Enforcement Court Settlements and Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry


&EPA

United States
Environmental Protection
Agency

Enforcement Court Settlements &
Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing

Industry

-------
This page is intentionally left blank.

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry	ii

-------
Table of Contents

Index of Figures	vii

1	Introduction	1

1.1	Number of Chemical Manufacturing Industry Cases	2

1.2	Analysis of Inorganic Chemical Compliance History	2

1.3	Analysis of Organic Chemical Compliance History	3

1.3.1	Five Year Review	3

1.3.2	Comparison to Other Industries	3

1.3.3	Review of Major Cases	3

1.4	Analysis of Rubber and Plastics Manufacturing Compliance History	7

1.4.1	Comparison to Other Industries	7

1.4.2	Review of Major Cases	7

1.5	Analysis of Plastic Resin and Man-made Fibers Compliance History	7

1.5.1	Five Year Review	8

1.5.2	Comparison to Other Industries	8

1.5.3	Review of Major Cases	8

1.6	Analysis of Agricultural Chemical, Pesticides and Fertilizer Compliance History	10

1.6.1	Five Year Review	10

1.6.2	Comparison to Other Industries	10

1.6.3	Review of Major Cases	10

1.7	Analysis of Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Compliance History	14

1.7.1	Five Year Review	14

1.7.2	Comparison to Other Industries	14

1.7.3	Review of Major Cases	14

1.8	Analysis of Paint and Adhesives Chemical Manufacturing Sector Compliance History	16

1.9	Analysis of Soap, Cleaning Compound, and Toilet Preparation Chemical Manufacturing Sector
Compliance History	16

1.10	Analysis of Other Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing Sector Compliance History 16

2	Review of Enforcement Response Actions	16

2.1	Total value of enforcement settlements and judgments	17

2.2	Review of Major CERCLA and RCRA cases	17

2.2.1	General Electric Plastics	18

2.2.2	IMC Phosphates Co	19

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry	iii

-------
2.2.3	Exxon (aka Agrifos Fertilizer, Rentech Nitrogen, Pasadena Chemical)	19

2.2.4	Tronox (aka Kerr-McGee, Anadarko)	20

2.2.5	PCS Phosphates	21

2.2.6	Pharmacia & Upjohn	21

2.2.7	FMC Corporation	21

2.2.9	Aerojet Corporation and Cordova Chemical	22

2.2.10	Ciba-Geigy	22

2.2.11	Morton International (Rohm & Haas)	23

2.3 Review of Relevant Criminal cases	23

2.3.1	Concord	23

2.3.2	Alden Leeds	24

2.3.3	SCP Management	24

2.3.4	Sheffield Pharmaceuticals	24

2.3.5	KTX Limited and KTX Properties	25

2.3.6	Chem Solv	25

2.3.7	CirTech	25

2.3.8	Freedom Industries	26

2.3.9	JACAM Manufacturing	26

2.3.10	Mississippi Phosphates	27

2.3.11	Helena Chemical Company	27

2.3.12	Mann Chemical	28

2.3.13	New Nautical Coatings	28

2.3.14	Harcros Chemical	29

2.3.15	Roberts Chemical	29

2.3.16	Port Arthur Chemical	29

2.3.17	DPL Enterprises	30

2.3.18	Scotts Miracle-Gro Company	30

2.3.19	Sun Polymers	31

2.3.20	Mace Personal Defense	32

2.3.21	Global Specialties	32

2.3.22	Chemical and Metal Industries	32

2.3.23	Chemical Equipment Labs	33

2.3.24	Techsol Chemical	33

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry	iv

-------
2.3.25	Calderwood Rubber Inc	34

2.3.26	Gulf Chemical	34

2.3.27	GB&S Marketing Inc	34

2.3.28	Crown Chemical	35

2.3.29	Chemical Specialties	35

2.3.30	Acuity Specialty Products. Inc	36

2.3.31	Amitech	36

2.3.32	Tri-State Chemical Company	37

2.3.33	Wilshire Paint	37

2.3.34	Antec	37

2.3.35	Pyramid Chemical and Nittany Warehouse	37

2.2.36	Chemco Industries	38

2.3.37	Ponderosa Paint	38

2.3.38	Standard Paints & Coatings	38

2.3.39	PCS Nitrogen	39

2.3.40	MacDermid. Inc	39

2.3.41	Morton International	39

2.3.42	Lancaster	40

2.3.43	D&B Paint and Flo-Rite	40

2.3.44	LCP Chemicals/Hanlin	40

2.3.45	C&l Coatings	41

2.3.46	Innovation Chemical Co	41

2.3.47	Guardian Protection	41

2.3.48	D.C. Franche & Co	42

2.3.49	Stewart	42

2.3.50	CH20	42

2.3.51	HCI Chemtech	43

2.3.52	Gulf States Paint/San Jacinto Paint	43

2.3.53	Fluid Polymers	44

2.3.54	Twin Lake Chemical	44

2.3.55	F and C International	44

2.3.56	Micro Chemical Corporation	45

2.3.57	Pioneer Chemical	45

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry	v

-------
2.3.58	Lannett Astrochem	45

2.3.59	Puregro (Brea Agricultural)	45

2.3.60	Amsterdam Color	46

2.3.61	Stoller Chemical	46

2.3.62	Hi-Tek Polymers	46

2.3.63	Unichem	46

2.3.64	Vanderbilt Chemical	47

2.3.65	Pennwalt Co	47

2.3.66	Protex Industries	47

2.3.67	Chemical Research Development and Engineering Center	48

2.3.68	R-M Industries	48

2.3.69	Erickson Chemical	48

2.3.70	Argent Chemical Laboratories	49

2.3.71	RAD Services	49

2.3.72	Neville Chemical Company	49

2.3.73	Barrett Chemical Company	50

3.	Relevant class specific focused federal initiatives	50

3.1	Loss of Interim Status	50

3.2	RCRA Air Emissions National Compliance Initiative	50

3.3	Reducing Air Pollution from the Largest Sources	51

3.4	Acid Plant New Source Review Enforcement Initiative	51

3.5	Boiler and Industrial Furnaces Initiative	54

3.6	Reducing Risks of accidental Releases at Industrial and Chemical Facilities	54

3.7	National Ethanol Initiative	54

3.8	Emergency Preparation and Community Notification	54

3.9	National Nitrate Compliance Initiative	55

3.10	National Wood Products Enforcement Initiative	55

3.11	Reducing Pollution from Mineral Processing Operations	55

3.12	Mississippi River Enforcement Initiative	56

3.13	National Petroleum Refinery Initiative	56

4.	Compliance Assistance	56

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry	vi

-------
Index of Figures

Figure 1 Chemical Manufacturing Enforcement cases over time	2

Figure 2 Chemical Manufacturing CERCLA &RCRA Enforcement cases 1981-2017	188

Figure 3 Annual Number of Air Toxic Emitting Facilities with EPA Evaluations and Concluded

Enforcement Actions	520

Figure 4 Cumulative Actions Taken Toward Investigating and Controlling Acid Facilities	522

Figure 5 Cumulative Estimated S02 Emission Reductions from Acid, Glass and Cement Facility

Settlements	53

Figure 6 Cumulative Estimated NOX Emission Reductions from Acid, Glass and Cement Facilities	533

Figure 7 Cumulative Progress toward Inspecting and Addressing Phosphoric Acid Facilities	566

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry	vii

-------
1 Introduction

To understand the experience of court settlements and judgments, EPA looked at compliance and
enforcement in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry. Compliance assistance, monitoring and
enforcement are important components of the regulatory framework. Through inspections, compliance
monitoring can identify noncompliance at regulated facilities. Enforcement actions impose legal
instruments to ensure correction of deficiencies and achieve compliance with environmental
requirements. Compliance and enforcement actions have certain functions which EPA considers
particularly pertinent to the risk determination for rulemaking under CERCLA § 108(b). First if
noncompliance causes release of a hazardous material, then in negotiated agreements, EPA can ensure
that the responsible party carries out and pays for the cleanup. Second, enforcement actions can result
in orders and settlements that compel a responsible party to return to compliance. Third, the prospect
of financial penalties that can accompany these enforcement instruments can encourage compliance. All
these functions support the regulatory structure in reducing risk of Fund expenditures. EPA looked at
applicable enforcement authorities as well as historical enforcement and compliance data.

This document identifies facilities where noncompliance was addressed by formal federal enforcement.
It does not include facilities where noncompliance was addressed through informal enforcement or
facilities where noncompliance was addressed by a state. In addition, it does not include facilities where
noncompliance was not identified, either because those facilities were not inspected or because they
were inspected and found in compliance. The compliance and enforcement actions documented here
show that where noncompliance is identified, many industry responsible parties are conducting or
paying for cleanups, returning to compliance, and improving human health and the environment.1

In this industry, the largest CERCLA and RCRA civil and judicial federal cases are recently concluded and
represent significant operational compliance requirements and/or financial penalties. Several major
enforcement cases highlighted in the EPA chemical sector notebooks2 evolved into decades of litigation,
multiple federal enforcement cases, risks to human health and the environment, and NPL sites.
Enforcement actions alone do not completely supplant the need for Fund-financed response actions
either at these highlighted sites or generally in the Chemical Manufacturing industry. Active
enforcement serves as an important component of the regulatory framework.

EPA obtained data from the EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) system to provide
a review of federal enforcement from FY1972 through FY20173. Facilities whose primary North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes indicate Chemical Manufacturing industry
activities (NAICS 325) were included in EPA's review. The data are accessed in the ECHO system through
NAICS codes.

1 The scope was also modified to eliminate 10 sites where although chemical manufacturing activity and associated
enforcement took place, they were largely contaminated by mining activities and previously reviewed as part of
the Hard Rock Mining industry.

2 Profile of the Agricultural Chemical, Pesticide, and Fertilizer Industry, Sep 2000, EPA 310-R-00-003; Profile of the
Organic Chemical Industry, 2nd Edition, Nov 2002, EPA 310-R-02-001; Profile of the Plastic Resin and Manmade
Fiber Industries, Sep 1997, EPA 310-R-97-006; and Profile of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry, Sep 1997,
EPA 310-R-97-005.

3 ECHO does not include all of EPA's compliance and enforcement activity because regions are not required to
report "informal actions," and it does not consistently capture all state actions.

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
Chemical Manufacturing Enforcement Cases

1972-2017

350
300
2 SO
2 OO
150

100

50
O

I . I I I

72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 OO 02 04 06 08 lO 12 14 16
¦ CAA ¦ CERCLA ¦ CWA ¦ EPCRA ¦ FIFRA ¦ MPRSA ¦ MWTA ¦ RCRA ¦ SDWA ¦ TSCA

Figure 1 - Chemical Manufacturing Enforcement cases over time

1.1	Number of Chemical Manufacturing Industry Cases - echo data shows that from FY1972
through FY2017 there were over 7700 administrative and judicial enforcement cases in the Chemical
Manufacturing industry. Clean Air Act (CAA) (32%) and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) (17%) cases were the most common. There are a smaller number of cases in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (12%), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) (12%), Clean Water Act (CWA) (10%), the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (11%), and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (6%). As shown in Figure 1
above, the total number of enforcement cases per fiscal year exceeds 100 in 1990, peaks at over 300 in
1997, and returns to over 300 in 2017. Further information of the enforcement details on these cases
can be found in the detailed background document "Data for Enforcement, Court Settlements and
Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry."4

1.2	Analysis of Inorganic Chemical Compliance History - Modern echo analysis shows the Basic
Chemistry sub sector NAICS 3251 does not directly compare to the historical sector analysis, as NAICS
3251 includes both the Inorganic and Organic Chemical subsectors. However modern ECHO analysis
shows the combined Basic Chemical (NAICS 3251) subsector with over 3800 enforcement cases,
including more than 1300 CERCLA and RCRA cases. For the current total number of cases, this subsector
(NAICS 3251) has more enforcement cases (44%) in proportion to the industry census than the total
chemical industry (28%). It also has more a more CERCLA or RCRA enforcement cases (16%) in
proportion to the industry census than the total chemical industry (9%). Historically, in the 1995 EPA
Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project - Profile of the Inorganic Chemical Industry5: Exhibits 20,
21, 22, 23 and 24 provide an overview of the reported compliance and enforcement data for the
Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing sector over a period of five years (Aug 1990 to Aug 1995). A few
points were found at that time:

Slightly more than half of the TRI reporting inorganic chemical facilities in the EPA databases were
inspected over the five-year period resulting in an average of 11 months between inspections of these
facilities. The inorganic chemical industry has a relatively low frequency of inspections. On average, the
number of months between inspection at inorganic chemicals facilities has been only about twice that of
organic chemicals facilities. Over the five-year period, the inorganic chemical industry has had a ratio of

4	Data for Enforcement, Court Settlements and Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry of Aug 2019

5	EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project, Profile of the Inorganic Chemical Industry, Sep 1995,
EPA/310-R-95-004

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

2

-------
enforcement actions to inspection lower than most of the other sectors listed including the organic
chemicals sector. Enforcement actions are brought against only about 10 percent of the facilities with
violations. Inspections of inorganic chemical facilities are split relatively evenly between CAA, CWA and
RCRA, although RCRA accounts for a significantly larger portion of the total enforcement actions brought
against the industry.

1.3 Analysis of Organic Chemical Compliance History - Modern echo analysis shows the Basic
Chemical sub sector NAICS 3251 does not directly compare to the historical sector analysis, as NAICS
3251 includes both the Inorganic and Organic Chemical subsectors. However modern ECHO analysis
shows the combined Basic Chemical (NAICS 3251) subsector with over 3800 enforcement cases,
including more than 1300 CERCLA and RCRA cases. For the current total number of cases, this subsector
(NAICS 3251) has more enforcement cases (44%) in proportion to the industry census than the total
chemical industry (28%). It also has more a more CERCLA or RCRA enforcement cases (16%) in
proportion to the industry census than the total chemical industry (9%). Historically, in In the EPA Office
of Compliance Sector Notebook Project - 2002 Profile of the Organic Chemical Industry6:

1.3.1 Five Year Review. Tables 19 and 20 provides an overview of the reported compliance and
enforcement data for the Organic Chemical Manufacturing sector over a period of five years (16 Sep
1997 to 15 Sep 2002). A few points were found at that time:

The organic chemical industry has a relatively high frequency of inspections. On average, organic
chemical facilities were inspected every six months.

Organic chemical industry has a relatively high percent of facilities with violations and enforcement
actions and a relatively high rate of enforcement per inspection compared to the other sectors listed.

Of the sectors shown, the organic chemical industry has one of the highest percentages of EPA led
enforcement actions versus state led actions.

1.3.2 Comparison to Other Industries. Tables 21 and 22 allow the compliance history of the Organic
Chemical Manufacturing sector to be compared to the other 16 industries covered by the industry
sector notebooks. The point highlighted here is that the inspections and actions conducted under the
CAA and RCRA account for most of the industry's inspections and actions.

1.3.3 Review of Major Cases included the following7:

1,3.3.1 Amspec Chemical Corporation. In Mar 2000, Region 2 issued administrative consent orders (02-
1999-4101 and 02-1999-9127) resolving the multi-media cases brought against this company under
§313 of EPCRA and §§5 and 8 of TSCA. In addition to paying a $47,245 penalty, Amspec will perform two
SEPs, with an estimated value of over $118,000. The first one consists of the installation and operation
of equipment to recover some materials previously in the waste stream from the facility's
manufacturing operations. The second SEP involves the company's purchase of equipment for the local
city's Office of Emergency Management allowing it to more effectively respond to emergencies involving
chemical substances.

6 EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project, Profile of the Organic Chemical Industry, Nov 2002, EPA/310-
R-02-001

7 Financial figures provided in this section are represented without adjustment for inflation unless otherwise
noted.

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
1.3.3.2 Troy Chemical, In Jun 2000, Region 2 issued final administrative orders on consent (02-1998-0245
and 02-1998-0246) to Troy Chemical. The agreement resolved a combined EPCRA §313 and TSCA §8
multi-media enforcement action involving the company's facility in Newark, New Jersey. Under the
settlement, Troy will perform three separate SEPs with a combined worth of more than $220,000 and
will also pay a civil penalty of $90,700. Troy will install equipment at its Newark facility to reduce
emissions of four listed chemical substances to both air (approximately 10,000 pounds annually) and
water (more than 200,000 pounds annually). Troy had been cited for failure to submit TSCA-required
Inventory Update Reports for five chemicals, and for under-reporting eleven others; and for failure to
submit EPCRA-required reports for two chemicals. These violations occurred in the early 1990's.

In addition to the cases above noted in the historical report, there are an additional five Troy Chemical
federal enforcement cases from 1978 to 2018. The CERCLA, FIFRA & TSCA cases (02-2016-2026, 04-
2017-9114, 05-2016-0072, 09-2018-4302 and 02-1992-0029) included several import refusals and an
inflation adjusted total of more than $1.7 million in compliance actions.

1.3.3.3 Occidental and Olin Corporation. Region 2 entered a consent decree with Occidental (the
successor to the Hooker Chemical Company) and Olin Corp. in Oct 1999, resolving their liability for
Superfund response costs incurred by EPA and the State of New York at the 102nd Street Landfill NPL
Site (NYD980506810) in Niagara Falls, New York. Both companies disposed of hazardous substances at
the site. The consent decree called for the companies to reimburse EPA about $6.87 million and New
York approximately $690,000 for past costs and interest8. In conjunction with remedial work at the
landfill valued at about $44 million, pursuant to a 1991 unilateral administrative order issued by Region
2, the companies will have paid about 96% of the total site response costs. The decree also secured the
companies' commitment to about $700,000 in payment of natural resource damages and replacement
projects for lost resources.

In addition to the case above noted in the historical report, there are additional 72 administrative and
judicial federal enforcement cases associated with Olin, Occidental and Hooker at multiple sites from
1977 to 2018. 24 of the cases are CAA, 17 are CERCLA, 13 are RCRA, 9 are CWA, 6 are EPCRA, and three
are TSCA. The largest compliance action cost levied was $36.8 million, the largest single penalty was $2.8
million, and the total inflated costs are over $137 million.

The largest judicial CERCLA case (03-1988-0262) is related to a former chlor-alkalai plant which produced
waste mercury. This waste was stored in ponds, where effluent entered the north fork of the Holston
river. It was believed that severe environmental damage was caused in 80 miles of the river. The largest
administrative RCRA case (03-2012-0141) related to cleanup at the Occidental facility at New Castle, DE.
This includes financial assurance for the total remedy cost of $19 million, including excavation, on-site
consolidation, capping soil and sediment, groundwater treatment, and institutional controls to mitigate
current and future contamination. Additional information on Occidental can be found in paragraph 2.2.5
of this report.

1.3.3.4 Shell Chemical Company. On 19 Jul 2000 EPA issued a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO)
in settlement of a complaint filed on 20 Sep 1999 that included a proposed penalty of $27,500 (06-1999-
0859), for violations of the CAA and the Louisiana State Implementation Plan. The facility failed to
correctly set the counter (FQ948) which resulted in a spill on 8 Dec 1998 of 148 lbs of hydrochloric acid
to flow out through the hatch top of a tank car. The facility agreed to pay a $6,875 penalty and fund a
SEP in the amount of $27,796. The SEP provides for the following equipment for the St. Charles Parish

8 DOJ Press Release of 19 Jul 1999 accessed at httpsi//www.iustice.gov/archive/opa/pr/1999/July/312enr.htm

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
Department of Emergency Preparedness: a weather data unit; risk map emergency response software;
and an emergency operation center phone system.

In addition to the case above noted in the historical report, there are additional 13 administrative and
judicial federal enforcement cases associated with Shell Chemical at multiple sites across two regions
from 1979 to 2016. Five of the cases are CAA, five are CERCLA, 2 are RCRA, and two are CWA. The
largest compliance action cost levied was $3 million, the largest single penalty was $350,000 and the
total inflated costs are over $5.7 million.

1.3.3.5 Westlake Petrochemicals Corporation. EPA Region 6, in consultation with the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), issued a Consent Agreement and Final Order (06-1999-
0120) to Westlake Petrochemicals, for violations of federal and state regulations governing air
emissions, the storage and handling of hazardous materials, and the use of toxic substances. Federal
assessed penalties total $76,458.

CAA alleged violations included the facility repeatedly failed to control the smoke from a flare and failed
to report the violations, failure to properly label at least five pieces of leaking equipment which
contributed to illegal air emissions, and the facility was cited for improperly sampling and testing waste
for benzene. Under EPCRA, the facility had failed to report its use of chlorine dioxide from 1993 through
1997, a chemical which is required to be included in the annual Toxic Release Inventory report. The EPA
also alleged that the company failed to accurately report its use of pyrolysis oil as required by TSCA.
Under RCRA, the facility is charged with improperly labeling and storing hazardous chemicals including
mercury, chloroform and benzene, alleges that the company did not inspect areas where hazardous
waste was stored to ensure that it was stored safely and that surrounding areas were not contaminated,
and is charged with failing to train employees in safe handling of these materials and in correct
emergency response procedures.

Westlake Petrochemical has agreed to install and operate air monitoring equipment at its fence-line to
measure various hazardous constituents for 3 years. The facility will also maintain a web site, as a
mechanism to provide data from its air monitoring equipment. In addition, Westlake Petrochemical has
agreed to respond to local resident's concerns regarding data from the air monitoring equipment within
24 hours of their request. The estimated cost for implementation of the air monitoring project is
$568,500. Westlake Petrochemical has also agreed to perform a third-party compliance audit of its
Sulphur facility. This audit will include all applicable State and Federal programs for its facility.

In addition to the multi-media case above noted in the historical report, there are additional three
administrative and judicial federal enforcement cases associated with Westlake Petrochemical from
2000 to 2014. Two of the cases are CAA, and the last is CERCLA. The largest single penalty was $500,000
and the total inflated costs are over $5.7 million.

1.3.3.6 E.I. Du Pont de Nemours. The Department of Justice and EPA reached a $1.5 million settlement
(04-1996-0449) on 1 Aug 2000 with E.I. Du Pont de Nemours (DuPont) related to a catastrophic chemical
release in eastern Kentucky that led to the evacuation of several communities surrounding the plant.
DuPont is a large chemical manufacturer that failed to maintain a safe facility under the General Duty
Clause of the CAA. The charge arose from DuPont's use of cast iron piping in a tank used to store oleum
(sulfur trioxide dissolved in sulfuric acid), and the company's failure to inspect the piping. The oleum
solution corroded the cast iron piping, which ultimately fractured leading to the release of 23,800
gallons of sulfuric acid into the air. DuPont agreed to pay a $850,000 penalty and spend about $650,000
to create a state-of-the-art emergency notification system for a 10-county region of Kentucky.

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
In addition to the case above noted in the historical report, there are additional 84 administrative and
judicial federal enforcement cases associated with E.I. Du Pont de Nemours at multiple sites from 1977
to 2018. 15 of the additional cases are CAA, 13 are CERCLA, 11 are RCRA, 14 are CWA, 12 are EPCRA,
seven are SDWA, and six each are FIFRA and TSCA. The largest compliance action cost levied was $66
million, the largest single penalty was $1.8 million, and the total inflated costs are over $134 million.

1.3.3.7 U.S. v. Jack L. Aronowitz, et al. On 31 Jan 2000, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division, entered a judgment against Defendants, Jack L. Aronowitz
and his company, Technical Chemicals and Products, Inc., and ordered them to pay past remaining costs
of $401,177, plus interest and enforcement costs in EPA's CERCLA Section 107 Cost Recovery action to
recover costs incurred at the Lauderdale Chemical Warehouse Site. On 26 Apr 2000 the defendants
were held jointly and severally liable for an additional amount of $348,383.

In 1994, EPA conducted a fund lead removal action at the Lauderdale Chemical Warehouse Site, in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida to remove chemicals that had been abandoned at the Site. From late 1977 through
Oct 1992, this Site was used as a medical diagnostic chemical manufacturing plant, processing plant, and
chemical storehouse. In a referral (04-1997-0459) submitted to the Department of Justice in Aug 1997,
EPA requested a cost recovery suit be brought against the former owner/operators at the facility, Dr.
Theodore Holstein, Jack L. Aronowitz and his company Technical Chemicals & Products, Inc., D.H. Blair &
Co. and its President, Kenton Wood. EPA settled with D.H. Blair & Co. and Kenton Wood for $80,000.
EPA has also settled with Theodore Holstein for $230,000. EPA then went to trial to seek a judgment
that the remaining potentially responsible parties, Jack L. Aronowitz and his company, Technical
Chemicals and Products, Inc., pay all the United States' outstanding costs in this case, plus the costs of
the trial. On 31 Jan 2000 the defendants were ordered to pay the United States' outstanding costs of
$401,177, plus interest and enforcement costs.

1.3.2.8 US. v. B.P. Amoco, Des Moines TCE Site, Des Moines, Iowa. This Consent Decree (07-2000-0580)
entered pursuant to Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA provides for the settling defendants (BP Amoco
PLC, Bayer Corporation, Chevron Chemical Company, Monsanto Company, and Shell Oil) to pay the
United States $2,513,808, plus interest. This amount represents the Settling Defendants' fair share of all
past and estimates future response and oversight costs for Operable Units 2 and 4 (OU2/4) of the Des
Moines TCE Site. EPA calculated the Settling Defendants' fair share based upon a Non-Binding
Preliminary Allocation of Responsibility (NBAR) prepared in accordance with Section 122(e) (3) of
CERCLA. This amount includes a settlement premium based on anticipated future work at the site. This
amount exceeds EPA's outstanding costs, with interest, so the balance of the settlement amount will be
placed in a Special Account to be used for future work at the Site, i.e., long-term operation and
maintenance of already completed removal actions and institutional controls. The other two identified
potentially responsible parties, Dico, Inc. and its parent Titan Wheel International, which own and
operate the Site, declined to participate in the settlement negotiations and were not parties to the
Consent Decree.

In addition to the judicial case above noted in the historical report, there are nine additional federal
enforcement cases associated with this site, three of them judicial. From 1986 to 2014, the cases
document CERCLA actions to fund, access, remediate and transfer portions of this property. The Dico
property has been used for a variety of industrial uses, including a grey iron foundry, a steel wheels
manufacturing plant chemical and herbicide distribution, and pesticide formulation processes. BP
Amoco, Bayer, Chevron Chemical, Monsanto and Shell Oil all contracted with Dico and its predecessor
companies to have herbicides and pesticides formulated. Releases contaminated a substantial portion of
the property, and surface drainage areas off the property. Drinking water has also been contaminated

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
with volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), primarily trichlorethylene (TCE). The DICO site is an NPL site
known as Des Moines TCE (IAD980687933). The most recent CERCLA administrative case (07-2003-0197)
completed a Brownfields purchase by the City of Des Moines for development of an urban freeway. The
most recent judicial CERCLA cost recovery case (07-2010-0357) assessed a penalty of $8.5 million and
cost recovery of $6.9 million. EPA is still evaluating further cleanup actions to address pesticide
contamination in the sediments and surface water at the south pond which has been identified as a
significant ecological risk 9.

1.4 Analysis of Rubber and Plastics Manufacturing Compliance History - Modern echo

analysis shows the Resin, Synthetic Rubber, Artificial, Synthetic and Filament Manufacturing subsector
NAICS 3252 does not directly compare to the historical sector analysis, as NAICS 3252 includes both the
Rubber and Plastics Manufacturing and Plastic Resin and Man-made Fibers subsectors. Modern ECHO
analysis shows this subsector (NAICS 3252) with over 1300 enforcement cases, including more than 500
CERCLA and RCRA cases. For the current total number of cases, this subsector has more enforcement
cases (50%) in proportion to the industry census than the total chemical industry (28%). It also has more
CERCLA or RCRA enforcement cases (18%) in proportion to the industry census than the total chemical
industry (9%). Historically, in the 2005 EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook - Profile of the Rubber
and Plastics Industry10:

1.4.1 Comparison to Other Industries -Tables 17 through 20 allow the compliance history of the
Rubber and Plastic Manufacturing sector to be compared to the other 16 industries covered by the
industry sector notebooks over a period of five years (1999 to 2004). Points highlighted here are:

The industry has an average enforcement-to-inspection ratio (9 percent) when compared to other
industries

Of the 9,231 inspections conducted at 3,821 Rubber and Plastics manufacturing facilities over a five-year
period, 787 (9 percent) resulted in enforcement actions

Approximately 10 percent of inspections in the manufacturing sector resulted in enforcement actions.

1.4.2 Review of Major Cases - It was noted that "The case of U.S. et al. v. Production Plated Plastic, Inc.
et al. (1992) is considered significant by EPA because the court held a corporate officer and the owner of
the company personally liable." The court required financial assurance for cleanup at the facility.

1.5 Analysis of Plastic Resin and Man-made Fibers Compliance History - Modern echo

9 Des Moines TCE site Background accessed at

httpsi//cumulis,epa,gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index,cfm?fuseaction=second,Cleanup&id=07Q0316#bkground

10 EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project, Profile of the Rubber and Plastic Industry, 2nd Edition, Feb
2005, E PA/310-R-05-003

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
industry (9%). Historically, in the 1997 EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project - Profile of the
Plastic Resin & Man-made Fibers Industry11,

1.5.1 Five Year Review -Tables 25 and 26 provide an overview of the reported compliance and
enforcement data for the Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing sector over a period of five years (Apr 1992
to Apr 1997). A few points were found at that time:

The ratio of enforcement actions to inspections for plastic resin and manmade fiber manufacturing
facilities over the past five years (0.09) was very close to the average across the industries shown (0.08).

Over the period Apr 1992 to Apr 1997, the average number of months between inspections was
relatively low (8 months) for plastic resin and manmade fiber facilities. The average across the industries
shown was 22 months indicating that, on average, facilities in the plastic resin and manmade fiber
industry are inspected more frequently than facilities in many other industries.

While the average enforcement to inspection rate across industries fell from 0.08 over the past five
years to 0.06 over the past year, the enforcement to inspection rate for plastic resin and manmade fiber
facilities remained at 0.09.

1.5.2 Comparison to Other Industries - Tables 27 and 28 allow the compliance history of the Plastic
Resin and Man-made Fiber sector to be compared to the other industries covered by the industry sector
notebooks. Points highlighted here are:

While the percentage of RCRA inspections remained the same over the period, the percent of
enforcement actions taken under RCRA dropped from 23 percent to 5 percent.

The CAA accounted for the largest share of enforcement actions over the past five years (43%) and over
1996 (51%).

1.5.3 Review of Major Cases included the following12:

1.5.3.1 Teknor Apex Company. A 30 Sep 1996 consent agreement and order (01-1995-0043) resolved
TSCA violations by Teknor Apex of Pawtucket, Rl. Teknor Apex had failed to report the identities and
volumes of several chemicals manufactured in 1989, as required by EPA's Inventory Update rule. Teknor
Apex manufactures organic plasticizers, vinyl resins, garden hose, plastic sheeting, and color pigments.
The violations, which occurred at facilities in Attleboro, MA, and in Brownsville, TN, hampered EPA's
efforts to assess the health and environmental risks of chemical manufacture and distribution. The
settlement provides for a penalty of $52,950 and implementation of SEPs costing $300,000. Four SEPs at
the Attleboro facility will reduce toxic emissions, reduce and improve the quality of wastewater
discharges, and reduce the volume of industrial wastewater processed at Teknor's on-site wastewater
treatment plant. After the completion of the historical sector report, Teknor was cited (01-1998-0124)
on 30 Sep 1998 for failing to file PMNS and NOCS for three chemicals. For two of the chemicals Teknor
Apex disclosed the violations as required but did not disclose for the third.

11 EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project, Profile of the Plastic Resins and Man-made Fibers Industry,
Sep 1997, EPA/310-R-97-0006

12 Financial figures provided in this section are represented without adjustment for inflation unless otherwise
noted.

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
1.5.3.2	Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics (South Charleston, WV). On 16 May 1995, the Regional
Administrator signed a consent order (03-1994-0108) resolving a RCRA administrative penalty action
against Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc. (UCC), for violations of the BIF rule (Boiler
and Industrial Furnace) at UCC's South Charleston, West Virginia, plant. The complaint alleged failure to:
continuously monitor and record operating parameters; accurately analyze the hazardous waste fed into
the boiler; and properly mark equipment. Under the settlement terms UCC is required to pay a $195,000
civil penalty and comply with the requirements of the BIF Rule. At the same site, a CERCLA order (03-
1993-0481) was settled on 10 Jan 1995 with a$29,000 fine resolving a reportable quantity release issue
originally filed on September 16, 1993. After the completion of the historical sector report, Union
Carbide was cited (03-2012-0179) on 27 Jun 2012 and penalized $24,183 for failing to disclose a
hazardous substance in its 2008 chemical inventory report.

1.5.3.3	Formosa Plastics Co, On 31 May 1995, a Class I CERCLA 103(a) and EPCRA 304(a) consent
agreement and consent order (CACO) (06-1995-0032) was entered with Formosa Plastics for numerous
releases of vinyl chloride from its Point Comfort, TX, facility between Feb 1989 and Aug 1992 that were
not reported to the National Response Center (NRC) in a timely manner following the release.
Additionally, the respondent experienced a release of ethylene dichloride in Sep 1990, and a release of
hydrochloric acid in Jul 1991. Formosa did not report these releases to the NRC, State Emergency
Response Commission (SERC), and Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) in a timely manner.
Formosa agreed to pay a civil penalty of $50,000 and agreed to construct and maintain a secondary
containment system which will prevent large pressure releases of vinyl chloride from the facility. The
system cost is estimated to be $1.68 million with an anticipated start-up date of Jan 1996. Additionally,
as part of a SEP, Formosa agreed to complete the following actions: (1) implement a chemical safety
project for the citizens of Point Comfort, TX at a cost of $10,000; (2) permit a chemical safety audit to be
performed by a team led by EPA personnel to review facility emergency response procedures and plans;
(3) develop and implement a risk management program; and (4) provide funding ($35,000) to support a
Region-wide LEPC conference.

After the historical profile report was completed, Formosa was the subject of several additional EPA
enforcement cases. On 16 May 1997, a CAA case (06-1995-0007) was concluded citing Formosa for
releases of benzene, vinyl chloride, ethylene dichloride and hydrogen chloride because of inadequate
operation, maintenance, record keeping and reporting practices. A supplemental environmental project
(SEP) was included to replace two ethylene dichloride furnaces. Although a penalty $2,171,947 was
requested, the final penalty was $150,000. Additional cases include a 1994 TSCA case (06-1995-0144),
for failure to report a substance in the 1990 chemical inventory. The RCRA case (06-1995-0368) settled
on 27 Feb 1991 included a $3,375 million fine for failure to submit permits, prepare and follow a waste
plan analysis, make hazardous waste determinations, use good containers, inspect operating security
and leak detection equipment, keep inspection records, comply with training requirements, provide
financial assurance for closure, and to properly assess tank integrity. The CWA case (06-2000-0886)
concluded on 3 Jul 2001 documented permit violation releases of copper, zinc, chloroform, phenol, and
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) pollutants. The multi-media RCRA, CAA, EPCRA, and CWA case (06-
2006-3410) concluded on 2 Jan 2013, included the Baton Rouge LA site, and documented leaks of air
pollutants from chemical manufacturing equipment, emissions of vinyl chloride, failures to govern
benzene operations and other hazardous waste management, violations of wastewater discharge limits,
and lack of toxic release inventory reporting. This case resulted in a $2.8 million penalty and an
estimated total compliance action cost of $13.3 million.

Most recently, the RCRA case (06-2012-0938) concluded on 24 Aug 2014 litigated to achieve facility-
wide corrective actions to address historical RCRA releases of ethylene dichloride and constituents into

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

9

-------
the groundwater. Long-term site-wide remediation cost estimates were approximately $20 million for
the first five years. At the time, Formosa planned to apply for a post-closure permit from the state. This
case documented releases of hazardous waste to land of over 497.7 million pounds.

A total of 30 federal environmental enforcement cases from 1983 to 2016 are recorded at three
Formosa Plastics sites. The Point Comfort TX site also experienced an Aug 2005 fire and explosion with
response activities supported by EPA.

1.6 Analysis of Agricultural Chemical, Pesticides and Fertilizer Compliance History - Modern
ECHO analysis shows this subsector (NAICS 3253) with over 1500 enforcement cases, including more
than 380 CERCLA and RCRA cases. For the current total number of cases, this subsector has significantly
more enforcement cases (75%) in proportion to the industry census than the total chemical industry
(28%). It also has more a more CERCLA or RCRA enforcement cases (19%) in proportion to the industry
census than the total chemical industry (9%). Historically, in the 2002 EPA Office of Compliance Sector
Notebook Project - Profile of the Agricultural Chemical, Pesticides and Fertilizer Industry13:

1.6.1 Five Year Review. Tables 26 and 27 provide an overview of the reported compliance and
enforcement data for the Agricultural Chemical, Pesticides and Fertilizer sector over a period of five
years (Apr 1992 to Apr 1997). A few points were found at that time:

The agricultural chemical sector was inspected more frequently than most other sectors. On average,
agricultural chemical facilities were inspected every 12 months. The agricultural chemical sector had one
of the highest percentages of facilities inspected with one or more violations (97%) in 1997, but one of
the lowest percentages of facilities with one or more enforcement actions (5%).

1.6.2 Comparison to Other Industries. Table 28 allows the compliance history of the Agricultural
Chemical, Pesticides and Fertilizer Manufacturing sector to be compared to the other 16 industries
covered by the industry sector notebooks. Points highlighted here are: the percentage of agricultural
chemical inspections carried out under each environmental statute changes only slightly over the
period; and the CAA accounted for the most inspections (43%).

1.6.3 Review of Major Cases included the following:14

1,6.3.1 American Cyanamid Company. On 28 Jun 1995, Region II issued an administrative complaint (02-
1995-0155) against American Cyanamid Company for violations at its Lederle Laboratories facility
located in Pearl River, New York. The complaint resulted in a $129,000 penalty for the company's failure
to submit timely TRI Form Rs for 1,1,1-trichloroethane, naphthalene, phosphoric acid, toluene,
manganese compounds and zinc compounds for the reporting years 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993.

In addition to the case above noted in the historical report, the additional six federal enforcement cases
at this site from 1987 to 2006 are all CAA except for one EPCRA case. In the 1991 CAA case (02-1990-
0072) a $625,000 penalty was associated with construction initiation of a PSD and NSPS facility without
a permit or notification. While construction was halted, EPA sought an injunction mandating future
compliance with the PSD and NSPS violations and stipulated penalties for any future violations.

13 EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project, Profile of the Agricultural Chemical, Pesticides, and Fertilizer
Industry, Nov 2002, EPA/310-R-00-003

14 Financial figures provided in this section are represented without adjustment for inflation unless otherwise
noted.

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
1.6.3.2 Precision Generators, Inc. On 9 Jan 1995, the Regional Administrator signed a consent order with
Precision Generators, Inc. in Virginia Beach VA, a FIFRA case (03-1994-0335), in which the respondent
agreed to pay the proposed penalty of $4,000. The administrative complaint cited the respondent's sale
and misbranding of its unregistered pesticide product ethylene fluid used to accelerate the ripening of
fruits and vegetables. Such a product is a "plant regulator" falling within the definition of "pesticide" in
FIFRA.

In addition to the case above noted in the historical report, an additional federal enforcement FIFRA
case (04-1995-0370) was concluded on 2 Jun 1995 with the firm's Wauconda IL site. The pesticide
ethylene liquid was sold while EPA registration was still pending, with an associated $5,760 penalty.

1.6.3.3 EC. Geiger, Inc. On 18 Aug 1995, a CACO (03-1994-0286) settled the case against E.C. Geiger, Inc.
of Harleysville, Pennsylvania, for violations of sections 12(a)(1)(A) and (B) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. section
136j(a)(l)(A) and (B). Geiger sold or distributed an unregistered and misbranded pesticide product, a
rooting hormone called "lndole-3-butyric Acid-Horticultural Grade." Geiger agreed to pay a penalty of
$8,900.

In addition to the case above noted in the historical report, an additional 1999 federal FIFRA
enforcement case (03-1999-0084) at the site was concluded 29 Dec 1999. The violation was sale and
distribution of two unregistered pesticides and two misbranded pesticides, with an associated $18,150
penalty.

1.6.3.4 Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. On 2 Jun 1995, Region III reached a settlement with Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., in a
Part II administrative action (03-1993-0484) brought for violations of RCRA boiler and industrial furnace
(BIF) regulations at Rhone-Poulenc's Institute, West Virginia plant. The settlement calls for Rhone-
Poulenc to pay a penalty of over $244,000 and to undertake numerous compliance tasks.

In addition to the case above noted in the historical report, the additional three federal enforcement
cases at this site from 1988 to 1993 are either CWA or RCRA. In the 1989 CWA judicial case (03-1989-
1505), a $425,000 penalty was associated violations of NPDES permit limitations and 313 spills. Total
inflated penalties at this site are over $1.2 million. A total of 21 federal environmental enforcement
cases from 1987 to 2000 are recorded at Rhone-Poulenc sites across seven Regions with total inflated
costs of over $2.5 million.

1.6.3.5 IMC-Agrico Company. On 8 Nov 1994, the Regional Administrator ratified a judicial consent
decree (04-1993-1659) between EPA and IMC-Agrico Company concerning IMC's violations of section
301(a) of the CWA. IMC owns and operates phosphate rock mines and associated chemical and fertilizer
processing facilities in Florida and Louisiana. This included eight of its mineral extraction operations
located throughout Florida and its Port Sutton Phosphate Terminal located in Tampa, Florida. The action
arose out of IMC's violation of its permit effluent limits for a variety of parameters including dissolved
oxygen, suspended solids, ammonia, and phosphorous, as well as non-reporting and stormwater
violations at the various facilities-over 1,500 permit violations total. The case was initiated following
review of the facility discharge monitoring reports and joint EPA/state inspections of the sites. The
consent decree settlement involved an up-front payment of $835,000 and a $265,000 Supplemental
Environmental Project (SEP). The pollution prevention SEP involved converting IMC's scrubber discharge
and intake water systems into a closed loop system, greatly reducing pollution loading at the Port Sutton
facility, by Apr 1995.

In addition to the case above noted in the historical report, a total of six federal environmental
enforcement cases from 1978 to 2001 are recorded at IMC Agrico sites. These are primarily CWA
enforcement for discharges of phosphorus and sulfuric acid into the Mississippi river, with the largest

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
(06-1977-0001) resulting in a $1.3 million penalty. Additional information on IMC Corporation can be
found in paragraph 2.2.2 of this report.

1.6.3.6J.T. Eaton & Company, Inc. manufactured, distributed and sold at least 13 unregistered pesticides
(mostly rodenticides). These unregistered pesticides resulted from varying the form of the rodent bait
and the packaging of several of Eaton's registered products (e.g., registered as a bulk product) but sold
in ready-to-use place packs. The company also distributed and sold a misbranded pesticide product and
made inaccurate claims in advertising for another product. A stop sale, use, or removal order and
complaint (05-1995-0456) was issued on 23 Mar 1995. The complaint was settled on 25 Aug 1995, for
$40,000.

In addition to the case above noted in the historical report, a total of five FIFRA federal environmental
enforcement cases from 1992 to 2016 are recorded at J.T. Eaton. These are primarily for untimely
reporting, misbranding and import/export refusal of unregistered pesticides.

1.6.3.7 Citizens Elevator Co. repackaged, distributed and sold the pesticide "Preview" in five-gallon
buckets, many bearing blueberry pie filling labels, to at least 24 customers, constituting the distribution
and sale of an unregistered pesticide. The complaint (05-1994-0299), was issued 30 Jun 1994. The
respondent spent $184,771 in SEPs for the prevention of spills and the safer, more efficient storage and
application of pesticides and fertilizer. A consent agreement signed 30 Jun 1995, settled the case for a
penalty of $8,400.

1.6.3.8 Nitrogen Products, Inc. On 25 Sep 1995, a joint stipulation and order of dismissal (06-1992-0038)
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Nitrogen Products, Inc.
(NPI), agreed to pay a civil penalty of $243,600 to the United States for violations of the CAA, and
Subparts A and R of 40 CFR Part 61. The foreign parent corporation, Internationale Nederlanden Bank,
N.V., acquired the facility through foreclosure and expended over $2 million to cover the
phosphogypsum stack and regrade.

1.6.3.9 Micro Chemical, Inc. The illegal transportation of hazardous waste by a Louisiana pesticide
formulation company, Micro Chemical, Inc., to an unpermitted disposal facility in violation of RCRA
resulted in a $5,000 fine, five years of probation, and compliance with $77,000 in corrective action
measures contained in a 30 Sep 1994 corrective action administrative order on consent (06-1995-0122).
In Mar 1990, Micro Chemical transported 100 cubic yards of hazardous waste from its facility to a field in
Baskin, LA,-a location that did not have a RCRA permit. After its discovery, it was removed under the
Louisiana Department of Agriculture's guidance. Micro Chemical has taken measures to stabilize and
prevent the spread of pesticide contamination from the Micro Chemical facility site, as required by the
RCRA 3008(h) corrective action administrative order on consent. The order will result in the removal of
all contaminated soil at the site, and the remediation of all off-site contamination that has migrated into
a drainage basin located adjacent to the site.

In addition to the case above noted in the historical report, a criminal case at this site is also described in
paragraph 2.3.5.6 below.

1.6.3.10 Chempace Corporation. On 26 Sep 1996, RegionV filed a civil administrative complaint (05-1996-
0570) against Chempace corporation of Toledo, Ohio alleging 99 counts for the distribution or sale of
unregistered and misbranded pesticides, and pesticide production in unregistered establishments. The
total proposed penalty in the complaint was $200,000. The case is significant in that Chempace had,
before the complaint, canceled all the company's pesticide product registrations pursuant to section4 of
FIFRA, as well as their establishment registration pursuant to section 7. However, the company
continued to produce and sell those canceled pesticides in a facility that was not registered.

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
In addition to the case above noted in the historical report, a 1992 FIFRA case (05-1991-0271) cited
Chempace for failing to submit the 1990 report for establishments producing pesticides

1.6.3.11 Northrup King Co. On 30 Sep 1996, because of a FIFRA inspection conducted by Region V on 27
Mar 1996, Region V issued a FIFRA civil complaint (05-1996-0540) to Northrup King Co. of Golden Valley,
Minnesota. The pesticide involved in the case is a genetically engineered corn seed that protects against
the corn borer. Because this casewas the first FIFRA complaint involving a genetically engineered
pesticide, the case was nationally significant. The complaint alleged 21 counts of sale and distribution of
an unregistered pesticide, 21 counts for failure to file a Notice of Arrival for pesticide imports, and 8
counts of pesticide production in unregistered establishments, for a total penalty of $165,200 - the
largest penalty collected at the time by Region V under FIFRA.

1.6.3.12 Terra Industries, Inc. At the request of the Chemical Emergency Prevention and Preparedness
Office (CEPPO), and in accordance with section 112(r) of the CAA, EPA released the results of its
investigation into the cause of an explosion of the ammonium nitrate plant at this nitrogen fertilizer
manufacturing facility. The report released in Jan 1996 identifies numerous unsafe operating procedures
at the plant as contributing factors to the explosion and recommends certain standard operating
procedures which would help prevent similar occurrences at ammonium nitrate production facilities.
The Terra explosion occurred on 13 Dec 1994, killing four individuals and injuring 18 others. It also
resulted in the release of approximately 5,700 tons of anhydrous ammonia to the air and approximately
25,000 gallons of nitric acid to the ground and required evacuation over a two-state area of over 2,500
persons from their homes. In a subsequent action, an administrative civil complaint (07-1996-0129)
alleging violations of EPCRA sections 213 and 313, and section 8(a) of TSCA, was filed citing that Terra
International failed to submit Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) information to EPA in a timely manner, and
data submitted to EPA failed to include releases of more than 17 million pounds of toxic chemicals to
the environment on-site.

In addition to the case above noted in the historical report, the additional three federal enforcement
cases at this site from 1998 to 2011 are either primarily EPCRA or CAA, with additional multi-media
violations of CERCLA. In the 2011 CAA judicial case (07-2008-0303), a $108,000 penalty was associated
with NSR violations and $2.8 million in compliance actions to install controls and/or lower NOx. Total
inflated penalties and compliance actions at this site are over $3.9 million. A total of 14 federal
environmental enforcement cases from 1980 to 2017 are recorded at seven Terra sites across four
Regions at a total inflated cost of over $20 million.

1.6.3.13 Pfizer/AgrEvo. Reporting of unreasonable adverse effects information is required under FIFRA
section 6(a)(2), and failure to submit such reports has resulted in a $192,000 settlement involving
AgrEvo Environmental Health, Inc. and Pfizer, Inc. The case arose in early 1994 after an individual
reported disabling neurological symptoms and chemical sensitivity after using RID products to kill lice.
The ensuing EPA investigation revealed numerous additional unreported incidents involving RID which is
manufactured by AgrEvo and distributed by Pfizer. EPA amended the complaint charging 24 counts
against each company. FIFRA 6(a)(2) requires pesticide registrants to submit to EPA any additional
information (beyond that submitted in the pesticide registration process) that they have regarding
unreasonable adverse effects of their pesticides on human health or the environment. The information
is used by the Agency in the determination of risks associated with pesticides.

1.6.3.15 Rohm and Haas Company: This complaint cited Rohm and Haas for 66 violations under FIFRA
section 12(a)(1)(c), for the distribution or sale of a registered pesticide the composition of which differed
from the composition as described in its registration under FIFRA section 3. EPA registers pesticides
based upon the accurate assessment of components used in the manufacture of the product. Use of an

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
unapproved formula can lead to production of a pesticide for which no assessment of risk has been
determined or result in unknown synergistic effects. Following settlement negotiations, and in
accordance with the FIFRA Enforcement Response Policy, the original penalty of $330,000 was reduced
to $118,800.

In addition to the case above noted in the historical report, there are an additional 14 Rohm & Haas
federal FIFRA enforcement cases across three sites from 1982 to 2015. The four CAA, CERCLA, CWA,
EPCRA& RCRA multi-media judicial cases (03-1990-0621, 04-1992-0014, 04-2006-9020 and 06-1999-
0944) included an inflation adjusted total of more than $672,000 in penalties and $2.5 million in
compliance actions. A total of 37 federal environmental enforcement cases from 1982 to 2017 are
recorded at eleven Rohm & Haas sites across seven Regions with a total inflated cost of over $6.3
million. Further information on a Rohm & Haas subsidiary (Morton) can be found in paragraphs 2.2.11
and 2.3.41 of this report.

1.7 Analysis of Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Compliance History - Modern echo analysis
shows this sector (NAICS 3254) with over 600 enforcement cases, including more than 200 CERCLA and
RCRA cases. For the current total number of cases, this subsector has significantly fewer enforcement
cases (6%) in proportion to the industry census than the total chemical industry (28%). It also has less
CERCLA or RCRA enforcement cases (2%) in proportion to the industry census than the total chemical
industry (9%). Historically, in the 1997 EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project - Profile of the
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry15:

1.7.1	Five Year Review -Tables 21 and 22 provide an overview of the reported compliance and
enforcement data for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing sector over a period of five years (Apr 1992 to
Apr 1997). A few points were found at that time:

The pharmaceutical industry had one of the highest inspection rates as indicated by its relatively low
average time between inspections (8 months) compared to other industries

Compared to other sectors, the pharmaceutical industry had a relatively high enforcement to inspection
rate (0.07) and a relatively high percent of facilities inspected with violations (105 percent).

1.7.2	Comparison to Other Industries - Tables 23 and 24 allow the compliance history of the
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing sector to be compared to the other 16 industries covered by the industry
sector notebooks. Points highlighted here are: over the five-year period, about 80 percent of the
industry's inspections were for CAA and RCRA; over 1996, CAA and RCRA inspections accounted for
almost 90 percent of inspections; this trend is primarily due to an increase in CAA inspections and a
decrease in CWA and FIFRA/TSCA/EPCRA/Other inspections; the percentage of CAA enforcement actions
increased from 49 percent over the past five years to 71 percent in the past year; and the percentage of
CWA enforcement actions decreased from 25 percent to 14 percent.

1.7.3	Review of Major Cases - included the following:16

1,7,3,1 Ciba-Geigy, Inc. On 7 Nov 1994, Region II issued an administrative consent order (02-1993-0211)
to Ciba-Geigy, Inc., assessing a penalty of $130,000 for violations of EPCRA at its Toms River, New Jersey,
facility. The order was based upon an inspection of Ciba-Geigy's facility that resulted in a sixteen-count

15	EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project, Profile of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry, Sep
1997, EPA/310-R-97-005

16	Financial figures provided in this section are represented without adjustment for inflation unless otherwise
noted.

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

14

-------
complaint alleging that Ciba-Geigy failed to report that it used certain of the following: copper
compounds; glycol ethers; chromium compounds; cobalt compounds; C.I. Disperse Yellow 3;
diethanolamine and ethylene glycol during CY1988 through CY1991.

On 18 Oct 1995, Region II issued an administrative order on consent (02-1996-0002) under Sections 104,
107, and 122 of CERCLA to the Ciba-Geigy Corporation. The order requires Ciba-Geigy to perform, under
EPA oversight, a feasibility study for Operable Unit Two to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives
for approximately twenty-one potential source areas of groundwater contamination on the site. The
estimated cost of the work that Ciba-Geigy will perform was $20 million. In addition, Ciba-Geigy will also
pay all of EPA's unreimbursed past response costs, $797,000, plus all of EPA's future response and
oversight costs.

The site is on the National Priorities List (NPL) (NJD001502517)17 and located in Toms River, Ocean
County, New Jersey. Groundwater at the site was contaminated with organic and inorganic compounds
and emanates from surface and subsurface former disposal areas on the site. Pursuant to a settlement
with EPA in 1994, Ciba-Geigy is currently remediating the groundwater contamination. EPA recently
completed a baseline public health risk assessment or source area surface soils, as well as a remedial
investigation to examine the nature and extent of the contamination in the source areas at the site. In
performing the feasibility study for the source areas, Ciba-Geigy has agreed to adopt EPA's risk
assessment and remedial investigation report.

After the 1997 historical sector report was published, an additional CERCLA order (02-2001-0026) was
added to this site in 2002. With a total compliance cost of over $122 million (2017 USD), it is one of the
top CERCLA/RCRA orders in the Chemical Manufacturing industry and is reviewed in further detail in
paragraph 2.2.10.

1.7.3.2 Takeda Chemical Products USA, Inc. (NC). On 31 Aug 1995, Region IV entered a consent
agreement/consent order (CACO) resolving claims against Takeda Chemical Products USA, Inc., for
violations of RCRA at its vitamin manufacturing plant in Wilmington, North Carolina. As part of a solvent
extraction process, Takeda generated a by-product referred to as DAS-fuel, which Takeda intended to
burn for energy recovery. Prior to receiving any permits to burn the DAS-fuel, Takeda generated DAS-
fuel and stored it on-site for a period more than 90 days without a permit or interim status, and later
shipped it off-site. EPA determined that the DAS-fuel (essentially spent toluene mixed with DAS water
and polymers) was F005 hazardous waste. On 24 Sep 1994, Region IV issued a complaint (04-1995-0391)
for illegal storage of hazardous waste, failure to make a hazardous waste determination, and failure to
manifest the DAS-fuel shipped off-site. The CACO requires Takeda to pay a civil penalty of $99,000 but
allows Takeda to bring DAS-fuel back on-site for reprocessing, provided Takeda manages any waste it
produces as a result as a hazardous waste.

After the 1997 historical sector report was published, an additional order (04-1997-0504) was added to
this site in 1998 on the same subject.

1.7.3.3 Abbott Laboratories. A consent agreement and final order (05-1994-0251) was signed in Sep
1995, concerning Abbott Laboratories Corporation's violations of RCRA standards applicable to the
burning of hazardous waste in boilers and industrial furnaces (BIF) at its North Chicago, Illinois facility.
Negotiations with Abbott Laboratories after issuance of the complaint in Feb 1994 resulted in a penalty
of $182,654. Abbott also agreed to conduct a supplemental environmental project (SEP) that will allow

17 Ciba-Geigy Corp Superfund site background accessed at

httpsi//cumulis,epa,gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo,cfm?id=02Q0078

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
Abbott to recover and recycle the methylene chloride produced in its manufacturing processes and will
reduce fugitive methylene chloride emissions. The SEP involves three operations, replacing "wet"
vacuum pump systems with "dry" pumps and high efficiency condensers. The projected cost of the SEP
is $480,000.

1.8 Analysis of Paint and Adhesives Chemical Manufacturing Sector Compliance History -

There is no historical EPA Sector Profile of the Paint and Adhesives Chemical Manufacturing sector.
However, the Paint and Allied Products sector was included in the Oct 1997 EPA Chemical Baseline
report18, ranking the third largest subsector for the number of violations for the period FY1990-FY1994.
Modern ECHO analysis shows this sector (NAICS 3255) with over 800 enforcement cases, including less
than 300 CERCLA and RCRA cases. For the current total number of cases, this subsector has slightly
fewer enforcement cases (24%) in proportion to the industry census than the total chemical industry
(28%). It also has CERCLA or RCRA enforcement cases (9%) in the same proportion to the industry census
as the total chemical industry (9%).

1.9 Analysis of Soap, Cleaning Compound, and Toilet Preparation Chemical Manufacturing
Sector Compliance History-There is no historical EPA Sector Profile of the Soap, Cleaning
Compound, and Toilet Preparation Chemical Manufacturing sector (NAICS 3256). However, this sector
was included in the Oct 1997 EPA Chemical Baseline report, ranking in the lowest two subsectors for the
number of violations for the period FY1990-FY1994. Modern ECHO analysis shows this sector (NAICS
3256) with over 900 enforcement cases, including more than 160 CERCLA and RCRA cases. For the
current total number of cases, this subsector has fewer enforcement cases (13%) in proportion to the
industry census than the total chemical industry (28%). It also has fewer CERCLA or RCRA enforcement
cases (2%) in proportion to the industry census than the total chemical industry (9%).

1.10 Analysis of Other Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing Sector
Compliance History-There is no historical EPA Sector Profile of this sector (NAICS 3259). It includes
the diversity of Printer Ink (325910), Explosives (325920), Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
(325991), Photographic Chemical (325922) and All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and
Preparation (325998) Manufacturing subsectors. However, these sectors were included in the Oct 1997
EPA Chemical Baseline report, ranking the second largest subsector for the number of violations for the
period FY1990-FY1994. Modern ECHO analysis shows this sector (NAICS 3259) with over 1800
enforcement cases, including more than 590 CERCLA and RCRA cases. For the current total number of
cases, this subsector has more enforcement cases (43%) in proportion to the industry census than the
total chemical industry (28%). It also has more CERCLA or RCRA enforcement cases (13%) in proportion
to the industry census than the total chemical industry (9%).

2 Review of Enforcement Response Actions - Enforcement cases can include instances

where removal action, release reduction, or return to compliance include the removal of contaminated
media by the responsible party. Measures to remove contamination may be required in enforcement
orders under the range of environmental statutes and are negotiated to require activities aligned with
return to compliance. In this situation, taking an enforcement action directly reduces risks to human
health and the environment.

During the period FY2012 through FY2017, removal of contaminated media occurred in 32 settled
Chemical Manufacturing Industry enforcement cases were identified as those where removal of

18 EPA OECA "Chemical Industry National Environmental Baseline Report 1990 to 1994" 305 R-96-002, Fig 4-2, of
Oct 1997.

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
contaminated media occurred. They are primarily CERCLA (50%) and RCRA (34%) cases. Two CWA, two
TSCA and one Safe Drinking Water (SDW) case are also included.

The ECHO system data includes the combined value of separate total enforcement financial penalties,
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs are environmentally beneficial projects that are not
otherwise legally required, that have a close nexus to the violations and that a defendant/respondent
voluntarily agrees to undertake as part of the settlement of an enforcement action), and associated
compliance activity in flagged removal enforcement actions. To place enforcement removal orders in
financial perspective, the sum of the 32 cases noted above were valued at over $1.5 billion.19

These federal enforcement mandated removals mitigated risks to human health and the environment,
by removing contaminated soils, groundwater and a variety of substances. In all, over 206M cubic yards
of substances recovered included hydrocarbons, metals, chemical compounds and radiological
substances. Over 3M cubic yards of debris and soil contaminated with arsenic, barium, cadmium, carbon
tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chloroform, chromium, chrysene, iron, lead, manganese, mercury,
methylene chloride, nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin, poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), phosphoric acid, trichloroethylene (TCE), thorium, volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and zinc were removed. Contaminated waters removed and treated were over 202M cubic yards,
reducing exposure to benzo(b)floranthene, cadmium, carbon tetrachloride, chromium, chrysene, iron,
lead, manganese, mercury, methyl methacrylate, PAHs, VOCs, and trichloroacetic acid (TCA). Almost 1M
cubic yards of contaminated sediments were removed. Details on these volumes and materials are
included in the detailed background document "Data for Enforcement, Court Settlements and
Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry."

2.1 Total value of enforcement settlements and judgments - Settlements and judgments in
enforcement cases can result in financial penalties, SEPs and activities required to return to compliance.
The compliance and enforcement actions documented show that where noncompliance is identified,
the preponderance of industry responsible parties are conducting or paying for cleanups, returning to
compliance, and improving public health and the environment. The total enforcement costs as exact
penalty, exact SEP and estimated compliance activity values are included in the case summaries.

Ordered case compliance activity can include the removal of media, installation of new equipment, or
implementation of compliance processes. If the over 7700 enforcement cases from FY1972 through
FY2017 in the Chemical Manufacturing industry are considered, the total penalties are over $791M, the
total SEPs are over $155M and the total compliance activity estimates are over $14.4B.

2.2 Review of Major CERCLA and RCRA cases - Consideration was given to CERCLA and RCRA
regulations as relevant components of the modern regulatory framework that applies to the Chemical
Manufacturing Industry. CERCLA and RCRA regulations require the protection and restoration of facility
land resources. The first CERCLA/RCRA case in this industry was concluded in 1981, showing
enforcement applicability under the existing modern regulations. There have been over 1800 CERCLA
and RCRA civil cases in this industry. For context, there are approximately 13,480 establishments
currently operating in the industry. The top CERCLA and RCRA case values for the Chemical
Manufacturing Industry enforcement cases have total compliance values ranging from over $51 million
to over $1.1 billion. As shown in Figure 2 below, the number of total CERCLA and RCRA enforcement
cases per fiscal year exceeds 20 in 1986 and peaks at over 100 in 1997. One 2010 case included CERLCA

19 All financial figures in this report are expressed in inflation adjusted 2017 US dollars unless otherwise noted.

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
Financial Assurance responsibilities20. Three fraud21 cases from FY2011 to FY2013 and five bankruptcy22
cases from FY07 through FY14 were also reviewed. Further information on the enforcement details on
these CERCLA and RCRA cases can be found in the detailed background document "Data for
Enforcement, Court Settlements and Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry."

Chemical Manufacturing CERCLA & RCRA
Enforcement Cases 1981-2017

140
120
lOO

80	—

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Ol 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17

¦ CERCLA ¦ RCRA

Figure 2 Chemical Manufacturing CERCLA &RCRA Enforcement cases 1981-2017

2.2.1 General Electric Plastics (CERCLA, 2016, $1.1B). One of five CERCLA and TSCA orders from
FY1999 through FY2016 at this site requires comprehensive cleanup of PCB contamination in Pittsfield,
Berkshire County and the Housatonic Valley of Connecticut. Two 2012 and 1999 CERCLA orders required
compliance with information requests and required GE to perform and/or pay for $300-700M in
remediation, cost recovery and natural resource restoration. The remaining two TSCA enforcement
orders from FY2003 through FY2005 require GE to respond to spills from improperly stored PCB
containing equipment, and properly report exports of chemicals to foreign governments. Total
enforcement orders during the period were more than $1.13B.

20	EPA CF Industries, Inc. Settlement, 6 Aug 2010 accessed at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/cf-industries-inc-
settlement

21	EPA Settlement Tronox Incorporated, 11 Feb 2011 and EPA Settlement Kerr-McGee 12 Dec 2013 accessed at
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-summarv-tronox-incorporated-bankruptcv-settlement and
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-summarv-court-decision-tronox-bankruptcv-fraudulent-convevance-
case-results-largest, EPA Anadarko Settlement 10 Nov 2014 accessed at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-
summarv-settlement-agreement-anadarko-fraud-case-results-billions-environmental

22	EPA WR Grace Settlement 20 Dec 2007 accessed at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-summarv-w-r-
grace-co-bankruptcv-settlement, EPA AISLIC Settlement 3 Jan 2008 accessed at

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-summarv-aislic-settlement-agreement-fruit-loom-environmental-
insurance-claims, EPA Chemtura Settlement 7 Dec 2010 accessed at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-
summarv-chemtura-corporation-bankruptcv-settlements, Tronox as noted in paragraph 2.2.4 and footnote 21. and
EPA Eastman Kodak Settlement 13 May 2014 accessed at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-summarv-
bankruptcv-settlements-reached-eastman-kodak-companv-worth-49-million

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

18

-------
2.2.2 IMC Phosphates Co. (aka Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC.) (RCRA, 2016, $638M). One of eight RCRA orders
from the period FY2005 through FY201623, the largest is part of the Mining and Mineral Processing
National Priority initiative. On 9 Dec 2003, an unannounced EPA led compliance evaluation inspection
was conducted at the facility to determine the facility's compliance status RCRA. Following a discussion
of the facility's operations, a walk-through inspection of the facility's sulfuric acid production operations
was performed. While certain waste waters produced from the production of phosphoric acid are
exempt from being a hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)(ii)(P), inspectors determined that
non-Bevill exempt waste waters were being generated. These included waste waters generated from
within the sulfuric acid plant areas as well as discharges from cation and anion water demineralization
units. These units are used to demineralize water for use in the production of the sulfuric acid. These
spills/discharges are initially managed within a concrete ditch which channels the waste waters beneath
an equipment cleaning area and a metal walkway before going through a spillway. This spillway
discharges to an earthen ditch and an unlined earthen surface impoundment called the Stormwater
Retention Pond or All Pond. A pH meter was attached to the walk-way over the concrete ditch. At the
inspection, the spillway was in its closed position, yet a significant amount of waste water was flowing
beneath the spill gate. The facility's Elementary Neutralization Unit (ENU) was in a dilapidated condition.
The ENU is designed to neutralize acidic wastes. The ENU was rusted, in disrepair, and thus not
functional and out of service. If the ENU was in service, it would have treated low pH waste water prior
to the spillway. The ditch prior to the spillway has a sump that would have pumped low pH waste water
to the ENU for treatment. After treatment, the ENU would discharge non-hazardous waste water into
the earthen ditch and the unlined Stormwater Retention Pond. Instead of being captured and pumped
to the ENU, the waste water went to the spillway. The waste water should have backed up at the
spillway because the sump to the ENU was not in service. Instead, the untreated hazardous waste water
flowed under the spillway into the earthen ditch and the unlined Stormwater Retention Pond. The
inspectors reviewed the hourly pH meter records of the demineralization operator's log to determine
how many days waste water with a pH of two or less was discharged from the spillway. The records
showed that waste water with a pH of two or less was discharged from the spillway. IMC New Wales
violated 40 CFR 268.7 (FAC Chapter 62-730-183) and 40 CFR 268.9 (FAC Chapter 62-730-183) by
disposing of a liquid hazardous waste having a pH of less than or equal to two (2.0) in an earthen ditch
and surface impoundment, without determining the applicable treatment standard; by disposing before
the treatment standards were met; and, by failing to comply with other notice, certification, and waste
analysis requirements in these sections. IMC New Wales has also violated Section 3005 of RCRA by
disposing and treating a D002 characteristic hazardous waste in an earthen ditch and surface
impoundment. The remaining three enforcement orders from FY2003 through FY2013 are TSCA, CAA24
and CWA, with values totaling over $622K. Additional information on IMC can be found in paragraph
1.6.3.5 of this report.

2.2.3 Exxon (aka Agrifos Fertilizer, Rentech Nitrogen, Pasadena Chemical) (RCRA, 2015, $393M)
One of seven CERCLA and RCRA orders from FY2001 through FY20112526 at this site is a RCRA order

23 EPA Mosaic 1 Oct 2015 Settlement accessed at https://www,epa,gov/enforcement/mosaic-fertilizer-llc-
settlement

24 EPA Mosiac Settlement 5 Oct 2009 accessed at https://www,epa,gov/enforcement/mosaic-fertilizer-llc-

i n f o rro a t i o n -a i r-a ct- sett 1 e m e n t

25 EPA Agrifos Settlement 7 Dec 2011 accessed at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/agrifosrfertilizer-companv-

settlement

26 EPA Agrifos Settlement 2 Jan 2013 accessed at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-summary-epa-
reimbursed-oversight-costs-agrifos-phosphoric-acid-release-site

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
associated with discharge of a total of approximately 54 million gallons of excess rain, process
wastewater and partially treated process wastewater from 16 Aug to 23 Sep 200727. Contaminants
discharged over permitted limits included flouride (261,360 lbs), phosphorous (556,560 lbs), and
ammonia (249,120 lbs). In a 2011 RCRA order, violations cited 1. Disposal of hazardous waste without a
RCRA permit or Interim Status; 2. Failure to meet Land Disposal Restrictions Standards; 3. Failure to
make a hazardous waste determination; 4. Processing (treating) hazardous waste without a RCRA permit
or Interim Status; 5. Improper storage of used oil; 6. Improper routing of effluent form scrubber through
cooling tower; and 7. Failure to certify compliance with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. 63.603(e). The
2001 CERCLA order cited the facility for failing to provide notice to the National Response Center
immediately after releasing sulfuric acid. In the CWA 1984 and 2002 cases, it was found that the facility
had violated the permit effluent limits for 24 months. Despite the enforcement efforts, the site
continued to discharge bypass effluent in violation of the permit requirements and the order. In the
2010 EPCRA multi-media case (part of the National Phosphate Mineral Initiative) an investigation was
initiated in the spring of 2008 regarding compliance of EPCRA, CERCLA, and CAA. During the
investigation it was discovered that the site had failed to file reports to TRI, for the coincidental
manufacture of numerous toxic metal compounds from 2004 through 2007. Total enforcement value of
seven CAA(2), CWA(3), EPCRA and TSCA cases at this site over the period FY1981 through FY2010 are
more than $1.3M.

2.2.4 Tronox (aka Kerr-McGee, Anadarko) (CERCLA, 2014, $280M) This multisite CERCLA bankruptcy
and fraud case is one of four CERCLA enforcement orders from FY2000 through FY2010. Tronox is a
multinational chemical company that makes and sells titanium dioxide and electrolytic and specialty
chemicals. Tronox manufactures titanium dioxide pigment, which is used in a wide variety of
applications, including coatings, plastics, paper, and everyday consumer products. The company was
created through a spin-off from Kerr-McGee Corporation. On 12 May 2009, Tronox filed a complaint in
the bankruptcy proceedings against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Kerr-McGee, and certain related
entities to avoid and recover certain allegedly fraudulent transfers associated with Kerr-McGee's spin-
off of Tronox and Anadarko's purchase of Kerr-McGee for $18 billion a few months after the spin-off
(the "Anadarko Litigation"). Based on similar allegations, the U.S. intervened in the case to recover
response costs for environmental cleanups at numerous sites around the country. Entities fraudulently
transferred valuable assets out of Tronox and left Tronox with insufficient funds to pay the billions of
dollars of liabilities that Tronox owed to involuntary creditors. Specifically, the 2011 case settlement
provided $270 million and 88% of Tronox's interest in a fraudulent conveyance case to the governments
and bankruptcy-created trusts for cleanup costs incurred or to be incurred at these sites. On 10 Nov
201428 the historic settlement agreement was announced by EPA and the Department of Justice (DOJ)
resolving fraudulent conveyance claims against Kerr-McGee Corporation and related subsidiaries of
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. The settlement agreement went into effect on 21 Jan 2015. Under the
2014 settlement, Anadarko paid $5.15 billion plus interest to a litigation trust so that the settlement
proceeds can be distributed to the trust's environmental and tort beneficiaries. Specifically, the trust's
environmental and tort beneficiaries will receive approximately $4,475 billion and $605 million,
respectively, which is in addition to the beneficiaries' $270-plus million recoveries under the Feb 2011
Tronox bankruptcy settlement and made this the largest recovery for the cleanup of environmental
contamination in history at the time. Of the environmental recovery in this settlement, nearly $2 billion

27 EPA Agrifos Settlement 2 Jan 2013 accessed at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-summary-epa-
reimbursed-oversight-costs-agrifos-phosphoric-acjd-rejease-sjte

28 EPA Anadarko Settlement 10 Nov 2014 accessed at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-summary-
settlement-agreement-anadarko-fraud-case-results-billions-environmental

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
will pay for cleanup work associated with numerous EPA-lead sites, resulting in the largest bankruptcy-
related award that EPA had ever received for environmental claims and liabilities. With more than 2,700
sites in 47 states at issue in the case, the settlement addresses Kerr-McGee's enormous legacy
environmental and tort liabilities, including its liability at federal Superfund sites in Manville, N.J.,
Jacksonville, Fla., Columbus, Miss., Navassa, N.C., West Chicago, III., Milwaukee, Wise., and Soda Springs,
Idaho. The settlement also covers approximately 50 former uranium mines in and near the Navajo
Nation territory in the southwestern United States. The remaining $4.7M 2011 CAA case cited violations
where emissions to the air and sediments of the Savannah River were found. The site was added to the
Superfund NPL list as FLD03904910129.

2.2.5	PCS Phosphates aka White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Occidental Chemical (RCRA, 2010,
$169M). After 84 million gallons of contaminated water was released onsite in a spill at PCS in White
Springs, this order provides for the management of the site phosphogypsum stack systems to mitigate
long term risk to human health and the environment in the event of the formation and/or collapse of
additional sinkholes. The remaining two enforcement orders are CAA30 and CWA. Additional information
on PCS corporation criminal enforcement can be found in this report in paragraph 2.3.39 of this report.
Additional historical case information on Occidental can be found in paragraph 1.3.3.3.

2.2.6	Pharmacia & Upjohn (aka El Dorado Chemical, LSB Industries) (RCRA, 2011, $168M) This order31
implements the chosen remedy at the 41 Stiles Lane, North Haven site. The remedy includes, among
other things, groundwater extraction and treatment, in-situ thermal remediation of DNAPL, sediment
removal, institutional controls, and financial assurance. The other 1997 CERCLA case documents a
violation of the notification requirements by failing to inform the National Response Center of a
Nitrogen Dioxide release. The remaining five enforcement orders from FY1979 through FY2012 are CAA
(3), and CWA (2), documenting an agreement to reduce harmful emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx)
emissions by more than 800 tons per year, failure to meet effluent limits and an unpermitted storm
water discharge.

2.2.7	FMC Corporation aka Eastern Michaud Flats, Astaris Idaho (CERCLA, 1999, $148M) The FMC
facility was an elemental phosphorus and fertilizer manufacturing facility. While it was in operation,
elemental phosphorus containing wastes were disposed of in ponds, some of which were RCRA
regulated and are being addressed under a 1999 RCRA Consent Decree, which stated that "the most
egregious RCRA violations involve illegal surface impoundments that failed to obtain interim status and
failed to meet minimum technology requirements. FMC has a history of noncompliance." Others are
covered by a 2013 CERCLA order32. The seven CERCLA and RCRA orders issued at this site from FY1996
through FY2013 total more than $220M. Other portions of the facility are contaminated with elemental
phosphorus and other hazardous substances in soil from spills and other releases of phosphine gas. In
addition, slag from the production of elemental phosphorus emits elevated levels of gamma radiation.
Finally, groundwater is also contaminated primarily with phosphorus compounds and arsenic and is a

29	EPA Kerr-McGee Superfund accessed at

https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm ?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=0400614#bkground

30	EPA White Springs Settlement 6 Nov 2016 accessed at httpsi//www.epa.eov/enforcement/pcs-nitrogen-
fertilizer-clean-air-act-settlement

31	EPA Pharmacia & Upjohn agreement 8 Apr 2011 accessed at https://www.epa.goy/enforcement/case-summarv-
corrective-action-cleanup-work-begins-former-pharmacia-and-upiohn-facilitv

32	EPA FMC Settlement 10 Jun 2013 accessed at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-summarv-epa-orders-
fmc-perform-57-million-cleanup-action-former-phosphorus

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

21

-------
source of contamination to the Portneuf River. The facility ceased operating in 2003 and the site was
added to the Superfund NPL list as IDD98466661033. The remaining seven enforcement orders from
FY1978 through FY2006 are CAA(7) and EPCRA, totaling over $430K.

2.2.9 Aerojet Corporation and Cordova Chemical (CERCLA, 2002, $147M) This order requires the
facility to implement the remedy for Operable Unit 3, also known as the Western Groundwater
Operable Unit, at the Aerojet Superfund Site in Sacramento, California. The order specifies continued
need to contain the plume of contaminants moving through the groundwater and efforts to remediate
the aquifer. The remedy also requires Respondents to have in place short-term and long-term water
replacement contingency plans in the event of a need to replace water supplies lost due to Aerojet's
contamination. Since the early 1950s, the Aerojet Sacramento site has been devoted to the
development of rocket propulsion systems to support national defense, space exploration, and satellite
deployment activities. Industrial activities at the Aerojet Site have included solid rocket motor
manufacturing and testing, liquid rocket engine manufacturing and testing, and chemical manufacturing.
Chemicals used in the manufacturing and testing areas on the Aerojet Site have included chlorinated
solvents, propellants, metals, oxidizers, and a variety of chemicals produced in the chemical operations
areas. Aerojet operating facilities on the western side of Aerojet included Chemical Plants 1 and 2,
Manufacturing lines 1, 3, 4, and 5. The Cordova Chemical Company operated chemical manufacturing
facilities on the Aerojet complex from 1974 to 1979. Some wastes were disposed of on-property in
surface impoundments, landfills, deep injection wells, leachate fields, and open burn areas. Disposed
substances at the site have included rocket propellants, herbicides, arsenic, all types of solvents, and
other organic and inorganic substances contaminating soil, surface water and groundwater both on and
off the site boundaries. TCE had migrated into public drinking water supplies. The additional four
CERCLA orders from FY1989 through FY201134 require action on soil and groundwater for Operable Unit
5, and the completion of a removal action to abate an imminent and substantial endangerment to the
public health, welfare, or the environment that may be present by the actual or threatened release of
hazardous substances at or from the Site. The Aerojet site was added to the Superfund NPL list as
CAD98035883235.

2.2.10 Ciba-Geigy (CERCLA, 2002, $122M) This order requires the performance of remedial design and
action at the Ciba-Geigy Superfund site and collection of past and future response costs. Ciba-Geigy will
finance and perform the work as approved by the EPA. The work will include pre-design activities,
chemical and geotechnical testing, collection of air monitoring data, design activities, drum handling,
transportation and disposal, soil excavation, ex-situ bioremediation of soils, groundwater extraction and
recharge system optimization, lime stabilization area remediation, deed restrictions, perched water
management in-situ groundwater remediation community relations and emergency management. There
are a total of 6 enforcement actions at this site from 1989 through 1995, four CERCLA, one EPCRA and
one TSCA case, for a total compliance requirement of over $152.7 million. Additional information on the
historical enforcement actions can also be found in paragraph 1.7.3.1 of this report.

33 EPA Eastern Michaud Flats Superfund accessed at

https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=1001308&msspp=med

34 EPA Aerojet Settlement 20 Sep 2011 accessed at http$i//www,epa,gov/enforceroent/ca$e~$uroroary~epa~i$$ue$~
order-aeroiet-general-corporatioii-syperfynd-site

35 EPA Aerojet Superfund Site accessed at

https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm ?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=0901718#bkground

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
2.2.11 Morton International (Rohm & Haas) (RCRA, 2005, $76M) This order is one of seven
concurrent judicial enforcement orders issued to conclude a national RCRA and multimedia case
covering six EPA Regions and 21 facilities. In addition to the three facilities in Region IV covered by the
$76 million judgement, the remaining 18 facilities also incurred over $950 thousand in enforcement
judgments. The Region IV case notes indicate this was a multi-media referral, where the RCRA violations
included operating disposal treatment and storage units without a permit, LDR violations, disposing of
liquids in the landfill, accepting off-site hazardous waste, and numerous permit violations. Additional
multimedia violations included unpermitted underground injection, lack of water system discharge
maintenance or records, 600 DMR overages, and an unpermitted boiler (not maintained nor
operationally logged). RCRA site investigation and landfill closure was ordered, as well as other media
requirements. The EPCRA review revealed numerous section 313 violations as well as more than 25
instances of failure to report releases under CERCLA 103. On October 26, 2000, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) entered into a settlement with Morton International Inc. that resolved
charges that the chemical company violated several environmental laws at its Moss Point, Miss., facility
under a civil settlement and criminal plea agreement. Morton, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rohm and
Haas Company based in Philadelphia, agreed to pay a $20 million penalty to be divided equally between
the United States and Mississippi under the civil settlement. This penalty marked the largest-ever civil
fine for environmental violations at a single facility at the time.36 Morton was the subject nationally of
an additional six RCRA cases from 1986 through 2011, as well as one CAA and one FIFRA case, for a total
compliance requirement of over $624 thousand. Further information on a criminal case at Morton can
also be found in paragraph 2.3.41 of this report. Further information on historical enforcement at Rohm
and Haas can be found in paragraph 1.6.3.15 of this report.

2.3 Review of Relevant Criminal cases - EPA's criminal enforcement program focuses on criminal
conduct that threatens people's health and the environment. Criminal Investigation Division (CID) was
established in 1982 and granted full law enforcement authority by Congress in 1988. They enforce the
nations laws by investigating cases, collecting evidence, conducting forensic analyses and providing legal
guidance to assist with prosecutions. Details on 73 completed cases are presented below, and involve
negligence, accidents, spills, evacuations, death, bankruptcy, abandonment, importation and releases to
soil, water and air of myriad hazardous substances, as well as tampering with products, labels, reports
and emissions control equipment. Additional criminal cases in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry may
also exist. Penalties levied include fines37, incarceration, probation, restitution, community support
funds, and required corrective actions. Concluded criminal prosecutions in federal environmental, fraud,
and international trade statutes in the Chemical Manufacturing industry include the following:

2.3.1 Concord. On 29 Jan 2019, an individual was sentenced in the District of New Jersey to 6 months
home confinement and 5 years' probation.38 He was ordered to pay approximately $450,000 in
restitution. During its operation, his firm (Concord) manufactured, repackaged and distributed a wide
variety of chemical products, including cresylic acid, soaps, waxes, pipe lubricants and emulsions. Some

36 EPA Morton International Multimedia Settlement accessed at https://www,epa,gov/enforcement/morton-
international-inc-multimedia-settlement and Press Release accessed at

https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom archive/newsrelea$e$/a3Sf33a?4f0aba9a3S2SG98S00S2Sa?3.htnil

37 Financial figures provided in this section are represented without adjustment for inflation unless otherwise
noted.

38EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2019 accessed at

https://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=3119

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
of Concord's products and the raw materials used to make them were hazardous. The individual was
Concord's president or CEO from at least 2004 through Aug 2011. As president and CEO, his
responsibilities included making decisions about the disposal of waste at the Camden facility. From at
least 2005 through Aug 2010, he knew that there were containers that stored hazardous waste at the
Camden facility and that Concord did not have a permit to store such waste. In Aug 2010, EPA
conducted a site visit of the Camden facility and discovered that the facility was devoid of employees,
abandoned in a deteriorated condition and filled with drums containing corrosive and ignitable
hazardous waste. From Oct 2010 through Mar 2011, the EPA removed the hazardous substances from
the facility.39

2.3.2 Alden Leeds. On 2 Mar 2017, Alden Leeds, Inc., a New Jersey swimming pool and spa chemicals
company, and its president were sentenced in U.S. District Court for convictions related to customs and
import violations. He was sentenced to serve eight months in prison and four months of home
confinement for his role in an elaborate rebate scheme which involved false statements to U.S.

Customs, followed by inflated payments for imported chemicals and then rebates paid back to Alden
Leeds, Inc. The company was also sentenced, receiving three years of probation and ordered to pay
restitution to Customs in the amount of $2.25 million. Alden Leeds, Inc. also agreed to donate 2,765
gallons of hospital grade disinfectant to the Ministry of Public Health and Population of Haiti40.

2.3.3 SCP Management. On 19 Jan 2017, SCP Management, LLC, was ordered to pay a $200,000 fine
for failing to notify or report to EPA as required under the CAA. SCP Management. In addition, SCP
Management will make a Community Service Payment of $200,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, a nonprofit organization that will use the funds for projects and initiatives benefitting air
quality in Connecticut. Syntac Coated Products, LLC ("Old Syntac") operated a manufacturing facility in
New Hartford from 2007 until 19 Apr 2013, when it sold all of its assets, including its trade name to
Syntac Coated Products, LLC ("New Syntac"). Since 19 Apr 2013 Old Syntac has continued to exist under
the name of SCP Management, LLC. Old Syntac designed and manufactured specialty adhesive films for
various applications used in the automotive, electronics and medical industries. In its manufacturing
process, the company used three adhesive coating lines. When operating, those coating lines emitted
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), some of which were also hazardous air pollutants that are suspected
to cause cancer or other serious health effects. EPA Special Agent in Charge Amon said, "the company
knowingly failed to report information that showed its emission control equipment was not operating
properly, avoided regulatory oversight under the CAA and garnered an unfair economic benefit over its
competitors."41.

2.3.4 Sheffield Pharmaceuticals. On 13 Dec 2016, a deferred prosecution agreement was completed
with Sheffield Pharmaceuticals. The Sheffield factory in New London CO manufactures a wide range of
over-the-counter pharmaceutical creams, ointments and toothpastes. From approximately 1986 to Jul
2011, Sheffield discharged industrial wastewater from its New London manufacturing operations to the
New London POTW without a permit and in violation of Connecticut's approved pretreatment program.
Although the chief executive officer's (CEO) own employees urged him to make the financial investment
to bring the company into compliance, he chose not to do so. He continued this illegal course even when

39 US DOJ 6 Jun 2018 Press Release accessed at httpsi//www.justice.gov/usao-ni/pr/soyth-carolina-nian-admits-
illegallv-storing-hazardous-vyaste-camden-neyy-jersey-chemical
40EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2017 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&pro$ecution summary id=2978
41 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2017 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub,epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary ld=3020

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
four environmental consulting firms, which the company had hired, advised him that the discharge of
industrial wastewater to the public sewage treatment system, without a pretreatment system and
permit, is illegal. U.S. Attorney Daly said "With today's disposition and the former chief executive's
felony conviction in 2014, we are confident that such short-sighted decisions are a thing of the past at
Sheffield. Simply put, sound environmental stewardship is good business for all companies and their
employees. Sheffield has agreed to pay $1,000,000, which includes a $150,000 fine and $850,000 to
fund beneficial environmental projects in coastal Connecticut"42. The former CEO of Faria Limited, LLC,
doing business as Sheffield Pharmaceuticals, was sentenced in Hartford federal court on 13 Feb 2015 for
violating the CWA. He was ordered to serve three years of probation, perform 300 hours of community
service and pay a $30,000 fine43.

2.3.5 KTX Limited and KTX Properties. On 12 Oct 2016, four Texas companies agreed to pay a total of
$3.5 million dollars for criminal violations of the CAA at two oil and chemical processing facilities in
Texas. KTX Limited and KTX Properties Inc., with negligently released hazardous air pollutants after a
tank explosion at their chemical and petroleum processing facility located in Port Arthur, Texas on 31
Mar 2011. The explosion killed one worker at the plant and severely injured two others. Crosby LP and
Ramsey Properties LP failed to monitor leaks of ground-level ozone (smog) producing air pollutants at
their chemical processing facility in Crosby, Texas, from 2008 until 2012, and falsified records and
reports for permit requirements to EPA. The plea agreement requires the companies to pay a total of
$3.3 million in criminal fines. In addition, the companies will make a $200,000 community service
payment to the Southern Environmental Enforcement Network (SEEN). The payment will be used by
SEEN for hazardous air release prevention and emergency response training to state and local
environmental and law enforcement agencies44.

2.3.6 Chem Solv. On 16 Sep 2016, a Roanoke-based chemical blending and distributing company was
sentenced criminally for illegal transportation and storage of hazardous waste. The enforcement is
partially based on a spill of several hundred gallons of ferric chloride on the Chem-Solv facility in
Roanoke in Jun 2012. Although most of the waste was cleaned up using vacuum trucks, some of the
ferric chloride flowed from the Chem-Solv facility onto an adjoining property both before, and during,
the cleanup. Chem-Solv, formerly known as Chemicals and Solvents Inc., entered into a plea agreement
with the United States in Dec 2015 in which it agreed to pay a $lmillion criminal fine for these
violations, as well as an additional $250,000 to fund environmental community service projects. Chem-
Solv has agreed to serve five years' probation, during which time it must develop and implement an
environmental compliance plan and be subjected to yearly independent environmental audits. In
conjunction with the criminal settlement, EPA reached a civil settlement with Chem-Solv and the
company paid a $250,000 penalty to settle alleged violations of improper hazardous waste storage at
Chem-Solv's Roanoke facility45.

2.3.7 CirTech. On 26 Jul 2012, Florida CirTech, Inc. (FCT), a chemical blender for the electronic circuit
board industry with a chemical production plant and warehouse in Greeley, Colo., was sentenced 25 Apr

42 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2017 accessed at

httpsi//cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2949

43 US DOJ Press Release accessed at httpi//www.iustice.gov/usao/ct/Press2015/20150213.html and EPA Summary
of Criminal Prosecutions from 2015 accessed at

httpsi//cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2655
44EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2017 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2926
45 US DOJ Press Release accessed at httpsi//www.justice.gov/usao-wdva/pr/roanoke-chemical-distributor-
sentenced-illegallv-storing-and-transporting-hazardous

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
2016 to pay $80,000 for violating the CWA. In a signed plea agreement, FCT pleaded guilty to four
misdemeanor violations of the CWA arising from its illegal discharge of waste into the public sanitary
sewer system in violation of the company's discharge permit. FCT was sentenced to establish an
environmental compliance plan for FCT's Greeley facility and to paying fines of $30,000 to the United
States and $30,000 to the Greeley Water Pollution Control Facility. FCT was also required to make a
$20,000 community service payment to the Poudre River Trail Corridor. An individual pleaded guilty to
two misdemeanor violations of the CWA, also arising from illegal discharge of waste into the public
sanitary sewer system. He is a minority owner of FCT and was the person responsible for FCT's discharge
permit compliance with Greeley's wastewater pretreatment program. FCT operated in Greeley since
1996.

The company manufactures chemical products by blending raw materials in large tanks. Those raw
materials include chemicals such as copper, nickel, and cyanide. Once blended, the completed product is
poured off into containers that are stored or shipped to the customer. The empty blending tank is
rinsed, and pursuant to FCT's permit, rinse water is supposed to be collected and treated before
discharge to the municipal sewer system. Between Feb 2000 and 17 Sep 17 2013, Florida CirTech, Inc.
and the individual routinely and negligently violated FCT's discharge permit by discharging into its
treatment system and the sewer batch chemicals that failed quality control tests and could not be fixed,
defective products returned from customers, and expired chemicals or products.46

2.3.8 Freedom Industries. On 17 Feb 2016 the former president of Freedom Industries was sentenced
to 30 days in federal prison, to be followed by a six-month term of supervised release, and a $20,000
fine for environmental crimes connected to the 2014 Elk River chemical spill. He previously pleaded
guilty in Aug 2015 to negligently discharging a pollutant, unlawfully discharging refuse matter, and
negligently violating an environmental permit by failing to have a pollution prevention plan. He is one of
six former officials of Freedom Industries, in addition to Freedom Industries corporation, to be
prosecuted for federal crimes associated with the chemical spill. On 9 Jan 2014, a major chemical leak
was discovered in Charleston at the above-ground storage tank area owned and operated by Freedom
Industries (Freedom) on the Elk River. Freedom used these storage tanks to keep and process chemicals,
and the leak consisted primarily of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (MCHM). A significant amount of
MCHM leaked into the Elk River, flowed into a water treatment plant, and contaminated the water
supply of Charleston and the surrounding areas for several days. Freedom did not have a permit
required by law that would have allowed the company to discharge MCHM into the Elk River. He
admitted that he was aware of the permit and that he should have known that Freedom was required to
have a storm water plan. He further admitted that he had the responsibility and authority to ensure that
Freedom complied with the permit by having a storm water and groundwater plan in place. During his
tenure as a responsible corporate officer, Freedom never developed or implemented a storm water or
groundwater plan. His negligence in failing to ensure that Freedom developed and implemented a storm
water and groundwater plan was a proximate and contributing cause of the chemical spill47.

2.3.9 JACAM Manufacturing. On 22 Dec 2015, a chemical manufacturing company in Rice County KS
pleaded guilty to unlawfully disposing of hazardous waste into a salt water disposal well and paid a $1
million fine. JACAM Manufacturing, LLC, of Sterling, Kan., pleaded guilty to one count of violating the

46 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2016 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2875

47 US DOJ Press Release accessed at https://www.iustice.gov/usao-sdwv/pr/former-freedom-president-sentenced-

prison-role-chemical-spill and EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2016 accessed at
https://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2806

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
federal Safe Water Drinking Act and one count of violating the Resource Conservation Recovery Act. In
the plea, the company admitted to disposing of hazardous wastes in an injection well permitted only for
the disposal of salt water. JACAM admitted it was unlawfully disposing of acetone, benzene and other
hazardous chemicals into a salt water disposal well48.

2.3.10	Mississippi Phosphates. On 19 Aug 2015, Mississippi Phosphates Corp. (MPC), a Mississippi
corporation which owned and operated a fertilizer manufacturing facility located on Bayou Casotte in
Pascagoula, Mississippi, pleaded guilty to a felony charging the company with a criminal violation of the
CWA. As part of the guilty plea, MPC admitted discharging more than 38 million gallons of acidic
wastewater in Aug 2013. The discharge contained pollutants in amounts greatly exceeding MPC's permit
limits, resulting in the death of more than 47,000 fish and the closing of Bayou Casotte. MPC also
admitted that, in Feb 2014 they discharged oily wastewater from an open gate on a storm water culvert
into Bayou Casotte, creating an oily sheen that extended approximately one mile down the bayou from
MPC. Because MPC is in bankruptcy and is obligated to assist in funding the estimated $120 million
cleanup of its site, the court accepted the parties' agreement for MPC to transfer 320 acres of property
near to its Pascagoula plant to become a part of the Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve,
which is managed by the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources as part of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration's National Estuarine Research Reserve System.

Since Jan 2000, MPC was cited by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) in
numerous notices for hundreds of violations of its CWA permit for discharging wastewater exceeding its
pollutant limits. MPC was also cited for its failure to maintain adequate wastewater storage capacity, its
discharge of untreated wastewater from its sulfuric acid plant directly through MPC's main outfall, its
combined release of untreated and undertreated stormwater and process wastewater from other
outfalls, and its failure to implement required remedial measures to prevent the pollutant discharges
and environmental harm it has caused for decades. An Apr 2005 discharge resulted in the release of
more than 17 million gallons of highly acidic wastewater into waterways adjacent to its facility, including
Bayou Casotte, Tillman Creek and Bangs Lake of the Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.
These waters are some of the most productive nurseries for aquatic species on the Gulf Coast. MPC's
massive discharge of pollutants resulted in the death of thousands of fish and other forms of marine life
as well as the destruction of marsh grass, trees and shrubs. In the years following this environmental
catastrophe, despite MDEQ's orders and MPC's remedial proposals, MPC never implemented the
measures necessary to prevent the release of pollutants from its facility and the discharge of an even
larger torrent of wastewater destroying even more marine life49.

2.3.11	Helena Chemical Company. On 4 May 2015, Helena Chemical Company was sentenced after
pleading guilty to a FIFRA violation for unlawfully disposing of a restricted pesticide (7 U.S.C. § 136j
(a)(2)(G)). Helena Chemical was sentenced to pay a $150,000 fine and make a $75,000 community
service payment to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality to fund environmental projects,
initiatives, emergency responses, and/or education dedicated to the preservation and restoration of the
environment and waters of the U.S. The company also will complete a four-year term of unsupervised
probation. On 22 May 2013 Helena Chemical employees disposed of chemicals, including Atrazine and

48 US DOJ Press Release accessed at https://wvyvy.iustice.gov/usao-ks/pr/chemical-manufacturer-rice-countv-
pleads-guiltv-violating-safe-water-act and EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2016 accessed at

https://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary jd=2866
49US DOJ Press Release accessed at https://www.iustice.gov/opa/pr/mississippi-phosphates-corp-pleads-guilty-
clean-water-act-violation-and-agrees-transfer-320 and EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2015 accessed

at https://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2748

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

27

-------
SMetolachor, two of the main active ingredients in Medal II AT, a restricted-use pesticide. The company
discharged unused pesticide onto the ground, allowing it to run onto an adjacent property, and into the
Little Cabin Creek50.

2.3.12 Mann Chemical. On 5 May 2015, Mann Chemical LLC was sentenced to 36 months of probation
and ordered to pay a $200,000 Federal fine. Mann pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Providence to
violating the CAA by failing to develop and implement a Risk Management Plan to minimize the chance
of release of hydrofluoric acid from its Warwick facility, and to protect workers, the community, and
emergency and first responders in the event of a chemical release or fire. An EPA inspection in Jun 2009
determined that Mann Chemical failed to develop and implement a Risk Management Plan while storing
92 drums of hydrofluoric acid in a concentration of 70%. The inventory indicated that each drum
weighed 500 pounds, for a total of 46,000 pounds of hydrofluoric acid. Mann Chemical was also
required to issue a public apology51.

2.3.13 New Nautical Coatings. On 5 Dec 2014, New Nautical Coatings, Inc., d/b/a "Sea Hawk Paints,"
Sea Hawk Refinish Line, Inc., d/b/a "Refinish Line Auto Supplies," of Clearwater, Florida, and four
individuals, were sentenced in Miami, Florida. For willfully conspiring to obstruct EPA, New Nautical
Coatings, Inc. (New Nautical) was sentenced to pay a fine of $1,235,315, that constituted a
disgorgement of the unlawful gains the company derived from the offense. New Nautical was also
sentenced to a three-year period of probation, which requires the company to complete an
Environmental Compliance Program during that period. One individual who willfully conspired to
obstruct EPA was sentenced to five months in prison and six months of home confinement. A second
individual who willfully conspired to knowingly distribute and sell an unregistered pesticide, was
sentenced to 3 months in prison. Sea Hawk Refinish Line, Inc. was sentenced to probation for one year.
The third and fourth individuals were each sentenced to a one-year period of probation for knowingly
distributing and selling an unregistered pesticide.

New Nautical manufactured an antifouling coating called Biocop, which contained tributyltin
methacrylate (TBT), a chemical compound which was found to have significant harmful effects on
marine life. TBT based paints such as Biocop are pesticides subject to registration with the EPA. On 30
Mar 2005 the EPA cancelled New Nautical's registration for Biocop, making it unlawful for the company
to manufacture Biocop for sale in the United States after 1 Dec 2005, or sell Biocop in the United States
after 31 Dec 2005. Despite the cancellation order, New Nautical continued to produce Biocop for sale in
the United States from 2006 through 2009. To conceal this post-cancellation production of Biocop, New
Nautical employees were directed to change the batch numbers on cans of Biocop, which previously
referenced the date of production, to a series of numbers ending in "9999." During this period, New
Nautical used its sales team and staff, including the four individuals, to sell and distribute unregistered
Biocop in the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere in the United States, but invoiced those sales
through its sister company, Refinish Line. On 22 May 2009, after 60 gallons of Biocop was sold to a
customer in Broward County, an individual directed the customer to tell EPA investigators that the
customer did not have Biocop, and that New Nautical did not sell Biocop. Roughly six months later, in

50 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2015 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub,epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2700
51EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2015 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2691

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
Nov 2009, EPA and Florida Fish and Wildlife agents and investigators executed a search warrant on New
Nautical's premises and seized evidence which led to the indictment and conviction of the defendants52.

2.3.14 Harcros Chemical. On 25 Sep 2014, Harcros Chemical in Kansas City, Kan., was sentenced to pay
a $1.5 million fine for violating a federal law regulating the storage of hazardous waste. The company
served two years on federal probation. Harcros manufactures industrial chemicals including surfactants,
emulsifiers, antifoaming agents and custom organics. In addition to its manufacturing, the company
operated eight laboratories for the development and testing of new chemical products. The company
admitted that from at least 5 May 2006 through 30 Jan 2009, the company stored waste chemicals
including phosgene solution, ethylenediamine, 1,4-dioxane, butyl acrylate, acrylic acid and methacrylate
at the facility. A previous RCRA civil settlement53 addressed related groundwater contamination. The
company did not have a permit to store hazardous waste for more than 90 days as required by the
RCRA54.

2.3.15 Roberts Chemical. On 18 Aug 2014, Roberts Chemical Company, Inc. pleaded guilty in federal
court in Providence to violating the CAA by failing to develop and implement a Risk Management Plan to
minimize the chance of release of ethyl ether from its former Pawtucket, R.I., facility, and to protect
workers, the community and emergency and first responders in the event of a release or fire involving
ethyl ether. Roberts Chemical Company, Inc., now located in Attleboro, Mass., is in the business of
blending, storing, distributing and repackaging chemicals, some of which are designated as extremely
hazardous. Ethyl ether is a volatile, extremely flammable liquid chemical. EPA regulations require
facilities storing more than 10,000 lbs. of ethyl ether to develop and implement a Risk Management
Plan. An investigation by EPA determined that in Nov and Dec 2008, Roberts Chemical Company, Inc.
failed to develop and implement a Risk Management Plan while storing 27,467 lbs. of ethyl ether. On 6
Oct 2014, Roberts Chemical Company, Inc was sentenced to 60 months of probation and ordered to pay
a $200,000 fine55.

2.3.16 Port Arthur Chemical. On 28 Oct 2013, the former president of Port Arthur Chemical and
Environmental Services LLC (PACES) has been sentenced for occupational safety crimes which resulted in
the death of an employee. The individual pleaded guilty on 9 May 2013 to violating the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and making a false statement and was sentenced to serve 12 months in
federal prison. He was also ordered to pay fines in the amount of $5,000. He admitted to not properly
protecting PACES employees from exposure to hydrogen sulfide, a poisonous gas resulting in the death
of truck driver Joey Sutter on Dec. 18, 2008. In addition, he admitted to directing employees to falsify
transportation documents to conceal that the wastewater was coming from PACES after a disposal
facility put a moratorium on all shipments from PACES after it received loads containing hydrogen
sulfide. PACES was in operation from Nov 2008 to Nov 2010 and was in the business of producing and

52US DOJ Press Release accessed at httpi//www,iustice.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/2014/141205-02.html and EPA
Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2015 accessed at

httpsi//cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2647
53 EPA Harcros Settlement accessed at httpsi//www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-summary-settlement-
groundwater-contamination-cleanup-harcros-chemicals-site-iowa
54US DOJ Press Release accessed at

httpi//www,iustice.gov/usao/ks/PressReleases/2014/Sept%202014/Sept25b.html and EPA Summary of Criminal
Prosecutions from 2014 accessed at

httpsi//cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary jd=2611
55US DOJ Press Release accessed at httpi//www.iustice.gov/usao/ri/news/2014/august2014/roberts.html and EPA
Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2014 accessed at

httpsi//cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2615

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
selling caustic materials to paper mills. The production of caustic materials involved hydrogen sulfide, a
poisonous gas. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, hydrogen sulfide
is an acute toxic substance that is the leading cause of sudden death in the workplace.

The individual was responsible for approving and directing PACES production operations, the disposal of
hydrogen sulfide wastewater, and ensuring implementation of employee safety precautions. In some
cases, he personally handled the investigation of work-related employee injuries, directed the
transportation of PACES wastewater, and determined what safety equipment could be purchased or
maintained. In the cases at issue, hazardous materials were transported illegally with false documents
and without the required placards. Most importantly, the workers were not properly protected from
exposure to hazardous gases. The exposure resulted in the deaths of two employees, Joey Sutter and
Charles Sittig, who were truck drivers, at the PACES facility on Dec. 18, 2008 and Apr. 14, 2009.
Placarding is critical to ensure the safety of first responders in the event of an accident or other highway
incident. The individual and PACES were indicted by a federal grand jury on 18 Jul 20 1 256.

2.3.17 DPL Enterprises. On 3 Dec 2012, DPL Enterprises Inc. (dba Air Care Indoor Quality Specialists),
the company's president and owner, and a company manager pleaded guilty to making and selling a
misbranded pesticide. The defendants knowingly manufactured and sold fake Sporicidin, an EPA
approved pesticide, intended for use in disinfecting air ducts. The unapproved product was sold with a
label that was false because it was not actually Sporicidin, because neither the diluted pesticide nor the
label were EPA approved, because the label represented that the pesticide contained the concentration
of the active ingredient found in the real product, and because the label contained a trademarked
brand-name when it was really a 10:1 dilution. The fake Sporicidin label made by the defendants was
copied from a real label and claimed that it could kill various organisms, including the HIV, Avian Flu,
Salmonella, Staph and MRSA. However, the company sold diluted Sporicidin containing approximately
10 parts water for every 1 part of Sporicidin. The president and his company also pleaded guilty to
intentionally making false statements to federal agents from the EPA CID at the time of a federally
authorized search warrant at Air Care. When interviewed, the president told the agents that his
company was not diluting Sporicidin and that the pesticide purchased from the maker was being re-
packaged and re-labeled by Air Care solely for branding purposes, knowing that these statements were
untrue and that diluted Sporicidin pesticide was being sold without approved labels in violation of law.
According to documents filed in court, the president had been warned by the maker of Sporicidin that
his company must obtain EPA approval for its label and that misbranding was "illegal." Air Care admitted
to selling approximately 6,312 gallons of the misbranded and diluted pesticide between 2005 and 2010.
On 8 Apr 2013, DPL Enterprises was sentenced to 24 months' probation and ordered to pay an $80,000
federal fine. The company was also required to establish within 30 days a plan to assure that it is
operating in full compliance of all environmental and occupational safety regulations. The president was
sentenced to 24 months' probation and ordered to pay a $15,000 federal fine. The manager was
sentenced to 12 months' probation.57

2.3.18 Scotts Miracle-Gro Company. On 7 Sep 2012, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, a producer of
pesticides for commercial and consumer lawn and garden uses, was sentenced to pay a $4 million fine
and perform community service for eleven criminal violations of FIFRA, which governs the manufacture,
distribution, and sale of pesticides. Scotts pleaded guilty in Feb 2012 to illegally applying insecticides to

56 US DOJ Press Release accessed at httpi//www, justice,gov/opa/pr/former-president-port-arthur-texas-chemical-
companv-sentenced-federal-crimes-related-emplovee and EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2014

57 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2013 accessed at

httpsi//cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2516

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
its wild bird food products that are toxic to birds, falsifying pesticide registration documents, distributing
pesticides with misleading and unapproved labels, and distributing unregistered pesticides. This was the
largest criminal penalty under FIFRA at the time. In a separate civil agreement with EPA, Scotts agreed to
pay more than $6 million in penalties and spend $2 million on environmental projects to resolve
additional civil pesticide violations. The violations include distributing or selling unregistered, canceled,
or misbranded pesticides, including products with inadequate warnings or cautions. This was the largest
civil settlement under FIFRA to at the time. In the plea agreement, Scotts admitted that it applied the
pesticides Actellic 5E and Storcide II to its bird food products even though EPA had prohibited this use.
Scotts had done so to protect its bird foods from insect infestation during storage. Scotts admitted that
it used these pesticides contrary to EPA directives and despite the warning label appearing on all
Storcide II containers stating, "Storcide II is extremely toxic to fish and toxic to birds and other wildlife."
Scotts sold this illegally treated bird food for two years after it began marketing its bird food line and for
six months after employees specifically warned Scotts management of the dangers of these pesticides.
By the time it voluntarily recalled these products in Mar 2008, Scotts had sold more than 70 million units
of bird food illegally treated with pesticide that is toxic to birds. Scotts also submitted false documents
to EPA to deceive them into believing that numerous pesticides were registered with EPA when in fact
they were not. The company illegally sold the unregistered pesticides and to marketing pesticides
bearing labels containing false and misleading claims not approved by EPA. The falsified documents
submitted to EPA and states were attributed to a federal product manager at Scotts. In addition to the
$4 million criminal fine, Scotts will contribute $500,000 to organizations that protect bird habitat,
including $100,000 each to the Ohio Audubon's Important Bird Area Program, the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources' Urban Forestry Program, the Columbus Metro-Parks Bird Habitat Enhancement
Program, the Cornell University Ornithology Laboratory, and The Nature Conservancy of Ohio to support
the protection of bird populations and habitats through conservation, research, and education.

At the time the criminal violations were discovered, EPA also began a civil investigation that uncovered
numerous civil violations spanning five years. Scotts' FIFRA civil violations included the nationwide
distribution or sale of unregistered, canceled, or misbranded pesticides, including products with
inadequate warnings or cautions. As a result, EPA issued more than 40 Stop Sale, Use or Removal Orders
to Scotts to address more than 100 pesticide products. In addition to the $6 million civil penalty (05-
2012-0110), Scotts will complete environmental projects, valued at $2 million, to acquire, restore and
protect 300 acres of land to prevent runoff of agricultural chemicals into nearby waterways58.

2.3.19 Sun Polymers. On 5 Jun 2012, Sun Polymers was sentenced to pay an $18,000 federal fine and
$82,424 in restitution to the Town of Mooreville, Indiana. Sun Polymers International, Inc., operates a
polyester resin manufacturing business. On or about 31 May 2007, an unknown quantity of industrial
wastewater overflowed a 5,000-gallon indoor tank at the Sun Polymers facility and flowed into nearby
floor drains that lead to the public sewer system. This incident occurred when a Sun Polymers employee,
who had been left in charge, was transferring wastewater from an outdoor tank into the smaller, 5,000-
gallon indoor tank, and allowed the indoor tank to overflow. The wastewater had a flashpoint less than
99 degrees fahrenheit. Sun Polymers was charged with one count of violating the CWA {33 U.S.C.
1319(c)(1)(A) - negligent violation}59.

58EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2012 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2356
59 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2012 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&pro$ecution summary id=2313

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
2.3.20 Mace Personal Defense. On 10 Jan 2012, the former President of the Bennington Operations of
Mace Personal Defense, Inc. ("Mace") in Bennington, unlawfully stored hazardous waste at the
Bennington facility without a RCRA permit. The Bennington facility of Mace produces tear gas and
pepper spray products and, according to the Government's allegations, produces hazardous waste as
part of its manufacturing process. The federal charges stem from a CERCLA emergency removal action
(01-2008-0508) conducted by the EPA and Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
beginning in Jan 2008. During the initial inspection, the inspectors observed more than 80 drums of
unlabeled chemicals in the mill buildings. Many of these containers contained hazardous wastes that
were hazardous because of their "ignitability" and "reactivity." Furthermore, there were no signs
indicating the storage of hazardous chemicals or hazardous waste in these areas. EPA officials had
significant concerns about the safety of the stored hazardous waste and determined that an emergency
removal action was necessary. The president, Mace, and its employees fully cooperated with this
removal action. Mace and the president spent over $780,000 cleaning up the site. The Indictment
charged both Mace and the president with storing hazardous waste without a permit. Mace previously
paid a separate $100,000 fine. According to the allegations, Mace and the president knowingly stored
hazardous waste at the Vermont Mill Properties facility for several years more than the amounts
allowed under the hazardous waste regulations. Specifically, the allegations state that most of the
hazardous waste was stored outside the facility in shipping containers near the Walloomsac River. The
charges also allege that Mace and the president received multiple estimates for removing the hazardous
waste beginning in the autumn of 2006 but did not take any action. According to court records, these
original removal estimates were for approximately $70,000. The violations at issue here involve storage
of hazardous waste without a permit and the Government did not allege that hazardous wastes were
released into the environment60.

2.3.21 Global Specialties. On 19 Sep 2011 the last of two individuals associated with criminal violations
at Global Specialties was sentenced to serve 24 months of probation, which includes 6 months
confinement in a community correctional facility and was ordered to perform 1,000 hours of community
service. In Nov 2005, the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) reported that Global Specialties
Group, Inc. (GSGI) had abandoned large amounts of hazardous wastes at their facility located in Rancho
Dominguez, California. GSGI was in the business of creating special chemical blends for their customers.
When GSGI lost their lease, they failed to remove the chemicals used in the blending process. Both
individuals were each indicted on one count of violating RCRA {42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(2)(A) - knowingly
treats, stores or disposes of any hazardous waste ... without a permit}. The other individual was
sentenced to 24 months' probation and ordered to pay a federal fine in the amount of $5,50061.

2.3.22 Chemical and Metal Industries. On 25 Mar 2011, Chemical and Metal Industries Inc. (C&MI), a
company based in Colorado, was sentenced to two years' probation, a $1,000,000 fine, and $2,000,000
in restitution to the victim's estate, including his three children. The sentence stems from C&MI's
conviction for negligently causing the release of hazardous air pollutants and thereby negligently placing
another person in imminent danger of death, in violation of Title 42, United States Code, Section
7413(c)(4) (federal CAA). The sentencing was the result of a long-running investigation into an incident
that occurred in the summer of 2003 at Honeywell's Baton Rouge Plant. On 29 Jul 2003, Delvin Henry,
an employee at the Baton Rouge Plant, opened a one-ton cylinder, which C&MI had labeled as
containing relatively benign refrigerant while the cylinder was at C&MI's Colorado facility. Once opened,

60 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2012 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub,epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2358

61 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2011 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2161

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
approximately 1800 pounds of spent antimony pentachloride, which is highly toxic and corrosive
hazardous material, was violently released from the cylinder. Mr. Henry was struck by the material and
died the following day from his injuries.

In 2008, Honeywell accepted responsibility for negligent endangerment under the CAA, and was
sentenced to pay a criminal fine of $8,000,000, restitution of $2,000,000 to Mr. Henry's three children,
community restitution of $750,000 to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, community
restitution valued at $750,000 to the Louisiana State Police Hazardous Materials Unit, and community
restitution valued at $500,000 to the Louisiana State Police Emergency Operations Center. At the time,
this was the largest criminal monetary penalty in the history of Middle District of Louisiana62.

2.3.23 Chemical Equipment Labs. On 18 Feb 2011, an individual employee of Chemical Equipment
Labs (CEL) was sentenced to 48 months' probation, ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution for the repair of
the Delaware Country Regional Authority's sanitary sewer system and to pay a $75,000 federal fine. CEL
sold and distributed chemicals and chemical compounds, including industrial wastewater treatment and
pool chemicals, ice melting products, oil lubricants and oil absorbents. CEL routinely washed the interior
of 400- to 500-gallon plastic tanks, which were used to ship liquid chemicals via truck, to remove
residual contamination prior to shipping different chemicals. This process generated chemical-
contaminated waste water. On 25 Apr 2007 CEL employees rinsed the interior of the tank of a CEL truck
which had been used to transport sodium hypochlorite (chlorine). A CEL employee opened a valve on a
company delivery truck and allowed the contaminated wastewater to flow into a manhole in the
company's parking lot. On 26 Apr 2007, the Marcus Hook fire and police departments responded to and
notified EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard of a chemical spill in the Marcus Hook Creek. Further investigation
revealed that toilets located inside the CEL facility were used to discharge chemical contaminated
wastewater into the sanitary sewer system leading to a regional waste water treatment plant owned
and operated by the Delaware Country Regional Authority ("DELCORA"), resulting in physical damage to
DELCORA's sanitary sewer consistent with repeated discharges of caustic material. This damage included
corroded concrete. The defendant was charged in an Information with one count of violating the CWA
{33 U.S.C. 1319(c)(1) - negligent violation}63.

2.3.24 Techsol Chemical. On 5 Nov 2010, the president of Techsol Chemical was sentenced to 60 days
of community confinement, 6 months of home detention, 60 months' probation and ordered to pay
restitution in the amount of $13,948 to the Huntington Sanitary Board Wastewater Treatment Plant and
to make reasonable payments towards a previous $3 M consent decree with the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection. A spill occurred on 28 Oct 2004 at the Techsol Chemical
Company. At the time of the spill, about 22,000 gallons of hazardous Coal Tar leaked from a railroad
tanker as workers were transferring the chemical to a trailer truck. Coal Tar includes the chemicals
benzene and toluene. Much of the coal tar, which posed a threat of fire, ended up in a nearby creek and
city sewer system. Immediately following the spill, some 500 people were forced from their homes.

Most could return the next day. 36 families were evacuated for eight days. Following the spill, Techsol
Chemical said the spill was an accident that could not have been prevented because workers did not
realize that the rail car came in with what appeared to be a faulty valve64.

62 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2011 accessed at

httpsiZZcfpub,epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2172

63 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2011 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary id=2117

64 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2011 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary id=2119

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
2.3.25 Calderwood Rubber Inc. On 17 Dec 2010, defendants Calderwood Rubber Inc. and its owner
agreed to be held jointly and severally responsible for the payment of a total criminal fine of $2,500; a
special Court Assessment of $125, and to pay $18,000 in restitution to the United States Coast Guard for
costs incurred in responding to, sampling, cleaning up, and analyzing the discharge of the pollutants.
Additionally, the owner was sentenced to perform 200 hours of community service as determined by
the Court. On 23 Apr 2009, the Santa Barbara County Fire Department contacted the Los Angeles Field
Office requesting investigative assistance about an unknown chemical substance that was released into
San Pedro Creek in Goleta, California. San Pedro Creek flows directly into the Pacific Ocean which is
located only one- and one-half miles away. The United States Coast Guard, U.S. EPA On Scene
Coordinator and Start Team personnel, and the California Department of Fish and Game responded to
assist Santa Barbara County in the emergency cleanup and removal. A significant quantity of
contaminated water and soil was removed from the creek during the emergency cleanup and removal,
which had a total cost to date of approximately $200,000. Investigation ensued, conducted by EPA-CID
and the Santa Barbara County Fire Department (SBCFD), California Department of Fish and Game, and
Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS). Investigators developed a suspect based on that investigation,
and on 22 May 2009, investigators interviewed the owner of Calderwood Rubber Inc., and STERI-SHIELD,
both located at 336 South Fairview Avenue, Goleta, California. The businesses are located immediately
across the street from San Pedro Creek (approximately 100 ft away). During the interview, the owner
admitted to investigators that around the time of the emergency response to San Pedro Creek, he had
improperly washed out the contents of "some" fifty-five-gallon drums into a drain in the driveway
immediately outside his business entrance. He showed investigators fifty-five-gallon drums similar to
those he washed-out, and stated that the drums he washed-out contained a mixture of two substances
that he identified as "ACCLAIM POLYOL 2220N" of the chemical family polyether polyois, and "POLYTHF
1000 Polyether". He provided investigators with Material Safety Data Sheets further identifying the
materials. He said he thought the drain discharged into a sewer system and not into San Pedro Creek,
and that he would not have discharged the material into the storm drain if he knew the material was
going into San Pedro Creek65.

2.3.26 Gulf Chemical. On 27 May 2010, Gulf Chemical was charged with 11 counts of unpermitted
discharges to the waters of the state in violation of the Texas Water Code. The corporation was
sentenced to a $2.75 million criminal penalty and was required to make modifications to its wastewater
treatment plant, that will bring it into compliance with its permit. The environmental manager was
sentenced to 36 months' probation and ordered to pay a $5,000 state fine. Gulf Chemical and
Metallurgical Corporation, located in Freeport, Texas, recovers metals from spent refinery hydro-
desulfurizing catalysts. In Dec 2009, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Criminal
Investigations Unit advised EPA CID that Gulf Chemical was maintaining two sets of sampling data and
reporting to TCEQ only the data that met its permit requirements. On 2 and 3 Feb 2010 a Texas state
search warrant was executed at the facility by agents and officers with Texas Parks and Wildlife,

Houston Police Department, EPA CID and the TCEQ66.

2.3.27 GB&S Marketing Inc. On 30 Sep 2009, the president and owner of GB&S Marketing Inc. was
sentenced to serve 36 months' probation; and pay a federal fine of $8,000 and combined total
restitution amount of $37,595 to the City of Tulare (CA) Fire Rescue; the City of Visalia (CA) Haz-Mat

65 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2011 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub,epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=21S8

66 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2010 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2043

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
Response; the Pare Environmental Construction; and Tulare County Environmental Health Services.

From 1995 through Mar 2008, GB&S Marketing Inc. (GB&S), of Tulare, California, manufactured, sold
and distributed a product called "Liquid Sani" to dairies in and around Tulare and Kern Counties,
California. The dairies purchased Liquid Sani from GB&S in the belief that the product, which was sold to
the dairies in fifty-five gallon drums that bore labels indicating the Liquid Sani contained a 12.5%
solution of hypochlorite and was registered by the EPA, was a registered pesticide that could be used as
a sanitizer to kill bacteria and other micro-organisms on dairy equipment. Subsequent investigation by
EPA-CID beginning in Jan, 2008, after GB&S had a chemical spill that required an emergency clean up,
revealed that GB&S and its owner and president, were manufacturing Liquid Sani at an unregistered
facility, through the dilution and repackaging of legally registered pesticides that contained 12.5%
solutions of sodium hypochlorite, and were then selling and distributing the unregistered pesticide to
dairies throughout California and New Mexico, all in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)67.

2.3.28 Crown Chemical. On 5 Feb 2009, the manager of Crown Chemical was sentenced to 24 months'
probation and ordered to pay a $5,000 federal fine. The former president of Crown Chemical Inc., of
Crestwood, III. was sentenced on 4 Feb 2009 to pay a criminal fine of $30,000 and spend 12 months in
home confinement after he plead guilty to dumping industrial and commercial home cleaning products
into a regional sewer system. He was also ordered to spend three years on probation. Crown Chemical
Inc. was sentenced to pay a criminal fine of $100,000, required to spend a year on probation and make a
public apology. The company manufactured industrial and commercial home cleaning products. The
former president was charged in 2006 with the illegal discharges of acidic and caustic wastewater, lying
to federal investigators and conspiracy. He admitted showing employees how to discharge the
untreated wastewater to the local sewers, and that on occasion he also directed employees to use a
hose to try to dilute the waste being discharged. He acknowledged that the CWA illegal discharges
extended for 16 years, from 1985 until 2001, when EPA special agents served a criminal search warrant
at the Crown facility. He also admitted that, during the execution of the warrant, he lied to federal
investigators. In addition, he admitted that he telephoned several employees before they arrived for
work and told them to falsely tell investigators that they treated the wastewater before they discharged
it68.

2.3.29 Chemical Specialties. On 30 May 2008, a fugitive and previously sole employee of Chemical
Specialties was arrested in Adams County, Colorado for driving with a suspended license and driving
under the influence. He spent several months in the Adams County Jail because of the conviction on
these charges. In Mar of 2008, the Adams County Jail contacted the U.S. Marshall's office that previously
placed a federal hold on him for a failure to report to the U.S. Probation Office. He was re-sentenced in
U.S. District Court, where he received: 12 months on Count One; 24 months on Count Two (concurrent);
1 year Supervised Release; and was ordered to pay a $2,000 fine. The individual was the plant manager
for Chemical Specialties, a company that distills and recycles propylene glycol, an aircraft de-icing
chemical. The defendant violated of the CWA by illegally discharging de-icing chemicals into the
Colorado River. He was responsible for the daily distillation of propylene glycol. CSI was a propylene
glycol recycling facility which operated in Grand Junction, Colorado. CSI was a zero-discharge facility and
therefore, was not permitted to discharge any industrial waste into the city's sewer system. Employees

67 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2009 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub,epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=1879

68 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2009 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=1945

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
of the City of Grand Junction's pretreatment program investigated a suspicious discharge from a storm
drain into the Colorado River. One of the facilities located near the storm drain was CSI. Subsequently,
city employees asked him about his disposal of the facility's waste water. He stated that the waste water
was transported to another facility. After further investigation, city employees traced the discharge from
the river up to the storm drain to CSI and discovered that the plumbing from CSI's bathroom was
connected to the storm drain. He was sentenced to 12 months incarceration and ordered to pay a
$2,000 federal fine. Ortiz was released under the conditions of supervised release pending the outcome
of the appeals process. Prior to Ortiz's appeal he failed to comply with the conditions of his supervised
release and a federal warrant was issued for his arrest as of 28 Oct 200469.

2.3.30 Acuity Specialty Products. Inc On 29 Jun 2007, Acuity Specialty Products, Inc., (Acuity) a
chemical manufacturing plant in Atlanta pleaded guilty to one count of a knowing violation of the CWA
and was sentenced to three years of probation and a fine of $3.8 million. The allegations arise out of
wastewater discharges. The facility operates as a chemical blending facility that manufactures numerous
detergent and cleaning products which are used for industrial and domestic purposes. Within the facility
are different plants, each of which produces a different type of detergent or cleaning product, including
liquids, aerosols, powders and acids. Acuity admitted that from at least Sep 1998 until Nov 2002, while
inspectors from the City of Atlanta Watershed Department were at the Acuity facility conducting
sampling, Acuity employees altered the wastewater flow to render the sampling inaccurate, with the
intention of misleading the City of Atlanta. Because of the investigation, Acuity's former Director of
Environmental Compliance pled guilty to conspiracy to violate the CWA, in Feb 2006. Acuity admitted in
its plea that this improper practice had been in place before 1998. Acuity admitted that on numerous
occasions, it had failed to report accurate wastewater flow data, phosphorus concentrations and pH
results in reports that were submitted to the City of Atlanta. Acuity also admitted that on two occasions,
it had failed to report discharges to the City of Atlanta, including a 10,000-gallon phosphorus discharge
in 2000, and an acid spill in Mar 200270.

2.3.31 Amitech. On 17 May 2007, Amitech pled guilty to CAA violation for knowingly failing to file
reports notifying the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), that it was operating its
plant without an emission control device in place. Amitech was sentenced to 24 months' probation,
ordered to pay a $400 special assessment fee; to pay $1,070,000 in federal fines and $100,000 in
restitution, broken down as follows: $80,000 to the Louisiana State Police Right to Know Fund and
$20,000 to the LDEQ. The charges arose from an investigation by a federal grand jury, the EPA CID, the
Louisiana State Police (LSP), LDEQ, and the U.S. Attorney's Office. The investigation determined that
Amitech's Zachary facility produced plastic pipe during the Spring of 2003 without the required
environmental controls to limit the emission of styrene, a hazardous air pollutant. At the time, the
manager of the facility knew that the facility was operating without a condenser to limit styrene
emissions. Amitech sold the illegally produced pipe to the governments of Venezuela and Jordan for
hundreds of thousands of dollars. The former plant manager was sentenced to 60 months' probation,
ordered to pay a $25 special assessment fee, $25,000 in restitution; to be equally divided between the
LDEQ and the Louisiana State Police, and a $50,000 federal fine71.

69EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2008 accessed at

httpsiZZcfpub,epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=1821
70 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2007 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary id=1219
71EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2008 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary id=1130

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
2.3.32 Tri-State Chemical Company. On 18 Jul 2006, an operator at Tri-State Chemical Company was
sentenced to 6 months incarceration, all of which was suspended, 24 months' probation and was
ordered to pay a $500 state fine. Tri-State abandoned a facility in Brown County, Ohio. Upon reports
about the abandoned facility an investigation was undertaken. Approximately thirty 300-gallon totes
and two 20,000-gallon tanks were found, in addition to the several hundred drums that had been
reported. One of the tanks was screened with an explosion meter by local fire department personnel
and was found to contain flammable vapors72.

2.3.33 Wilshire Paint. On 7 Jul 2006, the case against Wilshire Paint and one of their employees was
completed. An investigation into the Wilshire Paint Company (WPC) revealed that they disposed of
hazardous waste into the sewer in violation of the CWA, and transported, treated and disposed of
hazardous waste in violation of the RCRA. An employee was charged with violating the CWA {33 U.S.C.
1317(d) and 1319(c)(1)(A) - negligent violation}. The company was charged with two counts; one count
of violating the CWA and one count of violating RCRA {42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(5) - knowingly transports
without a manifest}. The employee was sentenced to 6 months' probation and ordered to pay a federal
fine in the amount of $2,500. The company was sentenced to 36 months' probation, ordered to pay a
federal fine in the amount of $33,478 and restitution in the amount of $232,591, of which $169,069
being paid to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)73.

2.3.34 Antec. On 17 Apr 2006, Antec was sentenced to 60 months' probation and ordered to pay a
$100,000 federal fine, suspended for five years if they meet the conditions of the plea agreement,
including payment of $30,000 to the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection (KDEP)
Scholarship Fund and the clean closure of the Antec facility pursuant to applicable law and KDEP
specifications. Antec, Inc. allowed its employees to discharge trucked pollutants, namely chemical waste
products, into a sewer connected to a publicly-owned sewage treatment plant74.

2.3.35 Pyramid Chemical and Nittany Warehouse. On 14 Feb 2006 Pyramid Chemical and Nittany
Warehouse were sentenced to pay jointly $1,802,712 in restitution to EPA Hazardous Substance, Europe
Container Terminal BV and the Dutch Government. An individual was also sentenced to 6 months home
confinement under electronic monitoring, 60 months' probation, ordered to perform 500 hours of
community service, pay a special assessment fee of $1,500 and a $100,000 fine. Pyramid Chemical was
also sentenced to pay a special assessment of $6,000 and a $50,000 fine. Nittany Warehouse was
sentenced to 60 months' probation, a special assessment of $6,000 and a $50,000, in addition to the
ordered restitution. In Jun 2000, the EPA declared Nittany Warehouse (aka Pyramid Chemical) a
Superfund Site and ordered (03-2000-0514) the defendants to clean up numerous containers of
hazardous waste. In 2001, a civil CERLA lien order was placed on the property (03-2001-0361). Instead of
cleaning up, the defendants, illegally shipped some of the waste to the Netherlands and sold some of it
to facilities in the United States, falsely claiming it was new, unused product rather than hazardous
waste. The government of the Netherlands and the American companies that received the waste wound
up paying for its proper disposal. In 2005, the charges included 5 counts of violating RCRA {42 U.S.C.

72 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2006 accessed at

httpsiZZcfpub,epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=1537

73 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2006 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary id=150S
74EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2006 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary id=1140

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
6928(d)(2) - storage of hazardous waste without a permit; 42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(6) - exportation of
hazardous waste; and 42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(5) - transportation of hazardous waste without a manifest}75.

2.2.36 Chemco Industries. On 27 Jan 2005, Chemco Industries was sentenced to 36 months'
probation, ordered to pay a $400 special assessment fee, $3,601 in restitution and a federal fine in the
amount of $10,000. One of its employees was sentenced to 36 months' probation, ordered to pay a
$100 special assessment fee and a $5,000 federal fine. Chemco decided not to comply with CWA MSD
regulations regarding reporting and sampling of its chemical wastes. Instead, it plugged its discharge
point, which was a manhole located on the warehouse floor. They would then haul all waste off-site in
the absence of a discharge permit. New owners of the building that Chemco rented, discovered that
Chemco was having employees pump out the contents of the manhole into the sewer drain in the
woman's bathroom76.

2.3.37 Ponderosa Paint. On 16 Dec 2004, an employee for Ponderosa Paint in Boise, Idaho was
sentenced to 24 months' probation, ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and pay a
$2,500 federal fine. He transported approximately 1,400 gallons of ignitable paint waste from
Ponderosa paint to his residence in Wilder, Idaho. He would then dispose of small quantities of the
waste by burning it in an open pit near his house. The former Technical Director was sentenced to 10
months incarceration, 31 months' probation, ordered to pay a $100 special assessment fee and a $1,000
federal fine77.

On 16 Sep 2004, the former Director and Corporation Secretary for Ponderosa Paint Company in Boise,
Idaho was sentenced to 6 months' probation, ordered to pay a $50,000 criminal fine and pay an
additional $40,000 in restitution for the Superfund clean-up costs incurred by the U.S. EPA. In Jan 2000,
he negotiated the sale of Ponderosa Paint to Kelly Moore Paints. A condition of the sale stated that he
would be responsible for disposing of approximately 20,000 gallons of waste oil-based paint that had
accumulated at the Ponderosa facility between 1995 and 2000. Instead of paying a licensed hazardous
waste disposal company approximately $150,000 to dispose of the wastes, he offered individuals $1 per
gallon to dispose of the waste paint. Some of the paint waste was illegally transported to private
property in Wilder, Idaho, and burned in a pit (as noted above). He was indicted on six counts - one
count of conspiracy, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 371; one count of violating HTMA {49 U.S.C. 5124 - improper
transportation of hazardous material}; three counts of violating RCRA {42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(5) - transport of
hazardous waste without a manifest; 42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(1) - transport of hazardous waste to an
unauthorized facility; 42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(2) - disposal of hazardous waste without a permit} and one
count of obstruction of a proceeding, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 150578.

2.3.38 Standard Paints & Coatings. On 8 Mar 2004, the owner and President of Standard Paints &
Coatings was sentenced to 4 months incarceration, 4 months home confinement and ordered to pay
$300,000 in restitution to U.S. EPA Superfund. The company was sentenced to pay $300,000 in

75EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2006 accessed at

https://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=977

76 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2005 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=17S4

77 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2005 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=1783
78EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2004 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=988

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
restitution, jointly and severally with the owner. This case involved the illegal storage of drums
containing hazardous wastes by Standard Paints and Coatings, a paint manufacturer79.

2.3.39 PCS Nitrogen. On 28 Mar 2003 the criminal case with PCS Nitrogen and two individuals was
concluded. The defendants illegally released ammonia, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides which
exceeded CAA and CWA permit limits. One individual was sentenced to 6 months incarceration, 12
months' probation, ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution and a state fine in the amount of $24,923. A
second individual was sentenced to 24 months' probation, ordered to pay a $25 special assessment fee
and a $1,000 federal fine. PCS was sentenced on the CAA count to 60 months' probation, ordered to pay
a $400 special assessment fee and a $1,750,000 federal fine80. Additional information on PCS
corporation can be found in paragraph 2.2.5 of this report.

2.3.40 MacDermid. Inc On 28 Nov 2001, MacDermid was charged with four counts of violating the
CWA {33 U.S.C. 1319(c)(2)(A) - knowingly violates; and (c)(4) - knowingly makes false statements}.
MacDermid was sentenced to 24 months' probation, ordered to pay a $1,600 community project fine,
$4,687 local fine, a $2 million federal fine and $1 million to the United Way of Waterbury for a
community environmental program. MacDermid, Inc. is a chemical manufacturer located in Waterbury,
CN, who manufactures more than 1,000 different chemicals that are used for metal treating, plating and
other purposes. Manufacturing wastewater at MacDermid's facility is required to be pretreated before it
is released into the Waterbury City sewer system and the company is required to submit discharge
monitoring reports to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection concerning the level of
chemicals contained in the treated wastewater it releases. From 1992, the defendants engaged in a set
of practices, such as discarding wastewater samples that had high levels of pollutants and failing to
report analyses of such samples, which led to the falsification of its DMRs. As a result, wastewater with
unacceptably high levels of copper and zinc was released into the Waterbury sewers. The release of
wastewater with high levels of copper and zinc into sewer systems can cause damage to sewage
treatment plant equipment and can also kill bacteria that are needed to digest and properly treat
sewage at sewage treatment plants. One employee was ordered to perform 200 hours of community
service, serve 24 months' probation and pay a $10,000 federal fine. Another employee was ordered to
perform 200 hours of community service, serve 24 months' probation and pay a $25,000 federal fine81.

2.3.41 Morton International. On 14 Mar 2001 the criminal case against Morton International in
Mississippi and their former environmental manager was concluded. Morton produces plasticizers,
synthetic rubber, rocket polymers, and other chemicals and adhesives at its facility in Jackson County,
near the Escatawpa River. In 1996, an EPA inspector conducting an evaluation of the facility discovered
what appeared to be falsified reports submitted to the state environmental agency. Factories with
permits issued under the Clean Water Act must periodically file these monitoring reports with
regulators, indicating the types and amounts of pollutants they are discharging. The EPA CID and the FBI
investigated the falsification of Morton's discharge monitoring reports. In February 2000, Morton's
former environmental manager admitted that he falsified the reports and was sentenced to 4 months
incarceration, 4 months home confinement, 8 months' probation and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine.

79EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2004 accessed at

httpsiZZcfpub,epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=1421

80 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2003 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary id=1673

81 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2002 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=920

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
Morton was sentenced to pay a $2 million federal fine82. Further information on Morton can also be
found in paragraph 2.2.11 of this report.

2.3.42 Lancaster. On 6 Jul 2000, Lancaster was sentenced to 60 months' probation, ordered to pay a
special assessment fee of $400 and restitution in the amount of $250,000 to a victim's family. Lancaster
operated a chemical facility in Blythewood, South Carolina, where it manufactured highly explosive
azide products and other chemicals. When the defendants closed the Blythewood facility in 1993, it
shipped a drum containing an explosive sodium azide compound without a manifest to Clean Harbors,
Inc., a hazardous waste storage, transport and disposal company in Cincinnati, Ohio. Lancaster failed to
label the drum and falsified the drum's bill of lading to indicate that the drum did not contain regulated
hazardous waste. During transport of the drum containing sodium azide at the Clean Harbors facility, the
drum exploded and the employee who was transporting the drum died the following day. The employee
was married and had two children. Lancaster was charged with one count of violating RCRA {42 U.S.C.
6928(d)(5) - knowingly transports without a manifest} and one count of making false statements, a
violation of 18 U.S.C. 100183.

2.3.43 D&B Paint and Flo-Rite. On 18 Aug 2000, the owner of D&B Paint and Flo-Rite was sentenced to
24 months incarceration, 36 months' probation, ordered to pay $100,000 in restitution to Dade County
Environmental Resources Management (ERM) and to pay a federal fine in the amount of $17,000. A
property owner was sentenced to four months incarceration, 36 months' probation and ordered to pay
restitution in the amount of $393 to DERM. D&B Paint Manufacturing, Inc. and Flo-Rite Coating and
Chemical Company were inactive corporations. The owner of these firms leased his warehouse located
in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to the owner of API Marine. At the time of the lease, the warehouse was
filled with more than one-hundred 55-gallon drums of hazardous waste. They hired a man to dispose of
the waste, who was assisted by another individual, transported the waste to a property. The property
owner directed the dumping of the hazardous waste on land adjacent to where he was living, located
about 700 feet from the Everglades National Park. In exchange for providing the dump site, the property
owner received an $800 citizens band radio. The drums were found by officers of the Florida Marine
Patrol. The drums were sampled and found to contain a RCRA regulated waste because it exhibited the
characteristic of ignitability, as well as being a listed hazardous waste for lead, mercury, benzene, methly
ethyl ketone and other toxic substances. The owner of API Marine was sentenced to 60 months'
probation and ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution to ERM84.

2.3.44 LCP Chemicals/Hanlin. On 1 Jul 1999, the last defendant in the LCP Chemicals/Hanlin criminal
case was sentenced. LCP Chemicals is a division of the Hanlin Group which was formerly owned by Allied
Signal. The facility is located on approximately 550 acres in Brunswick, Georgia. LCP formerly produced
chlorine, sodium hydroxide and muriatic acid. The site was contaminated by the company, specifically
with mercury and PCBs.

The Principle defendant was sentenced to 70 months' probation, ordered to perform 1000 hours of
community service and to pay a $1,400 special assessment fee. The second defendant was convicted of
a total of 20 counts. He was sentenced to 78 months incarceration, 24 months' probation and ordered
to pay a $1,000 special assessment fee. The third defendant was sentenced to 108 months

82 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2001 accessed at

httpsiZZcfpub,epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=1037
83EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2000 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary ld=1041
84 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 2000 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary id=1030

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
incarceration, 24 months' probation, ordered to pay a $2,050 special assessment fee and to pay a
$20,000 in federal fines. The fourth defendant was sentenced to 18 months incarceration, 12 months'
probation, ordered to perform 150 hours of community service and to pay a $5,000 federal fine. The
sixth defendant was charged with one count of violating the CWA {33 USC1319(c)(2) - knowingly
violates} and one count of violating the Endangered Species Act. The seventh defendant was sentenced
to 46 months' probation and ordered to pay $20,000 in federal fines.

The Hanlin Group/LCB Chemical was charged with one count of conspiracy {18 U.S.C. 371}; one count of
violating the CWA {33 U.S.C. 1319(c)(2)(A) - knowingly violates}; two counts of violating RCRA {one count
- 42 U.S.C. 6928(e) - knowing endangerment; one count - 42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(2)(A) - knowingly treats,
stores or disposes of any hazardous waste ... without a permit} and two counts of violating CERCLA {42
U.S.C. 9603(b) - failure to notify} and one count of violating the Endangered Species Act {16 U.S.C. 1538}.
The company went bankrupt.85

2.3.45 C&l Coatings. On 8 Dec 1998, the last defendant in the C&l Coatings criminal case was
sentenced. Several hundred gallons of flammable liquids, including paint sludge, paint waste, solvents
and lacquer thinner were discovered abandoned in the woods, on Bureau of Land Management
property, about 10 miles southwest of Crow, Oregon. Several 55-gallon drums had fractured, spilling
paint wastes onto the ground. The drums were traced to C&l Coatings, a commercial paint company
which ceased operation in 1994. Two of the individuals were principals of C&l Coatings. A third
individual was hired to dispose of 21 drums of ignitable hazardous waste. This third person transported
the drums, without a manifest, to a residence near Junction City, Oregon, where they were stored
illegally until about a year later when he then transported the drums, again without a manifest, to two
separate sites where they were discovered abandoned. This third individual was sentenced to four
months incarceration, four months home detention, 36 months' probation and ordered to pay $14,594
in restitution to the Bureau of Land Management. The two principals were indicted on ten counts each
of violating RCRA {42 U.S.C. 6928 - knowingly treats, stores or disposes of any hazardous waste ...}. One
was sentenced to four months incarceration, four months home detention, 36 months' probation and
ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $14,594. The other principal was sentenced to 36 months'
probation and ordered to perform 80 hours of community service86.

2.3.46 Innovation Chemical Co. On 30 Nov 1998, the Innovation Chemical Co case was concluded.
Innovation Chemical discharged wastewater on two separate occasions, in 1996, which had a pH lower
than 4.0. They discharged the wastewater into the Amherst, New York Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Wastewater with a pH lower than 5.0 is generally prohibited from being discharged into a wastewater
treatment facility because it is too corrosive. The company was charged with two counts of violating the
CWA {33 U.S.C. 1319(c)(2)(A) - knowingly violates} and was sentenced to 36 months' probation, ordered
to pay $15,000 in federal fines and was required to pay approximately $35,000 for the installation of
equipment to monitor future discharges from its facility. In addition, the company was required to
reimburse the Town of Amherst $25,000 for the cost of the investigation87.

2.3.47 Guardian Protection. On 9 Sep 1998, the Guardian Protection case was concluded. Guardian
illegally added an unregistered pesticide, MI-50 which contains the chemical tributyltin-maleate, to its

85 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1999 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=782

86 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1999 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&pro$ecution summary id=811

87 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1999 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=773

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
furniture fabric protection chemical product line. This occurred between 1993 and 1996. MI-50 was
added to the products with the claims that it would inhibit the growth of bacteria and fungus on fabrics.
This led to the distribution by the company of 659 product shipments illegally containing the pesticide.
The products containing MI-50 have been recalled. The company was charged in an Information with
three counts of violating FIFRA {7 U.S.C. 136 - distribution and sale of an unregistered pesticide, misuse
of a pesticide and production of a pesticide at an unregistered facility}. The company was sentenced to
48 months' probation, a federal fine totaling $445,000 and a $375 special assessment fee88.

2.3.48 D.C. Franche & Co. On 4 Sep 1998, the D.C. Franche & Co case was concluded. D.C. Franche &
Company was a paint manufacturing facility and the defendant worked for many years at the facility,
prior to marrying the president of the company and inheriting from him a 52% ownership interest upon
his death in 1993. The president owned and operated a facility in Davenport, Iowa and until Mar 1995,
storing more than 200,000 pounds of hazardous wastes at that facility. The defendant instructed and
employed a former long-time employee of the company to serve as the caretaker of the Davenport
facility. In 1994, the defendant informed the caretaker that the company could no longer afford to pay
him to perform the care taking of the facility. In late 1994, due to the insolvency of the company, the
defendant "shut down" the company's main plant in Chicago and turned the keys over to the bank
which held the mortgage on the Chicago plant. The defendant did this knowing that the Iowa property
was abandoned with hazardous wastes still stored on site. The defendant, nor the company obtained a
permit to store hazardous waste at the Davenport facility. The defendant was indicted on two counts of
violating RCRA {42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(2)(A) - knowingly treats, stores or disposes of any hazardous waste ...
without a permit}. She was sentenced to 24 months' probation89.

2.3.49 Stewart. On 23 Jun 1998 the Stewart case was concluded. A victim opened her refrigerator,
grabbed a carton of milk, and poured herself a glass. She later died. In individual illegally sold the
pesticide Endosulfan to the public and to the victim's daughter in unmarked containers, including one-
gallon milk containers. When Endosulfan is mixed with water it turns a milky white color. The victim died
after she mistakenly drank a mixture of Endosulfan and water out of the milk container that was
purchased from the individual. Endosulfan is an organophosphate pesticide, also used as a chemical
weapon. It is highly toxic to the nervous system. Exposure, left undiagnosed and untreated, will cause
headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, tremors, convulsions, coma and death from respiratory arrest.
The individual sold the Endosulfan in milk jugs and bleach containers without any pesticide warnings.
The individual was charged in an Indictment with two counts of violating FIFRA {7 U.S.C. 136j (a)(1)(B) -
any registered pesticide if any claims made for it as a part of its distribution or sale substantially differ
from any claims made for it as part of the statement required in connection with its registration; and 7
U.S.C. 1361 (b)(1)(B) - knowingly violates this subchapter}. The individual was sentenced to 12 months
incarceration, 12 months' probation and ordered to pay a $25 court assessment fee90.

2.3.50 CH20. On 27 Mar 1998 the CH20 criminal case was concluded. CH20, located near Olympia,
Washington, produces boiler treatment chemicals, concentrated janitorial supplies and numerous other
chemical products. The defendants installed a line into a toilet clean out at a warehouse near downtown
Olympia, where they washed drums containing chemical residues which had been returned by their

88 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1998 accessed at

httpsiZZcfpub,epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=747

89 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1998 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary id=741

90 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1998 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=866

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
customers. From Jun 1992 through Aug 1995, the defendants disposed of wash water containing
chemical wastes from the drums in a sewer, which flowed into the local publicly owned treatment works
(POTW). CH20's activities were discovered in Feb 1995 when a worker at the POTW was overcome by
chemical fumes produced by the inflow of contaminated wastewater from the defendant's drum
washing activities. All five defendants were charged with violating the CWA {33 U.S.C. 1319 - knowingly
violates}. CH20, and two individuals were also charged with conspiracy {18 U.S.C. 371}. CH20 was
sentenced to 36 months' probation and a $150,000 fine. The second and fourth defendants were to 24
months' probation and a $2,000 fine. The third defendant was sentenced to four months' probation and
a $1,000 fine. The fifth defendant was sentenced to 12 months incarceration, 36 months' probation and
fined $75,00091.

2.3.51	HCI Chemtech. On 1 Oct 1997, the HCI Chemtech criminal case was concluded. The defendants
failed to properly respond to a spill of 20,000 gallons of highly caustic sodium hydroxide from
Chemtech's Kansas City plant in Sep of 1995. Sodium hydroxide, also known as caustic soda, is a strong
alkali that can kill living tissue on contact. Thirteen thousand pounds of the spilled chemical leaked
directly into the Missouri River causing unknown damage and contamination. In addition, the
defendant's actions resulted in serious vegetation and soil damage at the Chemtech facility. Some of the
illegal actions involved using water hoses for six days to wash the spilled chemical away, digging a pit to
collect the leaked caustic soda and placing it in drums before it could be discovered, failing to report the
spill in a timely manner and falsely reporting the size of the spill. HCI was charged with a total of seven
counts - one count of conspiracy {18 U.S.C. 371}; one count of false statements {18 U.S.C. 1001}; two
counts of violating CERCLA {42 U.S.C. 9603(b)(3) - failure notify by persons in charge of a facility} and
three counts of violating the CWA {two counts - 33 U.S.C. 1319(c)(2)(A) - knowingly violates and one
count - 33 U.S.C. 1311(a) - illegal discharge of a pollutant}, and was sentenced to 36 months' probation,
$21,200 in restitution and fined $175,000. The second defendant was charged with seven counts - one
count each of conspiracy {18 U.S.C. 371} and false statements {18 U.S.C. 1001}; two counts of violating
CERCLA {42 U.S.C. 9603(b)(3) - failure to notify by persons in charge of a facility} and three counts of
CWA violations {one count each - 33 U.S.C. 1319(c)(2)(A) - knowingly violates; 33 U.S.C. 1319(c)(1)(A) -
negligent violation and 33 U.S.C. 1311(a) - illegal discharge of a pollutant}, and was sentenced to 24
months' probation, a $25 special assessment fee and a $1,000 fine.. The third defendant was charged
with a total of four counts - one count of conspiracy {18 U.S.C. 371}; one count false statements {18
U.S.C. 1001} and two counts of violating the CWA {33 U.S.C. 1319(c)(2)(A) - knowingly violates}, and was
sentenced to four months incarceration, a $100 special assessment fee and fined $100. The last
defendant was charged with six counts - one each of conspiracy {18 U.S.C. 371} and false statements {18
U.S.C. 1001}; two counts of CERCLA violations and two CWA violations, and was sentenced to 36
months' probation and fined $1,00092.

2.3.52	Gulf States Paint/San Jacinto Paint. On 2 May 1997, the Gulf States Paint/San Jacinto Paint
case was concluded. The defendant was the former President and majority stockholder of Gulf States
Paint and San Jacinto Paint. They hired an individual to transport hazardous waste drums without the
required manifests, to a facility not authorized to accept hazardous waste. Over 200 drums of hazardous
waste were transported illegally during the latter part of 1992. They were charged with four counts of

91	EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1998 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub,epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=752

92	EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1998 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=737

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

43

-------
violating RCRA {42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(5) - knowingly transports hazardous waste without a manifest}, and
sentenced to six months home detention, 36 months' probation and ordered to pay a $100,000 fine93.

2.3.53 Fluid Polymers. On 12 Mar 1997 the Fluid Polymers case was concluded. Led by the President of
Fluid Polymer, the remaining defendants are all related to the owner. The president was arrested while
he was dumping wastes in the Mojave Preserve. The defendants disposed of industrial wastes at four
different locations, in arroyos or wastes. They transported and disposed of industrial waste, including
hazardous waste, causing pollution and harm to the East Mojave National Preserve. The president was
indicted on one count of RCRA violations {42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(2)(A) - knowingly treats, stores or disposes
of hazardous waste without a manifest} and one count of conspiracy {18 U.S.C. 371}, and was sentenced
to 46 months incarceration, 12 months' probation and fined $39,898. The second defendant was
indicted on 10 counts; three counts of RCRA violations {42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(1) - knowingly transports}; five
counts of violating the CWA {33 U.S.C. 1319(c) - negligent violations} and two counts of conspiracy {18
U.S.C. 371}, and was sentenced to 60 months' probation and ordered to pay a $3,750 fine. The third
defendant was indicted on 11 counts; six counts of RCRA violations {three each, 42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(2) -
knowingly treats, stores and disposes of hazardous waste; 42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(1) - knowingly transports};
four counts of violating the CWA {33 U.S.C. 1319(c) - negligent violation} and one count of conspiracy
{18 U.S.C. 371}, and was sentenced to 30 months incarceration and fined $39,898. Fluid Polymers was
indicted on seven counts; three counts of violating RCRA {42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(1) - knowingly transports}
and four counts of violation of the CWA {33 U.S.C. 1319(c) - negligent violation}, and was sentenced to a
$49,898 fine94.

2.3.54	Twin Lake Chemical. On 30 Apr 1996, the Twin Lake Chemical criminal case was concluded.
Twin Lake Chemical was discharging waste with an extremely high pH (and occasionally with a low pH
level) directly into the City of Lockport POTW. Twin Lakes was charged with violating the CWA {33 USC
1317(d) - negligently discharges pollutants into POTW in violation of pretreatment standards}. The
company was sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000, agreed to reimburse the City of Lockport Police
Department $1,200 for costs incurred during the investigation and donate $15,000 to the National
Education and Training Foundation95.

2.3.55	F and C International. On 8 Feb 1995 the F and C International criminal case was concluded. F
and C International was a flavoring manufacturer that generated a waste product, benzaldehyde, an
ingredient of Coca Cola. In addition to benzaldehyde, a waste product known as FN 10 was also
generated. F and C accumulated approximately 600 barrels of FN 10 and could not find a commercial
application for it. In 1989, the president of F and C directed employees to transport all the barrels of FN
10 to his residence. In 1992, the barrels were moved back to F and C and placed on the company books
as having a value of 50 cents per pound. In Jun 1992, F and C had their board of directors terminated
and the company went into bankruptcy. The president was charged with one count of mail fraud {18
U.S.C. 1341} and one count of violating RCRA {42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(5) - knowingly transported hazardous

93	EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1997 accessed at

httpsiZZcfpub,epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=684

94	EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1997 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary id=677

95	EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1996 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary id=570

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

44

-------
waste without a manifest}. He was sentenced to 15 months incarceration {suspended}, 12 months'
probation and a $50 fine96.

2.3.56 Micro Chemical Corporation. On 20 Jun 1995 the Micro Chemical Corporation criminal case
was concluded. The company transported pesticides to an agricultural field and disposed of the waste at
this unpermitted site. The company was charged with one count of violating RCRA {42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(1) -
illegal transportation of hazardous waste to an unpermitted facility. The company was sentenced to 60
months' probation and fined $500,000 which can be suspended if the civil order on the site is followed.
$25,000 fine and $14,000 fine are for payment of prosecution, these will be paid whether the civil order
is followed or not.97

In addition to the criminal case noted above, the historical report case for this firm is also described in
paragraph 1.6.3.9 above.

2.3.57 Pioneer Chemical. On 21 Sep 1994, the Pioneer Chemical criminal case was concluded. It was
discovered that Pioneer Chemical performed some demolition work inside the building which resulted in
asbestos violations. Pioneer hired two individuals to remove excess pipes and boilers from the facility in
the spring of 1991. During the removal work, asbestos was improperly removed, causing widespread
contamination of the building. The company Office Manager supervised the removal operation of
Pioneer. All four defendants were charged with one count of violating the CAA {42 U.S.C. 7413 -
knowingly violates}. Two of the defendants were sentenced to 12 months' probation. Pioneer Chemical
was fined $75,000 and ordered to pay an additional $25,000 in restitution98.

2.3.58 Lannett Astrochem. On 25 Jan 1994 the Lannett Astrochem criminal case was concluded. An
individual was President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Lannett and Vice-President of
Astrochem. Lannett Pharmaceutical, Inc. was a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in manufacturing
pharmaceuticals with facilities located in Philadelphia. Astrochem Corp. was a subsidiary of Lannett
located in northern New Jersey. The individual had employees transport hazardous waste, such as
phosgene and sodium cyanide and other characteristic wastes that were ignitable, reactive or corrosive,
from the Astrochem facility to the Lannett facility for storage and disposal. He was indicted on four
counts. He was charged with violating RCRA {42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(1) - illegal transportation of a hazardous
waste and (5) - illegal transportation without a manifest and 42 U.S.C. 6928(a)(2) - illegal storage of a
hazardous waste} and for violating the CWA {33 U.S.C. 1311 & 1319(c)(2) - illegal discharge without a
permit}. He was sentenced to six months' home detention, 36 months' probation and was fined
$10,000. He was also ordered to give up $10,000 worth of Lannett stock99.

2.3.59 Puregro (Brea Agricultural). On 14 Jun 1993 the Puregro (Brea Agricultural) criminal case was
concluded. Puregro Company operates a pesticide formulation facility in Heber, California. The firm and
it's former manager were charged with violating RCRA by knowingly transporting a hazardous waste.
The company was sentenced to a $100,000 fine, restitution in the amounts of $9,000 to the county and

96EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1995 accessed at

httpsi//cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=585

97 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1995 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=595

98 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1995 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=527
"EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1994 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=487

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
$16,000 to Superfund. The former manager was sentenced to four months incarceration, 24 months'
probation, four months in a treatment center and fined $7,500.100

2.3.60 Amsterdam Color. On 3 Mar 1993 the Amsterdam Color criminal case was concluded.
Amsterdam Color Works was a paint manufacturing company located in the Bronx, New York. The
company stored numerous drums of ignitable paint waste in a lot behind the company building. This lot
was next to an Amtrak railroad line and many of the drums were stacked on top of each other and some
were corroded and leaking. An individual defendant is the president of Amsterdam Color Works. The
individual and the company were both charged with violation of RCRA {42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(2)(A) - illegal
storage of hazardous waste}. The individual was sentenced to six months home detention and a $10,000
fine. Amsterdam Color Works, Inc. was sentenced to a $50 special assessment fee and ordered to pay a
$1,000 fine101.

2.3.61 Stoller Chemical. On 6 Dec 1992, the Stoller Chemical criminal case was concluded. Stoller
purchased baghouse dust generated by Gaston Copper Recycling Corp. from Hy-Tex Marketing, Inc.
Stoller treated baghouse dust and used it to generate fertilizer micro-nutrient, knowing it would be
applied to the land. Micro-nutrient was characteristic toxic for lead and cadmium and classified as a
hazardous waste. Stoller caused micro-nutrient to be transported and exported to Bangladesh and
Australia. An individual was General Manager of Stoller Chemical and was in overall control of the
Jericho Plant, and was incarcerated for six months and fined $3,000. A second individual was president
of Hy-Tex Marketing and performed all functions on behalf of Hy-Tex, and was incarcerated for six
months and fined $1,500. A third individual was an employee of Southwire Company and participated in
the management of hazardous waste at Gaston Copper Recycling Corp, and was sentenced to 48
months' probation, 100 hours of community service and a $10,000 fine. All were charged with
conspiracy (18 (JSC 371) and violations of RCRA - 42 (JSC 6928(d)(5) and (6). Gaston Copper was
sentenced to 48 months' probation and a $190,000 fine102.

2.3.62 Hi-Tek Polymers. On 20 Nov 1992, the Hi-Tek Polymers criminal case was concluded. Hi-Tek
Polymers, Inc. was a manufacturer of coatings, resins, and water-soluble polymers (combination of
several chemical substances to form a new one). The company is in Louisville, Kentucky. Hi-Tek
Polymers, Inc. was charged with violating the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (RHAA) by causing
discharge of refuse matter (hazardous substances n-butanol and xylene) into the Ohio River, a navigable
water of the U.S. {33 U.S.C. 407 and 411}. They were ordered to conduct two EPA sponsored public
education seminars and fined $125,000103.

2.3.63 Unichem. On 2 Nov 1990, the Unichem criminal case was concluded. Unichem was a
corporation, incorporated under the laws of the state of New Mexico, in the business of chemical-
blending which sells its product to oil field operators. Unichem had blending plants in Wyoming, New
Mexico, and Louisiana. Unichem was charged three felony counts of RCRA violations in Wyoming - illegal
storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste without a permit - 42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(1) and

100 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1994 accessed at

httpsi//cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=S20

101 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1993 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=48S

102 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1992 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=44G
103EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1993 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=495

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
(d)(2)(A). Unichem was sentenced to 60 months' probation, fined $1,250,000 on Count 1, fined
$125,000 each on Counts 2 and 3 (suspended), and a $600 special assessment104.

2.3.64	Vanderbilt Chemical. On 2 Jun 1989 the Vanderbilt Chemical criminal case was concluded.
Vanderbilt Chemical Corp. manufactures chemical products at an industrial site located in Bethel,
Connecticut. The company has owned and operated that site since 1948. An individual was plant
manager of the Bethel facility from 1978 to 1986 and was vice president from 1981 to 1986. His duties
included overseeing the lawful disposal of chemical waste materials generated at the site. The company
was charged with two counts of making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001; and with one
count of knowingly disposing of hazardous waste (sulphuric acid) without a permit in violation of RCRA,
Sec.3008(d)(2)(A) [42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(2)(A)], The individual defendant was charged with one count of
making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, and was sentenced to pay a $10,000 fine, serve
36 months incarceration (all suspended), placed on 36 months' probation, perform 300 hours
community service, and pay $50 to the Crime Victim's Fund. On 2 Jun 1989 the corporation was
sentenced to pay a $1,050,000 fine ($500,000 suspended), $500,000 in restitution to the State of
Connecticut, serve 24 months' probation, and pay $400 to the Crime Victim's Fund105.

2.3.65	Pennwalt Co. On 30 May 1989, the Pennwalt Co criminal case was concluded. Pennwalt is
engaged in the business of manufacturing chemical solutions. On 2 Jan 1985, a tank ruptured at the
Pennwalt, Tacoma plant. The tank contained sodium chlorate solution, a bleaching agent used in the
pulp and paper industry. The plant adjoins the Hylebos Waterway, a waterway leading into
Commencement Bay and then into Puget Sound. A six-count indictment was returned against the
corporation and four corporate officers charging the following: Making a false statement to U.S. Coast
Guard in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, Negligent discharge of pollutants from a point source into a
navigable water of the U.S. without having obtained a permit, in violation of CWA, Sees. 301(a) and
309(c)(1) [33 U.S.C. 1311(a) and 1319(c)(1)], Negligent discharge of pollutants into navigable water of
the U.S. due to certain valves being left open after the tank ruptured and causing sodium chlorate
solution to enter a nearby drain system, which drains directly into the Hylebos Waterway, in violation of
CWA, Sees. 301(a) and 309(c)(1)(A) [33 U.S.C. 1311(a) and 1319(c)(1)(A)], and Failure to notify of the
release of a hazardous substance into the environment, in violation of CERCLA Sec. 103(b)(3) [42 U.S.C.
9603(b)(3)], Pennwalt was sentenced to pay a $500,000 fine and to fund an environmental trust fund for
the U.S. Coast Guard in the amount of $600,000. The manager of the plant was sentenced to pay a
$5,000 fine and serve 24 months' probation106.

2.3.66	Protex Industries. On 11 May 1989, the Protex Industries criminal case was concluded. Protex
manufactures and sells chemical products, including curing compounds, grouts, and epoxies used in
concrete construction. The general manager and the comptroller were each individually involved in the
case. A 19-count indictment was filed charging conspiracy [18 U.S.C. 1001], discharging pollutants in
violation of the CWA, Sees. 301(a) and 309(c)(1) [33 U.S.C. 1311(a) and 1319(c)(1)] and nine counts of
storage and disposal of hazardous wastes in violation of RCRA, Sec. 3008(d)(2)(A) [42 U.S.C.
6928(d)(2)(A)], Protex was charged with four counts and the comptroller was charged with three counts
of making false statements about the way hazardous industrial waste products were generated and

104 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1991 accessed at

httpsiZZcfpub,epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=431
105EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1989 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary ld=292
106EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1989 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary id=356

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

47

-------
stored [18 U.S.C. 1001], The firm was also charged with one count of transportation of hazardous waste
in violation of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act [49 U.S.C. 1804 and 1809(b)] and three
counts of knowingly endangering its employees by directing them to handle hazardous wastes in a
manner that represented an imminent danger to them of death or serious bodily injury, a violation of
RCRA, Sec. 3008(e) [42 U.S.C. 6928(e)], The general manager was sentenced to 12 months' probation for
each count, a $3,000 fine, and $25 assessed for the Crime Victim/Witness Fund. Protex Industries, Inc.
was sentenced to pay a $7,630,000 fine (all but $440,000 suspended), 60 months' probation on each
count (to be served concurrently), restitution to three victims totaling $950,000, undetermined cleanup
costs and $3,100 assessment to Crime Victim's Fund. The comptroller was sentenced to pay a $25,000
fine, 60 months incarceration (all suspended), 60 months' probation, 500 hours of community service,
and pay a $125 assessment to the Crime Victim's Fund107.

2.3.67	Chemical Research Development and Engineering Center. On 10 May 1989, the Chemical
Research Development and Engineering Center (CRDEC) criminal case was concluded. Three individuals
are chemical engineers, who hold top management positions at the Chemical Research Development
and Engineering Center (CRDEC). The CRDEC was the primary tenant and main activity at the Edgewood
area of Aberdeen Proving Grounds, a Test and Evaluation Command installation within the U.S. Army
Material Command, located in Baltimore and Hartford Counties, Maryland. A five count indictment was
filed charging the three defendants as follows: One count each for negligent discharge of pollutants,
namely hydro-sulfuric acid, from a point source into Canal Creek, a navigable water of the U.S. without
an NPDES permit in violation of CWA, Sec. 301(a) and 309(c)(1) [33 U.S.C. 1311(a) and 1319(c)(1)]; and
four counts of knowing unpermitted treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes in violation of
RCRA, Sec. 3008(d)(2)(A) [42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(2)(A)], The three defendants were each sentenced to 36
months' probation per count (to be served concurrently), and 1,000 hours community service per count
(to be served concurrently) and court costs108.

2.3.68	R-M Industries. On 11 Jan 1989 the R-M Industries criminal case was concluded. R-M Industries,
Inc. is a South Carolina corporation located in Rock Hill, South Carolina. R-M Industries is in the business
of chemical manufacturing. The corporation was charged with one count of willfully bypassing
treatment facilities and discharging wastewater directly into the Catawba River, waters of the United
States, in violation of a NPDES permit and the CWA, Sec. 309(c)(1) [33 U.S.C. 1319(c)(1)]; and one count
of knowingly violating terms of its NPDES permit in violation of the CWA, Sec. 309(c)(2)(A) [33 U.S.C.
1319(c)(2)(A)], The corporation was sentenced to pay a fine of $150,000 (all but $50,000 suspended);
ordered to serve 24 months' probation (on each count, to be served concurrently), and pay a $300
special assessment to the Crime Victim's Fund109.

2.3.69	Erickson Chemical. On 19 Aug 1988 the Erickson Chemical criminal case was concluded. An
individual is president, owner and operator of Erickson Chemical Company, located in New Iberia,
Louisiana. The company's business involves oil field soaps and degreasers and includes the
manufacturing of corrosive inhibitors, paraffin solvents, scale inhibitors, etc. He was charged with
unpermitted treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste, in violation of RCRA, Sec.

107	EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1989 accessed at

httpsiZZcfpub,epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=344

108	EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1989 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary id=359

109	EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1990 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/crimlnal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecutlon summary id=30S

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

48

-------
3008(d)(2)(A) [42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(2)(A)]., sentenced to 24 months' probation and ordered to pay a $2,500
fine110.

2.3.70	Argent Chemical Laboratories. On 31 Mar 1988 the Argent Chemical Laboratories criminal case
was concluded. Argent Chemical Laboratories, Inc. headquartered in Redmond, Washington was
engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and distributing pesticides, veterinary drugs, other
industrial organic and inorganic chemicals and other products for use by commercial fish farms and the
aquiculture industry. Individuals involved included the corporate president and the corporate secretary.
Charges included knowingly selling an unregistered pesticide in violation of FIFRA, Sees. 12(a)(1)(A) and
14(b)(1) and (4) [7 U.S.C. 136j(a)(l)(A) and 1361(b)(1) and (4)]; making false statements for each FIFRA
count, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001; and selling unapproved drugs and thereby introducing misbranded
drugs into interstate commerce in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 331(a)
and 333(a)], Argent Chemical Labs, Inc. was sentenced to pay a fine of $70,000 and placed on 60
months' probation. The corporate president was sentenced to a fine of $20,000, placed on 60 months'
probation, ordered to pay $50 mandatory assessment per count to the Crime Victim's Fund, and was
sentenced to 12 months incarceration (10 months suspended). The corporate secretary was sentenced
to a fine of $10,000, placed on 60 months' probation, and ordered to pay $50 mandatory assessment
per count to the Crime Victim's Fund111.

2.3.71	RAD Services. On 1 Dec 1986, the RAD Services criminal case was concluded. RAD Services
engaged in chemical manufacturing and, in 1982, stored toxic lead and cadmium emission control dust
at warehouse in Bowling Green. Individuals involved included the executive president and the head of
the chemical division. The company was charged with three counts storage of hazardous waste without
permit in violation of RCRA, Sec. 3008(d)(2) [42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(2)]; one count transportation of
hazardous waste to unpermitted facility in violation of RCRA, Sec. 3008(d)(1) [42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(1)]; and
one count conspiracy [18 U.S.C. 371], The president was charged with two counts violation of RCRA, Sec.
3008(d)(2); one count violation of RCRA, Sec. 3008(d)(1), and one count conspiracy. The chemical
division head was charged with one count violation of RCRA, Sec. 3008(d)(2) and one count conspiracy.
RAD Services was sentenced to a total fine of $75,000 to be paid within one year. The chemical division
head was sentenced to 24 months in the custody of the U.S. Attorney General with all but 30 days in jail
suspended, a $10,000 fine, 200 hours of community service and 24 months' probation. The executive
president was sentenced to two concurrent 24-month terms of incarceration with all but six months
suspended, a $10,000 fine, 200 hours of community service, and 24 months' probation112.

2.3.72	Neville Chemical Company. On 24 Nov 1986, the Neville Chemical Company criminal case was
concluded. The Neville Chemical company generated hazardous wastes during manufacture of
chlorinated paraffins. The company was charged with burial of spent ortho-dichlorobenzene (ODCB) and
ODCB still-bottoms in pit on plant grounds in 1981, knowing disposal of hazardous wastes without
permit in violation of RCRA, Sec. 3008(d)(2)(A) {42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(2)(A)}. The company was sentenced to
36 months' probation and ordered to pay a $50,000 fine {$10,000 suspended if paid by 15 Jan 1987}113.

110	EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1988 accessed at

httpsi//cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2S4

111	EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1988 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=2SG
112EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1987 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index,cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=233
113 EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1987 accessed at

httpsi/Zcfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=240

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

49

-------
2.3.73 Barrett Chemical Company. Gn 1 Oct 1985, the Barrett Chemical Company criminal case was
concluded. Waste solvents were introduced into the POTW causing potential fire and explosion hazard.
The former president of Barrett Chemical Company was charged with willful and negligent discharge
into a POTW, in violation of pretreatment standards under CWA, Sees. 307 and 309(c)(1) [33 U.S.C. 1317
and 1319(c)(1)], He was sentenced to 36 months' probation, including two hours of community service,
per week, during the first 12 months of his probation and was ordered to pay a $2,500 fine114.

3. Relevant class specific focused federal initiatives-one way that epa's office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) focuses enforcement and compliance resources on the
most serious environmental violations is with enforcement initiatives that develop and implement
national program priorities. Compliance and Enforcement initiatives are an important tool for
identification of noncompliance and subsequent actions to compel return to compliance. Additionally,
these initiatives emphasize use of the full range of compliance assurance tools, not only enforcement,
and can thereby reduce risk by helping facilities prevent releases that might otherwise be caused by
noncompliance. Chemical manufacturing facilities have been included directly and circumstantially in
several initiatives.

3.1	LOSS of Interim Status In 1985, some chemical manufacturing facilities were part of a national
enforcement initiative enforcing the Loss of Interim Status provision set out in the 1984 amendments to
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)115

3.2	RCRA Air Emissions National Compliance Initiative From FY 2017 through FY 2023, some
chemical manufacturing facilities are part of EPA's RCRA Air Emissions National Compliance Initiative:
Creating Cleaner Air for Communities by Reducing Excess Emissions of Harmful Pollutants. People living
in non-attainment areas or in communities that are near sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) may
face significant risks to their health and environment. HAPs are pollutants that are known or suspected
to cause cancer or other serious health effects. In some instances, small amounts of these chemicals

Annual Number of Air Toxic Emitting Facilities with EPA
Evaluations and Concluded Enforcement Actions

¦ Facilities Evaluated ¦ Facilities with Enforcement Actions

650 -|
600
550
500
450 -
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

1123

JLI

94	84

¦ fe

FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Fiscal Year

Figure 3 Annual Number of Air Toxic Emitting Facilities with EPA Evaluations and Concluded
Enforce men t Actions

114EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions from 1985 accessed at

https://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/criminal prosecution/index.cfm?action=3&prosecution summary id=143
115 OSWER Directive 9930.0-1 Loss of Interim Status Enforcement Strategy accessed at

https://19ianuarv2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/lossinterstat-mem.pdf

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

50

-------
inhaled or ingested can cause serious illness. There are over 180 chemicals that the EPA has identified as
HAPs, including mercury, benzene, dioxin, and lead compounds. Furthermore, significant sources of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contribute to non-attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) or may adversely affect the attainment status of an area. VOCs are a key component
in the formation of ground-level ozone (a constituent of photochemical smog) and secondary organic
aerosols, both of which may impact ecosystems and can cause adverse health effects like respiratory
ailments. Many individual VOCs also are known to be harmful to human health. The FY2019 Progress
report116 and Figure 3 above provide further details. EPA has determined that leaking equipment such as
valves, pumps, and connectors had been the largest source of hazardous air emissions from chemical
manufacturers.

3.3 Reducing Air Pollution from the Largest Sources Facilities in the Chemical Manufacturing
industry were also included in the initiative "Reducing Air Pollution from the Largest Sources117" - The
New Source Review (NSR) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements of the CAA
require certain large industrial facilities to install state-of the-art air pollution controls when they build
new facilities or make significant modifications to existing facilities. The EPA began this initiative as it
relates to the acid manufacturing subsector of the Chemical Manufacturing industry in 1998, after EPA
investigations revealed that many facilities had failed to install pollution controls after modifications,
causing them to emit pollutants that can impact air quality and public health. EPA has required controls
or commenced investigations at 90 percent of facilities in the acid manufacturing sectors.

3.4 Acid Plant New Source Review Enforcement Initiative118. The sulfuric and nitric acid
manufacturing industry is an EPA New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD)
national enforcement priority. This sector emits many thousands of tons of nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, and sulfuric acid mist each year. EPA investigations into this sector have found a high incidence
of NSR/PSD violations. New pollution control technology required by EPA's settlements are both cost-
effective and result in much lower emission rates from these sources than what was previously thought
to be achievable. Specific progress statistics are shown below and in Figures 4, 5, and 6.

Products Produced by this Industry: Sulfuric acid is the largest volume chemical produced in the United
States. It is used in the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer, gasoline, inorganic chemicals, soaps and
detergents, and dyes. It is produced through the combustion of elemental sulfur, the decomposition of
sulfuric acid containing wastes, and as a byproduct from the production of nonferrous metals such as
lead, zinc, copper, molybdenum, and gold. Nitric acid is also produced in large quantities domestically. It
is used in the production of nitrogen fertilizer, explosives and munitions, and organic chemicals. All nitric
acid is produced through the catalytic oxidation of ammonia. Acid Plants are a significant source of
sulfur dioxide, as well as nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, volatile organic emissions and other
pollutants, which are associated with health and environmental impacts.

Acid Plant Settlements - Seven cases are part of this enforcement initiative - J.R. Simplot Company (09-
2013-0508 and 10-2009-0162), Mosaic Fertilizer CAA Settlement119 (10/05/09), DuPont/Lucite CAA

116 National Compliance Initiative: Cutting Hazardous Air Pollutants 2019 Update Accessed at

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/national-compliance-initiative-cutting-hazardous-air-pollutants
117https://archive.epa.gov/epa/enforcement/nationa|-enforcement-initiatives-fiscal-vears-2014-2016-reducing-ajr-

pollution-largest, html

118Acid Plant New Source Review Enforcement Initiative accessed at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/acid-

plant-new-source-review-enforcement-initiative

119 EPA Mosiac Settlement 5 Oct 2009 accessed at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/mosaic-fertilizer-llc-
information-air-act-settlement

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
Settlement (03-2007-0299). Chemtrade/Marsulex CAA Settlement (05-2006-3906 and 06-2007-3401),
Rhodia Inc. CAA Settlement (06-2006-3404, 08-2007-0067, and 09-2006-0122), Agrium/Royster-Clark
CAA Settlement (05-2005-3976), and the E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company CAA Settlement (06-
2003-3339, and 03-2004-0068).

22 acid plants were covered by Consent Decrees in 9 states, California, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming. This initiative reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide (S02)
by more than 36,740 tons per year and other pollutants (NOx, acid mist, VOC, CO and PM) by more than
610 tons per year. This initiative required injunctive relief through $224 million in control technologies,
$9,575 million in civil penalties and $48,000 in SEPs.

Cumulative Actions Taken Toward Investigating and Controlling

Acid Facilities

140 .

120
100
80

l/l
OJ

I 60

40
20
O

Work FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018
Done from

1999-2010 Fiscal Year

"^Controlled means: 1) appropriate technology installed and is required to operate under a permit or such controls are
inherent in the operation of the unit (note, starting in FY16, this includes plants where an EPA investigation concluded
that appropriate technology was already in place); or 2) subject to an enforceable requirement to install appropriate
controls.

*The existence of significant emission controls does not indicate anything about the source with respect to enforcement
or compliance status.

*Not all facilities included in the initiative universe are subject to New Source Review/Prevention of Significant
Deterioration requirements.

Figure 4 Cumulative Actions Taken Toward Investigating and Controlling Acid Facilities

109 109 109 109

111

Universe =124
facilities

Facilities for
Which an
Investigation
Has Been
Initiated

¦ Facilities
Controlled

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
Cumulative Estimated SO2 Emission Reductions*
Obtained from Acid, Glass, and Cement Facility NSR

Settlements

250,000

200,000

100,000

Fiscal Year

"•¦Estimated emission reductions secured through judicial consent decrees - actual
emission reductions occur according to the schedule specified in the consent decree.

Figure 5 Cumulative Estimated S02 Emission Reductions from Acid, Glass and Cement Facility Settlements

Cumulative Estimated NOx Emission Reductions*
Obtained from Acid, Glass, and Cement Facility
NSR Settlements

60,000
50,000
40,000

«/»

^0 30,000
20,000





Cement
1 Glass
Acid





Fiscal Year

^Estimated emission reductions secured through judicial consent decrees - actual
emission reductions occur according to the schedule specified in the consent decree.

Figure 6 Cumulative Estimated NOX Emission Reductions from Acid, Glass and Cement Facilities
Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
3.5 Boiler and Industrial Furnaces Initiative in Sep 1993, epa implemented the Boiler and
Industrial Furnaces Initiative. This activity was part of a continuing effort to protect human health and
the environment from risk associated with improper burning. (05-1994-0115)120.

3.6 Reducing Risks of accidental Releases at Industrial and Chemical Facilities Under this
initiative, EPA focused on reducing the risks of accidents through innovative accident prevention
measures and improving response capabilities (06-2016-3404 and 07-2017-0400)121. OECA recently
selected122 the "Reducing Risks of Accidental Releases at Industrial and Chemical Facilities" as an
National Compliance Initiative (NCI) to continue in the next cycle. In the previous cycle EPA found that
many regulated facilities are neither managing adequately the risks they pose nor ensuring the safety of
their facilities to protect surrounding communities as required under CAA Section I I 2(r). Thousands of
facilities nationwide, many of which are in environmental justice communities, make, use, and store
extremely hazardous substances. Catastrophic accidents at these facilities, historically about 150 each
year, can result in fatalities and serious injuries, evacuations, and other harm to human health and the
environment. These facilities are regulated under CAA Section 11 2(r) through the chemical accident
prevention regulations, also known as the Risk Management Program. The regulations apply to
stationary sources that have a listed chemical in a process at or above an established threshold quantity.
A broader statutory obligation under the CAA Section 112(r) General Duty Clause (GDC) applies to all
stationary sources with regulated substances or other extremely hazardous substances, regardless of
the quantity of chemical involved. The GDC requires facilities to identify hazards that may result from
accidental releases by using appropriate hazard assessment techniques, design and maintain a safe
facility, take such steps as are necessary to prevent releases, and minimize the consequences of those
accidental releases that do occur. The goal of this NCI is to reduce the risk to human health and the
environment by decreasing the likelihood of chemical accidents. Facilities regulated under CAA Section
112(r) are found in every state.

3.7 National Ethanol Initiative. In 2002, EPA began investigating a suspected pattern of
noncompliance with the Prevention of Serious Deterioration/ New Source Review (PSD/NSR)
requirements of the CAA within the ethanol industry. This sector manufactures ethanol for blending
with automobile fuel, principally from industrial corn. The Clean Air Act's NSR program requires a source
to install pollution controls and undertake other pre-construction obligations to control air pollution
emissions. 12 agreements with ethanol producers were completed on 2 Oct 2002 (07-2003-0346)123.

3.8 Emergency Preparation and Community Notification, in FY97, epa placed priority on
enforcement and assistance to further compliance with emergency preparation and community
notification requirements under EPCRA 320-312. The new National EPCRA 312 initiative increased the
data that state and local emergency responders receive. 168 companies submitted hazardous chemical
data, taking advantage of EPA's time-limited offer to reduce penalties for EPCRA violations in exchange
for the required information (03-2004-0111, 03-2004-0117, 09-1997-0020, and 05-1998-0584)124.

120 EPA BIF initiative Press Release accessed at

httpsi//archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom archive/newsreleases/f4c591a986d025318525646d00778fff,html

121 EPA NEI Reducing Risks accessed at httpsi//19ianuary2017snapshot.epa.gov/enforcement/national-
enforcement-initiative-reducing-risks-accidental-releases-industrial-and .html

122 OECE memo FT2020-FY2023 National Compliance Initiatives of 7 Jun 2019

123 EPA NEI Ethanol manufacturing sector accessed at httpsi//www.epa.gov/enforcement/heartland-corn-
products-ethanol-caa-settlement

124 FY1997 EPA Enforcement and Compliance Accomplishments Report EPA-300-98-003 of July 1998.

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

-------
3.9	National Nitrate Compliance Initiative. This achieved results through voluntary and negotiated
compliance that reduced the cost and time associated with traditional enforcement actions. The
initiative implemented a variety of compliance and enforcement tools to improve rates of compliance
for known reporters: this initiative increased reporting of nitrate from 60 percent to 98 percent. EPA
achieved this result at a fraction of the time and cost associated with traditional inspections and
enforcement actions for both EPA and the regulated community. Specifically, nearly 600 companies
agreed to audit more than 1,000 facilities for EPCRA Section 313 regulatory obligations and to pay
administrative penalties totaling more than $1.4 million. As a result, EPA, the public, and our state
partners received more than 7,000 revised or original TRI reporting forms that documented the release,
transfer, and other waste management of 420 million pounds of nitrates that previously had been
unreported (HQ-2000-3058, 03-2000-0637, HQ-2000-3055, HQ-2000-3060, HQ-2000-3063, HQ-2000-
3064, HQ-2000-3068, HQ-2000-3073, HQ-2000-3076, HQ-2000-3081, HQ-2000-3083, HQ-2000-3088,
and HQ-2000-3101)125

3.10	National Wood Products Enforcement Initiative - epa's wood products initiative, which
started in the late 1980s, was the first industry-wide effort to enforce new source review under the CAA.
The success of this initiative demonstrates EPA's determination to achieve nationwide compliance
across industry sectors. EPA will continue to investigate CAA compliance at smaller facilities and to work
with the states to quickly resolve any uncovered violations. The new source review program is designed
to prevent deterioration of our nation's air quality, requiring newly constructed or modified sources of
air pollution, such as electric utilities and wood products factories, to obtain permits and install air
pollution control equipment to reduce their emissions prior to construction or modification (06-1995-
0071)126. Manufacture of wood preservatives is subject to FIFRA as a pesticide.

3.11	Reducing Pollution from Mineral Processing Operations. Mineral processing facilities
generate more toxic and hazardous waste than any other industrial sector, costing billions of dollars to
address the public health and environmental threats to communities. As shown on Figure 7. EPA has
reduced the risk from phosphoric acid facilities to drinking water, rivers, and streams (06-2005-0923)127.

125National Nitrate Compliance Initiative report of April 2002, EPA 300-R-02-003

126	EPA Wood Product Initiative case accessed at https://www.epa.goy/enforcement/boise-cascade-corporation-
wood-products-clean-air-act-settlement

127	EPA National Enforcement Initiative Reducing Pollution from Mineral Processing accessed at

https://19ianuarv2017snapshot.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiative-reducing-pollution-mineral-
processing-operations .html

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry	55

-------
22
20
18
16



Cumulative Progress Toward Inspecting and Addressing
Phosphoric Acid Facilities

Ur>iverse> 20



20



20



20



20



20 20

Facilities Inspected
¦ Facilities Addressed

facilities
Goal =



















address all
20 facilities
by end of
2014









Facilities

h* b* h*

























13































































































5



S



5











3



4



























I





















Work Done

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY 2016





from 2003-







Fiscal Year

















2011























'Addressed means that a facility is subject to an enforceable order (judicial or administrative) requiring

compliance, or has been inspected and found to have no significant violations.







Figure 7 Cumulative Progress toward Inspecting and Addressing Phosphoric Acid Facilities

3.12	Mississippi River Enforcement Initiative From 1997 through 9 Sep 1998, this activity included
142 cases - 31 criminal cases, 18 civil cases, and 93 administrative cases. During the period EPA
prosecuted 54 criminal defendants (both individual and corporate) resulting collectively in nearly 40
years of prison and probation time, and in nearly $30 million in fines and restitutions (06-1997-0871)128.

3.13	National Petroleum Refinery Initiative This initiative was one of the most successful
enforcement initiatives ever undertaken by EPA129. Although primarily targeted at the petroleum
refinery industry, several chemical manufacturing sites have also operated in the NAICS 3241 Petroleum
Refinery category at some time (04-2004-9004, 04-2007-9019, 06-2000-0880, 06-2000-0911, 06-2001-
0269, 07-2006-0084, 09-2003-0185, 09-2004-0362, and 09-2005-0208). Further details on this initiative
are available in section D.a of the EPA report "Enforcement, Court Settlements and Judgments in the
Petroleum and Coal Product Manufacturing Industry" of June 2019 or the initiative final case results130.

4. Compliance Assistance. Although not a formal enforcement initiative, EPA has provided
extensive compliance assistance for the Chemical Manufacturing Industry. A recent agency website131
described a variety of multi-media resources:

128	EPA Press Release 9 Sep 1998 Mississippi River Initiative Enforcement Announcement accessed at
https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom archive/speeches/f7ca7676b5baId928525701a0052e3a6.html

129	EPA Comments of 2 Apr 2004 on EPA OIG Report 2004-P-00021 of 22 June 2004

130	EPA Petroleum Refinery National Case Results accessed at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/petroleum-
refinerv-national-case-results

131	https://www.epa.gov/regulatorv-information-sector/chemical-manufacturing-sector-naics-325

Enforcement, Court Settlements & Judgments in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry

56

-------