parts, instead of as whole cars, this case
helped close a potential loophole in the CAA related to
the importation of incomplete automobiles.
U.S. v. Ken Ball and Phil McCreeiv (W.D. Mo.): A consent
decree was formally entered October 17,1994. Ball, a
scrap dealer, had sold McCreery, a muffler shop owner,
used, untested automobile catalytic converters to be
used as replacement parts on vehicles needing new
converters, in violation of section 203 of the CAA. An
improper or non-functioning catalytic converter can
result in 400 to 800 greater greater emissions than would
occur from the same vehicle with a proper converter. A
complaint had been filed on September 29, 1993, and
alleged up to 39 separate violations of the tampering
prohibition of section 203 of the Act. Both Defendants
made a showing of financial hardship. Based on that, the
United States settled with Ball for $12,500 and with
McCreery for $10,000.
TSCA
Town of Wallinpford. Connecticut: Wallingford will test
all town-owned transformers for PCBs and, at a cost of
over a million dollars over the next 3 years, will remove
all that were previously improperly disposed and pay a
cash penalty of $40,050, pursuant to this TSCA
settlement negotiated by Tom Olivier.
Cressona Aluminum Company PCB Cleanup: The United
States settled a judicial case against the Cressona
Aluminum Company addressing the improper use, storage
and disposal of PCBs at the company's facility in
Cressona, PA. Cressona manufactures various extruded
aluminum parts at its 115 acre facility on the bank of
the west branch of the Schuylkill River and high
A-73
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
concentrationsof PCBs were previously used in the
company's hydraulic equipment.
EPA's complaint sought injunctive relief under TSCA §§
6 & 7 to address PCBs that presented an imminent hazard.
The settlement requires Cressona to clean up the PCB
contamination at the facility. The company will
decontaminate all plant equipment, including the
hydraulic and waste water treatment systems, and where
necessary,remove concrete floors up to 1.5" depth.
Plant outfalls will undergo a Toxics Reduction
Evaluation to eliminate PCB discharge into the
Schuylkill River. All PCB-contaminated debris will be
disposed of in a proper manner.
IJSS Cahot/Dedalo: EPA learned on June 8,1994 that the
owners of the US S Cabot/Dedalo, aretiredNavy warship,
proposed to export the ship, which contains high levels
of PCBs in its wiring. The presence of PCBs at levels
over 50 ppb makes the ship subject to TSCA §6(e).
On June 27,1994, EPA learned that the Foundationhad a
contractto sell the vessel for scrap and salvage to a
company in the Republic of India and had requested export
clearance from the U.S. Customs Service. EPA requested
that Customs deny clearance until the Foundation could
comply with TSCA §6(e). Inresponse,on July 11,1994,
the Foundation sought a TRO in the New Orleans U.S.
District Court, alleging that EPA is without statutory
or other authority to instruct Customs to restrict the
export of this vessel. EPA requested and DOJ has filed
an action seeking a TRO to halt the export. DOJ has
submitted a legal brief in opposition to the
Foundation's motion as well as a complaint on behalf of
EPA.
PortofNewOrleans: ThePortofNewOrleanswillremove
and dispose of PCB transformers, capacitors and
contaminated pads as part of a SEP under the terms of a
September 12,1994, CACO which EPA negotiated with the
Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans for
violations ofthe TSCA PCB requirements. The Port also
will pay a civil penalty of $8,520.
Sunshine Mining Company: EPA cited Sunshine Mining
Company for improper disposal ofPCBsbothonthe surface
and underground atthe Eureka Mine in Utah. Alleging 16
TSCA PCB counts, the proposed penalty is $109,500.
Imperial Holly Corporation: Imperial Holly Corporation
will pay a $7,490 penalty and perform a $224,700 SEP
involving removal and replacement of PCB equipment
pursuant to a settlement with EPA of a TSCA case
involving for PCB registration, record keeping,
inspection and disposal violations.
EPCRA
General Chemical Corporation: On July 26,1993, there
was a release of approximately 7800 pounds of sulfur
trioxide,anEPCRAextremely hazardous substance,from
a railroad tank car located at the General Chemical
facility in Richmond, CA—an area where environmental
equity is of critical concern.
On September 29, 1993, EPA issued an administrative
complaintto the General Chemical Corporation(GCC)with
proposedpenalties of$65,625 for violations ofCERCLA
Section 103 and EPCRA Section 304(a) and (c). These
violations involved GCC's failure to immediately notify
the NRC and the SERC ofthe release and, its failure to
provide adequate written follow-up reports to the SERC
as soon as practicable. On February 11, 1994, only GZi
months from the date ofthe release event, EPA closed the
case with an executed consent agreement and consent
order (CACO). The CACO required GCC to pay 100 percent
ofthe $65,625 penalty proposed in the complaint and
required them to certify that it had come into compliance
with CERCLA Section 103 and all Sections of EPCRA.
Alaska Pulp Corporation: In Region X's first multimedia
settlement, reached on February 17, 1994, Alaska Pulp
Corporation (APC) will pay cash penalties of $64,600 for
TSCA violations, $45,650 for TRI violations, and $27,068
for RCRA violations. The settlement also requires APC to
spendatleast$ 129,200to dispose ofPCB transformers at
its Sitka facility; to spend a minimum of $83,000 to
implement a "Nutrient Pollution Prevention Project" and
a "Caustic Wash Reuse Project" at its Sitka facility; and
to pay up to an additional $ 10,062 in cash if it does not
expend at least $40,250 more on the Nutrient Pollution
Prevention and Caustic Wash Reuse Projects (over and
above the initial $83,000).
TrailWagons: EPAinspectedTrailWagons,aYakima,WA,
van conversion operation, and found that it had used
1,1,1-trichloroethane and styrene in amounts exceeding
the Toxics Release Inventory reporting thresholds. EPA
filed an administrative complaint on October 22, 1992
A-74
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
for $51,000. The company submitted sales data
supporting penalty reduction because of inability to
pay, and proposed two SEPs which consisted of a solvent
recycling unit and high efficiency spray equipment, at
a total cost of $7,872, resulting in a final penalty of
$7,314 which was paid in cash pursuant to a settlement
entered on January 24, 1994.
Northwest Castings: Northwest Castings, Seattle, WA, a
manufacturer of steel castings which contain chromium,
nickel and manganese, was inspected by the EPA on June
10, 1993, The inspection revealed that the company
exceeded the TRI reporting threshold for manganese. An
administrative complaint seeking penalties of $14,200
was issued. After settlement negotiations, the company
was assessed a penalty of $9,940, of which $4,970, was
paid in cash, and the balance was deferred as credit for
an SEP involving installation of a baghouse to reduce air
particulate emissions.
FIFRA
Pinnacle Agricultural Technolopies A tip and complaint
led EPA to ask the Arizona State Department of
Agriculture to inspect two facilities suspected of
distributing unregistered growth regulator products.
Pinnacle Agricultural Technologies was charged with
three counts of distributing the unregistered product
"Boost" to three companies in Mexico without obtaining
aforeignpurchaseracknowledgement. Theproposed civil
penalty is $ 13,500. Westmark Ag Group was charged with
distributing the unregistered product "BIOBOOST" within
the United States and to Mexico without a foreign
purchaser acknowledgement. The proposed penalty for the
two violations of § 12(a)(1)(A) is $7,000.
Accuventure. Inc.: Criminal and Civil Enforcement
Coordination: EPA issued an administrative complaint on
October 9, 1992, against Accuventure, Inc., alleging 13
violations for distribution of unregistered pesticides
and one violation for an unregistered establishment.
After Accuventure failed to respond to EPA's motion for
accelerated decision on the issues of liability and
penalty, or to Administrative Law Judge Frank
V anderhayden's order to show cause, V anderhayden issued
an order granting EPA's motion for accelerated decision
with regard to both liability and penalty of $70,000.
The penalty, which was due August 3,1994, has not been
paid and EPA is filing a collection action with the
Attorney General.
Argent Chemical Laboratories. Inc: Negotiations
conducted during FY94 have led to settlement of EPA's
July 8, 1993 complaint against Argent Chemical
Laboratories, Inc. for sale of unregistered pesticides,
sale of pesticides which compositions differed from
those described on the product's Confidential Statement
of Formula, export of products without required
bilingual labeling, and pesticide misuse. The company
has agreed to pay a penalty of50,000, which was reduced
by ability-to-pay considerations, for 21 violations.
MULTIMEDIA CASES
AlliedTuhe&Conduit: OnSeptember30,1994, EPA issued
a multimedia administrative complaint against Allied
Tube & Conduitfor alleged violations of EPCRA and RCRA.
In the EPCRA inspection, the company failed to report
toxic chemical releases to the air in 1989. The RCRA
inspection revealed numerous violations, including
failure to properly mark containers, failure to record
weekly inspections, failure to conduct personnel
training, failure to adequately maintain fire protection
equipment,failure to maintain adequate aisle space,
failure to maintain closure of hazardous waste
containers, and failure to properly prepare several
hazardous waste manifests. Corrections of these
multiple statutory violations will provide benefits to
the public health and environment.
U.S. v. Columbus Solid Waste Reduction Plant In
response to an EPA administrative order and community
concerns about dioxin emissions the city of Columbus
agreedto shutdownthe Columbus Solid Waste Reduction
Plant in Columbus, OH, an electricity generating
facility for the city which operates six refuse and coal-
fired boilers. EPA interest began after numerous
citizen complaints about air emissions. EPA negotiated
an AOC under RCRA §7003 to require the facility to design
systems to achieve the lowest dioxin emissions due to be
required by EPA's municipal combustion regulations.
Subsequently, several circumstances arose which
affected the proposed AOC. First, citizens made
numerous comments aboutthe AOC at a public meeting.
Second, a meeting was held between
A-75
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry on June 23,1994, to discuss conducting human
health evaluations of the area surrounding the facility.
Third, two recent Supreme Court decisions may result in
the facility greatly changing its operations. Then, on
September 9, 1994, EPA issued a unilateral
administrative orderpursuantto RCRA §7003 requiring
essentially the same injunctive relief as the AOC. In
response, the city decided to authorize closure of the
facility.
U.S. v. Southern Pacific. A second consent decree
resulted in a multimedia settlement that will resolve
the liability of a number of parties under a number of
statutes (including Superfund,RCRA, CWA, FIFRA, and
others) arising out of the 1991 train derailment and
spill of metam sodium into the Sacramento River in
California. The spill created a toxic plume which killed
aquatic life along a long stretch of the river.
U.S. v. Texas Eastern (S.D.. Tex.) On June 16,1994,
the Second Modification to the Texas Eastern Federal
consentdecreewaslodgedbythecourt. The modification
incorporates the PCB and mercury cleanup provisions of
the settlement negotiated between Texas Eastern and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania into the federal decree and
also allows the Agency to consider off-site remediation
workplans on a case-by-case basis for all Texas Eastern
sites located in 14 states. To date, 18 compressor
station sites have been remediated pursuant to the
federal consent decree. Six additional compressor
station sites will be remediated in 1994, as well as 36
Off-Site Equipment Area Locations in Pennsylvania.
A-76
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT
U.S. v. Hartford Associates (D. Md.V The court
sentenced Hartford Associates, aNew Jersey partnership
engaged in property development, on October 7,1993, to
pay a$100,000 fine and to grant a conservation easement
on more than 100 acres ofwetlands for violating the CWA.
Hartford, a limited partnership based in Berlin, NJ,
pled guilty to one count of negligently discharging
dredgedor fill material without a permit in wetlands
located on a 375-acre tract of land the partnership owns
near Elkton, Maryland. Under the sentence imposed by
Judge Nickerson, the partnership must pay one third of
the $100,000 fine immediately and the remaining portion
over a 2-year period of probation. The conservation
easement must become effective within 30 days. The
easement will effectively restrict further development
of a large portion of the property.
U.S. v. Penn Hills (W.D. Penn.) Rejecting pleas of
municipal poverty and taxpayer hardship, a federal
judge, on September 8,1994, sentenced the Municipality
ofPennHills, Allegheny County, PA, to 5 years probation
and a $150,000 fine for illegally disposing of sewage
sludge and other pollutants from three of its sewage
treatmentplants in violation of itsNPDES permit and the
CWA. On July 8,1994, Penn Hills pled guilty to a three
count information charging it with failing to remove and
knowingly illegally disposing of sewage sludge and other
pollutants in violation of the CWA from the three plants.
U.S. v. Reillv. Defendant William P. Reilly, a shipping
company executive, was charged with a violation of the
Ocean Dumping Act, 33 U.S.C. §1411(a), for the knowing
discharge of approximately 11,000 tons of incinerator
ash from the ship Khian Sea, a bulk cargo ship, into the
Atlantic and Indian Oceans. On appeal, the convictions
of Reilly and his codefendant, John Patrick Dowd, which
included false declaration charges under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1623(a) were affirmed. Issues relating to defendant
Reilly's knowledge of the Ocean Dumping Act's permit
requirements were not appealed.
U.S. v. Wietzenhoff: Michael Weitzenhofif and Thomas
Mariani appealed their felony convictions for conspiracy
and knowing violations of the CWA. The decision by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit presents a
highly favorable precedent concerning the knowledge
requirements of the CWA's criminal provisions. A jury
convictedthe two plant managers, Weitzenhoff and
Mariani, of six felony counts. The judge sentenced
Weitzenhoff to 21 months and Mariani to 33 months in
prison. On August 3, 1993, the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the convictions. The Court agreed with the District
Court that the felony provisions of the CWA do not
require proof that the defendants knew that their
conductviolatedtheNPDES permit. The defendants then
requested that the Ninth Circuit rehear the case en banc.
On August 8,1994, the Ninth Circuit denied the request
and slightly modified its original opinion. The Supreme
Court denied the defendant writ of certiorari on January
23, 1995.
U.S. v. Laughlin. 10F.3rd 961 (2d Cir. 1993)jcert.
denied. 114 S.Ct. 1649 (1994): The defendant, an owner
of a railroad tie treating business, was convicted after
trial for knowingly disposing ofhazardous waste without
a permit in violation of RCRA and for failing to report
the release of a hazardous substance in violation of
CERCLA. The court held that the RCRA provision
prohibiting knowing disposal of a hazardous waste
without a permit, 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A), requires
only that a defendant have a general awareness that he is
performing acts proscribed by the statute, and that the
trial court did not err in refusing to charge the jury
thatthe governmenthad to prove the defendantknew that
the waste was identified or listed under RCRA. The court
further held that under section 6928(d)(2)(A), the
governmentdoes nothave to prove thatthe defendantwas
aware of the lack of a permit to dispose ofhazardous
waste. Consistent with the RCRA ruling the court also
found that section 9603(a) of CERCLA does not require
proof of knowledge of regulatory requirements, but only
thatthe defendant be aware of his act. Thus, the trial
court did not err when it failed to instruct the jury
that the government must prove that the defendant knew
the release of the hazardous substance violated the
provisions of CERCLA.
U.S. v. Advance Plating Works. Inc.. et aL (S.D. Ind.)
Advance Plating Works, Inc., an electroplating andmetal
finishing shop located in Indianapolis, IN, was fined,
and its owner and president, Eugene Doughty, was
sentencedto jail and fines, on October 8, 1993. The
A-77
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
defendantsengaged in the tampering of samples and
illegal discharges of company wastes into the
IndianapolissewersystemundertheCWA. Doughty sought
to conceal his CWA violations by tampering with
discharge samples which were being taken in order to
determine compliance. Advance Plating also illegally
stored and disposed of hazardous wastes at its
facilities without a permit to do so. Doughty was
sentenced to 12 months in jail, and ordered to pay a fine
of$3,000andrestitutionof$5,165. AdvancePlatingwas
sentenced to 3 years probation, and was ordered to pay a
fine of $200,000 with $100,000 suspended.
U.S. v. Carlo A rco and Automatic Platin y Company. Inc.
(D. Conn.V Carlo Arco was sentenced to 15 months in
prison for attempting to cover up the release of sodium
cyanide from the company's Bridgeport, CT, facility.
The June 24,1994, sentencing followed the March 16,
1994, conviction of Arco and Automatic Plating Co., Inc.
on one count of failing to report the release of a
hazardous substance under Ihe CERCLA and one count of
knowingly introducing pollutants to the Bridgeport sewer
system in violation of federal CWA categorical
pretreatment standards.
U.S. v. AT&T and Harrv J. Kring (E.D. Penn.V HanyJ.
Kring was sentenced to 3 years probation, 6 months of
home confinement, and a $5,000 fine stemming from his
plea of guilty to one count of negligent violation of the
CWA and one count of making false statements to the EPA
and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources. Kring pleaded guilty to these charges on
March3,1994. Inarelatedcase,AT&Tpleadedguiltyto
a one count information charging the company with
negligently discharging pollutants in violation of its
NPDESpermit limitations. The company was fined
$175,000. Although Kring knew that AT&T's internal
laboratory conducted monitoring in addition to the
outside laboratory, he failed to incorporate all the
analytical information and Ihe DMRs. Had Kring reported
all the analytical results, the effluent from the air
stripping tower would have been reported in violation of
the effluent limitations on numerous occasions.
U.S. v. Richard Vernon Bates, et aL (C.D. Calif.): On
April 11,1994, Richard VernonBates was sentenced for
knowingviolationsoftheCWA'sPretreatmentStandards.
Bates, former vice president and general manager of
Travelin' West Textiles (also known as Melody Knitting
Mills, Inc.), Simi Valley, CA, was sentenced to 5 months
incarceration, 100 hours community service, and 3 years
probation. Kenneth Allen Baber, former plant engineer,
was sentenced to 3 months incarceration, 3 years
probation and 100 hours community service. The company
received a $45,000 fine. Bates, Baber, and the
corporation had pleaded guilty to two counts each of
violating pretreatment standards in the discharge of
acidic wastewater into the Simi Valley Sanitation
District POTW.
U.S. v. Giacomo Catucci (D. R.I.) : Giacomo Catucci,
former president of Post-Tron, Inc., a computer software
company,wassentencedonFebruary 15,1994,to27months
in prison for the unlawful disposal of polychlorinated
biphenols (PCBs) and failing to report the release of a
hazardous substance into the environment. Catucci was
convicted on October 22,1993, after a 2-week trial for
illegal disposal of toxics (PCBs) in violation of the
TSCA and failing to report the release of a reportable
quantity of a hazardous substance in violation of
CERCLA. The violations occurred after Catucci gave the
workers permission to scrap two PCB transformers,
knowing that the transformers contained PCBs. At
sentencing, Senior District Court Judge Raymond Pettine
enhancedthepenaltyundersentencingguidelinesbecause
substantial clean up costs had been incurred by the
government as a result of the illegal acts.
U.S. v. Larrv A. Christopherson (E.D. Wise.) On May 3,
1994, Larry Christopherson, the former owner of Nardi
Electric Company, an electric contracting firm in
Milwaukee, WI, was sentenced to 3 years probation and 100
hours of community service. Nardi Electric shut its
doors in the 1980s leaving behind 17 barrels of PCBs and
ignitable hazardous waste, principally solvents. When
the new owner of the property objected to the waste left
behind, Larry Christopherson loaded the barrels onto a
trailer and abandoned it on neighboring property.
Christophersonhad been charged with and pleaded guilty
in January 1994 to the illegal storage and disposal of
hazardous waste, including PCBs and characteristic
waste, under the RCRA and for violations of the TSCA.
U.S. v. Craven Laboratories. Inc.. etaL fW.D. Texas):
DonCraven andhis company pleaded guilty on December 1,
1993, to various charges including FIFRA misdemeanors
and criminal conspiracy. Dale Harris and Donald Hamerly
together with twelve other defendants pleaded guilty to
similar charges. Craven, who was the owner of the
A-78
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
laboratory, directed his employees to use testing short
cuts that resulted in the production of false data. This
data was used for pesticide residue studies, which in
turn was used for pesticide reregistration. Numerous
employeesknowinglyfollowedCraven'sinstructions(and
were often paid bonuses for doing so), and understood
that the data was false and misleading. Craven was
sentencedtoamaximum60monthsimprisonmentand, along
with the company, paid $30 million in fines and
restitution. Fourteen employees received sentences
ranging from imprisonment to probation and fines
totaling $250,000.
US v. Dean Foods Company and WmfmlSmith (WD. Kv.)
In July 1992, a biologist from the Kentucky Department of
Fish and Wildlife investigated a massive fish kill in
Beargrass Creek located in Louisville. A 3.5 mile trail
of dead fish, crayfish, algae and other aquatic life led
to a pipe entering an unnamed tributary of Beargrass
Creek from a facility operated by the Dean Foods Company,
a manufacturer and distributor of wholesale and retail
foods. The Kentucky Department of Fish and W ildlife
estimated the fish kill at approximately 15,000. As a
result of investigations and prosecutions for illegal
discharges in violation of the CWA, Dean Foods Company
was convicted on December 30, 1993, on one count of
negligently discharging pollutants into navigable
waters of the United States without a permit in violation
of the CWA.
U.S. v. Dovle Crews. (N.D. Tex.) Doyle Crews, the
former President and owner of Crews Plating, Inc.,
located in Dallas, TX, was sentenced on August 3,1994,
for a criminal violation of the CWA. Crews was sentenced
to 5 years probation and 6 months of home confinement
after he pleaded guilty to illegally discharging
untreated chromium wastes into the Dallas sewer system.
The Judge declined to impose a fine or prison time
against Crews, but instead imposed special condition of
probation that requires Crews to pay the total costs of
the clean-up of the electroplating facility pursuant to
an EPA approved plan.
U.S. v. Charles A. Eidson and Sandra A. Eidson (M.D.
Fla.) Sandra Eidson former owner and officer of
Cherokee Oil Company, Ltd., was sentenced on April 27,
1994, to serve 37 months in prison and her husband,
Charles Eidson, was sentenced on March 11,1994 to serve
70 months in prison for federal crimes committed while
operating an oil recycling business. A Florida jury had
previously convicted the Eidsons of one count of
knowingly discharging used oil into waters of the United
States without a permit, a violation of the CWA and of
three counts of mail fraud. The Eidson's operated a oil
recyclingandwastewaterdisposalbusinessinTampa,FL.
An investigation revealed that the company represented
to clients that it would dispose of the wastes in a
lawful manner. However, they instead illegally disposed
of the wastes into storm sewers. They concealed their
illegal practices by falsifying business records.
Samples taken in and around the facility showed
significant contamination of the area with petroleum by-
products.
U.S. v. Cherokee Resources. Inc. etaL (W.D. N.C.): On
June 29,1994, following an 8-day trial, a jury convicted
Cherokee Resources, Inc. (Cherokee) and two corporate
executives, Keith Eidson and Gabe Hartsell, on five
counts of illegally discharging wastewater into the
municipal sewer system and one count of criminal
conspiracy to violate the CWA.
U.S. v. Garlick Helicopter. Inc. (D. Mont.) Garlick
Helicopter,Inc. (GHI), a Montana corporation, with
large federal government contracts and one of the
largest employers in the Bitterroot V alley of Montana,
pleaded guilty January 13, 1994, to illegal storage of
hazardous waste in violation ofthe RCRA. GHI is owned
by Ron Dean Garlick, who entered the plea on behalf of
thecompany. From approximately 1982through 1992, GHI
generated hazardous waste in connection with its
airplane and helicopter paint and repair business.
U.S. v. Gaston (D. Kan.): Donald Gaston, the Highway
Administrator for Montgomery County, KS, pleaded guilty
toafelonyCERCLAchargeonJuly21,1994. Thepleawas
the result of an Indictment returned by a Federal Grand
Jury on March 9,1994, which charged Gaston with three
RCRA felony violations and one CERCLA violation.
Sometime after he became the County Highway
Administrator, Gaston ordered the employees of both the
county road crew and the county bridge crew to haul 11
drums of hazardous waste to a closed Montgomery County
Landfill where trenches were dug and the drums buried
with the use of a county backhoe.
U.S. v. Hedge. (S.D. Ohio): State of Ohio v. Hedge and
Cit\> Bumper Exchange. .(Ham ilton County Court of
CommonPleas): RolandHedge,theownerofCityBumper
Exchange, Inc. (City Bumper), an abandoned
A-79
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
electroplating facility in Cincinnati, OH, was sentenced
by Federal and State courts to a total of 24 months and a
$25,000 line for violations of CERCLA, and the State of
Ohio's hazardous waste act. City Bumper, although
defunct, was also sentenced in the State court to pay a
fine of $25,000 for violating the State's hazardous
waste act. Hedge abandoned the facility with over 27,000
gallons of hazardous substances left on the site. Clean-
up of the site pursuant to action by EPA cost the Federal
Government $875,000.
U.S. v. Hofele. fW.D. Mo.) : The owner/manager of a
Missouri car repair shop entered a guilty plea on May 11,
1994, for knowingly releasing freon (which contains
CFCs) while servicing automobile air conditioners at his
business in Chesterfield, MO. As many as 60 automobiles
were serviced by Hofele between January 1992 and July
1993. Hofele entered a guilty plea on one count of
violating the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §7671h, in the first
criminal prosecution involving the January 1992, CAA
requirements that repair shops use freon recycling
equipment The requirements also mandate that employees
be trained and certified in the use of this equipment
before servicing motor vehicle air conditioners.
U.S. v. RobertH. Hopkins (D. Conn.V On July 20,1994,
Robert H. Hopkins, former Vice President of
Manufacturing at Spirol International Corporation in
Killingly, CT, was sentenced to serve 21 months in prison
and to pay a $7,500 fine for tampering with wastewater
samples required under the CWA. In September 1990,
Hopkins directed and conspired with others to filter,
dilute, and selectively collect samples of the discharge
from Spirol'swastewatertreatmentsystem. Hopkins then
submitted false reports to the Connecticut Department of
Protection to conceal Spiral's discharge of heavy metal
bearing wastewaters to the Five Mile River—a heavily
stocked trout stream in northeastern Connecticut.
U.S. v. George Frederick Heidgerken (W.D. Wash.)
George F. Heidgerken, the owner of several companies
including GFH Timber Products, was sentenced on December
3,1993, to 5 months in prison, followed by 4 months of
electronicallymonitoredhome detention. Heidgerkenwas
also sentenced to 3 years of supervised release
subsequentto his incarceration and ordered to pay a
$4,000 fine. Heidgerken pleaded guilty to violation of
the RCRA. Heidgerken's offenses involved approximately
260 drums of ignitable lacquers and paints. The 55-
gallon drums were stored in warehouses and outdoors in
Detroit, OR, where they were exposed to the elements in
an area of pristine rural land and natural hot springs.
U.S. v. (Homer's Diesel and Electric Company (D. Mont.)
Gomer's Diesel and Electric Co., with automotive and
truck repair facilities located in Belgrade, Great
Falls, andMissoula,MT, was sentencedonMarch24,1994,
following a plea of guilty to a one-count of the unlawful
transportation of a hazardous waste in violation of the
RCRA,42U.S.C. §6228(d)(l). The company wasplacedon
supervised probation for a period of 2 years and fined
$100,000 to $50,000 of which was suspended in
recognitionof remediation conducted at its Belgrade
facility.
U.S. v. .lav Jurek (W.D. Wash.) On July 12,1994, Jay
Jurck. aproductionmanagerforBoomsnub Corporation and
Pacific NorthwestPlating Company (Boomsnub), entered a
plea of guilty to a federal criminal information
charging him with attempting to harass a witness to
dissuade him from assisting a criminal prosecution of
Boomsnub. On June 6,1994, EPA's Criminal Investigation
Division Special Agents arrested Jurek, without
incident, atthe Boomsnub facility in Vancouver, WA, on
a warrant issued by a U.S. Magistrate. On June 2,1994,
Jurek had threatened bodily harm to a person for
allegedlyprovidinginformationtoEPA/CID in the course
of EPA's criminal investigation into activities of
Boomsnub. The person threatened had been named as a
source of information for the EPA by a local newspaper.
U.S. v. MGR. Inc. tS.n.Fla.) On May 19,1994, MOR,
Inc., pleaded guilty to a one-count information charging
it with knowingly violating the CAA. In March and April
of 1991, extensive renovations were made to the Sea Isle
Hotel (now known as the Miami Beach Ocean Resort) in
Miami Beach, FL, including the stripping of thermal
insulation materials containing friable asbestos from
piping and the removal of facility components, such as
boilers, that were encased in friable asbestos. The
removal was accomplished through the use of itinerant
workers who were not supervised by a licensed asbestos
contractor nor provided with respirators or protective
clothing. None of the work practice standards for
asbestos removal were followed and clouds of asbestos
were released as a result of the operation. The unsealed
asbestos was transported to a solid waste landfill in
ordinary trash dumpsters.
A-80
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
U.S. v. Francis Morgan. etaL TP. Haw.): On May 31,
1994, Francis Morgan was sentenced to 1 year
unsupervised probation and a $6,000 fine for three
counts of negligently discharging a pollutant into the
Pacific Ocean in violation of the CWA. The defendants
had been manager at llicHamal-cuaSugarCompanylrom 1988
to 1990. The sugar company mill had an NPDES permit to
discharge treated waste water from the processing of
sugar cane. The indictment charged that the defendants
conspired to violate the CWA, manipulated the treatment
system to misrepresent discharges during regulatory
inspections, and falsified required discharge
monitoring reports with regard to exceedences and other
violations of CWA regulations and permit requirements.
In addition, the defendants had been charged with
fourteen counts of operating a secret by-pass which
discharged untreated waste water directly into a gulch
leading to the Pacific Ocean. These discharges of total
suspended solids contributed to the degradation of coral
communitiesoff the Hamakua Coast of the island of
Hawaii.
U.S.V.M. TvronneMorganandMevdenbaiierDevelopment
Corp. (E. D. Wash.): On July 6, 1994, a jury returned
guilty verdicts for both Marvel Tyronne Morgan, the
Presidentofthe Meydenbauer Development Co., and the
MeydenbauerDevelopmentCorporation(MDC). Morgan and
MDCwereconvictedundertheCAAforunlawfulremovalof
asbestos in connection with the demolition/renovation of
the former Deaconess Hospital. The defendants were also
convicted of failing to report the release of asbestos
and PCBs. Bradley Brown, one of the defendants in this,
was sentenced on January 28,1994, to incarceration for
a year and a $5,000 fine following his guilty plea. The
case originated in September of 1992 when CID received
reports of allegedly unlawful removal and disposal of
asbestos, and the alleged unlawful disposal of PCB fluid
and PCB transformers from the former Deaconess Hospital
located in Wenatchee, WA.
U.S. v. Hob Murphv. etaL (D. Nev.) This case involved
the removal of asbestos-containing material from
approximately 70 apartments in a 413-unit complex.
Defendants in this case were the owner of the apartment
complex, Robert Murphy, and the former manager of the
apartments,ThomasDevins.Devinshiredcasuallaborers
forasbestosremovalwithoutfollowingtherequiredwork
practice standards. After asbestos debris was deposited
in trash dumpsters at the complex, other residents,
including small children, were exposed to airborne
asbestos fibers. Murphy was convicted on February 3,
1994, of knowingly violating asbestos work practice
standards, of failing to report the release of asbestos
and concealing the violations from local authorities
under the CAA and failing to report the release of a
hazardous substance in violation of CERCLA. After
pleading guilty to violations of the CAA and conspiracy,
Devins was sentenced to 32 months incarceration on
October 25, 1993.
U.S. v. Norwood Industries. Inc.. etaL (E.D. Penn.t
Norwood Industries, Inc. a southeastern Pennsylvania
adhesive tape manufacturer was fined $100,000
(suspended) and ordered to perform beneficial
environmental projects after pleading guilty to criminal
violations ofthe CAA VOC regulations. The company was
sentenced March 1, 1994, in federal court in
Philadelphiafor failing to install control technology
or use compliant coating at its Malvern, PA, plant from
July of 1989 to August of 1990. The plant's VOC
emissions are regulated by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania's SIP.
The Court order included requirements that the company
develop acorporateenvironmentalregulatory compliance
program, including development of an environmental
compliance manual within 90 days of sentencing and spend
at least $30,000 annually during the company's 5-year
period of probation on research and development to
replace solvent-based coatings with water-based
materials.
US.v.OEA.Tnc(n.Ca\a.\ OEA, which manufactures 60
percent of the world supply of explosive air bag
initiators, pleaded guilty on April 28, 1994, to six
felony violations ofthe RCRA—illegal transportation of
hazardous waste, illegal treatment of hazardous waste
without a permit, illegal disposal, and illegal storage
of hazardous wastes. The company engaged in the practice
of on-site detonation of excess waste materials
consisting of ignitable solvents and reactive explosives
usedinthe company's manufacturing process. Duringthe
manufacturing process, waste hexane and acetone mixed
with explosive zirconium potassium perchlorate (ZPP) was
generated,in addition to flawed initiators containing
ZPP. These wastes were the subject of the charged
violations. In three separate incidents four employees
were injured, one with serious burns, during the
disposal activities.
A-81
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
&
U.S. v. Palm Beach Cruises (S.D. Fla.) Palm Beach
Cruises, the corporate owner ofthe cruise ship MV Viking
Princess, was sentenced on August 30,1994, on two felony
countsofhavingknowingly violated the CWA andthe OPA,
33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(c)(2) and 1321(b)(3). The basis for
the prosecution was the deliberate dumping of waste oil
from the cruise ship into the ocean off the coast of
Florida. The discharge created a visible sheen which was
detected during a joint operation conducted by the Coast
Guard, EPA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Departmentof Justice. The corporation entered its
guilty pleas to a two count information on May 19,1994.
Palm Beach Cruises was sentenced to 5 years probation and
must pay a fine of $500,000.
U.S. v. Pacific Aqua Tech. Ltd. (E.D. Wash.) On June
14,1994, Gerhard Herman Zimm, Sr., the President of
Pacific Aqua Tech, Ltd., was convicted by jury trial of
conspiracy and substantive violations ofthe CAA and the
CERCLA. Zimm and his corporation also pleaded guilty to
a CERCLA count in the indictment and entered into a
detailed plea agreement with the Government which
provided for the funding of a $ 1 million trust fund
annuity for the future medical expenses of the workers
who were exposed to asbestos duringthe company's scrap
metal removal operations (the trust is to pay the cost of
medical and associated expenses of asbestosis or
asbestos-related diseases). Zimm conducted the scrap
operation atPacific Aqua Tech's Toppenish, WA, facility
from 1986throughthe spring of 1991. Contamination at
the facility necessitated a superfund clean-up effecting
the removal of 111 tons of asbestos contaminated
material from Pacific Aqua Tech's property.
U.S. v. Robert Pardi (S.D. N.Y.> On May 25, 1994,
Robert Pardi, an architect and the former Director of the
Asbestos Task Force of the New York City Board of
Education was sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment for
falsely reporting that school buildings were free of
asbestos contamination. He pleaded guilty in federal
court on March 24,1994, to making false statements and
to criminal conspiracy to make false statements in
violation ofthe criminal laws of the United States, 18
U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 371, and to a substantive count of
violating the TSCA by failing to maintain required
reports concerning asbestos conditions in the public
schools. Pardi was responsible for reporting to the EPA
concerning the inspection and testing of New York City
public schools for the presence of asbestos.
U.S. v. Nicholas Pasquariello (S.D. Fla.): On May 16,
1994, sentence waspassed onNicholas Pasquariello after
he was found guilty in a non-jury trial on all counts,
including six counts of violating the CWA, among other
criminal charges alleged in a 15-count indictment filed
in 1989. Pasquariello wasconvicted on January 25,1994,
after a sporadic bench trial which began in August 1993,
and took 3 3 court days. The various charges ranged from
Pasquariello having filled jurisdictional lakes and
wetlands on property owned by him and associates in the
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, vicinity, to charges of violating
income tax laws, criminal conspiracy, and making a false
statement to Department of Labor officials investigating
labor law violations. Pasquariello was sentenced to 70
monthsincarcerationand36monthssupervisedprobation
following incarceration.
U.S. v. Norma Phillips. etaL fW.D. Mo.): The owners
and operators of the A-1 Electroplating Company facility
in Kansas City, MO, were sentenced on February 11,1994,
to prison and probation for the illegal disposal of
pollutants into the Kansas City sanitary sewer system in
violation ofthe RCRA and the CWA. During the period of
their operations, Phillips and the Mammens ordered the
discharge of hazardous waste generated by their
electroplating process. On February 11, 1994, Philip
Mammen was sentenced to 27 months of incarceration and
David Mammen received a sentence of 18 months of
incarceration. Norma Phillips was sentenced to 2 years
ofprobation and 6 months house arrest. Hazardous waste
generated by A-l Electroplating was literally swept out
of front and back doors into the adjoining working class
residential neighborhood. The hazardous waste was also
discharged into the sewer system where the Kansas City
Water Departmentnotednumerousviolations.TheWater
Departmenthad sought civil fines from the business, and
ultimately turned off the sewer and water connections to
the facility in an attempt to stop the discharges.
However, the defendants managed to dismantle the sewer
connection plug and continued their illegal discharges
into the system. After the business was forced to shut
downin early 1990, Phillips andthe Mammens attempted to
start a new plating operation in another Missouri
community. They transported hazardous waste from the
Kansas City, MO, facility to the new location and
ultimately illegally disposed of some of the waste at the
new location.
U.S. v. Pioneer Chemical. Inc. and Gerald Butler (D.
Kv.) Gerald Butler and Pioneer Chemical Inc. were
A-82
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
sentenced August 8, 1994, in Louisville, KY, for
violations ofthe Clean Air Act, 42U.S.C. §7413, for the
illegal removal of asbestos-containing material without
complying with applicable permitting and work-practice
requirements. Pioneer Chemical Inc. (Pioneer) was also
sentenced on one count for having violated the RCRA by
storing hazardous waste without a permit. Pioneer was
fined $37,300 per count for a total of $75,000 in
criminal fines and costs. In addition, Pioneer paid
$25,000 in restitution to the Jefferson County Air
Pollution Control District Air Quality Trust Fund.
Butler was sentenced to 1 year of probation. Pioneer had
hired Butler, and a co-defendant, Jewell, to demolish
and remove asbestos-covered components from one of
Pioneer's buildings. Pioneer's RCRA conviction resulted
from its illegal storage of 100 drums of hazardous waste.
U.S. v. John Pizmto (S.D. Ohio) In his second
environmental prosection, Pizzuto pleaded guilty, on
December 16,1993, in Huntington, WV, to a three count
indictmentofviolatingthe TSCA, 15U.S.C. §§2614and
2615b after his illegal storage of PCB's in Nitro, WV.
On April 1, 1994, he was sentenced to 18 months
incarceration for his violations of TSCA. As a result of
the West Virginia crimes, which occurred during
Pizzuto's probation in Ohio, the Ohio federal judge on
July 18,1994, revoked Pizzuto's probation, and ordered
him jailed for 18 months. The judge imposed the prison
sentence consecutively, not concurrently, to the West
Virginia sentence, meaning Pizzuto is required to serve
a total of 36 months imprisonment.
U.S. v. NobertEfren Pohl(D. N.M.): DefendantPohl, a
former owner and operator of Service Circuits, Inc.
(SCI), an electroplating company that manufactured
printed circuit boards, pleaded guilty to knowing
storage of hazardous waste without a permit and the
knowing disposal of hazardous waste without a permit
underlheRCRA. OnDecember20,1993, Pohl was sentenced
to 1 year and a day incarceration. Pohl generated
hazardous waste at a metal plating facility in
Albuquerque from 1985 to 1989. CWA charges were also
filed for the knowing discharge of lead in
concentrations above those allowed under SCI's
wastewater discharge permit and the knowing failure to
submit complete quarterly reports to the City of
Albuquerque. SCI's process involved the dipping of
circuit boards into acidic solutions containing heavy
metals. Solvents were used to clean and dry the boards
and printing inks were used for labels. Irresponsible
waste handling practices, resulting in serious
contamination of the property, were discovered after the
defendant ceased operation and abandoned the facility in
1989.
U.S. v. R&D Chemical Company, Inc. (N.D.Ga.) Noble and
OscarCunninghamandtheircorporation,R&D Chemical
Company, were charged with conspiracy to transport
hazardous waste from Ohio to an unpermitted facility in
Georgia and with illegal disposal of hazardous waste in
violation ofthe RCRA. R&D Chemical accumulated a
quantity of hazardous waste sludge from industrial
operations on the company farm in Ohio. R&D Chemical
misrepresented the sludge as being non-hazardous and
made arrangements to sell it to a Georgia company,
calling it "RD-344" to disguise it as a product. R&D
Chemicalleased a truck and trailer and transported
approximately 15 roll-off containers of the waste to a
company in Atlanta. The containers were abandoned in Ihe
company's parking lot. In addition, R&D Chemical caused
a portion ofthe hazardous waste to be disposed of at a
non-hazardous landfill in Atlanta. Commenting that the
case involved "aggravating" circumstances, the court
sentenced R&D Chemical on October 6,1994, to 5 years
probation, a $200,000 fine and $146,716 restitution to
the Atlanta company where the waste had been abandoned.
U.S. v.RecticelFoamCorporation. etaL (E.D.Tenn.V
On July 22, 1994, Recticel pleaded guilty to a felony
charging that it knowingly omitted material information
in arecord filed with EPA and the Tennessee Department
of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) and failed to
keep arecord of ahazardous waste determination made by
it in July 1990. Recticel also pleaded guilty to a State
environmental misdemeanor in a related State
prosecution. The case had begun on October 15,1990,
when TDEC conducted an administrative inspection of two
manufacturingfacilities located in Morristown, TN,
owned by Recticel. The TDEC inspectors observed
methylene chloride waste in solid waste dumpsters at the
plants. Subsequent investigation revealed that Recticel
was burying drums containing allegedly hazardous waste
on property owned by Cansler, and dumping it in rollofif
containers that were destined for disposal in solid
waste landfills in eastern Tennessee.
U.S. v. William C. ReichleandReichle. Inc. (D. Ore.):
William Chester Reichle, the President of Reichle, Inc.
A-83
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
and his Portland, OR, based corporation both entered
guilty pleas on May 23, 1994, in the District of Oregon
to one count each of felony violations of the RCRA. The
federal charges resulted from a joint investigative
effort by EPA's Criminal Investigation Division and the
U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) special agents based in Portland, OR.
Reichle owns and operates a large commercial painting
and drywall company which performs jobs in southwest
Washington and northwest Oregon areas. Reichle
frequently participates in contract work at federal,
state, and local construction and renovation projects.
InMarch 1992, anunpermittedhazardouswaste disposal
site with numerous 55-gallon drums of paint and spent
solvents was discovered on BLM-administered public land
in a rural area of northwest Oregon. In June 1992,
investigative efforts led federal agents to a second
unpermitted hazardous waste site on privately-owned
land, also in northwest Oregon, which is used as a dairy
farm. Reichle and his company were responsible for the
illegal disposal at these sites.
U.S. v. Reillv andDowd(D. Del.): On October 4,1993,
two shipping executives were sentenced to prison terms
on ocean dumping, 33 U.S.C. §1411(a), and perjury
charges in connection with the freighter, Khian Sea.
Reilly received a sentence of 37 months imprisonment.
This case arose after approximately 15,000 tons of
municipal incinerator ash was loaded on the Khian Sea
vessel destined for a disposal location in the Bahamas.
After sailing the Atlantic in 1987 in an unsuccessful
effort to find a disposal location, the ship returned to
the lower Delaware Bay in March of 1988. The ship
ultimately sailed away against the orders of the Coast
Guard, and dumped its cargo in the Atlantic and Indian
Oceans. Both defendants were found guilty of lying to a
federal district court judge concerning what had
happened to the shipment of ash. Reilly was also
convicted of one count of lying to a grand jury in
Wilmington over the ash's disappearance. Evidence
presented at trial included trans-oceanic cable messages
linking the defendants with instructions to illegally
dump the ash in the ocean.
U.S. v. Sentco Paint Manufacturing. Inc.. el. cd. (N.D.
OhioV On March 17,1994, Sentco Paint Manufacturing
Company, Inc., was sentenced to 3 years probation and an
$8000 fine for its part in having violated the RCRA
through the illegal disposal of hazardous wastes. The
sentencing of Sentco concluded an investigation which
resulted in previous guilty pleas and the sentencing of
Roland Brothers, President of Sentco; Rick Brothers,
Plant Manger; and Donald Cole, a company employee
involved in the illegal disposal of hazardous waste.
They had pleaded guilty June 1, 1992, to a 1990
indictment charging them with having buried fifty-six
drums of paint waste, a hazardous waste, under a cement
loading dock at the plant site. The guilty pleas
resulted in sentences of 15 months incarceration of
Roland Brothers, 18 months incarceration for Rick
Brothers, and 6 months home detention for Donald Cole.
U.S. v. Mark Steven Stewart, et al. (D. Ariz.) Mark
Steven Stewart, the president of a crop dusting company
in Pinal County, AZ, was incarcerated for a year for
illegal disposal of methyl parathion (a hazardous waste
from his crop dusting activities) and illegal use of a
pesticide in violation of the FIFRA. As part of his
guilty plea on December 13, 1993, Stewart agreed to
liquidate the assets ofthe company and use thatmoney to
pay for clean-up costs at the illegal disposal site. Two
aircraft, valued at approximately $60,000, were
forfeited to the United States Marshal under terms ofthe
plea agreement. Stewart transported methyl parathion
and unsuccessfully attempted to incinerate the material
in concrete tanks. Two county zoning officials who
inspected the uncontrolled site were exposed to airborne
contaminants and became ill from the exposure.
Stewart's illegal practices lead to a clean-up of the
disposal site contaminated with methyl parathion.
U.S. v. ThermocellS. E. Inc. Douglas Kirchofer and
Sherwin T. Haskell(E.D. Tenn.) ThermocellInc. was
fined $125,000 for illegal transportation of hazardous
waste in violation of the RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6928
(d)(2)(A). As a condition of probation, $ 100,000 of this
fine was suspended on the condition that, as restitution
and compensation to the State of Tennessee, Thermocell
pay $50,000 into the State's Environmental Protection
Fund and pay cleanup cost of $3 8,000. Kirchofer, the
corporate secretary, was sentenced to supervised
probation for 1 year and fined $5,000. The comptroller,
Haskell, was sentenced to 1 year of supervised probation
and a $ 1,000 fine. Each of the men had pleaded guilty to
amisdemeanorviolationofRCRA as an accessory after the
fact pursuant of Title 18 U.S.C. §3. This case arose
after Thermocell sold machinery and 320 drums of
chemicals to an Atlanta, GA, manufacturer for one
dollar. The Atlanta manufacturer subsequently had
financial difficulties, and at least 35 drums were
A-84
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
abandoned on farmland in Norcross, GA. The farmer
contacted Haskell and requested removal of the drums.
Haskell and an associate loaded the drums on a rented
Rydertruck and abandoned them onunusedproperty in an
isolated area of Scott County, TN. The drums were then
discovered by a U.S. Office of Surface Mining inspector.
U.S. v. Weaver Electric (D. Colo.) Weaver Electric
Company was in the business ofbuying, refurbishing, and
selling used electrical equipment. As part of its
operation, it collected, used, and stored PCBs.
Indictments charged individuals with illegal storage of
PCBs, in violation of the TSCA, conspiracy, and false
statements. An individual defendant, Daniel Rodriguez,
was charged with transporting tractor trailers full of
5 5-gallon drums containing PCB fluid for eventual
illegal export to Mexico. The Weaver Electric Company
was convicted and sentenced to pay a $200,000 fine and
$300,000 for remedial activities. The company
participated in a scheme to illegally dispose of PCBs by
burial at a remote Colorado horse ranch and to illegally
export PCBs to Mexico in order to avoid paying the costs
associated with the lawful and proper disposal of PCB s in
the United States. Rodriguez had agreed with Weaver to
receive three tractor trailers full of 55-gallon drums
containing PCB fluid in El Paso, TX, for eventual illegal
exportation into Mexico. After numerous unsuccessful
attempts by Rodriguez to pay individuals to transport
the three trailers full of leaking drums, the trailers
were eventually discovered by the local fire marshal.
Due to PCB contamination at two facilities, the company
agreedto spend $300,000for environmental remediation.
Restitution was ordered for superfund clean-up of PCB
contaminated property at the facilities.
U.S. v. Safety Kleen. A joint Federal/State
investigation of Safety Kleen and Booth Oil Co. relating
to improper handling of hazardous waste oils at a
Buffalo, NY, facility, resulted on August 19, 1994 in
Booth pleading guilty to a State felony count for
possessing hazardous waste (PCB-laden oil) in violation
of its State permit, and paying a fine of $100,000.
Safety Kleen and Booth Oil had been running the Booth Oil
facilityjointly. Safety Kleen settled in a civil action
with the Federal government at the same time, by
forfeiting $1.9 million; agreeing to purchase the Booth
Oil facility for $2.4 million and install new
management; and accepting appointment of a State
environmental monitor to assure compliance.
U.S. v. Steve Weinsier (S.D. Fla.) Steve Weinsier,
formerownerofFloridaWaterway Management, an aquatic
management company, entered a guilty plea January 18,
1994, to ten counts of illegally using the pesticides
Direx and Karmex on aquatic areas in violation of the
FIFRA. WeinsierhadbeenindictedNovember 19,1993, on
ten counts of violating FIFRA and seven counts of Mail
Fraud. Weinsier pleaded guilty to the illegal use of the
pesticides Direx and Karmex on sensitive Florida aquatic
areas. Weinsier knew that the products Direx and Karmex,
which contain the active ingredient diuron, were not
approvedbytheEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyforuse
on water. However, he used mail solicitations to attract
customers for his business of removing and controlling
unwantedaquaticvegetationandalgaegrowthusingthese
chemicals. Weinsier obtained written contracts for his
services by falsely represented that he used only EPA-
approved products in his removal and control activities.
U.S. v. LarrvKenneth WestfW.D. Mich.) OnJanuary 14,
1994, Larry K. West, owner of Cal-Art, a defunct
Cassapolis, MI, plastics business, was sentenced to 4
months home confinement, a $10,000 fine, $40,000
restitution, and 2 years probation for his actions in
abandoning drums of chemicals at his former business
site in Cassapolis in July of 1988. West had previously
pleaded guilty on November 5, 1993, to one count of
violating the RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6928 (d)(2)(A), and a
second, under the CERCLA, for having knowingly and
unlawfully failed to report an unpermitted release of a
reportable quantity of a hazardous material. This case
is related to another federal RCRA criminal case, U.S. v.
William Meyers, which resulted from the activities of
theownerofthepremiseswhereCal-Arthadbeenlocated.
The waste had been illegally transported to Ohio and
abandoned there, and the perpetrator of that violation
had been ordered to reimburse EPA for its costs of the
Ohio clean-up and disposal of the waste.
U.S. v. William C Whitman andDuaneC. Whitman (M.I).
Fla.): On July 28,1994, following a 2-week jury trial
inTampa, FL, William C. Whitman, aplantmanager, and
Duane C. Whitman, a shop foreman, of Durex Industries
were found guilty of treating and storing hazardous
waste without a permit from June 1991 to June 1992. The
company that owned Durex, William Recht Company, Inc.,
pleaded guilty to a two-count indictment which charged
the defendants with illegal treatment, storage and
disposal of hazardous waste without a permit and knowing
endangermentin violationofthe RCRA. The prosecution
A-85
-------
! FY l"4 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
of the defendants was initiated following the deaths of Estimated cost: at least $4.5 million, perhaps
two 9-year-old boys from toluene fume asphyxiation on (depending on amount of soil requiring remediation) as
June 13, 1992. The two children had been playing in a much as $8.9 million,
dumpsterinwhichtoluenewastehadbeendiscarded. The
company and individual defendants were sentenced in During the summer of 1994, the Agency concluded
FY95. negotiating a settlement agreement with one of the
former site operators, Richard Wallace, obligating him
Harry Zucker fW. D. PaV On July 8,1994, Harry Zucker to pay a $30,000 penalty. Settlement negotiations with
was sentenced in Federal court to eight months home the four remaining defendants continued into fiscal year
detention, oneyearprobation and ordered to pay a$5,000 1995.
fine on his conviction for discharging brine waste water
from oil production wells into waters of the United The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming
States without a permit in violation of the Clean Water issued several favorable decisions in FY 94 during
Act. Harry Zucker plead guilty to count one of an eight litigation of this case. For example, in a decision
count indictment on February 3,1994. The indictment dated June 1,1994, the court granted the government's
charged the defendant for illegal discharges which motion for summary judgement on issues related to the
occurred between November 1989 until July 1992. As a presenceofanimminentandsubstantialendangermentat
condition of the Federal criminal plea, Marley this particular site. In addition, the court held that
Industries entered a guilty plea to state criminal the administrtive orders unilaterlally issued by EPA
charges for the unpermitted discharges and paid a pursuant to RCRA section 7003 were "reasonable." In
$40,000 fine to the Commonwealth on May 24, 1994. doing
U.S. v. Dale Valentine et al. (D. WY> In one of the
largest RCRA setion 7003 cases ever, EPA finalzied a
series of settlement agreements during fiscal year 1994
as well as receving a number of favorable rulings. The
case arose from Regions VIII's enforcement action
relating to the Powder River Crude Processors site near
Glenrock, Wyoming.
In 1991, EPA issued UAOs under RCRA §7003 to several
parties, demanding cleanup of this former oil re-
processing facility. Surface impoundments at the site
pose a serious risk to wildlife, with birds and antelope
becoming trapped and dying in the oily wastes. In
addition, abandoned above-ground tanks, which could
fail, pose a potential risk to human health. Some of the
respondents constructed a security fence around the
facility and netted the open pits; otherwise, they
declinedto clean up the site. The U.S. subsequently
filed a complaint against ten of the parties.
In March 1994, the Agency lodged a settlement with five
generator-defendants (Texaco, Conoco, Phillips
Petroleum, True Oil, Eighty-Eight Oil). Under the
consent decree, the settling defendants are obligated to
pay a $300,000 penalty and clean up the site. Cleanup
consists of the removal and treatment of materials from
the impoundments and tanks, plus contaminated soils.
A-86
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
so, the court rejected the argument of one of the
defendants that its due process rights were violated by
the lack of an opportunity for a hearing prior to
issuance of the orders. The court found that EPA had
provided the defendants a timely opportunity to confer,
subsequent to the issuance of the orders, regarding
implementation. It also noted that the defendants would
have an opportunity, during an upcoming trial, to
challenge their liability under RCRA section 7003. This
portion of the court's decision supports EPA's position
that defendants are not entitled to a judicial hearing to
review such orders prior to the government filing an
action to enforce them.
A-87
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
REGION I A-l
CLEAN AIR ACT A-l
U.S. v. D'Addario Industries, Inc., et al(D. Conn.) A-l
In re Syncor International Corporation A-l
CLEAN WATER ACT A-l
U.S. v. L.S. Starrett Compan\(D. Mass.) A-l
RCRA A-l
Allegro Microsystems, Inc A-l
In re Massachusetts Highway Department A-l
U.S. v. Hanlin Group, Inc.(D. Maine) A-l
In re Hamilton-Standard A-2
In re Upjohn Company A-2
TSCA A-2
U.S. v. New Waterbury, Ltd.(D. Conn.) A-2
In re City of Boston, Boston City Hospital A-2
EPCRA A-2
In re Wyman-Gordon, Inc A-2
CERCLA A-3
U.S. v. O.K. Tool Company, et al(D. N.H.) A-3
U.S. v. Conductron Corporation, et al.(D. N.H.) A-3
U.S. v. William Davis, et al(D. R.I.) A-3
U.S. v. DiBiase Salem Realty Trust, et al(D. Mass.) A-3
REGION II A-4
CLEAN AIR ACT A-4
In re Ronzoni Foods Corporation A-4
U.S. v. Amelia Associates and Joey's Excavating, Ind[D. N.J.) A-4
U.S. v. 179 South Street(D. N.J.) A-4
CLEAN WATER ACT A-4
U.S. v. PRASA A-4
U.S. v. City ofHoboken(T). N.J.) A-4
In re Cheeseborough Ponds Manufacturing Corp A-4
SDWA A-5
U.S. v. Kennemuth (d/b/a Moose 0/7/W.D. N.Y.) A-5
U.S. v. Wasson & Regis(W.D., N.Y.). A-5
In re PRASA A-5
U.S. v. Melvin Blum A-5
RCRA A-5
U.S. v. Eastman Kodak{N.D. N.Y.) A-5
In the Matter of Redound Industries, Inc. d/b/a Interflo Technologies and Liqui-Mark, et M-G
U.S. v. BCF Corp.{E.D. N.Y.) A-6
In the Matter of Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company A-6
In the Matter of PPG Industries, Inc A-6
In re Westchester County, New York, Sportsmen's Center. A-6
A-i
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement aneComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
In the Matter of Gaseteria Oil Corp A-6
TSCA A-7
In the Matter ofDIC Americas, Inc A-7
In the Matter ofSUNY-New Paltz A-7
In the Matter of Cray Valley Products, Inc A-7
In the Matter of Eastman Kodak Co A-7
In the Matter of Sharp Electronics Corporation A-7
In the Matter of General Electric Company A-8
In the Matter of Presbyterian Homes of New Jersey Foundation A-8
U.S. v. State of New York Department of Transportation. D. N.Y.) A-8
In the Matter of New York State Department of Mental Health A-8
In re Corporacion Azucarera de Puerto Rico A-8
In re Edgewater Associates A-8
TSCA §8 Inventory Update Enforcement Initiative. A-9
In the Matter of Ciba-Geigy Corporation A-9
In the Matter of OCG Microelectronics Materials, Inc A-9
EPCRA A-9
In the Matter of Mobil Oil Corp A-9
In the Matter of Agway Petroleum Corporation A-9
In the Matter of Rich Products Corp A-9
In the Matter of NTU Circuits, Inc A-9
In the Matter of R&F Alloy Wires, Inc A-10
In the Matter of Silverton Marine Corporation A-10
In re Rexon Technology Corp A-10
In re Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co A-10
Catano EPCRA Enforcement Settlements A-10
In the Matter of National Can Puerto Rico, Inc A-10
In the Matter of Petroleum Chemical Corp A-11
In re Hess Oil Virgin Islands A-l 1
In re Statewide Refrigerated Services, Inc A-l 1
In the Matter of Freeman Industries, Inc A-l 1
In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co A-l 1
CERCLA A-12
The Lipari Site A-12
U.S. v. CDMG Realty Co., etal(D. N.J.) A-12
U.S. v. Vineland Chemical Company, et a/(D. N.J.) A-12
U.S. v. The Carborundum Company, etal(D. N.J.) A-12
In the Matter of the Frontier Chemical Superfund Site A-12
U.S. v. Ciba-Geigy Corp(D. N.Y.) A-13
In the Matter of Diamond Alkali Superfund Site. A-13
In the Matter of Liberty Industrial Finishing Site A-13
In re ENRX and Buffalo Warehousing Superfund Sites A-13
In re York Oil Company Superfund Site. A-13
In re A&YRealty Corp A-13
In re PVO International, Inc A-14
A-ii
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement aniC omplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Quanta/New Jersey Non-Complier Case Settlements A-14
In re Niagara County Refuse Superfund Site A-14
In re Muratti Environmental Site A-14
U.S. v. Signo Trading International, Ltd., et al A-14
U.S. v. Zaklama(D. N.J.) A-15
U.S. v. Thiokol Corp.(D. N.J.) A-15
U.S. v. Town of North HempsteadE.D. N.Y.) A-15
In the Matter of Aero Haven Airport Site A-15
U.S. v. Wheaton Industries, Inc.{D. N.J.) A-15
MULTIMEDIA CASES A-15
In the Matter of Brookhaven National Laboratories and Associated Universities, Inc.. . A-15
In re American Cyanamid Company A-16
In re Broomer Research, Inc A-16
In re Abbott Laboratories A-16
In re Picatinny Arsenal A-17
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey A-17
Safety Kleen A-17
REGION III A-18
CLEAN AIR ACT A-18
Ohio Power Company (N.D. W.Va.) A-18
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (E.D. Penn..) A-18
U.S. v. Coors(D. Va.) A-18
Florida Marina and Boat Sales A-18
Hussey Copper A-18
Manny, Moe, and Jack, Inc.- The Pep Boys A-18
U.S. v. Sun Oil, Philadelphia(E.D. Penn.) A-19
U.S. v. Sun Oil, Marcus HooKE.D. Penn.) A-19
LTV (W. D. Pa) A-19
U.S. v. Sun Company, Inc.(E.D. Penn.) A-19
CLEAN WATER ACT A-19
U.S. v. Sun Oil, Marcus HooKE.D. Penn.) A-19
Sun Oil, Philadelphia (E.D. Penn.) A-20
Sun Company (Pennsylvania). A-20
Ocean Builders Supply A-20
DELCORA (E.D. Pa) A-20
City of Philadelphia (E.D. Pa.) A-20
Eastern Energy Investments A-21
SDWA A-21
Consolidated Gas Transmission Corporation (1311.) A-21
Jiffy Lube (7538) A-21
RCRA A-21
Bethlehem Steel Corporation Steelton Plant. A-21
Medusa Cement A-21
U.S. v. National Rolling Mills(E.D. Penn.) A-21
A-iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Osram Sylvania Glass, Wellsboro, Pennsylvania A-22
Action Manufacturing Company, Atglen, Pennsylvania A-22
Quaker State Corporation, Newell, West Virginia A-22
Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation, Ravenswood, West Virginia A-22
AT&T, Richmond, Virginia A-22
Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc., Middletown, Delaware A-22
ITT Corporation, Roanoke, Virginia A-22
TSCA A-22
Allied Colloids A-22
Bethlehem Steel Corporation A-23
Reading Tube Corporation A-23
Anzon, Inc A-23
Columbia Gas A-23
VA Dept of Emergency Services A-23
EPCRA A-23
T.L. Diamond, Spelter, West Virginia A-23
Premium Beverage Packers, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania A-23
Steel Processing, Inc., Pottstown, Pennsylvania A-24
Messer Greisheim Industries, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania A-24
Diversey Corporation, East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania A-24
Homer Laughlin China A-24
Action Manufacturing A-24
FIFRA A-24
DuPont A-24
CERCLA A-24
Columbia Gas A-24
Greenwood Chemical A-25
Recticon/Allied Steel Site A-25
Sackville Mills Company A-25
United Chemical Technologies A-25
U.S. v. Lord Corporation^.D. Penn.) A-25
U.S. v. Chromatex(3rd Cir.) A-25
REGION IV A-26
CLEAN AIR ACT A-26
U.S. v. Rohm and Haas, Inc(W.D. Ky.) A-26
U.S. v. Olin Corporation(E.D. Tenn.) A-26
U.S .v. Crown, Cork & Seal, /«c(N.D. Miss.) A-26
CLEAN WATER ACT/SDWA A-26
U.S. v. Metro-Dade County, et al A-26
United States v. IMC-Agrico Compan^M.D. Florida) A-27
U.S. v. Perdue-Davidson Oil CompanjfcE.D. Kentucky) A-27
In the Matter of Manatee County, FL: A-27
In the Matter of IMC-Fertilizer, Bartow FL A-27
In the Matter of Jacksonville Beach, FL A-27
A-iv
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement aniC omplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Oil Pollution Act Enforcement Initiative A-28
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency v. Polk County. A-28
United States v. City of Port St. Joe, Florida; et al A-28
RCRA A-29
Holnam, Inc A-29
Arizona Chemical Company. A-29
Giant Cement Company A-29
Todhunter International, Inc., d/b/a Florida Distillers A-29
U.S. v. Gulf States Steel, Inc.( N.D. Ala.) A-29
Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc A-29
Florida Department of Transportation A-30
TSCA A-30
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company/Tenneco, Inc A-30
General Electric Company A-30
EPCRA A-30
Gro-Tec, Inc A-30
Everwood Treatment Company, Inc A-31
North American Royalties, Inc., d/b/a Wheland Foundry A-31
Ashland Petroleum Company A-31
FIFRA A-31
Courtaulds Coatings, Inc A-31
CERCLA A-31
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation A-31
Parramore Fertilizer Site in Tifton, Georgia A-32
Distler Farm and Distler Brickyard Superfund Sites in Kentucky A-32
Jadco/Hughes Site, Gaston County, North Carolina A-32
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. Site in Albany, Georgia A-32
Helena Chemical Company for Fairfax, South Carolina Site A-32
Rochester Property Site in Travelers Rest, South Carolina A-32
Jones Tire and Battery Site in Birmingham, Alabama A-33
Townsend Saw Chain Superfund Site in Pontiac, Richland County, North Carolina . . . A-33
Yellow Water Road Superfund Site, Baldwin, Duval County, Florida A-33
Smith's Farm Site in Bullitt County, Kentucky. A-33
Cedartown Battery Superfund Site in Polk County, Georgia A-33
Enterprise Recovery Systems Site in Byhalia, Mississippi A-33
The City of Cedartown, Polk County, Georgia A-34
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site, Cabarrus County, Concord, North Carolirift-34
Stoller Chemical Company Site in Jericho, South Carolina A-34
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Site in Albany, Dougherty County, Georgia A-34
Woolfolk Chemical Works NPL Site, Fort Valley, Georgia A-35
Hercules 009 Landfill Site, Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia A-35
U.S. v. Otto Skipper(E.D., N.C.) A-35
National Southwire Aluminum Superfund Site in Kentucky A-35
Prairie Metals and Chemical Company Site (Prairie, Mississippi) A-35
A-v
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement aneComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
REGION V A-36
REGION V's CONTEMPT INITIATIVE A-36
Anthony Chambers (Midland, MI) A-36
Big D Campground/Rodebaughs (Ashtabula, OH) A-36
Petoskey Site (Petoskey, MI) A-36
Copperweld Steel (Mahoning, OH.) A-36
Midwestern Drum Services (Venice, IL) A-36
Silvertone Plating Company (Ypsilanti, MI) A-37
GTE North (Belvedere, IL) A-37
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Burns Harbor, IN) A-37
ILLINOIS CASES A-37
OHIO CASE A-37
CLEAN AIR ACT A-37
B&W Investment Properties, Inc., and Louis Wolf A-37
New Boston Coke Corp. (S.D. Ohio) A-38
U.S. v. Consolidated Papers, 7rac.(Wisconsin Rapids, WI) A-38
Monitor Sugar Co. (E.D. Mich.) A-38
Stern Enterprises, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio/Eastern
Division) A-38
CLEAN WATER ACT A-39
LTV Steel (East Chicago, IN) A-39
JMB Urban Development Company (Columbus, OH) A-39
City of Middletown (OH) A-39
Wayne County-Wyandotte (MI) Wastewater Treatment Plant A-39
IBP, Inc. (Joslin, IL) A-39
Appleton Papers (Appleton, WI) A-40
Commonwealth Edison Company, Inc. (Chicago, IL) A-40
MULTIMEDIA CASES A-40
Taracorp Industries (Granite City, IL). A-40
Glidden Company (Strongsville, OH.) A-40
EPCRA A-40
Vie De France (Bensenville, IL) A-40
HRR Enterprises, Inc. (Chicago, IL.) A-41
Shell Oil Company's Wood River Manufacturing Complex (Roxana, IL) A-41
Consumers Power Co. (West Olive, MI) A-41
Karmazin Products Corp. (Wyandotte, MI) A-41
TSCA A-42
University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana, IL) A-42
Wayne State University (Detroit, MI) A-42
U.S. Graphite, Inc. (Saginaw, MI) A-42
RCRA/UST A-42
BASF Corp. North Works (Wyandotte, MI) A-42
Hilton Davis Co. (Cincinnati, OH) A-42
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (Cleveland, OH) A-43
Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Saint Paul, MN) A-43
A-vi
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement aniC omplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.(7th Cir. 1994) A-43
U.S. v. Ekco Housewares, /rac(Massillon, Ohio) A-43
U.S. v. Laclede Steel Company. A-43
City of Columbus, Ohio and the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio A-43
SDWA A-44
Total Petroleum (Alma, MI) A-44
George Perry (Oceana County, MI) A-44
JPT Petroleum Production Corp. (Gibson County, IN.) A-44
Gahanna Water Department (Gahanna, OH) A-44
CERCLA A-44
Circle Smelting (Beckmeyer, IL) A-44
Core Craft (Northern Township, MN) A-45
Kerr-McGee Site (Chicago, IL.) A-45
Lockhart Construction (Akron, OH) A-45
National Presto (Eau Claire, WI) A-45
Olin Corporation (Ashtabula, OH) A-45
Wedzeb (Lebanon, IN) A-46
Jackson Drop Forge (Jackson, MI) A-46
Spickler Landfill Site (Marathon County, WI) A-46
REGION VI A-47
CLEAN AIR ACT A-47
U.S. v. Enpro Contractors, Inc.; Train Property, Inc.; andJimmyPatton Contractor, Inc. (E.D.
Ark.) A-4 7
In the Matter of Herd Enterprises, d/b/a Broward Factory Service A-47
CLEAN WATER ACT A-47
U.S. v. City ofKenner and the State ofLouisianc(E.D. La.) A-47
U.S. v. City of Bossier City, and the State ofLouisian^W .D. La.) A-47
U.S. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Compan^E.D. Tex.) A-47
Vulcan Chemical A-47
In the Matter of Albert Kramer III d/b/a Kramer Development Corporation A-48
Citgo Pipeline Company A-48
Hamner Inc A-48
Jayhawk Pipeline Corporation A-48
Petrolite Corporation A-48
Red River Entertainment Group A-48
RCRA A-48
In the Matter of Micro Chemical Company. A-48
In the Matter of Dow Chemical A-49
In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management. A-49
In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management. A-49
In the Matter of Texas Industries A-49
In the Matter of Aristech A-49
In the Matter of Rexene A-49
In the Matter of Chapparal Steel A-49
A-vii
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement aneComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
In the Matter of Hydrocarbon Recyclers, Inc A-50
In the Matter of REM TEX A-50
In the Matter of Jeep Collins A-50
In the Matter of Ranco A-50
In the Matter of Citgo Refining A-50
In the Matter of Aquaness Chemical A-50
In the Matter of Helena Chemical A-50
In the Matter of Helena Chemical A-51
U.S. v. Marine Shale Processors, Inc(W.D. La.) A-51
TSCA A-51
In the Matter of Asarco, Amarillo, Texas A-51
Central Power and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Texas A-51
CERCLA A-51
U.S. v. DavidBowen Wallace, etal. (N.D. Tex.) Bio-Ecology Systems Superfund Site, Dallas
County, Texas A-51
U.S. v.AmericanNationalPetroleum Company, etal. (W.D. La.) Gulf Coast Vacuum Superfund Site,
Abbeville, Louisiana, and Gulf Coast Vacuum Services Superfund Site, Vermillion Parish,
Louisiana A-52
U.S. v. City of Jacksonville, Arkansas (E.D. Ark.) Jacksonville Municipal Landfill, Lonoke
County, Arkansas, and Rogers Road Municipal Landfill, Pulaski County, ArkansasA-52
U.S. v. Gulf States Utilities Company (S.D Tex.) Industrial Transformer/Sol Lynn Site, Harris
County, Texas A-52
U.S. v. Vertac Chemical Corporation, etal., Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecologyv. Vertac Chemical Corporation, etal. (E.D. Ark.). In theMatter of Hercules Inc.,
UniroyalChemicalLtd., and Vertac Chemical Corporation (Administrative) Vertac Superfund
Site, Jacksonville, Arkansas A-53
In theMatter ofAmeradaHess Corporation, etal., PAB Oil Superfund Site, Abbeville, Louisiana
A-5 3
In theMatter of Waste Management of Oklahoma, Inc., Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill Superfund
Site, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma A-53
In theMatterofiAluminum Company of America, Alcoa/Lavaca Bay Superfund Site, PointComfort,
Texas A-53
In the Matter ofNational Zinc Site, Bartlesville, Oklahoma; Salomon, Inc., Cyprus Amax Minerals
Company, and Kerramerican, Inc., National Zinc Company Superfund Site, Bartlesville,
Oklahoma A-54
Marco of Iota A-54
Pab Oil A-54
South 8th Street A-54
B.P. Chemical A-54
Miles Inc A-54
REGION VII A-56
CLEAN AIR ACT A-56
U.S. v. Archer Daniels Midland^.D. Ia.) A-56
U.S. v. Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc( W.D. Mo.) A-56
A-viii
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement aniC omplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
In the Matter of Holnam, Inc A-56
CLEAN WATER ACT A-56
In the Matter of the Boeing Company A-56
U.S. v. Beech Aircraft CorporatioriD. Kan.) A-56
RCRA A-5 7
In the Matter of Burlington Northern Railroad A-57
In the Matter of The Dexter Company. A-57
In the Matter of Missouri Highway Transportation Department A-57
In the Matter of Iowa Army Ammunition Plant A-57
In the Matter of G.E. Company A-57
In the Matter of Cuba Paint Company A-58
EPCRA A-58
In the Matter of Kaw Valley, Inc A-58
In the Matter of The Iowa Packing Company A-58
CERCLA A-58
U.S. v. Chemical Waste Management of Kansas, Inc.{ D. Kan.) A-58
U.S. v. TIC Investment Corp., et al(N.D. Ia.) A-58
In the Matter of the Big River Mine Tailings Site A-59
In the Matter of Lee Chemical Co. Superfund Site, Liberty, Missouri A-59
U.S. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health, Ind.D. Neb.) A-59
In the Matter of Renner Road Shooting Park A-59
U.S. v. City of Clinton, /owo(S.D. Ia.) A-59
U.S. v. Midwest Asbestos Control, Inc., et al{D. Kan.) A-60
REGION VIII A-61
CLEAN AIR ACT A-61
Sinclair Oil Corporation A-61
CLEAN WATER ACT A-61
Dirt Merchant Construction/Sandra Tarr A-61
Lucas Western (Jamestown, North Dakota) A-61
Farmers Union Central Exchange COOP (CENEMfiSiMmgs, Montana) A-61
Burlington Northern Railroad(W.D., Wise.) A-61
Hub City, South Dakota A-62
City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota: A-62
Star Circuits A-62
SDWA A-62
Town ofMeeteetse, Wyoming A-62
City Oil Corporation A-62
RCRA A-63
Reclaim Barrel A-63
EPCRA A-63
Advanced Forming Technology A-63
Accurate Plastics(now SPM/Denver) A-63
Denver Metal Finishing Company A-63
Nephi Rubber Products A-63
A-ix
-------
I FY 1994 Enforcement aneComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Thatcher Chemical Company A-63
MI-RA A-63
Biotrol International, Inc A-63
CERCLA A-64
Apache Energy and Minerals Co.( D. Colo.) A-64
Smuggler-DurantMining Corporation^. Colo.) A-64
Clear Creek/Central City Superfund Site, Western Diversified Builders A-64
Whitewood Creek A-64
Petrochem/Ekotek Site A-65
Petrochem/Ekotek A-65
Colorado School of Mines Research Institute A-65
North American Environmental, Inc A-65
REGION IX A-67
CLEAN AIR ACT A-67
U.S. v. Shell Western E&P, Inc(E.D. Calif.) A-67
U.S. v. TABC, Inc.(CD. Calif.) A-67
U.S. v. Minerec, Inc.(D. Ariz.) A-67
U.S. v. All American Pipeline CompanjiC.D. Calif.) A-67
CLEAN WATER ACT A-67
U.S. v. American Global Line, /«c(N.D. Calif.) A-67
U.S. v. Magma Copper Co.(D. Ariz.) A-67
U.S. v. City and County ofHonolulu(D. Haw.) A-68
U.S. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Corp.(E.D. Calif.) A-68
U.S. v. Teledyne, Inc.(S.D. Calif.) A-68
U.S. v. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County S.D. Calif.) A-68
RCRA A-69
U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel, Ltd., Estate of James Campbell, Ipscolnc. and ComincoLtd.
(D. Hawaii) A-69
In the Matter of U.S. Naval Air Facility, El Centro, California A-69
U.Sv. City of Los Angeles and U.S. v. Lockheed Corporation. D. Calif.) A-69
U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel, et al(D. Haw.) A-69
CERCLA A-69
U.S. v. Peter Gull andNL Industries, Inc{C.D. Calif.) A-69
Pearl Harbor Naval Complex Federal Facilities Agreement A-69
U.S. v. Montana Refining Co.(9th Cir.) A-70
In the Matter of Iron Mountain Mine A-70
U.S. v. Alcatel Information Systems, Inc(D. Arizona) A-70
REGION X A-71
CLEAN AIR ACT A-71
Alyeska Pipeline Services Company and ARCO Products A-71
Norma and Frank Echevarria, d/b/a Echeco Environmental Services A-71
Phillips Petroleum Company and AGI, Inc A-71
A-x
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement aniC omplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Trans-AKEnvironmentalServices&ConslructionCorp.,GiddingsMortgageandInveslmentCompany,
and Neeser Construction A-71
U.S. v. Global Travel, Jordan-Wilcomb Construction, and Allied Construction. Id.). • A-71
U.S. v. Zemlicka and Davis A-71
U.S. v. Martech USA, Hobbs Industries, Chugach Electric Association, Inc A-72
U.S. v. Hagadone Hospitality Co A-72
CLEAN WATER ACT A-72
Wesley M. Sherer A-72
U.S. v. Steve Burnett and Dean Schradei(W.D. Wash.) A-72
Kenco Marine A-72
City of Ocean Shores, Washington A-72
Rodger Forni A-72
Martin Nygaard A-73
Rogge Mills A-73
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) A-73
Northlake Shipyards A-73
City of Tacoma A-73
Arctic Fisheries A-73
U.S. v. Stanley C. Rybachek A-73
RCRA A-73
U.S. v. Robert and Geneva StobaugHW.D. Wash.) A-73
U.S. v. R.H. Bowles, Inc. and Central Marketing, In<{E.D. Wash.) A-74
Alaska Railroad Company A-74
Boeing Company A-74
U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright, Alaska A-74
U.S. Army, Fort Richardson A-74
CERCLA A-75
Commencement Bay - South Tacoma Channel A-75
Bunker Hill A-75
FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE A-76
RCRA/FFCA A-76
RCRA/FFCA Penalty Order-Coast Guar^Kodiak, Alaska Facility A-76
Presidio of San Francisco A-76
Schofield Barracks A-76
Norfolk Naval Shipyard A-76
Yorktown Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia A-76
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Dahlgren, Virginia A-76
Fort Dix, New Jersey A-77
U.S. Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba, Puerto Rico A-77
OFFICE OF REGULATORY ENFORCMENT A-78
CLEAN AIR ACT A-78
U.S. v. Atlantic Richfield Company and Snyder Oil Corporation. Wyo.) A-78
U.S. v. W.R. Grace Companj(D. Mont.) A-78
A-xi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
U.S. v. ICIInternational, Inc A-78
U.S. v. JBA Motorcars, Inc. and Dr. Jacob Ben-AfS.D. Fla.) A-78
U.S. v. Daniel Rosendahl(S.D. Tex.) A-78
U.S. v. Ken Ball and Phil McCreerfW.D. Mo.) A-78
TSCA A-78
Town of Wallingford, Connecticut A-78
Cressona Aluminum Company PCB Cleanup A-79
USS Cabot/Dedalo A-79
Port of New Orleans A-79
Sunshine Mining Company A-79
Imperial Holly Corporation A-79
EPCRA A-79
General Chemical Corporation A-79
Alaska Pulp Corporation A-80
Trail Wagons A-80
Northwest Castings A-80
MI-RA A-80
Pinnacle Agricultural Technologies A-80
Accuventure, Inc.: Criminal and Civil Enforcement Coordination A-80
Argent Chemical Laboratories, Inc A-80
MULTIMEDIA CASES A-81
Allied Tube & Conduit A-81
U.S. v. Columbus Solid Waste Reduction Plant A-81
U.S. v. Southern Pacific A-81
U.S. v. Texas Eastern^S.D., Tex.) A-81
OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT A-82
U.S. v. Hartford Associates^. Md.) A-82
U.S. v. Penn HillsQND. Penn.) A-82
U.S. v. Rally A-82
U.S. v. Wietzenhoff A-82
U.S. v. Laughlin, 10 F.3rd 961 (2d Cir. 1993)fert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1649 (1994) A-82
U.S. v. Advance Plating Works, Inc., et aK.S.D. Ind.) A-83
U.S. v. Carlo Arco and Automatic Plating Company, Ind.D. Conn.) A-83
U.S. v. AT&T and Harry J. Krin£E.D. Penn.) A-83
U.S. v. Richard Vernon Bates, et al(C.D. Calif.) A-83
U.S. v. Giacomo Catucci(T>. R.I.) A-83
U.S. v. Larry A. Christopherson(E.D. Wise.) A-84
U.S. v. Craven Laboratories, Inc., et al(W.D. Texas) A-84
U.S. v. Dean Foods Company and Winfred Smitl{W.D. Ky.) A-84
U.S. v. Doyle Crew$(N.D. Tex.) A-84
U.S. v. Charles A. Eidson and Sandra A. Eidsoi{M.D. Fla.) A-84
U.S. v. Cherokee Resources, Inc., et al(W.D. N.C.) A-85
U.S. v. GarlickHelicopter, Inc(D. Mont.) A-85
U.S. v. Gaston(D. Kan.) A-85
A-xii
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement aniC omplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
U.S. v. Hedge, (S.D. Ohio); State ofOhio v. Hedge and City Bumper Exchange, Inc., (Hamilton
County Court of Common Pleas) A-85
U.S. v. Hofele (W.D. Mo.) A-85
U.S. v. Robert H. Hopkin^D. Conn.) A-85
U.S. v. George FrederickHeidgerkei(W.D. Wash.) A-85
U.S. v. Gomer's Diesel and Electric CompanftD. Mont.) A-86
U.S. v. Jay Jurek(W.D. Wash.) A-86
U.S. v. MOR, Inc.(S.D. Fla.) A-86
U.S. v. Francis Morgan, etal.(D. Haw.) A-86
U.S. v.M. Tyronne Morgan andMeydenbauer Development Cor$E. D. Wash.) A-86
U.S. v. Bob Murphy, etal.(D. Nev.) A-87
U.S. v. Norwood Industries, Inc., et al{E.D. Penn.) A-87
U.S. v. OEA, Inc.(D. Colo.) A-87
U.S. v. Palm Beach Cruise^S.D. Fla.) A-87
U.S. v. Pacific Aqua Tech, Ltd(E.D. Wash.) A-87
U.S. v. RobertPardi(S.D. N.Y.) A-88
U.S. v. Nicholas Pasquariello(S.D. Fla.) A-88
U.S. v. Norma Phillips, et al.{W.D. Mo.) A-88
U.S. v. Pioneer Chemical, Inc. and GeraldButlelfD. Ky.) A-88
U.S. v. John Pizzuto(S.D. Ohio) A-89
U.S. v. Nobert Efren PohKD. N.M.) A-89
U.S. v. R&D Chemical Company, /«c(N.D. Ga.) A-89
U.S. v. Recticel Foam Corporation, et al(E.D. Tenn.) A-89
U.S. v. William C. Reichle andReichle, IndD. Ore.) A-90
U.S. v. Reilly and DowcfD. Del.) A-90
U.S. v. Sentco Paint Manufacturing, Inc., et. a/(N.D. Ohio) A-90
U.S. v. Mark Steven Stewart, et al(D. Ariz.) A-90
U.S. v. Thermocell S. E. Inc., Douglas Kirchofer and Sherwin T. Haskcl/E.D. Tenn.). . . A-90
U.S. v. Weaver Electric(D. Colo.) A-91
U.S. v. Safety Kleen A-91
U.S. v. Steve Weinsier(S.D. Fla.) A-91
U.S. v. Larry Kenneth West(W.D. Mich.) A-92
U.S. v. William C. Whitman and Duane C. WhitmafyM.D. Fla.) A-92
Harry Zucker (W. D. Pa) A-92
U.S. v. Dale Valentine et al.(D. WY) A-92
A-xiii
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport m1
APPENDIX B
STATE CASES
ALASKA
Anchor ForestProducts: AnchorForestProductswas
convicted of three misdemeanors following a bench
trial. The convictions are for Pollution, Illegal
Discharge of a Petroleum Product, and Illegal
Discharge ofNon-domestic and Domestic W astewater.
The court merged the first two counts, then imposed a
fine of $1,000 and 30 days in jail on each of the
remaining two counts, but suspended the fines and jail
on the condition that Anchor Forest Products conduct
adequate remediation over the next two years, and
comply with DEC regulations.
CH2M-Hill Engineering: CH2M-Hill Engineering agreed
to pay a $25,000 civil settlement to the state's
Hazardous Substance Mitigation Account in July 1994 in
Unalaska District Court. The agreement resulted from
a compromise on four misdemeanor charges involving the
same chlorine discharge into Icy Creek to which CRI
pleaded guilty. Magistrate Hawkins approved the
agreementfollowingargumentsbybothsidesinfavorof
the dismissal and compromise. C H2M-Hi 11 also agreed to
institute an in-house training program to avoid future
chlorine discharges.
City of Angoon. Alaska: The City received a $5,000
fine in August, 1994in Juneau Superior Court following
a plea of no contest to a class A misdemeanor charge of
failing to file water treatment records in a timely
manner. The record keeping problems occurred between
1990 and 1993. Superior Court Judge Walter R.
Carpeneti suspended all of the fine and placed Angoon
on probation for a period of 3 years on the condition
that the city have no environmental violations during
that period. In addition, the court ordered Angoon to
complete a report upon consultation with DEC which
addresses how the city will supervise its water
treatment operators, verify reports, educate the
community about water treatment, maintain schedules
for supplies and equipment and fund its maintenance of
the water treatment plant.
Construction Rigging. Inc. (CRI) CRI, an Alaska
Corporation, pleaded guilty in July in Unalaska
District Court to four misdemeanor charges involving
a chlorine discharge into Icy Creek. CRI accepted
responsibility for the acts of its agent whom they had
instructed not to participate in a discharge of the
chlorine without first neutralizing it. The discharge
killed approximately 40 Dolly Varden (Char).
Magistrate Mary Hawkins sentenced CRI to pay a total
fine of $5,000 with $2,500 suspended on the condition
that CRI not have any similar violations for one year.
Echo Bay Alaska. Inc.: Echo Bay Alaska,Inc.,entered
into a civil Consent Decree with the State of Alaska in
which the company agreed to pay the State a total of
$250,000 for violation of State environmental laws.
The amount includes $125,000 in civil penalties,
$50,000 for investigation cost reimbursement, and
$75,000 to offset future costs of ADEC oversight and
monitoring of the Alaska Juneau Mine. In the Consent
Decree Echo Bay Alaska, Inc., admitted liability for
violating State laws concerning the reporting of oil
spills and disposal of materials used in oil spill
cleanup actions. The action resulted from an ADEC
investigation of a turbidity event in Gold Creek. An
investigation led ADEC to inspect operations and
discover the violations. The mine is operated in an
exploratory phase by Echo Bay Alaska.
Enstar Natural Gas Company: Enstarpaid a $15,000
civil settlement to the State of Alaska in October,
1994. The agreement resulted from a compromise to
three misdemeanor charges brought by the State's
EnvironmentalCrimes Unit involving unpermitted
stream crossings near Meadow Creek in Wasilla, Alaska.
Minor damage resulted to the rearing habitat of coho
salmon during installation of a gas pipeline. The
crossings occurred in October, 1993. Enstar also
agreed as part of the settlement to conduct mitigation
efforts on the streams under the direction of the
Department of Fish and Game's Habitat Division.
KakeTrihal&KakeTrihalLogging: KakeTnMLogging
Camp is located at Point Macartney, five miles
northwest of Kake, on Kupreanof Island in Southeast
Alaska. Respondents were charged with numerous
violations of state pollution laws, which included oil
B-l
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
and chemical spills, open burning of used oil and oily
wastes, discharge of improperly treated sewage,
failure to notify the State of Alaska DEC of oil and
hazardous substance spills, unpermitted disposal of
solid waste, and violations of the State Drinking W ater
regulations. In settlement for damages and penalties,
Respondents agreed to pay the state $125,000 with
$50,000 suspended on condition that the Respondents
complete all cleanup and remediation required by the
Compliance Order by Consent entered into by the
parties. In addition, the Respondents agreed to pay
$15,000 to the City of Kake to purchase emergency
response equipment, and an additional $15,000 to
provide spill response training to citizens of the Kake
community.
Northland Fisheries. Inc.: A Washington State based
corporation, Northland pleaded no contest to one count
of violating itsNPDES permit in Akutan Harbor in the
Aleutian Islands. The violation involved discharge of
ground crab viscera and shells at a depth not allowed
by permit. The court fined Northland $20,000,
suspending all but $ 17,500 of the fine on the condition
that Northland have no violations for one year.
Ronnie C. Fisheries: Ronnie C. Fisheries, an Oregon
Corporation, received a $ 10,000 fine in August, 1994 in
Unalaska District Court following a plea of no contest
to a class A misdemeanor charge of illegally
discharging oil into Dutch Harbor. The spill occurred
in March of 1993 and involved approximately 50 gallons
of diesel fuel from the fishing vessel "AJ." Attempts
by the vessel owners to disperse the spill with liquid
detergent were unsuccessful and did not meet DEC
standards for oil spill cleanup. Magistrate Mary
Hawkins suspended allbut$2,500ofthe fine and placed
the corporation on probation for a period of one year
on the condition that Ronnie C. Fisheries have no
similar violations during that period.
William A. Wood: William A. Wood pled no contest to
three water treatment misdemeanors resulting from
developmentof a trailer court on Prince of Wales
Island in southeast Alaska. The convictions were for
charges of failing to obtain a plan review for his
water and wastewater system, in addition to not
conducting proper fecal coliform tests. He was
utilizing a surface water source. The court imposed a
fine of $5,000 for each count concurrently, suspended
the fines and placed Mr. wood on probation for one
year.
COLORADO
State of Colorado v Colorado Refining: In coordinated
multimediaState andEPA actions, CDPHE'sNPDES and
RCRA programs took enforcement actions against
Colorado Refining to clean up seeps to Sand Creek.
Colorado Refining also had effluent violations of
their NPDES permit. The State ordered injunctive
relief and has settled for $375,000 cash plus $1.4
million in SEPs. This will be the largest penalty the
State has collected. Further, the Agency got a
favorable ruling on the applicability of CWA to
discharges of pollutants reaching surface waters via
groundwater. In a related citizen's suit under the
Clean Water Act, Sierra Club v Colorado Refining
Company, 838 F. Supp. 1428 (D. Colo. 1993), where
pollutants migrated through the groundwater into
surface water, the Courtconcluded thatthe Clean Water
Act's prohibition of the discharge of any pollutant
into "navigable waters" includes such discharge which
reaches "navigable waters" through groundwater.
State of Colorado v Conoco: In coordinated multimedia
State and EPA actions. CDPH E's NPDES and RC RA programs
took enforcement actions against Conoco to clean up
seeps to Sand Creek. The State ordered injunctive
relief and collected an NPDES penalty of $200,000. In
a related citizen's suit under the Clean Water Act, the
Sierra Club settled with Conoco for $280,000 per year
for five years for a Supplemental Environmental
Project along Sand Creek. EPA supported these
settlements as recovering Conoco's economic benefit
($200,000 cash penalty to CDH) and appropriate gravity
in the SEP negotiated by the Sierra Club.
State of Colorado v The City of Ft. Morgan In
coordinated State and EPA actions, the Colorado
Department of Health's NPDES program and EPA's
Pretreatmentprogramtookenforcementactions against
The City of Ft. Morgan. The State addressed the
effluent violations and ordered injunctive relief
related to the effluent violations. The State
collected $115,000 for the effluent violations. This
is the largest penalty the State has collected against
a municipality.
B-2
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ConcernedCitizens of Brentwood, et al.. v. The
District of Columbia, et al. The citizen plaintiffs
initially obtained a TRO from the Court which set aside
District Government permits issued to Consolidated
Waste Industries, Inc. for the purpose of expanding a
solid waste management operation into a receiving,
sorting, and baling operation for recyclable
materials. The TRO was in effect until the Court was
satisfied that the District Government had complied
with the D.C. Environmental Policy Act,whichrequires
consideration of the environmental impact of proposed
activities meeting the statutory threshold criteria.
Multimedia inspections were directed by the Court and
ultimately, the Court found in favor of the government
and vacated the TRO, allowing the expansion of CWI's
operations.
Subsequently, residents complained to the Attorney
General's office, raising the issue again as a matter
of environmental equity and justice. Ms. Reno's office
referred the complaint to EPA's Office of
Environmental Justice and Region III requested the
D.C. ERA to conduct a Multimedia environmental justice
inspection of Consolidated Waste Industries, Inc., now
a business partner of Browning Ferris Industries, Inc.
The inspection has been completed and a report
forwarded to EPA.
D.C.DepartmentofConsumerandRegulatoryAffairs
(DCRAW. Coastline Purchasing Corporation:
Administrativeenforcement action was initiated to
remedy contamination of soil and ground water
resulting from leaking underground storage tanks.
DCRA obtained consent agreement from owner/operator
authorizingDCRA to enter on property to perform
further site investigation and corrective action.
RespondentacknowledgedthattheDistrictofColumbia
was authorized to recover costs against it and was
further authorized to file a notice of lien against the
property. DCRA agreed that after issuing a demand
letter to Respondent for the costs of remediation, that
DCRA would refrain from selling the property at a tax
sale for a period of at least one year and 30 days in
orderto provide the Respondent with an opportunity to
sell the property and pay off the lien first.
D.C.DepartmentofConsumerandRegulatoryAffairs
(DCRA) v. Kavfirst Corporation: Administrative
enforcement action was initiated to remedy
contamination of soil and ground water resulting from
leaking underground storage tanks. Action was first
brought against current owner of the property,
Kayfirst Corporation, which had failed to comply with
agency directives. However, initial investigation
conductedby Kayfirst Corporation in response to
administrative action revealed that 6 underground
storage tanks, thoughtto have been previously removed
from the property, were still on-site. Thereafter,
DCRA issued discovery directives to previous owners
and operators, including Sunoco, CSX Transportation
Corporation,Inc. and Mount Clare Properties, Inc.
Through discovery responses, it was learned that
Sunoco previously leased the site and operated a gas
station, and that while 3 tanks had been removed from
the site before Kayfirst purchased in 1989,6 remained,
out of 9 tanks shown to have been installed by Sunoco.
On July 19, 1994 a revised Stipulation was entered
among the parties. Once the remediation system is
fully installed and operational, a final stipulation
and conditional order of dismissal without prejudice
will be entered.
D.C.DepartmentofConsumerandRegulatoryAffairs
(DCRA)v. The I J.S. General Services Administration:
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)
operates two large heating plants in Washington, DC.
These plants provide steam to heat Federal buildings.
During the late 1980s, GSA began a boiler refurbishment
and replacement program at both plants. After
completing their refurbishment program, GSA planned to
burn coal as their principal fuel.
In January 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) determined from air dispersion modelling
that violations of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)for sulfur dioxide(S02)mayoccurin
areas around these plants when coal is fired in plant
boilers. To resolve air quality compliance issues
associated with the plants, GSA, EPA and the District
entered into a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement
inthespringof 1992. The agreementrequired that GSA
increase the height of the smoke stacks at the heating
plants to better disperse air pollutants or develop an
alternative compliance plan. GSA was unable to secure
timely approval for taller stacks from the National
Capitol Planning Commission and other regulatory
B-3
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
agencies pursuant to the agreement. As a result, GSA
was forced to develop an alternative compliance plan.
In May 1993, GSA committed to bum only natural gas and
very low sulfur fuel oil at their heating plants to
ensureNAAQS were not violated. EPA and the District
accepted this alternative compliance plan. GSA failed
to adhere to commitments made in their alternative
compliance plan during the 1993/94 heating season,
however. In response to violations of their
alternative compliance plan and other air quality
violations, the District issued a Notice of Non-
Compliance and Proposed Order to GSA April 15,1994.
After lengthy negotiations, GSA has agreed to strictly
adhere to their commitment to burn only natural gas and
very low sulfur oil. GSA has also agreed to improve
continuous emission monitor performance at their
facilities.
The District issued an operating permit to GSA's
heatingplants September 8,1994. The permit requires
that GSA operate in compliance with the significant
elements of their alternative compliance plan and
other air quality regulations. The operating permit,
which has been submitted to EPA as a State
ImplementationPlan (SIP) revision, is Federally
enforceable.
District of Columbia Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs (DCRA). Environmental Regulation
Administration (ERA) v. Respondent Mr. Jerry
Schaeffer The D.C. Environmental Regulation
Administration (ERA) participated in a multimedia
inspection and coordinated the issuance of a
multimediacomplianceonder(underRCRAREWRITE3013)
to the violator. The facility was used for automobile
salvage and storage operations. The investigation
revealedillegal traffic in stolen vehicles and parts
distribution was also occurring at the site. The
project site was known locally as "the Deanwood Dump."
The administrative order directed the site owner to
identify the presence and extent of any soil
contamination. A sampling and analysis plan was
submitted and approved by ERA. The area was found to be
free of serious toxic contamination but was greatly
cleaned up as a result of this action. The D.C. City
Council recognized the participants' initiative to
solve apressing community problem in aceremony and
Council Resolution on January 4, 1994.
FLORIDA
Boston Chicken: Boston Chicken was cited for no
notification, no trained on site representative and
inadequate wetting of approximately 2,400 sq. ft. of
RACM ceilingtile. Boston Chicken has signed a Consent
Order and paid a $25,000 penalty.
DepartmentofEn vi ion menta I Protection v. LakeCou ntv
Lake County operated the Lake County Sign Shop, a road
striping facility, located in Tavares, Florida. The
operation involved the use of toluene for cleaning
machinery, and of paints containing lead and chrome.
Toluene, lead and chrome were discharged to Ihe ground.
Hazardous waste violations were documented after a
RCRA hazardous waste compliance inspection was
conducted. In settlement of these matters, the parties
entered into a Consent Order. Lake County agreed to
pay $2,000 in costs and $22,000 in in-kind penalties.
DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionv.Pinellas
County Board of County Commissioners: The violations
in this case included numerous instances of effluent
dumping in excess of amounts allowed by the operating
permitforthe South Cross Bayou wastewater treatment
plant. Treated effluent, which was pumped deep
underground, migrated into an underground source of
drinking water. In settlement of these matters, a
Consent Order was approved by the Pinellas County
Commission. Pinellas County agreed to pay $120,400 to
DEP in penalties and costs. The County is replacing
the deep-well injection systems at South Cross Bayou
and at its McKay Creek treatment plant with reclaim
water reuse systems. A report is to be prepared
concerning potential impacts of deep-well injection at
South Cross Bayou on the drinking water aquifer. The
total estimated cost for replacing the systems at the
two sites is $133 million.
Department of Environmental Regulation v. Cabot
Corporation: Cabot Corporation owned and operated a
pine tar and charcoal facility ("Facility") in Alachua
County, Florida from 1945 to 1966. During the
Facility's operation, by-products containing
hazardous substances were dumped into three unlined
lagoons. In 1983, the Department filed a complaint
against Cabot and other parties, seeking to require
Cabot and the others to clean up the Cabot/Kopper
Superfiind Site ("Site") in Alachua County. Prior to
this action, EPA had placed the Site, which included
B-4
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
the former Cabot Corporation property, in the
Supcrfund National Priority List. Approximately six
years after the court case was suspended, the
Department filed a motion to revive the circuit court
action. On March 10, 1989, the Department and the
Cabot Corporation signed a Stipulation for Settlement
whereby Cabot agreed to pay $650,000 to resolve the
claims between the parties.
Department of Environmental Regulation v. Pilot
Properties Co. and Durham I Jtilitv Service. Inc.: This
case involved a wastewater treatment plant located in
Jacksonville, Florida. Pilot Properties Co. ("Pilot")
owns an apartment complex, Turtle Lake Apartments,
along with its wastewater treatment plant. Durham
Utility Service, Inc. ("Durham") operates the plant
under Pilot's direction. Violations at this plant
included the routine discharge of effluent into areas
that were accessible to the general public, thereby
creating a risk to public health. Subsequent to the
Department obtaining a temporary injunction, Pilot
connected the facility into the regional system. The
Department settled with Pilot for a penalty of $ 10,000.
Durham, a co-defendant in the civil action, had a
default entered against it on the issue of liability.
OnJune 1,1994, a Final Judgmentwas entered against
Durham Utility Service, Inc. and the Department was
awarded $250,000 in penalties.
FloridaDepartmentofCorrections: The Department
executed a Consent Order with the Florida Department of
Corrections on May 3,1994, concerning violations at
its Sumter Correctional Institution regarding
replacing and operating process steam boilers without
the necessary air pollution permits. The Department
discovered these violations after receiving an after-
the-fact construction permit application from FDC.
The Department agreed to waive penalties if FDC agreed
to survey its facilities statewide to identify all
potential sources of air pollution and submit permit
applications for any facility found not in compliance.
The FDC found 11 facilities out of compliance and
submitted permit applications within the timeframe
agreed to in the Consent Order.
FloridaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionv.
NRG/RecovervGi-oup.lnc.aka Ogden Martin Systems of
Lake. Inc.: On March 3,1994, Ogden signed a Consent
Order to address its exceedance of the permitted one-
hour lOOppmdvCOstandard andsix-hour 60 ppmdvS02
standard. The Department assessed penalties against
Ogden at $14,799, plus Department costs of $350,00.
The Department found the company in violation of its
State and Federal Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit conditions. The
corporation owns and operates two 288 tons-per-day
MunicipalWaste CombustorslocatedinOkahumpa,Lake
County, Florida. The Unit 1 combustor is permitted to
combust 51.60 tons/day of biohazardous waste as part of
its 288 tons/day load. Ogden operated Unit 1 for three
six-hour periods on July 22,1993 with S02 emissions at
65,85, and 73 ppm. Ogden also operated Unit 2 on July
16 and 18,1993 with CO emissions for three one-hour
periods of 183,238 and 503 ppm. The violations were
found as a result of self-reporting and subsequent
Departmentinspections. Along with the assessed
penalties, the company agreed to install two
additional S02 analyzers to monitor the unabated
concentrations of S02 in the flue gas prior to the
scrubbers. The company was previously operating two
S02 analyzers to monitor the stack effluent as required
by its State and PSD permit. The installation of the
additional analyzers gives Ogden an early warning to
allow for a more timely response to fuel related S02
increases. Ogden implemented a corrective action plan
to abate the CO excess emissions. The plan involved
stepped up inspections of the material before
combustion, and avoidance of wet waste.
FloridaGasTransmission: Florida GasTransmission
was cited for exceeding the permitted gas consumption
rate, late test report, and failure to timely apply for
a construction permit extension. Consent Orders were
signed with the penalty for Brevard's 2 units amounting
to $13,128 and Marion County's amounting to $7,068. In
another county, Florida Gas Transmission was cited for
exceeding this permitted gas consumption rate, late
test report, and failure to timely apply for a
construction permit extension. FGT signed consent
orders for all these units. Penalties received are as
follows: Gadsden, $8,400; Washington, $8,400; Santa
Rosa, $7,800. Still in another county, Florida Gas
Transmission was cited for exceeding the permitted gas
consumption rate and failure to timely apply for a
construction permit extension. FGT signed a Consent
Order and paid a $6,150 penalty.
Florida Gas Transmission: The Department has
collected a total of $575,400 from Florida Gas
B-5
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Transmission (FGT) for 110 violations in construction
in the Florida Panhandle. In addition, the DEP
executed a temporary emergency suspension of FGT's
construction permit, required FGT to contract with an
independent consulting firm to oversee their
constructionactivities, and to submit a restoration
proposal. The violations included a total lack of
required Best Management Practices in certain
construction areas, the creation of excessive levels
of turbidity, and violations of design specifications
outlined in the permit application for the project.
The violations spanned the Florida Panhandle and
included the Blackwater River State Forest, Joe Budd
ManagcmentArcaandOulstandingFlondaWaters. Ofthe
$575,400 total penalty, FGT paid a cash penalty to the
DEP of $375,400. The remaining $200,000 will be paid
by the company for longleaf pine forest restoration
within the Blackwater River State Forest.
Hazardous Waste Consultants. Inc. and Hazardous Waste
Services. Inc.: Two hazardous waste companies,
HazardousWaste Consultants, Inc. andHazardous Waste
Services, Inc., and their president, Patricia
Ricketson, were fined more than $ 1 million in civil
penalties on September22,1994by an Orlando County
Circuit Judge. The lawsuit focused on hazardous waste
violations in Orange and Seminole Counties.
Violations included storage of hazardous waste past
the ten-day limit and improper disposal of waste.
Portions of hazardous waste went to the Seminole County
landfill which is not a hazardous waste disposal
facility. Landfill employees were not told they were
handling hazardous waste. A dozen small bottles were
disposed of in Orange County in the T osahatehee State
Reserve near residential areas. One bottle contained
high levels of mercury.
Kissimmee Utilities: An inspection revealed the
facility did not have a continuous monitoring system to
monitor and record the ratio of water to fuel being
fired in the turbine and had been submitting the CEM
quarterly reports without having the required system
to obtain the data. Kissimmee Utilities agreed to
purchase and install anew monitoring system to comply
withNSPS requirements. After signing the consent
order and paying a penalty of $14,758.80, the company
requested an additional meeting. The district, along
with the Division air attorney Jeanne Elias, met with
Kissimmee Utilities explaining the state's position on
the matter of enforcing the NSPS requirement.
Master Packaging: A stack test conducted at the
flexographic printing facility revealed VOC emissions
were 68.7 lbs/hr vs. the permitted limit of 48.2
lbs/hr. Also, Ihe 65% minimum capture and 90% minimum
destruction efficiencies were not being met. On a
later date, an inspection of the source revealed there
was circumvention of the control equipment. Master
Packaging signed a Consent Order and will pay a $7,000
penalty. In addition, they will be implementing a
Supplemental Environmental Project, with a minimum
cost of $45,000, intended to increase the overall
capture efficiency from the presses to the incinerator
from the current permitted level. Also, the company is
to incur a minimum $6,000 cost for an independent
environmental audit of the air pollution sources,
which is to result in a compliance plan for these
sources.
Mur-Shel. Inc.: Larry Shelton, Lois Shelton and Melvin
Powell were arrested onNovember 4,1994, by Florida
Game and Freshwater Fish Commission officers for
improper storage of a hazardous material "asbestos" in
Panama City and Fort Walton Beach, Florida and several
counts of theft. The arrests culminated a criminal
investigation initiated by DEP Air Resources
Management staff. The Sheltons operated Mur-Shel,
Inc., an asbestos abatement company. During
1990-1992, they conducted abatement projects for a
number of businesses, schools and industries in the
Florida Panhandle. The asbestos waste was placed in
rented warehouses in Fort Walton Beach and Pan amaCity.
They declared bankruptcy in 1992 and turned all of
their assets, including the contents of the
warehouses, over to Mr. Powell. The asbestos waste is
still stored in the warehouses pending negotiations
with Powell and the Sheltons for cleanup.
Ogden Martin: Ogden Martin exceeded the permitted one-
houraverageCOstandardon July 6,1993 andexceeded
thepermittedsix-houraverage S02 standard on July 22,
1993. A Consent Order was executed on March 3,1994
with a penalty of $14,799 assessed for the violations.
PinellasCountvDepartmentofSolidWa.steManagement
The DepartmentissuedaWarningLetter on September 2,
1994 to the Pinellas County Department of Solid W aste
Management for excessive downtime on its Resource
Recovery Facility,Unit3, carbonmonoxide continuous
emission monitoring system during the first quarter of
B-6
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
1994. The Department detected the violation after
reviewing the quarterly excess emissions report.
PCDSWM agreed to purchase and certify anew carbon
monoxide monitor, replace the existing monitor
control, upgrade communications between the monitor
cabinet and the data acquisition system, purchase a
backup strip recorder, rewrite the quality assurance
plan and upgrade the data acquisition system at a total
cost of nearly $37,000. Because of the PCDSWN's good
faith effort to achieve compliance, the Department
reduced the penalty from $7,530 to $3,830. PCDSWM will
keep the old carbon monoxide monitor as a spare to
prevent future excessive downtime problems.
Polvplastex International: The facility failed a VOC
compliance test on its incinerator. The test showed
actual emissions to be 82.21 lbs/hr vs. a permitted
limit of 12.21 lbs/hr. A retest conducted on 4/11/94
showed the facility to be in compliance. The company
signed a Consent Order and has paid a penalty of
$22,000.
RP. Scherer Corp.: RP. SchcrcrCorporation w as found
in violation of its annual permitted VOC emission limit
for 1992. A Consent Order was signed and apenalty of
$18,000 was paid.
South West Florida Water Management District SWFWMD
was cited for no notification, no survey, no wetting
duringremovalandimproperlypackaginganddisposing
of 2,000 sq. ft. of asbestos containing floor tiles.
As property owner, they have completed abatement,
which totaled approximately $50,000 and have paid a
penalty through an in-kind settlement totaling $2,700.
Excludingthe subcontractor, Thunder and Lighting, the
two other parties involved in the case have signed
consent orders and each has paid $1,800 in penalties.
A settlement was not reached with Thunder and Lightning
and a case report was sent to the Department's Office
of General Counsel (OGC).
State of Florida Department of Environmental
Protection v. United States Naval Air
Station—Jacksonville: The Respondent operates a
facility in Jacksonville, Florida. The facility has a
large industrial complex for the repair and overhaul of
airframes and engines of naval aircraft. Hazardous
waste management, collection and transportation
manifesting activities are conducted at the facility.
Adepartmentalinspectiondocumentedhazardouswaste
violations, including the operation of a hazardous
waste storage facility without a valid permit. In
settlementof these matters, the parties entered into
a Consent Order. The Respondent agreed to pay $ 1,000
in costs, $30,000 cash penalty and $120,000 in in-kind
penalties. This case is significant because it is
believed to be the first monetary settlement in Florida
since the Navy waived its immunity under RCRA.
State of Florida v. I Jrhano Diaz-Devillegas: Romulo
Juan Delgado:Germ an Delgado: Darwin IVIesaandEi-rol
Woon: DuringMaythroughAugust, 1993, SpecialAgents
from EPA's Criminal Investigation Division Miami
Resident Office, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
EvergladesNationalParkServiceRangersandmembers
of the Metro-Dade Police Department cooperatively
conducted an initiative to identify and apprehend
individuals responsible for illegal disposal of
construction debris in the wetlands of southern
Florida. This initiative was called "Operation
Saw grass." Both aerial and ground surveillance
activities were conducted to detect and apprehend
violators. Operation Sawgrass resulted in detection of
a number of potential violations of the Federal Clean
Water Act and State of Florida environmental laws.
Five individuals were arrested on probable cause by the
agents after they were actually observed in the act of
dumping construction debris in southern Florida, near
the Everglades National Park. As a result of Operation
Sawgrass, the five individuals arrested by the
investigative team have been successfully prosecuted
and sentenced.
TampaBav Center: Tampa Bay Center, Inc. was cited for
removing 400 square feet of spray on fireproof coating
from the air conditioning duct. Samples contained
30-35% asbestos. Violations cited were failure to
notify, failure to survey, failure to wet, improper
bagging and improper disposal, and untrained
personnel. Tampa Bay Center, Inc. signed a Consent
Order and is paying a penalty totaling $8,000.
Trend Management: Violations included demolition
without notification, failure to wet and maintain wet,
and improper disposal of approximately 5,218 sq. ft. of
spray on ceiling containing regulated asbestos
containing material (RACM). Trend Managementhas
completed abatement and has signed a consent order. A
penalty amount of $18,000 is to be paid over a 24-month
period.
B-7
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Venture Properties: The owner ofVenture Properties
and OPC General Contractor, Inc. have settled with
Duval County over the removal of approximately 94,000
sq. ft. of RACM ceiling tile. The violations included
failure to maintain adequately wet and failure to seal
the material in leak tight containers. Both parties
signed a Consent Order and paid a total penalty of
$36,000.
Waste Management Waslc Management exceeded llieirS02
emission limit on their combustion turbines. Waste
Management paid a $60,000 penalty and has signed a
Consent Order. Asarequirementofthe Consent Order,
they will install a desulfurization control system.
GEORGIA
Oxford Industries. Greenville. Georgia: A Consent
Order was executed July 20,1994 which concerned the
illegal operation and overflow of an in-ground
concrete tank that contained hazardous waste.
Operation of this device is believed to be the source
of contamination of the town's public water supply
well. In addition to full RCRA compliance and
facility-wide corrective action, the company was
required to pay a cash settlement of $99,000 eliminate
the use of chlorinated solvents at the plant, and
replace the town's well at a cost of $100,000.
I J.S. Navy Submarine Base. Kings Bay. Georgia: A
ConsentOrderwas signed June 14,1994concerningthe
Navy's improper identification, storage and disposal
of hazardous paint waste. In addition to rectification
of the violations, the Navy was required as a condition
of the settlement to construct and operate a protected
breeding habitat for an endangered species of
migratory marine bird and to conduct a breeding bird
survey for declining neotropical migratory birds. The
habitat and the population study must be done in
accordance with state and federal wildlife protocols.
The agreementincluded a $ 10,000 cash settlement, plus
a minimum of $40,000 that must be spent on the
endangered species work.
Young Refining Corp.. Douglasville. Georgia A
ConsentOrderwas executed July 8,1994which concerned
the illegal disposal of listed refinery wastes into a
lagoon. As a condition of the settlement, Young
Refining agreed to the required RCRA closure,
monitoring, post-closure, and facility-wide
corrective action, plus supplemental environmental
projects that are non-mandatory environmental
improvements. The $400,000 penalty included $ 175,000
in cash plus expenditures of not less than $225,000 on
the supplemental environmental projects.
IDAHO
Envirosafe Services of Idaho. Inc.: Envirosafe
Services of Idaho, Inc. (ESII) is located
approximatelytenmileswestofGrandview, Idaho. The
facility was originally a missile complex operated by
the U.S. Air Force until 1965, and ultimately taken
over by ESII in 1981. ESII is situated on layered
interbedded gravels and clays which overlay regional
basalt flows. ESII is a RCRA permitted facility for
the treatment, storage and disposal of regulated
hazardous waste. Treatment processes at ESII include
stabilization via microencapsulation, crushing and
macroencapsulationofhazardousdebris. Landdisposal
occurs in a landfill which is constructed to meet the
minimum technology requirements.
The State of Idaho, Division of Environmental Quality
(DEQ), performed approximately 14 inspections and
record reviews at the site between September 1992 and
June 1993. As a result of these inspections, two
Notices of Violation (NOVs) alleging 25 violations of
the RCRA Operating Permit, proposing penalties of
$137,492, were issued on October 21, 1993. The
violations alleged included failure to comply with the
waste analysis plan, preparedness and prevention,
contingencyplan,manifestingandLDRrequirementsof
the permit. The N O Vs also alleged improper treatment
of hazardous waste to meet LDR standards, inadequate
response to a fire in the landfill trench, and improper
management of spent aluminum potliners.
Complex negotiations between ESII and the State of
Idaho to resolve the violations took place. On March
24,1994, a Consent Order was signed by the parties to
resolve the violations and return the facility to
compliance. A penalty of $50,000 was collected. The
Consent Order requires ESII to cease acceptance of
spent aluminum potliners, re-evaluate and improve the
stabilization treatment process and modify the permit
where necessary. Idaho's oversight of ESII's
compliance with the terms, conditions and schedules
set forth in the Consent Order is ongoing.
B-8
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Stibnite Mining Company: On October 20,1993, the
Stibnite Mining Company entered into a Consent Order
through which Stibnite agreed to pay $15,000 in
penalties in settlement of violations of Idaho's Water
Quality Standards. On July 13,1992, Stibnite reported
a diesel fuel leak from an above-ground storage tank at
the company's cyanidation gold mine facility located
in Valley County, Idaho. Subsequent investigations by
DEQ indicated that the fuel leak, itself a violation,
was caused by improper fuel storage and handling
techniques. Additional violations discovered during
the investigation included elevated nitrate in ground
water, possibly caused by leaky cyanidation ponds, and
failure to characterize and properly dispose of
hazardous wastes. Groundwater contamination at the
Stibnite Mine is of particular concern because it
discharges to the East Fork of the South Fork of the
Salmon River, a tributary to a major salmon spawning
and recreational stream in Idaho. The mine, an
unpermitted (grandfathered) cyanidation operation, is
now in the process of mitigation of groundwater
pollution according to conditions set forth in the
Consent Order, and is in the process of obtaining a
cyanidation permit through the DEQ for future
operations.
St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center. Boise. Idaho:
On December 13,1993, a Consent Order was signed in
which St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center agreed to
pay $11,500 in civil penalties. This action arose out
of St. Alphonsus's alleged failure to adequately
control visible emissions from their medical waste
incinerator and failure to obtain a Permit to Construct
prior to construction of a boiler and back-up
electrical generator. A notice of Violation was issued
to St. Alphonsus on February 22,1993 which included
four alleged violations (two visible emission
violations and two failure to obtain permit to
construct violations) along with a proposed total
penalty of $21,500. Settlement negotiations with St.
Alphonsus after issuance of the Notice of Violation
resulted in the reduction of the penalty to $11,500.
The issuance of a Notice of Violation to St. Alphonsus
Regional Medical Center was one of several similar
actions taken as part of a statewide initiative to
ensure the proper operation of medical waste
incinerators in Idaho. In addition to payment of the
civil penalty, the December 13,1993 Consent Order also
required St. Alphonsus to prepare, and submit to IDEQ
for approval, a comprehensive Operations and
Maintenance Manual which thoroughly describes the
methods and procedures which St Alphonsus will follow
to ensure compliance with the Idaho Environmental
Protection and Health Act and Idaho Code Section 39-101
through 39-130. Over a period of three months, IDEQ
and St. Alphonsus carried on negotiations to determine
the scope and content needed to develop a meaningful
and effective Operations and Maintenance Manual.
These negotiations produced a document that was
approved by IDEQ.
ILLINOIS
Pork King Packing Company: In response to a citizen
complaint, Illinois EPA cited Pork King Packing Co., (a
slaughter/packing operation) for the unpermitted
discharge of blood wastes and raw wastewater
(contaminated with BOD, total suspended solids, and
ammonia) through a tile field into a small stream
tributary to the Kishwaukee River. The company was
also cited for unpermitted waste storage pits. The
State's March 1994 consent decree required the company
to haul wastes off-site temporarily. Pork King has
since constructed a wastewater treatment system
utilizing an anaerobic facultative percolation three-
stage treatment lagoon, plus groundwater monitoring
wells installed around the percolation cell, as
confirmed by a State compliance inspection in November
1994. Estimated costs for installing the system were
up to $1 million. The facility paid a $50,000 penalty
to the State, as well as the $l,375/week cost of
hauling wastes off-site for treatment while
negotiations were ongoing and the treatment plant was
being constructed. (SIC/2011/meat packing plants.)
INDIANA
Confined Feed Lot Facilities Confined feed lot
operations have been found to have a significant impact
on Indiana streams. Non-point source discharges from
such facilities are not generally regulated under
NPDES permits. The State of Indiana has initiated
aggressive enforcement against a number of feed lots
for violating State discharge permits limits for:
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended
solids, ammonia-nitrogen and bacteria. The State's
settlements are summarized in the following table:
B-9
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
JPTPetroleum Production Corp.: OnFebruary 1,1994,
the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and JPT
signed an administrative agreement regarding missed
deadlines for demonstrating mechanical integrity of
three Class II wells. The agreement also addressed
minor violations associated with nine oil and gas wells
in Gibson County. These violations were discovered
through file reviews and routine inspections conducted
in 1992. JPT agreed to pay a $3,000 penalty. This
action will prevent contamination of underground
sources of drinking water. (SIC/1311/crude petroleum
& natural gas.)
State of Indiana v. James E. Nichols. State of Indiana
v. Custom Finishing Corp.: James E.Nichols, the owner
of Custom Finishing, Inc., located in Indianapolis,
Indiana, was sentenced on January 19,1994, in Marion
County Superior Court on one count of storing hazardous
waste without a permit in violation of an Indiana state
statute. Nichols was sentenced to eighteen (18) months
of incarceration, of which the court suspended twelve
(12) months. The remaining six (6) will be served
under a home detention program. Nichol's company,
Custom Finishing, Inc. was fined $250,000 on each of
two counts of the information charging the unlawful
storage and disposal of hazardous waste without a
permit at the facility. Nichols and the company
entered guilty pleas to the State charges December 29,
1993.
IOWA
In the Matter of the City of Winterset. IA.: In a case
representing the first criminal environmental charge
against an Iowa municipality, the City of Winterset
entered guilty pleas to: 1) Knowingly discharging a
pollutant; 2) Knowingly constructing a disposal system
without a permit; and 3) Falsifying a Monitoring
Report. The City was sentenced to pay the maximum
fines on all three charges, for a total of $110,000,
with fines for two of the three charges being applied
to upgrade the sewage collection system. The charges
arose from an investigation that revealed that the City
had installed covert automatic sewer bypass lift
stations, which avoided sewage backup into residential
basements by discharging onto streets or into storm
drains. In a related case, the former mayor pled
guilty to Non-felonious Misconduct in Office and
received a deferred judgment. Charges of Conspiracy
andKnowinglyConstructingaDisposalSystem without
a Permit are pending against the city engineer. The
City also paid a $20,000 civil penalty for effluent
violations at its wastewater treatment facility.
KANSAS
In the Matter of Dawson Brothers. Inc.. Wichita. KS::
Based on two separate inspections of the Dawson
Brothers, Inc. facility, the Kansas Department of
Health andEnvironmentfindsthattheDawsonBrothers
have violated K.A.R. 28-31-1 et seq., which regulates
the generation, transportation, storage, and disposal
of hazardous waste. The inspections revealed that
Respondents 1) disposed of waste paint coated tape in
the trash dumpster; 2) disposed of waste Iridide powder
in the trash dumpster; 3) allowed plating process tanks
to leak; 4) stored for over 90 days over 1,000
kilograms of hazardous waste paint thinner, paint
filters, paint-related materials, and bead blast; 5)
had not evaluated stored wastes to determine if they
were hazardous; 6) violated reporting requirements; 7)
did not mark several drums of hazardous waste as
"Hazardous Waste"; 8) did not conduct weekly
inspections of the hazardous waste storage area; 9) did
notdevelop ahazardous waste training program; 10) did
not develop a Contingency Plan; 11) stored ignitable
hazardous waste within 50 feet of the property line;
and 12) did not allow sufficient aisle space to allow
unobstructedmovementofpersonnelandequipment. The
Dawson Brothers paid a penalty of $41,500.
In the Matter ofOwens-CorningFiherglas Corporation.
KansasCitv.KS: OnApril9,1993,theU.S.EPAissued
a Notice of Violation alleging visible emissions in
excess of 20% opacity. Recurrent blue-colored
carryover from combined stack and fugitive emissions,
periodically emanated from the plant. Owens-Corning
andKDHE enteredinto a Consent Agreementto resolve
the issues raised by EPA's NOV. Owens-Corning agrees
to establish written procedures to operate, maintain,
and clean the control equipment. Owens-Corning agrees
to conduct visual emissions evaluations of stack
emissions from cooling scrubbers and smoke strippers
and prepare an emissions reduction plan.
In the Matter of Sunflower Manufacturing Company.
Inc..BeloitandCawkerCity.KS: OnFebruary 10,
1994, the Secretary ofKDHE issued aNotice ofProposed
Penalty and Order for Corrective Action based on
results of separate inspections at the Sunflower-
B-10
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Beloit, and Sunflower-Cawker City, Kansas facilities.
Both facilities stored wastes over 90 days in
containers notmarked "Hazardous"; had not marked open
containerswith the accumulation start date and the
containers were not in good condition; had inadequate
aisle space; failed to develop a contingency plan and
failed to develop and implement a personnel training
program. Beloit received regulated quantities of
hazardous waste from the Cawker City facility without
a permit. In addition to the above violations, the
Secretary of KDHE also found that Cawker City failed to
prepare amanifestforthe shipmentofhazardous waste;
failed to apply for and obtain an EPA identification
number prior to generating, treating, storing,
disposing, transporting, or offering for
transportation hazardous waste; transported waste
without first registering as a transporter to a
facility which is not authorized; and failed to prepare
a land disposal restriction notice for each shipment of
hazardous waste. The Secretary assessed a penalty of
$57,600 and an order to come into compliance.
MICHIGAN
Ace Finishing. Inc.: A July 1994 jury verdict against
Ace Finishing, Inc. in Macomb County Circuit Court, MI,
resolved an important case taken by the State of
Michigan. AFI is a metal finishing facility that
discharges to the City of Warren's wastewater
treatment plant. The City imposed pretreatment limits
on AFI to meet categorical limits and to prevent harm
to the wastewater treatmentworks and the environment.
After a routine inspection uncovered an ongoing sludge
discharge,the City began monitoring AFI's control
manhole. Discharges of zinc and chromium resulted from
the company's improper operation of its pretreatment
system. AFI was diverting all or part of the
wastestream around the treatment facility. Manhole
sampling confirmed numerous violations of the City's
sewer use ordinance.
The City requested assistance from the Michigan
DepartmentofN aturalResources and the State Attorney
General in initiating legal action. AFI was charged
withfelonyviolationsoftheMichiganWater Resources
Commission Act (1929 PA 245, as amended). The jury
returned guilty verdicts against AFI for 10 felony
counts forthe unlawful discharge of zinc and chromium.
AFI has 3 years to pay a $ 100,000 penalty ($10,000 per
count). In addition, AFI will be on a 3-year
probation. The court also ruled that AFI had 90 days to
reimburse the City and the State for court costs. The
total restitution to be paid was $9,228.67.
(SIC/3471/plating and polishing.)
MINNESOTA
LTV Steel MininpCo- On July 27,1994, the Minnesota
Pollution ControlAgency(MPCA)andLTVSteelMining
Co. Steam Electric Generating Plant (LTV) of Taconite
Harbor, MN, entered into a negotiated stipulation
agreementtoaddressenvironmentalproblemscausedby
a landslide of ash from LTV's power plant. Almost
exactly a year earlier (on July 28, 1993) a landslide
ofabout400,000cubicyardsofpowerplantash (mixed
with 8,000 gallons of mineral oil from a subsequent
spill) cascaded down a slope from LTV property towards
Lake Superior. LTV subsequently spent about $10
million to clean up the ash spilled on the land. MPCA
also requested that LTV conduct a dredging survey which
determined that about 400 cubic yards of contaminated
sediment ended up in Lake Superior.
MPCA then proceeded with an enforcement action, citing
LTV for violations of State environmental statutes.
The stipulation agreementrequires LTV to pay a $66,430
reimbursementto the MPCA for expenses related to the
slide and a calculated $240,000 economic benefit
recovery (LTV's estimated savings for notremoving the
ash from Lake Superior.) The State will assess the
environmental damage after the Minnesota Dept. of
Natural Resources conducts a detailed survey of native
fish habitat along the north shore of Lake Superior.
The survey is scheduled for Summer 1995.
(SIC/1011/iron ores).
MISSOURI
In the Matter of Barton Nelson. Inc.: City and Federal
inspections established that Barton Nelson, Inc.
violated Section 1 lOofthe Clean Air Act, andMissouri
Department of Natural Resources regulations when it
failed to obtain permits for construction presses in
1992. Barton Nelson also violated 40 CFR Subpart RR,
New Source Performance Standards for Pressure
Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations.
The City of Kansas City, Missouri and the State of
Missouri referred this matter to the EPA when
settlementnegotiations between BartonNelson and the
City/State broke down. In July, 1994, EPA, the City
B-ll
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
and State met with Barton Nelson and reaffirmed the
State's bottom line offer of $100,000. EPA gave the
source a specific time deadline to settle with the
State for the full $100,000, or EPA would initiate its
own action against Barton Nelson. BartonNelson, Inc.
settled with the State of Missouri for $100,000 the day
before the deadline expired.
IntheMatteroflnternationalPaperCoinpany.Joplin.
MO: International Paper Companywill pay a$273,000
penalty as a result of its alleged failure to meet a
timetable to close several hazardous waste ponds at its
wood treatment facility. Waste sludge from the wood
treatment process, classified as a hazardous waste due
to creosote and pentachlorophenol contamination, was
placed in nine ponds at the facility. In 1986, MDNR had
approved a plan to close the ponds and treat soil
contaminated withhazardous waste. The Company failed
to comply with the original plan's timetable and did
not submit a modified closure plan in a timely fashion.
In addition to the penalty, International Paper is also
required to close the ponds and treat the contaminated
soil under a modified plan approved by MDNR.
Norfolk and Western Railway Co.: Therailway company
has paid $700,000 in civil penalties and damages and
will provide another $2.7 million in payments and
equipment to the State of Missouri to compensate for
illegally disposing of more than 500 containers waste
paint at its Moberly railroad yard. In the civil
settlement,Norfolk and Western agreed to: 1) pay
$350,000 in civil penalties to the Randolph County
School Fund as required by the Missouri Constitution;
2) pay $350,000 to the Natural Resources Protection
Fund; 3) take any steps necessary, including closing
the site, to bring the railroad yard into compliance
with hazardous waste management laws and regulations;
and 4) comply with the Missouri Hazardous Waste Law and
RCRA.
Under the terms of the criminal plea, Norfolk and
Western agreed to: 1) pay $ 1 million to the Missouri
State Parks Earnings Fund to benefit the Katy Trail
State Park, 2) buy for the state $1.7 million worth of
material and equipment used in identifying,
investigating, and prosecuting environmental
offenses, and 3) develop and implement an
organization-wide environmental awareness program.
The criminal plea also requires the company to pay a
$500,000 fine - the highest penalty allowed. The
company also must pay an additional $500,000 to the
United States for its cost and damages.
MONTANA
State of Montana v Continental Lime: This case was
comprisedof several NSPS, SIP permit, and PSD
violations which included failure to obtain a PSD
permit for S02 emissions, failure to submit quarterly
excess emissions reports, failure to install a State-
required baghouse for control of particulate
emissions, failure to conduct initial performance
tests for particulates and opacity, and failure to
conduct CEM initial performance tests. The State used
the EPA Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy butthen
reduced the calculated amount by 60%, or a factor of
0.4 purportedly to account for its $10,000 per day per
violation maximum paialty compared to EPA's maximum of
$25,000 per day per violation (i.e., $10,000/$25,000
= 0.4) and did not include the PSD permitting
violation due to equitable defenses the source had
against the State, but which it did not have against
EPA. This resulted in a State penalty assessment of
$60,000. OnJune 17,1994, EPA issued anNOV and Older
to Continental Lime, but in the cover letter encouraged
CL to reach an appropriate settlement with the State.
The State and Continental Lime agreed to the penalty of
$144,000 thereby avoiding an EPA civil judicial
action. This is an example of State capacity building
using EPA oversight and enforcement agreements.
NEBRASKA
Ash Grove Cement Company: The Ash Grove Cement
Company will pay $15,000 in accordance with a
settlement with the Nebraska Department of
EnvironmentalQuality(NDEQ)andNebraskaAttorney
General's Office. Ash Grove Cement owns and operates
a portland cement manufacturing facility. The Company
manufactures cementby heating amixture oflimestone,
clay, sand, and mill scale in two cement kilns that are
fueled primarily by coal. The kilns use hazardous
waste as a supplemental fuel. A March, 1993 NDEQ
inspection allegedly found: recordkeeping violations
involving inspections of a hazardous waste storage
area; improperly marked containers; no independent
certification of the facility's hazardous waste
storage tank system integrity; and inadequate
information in the facility's contingency plan and
training records.
B-12
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
NEW JERSEY
State of New Jersey v. Patricia Nazzaro. John Martinez.
AugustineScalzitti& FrankScalzitti: OnOctober5,
1993, Patricia Nazzaro, John Martinez, Augustine
Scalzitti,Frank Scalzitti and Paul Scalzitti pleaded
guilty to a New Jersey State Accusation for violations
ofNew Jersey Code § 2A(2): 17 - 2C, Reckless Release
and Abandonment of Hazardous Waste and Toxic
Pollutants. On November 18,1993 in Passaic County
Criminal Court, John Martinez, Augustine Scalzitti,
Frank Scalzitti, and Paul Scalzitti were each
sentenced to three years probation, fined $ 1,000, and
directed to perform 100 hours of community service.
Patricia Nazzaro was sentenced to four years
probation, fined $85,000 and directed to perform 100
hours of community service. Martinez and the
Scalzittis were workers hired by Nazzaro to pack up and
dispose of hazardous printing and lithographic wastes
from her property located in Fairfield, New Jersey. En
route to the dump site, the trailer caught fire due to
incompatible wastes having spilled and mixed during
transport. The smoking trailer was then abandoned.
NORTH CAROLINA
Carolina Mirror Company (North Wilkeshoro. NO:
Carolina Mirror Company manufactures a variety of
mirrorproducts for commercial use which vary in shape,
size and thickness. Lead based paint is used in the
manufacturing process to coat the back of the plate
glass. Various activities produce mirror cullet which
consist of off-specification or damaged broken pieces
of mirrors, and mirror generated by cutting, polishing
and other processes. The facility disposed of mirror
cullet in a North Carolina solid waste landfill and
stockpiled cullet on-site. Some of the waste exhibits
the hazardous waste toxicity characteristic.
An Administrative Order on Consent with a $25,000
penalty pending characterization of the mirror cullet
entered on April 14, 1994, to address the
characterization and remediation of the mirror cullet
on-site and at the solid waste landfill. The agreement
was revised on December7,1994, to include a potential
SEP if Carolina Mirror can initiate a Household
Hazardous Waste Collection Program in Wilkes County at
a reduction in penalty of $0.50 on the dollar.
DukelJniversityfDurham.NQ: Duke University is a
private institution which generates and manages
hazardous waste from a variety of sources. This
Consent Agreement specifically addresses the
management of hazardous waste located at the Paul M.
Gross Chemical Laboratory. During a routine
inspection as a Large Quantity Generator (Generator)
Duke University was found to be storing mercury and
dioxin related waste longer than ninety (90) days.
Therefore, a Consent Agreement was entered with the
university to address the closure of the unpermitted
storage unit. The settlement was entered into February
28, 1994, and included a $10,000 administrative
penalty with a SEP in the amount of $15,000 which
called for an external environmental audit of all
environmentalprotectionprogramsandimplementation
of an inventory and risk analysis of previously
utilized hazardous waste TSD facilities.
Fawn Industries (Middlesex. NO: Fawn Industries is
located approximately 1/4 mile from the nearest
resident. The Compliance Order with Administrative
Penalty was the result of the following violations:
failure to conduct a proper waste determination;
failure to properly label and date containers of
hazardous waste; failure to maintain adequate aisle
space; and failure to properly complete land disposal
restriction forms.
Total penalty assessed against the facility was
$21,250. The settlement figure was $10,000 and
approved SEPs estimated at 295,000. Settlement date
was July 21, 1994.
SEPs consisted of:
• RCRA Compliance Audit (cost $68,000).
• Pollution Prevention:
product substitutions such as water-based
paints, alternate solvents and re-tooling
manufacturing process (cost $72,000);
purchasing in bulk to reduce paint can
residues (cost $5,000); and
evaluate on-site wastewater treatment
(initial equipment/permit/operation cost
$150,000 with payback in 2.3 years).
B-13
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Greer Laboratories: Greer Laboratories is located
approximately 1/4 mile from the nearest resident. A
Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty was
issued as a result of the following violations:
operating without a correctEPA identification number;
tank violations including failure to obtain a written
certified assessment, provide secondary containment,
conduct daily inspections and properly label the tank;
failure to maintain a contingency plan; and failure to
properly train personnel and maintain the required
training documentation.
Total penalty assessed against the facility was
$17,200. The settlement figure was $10,000 and an
approved SEP. The SEP consisted of development and
implementation of a acetone recovery system (Cost
$7,290). Settlement date April 26, 1994.
MidwavBodvShop(Winston-Salem.NO MrkvavBodyShcp
is a small business personally owned and operated which
performs body shop repairs and automobile painting
operations. The facility transported five 55-gallon
drums of spent paint thinner to a piece of property
owned by brother of the body shop owner. Two of the
containers appeared to be leaking during an on-site
inspection. The brother contended that he was using
the spent solvent to clean painting equipment, though
two drums were labeled "Hazardous Waste."
TheComplianceOrderwithAdministrativePenaltywas
issued to address the following violations:
transporting hazardous waste to a site that has not
received an EPA identification number; failure to
manifest the shipment of hazardous waste; and failure
to properly label and date containers of hazardous
waste. The penalty was assessed at 75,000. Review of
the owner's financial documents indicated that the
company was in poor financial condition and could not
pay the penalty. A Consent Agreement was entered on
September 29,1994, in which the owner would pay a
$5,000 penalty and perform eight hours of community
service as a volunteer at the Envirofair in Winston-
Salem, North Carolina.
NC DOT—Ferry Division (Manns Harbor. NO: An
Administrative Order on Consent for NC DOT - Ferry
Divisionwas the result of the following violations:
open container of waste paint thinner; failure to
conduct weekly inspections; failure to train personnel
involved inhazardouswastemanagementandcomplete
annual training updates; failure to maintain training
records; and the facility was not maintained and
operated to minimize releases.
Total penalty assessed against the facility was
$25,750. The settlement figure was $10,000 and
approved SEPs. Settlement date was June 6, 1994.
SEPs consisted of:
• Waste reduction:
replace conventional oil filters with
reusable oil filter screening system and use
of filtration units on coolant system (six
systems replaced at $625, expected annual
savings of $3,512);
use of filter system in parts cleaning
machines to cut down on replacement of solvent
(initial cost $8,070 with payback in 1.06
years); and
implement a solvent distillation system
(initial cost $14,625 with payback in 1.5
years).
• Recycle Program:
further development of a ferry customer
newsletter on recycled paper
aluminum/cardboard/plastic collection
operationat four additional ferry sites; re-
use of plastic dredge piping as chafing gear
on piling clusters; (Cost $4,400) and
public awareness through use of posters and
distributing brochures to ferry customers.
Phillips Plating Company (Bridgeton. NO: Phillips
Plating Company was cited in the Compliance Order with
Administrative Penalty for the following violations:
failure to properly determine what waste is a hazardous
waste; disposal of hazardous waste in a non-permitted
unit. The facility operated a wastewater treatment
system under a Clean Water Permit The units, however,
would not structurally qualify as tanks due to their
design, construction and evidence of cracks.
B-14
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Therefore, the units which received wastewater
exhibitingthe toxicity characteristics of hazardous
waste due to the cadmium and lead content were
considered surface impoundments subj ect to hazardous
waste permit standards.
The total penalty issued against the facility was
$75,000. AnABLEanalysisindicatedthecompanywasin
poor financial condition. A settlement was reached
November21, 1994, with a $5,000 administrative
penalty and a $5,000 SEP commitment to conduct one or
more SEP projects (to be initiated by December 20,
1995, and completed by November 21, 1995). In
addition, Phillips Plating will be retro-fitting its
wastewater treatment system as it undergoes extensive
site characterization and remediation to address any
contamination resulting from the use of existing
wastewater treatment system.
WattsRegulatorCo./RegtroUSpindale.NO Watts
Regulator is located in an industrial/business area.
The distance to the nearest residence is approximately
1/4 mile from the facility. The Compliance Order with
Administrative Penalty was the result of the following
violations: open hoppers of D008 sand and failure to
properly label and date containers/hoppers; storage
tank violations including no written assessment of the
D008hazardouswastecoolantstoragetank system,lack
of a leak detection mechanism, failure to remove
released waste from the secondary containment system
within 24 hours and operate the facility in a manner to
minimize the potential for releases, failure to
provide overfill protection equipment, failure to
conduct daily inspections and failure to document
inspections; and failure to complete annual training
for all employees engaged in hazardous waste
management activities.
Total penalty assessed against the facility was
$85,999. The settlementwas signed February 9,1994,
with an administrativepenaltyof$37,000 and approved
SEPs which included an environmental
education/awareness program for all employees and
construction at the baghouse collection area to
eliminate the possibility of baghouse dust handling
problems.
OHIO
AndersonslYlanapementCorp. OnNovember 14,1994, a
State consent order with the Andersons Ltd.
Partnership and the Andersons ManagementCorp. was
filedinCommonPleas Court, Lucas County, OH. AtOhio
EPA's request, the State Attorney General's Office
took action again the Toledo facility on August 14,
1992. The violations of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC)
6111 relate to the unpermitted discharge of pollutants
into the Maumee River. Stormwater and subsurface
drainage was contaminated with arsenic, lead,
phosphorus and other pollutants. The source was glass
manufacturingwaste placed in settling lagoons by
previous owners. The consentdecree levied a $430,000
penalty and required the following: compliance with
the applicable sections of ORC 6111; cessation of
discharge (except in accordance with NPDES
regulations) and analytical testing of all wastewater
removed from the facility. (SIC/4221/ farm prod,
warehousing & storage.)
PENNSYLVANIA
ARCO Chemical Company: ARCO owns and operates a
manufacturing facility known as the Beaver Valley
Plant, which is located on the south bank of the Ohio
River. Other waters that flow through or bound the
plant site include Raccoon Creek and Poorhouse Run.
When the Plant was first constructed, it produced
various commercial grade organic chemical products
which were used to make synthetic rubber. Over the
years, the focus of manufacturing at the Plant changed
away from these chemicals and toward the production of
various types of polystyrene. At various times during
the operation of the Plant, certain chemicals, multi-
componentchemical mixtures, and other materials
spilled, leaked or were deposited at the plant site,
some of which caused contamination of the soils at
certain locations and the ground water underlying
certain areas of the site. The contaminants found in
the soil and ground water include, among others,
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, diethylbenzene,
styrene, B/T mix, light oil, organic chemical and
polymer residues and fuel oil constituents.
OnJuly 12,1994, the Department signed a Consent Order
and Agreement (COA) with ARCO which requires the
company to complete an agreed-upon list of pre-
remediation work activities at three of the eight areas
B-15
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
of the site. The work activities are designed to
refine existing data about these areas and to determine
the design criteria for a remediation system. The COA
also obligated the company to pay civil penalties of
$300,000 for past leaks, spills or illegal disposal
activities, and an additional civil penalty covering
continuing pollution resulting from these historic
leaks, spills and illegal disposal activities. The COA
also includes language indicating that it is ARCO's
intention to negotiate subsequent COAs with the
Departmentfor further investigatory work at those
areas of the site not covered by the requirements of
this COA and for remediation of the site. As a final
matter,theCOAobligatesthecompanyto reimburse the
Department for oversight costs and expenses incurred
in overseeing ARCO's characterization of the plant
site and development of pre-remediation work
activities for the site.
Graphic Controls: Graphic Controls owns a
manufacturingfacility which it operates from July
1981 until May 1991 as a paper coating facility. There
were 6 underground storage tanks (USTs) which stored
commercial grades of toluene, petroleum products and
sludge. In addition, Graphic Controls stored in 2
USTs, in a different area of the facility, toluene
recovered from carbon adsorption beds (air pollution
control system). The company excavated the 6 USTs in
1990 and found soil and groundwater contamination. The
toluene was still present in groundwater monitoring
wells in 1993. In 1990, as part of a closure for the 2
USTs storing recovered toluene, the company
encounteredtoluenecontaminatedsoilandgroundwater
in this area as well. The company's activities at the
facility resulted in violations of the hazardous waste
provisionsof1heSoMWasteManagementAct(SWMA)and
regulatory provisions pertaining to the generation and
transportation ofhazardous waste andhazardous waste
determinations;the Clean Stream Law provisions
requiring permits and prohibiting discharges of
pollutional substances; and the Storage Tank Act
provisions which impose liability for cleanup upon an
owner of a tank storing regulated substances.
The Department signed a Consent Order and Agreement
(CO&A) witli the comically on March 21.1994. IntheCO&A,
the company agreed to perform additional site
assessment activities and to develop and implement a
groundwater and soil cleanup program to achieve
groundwatercleanupstandardsforbenzene,toluene and
ethylbenzene of 2 ug/1 (PQL); and for xylene 5 ug/1;
and soil cleanup standards for BTEX of 10 ppm. The
company paid $95,000 as a civil penalty for its
violations of law and agreed to a stipulated penalty of
$100 a day for missing any deadlines in the CO&A. The
Department worked cooperatively with Graphic
Controls. The company provided the Department with a
history of its operations, various notifications under
the Storage Tank Act, and with its sample results. The
Department's hydrologist performed independent
investigative activities at the site. Although the
site is only a city block in size, Graphic Controls
agreed to perform an extensive cleanup which it is
presently implementing.
Keystone Cement Company: In the course of discovery
relating to appeals from plan approvals issued to
KeystoneCement,onMarch26,1992,Keystone Cement's
attorneys revealed to the Department of Environmental
Resources evidence thatKeystone Cement had (1) burned
more hazardous waste in its cement kilns than it was
permitted to burn during 1989-1992 and (2) altered the
computer program measuring quantities ofhazardous
waste burned so that it would not record amounts over
the permitted amounts per day. Following an intensive
4-day investigation,onMarch31,1992,the Department
suspended all air quality and waste permits and plan
approvals relating to the storage and burning of
hazardous and residual waste. Following a supersedes
hearing on the suspension order, the permits and plan
approvals were reinstated but only after the
installationof certain safeguards. The Department
monitoredthe compliance ofKey stone Cementformore
than one year and, on December 30, 1994, signed a
Consent Assessment of Civil Penalty with Keystone
Cement which requires the company to pay $750,000 for
these violations of its air quality operating permits
and hazardous waste storage permit.
Mays Properties. Inc.: Per their agreement with the
Department, Beazer East, Inc. and Aristech Chemical
Corporation, Inc. have implemented a remedial action
work plan relative to property owned by Mays
Properties, Inc. in Collier Township. As part of their
manufacture of artificial resins, the companies were
generators and disposers at the site of three tank
trucks containing creosol and petroleum hydrocarbons;
listed hazardous maelic and phthalic anhydride, and
B-16
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
listed hazardous benzoic lites. The remediation
entailed purging and disposal of the tanks and the
excavation to non-detect standards of the listed
hazardous wastes.
Perform ax Enpine Works. Inc. PNC Bank, Inc. holds a
security interest in various engine maintenance
equipment at an auto repair facility in Westmoreland
County. The equipment includes grinders, presses,
metal cutting machines, cleaning tanks and the like.
As of 1989, the company owning the facility has been in
bankruptcy (Chapter 11 later converted to Chapter 7).
PNC Bank has submitted, and the Department has
approved, a remedial work plan that calls for the
drainage of solvents and oils contained in the
equipment, the wastes' proper disposal, and the
equipment'sgeneralcleanup. Thepresidingbankruptey
court has approved the parties' motion to go forward
with the remedial work plan. The Bank, through its
contractor, C.E.C., Inc., should complete the cleanup
in a matter of weeks.
I J.S. Steel-Carnegie Natural Gas: The Department has
entered into a voluntary cleanup agreement with U.S.
Steel subsidiary Carnegie Natural Gas to excavate and
properly dispose of characteristically hazardous coke
oven gas pipe line residue found in seven waste pits at
U.S. Steel's Irvin Works in West Mifflin. The pipe
line delivers coke oven gas generated at U.S. Steel's
coke works in Clairton to the company's Irvin plant and
to its Edgar Thompson plant in Braddock. The disposed
residue is the result of U.S. Steel's historical
"pigging" (or purging) of the pipe line and contains
various petroleum hydrocarbons and cyanide. The
remediation will entail excavation to non-detect
cleanup levels, backfilling and re grading.
SOUTH CAROLINA
GastonCopperRecvclingCorporation: GastonCopper
RecyclingCorporation owns and operates a metal
recycling facility in Gaston, South Carolina. A state
enforcement action was initiated in response to
compliance inspection reports identifying
deficiencies that were alleged violations of state and
Federal regulations, specifically, failure to comply
with the approved operations and maintenance manual,
exceeding emissions standards, and failure to comply
with the conditions of the facility's operating
permit. The company consented to enter into an order
on January 1, 1994, which assessed a $35,000 civil
penalty and required preparation and adherence to a
comprehensive Operations and Maintenance Manual.
Green OasisEnvironmental.Tnc.: An innovative and
mobile waste oil conversion facility, manufactured and
operated by Green Oasis Environmental, Inc., was
constructed and placed into operation in Mt. Pleasant,
South Carolina, without appropriate permits. A state
enforcement action resulted from citizen complaints of
foul odors in the community. The company was also
cited for failure to conduct source tests and for
unpermitted discharges into the ambient air and was
directed to cease operation. These alleged violations
are addressed in a consent order dated June 27, 1994,
which contains a $20,000 civil penalty. The company
has since applied for construction permits which have
been denied.
Holnam.Inc.: Holnam, Inc. owns and operates a
Portland Cement manufacturing facility in Holly Hill,
South Carolina, which is permitted to utilize certain
hazardous wastes as combustion fuel. As the result of
a review of company records, community complaints, and
compliance inspections, a state enforcement action was
initiated. The company had failed to conduct a
required source test and to adequately control
fugitive emissions from the facility. A consent order
was issued August28,1994, which assessed a $40,000
civil penalty and required specific corrective
actions.
ShakespeareProductsGroup: Shakespeare Products
Group manufactures fiberglass products at a plant
located inNewberry, South Carolina. Records revealed
that the company had installed and placed into
operation several treatment processes without the
proper permits. Also, the volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions had increased to above 100 tons per
year which required the company to comply with the
standardsforaLowestAchievableEmissionRate(LEAR)
source. A consent order was issued on September 14,
1994, which specified corrective actions and assessed
a civil penalty in the amount of $75,000.
Spartanburg Steel: A company that manufactures
automotive stampings andassemblies as well as various
kinds of stainless steel containers is owned and
operated by Spartanburg Steel, located in Spartanburg,
B-17
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
South Carolina. Numerous deficiencies were noted of
the air scrubber system in an inspection of the
facility. The monthly average ambient air quality
standard for gaseous fluoride was also exceeded on
several occasions, the state initiated an enforcement
action to address these alleged violations. The
company entered into a consent order dated September 9,
1994, in which they agreed to pay a $20,000 civil
penalty and to implement specific corrective actions.
The company soughtto mitigate the penalty amount by
proposing various SEPs; however, staff decided that
either a nexus did not exist or that the proposed
projectwas otherwise not acceptable to allow for a
penalty reduction.
ThennalKElYT.Incorporated AnAdministrative Consent
Orderwasissuedon June 30,1994, against ThermalKEM,
Incorporated, an american NuKEM company, which
operates an interim status hazardous waste incinerator
in Rock Hill, South Carolina. This order represents
the settlement of a state enforcement action initiated
by a routine inspection in which the company was
alleged to have primarily violated the container
managementregulations, i.e., numerous containers
were found to be leaking or otherwise of poor integrity
or containers were found open or not properly labelled.
The company was also cited for not operating to
minimize the possibility of spills. Hazardous waste
spills did occur, but were confined to the containment
area. Other alleged violations included failing to
make accurate hazardous waste determinations, storing
hazardous waste in unpermitted areas, and storing one
container in excess of its permitted storage time. A
$535,000 penalty was assessed. Corrective actions
were initiated, including remediation of the spill
area and incorporating steps to ensure future
compliance.
TENNESSEE
Department of Energy K-25: The Solid Waste Disposal
Control Board earlier approved an Agreed Order
relative to the illegal storage of 80,000 drums at the
Departmentof Energy K-25 facility. Under the terms of
the Agreed Order, DOE agreed to move those drums into
compliance storage within certain timeframes. DOE
failed to meet the timeframes in the Board's Order;
therefore, a second Order was issued, which again set
timeframesand assessed a penalty valued at $1.6
million for violating the Board's Agreed Order. This
penalty included $100,000 to be paid into the
Environmental Protection Fund; $800,000 to be paid
into the State Superfund, as repayment of money that
had been spent at several DOE-related sites (DuPont
Smith site, Witherspoon site, etc.); and $500,000 to be
paid on additional work needed at the DuPont Smith
site, the Witherspoon site, etc. Also, there is a
$200,000 stipulated penalty which is an incentive to
meet the timeframes established by the second order.
Gabriel Ride Control Products. Inc.: OnMay 11,1994
amemorandum of understanding was entered in the Giles
County Criminal Court in a global settlement resolving
both criminal and civil actions brought under the
Tennessee Water Quality Control Act of 1977. These
actions arose out of Gabriel's unpermitted discharge
of contaminants into waters of the state and an
unpermitteddischarge of chromic acid directly into
the Pulaski TN sewer system.
Under the terms of the settlement, Gabriel was placed
on pre-trial diversion for a period of two (2) years,
during which time the terms of the memorandum of
agreement must be completed. Under the agreement,
Gabriel mustpay the costofremoval and/or disposal of
contaminated sludge and waste water from the Pulaski
sewer treatment facility, spend up to twenty-five
thousand dollars ($25,000) to restore the tributary,
retain an independent consultant to conduct an
environmental audit of its facility and implement
recommendations from that audit. Gabriel will also pay
forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) in civil
penalties to the T ennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation, fifty-seven thousand five hundred
and twenty-five dollars ($57,525) investigative costs
to the Office of the Tennessee Attorney General and
contribute fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to the
City of Pulaski Environmental Committee. The case
represented a significant step forward in the
coordinated efforts of the State Environmental
Enforcement Committee to protect the state's natural
resources.
State of Tennessee v. Flavil Ray & Robert Wallace
Bradford: Flavil Ray andRobertWallace Bradford of
the Piney Creek community in Lewis County received the
first criminal convictions under the Tennessee Air
Quality Act and the Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Several thousand tires were illegally dumped on the Ray
property, and hundreds of tires were illegally burned
B-18
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
in a fire that occurred in September 1992. Each pled
guilty to one count of creating an unpermitted solid
waste disposal site and to one count of polluting the
air by burning waste tires. Ray also pled no contest to
one countof environmental vandalism. Each received a
sentence of 11 months and 29 days, which was suspended
providedthat they comply with several conditions,
including repaying victims whose property was damaged
by the tire fire. They must also publish an
advertisement in local newspapers alerting others that
the dumping and burning of waste tires is illegal.
Each were assessed a civil penalty of $65,000 and
Bradford also agreed to pay $2,500 to a fund to cleanup
remaining waste tires at one of the dump sites.
State of Tennessee v. Gabriel Ride Control Products.
Inc.: Gabriel Ride Control Products, Inc.
("Gabriel"), a manufacturer of automotive shock
absorbers and a major employer in Pulaski, Tennessee,
pleaded guilty to a State criminal information
charging five misdemeanor violations ofthe Tennessee
W ater Quality Actofl977,T ennessee Code Annotated
69-3-115(b) and 69-3-108(b)(1). A joint and Federal
investigation had revealed that in the summer and fall
of 1993, Gabriel negligently discharged a synthetic
metal working oil directly into waters of the State on
four separate occasions. Gabriel also had discharged
chromic acid into its sewer connection, adversely
affecting the operation ofthe City of Pulaski's waste
water treatment plant.
I IS. v. Recticel Foam Corporation & State of Tennessee
v. Recticel Foam Corporation: After a lengthy
investigation, indictments were brought by the U.S.
Attorney's Office against Recticel Foam Corporation
and anumber ofindividual defendants, including one of
the Cansler brothers. One ofthe Cansler brothers pled
guilty, and the defense raised an issue to the Court
relative to the "mixture rule." The "mixture rule"
(which provides that any waste which is mixed with a
hazardous waste must be treated as a hazardous waste)
was found to be invalid by a Federal court in a civil
case involving Shell Oil. the defense used that
Federal court decision to say that the indictments in
the criminal case were invalid, and obtained a
favorable ruling from the Magistrate. That ruling was
appealed in the criminal case.
Eventually, Recticel Foam pled guilty to a felony in
U.S. District Court and has paid a Federal fine of
$250,000. Also, Recticel Foam has pleaded guilty to a
misdemeanor in State Court. Under the terms of the
settlement, Recticel Foam has agreed to pay $250,000
into the Tennessee Environmental Protection Fund and
an additional $97,000 into a fund to be used by the
Office of the Attorney General and the District
Attorneys General Conference to prosecute similar
cases.
Wheland Foundry Division of North American Royalties.
Inc.: On December 13,1994, a Consent Agreement and
Final Order was entered in the Secretary of State's
Office resolving this administrative action pending
before the Tennessee Water Quality Control Board. The
Commissioner of the Department of Environment and
Conservation issued an Order and Assessment against
the Wheland Foundry for discharging industrial
wastewater, oil, foundry sand and other materials into
Chattanooga Creek without an NPDES permit, in
violation ofthe Tennessee Water Quality Control Act.
A joint inspection of this site was conducted by the
State of Tennessee, Division of Water Pollution
Control (hereinafter the "Division") and EPA.
Divisionpersonneldiscoveredanumberofunpermitted
dischargesto Chattanooga Creekfromthe foundries and
landfill. The material discharged included waters
heavily laden with black solids, waters with red oil on
the surface. Waste oil, green liquid and red aviation
oil were observed entering the creek, which caused a
condition of pollution ofthe waters. Samples analyses
revealed the presence of metals, including but not
limitedto, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead,
mercury, nickel and zinc.
The Order and Assessmentrequired an engineeringplan
and report to eliminate all wastewater and storm water
discharges to the creek. Furthermore, the corporation
was required to verify there was no ground water
contamination; remove any identified soil
contamination on the facility site; clean up the stream
banks to the surface water level; and pay a civil
penalty which was divided into an up-front penalty with
contingent penalties triggered by the failure to
complete the directed remedial action. The
corporationrespondedtotheorderbyimplementingthe
remedial action set forth in the Order and Assessment
and, thereby, relieving the company of the $ 15 0,000
contingent penalties.
B-19
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Thus, the parties negotiated a settlement revolving
around the remaining assessed up-front penalty to
address three specific concerns: a monetary penalty to
address the economic benefit gained by this
corporation and to establish a deterrent effect on the
violator; the impact and effect on the community by the
company's industrial practices; and the protection of
the water resource, Chattanooga Creek. Therefore, the
civil penalty was divided such that $25,000 was to be
paid to the Department in a monetary penalty. Also,
the corporation must finance in an amountnot less than
$32,500,00, a scholarship program for selected
students from Howard School of Academics and
Technology, Chattanooga, Tennessee to pursue
environmental sciences from an institution of higher
education. Finally, the company must expend at least
$32,500 to purchase land to provide a buffer zone to
ChattanoogaCreekorobtainconservationeasementson
the land adjacent to the creek to preserve and protect
the water resource. Additionally, the corporation
mustimplementaremedial action plan, approved by the
Division, for the upgrading of the company's facility
to handle storm water; all wastewater discharges from
production are currently tunneled to the City of
Chattanoogasewersystem. Thecompanymustimplement
and complete the activities in the remedial plan within
24 months of approval of the plan by the Division. This
settlementis an attempt to address the multimedia
aspects of this company's production process while
providing funds to the state, the community, and the
resource.
TEXAS
State of Texas v. Gary Giles Cocke, et al.: An Ellis
County, T exas, waste hauler was sentenced January 20,
1994, to six months in jail and to pay fines totaling
$100,000 after pleading guilty to a series of
environmental crimes uncovered by the Texas
Environmental Task Force. Gary Giles Cocke, Vice-
President and General Manager of CoBe Enterprise
(CoBe), also known as Dallas Environmental Services
Technology (DEST), of Waxahachie, Texas, pleaded
guilty to four felonies and two misdemeanors involving
the illegal storage and dumping of hazardous waste.
The felony pleas were entered before State District
Judge Knizc in Waxahachie. the misdemeanors w ere heard
in the Ellis County Court of Judge Scoggins. Identical
pleas were entered for DEST.
WASHINGTON
Fiberglass Technologies Inc.: Fiberglass
Technologies Inc. (Fiber-Tech) is a Spokane company
that manufactures fiberglass truck panels and building
industry products. The company is located above the
sole source aquifer for the Spokane metropolitan area.
An inspection by Ecology staff in December 1992
revealed serious violations of the state dangerous
waste laws, including spills and discharges of
methylene chloride and acetone to the environment. A
follow-up inspection conducted in April 1993 found
that Fiber-Tech had not corrected the violations
observed during the first inspection. In response to
Fiber-Techfailure to comply voluntarily, Ecology
issued a $55,000 civil penalty and an administrative
order in July 1993. The penalty is being paid.
Perfection & Letz Paint Company: During May 1991
Ecology conducted the first of several dangerous waste
inspections at the Kennewick-based Perfection & Letz
Paint Company (Perfection). Ecology's inspection
found that Perfection was discharging waste paint
residues into a floor drain that connected to the City
ofKermewicks Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).
Perfection also stored dangerous waste without a
permit and failed to manage its drums containing
dangerous waste in accordance with state law.
Technical assistance was provided to Perfection on
several different occasions over the next two years to
help them comply with the law and some improvements
were made. However, despite Ecology's efforts,
Perfection continued to store dangerous waste without
apermitandmismanageitscontainers. In August 1993,
Ecology discovered that Perfection had disposed of
containers of paint-related material on a vacant lot in
Kennewick. A $24,000 penalty along with an
administrative order was issued. Perfection appealed
both actions but later agreed to settle the case.
Under the terms of the settlement, Perfection paid
$2,000 to Ecology, with $ 10,000 of the penalty amount
held in abeyance pending no further violations for a
period oftwelve months. The remaining $12,000 was
credited for innovative projects related to public
awareness, recycling and pollution prevention.
I Jnited States Army Base Fort Lewis. Washington: The
recently-enactedFederal Facilities Compliance Act
provided clear authority for Department of Ecology,
State of Washington, to issue a $70,000 penalty and
B-20
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
administrative order on April 21, 1994 to address
violations observed during a January 1994 dangerous
waste inspection at Fort Lewis. Violations included,
among others, discharges of photo shop waste
containing silver to a sanitary sewer that empties to
Puget Sound, accumulating dangerous waste outside in
containers without lids or labels, and failure to ship
dangerous waste to a facility authorized to treat,
store, or dispose of it within ninety days of
generating it. The case was settled when Fort Lewis
agreed to pay $15,000 to Ecology, develop a "continuous
inspection program" with the help of an independent
contractor, and conduct a detailed waste streams study
of Madigan Army Hospital.
WISCONSIN
Dean Foods Vegetable Company: During FY 94, eight
judgments resolved the State of Wisconsin's case
against nine Dean Foods Vegetable Co. (formerly known
as The Larsen Company) facilities. Wisconsin had
alleged
numerous violations of wastewater discharge permits
and State water pollution laws. Dean Foods discharged
not only excessive pollutants but also wastewater at
excessive temperatures and pH levels. The company also
failed to sample its wastewater on hundreds of
occasions between 1987 and 1993. In addition, spills
at several plants resulted in the illegal discharge of
pollutants into State waters. The spills consisted of
treated/untreatedprocess wastewater and leachate
from sweet corn silage stacks. A total forfeiture of
$207,500 was assessed (penalty breakdown for each
facility is listed below). Wisconsin has a large food
canning industry, and the whole industry took note of
this case. (SIC/2033/canned fruits, vegetables,
preserves, jam.)
B-21
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPENDDSBATE CASES B-l
ALASKA B-l
Anchor Forest Products B-l
CH2M-Hill Engineering B-l
City of Angoon, Alaska B-l
Construction Rigging, Inc. (CRI) B-l
Echo Bay Alaska, Inc B-l
Enstar Natural Gas Company B-l
Kake Tribal & Kake Tribal Logging B-2
Northland Fisheries, Inc B-2
Ronnie C. Fisheries B-2
William A. Wood B-2
COLORADO B-2
State of Colorado v Colorado Refining B-2
State of Colorado v Conoco B-2
State of Colorado v The City of Ft. Morgan B-3
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA B-3
Concerned Citizens of Brentwood, et al., v. The District of Columbia, et al B-3
D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. Coastline Purchasing Corporation
B-3
D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. Kayfirst Corporation B-3
D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. The U.S. General Services
Administration B-4
District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), Environmental
Regulation Administration (ERA) v. Respondent Mr. Jerry Schaeffer B-4
FLORIDA B-4
Boston Chicken B-4
Department of Environmental Protection v. Lake County B-5
Department of Environmental Protection v. Pinellas County Board of County CommissioBeis
Department of Environmental Regulation v. Cabot Corporation B-5
DepartmentofEnvironmentalRegulationv. Pilot Properties Co. and Durham Utility Service, Inc.
B-5
Florida Department of Corrections B-5
FloridaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionv.NRG/Recovery Group,Inc.,akaOgdenMartin
Systems of Lake, Inc B-6
Florida Gas Transmission B-6
Florida Gas Transmission B-6
Hazardous Waste Consultants, Inc. and Hazardous Waste Services, Inc B-6
Kissimmee Utilities B-7
Master Packaging B-7
Mur-Shel, Inc B-7
Ogden Martin B-7
Pinellas County Department of Solid Waste Management B-7
Polyplastex International B-8
R.P. Scherer Corp B-8
B-i
-------
! FY1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
South West Florida Water Management District B-8
State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection v. United States Naval Air
Station—Jacksonville B-8
State of Florida v. Urbano Diaz-Devillegas; Romulo Juan Delgado; German Delgado; Darwin Mesa
and Errol Woon B-8
Tampa Bay Center B-8
Trend Management B-8
Venture Properties B-9
Waste Management B-9
GEORGIA B-9
Oxford Industries, Greenville, Georgia B-9
U.S. Navy Submarine Base, Kings Bay, Georgia B-9
Young Refining Corp., Douglasville, Georgia B-9
IDAHO B-9
Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc B-9
Stibnite Mining Company B-10
St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, Boise, Idaho B-10
ILLINOIS B-10
Pork King Packing Company B-10
INDIANA B-ll
Confined Feed Lot Facilities B-ll
JPT Petroleum Production Corp B-ll
State of Indiana v. James E. Nichols, State of Indiana v. Custom Finishing Corp B-ll
IOWA B-ll
In the Matter of the City of Winterset, IA B-ll
KANSAS B-12
In the Matter of Dawson Brothers, Inc., Wichita, KS: B-12
In the Matter of Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, Kansas City, KS B-12
In the Matter of Sunflower Manufacturing Company, Inc., Beloit and Cawker City,.KS B-12
MICHIGAN B-12
Ace Finishing, Inc B-12
MINNESOTA B-13
LTV Steel Mining Co B-13
MISSOURI B-13
In the Matter of Barton Nelson, Inc B-13
In the Matter of International Paper Company, Joplin, M.0 B-13
Norfolk and Western Railway Co B-14
MONTANA B-14
State of Montana v Continental Lime B-14
NEBRASKA B-14
Ash Grove Cement Company B-14
NEW JERSEY B-14
State of New Jersey v. Patricia Nazzaro, John Martinez, Augustine Scalzitti & Frank Scalzitti
B-14
NORTH CAROLINA B-15
Carolina Mirror Company (North Wilkesboro, NC) B-15
Duke University (Durham, NC.) B-15
Fawn Industries (Middlesex, NC) B-15
Greer L aboratorie s B -16
B-ii
-------
FY 1994 Enforcement andComplianceAssuranceAccomplishmentsReport
Midway Body Shop (Winston-Salem, NC) B-16
NC DOT—Ferry Division (Manns Harbor, NC) B-16
Phillips Plating Company (Bridgeton, NC) B-17
Watts Regulator Co./Regtrol (Spindale, NC) B-17
OHIO B-17
Andersons Management Corp B-17
PENNSYLVANIA B-17
ARCO Chemical Company. B-17
Graphic Controls B-18
Keystone Cement Company B-19
Mays Properties, Inc B-19
Performax Engine Works, Inc B-19
U.S. Steel-Carnegie Natural Gas B-19
SOUTH CAROLINA B-19
Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation B-19
Green Oasis Environmental, Inc B-20
Holnam, Inc B-20
Shakespeare Products Group B-20
Spartanburg Steel B-20
ThermalKEM, Incorporated B-20
TENNESSEE B-20
Department of Energy K-25 B-20
Gabriel Ride Control Products, Inc B-21
State of Tennessee v. Flavil Ray & Robert Wallace Bradford B-21
State of Tennessee v. Gabriel Ride Control Products, Inc. B-21
U.S. v. Recticel Foam Corporation & State of Tennessee v. Recticel Foam CorporationB-22
Wheland Foundry Division of North American Royalties, Inc B-22
TEXAS B-23
State of Texas v. Gary Giles Cocke, et al B-23
WASHINGTON B-23
Fiberglass Technologies Inc B-23
Perfection & Letz Paint Company B-23
United States Army Base Fort Lewis, Washington B-23
WISCONSIN B-24
Dean Foods Vegetable Company B-24
B-iii
------- |